They're back, baby!

That's right! Just, like Hanukkah Zombie, the great cartoon Futurama has returned from the grave.

Out this week is Bender's Big Score. The movie will later this year be broken out into 4 episodes on Cartoon Network.

It is a fun adventure, taking fans across the Futurama universe and propelling the crew of Planet Express further into the lunacy. From Nixon's head to Kwanzabot, everyone's back.

Plus the DVD has a video commentary on the YouTube commercial the crew behind Futurama made for Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, with Matt Groening, David X. Cohen, and Al Gore. Also a full episode of the award winning Hypnotoad. And a great and fun Math lecture on the math of the series, given to the crew of the series. And did I mention another great commentary for this show.

The first of four new movies. We can only hope this will be followed by more movies, or perhaps more seasons.

Homeopathy, ha!

Dr. Novella has a look at homeopathy. He took part on a panel discussion, and wrote a report at the end of October. Also he has come back to argue and explain the issue further.





My Day with the Homeopaths - Part I

Yesterday I took part in a panel discussion titled, A Debate: Homeopathy - Quackery Or A Key To The Future of Medicine? hosted by the University of Connecticut Medical Center. You might think that the title is a bit of a false dichotomy, but in this case it is accurate, for the two sides of this debate occupied far ends of the belief spectrum with a wide gulf between us. Although I did not hear anything new from the homeopathy side, it was a very useful experience to hear both how they are formulating their claims and rationalizations these days, and the response and questions from the audience (which, by show of hands, was comprised at least half by practicing homeopaths).

...

My Day with the Homeopaths - Part II

As I discussed on Friday, last week I was part of a panel discussion on homeopathy hosted by UCONN. It was an interesting experience, as I knew it would be. In part I of my report from the conference I talked about the plausibility arguments against homeopathy and Dr. Rustom Roy’s unconvincing response. Today I will complete my report, discussing the clinical evidence.

...

Homeopathy, Anecdotal Evidence, and Plausibility

Reader “Pragmatic” left the following comment on my recent homeopathy entry and I wanted to respond to it because it is very typical of what I hear from homeopaths to defend their “craft”. A decent response would be long enough for a blog entry in itself, so that’s what I did.

...

Sloppy Thinking about Homeopathy from The Guardian

Jeanette Winterson recently wrote a piece for The Guardian titled In Defense of Homeopathy. It’s always fascinating to read or hear people defending nonsense - in doing so they have no choice but to use bad evidence and bad logic. Homeopathy has no scientific plausibility and the clinical evidence shows that homeopathy does not work for any specific indication. So homeopathy’s defenders have a real task on their hands - thankfully they are armed with numerous logical fallacies and every manner of sloppy thinking, so they are up to the task.

...

Condi? Have you met Sir Humphrey Appleby?

The new story about Secretary Rice is funny, except it is a bit disturbing.

AMERICAblog:

Okay, I'll admit it. I often get my news from reading the crawl on the t.v. while I'm working out. But, I'm not the Secretary of State during major international crises, including a war I helped start. But, in fact, your Secretary of State also gets news about major world developments from the t.v. while she's working out. And, bad news does not interfere with her exercise regimen.

Just in case anyone still wonders why U.S. foreign policy is such a disaster, this passage in Maureen Dowd's column is illustrative:

In 2006, when Israel invaded Lebanon and many civilians died, including children, Condi and W. drew Arab and U.N. ire for not forcing Ehud Olmert to broker a cease-fire faster.

That same year, in another instance of spectacular willful ignorance, she was blindsided by the Hamas win in the Palestinian elections.

As she described it to Bumiller, she went upstairs at 5 a.m. the morning after the Palestinian elections in 2006 to the gym in her Watergate apartment to exercise on her elliptical machine. She saw the news crawl reporting the Hamas victory.

“I thought, ‘Well, that’s not right,’ ” she said. She kept exercising for awhile but finally got off the elliptical trainer and called the State Department. “I said, ‘What happened in the Palestinian elections?’ and they said, ‘Oh, Hamas won.’ And I thought, ‘Oh, my goodness! Hamas won?’ ”

When she couldn’t reach the State Department official on the ground in the Palestinian territories, she did what any loyal Bushie would do: She got back on the elliptical.

“I thought, might as well finish exercising,” Rice told Bumiller. “It’s going to be a really long day.” It was one of the few times she was prescient on the Middle East.

Wow.

This is like something out of comedy. It is almost exactly like the old brilliant and classic British comedy series, Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister. It poked fun at incompetent, corrupt, and uncertain politicians and the entrenched and self-serving Civil Service. Quite fun.

In one episode we saw this very idea played out, but they were making an exaggerated joke!

In it, a major crisis is breaking out somewhere in the world, the main character, Jim Hacker, tries to find and talk with the Foreign Minister (the equivalent of Secretary of State) to find out what is really happening. But is shocked to learn he is clueless as his TV is broken and he can't watch the news to learn what is happening. Shocked, Hacker asks to be informed if he learns something, and the FM counters and ask that Hacker tell him as he has a TV tuned to the news.

It's supposed to be a punchline!

How come this administration is working so hard to live up to so many old punchlines? If they ever try to make a serious movie about this administration, it will be impossible. It will be the Wizard of Oz of political pictures (see Imperial Life in the Emerald City). Historically, it will be hard to believe it is real...but it is and we have to survive it.

INTERACTIVE polling

For those of us who like looking at polls, surveys, and just watching electoral horse races, I think it is of value to look at a recent story on Daily Kos.

Zogby "interactive" polls are junk

What we are looking at are online and open polls. These are the opposite of sound research and surveying. It is like looking at an open poll on your favorite website or blog, or done on CNN's site and taking them as saying ANYTHING of value.

How a poll that is essentially a web poll can be considered credible is beyond me. But you don't have to take my word for it. Look at how poorly the Zogby interactive poll performed in 2006.

What is annoying is this.

Seriously, Zogby polls suck. Yet according to Google News right now, the "Hillary loses against all Republicans in the general" poll has been cited by over 200 media, while the far more respectable Gallup effort which shows that Hillary in fact beats them all has been far less reported.

...

The media has its agenda, which right now is the "Hillary is fading" narrative. The hard core supporters of the other Democratic primary candidates have their agenda -- to raise bullshit "electability" arguments against Hillary.

It is a sad thing, but that is the lazy media for you. The falling front runner is a GREAT story, and it seems to literally writes itself. And those that want Clinton out will keep bringing it up.



So the lesson. When you see a survey, consider taking time to look at how sound it is, or at least see if it has been considered by someone and critiqued. It is too easy to just go with the flow and harp on whatever poll promotes the line you want.

Tools for science teachers...good tools for teachers.

PZ Myer points to new tools to "provide direct linkage between the worlds of scientific research and the K-16 classroom".

He points to the inaugural issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach. It's something for teachers to read, other than the garbage the cdesign proponentsists put out.

Cheery story, cheery TV

From Feministing:

A woman in Spain, Svetlana Orlova, was killed by her by her ex-boyfriend after she rejected his marriage proposal on a television talk show.

...

He says the problems in their relationship were over money. She pointed out there was a bit more...like the abuse.

Days later, Navarro stabbed her to death. The television show is denying any responsibility for her death (shocking), though some are calling for the show to be canceled. How about this...how about they just not potentially put women in danger by enabling abusers to get access to them? Seems simple, no? But that wouldn't be good television, I guess.

This also might be something to think about if you watch those "Who's the daddy" shows, or other titillating shows put out.


How often are producers throwing lit matches at open powder kegs?

And how often are people sitting back and watching, for their own amusement?

Romney mess

TPMtv looks at the Mitt Romney mess. They do their classic job of organizing the facts and getting facts out in front and away from the mess.




And to make the point that the question of Muslims in the is a serious and looming question Talking Points Memo looks at the ranking Muslim in the current administration.

Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan-American and Muslim, has been a senior member of
President Bush's foreign policy team from the start. He has been successively, US Ambassador to Afghanistan (2003-05), US Ambassador to Iraq (2005-07) and now
US Ambassador to the United Nations (2007-).

He's often discussed as a potential Secretary of State should a Republican win the presidency in 2008.

...

So it is not SO hypothetical, it is a question of what biases will be taken into the next administration.

And there is that sweet sight of hypocrisy...though I have noticed that conservatives are often blind to that in their leaders.

To the Egg Mobile!

Feministing points to a funny little comic panel mocking the proposed Colorado law to give human eggs constitutional rights.


You'll never hurt another Microscopic-American ever again!

The stem of stem cell research

The eminent PZ Myer takes us through the new breakthroughs in stem cell research, and the complexities involved.

Stem cell breakthrough


What does it take to turn a stem cell into a cure?

Myths on Autism

I will admit that I have oblivious to the fervor over vaccination and autism. That is until, I heard Robert Kennedy crying over the issue. It was later I heard about the actual science, and reality.

Dr. Novella on Neurologica goes in to it.

The Battle Continues Over Vaccines and Autism

I and some other medical science bloggers have spent much time addressing the claims of antivaccinationists and those who attempt to link vaccines and autism. This is because they are engaged in nothing less than an all out campaign to eliminate vaccines. They seem to be driven by ideology and fear, their tools are misinformation, lies, and logical fallacies, and they have been tireless in waging war against vaccines. On their side are dubious and discredited scientists, misguided celebrities, naive or scaremongering politicians, and families who range from sincere but misinformed to ideological true believers. This antivaccination movement overlaps considerably with those who are anti-science or anti-scientific medicine (promoting instead some form of “alternative” medicine). They also enjoy much support from anti-government conspiracy theorists.

...

And also another attempted link.

Wireless Technology and Autism

A recent press release reporting on an alleged association between the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from wireless devices and autism has sparked a round of credulous news reporting, mainly in computer and technology magazines and websites.

...

If your in Minneapolis on Friday...

PZ Myer is noting that this Friday night is chance to listen to the classic tripe (Darwin = Hitler, etc.)

Remember, the crappy talk by John West blaming Darwin for Hitler is at 7 on 30 November at the UM campus — come prepared to be critical. The fun part is that we're meeting between 5:30 and 6:45 in the Campus Club, on the fourth floor of the Coffman Union. Then some really good news: Mark Borrello, UM's expert in the history of science, is going to speak briefly after West's drivel. West isn't going to get away with anything, at least on Friday.

At least he stopped by for the free pens...

Crooks and Liars has the video from Olbermann's show on how the president got really involved with the Middle East Peace Summit. He came over, gave a quick flubbed speech, flubbed a photo op, and then headed for the door...I guess there was a game on.

And here I thought this was all about creating some sort of positive legacy for himself. Man can't even be bothered to do that for himself.

Now, really! Twice? Twice, so many people thought, "Yeah, he'd make an okay prez." Really?

The article notes he made a cameo at the conference. Not surprising. He's making cameos his whole presidency. He's the cameo president, just guest starring his way through.

Mitt, you gave us irony, you gave us hypocrisy...

Mitt "Don't Pick on us Mormons" Romney seems to be uncomfortable with the idea of Muslims in his cabinet...and government.

While he has tried to deny the statements on his part, Talking Points Memo's Election Central has dug up corroboration that he did and has been hostile to the idea of Islam in his House.

Olbermann hit on this issue in his Worst Person selection tonight. The video is on One Good Move. So he feels that the fact there are so few Muslims in the US is a reason to not bring them in, as opposed to the small number of Mormons? Should we even bring up the fact Atheists make up a far larger group then either the two...does that make them more eligible now? Didn't think so.

But the best comes in his newer statement that he would think they, Muslims, could have a place...in the lower levels of the administration.

Glad that doesn't sound condescending.

Muhammad the Bear is apparently a double for the Prophet

Apparenently in the Sudan they have little tolerance for toy's names, or more aptly too much time on their hands.

From the BBC:

A British schoolteacher has been arrested in Sudan accused of insulting Islam's Prophet, after she allowed her pupils to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

...

Ms Gibbons, who joined the school in August, asked a seven-year-old girl to bring in her teddy bear and asked the class to pick names for it, he said.

"They came up with eight names including Abdullah, Hassan and Muhammad," Mr Boulos said, adding that she then had the children vote on a name.

Twenty out of the 23 children chose Muhammad as their favourite name.

Mr Boulos said each child was then allowed to take the bear home at weekends and told to write a diary about what they did with it.

He said the children's entries were collected in a book with a picture of the bear on the cover and a message which read, "My name is Muhammad."

...

charges were being prepared "under article 125 of the criminal law" which covers insults against faith and religion.

...

So naming a teddy bear the same name a family could name their child is an insult to Islam? To have a book about said toy with said toy's name is an insult to Islam?

I would again stress that with all of Sudan's problems, is this for the best, but I think this type of law and attitude most likely plays into many Sudanese issues.

DI and it's long way.

PZ Myer has an interesting look at the recent acquiistion of conservative film critic Michael Medved by Team Discovery Institute.

...it's an interesting indicator of the Discovery Institute's future direction. Science is a dead-end for them, but appealing to the worst aspects of right-wing culture is a growth industry. It also lines up well with the direction taken in the Expelled movie: no honest content, but much rabid huffing and puffing. I will be looking forward to Medved's review of that movie, although I suspect I could write it right now. With my eyes closed. In crayon. While drunk.

Foisting ones religion on those in need. -- It's not just for pharmacist anymore.

Feministing takes note of a Catholic family physician who refuses to believe in contraception.

So glad to see those years in medical school were not in vain. So glad that denial of basic medical services is spreading. I'm sure it's for the best...

(on camera): Is it right, do you think, to deny a woman who has been raped emergency contraception, when time is so limited to actually treat that?
ROSS: You Know, our goal is to provide excellent medical care for all of the patients that we encounter.
KAYE: But does that sit OK with you?
ROSS: That sits OK with me.

So nice. There for rape victims...with moral support. Apparently he went to a school where the M in M.D. is for that twisted morality of fundamentalism.

This is getting silly...no, it is just sick.

What does it really say about societal attitudes when a business is more willing to shell out money for a sick pet then for a sick partner?

What does that say?

Palm Beach Community College is not a major college, or a major business. But it just says something...vote up for pets and vote down partner benefits.

Biblical Logic

PZ Meyer shows up some of that classic bible reasoning.

According to God's Word, thorns came after Adam's sin,
about six thousand years ago, not millions of years ago.
Since we have discovered thorns in the fossil record,
along with dinosaurs and other plants and animals,
they all must have lived at the same time as humans,
after Adam's sin.

That about says it all doesn't it? Nothing more to say.

Expelled, still no intelligence allowed

The approach of Ben Stein's Expelled continues. And as it does get closer, it is easier to see, for being empty, silly, and...biblical. Really. I have to thank Stein for his work. The DI try hard to claim they are a serious organization (then hire a conservative movie critic as an expert) and secular one. Then Stein comes around and makes the point, it is about old Beardy Face.



PZ Myer looks at it and how silly a man Stein has become. And we are talking about a man who's beeen both a supporter of Nixon AND a game show host.

Things to be skeptical about...

Here is a good video of Michael Shermer debunking the ridiculousness that is James Van Praagh. If you don't know of him, or are blocking the memory, he's the psychic that is the basis of the TV show Ghost Whisperer...riddle that out.





Also the Aussie series Chaser's War on Everything, while going after and mocking politicians and pop culture, also like to go after con artists like John Edwards.

Here is a link on BadPsychics.

2nd Annual Carl Sagan blog-a-thon is coming next month

The 2nd Sagan blog-a-thon is coming on December 20th.



Start thinking about what you are gonna blog about.

Almost Turkey Day, so let TPM give you an outlet for the bad taste.

Talking Points Memo, heading into Thanksgiving, is readying for the Holiday Muck-O-Rama. Who are the worst criminals of the year?





And they also remind us of all the muck Giuliani has on him, since 9/11.

Doctor Who and The Children in Need

In England now they are doing the annual Children in Need fundraising. For this event they get comedians and other creative sorts to do acts and put things together to get people to watch and also donate. One of the big things in the last few years has been the Doctor Who offerings. They have been 5 to 10 minute segments that bridge the end of the previous season and the upcoming Christmas Specials. This year, Voyage of the Damned is what the Brits will be enjoying on Christmas Day from the good Doctor.

For those who aren't in England, or receiving the BBC signal, here is the special from last week. It involves the brief return of Peter Davison, in fine form. Enjoy.

Skeptic's Circle #73

A little late, but tis the season of the Skeptic's Circle.

Holford Watch is currently hosting the 73rd Skeptic's Circle.


Archived Skeptic's Circles here.

Obama and Clinton

The tit for tat going on right now is really not impressing me. It smacks of grabbing at straw hoping for a pitchfork. Right now their is still some hey to make of stories...sorry, a story, that Clinton has "explosive information" on Obama. The Obama campaign is stomping mad, but it has become clear that this story, from Bob "the model journalist" Novak, that it is a single source, and now that that source got the info second hand. But if it gets votes...

But it isn't surprising. Obama's campaign is trying to make use of parts of the Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta book on Hillary Clinton. It makes claims that the Clintons have secretly plotted to both be president. The source is an unpopular one among democrats, and the story smacks of conspiracy theories.

This stuff does not seem like the basis for a sound presidential run. It would be better to get back to a message about what of substance Barrack can bring to the executive branch. The two have serious political disagreements, that is where the focus is needed.

Giuliani in review

Talking Points Memo has a number of thoughts on America's Mayor.

Rudy and Bernie, the Biz Years

Through most of the 90's these guys were joined at the hip. Rudy was bolstering him and ignoring warnings. He even pushed to get him to even higher heights. But there's even more that is so far being ignored in the media.

Remember, after they left city government, these heroes of 9/11 guys went
into business together. And things were going gangbusters for three long years
-- 2002, 2003 and all but a couple weeks of 2004. That's when the real money
started flowing. And it's when these two were working together possibly closer
than they ever had. International clients, lots of government contracting work.

And still the media wants to not look at these bossom buddies. We even have sex scandal aspect. Where is the media?


Giuliani style evokes concern among US critics

Rudy, people who get to know him, find him scarey.


Rudy Ready to Admit to 9/11 Heroism?

Ah, Giulianni. He just loathes to bring up 9/11...and what a hero he was on that day. What a guy.

Is Rudy trying to pull a Dole on 9/11?

For the younger among you, in pretty much every campaign he ran, former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) ran heavily on his heroism and grievous wounds suffered during the Italy campaign in World War II. And there was nothing to be ashamed of in his doing so. The 21 year old Dole had his body shattered by German machine gun fire in northern Italy just before the end of the war. He spent something like a year in Army hospitals recovering. And remained permanently disabled -- most visibly in his paralyzed and withered right arm.

The thing is that in pretty every campaign when he discussed this part of his life it was presented as the first time he'd chosen to discuss it. In other words, as though he'd never been ready or willing to discuss it until this campaign, whichever campaign it was. And the press would fall for it each time.

Now comes word of the latest from Camp Rudy. It seems like that while Rudy's supporters have been pushing his 9/11 heroism, Rudy himself has been unwilling to focus on it. This from the (Rudy-affiliated) New York Post in today's story about the 9/11 flyers Rudy is sending out in Iowa and New Hampshire ...

Rudy Giuliani is trumpeting his leadership in the wake of 9/11 in campaign mailings to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.

In one piece, Giuliani is hailed as "America's Mayor" who displayed
"Strength through Leadership."

While Giuliani's supporters have long boasted about his performance after the attacks, he himself had not, until now, mentioned it as prominently.

"After the worst attacks on US soil, Rudy Giuliani went to work rebuilding New York City and faith in America," reads the mailing, which features a photo of the former mayor set over the city skyline.

So it seems like Rudy has finally overcome his issues and resistance to discussing his 9/11 heroism.

I'm sorry, no choice but to review Rudy's 9/11ism ...

The Dream Called Fred

TPMtv has a run down on that Republican dream, Fred Thompson, and what has actually come to be.

Michael Shermer on Good and Evil

Here is an interview with Michael Shermer on his book looking at where the human sense of Good and Evil originates, and how we approach morality.

The Immigration Game

Crooks and Liars:

John Amato and I have had a lot of conversations about illegal immigration
lately. Unlike Rahm Emanuel, who–most frighteningly–thinks Dems must move to the right of Republicans on this issue, I really think it’s a third rail for
progressives, because they get sucked into playing defense on what boils down to
a lot of reactionary Republican Fear of Brown People. The cold hard truth
is that it’s an issue now because the Republicans need a wedge issue. David Sirota:

As our paychecks stagnate, our personal debt climbs and our health care premiums skyrocket, We the People are ticked off. Unfortunately for those in Congress, polls show that America is specifically angry at the big business interests that write big campaign checks.

So now comes the con - the dishonest argument over illegal immigration trying to divert our ire away from the corporate profiteers, outsourcers, wage cutters and foreclosers that buy influence - and protection - in Washington.

Republicans like Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) are demanding the government cut off public services for undocumented workers, build a barrier at the Mexican border and force employers to verify employees’ immigration status. Democrats like Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) are urging their allies to either embrace a punitive message aimed at illegal immigrants, or avoid the immigration issue altogether. And nobody asks the taboo question: What is illegal immigration actually about?

The answer is exploitation. Employers looking to maximize profits want an economically desperate, politically disenfranchised population that will accept ever worse pay and working conditions. Illegal immigrants perfectly fit the bill.

Politicians know exploitation fuels illegal immigration. But they refuse to confront it because doing so would mean challenging their financiers.

Instead we get lawmakers chest-thumping about immigration enforcement while avoiding a discussion about strengthening wage and workplace safety enforcement — proposals that address the real problem.

Case in point: Watch Rachel Maddow try to inject any semblance of sense of how to handle immigration into a discussion on Hardball from last week. At the word “comprehensive”, Tweety shuts her down, because obviously, she’s not serious…because apparently only Very. Serious. People. discuss immigration in what you have to assume is a cherry-picking manner. Pat Buchanan (and why would you pick Mr. Xenophobe Isolationist to try to debate the issue?) just yells over anything Rachel says.

And this is a problem I see when ever people talk about immigration in the media. It is either a shouting match or a chant of "Get them out!" People like Matthews don't want to debate or get into the uncomfortable complexities that are a part of the reality. If MSNBC does have an opening coming soon, they really need to try and woo Rachel Maddow over to do that show. We need some good thinkers and people willing to really debate. Someone who might deal with the realitites

Maybe reality doesn't make good TV, just look at Reality Shows.

The cost of looking too close at your faith

Reuters is looking at a story of the wear and tear that comes from spending too much time looking at and writing about religion. In the past few months 2 religion journalist have walked away from writing on the subject - and more.

Covering religion may be harmful to your faith. Two leading religion
journalists — one in Britain, one in the United States — have quit the beat in
recent months, saying they had acquired such a close look at such scandalous
behaviour by Christians that they lost their faith and had to leave.

Looking at NOVA's Judgment Day

Unsurprisingly, fundamentalist are up in arms over NOVA's recent episode.

PBS's ombudsman is looking and showing some of the reactions.

The Discovery Institute is trying to convince teachers that teaching evolution is going to lead them to court. Yeah, Jesse James, Billy the Kid, and John Scopes, the outlaw set. PZ Meyer gives commentary.

There are also a whole host of other complainers, looked at by Happy Jihad's House of Pancakes. Commentary given cutting through the bull.

From Feministing

Some stories to remind you that attitudes towards women haven't shifted so much, and there is a lot of crap out there. From Feministing.

Because assaulting "chubbies" makes for a great commercial

This is a real piece of work, a gym that won't let you in and makes commercials to mock and humiliate you. And I mean women, this ad ain't about fat guys, just women.

Tucker Carlson sounds an awful lot like anti-suffragists

After Smeal remarked that we should be embarrassed that the U.S. is so far behind in terms of representation of women in politics, Carlson replied, "I'm actually not embarrassed by it at all." He continued, and here's the doozy, "I don't know why that's embarrassing. You could make the counter case that most women are so sensible, they don't want to get involved in something as stupid as politics. ...They've got real things to do." You know, like cook his dinner.

What's hilarious is that this sentiment is actually very similar to the anti-suffragist arguments from back in the day: that women shouldn't want to get involved in politics--they're too good for it! There's the famous quote, for example, from Rep. Thomas Girling who said that "women shouldn't be dragged into the dirty pool of politics."

Of course, we can look to Ann Coulters comments that women should be denied voting rights as they tend to vote "wrong". Way to make sure your daughter will be proud of you Ann.

Why do I find it so hard to respect these people?

Sexual autonomy ruins relationships

Forget working out whatever issues are making you not want to have sex in the first place. Better that you just shut up and put out as to not piss off your hubby. After all, what's more romantic than thinking of sex as a duty? So hot....

The downside of 'vajayjay'

Hardy har har. Feminists don't like men--there's a new one. But I do love that Smerconish takes such offense to the idea that women would think they had a "proprietary interest" in their own vaginas. The nerve!

What defense of rape will they come up with next?

According to this defense lawyer, it may not be rape, because she was SLEEPWALKING! How do these people sleep at night?

Women having sex = "mental health crisis"

So long as there are people who want to think about what dirty, dirty whores today's girls are, we're going to continue to see misleading, stupid articles like this one, penned by Townhall columnist Kathleen Parker.

The Military: A feminist's dream vacation

Amidst the sexual harassment, the rape, the murder, and the the homelessness, feminism, out of all things, has resulted in the demoralization of the military.

According to this gem, sexual harassment charges are used as a "tool of some women to promote their own agendas," women are also apparently getting pregnant left and right (if that were true, that'd change if they had access to EC) so they can become reckless single mothers, or because their primary purpose of joining the military and potentially risking their lives in Iraq is to find a hubby. That one is my favorite.

More on the writers strike.

Here is a story from Ron Moore, of the new Battlestar Galactica fame (and Trek).

“I had a situation last year on Battlestar Galactica where we were asked by Universal to do webisodes [Note: Moore is referring to The Resistance webisodes which ran before Season 3 premiered], which at that point were very new and ‘Oooh, webisodes! What does that mean?’ It was all very new stuff. And it was very eye opening, because the studio’s position was ‘Oh, we’re not going to pay anybody to do this. You have to do this, because you work on the show. And we’re not going to pay you to write it. We’re not going to pay the director, and we’re not going to pay the actors.’ At which point we said ‘No thanks, we won’t do it.’”

“We got in this long, protracted thing and eventually they agreed to pay everybody involved. But then, as we got deeper into it, they said ‘But we’re not going to put any credits on it. You’re not going to be credited for this work. And we can use it later, in any fashion that we want.’ At which point I said ‘Well, then we’re done and I’m not going to deliver the webisodes to you.’ And they came and they took them out of the editing room anyway — which they have every right to do. They own the material — But it was that experience that really showed me that that’s what this is all about. If there’s not an agreement with the studios about the internet, that specifically says ‘This is covered material, you have to pay us a formula - whatever that formula turns out to be - for use of the material and how it’s all done,’ the studios will simply rape and pillage.”

And from Atrios:

On my CNBC teevee screen:

WHAT ARE THEY FIGHTING FOR?

4,434 Hollywood guild writers worked full-time last year.

Average salary: $204,000

Many earned $1 million or more

Certainly $204,000 isn't chump change (no idea how close it is to the median which is more informative), but it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether the studios should be able to take their work and put it on the internet for free.

But more to the point, the majority of guild members don't work full time.

Thanks for backing management CNBC. Big surprise.

What's more that is just a bit of mathematical cheating. $204,000 salary? Some make more that a million? Hmm. So...those famous people that write scripts, or have deals to sell scripts...how much do they generally make? Wanna bet it is in the millions...Many make more than a million. Many is the key word there, as is the term average. What is the median salary? Let us take out the outliers. What would we be looking at then? What do the majority make?

Granted "many" writers do make off quite well in their business. Does it make it okay to cheat them of some of their rightfully earned cash?

That is the trouble. The execs want the money, and don't want to share. They will make billions off the online property. But they don't want to share the returns with the people who make that possible. That is the real problem. They got offers to deal and negotiate. The writers took getting more for DVD's and focused on the online aspect. No deal. It seems that the writers are expected to just capitulate and genuflect for their bosses.

The online market is messy enough for creative arts. This is a stand for the future. Who controls media and creations? Artists and creators have been screwed over for years and years, from medium to medium, this is a noble fight.

And I hope an understanding is come to soon.

JUDGMENT DAY NEXT 5 EXITS

For those that missed or wish to see again NOVA's Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. It is now online fior viewing at PBS's website. HERE.

I would definitely suggests you give it a viewing, if you have not yet. It is informative, interesting, and gives you a real feel for what happen in the case and what was at stake.

One Good Move has a couple of clips for review.

cdesign proponentsists indeed.

On the debate

Talking Points Memo points to some issues I had with last nights debate.

The aim behind most of Blitzer's questions was to "put Democrats on the wrong side of public opinion, even if those questions are about things like driver's licenses or "merit pay" for teachers that aren't really under federal purview. Efforts to reframe those questions by putting those topics in the larger context of immigration policy more generally or education more generally are derided as cowardly dodges. The point, after all, is to force a choice -- piss off an interest group, or say something that could be used in a GOP attack ad." My only addition to this point is that I thought Obama should have put Blitzer and his militant simpletonism in its place. Just tell him to shut up. He was terrible. But a presidential candidate should be able to stand down a moderator.

And of course there was that dumb question at the end (I found Clinton's answer funny, but still...).

Probably like a lot of people I was stunned at the amazingly lame and I'd say fairly offensive diamonds or pearls question that closed out last night's debate. I'd assumed they'd just given the last question to a complete dingbat. Seems CNN got the girl to ask that one rather than a question about Yucca Mountain.

Just to be clear, I'm not above a few cutesy or fun questions. But it's a friggin' presidential debate. And don't ask the first competitive female candidate for president her jewelry preferences.

Let's give AMERICAblog the last word on Blitzer.

Holy cow, this is actually interesting. Hillary and Obama getting into it on health care. My God, it's an actual debate. Oh, never mind - Wolf Blitzer just killed the discussion, the first time we've had a real debate in the debates. Sigh.

Hello, hello

Sorry, for being off so long...anybody? Oh...

Anyway, I have been deep in grad work so I have had too good an argument to not blog. "Blog? Have you finished that paper? Have you read that book?"

To make matters worse, when I want to it seems their is too much to say and the stream of thought I have is both long and shallow. Too much info. Pakistan, EXPELLED, PBS Dover trial doc, Halloween tomfoolery, writer's strike, and comic book stupidity.

Still, it seems a waste to not try harder and squeeze some thoughts out, so I hope I will be...doing so...now. Proper sentence.


I know people have been jonzing with the Daily Show and others off, sure Hardball and the Situation Room are subtle and cunning commentaries on the decline of modern journalism and politics...but sometimes we need a good pie in the face.

One Good Move is linking to bits that the writers out of the line are doing to bring forth their arguments. Good stuff from Daily Show (or Not the Daily Show, check out the fun cameo) and Colbert Report writers, under the United Hollywood banner.

Check it out.

Congress takes a stand

TPM.com:

The Senate voted overwhelmingly to condemn the MoveOn ad that appeared in the NYT last week. Final tally was 72-25. Hillary Clinton was among those voting against the resolution.

So after all the garbage that has come from so many quarters Bill O'Reilly has called for the destruction of various parts of the US, as have various TV preachers. No condemnation. The Republicans tie various more liberal vets to terrorist and dictators. Nope. The White House says being liberal is to support terrorist...Nah.

And Democrats, so many just jumped in line. Many just spooked by the Republicans. Where are their spines?


MoveOn went with not the greatest line, though memorable. And they apparently have to pay. I can only hope they wear this vote as a badge of honor.

Ahmadinejad takes Manhattan

With the Iranian leader coming to New York, the idea of him visiting and laying wreath at the WTC site is stirring a lot of anger and angst.

Crooks and Liars:

This week Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was denied a visit to Ground Zero. Ahmadinejad asked that he be allowed to lay a wreath at the site while he visits New York next week. Today ABC News reports that Ahmadinejad may go anyway, permission or no permission, and has even announced when. I can see all kinds of ways this would turn out badly, and I hope someone talks some sense into Ahmadinejad before then.

But Ahmadinejad is not the only one who needs to chill. The ever irresponsible Michelle Malkin is fanning the flames and trying to organize a “welcoming party.” And if she incites enough rage and recklessness to get someone killed, she will be equally outraged if anyone says it is her fault.

No sooner had word gotten out last week that New York City was considering the request than politicians of both parties went into spasms of outrage. There was such a piling on of outrage you’d have thought Ahmadinejad had proposed offering a human sacrifice or, worse, memorializing Muhammad Atta. As BooMan says, the piling on turned into a game of one-upmanship, with pols bragging that they were not only outraged, they were more outraged than their political opponents. (See also the Anonymous Liberal.)

...

TPM.com:

Am I the only one embarrassed by the dingbat brouhaha over Iranian President Ahmadinejad's attempt to visit Ground Zero to lay a wreath? Given relations between our countries I could see denying him a visa, but as long as we're hosting the UN that's not an option. Ahmadinejad now says he's "amazed" that such a visit would be insulting to Americans. Sen. McCain said that Ahmadinejad should be "physically restrained if necessary" from visiting the site. The National Review's Kathryn Lopez got worked up in such a lather that she begged Rudy Giuliani to "lead a human blockade keeping Ahmadinejad from getting to Ground Zero" -- thus demonstrating once and for all Rudy's true calling as the surrogate id of right-wing nerds everywhere.

So what's the problem exactly? Presumably we can be frank enough to acknowledge that the real issue here is that while Ahmadinejad is not Arab to most of us he looks pretty Arab. And he is Muslim certainly -- and pretty up in arms about it at that. And we officially don't like him. And we classify the country he runs as a state sponsor of terrorism. So even though he has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, when you put all these key facts together, he might as well have done it himself. And what business does anyone with the blood of the victims of 9/11 on his hands have going to Ground Zero?

That's basically it and don't tell me it's not.

Alternatively I guess it's that he's a very mean guy, said bad things about Israel or questioned the Holocaust? Is this man any worse than the various Soviet dignitaries who we feted and hosted around our country? Or is it simply that we've grown increasingly infantile as a country since the end of the Cold War, more and more obsessed and histrionic about minor powers like Iran and Iraq?

A president with some dignity and sense of the greatness of his country would say, good he should go there. Maybe he'll learn something about us and our loss.

If we as a country were a person, I'd say grow up. Act like a man*. Have some self-respect.

* Yes, outdated language. But I know no non-gendered language that conveys the same meaning.

Reeducation

TPM.com:

The U.S. military has introduced "religious enlightenment" and other education programs for Iraqi detainees, some of whom are as young as 11, Marine Maj. Gen. Douglas M. Stone, the commander of U.S. detention facilities in Iraq, said yesterday.

Stone said such efforts, aimed mainly at Iraqis who have been held for more than a year, are intended to "bend them back to our will" and are part of waging war in what he called "the battlefield of the mind." Most of the younger detainees are held in a facility that the military calls the "House of Wisdom."

The religious courses are led by Muslim clerics who "teach out of a moderate doctrine," Stone said, according to the transcript of a conference call he held from Baghdad with a group of defense bloggers. Such schooling "tears apart" the arguments of al-Qaeda, such as "Let's kill innocents," and helps to "bring some of the edge off" the detainees, he said.

...

Stone said his staff conducts polygraph tests for detainees who promise to change after undergoing the religious training program. "We were trying to figure out if they're messing with us. . . . You're not talking about radicals going to choirboys." But he also added that they're succeeding in countering extremists in the facilities. "We're busting them down, we're making whole moderate compounds that didn't exist before."

...

Stone described a sort of religious insurgency that occurred at one detention facility on Sept. 2. "We had a compound of moderates for the first time overtake . . . extremists. It's never happened before. Found them, identified them, threw them up against the fence and shaved their frickin' beards off of them. . . . I mean, that is historic."

...woo? hoo?

Juan Cole on TPM

TPM.com was enjoying a history lesson from Dr. Juan Cole, from Informed Comment.

Juan Cole Drops Some Knowledge

Numbas

How come I never noticed all the mosques?

Crooks and Liars:

I often wonder what these guys are thinking — or whether they’re even thinking at all.

New York Rep. Peter King, a prominent House Republican, said there are “too many mosques in this country” in a recent interview with Politico.

“There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam,” King said. “We should be looking at them more carefully and finding out how we can infiltrate them.”

He now claims his comments were taken out of context, but there’s a YouTube clip.

The DNC has denounced King for his bizarre remarks: “This type of bigoted language has no place in public discourse, especially from the Republican’s top lawmaker on the House Homeland Security Committee,” said Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Stacie Paxton.

And let’s not forget — King is listed as Rudy Giuliani’s homeland security adviser. Maybe someone can ask him what he thinks about this?

Just charming.

We need to go after them. We have to figure out what they are up to.

The core of Republican strategy: THEY are out there...wait they are HERE.
GIVE UP POWER NOW!!!

Jena 6

Truthfully, I have not been paying a lot of attention to domestic news, especially legal stories. It isn't right, as I have been utterly uninformed on this story, but sometimes ones life gets in the way.

But Carpetbagger has some good writing on the events, and a good some if you to have not been keeping up on the events.

Feministing also does a good job of this.


So considering the seriousness of events, I can see some of the annoyance at the lack of presidential contenders roaming the area. But tramping around Jena and stick your nose in for political points might not look so good.

There is work for activist to do, but, frankly, Jackson and Sharpton have cried racism and unfair so often, and not ALWAYS, for the best, that I really don't jump up when they cry out (Sharpton has popped up as a joke on Boston Legal, appearing on request to make a scene.).

So I can see why Obama and others aren't racing in to stand in front of a camera and make speeches. So Jackson going after Obama, saying he was acting white, is just another example of Jackson not getting it.

He has a point about us all being concerned about the events in Louisiana. It is bad. And the candidates have things they can do. But to reenter the slurring of Obama, for not being white enough. All these years on, the Rainbow Coalition, and now here. Is this where you want to be, is this where you want to take things?

Very disappointing.

Moving the goal posts.

Olbermann looks at and hold the president to his words.

Compare January Bush to August Bush. How he's grown, how he's changed.

One Good Move has the video.

Forgot the link.

Gray Rape

There has been quite a stir started by a Cosmopolitan article claiming that their is a gray rape, the rape that isn't...kind of like a unicorn riding a dragon...a total myth and figment of ones imaginination.

Feministing:

The myth of "gray rape"

I've heard that the latest issue of Cosmopolitan magazine has an article about "gray rape." Which, let's remember, is a total fucking myth.

And not-so-shockingly, the piece is written by Laura Sessions Stepp--not exactly a bastion of feminism.

I've gotten several emails from sexual assault and intimate partner violence activists who are incredibly upset about the article--not only because it gives credence to the idea that rape is somehow a "gray" area, but because of the media play the article (and idea) seems to be getting.

One activist even told me that she was asked to go on a morning show to discuss the article, and when she explained that there was no such thing as "gray rape" recognized in the field--they cut her from the segment.

More to come when I pick up the magazine, but in the meantime read these great pieces on sexual assault by Courtney Martin and Jaclyn Friedman to clear
your mind of Stepp's bullshit.

Call it what it is.

Moe at Jezebel writes:

[T]his one time about nine years ago I got locked out of my house and went home with some vaguely smarmy hair-product using type from my ex-boyfriend's frat. I
had slept with maybe two or three guys prior to that -- it was the summer between sophomore and junior year of college -- so when he, after about a half hour of fooling around, put on a condom I was like, "Whooooah, what are you doing?" But I'd had two forties and I kept drifting in and out of consciousness -- my tolerance, obviously, wasn't what it is today -- and I woke up to find him sticking it in. I'd said 'no' a bunch of times and when I came to I just froze, stopped, turned over and slept. In the morning I chewed him out (by informing him I wasn't putting him on "my list" -- oh no she didn't!) and after that he kissed my ass so liberally I thought he might have learned from it.

In other words, he raped her.

Jezebel readers kindly pointed this out in comments. Moe responds,

Well, yes, technically it was, but I can empathize with the desire to find a word to differentiate it from the type of rape that, you know, actually SCARS you. I always used "date rape" before.

"Date rape" is still rape, only the rapist is someone you know. It's still a crime.

Moe also says, "Sigh. It's a personal story, and that's how I dealt."

Calling it what it is -- RAPE -- doesn't mean you have to have a specific reaction to it. No one is requiring you to be traumatized. In fact, I'm really happy to hear that this experience didn't seem to cause her much pain. But the definition of rape doesn't change depending on how you feel afterward. Rape is a nonconsensual sexual act. "That time you fucked that guy you didn't really want to fuck" is a better description of consensual sex that you later regret. (Which, of course, isn't rape.)

This is why the Cosmo article and the whole Laura Sessions Stepp "gray rape" concept are such bad news. It creates a new category that suggests it's not-quite-rape if you say "no" while drunk, or you say "no" to intercourse after you've said "yes" to making out. To not straight-up call it rape diminishes it and excuses it. It goes from a crime to simply impolite or bad behavior.

I think it's possible to call a crime a crime without assuming a "victim" role. As Shakes writes, "to be a survivor of rape does not have to mean shame and brokenness and guilt, that it is brave, not weak, to say, plainly: "I was raped.""

A blast from the Laura Sessions Stepp past

Thanks to Scott for reminding me that gray-rape enthusiast Laura Sessions Stepp is the same person who argued in The Washington Post last year that girls who like sex make dudes limp. Seriously.

So a little retro Feministing for you:

Apparently women who like sex too much are responsible for a scourge of impotence among college men.

The Washington Post reports on the problem of younger men experiencing erectile dysfunction, which is supposedly caused in part by young women initiating sex.

According to surveys, young women are now as likely as young men to have sex and by countless reports are also as likely to initiate sex, taking away from males the age-old, erotic power of the chase.

"I know lots of girls for whom nothing is off limits," says Helen Czapary, a junior at the University of Maryland. "The pressure on the guys is a huge deal."

But it’s not just women’s horniness that’s a huge turnoff, it’s our damned opinions too:

One can argue that a young woman speaking her mind is a sign of equality. "That's a good thing," says [teacher Robin] Sawyer, father of four daughters. "But for some guys, it has come at a price. It's turned into ED in men you normally wouldn't think would have ED."

Equality is the enemy of boners. Now I get it. Traister also did a great piece tearing Stepp down, "Do loose chicks sink dicks?" Heh.

So according to Stepp, women who like sex not only are responsible for their "gray rapes," but are also causing a scourge of limp dicks. Jeez, she gets better every day!

"Gray rape," cont'd...

Over at Jezebel, Moe responds to my post:

Gray rape, if you think about it, is an ideal term to describe a topic about which I am so conflicted. it evokes the notion of "shades of gray," which is to say, the nuance without which empathy would not be possible. I forgave my gray rapist or date rapist or whatever a long time ago, much longer ago than I would have if I had felt myself that night to be in the presence of the OMG PURE EVIL that would be required to commit the sorts of things I'd been used to calling rape in the past. It is a loaded and powerful term, after all, and I derive no empowerment from using it to characterize his offense.

Ok, I'll repeat myself and say that the definition of rape does not change depending on its empowering/disempowering effect on the people involved, or whether they choose to use the word "rape." And rape isn't something that's committed only by guys who are OMG PURE EVIL. Even if 99% of the time he's an upstanding citizen and all-around awesome dude, but he still wouldn't listen that one time when you said "no," he's still a rapist -- and it's still rape.

A Jezebel commenter writes,

Just like we have manslaughter, vs. 2nd or 1st degree murder, there are many different forms and levels of sexual assault.

I concede that there are different kinds of rapes (in that the circumstances vary), but I don't believe that "worse" or "better" rapes. Sure, we have degrees of murder. But there has never been any question in modern society that it is a crime to kill another person. However, feminists had to work damn hard to get courts and society to recognize that rape is a crime. (Clearly, that battle is still being fought.) So introducing "degrees" of rape has the effect of diminishing the idea that it's a crime. Period.

I do feel slightly more conflicted about the appropriate legal response to situations in which women (drunk or not) may not want to have sexual contact with someone, but also do not say "no," push back, or make any other outward indication that they are opposed. (This doesn't apply to the situation Moe described, in which she said "NO" several times and he continued anyway.) But in the end, I keep coming back to the idea that we need to strongly advocate for the idea of enthusiastic consent, and make that the standard.

Putting our differences on "gray rape" aside, Moe and I can totally agree that "emosogynist" is an incredibly useful term. And I echo her call for more conversation about your personal experiences with rape -- no matter what you choose to call it.

Spanking it out...Christian Edition

Wife-Spanking 101: Neither parody nor porn

(via Spare Room, thanks to Lindsay for the link.)

What if your wife, even after graduating the prestigious homemaking course at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a degree in ladylike submission, still won't behave? Uber-conservative Christian patriarchs everywhere now have a solution!

Give her a good spanking. For how to incorporate this into your marriage, see the "Christian Domestic Discipline" site. Unlike the Baptists for Brownback campaign Jen wrote about awhile ago, this site appears to be legit. Not a parody.

A Christian Domestic Discipline marriage is one that is set up according to Biblical standards; that is, the husband is the authority in the household. The wife is submissive to her husband as is fit in the Lord and her husband loves her as himself. He has the ultimate authority in his household, but it is tempered with the knowledge that he must answer to God for his actions and decisions. He has the authority to spank his wife for punishment, but in real CDD marriages this is taken very seriously and usually happens only rarely. CDD is so much more than just spanking. It is the husband loving the wife enough to guide and teach her, and the wife loving the husband enough to follow his leadership. A Christian marriage embodies true romance and a Christian man a true hero.

This is billed as completely consensual, with it made clear that "the husband has authority to spank the wife. The wife does not have authority to spank her husband." The site was created by wife-spankers who were sick of stumbling upon porn when they searched for other like-minded folks online. Lest you become confused that the CDD site is a BDSM site with a Christian spin, they're sure to reiterate that this is about adhering to Biblical gender roles -- not about sexual pleasure. Unless you get off on asserting your patriarchy by slapping your property wife. Not an unheard-of phenomenon, as the site acknowledges:

Though we recognize by its very nature this subject can be erotic, we will keep this website as clean and wholesome as possible. However, we will not seek to deny the erotic nature of some CDD marriages as we believe it is a natural consequence of following God's plan. After all, He created eroticism to be enjoyed inside a Christian marriage.

But what if sometimes your wife doesn't want to be spanked? Well, let's not use an inconvenient phrase like "domestic violence" or "spousal abuse." Nah, "non-consensual CDD" would be more appropriate, really. And the site basically says that it's a man's god-given right to hit his wife, even if those pesky laws against domestic violence get in the way.

Non-consensual CDD:

Though we believe the Bible gives a husband the authority to use spanking as one tool in enforcing his authority in the home with or without his wife's permission, in today's world we recognize the legality that mandates that all CDD must be consensual. Therefore we will do not condone nonconsensual CDD as a rule.

How progressive of them!

Lynn at Broadsheet delved into the blogs linked on the site, which are just so sad. One blogger, a woman named Debbie, has decided having her husband hit her is a cheap and effective weight-loss strategy. She recounts being beaten for accidentally leaving the stove burner on, and writes, "I felt my stomach drop when I saw my husband bring out a heavy belt." She continues,

I am not abused nor capable of being abused. I imagine that if one of you raging feminist find yourself beaten by a man you had better hope Leah or I (or someone of like mind) comes along to beat the stuffing out of him for you. I know I'm capable and from reading I sort of believe Leah is as well. My submission is quite voluntary.

I'm not saying all wife-spanking is analogous to domestic abuse. The blogs and the site make clear that this is a lifestyle chosen (how freely chosen is another question...) by women themselves. One writes on the site, "We practice CDD-lite in our home as it is a concept that I have brought to my husband and one that he is still getting comfortable with."
Of course, that's less disturbing than "non-consensual CDD," but still thoroughly depressing. As Lynn writes, "violence at home -- 'consensual' or otherwise -- is by no means unique to these particular fundamentalists; abusers and victims can find plenty of justification for their actions without distorting Scripture." And I agree with her that seeing it put in such plain terms on this site and in these blogs is really, really troubling.

On a much, much lighter note, the site also features a store... which sells crotchless pantaloons.

...

For the traditionalist Christian who's not quite into Frederick's of Hollywood, but finds the Laura Ingalls Wilder look totally hot.

Feministing's Weekly Feminist Reader 08/26

Weekly Feminist Reader

The head of the civil rights division of the Justice Department has resigned.

NFL punishes dog-abusers, but not domestic abusers.

Not your typical "topless car wash."

Why we need to restore funding to the UNFPA.

Can TV really empower women?

Women aren't getting good information on how -- and what it means -- to stop getting a monthly period.

Feminism once again declared dead! (This time by a "high priestess.")

Has the internet really been "feminized"? I mean, we're still talking about serious misogyny here.

A new study illuminates (again) gender bias in science and academia.

Time on soaring birth control prices on campus.

Remembering writer, feminist, activist Grace Paley.

Via in comments, a fascinating breakdown of the different types of "gazes" women are posed to give in magazine spreads and advertisements.

Time for the female urinal?

Women only seem to make the cover of fashion magazines. The political/newsweeklies, not so much.

Vilifying

Planned Parenthood does a whole hell of a lot to help young mothers to be, and to help inform communities about personal health...obviously they must pay.

Planned Parenthood is coming to get you...

Ah, it's always nice when the mainstream media quotes totally inaccurate information about women's health.

Media Matters in Colorado recently released some very interesting information about how the Denver Post and Associated Press covered a story on Planned Parenthood building a new clinic in Denver where they allowed an anti-choice crazy to quote that the organization "get[s] young girls hooked on their birth control pills, which don't work."

This reminds me of the bizarre FDA memo which said the distribution of Plan B could result in EC sex cults. Because those hormones just feel too damn good! Sigh. And let's not forget the most important part of this quote wasn't criticized or questioned by either newsource: that birth control pills don't work. (Which is obviously not the case.)

And the bullshit just keeps coming. The beginning of the claim by Colorado Right to Life VP Leslie Hanks tells us to "face it, they're in the business to kill babies for profit," which the entire Post article seems to be framed around. Um wait, but isn't Planned Parenthood a NON-for-profit organization? Hmmmmm...

In other words, this person managed to use the whole "drugs, money and murder" bit to whet the mainstream media's appetite and make Planned Parenthood look like some sort of organized crime cartel. Apparently Planning IS Power! Mwahahaha! Heh.

Check out Feministe and Pandagon for more.

It is true because someone told us and wrote it on a pamplet.

Anti-choice journalism at its best

What better way to gain support for your cause than make shit up?

The Times Online has literally one of the worst reported, anti-choice pieces of nonsense I've seen in a while.

Amnesty International risks alienating some of its high-profile rock star backers in the row over its decision to support women’s access to abortion.

The group has been accused of “duping” the singers Christina Aguilera and Avril Lavigne [by the organization Rock for Life], who have both made statements against abortion and are among contributors to an Amnesty CD released to raise money for survivors of the atrocities in Darfur.

And what are these "statements" against abortion that Aguilera and Lavigne made?

But Aguilera, 26, is a devout American Catholic. She is reportedly expecting her first child and has taken part in a television show in which she interviewed a teenager who had kept her baby rather than have an abortion.

Lavigne, 22, is a French-Canadian from a tight-knit Christian family. Her song Keep Holding On is the backing track to a pro-life video on YouTube that declares “abortion is murder”.

So because Lavigne's song is used in some random YouTube video, an anti-choice organization can say she's "pro-life?" Same with Aguilera interviewing a teenage mom? Kudos on the reporting. Seriously.

Note: I have no idea what the musicians' personal views on choice are, but it's ridiculously clear that these reporters, and Rock for Life, are reaching in order to push their anti-choice crap.

UPDATE: Keen commenter Megan points out that Aguilera was actually involved in the March for Womens' Lives. So...yeah.

Sometimes you have to read a piece twice and then go check the claims. Because,..sometimes you can't rely on the journalist to check the claims they print...Sad. This is a really obvious bit of advertisement journalism.

I can feel sorry for these Republicans, but only so much.

First one gets caught going to a service (Vitter), now a guy is looking for airport perks (I had no idea stuff like that was happening at the Minneapolis airport!). They are sad lonely guys. They seem to want something that they can't get at home, or won't seek. I feel sorry for them. The guy is either gay or bisexual. He should be able to go out and either experiment or live his life. But, as a conservative Republican, he needs to go out and attack gays. So he can't be who he is apparently is. Same with Rev. Haggard. If these guys had been honest, and not attacked people just like them, they could have had more normalcy. But then they would not have power...and their religious and conservative upbringing guaranteed that the feeling that emerged as they grew up were things they would and do despise and hate, which means they despise and hate themselves.

That is just sad.

But the fact is these guys attacked homosexuals, with a zeal. They mocked and tore down those who had affairs. It is just two-faced, it is duplicity. As long as the affairs, the gayness, the abortions, the cash under the table, the drugs...as long as it stays in the back alleys...all is well. And that is what deserves scorn. That is what deserves coverage. That is what needs to be considered. All this corruption, suppressed homosexuality, and hidden needs...Guys?



For more Hypocritical Republicans:

Paul Krugman A Socialist Plot

Suppose, for a moment, that the Heritage Foundation were to put out a press release attacking the liberal view that even children whose parents could afford to send them to private school should be entitled to free government-run education.

They'd have a point: many American families with middle-class incomes do send their kids to school at public expense, so taxpayers without school-age children subsidize families that do. And the effect is to displace the private sector: if public schools weren't available, many families would pay for private schools instead.

So let's end this un-American system and make education what it should be - a matter of individual responsibility and private enterprise. Oh, and we shouldn't have any government mandates that force children to get educated, either. As a Republican presidential candidate might say, the future of America's education system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models.

O.K., in case you're wondering, I haven't lost my mind, I'm drawing an analogy. The real Heritage press release, titled "The Middle-Class Welfare Kid Next Door," is an attack on proposals to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Such an expansion, says Heritage, will "displace private insurance with government-sponsored health care coverage."

And Rudy Giuliani's call for "free-market solutions, not socialist models" was about health care, not education.

But thinking about how we'd react if they said the same things about education helps dispel the fog of obfuscation right-wingers use to obscure the true nature of their position on children's health.

The truth is that there's no difference in principle between saying that every American child is entitled to an education and saying that every American child is entitled to adequate health care. It's just a matter of historical accident that we think of access to free K-12 education as a basic right, but consider having the government pay children's medical bills "welfare," with all the negative connotations that go with that term.

And conservative opposition to giving every child in this country access to health care is, in a fundamental sense, un-American. . .

More comedy from the Bush Admin

Well, the ship is emptying faster and faster now. It must be really hard for Bush to play, but their are plenty of people in Washington eager to jump into Bush's now empty lap. Like a sitcom on its last legs, with the cast quitting, their is always some idiot looking for a few minutes of TV limelight.

TPM.com has a top 10 list of Alberto Gonzales. Watch his top flubs and logic impaired statements.

On the out.

What's this?

Tommy Thompson is out of the race? He really was the last to know.


And now who is leaving town?


Karl Rove?

It would be nice to think he is slipping off in defeat...but he wouldn't be the first one out of Washington to keep their hand in and be ready to come back in, or to continue to work in the background. We'll have to wait and see.

Behe on Colbert

ID booster Michael Behe was on Stephen Colbert's show. He is a mainstay of the Discovery Institute, in it's quest to discredit and dismantle ungodly science.

He loves to write books about the failure that is evolution. You know cells are complex. They have machines and computer codes. It is a sad tale of a man desperate not to see a long history of events that led to us. He came up with analogizes comparing the cell to mechanics. Then he turns around and treats them like mechanics. In case you got lost there, like Behe, cells are not mechanical. So the irreducible complexity bit is just sad. He, in the interview, seems to see ID and himself in the roles of Einstein, Relativity, and Hawkings. He had the new and better ideas. Granted he has no science backing him, just rhetoric. But why should that stop his Faith...I mean research...What research?

The Colbert Report is not the best place to see the flaws in Behe's thinking laid out. He is too in character, playing the neocon christofascist, to really go after a guy like this. But, surprisingly, Colbert actually zinged him and got him some in the process.

But every time he goes out, and he gets around the country to eager audiences, I just wish there was someone in the audience to take him to task. It happens too rarely.