Here’s some…uhhh…thought provoking commentary from someone who came within a hair’s-breadth of becoming the Republican nominee for the Presidency (via Raw Story):

When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France ? hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires ? was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a “smashing” success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.

If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.

Was that worth fighting a world war ? with 50 million dead?

Leave it to Pat Buchanan to write an article about Nazis without mentioning the Holocaust. Of course this is the same man who advised Ronald Reagan to visit Bitburg cemetery¹, asserted the innocence of Nazi war criminals, and wrote an article praising Hitler’s “great courage” and “genius”². He also won the 1996 New Hampshire GOP primary. It’s amazing the kind of lunatics people will vote for as long as they stick to the script on guns, god, and gays.

^{1 : My brain is hanging upside-down…}

^{2 : Any one of these charges may be defensible on a purely academic level, but a pattern starts to emerge after a while.}

Ezra Klein has a great article over at Campus Progress about the right-wing’s penchant for tokensim :

Indeed, leveraging one?s demographic birthright to help the conservative cause is a rich and respected tactic for getting noticed by the Republican Noise Machine. Take Michelle Malkin (please!), an Asian woman who wrote a book defending the internment of other Asian-Americans during World War II and now frequents Fox News demanding a sensible assessment of whether Arabs should undergo similar treatment for the duration of the War on Terror. That Asian internment was warranted isn?t exactly a majority viewpoint, but never mind. Take Ward Connerly, a black pundit who springs forth with jack-in-the-box regularity each time the right trains its guns on affirmative action. And while we?re doing Ward, we can?t forget his partner-in-crime Linda Chavez, a Latina whose primary interest appears to be, yes, assaulting affirmative action. Take Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who led the effort to kill the Equal Rights Amendment, a little constitutional edit that, if ratified, would?ve enshrined gender equality as the immutable law of the land.

In a party that captures a minority of woman, African-Americans, Asians, and Hispanics, it?s statistically stunning for these racially (or, in Schlafly?s case, sexually) charged issues to all find their conservative fulcrums in a member of the affected group. But it?s also good politics.

Color-coding your defenders saves a lot of trouble, as the charges of discrimination that might sink a racially charged proposal fall flat when the initiative?s defender has the correct skin tone. It stands to reason that the proposal can?t be too bad for the affected group, or why would that person be on TV defending it? Similarly, no woman, presumably, would defend something that?s bad for her gender, and no young person would fight for what most of his generation opposes. And yet the ranks of conservative pundits swell with advocates whose primary purpose seems to be using their demographic birthright to defuse criticism of offensive policies.

Now I’d never say that someone’s ethnicity should determine their ranks on the political compass. I can understand why a woman who thinks abortion is murder would align herself with the GOP. I wouldn’t begrudge the decision of a homosexual who worships “the invisible hand” of free markets to decide that economic issues trump issues of equal rights for gays. And I think it’s perfectly acceptable for conservative minorities to take issue with affirmative action.¹

That said, Ezra’s got a point about the specialization at work in the conservative pundit class. For every issue that involves a special interest, there’s a talking head waiting in the right wing to cash in on their individuality. Why haven’t specialists like Michelle Malkin or Ben Ferguson realized that their peers don’t give a shit about their views on Social Security or forcing Christianity into public schools? Hell, they’re not even expected to provide any real insight. As long as they can cleverly regurgitate talking points and provide the illusion of diversity, they’ll keep getting calls from the producers of cable news programs all too willing to assist in the right-wing’s one-trick-pony game.

^{1 : Personally I think these hypothetical people are nuts, but to each his own.}

Shorter Ann Coulter on Leno :

Liberals don’t like to argue. They all throw food instead.

Ugggh….but it’s not like we didn’t see this coming :

Even
worse, these kind of moronic pranks play right into the grasping hands
of the authoritarian right. Horowitz and Kristol and Coulter and the
other members of the RNC propaganda department will be dining well off
these attacks for years to come — a classic case of being able to wear
your pie and eat it, too.

Authoritarian movements thrive on phony martyrs, and now this one
has its pastry martyrs. Have no doubt that the “crazed” leftist
students who smeared them (literally) will be cited every time some
hayseed state legislature votes to create a doctoral program in
creation science at Bumfuck State U, or endows the Rush Limbaugh Chair
in Advanced Idioting at the University of Southern North Dakota (at
Hoople).

Listen, you immature motherfuckers. It doesn’t
matter how physically harmless your little pranks may be. It’s still
assault. Whenever this shit goes down, it makes us all look bad. This
time, it was in front of the millions of people who watch The Tonight Show.
Judging by the crowd’s reaction to Coulter’s attacks (and the fawning
interview by Leno), they didn’t think the pie assaults are very funny.
I don’t either.

See if you can guess which phrase caused the denizens of this middle school to poop their pants…

Bailey
said that guidance counselor Margo Lucero substituted the phrase for
“under God” while leading the morning pledge at Everitt Middle School
on Wednesday.

Bailey said the incident shocked her and her classmates, many of whom stopped in mid-sentence and exchanged bewildered looks.

Principal Kathleen Norton was out of the building during the
incident, but apologized Thursday to the student body and today will be
sending letters of apology to parents.

“It was completely inappropriate,” Jefferson County School District
Superintendent Cindy Stevenson said. “We completely believe any teacher
or student has the right to follow their individual conscience,
however, when leading children, you adhere to the Pledge of
Allegiance.”
. . .
Students were questioning whether what the counselor did was right.

“It kind of changed some kids’ day,” Bailey said.

“Some of them believe in God and thought it was wrong for her to change it.”

Bailey’s mother, Shelley, said, “The school intercom system is not
the correct means for voicing one’s personal political opinions.”

The district agrees.

“If you have a problem with the pledge, that’s your issue,”
Stevenson said. “Adults should not try to influence children with their
personal conscience.”

With the way these people are
reacting, it must be serious. Perhaps the pledge was changed to “under
Satan” or, even worse, “under Allah”. Well…not quite…

“One nation, under ‘your belief system.’ “

Sometimes
I’m embarrased to live in a country so religious and xenophobic that a
simple act of inclusivity demands letters of apology and a
reprimand.

I’ve been tossed one of those blogospheric memes by my friend Ross. To start, let me endorse this bit from his post :

I’d like to note that Tbogg quotes the following line from High Fidelity:

“A while back, Dick, Barry and I agreed that what really matters
is WHAT you like, not what you ARE like. Books, records, films ? these
things matter! Call me shallow, it?s the fucking truth.”

It’s true that this is one of the more hilarious and true lines in
the novel and screenplay, and rightfully so, it’s probably the most
quoted line from High Fidelity. However, it’s important to point out
that later in the novel (but sadly, not the movie), Rob learns what a
dick he is for feeling this way about people. In fact, this scene might
be the pivotal moment in the novel.

It happens during one of the more hilarious scenes, when Rob learns
that the people with whom he’s suddenly become great friends have, in
fact, abysmal taste in music. I mean, honestly, it’s truly wretched and
Rob’s reaction to their record collection is priceless. More important
however is his decision that he doesn’t care how shitty their taste is
- they’re great people, and maybe it actually is more important what
someone is like, rather than what they like.

In my opinion it’s the most important point in the novel, the moment
when Rob learns to compromise a bit to make Laura happy, when he learns
to give uncool people a chance, basically, when he finally begins to
grow into a decent person. One doesn’t doubt that he’ll continue being
a fiercely angry music loving dick, but only after this point in the
story can the reader believe that he might be able to work things out
with Laura too.

What?! The book’s better than the movie?? I’m shocked!

Now, to save space on the already bursting to capacity homepage
(I’ve been writing way too many long posts lately), this will be one of
my rare posts that takes advantage of the extended entry. If you’re
curious about this music meme or just want to skip ahead to see who I
pass it along to, keep on reading…

Continue reading →

Two years ago in response to the onslaught of Laci Peterson news I wrote the following :

Like
countless other “junk food” stories, the Peterson murder is a hit and
Laci is its star. So why the media obsession with Laci Peterson?
Personally, I think the media deems her more “watchable” and
“all-American” than the likes of Evelyn Hernandez and April Renee Greer¹.
Even the most mundane Laci Peterson stories often cut to split screen
so they can show and endless loop of home videos and photos of Laci
smiling at the camera.

And speaking of “all-American” girls, why is it that the media
reported non-stop on the abductions and/or murders of Danielle van Dam,
Jon Benet Ramsey, Elizabeth Smart, and Samantha Runnion, but there
haven’t been any stories on CNN about Ashleigh Moore? Was she not cute
(white) enough to get the media’s attention?

It looks like I was right (via Kevin) :

The
latest missing woman to dominate the airtime of the cable networks was
Jennifer Wilbanks, from Duluth, Ga. Like Dru Sjodin, Chandra Levy and
Elizabeth Smart all before her, Wilbanks is young, white and
attractive. Wilbanks, as it turned out, ran away of her own volition
from her impending marriage. As a Maryland police official told me
after Wilbanks turned up in New Mexico, “the media’s non-stop focus on
the possible abduction of Wilbanks forced the local officials and
police departments to spend thousands of dollars they would not
otherwise have spent.”

Define racism. One could certainly make the argument that the cable
networks that continually focus on these missing white women, to the
virtual exclusion of minority women, are practicing a form of racism.
The racism in this case, however, while predicated on color, does not
concern itself with the color of one’s skin. Rather, it is based on the
color of money, ratings points and competition. Would an
African-American woman who went missing days before her wedding receive
the same (or any) coverage as that of Wilbanks? Not likely.
. . .
I have a number of friends at the cable networks (or at least I did),
and I have spoken to some about this very subject. While all professed
disgust with the underreporting of missing minority women and young
adults, most were very uneasy with the thought of shining a spotlight
on their own management to ascertain an answer. “Besides,” one of them
told me, “you’ve already figured it out. We showcase missing, young,
white, attractive women because our research shows we get more viewers.
It’s about beating the competition and ad dollars.”

This
is one of the most repulsive things I’ve ever read. It’s bad enough
that news organizations pick which murder victims to cover based on
their ability to woo advertisers, but that the “ad research” pretty
much absolves them of responsibility². The reason they don’t seem to care about the abduction and murder of the unattractive and non-white is because their viewers don’t give a shit either.

^{1 : That post received the following comment :}

I
want to know the same question. I was one of April Greer’s best
friends. I lived with her until I mover to Louisiana in this past
October. I learned of her death and everything about it over the
telephone because it was not nationaly publisized enough. Her death in
my opinion was way more greusome than Laci Peterson. In another opinion
of mine is that the public is prejudice about what they want to see.

2 : That is, if you grant them the assumption that their primary
purpose isn’t to keep the public informed, but to make loads of money
for their parent corporations.

I was pleasantly surprised this morning when I caught the beginning of this story on CNN :

MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):
It was a storybook love affair. Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller were so
committed to each other they moved from Virginia to Vermont to be as
close to legally married as possible, a civil union.

JANET MILLER-JENKINS: Of course, we were ecstatic about that
because we knew we wanted to be together. We knew that we wanted to
have a future together, be married.

LISA MILLER-JENKINS: I was in the lifestyle for a while before I met Janet. And I still had always wanted a child.

HINOJOSA: This couple was so in love they legally changed
their last names to Miller-Jenkins, so devoted they had the baby girl
they both dreamed of, Isabella. Born to Lisa three years ago, they had
plans for baby number two.

A “storybook love affair”?
Wow. Is the media finally ready to portray same-sex relationships as
something that’s not only acceptable, but something that should be as
admired as any other committed, long-term relationship? Surely there
must be a catch here….

HINOJOSA: But storybook love
affairs sometimes have unhappy endings. That is exactly what happened
to these two mommies, when Janet and Lisa split. An ugly custody battle
of mother versus mother broke out over little Isabella Miller-Jenkins.

J MILLER-JENKINS: Justice will be served for Isabella. I
believe that. And I’ll do whatever it takes. I’ll be with her for as
long as I can; or I’ll be without her for as long as I have to, but I’m
her mom. She’s born here. She’s always here.

L MILLER-JENKINS: I am Isabella’s mom. I did conceive her. I
birthed her. I’m raising her. And in my opinion, Isabella needs to stay
with me 100 percent of the time, because I am the only person that she
identifies as a mom.

HINOJOSA: Welcome to the unchartered legal territory of gay
divorce. With varying marriage laws in every state, gay breakups can
get really nasty.

After Lisa and Janet ended their civil union, Vermont ordered them
to share custody of Isabella. So Lisa, her biological mother, moved the
baby back to Virginia, where same-sex unions are not recognized. And
Lisa took the confrontation one step further. She says she is no longer
a lesbian.

L MILLER-JENKINS: I would say a sin is a sin. Whether it’s
stealing, whether it is homosexuality. And if it goes against God, as a
Christian, I have every right — not every right, but I need to follow
God’s teachings.

Uugghhh….shoot me now.

With gay marriages and civil unions legal on some states, it’s
inevitable that there would be gay divorces and custody battles. This
shit happens all the time in the straight world without a peep from the
people who are devoted to saving marriage and keeping families
together. What’s really newsworthy is that all the blowhards were wrong
about all their doom and gloom predictions preceding the legal
acceptance of gay relationships. Straight people aren’t shunning
marriage anymore than they already were, the gay recruitment drives in
the public schools aren’t happening, and screwing your dog
is still socially unacceptable. The same moralistic busybodies who are
inserting themselves into political issues ranging from legislative
filibusters, to the euthanasia, to textbook standards were wrong,
wrong, wrong on gay marriage. The sky isn’t falling.

Which is why this morning’s story is such a disappointment.
Considering the virtual media blackout of positive portrayals of gay
relationships, it seems that the only time a same-sex “storybook love
affair” will get any attention is when it plays into the right-wing’s
prejudices. So they wanna do a story about a gay divorce and custody
battle, fine, but did they have to pick the one in which one of the
partners found Jesus¹ and changed her sexual orientation??

Out of all the possible gay marriage stories to tell, why did CNN
pick the most tawdry, gay-unfriendly one they could? To quote a cliche,
my guess is that it’s because the squeakiest wheel gets the grease. The
religious right is so well organized, any mention of homosexuality in
less than apocalyptic terms is greeted with a barrage of hate mail,
boycott threats, and endless bloviating about media bias. CNN realizes
this and probably does their best to preempt any criticism by making
sure they throw just enough prejudice in there to pander to the god
squad. The way they see it, by including some subtle anti-gay bullshit
without questioning it², they can tell any mildly controversial story they want³.

If we ever want things to be less tilted in favor of the immoral minority, one of two things needs to happen :

We need to invest in some state of the art crybaby technology of our
own. Spamming the media and Congress every time something isn’t 100% to
our satisfaction. Boycotting people who advertise on offending
networks. Fill ourselves with self-righteous rage and make a beeline
for the nearest television camera.

CNN needs to grow a pair and realize that their
mission isn’t to tiptoe around the biases of others (on either side).
Close the mailroom. Install anti-spam software. Stop pretending that
reporting the truth and lies is a balanced way to inform the public.

Unfortunately, neither of these things is likely to happen soon. If you really want to complain to CNN, you can send feedback here and here. Don’t get your hopes up.

^{1 : Where was he hiding?}

2 : In this case, the absurd notion that religion can “save” you from the evils of gayness.

3 : Gay divorce/custody battle.

Lesson 1. Darwinists hate Jesus.

In this rural swath of northern Kansas, where the grass rolls thick and green to the horizon, a white cross dominates the landscape.

Kathy Martin, a member of the state Board of Education, and her family built it on their farm this spring, gathering weathered chunks of limestone from the horse pasture and laying them on a hillside.

The cross is an expression of Martin’s faith. And as hearings challenging the role of evolution in the state’s school science curriculum began Thursday, that cross left little doubt about where she stands in the debate.

“Evolution is a great theory, but it is flawed,” said Martin, 59, a retired science and elementary schoolteacher who is presiding over the hearings. “There are alternatives. Children need to hear them. We can’t ignore that our nation is based on Christianity — not science.”

Lesson 2. Never read things you might disagree with.

As a State Board of Education subcommittee heard more testimony Friday on how evolution should be taught in Kansas classrooms, one member acknowledged that she hadn’t read all of an evolution-friendly draft of science standards proposed by educators.

Kathy Martin of Clay Center made the comment while attempting to reassure a witness who said he hadn’t read the entire proposal, just parts of it. Russell Carlson, a biochemistry and molecular biology professor at the University of Georgia, said he had reviewed an alternate proposal from intelligent design advocates.

“I’ve not read it word for word myself,” Martin said of the other proposal, eliciting groans of disbelief from a few members of the audience.

Lesson 3. Criticizing a theory is the same as proposing one of your own :

Intelligent design advocates question evolutionary science that says change in one species can lead to new species and that different species have common ancestors.

Intelligent design says some features in the natural world ? because they are complex and well-ordered ? are best explained by an intelligent cause.

None of the changes intelligent design advocates have proposed in the standards mention their ideas. But other scientists scoff at the notion that the board isn’t being pushed to endorse intelligent design.

“The only things that exist in intelligent design literature are criticisms of evolution,” said Keith Miller, a research assistant professor in geology at Kansas State University

Lesson 4. If things aren’t going your way, change the rules. (via Kevin)

The hearings in Topeka, scheduled to last several days, are focusing on two proposals. The first recommends that students continue to be taught the theory of evolution because it is key to understanding biology. The other proposes that Kansas alter the definition of science, not limiting it to theories based on natural explanations.

Lesson 5. Presenting “both” sides of a debate will help kids make up their minds :

Christine Caffy, 15, carefully took notes on each speaker’s position. The ninth-grader from Bishop Seabury Academy in Lawrence had recently studied evolution in her biology class and came here to learn more about the debate.

Afterward, she was curious and confused.

“I came here thinking that I understood evolution, that I understood the facts,” Christine said. “But now, I don’t know what to think. Who’s right? Is the science that I’m learning really true?”

That sentiment infuriates scientists, a group of whom had gathered nearby. They insisted that though evolution should be open to criticism, the classroom was not the place for critiques based on religion.

“If you want to know about science, ask a scientist. If you want to know about faith, ask a minister,” said Robert Hagen, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Kansas.

Lesson 6. Those science nerds are a bunch of chickens.

Instead of testifying at the first hearing, representatives of national and state science groups held the first of a planned series of news conferences at the Statehouse. On display Thursday night was a wheel barrow and two crates full of copies of scientific journals ? to suggest evolution is well-documented.

“The only way we can make our point is to stop playing their game,” said Harry McDonald, president of Kansas Citizens for Science.

Intelligent design advocates pointed to the boycott as evidence that evolution’s supporters are afraid to debate.

They don’t care who you are, they just want your money :

A year after federal agents raided his home in a terrorism investigation, Muslim businessman Syed Maswood is lucky to get on an airplane without being detained and searched. But that didn’t stop him from getting an invitation to dine with President Bush.

Maswood, a nuclear engineer who has not been charged with any crime and has been trying for months to get his name off no-fly lists, received an invitation to serve as an honorary chairman at a Republican fundraiser with Bush in Washington next month.

A Republican who has donated money to GOP campaigns, Maswood said he briefly considered attending but his wife refused to fly. The last time they were in Washington, he said, they were held for hours at the airport.

Are you done chuckling yet? Okay, good. Now lets take a look at the following two statements :

The Bush Administration has been adamant that the people on their terrorist watch lists are guilty and thus deserve the scrutiny and mistreatement that they may or may not be getting.

The Republican party is partially funded by terrorists.

Considering the story above, one of the statements is true. Either the terrorist watch list is legit and the GOP has no problem with associating with the people on it, or the watch list is bullshit and the thousands of people who have been detained without due process or access to legal counsel have had their constitutional rights taken from them by the Bush Administration. Then again, could it be both?

Looks like somebody got arrested for vandalizing the big vagina stain (via Ross) :

A man was arrested for allegedly scrawling “Big Lie” over a stain on an expressway underpass that some believed was an image of the Virgin Mary.

Authorities then painted over the stain because it had been defaced, police spokesman David Banks said Friday.

Authorities charged Victor Gonzalez, 37, of Chicago with criminal damage to state supported property, a misdemeanor. Witnesses had seen him painting the image, Banks said. A telephone listing for Gonzalez could not immediately be found.

A steady stream of the faithful and the curious, many carrying flowers and candles, had flocked to the emergency turnoff area under the Kennedy Expressway since last month. On Friday, some people gathered at the site and expressed sorrow.

Now I’ll admit that this is slightly amusing in a “Dude, that’s a really shitty thing to do” sort of way, but lemme show you some pictures from the scene of the crime :

Am I the only person who’s noticed that this dirty stain caused by salt runoff is surrounded by “criminal damage to state supported property” or is vandalism only a crime when it offends religious people? Indeed, the “thank you vagina stain” messages written all over the place are not only tolerated, but they’ve actually been deemed worthy of police protection :

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending this guy’s actions by any means. Only an asshole would deface the object of someone’s religious devotion¹. But am I being naive here in thinking that vandalism laws should apply to everyone equally? If it’s okay for people to vandalize the underpass to write words of devotion but not okay for someone to write “Big Lie”, then the real crime here isn’t defacing a wall but offending the pious. That may be a horrible thing to do, but it’s not illegal².

^{1 : No matter how stupid that object may be.}

^{2 : Thank you, First Amendment.}

Faith is under attack here in America. Every day regular folks like you and me are forced to sit in the back of the bus¹
because the forces of change are trying to force us out of the public
square. No, we’re not talking about conservative Christianity you
sillyhead, they control all three branches of government. Our faith is
different, but equally under attack, because we² have faith in science and reason.

The central tenet of our faith is that through observation,
experimentation, and critical thinking, we can discern the truth. This
may seem like an outdated notion to the non-coastal elites who feel
like it’s their duty to patronize the rest of us with their bizarre
notions of morality and belief, but for the vast majority of Americans
who live in urban areas, our faith has served us well. Without the men
of faith who preceded us, we wouldn’t have the X-rays, non-stick
cookware, or reality television.

At this point in any self-righteous diatribe about how the world has
gone to heck in a handbasket, the author is compelled to remind the
reader that the United States was founded as a faith-based nation and
that the views of the founding fathers would have perfectly aligned
with the point that we’re trying to make. So, with that in mind, check
this shit out :

“Shake off all the fears of servile
prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason
firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every
opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because,
if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that
of blindfolded fear.”

- Thomas Jefferson

“The way to see by Faith, is to shut the eye of Reason.”

-Benjamin Franklin

“You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always
strenuously supported the right of every man to his opinion, however
different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this
right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he
precludes himself the right of changing it.

The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.”

- Thomas Paine

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first
example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature: and
if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of
artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider
this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the
formation of the American governments is at present little known or
regarded either in Europe or America, it may hereafter become an object
of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in
that service [forming the U.S. government] had interviews with the
gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than
those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or
agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments
were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
- John Adams

There’s also this quote that is in no way applicable to the subject of this essay :

“[T]he
priests of the different religious sects, who dread the advance of
science as witches do the approach of day-light; and scowl on it the
fatal harbinger announcing the subversion of the duperies on which they
live.”

- Thomas Jefferson

But
please, don’t misunderstand us. As you can tell by the ribbon magnets
that we put on our cars, we believe that America is the most wonderful
country on Earth because it’s a democracy. Democracies depend upon an
open debate of ideas, yet this new trend of “militant antisecularism”
has made it impossible to freely express our views to children who
might lack the mental capacity to tell whether or not we’re lying.

That’s why we, men and women of faith, can no longer sit idly by and
watch our kids become brainwashed in the thousands of comparative
religion classes in our public schools. “But the scientific method
isn’t a religion”, you might say⁴. Perhaps, but we
refuse to be bound your anti-faith definitions of terms like “science”,
“religion”, and “public schools”. We don’t want to rid the schools of
religious teaching by any means, but rather supplement them by
presenting both sides of this vast, complicated argument and let the children make uninformed decisions on their own.

In order to provide a balanced curriculum in our nations schools
that presents all viewpoints, we’re requesting that all comparative
religion textbooks be adorned with the following disclaimer on any page
that uses the word “God” or contains a capitalized pronoun :

“This
textbook contains material on beliefs that haven’t been peer-reviewed
or verified through observation and experimentation. Over the last two
thousand years, conclusions reached via the scientific method have made
a bulk of religious thought obsolete and — let’s be honest here –
foolish. With that in mind, it is recommended that the reader absorb
these lessons with the understanding that science will soon render the
majority of the credos in this tome completely worthless and that
history will look back on the devout as superstitious brutes who don’t
understand how the world really works.”

Our American faith
has been under attack by the snobbish forces of cultural homogeny for
too long. We can no longer sit idly by and watch our country be
attacked by ideological terrorists who have hijacked our schools and
insist on crashing them into our children’s young, fertile minds. The
traitorous demagogues in the “red states” started this war. If we ever
want to stop this country’s downward spiral and ensure that it remains
a free haven for people of all faiths⁵, we must join
the battle and fight to reclaim America, the Founding Fathers,
children, apple pie, the flag, puppies, faith, and guns.

^{1 : What?! You think we’re exaggerating? Why do you have a problem with People of Faith? like me? Are you a Nazi or something?}

^{2 : In case you were wondering, We do plan to use
the first-person plural throughout this essay. We’ve earned the right
to assume that we speak for everyone. Why? Because we have values, motherfucker.3}

^{3 : People with values are allowed to have pottymouths because we2 said so.}

^{4 : Or maybe you wouldn’t say that. We don’t care. We’re right and you’re wrong.}

^{5 : By “all faiths” we mean, of course, “our faith”. The rest of you philistines can go fend for yourselves.}

Damn good advice for the Dems over at LiberalOasis :

The main principle of the current strategy is that ?There Is No Crisis,? meaning that there is no pressing need to cut a bad deal with people who can?t be trusted to protect Social Security.

A secondary argument has been that Medicare is clearly closer to crisis than Social Security and we should be talking about that instead.

That?s been said largely to sharpen the point that Social Security isn?t in crisis.

But why not take that argument to the next logical step? To be specific:

1. Declare the Social Security debate over, as the public has clearly rejected privatization and is not demanding any immediate action.

2. In turn, announce that Dems will no longer participate in any Social Security hearings on Capitol Hill, or any Social Security debates in the media.

3. At the same time, unveil a comprehensive senate plan (or perhaps, multiple plans) to control the skyrocketing cost of health care and to prevent the Medicare trust fund from becoming insolvent in 2020.

4. Announce a series of senate-led hearings on Medicare, with an open invitation for Republicans to participate if they like.

When doing something this bold, I think the Democrats would do well to choose their words carefully. Sure, declaring the President’s Social Security plan dead is a good start, but it would be a mistake to state that they will “no longer participate” in the SS debate. A far better way of describing this action is that the Democrats will stop wasting time on plans that the public has now twice rejected¹ and instead refocus on more important priorities.

I’d also be careful about focusing on Medicare. As awful as Bush’s Medicare bill was, it was supported by 11 Democrats. The bipartisan nature of this bill make the Democrats look as bad as the Republicans. Since Medicare is in much worse financial shape than Social Security, here’s two suggestions :

Bring up the fact that the Bush Administration lied about the cost of the bill and threatened to fire their Medicare actuary for telling the truth. It’s a good excuse for any Dems who want to sneak back onto the right side of this issue, but we all know how well the “Bush lied to us” excuse has worked in the past…

Get some Republicans on board. While the Medicare giveaway passed with 11 senate votes, there were also 9 dissenting Republican votes. Partnering up with some of those GOP senators like Trent Lott, John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, and Lindsey Graham could give Medicare reform the bipartisan cred it needs to stand out ahead of Social Security. Then again, the chances of finding common ground with those Republicans on Medicare is very slim.

When all is said and done, I think Medicare is too much of a political minefield to really provide Democrats the political shelter they’d desire. Since they’re not really in a position to push through policies anyways, I think they’d be better off approaching the idea of universal healthcare in broad terms.

The worse that can be said is that they are addressing tough issues for political purposes (and they can always throw Karl Rove?s favorite quote back in his face: ?Good policy is good politics.?)

And all that keeps Dems on the offensive and the GOP on the defensive.

The key to this strategy is having the guts to put a comprehensive health care proposal on the table. As Matthew Yglesias has noted, it?s ?genuinely hard to figure out what we should do.?

That?s why, instead of proposing one plan, it may be easier to propose a few plans from across the Democratic party?s ideological spectrum, then use the makeshift hearing process to air out the pros and cons.

While the hearings should have the ostensible purpose of finding the best plan, I think that should be secondary to making the case to the American public that our current health care system is broken. For the Dems, this means treading in some unfamiliar waters, since appealing to the public requires more style than substance. But there’s plenty of ways to approach this :

Have CEO’s testify about how much their corporations spend on health care costs for their employees each year. Use this to push home the point that universal healthcare would be good for business.

Subpoena the heads of HMOs, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies and make them reveal under oath the amount of healthcare costs that are wasted in administrative costs, lobbying efforts, marketing, and figuring out new ways to deny sick people the care they need.

Bring in some average citizens to tell their stories about how a loved one died of a preventable disease because our country doesn’t provide health care for all of its citizens.

Invite the health care ministers from France, Britain, Canada, and Germany to talk about the specifics of their country’s health care plans. Use this to debunk urban myths about long lines, poor coverage, etc. Additionally, have officials from the OECD or the UN discuss how the United States compares with other industrialized countries in terms of protecting its citizens.

Have the heads of Medicare and Medicaid testify about how much taxpayers already pay for healthcare. Compare this against the healthcare expenditures for other countries.

Granted, this may seem like a wonky series of hearings, but all the Dems have to do is throw enough sugar in there to get the media to show up. If CEOs are testifying, make sure to invite Donald Trump or Bill Gates. If you have a bunch of doctors testifying, throw Dr. Phil into the mix. Yeah, it’s vapid, but it’ll get people to pay attention.

The unavailability of heath care is the most pressing problem our country faces today. Not only does it constitute a crisis in terms of our country’s overall health, but it poses significant moral and economic problems as well. If the Democrats ever want to break out from the pack and be seen as the party of visionary ideas again, they need to make the case to the American public that the direction our country is headed is unsustainable. The first step toward this goal is to stop wasting time on the President’s pet project and start setting the agenda.

^{1 : This is an important point to hit. The current debate is about a second plan. Bush’s first idea was to divert money from Social Security into private accounts and add trillions to the national debt to make up for the shortfall. The new idea is to drastically cut the benefits for the majority of SS beneficiaries and transform it Social Security from a form of social insurance to welfare. The public has rejected both of these plans by a wide margin.}

This is the coolest stamp ever :

This coincides with a interesting survey that was conducted by the British website Spiked in which 250 scientists were asked “If you could teach the world just one thing…”. The answers are all over the place, but a few specifically mentioned the Richard Feynman :

The American physicist Richard Feynman considered a similar question, in his Lectures on Physics: ‘If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words?’ His answer? The atom is the fundamental structure of matter: ‘All things are made of atoms – little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.’
. . .
Feynman’s richly compact answer, ‘all things are made of atoms’, contains a codicil: ‘In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.’ Imagination and thinking? A recent survey of 3,000 people in the UK, by the marketing company Tickbox, finds that two-thirds of those between 18 and 24 years old ‘believe in the power of horoscopes’.

And that brings me to this interesting Feynman quote that appeared recently over at the Panda’s Thumb. Though it’s used in discussion of Intelligent Design there, I think it equally applies to astrology and any other sort of crackpot pseudoscience :

You can see, of course, that with this method we can attempt to disprove any definite theory. If we have a definite theory, a real guess, from which we can conveniently compute consequences which can be compared with experiment, then in principle we can get rid of any theory. There is always the possibility of proving any definite theory wrong; but notice that we can never prove it right. Suppose that you invent a good guess, calculate the consequences, and discover every time that the consequences you have calculated agree with experiment. The theory is then right? No, it is simply not proved wrong.
. . .
Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong. If the guess that you make is poorly expressed and rather vague, and the method that you use for figuring out the consequences is a little vague – you are not sure, and you say, ?I think everything?s right because it?s all due to so and so, and such and such[,] do this and that more or less, and I can sort of explain how this works ??, then you see that this theory is good, because it cannot be proved wrong! Also if the process of computing the consequences is indefinite, then with a little skill any experimental results can be made to look like the expected consequences.

Which ultimately takes us back to the problem with ESP, ID, horoscopes, and other scientific hogwash. To go back to another great answer from the Spiked survey, the difference between science and other fields is falsifiability :

I think the most important fact about science is that all scientific theories are falsifiable. Science represents our best attempt to understand the way the world works. Science involves lots of theories, but it is not really based upon theory. All of today’s theories may go the way of the one described by the nineteenth-century British biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, ‘a beautiful hypothesis’ slain ‘by an ugly fact’.

Despite this, it is important to bear in mind that today’s best scientific theories are exactly that – the best explanation of the world in which we live. On that basis, we should believe them, at least until any ugly new facts emerge. This is what makes science different from religion, metaphysics, philosophy or mysticism. It is not that science’s theories hold any higher logical ground – some of the deepest ideas in physics are very illogical, or at least counterintuitive. It is just that science’s theories are falsifiable, whereas other theories are not.

Our scientific theories have benefited from hundreds of years of being knocked about, attacked, chipped away, smashed and reformed by further experimentation and observation, to arrive at today’s consensus. Not all of today’s science may be right, but you can bet that a lot more of it is right than are the ideas from other areas of human endeavour.

So…what was I saying again? Oh yeah, that Feynman stamp is awesome.

Gotta love how Instahack will link to any shrill, anti-liberal post that strikes his fancy. In this case, the object of the right-wing’s wrath is George Lucas because he apparently mentioned Michael Moore in an interview without calling him a fat traitor or something. After clicking through three sites, you can eventually find your way to the George Lucas article that’s got Glenn’s panties in a bunch¹. Along the way to the hidden Lucas article is this post that pretty much sums up the right-wing problem with Lucas :

From the sum total of Lucas? remarks, I?m left with the following impression: that Lucas is dismissing Moore, simply because Moore is too obvious – too openly political and ?of the moment? – but that Lucas isn?t otherwise troubled by Fahrenheit , at all. In fact, the film and its reception are obviously on his mind a lot – and seem to frustrate him. Moore is clumsy, Lucas seems to be saying, because he isn?t able to explore the same issues in the more guarded language of symbolism and fiction.
[. . .]
Now, I find all of this a bit alarming, for obvious reasons. Lucas clearly wants to ?affect? people, and he doesn?t seem particularly concerned with how Moore had intended to ?affect? audiences – only that it may not have worked. This is a bit like saying Goebbels was merely clumsy, but his intentions were pure.

Since this guy was so quick to play the Nazi card, you can pretty much disregard what he’s saying, but why should we tiptoe around the fact that Lucas is a liberal? Personally, I find Lucas’ injection of political themes to be the best thing about the somewhat disappointing new Star Wars movies :

So where does Lucas stand in this political polemic? “I’m more on the liberal side of things,” he says. “I grew up in San Francisco in the ’60s, and my positions are sort of shaped by that … If you look back 30 years ago, there were certain issues with the Kennedys, with Richard Nixon, that focused my interest.” Lucas’ own geopolitics can sound pretty bleak: “All democracies turn into dictatorships?but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it’s Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea … What kinds of things push people and institutions into this direction?”

In Clones, Lucas goes a way toward answering that question. “That’s the issue that I’ve been exploring: How did the Republic turn into the Empire? That’s paralleled with: How did Anakin turn into Darth Vader? How does a good person go bad, and how does a democracy become a dictatorship? It isn’t that the Empire conquered the Republic, it’s that the Empire is the Republic.” Lucas’ comments clarify the connection between the Anakin trilogy and the Luke trilogy: that the Empire was created out of the corruption of the Republic, and that somebody had to fight it. “One day Princess Leia and her friends woke up and said, ‘This isn’t the Republic anymore, it’s the Empire. We are the bad guys. Well, we don’t agree with this. This democracy is a sham, it’s all wrong.’”

So even though the new Star Wars movies are full of soulless special effects, shitty acting, and amateurish dialogue, there’s a bit more beneath the surface than meets the eye. Though the genesis of the new trilogy predates any of our current problems, the parallels are striking. For instance, remember the scene in F911 in which Reps. Conyers and McDermott discuss how the Patriot Act was printed in the middle of the night and passed without being read? Look past the cheesy dialogue and see if you notice anything slightly familiar from this bit from the last Star Wars film :

BAIL ORGANA: Unfortunately, the debate is not over. The senate will never approve the use of the clones before the separatists attack.

MAS AMEDDA: This is a crisis! The senate must vote the Chancellor emergency powers! He could then approve the use of the clones.

PALPATINE: But what Senator would have the courage to propose such a radical amendment?

MAS AMEDDA: If only Senator Amidala were here.

JAR JAR steps forward from the back of the group.

JAR JAR: Mesa mosto Supreme Chancellor… Mesa gusto pallos. Mesa proud to proposing the motion to give yousa Honor emergency powers.

[. . .]

INTERIOR: CORUSCANT, MAIN senate CHAMBER – EVENING

JAR JAR stands in his pod as it floats in the middle of the vast space.

JAR JAR: In response to the direct threat to the Republic mesa propose that the senate give immediately emergency powers to the Supreme Chancellor.

Uproar. JAR JAR looks a little sheepish.

Brief silence, then a rolling wave of APPLAUSE. JAR JAR beams and bows.

PALPATINE rises.

PALPATINE: It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy… I love the Republic. But I am mild by nature, and I do not desire to see the destruction of democracy. The power you give me I will lay down when this crisis has abated, I promise you. And as my first act with this new authority, I will create a grand army of the Republic to counter the increasing threats of the separatists.

Hmmmm….a leader is “temporarily” given an extraordinary level of power in response to an outside threat by a legislative body nearly crippled with fear. That sounds sooo familiar…

I’m not saying that Bush is a step away from becoming the Emperor or anything³, but it’s a damn good idea to be reminded from time to time that unchecked democracies are often only a tyrant away from becoming dictatorships. When you can keep the people in a constant state of fear, it’s pretty easy to chip away at liberties until there aren’t any left. That’s the real lesson of the new Star Wars movies. Sure, Lucas is hardly breaking any new ground here, the political themes are still 100x more interesting than the pretentious horseshit in the Matrix movies.

^{1 : Not that he actually read it or anything, but the Wired article is here and the accompanying Q&A is here.}

2 : Though I’m sure the right-wing blogosphere will quickly jump on him and demand an apology any moment now the way they did with the Hitler commercial produced for (not by) MoveOn.org

3 : In Star Wars, the Emperor is behind the threat in question (the Trade Federation). In the real world, the only people who think Bush is behind lunatics are conspiracy theorists (like that dickhead who won’t stop emailing me).

Like I said earlier, that Pat Robertson interview on ABC’s This Week really pissed me off. From the same interview I wrote about last night, here’s his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani :

STEPHANOPOULOS: If the party chooses a moderate like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, do you think religious conservatives will split off and form a third-party movement?

ROBERTSON: I don’t think so. Rudy’s a very good friend of mine, and he did a super job running the City of New York. And I think he’d make a good president. I like him a lot. Although he doesn’t share all of my particular points of view on social issues, he’s a very dedicated Catholic. And he’s a great guy.

McCain I’d vote against under any circumstance.

Keep in mind that this is the exact same interview in which he stated that the perceived attacks on marriage and human sexuality by the judiciary are the biggest threat this country has ever faced. Now that the topic has turned to politics, however, they’re just “social issues” in which Rudy (a pro-choice, gay-friendly adulterer) and Pat (a politician pretending to be a man of god) can agree to disagree. What a fucking hypocrite.

Now, it wouldn’t be a Pat Robertson interview unless he exposed his persecution complex to the world.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You said also that you believe Democrats appoint judges who don’t share our Christian values and will dismantle Christian culture. So do you believe that Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg, who were appointed by President Clinton, they’re trying to dismantle Christian culture?

ROBERTSON: Justice Ginsburg served as a general counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU.
[blah, blah, blah....]
ROBERTSON: Well, she was the general counsel for this organization whose purpose right now is to rid religion from the public square (inaudible)down here in our university in a debate. She’s a very pleasant lady but that’s what she said was her avowed goal: to take all religion from the public square. That’s their initiative.

Now I think there’s a big misunderstanding here about the word “public”. When non-partisan groups like the ACLU talk about “public” spaces, they mean “government sponsored and/or funded” places such as schools, courthouses, libraries, etc. In other words, if our tax dollars pay for it, it can’t be used to promote your religion. Government-sponsored religious displays are unconstitutional, unfair, and generally a bad idea.

When Pat and his rabble-rousing allies talk about “the public square”, they’re trying to convince their devotees that liberals are trying to ban the Bible outright¹. They’ve got a nation full of jittery Jesus-heads convinced that the Democratic party wants to shut down churches and discriminate against anyone who has devoted their life to the Bible. This isn’t a difference of opinion, it’s a shamefully dishonest attack on an entire group of people who don’t share the political views² of Robertson et. al.

There’s plenty of stuff that the ACLU does that I disagree with³, but the vilification that the group takes from religious people is based on ignorance. For some, I’m sure it’s because they’re unable to reconcile the group’s stance on civil liberties with the uncomfortable fact that those rights apply to even the most immoral aspects of our society. I don’t have the stomach to defend the rights of monsters like the KKK or NAMBLA⁴, but I’ll give the ACLU credit for being consistent enough to defend the freedom to express unpopular views. For leaders like Robertson, however, the Protestant jihad against the ACLU is based on willfully ignoring the vast majority of what the group does in an effort to strengthen their coalition in opposition to a common enemy. It’s no more fair to single out a few of the thousands of cases that the ACLU has defended based on their controversy, than it is to point out how active the BTK killer was in his church in an attempt to malign Christianity.

Finally, Robertson’s anti-liberal tirade had this little nugget of trivia that I’d never heard before :

STEPHANOPOULOS: Because in the past, you’ve said that you believe that only Christians and Jews are qualified to serve in the government.

Is that still your belief?

ROBERTSON: Well, Thomas Jefferson, who was the author of the Declaration of Independence, said he wouldn’t have any atheists in his cabinet because atheists wouldn’t swear an oath to God. That was Jefferson.

Did Jefferson really say this?? I can’t find a reference to it anywhere, but even if it’s true, I find Robertson’s attempt to transform Jefferson into some stalwart against the forces of atheism to be hilarious considering that the 18th-century clergy didn’t seem to have as high an opinion of Jefferson as Robertson has now :

Jefferson was inaugurated the third president on March 4, 1801, following one of the most bitterly contested elections in history. His religion, or the alleged lack thereof, was a contentious issue in the campaign. His Federalist Party opponents, especially New England’s Congregationalist clergy, vilified him as an “infidel” and “atheist.” The campaign rhetoric was so vitriolic that, when news of Jefferson’s election swept across the country, housewives in New England were seen burying family Bibles in their gardens because they fully expected the Holy Scriptures to be confiscated and burned by the new administration in Washington.

The amusing thing here is that Jefferson wasn’t an atheist. He was a deist, but one common thread between then and now is that many true believers don’t really know what the hell they’re talking about when it comes to the beliefs of others. Just as Jefferson was a “howling atheist” to religious leaders in 1800, Robertson and his allies are dedicated to spreading the lie that Democrats are trying to “destroy the Christians”.

As a Democratic atheist who has a number of conservative Christians in my family, let me just say “Fuck you, Pat”. I’m so goddamned tired of these self-appointed arbiters of religious purity trying to drive a wedge between me and my family. It’s a wonder that they can still respect me after sitting through these paranoid lectures about how much liberals want to destroy the world. The willingness for people like Pat Robertson to exploit the religious devotion of the people I love makes me seethe with rage, but I refuse to fall for the bait and let them turn me into the sickening caricature they use to manipulate others. I have no problem with people whose faith guides their political identity, nor do I begrudge people the right to disagree with me. I really do think that our nation is best served by a spirited debate between conservatives and liberals, the religious and the secular, etc., but that debate needs to happen on civil terms, not terms dictated by the incendiary and xenophobic hate speech of political wolves in religious sheep’s clothing like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson. Those men give Christianity and conservatism a bad name and, even though I don’t identify with either label, I hate them for it.

^{1 : Yes, that’s the real message of scripture-fiends like Pat Robertson and their GOP toadies.}

2 : Or shady business dealings with terrorist-friendly foreign governments.

3 : I strongly disagree with their decision to file an amicus brief in Nike, Inc. v. Kasky case. As far as I’m concerned, a corporation’s sole purpose is to make a profit. I’m not making a judgment about that either way, but it’s pretty clear to me that in keeping with the profit motive, any actions taken by a corporation to protect that profit (like, say a misleading press release to refute charges of running sweatshops) is by definition “commercial speech”.

4 : Note that I used the word “views”, not “practices”. I don’t know anything about the NAMBLA case, but the ACLU’s defense is here and here. Like I said, I wouldn’t defend those sickos, but the ACLU’s stance does seem to be consistent with their mission to defend freedom of expression.