"You know, when I was running for president, in Chicago, somebody said, would you ever have deficit spending? I said, only if we were at war, or only if we had a recession, or only if we had a national emergency. Never did I dream we’d get the trifecta."
- George W. Bush
Why do the nut cases want to follow me around Oh Lord?
Ladies and Gentleman. Children of all ages. I can't tell you how thrilled I am to present my own personal moron, Andrew Langer. This guy followed me all the way from Usenet, so you know he must miss my particular brand of abuse.
Before we get to the meat of the matter let me tell you a bit about my friend here. Andrew Langer worked (or still does for all I know, or care) for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) as their "Associate Director of Development" (whatever the hell that is). CEI is one of a long line of Libertarian think tanks that is more interested in spin than science. I had the misfortune of running across Andy as cross-posted articles ran like mad in a variety of newsgroups, including sci.skeptic, sci.environmental, and alt.politics.libertarian. This was during the infamous John Stossel report on the dangers of organic food. You might remember that report because Stossel ended up having to apologize for getting the majority of the it completely wrong. CEI put together a totally stupid website defending John Stossel and his totally innocent "mistake". It was all an attack by liberals who simply hated John. More on this next week, I don't want this to get too long, but suffice to say that Andrew Langer is a spinner, nothing more. You can find Andy's home page here. You can find out more about his work for CEI here. Thanks to Media Transparency we can see what kind of groups donate to CEI. More on CEI next week.
I thought I had left Andy well behind when I stopped posting to Usenet, but like the proverbial bad penny, he has shown up once again. My first contact was a simple email asking why I stopped posting to Usenet, which as I have explained here before was a combination of idiots (one comes to mind was the well-respected skeptic that claimed the Democratic party was a hate group...seeing that we had real members of real hate groups posting to sci.skeptic, I took umbrage at that remark. Funny enough he refused to discuss it with me) and a lost internet connection due to having to leave the state for a job. I expressed surprise that of all the people I knew on Usenet, that he would be the one to contact me. A lot of the people I debated on usenet were smart, on the ball, and had a fine awareness of the world around them, in spite of our differences of opinion. A few (and I admit it was a very few) I even admired. Andy was definitely not one of those people. I had (and have) a great deal of contempt for people like Andy Langer. Andy is an ideologue, who never met a fact he could not dispute. In the short time I debated him (I think about four, maybe five months) he claimed that Al Gore wanted to do away with the internal combustion engine, that the California energy crisis was brought about by those nasty environmentalist who refused to allow more power plants to be built, and that global warming was simply nonsense. And that is just off the top of my head! I will be sure to dig up some of the old posts on sci.environmental next week. Just so you can get the flavor of this clown.
When I wrote him back I made sure to invite him not to write me again, but Andy has never really respected other people's desire to have nothing to do with him. I got his second piece of email yesterday, in response to my article about Mark Foley and the totally gutless way he is hiding his sexuality. This is classic Andy. Watch as he expresses ignorance of the subject. Watch as he spins, spins, then spins some more. Watch CEI's own "Associate Director of Development" make an amazing fool of himself.
Dominion -
Just finished reading your Blog regarding the attempted outing of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) and your contrasting of that story with the story of the student who was assaulted in your daughter's high school. I tried posting my comments to your post through your comments section, but was having some problems (with message length, and with my subsequent attempts to bifurcate that post). So I thought I'd just e-mail you directly.
Leave it to Andy to be confused by a simple commenting window on a blog. If you go to look at his comments, you will notice he posted part II ... twice. I guess once was not just not enough.
I take issue with a number of things in your post, and I want to say at the start that I have no real opinion of Congressman Foley either way, nor am I anti-gay. I have no problem with what someone else does as a matter of their sexuality, so long as it causes no harm to me or to anyone else for that matter. Nor do I condone the actions of violence of anyone in a position where they are teaching or supervising children, regardless of the sexuality of those children. The only time I would accept any act of violence by a supervisory adult would be in the act of self defense. (This way you can't accuse me of being anti-gay, anti-children, or pro-violence)
The obligatory "Really I Am A Nice Guy" spin that is so beloved by a whole host of think-tank authors. I wonder of oh-so-tolerant Andy would care to share his thoughts making such assaults "hate crimes"?
But on to my concerns with your post:
1) The tone and tenor of your article lead one to believe that nothing will come of the alleged assault. The fact is, police _ARE_ investigating the allegation, and the school district has reassigned the accused teacher's aide while internal and external investigations are pending. We don't know what is going to happen, and until final action is taken, complaining that the outcome hasn't been to your satisfaction is illogical;
See what I mean? What does Andy know of this situation? He does not live in Houston, he doesn't have a kid going to Westbury High School. Hell I doubt he has read much more than what I posted, though in fairness there is not a lot of information out there. Still even now, there have been no charges filed against the teacher's aid. The very least he should have been charged with assault, yet he has not been charged with even that. Nor is it in anyway "illogical" (Oh Andy, please do yourself a favor and go look up the word "logic". Perhaps then you will be less likely to call something "not logical" when it has nothing to do with "logic") to express dissatisfaction at the way things have been handled. Even if at this late date he is charged with assault, the last day of school was yesterday. It might have benefited the gay students attending Westbury to know that their school would take a very dim view of their public assault by teacher's aids. Since Andy is so tolerant and he is so against "acts of violence by a supervisory adult", one simply has to wonder why he seems to be satisfied that this particular supervisory adult was not arrested that very day. Bottom line Andy, this adult beat up a kid. Why would anyone expect anything less than arrest? Even if it had nothing to do with the student being gay, he still beat up a student. You claim that you do not "condone the actions of violence of anyone in a position where they are teaching or supervising children, regardless of the sexuality of those children (hell let's just say for any reason whatsoever)". Yet you are content to know that the school district is investigating and that he has been moved to a position where he has no contact with children. You are content that nothing more has been done. Methinks your denial of being "anti-gay, anti-children, or pro-violence" ring just a tad hollow.
Just to put this in the proper perspective...Westbury has a zero tolerance policy for school violence. If you are student and are caught fighting, not only will you be expelled, they will call the cops, and you will be arrested. This is a policy I totally agree with, going to high school is hard enough without having to worry about getting your ass kicked by the school bully. Yet an adult in a position of authority beats up a student and the worse that happens to him is reassignment and investigation? Bah.
2) You seem to come to the conclusion (based on what, I do not know) that Rep. Foley _IS_ gay, even though this has only been a subject of rumor and innuendo, and that his protestations to the contrary are "gutless". If, in point of fact, he isn't gay, how can a denial of that be a sign of cowardace?
One of Andy's biggest problems is his desire for other people to do his homework for him. If I were Andy, I would be totally embarrassed to express so much ignorance about a subject I chose to expound on, but one thing I have learned about the guy is that ignorance has never stopped his gob from running away from his brain.
Guess what Andy, Mark Foley is gay. It is the most open secret in Washington and you really do have to be profoundly ignorant not to know this. So if, point in fact, he is gay how can refusing to discuss the matter be brave? Consider, Mark Foley is not really trying to keep his sexuality secret. He has been in a committed relationship for 18 years, something he should be commended for (and makes his vote for DOMA even more odious). The only reason he refuses to discuss it is because he knows that would sink his chances of being elected to the Senate.
Andy you should have learned by now your spinning simply does not work with me. In fact, Foley did not deny he was gay, he refused to discuss it. Think Andy, though I know that is a chore for you. If Mark Foley would have said "Don't be stupid, I am not gay", he would have been lying and he knew it. And he knew that there were people out there that could prove it. So he takes the chicken way out. He does not admit it, he does not deny it, he simply says "I won't discuss it". Bah. Andy, just how many committed heterosexual do you know that refuse to discuss their heterosexuality?
3) The fact is, it _IS_ a reprehensible tactic to try and portray someone as gay as a political tool, as Rep. Foley's opponents are doing. They know that in a state with strong religious conservative leanings (both in the bible-belt northwestern part of the state, and in the traditional catholic Carribean and Central American portions of the southern part of the state), that this would not play well with important portions of the electorate.
Talk about being illogical. Sheesh Andy this would hold true if Mark Foley was not gay. But he is. Far from being "portrayed" as being gay, he is being taken to task for hiding the fact that he is gay. No one is trying to "portray" Mark as anything other than he is! And since, as you point out, he is running for the Senate in a state with "strong religious conservative leanings" don't you think the good people of the State deserve to know if they are electing a homosexual or not?
4) How can you possibly support a tactic which invades someone's privacy, and is, in fact, attempting to play on the homophobic fears of what Florida's Democrats hope is a core constituency in the upcoming senatorial elections? In fact, there is something inherently bigoted in the Democrats' attempts to play the "sexuality card".
More stupidity from Andy. Do you see why he get's tiresome so fast? Tell me Andy, are you really advocating that politicians not be honest with those that would elect them? Do you not think that Mark's sexuality is an issue? If being homosexual is a good enough reason not to vote for someone, do I not have a right to know?
Can the spin Andy, it was not Democrats that outed Mark and I challenge you to name one official in the Florida Democratic Party that has discussed Mark Foley's sexuality. Let us remember that the first person to bring it up was (of course) a right wing Republican:
...in 1994, during the unmarried Foley's maiden run for Congress (after he had served as a Lake Worth city councilman and state senator). His right-wing opponent in the Republican primary, John Anastasio, a Port St. Lucie attorney, sent out mailings alleging that Foley was gay, basing the information on a clipping from a gay publication. None of the big daily newspapers reported on Anastasio's claim (though the Palm Beach Post did write that Anastasio was spreading "hate and lies").
"I felt it was a valid issue back then because here was an underground, Log Cabin Republican running in a very conservative district," Anastasio
Now does Anastasio have a point? If he is running in such a conservative backwood that they would never consider electing a homosexual do they not have a right to know if Mark Foley is gay?
You state, "He belongs to a political party that because of it's ass kissing of the religious right creates an acceptable atmosphere for teacher's aids to beat up openly gay high school students. He belongs to the party that would allow one of it's members to compare gay men and women to dog fuckers, sister fuckers, and corpse fuckers without fear of censure. He belongs to a party that would insure that people like Mark Foley does not have a right to a job, a home, and a safe environment."
What of the Democrats, Dominion? What of those who violate a man's privacy rights in order to paint him as something he isn't, so that they can pander to homophobes and religious conservatives?
Tell me that you are not really comparing the discussion of Mark Foley as to whether or not he's gay with Rick Santorum's statement that homosexuality was on par with dog fucking, sister fucking and corpse fucking? Because only a complete moron would try to compare the...oh but I did forget to whom I was talking. Never mind.
By the way Andy is Is IS! He's gay. Damn you keep making these points that would be valid if not for the fact that Mark Foley is gay. Get used to it. The fact that Mark is gay just makes you look totally stupid.
That's not courage. Not in the slightest.
I agree Andy, it ain't courage...but it is the truth.
And what's more, your taking to task of Rep. Foley for the Defense of Marriage Act ignores his pro-gay rights record, as outlined here:
In this article, the author simply accepts the conjecture of others as fact, without a shred of proof. On the other hand, what is clear is Rep. Foley's record on gay rights:
Indeed I did ignore it, it was not part of my point. The fact is that he played a sop for one of the worse pieces of legislation that has come down the pike in a long time. His excellent voting record on gay rights issues does not distract from his politically expediency in voting for this piece of crap.
On April 26, Sun-Sentinel columnist Buddy Nevins wrote that Foley's Senate bid might fail solely because of his gay-rights votes...Foley has had a very strong voting record on gay-rights issues, backing antidiscrimination legislation, increased AIDS funding, and medical coverage for domestic partners. He counts the pro-gay Human Rights Campaign as one of his largest political contributors, though the vast majority of his campaign money comes from medical, real estate, insurance, and Wall Street interests."
Oh man, look at all these ellipses, you just know Andy is up to something when he uses that many dots. Here let's flesh this out for those who just came in:
On April 26, Sun-Sentinel columnist Buddy Nevins wrote that Foley's Senate bid might fail solely because of his gay-rights votes. What Nevins didn't bring up was that the congressman himself is gay, and the avoidance of that giant, pink elephant in the room gave the column an almost surreal feel, like a throwback to 1950s television censorship, when Elvis had no legs and Lucille Ball couldn't say she was pregnant.
Now lets skip down 21 paragraphs to pick up the rest of the quote! Seesh Andy, did you think I would not read it? Nor is it correct to say that the "the author simply accepts the conjecture of others as fact" you nitwit. He called people that knew Foley, the most important one being quoted above. Or is having an eye witness meet your S.O not good enough for Andrew Langer?
The Sun Sentinel, which apparently started this controversy (ironically in an article which discussed _ANTI_ gay groups' attempts to derail his candidacy), goes even further on Foley's pro-homosexual agenda:
"Foley, R-West Palm Beach, is the perfect Republican primary candidate except for one aspect of his voting record: gay rights.
"He has a terrific record on gay rights, better than many Democrats. That could be a problem among some Republicans...
"Currently, Foley gets an 83 percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign. That's the best of any Florida Republican in the House. Six of the 15 GOP members who were rated got a zero score. U.S. Rep. Clay Shaw, whose Fort Lauderdale-based district contains many gays and lesbians, got a 33 percent rating."
Which makes his vote for DOMA even worse you moron! Note also from the article you quoted above (which you hide with the dishonest use of that poor ellipse):
Since his much-maligned support for DOMA, Foley has had a very strong voting record on gay-rights issues, backing antidiscrimination legislation, increased AIDS funding, and medical coverage for domestic partners. He counts the pro-gay Human Rights Campaign as one of his largest political contributors, though the vast majority of his campaign money comes from medical, real estate, insurance, and Wall Street interests.
Get it Andy? Since his much-maligned support for DOMA. It is a good healthy dose of hypocrisy to support gay rights after you have voted for so ignorant a piece of trash like DOMA. In my opinion (and only my opinion) the two don't equal out.
I have to say, in the end, that your skeptical portrayal of Rep. Foley (and of the assault of a student in your daughter's school) makes me, well, skeptical. And I'll be very interested to see whether or not you post my e-mail to your blog.
- Andrew Langer
Oh Andy, when have I ever passed up an opportunity to make you look like an idiot?
I promise more about Andy Langer next week, but my niece graduates this weekend so I will be down in Austin dancing in the audience just as I promised her. Have a great weekend!
Washington, May 29 /PRNewswire/ -- Nationally syndicated radio columnist Andy Martin, the only announced 2004 Republican Party candidate for U.S. Senator from Florida, will hold a telephone news conference in Washington, DC, Friday May 30th at 2:00 P.M. to ask Congressman Mark Foley to withdraw as a U.S. Senate candidate.
Foley caused a firestorm last week when he called a news conference to comment on rumors he is gay -- and then refused to discuss the topic.
"It's truth telling time," Martin states. "Foley lied when he said Democrats were smearing him. The truth is Foley's own party and the White House did not want Foley as the candidate. Foley insisted on fighting to stay in the race for U.S. Senator and gave his 'Checkers speech.' It didn't work. Mark self-destructed.
"As usual, the cover-up and the lie are what doomed Mark, not his private life. U.S. Senators do not have 'private lives.'
"Thursday I am flying to Washington to meet with Republican Party leaders and to 'claim the prize.' We are doing a phone conference Friday because we are still scheduling appointments and do not know where in Washington we will be Friday afternoon. My only remaining opponent, Bill McCollum, has run and lost. He is a Washington lobbyist and power peddler. I represent the people of Florida."
But remember boys and girls, it is the Democrats that are using the "sexuality card". Right Andy?
Back in January you might remember me posting a piece of email from Jim Daly, webmaster of the Seminole County Republican Executive Committee's (SCREC) website. It was one of those pieces of tripe that seem to excite Republicans to no end. It makes no sense except to say "I am a selfish bastard so fuck you very much." For those who can't remember (or who were not reading this blog at the time) you can read it in all it's glory here.
Well ol' Jim sent it out again. Now the first time he sent it he did not credit any particular person with these thoughts, just something he read and agreed with. This time was different. This time Jim decided to blame it on poor Andy Rooney:
This has been around before but worth rereading. Andy Rooney said on 60 minutes a few weeks back: (for those of you that don't know Andy Rooney, he is an 82-year-old U. S. TV commentator)
Wait a minute. Andy Rooney said on 60 Minutes "think the police should have every right to shoot your sorry ass?" Really? I found that almost impossible to believe. I mean, don't get me wrong, I am not a huge admirer of Andy Rooney (a person that makes a living by telling me their morality is the right morality leaves me a bit cold), but I simply could not imagine Andy Rooney saying "ass" on television. So I did something that Jim Daly did not bother to do. Try to find out just whom in the hell wrote this.
The first thing I found was that it had also been credited to George Carlin, which was a bit easier to believe. Carlin often does monologues where he riffs on different subjects having an overall theme (in this case "I am a bad American"). Still one of the hallmarks of a George Carlin riff is that ultimately it's funny! George Carlin is a master of the English language. Whoever wrote this was obviously not. Nor can I quite believe that George Carlin would ever say things like "I think that if you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion."
So who did write it? Well it turns out that the person who wrote it is exactly the type of person that you would expect . . . a freeper. Yes that's right the person that penned these words (with a lot of modification over time) is known as bootyist-monk. He wrote this in response to an email a Democrat friend of his sent of a list of how to be a "good Republican." You can read it by clicking here. Compare it with the one I got in January to see how different they are. In fact, the mail I got yesterday is different from the one I got in January. Isn't it amazing how these things grow? Even bootyist-monk recognized that this was happening.
It is always amazing to me how quickly people want to jump on the bandwagon without first checking to see just who is driving the wagon. Such is the case of Jim. If he admits this was just a rant from some yahoo on "Free Republic" it will not carry the weight of Andy Rooney saying the same thing on a national television broadcast. No matter how stupid making that claim may be. No, I don't think Jim started this particular piece of crap, after all bootyist-monk wrote it back on September 1 2000. But even if he did not, he is certainly spreading it. It took me all of five minutes to find this information. If I could find it, then you would think the webmaster of the Seminole County Republican Executive Committee could find it too.
Or at least a belated Happy Birthday. Yes that's right, A Skeptical Blog is one year old. Actually it is one year and some days. My first official post was on May 19, 2002.
My blog's growth has been slow but steady and thanks to those that have made this a regular stop on their daily read. There are not a whole lot of people that link to me, but I am very proud of those that do. So thanks to Atrios over at Eschaton, James M. Capozzola at The Rittenhouse Review, jeanne d'arc at Body and Soul and last (but certainly not least) ampersand at Alas, A Blog. A very special thanks goes to Kieran at Kaymc's Blog. who was the very first person that linked to me. He has even said some very kind things about A Skeptical Blog, all deserved.
One of the nice things about blogging are the people you get to know. So thanks to Mac Diva at Mac-a-ro-nies and Silver Rights, Dwight Meredith at P.L.A. Les Jenkins at Stupid Evil Bastard. and Diane at Karmalised. Special thanks to The Compassionate Conservatives and the opportunity to animate one of their great tunes. It has been fun getting to know each and every one of you. Please don't hurt me anymore.
I am really looking forward to the next year. So stick around...I am just getting started.
How a gay student's beating shows Mark Foley to be a gutless wonder.
As people that read this blog know, I am a long time supporter of gay rights. I started back in the day of Anita Bryant and her "Gay Teacher = Pedophile" nonsense. I answered phones for the radio program "Wilde n' Stein" (named for Oscar Wilde and Gertrude Stein) on KPFT back in the late '70s. I fought against the "Straight Slate" political party of Louis Welch who wanted to isolate gays because of the AIDs virus. In short, I expect gay men and women in this country to enjoy the same rights as every other American. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what in the hell is a "special right". If by "special right" you are talking about a "civil right" then what you are really against is people treating homosexuality as something that is normal. It really is as simple as that.
HOUSTON -- A student said that a teacher's aide assaulted him at school because he is gay, News2Houston eported Thursday in an exclusive story.
The Westbury High School student, who asked to remain anonymous, said that the man, who is also an assistant coach, had been harassing him all year because he is a homosexual.
"He would say negative, gay things about me," the student said.
But the student was surprised when he said the teacher's aide came at him.
"He proceeded to wrap some plastic around his hand and wrapped it around my neck and pulled me up out of my desk and slammed me to the floor," said the student. "I'm terrified of that man."
The student is recovering at home. X-rays showed that his arm has two hairline fractures.
[...]
Eight other students in the classroom confirmed the student's story.
My daughter has been trying to organize a chapter of the "Straight-Gay Alliance ". She has been very outspoken about her support of gay rights. I am very proud of that.
But at the same time how am I supposed to feel about her going to a school where a teacher's aid can assault a student and no charges get filed. Unfortunately I only know what the news has reported. My daughter was not even aware the assault had taken place, though she did see the T. V. news trucks. Anything she finds out, I will be posting, including the name of the scumbag teacher's aid that beat up on a student. So far I have only found the story being reported by Channel 2 and 365Gay.com.
Now let's contrast this with U.S. Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) who seems to be having his own problems with gay pride:
Foley denounces reports that he is gay
By BRENT KALLESTAD
U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, who is seeking the GOP nomination for Senate, took the unusual step Thursday of calling a news conference to denounce what he says are rumors spread by his political opponents that he is gay.
But the fifth-term congressman from West Palm Beach refused to answer questions about whether he is a homosexual, saying his sexual preference had no bearing on his duties as a lawmaker. He accused Democratic activists of trying to derail his candidacy for the Senate.
"In recent weeks, a number of Democratic activists have taken it upon themselves to push rumors about me," Foley said. "It is becoming apparent to me these Democratic activists have only one motive: They don't want me to run or have to run against me.
"Whatever their motives, I can only say I find these tactics revolting and unforgivable," Foley said during a 20-minute conference call with a handful of Florida political reporters. "These attempts to spread rumors about me I think will backfire."
Foley said he called the news conference in response to a column earlier this month in an alternative South Florida weekly paper and because he feared a major Florida daily was preparing to publish a story Friday about the matter.
How gutless can you get? I am usually pretty neutral when it comes to the question of "outing" (revealing that a person is gay while they are still in the closet). I can see both sides of the question and quite frankly I am content to allow the gay community to sort it out for themselves, it is, after all, their community. However this neutrality does not extend to gay Republicans hiding in the closet to increase their electability. Which is exactly what Mark Foley is doing.
Here we have a an openly gay student, who's bravery must be unquestioned. It is not an easy thing to be different in high school, even less so if that difference is you're gay. Just the shit he gets from his fellow students must make his life a living hell. Yet he is living his convictions and the thanks he gets is to be brutally beaten by a teacher's aid. Over there we have a chicken shit Republican hiding behind the closet door in order to get into the Senate.
I don't feel bad about Mark Foley being outed. He voted for the odious Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). He belongs to a political party that because of it's ass kissing of the religious right creates an acceptable atmosphere for teacher's aids to beat up openly gay high school students. He belongs to the party that would allow one of it's members to compare gay men and women to dog fuckers, sister fuckers, and corpse fuckers without fear of censure. He belongs to a party that would insure that people like Mark Foley does not have a right to a job, a home, and a safe environment.
Outing Mark Foley, as far as I can tell, is simply poetic justice!
Speaking of links, I have some new links over on the old blogroll. Let's take a closer look...
First up is Rick's Rants a mixture of personal and political observations. I especially liked the link to "'If Fish Can Feel Pain, Then Maybe Iraqi Children Can, Too" by Terry Jones. Check it out.
Next is ReachM High Cowboy Network Noose. News overview lassoed by Cowboy Kahlil. I have to admit I really like this blog, as I have not met many liberal cowboys (and I live in Houston Texas) but then again I have not met many cowboys named Kahlil either. Heck come to think of it, I have not met many cowboys at all, they are not a group I usually hang with. Perhaps if they were all as intelligent and witty as Kahlil...
Last up is Pissed Off American and let me tell you, this is one pissed off American. Pissed off at "Governor Bush's hostile takeover of the American Democratic system" to use their own words. And if you are going to be pissed at anything I can think of no more worthy cause.
Be sure to visit these and the other fine blogs you find to your left. Hey I wouldn't link to them if I did not think they were worth a read!
I am not writing much on the blog today because I am taking Atrios advice and am playing in "The Fray" over at Slate.
For those that came in late Michael Isikoff reviewed Sid Blumenthal's new book "The Clinton Wars" in Slate. This has become a most disturbing trend in the book review world ... allowing people that are the subject of a book (or knows someone mentioned in the book) to review the book. This makes no sense, since such people are not going to be impartial to the book since they have a personal stake. One would think this would occur to a brain dead monkey, but apparently a brain dead monkey is more intelligent than the editors at Slate. An example is the smarmy title to the Isikoff review "Sid Blumenthal rearranges facts and besmirches the character of his fellow journalists. And he wonders why people dislike him".
What makes playing in "The Fray" so much fun is how clear it is that those throwing stones at "The Clinton Wars" have not even bothered to read the book. It never fails to amaze me just how willing people are to comment on something they know nothing about. You can fine my lurking around under my regular handle.
One question I have asked in such forums over and over again is to name one crime that Clinton committed. Just one and I would be a happy guy. No one has ever been able to answer me without resorting to Republican spin-points (read that as lies) which is easy enough to shoot down. Still the challenge stands. Anyone that would care to tell me one crime of Bill Clinton's I will be most happy to listen.
I am not a big Bill Clinton fan. Don't get me wrong, he was a fantastic president in comparison to the other geeks we have elected since J.F.K. But he always struck me as too wishy-washy. A good example is the way he handled the issue of gay people in the military. He ran on the platform that gays had a right to be in the military. He made it the first order of business when he was elected. He then allowed himself to be beaten down by the likes of Sam Nunn. I was pretty disgusted, I would have said, "I ran on the platform that gays could join the military. The American people elected me knowing that I favored gays in the military. So if they don't like it, they can tell me at the end of four years". To me, that was the sin of the Clinton administration. They were too willing to cave. I also keep in mind that Clinton was under an extraordinary attack by a mixture of old racist in Arkansas and the Republican Party, who's loss of the White House proved to be so bitter they did their best to undermine a democratically elected president as if this country was nothing more than a banana republic. Needless to say, the transformation into a banana republic was completed by the theft of the 2000 election.
Of course the real irony of all this is how simply rabid the Right Wing was about the one lie from the Clinton White House, while giving a pass to much more serious lies coming from this administration. I mean, Bush lies about policy. He lies about reasons to go to war. He lies as a matter of course.
I can find it a whole lot easier to understand a lie about a blowjob than I can a lie about the economy. But that's just me.
While your here, don't forget to check out "Midnight Confessions of Emperor G. W. Bush". Here are some of the kinds words given to those that have already seen it.
For a first time flash animation that was pretty good! ... Song is hilarious, quotes are appropriately frightening, it definitely wins the SEB Seal of Approval - Les from "Stupid Evil Bastard"
It'll be an update on my part ... he's (Dominion) treating us to a video he created for the group Compassionate Conservatives. Diane from Karmalised and MSN Group Planet News
So watch it. Listen to the music. Pay attention to the lyrics. Let me know if you link to the file and I will be sure to mention it.
ISSUE: Ever heard of the First Amendment? Apparently, it doesn't apply if you're in church.
There are limits to what your preacher can say from the pulpit -- limits placed there by the government. Now, a bill introduced in Congress seeks to change the law.
If a church speaks out on issues that the IRS deems to be too political, it risks losing its tax-exempt status. But the "Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act" (H.R. 235) would repeal the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the tax status of a church, temple, or mosque whose clergy speak out.
Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), who introduced the bill, explained how the problem of churches speaking out on political issues arose.
"Lyndon Johnson in 1954 put an amendment on a revenue bill that stifled the ministers, priests and rabbis from being able to speak of moral and political issues," Jones said. "That's not what America's about. America's about freedom. And we've got to have freedom in the churches."
He said Johnson's amendment has had a chilling effect that fails to define where their speech is actually protected. He also contended the restrictions have not been impartially enforced.
"I think all churches should be treated the same," Jones said. "They should have freedom to talk about these issues."
ACTION ITEM: All houses of worship SHOULD be treated the same. They should have freedom to talk about any issues affecting any aspect of society -- including politics. Anything else is simply un-American.
As Rep. Jones stated, "This legislation goes beyond party lines and theological debates. We must not allow a government institution to have this kind of chilling effect over America's churches."
Rep. Jones' bill is supported by religious leaders from all faiths, and he now has over 120 co-sponsors on this simple straightforward legislation that will finally give back to churches and other houses of worship what was unjustly taken from them 49 years ago: the freedom to speak however they feel led to speak, whether the issue is construed as political or not.
Go to our site below to ask your Representative to support H.R. 235, the "Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act":
You can visit the website above to register your support. Of course, they way they have the letter set up, you can also go and register your non-support. Guess which I will urge you to do.
The idea that a church should be tax exempt has never made much sense to me. I think it should be an either/or proposition. Ok if you want to engage in politics forget your tax exception. If you want your tax exception then don't talk politics. It is as simple as that.
Of course, we know that churches speak out on political questions all the time. Ever hear of Jerry Fallwell?
Well how about that. After hoping that no one was very inconvenienced by the absence of "A Skeptical Blog" I go and fail to update all week. Shame on me. Then to make it worse I don't update till late Friday night, insuring that very few people will see this till Monday.
If it is any comfort I have a good excuse. At least I hope it is a good excuse. See I have been very busy putting the finishing touches on The Compassionate Conservatives masterpiece "Midnight Confessions of Emperor G. W. Bush". You have no idea how hard that was. First Peter would call and tell me to "change this or I will fill your mouth with webbing". The Bruce would call and tell me to "change that or I will feed you bat guano". Then Clark would call and tell me to "change everything or I will stare at your testicles till you're sterile". Yet all that threat of physical pain did encourage me to get the damn thing done. And this time, it really is done.
First let me warn you, this is a really big file (four meg) so please be patient. It is not so bad for broadband, but it could take a bit of time on dialup.
One of the most exciting things is that I ended up buying server space in order to display the animation. So now instead of five meg I have 25 meg. Lord knows what I am going to do with so much space, but it ought to be fun finding out.
Well I hope "A Skeptical Blog" was not too missed this weekend. I know it was inconvenient but it is with a great deal of relief that I can announce that I am totally done with the project. And when I say done, I am mean done. I have solved the server space problem, everything is in place, now all I have to do is wait for the Compassionate Conservatives to give their final approval. It could take a bit, after all Peter Parker lives in New York, Bruce Wayne lives in Gotham and Clark Kent lives in Metropolis. Alan Pratt splits his time between all three cities. So you can imagine it is quite a nightmare getting them all together.
Hopefully it will be next week at the latest! I can't wait. Remember this is my first time so be gentle.
I am very busy right now. Check back tomorrow for a more meaty article. While there is not much going on here, don't forget to check out the blogs on the left side of the page. There is always something good going on in the bloggerverse.
My mom gave birth to me when she was 17 years old. My brother was born one year and two weeks later. She had not made the greatest of choices in husbands, he was a studio musician in Memphis Tennessee who had booze and drug problems and liked nothing better on a Saturday night than to knock his wife around. She put up with it till he started getting violent with the kids. At that point she fled to Texas.
My mom is an amazing woman. As young as she was her first and only priority for many years was keeping her family together. She was a high school graduate with no college and no real job skills. Her first job was at Scott and White hospital in Temple Texas, where she learned to be a phlebotomist.
We never did have much money, and I can remember times when we got pretty hungry. Once it was so bad that she found herself going to the Salvation Army for food. In the early to mid 60's a divorced women was a rarity and still somewhat scorned. She did not get many breaks, but to her credit she never asked for many. To this day, she is still the hardest worker I know. There must have been many a night where she wondered what she would do, but she never let my brother or I know those thoughts. Always the important thing is that we were together and that we would make it.
While she was divorced and dating, she had one very simple rule...if my kids can't go, I can't go. So my brother and I got to know a colorful cast of young army guys from Ft. Hood, a lot of them either going or just coming back from Vietnam. Her and her best friend Lee (or Aunty Lee as we knew her) and her son Reggie would gather us up and head out for a day of swimming at Belton Lake. If there is one valuable thing I take from my childhood it is this. In all things my brother and I came first in my mother's life. Everything she did in those days, and I do mean everything, was done for the benefit of her two sons. She eventually met a wonderful man...but more about him on Father's day.
I guess because of the years she spent raising us on her own, my mom is also the strongest person I know. To say she doesn't take shit from anyone is the understatement of the year. She is not much impressed with how important you are, or how much power you have. She is very outspoken, never having a problem telling pretty much anyone to go to hell. She is very intelligent, in spite of the lack of formal schooling she has. She keeps up with current events, has always had a sharp political mind, and has no problem engaging in debate with anyone on subject she is passionate about. Lord knows if I were in a fight for my life, she would be the one I would want watching my back.
The person that I have become is due to her influence. She taught me to love books. She taught me the importance of tolerance. She taught me the importance of learning just for the love of learning. She taught me, and continues to teach me, how to be a better person. There is nothing sweeter to my ears as her praise, and there is nothing as devastating as her disappointment. If I have turned out to be half the person that my mom is, then I know I have not done half bad.
There is no real way I can thank her for all she has sacrificed for me and my brother. All I can do is let her know how very important she is in my life. The best I can do, and it is little enough at that, is to say...
Wow am I embarrassed or what? After posting about Gold Star Mothers yesterday I found that I had already done a repost of that article. So in the attempt to prevent search engine breakdown I will be removing the article tonight, after I take down the rest of "A Skeptical Blog"
Just in case anyone has missed it, "A Skeptical Blog" will be removed this evening. Not to worry it will be back by Sunday evening at the latest. I am testing some animation and I need a server to do it on. Lucky for me, this has exactly the amount I need to test the file. Hopefully when The Compassionate Conservatives and I are done with this project, you will find the inconvenience well worth it.
So have a great weekend and don't forget your mom!
Out of everything I have written, this post and the one I will post tomorrow, are the ones that get the most hits from search engines. That makes me happy because the one thing both articles have in common is that they expose two popular hoaxes.
I plan to shut down "A Skeptical Blog" on Friday, late afternoon. Since the weekends are usually slower than a snail I figure that will cause the least amount of disruption. I will put the whole thing back on Sunday evening.
And while I am at it, I want to send a special thanks to QrazyQat for the quite relevant comments that have been left in the Penn & Teller threads. This is obviously a person that has studied the subjects as well, or even better, than I. Such intelligence should not go unpunished so allow me to be the first, or failing that, join the throng that is calling out for you to get your own blog. At least a couple of articles on any subject you like. I will gladly post them.
Republican Race Bating!
A Republican Webmaster sends out a racist screed crying "Free Speech"!
First posted on Thursday 08/08/02
Someone sent me this yesterday. It comes from a Republican webmaster who will remain nameless. Much like the other Republican screeds that have been sent to me, this one starts off in a lie and continues through a lot of racist garbage. This is gonna be a long one so strap yourself down, your in for one hell of a ride.
CAUTION!
Please note that this is a VERY provocative editorial. I am publishing it to the XXX Membership because it was sent to me by a fellow loyal Republican who asked that I forward it to the list. As your WebMaster, I neither support nor deny the allegations and suggestions. Free Speech!
Free speech indeed. I am all for free speech but at the same time I would sure like to see people take responsibility for their speech. The webmaster could have spent 20 minutes worth of research on the genesis of this letter. If he had he might have gotten quite a surprise...
A PILOT EDITORIAL-- "YOU WORRY ME."
I've been trying to say this since 9-11. I guess I will be labeled as a bigoted American. By: American Airlines Pilot - Captain John Maniscalco
Well here is our lie. This was not penned by an American Airline Captain named John Maniscalco, it was written by Mr. Kevin Daly of Beltsville Maryland and it ran in the Maryland Gazette. But it is so much better to claim that it was a pilot that spewed this nonsense. After all, Americans are going to be a little more understanding of a pilot's racism since they are on the front line so to speak. But when you find out that it was written by some yahoo in a town the size of Waco Texas, well your understanding might just be a bit strained.
What would usually follow is the body of the letter, however I need to explain something about the article that Mr. Daly wrote and the form that it came to me in email. It seems that there was a bit of editing to the original article. Don't get me wrong, Mr Daly's open letter is bad enough, but the editing make it so much worse. I am going to show you the differences between the two letters, and of course comment.
Oct. 12, 2001
An open letter to my Arab-Muslim neighbors:
You worry me. I wish you didn't.
I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend anymore. I notice you, and it worries me.
Well this is not a bad start as far as it goes. I too deplore the fact that Muslims are more visible in America. However I deplore it because I think it makes them likely targets of yahoos that think that every Muslim in America has nothing better to do than commit terrorist acts against their neighbors. Somehow I don't think Mr. Daly will share my concern.
I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your homelands, and professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully understand their grievances and hate but I know nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks.
Nothing like professing ignorance about a subject before commenting on it eh? Here Mr. Daly admits he does not fully understand the grievances of the terrorist but more important than that, has he even bothered to learn? Yes the Middle East is a very complicated arena for anyone. You will notice that I don't comment much on the situation over there, not because I don't care, I care very much. It is just that I am too darn smart not to see both sides of this argument and the only thing you will get me to agree with is that the situation is heart breaking. I don't consider myself to be pro Palestinian or pro Israel. I consider myself pro human and so I condemn both sides for the violence. However this situation is not nearly as hard as Palestine/Israel. Osama bin Laudin is pissed because we had the gall to put U.S. military bases on Saudi soil during Desert Storm. Now that is certainly no justification for the events of 9/11 so with a bit more fleshing out, we are still pretty much in agreement.
On Sept. 11 , 19 Arab-Muslims hijacked four jetliners in my country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of proud fathers, loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, favorite coaches, fearless public servants and children's mothers.
And here is where we start to depart. How does this guy know that the throats of women were cut in front of children? Was he sitting there on the plane watching? How does he know that anyone's throat was cut? This is nothing more than an appeal to emotions. I guess Mr. Daly could not rest on the strength of his arguments but had to engage in a bit of emotional engineering (to borrow from "Brave New World") to try to hammer home his point. Is it not enough to note that over 3,000 people lost their lives that day? Hell that is all I need to feel a bit of anger. However I do realize that emotional appeals are easy since they require no detail. No depth. Just a punch to the gut. I like to think I have a bit more elan than that but you can be the judge.
Now we start to see the changes in the text.
From Mr. Daly:
So I notice you now.
I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage and hate and prejudice that has destroyed the soul of these terrorists. But I need your help.
As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to differentiate between you. How do I differentiate between the true Arab-Muslim-Americans and the Arab-Muslims in our communities who are attending our schools, shopping in our stores, enjoying our parks, accepting fresh baked cookies from a thoughtful neighbor, and sending their children out to play with ours while they plot the next attack that will slaughter those very same good neighbors and children?
The answer to my own question is that it is past the time for me to try to determine this. The events of Sept. 11th changed the answer. It is time for every Arab-Muslim in this country to determine it for me.
From the email:
So I notice you now.
I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage and hate and prejudice that has destroyed the soul of these terrorists. But I need your help.
As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to tell the difference between you, and the Arab /Muslim terrorist. How do I differentiate between the true Arab-Muslim-Americans and the Arab-Muslims in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, and living in OUR communities under the protection of OUR constitution, while they plot the next attack that will slaughter those very same good neighbors and children?
The events of September 11th changed the answer. It is not my responsibility to determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of it's religions, with ALL of it's different citizens, with all of it's faults. It is time for every Arab-Muslim in this country to determine it for me.
Well at least in Mr. Daly's version he had some dim awareness that it should have been up to him to try to find out the difference between his neighbors and terrorist, which is totally missing in the re-write. However that point is lost in the idea that the events of Sept. 11th somehow changed the responsibility from him to every Arab-Muslim to do it for him. All I can say is I hope he has a lot of time on his hands because it is going to take a while for every Arab-Muslim to satisfy Mr. Daly (if that is even possible). However, if Mr. Daly would have bothered to learn how to tell the difference, he might have been surprised at just how easy it would have been. A hint. Those Arab-Muslim that are "in our communities who are attending our schools, shopping in our stores, enjoying our parks, accepting fresh baked cookies from a thoughtful neighbor, and sending their children out to play with ours" are not the ones that "plot the next attack that will slaughter those very same good neighbors and children" and it is frightening to me (and probably a million times more to those Arab-Muslims that are going to have to prove they are not terrorist to Mr. Daly) that he does not realize this. Terrorist rarely have strong ties to a community at least, not those from the Middle East. And I can't help but think that if they are sending their kids to our school, playing in our parks and sharing cookies they have pretty tight ties to that community!
From Mr. Daly:
I want to know, I demand to know, if you love America. Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation, that He will protect and prosper it? Are you thankful for the freedom that only this country affords? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots? Are you willing to preserve this freedom with the spilling of your own blood? Do you love America? And if this is your commitment, then I need you to start letting me know about it.
From the email:
I want to know, I demand to know, and I have a right to know whether or not you love America. Do you pledge allegiance to it's flag? Do you proudly display in front of your house, or on your car? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation, that He will protect and prosper it?
Or do you pray that Allah with destroy it in one of your "Jihads"?
Are you thankful for the freedom that only this nation affords? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America? If this is your commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it.
We can see that the email is getting increasingly strident. And remember, that is the one that was sent over a Republican list. Well first off, no one has a right to "know" if you love America. That brings to mind such nasty things as loyalty oaths and political trials. There is no requirement anywhere that one must "love" America. Hell I bet there is not one right winger out there that can even define what "loving America" entails! I love this country better than most, yet if I were to go by the current Republican definition of "loving America" (the old "my country right or wrong bullshit), I would fail that standard quite spectacularly! Nor would a right wing Republican fare any better under my standards (hewing close to the idea of this country that the Founding Fathers articulated in such documents as the Constitution). Since it would be hard for either of us to prove we "love" America how in the hell can an Arab-Muslim prove it? Needless to say this also leaves out to who's satisfaction? Mr. Daly? The Love America Loyalty board? George W. Bush?
From Mr. Daly:
Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and religion to protect the United States of America. Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the death of the "innocent" (I worry who you regard as "innocent") and condemnation of "unprovoked" attacks (I worry what is "unprovoked" to you). I am not interested in anymore sympathy, I am interested only in action. What will you do for America-- the country-- at this time of crisis, at this time of war?
From the email:
Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and as a religion to protect the United States of America. Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the death of the innocent because I worry about who you regard as innocent. And no more benign overtures of condemnation for the unprovoked attacks because I worry about what is unprovoked to you. I am not interested in any more sympathy ...I am only interested in action. What will you do for America -- our great country -- at this time of crisis, at this time of war?
I get the scent of the problems that faced Japanese Americans at the dawn of WWII. I really have to wonder just how hard Mr. Daly has been listening. Of course with the likes of Jerry Falwell, our very own home grown religious fanatic, running around saying that Islam is full of hate and murder (as if his religion is not) I think I might be tempted to keep a low profile too. My parents both work in the medical profession and we know a lot of those Arab-Muslims Mr. Daly is harping about. I am sure that Mr. Daly has no idea of the raw fear those people felt after 9/11. I have the feeling that even if he knew, he would not care. A doctor I know that has lived in this country for over 20 years told me that he is afraid of those cookie baking neighbors Mr. Daly is so concerned about because of statements that have been made to him by those very same neighbors. And it was not cookies they were passing out! Add to that the fact that no one seems to know just what nationality he is a member of (he was born in Egypt and moved here when he was in high school) he is justifiably scared. He has been accused of being from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, well you know, they all look alike to us!
From Mr. Daly:
I want to see Arab-Muslims waiving the flag in the streets. I want to hear you chanting "Allah Bless America." I want to see Arab-Muslim young men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of money and time and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to this nation as a whole.
From the email:
I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the AMERICAN flag in the streets. I want to hear you chanting "Allah Bless America". I want to see young Arab-Muslim men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of money, time, and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to this nation as a whole.
Same as the above I am afraid. My my how quick we are to demand of others what we would never demand for ourselves!
Both letters are the same here:
The FBI has a list of over 400 people they want to talk to regarding the WTC attack. Many of these people live and socialize in Muslim communities. You know them. You know where they are. Deliver them up, now.
But I have seen little even approaching this sort of action.
Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close tighter. You have disappeared from the streets. You have posted armed security guards at your facilities. You have threatened lawsuits. You have screamed for protection from reprisal.
Bawahahahahahahaha! Oh sorry I simply couldn't help myself. I mean, does anyone really blame Arab-Muslim for reacting this way? If you do, then you are unaware of the realities of being "different" here in the land of the free and the home of the brave. I really did love the demand to turn over people to the FBI. What, they can't find those people on the list themselves? And if they can't why in the hell do you assume that your average Arab-Muslim can? Do you really think that every person of Arabian descent knows everything that every other person of Arabian descent does? Please.
From Mr. Daly:
The few Arab-Muslim representatives that have appeared on the media are defensive and equivocating. They seem more concerned with making sure the U.S. prove who is responsible before they act, and protecting their people from any violence directed toward them, here in the U.S. and abroad.
From the email:
The very few Arab-Muslim representatives that HAVE appeared in the media were defensive and equivocating. They seemed more concerned with making sure that the United States prove who was responsible before taking action. They seemed more concerned with protecting their fellow Muslims from violence directed towards them in the United States and abroad than they did with supporting our country and denouncing "leaders" like Khadafi, Hussein, Farrakhan, and Arafat.
Quite a difference here eh? Mr. Daly seems to expect Arab-Muslims to act differently than any other American would. I mean, what he seems to object to is insuring that the right person get punished for this crime. In other words, forget justice just go for vengeance, and damn those that get in the way. I suppose it never occurred to Mr. Daly that it is exactly this type of revenge seeking bullshit that causes the very reaction in the Arab-Muslim community that upsets him. Anyone that knows history can just look back to WWII and how we treated those that looked the same as the enemy, regardless of the fact that they were Americans. You know, shoot first and sort them out later has never been good foreign policy!
Oh and I really liked the inclusion of Mr. Farrakhan in the email. Say what you will about the man's politics, he is hardly Arab-Muslim. He is an American, least we forget. But what the hell, might as well throw in Americans too, I have been saying all along it is only a matter of time. Anyone remember Jose Padilla (and if you don't shame on you)?
From Mr. Daly:
If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love of all people, then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up.
Because even if the teachings in the Koran are good and pure and true, it matters little if large numbers of current Islamic practitioners interpret the teachings of Mohammed incorrectly and adhere to a degenerative form of the religion.
From the email:
If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love for all people then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. What good is it if the teachings in the Koran are good and pure and true when your "leaders" are teaching fanatical interpretations, terrorism, and intolerance.
It matters little how good Islam SHOULD BE if large numbers of the world's Muslims interpret the teachings of Mohammed incorrectly and adhere to a degenerative form of the religion. A form that has been demonstrated to us over and over again. A form whose structure is built upon a foundation of violence, death, and suicide. A form whose members are recruited from the prisons around the world. A form whose members defended Johnny Cochran and O. J. Simpson after the latter butchered his wife and murdered an innocent friend. A form whose members (some as young a five years old) are seen day after day, week in and week out, year after year, marching in the streets around the world, burning effigies of our presidents, burning the American flag, shooting weapons into the air. A form whose members convert from a peaceful religion, only to take up arms against the great United States of America, the country of their birth. A form whose rules are so twisted, that their traveling members refuse to show their faces at airport security checkpoints, in the name of Islam.
Do you and your fellow Muslims hate us because our women proudly show their faces in public rather than cover up like a shameful whore? Do you and your fellow Muslims hate us because we drink wine with dinner, or celebrate Christmas? Do you and you fellow Muslims hate us because we have befriended Israel, the ONLY civilized democratic nation in the entire middle-east? And if you and your fellow Muslims hate us, then why in the world are you even here?
Are you here to take our money? Are you here to undermine our peace and stability? Are you here to destroy us? If so, I want you to leave. I want you to go back to your desert sandpit where women are treated like rats and dogs. I want you to take your religion, your friends, and your family back to your Islamic extremists, and STAY THERE!
We will NEVER give in to your influence, your retarded mentality, your twisted, violent, intolerant religion. We will NEVER allow the attacks of September 11, or any others for that matter, to take away that which is so precious to us: Our rights under the greatest constitution in the world.
Needless to say that at this point the email is nothing more than racist screed. I mean, where in the hell did O.J. Simpson and Johnny Cochran come from? I thought we were talking about those Arab-Muslim that lived among us? Remember? Eating those cookies? Does every Arab Muslim in America have to answer to every crime that the right wing does not like? Apparently so! Nor does Mr. Daly's screed wear any better, even if admittedly less racist. I wonder how Mr. Daly would react if the paragraph read this way:
If the true teachings of Christianity proclaim tolerance and peace and love of all people, then I want chapter and verse from the Bible and statements from popular Christian leaders to back it up.
Because even if the teachings in the Bible are good and pure and true, it matters little if large numbers of current Christian practitioners interpret the teachings of Jesus incorrectly and adhere to a degenerative form of the religion.
because it is an argument that I certainly could make!
The true thoughts in the email have become crystal clear and it is sad sad sad that a Republican webmaster would have sent it out without checking to see where it came from, but I am getting ahead of myself. Let's look at the last little bit.
From Mr. Daly:
I want to know where every Arab-Muslim in this country stands and I think it is within my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters.
I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here; as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But there can be no "gray" areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance and it is up to you to show me where you stand.
Until then...you worry me.
From the email:
I want to know where every Arab-Muslim in this country stands and I think it is my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters who died protecting the very constitution that is protecting you and your family.
I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But there can be no gray areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance and it is up to YOU to show ME, where YOU stand."
"Until then ... you worry me."
And so here we are. Two pieces of writing, one edited beyond belief to include a bunch of racist tripe! Which ones do the Republican's decide to send out? Well we already know the answer to that one.
I don't for one moment think the webmaster is the one that changed the article. A search over the net suggests that this is the place that changed the text. I invite you to read the site and find out for yourself why I suggest they are the guilty party. You can read the edited version here. Yet that does not absolve the webmaster from the responsibility of finding out just where that speech came from. It is all very well to cry "Freedom of Speech" but at the least, we should expect the origin behind the speech, especially when that speech is not your own.
Ladies and Gentleman, I ask you, is there anything more funny than a Libertarian trying to discuss science? If there is I have yet to run across it. Below are two comments that came in rather late to the P&T debate. It always seems to happen that way too, no comment for the week that my articles are on the site, yet as soon as they disappear from the index page Comments galore.
Now I usually don't pull comments for an article but these were so far back I was afraid some of my regular readers would miss them. I wouldn't want that to happen for the amusement value alone!
One of these days I am going to have to write a critique of Libertarianism. It is such a silly political position to take it sort of cries out for a closer look.
The comments in question are here and here. The articles are here and here.
Now to more important matters. I have good news and bad news. As you might remember, The Compassionate Conservatives and I have been busy working on a project to take some of their excellent protests songs and add animation to it. The good news is that I am almost done with the first song "Midnight Confessions (of Emperor G. W. Bush)", I have two scenes left and it will be finished. The bad news is in order to test the animation I am going to have to take down "A Skeptical Blog". But not to worry, it will only be a couple of days, then everything will return to normal.
I think I have a place to put the final work once it is done, but I am not sure. So if anyone has some extra server space (about five meg worth) or know of anyone with such space please feel free to write me email or drop a comment.
We will start with the comments on my article on Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" on GM crops. The next article is the comments on ETS. Enjoy!
You are just trying to make YOUR political point here.
Really. Tell me what political position I am advocating by requesting that more testing be done on GM seed before releasing it into the environment? Just what political position am I pushing by requesting more test before we start to fill our bellies with food that we have no idea what effect it will have on said bellies (if it has any effect at all)?
Yes, food production isn't really the cause of starvation (the causes are much moe political) but increased yields certainly couldn't HURT could they?
Are you stupid? I mean really, what good does it do to raise enough food to feed the world three times over if no one is eating it? Of course if you admit we have all the food we need then you must also agree that GM crops are not all that necessary. Yet that was the entire point of the P&T show. Or have you forgotten Penn screaming from the TV screen "Millions of people are starving so shut the fuck up"? So if you agree that food production is not the causes of starvation, then you agree that when Penn & Teller claimed it was, it was nothing more than bullshit!
Likewise Norman Borlaug was cited because he was a Nobel laureat who is a big proponent of GM foods, and CRITICALLY he doesn't really see a big difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering, unlike opponents.
Your point? Sure he doesn't "believe" that GM crops will cause any harm (when it comes down to it, neither do I, as I pointed out in the article. Guess you missed that part). But Borlaug's belief does not comfort me nearly as much as a fistful of sound scientific tests would. Which has not been done.
The truth is that no one, not you, not Norman Borlaug, not the companies that produce the seed, not even I, know wether or not GM foods will be a godsend or a curse. Let me repeat that....we don't know. If people are afraid of corporations fucking with the food supply then the corporations have no one to blame for this but themselves.
Yes, the FDA doesn't do much testing on most GM crops because it would be a total waste of time. The crops rarely have any significant differences that would cause health problems, and few (if any, I haven't done an exhaustive search) GM foods have EVER caused any health problems. This has been a general trend within the FDA. And did civil litigation suddenly disappear? If a particular GM crop DID cause problems there would be massive product liablity lawsuits, that's one of the reasons why we can trust corporate testing, they have a very powerful incentives to distribute safe products.
I begin to wonder of you have done any searching at all! Since admittedly you failed to do "an exhaustive search" why should I take any of the above seriously? On your say? Who are you again? Is your degree in genetics? Do you have some mystical way of finding out information without having to do "an exhaustive search" (or any search at all)?
It's funny because I was able to find a study that points to harm GM crops can do, and there was nothing "exhaustive" about it. From the New England Journal of Medicine (Volume 334:688-692 March 14, 1996 Number 11):
Background: The nutritional quality of soybeans (Glycine max) is compromised by a relative deficiency of methionine in the protein fraction of the seeds. To improve the nutritional quality, methionine-rich 2S albumin from the Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) has been introduced into transgenic soybeans. Since the Brazil nut is a known allergenic food, we assessed the allergenicity of the 2S albumin.
Methods: The ability of proteins in transgenic and nontransgenic soybeans, Brazil nuts, and purified 2S albumin to bind to IgE in serum from subjects allergic to Brazil nuts was determined by radioallergosorbent tests (four subjects) and sodium dodecyl sulfate–polyacrylamide-gel electrophoresis (nine subjects) with immunoblotting and autoradiography. Three subjects also underwent skin-prick testing with extracts of soybean, transgenic soybean, and Brazil nut.
Results: On radioallergosorbent testing of pooled serum from four subjects allergic to Brazil nuts, protein extracts of transgenic soybean inhibited binding of IgE to Brazil-nut proteins. On immunoblotting, serum IgE from eight of nine subjects bound to purified 2S albumin from the Brazil nut and to proteins of similar molecular weight in the Brazil nut and the transgenic soybean. On skin-prick testing, three subjects had positive reactions to extracts of Brazil nut and transgenic soybean and negative reactions to soybean extract.
Conclusions: The 2S albumin is probably a major Brazil-nut allergen, and the transgenic soybeans analyzed in this study contain this protein. Our study shows that an allergen from a food known to be allergenic can be transferred into another food by genetic engineering.
Now read that conclusion again. "Our study shows that an allergen from a food known to be allergenic can be transferred into another food by genetic engineering". Do you understand what that means or am I going to have to draw you a picture?
Nor does your cry of liability inspire much confidence either, or have you never heard the term "tort reform". It is a term that you should probably do "an exhaustive search" on. Might even help you learn something.
Oh and one last thing...you are wrong when you say that the FDA does little testing on GM crops. They do no testing at all.
Your inabilty to find more than one study that supports the view that GM foods are dangerous (and it doesn't even really apply to market GM foods) COULD be seen as evidence the they're NOT dangerous. It just doesn't look like there is a lot of literature on the web (I doubt Montesanto publishes it's studies on the web).
I take back my question. It is clear, you are stupid. The entire point of the whole fucking article is that there is inadequate testing of GM seed and crop by independent scientist. You just agreed with me. In addition, only an idiot would draw any conclusion from one study. I didn't. You did. My failure to find more than one study that tends to show GM foods might be dangerous supports no view other than no other tests of this nature have been done. It does not support the view that GM crops are harmful, nor does it support the view that GM crops are safe. Sheesh, I surly wish people would take the time to at least learn what science does before attempting to challenge me on the subject. Here's a hint, the fact that it is not easy to find studies done by Montesanto is bad for science because...?
You're also being deeply disengenous here. You say we should trust the scientific community on secondhand smoke (the community tends to say it's harmful) but we should IGNORE the scientific community on GM foods because it tends to say that they're NOT harmful. You can't have it both ways.
Ah someone else that wants to put words in my mouth. Sorry but I never said we should "trust" the scientific community on ETS and I would love it if you could show me just what words I used to lead you to that conclusion. What I said is that there has been many studies done showing the harm of ETS. It has nothing to do with "trust" fool. It has to do with sound science. Conversely I never claimed we should not trust the scientific community when it comes to GM crops. What I have said is that there has not been enough testing to proclaim GM crops safe. It has nothing to do with mistrust fool. It has everything to do with sound science.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, while there are legitmate anti-corporate arguments against GM foods, P&T recognized this on the program but Greenpeace really failed to make these arguments. Most of their arguments were about the supposed health and environmental risks, which are bullshit. And this is totally consistant with Greenpeace's approach (read their website), so I don't think they've been misrepresented.
Damn, just where did I say anything about Greenpeace? Are you sure your reading my article?
Based on this and other posts you've made, I can discern that your opposition to GM foods is mainly political. You think Montesanto and other biotech compaines are evil (with some justification) and since GM foods are coming from this evil machine they muct be evil too. That's a fine argument, but THAT is what the anti-GM argument REALLY is and it should be stated as such.
Wow and a mind reader to boot! I can see that Penn and Teller are hanging out with all the right people.
Look you are going to believe what you want to believe. If it makes you feel better to think my objection to GM crops are simply because I hate Montesanto, be my guest. Whatever get's you to sleep at night I suppose.
Of course, to jump to this conclusion you have to ignore a large part of what I wrote, but hey, I don't really expect Libertarians to read anything carefully. Why if they did it might disturb that carefully constructed world that lives no where else but inside their heads.
I haven't done an exhaustive search of the literature, I have read a number of studies, includign the EPA study and several of those cited. No verifiable causal link is shown in all cases and the methodology is questionable in many. For example, take this single statement in the Weily-Liss study:
ETS is composed of emissions from cigarette smoke and contains a higher concentration of tobacco smoke carcinogens than mainstream smoke.
Read that again carefully. They're claiming that upon exposure to open air (rather than directly inhaled) cigarette smoke somehow becomes MORE carcinogenic. How is this even possible? Well they reached this result by tallying the results of self-reported cigarette exposure by people already afflicted. Now it's possible that ETS really is more toxic, however it's a lot more likey that the subjects are simply misreporting their level of exposure. They also say that the results are preliminary and that larger studies are needed (though pretty much every study always says this).
I am singularly unimpressed.
First off, you will have to do better than giving me a single line from an unmentioned study. I don't even know what the hell was studied. You have given me no URL so that I can check the study myself. Even worse (for you) the line does not make the claim you claim it makes!
Indeed, I find no fault with the sentence. If I am sitting next to a non-smoker, say in a bar, and they breath in the side stream smoke (that's the smoke pouring out the end of the cigarette) then they are getting more raw smoke than I am. Hell even a non-filtered cigarette will be somewhat less raw than the smoke from the burning end, since I have to draw the smoke through the length of the cigarette.
Since you failed to give me anything other than a single line, which you managed to mangle, forgive me if I don't take your recounting of the methodology of the study very seriously. Here's an idea why don't you give me the name of the study? Even better would be a URL but I ain't fussy. I will take what I can get.
One last thing, you show an appalling lack of knowledge with the way science works by being surprised by the fact that every study on ETS claims that more studies need to be done. What do you expect? How else are we going to refine our knowledge to the point where we can make even nay sayers such as yourself, admit that ETS really is dangerous stuff?
This is exactly what I mean by missing the point of my posting. My point was that, even doing a cursory search on Pub-Med, you could find a ton of studies done on the dangers of ETS. Penn & Teller made it seem that the only study done was the EPA study, and every other study used the EPA study as their bases. This is, in a word, Bullshit.
Nor am I quite sure why you bring up a study that proves my point. ETS is harmful, to claim otherwise is ignoring a huge body of science that says it is!
Of course, we don't know if this translates to adults. Which would be very relavent considering the bans affect BARS and other establishments only frequented by adults. Dominion himself points out that the studies on adults in general and "casual exposure" in particular are MUCH less robust.
Indeed I do, however I also claim that the studies done on people that work in smoke-filled environments such as bars and restaurants suffer from the effects of ETS. No one is claiming that casual exposure is harmful. So please, refrain from putting words in my mouth.
The gist of P&T's argument was basically political though. Whether or not secondhand smoke has risk doesn't change the fact that people have the RIGHT to expose themselves to possible risk factors. Skydiving is risky, yet nobody is talking about banning skydiving or skydiving instruction. Eating fatty foods has a number of well-documented health risks, but nobody is taking about banning them. If you don't want to be exposed to secondhand smoke, don't visit bars and specialty resturants that feature smoking. Don't work there either.
Ah engaging in a bit more bullshit are we? Because your claim that P&T argument was basically political is just that...bullshit. In a 15 minute segment they spent roughly half their time attempting to debunk the EPA study. Because they linked every other ETS study to the EPA study, they attempted to debunk the whole idea that ETS is harmful. You posted a study that shows clearly that ETS is indeed harmful. Nor did it depend on the EPA study that P&T seemed to think was the be all end all to the ETS debate.
If all P&T did was argue wether the law was a good idea, I would have had no problem with it. But they did more, they engaged in pseudoscience. They engaged in bullshit to make their point. Since the show is supposed to be an expose of bullshit, I am certainly not happy to see Penn & Teller engaging in so much of it themselves.
As for your examples, well they fall on their own. Damn why is it so hard for people to be logical?? The reason no one is talking about banning sky diving or eating fatty foods is because it is a risk that people assume for themselves! ETS is not a risk that people assume for themselves, it is inflicted upon them.
To some extent, I agree with Dominion. P&T should have been more thorough about the medical literature. I think they chose not to do so because that would confuse their message that LAWS making smoking ILLEGAL in many places are unnecessary.
Ug, please don't do me any favors. Since you seem to have missed the point of my posting, I can't take your claim that you agree with me with any seriousness.
It is obvious why P&T was not thorough about the medical literature. If they had been, it would have snookered the idea that every study done on ETS is based on the EPA study. It has nothing to do with confusing their message. Their message, which you seemed to have missed, is that since the EPA study is flawed, and it is the bases of all studies that have ever been done on ETS, it is obvious that ETS is harmless. Since ETS is harmless LAWS making smoking ILLEGAL (and really dude, you would have been much better off including the part you left out than screaming LAWS and ILLEGAL) in many places are unnecessary.
That was the point of their show, and in a word, that's Bullshit.
And while we are at it, this idea that being prevented from smoking in a restaurant is somehow curtailing my freedom is simply nonsense. Holy lord, will someone point out to me just where in the Constitution I have the inalienable right to light up wherever and whenever I want? I simply don't agree that I have the right to make those around me uncomfortable for whatever reason. Good taste and manners should have told you that, but I have noticed a considerable lack of teaching these important lessons of late. I have no problem with laws preventing me from smoking in public places. It cost me nothing to step outside, well away from polite company to light up.
I would hate to see laws banning smoking outright, I think this would be a silly as the current anti-drug laws (which put millions of dollars in people's pocket, but prevent people from taking drugs not at all). Since smoking is a risk I assume to myself, I don't think the government has any say in indulging in that particular habit. That the State has the right to regulate public property is pretty much a given. You want to argue that fine. Go for it. But don't try to make science conform to your political opinion. That is not skepticism, that is merely spin!.
Mac Diva has an angry post about the difference between the treatment of Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief, the man that helped (somewhat) rescue Pfc Jessica Lynch, and Ali Ismaeel Abbas, the young boy that lost his mom, his dad, and both arms in an American missile attack.
Just finished myself and mmmmmm that's good reading.
How Clear Channel Communications Ruined A Historic Radio Station by Hiring Two Idiots
First posted on 6/20/02
Here in Houston we have the distinction of having one of the original outlaw FM bands broadcasting here. I have been listening to K101 (as us old timers know it, it is now called KLOL) since the early seventies. I used to have one of the original bumper stickers on my car (for those too young to remember it had an old time radio with arms and legs, shooting the peace sign and saying "Uppity Mother"). Of course, as the years rolled on, the radio station changed. One of the worse changes was the decision to bring on Mark Steven, and Jim Pruett. They did a "Howard Stern" type act, mostly appealing to guys under 18. I thought that was the worse that could happen to K101 but that was before they were bought by Clear Channel Communication.
Now instead of having two sexist idiots to deal with in the morning, we have two racist idiots. I can't tell you how much better I feel. Below is a letter I wrote to the two DJs a few months back. I had been driving my mom home from work, a trip that takes around 20 minutes. In 20 minutes Walter and Johnson insured that I would never listen to a Clear Channel Station again.
You know, I really have to congratulate you guys. I never, ever thought that I would miss Stevens and Pruitt, but by God, you guys make me miss them...a lot
