PARTISAN SCREAM MACHINE

This is a great piece written by Rhinehold for Watchblog.com. So basically, look, scientists can't be trusted with their fancy logic and so-called standards of research. Because of this, a group is lobbying for a new theory to be taught in school science classes:

A new theory for the creation of the universe has been developed and subsequently named ‘Unintelligent Design’. While the theory is new it is only slightly more recent than the increasingly discussed theory by the similar name ‘Intelligent Design’. Followers of the new theory are hoping to petition school boards across the country to teach this theory alongside Evolution and Intelligent Design and are hoping that the supporters of other similar origin science theories support their right to be included in our children’s educational curriculum.

The idea behind the theory is simple, ' There is simply too many things in the universe that don't fit together or make sense'. Because of these irregularities the belief supports one of the two following options:

1)There is no sentient being who created the universe because if there were such an individual he would have to be very powerful and by his very nature smart enough not to make such mistakes

2)There is a sentient being but he is not all knowing and instead just lucky that things have worked out as well as they have despite his incompetence.

You see, I shouldn't have to let some 'scientist' tell me what science is and is not. Unintelligent Design proponents know they are fighting an uphill battle against these tyranical head-in-the-clouds, so-called, intellectuals who are totally out of touch with the mainstream. It is for this reason, the Unintelligent Design backers are looking to form a coalition:

We are joining with www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org in the struggle to seek institutional objectivity in origins science. And we believe that they will join us in ensuring that all sides of the issue are represented fairly in our public schools.”

The Creationists will revel in this opportunity to gain such a large number of supporters in their crusade. "Finally," they will say, "another group that gets it." I encourage you to write to your local school board and tell them that you want fair representation of all ideas in your child's science class.

Stay the course, stay the course, stay the course, stay the course. Bush presented a brilliantly novel plan for the future of free Iraq... yeah just about as much as the Democrats are finding new ways to criticize the Adminstration on the war. I'm pretty sure we are having this discussion in a time warp a la 2003-2004.

The fact of the matter is we should all shut up until December 15. I can't understand why there is such a huge push for a withdrawal plan before we even know if there will be a state from which to withdraw. How irresponsible is that? We started this mess and we have to stay at least until we know that we can hand over the scraps to somebody, weak as they may be. Iraq's government is not legitimate right now, no matter what Rumsfeld says. It may just end up legitimate after December 15. People need to stop talking about November 2006 and start getting ready for December 15, 2005.

As soon as an Iraqi government can properly negotiate for the Iraqi people, we need to start hammering out the details with them. We cannot just sit around in Washington and create our plan out of thin air. We may be able to lay a foundation beforehand, but there's no point in getting detailed until we have a counterpart in Iraq with some real authority.

Rep. Duke Cunningham announced yesterday he was stepping down from his spot in the House of Representatives as a representative to the San Diego area. Nancy Pelosi called this announcement nothing more than further proof of the Republican 'culture of corruption.' Obviously the Republicans aren't doing real hot right now. Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Libby, Bob Ney, Bill Frist... the list goes on.

But the truth is, this is probably the worst political move the sitting Democrats could make. Are we really to believe that the Democrats aren't getting the same perks as Repubs? I'm not going to give factual evidence, but I will assure you that it is out there. The money flows both ways. Both Repubs and Dems are getting buttered up all over Washington. I saw it for an entire summer. Lobbyists roam free showering parties on members and their staff in hopes that they can gain some access to the inner-offices. Members and staff are taking lobbyist-sponsored trips all over the country and world, doing more golfing and sun bathing than business-related affairs. It's all over the place.

The last person I need to hear telling me about corrupt politicians is a senior member herself. If the Democrats really wanted to open up this can, they are in for a rude surprise when they have ethics violations cracking down on themselves. The best bet is for fresh faces on both sides of the ailse AND FROM THE LIBERTARIANS. The only people that can hope to have a major impact on a debate over corruption on Capitol Hill are young (or non-career) fresh faces. This is also to emphasize the fact that the Dems still don't have an agenda and are once again choosing to bash Republicans instead of working on legislation and proving something to American voters.

See where you stand politically before you start supporting candidates for 2006.

Jean Schmidt, the Republican that beat out Paul Hackett in the special election last spring, hasn't learned the hierarchy of Capitol Hill yet; junior members have to keep their mouths shut. Although she did learn something from Hackett; she spoke her mind. This is new for a lot of politicans. The only problem happens to be that Rep. Murtha, who she implicitly labeled a coward, is a two-time war veteran and hero for this country. She chose to call Murtha the coward while supporting the side of Bush, Cheney, and all the other "heros" with multiple deferments and excuses for not serving their country.

So far, America has been extremly successful in its wars against words. First the War on Poverty, then the War on Crime, and of course the ever-popular War on Drugs. We give millions and millions of dollars to Central and South American countries in an attempt to eliminate the drug trade. What happens to the money? The Central American DEAs use it to invest in their drug cartels...

Interesting. I guess we can start figuring out who's going to replace him and planning our "indigenous support for democracy."

Bush really had broad multilateral support for this war, didn't he? Besides the mine-sweeping monkeys and promise from Haiti to dispatch counterterrorist voodoo witch doctors, we got willing commitments from Spain (until the costs came home), Japan (which constitutionally cannot fight aggressive war), and various other tokens. The fact of the matter is, everyone committed troops and resources on their own terms. This was not a grand, united coalition with a shared plan of attack and reconstruction.

There is now talk of Britain's considerations for a pull-out plan. That's fine, we've talked about it too. But what is striking is that nowhere in these media releases is there any mention of a more broad pull-out plan. Nowhere are there statements like "Iraqi troops will begin to fill in where British and United States troops once stood." If there is going to be a draw down of "coalition" troops, there should be a proportional draw down of all represented states' troops. Never in the Administration's addresses on the coalition was there mention of hierarchy. Bush's 40 nations were, in his presentation, all equal in contribution and worth. By committing troops and resources they should, principally, be seen as equal contributors. However, when it comes to declaring the job done, we start to see a hierarchy emerge. This is where we separate the men from the boys, so to speak. Or maybe I should say, this is where we separate the responsible and obligated from the lap dogs. This is not a criticism of Britain's decision, it is merely a critique of the conduct of the war. The nature of our coalition-building mentality has led to outcomes where our unilateralism is truly exposed. As the interests of our allies change or are exhausted, they leave as they please. The idea of shared triumph and sacrifice is nowhere to be found.

He never ceases amazing me.

Bush sought to reinvigorate support for his foreign endevours during his Veteren's Day address in Pennsylvania (as a note, I'm going to have to say NYTimes' article headline is a bit harsh. I think it's fair for Bush to retaliate when he's being so critically challenged by Congressional Democrats). He criticized Dems for trying to revise history, saying:

As president and commander in chief, I (accept ?) the responsibilities and the criticisms and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision. While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decisions or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

Wow... uhhhhhhh. Here, how about a refesher for everyone. Remember how we were all sold (well, a majority of the public at least) on WMD, nukes, and Saddam's conncetions with bin Laden and Al Qaida? But then this:

Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability — and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.

Hey, why are the terrorists in Iraq right now? What happened to WMD and bin Laden? Do you really want to talk about rewriting history? Yes the Dems are a bit out of line. They said the exact same stuff as Repubs before the war. But then this from Bush today:

Two weeks ago, in Operation Clean Sweep, Iraq and coalition forces raided 350 houses south of Baghdad, capturing more than 40 of the terrorist killers. Acting on tips from local citizens, our forces have recently launched airstrikes against terrorist safe houses in and around the towns of Obeidi and Husaybah. We brought to justice two key senior al Qaeda terrorist leaders. And in Mosul, coalition forces killed an al Qaeda cell leader named Musslit, who was personally involved in at least three videotaped beheadings. We're on the hunt. We're keeping pressure on the enemy.

Great, just great. The War on Terror Bush wanted the entire time has come to him. But this is hardly the time to criticize anyone about rewriting history.

I can't even say anything about this. This guy got owned and now he's getting even... with Home Depot, which had nothing to do with the prank. Hilarious.

Now taking bets on the timing of the first bombing and anti-West fundamentalist uprising. I'm putting the odds at 3:1 that there will be an attack by Jan. 1. Get in on it quick, it might not take too long.

The riots in France have been drastically reduced, some say, thanks to emergancy measures implemented by the state. This is important because now it is time to bring the fringe groups into the debate. After period of calm, grievences can more effectively be aired. I don't profess to know all about the state of French society. What I do know is that the immigrant populations have been largely marginalized. Should European-descent French capitulate and acknowledge a deep cultural divide that cannot be bridged? Yes, says Paul Belien:

Those media that tell us that the rioting “youths” want to be a part of our society and feel left out of it, are misrepresenting the facts. As the insurgents see it, they are not a part of our society and they want us to keep out of theirs.

Please read this piece if you can. Samuel Huntington is probably posting it on his wall right now. Belien seems to believe that there is no hope for compromise because of deep-rooted cultural difference between the immigrant minorities and the European French. This is not about getting one group "in" to society and culture by assimilation. This is about getting the groups "in" to the civic debate. I'm very sure that parliamentary procedure can resolve many of these issues.

Oh and by the way:

"The concept of French identity remains rooted deep in the country's centuries-old culture, and a significant portion of the population has yet to accept the increasingly multiethnic makeup of the nation. Put simply, being French, for many people, remains a baguette-and-beret affair."

Vive la France.

Democrats celebrated a number of victories in yesterday's elections, retaining two gubernatorial spots and resisting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's reform plan. This left many Democrats gloating that the hope of return to Congressional power in 2006 is well on its way to fruition. Here's what House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer had to say:

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said, “the stars are aligning for a big Democratic victory next November,” and he predicted that Tuesday’s wins would boost the party’s mid-term recruitment efforts.

“I believe that many Republicans are going to spend the next year looking over their shoulders,” Hoyer said in a statement. “And Democrats will see more and more strong candidates joining our ticket.”

Hoyer and his buds would of course have the best view of the aligning stars from their perspective in the clouds. His words sum up the pathology and disconnection of the Democrats very well. For some reason, they still haven't realized that being the anti-Repubs only works to an extent. Having an agenda can help. To be fair, one Dem made a good comment about the state of politics in Washington:

“You should never get in your opponent’s way when they are doing a good job of destroying themselves. There is plenty of time next year to talk to voters about what Democrats are fighting for.”

This is all fine, but when you really come down to it, what are the Dems going to tell us in 2006? Short of a major realignment, I don't see how the momentum is going to shift their way. Look at the current poll numbers of Bush and the two parties. Bush currently has an approval rating of between 35 and 39%. But what about people's faith in the Democrats? Not much better. As recently as last Sunday Democrats in Congress have a mid-thirties approval rating as well.

If we learned anything from November 2, 2004 it should be that saying nothing but "no" and "wrong" and "I am John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty" doesn't help your chance of winning elections. This may be hard to believe... but... people want their political leaders to have an agenda of reform that they can look at and use to gauge their confidence in future pay-offs. People want their leaders to do something when in office. I'm not going to like it, but I'm going to have to laugh if the Democrats find a way to screw the 2006 elections up. What's the best way to do that? Continue on the path they've been since Bush took office, don't give us anything new, and act merely as a roadblock.

Voters in both Ohio and California have rejected their respective state's ballot initiatives to take congressional redistricting out of the hands of long-standing majority parties. What can I say...

What can I say, no one likes to lose. No one likes to give up the power they have acquired through crooked gerrymandering and paid "access" to politicians. That's why today is going to really show the true colors of American politics. California and Ohio have similar ballot initiatives up for approval today hoping to take the power of redistricting out of the hands of the powerful. Republican Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger is supporting, among others, an initiative to take the power of dedistricting out of the hands of Democrat-dominated California legislature. Ohio Democrats have put a similar constitutional amendment initiative on the Ohio ballot. Here we have cross-party agreement that redistricting is necessary to ensure good governance. And even though it may look like a power grab by two minority parties, they're both right. Redistricting is a scam. Just look at a map of districts:

Welcome to my maiden voyage into the waters of the idiot blogosphere. Channels that profess to be reporting news have been doing harm to our civic space for too long now. We take for granted the fact that objective reporting has largely been replaced by entertainment newscasting in many areas. Hacks have ventured away from the opinion pages of our dailies to the roundtable for our daily dose of "news" in the form of scream-fests, all the while charading as harbingers of our pressing national issues. Rush Limbaugh informs more Americans than most professional journalists. Sean Hannity has national exposure. This reporting is truly unacceptable on both sides of the ailse. I of course have my political leanings, which I will most likely not be hiding. But I hope to present my arguments either by merely refuting the lies presented by entertainment newscasting or in the most reasoned manner possible. There are enough hacks out there that strive for nothing more than victory in political argument. I don't need to follow suit. And besides, it's much easier for me to shout you down in person.

A note about the "workers' party" layout of this webpage: 1.) it's a work in progress. 2.) I enjoy the absurdity of it, which is to say don't read too much into it.

Enjoy and comment often. Bloggers are only accountable to you, so let me hear it.

Bill Clinton, "the first black president," gave a most self-indulgent speech Tuesday and couldn't have picked a more respectful venue in which to do it: Rosa Parks' funeral. The most striking moment occured when Clinton, to roaring applause announced that he and two childhood friends had taken cues from Rosa Parks and moved to the back of the bus:

I remember, as if it were yesterday, that fateful day 50 years ago. I was a 9-year-old southern white boy who rode a segregated bus every single day of my life. I sat in the front. Black folk sat in the back.

When Rosa showed us that black folks didn't have to sit in the back anymore, two of my friends and I, who strongly approved of what she had done, decided we didn't have to sit in the front anymore.

(APPLAUSE)

It was just a tiny gesture by three ordinary kids. But that tiny gesture was repeated over and over again millions and millions of times in the hearts and minds of children, their parents, their grandparents, their great grandparents, proving that she did help to set us all free.

It was as if he was back on the campaign trail, soaking up the love and support gushing from the crowd, the crowd that wishes he was in his fourth term. This is all well and good, but here's where the fun starts...

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, of course, couldn't resist a good crack at Clinton. But the best part was when Hannity and his henchmen decided it was time to start fact-checking the dirty liar. And we all know that Clinton is a LIAR LIAR LIAR, ALL HE DOES IS LIE!!!!!!!

Hannity claimed that Clinton was caught in a cold hard lie. He said Clinton claims to have ridden a segregated school bus at the time of Rosa Parks' act of civil disobedience (1955). Hannity chided Clinton because Clinton's hometown at the time, Hot Springs, still had segregated public schools. AHA!!! Slick Willy, there's no way you rode on a school bus with black kids! And the truth is, he's probably right. Clinton didn't ride on a school bus. He went to St. John's Catholic School starting in 1953. I don't know too many Catholic schools with their own buses, so I wonder what kind of bus Clinton was taking to school every day... Just maybe a public, segregated bus...

This is of course a very small example of what we hear every day coming from the right's propagandists. It is my goal with this blog to out these characters whenever possible. Don't think I'm in it as a political hack. Democrats are guilty too, there just happens to be a hell of a lot more Conservatives out there screaming there heads off. So if you're going to do a liberal to conservative story ratio here, let it be known that your stats will be loaded. Liberals don't have enough air time or ink to catch up with these guys. Scream on, my friends.