Breaking news on Spears-Hair Gate!

BIG MAJOR NEWS on Britney Spears, her hair, and...

Okay, I'm lying.



Matt Taibbi, wonders why any thing about her is such critical news of the day?

What was she thinking? How about nothing? How about who gives a shit? How's that for an answer, Sheila Marikar of ABC news, you pinhead?

I'm not one of those curmudgeons who freaks out every time that Bradgelina moves the war off the front page of the Post, or Katie Couric decides to usher in a whole new era of network news with photos of the imbecile demon-spawn of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. I understand that we live in a demand-based economy and that there is far more demand for brainless celebrity bullshit than there is, say, for the fine print of the Health and Human Services budget.

...

On the same day that Britney was shaving her head, a guy I know who works in the office of Senator Bernie Sanders sent me an email. He was trying very hard to get news organizations interested in some research his office had done about George Bush's proposed 2008 budget, which was unveiled two weeks ago and received relatively little press, mainly because of the controversy over the Iraq war resolution. All the same, the Bush budget is an amazing document. It would be hard to imagine a document that more clearly articulates the priorities of our current political elite.

Not only does it make many of Bush's tax cuts permanent, but it envisions a complete repeal of the Estate Tax, which mainly affects only those who are in the top two-tenths of the top one percent of the richest people in this country. The proposed savings from the cuts over the next decade are about $442 billion, or just slightly less than the amount of the annual defense budget (minus Iraq war expenses). But what's interesting about these cuts are how Bush plans to pay for them.

The article goes in to how this breaks down.

Included, Walton (Wal-Mart) family, $32.7 billion over the next 10 years.

Medicaid planned loses for the next ten years? $28 billion.

The Cox family (Cox cable TV) would receive $9.7 billion.

Education department loses would be $1.5 billion.

And so on. The article as more examples. All these savings to these rich families and businesses, while child education, medical support, heating for the poor, etc, all suffer and are diminished. But I'm sure it will trickle down one day. Sure, and we'll win and be out of Iraq in a few months.

That's not only bad government, it's bad capitalism. It makes legalized bribery and political connections more important factors than performance and competition in the corporate marketplace. Beyond that, it's just plain fucking offensive to ordinary people. It's one thing to complain about paying taxes when those taxes are buying a bag of groceries once a month for some struggling single mom in eastern Kentucky. But when your taxes are buying a yacht for some asshole who hires African eight year-olds to pick cocoa beans for two cents an hour ... I sure don't remember reading an excuse for that anywhere in the Federalist Papers.

I also don't remember reading much about this year's budget. It was a story for about half a minute when it came out two weeks ago. It barely made TV newscasts, and even when it did, only the broad strokes made it on air. There was some fuss about the Alternative Minimum Tax and a mild uproar over the fact that the 2008 budget failed to account for estimates of the costs for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But overall, the budget was a non-starter as a news story. As it does every year, it takes a back seat to hot-button issues like gay marriage, the latest election scandal, etc. Already, the 2008 election presidential campaign has gotten far more ink than the 2008 budget. As entertainment, bullshit politics always triumphs over real politics.

Here's the thing about the system of news coverage we have today. If the Walton family, or Lee Raymond, or the heirs to the Mars fortune actually needed the news media to work better than it does now, believe me, it would work better. But they have no such need, because the system is working just fine for them as is. The people it's failing are the rest of us, and most of the rest of us, apparently, would rather sniff Anna Nicole Smith's corpse or watch Britney Spears hump a fire hydrant than find out what our tax dollars are actually paying for.

Too many of us turn the channel or mute the sound when the news comes on, or it gets heavy.


We are mutually damned by our ignorance, and our zeal to be so ignorant.

A wonderous sight

Chimps, hunting with weapons.

Chimpanzees have been seen using spears to hunt bush babies, U.S. researchers said on Thursday in a study that demonstrates a whole new level of tool use and planning by our closest living relatives.

...

The chimps apparently had to invent new ways to gather food because they live in an unusual area for their species, the researchers report in the journal Current Biology.

"This is just an innovative way of having to make up for a pretty harsh environment," Pruetz said in a telephone interview. The chimps must come down from trees to gather food and rest in dry caves during the hot season.

"It is similar to what we say about early hominids that lived maybe 6 million years ago and were basically the precursors to humans."

Chimpanzees are genetically the closest living relatives to human beings, sharing more than 98 percent of our DNA. Scientists believe the precursors to chimps and humans split off from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago.

Chimps are known to use tools to crack open nuts and fish for termites. Some birds use tools, as do other animals such as gorillas, orangutans and even naked mole rats.

But the sophisticated use of a tool to hunt with had never been seen.

Pruetz thought it was a fluke when Bertolani saw the adolescent female hunt and kill the bush baby, a tiny nocturnal primate.

But then she saw almost the same thing. "I saw the behavior over the course of 19 days almost daily," she said.

...

Check out the article for more.

It is amazing to view this, a step our own predecessors went through so long ago. It is a thing of beauty and wonder.

"The observation that individuals hunting with tools include females and immature chimpanzees suggests that we should rethink traditional explanations for the evolution of such behavior in our own lineage," she concluded in her paper.

It gives us plenty to think about.

McCain meets the Discovery Institute.

McCain finally had his talk at the Discovery Institute. He stayed away from evolution and intelligent design, I guess his polls on which side to take haven't gotten back yet.








What did he say?

...said he hopes Americans will be patient and give the new Iraq strategy, led by Gen. David Petraeus, an opportunity to succeed. He said it should be clear within "some months" whether the plan is working.

Tomorrow. Tomorrow. Then we'll see. Almost sounds sensible, until you realize that they have been hitting that snooze alarm response for YEARS now. Always a new plan, always a few more months. And they keep failing, and keep going. And this is because America keeps giving them Do Overs.

This is much like ID. Teach the controversy. Sounds sensible, balanced. The trouble is that behind the words is the question of what is our controversy? Is it about the science? No. Is it about the methods? No. Is it about faith, and a wish to see higher powers at work. Yup. No sciencein ID, just PR.

It'll be clear in some months. Teach the controversy. Go behind the question. You'll see something disconcerting. You'll see something sad.

You'll see the emperor is buck naked.

Bachmann embarrasses herself, Minnesota, ...

Rep. Michell Bachmann of Minnesota, contiues to be an embarassment to her family state, and country.

From her hard work to add the adjective scarey to the term Christian, to her eager butt kissing and fondling oif the President, she has been...is there a nice way to put it?

Well now she has secret knowledge:

Says Bachmann: "And half of Iraq, the western, northern portion of Iraq, is going to be called…. the Iraq State of Islam, something like that. And I’m sorry, I don’t have the official name, but it’s meant to be the training ground for the terrorists. There’s already an agreement made."

Uh...yeah.

So who told her...God?

StarTribune.com:

Bachmann did not say how she knew about this plan, nor with whom Iran has made this deal.

Cue the Twilight Zone music, and get the lady her meds.

I don't believe in my own Ph.D!

PZ Meyer has a further look at the story of Marcus Ross...excuse, I should say Dr. Ross...but he spits on his entire field and holds it in utter contempt...so it is hard to imagine why I would bother to give him the honor.

Marcus Ross, just received his doctorate in geology. The rub? The guy is a young earth creationists! See the problem. He believes, firmly, that the planet is about 6,000 years old. And...well, why even go further? Geologist, like he is suppose to be, uniformly agree this planet's age is in the billions of years. To partially misquote and not quote Sagan, BILLIONS!!! That is quite a variance. Now did he fight and argue that evidence supported his 6,000 year faith=based opinion, and still got a degree?

No.

He lied. At least to his mind. He did things as he is supposed to and gave the response that he knew were wanted (i.e. By actually doing the real science.). But the entire time, outside the lab and when not before the committees, he was bad mouthing the work and the science.

For this he got a doctorate.

Now, you may wonder, since he did the work, he deserves the degree.

PZ Meyer

Some people are spinning this as scientists demanding a litmus test for irrelevant religious beliefs, and insisting that we can't judge a student for his beliefs. It's true that we shouldn't and I don't evaluate my students now or my grad students in the past on the basis of their beliefs. But that's not what's being said here. Ross was a two-faced liar who would say one thing to his committee, and another to the public. I might be able to forgive that if he were lying about personal matters that are not part of his committee's purview—but he was lying about the science he was doing. That isn't forgivable.

If I'd been on his committee, I would have directly asked him to defend his public statements about the age of the material he was studying—not his statements to his committee alone, but to the public at large. I would have insisted that he defend those comments scientifically. And when he failed to do so, I would have voted to deny him his degree.

Although, more realistically, if I'd been in that department, the rejection would have occurred at the admission step, or in the preliminary exam. Apparently, the university knew he was a young earth creationist at the time he admitted him, which is simply appalling. I would expect new grad students to have some basic knowledge of the discipline—professing something so stupidly at odds with the science ought to disqualify him immediately, and his slot in the graduate program given to someone more deserving and more teachable.

Ross obtained a degree by lying about it's content. I don't consider him deserving of the doctorate, any more than Kent Hovind and his fake degree.

Sound argument.

Science relies on honesty. What this guy did is lie in his work. He knew that he held that his and the rest of the fields work, results, and methods were wrong and false, but used them to humor superiors. And now that he has his degree, he will attack his field and use the complacency of this university to savage it and the public's understanding of science.

The doctoral process is complex and hard, and it is more than what you put on paper, it is about how you accomplish your work as well. This man fails on almost all accounts.

So the University of Rhode Island didn't fail him, they failed all the rest of us.

Vilsack out.

Seems Gov. Vilsack has decided to exit the presidential race. He sights the lack of money coming in, especially in comparison to the CLinton and Obama 10's of millions.

I am sorry to see him go. The more people in the debate this early the better. Though their has been little to no real debate so far, just jabs.

But his stand on social security lost me, so I am not sorry to not have him as an option. But hopefully his concern that the Midwest be represented and thought of in the campaign is faced. Even after ther Iowa caucus.

McCain's War on McCain - New McCain will crush old McCain.

A look at McCain's zany antics.

We–the humble folks trying to give you an accurate view of The Real McCain–summarize, because you're just too darn busy to keep up with every McCain flip-flop, sell out or new principle:

* John McCain's cool with missing a vote on his war, but he'll make sure to lecture South Carolina students on how taking really cold showers will allow them to forego sex outside of marriage. Unless you're McCain, it's the 1970s and you're cheating on your then-wife with your current one.

* John McCain thinks Roe v. Wade must absolutely positively be overturned. Except he said something very different in 1999. And the rules don't apply to his daughter. She has the right to control her body, unlike, say, everyone who's name is not McCain.

* McCain is a keynote speaker at The Discovery Institute on Friday, as it seems he has personally discovered how to change his position on evolution multiple times. The Discovery Institute thinks evolution is hoax, up there with gravity and electric stoves. They also think we should replace constitutional with Biblical government. Which is much different than what the Taliban wants. Much different.

* Iraq war debacle - Rumsfeld's fault. Even though not too long ago McCain was saying some very nice things about The Donald. I am just shocked McCain would change his mind!

* A tip from our loyal reader basheert: "Thune (who has endorsed McCain) told Capitol Briefing he extracted a promise from the Arizonan on judicial nominations. Thune said McCain told him he would appoint "guys like Roberts and Alito". That's a reference to Chief Justice John Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom were nominated by President Bush and were popular selections among Christian conservatives." The pandering continues.

* "What I have found out in my life, is that every time I have done something for political reasons and not the right reasons, I have paid a very heavy price for it — a big price.” Like your soul perhaps? But I digress, McCain said this, ironically enough, as he met with religious broadcasters in Orlando (of the Christian Right variety), you know, the kinds of folks he called "agents of intolerance" only a few years ago.

We hope you've enjoyed this week's edition. If we can make any promise to you, knowing John McCain's willingness to do anything to become president, it's that we'll be back next week!

For more on this and other stories, please go to cliffschecter.com.

Stay tuned for more McCain. Same pandering day, same pandering channel.

White House Press Corp Don't Heart the Blogs

At a recent National Press Club Gathering, former (?) FOX guy/Press Secretary Tony Snow, and David Gregory and Richard Wolffe of NBC, expressed their contempt for blogging.

Gregory: …Because it- it's the Internet, and the blogs, that have really used this White House press conference to somehow support positions out in America- political views- and they- and they- uh- they will clip, and digitize portions of these briefings to fit into their particular argument and I think people try to divine motives of the questioners and- and certainly draw conclusions about, uh, the answers, or- or non-answers, uh, based on their, their, their own political views.

Or maybe people get frustrated at all the softballs thrown, at the giddiness you all have at getting a nickname, and how credulous YOU became right when this nation needed true incredulity. You failed us.

Now Gregory has shown some incredulity ans willingness to take on Snow, but it is only temporary.

Snow: I'll- I'll occasionally punch it up and it's amazing, you get this wonderful imaginative hateful stuff that comes flying out, and, I think one of the, the, the, maybe one of the, the most important takeaways is, it's the classic old line "not only should you not believe your own press you probably shouldn't believe your opposition blogs either". What do you think, Richard?

If the media is only going to print and quote the government's press releases, without much of any analysis, maybe we have a good...great reason to be dubious. Hmm?

Wolffe: …I think the press here does a fantastic job of adhering to journalistic standards in covering politics in general. And the, um, the interesting thing in, in looking at the political coverage as people try to guess what we do is, is that they want us to play a role that really isn't our role. Our- our role is to ask questions and get information. But it- the press briefing isn't Prime Minister's question time.

And Wolffe, I love your recent reporting and showings on Countdown, but where were you when this country needed to get to the truth of allegations of WMD those years back. Were you on the job, and getting it done? Or did you have your head down, and doing your utmost to laugh at the jokes being thrown you from the lectern?


I do like Wolffe and Gregory, they seem nice. But the press corp, especially at the White House (they are the royalty) have a certain peerage mentality. They hang with their stories. They wine then and get dined by them.

That has always been the case, but the expectations on this generation are more serious. Maybe it is the change in the noise machines, like from Rove. They are built to use the system. They feed and tame the media nicely.

And that is the problem. The media, isn't entirely biased to a wing. That is not the problem. The trouble is that the media is freaking lazy. If you feed it, it will follow you, lead by the nose.

This leads to the other aspect of the laziness. They want a simple story. They want an archetype or stereotype. Bush = Stupid, Kerry = Flip Flop, Gore = Stiff, etc. They love the simple story, and once on it, it is damn near impossible to pull them from the trough. They focus on anything that supports the point, any aspect, any tale, they just eat it up. So when the noise machine makes claims to build a stereotype, or support it, the stories, claims, and exaggerations are just mana. And when enough media types buy in, it is all the truer.

And, yes, they go look passed, sometimes, break from the archetype, occasionally. But how comfortable can we feel hoping the story they are covering really has their full attention? Maybe their late for a cocktail party.


And more thoughts.

The reality, of course, is that most media-criticizing bloggers do not want journalists to be "political advocates." They want them to do what journalists are supposed to do – which is not, contrary to Wolffe's belief, sit around with their good, trustworthy, nice-guy friends in the White House and simply "ask questions" and "get information," but instead to scrutinize that information, treat it with doubt, investigate it before passing it along to determine whether it's true….read on

Faith really is a one way street.

Here is an excellent flow chart comparison of Science and Faith. Guess which ones dogmatic, and which one is open to change. Guess which one is one way and which one isn't.

Follow the flowcharts.

Johnson out of the hospital.

In case you have not heard the latest news, Senator Johnson is now out of the hospital. Where he is is still unclear, as the family wants to keep the media fro pestering him or them. He is now in a private facility recovering and receiving rehabilitation.

"He's reading memos, but he still needs time for recovery," Fisher said.

Good to know he is on the mend.

Vilsack on Social Security: Neither warm nor fuzzy.

Here is a look Tom Vilsack's comments at e Carson City Community Center for the first Democratic presidential forum ahead of the Nevada caucuses.

Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack takes the stage third, jokes about the fact that he's supposed to talk about AFSCME, Reid, etc. "but I won't". Instead leaves his opening to talk about Iraq, in relation to a recent conversation with a young boy in Seattle and his concerns about Iraq. Asks the crowd, "What have you done... to end the war in Iraq?" Stephanopoulos asks that exact question first. Vilsack lays out his plan to end the war now, additionally stating that he believes the troops should be moved to Afghanistan. The second question covers healthcare, specifically the John Edwards plan, to which Vilsack responds, "We absolutely do need universal coverage," though not necessarily by increasing taxes. But he also talks about dealing with wellness, pointing to curing polio, etc. Final question covers Social Security and Medicare. Vilsack talks about balancing the budget of these programs by reindexing the program to prices, not prices and wages. Closes his appearance talking about his own personal story.

Reindexing to prices?

Uh oh.


Atrios has a go at explaining the trouble with price indexing of Social Security.

Just because I'm having nostalgia for the days when it was all about Social Security, let met briefly explain what price indexing instead of wage indexing would do to the program.

First, only the initial level of benefits is indexed to wages (which rise faster than prices), after that annual COLA increases are linked to prices.

Second, while the formula for Social Security is complicated, benefit payouts are somewhat progressive, with poorer people getting a bit more relative to what they pay in, and higher income people getting a bit less, but there is a relationship between lifetime income and benefit levels. Higher income people get more.

Changing to price indexing would, over time, delink the relationship between income and benefits entirely. The formulas in place would lead to poorer people having their benefits rising in real terms (over and above inflation) slowly over time, but benefit levels for higher income people would essentially be frozen. In about 90 years or so every Social Security beneficiary would end up receiving essentially the same level of benefits, which for higher income people would be a tiny percentage of pre-retirement income.

While Social Security isn't meant to provide the complete retirement portfolio for everyone, it is meant to provide a reasonable chunk of pre-retirement income for poor and middle class people so that all people, including victims of either bad fortune (stock market crash, major health care bill, etc...) or good fortune (living longer than expected), can aspire to maintain their pre-retirement existence.

More from the Economic Policy Institute:

Much has been made of the recent Social Security proposal put forth by Robert Pozen, a member of Bush’s President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security, and endorsed by President Bush. Pozen’s suggested changes to Social Security include blending the current wage indexing of benefits with price indexing, a shift that will reduce Social Security benefits for middle-income workers by 22% in 2055 and by 28% in 2085. Indeed, the Pozen proposal will lead to substantial and ever increasing benefit cuts for well over 70% of Social Security beneficiaries, including retirees, widows, and surviving children.

This doesn't inspire confidence in Vilsack at all.

Nevada Democrats! What's the deal?

Nevada's sanity is being called into question as the state's Democratic party plan for the first presidential debate...to be run by FOX news...







SIGH



Are you mad?

I'm sure that banner in the background that says 'Democrat Party' will be nice. And hopefully, this time Fox News won't cut off the final few minutes of the debate and go directly to William Bennett to spin it before any Democrat has chance to weigh in, like they did in the January 2004 primary debate.

Fox News is a partisan Republican propaganda shop that hosts 'news anchors' that call Democrats traitors on a fairly regular basis. This is not a channel that deserves legitimacy. They will screw us.

Nevada Dems:

“FOX News’ viewership in Western states and across the country does not always get to hear directly from Democrats in an unedited and uninterrupted fashion. The August debate in Reno will allow the Democratic Presidential candidates to speak to the Fox audience who may be hearing from them for the first time for ninety minutes unfiltered and directly.”

“The Nevada Democratic Party and the Western Majority Project believe it is critical for Democrats to engage people, especially those who have heard too little from Democrats in the past. We believe the more people hear from Democrats, the better chance a Democrat will win the White House in 2008.”

Oh they hear from you. It is just thoroughly spun and reworked. And that is what will happen again when you go on, just like every other time a democrat goes there, except Joe Lieberman who they LOVE. And who that religiously watches FOX News will switch votes? Their base is the close minded variety.


So please, who made this decision, and why?

Trouble talking about women.

Jessica Valenti, at the TPM Cafe, considers the treatment of women in the media, and the lack of understanding. COnsidering the excitement over what Nancy Pelosi would wear to the State of the Union, and talk about Hillary Clinton's hair, it is a sad truth at the most basic level the media still don't know how to talk to and about girls.

Troubling Acts and Responses in Iraq

On Informed Comment, Juan Cole look at the disturbing events in Iraq. Events involving Iraqi Security Forces.

A good deal is going on as far as insurgents, Iranian fears, British pullouts, and so on. But their is also a need to keep a hand on what is happening in how this country is and will be governed, and how law enforcement will work.

Take the recent events with the Iraqi forces. They went in to grab a man they felt was a Sunni insurgent. This group was made up of Shia. They did not find him. They did find his wife. They took her in, accusing her of cooking for insurgents. Then the police gang-raped her.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite head of a Shiite government, at first said he would have a commission look into her charges. Then he reversed himself and accused the woman of lying and implying that she was put up to it by the Sunni insurgency. Marc Santora of the New York Times managed to interview the nurse who treated her, and found that Mrs. al-Janabi's story was corroborated.

This is our guy, Maliki...after Chalabi turned a dud. He looks to be covering for his group. Looks to still be choosing favorites. Looks to be leading a country in a nasty state.

If we stay, we prop this guy up, and his friends...and they have plans. And that's assuming things don't go to pot in spite of our work... If we go, things just go to pot, and people will fight.

It is important to realize that we aren't in some idealistic state, these are no Washingtons, Jeffersons, Lincolns, Bolivars...not at all.

Being Righter than Right

Crooks and Liars looks at Mitt Romney's bid to be more conservative and close minded than the rest of the pack.

''One of the great things about this land is that we have people of different faiths and different religions, but we need to have a person of faith lead the country,'' he said, as the audience gave him a standing ovation.

Hi. GW here. How am I doin'.

Atrios rightly points out that there's a double-standard here. If someone made the statement, "I think we need a Protestant to lead the country," Catholics would (rightly) be up in arms. And if someone said, "I think we need an atheist to lead the country," well, I swannee: it'd be a regular riot. Yet apparently we can just shrug off the opposite case.

I'll leave it to legal scholars to dope out out the ramifications of a candidate apparently disregarding the constitutional requirement that there be "no religious test" for office. I think Romney's just stating an opinion, but what do I know?

Atheists have a legitimate beef with this kind of talk. It only serves to underscore how they are pushed to the margins of political discourse, if not excluded outright.

But John McCain isn't one to be outdone here, even it means flipping over in a maneuver that would make a skilled gymnast blush in jealousy.

"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned," the Arizona senator told about 800 people in South Carolina, one of the early voting states.

McCain also vowed that if elected, he would appoint judges who "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench."

Legislating from the bench AND end to women's reproductive rights. Wow! That's a twofer.

But he, being the slick dog he is doesn't stop there. Then you have his meeting with creationists to pat them on the back, the abstinence only folks to give them a firm platonic handshake, and on down the line. There is not an area of science, medicine, or freedom he won't slink passed to get to a pandering opportunity. What a guy!

And now an interview with Al, Al Franken.

The Minnesota Monitor has an interview with Senatorial Candidate Al Franken.

Joe Bodell: Straightforward question out of the gate: Why are you running for the United States Senate?

Al Franken: Here’s a straightforward answer: I’m not happy with the leadership Senator Coleman has provided on the issues that matter to me and to Minnesota families, and I know I’ll be a leader in the Senate. I’m going to lead on universal health care, on renewable energy, on taking care of our veterans, and on restoring America’s standing in the world. I think we need more of that kind of leadership. That’s the kind of Senators Minnesota has given the country: leaders like Hubert Humphrey and Paul Wellstone and Amy Klobuchar. And that’s the kind of Senator I’ll be.

JB: The particulars are probably sensitive information, but what can you tell me about your strategy? Will there be a focus on urban, rural, or suburban areas of the state?

AF: I’m going to be a Senator for all of Minnesota, not just the Twin Cities. Obviously, the Twin Cities represent one of the nation’s epicenters of the progressive movement, and I’m excited about being part of that. The suburbs are growing and becoming more Democratic, and I think we will do really well there. People there are interested in economic security and fiscal responsibility, and after how badly this Republican Party has screwed up in Congress, those are now Democratic issues. And the rural communities around the state are what make Minnesota Minnesota. It was so great to go around to Fergus Falls and Winona and Virginia and Crookston this past year and see the energy in these small towns. You can bet I’ll be there a lot again during the campaign.

JB: What are your three biggest substantive issues right now, and what do you want to do about them in the Senate?

AF: Obviously, the biggest issue facing our country now is Iraq. For the past four years, the Republican Congress gave Bush and Rumsfeld a blank check instead of fulfilling their constitutional responsibility to provide oversight. That has to change. Congress has to find the best way out of this mess with the least damage to our national security and to the people of Iraq. Right now, I think that means putting pressure on the Maliki government to cut the Sunnis in on the oil, start a reconciliation process, and clamp down on sectarian death squads. We need a regional conference that includes Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, and a redeployment of our troops so they’re not caught in the crosshairs of sectarian violence.

2. Universal health care, starting with every single child in this country. That we let kids go uninsured isn’t just wrong, it’s downright stupid. It doesn’t cost that much to insure kids, and it keeps them in school, keeps them from developing chronic disease, keeps families economically secure if a kid gets sick. It’s a no-brainer, and I’ll start fighting for that in my first 100 minutes in the Senate.

3. An Apollo program for renewable energy. We can save our environment, make ourselves more secure by reducing our dependence on foreign oil (and actually DOING it, instead of just talking about it like the president does every year in the State of the Union), and create jobs here in Minnesota – it’s win, win, win, WIND. Sorry.

4. Veterans’ health care. Regardless of what people want to do with our Iraq policy, everyone supports the troops over there. Me, I want to also support the troops when they get back here. Senator Coleman has a 40% rating from the Disabled American Veterans. That is really embarrassing. I’ll fight to make sure we fully fund veterans’ health care.

Sorry, that’s four.

The Hillary Dilemma

Sen. Clinton is currently taking a bit of flack on the road. The issue is her decision to vote FOR giving the President support in dealing with Iraq. As we should know, the vote was meant to show solidarity in the American voice in negotiating and diplomacy with Iraq. The mistake was in thinking the administration wouldn't go whole hog and bring suffer here and abroad to prove a point.

Big mistake, as history now demonstrates. This was even more egregious online where people had the most freedom to question and show the counterpoints to the "evidence". On TV and in the street talk against the war was stifled. People were chosen for interviews and debates who were either soft or able to be beat back soundly, rigged matches. In the papers the evidence was shooed to the back of the paper. And various authorities were vilified, with fake claims (including being child molesters), or had their families humiliated.

In this situation, the bloggers and websites were the last bastion of clear argument against the suspect logic of war. And people like Clinton (almost the entire Congress) dismissed it, and then either bought into the fear or into the political expediency of giving Bush backing.

For some this is unforgivable, though their are plenty of other excuses people use to justify turning on the senator as well. But the isolation has been a long biting issue.

On Daily Kos they go into some of the concerns they have about why she, on the road now, won't just admit she was wrong then.

It is confusing to see it. Some say, as a women, it will be used to ridicule her femininity (The old tripe - A woman's prerogative is to change her mind - Yeesch!), or she doesn't want a mistake to mar her record. I don't know what to think. Seems it would be better to say it, and deal with any hits with her potent strength of will.

An advisor:

There was James Carville on CNN's Situation Room, desperately trying to explain why Sen. Clinton voted for the war, even though other senators who had been given the same faulty intel she had, voted against it: "But they weren't from New York," he said. "Their state wasn't hit. They didn't have to deal with the grief of these 3,000 people."

First, Carville? Why? Uh. But trying to tie the terrorist of 9/11 to Iraq is just disingenuous. Sure, the people of NYC wanted action and to be protected. But this war has not done that. Let's at least cop to this.



Of course this week, she has been working to show a stronger backbone in dealing with Bush's next potential war. IRAN.



Sen. Clinton:

It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further Congressional authorization.

Nor should the president think that the 2002 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.

Video here.

Dawkins responds to critics

At Times Online, Richard Dawkins is responding to a number of critics who have been repeating a series of arguments and claims against him and his atheism and confrontation of religion.







So Dawkins reponds to the claims of dogmatism:

Sir, Alister McGrath (Faith, Feb 10) has now published two books with my name in the title. If I seem “grumpy”, could it be because a professor of theology is building a career riding on my back? It is tempting to quote Yeats (“Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?”) and leave it at that. I will, however, dignify his article with a brief reply.

McGrath imagines that I would disagree with my hero Sir Peter Medawar on The Limits of Science. On the contrary. I never tire of emphasising how much we don’t know. The God Delusion ends in just such a theme. Where do the laws of physics come from? How did the universe begin? Scientists are working on these deep problems, honestly and patiently. Eventually they may be solved. Or they may be insoluble. We don’t know.

But whereas I and other scientists are humble enough to say we don’t know, what of theologians like McGrath? He knows. He’s signed up to the Nicene Creed. The universe was created by a very particular supernatural intelligence who is actually three in one. Not four, not two, but three. Christian doctrine is remarkably specific: not only with cut-and-dried answers to the deep problems of the universe and life, but about the divinity of Jesus, about sin and redemption, heaven and hell, prayer and absolute morality. And yet McGrath has the almighty gall to accuse me of a “glossy”, “quick fix”, naive faith that science has all the answers.

Other theologies contradict the Christian creed while matching it for brash overconfidence based on zero evidence. McGrath presumably rejects the polytheism of the Hindus, Olympians and Vikings. He does not subscribe to voodoo, or to any of thousands of mutually contradictory tribal beliefs. Is McGrath an “ideological fanatic” because he doesn’t believe in Thor’s hammer? Of course not. Why, then, does he suggest I am exactly that because I see no reason to believe in the particular God whose existence he, lacking both evidence and humility, positively asserts?

Check out the Gods Delusion, now available on CD!

Lawless Texas. Who knew they meant the laws of science?

Off of Pharyngula, we have the story of the Texas legislature, where a memo is being passed around.

The memo is one written by Georgia St Rep. Ben Bridges. Passed around the hall by House Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum.

The memo assails what it calls "the evolution monopoly in the schools."

Mr. Bridges' memo claims that teaching evolution amounts to indoctrinating students in an ancient Jewish sect's beliefs.

"Indisputable evidence – long hidden but now available to everyone – demonstrates conclusively that so-called 'secular evolution science' is the Big Bang, 15-billion-year, alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee Religion," writes Mr. Bridges, a Republican from Cleveland, Ga. He has argued against teaching of evolution in Georgia schools for several years.

He then refers to a Web site, www.fixedearth.com, that contains a model bill for state Legislatures to pass to attack instruction on evolution as an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Mr. Bridges also supplies a link to a document that describes scientists Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein as "Kabbalists" and laments "Hollywood's unrelenting role in flooding the movie theaters with explicit or implicit endorsement of evolutionism."

What a great use of the state's time. Conspiracy theories and slurs against great standard bearers in science.

Weird ass lies, pseudoscience, and tinfoil hat quality ideas.

Sadly, it is not hard to imagine that plenty of them went home eager to brag about the proof.

And that fixed earth site? It is one that claims evidence that the Earth lies at the very center of the universe and is unmoving.

Yet, they think the flat earth people are crazy.

And they think the flat earth on the turtles back people are crazy.

Just because Bridges and Chisum aren't at the VERY bottom of the crazy pile, doesn't take away from the fact they are chocked full of CRAZY! And they want to make it law!

Al Franken is in

No, not as candidate for President. For the Senate, getting the Bush lackey Norm Coleman out of office.


Al Franken for Senate

If only I was still in Minnesota.

Darn, but maybe I'll have moved back there in time. One can hope.


Has someone given Ariana the good news?