Friday, March 30, 2007

Follow up question

to Texas State Senator Dan Patrick, who is proposing that the government pay women $500 if they give a child up for adoption instead of having an abortion.

Senator Patrick - How much money will you give to the parents who adopt that child, or any of the many children who need adopting but will grow up in foster care, or any of the children who grow up with one parent, or in poverty, or who are at risk for disease, or crime, or violence? How much money would you withhold from a President killing thousands of people in the name of ego and idiocy? How much money will you contribute to medical research that could save or immeasurably improve millions of lives? How much money will you allocate to people working to ameliorate the damages done to our environment by our civilization? How much money will you give to schools? To the un- or under-insured? To the elderly who can't find jobs to support themselves and still need to work at 70?

How about this - when you and your party begin caring about the living, call me.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Theater of the Absurd

President Bush recently decried the vote by the House imposing even a minimal timeline as "political theater."

Hmm..I've done a lot of theater. It generally involes a SET, PROPS and an AUDIENCE.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Follow Up

A couple of posts below, Peter mentions that DoJ aide Monica Goodling has announced that she is going to invoke the 5th amendment and not testify in front of Congress. Ignoring the debate about whether or not the 5th amendment applies in this case (since I'm not a lawyer), the following question must still be asked:

If she's concerned that she could incriminate herself if she testifies, then there must be some, what's the word for it, oh, yes - crime, that has been committed that she's afraid she could be implicated in, right?

The only other option is that she's afraid that if she lies, and is caught in the lie, that's grounds for perjury.

So we're left with one of two options:

1) A lawyer who works for the Department of Justice knows that a crime has been committed, and knows that if she testifies she could be implicated


2) She knows that she would not tell the truth, and doesn't want to be caught committing perjury.

That's special.

When you're right, you're not paying much attention

(h/t Crooked Timber) Earlier this year, the right-wing blog Right Wing News sent out a survey to 240 right-wing blogs asking them about a variety of topics. They only got 63 responses, most from marginal blogs, but the results are telling.

First of all, there's the 61 (out of 63) who think the surge should go forward. Of course. If we don't Win In Iraq (TM), then their entire worldview, centered on the idea that the US can go beat the crap out of anyone we don't like, any time we want, especially those who are "different", fails.

Then there's the 53/63 who think that Democrats want us to lose in Iraq for political reasons. Yes, because this disastrous war has been nothing but a political and personal boon for all of us Haters of America. Those of us who have been against the war from the beginning have really been motivated by a desire to lose and weaken our country, rather than any connection to reality or that we thought that Iraq was a distraction from the real danger.

But then we get to the fourth question.

Do you think mankind is the primary cause of global warming?

Yes (0) -- 0%
No (59) -- 100%

You may need to pause and read that one slowly. Yes, the anti-intellectualism of the right continues to grow, and continues to invalidate a whole body of scientific knowledge. Remember, this is an issue over which there is essentially no debate in the scientific community. Every major national or international scientific organization which has released a report about climate change says that the evidence is incontrovertable - the activities of the human race have contributed to changing the climate of the planet. And not one of these neocons believes it. Not one. This isn't an argument about the uncertainty of what the results of climate change will be. This isn't an argument that, while we're affecting the environment, there is a reasonable debate about what we should do in response. This isn't a question of how it affects the economy. This is a flat-out rejection of science, of the knowledge that is gained through the rigorous exercise of the abilities of the human mind.

What makes this weirder is that there's no significant religious component to this debate. It's not evolution, or the Big bang, where religious fundamentalists choose to rely on no textual authorities other than the Bible. Hell, even the Liar in Chief admitted that there might be something behind the science in his last SotU. This is willful ignorance, determined incuriosity, and an unshaking attachment to a belief, not because there's any evidence supporting their side and not because God told them to think a certain way. The culture of anti-intellectualism, of instinctively rejecting any information that comes to them from a source that isn't FoxNewsApproved, that might cause them to question, well, anything, has so taken root that these Luddites are willing to ignore mountains and mountains of data, just to remain in their safe little bubbles.

Their safe, little, warming bubbles.

Scandal scorecard, redux

And now for a blast from the past. Former Reagan budget director David Stockman, supply side boy wonder who made up the numbers then is still doing so now, indicted and also charged civilly with securities fraud.
Stockman personally directed fraudulent schemes to inflate C&A's reported income by accounting improperly for supplier payments. In furtherance of those schemes, the complaint alleges that Stockman and other defendants obtained false documents from suppliers designed to mislead C&A's external auditors. According to the complaint, when aspects of the schemes were discovered in March 2005, Stockman embarked on a public campaign to mislead investors, potential financiers and others by minimizing the extent of the fraudulent accounting and hiding C&A's dire financial condition.

The more things change.....

The truth hurts? (or at least incriminates)

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real."

That is a shocking statement from the attorney (John Dowd, known to sports fans as the author of the Pete Rose gambling dossier) for Monica Goodling, Alberto Gonzales' counsel and White House liaison.

Think about that. Truth and accuracy by a senior "Justice" aide = criminal jeopardy.

"Get your scorecards here, can't keep the GOP scandals straight without a scorecard!"