jeune ictérique

Misleading = Lying

2005-07-16T04:29:00.000-05:00

So apparently Drudge stated in the title of an article that Mrs. Plame was not undercover when she was outed, and then links to an article which explains that she, in fact, was. He's since fixed it, but only after misleading hundreds of site viewers.

Kids Died When Bush Lied, Too

2005-07-09T18:06:00.000-05:00

I'm updating during my hiatus/vacation mainly out of spite, I'll admit.

Although there is beaucoup evidence that the war in Iraq was always a goal for the Bush administration, and proof that he lied to go to war, the conservative media has downplayed the thing to the point of making any concerned person with legitimate complaints look un-American. These kinds of forced opinions are an old trick of the Right - remember back when they had people believing John Kerry was the 'most liberal senator in the Senate'? Anyone who's ever even of Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer or Joe Biden can tell you that that, colloquially, is a crock of crap. Or what about during the Clinton years, when conservatives bloviated and opined (thanks, Mr. O'Reilly!) that Kosovo was such a horrible, horrible tragedy? Nevermind that every president since LBJ has abused the War Powers Act. Remember Grenada? Probably not. The Conservatives would never make their dear, beloved Reagan out to be a bad guy. So now Bush is abusing his power and taking the country to war (the Senate voted to go to war to 'disarm Saddam Hussein of WMD'. None have been found), and sources like the Downing Street Memo, which I am sorry to say has no connection to the "liberal media" as it is from Britain, are showing that Bush has been pushing for war with Iraq ever since the beginning.
Of course, even if Bush is killing people left and right for no good reason, it's still the democrats that hate Freedom.

Democracy Bonds

2005-07-03T01:02:00.000-05:00

This is the text of a mass e-mail sent out to Democrats.org members. Please read it and click on the links to contribute.

Dear Nigel,

In these troubled days for our country, Americans are tired of this rubber-stamp Republican leadership forcing its will on the country. People are ready to stand up for the nation's best ideals, and it couldn't come at a more important time.

This administration and its Republican lap-dog Congress think they have a mandate to reverse much of the progress we have fought so hard to achieve.

Under Howard Dean's leadership, Democrats are fighting back. Our party is energized, and ready to fight for our values on every major issue. I can't overstate what an effect it has here in Washington knowing that, all across the country, Democrats are standing with us.

Now we have a chance to send another powerful message to President Bush and the Republican Congress. As the first half of 2005 comes to a close, we can show our strength with a last-minute surge of grassroots support that matches the Republican special interest payoffs.

Show your support by making a donation to the Democratic Party today:

https://www.democrats.org/contribute

This is about more than just sending a message. It's about making sure the Democratic Party is stronger and more effective than ever before. It's about competing in all 50 states so that Democrats across the country have the same strong voice.

Howard Dean is showing us the way with his comprehensive plan to get there. Your support right now will make us stronger in every region of the country. You'll help us compete with Republicans in every race, at every level.

Please join Howard Dean and me by sending your immediate support:

https://www.democrats.org/contribute

The stakes couldn't be higher. We know what President Bush and the Republican Congress have to offer. You and I and the Democratic Party can change all that and restore America's ideals.

Thank you for doing what's right for America.

Sincerely,
Senator Ted Kennedy

Firebrands

2005-07-01T02:08:00.000-05:00

I can't help but read the columns of some of the more inane pundits, like Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, or Malkin, without mixed felings. On the one hand, I know (with at least a little certainty) that they're fully aware of how stupid they sound. They're there for two purposes: to blow off hot air, and to give the less-intelligent (and pseudo-intellectuals) ammunition for their beliefs. On the other hand, it's hard not to take personal offense when they say things like "Liberals are stupid" or "if you don't hate Bill Clinton and everyone who labored to keep him in office, you hate your country" (both are actual quotes.) The reaction they're hoping for is anger, blind anger, and for some idiot to lash out so they can make it look as if people who don't agree with them are of course stupid and immature. (Example: Ann Coulter's pie episode.)

So if you ever find yourself reading something that makes you furious, please don't act on it. In fact, if you can't put it in the proper perspective, don't read it at all.

Stupid

2005-06-28T00:36:00.000-05:00

United Airlines doesn't want to pay its pension off; says the taxpayers should instead. Republicans say "Oh alright!" and vote against a Democratic amendment to stop this. Representative Putnam sides with the single Republican "no" to the amendment over the overwhelming majority of "yes"s and in one fell swoop shoulders everything on the taxpayers. Yay.

2005-06-27T17:28:00.000-05:00

So Rehnquist hasn't announced his retirement, and the court has made the following rulings:

-Displays of the Ten Commandments on government property are acceptable, but it is unacceptable to display the religious text inside courthouses.

-Cable companies do not have to share their lines with rival ISPs.

-File-sharing networks like Morpheus, Grokster, Limewire, Kazaa, eMule, and others are liable for their users' copyright infringements.

In all honesty, I think every one of those decisions is fair. I did not actually care for the Ten Commandments case at all, because I believe it to be semantic and not worth the time of any judicial body. On the other hand, they're not really the basis for our laws at all and make little since being displayed in a courthouse. Anyways, the court is adjourned for now and we won't know for some time how it's going to look after its imminent revamp.

Reagan Again

2005-06-27T06:29:00.000-05:00

So he was voted to be the best American or some such nonsense on the Discovery Channel's online poll... that makes no sense.

Even IF you agree strongly with his politics, he wasn't the brain behind any of them. There are true heros out there that have done a lot more under more duress than he could have ever dreamed. Any one firefighter that died at Ground Zero on September 11 is a greater hero than Ronald Reagan could ever have hoped to be, affable smile and all.

2005-06-27T03:03:00.000-05:00

Amen.

Anti-Defamation Veterans Speak Out

2005-06-26T05:18:00.000-05:00

Go here. This is one of the most patriotic websites I have ever seen.

It's not even political, really. These Veterans are using the respect and status they have earned in our society to speak out against Rove for his attacks on anyone left of the current administration for not supporting the war.

Operation Yellow Elephant

2005-06-25T05:26:00.000-05:00

I support Operation Yellow Elephant. This way, the only people who have to needlessly die are the people who want to needlessly die!

Ronald Reagan

2005-06-24T21:13:00.000-05:00

So many people now, when remembering Ronald Reagan, mention his 'charm' and 'wit'. Because charm and wit are so vital to a U.S. presidential administration, I decided to look a bit into the apparently less important 'policy decisions' (whatever those are) of this Great and Wonderful Man (Peace Be Upon Him.) As Governor of California he slashed funding to mental hospitals, and instead built prisons. He spent a deficit -- much like now-president Bush -- into a bigger deficit, and exhibited a callous disregard for human rights. He used illegal money from selling weapons to Iran to fund the Contra rebels of South America, and when called to testify before the commission that was investigating his actions, accidentally read aloud his stage directions: "If the question of arms sales comes up at the meeting, you might want to act surprised." Oops! Still, he smiled often and he liked to chuckle; surely he must be a great person! Oh.. wait.. he was an actor. So I guess he knew when to smile and when to chuckle. I found the best quote ever with regards to his actions during his Governorship of California, one that expresses perfectly my impression of his performance:

"I worked in the California State Health Department in the early 1970s when Governor Reagan decided to "streamline" health-care services statewide. He slashed funding to maternal and child health, Indian health, and mental health programs, among other vital services to the people of California. That's when we started seeing mentally ill homeless people wandering the streets of Sacramento. We used to call them "Ronnie's People." As president, he took these policies nationwide, and that's when homeless people started appearing en masse in cities like San Francisco and New York. ... When I hear people singing his praises, I cannot forget what he did to some people -- especially the poor, sick and defenseless people of California and New York."

But of course, under Reaganomics, it's the fault of the homeless that they're homeless. Truly a horrible president and a slimy man. He did defeat Communism, though! ...not really. The Soviet system certainly felt added pressure under Reagan's policies, but the same could be said of Johnson (one of my absolute least-favorite presidents, but also one of the most skilled), Nixon (horrible all around), and Eisenhower. The USSR was bound to collapse under its own weight; trying to outspend our nuclear weapons was the real catalyst, though. Not Reagan's wrinkly grin.

Is this what Karl Rove meant when he said 'ratfucking'?

2005-06-24T04:40:00.000-05:00

I am incensed. Andy Card and Karl Rove are not representative of the Republican Party; they are supposed to be representative of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government on the national level, but they can slander Liberals? It is blatant hypocrisy to say that Liberals are trying to kill American soldiers. Why? Because CONSERVATIVES ARE THE ONES WHO SENT AMERICAN SOLDIERS TO IRAQ. NOT Liberals. Liberals did not want to go to Iraq. Liberals did not want to get into a situation that was detrimental to the American people. Liberals aren't even the ones making our country look bad, and playing into networks like Al-Jazeera -- that's what we have Guantanamo Bay for.

If you're a government official and you want to whine, get your facts straight or shut up.

Karl Rove: A Brief Bio

2005-06-23T20:49:00.000-05:00

Just who is this man, Karl Rove, who accuses liberals of hating America and wanting to "give therapy" to terrorists instead of fighting them? A dropout of the University of Utah, Karl Rove loaned himself to various political circles, all part of the Republican party, proving a master of getting people elected. He once broke into the office of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon, stole his stationery/letterhead, and printed fake fliers with it which denigrated the character of Mr. Dixon. A friend of Donald Segretti, Watergate conspirator and one of the coiners of the term 'ratf--king' (which basically meant playing dirty pranks on Democrats, a sure way to prove that your party's misguided beliefs aren't enough in themselves to get your man elected), Rove proved a master manipulator of all things electorate. He is known for his frequent use of the 'f---' word, as well as his apparent intellectual superiority to the rest of the Bush administration (except perhaps Condoleezza Rice, who is now Bush's 'number-two' woman.) Karl Rove is also likely the original leaker of ex-CIA secret operative Valerie Plame's identity, though convenient roadblocks prevent any proof of surfacing. Karl Rove was described by Barbara Walters as the 'most fascinating man of the year' in December 2004, though he could also be described as the most evil/coniving/two-faced/sneaky with just as much accuracy.

But of course, he's morally superior to the liberals, because they value life and that is an inhibiting and obstructionist point-of-view to hold. So there.

The End is Nigh...

2005-06-23T17:10:00.000-05:00

...when I find myself in agreement with Scalia, O'Connor and Rehnquist. The Supreme Court has ruled that the local government now has the power to seize and demolish private property to make way for public improvements (at least, if you consider a shopping center to be an improvement).

This is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, unless of course the city plans on giving the person whose house was demolished a new house ('just compensation'). Still, 'just' compensation had better be swift and make sure the new property is allocated before the old is demolished and cause little or no trouble to the property owner. Anyone affected by this should speak up loud and clear when the time comes.

Another one

2005-06-20T03:47:00.000-05:00

So after we've already lost with that moron Kerry, Joseph Biden is going to to jump into the race as well? It's not that I don't like Senator Biden, it's just that I don't want another Democratic candidate who's as weak and has as much stain on his record as John Kerry. We really need someone who isn't a senator, or who hasn't been for very long. (Hillary, if you're out there, we need you... badly.)

Axis of People-Who-We-Are-Going-To-Bomb

2005-06-20T00:29:00.000-05:00

According to Al Jazeera, pre-combat operations in Iran have already commenced. Without the blessings of the concerned citizens of the world, or even of America, Bush is going to do the exact same thing he did in Iraq: Make up a story as a justification to invade, invade, and then try to secure a Republican victory by making the next Democratic candidate look like a weakling who would cost us the war in Iran.

HELLO

2005-06-17T18:51:00.000-05:00

Everyone is trying to tell you this, Right-Wing Press-Machine: The people at Guantanamo Bay are not terrorists. They are suspected terrorists, and very few of them are convicted of anything.

And since when do the Geneva Conventions, which do apply, just not as POW status, outweigh decency?

2005-06-16T09:54:00.000-05:00

As attention is drawn to the 16 Republican U.S. senators who did not cosponsor the lynching apology that passed the Senate, I had to wonder: Why not just do it? These people who are drawing bad publicity to themselves are either incredibly racist (and I certainly hope that isn't the case) or just plain stupid.

The Senate has apologized to blacks, native Hawaiians, and other minority groups for past actions of the Federal government, but curiously no such apology has yet been issued for the Native Americans who have been almost entirely wiped out over the last four centuries.

Kansas City Star

Oops

2005-06-15T05:45:00.000-05:00

I just got around to reading the latest Ann Coulter article, which has been up for a few days. It's actually more absurd than most of her articles, as in it she writes that the Watergate scandal is actually the fault of the men who ratted out Nixon.. as opposed to Nixon himself. Following this line of logi- OK, following that line of logic would make you an idiot. Can you say "sensationalism"?

Seventeen...

2005-06-15T05:04:00.000-05:00

We interrupt this programming to announce...

...

...my birthday! These get a lot less exciting over the years.

Progress...

2005-06-12T22:35:00.000-05:00

...is fleeting, as usual.

The first sensible thing a Republican senator has done in ages

2005-06-12T11:52:00.000-05:00

What is that up in the sky? Why, it's a winged piglet flying to the heavens to escape the frozen abyss that has suddenly sprung straight out of Hell. Oh, and there's a fat lady singing too.

2005-06-12T09:23:00.000-05:00

British memos are still in the news, even though at this point we all know what they're saying. It's the same thing the Left has been saying all this time, actually: The war in Iraq is based on false intelligence dreamt up by the Bush administration, and preparation was not thorough enough. Really, if the government is going to deny everything we say they should be far less conspicuous about leaving evidence.

Presidential Radio Address -- June 11, 2005

2005-06-12T09:01:00.000-05:00

Yesterday in his radio address, President Bush spoke a lot about energy dependence. Because most nations in the Middle East "secretly" dislike us, and we pretend not to notice, oil prices are slightly higher than normally and we seek to lower dependence by 'modernizing the grid.' If he isn't lying about this, it will certainly be a novel policy shift. He also promised to reduce wasteful spending by way of the Highway Act; now, I'm not 100% sure about this (actually, no.. I am,) but I think most of the wasteful spending that our government does is on war and not infrastructural improvements (which would be nice, for those of us living in less photogenic parts of America.)

One thing the taxpayers are going to 'waste' a lot less money on, however, is feeding the elderly through Social Security.

Pax Democratica

2005-06-12T00:21:00.000-05:00

"Howard Dean said Saturday that positive responses from key supporters have reinforced his determination to keep talking tough even though some congressional Democrats have suggested he should tone down his rhetoric (AP)."

Maybe the party will manage to reshape itself under this guy. I think he's been seriously underestimated.

Who knows, maybe the Republicans won't control every bloody branch of government in three years.

Sad

2005-06-11T16:18:00.000-05:00

I know it seems ignorant of me, but I thought we got rid of re-education camps in the old days. Seriously folks, this is the twenty-first century. Why are people being allowed to send their children to "loving" camps where they are psychologically battered until they give in and act the way they're being forced? It's not like them being gay is hurting anyone. This is absolutely disgusting.

Patriot Act Redux

2005-06-10T21:14:00.000-05:00

In a blatant show of what is either irresponsibility or a control-complex, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, tired of hearing Democrats criticize his beloved pseudo-brainchild known as the Patriot Act and had their microphones cut during a hearing, gaveling the chamber to order before abruptly storming out.

Democrats, who were previously unable to cite more than a few abuses of power and limitations to freedom of speech, which have not been copiously perpetrated (so far), now have plenty to go on when they say that the Act is in violation of basic human rights to privacy and undermines the freedom it is purported to uphold. Obviously the GOP doesn't mind silencing dissenters. Look for more fun reactions tomorrow! I'm sure this will be entertaining, albeit a bit disturbing.

Am I missing something?

2005-06-09T01:25:00.000-05:00

As I sit here reading about the confirmation of Federal Appellate Judge Janice Rogers Brown, I can't help but wonder: why is this tireless debate limited to 'controversial' nominees only? Wouldn't we have a much better control over the judicial system if we simply hammered out every nominee? Of course, this would take time that Congress doesn't have. But it could. After all, as being a politician has evolved from public service to full-time career, and people like Strom Thurmond wedge themselves so tightly into the system they can't be removed, couldn't we kill two birds with one stone, strike down the absurd amount of recess the legislative branch gets, and have them work this hard all the time? I'm not certain, but I have a feeling a lot more would get done and that nasty incumbency rate would drop as congressmen and senators focus more on tough choices and less on fundraising for reelection.

I'm sorry if this in any way makes too much sense.

Communist Hollywood?

2005-06-08T20:58:00.000-05:00

I'm no expert on Cold War history, but from what I recall the McCarthy crackdowns were mostly a failure. Communist movements in the United States were generally peaceful, with dangerous activities limited to Soviet spies (obviously effective enough to discover our atomic/nuclear secrets). However, socialist and communist parties in America during that time were under the gun throughout their existence. Even though a Socialist got on the ballot in the early 1900's, America has mostly responded to leftist factions with distrust or outright suppressed them. The looming danger of a massive Soviet power and the phantom threat of the 'Yellow Peril' and the Communist bloc had many people envisioning their lives ending in a mushroom cloud.
When Senator McCarthy came to power in 1947, the world was still recovering from World War II and the Soviet Union was consolidating its power in Eastern Europe. Around the middle of his term McCarthy claimed a near omniscience regarding the presence of Communist sympathizers in the country, waving numerous lists (later to evolve into the dreaded blacklists) in front of enthralled crowds.
Numerous members of the Hollywood elite (known as the Hollywood ten) were called out in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee, refusing to cooperate with the committee and were blacklisted. Hollywood producers agreed to refuse the blacklisted artists jobs until they were cleared.
The Communist party within Hollywood was highly aligned with the USSR; even though many of the members joined due to anti-Nazi sentiments, during the war when Stalin made a pact with Germany, all members were expected to follow suit and treat Germany as a friend. Their membership was completely secret. Although they did attempt to insert propaganda into movies and television, editors on the lookout for material offensive to the public screened most.
Source: FrontPage magazine and Wikipedia

Finally

2005-06-08T16:49:00.000-05:00

I guess all it takes for Bush to be reasonable is a little push from Carter. The administration's first ever push for human rights and demonstration of respect for human rights would come if Guantanamo Bay were closed.

As the Right is so fond of saying in defense of the war in Iraq: the world will be a safer place [for Arabs that happen to be in countries we invade] with Gitmo gone.

Controversy

2005-06-08T02:42:00.000-05:00

Expect an extremely controversial article tomorrow. I wasn't sure if I was going to publish it at first, but my mind is made up.

Edit: It isn't finished quite yet.

Hillary 08!

2005-06-07T14:38:00.000-05:00

This isn't really an endorsement of Senator Clinton's bid for the presidency; I just want some opinion from my readers. Should Hillary run, or would you not like to see another President Clinton?

Blah.

2005-06-06T18:04:00.000-05:00

Not a day for blogging.

Porn = Bad?

2005-06-05T23:21:00.001-05:00

Having solved all other problems -- violence, graft, corruption, etc. -- the Chicago police are being drawn out by a man intent on solving a dire problem: the presence of porn magazines in liquor stores. Mark Decker, a 36-year old board member of the suburban town's council, is intent on starting a crusade to ban the material from all stores. "There are laws on the books already, I want you to enforce them and ban this material from being sold in the village," he reportedly told police. "I feel this is a dangerous situation and police need to take action on it."

Now, let me explain the situation. These magazines are not being sold to minors. They are not visible or even in areas accessable to minors. They do not depict children or illegal activities. Decker opposes their sale to mature adults. Denying the sale of harmless materials to adults is stupid; making the law enforce one man's twisted view of reality, stupider.
Source: Daily Southtown

Our lovable Scream Machine

2005-06-05T23:21:00.000-05:00

I think it's time for another entry on Dean.

The liberal half of the 'blogosphere' and the Associated Press are scurrying to defend the DNC chairman against Joe Biden and John Edwards. I myself have posted that I find his recent statements unacceptable, not to mention unprofessional and unseemly.

That being said, I typically have very much respect for Mr. Dean's notoriously frank and emboldened speech. I do wish he would learn some self-control, and perhaps take a hint from the Republicans and listen more to advisers, but his honest and unforgiving attitude have great appeal for many working Americans. Besides his verbal appeal, Dean's ideology represents a different social class than most other ranking Democrats. John Edwards, who unsuccessfully played the 'my poor daddy' card despite his considerable small fortune, and John Kerry, married to one of the 400 richest people on Earth, simply do not appeal to normal, 'grassroots' citizens. By bringing Dean into the mix, the Democrats may hope to convert some of the Red States, which are almost all rural, to Blue States, which non-coincidentally are very urban.

The bottom line is, I think it's important that Dean watch himself and try not to lose too much credibility. At the same time, it's equally important for those liberals and progressives who want to "take back the White House" (a Dean quote! Aren't I just as bright as Karen Hughes in a one-piece) to assist in validating him and not let people like Edwards and Biden weaken the Left's cause just so they can possibly be the next president.

(Note: Though my disaffiliation with Dean may be somewhat rescinded, I maintain a refusal to end this post with the scary 'GO DEAN!' that is becoming so common. Instead I would like to merely wish him luck and express my faith in his leadership (if not his tact.))

2005-06-05T20:35:00.000-05:00

Texas politicians, as Molly Ivins often tries to tell us, are very self-centered people. Today, Texas Governor Rick Perry, a Republican, signed a resolution to amend the State Constitution to forbid same-sex marriages. This was of course only preliminary, as the actual passing of the ban depends on a referendum coming on Election Day of this year. Naturally this bill was signed in a Christian school, reflecting the influence that God has on Gov. Perry's policies.

As if endoresment of such an offensive and distasteful piece of legislation weren't bad enough reason for Gov. Perry to be at the Calvary Christian Academy, he also took the time to preach to the audience about "a great victory for conservative Republicans." Again, it seems as though the GOP only recognizes its own when it comes to benefitting the public.

A quote I found interesting in the article:

"It seems to me that people of the great state of Texas will be silent no more," said Rod Parsley, of the Center for Moral Clarity in Ohio. "Folks in this room understand, God is still watching."

Why do these people all seem to think that when a body is acting liberally it is silent and when it is being conservative it's "silent no more"? The state was never silent, it just wasn't expelling (and I don't mean orally) the bigoted garbage that Republicans want.

But backing up: 'The Center for Moral Clarity in Ohio.' That's certainly an interesting -- and misinterpretable -- name. The definition of morality is, according to my copy of Webster's, inclusive of principles of right and wrong in conduct; ethics and a particular system of such principles. Basically, morality is subjective. What this means is that when someone supports legislation that they think is "moral," it could actually be immoral to others. For example, when Republicans push for bans on same-sex marriage, which is [somewhat disputedly, but probably] immoral according to the Bible (a book that also advocates the stoning to death of a man who shaves [Lev 19:27],) they're doing something that is wrong and unjust, and therefore immoral, in the eyes of gay people, Liberals and many 'mainstream Americans.'

Of course, only GOP-sympathizers count.

At least we still have France.. to hate.

2005-06-05T15:28:00.000-05:00

It looks as if John Bolton's nomination will be approved. Republicans are happy because this is a victory over the Democrats; Democrats are unhappy because it is a loss brought on by ignorant partisanship, the kind that makes one vote for an unqualified nominee just to spite the other party, and lack of concern for the rest of the world.

While Barbara Boxer and Joe Biden can dissent to their hearts' content, there are certain realities which must be faced by the American people:

America no longer cares what the rest of the world thinks. Most Conservatives, at least in the region of the nation I happen to inhabit (the Southeast,) will confirm this quite happily.
The Geneva Conventions only bind funny brown people like Saddam. Red-blooded Americans can do as we please. (Maybe, God willing, we'll even strike down the pesky bureaucracy that prevents those homosexuals and non-Christians from being sent to Gitmo!)
The U.N. is completely and totally worthless to America. That's why we keep the secretariat in New York City and still feel obligated, deep down inside, to send ambassadors (though Bush is required to submit a nominee, his choice is nothing short of stunning,) and also make them hunt for the weapons we think we smell.

In other news, the Divided Democrats disavow yet another outrageous firebrand. (Actually, it's the same one from 2004 political season; they're just doing it again.) It's amazing how the Left can agree on virtually nothing and yet Conservatives still entertain the fairy tale that they control the 'media.'

Queer Eye for the Straight Fly

2005-06-05T13:58:00.000-05:00

A new study released June 4th confirms the genetic basis of sexuality through the commonly used proxy of fruit flies. A single gene was isolated within the species that, when altered, would cause the flies to become attracted to the same gender. Altered females court and copulate with other females, and altered males perform the same. Moreover, females with the male gene became unusually aggressive, while the males with the female passive. The study will bolster support for another recent discovery of three genes believed to be linked to human male homosexuality.
The biology of homosexuality is a relatively recent issue, with no serious studies before the 1980's or late 70's. The search for homosexual genes started in the large X chromosome, which is given to all normal males by their mothers. When all the chromosomes were analyzed for patterns in gay men, there was a 60% correlation between the 7th, 8th, and 10th chromosomes of 456 men from families in which more than one child was gay.
Genetics is rarely a sure thing, however. Environmental and psychosocial factors may still have an impact. For example, it is statistically more likely for a man to be homosexual if he has an older brother (which could be psychosocial or environmental, through altered conditions in a woman who has already had one child). Scientists and psychologists are stopping short of saying that genes are what causes homosexuality to develop.
Source: The Independent, The New York Times, and Health 24

Radio Address June 4, 2005

2005-06-05T03:49:00.000-05:00

So after reading Bush's radio address yesterday, I decided that I would begin to publish a dissection of all future such addresses for as long as they are being given. The address follows.

The address.

Following, some highlights:

America's economy is on the right track. Over the past two years, we've added more than 3.5 million new jobs.

Well bully for you. The unemployment rate has still risen since the beginning of the year. But hey, what do you know about working?

First, Congress needs to complete an energy bill. America is growing more dependent on foreign oil, and that is driving up the price of gasoline across the country.

Oh, the audacity; talk about 'brass ones'! How can he complain about dependency on foreign oil? It's not as if they're ever reluctant to sell it to us before we (de)stabilize their region.

Second, Americans expect Congress to be wise with their money. I proposed a disciplined federal budget that makes tax relief permanent, holds the growth in discretionary spending below the rate of inflation and reduces discretionary spending for non- security programs. The House and the Senate have worked together to pass a responsible budget resolution that keeps us on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. Now Congress must keep its promise to exercise restraint on spending bills and to rein in mandatory spending. The principle is clear: Every taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely or not at all.

This is not only appalling, it's insulting. We spend almost $500,000,000,000 a year on weapons and war; war that Bush started. That's almost $10,000,000,000 every week! This is about 4-5% of the GDP and exceeds federal appropriations to education. Of course, even after all of this spending we're still sending National Guardsmen out to do the fighting and running out of full-time soldiers.

Finally, Congress needs to move forward with Social Security reform. This past week, I traveled to Kentucky to talk about Social Security. Next Wednesday, I will discuss Social Security with builders and contractors in Washington, D.C. At each stop, I remind seniors they will continue to receive their Social Security checks every month. I also remind everyone that Social Security is in serious trouble for our children and grandchildren. Americans of all ages have made it clear they expect their leaders in Washington to strengthen Social Security for future generations.

Here we have it, folks: the ubiquitous Social Security reference. Too bad it's the most vague political sales-pitch I've ever read. He didn't even mention what he was talking about! Republican presidents are very good at eating up airspace.

Setting things straight

2005-06-05T00:53:00.000-05:00

In a recent post I decried the violence seen in media as a cause of violent behavior in children. I may have jumped the gun a bit, but there really is substance that I'm trying to get to. Violence in media is by no means the end-all be-all factor in whether or not a young person will do violent things. Humans are adaptable creatures. Many of our more complex genes require environmental input, as well. Being bullied, abused, picked on, even the books one reads have an impact on who that person is. When a child plays video games he feels he becomes the characters in those games. However, parents today know exactly how far reaching the media is and harbor a responsibility to monitor what their children see.

But to clarify, it is not the media's fault.

Bang! Bang! He Shot Me Down

2005-06-04T17:10:00.000-05:00

Seriously, what's with all the adolescent violence? We've been through every possible solution, and whenever someone finds a lead (i.e. violent media overexposure) they're scoffed at for being crazy. Maybe they're right, though. Maybe media is what's causing this.

Okay. I'm being too centric. Allow me to clarify: The media most certainly is the cause of this.

'Proof,' you say, 'I want proof!' Unfortunately, proof of this is almost entirely empirical. Before the advent of television in the '40s and '50s (or earlier), children's games involved mostly harmless themes. Games like hopscotch and marbles are over 3,000 years old, and until televisions became commonplace, were a staple. Even with the advent of the radio, shows like The Lone Ranger taught children to play games such as 'Cowboys and Indians' or 'Cops and Robbers.' Now children immerse themselves in the gory worlds of DOOM3 and Grand Theft Auto (not so much a problem for its goriness as for its lack of any sense of decency.) I'm not saying we should ban violent video games; I myself enjoy them. I simply think that the first step to solving a problem is admitting the problem and not sidestepping it. The bottom line is, kids 100-200 years ago were not wont to kill the people they loved.

Utah: The Lone Ranger rides for Jesus

2005-06-04T17:08:00.000-05:00

Utah, a fountain of religious fervor since the Mormons took over in the 1800's, is getting ready to take another step backwards.

Even though, for the most part, attempts to include Creationism (whether overtly or through its simulacrum Intelligent Design) in public schools has failed, the soldiers of the Christian Right march on. Even marginal successes, such as the infamous textbook sticker scandal in our own Cobb County, have been only temporary. Judges have consistently ruled religious attacks on evolution in schools are unscientific, and their attempts unconstitutional.

Senator Chris Buttars (R-West Jordan) intends to make his own stab at corrupting science. Supported by the Eagle Forum, a right-wing group that ushered a lot of support for Utah's constitutional amendment against gay marriage, Buttars has gained a lot of public support for his gambit.

Unlike most instances, when Creationists mask their intentions under a veil of 'fairness' or 'teaching the controversy', Buttars makes no excuse. Divine Design, the name for his movement, "is a counter to the kids' belief that we all come from monkeys. Because we didn't, [and] it shocks me that our schools are teaching evolution as fact." The senator believes in speciation, saying "We get different types of dogs and different types of cats, but you have never seen a 'dat,' '' confirming that Buttars' grasp of coherent science is little more than that of the monkeys he so abhors.

When it comes to science, you cannot simply take the pieces you want and discard the rest. Even though evolution is just as much science as the cell theory, I would doubt that the senator would risk his life against meningitis to prove that God is really behind it. The world of science is a whole cloth, and nothing can be made of it if it is full of gaping wholes. Evolution is the unifying theory of biology, what gives structure to much of the randomness of life.

Teachers in the state are complaining about the government messing with education. The Tribune quotes Scott Berryessa, president of the Jordan Education Association, says that "Teachers wish that our Legislature would stop micromanaging the process of education - especially when it comes to issues as personal as these."

Berryessa and the teachers are correct in their concern: the government has no right to intervene in the religious education of students, nor the right to use taxpayer money (some of which comes not only from the state, but also national support money). Parochial schools exist to allow parents to educate their children in a religious environment at their own cost. All parents have the option of homeschooling. There is no excuse for such a blatant abuse of authority that Senator Chris Buttars is committing.
Source: Salt Lake Tribune

And now for a lesson in politics!

2005-06-04T04:51:00.000-05:00

Now I'm going to explain to you how a compromise works! You see, when two senators really love each other...

Okay, so that was bad. Everyone knows senators lack the capacity to love.

In all seriousness, though, a senator's duties include organizing people and meetings, face-to-face debate and behind-the-scenes compromises. Also, the legislative body thrives on personal financial incentive, which is another way to say 'bribes.' Yes, Viagra and the Clean Air Act could have a much deeper relationship than you once imagined. Anyways, when senators, namely, say, a bipartisan committee consisting of seven members of the minority and seven of the majority, get lazy/tired/hungry/bored, they decide to end all debate quickly and painlessly (for them) or stressfully and angrily (for the people, whom they seem to have forgotten they represent.)

Take, for instance, the case of the Filibuster and the Nuclear Option (Conservatives actually abandoned this term for the more harmless and less apocalyptic 'Constitutional Option') in which the Democrats, the minority party, had been Filibustering (that's Senate jargon for 'Talking to death') the nominations of ten circuit-court judicial nominees. The Republicans, tired of the Democrats giving them only an unprecedented 95%, or 208 out of 218 successful nominations, demanded that the vicious power-hungry Liberals bend over and allow them to have the other ten as well. The previously-mentioned bipartisan commission, supported by people like Joseph "Which Ticket Am I Supposed To Be On, Again?" Lieberman and John McCain, noted flip-flopper (I'm borrowing their label,) has hammered-out a most wonderous compromise, outlined here by yours truly:

Basically, the seven Republicans have pledged not to vote for cloture (that means a motion to terminate all debate, including Filibuster) as long as the Democrats allow three of the nominees (among them the scary, witch-like Janice Rogers-Brown) to be confirmed. Additionally, they may only block future nominees by citing 'extraordinary circumstances' as to why they may not be allowed to accede to their prospective judicial appointments. Translation: pass three now, wait a few weeks, pass the others, no more Filibuster. Clearly, the Democrats have given up.

Now, let's back up a moment: 95%, the most ever allowed through the Senate confirmation process, of Bush's first-term nominees were allowed to pass. Only the ten most extreme were held back. After receiving his Divine Mandate (51%) Bush apparently thought himself above the will of the minority (48%) and perfectly justified in re-nominating seven of those ten (the ones being debated on now are those seven.) Because the Democrats (excluding those on the bipartisan council) did not wish to lose all face and allow the Republicans to walk all over them, they had little choice but to continue to Filibuster. You see, the reason seven members of each party are on the council is that to obtain a Supermajority, which means sixty-seven votes, the quorum necessary to obtain cloture, the Republicans, who number fifty-five in total, could not succeed if they did not have the help of at least twelve Democrats. Additionally, the Democrats need at least six Republicans to have anything at all passed in their favor. When, however, the Democrats basically agree to vote Republican on everything, and end all debate, it becomes very clear that they have sold out.

Now, as to the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Please pardon my language, but if this is not a hearty "fuck you!" then nothing is. John Bolton, whose record certainly does not call for this appointment, has expressed clear disdain for the United Nations through such comments as "If the U.N. secretariat building lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference," and "Diplomacy is not an end in itself if it does not advance U.S. interests." Clearly despising the institution, there is no wonder people like Joe Biden would refuse to vote for him. In all honesty, wouldn't it be more honest of the United States to simply withdraw membership? There's no point in being (even more) asinine to the rest of the world.

I hope you feel more aware now.

2005-06-04T03:48:00.000-05:00

Because keeping foreign citizens in a military base in the tropics, with no proven guilt, in horrible conditions which include torture and psychological abuse is OK as long as we make some rules about it. Really, I'm glad someone finally realized that we need to codify how we're going to legally treat our illegal prisoners! Sadly, that someone is Arlen Specter (R-PA), the Senate's most mediocre (can I apply a superlative to that word?) Republican.

It's always great to have some good old-fashioned boneheadedness to sleep on!

Deism

2005-06-04T02:47:00.000-05:00

Nige mentioned Deism a few posts back, and I'd like to elaborate.
In essence, Deism is the belief that although a creator god exists, little can be known about him other than that which we can discover through science; a simplistic method of compromising religion with reality. Deists did not believe in original sin, going so far as to say that humans were essentially good creatures -- a mirror opposite of the fire and brimstone of contemporary preachers. In short, God is a watchmaker: he created the world, then let it run on its own (or alternatively, is part of nature and works through natural processes).

Deism as a religious movement mostly died out by the Second Great Awakening, although many modern scientists still profess many similar beliefs: Albert Einstein, for example.
Some of America's greatest leaders were avowed or unavowed Deists (during such a fervently religious period throughout much of America, unorthodoxy was viewed with suspicion). George Washington, Ben Franklin (although he converted toward the end of his life), Thomas Jefferson (who may well have been an atheist) and Alexander Hamilton are just a few of these.

Today, many references are made in government to the idea of 'ceremonial deism'. Distinct from the philosophy of Deism I mentioned previously, ceremonial deism is the U.S. tradition in which religious, usually nonsectarian, rites are performed by those in government capacities. The most recognizable instances are the Senate opening prayer and the custom of swearing on the Bible before a trial. These rituals have little to nothing to do with Deism as a philosophy; rather, they are ploys by the Christian majority to have the government recognize their legitimacy. For example, the swearing on the Bible itself cannot be nonsectarian, because so many different translations exist (Catholic Douay, Baptist King James Version, smaller Protestant New International Version, among others). By offering one but not the other, a conflict can occur with rival groups attempting to place access of their Bibles in front of others. Although I am hardly a law student, I have never heard of a witness swear on the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, or any similar book.

--Warning: I got most of the material ahead from an essay question in an ACT practice. It may be wrong. Feel free to tell me I'm an idiot who can't bother to research crap.--

The practice of swearing on the Bible was handed down from Christian Anglo-Saxon times, in which criminal law was a little different from today. In those times, portents and omens could often mean the difference between, "Well, you were there at the scene at the time her body was hacked to pieces, but the stars say you're cool." and "You were taking a dump in Greenland when he was hit with an arrow, but that comet came from the west, so it's your fault." Naturally, it is only from this climate of culture and liberal thought that such great American traditions can come. One method of proving guilt in criminal cases was through the swearing of long, protracted oaths. If at any point the oathswearer screwed something up, he was determined to be guilty. While undoubtedly strenuous, this did little more than weed out the genes for stuttering in England while letting thieves escape. This method was mostly used for minor crimes, which included murdering peasants in those days.

More Holy Book Goodness!

2005-06-04T00:23:00.000-05:00

Wow. I am stunned. Here is an Associated Press report on what SoCom claims happened to the Koran of a detainee:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American jailers at the Guantanamo prison for foreign terrorism suspects splashed a Koran with urine, kicked and stepped on the Islamic holy book and soaked it with water, the U.S. military said on Friday.

U.S. Southern Command, responsible for the prison at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, described for the first time five cases of "mishandling" of a Koran by U.S. personnel confirmed by a newly completed military inquiry, officials said in a statement.

In the incident involving urine, which took place this past March, Southern Command said a guard left his post and urinated near an air vent and "the wind blew his urine through the vent" and into a cell block.

It said a detainee told guards the urine "splashed on him and his Koran." The statement said the detainee was given a new prison uniform and Koran, and that the guard was reprimanded and given duty in which he had no contact with prisoners.

Southern Command said a civilian contractor interrogator, who was later fired, apologized in July 2003 to a detainee for stepping on his Koran. In August 2003, prisoners' Korans became wet when night-shift guards had thrown water balloons in a cell block, the statement said. In February 2002, guards kicked a prisoner's Koran, it added.

In the fifth "confirmed incident" of mishandling a Koran, Southern Command said a prisoner in August 2003 complained that "a two-word obscenity" had been written in English in his Koran. Southern Command said it was "possible" a guard had written the words but "equally possible" the prisoner himself had done it.

Southern Command released its findings on a Friday night.

Well then, there we have it. The wind did it!

Now imagine if someone had thought of this story during the "hanging chads" fiasco...

The Holy Bible v Quran, 2005 (dissenting opinion)

2005-06-03T21:31:00.000-05:00

So apparently, after all, it is alright for the people at Guantanamo Bay to desecrate the Quran. These soldiers seem to forget that the America they claim to hold so dear has a Muslim population too. As if it weren't bad enough that the Bible has to be plastered in everyone's face who doesn't want anything to do with it, and that people still believe that the Founding Fathers were Christians (provably false) or that this nation was founded on Christian Principles (the fallaciousness of this assumption can be derived from the falsehood of the former statement), the Army apparently allows for the ridicule of other beliefs as well. While the Quran may never have been flushed down a commode, even the smallest instance of disrespect may grow into something larger. After all, in Abu Ghraib, Lyndie England and Co. took their time: first electrodes, then inappropriate touching, and finally pictures and hanging genitalia.

Thankfully, the perpetrators are under investigation, but at what cost? What message does this send to the Muslims that these men and women claim to be protecting? That they are invalid? Of course, we already know how the Army feels about minorities. Apparently, if you aren't a Conservative, you aren't an American either! (You'll notice that this comes up fairly often. It is a problem.)

Whenever the issue of removing the Bible from law offices (something which I actually cared little for, until the Quran fiasco proved that religious respect was a double-standard) comes up, people make outrageous claims that "the laws of this land were based on Christianity" and "The Founding Fathers themselves were Christians!" I have never been anti-Christian, because I believe in respecting all beliefs. I feel, however, that it is time to make one thing certain: at least eight of the Founding Fathers, including Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Hamilton, James Monroe, James Madison, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and George Washington were Deists. This means that while they believed in the same Hebrew Yahweh-God of the Old Testament, they rejected the idea of the "Trinity" and similarly rejected that God took any interest in personal human affairs. This means that they rejected the most fundamental beliefs of Christianity: that accepting Jesus of Nazareth as Jesus Christ, savior of the human race, is necessary to achieve eternal paradise.

So, the fathers of this nation were not Christian, and did not believe in the teachings of the Bible. Why, then, are we being forced to live under the shadow of that book? Why is all policy twisted to reflect it? Perhaps because the people in charge are Christians. They are making, breaking, and interpreting laws simply to make themselves feel better about who they are spiritually. Gay people cannot marry, according to conservative firebrands, because there is no clause in the Constitution permitting same-sex marriage. That, actually, is fair - if we disallow heterosexual marriages, which are also not permitted anywhere in the Constitution. So what we have is a biased interpretation of law based simply on religion. That, my friends, is a blatant disregard for the principle of 'separation of church and state.'

In short, with the last election, the Bible has won, and Freedom, like Sofie Fatale of Kill Bill, remains locked in a trunk to have yet another limb hacked off. I dissent.

Evolution Debate

2005-06-03T20:21:00.000-05:00

I'm Daniel, a friend of Nigel's with a longtime interest in politics and philosophy. Nige's recent post on Education Secretary Cathy Cox's recent activities reminded me of how many people can be confused by the whole biology textbook debacle.

First off, those outside of academic spheres or uninterested in science can confuse the scientific and common meanings of the word 'theory'. Yes, evolution is a theory; so is relativity, gravity, and yes you biology majors, are cells. A scientific theory is knowledge derived logically from examination of data from multiple sources, the result of which can be used to further knowledge in general. Evolution is a theory because data taken from fossils, the development of species in different areas, and differences in genetics of different species is all taken into account. Logical conclusions are then drawn from this data, compounding into a scientific theory.

Some common fallacies about evolution:
-It cannot make predictions/cannot be tested.
This is untrue; we have been able to note speciation and the development of genetic traits, such as the infamous resistance to antibiotics that can pass from one generation of bacteria to others.
Although evolution could indeed be tested, that is beyond the point. Astronomic theory does not seem to fall under the same sharp criticism as evolution, although indeed no one has ever measured the distance from the Earth to the Sun with a measuring tape.
-Evolution does not answer all questions.
It is not meant to. Evolution is meant to be a starting point from which biologists can take further. For example, the study of human origin, although not specifically detailed in evolutionary theory, bases most of its underlying principles on those ideas. Similarly, medicine has benefited greatly from understanding the evolution of disease and parasites, able to draw comparisons between diseases with common ancestors, which could lead to a cure.
As for the theory on the whole, having a few holes does not mean it is not cheese :D For example, taking from a poster in atheism.about.com, meteorology does not answer all of our questions and often makes mistakes, but that does not render it useless. We can make reasonable predictions using the same basic scientific methods for weather as we do for evolution.
-Evolution is anti-God, atheistic, etc.
Primarily, this claim comes from people attempting to attack evolution not from a scientific angle, but who hold to an ideology that accepts ignorance for the greater good. Regardless of whether the existence of deities is supported or opposed in evolutionary theory does not make it correct or incorrect.
As most theistic religions believe in a universe created by a supreme deity (Vishnu, God/Allah/Yahweh, etc), most people believe that any way to explain creation in any form is sacrilegious. I deny this flatly. There is no reason for someone with an open mind, willing to divulge from religious texts, to deny the veracity of evolution. It is simple enough to interpret texts so that evolution is seen as the method by which the Creator(s) formed the species (note: abiogenesis and big bang theory have nothing to do with each other or evolution.) Evolution takes life as granted and goes from there; it is not hard for a believer to imagine, as the Deists might have believed if they met Darwin, that the Creator(s) took life and let it roll on its own like a rock down a hill.
Of course, once you reduce the influence of the supernatural in existence, only more can follow. This has been true of science since the beginning: During the Middle Ages, it was common to blame witches, demons, imps etc. for all your woes. People would pray, as many do still today, to have their sons and daughters released from flu, dysentery (ameobic or otherwise ^~^) and smallpox. Many lived in filth and drank pestilent water, unaware that they were becoming infected. When the Renaissance thinkers enlightened the public, the church lost more of its grip on their minds. I remember reading an article somewhere on how a right-wing priest was angered with the development of a cure for syphilis, because the disease was 'God's punishment' or something. We now know that, although God may be the root cause of disease (making a definitely omnibenevolent god, right?), the creator of all life, we already have simpler and more parsimonious explanations for that stuff. Even if we don't have the answers now, we probably will soon enough.

Biological Changes Over Time

2005-06-03T18:31:00.000-05:00

Kathy Cox, conservative head of the Department of Education at my state, is supporting a bill due to be up for voting soon (June 8, I believe) that will require sons and daughters to seek and obtain parental permission in order to participate in certain extracurricular activities. This bill is aimed at reducing the number of people who join school-wide GSA (gay-straight alliance) groups, groups dedicated to promoting tolerance and understanding between homo- and heterosexual students. These GSA clubs are becoming a staple of student leftist activism and have drawn some negative attention, though not as much as was originally speculated.

The interesting thing about this bill, intended to ensure that students are not being active in anything controversial to which their parents may not agree, is that it was never proposed with the original advent of FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletes) groups. Curious.

Another interesting highlight of Mrs. Cox's career is her support for the "initiative" (note: initiative no longer means "going forward". It now means "going back to the Stone Age as fast as we can") to put stickers on all science textbooks that contain information on the Theory of Evolution warning readers that a controversial theory was inside. She also wanted to change the word evolution to the phrase "biological changes over time." If you have to ask why that's stupid, I fear that there's little I can say to help you.

Somebody has a Jewish tolerance problem.

2005-06-03T16:28:00.000-05:00

So 'Deep Throat' has revealed himself. Great. You know, one would think that the overt sexual reference (and let's be honest, his name wasn't 'Deep Voice' after all) would be the most controversial thing. Sure, he leaked information, but it's not like he compromised national security. He merely told investigative journalists about criminal actions being perpetrated by the current Republican administration (investigative journalists: where have you all disappeared to?)

So apparently, given Nixon's "mandate" of forty-nine out of fifty states, giving out information that could weaken his grip and lower his approval rating is treasonous. After all, if you bust a President for interfering with the most important part of Democracy today, the media and public image, and that President is a Republican... you're hurting your country (and you're probably a Communist that wants to destroy America, too! For shame.)

Why would anybody dislike President Nixon, anyways?

Oh, oh I know. Here's why:

July 5, 1971: Nixon, Haldeman, and Ziegler, 4:03 P.M., Oval Office Conversation #537-4; cassette #876

`NIXON`:	Jewish families are close, but there's this strange malignancy that seems to creep among them -- radicalism. I can imagine how the fact that Ellsberg is in this must really tear a fella like Henry to pieces -- or Garment. Just like the Rosenbergs and all that. It just has to kill them. I feel horrible about it.
`ZIEGLER`:	Could make up an English name.
`HALDEMAN`:	... Rosenstein could change his name. ...
	[general laughter]
`ZIEGLER`:	It is right. It's always an "Ellsberg."
`NIXON`:	Every one's a Jew. Ellsberg's a Jew. Halperin's a Jew.
`HALDEMAN`:	Gelb's a Jew.
`NIXON`:	But there are [unclear] -- Hiss was not a Jew. Very interesting thing. So few of those who engage in espionage -- are Negroes. ... In fact, very few of them become Communists. If they do, they like, they get into Angela Davis -- they're more the capitalist type. And they throw bombs and this and that. But the Negroes. -- have you ever noticed? ... Any Negro spies?
`HALDEMAN`:	Not intellectual enough, not smart enough... not smart enough to be spies.
`NIXON`:	The Jews -- the Jews are, are born spies. You notice how many of them are just in up to their necks?
`HALDEMAN`:	A basic deviousness.

..what a nice fellow! I'm sure he's just misunderstood.

P.B.S. are a bunch of gay Liberal Jews! ...I guess?

2005-06-03T06:29:00.000-05:00

So Conservatives are whining about P.B.S.' left-wing bias. They claim to represent the "people" of America; however, the people of America have agreed that they see no such bias. The only bias that Conservatives can cite is that of Bill Moyer, who is admittedly very liberal. Of course, Bill Moyer's program is NOT P.B.S.' only program. Channels like P.B.S. edit shows like Sesame Street to suit Conservatives (such as the issue of characters being "too gay") and Liberals (such as with the recent change of Cookie Monster's diet to no longer include ... cookies) both.

If you go to www.anncoulter.org you can see a perfect example of a Conservative ignoring virtually all aspects of P.B.S.' programming and focusing instead on Bill Moyer. You'll notice often that Conservatives (the pundits, not the people, most of whom are very pleasant) tend to shift their points-of-view suchly that anything farther left than Ronald Reagan is "biased and unobjective". Reality means very little to most of these people.

Opening Post

2005-06-03T04:41:00.000-05:00

At long last, here it is: the first post of the first blog I've taken the time to create. Hopefully I will remain with it for a long time to come; there is much that I look forward to expressing and more still that I look forward to receiving in the way of feedback. I ask simply that posters be respectful always to myself and each other, and that comments are constructive and presented in a decent manner. Debate is healthy, but I would like assistance in maintaining a blogging environment devoid of excessively foul language and ill-tempered argument.

-N.J.