Read at your own risk.

I'm not being funny. The link below will take you to the transcript of a very unnerving interview with an eyewitness to some of the violence in Iran. I don't claim to know what should be done about it. I just know what's going on there is horrific.

http://liberal4lifeblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/eyewitness-account-of-massacre-at.html

Proof that you can use statistics to prove anything

This blog entry from the US News and World Report blog pretty much exemplifies the reaction of most of the media to the recent Gallup poll on the subject of abortion, in which people who describe themselves as pro-choice made up 42% of the respondents while those calling themselves pro-life were 51%. This led to a hoot and a holler about how the "tide has turned" and now is the right time for Roe v Wade to be challenged, and that Obama needs to go with the flow of the populace and so on ad nauseum.

The US News article pays some lip service to the fact that the majority of Americans feel that abortion should remain legal. They disagree on when, but on the fundamental concept the majority still agrees.

But more than even that, there is another question from the poll that isn't being flaunted. And for good reason, at least if you're a right-winger.

With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?

Note the carefully worded qualifier. "WITH RESPECT TO THE ABORTION ISSUE." And here are the results from that question:

May 7-10, 2009
Pro-choice 51%
Pro-life 42%
Unsure/No answer 7%

May 12-13,2009
Pro-choice 50%
Pro-life 43%
Unsure/No answer 7%

The one percent change between the weeks could be accounted for many ways. It might have been a different geographical sample. It might have been that the question was asked right after a widely publicized event dealing in the subject. There are a lot of ifs here. The bottom line is, while the majority of Americans call themselves pro-life, they are not referring to it as an abortion-centered pro-life stance.

I'm pro-life in that I object to taking human life without really damn good cause. Like self-defense. Things like that. And I'm very pro-baby. Just ask some of the babies I'm friends with and make toys and hats for all the time. But I'm totally pro-choice. I don't see the contradiction.

And apparently, neither does a good percentage of the US population.

If you have a lot of time to spend watching a video

Did anyone doubt there are people in the military who think their mission as an American is to wipe out Islam and convert all of the Middle East to Christianity? (Sorry it's not embedded; I can't figure out how.)

I used to think it was just a few bad apples. (Sorry. That's only supposed to refer to the poor saps who followed orders at Abu Ghraib, isn't it...) Now it sounds like it's a pretty organized and sizeable group of idjits. Granted, they are not the largest sub-group in the military, but they are one of the groups that is at greatest odds with the Constitution they are supposed to be defending.

Are you ready to be cheered up?

Does Sean Hannity ever even guess that he's being played by a pro?

JESSE VENTURA!!!!!!!!



And it couldn't hurt to read the article that accompanies the video at Alter-Net.

When PC goes too far

Courtesy of Failblog.org.

Republicans object for the sake of objecting?

While the entire article is of interest I'm including a few excerpts that I found particularly interesting. The words I find most interesting are in red.

Conservatives Map Strategies on Court
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: May 16, 2009

*******************
1. While conservatives say they know they have little chance of defeating Mr. Obama’s choice because Democrats control the Senate, they say they hope to mount a fight that could help refill depleted coffers and galvanize a movement demoralized by Republican electoral defeats.
*******************
2. The movement is much diminished from four years ago under President George W. Bush, when Supreme Court vacancies last arose and conservatives marshaled their forces to champion his nominees. (Judge Richard Posner, a prominent Reagan appointee, wrote recently that the conservative movement suffers from “intellectual deterioration.”) Republicans have lost control of the White House and Congress, have no clear party leader and have received low approval ratings.
*******************
3. “The risk for the Republican Party is they will be tempted to be more gentlemanly than Democrats are when a conservative is nominated,” Mr. Bauer said. “By doing that, they will not only lose an educational moment with the public, but they will risk driving the base of the Republican Party to once again be frustrated.”
*******************

1. I'm cynical, I know, but I think the conservative (bowel) movement really needs to reexamine their fundraising efforts. They cannot continue to do things "the way my grandaddy did." I have seen their efforts to fundraise on the internet and they give the phrase Johnny-come-lately a whole new meaning. Starting a fight over a judicial nominee is not going to help them as much as they seem to be hoping.

2. That phrase "intellectual deterioration" just seems so apt. It's exactly what's happened. This is no longer Barry Goldwater's party. I blame Nixon. Well, and Reagan. And the Bush Crime Family. And Darth Cheney. And....oh, you know what I mean.

3. There are just so many things wrong with this point of view. The Democrats weren't gentlemanly. They were puppy-dog like. Roberts: nominated September 5 and confirmed the 29th (a little over 3 weeks. Wow, what a nail biter that one was!) Alito was nominated on October 31 and while the confirmation on January 31 seems like a long time, remember Thanksgiving and Christmas breaks interfered. Don't tell me the fight over Harriet Miers is the proof. Among other things, it was Bush's own party who fought hardest to remove her. And, besides, she was nominated on October 3 and withdrew on the 27th. Comparable to Roberts, but against opposition from the Republicans. So...who wasn't gentlemanly?

Pah!

Jonah Goldberg's Recto-Cranial Inversion is more serious than previously thought

And he needs to see someone about it, soon. Because it'll only get worse if he keeps spouting off this kind of bullshit.

The EPA is choking democracy

by Jonah Goldberg, syndicated columnist
Wednesday April 22, 2009, 5:30
AM

One of the most important events of our lifetimes may have just transpired. A federal agency has decided that it has the power to regulate everything, including the air you breathe.

Nominally, the Environmental Protection Agency's announcement last Friday only applies to new-car emissions. But pretty much everyone agrees that the ruling opens the door to regulating, well, everything.

According to the EPA, greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide -- the gas you exhale -- as well as methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. It is literally impossible to imagine a significant economic or human activity that does not involve the production of one of these gases. Don't think just of the gas and electricity bills. Cow flatulence is a serious concern of the EPA's already. What next? Perhaps an EPA mandarin will pick up a copy of "The Greenpeace Guide to Environmentally Friendly Sex" and go after the root causes of global warming.

Now, don't think this it the end of ol' Jonah's hyperbole and mouth breathing. But it is a good representative sample. Other things he's bloviated upon in this article include his odd belief that the Supreme Court is anti-democratic ("Two years ago, the Supreme Court -- the least democratic branch of our formal government -- "), that the EPA is exercising new powers not previously granted to the President ("So the government bureaucracy is on its way to strong-arming the economy in ways Congress never imagined when it passed the Clean Air Act in 1970. Or the president has suddenly gained sweeping new powers over American life, in ways never imagined by Congress or the founders, and despite the fact that these new powers were never put before the voters. ") and that, by doing what the law permits, the EPA is being used as a threat ('California's Barbara Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has said as much: "EPA, through its scientists, has given us a warning that global warming pollution is a clear, present and future danger to America's families. If Congress does not act to pass legislation, then I will call on the EPA to take all steps authorized by law to protect our families."
Translation: Either you vote our way or we'll render voting meaningless. ') And then he concludes that all this provides evidence that no one in DC, at least no Democrats in DC, take their oaths of office seriously. (Almost but not quite a direct quote.)

Jonah Goldberg's influence isn't nearly as profound as he'd like to think but it's still real. And something is very, very wrong with the man. He may not need a strait-jacket and padded cell a la Glen Beck, but he needs something. Pills, maybe. A few sessions of heavy therapy. Something.

And he really doesn't belong in the Oregonian. Not that anything like common sense has ever stopped the Big O before...

And imagine my surprise that it's Spike, and not Fox, doing this...

(No reference to bad boy vampires or FBI agents named Mulder intended.)

Spike seals deal for show on Navy pirate hunters
By DAVID BAUDER
April 14, 2009

NEW YORK (AP) — Barely a day after the daring rescue of an American sea captain, cable TV's Spike announced a deal Monday to produce a show about U.S. Navy pirate hunters.

Two crews for 44 Blue Productions hope to be on board Navy vessels patrolling in the pirate-infested waters off the coast of Africa within two weeks. The company is aiming to have a series ready to put on the air by September, said Rasha Drachkovitch, 44 Blue's president and founder.

He'd been talking to the Navy about the idea for three months, but it was finished late last week while the standoff with pirates who had taken Capt. Richard Phillips hostage was going on.

"We had no idea if last week's events would actually kill the deal or seal the deal," said Sharon Levy, Spike's senior vice president for original series.

Drachkovitch said he thought the Navy would put the project on hold, yet instead the Phillips incident seemed to accelerate things. Commander Robert K. Anderson, Navy spokesman on the deal, said the agreement had essentially been made before the U.S. ship was attacked.

and continued at link above.

Honestly, if they hadn't been convincing about having thought up the show months ago, I'd have hooted "exploitation." But as it is, all I can think is that there really are too damn many networks and yet there's STILL nothing good on 99 percent of them!

I've been looking for this clip for a month

Michelle Bachmann=COOL? OMG! This would be embarrassing except I'm hardly a Republican nor conservative so I just find it high-larious!

The first segment is a little disturbing

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The third segment is cute, too.

Whoever did this is a genius

Really. This is wonderful. And should be a billboard.

Kent Jones as Lawton Smalls. This act deserves an award.

Kent Jones also does the final segment every night with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. He really deserves recognition at some level other than just online.

He just won't go quietly, will he?

I guess it's like those parodies of "Return of the Jedi" where Yoda takes twelve or thirteen pages of dialog to die.

Cheney Says Obama Has Increased Risks

By A. G. SULZBERGER
Published: March 15, 2009

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that President Obama had made the country less safe, asserting that the new administration’s changes to detention and interrogation programs for terrorism suspects would hamper intelligence gathering.

Mr. Cheney said the moves suggested that terrorism was now being treated as a law enforcement problem.

“He is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack,” Mr. Cheney said of Mr. Obama in an interview on the CNN program “State of the Union.”

and so on and so forth.

Y'know, he's been wrong pretty much 100 percent of the time on this subject. And his attitude and policies lost rather decisively in the last election. So I have to wonder why any news organization (other than one owned by Rupert Murdoch) will give him airtime anymore.

On a lighter note, why am I awake so early when I don't have to be at work today? I must be in a masochistic mood. Because I don't have to be anywhere until noonish. And then it's to enjoy a nice lunch with before hauling myself onto an airplane and off to Sacramento. Where, best I can tell, the closest alternatives to eating at the hotel are going to be in a mall food court. But at least I'll learn lots of federal regulations. I can't wait.

If you can't tell sarcasm when you read it, you need to develop the skill...LOL!

I don't know that I like this idea but it made me laugh

Jewish family gets big bucks to move to Ala.

Matthew and Michelle Reed, along with their 2-year-old son and newborn baby boy, are the first of what could be a stream of people to move to Dothan under a program that offers Jewish families as much as $50,000 to relocate and get involved with the city's only synagogue, Temple Emanu-El.

I had to laugh. Usually you read about fundamentalist Christians trying to pack their town, often to have political influence. So when some group, ANY group, does the same thing, no matter what the reason, I have to wonder what the reaction among the fundamentalists will be. So many amusing scenes are playing out in my head. I don't know that I like the idea of anyone doing this sort of thing but I love when the tables are turned on those who usually do it.

I don't know that I like this idea but it made me laugh

Jewish family gets big bucks to move to Ala.

Matthew and Michelle Reed, along with their 2-year-old son and newborn baby boy, are the first of what could be a stream of people to move to Dothan under a program that offers Jewish families as much as $50,000 to relocate and get involved with the city's only synagogue, Temple Emanu-El.

I had to laugh. Usually you read about fundamentalist Christians trying to pack their town, often to have political influence. So when some group, ANY group, does the same thing, no matter what the reason, I have to wonder what the reaction among the fundamentalists will be. So many amusing scenes are playing out in my head. I don't know that I like the idea of anyone doing this sort of thing but I love when the tables are turned on those who usually do it.

When did he say it?

You know, my faith is one that admits some doubt.-Barack Obama

This was my Obama quote of the day. I love it but have no idea when he said it and in what context. Can anyone enlighten me?

This is wrong. So very, very wrong.

Why does Disney have to brand EVERYTHING? EGGS? Are they kidding?

Who is this being marketed to? You know, right? Hassled moms who are doing grocery shopping with children in tow, children who are whining "buy me this, buy me that." And this ploy encourages that kind of behavior. No wonder American children are so poorly behaved.

Not that any child *I* know is poorly behaved. At least not in that sense. But I hear them at the grocery store all the time.

No clue what to do about it. I'm just whining....

And somehow this appears to be being blamed on Obama...

From the Los Angeles Times
NEWS ANALYSIS

New political era? Same as the old one

The all-too-familiar machinery of partisan politics surfaces over the House economic stimulus vote.
By Peter Wallsten
January 29, 2009

Reporting from Washington - Democrats talked about the jobs to come from modernizing the electric grid, weatherizing homes, and repairing roads and bridges. Republicans too had ideas for reviving the economy, focusing on tax cuts and carefully targeted spending. But many in the GOP also wanted to talk about something else: sexually transmitted diseases.

As the House on Wednesday gave President Obama the first big legislative victory of his term, it was clear that his efforts so far had not delivered the post-partisan era that he called for in his inauguration address, when he proclaimed an end to the "petty grievances" and "worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics."

The fault lines of past ideological wars were in view during the fight over the $819-billion stimulus package, with shots coming from well-known conservative warriors such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Matt Drudge.

The familiar machinery of partisan politics, a fixture of the Clinton and Bush eras, kicked into operation undaunted as Republicans began running a TV advertisement in the home state of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, charging that his support for the stimulus bill was tantamount to "wasting our hard-earned money."

Continued

While the idea that the Democratic administration should have done away with all partisan bickering within a week and a half of Inauguration Day is clearly absurd, the article seems almost happy about it. I have to wonder if Limp-ball's stated desire to see Obama fail has started to permeate the weak minded and attention driven. (I know nothing about Wallsten, so I could be miles off base here, but the article really annoyed me.)

"Only a doofus like you"...turns out the nasty brother was right

From the Washington Post via The Jew and the Carrot

Study Finds High-Fructose Corn Syrup Contains Mercury

Monday, January 26, 2009; 12:00 AM

MONDAY, Jan. 26 (HealthDay News) -- Almost half of tested samples of commercial high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contained mercury, which was also found in nearly a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first- or second-highest labeled ingredient, according to two new U.S. studies.
HFCS has replaced sugar as the sweetener in many beverages and foods such as breads, cereals, breakfast bars, lunch meats, yogurts, soups and condiments. On average, Americans consume about 12 teaspoons per day of HFCS, but teens and other high consumers can take in 80 percent more HFCS than average.

"Mercury is toxic in all its forms. Given how much high-fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply," said the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy's Dr. David Wallinga, a co-author of both studies.

In the first study, researchers found detectable levels of mercury in nine of 20 samples of commercial HFCS. The study was published in current issue of Environmental Health.

In the second study, the agriculture group found that nearly one in three of 55 brand-name foods contained mercury. The chemical was most common in HFCS-containing dairy products, dressings and condiments.

The use of mercury-contaminated caustic soda in the production of HFCS is common. The contamination occurs when mercury cells are used to produce caustic soda.
"The bad news is that nobody knows whether or not their soda or snack food contains HFCS made from ingredients like caustic soda contaminated with mercury. The good news is that mercury-free HFCS ingredients exist. Food companies just need a good push to only use those ingredients," Wallinga said.

Fine when used in moderation, the ad says. Kinda like lead in paint is fine when used in moderation.

The Legend of the Christmas Bat

A friend of mine reminded me of this lovely Christmas legend which she has been regaling me with as long as I've known her...and that's a long time. It's adorable and totally appropriate for the season!

The Tale of the Christmas Bat

Okay. This is how it goes. Long ago, when organization had been invented, but before stockings really caught on, Santa was developing a pattern. He would make toys all year, with his helpers, they'd all work like crazy just to get everything done. He'd take a couple days off to relax, and then off he went on his sleigh, delivering presents. But some always fell through the cracks.

You know the ones I mean--the little ones. Holiday earrings, rings in padded boxes, the tiny little trinkets that sometimes mean so much. Holiday ornaments, small glass animals, teensy little stuffed and jointed bears. Later on, gift certificates, gift cards, pens, pencils, and erasers--all were falling away. Few made it through.

Santa finally decided he needed to do something about this.

So he looked around, looked high and low, for someone to help him with the little things. He pondered in the snow fields and he pondered in the kitchen. He pondered in the stables and he pondered in the barn. And while in the barn, he saw the bat. The lowly little bat, quietly sleeping, brown in the rafters of the barn. Santa pondered. Santa pondered the bat.

"Hmm," Santa said. "That little bat can fly. And I bet if I ask him, he could carry the little presents for me. I bet if I asked him, he could help me in my nightly task. He is, after all, nocturnal."

So he asked the bat, and the bat said yes, and thus, the Christmas Bat was born. For it is he, the little Christmas Bat, who's responsible for the little things. It is he who flutters down the chimney or in through the mail slot to tuck gift certificates in bright red envelopes under the tree. It is he who flaps through the house, dropping gelt into stockings. It is he who struggles with the holiday mandarins, one per child, and he who flies in candy cane, and holiday chocolates, and rings and necklaces and bracelets.

It's just, sometimes he's a little absentminded, and that's why the little stuph sometimes arrives late.

[So, for those wondering...I still don't know where I got this from. My mother tells me I first related the story of the Christmas Bat to her Christmas morning, 1969. Yeah, I was two. But it's been a family tradition ever since.


[Feel free to spread the tradition, if you like. I know that would make the Christmas Bat very happy.

This story is by my friend Jeanne, who also goes by Pirate Jenny and sometimes by Kelandris. And on LJ she's Nematoddity.

Batty Christmas, everyone!

It might be the cabin fever but this article pissed me off

When this article first appeared in the NY Times, back on Dec 9, I didn't pay a lot of attention to it because it didn't seem relevant. In fact, I didn't read it all the way through. But then I heard the author interviewed on "Hardball" (I blame cabin fever) and I realized that she is the reason I sometimes deny being a feminist.

...But today, women constitute about 46 percent of the labor force. And as the current downturn has worsened, their traditionally lower unemployment rate has actually risen just as fast as men’s. A just economic stimulus plan must include jobs in fields like social work and teaching, where large numbers of women work.

The bulk of the stimulus program will provide jobs for men, because building projects generate jobs in construction, where women make up only 9 percent of the work force.

It turns out that green jobs are almost entirely male as well, especially in the alternative energy area. A broad study by the United States Conference of Mayors found that half the projected new jobs in any green area are in engineering, a field that is only 12 percent female, or in the heavily male professions of law and consulting; the rest are in such traditional male areas as manufacturing, agriculture and forestry. And like companies that build roads, alternative energy firms also employ construction workers and engineers

She goes on to suggest that "human capital" is "most important infrastructure" and that is where women have the majority of jobs, like social workers, child care workers, teachers, and librarians. She posits that for the jobs creation program Obama is proposing to be fair, he needs to give added weight to those kinds of jobs.

Some of you may see her point and agree. I don't. If there aren't enough women in the fields of construction, engineering, agriculture, manufacturing, etc, WHOSE FAULT IS THAT? No, I do not accept that fewer employers accept females in those roles. It's just not true. If nothing else, they had the same equal opportunity laws to work with as the libraries and pre-schools had. Not to mention, affirmative action has been pushing women into those fields whenever possible. I think the problem is that women like this one encourage us to see "clean" jobs as being more feminine. (The exception is that she includes law in her list of male jobs, and how often do lawyers allow themselves to become visibly dirty?)

Even though I work in a a traditionally female job, I resent being told that I need special consideration because so-called male jobs are getting better treatment. If that's the case, then we need to make the traditionally male jobs less traditionally male. Women need to get into them.

Lots of my friends have little girls (and some not-so-little girls.) They can become anything they want, INCLUDING construction workers, engineers, you-name-it. If they are encouraged at any step along the way to go into the more female jobs For Any Reason, I charge their parents to intervene.

When Megan and Zoe take over the world, with Rainy and Hazel as their loyal staff (and chairing the loyal opposition and designing skull covered ball gowns and taekwando uniforms for everyone) I want to hear that this attitude has been abolished!

But it could just be cabin fever. My boss just called. We're closed again tomorrow. That makes it a week since I've been to work and two weeks since I was in with a full department. Sigh!

I think I'll go drink more tea and then watch "Countdown," and Rachel Maddow and the like, then maybe sew or bake or something. I'm teaching myself intarsia, at least I'm trying to, while watching news and so on.

Speaking of none of that, it appears my baby cousin Andrew has found something to occupy his time while unemployed. Unfortunately, his publisher seems to leave something to be desired, IMO. Yay, Murdoch. I'm so proud.