Saturday, May 21, 2005

From the OMFG Department

In how many ways is this just sick and wrong?!

Oregon tests novel mileage tax

This fall, the state will launch the nation's first high-tech experiment to tax drivers for the miles they travel rather than the gas they buy.
But what is the real motivation?


Driver advocates and environmentalists said they will be watching the new program to make sure that it charges drivers fairly and that it does not give consumers an excuse to keep driving gas-guzzling cars.
So it is basically a tax on SUV owners? Nasty, wasteful Earth-haters. However comma,


When drivers fill up, specially equipped gas pumps will read the mileage and charge 1.2 cents for every mile driven instead of the state's tax of 24 cents per gallon of gas.
Let's do the math, shall we? Suppose yer driving one of those earth-hating SUVs. You've got a 25 gallon tank. It gets, oh say, 17 mpg. Under the old system, to fill your tank from empty costs you $6.00 in tax (25 gal x $0.24). However, under the new system, the state only makes $5.10 (25 gal x 17 mpg x 1.2). So, actually, this tax actually ends up costing fuel efficient cars MORE. Say you drive a a nice Yugo, which gets 35 mpg. But only a 15 gal tank. You end up paying $6.30 in tax. A hyrid with a 10 gal tank, getting 55 mpg? $6.60 in tax.

Ah, but they realize this.

Chris Hagerbaumer, a transportation specialist with the nonprofit Oregon Environmental Council, said the state should impose such a new tax slowly. "The issue is, if we make a flat switch, we would lose the incentives for people to purchase fuel-efficient cars," she said
So, in order to ensure the health of their new cash cow, while simultaneously ensuring that people can't drive their Mustang SVOs, they've got to factor in a few "exceptions":

Drivers also could be charged less if their car is more fuel-efficient,
Yeah, that'll happen. So there will be a sliding scale where the tax is higher on certain cars, and lower on others? Hmm. Sounds fair. Who decides where the lines are drawn? And then of course, there is another added "feature":

The cars also will have Global Positioning Systems (GPS) so drivers will not be charged for driving outside state borders...

Tracking cars' locations also could allow extra fees for traveling in congested traffic areas or during rush hours.

So depending on where you drive, you can get charged more. And when you are shackled in the middle of gridlock, through no fault of your own, the meter is still running. And of course, Big Bro gets to know where you are at all times, and what your driving habits are, but of course, that could NEVER be tied to your vehicle registration and so track you personally. Really. Promise. Scout's Honor.

This kind of ignerrant crap makes my blood boil. The state of Oregon is finding ways to anally penetrate its motorists for more cash, but tries to wrap it up all pretty-like in an enironmentally concerned way, because it's all about the children, and baby whales and harp seals. Then they pat us on our collective heads and tell us to run along, they've got us it all under control.

This actually does fit just a little TOO neatly into the Green Agenda (to which the Oregon Socialistopia lives in fauning adoration) to believe that it's solely about the money. It clearly penalizes people for have the gall to drive to work every day, rather than sit in a park in their Birkenstocks protesting the lack of Sani-Potties for homeless people.

Maybe, just maybe, instead of comitting institutional larceny, the PTB should look at how much they are paying their union road crews to stand around, leaning on their shovels, dragging a 3 month job out into a year-and-a-half odessey of mismanagement and driver frustration. Anyone who has driven in Washington or Oregon knows the joy of miles and miles of orange cones, and no visible work getting done. But no, instead, let's pass the cost for our clueless negligence and incompetence on to the folks who can least afford to pay for it.

Arrggrgghhkkkggllnnnnhh!

Update:
WELCOME to Garfield Ridge readers. Coffee's on me, donuts are .24 cents a piece, or 1.2 cents a mile.

UPDATE II:
Dave at Garfield Ridge provides some further blather about the issue. Try as you may to paint this outhouse to look pretty, you can't escape the fact that it's still full of sh*t.

And on the eighth day, God created coffee

Dark beverage of desire
Steaming temptress
........beckoning
Pulse rate quickens
As the legal drug
Hits my veins

Ahhhhh.
Such nirvahna,
Such sweetly bitter delight.
My teeth grow stained,'
My stomach lining dissolves
My heart skips the occasional
...........beat

But still I drink.
Still I slurp.
Still I crave the 3 AM fix
The 32 ouncer from 7-11.

Only three more hours
Until Starbucks opens.

Coffee. My mistress,
My damnation,
My wondrous addiction.

Ahhhhh.....

Egg on Face? (Mine, that is...)

Apparently, the whole "Prinicipal who wouldn't let kids read the Bible at recess" thing may, and I repeat, MAY have been all a bunch of hullabalooie.

ADF Allegation is untrue

I suppose it is possible, and I repeat, only POSSIBLE that I may, I repeat, MAY have, well, you know, jumped the gun with my artbitrary and random scoffing and disdain.

Of course, who you going to believe? Clearly this Principal has An Agenda. She sounds like a real harpy. Probably a serial child abuser. Bet she does drugs, too. And porn. Heavily into sicko snuff porn. Cathy Summa, Anti-Christ.

(Can you tell I reeealllly hate admitting when I'm wrong?)

(Thanks to kel for the link.)

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Shocking Universal Social Truths Revealed

Paris Hilton, really, is just NOT that good looking.

S'matter of fact, she's bascially a skank.

You heard it here first, folks.

Tell all your friends. Be the first "in the know."

Saturday, May 14, 2005

Going Analog For A Few Weeks

Going to be traveling for a few weeks as I head back to the States to ge reunited with my family after a year and a half overseas. Bout. Damn. Time.

That means turning in the cable modem and shutting down the laptop for a while. Have fun, keep the faith, and wash behind your ears.

Later.

This just in!

In the news today, the Palestinians have issued a strongly worded statement condemning the removal of Saddam Hussein as Emperor for Life of Iraq. In a prepared statement, spokesman Diap'r Rashid stated that, "The loss of those martyr payments made by Saddam Hussein to the families of the valiant warriors who have dashed themselves against the bulwarks of Israeli buses and sidewalk cafes has meant the loss of tens of thousands of dollars to our economy. This has placed a deep financial hardship on the people of Palestine. Our children grow hungry and weak, and soon they will not even be able to walk with 15 pounds of C-4 strapped to themselves, as Allah has called them to do. This humanitarian crisis can only be laid at the feet of the oppressive United States."

In a related story, France continues to issue statements of condemnation and outrage over the loss of food-for-oil kickbacks that had become the backbone of the French economy. Well, as much as the French can have a backbone in anything. The French Minister of Interior, a Mr. Jacques Meihoff, complained loudly at a recent session of the UN General Assembly that American intervention in Iraq has caused many French politicians to suffer immeasurable hardship. Some have even been forced to drink domestic wines, and eat only 2nd rate caviar. There are even rumors that some of those especially hard hit had to move their mistresses into smaller chalets.

And finally, Il Presidente' Vincente Fox of Mexico has threated to file charges against the United States in the International Criminal Court if the US proceeds with its plan to actually do something about the flood of Mexican citizens crossing its border. Presidente' Fox has likened denying drivers licenses and social security benefits to illegal aliens as "a crime against humanity." The loss of the millions of dollars sent south each year by undocumented Mexican workers will force the Mexican government to face the fact that through corruption and gross mismanagement, it simply refuses to provide a decent standard of living for its own people. So instead, Fox and Company require the massive cross-border chattel drive to keep them in the style to which they've grown accumstomed. There is also a growing fear among the Mexicali elite that the loss of the prodigious kickbacks from the drug cartels if the flood of drugs across the border slows will cause widespread social instability.

Presidente' Fox has threatened to issue other strongly worded statements if the US irrationally continues to insist on the sovereignty of its borders.

More on this story as our President continues to actually listen to this corrupt and self-serving criminal...

Friday, May 13, 2005

Snicker, laugh, giggle

Billboard Causes Panic: Los Angeles Population Plummets 14% in Three Days
Back on the roadway, Jose “X” added one last remark: “I hope they don’t move the border again. I mean, I left Mexico for a reason.”

The billboard, advertising a Spanish Language television station, originally made news by enraging many Americans with its aggressive Mexican Nationalist message --declaring that Los Angeles was no longer part of the United States, but was instead a Mexican city once again.

When I asked what had precipitated this mass exodus, one migrant, whom we’ll all Jose “X,” simply turned, pointed to the Billboard looming over his neighborhood and said, “¡Oh Man! I stopped walking too soon!” --then bravely continued on with the others.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

What can you say, really.

Schiavo-like womanspeaks after 2½ years
Doctor: 'I have never seen this happen in my career'

Would it have ever happened for Terri Schaivo? Dunno.

Is it possible? Clearly.

Parting Shot On Evolution

In the discussions of evolution, there in an old saw which goes something like, "If you had an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters, eventually one of them will crank out Hamlet by Shakespeare, through simple random chance."

Maybe.

But, this quaint anecdote fails to answer some fundamental questions:

1) Where do you PUT an infinite number of monkeys?
2) Where did you GET an infinite number of monkeys?
2) How do you feed them all?
3) What do you do with all the paper that ISNT a shakespearean epic?
4) What do you do with all the monkey shit?
5) Who built the typewriters?

In my mind, Darwinian evolution doesn't answer these questions. But then again, as has been pointed out, I am uninformed, and unscientific. So I guess I better just leave it to the professionals.

UPDATE:

I mean seriously, come ON people.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

The Rise of Hate Radio

Liberal Larry puts the hammer on as he nails a head...no, wait, hits a whale on the nads with a ham, no, er, I mean, mats a bed rail with the tambourine. Crap.

{{deeeeep cleansing breath}}

BlameBush hits the nail on the head with a hammer (yes!) as he reveals the root of most of our socio-economic problems in this country => Conservative Hate Radio.

An effeminate dust bleed. A degenerate musk seed. I mean, need a ephederine please.

@#$%#@##!!! {{breathe, now, breeeeathe}}

A definite must read.

Intelligent Design or Dum-dum stoopid heads?

Short of the abortion controversy, there is no topic guaranteed to generate greater frothing, chest-beating hysteria than EEEvoluuuution. And, since I am an unabashed hit-seeking whore for comments on my posts, I wanted to repost excerpts (mine, mostly) from an actually fairly civil discussion on the subject taking place over at RightWingSparkle. The highlighted comments are those made by the devil-worshipping secularist anti-creationist hate mongers.


Whizzit that any questioning of the validity of evolution automatically becomes an imposition of religious dogma? I think the main reason that this creates such a schism is that in the subconscious of its adherents, Evolution simply HAS to be true, because the ONLY alternative is an exterior, intervening "force" or designer – and that’s just too much to bear. So, rather than explore this option, "we" as the “scientific community” have to quell it out of hand as religionism and "unscientific"; otherwise it threatens our carefully maintained irreligious worldview.

I would suggest, however, that arbitrarily declaring that religion and science are mutually exclusive makes the secular evolutionist ever bit as much of a "flat-earther" as some rabid Reconstructionist who demands religion trump science at every turn. I would suggest also that Evolution is constrained by the same "reproducibility" problem as Intelligent Design (ID). Show me how you can quantifiably reproduce an evolutionary process in a lab environment? Show me how you can observe an evolutionary process at work in the wild? You can't. You make deductions based on observations, perceptions and trace evidence - which is exactly what the Creationists do. Better yet, identify the actual process (electro-chemical, physiological, sub-atomic, whatever) whereby a creature adapts its genetic structure to an external stimulus? Anyone?

Taking the arbitrary position that support of creation or ID makes one, by definition, an unscientific hack is bigoted, prejudicial, and intellectually dishonest.
"The evidence for evolution is overwhelming."
{{coughbullshitcough}} How do we deal with the concept of irreducible complexity? How does an eyeball "evolve" rods and cones, and an interconnected brain that uses them to interpret colors? How does the system for creating DNA out of peptides evolve when it needs DNA to, well, create the system which is responsible for producing amino acids, etc? How does a machine evolve when IT is already a precondition for itself to exist?

How does light know when to be a wave, and when to be a particle?

Time and again, critics have asserted most aggressively that "Intelligent Design is unscientific." No one has yet bothered to explain WHY! They provide no evidence, other than, "Well, everybody knows THAT!" Is it simply inherent in the nature of ID to be unscientific? Or, is it because your own bias and prejudices arbitrarily prevent you from viewing a religious viewpoint as having an scientific validity?

For myself, I do not have a "blind" faith. I find my faith routinely validated by scientific discoveries. And I see a great deal of spurious correlations and unsubstantiated "leaps of faith" in the evolutionary model.

Why can't ID be explored scientifically? Because the analysts who control information flow (and funding) are predisposed to dismiss any cause but random chance; and so this bias prevents an objective look at the evidence. An inherent aversion to even considering the possibility of a creative force as being inherently "unscientific" or blind theology, prevents one from placing evidence in any context but that of evolution. Regardless of whether that is justified or not.
"Lots of things look irreducibly(sic) complex at first, but did evolve gradually - like large cities, market economies and complex ecosystems."
A) Prove it.
B) Cities do not evolve. They are laid out, planned, and constructed. Do the phrases "city planners" or "founding fathers" ring any bells? Which city came into its present form through random chance or natural selection?
C) Market Economies? So where does Alan Greenspan fit in? The Prime lending rate? The stock market? Market economies are managed systems, not random.

It is also certainly arguable that natural selection PREVENTS random aberrations and mutations rather than favoring a broad spectrum of offshoots.
"THERE IS NO VIGOROUS DEBATE ABOUT EVOLUTION IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY."
Granted. Not because it is not needed, but because it is not allowed. Secularists point large hairy fingers at those of faith for not being willing to examine or question their own faith, or to consider "other" explanations. Yet, there is even less ecumenicalism within the scientific community when it comes to evolution. Question it, and you become Galileo, and the evolutionist gatekeepers are the Inquisitors. Recant or lose tenure!

In these discussions, people have a tendency to keep restating their premise without actually supporting it. If ID is presented as "not scientific", it is solely because those with influence and positional power refuse to address it as such! They have pre-determined evolution to be the only acceptable ideology, and so, by refusing to allow creation/ID into the marketplace of ideas, they continue to ensure their monopoly of thought.
"You may as well all be saying that the theory of gravity is in doubt"
If it is a theory, it is in doubt, or it would be a law. No one doubts the existence of gravity, but what exactly CAUSES IT? THAT IS STILL OPEN TO DISCUSSION. So is evolution a theory, or a natural law? Is the evidence sooo incontrovertible that we should just sign it, seal it, and walk away?

To close your mind to any other possible explanation because it does not fit into your carefully managed worldview is the epitome of unscientific behavior; it is dogmatic. And religionists are not the only ones guilty of this, I think!

And what about our schools? Is it, then, the conventional wisdom that only those things which fit into a narrow definition of “science” should be discussed/taught at school? There are a great many unscientific things discussed in a modern classroom. Why should the possibility of intelligent design be exempt? Or is it merely that only evolution should be taught as the origin of species, with no consideration for any other explanation, because it is the ONLY possible “scientific” explanation? Tell me again how that is not a worldview? How are we not imposing a worldview on our school children by requiring them to adhere to only one viewpoint, and summarily discard all others?

The point I keep trying to make, but which doesn't seem to stick, is that a true scientist doesn't look just at the evidence for evolution, or the evidence for creation/ID. A scientist looks at The Evidence. There's one big bubbling pool of existential "facts" out there. If The Evidence is ONLY examined in the context of evolution, then by definition, that is the only theory that it will support, because that is the only one being examined! See my meaning? If, however, The Evidence is examined in a truly objective fashion, in order to determine our theories from the evidence and NOT the other way around, then and only then do we have a truly robust investigation and some semblance of intellectual honesty.

Here are some ID/creationism sites which, strangely enough, attempt to use science to support their views.
Answers in Genesis/Ken Ham
Darwin's Black Box/Michael Behe
Mars Hill/Mark Eastman
"Tornado in a Junkyard"/Geoff Metcalf

I guess my position ultimately is that “The Theory of Evolution” in all its glory, continues to be in enough of a crisis that it should not be presented as incontrovertible fact. I don't think ID or Creationism in their various forms should be either! I think it is the height of presumption to think that we have found (or perhaps even can find) The Ultimate Answer. As soon as you do that, you stop looking and learning.

Call it a theory, and treat it AS a theory.

UPDATE:

Blogger Erik Grow adds his well-considered two cents worth to the debate.

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

The MarketPlace of Ideas is Closed for Business.

Yet another victory for tolerance and embracing diversity.

Bibles banned on playgrounds
Legal group challenges restriction on student activity during recess
According to ADF, 10-year-old student Luke Whitson used his regularly scheduled recess time to read the Bible with a few friends on his school's playground. After receiving a complaint from a parent, the principal reportedly ordered the students to stop their activity, put their Bibles away and cease from bringing them to school.
No, there's no anti-religion bias out there. None at all.

Monday, May 09, 2005

MayPoll

What is the most shamelessly, embarassingly, egregiously, disgustingly honest thing you've ever done?

I'll go first.

Once, I tried to get $40 from an ATM, and it gave me $60. Even though I could have really used the money, I went inside the bank and turned the extra $20 in to a teller.

Madness.

Saturday, May 07, 2005

Damn Theocrats Are At It Again!

Bill to take profit out of anti-religion suits
Supporters say measure removes ACLU incentive to challenge faith in public

"The issue is about the absolute fanaticism of the ACLU and the absolute arrogance of a judiciary that says we have to wipe out of history all the evidence of our heritage," Lloyd told the Los Angeles Daily Journal, a legal newspaper.

Who ARE these people?

"Abortion bracelet sold as Mother's Day gift
NOW present reminiscent of 'Choice on Earth' Christmas cards "

From the fine folks who brought you the, "I Had An Abortion T-Shirt."

Coming soon, the guaranteed to be a classic, "I Euthanized My Grandmother" baseball cap, in four fun and sylish colors!

Go ahead, just TELL me how this is a thoughtful and tasteful gift for Mother's Day. What do you write on the card?
"Mom, I'm glad you didn't abort me, but I'm also glad you could've if you'd wanted to."

Maybe that makes counts as a "loving sentiment" to somebody, but me ain't one of 'em.

Folks, if we insist on having abortion "safe, legal, and rare," lets at least make it the last, desperate, most horribly gut-wrenching choice on a looooong list of others. Let's not celebrate it as some sort of pyhrric victory for womens' rights, or a statement of personal liberation akin to POWs staggering through the newly liberated gates of Auschwitz for their first breath of air untainted by the stink of the ovens. I would suggest that it is just exactly the opposite.

I know there are no easy answers when it comes to abortion, but let us at least honest enough with ourselves to not make the answer easy.

MayPoll

Define "Religious Extremist."

Come on, you've used the phrase a gadjillion times. Tell me what it means to you, in your own words.

I dare ya.

Blogging sick, or sick of blogging?

Sick....coughing up lung tissue....sinuses dissolving, running down face.... can't..blog...much...longer....

Sore throat....ack....headache...whaaaa.....

So anyway, just a quick hit and run. Everytime I swear I'm going to start be less partisan, more fair and balanced, I run across an article like this and just can't keep myself from linking to it.

Oliver North: A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

On the now-almost-famous photo of American serviceman MAJ MarK Bieger cradling a mortally wounded toddler in his arms after a car-bombing. Damn despoiling occupiers that we are, he was probably taking her home to eat her.

Ollie, always quick with praise for our troops, laments the stories of compassion and sacrifice that you seldom seem to hear on the MSM.
The love and respect this stranger in an American uniform shows for the wounded Iraqi child is evident. It is yet another example of the many -- and profound -- acts of kindness, charity, and bravery that have been displayed throughout the war by young Americans in uniform.
Unfortunately, if you are a college student or a law school student in America today, you are unlikely to know just how remarkable your peers who serve in the military are. Worse yet, your college administrators deny you the opportunity to decide for yourself whether or not you'd like to join their ranks. The Ivory Tower academic elitists in many of America's most "prestigious" colleges and universities today are waging war against the military and working to keep recruiters off of their campuses.
It's more than a shame that honorable, decent, caring, compassionate and heroic people like Major Mark Bieger and his fellow soldiers aren't welcomed on America's college campuses.
Read the whole article.

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Buy A Clue Day

Suggesting that Reconstructionists and Dominionists represent mainstain conservative Christian thought is like suggesting that the Weather Underground was a leftish-leaning social service organization.

Judge Greer Orders Brain-Damaged Firefighter To Move To Florida

The Therapist provides another scathing, biting, gnarly, wondrous bit of verbal hilarity on the firefighter who awoke after a 10 year coma, and so has become a threat to euthenasia proponents everywhere. He must be silenced.

Another home run, Doc.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

I say bring it on, bitches.

Dutch court refuses to arrest Bush

Whew! That was a close one.

Who are they kidding? We could take the Netherlands in about what, an hour and half. Just try arresting the president. He'll end up being YOUR PRESIDENT, bee-atch.

Sheesh.

Why being an "insurgent" classifies as a High-Risk Profession

Reason #326 Why you don't want to be one of the bad guys:

http://media2.big-boys.com/files/iraqbomb.wmv

Link shamelessly stolen from Garfiled Ridge.

Yeah, What HE Said...

Columnist John McCandlish Phillips of the Washigton Post gives a disturbing insight into the anti-Christian hysteria that is becoming more and more the vogue among liberal commentators and publications. He ends with some fairly incontrovertible examples why a great deal of this rhetoric is bunk.


H/T to Ace for the link.

An excerpt from an unfortunate exchange about my new personal organizer

him: "Dude, is that a purse?"

me: "I prefer the term 'Personal Organizer'."

him: "Dude, that's a purse."

me: "Call it what you will, it's really quite handy."

him: "Dude. You're a dude. And that's a purse. Just...wrong."

me: "Shut up."

him: "Dude."

me: "Listen! You want me to pepper spray your ass? Because I've got some right here in my, uhm, Organizer!"

him:

me: "No, wait. That's my lip balm. Hold on, I know it's in here somewhere..."

him: "Dude..."

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

A brief conversation with my nearly-new toaster oven:

me:

toaster oven:

me:

toaster oven: "What?!"

me:

toaster oven: "You SAID 'dark'."

me: "I said dark, not pure evil."
*

toaster oven:

me:

toaster oven: "Still..."

Theocracy In The Wings?

"Classical Values" blog has an excellent article on the "threat" of theocracy looming over us. Gives historical background and Constitutional context. Excellent read.

Things I've Learned Being Stationed in Okinawa

During my time here in the Japanese prefecture of Okinawa, I've learned many valuable life lessons. In the spirit of brotherly love, which of course so thoroughly infuses this site at all times, I thought I would share these insights with you, my adoring public.
  1. Referring to your Japanese co-workers as "my little people" does not endear you to them to any appreciable degree.
  2. Making funny Charlie Chan faces behind their backs is only funny until you caught.
  3. Raw fish, really, ain't all that bad.
  4. The Okinawans endure 4 or 5 major typhoons a year. None of their houses collapse. Someone should send a memo to Florida.
  5. Japanese beer, really, is pretty damn good.
  6. Referring to your groundskeeper as a "Lawn Ninja," while not very culturally sensitive, is still pretty funny.
  7. I had a server actually apologize because the service was running slow. Apologized. I didn't quite know how to handle it. I'm just so used to, "You're lucky I didn't dump it in your lap, wiseass."
  8. You can leave your car unlocked, unless there's a lot of American's around. Hmmm.
  9. Still, as nice as it is, there just ain't no place like the good ol' U.S. of A.

Monday, May 02, 2005

An intimate, personal epiphany

Well, I've listened to the debates, read the blogs and the discussions back and forth about relative morality in all its glorious wonder. I've read about the stranglehold the Christian Right is seeking to squeeze around the throat of America. I've read Maureen Dowd and Maralyn Lois Polak. I've tuned into Air America while perusing the editorial pages of the L.A. Times; and as a result, I've come to realize some disturbing truths about myself. Therefore, in what can only be described as an attempt at some kind of atonement, a certain penance if you will, I have decided to share these deeply personal revelations about my character here, for all the world to see.

You see, I've discovered that I'm a homophobe and a bigot because I don't think men should have sex with men, or little boys. And I certainly don't think we should be teaching our grade-school children that its healthy, normal and fun. I guess that makes me intolerant, too.

I've realized that I'm an Inquisition-era theocrat because I don't think women should be protected by law when they want to kill their unborn children; and I don't think doctors and nurses should get paid to help them do it.

I've discovered that I am a racist and a xenophobe because I think we should do something to stem the tide of illegal immigration crossing our borders. I've come to understand that I am insenstive to the needs of the poor and minorites because I don't think illegal aliens should get to vote, have driver's licesnses, or pay in-state tuition (if they pay tuition at all). Or that maybe they should be deported.

I've looked inside my soul, and seen reflected back that I am an ignorant flat-earther who'd as soon burn Galileo at the stake as read a science textbook, all because I think that the theory of evolution is deeply flawed in its present form, and that exploring the concept of intelligent design in a public school isn't, in fact, blasphemy against the humanist religion we teach there.

I have seen these things, I have had these revelations, and upon reflection, have realized one very important thing about myself:

I'm okay with that.

Sunday, May 01, 2005

Once more, with feeling.

I've said this on at least two other blog comments, and so I'm gonna say it here. I'll try to speak slowly for those whose brains are clouded by images of Chairman Mao and Fidel Castro.

Opposing abuses of the filibuster is...not...the...same...thing...as...dismantling...the...judicial...confirmation...process.

All candidates would still require an up or down, yes or no vote. One more time for the guy asleep in the back row:

All candidates would still require an up or down, yes or no vote.

The Democrats would have us believe that the Republicans want to do away with the filibuster as a tool, and thus give them carte blanche to appoint whomever they want without any input or restraint from the opposing parties. Not only is this a bald faced lie, it's dishonest too.

The TRUTH is that the Republicans offered a 100 hour cap on discussions per nominee, then followed by a mandatory yes or no vote. Up or down. Yea or nay. Sounds pretty reasonable, right?

The Dems turned it down. Why? Because they know they don't have the votes to defeat the nominations, and so want the filibuster to continue indefinitely, or until Bush withdraws the nom.

Oh, did I mention that even without the filibuster, there still has to be a majority vote to confirm the nominee?

Okay, good, 'cuz I didn't want you to leave thinking that without the filibuster, Republicans could appoint just any old buddy, no questions asked, 'cuz well, you know, there...still...has...to...be...an...open...vote...to...approve...any...nominee.