« June 2008 | Main | August 2008 »
July 30, 2008
Move over Rove, make room for Mukasey
More and more members of Congress are calling for contempt charges against Karl Rove. That's all fine and good, but AG Mukasey is every bit as deserving of contempt charges for flat refusing to enforce the Congressional Subpeona on Rove.
Posted by Kevin at 12:02 PM |
July 29, 2008
Fox News Mocks Jesus
First things first. Watch this video:
I was very offended by this piece for a number of reasons. I'm enough of a grown-up, however, that I can set aside my irritation and see the overt point being made. That point is that it's ridiculous to believe that Barack Obama can make all our problems go away. He is not the Messiah.
But there's a second, more subtle message in there, too.
A lot of Christians watch Fox News because they've bought into the idea that it's somehow more honest, good, and godly than the other networks (a lot of Christians believe their faith is only compatible with Republican views). But this video, in my opinion, mocks the entire concept of a Messiah. Its tone, and consequently its message, is actually very reminiscent of Monty Python's "The Life of Brian." That film so offended Christians it was picketed and banned as blasphemous in various locations all over the world (for the record, the members of Monty Python claimed, however unconvincingly, that they were not mocking the concept of a Messiah, only the practices of modern organized religion).
But once again I see support for my solidifying thesis that conservative Christians these days are more partisan in their beliefs than they are spiritual. I have every expectation that this little film from Fox News will be embraced by the network's largely Christian audience (I fully expect it won't be long before some of my Christian friends forward me a link to it), and that these viewers' desire to find fault with a charismatic Democratic candidate will blind them to what I see as a blatant attack on the very foundation of their religion.
Posted by Becky at 09:06 AM |
Knoxville shooting but a symptom of the disease
The would-be mass murderer in Knoxville was likely mentally disturbed - to say the least. He was unhappy and apparently deeply stressed over lack of work when he started planning the shooting at the Unitarian/Universalist church. But why did he choose that church?
Police found right-wing political books, brass knuckles, empty shotgun shell boxes and a handgun in the Powell home of a man who said he attacked a church in order to kill liberals "who are ruining the country," court records show.
Okay, so he hated liberals. But why?
Inside the (shooter's) house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.
Surprised? You shouldn't be. These three along with a variety of other hate peddlers like Arthur Coltrane (AKA: Ann Coulter) have been preaching vile hatred for years.
Speaking of preaching... Coincidentally (?) news broke that former Justice Department officials broke federal civil-service laws, most notably, Monica Goodling.
In a footnote update about Goodling testifying to Congress, USA Today included this interesting bit of background on her,
Goodling, 33, is a 1995 graduate Messiah College in Grantham, Pa., an institution that describes itself as "committed to an embracing evangelical spirit."She received her law degree at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Regent, founded by Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, says its mission is "to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world."
Ms Goodling wasn't a hate peddling demagogue like Savage, Hannity and O'Reilly, but were her choices and actions really all that different in intent?
I submit that these two seemingly unrelated news stories represent two prongs of a concerted Conservative Jihad being waged on America.
Posted by Kevin at 08:16 AM |
July 28, 2008
Got Debt? Tax the Priest
(editor's note - we've previously posted a guest essay by Sankara Saranam back in January on Carbon Farming.)
Got Debt? Tax the Priest
By Sankara Saranam
In an era where money is tight, perhaps we ought to start taxing beliefs that, like cigarette smoke, cause damages that have real costs to society. I'm not suggesting that we tax ideas in people's heads, but if a belief is making someone money, and the benefits to society of that belief are hardly found, then taxing the spread of beliefs might not only be justified, but would also help toward paying off the national debt.
Something tells me religious leaders won't jump at the opportunity to serve in this way, but if we inspect belief and show what preachers are really selling to parents and children alike, maybe they'll think twice. Let's define our terms as the devil's advocate would.
Belief: a statement repeated sufficiently for the mind to cease to question its veracity.
Religious rituals: opportunities to repeat statements of belief in differing contexts.
Faith: adherence to religious rituals resulting in the successful avoidance of contexts that question a statement of belief.
Crisis of faith: a context in which a statement of belief was not sufficiently repeated.
Denial: the failure to take the opportunity of a crisis of faith to question the veracity of a statement of belief.
Apostasy: the process of adopting and repeating a statement of belief that lies contrary to a statement previously repeated.
Disbelief: a statement of belief framed in the negative.
Any epistemologist worth his or her salt will tell you that belief, even in facts, is not an avenue to knowledge. Neither is disbelief an avenue to knowledge.
Disregarding considerations of belief and disbelief is an early step in clearing the avenue to knowledge, and countless cases provide evidence that poorly educated minds afford beliefs while richly educated minds find them unaffordable.
The mother of all beliefs is the belief in the god Yahweh. Millions of humans believe in the existence of Yahweh, but the need for evangelism to spread the word of Yahweh is evidence that Yahweh does not exist independent of the minds of believers. That stories of Yahweh being independently discovered exist only in Yahweh-based literature is itself further evidence that Yahweh does not exist.
At the same time, since the absolute existence of Yahweh, or any other deity from whatever culture or pantheon, does not for these and other reasons enter the realm of probable knowledge, it is totally immaterial to scientific considerations.
But the existence of Yahweh is a religious consideration if the existence of Yahweh ultimately informs ethical considerations. Does it?
Yes, the existence/nonexistence of Yahweh does inform ethical considerations, but only vis-a-vis whether the ethical structure found in Yahweh-based literature is to be strictly heeded or not.
Organized religions historically received freedom from taxation because they were believed to be society's traditional domain of ethical considerations -- a domain into which science cannot enter.
This belief was itself a religious one, ironically propped up by centuries of religious rituals to the degree that lawmakers had unquestioning faith in organized religion�s capacity to instill ethical considerations in the minds of believers.
Because monotheism posits a supreme creator being separate from a fallen creation, Yahweh-based literature informs ethical structures breeding droves of devout followers that believe Yahweh chooses, is pleased by, or prefers them above others -- using different language to convey this state of elevated grace. Meanwhile, ethical structures that nourish a larger sense of human identity, less divisiveness, and more global kinship are possible and have already been formulated by thinkers unburdened by the restrictions of Yahweh-based literature and its like.
Since purely ethical considerations can arrive at a standard for the highest good without considering the existence of Yahweh or a highest god, and precisely disregarding the authority of Yahweh-based literature can assist in arriving at sophisticated and expansive ethical considerations, organized religions only ultimately concern themselves with the sworn belief in the existence of Yahweh when they entertain considerations other than ethical ones.
Hence, the belief in Yahweh is not ultimately concerned with science or ethics. Actually, the belief in Yahweh persists despite the unscientific and unethical behavior it fosters.
Now, call me cynical, but I suspect that the spreading of the belief in Yahweh, just to highlight one example, persists because it makes someone money and gives someone power. It has nothing to do with knowing or believing in the truth, though that is exactly what believers are told it is about, and, as shown, has nothing to do with ethics. It is, as Upton Sinclair put it, graft.
The government and the people wanted ethical citizens out of the tax exemption deal, not fanatic truth seekers that, in claiming to possess the truth, fell into more unethical behavior than did their disbelieving counterparts.
If organized religions persist in promoting beliefs that have neither science nor ethics on their side, they are not entitled to freedom from taxation. Moreover, faith-based initiatives amount to the public paying for the spread of unscientific and unethical beliefs.
Like the rest of the for-profit businesses in our nation, religions should be taxed. If this means they go out of business, then far be it from government to prop up something the public no longer wants, especially when it is no longer reasonably done in the spirit of science or ethics.
Posted by Kevin at 06:56 AM |
July 22, 2008
Jews heart Obama
Apparently Obama is far more popular with American Jews than Senator Lieberman (an American Jew) is.
Lieberman: 37% positive, 48% negative.Obama: 60% positive, 34% negative.
Posted by Kevin at 03:32 PM |
July 20, 2008
Pickens v. Gore? Not so much
Find more videos like this on Pickens Plan
I saw this ad last night on TV (KGW 8) and am intrigued by it.
Here's Pickens' Plan. The gist of it is that he wants America to do as he has personally done and invest heavily in wind power. That will, in his view, free up more domestically produced Natural Gas to be converted to vehicular fuel - and thus reducing the vast transfer of wealth which his ad expresses alarm over.
The plan makes a certain amount of sense at first glance. But some environmentalists have urged caution over the ecological damage of large-scale windfarms on a large enough scale to make a serious dent in the problem. However, that's on the premise that the point is to replace petroleum fuels. Pickens isn't necessarily trying to replace petroleum fuels per se, he just wants reduce our collective reliance upon foreign sources. That his windfarms would reduce our use of petro sources seems to be icing rather than the cake, from his point of view.
I'm honestly unsure what to think of this. At first whiff it seems good. But the effects of Global Warming seem to me to warrant at least a cautious attitude towards a plan that is so obviously motivated by $$$ first and foremost. Plus... I'm personally not convinced that wind power offers as much as geothermal power does.
I just watched Al Gore on Meet The Press say that he welcomes Pickens' Plan. Tom Brokaw read a statement by Pickens arguing that his plan and Gore's plan should be viewed differently. But Gore certainly seemed happy to have them considered together. His primary, albeit very gently articulated, criticism of Pickens' Plan is that he sees natural gas as an intermediate measure and he said that it makes more sense to him to cut to the chase rather than focus on an intermediate step as Pickens has.
Posted by Kevin at 08:45 AM |
July 18, 2008
Do Pigs Matter?
There's a story out today about how the army trains its medics in emergency triage by having the soldiers shoot and then treat live pigs for practice. They say it is necessary to save human lives because the soldiers need to practice their medical treatment on living tissue.
As someone who eats pigs on a regular basis but also finds them to be wonderfully smart animals, I am really torn up on this issue. I have long been angry about the treatment of pigs headed for slaughter - the confining cages and cruel treatment they get. When you realize that pigs are as smart as dogs, it becomes all the more clear why they should not be treated that way. On the other hand, they're a big part of the American diet, so I am naturally set up for internal conflict.
I remember reading somewhere that Native Americans would, after a successful hunt, thank the animal for his life. There was a sense of respecting the fact that another died so that you could live. I guess that's where I stand on the matter. I would not go so far as to be vegetarian, but I believe the animals we raise for food deserve to have a pleasant existence and be killed in as painless a way as possible.
But this shooting of pigs for practice seems blatantly inhuman to me. While I deeply respect those who volunteer to serve in the military and certainly do not want their lives placed in further jeopardy, is this really necessary? Doesn't the suffering of the pigs matter more than that?
Posted by Becky at 10:11 AM |
July 16, 2008
Willy Week gets it wrong... again. Merkley tops Smith
This morning at WW under "Losers":
3. U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) dealt a black eye to Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley. But the real wounds were self-inflicted. After Merkley—the state House speaker—appeared in two state party ads, at no expense to his campaign, Smith’s complaint saying the ads broke federal campaign finance rules got wide media play, including The Bend Bulletin calling Merkley “the master of muddle.”
Released by Rasmussen Reports not too long after WW posted it's judgement...
Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley for the first time has edged ahead of Republican Senator Gordon Smith 43% to 41% in Oregon, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey....
Last month, Smith, who is seeking a third six-year term, led Merkley by nine points 47% to 38%.
Wounds? What wounds?
Posted by Kevin at 02:37 PM |
July 14, 2008
Military funerals & the Media
Just got done listening to NPR's Talk of the Nation where the last segment was on Arlington National Cemetary's media ban at funerals.
The guest was WaPo's Dana Milbank whose Putting Her Foot Down and Getting the Boot chronicals how former Arlington Public Affairs Director Gina Gray was first demoted and then fired for challenging Defense Secretary Robert Gates' attempt to deny media access to military funerals by unwritten fiat.
The first caller was some A.F. Brigadier General whose son was killed in Iraq and who stated that he personally couldn't concieve of a legit reason for the media to have any place in a military funeral.
Here's one, General: every soldier, airman and sailor who dies in the line of duty, died on behalf of every single citizen of this nation. With all due respect, your son was sent to Iraq regardless of whether he wanted to go there or not. And he was sent there on MY behalf whether I wanted him to be sent there or not. Military deaths are, in fact and by design, much larger than you or I or our respective wishes. I see no reason why the resulting funerals should be any different.
Would some families greatly prefer that nobody else be allowed to witness their son/daughter's funeral? Of course. But that son or daughter, father or mother, brother or sister, uncle or aunt didn't die in a vacuum.
From the moment that that son or daughter is sworn in until the moment they are discharged from service, they are Government Issue, which the Founders in their infinite wisdom deliberately placed totally under civilian control.
In my view it is an affront to everything that our nation stands for to bar the media from covering the aftermath, however painful, of them fulfilling their sworn duty.
Posted by Kevin at 01:07 PM |
July 08, 2008
Bush to Iraq government: F#@& you!!
Finally the Iraqi "sovereignty" charade is tossed aside by BushCo:
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States on Tuesday rejected a demand from Iraq for a specific date for pullout of US-led foreign troops from the country, saying any withdrawal will be based on conditions on the ground."The US government and the government of Iraq are in agreement that we, the US government, we want to withdraw, we will withdraw. However, that decision will be conditions-based," State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said.
I guess the question is whether this is about giving McCain political cover or something else.
Posted by Kevin at 11:44 AM |
July 07, 2008
Naked Olympics?
I've watched with bemused interest the growing controversy over the new Speedo LZR Racer swimsuits favored by Olympic swimmers. The accusation is that it's not swimmers setting new records but rather it's the LZR suit that's setting the records. The solution is obvious enough.
Swim naked!!
Seriously. Wouldn't that be the ultimate equalizer? Everyone would be on a technologically level playing field.
Ah, but the prurience which passes for the norms of a "civilized" society couldn't handle something like that. There will be plenty of naked bodies near the Beijing Olympics. But you won't find any of those... er... events listed on the official Olympic schedule of sanctioned events.
If the goal is to get technology out of competitive swimming while maintaining our prurient sensibilities then it seems to me that hand-woven suits - made only from natural fibers, of course - are the only way to do that. Or... wear animal skins.
Meanwhile... it does my middle-aged heart proud to see that 41 year old Dara Torres set a new American record in the 50 meter freestyle on her way to her 5th Olympics!
Posted by Kevin at 09:38 AM |
July 05, 2008
Best Merkley ad yet
I've seen this ad on TV several times and it consistently grabs my rapt attention. Partly I think it's a cadance thing. I leave the TV on in the background while I play on my computer and audio clues are typically what divert my attention to what is on TV. The audio pace on this ad is a bit slower than the usual fare and perhaps that's what initially grabs my attention.
Whatever the cause, once I'm watching it I devour this ad. It's vintage Jeff Merkley, going to the very heart of why I decided to support him in the first place.
I'm Jeff Merkley. And our troops have done everything we've asked with distinction. We need to start giving them the respect they deserve.
Damn right, Jeff! It's the very least that we owe them.
Too many conservatives treat soldiers and veterans as an inherent extension of their support of a policy - with little apparent thought given to soldiers/veterans as individuals or what they might deserve once they've been used up and spit out by the Pentagon.
Too many progressives treat soldiers and veterans as an inherent extension of their opposition of a policy. In essence, the flip side of the same coin inhabited by their conservative peers.
Merkley strikes the exact right pose, IMO. He treats soldiers and veterans as individuals rather than extensions of a political policy decision made by politicians.
Posted by Kevin at 06:49 AM |
July 03, 2008
One for the history books
Wednesday's daring rescue of a variety of hostages held by Colombian FARC rebels just amazes me. Truely it could, and should, be characterized as nothing short of brilliant. A finer display of competence by the Colombian military simply doesn't exist.
The Colombian military chief justly bragged about the achievement.
Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos said it "will go into history for its audacity and effectiveness." He also acknowledged the risks: "If this had failed, I would have had to resign," he told Caracol Radio on Thursday.
He's right. This feat is right up there with the legendary Israeli Raid on Entebbe for both sheer audacity and the demonstrated competence of those who devised and pulled off both rescues.
None of this should be confused with approval of the pending Colombian Free Trade agreement - which I oppose. It's just that I am deeply impressed with how brilliantly this rescue was conceived and pulled off.
Posted by Kevin at 12:51 PM |
Boys still held to different standard than girls
The math teacher (Kelsey Peterson) from Nebraska who fled to Mexico with a 13 year old boy so that she could have sex with him pled guilty as part of a deal to will allow her to spend less time in prison.
So far so good. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Peterson's attorney, James Martin Davis, has publicly questioned the boy's birth certificate. Davis said the boy was likely at least 16, and that he was the aggressor.Amy Peck, an attorney for the boy and his family, said that suggestion was disgusting.
"He was a 12-year-old boy and the defendant knew it," Peck said Wednesday. "The result of this lower plea could have been obtained without playing to every racial stereotype that there is."
In fairness it needs to be pointed out that lawyers and family members of male sexual predators frequently use the same excuse - "she was the aggressor." But of course whomever was the aggressor is utterly irrelevant to whether there was informed consent.
Is it true that boys tend to be more sexually aggressive than girls? Abso-friggin-lutely. But it's a red herring. Young teenage boys are no more mature enough to give informed consent than young teenage girls are. In fact, I'd argue that, aggressivity aside, young teenage girls tend to be slightly more emotionally mature than their male peers. Not enough to give informed consent to have sex with an adult (or anyone else). But they do seem ever so slightly more mature at that age. I base that on both my own experiences as a young teenage boy and as the father of two girls.
At the end of the day it is the adult in these adult/child sexual liasons who bears ultimate responsibility by virtue of being the ONLY person involved who has the capacity to make an informed decision. Whomever was the aggressor doesn't change that reality one iota.
Posted by Kevin at 10:51 AM |
July 02, 2008
Racism = Classicm = Racism
Not always, of course. But far more often and widely than the mainstream conversations on the subject seem to indicate.
I don't deny that racism exists - of course it exists. And much of it is pure, knee-jerk racism. But much of it is really just plain old classism if you peek beneath the color coded facade.
One of the hot political issues d'jour is immigration. Yeah, most of those belly-aching about it are only focused on those crossing our southern border. And almost all of illegally crossing that border are of one or more ethnic minorities (in the U.S.). It's true that we hardly ever hear anyone complaining about lilly-white Canukistanians coming in here illegally. But it seems to me that the skin color difference there is nothing more than an excuse - albeit an increasingly less often cited one. And last time I checked the estimates of how many illegally cross our northern border pale in comparison to how many cross our southern border.
Time and time again I've read, heard or watched a news report on illegal immigration which boiled down to "they're taking our jobs!" It's about economics first and foremost.
What motivated black slavery in our nation's early history? Was it the overwhelming desire to have someone under their thumb? To feel superior? No! It was about economics.
Wasn't kinda the entire point of post-civil war "share cropping" deals, from the POV of the landowners, all about economics?
Who coined the term "white trailor trash" and used it frequently enough to propel it into our national lexicon? Wasn't it more affluent whites who gleefully looked askance at those they deemed to be "less than" them? And what determined who lived in the trailer court and who lived in the big house with the expansive yard? Economics!
Of course unmitigated racism exists. It's no less onerous than classism, by any means. But I submit that as long as we continue to artificially divorce racism from classism in the public realm that we only serve to perpetuate the problem, no matter how much we talk about it.
Talk about it, by all means! But talk about the whole issue, not just one facet of it.
So anyway... that's what was on my mind today. Sparked largely by having watched Traces of the Trade: A Story from the Deep North on OPB Sunday evening.
Posted by Kevin at 08:18 PM |
Site update notes
Two quick notes here.
1. I finally got Mac's bio updated.
2. My email addy is working again.
Posted by Kevin at 07:34 PM |
July 01, 2008
Food Scare Hits Home-Grown Veggies
Rice crops wiped out around the world. Grain crops wiped out and/or redirected to fuel production. Floods in grain and pork country. Dangerous tomatoes. Corn shortages. On and on it goes. Thinking about doing a backyard garden? People in the UK who have done that are now being warned not to eat their produce because the natural fertiziler they used, it turns out, has been contaminated by dangerous chemicals.
The Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) has been inundated with calls from concerned gardeners who have seen potatoes, beans, peas, carrots and salad vegetables wither or become grossly deformed. The society admitted that it had no idea of the extent of the problem, but said it appeared 'significant'. The affected gardens and allotments have been contaminated by manure originating from farms where the hormone-based herbicide aminopyralid has been sprayed on fields...Problems with the herbicide emerged late last year, when some commercial potato growers reported damaged crops. In response, Dow launched a campaign within the agriculture industry to ensure that farmers were aware of how the products should be used. Nevertheless, the herbicide has now entered the food chain. Those affected are demanding an investigation and a ban on the product. They say they have been given no definitive answer as to whether other produce on their gardens and allotments is safe to eat.
It appears that the contamination came from grass treated 12 months ago. Experts say the grass was probably made into silage, then fed to cattle during the winter months. The herbicide remained present in the silage, passed through the animal and into manure that was later sold. Horses fed on hay that had been treated could also be a channel.
With bees in jeopardy and increasing weather disasters affecting food crops around the world, it would seem people would have sat up and taken notice already. But I suppose our bellies are still full, and only when sudden disaster hits us and it is too late will we finally agree we need to do things differently.
Posted by Becky at 12:04 PM |