How Messed Up Is This?

Via Pharyngula (like he needs me to link to him. Ha!)

Read Full Post

The Vet Who Did Not Vet

Read Full Post

Brave New Films on ACORN

Read Full Post

The "Real" America

After the recent comments made by Sarah Palin, Nancy Pfotenhauer, and Michelle Bachmann, I was ready to write out a long post about how this divisive understanding of our country was horribly misguided, insulting, and dangerous to the nation.

Thankfully, I didn't have to. Jon Stewart did it for me.

Read Full Post

Colin Powell on the Election

There are very few high ranking members of the Bush Administration that I have even the smallest amount of respect for. The two I do have some respect for are Rice and Powell. I may disagree with them on many policy matters, but both are smart as whips. Powell especially seems to own something that many in the Bush administration lack - a moral compass (Rice seems to have one, but there is a magnet next to it). There are very few Republicans I would have voted for in this election. Powell would have been one of them.

As a result, I was very pleased to wake this morning to this:

Read Full Post

Obama's Terrorist vs Palin's Secessionist

You may have heard about Palin's latest jab at Obama. Dragging up something that was already hammered to death during the Democractic primary race, Palin has accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists". Here's a video of Palin's comments and the CNN Truth Squad's assessment of her claims:



Now, forget for a moment that this charge is super weak. I found it rather interesting that Palin would make these comments given that she's risking bringing up her husband's association with the Alaska Independence Party. She claims that Obama sees the U.S. as imperfect enough to "pal around with terrorists". One has to wonder how imperfect she thinks the U.S. is, since she's married to a secessionist. Apparently, I'm not the only person who had this thought.

All of this, of course, is terribly stupid. So why would they even bring it up? I think I can answer the question of why Palin would drag this clump of mud out of the closet, in spite of the political risk. The McCain campaign is desperate for anything to hurl at Obama that might turn the conversation away from the economy. Why do I smell desperation? Well, first, the McCain campaign has conceded Michigan. Second, according to the Princeton Election Consortium, (great site, by the way), as of 8 a.m. this morning, if the election were held today, Obama would take 353 electoral votes and McCain would take 185. 270 electoral votes are necessary to win. By any standards, that's a landslide. When the economy is the main issue, voters tend to trust Democrats over Republicans. Add to that an unpopular war and a Republican administration that is despised by some 70% of Americans, and you've got a serious problem if you're McCain. I predict that we'll see a lot of mud being slung in the next few weeks. The McCain campaign is going to have to do everything it can to divert attention away from the issues and slime Obama if McCain is going to have a snowball's chance in hell of winning this election.

Of course, that's no reason for complacency. We all know how effective Karl Rove style politics can get. I'll be stuffing envelopes and sporting my campaign button nonetheless. But I might just do so with a little more hope.

Read Full Post

Meet Sam

I'd like to introduce you to this guy I know. His name is Sam. He's really rich, but he's one of those rich people who makes a ton of money and yet can't live within his means. He spends way more than he makes and is in debt up to his eyeballs.

Not only is Sam rich, but he's also the biggest, strongest guy on the block. He's made of muscle, knows martial arts, streetfighting, you name it. He's handsome too. He's a smart dresser and a salesman at heart. He can sweet talk with the best of them.

So Sam's got a lot going for him. He's rich, good looking and strong. He knows it too. As a matter of fact, Sam likes to talk about how strong he his. He likes to talk about how all the girls want to be his girl and how all the guys want to be him. He's always boasting about how he's the richest, strongest, smartest guy on the block. He talks about how great he is with his family and friends. He talks about how great he is just about everyday at work. Sam thinks there is something seriously wrong with you if you don't think he's great too. In fact, Sam thinks he's so great that he wants everyone to be like him, and he can be a little pushy when he tries to convince people to do it his way. His family often gets dragged along for the ride, but other people can find it rather annoying. Sam doesn't understand that, though. He sees himself as the richest, strongest, smartest guy around. How could he be wrong?

Well, richest and strongest he is, but Sam's not necessarily the smartest guy on the block. He has his moments of genius, to be sure, and he's had a lot of really great ideas in his time. Sam used to spend lots of energy learning about science and politics and technology. When he was younger, he always had the best science projects and the smartest answers to the teacher's questions. Now, though, Sam doesn't have a lot of time for science. In fact, he's not sure he believes most of it, since it conflicts with his religious beliefs. And while he still likes to learn about technology, he's gotten behind on the latest advancements. Every once in a while, he'll crack a book about history or politics or economics, but it's just not important to him anymore. Nor is it important to Sam to learn about what's going on outside his own neighborhood. If the economy in another neighborhood were bad, Sam wouldn't know it. If the neighborhood crosstown had been taken over by warring gangs who were killing innocent bystanders in the crossfire, Sam wouldn't know it. And even if he did, he wouldn't really care, as long as it didn't impact him.

Don't get me wrong, there are people in Sam's life that are important to him. He's got some siblings that matter to him, though he doesn't pay too much attention to their personal lives. He's got a mom who dotes on him, though he doesn't pay her much mind, but his relationship with his father is strained. He tries desparately to be nothing like his father, and his father is often dissapointed or flat out fed-up with his antics. He's always been there to help his family, though, and he'd be there in a flash if they ever needed him again.

Sam's got some friends that matter to him, too, though usually it's because they have something to offer him. Sam's definitely the sort of person who will become friends with you because you have a big screen T.V., even if he doesn't really like you. As soon as he's got his own T.V., though, he'll drop you like a bad habit. He does have one really special girl in his life - Izzie. And when I say special, I mean really special. Sam gives Izzie practically anything she wants. Fancy dinners, nice clothes, spending money. You name it. Any guy so much as glances at Izzie the wrong way, and Sam will launch into a tirade of threats and insults. He's not beyond handing out a severe beating on her behalf.

In fact, Sam's not shy about using violence for any number of reasons. Sometimes it's called for, but sometimes it's not. One time, a guy he didn't like moved in next door to his parents, and so Sam marched right over and got into really nasty fight with him. Surprisingly, he didn't win. I guess that happens when you take on someone who's not strong, but has a ton of endurance. Eventually, the fight isn't worth it anymore, especially when you're wailing on someone because you don't like their proximity to your parents. This other time, some jerk who didn't like Sam very much vandalized his house. So Sam found him and beat him up and then he beat up another guy who was just an innocent bystander. Even when he's not beating people up, Sam will often threaten violence to get his way. He's not beyond a bribe, though, either, if that'll get you to go along with him.

Now that you've met Sam, let me ask you something. What do you think of him? Do you think he's the greatest guy in town? Think about how other people might react to someone like Sam. How do people view someone who constantly blows their own horn? How do people react to someone who uses their size to push people around? How would you feel about Sam if you didn't like Izzie?

Have you figured out who Sam is? When I took international relations in college, we were often helped along in our studies by thinking of countries as individual people. I had a habit of taking this metaphor too far, envisioning the U.K as our Mama and France as our Papa, with the U.K's old colonies being our sisters and brothers. Now that the election looms, and the bells of nationalism are tolling, the metaphor returned to me. Heather Wilson's recent comments about Barak Obama (video below) got me thinking even more. What if U.S. were a person? How would other people view it? Not too well, it seems to me. No one likes an arrogant bully.

Now, of course I understand that the U.S. is not a person. But why should people be held to higher standards than countries? And why should we expect people in other countries to view us any differently than they would view an individual who thought and behaved in the same way? Why shouldn't people in the U.S. question the character that their country is displaying in the same way that we think someone like Sam should examine his own character?

In her comments, Wilson implies that liberals, including Obama, think that it is the U.S., and only the U.S., that is the problem. That is a strawman. No one is saying that the problems of the world all rest on American shoulders, and no one is claiming that it is only the behavior of the U.S. that is problematic. Such a view is obviously false. But it is just as false to hold, as Wilson seems to, that the U.S. isn't doing anything wrong at all. That position is not one of patriotism; it's one of blind nationalism.

Wilson insinuates that when people like Obama criticize certain aspects of their country, that makes them unpatriotic. But it's not unpatriotic to question the direction your country is heading. It's not unpatriotic to note that your country has faults. It's not unpatriotic to want your country to be better. In fact, it seems to me that one of the most patriotic sentiments you can have is the desire to make your country better, and one of the most patriotic things you can do is work to improve your country. But you can't improve what you won't recognize as imperfect.

I don't think that the U.S. is a force for good in the world at the moment. Our collapsing economy is going to drag the economies of other nations down with us. We're involved in two wars. One of those wars was completely unjustified and has resulted in destabilizing an already volitile area of the world. The other war could have ended in the capture of Osama Bin Laden after the initial fall of the Taliban had it not been for a pissing contest between Donald Rumsfeld and George Tenet. Instead we're now killing civilians in air raids (and, contrary to what Sarah Palin says, it's not irresponsible to tell the truth). We're fretting terribly over Iran, not because they are anywhere near close enough to nukes to be a serious threat to us, but because Isreal is scared now that our decimation of Iraq has handed regional hegemony to the Iranians. The one place where we should have boots on the ground, or at least diplomats at a table - Darfur - is almost completely off our radar screen. How can we be a force for good in the world when we can't even send a few planes to Africa to help stop a genocide? How can we be a force for good when we have broken our word, violated the Geneva Convention and have taken to torture and extraordinary rendition? How can we be a force for good when we refuse to fund family planning programs that actually work to stem the tide of the African AIDS epidemic?

I am a patriot, not because I think my country is a force for good, but because I want my country to be a force for good. I am a patriot, not because I think my country is great, but because I want it to be great. Wilson's attack on the patriotism of liberals in general, and Obama in particular, misses the mark. True patriotism isn't expressed in hollow platitudes about pride in country or blanket statements about how great we are. Loving your country isn't enough to make you a patriot. True patriotism finds expression in those who can see how great their country could be, and love it enough to try and make it that way.

Wilson Attacking Obama's Patriotism

Read Full Post

First Reaction - Biden v. Palin

Credit where credit is due - Palin didn' totally suck. Kudos to her for surviving the debate and actually getting in some good jabs.

That doesn't mean that the true Palin colors weren't present. As far as mistakes go, she falsely claimed that the commander in Afghanistan didn't say that the surge tactic wouldn't work there. He did. She also got his name wrong. It's McKiernan, not "McClellan". And then there was that completely nonsensical answer on nuclear proliferation (and yes, Sarah, it's "NU-CLEE-UR" not "NU-CU-LAR"). I seriously have no idea what she said on that. It was a flashback to the Couric interviews.

But, given the low expectations that I, and everyone else, had, she did decently. In fact, she reminded me a lot of another republican - George W. Bush. She repeated over and over and over again the lie about Obama's tax policy and his votes on taxes. She lied about the McCain/Palin position on "oversight". We need more oversight, she says, despite the fact that McCain is fundamentally opposed to any economic regulation. Now, if you are against regulation, okay. That's a position that has rational support. But don't lie about it. Then she touted her "executive experience" as a governor and business owner. You know who else had that sort of executive experience? Good ol' dubya. But she did manage to do the politician's dance and spit out the right platitudes at the right time. I didn't expect her to manage it.

As I said to my roommate as the interview progressed, I preferred it when I could laugh at her stupidity and almost pity her. Now I'm scared, because it turns out that she has views. Views that are deadly dangerous. The thing that scared me most? She believes that the constitution gives flexibility in the power of the VP. That's Cheney's view of the vice presidency. In the spirit of Biden, let me say that again, THAT'S CHENEY'S VIEW OF THE VICE PRESIDENCY. Coming from someone who has already shown her bonefides as a politician who abuses power, that's not good.

I think Biden won, but Palin made a very good showing.

Read Full Post

Palin's SCOTUS Gaffe

To her credit, the problem was not that Palin couldn't name any SCOTUS case, it was that she couldn't name one other than Roe that she disagreed with. That's still pretty sad. She doesn't disagree with Kelo? Dredd Scott? Plessy v. Ferguson? I'm pretty sure she disagrees with Planned Parenthood v Casey. You'd think for such a staunch pro-lifer, she could have named that one.

Here is a comparison of Palin and Biden's answers on the question:


Now, I have to say that I disagree with part of what Biden says about Roe. Getting close to a consensus in a heterogeneous society is not the job of SCOTUS. They are there to interpret the constitution, and it doesn't matter what the great mob of our "multicultural society of religious people" has to say.

By the way, what about us non-religious people? Don't we count? Of course we don't. Doesn't matter which side of the aisle you are on, you're never gonna stand up for the 15% of the population who have no religion. And atheists? Ohh boy. We don't even deserve to have our voices heard. Sorry, it just really stinks when there is no political party that will give you a voice. It gets annoying having to vote for people who at best act as though you don't exist and at worst think that you are a scourge upon the earth that must be destroyed. Oh well.

Also, apparently Biden's conservative friends haven't actually read the bill of rights. If I was him, I'd tell them to go read the 9th Amendment and then get back to me.

So I'm not perfectly happy with Biden's answer. But Palin's answer is much, much worse. What worries me most about Palin's exchange with Couric isn't that she can't name a SCOTUS case she disagrees with. That shouldn't be the least bit shocking to anyone who has been paying attention. Anyone who hasn't been watching Fox news knows that she's at least one standard deviation below 100. There is only so much information she can fit in that tiny brain of hers, and I'm sure remembering the crazy names she's given to her ever expanding brood probably takes up a lot of storage space already. And keeping an eye on Putin's head probably requires significant intellectual effort.

Rather, what bothers me is that Palin's answer on Roe seems to indicate that she doesn't understand how our system is supposed to work. She thinks abortion is a states issue. Okay. But then she says there is a right to privacy in the constitution, but individual states can best handle the will of the people on that issue. Um... Sarah, honey, if there is a right in the constitution, then the states can't decide to deny it even if it is the will of the people in that state. The Bill of Rights is there to protect our individual rights from the federal government, and the 14th Amendment expands that protection such that it guards us from state action as well. Welcome to the United States of America, Gov. Palin. If you actually want to rule this country, I suggest you figure out how it works first.

Now I'm really interested to find out what her view of the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban is. If abortion is a states issue, then the federal government has no business passing laws about it, and so Palin should oppose that ban on the basis of her federalist principles. Something tells me, though, that she has no opposition whatsoever to the ban.

I don't know about you, but I can't wait for the debate tonight. In case you didn't notice, my pickup switch has been moved from "Cold, rational argumentation" to "Mean, sarcastic argumentation". This should be fun.

Read Full Post

Another Palin Interview

Couric and Palin, again. My comments on the interview are below the video



00:41 - Palin claims she's a feminist who supports equal rights. I don't believe that is possible for someone who is pro-life. Of course, you actually have to have a significant understanding of the philosophical issues surrounding the abortion debate to see that the positions are inconsistent, so I can't fault Palin for thinking she's a feminist. Not many people know the philosophical nitty gritties of the abortion issue.

3:30 - She can't name 1 magazine? If she really read them, wouldn't she be able to name at least one? Wow. That's sad. What's sadder, though, are reports that in part of this interview that hasn't aired yet, Palin couldn't name a Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade. At that's really sad. Without any prepping (which she's been getting constantly from the McCain campaign), here's a few SCOTUS rulings that immediately come to mind: Marbury v Madison, Dredd Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Board of Ed., Edwards v Aguilard, Planned Parenthood v Casey, Lawrence v Texas. Oh, and of course, Bush v. Gore. Hello!!! Now, I don't think I'm anywhere near qualified to be VP, or even assistant to the assistant to the VP. But I can crack off a few of the major historical cases in US history. Do you really want a VP who can't name Marbury v. Madison, which gave the court the power it has today, or Brown v Board of Ed., which ended segregation? Christ that's scary.

4:34 - Here's a transcript of what she says: "You know there are man's activities that can be contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now with these impacts. I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate because the world's weather patterns are cyclical and over history we have seen changes there". Now, I know that no one speaks perfectly. We use run-on sentences and fragments. We sometimes fumble over words. But this woman's speech seems to be a continuous barrage of linguistic ineptitude. To me, that denotes stupidity. Of course, it's statements like that that get me called a "liberal elistist".

What's really scary is that she goes on to say "But it kinda doesn't matter at this point". What?! What caused the problem doesn't matter when you're trying to fix the problem? I kinda wonder how she might fix a leak in her snowmobile if she never looks to see where it's coming from. Incidentally, Palin's nods toward the notion that climate change is partially manmade are not in accord with her previous statements on the issue.

5:25 - She would counsel to "choose life". If that is really all you would do, then no pro-choicer on the planet would have a problem with you. Pro-lifers really need to quit talking about "choosing life". Guess what, if abortion is legal, women can choose to have the baby. If it's illegal, then women have to have the baby. If you are pro-life you are not for women choosing to take the pregnancy to term. You are for forcing them to do it. Period. It's really not a difficult concept to understand.

6:16 - She claims that women shouldn't be put in jail for having abortions. Wait... what? If you're pro-life, it's because you think abortion is the unjustified killing of another human being - you think it's murder. Since when do we not put people in jail for murder? Look, either it is murder, in which case it's illegal and punishable by a long prison sentence or, in this country, the death penalty, or it's not murder. If it's not murder, then why should it be illegal?

6:31 - She's all for contraception. That's nice. Oh wait. It's not true. She opposes funding comprehensive sex-ed. How can you be for contraception if you're against letting people know it's out there? Her answer on the morning after pill also seems inconsistent with this claim. She says she wouldn't use the morning after pill herself. She's also claimed that life begins at conception. Let's put two and two together here. The morning after pill prevents pregnancy the same way birth control pills do (it's just a high dosage of the same hormones). It (1) prevents ovulation, (2) thickens the lining of the cervix, and (3) in rare circumstances, prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. Now, if you believe, as most hard-right people do, that conception=fertilization, then you consider any method of contraception that prevents implantation to be an abortifacent. Given Palin's far right credentials, and her claims here, I find it highly likely that this is her view. If she doesn't believe that fertilization=conception, then why does she hedge so much about the morning after pill?

7:29 - A respect for science? She's a young earth creationist!!!! To seriously believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, you have to reject almost all of modern science! You must reject modern biology because of evolutionary theory. You must reject chemistry because of radiometric dating. You must reject geology because of plate techtonics. You must reject astronomy because of the measured size of the universe based on the speed of light. You get to keep physics, and that's about it. Heck, you even have to reject archeology, since archeologists have found evidence that humans invented agriculture 10,000 years ago. Perhaps Palin had another problem with her words here. "Reject" and "respect" do sound a lot alike.

8:20 - Her friend who is gay "happens to have made a choice" to be gay. So being gay is a choice? Really? I guess that's why Palin believes her "best friend" shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.

All in all, I think this interview is another bust. Her answers will make the republican base sing "hallelujah", but they will scare liberals to death and maybe a few moderates too. And either way, she still sounded inarticulate and uneducated.

Read Full Post

If Roe Goes...

Linda Hirshman has an excellent piece at the Washington Post examining the question of how far states will be able to take their "states' rights" if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned. In particular, she looks at the issue of whether or not states where abortion would be criminalized would be able to prosecute women who travel to states where the procedure is legal to obtain an abortion.

If John McCain wins the election, we are but a few years, at most, from witnessing the overturn of Roe. It looks clear that at least one, if not two, spots will be opening up on the highest court in the land, and McCain has repeatedly indicated that he will appoint judges like Roberts and Alito. The overturn of Roe v. Wade is a real possibility at this point. So what would happen if Roe was tossed out?

Well, abortion wouldn't automatically become illegal throughout the land. Rather, the issue of the legality of abortion would be left to the states. There are a number of states where abortion would become illegal following the demise of Roe. And just as was the case before abortion rights were nationally recognized, women living in states criminalizing abortion would travel to states without criminal abortion laws to obtain the procedure. "Okay," you might think, "not such a big deal. Women can still get abortions, they just have to travel a bit." A woman living in Missouri - a state which will likely criminalize abortion nanoseconds after Roe is overturned - would just have to travel across the border into Illinois to get the procedure done. No problem (as long as you can manage to get the money together to make the trip). Missouri couldn't do anything to stop her or penalize her for doing something in another state, right?

Well, apparently it's not that simple. It seems silly to think that an individual could be prosecuted in his or her home state for doing something in another state which is perfectly legal in that state. To me, that sounds like saying that the US government can charge you for possession of marijuana because you bought and smoked some in a cafe in Amsterdam. But it looks as though there are some precendents in favor of allowing states to do just that. According to Hirshman,

Under the American constitutional system, a state does have some authority to regulate its citizens' conduct even when they aren't on its territory. The Tenth Amendment and numerous Supreme Court rulings have recognized the broad reach of state sovereignty. In 1792, the Supreme Court approved Virginia's prosecution of a Virginian for stealing a horse from another Virginian, even though the dastardly deed took place entirely in the District of Columbia...

...In some indirect -- but ominous -- cases, the Supreme Court has shown itself to be open to the idea that a state has an interest in its citizens' behavior wherever it occurs. In 1985, the court allowed Alabama to prosecute an Alabama defendant for his wife's murder, even though he had already been tried and convicted in Georgia, where the actual murder occurred. In 1993, the court recognized the interest of a state that forbids gambling in upholding a federal law prohibiting broadcasters from tempting its citizens with advertisements for out-of-state lotteries.

So it looks like a state with an abortion ban might have some Constitutional backing if it decided to bar women from leaving to obtain abortions or prosecute after the fact. And we shouldn't forget that if a majority of five neo-con justices were to include in their reversal of Roe a declaration that the fetus is a person, states might then have the power to prevent women from leaving their boundaries by claiming that such action is necessary to protect the fetus. If the state can take custody of a child for its protection, and the fetus has all the same rights as a child, then the state might argue that it has custody over the fetus, and bar the woman from taking the fetus outside the state. (This, of course, ignores the whole issue of bodily autonomy. But the anti-choice side of this debate never actually addresses that issue anyway)

Thankfully, it looks like there is some Constitutional support for the conclusion that states cannot prosecute women for deeds in other states:

There are, of course, limits to what states can do to stop out-of-state abortions. They have to comply with the restrictions of the federal Constitution, such as the clause saying that no state may deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Courts apply this due-process clause to prohibit states from taking "arbitrary" actions. A state's decision to prosecute a woman for an abortion that it holds to be illegal but that was legal where she got it could be seen as arbitrary -- meddling in behavior that's none of its business -- unless that state shows that it has a legitimate interest in the out-of-state act.

Unfortunately, it looks like we've already suggested a way in which a state with an abortion ban might argue that it has a legitimate interest in the out-of-state act - if a SCOTUS ruling contains a declaration that a fetus is a person, then the woman's home state could claim that it has a legitimate interest in protecting the fetus.

In fact, it might not even be necessary for SCOTUS to make the declaration. If the state itself has amended its Constitution to confer the status of personhood on the fetus (as was attempted in Colorado recently), then that just might give the state enough of a ground to claim legitimate interest in the out of state act.

Hirshman looks at this issue from a number of angles in her article, but I think the article leaves out two critical facets of this issue that should be examined. First, while she is keenly aware of the fact that this issue boils down to a question of states' rights, her article fails to bring into the discussion the fact that conservative justices are often staunch supporters of states' rights. Prima facie, this would lead one to conclude that they will be more likely to rule in favor of the states that are attempting to assert their "rights" - that is, the states that wish to prosecute their citizens for obtaining an abortion in a state where it is legal. That should trouble those who are concerned with protecting the right of women to terminate a pregnancy.

Second, I think it important to keep in mind the highly emotional nature, for many, of the abortion issue. Justices are human; they have deepseated convictions and dearly held beliefs just like anyone else. I do not find it improbable that a number of the Justices on the court who oppose abortion rights will select a ruling that matches their dearly held beliefs and then find a legal justification for it, rather than following legal justifications to the ruling. It very well might be that for such Justices, the relevant states' rights case law will take a back seat to preventing women from obtaining abortions.

Read Full Post

Free Sarah Palin!

Campbell Brown just gained another heap of respect points from me. She had previously shown some fine journalistic chops by asking a McCain campaign spokesman some hard hitting questions. Now, she puts forward this extremely clever bit of advocacy journalism:



If you're confused about Campbell's charges of sexism, then exactly what other reason could they have for keeping Palin from the media? Campbell's got the McCain campaign trapped in a nasty dilemma, and I love it.

Read Full Post

Sarah Palin is Insane.

Below is video of Sarah Palin speaking to graduates of the Master's Commission at her childhood church.

What's really freaky? She's praying that Iraq is a task from God, rather than, say, using her reason to discover whether it's actually the right thing. She thinks a pipeline in Alaska is god's will (but for some reason people still need to pray for it). And she thinks a police force and education are useless if people aren't "right with god".

Honestly? Education is worthless if you don't believe that there is a sky daddy who put his human creations in a garden with a tree that would give them knowledge of good and evil and told them not to eat from it (how would they know disobeying his command was wrong?); but then a walking, talking snake came along and convinced them to eat from it, and because of this all their descendents are marred with a sin that someone else committed; and to deal with this, sky-daddy impregnated a virgin with himself so he could sacrifice himself to himself as a payment, and after this sacrifice sky-daddy rose from the dead but will come back and put all those people who don't believe this cockamamie story through eternal torture.* But he's just and he loves you. Yeah. Someone's education certainly was worthless.

I know that probably appears a bit offensive to believers. But it's basically an accurate description of your garden variety fundamentalist christianity. If you're not a fundamentalist, then it shouldn't offend you, because you don't believe that. Sarah Palin does. And I'm all for people being able to believe what they want. But please don't tell me that belief in this rather extraordinary story that must be taken on faith is necessary for education to be worthwhile. Not only is that a gigantic non-sequitur, but it's insulting to anyone who has a desire to learn about the world but doesn't accept that the Christian bible is literal truth. Believe what you will. Your faith is your business. But don't insult our intelligence.



*Apologies for the run-on, but it just sounds better that way.

Read Full Post

A Collective Flip Flop?

Palin's being tagged for VP has Republicans falling all over themselves to say things that run contrary to previous statements. Jon Stewart, with his usual wit, puts it in perspective:



Via Pharyngula

Read Full Post

5 Reasons Bristol's Pregnancy Matters

So, with the news that Sarah Palin's 17 year old unwed daughter, Bristol, is pregnant, there has been a lot of chatter about how this is a private family matter and we should all just leave poor Bristol Palin alone. I agree that we should leave Bristol alone, but her pregnancy should force some light on the conservative policies and stances that her mother and McCain support. Here are 5 reasons Bristol Palin's pregnancy matters:

#1 Conservatives claim the moral high ground.
It is often complained by liberals that conservative republicans have hijacked the issue of values. And for the most part, this is true. Conservatives tout themselves as the religious who want to preserve traditional marriage (aka deny gay rights), love "the unborn" (aka force pregnancy) and prevent sex from destroying our culture (aka push their backward view of morality on everyone else). Yet Bristol's pregnancy seems to undermine that claim. Not because her pregnancy is wrong. I'm not one to say that premarital sex is immoral. Nor would I expect most liberals to say that there is something morally suspect about coitus before marriage. To most of us liberals, it's none of our business. But religious republicans, republicans like Palin, would say that it is immoral. This is a scandal by their standards, not ours, and yet they are reacting as though their core beliefs do not hold this situation to be a sin in the eyes of their god. I smell hypocrisy.

#2 Conservatives, including Palin, oppose comprehensive sex-ed and fight for abstinence-only education.
Many conservatives oppose anything but abstinence-only education for our teens, claiming that comprehensive sex-ed will lead to more sex. Palin herself opposes comprehensive sex-education and supports abstinence-only. McCain has also claimed that he supports abstinence-only. Now, as we should all be well aware at this point, studies have shown that abstinence-only education does not work, and in many cases, these programs disseminate false information to teens about sex and pregnancy. Furthermore, studies have also shown that comprehensive sex eduation programs are effective in helping teens to dely sexual intercourse or protect themselves from STDs and pregnancy.

Now, what should we take away from this? Comprehensive sex education helps prevent teen pregnancy and transmission of STDs. Abstinence-only education does not. And yet conservatives like Palin and McCain want to prevent teens from getting the information that might help them to avoid the situation that Bristol Palin is now in. Don't you think a mother who is dealing with helping her daughter with a teen pregnancy and has the political clout would work to keep other girls from being put in the same unfortunate position that her daughter is in? Apparently not Sarah Palin.

#3 Many conservatives oppose hormonal birth control or are unconcerned with women's access to it.
Even if sexually active teens and women know that they can protect themselves from pregnancy through various means, that doesn't help if they don't have access to contraception. But many religious republicans flat out oppose hormonal contraception, tossing out science to call the pill and its variants "abortifacents", and hence immoral. That means that the use of contraception is also immoral to this people and if they think abortion should be illegal, then surely "abortifacents" - things that cause abortions, should also be illegal. Furthermore, many conservatives have pushed to allow doctors and pharmacists to refuse to write prescriptions for birth control or fill those prescriptions if they have moral objections, thus limiting women's access, especially in rural areas (like, say, Alaska?).

Now, it's not clear what either McCain's or Palin's positions are on this. Republicans have a way of avoiding discussing their views on birth control (since the vast majority of the American populace is okay with it). But if Palin's "right to life" credentials are good enough to garner the support of the religious wingnuts like Dobson and Robertson, then it's likely that she opposes birth control as well. That would certainly explain why a busy woman in her 40s who already had four children would manage to get pregnant, despite the risks of birth defects (like Down Syndrome) for babies of older women. But denying access to birth control just means more teen pregnancy. More girls like Bristol Palin.

#4 As Governor, Palin slashed funding that would have gone to teen mothers.
Palin used her line item veto to cut funding for a program that helps teen mothers. The program gives young single moms a place to stay while they acquire some skills that will allow them to get by in the world. So, Palin doesn't want kids to be educated on how to avoid pregnancy, (probably) doesn't want them to have access to the means to prevent pregnancy, and yet won't give them money to help them once they (surprise!) get pregnant. Of course, this won't affect girls like Bristol, who, thankfully, have supportive (and rich) families to take care of them. But for lots of other young women who get pregnant, that support isn't there. And apparently Palin doesn't care.

#5 "Choice"
In the press release from the campaign on the pregnancy, the family claimed, "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby". The talking heads have been claiming that the fact that Palin practices what she preaches (i.e., that her daughter "chose life") will actually help with the conservative base. With regard to Palin's own recent pregnancy, in fact, many have been pushing the notion that she chose to have the baby despite his condition.

Well, guess what, Sarah Palin is pro-life. She believes that abortion should be illegal, even in
cases of rape or incest. She does not believe that women have the right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. And if she were really, truly pro-life, then neither she nor her daughter would have a choice in the matter. If you are pro-life, then there is no option other than carrying the pregnancy to term. And if there is only one option, then there is no choice. If Palin really practiced what she preached, then she didn't choose anything, and neither did her daughter. Yet the media does not bring this up. Instead, they laud her choice. Wrong. Pro-choicers can laud her choice. To pro-lifers, neither Palin nor her daughter actually had one to begin with, and true pro-lifers should be offended by the idea that either Palin or her daughter actually chose to carry their pregnancies to term. After all, "it's a baby, not a choice" right?

Read Full Post

Who's Afraid of CNN?

John McCain, that's who. He has cancelled an appearance on Larry King Live because of an exchange between CNN's Campbell Brown and a McCain campaign spokesman. The campaign claims that the exchange was over the line. The video is below. You tell me. What line did Campbell cross? Looks to me like good journalism, for once. But maybe asking simple questions and demanding answers to them is just too much for McCain to handle.

Read Full Post

Even more outrageous

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! was arrested at the RNC yesterday and charged with obstructing a peace officer. She was attempting to obtain the release of two Democracy Now! producers that had been arrested and have been charged with felonies. While all three have now been released, the two producers sustained injuries during the arrest, and all three still face charges. Free Press has called for the charges against Goodman and other independent journalists to be dropped. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) has also condemned the actions of police. The video of Goodman's arrest is at the bottom of the post.

Democracy Now! journalists are not the only journalists to have been arrested at the RNC. An intern for the Utne Reader was arrested and then released. And an AP photographer was also arrested. In addition to the journalists, some 300 protestors were also arrested.

The actions of the Twin Cities police do not seem to have been the actions of "peace officers". Rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray and concusion grenades were all used on protestors, according to Democracy Now!. To get a sense of just how the Twin Cities police have used these weapons on protestors, go ahead and watch this:





For more of the nasty details about how local police and the FBI have been treating those who are merely exercising their constitutional rights, Glenn Greenwald has more of the story, along with pictures and an interview with Amy Goodman just after her release. Also make sure to check out The Uptake, which has continuing netroots coverage of what's going on at the RNC.

I don't even have words for how disgusting this is. First the raids on suspected protestors and now police power being abused to stifle free speech and frighten away what little free press we still have left. These are not events that happen in a democracy. These are not events that occur in a "land of the free". But what's worse is that the mainstream media is not covering it. Not a word about a prominent journalist being unlawfully arrested. Not a word about the girl in the video below who was sprayed repeatedly at close range with pepper spray. Of course, why would they say anything? A well informed populace is a threat to those in power.

Amy Goodman being arrested:

Read Full Post

Where is the Outrage?

I'd like to ask you to use your imagination for just a moment. Imagine a typical house of college aged American kids. There might be band posters up on the walls of some of their rooms. There's probably the remains of a pizza and a six pack of beer in the fridge. There's an Xbox in the living room. These kids pay their rent. They are nice to their neighbors. They don't cause trouble.

Now imagine that the kids who live in this house are politically active. They are attached to certain political causes, and they are planning to peacably assemble to protest on behalf of those causes. Maybe they are sitting in the living room excitedly planning out their protest. Maybe they are on the floor with poster board and markers, making up signs.

Now imagine that the police, along with the FBI, show up to this typical house of college kids and break the door down. With weapons drawn, they force our typical American kids down on the floor and bind their hands behind their backs with handcuffs. The kids ask to see a warrant, but the police refuse. They proceed to search the house. After completing their search and finding nothing, the police set the kids free and leave.

Is this the sort of thing that should happen in the "land of the free?" No. Of course not. This is the sort of thing that happens under dictators, not under constitutions. Nothing of the sort should ever occur in the home of typical American college kids planning to exercise their freedom. If this really happened in our country, you'd be pissed, wouldn't you? If this really happened in our country, you'd expect the media to be all over it, right? You'd expect heads in the FBI and on the local police force to roll, no?

Well, it did happen. Several times. Police and FBI have been raiding the homes of those suspected to be planning protests at the Republican National Convention. You can read about it and see videos here, here, here, here, here and here. And that's just a taste.

Now, I've taken a little poetic license in my description of events. I don't know the exact circumstances of each raid. Maybe those raided weren't typical American kids. Maybe they were hippies. Maybe they were communists or anarchists. But they are Americans; Americans who are guaranteed the right to protest and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. It shouldn't matter whether they are typical kids or circus side shows, investment bankers or suffering artists. They have rights, and this seems to be a gross violation of those rights and a gross violation of the principles on which this country is founded.

Of course, I don't know for certain that these people weren't all planning on bombing the RNC and causing chaos. They say they weren't and the police aren't talking. You know who else isn't talking? The mainstream media. I haven't seen a peep about these raids on the 24 hour cable news channels. Nothing in the Washington Post. Nothing in the Chicago Tribune. Not even anything in the "liberal" New York Times. With the exception of a few independent media sources and bloggers, no one is pissed. No mainstream media is anywhere near the story. No heads are rolling.

The police in Minneapolis and the FBI acted like they operate in a police state, and where is the outrage?

Read Full Post

In the olden days, did they shred documents?

The reason for my curiousity on this matter will become apparent in short order. See, while John McCain is only aware of the internet, his new running mate, Sarah Palin, apparently has a little experience as a hacker. And that experience has apparently come in handy. Her wikipedia page was altered favorably the night before it was announced that she was the Republican VP nominee. And the internet scrubbing continued from there. After all, we wouldn't want people to know that the "anti-corruption" politician was super cozy with Rep. Ted Stevens - you know, the corrupt one. Nor would we want people to know that she supported Obama's energy policy. (How does that work???)

Unfortunately for the apparently internet saavy Palin, for every forty-four year old who knows something about the internet, there is a twenty something year old who knows a hell of a lot more. You can't hide from the true techies. Hence my question. In the olden days, did they just shred documents? And if so, wouldn't politicians be better served by returning to the days when no amount of digging through caches could bring that information back and they could actually hide their dirty deeds and unfortunate statements? Too bad for Palin we're in the information age.

Read Full Post

More of Ben Stein's true colors

You remember Ben Stein, right? He's the nutjob who made that disgusting, piece of filth creationist propaganda film Expelled. He also claimed that science leads you to killing people. Well, he's at it again, this time claiming he "abhors racism" while basically calling Barak Obama an angry black man (video of the statement below).

Now, I'm not saying that you are automatically a racist just because you call someone an angry black man. I mean, if the shoe fits... right? Nor is there necessarily anything wrong with being an angry black man. There are, after all, some things that blacks in the US have a right to be angry about. But in this case, Stein's statement seems like blatant pandering to the racists in this country. I mean, c'mon. How is Barak Obama an angry black man? Since when did talk about hope and change make someone angry? Since when was expressing idealistic (perhaps even overly idealistic) optimism actually expressing deep seated rage? In my opinion, the problem with Obama is not that he's vitriolic, it's that he's saccharine, to the point of making this cynic a little nauseous at times. So why would Stein make such an obviously false statement? The only motive I can come up with is scaring those low information, low education voters with the specter of the one thing that terrifies an ignorant bigot more than anything else - an angry black man. I know not all Republicans will be using race to come after Obama, I just happen to think it says something significant about Stein that he's chosing to play this card.

Read Full Post