Not Safe For Work Post-Of-The-Day
[Note: I’m not kidding about this link not being safe for work, or even not-work]
The Iraq Debate
Sadly, it seems that congressional Democrats, having long opposed the war and now in a position to end it, are not going to pull the pursestrings.
The anti-war position has always had a difficult time, because the standard meme is "Yes, the war was fucked up in its conception, but we’re there now. If we leave Iraq now, the country will descend into chaos". How can anyone argue with an unknowable future? It’s certainly possible — indeed, likely that Iraq will become a bloodbath once we leave. The typical anti-war response is "Well, it’s chaos now", but that doesn’t preclude the argument that withdrawal will make things worse. And let’s face it, when it comes to Iraq, I think everyone is a pessimist.
This is why I am glad Robert Dreyfuss at the Washington Monthly has written an excellent article about the pessimism surrounding a post-withdrawl Iraq, suggesting that the worst-case scenarios held by even anti-war liberals like me, may be somewhat overblown. Read it.
The Iran Debate
I second Publius’ well-thought-out critique of the "credible threat" tactic we are imposing on Iran. Publius’ point, in a nutshell, is that by publicly insisting that we are keeping all our options open with respect to Iran — particular the invasion option — we are encouraging Iran to seek deterrent weapons (i.e., nuclear weapons), not discouraging them.
The impetus to protect oneself is so patently obvious that I am somewhat astounded that those on the right — you know, people who think everyone should have a gun in their household — can’t see the wisdom of it. When people, and by extension, countries, see a credible threat by a far-more-powerful force, they gear up to defend themselves. A nuclear weapon is the ONLY thing that Iran can possess to deter the threat from us, so of course they’re going to work hard to get the bomb, especially since we make rumblings that we’re a-comin’.
L’Affaire Marcotte: Shakes Is Out, Too
Her announcement:
I regret to say that I have also resigned from the Edwards campaign. In spite of what was widely reported, I was not hired as a blogger, but a part-time technical advisor, which is the role I am vacating.
I would like to make very clear that the campaign did not push me out, nor was my resignation the back-end of some arrangement made last week. This was a decision I made, with the campaign’s reluctant support, because my remaining the focus of sustained ideological attacks was inevitably making me a liability to the campaign, and making me increasingly uncomfortable with my and my family’s level of exposure.
I understand that there will be progressive bloggers who feel I am making the wrong decision, and I offer my sincerest apologies to them. One of the hardest parts of this decision was feeling as though I’m letting down my peers, who have been so supportive.
There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats. It is not right-wing bloggers, nor people like Bill Donohue or Bill O’Reilly, who prompted nor deserve credit for my resignation, no matter how much they want it, but individuals who used public criticisms of me as an excuse to unleash frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation.
This is a win for no one.
Sticking Up For Bush
The latest taped statement from al Qaeda has a rather personal attack against President Bush, calling him:
"an alcoholic, liar and gambler with an addictive personality."
This is just plain poppycock — Bush isn’t a gambler.
The Show “24” Endangers Our Troops
If anyone has ventured into the conservative blogosphere, they’ll soon discover one thing: conservatives love the show "24". To them, it’s not just a TV show — it reflects the gung-ho way that America should be fighting the war on terrorism.
In September, Laura Ingraham justified torture techniques by pointing to the show. Around the same time, Glenn Beck did the same thing. Two weeks ago, Fox News ran a segment quoting a private investigator using 24 to justify the use of racial profiling when searching for terror suspects: “The fact of the matter is — I mean, you don’t watch 24 on Fox TV? They’re out there. They’re out there. There are cells out there. We have to protect ourselves against it, as Americans.”
On the January 16 edition of Fox News’ The Big Story — airing a day after the premiere of 24’s sixth season, in which “terrorists detonate a mini nuclear bomb in downtown Los Angeles” — host John Gibson stated: “Well, certainly may be fiction for now. But 24’s Jack Bauer has it right. People need to wake up to the possibility of nuclear attack.” Gibson later asked: “Is 24’s faux suitcase nuke bomb a real wake-up call for America? Should we take this as an early warning sign that something like this could happen here?”
Chris Orr of TNR wrote about this conservative love-fest of "24" recently, noting that Jack Bauer has somehow became a conservative hero.
As befits his training, he is a man of action: decisive, aggressive, and disinclined to play by the rules when he feels they’re getting in the way. He never wavers, second-guesses, or gives in to criticism, instead doing whatever needs to be done to safeguard American lives, regardless of the costs.
Conservative fans of the show frequently note the similarities between Bauer’s disposition and that of a certain White House resident, and they claim that “24″’s popularity is evidence that, whatever the polls may say, Americans want someone like Bush to defend them in these troubled times. [Pat] Buchanan has gone as far as to pronounce the president our “Jack Bauer in the war on terror.”
It’s mildly embarrassing how conservatives flock to a fictional TV show (made in liberal Hollywood) simply because it justifies and bolsters their own (dare I say it, fictional) world view.
So how, I wonder, will conservatives react to the news that the U.S. military thinks that "24" is inappropriate — and endangers our troops:
The United States Military Academy at West Point yesterday confirmed that Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan recently travelled to California to meet producers of the show, broadcast on the Fox channel. He told them that promoting illegal behaviour in the series – apparently hugely popular among the US military – was having a damaging effect on young troops.
According to the New Yorker magazine, Gen Finnegan, who teaches a course on the laws of war, said of the producers: "I’d like them to stop. They should do a show where torture backfires… The kids see it and say, ‘If torture is wrong, what about 24’?
Even the show’s star, Keifer Sutherland, acknowledges that the show’s use of torture is, well, not really cool, and a dramatic device (rather than a policy lesson):
In a television interview last month, Sutherland said: "You torture someone and they’ll basically tell you exactly what you want to hear, whether it’s true or not, if you put someone in enough pain… Within the context of our show, which is a fantastical show to begin with, the torture is a dramatic device to show you how desperate a situation is."
[Emphasis mine]
Note to the un-reality-based neo-cons: Made-up characters working for made-up agencies in made-up scenarios don’t actually help bolster your policy positions. And they endanger real-life troops. Enjoy the show as a fictional tale, but don’t count on it for making real-world decisions.
On Darwin’s Birthday
From Shelley The Republican blog:
Today is Darwin’s birthday and liberals will probably celebrate by having gay sex to prove how “evolved” they are.
Touche. Well, you got all us liberals pegged there.
Here at Shelley The Republican dot com we think it’s high time that this Darwin fella finally stayed dead the way he oughta and keep his theories in Hell where they belong.
If ideas don’t survive the person who said them, can I discount everything that Jesus said? Just wondering.
I think two points should put the final nails in his coffin. Point 1 – It’s an undisputed fact that the older you are the more you can be trusted. Darwin would’ve been 198 years old. God…well, who do you think created Darwin?
It’s an "undisputed" . . . "fact"? They didn’t teach me this trick in law school. Does that mean that when there are two contradicting witnesses on the witness stand, the jury should believe the older person? Does this mean Castro is the most trustworthy leader alive today? Help me out here.
And let me address that God created Darwin thing. If God created Darwin, and Darwin was wrong, then what does that say about God’s infallibility?
And point two – Darwin’s dead, God’s not. Case closed. End of story.Y’all shut up now.
The only reason I’m shutting up is because my jaw hit the floor at the contemplation of your insane logic.
Original Star Trek Series Gets A New Look
Paramount has gone back to the original Star Trek series, and updated the special effects with computer technology.
Pretty cool. Here, for example, is what the classic episode "The Doomsday Machine" looks like now:
I like it. I like it a lot.
RELATED: Enjoy this Star Trek/Monty Python & The Holy Grail mashup:
Feel Safe?
The FBI lost 160 laptop computers in less than four years, including at least 10 that contained highly sensitive classified information and one that held "personal identifying information on FBI personnel," according to a new report released today.
The bureau, which has struggled for years to get a handle on sloppy inventory procedures, also reported 160 missing weapons during the same time period, from February 2002 to September 2005, according to the report by the Justice Department inspector general’s office.
In addition to the 10 or more laptops that were confirmed to contain classified information, the FBI could not say whether another 51 computers might also contain secret data, the report said. Seven were assigned to the counterintelligence or counterterrorism divisions, which routinely handle classified information.
Amanda Marcotte Resigns [UPDATE: Jesus Lovers Show Their Love]
If you’ve been following this story on this blog, this is the latest: Amanda Marcotte has resigned from the Edwards campaign. She explains why here:
I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what’s right. Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics (I’m anti-theocracy, for those who were keeping track). Bill Donohue—anti-Semite, right wing lackey whose entire job is to create non-controversies in order to derail liberal politics—has been running a scorched earth campaign to get me fired for my personal beliefs and my writings on this blog.
In fact, he’s made no bones about the fact that his intent is to “silence” me, as if he—a perfect stranger—should have a right to curtail my freedom of speech. Why? Because I’m a woman? Because I’m pro-choice? Because I’m not religious? All of the above, it seems.
Regardless, it was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can’t do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn’t have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won’t do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted.
WaPo covers the story here.
What probably prompted Amanda’s resignation was her post on her blog yesterday — a review of the movie "Children of Men". Somewhere in the middle of that long post, Amanda wrote:
The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal, where god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels.
This is relatively tame stuff for Amanda, but enough to send Bill Donahue, the conservative Catholic who has been hounding the Edwards campaign to fire Marcotte, into a tizzy.
I understand Amanda’s reasoning for leaving the Edwards campaign — I’m merely sad that the right-wing noise machine has claimed another victim.
UPDATE: In a subsequent post entitled "People Who Claim To Love Jesus Write Me", Amanda shares some of the hate emails she has been getting from self-proclaimed "moral" religious people. A sample:
Amanda,
after reading your vile screed against Catholics and the Holy Spirit, I just had to see what you looked like. (I envisioned you eyebrow-less, with no visible pupils, and a blank, dead stare.) I see I was correct about the blank, dead stare, but other than that you’re not too bad. I then thought maybe you were mad at God (and by proxy Catholics) for making you ugly, but now I’m figuring you’re just mad at him for making you a woman.
And…
Problem with women like you, you just need a good fucking from a real man! Living in Texas myself, I know you haven’t found that real Texan yet. But once your liberal pro feminist ass gets a real good fucking, you might see the light. Until then, enjoy your battery operated toys b/c most real men wouldn’t want to give you the fucking you deserve b/c the shit that would come out of you ears.
And…
i like the way you trash talk i don’t particularly want to have sex with you but i would like a blow job.
And…
It’s just too bad your mother didn’t abort you. You are nothing more than a filthy mouth slut. I bet a couple of years in Iraq being raped and beaten daily would help you appreciate America a little. Need a plane ticket ?
And…
YOU RACIST WHORE. FAT UGLY BITCH. SUCK MY LONG COCK ASSHOLE I HOPE YOU KIDS NEVER LIVE AND YOUR PARENTS DIE A TRAGIC DEATH YOU ASSHOLE BITCH!
I HOPE YOUR WOMB IS BARREN AND YOUR CAREER PLUMMETS TO HELL YOU BITCH
Again — these are emails from self-proclaimed moral, religious Catholics who believed that Amanda Marcotte, because of her "potty mouth" and anti-Catholic views, should not have been blogging for the Edwards campaign.
People can have a legitimate disagreement with Amanda’s views — she is a self-proclaimed feminist who thinks that the policies of many major religions, including the Catholic Church, encourage the degradation of women and women’s role in society. She sees these religions as breeding grounds for outright hate against womenhood. After reading those emails, can anyone seriously argue that Amanda’s viewpoint lacks merit? I think not.
The expected response from the religious right will undoubtedly be: "Well, these people writing to Amanda don’t speak for US!" But sadly, they must speak for them — because if Amanda’s personal views inure to the Edwards campaign (even as Edwards disavows them), then these vile emails are (by the same logic) the views of Donahue, the Catholic League and their ilk. Own it, boys.
RELATED: It is, by the way, an institution like the Catholic League could lose its tax-exempt status for shit like this. Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code gives tax-exempt status to:
Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
Pandagon writes: "One thing I would certainly NOT expect is that anyone would go here[PDF], using the above as a template (or not), and stick that fucker in the mail. I certainly would be shocked if anyone were to alert all their friends and loved ones to behave similarly."
UPDATE: Shorter Nathon Tabor on L’Affaire Marcotte and the general principle of blogging: "I’m all for freedom of speech. Except when bloggers say things that offend me. But otherwise — really — I’m all for it. Except there should be limits when I’m offended."
Grease: You’re The One That I Want (To Humiliate)
Is it just me, or is the elimination portion of the reality show competition "Grease: You’re The One That I Want" just plain cruel?
When they weeded down the attendees from Grease Academy to the final twelve, how did they do it? They had all the contestents — several dozen — stand in an empty gymnasium and sing "Tears On My Pillow" while the producer walked around and tapped the "losers" on the shoulder.
Understand something: they didn’t just sing "Tears On My Pillow" once; they sang it over and over and over and over. Even now, I can’t get the phrase "love is not a gadget" out of my head.
In any event, the whole process was humilitating.
And now that they’re in the "live" portion of the series, how do they send off the losers? They have to sing an embarrassing stage number.
But it’s not like American Idol where they get to pick the song which shows their talent and essentially allows them to go off in their own idiom …hell, no. With the Grease competition, they have to be humilitated.
The losing male, for instance, has to sing "Sandy", with the whiny line "Love has gone; all alone, I sit I wonder why-I-I-I, oh why…." while the other contestents — you know, the ones not sucky enough to be voted off — do back up vocals and make obviously pre-choreographed fakie hugs (yeah, like they really are going to miss you, dude).
Jeff Aguiar tells me that the show has been optioned for another season, except, of course, the Broadway show that people will be trying out for will not be "Grease". That’s good. As long as it’s not "Grease".
A Hopeful Sign
Flocks of the Christian faithful in the US will this Sunday hold special services celebrating Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. The idea is to stand up to creationism, which claims the biblical account of creation is literally true, and which is increasingly being promoted under the guise of "intelligent design". Proponents of ID say the universe is so complex it must have been created by some unnamed designer.
Support for "Evolution Sunday" has grown 13 per cent to 530 congregations this year, from the 467 that celebrated the inaugural event last year. Organisers see it as increasing proof that Christians are comfortable with evolution.
For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science," says Michael Zimmerman, founder of Evolution Sunday and dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Butler University in Indianapolis. "We’re saying you can have your faith, and you can also have science."
Zimmerman and his backers believe the biblical account of creation is allegorical. "Creationists fear that if you believe evolution, you’re an atheist," he says. But for Zimmerman, attempts to try and "ratify God’s existence" through intelligent design signify lack of faith. "If you have enough faith, you don’t need science to prove God exists, and science can’t prove this anyway," he says.
The event was actually yesterday. Here’s another good article.
Oy
Anna Nicole Smith’s life continues to be a train wreck, even after death.
A Double Does Of Wingnuttery
First up: Marsha West, a "freelance writer specializing in Christian worldview". Let’s see what her Christian worldview is:
Radical feminism: The kiss of death
Oh, this isn’t going to be pretty.
The "great strides" made by the feminist movement have been lost on young celebrities. Britney Spears has been spotted frequenting nightspots with actress Lindsay Lohan and heiress Paris Hilton. Spears made headlines when the paparazzi photographed her pantyless, climbing out of a car.
Yes. Don’t these celebrity women understand that radical feminism is about burning bras, and not going around pantyless? Geez.
As a result of the feminist movement there are no gender-based role differences in many marriages. Wives wear the pants in the family, husbands show little or no leadership and are often wimps, and children are unmanageable. Is this what God intended for the family?
No.
God intended women to wear skirts. It’s in the Bible. Somewhere. I guess.
The Bible teaches that the husband is to lead, provide for, and protect his family. The wife is to help her husband by managing the household and taking care of the children. Children are to be raised with discipline and love. That’s God’s way.
"And while we’re at it — what happened to all that slavery that was in the Bible?"
Today’s children are train wreck.
What is that sentence? Haiku?
They’re undisciplined, disrespectful and, frankly, as lazy as a Sunday morning. Sadly, this is the rule not the exception.
I don’t know about Marsha’s Sunday mornings, but there’s nothing disrespectful about my Sunday mornings. (Lazy, perhaps… but never disrespectful).
Obviously something has gone terribly awry. Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles, ordained by God as part of the created order, have been blurred. Men have become un-masculine, thus unattractive to women; women have become un-feminine, thus unattractive to men.
Geez. No WONDER everybody is gay.
Granted, some women have a feminine appearance. But don’t let that fool you. In the blink of an eye, females spew obscenities that would make a bull rider blush.
Hey, hey, hey. I like women who spew obscenities. Time and a place for everything, Marsha.
Marsha then bemoans all the terrible youth trends, like this:
At student dances all across America (including middle schools) kids are dirty dancing. Teens are simulating sex to the beat of the music, usually with, but not limited to, a partner.
Why, they’re even cutting "footloose"! Somebody do something!
This sort of tawdry teenage conduct spooks some administrators. The principal of Manuel High School, Beverly Keepers, witnessed teens doing the nasty and had the good sense to turn up the lights.
That Beverly Keepers is one smart cookie. There’s nothing that can stop students getting their freak on like a heavy dose of flourescent gymnasium lighting.
Soon chaperones were moving through the crowd, separating couples. "Nothing seemed to calm them down," Keepers said. "It’s difficult when you have 800 students to tap every one on the shoulder when they’re dancing inappropriately." Tapping 800 students on the shoulder would be exhausting!
I just love that last sentence.
(P.S. Not that I want to help your cause, Miss Beverly Keepers, but rather than tapping students on the shoulder like some campy 1950’s movie, you could have turned off the music. Just saying…)
But these are merely the problems. Now it’s time to find the scapegoat:
The feminist movement has certainly done its fair share to corrupt the younger generation. Hollywood is partly responsible for the decadent behavior of our youth. Liberal educators also play a role.
Especially them liberal educators. Bring back the good ol’ days when students were forced to WALTZ to algebra class.
But the bulk of the blame goes to parents for not doing their part to protect their children from indecency. One of a parent’s primary responsibilities is to instill moral values. It’s Mom and Dad’s job to teach their kids right from wrong. Which begs the question, "Why do so many parents trust liberals to educate their kids?"
Did we mention that Marsha West writes how-to books on homeschooling? Oh. Well, Marsha West writes how-to books on homeschooling.
Children are on loan from God.
Oh, lord. I can’t take any more of this. I’m losing interest in Ms Mrs. Marsha West.
At this point in time liberals are winning the culture war. In an interview with Rachel Davis, 13-year-old Kalli Kearney from Darnell-Cookman Middle School said nonchalantly, "Girls make out with girls. They have boyfriends, but they make out with girls."
Sadly, girls making out with girls has become commonplace.
Suddenly, I’m interested again.
No doubt sexual freedom is a dream come true for radical feminists. But it’s a nightmare for loving, sensible parents. Adolescents are having sex with no strings.
Right. They’re using double-strength ropes and handcuffs now.
Okay. Let’s move on to one of our stand-by favorites, Miss Marie Jon Apostrophe. Ostensibly, Marie is writing about the fake Nancy Pelosi "scandal" (for background, see here).
But Marie starts off, somewhat awkwardly, with some diatribe about capitalism. I’ll leave in her original links.
In America, everyone has the opportunity to become wealthy. In our country millionaires and billionaires thrive because of opportunity afforded our citizenry. Monetary means can be gained under our capitalistic system. Most of America’s amply-rich are self-made, hard working entrepreneurs.
If you stay in school and live a decent life, you also can obtain the American dream. Becoming successful in life no longer has anything to do with one’s race, creed or color; it has to do with one’s personal goals and achievements, and how high one sets the bar.
America’s Top Ten Self-Made Billionaires
It’s very nice of Marie to link to the wikipedia definition of "capitalism". But perhaps she ought to look up the word "self-made".
Look at her list of "America’s Top Ten Self-Made Billionaires". Interesting how nearly HALF of these "self-made" billionaires achieved their enormous wealth by setting their goals high, and going through the hard-working rigors of, well, being BORN to mega-billionaire Sam Walton, or by MARRYING one of his children.
Nice work if you can get it.
Way to shoot down your own point, Marie.