Discreet Sheep

Why should I vote Democrat?

2010-03-18T15:02:00.000-04:00

If Democratic candidates are so interested in attracting 'moderate' and independent voters that they act like Republicans, why shouldn't I just support the genuine article and vote for the Republican instead?

Fix the Senate

2010-02-26T23:19:00.004-05:00

Don't kill the filibuster: fix it. Right now a Senator only needs to threaten to filibuster a bill and the Senate will move on to another matter. Right now 41 Senators can vote no to invoke cloture on a bill -- thereby allowing further debate on that bill -- and then NOT debate the bill they just voted to have more debate on. The problem is not the filibuster, the problem is concurrent consideration and debate of multiple bills. That is, the rules the Senate adopted allow the Senate to move on to other business if one or forty-one Senators decide to throw up procedural roadblocks to having a vote on a bill. And they can do so without paying a penalty.

The fix is simple. Get rid of concurrent consideration and debate. Make the Senate consider and debate only ONE bill at a time. If one or forty-one Senators feels so strongly about an issue that they want to talk it death, then make them talk it to death. But let's not anymore allow some overpaid, vote selling hairdo to merely threaten to have a temper tantrum and get away with it. Make the petulant bastards have a temper tantrum live on C-SPAN.

And while we're at it... In early February of 2010, news reports surfaced revealing Senator Dick Shelby (an appropriate given name for the fine Senator. He is a credit to his State) of Alabama placed a hold on consideration of at least 70 nominations President Obama sent to the Senate for confirmation.

Again there's a simple fix. First, reduce the number of concurrent holds a Senator can place on consideration of nominations to one. That's right ONE. You get one hold at a time bitches. And let's do away with anonymous holds. If a Senator feels so strongly that someone is unqualified to hold a position a President has nominated them to, make that Senator do so in the light of day and defend their actions. "Because I'm a mysterious extorting bigot cockroach who can hide behind the light of day using Senate rules" simply doesn't cut it any more.

Finally -- mandatory retirement for all Senators at the age of 65. People who don't use email or the web -- let alone understand either of those things -- ought not to be making decisions or laws about them or any other 'modern' -- dare I say 'newfangled' -- technology. Some of these Senators aren't serving in the Senate any more, they're fossilizing. And their taking the whole goddamned Senate with them. And the country too.

I hate firefox quick find.

2010-02-26T14:11:00.005-05:00

Firefox Quick Find. It Fucking Sucks. "Because apostrophes are so rarely used."

Thumbs up to the douchebags at Mozilla. Fucking idiots.

Doesn't it just snow anymore?

2010-02-06T22:43:00.002-05:00

I mean, really? So far this winter the only sources of measurable snow here in Philadelphia have come from two major snowstorms. How long has winter been like this? Doesn't it just plain snow anymore?

Enough with the victory lap already.

2010-02-06T22:08:00.004-05:00

Okay Obama, way to go for laying the smackdown on the Republicans; finally. But settle down there champ. You've been pretty much a gigantic spineless pile of bipartisanship-fetishizing slush for a little over a year before you decided to grow a set. The length of time a victory lap is appropriate is directly proportional to the effort exerted multiplied by the length of time you've been fighting multiplied by the intransigence of your opponent divided by the product of the end result of your efforts multiplied by your wits.

You've been nebulous, vague, and weak for a year, you've been strong and clear for about a week now. The Republicans have been a solid bloc of obstructionism, delay, blatant falsehoods, revisionist history, bigotry, entitlement, and boorish manners - and they pretty much signaled this from the start of your administration. So in that department, you've been up against some solidly nasty opponents and they've played you and your party (yes, it's your political party now -- you're the President of the United State and therefore the leader of your party, so what happens to the Democratic party's fortunes are YOUR responsibility, buster.) with some seriously mean, devious, and duplicitous tactics. But they told you in advance they were going to, so, you're not getting too many points for wits. As for results, enough with claiming the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, it passed two hundred fifty to one hundred seventy-seven (250 - 177) in the House and sixty-one to thirty-six to thirty-six (61 - 36) in the Senate. It was a sure thing, so don't go getting all puffed up. It wasn't you that made the bill a success.

So by and large, your victory lap is over. Get back to work. You've got plenty left to do.

And one other thing, you stood in front of the Democrats, spouting off about what you want to accomplish and then told them "Now make me do it." Way to quote FDR. But why are we supposed to believe you're going to "change the way Washington works" if you're quoting seventy-plus year old words?

I call bullshit.

Bill Hicks describes Rush Limbaugh perfectly

2009-08-19T21:51:00.000-04:00

Pass it along :-)

Where the hell is her birth certificate?

2009-08-06T18:14:00.002-04:00

I saw a clip of Orly Taitz's appearance on MSNBC. And I have a question: is she even an American citizen? I mean, she doesn't sound like she was born here, so where was she born? And if she wasn't born here, then by her own arguments, she wasn't born a citizen. So, if she is a citizen, I would very much like to see proof that she's actually a naturalized American citizen. And she'd better be able to prove that her certificate of US naturlization and all other supporting documentation are not forged.
That is, after all, the standard which she herself has seen fit to set for President Obama.
Bigoted cunt.

Things I will not be buying any time soon

2009-08-06T15:21:00.003-04:00

A simple list of things I will not be buying any time soon:

1: Palm Pre. Those commercials really do not do it for me. I'm not marketing genius or anything, but I sort of thought that the idea behind commercials was to make you want to buy the product, not make you say, "I would call that the most retarded actress in the most retarded commercial ever (ever ever!), but I wouldn't want to insult the retarded by comparing them with that stupid piece of crap," and hence I will not buy that (by association) ultratarded product.

Ultratarded -- for that shit so retarded, you don't want to insult those who actually are.

2: Kindle. You'd think that someone at Amazon, the wildly succesful bookseller and maker of the Kindle, might (just maybe) understand the irony of deleting (what the buyers believed to be) legitimately purchased copies of George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm from people's Kindles once Amazon discovered that they had offered those titles for digital download sale in error. Which could make "Kindle" more than just a proper noun, it could soon be a verb.

3: The Democratic Party. If I vote for the Democrats but the Republicans still get their way on everything even though they're the minority, I might as well just vote Republican or not vote at all.

Signs and portents

2009-07-25T01:26:00.002-04:00

Is the Gates non-troversy 2009's answer to 2001's stem-cell sophistry of George W Bush? History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. If only we can keep ourselves distracted, maybe we won't notice (again) the terrorist attack that's probably headed our way. Just a feeling...

I'm not a black man in America...

2009-07-24T12:08:00.009-04:00

I'm not a black man in America, which probably means that what I'm about to say next automatically makes me a racist. Based on what I have heard and read about the incident, it is my opinion that Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. got exactly what he deserved. He was being an asshole, to put it bluntly. Under what circumstance does it behoove an Harvard Professor to scream at a police officer (a police officer who identified himself as such and present in response to a report of a possible break-in) that they are racist and "This is what happens to black men in America!" Lest I be remiss for failing to mention it: getting arrested also happens to white men in America when they too are intentionally uncooperative assholes to the cops.
If my neighbors called the cops because they thought someone was trying to break into my home, I'd be grateful to have neighbors that gave a damn (if not about my home, then about their own homes -- crime is contagious). If the cops responded so quickly that I didn't even have time to settle in front of the TV before they arrived, I'd be happy that I lived somewhere with a decent police force. If the cop told me he was there because someone reported a break-in then I wouldn't give him a hassle about proving to him that it was my own home I had to force my way into. Although I am not an Harvard Professor even I can figure out that the police officer is going to need me to prove that I actually have a right to be in the house if they have a reason to believe that I may not. Someone did call the police to report what they believed to be a break-in, after all.
According to the police report, it was Gates himself that made race an issue. Even given that fact, it is interesting to note that a casual perusal of the cable channels has yet to produce even a single instance of a prominent media pundit of the black persuasion who is willing to do anything other than proclaim the cop at best "racially insensitive" or at worst (with all the implications and connotations) acting (and I'm paraphrasing Eugene Robinson here when he appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe today) "perhaps unconsciously on ingrained racial biases." "Perhaps unconsciously," yeah, right. Just call the cop an out-an-out dyed in the white-cotton sheet racist already. A dissembling Pulitzer-prize winning hack is still a dissembling hack. It's worth noting, if only because so few seem to be noting it - especially all the talking heads interviewing all the pundits rushing to Gates' defense - that no one has produced any evidence that the police officer in the Gates fracas acted improperly (other than arresting Gates) or in any way instigated the incident (other than being white and not taking "racial sensitivities into account").
There are two points I can think to make right now, and I'll have to paint with broad strokes here to make them. First, if the "black community¹" demands that "white America" become color blind and treat everyone equally regardless of skin color, then the "black community" cannot demand that white police officers act in a manner that takes into account "racial sensitivities" when they are interacting with black people.² That's just hypocritical bullshit.
Second, it is precisely this kind of behavior ("This is what happens to black men in America!") from an otherwise rather urbane, genteel, very well-educated, liberal, black intellectual which alienates the otherwise liberal-minded suburban whites⁴ who President Obama referred to when, as then-candidate Obama, he tackled the issue of race in his speech over the controversy surrounding the remarks of Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

There comes a point, and I'll speak only for myself here, when any sense of solidarity I may feel with the black community in their quest for equal opportunity and dignity in the face of real bigotry and racism becomes exhausted when a prominent black person (OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, and now Henry Gates, Jr.) fucks up (kills someone, fucks a child {or two, or three...}, is an asshole to a cop who's just doing their god-damned job), and the black community collectively loses their fucking minds and blames the nearest white person as the proximate cause of that particular black person's "misfortune," and "white-dominated society" as a permeating influence of disparity towards persons of color.
And I am at that point right now. In my opinion, Henry Gates fucked up. He was a belligerent, uncooperative asshole who willfully obstructed a police officer who was attempting to fulfill their obligation to the law and society. But of course anyone who says so gets labeled a racist, or "uninformed" or "naive." I'm not a black person in America, but that doesn't mean I don't get to exercise my own judgment and voice my own opinion about what is and is not a racist act, and this incident was not an act of racism.

1. "Black community" is a rhetorical device. I know that there is no monolithic "Black Community" any more than there is a monolithic "Gay Community" or "Jewish Community" or "White Community³". But if we're going to lump people together for the sake of convenience, let's at least be up front about it.
2. I would have said "dealing with" but that term probably carries too much baggage for some to stomach.
3. Excepting some of the more Republican country clubs.
4. Who are also the real Middle America, demographically speaking. Most of the country is still white - demographic trends notwithstanding, and most of it is suburban.

Credit where credit is due

2009-07-19T15:38:00.003-04:00

Lest I be remiss, it is time that I properly acknowledge President Obama for standing up for the LGBT community in his speech before the NAACP on the occasion of that organizations one hundredth anniversary.* Usually I am quite critical of the President. And I still don't think he's doing anything meaningful to advance the cause of LGBT equality and civil rights. Not that he explicitly promised to do anything for us. It was just the usual Democratic hollow words and implied but deniable promises to win our votes followed by empty gestures and snide public repudiation once they're in office.

But anyways, President Obama did make it a point to give us a line in his NAACP speech. And that line got a decent amount of applause. So, good for them. Not everyone in the NAACP is a homophobe, and the President will at least give us a mention as fellow human beings and citizens of equal worth (albeit if he has to be shamed into doing it).

Again, good for them. But while not everyone in the NAACP is a homophobe, I still find it pretty fucking disengenuous that an organization that has worked tirelessly over the course of one hundred years to advance the cause of equality for one group of minorities is comfortable taking the position that it's still okay to let the majority discriminate against another group of minorities. Classic case of "better him than me" I guess.

So once again, thanks for standing up for us Mr. President. And thanks to all the people in the audience at the NAACP who cheered so loudly: you folks rock. It's as good a place as any to start. But it's only a start to the struggle, not an end of the obligation.

* I just realized that in English we use the same words to describe ordinal and fractional numbers. Ahh, English. Delightful.

Another late night meditaton on Israel

2009-07-19T02:40:00.003-04:00

Here's the thing: it's hard to like Israel when it becomes that country's official policy to intentionally piss on the Palestinians and thereby piss off the rest of the Middle East and the Muslim world. The Middle East and the Muslim world then get pissed off at the US because we're Israel's friend and we just sit there and watch as the Israelis do to the Palestinians and sovereign Arab nations things we would never tolerate the Palestinians or Arab nations doing to Israel. So...
So here's what Israel needs to do for me: either officially annex the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights and publicly declare it all to be part of Israel for all eternity (Israel fought wars and won and to the victor go the spoils) and turn out all the Palestinians and turn in their one free pass for their own chance for a little ethnic cleansing (and you'd better do it soon, soppy sentiment over the Holocaust isn't going to last forever) or give it all the fuck back to Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, respectively. But make a fucking decision already. Just choose. NOW!
If the Israelis can't or won't make a final fucking choice about the disposition of the occupied territories then I for one don't give a damn if the Arab World gets together and wipes Israel off the map. I just don't. It's become just too much fucking trouble being friends with Israel because of all the baggage their political indecision entails.

Groupthink sucks as much on the Left as it does on the Right

2009-07-16T13:44:00.002-04:00

I tend to like AmericaBlog. I also tend to like the AmericaBlog community. Some of the people that comment seem to have thoughts in their heads. And some of those people actually have cogent thoughts. However, as with any community, the probability of the community contracting a mind-poisoning case of groupthink only grows greater with time. Apparently over at AmericaBlog, time's up.

Sotomayor, affirmative action, and Republican stupidity

2009-07-14T14:21:00.004-04:00

"The Republicans are so stupid —"

"How stupid are they?"

The Republicans are so stupid that when a golden opportunity to prove that affirmative action is unnecessary falls right into their laps in the form of both the first black President of the United States and his Latina nominee to the Supreme Court they decide to not press their rhetorical advantage. If the Republicans had any brains in their head or a coherent strategy, they would be falling all over themselves to repeat the portions of Sotomayor's personal narrative that demonstrate that hard work and a commitment to excellence are the keys to lifting one's self and one's family out of poverty and leading a successful American life, rather than government-mandated racial quotas in hiring or college admissions. Such an approach would leave the Democrats bereft of any defensive positions save for: one, trashing their own President's Supreme Court nominee by arguing that in fact, her achievements are possible only through government intervention and not merit alone; or two, arguing that even if some minorities - such as Judge Sotomayor - can achieve success without government intervention, most minorities can't, and therefore racial quotas are the only way to ameliorate past injustices even if the reparative action punishes people who have committed no crime, ie "innocent whites," to benefit people who have no ambition, "not-white people," or as, on July 11, 1992 Ross Perot addressed the NAACP, "you people."
But then again, if the Republicans were to adopt that strategy, they would almost be guaranteed a resounding success. But if they achieve their stated goal of ending affirmative action, they would deprive themselves of the issue. And that is probably why I am wrong about the Republicans being stupid. They're not stupid. They're intentionally avoiding taking an opportunity to end affirmative action because it still works for them as a wedge issue they can use to motivate their base - which speaks volumes about their base. Okay, maybe not volumes. There's probably not enough diversity in that group to engender sufficient complexity to fill out a Dick-and-Jane book, let alone "volumes."
So the Republicans aren't stupid, they're just craven bigots.

Delusional behavior isn't confined to American neocons

2009-07-09T11:54:00.002-04:00

Of the many, many reasons why I dislike neocons — whether they be American or Israeli — there's this quote from an unidentified associate of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

"He [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] thought that his speech at Bar-Ilan [University] would become mandatory reading at schools in the United States, and when he realized that Obama gave no such order, he went back to being frustrated,"

Where to begin? Netanyahu's arrogance is almost as breathtaking as his ignorance. I don't know about the educational system in Isreal, but in the United States, our education system is not a tool for political indoctrination, at least now that George W Bush (may he die a slow, gruesome death) is gone...

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

2009-07-02T12:30:00.003-04:00

Uhm... not!

Tacky even unto death

2009-06-26T08:49:00.002-04:00

Michael Jackson is so tacky - and I'm not just talking about the kid-diddling thing. He couldn't even let Farrah Fawcett - another icon of faded 70's kitsch - have one final moment of public glory. No. Farrah Fawcett dies and Michael Jackson has to go and die on the same day. Tacky. Even in death.

Way to stay classy Michael.

Democracy and capitalism

2009-06-23T08:30:00.002-04:00

How are democracy and capitalism alike? They are both inevitably deposed by the antitheses they each themselves create through the agency of the forces which define their existence. Neat, huh?

Wait a minute Mister Pundit, I have a question

2009-06-12T09:45:00.006-04:00

I have a question about what seems to me to be an obvious question the major news outlets aren't asking: If America's for-profit, private health insurance industry really is competitive, then why oppose a government-sponsored public plan? Surely, if Republican free-market dogma is to be believed, then a government-sponsored public health insurance option poses no threat to private sector for-profit insurers because, so sayeth Saint Reagan of California, free-market solutions are always better than government solutions ("Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem" - Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981). And I would think, given their lack of any credible issue on which to grab hold of for dear life, that Congressional Republicans would be simply slobbering (rather than slobbering simpletons) at the prospect of letting the government get into the health insurance business, if only to prove once and for all that the free market is always superior to the government when (as conservative ideology tells us must inevitably happen) the government-sponsored public option fails.

Here comes the inevitable airline disaster hysteria

2009-06-02T18:31:00.006-04:00

"More should have been done!" I'm sure someone will proclaim. Probably a politician. Or a distraught family member doing what they believe is expected of them by society — and encouraged by their lawyers — in front of a swarm of TV cameras. The shedding of tears and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments and declarations of compassion for the victims — especially those most precious victims, the ones who weren't even on the plane that crashed and are still alive and therefore capable of being plaintiffs — will be dramatic and theatric, to be sure. It will also be one hundred percent pure contrived bullshit.
Of course the "more" that should have been done which in perfect hindsight would have saved the lives of every person aboard that Air France jet will never be explicitly or precisely defined. Which is probably pretty convenient and useful for those seeking a big payday or those seeking re-election.
And of course the "more" that will never be explicitly or precisely defined is quite simply and obviously perfection. Perfection in the form of "perfectly safe, perfectly reliable, perfectly dependable, perfectly perfect air travel." Which is, of course, perfectly impossible and a perfectly obvious symptom of a society so infantilized by the promises of the hucksters of woo and the pseudoscience they peddle and the fuzzy-headed thinking it encourages that the merest whiff of risk sends people reaching for their smelling salts.
It's not that I don't feel compassion for the people that died or their relatives and friends. But risk is a part of life, and occasionally, no matter how well maintained the plane, no matter how skilled the pilot, no matter how clear the skies, sometimes shit just happens and planes fall out of the sky and people die and still it's nobody's fault.

A gigantic mistake

2009-06-01T06:33:00.002-04:00

Immediate consequences to the economy be damned, the smartest decision for the long term health of the US economy would be to let GM fail and then liquidate the remains. But noooooo... we're not going to let GM die (even though it deserves to die), we have to bail out GM to the tune of another thirty billions dollars — or perhaps more — because President Obama is already running for re-election.

If the Intelligent Designer of Intelligent Design is so intelligent...

2009-05-31T05:00:00.000-04:00

If the Intelligent Designer of Intelligent Design is so intelligent...

...then why couldn't the Intelligent Designer figure out a way to design a hemoglobin gene variant that makes people resistant to malaria but doesn't also cause sickle cell anemia? Or does the Intelligent Designer just not like black people very much?

...then why did the Intelligent Designer design human eyes with retinas which sit on top of the blood vessels — which allows the retina of the human eye to become detached easily — rather than make human eyes like squid eyes, where the blood supply sits atop the retina and holds it in place? Or does the Intelligent Designer just like squids more than people?

I hate Rush Limbaugh

2009-05-29T14:48:00.002-04:00

I hate Rush Limbaugh and it is my sincere desire that that fucking hypocrite would choke to death on an oxycontin-and-racism sandwich sooner rather than later.

Gay is the new black

2009-05-28T18:45:00.003-04:00

I'm done with the Democratic Party and I'm done with Barack Obama. So far as LGBT equality is concerned, I really don't need to be told that I should be satisfied with "separate but equal." Especially by the United States's first black president.

I'm switching my party affiliation.

Sustainable biofuel from Brazil

2009-05-23T19:27:00.004-04:00

Here's an interesting interview with plant scientist Marcos Buckeridge, Ph.D. from New Scientist about the prospects for sustainable sugarcane-derived ethanoic biofuel from Brazil.
Personally, I have serious reservations about ethanoic biofuel derived from US sources. Nearly all of the ethanol produced for biofuel in the US is derived from maize which would otherwise be used for animal feed or processed for other consumer purposes. In short, maize-derived biofuels make food and other consumer goods more expensive. I don't believe that is an acceptable trade-off. What's the benefit of less expensive fuel for your car if that means you can't afford to eat?
The irony is (in that "cosmic irony" sense of the word, you know, Nature pranking us with a Faustian bargain) that if the US does follow through on the populist desire to "free ourselves from foreign oil" — the not so subtle (and ever-so-slightly racist) implication being that 'foreign' means the Middle East exclusively, even though most oil imported into the United States comes from non-OPEC, non-Middle East countries (the nation from which the United States imports the most petroleum is Canada [as of the writing of this post - May 2009]) — then we may be faced with a choice between importing food or importing fuel.
It would seem that America cannot have everything. We — as a nation — may have to come to terms with the fact that we can be secure in only so many things but certainly not all. Food security may come at the expense of energy security or vice versa. And if that is the choice we are faced with, I would prefer that if we can grow our own food at home and import our fuel from another democracy, then by all means, let's give our fuel dollars to a democracy.

Hubble lives!

2009-05-19T17:21:00.003-04:00

Hooray! Hubble lives on — at least for another five years. A repaired and upgraded Hubble Space Telescope was released by Atlantis earlier today, with all planned repairs and improvements completed successfully.

Yay! More science and discovery.

It's nice when there are things I can actually get happy and excited about.

Maureen Dowd is smarter than you.

2009-05-18T17:11:00.007-04:00

Maureen Dowd is smarter than you. Maureen Dowd is smarter than me. Maureen Dowd is smarter than anyone, alive or dead, past, present or future. How do I know? Because, as the informed reader no doubt knows, Ms. Dowd reproduced verbatim words she was told by her "friend" in one of her brilliantly informative and well-reasoned missives written for and published in the pages of that august institution, journal of record, and paragon of integrity, the New York Times.
Why did she include the words of her "friend?" Because her friend's words were cogent and clear. Of course Ms. Dowd did not attribute these words to her "friend." But who are we to question Ms. Dowd's judgment? She is, after all, the smartest person ever.
The problem of course is not that she failed to properly credit her "friend." The problem is that her "friend" failed to properly credit his source, which was Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo. So you can see the problem. Or not. After all, what was originally written by Josh Marshall:

"More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when we were looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq."

and what the inestimable Ms. Dowd wrote:

"More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq."

are completely different creatures. The former paragraph was written by some blogger on some blog. Blogs aren't real press, and bloggers aren't real journalists, and neither therefore is worthy of attribution or recognition, or entitled to intellectual property rights. The former paragraph was written by Ms. Dowd for the New York Times. And the New York Times is a real press outlet. And Maureen Dowd is a real journalist (and the smartest person ever). So it's not plagiarism. It's just Ms. Dowd faithfully transcribing what her "friend" told her, transcribing her "friend's" faithful reproduction of Josh Marshall's words so faithfully that she even heard the commas. That's right! Maureen Dowd is so smart, she heard the commas in her friend's verbal reproduction of Josh Marshall's written words. That is one brilliant person. Don't you think?
I know I wish I could hear the commas in other people's speech.

Cutting through the bullshit: waterboarding

2009-05-17T20:44:00.002-04:00

Waterboarding is not 'an interrogation technique.' Waterboarding is torture. Also, waterboarding is not 'simulated' drowning. Waterboarding is drowning. It is controlled and deliberate drowning. But it is most certainly not 'simulated' drowning. Anyone who says different is lying. And anyone who thinks waterboarding is ever legitimate ought to be waterboarded themselves.

I'm sorry, you're complaining to the wrong department.

2009-05-15T23:29:00.004-04:00

"I'm sorry. You're complaining to the wrong department. Would you like me to transfer you?" Have you every heard that line from a customer service representative? Yes? Me too. I even got to say that line more than a few times when I worked customer (dis)service for a cellular phone outfit. That thought popped into my mind this evening when I was watching the rebroadcast of Rachel Maddow and she brought up President Obama abandoning his campaign promise to "reject military commissions" (those are the words of then-candidate Obama).
If you're pissed off about Obama going back on his word, then join the club. I am too. It seems that selling out the left to suck up to a right that won't vote for you has become a habit of Democratic presidents. Which is probably why there have been so few of them in the past forty-one years - three to be exact.
But bitching about Obama won't make him change his mind, and bitching to the Obama administration won't do much good either. Why? Because Obama is a President, and Presidents exercise the powers Congress gives them — in this case, the power to try detainees in the parallel "justice" system that Congress codified into law with the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Don't like military tribunals replacing the regular justice system? Then complain to the right department - Congress. Call you Congressman, bother your Senators and tell them to repeal the Military Commissions Act. Take your complaint to the proper department.

Judge rules religion isn't medicine and the wingnuts predictably go crazy

2009-05-15T16:05:00.005-04:00

In case you haven't been following this particular story, allow me to recap: the parents of a 13 year old boy with cancer decided to allow their son to stop chemotherapy because he had a religious objection to the treatment. Today, Minnesota Judge John Rodenberg issued a 50-plus page ruling which directs the parents to get their son evaluated by a doctor and resume chemotherapy treatments if the medical evaluation determines that the cancer is still treatable.
What rationale did the judge use in making his determination? The judge pointed out that this particular thirteen year old has only a "rudimentary understanding at best of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy." Most thirteen year olds don't really have a good grasp of life and death issues - at least in this country - thankfully.
And what did the boy's attorney have to say about the judicial ruling? "I feel it's a blow to families," the attorney said. "It marginalizes the decisions that parents face every day in regard to their children's medical care. It really affirms the role that big government is better at making our decisions for us."
So a judge rules that a 13 year old isn't mature enough to fully understand the consequences of refusing medical treatment and is therefore not permitted to do so, and the boy's lawyer cries "big government." Pardon me for pointing this out, but the "lack of maturity" rationale is the reason why people under the age of 18 are called "minors." Society presumes that on average, people under the age of 18 are incapable of fully appreciating the consequences of certain decision, so we codify laws preventing them from making those decisions in order to protect them from their own inexperienced judgment. How the fuck is that evil "big government," rather than society protecting its vulnerable members? That's sort of like claiming that government has no business keeping banks from giving credit cards to toddlers.
In my opinion, the boy's lawyer is a douchenozzle.
I predict a great hue and cry from the usual suspects - WorldNetDaily, Human Events, Freedom's Watch, the ACLJ, etc - about "big government" riding roughshod over "the sanctity of the family."

The British Chiropractic Association is in my opinion a terrorist group

2009-05-15T08:12:00.004-04:00

The British Chiropractic Association is in my opinion a terrorist group. The BCA has filed a libel suit against Simon Singh, a science writer, because he wrote a piece for The Guardian in which he referred to chiropractic as being "bogus." Well, chiropractic is bogus. There is no empirical evidence to back up any of the claims made by the chiropractic industry, nor is chiropractic 'theory' grounded in the scientific method. Chiropractic is more than just bogus, it's bullshit, and the BCA is using British libel law to intimidate its critics into silence which makes them little better than a terrorist group.
I would link to the article which so offends the BCA, but the original has been removed from The Guardian's website. So I have decided to reproduce it in full for here. I am not even claiming a fair use rational for reproducing this article in full. My rationale is that I am defending the free speech rights of another who is under legal assault from a terrorist group that seeks to silence its critics so that it can continue to profit from knowingly harming others.

Beware the spinal trap

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all but research suggests chiropractic therapy can be lethal.

by Simon Singh
Originally published April 19, 2008 in The Guardian.
Reproduced without permission

This is Chiropractic Awareness Week. So let's be aware. How about some awareness that may prevent harm and help you make truly informed choices? First, you might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that, "99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae". In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer's first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.

I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: "Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck."

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Professor Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

Bearing all of this in mind, I will leave you with one message for Chiropractic Awareness Week - if spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

Quick thought on waterboarding

2009-05-14T17:40:00.005-04:00

If waterboarding isn't torture, then we should let the police waterboard suspects in criminal cases. After all, the Fifth Amendment only guarantees people the right to not answer questions. It makes no mention of a right to make the police stop asking, nor does it specify what interrogation techniques the police may or may not use when asking a suspect questions. Furthermore, the Constitution only prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Interrogation techniques are not punishment for crimes committed, but merely tools used to determine if a crime has been committed. Therefore, using a strict constructionist interpretation, interrogation techniques used on criminal suspects can be as cruel or unusual as the state desires.

Carrie Prejean: so what?

2009-05-13T07:05:00.007-04:00

I'm gay and I still don't understand what's so controversial about Carrie Prejean's answer to Perez Hilton's stupid self-centered question. I think we all know that for Perez Hilton there was only one correct response Ms. Prejean could have given. And she didn't. But while she sounded dumb — but at least she sounded faithfully cheerleader beauty-queen dumb, she at least sounded gracious and did make it a point to say "no offense to anyone" that's just what she personally believes. So should she have lied to appease some self-important Z-list faggot of a judge? No. She was asked for her opinion and she gave her opinion — honestly. And good on her for answering honestly about what she believes. The capacity to answer questions honestly seems to be an ever-rarer character trait these days.

Now, everything that's come after... kind of not very gracious and very much the martyr-syndrome - an affliction to which the Christians of the evangelical and Catholic persuasions seem to be rather unfortunately prone — very ugly — and for that, well Ms. Prejean, now you're starting to come off as just another precious, dumb, entitled bitch with a persecution complex. Not very pretty. But as far as precious, dumb, entitled bitches with persecution complexes goes, you're in good company with one Perez Hilton.

I love Carrie Fisher

2009-05-12T23:55:00.003-04:00

If only I could put my own mental illness to such productive work. Princess Leia herself has come up with a penetrating insight into the forces which animate the unholy beast which is 'reality' television.

Some people confuse fame with acceptance. They want to feel like celebrities seem. The only problem with that is that behind this seeming beats an ordinary heart, capable of breaking, burning and attack. If you cut a celebrities prick does it not bleed? If a celebrity SEEMS like a prick, how can he be otherwise?

A beautiful, precious, three hundred and fifty pound, pig-ignorant snowflake

2009-05-12T18:44:00.003-04:00

And he's absolutely one hundred percent correct... Thanks to Paul for bringing this clip to my (rather short) attention.

Maddow's Law

2009-05-11T17:51:00.003-04:00

Maddow's Law is a corollary to Godwin's law and was first proposed by one Rachel Maddow on October 20, 2008 on her television program, The Rachel Maddow Show.

Maddow's Law states: As the length of time a liberal or progressive candidate is believed to be winning an election or argument increases, the probability that they will be labeled communist or socialist approaches one.

Spread the word my friends. Spread it far and wide.

Mother's Day pisses me off

2009-05-10T20:54:00.003-04:00

Mother's Day pisses me off because either I call my mother and then need to drink very heavily afterward (sometimes I even start during) or I don't call her and feel (ever so fleetingly) guilty.

Not every one had a great relationship with their parents, especially if their parents tend to remember things differently or selectively. I tend to trust my memory more.

2009 H1N1 and vindication of a sort

2009-05-10T17:29:00.002-04:00

There is an interesting article by Debora MacKenzie over at New Scientist — Warm weather may not halt swine flu. What I find interesting is the fact that geneticists who have analyzed to 2009 H1N1 flu virus now believe that the virus has been circulating in the human population since at least autumn of 2008, perhaps even earlier.
An obvious question is "If the virus has been making people sick since autumn of 2008, why was it only recognized in April of 2009?" The answer to that question is that there is a background level of sickness which can mask the presence of a new virus. In order to be recognized as a new threat, a new virus must infect enough new hosts to create a level of illness which is distinct from the background levels of illness — at which point the disease has probably infected too many people to be easily contained.
So what happened with H1N1 is that this new and more dangerous flu virus emerged at the same time that "regular" flu season began. Since it was a new virus, at first few people were infected with it, so it just blended in with cases of "regular" flu, even if it was more severe and more lethal. Sometimes people die of complications from the flu. It happens. No one thought to look for a new and dangerous virus because no one knew it was there. But this new virus was still spreading and it only became recognized once it had infected enough people to be recognizable as a distinct illness. And by that time it was too late to halt its spread.
And how is this vindication? Because it is evidence which supports my prior assertion that Ronald Reagan is not responsible for the current global HIV pandemic because by the time AIDS was recognized as a new disease, rampant promiscuity in the urban gay male community of the late 1970's had already spread the disease too far and wide to be contained by any actions Reagan could have taken even if he were so inclined.

Forumwarz, a place for trollz

2009-05-09T14:36:00.002-04:00

If you have a little time on your hands, I highly recommend Forumwarz, from the fine folks at Crotch Zombie Productions, makers of Unintelligencer "Copy. Paste. Retardify."

You might be a troll if...

2009-05-09T13:52:00.004-04:00

Why can I never learn? I was reading AMERICAblog, and, like an idiot, thought that I had something of value to contribute. So I did. I posted a comment which essentially says "We're not better than our opponents simply because we say we are." I think that's a pretty valid point, that we're judged more for our actions than our words. And of course, the self-appointed enforcers of liberal orthodoxy (Ronald Reagan caused the AIDS crisis, not rampant promiscuity in the gay community; etc) came swooping in to dole out some much needed corrective scorn by labeling me a 'concern troll.' Ah, the hypocrisy of the left... it's almost as repellent as the hypocrisy of the right. I say 'almost' because the right celebrates — and makes a virtue of — their intolerance and rigid ideological uniformity, whereas the left is supposed to find strength in diversity of opinion and tolerance of ideological heterodoxy. I guess for some on the left there is some diversity which is simply too diverse to be tolerated. Well, fuck 'em...

I love it when Republicans beg

2009-05-08T12:22:00.003-04:00

I don't know what's best about the current Republican Party meltdown - the fact that they're finally out of power, their psychotic reaction to being out of power, their obliviousness to their own hypocrisy, I could go on. It's just too hard to choose. This afternoon I found, apparently abandoned or forgotten on the train, a letter from Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele Hisownself, asking some poor Republican sod to take the 2009 Obama Agenda Survey — and to also please give him some money (apparently 'slum-love' can't be deposited in the bank).

So here, for your reading pleasure, I present to you the letter which accompanied the ' 2009 Obama Agenda Survey'. I just love that phrasing, ' 2009 Obama Agenda Survey,' it makes me think that I should hear scary music in my head (you know, like in those bad 50's black and white sci-fi movies with the flying saucers where you can see the fishing line and the zipper on the lobster costume [dun-dun — dun!])

What I love most about this letter, though, is that you can actually tell exactly what the bullet points were that Michael Steele came up with when he was thinking about what to put in this letter because he left them underlined in the letter. That is some brilliant thinking there, Mr. Steele.

Later I shall revisit and mock — as there is much that is mockworthy. But for now, I give to you... the letter which accompanied the 2009 Obama Agenda Survey (please give us money!)

Dear Friend,

Your immediate action is required.

Please carefully read and complete the enclosed 2009 Obama Agenda Survey which is REGISTERED in your name and affixed with a tracking code to ensure that it is accounted for in the tabulated results.

As Chairman of the Republican National Committee, I am sending out this questionnaire to gauge where you and other grassroots Republicans stand on the critical issues facing our nation — I need to hear back from you right away.

You know that the liberal media elites and the Obama-Democrats are hoping you will put this letter down right now and do nothing...

... They want you to give up, desert your Party and walk away from your conservative principles.

I'm asking you to please not turn your back on us now.

I want you to know that the Republican Party is not dead and we are not going away. Our ideals remain sound and out goals remain worthy.

We have a strong minority in the U.S. Congress and the power to filibuster liberal Democrat legislation in the U.S. Senate. We intend to use both to actively oppose and expose the truth about the Obama-Democrat agenda.

We believe that you and every on of the more than 56 million voters all across our country who did not vote for Barack Obama deserve to have a choice in the way this country is governed.

The enclosed 2009 Obama Agenda Survey is your opportunity to let Republican leaders in Washington, D.C. and all across the country know where you stand on the policies and programs proposed by Barack Obama and his Democrat allies in Congress.

As a REGISTERED Participant in this important touchstone survey, your questionnaire answers will be used to represent a broad sampling of the Republicans in your area. So please, no matter what, do not discard or destroy your Survey.

In order for our sampling of Republican opinion from your area to be as exact as possible, you must return your survey — Even if you leave some question blank.

There is so much about the Obama agenda that most Americans do not know about, thanks to the non-stop, swooning coverage of the ultra-biased media.

But with your help, we are going to expose the Obama Agenda for all Americans to see so that we create a groundswell of opposition.

And we must act quickly because the Democrats are hoping to carry forward their momentum into the incredibly important 2009 governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey. It is up to you to stop them.

We need solid proof from the results of this survey to show that regardless of what the left-wing media is saying...

...There is not overwhelming support for many of the radical proposals being put forward by Obama and the Democrats.

That's why we are asking where you stand on Barack Obama's promise to raise taxes...

...On his plans to give amnesty to illegal immigrants, which could lead to billions of dollars of government handouts and possibly bankrupt Social Security...

...And how do you feel about Obama's efforts to nationalize health care and have it run by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.?

These are Obama's top priorities!

He intends to immediately bring about "change" that will stifle our fragile economy, undermine our nation's sovereignty and create a massive new government bureaucracy.

We don't have a moment to waste.

Republican leaders in Congress and all across the country are scrambling to regroup and rebuild to make sure that folks like you have a voice in Washington, D.C. to look out for your interests and address your concerns.

I know we aren't going to win every battle, but we must fight four our principles, values and beliefs on every issue.

The RNC will make sure Democrats OWN their record that that they are in total control of the federal government.

You and I know that Obama and the Democrats ran away from the own liberal agenda during the 2008 elections — Obscuring their plans for massive tax increases and the largest, most expensive expansion of our federal government in history.

But they have nowhere to hide now.

Unfortunately, one thing Obama and the Democrats have is lots of money.

Last year Obama raised over $650 million for his Presidential campaign and Congressional Democrats out-raised Republicans by 2-1.

Today Obama's team is still raising tens of millions of dollars a month which they will use during the 2010 mid-term elections to try to protect and expand their majorities in Congress and to elect more Democrats at the state and local level.

In order to compete with the Democrats in your state and all across the country, our Party must immediately start building our campaign war chest, even now as we assess our future, focus our attention and rebuild our infrastructure.

That's why I'm asking you to include a contribution to the Republican National Committee of $30, $50, $100, $250 or even $500 along with your Obama Agenda Survey in the postage-paid envelope provided.

The Republican National Committee will use you contribution to rally Republicans, independents and disaffected Democrats who do not support the radical left-wing Obama agenda to come together and speak with a single, loud, clear, voice.

We cannot afford to wait...

...Or the Obama-Democrats will dig in, using their massive fundraising network to mount an all-out propaganda campaign to obscure their actions in Washington and hide the fact that their agenda is dictated by — and benefits — the special interests that bankroll their election campaigns.

If you don't like the direction that Obama and the Democrats are taking our country, then the single most important action you can take is to come forward and support the Republican National Committee today.

Even though the media acts as though the outcome of the past election was a unanimous, 100% vote in favor of Barack Obama and his liberal agenda...

...Over 56 million Americans did not support Barack Obama and the Democrats...

...Republicans are not going to give up or go away.

We are going to get back to basics, rebuild from the grassroots up and come back with renewed energy and a strong commitment to the conservative principles of low taxes, small government, personal responsibility and a strong national defense.

I am asking you to play a very important tole in our resurgent effort to move our Party forward. The Republican Party needs your support and your advice today.

By returning your completed 2009 Obama Agenda Survey to the Republican National Committee along with your supporting contribution of $30, $50, $100, $250 or even $500, you will help focus and rebuild our Party.

Of course, we realize that as we move forward, our Party cannot simply oppose the Obama agenda. We need to offer substantive alternatives based on our conservative principles and free market ideals.

That's why we are already working in your area and across the nation to recruit the next wave of Republican leaders to run for office and offer innovative new solutions to meet the real, pressing problems we are confronting in Washington, in state capitals and in town halls.

We have been on the defensive as the Democrats in Congress put partisan politics in front of the best interests of the nation, attacked out leaders with personal smears and saturated the media with propaganda.

In 2009 all that changes. The Democrats will have to offer the nation more than just pessimism and attacks on Republicans. And we have already heard their calls for the largest tax increases and most massive expansion of government ever.

So please, help the Republican Part refocus and rebuild so that are ready to expose the Obama-Democrat agenda of special interest handouts and ultra-liberal big government policies.

Take just a few minutes to read and complete you REGISTERED copy of the 2009 Obama Agenda Survey, then make out your check or provide your credit card information in the space provided for your contribution of $30, $50, $100, $250 or even $500 to the Republican National Committee, place it in the postage paid envelope provided and mail it right away.

The future of the Republican Part is in your hands. Act now.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Michael Steele

Republican National committee chairman

P.S. All across the country, citizens like you who do not believe that more government and higher taxes are the cure-all for every problem facing us are coming to together to rebuild our Party and move forward. To join this effort, please complete the enclosed 2009 Obama Agenda Survey to let us know where you stand on the top 15 priorities of the Obama-Democrats, and return your survey with a supporting contribution of $30, $50, $100, $250 or even $500 to the Republican National Committee in the postage paid envelope provided. Thank you.

Corporate bureaucrats already ration healthcare in America

2009-05-07T15:19:00.005-04:00

There they go again. The Republican party is again trying to scare people about 'government bureaucrats' getting between a patient and their doctor and 'rationing' health care if we go all socialist and nationalize healthcare.
The Republicans may like to like to think of themselves as the party that keeps the government from intruding upon and dominating people's lives, but that just leads me to ask: are these the same Republicans who have no problem putting the law between a patient and their doctor when the patient is a pregnant woman who wants or needs an abortion? Are these also the same Republicans who have successfully blocked the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act — which would require that any prescription plan which covers things like Viagra and Cialis for men must also cover birth control pills and other contraceptives for women — for the last five Congresses? Yes, these are the same Republicans. It seems to me that rather than protecting the public from government intrusion the Republicans are all too eager to empower the government to come between you and you doctor or you and your health insurer when such interference comports with their social agenda.
And what is it with this 'rationing' nonsense? If you stop and think through the prediction that the Republicans are making about what will happen if we nationalize healthcare in America — that 'government-run healthcare will lead to rationing' — then the inference we must logically draw, if the Republican's assertions are not to be treated as mere lies and scaremongering (!), is that today there is no rationing of healthcare in America by the current hodge-podge of private insurers and providers. Such an inference is complete bullshit.
Healthcare is already rationed in this country. If you work for an employer who does not provide health insurance, then you have to go out and purchase it on your own, which is a rather expensive proposition. And, companies which don't provide health coverage to their employees generally cant' afford to pay wages high enough for their employees to purchase individual coverage. So healthcare is already rationed by virtue of where one works. Even if someone works for a company which provides health benefits, healthcare is still rationed by the corporate bureaucrats who work for the insurance companies. They keep their jobs and earn bonuses based on how much money they save by denying coverage and reimbursement, not approving it.
So, there's no reason to be afraid of the Republican's scaremongering predictions, since they've already come true. The Republicans already make it their business to let government interfere with your health care decisions — so long as that interference is in line with their agenda, and they are also all too happy to let corporate bureaucrats ration the health care that you receive — so long as those corporations keep giving money to the Republicans.

Philosophers are full of something, probably nothing pleasant.

2009-05-05T19:49:00.002-04:00

Lately I have been trying to read The Ego Tunnel, the Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self, by Thomas Metzinger. And by trying I mean that I can only read about a page or a page and a half before my eyes are in danger of falling out of my head for having rolled so much. If the second word of your book's subtitle is 'science' then your book ought to be grounded in science, not philosophical bullshit.
Perhaps I was spoiled by the last book I read, Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct, how the mind creates language, with its endnotes which are not self-referencing, and actual facts.
For now I'm putting aside The Ego Tunnel because from what I have read so far, the author is less on a voyage of scientific discovery and rather more on an Ego Trip.

"I did not say that I would be a loyal Democrat."

2009-05-04T17:23:00.004-04:00

You know what I love about Arlen Specter? His unselfconscious and unashamed sense of entitlement. He switches from the Republican party to the Democratic Party to avoid a primary challenge his pollsters tell him he can't win and then he says he won't be a loyal Democrat. That takes a lot of balls. Adding to the outrage, Pennsylvania Governor Rendell and President Obama have both promised Specter they would support his re-election bid.
Disloyalty is contagious, apparently. Not only does the Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania not need to be loyal to the Democratic Party, neither does President Obama, which is pretty fucking ironic given that Obama is the head of the Democratic Party.
So I say to all loyal Democrats out there: don't feel you need to be loyal to Obama, Rendell, Specter, or any other Democrat for that matter. Vote however you want, just don't vote Democrat. That seem to be very fashionable with the party leadership these days.

Barney Frank speaks to the House about Hate Crimes

2009-05-01T11:27:00.001-04:00

"I am not seeking your approval. Your approval of the way in which I live is not terribly important to me."

Don't go telling the truth Mr. Vice President.

2009-04-30T20:06:00.003-04:00

VP Joe Biden committed a cardinal sin of politics today: he told the truth. Appearing on the Today Show, the veep was asked by Matt Lauer about the possibility of catching the flu when traveling on planes. Biden told the truth: breathing recirculated on an airplane (or other enclosed place) air increases your chances of catching the flu if another passenger is contagious.

And then the sky fell.

Now he is being taken to task for the potential economic damage his remarks might cause the airline industry. Well, you know what? Fuck the airline industry, and fuck anyone and everyone that's more concerned about corporate profits than public health.

Fuck 'em.

Welcome Back Arlen...

2009-04-29T19:49:00.002-04:00

Dear Senator Specter,

Welcome back to the Democratic Party. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you that the rule is "Last one hired, first one fired." Also, your probationary period lasts until the first Tuesday of the first full week of November 2010, at which time we reserve the right to terminate your employment. Given your previous record, and your stated reasons for seeking employment with us, I would strongly advise that you faithfully follow the lead set by your immediate supervisor, Mr. Harry Reid (you will take daily marching orders from him), and to take every opportunity to promptly and fully comply with all directives which come from either the CEO of our organization, one Barack H. Obama, or our Board of Directors, the Democratic National Committee.
I look forward to seeing you again at your next review, at which time we will assess your capacity to faithfully comply with our directives and agenda.

Best of luck to you.

Speading joy throughout the land

2009-04-28T10:53:00.003-04:00

Congratulations are in order. I'm now knee-deep in a flame war over the tendency of some of the more militant AIDS activists to engage in historical revision and the posthumous vilification of Ronald Reagan for not doing 'something' at a time when he was not aware that anything needed to be done about AIDS even though it wouldn't be called AIDS for at least another year, and no one even knew it was a communicable disease at the time. One of my opponents wrote of me:

"...when I typed "I am resisting typing something harsh" what I was really saying was you sound abrasive and intellectually confrontational..."

Ha-ha! He forgot 'strident,' 'hectoring,' 'shrill,' 'grating,' 'jarring,' 'obstreperous,' and 'stentorian,' among others.
Coming soon to a blog near you, Episode II AIDS Wars: Attack of the Activism Clones. It will be full of thrills, spills, and chills; to say nothing of rebuttals to: vindictive ad hominem attacks, non sequiturs and fallacious logic. But no cheesy special effects, those are just cheap distractions from the plot. I'll leave those to my opponents.
And I'm sure Episode III will soon follow, AIDS Wars: Revenge of Godwin's Law.

Reagan should have done more! Like what?

2009-04-27T16:25:00.008-04:00

When I step in it, I step in it deep. Over at AMERICAblog, there's a post, "What if Reagan..." which asks the question (and I'm paraphrasing here) "what if Reagan had actually done something at the beginning of the AIDS crisis in 1981? How many lives would that have saved?" Here's my answer: "Nothing that Reagan could have done in 1981 could have saved a single life because there was nothing he could do."
Being a teenager in the 80's I remember the beginnings of the AIDS crisis very well, and I remember the fear and panic that went along with it, both as a regular person who didn't know what the hell was causing it or how to avoid catching it, and as a closeted gay youth who was led to believe by the mass-media that since I was gay it was inevitable that I would catch AIDS. The news being what it was back then AIDS was only ever referred to as a disease of gay men, Haitian boat people, and IV drug users - you know, the creme of American society.
So I commented on the post, my point being that there was nothing that I could think of that Reagan could have done at the beginning of the HIV/AIDS crisis that would have saved any lives. And I backed up my opinion with some facts. Which is always kind of nice, at least I think so.
First I pointed out that disease surveillance and monitoring was nowhere near as sophisticated in 1981 as it is now, and that part of the reason today's communicable disease surveillance even exists is because of the emergence of HIV/AIDS. Also, at this point in time medical science seemed to have reached the consensus opinion (at least as represented in the popular press) that bacterial diseases would soon be a thing of the past thanks to antibiotics, and that for every virus there was a vaccine which could be made; after all we had just two short years before the recognized outbreak of AIDS officially eradicated smallpox from the face of the Earth (in December of 1979). We were complacent about disease. We were even optimistic about curing cancer (anyone else remember the hype about hybridoma-derived mono-clonal antibodies and interferon?), thanks to Pres. Ricard M. Nixon's war on cancer.
Secondly, I based my opinion on the fact that HIV-1 was not isolated until 1983 (by Dr. Luc Montaigner of the Institut Pasteur), and the causal connection between the retrovirus and the disease was only definitively proven about a year later. Since the infectious agent was unknown for the first two years of the recognized epidemic, there was no certainty as to the mode or mordes of disease transmission - only suspicion, and therefore there was no recognized method of preventing the spread of AIDS. So this idea that

"if only Reagan had done something at the beginning of the epidemic in 1981, X number of lives would have been saved,"

sounds incredibly naive and more than a little malicious.
I also pointed out, not that the people who commented on my comment seemed to care to read what I actually wrote, that the technology of 2009 — which is now being brought to bear on the suspected Swine Flu outbreak — didn't exist in 1981, or if it did, these technologies were expensive, time-consuming, labor-intensive, and generally not readily available except to a select, few, very well-connected researchers. And now is as good a time as any to point out the fact that given the limitations of the technology of the day, the fact that it took two years to isolate HIV (1983) and then causally connect it to AIDS one year later (1984) and then come up with a reliable and effective blood test in another year (1985) was not foot-dragging — it was astonishingly rapid progress and a testament to the commitment and intelligence of the people doing the research.
Now ultimately, I have no love for Ronald Reagan. He promoted the pernicious ideas "government isn't the solution, it's the problem," and that as a nation we can borrow our way to prosperity ("Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" -- Dick Cheney), much to our current woe. (Government is neither the problem nor the solution. It is a tool. The ends which it achieves are determined by the intentions of those that control it and the uses to which they put it. And my god, do I even need to talk about borrowing beyond one's ability to repay at this particular time?)
So here I go (again): For all the reasons listed above, I am of the opinion that between the recognition of the AIDS epidemic in the United States in 1981, and the isolation of HIV (in 1983) and its definitive identification as the cause of AIDS in 1984, there wasn't a god-damned thing Ronald Reagan (or anyone else who could have been President at that time) could have done that would have saved a single life. Period. Full Stop. End of line.
If anyone thinks otherwise, please, by all means, speak up. Point out what I'm missing. Give me an action Reagan could have taken and then explain to me how that action would have saved lives. Walk me through it, point by point by point, from A to B to C. Cite your sources, give me some facts. Otherwise, accusing Reagan of "fiddling while Rome burned" sounds like so much hollow anger and resentment, because that's what it is. It's also the exact same revisionist history bullshit to which the Republican Party all too often resorts when the reality of what the real world is conflicts with their idealized fantasy of how the world ought to be. And if you're not a Republican, then you ought to be better than that and not stoop to their level.
But that nonsensical "If only Reagan had done something" is precisely what I got by way of reply to my comment. To wit:

It would have helped if Reagan had at least acknowledged the existence of a problem, instead of ignoring it as long as he did. In his book, "And the Band Played On," Randy Shilts called Reagan's treatment of the AIDS epidemic "ritualistic silence," which flies in the face of what the leader should do when his/her country is faced with a threat of any kind.

Pardon my crudeness, but what would have been so fucking magical about "acknowledging the existence of a problem" that doing so would have saved lives? Talking accomplishes nothing besides the movement of air. But at least, to his credit, this person gave me a concrete example of an action: "Acknowledge the existence of a problem." There was just no follow-through.
And then there's this gem:

Yes -- benign neglect is always the best tactic in a public health emergency.

I'll grant you that knowledge was sketchy, but not doing anything at all, which is what Reagan did, was inexcusable.

Oh nooes! That big meany Ronald Reagan didn't do anything at all, as opposed to doing what he could have done which was... what exactly? What action could Reagan have taken that he didn't that he should have, and what difference would it have made? (Not to be too glib about a serious subject, but I'm rather impressed with myself for having done a shoulda, woulda, coulda, but didn't sentence - they're not as easy as they look...) And then there was this polished turd:

you might be too young to remember the 80s, but you can answer your own questions with a few minutes of internet research.

[Then proceeds to write a paragraph about things that we know now but didn't know then, which if only we had known at the time but didn't... and then throws in some unsubstantiated allegations about a conspiracy to keep the gay dying of the AIDS... and never once answers my question except by implying "Well, if you don't know why I'm right and you're wrong, I'm not going to tell you."]

So when I give my opinion, "there's nothing Reagan could have done, but if you think I'm wrong, make your case," I get some self-righteous douchebag that thinks that indirectly not refuting my argument somehow directly refutes my argument. Then this same douchebag gives me the bullshit argument that could turn any straight man gay if he hears it often enough from a woman "If you don't know why you're wrong I'm not going to tell you." No asshole, fuck you, if you think I'm wrong, present an argument, cite some facts. You know, back your shit up. Telling me I'm wrong because you disagree with me and that I should do the work of making your argument for you is bullshit.
Do I sound a little pissed about this? Yes? Good. I am. And I'm glad that my writing style is expressive enough that my ire is not lost on the casual reader (not directed at the reader though). This whining and whingeing and complaining about what Reagan didn't do thirty years ago is just petty blamethrowing and an irresolvable litigation of the immutable past and it won't bring the dead back to life, and it won't do anything to improve the lives of those living with HIV today. And most irresponsibly, by politicizing the past, we poison any objective inquiry into it and therefore make it damn near impossible to learn from it, which leaves us that much more vulnerable to the next epidemic which will cost lives and that petty, trifling nonsense is absolutely unforgivable.

My Credit Card Industry Epiphany

2009-04-26T00:06:00.003-04:00

Well, well, Mizz Tiffany had an epiphany (no, that's not part of the etymological story of my surname - but close) about regulating the credit card industry. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has been making some noises recently about federal legislation and (re)regulation of the credit card industry and it all sounds so bland and familiar, as in, this has all been done before, and every time new regulations or limitations are placed on the credit card companies, they always eventually return to their sleazy and usurious ways. But I don't how else these companies are supposed to behave — they are credit card companies after all — being usurious sleazy bastards is what they are supposed to do. That's how they make money, and that's why you should only borrow what you can repay - quickly.
So I think we should all just accept the fact that no matter what measures are taken to regulate, domesticate, and you know, neuter, the credit companies, they will always eventually find a way around the regulations and the regulator.
But here's my epiphany. We make the credit card companies regulate themselves. Stop laughing. Here's how. We make Congress make it easier for consumers to declare bankruptcy. And not the "negotiated interest rates and scheduled debt repayments," kind of bankruptcy, I'm talking about the "wipe the slate clean, discharge of all debts, get out of credit-card-jail free" bankruptcy.
And here's why I think making declaring bankruptcy easier is a much better solution than regulation: if it's easier for consumers to discharge their debts through bankruptcy, credit card companies are going to have to be far more responsible and discerning when it comes to whom and how much unsecured credit they are going to extend. Predatory or irresponsible lenders who continue to extend credit to consumers who are unable to repay their debts will lose money and might face bankruptcy themselves.
I know this might sound too easy and too simple, but that's the beauty of this idea: it is simple and easy. Plus, easing bankruptcy has the added benefits of 1) being immune to fine print and new and innovative sleaze on the part of the credit card companies, and 2) not increasing the size of government by creating a new regulator agency or bureaucracy.
Just an idea.

Iran better not go nuclear. Or else!

2009-04-23T18:20:00.001-04:00

I started writing this post, oh, months ago — like, when Obama was first sworn in as President (I'm still having a tough time using the word 'president' again, seeing as how I'd been without one for the previous eight years). When President Obama got into office, lots of people were pissing and moaning that Iran "is going to get the bomb" and we (meaning the US) can't let that happen because it's not in our interest.
Even President Obama stated that "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable…" and we have to "…prevent that from happening." And today (Thursday 23 April 2009), when President Obama attended a ceremony on Capitol Hill for the Holocaust Day of Remembrance, he was lectured both implicitly and explicitly by different speakers that, again, we (again meaning the US) must not let Iran "get the bomb."
Forget for a moment what the declaration that Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is counter to our national interest really means. Just put that thought aside for a moment. Joel Geiderman, the vice chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, had this to say (to President Obama):

"At least one whole nation [Israel] has been targeted for destruction with the threat to wipe it off the map. [This threat coming from Iranian President Ahmadinejad] History should have taught us that democracies that let such pledges stand do so at their own peril."

If we're going to let history be our guide, then another of history's lessons bears repeating: only a fool fights a war on two fronts. Do we know of any country that's fighting a war on two fronts? Could it be... oh, I don't know... us!? With military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States military is already stretched too thin, or so says General Peter Chiarelli, the Vice Chief of Staff for the U.S. Army.
So the question is, if Iran wants to pursue (or purchase) nuclear weapons technology, how are we supposed to stop them? Threats and intimidation? Threats and intimidation (aside from being the calling card of a bully) only work if the intended target thinks you can follow through on your threats. Short of a pre-emptive tactical nuclear strike, the Iranians know that there is nothing we can do to stop them from pursuing nuclear weapons if they choose to do so.
If Israel is afraid of a nuclear Iran, then the Israelis can thank George W Bush. If anyone cares to recall, however inconvenient these facts may be for some (yes, Republicans, I'm talking about you and your affinity for revisionist histories ~~— you hateful pigfuckers~~) following the invasion of Afghanistan and defeat of the Taliban, George W Bush stood in front of the United States Congress and made the declaration that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea "constitute an axis of evil." And then George W Bush and his administration lied to the American public and the rest of the world and with their manufactured evidence and hollow justification invaded Iraq.
If Iran wants to justify their pursuit of nuclear weapons on the grounds that such a course of action is the best deterrent to unprovoked United States aggression, it's impossible to refute that argument, since the United States did, after all, invade Iraq without provocation.

How did the oil get there? God did it!

2009-04-22T19:26:00.006-04:00

The title of this YouTube video is "Energy Secretary puzzled by simple question."

Of course, Nobel Prize winning physicist and Secretary of the Department of Energy Dr. Steven Chu wasn't puzzled. And the 'simple question' he was asked may have been simple, but the answer most certainly wasn't. Here's the transcript of what Rep. Joe Barton of Texas said:

"Doctor Chu, I don't want to leave you out. You're our scientist. I have one simple question for you in our last six[ty] seconds. How did all the oil and gas get to Alaska and under the Artic[sic] Ocean?"

In response, Secretary Chu immediately begins to laugh. Why? Because explaining plate tectonics and geologic catagenesis, ie "How did all the oil and gas get to Alaska" would have taken longer than a mere sixty seconds to properly explain, so Secretary Chu knew it was a ridiculous proposition. Dr. Chu is a serious scientist, and while the honorable Congressman Mr. Barton was busy practicing the business of being a Republican politician, Dr. Chu was busy busting his ass doing the work that eventually won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. So it's not exactly a surprise that a scientist got blindsided by some piece of shit partisan hack. But at the very least, as evidenced by his laughter, Dr. Chu knew he'd been had.
But rather than risk offending the good Congressman by saying "The answer to your question would take a lot more than sixty seconds to properly explain, so I'll submit it to you in writing," Chu took the bait and tried to explain — after all, he's not a politician, he doesn't know better — and Barton made all the hay he could:

"I mean ([wasn't it] or [isn't it]) obvious that at one time it was a lot warmer in Alaska and on the North Pole? It wasn't a big pipeline that we created in Texas and shipped it up there and then put it under ground so that we can now pump it out and ship it back."

No, it isn't obvious that at one time it was a lot warmer in Alaska and the North Pole just because there are deposits of petroleum in those areas. The current theoretical model which best explains the data goes a little something like this: between three and four hundred million years ago North America straddled the equator, and Alaska was submerged beneath a warm, shallow, tropical sea. This warm, shallow, tropical sea sat next to a deep oceanic subduction zone - a deep sea trench. Currents from way deep down at the bottom of the ocean encountered this subduction trench and were pushed up (kind of like air rising up the side of a mountain), bringing nutrients up to the sea surface. The nutrients dredged up from below fertilized the warm, shallow, tropical waters. Uncountable trillions upon trillions of photosynthetic marine microorganisms bloomed in these warm, fertile waters, and when they died, they drifted down to the bottom of the shallow sea. Over millions of years, layers of these dead microorganisms accumulated, and the continents, through the action of plate tectonics, drifted slowly across the earth.
Millions more years passed, and layers of sediment accumulated above these layers of dead microorganisms, compacting and heating their remains, creating what is known as kerogen. Fast forward to today, and millions of years of heat and pressure converted the kerogen to petroleum and natural gas and plate tectonics brought the continents to their current positions.
And that is how "all the oil and gas [got] to Alaska and the Artic[sic] Ocean."
Now that explanation took longer than sixty seconds to read, and would have taken longer than sixty seconds to say. And that is not the explanation Secretary Chu gave. He tried. But despite his best efforts, Secretary Chu stumbled into a trap. He sounded incoherent and uninformed and that is precisely what Rep Barton wanted. Rep Barton found his incredulous voice and asked, rhetorically, "So it just drifted up there?"
So what's the point of all this? Rep Barton — a Texas Republican — is trying to discredit the bona fides of President Obama's Secretary of the Department of Energy. These are the opening shots of the inevitable partisan war the Republican party and the American petroleum industry are going to wage on President Obama's energy policy.
I have to give credit to Rep Barton, his setup was so transparent and artless as to be completely avoidable, and yet his mark still fell for it. "You're our scientist. I have one simple question for you..." How brilliantly smarmy. Say that you have a simple question while knowing full well there's no simple answer and you make your opponent look like a fool when they flail around trying to find the simple answer which doesn't exist.
Of course the ultimate goal of Rep Barton and his ilk is not merely to discredit a President he doesn't like; the ultimate goal of Rep Barton and other members of the godsquad is to discredit capital 's' science. And what better way to do that than by discrediting a scientist. And a liberal one at that.
The thing is, I am convinced that people that are charitably called 'climate change deniers,' actually do believe the evidence and the science that says that global warming (what it really is, and what it was called before it was called "global climate change") is occurring and is man-made and that petroleum really will run out and sooner rather than later. But why they publicly deny (what I believe) they privately believe, is that they also (privately) believe that global warming and resource depletion are not a problem because Jesus is magic. Yes, I'm certain these people think that global warming and resource depletion are not problems because when He returns Jesus will simply wave His Magic Wand and 'cure' global warming and make more oil, like petroleum were so much heavenly Doritos "Consume all you want. We shall make more."

Going who? Galt? What?

2009-04-22T17:14:00.006-04:00

I admit to be being totally befuddled lately. I'm dumb. I'm dense as a stone and twice as heavy. I can't quite figure out if I'm mistaken or if there really is an inherent contradiction in this "Going John Galt" ~~whining, whinging, petulant, self-important nonsense~~ movement.
The "Go Galt" espousers believe that there are two kinds of people in America: there is one tiny little group of people who do all the actual work and produce all the actual wealth of this country, which is them, the 'Go Galters'; and then there's everybody else in America, those who do no work and produce no wealth, and who benefit from the big bad federal government's forcible redistribution of the Galter's hard-earned wealth into their lazy, grubby, welfare-collecting (probably non-European descended) hands. We just laze about all day, smoking crack, drinking cold forties, fucking like stoned, drunken monkeys, driving our big, shiny, uninsured Cadillacs with spinning rims, before heading out at night to shoot up the better neighborhoods of our towns and villages.
So the Go Galters have decided that since they couldn't get their way at the ballot box and are now faced with picking up the tab for neo-socialist (or are these the 'same old' socialist) programs they don't like, they're just not going to pick up the tab. They are going to stop being productive. As a group. The capitalist, laissez-faire free market cheerleaders, are going to stand up to creeping American socialism (or communism or neo-socialism or whatever the fuck they're calling it...) by engaging in... a strike!
Here's where I get confused and start thinking there's some sort of logical contradiction involved. See, the Galter ideology says that capitalism is superior to all other economic systems, especially socialism. The Galter's also believe that America is now faced with the threat of creeping socialism, via the agency of 'that black guy with the funny-sounding name who shouldn't have won the election but somehow ~~for all the money we paid them, Diebold fucked it up~~ did.' All well and good, everyone is entitled to their opinion. (ahh! Socialism! Run for your lives! Women and children first! What? Women and children first? Wait, I said laissez-faire... fuck the women and children! Every man for himself!)
So in order to stand up to what they see as socialism, the Galters are going to go 'on strike' in order to deprive the big bad federal government of tax revenues and therefore starve the socialist agenda. A strike is a collective action, and the philosophy which advocates collective action is collectivism, and if you were to ask Jean-Jacques Rousseau himself he would tell you that collectivism was central to his theory of the social contract. Rousseau's social contract concept being influential in the works of one Karl Marx, making Rousseau (and therefore collectivism) the grandfather of (cue scary music) socialism and communism! (Ahhh! Socialism! Run for your lives — what? I did that bit already? Oh, yeah, I did. Okay...)
So, am I way off base here or does anyone else think that there is a contradiction when those who espouse capitalist ideology resort to collectivist tactics to oppose a collectivist ideology, ie socialism? If capitalism is superior to socialism, shouldn't the defenders of capitalism be resorting to capitalist tactics and strategy to fight socialism? Aren't these 'Go Galt' types actually conceding the inferiority of capitalism if they can't find any capitalist tactics which they can use in their ~~self-~~righteous battle against evil socialism?
Just asking.

Wingnuts and the New World Order. Why?

2009-04-21T17:19:00.008-04:00

I ran across this photo online,

(photo by W Salter)

and I have some questions.

First, God is judging America for fifty plus million abortions? When? Today? The day that photo was taken? There were more than fifty million abortions performed in America on the day that photo was taken? Wait, that couldn't be right. How would the guy who made the sign know how many abortions were going to be performed that day? Unless God told him so. Or maybe the guy made the sign a couple days before and his tally was from the day before or something. Fifty plus million abortions in one day? If I were God, I'd be pretty mad too. Having to send fifty million baby souls to Baby Hell every medamned day would probably be a lot of work, omnipotent though I were. Medamned Americans. What horrendously impious promiscuous sluts.

Second, what is this "Barack Obama supports Abortion, Sodomy, Socialism, AND the New World Order" nonsense? And isn't that kind of redundant? I mean, from what I know about The New World Order, aren't forcible abortion, sodomy, and socialism the aim of the 'New World Order?' And wait a second, if every man's penis is supposed to be forcibly shoved down another man's throat or forcibly rammed up another man's ass, rather than being lovingly and gently and piously inserted — missionary-style (of course) — into a woman's hoo-ha (under the aegis of holy matrimony, of course), then how is any woman supposed to get pregnant so we can forcibly abort her baby with a coat hangar? Maybe I just don't have enough information about the New World Order that I should have if I'm going to form an opinion on it. You know... "New World Order? Yay!" or "New World Order? Booooo." Although, when it comes to the "forcibly shoving my penis up another man's ass" bit, I know what side I'm leaning toward already.

So I'm gonna stop here for a while and do some research and I'll be back.

I wouldn't want these people teabagging me

2009-04-18T09:26:00.005-04:00

Seriously, I wouldn't want your typical teabagger teabagging me. I like my sack, thank you very much. Also, I'm not such a fan of teabagging. If you're going to go down, go all the way down. Give me a mouth hug.

Here for your amusement, and my derision, are photos of what I like to call "the prototypical right-wing whack-job tax-protester."

photo by Richard Terk, Sacramento, California

First up, we have "I'm citing the Constitution, but I've obviously never read it." What you have to love about this protester is the earnestness that their appeal to the supreme law of the land is absolutely flawless in its construction. Save for the fact that the US Constitution has seven (7) articles, not one hundred eleven 'Artical's [sic] (111) as this poorly-medicated psychotic believes.
One could be generous and choose to interpret the numbering scheme used as Roman numerals, but the appeal to "section 110" precludes that notion as 1) Roman numerals were not a positional notation system, and 2) Not only did the Romans not have a numeral to denote zero, they did not use the letter 'O' as a numeral.
Or seeing as how this is the digital age, we could interpret the numbering scheme as binary, which would make sense, except that even though there is an Article VII (decimal '7' equals '111' binary) it has only one section, not the six or more that binary notation would require to be correct.
But what you absolutely have to love is the proud and shameless promotion of one of the oldest and most prevalent schizophrenic conspiracy theories, specifically the federal government collects taxes from US citizens and then ships it off to 'foreigners' for their debauched uses and vile plots against — care to guess — Americans. But I never could understand why these people got so upset: they generally believe that "paper money" is "fiat" money, and therefore not "real money" which is only gold coin, which is no longer circulated. So if the government is taking away money which they do not even believe to be real, what's their problem?

"But it was my fake,worthless 'fiat money'!" They wail.

photo by Harris J Sklar, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

This one is too easy a target. "Ma'am, if you're going to boldly hold a sign which proclaims 'NO to Pork' you might not want to be a gigantic fucking pig yourself."

photo by Mathieu Young

And finally we come to "Little Miss 'I'm not a racist, but I don't believe that anyone who's not white and has a funny-sounding name could possible be a real American.'" Not that she's a racist or anything, just her sign is.

我不是已经刚才告诉你了吗

2009-04-17T10:24:00.005-04:00

"Wo bushi yijing gangcai gaosu ni li ma?"

"Didn't I just tell you?"

Missed opportunities and regrets for April 17, 2009

2009-04-17T10:04:00.002-04:00

I can't think of much to write about today. Looking back over the last week, I realize now that there are things which I was about to say which I wish I had said, or things which came to me far too long after the moment had passed. So in the spirit of fulfilling the need to always have the last word, here goes:

"I kinda expected that we'd have this conversation one day. I just always pictured things being the other way around."
"Don't give me that fucking look asshole. You got busted doing something you knew you weren't supposed to be doing in the first place. Not. My. Fault."
"Hi. My name is Michael, what's yours? I thought I'd introduce myself because I think we ought to at least know each others name if we're going to keep staring at each other like this. You busy this afternoon?"
"Do you even know how much energy it's taking for me to not say 'I told you so'?"
"And you ought to mind your own business."
"I'll give you five bucks to cut out Michelle Bachmann's tongue."
"Wanna go play in traffic? Do ya? Do ya? Now fetch!"

不要想着天上会掉馅儿饼

2009-04-16T21:32:00.001-04:00

Bùyào xiǎng zhe tiānshàng huì diào xiànrbǐng.

"Don't think that meat pies are going to fall from the sky."

"Get real."

An object lesson in not judging a book by its cover

2009-04-15T12:57:00.003-04:00

I would embed this video, but those prats at Britain's Got Talent won't allow it. Go Susan go!

Introducing Copulins — the latest fad in junk science

2009-04-14T16:00:00.002-04:00

"Step right up, folks! Step right up! Don't be shy! Ladies and gentlemen, girls and boys, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you the very latest, very greatest, most innovative scientifical breakthrough from the most intelligent scientifical minds of our scientifical age! Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, I give you... copulins!"
"'What are copulins?' You ask. Why, copulins are the answer to all your questions about love! Copulins are the key that unlocks the the door to romance and marital bliss! Copulins are the solution to all your problems! Oprah says so. And CNN, too!"

Before I begin with trashing the junk science of 'copulins,' the putative pheromones excreted by females of Homo sapiens sapiens, let me take my obligatory swipe at CNN and their typically ~~shitty~~ shoddy 'reporting.' CNN's 'reporting' on this 'story' is not even reporting. Reporting implies that a specific form of work, known as 'journalism' was done. And this 'journalism' as it is called, discovered these things called 'facts.' These 'fact' thingies are obtained from either research or 'sources.' And research and 'sources' are usually not to be believed unless they have been independently verified with another 'source' or more research. And none of this describes what this 'story' is.
What is this story then? It is an almost verbatim reproduction of the article which appears on Oprah's website. There is no fact checking, there are no other sources mentioned or cited. In other words, CNN didn't do any ~~fucking~~ work for this story. Big surprise. CNN is getting their science 'news' direct from Oprah Winfrey. Which is why, in my opinion, no one should go to CNN if they're looking for news, because there isn't any at CNN.
And now to bash the junk science behind copulins — the supposed pheromones produced by human females. First, if one does a Google search of the term 'copulin' or 'copulins,' all the results returned will give you functional definitions of what 'copulins' supposedly do, but none provide a concise chemical formula describing what copulins are. And of course, all of these functional definitions are provided by websites which are selling products containing copulins, which is all very convenient if you're a shopper, but not if you're looking to learn something.
So if copulins do indeed exist, and they have been isolated (how else would one know that one 'found' them?), then what's the empirical formula for 'copulins?' If, as the name implies, there are more than one specific 'copulin,' then 'copulins' must be a group of related compunds with a common structural unit (like amino acids, fatty acids, steroids, terpenes, etc.), so what is this structural unit and what is its systematic name as defined by IUPAC nomenclature conventions for organic compounds? Of course there are no answers to any of those questions because copulins have not been found or isolated, so therefore have not been proven to exist — and yet somehow people get away with selling products that claim to contain them. How odd. ("Buy new and improved Niqunoq! Now with 20% more Phloom!")
The people that Our Lady of Perpetual Yo-Yo Dieting proffers as leading researchers in the study of the effect of scent on human sexual behavior are Karl Grammer and Elizabeth Oberzaucher. Since these two people are being offered up as leading researchers in their field — the field of copulins — then one would expect at least one scholarly paper pertaining to copulins written by one or both of them would be floating about somewhere in the world. A quick Google search with either of their names and the word copulin returns little of scholarly value, but once again, plenty of sites hawking products containing ~~phloom~~ copulins. Of course, the one credible-looking result returned from a Google search of Oberzaucher and copulin wasn't all that credible. Yes, the page result titled "Scientific Evidence Human Pheromones" looked legitimate (briefly), however, that too is part of a site which hawks products which purport to contain human pheromones. On this one page, there is a single paper which references copulins — which Grammer co-authored — and it is not a paper which makes the claim that copulins have been discovered and isolated in humans.
So let's review what few facts there are. Copulins are supposed pheromones given off by women. There is no source — whatsoever — claiming (what would be considerable, possibly Nobel-prize worthy) bragging rights for the discovery of said copulins. There is no source which provides an empirical chemical formula or structural formula for copulins. The only people making the claim that copulins do indeed exist are people trying to sell products which claim to contain copulins.
Ladies and gentlemen: copulins are junk science.

Why Blog Against Theocracy?

2009-04-12T15:30:00.000-04:00

Why am I blogging against theocracy? I'm blogging against theocracy because in my opinion religion in general is bad for society.
Why do I believe religion is bad for society? I believe religion is bad for society because it encourages the belief in logical fallacies. For instance, if those that rise to power in a society are religious, they can choose to believe that they came to power because of their religious faith, thereby engaging in the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, or they may be intelligent enough to know better but engage in the aforementioned fallacy anyway because they are cunning enough to realize that most of the public does not. Either way, the public line becomes: "I was loyal to my faith, and my god rewarded me with power," and then religious orthodoxy becomes the only legitimate path to power and influence in that society.
Once orthodoxy takes hold those that believe differently — or not at all — will at best be disenfranchised, although history shows that 'the best case scenario' rarely lasts very long, and mere social or political ostracism soon yields to the power majority's baser, more violent urges. Those that are targeted need not even be non-believers, they may simply have discovered facts which refute established dogma. (See Medieval Inquisition, Spanish Inquisition, Portuguese Inquisition, Roman Inquisition, for examples )

Goldman Sachs Takes Taxpayer Money To Violate Taxpayers' First Amendment Rights

2009-04-12T07:33:00.007-04:00

An article appeared yesterday in the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk) about Goldman Sachs, and not surprisingly — after raping the US economy, extorting money from US taxpayers ("give us your wallet or your economy gets it"), and then acting like they had absolutely no part in Wall Street's financial genocide of the global economy — Goldman is now threatening to sue an American citizen for exercising his First Amendment right to criticize, mock, and most damning of all, tell the truth about Goldman Sachs.
Florida blogger Mike Morgan registered the domain goldmansachs666.com, with the catchy title "Facts About Goldman Sacks," in late March 2009. Among evangelical Christians in the United States the number '666' in the domain name is an allusion to 'The Mark of The Beast,' a physical or metaphoric mark (or perhaps both) that one is a minion of the Anti-Christ — which I think aside from being rather comical is also unfortunately and unpleasantly appropriate given the hellish results of Goldman's (and other Wall Street firms) diabolical schemes.
Goldman has since retained Wall Street law firm Chadbourne & Parke to shut down Morgan's site. The fine upstanding people of Chadbourne & Parke (you just have to love the extraneous 'u' and 'e' in the name of the former and 'e' in the latter, don't you? It just makes them seem that extra little bit more WASPish than thou) sent Mr. Morgan a letter ordering him to cease and desist because his website violates Goldman's intellectual property rights and also "implies a relationship" with Goldman Sachs.
So, Goldman's lawyers have essentially stipulated to the fact that either Goldman Sachs really is in league with Satan or a reasonable person could be forgiven for thinking so and publicly expressing that opinion (since the underlying reasoning of their claim is that a reasonable person could confuse an authentic Goldman Sachs website for one which has the Satanic '666' in the name), thereby also implying that their client doesn't really have a cause of action and therefore no case, since the purpose of Satan, through the agency of the Anti-Christ is to bring about torment, tumult, and general havoc, mayhem, and destruction, which, so far as the economy and financial markets are concerned - mission accomplished! Which is a fine bit of legal maneuvering which could only come from the likes of a firm which resides on Wall Street even if it isn't a gigantic financial leviathan in league with the Anti-Christ and just one of Satan's minion's lickspittles instead.

I'm starting to dislike my bank

2009-04-11T11:41:00.003-04:00

I bank with TD Bank — they used to be called Commerce Bank — and I am starting to dislike them. I find it more than a little disconcerting that my bank no longer has branches, they have 'stores.' I go to the store to buy things. When you buy something, you are exchanging your money for a product, and in that transaction, what was your money becomes someone else's money in return for what was their property becoming your property.
I don't know what TD Bank is thinking, but I am most assuredly not exchanging my money for anything when I deposit it there.
So the search is on for the last honest bank in America. Know of one? Leave a comment.

Can we have fish tonight?

2009-04-10T14:20:00.007-04:00

Him: "Can we have fish tonight?"
Me: "?"
Him: "Can we have fish tonight?"
Me: "What?"
Him: "We have to have fish tonight. It's good Friday. I can't eat meat."
Me: "Well what do you think fish is?"
Him: "Fish."
Me: "You don't think fish is meat?"
"No."
"Fish isn't meat?"
"No."
"Well what's chicken then?"
"Meat."
"Chicken is meat but fish isn't."
"Right."
"?...?...What's the difference?"
"Chicken is meat and fish is fish."
"Okay, hold on. Then what's beef?"
"Meat."
"Pork?"
"Meat."
"So beef is meat, and pork is meat, and chicken is meat, but fish is fish."
"Right."
"But it's all muscle. Every part of the animal that we eat is muscle. That's what meat is, muscle."
"Right. But fish isn't meat, it's fish."
"Fish don't have muscles?"
"Fish isn't meat."
"Fish don't have muscles?"
"?What?"
"What part of a fish are you eating when you eat fish?"
"Fish."
"Okay, wait. When you eat fish, do you eat the bones?"
"No. Sometimes one slips through and you choke on it —"
"So you don't eat the bones. Do you eat the skin or the fins?"
"No."
"How about the head? Do you eat the fish's head?"
"Ick! No."
"Internal organs?"
"Gross! No."
"So what part of the fish are you eating when you eat fish?"
"The fish part."
"The fish part of the fish?"
"Yes, the fish part of the fish."
"So there are parts of a fish which aren't fish?"
"? Listen, it's good Friday so we can't eat meat. So you have to make fish for dinner."
"Why do I have to make fish for dinner?"
"Because it's good Friday."
"So what?"
"Because the church says that you can't eat meat on good Friday."
"Whose church?"
"The church!"
"I'm an atheist, I don't have a church."
"Well I do, and the church says only fish on good Friday."
"I thought you said you couldn't eat meat on good Friday?"
"I can't and fish isn't meat!"
"Yes it is."
"Listen!"
"Yes?"
"It's good Friday. I can't eat meat today, so for dinner I want fish."
"And all I want for Christmas is my two front teeth. I'm not living my life to care about what you want."
"You're acting like this is... is... is..."
"A gigantic imposition on my life?"
"Yes!"
"Because it is."
"It's fish for dinner!"
"And I don't like fish."
"Well then eat something else."
"Then make your own fucking dinner."
"!"
"You heard me."
"What the fuck is your problem?"
"You're telling me that I have to make fish for dinner tonight because it's good Friday, and if I don't like fish, I can eat something else?"
"Yes."
"So I should cook two different meals if I don't want to eat fish"
"Yes."
"Why?"
"Because I can't eat meat today."
"And why can't you eat meat today?"
"Because it's good Friday."
"So I should go out of my way to accommodate your religion?"
"It's fish for dinner. It's not going to kill you."
"History says otherwise"
"What?!?!?!"
"Nothing. How about we order out?"
"Order out?"
"Yes. Order. Out. That way you can have your fish and I can have whatever I want."
"You couldn't just cook fish?"
"Do you even know if we have any fish?"
"What?"
"Do we have any fish?"
"I don't know. Do we?"
"No."
"You made me jump through hoops —"
"— I didn't make you do anything. You were giving me some song and dance with the words 'fish' and 'have to' and 'good Friday' in it, like it should mean anything to me —"
"— well it does to me —"
"— good for fucking-you then, but it doesn't mean shit to me."
"It's one of the holiest days of Christianity!"
"So! Fucking! What! I'm an atheist! Your holy days don't mean diddly-squat to me!"
"Then you shouldn't care whether I have to have fish for dinner or not!"
"We don't have any fish!"
"Then we'll have to order out!"
"Fine. Where are the menus?"
"In the drawer to the left of the sink."
"."
"Can I borrow some money?"

Lou Dobbs is a dumbass and CNN sucks

2009-04-10T07:49:00.003-04:00

Does CNN suck because Lou Dobbs is a dumbass or is Lou Dobbs a dumbass because CNN sucks? Don't understand? Then consider this gem from Lou Dobbs:

DOBBS: Next year, 2010, which is, obviously, going to be a signature year because it will establish, first of all, the power of this presidency and this president, all that he is embraced by at least the national media, he still didn't receive a majority of the votes in this country, just those cast.

Uhm, "he didn't receive a majority of the votes in this country, just those cast," wtf? And CNN pays this ignorant douchebag for his opinions? Am I wrong or is the difference between vote and a candidate preference the fact that for former is cast and the latter is not? If you don't vote, then your preference isn't a vote. So, as a matter of fact, Barack Obama did receive a majority of the Presidential vote because there's no such thing as an uncast vote.

And CNN pays this ignorant douchebag? Just another reason why I don't watch CNN.

"...didn't receive a majority of the votes in this country, just those cast." (Screams and mutters and paces back and forth in bathrobe, contemplating genocide of Loudobbsians...)

Hit and run thoughts

2009-04-09T09:05:00.002-04:00

Quick hit and run thought for this morning: instead of building low-income housing, how about if the government paid developers to build affordable housing for low-income families? Don't see the difference? Then think harder.

Hey Islam, what have you done for me lately?

2009-04-08T23:28:00.003-04:00

I was reading this post over at FiveThirtyEight, and came across a reader comment which (in my opinion) illustrates the deplorable state of education and general knowledge here in the US of A (you know, the self-styled "greatest country in the world." Greatest at what, I don't know, but that's another post). Here's a snippet from commenter PeteKent:

PS: Obama in Turkey lavished praise on Islam speaking about the positve contribtuions[sic] its culture has made not only in the world, but America itself.

Can anyone point to what you think he might be referring to? I admit to being mystified.

Well, gee, how about, for starters, zero; As in the concept of the number and the digit. That was a gift to the West from the Muslim world. Not that zero is good for much of anything practical, like use in exponents used to calculate compound interest (and no one has ever found a practical application for that nonsense), and it's good for binary mathematics, ones and zeros, which can be represented in computers as either the presence or absence of an electrical charge flowing through a transistor, not that computers have ever been anything more than expensive, frivolous, exotic playthings of egghead ivory-tower types, which have never and probably will never find any practical use in the "real" world.
What else? Oh yes, what we think of as Western medicine. That too, is a gift from the Muslim world. The concepts that organs perform necessary bodily functions, and that disease is caused by malfunctions of organs and organ systems; all of that was given to the West by those lousy Muslims. Not that there's anything even remotely practical about the Muslim concept of medicine, because the ancient Greeks had medicine all figured out with their discovery of the four humors: blood, black bile, yellow bile, and phlegm, way back in about 400BCE. The four humors model worked so well it was the standard among Western physicians right up until the late Eighteenth century. Who needs vital organs and the circulation of the blood when you've got leeches and the barber-surgeon, right?
Let's see, oh yes, soap. There's another absolutely nonfunctional, useless piece of Muslim nonsense that never caught on in the West and rightfully so.
What else? Lots else, actually. Those three examples I rattled off off the top of my head. Oh wait, Gibraltar, which is the "latinized" version of Jabal Tariq, Arabic for "Mountain of Tariq," named for Berber general Tariq ibn Zayid who conquered the Iberian peninsula in 711 CE. Which led to Moorish Spain and all the history that followed, all the way up to the Fifteenth century when a strategic arranged marriage between this guy named Ferdinand and this gal named Isabella unified two competing kingdoms on the Iberian peninsula — and they did not much else worth noting, aside from hiring some deadbeat Genoese navigator with some odd ideas about sailing West (of all things) to Asia.
Oh yes, and astronomy, and the names of most of the named stars in the sky, those come from the Muslims as well. Not that concerning ourselves with the space above our heads has ever led to anything practical. The vagaries of predicting the weather by reading entrails and casting the bones may be imperfect, but it's all we've got. If only someone could find some way to stand far far far above the clouds and look back down upon the Earth to see which way any storms might be moving.
So there are five examples which I could rattle off off the top of my head.
I'm sure there would be more if I would just think a little harder.
Steel.
Damascus steel. The Muslim world invented the technology for steel making about seven centuries before the West.
So, six and counting... well five actually. The Muslims kept their steel making secrets to themselves.
Now I'm sure that PeteKent is a really nice guy, and I'm not calling him out in particular as being ignorant so much as I'm trying to point out that a lot of the technology we are highly dependent upon but don't even think about in our day-to-day lives exists because it came to us (the West) from the Muslim world (the East), and that most people are unforgivably ignorant of that fact given the vilification the Arab world in general and the Muslim world in particular, post 9/11. And also, he did ask (and he did receive, did he not?). If we're going to spend so much time turning the Arab and Muslim world(s) into the enemies of America, then we ought to know as much about them as possible in order to more efficiently defeat them, no?
The problem is, though, that the more one knows about "them," the more one realizes that things are more complicated precisely because things are actually so simple: most people in the Arab and Muslim world(s) want to live lives much like most people in the American and Western world(s) want to live their lives. They want to get a good education and have a good job and find someone to love and raise a family and be good neighbors and contribute something to their community both locally and on a larger scale. And they want to be left alone to do so without some glory-whore deathmongers bent on setting the world ablaze in order to fulfill some lunatic fanatical religious agenda killing them and their families and countries in the process. Which is all rather simple: most of them are like most of us, decent, hardworking, leave-me-in-peace, people.
So the complication sets in because we have to sort out the good, plain, everyday, live-and-let-live folks, from the fanatical fundamentalist assholes (who live in this country as well) who are hell bent on hijacking social and political agendas for their own destructive ends but are most visible because they commit attention grabbing acts, like flying planes into building or lying about weapons of mass destruction in order to start a war.
And the reason why what they (the majority of "them" who are exactly like the majority of "us") want out of life should matter to us is because throughout history their culture has contributed quite a bit of what makes the lives we lead today possible. So, in closing, "What have they given us?" Us! That's what they've contributed to the world: they made the West, and America, possible. And my, how gloriously and gracefully we've repaid them.

Too big to fail?

2009-04-08T12:02:00.002-04:00

Why exactly did we go with the phrase "too big to fail?" I mean, really, why?

"Too legit to quit" too obvious. Most banks and bankers neither legit nor possessed of a real work ethic.
"It's only hubris if we fail." Guess what?
"Pride goeth..." and the fuckers fell (and took everyone else with them).
"Bigger than Jesus, and He banks with us."
"Unsinkable" already taken?

Mow the lawn...

2009-04-05T05:47:00.001-04:00

The trouble with open-mindedness

2009-04-04T09:48:00.001-04:00

Guns don't kill people, bullets do

2009-04-04T03:32:00.004-04:00

So, there's been yet another mass shooting. But it's not the guns that are the problems, no siree. It's the queers and liberals and immigrants that are the problem. When are we going to understand that fact?

Look, I hate to be glib about the deaths of fourteen human beings, but hey, why not? "There's six billions mores wheres them's comes from, right?"

As of my writing this post, there's still no official "reason" being given for the mass shooting in Binghamton, NY. But let's ask ourselves "Where did the shooting take place?" The American Civic Association, which is an organization which assists immigrants. Next question: "Who got shot?" Immigrants taking a citizenship class. And no one has yet come up with a reason? Really? I mean — really?

I'm going to go waaaaaaaay out on a limb here and say that this mass murder was probably motivated by, oh, I don't know, maybe anger over immigration? Xenophobia? Years and years of inflammatory illegal immigrant bashing and race-baiting by rich, entitled, white assholes with nation-wide talk shows and zero accountability?

When the name of the shooter is released, I have an almost too-predictable-to-even-be-surprised hunch that the guy is going to be: recently unemployed, mid-thirties white Republican who was convinced that illegal immigrants took his job. If that's not the gist of the suicide note, I'm willing to bet that's going to be the consensus opinion gleaned from interviews with this person's friends and family.

And where did this guy get the idea that immigrants and liberals are destroying America? Gee... that's a tough one. I don't know... Could it be the assholes that dominate talk radio or maybe Fox 'News'? Of course it is. These outlets spew a steady stream of bile to keep their listeners coming back for more, like so much pseudo-intellectual crack, and yet they are never held accountable for the results of their provocations.

But while I loathe the people that whip up the sort of populist outrage that leads to heinous acts of violence just to turn a quick buck, I do have to at least give credit where credit is due: Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Laura Schlessinger and Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham and all of their ilk have mastered the fine art of the societal equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater and managing to evade prosecution for all the death and mayhem which necessarily and foreseeably follows.

In the short term this is bad, and it's probably even worse in the longer term, but the upside of all the hatred and dissension these people foment is the lesson which history teaches us over and over again yet we so staunchly refuse to heed: people who sow the seeds of discord rarely survive the harvest.

South Park gets it right. Again.

2009-04-01T07:28:00.002-04:00

There are days when I think this system is either 1) the system we really use or 2) would be a vast improvement over the system we use.

Something called volcano monitoring

2009-03-31T11:19:00.000-04:00

Iraq To Exectue 100+ Gays?

2009-03-31T05:18:00.002-04:00

So I read over at Iraq LGBT blog that the Iraqi government has sentenced to death upward of 100 of its own citizens for the crime of being gay. Iraq is George W Bush's gift to us that just won't quit giving, isn't it?

For my part, I emailed the nice folks at the White House and Department of State asking "Is this true?" I didn't ask if they were going to do anything because I think we all already know what the answer would be: "Why the fuck should we? We don't need your vote. This isn't an election year, you fucking queer."

I also emailed the even nicer folks at AmericaBlog and the Rachel Maddow Show, since those two outlets are probably more likely to get some answers than just some mere citizen.

Isn't it great when you get to start the day in a state of high dudgeon and moral outrage?

My Fellow 'Muricans...

2009-03-29T07:54:00.002-04:00

Overheard at the local Wawa today when I went for my morning coffee:

Douchenozzle #1: So, yeah, I had to like, you know, like, buy the part from, like Canada, man.
Douchenozzle #2: Oh, yeah. I hear ya. Why can't we make things in America anymore? We have to buy stuff from foreigners...
Douchenozzle #1: Not only that, but, like, the part wasn't like, normal-sized, so I had to buy, like, tools that were you know, uhm, like, what they call those things...
Douchenozzle #2: Huh? Oh, yeah, metric.
Douchenozzle #1: Yeah, metric, like yeah. So I had to buy, like, metric tools -
Douchenozzle #2: from foreigners -
Douchenozzle #1: and I'm like, if they're gonna, like, sell their parts here, they should, like, use our system. You know?
Douchenozzle #2: Yeah, I totally agree.

I couldn't wait to pay for my coffee and get as far away from these cousin-fucking inbred backwoods douches as quickly as I possibly could. My fellow 'Muricans: y'all are a bunch of fucking ignoramuses.

Will the following people please exit stage left

2009-03-27T13:23:00.001-04:00

Will the following people — you, the few, the loud, the petty players — please exit stage left when your names are called. You don't have to shuffle off this mortal coil just yet, although for some of you, it wouldn't be a bad idea.

Jack Black. "We get it, we get it. You're funny." Actually, we don't and you're not. We're just saying that because we want you to leave. You've made some movies and you've made some money. You're still not funny. Go away; far, far away. Smoke some pot, get fatter, get louder, and please, please, please, do not come back.
Seth Rogen. See above.
Dick Cheney. Best to let the Europeans get their hands on you, Dick, 'cause rumor has it that the vast left-wing cabal is coming for you and they're bringing a board, a cloth, and some water. Just kidding. No, they're really just bringing the bright, harsh, permeating light of day, which — given the things you've done — is actually much, much worse.
John Cena. Please go back to "professional wrestling" or whatever the hell it is. Please. Before you actually start to believe that you are an Actor. Think Sylvester Stallone. That is the best you can hope for, but it's already been done.
Sarah Palin. We get it. You're more Christian than anyone else in America and therefore God's anointed leader of America, sent by God to prepare the world for the Second Coming — which actually makes you the Anti-Christ.
Glenn Beck. It's so sad that your botched hemorrhoid surgery led you to contemplate suicide without actually following through on it. And of all the people in this world who could have died on September 11, 2001, I can think of no one who would have appreciated the patriotic martyrdom more than you.
Jim Cramer (and his co-conspirators at CNBC): Shh! Hush now. The adults are talking. We're still trying to decide how best to clean up this mess that you've helped make for us. Some of us think that we should just douse the whole fucking house in gasoline, light a match, and dance madly around the conflagration of our entire collective lives' works before setting about the grim task of starting over again. From scratch. It should be noted that if we go the "pyromaniac" route, then before we douse the house with gasoline, we will first cut off your head with a very, very dull, very, very rusty knife, starting at the soles of your feet, then dump your body in the house, then douse the house with gasoline, then light the match, and then after the house is burned to naught but ashes, stick your head on a pike where our house used to stand, and then never utter your name again.

Of assholes and embryonic stem cells

2009-03-26T01:19:00.004-04:00

My douche-nozzle of the week award goes to John Ward of the Washington Times. This is the question he asked President Obama Tuesday night:

"In your remarks on stem cell research earlier this month, you talked about a majority consensus in determining whether or not this is the right thing to do, to federally fund embryonic stem cell research.I'm just wondering, though, how much you personally wrestled with the morality or ethics of federally funding this kind of research, especially given the fact that science so far has shown a lot of progress with adult stem cells, but not a lot with embryonic?"

I really hate it when people who pretend to be journalists are allowed into Presidential press conferences and then get called on by the President to ask a question and they ask a loaded one. Who does this douchebag, John Ward, think he's fooling? His question is framed ever so obviously, implying that adult stem cell research "has shown a lot of progress" when compared to embryonic stem cell research because adult stem cells are superior to embryonic stem cells. The truth of the matter is that more research has been done with adult stem cells because of an eight year ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, so there's been significantly less research done with embryonic stem cells than with adult stem cells, hence the disparity in the results. Of course, that didn't get mentioned in the question, nor, unfortunately, did the President point out that fact in his answer. Assholes, both of them

Let's not forget, also, that on the day that President Obama reversed his predecessor's executive order banning federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, Dr. Gary Steinberg (MD, Ph. D.) of Stanford School of Medicine appeared on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer and stated that adult stem cells are not superior to embryonic stem cells. And how would he know? Because he's done research with both adult stem cells and emryonic stem cells and his findings indicate that embryonic stem cells are superior to adult stem cells both in their capacity to differntiate (turn into the type of cell required) and proliferate (grow enough of the needed cells). But why would we need listen to the informed opinion of one of the preeminent scientists in the field when we can have our opinions shaped by weaselly little fucktards like John Ward?

And of course the whole 'ethics' issue got dredged up, like it always does, because no one ever gets tired of being reminded that anyone who disagrees with a Republican is immoral and has no ethics, because if they did have morals and ethics, they would agree with the Republicans' positions. But I'm not sure what ethical issues could concern an embryo. An embryo is not a fetus. An embryo has neither nerve endings nor neurons and is thus incapable of experiencing pain (or anything else for that matter). And an embryo doesn't have a heartbeat either, because it doesn't have a heart. Nor does an embryo have fingerprints: it doesn't have fingers, let alone hands, let alone arms, let alone any limbs whatsoever. An embryo is a ball of undifferentiated cells, nothing more. It may be a human embryo, but it is not a human being. If you plunge an embryo into liquid nitrogen and then thaw it out days or months or years later, it will start growing again. If you plunge a newborn baby into liquid nitrogen it dies.

And seriously, if these arch moral types were so concerned about the rights of embryos, then they ought to push for regulations limiting the number of embryos can be created by in vitro fertilization to two per patient. That way, when both of the science-created embryos are released into the uterus, if each successfully implant into the uterine wall, then the woman will give birth to at most fraternal twins — rather than a fucking litter — and there will be no unused embryos left over in cold storage awaiting 'death' by power failure, or 'death' by being tossed into the trash along with other infectious medical waste, or accidental implantation into the wrong womb, or even worse, being sold to the highest bidder on the black market by a criminal lab technician: "All the ready-to-grow-slaves you can smuggle out of the country in a styrofoam cooler."

And then douche-nozzle had a follow-up, just as loaded:

"I meant to ask — just to follow up — do you think that scientific consensus is enough to tell us what we can and cannot do?"

I am so fucking sick of these moralizing assholes demonizing science as being the source of what they perceive to be the moral rot destroying this country from within(as if they'd never in their lives looked into a mirror), because science is "immoral" because it doesn't attribute anything to God.

Well, they are sort of right: science has no room for the supernatural because the supernatural, by definition, is outside the natural realm, and science only concerns itself with the natural realm. And science isn't "immoral" it is amoral. Science cannot recognize a moral code because science is a tool. Science and scientific consensus will only ever tell us what is possible for us to do and how to do it. It is how people conduct scientific inquiry or what people do with scientific knowledge that is subject to ethical debate.

Of course, if people like John Ward or the other right wing hacks over at the Washington Times ever admitted that much they would have to ask honest questions and then report honestly on the answers and let the public have an honest and informed debate. And they can't have that if the people that write their paycheck are religious extremists bent on advancing their own agenda.

I did the best I could

2009-03-25T14:06:00.001-04:00

Have you ever had anyone tell you "I did the best I could!" when they're defending a past action which they can't deny and were hoping you wouldn't notice or remember? Fun, isn't it,to have to listen to that kind of bullshit? You know what they're really saying? "I dare you to call me the liar that I am."

Call them a liar. You will be happier for having said it. But don't feel the need to be courteous and direct about by saying "That's a lie and we both know it." No, what you should do is respond in just as passive-aggressive a manner as the words "I did the best I could" are offered.

"If you have to tell people that was the best you've got, then your best isn't very good."

Saturn's night side

2009-03-24T21:52:00.001-04:00

A near natural-color view of Saturn's night side as seen from NASA's Cassini orbiter.

Words I like

2009-03-23T04:33:00.002-04:00

Words I like:

crapulence - because it is the true antonym of opulence
twat - just because. It sounds like something detachable. From the 70's. And wet. And hairy.
plethora - again, just because
evolution - got a better theory?
gargantuan - not 'ginormous.' Why do we have to make up a new word from two existing words when we already have a word that means the same thing and already sounds similar? It's not an unfair distinction: 'squalor' and 'crapulence' sound totally different.
squalor - my mother's reaction to any mess I'd make as a child. You'd think I single-handedly and permanently knocked 50% off our home's resale value. You accidentally shit on the floor one time...
dyke - it's so heavy and plodding and Teutonic-sounding.
queer - sounds like what it means.
pud - again, sounds like what it means. Also sounds like something detachable, and very, very naughty. And hairy. And thicker than it is long.

When did I get so bloody-minded?

2009-03-20T14:35:00.003-04:00

The more I think about the ongoing financial disaster that is the United States economy, the more I come to one profoundly unpleasant conclusion:

perhaps the only way to solve this problem is to kill the people that caused it.

I know, I know, it's melodramatic and all, but seriously, is our government working on behalf of the citizens to correct the excesses of a psychotic economy, or is the government now nothing more than a tool that sovereign corporations use to legitimize their ongoing confiscation of the wealth of citizens?

If the political process fails to correct the situation, other than violence, what recourse do we have? Submit to threats of financial armageddon and become the slaves of economic terrorists?

I for one...

寧死不屈.

The prescription medicine America really needs

2009-03-20T05:08:00.000-04:00

FDA Approves Depressant Drug For The Annoyingly Cheerful

CNBC, GE indicted as co-conspirators for Jim Cramer's securities fraud?

2009-03-18T07:46:00.001-04:00

I was wondering...

since there's video of Jim Cramer admitting to committing securities fraud, are CNBC, and therefore GE (as the parent company) liable to be named as co-conspirators if the SEC brings an indictment against Cramer for his admitted criminal activities?

See, Jim Cramer admitted on TheStreet.com to providing false information to the public:

"What's important when you are in that hedge fund mode is to not be doing anything that is remotely truthful, because the truth is so against your view - it is important to create a new truth to develop a fiction, "

and that, according to the SEC's website, is a crime.

There's Nothing To Be Done About AIG

2009-03-18T03:32:00.001-04:00

Lots of people are outraged that AIG used public money to pay bonuses. Most people are (wrongly) assuming that this travesty is somehow the fault of the United States Congress; the assumption being that Congressional Democrats didn't do their due diligence on behalf of the American taxpayer because those degenerate liberals were too busy trying to cram mandatory fornication education for toddlers into the Omnibus Budget Act of 2009 ("Damn you, Barack Obama and the unconstitutional Department of Education!" Scream the Ronpaulocratitardicans) to realize that the American taxpayer would wind up being on the hook to reward failure and criminal fiduciary malfeasance to take corrective preemptive action.

This assumption is wrong, however, because the initial bailout of AIG came not from Congressional Democrats, the initial bailout was funded by the Federal Reserve - in September of 2008 (Tuesday the fifteenth, to be exact), you know, before Obama was even President- elect — the election being held Tuesday, November 4, 2008, for those of you with awful short term memories or tendencies toward revisionist history, though I don't suspect I get that many Republican readers. Even worse, the propagation of this untruth is aided and abetted by the American MSM which is mindlessly repeating the untruth. Research and fact checking are apparently no longer the bedrock underlying the foundations of the American journalistic "profession."

The real outrage is that no one is paying any attention to the fact that this situation with paying bonuses for those who failed — miserably — is a clear example of why the government should not pick winners and losers in the market. Once the government, through the agency of the Federal Reserve, stepped in and provided money to AIG to stave off that private company's impending insolvency — and thereby overruled the judgment of the free market — the government bought all of AIG's errors and contracts and the responsibility for solving the former and the legal obligation of honoring the latter.

Legislative attempts to claw back the money or retroactively forbid its disbursal won't fly. The United States Constitution specifically proscribes both ( Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3) bills of attainder — punishing people you don't like just because you don't like them — and ex post facto laws — retroactively making something illegal. All the contracts promising bonuses were in place when AIG got money from the Federal Reserve. By saving AIG from bankruptcy, the Federal Reserve essentially guaranteed the bonuses. The bonuses are a fait accompli. Deal with it.

The only way to forbid any more bonuses being paid will require President Obama to pull a Bush and find new and terrible powers in the Office of the President courtesy of John Yoo's theory of the Unitary Executive. First, President Obama could take to the airwaves and announce that the Tucker Act ( 28 USC 1491) does not apply to AIG or any other contractual obligations entered into by a third party before the Federal government acquires ownership; and second, as the United States taxpayer, through the United States government, owns 80% of AIG, and as the duly elected chief executive officer of the United States the President of the United States nominates himself for CEO of AIG and votes affirmatively on the motion is now therefore the CEO of AIG and he's not going to honor the compensation contracts so no bonuses are going to be paid and anyone aggrieved by the abrogation of the contract is free to file a lawsuit which will be summarily dismissed courtesy of the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Simply, "I'm taking over, and I'm not signing your bonus checks. Don't like it? Talk to the hand, bitches, 'cause the face ain't hearin' it."

Insomnianity

2009-03-17T02:54:00.004-04:00

My sleep patterns have been pretty thoroughly disrupted lo these past few months. It seems like that minor surgery on my jaw back in October of '08 hit some sort of reset button in my brain's circadian rhythm-maker. Ugh...

Just took some really bad self-portraits...

Here to share with the world - me with long hair

I call this look "Cousin It, first thing in the morning..."

I call this look "No, as a matter of fact, that is not what happened. I am in fact, unf*ckable."

"Ooh, long and pretty. Okay, long; yes. Pretty, uhm, No."

"Don't you wish your weave was hot like me?" Seriously, there are girls in Philly that wear their hair like this. I'm growing mine for Locks of Love. What's their excuse?

Okay, no seriously though, I kid the rubenesque latin mamacitas with their strollers and children blocking the sidewalks. No, really, kidding.

Dear Newspaper Industry

2009-03-16T18:49:00.001-04:00

Dear newspaper industry:

I want my daily newspaper, and I'm even willing to pay for it, but I want it on my Kindle.

Sincerely,

Twenty-first Century Digital Boy

End the War on Drugs (and Mexico)

2009-03-08T17:03:00.001-04:00

If we're really so concerned about preventing Mexico from dissolving into a failed state ruled by drug lords and (eek!) the Catholic Church, the United States need do only one thing: legalize drugs. Of course that's not going to happen, because Americans really do happen to be the very best in the world at one particular thing: living in denial.

Where do the guns come from that Mexico narco-traffickers and drug lords use to assassinate Mexican police and government officials? The United States. And where does the money come from that is used to buy those guns? The United States. And how is that money earned? Selling drugs to Americans.

I'm not saying there won't be consequences for repealing drug Prohibition, what I'm saying is that Prohibition or no, there are consequences for drug use, and that legalization offers society and the government more control over managing those consequences and setting ground rules for the acceptable use of narcotics so that we can minimize negative effects which we are otherwise unable to eliminate.

I get it, repealing narco-prohibition will lead to a huge spike in addiction and other undesirable social consequences. However, we are already dealing with undesirable social and political and international consequences for this country's voracious appetite for drugs. Maybe the wisest idea would be to stop endlessly repeating the same fruitless actions in the irrational yet refutable belief that someday they will work and acknowledge that we must tolerate others engaging in actions which we find offensive and obscene so long as those actions do us no demonstrable harm.

Neighbor smoking pot in his backyard? Yes. Blowing the smoke into your child's face across the property line? No. Fucking live with it. Yes? Call the cops. Getting high out of his mind and then climbing behind the wheel of his car? Yes? Call the cops.

Fag across the street holding meth-fueled orgies inside his house on the weekends? Yes. Is the party violating the town noise ordinances? No. Are the blinds and curtains drawn so that the sin and debauchery inside is not advertised to the outside world? Yes. Fucking living with it. Are the pervs trying to lure upright Christian young boys from the neighborhood inside? Yes? Call the cops.

Living with the fact that others are doing things you don't like which cause you no harm isn't so hard. But apparently grabbing a dictionary and looking up the word "tolerance" is.

I like English the best

2009-02-27T15:40:00.001-05:00

I speak a few languages - none fluently though. Of all those languages, I like English the best. Why? Oh, there are so many reasons: conjugated verbs and tenses, ablaut and umlaut plurals, irregularly declined pronouns... what's not to love. But what I love most about the English language? "Fucking" as an infix for polysyllabic words. English is the only language where "fucking" as an infix does not render the resultant word unintelligible. Some examples:

Fucking unbelievable = unfuckingbelievable
Fucking fantastic = fanfuckingtastic
Fucking retarded = refuckingtarded

Just try that with Latin - of you happen to be having dinner with the Pope, or your little brother is blowing him, or even in Mandarin or French. You can't do it... Or I can't. I'm not very smart. But at least my mommy thinks I'm clever.

Okay, that was totally a throwaway, but it's Friday. And I am naturally very lazy, and not so bright.

How Clean Is It? Clean Coal Clean! That's How Clean!

2009-02-26T16:30:00.002-05:00

If we want to generate electricity without pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, nuclear power really is the only feasible alternative. I like the molten salt fueled reactor.

The Republican Party isn't racist, that's just a smear from the liberal media

2009-02-26T15:09:00.002-05:00

"The Republican Party isn't racist, that's just a smear from the liberal media." I call bullshit. Los Alamitos, California's Republican mayor, Dean Grose, sent out an email stating that there would be "no Easter egg hunt" at the White House this year with an accompanying photo:

This is just more evidence that the GOP is a bunch of racist, bigoted assholes and that the only reason they elected a black guy to head the RNC and chose an Indian-American to deliver the GOP's rebuttal to President Obama's address to Congress is so that they can hide their racism behind tokenism.

Can we please just nationalize the goddamned zombie banks already

2009-02-26T13:43:00.001-05:00

Can we please just nationalize the goddamned zombie banks already? The argument I hear most against nationalization is: "Nationalization will wipe out shareholders." To which I say: "So fucking what? That is the risk people sign on for when they decide to play the market." And to be perfectly honest, why the fuck exactly should I be penalized for someone else's losing bet? I didn't sign up for that sort of risk and I most certainly wasn't going to benefit if the bet had paid off, so, fuck 'em. Nationalize the fucking banks already and let's have done with it.

The risk of losing everything you invest is supposed to be offset by the possible reward of returns which exceed what you can get at the bank. If you can't afford to lose your money, put it in an FDIC insured saving account, and if the amount you have exceeds FDIC limits, move the excess to another bank. If that's too much work for you to do to protect all that money, you probably inherited all that money anyways since you obviously don't possess the work ethic to make that sort of money in the first place.

Again: fuck the losers. That is after all, the American way.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

2009-02-25T01:01:00.001-05:00

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

I watched all of President Obama's address to Congress, and even - out of some misguided sense of fairness - watched all Governor Jindal's response; and, well... the Republican response was exactly precisely unfailingly everything I'd imagined it would be. What the Republicans may lack in inspired imagination they more than compensate for with relentless consistency.

I cringed for the Governor when he started his response by citing the historic moment of the country's first black President making his first address to Congress and the nation. Totally cringeworthy. I mean, do these people think we're idiots? Do the Republicans really believe that thirty-plus years of the "Southern Strategy" - which is really just a polite way of saying "we'll pander to bigoted whites to win elections" - will be forgotten and forgiven because they've got some token minorities in their ranks who are now their standard bearers for racial harmony?

"See how racist we're not? The head of the RNC is black, and the guy that delivered our response to Obama's first official address to Congress is an honest to goodness India Indian. And our nominee for VP last go-round was a woman! See how inclusive we really are?"

Yes, yes, and their nominee for President was a doddering old white guy suffering from PTSD and the early stages of dementia who sometimes forgot that we are no longer fighting either the Vietnam or Cold wars.

Note to Republican PR flaks: it's not called a guilty conscience because those so afflicted are innocent.

And so far as this Republican notion that "government is the enemy" is concerned, have you ever noticed that government only ever becomes the enemy when those that believe that government is the enemy are put in charge of the government? For example, Governor Jindal brought up the catastrophic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as evidence of government incompetence and corruption. But doesn't that just serve to underscore the point that government is incompetent and corrupt when it is run by those who are incompetent and corrupt - you know, a Republican president - George W. Bush.

And what the hell was up with this "Americans can do anything" mantra? Did the guy think he was addressing children? That would explain the cooing, baby-talk voice he kept using. But seriously, "Americans can do anything?" Really, like what? Put a man on the moon? Oops, wait, that was America, but it was a US government agency, NASA, that did it. Oh wait - the interstate highway system, which really unleashed the potential of automobiles and trucks to spur economic growth, Americans did that. Oops, oh wait, that was - again - the US government, through the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.

This "Americans can do anything" nonsense sounded a lot like Sarah Palin's "America's not the problem, America's the solution" nonsense. Really? "America is the solution?" Okay, what's two plus two? America! No, wrong. Four. The correct solution to the problem is "four" not "America." And if you don't think that "Americans can do anything" is nonsense, well, then how come we haven't ended this country's obesity problem by repealing gravity? If we can do anything, then altering or holding the laws of nature in abeyance - such as gravitation - certainly falls under the rubric of being able to "do anything." Seeing as how rampant obesity has become in this country, and seeing as how laziness contributes to obesity, then it stands to reason that repealing gravity would be the most attractive solution to our obesity epidemic since it is the solution that requires the least effort on our part and since we haven't then therefore we can't, ergo, Americans can't do anything, or else we already would have. See?

So this was all just more bullshit and more nonsense from the Republicans. If I believed in God I would pray for them all to be called home to heaven en masse, so the rest of us could be left to live out our lives in peace and reason. But I don't, so I guess I'm just going to have to learn to tolerate these ignorant bigoted assholes.

President Obama will momentarily address a joint session of Congress

2009-02-24T21:04:00.001-05:00

President Obama will momentarily address a joint session of Congress. I want him to turn to the Republicans and say "You are obligated to help clean up the mess you helped to make." Enough with this bipartisan bullshit. Republicans are evil double-dealing assholes and they need to be publicly treated as such.

My simple rules for surviving the recession

2009-02-24T16:19:00.001-05:00

My simple rules for surviving the recession:

Pay your mortgage or rent on time.
Pay your utility bills on time.
Pay off all your credit cards on time, in full, every month.
Whatever money you have left over after you've paid for your housing, utilities and credit cards divide into thirds. Put one third into a savings account, piss away another third as pocket money, and the last third is your grocery money for the following month.

If you don't make enough money at one job to follow those four simple rules, get another job. I hear McDonalds is hiring. If you think working an unskilled job is beneath you, then you ought to ask a homeless person how much pride and dignity there is to be had living on the streets, assuming of course that treating a homeless person like a human being is not also beneath you.

Of course, these rules also ought to apply when the economy is good. If you get into the habit of setting aside money when there is plenty of it, the benefits are two-fold when money becomes scarce. The money you have set aside will not only smooth over the rough financial spots when times are tough, it will also provide you with peace of mind.