https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

The Law & Order Candidate

No, not that “Law & Order” candidate — I’m talking about Rudy Giuliani, who famously (if dubiously) “cleaned up New York City.”  Here’s a little ditty of his view…

No, not that “Law & Order” candidate — I’m talking about Rudy Giuliani, who famously (if dubiously) “cleaned up New York City.”  Here’s a little ditty of his view on Freedom, from 1994, at a forum about urban crime.

We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don’t see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

I get it now — Freedom is Slavery.  It all makes sense now.

 

 

Because massive, impersonal retaliation always works, right?

After all, the terrorists of the world have clearly been cowed by cruise missiles launched against them, by military strikes, and even by full-scale invasions.  Yes, Tom Tancredo is on…

After all, the terrorists of the world have clearly been cowed by cruise missiles launched against them, by military strikes, and even by full-scale invasions.  Yes, Tom Tancredo is on the “stand tall, talk like an idiot” mode again:

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo’s campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good “deterrent” to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.

“This shows that we mean business,” said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. “There’s no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us.”

I mean, when you have the Bush White House touting an military option as “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy” — that should be a warning sign.

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”

Given that extremists in, oh, let’s just pick out Iraq, have been more than happy to bomb Muslim holy sites, religious leaders, mosques, and freaking funerals — I have no doubt there are plenty of folks who not only would not be deterred by such a threat, but would actually be incented by it.

The only reason I’d want Tancredo for president is it means he wouldn’t be my US Representative any more.

(via Amanda)

 

Something for your reading list for the next 16 months

As we hurtle headlong into the Presidential Election Season (or six seasons or so), FactCheck.org needs to be on your regular Internet reading list (visit the site, subscribe to…

As we hurtle headlong into the Presidential Election Season (or six seasons or so), FactCheck.org needs to be on your regular Internet reading list (visit the site, subscribe to the feed, get e-mail updates, whatever).  The Annenberg Public Policy Center does a faboo non-partisan job of calling the pols and would-be pols onto the carpet for factual distortions (or out-and-out lies) that “slip” into their speeches, debate appearances, and adverts.

The Political Compass

BD pointed to the Political Compass test again, so I thought I’d re-take it and see how I was doing.  The Political Compass graphs out socio-political philosophies along two axes,…

BD pointed to the Political Compass test again, so I thought I’d re-take it and see how I was doing.  The Political Compass graphs out socio-political philosophies along two axes, rather than the traditional Left/Right.

My current score is

Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.00

I.e., I am more on the Economic Left than Right (more Collectivist/Communist than Neo-Liberal/Libertarian), and significantly more on the Libertarian (Anarchic) aide of things than Authoritarian (Fascist) when it comes to personal liberties.  I’d be on the “Libertarian Left,”

Looking at the US Primaries, that puts me way out of sync with all the candidates except Dennis Kucinich (ick), which might explain why I’m not happy with most of the choices, or may indicate the test isn’t all that accurate.  (Or it may indicate that candidates tend to pander a bit to the populace, which I suspect is much less social libertarian than I am, and to big business contributors, who would be more inclined toward economic neo-liberalism.)

But is it consistent?  Here are the other times I’ve taken it:

Dec. 2001:  -1.13, -3.13
May 2003: -2.13, -3.54
Aug. 2004: -0.75, -3.13
Jul. 2007: -3.00, -4.00

Well, I’m definitely in the fairly-social-libertarian side of things, and waver a bit on economics, but remain somewhat on the left (which still doesn’t feel quite right, so to speak). 

Is the test “accurate,” whatever that means?  There were more than a few questions where I dug into the nuances of the exact wording probably beyond where it made sense, so there’s some room for doubt.  Guess I’ll check back in a couple of years and see …

So much for Rudy

Not that I had any wild enthusiasm for Rudy Giuliani, mind you.  Granted, he’s got relatively moderate positions on some social issues (abortion, gay rights), but his “law and order”…

Not that I had any wild enthusiasm for Rudy Giuliani, mind you.  Granted, he’s got relatively moderate positions on some social issues (abortion, gay rights), but his “law and order” rep is overblown (read Freakonomics some time), he invokes 9/11 as often as Dubya, and his personal life foibles make the Clintons look like Ward and June Cleaver.

But this is the kiss of death.

Conservative televangelist Pat Robertson praised the pro-choice, pro-gay rights Rudy Giuliani to the rafters yesterday – stopping just short of giving the former mayor his blessing for the presidency.

“This is supposed to be a nonpolitical thing,” Robertson said in introducing Giuliani at a lecture series at the preacher’s Regent University here. “But we would be remiss to forget the fact that he seems to be running for President.”

“And in point of fact,” added Robertson, a co-founder of the powerful Christian Coalition, “he may one day become not New York’s mayor, but America’s leader. So it’s a great pleasure to welcome a dear friend and a great leader.”

Guilt by association is sometimes dubious, and I understand the political pressures to play nice with the social conservatives if you have any hopes in the GOP primary circuit … but if Pat Robertson is for you, that’s at least a strike-and-a-half in my book.  And Giuliani’s sucking up to Robertson and his Regent University (a dismally-rated law school that’s managed to flood the Bush Administration with its grads) makes it clear he’s more willing to defy the “terrorists” than the Religious Right.

There are far worse contenders in the GOP aspirant pool, and I’d rather see Giuliani on the final ticket than some of the other goofballs over there — but there are a whole lot of Dems I’d rather see than Rudy in the White House.

(via J-Walk)

 

My candidate … maybe

Based on a fairly decent policy position quiz, here are my optimal choices.  At a minimum, I lose about 25% of my “ideal.” Your Results:             1.  Theoretical Ideal Candidate   (100%)…

Based on a fairly decent policy position quiz, here are my optimal choices.  At a minimum, I lose about 25% of my “ideal.”

Your Results:            

1.  Theoretical Ideal Candidate   (100%)
2.  Joseph Biden   (76%)  Information link
3.  Hillary Clinton   (75%)  Information link
4.  Bill Richardson   (70%)  Information link
5.  Michael Bloomberg   (70%)  Information link
6.  Dennis Kucinich   (68%)  Information link
7.  Al Gore   (65%)  Information link
8.  John Edwards   (65%)  Information link
9.  Wesley Clark   (64%)  Information link
10.  Barack Obama   (63%)  Information link
11.  Christopher Dodd   (57%)  Information link
12.  Alan Augustson   (56%)  Information link
13.  Mike Gravel   (51%)  Information link
14.  John McCain   (48%)  Information link
15.  Mike Huckabee   (44%)  Information link
16.  Ron Paul   (43%)  Information link
17.  Kent McManigal   (41%)  Information link
18.  Chuck Hagel   (39%)  Information link
19.  Rudolph Giuliani   (38%)  Information link
20.  Mitt Romney   (37%)  Information link
21.  Tommy Thompson   (35%)  Information link
22.  Newt Gingrich   (33%)  Information link
23.  Elaine Brown   (32%)  Information link
24.  Sam Brownback   (31%)  Information link
25.  Fred Thompson   (29%)  Information link
26.  Tom Tancredo   (28%)  Information link
27.  Duncan Hunter   (23%)  Information link
28.  Jim Gilmore   (19%)  Information link

Note:  If you take the quiz yourself, after you do your answers, there’s an intrusive ad page soliciting personal info.  Just click the link at the top to bypass all that crap.

(via J-Walk)

Open Source presidency

Interesting analysis of the operating systems used by official candidate web sites.  The Dems tend toward open source, the GOP toward Windows. Which shouldn’t be read into too much,…

Interesting analysis of the operating systems used by official candidate web sites.  The Dems tend toward open source, the GOP toward Windows.

Which shouldn’t be read into too much, I suspect, as I doubt any of the candidates could tell you the OS of their site.  Does their having hired firms/designers (or hired folks who hired folks who hired those folks) that use one type of web platform or another actually reflect something about them as leaders, or provide insight into their Administration’s policies on technology or intellectual property.

Probably not.  But it is interesting, and at this stage of the game it’s a large enough statistical universe to almost seem meaningful.

(Interestingly, before anyone still tries to draw too many conclusions, the front runners tend to buck the overall trend — Romney and Giuliani are on Linux/Apache, Hillary’s on Windows/IIS.)

(via J-Walk)

“The fault, dear Brutus …”

What she said. Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world Like a Colossus; and we petty men Walk under his huge legs and peep about To find ourselves dishonorable…

What she said.

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus; and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

— Wm Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, I.ii

Now, that said … yes, there were those from the very beginning who despised Bush, who intensely disliked his avowed policies and plans — and many who, from Day 1, were calling for his impeachment.

If the public as a whole (and the “useless media,” as BD calls them) have some responsibility for letting Bush & Co. get away with it for so long (and they — we — do), so, too, do his direst political opponents, who ratcheted the rhetoric to 11 from the very beginning, and thus did their cause no good

It is perhaps self-serving of me, but much of the worst of the Bush Administration stems not from the various accusations thrown from the very beginning, but in actions taken since then.  Honestly speaking, I still don’t think going to war with Iraq was necessarily wrong (let alone impeachable), but the way we went about it — the execution and the aftermath — does border on criminal.  Similarly, I could stand behind the idea of having to take actions to increase security within the US post-911, but the way that it’s been done — bumbling in public, flouting the law in private — has led to as much danger in some ways as “the terrorists” themselves pose.

That said, it’s taken a long time for the public as a whole — and myself, perhaps, as part of it — to step up to more than mere grumbling.  The handwriting was already on the wall in 2004, and Bush still managed to get reelected (alleged improprieties aside) … and here I’ll spread the blame to the political opposition as well.  If Satan himself rose for a sulfurous pit and ran for president on the GOP ticket promising to eat the souls of all children and consign them into eternal torment, the Democrats would still manage to put up someone against him that would give the voting public pause.  For myself, for all I really disliked all that Bush was doing by 2004, I still was so turned off by Kerry that I only decided on my vote at the last minute.

In the end, it will be ironic — and a bit scary — that what brought Bush down (in the polls, and in history, if not through some sort of impeachment process) was not the various malfeasance of he and his Administration, but the fact that they just were so unsuccessful at what they set out to do.  Iraq has turned into a fiasco, the War on Terror seems more noteworthy for wiretaps and long waits at the airport than for any particular victories won, and few of the political or social initiatives he ran on (twice) to pursue have come to pass. 

I just hope that January 2009 will not be too late for us to start repairing the damage done.

I’m not sure I’m that disenchanted with the mainstream candidates

Some of the darker horses running for President. Jonathon Albert “The Impaler” Sharkey — 43, Satanist/pagan who is the founder, national chair and commanding general in the 1st Vampyre, Witches,…

Some of the darker horses running for President.

Jonathon Albert “The Impaler” Sharkey — 43, Satanist/pagan who is the founder, national chair and commanding general in the 1st Vampyre, Witches, Pagans Party Regiment (2006-present); former U.S. Army soldier; former board member of Hillborough, New Jersey’s County Executive Republican Committee; dark priest/ advisor to the Church of the Followers of Lucifer; founder and national chair of Vampyres, Witches, Pagans Against Impaired Driving (2005-present). As an ordained Satanic dark priest, vows to perform same-sex marriages at White House at least once a month and to only impale criminals and terrorists, not law-abiding American citizens.

Jackson Kirk Grimes — 56, a single pagan with a GED who once portrayed Hitler on “Star Trek,” this director of the United Fascist Union (which promotes the economic theories and political ideologies of Benito Mussolini and Saddam Hussein) and two-time presidential candidate promises to abolish paper money and create a global government if elected.

Yaphet Kotto — 67, Yes, that Yaphet Kotto, the actor best known for playing a no-BS federal agent chasing Robert De Niro in “Midnight Run” and appearing in such films as “Brubaker,” “Alien,” “The Puppet Masters” and “Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare.” The Web site for his exploratory committee lists as its main goal the popularizing of “vibration politics,” which seeks harmony among all men and planets.

Sh’yeah, like anyone would ever take seriously the thought of electing an actor.

(via BoingBoing)

Impeachment?

Lots of talk about it, from folks generally outraged by the last 6.5 years of shenanigans in the Administration (which includes, for this purpose, the VP’s office).  My thoughts? Meh.  From a…

Lots of talk about it, from folks generally outraged by the last 6.5 years of shenanigans in the Administration (which includes, for this purpose, the VP’s office).  My thoughts?

Meh.  From a practical standpoint, the chances of it actually happening between now and January 2009 are passingly small.  Hell, look at Alberto Gonzalez.  For all his buffoonery before Congressional committees, inane answers that made him look like either an idiotic liar or a cretinous half-drunken absentee manager, for all the responses that drove even Republican congresscritters to condemn him and call for his resignation — the Senate couldn’t muster the votes from the GOP to pass a non-binding “No Confidence” vote.

What do you think the chances are, in an election year-and-a-half, that the Republicans will actually treat the actions of the last six years, which encompass activities that they approved of and signed off on or stood by at the time and merely smiled and nodded about, as something worth removing the President (and/or VP) for?

Zilch.  Zero.  Zip.

And given that the majority of Democrats — and the American people — have gone along with it, too, makes it even less likely.

All impeachment proceedings would do at this point is distract from the Administrations actions, now and ongoing.  It would become (or be made) the center stage, the focus, dragging on and on, and the argument would turn from “Was this policy/action by the Administration a sheer affront to what it means to be American” to “Should the President be impeached, or is this impeachment all about partisan politics?”  (And, sadly, given their propensities, there would be enough Democrats trying to exploit it baldly and politically to give the suggestion legs.)

Unless Bush/Cheney actually do something to actively torque off Congress as a whole enough to act  (which they’ve verged on doing at times, to be sure), or can get the President or VP to actually testify on the record and perjure themselves (which is how they nailed Clinton — and why they never have and never will get those two into such a situation), we’ll never see it happen.

(Do I think it should happen?  Yes, ideally.  But pragmatically, I think it holds too many risks, given the current situation and limited time to do it all in, even if it were likely that it could happen.)

So what can and should an outraged public do?

The best result would be to vote the bums out, to have this Administration so widely despised by the voting public that not all the election year shenanigans that the Administration can pull will be able to keep 2009 (and 2011 and 2013) seeing a Democratic president and Congress, akin to the post-Watergate backlash of ’76.  That has its own dangers — I’m a big believer in not having single-party rule — but it would be the clearest, and most straightforward condemnation that could be given to Bush and Cheney and their cronies.

It might not be as satisfying as impeachment and carrying their figurative heads around on pikes, but it would be a lot more likely and a lot more effective at keeping this sort of thing from happening in the future.

Scooting

The more I keep pondering on the whole Scooter Libby “clemency,” the more it keeps irking. I have to quote from a Kung Fu Monkey link Marn cited commented in my original…

The more I keep pondering on the whole Scooter Libby “clemency,” the more it keeps irking.

I have to quote from a Kung Fu Monkey link Marn cited commented in my original post on the subject.

Then Scooter gets his sentence commuted. Oh, and just to make sure we’re clear on where I stand here, let me paraphrase Glenn Greenwald

The Libby prosecution clearly was the dirty work of the leftist anti-war movement in this country, just as Cohen describes. After all, the reason Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate this matter was because a left-wing government agency (known as the “Central Intelligence Agency”) filed a criminal referral with the Justice Department, as the MoveOn-sympathizer CIA officials were apparently unhappy about the public unmasking of one of their covert agents.

In response, Bush’s left-wing anti-war Attorney General, John Ashcroft, judged the matter serious enough to recuse himself, leading Bush’s left-wing anti-war Deputy Attorney General, James Comey, to conclude that a Special Prosecutor was needed. In turn, Comey appointed Fitzgerald, the left-wing anti-war Republican Prosecutor and Bush appointee, who secured a conviction of Libby, in response to which left-wing anti-war Bush appointee Judge Reggie Walton imposed Libby’s sentence.”

(The Greenwald article is worth actually reading, btw.)

As KFM notes, it’s unlikely that Libby will suffer any other significant harm.  Even assuming his appeal fails (the likelihood of which is what led a federal appeals court to tell him he had to wait out the process in prison, which is what five hours later prompted the clemency), it’s highly unlikely that Libby will be out a penny of his own money in fines.  Even if disbarred, it’s quite likely he’ll get a nice job in some think tank or university setting.  You don’t go from being the VP’s right hand man to being a bum on the street just because you obstructed justice.  The hue and cry from the Administration and its supporters make it clear that there are plenty of people who think Libby did no wrong.

Which is the key of KFM’s post:

They have found the “exploit” within the United States Government. As I watched Congressmen and Senators stumble and fumble and thrash, unable to bring to heel men and women who were plainly lying to them under oath, unable to eject from public office toadies of a boot-licking expertise unseen since Versailles, it struck me. The sheer, simple elegance of it. The “exploit”.

The exploit is shame.

Our representatives — and to a great degree we as a culture — are completely buffaloed by shamelessness. You reveal a man’s corrupt, or lying, or incompetent, and what does he do? He resigns. He attempts to escape attention, often to aid in his escape of legal pursuit. Public shame has up to now been the silver bullet of American political life. But people who are willing to just do the wrong thing and wait you out, to be publicly guilty … dammmnnnn.

We are faced with utterly shameless men. Cheney and the rest are looking our representatives right in the eye and saying “You don’t have the balls to take down a government. You don’t have the sheer testicular fortitude to call us lying sonuvabitches when we lie, to stop us from kicking the rule of law and the Constitution in the ass. You just don’t. What’s beyond that abyss — what that would do to our government and our identity as a nation — terrifies you too much. So get the fuck out of our way.”

Whether they state it that boldly, or simply assert, “It was all for National Security, the Ends justify the Means, and we would do it —  have done it — will do it again, with clean consciences and no reprisals or accountability,”  it’s clear that the Administration does not feel it is accountable to or bound by the law.  The ends really don’t matter — whether you believe the Administration is our last hope against war and terror or believe they are a bunch of pocket-lining thugs — but the grotesque dismissal of any reigning in of the means used in pursuit of those ends is disastrous. 

There is a reason for the law, at least as framed in this country.  It is to protect the weak from the strong, to restrict the use of power for whatever reason.  Because, ultimately, even if the wielders of unrestrained power are saints, that power will be misused.  It will fall into the hands of demons, sooner or later.  Acton’s maxim on absolute power corrupting absolutely doesn’t have to apply to a given individual (though it usually does); it can apply to an institution.  And as sure as God made little green apples, George Bush’s eight-year exercise of power, and dismissal of restraints on it, before or after the fact,  will be used as precedents and justifications by future presidents, Republican or Democrat, for their own “ends.”  And even if you think George Bush is a saint, how long of a string of saints are we likely to see?

It’s not even that the Scooter Libby case is the end of the world per se.  Libby didn’t personally assassinate Valerie Plame, or get caught eating dead puppies stolen from little Iraqi children, or selling nuclear secrets to Iran, or whatever.  Not to dismiss the importance of lying to Congress and trying to cover-up and stall an investigation, but you almost expect that from political operatives. 

No, in this case, it’s not the crime, not even the cover-up, but the casual clemency that sticks in the craw of the body politic, that teaches the lesson to politicians and kids alike that even in the unlikely circumstance that you do get caught out in trying to block an investigation, it won’t matter — you won’t be punished.  Even if a prosecution is successful, and a jury says you’re guilty, you won’t do a day in prison.  The Big Boys will watch out for you.  Next time you get a subpoena from Congress or have to testify in front of a grand jury or get grilled by the Dept. of (“I don’t recall”) Justice — toss back a few mimosas, and don’t sweat it — there’s plenty of clemency and (not yet ruled out) pardons sitting in the file cabinet waiting to have your name filled in.

Disgusting and sad and infuriating all at once.  Because you just know that there’s more of this sort of thing that’s going to happen over the next year and change, and no matter what half-hearted investigations get kicked off after Bush leaves the White House, the legal bases will all be covered, the blanket pardons will have been issued, and there will be no meaningful punishment, just the wailing from the graves of the Founding Fathers, despairing in what’s been done with their nation.

Potpourri for a Tuesday on Vacation

Robo-Dave suggests: Yes, what a candidate believes about evolution vs. creationism really does make a difference. “Now maybe evolutionary biology isn’t going to propel America into the forefront of…

Robo-Dave suggests:

  1. Yes, what a candidate believes about evolution vs. creationism really does make a difference. “Now maybe evolutionary biology isn’t going to propel America into the forefront of world science, but creationism (and its gussied-up descendant “Intelligent Design”) is not just a campaign against evolution—it’s a campaign against science itself and the scientific method. By pretending that evolution is on shaky ground, and asserting that religion can contribute to our understanding of nature, creationists confuse people about the very form and character of scientific evidence. This confusion can only hurt our ability to make rational judgments about important social issues, like global warming, that involve science.”
  2. Doyce devises a great Clifford the Big Red Dog / Nobilis mash-up.  Hey, it makes as much sense as the “canonical” story, though when I went and regaled Margie with it, she did much eye-rolling.
  3. The lakes and rivers of Antarctica.  Once you get beneath the ice, that is. (via kottke)

There are times I despair

I really do think that most people are sensible and level-headed and … well … willing and able to use their brains, when it seems important. Then I read stuff…

I really do think that most people are sensible and level-headed and … well … willing and able to use their brains, when it seems important.

Then I read stuff like this:

Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life

Definitely or probably true:  53%
Definitely or probably false: 44%

Okay, well at least a narrow majority believe in evolution.  On the other hand.

Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years

Definitely or probably true:  66%
Definitely or probably false: 31%

I’m not sure about the folks who seem to have agreed with both statements.  Regardless — yeesh.

On the bright side, 70% indicated that a presidential candidate’s views on evolution are not really relevant to whether they are qualified to be president.  Which is disturbing in and of itself, but also means, one hopes, that the hefty pro-Creationist bent of the public will not have a substantial effect.

Again, yeesh.

(via Les)

UPDATE:   Aha.  I feel better. It’s skewed because of Republicans.

A Gallup poll released Monday said that while the country is about evenly split over whether the theory of evolution is true, Republicans disbelieve it by more than 2-to-1.

Republicans saying they don’t believe in evolution outnumbered those who do by 68 percent to 30 percent in the survey. Democrats believe in evolution by 57 percent to 40 percent, as do independents by a 61 percent to 37 percent margin.

Though, to be fair — neither the Dems nor the Indies have much to crow about here.

Again, with the yeesh.

(via SEB)

The Sopping Administration

It appears that whenever the President has an appointee to name, he goes one of two routes: A sop to the industry the appointee is going to ostensibly oversee, by…

It appears that whenever the President has an appointee to name, he goes one of two routes:

  1. A sop to the industry the appointee is going to ostensibly oversee, by nominating someone who supports their views or considers the regulation s/he is asked to support to be excessive and in need of “reform” (read “reduction”).
  2. A sop to the social conservative right, by nominating someone who wears their religion on their sleeve, when not wielding it as a baseball bat against those who feel differently.

The most recent case of the latter is Bush’s nominee as Surgeon General.  While there are a lot of things the SG does other than deal with the gay community, the role that the SG plays in things like AIDS prevention and similar topics that touch on the gay community makes it appalling that Bush would nominate someone like James Holsinger, who may have some chops as a health care administrator (and crusader against smoking and obesity), but whose pseudo-scientific stance against gays has to set a few alarms going.

“Dr. Holsinger has a record that is unworthy of America’s doctor,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “His writings suggest a scientific view rooted in anti-gay beliefs that are incompatible with the job of serving the medical health of all Americans. It is essential that America’s top doctor value sound science over anti-gay ideology.”

In a document titled “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality,” Holsinger opined, in his capacity as a physician, that biology and anatomy precluded considering gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality in his denomination. The opinion very clearly states that this is his scientific view, stating that theological views are separate.  

Additionally, Holsinger and his wife were founders of Hope Springs Community Church which, according to the church’s pastor, ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian. The pastor, the Rev. David Calhoun, said that the church has an “ex-gay” ministry. “We see that as an issue not of orientation but a lifestyle,” Calhoun said. “We have people who seek to walk out of that lifestyle.” This type of “ex-gay” conversion therapy has been condemned by almost every major, reputable medical organization — including the American Psychological Association, which issued a condemnation more than 10 years ago. 

“Although the church’s theology isn’t being nominated, this discredited practice purports to be a psychological and medical service, and if Dr. Holsinger is involved in any way, it conflicts with his duty to accept and promote sound science in the interest of public health,” continued Solmonese.

The “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality” paper can be found here. It concludes:

The anatomic and physiologic facts of alimentation and reproduction simply do not change based on any cultural setting. In fact, the logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other. When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above.

Therefore, based on the simplest known anatomy and physiology, when dealing with the  complementarity of the human sexes, one can simply say, Res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself!

Because it doesn’t work like pipe fittings, homosexuality is unnatural and wrong.  Gee, certainly the person I want to see as the highest medical officer of the land.

Of course, one can consider this a “crazy like a fox” maneuver.  It seems unlikely that, with a slender Democratic majority in the Senate, Holsinger can get through (though if he can, all the better).  But by dragging the Senate into a big “wedge issue” debate, Bush and the GOP can solidify their base in the run-up to the 2008 elections, and get the presidential candidates on both sides on the record in ways that will lock them in or come back to haunt them later.

(via Ginny)

In case there was any question about gay rights sympathizers amongst the GOP candidates …

At the most recent GOP candidate debates, the issue of gays openly serving in the military, vs. “don’t ask, don’t tell” was raised.  My summary of the responses given. Ron…

At the most recent GOP candidate debates, the issue of gays openly serving in the military, vs. “don’t ask, don’t tell” was raised.  My summary of the responses given.

Ron Paul:  Everyone should have equal rights.  Disruptive homosexual behavior shouldn’t be allowed, but disruptive heterosexual behavior shouldn’t be allowed, either.  [Is Paul suggesting that if it becomes “known” to a CO that someone is straight, they should be discharged?  Cause that’s how it works right now for gays.]

Mike Huckabee:  It’s already dealt with in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  It’s not a matter of “attitude” but of “disruptive behavior.”  [Except, of course, that the code indicates that any known homosexual behavior is per se “disruptive” in a dischargable way.  So passing the buck to the Uniform Code is hardly solving anything.]

Rudy Giuliani (asked about the discharge-because-of-gayness of some highly trained translators who could support the wars in the Middle East):  This is the wrong time to debating whether we’re weakening our war effort because to do so weakens our war effort.  This policy was decided in 1994 and that’s good enough for now, at least until this war is over.  [“Because I agree wholeheartedly with all the policies established in 1994.  Um …”]

Mitt Romney:  I was wrong back in 1994, when I said gays should be able to serve openly.  The current policy is working.  Let’s not rock the boat now. Let’s revisit it later.  [“Like — after I’m elected.  Or maybe after I’m out of office.”]

John McCain:  We have a great military (applause). There just aren’t enough of them — but I’m still going to trust what our commanders say.  The current policy is working.  [Even if it possibly means that we’re excluding some folks from the military, which we’ve just admitted is short-handed.]

At which point, all the folks on stage were asked if anyone supported allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve. Crickets chirped for a few seconds,  Then they went on to other questions.

One could possibly — maybe — debate the question of timing re changing the policy.  The official desegregation of the armed forces — the best analog to this, I think — took place in 1948, between wars.  On the other hand, if this is a “war without end” (a/k/a “the war on terror”) then it seems like there will never be a “right time.” 

By the same token, by simply dismissing the effect of the current policy (which treats truth and honesty as a grounds for discharge, no matter how good a soldier you are or how invaluable your talents might be to the war), by misstating the nature of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy (which doesn’t target “disruptive” homosexual behavior, but which treats any known homosexual behavior as dischargeably disruptive), and by trying to pish-tosh away the whole subject (“We’re at war right now, let’s not worry about this until we’re at peace”), the entire stage-worth of candidates demonstrated to everyone listening that they’re either grossly underinformed, a lot more concerned about “base” votes, or or a lot more ideologically rigid than even the more “liberal” among them have made themselves out to be.

The shifting priorities of the Religious Right?

Interesting article on NPR yesterday about some demographic shifts going on in the evangelical / conservative Christian / “Religious Right” movement.  While issues like abortion and homosexuality are still important,…

Interesting article on NPR yesterday about some demographic shifts going on in the evangelical / conservative Christian / “Religious Right” movement.  While issues like abortion and homosexuality are still important, more evangelical congregations seem to be looking at other causes, including the environment.  That differs them from old-school leaders like the late Jerry Falwell.

“It is Satan’s attempt to redirect the church’s primary focus,” Falwell said in March to his 22,000-person-strong congregation at the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va.

“I’m telling these guys they need to get off that kick,” Falwell said, “because the idea is to divert your energies from the message and the mission and the vision of the church, to something less.”

More environmentally-conscious evangelicals note, to the contrary, that the very first commands to humanity (Gen. 1:26-28, Gen. 2:15) involves stewardship over creation.  Other “compassion issues” involve concerns about the war and dealing with poverty.

For years, groups like Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council adopted a narrow strategy. They zeroed in on “below the belt issues” — abortion and more recently, homosexuality. Politically, it worked. Evangelicals overwhelmingly supported George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Northland Pastor Hunter says he hasn’t changed his beliefs about pro-life issues one bit.

“The problem has become that we have paid so much attention to the human being in the womb that we have forgotten about the human being out of the womb,” Hunter said. “It’s become such a focus for some leaders that they don’t want to address the other pro-life issues, such as climate change, such as poverty, such as AIDS.”

Last year, the Christian Coalition asked Hunter to become its president. He agreed, as long as he could spotlight attention on non-sexual issues, such as the environment and poverty. At the last moment, both sides got cold feet and the union was called off.

It was an early test of what may be a coming generational shift. For years, Falwell, Robertson and Dobson dominated the Christian message. But now, some younger evangelicals are complaining that the old message focuses more on what Christians are against than on what they are for.

The result may be that the evangelical vote isn’t as locked-up Republican as it has been since the Reagan years.  There may be enough defections — either to Democrats or to simply not vote — to cause some further swing in elections in the future.

Interesting times, perhaps …

One would hope that would narrow the field some …

… but, no doubt, it won’t.  Republican candidates indicate if they don’t believe in evolution. In the “don’t” column (right there, raising their hands on national TV and everything): …

… but, no doubt, it won’t.  Republican candidates indicate if they don’t believe in evolution.

In the “don’t” column (right there, raising their hands on national TV and everything):  Brownback, Tancredo and HuckabeeBzzt … time to vote them off the island.

Though I’ll note two things:

  1. The question was actually, initially, addressed to John McCain.  McCain hesitates.  Did it take him a moment to puzzle out the question (as in “Why the hell would anyone ask something as self-obvious as asking if I believe in gravity?”) or did it take him a moment to puzzle out what the political implications were of answering one way or the other?  At any rate, props to him for giving an answer in the affirmative (which should, again, be self-evident, but, sadly, no doubt cost him some votes).
  2. I would have been more interested in seeing folks affirm in the positive.  In a sane world, answering in the negative (as was asked) would be forcing people to commit themselves to a truly goofy position.  Alas, in this day, taking a stand that you are a believer in evolution has become a more courageous and risky proposition.

(via J-Walk, who has a new campaign poster)

The One True Litmus Test

UPDATE: My serious goof. The pols were actually asked about their favorite reality show. That doesn’t make their answers any more honest, but it makes them slightly less creepy. Though…

UPDATE: My serious goof. The pols were actually asked about their favorite reality show. That doesn’t make their answers any more honest, but it makes them slightly less creepy. Though … is CSPAN really Reality TV? (Avoids obvious “Jackass” jokes …)

Can a candidate’s favorite TV show tell you something about them?  (Comments mine.)

DEMOCRATS:

  • Delaware Sen. Joe Biden: “Don’t have one.”  It’s hard to trust someone who says they have no “favorite TV show.”  Do they not watch TV (and, if not, how do they keep any sort of pulse on popular culture)?  Or are they just afraid to commit?
  • New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: “American Idol.” I should not be surprised by the number of pols who find a big, overrated, abusive talent contest to be great entertainment.  Seems a bit incestuous to me.
  • Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd: “‘American Idol.” See above.
  • Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards: College basketball. Honestly, even though I hate watching sports on TV except as a last resort, I have a lot of respect for someone who fesses up that’s their fave.  And college basketball isn’t a bad choice.
  • Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich: C-SPAN coverage of the U.S. House of Representatives. Ego much?  Or maybe just humorless wonkishness and an inability to maintain a life/work balance.
  • Illinois Sen. Barack Obama: “Other than the U.S. Senate on C-SPAN? I don’t watch them too often.” See above.
  • New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson: “Fox News.” Oh dear Lord …

REPUBLICANS:

  • Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback: “None this season; too busy. Last season it was ‘The Amazing Race.”’ Okay, minus points for life/work balance, but at least some honesty.  AR is a vaguely interesting show, and I know some clever people who watch it, but the parallels to political campaigning (as with “American Idol”) are amusing.
  • Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani: Baseball. See above. 
  • Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: “Nashville Star,” USA Network’s country music competition. See “American Idol,” though I like the local/genre touch.
  • California Rep. Duncan Hunter: Watches Versus, previously called the Outdoor Life Network. Which looks to be ESPN on bad steroids.  I’d be interested in whether he prefers the yachting competition or the World Cage Match Federation.
  • Arizona Sen. John McCain: Arizona Diamondbacks baseball. Minor plus for sports, offset by a sense of pandering to the local population.
  • Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: “American Idol.” See above.
  • Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo: “None.” See above.  Who’d have thought that Tom Tancredo and Joe Biden had something in common …?

So now I want to know more.  How much TV do they actually catch?  Is it live, taped, or TiVoed?  How do they occupy themselves in their down time?  Do they have strange hotel requirements (“The TV must be turned onto the Verge network; if not available, a special Verge satellite feed will be arranged”)? 

Or, conversely, I’d like to toss out a handful of my favorite shows and see if any of them have ever watched any of them, and what they thought (including gauging the honesty of the sentiments provided).

(via J-Walk)

The Super-Duper Friends!

Grotesquely partisan, wildly stereotyped, hilariously funny.  We’re not talking nuanced political discussion here, but … hilariously funny.  At least, if you have a fondness for bad super-hero cartoons and (hilarious)…

Grotesquely partisan, wildly stereotyped, hilariously funny.  We’re not talking nuanced political discussion here, but … hilariously funny.  At least, if you have a fondness for bad super-hero cartoons and (hilarious) political hatchet jobs.

Oh, did I mention it was hilarious?

(via BD)

What’s in a name?

Can you identify the middle names of various presidential contenders? I got 33% — “You are either a lucky guesser or a careful reader of the news. Congratulations.” Actually, what…

Can you identify the middle names of various presidential contenders?

I got 33% — “You are either a lucky guesser or a careful reader of the news. Congratulations.”

Actually, what it demonstrates is that most folks have crazy-ass idea for how to name a kid.