Ironic detachment or his head in his ass? You decide.

I checked my comments section this afternoon to see if anybody had anything interesting to say this weekend and I saw this new comment:

such a shame you're such a close-minded bigot. Please do your research before you start spouting off right-wing ideology and christian symantics that aren't even true. You apparently think you're the only one going to heaven.

I was kind of taken aback by the comment, as I don't remember ever writing anything suggesting that I might be going to heaven. Out of curiosity, I scanned my previous postings to see which one this comment was in response to. Turns out that the author had read my tongue-in-cheek post on new research regarding gay men and their response to pheremones and, apparently unaware my religious or political leanings, determined that I was a right-wing christian sort. All I can say is "Wow!". I've NEVER, EVER in my whole, entire life been accused of being a conservative Christian. I'm going to take this event as further evidence of the decline of American culture. It would appear that even some of the more "liberal" elements of our society are losing their their willingness to engage in contextual reading, their ability to engage in critical thinking, and their sense of humor...

The Anunnaki Agenda...

should not be confused with The Homosexual Agenda. The Anunnaki Agenda seeks to "pervert the pure blood of humanity." The Homosexual Agenda merely seeks to "infiltrate every level of government and society and... demand[] legitimization of their sinful lifestyle."

Now that that's cleared up, I invite you to read that thread on the Anunnaki agenda. There's a couple of rationalists on there tearing it up among the loonies, and it's an interesting read. I especially like the comparison one of the posters makes between explaining the internal combusion engine to a 5-year old and explaining the origins of the universe to early humans. Go and read it.

Science vs. Religion

Finally, someone has developed a tool that can tell you definitively whether or not you are engaged in a scientific versus a religious debate. Click here for instant edification.

Long Live CSA!

As an environmentalist, one of the things I try to pay attention to is the provenance of the food I eat. In addition to eating lower on the food chain (mostly), my wife and I try to eat as much local, organic produce as we can. The primary reason for this is to reduce the amount of hydrocarbons used to make our meals. To paraphrase James Kunstler, "Do we really need to eat a Ceasar salad that travelled 2000 miles to make it to our plate?" No we don't, but doing otherwise can be difficult. Most supermarkets buy their vegetables and fruits from wholesalers with a variety of domestic and foreign suppliers. Ensuring that the produce you buy isn't from Chile, or Arizona, or Washington can be a challenge.

One answer to this conundrum, atleast for 5 or 6 months out of the year, is Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). These are farms that raise their produce to be sold locally. Most CSA farms are organic and most are located within 50-100 miles of the market they serve. Finding these might be difficult but for the existence of this fantastic online resource provided by Local Harvest. It allows you to search for CSA farms by zip code and provides details as to their location, delivery methods, subscription plans, and cost. For any of you interested in buying more local produce and supporting family agriculture in the United States, I strongly recommend this site.

Fear this!

I've been intending to write a post about fear. It seems like everywhere I turn, I see people being manipulated, motivated or otherwise driven by fear. Whether it's car ads selling the latest roadside repair service and mapping technologies or Christian conservatives selling the latest spiritual bromide, much of what passes as advertising and political discourse in this country revolves around fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of the known, fear of the other, fear of pretty much everything. That's what I see.

Of course, I have to ask myself whether I've bought into this culture, too. I keep a knife under my bed and a gun in my closet. Does that make me afraid? Do I expand that unspoken desire to make my home a safe haven into every aspect of my life? Do I make my decisions, practice my politics and guide my life by fear?

I'm inclined to conclude that, on the whole, I do not. (Duh. What would be the point of this post?) I like inclusionary politics, I appreciate diversity of culture and race, I even enjoy the intellectual ferment that arises from the clash of conservative and liberal principles. I may be afraid of some things, but I don't think it dominates my life. Moreover, I think there are a lot of people like me in this country. The question is, where are they? I can't answer that, but I can say unequivocally, "Not in the Republican Party." And that, my friends, is what my post on fear would have been about had I written it: how the Republican Party embraces, manipulates, and uses fear to gain and hold power.

The necessity of writing such a post has now been obviated. The inimitable has done a far better job than I could ever do on telling us exactly how and why Republicans became Shining Path Conservatives.

Guantanamo, the Koran, and giant toilets

Two weeks ago, the conservative blog world got its collective panties in a wad over Newsweek's unsubstantiated report that guards at Guantanamo flushed a copy of the Koran down the toilet. (Side note: This reminds me of Jack Palance's quip at the Oscars a few years ago that he's taken craps bigger then Billy Crystal. At the time, I had to wonder just what sort of a facility would handle a turd that big. Whatever the case, if Newsweek's story were true, then either Jack Palance and Guantanamo use the same toilet supplier, or the copies of the Koran used at Guantamo or quite small.) In any case, the usual right wring fruitcakes pulled out their bumpersticker rhetoric and went to work on Newsweek. Thus, we got tidbits like the following from the mainstream loonies:

"People died, and U.S. military and diplomatic efforts were damaged, because -- let's be clear here -- Newsweek was too anxious to get out a story that would make the Bush Administration and the military look bad." -- Glenn Reynolds, May 15

"Newsweek has blood on its hands. Blood on its desks. Isikoff should cough up his source." -- Michelle Malkin, May 15

Of course, the small fry conservatives had to jump in, too. And, being small fry conservatives and lacking even the most marginal of institutional or professional restraints, they get to blow their rhetorical loads even more spectacularly. As a result, you get these sorts of inanities:

"It's not exactly like the Muslim crazies need much of an excuse to riot, kill people, and burn the American flag, but Newsweek is still responsible for fanning the flames that led those deaths and injuries. It's particularly egregious because the magazine obviously intended to set this wildfire, and they're only apologizing because the crap they printed turned out to be false. Is it unpatriotic for an American magazine to purposefully incite hatred and violence against our country?" -- Michael Williams, May 16 (italics mine)

This is, of course, the usual tripe from the mouthbreathers: The publication of information caused riots. The publisher is culpable for deaths that occured in those riots. The publisher is driven by anti-American animus because it's part of the liberal media. Et cetera, ad nauseum. Per their modus operandi, the nattering nabobs of the right attack the news source and ignore the substance of the assertion.

Imagine my lack of surprise this morning, therefore, when I opened today's post and saw the following headline Pentagon Confirms Koran Incidents. The story, by all accounts, suggests that any mistreatment of the Koran by US service members was minor or inadvertant. Clearly, no Korans were flushed down any toilets. Nonetheless, the story makes very clear that though Newsweek erred in reporting the particular flushing incident, it would have been perfectly within the bounds of reason and standards of journalism to report more generally on Koran mistreatment. To me, this suggests, as Newsweek has repeatedly asserted, that the tidbit about Korans and toilets was due to journalistic mistep and the magazine believed the story was true.

Right-wing bloggers, of course, are not here to plumb issues of truth. Rather, and I've made this point before, there here to push the Republican version of the truth, their post-modernist narrative if you will. According to this narrative, the Administration cannot err, the armed forces cannot make mistakes, no abuse occurs in our gulags, and liberals and the liberal media are out to destroy America. Go to any conservative blog, conservative "comic strip" or other conservative outlet and I guarantee you will find variations on those four themes and not much else. (NOTE: E.J. Dionne seems to agree.)

In any case, the conservative blogs are already trying to discredit these latest reports that abuse or mistreatment of the Koran did actually occur. Note, of course, that this "rebuttal" relies on the assumption, already proven false, that everyone at Guantanamo is an Al-Qaeda member.

More on going newcular

David Horsey at the Seattle P-I captures the outcome from yesterday's "deal". Thanks to Anonymous in Seattle for pointing this out.

My apologies for my recent silence. We're in the midst of budget madness and I have little time right now.

The newcular opshun

Since yesterday's deal on the nuclear option was made, I've read LOTS and LOTS of opinions in the blog and news analysis world. There seems to be virtually no consensus on whether it was a win or loss for the Democrats or Republicans. I'm inclined to say that it's impossible to know because the language of the agreement lends itself to various interpretations, all of which can be readily manipulated and spun by both parties. However, my reading really reminded me of this letter, which can be found on the Car Talk website. The basic proposition: two people talking about a topic on which they know nothing actually know less than one person talking about that same topic with the same degree of knowledge. Generalize this to the blogging world, and I think you can safely conclude that nobody knows anything about anything, especially when it comes to the nuclear option.

The Rude Pundit on Torture

What I like about the Rude Pundit is that he doesn't pull any punches. He says what he thinks, and he does it with a degree of vulgarity usually reserved for shipyards and highschools. He's almost always funny, and he's always spot on. Today, though, I believe the Rude Pundit has moved in a new direction. He's still profane, he's still vulgar, but now he's using his skill to paint an allegorical picture, and that picture isn't pretty. Wingnuts like Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds can strive mightily to present "sand niggers" as subhumans worthy of torture, they might huff and puff and squirt out a couple of torture justifications each week, but I don't think they can measure up to the RP's ability to show readers what the world is really like. He might be talking about Hogan's Heroes, but it might be you, me, or some innocent and profoundly unfortunate Afghan cab driver.

An alternative universe

A nice commentary in the Post about a mythical land where the Administration isn't a pack of lying scoundrels, Newsweek fully sources all of its news blurbs and there are lakes of stew you can paddle in canoes.

Memification

Erik over at Alterdestiny posted this music meme and solicited responses. In a moment of vanity, I chose to respond here rather than on his site.

1. What is the total volume of musical files on your computer?

Well, on my home computer, zero. Why put music on a computer if the CD player is right there? On my work computer, however, I have 471 songs comprising 1.11 GBs. Not all of it is mine, though, as some came with the computer (e.g. Hawaiian Slack Key Guitar Masters Collection, Vol. 2).

2. What song are you listening to right now?

Passage by Lanterna.

3. Last CD I bought?

Geez. Ummm..... For myself or for somebody else? For somebody else: New Beginning by Tracy Chapman. For myself: I think it was Uh Huh Her by PJ Harvey, which I bought last summer while studying for the bar. I gave it away, though, as great music needs to be shared. Of course, now I wish I had it again.

4. Five songs you listen to a lot and which mean something to you:

This is hard. I never listen to just songs, I listen to albums. Moreover, given my terrible hearing, I rarely listen to lyrics because I can rarely make sense of what is being said. This might explain why I gravitate towards more instrumental music, especially that which includes interesting harmonics, percussion, tonality, etc. I don't know. In any case, if I had to pick five songs whose title I remember and which "mean" something to me they would be, in no particular order:

a. "Tear Stained Eye" from Trace by Son Volt
Reason: Because it reminds me of driving across Oklahoma at 3:30 in the morning in June 1991 knowing that life was full of promise and freedom and adventure.

b. "Mr. Knowitall" from Frizzle Fry by Primus
Reason: Because I love how the guitar slides from note to note, the bass work is impeccable, and the syncopation in the middle of the song just rocks.

c. "Whirling Hall of Knives" from Rembrandt Pussyhorse by Butthole Surfers
Reason: Because, even after having listened to it for going on 20 years now, the drone in this song still amazes me.

d. Track 1 from SYR2 by Sonic Youth
Reason: Because of the guitars, percussion, static and feedback, all of which meld quite nicely into a single throbbing wall of the most amazing sound.

e. A Long Time Ago from David Byrne by David Byrne
Reason: Because of the following lyrics which, contrary to my general assertion above, I can definitely make out every time I hear this song:

"And that roaring that you hear
Is only the blood that circles constantly
No it is not applause my dear"

Santorum & Cornyn were right.

Give those pesky homosexuals the basic protections of a civilized society and the next thing you know people will start consorting with dogs and box turtles. Sure enough, the diseased ideology shared by god-hating atheists and secular liberals has spread to the animal world and now we're presented with the immoral, unnatural and altogether disgusting image of goat on rhino love. I am sure James Dobson and the rest of America's Christian patriots will join me in calling for immediate legislation to ban such degrading and lecherous behavior not just in the United States, but around the world!

Partisan hackery and the Constitution

Bruce Ackerman has an interesting commentary in the American Prospect today. In it, he lays the blame for the longevity of the nuclear option square at the feet of Dick Cheney. Assuming that Mr. Ackerman's rescitation of the Senate rules is correct (and I'm inclined to think it is), then Dick Cheney is once again proving himself to be the callowest, most short-sighted partisan hack of a Vice President that ever disgraced the halls of the White House. It would appear that Mr. Cheney's desire for executive power trumps all concerns, including those about the long-term health of deliberative governance in America.

The hackery of Cheney, however, is not much of a surprise. What's really interesting about Ackerman's article is that it highlights the historical roots of Cheney's role in this farce. I knew the Twelfth Amendment instituted our current election system, but I never really thought about the fact that it ended the system of a divided, two-party executive. What I originally understood to be a historical aberration truly has the potential to have profound consequences here in modern times. Scary, sort of, but fascinating in how it illustrates the law of uninentional constitutional consequences. Probably something the theocons should think about when they start yawping for new constitutional bans.

On a not-unrelated note, Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law has announced (warning: low-res pdfs) that he will not write a new second volume for the 3rd edition of his classic treatise American Constitutional Law. Apparently, he believes that constitutional law is currently in such a state of ferment that it would be impossible to write a treatise with any meaningful contemplation on future paths the law might take. The resolution sucks on the pdfs, but you law types out there should find the longer letter quite interesting.

Where the hell is Amarillo?

Okay, I know the answer to that, but Tony Christie and Peter Kay apparently do not. Take a peek at these Brit soldiers' interpretation of what is, apparently, a british schmaltz classic. It's amazing what a bunch of bored grunts can do with a handheld video camera and a couple of robes...

Wurstchens!

I wish I had some. A fat leberwurst, some dark pumpernickel and about four glasses of altbier would make this day passable.

Frizzle Fry

I'm sitting in my cube, working on a budget spreadsheet and listening to Primus' Frizzle Fry. A minute ago, it brought me back to the very first time I heard this album. It was one of those rare musical awakening experiences, the number of which in my life counts around four. Sitting there in my dorm room in Smith Hall, I knew after about 30 seconds of listening to my friend's CD that this was a band I'd been searching for all my life and that it was going to open a world of music I'd never listened to before. Thus, after basically five years of listening to nothing but punk, skate punk, death metal, and the occasional classic rock album, I was suddenly introduced to whatever Primus is. Such a good memory...

Wiping with the Constitution.

As the Rude Pundit points out, the Republican party has become quite good at this. Moreover, as he also notes, this is probably a sign that if anybody hates America, hates democracy, hates a long and messy history of pluralistic, democratic governance, it must be the modern Republican theocrats. I like hyperbole, I like to make hyperbolic statements and use hyperbolic rhetoric, but is it really hyperbole to say that Bill Frist and his theocon minions in the Senate are going to take a big, gnarly, post-barbecue-with-eggs-for-breakfast dump all over the Senate rules, the Constitution, and 214 years of history? I think not.

Fucking fascists

I said it, and I mean it. Glenn Reynolds, Hindrocket, Little Green Footballs, all those assorted right-wing lunatics who apologize for and minimize this country's bad acts, and accuse me (and every other liberal in this country) of treason for decrying this sort of brutality can go hug a root. The events described in the NYT article are not pranks, they are not accidents, and they are not, by any stretch of the immagination, necessary acts required by the vagaries of modern anti-terrorism combat. The acts described in the NYT article are those of brutal, vicious criminals. Say what you want, but this sort of thing isn't keeping us safe, it isn't erving the needs of our army and it isn't advancing the battle against terrorism.

Of course, that means nothing to the foaming lunatic fringe that makes up the Republican base. If precedent holds true, they will now begin accusing the NYT and other members of the respectable press of treason. Folks like Glenn Reynolds and Michael Barrone and all the other little internet Heinrich Himmlers will claim that the newspaper is "putting a bad face" on the war on terror and causing the deaths of American soldiers. I know other folks have asked this question, but what kind of country are we becoming?

Does anyone read Orenstein?

I sure hope so, because he continues to break it down with regards to the "nuclear option". This new article, a follow up to the one I posted yesterday delves further into the history of "up and down" voting on judicial nominees. Just as you might suspect, Republican assertions of the Senate's 214 years of unfilibustered up and down votes on nominees is basically crap.

The Great Firefox/Gmail Contretemps Resolved

I don't know what the problem was, but I noticed that when I started Gmail in Firefox, it appeared to be cycling through a series of gmail URLs with random letters attached at the end. More than anything, it liked Firefox was trying to "remember" my login and password and failing. Thus, I went in and deleted all gmail and google cookies, and closed down Firefox. Upon reopening, it loaded Gmail without problems. If that's the level of trouble Firefox will give me, I'll take it. I still prefer it to IE.

Gizoogle this!

My last post of the day. I'll provide you the Gizoogled version of yesterday's exchange between Inhofe and Sessions. It's quite funny, but I think the titles listed under "Previous Posts" is even funnier.

Don't discount the pleasure of good socks...

Check out this exchange between Jeff Sessions and James Inhofe in the Senate yesterday.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. He is a great leader in the Senate. I admire his work on this committee and his leadership as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee on which I serve with him. I don't dispute that the Joint Tax Committee has said the offsets the Finance Committee has proposed, if adopted, might meet the needs of this increase.

I understand some of those proposed offsets probably will not have support in the House. I would like to see the Senator's goal of spending more money on our road infrastructure and transportation system that serves the commercial transportation needs of all the products that we eat, buy, and utilize daily--that are shipped from trucks on highways all over America--I would like to see that guaranteed. I am afraid if we go the way we are now, we will not be able to hold the full increase that has been proposed when we get to conference. But if we would face up to the question and set some priorities and choose between some of the things that are in this bill that are less fundamental and some of the things that are desirable--things we would like to do but we really don't have to do as much as others--and reduce some of the increases proposed for those programs and move that into the fundamental
infrastructure for highways, I would feel better about it.

I think the Senator is not really in disagreement too much with that. But when you move a piece of legislation as he has, it requires a lot of cooperation and partnership.


Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I agree. We hear all the time in this body and all representative bodies about what is desirable. It reminds me of the guy who went to the department store, and this beautiful, young, voluptuous saleslady came up to him and she said: Sir, what is your desire? And he said: Well, my "desire" is to pick you up after work, go out to dinner and drink some champagne and make mad, passionate love to you, but I "need" a pair of socks.

We have to distinguish between desire and need, and I think it is a difficult thing to do.

Corporate filth

My friend Bryant is a historian. More specifically, he studies the history of the labor movement in the United States. I doubt he has seen this ad from GE but if he does, I know he'll be appalled. It's like the marketing geniuses at GE saw the coal mining scene in Zoolander and, lacking any knowledge of the long, sordid history of coal mining in this country, made their ad into a parody of that scene. Or maybe they know all about the coal industry and just how well it treats the people who work for them, but just don't care. I don't know. Either way, check out Arvin Hill going apeshit on GE.

Cesspool of partisan rancor

Read this argument from a scholar at AEI as to why the nuclear option is a terrible idea. Then read it again. And again. Memorize it. Print it out. Hand it out to every conservative you know. The piece makes very clear what is at stake here if the nuclear option is exercised: the demise of participatory democracy and the rise of plebiscitary democracy. Sounds dry, but basically, if Republicans crush the filibuster option, they will setting the precedent for a system in which the majority whim always rules and minority concerns and/or rational debate over alternatives gets short shrift. In other words, just like Orenstein notes, the Senate will become just another monkey house, replete with screaching, slavering, shit-slinging simians like our current House members.

April weather

Last week I linked to a series of articles in the New Yorker on global warming. This week, I give you NOAA's rundown on April's weather. Seems that despite the unusually cold weather we had here at the end of April, it was still the second hottest April on record. And check out Australia's variation above the norm! I'll repeat what I've said before and what Elizabeth Kolbert touched on in her articles: global warming won't necessarily make the world tropical, it's just going to add a lot of energy to the global system which will lead to more extreme fluctuations from it's "usual" equilibrium points. Anyway, interesting reading for those of you interested in either meteorology or global warming or both.

That sweet and devilish potion, alcohol

I like beer. I also like wine. I also like the brown lickers, especially of the scottish and kentuckian varieties. I rarely, however, drink to get drunk. When I do, though, it's nice to know I can incorporate kudzu into my regimen and drink for less. This, my friends, is what science is all about: making personal vices cheaper.

Okay, not really, but I see this having major potential effects on the homebrew industry. I know folks who have made beer with additives such as carrots, ginger, allspice, marijuana, and other vegetable materials that can increase the flavor of the beer. Moreover, the brewing process generally calls for the addition of hops for bitterness (and flavor) and irish moss for clarification. Give homebrewers some time, and they'll soon find ways to incorporate kudzu and it's alcohol enhancing properties into their brews. Given that it's illegal to import kudzu into most states, homebrew stores will be able to cash in on this new process by selling powdered kudzu or kudzu pellets. Pretty soon, all homebrew recipes will include kudzu as a primary ingredient and soon the normal lifespan of a batch of homebrew will be doubled. The golden age of homebrew approaches!

Firefox and Gmail?

Any of you Firefox users out there ever experience any trouble with Gmail? I just tried to log in to Gmail and got a message saying that my account had been blocked for 24 hours. I opened IE and logged into Gmail without a problem. Any ideas? I'd prefer to use Firefox, but seems like I won't be able to for Gmail.

Rewriting my earlier post on Simpson

I've been meaning to write a post about the 4th Circuit's recent decision in Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors. The case concerns the question of whether the 1st Amendment prohibits state or local governments from discriminating between religions when picking individual religious leaders to give legislative invocations in their chambers. The Fourth Circuit held that such discrmination is permissible. This may seem surprising - given the Fourth's conservative make-up - until you read the opinion and see that it is actually a 24-page defense of pro-Christian discrmination. Nonetheless, though I find the opinion deplorable and Harvey Wilkinson's provincial view of religion offensive, I'll be the first to admit that they pretty clearly were within the bounds of Constitutional doctrine as laid out in a Supreme Court Case from 1983, Marsh v. Chambers.

The facts of Simpson are pretty simple. The plaintiff is a Wiccan or witch, who lives in Chesterfield County and is an active participant and leader in her worship group (coven?). The County has a policy of inviting local religious leaders to give an opening prayer before each legislative session. At the beginning of the year, they send a letter to churches in the phone book. Those who respond get added to a list who then appear on their assigned day. In 2002, Simpson called the county and asked to be added to the list to lead the opening prayer. The county clerk and the county attorney denied her request, saying "Chesterfield’s non-sectarian invocations are traditionally made to a divinity that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition." (page 5 of the opinion) According to Wilkinson's opinion, the Judeo-Christian God is "a divinity that would not be invoked by practitioners of witchcraft." After trying a number of times to have her name added to the list, Simpson sued in District Court, which upheld her claim. The County appealed to the 4th Circuit.

I encourage interested readers to take a look at the 4th Circuit opinion. I think it's the perfect example of what American jurisprudence will look like if the theocrats currently trying to take over our country ever gain complete control. I know that sounds extreme, but take a look. Here's a good example of what I'm talking about.

Near the beginning of the case, Wilkinson writes about the county's rejection of Simpson's request. He quotes the County's original response which denied her request because her invocation would be "inconsistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition." Not content to let this stand alone, Wilkinson adds that the Judeo-Christian God cannot be "invoked by practitioners of witchcraft." Wilkinson's decision to provide this basically approving addendum to the original statement certainly suggests that he agrees with the County's reasoning. He can squeeze this pro-sectarian discrmination into the Marsh mold because that holding basically asserts that as long as a legislature has done so traditionally, it's okay. Thus, because Chesterton County has traditionally had Judeo-Christian invocations, it may limit future speakers to Judeo-Christian representatives only. Wilkinson goes beyond this mere application of Marsh, however, to give us the following passage about why Simpson's claim is faulty (pp. 16-17 from the opinion):

In seeking to invalidate the Chesterfield system, Simpson effectively
denies the ecumenical potential of legislative invocations, and ignores Marsh’s insight that ministers of any given faith can appeal beyond their own adherents. Indeed, Marsh requires that a divine appeal be wide-ranging, tying its legitimacy to common religious ground. See Marsh, 463 U.S. at 786, 792. Invocations across our country have been capable of transcending denominational boundaries and appealing broadly to the aspirations of all citizens. As Marsh and other cases recognize, appropriately ecumenical invocations can be "solemnizing occasions" that highlight "beliefs widely held." See, e.g., Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 124 S. Ct. 2301, 2322 (2004) (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment); Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 625 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part); Lynch, 465 U.S. at 693 (O’Connor, J., concurring). [my italics]

Do you see what Wilkinson does? On page five he has basically approved the County's argument that non-Judeo-Christians cannot give adequate invocations because they do not invoke the Judeo-Christian deity. On page 16, he then does a mighty twist and accuses Simpson of denying the universality of legislative invocations given by other religious leaders. How did she do this? By seeking permission to give a Wiccan invocation.

In other words, the County denied Simpson the opportunity to give a Wiccan invocation, but she is the party guilty of ignoring "Marsh’s insight that ministers of any given faith can appeal beyond their own adherents." I could be wrong, but the Wilkinson seems to have embraced the theory that "non-traditional" religions cannot have universal appeal, but Judeo-Christian sects can.

It gets better, though. Read a little further (the next paragraph) and you come across this statement:

We cannot adopt a view [i.e. Simpson's view] of the tradition of legislative prayer that chops up American citizens on public occasions into representatives of one sect and one sect only, whether Christian, Jewish, or Wiccan. In private observances, the faithful surely choose to express the unique aspects of their creeds. But in their civic faith, Americans have reached more broadly. Our civic faith seeks guidance that is not the property of any sect. To ban all manifestations of this faith would needlessly transform and devitalize the very nature of our culture. When we gather as Americans, we do not abandon all expressions of religious faith. Instead, our expressions evoke common and inclusive themes and forswear, as Chesterfield has done, the forbidding character of sectarian invocations.

This is just flabbergasting. In Wilkinson's view, not only has Simpson denied the universality of Judeo-Christian traditions, but she is attempting to "chop up American citizens on public occasions into representatives of one sect." You read that right. By asking to be permitted to give a religious invocation which, by the County's own policies, will not refer to any particular deity, Ms. Simpson is trying to divide Chesterfield County (and, presumably, America) into sects. By offering a public prayer as a Wiccan, Simpson is dividing our country, rejecting "common and inclusive themes", and promoting "the forbidding character of sectarian invocations." In other words, and this is the key to this opinion, the mere public invocation of non-Christian deities is divisve and serves to undermine our national and local Judeo-Christian traditions. As a result, according to Harvey Wilkinson, it is perfectly acceptable for states and localities to discriminate against non-Judeo-Christian sects in the context of legislative prayer.

The fact is, of course, that this is exactly what the Supreme Court permitted in Marsh. The disturbing thing is, Wilkinson takes 25 pages to paint an explicit picture in which Simpson is the usurper and the divider, and the Judeo-Christian tradition is under attack. Not suprisingly, this fits quite nicely into the narrative currently being promulgated by the radical Christian conservative movement in their efforts (such as Justice Sunday) to stack the judiciary with radicals and activists like Harvey Wilkinson: Christians are under attack and they have to seize the reins of government to push back the forces of evil and return America to its theocratic Christian roots.

With all that said, if you're looking for a more general rebuttal of the doctrine underlying the Simpson opinion, go read Justice Brennan's vigorous dissent in Marsh. It's quite a read, and provides an excellent discussion of the roots and purpose of the 1st Amendment with regards to religion and religiosity in our governing structures.

On a related note, take a look at this post from Matthew Yglesias and this post from Kevin Drum about the fact that liberals have won most of the important arguments about religion in the public sphere and that we ought to let some stuff slide. I find their arguments convincing to some extent, but think they overlook the fact that the right-wing in this country doesn't so much care about the presence of creches in courthouses as it does about re-writing constitutional and common law to include overtly Christian doctrines and worldviews.

The Fundy Bible in 21 Lines or Less

Driftglass truly outdoes himself in this post. I recommend reading the whole thing, but here's his take on how conservative evangelicals view the Bible. The stereotyping runs rampant, but goddam it's funny (and spot on):

Old Tes’mint:
Gen’sis. God make everything on October 9th, 4004 B.C. ‘Round 9-ish.
Ex’dis. Chuck Heston saves some good Christians, some animals and his guns.
Buncha stuff
God killin’ people what don’t look like me, which is always cool.
God hates fags.
Bunch faggity poems or somethin’
God wastes Lot’s whole family, ‘cause he’s a fag or a libril or somethin’. Sooo cool.
Buncha other stuff.

New Tes’mint.
Jebus Kick’s Ass!
Stinkin’ Jews kill Jebus.
Buncha stuff
Buncha faggity stuff about “forgivin’ and camels and ‘the least of these.’”
Jebus Keeps Kicking Ass!
Buncha Letters.
Letter about God Hatin’ Fags, which is Excellent.
Buncha other stuff
Jebus Comes Back and Blows Shit Up and Kills alla them Librils and Queers and ay-rabs and Jews.

I should have been an accountant.

Because I could never think up a response like this one. I mean, I recognize that orginalists are driven more by ideology than by any great dedication to objective truth as identified by the Founding Fathers, but I'd never think to compare the epistemological underpinnings of their professed beliefs against those of their applied beliefs. Very cool.

Agreeing with Hitchins

Usually I find Christopher Hitchens to be an insufferable boor. His post-9/11 conversion to full-fledged reactionary did nothing to change my opinion of him. Whether arguing from the right, left or center, he's always struck me as too proud of his own intelligence and unwilling to recognize the same in others. Anyway, when I saw this article in Slate, I was prepared to scoff. However, boorishness aside, I found myself sort of agreeing with Hitch. Technically speaking, of course, insurgency does adequately describe the people doing the killing in Iraq. Their politics, religious beliefs, race and motives aside, they are rebelling against the nascent Iraqi government and American troops. However, the brutality of their means, the viciousness of their ideology and the fundamentally totalitarian nature of their goal requires, I think, a more descriptive, more pejorative term than "insurgents".

I'm 13% fundamentalist!

I found this online quiz courtesy of the gentlemen at LGM. Turns out I'm a postmodernist, but I guess that depends on where you view me from...

You scored as Postmodernist. Postmodernism is the belief in complete open interpretation. You see the universe as a collection of information with varying ways of putting it together. There is no absolute truth for you; even the most hardened facts are open to interpretation. Meaning relies on context and even the language you use to describe things should be subject to analysis.

81% Postmodernist
63% Cultural Creative
63% Materialist
50% Existentialist
38% Modernist
31% Idealist
25% Romanticist
13% Fundamentalist

Iraq?

If you were to go back over my archives for this blog, I think you would find that I have not once written about Iraq. Certainly, I don't remember writing about it. The problem is (and this may also be true regarding the rest of this blog), I have nothing original to say about it. So much has been said, so much is being said, that I'm not sure I have anything meaningful to add to the mix.

Nonetheless, today I've been thinking about the war in Iraq. One word comes to mind: quagmire. I know it's overused, abused, and probably a little trite, but is there a better word? I read articles like this and I conclude not. American soldiers are dying at a steady rate and Iraqis are being killed by the droves. What, pray tell, does our incompetent President and his incompetent cabinet plan to do about that? I have no clue and, I suspect, neither do they. As Paul Krugman points out in today's Times, efforts like last week's offensive on the Syrian border have the same look and feel of Vietnam's search-and-destroys. We might kill a few Arab fighter, but all evidence suggests that such efforts do little to harm the insurgency. What, then, do we do?

I don't have a clue, I don't have any prescriptions, but I'm quite sure we can't keep doing more of the same.

Firefox

Many of my readers use Firefox as a web browser. I'd never heard of it until I started looking through my user stats and kept seeing Firefox come up. Today, I finally went and found the Firefox site and actually downloaded the browser program (for free). All I can say is wow! This is a great browser. In using it for the last 6 hours, I've had no problems with blogger or any of the other sites that have caused IE problems in the past. I know my sample time is small, but I'm thinking this is my new favorite browser. If you're using IE, I recommend trying out Firefox for a few days and see what happens. Any of you Firefox users out there care to comment?

Busy, busy day.

Looks like I won't be posting today, I'm afraid (except for this, of course). Meetings all day, and a visit to the midwife for a checkup. For your reading pleasure, however, I provide the following:

A good post from LGM mulling over the highly plausible argument that the neo-authoritarian rightwing of this country is motivated by church/state issues rather than just abortion.

The Rude Punditdelves into the Neal Horsley question (i.e. to bugger or not to bugger?) with all his vulgar wit.

The National Review Online gives us something to gag on regarding Originalism.

The New York Times reports on a new rodent discovered in the jungles of Laos.

The New Yorker has the first and the second parts of a truly amazing three part investigative series on global warming. Print these out, take them home, and read them. The author has done an excellent job of covering the science, the issues and the potential for global catastrophe.

Protect us from chaos

All that stands between us and utter anarchy is the rule of law, especially law that prevents boys from being girls.

Unfucking believable

Bushfish

What's the matter with Kansas? It's fucked in its collective head.

Actually, not really. But certain Kansans definitely are. Slate has some interesting commentary by William Saletan about how "liberals" are missing a great opportunity to do battle with ID proponents in Kansas by boycotting the State Board of Education's hearings on the issue. I'm not sure if I agree. The ID folk are waging a public relations war, NOT a scientific war. They do not proffer their theory because they want it subject to scientific scrutiny, they proffer their theory because it's a useful camoflauge for their basic creationist beliefs. I think Saletan misses that point.

Scientists and "liberals" may not be joining in the battle in Kansas becuase they recognize that doing so will merely give a sheen of legitimacy to science that has been repeatedly disproven in peer-reviewed journals. As I understand it, ID is not so much a scientific theory, but rather a choice selection of natural phenomena for which the evolutionary process may not yet have been explained. In fact, the major flaw of ID (again, as I understand it) is that it fails as an explanatory model, providing no process, no causal chain, no logical route by which species are formed other than by some divine and hence unexplainable design.

Fact is, the creationists failed in their explicit attempts to take the science out of classrooms, now they're just using ID as cover for a second attempt. You can dress a big, stinking religious turd up in a lab coat and eyeglasses, but underneath it's still a big, stinking religious turd. Scientists and liberals are right to refuse to participate in the Kansas charade.

Revanchism

More historical obfuscation, lies, and slander from the Bush Administration this past weekend. No surprise as they are the most ahistorical, least intellectual bunch of monkeys and madmen to control the White House since Tricky Dick lied, cheated and stole his way to the top. Shamefully, though, few people have chosen to point out the fact that Yalta, for all its flaws, managed to ensure a lasting if tense peace in Europe for 50 years and avoided the very high risk of ongoing war between the Brits and Americans and the Russians. Thus, it was a pleasure to read this article in Slate, which not only rebukes the President, but highlights just why Yalta was a good thing.

UPDATE: The Rude Pundit says it best.

Privation by choice.

Is, apparently, art. I found the article quite interesting, and wouldn't mind riding down to the Corcoran to see this woman in action. I do find it weird, however, that her project constituted primarily the giving up of things that we in the developed world often take for granted. The article points out similarities between this art project and eastern mysticism, I think it's important to point out the similarities between the project and the daily existence of the poverty-stricken and the homeless.

The lack of raiment, the lack of shelter, the lack of privacy; those are things normally associated with poverty. Here, they are associated with Art. The artist's stated reason is that she wants to forego external sources of comfort and rely solely on the internal. The difference between her existence and that of the profoundly poor, I suppose, is that she has given up speaking, given up human contact, as well as physical comforts. How different, though, is that from the sort of isolation that many homeless people face? I don't know, but I do suspect that this woman might be able to provide some insight into the stresses posed by physical and emotional privation when she finally ends her project. I wonder if she will.

Bike geeks unite

Or atleast, click on this link and marvel at the dropout that appears. Unfucking believable. I think Sacha White and his Vanilla Bikes are rapidly becoming my favorite frame builder. Some lugs, some TIG, all beautiful. Amazing!

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Large Fella on a Bike is doing us all a great favor by posting his FBQs. Click on over there and take a peek.

Those pesky gays

We all know that homosexuality is a choice, pure and simple. Homosexuals choose to be godless sinners, and thus we must reject, malign, persecute and otherwise marginalize them. I mean, that's our duty as god-fearin' red staters, right? Anwyay, every once in a while, some effete European elitist (no doubt as part of the homosexual agenda) comes along with a "scientific" study puporting to provide evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, but instead has biological and physiological roots. Well, here's your latest. Seems those pesky homosexuals now have a study showing that gay men's brains respond differently to human pheremones than straight mens. It's plainly and glaringly obvious that this is just another example of homosexual choice. Obviously, they're just choosing to make their brain respond in a different way.

Neil Horsley on mules...

Neil Horsley, creator of the infamous Nuremburg Files (archived version), was on Hannity & Colmes this weekend when he basically admitted that he has buggered mules. According to Mr. Horsley, this is common practice in Georgia, and blue-state elitists need stop being surprised by this fact and get with reality. As a Georgia boy myself, I can honestly say, I've never had conjugal relations with a mule (or any other animal). That's what I get for being raised by a bunch of durn libruls.

Triumphant majoritarianism

I stole this post's title from this op-ed in Sunday's Post. By all means go and read it, it makes a strong, if indirect, case that the current conservative majority wishes to establish such a majoritarian rule and, in the process, obliterate minority interests in this country. Why else do away with judicial review and the filibuster if not to crush the two instruments that really do protect under-represented minorities in this country?

Biblical interpretation

Mike the Mad Biologist has a very interesting tidbit on his blog today. It highlights two examples in the Bible in which mistranslations may well have resulted in two of the reigning orthodoxies among modern evangelicals: the end-times/Revelations story and abortion prohibitions. I don't know how historically accurate the information in the post is, but it does bring to mind another topic: statutory and constitutional interpretation.

Conservatives, especially those of the Scalia/Thomas ilk, like to argue that we should rely on one and one thing only in our Nation's laws: the words. What do the words mean and, more importantly, what did they mean when they were written. Since Scalia was appointed to the Court in 1987, in fact, citations of dictionaries in SC opinions have risen something like 400%. Yet, even with dictionaries and historians and the actual source documentations, jurists cannot agree on what the Constitution and what many of our laws mean. Words, it seems, are not quite as simple as they might appear.

Jurists have it easy, though, compared to biblical scholars. We can argue about language that's 200 years old, but atleast its the same language we currently speak and atleast there are source documents. Biblical scholars, though, are trying to interpet documents that are 2000 years old and have been translated and re-translated. The source documentation is lost to history. Thus, even if the Bible does indeed contain the unerring word of God, it's been subject to the vagaries of human history for millennia. If we've got problems deciding what the fuck the Founding Fathers meant, how can we possibly argue that national policy should be based on biblical law? Nobody really knows what biblical law says.

Thank goodness for MIT

Seems there's still a few wacky geniuses out there to spice up our lives and remind us that there's more to existence than politics.

Grounds for hope

I'm generally pessimistic about the state of our natural environment and, more specifically, about the prospects for future generations to enjoy, appreciate, or even care about it. Articles, like this one from last week's Times, certainly suggest that children are becoming more divorced than ever from the natural world. Occasionally, though, I see or read something that gives me hope. This article, from today's Post, is one of them. I find it heartening that so many kids are interested in restocking a declining species like shad, and I think it's great that they're taking the issue to younger kids as well. I know their actions won't save the world, but the fact that even one kid is dreaming about a river turned silver by fish is a wonderful thing.

Heresy! Strawberry-Rhubarb Pie

The Volk family, contrary to what many people expect, is quite orthodox. Our orthodoxy, however, rears its ugly head in the kitchen, as opposed to the church. Of course, given our penchant for eating, it may be that the kitchen is our church. Anyway, my mother is consistently appalled every time I tell her that instead of making a pure rhubarb pie, unsullied by the presence of any other fruit or fruit-like ingredient, I have made my lovely wife a strawberry-rhubarb pie. Last night, I broke with orthodoxy yet again, and prepared yet another heretical dish. Today, I've decided to share the recipe.

Don't be scared away by any perceived difficulty. Pie making is pretty simple and easy. Even better, when you're done, you have that most excellent of desserts: Pie! Thus, if you're feeling wary, supress those feelings, buy the ingredients and make the damn pie.

Strawberry-Rhubarb Pie

Filling
6-8 stalks rhubarb, sliced
3 c. strawberries, sliced
1-1.5 c. sugar
1 tsp cinnamon
2-3 tbsp. cornstarch

Crust
2 c. flour
2/3-3/4 c. shortening (I use Earth Balance)
1 tbsp. sugar
5-6 tbsp. cold water

Preheat oven to 400.

Prepare the filling by mixing all the ingredients in a bowl and letting sit. Cornstarch is a thickener, so if the fruit is very juicy or you like a really thick pie, add more. I prefer a less sweet pie, so I use 1 cup sugar. However, rhubarb is very tart, so you might prefer to use more sugar.

You could use premade crusts. I've found that most are too salty for my taste. They're better for quiches in my opinion than fruit pies. I'll assume you're making crust.

The key to good crust is keeping ingredients cold. Don't handle it too much, don't let it get warm. Begin by cutting the shortening into the flour. If it's your first crust, stick with the higher amount because it will make it easier to work later on. When the shortening is fully cut in and the mixture feels kind of like meal, add 5 tbsp. of water. Mix with a fork in a circle. The dough will begin to come together. If it does not, add a little more water. Dough will either form a ball or a lot of partially formed dough masses. Turn onto a floured surface and squash together. Use fingers to knead very lightly into a ball.

Cut ball in half and form that half into a patty. Place on floured surface, and begin rolling out. Roll from the middle out, turning the round, so you get an even crust. Periodically, roll the edges, so they don't split. When the crust is flat and wide, lay the pie pan down on it and use a knife to cut a round crust about 2" larger than the top of the pan. Roll the round up onto the rolling pin and unroll it into the pie pan. Press it flat into the corners and pour in filling. Roll the second crust and lay over the top of the filling. Roll two crusts together and pinch them into the fluted edges of the pie pan. Form your thumb and forefinger of one hand into a "V" and push the crust with your opposing forefinger to make a fluted crust. Cut vents into top of crust.

Bake at 400 for 20 minutes. Lower temp to 350 and bake for an additional 30 minutes. Cool and eat.

Tips
I don't really have any tips on this. The first four times I ever made crust, I was nearly driven insane with frustration. However, if you're prepared to waste ingredients, you'll eventually find crust making to be quite easy. Again, the key is cold shortening and COLD water. I my water in the freezer for 5-10 minutes to make it cold. It pays to have a couple of pre-made crusts on hand, just in case the crust fails and you get bat-shit angry.

Also, juicy pies can boil over pretty easily. I put a pizza pan on the rack below that which the pie is on. This catches spills and I don't have to clean the oven later.

Finally, if you have left-over crust, roll it flat, put on some pats of butter and cinnamon and sugar, and roll it up like a jelly roll. These make tasty treats that everybody likes.

Mad props to the Mad Biologist

For posting this hilarious picture. Having grown up in Cobb County, I have to wonder where these fruitcakes are coming from. When I lived there (1983-1993), it was the land of Newt Gingrich and barely-hidden racism and classism. Yet, at the same time, there were lots of highly-educated, rational folks living there. Maybe I was just ensconced in my little middle/high school bubble, but I don't remember loons and wackos running the county. I wonder what (if anything) changed?

Journalists ARE ethical.

At least one study suggests this. And I'm not surprised. I strongly suspect that many journalists get into journalism for the same reason that most seminarians and many doctors do: they want to make a difference in the world. Perhaps, if these people really are motivated by a moral/ethical urge such as altruism, their decision making also includes a strong moral/ethical element. I know, that sounds naive, but every journalist I've ever met has held strong beliefs on what is right and wrong, or ethical and unethical.

I might also mention that I'm not surprised that middle schoolers are even less ethical than criminals. If your entire intellect and being is devoted to thinking about or trying to get laid, moral and ethical issues fade into the background...

UPDATE: As a corollary to this post, I suspect that if you were able to accurately discern people's motives for choosing professions, you'd find the same trends regardless of profession. Basically, I think that altruism and ethics correlate pretty well so that where you find one, you are likely to find the other.

Scientists named Steve

Discovery Institute found 300+ scientists who were willing to say that evolution is not a settled matter. The National Center for Science Education found 500+ scientists named Steve who argue otherwise. Neither fact is especially relevant to the issue of teaching evolution, but I think it's a bit of smart marketing by NCSE to show how well-established the theory of evolution really is. Full story from the Post is here.

Is George Will getting squeamish?

Read this article from today's Post and see. It certainly sounds like he finds the theocon tendencies in his party disconcerting. Either that, or he thinks they might hurt recent Republican gains in power, and wants to send a signal to the theocons that they need to mitigate their language so as not to scare the great moderate middle. Either way, it's kind of interesting that he actually chose to mildly berate the radicals in his party.

Busy

My apologies for the paucity of posts today, I've been busy with some deadlines. Fortunately, I can listen to music while I work. Today's play list has included The Distillers' album Sing Sing Death House, Lanterna's self-titled album, and Psychic Hearts by Thurston Moore. Next up for your viewing pleasure, my grocery list...

Social Security theory

Matt Yglesias, writing at Talking Points Memo has a great little breakdown of the theory underlying Social Security. It's kind of an explanation and a defense at the same time, and well worth reading. Certainly, for an enviro like myself with little experience in social policy issues, I found it interesting. I don't know how much of what he describes was actually discussed when Social Security was initially set up, but it certainly sounds plausible now.

National Teacher Day

I thought I'd point out that today is National Teacher Day. This may or may not be a Hallmark Holiday, but it definitely has merit. Teaching, by my estimation, is one of the most-taxing, least-recognized vocations out there. The least we can do is mark one day in their honor.

If any of my readers are teachers, I salute you for your hard work, your dedication, and the sacrifices you make day in and day out to ensure the unwashed masses at least know how to read, write and do their arithmetic. If you're not teachers, go find one and buy them a drink. In fact, make it a double. They probably need it.

New blog links

I've posted a couple of new blog links in my sidebar over the last few weeks. If you're looking for interesting reads, I suggest you add these to your list. My newest link is Legal Fiction. From what I've read, it's got some interesting insights into legal thinking and trends. I especially like the recent post suggesting what future legislative hearings in Alabama might sound like after the state passes its homosexual book ban.

Hammersack a fundy!

Driftglass has a positively hilarious post about teaching semiotics to fundies. I've never heard the term "hammersack" before, and it may be made up, but boy it's got great imagery.

UPDATE: Of course, I abhor violence in all its forms, and thus recommend that you tap the fundy lightly rather than hammering him or her.

Georgia Tech alumns occasionally make good.

I thought it wasn't possible. I thought it wasn't true. I thought all GT alumns (myself excluded, of course) were suburban engineers with 2.3 kids and an SUV. Turns out, at least one of them is a raw-foodist, vegan framebuilder in Colorado making the sweetest fixed-gear titaniums I ever laid eyes on.

I had a conversation with my friend Michael this weekend whilst waiting for the Staten Island ferry at the end of the Five Boros Tour. It was pretty much a continuation of a long-standing "argument" we've been having over the last five years about the aesthetics of hand-made lugged frames versus hand-made tigged frames. I know, ridiculous. In the course of this conversation, I brashly asserted an addendum to our main argument. Namely, I said that straight-blade forks were irredeemable and that I would never own a bike with one. In fact, I went so far as to say that I would never buy an Independent Fabrication bike, because they're outfitted with such forks. Well, after looking through Matt Chester's site I still probably wouldn't buy an IF, but I might consider this titanium beauty. I mean, as a GT alumn, isn't it my duty to give business to others who have made good?

UPDATE: I wouldn't know Matt Chester from a hole in the wall if it weren't for Large Fella On A Bike and his daily FBQs. I should have cited him earlier when I wrote this post. If you at all like bicycles, especially hand-made beauties, check his site daily for new FBQ updates.

Right-wing logic?

The radical religious right-wing in this country is, once again, proving that they are a bunch of nitwits. Either that, or they hate women. I read this article and thought to myself, why, in God's name, would anyone oppose vaccinating women against a virus that causes cancer? That's like opposing a vaccine for sickle cell anemia or a vaccine for HIV for that matter. It's not just irrational, but totally illogical if you want to eradicate disease. But, as we well know, America's conservatives aren't motivated by logic

Get this quote: "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV." This is the FRC's best justification for denying the vaccine to women? Well I'll be a monkey's uncle. That's some argument alright. First of all, how does one define best? Theoretically or practically? Theoretically, never touching someone with HPV is the best way to avoid getting HPV. I'll cede the point. But, here on Earth where people touch people all the time (even sexually!), and where many women are raped or forced to have sex against their will, and where many other women work in sex industries to feed themselves or their families, and where poverty is widespread and few women (or men) have good health care, abstinence theory doesn't mean much. Here on Earth, abstinence is a nice idea, but it just isn't workable as a national or global policy. Practically speaking, we need every tool we have available to stop the spread of disease (venereal or otherwise).

Second of all, what decision model is FRC using? The one that says, "When you have many options to address a problem, you may use only one and that one may be only the best." Okay. Let's try applying that decision model elsewhere, like to the problem of global warming. It's pretty clear (though not necessarily proven) that the "best" way to avoid any further global warming is to stop using any fossil fuel. We'll call this the hydrocarbon theory of abstinence (if you don't burn hydrocarbons, you won't release CO2.) Having identified this as the best way to prevent global warming, FRC's decision model clearly requires us to ban any and all use of hydrocarbons. This, of course, is an absurd result. And yet, that is clearly what the FRC calls for. Why? I don't know, except that once again, America's religious right have taken the phrase "culture of life" and stripped it of any substantive meaning whatsoever.

Can anyone out there think of any other absurd situations where one could apply the "abstinence theory"?

Why does Bob Herbert hate America?

I mean, he must. Anybody who writes an article like this must be an American hater. I mean, we should call him, to cob a phrase from the great Fafnir, Lefty McLiberal. How dare he suggest that American soldiers in Iraq are anything but brave, patriotic and unfailingly polite?

In any case, do read the opinion piece. I'll let you decide what it says about our fighting forces. Our men and women over in Iraq have a hellish job. Does that justify what Herbert describes?

Really, the middle class is getting fat? Who knew?

The Post has this unremarkable story reporting that researchers have discovered that those who make over $60k a year are getting fat. Is this a surprise? 95% of the people I know who make over $60k a year are driving as fast as they can to some sterile McMansion on some nameless cul-de-sac in some anonymous suburb. As a result, these same folks spend an hour each morning and night driving from their "dream home" in the "country" into the city so they can spend 9-10 hours making that $60k. At home, moreover, there's no place for them to walk or run, every store and amenity must be reached by car, and there are few means for them to get exercise. Is it any fucking mystery that these folks are getting obese, regardless of how many healthy, fresh vegetables they might be eating? Moreover, is there anything to indicate that they really are eating such meals? Fact is, you can chalk up obesity and its related costs as just another incidental effect imposed by suburbanization.

Krugman on Social Security

Do take a minute and read Paul Krugman's article in the NYT today. He further clarifies why the President's most recent fix for Social Security will hurt both the middle class and the poor. Very clear, very succint, it's worth 10 minutes.

Assorted scumbags fom LGM

Bill Owens, governor of Colorado (and LBJ School alumn) is a scumbag. He actually vetoed a bill that would require hospitals to notify rape victims of the availability of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after" pill. Good comments here.

Wayne Allard, Senator from Colorado, is a scumbag, but not so much as Bill Owens. Allard is messing with the judiciary, Owens is fucking with women's lives.

Randall Terry is the biggest scumbag of them all. Again, LGM provides us with some insight.