Shakesville: 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007

Christian Conservatives Are Revolting

...and to complete the Mel Brooks homage, "You said it! They stink on ice!"

Actually, they are thinking of bolting from the Republican Party and backing a third-party candidate if Rudy Giuliani is the nominee.

The group making the threat, which came together Saturday in Salt Lake City during a break-away gathering during a meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy, includes Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps the most influential of the group, as well as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie and dozens of other politically-oriented conservative Christians, participants said. Almost everyone present expressed support for a written resolution that “if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third party candidate.”

The question then becomes who would they pick? Who's out there they could rope in that thinks the way they do that isn't already either in the race (Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee) or is just too crazy for even them to back (Alan Keyes)?

I think it's hilarious that these blowhards are up the creek with Giuliani as the front-runner. After all their big talk about being the heart and soul of the base of the Republican Party, after all their threats, intimidation, coercion, and just plain bigotry and bullshit against gays, women, science, the law, the Constitution and anything else that doesn't fit into their exact measurement of right and wrong, they end up finding out that they can't even get the Republicans to do their bidding.

I do hope they run a third-party candidate, and I hope that whichever white bread right wing blowhard they pick sinks like a turd in well. Then we can finally give them the burial they so richly deserve.

Crossposted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Iran So Far

Absolutely hilarious SNL Digital Short on the season premiere of Saturday Night Live last night, "Iran So Far," featuring Andy Samberg serenading an Ahmadinejad-clad Fred Armisen, with the help of Maroon 5's Adam Levine.

They call you "Weasel" / They say your methods are medieval / You can play the Jews / I can play your Jim Caviezel...

(Click pic to go to video.)

McCain: Still Insane in the Membrane

So, that BeliefNet article in which McCain said he believes that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation" had another great bit that Steve Benen teased out in which McCain also noted he wouldn't want a Muslim president.

"I admire the Islam. There's a lot of good principles in it," he said. "But I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith."

Do you think he learned about "the Islam" on the internets using the Google?

I'd like to point out that McCain's statment also suggests he would not be comfortable with a Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, pagan, or atheist president, either. And I'd further like to point out that, Christianity itself being so vastly diverse, some Christian denominations have more in common with fundamentalist Islam than they do with Baptists (or whatever denomination he's claiming to be this week), and some have more in common with pagans. This comment doesn't even make sense just given the enormous breadth of Christian beliefs, no less the Constitutional prohibition on religious litmus tests.

Anyway, in an attempt to pull his foot out of his mouth and his head out of his ass, McCain later tried to clarify his remarks:

Apparently, McCain later realized he'd made a mistake, because the transcript of the interview added, "McCain contacted Beliefnet after the interview to clarify his remarks: 'I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values.'"

In other words, McCain was for discrimination before he was against it.

Right.

My Little Cthulhu

Want.
That will go great with my Big Lebowski action figures, if I ever get them, and the Hurley and Locke action figures my pal JWM bought me for my birthday. Thanks to Shaker Tabetha for passing My Little Cthulhu along. [Explanation for the bemused.]

Zombies like global warming

Amoeba zombies, that is. As one headline put it, "Brain-eating Amoeba Deaths Spike in Warmer US Climate.

These brain-eaters are for real. They're amoebae that like warm water, live in lakes, infect swimmers via the nose, migrate to the brain, and start living it up. Naegleria fowleri is said to be very rare. But as lakes warm up, it's getting less rare.

From the LATimes report:

"This is definitely something we need to track," said Michael Beach, a specialist in recreational waterborne illnesses with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "This is a heat-loving amoeba. As water temperatures go up, it does better. In future decades, as temperatures rise, we'd expect to see more cases."

To be less tabloid about it, it's not that many cases. The national yearly average has gone from about 2.3 deaths to 6 this year. But though the absolute numbers are small, that's more than a doubling. If it does that every ten years, in fifty years we'd be up to some 200 cases. Compare that to a total of 27 SARS cases in the US at the height of that scare in 2003. The country was ready to shut down over that.

Also compare the approximately 10% mortality rate in SARS with the near-100% rate from the zombie amoeba. That's what it is at this point. Amoebic diseases are notoriously difficult to cure. I could see people start to avoid every fresh body of water, including swimming pools (it turns up in less-than-pristine pools), and having to do that right when it's 110F outside.

But global warming is nothing to worry about. It'll be nice to spend less on heating, and to have a Northwest Passage, and to grow corn in Canada. No problem. Nothing to see here.

More Myanmar

With regard to the situation in Burma/Myanmar, how much do you really need to know about it to form an opinion, other than the fact that the Myanmarese government has censored its own newspapers, shot foreign journalists to death and switched off all internet access for all of its citizens to prevent them from communicating with the outside world about what’s going on there?

(Cross-posted from The Daily Background.)

But That's Different!!!

Fox News: "Our generals are betraying our soldiers."

Can we expect a Senate resolution, condemning Fox News?

...

Of course not. You don't think the Senate cares about that sort of thing, do you?

Cross-posted at The Vanity Press.

Noooooooooooooooo!

Oh, the pain! The pain! The unbearable pain of a dream deferred, of it all being over before it even began. I weep with the agony of loss as I report with deep regret that Newt Gingrich will not run for president after all.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will not run for president in 2008 after determining he could not legally explore a bid and remain as head of his tax-exempt political organization, a spokesman said Saturday.

"Newt is not running," spokesman Rick Tyler said. "It is legally impermissible for him to continue on as chairman of American Solutions (for Winning the Future) and to explore a campaign for president."

Gingrich decided "to continue on raising the challenges America faces and finding solutions to those challenges" as the group's chairman, Tyler said, "rather than pursuing the presidency."

Good point. How could the nation possibly suffer the devastating blow of losing all the amazing solutions being provided by, uh, what's it called again? Oh, right: American Solutions. They're awesome.

So, basically, I'm guessing that Gingrich looked at the range of responses to his announcement (approximately: lukewarm to cruelly mocking) and figured it wasn't worth his time or effort to become a giant loser. Gianter.

Worst trial balloon evah.

Saturday Cat Blogging

Lady Zoë says....

No blogging for you!

Naps, however, are a must

Saturday Nerdery

...brought to you by xkcd. Click to embiggen. For those of you not informed of such, my name is Joanna. And I long for my own personal explosive device (to do good, of course.)

Why BMI Is a Crock, in Pictures

So, the "Guess The Rotund's Height and Weight" game gave me an idea. (Oh, and hey, if you want to see a scatter graph of the results, there's one here now.) I talk a lot about how BMI is bullshit, but we all know talk is cheap. Photos of people who actually fall into each category, however? Say a lot.

Thus, I have created the Illustrated BMI Categories Project, to demonstrate just what "normal" and "overweight" and "morbidly obese" really look like. I'll continue to add photos until people stop sending them -- if you'd like to participate, please send a (worksafe) photo along with your true height and weight to katesblog at gmail dot com. I may not use all the ones I get, but I appreciate the courage of anyone willing to send one. (Oh, and I'm also creating a general Shapely Prose Readers photostream, so let me know if you want to be in that.)

Check out a few of the entries below the fold.

These are the first 5 brave souls who agreed to participate in this project -- all friends of mine, so it's not like I had to go looking very far or bust out the professional athletes to provide good examples of why BMI is a crock.

Underweight

My friend Mindy is naturally very thin (as you'll see in the "normal" picture below). But even she fell victim to the pressure to be thinner. For a while, she was depressed, overeating, and not exercising. She ended up at 5'8" and 145 lbs., BMI of 22 -- well within the "normal" range. (That's what happens when a naturally thin person acts like a stereotype of a fat person, y'all. BMI of freakin' 22.) Changing her eating and exercise habits for her health would have been a good idea for her at that point (although, ahem, her doctor wouldn't have known that, since most doctors would never think to hassle someone with a BMI of 22 about her eating and exercise habits).

But back then, Mindy wasn't really thinking about her health, frankly. What she was thinking was, I am too fat. So she went on a diet.

She ended up here:

5'8", 114 lbs., BMI 17.4.

Please note that although Mindy's thinking and behavior were somewhat disordered (like, uh, practically every western woman's), she was not anorectic. She was just on a regular old diet, like millions and millions of regular women.

Please also note that according to the National Eating Disorders Association, the average top fashion model's BMI is 16.3. Mindy would have had to lose another 7 pounds to fit in with them.

The good news is, looking at that very photo made Mindy realize she'd gone too far. She knocked off the dieting, gained a whopping 11 lbs., and is now also our poster girl for the "normal" category.

Normal

Here's Mindy again at 5'8", 125 lbs., BMI 19:

That, my friends, is "normal."

Now, don't get me wrong -- for Mindy, it IS normal. She's healthy and beautiful at that weight, and it would be hard for her to get very much fatter if she wanted to. She's got beanpole genes going back a long way. But this is the category we are all supposed to aspire to. And how many naturally thin people do you know who are that thin?

Well, you're saying, Mindy's close to the bottom of the "normal" category. Surely, no one's suggesting I have to be that thin to be healthy?

So let's look at the bottom of the "overweight" category.

Overweight

That's my friend Laurie. 5'0", 130 lbs., BMI 25.4. Laurie would benefit from losing weight, if BMI standards are to be believed.

Laurie wears a size 4.

And now on to THE OBESITY CRISIS!

Obese

Here's Joy, whom you might remember from her Fat Rant:

Joy is not only "obese," but well into the obese category, at 5'8" and 224 lbs., with a BMI of 34.1. I asked her to be my first illustration of this category for two reasons.

1) Boobies!
2) Because there's a line in the obese category between a "high" risk of associated disease and a "very high" risk. Joy is under it.

Fillyjonk, one of my co-bloggers at Shapely Prose, is over it.

Fillyjonk is 5'7" and 225 lbs., BMI 35.2. One inch shorter than Joy and one pound heavier.

But she's gonna die sooner, evidently. Because of teh fat.

Extremely/Morbidly Obese

Take a minute to picture what you think "morbidly obese" looks like. Are you seeing one of the headless fatties used to illustrate every freakin' article on the "obesity crisis"? Are you seeing someone sitting on the couch stuffing her face? Are you seeing someone housebound, barely mobile?

Or are you seeing someone who looks like Sheana?

Sheana's 5'7" and 280 lbs., BMI 43.8. So don't get too attached to her. She could drop dead of a heart attack at any minute.

That's the reality of BMI, y'all. If you have trouble believing that people in the "overweight" category actually have the lowest mortality rate of all, check out the "overweight" people in this project. If you tsk-tsk at all the delusional fatties when you read that studies show a high percentage of "obese" people describe themselves as merely "overweight," check out the "obese" people. If you think it's impossible to be truly fat and truly happy, check out the "morbidly obese" people.

And remember this the next time you read an article on the "obesity crisis."

Scenes from Myanmar

Below is video [via Its my Right to be Left of the Center] of the continuing unrest in Myanmar. Dusty notes that the video "captures the shooting of the japanese journalist Kenji Nagai. ... They killed him because he was filming the protest..and nothing more. AP has a writeup here."

BlueMeme also has a good post thinking about "what is happening in Burma. The ruling party has shut out all outside journalists, and the internal state-controlled media are known to be worthless. But brave citizens have been blogging, sending phonecam videos and pictures and otherwise getting the story out. What you have in Burma, in a sense, is bloggers without journalists."

I Enjoy Being a Girl!

Maybe they can just build some menstruation huts behind the bleachers.

Carrying A Grudge

I haven't read Justice Clarence Thomas's memoir, My Grandfather's Son -- it goes on sale on Monday -- but according to a review in the Washington Post, he doesn't hold back.

Justice Clarence Thomas settles scores in an angry and vivid forthcoming memoir, scathingly condemning the media, the Democratic senators who opposed his nomination to the Supreme Court, and the "mob" of liberal elites and activist groups that he says desecrated his life.

[...]

They are the most extensive comments Thomas has made about Hill since his confirmation. Though he has given numerous speeches since he has been on the court, he has rarely mentioned Hill or spoken in detail about the nomination fight. In the book, Thomas writes that Hill was the tool of liberal activist groups "obsessed" with abortion and outraged because he did not fit their idea of what an African American should believe.

"The mob I now faced carried no ropes or guns," Thomas writes of his hearings. "Its weapons were smooth-tongued lies spoken into microphones and printed on the front pages of America's newspapers.... But it was a mob all the same, and its purpose -- to keep the black man in his place -- was unchanged."

Well, Justice Thomas is entitled to his opinions and his feelings, and I certainly agree that his confirmation hearings in 1991 were not the height of calm and deliberative advice and consent, but in the end Mr. Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court, which could probably be considered a vindication for him. Yet sixteen years later he's still seething, and I can't help but remember all that helpful advice the conservatives were so eager to dole out after a somewhat similar occurrence in 2000: "Move on, get over it, you lost, end of story." And, to his credit, the recipient of that advice, Al Gore, did put his humiliation and excoriation at the hands of the righties behind him. He didn't hole up in some dark garret and brood about the raw deal he got of winning the popular vote but losing the election, and the irony is that one of the people who had a hand in his loss was Clarence Thomas.

Not for nothing does Justice Thomas's continuing grudge make me wonder if somehow it might seep its way into the rulings and decisions he makes on the court. Does he vote with the conservative majority based on the law or does he allow his personal feelings of resentment play a part? Of course his defenders will say he is above that kind of ethical lapse, but he's human, and it's hard to believe that he can completely divorce himself from the simple fact that we are incapable of making decisions or seeing points without the color of our human strengths and failings. I hasten to say that that goes for everyone on the court, including the few remaining liberals. But such outspoken anger bordering on hatred makes you wonder.

It's a pattern among conservatives to carry their grudges forever regardless of whether they win or lose. Robert Bork, who was denied a seat on the Supreme Court in 1987, still makes a living off his contentious hearings and blaming his defeat on the same crowd Justice Thomas does, in spite of the fact that a number of Republicans, including Arlen Specter and John Warner, voted against him. He has since never failed to remind anyone who will listen that he was unfairly treated. Perhaps he was, but given his rather stark opinions on the rights of privacy and his minimalist view of the role of the judiciary (given the chance, it sounds like he would overturn Marbury vs. Madison), it's a very good thing he's not on the Court. But twenty years is a long time to grind an ax and perhaps he should just get over it. I'd give the same advice to Justice Thomas. It wasn't pretty, and I understand the hurt, but you got the job and you can't be fired.

The one thing that conservatives excel at is being the victims and sore winners. It's not pretty, but it does sell books.

Crossposted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Party of Moral Values

Rudy's biggest fundraiser was behind the electoral vote initiative in California; the McCain campaign uses active duty soldiers in uniform at a campaign event in violation of Defense Department regulations. Rock on.

Meanwhile, Digby answers the question "everybody's asking today":

"Why are the Republican front runners skipping all the debates sponsored by racial and ethnic minorities? That just doesn't seem smart." I think people just don't want to admit the obvious:

The Republicans are the party of racists.

None of the front runners are able to use the usual racial codes of being Southern good old boys, or evangelicals or even reliable "pro-life" conservatives so they are reduced to blatantly proving to the racist base of the Republican party that they are one of them by publicly snubbing blacks and Hispanics to win the nomination from the racist GOP base. They have to make explicit what others, like bush, could do obliquely by pretending to be a bubba when he was really a blue-blooded playboy.

It's tradition, bitchez.

The Virtual Pub Is Open

TFIF, Shakers!

Belly up to the bar
and name your poison!
As part of my annual "Here Comes Winter!" ritual, I had about a foot of hair chopped off this week, hence your virtual hostess debuting a new haircut this evening. (It's scary how I can always manage to find my exact hairstyle in a South Park avatar generator.) By next winter, the weed will be a tumbling mess once again. I guess I need a new author pic, too... Slàinte!

Bonus Two Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Congratulations Chicago Cubs, 2007 National League Central Champions!

'07 - '08 - '07? You never know.

Nice . . . erm . . . Boots

A couple of days ago, The Rotund had a little contest, in which she challenged readers to guess her height and weight. The inimitable Kate Harding cross-posted this to Shakesville, and let the games begin.

The entire exercise was, IMO, brilliant, and brought to awareness, for me, some very uncomfortable places I still have within myself vis-a-vis fat-phobia (like how I would be totally fine having someone else guess my weight, but I wasn't comfortable guessing someone else's). Back to fat-acceptance school for me.

I was struck, though, by something as I read through the various guesses -- the number of comments that included: "I love your boots", or "You have beautiful hair."

Maybe it's just me -- I'm not really a fashion maven (OK, I'm probably actually a fashion moron) -- but I found myself reacting just a little tiny bit every time I read one of these comments, because it seemed similar to me to some compliments that I've heard over and over again from people (directed toward me, or toward other fat people) -- compliments like "You have beautiful skin", and "She has such a pretty face". I don't think these compliments are necessarily completely false -- usually when they're doled out, I think they are genuinely well-meant, and are probably truthful (I do have beautiful skin).

But sometimes, I think these might be a version of "Thumper" compliments (as in: "If you can't say something nice... don't say nothing at all.") So, rather than make a compliment that would in any way bring notice to the fact that I'm fat (because they assume I'll be offended by that), they choose something safer.

I notice that I most often receive these types of compliments from some of my friends who haven't really "adjusted" to the fact that I am not the skinny little shit that I used to be (IOW: haven't dealt with their fat-phobia). I think they really want to give me a compliment -- maybe I'm looking particularly radiant at the moment -- but I often find that they will say something that seems to point directly at some aspect of my clothing, a specific feature of mine that doesn't relate to my size, etc. -- my favorite (not) is "You look good. Have you lost weight?" (which was, like, the third thing my mom said to me during our recent visit, even though I doubt if my weight has changed at all since I saw her last).

I notice that if I'm glowing in some undefineable way, my friends who are not fat-phobic usually say something like: "You look great!"

I notice that my mate frequently tells me, as we snuggle into the comforter and she wraps her arms around me and squeezes me tight: "I adore your body."

The irony here is, when I, a fat woman who is actively working on fat-acceptance, was challenged by a woman who is all about fat-acceptance to make a guess about her height/weight, I found myself in a cold sweat. I think part of it is that I don't really pay attention to "lbs. on the scale" and therefore, have no frame of reference from which to make an educated guess (and I do have this thing about being "wrong" -- I can admit it) -- but at least part of it was: That I didn't want to "offend" her by guessing too high, but I didn't want to be shit and guess low in order to "not offend" her.

So this post is a thank you to The (brave and fabulous) Rotund, and Kate Harding, for raising my consciousness (again).

(cross-posted)

Call a Cab, Douchebag

~~Conservative Wank Fantasy Jack Bauer~~ Actor Kiefer Sutherland was charged with drunk driving today in a case that could result in jail time—because, when he was arrested Tuesday, he was still on probation from another incident from 2004.

I don't actually have any reason to post this, except that it's a good excuse to note that Kiefer Sutherland is my favorite famous drunk of my generation. He's totally the Gen X Peter O'Toole. Evidence?

Pants down at Dimples karaoke bar in LA
But that's just the appetizer. Here's the entrée:

Transcript:

Voice Off-Camera: Hey, Kiefer. You're a pirate, man.

Kiefer: That would explain everything. [jumps into tree]

Fantastic.

Of course, as much as I adore his drunken antics, he either needs to get help and get sober or use some of his nonillions of dollars to hire a goddamned driver before he kills someone.

Quote of the Day

"I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."—John McCain, in an interview with BeliefNet.

(Thanks to Holly in Cincinnati for the heads-up on the article.)

Friday Cat Blogging

Well, I finally took some new pictures of the fuzzheadz of Shakes Manor, which was no easy feat. Matilda was insistent on hiding under the dining room table any time she saw me with a camera in my hand, and Olivia wouldn't sit still—which resulted in a lot of not good shots and one very cool one:

Olivia on the go.

Matilda peers out from under the table, looking nutz as usual.

Olivia sits still for one moment, before darting off again.

Matilda finally relaxes; looks away, tired of my posting "fuck you" shots, ha.

Happy Blogiversary...

...to The Bilerico Project, celebrating three years of everything LGBTQ!

(Sorry I was late, Bil!)

Republicans Propose Politically Expedient Solution to Iraq!

You've gotta feel for the moderate Republicans. It's September, and as we all know, the Republican moderates were totally going to save us on Iraq. But they didn't, and that's a problem. Not because of our soldiers dying in a pointless war -- heck, no! But a lot of them are up for reelection in 2008, and given that nobody actually supports the Iraq war, that's a problem.

So the moderates sat down, and by God, they've done something. They've come up with a proposal that will pull us out of Iraq...after January of 2009:

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., was among a group of Republican moderates championing a new compromise measure on the Iraq war. But the measure quickly drew brickbats from Democrats, including one of Coleman's challengers in 2008.

The proposal, authored by Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, would call for a withdrawl of troops from Iraq, but not until after President Bush left office in 2009. It would also push Bush to move the U.S. mission in Iraq to a support role. Coleman was listed as a co-sponsor of the measure, as were Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C. Coleman, Alexander, and Dole are all seeking reelection in 2008.

Problem solved! After all, when choosing a timetable to withdraw from Iraq, I think everyone agrees that the most important consideration is our nation's political calendar.

Of course, those Democrats were ungrateful as usual:

Democrats reacted with disdain to the proposal. In a statement given to Minnesota Monitor, Andy Barr, campaign chair for Democratic challenger Al Franken, said, "Minnesotans want an exit strategy for the troops, not for the president."

And Sen. Carl Levin, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, "To try to put this off until after the election, rather than a reasonable period of completion, I believe would be to unnecessarily introduce a political element to what is a bipartisan effort," according to the Associated Press.

Come on, Democrats! The Republican moderates have spoken! Their solutions are, by definition, very serious. I mean, sure, it's a transparent, naked political ploy designed to give GOP moderates political cover in 2008. But they're serious!

I look forward to what the next proposal will be. My guess? We withdraw from Iraq -- but only if Democrats admit that it's all their fault.

Friday Cat Blogging: Just Let Me Sleep Edition

Via CuteOverload

Note: This is not Moon and me at Chez Cowboy. The video is from this guy.

Party of Moral Values

Michael Rogers reports that two former officers of the College Republican National Committee, one of whom, Patrick T. McHenry, is now a Republican congressman from North Carolina, were shacked up from February 2001 to January 2002 in DC's Capital Hill neighborhood in a home they purchased together.

No story there, of course. Two young single guys often buy million-dollar homes together, right? Right.

What is a story, however, is that McHenry and ~~husband~~ co-owner Scott Stewart

received a $60,000 deduction off the property's assessed value for tax reduction purposes in the second half of 2001. In order to receive the tax reduction, homeowners are required to certify that the property is "occupied by the owner/applicant." The eligibility guidelines state that the "property must be the principal residence (domicile) of the owner/applicant."

At the same time he owned the home and claimed the deduction in DC, North Carolina Board of Elections records show that McHenry voted in Gaston County, NC. McHenry first cast a ballot in Gaston in November 1993. Subsequently, he voted in twenty different elections up through the November 7, 2006 General Election. On November 6, 2001 McHenry voted in a North Carolina polling location. On that date he was also receiving the Homestead Deduction on his DC property.

Oopsy! That sounds like voter fraud. The same kind for which good conservative Ann Coulter faced charges, as a matter of fact.

And that definitely is a story.

SNN Breaking News: Congress Still Sucks

Have a gander at what slipped through the cracks:

The Senate agreed on Thursday to increase the federal debt limit by $850 billion -- from $8.965 trillion to $9.815 trillion -- and then proceeded to approve a stop-gap spending bill that gives the Bush White House at least $9 billion in new funding for its war in Iraq.

Reach the debt ceiling? No problem! We'll just raise it so we can borrow more money! Wheeeeeee!

What's even more heinous than providing $9 billion more towards our favorite pastime, is how this measure passed. The Senate vote was 94-1 (1 = Russ Feingold), and the House passed it 404 to 14. That means everyone was in on this thing, tough talk notwithstanding.

Can someone please figure out a way for us to get a new government? PLEASE?!?

[H/T to ThinkProgress]

Catholic Church continues murderous rampage in Africa

This is why more and more people are listening to, and agreeing with the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. And also why believers are pulling away from organized religion in droves.

This one statement will lead to the death of countless. Archbishop Francisco Chimoio and every one at the Vatican, including the Pope, should be tried for murder. It's that simple. They have gotten a free pass on murder for far too long.

"S. African bishop: Condoms tainted with AIDS"

MAPUTO, Mozambique (Reuters) - The head of the Catholic church in Mozambique said on Wednesday he believed some European-made condoms were deliberately tainted with the HIV/AIDS virus to kill African people.

“I know of two countries in Europe who are making condoms with (the) virus on purpose, they want to finish with African people as part of their program to colonize the continent,” Archbishop Francisco Chimoio told Reuters.

“If we are not careful we will finish in one century.

“I also know some companies who are manufacturing anti-retroviral drugs already infected with the virus, also in order to finish quickly the African people,” Chimoio said.

He declined to name the European countries in question or the source of his allegations.

The Catholic Church, followed by 17 percent of Mozambique’s population, opposes the use of condoms.

“People must choose what they want between death and I propose to them that (abstinence) is the best way to fight HIV/AIDS,” Chimoio said.

More than 16 percent of Mozambique’s 19 million people, mostly economically active adults aged between 14 and 49, are infected with HIV/AIDS. About 500 infections are recorded every day, according to the health department.

--WKW

What a Croc

I was not a rebellious child. The truth is, due to a combination of parents who made pretty sensible rules and my disposition to follow pretty sensible rules, I didn't have much occasion for rebellion. That, however, doesn't mean I wasn't strong-willed; I was. I knew what I liked and what I didn't, and, if I didn't like a particular article of clothing, off it came. Anything too tight, too restrictive, uncomfortable, or in any way motion-limiting was off like a racehorse. This was especially true for shoes.

In fact, even to this day, I am barefoot as often as possible—despite my ardor for shoes. I consider socks a hateful bit of devilry, a necessary evil only to be engaged for hiking or traversing snow at least ankle-deep, otherwise given no truck or opportunity to deliver their vicious stranglehold on my freedom-desiring feet.

I recall several of my cousins—especially my most athletic cousin Julie—and not a few childhood friends being the same way; many of us ran around the neighborhood in our bare feet all summer. I also remember a seemingly endless number of little kids kicking off "fancy shoes" at church. And no wonder—those little black patent leather jobbies were no good for running around on the grass like a maniac burning off some energy between sitting in Sunday School and sitting in the church service.

All of this, by the way, is a very roundabout way of saying that I suspect if kids weren't able to do what they wanted to do in Crocs, they'd probably just kick them off.

But that's just me. The Chicago Tribune's John Kass (who Paul nominates as "most ridiculous columnist of the year," heh) evidently thinks that children just wear whatever they're given without complaint, even if it impedes what they want to be doing. And you know what that means—obesity crisis! And luckily he's got the co-founder of Unicus Fitness, which runs "boot camps for brides before weddings, and sports camps for young athletes," to give his totally unbiased opinion about kids' health, too. Ergo, Crocs must be banned.

There's a lot of blahdy-blah about muscle memory and legs that can't bend to support the call for this ban, but ultimately the argument rests on this: "And while some kids run all day in Crocs or wheelie shoes and are fit as fiddles, I suspect they're the exception rather than the rule."

Oh. Well. As long as you suspect it, that's all right then.

Never mind that this suspicion necessitates believing that the majority of children who want to run all day, but can't because of their stupid, stupid shoes, are too meek to take them off (and/or that there are tons o' kids who exist with a $30 pair of Crocs as their only shoes, I guess).

How on earth does this shit get published?

Meanwhile, over at Junkfood Science, Sandy Szwarc takes a look at the very interesting relationship between athletic shoe companies and the alleged obesity crisis: "Athletic shoe companies have been among the most active corporations working to convince the public that today's kids aren't physically active." Huh—what a shocker.

New Species Finally Identified In Senate

(Hypocriticae asshatus)
I know this is normally Quixote's area of expertise, but I just couldn't wait to share the news that has taxonomists worldwide rejoicing like never before.

For years, there have been unconfirmed sightings of these fungi, even as recent as a few months ago. The best that scientists could determine was that these organisms would sprout in darkly lit spots to secrete enough fluids to stick to a bill and hold it from passing. The biggest challenge was trying to find these suckers. With the grounds and ability to place these unidentifiable holds, even the least controversial bills would fall prey to these parasites.

But now, there's been a breakthrough.

Thanks to the signing of bill S.1, the grounds have changed, and now the Hypocriticae Asshatus can be easily spotted within six days from time of sprout:

SEC. 512. NOTICE OF OBJECTING TO PROCEEDING.
(a) In General- The Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate or their designees shall recognize a notice of intent of a Senator who is a member of their caucus to object to proceeding to a measure or matter only if the Senator--
(1) following the objection to a unanimous consent to proceeding to, and, or passage of, a measure or matter on their behalf, submits the notice of intent in writing to the appropriate leader or their designee; and

(2) not later than 6 session days after the submission under paragraph (1), submits for inclusion in the Congressional Record and in the applicable calendar section described in subsection (b) the following notice:
`I, Senator XXXX, intend to object to proceedings to XXXX, dated XXXX for the following reasonsXXXX.'.

And so, we've confirmed sighting of the most recent trouble maker, Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY). He is on record with objecting to HR1255, but of course we don't know why. This presidential records amendment, which has overwhelming support in the House (333 to 93), is meant to overturn Bush's ridiculous ass-covering executive order to limit access to records of ex-presidents. You can bet your bippy that once his worthless ass is out of town, he doesn't want anybody knowing what went on. That leads us to question what kind of deal is being worked out with Bunning to keep applying the brakes.

Either way, I'm particularly glad that secret holds are over and done, so that these despicable shitheads can't hide anymore while trying to pull a fast one. However, as Ellen Miller at Sunlight notes, we've quite a way to go before the crew in DC starts to feel shame at what they go through to keep secrets from everyone.

Kids are being indoctrinated*

Back in February, World Ahead Publishing was looking for manuscript submissions for a children's book about global warming. If you recall, this is what Eric Jackson (president of World Ahead) had to say:

“Since Scholastic and the UN are publishing kid’s books that represent the liberal view on global warming, we’d like to give concerned parents an alternative.Our company is calling on writers of children’s books to pick up their pens to support intellectual diversity. We’re inviting scientists, professionals and the public at large to submit thoughtful, well-documented manuscripts that present a balanced perspective on climate change.”

He also said that: "[N]uanced, logical thinking is seldom present in books written by liberal authors". Jackson and World Ahead Publishing are responsible for such nuanced and logical books, such as Help Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed. Well, anyway, they found their author and have published a book that "deal[s] honestly with the subject, utilizing provable facts about the nature of our changing world while debunking the fabrications, hysteria and anti-growth agenda propagated by the far left" (from actual their submission specs). Yep. It is called: The Sky's NOT Falling: Why It's OK To Chill About Global Warming.

In their press release, World Ahead says:

Los Angeles, CA (Sept. 28, 2007) -- School has started. Unfortunately, right along with it comes the usual indoctrination about the "threat" of global warming. Perhaps your kids are already saying…

* "I'm scared that every time I ride in the car, I'm hurting polar bears and other animals."

* "I'm afraid that people just like me are causing global warming."

* "I'm afraid that my favorite outdoor places are going to disappear."

Oooh, the liberal education system! Look at what it's doing to the children! The children, they are scared! Mean, evil liberal public school and its sinister agenda. We hates it! But, it actually gets better. And by better, I mean crazy:

Holly Fretwell, adjunct professor at Montana State University, mom of 2, natural resources allocation expert and author Sky's NOT Falling: Why It's OK To Chill About Global Warming knows that kids are getting an earful in school about global warming. Unfortunately, all too much of that information is misleading or just plain wrong.

The Sky's NOT Falling is the product of her concern not just for the environment, but for the millions of kids being handed an environmental bill of goods in class. As an educator, a mom and an optimist, Ms. Fretwell envisions a world that is wealthier, and so healthier for all. To get there, however, our kids need to become critical thinkers. And too much of what is passing for "truth" when it comes to the issue of global warming is anything but.

[...]

Bringing honesty and balance to the issue of global warming is why Holly Fretwell wrote The Sky's NOT Falling: Why It's OK To Chill About Global Warming. "I wanted to show kids the connection between our freedoms and environmental quality. It's those freedoms that let us choose the best methods when it comes to improving the environment, and it's those same freedoms that allow human ingenuity and creativity to be unleashed." It's also those same freedoms that we are may lose if we fall into the policy recommendations many advocate as a response to global warming.

...[T]o say that 'the science is decided' when it comes to the issue of global warming is just plain wrong. Author Holly Fretwell wants kids both to hear the truth and learn how to find it for themselves.

Let's look at Ms. Fretwell's credential of "natural resources allocation expert". Ms. Fretwell is a senior fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC). PERC used to be the "Political Economy Research Center". PERC, according to its site, is:

PERC (the Property and Environment Research Center) is a nationally recognized think tank focusing on market solutions to environmental problems. Founded in 1980, PERC is one of the pioneers of free market environmentalism.

We believe environmental quality can be achieved by managing our resources based on property rights, private initiative and voluntary activity. Free market environmentalism offers a genuine alternative to excessive government control and regulation.

Is it any wonder why World Ahead chose Ms. Fretwell? Anyway, here are their tenets:

Private property rights encourage stewardship of resources.

Government subsidies often degrade the environment.

Market incentives spur individuals to conserve resources and protect environmental quality.

Polluters should be liable for the harm they cause others.

Here are some of their research studies:

Fisheries
Ocean fisheries: Moving toward full property rights
Donald Leal

Public lands
Public lands: The surrealism of resource subsidies
Holly Fretwell

Other
Pollution easements
J. Bishop Grewe

According to this watchdog site:

PERC promotes "free-market environmentalism." Major issues include property rights and "reforming" the Endangered Species Act.

PERC is a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition and has been listed as a "networking participant" in the Alliance for America, the "wise use" umbrella group. Executive Director Terry Anderson was a member of George W. Bush's presidential campaign environmental advisory staff, as was current Secretary of the Interior and former PERC fellow Gale Norton. Kathryn Ratte of PERC addressed the Petroleum Association of America on "a more grassroots approach to telling the industry's story in the nation's public schools." She stated that the problem is that "politically correct environmentalism invaded U.S. public classrooms years ago, and is helping to hold the door shut on your message." Another problem is that "children resonate with environmental topics." Ratte recommended tailoring industry materials to all subjects, including language arts to get at students from all possible angles. Ratte also recommended that industry hold teacher workshops "in resorts or campuses in pleasant surroundings" to get educators to use their materials. At one point, the meeting turned into a fund raising event. The presenters recommended industry also form partnerships with organizations such as the Foundation for Teaching Economics and PERC because "If it has a corporate logo on it, it is propaganda... You need a foot in the door where somebody else is pushing he door open for you...The people best able to push open the door are non-profit education organizations that teachers already think of as being credible," reasoned Ratte (American Oil and Gas Reporter December, 1998).

Interesting, eh?

Yes, World Ahead chose an author who could present such an unbiased, honest, nuanced and logical point of view for their children's book, didn't they?

The goal of the book, World Ahead and Ms. Fretwell say, is to "educate not indoctrinate". If irony was gold, oh how wealthy they'd be.

*title of the press release email, I shit you not

Polish Women's Party Plays to Win

'The party of women. Poland is a woman.'
The Women's Party of Poland, a new political party founded by writer Manuela Gretkowska in response to the Polish government's threat to tighten already strict controls on abortion, has just released the above campaign poster ahead of national elections, featuring seven of its candidates, baring not just their skin but their seriousness of purpose.

The attention-grabbing move is making waves in staunchly Catholic Poland, where the ruling Kaczynski twins have pushed a fiercely conservative agenda.

"[The government's position on abortion] is the straw that broke the camel's back," [Gretkowska] said, adding that Poland's political scene was usually run by men for men.

…Ms Gretkowska hopes that the backing of some of Poland's most famous women could help push [the party] over the line and into parliament. If that happened, the Women's Party could become a key coalition partner after elections that none of the major parties looks like winning outright.

Its backing for equal pay for men and women as well as public funding for contraception would mark a major shift in Poland, where priests, not sexual-health practitioners usually set the political agenda.

It's extremely cool that there's even a Women's Party in Poland in the first place, no less that they're directly challenging the insane Kaczynski twins and the idea that Catholic priests are best suited to make reproductive decisions for women. But the remarkable audacity of these women to break through the male-only barrier in conservative Polish politics and call attention to their cause by publicly baring all is astounding. And Gretkowska will go to the mat with anyone who calls it exploitative.

"This poster is intended to shatter stereotypes in the anachronistic world of politics, which is more often dominated by uncommunicative men with their black tie outfits," she said.

"We are beautiful, nude, proud. We are true and sincere, body and soul. This is not pornography, there is nothing to see in terms of sex, our faces are intelligent, concerned, proud."

"We do not have our mouths open nor our eyes closed," she said.

Cheeky. (But damn insightful.)

I'm rooting for the Women's Party—and I hope they manage to storm into parliament, where their mouths will no longer have to remain shut and they can make their voices heard loud and clear.

[H/T Petulant.]

Friday Blogwhoring

Sock it to me, Shakers!

Recommended Reading:

Rachel: The West Virginia Hate Crime Case: May Be Even Worse Than Previously Reported

The Thin Black Duke: One, Two, KaPow!

S.Z.: George W. Bush Emails Me!

Madison Guy: Is the U.S. dollar the new Schrute Buck?

Tom Hilton: Out-of-State Butt-Munch Behind Electoral Vote Proposition

DCup: About That Dress

Canadian Anti-Same-Sex Marriage Group Gives Up

Five years after same-sex marriage became legal in Canada, the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada seems to have figured out that, as usual, the sky is not actually falling:

OTTAWA — The head of a national pro-family organization says it’s time to ditch the fight against gay marriage and push instead for tax breaks and other incentives to make marriage and child rearing more attractive options.

Dave Quist, executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, said Thursday he has become less concerned about same-sex marriage since census figures released earlier this month demonstrated how rare gay marriage is.

The census, which counted same-sex marriages for the first time, reported 7,465 such unions, accounting for about 0.1 per cent of the 6.1 million married couples in Canada.

Well, at least they've come to their senses. And really, I know several couples with young kids who could probably use some additional tax breaks. So, all's well that ends well, eh?

Oh, wait, no. What's this?

But Quist said the institute is now more concerned about the increasing popularity of common-law relationships in Canada, and that it would rather spend its time and resources encouraging measures to strengthen the institutions of marriage and the family.

He said a first priority should be to change the tax rules so only married couples — not those living common law — are allowed to split their incomes, thereby reducing their tax hit.

*sigh*

It's always something, isn't it? Some people just can't resist the temptation to butt in where they're not wanted.

Cross-posted at The Vanity Press.

Someone Fetch the Fainting Couch!

The American Conservative refers to Gen. David Petraeus as a "Sycophant Savior." The article by Andrew J. Bacevich says:

David Petraeus is a political general. Yet in presenting his recent assessment of the Iraq War and in describing the “way forward,” Petraeus demonstrated that he is a political general of the worst kind—one who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington’s bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes.

I'm sure that this will be condemned as well. I'm also sure that monkeys will fly out of my butt.

(Via Sully)

They Hate to Do It

The Senate passed the Matthew Shepard Act, which adds gays and lesbians to the list of those protected by hate crimes. That will make it interesting for President Bush to continue to threaten to veto it because he would also be vetoing the Defense Appropriations Act, which funds the Pentagon and the war in Iraq.

As Steve Reynolds at the All Spin Zone notes,

A few Republicans supported the Matthew Shepard Act, which protects gay and lesbian citizens from hate crimes, but Republicans like Lindsey Graham (suspected of being gay) say Bush will veto the bill. Larry Craig, of course, who is not gay, voted against the bill.

[...]

It may not be homophobia that drives the Republicans, anymore, but fear of the religious right. You gotta believe there’s going to be divine retribution from the Radical Religious Right against those Republicans who voted for the Matthew Shepard Act. In Larry Craig’s case, his motive appears to be a fear of losing power, or access to free travel and thus opportunities to visit restrooms all over the country.

The standard right-wing objection to hate crime legislation is two-fold; all crimes are hate crimes and therefore the punishment should be the same for any assault and not more so because the victim is gay, black, Jewish, or whatever. The second complaint is that laws against hate crimes are really laws that punish people for holding odious opinions about the protected people. (There's also the simple fact that the Republican party is pretty much anti-gay, and anything that gives the gay community any support is going to be voted down by them as a matter of course.)

As Melissa noted, hate crimes are not crimes against an individual but rather against an entire group of people. Gay-bashers or skinheads who beat up blacks or the homeless rarely know their victim personally; they pick them out because of the community they belong to, and it is an attempt to cower an entire group of people, regardless of their individuality. In other words, it's terrorism. And given the Republicans' embrace of the global war on terrorism, you would think that fighting terrorism, including protecting people from attacks for innate qualities such as sexual orientation would be on the top of their to-do list. After all, they have been screaming at us for the last six years that the highest priority in the country is fighting terrorism, and that should include terrorism of all stripes, including that which comes from the more outspoken and active members of the Religious Reich or just plain ignorant bigots. If President Bush vetoes this bill, as he has threatened to do, it will be because those frat boys who get drunk and stand outside gay bars and threaten patrons with pieces of one-by lumber, or the religious fanatics like Eric Rudolph who blow up abortion clinics, or David Koresh who impregnate eleven year old girls and murder ATF agents, or the all-American kids like Timothy McVeigh who blow up buildings aren't included in his definition of terrorism, nor is it by the people in the base of his party.

The idea that hate crimes are some sort of Orwellian attempt at thought control is bogus. No one is attempting to stop people from thinking bad thoughts about people, whether it's against a minority or queers or bimbos who talk on cell phones in their SUV's and don't use their turn signals. We are still free to think all the evil thoughts we want. The difference is when you turn a thought into an action and actually do something motivated by that thought. That removes it from the realm of idle musing and makes it a crime, and the law has recognized motive as a factor in both prosecution and sentencing for a very long time.

One final point: people who speak out against hate crime legislation have, strangely enough, rarely been the victim of a hate crime.

Crossposted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

The Woody Woodpecker Show

The Office Season Premiere Open Thread

ZOMG!!!!! We missed you.

Question of the Day

What's the one household item that you simply will not scrimp on under even the most severe circumstances? Round here, it's toilet paper. Luxury poo-roll is the last item to get crossed of the list.

Why Won't Republicans Condemn Rush Limbaugh?

So as you all know, there is nothing, and I mean nothing, worse than mocking a soldier, even if said soldier is the head of the debacle in Iraq. If there's one thing the beltway crowd has been clear on, it's that the whole MoveOn "Gen. Betrayus" thing was the most offensive thing in the history of offensive things, even more offensive than, oh, let's just pick something...let's say it's even more offensive than sending several thousand men and women to die in a war that we never should have been fighting in the first place.

I mean, that there is just being "tough."

Anyhow, given that there's nothing worse than smearing the troops, I'm sure we can expect the Senate to take up a resolution tomorrow condemning Rush Limbaugh:

During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, "Mike from Chicago," who said he "used to be military," and "believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq." Limbaugh told the second caller, whom he identified as "Mike, this one from Olympia, Washington," that "[t]here's a lot" that people who favor U.S. withdrawal "don't understand" and that when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, " 'Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.' ... 'Save the -- keeps the troops safe' or whatever," adding, "[I]t's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people." "Mike" from Olympia replied, "No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media." Limbaugh interjected, "The phony soldiers." The caller, who had earlier said, "I am a serving American military, in the Army," agreed, replying, "The phony soldiers."

Yeah! Phony soldiers, like these phony dead soldiers right here. I mean, sure they died in Iraq while serving in Iraq, where they were ostensibly soldiers, but still, they're anti-war -- so they're big phonies. Right, Rush?

So seriously: when will the beltway go ballistic on this? When will this smear on our troops -- an actual smear, mind you, on actual front-line troops, not an overheated headline attacking a general -- when will the Republicans condemn this statement? At least the Democrats care about our brave men and women.

In Memoriam

Hi Shakers, Cernig from The Newshoggers here. I've been graciously offered some space here by The Mgmt. to tell you about a bipartisan blog fundraiser in honor of the tragically-killed NYT op-ed writers Sgt. Omar Mora & Sgt. Yance T. Gray.

You probably recall that Sgt. Mora and Sgt. Gray were two of the writers of an op-ed in the New York Times which was highly critical of the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraqi occupation but which ended, even so, by saying "As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through." A week later, both were killed in a vehicle accident in West Baghdad.

Well, my good friend Kyle Moore at Comments From Left Field ended up in a conversation with Sgt. Gray's father after writing a blog post on the subject and...well...this in memoriam fund is what resulted. This is truly a bipartisan effort and it goes to a good cause. All funds raised will go to the Fisher House charity, an organization which builds houses near military medical facilities where loved ones of those who have been injured in the line of duty can stay free of charge while their service member undergoes necessary treatment.

Comments From Left Field and the Conservative Thinking blog are the co-creators of the fund and so far a whole slew of blogs, both Left and Right, have supported it with links and endorsements. I mean, how often would you expect to see Skippy and Newshoggers, Stop the ACLU and the Jawa Report on the same bloglist??!

With some great support, the fund blasted through its original target of $2,000 in just 24 hours and so they've decided to move the goalposts up to $10,000. I'm here today to ask you to help. If you own a blog, consider joining the list above. If you only read blogs, consider dropping a heavy hint in the comments of all your favorites today.

Thank you in advance, all who support and contribute to this memorial for two courageous servicemen.

Regards, C

Rotundity Revealed!

So, yesterday, I asked you all to guess this woman's height and weight:

So did she. There were a LOT of responses.

And quantities like "a LOT" should tell you exactly how scientific our analysis of the data was. Nevertheless, we made a fancy graph!

To be honest, I'm not even sure how you're supposed to read this graph, and I'm the one who made it. Here's what I do know: the white dot represents The Rotund's real height and weight. 5 feet, 3 and a half inches; 314 pounds. Everything that's not on the white dot? Is wrong.

We're both gonna analyze/laugh at the responses in-depth tomorrow, but right now, I need to give a shout out to DBK here and Nadai at The Rotund, who both proved wrong all the whiners claiming there was no way to tell how tall she was. 7 x a standard bathroom tile = 5'3" (Nadai), and 3 x a standard toilet = 5'4" (DBK). Since both of those are within half an inch of the correct answer, y'all who said there was just NO WAY TO KNOW can suck it. :)

Also, Rachel from The F Word and cp both guessed the same and damn near nailed it. I don't think anybody got closer.

Lowest weight guessed was 140 lbs. Highest was 345. Lowest height guessed was 4'8"; highest was 5'11". But the very best part is the range of answers that started with, "You look like exactly me, so I'll guess..." Those started at 5'7"/180 and ended at about 5'10"/310. I'll be talking about those tomorrow.

For the record, I've known for a long time that The Rotund weighs over 300 lbs., but until recently, I thought she was about 5'8". And I probably would have guessed she weighed about 280 if I hadn't known to go higher.

Mind not blown enough yet? Check out the Photographic Height/Weight Chart.

Newsflash

Chris Matthews still an enormous misogynist douchebag.

The Glorious Fourth Amendment

A federal judge has ruled that parts of the USA PATRIOT Act are unconstitutional.

In a case brought by a Portland man who was wrongly detained as a terrorism suspect in 2004, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Patriot Act violates the Constitution because it "permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."

"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law -- with unparalleled success," Aiken wrote in a strongly worded 44-page opinion. "A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised."

The ruling in Oregon follows a separate finding on Sept. 6 by a federal judge in New York, who struck down provisions allowing the FBI to obtain e-mail and telephone data from private companies without a court-issued warrant. The decision also comes amid renewed congressional debate over the government's broad powers to conduct searches and surveillance in counterterrorism cases. Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said last night that the administration "will consider all our options" in responding to yesterday's ruling.

I'm curious as to what the Justice Department thinks those "options" might be. I'm not a lawyer, but I have read the Constitution and I'm pretty sure I'd remember if there was a part that said the Bill of Rights could be suspended without due process, and I'm also wondering how the government will now define "probable cause."

In this particular case, the government has basically conceded that they screwed up and have settled with the plaintiff.

Aiken's ruling came in the case of Brandon Mayfield, a lawyer who was arrested and jailed for two weeks in 2004 after the FBI bungled a fingerprint match and mistakenly linked him to a terrorist attack in Spain. The FBI used its expanded powers under the Patriot Act to secretly search Mayfield's house and law office, copy computer files and photos, tape his telephone conversations, and place surveillance bugs in his office using warrants issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

In a settlement announced in November 2006, the U.S. government agreed to pay $2 million to Mayfield and his family and it apologized for the "suffering" that the case caused him. But the pact allowed Mayfield to proceed with a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the Patriot Act, resulting in yesterday's ruling by Aiken, who was nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

So while it's not a huge surprise that the court ruled against the PATRIOT Act, it is gratifying to know that there are still courts that recognize the power of the Constitution over the unitary executive.

I'm sure there will be the usual rants and carrying on from the righties about "activist judges" taking the law into their own hands. At the risk of reminding them of the blantantly obvious, the purpose of the judiciary system -- which is still a co-equal branch of the government -- is to interpret and enforce the laws. So unless you think that putting the Fourth Amendment to use in its intended purpose is somehow judicial "activism," in which case you really need to go back to high school and re-take that government class you slept through, the federal court and Judge Aiken did exactly what they were supposed to do.

And more chinks are going to be found in the armor of that odious law.

Crossposted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Edwards Accepts Public Financing

Just recently, we had a discussion about shortened election cycles which also led to considerations about public financing. Today, John Edwards became the first of the Democratic frontrunners to accept public financing.

Former Sen. John Edwards Thursday said he will accept public financing for his presidential campaign, and challenged his chief rivals for the Democratic nomination, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to follow his lead.

"This is not about a money calculation," Edwards told CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley on his way to an event in Durham, North Carolina. "This is about taking a stand, a principled stand, and I believe in public financing."

Right on.

Well, Look What's Crawling Out...

"There is a major white supremacist backlash building," said Mark Potok, a hate-group expert at the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group in Montgomery, Ala. "I also think it's more widespread than may be obvious to most people. It's not only neo-nazis and Klansmen—you expect this kind of reaction from them."

The mayor of Jena, who says his town is being portrayed unfairly, allowed himself to be interviewed by the leader of a white supremacist organization. What the hell? I mean, my God! Talk about irony.

I'm late posting about this—see Kevin's post (by the way, is anyone appreciating the truth of Elliott's law like I am?):

As an online discussion concerning race grows longer, the probability of a person referencing Martin Luther King, Jr. as a means to justify their racist and/or ignorant attitudes approaches one.

If I read one more "What would Dr. King think..." from someone questioning support of the Jena Six (and who doesn't know anything more about Dr. King than what s/he hears in soundbites) I might insert my fist through this damned monitor.

-----------------

[I'm a newly-minted PhD, a still-aspiring historian of the United States in the 20th century. More specifically, I study black women's and labor history in the post-World War II South. I'm currently in the middle of adjusting to my first year as a visiting assistant professor of history. Still, my most challenging job by far is mothering a bright, opinionated nine-year-old boy. I blog at elleabd.blogspot.com. Yes, it seemed like the ABD status was permanent!]

Slug v Snake

I saw this over at Chris' place yesterday and just loved it. Today, I was thinking, sometimes it pays to just be a fat, happy slug and let the venomous attackers try to do their worst until they tire themselves and move on. Ahem.

[Click for explanation.]

Caption This Photo

Yodawg.

[Thanks Shaker Kate217!]

And my acne cleared up, too

The recent and relative quiet from this corner of Blogsville is due to a handful of factors. Firstly, I've been fairly busy at, ah, you know, the place where most of the blogging gets done. Additionally, I've been doing more non-blog-type writing; I've found that this tends to bleed off a lot of the energy that would otherwise go into the web stuff.

There's a third factor, though, which is actually intentional rather than incidental: I've been on a bit of a political fast, and I have to say that I'm really enjoying it.

Just about all of the feeds in my RSS aggregator are politiblogs of some stripe or other, and I've studiously ignored nearly all of them over the past week. As for political news in the regular ol' mainstream media, I've avoided it. Sunday morning bobblehead shows? Ha! Blew 'em off!

The result? I've lost nearly three pounds!

Okay, it's more like two pounds, but it's the non-physical consequences that have been more interesting.

For me, political stuff has always been the most common blogging topic because it's so easy, what with the war(s) and the malfeasance and the crimes against liberty and stuff. All you need is indignation bordering on gamma-fueled rage, and you're good to go. Lord knows, though, that there's no dearth of politibloggers, most of them much better at it than I am. One more source of such editorials - or one less - shouldn't really matter all that much. As Yama, God of Death, once said in the ultra-cool Roger Zelazny novel, Lord of Light:

There are leaves and feathers enough in the world for me to have labored so long only to increase their number.

What Yama said.

I once worked at a somewhat dysfunctional business where every day was a new adventure in stress. One of my coworkers ruefully reflected on the effects of this environment on her own personality. "Honestly," she insisted as much to herself as to me, "I'm not like this." This, of course, being the tense, oft-irritated person that she was from nine to five. She was right. And she left. So did I, much later, but then I'm a slow learner.

There's something to be said for not being angry all the time. Hmp. Fucking anger.

Also, it's a lot quieter these days inside the cranium, astonishingly so. It's rather like those car commercials where the driver (or invisible narrator) demonstrates how much NVH (Noise, Vibration, and Harshness) is blocked by the vehicle's QuietSteel construction. Very pleasant, I must say. There's been mental space to think about other things, which is timely, since I really need to to be thinking about those other things, many of which are important in the personal sphere.

Of course, it's not desirable nor even possible to permanently divorce oneself from things political, since that aspect of life is woven into everything else. The LaVena Johnson situation, for example, will be with me for some time to come. Perhaps this is less about avoidance of politics than about formulating an alternate approach to the political. Or to, uh, life. Well, we'll see about that. For now, I just think I'll be doing less political opining in future.

For all the beneficial aspects of this path, I do wonder: When so much of your online persona has been devoted to one thing and then you substantially reduce that one thing, then who are you?

The eight-ball says, "Ask again later."

Hmp. Fucking eight-ball.

(Not a good-bye, cruel world cross-post. Honest.)

Focus on Myanmar and Action Items

"More than 100,000 people flooded the streets of Myanmar's biggest city on Monday, joining Buddhist monks in the strongest show of dissent against the ruling generals in nearly two decades. In swelling tides of humanity, two major marches snaked their way through the nation's commercial capital led by robed monks chanting prayers of peace and compassion, witnesses said."

* * *
That was Monday. This is today:

Nine people have been killed amid a crackdown on anti-government protesters in Burma's main city of Rangoon, state television reports.

It said the dead included eight protesters and a Japanese man, later identified by Japan's APF News as a video journalist. Eleven demonstrators and 31 soldiers were injured, state media said. The deaths came on the 10th day of protests, led by the country's Buddhist monks, against Burma's military rulers.

The monks are leading a protest against Myanmar's (Burma's) military rulers—"three generals wielding almost absolute power"—whose decision to double the price of fuel last month triggered the current protests, as the people of the impoverished nation simply could not bear the increase. The proverbial camel's back was broken.

The peaceful protests have inevitably been met with the iron fist of the generals, with raids on monasteries and arrests of members of the National League for Democracy, the pro-democracy protest party founded by 62-year-old political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi, an amazing and interesting figure, whose National League for Democracy won elections in a landslide almost two decades ago, but was never allowed to assume power. The daughter of Burmese independence hero Aung San, who was himself assassinated, Suu Kyi is beloved by the people of Myanmar and known as "The Lady."

Ordinary Burmese regard her with a reverence that the regime has never been able to reduce, despite regularly denouncing her — although rarely by name — as a tool of foreign powers.

Instead, seeing a foreigner on the streets of Rangoon, people will discreetly approach, whisper "I like The Lady", and move on before they are seen holding a conversation.

…She is the world's only detained Nobel peace prize laureate, having spent 12 of the last 17 years in various forms of custody, but has always insisted on non-violence as the way to "freedom from fear", the title of one of her books.

"It is not power that corrupts but fear," she said. "Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those subject to it."

And fear now grips Yangon:

Red-robed Buddhist monks who had led several days of marches were largely absent from the streets Thursday after soldiers raided monasteries the night before. Monks reportedly were beaten and taken into custody or confined to the monasteries.

"This morning, around noon, we went around the city and we saw that most of the monasteries were locked and we saw some of the monks inside," the American witness said. "So the government is keeping them locked because they don't want them to go out and protest anymore."

She said the soldiers used batons, rifle butts and riot shields to beat the protesters.

"It was a crowd of, I would say, around 2,000 people, between 2,000 and 3,000 people today, and they ... put 10 monks in front of them as a human shield. But the police didn't care. They just came and started even beating the monks," she said.

Streets that had been jammed with as many as 100,000 protesters were deserted by 6 p.m. after the violent crackdown, the witness said.

"Right now it's a ghost town. I mean, nobody's outside. Everybody is so afraid," she said.

Everybody is afraid. She went on to plead for help from the international community: "Please, these people need help. It's inhumane what's happening here."

In a risky phone call to CNN from the heart of the protests, a Myanmar citizen who asked not to be named for security reasons described a deteriorating scene in the streets.

"People are shot and they are running. The soldiers shoot the people...some people are walking on the street and shouting," she said, adding she witnessed government troops shooting a man.

"No one can help us. We have no weapons," she said over a bad connection. The military junta "have weapons and they are doing what they want. We have no rights."

She, too, appealed to the international community.

"We don't want that kind of government. Who can help us? Who can help us? I want (United Nations) or many nations to help us," she said before the line cut out.

Find out what you can do to help here and here.

Here is a list of companies to avoid supporting because they do business in Burma, and it is "impossible to conduct any trade or engage in other economic activity with Burma without providing direct or indirect support, mostly financial, to the military junta," who allow all manner of human rights and labor abuses, and utilize sexual violence as a means of control.

Trapped in the bunker

He crawled out of the bunker and look skyward. Taking a deep breath, he again checked the gauges. The coast was clear.

It had been a long, torturous haul. The incessant boredom had nearly driven him mad. His wife had left him, taking their child. His career was over.

But he had survived. He had outlasted Xenu.

"Tom Cruise plans $10 million underground bunker to prepare for end of world"

Devout Scientologist Tom Cruise plans to build a $10 million bunker under his Telluride, Colorado, mansion, a source tells Star! Equipped with a high tech air-purifying system, "it'’s a self-contained underground system where up to 10 people can survice for years." Apparently, Scientologists believe that the evil deposed galatic [sic] ruler Xenu is set to attack Earth, and they’ll need a safe place to survive.

In other Cruise news, it appears he's getting his wish of being a Nazi in Germany.

--WKW