Trafficking women in the US of A

It is a sad truth. Women around the world are being forced into the sex industry and then are kept and forced to work in inhuman and degrading conditions. There are the stories of Thailand. And then there are stories of Israel. What Americans refuse to face is that it is happening here, in your own backyard.

It is time to get aware, be vigilant, and be sure people are being protected from those that would prey on them and use them. It can happen here. It does happen here. What are you going to do about it.

Feministing:

I know a woman from South America who spent her first night in the Big Apple in a brothel overlooking Roosevelt Avenue in Queens. With a timer at her side she “serviced” 19 men – a veritable United Nations parade of taxi drivers to restaurant workers who literally queued up for a turn to have 15 minute sex sessions with the women at this brothel.

If you never had a picture of what the low-budget, factory-style prostitution that makes up much of the local NYC sex industry, this is it – up close, uncomfortable and a mockery of sex and all it stands for – pleasure, sharing, sexual empowerment and women’s liberation.

At the beginning of each shift, the women are given a produce box top with two rolls of paper towels, a bottle of lube, alcohol and a baggie filled with unwrapped condoms. The condoms are prepped much like vegetables at restaurants before the rush hits. There are tips that go to the men who stand on the corners as dusk sets in and pass out business cards for the brothels and give directions to the houses where sex can be bought $30 for 15 minutes. The price went up this year from $25.

It would be a year before “Carmen” could get out from the grasp of the trafficker who she “worked” for. She endured long nights of anonymous men in the beginning, a method that is used the world over by pimps and traffickers (one and the same) to break down a woman’s spirit, resolve and fight. Serial rape will do that to you.

After that, the threat of violence kept her in place coupled with a threatened smear campaign of her reputation back home. Her traffickers told her if she didn’t stick it out, they’d drop the news in her town that she’d become a whore in the US. She should just suck it up, make some cash and get home soon. For a Latin woman from a small town in South America womanhood is defined largely by being in the respectable camp or the whore house.

This year, NOW-NYC and the New York State Anti-Trafficking Coalition had a big role in shaping and getting an anti-trafficking law passed. It was way overdue. The DAs spend loads of money investigating scams and shakedown operations but not human trafficking. The cops hardly know what trafficking is. We have a campaign called “Ask A Cop” in which people ask cops on the street about the new law so that we can make a report and convince the NYPD that training is seriously needed. I asked two cops on the subway platform recently and they told me trafficking is only a problem in New Jersey, it was happening in NYC?!

...

More hair

The media keeps at it and the hair. Is the editorial board of the Washington Post facing a follicle-challenge?


Crooks and Liars:

Don’t look now, but the Washington Post is on the hair beat again. Washington Post’s fashion writer Robin Givhan had this 500-word piece in yesterday’s A Section about a certain former governor’s perfect locks.

...

And on and on it went. Givhan, who has also been overly-fascinated with Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits and cleavage, not only scrutinized the quality and appearance of Mitt Romney’s hair, she parlayed this overwrought analysis into a political examination, explaining what voters will think (and expect) from a candidate’s coiffure.

Worse, the WaPo followed it up with yet another reference to — you guessed it — John Edwards’ hair.

In the earlier post I pointed to all the Post's references to Edward's haircut. One was made by Dana Milbank, who often appears on Countdown. The last time I saw him on, he conceded to Olbermann that they all did do it. And his justification was that it was a way to represent something in the subject.

I see...So what does an expensive haircut say about someone who is advocating for the poor?

Hmm...is he a hypocrite? Why? Because he is successful in life? Why is it that the well off are not allowed to be of service? Edwards made a success of himself, through the law, and also helped out families put in distress in the process.

So what does the haircut say? He's vain, perhaps. But he also takes that hair and shakes hands, rubs, shoulders, and spends time with people in need of help. So what is the point being made?

Does Clinton cackle? Does Edwards overpay for haircare? Does...

WHO CARES?

No one should, unless you want to whisper about you know who doing you know what.

A precarious line...

And is it precarious.

I give the campaigns a little slack. One rep or worker says a dumb thing does not mean the campaign is at fault. When Romney or Huckabee say dumb things it is there fault. When Obama comments on Clinton and dynasties, comments may follow. When someone uses bad analogies, they deserve a tiny bit of grief.

And with the dumb comments out of the Clinton campaign, I have given slack. When a member of the campaign say a stupid ass things, it is not good, but not the fault of the candidate. But the number of stupid moments is growing, that has to reflect on the whole campaign and candidate.

So we come to the latest slip up, about Obama's past use of drugs as a youth. There is a point that Republicans will smear him about it. But no matter who is the candidate, they will get smeared with something. It is just how the Republicans approach the game. No, the point here, by this fellow was to pop up an unsavory bit of Obama's past and pick at him. It is just a cheap shot.

And the trouble for Clinton is that when this keeps happening, it means either that she is not keeping control, or she is letting these guys do the cheap dirty work. So I agree with the Obama campaign comment that in the future they will hold Clinton herself at fault for nasty comments. And I can see why, and agree.

Parsing Torture

The parsing…the parsing.

It is actually quite fascinating to watch the parsing among conservatives. Especially on the question of torture. Not just on one aspect. Oh, no, there are a number of things on which they take the issue and disperse the troubles.

Scarborough is deeply offended about the recording aspect. He resolutely says that the recordings were alright and good. And the CIA was right to get rid of them. And anything after that is just whining. Really? The fact that the White House counsel and Congressional oversight said to not destroy them is not something to consider, Joe? The fact that the 9/11 Commission wanted some of the tapes of the connected terrorist for their work, not to be considered? Really?

It is just a lot easier to look the other way when you don’t think about it, isn’t Joe?


And today I saw a proponent arguing that it was all no big deal. See, it wasn’t explicitly illegal to water board in America. See? No Big Deal. Don’t look behind the curtain. The king has left the stage. Everyone go home. Wow, I guess that ends it all. Except, that most everyone considers this a brutal act. It is illegal internationally. The fact that the CIA, the White House, and Congress have moved to protect interrogator from legal responsibility…they don’t move that fast if there isn’t money, votes, or bad publicity involved.

Bad things happen to us. And it seems we did bad things in response. Now, we don’t what to talk about it. That is not healthy for a nation, for a people. We shouldn’t have to fight to keep the evidence from being destroyed.

Too many conservatives, including this administration have shown a disdain or willful ignorance. It has cost of across this nation, socially and economically, across the globe, diplomatically and militarily, and across history. Let us make the record, set the record, and learn something from all of this.

Of haircuts and pantsuits.

I was going to talk some about yet another story about Clinton's clothing. But the stories are not hitting the big time that often at the moment.

But looking at the way the Washington Post talks about Edwards, it has got to sting and bother.

From TPM Horses Mouth:

Yesterday I heard that The Washington Post was set to weigh in today with a big profile of John Edwards, so a friend and I started gaming out the key question: Is there any chance that the piece won't mention Edwards' $400 haircut high in the piece?

...

These days, Edwards's $400 haircuts and $6 million house garner the lion's share of attention...

...

Well, yes, WaPo, Edwards' $400 haircut does get "the lion's share of attention,"a lot of attention, because...

...YOU KEEP FRIGGIN' WRITING ABOUT IT!!!

...

The article then gives a good list of the repeated use of the haircut to take jabs at Edwards.

It is just a cheap way to make a cheap shot.

After these shootings...What the hell is this guy even talking about?

Between the two shootings in Colorado Springs there was some comments about who would do it. Before any traction could be made of a secular/atheist assault on God's people. But then he struck again and died.

So people have learned he was a potential missionary. He wanted in and to be a part of the religious gang. But he got passed on. Apparently they had concerns about him. Some talked about some party where he started playing some weird, to them, music, and made everyone nervous.

It seems he was a troubled Christian who felt that he was expelled. And then he got angrier and angrier, and then snapped.

Sad. But one can see the predictable trail.

But some see another path to "the truth". Tony Perkins, of Family Research Council, says it is the secular media. Really?

Crooks and Liars:

In its Action Update today, the Family Research Council (FRC) partially cast blame for the tragic shooting at a megachurch in Colorado yesterday on “the secular media.” In the e-mail, which was sent under the name of FRC Action President Tony Perkins, the group says it’s “hard not to draw a line between” the shooting and “hostility” by “some in the secular media toward Christians”...

It is hard not to draw a line between the hostility that is being fomented in our culture from some in the secular media toward Christians and evangelicals in particular and the acts of violence that took place in Colorado yesterday. But I will say no more for now other than that our friends at New Life Church and YWAM are in our thoughts and prayers.

When Perkins can’t explain why this sick young man turned against his church and why God spared some people, but allowed others to be slaughtered, he sloughs it off on “evil secularists.” Tony, do you think that the fact this kid was kicked out of the missionary school he shot up had anything to do with it? Isn't it possible that this rejection may have driven him to seek revenge? The secular media didn't reject this young man, nor did it give him access to the gun. Mr. Perkins, you might want to look at the real root causes of this tragedy rather than blaming secularists.

Of course, remember what the media has done against Christians...hmmm...

Okay, give me a minute...I am sure there is something nasty that the media has done to churches...

What is he talking about? I notice he didn't want to say. My guess, he knew he would like an utter ass if he actually tried to back that up.

More on torture, taking pictures, and then feeling a bit guilt...if your in the government.

Crooks and Liars has the latest on the CIA's torturing of suspected terrorist, and the destruction of the evidence of what the did and learned.

The #5 story on Monday’s Countdown delivered a bombshell - John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who actually led the team of agents who appeared on the destroyed torture tapes has come forward in an interview with ABC to confirm the tapes DID show waterboarding and that while he believes the technique was effective, he now believes it is torture and is wrong. It’s becoming more and more difficult for President Bush to convince the world that he hasn’t committed war crimes.

...

On torture.

Torture does not work. But it can. If you put people under duress they will say something eventually. It seems they might have got some good intel from this. But, this guy is speaking of second hand word to him, so perhaps, someone was trying to make him feel what they did was worth it?

What happen here was they captured a guy who was in the middle of soldering a bomb to use. He probably was a terrorist. So he had something to give, and they might have been lucky and got facts and not lies. But what about Guantanamo? What percent are actually terrorist? What percent know anything of value? Or new?

It is just hit and miss. And when you inflict it on someone what does it say and do to us as a society? How about when they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? How should we feel then? Torture as policy, just a tool in the box, bespeaks a good deal about a people. I have a family friend who lived in Afghanistan during one of the previous unpleasant periods, and he can tell stories of torture, electricity and water don't mix.

What are we becoming as a people? Who are we? Are we truly the people who proclaim that might makes right?

Maybe not. The government still seems scared to get caught. Maybe we have it in us to rebuff the temptation of false security.

Huckabee just brings the charm.

Well, we have seen Huckabee's ignorance on gays, AIDS, and the prison release system of Arkansas.

Just in case you thought that would be it, here is another.

Daily Kos:

...

In August of 1998, Huckabee was one of 131 signatories to a full page USA Today Ad which declared: "I affirm the statement on the family issued by the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention." What was in the family statement from the SBC? "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

The ad wasn't just a blanket, "we support the SBC statement," but rather highlighted details. The ad Huckabee signed specifically said of the SBC family statement: "You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership."

...

Doesn't this guy get more and more wonderful? The bible is a literal truth. Rapist need out of prison. Sick people need interning. Our problems come from the gays. And women should shut up and take to steps behind him.

This guy is a contender? ... well, for Republicans, yeah. I am just surprised he hasn't had a George Allen moment yet.

That's disturbing...

From Feministing: (You can see the underpants in question on there site.)

Who needs credit cards..

Reader Scarlett saw these oh-so-charming panties in the junior department of her local Wal-Mart on Kildare Farms Road in Cary, NC. There's nothing quite like telling adolescent girls that they don't need to worry about finances since they have their very own moneypot between their legs.

Contact customer service here and corporate offices here: let them know that preteen vaginas aren't commodities.

Is there a good way to read this? An innocent one? Who would produce this? And who would sell them? Is this supposed to be worn with wee teeny tiny t-shirt with the bedazzled word Slut? What part of the sense of humor is this stuff tickling?

An excellent reminder of the state of the stewardship of the nation

AMERCIAblog:

Lives are at risk because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is woefully behind in the latest scientific advances and is underfunded for its vast responsibilities, an expert panel will tell the FDA on Monday.

...

Yeah...I've known this for years. The FDA and other regulatory bodies are being underfunded. The move to let business regulate itself is sadly a strong one. And haven't the toy makers been making a good go of supporting that argument? As have spinach producers and meat packers.

Regulation is a needed step. Business will rarely regulate itself. Hence the parts of HIPAA that regulate medical service use of patient data, and the FDIC's pull with financial institutions. Hospital and banks would not take the needed steps without the pressure on them to do the right thing. It just is not prudent for business demands.


It is like the current issues with credit cards. The pressure is on getting rates lower for people in debt. Fine. That is good. But what about your digits? The ones in the system, at the stores, in those databases, just sitting there. Are they protected? What are the rules? There are no rules and inadequate protection. Moves in the industry to regulate are slow and whines about. If government stepped in and said, certain cards would no longer be allowed, if changes weren't made, or a chain store would not be allowed to take cards, unless...Well, change and security would sweep in.


With critical industry, we need regulation. And for regulation, funding and support.

In many cases lives are at stake.

But as a liberal I obviously only just want big government.

Purity <> Edgy

Feministing takes attempts to call Purity Balls, and all the notions surrounding them, to task. Edgy to swear fealty to daddy? Isn't this an even more twisted variation of the sandal wearing pastor with the guitar trying to play off Jesus as some sort of hippy? Again, this is a lot lamer and disturbing.

...

If girls and women really want to rebel against the sexified pop culture that breeds Britney Spears and The Pussycat Dolls, purity balls aren't the way. In fact, they're just more of the same. Pop culture tells women that their bodies are public property and that they have to be sexual in order to be desirable and loved. Purity balls and the like tell women that their bodies are private property (though not our own of course--our bodies belong to our fathers, husbands, and the men in our life) and that they have to be virginal in order to be desirable and loved. In either case women's sexuality belongs to everyone but women. There's nothing counter-cultural or cutting edge about that.

...

Rape in the Green Zone.

Crooks and Liars points to a disturbing reminder of what this government has tied itself to.

A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.

Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave. Read on…

Challenge to the US and China

AMERICAblog has nobel lauriate Al Gore's challenge to the United States and China.

...

But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters — most of all, my own country –– that will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act.

Both countries should stop using the other’s behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment.

...

Thou shalt not blaspheme against Python

Well, the papers are in for the semester. Now I just have to wait for the exams to be released so I can get to work on them.

Luckily, some fun is to be found.

PZ Myers links to a classic Not the Nine O'Clock News bit. Indeed, how dare they blaspheme against the wonder that is Python.

Something fun to do.

Right now on CNN, Campbell Brown is scaring us about IRAN.

On PBS right now, Bill Moyers is reminding us about the bad journalism before IRAQ.

Very interesting.

The Latin shift.

Crooks and Liars:

By 57 percent to 23 percent, more Hispanic registered voters say they favor Democrats than Republicans, according to a survey by the nonpartisan Pew
Hispanic Center.

That 34 percentage point Democratic edge — which includes people who said they lean toward either party — has grown since July 2006, when a Pew poll measured a 21 point difference. Then, 49 percent of registered Hispanic voters said they favored Democrats and 28 percent chose Republicans.

Wow. I guess Chris Matthews doesn't know Latinos as well as he thought.

Huckabee and Gay Marriage

No not another dark secret from Huck's past.

Daily Kos looks at one of his comments about the social destruction that is caused by messing the the tenets of marriage ("There's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. ") and make an excellent point to consider when someone says that gay marriage is an End of the World sign.

...

So, I'm wondering, who were these civilizations that re-wrote the meaning of marriage or family, and met some horrible doom. Was it the many civilizations were marriage was arranged and decided long before children were of marriageable age? Was it the Jewish civilizations of Jesus' day where brothers were required to marry their brother's widows? Was it civilizations that allowed siblings to marry? How about first cousins? Could be it civilizations who adopted the silly idea that you should marry for love. Perhaps it was the Mormons who decided to practice polygamy. Perhaps it was those who decided to stop. Or maybe it was the polyandrous cultures in many mountainous or arctic regions.

The truth is that every society rewrites the rules of marriage and family. That's what happens to all our social values as they respond to changes in how we live, what we know, and our available resources. Yes, friction occurs when the boundaries of a social convention no longer match those of a society in which it's embedded, but the societies that survive are exactly those which demonstrate the flexibility to change and adapt.

We stand at the end of a long line of rule-changers, of civilizations that have made institutions like marriage work for them, instead of against them. The dust under our feet is composed of all the civilizations that just the kind of rigidity that Huckabee wants for us now. The civilizations who fail are not those who acknowledge changing conditions and reshape their rules, but those who don't.

"Marriage" has changed shifted in so many ways since people started having "permanent" couplings. Heck, Catholic priest could once get married. Rules change left and right.

So, please, cut the bull conservatives. You just don't like the idea of gay marriage. That's your problem, not the worlds.

Juan Cole on the Romney Speech

Juan Cole gives his considered opinion of The Religion Speech. He hits on a number of good points and some added context from the words of some of his supporters.

Mitt Romney's speech in Texas on Thursday was supposed to be an attempt to fend off religious bigotry. Instead, it betrays some prejudices of its own (against secular people), and seems to provoke others to bigotted statements. It has been likened to the speech of John F. Kennedy on his Catholicism. But we knew John F. Kennedy, and Mitt Romney is no John F. Kennedy. Kennedy strongly affirmed the separation of religion and state. Romney wants to dragoon us into a soft theocracy (not as a Mormon but as a Republican allied to the Pat Robertsons of the world). Kennedy wanted to be accepted as an American by other Americans. Romney wants to be accepted as a conservative Christian by other conservative Christians.

...

What Romney omits is that many of the "religious people" among the founding fathers were Deists, who did not believe in revelation or miracles or divine intervention in human affairs. Thomas Jefferson used to sit in the White House in the evening with scissors and cut the miracle stories out of the Gospels so as to end up with a reasoned story about Jesus of Nazareth, befitting the Enlightenment.Some Founding Fathers were Christians, some were not, at least not in any sense that would be recognized by today's Religious Right. Jefferson believe that most Americans would end up Unitarians.As for the insistence that you need religion for political freedom, that is silly. Organized religion has many virtues, but pushing for political liberty is seldom among them. Religion is about controlling people. No religiously based state has ever provided genuine democratic governance. You want religion in politics, go to Iran.

Liberty can survive religion, especially a multiplicity of religions within the nation. Because that way there is not a central faith that imposes itself on everyone, as Catholicism used to in Ireland or Buddhism used to in Tibet. But organized religion would never ever have produced the First Amendment to the US constitution, and the 19th century popes considered it ridiculous that the state should treat false religions as equal to the True Faith.

Deists, freethinkers and Freemasons--the kind of people that Romney was complaining about-- produced the First Amendment. When Tom Jefferson tried out an earlier version of it in Virginia, some of the members of the Virginia assembly actually complained that freedom of religion would allow the practice of Islam in the US. Jefferson's response to that kind of bigotry was that other people believing in other religions did not pick his pocket or break his leg, so why should he care how they worshipped? And that's all Romney had to say. But he did not want to say that. Romney said the opposite. He implied that is is actively bad for a democracy if people are unbelievers or if there is a strict separation of religion and state.

We know the Founding Fathers and Romney is no founding father.

...

So Romney's so-called plea for tolerance is actually a plea for the privileging of religion in American public life. He just wants his religion to share in that privilege that he wants to install. Ironically, the very religious pluralism of the United States, which he appears to praise, will stand in the way of his project.

Why should we care if a candidate pushed to release a serial rapist from prison?

Now, I like NBC's David Shuster's work. He does ask government tough questions. And he does well guest hosting on Countdown.

But I really dislike a question he posed to Ariana Huffington this morning. It could be a devil's advocate question, but this bespeaks my feel of the lazy and taking the easy roads mentalities of too many journalists.


To paraphrase, "Why should we care about this story [The Huckabee - Rapist released from prison story], it doesn't support a pre-existing activity or opinion of him?"


What? He seems to be saying, if it ain't part of the media's existing narrative, why should we care? Why should it not just be pushed off the table? Oh, heavens forbid we discover the public facade is a false one. I would hate to make the journo job harder.

This reminds me of the Katie Curic, off camera comment, about bumping the Kerak/Giuliani story, as no one cares.

That's good journalism all around...

And yet more...

From firedoglake:

From start to finish, Romney's speech this morning entitled "Faith in America" was a political -- not a religious -- speech. Romney wanted to say "I believe in the separation of church and state," yet he tried to reach out to evaneglicals who are moving toward Mike Huckabee and bring them back by saying in essence "Americans are people of faith, their leader must be a person of faith, and I'm the best faithful leader out there."

It's kind of hard to reconcile those two, but Mitt gave it a good try.

...

What "some" people want removed from the public domain is the government taking official notice of and granting preference to (a) religious beliefs over non-religious beliefs, and (b) favoring certain religious believers over others with different beliefs (religous or otherwise). The Constitution says not one word about God, and refers to religion only twice -- and both times in the negative, to constrain the government's interaction with religion. People are free to impose a religious test (or any other kind of test, for that matter) on the candidates for office as they consider for whom they will vote; the government cannot put such a test as a requirement for holding office. People are free to be religious or not; the government must be blind to religion.

...

For all Romney says about history in this speech, this paragraph is proof that his knowledge is shallow indeed. Abolition of slavery, for instance, divided families, congregations, and entire denominations. The Presbyterians split in 1861, and didn't reunite until 1983, for crying out loud.

It's also proof of a subtle religious bigotry. Despite his claim of a "common course" based on "great moral principles," there continues to be great division among religious people over all kinds of issues. Committed Roman Catholics, for instance, interpret "right to life" to mean opposition to the death penalty; evangelical fundamentalists see the death penalty as a completely separate issue. Some religious groups embrace GLBTs, while others do not. Yet Romney, trying to reach the evangelicals who are moving toward Huckabee, blithely says in essence, "all religious folks have the same moral beliefs." Sorry, Governor, but your moral beliefs are much different than mine, and also much different from a lot of evangelicals.

"We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny," says Romney -- but he makes it clear he is talking only about "radical Islam." Romney's language about America's churches having a common moral creed and his assumption that every American is religious points to a different kind of tyranny from the TheoCon right. Says Romney, "And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me."

Where, pray tell, does that leave those who have not knelt in prayer to the Almighty?

The bottom line for Romney is that he has to reach out to the right wing religious voters. He mouths the words about separation of church and state to mollify moderates, but his strongest language is aimed directly at the evangelicals who are leaning toward Huckabee and others on the right, telling them that he's a good, religious guy -- and Americans need a good religious leader in the White House.

Daily Kos:

...

In this formulation "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom" Romney completely distorts or ignores history. In fact, religion has flourished alongside slavery and repression. In fact, organized religion has served as the instrument of repression from prehistory right into the modern day. Romney finds it convenient to disregard this.

In praising religious liberty, Romney mourns the empty cathedrals of state-sponsored churches in Europe, before returning to an attack on Islam.

...

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

This theme, played out in one discordant note after another through the remainder of Romney's speech, is perhaps the least tolerant expression uttered by anyone this side of Bill O'Reilly, certainly by anyone running for president. In Romney's speech, America isn't just a country where a number of religious people live, it's a country that is required to be religious.

...

In noting the "Creator" of the founding fathers, Romney discards any notion that this word was an abstract concept, a term for man's origin stated by a group of men operating decades before Darwin climbed aboard the Beagle. His list of religions among the founders doesn't entertain any idea of deism, much less atheism.

...

Rather than a defense of his personal beliefs, Romney's speech devolves into an exclusionary rewrite of history, one if which our country is founded by, for, and about religion. Romney assures the conservatives he hopes to woo that those who fall on their knees are his friends. And for what about those do don't kneel? Where is their place in Romney's America?

And this is something that is getting praise. Sure from politicians and pundits. But from the media? Can they just pool a brain, or have an energy drink and do some sound work?

An Olbermann Special Comment and more on The Speech

The video from last night's Countdown is on One Good Move.

A great piece that lays out the slow shift in the president's statements, that started right when he didn't get the NIE.

Bush is a liar. Not about sex, about matters of life and death.


Unfortunately, I have not found video of the other great piece from last night. In the segment, Olbermann talks with Washington Post's Eugene Robinson about the Romney Speech. They hit on the key issues I was having, and they note how the media is too busy loving the speech to care. Of course the issues surround tolerance for those other than monotheist, and the media tends to forget they exist. And the blowing off and denouncing of the secular and atheist is apparently okay.

Now the trouble for secularists and atheists was hit on in one interview. That was on CNN, with the religious writer Robert Ostling. And he brought up the dismissal of the secular citizen to dismiss them and move on to how great a speech it was.

Some wit from the witty.

Here's a great quote from Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain):

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.

- "The Lowest Animal"

More on Romney on Faith

More from other sites and blogs.

From Atrios a note on the man who introduced Romney today.

It's completely appropriate that Mitt was introduced by George HW Bush, the man who once said:

No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.to give a speech which included the line "

freedom requires religion."

Much of the time it seems that atheists are the only people who understand that importance of religious freedom, and for that we get accused of being hostile to it.

From Salon.com.

Here is the passage that troubles me: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

In the speech, Romney is attempting to pull off the "have it both ways" shuffle. He is aligning himself with those conservatives advocating more religion in the public sphere while simultaneously arguing that the doctrines of Mormonism should be off-limits in the campaign. In my judgment, Romney is half-right here -- no one should quiz him about his religious beliefs or vote against him because of his church. (For those who crave more on my views read today's piece.) But this back-and-forth is all part of the standard political debate that has been going on since, at least, the Supreme Court banned school prayer in 1963.

...

The objectionable point here is the ill-concealed notion that only those who are truly religious crave freedom. Secularists may, in Romney's vision, give lip service to freedom. But when the chips are down, they will presumably sell out liberty for a pair of backstage passes to the MTV Awards or a chance to rip the Ten Commandments from a courthouse wall. ...

And this line of Romney's has also been noted.

We are a nation "Under God" and in God, we do indeed trust. We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders -- in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.

So the obvious, what's that about judges? What test is going to be used by him then?

The other matter. He tries to subtly suggest that "In God We Trust" and "On Nation Under God" were enshrined by the Founding Fathers. This is something constantly foisted. No, the pledge changes and the money changes were things of the 20th century. And to use them as proof of the Founding Fathers intent is just plain dishonesty.

And I need a better causative argument for how exactly the lack of nativities and menorahs "in the public places" hurts liberty and America? How will an increase lead to better and improved freedom.

If I go and put up a Nativity scene, will he scrap the Patriot Act? Nope.

Romney on Faith

Well it is time for his little speech, far from Kennedy-esque.

TPM has the excerpts. And clearly this speech was not geared to wooing me.


And the speech starts.

So first he starts out with some irony calling on tolerance and no religious tests. This follows on his comments before about how he wouldn't put Muslims in high levels of his administration, maybe the lower levels.

He then goes on to cry out against the persecution of Christianity. Not enough nativities, menorahs, and Jesii on street corners. We apparently are tossing it away. He mentions the need for diversity of faith, and no state religion. But...we need to remember Christ all the more? How does this work?

And of course their was more red meat for conservatives.

The evil Secularist were mentioned. They...we, apparently are trying to impose out evil on America. And he took a jab at Europeans who are apparently insufficiently prayerful.

And the lovely line that no movement of conscious can go on without religious people. WHAT...UTTER...BULL! Secular types were backing Martin Luther King well before the Baptist finally stop being skittish about King's ideas.

It is the old story, as we have heard from Catholic and Anglican leaders. We need to join together, against the evil secularist.


So, don't worry Republicans, he's willing to play the role of true blue die hard conservatives.


Though it is interesting to hear the religious conservatives talking now that it is over and saying that he hasn't addressed the fact he was a Mormon and what is wrong with that. Will that attitude hold sway in Iowa?

Then again, I hope most conservatives don't think like Bill Bennett.

SHUDDER.

A disturbingly effective ad on domestic violence

Feministing links to a disturbing, but evocative Canadian PSA, that never saw air. It is easy to see why they might be squeamish. But it makes the point succinctly.

Huckabee's decision process

AMERICAblog has a list of Huckabee's clemency choices. An interesting read.


And his former aide has something to say about the Dumound case.

...

But, according to Reeves, Huckabee actually told the parole board members that the prison sentence meted out to Dumond for his rape conviction was "outlandish" and "way out of bounds for his crime." Huckabee believed there "was something nefarious" about the how the state's criminal justice system had treated Dumond, Reeves said.

Reeves's admission comes as a surprise since the interview was encouraged by Huckabee's presidential campaign. Reeves served as chief counsel to then-Gov. Huckabee until 2003, and was subsequently appointed by Huckabee as chairman of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission. Reeves has donated to Huckabee's presidential campaign.

Something nefarious? That's Huckabee's code for saying that he thought Bill Clinton was responsible for trumping up false charges against the rapist, since that's what all of Huckabee's good buddies on the far right kept telling him. And Huckabee believed it. Huckabee let his hatred for Bill Clinton cloud his judgment and it resulted in the rapes and murders of two women.

And now he's lying about it. Makes Rudy Giuliani lying about illegally using government funds to enable his extramarital affairs seem downright quaint.

The "attack" on Obama.

The attack is in "", as the slur is a claim he's secretly Muslim. Which is not really a slur, except in politics where being anything but white, male, old, and christian is bad.

TPM's Election Central has been following and digging out the story.

A nasty email has been spread around saying he's secretly a Muslim and probably tied to radicalism. It is a bunch of hooey, full of fear for the bible and the doom of America. Utter rot.

Apparently this chain email has been discovered to be passed along the chain by a Iowa County Chair for the Clinton campaign.

There is no evidence this was an act by the campaign proper, but it is an embarrassment, and plays into the view that Clinton says and does whatever she needs to win. So far, it seems, the campaign is trying to stay on top of this and fired the chair and disavowed the email.

This is the campaigns response at present.

Since seeing your post...we investigated this and below is a response from Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle:

"There is no place in our campaign, or any campaign, for this kind of politics. A volunteer county coordinator made the mistake of forwarding an outrageous and offensive chain e-mail. This was wholly unauthorized and we were totally unaware of it. Let me be clear: No one should be engaging in this. We are asking this volunteer county coordinator to step down and are making it clear to every person involved in our campaign that this will not be tolerated."

Forrest shares her thoughts on the TEA controversy.

PZ Myers looks at the statement that Barbara Forrest has released since the director of science curriculum in Texas was forced out.

The recent unpleasant affair at the Texas Education Agency, in which the director of the science curriculum, Chris Comer, was pressured to resign, was triggered by Comer forwarding an email announcing a talk by Barbara Forrest. Forrest is a philosopher of science, and one of our leading advocates in the ongoing fight for better science education in the face of the nonsense the creationists are promoting. She's also one of their critics the creationists most fear, so it's not surprising that her name would elicit knee-jerk panic.

Forrest has now issued a formal statement on the termination of Chris Comer. You can download the pdf from NCSE, or read it below the fold. She doesn't pull any punches. Here's a taste, but you really should read the whole thing.

...

The Golden Compass

PZ Myers thoughts on what CNN and Donohue think of the new film, The Golden Compass, is too fun not to share.

Here's what CNN says about The Golden Compass:

Culture: A star-studded, big-budget fantasy film released for Christmastime features religion as the villain. Hollywood is collaborating with a militant atheist British children's book author to indoctrinate children.

Gregg Easterbrook (you already know to expect drooling idiocy) babbles without comprehension. Bill Donohue, of course, thinks it is a plot to corrupt children.

Get real. This movie isn't going to convert anyone to atheism. It's a fantasy story. It's got witches and talking bears in it. It's going to generate about as many new atheists as Tolkien's Middle Earth trilogy generated converts to worship of Eru and the Ainur. It has the nicely appreciated sop to secular interest that the author is an atheist who has no respect for Christian mythology, but this is not a propaganda film — it's entertainment. If your child's beliefs can be shattered by a CGI polar bear on a movie screen, you've got bigger problems than this one film.

I'm going to go see The Golden Compass this weekend. If it's a philosophical tract rather than an adventure story, I'm not going to enjoy it much.

And those of you who are upset that religion is one of the villains in this movie — get used to it. Religion is a villain in real life, too.

Brilliant. And I was getting annoyed watching the piece on CNN when they kept repeating the idea that this will corrupt and indoctrinate children into atheists.

Really?

How many were converted by Passion of the Christ (or any other blatantly religious movie) or Chronicles of Narnia (and the other veiled religious films). Sitting through two hours of fantasy threatens faith that much?

Just how shaky is high and mighty faith?

I plan to see the film this weekend to, assuming I can finish up research proposal and risk assessment in time. I don't like being preached at, hence no love for church time. Religion and religious organizations are baddies, for once. That ain't aloud? Why can't we have a story were the skeptics are right and the blindly pious are wrong?

Is that so wrong?

Plus polar bears and a girl hero (heroine). This sounds like a great film for kids.

Hmm. I am in the mood to watch The Hogfather again.

Cognitive Dissonance

Look at this video of Bush talking about the NIE and what it means about Iran. Then look up a definition of the term cognitive dissonance.


TPMtv:

Rove continues with the advice giving

Advive from Karl Rove on Crooks and Liars:

President Bush, down and all but counted out by friend and foe alike just three months ago, is rising like a bloodied but unbowed prizefighter, and Karl Rove predicts peril for Republicans and their presidential nominee if they shun the lame-duck president on the campaign trail. […]

...

If Dems are really lucky, Republicans will forget the fact that Rove’s record on electoral predictions is surprisingly weak and they’ll take his advice.

We can only hope.

Christians as the victims OR The MP who put the P in punce, and I can tell him where he can cram the M

BBC has a funny/sad story.

Mr Pritchard, Conservative MP for The Wrekin, Shropshire, has called a Westminster debate on Christianophobia for Wednesday.

...

He said he did not want to criticise people of other faiths, but wanted to "protect the Christian tradition".

...

He told the BBC: "The debate is not about doing God or theocracy. It's about ensuring that the Christian tradition of our nation is recognised.

"If mainstream political parties do not recognise and protect the Christian tradition of this nation then other more extremist parties will.

...

Mr Pritchard said the debate was particularly topical, as recent findings suggested four fifths of schools were not staging Nativity plays this year.

...

Sorry? I guess that seems like an odd problem. Even in evangel-crazzzy America the Nativity is not generally foisted on kids in schools.

But England is a land of traditions...and a state religion.

...

Mr Pritchard said many officials and public bodies forgot the work done by
Christians in charity, business and public service.

He added: "Some people seem to want to forget the Christian tradition
going back to the first century and its contribution to arts, culture and
science.

...

Yeah. And still all this comes down to foisting his faith on people and reminding people this is a christian nation first. Freedom of religion and speech, but don't ever not have Christ at the center of everything.

...

But Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular
Society, called Mr Pritchard's debate "a waste of precious parliamentary time".

...

He added: "Christians have absolutely nothing to complain about in this
country."

Mr Porteous Wood cited the fact that 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords
and that England has an established church.

He added: "The head of state is a Christian, the prime minister is a
Christian and almost all the cabinet are self-identified Christians. How on
earth can anyone imagine that Christians are disadvantaged or pushed to the
margins?"

Mr Porteous Wood also said: "Christians are not being pushed out of public
life, if anything they are over-represented."

...

You are the majority, are the state religion, and hold the power...and still!

It is like with the FOX news "War on Christmas" crap.

How dare I not hear Merry Christmas when ever I shop! That is discrimination and abuse of my religion! A secular plot, this is!


Christians like to remind everyone of the abuse that they deal with in China and North Korea, then they throw a fit about what the person at the cash register doesn't say. How does that not make you look a bit like an ass?


I like putting up a tree and lights, and giving gifts. But that is a choice I make. Does it really have to all be about you? Really? Come on.

Getting deeper into the NIE

More on what is going on with the Iranian NIE


Crooks and Liars: (with video)

It was a year ago this month that Seymour Hersh wrote in the New Yorker that the White House (ie: Cheney) was pushing back against the release of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that had failed to find any evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program. Once again I guess you could say Sy is the polar opposite of ‘the boy who cried wolf’.’

...

It’s little wonder why Seymour Hersh is so often the target of fierce criticism from Bushco as he’s been a thorn in their side just as he has many an administration before them. Sy has earned his place as one of the US’s greatest investigative reporters/muckrakers ever after his exposing many of the greatest scandals of our time. He broke the My Lai massacre, the torture at Abu
Ghraib, and the CIA’s “Family Jewels” that led to the Church
hearings, and even Clinton’s bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, just to name a few of his more well known.

UPDATE: (Nicole) Marcy has a great NIE timeline…

The Power of The Weed

Feministing:

Yes, researchers in San Francisco (shocking, I know) have found that a
certain compound found in weed slows the rate at which breast cancer
spreads.

Are people still belly aching about the medicinal value of marijuana?

Huckabee continued...But Clinton started it. Yes he did!

The Clinton angle is one I was unclear on, as the victim was a distant cousin, so I was unclear how he made the assumption that there was a frame on this rapist.

Crooks and Liars points to the answers on Huffington Post.

...

While on the campaign trail, Huckabee has claimed that he supported the 1999 release of Wayne Dumond because, at the time, he had no good reason to believe that the man represented a further threat to the public. Thanks to Huckabee’s intervention, conducted in concert with a right-wing tabloid campaign on Dumond’s behalf, Dumond was let out of prison 25 years before his sentence would have ended.But the confidential files obtained by the Huffington Post show that Huckabee was provided letters from several women who had been sexually assaulted by Dumond and who indeed predicted that he would rape again - and perhaps murder - if released.[..]

Huckabee kept these and other documents secret because they were politically damaging, according to a former aide who worked for him in Arkansas. The aide has made the records available to the Huffington Post, deeply troubled by Huckabee’s repeated claims that he had no reason to believe Dumond would commit other violent crimes upon his release from prison. The aide also believes that Huckabee, for political reasons, has deliberately attempted to cover up his knowledge of Dumond’s other sexual assaults.

In 1996, as a newly elected governor who had received strong support from the Christian right, Huckabee was under intense pressure from conservative activists to pardon Dumond or commute his sentence. The activists claimed that Dumond’s initial imprisonment and various other travails were due to the fact that Ashley Stevens, the high school cheerleader he had raped, was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton, then the governor of Arkansas, and the daughter of a major Clinton campaign contributor.

...

This is a disturbing notion. Clinton = All bets are off. This is why laughing off the Right's obsession with Clinton is foolish. In AK, there was just a mad obsession with the man.

Holy cow, it’s unbelievable how far the right wing’s obsession about the Clenis goes. Huckabee is desperately trying to put daylight between himself and Dumond because Dumond’s release was all about discrediting Clinton. Again. Hillary was spot on right about that “vast right wing conspiracy”. And the saddest thing is I don’t know that Huckabee’s base would be as concerned about these kind of ethical issues to not vote for him. Do they care about Huckabee’s complete lack of knowledge of the Iranian NIE? Or evolution? Let’s face it, the bar for Republican understanding has been set pretty low.

UPDATE: Huckabee: God Responsible for My Rise in Polls Oy.

Ah, God did it, Clinton did it...Thanks for the reminder of the old reason Huck was creeping me out.


AMERICAblog with more.


And if he wanted to dispel the sense this was part of the anti-Clinton bias of AK Republicans, maybe trying to use Bill Clinton as a scapegoat wasn't the sharpest choice.

Huckabee rape defense: BIll Clinton made me do it

That's the Republican equivalent of the dog ate my homework. GOP presidential
candidate Mike Huckabee spoke today at a press conference about the growing controversy over his role in releasing a convicted rapist who then went on to rape and murder two more women. Huckabee has been giving conflicting answers for days now about the incident, and today came up with a novel excuse: It's Bill Clinton's fault. Six times during the press conference Huckabee invoked Clinton's name, trying to pin the blame on him for helping release the man who raped his cousin. Now, you can throw a lot of hurt at Bill Clinton, but suggesting that he'd help free the guy who raped his cousin, that's pretty far out there even for the far-right Clinton haters. And in fact, Bill Clinton had recused himself from the case because the victim was his cousin.

But even if Bill Clinton helped Huckabee enable the rape and murder of two women (which he didn't), that's the best Huckabee can come up? Clinton helped me do it?

And Huckabee's lament.

Huckabee in August 2007: I felt sorry for rapist

I felt sorry for him, I am sorry people who died and suffered, but...Clinton and the Democrats are the ones to blame.

Sure, he petitioned and pressured the parole board, but how does that place any responsibility on his shoulders?

Oh yeah, it's Bill Clinton's fault. Uh huh. Considering that's how Huckabee got into this mess, by doing the bidding of Clinton-haters who didnt' want to believe that a cousin of Bill Clinton was really raped, it does Huckabee no favors to be now proving that he's a member of the blame-Clinton posse, more interested in bashing Clinton than looking after the welfare of rape victims.

Yet another pass-the-buck Republican presidency, that's all America needs.

Huckabee issues fake passive-voice CYA apology to dead rape victims' families

...

Huckabee is denying any involvement at all in the release of the rapist who then raped and murdered their daughters even though he met with the parole board on the rapist's behalf. The appropriate apology, the real apology, isn't "I'm sorry for your pain (that someone else caused)" - that's what you say when a friend's kid dies and you had nothing to do with it. The appropriate apology when you aided and abetted the rape and murder of two people's daughters is "I am responsible for your daughters' deaths, it was a terrible error in judgment, I was wrong, and I am sorry. What can I do to set things right?"

Huckabee is also saying today, “Nothing I can do or say can reduce their level of grief.” Actually, a real apology, and not a passive-voice CYA non-apology, would be a good start.

Huckabee and the Parole

AMERICAblog is continuing the story on Huckabee.

Mom: 'Carol Sue Would Be Alive Today' If Not for Huckabee

From ABC:

Huckabee recently told CNN, "None of us could've predicted what Dumond could've done when he got out."

It's Bush and the levees all over again. No one could have predicted. Yeah, no one could have predicted that a convicted rapist who mauled a 17 year old high school student would then turn around and maul another woman after he was let out of prison early as a result of Huckabee's intervention. And now Huckabee is trying to cover up the entire affair. This story isn't going away. And I'm sure we can expect mom to be starring in many a TV commercial, and doing many a talk show. And when the right-wing noise machine starts attacking mom, like they did the first girl this monster raped, then we'll see whose side Mike Huckabee is really on.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think Huckabee thought the man would rape again. I just think that Huckabee didn't care if the man would rape again. Huckabee was more interested in anti-Bill-Clinton conspiracy theories, the fact that the first womant he man raped was a distant Clinton relative, than he was the danger of putting a convicted rapist back on the street. Huckabee tried to take a cheap shot at Bill Clinton through his raped cousin and a woman is dead as a result. Did Huckabee want her dead? No. But are we really to believe that he's surprised that a convicted rapist who didn't do his time then raped (and murdered) again? Oh please.

(And can I just say "kudos" to ABC's Brian Ross for quoting something on CNN. I don't think I've ever seen one network reference another, or at least very rarely. That was good of him, and very Internet-y.)

Huckabee was warned rapist would strike again, mom of murdered girl speaks out on ABC

Mike Huckabee is the darling of right wingers in Iowa. But, new reports from the Huffington Post and ABC News should put a serious dent in his momentum. Huckabee's now got Murray Waas and Brian Ross on the case.

First, at Huffington Post, investigative reporter extraordinaire Murray Waas has new documents that show Huckabee was warned about the dangers of Dumond -- from victims of Wayne Dumond. Huckabee's campaign has been trying desperately to spin its way out of this scandal -- but it gets worse every day. Bottom line is that
Huckabee is not being honest about his role in the release of Dumond (isn't there a commandment about not lying?)

...

Video of story at AMERICAblog.

More shortly, as I see Huckabee is making the rounds as this story makes the news cycle.

Huckabee on the NIE

From the Politico.com:

This is from a dinner tonight.

Kuhn: I don’t know to what extent you have been briefed or been able to
take a look at the NIE report that came out yesterday ...

Huckabee: I’m sorry?

Kuhn: The NIE report, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. Have you
been briefed or been able to take a look at it —

Huckabee: No.

Kuhn: Have you heard of the finding?

Huckabee: No.

Not too comforting. By the end of this day you think he would have had someone...I don't know...mention it to him...let him know that intel on Iran was shifting and that what he had to say may be affected. Course it hasn't changed most of the rhetoric on the right so...

Of course then with little knowlege on the topic, except what Khun shares we get this.

Huckabee: I’ve a serious concern if they were to be able to weaponize
nuclear material, and I think we all should, mainly because the statements of
Ahmadinejad are certainly not conducive to a peaceful purpose for his having it
and the fear that he would in fact weaponize it and use it. (He pauses and
thinks) I don’t know where the intelligence is coming from that says they have
suspended the program or how credible that is versus the view that they actually
are expanding it. … And I’ve heard, the last two weeks, supposed reports that
they are accelerating it and it could be having a reactor in a much shorter
period of time than originally been thought.

But this is a different issue. The difference between weaponizing and power generation. How far can we go denying nuclear power research? Who will back us up, besides Israel? Russia and China, with proof of no weapons research have less pressure to be hard on a trading ally.

I'd like to see him consider and talk on that, but I am worried it is outside of his realm understanding at this point.

But at least he says:

But I think probably so because there is going to be a real anxiety for us to
take any type of action without there being some very credible and almost
irrefutable intelligence to validate our decision.

But would the lack of intel keep him from following his gut? I wonder.

A song for us all.

PZ Myers has linked to a great video that expresses all of our thoughts on Dr. Kent Hovind.

May not be ideal for the workplace.

Shooting fish in the barrel this one time

Okay. I was going to let this pass, but Olbermann and now Myers has touched on this story about Sherri Shepherd on The View. You may remember her from an actual debate on whether the Earth, the planet we all live on, is flat. Flat.

Sherri "the earth is flat" Shepherd advances the atheist cause for us once again by
demonstrating just how stupid going to church can make you. This time, it was about history: Jesus came before the Romans and the Greeks, the Greeks threw Christians to the lions, and nothing could have preceded Jesus.

It just goes to show, though, that there is no intelligence minimum for the chattering pundit class.

So to explain to the subset of Christians that have this problem, of seeing their religion as the alpha and omega of everything...

• Christians were not the first religion...Judaism is also not the first religion. Nope.

• Greeks went by without Jesus or anything of the like popping up. Despite what Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess want to tell you. If you are learning history from comedy action shows, something is wrong in your life.

• Neither time the Persians invaded the Greek states were they driven back by Jesus...or Moses.

• In fact, Moses may have been Egyptian born, and that may be where the future Hebrew came from.

• Early Buddhist works and ancient Sumerian and Babylonian tales bear striking similarities to many Old Testament stories. (Sorry, for the Buddhist part, I mean the story of Buddha's temptations and Jesus's temptation by the Devil are curiously alike.)

• The world is not 6000 years old. Higher!

• The bible is a severely flawed work.

• The world is freaking round! And not on the back of a great turtle!

• The bible code is bunk.

• Did I blow your minds?

************************************************************

But back to the first Shepherd event. Flat earth. I take issue with how it was resolved.

That could have been a slip, a gap for someone who had a very poor education, doesn't travel, and...even then you can't look good. The next day was given a pass by the other host, fine, sympathy and the need to work together.

But then she used motherhood as an excuse. She worked hard to bring up her kids and didn't have time to notice the world was round...this is not 19th century, sorry. I can understand being mistaken and ill informed.

But to get defensive like that...just say I never learned that somehow, but now I've learned. Then you tie it into the idea that young or old it is never too late to learn and grow. That it is worth applauding and get people talking, sharing, and getting better informed.

Instead she gets like Sharon Osbourne in a joke Ricky Gervais did on his Fame tour. You see, she was a judge at a musicians contest and a celebrity in the audience was given a joke question about her husband to give at one commercial break. It was all for fun, as were other question given to other judges. So the guy starts the question and, in front of kids, she throws out a bunch of creative profanity. Later she says that when someone goes after our (women's) families, we are like lionesses. She gets applause. The guy was trying to give a jokey fun question that the shows producers gave him to liven the commercial time experience of the audience and she just lost it. And she plays herself as a victim, standing for her man. No. She snapped and screwed up. Own up and show you are an adult.

That is what the whole "I'm a mom" thing feels like to me. It's "I may not know this, but I am all the more noble in my ignorance". Sorry, no. Many parents have made great sacrifices for their kids. She just didn't know something obvious. Britney Spears, Ana Nicole, and Whitney Houston have shown similar shocking gaps in knowledge, no one says they are noble parents for those flubs.

And that is my stupid little rant on claiming ignorance as a virtue. I see it too often, especially from religious people who look down on learning and science. It is an attitude that needs to be countered.

More from the lines of the Writer's Strike

Another great video from the people who put in all the hard work behind the scenes on the Colbert Report. Plus some funny business with the great David Cross and Richard Belzer.




Hollywood United

Ah, there it is...

So far everyone running for president has had some skeleton or flaw, from inexperience to no chance of winning.

Huckabee has stood out on the Republican side, as his numbers rise, as one that lacked this. He is a governor, has support, has a friendly persona, and seems to be rather skeleton free. His flaw is he is an unabashed raging conservative (bible literalist, etc., etc.). And I think that is not as big an issue to everyone as it is to me.

I wondered if there were any stories out there.

AMERICAblog points to one emerging at CBS.com.

I'd heard about this story, but never fully understood it until reading this CBS News piece out today. It's horrendous.

Huckabee basically helped secure the guy's release because the convict had raped a distant relative of Bill Clinton - and being a distant relative of Bill Clinton, the right-wing attack machine said the woman who was raped wasn't credible (even though the guy was convicted), and they demanded that the rapist be set free because, after all, he only raped a Clinton. Well, it seems that Governor Huckabee agreed. He set the rapist free, and then the guy molested and murdered another woman. But even better? Huckabee now denies that he had anything to do with the release of the rapist/murderer. Funny, then why did Huckabee meet with the parole board on behalf of the rapist/murderer?

So now we know the real Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is part of the Rush Limbaugh hate machine that sees everything through the eyes of how much hurt he can cause the Clintons. And if that meant helping a rapist get a second chance to molest and murder again, it was a small risk to take in exchange for hurting a distant relative of Bill Clinton.

From CBS:

As [Bill] Clinton rose to national prominence, the case came to the attention of his critics. Journalists and talk show hosts questioned the victim's story and suggested that DuMond had been railroaded by the former governor. Steve Dunleavy, a New York Post columnist, took up the case as a cause, calling DuMond’s conviction "a travesty of justice."....

When Huckabee became governor in 1996, he expressed doubts about DuMond's guilt and said he was considering commuting his sentence to time served. After the victim and her supporters protested, Huckabee decided against commutation. But in 1997, according to the Kansas City Star, Huckabee wrote a letter to DuMond saying "my desire is that you be released from prison." Less than a year later, DuMond was granted parole.

Huckabee's office denied that the governor played a role in the parole board's decision, but there was evidence (exhaustively detailed here) to contradict that claim.

Charles Chastain, a Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, who was on the parole board at the time, told CBSNews.com the governor met with the board to argue on DuMond’s behalf.

"He thought DuMond had gotten a raw deal," said Chastain, who calls himself neutral towards Huckabee. "He said he'd been born on the wrong side of the tracks and hadn't been treated all that fairly."

"I don't think the governor quite understood about parole proceedings," added Chastain. "I thought of the parole board as a quasi-judicial body that wouldn't be lobbied or otherwise interfered with by anyone outside of it, so I was a little bit surprised by it."

After the meeting, Chastain said, a number of the board members "switched their vote" from the previous year, and DuMond was paroled.

If this is all true that is a disturbing mistake, especially if he made it largely out of spite for the Clintons.

The media tonight.

TPM notes that Blitzer took an opportunity to be a bit brutish with the major pain, John Bolton.

Give Blitzer his due: He's ripping serial bamboozler John Bolton a new one at the moment on Situation Room.

Actually, maybe rubbing him a new one. Didn't quite knock back all the crap. But it wasn't bad.

Yeah, and on Hardball, Matthews was actually terse with the Weekly Standard rep trying to parse the news on Iran.

It is nice to see that these guys are getting a bit serious. But they only have so much energy or interest in this stuff.

By the end of Hardball, Matthews was back in "HAPPY MODE".

They were making hey of the Clinton campaign comments on Obama writing something in kindergarden about being president someday. I believe the cammpaign also pointed to another comment from Obama later in life. It does seem like a silly thing, but, as I understand it, there is some context. And that is what pisses me. Matthews loves having is laughathon segment on the show, even if it requires abandoning context. They have done it to every democratic candidate, though it seems he usually wait until someone is nominated.

As I understand it, currently, Obama made some claims a few weeks back about the dynasty theory of the Clintons. That is the kind of right wind crap that bugs. And it pisses me off that so many liberals embrace it. Attack her for what she does and says, not conspiracy theories. So, boo to Obama for going there. So Clinton's people did in turn picking at comments that show a drive to lead and be prez someday. Not really damning. But doing it can be spun, as by Matthews.

It is so dumb to do I have to think it was done as more a joking jibe than a smear.

Has this actually been read as an attack? Or is it being spun? Or do I not have the whole picture?

No place for reason in education

Dr. Novella has a good run down over the turmoil with the Texas Education Agency.

A few months ago I reported on the appointing of creationist Don McLeroy to head the Texas State Board of Education, and predicted we would be seeing trouble in the lone star state. Well, here comes trouble. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) has forced to resign Chris Comer, the head of the state science curriculum. What was her offense? Quoting the article:

“Ms. Comer’s e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral,” the officials said.

The speaker referred to Barbara Forrest, author of “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse.” The book is about the politics of Intelligent Design (ID) and takes the position that the purpose of ID is to instill religious creationism into public schools. Comer sent an e-mail announcing the upcoming speaker which “implied” she had a favorable disposition toward the author and her book. Egads!

...

Not to worry, their is a way to spin the Iran story

From TPM:

Yep, Rudy's Mideast Advisor Norman Podhoretz says the CIA is fibbing about the Iranian nuclear program to protect the Iranians from an attack by Bush or Rudy.

...

Fmr ambassador John Bolton is on CNN calling the report wrong and inaccurate, and that other reports support the great Iranian threat position.

More suffering for God

PZ Myers points to another sad tale. A man who has a disfiguring tumor growing in his face. But he won't get the surgery to save his life, as that would mean a blood transfusion...

I am not going to say anything else.