The Reign of Reason

The mad mind...

2011-07-27T10:17:00.000-07:00

I've been reading some blog posts about the Norwegian murderer Anders Behring Breivik and his ties to Right-wing Christianity (as evidenced in his rambling manifesto). However, I caution folks not to draw causal conclusions from his own writings. From the little I've read it's apparent that the man is insane.

While I'm not fan of religion, I've read parts of his manifesto and it seems more like the ramblings of an insane mind than the coherent philosophy of a Fundamentalist: Christian or otherwise.

Don't misunderstand me: labels are useful and this guy was definitely a right-wing, nationalist nut-case. And although I believe him mentally ill (if killing children to further your nationalistic goals isn't evidence of mental illness, I don't know what is), labeling him a 'christian' because of his writings simply doesn't correlate.

Do we know anything more about him than what was published in his manifesto and has been recently reported? I haven't been following this in detail, but it appears that the level of christianity he 'practiced' was based on a standard, western understanding of the faith that almost all of us possess. My point being that I don't think he took much of these beliefs to 'heart. His knowledge and references to the faith fall in line with what most non-atheists (i.e. - the majority of folks in the US, however not the majority in Norway) would profess: i.e. - Jesus is god, he provides a path to forgiveness, etc. etc. (which, as my friends know, I believe to be utter nonsense). To say such beliefs are part of the 'cause' of this atrocity misses the bigger point:

1- Such beliefs have been around for many centuries,
2- they are held by millions (if not billions) of people
3- the vast majority who hold such beliefs (and even those considered devote), don't believe in the killing of innocents to further their ends

However, in this case we see a man who wantonly killing dozens of people to further his right-wing aims. The critical piece of information here isn't that he spouted Christian nonsense... But that such mundane beliefs were at work in a deranged mind.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he's "not guilty" and shouldn't be punished to the maximum extent of the law... Crazy or not he must be held accountable for his actions. But Christian ideas (and far worse - Islam anyone?) have been around for centuries... I'd caution everyone not to draw causal relationships when the more likely cause is a mal-functioning mind that latched onto a plethora of nonsense to justify homicide.

The GOP sure knows how to breed d'em crazies...

2011-07-13T09:00:00.002-07:00

Undercover video exposes Bachmann anti-gay therapy | Raw Replay

Why aren't these people laughed out of the public sqauare? I mean, come on! Besides being HARMFUL, trying to make gay people straight is as effective as praying for an amputee to regrow a limb: it ain't gonna happen.

Imagine if Bachmann's husband's "clinic" used witchcraft and spells to turn gays straight... They would be laughed out of existence... But because they mumble there incantations to Jesus -- to the SAME effect -- somehow its accepted.

I simply don't understand how the people of Minn could elect someone who is so out of touch with reality. Needless to say its frightening that such a person could seriously seek the highest office in the land. In any sane nation, the laughter would fill the airwaves.

Medicare - insurance SHOULD be non-profit and gov run

2011-06-23T12:01:00.002-07:00

Medicare Saves Money - NYTimes.com

The idea of Medicare as a money-saving program may seem hard to grasp. After all, hasn’t Medicare spending risen dramatically over time? Yes, it has: adjusting for overall inflation, Medicare spending per beneficiary rose more than 400 percent from 1969 to 2009.

But inflation-adjusted premiums on private health insurance rose more than 700 percent over the same period. So while it’s true that Medicare has done an inadequate job of controlling costs, the private sector has done much worse.

For-profit insurance is simply a wasteful model: it necessitates "more" spending on administrative overhead (to vet subscribers) -- and moreover defeats the entire purpose of insurance. Insurance is about shared risk. If you try to manage your risk pool such that you only have people in that pool who are the LEAST likely to use the benefit -- sure, you increase profits, but you leave those who NEED the insurance out of game: or at least make them pay a LOT more (which again, defeats the purpose of insurance as "shared risk".

Also:

By the way, we have direct evidence about the higher costs of private insurance via the Medicare Advantage program, which allows Medicare beneficiaries to get their coverage through the private sector. This was supposed to save money; in fact, the program costs taxpayers substantially more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.

Why don't people see the value of government supported R&D and a job stimulus plan?

2011-06-12T11:29:00.000-07:00

People are rightly concerned about unemployment. But those on the right -- and many in the main stream -- don't want government to do the one thing is really can to help the situation: use deficit spending to stimulate the economy and focus it on the technologies and areas that will be the future of the world's economy.

I'm tired of hearing the mantra: the government doesn't create jobs. BULL. Everything from construction companies that build and maintain our highways -- to our national labs (which are underfunded today) that develop basic science into technologies that find their way into the commercial sector -- to direct support for car companies: all demonstrate that the government directly plays a role in stabilizing an economy.

I don't even have to mention the defense industry (which I just did!) -- how many 100's of thousands are employed by Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, etc. ONLY because of government contracts?

But instead of using government funds to stimulate research & dev -- we are squandering it on tax cuts to the top 2-3% ... who DO NOT CREATE jobs: Median income has been stagnant since the 80's.

The country needs to develop the new technologies that will be in demand in the 21st century: clean energy, etc. ... But instead of leading the way, we will be BUYING this technology from the Chinese and Europeans who are investing in this research today. If we allowed government to lead just a bit more we could drive innovation and create jobs (that the market will NOT right now since clean energy is not 'economically self-sustaining'). The US can once again generate the intellectual property that drives the economy (as we did in the 50's and 60's). But this is unlikely: the predominate view is that free markets are a panacea: a magic process that will solve ALL our problems. It's an infantile attitude and will inevitably lead to other nations and governments taking the technological lead in the 21st century... The century, that if we are LUCKY, we'll be playing catch up. If not, we'll simply continue to wither on the vine...

My two cents...

2011-01-11T14:42:00.000-07:00

While I don't blame the Tucson shootings earlier this week on the rhetoric of the rabid right... I do think we need to be honest: such extreme and violent hyperbole certainly sets a tone where-by the crazies in our society can work themselves into a frenzy.

I have to say, the Pima county sherrif echo's some of my thoughts on the matter. From an interview on Fox News:

"I think it’s time as a country we need to do a little soul searching because I think that the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from the people in the radio business, and some people in the T.V. business, and what we see on T.V. and how are youngsters are being raised. It may be free speech but it does not come without consequences. Arizona has become the Mecca of prejudice and bigotry."

[Heraldo] Rivera then accused Democrats of taking of advantage of those comments, and asked Dupnik whether he regretted "speculating" on the motive. Dupnik responds,

"Not in any way shape or form...It doesn't surprise me that people from the right would be upset that people like myself, and maybe people from the left, and a whole lot of other people in America feel as I do, that the anger that's purposefully generated by people who make a living off of it, serves one particular party better than the others. And it wouldn't surprise me if it continues through at least 2012."

That's the problem: far too many pseudo-news folks -- almost exclusively on Fox -- make their living by spewing vitriol and fomenting hate. ... and that vitriol doesn't come from both sides of the isle. The usual strategy employed by the right's media outlet (FOX) is to repeat lies... or to exaggerate some kernal of truth to the point of absurdity. Remember the recent poll? Fox News viewers where the most likely folks to be mis-informed about the FACTS associated with actual or proposed legislation. It's fair to say that Fox's stock-n-trade is whipping people into a frenzy over marginally true - at best - information. Most of the time it's just a re-write of history (e.g. - you can be sure almost anything 'historical' that comes out of Glenn Beck's mouth is either completely wrong or taken completely out of context... esp with reference to the founders of this nation).

Half of the problem is the American public. I don't know how many people swallow this non-sense without the slightest nod toward critical thinking. Take Sarah Palin's anti-socialism platform. Do ANY of her devotees stop to consider that she was governor (however briefly) of the most socialistic state in the union? Where else can you live, pay NO taxes -- while expected corporations who operate in your state to not only pay all the taxes for operating the state -- but also to pay every man, woman and child for living there? Sounds kinda socialistic to me (i.e. - the state's resources are for everyone - not just the oil companies that take the resources for profit).

Only when people start to ask questions... read history for themselves (Thomas Jefferson's letters and writings are a good place to start) will people be able to shake off the non-sense spewed by the ridiculous right. That should make making a living at Fox News a lot harder. ... and maybe cool the discourse so we can actually have a debate and not a shouting match; or worse.

The current mess -- and the short memory of the American People

2010-11-04T09:29:00.000-07:00

Let's recap W's record & how we got so screwed up in less than a decade shall we?

90% of his tax cuts go to top 1% of earners -- contrib to...
Worst job creation record for an expanding economy in modern history (for a 8 year period of expansion)... Trickle-down again fails us.
Turning record surpluses into record federal DEBT because...
Starting a war with a country that had nothing to do with attacking us!
NOT asking us to pay for the war, and spending a trillion on it ... not to mention building infrastructure in ANOTHER COUNTRY (while continuing to neglect our own infrastructure)
Creating a new, completely unfunded (i.e. deficit financed) ENTITLEMENT (as opposed to Health Care with is proj to SAVE the gov money because of Medicare savings)
Continued deregulation (which was started back in the '80s) that contrib'd to the collapse of the financial system
... i'm too tired to go on ...

Some people actually want this idiot and his cronies back? I mean how incredibly short a memory can people have? Dems may be ineffectual -- often! -- but at least their policies don't actively sabotage the economy, country at large and the world.

The best take I've read on the tea baggers... from the inside.

2010-09-30T11:36:00.001-07:00

Tea & Crackers | Rolling Stone Politics

It's not like the Tea Partiers hate black people. It's just that they're shockingly willing to believe the appalling horseshit fantasy about how white people in the age of Obama are some kind of oppressed minority. That may not be racism, but it is incredibly, earth-shatteringly stupid. I hear this theme over and over — as I do on a recent trip to northern Kentucky, where I decide to stick on a Rand Paul button and sit in on a Tea Party event at a local amusement park. Before long, a group of about a half-dozen Tea Partiers begin speculating about how Obamacare will force emergency-room doctors to consult "death panels" that will evaluate your worth as a human being before deciding to treat you.

Why do Republicans hate America?

2010-07-20T09:42:00.001-07:00

Obama to Republicans: 'Stop holding workers hostage to politics' - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

AFP
In unusually blunt, podium-pounding language, President Obama this morning called on Senate Republicans to stop blocking more jobless benefits for the unemployed.

I just don't get it ... You see, the GOP has somehow been able to create the illusion that they're for 'the little guy', 'the average worker' ... that they are there in DC looking out of "us". Well, if that's the case, why do they do everything in their power to obstruct economic recovery? ... and I mean EVERYTHING.

Most every economist will tell you: during a recession consumer spending plummets. As spending plummets, layoffs increase (due to reduced demand) and hiring slows down or stops. With decreased consumer spending, more unemployeed -- the cycle tends to intensity.

This isn't theory, these are the defining characteristics of a
recession.

The way out? Government spending.

And that's what's happened during EVERY recession since WWII (which, by the way was the way we spent our way out of the great depression).

During a recession the only entity that has the pockets deep enough to put cash in peoples' hands and jump start the economy is the Government... And on of the surest ways to get people spending money is to extend unemployment benefits. Remember: unemployment benefits aren't entitlements... they're extensions to insurance that the employer paid into and a policy the worker has for just such a situation.

But now, for the first time, we have Republicans in lock-step trying to thwart EVERY attempt to bring the country out of the worst recession in memory... Why? Well, only a few possibilities exist: they are either 1- hopelessly stupid, 2- political opportunists who put power over the welfare of the people, or 3- a combination of the two.

Given any of the causes, these people simply don't belong in government ...

The complete intellectual bankruptcy of the GOP

2010-07-14T10:06:00.001-07:00

To obfuscate is one thing... but to simply deny facts is another...

The GOP excels in the latter.

This is the caliber of representative the right brings to the economic table.

Ezra Klein - McConnell: 'No evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue'

Sen. Mitch McConnell, however, hit my sore spot today. "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue," he told Brian Beutler of TPMDC. "They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject." In other words, this is why Republicans don't think tax cuts need to be paid for. They pay for themselves.

Why does this make me sad? Because it's hard to see the country prospering when one of its two major political parties is this economically illiterate. McConnell isn't some backbencher. He's Senate minority leader. And he thinks there's "no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue."

There's an ontological question here about what, exactly, McConnell considers to be "evidence." But how about the Congressional Budget Office's estimations? "The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

Here we are, 25+ years after Reagan and the right is still trying to convince us that lowering taxes INCREASES revenue. Well, it didn't work in the 80's (when deficits soared) and it didn't work under Bush. But, apparently, if you lie loudly enough, people will believe any nonsense you can spew. Vis a vi Fox News...

Tea Party Crazies...

2010-06-13T17:12:00.001-07:00

The Very Angry Tea Party - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com

the passionate anger of the Tea Party movement, or, the flip-side of that anger, the ease with which it succumbs to the most egregious of fear-mongering falsehoods. What has gripped everyone’s attention is the exorbitant character of the anger Tea Party members express. Where do such anger and such passionate attachment to wildly fantastic beliefs come from?

My hypothesis is that what all the events precipitating the Tea Party movement share is that they demonstrated, emphatically and unconditionally, the depths of the absolute dependence of us all on government action, and in so doing they undermined the deeply held fiction of individual autonomy and self-sufficiency that are intrinsic parts of Americans’ collective self-understanding.

This is one of the most concise reads on the craziness folks are calling the tea party movement... Give it a read.

Joe the Plumber -- idiot du jour...

2010-05-05T14:35:00.001-07:00

Joe the Plumber is elected to party office in Ohio - Yahoo! News

Joe the PlumberWurzelbacher remains an icon for many antiestablishment conservatives.

"Illegal immigration?" he said. "Put a fence up and start shooting."

Wurzelbacher has never been shy about sharing his views even if they open him up to critics.

He told Christianity Today in an interview last year that he believes gays are "queer" and said he won't allow them near his children.

"I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children," he said. "But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing."
an interview.

A true up-and-comer among today's conservatives. This is where a once serious party is going -- far into crazy-land. We all better hope these nuts don't get any true power in our government. If they do, it won't be long before the country starts looking like Germany in 1935...

The Neadertals strike again...

2010-05-05T14:12:00.001-07:00

Human Voices

Senator Joe Lieberman is a cheap, pandering whore without a principle in his head and without much concern for history. Instead of being able to come up with some means to combat and prevent acts of terrorism, he's still looking for ways to make a criminal organization into a superpower complete with Army, Navy, Air Force and probably nuclear missiles. Any one working for a foreign terrorist organization should be stripped of his rights as a citizen. He doesn't bother to clarify whether that's before or after a fair trial, but I suspect the whole idea of a fair trial is anathema to his sort of Neanderthal conservatism. What an idiotic response to a failed truck bomb: attack the cornerstone of American liberty.

Aren't our representatives supposed to understand the concepts of due process? ... the idea that ESPECIALLY the accused are entitled to representation and their day in court?

The very thought of stripping a citizens rights because 'he scares us' is so pathetically anti-American and paranoid that I can't understand how anyone who professes to believe in 'freedom and liberty' can expound such ideas.

So much for enlightenment thinking... Back to the age of fear and loathing.

Conservatism in America... screwed

2010-05-05T12:07:00.001-07:00

Poll: Limbaugh is most influential conservative - Yahoo! News

By a wide margin, Americans consider Rush Limbaugh the nation's most influential conservative voice.

Those are the results of a poll conducted by "60 Minutes" and Vanity Fair magazine and issued Sunday. The radio host was picked by 26 percent of those who responded, followed by Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck at 11 percent. Actual politicians — former Vice President Dick Cheney and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin — were the choice of 10 percent each.

If conservatives actually consider these idiots 'their voice' -- the movement is truly screwed: it has NO intellectual underpinnings. It's based completely on made-up-shit and crazy, previously discredited ideas.

I never thought I'd say this: I long for a real conservative leader.

Chill out...

2010-05-05T12:05:00.001-07:00

Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere... and the grandstanding around the issue by politicians is just one big waster of time ...

Justice Stevens: push for nominees' views improper - Yahoo! News

Stevens said Wednesday in Columbus, Ohio, that speaking about cases already decided is one thing, but speculating about issues that could come before the court is entirely different.

Stevens says often a judge doesn't know how he'll rule until the case has been argued.

Stevens was nominated less than three years after the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973 but wasn't asked a single question about abortion in his confirmation.

The embarrassment that is Arizona's government

2010-04-24T17:09:00.000-07:00

Letter to my state reps...

As a long time Arizonan -- I can't remember being more embarrassed about being a resident of this state.

I moved here more than 17 years ago to start an Aerospace Engineering firm that employs more than 50 people. I, along with my co-owner, are simply appalled at the latest round of 'legislation' that has come out of the state.

At a time when budgets and services are in disarray, this body busies itself with non-sense (i.e. - requiring birth certificates for presidential candidates!!!). Additionally, the immigration bill just signed into law is an affront to the idea of liberty. I simply cannot understand how conservatives decry our "loss of liberty" because of new regulations on insurance companies, while at the same time enacting legislation that requires a people of a free nation to produce 'papers' on demand to law enforcement to "prove they have the right to be here". How can you justify such an blatant affront to the idea of liberty?

My father spent 2 years fighting against such non-sense -- in the form of imperial Japan... and I have seen 2 tours in central Iraq (as a Navy officer) dealing with the remnants of a similarly oppressive government.

Of course there are aliens here illegally. Just as there are wanted criminals walking our streets. But neither reality gives the state the right to stop people on the street to ask for identification. We are free FIRST... there is no guarantee to security in either the state or federal constitution. To sacrifice liberty for the illusion of 'security' is simply pandering to the lowest impulses in our society.

That our own state would pass such blatantly un-American and unconstitutional legislation -- that will surely be over-turned by the courts at a cost to the AZ tax-payers -- simply convinces me that this state's governance does not possess a modicum of common sense or a basic understanding of what it means to live in a free country.

Sincerely,

R

Human Voices: Some kind of savior

2010-03-02T11:24:00.000-07:00

Human Voices: Some kind of savior:

"Extending jobless benefits is now 'communism' and it costs too much. The unemployed are going to have to suffer because the millionaires at yacht clubs all over America need the lowest tax rates in the civilized world to stave off Communism and can't be expected to pay down that debt incurred by Bush and Obama in order to bail them out."

This is a really great post... it deserves a read.

More hypocrisy from the Right...

2010-02-09T12:10:00.001-07:00

Washington Times - Stimulus foes see value in seeking cash

Sen. Christopher S. Bond regularly railed against President Obama's economic stimulus plan as irresponsible spending that would drive up the national debt. But behind the scenes, the Missouri Republican quietly sought more than $50 million from a federal agency for two projects in his state.

Mr. Bond was not alone. More than a dozen Republican lawmakers, while denouncing the stimulus to the media and their constituents, privately sent letters to just one of the federal government's many agencies seeking stimulus money for home-state pork projects.

The letters to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, expose the gulf between lawmakers' public criticism of the overall stimulus package and their private lobbying for projects close to home.

"It's not illegal to talk out of both sides of your mouth, but it does seem to be a level of dishonesty troubling to the American public," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

In a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Mr. Bond noted that one project applying to the USDA for stimulus money would "create jobs and ultimately spur economic opportunities."

So, apparently - secretly - some Republicans actually do believe that government spending stimulates the economy... just like most-every economist: including republican's like Paulson, Bernanke, etc. This makes them not stupid, but duplicitous liars. But we already knew that...

How broken is our politics? Representatives can't even get behind legislation they believe is GOOD for the country because it would be seen as supporting the opposition party. This is absolute craziness.

Twisted people and their twisted beliefs...

2010-01-14T10:02:00.000-07:00

It's amazing the things people who can otherwise function in society can be brought to believe.

Some of you may know that the Prop 8 trial started on Monday. It will decide (or at least start the process of deciding) if gay people can marry. One of the defendants in the case, Dr. Tam, asked to be removed from the defendants list after learning that there was a good chance the trial proceedings would be posted on youtube... daily.

Now we know why...

Deposition Reveals Disturbing Tactics: 'After Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage, They Want to Legalize Prostitution. What will Be Next? On Their Agenda List is: Legalize Having Sex with Children.' - LAist

Some excepts:

Question: “And it is your understanding that part of the gay agenda is legalizing underage sex?”
Answer: “Right.” (Page 43 of deposition)
“They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda --- after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children.” (Pro-Prop. 8 email by Tam, page 78 of deposition and full text of email below)

Also introduced was a pro-Prop 8 letter from Tam:

Dear Friends:
This November, San Francisco voters will vote on a ballot to "legalize prostitution". This is put forth by the SF city government, which is under the rule of homosexuals. They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda --- after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children. I hope we all wake up now and really work to pass Prop 8. We have only 48 days left. Even if you have church building projects, mission projects, concert projects, etc, please consider postponing them and put all the church man/woman power to work on Prop 8. We can't lose this critical battle. If we lose, this will very likely happen......

You have to ask: what could possibly cause an otherwise functional person to hold such insane beliefs? Discounting psychosis -- which probably isn't a safe move -- I think we have some clues in the letter to 'church goers' above.

Yep, my favorite cause of mass mental-illness is probably at work here: religious indoctrination. All the fear-mongering and non-sense in this letter isn't based on any credible research. Its simply religious bigotry dressed up in scare tactics. It would appear Dr. Tam and his church going friend have completely bought into the nonsensical idea that letting a pair of people in a loving relationship share in a state-sanctioned relationship called "marriage" will lead to utter chaos.

Well - one good result of this trial: a bunch of this nonsense will be brought out into the open (I only wish the SCOTUS had the courage to allow it to be posted to youtube - it is after all the people's trial).

Religion and an inverse correlation to prosperity...

2009-12-01T09:43:00.001-07:00

Is Belief in God Hurting America? | | AlterNet

Using existing data, Paul combined 25 indicators of societal and economic stability — things like crime, suicide, drug use, incarceration, unemployment, income, abortion and public corruption — to score each country using what he calls the "successful societies scale." He also scored countries on their degree of religiosity, as determined by such measures as church attendance, belief in a creator deity and acceptance of Bible literalism.

Comparing the two scores, he found, with little exception, that the least religious countries enjoyed the most prosperity. Of particular note, the U.S. holds the distinction of most religious and least prosperous among the 17 countries included in the study, ranking last in 14 of the 25 socioeconomic measures.

The author notes that the study doesn't demonstrate causeality, just a correlation. However, he points out what may be the cause:

"Popular religion," Paul proposes, "is a coping mechanism for the anxieties of a dysfunctional social and economic environment." ...

While possibly true, religion also serves to blunt the very progress that would lead to more societal well being. Look at the Christian Right's opposition to universal health care and government reform of the financial sector: both areas of reform that are likely to help/protect the less fortunate in our society. These are areas of reform you'd think the church would support. Why don't they?

In his paper, Paul writes of an "antagonistic relationship between better socioeconomic conditions and intense popular faith" derived from fear that greater prosperity will loosen the grip of religion. ... These groups have a lot to lose in these kinds of debates. When you adopt progressive policy reforms," Paul says, "in the long run, religion is bound to be road kill."

Conservatism in America... screwed

2009-11-29T21:09:00.002-07:00

Poll: Limbaugh is most influential conservative - Yahoo! News

By a wide margin, Americans consider Rush Limbaugh the nation's most influential conservative voice.

Those are the results of a poll conducted by "60 Minutes" and Vanity Fair magazine and issued Sunday. The radio host was picked by 26 percent of those who responded, followed by Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck at 11 percent. Actual politicians — former Vice President Dick Cheney and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin — were the choice of 10 percent each.

Beware the military industrial complex...

2009-09-24T10:14:00.002-07:00

Wasteful Defense Spending Is a Clear and Present Danger - WSJ.com

When John McCain was shot down over Hanoi in 1967, he was flying an A4 Skyhawk. That jet cost $860,000.

Inflation has risen by 700% since then. So Mr. McCain's A4 cost $6.1 million in 2008 dollars. Applying a generous factor of three for technological improvements, the price for a 2008 Navy F18 fighter should be about $18 million. Instead, we are paying about $90 million for each new fighter. As a result, the Navy cannot buy sufficient numbers. This is disarmament without a treaty.

Having working in and around big defense contractors for more than 20 years I can say I fully agree with the former SECNAV's evaluation: the cosy relationship between the military, supplies and the civilans working in the pentagon has turned what should be a competitive market into a good ole boys network where BIG defense companies routinely milk money out of a contact for 2-3 or MORE years beyond it's orginal cost/schedule. 50-100% cost overruns are not uncommon.

In fact, I worked on one defense project back in the late '90's that was supposed to be about 3 years long and demonstrate, on orbit, new sensing and tracking technologies. Ten years later I know the program was still nursing at the government teet and the satellites STILL hadn't been launched.

How's that for return on you $100+ million investment?

Something has to be done. I'm not opposed to spending on the military, but we spend so much on so many ridiculous projects that its bankrupting the country.

People scream about potential increases in gov health care spending, but don't seem to bat an eye when we spend $350 MILLION on a single fighter jet - or worse, several hundred million on a program that goes no-where for more than a decade.

This is corporate welfare on a HUGE scale.

Will we ever get control? ... i doubt it. Something about the American pyche is at work here: spending money to kill people is "oo-raah" good; but try to spend some to help sick people and you get protests.

What the hell happened to people?

What is wrong with this country?

2009-09-08T10:49:00.001-07:00

It was just a few years ago when the right was telling us that if you didn't support the president (in a time of war) you were NOT a patriot ... they told us it was our duty not to question warrantless wiretaps, torture, rendition and a host of other (at least) questionable activities taken on unilaterally by the executive branch...

Now, those same folks are telling us -- while we are still at war btw -- that they don't want their kids to watch a speech by the president ... a speech who's theme is "stay in school" and "help out in your local communities" ...

Has this country really gone this bat-shit crazy? I mean, we aren't supposed to question the violation of our 4th and 5th Amendment rights ... but we should teach our children that this president's words aren't to be trusted -- even when he speaks about something ALL of us (supposedly) agree on?

There truly is no hope for a people who are this screwed up... The politicization of EVERYTHING is at hand when a message like "stay in school" is seen as serving some evil, ulterior motive.

Opinion vs action...

2009-08-21T11:37:00.001-07:00

Torture and Academic Freedom - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com

The strongest legal criticism made of Professor Yoo and other Bush administration lawyers is not based on disagreement over policy or even morality. They were not implementing unjust laws; they were actively circumventing just laws.
The memos purporting to justify the harsh treatment of detainees could do so only by twisting the law beyond all recognition, and doing so in secret so that the flawed legal advice would not be challenged. When the memos were disclosed publicly, virtually no one could be found to defend them on the merits. The Justice Department itself was even forced to take the highly unusual step of withdrawing virtually all of the legal analysis it had issued only months beforehand.

That's the way I see it too: These opinions were kept secret in part because the administration knew they were using twisted logic to circumvent fairly straightforward law regarding the treatment of prisoners. While I support "academic freedom", and the rights of people to express their opinions, this situation is completely different. Here you have government officials using specious, at best, logic to justify practices we have publicly denounced abroad and are demonstrable harmful to America's principles.

Not only should he be fired, but he should be disbarred for using such tortured logic to justify criminal behavior by our government.

Science & Faith...

2009-08-06T09:35:00.001-07:00

The Strange Case of Francis Collins | The Reason Project

There is an epidemic of scientific ignorance in the United States. This isn’t surprising, as very few scientific truths are self-evident, and many are deeply counterintuitive. It is by no means obvious that empty space has structure or that we share a common ancestor with both the housefly and the banana. It can be difficult to think like a scientist (even, we have begun to see, if one is a scientist). But it would seem that few things make thinking like a scientist more difficult than religion.

Criminals

2009-08-03T08:29:00.001-07:00

Op-Ed Columnist - Rewarding Bad Actors - NYTimes.com

But crashing the economy and fleecing the taxpayer aren’t Wall Street’s only sins. Even before the crisis and the bailouts, many financial-industry high-fliers made fortunes through activities that were worthless if not destructive from a social point of view.

And they’re still at it. Consider two recent news stories.

One involves the rise of high-speed trading: some institutions, including Goldman Sachs, have been using superfast computers to get the jump on other investors, buying or selling stocks a tiny fraction of a second before anyone else can react. Profits from high-frequency trading are one reason Goldman is earning record profits and likely to pay record bonuses

This kind of activity simply must be stopped via regulation... Allowing a group of people to reap huge financial gain at the expense of others: while adding NOTHING to society -- used to be considered criminal behavior... Now we call it investment banking.

The confused...

2009-07-01T10:06:00.002-07:00

Conservatives confuse capitalism with the mechanisms of regulating a society for the common good of all citizens... The latter process usually referred to as politics.

Capitalism addresses markets: good and services... Somehow our elected officials believe there is a diminished role for leadership and stewardship of our SOCIETY ... things like education, etc. are left to the whims of the market and its demand for "lower prices" ... This is shear madness.

A perfect example is my state's budget (process): The majority Republican legislature is so adverse to a (temporary sales) tax increase that it is willing to further cut-funding to our already dismal education system... (ranked 48th or so our of the 50 states). What's even more discusting is that they seriously considered abdicating there responsibility as representatives and making the tax hike proposal a ballot measure...

Does anyone even know what "representative democracy" means anymore?

Oh, that good ol'e fashioned manufactured outrage...

2009-06-19T10:38:00.009-07:00

If you're like me, right-wing fantasy occasionally shows up in your inbox masquerading as history... Well, that happened this morning when a very good friend forwarded me a msg.

As usual, the email does a good job at generating outrage at those liberals in government who have backed away from promises and are, in general, ruining our American way of life... If only the 'facts' they list were actually, well, facts.

This one is about Social Security; how democrats from Eisenhower to Carter & Clinton have systematically screwed the American people out of promises and benefits.

Of course, all it takes is a quick visit to the handy snopes site to debunk this stuff. But again, what good conservative worth his salt would want to confuse truth with a caricature of history?

Well, I've taken the time to respond, point-for-point, to the emails assertions. As you'll see, 99% of those points are outright wrong. Even the ones that have a modicum of truth to them cast the villains as the evil liberals. I take a bit of joy noting that it was Reagan who signed into law the legislation that started taxing SS annuities... the one item listed that is partially true.

Anyway, read for yourself. If you want more details, check out snopes and here the Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration, May 20, 1997. My research (if you can call looking at a couple of websites research) are in red.

Subject: SOCIAL SECURITY ROBBERY
If there is anyone out there that doesn't know this, this is an excellent visual presentation....Now it is too late to be angry, just remember who did this when you vote....

Thank you for sharing Social Security, How It Got Stolen with Our Social Security

Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
GOOD TO HERE ! Our Social Security
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary,

FALSE: There was no provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 (nor has there ever been any provision) for the payment of Social Security payroll taxes to be voluntary. Since the inception of the Social Security program, the law has required that payroll taxes for persons working at jobs covered by Social Security "shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid."

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program,

MOSTLY FALSE/misleading: Social Security taxes were never limited to the first $1,400 of annual income, nor was there any provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 to permanently fix the tax rate at 1%. The Social Security Act of 1935 set the original rate at 1% of the first $3,000 of annual income, with provisions to gradually increase that rate to 3% over the next twelve years.

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

FALSE: The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that Social Security payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions. Social Security payroll taxes have never been deductible from income for tax purposes, either when the program was originally instituted or at any time since.

4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and ...

PARTIALLY FALSE: The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the "general operating fund." However, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security. The government "pays back" this money when the Social Security program redeems the bonds - with interest. Every retirement fund works like this. You money does not sit in a bank, it is used by others and repayed (hopefully) with interest.

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:

PARTIALLY FALSE: It is true that Social Security benefits were not originally considered taxable income. However, that status was not due to any promise or act on the part of President Roosevelt, nor was it specified in the Social Security Act (or any other law); it was the result of a series of rulings by the Treasury Department in 1938 and 1941 that excluded Social Security benefits from federal income taxation. Those rulings were overriden by amendments to the Social Security act enacted in 1983.

----------THEN-----------------------------------

Dwight David Eisenhower
34th. President, Republican,
Term Of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961 Insert by Vincent Peter Render,

If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend.
If I recall correctly, it was a democratically Controlled Congress.
From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.

FALSE - a complete fabrication as far as I can tell. SS funds are INVESTED (oftentimes loaned to the gov). However, those investments (loans) pay interest and the trust fund as earned more than an average of 8% annually since 1960. The fact that the gov borrows against the trust fund (paying it interest) is no different than a company investing it's pension funds in stocks/bonds. This is another example of FALSE statements being used to stir-up the masses...

-------------WORSE STILL-----------------------------

Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969

Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969) and thedemocratically Controlled House and Senate.

SS funds are NOT part of the general fund... The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund's inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

Answer: The Democratic Party.

FALSE - Social Security withholding has never been deductible from income for tax purposes. The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that monies paid into Social Security via payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001

Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

Not completely FALSE, but manipulated to make it look like dems did something 'bad'.

Prior to 1984, income derived from Social Security benefits was exempt from taxation. Amendments to the Social Security Act passed by Congress in 1983 allowed for 50% of Social Security benefits to be considered taxable income for taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds. Responsibility for this change cannot fairly be assigned to either political party. The idea originated with a proposal issued by the Greenspan Commission, which had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The amendments were passed by a House of Representatives in which the Democrats held a clear majority of the seats (296‐166), but the proposed amendments received "Yea" votes from members of both parties, and they were signed into law by President Reagan.

-------THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK !!----------
James Earl Carter, Jr (Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
= Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981

Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:

Answer: That's right! James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) (Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

COMPLETELY FALSE:
No one — whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien — is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system. Someone has confused Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) — the latter is a federal welfare program "designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income" by providing "cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter." Immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits under certain conditions, but SSI is financed by general revenues and not Social Security taxes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve... Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers..
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!

Apparently, this is being sent around a lot. Another example of right-wingers trying to re-write history to generate outrage. Kudos to my buddy who sent it to me so I could debunk this stuff... at least on this site.

Maybe pass the link to this blog entry around … of course, the truth never stood in the way of a good-ol'e conservative world-view. Still, pass it around. Who knows, maybe someone will actually read it.

Longing for a real opposition party...

2009-05-18T13:23:00.002-07:00

Republican's simply no longer have a serious platform... And even real conservatives know it. Here's a post by Richard Posner, one of the most respected judges in the country ...

The Becker-Posner Blog: Is the Conservative Movement Losing Steam? Posner

By the end of the Clinton administration, I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes in the economic and social structure of the United States. I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism in constitutional law jettisoned in favor of "originalism," the rights of gun owners enlarged, our military posture strengthened, the rise of homosexual rights resisted, or the role of religion in the public sphere expanded. All these became causes embraced by the new conservatism that crested with the reelection of Bush in 2004.

But that's about ALL that conservatism is about these days. There's nothing behind it. To quote the judge again:

the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising. The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.

This is the legacy of neo-conservative leadership: it's brought us to where we find ourselves today. Bankrupt, largely illiterate but still belligerent.

Hopefully, it's not to late to find some type of reasoned opposition to balance the views of a democratic executive and legislative branch. But with the likes of Rush at the helm -- well, I doubt it.

FBI Interrogator: Torture doesn't work -- duh.

2009-04-27T15:54:00.003-07:00

Op-Ed Contributor - My Tortured Decision - NYTimes.com

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

The idea of torture is wrong on so many levels it shouldn't even be an issue. Even if it did "work", it is still immoral and diametrically opposed to what America is supposed to stand for.

The spurned lover...

2009-04-26T09:06:00.001-07:00

I can't improve on Bill Maher's words, so I won't try...

The GOP: divorced from reality - Los Angeles Times

Look, I get it, "real America." After an eight-year run of controlling the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court, this latest election has you feeling like a rejected husband. You've come home to find your things out on the front lawn -- or at least more things than you usually keep out on the front lawn. You're not ready to let go, but the country you love is moving on. And now you want to call it a whore and key its car.

That's what you are, the bitter divorced guy whose country has left him -- obsessing over it, haranguing it, blubbering one minute about how much you love it and vowing the next that if you cannot have it, nobody will.

But it's been almost 100 days, and your country is not coming back to you. She's found somebody new. And it's a black guy.

The healthy thing to do is to just get past it and learn to cherish the memories. You'll always have New Orleans and Abu Ghraib.

The values on the Right

2009-04-22T21:20:00.007-07:00

We're told that the right represents the "moral majority" ... that they stand for traditional American values. Yea right: like that perennial favorite "value" of the right -- "the end justifies the means". It seems to be a recurring theme (think Nixon, Reagan).

I find myself dumb-founded at the reasoning used by the Republicans who say "enhanced interrogations kept us safe". Why do people consider such an argument even relevant let alone true?

I thought ethics and values spoke to what you do when no one is looking. If an enemy is willing to do heinous things to our citizens our response is a true test of those values. If you abandon the rule of law and our principles when its convenient, well -- were they really values? If our creeds and laws are only there for show -- well, we're worse than those who openly profess their violent goals.

Besides, even if we "only" used techniques like water-boarding and sleep deprivation, who wouldn't say what the interrogator wanted to hear? Especially after 183 sessions on the water board...

And even if torture did "keep us safe" -- well, what else can it help with? Maybe water boarding suspected murderers will coax them to admit their crimes. Maybe sleep deprivation will help someone remember the names of accomplices -- or at least of people he doesn't like. The possibilities are endless. All we need is another tough-on-crime republican in office.

We need a full investigation. I hope the justice department follows the trail wherever it leads... and I think it'll lead to the very top.

The dumb interviewing the evil... or Fox News

2009-04-21T22:58:00.007-07:00

Ignorance was on display again today... Hannity interviewed Cheney. What could be better entertainment -- except that Fox News viewers actually believed it was a NEWS show...

More like bread and circuses...

Most (intelligent) people should have realized it was the witless interviewing the evil as soon as Sean Hannity accused Chavez of being a "dictator" ... News flash Sean: Hugo Chavez was elected ... thrice.

But facts like that can't get in the way of a good liberal bashing session. The fact that Obama shook his hand obviously means that our leader is ready to sell out our interests.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity that President Obama’s handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez “was not helpful” and could lead “foes” of the U.S. to “think they're dealing with a weak president.”

Really? The VP is instrumental in authorizing torture of "enemy combatants" -- but that's not a hit on the US' image & influence with allies and enemies alike... But a handshake at a conference is detriment to those relationships?

I just can't imagine the bizzaro-world these people live in.

Maybe a little history: Nixon gave Premier Leonid Brezhnev a Cadillac during a visit in 1972. Was he an appeaser? Was Nixon undermining our relationship with the USSR by appearing weak to the leader of the "evil empire"?

Of course, Brezhnev WAS a dictator ... a man who blatantly threatened the US with nuclear annihilation.

And then there was Mao... More weakness! Those damn diplomats...

Reagan - the god of the republican party, sold weapons to Iran ... but somehow he's remembered as the "tough" leader.

Lets not forget that Dick Cheney was an advocate for our "ally in the war on terror" -- the Pakistani's and their dictator Musharraf... Yea right, allies. The Pakistani intelligence service has and still IS more closely allied with the Islamists in the western frontier than the West -- or even the Pakistani government.

I don't know if the current hyperbole is a result of the dumbing-down of the US population -- or if it's purely the result of the read meat Fox News and their cohorts spew into the willing ears of the faux-patriots who put flag-waving and belligerent chants above a basic understanding of the rule of law.

(ah - that run-on felt good.)

Maybe its a LOT of both...

Tax hysteria...

2009-04-18T09:00:00.001-07:00

Tax Revolts: Some Succeed, Most Don’t - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com

Starting with the election of Ronald Reagan, conservatives have led an effort to vilify the income tax — which is reflected in the polls. However, what is often forgotten is that Reagan raised taxes twice (in 1982 and in 1986 on corporations). The modern Republican tax protest movement really only took off after George Bush Sr. broke his “no new taxes” pledge in 1991 and lost his re-election bid in 1992 (for unrelated reasons). Subsequently it became hard for Republicans to raise taxes even in the face of two unexpected wars and a huge budget deficit.

Most people forget that income taxes were about 10 points higher than today during most of his administration ... and that Reagan actually RAISED taxes -- twice.

Maybe the news outlets who claims to "report and let you decide" ... is really doing more news stimulation and creation than reporting...

Income gap...

2009-04-17T22:18:00.001-07:00

Income Gaps Hit Record Levels In 2006, New Data Show — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

New data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) show that in 2006, the top 1 percent of households had a larger share of the nation’s after-tax income, and the middle and bottom fifths of households had smaller shares, than in any year since 1979, the first year the CBO data cover. As a result, the gaps in after-tax incomes between households in the top 1 percent and those in the middle and bottom fifths were the widest on record.

About time...

2009-04-06T18:33:00.001-07:00

Gates: Scrap F-22 Jet, President's New Helicopter : NPR

Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended halting production of the F-22 fighter jet and scrapping a new helicopter for the president as he outlined deep cuts to many of the military's biggest weapons programs.

Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal represents a "fundamental overhaul" in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan.

This country spends far to much on sophisticated weapon systems...

The men behind the madness...

2009-04-06T08:03:00.001-07:00

A Rich Education for Summers (After Harvard) - NYTimes.com

Lawrence H. Summers plays down his stint in the hedge fund business as a mere part-time job — but the financial and intellectual rewards that he gained there would make even most full-time workers envious.

The status quo -- Summers, Rubin, Geithner and the rest are the financial 'geniuses' responsible for creating this mess... and now they are supposed to get us out of it?

These people drink their own Kool-aid ... They beleive these "financial markets" simply need to be recapitalized. The real solution? Most of them don't even need to exist.

Sure, we need capital markets to raise money to BUILD THINGS... to invest in research... to fund entrepeneurs who actually increase our standard of living by making 'stuff' ...

But most of these markets exist for their own sake: to enrich other bankers and investors who's sole function is life is pushing piles of money around -- like some sick game of musical chairs where (win or lose) you take your cut.

Finance is a necessary evil. But these people beleive their own propaganda. Read DeSantis' letter of resignation...It oozes with the kind of self-righteous nonsense that only a person WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVES pushing piles of money around in circles EARNS HIM $760+ MILLION per year.

Until society and its people realize this is criminal insanity things won't get better...

Faith's fallacy

2009-04-03T11:59:00.001-07:00

It is in fact because scientists are constantly trying to falsify their own claims that we can have a reasonable degree of confidence in the ones that we have not yet managed to falsify. (Ask any responsible scientist what it would take to make her give up her beliefs about any part of the world, and she will be able to tell you. Ask a typical religious believer what it would take to convince him that, say, Jesus was not the son of God, and you will succeed at most in irritating him—you will almost certainly get no answer at all.)

Faith, then, has a highly unfortunate double consequence: It increases one's confidence in one's beliefs, while simultaneously decreasing one's grounds for confidence. Pace Micklethwait and Wooldridge, what faith provides is not in fact certainty, but rather the feeling of certainty.

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/page2/20090402_troy_jollimore_on_the_god_debate/

Beyond sick...

2009-03-05T23:43:00.001-07:00

World Briefing - The Americas - Brazil - 9-Year-Old Has Abortion Despite Church’s Objections - NYTimes.com

ABORTION A 9-year-old girl who was carrying twins, and whose stepfather is suspected of raping her, underwent an abortion on Wednesday despite complaints from Brazil’s Roman Catholic Church. The stepfather has been jailed since last week, the police said. Abortion is illegal in Brazil, the country with the most Roman Catholics, but judges can make exceptions if the mother’s life is in danger or the fetus has no chance of survival.

What can you say? How can you take a horrid situation and make it worse? Include the church....

Of course you are to blame...

2009-02-16T13:11:00.001-07:00

Deregulation IS to blame for this crisis.

We've been slowly turning the country over to a bunch of white, Ivy league educated (and I use the term loosely, studying "banking" at college is akin to studying basket-weaving) morons...

Since the 80's banks and republicans/conservatives have been clamoring for the repeal of depression era laws that compartmentalize commercial banking, investment banking and insurance. The last of those laws fell in 1999 with the "Commodity Futures Modernization Act" -- which literally made it legal for banks to create ANY new type of investment vehicle they wanted -- and assured that they would be outside government regulation. Clinton got to sign that cap-stone into law.

How else could we have ended up with a CDS market which traded more than $42 TRILLION dollars worth of these new, unregulated securities. ... Along with the demand for "bundled" mortgages that underlie all the chaos.

Capitalism must be saved from its own excesses... It functions on greed -- and greed run amok ALWAYS leads to disaster.

Clinton Says Don't Blame Him for the Economic Crisis

The magazine's story, which apportioned blame widely between such figures as Countrywide co-founder Angelo Mozilo, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Lehman Brothers CEO Dick Fuld and President George W. Bush, zeroed in on two specific economic policy decisions made during the Clinton administration. Clinton ushered out the Glass-Steagall Act, which for decades had separated commercial and investment banking, and signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act - which exempted all derivatives, including the now-notorious credit-default swaps, from federal regulation. His administration also loosened housing rules, which added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods.

"None of it was an endorsement of permissive lending and risk-taking," the magazine concluded. "But if you believe deregulation is to blame for our troubles, then Clinton earned a share too."

Republican double-speak

2009-02-16T11:28:00.001-07:00

Stimulus bill, foreclosure aid tops Obama agenda

Gibbs said the president had taken "unprecedented" steps in a bipartisan effort to include Republicans in the legislative process. But Sen. John McCain was highly critical, declaring the stimulus would create what he called "generational theft" — huge federal deficits for years to come.

McCain, who lost the presidential race to Obama, said the Democrat had backtracked on promises of bipartisanship and was off to a bad start. "Let's start over now and sit down together," McCain said.

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., put it more bluntly: "If this is going to be bipartisanship, the country's screwed."

Where were McCain and Graham when Bush was spending 100's of billion to rebuilt a foreign country?

They were cheer-leading...

Where were they when bankers were robbing the country blind ...

They were standing by saying "this is how capitalism works" ... "The economy isn't really that bad"...

Why does ANYONE listen to these obvious buffoons... The shouldn't be on television, they should be in prison.

Not looking to good for the right...

2009-02-07T16:49:00.001-07:00

State of the States: Political Party Affiliation

PRINCETON, NJ -- An analysis of Gallup Poll Daily tracking data from 2008 finds Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Hawaii to be the most Democratic states in the nation, along with the District of Columbia. Utah and Wyoming are the most Republican states.

Return to the rule-of-law

2009-01-24T15:11:00.001-07:00

A president swears to uphold the Constitution ... not to "keep us safe" ... We may finally be returning to that...

Bush's 'War' On Terror Comes to a Sudden End

President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the "war on terror," as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.

While Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration's lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

Horay...

2009-01-21T15:38:00.001-07:00

When you're talking, you're usually not shooting at at other...

At least its a start...

Fast start for Obama at home and abroad - Yahoo! News

At the start of his first full day as president, Obama spent a few poignant moments alone in the Oval Office, reading a private letter left for him by his predecessor, when he ceded power on Tuesday.

Then, flexing his diplomatic muscles in the Middle East for the first time, Obama telephoned Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and King Abdullah II of Jordan.

Obama "used this opportunity on his first day in office to communicate his commitment to active engagement in pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace from the beginning of his term," his spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

A new day

2009-01-21T13:41:00.001-07:00

Finally, we're free of the incompetence that's governed for the last 8 years. If nothing else it was refreshing and inspirational to hear someone call the citizens of this country to service -- to speak with honesty about the hard road ahead.

Just consider Obama's words about our obligations to "pitch-in" locally ... and how we'll all need to rededicate ourselves to the common good -- contrasted with Bush's call to (literally) "go shopping, take the family to Disney World" after the 9/11 attacks.

It may be a small gesture, but attempting to reform the appearance (and reality) of conflicts of interest in Washington is welcome news after the Tom Delay years (where K street lobbyists were encouraged to draft laws themselves)

Obama's first day: Pay freeze, lobbying rules - White House- msnbc.com

Obama's new lobbying rules will not only ban aides from trying to influence the administration when they leave his staff. Those already hired will be banned from working on matters they have previously lobbied on, or to approach agencies that they once targeted.

The rules also ban lobbyists from giving gifts of any size to any member of his administration. It wasn't immediately clear whether the ban would include the traditional "previous relationships" clause, allowing gifts from friends or associates with which an employee comes in with strong ties.

The new rules also require that anyone who leaves his administration is not allowed to try to influence former friends and colleagues for at least two years. Obama is requiring all staff to attend to an ethics briefing like one he said he attended last week.

It's not likely to get better for the average Joe anytime soon -- but at least we have motivated, intelligent leadership... And that's about all you can ask for in a situation like this...

Democracy, terrorism, government - oh my...

2009-01-13T15:10:00.001-07:00

It's been a while since I've posted -- but I just read this interesting article by Aslan. I haven't come to any conclusions yet -- but here are some thoughts.

In Defense of the Bush Doctrine - The Daily Beast

The premise is that democratization usually leads to a moderation of extremism... that by giving (via elections) radical movements a place at the table they usually become more moderate.

I'm not convinced.

Let us imagine for a moment what would have happened had Hamas been allowed to take its rightful place, albeit with certain restrictions and limitations, as the freely elected government in Palestine. Let us imagine the State Department had not financed and supervised the political campaign of Fatah, “down to the choice of backdrop color for the podium where Mr. Abbas was to proclaim victory,” as a recent column in the Christian Science Monitor claims.

Let us imagine that the United States and Israel had not banned together to blockade Gaza in an attempt to “starve the [new] Palestinian Authority of money and international connections,” as Steven Erlanger of The New York Times reported, “[so] that Palestinians will be so unhappy with life under Hamas that they will return to office a reformed and chastened Fatah movement.” Is it inconceivable that Hamas would have undergone a transformation similar to that of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the AKP in Turkey, or, for that matter, Fatah itself, which was designated a terrorist entity until it became an internationally recognized political entity (and ally to the U.S. and Israel) ? Had Hamas been given the opportunity to govern and fail (as it probably would have), would it still enjoy the popular support it receives from Palestinians? Or would the people have turned against it in favor of a less ideological, more accommodating, and more effective political party—say, Fatah—much as Fatah’s egregious failures turned the Palestinian people toward Hamas? It is often said that elections do not a democracy make. True enough. However, two consecutive elections, particularly in a place like Palestine, would have been a pretty good start.

I think that is a good point. But real democracy isn't based simply on popular election to government. It depends even more on institutions that guarentee the rights of the individual and minorities. Without those institutions - and the rights they protect - democratically elected governments are not much more than popular tyrants... tyrants that enforce the will of the majority on the minority.

These groups - at their core - expose fundamentalist principles that leave no room for the non-believer.

The simple fact is that democracy cannot take root in the Middle East without the participation of parties like Hamas and Hezbollah. So rather than making it impossible for the peoples of the Middle East to elect such groups into power, perhaps we should try giving them a reason not to.

I agree - these groups capture a significant part of the sentiments of the people in the region: its impossible to govern - or come to any kind of lasting agreement - without including them. I just don't know how you do that when many of their positions are irrational.

Quote for the day...

2008-12-17T11:11:00.001-07:00

I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.

- Thomas Jefferson

Throw the crook in jail...

2008-12-09T11:08:00.001-07:00

FBI: Blago wanted payoff to give Obama adviser Senate seat - Jonathan Martin and Carrie Budoff Brown - Politico.com

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was captured on tape saying that unless he received “something real good” for the appointment of a top adviser to Barack Obama to fill the president-elect’s Senate seat he would appoint himself, according to the criminal complaint.

Surprise surprise -- another "public servant" using the leverage of his office for his own gain...

Throw him in jail and toss away the key...

Here we go...

2008-12-05T10:29:00.003-07:00

Jobless Rate Soars to 6.7% in November - NYTimes.com

With the economy deteriorating rapidly, the nation’s employers shed 533,000 jobs in November, the 11th consecutive monthly decline, the government reported Friday morning, and the unemployment rate rose to 6.7 percent.

This is what happens when you put people that don't believe in governing in charge of government...

The act of governing is important -- yet roughly half the population still believes someone like Sara Palin is capable of it...

Anyone with half-a-brain could and should have seen this disaster coming: we don't actually produce much in this country -- and most of the "growth" we've experienced during the last 8 years was directly traceable to bankers swapping paper on wall street and private citizens using their home equity as a piggy bank... In other words, economic growth over the last 8 years has been a complete sham. Its truly been a Ponzi scheme economy and if you need more proof just stand by as all that phony money that's kept employers believing they were doing 'ok' continues to evaporate.

The only good that can come of this mess is the chance at educating the public... but I doubt it... I already hear how the current crisis is the dems in congress' fault.

If you want to really understand a bit about how we ended up here check out this link:

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/20081108_financial_meltdown_101/

The Right kind of Hypocrisy

2008-10-26T08:25:00.003-07:00

So much for those "frugal" Republicans that want to reduce taxes and otherwise spend our money wisely.

According to campaign finance reports for the first half of this month, the campaign paid $22,800 to a celebrity makeup artist who has been Palin's traveling stylist.

By comparison, McCain's foreign policy adviser was paid $12,500.

Free-Market Evangelizer comes to Jesus...

2008-10-23T10:55:00.002-07:00

I do fault Clinton for signing the damn legislation in 1999 -- but this blind faith in "free-markets" mentality (a la Phil Gramm, et al) is at the heart of this problem.

Apparently even Greenspan - the evangelizer-n-chief - realizes it now...

The former Fed chair said that a securitization system that stimulated appetite for loans made to borrowers with spotty credit histories, was at the heart of the breakdown of credit markets.

"Without the excess demand from securitizers, subprime mortgage originators -- undeniably the original source of crisis -- would have been far smaller and defaults, accordingly, far fewer," he said.

A surge in demand for U.S. subprime securities, supported by unrealistically positive ratings by credit agencies, was the core of the problem, he added.
Where did that demand come from? The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

Title III, ensured the "Legal Certainty for Swap Agreements," which successfully divorced the granters of subprime mortgage loans from any obligation to ever collect on them. The law prohibited regulation of any of the new financial instruments permitted after the financial industry mergers.

Fannie/Fredie, Country-wide, etc. etc. were all facilitators for sure ... they were pressured to feed the beast. But why should an investment guy worry when you don't have to collect on the loan! Just create more "investments" and sell them off quickly -- who cares if they can't pay them back -- I sold it and made my profits!!

Now we'll all be paying for this debacle ... My 401k (likely like yours) is down more than 30% ... my financial adviser is recommending I sell most all of the mutual funds I have and buy blue-chips with high-dividend yields... and hold them for the next several years. At least I'll make a few percent on my money...

But I'm sure the faithful out there will somehow pin this on "liberal policies"...

Today's "right"

2008-10-21T12:02:00.000-07:00

In The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan wrote:

Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

The NEW funniest Palin...

2008-10-18T08:25:00.000-07:00

... according to John Cleese.

Founder's quote for the day...

2008-10-15T16:53:00.001-07:00

Thomas Jefferson quotes

Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.

-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.

Loosing control

2008-10-13T11:16:00.001-07:00

This is what happens when you are backed by a propaganda machine that's willing to propagate anything to whip up the base...

McCain Faces Backlash Over Rabid Crowds

John McCain was booed by his own supporters during a rally on Friday after he described Barack Obama as a "decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

McCain was responding to a town hall attendee who claimed he was concerned about raising a child under a president who "cohorts with domestic terrorists such as [Bill] Ayers." Despite the fact that McCain and his campaign have repeatedly used Ayers to hammer Obama in recent days, the Arizona Senator tried to calm the man.

"[Senator Obama] is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared about as President of the United States," he said, before adding: "If I didn't think I would be one heck of a better president I wouldn't be running."

The crowd groaned with disapproval.

Later, McCain was again pressed about Obama's "other-ness" and again he refused to play ball. "I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab."

"No, ma'am," McCain said several times, shaking his head in disagreement. "He's a decent, family man, [a] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."

I, like many progressives, disagree with many of McCain's policies -- and his history as a "deregulator" ... But everything I read takes issue with those policies and/or positions. Yet the right continually attacks Obama's "associations" -- or "otherness" ... tapping into that well-spring of xenophobia and other brain-stem emotions.

Such non-sense makes you wonder if our political system can survive another decade: let alone another 200 years.

The myth of the free market

2008-10-06T15:02:00.003-07:00

This is why we need regulation...

Lehman Managers Portrayed as Irresponsible - NYTimes.com

Even as the investment bank Lehman Brothers pleaded for a federal bailout to save it from bankruptcy protection, it approved millions of dollars in bonuses for departing executives, a Congressional committee was told Monday.Another document showed that executives were warned in a January 2008 meeting that the company was facing liquidity problems. Yet the firm moved forward with capital outlays, including $5 billion in bonuses, $4 billion in shares and $750,000 in dividend payments between 2007 and the firm’s bankruptcy filing on Sept. 15.

One Lehman document among thousands reviewed by the House committee showed that four days before the bank filed for bankruptcy protection, Lehman’s compensation committee was asked to grant $20 million in “special payments” for three executives who were leaving,

But maybe these "smart folks" really earned their money - right? Well, for tens-of-millions in salary alone you'd hope at least the boss knew what was going on at his own company...

Testifying before the committee, Lehman’s chief executive, Richard S. Fuld Jr., said that he took full responsibility for the decisions he made while at the helm. But he also told lawmakers that it was unreasonable to expect that he should have seen the financial crisis coming.

In other words: he's supposedly worth the incredible salary he made, but he really couldn't be expected to actually know what his company was really doing and was really worth... Can you actually believe he had the gall to make that statement?

Free-markets are great when the market is open... when people with new ideas and better ways of doing something can easily enter (and leave) the marketplace. This is why software development and web entrepreneurship is vibrant: thousands of companies and individuals enter the marketplace with new ideas -- almost every day. You can start a software company in your den-- with little more than a $600 PC and dedication and a few good ideas.

And if you fail, your out: no government bail-outs.

But ask yourself how easy it would be to create the "better investment bank" (even if you had the most innovative idea in banking to come along in the last century)... And what are the consequences if a large one fails? Apparently, we can't just let them die.

The two industries present a completely different picture. But we're told (by conservatives who can't think past the phrase "free markets are good!") that free-market capitalism always provides the best solutions...

Why do so many Americans buy into this garbage? Why - because the Republican machine has been spewing the message for the last 30 years...

The only good to come out of this mess is the hope that people may learn a lesson... that ideology and the "purity of your economic theory" doesn't solve problems -- pragmatic thinking solves problems.

The pure over the practical

2008-09-30T10:40:00.001-07:00

Op-Ed Columnist - Revolt of the Nihilists - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century. With this vote, they’ve taken responsibility for this economy, and they will be held accountable. The short-term blows will fall on John McCain, the long-term stress on the existence of the G.O.P. as we know it.

I’ve spoken with several House Republicans over the past few days and most admirably believe in free-market principles. What’s sad is that they still think it’s 1984. They still think the biggest threat comes from socialism and Walter Mondale liberalism. They seem not to have noticed how global capital flows have transformed our political economy.

We’re living in an age when a vast excess of capital sloshes around the world fueling cycles of bubble and bust. When the capital floods into a sector or economy, it washes away sober business practices, and habits of discipline and self-denial. Then the money managers panic and it sloshes out, punishing the just and unjust alike.

This has been my point again and again... Free-markets are not panaceas. They need rules and regulations. Without them you end up in endless cycles where the rich and powerful -- the well-connected -- use the system to line their pockets at the expense of everyone else... That is system the nature of free-market competition: if you can leave someone else holding the bag, why not?

The dogmatism in the GOP created this mess -- and will (hopefully) be the end of that party as we know it...

Protect Sarah!

2008-09-24T08:50:00.001-07:00

Maybe McCain has a good reason for not letting her speak to the press... incompetence anyone?

Who's crying now...

2008-09-23T10:00:00.001-07:00

Policymakers: Congress Must Move Quickly to Avert Damage - washingtonpost.com

The nation's top economic policymakers acknowledged this morning that an already extraordinary series of government actions has failed to stabilize global financial markets and said that Congress must act quickly on a proposed bailout plan to avoid dire consequences for the U.S. economy.

Funny how that works... One day you are complaining that government is on your back -- the next you're asking for billions to keep your house-of-cards together.

The Republican matra -- at least since Reagan -- has been: get government out of the way... Well, now we see what happens when we do it: the drunk frat-boy party gets rolling... and like anyone living on credit cards (we now allow banks to "leverage" there cash like they did back in the 30's) it eventually catches up to you...

Wll, looks like the boys have woken up hung-over -- and now they want the parents to pick up the bill for the damage.

How is it that those making the most noise for less regulation now have the gall to use hundreds of billions of our tax dollars to bail out the very people who's greed caused the problem in the first place? Is this the "free market" we keep hearing about from Republicans?

And to top it off they have the nerve to say "trust us -- we need to do this quickly -- without oversight or strings attached -- we need $700 billion ASAP."

Maybe they do ... but maybe taking a breath and putting a rational plan and system of oversight in place would save more pain down the road.

Maybe people will finally realize that we're not here to serve markets... they are here to serve us ... to serve society.

But I doubt it...

This country deserves the government it gets.

I can't say it better...

2008-09-21T11:16:00.001-07:00

So I'll just quote Sam Harris' words:

Sam Harris on Sarah Palin and Elitism | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com

We have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once provoked by a reporter's microphone, saying things like, "I'm voting for Sarah because she's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom." Such sentiments suggest an uncanny (and, one fears, especially American) detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, emerging epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure and Internet security … the list is long, and Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less address any one of them.

Palin's most conspicuous gaffe in her interview with Gibson has been widely discussed. The truth is, I didn't much care that she did not know the meaning of the phrase "Bush doctrine." And I am quite sure that her supporters didn't care, either. Most people view such an ambush as a journalistic gimmick. What I do care about are all the other things Palin is guaranteed not to know—or will be glossing only under the frenzied tutelage of John McCain's advisers. What doesn't she know about financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war, modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or emerging technology? Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth.

The very idea that McCain could choose someone so unprepared to succeed him should be proof enough that he isn't sane enough to be president... Yet for about 40+% of Americans, his choice -- and her qualifications -- are proof that's he "gets it".

Where do I get off?

Socialism a-la Bush

2008-09-19T11:40:00.001-07:00

This administration's policies and actions have resulted in the largest move toward socialism in this country since the New Deal ... The US gov now owns more than 50% of ALL US mortgages... has an 80% stake in the country's largest insurer and there's more to come.

So much for the "champion of free markets" -- if this is the end result of "conservative policy" (a la Gramm, McCain and other -- including democratic -- deregulationists) socialists and far left liberals should continue to elect Republicans... If Democrats proposed these policies (from the left) there would be an outcry of Marxist/socialist like the country has never seen!

... but we get it all for "free" with conservative... (Of course, we'll pay for it later -- with interest.) Talk about (corporate) welfare...

Who's up for more republican rule?

The tale of the tape...

2008-09-18T11:34:00.002-07:00

A picture is worth a thousand words...

So why aren't most American's appauled at the choice?

More & more

2008-09-17T11:24:00.001-07:00

So we get to see the effects of deregulated markets more and more each day... And its costing us more and more each day too -- as we continue to bail out companies that made bad or bought bad loans...

Funny how McCain - a champion of deregulating financial markets -- is now calling for regulation.

A decade ago, Sen. John McCain embraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries, helping to sweep aside a thicket of rules established over decades in favor of a less restricted financial marketplace that proponents said would result in greater economic growth.

We got the growth all-right -- growth on a house-of-cards. The DOW was at 10,100 in Jan 2000 -- that's where it is today... Also glad my retirement isn't completely in stocks... whew. That's 8 years of zero growth if your port. follows the index.

I thought the "free market" was supposed to reward good decision makers and punish bad ones? Interesting how the corps get bailed out, but the average Joe in bankruptcy doesn't.

All these anti-Free market Bush (conservative) appointees are killing us with these bail outs!! When are we gonna put a real conservative in office?

From the right...

2008-09-16T14:39:00.000-07:00

I don't often quote David Brooks -- although he does write the most even-handed op-eds "from the right" that I've read...

He's right on the mark with his latest column:

Op-Ed Columnist - Why Experience Matters - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

...

In the current Weekly Standard, Steven Hayward argues that the nation’s founders wanted uncertified citizens to hold the highest offices in the land. They did not believe in a separate class of professional executives. They wanted rough and rooted people like Palin.

I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice.

And the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence.

What is prudence? It is the ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discern the essential current of events — the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight.

How is prudence acquired? Through experience. The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can’t, what has worked and what hasn’t.

Experienced leaders can certainly blunder if their minds have rigidified (see: Rumsfeld, Donald), but the records of leaders without long experience and prudence is not good. As George Will pointed out, the founders used the word “experience” 91 times in the Federalist Papers. Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared.

Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.

The idea that “the people” will take on and destroy “the establishment” is a utopian fantasy that corrupted the left before it corrupted the right. Surely the response to the current crisis of authority is not to throw away standards of experience and prudence, but to select leaders who have those qualities but not the smug condescension that has so marked the reaction to the Palin nomination in the first place.

They "brew'em up good" in small town America

2008-09-15T11:16:00.001-07:00

WASILLA - The Matanuska-Susitna area is the methamphetamine capital of Alaska, according to Alaska State Troopers.

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

In 2003, authorities uncovered nine meth labs in the area. Last year, the number increased to 42, said Kyle Young, an investigator with the troopers who works with the Mat-Su narcotics team.

Officials with the Office of Children's Services in Wasilla said the problem affects children. The office receives about 40 calls a month from people reporting abuse or neglect involving some aspect of the highly addictive drug...

When authorities surrounded a converted bus housing a meth operation in Big Lake in January, a 13-year-old boy who answered the door bragged that his mom cooked the best meth in the valley, according to the troopers.

During a 2003 bust at a house outside Wasilla, officers discovered five children living inside, all younger than 8 years old.

The calls about meth to children's services in Wasilla accounts for as many as 40 percent of the agency's total monthly child protection calls.

Reality vs Rhetoric...

2008-09-11T11:29:00.001-07:00

I couldn't say it better --

The GOP Loves the Heartland To Death - WSJ.com

the red-state myth that Mrs. Palin reiterated for her adoring audience owes far more to the venomous spirit of Pegler than it does to Norman Rockwell.

Small town people, Mrs. Palin went on, are "the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food and run our factories and fight our wars." They are authentic; they are noble, and they are her own: "I grew up with those people."

But what really defines them in Mrs. Palin's telling is their enemies, the people who supposedly "look down" on them. The opposite of the heartland is the loathsome array of snobs and fakers, "reporters and commentators," lobbyists and others who make up "the Washington elite."

Presumably the various elite Washington lobbyists who have guided John McCain's presidential campaign were exempt from Mrs. Palin's criticism. As would be former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, now a "senior adviser" to the Dickstein Shapiro lobby firm, who hymned the "Sarah Palin part of the party" thus: "Their kids aren't going to go to Ivy League schools. Their sons leave high school and join the military to serve our country. Their husbands and wives work two jobs to make sure the family is sustained."

Generally speaking, though, when husbands and wives work two jobs each it is not merely because they are virtuous but because working one job doesn't earn them enough to get by. The two-job workers in Middle America aren't spurning the Ivy League and joining the military straight out of high school just because they're people of principle, although many of them are. It is because they can't afford to do otherwise.

Leave the fantasy land of convention rhetoric, and you will find that small-town America, this legendary place of honesty and sincerity and dignity, is not doing very well. If you drive west from Kansas City, Mo., you will find towns where Main Street is largely boarded up. You will see closed schools and hospitals. You will hear about depleted groundwater and massive depopulation.

And eventually you will ask yourself, how did this happen? Did Hollywood do this? Was it those "reporters and commentators" with their fancy college degrees who wrecked Main Street, U.S.A.?

No. For decades now we have been electing people like Sarah Palin who claimed to love and respect the folksy conservatism of small towns, and yet who have unfailingly enacted laws to aid the small town's mortal enemies.

Without raising an antitrust finger they have permitted fantastic concentration in the various industries that buy the farmer's crops. They have undone the New Deal system of agricultural price supports in favor of schemes called "Freedom to Farm" and loan deficiency payments -- each reform apparently designed to secure just one thing out of small town America: cheap commodities for the big food processors. Richard Nixon's Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz put the conservative attitude toward small farmers most bluntly back in the 1970s when he warned, "Get big or get out."

Why Palin is an idiot

2008-09-10T09:49:00.002-07:00

Anyone can govern a state where the biggest budget battle is "how big a rebate check should we give our citizens this year?" ...

Most govenors spend their time battling it out over spending priorities -- in debate with the legislature. So how hard can it be to fund all your initiatives and still have to "decide" how much to give every man, woman and child in the state?

Besides - she actually thinks creationism is worth "debating" along side evolution as a viable alternative "theory"...

On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.

In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied:
Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.

Sorry folks: She's an idiot. Maybe we should also debate that the One Tree supports the world as Odin taught us centuries ago... Or that Joe Smith really did find gold plates in NY -- and that Jews migrated to North America about 800 years ago where they set up a civilization!!

There is simply no room for such non-sense in science class. There is no evidence for "creationism" at all... to give it any credence undermines children's understanding of what science is all about.

Believing this stuff is akin to believing the world is flat.

Here's another example -- she doesn't know anything about finance -- even less than I do:

Ignorance is bliss, which perhaps explains Gov. Sarah Palin being so confidently wrong about the root cause of the federalization of most of the nation's mortgage market. But what is Sen. John McCain's excuse? Both act as if the financial meltdown of the U.S. economy has nothing to do with the policies of the political party they represent—but she at least may not know any better.
Referring to the government's bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Palin opined that the two had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers," displaying abysmal ignorance of the fact that only now will those privately owned banks become a huge taxpayer obligation, as the federal government takes them over. Nor can the meltdown of home values be traced to those two beleaguered institutions, because they did not make the original subprime mortgage commitments.
The housing bubble was the result of the Ponzi-scheme antics of those other financial entities: commercial banks, stockbrokers and hedge funds, which were allowed in a GOP-deregulated market to get into the "swap" business. Through the rampant reselling of loans, the obligation to collect on a loan was divorced from the act of selling it in the first place, so who cared if the recipient of the loan was not at all qualified or the appraisal of the property value was inflated, as long as the paper was traded away, or insured, before the moment of foreclosure?

Fannie and Freddie essentially operate as nearly completely deregulated financial "repackagers"... And while their CEO's are getting 9-14 Million in golden parachutes, we (the tax payers) are gonna have to pay for that lack of Federal oversight... But Palin wants to either 1- make you think it's gov inefficiency that created the problem-- or 2- she DOESN'T know what she's talking about.

Why in the world do people want a house wife one step away from the presidency?

Red state red-ass...

2008-09-05T09:47:00.001-07:00

Conason points out the obvious about Palin's daughter's pregnancy...

Truthdig - Reports - Why Bristol’s Pregnancy Matters

...let us first stop pretending that this is good news. There are excellent reasons why we discourage teenage pregnancy and motherhood, and none of them have disappeared simply because the Republicans are about to put Sarah Palin on their ticket.

Adolescents are rarely prepared to take on the challenges of raising a child. Often they drop out of school as a result, and usually become dependent on their own parents for support (which may be complicated for a family whose mom is running for vice president). Pregnancies in adolescence are high-risk, and the babies born to teenage mothers tend to have more illnesses during their first year of life. Teenage marriages—whether or not they occur because of an unplanned pregnancy—have a tendency to work out poorly, too. ("I don’t want to have kids,” noted Bristol Palin’s prospective husband, Levi Johnston, 18, on his MySpace page, according to the New York Post, and at his age, why would he?)

But such is life in the red states, where sensible sex education and availability of contraceptives are discouraged for adolescents, even though they are just as sexually active as teenagers everywhere else. Despite the supposed religious purity of the evangelical right-wingers who today regard themselves as the base of the Republican Party, rates of teenage pregnancy and divorce tend to be higher in their domain than elsewhere in America. To the extent that their values would dominate for another four years of Republican rule, those pathologies can be expected to prevail. During the past four years of the Bush administration, teen pregnancies have increased for the first time since 1990, when they began a 14-year decline.

Pander above policy

2008-09-04T11:36:00.003-07:00

I find it interesting that the "experienced" candidate now obviously puts pandering to women and evangelicals above the country... McCain's pick for VP demonstrates just how far he's come from the time in the senate he spent fighting budgetary pork. Now he's adding pork to the ticket to try an garner a few extra votes.

The sad truth is that it may work.

Mr. McCain now has an undereducated hockey mom from Alaska as his "backup". Considering his age (72), the odds that Mrs. Rapture will be swept into office during a McCain term is not insignificant.

What is it with American's and the desire to have "someone like me" in the Oval office?

When average isn't good enough - Los Angeles Times

Americans have an unhealthy desire to see average people promoted to positions of great authority. No one wants an average neurosurgeon or even an average carpenter, but when it comes time to vest a man or woman with more power and responsibility than any person has held in human history, Americans say they want a regular guy, someone just like themselves. President Bush kept his edge on the “Who would you like to have a beer with?” poll question in 2004, and won reelection.

While Obama has a similar lack of government experience, he at least appears to be educated -- and he does have a history of working in the community. Palin apparently believes the earth is only 6000 years old:

Many McCain supporters have written to say that (1) Obama is also unqualified (or even less qualified than Palin) and (2) I have shown myself to be a hypocrite by not objecting to Obama's religiosity. Briefly: My criticism of Palin should not be construed as uncritical acceptance of Obama. Needless to say, I find Obama's religious pandering repulsive. The suspicion that he is pandering, out of obvious necessity, and not quite as religious as he makes out, is somewhat comforting, however. But even if Obama were precisely as religious as he appears, he is not a Creationist, Rapture-Ready blockhead. Palin, by all appearances, seems to be one. This is a difference worth noting. Whatever you may think of his politics, Obama is very intelligent and reasonably well educated. Palin thinks the universe is 6000 years old. Unfortunately, I wrote my article before some of the most disturbing signs of her religious extremism came to light.

My concern is not that Mrs. Palin is a woman. My concern is that she is a totally unqualified and poorly educated woman who was added to the Republican ticket as a token woman (and Creationist wacko).

Pass the beer and pretzels... the popularity contest for president is getting into full swing. And it looks like the wacko's have their fresh meat.

The unlearning...

2008-08-23T07:30:00.001-07:00

Vaccine-wary parents spark public health worry - Kids and parenting- msnbc.com

In Ashland, nearly 30 percent of kindergartners have been issued exemptions for some or all of the vaccines required by state law, a rate seven times the rest of the state and about 12 times the rest of the nation.

Why does it seem that people who should know better put their faith in anecdotal evidence and superstition when hard data and science is available.

Skeptical of government mandates and leery of feared links to disorders
from asthma to autism, parents say they’re exercising their rights to
protect their kids from risk. But health officials say there’s no
question that the risk of vaccination is far outweighed by the benefits
of inoculation, and that those who don’t immunize endanger not only
their own kids, but also the collective resistance that keeps everyone
else safe, too.

“When more than 10 percent of a community opts out of vaccinations, it
leaves the entire community at risk because germs have a greater chance
of causing an epidemic,” said Dr. Ari Brown, an Austin, Texas,
pediatrician who represents the American Academy of Pediatrics.

While there is an acknowledged risk with almost any vaccine, the statistics show that it is far less than that of contracting these diseases. This generation of parents simply doesn't know what it is like to have a toddler contract whooping cough... one of the leading causes of vaccine preventable deaths world-wide.

With lower vaccination levels some of these nearly eradicated diseases seem to be making a comeback...

In South Whidbey Island, Wash., this summer,
Little League teams were eliminated from the regional All-Star
Tournament after an outbreak of pertussis. Overall, 88 people were
sickened in the Northwest community where one to two cases a year is
the norm. Health officer Dr. Roger Case demanded that the teams be
pulled, fearing they'd spark an epidemic among players across a wide
region. Low community vaccination levels likely were to blame for the outbreak, Case said.

Some people must simply learn hard lessons by seeing for themselves... Given all the progress mankind has made on the medical front, it would seem obvious to trust the science. But because science hasn't given us all of the answers (e.g. - why is my child autistic??) people grasp at the anecdotal (e.g. - it must be that vaccine...). Its a trait we all share as humans: we need reasons... we look for patterns even where the correlation is weak. We need some reason -- even a bad one. (Hence religion!)

Most of the time it's harmless, but in this case we could be subjecting a new generation of children to scourges that we figured out how to lick more than 50 years ago...

The government we deserve...

2008-08-13T09:35:00.002-07:00

We're getting it... In spades.

While the headlines scream about where various republicans and democrats are putting their penises THIS kind of shit continues to go on:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-08-12-mukasey-justice-department_N.htm

U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Tuesday said former Justice Department officials will not face prosecution for letting improper political considerations drive hirings of prosecutors, immigration judges and other career government lawyers. ...
But, Mukasey told delegates to the American Bar Association annual meeting, "not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws."
For nearly two years, top advisers to Gonzales discriminated against applicants for career jobs who weren't Republican or conservative loyalists, an internal investigation concluded last month.
The federal government makes a distinction between "career" and "political" appointees, and it's a violation of civil service laws and Justice Department policy to hire career employees on the basis of political affiliation or allegiance.

Funny -- I thought breaking the law WAS a crime ... I'm so happy to know that our government resembles a third world crony dictatorship more and more each day... Can you hear it?? "Quick!!! We need another headline about sex to distract the proletariate while we continue to f@#ck the rule of law and representative government..."

This is the Justice dept... Not some gov agency where you stash political allies and lackeys... The whole thing smells. It's like the old soviet union where you had to be a card-carrying-commie to get a job in the government.

This is exactly what happens when you have arrogant, unprincipled leadership: Leaders that base their decision making on their internalized sense of right and wrong instead of respect for the constitution and the rule of law.

The sooner the entire mess of them are replaced with ANYONE the better we'll all be.

Beers says it all...

2008-08-07T12:58:00.001-07:00

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

"It took seven years for the Bush administration's military commissions system to get its first conviction for a crime that is regularly prosecuted in federal court. And when it did, it was a driver who even the administration acknowledges did not participate in the planning or execution of any terrorist attacks. Surely there is a better way to protect America and bring terrorists to justice while adhering to the constitutional values that have kept us safe and strong for 200 years," - Rand Beers, President of the National Security Network and retired counterterrorism official.

The Imperial Presidency...

2008-07-31T16:37:00.001-07:00

Federal judge rules Bush's aides can be subpoenaed - Yahoo! News

A federal judge on Thursday rejected President Bush's contention that senior White House advisers are immune from subpoenas, siding with Congress' power to investigate the executive branch...

The ruling comes from a Bush judicial appointee... who further said "there's no legal basis for Bush's argument"...

He said the executive branch could not point to a single case in
which courts held that White House aides were immune from congressional
subpoenas.
"That simple yet critical fact bears repeating: The asserted
absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by existing case
law," Bates wrote.

It would seem that the imperial presidency is finally on the way out: both literally and operationally.

How a group of elected officials considers themselves so far above the law is amazing to me... I only hope they are compelled to testify before Bush leaves office -- even if nothing significant comes of it, at least more information on the politicalization of this administration will come to the light of day.

The Nixon Range...

2008-07-25T16:09:00.001-07:00

New Low for Bush Approval - Behind the Numbers

New Low for Bush Approval

Another month, another new low for George W. Bush: Just 28 percent in the new Post-ABC poll approve of the way the president is handling his job. This marks a new career low in Post polling, and is the 40th consecutive month his ratings have been under 50 percent.

His negative rating has also hit a record, with 69 percent saying they disapprove of his job performance. And the percentage holding "strongly" negative views is up to 56 percent, another new high, and nearly fives time the number who "strongly approve."

I think the Fox News poll even had him around 27% ... I wonder what it would be without 911? Of course, he wouldn't have had the chance to screw up as magnificently as he has if it wasn't for the 01 terrorist attacks.

The truly amazing stat is that about 25% of of the populace still thinks he's doing ok

The Way of The Decider

2008-07-22T10:15:00.002-07:00

Detainees’ rights debated as Guantanamo trial begins | csmonitor.com

Chock it up to the "Decider" once again:

The first war crimes trial to be held by the United States since World War II began on Monday... After one day of trial proceedings, the defense was handed an important victory when the judge refused to allow the prosecution to enter evidence that was obtained under duress in Afghanistan.

...the judge declined to suppress admissions made by Hamdan after he arrived at the U.S. military prison here, ruling that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to Hamdan and that "no coercive techniques influenced" what he said. Allred ruled, however, that to use the admissions, prosecutors must produce Hamdan's interrogators to explain the conditions under which the questioning took place.

And rightly so... I believe all prisoners should be treated ethically and fairly. Regardless of their crimes. Our morality shouldn't depend on the actions of others and that's exactly what you have with this administration: some crimes just warrant 'enhanced interrogations -- bull shit.

And while we know that there are many people interred at Gito that need to be released -- having been transformed into ready-recruits for radical fundamentalists after their multi-year 'vacations' -- I don't doubt there are many dangerous people being held there. The problem is, this administration has likely made their continued detainment and/or punishment highly improbably. The insane policy of not only locking up people indefinitely without charge or hearing... or torturing them for information... all of it again points to the Decider's lack of understand of any of the values enshrined in the Constitution -- or even basic law.

It short, we have a leader who’s legacy includes being asleep at the wheel on both 9/11 and in the aftermath of Katrina… who started a war in a country that wasn’t a threat… who instituted policies that 1- make it almost impossible to bring those who have & would do us harm to justice and 2- ensures that those who may not like us but haven't done anything are likely to take up arms against us.

I simply can't imagine a more inept leader -- he could not do more damage if he tried.

Can’t you just wait for the lecture tour to start?

Dogma and Reason...

2008-07-20T18:11:00.004-07:00

As the result of some comments on my last post I think its time for a lecture on religion vs reason.

It seems that many people accuse folks who espouse rational secularism as being as dogmatic as religionists. While it is true that I put my "faith" in reason, it is a completely different animal.

Religion derives its authority from revelation: usually an interpretation of ancient scripture or teachings. While most will argue that there are some lessons to be learned from these sources, most religionists assume that the text is somehow "inspired" and that we can not only learn from them, but that we should organize our life around them as the foundation of such things as morality, ethics and "right vs wrong".

The rationalist takes a different approach to life; in a phrase: "where's the data". I want to know why a course of action is right/wrong (beneficial/harmful)... I am skeptical: I at least need a credible line of reasoning.

As a rationalist, if new evidence comes to light... if a new argument is presented, well -- a previously held opinion should change.

One of the common arguments I encounter is the idea that rationalism isn't any better than religion: especially when you are talking about it's implications to society and politics. The old arguments about Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot immediately come up. I think I'll just quote Sam Harris here since he is far more eloquent than I:

People of faith regularly claim that atheism is responsible for some of the most appalling crimes of the 20th century. Although it is true that the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were irreligious to varying degrees, they were not especially rational. In fact, their public pronouncements were little more than litanies of delusion--delusions about race, economics, national identity, the march of history or the moral dangers of intellectualism. ...
Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields are not examples of what happens when people become too critical of unjustified beliefs; to the contrary, these horrors testify to the dangers of not thinking critically enough about specific secular ideologies. Needless to say, a rational argument against religious faith is not an argument for the blind embrace of atheism as a dogma. The problem that the atheist exposes is none other than the problem of dogma itself--of which every religion has more than its fair share. There is no society in recorded history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

That is what I advocate: reasoned, skeptical thinking -- on any subject. In a word, science. If being "dogmatic" about that makes me equivalent to the religionist, well -- pass the wine and gimme an Amen.

The best blog going...

2008-07-16T11:06:00.002-07:00

If you haven't found it, you need to check out Kafir Girl's blog... Raised a Muslim, she's making her way thru the Quran and blogging about the "experience" ... Hilarious.

Needless to say she finds the religion and book completely ridiculous: and she says so in terms that might make a sailor blush...

Her latest post is about an aunt who got possessed by a jinn: people actually believe this stuff!! Hypothyroidism be damned!! It was a jinn in a tree!!!

Check it out: http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/

Holy inquisition batman!

2008-07-14T16:23:00.002-07:00

Catholic League: For Religious and Civil Rights

To protest student fees for religious services at the University of Central Florida (UCF), a student walked out of a campus Mass on June 29 with the Eucharist. Webster Cook, a student senator, finally returned the Host this past weekend.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue offered the following remarks today:

“For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage—regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance—is beyond hate speech. That is why the UCF administration needs to act swiftly and decisively in seeing that justice is done. All options should be on the table, including expulsion.”

Holy shit batman!! Possible expulsion. "Justice"? Are you kidding me?

Just because a group of people believe this biscuit is sacred or something doesn't mean a CRIME was committed. The biscuit was given to him ... and there are no laws against offending someone based on their religious beliefs are there?

This country is built on free speech... even speech that infuriates others. If talking about "desecrating a cracker" can get you expelled we have truly lost our way.

More of the myth...

2008-07-05T18:36:00.001-07:00

Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection - NYTimes.com

JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Dominic Buettner for The New York Times

When David Jeselsohn bought an ancient tablet, above, he was unaware of its significance.

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

The tablet, probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan according to some scholars who have studied it, is a rare example of a stone with ink writings from that era — in essence, a Dead Sea Scroll on stone.

It is written, not engraved, across two neat columns, similar to columns in a Torah. But the stone is broken, and some of the text is faded, meaning that much of what it says is open to debate.

Still, its authenticity has so far faced no challenge, so its role in helping to understand the roots of Christianity in the devastating political crisis faced by the Jews of the time seems likely to increase.

Even if this and other archeological and historical finds demonstrate that the story of Jesus is a myth, the faithful will find a way to turn this into further 'proof' of the mythical character's god-hood.

Nerds unite...

2008-07-01T10:27:00.001-07:00

xkcd - A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language - By Randall Munroe

The art of hypocrisy - how to speak out of boths sides of your mouth.

2008-06-30T16:33:00.001-07:00

Obama disowns critique of McCain's military record - Yahoo! News

Democrat Barack Obama rejected a retired general's suggestion that Republican John McCain's military experience didn't necessarily qualify him to be president, as GOP surrogates lined up to label the remarks indecent and disrespectful.

Conservatives are experts at speaking out of both sides of their mouths... The latest case in point: They seem outraged at Gen W. Clark's comments about McCain's experience. I don't know, but I'd bet many of these folks were the same people that wore "purple band-aids" at the 2004 Republican convention denoting their contempt for John Kerry's service (and his purple hearts). The fact that those that served with him said he served bravely and honorably in Vietnam... the fact that he served in a combat zone, well - apparently that wasn't enough to earn him the title "patriot".

I guess you only have to respect the service of conservatives.

Quote for the day...

2008-06-30T16:12:00.001-07:00

"Why should I allow that same God to tell me how to raise my kids, who had to drown His own?"

-- Bertrand Russell

Dawkins on science - TED

2008-06-06T09:42:00.003-07:00

If you haven't discovered TED - Ideas worth sharing -- I suggest you check it out...

The site has videos and discussions on everything from entertainment to cosmology... by some of the best thinkers and doers of our time...

This video, by Richard Dawkins, is a good example -- check it out:

"The universe is queerer than we can suppose..."

Those Damn Activist Judges!

2008-06-05T10:23:00.001-07:00

Anti-miscegenation laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Loving v. Virginia

The plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving

All bans on interracial marriage were lifted only after an interracial couple from Virginia, Richard and Mildred Loving, began a legal battle in 1963 for the repeal of the anti-miscegenation law which prevented them from living as a couple in their home state of Virginia. The Lovings were supported by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Japanese American Citizens League and a coalition of Catholic bishops.

In 1958, Richard and Mildred Loving had married in Washington, D.C. to evade Virginia's anti-miscegenation law (the Racial Integrity Act). Having returned to Virginia, they were arrested in their bedroom for living together as an interracial couple. The judge suspended their sentence on the condition that the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years. In 1963, the Lovings, who had moved to Washington, D.C, decided to appeal this judgment. In 1965, Virginia trial court Judge Leon Bazile, who heard their original case, refused to reconsider his decision. Instead, he defended racial segregation, writing:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.[16]

The Lovings then took their case to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which invalidated the original sentence but upheld the state's Racial Integrity Act. Finally, the Lovings turned to the U.S Supreme Court. The court, which had previously avoided taking miscegenation cases, agreed to hear an appeal. In 1967, 84 years after Pace v. Alabama in 1883, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Loving v. Virginia that:

Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Sound familiar?

The Great Gay Debate... why?

2008-06-04T07:38:00.003-07:00

Gay marriage...

For some reason I cannot fathom many still consider it an "issue" ... and an institution that need "protecting". I guess I've completely missed the boat because I don't understand: if the government can decide that "this couple" can have these rights, but "that couple" can't -- how is that "protecting" anything?

If I marry another man -- how does that in ANY WAY effect a heterosexual couples marriage?

Many people also seem to forget our government previous efforts to "protect" marriage by legal barring interracial marriage (again - the populace, thru our elected representatives, felt it necessary to do this). The results were abominable laws like the Virginia "Racial Integrity Act".

All of the arguments I've heard against gay marriage are essentially re-hashes of those old ones: "marriage is for 'us' -- and we don't want the concept contaminated by 'your version' of love".

That's what the said when it ruled that gay couples should have the right to marry as a matter of basic equality. Before you could say "Jonathan and Andrew request the honour of your presence," opponents were suggesting that civilization would crash and burn if two guys could register at Pottery Barn and raise kids in a ranch house.

I think it all comes down to this: many people don't like the idea of two men (or two women) shacking up... Marriage legitimizes these relationships and that idea scares people. The "protect marriage" argument is simply code for "these relationships aren't natural -- they gross me out -- I don't want them recognize" ...

I could be wrong -- but someone has to explain to me what -- exactly -- is being protected.

Capt Fogg put it best in his blog:

Regardless of the now apparently reduced sanctity of my own marriage [referring to the Calif ruling], I continued to wait for my dear wife to have her X-ray with undiminished dedication.

Sanctity, of course is indeed a subject that our Federal Constitution excludes from the business of government. Establishing religious rules or laws based on religious rules is specifically forbidden and not applying any laws in a discriminatory fashion, whether based on religious taboos or not, has long been established in the law. What does CNN mean to imply here: that we should get rid of that nasty secular Democracy thing so we can all be holy? What else can we infer?

Lets just move on... This should be a non-issue in a liberal, secular democracy (that is where we live right?)...

Stuff we already knew...

2008-05-28T09:48:00.001-07:00

Scott McClellan: Inside the Bush White House - History and politics - MSNBC.com

It was the decision to go to war in Iraq that pushed Bush’s presidency off course. It was a fateful misstep based on a confluence of events (the shock of 9/11 and our surprisingly — and deceptively — quick initial military success in Afghanistan), human nature (ambition, certitude, and self-deceit), and a divinely inspired passion (President Bush’s deeply held belief that all people have a God-given right to live in freedom). For Bush, removing the “grave and gathering danger” that Iraq supposedly posed was primarily a means for achieving the far more grandiose objective of reshaping the Middle East as a region of peaceful democracies.

History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided — that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.

Waging an unnecessary war is a grave mistake. But in reflecting on all that happened during the Bush administration, I’ve come to believe that an even more fundamental mistake was made — a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed.

But this time it's coming from a Bush insider: someone he brought with him to Washington from Texas.

He appears to paint the picture I've (and many others) have already seen: one of an incompetent yet self-confident leader who 'decides' on instinct.

But, McClellan said, Bush's unwillingness to admit mistakes and
belief in his own spin contributed to turning the president into "not
quite the leader I once imagined him to be." He faults Bush for a "lack
of inquisitiveness" and "a degree of self-deception that may be
psychologically necessary to justify the tactics needed to win the
political game."
Bush "convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment," McClellan writes.

Only 7-8 more months... But the damage will be with us for a generation.

Still in the closet...

2008-05-22T17:43:00.001-07:00

Organization Representing Military Personnel Urges Caution to Service Members Seeking Gay Marriage

While California and Massachusetts are the only two states where same-sex marriages are permitted, several other states and the District of Columbia provide other types of recognition for same-sex relationships, conferring legal rights and benefits similar to marriage. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," however, prohibits service personnel from entering into "marriage or attempted marriage," and service members who do so face dismissal under the law.

"Before my husband and I decided to marry in Massachusetts, I had to sit down and ask myself which is more important, love and marriage or my career in the U.S. Army," said retired Army Staff Sergeant Jeffrey Schmalz. "So I left the Army, and took with me my twenty-five years of experience, so that I could get married and start a family. It is a choice I never thought I would have to make and a choice that no American patriot should ever have to make."

Maybe justice is blind...

2008-05-22T10:13:00.003-07:00

The Associated Press: Federal court rules against military gays policy

The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal.

The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end of the ridiculous policy towards gay in the military...

Witt joined the Air Force in 1987 and switched from active duty to the reserves in 1995. She cared for injured patients on military flights and in operating rooms. She was promoted to major in 1999, and she deployed to Oman in 2003 in support of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
A citation from President Bush that year said, "Her airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions."
Her suspension and discharge came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues — one of whom, a sergeant, retired in protest.
"I am thrilled by the court's recognition that I can't be discharged without proving that I was harmful to morale," Witt said in a statement. "I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there."

The right to die...

2008-05-20T21:33:00.001-07:00

A New Fight to Legalize Euthanasia - TIME

Should we be allowed to determine when we die? Euthanasia may be an issue long debated in the U.S., but thus far voters in only one state, Oregon, have legalized the practice of physician-assisted suicide. But a popular former governor is determined to make Washington State the second this November.
...
More than 80% of American adults agree with Gardner, a new report shows. Another two-thirds support laws similar to Oregon's, which give people the "right to die" through physician-assisted suicide, according to the survey of 1,070 Americans released May 15 by ELDR Magazine, a publication aimed at senior citizens. More than 80% of respondents also said that, if terminally ill and in pain, they would want to be made unconscious even if it hastened death. "A painful or prolonged death is something everyone worries about," said Dave Bunnell, ELDR's editor.

Yet something else the religious right has wrong: a terminally ill person has the right to decide how and when to end his life. Its a personal decision -- and not something government has the right to prohibit. Restrict, maybe -- but not prohibit.

Bush's disapproval rating worst of any president in 70 years

2008-05-19T09:09:00.003-07:00

President Bush has set a record he'd presumably prefer to avoid: the highest disapproval rating of any president in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll.

In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, 28% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing; 69% disapprove. The approval rating matches the low point of his presidency, and the disapproval sets a new high for any president since Franklin Roosevelt.

It's still higher than I would have thought... More than 1-in-4 actually think he's doing "ok"?

Einstein's god

2008-05-16T16:18:00.001-07:00

Einstein's musings about religion sells for $400K - Yahoo! News

The letter was written to philosopher Eric Gutkind in January 1954, a year before Einstein's death. In it, the Einstein said that "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

More importantly it should put to rest the noises the religious people make about Einstein being Christian... I've had to "explain" on several occasions that his references to "god" were always couched in terms that imparted his wonder of the natural order -- and had nothing to do with the god of the bible.
Unfortunately, like most who "believe", my arguments didn't dent the armor of faith.

Vatican Hedges Bets, Says “Aliens Are Our Brothers”

2008-05-16T11:17:00.002-07:00

He compares the potential multiplicity of life forms in the universe to that here on Earth, and goes on to speculate that such alien life forms could even be “free from Original Sin … [remaining] in full friendship with their creator.”

Hollywood couldn't do better!I guess the Vatican is trying to stay ahead of science... and the eventual discovery of ET. It amazes me what religious folks can pull-out-of-their-asses... with no basis in reality what-so-ever.

read more | digg story

The old stories are the best...

2008-05-13T14:45:00.002-07:00

The Brick Testament -- For those that haven't seen this yet, the Brick Testament is a great introduction to some of the most interesting stories in the bible.

I've linked to one of my favorites... the story of the Levite and his concubine...

Give a read. You can find the complete biblical text here... just in case you think the lego version embellished.

One warning tho -- if your the type of person who doesn't want his/her kids reading Mark Twain you should think twice about letting them read some of these stories...
Maybe someone can explain the lesson here: its completely lost on me.

Why believe god exists?

2008-05-09T13:31:00.001-07:00

A quick excerpt from a civil debate on the existence of god -- between two learned men...

It does seem that we have come to an impasse. We agree that God’s existence cannot be proven or disproven, and that those who think it can are the dogmatic extremists on both sides. Maybe God steps into our space-time, maybe he doesn't. Who knows? An invisible God is indistinguishable from a nonexistent God. How can we tell the difference? One answer comes to mind from a bumper sticker I once saw: Militant Agnostic: I don’t know and you don't either.

So I have one final question for you: why believe in God at all? Why not just be an agnostic, in the original sense that Thomas Huxley meant when he coined the word in 1869: "one who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and so far as can be judged unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing." Here I am reminded of Sir Peter Medawar's description of science as the "art of the soluble." If science is the art of the soluble, then belief in God is the art of the insoluble. So why believe?

Give it a read...

Muslim madness - again...

2008-05-05T14:18:00.002-07:00

Sam Harris: Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks - Politics on The Huffington Post

Geert Wilders, conservative Dutch politician and provocateur, has become the latest projectile in the world's most important culture war: the zero-sum conflict between civil society and traditional Islam. Wilders, who lives under perpetual armed guard due to death threats, recently released a 15 minute film entitled Fitna ("strife" in Arabic) over the internet. The film has been deemed offensive because it juxtaposes images of Muslim violence with passages from the Qur'an. Given that the perpetrators of such violence regularly cite these same passages as justification for their actions, merely depicting this connection in a film would seem uncontroversial.

Of course, there were immediate calls for a boycott of Dutch products throughout the Muslim world.

There have also been isolated protests and attacks on embassies, and ubiquitous demands for Wilders' murder. In Afghanistan, women in burqas could be seen burning the Dutch flag; the Taliban carried out at least two revenge attacks on Dutch troops, resulting in five Dutch casualties; and security concerns have caused the Netherlands to close its embassy in Kabul.

Wilders, like Westergaard and the other Danish cartoonists, has been widely vilified for "seeking to inflame" the Muslim community. Even if this had been his intention, this criticism represents an almost supernatural coincidence of moral blindness and political imprudence. The point is not (and will never be) that some free person spoke, or wrote, or illustrated in such a manner as to inflame the Muslim community. The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way. The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.

And there's the problem: Muslim's can kill and maim in the name of their religion. There is no serious outrage coming from Muslim community. If their is, it is definitely drowned out by calls for jihad and blood. But when the west points out that Muslims indeed commit atrocities in the name of their religion, its as if none of it really happened...

The world has to grow a pair: call a spade a spade... Religiously motivated violence is at the core of the turmoil in the middle east... on both sides: Arab and Jew. This backwards religion from the dark ages is responsible for the brutal oppression of women, for prescription of clerical rule based on irrelevant and idiotic "law" and not least of all the glorification of martyrdom. The more people that speak out against this irrationality the better.

There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia."

Internal turmoil...

2008-04-27T08:31:00.001-07:00

How McCain Lost in Pennsylvania - New York Times

...in Pennsylvania, 27 percent of Republican primary voters didn't just tell pollsters they would defect from their party's standard-bearer; they went to the polls, gas prices be damned, to vote against Mr. McCain. Though ignored by every channel I surfed, there actually was a G.O.P. primary on Tuesday, open only to registered Republicans. And while it was superfluous in determining that party's nominee, 220,000 Pennsylvania Republicans (out of their total turnout of 807,000) were moved to cast ballots for Mike Huckabee or, more numerously, Ron Paul. That's more voters than the margin (215,000) that separated Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama.

For all the noise about democrats not supporting each other, the news has taken little notice of the republicans who aren't supporting McCain. Despite the noise from the press, I doubt dems will not support the ticket even if their candidate isn't on top... However, I don't think that's true of republicans: especially the "values voters"

Whoever gets the democratic nomination will win ... even if its Hillary (whom most conservatives hate - in a visceral sense)

Dogmatism - there is a good kind...

2008-04-22T13:06:00.001-07:00

I seem to get into a recurring argument with another blogger regarding my distain for religion -- and 'faith' in particular. It seems this person considers my advocation of reason and logical deduction to simply be another form of dogmatism.

Maybe it is...

But there's a simply fact that I think such people overlook: there are good beliefs (dogmas?), and bad ones. Good beliefs have a demonstrable connection to the world we live in... they attempt to explain and/or model reality in a useful fashion that - for all we can tell - appears to reflect external reality. From such deductions we can usually plan our interactions with the world in a logical way: i.e. - we can reason that walking off a cliff is not going to end well; we can use our insights into fluids, gravity, friction and energy to build an airplane. We can also use the process to deduce behaviors that will make us happy (e.g. - forming congenial bonds with one another is more likely to lead to 'happiness' than starting a feud).

Bad beliefs on the other hand aren't grounded in demonstrable reality. They may appear to serve a useful purpose - and that in itself isn't "bad" for society or the individual. For instance, believing in Santa Claus doesn't necessarily harm children. However, a life-long belief in Santa is considered to be abnormal behavior. Why? It isn't harmful right?

Such a belief is not supported by evidence and isn't "rational" given what we know about the universe we inhabit. Sustaining such a belief indicates that the belief holder really doesn't have a grasp on the mapping between what he observes (day-to-day) and what is fanciful (i.e. - imagined and maybe pleasant, but not supported by observation or logical deduction). What does that mean? It means he is failing to apply the experience and input from his life and formulate it in a consistent way. None of us are have perfectly consistent world views. But the hallmark of a rational/sane person is that he tries to reconcile the two - using (again) reason and evidence based logic. Those who don't do this are most often labeled "insane".

Anyway, if this Santa-believing-behavior exhibits itself not only in a 'self-delusional' way -- but informs the persons public interaction we quickly discount this person from positions of authority in our society: e.g. - Imagine electing someone to public office who thought Elvis is alive and well...

Hence we arrive at the crux of my problem with religion -- it not only propagates "bad" ideas, it does so in a way that informs public policy and enters our public debate. That's fine, but when you try to call people who have such ideas 'irrational' or simply 'stupid' you get your hand slapped. Somehow bad ideas that have been around for a long while under the banner of "faith" have become protected. Sam Harris put it better than I:

Now, it just so happens that religion has more than its fair share of bad ideas. And it remains the only system of thought, where the process of maintaining bad ideas in perpetual immunity from criticism is considered a sacred act. This is the act of faith. And I remain convinced that religious faith is one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised. So we will, inevitably, continue to criticize religious thinking.

This is the crux of my argument: religion has more than it share of bad ideas and we should openly criticize them -- esp when they are informing public policy.

Lets recount a few of these bad ideas:

1- Condom use is a sin - even in sub-Saharan Africa where HIV is rampant.
2- The Jews have a god-given right to a patch of land in the middle-east.
3- A ball of 150 or so undifferentiated cells in a petri dish is a Human being and its interests must be protected.
4- The Earth is about 6000 years old and god created all of the species that now inhabit it.
5- Slavery is ordained by god.
6- Drugs (certain ones) are evil and must be banned.

All these religiously motivated ideas impact each of us to a degree: some more than others. None of them are good ideas. None of them are supported by ANY evidence what-so-ever. Yet many many people in our society (and elsewhere) use these "facts" to inform their decisions -- including a LARGE percentage of our elected leaders.

In rebuttal some say that religion and faith can also be used to refute these very positions. That is true: when you start with arbitrary belief you can bend it to whatever purpose you desire. Besides that being the problem, there is a simpler way: a straightforward analysis (where you imagine a loved one or family member in the slaves shoes) yields the conclusion that slavery is bad. Of course, some proffer other irrational and unsubstantiated beliefs (like black people are not really people) to justify their position... but again, asking for evidence and reasons for a conclusion is always the answer to such arguments.

It boils down to demanding intellectual honesty from people. How can you argue with that?

Life without Sharia...

2008-04-18T14:23:00.001-07:00

The Associated Press: Basra's `dark ages' lifting as hard-line grip weakens

Basra's `dark ages' lifting as hard-line grip weakens By SAMEER N. YACOUB – 2 hours ago BAGHDAD (AP) — CD shops sell love songs again. Some women emerge from their homes without veils, and alcohol sellers are coming out of hiding in the southern city of Basra — where religious vigilantes have long enforced strict Islamic codes. The changes in recent weeks mark a surprising show of government sway — at least for now — after an Iraqi-led military crackdown that was plagued by desertions, ragged planning and ended in a virtual stalemate with Shiite militias in Iraq's second-largest city. But it's unclear whether the new tone in parts of Basra represents a permanent tilt toward the Iraqi government or just a temporary retreat of Shiite hard-liners challenging the current Baghdad leadership.

A good sign ... one that I hope will stick.

Like any group of thungs, the militia's make up only a very small percentage of the populace. But, of course, with weapons and training (from Iran) they can intimidate and oppress a much larger population.

Something will eventually have to be done about them... hopefully, not by us.

Warren Jeffs and the FLDS

2008-04-17T16:53:00.001-07:00

Some excerpts from Carolyn Jessop's FLDS memoir... Carolyn was born in a polygamist camp in Northern AZ... where she was married-off to a 50 year old when she was 18... and she was one of the lucky ones.

While obviously extreme, this is why people shouldn't foist ANY religion on children. Imagine indocrinating boys in elementry school on how to treat women (as done below) ...

clipped from www.slate.com

Jeffs, who is currently in prison for arranging the marriage of an underage girl, exercised extraordinary control over the community even while Uncle Rulon was still the nominal prophet, and eventually became the prophet himself, when Rulon died in 2003.

Page 195: Some of Carolyn's stepdaughters were married to Jeffs, and she feared his temper. She writes: "One day he brought one of his wives into the [school] auditorium, which was packed with boys. Annette had a long braid that fell past her knees. Warren grabbed the braid and twisted and twisted it until she was on her knees and he was ripping hair from her head. He told the boys that this was how obedient their wives had to be to them."

Pages 216, 223, 231, and 234: As Rulon's deputy, Jeffs banned the color red; movies, television, and the Internet ("except for business purposes"); clothing with "large prints" or plaid; immunizations; and sex not for procreation.

The worst of crimes...

2008-04-13T22:55:00.003-07:00

Not only did they protect pedophiles, the church threatened anyone who exposed the secret with excommunications. Remembering these are believers, it means you have an organization threatening HELL to those who try to PROTECT children.

Can you even imagine a more evil organization?

Religion IS evil...

clipped from www.cbsnews.com

(CBS) For decades, priests in this country abused children in parish after parish while their superiors covered it all up. Now it turns out the orders for this cover up were written in Rome at the highest levels of the Vatican.

The document, once "stored in the secret archives" of the Vatican, focuses on crimes initiated as part of the confessional relationship and what it calls the "worst crime": sexual assault committed by a priest" or "attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals."

Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases "in the most secretive way...restrained by a perpetual silence...and everyone {including the alleged victim) ...is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office...under the penalty of excommunication."

The Waste on drugs

2008-04-09T11:01:00.001-07:00

The federal war on drugs has been a disaster from so many perspectives it boggles the mind.

Can you think of a better way to spend $500 BILLION? Not to mention filling our jails (more than 70% of people in jail are there on drug related offenses - most of them minor)...

Give the whole article a read... it's well worth it.

clipped from www.rollingstone.com

All told, the United States has spent an estimated $500 billion
to fight drugs - with very little to show for it. Cocaine is now as
cheap as it was when Escobar died and more heavily used.
Methamphetamine, barely a presence in 1993, is now used by 1.5
million Americans and may be more addictive than crack. We have
nearly 500,000 people behind bars for drug crimes - a twelvefold
increase since 1980 - with no discernible effect on the drug
traffic. Virtually the only success the government can claim is the
decline in the number of Americans who smoke marijuana - and even
on that count, it is not clear that federal prevention programs are
responsible.