…so I suppose I don’t fully understand the apparent controversy over this menstruation-blocking drug.
Volokh Conspiracy has an interesting thread about it, and on Fox News the opponent of the drug comes across as completely batshit here:
“More babies! More babies!” Wha???
There’s just something…surreal about this:
LONDON (AFP) – A pair of gay flamingos have adopted an abandoned chick, becoming parents after being together for six years, a British conservation organisation said Monday.
Carlos and Fernando had been desperate to start a family, even chasing other flamingos from their nests to take over their eggs at the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) in Slimbridge near Bristol.
Does this even require comment from me? Nah.
If you will indulge me, please read the following statement from Rep. Steve Chabot during the Clinton impeachment trial:
In this instance, and in many others that have been presented to you over the last two days, the facts and the law speak plainly. The President’s actions and demeanor make the case that President Clinton knowingly and willfully lied under oath in a grand jury proceeding and in a civil deposition. The compelling evidence in this case satisfies the intent element required under both sections 1621 and 1623 of the Federal Criminal Code. You will probably hear opposing counsel argue that the President did not technically commit perjury, and appeal to the case of Bronston v. United States. This is a legal smoke screen. In the Bronston case, the Supreme Court held statements that are literally truthful and non-responsive cannot by themselves form the basis for a perjury conviction. This is the cornerstone of the President’s defense. However, the Court also held that the unresponsive statements must be technically true in order to prevent a perjury conviction; such statements must not be capable of being conclusively proven false. As we have seen, none of the President’s perjurious statements before the grand jury, covered in the first impeachment article, are technically true. So, when the President’s counsel cites the Bronston case, remember the facts. And ask yourselves, are the President’s answers literally true? And, remember, to be literally true they must actually be true. It is also important to note that, consistent with the Bronston case, the response, “I don’t recall,” is not technically true if the President actually could recall. The factual record in the case, consisting of multiple sworn statements contradicting the President’s testimony and highly specific corroborating evidence, demonstrates that the President’s statements were not literally true or legally accurate. On the contrary, the record establishes that the President repeatedly lied, he repeatedly deceived, he repeatedly feigned forgetfulness. (Emphasis mine)
Now go watch this selectively-edited video.
I see only two conclusions to draw from the Gonzalez fiasco:
1. The Attorney General is lying through his teeth to Congress and the American people and should be fired or impeached; or
2. The Attorney General is too incompetent to know what his subordinates are doing, to remember important conversations, or to remeber much of anything about the duties of his job as the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the land, and should be fired or impeached.
Bush ain’t gonna fire him. That leaves one option. The Dems have shown they have balls, but can they use them?
Will Bunch at Attytood has posted about the #2-selling book at Amazon.com:
It’s called: “The Final Move Beyond Iraq: The Final Solution While the World Sleeps,” by Michael D. Evans. The “O” in “MOVE” has a very un-Christian set of crosshairs in the middle.
I blinked several times, then went and got some more coffee, then came back to my computer and the words “Final Solution” were still there. I have not read this book, nor do I know much about its author, but words are important, and those words especially carry some weight. These ideas, to the extent that they are widely shared, certainly merit discussion and a big ol’ rhetorical smackdown.
Reviews of the book seem to be mostly negative:
I’m currently serving in the United States Army deployed in Iraq with the 25ID. Think for yourself. The fact that this book is on the best-seller list makes me want to vomit. The author is intent on seeing democracy controlled by religion, knowing that through these beliefs he can control the people. Think for yourself. Trust God and not the author who mangles and manipulates His words for the sake of power.
Then again, there was also this one:
Everyone should read this book but especially Americans. All indications are that the public has let 9-11 fade into the past. This book will wake you up. It’s well documented, a very real fast read (unless, like me, you tend to highlight pertinent passages to pass on to those who have fallen asleep). I recommend this book to anyone who values the United States of America and our “remaining” freedoms.
I actually agree with everything this guy says, except that (a) he is actually making a case for the war in Afghanistan by invoking 9/11 and (b) he seems immune to the irony of mentioning our “‘remaining’ freedoms,” ignoring who is principally responsible for the freedoms not “remaining.”
What troubles me is the eagerness for further war in the Middle East as fulfillment of Biblical prophecy possibly bringing about a tribulation period or something. This did not start with Newt Gingrich’s oddly eager invocation of “World War III” to describe the brief Israel-Hezbollah war of 2006 (whose outcome was hardly certain, anyway). This has been going on for some time, but the Iraq War seems to have resulted in increased rhetoric. What I don’t understand is the idea (and this may seem somewhat straw-man, but the people making these arguments are notoriously slippery) that humans, by forcing the events described in the Bible to happen in the right sequence, can hasten the Second Coming, apocalypse, etc. Does God (and yes, I know I don’t technically believe in Him, but go with me for a second) have a checklist of events that he is waiting on before sending Jesus back? Isn’t it just a tad arrogant for people like Newt or John Hagee to think they can hasten the end times by encouraging war in the Middle East? My biggest beef with organized religion is the idea that any one man (or woman) can speak definitively for God, let alone be the catalyst for Armageddon. If the Bible is any guide (and most if not all Christians say it is), God is gonna do what God is gonna do, so everybody chill. Instead of the constant obsessing over the afterlife, take some time to appreciate all the great stuff He’s created in this one.
I know this person most likely does not represent the mainstream of Christian thought in America today, but it is important to show what is being said in Jesus’ name:
This is posted here (NSFW, really), and I don’t know what newspaper it is from or if it is even real. On the off chance that someone actually wrote this (I hope it’s fake), it is chilling. Aside from some factually-questionable assertions, the idea that the First Amendment somehow mandates religious belief of some sort is, well, baffling. That’s really all I think needs to be said here.
Like I said, I hope this thing is fake.
UPDATE – Thanks to Google and a little more free time, I confirmed that the clipping is for real, originally published in the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska Clarion (it has made its way around as a scanned clipping because the newspaper’s website requires registration. I took one for the team and did so.) Comments can be found here, here, and here.
I’m a reasonably law-n-order-type guy, but there is something creepily Orwellian (and Gattacan) about this, via Volokh Conspiracy:
Facts: Rape suspect walking on a street spits on the sidewalk. An investigator is following the suspect, and he collects the spit; a DNA test proves a match. Holding: No Fourth Amendment violation. Analysis:
[A]lthough the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his saliva (and other bodily fluids)…when he expectorated on to a public street and did not retrieve the fluid, he voluntarily abandoned that protection; he assumed the risk of the public witnessing his action and thereafter taking possession of his bodily fluids.
(Emphasis added)
As one commenter to the post notes:
I wonder about the scenario where the cops take a suspect down to the station, load him up with coffee and donuts, and wait for him to take a crap in the special DNA-collecting toilet.
I suppose the basic argument, once again, is that if you haven’t done anything wrong and/or have nothing to hide, what is the harm in the police being able to scoop up your saliva, et al? I worry (not entirely facetiously) about the coffee and donuts scenario presented above, but also about, uh, let’s call them “false positives.” Yes, you may call me paranoid, but what if someone somehow gets someone else’s genetic materials (and the possibilities here are endless, ranging from a good spy story to a porn movie plot, ask me about my screenplays) and plants them at the scene of a crime? Will we someday have to submit a spit/blood/mucus/urine/stool/hair follicle/s***n sample to get a driver’s license or passport?
Given that we now inhabit a country where the Republican candidates for president don’t quite seem to get that Jack Bauer is a fictional character, and the CSI’s are all huge hits, is my scenario that far-fetched?
If it turns out that the government will require me to submit a s***n sample, may I at least make a request as to who collects it?
Perhaps there is a simpler moral here: it is rude to spit, urinate, vomit, or otherwise expel genetic material in public, and now you really don’t want to do it (or at least use a trash can, you know, for plausible deniability).
I think I created a new Miranda Lambert fan a while back, so these are for her:
Had enough? Me neither.
