“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

–John Kenneth Galbraith

Scientists have discovered a fossilized duckbilled hadrosaur that is so well preserved that they have been able to calculate its muscle mass and learn that it was more muscular than thought, probably giving it the ability to outrun predators such as T. rex.

While they call it a mummy, the dinosaur is not really preserved like King Tut was. The dinosaur body has been fossilized into stone. Unlike the collections of bones found in museums, this hadrosaur came complete with skin, ligaments, tendons and possibly some internal organs, according to researchers.

The link to the article is here.

On the way to school this morning, I pulled up next to a car that had a bumper sticker that read “No Liberals.” Of course, I had to find out what the driver looked like. I pulled up further, and the driver had a jacket that had…please sit down for this because it will surprise you…had an American flag on it…

It gets better though…
- It turns out that the jacket with the American flag on it was his uniform. He is a subway train driver…Yes, the conservative gets his income from a public transportation system.
- The driver drove a 1995ish Toyota Tercel
- The driver also had an IRA sticker on his car.

Literally fifteen feet later, a SUV cut me off on the road. The license plate of the SUV read “USA ROX.” This made a little more sense to me. Weirdly enough, the SUV had a sticker on his back window that was a shamrock in Ireland’s colors…

I did not realize that the Irish were so conservative…

From ACSblog:

Judge Robert Bork, one of the fathers of the modern judicial conservative movement whose nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate, is seeking $1,000,000 in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages, after he slipped and fell at the Yale Club of New York City. Judge Bork was scheduled to give a speech at the club, but he fell when mounting the dais, and injured his head and left leg. He alleges that the Yale Club is liable for the $1m plus punitive damages because they “wantonly, willfully, and recklessly” failed to provide staging which he could climb safely.

thank you Judge Bork for providing me with the example I will forever use for “everyone wants tort reform until they are hurt.” jackass.

A cross post (with some minor additions) from my memestream.

A discussion had ensued about the the validity of the media in modern political dialogue, some of the relevant sections of which (those i was writing in response to) are included below : “Decius” and “adam” are other memestreams regulars and friends. There was also some discussion of voting a straight Democrat ticket in the hopes of establishing a basis for a return to dialogue. My opinion on that notion shall be made clear below.

adam wrote:
I, although I’m English, believe in a decent America, a moderate America that speaks at the ballot box but is generally quiet and modest.
…

to which Decius replied:
I hope you’re right, that there is this great, silent, moderate America, but it has no voice, and its hard to beleive that its real when you never hear from it…

to which I said:
But where would you hear it? What outlets will amplify the voice of anyone in the group you describe (assuming they actually exist, which is a premise I’m willing to entertain primarily to facilitate this dialogue)?

The media won’t do it because it’s not good business and for all the vaunted power of the internet, it’s become dominated by shrill partisans or complete nobodies without clout or trustworthiness.

You want a return to civilized dialogue and respectful disagreement, but you’ll have to forgive my cynical laughter. It ain’t happening this cycle or the next. In the most crucial battle of all, the far right has won — they’ve equated politics with morality. They’ve created a link between your political opinions and your essential human goodness. There is no respectful disagreement with people who are evil, with your enemy, and I see the problem getting worse before it gets better.

The Democrats, some of them, still want to have a discussion that’s founded on logic; but they get drowned out by the rhetoric of emotion or ignored by a media they can’t buy. I’d like to believe a straight Democratic ticket would edge us back in the right direction, but I fear a sense of entitlement will vindicate the kind of Democrats who just borrowed from the republican playbook and turned the debate into a battle of good and evil.

Religosity — and i DON’T mean Faith — is the greatest threat to the United States since the civil war. Yes, I’m serious. It has infected every debate, every issue. What used to require reason and analysis now requires only that people view the issue through the lens of whatever ideology they’ve adopted. What was once called a nuanced opinion is now called “elitist” or “weak” when it’s even noticed at all by a populace who’s less and less interested in or capable of bothering with the intellectual exercise of finding truth.

The system has been poisoned. Poisoned by absolutism. By intolerance. By moral superiority. By money. I no longer see a way out. Only a vague hope in the cyclical nature of everything… a hope that the pendulum will swing back. I have almost no faith in the proposition that I can do anything to help it. Even after all this, I myself am too angry to be objective, too demoralized to be fair minded and far too frustrated to believe anyone, ANYONE can be convinced of anything through reason or analysis.

And I’m too emotionally exhausted to even really care.

So I’m listening to an NPR “All Things Considered” segment about the Foley scandal that features an interview with a man named Paul Weyrich, the author of the Arlington Group’s letter that called for House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s resignation. The Arlington Group is a coalition of 70 socially conservative organizations. Their letter focuses only on Foley’s egregious error in judgement, but in the NPR interview, Weyrich veers off course and says that Foley should have been forced to resign years ago solely because he’s gay.

(Link here: Conservative Groups Call for Accountability on Foley)

Weyrich: It has been known, uh, for many years that congressman Foley was a homosexal. Uh, homosexuals tend to be preoccupied with sex. The idea that he should be continued, or should have been continued, as chairman for the Committee on Missing and Exploited Children, given their knowledge of that is just outrageous.

NPR: Now before we go on, I think I can say Mr. Weyrich, that there are a lot of people out there who will take exception to the statement that all homosexuals are preoccupied with sex.

Weyrich: Well, I don’t care if they take exception to it, it happens to be true. I mean, uh-

NPR: That is your opinon?

Weyrich: It’s not my opinion. It is the opinion of many psychologists and psychiatrists who have to deal with them.

Oh man, is that ever true. Everyone knows that heterosexual men never think about sex. I mean, remember when Bill Clinton wouldn’t do anything sexual with an intern? Or Arnold Schwarzenegger, who refused to touch a woman he didn’t know? And all those poor rap artists forced to put half-naked women in their videos? I remember that Barbara Walters interview with Nelly where he just cried and cried because he said he just wanted to take a walk in the park with a pretty girl, not flip her over and all fours and pour a $3,000 bottle of champagne all over her naked body. And what about those poor single men forced to go to strip clubs against their will? And Howard Stern, who made a fortune off of inviting elementary school teachers and elderly nuns on his program to read excerpts from The Grapes of Wrath to eunuchs? And the porn industry, man is that business struggling. And all those millions of men who don’t cheat on their girlfriends or wives on business trips? And what about women? Women never cheat on their husbands/boyfriends either. What about that TV show Platonic Hand Holding in the City that was so popular? And of course, we all love Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp because of their winning personalities. And remember when STDs went away because no one was doing it anymore? And there were no unwanted children conceived drunkenly in restaurant bathrooms? Everyone knows that God just added the commandment about not committing adultery in there as a freebie, since it’s something that no one has ever been tempted to do. I think he just put it in there to round out the commandments to 10. I know that I personally have never been hit on or propositioned or catcalled as I walked down the street. Sometimes I watch movies and television and I wonder if anyone in this country is getting laid anymore. We’re all just so…uninterested in the topic. Well, except for the gays.

i can’t bear to write her fucking name, and I’m sure k will have more to weigh in on this review, but a UofChicago scientist recently wrote a review of that stupid evil witch’s book godless: the church of liberalism. some choice quotes from the review:

But could anybody who absorbed the Sermon on the Mount write, as she does of Richard Dawkins, “I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell”? Well, I wouldn’t want Coulter to roast (there’s not much meat there anyway), but I wish she’d shut up and learn something about evolution. Her case for ID involves the same stupid arguments that fundamentalists have made for a hundred years. They’re about as convincing as the blonde hair that gets her so much attention. By their roots shall ye know them.

more below the fold (more…)

1) Mr. Rogers. At a time when public broadcasting was under attack (much like today), Mr. Rogers, then in his thirties, went in front of the applicable appropriation committee and turned its scrooge chairman’s heart from stone. Absolutely stirring in delivery:

2) Marx Brothers. I’m not sure which one of the ‘brothers’ this is, but the artistry and creativity shown here blows my mind:

In line yesterday at the Barnes & Noble, the man checking out before me purchased the following two items : the latest issue of Hustler magazine and a copy of Ann Coulter’s new tome Godless.

Of the two, I quite consider the magazine to be the fine and honorable element; that which renders the whole purchase - at least potentially - of some redeeming value. There’s no irony in the juxtaposition of these media. In fact, it occurred to me that they both satisfy essentially the same impulse. Pornography is intended to provide visceral, elemental stimulation, absent such higher order concepts as aesthetics or emotional engagement.

The analogy is quite direct, I think. Demagogues like Coulter avoid, nay, dismiss, the formalisms of rational argument and etiquette to appeal to a baser impulse. Such hate and rage filled diatribes engage their readers in a manner not so very different from pornography. The feeling is raw and intense and can certainly be either glorious (if you resonate with such things) or revolting.

I got to wondering which of the two — the explicit sex or the mantle of righteousness — was more exciting for this gentleman. I thought about which would end up on the night stand in plain view and which would be shuffled under a few copies of Sports Illustrated in a drawer, and then about which would be accepted more readily by neighbors and friends. I wondered if he’s married and what his wife thinks about one or the other.

Of course, I also thought about that fact that (unless I’ve been rather misled) Barnes & Noble is a supporter of Democratic candidates and causes. If there’s irony to be found in this tale, there it is.

Or perhaps it’d be more accurate to say “Faith-based politics”. I want to be clear here — I’m not strictly discussing religion and politics, though I’ll get to that in a second.

No, I’m interested in the way in which the canon surrounding the concept of faith ends up applied to political discourse particularly, it seems, of late. I had a discussion with a co-worker the other day in which I argued that much of the political Right in this country govern their political attitudes according to the rules of faith. Doing so invokes an entire set of implicit assumptions, namely

• The existence of absolute truth is possible.
• Not only is truth possible, but it has been identified.
• Truth is delivered from an unimpeachable authority.
• Once stated, truth cannot be changed, rescinded or modified.
• Truth is inherently inviolable, thus arguments against truth are categorically false.
• Arguments against things that are true are not merely targeted at specific points, but against the entire edifice of truth.
• People who argue against truth are liars, deluded, or fools.

I think I’ve conveyed my point here, which is that the whole structure of faith demands a certain attitude towards any beliefs taken under its umbrella. My coworker was not entirely convinced by my argument, possibly because she construed it as an argument against “faith” as a general concept. It’s not, but rather an argument against the application of faith to a domain in which virtually all positions can be validated or invalidated to within certain limits. Further, applying faith to political viewpoints essentially guarantees that all such viewpoints are viewed within a framework of morality *defined* by agreement or disagreement with particular political views.

At any rate, I hadn’t thought much more about the conversation until today when I read a fabulous article by Glenn Greenwald, which essentially argues the same point that I was. He sums it up succinctly

“There are facts that suggest that what I am saying is not actually true. What is my response do that? ‘What-ev-eh.’” As in: “Some people claim there are facts that show that things in Iraq are not going really great. Something about civil war, sectarian hatred, anarchy, widespread violence, a total lack of security. What-ev-eh.”

I am certain that the very first rebuttal to this line of argument will be “Lefties are just as fixed-purpose and reflexive!” To that I say, every argument has at least one counter-example somewhere. I don’t deny that there are a certain number of inflexible, unreasonable people out there on the Left side of the political spectrum. But we’re not talking about individual examples, we’re talking about a phenomenon. We’re talking about a widespread application of faith-based unreason to political “dialogue” on the Right. When the current administration is referred to as Orwellian, it’s not because we live in a dystopia, no matter how concerned we may be about privacy and government powers. No, it’s because of the bold and blatant disregard for opposing viewpoints, even when those viewpoints are supported by obvious and objective reality.

Now, I said I was going to mention Religion, and I shall. I absolutely don’t think it’s coincidental that faith-based politics is so prevalent at a time when Faith-based politics is becoming so prevalent. People *are* applying religion-derivate morality to the whole spectrum of issues. The result becomes a shutting down of dialogue because once issues become attached to moral and religious identity they become, for lack of a better word, sacred. To disagree is not merely to have another opinion but to have a wrong opinion and, worse, to threaten the whole identity of “your side”.

I find it extremely unhealthy for the proper functioning of a democratic nation. There can be no democracy without an exchange of ideas. To hear right-wing ideologues denounce critics as traitorous and declare dissent to be morally wrong strikes me as an assault on the foundations of our democracy. Who’s committing the worse offense then? I, who criticize the president, or they, who wish my criticisms silenced?

i know i’ve not been so good with the text lately (laziness, spare time, etc), but here is a doonesbury strip which really sums up the politics on media situation today.  (click comic for full size)

A: Beating up a University of Kansas professor who tried to start a class called “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies.”

Q: WWJND? (What Would Jesus Not Do?)

Link to the story

Included in a nearly incoherent rant worthy of the supernicety, John Cusack presented the following prescient (though retrospective at the time) quote from Churchill in a post over at the huffington post:

“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.”

Sen. Lindsay Graham, I submit that your attempts should haunt you for the rest of your public life. Habeas corpus is one of the few things which is core to the United States soul.

More schadenfreude? No, I couldn’t possibly have another bite…. oh, okay just a little more:

* Rep. Tom “The Hammer” Delay indicted not once, not twice, but three times.
* Sen. Bill Frist under formal investigation for insider trading.
* Bush appointee and Jack Abramoff colleague indicted and arrested. Norquist will be involved as well in the Abramoff probe.
* Conservative right totally hosed over the nominations of Miers and Roberts, and PISSED about it.
* Exposure of Bush’s cronyism in FEMA (2) and EVERY OTHER PLACE IN THE ADMINISTRATION.
* The wrapping up of and potential indictments leading from the Plame Affair (finally!).
* The further downfall of righteous Bill Bennett.
* The potential breakup of the Conservative Movement / Big Business Coalition.

So full…. so full…. need…. nap.