The Associated Press today tells the story of how Democrats in Washington clearly do not want to end the Iraq War. This story includes all of the tell-tale signs of both a party that disdains the will of voters and a media unwilling to report even the most basic facts: Nancy Pelosi reading Fox News talking points that claim conditioning funding on American troops’ training is supposedly not supporting our troops; Harry Reid nonchalantly saying in the face of mounting casualties that there’s no real urgency to do anything on the war because "Iraq is going to be there"; and the AP writer refusing to acknowledge consistent public opinion polls by CNN and the Washington Post that show the public strongly supports Congress cutting off funding for Bush’s military escalation and conditioning funding on adequate troop training, respectively.
Make no mistake about it: The renewed refusal by Democrats to use their majority in even the most basic way to stop the war is a declaration that the new majority is not close to using even the most basic powers afforded to it to stop or slow down the war. In other words, in backing off, the Democrats have just weeks after the 2006 anti-war election mandate effectively declared themselves as supportive of the Bush administration’s stay-the-course policy - a truly sickening act of cowardice.
This is all the more reason for folks to head over to the Progressive States Network’s Anti-Iraq Escalation Campaign and use our website to demand your state legislature tell Congress that its behavior on Iraq is absolutely unacceptable. Clearly, the folks in Washington are so drunk off power they have decided to ignore the majority of Americans who want an end to the madness in Iraq. They need to hear from our states - and they need to hear from our states right now.
And get well Steve Gilliard. Look, I'm no doctor but when the phrase "open heart surgery" pops up...this would be a tremendous loss.
Feb. 26
I spent all day working on this. This happens to be the future. I just programmed my own one hour music and politics show. I think its pretty good. No fluff. No reality programming. Just good music and selected ideology. Quake in your boots Reginald Hudlin and BET on J...in about another six months. This is just the first of these kinds of services. They'll get better. Bugs: Doesn't work with explorer. In fact, it sabotages my entire jazropo page. Only works with Firefox. I can't figure that out. His code is buggy.
Feb 25
World Record Average Around the Internets or Stories I Need to Read More Carefully
I liked the interview that 2 Political Junkies snagged with Mike Doyle. I didn't agree with one point he made as to why he wouldn't impeach the president. He said he didn't want to make Cheney the President. I suggested, in the comments, that you could impeach both the President and the Vice President at the same time. You could even go after Cheney first. And right on time, here's Raw Story offering up six articles of impeachment for our favorite vp hunter. That would mean President Pelosi, which I could live with. Just to review: impeachment would be popular, would show the dems have spine, work politically (monicagate cost the dems the 2000 presidency among other things) and put the republicans on the defensive. Finally, and not least, it might be the only way to save up to a million Iranian lives.
Here's a place to create your own playlists that looks good. My first effort is here. I think the way to sell politics is the same way you sell other products. Repetition, repetition, repetition. Just like the Geico ads.
A long time ago I was the only guy on the Better Humans staff who thought that people who were worried about GM foods had a point. I was of the opinion that while those foods shouldn't be banned you should at least know what you're eating and it should be labeled. I believe all of those initiatives were defeated so your every meal is a surprise. Turns out that one company knew that their GM potatoes caused cancer six years ago, but they didn't tell anybody. I think Chris Mooney owes us all an apology. And for this.
"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses."
(approximation of the Evil One or the Instapundit.)
I see that the Instapundit is getting a much deserved beatdown. How can I put this? Glenn Reynolds is a crazy person. A right wing extremist. He's that blonde guy in that first Matt Damon Bourne movie who clenches his teeth and jumps out a window as opposed to being interrogated. Keep in mind whenever you hear how Al Gore couldn't win Tennessee that radical extremist Glenn Reynolds was "helping" him in that state. And why is hot Boing Boing girl Xeni Jardin linking to a guy who likes death squads? He supports them in Iran, certainly Iraq (a half million Iraqi civilians gone and he knows no shame) and he probably supported them in Latin America. Its who he is. He's an evil little man. If he were a Marvel villain he'd be too over the top...
(approximation of Senator Joe Leiberman)
Apparently, another evil man, the independent senator from Conn. Joe Leiberman, is holding the entire Democratic Party hostage, according to the Booman Tribune. Here's the whole thing:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind...
"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."
Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months," specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.
He suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.
"I hope we don't get to that point," Lieberman said. "That's about all I will say on it today. That would hurt."
Leiberman, by the way, is Exhibit One as to why some of us think that the Jewish delegation in congress supports the Iraq War--and will probably be the first to support an Iranian war. He certainly is the most obvious exhibit. Its certainly a question that a real press should be asking: are you more loyal to Israel--not unlike fighting for the white South Africans--than you are to the United States? Are you willing to invest American troops and treasure in a war that you think will protect Israel (Mistakenly, as even a number of Jewish and Israeli thinkers have pointed out.)? I think in Leiberman's case the answer is clearly yes. And you can't write about it and politicians can't talk about it. Jewish American money, which is a different thing than the majority of Jewish American voters who voted with the wave and realize that the Iraq War makes the world a much more dangerous place for Jews everywhere, seems to support the war and punishes people who criticize it.
JEWISH WEEK - The Brandeis campus is reeling in the wake of former President Jimmy Carter's visit. Major donors to Brandeis University have informed the school they will no longer give it money in retaliation for its decision last month to host former President Jimmy Carter, a strong critic of Israel. The donors have notified the school in writing of their decisions — and specified Carter as the reason, said Stuart Eizenstat, a former aide to Carter during his presidency and a current trustee of Brandeis, one of the nation's premier Jewish institutions of higher learning. . . Brandeis history professor Jonathan Sarna, who maintains close ties with the administration, told The Jewish Week, "These were not people who send $5 to the university. These were major donors, and major potential donors. "I hope they'll calm down and change their views," Sarna said. . .
This kind of thing affects parties, blogs and newspapers, in case you're wondering why you're not getting a full debate on this issue on your "news" outlets. You can read about such things on the Internets, which is why some people love the Internets. Of course, I imagine, there might be lots of people who hate the Internets for the very same reasons.
Short 30 word reviews of cable movies that I have watched:
I believe I also saw this Woody Allen movie ("Match Point") when it was called "Crimes and Misdemeanors", one of the strongest of his post Annie Hall period. It wasn't bad it just felt like I had seen it before except without British accents. I should look more into the history of the film. Allen might acknowledge that. One major problem and a spoiler: He never would have gotten away with it because of all those cameras they have in Britain. He wouldn't have been "lucky" so to speak. Meanwhile, "The Squid and the Whale" is the kind of striking and shocking movie that Woody Allen used to make. If you're married, I highly recommend that you watch this film and Allen's "Husbands and Wives" and then just get about the business of slitting your wrists. Very painful yet funny. Great performances from both Linney and Daniels. I swear I could read every evil thought from Daniels just by his expression. Disturbing insights into writers and failure. Anna Paquin was hot too...
Unspace, or Mullah Rob, wrote a review of "Black Snake Moan" which I hadn't even heard of. It apparently features a black man (Samuel Jackson) who finds a beaten up Christina Ricci on the road. She wakes up and then finds that she's chained to his house in her underwear. The Sam Jackson character won't release her until he's cured her of her "wickedness"...so far, this sounds like a completely logical movie. I would do the same. I would have to use rope because I can't afford chains and I would be fine with her "wickedness" but I understand the motivation. I guess I'm hoping it has no redeeming religious values attached to it but then why is Mullah Rob reviewing it as he scratches his Spock goatee ever so suspiciously? Trailer here:
Feb. 19
In this month's The Humanist:
It's not a war over democracy and freedom. If you didn't know that already...You can also care about human life even if you're not being threatened with eternal Hellfire to do so. Related: This post over at Max Sawicky's site about how we're stealing their oil.
Mark Crispin Miller gives us the rundown on the Voter Reform movement after the election. He criticizes these nonbinding resolutions so he won't be invited on the Daily Kos Blogroll anymore, not that he ever made that blogroll.
I'm going to repeat the whole thing here:
The Senate unanimously punks out
If the Senate Democrats weren't suffering from a severe collective case of battered spouse syndrome, they would be all fired up about the sorry state of our election system, and doing everything they could to make it better. By "better," I mean, basically, "more honest," which, in this case, could work only to the Democrats' advantage. After all, the party's top dogs tend to care far more about (a) their own careers and (b) the party's welfare than they do about the state of the Republic.
Such short-sightedness is all too human, and so there's little point in our decrying it. In any case, such self-interest would at least help save us from the looming fascist order--if (again) the Democrats would only act out of self-interest, rather than continuing to acquiesce so masochistically in BushCo's grand subversion of American democracy, or what's now left of it. They cannot, will not, face the truth about the nature of BushCo's regime. Thus they keep rubber-stamping Bush's steps toward absolute control of the election system, as they just did last night, approving the appointment of an outright Bushevik to Bush's EAC.
This cave-in--and the current rush to pass Rush Holt's bill’ which will finally do more harm than good--make clear that the Democrats feel much assured by their big "victory" in November. They tell themselves that they gave Bush the "thumpin'" that he so quaintly mentioned in his first press conference after E-Day. They tell themselves that their big win of 29 House seats was a sort of proof that things can't really be so bad, or they would not have been permitted to perform so well.
What they cannot, will not, face is the unpleasant truth about that last election: that there was vast election fraud from coast to coast again; that the volume of complaints from the grass roots (remember them?) was evidently greater than it was two years before; that the Dems arguably won not a mere 29 states but at least 50 (and probably did better in the Senate than they think). In short, they will not, cannot, face the fact that Bush did not just get a "thumpin'," but was routed--and that it was not Rahm Emanuel/Chuck Schumer who deserve our praises for the (actual) devastation of the Bush Republicans, but the people, who turned out in record numbers, and with a new doggedness, to vote against the Bush regime and all its works. The Democratic party will not give them any credit for that action, or help those who were disenfranchised once again.
There are currently four Democrats, all of them in Florida, challenging the outcome of the 2006 election, and collecting evidence of election fraud in every case; and they're doing it with no help from the party, which also pressed a number of other "losing" Democratic candidates to do the "gracious" thing and shut their mouths--as if it were "ungracious" to assert, and to defend, the right to vote.
Before Election Day, Republicans refused to talk about election fraud because it would hurt their interests, they having lately "won." Now it's the Democrats who play the issue down, or keep ignoring it, for the very same reason. Thus both parties seem inclined to sell the voters out.
This is not about affixing printers to the DRE machines, or any other trivial (and useless) technical adjustment. It's about confronting those who can't and won't confront the enemies of what was once was the world's most promising democracy. We must confront them now, and force them to confront and overwhelm those enemies, or we can kiss the Constitution, and the Planet Earth, goodbye.
Let me add a few thoughts to this: One of the advantages of controlling the ballot isn't just controlling when you win, but controlling when you lose. In a chess game sometimes its to your advantage to sacrifice a queen or a rook or even a mid term election (What better way to quiet the critics? See Steve Gilliard.) in order to better position yourself for a long term win. Right now it looks as if the dems retook the congress in order to continue the war. Long range that sucks for the dems. It was great knocking on doors against the republicans last fall. It won't be so great in 2008 when you're the party that did nothing to stop the war, an evil unjustified war of imperialist greed at that. True, there's hope on the Murtha front but he won't even get help from the more powerful blogs and he'll get killed by the Corporate Press. Murtha will need all the help he can get.
One more thing: there is vast disagreement about the merits of the Holt bill as its currently authored. People for the American Way supports it. Here's the best critique I've read so far from Josh Mittledorf.
I think the argument that this is "achievable" doesn't carry much weight, when it is likely we will get only one bite at the apple this legislative session. The threshold for support has to be higher than simply "doesn't hurt" or even "better than what we've got".
Consequently, I hold any election legislation accountable for making a significant improvement in the situation. I don't think the Holt bill rises to this standard because
Effective legislation must be explicit about consequences and remedies when, inevitably, their mandates are violated. There are already ample rules, especially at the state level - some might say more than ample rules - that are not being enforced. For example, tens of thousands of precincts have suffered violations and corrupted vote counts, while the only prosecutions of which I am aware are the two Democratic officials recently convicted in Ohio. Another example: Pennsylvania, like many other states, provides that computer code for electronic voting machines must be certified by the state; but in practice, the code is routinely altered by manufacturers up to the day of the election, with no possibility of state supervision. Whom do we sue? What are the appropriate remedies?
There is a huge loophole in Sec 327, providing that when states recount an election because it is close, they don't have to use the very paper trail that the bill works so hard to provide! So when exactly are the paper trails counted?
The bill is likely to entrench both DREs and the EAC as albatrosses on our voting system for years to come.
Meanwhile, from the Post Gazette, here's a profile on our local voter reform activist hero, Marybeth Kuznik. There doesn't seem to be any mention of the Holt bill or the split in the voter reform community about that bill's worth. If you want that, you have to read the Internets...
Feb. 18
So, Reginald Hudlin is kinda of a dick. I got banned (I seem to have a talent for that, at least when I make an effort...) from that web forum of his. Luckily I saved the page and you can read it here. Its fair use and all and its news when a Ted Turner type doesn't answer questions on his own web forum. He doesn't address any of my arguments. What this means: BET on J will turn into yet another Viacom music channel that has nothing to do with good music. Its almost like Viacom hates music. It just feels that way. One more note to Reggie: Why is your forum moderator 10 years old? Is that the audience you're aiming for? Wait. Don't answer that.
Then again, we're very close to being able to create our own channels and saying fuck viacom and probably cable tv. All you need are playlists and somebody that won't yank your vids after two minutes. French Daily Motion would be perfect if they did real playlists. But they don't offer playlists, yet. Now, there is Mania TV, which allows you to create channels. The embeds are shaky plus they're windows media only. That doesn't bode well. I can't get it to work with mozilla. It sure would be nice if the Pirate Bay people offered a video service...Oh, here's a channel: it only has three vids so far because the service seems to be buggy and slow (Yep. Definitely a Microsoft product...) but there might be more later from the Steely Dan Channel. Guaranteed to be better than BET on J. It also has a zoom function.
As people may or may not know, I have been banned from both the Daily Kos, for writing this and having the nerve to defend myself and also the Booman Tribune, even though I think Booman is actually a real progressive. I thought in both cases that the bannings were unwarranted and not the actions of people that you call "progressive" or even "liberal".
I think those are all fairly good rules. Hey, at least you have them. I kind of wonder what brought them on. I'm sure there was a lengthy and fair process going on when Markos dropped you from his blogroll. Well, if it takes experience to make you better...
Philip Shropshire www.threeriversonline.com
PS: I think you were dropped because you wrote about AIPAC and whether members of the jewish delegation of a certain house committee were objective when it came to Israel...perfectly appropriate questions by the way that a vigorous online press should be asking. And I'm sure, in an alt universe, where there were 10 Iraqi sunnis sitting on a US house committee you would be asking the same questions.
More on the purges from the Daily Kos blogroll here and here.
If you're a normal person or a couple on Valentine's Day then I recommend "Michelle" by the Beatles. If you're a serial killer in training, then I highly recommend Vincent Gallo's "Honey Bunny", also featured over at the Red Light District. I don't think I've ever seen Paris Hilton so...appealing.
Yet another edition of "I Love You Steve Gilliard/Gawd I Hate You Steve Gilliard". Agree with Steve that appealing to racist white evangelicals is not the way to go. Agree with Steve that we really don't know a lot about Obama and that black voters are all distrustful that he's a trojan horse for NAFTA Two or eliminating Headstart. Or a black republican who represents the whims of the powerful and not the interests of the black community. Agree with Steve that if you keep calling him uppity Salon you'll push me into his camp out of rage. But Gawd I Hate Steve for not recognizing that the blogroll stuff matters. I suppose I would feel better about his position as the lone black on the blogroll who doesn't care about being on the Daily Kos blogroll if he wasn't at the very tippy top of the Daily Kos blogroll, which, according to people who have been purged can cut your traffic by up to a third. Of course, like Chairman Markos, Steve does hate those dirty fucking hippies like Max Sawicky...
I haven't chosen a presidential nominee yet. For me its between Obama and Edwards. I was leaning toward Edwards until his statements on Iran (probably won't immediately withdraw if Bush starts yet another ill conceived war...)and this blogger controversy. I definitely am hostile toward religion--for good reasons--and probably wouldn't make for a blogger that should be hired by the Edwards campaign, although I'll probably end up knocking on doors for whoever the presidential nominee is for the dems unless its an uninspiring choice. I can understand the politics of respecting religion, but I can't understand letting your enemies determine who your friends are let alone your employees and that apology thing...I would have tendered my resignation. So Obama is going up and Edwards down but I still can't make a call....
Feb. 9
I see someone else has used the newspaper generator for hilarious effect. Note to self: Tell the Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents that I'm black no matter what whitey sez.
Read all about it. You can create your own snark headlines/stories here if you're interested. Meanwhile, all's quiet on the Mullah Rob front. Since he didn't answer my challenge of what is the evil atheist agenda I will answer it for him, karate chop and muay thai knee included. There is no evil atheist agenda. We're just the people at Jonestown who say "Let's not drink the koolaid." We're the ones at the Branch Davidian ranch saying "You know, I never thought Koresh was the messiah." We're the ones who don't commit suicide in order to catch the interstellar ride on the comet. And we're the ones who don't believe in fairy tales no matter how nice they make us feel. Its an honorable way to see the world and to live.
(Great toon by Stephanie McMillan, who I will never eat with. "Yes that's right I don't think I can vote Green Stephanie... and this is delicious! What do you call it? Garlic Oleander stew? That's got a kick...and, hey, I don't feel so good...")
I see Ralph Nader is considering another run. I have never voted for Ralph Nader because we live under a terrible gawdawful winner take all system. Terrible for democracy. And, now, of course there are hit teams aimed against Third Party candidates. Ask Carl Romanelli. When we run off to Mars I say let's all use proportional representation and auditable ballots. The democracy would be refreshing.
But I do know why Nader is running. The Republicans gave us a gift today in that they voted down even a worthless bill condeming the war, but the dems really have to go further. They have the power to cut off the funds, but simply won't use it. They're just not that much of an opposition party are they? Just look at how they handled the filibuster issue. Let me get this straight: the dems can't use the filibuster when they're in the minority but the republicans can. How nice. They really are the Washington Generals Party. The Republicans can play hardball and do everything within their power to destroy the dems. The Dems want to "work" with the Republicans, the most evil party on the face of the planet. The party that could teach Emperor Palpitine a thing or two. A party, that by all rights, shouldn't exist. There shouldn't be a party that just represents the oil and insurance industries and works against the long term public interest at every turn. Right? But that's what we got. The Ruthless Dark Side Bidness Party and the less ruthless Joe Biden/Leiberman business party that enables them, and, oh look, Unity 08 is right between them giving me a "choice".
The odd thing is that I really think that a well funded Third Party effort could work well in 2008. I still think if you had 30 million to blow the Greens should shoot for five Senate seats and 10 to 15 house seats. That way they would hold, in theory, swing vote say on just about every issue. That's why I wasn't happy that a progressive guy like Craig Newmark won't improve his net worth by taking google ads. The American Left needs money to create infrastructure and to work year round. Hey we're not all rich white kids doncha know. (See "My Brilliant Career at ACORN.")
There's also a real opportunity for a well funded progressive Third Party presidential candidate but he has to play to win. Well funded means 25 to 30 million in at least 17 states..Perhaps Ralph will win the lottery or that famed Hollywood Left will do something besides give money to Dems...
"We believe our current societies are fundamentally flawed and based on wealth accumulation, and wish to create a model nation based on what we believe are the most important ideals."
I'm going to join the message boards and recommend seven large cruising ships and space space and....space. I say Mars and/or orbital habitat or bust. I'm also rejoining the Space.com message boards...
Feb. 4
I think this is my favorite blasphemy vid. If someone ever gives the Richard Dawkins foundation 10 million and we could run public service ads... Of course then the question would be: who would run them? Out here on the Internets, though, there are men and women of free will that can post this:
Or Reason 243a on Why Richard Dawkins is a mean ol atheist..."The son of a Presbyterian minister, Chris Hedges warns against a radical minority within the Christian right. Hedges talks about why he believes the right is eroding Democracy in his new book, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America."
Chris Hedges says "religious utopians... are slowly dismantling democratic institutions to establish a religious tyranny."
But remember: Richard Dawkins is a mean ol atheist. For odd, undefined and inexplicable reasons...
Jan. 29th
Mullah Rob's fave Youtube director got an interview on Fox News several days ago. His name is Brian Fleming and he directed the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There", which argues that Jesus might not have existed but was combined from other myths. Fleming started the "Blasphemy Challenge". Watch it here first. Love that hysterical Fox News host. "But you rob the children of their hope...sob." Related: This New York Times story on the theory of "Magical Thinking".
Mullah Rob, or as I also call my arch nemesis "The Fightin' Theist!", has responded to me over in the Commentary section. Everyone is invited by the way. Not sure if I should respond here or at Quicktopic but a couple of quick points. Here's something that Rob said that chews at my craw so to speak:
"I've read Dawkins. He reminds me of the Fundamentalist Creationists. They all use the same twisted logic, setting up straw men, knocking them down, and then declaring victory -- much as in the video that started this discussion. That's the strange thing about this: the atheists are taking on the tactics of the extreme religious. Too fervent belief in anything appears to corrupt human logic."
1.) I really hate this argument. The mean ol' Dawkins argument, sniff and/or sob. AS if Richard Dawkins waits around in the bushes after Sunday service and bashes innocent lil' Christians over the head with a baseball bat and does it for GAWD KNOWS WHY. The fiend. I mean, really, what has the Christian Right or Radical Islam or Scientology done that would upset a man dedicated to logic, reason and the "evidence" (a word that Dawkins uses with a caress and emphasis not unlike that of Sagan's "billions and billions of stars".)? Actually, I kind of answered this question when Oliver Willis brought up the mean ol' atheist argument. I said this:
Okay Oliver I'll bite: What is the evil Atheist agenda? I sort of thought this was a war of self defense. We were nice enough to let you dream your silly dreams of happy ending afterlives and eternal hellfire (for the other guy usually) until theists decided they knew what was best in terms of stem cell research, or that our kids should be programmed to be stupid, or that prayer is a replacement for cancer therapy or that anyone should die for jihad or Jesus...enough is enough as Saint Richard Dawkins has said in his first epoch...
The Big Three of Atheist writers (Dennett, Dawkins, Harris) are primarily acting in the self defense of reason and logic. The only prescription I can see, even though I'm not sure they've spelled it out, is that religion should be taken out of the equation when it comes to science questions certainly and probably all public policy questions where evidence can be measured. Magical thinking, and yes the mindset for the psychic believer is the same as that of the religious person (You think atheists are more likely to listen to psychics or church folk? Care to place a wager anyone...?), should not have a role in policy decisions. Sounds rational to me.
So I ask you Oliver: What is the evil Atheist agenda other than reasoned debate?
And then Oliver said this:
Again I say, reread what you wrote and you'll see why atheists come off so badly. "Silly little dreams", etc. Why is there the need to belittle folks? I don't belittle atheists, they've got as much claim to their belief as any shaman, priest, or mullah. Why is it the loudest voices on the side of atheism nowadays feel the need to condemn everyone not marching down their path? Again, it's just the flip side of Falwell and Robertson and as much a turnoff as those guys.
Oliver: Not when it comes to policy issues! You're not looking at this in context. When did the Big Three arrive on the scene? They arrived on the scene when the Christian Right started intervening in various issues including stem cell research and global warming and of course the rise of patriarchal radical islam...That's the context. I find your argument not unlike me pointing out how mean you are toward the republicans and that nice Mr. Bush (How could you sniff...)and being ignorant of right wing radio or the fact that republicans own most mainstream media...the reason you're an asshole is that you're fighting other assholes and you're using their weapons. Good for you I say. Please apply this knowledge to what the Big Three are doing.
Two, we're running out of time for niceties. More than likely, our first and probably last nuclear exchange will be between factions of true believers. We need to create as few people as possible who are confident that a wondrous afterlife awaits them no matter what evil they do here.
Three, and I challenge you again, other than not being nice to believers (and why can't you say nice things about Mr. Bush?), to find policy matters that atheists are pushing--based on logic and reason--that we're pushing that's similar to what the Christian Right is doing in terms of stem cell research or their overall war against evolution science and reason? What bill? What initiative?...other than: you have a very silly belief system that you probably shouldn't be using to kill people over....
Sounds familiar doesn't it? I might note that while its great that you've read Dawkins (What? The cover of "The God Delusion?") that you're engaging in ad hominem attacks again. That's when you name call as opposed to tackling the meat of the subject. What are the examples of Mr. Dawkins twisted logic? I have to confess: After reading and watching two (Harris and Dawkins) of the Big Three in action for hours at a time--often under vicious attack from fundies or other scientists--that these guys who are promoting logic and reason seem, from this vantage point, to be, well, quite logical and reasonable. Examples of the twisted logic of Mr. Dawkins (Spock's dad as far as I can tell..), please.
2.) And I challenge you to answer the question that Oliver ducked: What is the evil Atheist agenda? To be fair, I don't think one has been articulated by any of the Big Three. As I stated above, I think the only agenda is to take magical thinking out of, certainly, matters of science policy and probably all public policy issues where evidence can be weighed. For example, in my fantasy heaven like world, we would determine health care law by looking at the best practices in Europe (less religious but arguably much more Christian in that they've eliminated child poverty in some EU countries...) and elsewhere and not insurance industry shills and the Christian Coalition that somehow never fails to either support or critique their agenda. I know. Kinda wiccan crazy eh?
I await your response. I might have something to say about your coin thing. I think your message is that you hit a coin flip 60 times in a row and that's evidence of a concerned higher intelligence? As opposed to, say, winning the lottery or having loving children instead of parrots or being cured of your diabetes? That's his/her/its message to you? No wonder you're depressed. Why can't he or she or it be more straightforward? Ahhhh the mystery that you need so much. You must really need the eggs. More on that later.
Okay, so I'm watching 24 and I'm taping Heroes on my old VCR, and we're finally introduced to Jack's dad and it's not Donald Sutherland? I keep on waiting for a Donald Sutherland to make an appearance...is the show some commentary on Kiefer's relationship with his own family?
I'm glad Khari has a blog but its kind of dead already. But Laura is doing a great job with her blog. I already think its one of the more interesting blogs in Pittsburgh. She posts at least once a day and she has gotten some name interviews, of course they've been handjob Larry King kind of interviews but, hey, she got them. You won't catch Luke being interviewed around here. Its hardball around here at Three Rivers Online, punk. Or Mayor. Heh.
As people may know, there were two cable channels that I thought were worthwhile--and were introducing me to new ideas and great new bands--that have been utterly destroyed. Those channels were Tech tv and BET on Jazz. Tech TV was bought by the gaming channel and ruined. I also noticed that all conversation about Linux seemed to cease. I'm sure that's a coincidence. BET on Jazz was turned into BET on J and now there is no original jazz programming. The R and B they overplay and repeat isn't that good either. I made my unhappiness and rage known at the BET on J message boards where all of my suggestions were ignored and then erased. But Reginald Hudlin is the new program director for BET and he has a website with forums. I gave him some insights and also updated my Open Letters to Powerful People blog.
I've watched Mr. Hudlin for years now and I'm very impressed with his talent and his abilities...but I have to say I hate what's being done with BET on J. It's terrible. You've taken a station that was arguably the best music channel on the air (with material that was not being replicated anyplace else) and turned it into a wasteland of BET reject shows (The Christies? Good lord...how bored would I have to be to watch that?) and bad music that you repeat over and over and over again. Here's a thought: r and b isn't as good as jazz repeats because jazz is more complicated and it bears repeat listenings. You can get something out of a Brad Mehldau solo on your seventh hearing...not so much for India Arie...Here's a question I'd love to know the answer to: are the ratings better for BET on J than they were for BET on Jazz? Even if they are better, who is the high brow audience for that awful model show? Golf doesn't win the ratings war because it get the most viewers, it wins because it gets the wealthiest viewers. Jazz and classical probably won't beat american idol, but you'll get a better educated and wealthier audience.
Here's the small thing I'm asking for: Can you run Jazz Central, one of the best live jazz shows ever, more than once a day? how about two different jazz centrals a day? Also, could you please start playing jazz again on Sunday, the best day to play jazz? Or at night? Instead of repeating that awful 2 cents talk show could you play jazz central after 2 am, maybe even a different one than you played at 8 am? Ditto for the Knitting Factory, uncut with Williard Jenkins and your old World Music jazz show? I have other ideas as well, but I noticed that my posts have been deleted from the BET on J forum and all of my suggestions were ignored. If its different here, then I'll throw in my two cents about why you haven't asked Bill Cosby, who worships jazz, to do a weekly jazz show or why you haven't tried to recreate politically incorrect (or any real news content for that matter) or why you don't play jazz dvds on the station, even on a once a week basis? It's just shocking...Do you hate jazz? If the answer is yes then I guess that explains the station...
Both the Multi Medium guy and Steve "Agree with him 99.9 percent of the time and infuriated with him .1 percent of the time (His recent low was using the Dirty Fucking Hippie Argument against Max Sawicky.)" Gilliard have moved to new sites. The Multi Medium guy's move is more ambitious and shows off his world class photo skills, which, of course, has nothing to do with his talent but his high priced camera. Steve has moved here.
Rob says removing Mirror Universe was just a wild, housekeeping accident. I thought it looked as if it coincided with me putting my Richard Dawkins image in the right hand corner. Coincidences abound in this universe. But what got our conversation started were these particular Youtube vids where people of all ages denounce religion. (Rob linked to a guy who wanted to pray for these folks.) This just didn't happen when I was a kid. I probably could count the times on both hands that the ideas of atheism were mentioned in my presence--and never in a positive way. And what's most striking is the last line that's stated: "I am not afraid". One of the arguments I've made at Unspace is that it isn't simply intelligence or critical thinking that turns people away from the church. It takes a certain amount of courage to challenge the sacred gods of your time. Oh sure now you can give Apollo and/or Thor the what for. But try doing that when those gods were kings. Not so easy. My short version of the arguments I've given Rob is that if he was born in Iran he would be Mullah Rob or if he was adopted by Tom Cruise and wife then he would violently defend the values of scientology. He simply can't rise above the ideology of his tribe. Anyway, you can click on a few and see for yourself.
Jan. 20
I'm having a fairly civil debate about religion with Rob of Unspace, who has deleted me from his blogroll in yet another act of Christian Charity no doubt. I still root for Rob though. Sigh.
Jan. 17
My Bitter American Experience Around the Internets
Best Pro Impeachment Song Ever (From Americablog). The arguments for impeachment are overwhelming. Its a winner politically and the grounds are actually valid and not about blowjobs. But instead of all that dry fooferall here is the argument as a jaunty song. And as the song asks of dems: Don't be pussies!
Jan. 14
Sunday I'm Turning Up My Blog Posting Rate Around the Internets
I'm strongly leaning toward John Edwards for president. He's already embraced the Internets. He's even emailing me, ninth tier of hell blogger about his updates. I do want to give Barack Obama a chance because I do think a black man as president could make a difference. But I have strong suspicions that he's simply the Clintons in blackface--which means that he's not a progressive. I guess I agree with Khari that I wouldn't mind an Edwards/Obama ticket.
"Escalation is not the answer, and our generals will be the first to tell you so. The answer is for the Iraqi people and others in the region to take responsibility for rebuilding their own country. If we want them to take responsibility, we need to show them that we are serious about leaving – and the best way to do that is actually to start leaving and immediately withdraw 40-50,000 troops.
That is why I have spoken out against the McCain Doctrine of escalation. That's why Congress must step up and stop the president from putting more troops in harm's way.
If you’re in Congress and you know this war is going in the wrong direction, it is no longer enough to study your options and keep your own counsel.
Silence is betrayal. Speak out, and stop this escalation now. You have the power to prohibit the president from spending any money to escalate the war – use it."
Let's see what Obama does. I think that could finalize my choice.
Jan. 9
(From Bradblog) I just think impeachment is kind of a no brainer, all apologies to Fester. These guys are thugs and they're stupid. They'll do something, probably very soon, that will make you realize that they're evil in a grand comic book villain way. Impeachment is not only our only defense, but it would be well received by the public and would be politically popular. Just for laughs you might imagine what the Republicans would do if the situations were reversed. True, then the Wise Men of Washington would find wisdom in the application of the rule of law and the importance of checks and balances as opposed to just wanting to get along (Defined by Atrios as just letting the president do whatever the fuck he wants...I might be paraphrasing..) as they do now. The Dems have to use this tactic. It's like a football team that simply won't pick up the other team's fumbles because David Broder thinks that's not fair game. "The Washington Generals aren't supposed to play to win, just make it look like its a competitive game," Broder would say, ever so wisely and with the utmost seriousness as he cleans his spectacles harumphing and tut tutting the blogity blog rabble....And I have to admit if the Dems don't oppose the surge or push for impeachment or at least investigations with teeth this Washington Generals analogy would seem to carry more weight.
I'm having a helluva blog block. Just haven't been able to blog at my usual pace, which was never that high to begin with. Lots of youtube vids and maybe three or four written posts per week. It could be the holiday hangover. My goal this year is to actually write more. Try to match the pro blogger level of 3 to 5 posts per day. I'm off to an awful start. I could blame myself but I prefer to blame...Satan! That's just so logical...Then again, maybe I just need to recharge my batteries sometimes.
"What matters much more is why a large number of people with ready access to the fact they are being lied to are not objecting to being lied to. Why do 'the masses,' the 'working class,' 'the people' endure and even prefer being lied to? Why do they prefer the decisiveness of tyrants over the compassion of democracy? Why does religion still exist? This is a question for anyone but particularly for those who claim that 'the people' are the hope of a better world. It sure seems like no amount of deception or oppression leads 'the people' to overthrow their rulers, and that 'the people' aren't the ones I should turn to in my hopes for a better world."
There are a number of books I could recommend that address that question. One book is called "Escape from Freedom" by Erich Fromm, of the so called Frankfort School.
I can't remember what I read in college (and I think high school) but here's a synopsis I found on the Internets that catches the money shots so to speak:
His initial book, and likely his most influential work, was called Escape From Freedom, published near the beginning of World War II. In it he described freedom as the greatest problem for most individuals. With freedom, according to Fromm, comes an overwhelming sense of aloneness and an inability to exert individual power. He argued that we use several different techniques to alleviate the anxiety associated with our perception of freedom, including automaton, conformity, authoritarianism, destructiveness, and individuation.
But wait, there's more:
Authoritarianism is a technique that others use to ward off the anxiety. Following an entity outside of the self and perceived greater than the self is the main feature of authoritarianism. As the individual feels alone and powerless, he gains strength from the belief that there is a greater power beyond himself. This entity could be a religious figure, a political leader, or social belief. By giving up power to the powerful, we become the powerful and no longer feel alone. In this sense authoritarianism is two sided or what Fromm describes as sadism/masochism, where we submit to our leader (such as Adolph Hitler) and demand power over our perceived enemies (Jews).
IN other words, people may be hardwired for both fascism and religion. And then there's Eric Hoffer's book on the whole mindset:
Not fun reads I should note.
The first Fantastic Four movie was awful. Or as I wrote: I wanted my money back after seeing it for free. But the trailer for the second film looks promising. The Galactus saga is the best thing that Stan Lee ever wrote. It has the Watcher, galactic bombs, very cool...they'll probably blow it.
Jan. 3
Rob of Unspace, a religious guy but of the sensible sort, doesn't like the Religion as Delusion video. I do want to point out that it's probably closer to counter propaganda but here's what Rob said. I believe that Rob resembles this person.
The video is a great example of propaganda techniques. I've seen similar from the evolutionists. I've seen similar from the anti-global warming crowd.
The author must be delusional.
Actually, the author uses words like "delusional" and "magical" repeatedly to attempt to produce the desired lack of critical thinking in the listener.
It's a standard technique, but it's poorly done because it's done so blatantly and condescendingly. A less heavy-handed approach would probably be as effective and it wouldn't be so obvious as to make the listener aware that you're brainwashing him or her into accepting things uncritically.
As a professional writer, this is the very sort of thing I work to keep out of my writing. My natural tendency is to pull this sort of con, but it's really not conductive to rational, logical discussion.
I agree that its not nice. But why are atheists like myself such mean cold hearted people? Have you seen the story about the family that's suing the minister who convinced a loved one to stop taking chemo and use the power of prayer? He died of course.
Someone should have given that man a mean dose of reality and told him that one, prayer doesn't work--and even if it does it certainly doesn't work as well as scientific therapy--and two, that his belief system is in fact magical and delusional.
The reason why I think people like Dawkins and Harris--he's really mean--take such a strident tone is that one situation is really the global situation. We're all just sitting around waiting for confident Christians with nuclear weapons to meet confident islamic extremists with nuclear weapons to have their final conversation. Two groups that are immune to logic and who quite frankly aren't interested in this world but the fantasy afterlife--full of virgins in one case and watching loved ones, probably, burn in hellfire for eternity in the other case--and they're sure that they're not wrong.
The result could well be the end of humanity. People like Harris and Dawkins are saying the not nice things that should have been said to that woman man who chose prayer over chemo: your beliefs are not worth killing or dying for. If someone had, rude though they may have been, he might still be here. Atheists are trying to, even if its not nice, to reduce the amount of people who are certain of their happy ever after afterlives. By doing that they are doing humanity a tremendous service....
If that "cure" (it actually looks like a fairly long-term treatment) works in humans and if there isn't a deadline beyond which it doesn't work, it still only works for Type Is.
I'm type II. Crapola. Still, there's stuff coming down the pike. Hang in there...
And by the way, if you are type II, go to a periodontist. There's some research showing a startling link between Type II and periodontal disease. If periodontal disease is present, cleaning it out and clearing it up will do wonders for blood glucose levels. Even if you're Type I, infections make your BGs worse.
Happy holidays, btw.
Well, if I understand this and its a little technical, the breakthrough isn't just the process but the point of view. They attacked diabetes as if it was a disease of the nervous system. I guess, logically, then, if you could improve your nervous system you could eliminate your diabetes, type one or type two. Well, I couldn't do it but a former paramedic might. By the way, there is a man who's managed to cure his own diabetes and his name is Ray Kurzweil. His father died of the disease and Ray used a radical approach to the disease. It seems complicated. He's eliminated sugar from his diet and takes about 250 pills a day. Sounds hard. He says he's stopped his cellular aging though, despite his silver hair...
Festivus Christmas Eve Kwanza Imaginary Diety Holiday Around the Internets.
Powering cars with coal might seem like a recipe for ecological disaster. But if fuel experts are right, a liquefied form of the notoriously dirty mineral will be providing much of the world with its transport fuel within the next two decades.
A while back Steve Gilliard claimed that people who claimed that election theft was possible were wrong and bad and awful and such. Steve needs proof, not deductive logical proof but a Republican dumb enough to say "We cheat and here's how we did it." By that same standard the Iraq war is glowing success because Bush says it is. He would do well to take a good look at what's happening in Florida's 13th district. Some Highlights from Bradblog:
Christine Jennings and her lawyer, Kendall Coffey, appeared Wednesday on Lou Dobbs Tonight with guest host Kitty Pilgrim to discuss the latest news concerning Florida's 13th Congressional District. As BRAD BLOG has reported often (most recently here, here and here), Vern Buchanan was declared the winner in Florida's 13th after the disappearance of 18,000 votes left the Republican with a paltry 369 vote lead over his opponent Jennings. Subsequently, a handful of experts including one provided by e-voting manufacturer ES&S, concluded that the inclusion of the missing votes would have propelled Jennings to an easy victory based on an analysis of the Sarasota votes which did not spontaneously combust.
Unfortunately, the will of the people is a foreign concept among those controlling the Florida election apparatus which declared Buchanan the winner after recounting nothing a couple of times. With no paper trail (much less a paper BALLOT, and there is a big difference!), a "recount" merely refers to state election staffers testing whether a few selected machines are working properly and is entirely unrelated to the vote count. By certifying Buchanan the winner, the state forced Jennings to seek relief in the Florida courts.
This did not sit well with Sean Hannity who, with Buchanan on as a guest a few weeks ago, found the entire affair "unbelievable" and further evidence that Democrats are sore losers. Juxtaposing the Hannity clip as well as Tom Feeney's reaction to the election controversy, recounted by Brad here, to Jennings appearance on CNN (clip above right), makes for quite an interesting experiment. While hardly evidence that could be used in a court of law like the damning statistical evidence, the contrast is, nevertheless, telling.
So the black guy won the slots deal? And he wants to invest 350 million into the lower Hill District? Sounds good to me.
Dec. 17
The Lost Room is probably the best show I've ever seen that's centered in Pittsburgh even though it only looks like exterior shots and soundstage and/or Canadian proxy shooting. Its one of the best fantasy shows ever made, better than Heroes. They're repeating the whole six hour series tonight from 5 to 11 on the sci fi channel. There's probably a torrent somewhere. Try not to look into Kevin Pollack's glass eye. I haven't seen anything this good that was made for television since the 70s version of "The Lathe of Heaven". Really good. I hope they make this a series. It was also written on the CMU campus.
"There is no sin in making a living changing the world. There is no sin in being able to eat, and pay your rent, and go to sleep at night without worrying if the power is going to be shut off tomorrow. Activists who eat, who get sleep, who have a place to live, and know that they can put gas in their car (for however long we have it) tend to do much better work than activists who are starving, hungry and poor. It's the Rockefellers who have sold activists on the notion that you have to be poor, and that's for the precise purpose of making you ineffective."
This is the kind of advice that the ACORNS, the PIRGs, and the Grassroots Campaign would be well advised to actually take. If you're looking for more info on this, then here's Greg Bloom's complete series of articles about the failed attempt to organize both canvassers and callers in Los Angeles. Note to DAM phone callers: The Fund simply shut down the offices in LA. The DAM phone center used to be local but it's now owned by a national calling chain that could probably use the nuclear option as well. I really think the solution is to rebuild both the field and phone canvasses from scratch, with worker protections and standards already in place. More info on the Internets about this: Here's Greg Bloom's complete series of articles about the Fund's unionbusting activities in LA. (Pittsburgh's Working America, run by the AFL-CIO, and which used to canvass, also has a union but I'm not sure what its status is. That would be a legitimate story by the way: Union shop engages in union busting tactics. I'm not sure what the answer is there.) Here's the official website for that group that organized the union efforts in LA. Earlier I mentioned that there was a recent book published that talked about the history of the canvass but I couldn't recall its name, until now. That book is called "Activism, Inc.: How the Outsourcing of Grassroots Campaigns Is Strangling Progressive Politics in America." Here's a short excerpt that the America Prospect published.
Here's a thought that I just concluded: The Jews are right that Jesus Christ, if he ever existed, wasn't the son of God and probably that virgin birth thing too. However, the message of Christ is superior to the one in the Old Testament. Still, I have to agree with Bertrand Russell that if you're going with fantasy gods Buddha seems to be the best of the lot. I also prefer the afterlife in "What Dreams May Come". And a flying Pony. Or a flying dinosaur raptor I could ride. Or a working Moller aircar. It's all good in fantasy land...
I find this reworking of the Star Trek franchise frightening, although it is more Battlestar Gallacticaish. Vulcan no longer a member of the Federation? Heresy I sez.
Philias writes "A new web-based Star Trek Animated Series may be in the works. CBS is considering a pitch by veteran Trek producer Dave Rossi for a 'Clone Wars' style animated series for StarTrek.com. Like Clone Wars the episodes would be just a few minutes long. Unlike the old animated Trek show from the 70s, this one would be with a whole new crew set in a new time period. The setting is to be a war-torn post-9/11-like Trek universe 150 years after the time of Picard." From the post: "The Zero Room team felt that the time was right for a new approach to Trek. The setting is the year 2528 and the Federation is a different place after suffering through a devastating war with the Romulans 60 years earlier. The war was sparked off after a surprise attack of dozens of 'Omega particle' detonations throughout the Federation creating vast areas which become impassible to warp travel and essentially cut off almost half the Federation from the rest. During the war the Klingon homeworld was occupied by the Romulans, all of Andoria was destroyed and the Vulcans, who were negotiating reunification with the Romulans, pulled out of the Federation. The setting may seem bleak and not very Trek-like, but that is where the show's hero Captain Alexander Chase comes in."
I liked the interview that 
