Glock21 Op/Ed

Comic Relief: Doing sex to China

2009-11-22T19:42:00.001-06:00

Comic Relief: Being a Man

2009-11-20T15:52:00.001-06:00

The Daily Show asks you to decide who the man is... appearances can be deceiving:

Taking another Bow

2009-11-19T16:04:00.002-06:00

This time the White House isn't even denying it as it did when he bowed to the Saudi royalty. The nutters are out again in full force trying to make this into an even bigger deal than it actually is. But that's not to say I approve. In fact, it turned my stomach and had me raging at the screen when I saw it.

Bowing to royalty in general is just repugnant to what our system of government stands for. But this Washington Times nimrod thinks that Obama is somehow oblivious to our history, our founding principles, of removing sovereignty from some inbred bloodlines claiming divine or higher authority, etc? That's just nuts. His conspiracy nuttery just confirms he's a gullible nitwit who will believe just about anything if it suits his agenda or gives him false comfort when his perspective is hitting the rocks. It's about as insane as the folks that somehow thought the bow to the Saudi royalty was ceding our sovereignty as part of some grand conspiracy to destroy America.

The fact is that our president is highly educated and is well aware of our history, founding principles, and unique place in the world in stoking the fires of republicanism against the monarchs of it. This seems to be yet another blatant example of his attempts to shift our foreign relations posturing dramatically, even in ways that are merely symbolic such as bowing to royalty. And while that symbolic stuff may be much ado about nothing to his supporters and arguably many who share his ideology in general, to an ideologue like me, who takes that part of our history and those principles to heart, this is a second slap in the face that just makes me cringe. But I have no doubt that such reactions were taken into account and weighed against the practical realities of what they hope to gain by such symbolic gestures. It's hardly the worst, let alone anywhere near the most destructive, violation of our ideals one of our nation's leaders has committed while attempting to act within the national interest.

I do, however, see it as a pointless violation and yet another pointless and otherwise symbolic gesture towards Obama's goals of gaining greater international support by changing the tenor of our interactions. No amount of sucking up and humiliating self-deprecating rhetoric will change the fact that much of the world is becoming far more competitive for resources and influence for their competing interests. The interactions are far more cordial now, but they still say no, but with a hardy laugh and a smile. It's as if a politician has found himself in a chess tournament and thinks he can win by complimenting his opponents. It's an interesting display, though sometimes painful to watch.

Other presidents have had to learn this lesson the hard way too. Our last president pulled similar nonsense at times, though the rest of his time was spent towards the opposite direction of bluster that would make some wonder if the "W" may have really stood for Wilhelm II. I suppose we shall see if Obama can be more effective with his naive perspective on symbolism and sucking up as opposed to Dubya's naive assumptions on American dominating global influence that seemed to seriously underestimate how much it was waning since the end of the cold war. Unfortunately making demands one has little ground to make is probably equally as futile as begging for nations to act against their own interests when there is still no real good reason to do so. The begging in itself helps confirm that that the former had no ground and the latter is desperate because he knows it.

Like I said, an interesting display, but painful to watch.

Veterans Day Fracas

2009-11-11T16:01:00.002-06:00

Caught this story on a posting on Pharyngula. Apparently a couple of veterans groups are boycotting Veterans Day activities at a school who are bound by current law not to allow the promotion of religious activities. To go a step further they've even threatened to stop offering scholarships to the students!

Veterans day should be about teaching kids about the sacrifice of veterans and their families and the respect that they deserve... not to make some absurd statement against the separation of church and state as the current interpretation of Constitutional law. And to additionally start denying kids scholarships? Who are the children here?

In the comments, there are multiple folks talking about this being a "Christian nation" or the U.S. military being a "Christian military"... they must be reading a different Constitution than I am, which clearly established a secular federal government and enshrined religious freedom unspecific to any religion, let alone some specific Christian one, nor any generic "Judeo-Christian" concept that didn't even get popularized until the 20th century.

I understand many people disagree with the 14th Amendment incorporation of the 1st Amendment upon State governments and their established local governments. And they really dislike the fact that public school employees, as agents of the State, are no longer allowed to use their positions as a pulpit. But that's the current Constitutional interpretation. It's not the principal's fault and it is by no means the fault of the children who are too young to vote for the people who appoint the justices who maintain it.

Shame on these veterans groups for punishing children for their political disagreements that have nothing to do with these kids. Shame on these groups for depriving these children of an important lesson on Veterans Day over their pointless and horribly misdirected political protest.

Veterans Day and Giving Thanks

2009-11-11T05:17:00.003-06:00

It's one thing to say thanks.

It's quite another to give thanks. Care packages for troops overseas are always important, but perhaps more so during the upcoming holiday season. Our own local Toys for Troops organization is a great place to start. The USO also does care packages if you're interested. There are also endless ways to both volunteer and put your money to use to help veterans.

An equally important thing is to demand thanks... by staying current with veterans issues on everything from holding the VA, military, and the federal government accountable on education and health benefits to those benefits for their families and dependents. There are currently backlogs and bureaucratic snafus leaving hundreds of thousands of veterans struggling to see the benefits they have earned... and unless they have the support of their fellow citizens, many of these issues go largely ignored.

I also have a Veterans Day movie recommendation, though it may initially seem more appropriate as a Memorial Day movie, "Taking Chance," is also a good Veterans Day movie. The storyline revolves around the true story of a soldier's last journey home, but equally as important are the veterans and other civilians who must carry on after the wars and the losses.

-- UPDATE 9:10 AM --

From our local newspaper on the Toys for Troops group mentioned above:

Students ensure military service doesn't go unnoticed

MAHOMET – Veterans Day sounds more like Thanksgiving this year.

For the third year, Lincoln Trail School in Mahomet has donated food, toiletries and other gifts to Toys for Troops, a care package for overseas soldiers founded by Laura Stewart of Champaign.

...

Williams got involved in the effort two years ago, when Lincoln Trail students collected 2,100 plush baby toys. Last year, the school donated Thanksgiving treats.

"When we do (the packing) on Veterans Day, the kids have a purpose and a goal. We have veterans over who give them a good sense of why they're doing this; it's a double reward, for the troops and the pupils," Williams said.

Toys for Troops will still be responsible for much of the cost of shipping the Thanksgiving boxes next Wednesday, a cost that will total between $900 and $1,000, Stewart estimated.

The cost of shipping one box is $11.95.
If you'd like to sponsor the cost of shipping a box to a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan, click on the PayPal donation button at www.toys-for-troops.com.

Or you can send a check for $11.95 to Toys for Troops, 1123 Lancaster Drive, Champaign, IL 61821.

Donations are tax-deductible.

Good stuff.

Sunday Blasphemy

2009-11-08T22:50:00.002-06:00

I noticed O'Reilly has already begun his "War on Christmas" nonsense early, so I'm revving up the other side of the debates again here on the blog by bringing back the Sunday Blasphemy series. And I will of course begin bringing up the other sides of the stories on what I'm sure will be a season filled of the dominant ruling majority being horribly oppressed by an evil atheist cabal... typically offended at the notion that anything but exclusive respect for, or keeping disagreement silent or out of sight for, their particular views is practically on par with tossing them into lion dens.

So here's a fairly good debate on BBC on whether or not the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world (h/t Pharyngula blog) that was worth the watch (full program):

410 supporters lost? Ouch! No wonder questioning things has long been a popular taboo of organized religion.

Factcheck: Repubs Wrong...

2009-11-06T21:20:00.000-06:00

...because Dems are too.

If you've heard your average Republican talk about health care reform bills floating around congress lately, you've probably heard accusations that they completely take over American health care, either by endless regulations or forcing everyone onto government plans by making coverage mandatory and also bankrupting private insurers.

If you've heard your average Democrat talk about health care reform bills floating around congress lately, you've probably heard excuses on why the bill isn't even what they'd prefer (generally a single payer system or some other far more extensive reform), but that we should support it anyways. The excuses generally range from the idea that this is some sort of "dent in the armor" to get "real" reform later to the idea that it is better than nothing to ensure costs go down.

Of course all of the above is either outdated, exaggerated, or flat out wrong. From factcheck.org:

The early House bill called for a federal insurance plan that would pay health care providers at Medicare rates, which are 20 percent to 30 percent less than what private plans pay on average, according to the Lewin Group. If this type of federal plan, which would be substantially cheaper than private insurance, were open to everyone within three years, it could lure as many as 114 million away from private insurance, Lewin estimated. The revised bill calls for a federal plan that pays negotiated rates, putting its premiums in line with those of private plans.

The Lewin Group has not released an analysis of the latest House bill, but it did model what would happen under a similar situation, with a federal plan paying negotiated rates. Lewin found that such a plan would result in 10.4 million to 12.5 million people moving off of private plans, in favor of the "public option." Why the big drop? Because those with private insurance wouldn’t save much money, if any, by switching to the federal plan.

CBO analyzed the revised House bill, and it came up with even lower numbers. CBO estimated that 6 million Americans total would join the so-called "public plan" by 2019 — and that premiums would be "somewhat higher" than the average private plan premiums offered through an insurance exchange. CBO said the plan would be most attractive to the less healthy members of the population, forcing premiums higher, despite the fact that the federal plan would save some money on administrative costs.

In one fell swoop it knocks out the government takeover and savings memes as it notes that the medicare rates in earlier versions are no longer in the current bills, which prevents the public option from actually being much different in cost of care issues than the private insurance it would be competing with. By some estimates the public option may end up being more expensive and thus less competitive.

And as for the future holding some magic remedy for "real" reform later, and thereby justifying GOP concerns that this is just a first step towards the government takeover they fear, while being the single payer or other far more extensive government plan the Democrats really want... neither worry nor hope is a big secret. While Democrat leaders dismiss the notion in public to allay fears, the activists and prior statements of the leaders make it clear that this is what they hope for. But the reason they're not taking advantage of their current super-majorities in both houses of Congress and control of the White House with a resident sympathetic to the cause (and advocate of the same while on the campaign trail) is because it's simply not politically feasible. Such hopes (or worries if you're on the other side of the aisle) rest on the idea of some super-duper uber-liberal majorities to pull off in the future. A future that no expert on either side of the aisle is expecting to come to fruition any time in the short or long term.

If they could pull it off, the time is now. Activists on the left are fully aware of this... and doing everything they can to try to do so now. Activists on the right are fully aware of this... and doing everything they can to shut down anything of the sort while the Democrats hold such vast power in this current Congressional term.

So what are we left with?

We have bills that create a public option that isn't very competitive, if at all, with private insurance.
We have bills that signify a death knell for any sort of single payer or more extensive government reform of health care in the foreseeable future.
We have bills that do little nothing to address the increasing costs of health care and the adverse effects it is having on the economy and stability of future government budgets on all levels of government, let alone any real benefits in the short term for the current recession.
We have bills that do little to nothing to address the boomer and other crunches coming with medicare and medicaid beneficiaries.
And We have bills that do little to nothing to reform current health care programs, such as the Veterans Affairs and Medicare/caid systems, that are in dire need of improvement.

But it's not all bad. The mandatory coverage and subsidies will ensure far more people are covered that previously would have been unable to get it. This comes at the cost of forcing a lot of people into coverage who would otherwise not get coverage, adding to the profits of insurance companies... so much so they're unconcerned with the provisions that end denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, an otherwise typical thing in any other type of insurance. You won't find too many auto insurers that will pay for a car you already smashed to bits, or home insurers that will take you after your home burned down... the risk is 100%, and taking such folks wouldn't be "insuring" them, i.e. it'd be a boneheaded business decision.

But people don't really want insurance for their health care. They want health care coverage. It still boggles the mind when people get mad at insurance companies for being insurance companies and not pay-my-bills-for-me companies as if they were a government safety net program.

The bills also open up interstate competition for insurance, which could have some net positives, though the nationwide standardization of coverage minimums will put a damper on that meaning much to the average joe who can only afford the minimum with or without subsidies.

Unfortunately none of the bills really do much to address the rising costs which are overwhelmingly on the provider end of the spectrum... and as noted above, they really don't do much on the insurer/coverage end of the spectrum either. Nor do any of them address the already heavily problematic government programs already in place that, in spite of recent improvements here and there, generally have a mixed history with some real nightmares rivaling the horror stories being pumped out by current proponents of reform of the private industry.

What's clear is that the Democrats are missing a clear opportunity to attempt real reform now, something shockingly admitted by Democrats themselves if you talk to them about it outside of some partisan pissing match. And while the Republican opposition generally seems to be misguided or overwhelmingly based in hysterical fears (to be fair somewhat grounded upon the stated hopes of Democrats themselves) there's little reason to support the current bills (also, ironically enough, echoed by the Democrats themselves).

For all the costs and effort being put into unrealistic hopes of some magic fix later in the support of this bill, it's an unnecessary waste at a time when the government cannot afford to waste anymore resources on non-solutions to a very real economic crisis.

Unemployment Blues Update

2009-11-06T08:05:00.002-06:00

A while back ago factcheck.org referenced a chart showing the Obama promises versus reality on unemployment and verified the data was accurate. That chart has since been updated and you can verify the data via the factcheck.org article and the Bureau of Labor Statistics website:

(Click to enlarge)

Scary.

Casualties of War

2009-11-06T04:51:00.004-06:00

My first impressions with the news that's come out on the Ft. Hood shooting since yesterday afternoon:

From the information about his prior statements both in person and on the web, this man's loyalties were with his fellow Muslims, not with his country.
He was desperate to avoid being deployed overseas where he'd potentially have to harm his fellow Muslims.
He targeted the part of the base where soldiers were preparing to deploy, out of all parts of the base he could have targeted, he went after the ones who were about to leave to engage his fellow Muslims.
Though he did not appear to be adhering to any particular group that the United States is at war with, and the United States is not specifically at war with Muslims, this man's religious loyalties appeared to have caused him to oppose the current military actions of the United States in regions where the enemy is composed of Muslims.
His actions, in my opinion and given the information thus far, constitutes waging war against the United States. Short of any new information, it seems to me that he should be hung as traitor.

And this happened just shy of a week before Veterans Day. What a nightmare.

-- UPDATE 11/6/2009 @ 11:12PM --

Additional and updated summary of information on the "suspect" with more evidence of his treasonous intentions and his demeanor of preparing to leave for war in the weeks and days leading up to and the day of the attacks.

This wasn't a man who just snapped. This was a planned assault on our troops. He traded in the deployment he detested for one he could be at peace with.

Comic Relief: Accident Victim Not Glenn Beck

2009-11-04T05:16:00.001-06:00

Victim In Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck

All Politics is Local... um wait...

2009-11-02T21:30:00.003-06:00

The old saying may not hold true in the current infighting between various Republican and conservative groups. The recent ouster of Dede Scozzafava, a moderate Republican, from a New York district race by die hard conservatives from around the country supporting Dough Hoffman, a 3rd party conservative rival, seems to perfectly highlight the problem. From CNN:

Late last week, as the pace of conservative and congressional Hoffman endorsements quickened, reports began to spread among anti-Scozzafava conservatives that national Republicans had quietly ended both anti-Hoffman and pro-Scozzafava efforts, focusing their resources instead solely on attacking Democratic candidate Bill Owens.

By the weekend, with House Republicans joining the conservative base in open revolt, it was clear that both Scozzafava and the GOP had run out of options.

Scozzafava's exit was followed a day later by her endorsement of Owens, as the RNC immediately funneled resources to Hoffman, and third-party groups backing both remaining candidates descended on the district.

Everyone agrees that the grass-roots insurrection against the Republican Party's official candidate means something significant, but exactly what it means depends on who's asked.

The general summary is that the conservative activists think this is some grand opening victory in a campaign to force the Republican Party to bend to its demands, while moderate Republicans and party bosses tend to view it as a growing circular firing squad that will eventually just help the Democratic Party stay in power.

This type of thinking isn't unique to the Republican Party. There are plenty of liberals and Democrats who think it is in their interest to weed out moderates within their own party as well. Both situations seem to rely on the belief that their prior or current majorities that have included such moderates could have been possible without them and that voters who support such moderates will be forced to align with their more extreme counterparts when their ballot options are between a die hard on one side or voting for the other party they normally don't match all that well with. Not necessarily a safe bet.

As an independent with strong opinions that, at least on the whole, do not fit either major party all that well, this parallel infighting has typically been a source of ironic amusement. But with the growth of the Tea Party groups the normal ranting and bickering of people outside of the districts of moderate politicians has grown into something that may actually have the capability to thwart the will of the constituents of those districts who very well may support more moderate policies. Essentially taking the notion of 'all politics is local' and turning it on its ear. If my district's representative isn't conservative or liberal enough for some factions of their respective party should my district be flooded by outside financiers and supporters to toss him out of office... even in suicide missions as suggested by some Tea Party supporters that suggest even if their preferred outside supported candidate loses, it's a victory?

"We should be magnanimous in victory -- and whether Hoffman wins or loses, as long as Dede Scozzafava loses it is a victory," Erickson said. "But we should demand accountability, we should demand a reckoning, and we should demand a purge from the party establishment of those people most responsible for the Republican disaster in N.Y. 23."

I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat. This is taking the already heavy nationalization of local races and taking that problem to the extreme. Our federalist system of government is structured to empower regionalism in democracy. The people of this city don't have to have the same kind of government as the next. The people of this State don't have to have the same kind of government as the next. They can each choose for themselves, with higher echelons of government limited in how much the majorities that influence them can allow them to force their favored local policies on opposing majorities in regions within it.

With our federal representation this means each district decides who will represent them in the federal government. Instead of this some die hard party activists want such local representation to be thrown out the window for some uniform party control. Local district representatives or State senators all falling in line with what some outside yahoos want them all to be instead of the people of those districts or States choosing for themselves.

The parties themselves already go too far in this process, though generally with less success than what we've seen with the NY-23 race with the grassroots activists. People generally have been able to buck the parties desires for "pure" candidates and the result is a mixture of red state Democrats or blue state Republicans who are better fits for their districts, but who might generally drive die hard ideologues elsewhere out of their minds when it comes down to crucial votes on areas where they align with their constituents instead of the toeing the party line.

It's a two way street though and I think too many people fail to see the benefits when they can gain support from moderates of the other side and focus entirely too much on when their own party's moderates thwart their goals. But this is how the system was designed, and it should be obvious that this is a good thing. Our government wasn't established to have overbearing party apparatuses force their will on local constituencies, but the exact opposite situation of having a government that is built of representatives of those local constituencies who duke it out over policies that affect the whole... thereby restraining the government from overstepping its authority and limiting its ability to force policies on local/regional majorities that oppose them.

As more of a classical liberal I generally agree with many of the issues conservatives and Republicans have with out-of-control central power, but in this case the die-hards seem to be betraying their own ideology out of a sheer lust for power, a desire to get their policies enacted by any means necessary even if those means include thwarting the principles of limited government they hold so dear.

The hypocrisy is even more blatant as they are often regular critics of Democratic Party pushes to force national policies on local or State issues where their local or State constituencies do not support them. When it comes to "purifying" their party and purging of representatives for the constituencies of which they do not even belong, it comes far closer to their hyperbolic accusations, likening their opponents to party-centric regimes around the world, than they'd ever be likely to admit.

If these purges remain successful it may start a precedent for both parties that could have dire consequences on our federalist system, shattering the notion of local representation and the protection of local interests to ensure the success of certain policies at any cost, even if they lack the popular support via the Constitutional system they otherwise hold in such high esteem.

Happy Halloween!

2009-10-28T20:21:00.002-05:00

-- UPDATE 10/31/2009 @ 10:51 PM --

My pumpkin got posted on the website of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! And I couldn't be prouder.

Comic Relief: Religion Flowchart

2009-10-27T19:54:00.001-05:00

(h/t Pharyngula)

With Public Defenders Like These...

2009-10-27T12:00:00.003-05:00

...who needs prosecutors?

Or judges, or forensic experts, or... anything beyond throwing lighter fluid on a carpet and suddenly we're all arson experts! Neat!

Just more damning evidence against the State of Texas (double entendre intended) when it comes to the death penalty. For the full blown narrative of this case, which will take you on a trip from doubt to absolute horror, the New Yorker has an excellent article on the case from beginning to end.

This is the same case where the governor has done everything in his power to thwart the commission investigating whether Texas executed an innocent man from doing so. From CNN:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has removed a fourth member of a state commission charged with investigating claims that an innocent man may have been executed, his office said.
A family photo shows Cameron Todd Willingham with his wife, Stacy, and daughters Kameron, Amber and Karmon.

The Texas governor has now replaced all of the four members that, under law, he is allowed to appoint to the commission. The remaining five members are appointed by the state's lieutenant governor and attorney general.

...

Levy said at the time of his replacement he had told Perry's office "that it would be disruptive to make the new appointments right now."

"The commission was at a crucial point in the investigation," he told CNN. Asked about the future of the Willingham investigation, he said, "I don't know if it will ever be heard."

Both Levy and Bassett said they had asked to remain on the board.

Evans declined to give an opinion on the Willingham controversy when contacted by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for a story Friday, saying all he knows on the matter is what he's read in the newspaper.

"Because I haven't had involvement with the commission, I can't really comment on what's been going on in the commission in the past," he said. "I will work very hard to make sure the duties of the commission ... as given by the Texas Legislature are carried out."

Beyler's report -- the first commissioned by a state agency -- is the latest of three to conclude that arson was not the likely cause of the 1991 fire.

It's about time they stop desperately avoiding the facts and man up to the error and start addressing reality instead of protecting their guilty consciences.

Created Equal

2009-10-22T16:48:00.002-05:00

I got nothin' to add to that.

-- UPDATE 6:28 PM --

Okay, I'll add a transcript link found by Narc: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/10/22/15847

Caution: Objects in Mirror...

2009-10-21T17:24:00.004-05:00

Holy megagun, batman!

While this is apparently some sort of oversized recreation of an AR-15, with various components exposed to show how it works, the captions used by CNN make no mention of this inconceivably large monstrosity as not being real. I can already imagine all sorts of folks wondering aloud, "Who in their right mind would need THAT?"

Indeed, outside of some over-sized mutant, few could probably even use something like that. But what's the intention of not at least making a comment that it isn't real for the audience? Scare tactics? Here's the actual caption:

Fearful that Obama's administration is quietly planning to introduce tough new restrictions on gun ownership and worried that the recession will trigger a crime wave, Americans are scrambling to stock up on guns and ammunition. (PHOTO CREDIT: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)

Are they intentionally hoping folks will assume that the gun above is real? Or are they naively assuming that their readers will be familiar enough with real firearms, to know that this is a mock up?

Regardless, the Obama administration wasn't "quiet" about its intention to ban guns, real ones like the AR-15 this is an over-sized mock up of, while on the campaign trail and support of other bans as well, including handgun bans. Handguns being more related to civilian self-defense against violent crime. Economic problems do, in fact, have a tendency of driving up violent crime rates while times of economic prosperity tend to drive them down.

Gun control laws restricting various firearms have typically come with "grandfather" clauses that avoid the Constitutional restriction of depriving property without due process by only applying to new purchases, transfers, etc as opposed to requiring cops come after guns people already own. If you enjoy shooting sports and competitions for rifle shooting, getting in to the gun shop to buy a nice AR-15 isn't all that absurd. Concerns about future bans could also encourage some to go ahead and buy that handgun for the home or shop, even if they were weighing the decision to do so before, they may feel the option could get too expensive due to regulation or be totally blocked in the future.

Of course collectors and dealers would want to get in before any ban. Bans cause prices to skyrocket for grandfathered firearms or accessories due to the severe constraints it has on supply.

Cafferty's blatant lie here, "However, President Obama has never said - as a candidate or as president - that he intends to push for a ban of gun sales." neglects Obama's support of handgun bans and strong support or renewing and extending the so-called "assault weapons" ban that mainly banned sales of guns on cosmetic reasons, not functional ones. Hence why many opponents still like to refer to it as the "scary looking" weapon ban. This blatant lie leads me to believe that the unexplained picture is an equal attempt at distortion.

The Greatest Show on Earth

2009-10-20T08:59:00.002-05:00

Book review time!

I just finished the latest installment of Richard Dawkins' books. His latest one attempts to lay out the proof for evolution, in no uncertain terms, of the shared ancestry of all living things on Earth. From exploration of the original evidence driving the theory to all of the modern observations and evidence that has time and time again fit perfectly into evolutionary theory, but left no room for "intelligently designed" alternatives. Now, to be fair, it did leave a little wiggle room for "designed" alternatives, just no intelligent ones. Indeed for a designer to have finagled many of our vestigial bits, pieces, and re-routings left over from both our ape-like and even older (glub glub glub) ancestors, would have required a designer who was both a raging alcoholic and seriously motivated to trick scientists into eternal damnation.

It takes the reader through history, in evolutionary time, of the incremental changes from generation to generation, separated by earthly isolating factors that take groups of critters from once single species their separate ways over the ages. Mutations that survive in each group, especially those that benefit those critters in this or that environment, slowly but surely leading to dramatic changes from their long lost cousins... so much so that they become incompatible to interbreed and become a species of their very own.

It explores the solar engine that continues to drive the endless struggles between various life forms, surviving and successfully replicating their DNA, or with helpful mutations impressively replicating their DNA, or of course failing to do so. The relationships that highlight the brutal game of life and the amazing routes it takes... in some cases from sea bound critters, to land explorers, and in the interesting cases back to the sea... taking with them the mammalian traits that reveal their closer kinship to critters like us than the fish they've evolved to resemble.

Scenario after scenario, example after example, evidence upon evidence leads to the inescapable reality of this "just a theory" concept: that it is no more deniable than the theory of gravity as a fact of every observation and scrap of evidence available to humanity (excluding the numerous hoaxes used to cling to the theories of dark age desert dwellers' unsubstantiated "divine" claims).

About the only plausible defense one could possibly muster against it is to avoid the proof it highlights and go off on red herring arguments that only supernatural forces can be at work on topics not covered/specified and ruling it irrelevant. This will surely work to persuade those unconcerned with logic, but to everyone else it couldn't be a more blatant white flag of surrender and a refusal to engage the raiding hordes of evidence at the gates. What that evidence reveals can be unpleasant, without a doubt. Nature, for all it's awe inspiring wonder to the human mind, is and has always been overtly filled with un-pleasantries:

"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, others are running for their lives, whimper...ing with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease."

And while our empathetic consciousness may desperately want to find any excuse to justify the horror, the endless struggle has but one substantiated explanation where all the pieces fit, the good pieces, the bad pieces, and the downright ugly pieces. Where fear plays as much of an important role as joy... or rage as empathy... or why we almost all suffer from sore backs.

And for all the terrible consequences of nature that our awareness will trouble us with, there are also wondrous peculiarities and great humor to be found in the various paths taken by many critters' evolutionary paths. Many examples follow the mutations that have taken place to "correct" some of the inevitable problems caused by developments of ancestral critters no longer making much sense in modern critters who have inherited all of the changes since. If you ever wondered why a Koala's pouch is inexplicably upside down, or parts of your eye would appear to be installed backwards, or why one of your nerves still grows in a pattern that only makes much sense if you retained the gill breathing system of your sea bound cousins... a path that is extremely exaggerated in a giraffe... looping several feet from the brain to the heart and back up to the long gone gills a few inches from where it started.

Though I must admit my personal favorite, which deserved more attention in my opinion, was the bird who had "forgotten" how to fly, but has also forgotten that it has forgotten how to fly, leading to embarrassing displays of brick imitations when it tries. Not that we should be too hard on the little guy, after all we're the yahoos who have forgotten we lost our pelts to raise in a chill to help with warmth... and seem to treat the remnant goose bumps as if they don't betray our ancestry any less blatantly than vestigial tails.

The book gets deeper though with intimate details of the chemical engines at the heart of life. So intimate that even the layman can begin to see that mysterious underpinnings of what makes living things seem unique to the non-living materials we encounter are merely differences in the chemical reactions of the same. Indeed, the molecular interactions begin to look no more "alive" than what you may have encountered with a chemistry class in high school with, of course, some unique patterns that keep the chain reaction of information replication going. That information, unlike a blueprint, has ramifications that at the basic level are no where near as mysterious as what complexities that can either encourage further chemical reactions that are more or less useful, or even downright fatal... but never anything resembling a schematic for fingers, or a heart, etc.

How it all comes together, from simplistic viruses that may have you sneezing, to the grand organism it is causing to sneeze, is one heck of a show. Quite possibly the greatest show on earth. I'd highly recommend getting a ticket.

UN Allowed Afghan Election Fraud?

2009-10-12T05:07:00.005-05:00

According to a former Clinton appointed diplomat who was working with the UN on election oversight of the Afghanistan elections... yes. In a recent TIME Magazine article he lays out the known pre-election fraudulent and suspicious activities that have become the focus of the disputed ballots and election results that came to light after the election:

Unfortunately, I am unable to provide reassuring answers. Over the past four months, I served as the deputy head of the U.N. mission in Kabul and had a firsthand view of the fraud that plagued Afghanistan's presidential vote. Each time I proposed actions to deal with it, Kai Eide, the head of the U.N. mission in Afghanistan, overruled me. Like any good subordinate, I respected my boss's decision, but in private, I told him I thought he was making a mistake in downplaying the fraud. When the press learned of our disagreement (through no fault of ours), U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon removed me from my post. This is an account of what went wrong — and why success in Afghanistan will remain beyond our grasp until the problems I witnessed are fixed.

He goes on to lay out several complaints about the process and how he was blocked by his UN superiors from inhibiting the fraudulent tactics emerging in front of their eyes:

Along with ambassadors from the U.S., NATO, the E.U. and the U.K., I urged the election commissioners and the Afghan Ministers of Defense and Interior to close down these ghost polling centers. Serving a President who was to benefit from the fraud, the Afghan ministers complained about my approach to my boss, Eide, and he ordered me to stop. On election day, these ghost polling centers produced hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes for Karzai. (After controversy erupted over my dismissal, the U.N. told some reporters that I wanted to disenfranchise voters by closing polling centers; this was absurd. The only ones I wanted taken off the books were ones that had never opened.)

...

Days later, the IEC discovered that sticking to its published safeguards would exclude enough fraudulent Karzai ballots to keep his total below 50%. This would lead to a second-round runoff, which Karzai desperately hoped to avoid. The IEC reconvened and voted 6 to 1 to drop safeguards, explaining that the commissioners had just read the Afghan election law and discovered that they had no authority to throw out fraudulent votes. This novel and inventive reading of the law did not convince many Afghans. My boss, however, sided with Karzai, and I was ordered to drop the matter. Four days later, I left Afghanistan and was subsequently relieved of my position by the Secretary-General.

The whole thing is worth the read, as painfully frustrating as it is. Extremely frustrating for reasons the article notes:

Because the elections were so critical to political stability in Afghanistan — and, therefore, prospects for the U.S.-led military mission — the U.S. and its allies needed them to go smoothly. The U.N. Security Council tasked the U.N. mission in Afghanistan to support the IEC and other Afghan institutions in the conduct of "free, fair and transparent" elections.

They intentionally helped Karzai game the vote to ensure that there wouldn't be a run-off vote and supposedly ensure greater stability. Instead they helped them de-legitimize themselves, any faith in the elections, now or in the future... and of course have seriously endangered our mission, and with it the lives of our servicemen on the front lines who will suffer the consequences of their madness.

The Afghanistan government is very young and existing in an environment of great instability and doubt. Few democracies deal with election issues the right way in these situations as they hold in the balance the fate of the nation and very often the lives of the leaders of it. We knew this. The UN knew this. They were charged with ensuring that the Afghans didn't do something stupid and make the situation worse.

Instead the UN helped them make it worse, actually abandoning the principles they supposedly hold dear in the process in hopes of some positive result. Paving, quite literally, a road to hell with their good intentions.

Did it work?

2009-10-11T05:27:00.002-05:00

One of the primary reasons I opposed the Chicago bid to get the Olympics was that I wanted it used to pressure the city to deal with the violence that has constantly been taking the lives of kids on the south side, which in my opinion, has gone largely ignored by the city's leadership and viewed apathetically by the rest of the state. Perhaps this is finally changing the city's tune due to the Olympics loss:

Daley pledged the city will keep investing in libraries to help provide children with opportunities to learn and be mentored. The mayor's last budget increased library fines to 20 cents per item per day from 10 cents.

"Dealing with violence -- and all of us have to discuss this -- and I've said this time and time again, when a child sees violence in the home, if there's drug usage and alcohol usage, if there's domestic violence, if there's guns, if there's constantly violence in the home, that directly affects that child."

"And to me, that's why mentoring, mentors are really important. We're looking at a program, with the assistance of the federal government and not-for-profits, all of us working together, how we can basically mentor as many young people at earlier ages in the city of Chicago," he said. "And part of that is the library system. It is. That will be part of the solution, the libraries in every community."

Daley also applauded religious organizations for partnering with the Chicago Police Department to try to solve 11 homicides. Ministers held prayer vigils at five police detective area headquarters buildings today to draw attention to the killings.

The mayor has talked about youth violence virtually every day since returning from the city's failed bid for the 2016 Games in Copenhagen. [emphasis added]

Is this a start to some real change? Or will this blow over and be forgotten as quickly as the nation's attention begins focusing on something else? Hard to say.

That's Gay!

2009-10-10T05:52:00.002-05:00

Caught a link to this video about a recent trend in gangsta rap lingo and homophobia (not that homophobia is new to that particular scene, this is just one of the most recent incarnations) down the grapevine from one of my friends on the interwebs and found it worthy of sharing:

I thought it was a fairly clever use of humor to address one of the very real concerns in popular culture, which is unfortunately chock full of negative trends when it comes to gays. I dug for more and apparently this was the eighth installment of these web skits. The rest are available here.

Generally they all highlight some of the more pervasive popular culture treatment of gays and homosexuality and use humor to mock their intolerant attempts at "tolerance." If while watching them you start to notice some strange gay variants/parallels to things such as the "magical negro" meme, Hollywood's old fascination with excessively stereotyping Asian characters, de-minoritizing advertisements, "token" mentalities, etc... then you're not alone. Movies, television and other popular culture outlets have been pumping out insulting and downright bizarre displays of gay ignorance and intolerance for a while now.

The first episode on there was especially shocking. While watching it may become hard to distinguish whether these women are referring to a gay best friend or "man's best friend" as they vacuously ramble on about gays as if they were dogs or puppies:

Even knowing about this kind of mentality before watching it, it was still incredible to see it in it's full ignorant glory. "We need to get you a gay!" I mean, wow... just wow. The only thing missing was some nimrod asking whether you can adopt them down at the humane society along with other pets.

All the videos are worth the look-see, but if you're strapped for time I consider this video of de-gaying, subliminally gaying commercials, and of course outright plays to homophobia to be the one that rounds out my top 3 picks:

What the...?

2009-10-09T08:11:00.004-05:00

Obama awarded 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for bringing peace to... um... uh... hmm... I... uh... um...

Number of Accomplishments to Merit it:

Though one astute anonymous commenter noted:

"I think we all could have seen this coming after he arranged that beer summit."

Indeed.

-- UPDATE 12:36 PM --

Heh... adding insult to absurdity, now thinking this award was premature means you're with the TERRORISTS! ZOMG!!1!!!

"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO.

It's getting to be like some sort of political twighlight zone... all of a sudden Democrats are behaving in all the ways they despised Republicans for just a short few years ago. [cue twilightzone.wav]

Voodoo Healthanomics?

2009-10-08T05:56:00.001-05:00

Of all of the complaints about the Baucus bill or the health care reform bills in general, this one hasn't gotten much attention yet:

Witch Doctory in Senate’s Health Care Plan.

ATHEISTS OPPOSE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE “FAITH HEALING” PROVISIONS IN HEALTH CARE REFORM BILLS

An Atheist public policy organization today called for elimination of requirements in Senate legislation which would reimburse faith-based “healers” for their services.

The Senate Finance Committee has taken up the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 which has an amendment titled “Religious Non-discrimination in Healthcare. The provision bans insurance companies from denying patients “benefits for religious or spiritual healthcare. Similar legislation, the Affordable Health Choices Act, has already cleared the U.S. Senate, and has a similar provision.

Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists, warned that the measure amounts to a public subsidy for certain religious groups.

“Any adult in the legislative or executive branch of the federal government, or of any state government, who wants to use unproven, unscientific ‘remedies’ should be free to do so,” said Buckner. “But support for such irrational nonsense violates the separation of religion and government and the canons of good sense. Including faith-healing or other non-medical ‘treatment’ in health care legislation must be rejected.”

Giving any sort of legitimacy to quackery, religious or otherwise, seems inherently dangerous to me. Especially dangerous and indeed often fatal to children of folks who take this stuff too far. While this particular amendment doesn't seem to change the fact that killing a child with faith based denial of care is still generally illegal, it could encourage more of it and even reward those who attempt it and propagate irrational fears, distrust, or dismissal of proven medical treatments to those who might otherwise not know better. Of course empowering the government to decide what treatments should be covered is bound to cause even more issues along these lines. Will insurance companies or government programs be forced to pay for scientology thetan tests too? How about subluxation tests/treatment in the quackier side of chiropractic care which has roughly the same scientific grounding... i.e. none. Will we end up with a public option for prayer circle coverage too?

Let's just avoid the slippery slope towards absurdity and kid sized body bags and just knock this nonsense out of any current or future health care bill. These bills have enough problems.

Danville VA Hospital Gets Amazing Organ Donor

2009-10-08T04:28:00.002-05:00

One gigantic heart:

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. - After serving in the Korean War, John Wright apparently lived a quiet life in Danville, where he volunteered at the local Veterans Administration hospital but otherwise kept to himself.

As it turns out, Wright was also building a fortune in real estate and other investments worth $1.56 million, all of which he left to the eastern Illinois town's VA hospital when he died.

The staff and other volunteers he got to know in his 40 years volunteering at the hospital's recreation therapy section were the closest thing Wright had to family, said Douglas Shouse, a hospital spokesman.

...

The money will buy a 16-passenger van to take veterans on outings and will be used to renovate a recreation hall that will be named in his honor, according to Shouse.

Wright was buried in the Danville National Cemetery near the hospital.

A well earned salute to this guy.

Olympian Challenges

2009-10-01T13:58:00.002-05:00

From local Chicago news outlets on the bigger issues of the 2016 Chicago Olympic bid. First from the Chicago Sun-Times:

We admit to having mixed emotions. Professionally, it would of course be a very good thing. Newspapers and their brethren thrive on huge stories, so it's little wonder that the local media have climbed aboard the 2016 bandwagon. For seven years, we would have an opportunity to examine the Olympic process up close and personal, and the result would be plentiful and fascinating story angles involving local news, business and sports. The media would be a big part of the story, which is why you read so many glowing accounts about the wonders of the Olympic experience: If you're in the media, you get to go to the events, meet the athletes, talk to the visiting fans. You're invited to the party, so naturally it seems like a wonderful thing.

Of course, if you're an Average Joe, forget about it. The tickets are much too pricey and difficult to acquire. You'll end up watching it all on TV, same as you will if the games are awarded to Rio. If you live in Chicago, you will have to put up with countless inconveniences, the shutdown of streets and lakefront facilities, the tedious traffic jams and the misplaced priorities. And, as a taxpayer, you will be on the hook for any and all cost overruns, as rubber-stamped by the cheerleading City Council.

Local history tells us it's the movers-and-shakers, the power-brokers, who will cash in on the Chicago Olympics. Mayor Daley's legacy will be ensured, and those with clout will reap rich rewards. Now, are all those who are engineering Chicago's Olympic bid in it for themselves? Of course not. The vast majority are upstanding, civic-minded individuals who are absolutely convinced they are acting in the city's best interests. They may well be right. But it's debatable how much the general populace will benefit, in terms of new jobs, new construction, increased tourism. Who knows what the economy will look like seven years from now? Chicago as a whole likely will gain some tangible lasting benefits, some invaluable enhancement of its image, but at this point, that's difficult to quantify.

And from the Chicago Tribune:

But the city -- whose mayor is hoping once again to cast it in the best light for the 2016 Olympics -- has a dark side. Despite its dazzling profile and the self-congratulation attendant to an Olympic bid, Chicago can never truly be a world-class city until it figures out how to save its children.

Consider this: The Black Star Project, an advocacy group that mentors and tutors black and Latino students, has counted 53 children and teens under 18 who have been killed in Chicago from Sept. 2, 2008, to Sept. 2, 2009.

"Since the Iraq war started in 2003, we've lost 10 soldiers who resided in this city, and that's awful," said Phillip Jackson, executive director of Black Star. "But during that same time, we've lost about 300 of our children. So you tell me: Is this not a war?"

The Tribune article goes on about the efforts put forth to gain the money pot of an Olympic event being held there and asks for a similar effort be made for the endless Columbine loads of deaths Chicago faces year after year after year after year after year...

Some how, some way, this Olympic bid, whether it succeeds or fails must be used to beat this corrupt government over the head until it actually makes real progress in bringing real change to this unbearable situation. Ignoring it between brief moments of half-measures has got to stop. Enriching the 'haves' with Olympic pork for maintaining the status quo of the 'have nots' continuing to die in the streets while just trying to go to school is unacceptable.

And honestly, if all we can do is maintain that status quo, does any body in Chicago or this State deserve any Olympian perks? Hell no.

Celebrities to the Rescue!

2009-09-30T20:46:00.003-05:00

I don't necessarily agree with everything this video says, but it was a fairly humorous reply to the celebrity video recently posted here jumping into the health care debate to complain about the insurance companies that are generally backing/rewarded by the current proposals:

My original issue with the celebrity ad:

The insurance companies are generally on board with the health reform proposals thus far though they obviously don't want to compete with a public plan that can pay medicare rates they and others will have to pay more to subsidize the difference of and call that a "level playing field for competition." But otherwise they like the idea of forced insurance buying like what car insurance companies get to pad their profit margin. Sure it comes at the cost of finally having to live up to their contractual obligations without loopholes to fall back on, but for some reason they don't see that as a big concern.

Funny how that works. Those big mean insurance companies, big phrama, etc are on board with the proposals as long as they actually get all the nifty stuff Obama has promised them in his non-reforming "reform" proposals. The real shock is why liberal Democrats are actually supporting this when the big promise lately is it'll be revenue neutral... ie... still the most expensive, inefficient health care system in the industrialized world. Yippy!

The real irony here is that the single payer proponents on the left seem to generally be in agreement on the general pointlessness of the current proposals. Opposition to this nonsense seems to have gained far more "bipartisan" support. Can't imagine why...