Their last name isn't even spelled the same!

Well, we knew that Fox can't distinguish between two black people, and now we find out that they can't even distinguish between two people with similar last names.

When discussing that Clinton has challenged Obama to what she styled a "Lincoln/Douglas" debate, Fox flashed an image on the screen to illustrate (in a Lord Privy Seal kinda manner). On the right-hand side was Abraham Lincoln. On the left-hand side was... Frederick Douglass.

Granted, it's hard to tell Stephen Douglas and Frederick Douglass apart. One was an ardent supporter of slavery who claimed that blacks were inferior to whites and that the Declaration of Independence's statement "all men are created equal" did not apply to them, whereas the other was a leading abolitionist and one-time vice-presidential candidate for the Equal Rights Party. But they're both dead.

Via This Modern World, which has a screen capture if you don't want to watch the video clip at Huffington Post.
Read more...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Just as creationists have attempted to redefine science and evolution to mean "creationism", so now we have anti-choice politicians redefining what "consent" means:

Missouri doctors would be forced to give women seeking an abortion pertinent information 24 hours before the procedure if a bill that passed through the state House on Monday also gains Senate approval.

The bill also would require doctors to offer a woman the opportunity to view an ultrasound of the fetus and feel the fetus' heartbeat without cost to her. In addition, it would make it a crime to coerce a woman into having an abortion and would steepen criminal penalties for any criminal conduct associated with the coercion of an abortion.

Coercing women not to get an abortion, however, is not only perfectly fine but the raison d'être of this bill. At least this one doesn't force women to pay for the ultrasound themselves, unlike some others. The article also says later that the woman has the option of refusing the information, although that doesn't justify this.

Rep. Bob Onder, R-Lake St. Louis, said he proposed the bill to allow for a more informed decision-making process regarding abortion. Onder said he thinks the bill would "give the state one of the stronger informed consent laws in the country."

Because all those stupid sluts who want an abortion just have no idea what they're doing, right? They don't know that there's an embryo inside them until you show them an ultrasound of it.

Now, here's where the redefining consent comes in--if you look at the text of the bill, they say that abortions can only be performed if the woman has given her "voluntary and informed consent, given freely and without coercion." Sure, but then they proceed to redefine what that means, so that "consent given freely and without coercion" means "saying yes even after being coerced not to":

Consent to an abortion is voluntary and informed and given freely and without coercion, if and only if, at least twenty-four hours prior to the abortion:

There follows a long list of requirements, including such banalities as this:

(2) The licensed physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or a qualified professional has presented the woman, in person, printed materials provided by the department or an informational video provided by the department, which describes the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two-week gestational increments from conception to full term, including color photographs or images of the developing unborn child at two-week gestational increments. Such descriptions shall include information about brain and heart functions, the presence of external members and internal organs during the applicable stages of development and information on when the unborn child is viable;

You know, for a group that generally foams at the mouth about the need to protect the sanctity of the dictionary when it comes to preventing gays from marrying, conservatives seem pretty willing to rob other words of any meaning whatsoever.

Via I Blame the Patriarchy.
Read more...

Behold, the next Uri Geller!

Via the JREF.
Read more...

Looks like we'll have to change the rules for Nevinyrral's Disk

Well. Larry Niven is apparently bugfuck insane.

Now a fixture at Department of Homeland Security science and technology conferences, SIGMA is a loosely affiliated group of science fiction writers who are offering pro bono advice to anyone in government who want their thoughts on how to protect the nation.

The group has the ear of Department of Homeland Security Undersecretary Jay Cohen, head of the science and technology directorate, who has said he likes their unconventional thinking. Members of the group recently offered a rambling, sometimes strident string of ideas at a panel discussion promoting the group at the DHS science and technology conference.

...

Niven said a good way to help hospitals stem financial losses is to spread rumors in Spanish within the Latino community that emergency rooms are killing patients in order to harvest their organs for transplants.

"The problem [of hospitals going broke] is hugely exaggerated by illegal aliens who aren't going to pay for anything anyway," Niven said.

Let's not forget that his fears are completely unfounded--undocumented immigrants don't receive a disproportionate amount of health care, and they do pay taxes into the system. But also, perhaps Niven is completely unaware that there are Spanish-speaking citizens of the U.S. who might also hear about these rumors? Wait, no. To Niven and his ilk, that's the whole point; despite directing all their rants towards "illegal aliens", they really mean that they just don't want any Latinos in the country at all.

And of course he's saying that he wants us to spread rumors that we're killing patients in order to drive away Latinos so that they'll die somewhere else. In short, he wants to kill Latinos without actually doing anything--although he might take up the direct approach later if the indirect way of killing them isn't effective enough.

What does any of this have to do with protecting the nation anyways? Oh no, we must kill off the sick and elderly before they topple our military and take over the Pentagon!

Via Sadly, No!
Read more...

Your ironic statement of the year

Today is Confederate Memorial Day, commemorating the surrender of General Joseph Johnston to General William Sherman. Mostly it's an occasion to remember the people who died in the Civil War, which is fine.

Up to a point:

"That's important because we are where we are today. We have the rights and freedoms that we do because our ancestors were willing to stand up and fight for what they thought was correct, and for the right of us to decide our own futures," said Adele Whitlock, president of the Robert E. Lee chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

Yes, that's right. The Confederacy was fighting for rights, freedoms, and the right to decide your futures. Specifically, the right to keep slaves, the freedom to do so without Northerners butting in, and the right to decide not only your future, but also the future of four million black people, who couldn't be trusted to do that for themselves.

I know that "they died to give us freedom" is the knee-jerk eulogy for any deceased soldier, but can't these people at least think about it for a second first?
Read more...

A conservative bigot who hates Arabs? Shock!

The New York Times has a fairly lengthy article up today that highlights the disgusting religious bigotry of the conservative movement after 9/11. Oh, of course they don't phrase it that way, and in fact rely on the hate-mongers as putrid "balance" in this story of how a bunch of bigots forced a woman out of her job as principal of an Arabic school that she founded. The reason they did so is because, in their vapid and xenophobic minds, anyone who would learn Arabic is an Arab, who is a Muslim, who is a terrorist (and never you mind that the school was named after a Lebanese Christian pacifist).

In newspaper articles and Internet postings, on television and talk radio, Ms. Almontaser was branded a "radical," a "jihadist" and a "9/11 denier." She stood accused of harboring unpatriotic leanings and of secretly planning to proselytize her students. Despite Ms. Almontaser's longstanding reputation as a Muslim moderate, her critics quickly succeeded in recasting her image.

The conflict tapped into a well of post-9/11 anxieties. But Ms. Almontaser's downfall was not merely the result of a spontaneous outcry by concerned parents and neighborhood activists. It was also the work of a growing and organized movement to stop Muslim citizens who are seeking an expanded role in American public life. The fight against the school, participants in the effort say, was only an early skirmish in a broader, national struggle.

"It's a battle that's really just begun," said Daniel Pipes, who directs a conservative research group, the Middle East Forum, and helped lead the charge against Ms. Almontaser and the school.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, critics of radical Islam focused largely on terrorism, scrutinizing Muslim-American charities or asserting links between Muslim organizations and violent groups like Hamas. But as the authorities have stepped up the war on terror, those critics have shifted their gaze to a new frontier, what they describe as law-abiding Muslim-Americans who are imposing their religious values in the public domain.

It's not enough to go after terrorists, now they have to harass and intimidate perfectly law-abiding Muslims who just want to practice freedom of religion. It's like they think that's enshrined in the supreme law of the land, or something!

Mr. Pipes and others reel off a list of examples: Muslim cabdrivers in Minneapolis who have refused to take passengers carrying liquor; municipal pools and a gym at Harvard that have adopted female-only hours to accommodate Muslim women; candidates for office who are suspected of supporting political Islam; and banks that are offering financial products compliant with sharia, the Islamic code of law.

Muslim cabdrivers who refuse to take passengers carrying liquor... well, I agree that's stupid--pretty much as stupid as saying a pharmacist can refuse to give out birth control because they're Christian. But I suspect Pipes wouldn't agree. Nor would he give a damn about political candidates who support political Christians, like Dobson or Hagee, nor would he care if an institution went out of its way to accommodate Christians. He also probably wouldn't recognize that it is due to Christians demanding accommodations for their religion that set the precedent that allows Muslims to do so, as well. But that's because he's a misanthropic twit.

Muslim leaders, academics and others see the drive against the school as the latest in a series of discriminatory attacks intended to distort the truth and play on Americans' fear of terrorism. They say the campaign is also part of a wider effort to silence critics of Washington's policy on Israel and the Middle East.

"This is a political, ideological agenda," said John Esposito, a professor of international affairs and Islamic studies at Georgetown University who has been a focus of Mr. Pipes's scrutiny. "It's an agenda to paint Islam, not just extremists, as a major problem."

That portrait, Muslim and Arab advocates contend, is rife with a bias that would never be tolerated were it directed at other ethnic or religious groups. And if Ms. Almontaser's story is any indication, they say, the message of her critics wields great power.

Of course. Because these people don't see any difference between "Islam" and "extremists".
Read more...

Another update

This post at Pam's House Blend has a first-hand account of the rallies outside Mount Si High School--the poster was with the supporters of the gay students, of course. The post mostly just describes what their actions were throughout the day (silent support, along with flag-waving and sign-holding), but she mentioned some of how Hutcherson's mob was behaving, which just confirms my fears.

There were protesters yelling at students--yes, you heard that right--grown adults yelling intimidations at children. There were insulting and offensive signs, and political messages that probably many of the students either didn't care about or didn't even understand.

I don't have much to add to that... I mean, adults are out there yelling at high school students because the kids have ideas that the adults don't like. I suppose I shouldn't be all that surprised, though--these are Christians, after all. Their theology is based on intimidating people into doing what they say.

(By the way, one of commenters there has a link to a YouTube video of the protests. I particularly like the sign one person had that said "Is Hutcherson Another Ted Haggard & Larry Craig?" And of course we have Hutcherson himself babbling that "They can change, so it's a choice." Sure, Ken--so howsabout you change and be gay so that everyone will know it's possible?)
Read more...

I suspect the latter is true

Uh, wow. That's some... that's something, all right.

Speaking in support of a proposed state constitutional ban on same-sex unions, one Rev. Hayes Wicker of First Baptist Church in Naples, Fla., was recently quoted by the Naples Daily News as saying, "This is a tremendous social crisis, greater even than the issue of slavery."

I'm thinking someone doesn't have any sense of proportion. You can read more at Pam's House Blend, of course, but just for starters... slavery caused the Civil War. You know, brother fighting against brother, states seceding from the Union and waging war against one another, over 600,000 soldiers killed by fellow Americans? That's not even getting into the decades of conflict before that, stretching back all the way to the founding of the country. There was the Three-Fifths Compromise, the fights over whether new states would enter as free or slave, Bleeding Kansas, etc., all of which led up to the country being split in two and fighting amongst itself. How on earth can any rational person think that gay marriage tops that in terms of being a "social crisis"?

For that matter, how can any person with the tiniest scrap of decency think it fitting at all to compare gay marriage with slavery? One involves the subjugation and dehumanization of millions of people, stripping them of any freedoms, ripping apart families, and wanton cruelty that includes whippings, nailing people to posts by their ears, and rape. The other doesn't. If you're not sure which is which, and hence which is worse, then you have a lot of problems.

Unless, of course, this is his tacit admission that he's willing to wage another civil war and murder over half a million people in order to keep gays from enjoying equal rights.
Read more...

Indiana politicians are getting their hopes up

Just look:

Long an afterthought in presidential politics, Indiana Democrats - who haven't delivered their state in the general election since 1964, and haven't had a meaningful say in picking their party's nominee since 1968 - see the growing excitement over the contest between Clinton and Barack Obama as an opportunity to build up muscle in places where the party's national reach had atrophied.

The interest in the Clinton-Obama fight, they say, is helping to shift political identities. Thousands of people are signing up as new voters - 383,954 Hoosiers have registered since the 2006 election - while some people who have always voted Republican are deciding that they might just be comfortable casting a ballot for a Democrat.

While national Democratic leaders worry that the protracted campaign could damage their eventual nominee, local Democrats say that the primary race may be the best thing to happen to the party in years.

Former Democratic representative Tim Roemer says Democrats have "a reasonable shot" of winning Indiana for the first time since Lyndon B. Johnson, likening their chances to the odds of making a three-point basketball shot. Although socially conservative, he said, Hoosiers are "economically populist," and both Democratic campaigns have been hammering home their plans for improving job growth.

"The economy and jobs and trade - combined with gas prices - are the issues that Indiana voters are going to be voting on in November," said Roemer, who supports Obama. "The more they see Democrats talking about these issues, the more likely that . . . Indiana is in play."

Unfortunately, pretty much the only 'evidence' the article gives for people being more willing to vote Democratic are a few anecdotes about lifelong Republicans now considering Clinton or Obama. It's heart-warming, but not exactly scientific. Although I do find compelling the idea that because Indiana's Democratic primary might actually matter for once, this will attract more people to the polls and that could carry over to the main election in November. It'll be interesting to see how much of an increase in primary participation there will be this year over years past.

Of course, after hyping the whole "Indiana Republicans might maybe conceivably vote Democratic!" angle in the first half of the story, the article ends with a dose of reality:

To be sure, no political analyst is predicting that Indiana is very likely be a "blue" state in November just because of the primary. After all, Republican presidential nominees have won 10 straight contests here.

"There is always the possibility that the level of excitement will be held through November, but that is a long uphill climb for the state of Indiana," said Andy Downs, who runs the Center for Indiana Politics at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.

Still, analysts say, if Democrats can close the gap with Republicans in the presidential election enough to make the state competitive, it would force the GOP to divert campaign money to Indiana.

And, analysts note, despite Indiana's "red" image, Democrats have been having mounting success in Indiana. They control the state House of Representatives and have more mayors than Republicans. Democrats also took three congressional districts away from Republicans in 2006, giving them a majority of the state's delegation. Now, they are hoping to build on those gains.

Senator Evan Bayh, the Indiana Democrat and former governor who is supporting Clinton, said he shares the worry that if Clinton and Obama attack each other personally too much, it could damage the party's chances in November. But so far, he said, the excitement over the primary election is proving to be a tremendous boon for the state party.

Still. A man can dream.
Read more...

I feel pretty, oh so pretty

The New York Times published this gem yesterday about how dresses are becoming out-of-date, in which the author makes a plea for the survival of dresses, not for the comfort or convenience for women, but for all leering men's sakes

As the kids say these days, read the rest.
Read more...