Give Up Blog - for scientists like these!


You hid my archives, didn't you Steve!


Maps and Figures

"Hitler or Coulter?" Quiz
Map1 - Teen Pregnancy
Map2 - Incarceration
Map3 - Homicide Rates
Map4 - Drop-out Rates
Map5 - Bankruptcy Rates
Map6 - Driving Distances
Map7 - Energy Use
Map8 - Gonorrhea!
Map9 - Tax Burden
Map10 - State GDP
Map11 - DHS funding
Map12 - Adult Illiteracy.
Map13 - Abortion Bans:
Map14 - ER Quality
Map15 - Hospital Quality
Map16 - Coal Burners
Map 17 - Infant Mortality
Map 18 - Toxic Waste
Map 19 - Obesity
Map 20 - Poverty
Map 21 - Occupational safety
Map 22 - Traffic deaths
Map 23 - Divorce
Figure 1 - Wages vs Right to work
Figure 2 - Unemployment vs Right to work
Give Up Shopping guide

Email



link to xml feed Subscribe with Bloglines

Google


www

giveupblog

Friday, March 16, 2007

A Vote for DC
They should re-title this article "Republicans don't believe in Democracy".

It simply amazes me that they can oppose representation in congress of DC's citizens with a straight face while pretending to be all about spreading democracy abroad.

**Update** Everyone should read the NYT opinion on the prosecutor purge today. They state, and I agree, that it is further evidence that Republicans hate democracy, because the real subtext of the prosecutor scandal is these prosecutors were the ones who wouldn't back phony "voter fraud" prosecutions designed to intimidate Democratic voters.

In its fumbling attempts to explain the purge of United States attorneys, the Bush administration has argued that the fired prosecutors were not aggressive enough about addressing voter fraud. It is a phony argument; there is no evidence that any of them ignored real instances of voter fraud. But more than that, it is a window on what may be a major reason for some of the firings.

In partisan Republican circles, the pursuit of voter fraud is code for suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people. By resisting pressure to crack down on "fraud," the fired United States attorneys actually appear to have been standing up for the integrity of the election system.

John McKay, one of the fired attorneys, says he was pressured by Republicans to bring voter fraud charges after the 2004 Washington governor's race, which a Democrat, Christine Gregoire, won after two recounts. Republicans were trying to overturn an election result they did not like, but Mr. McKay refused to go along. "There was no evidence," he said, "and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury."

...

There is no evidence of rampant voter fraud in this country. Rather, Republicans under Mr. Bush have used such allegations as an excuse to suppress the votes of Democratic-leaning groups. They have intimidated Native American voter registration campaigners in South Dakota with baseless charges of fraud. They have pushed through harsh voter ID bills in states like Georgia and Missouri, both blocked by the courts, that were designed to make it hard for people who lack drivers' licenses - who are disproportionately poor, elderly or members of minorities - to vote. Florida passed a law placing such onerous conditions on voter registration drives, which register many members of minorities and poor people, that the League of Women Voters of Florida suspended its registration work in the state.

The United States attorney purge appears to have been prompted by an array of improper political motives. Carol Lam, the San Diego attorney, seems to have been fired to stop her from continuing an investigation that put Republican officials and campaign contributors at risk. These charges, like the accusation that Mr. McKay and other United States attorneys were insufficiently aggressive about voter fraud, are a way of saying, without actually saying, that they would not use their offices to help Republicans win elections. It does not justify their firing; it makes their firing a graver offense.


This is the most impressive editorial I've seen from the Times in years.

Labels: , ,


Thursday, March 15, 2007

Traitor Joe Strikes again
The Senate has failed to get a resolution passed for withdrawal from Iraq. Wondering why? Why LiebesBush of course.

The Reid Resolution to require a troop withdrawal beginning in 120 days and with a completion goal of March 31, 2008, failed 48-50. For those keeping score at home, those opposing were the 49 Republicans and Joe Lieberman.


Benedict Arnold doesn't seem mean enough an epithet to describe old LiebesBush. I need some kind of insult that combines a Benedict Arnold (for supporting this war against all the interests of this country and the treason to the Democratic party) and the state of being a thrall to a complete and total moron. Kakistocracy should be part of the insult. He's a Kakistocratic Benedict Arnold.

Gotta figure out how to clean that up. Kakistodict. Benedict Kakistocrat. Hmmm.

Labels: , ,


Saturday, March 03, 2007

Next quiz, Coulter or Dobson?

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Gore smear falling apart
Here's the story.

A fake policy group, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research publishes Al Gore's Personal Energy Use Is His Own "Inconvenient Truth", an article alleging that Al Gore, because of the amount of money he spends on power is a hypocrite.

Within hours, the story travels to the wingnutosphere via Drudge. Interesting how a fake group with a website with no traffic is immediately picked up by Drudge and then Fox news?

After this legitimate (ha ha) news agencies like ABC and CNN pick up the story. Because, you know, it's true if the story is propagated by a fake policy group and a right wing nut like Drudge. No one bothers, you know, fact checking to see if this group is real (Huffington Post shows that they actually have no traffic on their site, it's clearly a set up).

Finally, someone bother to ask Al Gore about all this. What's the real story? He buys all his power from green/renewable sources and offsets his carbon footprint with carbon credits. He's also apparently installing solar panels and taking other steps to decrease power usage.

So, power usage != huge carbon footprint. But are the conservatives and libertarians satisfied? You think they'd approve of a market solution to a pollution problem? Nope, they're just hacks. So when AEI and CEI and all those other BS denialist groups say they're "non-partisan" or when Reason says it's guided by libertarian principles, you know they're full of shit. Their guiding principle is they hate Al Gore, they hate environmentalism, and they're only interested in the "freedom" of their corporate financiers.

Labels: , ,


Monday, February 19, 2007

McCain: liar? Flip-flopper? Or just a panderer?
Or all three? Daily Kos has the comparison of the McCain position on Roe v. Wade in his previous campaign (he was strictly pro-choice) to his position now that he's whipped out the knee-pads for the fundamentalists on the right.

"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned," the Arizona senator told about 800 people in South Carolina, one of the early voting states.

McCain also vowed that if elected, he would appoint judges who "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench."


Between this and the McCain/Bush escalation plan, who is going to be left voting for this guy? The fundies don't really trust him, and I doubt he's changed such a fundamental opinion for anything but political expedience. The only question is, which political expedience? The one in which he was running against the fundamentalist choice? Or the current one in which he's trying to be the fundamentalist choice? Who in their right mind, on either ideological divide could trust this guy?

Labels: ,


Monday, February 12, 2007

Professionalism
I should have blogged on this NEJM article last week when the WaPo and several other newspapers picked it up. It's a study of the ethical behavior of doctors with regards to referrals, and whether or not they'll allow their personal morality to interfere with their job.

I'll admit I'm disappointed by the results.

A total of 1144 of 1820 physicians (63%) responded to our survey. On the basis of our results, we estimate that most physicians believe that it is ethically permissible for doctors to explain their moral objections to patients (63%). Most also believe that physicians are obligated to present all options (86%) and to refer the patient to another clinician who does not object to the requested procedure (71%). Physicians who were male, those who were religious, and those who had personal objections to morally controversial clinical practices were less likely to report that doctors must disclose information about or refer patients for medical procedures to which the physician objected on moral grounds (multivariate odds ratios, 0.3 to 0.5).


I think the moral of the story is that you should avoid male and religious doctors. They will make paternalistic decisions that are not in your best interests about your medical care, and they really should just eat shit and die for being so morally sanctimonious. I mean really, you're a professional! Do your job! Since when did it become ok to get a career when you know doing your job correctly will interfere with your moral code? And it's not like you couldn't still be a doctor. Just go into psych, or pathology, or derm, or orthopedics, there are dozens of specialties that would avoid such "moral" conflicts. While the survey was a cross-section across specialties the authors unfortunately did not provide information that would suggest that the doctors who responded incorrectly had decided on specialties that would remove such conflicts from their daily practice. It's hard to tell if this is a real problem if the majority of the docs who said they would withhold information and referrals were those involved in primary care or specialties like OB/Gyn. Either way, it's a sad sign, and taken on its own suggests that you should ask your doctor questions about their moral codes before allowing them to treat you. It's a sad day for medicine as a profession when 14% of doctors feel like they can impose their morality on patients, and a full 29% won't give referrals for things they personally object to.

Labels: , ,


Monday, February 05, 2007

Lies, lies and damn lies
From the WSJ, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised. They weakly attempt to "rebutt" the IPCC report. By rebuttal I mean that they make claims, without evidence, often in direct contradiction of the truth. Therefore the IPCC report is "rebutted" and also is itself a sign that climate science is "controversial" and "undecided".

The first lie:

Yet the real news in the fourth assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be how far it is backpedaling on some key issues. Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled.

The document that caused such a stir was only a short policy report, a summary of the full scientific report due in May. Written mainly by policymakers (not scientists) who have a stake in the issue, the summary was long on dire predictions.


There were those who were prepared for this criticism, as it is so typical of the global warming denialists. The problem is that the policymakers (aka evil bureaucrats) are scientists. . They make it sound like the people coming up with the policy have no scientific credentials, or worse are agents of evil foreign governments, with this cheap turn of phrase when in fact this is not the case.

Onward to the next lie:

More pertinent is the underlying scientific report. And according to people who have seen that draft, it contains startling revisions of previous U.N. predictions. For example, the Center for Science and Public Policy has just released an illuminating analysis written by Lord Christopher Monckton, a one-time adviser to Margaret Thatcher who has become a voice of sanity on global warming.

Take rising sea levels. In its 2001 report, the U.N.'s best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet. Lord Monckton notes that the upcoming report's high-end best estimate is 17 inches, or half the previous prediction. Similarly, the new report shows that the 2001 assessment had overestimated the human influence on climate change since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.


Monckton is the "voice of sanity"? More like denialist-in-chief. Stoat and Deltoid have been pretty dismissive of his criticisms, which are mostly pretty pathetic nonsense. Lot's of attacking the messenger, misrepresenting what the different models represent (acting like the scientists don't know some are conservative models while others are purposeful exaggerations), followed with doses of fatalism about China, and pointless nitpicking. Of course he doesn't actually present any data or actually bother to create his own model. He just pisses on the report like having a snappy little come-back to each point is somehow scientific rebuttal. Sorry pal, you need some data, or at least present realistic alternative interpretations of the data. You can't just hand-wave and say that's science. And the sea-level change that shows the report is revising down the effects of global warming? Not that, just a revision of how they make the measurements. Every time the scientists recalibrate everything the denialists start jumping up and down and saying they were right. It's like attacking a conversion to from feet to metric as a sign climate scientists are idiots.

Anyway, next lie:

U.N. scientists have relied heavily on computer models to predict future climate change, and these crystal balls are notoriously inaccurate. According to the models, for instance, global temperatures were supposed to have risen in recent years. Yet according to the U.S. National Climate Data Center, the world in 2006 was only 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer than it was in 2001 -- in the range of measurement error and thus not statistically significant.


This is the new "global warming ended in 1998" myth. Taking advantage of a short term blip in global temperature averages they're trying to suggest a trend doesn't exist. Nexus6 takes care of it. No big deal, typical denialist bullshit, in this case, selectivity.

Next lie:

More scientists are also studying the effect of solar activity on climate, and some believe it alone is responsible for recent warming.


Ummm, solar activity is included in climate models already and specifically has been discounted as the sole source of a global warming effect. And I love the incredibly vague "more" scientists. Has it gone from two to three? Has Monckton recruited a third? Or has he become a scientist rather than a peddler of doubt?

All this appears to be resulting in a more cautious scientific approach, which is largely good news. We're told that the upcoming report is also missing any reference to the infamous "hockey stick," a study by Michael Mann that purported to show 900 years of minor fluctuations in temperature, followed by a dramatic spike over the past century. The IPCC featured the graph in 2001, but it has since been widely rebutted.


Rebutted? Maybe, if denialists shouting really loud is a rebuttal. But the facts are that Mann's report has been categorically certified by real experts, again and again and most recently by a panel in 2006.

Pathetic denialism from the WSJ as always, next they'll deny the HIV/AIDS link.

Labels: , ,


Are we just going to have to impeach him?
This is a week I really wish the new Democratic majority would really show it has a pair. I realize, they're trying to meet the Republican half-way, and without a significant majority they just don't have much choice. But with the saber-rattling over Iran, and the absolute brain-dead single-mindedness of their pursuit of a policy of escalation, in the face of a populace, a congress, and the world dead-set against it, I wonder will nothing penetrate the thick skulls of these morons?

Just look at the weekend's news. 125 killed in a single blast in Baghdad, and an estimated 1000 killed in a single week. Coverage of the refuge crisis in Iraq. We've lost 3096 soldiers, and (I've heard this quite a bit before it hit the media) we're sending them in with a severe equipment shortage. That is despite a budget cutting healthcare and education to extend the war. Military experts discussing the idiocy of an attack on Iran while Bush and co. are increasing the rhetoric, and possibly creating a situation in which an "Archduke Ferdinand" moment might occur.

Meanwhile a fascinating piece in the NYT about how we're contracting out vital government functions to private industry, and rather than experiencing lower costs from the private sector we see decreased competition, increased waste, increased fraud, decreased transparency, and essentially every worst nightmare of the feared corporatocracy.

So what do we have here? An incompetent administration, determined to follow a set and disastrous course of action no matter what. Congress is against them. Every military official who is free to speak their minds (it was a selection process after all to end up with our current set) opposes them. The people of America oppose them. Yet they continue? How do they have the gall? How do they have the complete and utter gall to ignore everybody and continue on a course of action which has been an unmitigated disaster?

The only answer I can think of, and based on Cheney's Larry King interview I believe the evidence is on my side, is that Bush and Cheney are insane. They think they are winning and that we are the ones who are insane. I'm wondering if we need to invoke the 25th Amendment on Bush, and then immediately again on Cheney. There is just no stopping them.

Labels: , , ,


Monday, January 29, 2007

Lieberman, still traitoring it up
Think Progress has the strangest comparison. It's Liebesbush on resolution emboldening the enemy vs Brownback on resolutions. Now the question, which one is echoing the Bush administration more faithfully?

LIEBERMAN: I fear that while this resolution is non-binding and, therefore, will not affect the implementation of the plan, it will do two things that can be harmful, which is that it will discourage our troops, who we're asking to carry out this new plan, and it will encourage the enemy, because as General Petraeus said to our committee, war is a test of wills, and you don't want your enemy to be given any hope.

BROWNBACK: I don't - I don't see this enemy as needing any more emboldening or getting it from any resolution. They're emboldened now.


So there you have it. Liebesbush still saying any criticism of the the president is emboldening our enemies and treason. Who's the real traitor though?

Labels: ,


Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Buddhism too?
I guess it just goes to show, no religion is free of fundamentalist assholes.

The military regime in Burma is intent on wiping out Christianity in the country, according to claims in a secret document believed to have been leaked from a government ministry. Entitled "Programme to destroy the Christian religion in Burma", the incendiary memo contains point by point instructions on how to drive Christians out of the state.

The text, which opens with the line "There shall be no home where the Christian religion is practised", calls for anyone caught evangelising to be imprisoned. It advises: "The Christian religion is very gentle – identify and utilise its weakness."

Its discovery follows widespread reports of religious persecution, with churches burnt to the ground, Christians forced to convert to the state religion, Buddhism, and their children barred from school.


It kind of cracks me up that the whole "turn the other cheek" thing is backfiring on the Christians in this case since the persecutors seem intent on exploiting it.

I'm just amazed though. Buddhism? I didn't know they had it in them.

Labels: ,


Friday, January 19, 2007

Stem Cell Nonsense
Yuval Levin, a member of the Presidents Council on Bioethics writes an anti-stem cell op-ed for the NYT.

The kicker? He calls it, "A Middle Ground for Stem Cells". What a jackass.

How do we know he's a jackass and is full of shit? Well, this paragraph sums it up nicely:

But that does not mean the stem cell debate is about when human life begins. It is a simple and uncontroversial biological fact that a human life begins when an embryo is created. That embryo is human, and it is alive; its human life will last until its death, whether that comes days after conception or many decades later surrounded by children and grandchildren.


Ummm, no. It is a simple and uncontroversial fact that the Pope believes that life begins at conception, it is not a scientific fact. The scientific fact is that the sperm is alive, the egg is alive, and the fusion of the two is also alive. Levin's attempt to pass off the theology of ensoulment as science, and further that this is the "middle ground" is a total joke. Life began once, over a billion years ago, and it has been going strong ever since. There is no "dead" stage in human reproduction.

The jackass then goes on to assert that Thomas Jefferson was talking about embryos when he wrote that whole inalienable human rights thing.

America’s birth charter, the Declaration of Independence, asserts a positive answer to the question, and in lieu of an argument offers another assertion: that our equality is self-evident. But it is not. Indeed, the evidence of nature sometimes makes it very hard to believe that all human beings are equal. It takes a profound moral case to defend the proposition that the youngest and the oldest, the weakest and the strongest, all of us, simply by virtue of our common humanity, are in some basic and inalienable way equals.


Yes, that's right, these people believe that you, I, everybody, we're all equals with blastocysts. Little balls of a hundred cells that nature doesn't even see fit to allow to survive 50% of the time. These little blastocyst-Americans deserve every right in the constitution. By the way, that means no more abortions, IUDs, or IVF ladies, and probably no pill either, because pre-empting the release of the components to make blastocyst-Americans is also wrong. We certainly can't start discriminating against the right of any blastocyst-American to have a chance to come into existence. Sorry, it's up to you to make sure that blastocyst-Americans' rights aren't violated by being forced to carry every single one of them to term. And as far as IVF? Well, all those freezers holding those embryos are like Guantanamo bay for the most innocent Americans among us. We must set them free! I propose an immediate draft of all women of childbearing age, in the interest of the liberal belief in the inalienable rights of equals, to carry all 400,000 embryos being stored in freezers to term. We must not allow the false imprisonment of all of these precious blastocyst-Americans for one more day.

Can you imagine what the world would be like if we actually took such bad arguments as Levin makes seriously? Basically, women would be hostage to their freaking ovaries, and deep down I suspect that's what's behind all of this. This idea that women are punished for sex by getting pregnant, and the real concern is the control over the uterus. By promoting these idiotic "life begins" fallacies, they're trying to make reproductive control out to be murder, the natural consequence? Ending abortion, ending contraception, ending scientific pursuit of embryonic stem cells, and curtailing all the success in women's rights over the last 40 years.

Labels: ,


Wednesday, January 17, 2007

McCain is a fink
Now we hear he's trying to make nice with the worst of the worst, James Dobson.

James Dobson is arguable the most vocal homobigot, anti-sex, fundamentalist religious uthoritarian out there, and here McCain is trying to court his favor.

It must suck to be a Republican candidate, you really have to get down on your knees and kiss the devil's ass for a chance at the nomination.

Labels: , ,


Saturday, January 13, 2007

Idiocy = bipartisanship
At least that's how I read this Newsweek article about Bush's pet senator. And which senator would that be? Why, LiebesBush of course.

His treason to the democratic party and common sense is no longer limited to Iraq and hawkishness on Iran. Now he's dumping oversight investigations that he promised in his campaign.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the only Democrat to endorse President Bush's new plan for Iraq, has quietly backed away from his pre-election demands that the White House turn over potentially embarrassing documents relating to its handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans.

Lieberman's reversal underscores the new role that he is seeking to play in the Senate as the leading apostle of bipartisanship, especially on national-security issues. On Wednesday night, Bush conspicuously cited Lieberman's advice as being the inspiration for creating a new "bipartisan working group" on Capitol Hill that he said will "help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror."


The underminer is trying to get more Democrats to undermine the party in the name of bi-partisanship. I call bullshit. 80% of the country wants what we want. Undermining what 80% of the country wants isn't bipartisanship, especially when it's common sense stuff like ending a stupid war, competition in drug pricing, etc. It's not bipartisanship, it's just stupidity.

Labels: , ,


Friday, January 12, 2007

Democrats already fizzling?
Some news out of the Democratic congress remains encouraging, such as the minimum wage hike, and the embarrassing veto promised by bush to prevent medicare negotiating drug prices (anti-capitalist Republicans?) My favorite part is their justification for not allowing bidding.

"Government interference impedes competition, limits access to lifesaving drugs, reduces convenience for beneficiaries and ultimately increases costs to taxpayers, beneficiaries and all American citizens alike," the administration said in a written statement.


Government interference impedes competition? You mean, when they like, ask, for competition? That's one of those sentences you read and you feel like you've gone through the looking glass.

However, there are two troubling issues. Stem cells which have sailed through the house but await a presidential veto, and critics like Krauthammer are already touting this amniotic cell breakthrough as a sign from God that Bush has always been right, and that ES cell research is fundamentally evil. You think I'm kidding? Krauthammer seems to think that ES cell research is so insidious, and so soul damning that people who study it become evil as a result.

South Korea enthusiastically embraced unrestricted stem cell research. The subsequent greatly heralded breakthroughs -- accompanied by lamentations that America was falling behind -- were eventually exposed as a swamp of deception, fraud and coercion.


Get that? Hwang Woo Suk wasn't a dishonest scientist who made up results for personal gain, he was a victim of evil ES cell research! The poor poor man. Anyway, we could go on forever in all the ways Krauthammer is an asshole, but that's besides the point.

The point is, Giving Up is really only an ideal philosophy when an election is nearby that allows Republican idiocy and incompetence to be used for gain. Now we have real power, control of the House and Senate, and it would be nice to get things done. While it still will be embarrassing for the Republicans to admit that they fought research funding that 70% of Americans support, or a minimum wage increase that 70% of Americans support, or competition for prescription drug prices which 80% of Americans support, we'd have to wait two years to really get any real benefit from these terrible, terrible political decisions by these assholes.

Between that and the confusion directed towards the response to the president's surge and I think the Democrats are already starting to lose their way. What about having 70-80% of Americans agree with your policies has made this difficult to understand? 80% of people disagree with Bush on Iraq, you've got the support of the people Dems, why aren't you kicking ass and taking names?

Revoke the Authorization, kill funding for Iraq, pass ES cell legislation and if Republicans won't join you in supporting legislation that 80% of Americans want? Kick them out of committees, make them defunct, make them what you were for 12 years.

None of this fair play crap, I want to see some action.

Labels: , , ,


Monday, January 08, 2007

Lieberman - the party traitor
The WaPo has an article detailing LiebesBush's current status as an "independent", if you mean by independent that he is so busy cupping Bush's balls that Condi's getting jealous.

The WaPo profile maybe unintentially calling LeibesBush what he is - a Republican.

Across town an hour earlier, at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman shared his own thoughts on Bush's plan. "We need an increase in troops there now," he asserted before an audience of military experts and academics. "It must be substantial, and it must be sustained."

...

But on Iraq, Lieberman is more in sync with Bush than are many Republicans. He is a passionate defender of the war as a death struggle against Islamic terrorism.

The November election swept Republicans out of power in Congress and signaled that voters are deeply unhappy about the course of the Iraq war. The asterisk is Lieberman, who won a fourth term in an antiwar state with strong support from Republican and unaffiliated voters.

...

Lately he has dropped the "Democrat" half of his affiliation, describing himself at the Friday event merely as an independent. He even holds out the possibility that he would back a supporter of the Iraq war, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), in the 2008 presidential race...


We told you people, the man is just a freaking Republican. It's not even clear how he's really somehow a stealth liberal on classic democratic issues given his decades of whoredom for insurance and pharmaceutical companies. What's even more embarrassing though is how every other Democrat has to kiss his ass endlessly for fear he might defect.

Democrats grumble off the record that Lieberman is muddying an increasingly unified Democratic message on Iraq, but their public comments are cautious and generally complimentary. They pretended not to notice his brief appearance at the Library of Congress retreat, which overlapped with the AEI forum.

"It's important to hear a lot of views, which is quite different from what happens in the White House," Schumer said. Or, as Reid put it: "Joe Lieberman could so easily be with us, but he doesn't want to be. I respect that. He's a good man."


Is it really worth having the senate? I'm torn. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll accidentally break is neck trying to kiss the inside of Bush's ass.

Labels: ,


Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Keith Ellison is Savvy, Lieberman is a Liar
Here's a mixed post.

First, we have evidence that Keith Ellison is a pretty sharp guy. Guess which Koran he's going to use for his swearing in?

Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he'd take his oath of office on the Koran -- especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values.

Yet the holy book at tomorrow's ceremony has an unassailably all-American provenance. We've learned that the new congressman -- in a savvy bit of political symbolism -- will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson.
...
Goode, who represents Jefferson's birthplace of Albemarle County, had no comment yesterday.


Did this guy go to UVa or something? That was a sharp move. Hopefully in two years we'll be taking Goode down, he's gotten the negative attention of the Kossacks over this one, and that could really bite him in the ass. I wish they had given Al Weed more attention in the last round, but oh well.

Second topic - LiebesBush is a liar. Also from Kos we have a link to the Horse's mouth about the impression GOP Rep Susan Collins got from her trip to Iraq that she shared with old Joe. She talked with the same people, went to the same meetings, etc. Well, remember when Joe said the generals told him we needed escalation while cupping Bush's balls? Well, not so true if Collins' account is right:

In Basra, we met with British commanders who talked about the declining "consent line" -- that is, when the British first arrived, their presence was welcomed by the population, but as time has gone on, their presence is less and less tolerated.

Needless to say, there was much discussion in all of our meetings -- whether with Iraqi leaders, American or British commanders, or rank-and-file troops -- about whether or not more American troops are needed. My conclusion is that it would be a mistake to send more troops to Baghdad. Prime Minister Maliki did not welcome the prospect of more American troops and indeed seemed frustrated that he did not have more control over his own troops. One American general told me that a jobs program in Baghdad would do more good than additional troops...

The one region where an American commander, General Kilmer, did specifically express the need for more troops was in Anbar province. General Kilmer told us that he could use another brigade (about 3,000 troops) or even two to build on the positive developments in the region. I agree with his assessment, but think that a reallocation of troops, rather than an overall increase, could meet his need.


Maybe in two years we'll pick up some more Dem seats so we can kick that mole out of the party. I'm really starting to hate his guts. I mean escalation? C'mon.

Labels: , , ,


Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Virgil Goode keeps digging
Some people, when stuck in a hole, stop digging. Not Virgil Goode. After his bizarre conflation of Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison with immigrants from the middle east a couple weeks ago and the various generalizations he made about, oh say 1 billion humans, he just doesn't know when to quit.

A letter I sent in early December was written in response to hundreds of e-mails from constituents upset about Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's decision to use the Quran in connection with his congressional swearing-in. Their communications followed media reports that Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat, had said that he would swear on the Quran. He repeated that at a gathering of Muslims in Detroit on Dec. 26.

My letter did not call for a religious test for prospective members of Congress, as some have charged. Americans have the right to elect any person of their choosing to represent them. I indicated to my constituents that I did not subscribe to the Quran in any way, and I intended to use the Bible in connection with my swearing-in. I also stated that the Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" are on the wall of my office, and I have no intention of displaying the Quran in my office. That is my choice, and I stand by my position and do not apologize for it.

My letter also stated, "If American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran."

Immigration is arguably the most important issue facing the country today. At least 12 million immigrants are here illegally. And diversity visas, a program initiated in 1990 to grant visas to people from countries that had low U.S. immigration at that time, are bringing in 50,000 a year from various parts of the world, including the Middle East.

Let us remember that we were not attacked by a nation on 9/11; we were attacked by extremists who acted in the name of the Islamic religion. I believe that if we do not stop illegal immigration totally, reduce legal immigration and end diversity visas, we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to infiltration by those who want to mold the United States into the image of their religion, rather than working within the Judeo-Christian principles that have made us a beacon for freedom-loving persons around the world.


So, not content to generalize that attacks on 9/11 to immigrants as a whole (that's not enough millions of people), he now seeks to generalize them to all of Islam. It sounds like Goode is one of these people that believes the War on Terrah should be renamed the War on Islam as the 20 assholes from 9/11 clearly represent the entire religion. Sorry pal, I don't subscribe to crusades, you're on your own there.

I actually felt a little sorry for Goode when the only people they could find for "World Have Your Say" on our brief appearance were some real total crackpots. You know, the types that say we are at war with Islam? Well, now I don't feel so bad. Don't get me wrong, I have contempt for all religions, but one of the reasons why is because of their tendency towards crusades and killing over belief. It's this kind of crap from Goode that really makes me worry that there are many people in this country that would like a war on Islam. 21st century crusaders, how pathetic is that?

Labels: , ,


Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Virgil Goode, asshole
This week in the C-Ville, Virgil good makes an ass of himself and by extension, the entire 5th District of Virginia.

Thanks a lot Virgil.

So what's Virgil's problem? Apparently he's terrified of being overrun by muslim immigrants, and thinks the Koran is some kind of demonic document to be feared by all. Here's the text of his charming constituent letter where he exhibits a cheerful mixture of xenophobia, religious bigotry, and general paranoia.

Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.

The Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, "As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office." Thank you again for your email and thoughts.


Can we please get rid of this guy in 2008 too?

Labels: ,