Polls

How Is My Site?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Recent Comments

  • sonicgirl_79: Thank you! We need more proof that abstinance only education produces teenage pregnancies. I...
  • Michael: Wow, those are some lazy-ass “journalists”.
  • Summer: Those parents deserve to suffer dreadfully. If there is any justice in the universe, they will someday come...
  • Steve: Wow! So apparently the new goalpost for anything to get done is for “all” Americans to want...
  • david: Not all American people want out. Especially American soldiers, marines, airmen, and seamen. I like the...

Categories

Calendar

March 2006
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Statistics

  • Total Stats
    • 453 Comments

UserOnline

Soon to be illegal in a state near you!

March 30th, 2006 by Steve

This is actually a scary story, fortunately with a happy ending.

2-month old had fetuses inside her.

The AP reports that yesterday a young girl in Pakistan had not one, but two, fetuses surgically removed from her body. The surgery was performed at the Pakistan Institute of Medical Science in Islamabad on a patient known only as “Nazia.”

Authorities in the US are uncertain how such a case would be handled under new forced-childbirth legislation currently being proposed in many states. That the fetuses were actually “Nazia”’s siblings most likely would be of little consequence, given that there will be no legal exception for incest in such states as South Dakota or Tennessee… [snip]

Fortunately, the fetus-carrier, who is two months old, resides in Pakistan, rather than the US of the future, and was thus able to have doctors deal with the situation, which is known as fetus-in-fetu— a medical abnormality that occurs about once every 500,000 births, wherein a fetus in the womb has another fetus (or in this case, two) growing inside it. As the hospital’s head of pediatric surgery explained: “Basically, it’s a case of triplets, but two of the siblings grew in the other.”

Of course, this doesn’t meet the requirements of South Dakota’s Bill Napoli, who said she had to be raped ‘brutally’, have been a virgin, and followed Christianity. Clearly, this young baby was none of the above! Welcome to the consequences of the ‘pro-life’ movement.

Posted in General, Political | 2 Comments »

Evidence for Evolution

March 28th, 2006 by Steve

Normally when discussing the Theory of Evolution, scientists are put on the defensive with misguided critiques regarding probability, thermodynamics, or some such. Rarely, however, are we asked to actually discuss the evidence for evolution. Since I was asked by a passerby in comments in The Eye, I will now gladly do so.

Evidence for Evolution.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in General, Science | 11 Comments »

Crap

March 22nd, 2006 by Steve

So apparently a recent study of Americans shows that the minority group rated lowest as sharing their vision of society were atheists; below Muslims, gays, and immigrants. Any reader of my blog knows how well the U.S. treat Muslims, gays, and immigrants [Hint: ‘A brown person has a better job than me?! Close off the borders!! Publish their address on Fox News so a mob can lynch them or send them to Gitmo. Maybe they’re faggots too!’]. And atheists [I wonder if that includes agnostics…] are ranked below that. Awesome. Glad to know we still live in the land of the free and the home of the brave…

Posted in General, Political | 3 Comments »

The Democratic Machine in Philly

March 21st, 2006 by Steve

Hey, I might be fairly partisan, but I’m not blind, and I have principles. So the fact that the current insiders are trying to remove outsider challenges is just despicable. Philly residents, please keep an eye on this.

I’m talking to you, Justin!

Posted in General, Political | No Comments »

The Eye

March 20th, 2006 by Steve

Keep this link handy the next time some dumbass creationist asks about the eye [irreducible complexity is the pseudoscientific term they like to throw out]: PZ talks about the compound eye. Very interesting read.

Posted in General, Science | 11 Comments »

“Pro-lifers” hate women

March 17th, 2006 by Steve

Say it again, swirl it around in your mouth for a little bit. Chew on it. Ponder. Then read this bullet from one of today’s open threads at DKos:

“If you hand out contraception to single women, we’re saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that,” Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.

See; if we hand out contraceptives to single women, they will be promiscuous. But boys, of course, will be boys, at least to most of these anti-women pro-lifers. The super fringe still believes that every sperm is sacred.

Posted in General, Political | 2 Comments »

Karl Rove is Running the Show

March 10th, 2006 by Steve

I missed the part where an unelected political strategist who endangered national security should be given control over our national security.

The White House asked Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, to give up its management stake in U.S. ports, to save President Bush from the politically difficult position of vetoing a key piece of legislation to protect America’s ports, ABC News has learned.

[snip]

CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports the announcement came about after the company’s consultations with White House political strategist Karl Rove.

Awesome. I think it’s time for me to tell Al Franken’s favorite story about Karl Rove.

the early 1990s, Rove arrived in Alabama eager to ruin the Alabama judicial system by injecting extreme, vicious partisanship into what had previouslt been an only somewhat vicious political culture. His plan succeeded. In his first year of operation there, he put three GOP candidates on what had been an entirely Democratic court for more than a century. Today, the court is entirely Republican. And not just Republican, but Roy Moore, 2.6-ton-Ten-Commandments-in-the-courthouse-rotunda Republican. It seemed like just another sparkling Rove success story. But in the first campaign season of 1994, there was a hitch.

Rove ran four candidates. One of them lost.

The man who beat Rove’s guy, Harold See, was Mark Kennedy, son-in-law of former Governor George Wallace. Don’t like him so far, right? Neither did I, until I read Joshua Green’s description of him. Check this out:

“Kennedy had spent years on the bench as a juvenile and family-court judge, during which time he had developed a strong interest in aiding abused children. In the early 1980s he had helped to start the Children’s Trust Fund of Alabama, and he later established the Corporate Foundation for Children, a private, non-profit organization. At the time of the race he had just served a term as president of the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect.”

Pretty good, huh? Plus, he was a Kennedy! You’re probably guessing that he beat Rove’s candidate by trumpeting his heroic work advocating on behalf of the powerless. Well, you’re kind of right. In fact:

“Some of Kennedy’s campaign commercials touted his volunteer work, including one that showed him holding hands with children.”

Uh oh. Are you thinking what I’m thinking?

“One of Rove’s signature tactics is to attack an opponent on the very front that seems unassailable. Kennedy was no exception.
“We were trying to counter the positives from that ad,” a former Rove staffer told me, explaining that some within the See camp initiated a whisper campaign that Kennedy was a pedophile.”
Yep, you were right. But how do you smear a guy with that without having your fingerprints all over it?

“”It was our standard practice to use the University of Alabama Law School to disseminate whisper-campaign information,” the staffer went on. “That was a major device we used for the transmission of this stuff. The students at the law school are from all over the state, and that’s one of the ways that Karl got the information out– he knew the law students would take it back to their home towns and it would get out.” This would create the impression that the lie was in fact common knowledge across the state.”

Ah. Smart.

Excuse me while I run away from my computer and vomit.

ONE MINUTE LATER

There. I vomitted in the wastebucket. I had been planning to use my office bathroom, but I didn’t make it.

Let’s go back to Joshua Green. He talked to Kennedy’s campaign manager, Joe Perkins.

“”What Rove does,” says Joe Perkins, “is try to make something so bad for a family that the candidate will not subject the family to the hardship. Mark is not your typical Alabama macho, beer-drinkin’, tobacco-chewin’, pickup-drivin’ kind of guy. He is a small, well-groomed, well-educated family man, and what they tried to do was make him look like a homosexual pedophile. That was really, really hard to take.”"

So even though Kennedy won in the end (by one percentage point), when his term was up, he decided not to run for reelection. He just didn’t have the stomach for it.

When Green sat down with Kennedy, he met a man whose victory a spelling bee champion might call “Pyrrhic.”

“Kennedy appeared to derive little satisfaction from having beaten Rove. In fact, he seemed shaken, even ten years later.”

See? Rove took Kennedy’s strength (touching the lives of kids) and used it against him (saying he was touching kids). Genius. What a pro.

Actually, I have to take another break. Hold on.

THREE HOURS LATER

This is Franni, Al’s wife. I’m with him at the hospital. I told him this would happen if he looked too closely into the Karl Rove situation. This book is really taking a toll on Al, and I’m thinking of calling off the whole thing. Or maybe he could just focus on debunking lies from Rush or Sean Hannity. That always makes him happy. I hate to see him like this. -Al Franken: The Truth, with Jokes

And this is the man now running our national security. For once, I’m going to take Bush’s advice from right after his inauguration in 01… and ‘pray for this great nation’…

Posted in General, Political | 2 Comments »

Abortion Revisted

March 7th, 2006 by Steve

Now, more than ever, it’s becoming increasingly important to discuss the politics of this. I’ve talked before about how my support for abortion rights rests primarily on the fact that the ‘pro-life’ movement is bonkers [anti-sex, anti-contraception, and anti-women] and secondarily on the arguments in favor of it being a woman’s right to choose. However, as South Dakota just banned abortions with an exception for the life of the mother [not even health, or rape or incest; gotta love that compassionate conservatism], and the Supreme Court lost a key vote in defense of Roe and replaced it with… well… someone who’s likely going to vote against it, it becomes clear that we need to have a discussion on another secondary reason I support abortion rights: how would anti-abortion laws work? If a fetus is indeed the equivalent to the woman carying it, and she knowingly ends her pregnancy, thus ‘killing’ the fetus, is that not premeditated murder? According to the language and rhetoric of the pro-life movement, it should be. But when they are asked about this directly, most are just flustered. They have never bothered to consider the implications of the laws they themselves clamored for. Which again brings me around to my primary point. The pro-life movement does not believe fetuses are the equivalent of a born human. Murder is a Type A felony in South Dakota.

The new law makes abortion a Type 5.

Posted in General, Political | 1 Comment »