TCR: Salvatore Giunta

I've been reading about and watching this guy all week after he became the first living soldier to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor since the Vietnam Conflict and he's always been the very definition of humility. We need to find some way to clone Giunta whilst imprinting his sense of duty and bravery upon the DNA:

Four Moral Issues Sharply Divide Americans

It seems that there are some things we still really butt heads on. From Gallup:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans generally agree about the morality of 12 out of 16 behaviors or social policies that sometimes spark public controversy, with sizable majorities saying each is either "morally acceptable" or "morally wrong." By contrast, views on doctor-assisted suicide, gay and lesbian relations, abortion, and having a baby outside of marriage are closely divided -- the percentage supporting and the percentage opposing are within 15 points of each other.

That the cultural taboo of having a baby outside of marriage is one of these four most controversial issues surprises me a bit. I suppose it shouldn't, as I assume much of the disapproval comes from biblical and other religious circles and we're a nation of mostly religious Christians but it still just seems a largely outmoded concern to me. I'm guessing that attitudes on race also have something to do with it since blacks and Hispanics have significantly higher numbers of unwed mothers per capita than whites. I had assumed that we'd gotten past this particular social stigma but I guess there are always going to be reasons to disapprove of others' behaviours.

(via)

Lowering The Drinking Age To 18

I've long been a fan of doing this even after I turned twenty-one. Under my plan every American who is both eighteen-years-old and a high school graduate would automatically be of legal drinking age and able to purchase and consume alcohol. Just being eighteen wouldn't work because we would experience the same outcome we do in colleges: students who are old enough to drink would constantly be buying alcohol for those who are not. It would also be a great incentive for kids to stay in school and get their degree or pass a high school equivalency exam (all of those who do not do so would have to wait until they turn twenty-one to drink lawfully). We allow eighteen-year-olds to be tried as adults, vote, own guns and serve in the military yet when it comes to consuming alcohol they are treated as second-class citizens. I say that if someone can risk their life for their country they should be able to enjoy a beer after work. What do you think?

American Power And Domestic Bliss Abyss

Yeah I know, but this one is just more funny than hateful. Enjoy my conservative counterpart Donald Douglas of American Power's pithy post "Lego Blogging!", in which he purports to be spending some quality time with his son although it seems to be more about how horrible he thinks I am than playing with Legos:

My son and I build stuff during off-blogging hours. That's one of the cool things about having a wife and kids (not to mention God). Maybe JBW should quit troll-stalking babes on the web and try some traditional values. Seriously, that's got to beat posting anti-child atheist trash or Rachel Maddow bullshit talking points. Freakin' Christ, James B. "Weightist" Webb, get a goddamned life...

"Not to mention God"? I don't get it: is God playing Legos with them? Now Don doesn't know this but I actually do have a wife. She's invisible and she's called "Drink as much wine as you want and sleep with other women". She's the perfect mother to my invisible teenage son "Spend my college money on a trip to Europe" and my newborn invisible baby "Eight hours of sleep a night". I even have an invisible god who never reveals any evidence of his own existence and appears wholly indifferent towards my life and the lives of everyone else on the planet. No wait, that's Don's god. My invisible god is actually called "Think for yourself because magic isn't real" and he's never watching over me but that's OK because I don't need to believe in a supernatural parental figure looking over my shoulder and shaking his finger at me.

Now I love my invisible family and my non-meddling god because they're perfect for me but I would never insist that anyone else should live the same way I do because I believe in individual liberty and personal freedom. Everyone should be free to live their life as they and they alone see fit as long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's freedom to do the same. As you've probably noticed though, there are many religious folks like Don out there who are convinced of their own moral superiority and have absolutely no problem telling the rest of us how we should live. Don don't like drugs so nobody should be allowed to use drugs. Don don't like prostitutes so nobody should be allowed to sell or pay for sex. Don believes in God so everyone else should too (just make sure it's the right god, of course) and if you don't or you fail to pay his god the proper respect your character and moral integrity will be called into question. Nanny statism and casting moral aspersions: I'm sure it's What Jesus Would Do.

[Update: Whilst making a run for the border Don reports that he's subsequently edited all of the dirty blasphemy and Jesus bashing from his post:

...cleaned up my post from this morning with the profanity. My apologies. That's not so much like me, and I haven't felt right most of the day. Frankly, I do it mostly to push the boundaries and confound the lefty freaks. But that needs to be way less frequent. I'm practically morphing into that which I reject (i.e., unwashed netroots atheist commies), and THAT bothers me.

That Don: he's such a confounding boundary pusher. And by "unwashed netroots atheist commies" I assume that he's referring to any of the dirty nihilist America haters who frequent my comment section because if he was referring to myself he'd also be shouting WEEEIGHTIST!]

American Power And Arrogant Prosthelytizing

This is getting old. I understand now why most of my liberal/nihilist/whatever friends have stopped trying to engage my conservative counterpart Donald Douglas of American Power on pretty much every level of civilized discourse. It's not just his delusions that he constantly gets the better of me in our little back and forths (I see no need to beat my chest about it, you can judge that for yourselves) or his rank hypocrisy and faux outrage about anything he dislikes or disagrees with (you name it, and everything he includes in this category is always egregious and atrocious and his assessment of such is of course beyond dispute) or even the fact that he selectively refuses to allow comments on any thread in which he mentions me (what kind of blogger who's worth a damn even does that and expects to be taken seriously?) that annoy me.

It's the level of tone-deafness he displays in the face of any and all logic and reason. Case in point, "Living by Faith in God". I'm busy with other things at the moment so I'm going to make this quick:

I thought I'd postpone some of the JBW blog wars for a few days, but I have to say, for an Easter holiday, this guy packs some wicked demonic heat. Thankfully, Serr8d's on the case and has been peppering JBW with covering fire. And as you can see, the Brain Rage posts have become more whiny and impotent with each iteration, so the higher power's getting to this human defect, fallen temporarily though he may be.

Shorter Don: I'm bad, Don's winning, his god's helping him win.

JBW's responded as well to Stogie's photoshop, but my comments on that will go live tomorrow or Tuesday or whenever. Here I just want to elaborate the differences between myself and JBW, and perhaps he'll think through the scathing fires of the perturbations tormenting him.

Shorter Don: I'm bad, Don's good, maybe I'll realize that.

The differences are of faith, and that which sustains me, and the absence of The Good, which inflicts JBW for want of meaning and fulfillment. Here's a passage from The Strategy of Satan: How to Detect and Defeat Him, which is a pocket handbook for the Christian (blog) warrior, "Living by Faith in God": [A bunch of religious cut and pasting I'm not going to waste time addressing.]

Shorter Don: Don's good because he believes in a god, I'm bad because I don't, bible verses.

At seeing JBW's Easter sacrilege today my heart skipped at Satan's breath, and I fear the JBW knows not of his wayward travels to the underworld of death. He thinks he's cool -- that I'm an old man, a tubby has been -- and that he's got nothing to learn of the ways of grief and hardship and perseverance to the life of goodness in The One. Serr8d, in his rough manner, repudiates JBW's demonology, and that's when JBW recoils and pleads his divine tormentors off. We might say in regular terminology: "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen." So, in fact it's JBW who should call it a day when beaten silly.

Shorter Don: I'm bad and in league with Satan(?), I'm young and naive, I'm still losing and I think there was something about Neo from The Matrix in there.

But however it's assessed, the boy has lost his faith, and thus he's lost his way in this world. (I know this from JBW's confessions of his parents love and values, and his rejection of them.) Perhaps a further comeuppance is due before change can be effected, but mysterious are the ways of the Lord.

More tomorrow, dear readers ...

OK, I'll spend a few moments on this last part: I've never had faith in any type of god so I had nothing to lose, and I reject the arrogant notion that a person is somehow "lost" without it. The values my parents taught me (which Don apparently completely missed the gist of in my comment) were to question everything in this world with a critical eye and to err on the side of logic and knowledge rather than that of superstition and wishful thinking. Rather than reject these values, I've embraced them as an intellectual philosophy. Oh, shorter Don: Don's not through beating me, his god is helping him do it, this ain't over yet. Jesus...

Something Someone Else Said

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better." -South Carolina Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, explaining how providing government food assistance to lower-income residents - things like food stamps or free school lunches - encourages a culture of dependence.

So let me see if I've got this straight: the right doesn't want the poor and homeless to reproduce (ignoring for a second the fact that Bauer unfeelingly compared them to stray animals) but they also don't want them to be taught sex education, use contraception or have the right to an abortion. Oh, and Jesus is Lord and all life is precious... so poor kids obviously shouldn't receive cheap school lunches. I don't know about you but I find this ever-present disconnect between the conservative rhetoric and their so-called Christian values more pronounced and distasteful with each passing day.

Hume: "Tiger Should Convert To Christianity"

Former FOX News anchor Brit Hume knows better than Tiger Woods which religion Tiger Woods should follow:


The balls on this guy, huh? This is one of the reasons so many people are getting tired of the Evangelical Christian schtick George W. Bush tossed around over the course of the last decade: I know better than you do how you should live your life because I pray to the "right" god. Do you think Christians would have still approved of this statement if Tiger was Jewish? How about if he was a Christian and a Muslim was stating that he should convert to Islam? You crazy people and those nutty religions of yours...

(via)

[Update: A Daily Dish reader adds:

I am Christian who has taught Comparative Religion and attempted to present these religions not from a Christian perspective, but from within each of their own religious worldviews. Having done so, I can affirm that Buddhists do have concept of redemption - but, not surprisingly, it is not like the Christian conception. The Buddhist concept is called nirvana, itself a very misunderstood concept by many Christians. Additionally, since awareness of suffering is one of the Four Noble Truths, then forgiveness is an important dimension of overcoming suffering. Brit Hume could have found this out in about thirty seconds by just Googling it (wonderful thing, those internets).

But Hume knows that the redemption won't take if Jesus isn't the one doing it. Also, that you have to ask for it in English or else He won't be able to understand what the hell you're saying.]

Carrie Prejean Has Her Sexy Film Debut

Remember how she became a right-wing victim/martyr when she was so discriminated against because of her views against gay marriage and totally not because she violated the terms of her pageant contract? Ahem:

The sudden end to a legal battle between dethroned Miss California USA Carrie Prejean and pageant officials was prompted by the revelation of a "sex tape," according to a source familiar with the lawsuits' settlement.

Prejean was fired in June after lingerie-modeling photos of her emerged that pageant officials said were a breach of her contract. Prejean sued the pageant in August, arguing her firing was religious discrimination because of her opposition to same-sex marriage.

Pageant officials countersued last month, demanding their former beauty queen repay $5,200 in pageant money spent for her breast implants and give them all proceeds from a book she's written.

A settlement of both lawsuits was signed in New York Tuesday, but no details were made public. Lawyers and parties for each side were bound by a confidentiality pledge, according to the source.

The veil of secrecy was partially lifted Wednesday after celebrity gossip Web site TMZ reported the deal was sealed after pageant lawyers presented an "extremely graphic" home video involving Prejean.

TMZ Managing Editor Harvey Levin said during a webcast Wednesday that he obtained the Prejean video during the summer, but found it "too racy" to post on his site. He indicated Prejean was alone in the video.

You have to love traditional conservative values. I for one refuse to believe that this disgusting tape exists until I've seen it for myself. In private. Many times.

Something Someone Else Said

"You want to know who the biggest hypocrite in the world is? The biggest hypocrite in the world is the person who believes in the death penalty for murderers and not for homosexuals. Hypocrite. The same God who instituted the death penalty for murderers is the same God who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals - sodomites, queers! That’s what it was instituted for, okay? That’s God, he hasn’t changed. Oh, God doesn’t feel that way in the New Testament … God never “felt” anything about it, he commanded it and said they should be taken out and killed." -Pastor Steven L. Anderson, Faithful Word Baptist Church.

Yeah, I'm sure Jesus would have been totally down with this kind of hateful bullshit. I feel sorry for anyone, straight or gay, who is amongst this man's congregation. Is it any wonder that atheism has been steadily growing in popularity in American society?

OK, Let's Talk About David Letterman...

I'm sure everyone who reads this site has heard about the apparent "controversy" surrounding David Letterman and Sarah Palin over the last week and I'm probably the last person in the blogosphere to mention it because I figured that it was merely just another example of faux right-wing outrage that would blow over fairly quickly but it seems that these people have no other arrows in their persecution complex quiver to string so here goes.

Full disclosure right from the outset: I absolutely loved Letterman when I was in junior high and high school. I taped (yes, we used VHS tape to record media back then) his show every night and watched it when I got home from track practice every day. This was back when he was at NBC with Larry "Bud" Melman and Chris Elliot, when he wore Adidas tennis shoes with his suit and when he would routinely wander across the hallway to fuck with Al Roker and the other anchors while they were filming the Live at Five news broadcast.

For those outside the know, here's a recap of the infamous joke:

Letterman, in his monologue Monday night, noted that the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate attended a Yankees game during a trip to New York City, where she was honored by a special needs group. Letterman referred to Palin, Alaska's governor, as having the style of a "slutty flight attendant."

The "Late Show" host also took a shot Palin's daughter, while poking fun at the Yankees' third baseman.

"One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game," Letterman said, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

Now the apparent controversy was that, apparently unbeknownst to Letterman, the daughter accompanying Palin and her husband to the game that day was not her 18-year-old daughter Bristol (who was knocked up out of wedlock and then attended the Republican National Convention with her son and baby daddy, Levi Johnston, in tow) but rather her 14-year-old daughter Willow.

So let's now review the joke in question: 1) Any joke made about a Palin offspring being impregnated was obviously about her 18-year-old (legally an adult, I might add) daughter Bristol. This girl is the most popular pregnant, out of wedlock girl in America in several years (and I'm counting Britney Spears' younger sister in this equation). 2) I fail to detect any inference of rape within Letterman's joke. In fact if one peruses the Urban Dictionary, there are 10 definitions of the term "knocked up". And while they are all mostly alike there is absolutely no reference to rape in any of them at all.

Now some people may say, "Well, he made the joke and the 14-year-old daughter was the one in attendance at the game that day so it still constitutes statutory rape." But Letterman offers this rebuttal:

Apologising in front of his TV audience, David said it was a "coarse joke", adding: "I never thought it was (about) anybody other than the older daughter, and before the show, I checked to make sure, in fact, that she is of legal age, 18."

So, we know that he wasn't speaking about the younger Palin daughter and that the prospect of rape was never even brought into question. But I'll now let Dave defend himself and what he said on his show:


One thing I have to disagree with: Sarah Palin's look is not that of a "slutty flight attendant". If anything she's sporting a naughty librarian look, and incidentally one that I much prefer to the slutty flight attendant but I love books much more than I love flying, so there you go. Also, I dig the (once Lisa Loeb, now) Tina Fey glasses.

Now the reason I even bring this whole issue up this late in the game is because of the aforementioned right-wing outrage across the blogosphere, personified by posts like this one from my conservative counterpart Donald Douglas, "David Letterman: Washed-Up Left-Wing Pervert" or this from blogger Bob who I assume found me through Don's site, "David Letterman is a disgusting pig!" Cookie cutter comments like, "Well, if Sean Hannity had said the same thing about Barack Obama's daughters the left would have gone apeshit!" are completely disingenuous.

Yeah, people would have gone apeshit! Because Obama's daughters are 10 and 7 years old! If anyone on any side of the political spectrum had made a joke about either of them being impregnated it would have been horribly and unambiguously apparent that they were making a reference to prepubescent sex. But don't tell that to the just over a dozen protesters outside Letterman's studio the other day:

A protest rally against David Letterman over a failed joke about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her daughter attracted more members of the media than protesters Tuesday afternoon.

A crowd of 15 protesters upset with the late night comic held signs and occasionally shouted as they stood across the street from Letterman's studio.

But they were often hidden from view by the more than 35 members of the media there to cover the protest, and out-shouted by a few very vocal counter-protesters.

But those fifteen people must have at least made some pretty convincing arguments against Letterman to warrant this level of media coverage for this bullshit controversy, right? Oh yes, they certainly did:


Classy. Also, three things: 1) A Rod plays basketball? 2) Letterman's kid is a girl? 3) Admitting that Letterman's kid is indeed not a girl, is he any more of a bastard than Palin's grandchild? I doubt that Sarah Palin would ever refer to her grandson in that manner. But hey, the fact that a child is innocent of any wrongdoing is no reason not to attack him, right? Although I suspect the term "grasping at straws" is a metaphor that people this intelligent would fail to understand. OK, so what's the next outrage du jour, Republicans?

The Murder Of Doctor George Tiller

I've refrained from commenting on this news story partly because I've just been too busy to write a decent post about it and partly because I wanted to let all of the facts come out before I spoke. I know that many aspects of the blogosphere are about being expedient and timely but I've moved past the mindset that made me want to be the first to speak about any given subject or event to one where having more information at hand is much more preferable.

For those who have not yet heard, George Tiller was a late-term (that's the correct medical terminology; "partial-birth" is a manufactured and deliberately incendiary political term) abortionist in Kansas, who apparently had a policy of performing abortions at any stage in the pregnancy if he deemed it medically feasible. He was one of only three doctors in the country to perform the procedure this late in pregnancy and many women traveled to Kansas to avail themselves of his services.

Before I continue, full disclosure: I am vehemently against the practice of performing late-term abortions except in the most dire of emergencies, any and all of which I'm not qualified to determine here. As someone who reluctantly identifies myself as pro-choice, I like most others am decidedly not "pro-abortion" by any definition of that term. I know that it sounds cliche but I really do believe that abortions should be safe, legal and rare. This means concentrating societal and governmental resources on comprehensive sex education programs, the dissemination of any and all forms of contraception to anyone who requests them and effective, professional single-mother and couples counseling about adoption for anyone considering abortion as a viable option.

I use the term "reluctantly" because I do find abortion to be such a horrible procedure, yet I'm loathe to outlaw it altogether. I've spent a lot of time wrestling with this issue, mainly because of the words and arguments put forth by hot momma, wife of occasional commenter BD, both of whom I respect a great deal and are two of my dearest friends in the world. And I say that I'm loathe to outlaw the practice altogether because history has shown that, just as with the prohibition of alcohol and recreational drugs (just two examples that come immediately to mind), people will always find a way to procure the desired, outlawed substance or service by illegal means and those means are almost always more dangerous to the individual than the safer, legal alternative.

The other reason I'm reluctant to outlaw the practice is because, put most simply, I'm a man and will never know what it's like to have to make that choice, nor to have that choice taken away from me. As much as I dislike the idea of abortion, I just can not bring myself to tell a woman what to do with her own body. I believe that choice should be hers, and hers alone.

Now some might say that simultaneously holding these seemingly disparate views makes me a hypocrite, that if I'm against late-term abortion that I should also be as equally opposed to the performing of all abortions at any stage of a pregnancy. And maybe they're right. I'm only human and I do try to be honest about my own failings whenever I can. But I would also counter that most people with any kind of objection to the practice are just as much hypocrites as myself.

When someone calls abortion "murder" and the physician performing that abortion a "murderer", should not the woman who chose to undergo the procedure be similarly labeled as well? And if this is the case, then should not both of these individuals be tried as murderers by our justice system? I know a lot of people who oppose abortion because they consider it to be the equivalent of taking the life of another human being, yet their views become a lot less strident at the prospect of actually trying and summarily executing every woman in the country who has undergone the procedure. This reluctance reveals the dangers of holding black or white beliefs in a world where almost all of the hard choices are decidedly grey.

On that note, another aspect of my own hypocrisy is that I delineate the differences between a five-day-old blastocyst and a viable eight-month old fetus when determining whether either should be allowed to be terminated. Full disclosure, again: I do not believe in the existence of any type of intangible human soul so I discount that argument (one which I'd be happy to have during a different discussion) as it applies here. As such, the blastocyst (a cluster of 70-100 undifferentiated cells) does not feel any pain when it is expelled from the womb because it does not possess pain receptors, the nerve cells needed to transmit pain nor a brain capable of experiencing or realizing pain and suffering. And while I'm not a doctor I definitely know that an eight-month-old fetus can feel and experience pain, and I am very much against the infliction of any kind of unnecessary pain on innocent children.

After that unintentionally long segue, let me return to my original line of thought: I'm writing this post because George Tiller was shot and killed during services in his Wichita, Kansas church Sunday morning in front of his wife and their friends and neighbors. The alleged shooter, one Scott Roeder, is a member of both The Freemen, a radical anti-government group and Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion rights group that has persisted in protesting Tiller and his clinic over the past two decades. During that time, Tiller has been previously shot, his clinic has been bombed and similarly subjected to various other forms of vandalism and destruction.

Much has been said and written lately around the blogosphere about the apparent influence and culpability of cable talk show host Bill O'Reilly on these horrific events. O'Reilly had recently made a practice of demonizing Tiller on his show for weeks at a time, sending a producer to harass him about his legal medical clinic and had routinely called him "Tiller, the baby killer" and referred to his practice as a "death-mill" on his national forum. As this situation seems to closely mirror the multiple police slayings committed a month ago in Pittsburgh I'd like to reiterate my own take on that horrific incident:

Now obviously Poplawski is the only person responsible for the deaths of these three men; they died by his hand and his alone. But let's be honest here: this young man did not create these paranoid delusions or plan these violent acts in a vacuum. The steady drumbeat of right-wing talk radio, bloggers and other media about Obama taking away our guns, about re-education camps and civil indoctrination squads, about the supposed descent of this country into socialist/Marxist chaos, about capitulation to our enemies and secret Muslim conspiracies has had a definite effect on the mentally deficient and morally weak amongst us, and for those who have been spewing this garbage to now throw their hands up as if they were not at least tangentially culpable for creating the atmosphere that helped lead to this tragedy is an act of outright dishonesty and rank cowardice.

Just replace the names of the killers and the statements about firearms with those about abortion and I believe the quote still stands on its own as it relates to the current situation. So obviously O'Reilly bears no direct responsibility for this murder. Our constitution gives him the absolute right to say whatever he wants about anyone as long as it's factually true or at least stated as pure opinion, and I wouldn't have that any other way. Now, did O'Reilly's statements and pronouncements have any effect on Tiller's murderer? Who's to say? And even if they did, it most likely can not be proven conclusively that his words alone were the trigger (no pun intended) for the shooter's actions.

But this line of thought does force one to ponder the effect that the anti-abortion crowd's hyperbole has on those who would potentially do bodily harm to doctors who perform abortion procedures. The intentionally hateful and personal rhetoric employed by these organizations is most likely used merely to call attention to their cause in a media environment where measured thoughts and arguments can easily get lost amongst an incessant cacophony but when these inflammatory statements find and touch the mind of the occasionally deranged individual they can result in violent and sometimes deadly consequences, Tiller's murder being one of them.

In summation, I do not blame anti-abortion choice activists nor Bill O'Reilly nor anyone else besides the actual gunman for George Tiller's murder, and I would have strong words with anyone else who did. I hold a worldview of individual, personal responsibility, and I will never blame the effect of the words from some for the outcomes of the actions of others. That said, one also can not ignore the effect that those same words and their context and power have on the less than rational members of our society, especially when they irresponsibly address an issue as incendiary and divisive as abortion.

We are a society and nation of laws, and it is only through the respect for those laws and their moderating influence on our worst impulses that we can strive to be better than those same base passions. While I did not celebrate George Tiller's actions in life, I similarly do not celebrate the actions of the man who violently took that life from him, nor do I endorse the actions of those who would try to take advantage of this awful situation to score cheap political points. All human life is precious, and that is the thought that should be the driving force behind our collective discussion of this tragic and dreadful event.

[Update: In writing this post, I made a serious effort to refrain from invoking the religious aspects that almost assuredly accompany a murder as politically and socially relevant as this one. I chose to do this because I believe that most religious folks are essentially good people, and that most people who commit horrific acts in the name of their religions are intentionally subverting the basic message of those belief systems for their own personal means.

That said, Professor P.Z. Myers, a fellow atheist, contributes these words:

In many ways, though, his religiosity is going to be a distraction. It simply doesn't matter, and the strongest conclusion we can draw from it is that religion fails to provide a reasonable framework for morality, since it is so easily and regularly subverted to rationalize evil. Focus instead on the root of the problem: Roeder was an amoral, obsessed nut who found support for his delusions among a particularly ugly American subculture. Gods don't matter. And when you think gods do, you lose sight of the truth: other people matter.

The simple phrase "other people matter" condenses my own thoughts and words down in a way that a verbal windbag like myself can hardly ever hope to achieve.]

[Update II: I watched O'Reilly's response to this murder last night and the thing that struck me the most was his constantly quoting the number of abortions Dr. Tiller was reported to have performed or authorized: 60,000. In fact, O'Reilly quoted that number at least four or five times in direct reference to Tiller's death. My question is this: If Tiller and other doctors like himself are really inhuman murderers running so-called "death-mills", why would the total number of abortions they performed matter one wit? Murder is murder, right? Is a murderer guilty of 60 murders a thousand times less deserving of death than one to whom 60,000 murders can be attributed? If not, then what is O'Reilly's point in emphasizing the number so incessantly, other than to further demonize Tiller in the eyes and minds of his viewers as some kind of thinly-veiled attempt to somehow, at least partially, justify his violent death by another's hand?]

10 Ridiculous Anti-Pornography Commercials

BuzzFeed has all ten but these three are my favorites:






Yes, pornography can be addictive and counter-productive to your life if used to excess, just like pretty much every other activity or substance in this world. But when used responsibly and in correct moderation it can also be extremely enjoyable and life-enhancing, just like pretty much every other activity or substance in this world. It's the people who are incapable of moderating or controlling their own actions and behaviour who are usually the ones leading the charge against pornography and other verboten activities.

If you don't like it then don't use it, but don't you dare tell me what to do with or how to live my own life. The anti-porn zealots have more in common with the radical Islamists we're at war with than the average American, and they have way too much political power and clout to boot. It's interesting how ideas like freedom of speech and the free market are suddenly not so popular when what they're promoting is something one does not personally agree with.

(via)

Why They Hate Us

Because of spoiled little cunts like this:

Oh, I'm sorry. Are you upset that I used the verboten word "cunt" in referring to this adolescent waste of space? Well, too fucking bad. I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and this little bitch is a spoiled cunt. USA, USA, right? Right!? Jesus...

(via)

Male Genital Mutilation

So I was reading an anthropological article the other day about moral relativism and female genital mutilation and it got me thinking, not so much about either of those topics but rather the titular one: male genital mutilation, or more commonly circumcision. Full disclosure (and probably much more than most readers here require): I myself am circumcised. I (thankfully) have no recollection of the procedure and am (also thankfully) quite happy with the results.

In the course of researching this topic prior to writing this post I have found out that there are any number of pretty nutty religious and/or cultural beliefs that are regularly carried out in this regard with very little logical and scientific backing, i. e. dipping the amputated foreskin in brandy and eating it, going to the trouble to bury the discarded flesh, etc. The facts that the practice does reduce the chances of general infection and the spread of HIV are also not largely in question by any major, sufficiently educated, industrialized society.

I guess my main problem with this practice (as I said, I am very happy with my own equipment and for those who are not regular readers, you'll find that I'm quite obviously neither Jewish nor Muslim) is that I was not given the choice. I know, I know, I'm happy with the results so why should I be upset, right? And I'm not, really. I hold no ill will towards either of my parents for making this decision for me but there is just some part of me that hates having decisions made on my behalf and without my consent, even if I do eventually approve of the outcome. Perhaps I have some control issues (I do).

I guess the reason I'm bringing the topic up is this: I don't have any children (that I know of, *wink*wink*) but if I did I would seriously weigh whether to go ahead with circumcising my son yet I'm fairly certain that I would eventually choose to go the circumcision route, for most of the reasons that I've detailed above. My main stumbling block? What if he's later upset with me for making this fairly unnecessary decision to amputate a piece of his body well before he's able to choose for himself if he wants the procedure to be done?

I mean, if I were upset that I had been circumcised as an infant I wouldn't buy any bullshit "Well, my god told me to do it" answer from my parents, much less the more truthful "Well, I like my cock that way so I just figured that you would too" one that I'd be obliged to provide. For all those reading who aren't guys, what your junk looks like and how it is shaped is a fairly big deal for us. Who am I to make that decision for my theoretical boy without his input? Maybe I'm wrong to hold this opinion but I believe that children are denied several rights that they deserve in American society (and to a greater extent, around the world), this being just one of them.

So I guess my question to the guys reading these words is best stated thusly: what are your views on this subject? Am I wrong to worry about making this decision for my perhaps future son? Do the practical aspects and cultural mores outweigh the individual rights concerning this procedure? Should my own religious beliefs (or lack thereof) be given a special measure of significance? And more personally, are you either upset or glad or neither that the decision was or wasn't made for you by your parents, for whatever reasons? As I've already said, I pretty much know how I'll decide this issue (absent any feedback from my equally theoretical wife, of course) but other perspectives and viewpoints from readers are, as always, welcome. Please expound at any length (no pun intended) in the comments section.

Something Someone Else Said

"What's truly revealing about the torture people is that we can list dozens of historical examples of how torture was prosecuted by American officials -- be it following World War II or the Spanish-American war and so forth -- literally dozens of factual definitions that waterboarding and other techniques are torture and how they're basically ineffective. Facts and details torn from history books and official government documents.

Yet their counterargument is torn from a fictional TV series. And so 24 is supposed to trump facts and history." -Bob Cesca, Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!

Making goddamn sense about American interrogation policy...

The Homosexual Agenda

This anti-gay marriage ad by the Illinois Family Institute really outdoes the National Organization for Marriage ad currently being discussed across the political blogosphere. Oh my god, acceptance?! Who do these fucking queers think they are?:

I love the line about gays always having to be the best dressed in television portrayals (Really? Shocker!) rather than being the most likely candidates for suicide. I wonder where each of those incredibly unrealistic stereotypes arise. Go Christians! Oppress those gays, cause they deserve it! Dirty sinners...

(via)

[Update: The Colbert Coalition's anti-gay marriage ad trumps any parody of the NOM ad I've yet seen:
]

The Bybee Torture Memos

I've just arrived home for the night (yes, I wrote this post last night; I hate to shatter the illusion that I get up early every day to write this stuff but it's true) so I haven't had time to sufficiently sift through the memos about torture authorized by the Bush administration that were released by President Barack Obama yesterday so I'll just cut and paste what I consider some relevant initial thoughts.

This comment by Kevin Drum (via Andrew Sullivan) says much of what I assume that I will have to say about these documents at a later date:

Reading the OLC torture memos is enough to make you ill. The techniques in question are plainly and instinctively abhorrent by any common sense definition, and the authors of the memos obviously know it. But somehow they have to conclude otherwise, so they write page after mind-numbing page of sterile legal language designed to justify authorizing it anyway. It's not torture if the victim survives it intact. It's not against the law if it takes place outside the United States. Waterboarding is OK as long as it isn't performed more than twice in a 24-hour period. Sleep deprivation of shackled prisoners for seven days at a time is permissible as long as the victim's diaper is changed frequently. And on and on and on.

Do they know this is torture? Of course they do.

Yes, this is torture, committed by our own government in the eve of the 21st century. This is what we tried Nazi soldiers who "were just following orders" for at Nuremberg, it's why we to this day vilify the vile acts of the Khmer Rouge and it's why we were justified (if not the reason initially given, of course) for invading Iraq and subsequently executing Saddam Hussein. And to let these inhumane acts be committed against other human beings and go unanswered by our own government would be an act of judicial cowardice for this proud country.

As an aside, here is the reaction of my neoconservative counterpart Donald Douglas to the release of these documents detailing the extra-legal acts of our government:

I must admit, though, having "insects placed in a confinement box" with a remorseless terrorist jihadi killer is absolutely inhumane. God, that's worse the [sic] waterboarding - the horrors!

People like this seem so sure of other's guilt and their own righteousness, don't they? And a few quotes of the day by, again, Andrew Sullivan (is it any wonder why I love reading this man's blog?):

"You would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects. In particular, you would like to tell Zubaydah that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him," - Jay Bybee, judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"‘The worst thing in the world,’ said O’Brien, ‘varies from individual to individual. It may be burial alive, or death by fire, or by drowning, or by impalement, or fifty other deaths. There are cases where it is some quite trivial thing, not even fatal,’" - George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty Four.

Now perhaps Zubaydah well deserved this sort of treatment but without at least a cursory administrative trial, how are we to know? Of course to people like Douglas, just saying that, "Well, he's been incarcerated as a terrorist so naturally he deserves whatever is done to him" is a satisfactory answer but I'm of the opinion that the United States of America should have standards that are a bit more stringent than those of black-or-white world-view simpletons. I promise to follow up with more on this as I have time.

Quote For The Day

"There is a rising tide of pink fascism in this country, and it comes as a result of the election of Barack Hussein Obama. Obama has signaled that during his reign it will be acceptable to impose gay marriage on the people of the United States. He's being very cleverly used as a tool of the gay puppet masters. He is personally masculine, has a beautiful family and was used by the gay mafia to convince real American families that they should support him.

And now that Obama the Trojan horse has been taken inside the gates, so to speak, the contagion from within his administration is spreading throughout the country. One state at a time seems to be falling. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, California is teetering on the brink. Will Texas be next? Will Obama say that in order to make up for the oppression caused by slavery that the Deep South will now have to accept gay marriage under duress? Is this a sexual reconstruction of the entire country? Don't ask, because Obama won't tell," - Michael Savage, WorldNet Daily

Two things: 1) I'm predicting right now that Texas is a long ways away from establishing marriage equality for its gay citizens, and 2) yes, that's a real, undoctored photo of the guy decrying gay marriage rights wearing a white suit and hat whilst holding a fluffy little dog in San Francisco. Nosce te ipsum.

(via)

The Pittsburgh Police Murders

A troubled young man named Richard Poplawski murdered three Pittsburgh police officers with an AK-47 assault rifle when they arrived at his home on a domestic disturbance call last Saturday morning. Poplawski is a neo-Nazi skinhead who frequented and posted on White supremest websites and feared that a violent societal upheaval was imminent, chiefly caused by a Jewish media and economic conspiracy and the election of Barack Obama as the president of the United States.

Shortly after the slayings, many left-wing blogs were reporting (correctly) that Poplawski is a far-right conservative and that one of the triggers that set him off was the meme circulating in the right-wing blogosphere and media that President Obama was going to do everything in his power to take lawfully owned guns away from Poplawski and other Americans like himself. These rumors are of course completely false but this incident demonstrates the danger that callously fanning the flames of this kind of paranoia can produce.

Many have stated that Poplawski is not representative of the right in this country, and they're correct; he no more represents the average conservative than does William Ayers and the Weather Underground represent the average liberal. The vast majority of Americans on either side of the current political divide in this country are good people who want nothing more than to peacefully live out their lives and take care of the ones they love. Troubled men like Poplawski are exceptions to this rule and one would be correct to relegate him and others with similar beliefs to the fringes of society, but sometimes all it takes for these dangerous individuals to act out their paranoid fears and fantasies is an ideological push in the wrong direction and unfortunately it has been quite easy for these people to find that message in the mainstream political media.

Now obviously Poplawski is the only person responsible for the deaths of these three men; they died by his hand and his alone. But let's be honest here: this young man did not create these paranoid delusions or plan these violent acts in a vacuum. The steady drumbeat of right-wing talk radio, bloggers and other media about Obama taking away our guns, about re-education camps and civil indoctrination squads, about the supposed descent of this country into socialist/Marxist chaos, about capitulation to our enemies and secret Muslim conspiracies has had a definite effect on the mentally deficient and morally weak amongst us, and for those who have been spewing this garbage to now throw their hands up as if they were not at least tangentially culpable for creating the atmosphere that helped lead to this tragedy is an act of outright dishonesty and rank cowardice.

Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished and safe-guarded rights as American citizens and I would never suggest that this right be curtailed for any reason. Fascism lies down that road and like so many other rights and privileges in a free society, once the individual relinquishes them to the state it is almost impossible to reattain them. But with all rights and privileges also comes the responsibility to not abuse them or use them to harm other individuals or society as a whole, and the political right in this country has utterly failed on this count. The recent atmosphere of malice and paranoia being cultivated against President Obama and the political left for power/ratings/whatever is only hurting us as a society and denigrating us as a people, and until we recognize that fact and take appropriate steps to alleviate these intolerable levels of hatred we will fail to advance our civilization and more innocent people will almost assuredly die tragically as a result.

Picture Of The Day

There's just something about this that makes me smile...