CNN, MSNBC, Fox news: Why bother?

One of my favorite posters, Alternate Universe, asks why liberals and centrists do not boycott the biased corporate media. She's got a point. Why do liberals bother appearing on the O'Reilley Factor when they know he's only going to misconstrue what they say anyway?

Corporate media, biased? Hell yeah. Everybody on both sides knows that. However, my liberal droogs, we must continue to participate. 1. Intelligent debate is impossible when both sides spend all their time bickering on whose source is more wrong. 2. When the liberals leave, the mainstream will grow even more biased.

Fighting fire with fire

Now if only Newsweek hadn't...hold up, word on the street is that we have in fact abused the Quran in Guantanamo bay (but haven't flushed it).

Protesters across the Muslim world are responding to the Quran story by spitting on, burning, and otherwise desecrating American symbols, like our flag, copies of the Constitution, and pictures of George.

I wonder if this is going to make the fundies totally flip out and have mass Quran desecration rallies.

The opposite of an update

Something unexpected's come up. I should be posting again by Friday.

Depressing Story of the Day:

The CS Monitor reports that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Iraq War will have cost us $600 billion by 2010.

No. No goddamn way that we're going to be in Iraq in 2010. This isn't just about what I think. Support for the Iraq war has been fading fast, and recruitment numbers are down. Worst thing, though, is that we're not winning, unless you think that losing less guys than the other side counts as winning. Invading a foreign country and installing an entirely new system of government has been harder than we thought. Iraq is still so dangerous that even the medical personel are packing heat because doctors keep being murdered by fake patients, and the quality of life is still rather poor.
My bet is that America's second Viet Nam will end in the same way as the first. Hopefully it will end a lot earlier than 2010.

Newsweek got people killed? No.

For the first time in many months, Afghanistan is front page news.
Insum: Newsweek broke the story that our people in Abu Ghraib were, among other things, desecrating the Quran by standing on it, ripping pages out of it, even flushing it. People in Afghanistan get angry and have a huge protest. Many people die.

Now Newsweek is retracting the story, but the White House still claims that Newsweek got people killed. Donald Rumsfeld warns us that "People need to be very careful about what they say, just as they need to be careful about what they do." That's a good one, Rumsfeld, but you still do not frighten me as much as Dick Cheney.

(Did some of our people desecrate the Quran? We're not sure yet. The retraction sounds rather forced to me, but that's not the issue.)

The Quran story sparked these protests, yes. However, do not tell me that people in Afghanistan weren't already raving mad over the invasion of Iraq and over Abu Ghraib. Something was going to happen, it was only a matter of time. Blaming Newsweek for pissing off the Arab world is like saying that the reason we fought WWI was because Franz Ferdinand was assassinated. There was going to be a WWI. People were itching for it. If he wasn't assassinated it might have started a couple of months later, but it still would have happened.

The administration can't blame Newsweek. Newsweek didn't invade Iraq. Newsweek didn't abuse prisoners in Abu Ghraib. Newsweek had nothing to do with oil for food. Donald Rumsfeld tells people to watch what they say? Perhaps if the administration had watched what they said, had shown the slightest bit of restraint and made sure that the WMD thing was for real, we would not be in this mess in the first place! I trust Newsweek more than I trust the people running this country. At least Newsweek admits when they are wrong.

EDIT 05-17 1:13 pm: The Cunning Realist points out that according to our own state department, the riots were probably not connected with the Quran story.

Deja Vu: Church + Politics part deux

About ten days ago, a preacher in North Carolina kicked out members who had voted for Kerry. Now, a priest in Minnesota denied communion to 100 Catholics who were wearing rainbow sashes. According to the article, supporters of gay Catholics have been donning the ribbons on each pentecost Sunday since 2001, but this is the first time a priest has done anything about it. Even though the minister involved in the earlier incident resigned (he may have even "resigned", you know, in the George Tenet sense) his actions may have enboldened other conservatives to "take a stand."

Should people walk into church dressed like a gay Mrs. America? In other words, is the church a proper place for a show of solidarity (even if the issue in question is a church issue)?

Nothing Big: Tom Delay is just being ironic again

His latest insult against Democrats: we have no class. Tom Delay is getting lazy! No class? Accuse the Democrats of anything you want, but at least we've got class. Between Jackie O. and Elenor Roosevelt, honey, we've got class.
Perhaps Tom Delay is not lazy. Perhaps instead, he has used up all of his good insults. The Rude Pundit would just tell you to shove off, but pay a visit to Ann Coulter or John Bolton, get some new insults, and get back on it! Between the war in Iraq and the social security mess, we all need a good laugh.

Wow, high school has changed

Some guy in Wisconsin was ticketed $249 for wearing a dress and dirty-dancing at his prom. How dirty was it? I don't know, I wasn't there, but I've never heard of somebody getting fined for *only* dirty dancing. If the guy did something else then fine, but the article doesn't say it.

When I was in high school, part of our spirit week involved drag. It wasn't officially a drag day, but a great many otherwise-straight guys could be seen dressed as cheerleaders. And this was a conservative high school in a conservative state. I do not think that any guy ever showed up at our prom in a dress, but if one had I wouldn't have been that surprised.

Is this an isolated incident or something more? I'm not really sure. High school is ridiculous. Mine sure was and I'll bet that everybody else's was either. You could fail for the year for missing more than three days in a semester, yet get a minor grade reduction for bloody plaigurism. Then again, there've always been folks who aren't really open to anything that doesn't fit into their narrow definition of proper, but lately they have been getting bolder.

Sexual Preference vs Sexual Orientation

I've always believed the latter: that being gay is a sexual orientation, not a sexual preference. Too anal*, too PC? A little bit, yes. But the distinction is important--some folks actually believe that people choose to be gay.
Can we prove that being gay is not a choice? No. However, I have never seen any convincing, non-anecdotal studies showing that it is a choice. All evidence that exists points to it not being a choice, but rather a result of genes or environment (probably both, actually). Here is the latest: gay men respond to pheremones differently than straight men. From what I gather, they respond in the same way that straight women do. And of course, this difference could either cause homosexuality or be the effect of it.



*edit: Upon further reflection, this comes off as a rather tasteless joke.

Church + Politics

A preacher kicked out nine parishoners who did not support George W. Bush.

Why is everybody so surprised about this?

I've been to I-don't-know how many churches. A lot. Perhaps a hundred. Something I noticed about all of the protestant churches I have ever been to: one church, one race. One church, one socioeconomic class. One church, one political party. I suppose that's the way that many people like it. If churches already voluntarily segregate themselves, the next step is forced segregation, yes?

This is pretty counter-productive

If the new licensing rider passes through Congress, it could take up to four different forms of ID to renew a driving license. Many Congressmen argue that people aren't spending nearly enough time at the DMV this will help curb illegal immigration.

Nearly all of the illegal aliens I know use fake driving licenses. (Si, I know it's anecdotal but exactly how would you do a proper study on this sort of thing anyway?) I am in this country legally so I have no need, but word on the street is that faking is not too difficult and not too terribly expensive.

Okay, we need more security in this post-9/11 world, yadda yadda yadda...I would support a measure that redesigned driving licenses so that they would be harder to fake. Not only would this actually work, but I bet it wouldn't cost $500 million dollars.

(UPDATE: speaking of IDs, humans won't be the only ones affected. The USDA might start tagging all livestock by 2009. Yeah, that'll happen.)

Hardy-har-har.

Wow, sorry I haven't been around, but I've had no time to myself. You know how pleasure marriages are. When you're only married for two days, every second counts. For those lamers who aren't in the know, pleasure marriages are all the rage here in Iraq now that Saddam's gone. 'ell, you don't even have to divorce your real wife to get pleasure-married.

Now to be serious:

The United States can't account for one hundred million dollars set for Iraqi reconstruction.

Is Bush going to do like he did with the WMDs and be seen on TV looking under his desk, behind his couch, inside a potted plant, etc, for the $100mil? Because that would be funny!

Is Narcolepsy contageous?

05-02-2005, 9:00 EST
1. Larry King is boring.
2. Dr. Phil is boring.
3. The story about the runaway bride: boring.
4. The Michael Jackson trial: bor-ring.

Larry King, interviewing Dr. Phil, talking about recent events in the "news" such as the Michael Jackson trial, some guy's rehab (rehab is boring), and the Runaway Bride* = yeah, I think I'll watch Reno 911.

*("The Runaway Bride" is also the name of a boring movie and stars the queen of boredom, Julia Roberts.)

Q: What's the matter with Kansas?

A: This.

It's not just legislators pressuring teachers not to teach evolution--it's students. Students being used by religious organizations, that is. Students being given copies of "The ten questions to ask your biology teacher" and told to have at it. (It sounds pretty solid, yes? No, it takes a lot more than the old Archaeopteryx argument to impress this biology nerd. A good refutation of the ten questions can be found here, if you are interested.)

This is a good example of why it's so ridiculous for the religious right to whine about being "persecuted". I am not so far removed from high school, so believe me when I say that nobody is *required* to learn about evolution: you can get a parents' note and "opt out", just as you might opt out of sex education. But that's not good enough for them. It's not only that they don't want their children learning about evolution--they don't want your children to learn about it either.