Pubic Health Hazard

No, that's not a typo. And it's nice to see Hitchens writing something I can get behind, although he sure lands on a shrill note ("What a pity that there is no hell").

If I hadn't torn myself away from the news here and there this week, I'm not sure I'd know what century I'm in.

Beware of the Unitarian Jihad!

"We are Unitarian Jihad, and our motto is: "Sincerity is not enough." We have heard from enough sincere people to last a lifetime already. Just because you believe it's true doesn't make it true. Just because your motives are pure doesn't mean you are not doing harm. Get a dog, or comfort someone in a nursing home, or just feed the birds in the park. Play basketball. Lighten up. The world is not out to get you, except in the sense that the world is out to get everyone."


I don't know if this was linked to before but I like it.




My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Blunderbuss of Tolerance. What's yours?


The General's Otaku

I'd be remiss in my obsequious fanboy duties if I didn't link to The Good General's guest stint at TPMCafe.

Nattering Nabob

Our pal Gordon at the Brain admits to being disconcerted with his agreement with Herr Buchanan in the generalities, if not the particulars of impeaching Dear Leader Shrubya - and I promise that's the last link we'll ever give to Human Events Online.

I remember how, in the early years of the anti-globalization movement, being stung by Pat's favor was shocking for us too. We realized then, as we should all realize now - unlike a certain fat, balding, drink soaked ex-Trotskyist who in his anti-Clinton fervor appeared at Freeper gatherings with Ann Coulter because he would, in his own words "take what I can get" - that the enemy of our enemy is not our friend. If Pat's all I can get, I'll be happy with nothing. I'm all for consensus building and finding common ground, but even pretending we're even in the same volume - never mind on the same page - with a pandering xenophobic phoney (remember the "Lock-n-Load!" hooey, when he'd never held a gun?) is a losing proposition.

Now if I were Yglasias I'd offer bemused wonderings on what manner of precedent Pat hopes to set by using impeachment as a political cattle-prod. But I'm not, so I won't.

Give Till It Hurst Then Give A Little More

If you're reading this blog then you clearly have access to enough disposable income to maybe give a little scratch to the American Red Cross(link from Norbizness) who have mobilized a huge relief effort for New Orleans and beyond. Although it sounded like New Orleans had escaped the worst, it's actually really bad. I hope those who read this blog that have family there (and who had big plans to be there) have been able to verify the safety of said family members.

The Question

ARE YOU EFFIN' KIDDING ME? Sadly, No!

John Grisham or Nostradamus...?

I just returned from my belated honeymoon in Costa Rica.

I finished the book that I brought on the day I arrived, then stopped in every little store that sold used books in every little town through which we passed.

The pickins were mostly slim. It seems that most of the books brought to Costa Rica by English-reading tourists were written by Lawrence Sanders or Danielle Steele.

I went through a Lawrence Sanders phase in high school and still enjoy the occasional McNally Caper, but I was coming off a Kurt Vonnegut kick and looking for something a little more stimulating.

I had to settle for entertaining ... Sanders and Robert B. Parker. It worked out nicely, actually.
Remember "Spenser for Hire"?
The TV show was based on a series of books written by Robert B. Parker. He's been writing the books since the 70's so there's like 7000 of them and most of them are wildly entertaining and completely engrossing for a fortnight on the beach. But I digress.

Mrs. Klipper picked "The Pelican Brief" by John Grisham and when I ran out of Spenser's and McNally's I read it.

What struck me immediately was that the President in the book was a complete imbecile (George W.) and the real man in charge was his chief of staff; an evil, manipulative, genius capable of sinking to any low to accomplish his political goals (Karl Rove)

I couldn't read the book but to picture old Georgie and Rove discussing the good fortune of a major crisis (9/11) and the dangers of the pelican brief (downing street memos).

The book, written in 1992 or so, reads like a history of Bush's presidency; except, of course, that in the book the media does its job. The President and his wormtongue are exposed as scoundrels. The President is not re-elected (...) and wormtongue retires in disgrace ("...fire whoever leaked...Valerie...Plame...").

Well, I guess the bad guy has to lose in John Grisham's world or we'd all feel an empty, hollowness in the pit of our stomachs knowing that something isn't right.

You know, that same gut-wrenching emptyness we feel now, as the bad guys win, in our world.

He Really Loves Korn

"The truth is that every pop critic, to one degree or another, is a case of arrested development."

Check out David Segal's memoir of his days as a pop music critic at the Post.

Supply and Demand

When I started contributing to this blog, I never thought it would be to excoriate Jon Stewart. I definitely didn't think it would be to throw rose petals at the senior editor of the National Review.

But after reading Richard Brookhiser's review of Bernard Goldberg's 100 People Who Get More Attention Paid to Them Than I Do, I bolted to the rose garden with a wheelbarrow.

Brookhiser makes the point that I have been harping on since Jon Stewart lit into Carlson and Begala on Crossfire. The sorry state we find America in today cannot be blamed entirely on the media and the government. Our media and government are as pathetic as they are because so many Americans don't give a crap about anything. When served base popular culture, vapid infotainment, corporate corruption, cowardly journalism, and a cynical and mendacious casus belli, they lick their plates and ask for more. It's simple supply and demand. Demand nothing, and you'll get whatever they want to give you.

Brookhiser makes the point that all of Goldberg's targets--some of whom are big, fat fish in a barrel that a toddler's marksmanship couldn't miss--were elected, whether democratically or through the market:

The politicians in ''100 People'' were all elected, by constituencies small (Velella's State Senate district) or large (Jimmy Carter is No. 6). Who elected them? The face in the mirror, and in every other mirror of America. Similarly with all Goldberg's targets who sell movies, records or shares of stock. They have gained their prominence in the electorate of the marketplace. Goldberg acknowledges this point now and again, writing, for example, of the E! channel auteur Anna Nicole Smith (No. 53), ''Let's be perfectly honest: these people can only exist in a culture of voyeurs, a culture where there are enough people who actually care about this stuff.'' Who then is to blame? Shouldn't Goldberg's book be ''270 Million People Who Are Screwing Up America''?

I'm not exempting myself. Nor am I exempting the elite who think themselves above such pabulum (in particular, the New York Wankees at Angelika earlier this evening who cruelly laughed at--not with--Timothy Treadwell each time he embarrassed himself in Werner Herzog's Grizzly Man...my second disheartening experience in the West Village in as many nights).

But I feel like we're letting the real culprits off the hook when we focus our outrage on the people in front of the camera. Something much more degenerative is happening in front of the screen.

Junky Science Friday

Both Gilliard and Atrios take Andrew Sullivan to task for yet again endorsing The Bell Curve. My first exposure to the "classical liberal" Sullivan was actually his endorsment of the book - along with his subsequent self-congratulation - so I've never understood why anyone ever mistook him for someone with anything interesting to say. The absolute nadir was actually his article in some British rag reprinted in Left Hooks, Right Corsses where, among other things, he claims that his most interesting discovery on this journey through the pseudo-verse was the unearthing of a societal "taboo". It was, as I learned later, a technique of which Sullivan seemed to be the lone master: Inspire a pointless debate about a semi-controversial subject supposedly in the name of "free inquiry", then stand back in feigned utter amazement that the "facts" of the case supported some conservative cause or other. It was disgusting in the early 1990's and it's disgusting now. For Sullivan to claim that a book which contained serious errors in its calculations "holds up" seriously counts the guy out as any sort of public intellectual. ARE YOU EFFIN' KIDDING ME? What he means is that the controversy he stirred up "holds up". The actual work the authors of the book did does not.

However, since Sullivan is attempting to make the tripe current again, it's worth revisiting, I guess. My favorite critique came from Chomsky, who simply wrote that a study such as the one Murray and Hernstein were conducting was not done in the spirit of free inquiry, but in the spirit of ideology. There's just no question worth an answer there, unless you've got some sort of un-scientific agenda. When friends of mine would ask me about my opinion of the book, I'd normally say, "Yeah, well, I'm working on a study on the distribution of IQ among people of different heights. So far short people are coming out way ahead. My next study will be about the distribution of IQ between nail-biters and non-nail biters." What's the point of gathering such information based on arbitrary distinctions? Substitute "tall", "medium" and "short" for the racial categories they used into the policy prescriptions and social predictions that they made and try to stop laughing. That Sullivan made his name on such pandering and posing, which in my mind opened the door to the Coulters of the world, should tell us all we need to know about our "liberal media".

Friday Stupid Survey Blogging: Erm...wait...

This can't be right...

What Famous Leader Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

Oh, so that's the problem... Its anthropological.

More from the frontiers of the new, non-materialist, teleological science. Apparently the problem with the environment has nothing to do with the environment, its the anthropological error.

Every Liberal's Favorite Republican

I was slightly heartened by his participation in the effort to stop global warming. But then...well, I'll quote Jo Momma again: Eff John McCain. Now I'll never get over the time he said, with a straight face, that Arizona demonstrated the success of free trade because of the state's over-abundance of defense contractors.

We do not tip hats at RUFNKM; we steal links, and that one came from Wonkette.

What's With This Guy?

Anyone this obsessed from with the behavior of "the gays" as "other" is about two weeks from coming out. Godspeed Mr. Volokh! After that it may be only a short step to recognizing that trotting out cliche'd cannards on any given subject is not the same thing as thoughtful reasoned analysis.

Do not come home

Because all is most definately not forigven.

ID The Future Of My Pants

ARE YOU EFFIN' KIDDING ME? Can I just ask Billy Boy how pluralism and faith would help him operate on a heart? Rarely is the question asked enough often(so I'll ask it) again: What does the masses of peoples hope to gain by teaching their children junk?

Someone please explain this to me. Assume for a moment that public opinion really does favor teaching ID. If public opinion favored teaching "2 + 3 = 314159" would we the way we taught math? Of course not. All you'd have to point out is that teaching our kids bad math means we cheat ourselves out of future scientists. Why is biology any different?

Genus: Boobus, Species: Freeperus Troglodytus

Just last weekend Benn and I were conversing about the composition of the Baltimore Blogosphere; specifically about the ratio of straight up liberal political blogs to "blogging your life" type blogs. We didn't settle on a number, but we did count our own blogs as members of the first set. This post removes RUFNKM from that set, unless someone else soon writes something to make up for the forthcoming illiberal remarks.

Before today I never really believed there was really such a thing as an honest-to-Forbush Freeper. I knew about the website and the opinions of its "membership". I read the membership and usage statistics detailed in What Liberal Media; how many hours the average visit lasted and so on. I just assumed this was a result of the three actual members having to log in and out of all the different aliases they had in order to give the illusion of a user base - much like back in the old usenet days when the same Nazi guy would post under 10 different names to alt.fan.noam-chomsky arguing, sometimes ferociously, over the finer points of the Turner Diaries while taking time out to yell "communist aethiest Jew Lover!!!!" at the rest of us. I always resonded with "guilty of all three!". But I (only slightly) digress....

Imagine my shock when I viewed the video on the right of this post. Freepers do actually exist! And there's more than 3 of them! Even if you already knew that you should click the link for a laugh. There's nothing funnier than watching an over-weight middle aged service record lacking girl's name and huge knockers having white man explain to an ex-marine, who happens to be holding a "end the war now" sign, how said ex-marine is "disrespecting the corps" and "stabbing them in the back." ARE YOU EFFIN' KIDDING ME? If these are the people that love my country then I can only hope and pray that love goes unrequited. I'd hate to think of my country stuck in a relationship with one of these guys. They'd probably beat her for being too lippy - oh wait, she is and they are.

Something Worth Reading In Rolling Stone

I know what you're thinking. ARE YOU EFFIN' KIDDING ME? Since when has Rolling Stone had anything worth reading? Yeah, you got your bi-weekly Rees, but for eff's sake they're still doing cover stories on Jimi Hendrix. But this week they have a fantastic (if depressing) story by Matt Taibbi about the veritable hogpen that is our national legislature. Ever since I read this Taibbi has become one of my favorite columnists and journalists and this piece, while in one sense made me say, "duh, of course!", on the other hand enraged.

Who's The America Hater?

Wow. This guy is so patriotic he thinks it's fun to goof on shooting his fellow Americans. Oh wait, that's right. They're anti-war so they're actually, uhm, Venezualan.

Finally!

God bless Crooked Timber and all who sail upon her! In two posts they do something I've been waiting and waiting for a major lefty blog to do. First Ted calls bullshit on a "reasonable conservative" whom he sees propogating the "a substantial part of the left wants the US to lose in Iraq" meme and then suggests that it might be time to define terms and name some names. This is traditionally called "asking to see the evidence". Then Henry asks for people to cite major commentators propgating the meme. Yeah, Media Matters does this. It's just nice to see coming from other places.

We've Got To Stop Letting Him Beat Us To It

Steve Gilliard totally beat us to saying what we thought about the latest step in our march toward our very own Sovietization. Since when did the job of the Ministry of Truth land at the Department of Defense?

Local Local

If, like most of us RUFNKM'ers, you live Hampden then I urge you to help keep Hampden indy(parenthetically I'd add that we'd all love it if you helped keep Hampden tidy too). Would any of us like a Quizno's on the Ave? ARE YOU EFFIN' KIDDING ME?

Update: Edited to remove netiquette violation.

Rumsfeld's Been Busy

In 1974, Rumsfeld claimed, without evidence, that the Soviet Union has been "very busy" building weapons systems. In 2003 Rumsfeld claimed, without evidence, that we knew exactly where the WMD were. In August 2005 Rummsfeld claims:

...that weapons have been found in Iraq that were "clearly, unambiguously" from Iran and that the weapons would ultimately become a problem for Tehran.

[snip]

"What you do know is that the Iranians did not stop them from coming in," he told reporters. "It's notably unhelpful for the Iranians to be allowing weapons of those types to cross the border," said Rumsfeld. He offered no further specifics on the weapons.

(link via War and Piece)

Forgive me for thinking this is propoganda. While it's not exactly a rattling sabre, it's certainly one of many raised eye-brows in the direction of Tehran; another item on the list of demands we will make or they will face an invasion. "Along with halting their nuclear program, Iran must stop the flow of weapons into Iraq!"

Deadline Comedown Geek-a-nerd Blogging

You Are... Ride.

You are young at heart and full of energy. You are
talented but very modest. You are happy go
lucky and care free. You have learned to take
the good with the bad and you just accept life
for being what it is. People tend to be envious
of you, That's only because they don't
understand you and they just want some of what
you have. There's no task too hard for you and
you excel at pretty much everything you try to
do. You have a playful personallity and a
beautiful inner soul.


what Creation Records band are you? (complete with text and images)
brought to you by Quizilla

Oddly enough, this makes total sense. Aside from the goofy description, that is. But do they have to use the second worst album of the band's career for the picture?

A Stunning Configuration

Justice Antonin Scalia on September 28, 2004

Is it racial profiling prohibited by the Fourth Amendment for the police to go looking for a white man with blue eyes? Do you want to stop little old ladies with tennis shoes?

Fat Tony, you ask and you shall receive. While she's not exactly little or old, Cindy Sheehan sure sounds like a lady to me.

Update because we would be remiss otherwise:She's a threat to national security? ARE YOU EFFIN' KIDDING ME? The President's peace and quiet is not a matter of national security.

Update: Fixed link to report of Scalia talk.

Total Loss Of Balance

Yglesias says "don't worry, be happy!" and to leave those poor ID'ers alone. I think he's got it wrong.

The first reason is that something of practical importance does hinge on the teaching of evolution versus teaching ID. Yes, we are fine without everyone knowing general relativity or quantum mechanics, but this is a false analogy. They don't teach that stuff in basic high school science classes, and if they do, of course they don't expect everyone to remember it. But they also don't teach that little angels lift airplanes into the sky. The point is not wether we are teaching the technical details of complicated theory. The point is wether we're preparing kids to understand science at all, to be properly skeptical, and to be prepared not just for good colleges but for good citizenship(in the best sense of the term).

Second, while I dig the "What's The Matter With Kansas" riff, going up against ID isn't going up against social conservatives at all. Going up against ID is going up against a front organization who's stated goal is the destruction of science as we know it. The Discovery Institute is spending lots of money to disseminate crummy pseudo-science and trick people into teaching it to children. They are operating hand in hand with - and in some cases are - that same set of corporate managers pushing an agenda that will in the end make the general population less educated and therefore less likely to call things like corporate dominance into question. Hate to come all Vulgar Marxist(who am I kidding, I love coming all Vulgar Marxist), but the whole point of this exercise is to create a more pliant and thus more permanent lower class. That's why it's worth combating.

Update:Jesse at Pandagon sees things much the same minus the vulgar marxism.

No True Baltimorean

Yeah, being a recent transplant I'm not really one to talk, but even I am asimilated enough to know better than this...

So David at OxBlog asked for "Best Of Baltimore" restaurant recommendation, and somone recomended Bo Effin' Brooks. ARE YOU EFFIN' KIDDING ME? This is quite possibly the most over-rated restaurant in the entire city. The crabs are tiny little critters and over-priced to boot. You can do far better in Essex or even going to one of those "crabs to go" places. Can I get a witness?

WSS

The administration re-branded our current imperial project from "Global War On Terror" to "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism". I've personally always hated "GWOT" because it suggested the sound warm snot makes when it hits the pavement on a humid Bawlmer-summer day. "GSAVE" is a little better, but, honestly, it's still wrong; it suggests some sort of free software disk utility. Besides, don't these people know that acronyms.have.three.letters? But I'm just one of those liberals who has no new ideas and can only criticize. Which is why it's so marvelous that Suzanne Nossel at Democracy Arsenal scores a rhetorical twofer in this post wherein she makes fun of the new acronym and points out 10 things more important than a new acronym.