Another reason why Anti-vaccination advocates are idiots

I shouldn't have to say this, but I do.

I receive no funding whatsoever from any pharmaceutical or biotechnology company in existence anywhere in the world.

None.

Zip.

I have never so much as seen a single penny from one in dividends, project support, or salary from any pharmaceutical company. Indeed, all funds I have ever worked for come from competitive grants from the NIH or the AHA. Currently, the entirety of my salary is paid by a postdoctoral fellowship from the American Heart Association. The AHA, in turn, is entirely funded by private donations which the individual donors can apply to their tax returns. I have no knowledge of who the individual donors are, and therefore can have no possible knowledge of their individual motivations or what they wish for my research to show, therefore, it is completely and utterly impossible for any pharmaceutical company to exert any influence upon me, even if I were performing any research which would motivate them to do so. I am not. The AHA has no say on whether, or what, I publish, and holds no power over my academic freedom.

Further, I receive no funding, support, or salary from any manufacturer of vaccines. See above.

Pretty much anybody who speaks out against the idiocy that is the anti-vaccination movement has to include a disclaimer like the above.

Now, here's why they shouldn't have to.

It takes a truly delusional mind to claim, with a straight face, that the reason pharmaceutical companies produce vaccines is to turn a profit. Yes, there are a few vaccines that have made quite a lot of money for the manufacturers. Gardasil, for example, made its manufacturers somewhere in the ballpark of 1.5 billion dollars.

Setting aside the fact that making money off of an exceptionally effective treatment which reduces a woman's chance of developing cervical cancer to nearly zero is not implicitly evil (as much as anti-vaccination advocates would like you to think otherwise), Gardasil is deep, deep in the minority.

In general, vaccine production is so ridiculously unprofitable, convincing manufacturers to make the vaccines is a challenge in itself. The single most-applied vaccine worldwide the BCG vaccine against tuberculosis. Its profit margin is, for all practical purposes, zero, once transportation to the needed areas is taken into consideration.

But for the moment, let us assume that that is not the case. Let's assume that all doses are created equal, profit-wise. A dose of viagra makes the exact same profit as a dose of the Tdap vaccine.

Which of the two will turn a greater profit: one dose of the vaccine, or a month's worth of drugs to keep the symptoms under control?

In short, if vaccine manufacturers were really the profit-grubbing evil entities that the anti-vaccine morons believed they were, they wouldn't make vaccines. They'd want as many of us to catch the disease as possible for one simple reason: it's vastly more profitable to treat a disease than it is to prevent it.

The Evil Evolutionist conspiracy has issued a directive.

Some of you may have heard about Ben Stein's latest movie. Well, the google-bombing gauntlet has been thrown down. Expelled Exposed is a project by the National Center for Science Education exposing the fraud that is Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and never was there a more appropriate title. You literally have to leave your brain at the door in order to believe the bullshit spewed throughout the movie.

Fortunately, I don't have to spend my time chronicling the misrepresentations, ludicrous claims and outright falsehoods of the movie. You can find them here: Expelled

New approaches to "curing" atheism

According to recent polls in the US, the single least-trusted group of people are atheists, which, when you come down to it, is kinda absurd. As Dawkins once put it: "I submit that we are both atheists, I simply believe in one less God than you do. When you can explain to me why you deny the existence of all the other Gods, perhaps you will be ready to understand why I deny the existence of yours."

And when you come down to it, atheism is probably one of the most innocuous of bellief systems. I mean, you don't often hear about atheists hijacking planes and flying them into buildings out of their devotion to a deity they don't think exists. Relatively few serial killers are atheists (although, like anything, there are a few in there). And, frankly, I think someone's beliefs in something that cannot be empirically proven, or lack thereof is probably the third stupidest thing to judge someone on; the first two being race and sexuality. I think it comes down, as so many things do these days, to simple ignorance. There's this blatantly false assumption that if you don't believe in God (or some version thereof), you must therefore have no morals.

I get asked often whether I believe in God, and to be honest, I'm never entirely sure how to answer, so my answer tends to change a little every time I'm asked. The best answer I can come up with is that I choose to live my life as if the existence or non-existence of God didn't matter. If God exists, then I hope that He, She, They or It will judge me for living my life on my own path. If not, then I'm no worse off than I am now. And on the off chance that God such a petty prick that I deserve to be damned for not choosing one religion (which kinda runs contrary to the idea of a benevolant God, don'tcha think?), well, then at least I'm gonna be damned for being who I really am. I guess all that makes me a de facto atheist.

Mind you, when people ask me if I believe in God, my first response is almost always "define the term." If they then go and point to a passage in the Bible or the Koran or the Talmud or whatever holy book they choose and say: "this is how I define God," the answer is almost definitely "no." But I believe that there's a unifying logic and mechanic to the universe. I believe that there are mysteries to life and the unvierse which we may never unfold. On occasion, more for convenience than anything else, I call that "God."

At the same time, I believe that I know what's right or wrong better than whoever it was who wrote the bible, and decided that taking the Lord's name in vain, or working on the sabbath mandated the death penalty; and certainly much better than some of the modern fundamentalists who see it as just and right that God demands belief, offers no proof, and inflicts eternal torture on otherwise good people for failing to guess correctly. I believe that regardless of what else is in the Bible, the fact that it endorses child and spousal abuse, slavery and murder of non-believers demolishes its credibility as a source for morals.

Speaking of which, I believe that morals come down to suffering, so I don't believe in inflicting it upon any creature with enough sense to know what suffering is. I believe that if an action is victimless, then by definition it is not a crime. Therefore, if I were a gay, pot-smoking atheist (which I'm not, for the record, but these seem to be pretty much the three things that seem to piss off the American variety of "conservative" more than anything else), it cannot by any logic be claimed that I am harming any other human being, therefore none of the three are even remotely unethical.

So let's talk about the video I embedded in this entry. Here we have psycho-mom going nuts over the possibility that (gasp) her son could be an atheist, as if that were a bad thing. She then says that he has to start going to church every Sunday, as if that were a good thing. Then she goes on to take away Christmas, as if the best way of making him believe is to threaten him into it (and don't even get me started on her, to be kind, erroneous claim that Christmas is all about Jesus Christ).

Now, I want to be very clear on this: I know nothing whatsoever about this family except what I've seen in this 46-second video. For all I know, they may have reconciled, or the son may have recanted his evil ways, or the mother may have come to understand her son's beliefs, or any one of a thousand possible outcomes that I can't even imagine. So I'm not going to say anything about the mother or the son as human beings (frankly, who can claim that they haven't been a complete asshole for 46 seconds at some point in their lives? I know I sure can't.). Instead, I'd like to talk about the violence of the mother's reaction to something which, at the end of the day is completely innocuous, will not affect her life remotely, and if nothing else, is a sign that her son is starting to think independently, to reason and to find his own path. I can't help but feel that had it been any issue other than his religious beliefs, she may very well have taken it in stride, or even found his insight laudable. For example, if the son had come home that day and said: "Mom, I don't like Peanut Butter anymore. Please stop putting peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in my lunch," I find it somewhat unlikely that the mother's reaction would have been nearly that extreme.

I choose not to believe in any God who threatens us with eternal damnation for failing to believe one set of rules. Actually, I flat out refuse to worship any God who threatens us with eternal damnation, period. I choose to believe that at the end of this life, afterlife or no afterlife, there's no reward waiting. If there's something after this, I choose to believe that it's not a matter of dividing up the believers and the nonbelievers, the sinners and the virtuous. I believe that nothing we do really matters after we're dead.

If nothing we do matters, then the only thing that matters is what we do. If there's no reward at the end, if there's no payoff for doing good, then even the tiniest, most insignificant act of kindness can be the most amazing thing in the world.

That's what I believe.

Patriotism Defined

What a lot of people seem to define as "being a patriot" is pretty much the exact opposite of what I feel patriotism is. Patriotism has become defined by one's adherence to whatever the party in power decides the country is going to do. It's become defined by one's unwillingness to question those in power, and one's by-rote acceptance of the country's policies.

This isn't the definition of patriotism, that's the definition of stupidity.

Let's talk about the Dixie chicks for a second. Yes, I know, they're a country western band, and country isn't exactly my thing, but they found themselves in some pretty hot water on the eve of the Iraq offensive because they (gasp) dared suggest that the president is an idiot. For that, they got pilloried in the mass media and labeled as, among other things; traitors, sluts, and unpatriotic, to name a few. And not by a small number of people. Think about that for a second, the crime they committed, dire as it was, consisted of a twelve-word comment where they voiced their disappointment with the war and the Bush administration. And for that, they were labeled as bad patriots.

Now, let me be clear, and this cannot be emphasized enough, the people who slapped that label on them had every right to do so. That's not the issue I want to get into. What I do find somewhat disturbing about the whole affair is how dissenting from those in power got to be viewed as "unpatriotic." The attitude that, as my moron of a president so aptly put it, "you're either with us, or against us" is one of the stupidest, not to mention dangerous attitudes to have under any circumstances. I disagree with pretty much everything the current administration has done since they came into power, but I will personally beat someone senseless who suggests that I don't love and care about both of my countries dearly. I was born straddling the Canada-US border. I have roots placed in both countries. I pay taxes in both countries. I can vote in both countries. I can be drafted in one of them, and I'm willing to fight and die to defend either of them from enemies both foreign and domestic.

And here's what is important to remember: the fact that I don't feel that one of my countries hasn't earned the right to boast about the fact that they're the greatest country in the world doesn't mean that I love that country any less. That's like claiming that a parent who scolds a child suddenly hates them. Voicing dissent with one's country, when it exists, is not only the right of every single American citizen, it's their duty. Wanting the country to do better than it has been doing is the very definition of patriotism. One who wishes and hopes that their country can, someday, live up to the reputation of being the greatest country in the world is the very definition of a patriot.

Keeping your mouth shut when you disagree with something your country is doing, or with a policy that has been laid out, that is the single most unpatriotic position you can possibly take.

The Annotated State of the Union Address: 2007

Thank you very much. And tonight, I have a high privilege and distinct honor of my own -- as the first President to begin the State of the Union message with these words: Madam Speaker.

Yeah, you lost the midterms. Deal with it.

In his day, the late Congressman Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr. from Baltimore, Maryland, saw Presidents Roosevelt and Truman at this rostrum.

Take a drink if he pronounced "rostrum" properly.

But nothing could compare with the sight of his only daughter, Nancy, presiding tonight as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Congratulations, Madam Speaker.

You do realize she's a democrat, right?

Two members of the House and Senate are not with us tonight, and we pray for the recovery and speedy return of Senator Tim Johnson and Congressman Charlie Norwood.

Tim Johnson is officially the first member of the democratic party who has been specifically named in a State of the Union address, who wasn't Joe Liebermann.

Madam Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

Except for Liberals. And Gays. And people who are outside of Paris Hilton's tax bracket. And black people. And non-Christians.

But everybody else, great to see you.

The rite of custom brings us together at a defining hour -- when decisions are hard and courage is needed. We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underway, and others that are ours to begin. In all of this, much is asked of us. We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies -- and the wisdom to face them together.

Some in this chamber are new to the House and the Senate -- and I congratulate the Democrat majority.

Now PLEASE don't impeach me.

Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities. Each of us is guided by our own convictions -- and to these we must stay faithful.

The madness of King George.

Yet we're all held to the same standards,

Let's face it Georgie, you set the bar pretty low when it comes to standards.

and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this nation's prosperity; to spend the people's money wisely; to solve problems, not leave them to future generations; to guard America against all evil; and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us.

Sayeth the man responsible for a mess which will require several generations to clean up. Not to mention the man who has single-handedly pissed off a whole new generation of potential terrorist recruits.

We're not the first to come here with a government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences, and achieve big things for the American people. Our citizens don't much care which side of the aisle we sit on -- as long as we're willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done.

Sayeth the man who has done more to divide the country along party lines than just about any president in the history of the United States.

Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and to help them to build a future of hope and opportunity -- and this is the business before us tonight.

Sayeth the man who took the single highest surplus in the history of the country, and turned it into the single largest deficit, in the span of four years.

A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy -- and that is what we have. We're now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs -- so far. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move, and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government, but with more enterprise.

Is he about to take credit for the increase in minimum wage that the Democrats just managed to push through congress?

Next week, I'll deliver a full report on the state of our economy. Tonight, I want to discuss three economic reforms that deserve to be priorities for this Congress.

First, we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes.

But we might have to forgo cutting taxes to Paris Hilton.

What we need is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule.

A defecit created by... who, exactly?

This is like having someone throw cow manure all over you, then pat himself on the back for shooing the flies away.

Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and we can balance the federal budget.

Maybe if we stopped fighting a pointless war that's roughly as popular as a guy with a rash at a nudist colony....

Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour -- when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate -- they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process, expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress, and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.

And until November, what party was putting these earmarks in? The Democrats sure didn't have the power then.

And, finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience, and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound. Yet, we're failing in that duty. And this failure will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Everyone in this chamber knows this to be true -- yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act. So let us work together and do it now. With enough good sense and goodwill, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid -- and save Social Security.

And you could save it, if you kept Paris Hilton's taxes right where they are right now, thank you very much.

Spreading opportunity and hope in America also requires public schools that give children the knowledge and character they need in life. Five years ago, we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, preserving local control, raising standards, and holding those schools accountable for results.

And have, in the process, guaranteed that the bulk of students under the No Child Left Behind Act are, in fact, left behind.

And because we acted, students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap.

And right now, over 50% of high school students still can't identify their home state on a map of the US.

And two different school districts are trying to place "Intelligent Design" in the science classroom.

But we're not leaving any child behind, that's for sure.

Now the task is to build on the success, without watering down standards, without taking control from local communities, and without backsliding and calling it reform. We can lift student achievement even higher by giving local leaders flexibility to turn around failing schools, and by giving families with children stuck in failing schools the right to choose someplace better. We must increase funds for students who struggle -- and make sure these children get the special help they need. And we can make sure our children are prepared for the jobs of the future and our country is more competitive by strengthening math and science skills. The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children

... badly...

-- and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law.

Bush seems to have a real problem with reality.

A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available health care. When it comes to health care, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children. And we will meet those responsibilities. For all other Americans, private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs. But many Americans cannot afford a health insurance policy.

At which point, Anne Coulter could be heard screaming in anguish.

And so tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income on payroll tax -- or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills. At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, this proposal would mean a substantial tax savings -- $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care affordable for more Americans.

So, why was none of this suggested, oh, say, SIX YEARS AGO, WHEN WE HAD ENOUGH OF A BUDGET SURPLUS TO DO IT!?

My second proposal is to help the states that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured. States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick. I have asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with Congress to take existing federal funds and use them to create "Affordable Choices" grants. These grants would give our nation's governors more money and more flexibility to get private health insurance to those most in need.

There are many other ways that Congress can help. We need to expand Health Savings Accounts. We need to help small businesses through Association Health Plans. We need to reduce costs and medical errors with better information technology. We will encourage price transparency. And to protect good doctors from junk lawsuits, we passing medical liability reform. In all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors.

again, all things that would have been useful, and may even have been feasible SIX YEARS AGO. Since then, some jackass has spent all the money in the world fighting a pointless war and not killing Osama Bin Laden

Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America -- with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we're doubling the size of the Border Patrol, and funding new infrastructure and technology.

Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border -- and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won't have to try to sneak in, and that will leave Border Agents free to chase down drug smugglers and criminals and terrorists. We'll enforce our immigration laws at the work site and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers, so there's no excuse left for violating the law.

He says, as if all people need to violate the law is an excuse.

We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals.

And diversity be damned.

We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty. Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate, so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law.

... provided that it's the exact bill that I want you to pass...

Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America's environment clean. For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes,

Canada?

and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.

Yeah, 'cause you know, them Canadians are sure a terror state.

It's in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

All things that he suggested in the last state of the union..... and the one before that.... and the one before...

We made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies here in Washington and the strong response of the market. And now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years. When we do that we will have cut our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

Given up on getting their hands on that Iraqi oil, have they?

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- and that is nearly five times the current target.

Which, by the way, we haven't even come close to achieving. You really think you can hit a higher target?

At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but it's not going to eliminate it. And so as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways. And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

And where, exactly, is all this extra petroleum going to come from? Oh right, from the middle east.

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs

The same technological breakthroughs we were on the verge of during the last state of the union, and the one before that, and the one befo-....

that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

Sayeth the man who refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of our citizens across our nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts. We have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings.

Sayeth the man who convened an emergency session of congress when a judge ruled in a way he didn't agree with.

As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty, as well, to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger. Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that the terrorists can cause.

And now we're back to the same ol' same ol'. People want to kill us, blah, blah, blah. 9/11, blah, blah. And Iraq fits in there somewhere.

We've had time to take stock of our situation. We've added many critical protections to guard the homeland.

'Cause, you know, we didn't really want that whole Habeas Corpus thing anyway, did we?

We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us -- unless we stop them.

...With waterboarding....

With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict and the course we have followed. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled: that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy.

And anybody who is perceived as an enemy to Guantanimo.

From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since 9/11 has never been the same.

And it really hasn't been the same for Americans either. Bush keeps saying that the Terrorists hate us for our freedom, and he's working damn hard to make sure that soon, that won't be a problem.

Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen.

We didn't find weapons of mass destruction.

We weren't greeted as liberators.

The income from oil didn't cover the expenses of the war.

We didn't have enough troops

The war didn't end when we got Saddam Hussein's kids

Or Saddam Hussein

Or Al Zarquawi

Or when the elections occurred

The mission wasn't accomplished

The Insurgency wasn't put down

And we weren't able to avoid a civil war.

Do you really want to follow this line of reasoning?

We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented,

The bigger question, however, is: what is the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies guaranteed will happen some time in the future?

but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast.

Hoboy. Here we go.

This is most likely a reference to the purported plot to knock down the 73 story Library tower in Los Angeles.

Of course, all evidence suggests that the library tower plot enver even got past its conceptual stage.

We broke up a Southeast Asian terror cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States.

Actually, here, Georgie happens to be talking about the exact same purported Library tower plot, which, as previously mentioned, never got past the conceptual stages.

We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America.

According to the FBI, hopes by foreign terrorists to use Anthrax against Americans were, at best, fanciful.

And, say, what happened to the people that did attack using Anthrax just after 9/11? Don't hear much about that anymore, do you?

Could it be related to the fact that the source of said Anthrax was actually inside the US? What, terrorism is only terrorism when it comes from foreign soil?

And just last August,

... by pure coincidence, I'm sure, 90 days before the last Midterm elections...

British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean.

In a series of raids, British Authorities arrested 24 men. A few of whom had actually checked the internet for flight schedules. And a very few of whom actually had the passports necessary to get onto the flights they were supposedly going to crash "within days" according to your press conference immediately after the arrest.

It has since been determined that the purported plan, to mix the chemical constituants into bombmaking materials on the plain was likely infeasible by amateurs, or even by professional chemists.

And since the raids, 8 of the 24 people arrested have been released.

The Brits had been watching all 24 of those men for over a year.

For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them.

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that's the case, America is still a nation at war.

In the mind of the terrorist, this war began well before September the 11th, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past five years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy. Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs, and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: "We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse." Osama bin Laden declared: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

You do realize that Zarqawi was never, in any meaningful sense, a member of Al Quaida, right?

These men are not given to idle words,

Past tense. One of 'em's dead, remember? And you've been milking that for all it's worth to distract us from the fact that the one who actually had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11 is still at large.

and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East.

And why is that? Who's the moronic jackass who's been spending his time pissing off a whole generation of Islamic extremists and not catching Osama Bin Laden?

Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah -- a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

Anybody else finding this familiar?

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. Whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East, and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.

Yep, now it sounds familiar.

In the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers had ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence,

... torture...

diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people.

This war is more than a clash of arms -- it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come and kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom

And at the rate Bush is going, pretty soon they will have nothing to fear in America.

-- societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they're given a chance.

Which is possibly why they're fighting us.

So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates and reformers and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security, we must.

Whether they want it or not.

In the last two years, we've seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East -- and we have been sobered by the enemy's fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution, they drove out the Syrian occupiers and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections, choosing a transitional government, adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world, and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity that we should never forget.

And yet, the current government was elected with a pretty slim minority of the votes; just more votes than anyone else had.

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran,

...in much the same way that Iraq was helping Bin Laden...

sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon's legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam

You do realize that Al Qaeda, in any real sense of the word, has no presence in Iraq, right? Al Zarqawi didn't call his organization "Al Quaeda in Iraq" until after Bush claimed that he was a major leader of Al Quaeda in Iraq. For that matter, there's absolutely no evidence that he and Bin Laden have ever actually met.

-- the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia -- and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in. Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. Let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

At the cost of thousands of American lives.

We're carrying out a new strategy in Iraq --

TROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.

In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we're deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads. And in Anbar Province, where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we're sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. We didn't drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.

So, in other words, exactly what we've been trying to do for the last three years, only with more troops.

Brilliant.

The people of Iraq want to live in peace, and now it's time for their government to act. Iraq's leaders know that our commitment is not open-ended.

It's only good as long as they keep supplying oil.

They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad -- and they must do so. They pledged that they will confront violent radicals of any faction or political party -- and they need to follow through, and lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and coalition forces, so these troops can achieve their mission of bringing security to all of the people of Baghdad. Iraq's leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks -- to achieve reconciliation, to share oil revenues among all of Iraq's citizens, to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq, to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's civic life, to hold local elections, and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province. But for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secure. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.

You know, I'm desperately trying to find some objective measure by which the situation in Iraq is actually better now than it was before we invaded. No luck so far.

My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options.

After which, Georgie carefully ignored their suggestions.

We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance for success. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq,

...any worse than we already have...

because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far-reaching.

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure,

... ignoring, for the moment, that Baghdad was secure before we stepped forward...

the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is the greatest ally -- their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September the 11th and invite tragedy. Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East, to succeed in Iraq and to spare the American people from this danger.

Is he really claiming that if we pull out now, they'll follow us home?

This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you've made. We went into this largely united, in our assumptions and in our convictions.

Not really. We went into this with a monkey-boy president supported by a congress full of "yes" men.

And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure.

We sure as hell didn't vote for you.

Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field, and those on their way.

The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. And that's why it's important to work together so our nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. It's why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. We'll show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.

Maybe we should actually fight THE WAR ON TERROR, huh? I'm still waiting for any one of your justifications for an invasion of Iraq to stand up to even the most minor scrutiny.

And one of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years.

And where are these 92,000 volunteers going to come from?

(*insert new bullshit euphamism for "draft"*)

A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps.

See?

Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

How, exactly, do you get conscientious objector status?

Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle because we're not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world

... approximately three countries thereof, anyway...

to join in the fight against extremism. In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations. We're working with Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the Gulf States to increase support for Iraq's government.

The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. With the other members of the Quartet -- the U.N., the European Union, and Russia -- we're pursuing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land, and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security. In Afghanistan, NATO has taken the lead in turning back the Taliban and al Qaeda offensive -- the first time the Alliance has deployed forces outside the North Atlantic area. Together with our partners in China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea, we're pursuing intensive diplomacy to achieve a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons.

I don't know if you missed that particular intelligence briefing, but Korea already has nuclear weapons.

We will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma -- and continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur.

American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy.

After all, Diplomacy is highly overrated.

Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required. We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger and poverty and disease -- and that is precisely what America is doing. We must continue to fight HIV/AIDS, especially on the continent of Africa. Because you funded our Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the number of people receiving life-saving drugs has grown from 50,000 to more than 800,000 in three short years. I ask you to continue funding our efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. I ask you to provide $1.2 billion over five years so we can combat malaria in 15 African countries.

26% of which will be used in "Abstinence Only" programs.

I ask that you fund the Millennium Challenge Account, so that American aid reaches the people who need it, in nations where democracy is on the rise and corruption is in retreat. And let us continue to support the expanded trade and debt relief that are the best hope for lifting lives and eliminating poverty.

When America serves others in this way, we show the strength and generosity of our country. These deeds reflect the character of our people. The greatest strength we have is the heroic kindness, courage, and self-sacrifice of the American people. You see this spirit often if you know where to look -- and tonight we need only look above to the gallery.

Let the exploitation begin.

Dikembe Mutombo grew up in Africa, amid great poverty and disease. He came to Georgetown University on a scholarship to study medicine -- but Coach John Thompson got a look at Dikembe and had a different idea. Dikembe became a star in the NBA, and a citizen of the United States. But he never forgot the land of his birth, or the duty to share his blessings with others. He built a brand new hospital in his old hometown. A friend has said of this good-hearted man: "Mutombo believes that God has given him this opportunity to do great things." And we are proud to call this son of the Congo a citizen of the United States of America.

Next, he'll be parading David Beckham around.

After her daughter was born, Julie Aigner-Clark searched for ways to share her love of music and art with her child. So she borrowed some equipment, and began filming children's videos in her basement. The Baby Einstein Company was born, and in just five years her business grew to more than $20 million in sales. In November 2001, Julie sold Baby Einstein to the Walt Disney Company, and with her help Baby Einstein has grown into a $200 million business. Julie represents the great enterprising spirit of America. And she is using her success to help others -- producing child safety videos with John Walsh of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Julie says of her new project: "I believe it's the most important thing that I have ever done. I believe that children have the right to live in a world that is safe." And so tonight, we are pleased to welcome this talented business entrepreneur and generous social entrepreneur -- Julie Aigner-Clark.

And soon, we'll draft her daughter into the War on Terror.

Three weeks ago, Wesley Autrey was waiting at a Harlem subway station with his two little girls, when he saw a man fall into the path of a train. With seconds to act, Wesley jumped onto the tracks, pulled the man into the space between the rails, and held him as the train passed right above their heads. He insists he's not a hero. He says: "We got guys and girls overseas dying for us to have our freedoms. We have got to show each other some love." There is something wonderful about a country that produces a brave and humble man like Wesley Autrey.

Okay, am I the only one who's starting to think that Bush is trying to take credit for all of this?

Tommy Rieman was a teenager pumping gas in Independence, Kentucky, when he enlisted in the United States Army. In December 2003, he was on a reconnaissance mission in Iraq when his team came under heavy enemy fire. From his Humvee, Sergeant Rieman returned fire; he used his body as a shield to protect his gunner. He was shot in the chest and arm, and received shrapnel wounds to his legs -- yet he refused medical attention, and stayed in the fight. He helped to repel a second attack, firing grenades at the enemy's position. For his exceptional courage, Sergeant Rieman was awarded the Silver Star. And like so many other Americans who have volunteered to defend us, he has earned the respect and the gratitude of our entire country.

Exploit! Exploit!

In such courage and compassion, ladies and gentlemen, we see the spirit and character of America -- and these qualities are not in short supply. This is a decent and honorable country -- and resilient, too. We've been through a lot together. We've met challenges and faced dangers, and we know that more lie ahead. Yet we can go forward with confidence -- because the State of our Union is strong, our cause in the world is right, and tonight that cause goes on. God bless.

See you next year.

Assuming I'm still in office by then...

Thank you for your prayers.

Except for you non-Christians. I don't want yer prayers.

The "I" Word.

Well, it finally happened this week. CNN used the "I" word.

I have to admit that I (reluctantly) accepted the arguments against impeachment of the moronic monkey-boy currently inhabiting the Oval Office. Namely, that impeaching Bush would make the Democrats seem petty and partisan; or that it would make impeachment seem like a mere political tool, rather than the rarely-used check on the President's authority it's supposed to be, if two presidents in a row got impeached; and, of course, the single strongest argument against impeachment: Dick Cheney.

That said, it should be mentioned that the people who first voiced those arguments at me were the same people who felt that impeaching Clinton for an extramarital blowjob was clearly what a sober reading of the constitution demanded. Call me crazy, but somehow I don't see that someone who thinks sex is a constitutional crisis, but thinks we should look the other way when the president defrauds the entire country into an illegal war, and subverting the actual constitution can really be described as a dispassionate observer of presidential offenses.

The litmus test for impeachment is supposed to hang on one single question: has the person holding the office violated his or her oath of office? The presidential oath of office states:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Think about that for a second. Preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. How, exactly does an extramarital blowjob constitute a failure to preserve, protect, or defend the constitution of the United States? On the other hand, it is clear to me that subverting the writ of habeas corpus, on its own, constitutes a failure to protect the constitution, and everything it stands for. If that were his only offense, which it isn't, that would be enough for me to say "impeach the bastard."

I mentioned earlier that I was on board with some of the arguments against impeachment. It's time I revised that position. Frankly, if the things Bush has done fail to qualify as impeachable, what does? Well, if we go by historical precedent: blowjobs, B & E, and botching reconstruction (although technically, Nixon wasn't impeached for that B & E, it's clear that he would have been, had he not resigned).

Basically, we have a destructive buffoon of a president who's talking about going into Iran and Syria, not to mention the 20,000 troops he wants to send into Iraq. He's basically thumbing his nose at Congress and saying: "yeah? Well, how are you gonna stop me?"

Congress decides where the funding goes. They approve the budget. They can, and should, cut off funding for pretty much anything Bush decides he wants to do. This will have political consequences, but as an American citizen, I'm beyond the point of caring. It's the right thing to do, and they should do it. But frankly, I'm not sure that the consequences will be as bad as everyone fears they will be. This troop surge is roughly as popular as a guy with a rash at a nudist colony; and let's be honest, the war itself isn't doing much better. But even if it weren't, cutting funding to this war is still the right thing to do.

The other way is impeachment. If Bush has decided that he's the King, or the Decider, or whatever; and that he can expand this war the country wants out of even if Congress says "no," we have exactly one way to stop him: to knock him the hell out of office. Yes, it's extreme; yes, we'll be stuck with Cheney as our next president, but it's still the right thing to do.

That'll teach me to make my Email address available on my blog...

So I got a very angry email from some anonymous asshat, who had excised a few key passages from a few entries in this blog (often severely out of context), had decided that I was a radical left-winger, based upon what I can only assume was a severely twisted view of what constitutes "radical left," and proclaimed proudly that I simply "[didn't] get that there are people out there who want to kill Americans."

I get a lot of email from asshats, usually in the form of spam, but this one deserved a response, I felt. Unfortunately, attempts to respond to said email were bounced back to me; so I can only hope that said asshat is reading this now.

In truth, the asshat in question isn't the first to claim that I "don't get that there are people out there who want to kill Americans," not by a long shot. I've had members of my own family tell me that I "don't get that there are people who want to kill Americans." As if I'm running around with my fingers in my ears singing "lalala, nobody wants to kill us." As if, were the amazing revelation that people out there want to kill Americans were to penetrate my thick skull, I'd suddenly love Bush, support the war in Iraq, and hate Muslims.

Why? Because apparently not supporting the war in Iraq means that I somehow don't get it. Somehow, because I think that attacking a country that presented no threat whatsoever to us is stupid, I'm missing out on this mysterious truth that "there are people who want to kill Americans."

Let's pretend that's true, for the sake of argument. Let's assume that if I don't support the war in Iraq, then I simply "don't get that there are people out there who want to kill Americans." One would have to therefore accept that because a certain group of a certain race and religion want to kill Americans, that the logical response is to go after a country that had absolutely nothing to do with any attack on American soil, ever; but happens to have people living in it who have a similar race, and sorta-similar religious beliefs.

I'm hoping that the aforementioned asshat realizes just how absurd that position is.

Now, I can hear said asshat's whiny voice now saying "well, what do you think we should do?" For the record, I can't say for sure whether the asshat has a whiny voice or not, but the voice my brain made up for him was sure whiny when I was reading the email. I have a bunch of answers for that question. We could've actually finished the job in Afghanistan, for starters. I fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan, for the record. I was all for going in there and making sure that it was no longer a breeding ground for terrorism. And we could've done it, too. If, after the Taliban had been overthrown, we'd dedicated resources to rebuilding that country, getting it back onto its feet, making it a reasonable contributor to the world stage, we may well have actually gained an ally in the middle east. At the very least, we'd have one less country populated by "people who want to kill Americans." We could've actually caught Bin Laden, rather than abandoning the search for him for no logical reason whatsoever. We could've spent money that we would instead waste in Iraq, trying to rebuild a country which still desperately needs rebuilding.

I could think of a dozen things, and it's mostly things that would cost a miniscule fraction in both dollars and lives than this unending, pointless, and very likely illegal war in Iraq cost us. It's not sexy. It's not a grand gesture like blowing the crap out of a country which does not present; and could not, in the foseeable future, have presented; any reasonable threat to the United States of America, but at least it would make some degree of sense.

While we're on that subject, let's talk about the fact that we're getting our asses kicked in Iraq. Who's kicking our asses? Yes, admittedly, they're "people who want to kill Americans." But really, can we hold that against them? They were, quite literally, minding their own business when we decided that we, for some reason, didn't like them and ploughed onto their soil to depose a dictator we put in power in the first place. Frankly, I'd be a little pissed at Americans myself if it were me. It's like having someone kick in the door of your house, rip up your furniture, light a fire in the middle of your living room, take a shit on your couch; then watch them complain indignantly when you try to kick them out. So, yes, there are people in Iraq who want to kill Americans, because we made them hate us. To presume that the people who are mopping the floor with us in Iraq had any thing to do with the guys who blew up the World Trade Center is absurd in the highest degree. We're not preventing another 9/11 in any way, form or fashion by fighting the insurgency there. In fact, I would go so far as to say that by annoying an entire new generation of terrorist recruits, we're guaranteeing another one. In his six years in office, Bush has done more to ensure that at some time, we will have another 9/11 than any other president before him. But I guess he figures that's okay. He'll probably be out of office by the time that rolls around anyway.

So yes, I disagree with the majority of this administration's policies. I disagree with the Patriot Act, I disagree with the Military commissions act. I disagreed with Congress when they suddenly decided that the thing that most needed doing was the creation of a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning. I disagreed with congress when it decided that the greatest threat to American society was Gay Marriage. I disagreed with Bush when he decided that stem cell research was a dire enough threat to require him to exercise his first ever veto. Bush keeps claiming that those people who "want to kill Americans" hate us for our freedom; and he's doing his damnedest to ensure that pretty soon, that won't be a problem.

So, a couple of final notes to the anonymous asshat.

1. If you're so pretentious to put an "MA" after what I can only assume is a pseudonym, you should realize that "it's" is only spelled with an apostrophe when it's a contraction of "it is." "It's" is not the possessive of anything. On an unrelated note, "catastrophic" has no "f"s in it; if you're going to compare Bush to the mythical character Gilgamesh, you really should know a little more about it: it's not as much of a compliment as you seem to think it is.

2. You really shouldn't put an "MA" after what I can only assume is a pseudonym if all your ideas are stupid.

3. Yes, I do get that there are people out there who want to kill Americans. Do you?

The Evil Athiest Conspiracy (tm)

Science is more than just sitting in a laboratory randomly throwing things together to try to make pretty colors or a puff of smoke. Scientists by and large don't sit in an ivory tower trying to decide how we can further the Evil Athiest Conspiracy. Granted the argument could be made that science is atheistic, but only by virtue of the fact that the actions of any god or gods is an unscientific proposal. It's not that scientists don't believe in God (although some don't). It's that regardless of whether God, god, or gods were involved in the creation of the universe, there is no experiment we can perform which would give us any information as to the nature of said gods. I have met a number of athiest scientists; but I have met a far greater number of scientists of all faiths who have absolutely no difficulty reconciling their religious beliefs with their scientific pursuits. Christians (several flavors thereof), Muslims, Jews, Pegans... Some of whom hold their religious beliefs very strongly, yet are able to find a middle ground where their beliefs and their science can exist harmoniously. As one of my associates put it: "those whose faith is so weak that their God can only exist within the confines of science; and who force science to fit their definition of God; have done nothing to deserve faith."

The problem with bringing God into science is simple: science stops. What makes science such a wonderful pursuit is that it is never-ending. Every time you answer a question, it brings you in new directions, makes you ask new questions. It forces your mind to think in a way that you hadn't thought before. Once you bring God into the scientific process, you have nowhere else to go. How did the universe get here? God snapped Her fingers. How did we get such a complex array of life on this planet? God declared it so. God pretty much obliterates any questions you might ask. You can perform no experiment which would tell you how She'd do it. You simply stop asking questions, and if you stop asking questions, you stop learning. Why the hell would God want us to stop learning about the world?

Thomas Jefferson once said "Question with courage even the existence of God, for if there is one; he surely must prefer the homage of reason to that of blindfolded fear." Postulating the existence of God, it strikes me as completely non-sensical that She would be nice enough to provide us all with free will, then be enough of a prick that She doesn't want us to use it. It's completely non-sensical to me that She wants us to learn about the universe from a book that has been re-written, re-translated and revised dozens of times since the dawn of time; and to alienate those who dare consider the possibility that the Bible might not be the best scientific resource.

I have no issue with religion, actually, I don't even have an issue with including one religion in the public arena. For me the issue is the exclusion of all the others. We have had people insisting that a monument of the ten commandments had to remain outside a courthouse; but what if someone had insisted that we include the Wiccan Rede? People would respond with absolute outrage. What if we included prayer in public schools, but insisted that it had to take the form of a Hindu prayer, or a Taoist or Buddist meditaion? What if we said that students had to read the Tao or the Koran every day before class began?

Why are these suggestions any more absurd than including Christian prayer in class, or the ten commandments outside a courthouse?

My point is simple: worship or don't worship in whatever way you see fit. If it's as simple as meditating for a few minutes every day, fine. If you pray to God, or Allah, or Jesus, or his brother Bob; so be it. But if you pray to God, don't tell the guy sitting next to you who's praying to Bob that he's doing it wrong.

If that makes me an evil athiest, so be it. I'd rather be an evil athiest than a pious bigot.

Collateral Damage

It's official: the American people elected a total asshat into the whitehouse in 2004.

Good ol' Dub-ya has, after six years of presidency, exercised his first-ever veto of a bill passed through congress.

And what, you may ask, was such a horrendous threat to the world that our illustrious president decided to block a bill that had already received congressional assent? What was so terrible that Dub-ya felt that for the first time in his entire presidency, he had to stop it from happening? What could possibly make Bush exercise the Presidential veto that the past three presidents never once used in their entire times in office?

Stem cell research.

Yes, our great and illustrious president decided that Stem Cell research was such a horrid threat that he'd veto a bill which would have allowed it.

Yep, Bush thinks that life is so sacred that he's blocking research performed on invisible clumps of cells; which he apparently thinks is the equivalent of walking up to someone and shooting them in the head.

'Course, when it's dropping bombs on Iraqi civilians, it's "collateral damage."

And, lest we forget, while Governor of Texas, Bush shattered all records across the country for most death row inmates executed while under his charge. But that's "justice."

As of this writing, there are approximately 400,000 embryos on ice in the United States of America. Until this bill was vetoed, those embryos could have been used to find cures for Parkinsons, Diabetes, paraplegia, MS, ALS, severe brain damage... Stem cells could mean an end to organ shortages. Now that this bill has been vetoed, those embryos can be either used for InVitro Fertilization, or destroyed. This bill would have allowed those slated for destruction to be used for research. Apparently, according to the Pro-Life brigade in the US, this would be the equivalent of mass murder.

Now, for some reason that is somewhat beyond my capacity to grasp, Bush decided to announce his vetoing of this bill while surrounded by "Snowflake Babies," their term, for the record, not mine. These babies were formed from embryos which were frozen; exactly the type of embryos that would have been used for this research. The irony is that none of these babies would exist if it weren't, literally, for decades worth of research performed on human embryonic cells; but Bush is going to studiously ignore that one, methinks.

Oh, and let's not forget, IVF requires implantation of several blastocysts in the hope that just one of them will grow into a full fledged human being.

All the others, I guess they're just "collateral damage."

Marshall McLuhan was wrong.

I should probably make clear at the outset that I'm against censorship of any kind.

I'm against censoring what we watch on TV, I'm against censoring the use of some specific words, I'm against censoring what is available to be viewed or heard.

I'm against censorship; especially in an era where if you don't like what you see or hear, you can change the channel or walk away.

But free expression means, practically by definition, sooner or later, someone is going to say something, or do something, or express themselves in some way that offends you. You can't have it both ways. You can either have free expression, or you can expect never to be offended. You cannot, in a free society, expect to have both. To do so is naive and, frankly, silly.

George Carlin did a famous comedy routine where he spoke about the seven words which were specifically prohibited on television. Seven, he said, out of approximately 400,000 words in the English language. "What a ratio that is," he said in his famous routine, "399,993 to seven. They must really be bad. They'd have to be outrageous to be separated from a group that large." He then went on to list the seven dirty words; shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits; on national television.

But seriously, what is it about some words, one specific sequence of sounds that we find so utterly offensive? "Truck" is an utterly inoffensive word, but somehow, when we replace the "TR" with "F," that word suddenly becomes vile?

And what makes a word offensive anyway? How do we decide that one specific sequence of sounds is horrendous and vile? What makes that switch turn on in our brains that says "oh, no, that's a bad word?" It would be trivial for me to offend you or spew the most vile of sentiments using the "cleanest" of words. Conversely, I could express the most gentle and noble of sentiments using the most vulgar profanity.

The point is that if you're not offended by the message I'm sending, it seems to me that it's ridiculous that you'd be offended by the words I use to send it. Kinda like recieving the present you always wanted for Christmas, then complaining about the gift-wrap. It's as if they don't care if you speak with hate, as long as you use appropriate wording to do so. As if the words you use are what make the discourse hateful or distasteful.

Marshall McLuhan was wrong. The message is the message.

Flag Desecration

So, my other country came within a hair's bredth of a constitutional ban of flag burning.

The last time this was brought up was in 2004. Also, incidentally, an election year.

Coincidence? Um, no.

But let's talk about this ban for a second. The United States of America wanted to ban the burning of the flag.

Here's the catch tho: the Flag Code of the United States of America specifically requires a flag to be ceremonially burned if it becomes soiled or damaged or has otherwise outlived its useful life.

Apparently, that kind of burning is okay, but burning it in protest is not.

In other words, the current administration is not trying to regulate the behaviour of burning the flag, so much as the sentiment voiced by said burning.

Seems to me that there was something in that whole constitution thing about some "free expression" somethingorother, wasn't there?

Now, I understand that some people are offended by the idea of flag burning. Freedom of speech, by definition, means that you're going to be offended. It means that you're going to hear things that you don't like, and don't want to hear. It means that a Neonazi can stand in the center of the village square proclaiming his hatred of all non-aryan races without fear of reprisal from the government. Freedom means acknowledging someone who stands at center stage proclaiming at the top of his lungs what you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.

In short, the first amendment of the constitution is meant to protect all speech, not just the speech you agree with.

"Liberal" Science

So, I've been unwilling to jump on the Anne Coulter Hate-a-thon, largely because I figure that's exactly what the woman wants. But I was bought a copy of her latest book "Godless." Believe me, I wouldn't buy one of her books if I had a choice in the matter; but since someone had been nice enough to buy it for me, I figure it would be just impolite not to read it.

Unlike just about everybody else, I'm going to say absolutely nothing about her comments on the 9/11 widows. She's perfectly entitled to defame or abuse the memory of anybody she sees fit. That's the definition of freedom of speech. Likewise, I'm perfectly in my rights to point out that she's full of crap.

I'd like to take a moment to talk about Coulter's stance on so-called "liberal science."

There are basically two different areas that Coulter uses as evidence that liberals hate science: stem-cell research, and the theory of evolution.

Let's start with the former. Ms. Coulter claims that because liberals support stem-cell research, they obviously hate science.

First and foremost, it should be noted that a number of political conservatives also support stem-cell research. Guvernator Aaaaah-Nuld, for one; Nancy Reagan, for another.

Coulter goes on to write that "[l]iberals just want to kill humans."

Um, what?

The potential for stem-cell research to save lives is, in a word, enormous. The number of diseases which could be cured, the number of injuries which could be repaired, and the number of lives which could be saved by this one branch of scientific research is potentially numbered in the billions.

And I'm not overestimating the potential benefits of this technology in the least. If anything, I'm vastly underestimating its potential.

And yet, apparently, liberals hate science and want to kill humans.

If you can explain the logic behind that one, you're smarter than I am.

Coulter's thesis statement on evolution seems pretty damning, if you happen to be completely and utterly ignorant of the facts: "[l]iberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientists laboratory or the fossil record - and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God." Note her subtle implication that one must necessarily be a libral (and in the US, there can be no greater insult) to accept the theory of evolution.

It should first be noted that a number of political conservatives subscribe to the theory of evolution; ergo, it cannot, by any definition of the term, be described as a "liberal creation myth." It's not liberal, it's not about creation, and it's not a myth.

Now, as for her claim that Evolution is a "make-believe story," with "no proof," there's really only one possible way to describe that claim: a lie. Either that, or she's completely ignorant of the, literally, thousands of fossil finds which support the theory of evolution. She's also completely ignorant of the thousands of lab experiments which have been performed which clearly support evolution.

In other words: she's either lying or stupid. There are really no other options; and I don't think that she's stupid. She writes too skillfully to be a complete moron.

I'd also like to talk about her claim that "liberals think evolution disproves God." There's really only one way to describe this claim, too: a lie. The late Pope John Paul II spoke in favor of the theory of evolution, offering an official papal concession that the theory is more than a wild and wacky idea, but actually a fact. As much a fact as the earth orbiting the sun, or that masses generate a gravitational pull.

Call me crazy, but I think it's a reasonably safe bet that Pope John Paul II believed in God. If he didn't, I think he probably would have sought out a different carreer. I also think it's fair to say that it's a bit of a stretch to claim that Pope John Paul II was a liberal by any conventionally-accepted definition of the term.

On the Dover, Pennsylvania trial, she goes on to say: "They didn't win on science, persuasion, or the evidence. They won the way liberals always win: by finding a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter."

I know I'm having to say this a lot, but there's really no other way to describe this claim than to say that it is a lie.

Let's start with her claims on the court itself: Judge John Jones III, the judge presiding over the case, is a Bush Appointee, chosen specifically for his very conservative credentials. In fact, at the outset, the former members of the school board thought they had a slam-dunk case specifically for that reason. He is demonstratably not a judge with proclivities towards judicial activism, and upon reading his 139-page judgement, it is equally self-evident that his judgement is not a case of judicial activism. In fact, for him to have ruled differently than he did would have required a level of judicial activism which would have made a mockery of the American judicial system.

Actually, if one actually takes the time to read Judge Jones' judgment, it is very clear that he went to enormous lengths to understand the science which supports the theory of evolution, and to understand the history of the so called "Intelligent Design" theory. It's extremely difficult for me to imagine a judgment which is more diametrically opposed to any rational human being's definition of "Judicial Activism." Then again, though, the judgement is 139 pages long. Maybe Coulter just couldn't be bothered to read the whole thing. Or any of it for that matter.

No, the "liberals" didn't win because they had a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter, they won because they had science, persuasion, and evidence on their side. Of course, it certainly didn't hurt that the righteous members of the school board lied repeatedly during the trial (also stated in the 139-page judgment; had Ms. Coulter read it). Details that Ms. Coulter studiously ignores. Instead, she lies about it and hopes nobody noticed. It's not like she couldn't access the trial transcripts or the judgement. I've offered a link to the judgement, and the trial transcripts are public record. A 30-second google search of "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board" produced them. And if I'm smart enough to find them, it stands to reason that Coulter is.

Now, Ms. Coulter has every right to make all of these claims; as ignorant, misinformed, dishonest and ridiculous as they are. Lying, to the best of my knowledge, is not in itself against the law, except in specific instances: libel, slander, perjury; to name a few, however writing and publishing a book which tells lies is not in itself illegal. Morally reprehensible, to be sure, but not illegal.

Ms. Coulter is certainly skilled in rhetoric, and I wouldn't like to face her in a debate, even if I had the facts on my side (which, in the instances described above, I would); and apart from being rather heavy on the dishonesty, her book is quite well-written. It is clearly written by an intelligent woman, which is why I am very specific about my claims that she is being deliberately dishonest. I don't believe she's actually dumb enough to be that ignorant.

But you never know, I could be wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

But in this particular instance, I don't think I am.

On Constitutional Amendments

I'm trying hard to decide whether these people are completely devoid of any capacity for logical thought, or simply stupid. Heck, the idea of actually having facts to back up their blind assertions is apparently completely foreign to them.

Take, for example, this couple described in this article. They spend their vacation money to go to DC to hold up signs that say: Stop Same Sex Marriage: It Endorses Masturbation.

I think I speak for the rest of America when I say: WHAT!? Frankly, I seriously doubt any Amercan who has ever masturbated (which, I imagine, is pretty much all of 'em who ever passed the age of 12), has ever said "damn, if only gay Marriage were legal, I could do this without feeling guilty."

If you follow what the far-right has been saying in the US, gay marriage is somehow responsible for everything from drug abuse to decline in air quality.

Now, granted, it's a little hard to study this, since exactly one state in the US has been forward-thinking enough to legalize Gay marriage we don't have much in the way of sample size, but let's see what's happening in that hellhole they call Massachusetts, why don't we? Massachusetts is a pathetic dead-last in illiteracy, a pitiful 48th in per-capita poverty, and an abysmal 49th in the number of divorces. Those poor sods in Massachusetts, how can they live in such horrid conditions?

The reason I bring this up is that our esteemed president has again tried, and failed miserably, to push a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage through congress. It fell massively short of the required 2/3 majority to create a constitutional amendment. No surprise there. Frankly, I wasn't the least bit worried that the bill might pass. But frankly, the idea that the Constitution of the United States; a document I happen to take very seriously, a document which has been perverted more by the Bush Administration than just about any other; is being used as a blatant political ploy frankly turned my stomach.

Bush desperately needs to learn that the constitution is not just a piece of paper. It's not a set of loose guidelines that you can simply ignore whenever you feel like it. And it's certainly not a document meant to be used to score political points. The constitution is the document that makes America America. It's the collection of the founding principles of the nation. It's not a symbol to be perverted whenever the current party in power is lagging in the polls.

The constitution, to those who have actually read it, is a piece of history which presents everything that the US of A is supposed to represent. Freedom from tyrrany of all kinds, freedom to express onesself in whatever manner they choose, regardless of how offensive some may find it.

Freedom to be onesself, provided that they do no harm to anyone else.

By adding an amendment to the constitution which specifically limits one freedom to one group of people, the American government not only would have perverted the very freedom that the constitution enshrines and symbolizes, but they would have sent the message to the American people that they can no longer be assured of the protection the constitution guarantees. If they can deny marriage to one group of people constitutionally, then logically they can deny freedom of speech, or religion, or belief, or any of the rights assured by the constitution. A second set of McCarthy trials could, in principle, be constitutionally assured. In short, the government would be telling the American people that they could no longer look to the one document designed to protect them from the government.

The American government is founded on a very simple principle: the Constitution doesn't trust them. The power doesn't lie in the government, it lies in the document on which that government is founded. And that document places the power in the people's hands. The people have the power to choose one government over another, to hold opinions which are in the minority, to stand at center stage proclaiming at the top of their lungs what others would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of theirs. The American government was founded on the principle that it is far, far better to have a man wrap himself in the constitution so that he can burn the flag, than one who wraps himself in the flag so that he can burn the constitution.

There is a word for all of this: freedom. And we cannot promote freedom abroad by demolishing it at home.

The innocent have nothing to hide.

A friend of mine, and long-time republican voter recently said in response to the recent wiretapping scandal in the US: "why are people really upset about this whole wiretapping thing? I mean, if they're innocent, they have nothing to hide."

The most terrifying thing about this is that he actually thought that this was a reasonable argument.

But let's address that for a second. If the innocent really have nothing to hide, then maybe it's time for the Bush administration to release their information on Dick Chaney's Energy task force, as well as the documents they've the pre-9/11 and Katrina preparedness.

And while we're on the subject, maybe it's time that they come clean on that whole Guantanimo torture scandal.

Maybe we should start talking candidly about the whole Jack Abramoff thing.

Or for that matter, maybe we should talk about the Downing Street Memo; or the no-bid contracts with Halliburton.

Perhaps they'll finally come clean about who's idea it was to release Valerie Plame's name to the media, and why it was done.

Or maybe they could release the documents from Bush Sr.'s time in office, which Bush II had sealed (without any explanation whatsoever) on his first day in office.

After all, if the innocent have nothing to hide....

The heroism of DubYa.

You know, you hear it from a lot of people; hell, I said it myself: "Bush really did do a great job right after 9/11;" and I think it's probably fair to say that I probably have as great a loathing of dub-YA as just about anyone out there. You hear it in the media, you hear it from people of both political extremes about Bush's supposed heroism just after the terrorist attacks. And, like I said, I've heard it from me.

But let's really think about this. I mean, let's go back to a few months before the 9/11 attacks and really, seriously ask ourselves what made Bush so heroic after that fateful day.

January, 2001: Clinton is just leaving office, and the outgoing national security team warns Bush's incoming National Security advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, that she will probably spend most of her time dealing with terrorism in general, and Osama bin Laden in specific. To the best of anyone's knowledge, she did nothing to act upon this advice.

March, 2001. The bipartisan Hart-Rudman study was issued. I'm not going to go over the specifics of the study, but suffice to say that the study argued that the US was likely to face a large-scale terrorist attack in the not-too-distant future, and recommended steps to protect against such an attack. While we obviously cannot say for sure, it is certainly possible that some of the recommended measures stood at least a chance of preventing or at least mitigating the 9/11 attacks.

The report was largely ignored, and Bush had Chaney convene an antiterror task force to come up with its own set of recommendations.

As of 9/11, the task force had never met. That's six months after the issuing of the study, and they hadn't met once. It's worth mentioning that his energy task force met several times in the same six months. Apparently, energy was a more pressing issue than terrorism.

Somehow, even the August 6th security briefing with the rather ominous title: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States" failed to raise any red flags with the administration.

Now, I want to stop here and say that people smarter than me don't even know if 9/11 could have been prevented or not, so I'm not for a minute saying that it could've. But how it can be argued with a straight face that Bush did everything he could, or even everything that a reasonably intelligent 10-year-old would have done, is completely beyond me.

9/11. Now, in fairness, for about 48 hours, nobody had the faintest clue what the hell was going on; and it fell to the Mayor of New York City to hold the country together. And while I generally don't think too highly of Rudy, I have to admit, I put credit where it's due: he handled the crisis well.

So, now we're well into September of 2001; and in the week following 9/11, Bush had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cultivate international goodwill. We had countries which, a year ago, would just as soon have pissed on the american flag pledging their support. Iran offered their support, France, England, just about all of Europe and Asia, most of Africa. For the first time in history, we had a whole world offering their contolences and asking what help we needed.

Now, maybe I'm old fashioned, but it seems like it's just good manners to respond: "Thank you. We appreciate your offers. If we need anything, we will let you know." Instead, Bush snarled "you're either with us, or you're against us." Dirty Harry is not a guide to international diplomacy. Basically, he threatened half the world into do exactly what they'd promised to do anyway. Effectively, he squandered the tragic events' one silver lining: an opportunity to cultivate international goodwill, something which would have proven useful in a time when the major enemies are international terrorist organizations.

So Bush invades Afghanistan. And he had a lot of help doing it. Everyone in the US, and several other countries supported that invasion. Incidentally, contrary to any conservative nut that tells you otherwise, Gore was a full supporter of the invasion of Afghanistan. How can one legitimately call Bush a hero for doing exactly what absolutely anyone else would have done in his position?

And in a time of national unity unparallelled since the second world war, Bush squandered the one opportunity he had to ask us for sacrifice, and make significant changes to domestic policy. Presidents during wartime have a long history of asking for, and getting, shared sacrifice from citizens willing to give it, proudly united in the service of a common cause.

He could have called for energy conservation. He could have called for us to get off Middle East oil entirely, or called for an Apollo-caliber project for total energy independence. He could have used the tragedy of 9/11 to change the course of history for the better. I truly believe that the nation would have risen to it.

Instead, he suspends whatever liberties he wanted to, and subsequently let bin Laden escape from Tora Bora. He then went on to further abuse the memory of the thousands who died on September 11th to justify an invasion of Iraq, and furhter trashed international relations and national security.

In short, a real hero would have pretty much done exactly the opposite of what Bush did at every step of the way.