Doctor Who and The Children in Need

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

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

Skeptic's Circle #73

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

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


Archived Skeptic's Circles here.

Obama and Clinton

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

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

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

Giuliani in review

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

Rudy and Bernie, the Biz Years

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

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

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


Giuliani style evokes concern among US critics

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


Rudy Ready to Admit to 9/11 Heroism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dream Called Fred

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

Michael Shermer on Good and Evil

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

The Immigration Game

Crooks and Liars:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cost of looking too close at your faith

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

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

Looking at NOVA's Judgment Day

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

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

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

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

From Feministing

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

Because assaulting "chubbies" makes for a great commercial

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

Tucker Carlson sounds an awful lot like anti-suffragists

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

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

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

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

Sexual autonomy ruins relationships

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

The downside of 'vajayjay'

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

What defense of rape will they come up with next?

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

Women having sex = "mental health crisis"

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

The Military: A feminist's dream vacation

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

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

More on the writers strike.

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

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

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

And from Atrios:

On my CNBC teevee screen:

WHAT ARE THEY FIGHTING FOR?

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

Average salary: $204,000

Many earned $1 million or more

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

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

Thanks for backing management CNBC. Big surprise.

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

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

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

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

And I hope an understanding is come to soon.

JUDGMENT DAY NEXT 5 EXITS

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

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

One Good Move has a couple of clips for review.

cdesign proponentsists indeed.

On the debate

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

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

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

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

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

Let's give AMERICAblog the last word on Blitzer.

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

Hello, hello

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

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

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

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


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

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

Check it out.

Congress takes a stand

TPM.com:

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

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

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


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

Ahmadinejad takes Manhattan

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

Crooks and Liars:

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

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

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

...

TPM.com:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reeducation

TPM.com:

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

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

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

...

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

...

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

...woo? hoo?

Juan Cole on TPM

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

Juan Cole Drops Some Knowledge

Numbas

How come I never noticed all the mosques?

Crooks and Liars:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just charming.

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

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

Jena 6

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

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

Feministing also does a good job of this.


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

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

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

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

Very disappointing.