Passing on living, passing on thinking

PZ Myers points to a sad story of a child who choose to forgo a life saving blood transfusion for religious reasons.

Earlier Wednesday, Skagit County Superior Court Judge John Meyer had denied a motion by the state to force the boy to have a blood transfusion. The judge said the eighth-grader knew "he's basically giving himself a death sentence."

"I don't believe Dennis' decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision," the judge said during the hearing.

"I don't think Dennis is trying to commit suicide. This isn't something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy."

So he wasn't coerced; he was mature and capable of rational thought; he wasn't suicidal; this wasn't an expensive treatment his family couldn't afford; he did not make the world a better place by dying. He simply calmly decided on the basis of certain premises that were planted in his brain at an early age by an aunt who was a Jehovah's Witness that he had to do something both lethal and stupid. His head was filled with garbage, and this is the end result.

This was clearly a religious decision to die. And that is okay? Dying for a god is good? Now if he was elderly, and not a child, and wanted to die, to end the pain, or just because, that would be bad?

Why is one a considered, reasonable, and informed choice and the other a crime? It doesn't seem this kid wanted to die, but he was convinced through his whole life to get a live saving transfusion was worth than death...


Religion, it justifies the dumbest of things.




And here is another thing.


Following the talk by cdesign proponentsists, John West, DI has worked hard to spin a victory out of the event.

The DI and friends only have spin and revisionism. No science.

I got two calls last night about Dr. John West's presentation at the University of Minnesota on Darwinism's fathership of eugenics. It appears that the scholarly and well-delivered lecture, derived from the new West book, Darwin Day in America, was successful in influencing the thinking of a largely skeptical audience.

...

It was not a very "scholarly" lecture. As Mark Borrello discussed in his too-brief rebuttal, there's more to history than just listing the facts, which is the bare minimum expected of the historian. West got the facts right, and then twisted them all into a distorted and unconvincing argument for a Darwinian source for eugenics. It was poorly done; perhaps the Disco Institute thinks that interspersing animal sounds in a presentation is good cover for a bad argument?

It is simply not true that he succeeded in influencing his skeptical audience. I talked to quite a few people afterwards; I found none who thought he was at all persuasive, and we had a good time poking holes in his argument…which hole-poking we would have more gladly done in the Q&A, if the organizer hadn't tried to run down the clock.

Now here's something revealing. At a couple of points, West would quote some scientist who'd said something about humans as animals, and call that "dehumanizing". It was peculiar; is it the DI's position that humans aren't animals? It seems that maybe it is.

The Darwinists also want you to think that eugenics was all a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. But eugenics has been revived in our time and the New Eugenics Movement is also product of Darwinism and Darwinists. You only have to read Dawkins, Singer, Pinker and the rest to see the same disdain for human exceptionalism that fueled the original eugenics movement. Therefore, West's history is not just "academic", it's urgent.

Ah, so humans are supposed to be exceptional, and any scientist who tries to claim that we're also animals, evolved from animals is going to get slapped with the label "eugenicist". Charming.

...

And this attitude should not surprise us. They are bringing in the likes of Medved, and that is just the latest in a long line of acquisitions and arguments that the likes of DI rely on.

They are going to sling mud. just as people did in the run up to the war in Iraq. Have doubts? Must like terrorist, or be French. Not see the sublime superiority of man? Must be a Mengela loving eugenicist.

No surprise here. There is no reasoned argument from these creationists. And as they continue to dip into a more politically driven arena to try and win...they aren't going to be getting any saner.


And let PZ Myers explain the reality of the situation, which DI won't want.

And let's see what kind of dishonest nonsense Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute chooses to close his screed…

The Darwinists hate hearing about the history of eugenics because it is true and there really isn't much they can do to spin it or control it. I like it for the same reasons.

We do? In my last post on this subject, I mentioned Stephen Jay Gould's essay on Carrie Buck, and I could also suggest his book, The Mismeasure of Man(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) — in case the Discovery Institute is unfamiliar with Gould, I'll explain that he was not a creationist. I'll also refer you to John Wilkins (again, not a creationist), who has written a whole series on this topic, and has also berated the DI for their appalling distortions. As I said to West on Friday, the overwhelming majority of modern biologists, who are also in the DI's parlance "Darwinists", deplore and reject eugenics. We do not try to "spin it" at all — I think we're reasonably unambiguous in damning it all as an ugly episode in our social history, and one we should not try to repeat.

Chapman likes it because it allows him to parrot a false syllogism: people who accept the scientific evidence for evolution and see Homo sapiens as a species of animal are all eugenicists who want to forcibly sterilize 'undesirables' and march the people they don't like off to the death camps. This is their contemptible strategy: lie about their opponents and impute the vilest, most Nazi-like motives to them. It makes his opening insult, that I'm the "ad hominem blogger/biologist", painfully ironic.

Ewww! Those blogs!!!

I do like a lot of David Gregory's work. But like many in the MSM, he has a habit of trying to lay blame for things on the alternative sources and Internet.

Crooks and Liars:

So Helen Thomas asked fellow WH pressroom regular David Gregory who is responsible for polarizing American politics. Gregory responded:

I think it’s because of the internet largely. The polarized atmosphere in the internet and blogs and whatnot have been a major contributor to that.

Words of Power has the appropriate response:

Yes, of course, it was the bloggers who polarized the US body politic. …In 2000, the bloggers stopped the counting of the ballots ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, and installed the man who lost, as the counting, finished later by researchers, would confirm. …In 2004, the bloggers made sure there weren’t enough voting machines in the poorest and blackest districts of Ohio. …The bloggers made Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights optional. …The bloggers established a Gulag system, instituted torture and rendition, and started disappearing people. The bloggers stayed on vacation while New Orleans drowned. Read more…

...

John Amato: Yea, and it was the blogs that spent millions of dollars trying to impeach and indict President Clinton for years and years and of course, we accused him of murdering Vince Foster. Didn’t we? Or maybe it was Richard Mellon Scaife. Isn’t he a blogger too?

This has to be largely my response to. Granted, the online community can be loud, opinionated, and heated. But liberals and liberal bloggers wouldn't blame the troubles of today on the freepers and their kin. They play a small part, but there are far bigger fish to fry.

The likes of FOX news and Limbaugh have been provoking and spinning things for years. Look at the swift boating, an act of the blogs? Lies about Gore, the blogs did it? The French baiting, blogs? Your with us, or the terrorist, who pressed this idea?

The trouble for the media, I think, sometimes is that they are sore about being taken to task. That is something blogs are doing in spades. They didn't like Colbert coming to their little party and mocking them,a nd they don't care to have their hallf-asses work parsed through and shown as faulty work.

The blogs are polarizing things...I guess Gregory was too busy in the 90's to see when the political polarization really got running, and continues to today.

A poverty of hunger

Apparently the poor aren't hungry. I can't wait to hear tomorrow about how the poor all drive Cadillacs...oh, wait...

Mother Jones has the story:

While most Americans were planning for the annual ritual of overconsumption known as Thanksgiving, the good folks at the Heritage Foundation, America’s leading architects of conservative thought for at least three decades, were doing their part to add to the holiday cheer. According to a November 13 Heritage article, well-off revelers could stuff their faces unhampered by guilt about the less fortunate, because there are no longer any hungry people in the United States.

You have to hand it to Heritage for always being first out of the gate to exploit the latest event or finding to advance its aims—this is the same think tank that issued a comprehensive strategy, two weeks after Katrina hit shore, for using the hurricane as an excuse to slash federal social programs. This time, its thinkers found inspiration in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's annual report on Household Food Security in the United States, which is as close as the federal government comes to providing statistics on hunger among the nation’s poor. The latest report states that 11 percent of Americans were "food insecure" for some part of 2006, and 4 percent—11.1 million people—experienced "very low food security."

These Orwellian euphemisms are a triumph for the conservative agenda; the USDA altered its terminology last year on the recommendations of an "expert panel" convened back in 2003. "Very low food security," for example, used to be "food insecurity with hunger." The experts asked the department to eliminate "hunger," which, they argued, "should refer to a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation." To some, that might better describe starvation, but the panel's reasoning wouldn't be a stretch for the Bush administration, which claims "torture" must entail pain "equivalent in intensity" to the pain of "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

But the Heritage folks are looking beyond semantic tweaks: Far from having too little to eat, they argue, poor people are eating too much. By the time the USDA report went public, Heritage had readied its own salvo, titled "Hunger Hysteria: Examining Food Security and Obesity in America." In recent years, the U.S. media and public have become increasingly obsessed with the "obesity epidemic." And what better way to attack the idea of deprivation among the poor than to note that they are getting fatter? Rightly or not, people still associate obesity with the sins of gluttony and sloth, which jibes nicely with the concept that welfare recipients are lazy people who would rather feed at the public trough than get an honest job.

...

The Media: No Intelligence Allowed

It is sad to be so consistently disappointed in the news media. From science to politics, it seems the the media is too lazy to think things out and do some leg work, or just too comfortable to rock the boat.

If you saw Bush's news conference today, instead of taking the president to task about lies over Iran and possible war (another war), we got some wascky Bush humor and the press poll rolling in the aisles. You may remember the Correspondent's dinner from a few years back when Bush made the lack of justification for invading Iraq as a punchline, that the journalist just loved.

AMERICAblog:

It was all one big happy boys' and girls' club today, when the mainstream media got its chance to question President Bush about the recent bombshell that when Bush warned about Iran's nuclear program leading to "World War III" he already knew that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program 4 years ago. Bush then upped the ante by lying to the media again during his press conference this morning. In response to one question Bush said that he hadn't heard about any contrary intelligence until just last week. Funny, then, that his own national security adviser told the media yesterday that Bush was told months ago that there was intelligence showing that Iran had ceased its program. Did the ace White House reporters, who had Bush right in front of them, respond to Bush's assertion by saying "uh, Mr. President, your own National Security Adviser says that's a lie." Not a word. Even ABC's Martha Raddatz, who is one of the rare White House reporters to ask good, hard questions, could only come up with a polite little ditty about how our international credibility might be harmed by all of this.

So Bush lied to the press this morning, again, they knew it, again, and they said nothing, again. After only a handful of softball questions, clearly geared towards not ruffling any of Bush's very important feathers, CNN's Ed Henry, who's usually quite the pit-bull, dutifully switched the topic away from imminent World War III based on a lie to the much more important issue of a rape case in Saudi Arabia. It was downhill from there. (And yes, we reported on the rape issue as well - it's horrendous. But as compared to Bush having been caught lying in an effort to start World War III, it's just not in the same league.)

Bush lied to the media and got us into a war with Iraq. The media refused to do their job, and led us into that war. Now Bush has been caught lying to us again, repeatedly, about going to war with Iran, and the media has, again, rolled over and kicked its legs up in the air. What could the media have done differently? How about this line of questions:

Mr. President, you warned the American people about an impending World War III with Iran when you knew that we had intelligence showing that Iran had ceased its nuclear program four years ago. How is that not a lie?

Or

Mr. President, you just said that you had never been told, prior to last week, that we had intelligence showing that Iran was no longer trying to get nuclear weapons. Yet just yesterday, your National Security Adviser said that you had been told about this intelligence months ago. Which one is of you is lying?

I know I shouldn't be surprised, but I really cannot believe that the mainstream media, the networks, the newspapers, were handed this gift of a press conference, less than one day after we find out that Bush knew that Iran was no longer trying to build nukes, and they totally dropped the ball. They were freaking laughing during the press conference. It was all one big joke to the reporters assembled. Unfortunately, the joke's on us. One of my readers has just named them the "White House Press Corpse." And these are the people we rely on to keep our democracy honest.

Not Me

Karl Rove has been eagerly making the rounds to tell everyone the Iraq War was neither his nor Bush's fault.

Democrats did it. They used their nasty peer pressure powers to make the president send troops over. Apparently, former senator Tom Daschle is the chief villain in his fantasy...I mean dream...I mean story.

Think Progress:

On Fox News Sunday this morning, Karl Rove reiterated his false claim that Democrats in Congress — not the Bush administration — forced a war vote prior to the 2002 midterm elections. Despite having being contradicted by former Chief of Staff Andrew Card and former Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, Rove continued to press his make-believe story about how the Iraq war vote occurred.

On the Charlie Rose Show a little over a week ago, Rove said that “the administration was opposed to voting on it in the fall of 2002.” ...

Crooks and Liars:

Yes, the truth finally comes out — the tyrannical, warmongering Tom Daschle was out on the news shows in 2002, beating the drums of war and eventually the Bush administration, with his
boot to their throat, relented and let the Democrats have their war.

Van Hollen reads a statement from former White House Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, who refutes Rove’s claims, but missed the opportunity to bring up Andrew Card, who not only refuted Rove’s claims, but used him as a punchline earlier this week. Rove kept spinning, but eventually, host Chris Wallace put an end to the discussion. Let’s hope Turdblossom stays out there making a fool of himself for as long as possible…

WARNING!!!

HISTORY UNDER REVISION!!!

WATCH YOUR STEP!!!

Stein and Beck together, can reality maintain cohesion?

I was just going to link to PZ Myers and let him take the blame for letting you see this, but I will put it here. Ben Stein on Glenn Beck's silly little show. The discussion, Stein's new movie, of course. Expelled, and like Beck's show, No Intelligence Allowed.



Myers has more.

Stein repeats his ignorant caricature of the origin of life as "lightning striking a mud puddle," and then…oh, man, this was unbelievable:

If they're so sure that they're right, what are they afraid of? If they're so sure that their position is unassailable, let the other guy talk and then blow him out of the water and say, "You fool, you didn't know this, this and this."

Gosh. That sounds exactly like Pharyngula.

This is exactly what we all do over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. And now Stein has the gall to pretend we never engage the creationist claims?

And that is the trouble with a debate like this. Sharp minds like Myers, Dawkins, etc., do go and challenge and dismantle this creationist prattle. But they ignore this and go on repeating their disproved points. And if you just don't bother to repeat yourself for the umpteenth time, they say you are stumped or afraid.

The trouble with debating the likes of Stein is that you are facing the science illiterate, but the religiously zealous. So the debate goes nowhere.

News from Iran brings a steep wind of change to Republican rhetoric

Crooks and Liars looks Countdown's discussion of the NIE report and Bush being caught lying on Iran. With video.

MSNBC’s David Shuster filled in for Keith Olbermann today on Countdown, and
spoke with Air America Radio’s Rachel Maddow about the revelations
today from the NIE report that Iran halted its nuclear program back in 2003. As
Shuster and Maddow point out, the Bush administration has no shame, which is why
they had no problem trotting out National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, to
float the ridiculous notion that the report wasn’t completed until Tuesday of
last week and that President Bush only learned that Iran halted its nuclear
program four years ago — the following day.

AMERICAblog looks at Bush's words on Iran from the past.


It is interesting to see the shift in terms. Bush, not too long ago tried to tie Iran to a looming WWIII. Now his speechwriters are giving stuff to say that parses and moves the goal posts.


And it's not just Bush. From NYT:

...

Republicans, who have been condemning Iran in the campaign, reacted more tentatively to the report, without backing away from their past statements about Tehran, including talk of military strikes and “bombardments.”

“For years now, the Islamic Republic of Iran has defied and played games with every international effort aimed at persuading the country to halt enriching uranium,” Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, said in a statement. “Sanctions and other pressures must be continued and stepped up until Iran complies by halting enrichment activities in a verifiable way.”

That was a shift in tone from his previous comments, but he did not say that he may have overstated the case against Iran.

In October, speaking to the Republican Jewish Coalition, Mr. Giuliani said: “As we all know, Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and they’re threatening to use them. If I’m president of the United States, I guarantee you we will never find out what they will do if they get nuclear weapons, because they’re not going to get nuclear weapons.”

...

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, has taken a slightly different line on Iran than his rivals, often focusing on reports that it was supplying weapons to militias in Iraq that were being used against American troops.

You know, I still can't get McCain's weak attempt to joke and sing out the line, "Bomb Iran." Should it be a funnier line now?

And like, Bush and the other candidates, their is still a clearly hawkish stance. Less justification for the stance, but it is still there.

More irony from the Romney irony mines

AMERICAblog:

Romney is a flip-flopping, two-faced, hypocritical liar. There aren't words strong enough to describe what a disingenuous, deceitful politician Romney is. This latest flip-flop, on religion, is part of an ongoing pattern with Romney ever since he decided he wanted to be president. You'll recall that only a few years ago Romney was pro-choice, pro-gay, and anti-gun. Now he's the opposite on every single thing he ever believed in. And we're seeing the same inconsistencies on his positions on religion. Romney was private about his religion, about religion in general, until he decided he wanted to run for president. At that time, he decided he wanted to woo the far right of the Republican party. To do that, he needed to pretend that he was a far-right Republican, rather than the liberal Democrat he truly is. So, Romney became a raging Christian and a raging Muslim-hater, as both of those have traction in the far-right of the GOP. And that's where Romney's Muslim-bashing comments of last week came from - Romney probably doesn't care whether or not there are Muslims in his cabinet. But he knows that much of the GOP cares, so he's just making stuff up at this point, trying to pretend that he's intolerant towards Islam in order to get some chits.

Only problem? You can't give a speech about being an oppressed religious minority in America only 5 days after you oppress another religious minority in America. Romney can't tell us that the religion of his cabinet is relevant but the religion of the cabinet's president isn't. It just doesn't work that way. Either a candidate for high office's religion is relevant or its not. This week Romney is going to tell us that it's not, though I suspect he's also going to try to con everyone into thinking that Mormonism IS Christianity, so at the same time he's telling us to ignore his religion he's going to be telling us that he's a bigger Christian than we are and that that is the reason we should vote for him. In other words, Romney is going to try to have it both ways this week, lying all the way. So what else is new? More from Soren.

The Aussies do us all a favor.

AMERICAblog:

That was pretty fast work. Strangely enough, new PM Rudd actually did what he said he would do during the elections. What a novel idea.

"This is the first official act of the new Australian government, demonstrating my government's commitment to tackling climate change," Rudd said in a statement issued hours after he and his Cabinet were officially sworn in after Nov. 24 elections.Rudd said that he had signed the "instrument of ratification" of the Kyoto Protocol and that it would come into force 90 days after the paperwork was received by the United Nations.

More links from Feministing

From Feministing:

Weekly Feminist Reader

On Iran's first female race car driver.

Henry Hyde, who worked hard to ensure that low-income women were denied reproductive health access, has died.Related: Medicaid covers penis pumps, but not abortion services.

I'll take "gender parity" for 500, Alex: This season, 52% of Jeopardy! contestants were women -- a vast improvement for a show that historically skews male.This Christmas, most girls are asking for toys designed with boys in mind.

Whatever happened to all the lesbian feminists?

Hillary Clinton's AIDS plan would strip out requirements that anti-HIV/AIDS programs discuss abstinence.

The New York Times characterizes Barack Obama as "postfeminist." WTF? (A longer post on the article to follow...) And Michelle Obama chatted with Rebecca Traister.

A new site, Abuse Aware, documents violence against women. (It features many of Donna Ferrato's groundbreaking -- and heartbreaking -- photos on the subject.)

On the unacceptable lack of coverage of Latasha Norman's disappearance and death. The major cable news networks couldn't find a few minutes in between all their Stacy Peterson updates to talk about Norman?

Extreme anti-choicers are flush with cash.

Sexist gamers rate the breasts of sexed-up video game heroines. Barf.

This not just with gamers. Wizard, the major comic book magazine, which has a close relationship with all the big comic publishers, has done the same. It has been rating the breast of female comic characters, much to the disgust of many online. The industry says it wants to bring girls into reading and buying their products. But the industry keeps sending this sort of message out simultaneously. Come on!

Did you have any idea that one of Bush's first actions in office (right after reinstating the Global Gag Rule, I'm sure) was to require that all women in the West Wing wear pantyhose at all times? Ugh.

How about some decent Hollywood biopics about black women?

Massachusetts gets 35-foot safety buffer zones around women's health clinics.

More deeply problematic language and comparisons from Mike Huckabee.

Feminists in Sweden are demanding the right to swim topless in public.

Our Bodies, Ourselves talks to Hillary Clinton about women's health initiatives in her health care plan.

Miss Landmine Angola is a beauty pageant for landmine survivors.

In case you had any doubt at all that anti-choicers aren't just anti-abortion -- they're anti-contraception.

An important post on the Saudi gang rape and threats to Muslim women.

Shockingly, the 1950s weren't really a golden era for women in college. (Jill has more.)

On Disney's booming "princess business." Plus, Deborah Siegel has a scathing review of Enchanted.

There are fewer women at the very top of the business world.

Stephanie Coontz on why marriage should be a private institution.

The major price hike in campus birth control prices has been all over the mainstream media lately. Now everyone needs to lean on Congress to do something about it before the end of this session.

Older white women are going to Kenya as sex tourists.

A follow-up on the panel discussion with leading voices in the opt-out debate.

A Wisconsin man accused of drugging his girlfriend to induce abortion against her will has been released from jail on bond. (We've said it before, and will say it again: forced abortion is NOT pro-choice.)

A Spanish woman is murdered after she rejects her boyfriends on-air proposal.

More on Hillary and misogyny.

There will be an open mic and abortion speak-out in NYC on December 14. Click here for more info.

And South Dakota DV shelter Pretty Bird Woman House needs your donation -- they need to buy a new building after their old one was broken into and burned down. (via Boltgirl.)

New law in MO

Looks like there is a new state initative to ban abortion. This time in Missouri.

Feministing:

A new ballot initiative in Missouri is seeking to essentially outlaw abortion. (H/t Cara)

The proposal would require doctors to extensively review the medical literature on abortion and investigate each patient’s background and lifestyle. It would require doctors to certify that the abortion was better for the woman than a full-term pregnancy.

Because when deciding what's best for a woman, the idea of actually trusting the woman herself is silly-talk. That's what doctors, legislators, and men are for. I suppose we shouldn't be shocked that they're going the "women are too stupid to know that when they get abortions, they're getting abortions" route, but it's still frigging infuriating. The proposal would also allow women to sue doctors if they later regretted their decision to terminate a pregnancy and would offer no rape or incest exception.

The proposal, which is known as the “Prevention of Coerced and Unsafe Abortion Act,” would require the doctor to certify that an abortion was necessary to avert the woman’s imminent death or irreversible disability. Or the doctor would have to document that carrying the fetus to term would be more dangerous than the combination of nearly every conceivable risk associated with abortion.

And get this--those risks include any risk that's been associated with abortion "in any study published in a peer-reviewed journal." So basically, even potentially politically-motivated and well, untrue, research would have to be taken into account. Charming.

So they will try to throw up every threat they can to scare off doctors. Lawsuits, poorly written law that WILL BE read to ruin doctors that still do undesired procedures.

But I have some hope this will fail or be struck down in court.

NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri says that the proposal would mean a near-total ban on abortion and that the wording would actually mean that a dying woman seeking an abortion that would save her life would be required to wait 48 hours before obtaining the procedure. You know, so she had sufficient time to mull the decision over and all. Disgusting.

So, if this is so badly written that women in emminent risk of death will be denied, or have doctors unwilling to proceed, I can't see this standing up to judicial rulings, unless you get a wingnut judge...I'm sure in appeal that there would be a more considered...

...tell me again that their is no difference between Republican and Democratic candidates at state and national levels.

The Unrapable

Feministing has a look at a story out of the Philippines. Apparently some women are just unrapable. I guess the women should just be thankful it ain't rape.

A women from the Philippines has decided to take her rape case to the United Nations' CEDAW because the courts in Manila decided that there are two kinds of women; rapable and unrapable (please no, neither of these are actual words) and that she fell into the "unrapable" category.

“The court, in effect, showed that there are two kinds of women: the ‘rapable’ and the ‘unrapable’ kind. I , according to the judge, fit the ‘unrapable’ mold,” she said with a chuckle, pointing out it was an absurd proposition from a judge she described as “unenlightened” about gender-sensitivity.

Karen said she did not fall in the “rapable” stereotype by society’s standards. “There was one conference when a rich lady from Davao City sought me out because she wanted to see the prominent businessman’s victim. She looked surprised when she saw me and said bluntly that she had been expecting somebody with a come-hither appearance,” she recalled.

Charming. But it is a reminder this is not some Middle East issue, or unchristian issue. After all, we still have like judgements going on in the United States.

It is important to be aware and be indignant about this type of garbage.

Giuliani's wealth

Giuliani is a wealthy man, he has an embarrassment of rich problems and skeletons in his closet.

Crooks and Liars looks at some of the newer ones.

Giuliani is the first thrice-married serial adulterer to ever even run for president, a fact that most reporters have ignored entirely. When the Village Voice reported a few months ago that Giuliani kept his emergency command center in 7 World Trade Center, in part so he could maintain a convenient love nest for his extra-marital affairs, the media, once again, yawned.

...

And how about this.

As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.

The documents, obtained by Politico under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants.

And then there are the issues with his business, as covered by the Village Voice.

So with all of this, how long can the magic in the words nine eleven last for him?

And with Romney stumbling, it seems to put Huckabee is place to hope, unless McCain can muscle himself out to the front again

Huckabee is scary. He is a conservative through and through. He may smile all the time, but he isn't friendly to gays, to reproductive rights, to science, and so many other things. It is a smile that hangs on a harshly conservative frame. If he stays up front about what he is, at least it might be an interesting debate about where people want the country to go...sorry, I was dreaming for a moment. The attack ads will come, and the media will play up whatever story seems fun and easy to push. Matthews does love to laugh during his show, and he does love mocking the Democratic candidate.

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.