More bogus Christian "persecution", and more "Jay Gatsby".

You know, you people really are gluttons for abuse. Not long after my recent piece on the bogosity of Christian persecution, a reader and friend tells me that our buddy Jay Gatsby is at it again, spewing bullshit all over the Internets. Now, I could slowly and tenderly eviscerate Mr. Gatsby's position, but life is short so I'll just lay a quick smackdown on him and move on.

Linking to this piece at Fox News (and one wonders if Mr. Gatsby gets his right-wing indoctrination from anywhere but Faux), we have, "Mich. Schools Won't Offer Bible Class":

FRANKENMUTH, Mich. — A rural school district will not offer a religious group's Bible class as an elective high school course, ending a yearlong debate.

The school board in Frankenmuth, about 75 miles north of Detroit, decided with one dissenting vote Monday to not offer the "Bible As Literature and History" class at Frankenmuth High School, following the recommendation of school Superintendent Michael Murphy.

The proposed class would have been based on materials from the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools of Greensboro, N.C.

Murphy said the class was not academically rigorous enough and said current classes in English, art and history, already include studies on how the Bible affects American society.

"It goes beyond talking about religion and becomes faith-based," Murphy said.

Now, we can shorten this discussion immensely by understanding one simple thing -- whether this course belongs in public school is based solely on whether it consists of legitimate, objective, Biblical scholarship and comparative religious studies, or whether it's Christian evangelism and proselytizing.

If it's the former, then no problem. Personally, I'm a big fan of comparative religious studies in school, and I'd be the first one to support that sort of thing. If it's the latter, not a chance. And it really is that cut-and-dried. Can we all agree on that? (And, please, don't make me explain why the class being optional, voluntary or an elective is absolutely irrelevant. Surely, most of you should be smart enough to figure that one out for yourselves.)

So ... is this curriculum group a legitimate academic concern, or a bunch of Bible-thumping evangelists? Hmmm ... maybe the fact that even Faux News described them as a "religious group" should have set off some warning bells, no? But, really, to be fair, we should go straight to the web site of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools (Jeebus Christ!, turn the volume down on your system first, how fucking self-absorbed are these people?) where, right up front, we read that this collection of wingnuts are working hand in hand with the American Family Association and the Center for Reclaiming America, both bastions of right-wing wingnuttery. And we're supposed to believe that any of these clubs has suddenly discovered the appeal of actual academic objectivity? Oh, please.

But it's on the next page at the Bible curriculum shop that you get the full force of what kind of lunatics you're dealing with, as President Elizabeth Ridenour writes:

The world is watching to see if we will be motivated to impact our culture, to deal with the moral crises in our society, and reclaim our families and children.

I think we can all agree that any actual scholarly program of Biblical examination wouldn't be yammering on about "the moral crises in our society". Anyway, despite the bitching and moaning from the Jay Gatsbys of the world, there's no story here. A nutbar religious group wanted the chance to indoctrinate public school students, and the school board quite properly told them to go Cheney themselves.

And, every so often, the universe unfolds as it should.

ADDITIONAL RANDOM THOUGHTS: If you really need a glimpse at the scholarly quality of the aforementioned curriculum, well, you just have to ask. Check the course outline. I mean, really. "Fill in the Missing Information Quiz"? "Acts of General Assembly of Commonwealth of Kentucky"? "The Hydrological Cycle of Weather & The Complexity Of Weather Patterns"? "The American Flag"? "Passover Feast and Recipes"?

Recipes? They want to talk about Passover recipes?? And weather patterns? And the American flag??? I'm sure it's possible to have even more wretched, biased, worthless course material. I'm just not sure how.

ADDITIONAL UPDATE: Just for the entertainment value, I followed the "Links" URL at the curriculum site to get here, to see others who are listed as "supportive of [their] cause". And what a disreputable collection of right-wing hacks it is, with the occasional young-earth creation scientist mixed in, like "Dr. Dino" Kent Hovind. Everything you need to know about Hovind, you can find here. Enjoy.

George Clooney slaps the crap out of Bill O'Falafel.

Over here at DailyKos. Delicious stuff.

I'll take "ridiculous hyperbole" for $200, Alex.

(CC News) - In a sweeping new FCC reform, U.S. president George W. Bush announced a crackdown on what he called "the growing disease of unwarranted hyperbole polluting our mediawaves and our airtime."

"The casual misuse of superlatives and exaggeration has to stop," said Bush. "Once this legislation is adopted, it will be much harder to just describe something or someone as 'great', 'terrific', 'unparalleled' ... that sort of thing".

Bush went on to explain that a first offense would result in a $100 fine, with increasing fines thereafter. As an example, Bush produced an annoying 2003 quote from RNC chairman Marc Racicot, with the offending naughty bits highlighted:

"I was delighted to meet with this distinguished group of young college Republicans to discuss issues of utmost importance to them. It is imperative that we as a nation engage our young people so that they may become active participants in our political process now and through out adulthood. We commend these fine students for donating hundreds of hours to work on the RNCs 72 Hour Program and our efforts to increase voter turnout among conservative republicans.

According to Bush, different superlatives would have varying financial penalties, while anyone using the word "unprecedented" inappropriately would simply be taken out and shot.

Responding to this new legislation, most of the nation's major media outlets expressed surprise that Bush actually managed to correctly pronounce "unwarranted hyperbole".

In related news, Bush once again described Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as doing a "superb" job.

Reality bites.

Convenient, right-wing myth:

...the liberals decided to attack President Bush on how his completely undeserved Presidential Inauguration would cost $50 million. They forgot how money going toward the Inauguration was not government money but private donations.

Ugly reality:

D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects...

Williams estimated that the city's costs for the inauguration will total $17.3 million, most of it related to security. City officials said they can use an unspent $5.4 million from an annual federal fund that reimburses the District for costs incurred because of its status as the capital. But that leaves $11.9 million not covered, they said...

Man, dontcha just hate it when facts get in the way of a good fairy tale? There's a reason they call us the "reality-based community."

Thank God for the international media.

At least some people still want to practice real journalism. I particularly love the excerpt:

The Commander-in-Chief's Ball is being hailed by organisers as a fitting tribute to American soldiers on active service. More than 2,000 troops and their partners, selected by the Pentagon, will take part. Most have served in Iraq or Afghanistan or are about to go there.

In other words, some of those about to ship out will at least be well-fed before they get their legs blown off because of poorly-armored vehicles.

OK, this is just plain disturbing.

From the NY Post gossip page:

Joe Simpson, the former Baptist minister turned manager of daughters Jessica and Ashlee, doesn't shy way [sic] from talking about his offspring's physical assets. "Jessica never tries to be sexy," Simpson tells GQ. "She just is sexy. If you put her in a T-shirt or you put her in a bustier, she's sexy in both. She's got double D's! You can't cover those suckers up!"

Maybe it's just me, but the thought of a former Baptist minister actually knowing his daughter's bra size kinda creeps me out.

Open thread.

Bloody hell, there's too much to write about and not enough time. It really is a full-time job just keeping up with the indescribable sleaze of this administration, isn't it?

Once again, these people have no fucking shame at all.

Does the Bush administration feel even the slightest bit sheepish about having bribed a "journalist" to secretly shill for them? If you have to ask, you haven't been paying attention:

The department defended the deal, claiming its public-relations contractor "sought avenues to reach minority parents."

"The contract paid to provide the straightforward distribution of information about the department's mission on No Child Left Behind, a permissible use of taxpayer funds under legal government contracting procedures," according to a department statement.

If these people are so unashamed of what they did, why did it take a Freedom of Information Act request to pry this sleazy arrangement out of them?

ADDENDUM: Just in case anyone suggests that there's nothing wrong with Williams taking a fistful of cash to whore for the White House, one might ask Williams why he never mentioned all that payola to his employer, even though his contract had a clear conflict-of-interest clause:

"The fact that Mr. Williams failed to notify TMS of his receipt (through the Ketchum public relations agency) of payments from the DOE is a violation of provisions in his syndication agreement with TMS. The agreement requires him to notify TMS when 'a possible or potential conflict of interest arises due to the subject matter of (his columns) and the social, professional, financial, or business relations of (Mr. Williams).'

Just when you think the wingnut right can't get any more loathsome ...

Over at MSNBC, conservative psycho nutbar and talk show host Joe "Dead Intern" Scarborough asks the survey question, "Was the tsunami an act of God?"

And Christians think I'm offensive?

How to embarrass yourself in three easy steps.

1. Blogger Steve Gilliard weighs in on journalistic whore Armstrong Williams.
2. Cornerite and overall asshole Jonah Goldberg makes some ugly accusations of racism.
3. Gilliard identifies the subtle flaw in Jonah's argument.

UPDATE: Man, Goldberg just doesn't get when he's been smacked. Shorter Goldberg: "Oh, yeah? Well ... well ... I'm like rubber and you're like glue. It bounces off me and sticks to you." Seriously, are there any grown-ups over there at the Corner?

DOUBLE UPDATE: And Steve Gilliard just keeps pounding away. Definitely another blog for the bookmarks.

Oh my ... how times change.

Then. Now. It must be great to have no shame whatsoever.

Moderately competent journalism 101

First, read about how it should be done. And then, watch how the White House press corps pretty much suck dick at your typical Scottie McClellan press gaggle.

I'll have more to say on this shortly, but feel free to do your reading assignment first.

What was all that crap about "love thy neighbour"?

More compassionate conservatism. You have to wonder what these folks are like when they're in a bad mood.

A prostitute by any other name ...

Hey, if you stuff a quarter million dollars up my butt, I'll say nice things about them, too.

UPDATE: Williams Column Axed by TMS. But don't feel too badly for Williams:

John Twohey, vice president of editorial and operations at TMS, told E&P tonight that terminating the contract "wasn't a close call" after he and four other senior TMS executives discussed the matter.

"I understand the decision," Williams said when reached by E&P. He also said he would not be returning the $240,000.

I believe this is what they call "laughing all the way to the bank". Gosh darn that liberal media.

Bush administration totally callous, self-absorbed scumbags after all.

Just when you were ready to give these evil pricks some credit for maybe, just maybe, giving a shit about the millions of victims of the disaster in Southeast Asia, along comes this absolute gem of information:

The Bush administration said Monday that it would pay for its $350 million pledge of tsunami disaster relief from money already in this year's budget, rejecting the idea of asking Congress to approve immediate emergency funds to cover the costs...

The administration plans to rely largely on money in the international disaster and famine assistance program at the United States Agency of International Development, according to Mr. Kolton...

That program's budget is $384.9 million for the fiscal year of 2005. The initial $350 million for the tsunami disaster would nearly eliminate funds available for any disaster later in the year.

Let me put that in simple terms -- these jerk-offs are going to pretty well empty the USAID fund to cover the cost of the announced pledges. In short, it's not costing them anything -- they're just going to completely fuck over those parts of the world that would have received USAID assistance this year. But I don't imagine that's going to cause any heartburn among the conservative faithful. After all, it's just the amount that counts, right?

But it's not like it's all bad news. Even if the Bushies aren't interested in finding any extra money for disaster relief, they're going to hit up Congress for another $100 billion for killing people. Remember, boys and girls -- it's all about priorities.

Democrats, wasting everyone's time yet again.

Gonzales Disavows Torture Tactics:

Attorney general nominee Alberto Gonzales drew scorching criticism from Senate Democrats on Thursday for his role in Bush administration policies on the treatment of terror suspects.

And yet, virtually every Democrat has already admitted they will vote to confirm Gonzales. So what's the point of this entire song and dance?

Canada protects Bush from charges of torture

December 7, 2004:

The Canadian government used a claim of diplomatic immunity Monday to block torture charges laid under the Canadian Criminal Code against President George W. Bush.

Something we as Canadians can all be proud of, I'm sure.

President responds to graphic pictures of tsunami devastation.

(CC News) - A recently-published photo shows, in disturbing reality, the appalling devastation and loss of life as a result of the recent tsunamis in Southeast Asia. After seeing the horrific picture, U.S. president George W. Bush commented, "Wow. That sure is something. It kinda reminds me of the time I cleared all this brush ...". Bush was then cut off in mid-sentence by a Secret Service agent, who was later heard muttering, "And I might have to take a bullet for this asshole?"

Republican philanthropic values.

(CC News) - In an astonishing display of generosity, seven-time world Formula One champion Michael Schumacher donated $10 million to the victims of the recent tsunami disasters in Southeast Asia.

Not to be outdone, U.S. president George W. Bush, whose personal net worth is estimated at approximately $17 million, has kicked in with $10,000 himself.

In unrelated news, a right-wing blogger going by the pseudonym of "Jay Gatsby" spontaneously combusted, apparently from an overload of cognitive dissonance.

Andrew Sullivan, giving gays a bad name again.

James Wolcott lays another delicious smackdown on conservative wingnut Andrew Sullivan. Which inspires me to ask yet again -- why do sentient people still take Sullivan seriously?

Christian exodus? Works for me.

A few weeks ago, someone brought to my attention a bizarre little web site, Christian Exodus, whose mandate is ... well, let's just let them speak for themselves, shall we?

ChristianExodus.org is coordinating the move of thousands of Christians to South Carolina for the express purpose of re-establishing Godly, constitutional government. It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for Christians to withdraw our consent from the current federal government and re-introduce the Christian principles once so predominant in America to a sovereign State like South Carolina.

To which my initial response was, that would be most excellent. Give the religiously-devout lunatic fringe their own territory, let them rename it "Jesusland" or something, and maybe they'll fuck off and leave the rest of us alone to, say, learn some science in peace and quiet. Then I stopped thinking about it since I prefer to spend my intellectual time in the land of the moderately sane.

More recently, though, I ran across the site again and figured I'd give it a closer look just to see what these folks were carping and whining about. Apparently, their major complaint relates to how badly Christians are treated in modern-day America. And I'm sure that, when you give it some thought, like me, the first word that comes to your mind when you think of American Christianity is "persecuted". (HAHAHAHAHAHA! Sometimes, I crack me up.)

But wait, I says to myself, let's be fair here, and see if they have a point. So I decided to look into some of their alleged examples of egregious mistreatment to see if they really are that hard done by. Short answer -- they're completely full of shit. But, hey, let's not take my word for it, let's let the record speak for itself, shall we?

If you go to their home page, you can scroll down until you find the bullet point, "Children who pray in public schools are subject to prosecution", and follow the footnote link "[1]", at which point you find a list of apparent religious persecutions and generally tawdry treatment of the religiously devout. So, just for the entertainment value, let's take a closer look at them, shall we?

Example one:

In Missouri, when fourth-grader Raymond Raines bowed his head in prayer before his lunch in the cafeteria of Waring Elementary School in St. Louis, his teacher allegedly ordered him out of his seat, in full view of other students present, and sent him to the principal’s office. After his third such prayer "offense," little Raymond was segregated from his classmates, ridiculed for his religious beliefs, and given one week's detention.

Man, that's pretty shoddy treatment. Or, it would be if it were true, which is where the magic of Google comes in. If you do the appropriate Google search, you get several hundred hits and, buried in the middle of all of that, you actually get someone writing about what really happened. By all means, read the whole piece, but concentrate on this part:

School officials and the school's attorney have declined to elaborate on exactly why the boy was punished because they are required by law to protect his right to privacy. Superintendent David Mahan responds, however, that the boy "was disciplined for some matters that were totally independent of silent praying. We did a very thorough investigation. We talked to teachers, administrators, and also to some students, and we could not find any evidence of the allegations that the parent and the student made." Rev. Earl E. Nance Jr, a member and former chairman of the St. Louis school board, adds "I don't think the child was prevented from praying over lunch. I think the child was probably instructed in another matter and mistook that for understanding he couldn't pray over his lunch, and went home and told his parents." Nance is the pastor of Greater Mount Carmel Missionary Baptist Church. He characterized the lawsuit as simply "frivolous."

And one has to ask how probable it is that a school district with a minister on its board would really forbid silent, individual praying? Chalk another one up for the Christian Disinformation Troops.

The Rutherford institute claims that it is working on over 500 similar cases of abuse of religious liberties. One wonders if the claims in them are all so questionable.

Whoopsie, it must be really annoying when facts get in the way of a good fairy tale but, let's face it, when you're talking modern fundamentalist Christianity, you're pretty much talking fairy tale city, aren't you?

(A couple side notes about this story. First, it apparently originated years ago with Republican nutbar Newt Gingrich, he of the upstanding morals and total hypocrisy. Gingrich has a nasty habit of just making shit up, so why should this story be any different? On top of that, this myth dates back to 1994, for crying out loud! If Christians really have a litany of persecution woes to lament, you'd think they wouldn't have to go back over a decade to find examples.)

Anyway, one fairy tale sent swirling down the bowl. Next.

In New York, kindergartner Kayla Broadus recited the familiar and beloved prayer – "God is great, God is good. Thank you, God, for my food" – while holding hands with two students seated next to her at her snack table at her Saratoga Springs school early last year. But she was silenced and scolded by her teacher, who reported the infraction to the school’s lawyer, Gregg T. Johnson, who concluded that Kayla’s behavior was indeed a violation of the "separation of church and state."

Once again, the story is so implausible on its face that one is reluctant to waste the time in refuting it. But, what the hell, here at CC HQ, we're all about rigour, and once again, Google comes to the rescue:

The Supreme Court decision was that it couldn't interfere with Kayla's rights since it would be deciding a religious matter, violating the Separation Church and State and her First Amendment rights. In other words, the school was on its own to defend its position not to let Kayla continue this practice. The school stated it would allow Kayla to continue her practice of reciting "grace," as long as it didn't interfere with the teaching curriculum.

Naturally, you might want to read the whole article but, in short, while the teachers did in fact initially stop Broadus from saying a prayer, they were pretty quickly smacked down and the school rescinded its policy. But you can see why the religious right might still be upset from this 2002 case -- it's gotta be really annoying when a federal judge takes your side. Don't you just hate it when that happens? Not surprisingly, Christians are still pissing and moaning about this example to this day.

But here's my favourite example from the loons at Christian Exodus:

"Separation of church and state" was used to deny a little, handicapped girl the right to read her Bible on the bus on the long trip to school.

Seriously, at this point, do you actually think there's any chance that someone took a Bible away from a studious, handicapped girl on a school bus? Once again, Google comes through and we can go to the official record, where the first thing you notice is that there's no mention of any kind of handicap. (In fact, I've exchanged e-mail with the reporter who confirmed that there was no "handicap" involved. In short, liars making stuff up for the sympathy value.)

But here's the money excerpt:

Last week, a Laidlaw bus driver told Samantha not to read her Bible on his bus.

The bus driver, who since has been suspended and removed from the bus route, was told by Laidlaw officials the girl may read whatever she wishes on the bus.

Superintendent Dennis Craft agreed.

"The little girl brought the Bible on the bus to read to herself," he said. "That's perfectly fine, and she has that right to do that."

Yes, you read that right. The driver did in fact tell Wilson not to read her Bible on the bus. Within a day, the situation had been fixed, and the bus driver had been "suspended and removed from the bus route." And another one bites the dust.

Starting to see a pattern here? What was all that Christian nonsense about not bearing false witness? Or something like that?

Bush administration living in financial fantasy land.

I can only tell you to read this.

Governor of Baghdad assassinated. White House announces that this shows progress.

(CC News) - Responding to the recent assassination of the Governor of Baghdad, White House spokesreptile Scott McClellan announced that this just demonstrates that "freedom is on the march in Iraq," and proves how desperate the insurgency has become.

"It's actually good news," continued McClellan. "As long as the terrorists are killing Iraqi governors there in Baghdad, they're not killing them over here in the streets of Cleveland, or Kansas City."

President Bush responded aggressively to the assassination by extending his Texas vacation another month in order to clear more brush.

Your morning sports report.

(CC News) - In the wake of Auburn's nerve-wracking 16-13 victory over Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl, coupled with USC's outright 55-19 demolition of Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl, a new poll shows that the vast majority of college coaches and AP sports reporters just want Auburn to shut the hell up about who's really number one.

And our elephant repellent works really well, too.

September 13, 2004:

At the meeting of the Southern District of the Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council (ATAC) that was held yesterday in Houston, US Attorney Michael Shelby informed the group that a terrorist attack of 09/11/01 proportions was going to be carried out on US soil within the next 6 weeks.

Mr. Shelby stated that on 09/13/04, US Attorney General John Ashcroft had a conference call with all 93 US Attorneys, an event which is extremely rare. The US Attorneys were informed that without a doubt an attack was going to be perpetrated in the US within the next 6 weeks, prior to the elections.

When questioned about this earlier guarantee of a terrorist attack that never materialized, White House spokesweasel Scott McClellan replied, "Well, it's only because of the steadfast and unswerving devotion of this president to the safety and security of the American people that we were able to thwart the ... uh, the ... the bad guys, the evildoers, those guys who were going to do things to us that were ... uh, bad and evil."

McClellan then went on to praise the manly studliness and he-man virility of President Bush, but was interrupted when three members of the White House press corps committed suicide by stabbing themselves to death with their pens, screaming that they just couldn't take it any more.

In other news, gay conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan expressed some disappointment with Bush's anti-gay pandering to his right-wing base, but admitted that he still thought Bush had a great "package" and was still waiting for an invitation to Bush's "man-date".

Actress Sandra Bullock donates $1 million for tsunami relief; conservatives sneer.

(CC News) - Actress Sandra Bullock has just donated $1 million towards emergency aid relief to help the victims of the recent tsunamis in a number of Southeast Asian countries. In response, a number of conservatives and right-wing commentators, rather than praising Bullock, sniffed disdainfully at her generosity.

"Big deal," wrote 'Jay Gatsby', a conservative blogger. "She only gave a million. Pfizer gave ten million. So she just sucks."

When told that Bullock is a single person, whereas Pfizer is a worldwide, multi-national pharmaceutical company with over 100,000 employees and a market value of more than $250 billion, Gatsby replied, "So what? All that matters is the amount. What a stingy bitch. And her movies stink, too."

Gatsby then went on to describe elementary school children who have been donating their weekly allowances to emergency relief as "a bunch of cheap little fuckers."

Hmmm ... U.N.'s Jan Egeland never called U.S. "stingy" after all.

Apparently, I'm as guilty as the next person of having been suckered into the right wing's story line of the U.N.'s Jan Egeland describing the United States as "stingy" with respect to tsunami disaster relief. Turns out that's not quite what he said. However, it's a wonderfully convenient fiction for conservatives who want to make the U.N. as unpopular as possible.

More of that "compassionate conservatism," I guess.

From today's Globe and Mail, we have the American version of "winning hearts and minds" in Thailand:

PATONG BEACH, THAILAND -- Amid the death and destruction of Phuket's most famous beach, an American tourist was enthusiastically snapping photos of rubble and wrecked buildings yesterday.

Terry Blanton of Florida had flown into Phuket with one thing on his mind: taking pictures of the devastation wreaked by the tsunamis. He and a friend had spent $300 (U.S.) on airplane tickets from Bangkok for their whirlwind three-hour tour of the disaster zone.

He seemed slightly disappointed by what he saw. "I thought it would be a lot worse," he said.

Blanton then asked where he might find disaster victims suffering from cholera or, perhaps, dysentery, since he had one of those cool, new 1G compact flash cards in his digital camera that could hold almost 10,000 images at the regular setting, or even 1,500 in high-quality TIFF format.

Canada still with perfect record in coming through with aid pledges

(Canada) -- In a front-page Globe and Mail story describing how initial disaster aid pledges don't always translate into actual, you know, disaster aid money, we have that, although Canada is still noticeably stingy in terms of GDP portion, in terms of aid, "Canada's record of following through on its humanitarian promises appears to be unblemished ...".

In remotely-related news, the Bush administration announced a further increase of $75 million in emergency aid by promising to ship 500,000 commemorative George Bush inauguration dinner plates, valued at $150 each.

The wisdom of the Rude Pundit.

And over here, the Rude One exposes the denizens of the right-wing townhall.com for the psychotic, deluded lying sacks of ooze that they are. Not like that takes a lot of work.

Canada doubles emergency relief aid for tsunami victims.

(Ottawa) -- Canada announces it is doubling its tsunami aid amount from $40 million to $80 million. In response, smug, sanctimonious, self-absorbed Americans claim that the NFL is a better football league than the CFL.

Conservatives to tsunami victims: Go Cheney yourselves.

As John over at Americablog so beautifully points out, the overwhelming attitude of American conservatives and Republicans towards the survivors of the recent tsunami disaster seems to be -- who gives a shit?

John quite correctly mentions that, while the DNC web site has an appeal for emergency donations right up there at the top of the page, there is absolutely no mention of the catastrophe anywhere over at the Republican site. Apparently, they're too busy deciding what to serve as hors d'oeuvres at the upcoming Bushapalooza bash.

John even runs down the list of prominent right-wing groups, and they don't fare a whole lot better. Gosh, imagine my surprise. Why the fuck do these people even pretend they care?

Taxpayers possibly helping to fund obscene Bush inauguration.

When it initially came out that the second Bush inauguration and hoedown was going to cost somewhere between $30 and $50 million, there was some justifiable outrage. Conservatives immediately went on the offensive, dismissing the critics by claiming that all of that was being covered by private and corporate donations, so what's the problem? Well, possibly, a couple of things.

First, I can't verify this one way or the other, but a number of bloggers have written that private donations will cover only a portion of the total cost. If someone has an actual breakdown on this, feel free to fill in the rest of us.

More disturbing, however, is the suggestion that these private/corporate donations are tax deductible. If that's true, then, yes, the taxpayers are footing some of the bill since, as most of us know, tax deductions and writeoffs are eventually covered by (you guessed it) the taxpayer.

So, can anyone clarify this one way or the other?

Big pharma and Bill Gates: more mythical philanthropy.

I was going to save this article for when I did some additional writing but, what the hell, why don't you take a look at modern robber baron "philanthropy"? It's somewhat related to Big Pharma, but also related to twice-convicted monopolist Bill Gates. Enjoy and feel free to post links to similar stuff you find on the net. More on all this later. I promise.

(Please note that this article is from 2003, but the principles still hold. Also note that this is the kind of information that's not hard to find online if you take the time to do even minimal research. Hint, hint.)

The mythical $35 million Pfizer tsunami donation.

The right-wing blogosphere has been pretty much wetting themselves with self congratulations, rubbing everyone's nose in how one of those nasty, evil pharmaceutical companies, Pfizer, is donating $35 million in emergency relief aid to tsunami victims. But when you read more closely:

Pfizer Inc., the world's biggest drugmaker, is donating $35 million to victims of the weekend's earthquake and tsunamis in Asia, matching the aid the U.S. government has said it will provide.

The company said in a statement today it will provide $10 million in cash to relief groups and $25 million more in products, including its Zithromax, Zyvox and Diflucan anti-infectives.

Oops. Now that's not quite the same thing as $35 million in cash, is it? To be fair, it's certainly nice of Pfizer to be this generous, but it would be nice if, just this once, the conservative attack poodles and howler monkeys were actually honest about what was happening. Ah, well, when you've been dishonest your whole life, it does become a hard habit to break, doesn't it?

Did someone say "massive tax writeoff"?

Another blog you might want to spend a few minutes on.

In case you don't have it bookmarked yet, check out http://www.tompaine.com. In particular, I recommend this letter. It really brings home that this is an administration that deals with utter, abject failure and incompetence by giving it awards and promotions. Really, so far, has a single person in this administration of fools and idiots been held accountable for anything? This really is the "not our fault" administration. Poor Bill Clinton -- still being blamed for everything.

Apres-holiday open thread.

Thoughts?

I only wish I could write this well.

A piece by Matt Taibbi. Yes, you should read it. And, not to sound overly cynical in this holiday season, but who the fuck cares what Andrew Sullivan thinks anymore? How does such a talentless toady and hack command such an audience? I'm baffled.

More Republican morals and ethics

Washington (WP): As part of his pledge to bring decency, morality and ethics back to government, Bush is backing House Republican leaders' plans to gut House ethics rules:

House Republican leaders are urging members to alter one of the chamber's fundamental ethics rules, which would make it harder for lawmakers to discipline a colleague.

The proposed change would essentially negate a general rule of conduct that the ethics committee has often cited in admonishing lawmakers -- including Majority Leader Tom DeLay -- for bringing discredit on the House even if their behavior was not covered by a specific regulation. Backers of the rule, adopted three decades ago, say it is important because the House's conduct code cannot anticipate every instance of questionable behavior that might reflect poorly on the chamber.

In related news, Bush also promised to reduce the tax burden on the struggling lower class by making sure they're paid less money. "If you make less money, you pay less taxes," explained Bush. "It's just common sense." He then went on to explain how he was going to strengthen environmental protections by cutting down more trees.

The fairness of "per capita" comparisons

(You know, I really would like to move on to laying a serious beatdown on intelligent design but, apparently, there is the occasional reader that needs to have some sense pounded into him with a meat mallet. Sometimes, it's a real burden having to be smart enough for two people. Sigh.)

Lately, in order to justify their cheap-ass, chintzy, miserly contribution to international relief aid, American conservatives have taken to flaunting the absolute dollar figures of U.S. pledges. None of that high-falutin', book-larnin' having-to-do-actual-arithmetic per capita based on GDP fancy, schmancy calculations for these folks, no sirree. Apparently, the fact that the U.S. can afford to contribute more money than, say, Madagascar is cause for all sorts of hootin' and hollerin'. To be fair (and I'm nothing if not fair), we can at least consider whether they have a point.

Certainly, when you're the biggest, baddest motherfucker on the planet, there's a definite appeal to sticking to absolute numbers but, really, it is kind of a shallow, meaningless victory if you think about it. The same yahoos who are currently crowing about how much the U.S. is donating as a straight dollar figure sound depressingly like those basketball fans who whoop it up, high-fiving each other, when the American basketball dream team lays a smackdown on some third-world, African nation in Olympic qualifying. Yes sir, there's nothing more satisfying than knowing that your country's b-ball team, made up of professional multi-bazillionaires and able to draw from a pool of a quarter of a billion people, can wail the living crap out of, say, Ghana. Or Belize. Take that, Mozambique! And don't you be showing your sorry ass around here or we'll do it again. Damn straight. (I guess, then, getting your butt kicked at hockey by us Canadians is not something you really want to talk about. But I grow vicious. Onward.)

So these folks really don't want to get into your basic "per capita" comparisons; they prefer your straight-up, flat-out, bottom line numbers, do they? OK, let's do a little thought experiment here. (And for all you right-wingers, please, be careful -- the concept of actual thought might be unfamiliar territory for you and we don't want you to get lost.)

Consider a hypothetical conservative -- let's call him, oh, "Jay". Now, Jay lives in his own house on a street in a small town. One day, the local utility company screws up with the water mains and floods the basements of dozens of houses on two streets, Jay's street and the street next to it. Since it's their fault, the utility company offers a cash settlement. On the street over from Jay's , each home owner gets $50,000 to cover the damage. They seem happy with that, and they all accept the offer.

The utility company then offers all of the homeowners on Jay's street $100,000. They're more than happy with that offer, until they're told that that figure is not per household, it's the total settlement offered to all of the affected homeowners. And they're welcome to divide it up any way they see fit.

"But, wait," cries poor Jay, "that's not fair! All of those other folks got $50,000 apiece."

"Sure," says the utility company, "but you're stuck in this whole 'per capita' kind of thinking. Don't think of it that way. Each of those people got $50,000. But we're giving you all $100,000! That's a bigger number!"

"But, but ...," sputters Jay, "that just doesn't make sense!"

"Oh, sure it does," says the company. "After all, it's just the total, bottom line figure that counts, right? You didn't actually want to compare settlements on a 'per capita' basis, did you? You don't strike me as a 'per capita' kind of guy."

And, in a blinding flash of insight, Jay realizes that maybe, just maybe, this whole "per capita" comparison thing isn't such a bad idea after all.

Oh, who am I kidding? Jay realizes nothing of the sort. All he knows is that, somehow, he's been screwed out of a fair settlement and he's not quite sure why. But he's thrilled that his country can still beat the shit out of Sudan in basketball.

The myth of American philanthropy -- Part 1

As much as this thread deserves to die, given the amount of reaction it's been getting, I thought it was worth taking a close look at what has become, quite simply, the myth of American philanthropy. As almost everyone realizes now, after a couple of false starts, the United States has finally ponied up the big bucks. Or have they? It turns out, it's not as clear cut as you'd like to think.

To begin with, recall that the U.S. first announced an initial aid package of an absolutely appalling $15 million. After a worldwide firestorm of criticism, that was increased to a still abysmal $35 million, and finally cranked up to a more appropriate $350 million. So far, so good? Well, not quite.

As Atrios points out over here, the initial offering of $15 million has simply fallen down the memory hole. While news releases way back on Dec. 28 spoke of "an initial $15 million in relief assistance", only three days later, we now had "the initial American pledge of $35 million." Apparently, the original $15 million offering was so embarrassingly small, well, it just never existed. Does this really matter? In the long run, probably not, but it's just another example of how this administration is so pathologically dishonest, they'll lie about damned near anything, and the MSM (mainstream media) is only too happy to play along. (The so-called "liberal media"? Man, I wish. But let's not tarry here. Onward. I got me some bigger fish to fry.)

Once you get past this really pitiful dishonesty, you can find the good stuff in an NYT editorial of December 30, "Are We Stingy? Yes." Now, in all fairness, that editorial was written at the time of the $35 million pledge, but that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about appears in the part of the editorial that follows that.

First, as the NYT explains, the average American is hopelessly uninformed as to how much the U.S. contributes to foreign aid as a percentage of its GDP:

According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.

That's right -- Americans have a grotesquely optimistic view of how generous they are when it comes to foreign aid. As recently as 2001, Americans still had no real idea of the percentage, as you can see here. (Scroll down to the question, "Do Americans understand how much of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid?" Short answer: not a fucking clue, apparently. And make sure you scroll down to the part that explains how the Netherlands, a tiny country with population only 16.3 million, gave $3.2 billion in 2001 -- a third of what the U.S. provided. You'd think that someone in this administration would have the grace to be at least a little embarrassed. You'd be wrong, apparently. But it gets better.)

The new storyline that you'll find coming out of the administration and reverberating around the conservative echo chambers is that the U.S. is more generous than everyone else put together. Really? Well, sadly, no, as you read even further down in the NYT editorial:

Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.

Whoopsie. More of that gosh-darned pathological dishonesty. One wonders if anyone in this administration could tell the truth at freaking gunpoint. But that's not even the best part. Turns out, it really doesn't matter how much this administration promises if they have no intention of ever actually paying it (again, according to the NYT):

Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disburse a single dollar.

So, really, this administration can promise eleventy bazillion dollars for all it's worth, if it's all just air. Big fucking deal. Here's a suggestion -- why don't we all just sit back, take note of the promises, and come back in a year and see if these people can walk the walk. I mean, hell, we already know they can talk the talk. Now we can see if they can do anything other than talk.

Coming soon: the myth of Big Pharma philanthropy.

U.S. annnounces massive increase in tsunami aid relief.

In the wake of criticism that it was being unconscionably stingy with aid relief, the United States recently announced that it will increase its aid pledge from $35 million to $350 million.

"This has nothing to do with one-upmanship or being guilted into it," said Secretary of State Colin Powell. "This is all about pitching in in a spirit of humanity and charity, with nothing but concern for our fellow human beings. It's not a contest."

When told by a reporter that Japan had just increased its aid pledge to $500 million, Powell replied, "Son of a bitch. Those sneaky little bastards."

In a related announcement, President Bush announced that he would fund the new aid increase by pulling all troops out of Iraq two days early, sometime in 2013.

Republican gubernatorial candidate protests election, upset that Democrat allowed to win.

From this story over at Yahoo News:

After three vote tallies and nearly two nerve-racking months of waiting, Democrat Christine Gregoire was declared Washington's governor-elect on Thursday. But her Republican rival did not concede and wants a new election.

Said the Republican candidate Dino Rossi, "We Republicans are disturbed by the obvious implications of what's happened here -- that the voters might get the outrageous and dangerous idea that they're allowed to vote for Democrats and, furthermore, that those Democrats might be allowed to win. This strikes us as a profound assault on what we in the GOP consider a fundamental principle of democracy -- that only Republicans are permitted to be elected to office."

When told that his opponent, Christine Gregoire, was declared the winner after several hundred mysteriously-missing and apparently valid votes turned up, Rossi responded, "Well, that's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. It's obvious to all of us in the GOP that most elections run far more smoothly if election officials have the right to simply discard hundreds of Democratic votes. If you actually insist on counting everyone's vote, that just forces Republicans to resort to older election strategies, such as ballot box stuffing and rigging electronic voting machines. And I'm sure we can all agree that we don't want to go back to the old days, do we?"

Rossi expressed deep concern about the sort of precedent that would be set by the election. "Sure," said Rossi, "right now, it affects only Washington state. But if the media picks up on this story, other states might get the impression that they're allowed to vote for Democrats as well. And there's no telling what kind of damage that could do to the fabric of the Republic."

In a related development, Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert promised to fast-track legislation that would allow Democratic votes to be counted as only 3/5 of a Republican vote, and to attach a rider that would allow all registered Democrats to be hunted down with dogs. Incoming Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid of Nevada promised to work with Hastert to pass the legislation in what he called "a spirit of bipartisanship".

Just how big an asshole is Commander Crotchbulge?

See for yourself.

The constitutional bankruptcy of "intelligent design"

A quick link to an interesting piece on the constitutionality of "Intelligent Design". I'll have my own opinions on ID here on a regular basis starting fairly soon, so this is just something to tide you over.

And, please, let's not get to the point where I, a Canadian, have to explain the U.S. Constitution to Americans. Have some pride.

Canada coming through in the crunch.

Current Canadian pledge for tsunami relief: $40 million.
Current U.S. pledge so far: $35 million.

Canada showing their neighbours to the south how it's done. Numerous annoying Americans respond with, "Well, yeah, but with the exchange rate ..."

Bushies a little testy about being labelled "stingy".

From this article at cnn.com, we have numerous members of the Bush administration getting their panties in a bunch over being described as just a bit miserly with their emergency aid. As the article points out, when it comes to percentage of GDP, the U.S. pretty well sucks in terms of generosity:

Measured another way, as a percentage of gross national product, the OECD's figures on development aid show that as of April, none of the world's richest countries donated even 1 percent of its gross national product. Norway was highest, at 0.92 percent; the United States was last, at 0.14 percent.

Most normal folks might be just a wee bit embarrassed by this revelation but, as we've all learned by now, this is an administration that knows no shame. Instead, USAID administrator Andrew Natsios simply ignores contributions based on the normal percentage of a country's GDP and, given the U.S.'s sizable GDP, should we be surprised when he prefers to just compare absolute dollar figures?

"That's a European standard, this percentage that's used," Natsios said. "The United States, for 40 years, has never accepted these standards that it should be based on the gross national product. We base it on the actual dollars that we spent."

Apparently, then, it's not the portion of what you have to spare that counts, it's just the final absolute dollar figure. I'm sure that makes the Bushies feel all warm and fuzzy but, sadly, there's always some radical, left-wing, commie, pinko, tree-hugging, eco-freak, social justice fanatic who doesn't see things that way:

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins,worth only a fraction of a penny.

Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything–all she had to live on.”

Man, that Jesus guy can be a real pain in the ass at times, can't he? Socialist freak.

Open thread.

Your turn. Go wild.

President Smirky McFlightSuit all over that ... big water thingy over there.

From the Washington Post, in which Admiral Bunnypants agonizes over the recent devastation in Southeast Asia from his golf cart somewhere in Texas:

Earlier yesterday, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the president was confident he could monitor events effectively without returning to Washington or making public statements in Crawford, where he spent part of the day clearing brush and bicycling.

Responding to mounting criticism about his seeming indifference, Bush snapped at reporters, "I think a lot of people misunderestimate my concern. Now, watch this drive."

You have to understand your priorities.

U.S. initial investment in emergency aid to tsunami-devastated areas of Asia: $15 million.

Estimated cost of Admiral Bunnypants' second inauguration ceremonies: $50 million.

Knowing that the U.S. media won't ever point out these perversely warped priorities: Priceless.

DEC. 29 UPDATE: U.S. pledges of assistance for disaster relief increase to $35,000,000. Bush administration finds additional funds by cutting back on appetizers at inauguration. Wealthy guests complain, but Bush vows to "stand firm" and "stay the course". Right-wing blogosphere nominates Bush for Nobel Peace Prize. Nobel Peace Prize committee collectively commits suicide in response.

God apparently in a really pissy, vindictive mood these days.

Over 16,000 killed from India to Indonesia by a tsunami. And partway down the article, we have a good question:

"Death came from the sea," Satya Kumari, a construction worker living on the outskirts of the former French enclave of Pondicherry, India, told Reuters. "The waves just kept chasing us. It swept away all our huts. What did we do to deserve this?"

Yes, all you devout, pushy, obnoxious Christians -- what did all those people do to deserve being killed on Christmas day, and the day after? I'm sure, as you love to lecture us incessantly, this is all part of God's plan, right? So why don't you fill us in on that plan? Especially the part of the plan that requires:

Volunteers laid bodies of children in rows under sarongs at makeshift morgues. Others were stacked in white fish crates. Wailing mothers clutched dead babies.

Dead babies. By the hundreds apparently. And yet ... and yet ... we have Fox News' resident lying scumbag Bill O'Reilly wailing about how all those liberals and Democrats have Christmas under seige just because they'd prefer to say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas". No, Bill, Christmas isn't under attack from people who just want to wish you a happy holiday. It's under seige from your God who took the opportunity to celebrate the Yuletide by killing thousands of people.

And a Merry Christmas to you too, Bill.

7:38 AM update: Over 21,000 dead now.

7:46 AM update: 23,000 dead. God apparently still not quite in the holiday spirit.

8:18 AM addendum: Corrupt, unethical, criminal college Republicans scam millions in contributions, including from elderly people with dementia. Cover letter encourages donations so that Bush knows that "there are millions who are giving him the shield of God to protect him in the difficult days ahead." Sadly, this "shield of God" apparently only works for rich, white Republicans, and not for, oh, folks like this. Pity.

12:10 PM random thought: For those with no sense of history, you might want to take a minute to recall the devastating earthquake that struck Bam, Iran. 43,000 dead, 20,000 injured, 60,000 homeless. And the date? One year ago. December 26, 2003. The day after Christmas. All part of God's mysterious plan, no doubt.

6:55 AM update: Death toll now 26,000 and counting. God's mysterious plan apparently still mysterious. Devoutly religious try desperately to change the subject.

10:27 AM update: 40,000 now confirmed dead. Many devout hold hands tightly over ears and hum loudly to themselves. More ambitous among them leave goofy comments on various blogs, suggesting that it just doesn't get any better than this.

11:57 AM update: Casualty count hits 44,000. Numerous fundamentalist Christians grapple with whether they should be concerned, given that it will take precious time away from banning gay marriage.

2:44 PM update: Death toll now 52,000. Christian fundamentalists brace for the possibility that the number of dead might reach 77,000, at which point they will launch numerous discussions of the Biblical significance of the number seven.

3:12 PM update: Good news -- Sports Illustrated swimsuit model Petra Nemcova survives tsunami. Fundamentalist TV commentators and religious talk show hosts forced to explain to their followers why God spared "that trampy whore foreigner and harlot." The Reverend Jimmy Swaggart is smart enough to keep his mouth shut.

5:54 AM update: Death toll now tops 67,000. Numerous Americans show momentary concern and sympathy until someone points out that many of the dead are probably Muslim. The Roman Catholic Church expresses its heartfelt sorrow at the loss of life of all the children, especially the boys -- those fine, young, supple ... uh, never mind. TV producer Marc Burnett announces plans for "Survivor: Indonesian Tsunami".

2:41 PM update: Uh oh ... death toll nears 77,000. The Reverends Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson resort to fisticuffs to see who gets to explain how this is all part of God's plan on CNN. Meanwhile, FOX TV pre-empts all disaster coverage with the Bill O'Reilly special, "Christmas Under Siege: How Gays are Destroying Religion." Somewhere, Jesus weeps.

Everything just ducky in Iraq, yessirree.

Things going just swimmingly in Iraq. Freedom is on the march. You bet. I love the sub-caption, "Security failures were known before attack in mess tent." I'm sure that'll just perk up the soldiers hoping to live to see the new year.

Intelligent design -- first in an ongoing series

Since there are just oodles of other bloggers who can expose the Bush administration and, in general, the entire right-wing blogosphere, media, attack poodles and screech monkeys for the lying, hypocritical bottom dwellers that they are, I thought it might be fun to focus a little more closely on a single topic. And given my 20+ years investigating (read: eviscerating) creation science and, more recently, "intelligent design", I thought it might be amusing to, over the course of several weeks, beat the living daylights out of that particular pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Now, I suspect we here at Cynic HQ are going to get comments so, for the sake of productivity, as time goes by, I'm going to lay down some ground rules. And the first ground rule is addressed to those inevitable critics who will be defending creation science or its more recent incarnation, "intelligent design". (Or, as we here at Cynic HQ like to call it, "crap".) And that ground rule is, if you're going to get involved, please, take the time to do some research and get a fucking clue. Seriously.

Let me give you an example. On a regular basis, I deal with defenders of "ID" who like to claim that ID refutes biological evolution. These people are ... what's the word I'm looking for here? Oh, right: "morons". And I can say this without fear of refutation since even the organizations that promote ID don't make this claim.

Consider the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based conservative think tank whose mandate appears to be to discover as little as humanly possible. They are arguably the most vocal group in the U.S. in terms of promoting ID, and even they don't make this claim. Consider their list of top questions related to ID and biological evolution, particularly point 2 under "QUESTIONS ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN", which reads:

2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory...

Got that? Even the Discovery Institute doesn't take the position that ID disproves evolution, so if you say something like that in this forum, I'll save everyone buckets of time by providing a link to the refutation, calling you an "idiot" and moving on. In short, if you want to play, you really should take the time to do some research and, yes, here's a good place to start. I love a good debate, but arguing with someone who doesn't have clue one isn't really my idea of a good time.

Let the games begin.

Christmas under attack! Not.

And, right on cue, we have the right-wing howler monkeys and attack poodles filling the airwaves with stories of how the religiosity of Christmas is under siege from all those gosh-darned atheistic, secular humanist, gay-marriaging, tree-hugging, God-hating, evolutionist radicals.

Trouble is, it's not true. So the right wing makes up shit to push their religious agenda? Colour me shocked.

You have to love the irony -- the "liberation" of Iraq

Just caught Sec Def Donald Rumsfeld on CNN again, during a surprise visit to the base in Mosul, addressing the troops (well, OK, the troops that were still alive), telling them they were part of something historic, their ongoing mission to "liberate Iraq".

So, he does have a sense of humour after all -- the man in charge of an unprovoked, illegal invasion of another country; the man responsible for the torture, wounding and killing of God knows how many Iraqis; the man who is currently in charge of the construction of 14 allegedly permanent U.S. military bases on Iraqi soil; the man whose boss is currently privatizing and selling out from under the Iraqis pretty much their entire country -- this is the man who describes the total annihilation of another country as its "liberation".

And the great thing is, the press just keeps printing it that way.

Soldier's question to Rumsfeld passes into right-wing folklore

Apparently, the myth of the embedded reporter getting a soldier to ask Donald ("Man, you guys are a bunch of whiners!") Rumsfeld the question about their lack of proper armor is now a undeniable part of right-wing folklore. In today's National Post (Canada's version of the Wall Street Journal, but without handguns), writer Kelly McParland signs on to the fairy tale:

"When he was asked on a stop in Iraq why soldiers had to scrounge for armour to protect their vehicles, he fired off a cursory, dismissive response. The question, it turned out, had been planted by a reporter and wasn't really the sign of grumbling among the troops much of the media portrayed it as."

As I've already pointed out in an earlier post (because, unlike National Post writers, I actually like to get my facts straight), the question came directly from the soldier. But hey, it's not like the right wing to let, you know, facts get in the way of a good story.

Black TV commentator to air travellers: Lighten up, OK?

Just flipping past CNN (and, yes, the quicker you can do that, the better off you are generally), and I caught a black commentator, clearly defending the aggressive and often rude searches of air travellers by TSA personnel by saying something like, "It's all about safety, so travellers just have to learn to lighten up."

Interesting attitude -- that in the name of safety, one should be prepared to sacrifice one's dignity. I wonder how that same commentator would react if someone (and I'm not saying who, just saying) that all blacks should be stopped on the highway and searched since, hey, it's all in the name of fighting drugs and, well, better safe than sorry, etc., etc.

Do these idiots even listen to themselves??

TSA easing search and patdown rules.

After numerous complaints from women who claimed they were fondled inappropriately by airport screeners under the guise of being searched, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued new guidelines for what is and is not appropriate search behaviour.

In particular,

The new TSA rules say screeners can select passengers for patdowns based on “visual observations,” even if they do not set off metal detectors. Amy Von Walter, a TSA spokeswoman, said screeners are looking for “irregularities in a person’s natural shape or contour.”

Yeah, you always have to be suspicious about those irregularities in a person's contour, don't you?

And the lying just goes on and on and on ...

Josh has the money quote from Gen. Richard Myers on the Mosul attack:

This attack, of course, is the responsibility of insurgents, the same insurgents who attacked on 9/11, the same type of insurgents who attacked in Beirut, the same insurgents who -- type of insurgents who attacked the Cole, Khobar Towers, and the list goes on.

These people just can't stop lying. It's truly pathological. But it is entertaining to see how quickly Myers catches himself; how he realizes he's full of it and switches from "the same insurgents" to "the same type of insurgents" to dig himself out. No matter. Just another worthless, lying Bush administration sack of crap.

Any bets that, when the hammer falls in terms of responsibility, it's going to land on some poor grunts, and not on anyone higher up the food chain? You know -- like Myers. Or anyone at Halliburton?

Signing on to missile defense

Currently, Captain Smirky is pressuring Canada to sign on to his overpriced, underachieving ballistic missile defense system. Here's a suggestion -- Canadian PM Paul Martin should tell Bush he'll get on board as soon as the U.S. is confident the system works, at which Canada will test it by launching a missile at the White House. What's that old saying? "Putting your money where your mouth is," I believe.

(Yes, I know we probably don't even have ballistic missiles in our arsenal. Perhaps Celine Dion fired from a high-speed catapult.)

A mandate? Yeah, I got your mandate right here.

Oh, yeah, a real big-time mandate. Time for another fighter jock, crotch bulge, mission accomplished, freedom is on the march photo op, methinks.

Rumsfeld: All those Mosul deaths not really a "failure"

In flipping through the channels, I came across Secretary of Defense and consummate failure Donald Rumsfeld and, I may have missed the context but I caught him just as he was saying something to the effect that, "Some people may look at this as a failure. But, really, it can also be a learning experience."

So, if someone you cared about was blown to pieces in Mosul, don't take it too hard. It was a learning experience, and those are generally good things. Aren't they?

Addendum: Oh, yes, Kos is all over this as well. And whose fault is this? Apparently, Halliburton is in charge of building the new fortified mess hall. Halliburton ... Halliburton ... gosh, that name sounds familiar.

So, to those knee-jerk, right-wing defenders who think everything's going just swimmingly, a simple question -- at what point should someone's head roll? At what point should someone be held accountable? Or is it still Bill Clinton's fault?

Math puzzles for the holidays

I've always been a fan of clever math puzzles, so here's one for the holidays (after which I'll get back to slagging President Smirky and his band of idiots.)

There's an old story of two pirates who chance upon a cache of mixed valuables (gems, gold, that sort of thing) and want to divide it evenly, so that no one's feelings get hurt. The puzzle is, of course, how to divide the goodies so that both pirates feel that the division was equitable. Note the careful wording here -- the division doesn't have to be exactly in half; it simply needs to leave each pirate feeling satisfied that it was fair. The solution isn't hard to figure out -- one of the pirates divides the swag into two piles, after which the other gets to pick which pile he prefers. If you think about it, it's the obvious answer -- neither pirate can cheat the other or bend the rules to his advantage.

But what if you add more people to the mix? Say you have (God help us all) a Christmas fruitcake, and an arbitrary number of people. With just a sharp knife, how can you slice the fruitcake so, once again, every single person in the group is satisfied with their slice and doesn't feel cheated compared to anyone else?

Now it's not so easy, is it?

Oh oh ... right-wing howler monkeys get hoofed in the nads again.

Shortly after Secretary of Defense Donald ("Hey, that whole armor thing is overrated, anyway.") Rumsfeld made a complete ass of himself in handling a critical question about the appalling lack of armor for U.S. troops in Iraq, pretty much all of the right-wing blogosphere tried to dismiss the question because, according to numerous reports, the soldier had been primed with the question by an embedded reporter. Therefore, went the screeching conservative punditry, the question was wholly inappropriate. (Apparently, it's not the lack of armor that's important -- it's just who notices it first.)

But now, it comes out, the soldier is now making it clear that he came up with the question, and even had a few backup questions in reserve. One can only wait for the howler monkeys' next excuse.

Why does that soldier hate America?

Things in Iraq going great. Just great.

Yup, freedom still on the march. Oh, and regarding that one excerpt:

Grim-faced soldiers growled angrily about the attack and swore as they stomped away.

I suspect Donald Rumsfeld won't be giving the troops another pep talk anytime soon. Just a hunch.

Dietary advice for the holidays

During this festive holiday season, you will undoubtedly be getting dietary advice from well-meaning busybodies who want to make sure you don't overindulge. Tell them to take a hike, as Craig Wilson suggests.

Thou shalt not skim flavor from the holidays, by Craig Wilson, USA Today

I hate this time of year. Not for its crass commercialism and forced frivolity, but because it's the season when the food police come out with their wagging fingers and annual tips on how to get through the holidays without gaining 10 pounds. You can't pick up a magazine without finding a list of holiday eating do's and don'ts. Eliminate second helpings, high-calorie sauces and cookies made with butter, they say. Fill up on vegetable sticks, they say. Good grief. Is your favourite childhood memory of Christmas a carrot stick? I didn't think so. Isn't mine, either. A carrot was something you left for Rudolph. I have my own list of tips for holiday eating. I assure you, if you follow them, you'll be fat and happy. So what if you don't make it to New Year's? Your pants won't fit anymore, anyway.

1. About those carrot sticks. Avoid them. Anyone who puts carrots on a holiday buffet table knows nothing of the Christmas spirit. In fact, if you see carrots, leave immediately. Go next door, where they're serving rum balls.

2. Drink as much eggnog as you can. And quickly. Like fine single-malt scotch, it's rare. In fact, it's even rarer than single-malt scotch. You can't find it any other time of year but now. So drink up! Who cares that it has 10,000 calories in every sip? It's not as if you're going to turn into an eggnogaholic or something. It's a treat. Enjoy it. Have one for me. Have two. It's later than you think. It's Christmas!

3. If something comes with gravy, use it. That's the whole point of gravy. Pour it on. Make a volcano out of your mashed potatoes. Fill it with gravy. Eat the volcano. Repeat.

4. As for mashed potatoes, always ask if they're made with skim milk or whole milk. If it's skim, pass. Why bother? It's like buying a sports car with an automatic transmission.

5. Do not have a snack before going to a party in an effort to control your eating. The whole point of going to a Christmas party is to eat other people's food for free. Lots of it. Hello? Remember college?

6. Under no circumstances should you exercise between now and New Year's. You can do that in January when you have nothing else to do. This is the time for long naps, which you'll need after circling the buffet table while carrying a 10-pound plate of food and that vat of eggnog.

7. If you come across something really good at a buffet table, like frosted Christmas cookies in the shape and size of Santa, position yourself near them and don't budge. Have as many as you can before becoming the centre of attention. They're like a beautiful pair of shoes. You can't leave them behind. You're not going to see them again.

8. Same for pies. Apple. Pumpkin. Mincemeat. Have a slice of each. Or, if you don't like mincemeat, have two apples and one pumpkin. Always have three. When else do you get to have more than one dessert? Labour Day?

9. Did someone mention fruitcake? Granted, it's loaded with the mandatory celebratory calories, but avoid it at all cost. I mean, have some standards, for God's sake.

10. And one final tip: If you don't feel terrible when you leave the party or get up from the table, you haven't been paying attention.

And Time's man of the year is ...

... whoa, big surprise here -- George W. Chimpster. Now, will all of you right-wing nutbars who are constantly complaining about that nasty anti-Bush "liberal media" please just shut the fuck up?