Saturday, May 5

Where is Pat Robertson Now? Where is Falwell? Wasn't this God's Wrath?

Whenever something terrible happens that can, in any conceivable way, be blamed upon liberals or non-Christians, people like Pat "Midas Touch" Robertson and Jerry "Fat F@$#er w/ Foot-in-mouth" Falwell are ready to deliver their prophecies of hate -- explaining how it was God's wrath.

But when tornadoes hit KS or AL, they remain silent. When they destroy churches, not a peep from our master prophets. Why?

When it happens in the Bible belt, and to churches, and to children, these purveyors of doom are less ready to give God the glory, aren't they?

I'm not one to like using tragedy to preach my message, ie I am not going to claim that these terrible stories disprove God's existence:
  1. the 27 killed in a church collapse during services in Uganda last March (link)
  2. a baby abducted, raped and killed in the baptismal pool during a service while everyone went on praying and worshipping completely unaware (link)
  3. four teens killed on church bus on the way to youth camp (link)
  4. 23-month old dies in van, forgotten after church by parents, found as they prepared to return to church (link)
  5. Waco, TX pastor killed by electrocution during baptism service in front of 800 people (link)
  6. and more (ffrf)
If I'm not using these things to "disprove" a good or loving God, why do you use 9/11 and the tsunami to "prove" God is mad as hell?

Some sick bastards, like this one, will assign credit to God for these acts -- mostly Calvinists. I don't think particulars like these need to be used to try to bolster your case one way or another -- use general examples (25,000 people starve to death a day).

What I'm asking for here is fairness. Jerry and Pat: next time you want to blame liberals or infidels for tragedy, don't forget to give credit where credit is due, and give God the glory for all the natural disasters and tragic accidents. Hell, why stop there? Give the Lawd the credit for anencephaly and leukemia while you're at it (survival rate of acute myelogenous leukemia (AML): 20.4 percent overall; 53.1 percent for children under 15), you sick bastards. Don't just use the VT tragedy to your advantage to preach anti-evolution, then ignore spina bifida. Take all of God's handiwork as evidence of his love and goodness and power...

If you're going to use demagoguery, at least be logically consistent with it.
________________
Technorati tags: , ,

Bush Threatens Veto on Hate Crimes: Analysis

Yesterday, Americablog pointed out the hypocrisy and stupidity of Lamar Smith (R-TX), who rose to ask that the hate crimes legislation, HR 1592 (.pdf), be amended to include protections for the elderly and those in the military and law enforcement. When his request was met with an acceptable response to amend and include the language, Smith refused. Here is the official Congressional record H4449 to H4452 (all bold is mine):
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SNYDER). All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 364, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF TEXAS

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do oppose it, in the current form.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows: Mr. Smith of Texas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1592 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the House promptly with the following amendments:

Page 12, line 5, after ‘‘orientation,’’ insert ‘‘status as a senior citizen who has attained the age of 65 years, status as a current or former member of the Armed Forces,’’.

Mr. SMITH of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is straightforward. It seeks to protect America’s senior citizens and those who serve in our Armed Forces. My colleagues on the other side contend that a new law is needed to cover crimes against persons based on race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. The motion to recommit makes sure that seniors and our military personnel are added to the list of protected groups. We all care greatly about the safety and security of our senior citizens. We all understand that they are particularly vulnerable to crime. Criminals who prey on our senior citizens because they are senior citizens should be vigorously prosecuted and punished. The statistics paint a disturbing picture of violence against senior citizens in our country. A recent Justice Department study found that each year over the last 10 years, for every 1,000 persons over 65, four are violently assaulted. This includes rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assaults. Approximately 65 percent of these crimes against senior citizens are committed by strangers or casual acquaintances. In my hometown, the San Antonio police report rising crime against the elderly, with over 6,200 crimes just this last year. We were all horrified by the recent videotaped robbery in New York City committed against 101-year-old Rose Morat. Rose was leaving her building to go to church when a robber, who pretended to help her through the vestibule, turned and delivered three hard punches to her face and grabbed her purse. He pushed her and her walker to the ground. Rose suffered a broken cheekbone and was hospitalized. The robber got away with $33 and her house keys. Police believe the same man robbed an 85-year-old woman shortly after beating Rose.

These are horrible crimes that strikefear into the hearts of America’s senior citizens and make them wonder whether they will be victimized next. This motion to recommit also adds the category of current or former members of the Armed Forces to the list of groups in this bill. We honor our men and women of the military because of their patriotism, their commitment to protecting our freedom and their service to our country. In times of controversy surrounding the use of our military, we have seen unfortunate acts by those who use their hostility towards the military to further their political agenda.

With the rising debate over the Iraq war, we are seeing increasing threats to Iraqi war veterans. Recently, a Syracuse woman pleaded guilty to spitting in the face of a Fort Drum soldier at an airport. Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to make it clear to everyone that we honor our veterans and current members of our Armed Forces. Congress can make the message clear that hate of our Armed Forces will be punished at a heightened level, just like the other groups under this act. If Congress rejects this motion to recommit, who will explain to the thousands of victims who are senior citizens or military victims that their injuries are less important than those of others protected under the hate crimes law? Are we really prepared to tell seniors and our men and women in uniform across our country that crimes committed against victims because of race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability are, as a rule, more worthy of punishment than those committed against seniors and military personnel? Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. SMITH, would he yield for a unanimous consent request that the bill be amended as follows: Page 12, line 5 after ‘‘orientation’’ insert ‘‘status as a senior citizen who has attained the age of 65 years; status as a current or former member of the armed services.’’ Would the gentleman yield for a unanimous consent request on that?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully object.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Texas, Mr. SMITH, the proponent of the motion to recommit, yield for a unanimous consent request that the motion be amended by striking the word ‘‘promptly’’ and inserting the word ‘‘forthwith?’’

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I also object to that request.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas does not yield for that purpose.
Look at that bullshit. This guy pretends to actually want to include the language, but when his request is accomodated by an instantaneous decision to amend the language, rather than sending it back to committee, he balks. Why? Because it wasn't about protecting the elderly or the military at all. It was about, instead, sending it back to committee to kill the bill. What a lying piece of shit. The Congress will soon be taking a break, and this turd from Texas wants the bill sent back to committee for just that reason -- to kill it for months.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I notice that the motion being offered by the gentleman provides the bill be reported back to the House ‘‘promptly’’ rather than reported back ‘‘forthwith.’’ Is it true, as I believe to be the case, that the effect of the word ‘‘promptly’’ is that the House is not being asked to amend this bill, but to send it off the Floor and back to the Judiciary Committee?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The adoption of a motion to recommit with instructions to report back ‘‘promptly’’ sends the back bill back to committee, whose eventual report, if any, would
not be immediately before the House. Does the gentleman from Michigan seek time in opposition to the motion to recommit?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I do.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am not inclined to at this time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit.
The preceding clarified exactly what Lamar was trying to do, as does the following, in which Conyers and Hoyer call Lamar on his bullshit political game.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to recommit, which would not operate as a simple amendment, but, listen to me, would instead send the bill back to the Committee on the Judiciary, in essence killing the bill for the remainder of the Congress...Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. HOYER), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman. This motion, my colleagues, reeks with the stench of cynicism. Let me tell you why. The distinguished chairman rose and asked for unanimous consent to add the protections to members of our Armed Forces who are either serving or have served, and he then asked to protect our senior citizens. He asked for unanimous consent to do that, and the gentleman from Texas objected, so it was not added. Then the chairman rose and asked that we substitute ‘‘forthwith’’ for ‘‘promptly’’ so their amendment could be immediately adopted, and the gentleman from Texas objected. How cynical can you be to offer an amendment, I tell my friend, which in its own framework will kill the very proposition you are making? For if this amendment prevails, what will happen is, the bill will be killed and the protection of the Armed Forces that he seeks, the protection of the seniors that he seeks, will be killed. My friends on this side of the aisle, this is a political game. The American public knows it is a political game. Let’s reject this cynical political game and pass this legislation.
At this point, the motion to recommit the bill (send it back to committee) was rejected and the bill was subsequently passed, without the amended language for the elderly or the military, because of Lamar Smith himself. So if someone wants to throw that bullshit at you regarding how the bill's protections were not expanded because of Democrats, then you throw the facts right back.

Now, with respect to Bush's veto, most people think the federalism/anti-federalism stances are a smokescreen for his real objective -- bowing to the pressure of the bigots in the last vestige of a support base he has left -- the troglodytes of the Religious Right. They claim, over and over again, that this bill will stifle their right to hate fags and preach discrimination. But it won't, and the language of the bill itself makes that clear:
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act--
(1) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term `hate crime' has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
(3) the term `local' means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.
1) This only applies to an "act of violence" -- NOT speech or expression.
2) Section 8 clarifies that the act does not and cannot infringe upon 1st Amendment protections.

Thus, demagoguery and stupidity are to blame for things like this:
Both the house and senate versions of the bill are a direct affront to freedom of speech and freedom of religion and if by some remote chance they should become a permanent part of the law they will surely undergo challenges in the Supreme Court about their obviously suspect constitutionality.

The Hate Crimes Bill is a means of squashing the rights of preachers, gospel witnesses, youth workers, journalists, and every ordinary citizen to quote or explain to others what the Bible says about homosexuality.
And this:

Many conservative Christian groups, such as Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America (CWA), called the bill unconstitutional.

"Hate-crimes legislation is constitutionally dubious on its face," said Matt Barber, CWA's policy director for cultural issues. "[H.R. 1592] flies in the face of the 14th amendment. It clearly sets up a two-tiered justice system with a first class of victims and a second class of victims. This bill provides unequal protection under the law."

Barber contends that sexual orientation and gender identity, like religion, describe a set of behaviors and should not be specially protected. The other identities protected under current federal hate-crimes law —race, color, and national origin—are non-behavioral characteristics.

Many Christians worry the House legislation could "lead to serious infringements of our First Amendment freedom of speech protections in the United States," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Barber warned that the bill would mean that "any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle would be against the law. If a pastor or a speaker were to speak out against homosexuality and it were to incite someone to act out violently, then that [pastor] would be tried as a principal."

I don't want to come at this from the perspective of analyzing federalism -- which is one stated perspective espoused by those opposed to federal hate crimes legislation. That is, I don't want to analyze whether or not a federalist or anti-federalist position is more constitutionally correct. What I want to do is see if, upon analysis, the stated justification for Bush's promised veto -- fear of over-reaching federalism -- stands up to scrutiny for logical consistency (it doesn't). If that is indeed the case, all federal regulations of otherwise-state-controlled laws would be opposed on principle.

The problem is, as has been pointed out, that the president and the Congress apparently support the idea of labeling certain violent acts "hate crimes" when they involve race and religion. If that is indeed the case, then they are lying through their teeth about their legal justification. One cannot simultaneously claim an anti-federalist constitutional position against hate crime protections for gay people while claiming a federalist constitutional position for hate crime protections for Jews or blacks. But this is par for the course for Bushco, and for his pinbrained supporters on this issue.

I don't normally level sweeping insults against everyone on some particular issue X even when we disagree, because I think it is possible to have an intelligent argument, in most cases, for both sides of issue X. However, anyone and everyone who support hate crimes for race and religion but oppose hate crimes for sexual preference and identity are, simply, all stupid people, who either don't notice such inconsistencies, or who are blinded by their own bigotry and religious prejudices.

During yesterday's press briefing, Perino got nailed on this inconsistency:
Q Why does the President oppose broadening the hate crimes law to cover gays and lesbians?

MS. PERINO: I think the President -- the statement of administration policy that we put out was very clear, in that the opposition goes more to a federalism issue. The President believes that every single person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, that violence against anyone is unacceptable and abhorrent. So I think I would encourage you to look at the statement of administration policy that says that we would oppose it solely on the grounds that it would federalize law enforcement of crimes already being addressed in the states.

Q But he found it necessary, if you will, to take specific action when people are attacked because of race, and this is another attack on a person because of a characteristic, and not something the person is doing. You have a segment of the population that you decided needed protecting, and not this one, at least not federally?

MS. PERINO: As I understand it, the state laws address these issues in terms of all acts of violence covered all people. And so I think that the President is going to leave it in the states' hands. And that's what he said.

Q So why should there be a special case for black people then?

MS. PERINO: I'm not a lawyer. All I know is what we said in our statement of administration policy. I take your point. I'll see if I can get you some more on it.
One doesn't need to be a lawyer, Ms. Perino, to see the bullshit for what it is.
________________
Technorati tags:

Friday, May 4

Something I've Been Slow to Realize re: Denialism

That you shouldn't waste your time trying to rationally argue with them:

...some ground rules. We don't argue with cranks. Part of understanding denialism is knowing that it's futile to argue with them, and giving them yet another forum is unnecessary. They also have the advantage of just being able to make things up and it takes forever to knock down each argument as they're only limited by their imagination while we're limited by things like logic and data. Recognizing denialism also means recognizing that you don't need to, and probably shouldn't argue with it. Denialists are not honest brokers in the debate (you'll hear me harp on this a lot). They aren't interested in truth, data, or informative discussion, they're interested in their world view being the only one, and they'll say anything to try to bring this about. We feel that once you've shown that what they say is deceptive, or prima-facie absurd, you don't have to spend a graduate career dissecting it and taking it apart. It's more like a "rule-of-thumb" approach to bad scientific argument. That's not to say we won't discuss science or our posts with people who want to honestly be informed, we just don't want to argue with cranks. We have work to do.
When you are honestly interested in the truth about scientific matters, you are forced to do serious leg work and research to unearth factual data to support your position and refute the other person's, whereas they can simply distort data at will, then fall back on pure faith and presuppositionalism if that fails. Perfect examples include creationists of all stripes.

Recently, I contacted a certain egnorant creationist MD whose challenge to produce quantitative measurement of genetic information I met. I dug up papers that specifically provided what he was asking for, and I sent him the links to them. This was painstaking, as was photocopying them then scanning them in as PDF files. I was very polite in my email, explaining that his question / argument from incredulity really made him look somewhat silly since this very topic was addressed 40-odd years ago in detail in a rigorous and formal fashion.

How did he repay me? By threatening me with a lawsuit if I contacted him again or if I mentioned his name on a public forum.

Fu@#ing cowardly lying puke. Not interested one iota in the truth of the matter, only in contributing to the lies and confusion put out by the Disco Institute in their endless quest to lie for Jebus.

Here are some of the papers, in particular, that address his bogus "refutation" of evolution (warning - #1, 7, 8 are very large files):
  1. Natural selection as the process of accumulating genetic information in adaptive evolution, M. Kimura (1961)
  2. Rate of Information Acquisition by a Species subjected to Natural Selection, D.J.C. MacKay
  3. Evolution of biological information, T.D. Schneider
  4. The fitness value of information, C.T. Bergstrom and M. Lachmann
  5. Review of W. Dembski’s No Free Lunch, J. Shallit
  6. The Evolution and Understanding of Hierarchical Complexity in Biology from an Algebraic Perspective, C.L. Nehaniv and J.L. Rhodes
  7. On the Increase in Complexity in Evolution, P.T. Saunders and M.W. Ho (1976)
  8. On the Increase in Complexity in Evolution II: The Relativity of Complexity and the Principle of Minimum Increase, P.T. Saunders and M.W. Ho (1981)
Here are the five common tactics espoused by denialists of all types:
5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.
Oh am I ever familiar with each of these. Unfortunately. And I learned this slowly, after argument upon argument in which I appealed to reason and evidence in the unflinching face of denial.
________________
Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Jim Hightower on Oil Looting in Iraq by US/UK

We've all been assured, time and again, that invading Iraq had nothing to do with oil. Very recently leaked internal (confidential) government documents indicate a production sharing agreement was just reached between private companies and the council appointed to head Iraq's oil reserves. Surprise, surprise. Read the original here, or the new version's translation here. Watch this from Jim Hightower.



PS: Check out -- "The Price of Oil" and "Whose Oil is it, Anyway?", which was printed in the NYT 3/13/07, just after the documents above were leaked.
________________
Technorati tags:

Remember the Good Ol' Days?

...back when the US was a world leader in scientific progress and moral responsibility?

Not so much, now:

Coming out of the meeting early Friday, delegates said science appeared to have trumped politics - especially opposition from booming China, which wanted language inserted allowing for a greater buildup of greenhouse gases in the environment before action would be taken.

Beijing and its supporters had argued that moves to make deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions risked stifling its spectacular economic growth, delegates said. But the final report included mention of a stringent emission target mentioned in an earlier draft.

Delegates at the meeting had wrestled over how to share the burden of cutting emissions, how much such measures would cost, and how much weight to give certain policy measures, such as advanced nuclear power, an option supported by the United States.

"This is still an excellent report," French delegate Michel Petit said, adding that China and the other developing countries ended up compromising on all major issues. "Nothing important was removed during the process."

The report follows two studies by the IPCC earlier this year warning that unabated greenhouse gas emissions could drive global temperatures up as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, triggering a surge in ocean levels, destruction of vast numbers of species, economic devastation in tropical zones and mass human migrations.

It's been a while since that day.
________________
Technorati tags:

Thursday, May 3

Another Religious Kook Gets up at the White House Podium

*UPDATE (1:30 PM) - Check out Dana Wilbank at the WaPo on the event:

Let us pray.

Let us pray that, on next year's National Day of Prayer, there is better attendance at the "Bible Reading Marathon" on the West Front of the Capitol.

Organizers put out 600 folding chairs on the lawn -- the spot where presidents are inaugurated -- and set up a huge stage with powerful amplifiers. But at 9:30 a.m. yesterday, not one of the 600 seats was occupied. By 11 a.m., as a woman read a passage from Revelations, attendance had grown -- to four people. Finally, at 1 p.m., 37 of the 600 seats were occupied, though many of those people were tourists eating lunch.

Where was everybody?
...
While we are at it, let us pray for the atheists, because -- Lord knows -- they need it. To protest the National Day of Prayer, American Atheists held a counterdemonstration across from the White House yesterday, called the National Day of Reason. Rick Wingrove, co-founder of a group called Beltway Atheists, stood on a coffee table in Lafayette Park and used a bullhorn to get his message out.

The atheists directed particular irreverence at President Bush. "This is the beginning of a theocratic dictatorship, or maybe a better name is a holy decidership," Wingrove announced. "You might as well be reading the charter documents for the freaking Taliban."

But those participating in the National Day of Prayer did not find the National Day of Reason to be much of a threat. Wingrove attracted a crowd of only five fellow atheists, and they reported no confrontations with believers. Just "lots of tourists and schoolkids," said one man handing out Beltway Atheists literature.

* * *

Let us pray, as well, for the beleaguered practitioners of Christian street theater, for they deserve greater press coverage.

The Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition scheduled a "National Day of Prayer observance" and news conference for 3 p.m. yesterday in front of the Supreme Court. Gannon, wearing a Marines baseball cap, arrived to help with the press outreach.

But the event attracted only one photographer (from the Washington Times), one reporter (author of the Washington Sketch) and not a single television camera. The participants themselves were late, and only eight showed up.

Mahoney acknowledged that his total attendance was only slightly larger than the atheists' six. "Yeah, but we had a bigger crowd at Cannon," Mahoney boasted.
...
"Today we seemingly live in a society totally dominated by secularism," James Smith, the Mississippi chief justice, told the believers, "which would without our vigilance, I submit, remove all vestiges of the Bible, religion and prayer from our government."

Smith chose an odd location to speak of encroaching secularism: He and fellow participants spent three hours praying in a government building with a military band and color guard, the House chaplain, a senior military commander, several congressmen and a member of the president's Cabinet; earlier in the day, many of the same people were at the White House to hear Bush tell them "our Eternal Father inclines his ear to the voice of his children."
...
But the National Day of Prayer Task Force was run by Shirley Dobson, wife of James Dobson, one of the most influential conservative Christian leaders in the country. That explains the list of speakers at the main event in the Cannon Building yesterday, which included Bush Cabinet member and former Republican national chairman Jim Nicholson as well as Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), the House's leading opponent of gay marriage.

Barbara Byerly, a member of the National Prayer Committee, introduced some abortion politics in her prayer for the judiciary: "We thank you for the recent decision, oh God, to protect that unborn child."

The closing lines of Byerly's prayer drew a loud ovation in the caucus room. "The power of God consumeth," she said. "We pray that that name is above every, every name, that by mention of that name, everything is going to bow and every tongue is going to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."

Lovely.



No, not King George, Shirley Dobson, wife of theocratic bigot James Dobson.

Eclipsed by the mounting pressure to wake up and face reality in Iraq, the National Day of Prayer was held at the WH today, and she was spewing the typical religio-political nonsense.

Did anyone do something tangible to improve someone else's life today? Give any blood? Donate time or money to a charity? Or did you just talk to your invisible magic friend?

Every empirical study has shown the same thing -- that prayers do nothing. Don't believe me? Find one documented amputee whose limb grew back from prayer. One. Ever. (**update: here are documented cases of the flaws in some of the touted "proofs" that prayer works in some studies, and here are some of my thoughts on those studies**) Ever notice how con man Benny Hinn's speaking engagements involve a throng of people in wheelchairs rolling in...and rolling right back out later on? All the dancin' and shoutin' and hall-a-loo-yer hollerin' doesn't make one brain dead person get out of the hospital bed, or one paralytic walk, or one amputee grow back a limb. Funny, huh, how some miracles are a little harder for God to perform? They're pretty rare, and never get caught on video. What about that!?!?

I couldn't stomach too much of James Dobson's wife, but I thought someone out there (some masochist, to be sure) would want to: watch the .asx here, or through your browser here.
________________
Technorati tags: , , ,

Nice Reading for Tonight's GOP Debate

Those damned fact-checkers.

They've done it now. They amassed a report on the GOP presidential hopefuls that does the worst possible damage to their collective campaign efforts: it explicitly documents their own words and positions. And just in time for tonight's debate on MSNBC at 8 pm.

Read it / download it HERE.

PS: Bush's record-low 28% approval rating basically = the drooling Religious Right minions whose support he couldn't lose if he barbecued babies in the Rose Garden. And he knows it, and that's why he's willing to whip out that veto pen for the third time in his entire presidency to strike down legislation that expands hate crime coverage to include gay people. Keep those fags in their place, King George...and go suck James Dobson off to keep that sycophantic crowd of troglodytes happy while you're at it.
________________
Technorati tags: ,

Quick Comparison

Yesterday, the president practically was fellated by the AGCA at the White House, and announced that he is "the commander guy," an apparent variant of "the decider." It's interesting, when some people do finally fire up their three working neurons to contemplate this, how people who support ending the war are told that they are handcuffing the "commanders on the ground," yet we all seem to forget that the ultimate "decider" of our mission in Iraq is King George.

Anyway, I digress. I bring this up because afterwards, he was asked this question:

Q I'd like to know, like a lot of other people in this room, we have family members -- we have family members who are actively involved in the security of this country in various ways. From them, we've received positive information that we consider credible, who say about the success and the good things that are happening as a result of us being in Iraq. I would like to know why and what can be done about we, the American people, receiving some of that information more from the media, or (inaudible.) (Applause.)

Now the reason I bring this up is because the military just yesterday declared that soldiers who run blogs and webpages must get permission from their commanding officers from now on before updating the content. As has been pointed out, if this is a political move, it was a stupid one: those most likely to break the rules are going to be those most disgusted with the situation, and who have the most urgent news to report on the shitty situation there, which won't make it stateside. That means they are now selecting for the bad news, basically.

So, back to the question on how the media is so shitty about getting all the good news to us -- how do you think this fits in with the "commander guy"? I mean, wouldn't he want soldiers communicating all the good news to their family and friends back home, since the media won't?

Well, apparently there's a hell of a lot more bad for the soldiers to report than good, or else the policy wouldn't have been changed (just yesterday). Now for Bush's (typical) brainless response:

THE PRESIDENT: If you're trying to goad me into attacking the media, you're crazy. (Laughter.)

It's interesting, people get their news all different kinds of ways. This is an interesting, different type of war. I mentioned asymmetrical warfare. That means an enemy can use inexpensive weapons to try to defeat expensive defensive armament. A car bomb, a suicide bomber, an IED, these are inexpensive weapons that help them achieve strategic objectives.

It's also different in that this is a volunteer army that we have fielded. And, therefore, the role of government is to make sure that our families are well-supported -- our military families are well-supported, that the veterans get everything they deserve, and that the health care is perfect as possibly can be. And we're working toward it.

By the way, I was proud of our Secretary of Defense the other day. When he found inadequate health care, he responded, because he knows -- and the Congress shares the same view -- is that when we have somebody volunteering to be in combat, they and their families deserve the best that we can possibly provide.

Thirdly, back to your question. You thought I was kind of doing one of these -- (laughter) -- Washington, D.C. dodges. (Laughter.) I talk to a lot of families who have got a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else in this global war on terror, and they are in constant communication with their loved one. That's amazing, isn't it. You've got a kid in Iraq who is emailing mom daily, talking about the realities of what he or she sees. Information is moving -- you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets. It's amazing how many emails I see from people that are writing in what they think and what they hear.

We've all got -- those of us who believe that we're doing the right thing must continually speak. Joe Lieberman has been great about continually speaking about the consequences. (Applause.) Wait a minute -- you didn't give me a chance to say something nice about Chairman Warner. (Laughter.) He, too, has been strong. (Applause.)

It's just a -- I can't answer your question beyond that people just need to be -- the best messenger, by the way, for us is David Petraeus, because he's actually there in Baghdad, and Ryan Crocker who is actually -- he's the ambassador who is there in Baghdad. And freedom of the press is a valuable freedom here, and it's just something that we've all got to live with and value it for what it is, and just continue to speak the truth as best as we can without trying to -- without trying to gloss over the inherent dangers.

The interesting thing I find is that our -- as the president here mentioned, there have been multiple rotations. People have gone back to Iraq. In other words, they've re-upped. And the re-enlistment rate is high. People are signing up for the first time, as well. And it's just an interesting statement, isn't it, about the character of our military, a character which is -- says that we've got people willing to serve a cause greater than themselves.

I saw a Marine yesterday -- came out of Anbar. His brother, who was in the Army, was lost. And I was comforting his family as best as I possibly can, or could. And he said, we're making great progress in Anbar, I just wanted to tell you that, President. You know, is he the kind of guy that tells the President what he wants to hear? I don't know. All I can tell you is what he told me. And I told that to David Petraeus, who confirmed it.

But slowly but surely, the truth will be known. Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that's what we're trying to achieve.

I'm asked all the time about strategies. I liked what James A. Baker and Lee Hamilton reported back after a serious investigation of Iraq. I liked their ideas. And it's something that we should seriously consider. And their idea was, is that at some point in time, it makes sense to have a U.S. presence configured this way, embedded with Iraqi forces, training Iraqi forces, over-the-horizon presence to provide enough security to know that people will have help if they need it, but put the -- more onus on a sovereign government of Iraq, a presence to keep the territorial integrity of Iraq intact, a special ops presence to go after these killers who have got their intentions on America. It's an interesting idea.

By the way, in the report it said, it is -- the government may have to put in more troops to be able to get to that position. And that's what we do. We put in more troops to get to a position where we can be in some other place. The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear -- I'm the commander guy.

Yes, sir.

[Bold emphasis added]

Telling, isn't it, as we compare the Q&A to the new military policy? Indeed.
________________
Technorati tags:

Wow. Just...wow.

From Glenn Greenwald:
Wednesday May 2, 2007 10:32 EST
The right's explicit and candid rejection of "the rule of law"

The Wall St. Journal online has today published a lengthy and truly astonishing article by Harvard Government Professor Harvey Mansfield, which expressly argues that the power of the President is greater than "the rule of law."

The article bears this headline: The Case for the Strong Executive -- Under some circumstances, the Rule of Law must yield to the need for Energy. And it is the most explicit argument I have seen yet for vesting in the President the power to override and ignore the rule of law in order to recieve the glories of what Mansfield calls "one-man rule."
King George is pleased, I'm sure.
________________
Technorati tags:

Glenn Beck's Unconvenient Mistruth

When I want to hear the latest on the science of global warming, who do I turn to?

Why, Glenn Beck, of course.
He's practically an expert on the topic, having covered it a few times before: 5/06, 9/06. One of Glenn's most powerful tools is his likening of environmentalists to the Nazis, aka Godwin's Law or argumentum ad Nazium, which is a favorite pastime of anti-environmentalists. He's such an expert that CNN gives him a full hour to deliver us from evil and give us the real deal.

I mean, why listen to the national academy of sciences from all the G8 nations? What do the combined scientists from the most prestigious associations of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States know, anyway? IPCC? BS!

Last night, he had on Martin Durkin, director of The Great Global Warming Swindle (UK) and long-time anti-environmental propagandist. I mean, why invite on real climate scientists when instead you can invite a guy whose earlier TV program on the same topic were so spun that the station had to issue an apology to the scientists whose words and work he distorted?
Comparison of the unedited and edited interview transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with these four contributors had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them, when it originally sought their involvement, as to the format, subject matter and purpose of the programmes. No mention had been made of the critical position the programmes intended to adopt, for example in correspondence.

Wider questions of fairness and inaccuracy were the major concerns of the remaining 147 complainants. The ITC considered that the programmes’ line that green ideologies were, at least in some respects, open to criticism on both scientific and humanitarian grounds, was a legitimate approach. Both programmes included the views of those under attack. Certainly the post-series debate allowed environmentalists a fair opportunity to answer the charges laid at their door. The ITC would not wish to discourage Channel 4 from challenging popular and fashionable orthodoxies – always providing that programme makers meet the obligations of fairness and respect for the truth.
Glenn's obligations of fairness and respect for the truth led him to repeat Easterbrook's canard (scroll down to heading "SEA LEVELS") that Gore lied/distorted the facts when he mentioned a 20 ft. sea rise, since the IPCC report only mentioned 23 inches. Smells like some stinky gas to me.

Keep your damned "science", I'll keep thinking from my gut. Just like Glenn and Stephen Colbert taught me to...oh, and those guys in the gas and oil lobbies.
________________
Technorati tags: