ssshhh

883 hands played in 5 hours of play in 2007, mostly 1-on-1 hold'em, exclusively one-tabling. Poker is more fun this way.

Conservatives Without Conscience

In Conservatives Without Conscience, John Dean writes:

Clearly the most serious threat from terrorists is that they obtain a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). But we face another very serious threat: namely, that our own government terrorizes us so much that we are willing to give up the ideals of democracy in exchange for reducing our fear. This threat to democracy seems well understood by Osama bin Laden and his troops. I have noted in the past, and I believe even more strongly today, that "the real danger posed by terrorism for our democracy is not that they can defeat us with physical or military force," rather "terrorism present its real threat in provoking democratic regimes to embrace and employ authoritarian measures that (1) weaken the fabric of democracy; (2) discredit the government domestically as well as internationally; (3) alienate segments of the population from their government, thereby pushing more people to support (passively, if not outright actively) the terrorist organizations and their causes; and (4) undermine the government's claim to the moral high ground in the battle against the terrorists, while gaining legitimacy for the latter." This is precisely what is happening in America today, as Bush and Cheney are being sucker punched by Osama bin Laden. Authoritarianism is everywhere in the federal government, not because Bush and Cheney do not realize what they are doing, but because they are authoritarians, and they are doing what authoritarians do. In the process they have weakened the fabric of democracy, discredited the American government as never before in the eyes of the world, caused people to wonder if the terrorists have a legitimate complaint, and taken the United States far from the moral high ground in refusing to abide by basic international law.

He goes on to note that despite the Bush administration's constant reliance on the politics of fear-mongering, they've done remarkably little to actually address the threat of terrorism.

Glenn at his best today

Blind Faith in the Bush Administration

What Happened to the Padilla Interrogation Videos?

Oprah is officially an asshole

Oprah pwn3d by Randi

Backwards regulations

A compelling story from Brice Lord. The punchline is that politicians and corporate interests managed to take advantage of environment concerns to pass a law purporting be environmentally friendly that actually has the opposite effect.

YAY America!!

milestone!

See For Yourself passed 30,000 hits today. I wonder how many of those were me...

heathen coins

Godless coins are worth 50X their face value! Too bad that doesn't work for my usual methods.

Top Badass Movies

3/7/07 - Why are all these special notes in different colors? Oh well, can't stop now I guess. I saw 300 last night, and based on that one viewing I'm going to have to slide it into the #3 slot.


6/2 - I rented and watched The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. I don't usually like older movies, but I did enjoy this one. But maybe I don't have a sense of historical perspective because I don't think this movie is worthy of adding to the badass list. The only character that was anywhere close to a true badass was Angel Eyes. Clint Eastwood has some badass moments, but he also has some other moments that destroy any hope of him being a true badass.



5/11/06 - Special Note:

Today "NostalgiaDrag@gmail.com" chimed in to this thread with one of the all time great comments on this silly blog. I don't know who that is, but a Google search of that email address reveals 2 other top notch contributions he has made to society: Urban Dictionary definitions of badassdom and IBS. To quote Walter Sobchak: "not exactly a lightweight." This is a man who deserves to be taken seriously and respected.

Aside from his remarkable reputation, his contribution was excellent for 2 main reasons.

First, he clearly has put a lot of thought into his own list of top badass movies. And since he seems to be the internet's foremost authority on badassdom, his list should be given its due attention. And so here it is.

NostalgiaDrag's True Badass List

1. Sin City
2. The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
3. For a Few Dollars More
4. Reservoir Dogs
5. Pulp Fiction
6. Payback
7. Tombstone
8. Kill Bill
9. Boondock Saints
10. Fistful of Dollars.

I haven't seen #2, 3, or 10, but that will have to change soon.

The second reason his contribution was excellent was the brief but powerful comment at the end:

"Sin City easily ranks at #1. Hell, Marv's story alone would qualify this movie at #1. If anyone disagrees with this list they can die."

His point about Sin City is absolutely right, and his closing remark is truly in keeping with the badass spirit.

I should also note that his list brings attention to the glaring omission of Pulp Fiction from my own badass list up til now, in spite it being #3 on my favorite movies of all time.

Thanks and kudos to Nostalgia Drag, and without further ado, onto my latest revision of this list.

--------


Similar to the "action" genre, these are my favorite movies where the clear intention of the movie is simply to be badass. Kill Bill, Bourne and Die Hard movies count together. T2, Batman Begins, and Underworld stand alone from sequels/prequels/relateds.

1. Sin City
   
2. Pulp Fiction
   
3. 300
   
4. Kill Bill
   
5. Tombstone
   
6. Payback
   
7. Terminator 2: Judgement Day
   
8. Die Hard
   
9. Gladiator
   
10. Boondock Saints
    
11. Bourne
    
12. Underworld
    
13. Batman Begins
    
14. The Rock
    

Honorable Mention: Blade, Con Air

Noteworthy Exclusions:

Bond - I have mostly only seen the Brosnan Bond movies, in which Bond is more about being suave and sneaky than a straight up badass. I'm told that Connery was more of a badass, but I haven't seen much of his.

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly - I enjoyed the movie, but I don't think it is worthy of this list, because only one character, Angel Eyes, was anywhere close to a true badass, and the main character (Clint Eastwood), despite having badass moments, was not a true badass.

And I haven't seen these suggested inclusions:

• Rocky
• Dirty Harry
• Scarface
• For a Few Dollars More
• Fistful of Dollars

Technorati tags:
movies
badass

300 badasses

I'm going to have to make room on the Badass Movie list for 300. Man Beard Blog has the review.

watch it burn

I have to agree with Arthur: "Christ, what contemptible pigs make up the D.C. political class."

It is more important to them to avoid an ugly debate in Congress than do whatever it takes to get out of A REAL WAR WHERE REAL PEOPLE ARE GETTING FUCKING KILLED. Jesus fucking forbid that we have some raised voices in our sacred halls; it is way more important to avoid unpleasantness than to bring our soldiers home from a war that we can't win where our very presence actually makes things worse every day. We can't talk about impeaching the law-breaking liars who started the illegal war, because that might impede our ability to advance our precious Democratic Agenda! What could possibly be on that fucking agenda that is more important?

I fucking hate everyone.

A.)

Vice President Dick Cheney describes the Bush administration's doctrine on dealing with terrorism:

“ If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response."

B.)

NASA Can't Pay for Killer Asteroid Hunt:

NASA officials say the space agency is capable of finding nearly all the asteroids that might pose a devastating hit to Earth, but there isn't enough money to pay for the task so it won't get done.

The cost to find at least 90 percent of the 20,000 potentially hazardous asteroids and comets by 2020 would be about $1 billion, according to a report NASA will release later this week. The report was previewed Monday at a Planetary Defense Conference in Washington.

I'm sure the precise percentage is the only difference.

I have a secret!

ps - there is no such thing as Jesus!! (just thought you'd want to know)

CUBAN!

I like it when people make stand for what is right.

Top Movies

My favorite movies of all time, which combines my opinion of their artistic merit, entertainment value, and other vague personal preferences. Sequels all count together except where noted. As this changes, or if I expand the list, I'll bump it up.

1. Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny
   
2. American Beauty
3. Lord of the Rings Trilogy
4. Pulp Fiction
5. The Royal Tenenbaums
6. The Godfather Trilogy
7. Kill Bill Volumes
8. Rounders
9. Goodwill Hunting
10. Fight Club
11. Almost Famous
12. The Big Lebowski
13. Tombstone
14. O Brother, Where Art Thou?
15. The Shawshank Redemption
16. Wallstreet
17. American History X
18. Seven
19. Goodfellas
20. The Princess Bride
21. The Matrix (only the 1st)
22. Gangs of New York
23. The Silence of the Lambs (only this one)
24. The Lion King

Honorable Mention: Indiana Jones, Casino, LA Confidential, Rushmore

Idiots in charge

This column is as good as it gets when it comes to laying out in plain language exactly how stupid the Iraq situation is. And he wrote it in April of 2003. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are such fucking idiots.

failure all around

http://greenmountaindaily.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=995

What it means to support Republicans

This article by Glenn Greenwald expresses quite articulately what the Republican Party is all about these days. There was a time when it meant something else (I'd love to see a party devoted to limited government and fiscal restraint, which Bush/Cheney and their rubber-stamp Congress absolutely destroyed) but those days are gone. The heart of Republicanism is Ann Coulter. It is disgusting. And Glenn exposes one of their primary rhetorical devises, one that is mind-bogglingly effective - which is to express outrage at superficial things from liberals while the core of their conservative identities are infinitely more disturbing. "Hypocrisy" doesn't even begin to do it justice.

Glenn's article refers to a few "scandals" that you may or may not be aware of, so I'll quickly sum up. The first is that Edwards hired a pair of bloggers for his campaign who in their own blogging prior to their hiring had said "controversial" things. Some conservatives raised a stink about how they had used bad words (the horror!! bloggers using naughty words!!) and the media actually covered it as some kind of Edwards scandal. That story was dying down when suddenly the President of the Catholic League, Bill Donohue raises a stink about how those bloggers were "anti-Catholic" and hateful and vulgar and somehow the story got new life again, in spite of the raving hypocrisy of Donohue (who has said some of the most hateful and disgusting and religiously-bigoted things you can imagine). The other "scandal" he mentioned is that various conservative voices raised a huge fuss about how a few anonymous commenters on liberal blogs (meaning literally anyone in the world could have anonymously posted a comment, not that the author of the blog said it) expressed regrets that Cheney hadn't died in the recent attack on the base where he was staying. Meanwhile prominent, mainstream voices (not random internet people who could be literally anyone and certainly weren't prominent figures) like Coulter and Limbaugh routinely spew the most vile and bigoted stuff imaginable.

In case there was any doubt, major media is silent on Coulter's garbage.

State of the Blog

Recently a good friend of mine told me that he doesn't read this blog any more because it is all politics now. I looked over my recent archives and indeed I have been relentlessly pursuing what I would more broadly call religipoliticosocial commentary. I don't have any strong feelings about his comment, meaning it didn't offend me or sadden me, but I've been trying to figure out if I want to try to change anything here, not for his sake but for mine. I've enjoyed that a situation has developed here where a small group of friends read what I write and often chime in and discuss things. It is nice building a little community around a few ideas. But would it be better to build a larger community by being more diverse with my content?

For the most part I write about topics that interest me, and more specifically topics that inspire me to want to write. I've been consumed with, and motivated to write by, religipoliticosocial things lately, which I realize is a polarizing area of discourse since I avoided it like the plague for years. Now though I think that the topics I've been digging into are very very important, not always to me personally in a direct and tangible way (today anyway), but in some other way that is hard to neatly fit into the structure of this sentence or paragraph or entry. I guess for now the way I'll put it is that I'm trying to be a better person, which I realize seems to have the awkward implication that not being interested in these topics makes one a lesser person. But it isn't really the case that I think it is wrong or irresponsible for someone to recoil from this stuff, just that for me personally I'd feel like I would be violating something if I didn't go where I'm going.

That nebulous italicized something is going to take more effort to write about than I feel like making right now. But to the point of the post, this is a good time to take stock and reevaluate the direction of this blog, because that something is leading me to a turning point too. I guess before I get more specific on that, I'd be curious to see what other people think. Of course the few of you left reading this have an obvious selection bias so I might not reasonably expect anyone who has endured months of this stuff to suggest I change direction now. But it is my impression that open-mindedness and broad curiosity is a common trait of the kinds of people who would come this far in the first place, so I don't imagine a change it likely to be met with howls of protest either.

so funny so sad as my head explodes

watch it!

TERPAGE

Wow I'm glad someone reminded me in time to tune in to the 2nd half of tonight's game against UNC. That was a very exciting finish after an intense comeback, and a huge win for Maryland, hopefully sealing up an NCAA tournament spot for the first time in too long.

DJ tore it up with 27 points and Mike Jones had some huge plays down the stretch. It is good to see Gary winning these games, and good to see how emotional he was about the win. I love Gary.

The Authoritarians

Robert Altemeyer is releasing his book The Authoritarians online, one chapter per week. He's done some very interesting psychological research that sheds so much light on the state of politics in America.

Hopefully someday I'll have a lot more to say about this, but for now here's an excerpt from Chapter 5:

Want another example of an apparent Double High in a position of power, who is also being destroyed because he went too far? When George W. Bush was declared the winner of the 2000 presidential election by the five Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court, I remember some commentators saying that he had less of a mandate to carry out his policies than any president in American history. But I also thought, because I knew what was turning up in the research on social dominance, “Mandate-schmandate!” I could easily imagine the Bush team saying. “We’ve got the power now. Let’s do what we want! Who’s going to stop us?”

With eagerly subservient Republican majorities controlling both houses of Congress, Bush and his vice-president could do anything they wanted. And so they did. Greed ruled, the rich got big, big tax cuts, the environment took one body blow after another, religious opinions decided scientific issues, the country went to war, and so on. Bush and his allies had the political and military power to impose their will at home and abroad, it seemed, and they most decidedly used it.

A stunning, and widely overlooked example of the arrogance that followed streaked across the sky in 2002 when the administration refused to sign onto the International Criminal Court. This court was established by over a hundred nations, including virtually all of the United States’ allies, to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and so on when the country for whom they acted would not or could not do the prosecuting itself. It is a “court of last resort” in the human race’s defense against brutality.

Why on earth would the United States, as one of the conveners of the Nuremberg Trials and conceivers of the charge, “crimes against humanity,” want nothing to do with this agreement? The motivation did not become clear until later. But not only did America refuse to ratify the treaty, in 2002 Congress passed an act that allowed the United States to punish nations that did join in the international effort to prosecute the worst crimes anyone could commit! Talk about throwing your weight around, and in a way that insulted almost every friend you had on the planet.

But the social dominators classically overreached. Using military power in Iraq to “get Saddam” produced, not a shining democracy, but a lot of dead Americans, at least fifty times as many dead Iraqis, and the predicted civil war. The “war on terrorism” backfired considerably, as enraged Muslims around the world, with little or no connection to al Queda, formed their own “home-grown” terrorist cells bent on suicide attacks--especially after news of American atrocities in Iraq raced around the globe. Occupying Iraq tied down most of America’s mobile ground forces, preventing their use against the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan which had supported the 9/11 attacks, and making American troops easy targets in the kind of guerilla warfare that produces revenge-driven massacres within even elite units.

But the president, showing the usual dogmatism of Double Highs, seemingly refused to learn the lesson of his four-year adventure in Iraq, and that of the 2006 election, and moved unilaterally to increase troop strength in Bagdad.

The national debt, which was being paid down, will now burden Americans for generations as traditional conservative economic policy has been obliterated. Savaging human rights in the torture chambers Bush set up overseas has cost America its moral leadership in the world, when just a few years ago, after September 11th 2001, nation after nation, people after people, were its compassionate friends. Laws passed by Congress have been ignored through executive reinterpretation. The Constitution itself has been cast aside. The list goes on and on.

With corruption in Congress adding to their revulsion, independent and moderate voters gullied the Republican Party in the 2006 midterm election. How did the GOP fall so far so fast?

Power, the Holy Grail of social dominators, remains an almost uncontrollable two-headed monster. It can be used to destroy the holder’s most hated enemies, such as Saddam. But it often destroys the dominator in the process. Lord Acton put it succinctly with his famous statement that “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power
corrupts absolutely.”

When your life is a long power trip, it’s hard to get enough because it’s hard to get it all. And when a dominator does get power, we can’t be surprised if it is badly used. Social dominators do not use a moral compass to plot their plots--which is particularly ironic because in the case of Double Highs such as George W. Bush they seem to be so religious. But as we have seen, hypocrisy is practically their middle name. And the more power they have, the more disastrously they can hurt their country, their party, and themselves. It’s remarkable how often they do precisely that.

lost Seinfeld episode

Republicans loot the Smithsonian

The rules don't apply to me! I'm the boss! I do whatever I want! I'll write my own reviews! Bush has my back!


Who do these people think they are?

Dolly Parton

I haven't really written much about my life lately, so here's a brief adspar update.

I'm working full time now in a job that doesn't really interest me and for significantly less money than I could make in other jobs that are equally uninteresting. It is a decent job and I like the people, but I think that there are other career options that are better for a long-term fit. My commute takes me about an hour each way, but I at least can read on the train for half of that time.

I'm hoping the simmering frustration of that situation is enough to push me over the edge and actually make some real changes, meaning that I follow through on all my big talk and apply to schools by the end of 2007. In the meantime I need to figure out what I want to do and where I want to do it, and I'm making a bit of progress in that.

This is a picture of Dolly Parton:

Allah knows best (and loves wonderous variety)

Question: I am a doctor, and recently after finding that general surgery is saturated enough, I thought about specializing in gynecology and obstetrics. I have passed the first part of the exam as well and may start the residency in gynecology after some time. Is it permissible for me to specialize and practice gynecology as a male doctor?

Answered by Sheikh `Abd al-Rahmân al-Jar`î, professor at King Khâlid University in Abhâ

Generally, gynecology should be undertaken by women. Islamic societies should endeavor to ensure that there is a sufficient number of qualified female doctors to fulfill the gynecological needs of all the women in society.

In your case, if these duties could be assumed by the female doctors, preferably Muslims, male doctors may not undertake this profession due to considerations of Islamic Law relating to male-female interaction and exposure of female body parts to members of the opposite sex.

In case of a dire need for male doctors along with the failure of female doctors to fulfill this vacancy, it becomes lawful for male doctors to undertake such a profession for dire need and necessity only. Attention should be paid that such a doctor should be a good and pious Muslim who has good manners and is worthy of the people’s trust.

Nevertheless, there should be a concerted and persistent public effort to educate a sufficient number of female doctors to fulfill society's needs.

Since the permissibility of men working in this field is contingent on dire necessity, it ends as soon as that necessity no longer exits. It may not be a wise career decision to devote your time, expense, and effort to specializing in a field that you may not be able to engage in over the long run. Whenever there are sufficient female doctors to do the job, it will become unlawful for male doctors to continue to practice.

And Allah knows best.

Good to see that medical training can still allow a mind to function in a way that leads to this kind of question and answer.

so warm

This latest round reminds me yet again how pathetic it is that there's a political party with such a strong anti-reality tendency. Apparently acknowledging broad scientific consensus is too much for these lunatics.

I don't know much about British politics, but Tony Blair always comes off as Bush's pathetic little lapdog.

He certainly seems to be stupid enough for that...

consider it

While I often rant, I don't often suggest specific action. Consider signing up for this email list and responding to their ideas about emails to send to your congressional representitives. Check out the website, and maybe give them a few bucks.

----


D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

---

We all want peace and stability for Iraq. How can we best obtain it?

The Bush formula reduces to this -- we will force the Iraqi's to stop fighting each other.

We have made an effort to show that U.S. force is very unlikely to bring peace to Iraq, because it does not addresses the underlying dispute between the Shia and the Sunni, and because we lack sufficient troops (and savagery) to compel the Iraqi's to stop fighting.

So what is DownsizeDC.org's alternative?

We believe the most likely path to peace and stability in Iraq is a negotiated settlement. This is how the civil wars in Lebanon and Northern Ireland ended, and it is probably how the civil war in Iraq will end too. We believe this because . . .

Force isn't likely to work for the Sunni and the Shia any better than it has for the United States, or than it did for the factions in Lebanon and Northern Ireland.

Both the Sunni and the Shia militias can us e the same potent tactics of asymmetric warfare against each other that the Sunni (primarily) have used against the United States.

Neither side is going to prevail against such tactics, any more than the U.S. has prevailed. The result will be stalemate, and the only thing left will be a negotiated settlement.

Once again, this is what happened in Lebanon and Northern Ireland. We predict it will happen in Iraq too.

Is there anything we can do to make a negotiated settlement happen sooner rather than later? Yes, there is.

We can leave.

Our presence complicates things greatly. It comes down to a question of trust. Both the Sunni and the Shia have every reason to distrust us, both as allies in war and as brokers of peace.

The Sunni do not trust us because we are the source of all their problems. We went to war with Iraq's Sunni dominated regime twice. We removed the Sunni faction from power. We brokered the el ections that gave power to the Shia majority.

The Shia distrust us because we have betrayed them before. In the first Gulf War we called for an uprising to overthrow Saddam. The Shia responded and we stood back and watched while Hussein slaughtered them.

Both sides distrust us because we have killed their children with bombs, and with crippling economic sanctions while Saddam was still in power.

Both sides distrust us because we have built an Imperial City inside the Green Zone in Baghdad, and massive military bases all over the country -- clear signs that we intend to stay forever.

Both sides distrust us because we "can put a man on the moon," but we can't make the electricity work in Iraq.

But both sides also know that great powers can be defeated through asymmetric warfare. They have learned the lessons of America in Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan, and the French in Algeria, even if the U.S. gover nment has not learned those lessons.

Both sides know they can make us leave eventually, so why trust to us to determine their fate in the short term? They do not trust us. They will not trust us.

We cannot settle the conflict by force, and we are not trusted to broker a peace settlement. There is nothing left for us to do, but leave.

U.S. departure would pave the way for a peace to be brokered by Iraq's neighbors. In our next installment of this series of messages on Iraq we will show why Iraq's neighbors have strong incentives to broker such a settlement. We will also show how Iran can be turned from a liability into an asset.

In the meantime, we also have an issue of trust here at home. If we face the evidence honestly, then we should realize that we cannot trust our elected leaders to do the right thing. They have been wrong in nearly every instance. All of them, both Democrat and Republican.

And now they are pro ving their boundless capacity to be wrong once again. The Democrats were given a majority to end the Iraq occupation, but they are not doing that. Instead, they are pursuing a strategy of tinkering around the edges, which will leave the status quo Iraq policy largely in place.

DownsizeDC.org's track-record is much more trustworthy. We were correct when we said, at TruthAboutWar.org, that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and we were correct when we predicted that attempts by Democrats to focus on the funding for Iraq would be exploited by Republicans as an attempt to harm the troops.

We would assert that we have promoted the policy the Democrats should have pursued. De-authorize the war. We would also assert that this correct policy must be forced on Congress by the people, because Congress does not have the courage or the foresight to do the right thing on its own.

Everything in Congress always reduces to partisan politics, and partisan politi cs almost always provides wrong answers.

Increasingly, the American people must trust to themselves, and not look to their supposed leaders in Washington, DC. It is up to us, the growing Downsize DC Army, to compel Congress to do what must be done.

Please send a message to Congress telling them to de-authorize the occupation of Iraq.

Also help DownsizeDC.org financially. We received the five $100 contributions to match James Marquart's $500 challenge pledge. Our budget need for February is now reduced to just $1,255. Please make a contribution of $25, $50, $75, $100 or more to help us close this gap.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

Perry Willis
Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

Conservapedia HAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm a little bit fascinated by wikipedia, though I haven't often blogged about it. I think I'm more fascinated by wikis in general, but wikipedia is the most popular of, and my first exposure to, the wiki world.

With that background, it is time to talk about Conservapedia. This is truly special, combining my wiki fetish with my love of bashing insane conservatives. Lots of the good folks over at ScienceBlogs and in other places have already touched on this, including some of my favorite blogs:

Pharyngula 1
Pharyngula 2
Dispatches from the Culture Wars 1
Dispathces from the Culture Wars 2
Daily Kos

One of my favorite things about Conservapedia was highlighted by Ed Brayton, who points out that their list of problems with Wikipedia includes their complaint that wikipedia is biased because lots of people reject evolution and also the complaint that wikipedia is biased because truth is not democratically determined.

This whole thing seems like Colbert dreamed it up.


UPDATE:

Jon Swift also has an excellent take on the matter

Adam Putnam (R-FL) is a liar

Shit like this just makes me so mad.

The story is that some asshole Representative from Florida, Adam Putnam, who is the House's 3rd ranking Republican, proudly admits that he aggressively pushed a false smear story about Nancy Pelosi without any evidence to back up his attack.

"This is not about having secure communications and secure aircraft available to her. It's about an arrogance of extravagance that demands a jumbo jet that costs $22,000 an hour to operate to taxi her and her buddies back and forth to California," Putnam told Fox News.

Nice quote, jerkoff, but the whole story was bullshit. Pelosi made no such demands; the non-partisan House security people insisted on secure travel arrangements for her. Who cares about the truth though, right!?

Putnam says the opportunity to drive the media's coverage of this non-scandal was "the first break [Republicans] have had from the media in driving our message since before the Mark Foley story broke." So this highly respectable Congressman flat-out admits that his party's "message" is lie, a reality-free attack on the Speaker of the House, and that he gleefully accepted an opportunity to spew his filth.

The strategy is simple - loudly say nasty things about your political opponents and lots of voters will remember the smear and not the debunking. Adam Putnam clearly doesn't give a fuck about the truth, and is willing to say absolutely anything to score cheap political points. This is despicable.

keep pretending it isn't there

More anti-atheist bigotry

Here's something more positive

Great stuff here.


update: dammit the link is broken. there was a specific post in that blog i wanted to link to. oh well.

Science Woe

The way I read this is that people know more about some aspects of science (more basic science facts, better understanding of standard science tools like graphs) but they are no better at scientific reasoning. They don't know how to think critically and use logic, especially when emotions are involved, don't understand statistics (I think this is so important and doesn't get mentioned often enough), and are generally accepting of the idea that there are "other ways of knowing."

But of course the article doesn't discuss that, instead opting for this kind of sophisticated discussion:

More recent generations know more factual material about science, said Carol Susan Losh, an associate professor at Florida State University. But, she said, when it comes to pseudoscience, "the news is not good."

One problem, she said, is that pseudoscience can speak to the meaning of life in ways that science does not.

For example, for many women having a good life still depends on whom they marry, she said.

"What does astrology speak to? Love relationships," Losh said, noting that belief in horoscopes is much higher among women than men.

How does astrology speak to the meaning of life? How does your life have any change in meaning as a result of the ridiculous idea that our future is written by flaming balls of gas billions of miles from our little rock? Science can address meaning of life topics in exciting and deeply satisfying ways (Want to understand more about love relationships? Read some evolutionary psychology!) and astrology offers just some empty words that deluded people might desperately want to be true. Why not call it what it is? Pseudoscience speaks in ways that science can't - by lying. It is dishonest bullshit.

The article continues:

Pseudoscience discussion is often absent from the classroom, Losh said, so "we have basically left it up to the media."

Yup, and the media gives us articles like this. They just churn out these mindless and gutless narratives where "Dr. Scientist says this, but other people think maybe something else is true" and far too seldom take a strong stance in favor of science and against pseudoscience and other "alternative ways of knowing."

Miller said a second major negative factor to scientific literacy was religious fundamentalism

There it is. Buried near the bottom with no futher elaboration or discussion.

How can people who define their lives by superstitious ancient texts that are flatly contradicted by objective reality possibly make progress in understanding objective reality? Science is their ultimate enemy, because it reveals their self-selected (or parentally imposed) worldview to be utter nonsense. And there's no reason to think this phenomenon is limited to the most extreme form of religion. I would expect an inverse relationship between degree of religiousness and scientific literacy, which I'm fairly certain has been demonstrated in research.

And how is a critical-thinking-disabled public, whose science education has been abandoned by the schools to be adopted by the inept media, ever going to understand that religion is an impediment to scientific literacy (and that this is a bad thing) if the media glosses over the point?

Why does this asshole Jesus have to ruin everything

I thought that by far the best moment of last night's dunk contest was Dwight Howard's "sticker dunk" that received inexplicably low scores from the judges.



But then today I read this:

A photographer with a telephoto lens helped me get a good look at that sticker, and in addition to a pre-printed image of Howard's face, his initials, and his number, there was handwritten marker. Not too big. In fact, even with the lens it was very tough to read.

In this life, you always have to read the fine print. And the fine print on that sticker made clear that Howard, at least, doesn't believe he did it alone.

"All things through Christ" Howard had written in marker. Then "Phil 4:13." That's Philippians 4:13.

Asked about it, Howard recited in a heartbeat: "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."

Right. Because while millions of people are starving and being shot and suffering all over the world, this all-powerful benevolent being decided that it was very important to help a multimillionaire jump really high in a ridiculous contest.

science and faith

I got these from PZ and they are awesome.


science:



faith:

Germany sucks too

The German government puts people in jail for saying things they don't like. Fucking bullshit, even if the victim of it is an asshole. Assholes should be allowed to speak.

Our President the moron

Question: What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?

President Bush: Ed, we know they're there, we know they're provided by the Quds force. We know the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said to the Quds force, go do this, but we know it's a vital part of the Iranian government. What matters is, is that we're responding. The idea that somehow we're manufacturing the idea that Iranians are providing IEDs is preposterous.

He doesn't answer the question at all. He gives no assurances that the information is accurate, and just repeats the information and offers no proof or sources of any kind. Then he goes off on a tangent about how he isn't just making things up. It is so weird, and if you read the transcript of the conference, he just pulls that idea out of no where. It come off like when a parent comes home to her 8 year old son and asks how he's been, and the kid responds "I wasn't getting into the cookie jar! Really I wasn't!" I have to agree with Digby's assessment that the best explanation is that Bush had been briefed on the topic of manufacturing intelligence, and "he just blurted it out because he's an idiot."

more atheist CNN stuff

As a disorganized followup to the last post, here are a few other links.

Here is PZ ripping on the original:

I had no idea CNN had gotten this bad

Ed:

More mistreatment of atheists


Plus at some point I read an article or blog post about some of the insane things that Schlussel (one of the idiots in the original panel) has said before, but I can't find it now. It was something crazy about how atheists are just Islamists in disguise.

Anyway, CNN at least did a followup where they acheived much better balance:

anti-atheist bigotry

I don't know how many people who read this will have already seen this story, but you can catch up on it here. Basically CNN did a story about how a family of atheists was chased out of their community by bigoted Christians, and then Paula Zahn lead a discussion panel about atheism that didn't include any atheists and featured questions like "why do atheists inspire such hatred" and conclusions like "atheists just need to shut up." That link has videos of both segments, but honestly they're pretty hard to watch because they're just so pathetic.

Instead, watch this remix version:

every time he opens his mouth something stupid comes out

Virgil Goode continues to be a retarded asshat.

This part in particular caught my eye:

“I fear that radical Muslims who want to control the Middle East and ultimately the world would love to see ‘In God We Trust’ stricken from our money and replaced with ‘In Muhammad We Trust.’”

Some of my problems with this should be pretty obvious. There is no such thing as "God" and in spite of the delusions of the masses, there are millions of Americans who don't trust in Abraham's imaginary friend. "In God We Trust" is printed on every bit of currency issued by a nation founded on the principle of the separation of church and state, obvious hypocrisy and a seeming no-brainer for unconstitutionality.

But that's not a problem for Virgil Goode, whose objection to a hypothetical change from God to Muhammad is that then the bills would then have the wrong imaginary friend on them. This guy has no understanding of American values whatsoever, and yet there he is in Congress.

But that isn't even the most disturbing thing to me about his statement. His statement makes it clear that Virgil Goode sees the world as some massive power struggle between feuding religions. He is a defender of The One True Faith and he must battle The Evil Muslims, using the lives of soldiers as pawns in his epic battle. The Iraq war is a modern day crusade: Christians vs Heathens. Every Muslim is therefor the enemy, hence his hateful words about Keith Ellison. He fights against radical fundamentalist theocracy with... radical fundamentalist theocracy.

Virgil Goode is an insane lunatic, and he votes in Congress. YAY America!

by the way

I was out of town and avoiding computers from Saturday to Wednesday, which explains the blog silence. Lots of stuff to catch up on over the next few days hopefully.

Kira had a conference in Jacksonville and I tagged along for a cheap vacation in nice weather. We stayed on base at the Jacksonville Naval Air Station, which brought back memories because it had the feel of the base where my father used to work when I was a kid. I also got to meet up with a friend I hadn't seen in years, and meet Kira's aunt for the first time. Wearing shorts while it snowed back home was also pretty sweet. Overall a very nice little trip.

criminal administration and cowardly media

I want to link to it but the link for the specific post doesn't seem to work. So here's the entire thing, which was posted by tristero at Hullabaloo on 2/10/2007 at 2:03am:

Talking About "Cooked Links" Won't Cut It

by tristero

On the day of the week when the fewest people read the Times, the brave, brave editors got around to opining on the unbelievably filthy activities of Douglas Feith:

It took far too long, but a report by the Pentagon inspector general has finally confirmed that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's do-it-yourself intelligence office cooked up a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda to help justify an unjustifiable war...

The inspector general did not recommend criminal charges against Mr. Feith because Mr. Rumsfeld or his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, approved their subordinate’s “inappropriate” operations.

Now let's shake off the lulling effect of their deliberately dispassionate language and think about all this for a few moments. Then it becomes quite clear that given what is actually at issue here, the editors' atrociously mixed metaphor - "cooked up a link" - is an inexcusably cowardly effort to avoid their solemn responsibility to talk truth to power.

Even in the face of an official report from the Pentagon inspector general which all but says so, the New York Times still cannot screw up the courage to state plainly the only possible conclusion: The Bush administration knowingly, criminally lied to the American people in order to start an illegal war and invade a country that, no matter how odious its leader, was no threat to the United States. Nor do the editors have the guts to dispense with cooked links and write clearly about the ghastly consequences: Feith's hands - and those of even higher officials - are dripping red with the blood of over 3100 American soldiers and countless thousands (literally) of innocent Iraqis, victims of the murderous evil of this administration's lies.

This is not the kind of behavior over which to mince words. These are the sorts of actions that treason trials and international war crimes tribunals are for.

There is something terribly corrupt about a country that will permit such unspeakable, murderous acts to remain unpunished. And it is high time the so-called political and cultural leaders of this country said so without equivocation. My God, people, we've had our country's government openly as well as secretly establish concentration camps all over the world; practice torture as an approved government policy; engaged in, and boasted about, international assasinations; destroyed through military action a foreign state merely because it could (and openly plan to do it again in the near future); undermined the integrity of the press by deliberately planting false stories and suborning journalists; been exposed as capable of using every tactic short of physical violence to prevent critics from publishing the truth; ignored the will of the American people, expert opinion, commonsense, and all common decency; advocated ever more bizarre theories of unlimited, unchecked power, and acted as if they were the law of the land ...

We are being ruled by psychopaths and fascists, not link cookers.

Liberty and justice for all...

Digby covers this but I'm posting it here too.

Today's Washington Post:

An Iraq Interrogator's Nightmare

By Eric Fair
Friday, February 9, 2007; Page A19

A man with no face stares at me from the corner of a room. He pleads for help, but I'm afraid to move. He begins to cry. It is a pitiful sound, and it sickens me. He screams, but as I awaken, I realize the screams are mine.

That dream, along with a host of other nightmares, has plagued me since my return from Iraq in the summer of 2004. Though the man in this particular nightmare has no face, I know who he is. I assisted in his interrogation at a detention facility in Fallujah. I was one of two civilian interrogators assigned to the division interrogation facility (DIF) of the 82nd Airborne Division. The man, whose name I've long since forgotten, was a suspected associate of Khamis Sirhan al-Muhammad, the Baath Party leader in Anbar province who had been captured two months earlier.

The lead interrogator at the DIF had given me specific instructions: I was to deprive the detainee of sleep during my 12-hour shift by opening his cell every hour, forcing him to stand in a corner and stripping him of his clothes. Three years later the tables have turned. It is rare that I sleep through the night without a visit from this man. His memory harasses me as I once harassed him.

Despite my best efforts, I cannot ignore the mistakes I made at the interrogation facility in Fallujah. I failed to disobey a meritless order, I failed to protect a prisoner in my custody, and I failed to uphold the standards of human decency. Instead, I intimidated, degraded and humiliated a man who could not defend himself. I compromised my values. I will never forgive myself.

American authorities continue to insist that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident in an otherwise well-run detention system. That insistence, however, stands in sharp contrast to my own experiences as an interrogator in Iraq. I watched as detainees were forced to stand naked all night, shivering in their cold cells and pleading with their captors for help. Others were subjected to long periods of isolation in pitch-black rooms. Food and sleep deprivation were common, along with a variety of physical abuse, including punching and kicking. Aggressive, and in many ways abusive, techniques were used daily in Iraq, all in the name of acquiring the intelligence necessary to bring an end to the insurgency. The violence raging there today is evidence that those tactics never worked. My memories are evidence that those tactics were terribly wrong.

While I was appalled by the conduct of my friends and colleagues, I lacked the courage to challenge the status quo. That was a failure of character and in many ways made me complicit in what went on. I'm ashamed of that failure, but as time passes, and as the memories of what I saw in Iraq continue to infect my every thought, I'm becoming more ashamed of my silence.

Some may suggest there is no reason to revive the story of abuse in Iraq. Rehashing such mistakes will only harm our country, they will say. But history suggests we should examine such missteps carefully. Oppressive prison environments have created some of the most determined opponents. The British learned that lesson from Napoleon, the French from Ho Chi Minh, Europe from Hitler. The world is learning that lesson again from Ayman al-Zawahiri. What will be the legacy of abusive prisons in Iraq?

We have failed to properly address the abuse of Iraqi detainees. Men like me have refused to tell our stories, and our leaders have refused to own up to the myriad mistakes that have been made. But if we fail to address this problem, there can be no hope of success in Iraq. Regardless of how many young Americans we send to war, or how many militia members we kill, or how many Iraqis we train, or how much money we spend on reconstruction, we will not escape the damage we have done to the people of Iraq in our prisons.

I am desperate to get on with my life and erase my memories of my experiences in Iraq. But those memories and experiences do not belong to me. They belong to history. If we're doomed to repeat the history we forget, what will be the consequences of the history we never knew? The citizens and the leadership of this country have an obligation to revisit what took place in the interrogation booths of Iraq, unpleasant as it may be. The story of Abu Ghraib isn't over. In many ways, we have yet to open the book.

This is what America does. We beat the shit out of prisoners and then pretend to have civil debates about what the defines "torture" from case to case. Cowardly old men purport to justify these atrocities with claims that they somehow protect America, and order young soldiers to do things that will haunt them forever. Meanwhile the sham investigation into Gitmo torture doesn't seem to have included interviews with the suspects.

Liberty and justice for all...

Amaechi

John Amaechi coming out of the closet is pretty interesting. I thought the part of the story about Andrei Kirilenko was really nice:

But Amaechi also spoke fondly of former teammate Greg Ostertag, who he said was the only player ever to ask him if he was gay (Amaechi answered: "You have nothing to worry about, Greg"), as well as another former teammate he calls "Malinka" (Russian for "little one") who Amaechi felt was aware and accepting of the fact he was gay. Amaechi's publicist, Howard Bragman, confirmed to ESPN.com that the player was Andrei Kirilenko.

"Some time after Christmas of my last Utah season, as the team was sliding out of contention, Malinka instant-messaged an invitation to his New Year's Eve party, explaining he was only inviting his 'favorite' friends. Then he wrote something that brought tears to my eyes: 'Please come, John. You are welcome to bring your partner, if you have one, someone special to you. Who it is makes no difference to me,'" Amaechi wrote. "I was hosting my own party that night, so I had to decline his sweet invitation. But I was moved. I had Ryan deliver Malinka a $500 bottle of Jean Paul Gaulthier-dressed champagne.

"The whole exchange was a revelation. Malinka's generous overture made the season more bearable. It also showed that in my own paranoia and overwhelming desire for privacy, I'd failed to give some of my teammates the benefit of the doubt. The sense of welcome and belonging, so often denied gay people even by their own families, meant the world to me, especially in the middle of a dreadful season in a strange desert state that in the end provided some of the best days of my life," he wrote.

MAN BEARD BLOG has a different take on the matter.

overload

There are too many things going on now that are right in my wheelhouse that I don't even know where to start. I'll just summarize: the news media is pathetic, religious people are bigot assholes, Dick Cheney is pure evil, Democrats are pussies, and I forgot to watch the Maryland game last night.

I built a scratching/climbing post for my cats. This was the most absurdly simple job, but I'm not handy at all, so I'm feeling pretty damn proud of my work. Katsumoto is already fearlessly climbing it all the way to the ceiling and jumping off. Hattori is a bit more cautious, but seems to be enjoying it as well. I'm turning into a 67 year old woman, and it doesn't bother me a bit.

Superbowlg

Wow, there was a Superbowl commercial to oppose Bush's Iraq escalation. How sad is it that the President of the United States is this out of tune with reality? I can't wait to hear the inane rhetoric about how such an ad was "inappropriate" or how "just because they're crippled war veterans doesn't mean they're right." Also note that we're so focused on the retarded surge that we're not talking about the Iraq war in general, or about our looming problem with (Bush's obvious desire to be at war with) Iran.

Ray Lewis

Ray-Ray, when asked what it means to him as a player to see two black coaches in the Superbowl, just said something like "every great leader is a great follower, and these two men are both great followers of Jesus. They're both good Christian men and that's why they're such great coaches."

Please, Ray, stop talking and go back to hitting people.

should i be proud?

You know the Bible 82%!

Wow! You are truly a student of the Bible! Some of the questions were difficult, but they didn't slow you down! You know the books, the characters, the events . . . Very impressive!

Ultimate Bible Quiz
Create MySpace Quizzes

Nobody steps up

Greenwald is moving his blog to Salon.com, but before he switches he's put up a typically excellent piece about our inevitable war with Iran, which leading Democrat Presidential candidates seem not to be opposing.

Thus, no leading presidential candidate seems able to articulate clear opposition to the militaristic, war-seeking posture we are obviously taking with regard to Iran. Instead, they are all spouting rhetoric which -- as Digby pointed out last night -- amounts to an endorsement, or at least a re-inforcement, of the Bush Doctrine: namely, that preemptive war is permissible in general and may be specifically necessarily against Iran. Regardless of whether there is merit in the abstract to the notion of "keeping all options on the table," this sort of talk now has the effect, as Digby argues, of enabling Bush's increasingly war-provoking moves towards Iran.

There is a real, and quite disturbing, discrepancy between the range of permissible views on these issues within our mainstream political discourse and the views of a large segment of the American public. The former almost completely excludes the latter.

That has to change and quickly. In the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, we did not have a real debate in this country about whether that was wise or just. Cartoon images and bullying tactics supplanted rational discourse -- not only prior to the invasion but for several years after -- and we are paying the very heavy price for that now. That is simply not a luxury that the country can afford this time. It is genuinely difficult to imagine anything more cataclysmic for the United States than a military confrontation with Iran.

If part of our motivation in confronting Iran is that Iran is a threat to Israel, then we should declare that openly and debate whether that is wise. That topic cannot be rendered off-limits by toxic and manipulative anti-semitism accusations. All the time, Americans openly debate the influence which all sorts of interest groups have on government policy. There is nothing, in substance, different about this topic.

Just as is true for Iraq, we have been subjected to a carousel of ever-changing, unrelated "justifications" as to why Iran is our mortal enemy against whom war is necessary. First was the alarm-ringing over Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. Then, the President began featuring the (highly misleading) claim that Iran is the "leading sponsor of international terrorism." That was followed by an unrelenting emphasis on the ugly statements from Iran's President (but not its "leader"), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Now the emphasis has shifted to Iran's alleged (but entirely unproven and apparently overstated) fueling of the civil war in Iraq.

The only clear fact that emerges from this morass of war-fueling claims is that there are significant and influential factions within the country which want to drive the U.S. to wage war against Iran and change its government. What matters to them is that this goal is achieved. The "justifications" which enable it do not seem to matter at all. Whatever does the trick will be used. Candid and explicit debates over these issues -- and clear, emphatic opposition to the course the President is clearly pursuing with regard to Iran -- is urgently necessary.