Eschew Obfuscation

And Protests Are What Demoralize Them?

2006-02-08T10:33:00.000-08:00

I'm just going to go ahead and reprint this article from yesterday's AmericaBlog in full:

I've had it with the Bush administration. Enough is enough. Now they're charging US soldiers injured in Iraq for their lost body armor. Enough is enough. We liberal folk may disagree with the Bush administration over the reasons for going to war and over how they're fighting this war, but one thing you'd expect no disagreement over would be the treatment of our soldiers. They fight for their country and they deserve some respect in return. And that means not charging them for their body armor because someone blew them up on the battlefield.

That's it.

This soldier had to pay $700 for his armor, and now is out trying to find work. He has friends who have faced the same cruel, ridiculous policy. Let's finally raise some cash for these guys and show the Bush administration how compassion really works.

I'm serious. I've set up a special PayPal donation fund. If you click the button below and donate, it will be earmarked with a special code so I'll know it's for the body armor fund. All the money collected, ALL OF IT, will go the soldier who was forced to pay for his armor, and if we get more than $700, I'll give him that as well to help him get back on his feet (he's now unemployed, and he says he knows other soldiers who have faced the same problem, if he wants, he can reimburse his pals who also had to pay for their armor).

I'm pissed. Please help.

From the Charleston Gazette-News:

The last time 1st Lt. William Eddie Rebrook IV saw his body armor, he was lying on a stretcher in Iraq, his arm shattered and covered in blood.

A field medic tied a tourniquet around Rebrook's right arm to stanch the bleeding from shrapnel wounds. Soldiers yanked off his blood-soaked body armor. He never saw it again.

But last week, Rebrook was forced to pay $700 for that body armor, blown up by a roadside bomb more than a year ago.

He was leaving the Army for good because of his injuries. He turned in his gear at his base in Fort Hood, Texas. He was informed there was no record that the body armor had been stripped from him in battle.

He was told to pay nearly $700 or face not being discharged for weeks, perhaps months.

Rebrook, 25, scrounged up the cash from his Army buddies and returned home to Charleston last Friday.

"I last saw the [body armor] when it was pulled off my bleeding body while I was being evacuated in a helicopter," Rebrook said. "They took it off me and burned it."

....Rebrook, who graduated with honors from the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., spent more than four years on active duty. He served six months in Iraq.

Now, Rebrook is sending out résumés, trying to find a job. He plans to return to college to take a couple of pre-med classes and apply to medical school. He wants to be a doctor someday.

“From being an infantryman, I know what it’s like to hurt people,” Rebrook said. “But now I’d like to help people.”

The good news is that between when this was posted and when I next looked at the site (a couple of hours) they'd raised more than $5000 for the guy. The bad news is that he needed it. I think I said this in a post before, but there's a bumpersticker before Bush that said, "It will be a great day when the schools have all the money they need and the army holds a bake sale to buy another bomber." But you know, we meant that it would be great if education were more important than war. Not that we wanted soldiers to be as screwed by the government as teachers.

I Am Blasphemy

2006-02-08T10:04:00.000-08:00

Since I keep telling people about this, I figured I'd post it. AIM has a new marketing slogan, as you may have seen. I AM text, I AM video, I AM voice chatting, etc. Just a little play on words. Now some people have their panties in a bunch, because they're saying that it's blasphemy. Blasphemy! Because God is I AM, and they are taking His very name in vain. And not only will they lose customers, but locusts will come and eat their flesh.

You must immediately change the name of your program," [Ian Miller] told Jonathan Miller, the chief executive officer of America Online, and John Buckley, corporate communications officer for the company, in a pointed letter. I can assure you that you will lose business over this marketing tactic from people who worship the Almighty. But worse, you have offended Him by your actions; whether they are deliberate or ignorant. To treat as common the name of God is wicked. God is patient, but mankind is today making an error of epic proportions by the deliberate actions of mocking the Almighty; particularly in the technologically advanced society. His patience with the mockery of mankind will come to an end."

No word yet on whether or not Ian Miller is aware of Iams pet food.

Breed, for the Future of Whites Everywhere

2006-02-07T11:33:00.000-08:00

Boy, do I feel guilty about getting my brother Being and Nothingness for Christmas. I'd hate to limit the amount of white people there are in the future. Why didn't Pat Robertson speak up earlier? You see, what I didn't realize is that Sartre's philosophy makes people not breed. And since the Europeans read Sartre all the time, it's what's lead to their declining birth rate and the ongoing racial suicide.

ROBERTSON: Studies that I have read indicate that having babies is a sign of a faith in the future. You know, unless you believe in the future, you're not going to take the trouble of raising a child, educating a child, doing something. If there is no future, why do it? Well, unless you believe in God, there's really no future. And when you go back to the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, the whole idea of this desperate nightmare we are in -- you know, that we are in this prison, and it has no hope, no exit. That kind of philosophy has permeated the intellectual thinking of Europe, and hopefully it doesn't come here. But nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is right now in the midst of racial suicide because of the declining birth rate. And they just can't get it together. Why? There's no hope.

Now, I'm not particularly surprised that Robertson thinks the Europeans are committing racial suicide, and that there is no hope for Europe once Whitey is gone. After all, this has been a favored refrain of racists for quite some time. Robertson said abortions were a sign racial suicide in the West about 20 years ago. Heck, in 1891 thePresident of MIT said that the falling birth rates in the upper classes, along with the influx of immigrants with larger families, was leading to racial suicide. This was more than a decade before Sartre was even born, I'd like to point out. There are several racist articles/ramblings written on this 'racial suicide,' as well as literature in the history of eugenics. (My favorite article is the one that talks about how Ted Kennedy and the Jews collaborated to let in immigrants that would lead to the White 'Gentile' Suicide.) And considering that Robertson has called for the assassination of foreign leaders and said Sharon and Rabin were both struck down by God, this is pretty much par for the course.

No, what I'm surprised at is that Robertson seems to have read one of Sartre's plays, No Exit, or at least the Cliff's Notes version of it. Who knew he had time for philosophy?

File Under "Waaah?"

2006-02-07T09:00:00.000-08:00

So, yesterday Gonazales got in front of congress to answer questions about the electronic surveillance programs. It was quite odd. Among other things, he repeated the standard line that we have to listen to al Qaeda. We're at war, dammit! Although he neglected to mention which judge would ever refuse a warrant to listen to al Qaeda. But, that was just standard talking points. There were better statements if you browse the transcript. Runner up for best statement:

BIDEN: General, how has this revelation damaged the program?

I'm almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn't think we were intercepting their phone calls.

I mean, I'm a little confused. How did it damage this?
GONZALES: ...I think, based on my experience, it is true -- you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.

But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.

As Biden replied, I hope he's right. Let's all hope they're that stupid.

But there was something better. The Number One best line from Gonzales can be seen at Crooks and Liars:

GONZALES: I gave in my opening statement, Senator, examples where President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance of the enemy on a far broader scale -- far broader -- without any kind of probable cause standard, all communications in and out of the country.

Wow. President Washington and President Lincoln. Damn these revisionist history books, leaving out Washington's electronic surveillance programs!

Balancing the Interests

2006-02-02T19:25:00.000-08:00

The House voted to approve the ironically named "Budget Reconciliation Bill" yesterday, and of course it passed. Although it was shockingly close- 216-214. Around $40 billion of cuts to various programs were included in it, including cuts to the administration end of federal student loans and grants (we all know how well those are managed with their current budgets), more general cuts to student loan funding, cuts to medicaid, cuts to welfare, cuts to basically everything. Interestingly, the bill both raises the work requirements in order to qualify for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, without an exemption for single parents without daycare, and cuts money to enforce child support payments. So much for being pro-family. Well, I guess if you can't kill the Violence Against Women Act, this is next best way of ensuring a woman stays with her abusive husband, eh?

The thing about this bill, though... it'd upset me no matter what was in it. I dislike a policy of first looking to cut money from those who need it most, and I'd imagine several people feel the same way. But, what makes this even worse is that on the very same day they start negotiating on a bunch of tax cuts that are actually more than what they're saving by cutting these programs. It almost makes one feel that the effort here isn't as much to save money in the budget, but just a malevolent urge to kick people when they're down and use a hundred dollar bill to light a Cuban cigar in front of them. The Republicans are trying to sell this as some sort of necessary step towards fiscal responsibility, but it's more like cutting down on your church tithe 'cause you need to make payments on that new 42" plasma you bought.

[W]ith the federal budget deficit expected to rise again this year, to around $360 billion, Republicans implored their members to take what Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) called "this first step toward long-term, fiscal discipline and fiscal health for our government."

The impact of the bill on the deficit is likely to be negligible, slicing less than one-half of 1 percent from the estimated $14.3 trillion in federal spending over the next five years. As the House debated the budget-cutting measure, the Senate moved to begin final negotiations with the House on a package of tax cuts and extension of expiring tax cuts that could cost up to $60 billion over five years, more than negating the savings from the budget bill.

"I do not know how anyone can say with a straight face that when we voted to cut spending in December to help achieve deficit reductions, we can now turn around a short while later to provide tax cuts that exceed or cancel out the reduction in spending," Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) said yesterday, as the Senate took up a procedural motion that would allow tax-cut negotiations to begin. "We cannot afford these tax cuts."

It is my natural tendency to disagree with Republicans, but I have to say, Voinovich hit the nail on the head.

High-larious

2006-02-02T17:26:00.000-08:00

From RollCall:

House Republicans are taking a mulligan on the first ballot for Majority Leader. The first count showed more votes cast than Republicans present at the Conference meeting.

I guess rigging elections is just habit at this point.

Incompetent or Just Plain Evil?

2006-01-29T14:30:00.000-08:00

Ah, that is the eternal question about the Bush administration, isn't it?

According to the right wingers, we just don't hear about all the good things in Iraq, like the new schools and libraries and other civilian projects that were being used to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. Well, partly those good deeds have been overshadowed by the torture and the insurgency. But partly, there just haven't been all the good deeds we'd expected and paid for. In fact, with the small amount of money and troops we did have, we probably could have had more success in Iraq if we'd run it with a bit more accountability than a post-Soviet Union kleptocracy.

According to a recent US government audit, the occupation authorities wasted millions of dollars in 'undocumented spending and outright fraud.' It seems to be so bad that the audit suggests that we actually press charges.

This corruption isn't just confined to Haliburton. According to the article,

Dryly written audit reports describe the Coalition Provisional Authority's offices in the south-central city of Hillah being awash in bricks of $100 bills taken from a central vault without documentation.

It describes one agent who kept almost $700,000 in cash in an unlocked footlocker and mentions a U.S. soldier who gambled away as much as $60,000 in reconstruction funds in the Philippines.

"Tens of millions of dollars in cash had gone in and out of the South-Central Region vault without any tracking of who deposited or withdrew the money, and why it was taken out," says a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which is in the midst of a series of audits for the Pentagon and State Department.

Much of the first audit reports deal with contracting in south-central Iraq, one of the country's least-hostile regions. Audits have yet to be released for the occupation authority's spending in the rest of Iraq.

The audits offer a window into the chaotic U.S.-led occupation of Iraq of 2003-04, when inexperienced American officials — including workers from President Bush's election campaign — organized a cash-intensive "hearts and minds" mission to rebuild Iraq's devastated economy.

Examples include:

[T]he auditors [spoke] of U.S. officials in Hillah being unable to account for $97 million of the $120 million in Iraqi oil revenues earmarked for rebuilding projects.

An October 2005 audit found documentation for the spending of just $8 million of that money.

Negligence proved deadly in at least one case. Three Iraqis plummeted to their deaths in an elevator in the Hillah General Hospital that was certified to have been replaced by a contractor who received $662,800.

Also in Hillah, occupation officials spent $108,140 to replace pumps and fix the city's Olympic swimming pool. But the contractor merely polished the old plumbing to make it look new and collected his money.

When the pool was filled, the water came out a murky brown and the pool's reopening had to be canceled. The reports did not identify the contractors involved. ...

Two occupation authority field agents responsible for paying contractors left Iraq without accounting for more than $700,000 each. When auditors confronted their manager and asked where the money was, the manger tried to clear one of the agents through false paperwork.

There's a lot more. And this is only on one section of Iraq. The part that had the least conflict. Can you even imagine how the rest of Iraq must look? Here we are coming in, the great conquerors, the great leaders. And all we're doing is stealing money, failing at our projects, and pissing off the citizens. Not only are we not winning the hearts and minds-we're actually turning them against us. And one asks again, is it just horrible, mindboggling incompetence? Or from the start was their never any intention of rebuilding Iraq?

Either way, the sad thing is, you know next year we'll be reading an article like this about New Orleans.

White Boys Don't Have to Follow Rules

2006-01-26T22:41:00.000-08:00

So, via Pandagon, I see that a boy in Boston is suing his school because he says that they favor girls and discriminate about boys. Apparently, there are more girls in the honors' classes and the AP classes, which means that the school discriminates. Now, the school might, I'm not there. How do I know? And, I'm totally about programs to ensure equality in schools. (Although I'd like to point out that in places where there are more men than women, evolutionary psychology and Lawrence Summers tell us it's 'cause girls just aren't any good at math and science. Shouldn't we be having an honest discussion about whether women are just far smarter than men? What, it's not discriminatory. Just what we have to ask as rational people.)

On a serious note, the fact that men are underperforming at schools is something that needs to be examined. But, seriously, this lawsuit... do you want to know how he says that the school discriminates? And how they can fix it?

Among Anglin's allegations: Girls face fewer restrictions from teachers, like being able to wander the hallways without passes, and girls are rewarded for abiding by the rules, while boys' more rebellious ways are punished. ...

'The system is designed to the disadvantage of males," Anglin said. ''From the elementary level, they establish a philosophy that if you sit down, follow orders, and listen to what they say, you'll do well and get good grades. Men naturally rebel against this." ....

For example, he proposes that the high school give students credit for playing sports, not just for art and drama courses. He also urges that students be allowed to take classes on a pass/fail basis to encourage more boys to enroll in advanced classes without risking their grade point average. He also wants the school to abolish its community service requirement, saying it's another burden that will just set off resistance from boys, who may skip it and fail to graduate as a result.

Excuse me? Girls are rewarded for following the rules, while when boys break the rules they're punished? Damn, that's some serious discrimination right there. And yes, 'they' do say that if you sit down, follow orders and listen to what they say, you'll do well and get good grades. However, given that this is a system that's been in schools for, well, ever, even when only men were in schools, and given that schools used to be much, much, much more highly regimented than they are now, I'm going to have to ask how that's something that discriminates against men. Not necessarily a huge fan of the way our schools work, but I hardly think it's something that advantages women. I mean, come on, there are more men in prisons than women. Is this because women are rewarded for following the law, while mens' more rebellious ways are punished?

And then... okay. The sports/arts thing might be a point. I wonder how many p.e. courses the school offers. But the rest.... dude. Suck it up. Are you saying that boys are underachieving because it's in their nature to be wimps, afraid of hard work or earning a slightly lower grade? Because if so, you seem to have a dim view of men and I wonder if we want them in all these positions of authority they have. And the community service requirement? Okay, how on earth is that discriminatory? Hey, maybe attendance is burdensome, too. And homework. Heck, just give these their diplomas free of work! 'Cause we all know a work ethic goes against the male nature.

Clearly there are some problems in education, and we need to see why boys aren't achieving as well as girls. Maybe it has to do with the fact that if you're smart or care about facts you're looked at as an elitist. Maybe it's because our culture more strongly encourages women to respond to and please authority than it does for men. Maybe it's because after years of hearing that we have to work twice as hard as men to be seen as being half as good, we're working harder and people aren't naturally seeing men as better. But it's not because boys are just physically incapable of following the rules. And if it is, I expect we'll have an all-female army soon.

Do They Just Like Losing?

2006-01-26T09:20:00.000-08:00

Yeah, I've got to agree with Nancy Goldstein here:

Effective immediately, the Democrats will be known as the lyin'-ass boyfriend party - the perfect date for progressive voters looking to be stood up, bullshitted blind, or left holding the tab.

For five years now it's been "Please baby, baby, baby, please! I'm sorry I was a no-show last time, but hey, that was because I was working overtime to save up to do something extra special for next time, which is the really big event - right, baby?"

Last April, when the Democrats backed away from filibustering extremist appeals court nominees, it was, "Don't you fret, baby. We're not going to go to the mat over small fry like Owen, Pryor, and Brown because we're saving the filibuster for the big one - you know, the Supreme Court, baby." Months later, Democrats folded rather than fight John Roberts,the young-ish yes man with a penchant for executive privilege and a wife who used to head an anti-choice organization. After all, they said, they needed to save their energy, and the filibuster, for the next Supreme Court nominee, who would undoubtedly be worse.

Well, baby, the moment of truth has arrived. It's Alito-time, and the lyin'-ass boyfriends are backpedaling again. Why aren't they going to raise a ruckus this time? Aw, baby... the filibuster is just so darned hard to use with only 45 senators! And what's the point of trying to do anything until we've recaptured the Senate or the White House?

Now I see a big headline on CNN, Democrats Decline to Block Alito Nomination. Well then why the hell are you there?

And why do they decline to block it? Why don't they want to use the filibuster? Because they think they have better things to do. "Because we have such a full plate of pressing issues before Congress, a filibuster at this time would be, in my view, very counterproductive," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, who wants the Senate to concentrate on Hurricane Katrina rebuilding programs. "We simply cannot afford to bring the Senate to a halt at a time when we need its action the most."

Yes, Sen. Landrieu. The Senate has so much before it these days! I'd hate for it to waste time blocking the lifetime appointment of someone who wants to kill anti-discrimination laws and would be the swing vote against Roe v. Wade and in favor of an all-powerful presidency to the most powerful judiciary in the land. What the hell good would that do? It shouldn't be at the top of your list or anything. And don't you worry. I'm sure the Republican controlled congress will appreciate what you've done and get right on helping out New Orleans.

But don't worry progressives! According to the article, there won't be a filibuster but "that doesn't mean that liberals aren't working to get the largest vote against Alito possible." Now if that's what they're working for, that's a waste of time. He's still going to be appointed, and you won't have done a damn thing about it. So your no vote won't mean a whole lot to your constiuency. But hey, enjoy being the minority party for a lot longer.

Man, a Democratic vote these days is a bigger waste than one for a third-party.

On a more depressing note...

2005-12-16T10:45:00.000-08:00

Via AmericaBlog, there comes this depressing story:

It may be the latest evidence of global warming: Polar bears are drowning.

Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf. The bears spend most of their time hunting and raising their young on ice floes.

In a quarter-century of aerial surveys of the Alaskan coastline before 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service said they typically spotted a lone polar bear swimming in the ocean far from ice about once every two years. Polar-bear drownings were so rare that they have never been documented in the surveys.

But in September 2004, when the polar ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of the northern coast of Alaska, researchers counted 10 polar bears swimming as far as 60 miles offshore. Polar bears can swim long distances but have evolved to mainly swim between sheets of ice, scientists say.
The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. "Extrapolation of survey data suggests that on the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds," the researchers say in a report set to be released today.

..................................................................................................................................

In addition to documenting polar-bear deaths, the Minerals Management Service researchers, Chuck Monnett, Jeffrey Gleason and Lisa Rotterman, also found a striking shift in the bears' habits. From 1979 to 1991, 87% of the bears spotted were found mostly on sea ice. From 1992 to 2004, the percentage dropped to 33%. Most of the remaining bears have been found either in the ocean or on beaches, congregating around carcasses of whales butchered by hunters. In the past, polar bears were rarely seen at such kill sites, because they spent their time hunting their favorite meal -- seals -- on sea ice.

I remember a few years ago, 3 or 4, in one of my environmental studies classes, a biologist who specialized in polar bears came and talked to our class. Among other things that she said, she mentioned that most polar bear researchers were very concerned that if global warming continued to melt the sea ice, polar bears wouldn't be able to find it when they set out in the sea, and would end up drowning, or possibly starving because they couldn't hunt for seals, and the land didn't really hold much for them. And this was something they'd been talking about for quite some time.

One day I want to write a book documenting how often environmental 'doomsayers' have been correct, and why we should actually listen to them.

What a Happy Holiday Gift

2005-12-16T10:34:00.000-08:00

Ah, Sen. Feingold... you have a special place in my heart. You have worked hard to undo the bad you did when you allowed Ashcroft to be approved.

Today, the Senate blocked a vote on the Patriot Act, meaning so far it hasn't been extended. The provisions extend on Dec. 31st if they're not voted into lasting longer. Feingold has been threatening a filibuster, and, of course, he got some help from the recent report stating that Bush authorized the NSA to spy on Americans. I guess some people felt that was a betrayal of trust.

In other happy news, Bush has backed down and agreed to allow the McCain ammendment banning torture to pass.

Of course, these are both those happy-depressing things that seem to be so common in our country today. Happy, upon first glance. Patriot Act blocked, at least for now! We're banning torture! Then you consider that we just had a dialogue in this country, and are still having some disagreement, on whether or not torture is acceptable, and that the Patriot Act passed in the first place, and that at least 47 senators want to extend it.

Mmm... Old School

2005-12-16T07:09:00.000-08:00

I want-no, need-this t-shirt: http://www.bustedtees.com/shirts/dysentery

That is easily the best computer game ever made. Man, they just don't make 'em like they used to.

Abramoff's Money Tree

2005-12-12T11:10:00.000-08:00

Washington Post has a nifty graphic up outlining where Abramoff got his money, and to whom the money went. There are 6 Democrats there, and who they are might surprise you a bit- I know they did me. Harry Reid got some money from his PAC, although any powerful Western senator is worth courting to them.

Anyway, it's a helpful little spreadsheet, if for no other reason than to show you just how powerful Abramoff was, and how much reach he had, especially if you're not obsessive about keeping tabs on Abramoff and just want a quickie understanding. However, it would be nice if they had something else on the sheet. The legal donations aren't what are too concerning, although they can probably give a rough approximation of who he was in bed with. What we really want to know is how many times Abramoff met with these people, who he invited to his skybox, and who had staff members who previously worked for Abramoff, or went on to a lucrative job with him. Also, who has done favors for Abramoff.

After all, Ney (definitely a part of their scandal) is only No. 8 on the list. DeLay, who Scanlon worked for before his indictment, is No. 6. The top five are probably all worth looking at (there's been a lot of talk about Burns and Doolittle, in particular), but there are others, further down the list (Brownback and Pombo) who have also had some speculation swirling about them. So far I haven't heard any rumored quid pro quo from the Democrats, but if they're involved, they'd better resign and make their deal now. I'm gonna be pissed if they were in bed with these people, and if they drag us down in '06. In fact, I'm all about the Democrats trying to set up an independent investigation into the corruption in the Senate.

Anyway, that's all for now. Just thought the graph was helpful. Like I said, it shows how powerful one person with deep pockets can be, if nothing else. But if you're bored one day, just google news articles about Abramoff. You'll be amazed.

Two Outrages in One

2005-12-09T05:54:00.000-08:00

Our National Dialogue on Torture:

Us: Torture is a horrible, greivous wrong that shames us as a nation and we must guarantee it will never happen under our supervision.

Them: Well, we don't torture. But we can't straightjacket ourselves. We'll do whatever it takes to get information to keep America safe.

Us: But torture doesn't keep America safe. People will say anything to stop the pain; they lie and say what their captors want to hear. Also, it's so wrong that it doesn't matter.

Them: Your discussion of torture is endangering our troops.

But we do torture, and we send people off to other countries that they torture, and we use the information they give us under duress. Apparently, a good deal of our information that Iraq was helping al Qaeda came from such methods:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 - The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.

The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.

Well, that's heartening. We based our intelligence on known spies with axes to grind (Chalabi), forged memos, reports from drunks, and information people gave up to stop being tortured. Makes me proud. What also interests me is what this guy was asked. Because, like I said, people say what their captors want to hear. He had a reason to think the torture would stop if he said Iraq was working with al Qaeda.

What's also interesting, at the end of the article, is that once again, the Bush administration went forth with information that they knew probably wasn't true:

The document showed that the Defense Intelligence Agency had identified Mr. Libi as a probable fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons.

Mr. Levin has since asked the agency to declassify four other intelligence reports, three of them from February 2002, to see if they also expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility. On Thursday, a spokesman for Mr. Levin said he could not comment on the circumstances surrounding Mr. Libi's detention because the matter was classified.

Did they have reason to believe anything they told us?

The Real War on Christmas

2005-12-09T05:27:00.000-08:00

Some of the nation's most prominent megachurches have decided not to hold worship services on the Sunday that coincides with Christmas Day, a move that is generating controversy among evangelical Christians at a time when many conservative groups are battling to "put the Christ back in Christmas."

Megachurch leaders say that the decision is in keeping with their innovative and "family friendly" approach and that they are compensating in other ways. Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill., always a pacesetter among megachurches, is handing out a DVD it produced for the occasion that features a heartwarming contemporary Christmas tale.

"What we're encouraging people to do is take that DVD and in the comfort of their living room, with friends and family, pop it into the player and hopefully hear a different and more personal and maybe more intimate Christmas message, that God is with us wherever we are," said Cally Parkinson, communications director at Willow Creek, which draws 20,000 people on a typical Sunday.

I'm sure watching a heartwarming DVD is just like going to Church and reflecting on the birth of Jesus Christ. In my liberal, anti-Christian, anti-Christmas household, and the secular churches we attended, missing Church on Christmas Day was so completely not an option. And believe me, the few times Christmas fell on a Sunday, we tried.

I think this speaks volumes. Because if your faith and committment is so weak that you'd skip worship on the second holiest day of the year because it interfered with your other plans, then I'm certain it can't withstand people saying Happy Holidays, or playing Jingle Bells instead of Silent Night.

2005-12-08T08:57:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to mention, in relation to my previous post, that the idea that Jews are behind an attack on Christmas is really nothing new. This is from Henry Ford's "The International Jew."

ATTACKS ON CHRISTIANITY
Previous to the formation of the Kehillah and the Jewish Committee, this sort of attack on the rights of Americans was sporadic, but since 1906 it has increased in number and insistence. Under cover of the ideal of Liberty we have given the Jews liberty to attack Liberty. What America has been tolerating is intolerance itself. Let us look rapidly down the years and see one phase of that attack. It is the attack upon Christianity. Here are a few items from the record. They are recorded over a period of years following the rise of Jewish power in America:

1899-1900. The Jews attempt to have the word "Christian" removed from the Bill of Rights of the State of Virginia.

1906-1907. The Jews of Oklahoma petition the Constitutional Convention protesting that the acknowledgment of Christ in the new State constitution then being formulated would be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

The Jews force "The Merchant of Venice" to be dropped from public schools in Texas, Ohio.

1907-1908. Widespread demand by the Jews for the complete secularization of the public institutions of this country, as a part of the demand of the Jews for their constitutional rights.

Supreme Court Justice Brewer's statement that this is a Christian country widely controverted by Jewish rabbis and publications.

Jews agitate in many cities against Bible reading. Christmas celebrations or carols in Philadelphia, Cincinnati, St. Paul and New York met with strong Jewish opposition.

1908-1909. Protests made to Governor of Arkansas against "Christological expressions" employed by him in his Thanksgiving Day proclamation.

Professor Gotthard Deutsch protests against "Christological prayers" at the high school graduating exercises at Cincinnati.

Jewish community in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania defeats resolutions providing daily Bible reading in schools.

Local Council of Jewish Women of Baltimore petitions school board to prohibit Christmas exercises.

O'Reilly Makes me Hate Christmas

2005-12-08T07:13:00.000-08:00

Alright, this "War on Christmas/Christians" thing is getting wayyy too ridiculous. From the horrible site Townhall:

I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. You think it hasn’t? Then why is it that people are being prevented from saying it in polite society for fear that it will offend?
Schools are being forced to replace “Christmas vacation” with “winter break” in their printed schedules. At Macy’s, the word is verboten even though they’ve made untold millions of dollars from their sympathetic portrayal in the Christmas classic, “Miracle on 34th Street.” Carols, even instrumental versions, are banned in certain places. A major postal delivery service has not only made their drivers doff their Santa caps, but ordered them not to decorate their trucks with Christmas wreaths.

...

Although it seems a long time ago, it really wasn’t, that people who came here from other places made every attempt to fit in. Assimilation wasn’t a threat to anyone; it was what the Statue of Liberty represented. E pluribus unum, one out of many, was our motto. The world’s melting pot was our nickname. It didn’t mean that any group of people had to check their customs, culture or cuisine, at the door. It did mean that they, and especially their children, learned English, and that they learned to live and let live.

That has changed, you may have noticed. And I blame my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian, agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the ACLU, at the forefront.

Yes, you read that right.

Now, where to start with this... 1) It's been called "Winter Break" for as long as I can remember. And this is where I grew up. (Scroll down to "Florida Bible Classes".) 2) So.... what does that have to do with the War on Christmas. Jews don't speak English? They're trying to bring in immigrants? 3) Did he really just say that the Jews are trying to destroy Christmas?

He goes on to say that anti-Semitism has been replace by anti-Christianity and adds that, "I am getting the idea that too many Jews won’t be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences."

Right. The consequences being.....? Even if you're right, and not just completely insane, are you saying they're going to come into your home and tear down your tree? Then tear off pieces of your flesh with pincers they've just removed from the fire until you deny your faith, just like the Spanish Inquisition? Even if there is a "War," the biggest consequence is there are some non-denominational 'holiday' decorations at the mall.

And as for the anti-Semitism.... well, I think you just proved it still exists. If this "War on Christmas" gets to serious, maybe you and O'Reilly can do a segment on what to do about the Jewish Question.

Via Atrios.

Dare I Dream?

2005-12-08T06:26:00.000-08:00

I was perusing Talking Points Memo earlier today (Your One Stop Scandal Shop for everything GOP related) and I saw this:

A name now coming up more and more frequently in Abramoff investigation news is that of Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Resources.

That was prime territory for Jack Abramoff, seeing as the Resources Committee has jurisdiction over Indian tribal affairs, Pacific island territories as well as environment and natural resources -- pretty much one-stop shopping for a guy like Jack.

So I went back through our stack of unpublished Team Abramoff emails to see how often folks from Pombo's office showed up on the Abramoff skybox freebie list.

Pretty often, it turns out.

If you go over there and look through they have a list of events where Pombo's staff was in the same skybox as Abramoff. Now, it's possible that there weren't any bribes. It's just possible that someone who wants to sell of our democracy to the highest bidder, and someone who advocated the sale of Roosevelt Island in the district as a way to recap 'government losses' after Katrina could bond on a deep personal level, and always got along, and I'd imagine that goes for all of their staff, too.

But if Abramoff is in the same room as someone, it's more likely there was something illegal going on. Which would make me ever so happy.

Why? Because Pombo is a big friend to mining and logging interests. He's argued that we should start selling of the natural park systems. His biggest goal in the House has been to destroy, or weaken to the point of impotence, the Endangered Species Act.

And now he might be part of the Abramoff investigation, too. Now if we can just get James Inhofe (R-OK) and Ted Stevens (R-AK).... life will be sweet.

Something Good from the Heartland

2005-12-01T08:34:00.000-08:00

Four WalGreens pharmacists in Illinois were placed on unpaid leave for refusing to fill emergency contraceptive prescriptions, in violation of Illinois law. Illinois apparently requires that pharmacists do their damn jobs and fill all prescriptions, if they offer any contraceptives. Oddly, they can refuse to fill all possible contraceptive options, but they just can't pick and choose.

Anyway, good for WalGreens for enforcing this. You don't get to refuse to fill prescriptions because you've decided that they're wrong. You can't refuse Premarin because you're vegan, Prozac because you're a Scientologist, or Viagra because you're a Shaker. And if that means you can't do your job, than find a new job.

Via Americablog.

Fuck You, NewsMax

2005-11-29T20:03:00.000-08:00

I truly believe that is the only appropriate response to this editorial. It does not at all deserve a calm, reasonsed debate, it isn't worthy of an argument, and if they don't know why it's wrong, there's nothing to say to them. Except "Fuck off," of course.

The title of the article is "John McCain: Torture Worked on Me." Some highlights:

Sen. John McCain is leading the charge against so-called "torture" techniques allegedly used by U.S. interrogators, insisting that practices like sleep deprivation and withholding medical attention are not only brutal - they simply don't work to persuade terrorist suspects to give accurate information.

Nearly forty years ago, however - when McCain was held captive in a North Vietnamese prison camp - some of the same techniques were used on him. And - as McCain has publicly admitted at least twice - the torture worked!

What the hell is wrong with those people? Really? What is their problem?

Idle Observation

2005-11-22T08:27:00.000-08:00

Here in the DC Metro area, we have a bunch of commercials showing parents who know what their kids are up to, or punish them for being in the wrong place, or hanging with the wrong people, and just generally being strict. Then they say, "Love: The Anti-Drug." Some of them are a bit irritating, but at least they're a thousand times better than those ridiculous commercials that suggest marijuana will get you knocked up, instead of just make you miss class, eat too many doritos, and laugh at things that aren't funny.

But, here's the thing: there are four or five commercials. All with black families. Not a white one in the bunch. In fact, currently, on the air up here, I don't think there are any white anti-drug commercials at all, of any type. It's weird.

Just thought I'd put that out there.

mmmm..... scandalicious

2005-11-18T12:49:00.000-08:00

Jack Abramoff's partner, Michael Scanlon, has now also been charged with conspiring to defraud Indian tribes of millions of dollars. For those of you who haven't been following this ever widening scandal, Wikipedia has an article on him. (Wikipedia has everything.)

Brief rundown, influential Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff has been indicted for defrauding Indian casions of millions of dollars, for bank fraud in Florida, is allegedly tied to the mafia-style murder of a former Sun Cruz casino owner in Florida, fed the stolen casino money to at least one congressman (Representative No. 1), and is being investigated for possibly taking money from the president of Gabon to arrange a meeting with Bush. He's probably also being looked into for dozens of other crimes.

His partner, the one now added to the defrauding count, was a top aide to fellow jailbird Tom Delay.

So, now the question is, who's Rep. No. 1? I'll put $100 on it being another Republican.

Republicans Hate America

2005-11-18T06:35:00.000-08:00

The House narrowly approved a broad five-year budget plan early this morning that squeezes programs for the poor, for college students and for farmers, handing Republican leaders a hard-fought victory after weeks of resistance in GOP ranks.

The plan, which would save the government just under $50 billion, passed 217 to 215, with 14 Republicans joining all House Democrats in opposition. Just last week, Republican leaders were forced to pull the bill from consideration after it became clear they lacked the votes for passage. ...

On the Senate side of the Capitol, moderate Republicans scored another victory last night, winning passage of a five-year $50 billion tax package that left out one of the centerpieces of Bush's second-term economic agenda. The measure, which passed 64 to 33, did not include an extension of the deep cuts to the tax rates on capital gains and dividends that passed in 2003 and are set to expire after 2008. Instead, the Senate approved a tax measure largely devoted to hurricane relief and the extension of tax measures with bipartisan appeal.

This isn't as bad as it could have been; the original spending bill was defeated. The Republicans had to get rid of drilling in ANWR (which is still in the Senate bill) and cut down on their cuts to all these programs. But it's still pretty depressing. These cuts were all introduced because we just have to save money, what with Katrina programs and our expensive war and all. So they ask to cut school lunch programs, food stamp programs, aid to state-enforced child-support programs, Medicare, Pell grants, disease research, and farm aid. But all these cuts still save less money for the government than they are willing to spend on their tax cuts.

The same day that they cut just about $50 billion from the people who need it most, they give it to the richest members of society.

Bastards.

Someone's stealing Bush's ponies

2005-11-17T12:52:00.000-08:00

After a rather sad article saying that the Senate and House might have agreed to a compromise on the Patriot Act that would make some of it permanent, and extend provisions allowing the FBI to subpoena reading lists and law enforcement agencies to conduct secret searches without notifying the suspects, there's this:

WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan group of senators told congressional leaders Thursday they will try to block reauthorization of the Patriot Act to protest the elimination of Senate-pushed protections against "unnecessary and intrusive government surveillance" in a House-Senate compromise.

"If further changes are not made, we will work to stop this bill from becoming law," GOP Sens. Larry Craig, John Sununu and Lisa Murkowski and Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold and Ken Salazar said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees.

I might be getting all excited about nothing- in the America school taught me to know and love, there wouldn't be any talk of extending the Patriot Act, let alone a Patriot Act in the first place. But still, add it to Bush's 34% approval rating and even the Republicans bailing on him, and I'm a very happy camper.

Who Knew the Press Fact-Checked?

2005-11-17T12:45:00.000-08:00

There's a truly great report from Knight Ridder out today, mentioning some of Bush's recent Iraq statements and then giving them context and pointing out that they are all lies, lies, lies. It's filled with quotes like this:

ASSERTION: In his speech, Bush noted that "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate - who had access to the same intelligence - voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."

CONTEXT: This isn't true.

...

ASSERTION: Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, told reporters last Thursday that the Clinton administration and Congress perceived Saddam as a threat based on some of the same intelligence used by the Bush administration. ...

CONTEXT: Congress did pass the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which stated U.S. support for regime change in Iraq and provided up to $97 million in overt military and humanitarian aid to opposition groups in Iraq.

But it didn't authorize the use of U.S. force against Iraq.

I enjoy those rare moments when the Republicans are called on their lies. But I can't help but wish the MSM had done some reporting like this before 2000 troops were killed and America was known for torturing.

What happens if you want cable?

2005-11-17T07:48:00.000-08:00

This week, Clark, Texas, morphed into DISH in exchange for a decade of free satellite television from the DISH Network for the town's 55 homes. Residents in Santa, Idaho, meanwhile, are weighing the pros and cons of changing to Secretsanta.com, Idaho.

Across the nation, small communities are being courted by large corporations who say renaming a town provides a marketing buzz that can't be bought in television ads. Though some worry about corporate America's increasing influence in local government, many towns seem eager to accept.

In a deal unanimously approved Tuesday by the two-member town council, Clark agreed to become DISH permanently, effective immediately. It's part of an advertising campaign for Englewood, Colo.-based EchoStar Communications Corp., which operates the DISH Network satellite TV system.

Does this give anyone else a creepy crawly feeling deep down inside? Also, I'm a little confused as to how this really helps advertising. They get a few local articles, maybe are mentioned again when the next town changes it's name, but then the story dies, and no one hears about DISH, TX. And I wouldn't put too much hope on word of mouth-there are only 55 homes to talk about how great their free satellite is.

Mostly, though, it's just weird, weird, weird.

Pork Chopped (sort of)

2005-11-16T11:08:00.000-08:00

Looks like Alaska might not get their Bridge to Nowhere-linking an island of 50 people, who don't even want a bridge, to the rest of the state- or Don Young Way. They'll still get all the money, but it will have to compete with other transportation projects. Which still seems kind of silly and extravagant to me, but I'm guessing since the money was allocated in a Transportation Bill they can't move it around.

That project had no business being brought up in the first place, though. The money allocated for it was $223 million. As Lex pointed out, the government could have saved money by agreeing to give every person on the island $2 million to either move or buy their own private ferry.

I'm happy even if the money is still wasted in Alaska on another project, though. You know why? Because it seems that so much stupid crap the Republicans fought for is being destroyed. Alaskan bridge? Gone. ANWR? Out of the spending bill. Major extention of tax cuts? Fell apart in committee. Right to torture? Under heavy dispute. As the Poorman says, it's practically raining ponies.

um...

2005-11-04T07:36:00.000-08:00

Anyone know what all this is about?

Is there some particularly inflammatory and conservative Colbert Report that I missed? What's up?

Civ IV Review

2005-11-04T06:21:00.000-08:00

So, I'm not a very big computer/video game person, except in terms of what's on MSN Games (I can play alchemy for hours) or old-school games (I heart my Pac Man/Rally X/Dig Dug game box, and old pinball machines, old-school Simpsons and table top Ms. PacMan get me hot.) However, in years of being with a computer game guy, I have picked up on one most excellent game: Civilization. Mostly, Civ III and Civ III Conquests. If you are unfamiliar with them, they are games where you start with a settler, a worker, and sometimes a scout in a simulated map as some previous civilization (I rather like playing as Persia) and then slowly grow and take over the world. You can win diplomatically, technologically, culturally, militarily, through growth, or by default, when the game ends in year 2050. As you might guess, it scores high with the nerds. Although I don't know why I wrote all that, because if you haven't played or seen the game, the review won't make much sense anyway.

But now, there is Civ IV, which I got from two excellent friends. Civ IV has its ups and its downs, although I need to play more to get a feel for it. I only played at the easy level last night because so much had changed. So, here are my thoughts:

1) There's much less time between turns. Things cycle through more quickly, and not all the movement is jumbled up at the beginning, and it doesn't have to show you every damn city and what they're up to, and battles are much quicker (and animated). This is good and bad. Good, because by AD, the turns were taking forever in Civ III. Bad because I had gotten used to doing other things while I played: reading blogs, talking online, studying, etc. And yes, the turns really did take that long.

2) The tech tree is infinitely awesomer. It's much more complex, and you can make far more choices in how to develop you civilization. It also has somethings that make much more sense. Like, if you want to use your furs, you have to develop hunting.

3) The civics are infinitely awesomer. You have so much more choices. Not just government type, but the details of those governments (do you want hereditary rule? do you want monarchy by divine right? will that work with your religion?) and you can make decisions for your people, like whether or not to end slavery, and, again, these dicisions have to go along with what the other civics are. I need to learn more about this feature to really get it. You can also decide how your religion is organized, and if/what your state one is.

4) Oh, yeah. Religion. Awesome. You can get along better with people with the same civics as you. But you also lose some popularity points if you fall under the sway of a heathen religion, as Mansa Musa of the Malis told me I did. haha. My missionaries will soon ensure that he does, as well. And Alexander and I blocked him from trade, because we don't trade with Buddhists. (Although I would, but I got a good deal from Alexander. I guess he takes his Hinduism more seriously than I take mine. And after I converted him!)

5) You can choose your leader, and you have actual leaders. Anyone else always wondering why Cleopatra was the leader of the Egyptians? What, was she just the most famous Egyptian? Now its Hatshepsut. And for some, you have two. Do you want to be Louis XIV, or Napolean? Roosevelt, or Washington? Elizabeth, or Victoria? Different leaders, different skills, different bonus units.

6) The map is 3D and animated. Which I actually don't need. I liked the old map much better, because this one isn't top down, and it's more difficult to get an overview of what things look like. And the pigs on my farm wandering around always distract me. That's the one things I'd change.

7) Leonard Nimoy tells the story of the beginning of life at the beginning. And reads quotes to you about your technology and buildings throughout the game. We can all make our private decisions about that.

8) You can trade regular, boring old resources. God, how I've wanted to do that. Like wheat, and fish, and whales, and pigs, and wool, and deer. You also have a lot more resources to choose from.

9) You can finally move into the same square as annother civilization without starting a war. It'll ask you if you're attacking, or just wandering around. That was always a source of huge irritation to me. What the hell was the game suggesting, that my worker would start a war passing through the same square as a spearman. Could he really attack?

There's plenty more, but this is a very long post, so I'll leave it at that. But I will add that Civ IV is awesome. But I didn't expect anything less.

Peace Out.

Too Damn Many Hurricanes

2005-09-21T05:30:00.000-07:00

Rita is now a Category 4. I keep hearing about how we're entering a more active cycle for hurricanes, becauase we were on the cusp of a 50 or 100 year-long less active cycle (depending on which expert was being interviewed). Alright. I can get that. There are going to be a lot more hurricanes, and we have no idea why, but it has to do with a historic cycle.

But, why do they strengthen so quickly now? Is this part of the cycle? Is it because the waters are warmer? Are the waters warm enough to produce that sort of effect? Is it just an unexplained fluke? Rita was only a 2 yesterday. She could grow to a 5 before she hits the gulf coast. There was a time when tropical storms stayed tropical storms. When if a hurricane was a 2 when the warning was put out, it was a 2 when it hit. Mostly, there was a time when hurricanes didn't strenghthen from a 2 to a 4 in a few hours, like Charley did, and it was extremely surprising for a hurricane to do so. And no one is addressing this phenonomena. Maybe I'm just remembering things incorrectly. But I remember quite a few hurricanes that we needed to watch, I remember having to evacuate, and I remember staying for tropical storms and category 1s. And I remember always being very confident that we would know what category it was when it hit. So why don't we now?

What the Hell?

2005-09-20T08:37:00.000-07:00

From My Inbox:

Dear Marisa ,

Last year, when I served as President Bush's re-election campaign manager, you were an essential part of our historic effort. Today, as chairman of the Republican National Committee, I would like to welcome you back to our team with this email.

Our victory in 2004 was historic in many ways. Not only did we help the President win more votes than any other candidate in history, and increase our majorities in the U.S. House and Senate, but we did so through an unprecedented grassroots campaign that depended on the widespread use of email and the Internet.

Through these new technologies, we worked hard to keep you up to date on the progress of the campaign, and the important issues that the President and the Republican Party were addressing. We also used email and the Web to give supporters like you opportunities to get involved, whether by communicating with us to help shape strategy and tactics, by volunteering to help the grassroots effort in your local community, or simply by passing the word along to your friends and neighbors.

Now, at the RNC, we are committed to continuing our groundbreaking use of new technology, and I hope you will join us. In July, we were proud to unveil our completely redesigned Website. We have launched a brand new eCampaign that will, in the coming weeks and months, use email to keep loyal supporters like you fully informed as to how we are working to enact the President's reform agenda and maintain our majorities in the House and Senate and in the states, and what you can do to become more involved in your community.

I hope you find these emails useful. Now more than ever, it is important that Republicans across the country keep fully informed and involved with the important issues that we face as a Party and as a nation. We will fight to ensure confirmation of the President's judicial nominees such as Judge John G. Roberts, who last week answered questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee with humility, humor and thoughtfulness. He showed once again that he is an extremely well-qualified candidate with a sharp legal mind. We will continue to support the war on terror. We will be preparing for important elections in 2005 and 2006. And, we will work to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina rebuild their lives as the reconstruction effort begins in the Gulf Coast.

You are a part of our team. We want you to know what our plans and goals are. We also would like your help in achieving these goals. As we email you, please don't hesitate to email back to let us know what your views are on these important issues. And I hope that you will join us in the party-building activities that we will be informing you about within these regular email updates.

If you would prefer not to receive these emails, I understand. But I hope you will consider remaining a part of the Republican online community. We depend on people like you to keep the Republican Party strong. And with your participation, we will continue our strong record of success and accomplishment.

Sincerely,
Mehlman
Ken Mehlman
Chairman, RNC

um...

2005-09-15T15:56:00.000-07:00

Condoleezza challenges O'Reilly that sure, it's hard to get a cup of coffee in Baghdad these days without getting blown up. But would you have even wanted coffee in Baghdad when Saddam was in power?

Bring Back the Inquisition!

2005-09-15T10:26:00.000-07:00

The Catholic Church is getting ready to make some inquiries to all it's seminaries in the US, making sure that the faculty is really committed to teaching Church doctrine, and that there's no evidence of homosexuality.

The newspaper said a Vatican document prepared to guide the process and given to The New York Times by a priest, surfaces as Catholics await a Vatican ruling on whether homosexuals should be barred from the priesthood.

American seminaries are under review as a result of the sexual abuse scandal that swept the priesthood in 2002, the year the probe which is now starting was announced.

In a possible hint of the ruling's contents, the American archbishop supervising the seminary review said "anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity or has strong homosexual inclinations," should not be admitted to a seminary.

The Times said Edwin O'Brien, archbishop for the United States military who is supervising the seminary review, told The National Catholic Register that the restriction should apply even to those who have not been sexually active for a decade or more.

What's interesting about that is that I think it would actually be a big change in Church teaching. In Catholicism it's not the "homosexual inclination" that's a sin. It's the homosexual acts. Technically because they're no way to make babies and it's sex not tied to reproduction, but I don't see why it doesn't just fall under Natural Family Planning. This is also allegedly because in the whole sexual abuse schedules, a Church study showed that 80% of the molested kids were boys. Of course, this'll still leave all those priests who molest girls, but that's less of a sin I suppose.

This is just off the top of my head, but it occurs to me that maybe rather than keeping homosexuals out of the priesthood, they should try to keep pedophiles out of the priesthood. And, oh, I don't know, fire and report priests they find out were molesting kids, instead of just moving them to a different church? You know, just for a start. You molest a few dozen kids and just kid transferred, but they're saying anyone who's had gay sex in the past decade should be kept from the priesthood? Seems a bit off to me.

But this isn't just to weed out the gays.

At each seminary, the visitors will conduct confidential interviews with faculty members and seminarians, plus everyone who graduated in the last three years, the Times said.

A document with instructions for the review is being distributed to seminarians and faculty members. It asks whether the doctrine on the priesthood presented by the seminary is "solidly based on the church's Magisterium," or teaching, and whether teachers and seminarians "accept this teaching."

The Times said among the other questions in the lengthy questionnaire are:

"Is there a clear process for removing from the seminary faculty members who dissent from the authoritative teaching of the church or whose conduct does not provide good example to future priests?"

"Is the seminary free from the influences of New Age and eclectic spirituality?"

"Do the seminarians or faculty members have concerns about the moral life of those living in the institution? (This question must be answered)."

"Is there evidence of homosexuality in the seminary? (This question must be answered)."

The questionnaire also asks whether faculty members "watch out for signs of particular friendships," the newspaper said.

It's about time they brought back some firm control in the Church. Things are in a wild state of disarray. Why, I'm getting married when the priest knows full well that Lex and I live together and use artificial (or 'reliable') birth control. There's someone who should really be questioned about how much he believes in Church teaching. And the seminary he went to should definitely be looked into.

I don't know if people will answer honestly if there's just a questionnaire, though. Especially if they're already sinners who don't believe in Church teaching. I think they need to use the rack.

P.S. Can I have extra cookies, too?

2005-09-15T04:00:00.000-07:00

If you haven't seen this yet, here's Bush asking Condi for a bathroom break at the Security Council meeting of the 2005 World Summit.

Ethically, these days, I'm torn between being against the Culture of Surveillance and Voyeurism we find ourselves in in today's society, and really enjoying having access to picture of Coburn doing a crossword puzzle during Roberts' confirmation hearings, and Bush writing notes.

Added: heh. This was on Conan last night. I give credit to the power of the blogs.

I Suppose This is a Start

2005-09-14T15:35:00.000-07:00

From Crooks and Liars:

C&L was down for a while so I'm just catching up, but this is the first time I can remember that President Bush has ever taken responsibility for anything that has gone wrong so far in his tenure as president. What does it mean to you? Forget the resign theme because that won't happen. Do you think Rove whispered in his ear?

Wrong question. It's "What do you think Rove whispered in his ear?"

I'm waiting to see how this plays out. What does responsibility mean here? In the video he also says that, "To the extent that the federal government didn't (pause) fully do it's job right, I take responsibility." I'd like to know in what ways the federal government didn't do it's job right (in his mind), where he sees the problems, why those problems happened, and what he's going to do to make sure they don't happen again.

Oh, and also, an apology for staying on vacation.

This is Unexpected

2005-09-13T09:22:00.000-07:00

Okay. The Arlington County Library system does not have Howard's End. I think they have a movie of it, but not the book.

It's on the Modern Library Association's 100 best books of the century list, and it's on countless high school reading lists, but the library doesn't have it. The library that has never, ever, failed me, even when I've been looking for environmental and political books that I thought they'd never have. Where I found my whole recommended reading list for my Master's program. They don't have Howard's End.

The Lee County system has 19 copies. I guess I'll just wait 'til I get to Florida to find the book I want.

Never thought I'd be saying that.

So That's What it Takes

2005-09-12T16:09:00.000-07:00

Mike Brown resigned today, finally answering the question, "Just what does it take to get fired in the Bush administration, anyway?"

This may be the first time someone was fired-or 'resigned'- when they'd still been loyal to Bush.

I wanted to point out this paragraph from the article, though:

His decision was not a surprise. Brown was abruptly recalled to Washington on Friday, a clear vote of no confidence from his superiors at the White House and the Department of Homeland Security. Brown had been roundly criticized for FEMA's bearish response to the hurricane, which has caused political problem for Bush and fellow Republicans.

Huh. Another way of putting that is, "Brown had been roundly criticized for FEMA's bearish response to the hurricane, which has caused the deaths of possibly thousands of people."

Although maybe I'm just nitpicking here. The article does probably have the explanation correct. I doubt Bush asked for Brown's resignation because of all the dead poor and black people.

Let's hope these aren't real

2005-09-10T06:58:00.000-07:00

Stolen from Matt:

Ah, yes. Forget-Me-Not Panties, the ultimate tool for any frighteningly obsessive significant other.

With these marvels of modern technology, not only can you track the exact geo-spatial position of you battered woman, you can also monitor her temperature and vital signs to make sure she isn't doing anything that might lead her down that slippery slope to independence.

I'm still debating whether these are a joke or not, based mostly on the testimonials. But if they're real... That's scary.

Crazy

2005-09-10T05:22:00.000-07:00

KNOXVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- Al Gore helped airlift some 270 Katrina evacuees on two private charters from New Orleans, acting at the urging of a doctor who saved the life of the former vice president's son.

Gore paid for the planes, and got some doctors to go to Charity Hospital and save a couple hundred people. What's most interesting is that the article states,

Most critically, Gore worked to cut through government red tape, personally calling Gov. Phil Bredesen to get Tennessee's support and U.S. Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta to secure landing rights in New Orleans.

So Gore, who is not president, was able to call Tennessee's governor and the transportation secretary to get some planes in there. But Bush, who is secretary, was not able to get through all the disorganized government red tape around emergencies.

I know that Gore doesn't have the "political" considerations that the president does. But the more I hear about those the angrier I am. No one was going to criticize Bush for using more power than he had to save people. And if anyone did, than those people would be pilloried in the press and would ultimately just push more support onto the Republicans. I think Bush could have gotten some more planes and helicopters in there.

Excellent

2005-09-10T05:21:00.000-07:00

While with every passing hour following Katrina I, along with most other people, become more and more disgusted and depressed about the state of our nation's government (and given what I thought before, that's hard to do) it's made me appreciate our media a lot more. They've really started to do what the media is supposed to do, and know that what's going on in the ground is unforgivable, and just too different from what the administration is saying.

CNN went to court to stop government from restricting their access to coverage of the dead. Honore and the citie's homeland security directors had announced a "zero access" policy before, but it's gone now. The government dropped it, instead of fighting in court, in a surprising turn of events for the Bush administration.

CNN's brief argued, "It is not the place of government to replace its own internal judgment for that of a free and independent media." I'm glad the mainstream media finally realized that.

Good for CNN. I hope they don't lose this new-found moxie in the weeks and months and years ahead.

More Incompetent than They Are Evil

2005-09-09T11:43:00.000-07:00

My friend Matt pointed out to me earlier that Michael Brown actually has no experience doing anything and his resume is a lie.

You know, I think a knee-jerk disapproval of all of Bush's nominees really is in order. He's already trying to put someone in as Chief Justice who's main qualification is that he's a gentleman. And sat on the bench for all of two years. On most job sites, "0-3 years experience" jobs are classified as "entry level."

More Government Incompetence...

2005-09-09T11:24:00.000-07:00

CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- Dan Klassen might not have been able to start his business without the Small Business Administration. The SBA-backed loan he received from Wells Fargo _ $158,500 _ helped him buy the equipment he needed to get Casper-based Optimal Air Testing Services off the ground.

What Klassen doesn't understand is why his loan falls under a program meant to help businesses that were hurt by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"I'm not sure what they'd mean by that, because we were not in existence on September 11th," said Klassen, who founded his company in early 2003.

Klassen is one 10 Wyoming business owners who received almost $2.7 million in loans under the Supplementary Terrorism Activity Relief (STAR) program. Most said their businesses were unaffected by the Sept. 11 attacks, and all of them contacted by The Associated Press said they had no idea they'd received terrorism-related loans.

WASHINGTON - The Sept. 11 attacks had a big effect on the Super 8 Motel in Owensboro.

Sure, the inn off Hwy. 60 is more than 850 miles from Lower Manhattan.

And yes, it wasn't built until 2003.

But that's the point: The Super 8 opened thanks to a generous $960,000 loan, courtesy the federal government's Sept. 11 disaster-relief fund. More than $5 billion in funds usually earmarked for immediate relief in and around disaster-stricken areas were spread around the country by the Small Business Administration. More than $26 million went to Kentucky businesses alone.

COLUMBIA, Mo. - The Happy Tails kennel in suburban St. Louis seems an unlikely beneficiary of the federal government's post-Sept. 11 recovery efforts. So does the Sabbath Manor retirement home in Normandy and a Culver's Frozen Custard Butterburger restaurant near the Arkansas border.

The federal Small Business Administration thought otherwise. The kennel, retirement home and burger joint are among 183 Missouri businesses that received a total of $60.73 million in recovery loans intended for economic victims of the terror attacks four years ago, an Associated Press review found.

Fourteen of those low-interest loans topped $1 million, led by a $1.95 million loan to the Culver's franchise, part of a national chain with nearly 300 stores in 15 states. Other million-dollar recipients in Missouri included a St. Louis gas station and a Springfield furniture store.

INDIANAPOLIS -- Indiana withstood the economic hits of Sept. 11, 2001, better than many states.

But 139 Indiana businesses _ including trucking companies, photographers, gyms, bars and dental offices _ still sought almost $36 million in federal loans from programs created to offset financial damages from the terrorist attacks. ...

An AP computer analysis showed fewer than 11 percent of the 19,000 loans approved nationwide for post-Sept. 11 recovery went to companies in New York City and Washington.

You know, there are just too many of these. Just go to news.google.com and look up STAR loans. You'll see the links I posted already, plus some businesses that really were effected and didn't get the money the requested. 59 companies in Hawaii that mistakenly got loans. And a lot more of the same.

One more thing...

2005-09-09T11:02:00.000-07:00

Well, I keep hoping to learn a bit more, or see something in the MSM-who could get some explanations, even if they were false and misinformative-about the bizarre decision to protect the parishes that were in the least danger from Katrina. There's still nothing new, and I'm hoping it's just some odd example of incompetence. Maybe when they do those declarations, it's all just point and click to fill in the necessary parts, and the person putting it together forgot whether they were clicking the boxes next the parishes who were included in the declaration, or excluded from the declaration.

I doubt we'll ever know, unless some other sites pick this up besides just the ones I mentioned. Either way, though, I just wanted to point out one other thing. Here's the statement about emergency assistance that was issued by the White House on August 26th:

The President today declared an emergency exists in the State of Louisiana and ordered Federal aid to supplement state and local response efforts in the parishes located in the path of Hurricane Katrina beginning on August 26, 2005, and continuing.

The President's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the parishes of Allen, Avoyelles, Beauregard, Bienville, Bossier, Caddo, Caldwell, Claiborne, Catahoula, Concordia, De Soto, East Baton Rouge, East Carroll, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Franklin, Grant, Jackson, LaSalle, Lincoln, Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, Natchitoches, Pointe Coupee, Ouachita, Rapides, Red River, Richland, Sabine, St. Helena, St. Landry, Tensas, Union, Vernon, Webster, West Carroll, West Feliciana, and Winn.

Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency. Debris removal and emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, will be provided at 75 percent Federal funding.

Representing FEMA, Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, named William Lokey as the Federal Coordinating Officer for Federal recovery operations in the affected area.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FEMA (202) 646-4600.

Now, firstly, this means that the president can, indeed, respond to an emergency, and FEMA was in charge of the relief efforts in most of Louisianna.

Secondly, there's been a mighty effort to shift the blame from the Federal government to the state and local governments. We'd like to have helped, we really would! But wouldn't you know it, the State has to request aid first, and we've just got our hands tied if they don't. And there's just so much we're not allowed to take control of. So what does Title V of the Stafford Act actually say?

Specified

In any emergency, the President may--

direct any Federal agency, with or without reimbursement, to utilize its authorities and the resources granted to it under Federal law (including personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, and managerial, technical and advisory services) in support of State and local emergency assistance efforts to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, and lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe;

coordinate all disaster relief assistance (including voluntary assistance) provided by Federal agencies, private organizations, and State and local governments;

General

Whenever the Federal assistance provided under subsection (a) with respect to an emergency is inadequate, the President may also provide assistance with respect to efforts to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, and lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe.....

The president may also, if he deems it necessary, take control of an emergency if it is something that is the responsibility of the United States of America. I just wanted to point out that it was indeed the reponsibility of the President to take control, and the State and local governments, or at least their relief efforts, were under his control at the time. Well, for the northern parishes, anyway. The southern parishes were on their own.

Ain't Live TV Grand?

2005-09-08T14:30:00.000-07:00

Who hasn't wanted to say this to Cheney?

Whaaa?

2005-09-08T08:43:00.000-07:00

Over at This Modern World a reader with a pretty good knowledge or map of Louisianna noticed that when Bush declared a State of Emergency before the hurricane, the Emergency only covered the northern parishes. The ones on the coast, like Orleans, Palquemines and Jefferson, among many others, were left off the list. Sort of bizarre, right?

So, he made a graphic. Parishes in red were included in the emergency plan. The others-the ones destroyed by the hurricane-were not. Again, what gives?

This is just bizarre and confusing. It doesn't make any sense, even in some conspiracy theory, evil government plan, to have done this. Plus, as Tom Tomorrow says, there's no correllation between income, racial demographics, voting records, campaign contributions or anything silly like that. It just seems like some sort of colossal mistake, but one so strange and huge that it's inconceivable that it could actually have been made. Go check it out, see if you can make sense of it. Because no one else can.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, though, I was remembering last night that one of the X-Files story arcs revolved around the baddies (Cigarette Smoking Man, Well-Manicured Man, etc.) orchestrating a huge national emergency so that FEMA, the real agency behind all these conspiracies, could take over the government, institute control, and... well, I dont' remember the whole thing. Probably something involving aliens and Mulder's sister. But my point is, that show was probably successful because it took place during a fairly prosperous and competent administration. I can't imagine it taking off now. Because as corrupt as the Bushies are, a well-orchestrated FEMA backed conspiracy just doesn't seem realistic anymore.

Simply Unbelieavable

2005-09-07T09:35:00.000-07:00

FEMA sent some evacuees to the wrong city.

A South Carolina health official said his colleagues scrambled Tuesday when FEMA gave only a half-hour notice to prepare for the arrival of a plane carrying as many as 180 evacuees to Charleston.

But the plane, instead, landed in Charleston, West Virginia, 400 miles away.

It was not known whether arrangements have been made to care for the evacuees or transport them to the correct destination.

A call seeking comment from FEMA was not immediately returned. ...

Simkovich said that the agency had described some of the evacuees as needing "some minor treatment ... possibly some major treatment."

"Unfortunately, the plane did not come in," Simkovich said. "There was a mistake in the system, coming out through FEMA, that we did not receive the aircraft this afternoon. It went to Charleston, West Virginia."

There's an old Get Your War On quote along the lines of, "What's amazing is that Bush and company are actually more incompetent than they are evil. How is that even possible?"

Amazing, but true. The level of just basic incompetence really is staggering. I mean, they're busy, and one mistake like this might be chalked up to overwork. But this on top of everything else.... the Republicans have succeeded. I no longer believe in government.

Wow

2005-09-07T02:25:00.000-07:00

This is pretty bad:

Doling out food to the hungry crowds overflowing Houston’s Astrodome, the National Guard has engaged in ad hoc recruiting in recent days. Tomorrow, September 7, 2005, the U.S. military is conducting a Job Fair in the Astrodome in a blatant effort to exploit the despair of masses of Americans evacuated from the Gulf Coast. Once signed up, even if purportedly to reconstruct their region, they could easily find themselves deployed to Iraq, left with medical coverage for only two for only combat-related injury and the expectations for training eviscerated. And if they sign up on the promise of temporary relief, they could find themselves bound for extended tours of duty.

I hate that smirk

2005-09-02T09:57:00.000-07:00

Also, I'm watching Bush in Biloxi right now. Can't he give one press-conference without that goddamned smirk upon his face and doing his stupid laugh? Does he have any appreciation of what's going on?

Tragic

2005-09-02T09:56:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted anything on Katrina yet, because, honestly, what is there to say? I just watch the pictures and read the reports and think, "Jesus Christ." It's just so mind boggling what is happening in New Orleans, what did happen, and how horribly it's being handled. No one understands why the guard wasn't standing by to go in right after Katrina hit. Or to be present during the storm. No one understands why there weren't army troops there within a day. And it's just so amazing to keep hearing the word "refugees" in reference to Americans.

And absolutely everything coming out from New Orleans, everything I see and hear, makes me want to cry and punch and kick things. Condeleeza Rice was in New York, going to musicals and buying shoes, while people in the south were dying. The relief effort is about three days late and billions of dollars short. I'm watching CNN, where they're showing the troops starting to come into the city. I don't know who was interviewed, but someone said that God will judge President Bush for the relief effort.

The CNN New Orleans correspondent, when talking to the anchor, said yes, people are still dying here while we are talking. But one person they interviewed suggested that things were hopeful because helicopters had started dropping sandbags into the levees. It's an important step, certainly, but I doubt it's make anyone there more hopeful. Especially since the sandbags just keep sinking to the bottom of the floodwaters and you can't even see where they went in after a minute. And when you're living on the floor of the Superdome and aren't watching CNN to see the helicopters, how do you even know?

CNNs going off for a while now. I wonder when New Orleans will ever be a city again.

Friday Random Ten

2005-08-29T05:59:00.000-07:00

Monday Edition

1) Caring is Creepy-The Shins
2) 16 Military Wives-The Decembrists
3) Get Gone-Fiona Apple
4) Tightly-Neko Case
5) Mistake-Fiona Apple
6) Blackjack County Chains-Del McCoury Band
7) In Between Days-Jack Johnson
8) Big River-Waco Brothers
9) Sad Eyes-The Ponys
10)Baby, I'm an Anarchist-Against Me!

Gays aren't so scary

2005-08-25T09:54:00.000-07:00

I saw this site through Pandagon a while ago, but kept forgetting to post on it.

Here is a pictoral representation of what we have to fear if gay people get married: gay guys gardening, gay guys going on vacation, and gay guys playing mahjongg. You should read the post. It's very moving. (I think.)

Although who knows. The pictures of gay people getting married probably rushed a lot of bigots out to the polls to vote for Bush. When I saw those pictures I though that we would finally get some rationality on the subject. How could anyone be angered by photos of two people, obviously in love, finally celebrating that love and getting married? And when the earth didn't suddenly collapse in a rain of fire and brimstone, I thought that might make some people sensible, too. But it didn't.

Incidentally, the reasonable nature of people is another big plus in DCs favor. Lex and I finally got around to registering for a few things for the wedding. (And I hate wedding registries, but that's a different post.) At Pottery Barn, there were two gay, Black guys registering, too, and they were so cute and excited about it. It was adorable. It makes me happy that I live in a place where that's completely acceptable. I can't imagine Black people being allowed in a Pottery Barn in Ft. Myers, let alone a gay couple. It's good to be out of the red.

I can't figure out how to argue against the people who would be against gay marriage, though. It bothers me when there's a subject I can't well debate, but this is one. If you are bothered when two obviously happy people are together, because of their genitalia, then I have nothing to say to you. There is no common ground for us to meet on, no rational argument to make, because you are beyond it. It's bigotry, plain and simple, and while it might not reach the extremes, among such a large percentage of the population, that racism reached in America, it comes from the same irrational place. How do you fight that?

Has Pat Robertson even seen a Bible?

2005-08-23T07:05:00.000-07:00

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club."

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Ooookaayyy. First of all. I know there are some hold outs, but pretty much no one takes the communist infiltration threat that seriously any more. Red China is one of our biggest trading partners. And I'm open to any cogent theories as to the fact, but is there really a threat of Muslim extremism taking hold in Venezuela? Or of Chavez working with al-Qaeda?

Secondly. This is something no one should have to point out, but arguing for someone's assassination is a very, very, very un-Christian like thing to do. I don't think that Robertson is loving Chavez as he loves himself.

Perhaps I should start a drive to send Robertson some copies of the Gospels, and a big 'ol stack of newspapers. Who's with me?

So dirty... can't get clean....

2005-08-23T07:01:00.000-07:00

As part of our quest to watch the AFI list of movies, which is very, very slowly making progress, Lex and I watched The Graduate last night. Okay. This movie.... I don't understand.... it was so... it felt like a violation. I just feel sad and want to cry all day in the shower after watching it. It was so disturbing, and I can't ever listen to Simon and Garfunkel the same way again. And, like Lex said, even though the two characters end up together in the end, you just can't imagine anyone having a good future.

And, the movie failed to answer the main, nagging question I had, namely, "What the hell is wrong with Mrs. Robinson????" This is followed closely by, "What's wrong with Benjamin?" (Dustin Hoffman's character) "What's wrong with Elaine?", and "What's wrong with Mr. Robinson?"

I need to talk to my parents. If I remember correctly, my dad liked The Graduate, or at least "appreciated" it, while my mom hated it. I need to ask him why. And the AFI listers. And all movie afficianados. And anyone here. Have you seen it? Did you like it? Did it make you feel dirty? Yeesh. I feel vaguely like I did when I saw The Talented Mr. Ripley.

At least the next movie on the list is Singin' in the Rain. We're going to watch it, and the singing and the rain will cleanse us and make us happy again.

So This is the Noble Cause

2005-08-22T07:03:00.000-07:00

Well. So. It appears that in the Iraqi Constitution, Islam is going to be the main source of law. You know what that means? Shari'a courts! But hey, that's only, what between 50-60% of the population that we just made far less free. So we put some women's lives in danger if they dare to go out without the hijab. Big deal. At least it's a democracy, right?

Luckily, through a mix of willful ignorance, and not giving a damn about women anyway, the neo-cons aren't in the least bothered by this. In fact, here's what former Middle East specialist Reuel Marc Gerecht, had to say about it on Meet the Press:

"I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible. It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective."

Wow. Just... wow. The host at that point ended the show. Probably to go cry. But there you have it. We invaded Iraq to make it resemble America was in the 1900s. So, would we really be happy if Iraq resembled America in the 1900s? Let's look at some other things Mr. Gerecht could have said:

* In 1900, there were no spousal rape laws, and a husband could violently rape his wife with no legal or social consequences. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled.
* In 1900, married women could not be teachers. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled.
* In 1900, women in America could not go to college. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled.
* In 1900, it was highly illegal to dispense contraceptives, even to married couples. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled Amerca in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled.
* In 1900, women were not allowed to sit on juries. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled.
* In 1900, minority races could not go to college. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled.
* In 1900, workers who were striking were regularly attacked by the Pinkerton boys, and brutally beaten. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled.
* In 1900, poll taxes and lynch mobs kept black people from voting. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled.
* In 1900, America was just 15 years away from The Birth of the Nation, and the reconstitution of the Klan. This time in order to hunt religious minorities, like Jews and Catholics, as well as racial minorities. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled.

That's all I can think of right now. But have fun with this. Add your own. What do you think was best about America in the 1900s?

Of course, there's more to this, also, than just the right to vote. And a "Middle East expert" should know that. Where the most radical versions of Shari'a are the main source of law, the women could also be assaulted for failing to wear a hijab, or for wearing pants. This is already happening in some places. Women could be punished for premarital sex-which includes rape. Honor killings would be acceptable. In Pakistan, a village council ordered that a woman be gang-raped in order to punish her brother. And the only truly unique part of this case is that she has tried to prosecute instead of killing herself. I suppose if this is common in Iraq, it will be alright. As long as the men can vote.

Friday Random Ten

2005-08-22T07:02:00.000-07:00

"When You're Unemployed, All the Days Seem the Same" Edition

1) So Much Beauty in Dirt-Modest Mouse
2) Where is My Mind?-The Pixies
3) Take Me Out-Franz Ferdinand
4) Mistake-Fiona Apple
5) Buckets of Rain-Neko Case
6) Bled White-Elliot Smith
7) Midnight Hour-Toasters
8) The City of New Orleans-Arlo Guthrie
9) Ain't That a Kick in the Head-Dean Martin
10)Someday I Suppose-Mighty Mighty Bosstones

Best. Site. Ever.

2005-08-16T06:57:00.000-07:00

I found what is my new favorite website in the whole, entire world yesterday. It's even better than all the political sites I go to. I can't believe I didn't know that it existed until now.

It's What's That Bug!

People send in pictures of creepy crawlies they find, and these people identify them for them, or at least as closely as they can. This is so great for me, because there are some bugs I've been trying to identify for a while. There are some bugs that I finally identified from when I was in Florida, but also some from up here. Man, oh, man, I thought that Florida and other tropical areas had the scariest looking bugs in the entire world. Apparently, I was wrong. This basement apartment has shown me the scary as hell, but really cool, bugs that Virginia has, as well. And I finally know what they are, and now you can, too! (Warning: If you are squemish and have ever or will ever been in my apartment, you shouldn't click on these links, because they will scare you and you will never come over again and I'll be sad.) For instance, though, there's this thing (the top picture.) It looks like something you'd see in an Imax film about the deep, but they actually live in the storage area in the other half the basement, and occassionally are in here. The cool thing about them, though, is that when they run, they look like feathers would if they could run. There is also here (third picture) a weird cricket we found, although I had identified this one before. They are the worst, because they jump with no clear idea whatsoever where they are going and are just as likely to jump back at you as the door you are pushing them towards. There's an even better/scarier picture of it here. This picture is about 30% larger than actual size. The body is usually about the size of a half dollar. Imagine being a nice florida girl just used to giant flying palmetto bugs, swarming carpenter ants, and spiders the size of your hand and seeing that lovely thing staring at you on your carpet. Ewwwww.

Even better, though, are two Florida finds. One is the arrow-headed flatworm. (The picture comes out better if you just scroll down the front page.) I don't know if anyone remembers this obsession of mine, but after being a fairly observant nature girl in Florida, I never saw one of those things until I was a RHAP working all night long on campus, and they'd come out when it was sort of damp at night. I was carrying them around showing them to everyone, asking teachers (this was before I had a digital camera) and no one could tell me what they were. I thought they were some type of flatworm, but looked to me to be too big. And low and behold, I was right! I was also able to identfiy the giant water bug, aka toebiter, which I had been unsure about for some time now.

My other favorite part of this website is a couple pictures of crayfish with people asking what type of bug they are. I point and laugh at them. Ha ha ha.

Hooray for wonderful websites about bugs! I am going to be using this site forever. It makes me want to go outside with a digital camera and just start taking pictures of bugs and sending them in. Or why go outside? The scariest ones seem to be in the basement.

Having plans is good. Using plans is better.

2005-08-09T07:28:00.000-07:00

I'm reading Squandered Victory right now, but Larry Diamond. He's a democracy and government-building expert who was called in to help create a government in Iraq, an effort that, as you may know, didn't go so well. The full title is Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq.

I'm not going to keep repeating all the ways the occupation was poorly planned, and how they ignored experts all the time if they came from the wrong place. What I found most interesting, and want to repeat here instead, is how long we spent discussing plans for post-war Iraq. This is something the media really should have made a bigger deal out of. It deserves at least as much time as the Runaway Bride.

State Department planning for a possible transition in a postwar Iraq had begun as early as October 2001, in what became known as the Future of Iraq Project. Directed by a savvy, energetic career officer, Thomas Warrick, the project drew together the disparate Iraqi exile organizations in a series of conferences, dialogues, drafting sessions, and ultimately seventeen working groups on key problems that would confront the postwar order in Iraq.

In November 2002, as part of that project, the Democratic Principlies Working Group produced a report titlted "The Transition to Democracy in Iraq."

Did you see that? As early as October 2001. That means this was being planned right after Sept. 11. Which is something I'd heard before, but it was never emphasized as it should have been. Right after we were attacked, Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq. Actually, before we were attacked, Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq. It's important to always remember that this was a war that they decided on. A war of choice, not necessity.

Over-compensation not just a joke

2005-08-05T13:32:00.000-07:00

This is a really interesting study posted about over at Amptoons. A Cornell research study gave a questionnaire to 111 undergraduates. Then, research participants were randomly assigned whether the questionnaire said they were more 'masculine' or 'feminine' and asked a series of questions. Here's the interesting part: men who were told they were more 'feminine' tended to be more supportive of the Iraq war, to be more opposed to homosexuality, and to claim to be more likely to purchase an SUV. There wasn't any change in women's answers. Remember, the original questionnaires were meaningless. This only measured how men reacted when they were told they were more feminine. When their masculinity was threatened.

The researcher, Robb Willer, is planning another study to show how this affects other issues, including violence towards women. I'm really interested in this, and I'd love to see the study performed on a larger sample set. I'd also like to see one geared towards testing whether or not women 'over-compensate' for a lack of femininity by saying their more likely to cook, or care about shoes, or dislike sports, or any of those other stupid female stereotypes.

One thing I'm surprised about is in the comments to Amp's post about this. So many people seem to be offended by this study and take it as an insult to all men, like it says they're inferior to women or something. I just don't get that. All it's showing is the way that people are likely to react towards other people in response to social pressure. I think it shows that there's more of a social basis to gender stereotypes than most people like to admit. And, as always, it's impossible to say what is nature and what is nurture. Undoubtedly some men are genuine assholes. They are completely secure in their masculinity, and still hate gay people and want to kill Arabs. But isn't it nicer to think that deep down not all men feel that way?

Friday Random Ten

2005-08-05T05:51:00.000-07:00

"Thank the randomwhiteman for Party Shuffle" Edition.

1) She Looks at Me-Dressy Bessy
2) Inside Blasts-Circulatory System
3) Blue Stars-The Soviettes
4) A Nervous Tic Motion of the Head to the Left-Andrew Bird
5) Tightly-Neko Case
6) Don't Leave the Light On, Baby-Belle and Sebastian
7) I Thought You Were My Boyfriend-The Magnetic Fields
8) Love for Sale-Ella Fitzgerald
9) Bob Rules-Keller Williams
10) You and Whose Army-Radiohead

Bigots are the same wherever you go

2005-08-05T05:49:00.000-07:00

Via Pandagon, I bring you this article about a man who is suing the school system because...

The dispute started last spring when a book was sent home with Parker's 5-year-old son as optional reading material to be shared with his parents. One page of the book depicted a gay family. After meeting with school officials, Parker refused to leave unless they agreed to notify him in the future if similar material is again offered to his son. He was arrested and banned from school property.

I encourage you to go and read Jesse's excellent run-down, because I'm not about to repost the whole thing here. But before he came in and was arrested, there was quite a bit of back and forth between Parker and the school system where he insisted that all parents be notified before anything representing homosexuality be presented to the children (Won't someone please think of the children?), and that his son be removed from the classroom and not participate. Now, to me, this whole thing seems blown out of proportion from the beginning because it was optional reading material. But besides that, my understanding is that basically the school, which is in Massachusetts, is acknowledging that gay couples exist, and that they might have families. It's "supporting" homosexuality about as much as Sesame Street used "support" single parent homes when it would show that they exist and talk to the kids in their little 2 minute specials on all the different families there are.

What this reminded me of more than anything else is when I worked at Barnes and Noble several years ago. One lady complained and wanted to lodge a complaint with the store because all our books of tear out valentines had valentines with black and hispanic kids and families in it, too. She told us that there were only 5 valentines she found that her kid could give out. She insisted she wasn't racist, but her son should be able to give out valentines, too, and this was being PC going too far. I guess she wanted our books to be segregated or something, but she also said that it was about having choices (Parker says this is all about parental rights) and that she should be able to decide what kind of valentines she wanted. It's not about being a bigot! It's about choice! Choice for your children! I can't even imagine how she'd react to a valentine acknowledging homosexuals.

To Parker and the anonymous racist, I'd just like to say, admit your bigotry. Stand up and declare your hatred and fear loud and proud, and don't pretend it's about anything other than your own bigoted ways. And then realize that one day your kids are going to learn that there are homosexuals in the world, and they don't eat people's souls. Or one day your kid might talk to a kid who's a different color, and want to give him or her a valentine. And there's nothing you can do to protect them from that fate.

Oh, Good. More Oil.

2005-08-04T07:29:00.000-07:00

A grad student at the University of Idaho thinks he's found a way to make oil. By burning sawdust and methanol at high temperatures he creates a substance he calls "bio-oil," (what real oil doesn't come from biological things?) that resembles crude oil. He's still working on it, but thinks it'll be competitive if oil reaches $80 a barrel, which should be sometime next month the way we've been going.

What's interesting in this article, though, is the ommission. I'd really like to know how efficient this bio-oil is, and also, how much carbon it produces. A long with all the talk of 'peak oil' production, and not wanting to rely on resources held in Saudi Arabia, the news media should be aware that global warming has made some people wary of our oil usage. I'd very much like to know how much this produces. My guess is a lot. A lot of carbon when it's being created, and carbon about equal to oil when it's being used. Either way, I'm annoyed that there's no mention of environmental impacts in this article. At all.

Job Interview

2005-08-04T07:27:00.000-07:00

I had my job interview yesterday. It went pretty well, despite the fact that I was almost late, and was sweating from running when I got to it. You see, I thought the HR lady had said the job was on the corner of Connecticut and P (right after you get out of Dupont Metro), when she really said Connecticut and T (about 5 blocks and a traffic circle away.) But, I got there in time, filled out my applicaton, and took my test. Spelling, copy-editing, and math. The math was incredibly easy, and the spelling was pretty easy. Copy-editing was a bit more difficult, just because there were so many errors, and it was rather poorly written to begin with. Plus, the lady ran through the instructions really fast when I'd just got there, so I'm not sure if I did that part correctly.

The interview itself was much better. My job, if I get it, would be doing background on people on the federal advisory committees for environmental and health things, and writing reports, actual, publishable reports (EEEE! little squel of joy) and press releases about it. Plus, looking at conflicting studies or interpretations of the same study, and seeing who funded those interpretations. Also, copy editing and compiling other people's research. But there are 3 people on the project right now, so my understanding is everybody does everything. The job also has all federal holidays, 15 vacation days, and 12 sick days. That's pretty damn good, although the pay is just over what I'm making now as an intern.

The downside of the job? Well, it's at the Integrity in Science project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Go ahead and check out the links. When you do, you'll see that while Integrity in Science looks at scientists of all stripes, CSPI is primarily health oriented. They put out a nutrition news-letter each year. Which means that there is no junk food or soda allowed in the offices, because it would look quite bad if there were a press-conference, or donors stopping by, and we were hanging out in the snack room eating doritos and drinking mountain dew. Which isn't in itself a bad thing, I'd like to be more healthy, and they have free juice and fruit, but I forgot to ask about coffee. Damn, if they have a no coffee policy.....

So, that's my run down. Interview went well, I like this place, I think I'd be happy at the job, although it's not what I was dreaming of originally. At the end, they told me I was an excellent candidate and it was between me and one other person. However, the guy who'd be my direct boss is going on a business trip and then vacation on Monday. Which means that I will either know something today or tomorrow, or in September, which is far too long to wait. Ah, well. Gives me more time to apply to other jobs, like IFPRI.

Mmmmm.....Coffee

2005-07-29T07:25:00.000-07:00

I'm assuming that everyone knows about the Hot Coffee mod for San Andreas, but if you haven't, here's the brief description: apparently, if you modify the code and add in a bunch of cheats to GTA: San Andreas, you can unlock a sexual minigame with one of the girlfriends. A bunch of groups are upset about this, although I'm sure they didn't like the game to begin with, San Andreas has been recalled to be repackaged as "Adults Only" instead of "Mature," Sen. Lieberman called for independent analysis of the games code, and Sen. Clinton wants the FTC to investigate. Because with a new Supreme Court nomination, the continuation of a war, and proof that Rove outed a covert CIA operative, poorly detailed sex games in video games is what we want our senators spending their time on. As if this wasn't enough, via Pandagon I see that a woman is suing Rockstar Games because she bought the game for her 14-year old grandson without knowing that it contained sexual images.

Give me a break.

First of all, as a disclaimer, let me just say that I hate that game, and all GTA games. I hate with a bitter passion I usually reserve for diamond commercials, and the first time I saw GTA 3 being played I felt physically ill. Some of the most depressing fights Lex and I have had are over the fact that he plays GTA, and I think it's among the worst things pop culture has ever created. That being said, what is the deal about the sex scene?

I think that it's not something we need to waste our governments time on, for one. But also, did people not realize how disgusting this game was before? How can they be sued over this? Some of the parent groups, I think, are just seizing on anything they can to punish Rockstar for making GTA. They've surely hated it forever, which I can sympathize with. But anyone who thinks that this is what pushes it over the edge, like Ms. Florence Cohen feeling the sex scene is what makes it inappropriate, completely confuses me. Okay, she bought her kid a game called Grand Theft Auto. And I'm sure she heard some things about the game. I don't know if its in San Andreas, but in the others you have sex with prostitutes to regain your health, and then kill them to get your money back. You regularly kill random people. I wonder if she ever saw her grandson playing the game. When I've randomly looked up at Lex playing it, I've seen him beating people to death, and running away leaving bloody footprints behind him. I'd be positively relieved if the worst thing about GTA was the sex scene.

Of course, this also comes back to what I think is one of the more bizarre things about American culture. We can see people being tortured and murdered on television, watch people being beaten, things blown up, etc., but sex scenes and swear words are where we draw the line. Someday, maybe someone will explain to me how glorifying murder is more acceptable than consensual sex. I think I'll understand everything about America when I know that.

Santorum Exposed

2005-07-29T07:01:00.000-07:00

That's the title of a wonderful website set up to show just how crazy Rick Santorum actually is. Although, if you've ever read Savage Love, that name conjures up some very unpleasant images. (And if you don't know what I'm talking about, I think you're better off that way.)

One of the latest crazy things he's said is that birth control harms women. And society. He doesn't explain how that is, except by saying that it encourages sex outside of marriage, but then he doesn't explain why that would harm women or society. Firstly, by saying birth control encourages sex outside of marriage, I think he's forgetting how many people use birth control during wedlock. Or does he think the birth rate went down because when wives work, they just don't have time for their wifely duties? Secondly, he mentions at some point in his little talk that he's only referencing artificial birth control here. This is something that's always confused me. The Catholic Church is at pains to explain that "Natural Family Planning" is the most effective form of birth control. Over 99% effective, according to the pamphlet they gave us when we went to our first Pre Cana meeting. If that's so, then why on earth wouldn't teaching Natural Family Planning courses encourage people to have just as much sex out of wedlock, as long as they timed it right?

But lastly, I think he's ignoring something very important. One part of it is that when women are better off in society, there is freer access to birth control, and vice versa. This is something that's been shown over and over and over again. But besides that, just think about what a horribly insulting statement that is to make. I don't know why Santorum thinks birth control harms women but not men, yet he does. Despite the fact that women overwhelmingly want to have access to birth control. Here in the States, and in just about every country anywhere. Including developing nations, with very different social structures, like Bangladesh and India. We all want it. We all think it's great. So, either Santorum is in denial about this fact, or he thinks that he knows what is good for us better than we do. Santorum thinks that we are harming and destroying ourselves, and our puny female brains can't see that this is the case. Thank goodness we have men like Santorum to protect us.

Site found via Atrios.

May This Case Rest in Peace

2005-07-08T11:44:00.000-07:00

After Florida's State Attorney stated definitively that no criminal activity had occurred, Jeb Bush has agreed that the Schiavo case is closed. I'm sure this is good news for Michael Schiavo to have heard. But I think he deserves a bit more than the statement "Based on your conclusions, I will follow your recommendation that the inquiry by the state be closed." Jeb closed the matter in a two sentence letter. I wonder what the other sentence was. "Thank you for your report."?

The right-wing goes completely off the deep end on so many of these cases. It's not enough that they have a philosophical, ethical or political disagreement. They have to disparage, and attempt to destroy, all humanity in their opponents. They will not grant them any decency, not accept that anyone else can have a seperate view. Just look back at how anyone who doubted Saddam's ability to launch a nuclear weapon at New York was treated. As a traitor who didn't care about this country. We were right, and whether or not anyone lied, I'd at least appreciate an apology for the way in which we were treated.

I believe that Michael Schiavo is also due such an apology, as are every one of the judges who ruled in his favor. There were accusations that these were simply activist judges who despised the culture of life. They didn't respect life and weren't willing to admit that she still had a chance. They accused Michael Schiavo of the most horrible things, of being abusive, and putting her into this state from his physical abuse. Of only wanting her to die so that he could cash in on her money. And, in this last investigation, of allowing her to be put into the persistent vegetative state by not immediately calling for help. The only evidence for this was that after a decade, he cited a different time for calling 911 than he had when the event occurred. Michael Schiavo deserves an apology. Most definitely from Terri's parents, who abused him so horribly. But more than that, from all of the opportunistic politicians who used this case to further their own cynical political agendas. It was disgusting enough that they would interfere in such a deeply personal tragedy simply to score points with the religious right, and disgusting enough that they would so abuse their own power, and the checks and balances of the constitution, to play-act as if they were concerned. But what's even more disgusting is how they never simply argued that life was valuable to the end. They instead disagreed with the doctors and disparaged their motives- an autopsy showed that Frist et al were very, very wrong. They accused Michael Schiavo of being an abuser and a murderer, and they were very wrong there, too. This man went through the hell of having to lose his wife, came to terms with that, and then went through the hell of having death threats sent to him and his family, being pilloried on all media outlets as being the most fiendish of creatures, of having his life turned upside down and inside out. He deserves more than a mere two sentences, Gov. Bush. He deserves your most sincere apologies.

Not much to say....

2005-07-07T12:12:00.000-07:00

As everyone has probably heard by now, there were 4 explosions in London earlier today. The latest count is 37 dead and roughly 700 injured. As Pandagon mentioned, one of the more crude and disgusting excuses for the Iraqi war is that we're luring the terrorists into Iraq and fighting them there, instead of in our homes. As if the lives of Iraqi civilians were worth far less than the lives of white people. And as if there were a finite number of terrorists. Attacks like these call that rather harshly into question.

Living in DC, these attacks always make one's life rather surreal. I'm sure that's the case in any major city. Security is up at the metro stations here. While I was having my lunch, outside the Federal Triangle stop (where the EPA, USTR, and others are) there were police walking around with bomb-sniffing dogs. Transit and DC police are openly carrying machine guns elsewhere. Whenever this happens, I always agree with FDR that Freedom from Fear is one of the most important freedoms to have. It's a simple thing, but the freedom to walk around town without seeing machine guns and police very prominently surveying the area, or without hearing constant reminders to be vigilant being piped into the metro station, is a very, very valuable one.

Also today, Egypt has confirmed that Ihab al-Sherif, their ambassador to Iraq, was killed by al-Zarqawi's group. They said that he was a traitor to his faith.

At some point we need to realize that whatever we're doing to stop terrorism, it isn't working. We need a new strategy, in Iraq and elsewhere. We need to have some clear cut, achievable goals. It can't be to kill and/or arrest everyone who we suspect of being a terrorist. The goal should be that ordinary citizens can walk down the streets of any country, without fearing for their lives. That needs to be the end. We just need to work on the means.

Remember when politicians prentended to care?

2005-07-06T13:50:00.000-07:00

Gov. Ehrlich (R-MD) is under a little bit of political heat for holding a fund-raiser at an all-white country club in Maryland on June 20. Shocking and offensive, you say? Absolutely deserving of criticism and perhaps the end of a persons' political career, especially considering that this is a state where a full 27.9% of the population is African American, slightly more than twice the national average, you say? Why, I couldn't agree more. And just wait. This article gets even more shocking.

Ehrlich is upset by the criticism! He's calling the African-American community hypocrites, with some good reason, because they failed to criticize Democrats who had held fundraising events there. That's right. Apparently, in Maryland, which is below the Mason-Dixon line, may I remind you, it's considered a good political move to host a fund-raiser at the all-white Elkridge club. At least the Democrats have given a better, if more dishonest, response to the criticism:

A campaign spokeswoman for a leading Democratic politician, Baltimore County Executive James T. Smith Jr., confirmed yesterday that a supporter hosted a fund-raiser for him at Elkridge on May 4.
"Jim Smith has never belonged to a country club in his life. He was not aware of the country club's membership composition, and as the leader of a diverse county, he appreciates that it has been brought to his attention. Clearly he will not have future campaign events hosted at this location," said Rachael Rice, a fund-raising consultant for the Smith campaign. ......
Ehrlich, who said that he has spoken at the Elkridge Club "many, many times over the years sponsored by different groups," said he was not concerned about who belonged to the club.
"I don't know what their membership is, and guess what? It's not my business," Ehrlich said in the radio interview. "It's a private club, which we rented. I had no idea, and I guess neither did any of the prominent Democrats who held fund-raisers there in the past."
Ehrlich raised $100,000 at a $1,000-a-head golf fund-raiser at the club.
Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, who is African-American, said he hadn't talked to the governor about the event and wasn't concerned by it.
"I don't know that much about the club, the membership, nor do I care, quite frankly, because I don't play golf. It's not an issue with me," Steele told the Associated Press yesterday.

Oy. At least Smith recognizes that he's done wrong.

What's really, really amazing in all this, though, is that there's an all-white country club! Well, of course, one expects country clubs to be about as WASPY as one can get, but they're supposed to pretend they're not racists! Apparently, "membership restrictions remain legal under Maryland's public accommodations law, which contains an exemption that permits private clubs to exclude women, Jews, blacks and other minority groups if its members so desire." I didn't know I still had a capacity for surprise, but apparently, I do. And, for the record, all these clubs always add that they are not, in actuality, bigots, because they will allow black people, women, Jews, and other non-WASPs dine at the club or come as guests. But that's really just a bunch of crap, because they still don't allow these people as members, do they? Elkridge also claims that there is no law on the books prohibiting them from having an African American member. It's just a wacky coincidence that they've been all-white since their founding 127 years ago.

And to all my friends who keep talking up Maryland over Virginia: you may be a blue state and part of the Union, but don't get too cocky. You're still the South.

Pressing Problems

2005-06-15T11:36:00.000-07:00

The annual ammendment that would ban flag-burning is on the table again. Seems that a lot of scholars have their money on it passing this time around, given the paranoid climate in which we live. Others say it would be close. We can only hope that all thestates won't pass an ammendment to the constitution that would ban desecrating the flag.

There are two objections to this issue, as far as I'm concerned. One is the obvious impediment tot he freedom of speech. A people doesn't recognize the importance of a right to freedom of speech so that anyone can say something perfectly agreeable to all. Freedom of speech (and symbolic action) is meant to protect forms of protest, political disagreements, and the rights of people to say/demonstrate things that some people might even find offensive, like the argument that Hollywood is run by a bunch of secular jews who hate American family valuse and love anal sex.

The other point that's worth mentioning is that this ammendment represents a colossal waste of time, serving for no other reason to score political points with some nationalistic banter, to criticize those libruls who actually revere the brilliance of the Founding Fathers in creating a bill of rights, to pillory those librul activist judges who a decade ago enforced the bill of rights, and to avoid more serious issues. (The discussion of the issue is begin around the fourth of July. How freakin' cliched is that?) There is no pressing need to do this, however, no reports of flag desecration streaming in from across the nation. Even if it weren't a freedom of speech issue, a law isn't necessary. The Citizens Flag Alliance, an advocacy group that decided the most important issue facing society was the need for an ammendment banning flag desecration, reports of only one such incident last year. One. Damn, these flags burnings are spreading like wildfire. Meanwhile, we have all sorts of conservatives calling for the murder of judges. If we're going to place restrictions on freedom of speech, perhaps we could restrict not-so-veiled murder threates, instead.

Hero in the Eyes of Cornyn

2005-06-15T11:35:00.000-07:00

There's was a shooting outside a Connecticut courtroom this morning. Right now there's one dead, but no other details are being released. The article doesn't say who did it or why, but I think it's safe to assume it was anger at activist judges.

Don't Think of Framing

2005-06-06T11:34:00.000-07:00

I just started reading Don't Think of an Elephant. Despite all the hype, and book groups around it, and Howard Dean saying that every progressive just has to read it, I wasn't that excited. But I always do what Howard Dean says, so I finally got around to getting it from the library.

First thing I notice is his whole "family" model of democracy. I'd heard this before, but he calls the conservatives "Strict Fathers" politically, and the progressives "Nurturant Parents." According to Lakoff, the second one is gender neutral, because that's the way progressives are, but that's just a dance around the obvious male/female seperation. The nurturant parent is always the mother in our American frames. But, more importantly, when I really get into it, I think he's wrong. Firstly, for idealistic libertarians, and I do know some, they certainly fall more into the 'nurturant parent' model where everyone should be helped to grow, and pursue their talents, and they should be rewarded for doing so great. Secondly, though, he lists six types of progressives and says they're all forms of the nurturant parent. Some that stand out to me: "Identity Politics Progressives," who feel that it's time for their oppressed group to get their share. (Incidentally, the way he phrases that sounds so negative, doesn't it? Seems like a guy who knows framing should realize that.) "Environmentalists," which explains itself, and "Antiauthoritarians," who say we have to fight the illegitimate sources of power. Lakoff states that these are all part of the "nurturant parent" model, but he doesn't really explain why, and he needs to. Because my first thought was, "Really? Black Panthers and AIM are nurturant, huh? Edward Abbey, bane of eco-feminists, fits into this model? And where do the guys who throw bricks through Starbucks come in?" So, I must disagree with what he claims is our constant frame.

Secondly, the book starts to get irritating if you're reading it in a sitting, as I tried to. Lakoff clearly wrote the thing in such a way that each chapter could be reproduced and reprinted individually without relying on the others. So, it gets very repetitive, as each chapter includes a slightly different account of what the 'strict father' and 'nurturant parent' frames are, and just how we all have frames.

So, I'm not sure what I think of the book yet, because I'm not quite done. But my early verdict is that it's not all it's cracked up to be. It's good in that it raises the issue. And he points out how some of the story-lines that medias buy into help with the framing, and ignore so much of the real story. But that's really something all Good Progressives should know by now. And man, that parenting framework bugs me. Along with the previous criticisms, I find myself thinking that part of my progressive framework is a total rejection of the 'parent' model altogether and a feeling that we should all be equals. My wish to help the less fortunate doesn't come from my feeling that I need to help my community to help my child grow (whatever he means by that.) It comes from just what I said-they're less fortunate. And I have a Rawlsian view, if I'd been in that position, from that starting point, what sort of a society would I have hoped for? There but for the Grace of God/fortune/cruel whims of fate/dumb meaningless luck go I, and Do Unto Others and all that, you know. So, maybe that's in his frame, but he certainly doesn't lead me to believe that. Well, maybe the second half will be more insightful.

Congratulate Good Business

2005-06-03T11:32:00.000-07:00

CVS recently sent a statement to Planned Parenthood explaining that they carry all birth control medications, including emergency contraceptives, and they dispense them to anyone. Under their guidelines, it is not acceptable for a pharmacists to discuss moral implications of birth control with a woman, or to deny her medication. Hooray for CVS!

If you want to thank them, you can do it here, which anne_jumps pointed out. I suggest that everyone shows their support to this pharmacy. I know I am. Now that I can't get ultra-cheap medication from AU Health Center anymore, unfortunately, I fully intend to get all my medications from CVS. And maybe any candy, pencils, or cough medicine I need, too.

Philosopher's are Cool

2005-06-03T08:32:00.000-07:00

This is pretty awesome. I'd always liked Jeremy Bentham (one of the founding fathers of utilitarianism) but now I like him so much more. Okay, Bentham was the founder of the University College of London. When he died, he specified in his will that he wanted his body preserved, and he required that he be president every year at the annual governor's meetings of the college. So, his skeleton is preserved, and dressed in clothes, and his face and hands are made of wax.. Every year they wheel him out to the meeting. That is soooo cool. I need to tell my mom. Since she wants to be stuffed when she dies with a motion-activated recording, and spend one third of each year in a different child's house with a coffee cup and nagging us, I'm sure she'd appreciate Bentham's actions.

Incidentally, anyone who hasn't read Partly Cloudy Patriot and Assassination Vacation by Sarah Vowell really should. The above tidbit was learned from the latter book. I've also learned that I think I like Pres. Garfield, a person I never really thought about other than associating him with the cat. But, turns out he was an avid reader, and, from what Vowell says, when you read his diary you see that his life could be summed up by, "I'd rather be reading." Since that is also the story of my life, I like the guy. Reading is also part of the reason I've been so absent from live-journal. Now that I am not required to be in front of the computer trying to think of interesting things to write about Central Asia, or reading articles about it, I've found that I can stay away from the computer and read. And I have read, and read, and read, and read. At least a dozen books since school ended the first week of May. Good times. But now I have actual assignments again at the EPA. *sigh* So, it's back to collecting data and editing reports. Le sigh.

Hooray, Another Reading List!

2005-06-02T08:31:00.000-07:00

Well, as you may or may not have seen, the website Human Events created a list of the "10 Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Century." I'm not quite sure how they mean 'harmful,' but they do have a lot of good books there. The only one I agree with their criticism of is Mein Kampf. But there I would say that it wasn't the book that was so harmful, since no one even read it before Hitler came to power.

Anyway, take a look at some of the books, and their runners-up. Hoo-boy. Kinsey's book, Sexual Behavior of the Human Male, is up there, although his follow-up report on women didn't make the list. I suppose it wasn't as harmful since the damage had already been done, and we were being led down the path to a crazed hedonistic society where people weren't arrested for oral sex anymore, or crossing state lines with a girl they were going to have sex with. Dear Lord, what has our nation come to. The Feminine Mystique is up there, too, which also isn't much of a surprise.

What I really wish, though, is that the runners-up would have an explanation, because there are some odd choices there. Mill's On Liberty is a runner-up. On Liberty?!?! What the hell do they have against that? I'm a little upset and confused, though. How could On Liberty be there but not Mill's much more revolutionary On the Subjugation of Women, or Three Essays on Religion.

Origin of the Species made the list as a runner-up. I'd assume for espousing the dangerous idea that God didn't create the world just as it is in a mere 6 days. Madness and Civilization is there. Again, why that instead of any other of Focault's book, I'm not quite sure, but I'm proud to have so many of my favorite philosopher's on the list. That dangerous tract that has led to such horrible things as banning carcinogens in our food, Silent Spring, is there.

Well, I'm going to end up listing them all if I'm not careful. So, go to the site and check out the list. Congratulate yourself if you've been moved by any of the books. And then, the next time someone says how we need to dialogue with the right, try to figure out how you dialogue with someone who thinks On Liberty and Origin of the Species are two of the most harmful books ever written, but not Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Via: all sorts of sites, like This Modern World and Digby.

Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and give unto Bush what is Mine

2005-05-06T21:17:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading God's Politics, in which Jim Wallis makes a good case for why religion should be more progressive, and expresses a confusion as to why the left seems so unwilling to speak to speak in the langauge of faith, and so fearful and distrustful of religion. Why could that be? Why, maybe it's because of things like this.

Pastor Chan Chandler, of a small Baptist church in North Carolina, decided to excommunicate anyone in the congregation who didn't support President Bush. Apparently, he also told his flock before the election that if any people were planning to vote for Kerry, they should either leave the church or repent. This is very disturbing to me, and it should be to everyone. Especially when combined with all those Catholic churches that tried to deny communion to pro-choice politicians or anyone who voted for Kerry. Now, for the life of me, I can't imagine why someone with that sort of Pastor wouldn't have just left to go to a new church in the first place, but if they decided to stay, they should have been allowed.

I read somewhere that the religious right didn't realize what a gift the first ammendment was to Christianity. That by seperating the church and state, the founders had also been protecting Christianity from itself, even if it was intentional, because the deep rivalries that occurred within the Church when there was one interpretation of Christianity divided up all religious people, as well as leading to a persecution of those who weren't faithful in exactly the same way. I'm expressing this uneloquently, but I do agree with that sentiment. How dare these right wing zealots say that their faith is better in some way than mine, or than my fiances, or than my family's? How dare they say that because they put more stock in, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman," than, "Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness," they're better Christians than those who would say peace is more important? (Incidentally, the same chapter (Leviticus) that says lying with a man as you do with a woman is detestable, also says that lying with a woman in menses is an abomination. Where are the Fred Phelps types to ensure that doesn't happen?)

I'm sick of this arrogance. I'm sick of this puritanical take over of religion and the country. Not to mention I'm sick of the assumption that a Christian-run nation would be better than secular humanism. As another Baptist Pastor recently said, the Religious Right is trying to take our country back to a place that 1700 years of history has proven to us just doesn't work.

Hopefully, East Waynesville Baptist Church will get its tax-exempt status revoked for meddling in politics, as the NC Dem Party Chairman is currently pushing for. I personally think that church's should always be taxed. After all, Jesus said it was right.

Making kids cry isn't always a good thing

2005-04-28T21:21:00.000-07:00

Christina Hoff Summers was on the Daily Show last night, hawking her new book. She is a woman who I strongly dislike. A fellow at the extremely conservative American Enterprise Institute, and someone who is not only stridently anti-feminist, but someone who has spent a great deal of time downplaying the rate of rape in the United States and saying it's no big deal.

She's one of those people who think that the left has turned America into a nation where we're all afraid to hurt each others feelings, and competition has been outlawed. I don't think we're quite to that point in the United States, but if we are, it can be blamed on midwesterners, not the leftists. Go to Indiana- you won't find a group more concerned about hurting someone's feelings anywhere, except maybe Minnesota. And that's in America's heartland!

So, her new book is entitled, "One Nation Under Therapy," and from what I heard it's just chock full of shocking anecdotal evidence that our children aren't getting beat on and stressed out enough in school. We're molly coddling these youngsters to an alarming degree, and you wouldn't even believe the crazy programs schools are doing! Banning tag! Outlawing red pens! Forbidding team sports! It's insane I tell, you insane! So insane that one will even start to ask oneself, Could this be real? That's what I was wondering while I was watching her on the show, and it's why I want to get the book. Because I strongly suspect that it's not real.

The first clue that this book may not be entirely honest came when Summers started talking about a movement in schools to ban tag, and replace it with a game called Circle of Friends. (Well, actually, the first clue came when Summers walked out on the stage.) So, Jon Stewart asked if that was actually happening in schools, and how prevalent it was. Her answer was, "It's recommended in a book...." Ahhhh. It's recommended. That's a very interesting choice of words there. You'd think that if she'd actually found that at any school, she would have been happy to give us a school, or tell us a number of how many school districts were taking such a silly step as banning tag to boost children's self esteem. But she didn't. She said it was recommended in a book that she found.

She then spent most of the rest of her time talking about this silly crusade against the red pen. There's been a push lately to move away from red to mark negative answers, because red is a negative color, and if the teacher uses a more soothing color like purple it's less confrontational, and makes students more comfortable about their work. But I would like Ms. Summers to know that it's not just a movement to ban red pens. It's also to mark what's correct on tests instead of what's incorrect. It makes students more comfortable, and students tend to do better as a result of it. But I suppose good results aren't anything if they're based off of touchy feely emotions, instead of a good whoopin' like they gave out back in Ms. Summers day.

I'd very, very much like to read this book and see what she says. I have a feeling it's a load of railing against an evil that doesn't exist. Firstly, the more silly sounding programs are most likely not nearly as common as she would have us believe. Jon Stewart asked her a couple times how prevalent these programs really are, and she never gave him a straight answer. She just replied with more anecdotes, which I suspect is all she's got. Secondly, I'm curious as to whether there's any real research in her book on whether or not these programs are actually hurting America. Just because they're different, doesn't mean they're bad. You can't just get up there and shout, "They're banning tag! They're banning red ink! Look what those silly emotional liberals have done to our country!" If I'm going to get upset about this, I need to know what solid benefit tag and red ink have for our school systems. And if there's none, then she's just upset that the world she knows is changing. But you know what? Things change. And it's not always bad.

eww

2005-04-25T21:19:00.000-07:00

Flounder genes in tomatoes are weird enough. But human genes in rice? I don't want to eat people.

Scientists have begun putting genes from human beings into food crops in a dramatic extension of genetic modification. The move, which is causing disgust and revulsion among critics, is bound to strengthen accusations that GM technology is creating "Frankenstein foods" and drive the controversy surrounding it to new heights. ...

In the first modification of its kind, Japanese researchers have inserted a gene from the human liver into rice to enable it to digest pesticides and industrial chemicals. The gene makes an enzyme, code-named CPY2B6, which is particularly good at breaking down harmful chemicals in the body.

Present GM crops are modified with genes from bacteria to make them tolerate herbicides, so that they are not harmed when fields are sprayed to kill weeds. But most of them are only able to deal with a single herbicide, which means that it has to be used over and over again, allowing weeds to build up resistance to it.

But the researchers at the National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences in Tsukuba, north of Tokyo, have found that adding the human touch gave the rice immunity to 13 different herbicides. This would mean that weeds could be kept down by constantly changing the chemicals used

I'm not sure I can put my finger on a specific reason that using human genes is any more unethical than any other gm creation. But it certainly creeps me out.

Via Atrios.

I think I'll flee to North Korea

2005-04-25T06:34:00.000-07:00

Are you sick of partisan politics interfering with protecting the homeland? And laws that special interest groups set up binding our Homeland Security Office? Do you wish that there couldn't be any activist judge hanging over Michael Chertoff's shoulders? In fact, are you sick of all laws whatsoever? Wish you could bring the efficiency of a dictatorship to the God-given Goodness of the United States? Well, look no further. Because H.R. 418, The Real ID Act, is here to make it happen.

H.R. 418 is ostensibly an only slightly controversial bill that would making it more difficult for non-US born citizens to become citizens, and would limit the types of identification they could have. For instance, they could no longer be issued a driver's license, but a 'guest permit,' which could seriously limit how much they could move about the country. Airlines aren't mandated to accept them as identification.

There are enough problems with just this part of the bill, however, in the midst of laying out the rules of who can never come into the country, like the children of those who are suspected to be members of organizations suspected of terrorist activity, there's this sneaky little section:

"Sec. 102 (c)(1)
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, ALL LAWS such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section."
Sec. 102(c)(2)
No Judicial Review--Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), NO COURT SHALL HAVE JURISDICITON--
(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision."

Did you all get that? You should read it again to be sure. Memorize it. Alright, absorbed all that? The Secretary can waive any laws, state or federal, if they're interfering with protecting the Homeland. This decision isn't subject to any judicial review, at any time, under any circumstances, in any district. Basically, Michael Chertoff has the right to get rid of any rules that interfere with what he's doing to protect the border. They say it's to expedite completion of the current fence being built along Mexico, but there's nothing to restrict it to that. And even if it is along the way of the fence, he can eliminate all environmental impact assessments. He can waive the endangered species act. If Chertoff thinks child labor would make this go faster, he can use child labor. If he thinks prostitution would help worker morale, he can bus in some prostitutes. If he thinks that eliminating all OSHA standards would help, he can get rid of them. Heck, if he wants to go around murdering people he can. I realize that sounds a bit extreme, but just re-read that section. The Secretary can waive any law. Heck, not only can he waive them, he shall waive them. And there is no judicial review.

So, don't worry. Nothing, not even state or federal law, will any longer get in the way of protecting the Homeland. And there's nothing those damn activist judges can do about it.

If you're interested in learning who the 141 sponsors of this bill on the house side are, just go to Thomas, the handy site for all your legislative needs.

War Training should Promote Better Tolerance

2005-04-19T23:55:00.000-07:00

Well, this is more than just a little bit disturbing:

Less than two years after it was plunged into a rape scandal, the Air Force Academy is scrambling to address complaints that evangelical Christians wield so much influence at the school that anti-Semitism and other forms of religious harassment have become pervasive.

There have been 55 complaints of religious discrimination at the academy in the past four years, including cases in which a Jewish cadet was told the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus and another was called a Christ killer by a fellow cadet.

Again, outrage is just constantly being replaced by disbelief. What on earth is wrong with our country? The Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus? That's just.... whoa. I don't expect to actually read that in the paper these days. I'd like to think that sort of view is completely relegated to the fringes of the fringes. Of course, Focus on the Family said that there was no such intolerance, except in the anti-Christian bigotry that was going on at the school. Out of the 4300 students, 4020 are Christian or Mormon, but the FoF spokesman says there's all sorts of bigotry againt them from the other 280 students. But their leader says SpongeBob is recruiting kids to a homosexual lifestyle, so we do have to take what they say with a fairly large grain of salt.

You have to wonder, though. If they're this intolerant here in the states, how are these healthy young Christian recurits acting when we send them overseas? I'm sure they're helping to win the hearts and minds of our enemies.

Why do Mormons hate President Bush?

2005-04-19T23:54:00.000-07:00

Utah rejected the No Child Left Behind act today. I'm pretty happy about it because 1) I hate the act, 2) I like any time relatively conservative areas disagree with President Bush, and 3) when Sec. Spellings said that people who spoke out against the act would be disappointed, she was pretty much talking to Utah.

One thing, though. I'd really like to see a more in depth discussion of this. According to the article, Utah rejected No Child Left Behind because of 'unfunded mandates,' and because they prefer their U-PASS system, which compares a student's grades from one year to the next, to the No Child Left Behind tests, which compared a student's grades to the grades from other students in previous years. I think that there should be some flexibility, but I just can't see a state turning their back on a potential $76 million, or a Republican governor turning their back on Bush, because they disagree on the way tests should be designed.

2005-04-19T23:53:00.000-07:00

Looks like we got a new pope. Cardinal Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict XVI. I'm a little disppointed. I was hoping for someone a bit more progressive. Or at least, someone who wasn't known throughout the church as the most conservative guy there was, who keeps railing against relativism and liberalism.

What I found interesting, and slightly troubling, was the statement that, " Ratzinger turned 78 on Saturday. His age clearly was a factor among cardinals who favored a "transitional" pope who could skillfully lead the church as it absorbs John Paul II's legacy, rather than a younger cardinal who could wind up with another long pontificate." So, basically, they chose a guy who they thought would die soon. Because this is supposed to be a lifetime gig.

Also interesting, I just learned that Ratzinger is a former Hitler Youth. Yup, that's right, he joined up when he was 14, as compared to Pope John Paul II, who was in an anti-Nazi theatre troupe. (Which I just think is so cool. But I'm a nerd.) I guess he joined when it was mandatory, and his father was very anti-Nazi, they had to move because of it. But still, very troubling. And I wonder why that hasn't been talked about more. He's also come under some fire for 'theological anti-Semitism' for saying that Jewish history and scripture "reach fulfillment only in Christ." He also signed a document stating that eternal salvation could only be found through the Catholic Church. Which is considered by many to be a hardline stance, although I'd always sort of thought that they felt that way over there. But I'm actually glad to learn that that was a controversial statement.

Well, anyway, he's the Pope now. I hope he's a good one, and maybe he'll surprise us all. I haven't really heard anything about how he will address poverty, the sex abuse scandals, or the war, and I'm very interested in those topics. As to anything else, though, I'm not holding my breath about my chances to be a priest under Benedict XVIs reign.

Update: Great, just great. Looks like Ratzinger also said that a vote for a politician because they were pro-choice or allowed euthanasia was a sin and a great evil, and that it was quite alright to refuse to give communion to politicians like Kerry. And his reaction to the molestation charges... well, actually, he was right along with the rest of the Church on that.

Refuse the pills, Raise the baby

2005-04-19T23:52:00.000-07:00

More controversy on the pharmaceutical world. Well, actually, it's the same controversy. That damnable Gov. Blagojevich is trying to take away pharmacists right to impose their worldview on any poor frightened girl who comes to their counter. And this might inspire other people to do the same, and take away a pharmacist's "Right of Conscience." I've been wondering, is there any such thing as a Right of Conscience for pharmacists? Was that ever considered a staple of their profession? Because I don't think you can take away a right that's never existed. I was also wondering, could my vegan sister refuse to fill a prescription for Premarin? Because it's her "Right of Conscience" that pregnant mares shouldn't be imprisoned to make menopause medication. Heck, I don't even think we should make it. Although I'd fill a prescription.

One surprising thing in the article? Sen. Kerry teamed up with Sen. Santorum to propose: "the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which would allow a pharmacist to refuse to dispense certain drugs as long as another pharmacist on duty would." With Santorum! You know, I get e-mails from Kerry just about every other day about how he's fighting the good fight, trying to stop the bankruptcy bill or trying to stop Bush's social security plan, or trying to help working families. He never sent me an e-mail telling me that he thought pharmacist's had a right not to give me drugs. Although, while I initially felt betrayed when I saw it (especially because he's sponsoring it with Santorum) it might be some sort of a stop gap, making sure a measure gets passed ensuring someone on duty will fill your prescription, so that one won't get passed saying the pharmacist can confiscate your prescription and tell you to go to hell, you murderous whore.

However, I have a better compromise position. We will make a law saying that you do not have to fill the girl's prescription. However, when that happens, you will agree to adopt the child, and raise it as your own afterwards. You will also pay for all of her pre-natal care, and any lost wages from when she's out due to pregnancy related reasons. If her parents kick her out, you will find a nice place for her to stay. Not with you, you judgemental pricks, but get her a good apartment. You can assume all care for the child, since you are the one that decided it had to be born. Not her, not the father, but you, some anonymous pharmacist who thinks they can pass judgement on what other people should do with their lives.

I need to get this off my chest

2005-04-19T23:46:00.000-07:00

Nazi comparisons devalue all those who lost their lives or family members to the Nazi's, and show a stunning lack of appreciation for the magnitude of that horror. Like so many twisted individuals, I enjoy a good Nazi comparison in jest. But there seem to be so many who are using this seriously now...

In particular, there a bunch of comparisons between the pro-choice community and Nazis, becuase we're somehow the same thing. Or something. And I hear abortion compared to some sort of genocide. Just for the record, genocide is defined as, " The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." So, whatever one's personal feelings on abortion, it does not in any way, at all, comprise a genocide.

And if you're really so damn worried about genocide, there are plenty of real life ones going on in the world today. But that's not the concern, is it? No, the "pro-life" crowd has just settled on a term that has universally bad connotations, and is just throwing it around, ignoring the actual meaning of what they're saying, devaluing the word, and making it harder to take real genocides seriously.

PETA should team up with Food Network

2005-04-16T23:52:00.000-07:00

On the Secret Life of Eggs on Food Network they just went to visit the largest cage-free organic egg farm in the United States, to show us where our eggs come from. I'd like to see them visit an average caged chicken, factory egg farm.

Something's Gotta Break

2005-04-15T23:51:00.000-07:00

Really, I mean it. I don't see how much further the Republicans can push this crap. There has to be some point where people realize that they disagree with some things on the right, and yet don't think that they're going to Hell.

The latest in the Religious Warfare is that Frist is joining a group in saying, "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith," in their television commercials. The goal being to portray Democrats as being against people of faith. Oh, come on. First of all, what, are we giving some sort of religious test to people in judicial positions now? Secondly, one of the guys participating in the teleconference on these noble faithful judges who are being filibustered is James "Sponge-Bob" Dobson, and I just don't see how he has any credibility. After saying that the favorite show of stoners is trying to recurity kids to a homosexual lifestyle, how do people still listen to you?

But, I'd also like to know, how many judicial nominees have been stomped on because they were too religious? I know one, Charles Pickering, was filibustered in part because he acted agressively, and perhaps unethically, in order to make sure that someone convicted of burning a cross on an African American families lawn got a reduced sentence. William Myers had some complaints about him because he spent so much time advocating for mining and grazing rights in the west that a third of the ABA panel that reviews nominees thought he was unqualified, and none of them rated him 'well-qualified.' One justice Priscilla Owens, had some questionable rulings in dismissing sexual discrimination cases, and went so far in trying to break down Roe v. Wade that, in a twiste of irony, Alberto Gonzales said that her ruling constituted and 'unconcsionable act of judicial activism.' Dennis Shedd, who was eventually confirmed, said that in one sexual discrimination case the supervisor's conduct was, 'clearly, from an objective standpoint, sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile and abusive work environment,' but decided to go ahead and find on the side of the employer anyway. That was one of the complaints about him.

Admittedly, I don't know all of the judges who were nominated, but I only know of one who was complained about specifically for his 'faith,' and that was because he said outright that the role of judges had to be to bring a Christian rule to the country. And that made some people a little nervous, which I'm sure everyone understand. Outside of that, I don't remember anything about 'faith' being brought up in the nominations. It was all because shady practices, a tendency to overlook laws in favor of aggressively supporting business rights or throwing out civil rights cases, or, in the case of Thomas Griffith, practicing law without a licence for three years and lying about it. I'd like to see a list of the judges that all these anti-Christian leftists have condemned because of their strident faith. Because it looks to me like there might be more to it than that.

Grumble Grumble

2005-04-15T23:50:00.000-07:00

Alright, we've got our damn baseball team now in DC. And we're building them a new staduim. I don't know how much the total cost is, but it came in $46 million over-budget, so the total cost is probably way over that. Even though we have a perfectly good stadium up here that's usually used for DC United, and they can play baseball in. It's what they're using temporarily. But you know what? New stadium or no new stadium, we don't need a baseball team here. Or, if we're going to have one (and I do enjoy baseball games when it's not freezing outside) there has to be some rule against having the games right after work.

Last night was Opening Day for the Nationals, at least during the season at their game, and the game started at 7, meaning that people were heading down there as early as 5:30. Which means that in addition to all the normal Rush Hour traffic, there were thousands more people. And it sucked. We can't handle baseball and rush hour traffic at the same time. And, what makes it worse, is that people were taking their children to the games! Most of these baseball people were clearly not used to rush hour traffic, where it's completely acceptable to push over a stroller and the parent pushing it they're standing in the walking lane on the escalators.

I'm very much not looking forward to the continuation of baseball season. And even though I plan on going to the weekend games during the summer, that isn't going to keep me from swearing under my breath and silently cursing all the people who go to the baseball games on weeknights

Next you'll be saying not all Hoosiers think alike

2005-04-11T23:48:00.000-07:00

Amazing. The New York Times, keeping its title as the paper of record, has an absolutely stunning piece of journalism today. They claim, if you can believe this earth shattering revelation, that not all Catholics think exactly the same. In fact, some of them actually disagree with the late Pope on issues like abortion, ordaining women, and birth control. Some people even go to church after having children after wedlock. If you can imagine. It's almost as if not all Catholics have their every move decided by the Papacy. Why, maybe one day we could even have a Catholic president, since he won't only bow down to Rome. Wouldn't that be something? Oh, wait....

What's really sad is that while the above was my initial reaction, I think some people need to read this article. I just wish that instead of doing it in homage of Pope John Paul II, they had put it out during the election season, and put to death that silly 'Cafeteria Catholic' criticism of Kerry. Everyone is. While I'm sure they exist, I have yet to actually meet in person a Catholic who thought birth control was the devil's work. And, if anything, I think this article from the liberal media is missing some very crucial things. They discuss how some people disagree with the Church on birth control and ordaining women. Would have been nice if they talked to some of the Catholics who support the war in Iraq and believe in the death penalty, as JP spoke out against those alot, too. You know, calling the war a defeat for humanity and all.

But no, you can be more conservative than the Holy Father and be a good Catholic, it's just if you're a bit more liberal that you get criticized. Wolf Blitzer even said that Novak was a better Catholic than Begala. I believe there he was referencing the Ecumenical Council that stated if someone spoke out against your president, you should target his wife and put her and those she's talked to in danger. Perhaps we should send this article on to Blitzer...

It's not just Catholicism that's plagued with this crticism, though. It's Christianity, heck, all of religion, these days that's labelled as conservative, and if you're liberal, you're just some evil atheist, which makes you a bad, horrible person. (Although Jews can get away with being liberal and still good Jews, although they're still horrible people. You know, the ones who control Hollywood, hate Christianity, and love anal sex. Don't know what I'm talking about? Go here.) This particular argument (the religion one, not that crazy ecular Jewish one) drives me crazy. Should I argue that it doesn't really matter if a person is religious, or particularly Christian, or not to make them a good person, or someone with a deserving opinion on how to run America? Or should I argue that of course you can have some liberal thoughts and be Christian, didn't they ever read the Gospels?

This whole religious obsession with politics is ridiculous. Religion will never present a group of people who are uniform in their beliefs. That's called a cult, and they usually end with a big bowl of Kool-Aid. And, amazingly, agnostics and atheists can have worthwhile beliefs, too. I hear some of them don't even want to force Christians to burn Bibles in celebration of gay marriage while teenagers are getting abortions. Maybe atheists even have a wide spectrum of beliefs and moral standards. Now there's something for New York Times to investigate....

We've got to Fight for our Right to Kill Children

2005-04-09T23:47:00.000-07:00

Okay, so, everyone's probably heard about Sen. John "Box-Turtle" Cornyn's recent remarks, right? The one where he said, ""I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence." Evidently suggesting that when a man on trial for rape and murder shot three people, he was just making a political statement.

As I read somewhere else, a more concise version of his and DeLay's speeches were, "That's a nice judiciary you got there. Be a shame if something... happened to it."

Now, what's less discussed, though, is the reason for the comments. When I first read them, I assumed that, like DeLay's veiled threat, it was over the Schiavo ruling. But no, it was in response to the decision a while back that it was unconstitutional to execute minors. Alright, that's not too shocking. The guy is kind of crazy. But now a bunch of conservatives are clamoring against it, because Justice Kennedy cited international norms in his decision. My personal favorite statement is from Edward Vierra, who said that Kennedy's decision "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law." What madness is this! Not killing minors is a satanic principle? Damn, did I miss out on that part of church doctrine.

Shclafly has chimed in on this, too, not only saying that Kennedy should be impeached, but that we needed to support the people like DeLay and Cornyn who are speaking out against these evil, evil activist judges.

Alright. Part of conservatism has for ages been that America should never, ever, even know what the rest of the world is doing, let alone use it to base our decisions. So I guess I can see why they'd be upset by citing international norms. But honestly, could they have found a different case? Or at least not decided this was their cause du jour? They're getting all upset because we can't execute minors any more? This is their Culture of Life?

As I quoted my friend Matt saying before, "I can understand being conservative, but what about being afraid of change makes you feel the need to kill children?"

Jesus. If the Democrats can't turn this to our favor, we don't deserve to have a party.

Semi-Random thought...

2005-04-08T23:45:00.000-07:00

One of my classes had a visit to the National Resources Defense Council today, and the head of their international department mentioned to us all the cultural differences, even in the developed world, that we had to overcome.

He used the example that in Europe they don't debate climate change, and State of Fear certainly isn't a bestseller over there. In Europe the idea of Genetically Modified food was one that raised a huge debate, and many people were afraid of the unintended consequences to those who didn't want GMOs. Here the GMO debate doesn't seem able to gain traction.

One the other hand, we have Seatbelt Laws in the states, whereas for the most part they don't exist in the EU. Here there are constant debates over smoking areas, and that's a complete non-issue in Europe.

I thought that was a very interesting point, and it got me thinking. Who's really for individual liberties?

Unrelated, but also undeserving of its own post: I think I've said this before, but the word "revolutionary" is really used far too often in commercials. A razor is not going to revolutionize anything, nor is body lotion, electronic entertainment equipment, or a vaccuum cleaner. So those makers can get over themselves. And while I'm ranting about television hyperbole, a "television event of our lifetime," refers to something like the first ever televised Moon Landing. Not the premiere of a new sitcom or made for tv docudrama.

Let's Double World Population Again

2005-04-08T23:43:00.000-07:00

I'm a bit late posting this, but there has been a lot of talk lately about "Pharmacist's Rights," the mistaken belief that a pharmacist has the right not to fill a prescription if they are morally against it. Unsurprisingly, this is almost entirely addressed to birth control, and the Pharmacist's for Life are saying that they have the right not only to not fill a prescription, but also to not recommend a pharmacist who would. Which is utter bullshit. You don't have the right not to do your damn job, and it's not your place to make my ethical decisions for me. And as far I'm concerned, birth control isn't an ethical decision.

There are so many arguments against the idea that you can not fill a prescription because you're against birth control pills and the morning-after pill. The first thing that leaps to mind for me is that if you're a Christian Scientist, you certainly don't go into pharmacy, becuase you're morally against medicine. Could one then take this job and just sit around all day, since you don't have to fill anything?

The second idea that leaps to mind is that I need a pharmacy degree so that I can start the organization, "Pharmacists for the Sanctity of Marriage." What we would support is refusing to fill any prescriptions for Viagra or Cialis without a marriage certificate, and proof that it would be used with the man's first wife. We're certainly not going to fill prescriptions of a man who has forced another woman to become an adulteress. Let's just see how quickly these pharmacist's rights arguments would disappear then, eh?

What Lex pointed out was this: how long until someone uses this to argue that they don't have to give someone the triple cocktail, because HIV is a curse from God for their behavior? Or refuses to give out medication for STDs in general. The idea that HIV is actually punishment for promiscuous or unGodly behavior is one that is still alive and well in parts of the world-just ask my Mom. She got a sub fired for teaching that to her students. And he, a pro-life guy, firmly believes that if a pharmacist refuses to fill a morning-after prescription, they should be promptly fired. Because it's not their place to tell a woman what she can take and what she cannot.

Oy. It's only a matter of time before they start enforcing the Comstock Law again.

Also sweet

2005-04-06T23:41:00.000-07:00

I just got an add in my e-mail for the subliminal mind control technology that's so dangerous the government tried to ban it.

It was a picture of what are obviously mental rays, circles getting larger like from a fifties ray gun, coming out of a man's forehead, and says, "Ready, Aim, Fire!"

I think I need this.

Sweet

2005-03-30T23:40:00.000-08:00

AARP's campaign seems to be working.

Protesting Bush's plan as being too drastic, one Tracy Velazquez stated that, ""You don't tear down your house if your plumbing is leaking. You repair the pipe." I do believe that that is a direct quote from the commercial. Although, oddly, the journalist didn't mention that.

I don't want to have a big long post about social security here, but I am curious about one thing. There were College Republicans on campus today trying to get people to sign petitions to "Strengthen Social Security," apparently by pulling money out of it. Unfortunately, I didn't have much time to argue with them, but one of the arguments, among the few people that support all the vague statements about ownership that seem to constitute a plan, is that we should have the ability to invest our money. The argument is that if people want to invest in personal accounts, that's their perogative.

But isn't that already sort of everyone's perogative? I mean, there's really nothing keeping a person from investing in the stock market, or bonds, or whatever else they want right now, is there? Except for the money that's paid to taxes, we're allowed to anything legal that we want with our money. So, what's the big deal? Who's stopping all these people from investing in their own special "personal accounts"?

hehehe

2005-03-28T23:39:00.000-08:00

This is why Weekly World News is the best paper ever.

You Mean Michael Moore was Right?

2005-03-28T23:37:00.000-08:00

Does this mean I can't trust Fox news anymore? What will we tell the children...

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The FBI played an active role in arranging chartered flights for dozens of well-connected Saudi nationals -- including relatives of Osama bin Laden -- after the 9/11 terror attacks.
The New York Times reported that the documents show Federal Bureau of Investigation agents gave personal airport escorts to two prominent Saudi families who fled the United States, while several other Saudis were allowed to leave the country without first being interviewed, citing newly-released US government records.
The Saudi families, in Los Angeles and Orlando, had requested the FBI escorts out of concern for their personal safety in the wake of the attacks.
The documents were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Justice Department by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, which provided copies to the Times.

The AP Story is here, the New York Times one, here.

Not knowing anything about the particular Saudi nationals who were allowed to fly back, I have no way of saying whether or not they were a security threat. But I do find it odd that, given how many people were rounded up after 9/11, bin Laden's relatives weren't at least asked a few questions. More importantly, though, I'm just pointing this out because it's something that Michael Moore, and the left in general, was hammered about, saying we just made it up out of whole cloth. And now, *gasp*, it appears that the claim that some Saudi nationals were given special treatment was true! I expect an apology for slandering Moore's name shortly after they apologize for leading us into war under false pretenses and saying that anyone who claimed Hussein didn't have WMDs was anti-American.

Saying the World Rests on Turtles is Science

2005-03-22T14:28:00.000-08:00

There was a pretty good article today about the expansion of Christian creationist programs in schools. The question of whether or not to teach other 'theories' of the origin of the universe and life, is currently being revisited in 19 different states. This isn't just about whether or not the world was created in 6 days by an omnipotent being, though. No, this goes much further than the first few chapters of Genesis. Here's a particularly telling quote:

* To fundamentalist Christians, Fox said, the fight to teach God's role in creation is becoming the essential front in America's culture war. The issue is on the agenda at every meeting of pastors he attends. If evolution's boosters can be forced to back down, he said, the Christian right's agenda will advance.

"If you believe God created that baby, it makes it a whole lot harder to get rid of that baby," Fox said. "If you can cause enough doubt on evolution, liberalism will die."

The point here is not just the destruction of science, although that's a big part of what troubles me and so many other people. (Sen. Rick 'Man-on-Dog' Santorum defends teaching Christian Creationism through actually arguing that students needs to learn "the full range of scientific views that exist." With a straight face, no less.) No, it's that this only one point at which a literal reading of the Bible contradicts current science. If we as a society agree that students need to be taught that while it's possible that the universe is billions and billions of years old, it might have been created all at once in its present state just 6000 years ago, and dinosaur bones were put here by the devil to test us, then what happens next? Will we also teach them as part of the origin of the world that women were created from Adam's rib bone, and that this is a scientific theory?

In sex ed class, perhaps we can teach young girls that when they get pregnant it's wrong to use painkillers because women are meant bring children into the earth in pain as punishment for eating the forbidden fruit. In health and fitness, we can explain to them that pork is unclean. And in social studies maybe we can have some discussion on what was really going on in Egypt and India, or Central Asia 6000 years ago. It's really impossible that there could have been complete civilizations in several locations on Earth at that time, seeing as how God had just created the only two humans there were in the Garden of Eden at that time. Where do you stop putting the literal words of the Bible into the classrooms?

I'm incredibly troubled by this constant push to teach the holes in evolutionary theory, and then pretending that Creationism offers a better, more logical theory. I wonder what else will be coming down the pike.

Just something to put out there....

2005-03-21T14:25:00.000-08:00

"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substanial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in faovr of life,"

-- George W. Bush today after signing a bill that would extend Terri Schiavo's parents another appeal, this time in federal court.

"When an attending physician refuses to comply with an advancedirective or other request for life-sustaining treatment because ofthe physician's judgment that the treatment would be inappropriate, the case will be reviewed by an ethics or medical committee. ...If after this review process both the attending physician andthe ethics or medical committee conclude that life-sustainingtreatment is inappropriate and yet you continue to request suchtreatment, then the following procedure will occur:

1. The physician, with the help of the health care facility, will assist you in trying to find a physician and facility willing to provide the requested treatment. ...
2. If a provider cannot be found willing to give the requested treatment within 10 days, life-sustaining treatment may be withdrawn unless a court of law has granted an extension.

--Texas Advance Directive's Act, which then-governor George W. Bush signed into law.

The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.

Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died....

Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a chronic vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now. ...

Texas law allows hospitals can discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.

--The results of that act.

Rights to Water

2005-03-19T14:24:00.000-08:00

I went to a seminar the other day on whether or not there was a human right to water and sanitation and what that means according to international law. I’m rather torn on what I think of this. On the surface it sounds great. When I first considered this, a long time ago, I said yes, of course, we have a right to water. That falls under the ‘right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ It’s under the ‘right to life’ part. However, when I think about it more, and I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately, I’m not so sure. It’s when I really consider the details of this, and all of the implications a Right to Water has that I start to become less and less certain that each individual human has a right to fresh water. Or, at least, with international law, I think there are some other things that need to be ironed out before we can really start applying the idea of a right to water to our doctrines.

The reason that I’m not sure that I buy into the idea of a right to water is this: some people live in arid areas. Some parts of the world are just naturally incredibly dry. If a society outstrips their resources, does that then mean that the state/government/international community, whoever, has an obligation to divert other water resources, and bring in water, in order to ensure that there is enough water in the region to meet the WHO standards of water? And, outside of the small amount they recommend for drinking and sanitation, do people also have a right to food? Do they need water for irrigation? That’s a lot of water, and it has to come from somewhere else. It has to come from a place where either other people, or other eco-systems, or both, are using the water.

Consider this: Saudi Arabia, and Libya, are both using ‘fossil water.’ What this means is that they have vast aquifers below their surfaces that were laid down in a previous geological era. This water is vast, but not infinite, and it is not being recharged. It is no more renewable than oil. They are using quite a bit of it each year, and the water table is falling. And, they’re using beyond the low level that WHO requires, because they are industrialized, and have a modern economy. And while they do import some wheat, they also grow a considerable amount of it. (In an effort to prove self-sufficiency, Saudi Arabia was actually exporting wheat for a while a few years ago. ) So, when they use up all this water, do we have to bring some more in? Does the international community have to help pay for their enormous de-salinization costs? Or do we have to help them bring water in in tankers from another, larger, water basin? Or, what if the population in the west grows so that they no longer have enough water to go around. They barely do, now. Is the United States obligated to pay for, and Canada obligated to allow, the building of a water pipeline from the Great Lakes to the southwest? And, at what point does that happen? Does the southwest first have to prove that they are using every single drop of water, allowing none of it to reach the see? Killing off all of the fish and migratory birds?

These are some rich countries, so I can’t imagine feeling to sorry for people who are so wasteful. But there are other examples in poorer areas, too. And, of course, it’s the poor who will be hit the hardest in any case. In the example of the Southwest US, what of northern Mexico? They’ll be cut off first, when we’re diverting every last drop of water.

Which brings me to my other problem with the idea of a human right to freshwater, which is the fact that many people have inordinate amounts of wealth, and use a great deal of the world’s resources. At what point does over-consumption come into play? Would there be water rationing? Would people have to give up their beautfilly manicured, desert lawns? Their water parks? Could we have swimming pools? At least in the water poor regions? This is a rather serious issue, and if anyone is familiar with the Narmada Dam project, you’ll understand what I mean. The issue, in brief, is this. India is building a series of dams on the Narmada river that will drown out several villages in the district of Madhya Pradash, where most of the river’s flow originates. The water would be taken to the very, very dry project of Gujarat, ideally to an area where they currently have a tanker truck bring in water each week. They certainly deserve to not be dying of thirst, and the alternative solutions to the dam have mostly centered around water harvesting, and micro-irrigation, in order to stretch the resources in the province. But there’s something else: the city of Ahmedabad in Gujarat, and along the path of the canal that will bring water to the rural areas, has three water parks. Personally, I feel that before hundreds of thousands of people are dislocated, the Indian government should try shutting down the damn water parks and sending that water to the people who are dying of thirst. But somehow I have a feeling that’s not what’s being discussed.

I just can’t endorse any sort of an international law that would say it’s not only alright, but necessary, to build the Narmada Dam projects, while the water parks don’t have to suffer at all. Which, I suppose, isn’t to say that humans don’t have a right to water, but rather that a right not to have your home be flooded under a few hundred feet of water, and the right of ecosystems to use some of the water, should be included as well. And the right to do any damn thing you want with water if you can afford it needs to be stricken all together.

So, I’m not sure what I think of all this. I think logical uses of water should be explored before we consider major interbasin transfers as part of the human right to water. And, I also think that we need to seriously consider the definition of a right. Does it mean that people have a right to use the things near them? To make the sort of life they want for themselves, if they can? Or does it mean that states have the obligation to make every square foot of earth livable, and able to support a person living in a moderate first world standard. Because if it’s the latter, I just don’t think it’s possible.

The Japanese Impersonator with the Coke Bottle Glasses was Meant as a Compliment

2005-03-16T14:21:00.000-08:00

The University of Illinois' trustees are being sued by the Native American Bar Association and two students because of their mascot, The Chief. In a University tradition, a student dresses in headresses and buckskins to dance at sporting events. Not surprisingly, some Native American groups have taken offense to this. One student, Stephen Naranjo, says he's embarassed to see his whole cultural heritage being reduced to halftime entertainment. I can understand that. The suit says the school is violating their own anti-discrimination policies, with which I'm not that familiar, so I can't comment on those. What I can comment on, though, is the following statement from the article:

The Chief has been a divisive issue at the school for years. Supporters say the mascot is a symbol of reverence for the contribution of American Indians to Illinois history while opponents say it is racially offensive and demeaning.

Alright, so, supposedly, the mascot is a "symbol of reverence" towards the American Indians. (And really, who doesn't think of mascots as objects of reverence?) But obviously the American Indians aren't feeling very revered. So, if you're trying to respect them, what's the problem with getting rid of the mascot? Hmmm?

Woo hoo!

2005-03-01T10:30:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court just ruled that it's unconstitutional to execute minors. The vote was 5-4. Guess who the dissenters were? Actually, I'm a bit disappointed in O'Connor on that, but hey, no more child killing, so I'm just happy about that. As my friend Matt said, "I can understand being conservative, but what about being afraid of change makes you feel the need to execute children?"

I'm just glad that we'll no longer have to read in the news, "United States is one of only a handful of countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia, that still executes minors." Hey, maybe now we'll ratify the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child! I think the fact that it prohibiting the state killing them was the only thing holding us back.

We don't need no stinkin' right to privacy

2005-02-28T10:27:00.000-08:00

I meant to post on this before, but time keeps slipping away from me. The anti-choice Attorney General in Kansas has subpoenaed the abortion clinics in the state for the records of all girls under 15 who had abortions, and all late-term abortions at all. According to the AG, Phill Kline, he's doing this to prosecute 'child rape' because, from the article, "sex involving someone under the age of 16 is illegal in Kansas." The article doesn't state if the other person involved has to be over 18. While that explanation seems to be going over with the Conserviative Voice, which wrote an article about how abortion clinics are fighting efforts to stop child rape, it doesn't quite explain why he would need information about abortions after 22-weeks.

Let's ignore those subpoenas for a minute, though, and focus on the "under 15" ones. Is Kline really fooling anyone? I know the Conservative Voice is going along with this, but does anyone really buy his explanation that it's to prosecute statuatory rapists? After all, sex doesn't always result in pregnancy, and pregnancy doesn't alway result in abortion. Is he going to subpoena the records of all ob-gyns? Any girl who gets pre-natal care? Any girl who gives birth? What about if teenagers-boys or girls- get treated for an STD? This is about intimidation, and trying to make life difficult for abortion clinics, plain and simple. The first District Court has already upheld Kline's decision, but I'm hoping that no federal court would go along with this invasion of privacy.

Happy Kyoto Day!

2005-02-16T22:50:00.000-08:00

Today, after more than a decade of negotiating, and despite the United States' best efforts, Kyoto enters into force.

Happy Kyoto Day everyone!