November 30, 2006
"Let's start building some hurtin' bombs"
I want to EAT an entire CAR. RIGHT NOW.
Al Gore in a new GQ interview:
Do you know if President Bush has seen [An Inconvenient Truth] yet?
Well, he claimed that would not see it. That’s why I wrote the book. He’s a reader.
In which I steal an easy joke from Colin Powell
Via Dana at Campus Progress, a new study reveals that two-thirds of Americans age 18-24 can't locate Iraq on a map.
The remaining third is, of course, already deployed there.
In a final act of contempt, the House GOP has decided that its final act in power will be to push through a "symbolic" (which is Congress-speak for "has no chance of becoming a law because it's a fundamentally awful bill") bill requiring doctors to tell women seeking an abortion that fetuses feel pain.
The bill, by Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., defines a 20-week-old fetus as a "pain-capable unborn child" — a highly controversial threshold among scientists. It also directs the Health and Human Service Department to develop a brochure stating "that there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain.""Highly controversial" is a bit of a generous description for Rep. Smith. There's a more precise one, which on planet earth we refer to as "wrong." He's lying.
Abortion providers would be required to inform the mothers that evidence exists that the procedure would cause pain to the child and offer the mothers anesthesia for the baby. The mothers would accept or reject the anesthesia by signing a form.
When fetuses can feel pain — versus a reflexive drawing back from stimuli — has been the subject of heated debate. Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco last year reviewed dozens of studies and medical reports and said that fetuses likely are incapable of feeling pain until around the seventh month of pregnancy, when they are about 28 weeks old.Do you notice how in Johnson's quote, he doesn't actually acknowledge the fact that a majority of doctors have said fetal pain as 20 weeks is unproven? He doesn't care. He just openly states that the legislation will simply say so.
That report hardly settled the issue for [National Right to Life legislative director Douglas] Johnson's group. The legislation would enshrine other evidence that fetuses "would experience great pain during abortions by 20 weeks," the Right to Life Committee said in a letter this week to House members.
At the very least, the possibility of fetal pain at 20 weeks is inconclusive. So the Republican solution is to demand women be made to sign a guilt-inducing permission slip claiming they know it's true. In a horrid, poetic way, there's something telling about the last act of the Republican House majority being an attempt to pass a law that orders people to be lied to, isn't there?
November 29, 2006
What's in store and out of store
A few things about the site and the strip and stuff:
1. If you have a deep longing for anything in the CafePress stores, order from them immediately. Due to painfully lackluster sales (to the degree that it practically costs me money to keep them open) the odds are that unless I suddenly see a 500% or so increase in sales I'm just going to remove them completely at the start of next year when I redesign the site.
2. I'll put up a note soon, but for all other purchases from the site, such as books, signed prints, pins, etc., I use standard U.S. Postal Service. If you live outside the U.S. and want anything sent to you before Christmas, the deadline to order is... the next 24 hours. If you live inside the U.S., then you have until December 10.
3. As I just noted, there's going to be a redesign of the site hopefully at the start of next year to accomodate the new format of the strip as well as a new title. I've thought a lot about the new title, but I first mentioned it to my fellow CWAers at SPX and they all agreed it was a good one. In fact, you already know it, because it's been right under my nose for the last two years. Barring any changes of heart, the new title for the comic (and site) starting in 2007 will be: Some Guy With a Website.
4. There are other things... strange, wonderful things. But not for you... not yet.
5. Mwah ha ha ha.
Living under PowerLines
I'm still dealing with crappy internet at the new house, so I tragically missed the latest blog treat. Much like sighting a deer on the road one evening or something, it's not like it's super unique, but still an enjoyable moment in passing: such is another moment of major right-wing bloggers completely making asses of themselves in an attempt to cover up being proven wrong about something.
Long story short: AP prints an article that bloggers don't like, ergo bloggers claim it's fake. AP proves it's not, bloggers yell a lot about how awful the "MSM" is. Klein's Law has already gone into effect over at Powerline, who are showing their true testament to not actually being journalists by adopting gambling analogies to reporting a story about six people being burned to death.
Which, of course, really sums all these moments up, doesn't it? These people don't know what they're talking about, and moreover they treat the very concept of journalism as some kind of game where telling a favorable story gets them magical invisible points they can trade in later for items from their Amazon wishlist, or links from Instapundit or something like that, as opposed to telling the truth, which is merely, you know, what journalism actually is.
November 27, 2006
A Savage land
The number of comments in this bio of Michael Savage that praise his attitude disturbs me. I listened to Savage once on the radio, and watched the first episode of his ill-fated MSNBC show, and that was more than enough to realize the guy was nuts.
I don't really like that we still live in a world where TV and radio show hosts can be the most disgusting people alive and yet we're still supposed to "respect" them because they "tell it like it is," and so forth. I suppose that's a whitewash for the reality of people like Savage: they sum things up in the easiest terms so you don't actually have to think about what you believe in.
There are conservatives like Pat Buchanan and George Will who I have much more respect for than Savage and actually listen to even though I disagree with almost everything they say. It has nothing to do with their ability to "tell it like it is;" I'm sure they believe what they say as much as Savage does. The difference is they're not violent, rabid lunatics.
Holier than thou
Much like Michael Richards' current attempts to tell every person in America he's "not really a racist" to cover up the reality that, yes, he is in fact a racist, Glenn Greenwald catches a rare case of "Moderate Libertarians™" losing their faux-curious composure ("This blogger says Muslims should be grinded into paste to feed Christian babies and make them stronger for the upcoming tribulations... I just don't know what to think") when it's noted that yes, they're complete hypocrites when it comes to blindly attacking certain religions.
Althouse is reduced to (seriously) calling Greenwald an "idiot" and (not really) an "icky poo-head" because she got completely called on having no problem calling Muslim terrorists "Islamists" but finds the idea of "Christianists" offensive to, well, radical right-wingers who use Christianity to force their political beliefs upon people, which is of course different from those who use Islam to force their political beliefs upon people because Jesus was real, duh.
For some reason, when I visited a close friend this weekend who is a very faithful Christian, the idea of her forcfully imposing her personal political views on me, by force if necessary, didn't come up. It's as if I am smart enough to realize that there's a difference between labeling people who are Christian as universally "fascist," which no one has ever done but Althouse accused people of, and understanding that religious fascism specifically denotes those who try to use their religion as a blanket to wrap their political motivations around. In chastizing Greenwald, Althouse and Reynolds pull the ever famous and most annoying of all "pretending to be stupid" card and act as though liberals make blind, baseless attacks on Christians because they just happen to be Christian. This would have been a complete surprise to my friend what with us hanging out for three hours or so and the whole religion thing not coming up at all. Actually, we talked mostly about guns. Don't ask.
Religious fascism, both Christian and Muslim (and Jewish as well, as the last decade of perfect harmony in Israel has proven for the incorporation of religious fundamentals in local politics) is exaclty why separation of church and state is necessary: it keeps both healthy. The weakening of both by combining the two is exactly the thing people fight against and refer to when attacking "Christianists."