Ok so I did not get to update like I wanted to this week. What do you expect for the price you pay to read my words o' wisdom?
Seriously though I threw out my back and was in quite a bit of pain this week. So no update. But I did want to wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving. I am heading out of town (and no I am not looking forward to a five hour drive with my back in the shape it is in) so look for new material on Monday!
Be very careful if you are traveling this Thanksgiving. I can't afford to lose even one of my readers.
We have a new blog on the blogroll! It's called "Yellow Dog Blog" and it's the official blog of the Texas Democratic Party. Give it a read. Check it out. Tell them Dominion sent ya!
If you have "A Skeptical Blog" on your blogroll and you don't see your name here, please write me and let me know.
It has been a very busy week. On Monday evening my dad thought he might be having a heart attack. Lucky for him, he wasn't, unlucky for him, when they did an angiogram they found blockage in three of his arteries. So he had bypass surgery on Tuesday. Everything is fine but we have been kept busy running around Houston picking up various and sundries to speed his recovery.
Not to mention that Thanksgiving is coming up. I hope to update Monday and Tuesday but will probably be out of pocket on Wednesday so don't expect much more than a Happy Thanksgiving graphic. I have a lot to be thankful for this year, but more on that next week.
You remember yesterday when I said the right wing was going rabid over the possiblity of two guys getting hitched? Well this little note came as absolutely no surprise.
This CONSERVATIVE ALERT prepared for Dominion:
ISSUE: As you've probably heard by now the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ordered the legalization of homosexual "marriage." In a narrow 4-to-3 ruling, the court declared that homosexuals were entitled to marry and ordered the legislature to devise a scheme in the next 180 days that would allow this to take place.
Reaction from across America has been swift. President Bush remarked, "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
More important than the issue of the sanctity of marriage, though, is the issue of JUDICIAL TYRANNY. This is just one more example of what the radical left in this country is trying to impose on the "silent majority" of Americans. As Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families (cwfpac.com) noted, "No one can deny what is happening any longer. The laws of our Founding Fathers are being perverted to impose a radical cultural agenda against the will of the American people. Despite clear public opinion against the notion of homosexual 'marriage,' unelected judges are more than willing to steer our culture into uncharted public policy waters...
"Moreover, the very fact that four unelected judges believe they possess the power to order the people's elected representatives of the state of Massachusetts to rewrite the state's marriage laws is proof of their arrogance. The executive and legislative branches of government must reassert their own authority. They must make it abundantly clear to our rogue courts that they do not run this country."
We couldn't agree more. If we, the majority of hard-working patriotic Americans, don't stand up and take action on this, it's likely we will be witnessing the death of self-government. The radical left wants us to be enslaved by judicial dictators. The people of Massachusetts would never vote for this insanity. The real question is if we will break the yoke of tyrants, or submit like whimpering children.
ACTION ITEM: WE MUST FIGHT BACK. The legislators in Massachusetts need to know that MILLIONS of their fellow citizens across the nation will stand with them if they will just STAND UP to the tyrants on the Mass. Supreme Court. The local conservative leadership there has asked us if we can mobilize folks to take action right away... So we've set up an easy way for you to make your voice heard LOUD AND CLEAR -- you can send "Blast Faxes" to EVERY SINGLE ONE of the state senators and representatives in the Massachusetts legislature, urging them to push through the legislation that's already pending there, constitutionally enshrining the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
I removed the links for contacting anyone. I would have left the link to the email service but they made sure you could not edit it in any way. Every letter will say exactly the same thing. This is actually good, politicians tend to ignore such letters since they can't be sure if they come from lots of people all saying the exact same thing, or one person sending a lot of email.
One of the more unusual features of this "Action Alert" is the offer to fax notes for a fee:
For about what it would cost you in time and telephone charges, you can fax ALL 200 of the state legislators in Massachusetts -- for ONLY $29.95.
OR, you can fax ALL 160 MEMBERS of the state House of Representatives -- for ONLY $24.95.
OR, if you prefer, you can fax ALL 40 MEMBERS of the state Senate -- for ONLY $9.95.
This ruling is not the rule of law. It is the dictate of an imperialist judiciary. Let no-one confuse law and order with judicial fiat and whim. Let's throw this radical ruling BACK in the faces of these unelected "little dictator" judges! Click through below NOW to send your Blast Faxes to the Massachusetts legislators, and let them know that YOU will stand with them in this fight against the onslaught of radicalism.
There's precious little time to spare before the radical left has its way in Massachusetts. While the Legislature has 180 days to act Massachusetts conservative leadership has asked that we begin this national fax and email effort immediately.
Man this is just so Republican. Object to other people finding a shred of happiness in this crazy world, and if you can make a few shekels out of the deal, so much the better!
I won't be posting much today, for various reasons I have to leave the house early and I probably won't get back till late.
But I did want to mention my latest efforts in the Broadjam/ACIDplanet remix contest. It's called "Steel" and I think it is pretty good. Of course no one else is likely to think so. Ah well, the tribulations of being an artist that is unappreciated in his own country. I feel so Zappaish.
You can hear "Steel" by clicking here. You can get a complete list of the music I have done for ACIDplanet by clicking here. Feel free to listen as much as you can stomach.
Well I see the right wing is going nuclear over the possibility that two men (or two women) might actually take advantage of their civil rights and get married! (GASP) I read the stuff they are spewing and I have a hard time remembering that it is the left that are the real homophobes.
I invite any right winger to feel free to tell me what YOU think (see below). Just what is it that you find so objectionable to two men getting hitched? I would really like to know. Of course, telling me that it is against the bible ain't gonna be telling me much since I'm not a follower of the Bible. Nor has anyone ever really convinced me that biblical law should be the law of the land. Even at that, what do you personally care? If it is a sin, then it is a sin and they will go to hell. Until such a time as that they are practicing their God given Free Will to engage in behavior that they are personally comfortable with. Since they are not going to be dragging down a self-righteous prig such as yourself, why do you care?
Why does it seem to upset some people so much? I simply don't understand it. Tom and Jerry tying the knot takes absolutely nothing from me and mine. It will not effect my family, it will not effect my kids and it sure the hell won't effect me.
Of course I should not have to mention that I am talking about civil unions and the protections such unions receive from the state. Religiously based marriage is a totally different thing and certainly a church as an absolute right to marriy or not marry whom ever they choose.
Damn shame the right wing won't extend the same courtesy to our gay brothers and sisters.
Today we have guest blogger Tim from ChargePadilla.org. giving us an update, such as it is. Enjoy!
There have been very few updates to ChargePadilla.org. Sadly, that is because there has been no real change in the status of Jose Padilla's case. There are two bits of news now, however.
First, the appeal of Padilla's case will be argued this Monday, November 17. The case seems to have largely fallen from the news radar, but keep an eye out for coverage. There will probably be some delay before any decision.
That's the news. Below is a reminder of the history and why this case is important.
Jose Padilla (a.k.a. Abdullah Al Muhajir) was arrested when he arrived at the airport in Chicago after travelling abroad. He was held for approximately a month under a material witness warrant. Then, on June 9, 2002 President Bush signed an order designating Padilla an "enemy combatant". According to the government, Padilla had met with al-Qaeda representatives, and had returned to the U.S. intending to scout and prepare for terrorist acts, particularly the detonation of a so-called "dirty bomb" (a bomb which disperses radioactive material, but does not have a nuclear explosion).
Once Bush signed this declaration, Padilla was transferred to control of the U.S. military, and taken to a Navy brig in South Carolina. Since that time, Padilla has not been allowed to meet with his lawyers. He has not been charged with a crime, so he naturally has not stood trial. It is likely that he does not even realize there are still lawyers representing him, nearly a year and a half into his detention.
The ChargePadilla.org site was created to push for due process for Jose Padilla. Nobody affiliated with the site has any personal connection with Padilla. We aren't arguing that he should be freed, or that he is innocent. We simply don't know. So, why do we care?
We care because the way in which Padilla is being treated is a phenomenal expansion of the power of the President to detain whomever he desires for any reason. Consider: - Padilla is a U.S. citizen. - Padilla was arrested inside the United States. - Padilla was unarmed when he was arrested. - Padilla has not been charged with a crime. - No judge has approved Padilla's detention.
None of these things argues for innocence. An unarmed U.S. citizen could quite possibly be plotting heinous terrorist crimes. However, if this one person can be designated an "enemy combatant" and locked away without the involvement of the legal system, anybody can. All the President has to do is assert that someone is an "enemy combatant" and that person loses all rights to freedom, *including* the right to show that the accusation is false.
"Oh, come on!" we hear many people say, "This is a special case, the President won't use this power improperly!" Naturally, we feel *any* use of this power is improper. But consider, is there no president, whether Bush, Clinton, Nixon, FDR, who you think would abuse the ability to lock up anyone he desires? Do you think there never will be such a president in the future?
The drafters of the Bill of Rights didn't trust the government that much.
That's why the 5th amendment says:
No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
And the 6th amendment says:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury . . . and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Likewise, the U.S. Congress has not granted such powers to the President. There is much argument about the civil liberties implications of the USA Patriot Act, but that law does not in any way authorize such detentions. In fact, Congress in 1971 explicitly forbade such detentions with a law saying, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except Pursuant to an Act of Congress."
So, regardless of the President writing in his one-page document removing Jose Padilla from the U.S. legal system, "In accordance with the Constitution and consistent with the laws of the United States...," this action is *not* consistent with the Constitution, the law, or with American traditions and values.
Since his detention, Padilla's lawyers have argued in front of Judge Mukasey (the judge who issued the original material witness warrant). Mukasey seemed quite willing to allow the government nearly everything it sought in the case. He said that the President does have the right to detain a person without criminal charges as an "enemy combatant". Mukasey sought to give the government what it wanted, dodging his responsibility of setting precedent by reasoning that stretching the Constitution in just this one case shouldn't matter too much, saying:
"Those to whom images of catastrophe come that easily might take comfort in recalling that it is a year and a half since September 11, 2001, and Padilla's is not only the first, but also the only case of its kind. There is every reason not only to hope, but also to expect that this case will be just another of the isolated cases, like Quirin, that deal with isolated events and have limited application."
There is now at least one similar case. Ali Saleh al-Marri had was arrested three months after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. He was charged with a number of crimes (none of them terrorist crimes). Eventually, all the charges were dropped, and he was designated an enemy combatant on June 23, 2003. He is now being held incommunicado in the same Navy brig as Jose Padilla. The possibly significant difference in the case is that al-Marri is a citizen of Qatar, not the U.S.
Another matter of interest is that it appears the "enemy combatant" designation is being used as a threat to coerce plea agreements. As in, "Plead guilty or we won't even bother with a trial". The "Lackawanna Six"--U.S. citizens--pled guilty to terror charges. According to one of their lawyers, "We had to worry about the defendants being whisked out of the courtroom and declared enemy combatants if the case started going well for us. . .So we just ran up the white flag and folded."
Mukasey did require one thing of the government, that Padilla should be able to contest his detention (although under a *very* weak standard of evidence for the government). And he felt that Padilla could only reasonably contest his detention with the assistance of his lawyers, and so ordered the government to allow a meeting. The government refused even this small interference with its absolute power, and after some back and forth, the case is now going to appeal.
Padilla still has not been charged with a crime, and still has not met with his lawyers. That is where things stand.
The Supreme Court is set to consider two cases which may relate to Padilla's.
First is the detention of Yaser Esam Hamdi. Hamdi is also believed to be a U.S. citizen (there may be room to contest his citizenship, but it has not happened yet) who was detained in Afghanistan, and originally held at Guantanamo Bay before being transferred to the U.S. He is also being held as an "enemy combatant", and without access to his lawyers. An appeals court has said that his detention is legal, but has also noted it is quite different from Padilla's case
Second is a combined argument for several detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court will determine whether detainees have recourse to The U.S. court system.
Either of these cases could affect Padilla's case, but neither is as clear-cut, primarily because both Hamdi and the detainees at Guantanamo Bay were captured abroad by the military in war zones, while Padilla was arrested inside the U.S.
There are now six or seven friend-of-the-court briefs filed in the Padilla case. These briefs come from liberal and conservative civil-rights groups, from experts in the laws of war, and from bar associations, and collections of respected judges. EVERY ONE of the briefs argues that the government has seriously overstepped its power.
So, there's broad agreement that we can't hand over to this President-- or any future President--the power to imprison people arbitrarily. Let's all remember that as we watch the case. Let's remind our senators and representatives, as well as the White House, that we are committed to retaining our American Freedoms.
Below is an article about the differences between genetic engineering, and selective breeding by one of my favorite commentators QrazyQat. I have urged him in the past to send along an article and it pleases me greatly that he has. Before we go to Qrazy however a few things.
One of the most common strawmen in this whole controversy is "You can't understand, you're not a geneticist and therefore you simply fear what you don't understand". Bah. You don't need to be a genetics to understand that there has been inadequate testing of GM both in how it impacts the body and how it impacts the environment. Nor do you need a degree to understand that making food intellectual property is probably not a good idea.
I have already posted quite a bit on the subject thanks to Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" (which, in truth, laid more bullshit than it helped clear away). You can read all about it here. The article that Qrazy is talking about can be read here. Now take it away Qrazy!
...
I gotta say, that article is a prime example of news media science reporting doing a half-assed job in uncritically passing on one of the most dumb-assed bits of propaganda yet.
The entire purpose of the study seems to have been to make the claim that there's no difference between producing genetic modification through selective breeding and doing through through direct genetic modification. This is nonsense, and any capable science reporter or editor should know this, and should therefore point it out in the article. Without correction of bald and deliberate inaccuracies like that, they're just printing a press release, essentially printing a free advertisement.
Yes, genetic modification has gone on for many many years through selective breeding, and it's been long known that one of the earliest, most dramatic cases of that is the breeding of corn from its native relatives. Dramatic because corn is so much more different from its wild cousins than the other early grains were. It's quite a story, though hardly new. The study, and the article which parrots it, then uses that as a springboard into a claim that we shouldn't be wary of modern direct genetic modification because we've been doing genetic modification for all these years.
Two points:
One is that even selective breeding has produced some bad outcomes, but of course selective breeding has major limits on what can be done with it. You can't cross corn with strawberries, or with pigs.
That's the major difference with modern direct genetic modification, and is why their implyng the two methods are the same is so ridiculous. Now you can cross corn with a pig. Is that bad? Not necessarily, but it might be and it is, contrary to the study's claim, fundamentally different from selective breeding. It's unprecedented and selective breeding is not very similar at all to it. With selective breeding you couldn't cross a potato with a snowdrop, but now you can insert a snowdrop lectin into a potato and come up with what seems a perfectly good, ordinary-looking potato -- except that it causes the following in rats: "impaired development of organs such as the liver, thymus, spleen and gut. Their brain size decreased and their immune systems were weakened." Does that sound good? It wasn't expected, and it couldn't have been done with traditional selective breeding.
The authors of the study are no doubt aware that what they are saying is nonsense -- perhaps their funding from the Wellcome Trust, legacy of pharmaceutical tycoon Sir Henry Wellcome influenced them; perhaps it was other considerations, but it is nonsense and they certainly know it. Nevertheless, scientists who know better do, for whatever reason, spout this sort of nonsense from time to time, but science reporters and editors, who should know their subject well enough to spot the nonsense, shouldn't let them spout it unchallenged in the pages of their publications.
The idea that direct genetic manipulation is essentially the same as selective breeding is nonsense. While direct genetic manipulation has the potential for beneficial effects, there is also an unprecedented chance of making very harmful combinations. Not only can you make massive changes in an organism as opposed to the relatively small, slow changes you could through selective breeding, you can make changes that were impossible through selective breeding. Also, because of the massive rollout that a new GMO product can have nowadays, the likelihood is increased that a problem that would have traditionally shown up on a small scale will instead show up on a massive scale. Because of this unprecedented potential for harm as well as good, GMO crops and animals need much more study than traditional selective breeding. It's frightening to see that this necessary study is not only not being done, but is being "PRed" away through dishonest claims and analogies like those of the study described in this article.
As for the potato/snowdrop lectin research, no, it has not been discredited. True, there have been extensive, and (again) frighteningly dishonest attempts to discredit it, but it has not been discredited. I have several links to discussions of that issue on my other computer, and I'll have to put them up later. Then bare outlines of some of these attempts: the researcher who did the tests, Dr. Pusztai, was investigated (and eventually cleared of wrongdoing, even though he was barred from access to his own data which he needed for his defense. During this time he was placed under a gag order even while he was being attacked, making it fairly difficult to defend his research, as you can imagine. It was falsely claimed his work used the dangerous jackbean lectin instead of the snowdrop lectin (which was chosen for the study because up until then it was thought to be harmless to mammals); mind you, the people making the claim (that he used the wrong lectin) knew which one he actually used -- that doesn't sound too honest to me. Dr. Pusztai was painted as some sort of extreme anti-GMO utjob, an incompetent who couldn't even tell the difference between the two types of lectin in question -- he is actually a reknowned authority on lectins and fully expected to find that the potato/lectin combo he was researching would be completely safe for mammals.
When you find research being savagely and dishonestly attacked in this way, you should start wondering about trusting your health, and the health of our environment, to the attackers. When you accept the nonsense notion that direct genetic manipulation is essentially the same as selective breeding, you are giving your health, and that of our environment, over to those dishonest people. I don't think that's a good idea.
p.s. I mention the health of our environment because another method of making a dishonest claim about many GMO crops is to make a technically accurate statement which doesn't tell the whole story. For instance, many GMOs are modified to give resistance to insect attacks. The statement is often made that they haven't been found to be harmful to humans. This is generally a true statement, but here's two ways in which it is dishonest:
1) Generally no studies have been done as to whether or not it is safe; saying it hasn't been found to be unsafe when no studies have been done is true, but dishonestly implies that we know they are safe. The reason few studies are done on these GMOs is that there has been a concerted and dishonest lobbying effort to claim that there is no essential difference between direct genetic manipulation and selective breeding. In fact, the study and article in question are part of that PR effort, which has been sucessful enough to have that nonsense claim codified into regulatory rules and laws, to our detriment.
2) While it may actually be that these crops are not harmful to humans (it's just a guess if we don't do the studies, but it might be an accurate guess -- you don't mind leaving your health up to a wild guess, do you? I mind.) but they are demonstrably harmful to insects. Those that are engineered to be harmful to insects are harmful to insects -- makes sense, right? But the crop does not and cannot distinguish between "good" and "bad" insects, so it's harmful to all sorts of insects, even ones we want around. Since insects are a vital part of the overall ecosystem's food chain, this disrupts the food chain. We seem to be losing songbirds, for instance, due to losing insects -- do we really want to accelerate this? There are also potential problems with herbicide use, for instance in Monsanto's canola, which is engineered to withstand Monsanto's herbicide, making it possible to use large quantities of that herbicide on the fields, to the benefit of that crop and at the expense of all surrounding crops, plants, and ultimately animals. These things need to be studied, not "PRed" away by printing nonsensical articles promoting BS claims, or by dishonestly attacking the messenger, as was done with Dr. Pusztai.
Here's the links I mentioned in my above post regarding Dr. Pusztai's work; I've also included some text which I tho9ught was interesting from one of those links.
The following is from the last link above. I've added bold emphasis to one particular point, but all this is apropos and shows the industry has been ignoring potential health hazards from GMOs. The "Taco shell disaster" referred to was an event when GMO corn which was supposed to never be used for human consumption was actually used in producing taco shells for human coinsumption, which rather obviously shows that even simple safeguards the industry claims are in place don't always work. Instead the GMO industry has been putting out BS PR, attacking scientists who accurately show problems with some GMOs, and pressuring legislative bodies to not allow GMO foods to be labelled as such. If someone uses those as their frontline techniques to a problem, I can't say as I trust them with my health and the health of the environment.
From "Re - "Response to Pusztai and apology":
First of all, I should point out that the title was coined by T.J. Higgins and seconded by Maarten Chrispeels, neither of whom are known to be rabid anti-GM scientists. Of course, they were right because although Dr Morton may think that the differences found could not be regarded as potentially detrimental, some more cautious scientists might regard the changes as potentially harmful. Now there are two peer-reviewed papers, in addition to the FDA's own FLAVR SAVR tomato study, in which gut lesions have been found with GM foodstuffs in three different labs. In this light, even though in the GM pea study there was no histology, the significant weight and compositional differences in the caecum (large intestine) and the increased weight (not significant) of the small intestine should have at least cautioned anyone against claiming no detrimental effects and suggested doing further and more relevant (histological, immunological, etc) studies to investigate whether these differences had any physiological significance.
This is of particular importance when one takes into account that in practically all biological testing of GM crops the scientists use SPF and fully healthy rats or other animals. No tests have ever been performed with animals which had problems with their digestive system, despite the fact that a very sizeable proportion of the human population has diseases of the alimentary tract, such as Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, intestinal and pancreatic tumours of all kinds, H. pylory and other bacterial infections, and a compromised immune system, etc. Can anyone from the GM fraternity assure these people that they will suffer no ill effects when animal studies have already indicated the possibility of such? I do not want to appear to be pedantic but we all must be reminded of the fact that once a GM crop is released we lose all control over it. If the Taco shell disaster proved nothing else, it showed that neither the industry, nor the EPA or FDA are equipped to deal with a recall. This places extra responsibility on scientists to be ultra cautious and not to claim that something has no detrimental effects just because their experiences are not wide enough to see possible problems.
For those of you trying to follow the blog, all I can do is apologize. I have talked to Road Runner and they tell me the problems are ongoing and they have no idea when they will be fixed.
Not only can I not access my website, but my page reverts to a post over a week ago, erasing all my new postings. This one might go any minute so fair warning.
So be patient and as soon as things get back to normal I will update again.
For those that like my music I uploaded a new piece today. It is for a contest sponsored by ACIDplanet and Broadjam.
I uploaded it to Broadjam per the contest instructions, then could not find it anywhere (not even under my account). So I decided to uploaded it to ACIDplanet also. This would give anyone who wanted a chance to check it out.
So check out "It's Madness" today. I'll be glad you did.
For a complete list of my songs at ACIDplanet click here.
You own all her books... You read her column every week... You never miss her on television... Now you can be the first to own the Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure. Ann recorded 17 classic Coulter sayings especially for this Action Figure.
When you push the figure's button, you’ll her such "Coulterisms" as:
* "Liberals can’t just come out and say they want to take more of our money, kill babies, and discriminate on the basis of race."
* "Swing voters are more appropriately known as the 'idiot voters' because they have no set of philosophical principals. By the age of fourteen, you’re either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster."
* "Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"
* "Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion-opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like Liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they’d have indoor plumbing by now."
* $29.95 * Features 17 soundbites * 12 1/2 inches tall * Comes in display box * Batteries included
Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, has directed the Defense Department during Global War on Terror. Facing unprecedented challenges, this hard-charging leader is considered by many to be a modern-day American Hero.
Now you can own the Donald Rumsfeld Talking Action Figure!
Each time you press the button on the back of this lifelike action figure, you'll hear one of 28 memorable phrases. These are just a few of the actual sound bites recorded during Rumsfeld’s speeches and public appearances:
* "Oh, it was your rhetoric that made us do it. It turns out they had started doing this well before Bush came into office, well before the 'Axis of Evil' speech –- it's utter nonsense."
* "The only choice one has is to proceed and use coercion."
* "We have done so much in the last two years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear hoping everyone thinks that that's nice."
* "The question you ask, however, is not a question I can answer."
* $29.95 * Features 28 memorable soundbites * 12 1/2 inches tall * Comes in display box * Batteries included (but don't forget to order replacement batteries )
If you respect and admire President Bush, here's a collectible you won't want to miss. The George W. Bush Talking Action Figure says 17 memorable phrases. From talking tough on terrorism to inspiring patriotic statements, these are actual soundbites recorded during Bush's speeches and public appearances.
Here are just a few of the "Bushisms" you'll hear:
"The presidency is more than an honor, it is more than an office, it is a charge to keep and I will give it my all."
"I was not elected to serve one party, but to serve one nation."
"Together we will renew America's purpose."
". . . and of course, George Washington, or as his friends called him, George W!"
"I come from Texas!"
"I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging the struggle for freedom and security for the American people."
"Freedom itself was attacked by faceless cowards, and freedom will be defended."
"Our priorities are our faith. Our priorities are our family. Our priority is a country we love dearly called America."
After reading the email I damn near died from all the laughter, I mean, I am thinking "This is the most brilliant, funny piece that I have read in a month of Sundays!. I have to check out their website". Imagine my horror when I realized that they were serious!
Well after five days I can finally access my website.
On Friday I tried to update the blog. It was then I noticed that I could not upload my entry. Very strange. So I headed over to the Road Runner Network Status page to find out what was going on . They admitted that there was a problem with some customers accessing their websites. Ok no big deal right? I don't update over the weekend anyway and since we were going to head out to the Texas Renaissance Festival it was going to be doubly busy (for those who care, this weekend is the last weekend for the Fest).
Monday rolls around and still no access to the website. To say I am becoming a bit perturbed would be understating the matter. So I call Road Runner Tech. Support to ask how much longer will it be before I can access my site. Well I get the classic of all tech answers. "I have no idea" followed by the all too predictable "But it is our top priority". Of course this answer (which is really no answer at all) just made me more angry. So throughout the day I keep trying to access the site. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Till about ten minutes ago when Bingo, I was in. No telling how long this happy state of affairs will last, but I am going to try like hell to catch up.
I plan to repost a long screed on the "Evolution vs. Creation" debate either this week or the next. I also have an article about chiropractic that I hope to get up by the end of the week.
But the best thing of all is that I can actually access my blog again. Whew!
Tell The Texas State Board Of Education"Don't Mess With Textbooks"
ACTION ALERT -- People For the American Way Alert Date: Nov. 5, 2003 -- Circulate Until: Nov. 7, 2003: Tell The Texas State Board Of Education"Don't Mess With Textbooks!"
Action:
Tell your state Board of Education member to protect church-state separation in Texas by adopting science textbooks that do NOT include "intelligent design" creationism. Board members and phone numbers are listed below. If you don't know your district or board member's name, look it up based on your address at:
Mary Helen Berlanga District 2 Phone: (361) 882-8284
Cynthia A. Thornton District 10 Phone: (979) 249-3099
Joe J. Bernal District 3 Phone: (210) 342-8026
Patricia Hardy District 11 Phone: (817) 598-2968
Alma A. Allen District 4 Phone: (713) 734-1542
Geraldine Miller District 12 Phone: (972) 419-4000
Dan Montgomery District 5 Phone: (830) 997-9759
Mavis B. Knight District 13 Phone: (214) 333-9575
Terri Leo District 6 Phone: (281) 257-0836
Gail Lowe District 14 Phone: (512) 556-6262
David Bradley District 7 Phone: (409) 835-3808
Bob Craig District 15 Phone: (806) 744-3232
Linda Bauer District 8 Phone: (281) 292-6526
Attention Austin Area Activists!
A press conference at the Texas Education Agency is planned for Thursday to tell the Board: "Don't Mess with Textbooks." If you can attend and show your support for sound science and church-state separation in Texas, please contact Heather Alden with the Texas Freedom Network: heather@tfn.org
What: "Don't Mess With Textbooks" Press Conference When: Thursday, November 6 -- 9:45 a.m. Where: Texas Education Agency Travis Building 1701 North Congress Ave. Austin, TX
Free parking is available at the Capitol Parking Garage on the corner of 14th Street and Trinity.
Science education is under attack in Texas from right-wing groups who want religion, not science, to be taught in our public schools. Religious Right activists are lobbying the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) to demand that science textbook publishers include the religious theory of "intelligent design" creationism as well as alleged "weaknesses" in the scientific theory of evolution (weaknesses provided by right- wing think tanks, naturally).
Texas biologists, educators, business leaders and activists like you have told SBOE members why this not-so-subtle textbook censorship would hurt Texas' kids, schools and businesses, and it appears to be working. But we're not resting on our laurels.
The final SBOE votes on this matter will be held tomorrow, November 6, and Friday, November 7. Tell your SBOE member to accept the current proposed science textbooks, which do not bow to the Religious Right's demands. "Intelligent design" creationists seek to present their beliefs as an alternative "theory" to evolution. But, a little scientific window-dressing and the substitution of terms like "intelligent creator" for God does not form a true scientific theory. The real goal of the right-wing Discovery Institute and other purveyors of "intelligent design" creationism is to inject their religious views into science education. Short of accomplishing this goal, they are trying to get the SBOE to reject science textbooks that, in their opinion, are not critical enough of perceived weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Call your SBOE member today! Tell him or her to protect church-state separation and the integrity of science education in Texas by voting to adopt all 11 biology textbooks in their current forms.
The outcome of this battle could also impact the integrity of science education in dozens of other states. As one of the largest buyers of textbooks, Texas' decision influences the curriculum of children across the nation because publishers want to win the large orders Texas places. Please call now and look for an update following Thursday's SBOE vote.
*** More Resources On The Evolution Vs. Creationism Debate ***
So, science wasn't your best subject? Brush up on the evolution vs. creationism debate with these online resources.
People For the American Way depends on the support of individuals like you. Join us today and know that you are helping to keep alive the true American spirit: tolerance, free speech, protection for minorities, equal opportunity, and freedom for all religious faiths without government intrusion. To become a member of People For the American Way, please call 1-800-326-7329 or go to: http://www.pfaw.org/go/join/ Donations to People For the American Way are not tax-deductible as charitable contributions or as business expenses under IRC Sec. 162(e).
It is one year before a vote will be cast to re-elect President Bush and Vice President Cheney. As a Bush Team Leader your support and hard work will determine if President Bush's strong leadership will continue during these challenging times.
As a member of our team I wanted to share this important strategic memo with you on what we expect in the coming year. As you read it, one thing should be clear this will be a close and hard fought election where the efforts of our grassroots supporters will make the difference.
Thank you again for all you do and all that you will do in support of our President.
Sincerely,
Marc Racicot Chairman Bush-Cheney '04
Memorandum
TO: Marc Racicot, Chairman Ken Mehlman, Campaign Manager
FR: Matthew Dowd Chief Strategist
Many recent polls have been reported in news outlets and dissected by pundits the last couple of months. And even though last April, we anticipated and forecasted a drop in Presidential job approval and a very high likelihood that President Bush may be behind at some point (every President running for re-election since 1972 has been behind at some point), political commentators perceived the numbers as bad news for the Bush Team and declared "the sky is falling" once again.
Where the public is today
In the two most recent Gallup polls (released October 13 and October 27), President Bush's approval ratings were at 56% and 53% respectively -- a slight rise from the approval of a month ago at 50%. In the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (released 11/2), President Bush's job approval rose to 56%. As a reminder, in 1996 Bill Clinton was re-elected with a job approval of 54% right before Election Day. Further, Ronald Reagan and Clinton both had approval ratings a year out from Election Day in the forties (Reagan was at 49% and Clinton at 46%) -- roughly 6 to 8 points below where President Bush is today.
One major reason why President Bush's approval numbers have had such lasting power is that a majority of the public sees this President as honest and trustworthy, a strong leader, and believes that he cares about them. A second important reason for the sustained nature of these positive numbers in the wake of consistent negative media coverage concerning Iraq and the economy is that the public sees the President as presenting a clear and positive message on dealing with the public's concerns. In contrast, the public has not seen, read or heard any positive effort by the Democrats dealing with issues. A third important consideration is the public trusts President Bush more than the Democrats on handling the economy, terrorism and foreign policy.
Voter approval on handling of the economy is a further area highlighting where President Bush stands in a historical context. In the latest public polling, President Bush maintains an approval on the economy in the mid-forties exactly what Clinton had at the end of 1995 and above what Reagan had in 1983. Former President Bush's approval on the economy at this same time in 1991 was 28% and fell to the mid-teens in 1992! In looking at Gallup polls for the past 30 years, approval on the economy is a dominant factor in whether some Presidents are re-elected while some are voted out of office.
A couple of factors that have contributed to this difference on economic approval are that the public is more optimistic and much less angry than in 1992. In fact, for the first time in months Gallup shows that the public is slightly more optimistic on the direction of the economy than pessimistic by a margin of 47% to 43% -- a net positive of +4%. At this same time in 1991, optimism on the economy was very low at 19% to pessimism at 69% -- a net negative of -50%.
This is driven to an extent by economic good news. Today, the stock market on average is rising and the initial jobless claims' four week moving average is below 400,000, as well as housing starts, GDP growth, etc.
Where we are headed
Though at this time this is good news for a campaign headed into an election year, this race is likely to be very tight and go down to the wire. The country is very evenly divided, and with Democratic partisans lined up solidly against President Bush, this race will stay very close. In fact, the most recent Gallup poll had President Bush leading an unnamed Democratic opponent by three points. This number has been relatively stable the last couple of months. Some public polls show President Bush leading by more, some by less, but all show a very close race. As I have repeated time and again, this race will be decided within a four- or five-point margin, not the 18- to 20-point margins like 1984 or 1972.
After the Democratic nominee is all but certain in the late winter/early spring, it would not be surprising for us to fall behind for a bit. First, this is just the nature of a divided and polarized electorate. Second, once the Democratic nominee is all but assured, that person will receive a deluge of positive press at least for a couple of weeks, and this will temporarily be reflected in public opinion polls.
Further, just as in 2002, the economy will likely be a dominant issue going into 2004 as well as the war on terrorism. We pointed out in a memo prior to Election Day 2002 that the number one issue was the economy, and at the time Democrats and their operatives overwhelmingly agreed. And the primary reason Republican candidates won in 2002 is that the public had more trust in them on Election Day in handling the economy than Democrats.
So, my suggestion is to try and put all the "numbers" and speculation in their historical context, and expect a campaign that will likely be behind at various points over the next year. We must remind our key supporters around the country that all the numbers reflect a closely divided electorate, and less about flagging or soaring support for President Bush whose support in a historical context has been consistently positive. All polls are snapshots and our supporters should be encouraged to place them in perspective, and look at other internal numbers in public polls. For example, CBS News recently conducted a poll, and one number not prominently featured was that President Bush went from being even with a generic Democrat to up twelve!
It's not enough that they are racist homophobic idiots, now they advise attacking bicyclist.
Man it's days like today that I am glad I stopped listening to KLOL. You might remember (if your a regular reader) my open letter to Walton and Johnson. I knew they would be a disaster, but Oh Lord, I had no idea they would be this bad:
On September 2, a Houston radio station (KLOL) broadcast a show in which the DJs advocated that their listeners use their car mirrors to hit cyclists. Two other stations, one in Raleigh NC and one in Cleveland, have broadcast similar episodes. Naturally, cyclists are outraged and now the parent company, Clear Channel, is on the defensive.
Is this not unbelievable? What ever happened to responsible broadcasting?
As pointed out in the passage above, KLOL was not the only station to recommend the attacking of cyclist, it happened at two other stations. The one thing that ties them together is that they are all owned by Clear Channel Communication. So how did Clear Channel act? Well at first, they seemed not to care much at all:
I spoke in person with G105/WDCG-FM station manager Ken Spitzer for about 30 minutes today at the Clear Channel Communications studios in Raleigh NC. Mr. Spitzer was polite and listened carefully to my concerns.
In short:
1. G105/WDCG-FM has denied my request on behalf of the North Carolina Bicycle Club and the North Carolina Coalition for Bicycle Driving for a transcript or copy of a recording of the Sept 22-23 programs where morning radio personality Bob Dumas allegedly encouraged motorists to assault cyclists on the roadway by intentionally striking them with their cars or throwing bottles at them. It was explained to me that it is company policy to not provide such material and that since the station does not recognize road bicyclists in general as a specific political group, the FCC rule requiring them to provide a transcript to individuals or groups attacked on the air does not apply.
2. Station manager Ken Spitzer offered no apologies for the comments made on the air, and dismissed the controversy as nothing different from the typical result of talk radio shows designed to get attention.
3. Ken Spitzer was surprised to hear from me that cyclists had the same legal rights to use roadways as licensed drivers of motor vehicles. He said that he did not previously know about this, and speculated that most people do not. He explained that he thinks this general lack of public information should excuse the behavior of those at his radio station.
4. Ken Spitzer said that he would need to call NCDOT's bicycle and pedestrian division to verify my claim that cyclists have the legal right to use roadways.
5. The radio station is well equipped to deflect and ignore large volumes of complaints from listeners and has little to fear from this. Insulting, angy emails and phone calls do not get any attention as this is considered just part of the business.
6. Ken Spitzer will be out of town for a few days for a long weekend and cannot be reached until he returns.
The station's initial response came from station manager Kenneth Spitzer, who referred to the show as "animated banter." But after a demonstration outside the station and the threat by advertisers to pull out, Spitzer issued a public apology on the air Thursday.
The first of the anticyclist diatribe occurred last July in Cleveland, when WMJI-FM disc jockeys suggested cyclists be rammed off the road. One of those who got on the phone to defend cyclists was Lois Cowan, who co-owns four bike shops in the Cleveland area.
"I was repeatedly called a buffoon, an idiot and a PMS sufferer who couldn't take a joke," she said. "Then there were three hours of calls from people saying, 'Yeah, you guys are right.' "
The session left Cowan in tears, but she immediately swung into action, helping engineer a bombardment of calls and e-mails to the station. In the end, the station called a truce and agreed to, among other things, hundreds of public-service announcements about the need to share the road.
The Houston incident also took place in September, and the timing of the show infuriated the city's cycling community. On Aug. 30, a woman driving a pickup truck had lost control and slammed into a 20-bike pace line, killing two riders and injuring eight others. Three days later, the disc jockeys at station KLOL-FM went on their antibiking rampage, setting off another round of protests.
"When you incite people to violence, you've crossed the line," insisted Houston cyclist Frank Karbarz, who helped organize against the station. "They did it almost like a tutorial. It wasn't humorous. It was how to hurt someone."
That Houston's own Walton and Johnson jumped right in with both feet is no surprise to me. They are a pair of idiots that don't think at all about what they put out over the public airwaves. After all, when a person is willing to state that all "greenies" (environmentalists) are gay or think that a Moslem's ultimate ambition is to blow up a bus, well can recommending you simply attack what annoys you be far behind? Apparently not.
Something to think about next time KLOL's license is up for renewal.
Well I hope you had a fun Halloween. I know I did, it is my favorite holiday of the year, with October being one of the busiest months of the year, at least for my magic show. I am happy for the work, but I am also glad it is over.
Alas I am busy today, but I hope to have stuff up the rest of the week. Lord knows I feel a need to comment on a lot of what is happening.
Today will not be a good day to try to read this page. I am going to work on Blog, the software I use to write up my entries. I have not raved about this program in a while so let me take a few to mention that this is a great program, at least a million times better than Blogger. I highly recommend it. In any case, there are features to the program I have never tried to use. So if you see strange things on the blog today don't be surprised. I promise everything will be back to normal by this evening.
So go and have a good day and check in tomorrow. For, as they say, Tomorrow is another day.
