Digital Chum - Virtual fish guts and other nonsense

Politics

Republican Debate 1/8/2012

Jan 8th, 2012
by Dan.
No comments yet

The one thing that really stands out to me about the debate this morning is, with a few notable exceptions, the almost universal refusal to answer or even acknowledge the question being asked.

Update: Amusingly, as soon as I posted this, there were 5 or 6 questions in a row that were answered directly.

It seems that, for the most part, when a question is asked that can be easily answered with a candidate’s prepared and rehearsed talking points, the question gets answered. If it’s not, the question is avoided and/or ignored.

There are some good points being made by most,if not all, of the candidates at one time or another.

Update Again: No surprise, but Gingrich is really confirming the impression that he’s a petty little blowhard.

I agree with Bachmann. Oh… nevermind.

Dec 16th, 2011
by Dan.
No comments yet

In yesterday’s Republican debate, Michele Bachmann made an uncharacteristically lucid comment regarding Newt Gingrich’s claim that “I did no lobbying of any kind for any organization.” (Freddie and Fannie)

Said Bachmann…

You don’t need to be within the technical definition of being a lobbyist to still be influence-peddling.

Gingrich comes off as very Clinton’esque when he makes his “I didn’t lobby” claims.

Of course, at another point during the debate, Bachmann headed back to her comfortable but loopy world of sunshine and rainbows.

I think it’s just outrageous to continue to say over and over throughout the debates that I don’t have my facts right, when it as a matter of fact, I do. I’m a serious candidate for president of the United States, and my facts are accurate.

Ummmm…

That sounds very much like, “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.”

BadLipReading and Michele Bachmann

Oct 9th, 2011
by Dan.
No comments yet

I saw this the other day and was stunned because of how well done it is… the substituted words match up perfectly with her mouth movements.

httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFB6LQ1-WKU

I’m also amused at the first comment.

It’s more coherent than she usually is.

Indeed.

Sep 29th, 2011
by Dan.
No comments yet

Asimov001

Anti-science? No surprise there.

Aug 29th, 2011
by Dan.
4 comments

Denying realityPaul Krugman had an editorial today in the New York Times about the decidedly anti-science bent of the Republican party… or at least of the current crop of candidates. John Huntsman seems to be the only candidate grounded in actual scientific reality at the moment. Romney was, too, but now he’s hedging.

When it comes to science, Republicans seem to have no problem with things like atomic theory, gravitational theory, germ theory, physics, chemistry, etc. The problem is just when it comes to science that reaches conclusions that don’t mesh well with their ideology (or the ideology of their base). The obvious mentions are evolution and climate change, both of which are supported by an astounding amount of evidence, yet both of which cause Republicans some discomfort; one on political note and one on a theological note. But rather than acting responsibly and dealing with the reality the science represents, they attack the science or the scientists or the data or (more often) the make-believe stories conjured up as easily-attackable straw men.

Sadly, Huntsman is way behind in the polls, so that leaves either the outright anti-science group or Romney, who has, in a politically stereotypical move, hedged his bets on science in an attempt to placate the Republican base. That leaves the party with pretty lame options. As Krugman says in his editorial…

So it’s now highly likely that the presidential candidate of one of our two major political parties will either be a man who believes what he wants to believe, even in the teeth of scientific evidence, or a man who pretends to believe whatever he thinks the party’s base wants him to believe.

Phil Plait, on his Bad Astronomy blog, follows up on Krugman’s piece with a few more details on some of the candidates, and with this thought…

[Huntsman] recently said he thinks both evolution and global warming are real. This makes me sad, and scared. Why? Because this statement is considered bold.

How can it be bold to accept reality, to not deny the overwhelming evidence, and to agree with the vast, vast majority of scientists studying the very topics of discussion?

Huntsman wants his party not to be "the antiscience party". But that shouldn’t be bold. That should be common sense.

It should be common sense. Sadly, for most of the Republican presidential candidates, it seems to be neither common nor sensible.

How far we’ve fallen

Aug 24th, 2011
by Dan.
No comments yet

With two notable exceptions, the Republican candidates really need to take a page from Woodrow Wilson’s playbook.

Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.

Woodrow Wilson
Letter to Winterton C. Curtis (29 August 1922)

 

Update: Sadly, it seems Romney is hedging on the science, presumably to pander to the science deniers that tend to inhabit the Republican base and the Tea Party. He said, ”Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that but I think that it is,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.”

As I’ve said before, if you want to argue policy, that’s fine, but do it honestly. Don’t try to discredit the science just because you don’t like related policy suggestions.

Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll

Aug 14th, 2011
by Dan.
No comments yet

FacepalmMichele Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll on Saturday, beating Ron Paul by a narrow margin. I’m not really that surprised, but I am disheartened. She won with a total of 4,823 votes (over Paul’s 4,671). However, by some reports, she gave away 6,000 vote tickets herself, tickets which normally cost $30, so the people who voted for her didn’t have to shell out the $30 themselves, so as the Hot Air article says, it’s "not exactly a big endorsement."

However, just the fact that there are 4,823 people, in Iowa alone, who are willing to vote for this woman (whether it cost them $30 or not) is what I find disheartening. This is the woman who has touted theocratic views, anti-equality views, anti-scientific views, and just general nonsense (including revisionist (read "false") history) on a regular basis for years, putting her ignorance and bigotry on display for all to see… and people still want to vote for her.

That someone like this is given even passing consideration for political office is a sad statement about our country.

Hooray for New York!

Jun 25th, 2011
by Dan.
1 comment

New York finally passed legislation to allow same-sex marriage in their state. According to CNN (and other news sites), the vote was 33-29 in favor. It was the “first time a state Senate with a Republican majority has approved such a bill.”

Other than the awesome news that gay couples will now have the same rights as straight couples, that also means that there are still 29 people in the New York senate that are probably theocratic bigots.

Says the CNN article…

The new law, which will allow same-sex couples in New York to marry within 30 days, drew a sharp rebuke from opponents, who spent millions to try to defeat the measure.

Because, you know… those damn gays!

But the Catholic Church stepped up in support! Oh wait. No they didn’t.

“We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization,” the state’s Catholic bishops said in a joint statement released late Friday. It was signed by Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan and seven other bishops.

It’s an absurd argument. Marriage isn’t undermined by omg-teh-gheys!!!. It’s undermined (if it is at all) by drunken Vegas weddings, marriages of convenience, sex scandals and infidelity, hypocrisy, televised marriage contests, marrying for money, serial marrying, arranged marriages, and a myriad of other things, none of which have anything to do with two people of the same sex loving each other.

And to show how loving and considerate the opponents of same-sex marriage are…

Opponents of the marriage equality law have vowed to take political action against any Republican who voted for the bill.

Because presumably, standing up for equal rights is just wrong and should be punished!

Fortunately, there were enough rational politicians to get this measure passed. It’s sad that it needs to be passed at all. You’d think in a country that prides itself on freedom and human rights, this would be a complete non-issue, but the religious right can’t help but try to impose their twisted moral values on the rest of us.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg gets it, though.

“In recent weeks, I have had many conversations with our state Senators. I emphasized that not only is marriage equality consistent with bedrock American principles, but it is also consistent with bedrock Republican Party principles of liberty and freedom — and the Republicans who stood up today for those principles will long be remembered for their courage, foresight, and wisdom. In fact, 10 or 20 or 30 years from now, I believe they will look back at this vote as one of their finest, proudest moments,” Bloomberg said in a statement released shortly after the vote.

So three cheers for New York. Kudos to those Republicans who had the wisdom and courage to stand up to their party’s archaic stance on the matter.

And congratulations to all those who are waiting to be married and now are able.

The Tea Party wants more abortions

Apr 3rd, 2011
by Dan.
2 comments

Planned Parenthood supportersThe Tea Party (and the Tea-Party’esque Republicans) seem to want more abortions… or at least they want to create more unintentional pregnancies, increasing the demand for abortion services.

This same group, however, wants to defund the programs (Planned Parenthood and Title X) that are best equipped to provide education, contraception, and reproductive health services for women who have the highest risk of unintentional pregnancies.

Well over 60% of abortions are performed on women under the age of 30. Roughly half are performed on women with an annual household income less than $30,000. Planned Parenthood and Title X are huge providers of reproductive health services for this demographic, including cancer screenings, pregnancy tests, STD treatments, menopause treatments, tubal ligations, and low-cost contraceptives.

The reason the Tea Party wants to defund these programs, presumably, is because these programs can potentially present information about (and, in the case of Planned Parenthood, perform) abortions. Title X cannot perform abortions or recommend abortions. Roughly 2% to 3% of Planned Parenthood visits involve abortions. That leaves a whopping 100% of Title X services and 97% of Planned Parenthood services dedicated to other reproductive health care services… services that have a direct impact on whether young, low-income women get unintentionally pregnant.

Even setting aside the incendiary issue of whether abortion is a medical procedure or an abomination, defunding Planned Parenthood and Title X is a completely absurd position to take for a group that, to its core, opposes the very existence of the abortion procedure.

The reason it’s absurd? Opposing the programs that provide low-cost contraceptives and sexual health services is effectively promoting increased unintentional pregnancies, thereby increasing the demand for abortion services.

The best way to lower the rate of abortions isn’t to outlaw abortions. That would just make them dangerous. The best way is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. That can be accomplished, in part, by providing affordable contraceptives and sexual health education to the women who have the highest risk… which is exactly what Planned Parenthood and Title X do. Defunding these programs is simply a big “thumbs up” for abortions and a big “thumbs down” for women’s health.

…and that would be an abomination.

Henry Waxman calls shenanigans

Mar 12th, 2011
by Dan.
No comments yet

Henry Waxman calls shenanigans on anti-science Republicans…

“The new Republican majority in the House has a lot of power to write our nation’s laws, but they do not have the power to rewrite the laws of nature,” Mr. Waxman said. “Republicans in Congress can’t cure cancer by passing a bill that declares smoking safe. And they can’t stop climate change by declaring it a hoax.”

They can’t… but they continue to try.

My three questions for candidates

Sep 26th, 2010
by Dan.
No comments yet

People have different ways of selecting a candidate in any given elections, sometimes changing their selection method from election to election depending on current events. Some focus on a candidate’s position on the big issue of the day, some on a plethora of smaller issues, some one the tone of campaign ads, some on a specific hot-button issue, some on the candidate’s political party, some on what their chosen party tells them to do.

My approach is generally to focus on a few main questions (three in this example). Sometimes it’s hard to find the candidates’ answers to the questions and sometimes the candidates will hedge when answering, but to me, the answers to these questions say much more about the candidates than just their positions on the issues at hand.

Question #1: What is the candidate’s position on abortion?

This one has many shades of gray (funding, age limits, accessibility, notification, etc), but the focus of my question is on the candidate’s position about the morality of abortion. Should a woman have the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion? Usually, candidates will be fairly black and white on this issue.

Why this question?
It reveals something important about the basis for a candidate’s policy decisions. There is no argument that 100% opposes abortion (that I have heard or that anyone I know has heard) that is not based on religion. This is not to say that some of the arguments about limiting abortion are not valid for other reasons, but a strict, 100% opposition… it’s all about religion.

Why is it important?
Someone who has a strict anti-choice viewpoint bases their decision on religious dogma. I’m looking for a candidate who bases their decisions on rational thinking and objective reasoning. Basing decisions on 2,000 year old dogma doesn’t meet that criteria.

Question #2: What is the candidate’s position on climate science?

I want to clarify that this is not a question about any particular legislative proposals on how to handle global warming. This is a question specifically concerning the candidate’s view about the current state of climate science and, by association, whether they think global warming is occurring or not.

Why this question?
This question reveals an important aspect of the candidate’s objectivity and ability to independently analyze information. The evidence gathered by the world’s climate scientists overwhelmingly points to the fact that our planet is warming and shows an extremely high probability of it being accelerated by human activities. While the manner of dealing with the problem can be honestly and objectively debated, denying the existence of global warming is the intellectual equivalent of covering your ears and yelling “La! La! La! I can’t hear you!”

Why is it important?
Science education in much of the country is in a horrible state of insufficiency and the last thing we need is the country’s leaders making public statements discrediting good science in an attempt to score political points. Denial of global warming is ideologically-based and indicates that the candidate is more concerned with political or religious ideology than with objective reality and good science.

Question #3: What is the candidate’s position on the separation of church and state.

Prayer in public schools? Crèches in the courthouse lobby? Teaching creationism/intelligent design in public schools? Beginning government meetings with prayer? Proselytizing in the military? Religion-based discrimination? These issues are all ones of religious intrusion into what should Constitutionally be secular government activities.

Why this question?
This is another test of the candidate’s objectivity. Our Constitution has strict rules preventing government intrusion into religion and ensuring the free exercise of religion (and a non-preferential treatment of religion). A candidate’s response to this question reveals his thinking about religion and our government… and whether or not he actually supports the Constitution or if he only says he does.

Why is it important?
The religious right has become a disturbingly strong influence in this country, particularly in the Republican Party and the Tea Party. Despite their calls for following the Constitution, this issue reveals that their support of the Constitution only goes as far as their religious beliefs. The path they have chosen is one that leads to a theocracy and that’s about as anti-American as you can get. Any candidate who doesn’t strongly support an uncompromising separation of church and state is supporting that theocratic path.

There are other criteria that I use to select candidates as well as the ones above, but the above three questions serve as a good litmus test for candidate selection. I’ve only given brief summaries for the reasons behind each of the questions, but in each question, there’s a strong focus on finding out which candidates support good science and rational thinking, not necessarily by looking at many small issues, but by examining the overall intellectual and philosophical tendencies of a candidate. It establishes a foundation for further inquiry into each candidate’s positions, but if a candidate can’t provide that solid foundation based on a few simple questions, it seems silly to support them on issues that are, essentially, built upon that foundation.

If a candidate can’t leave religious dogma out of their decision-making process, doesn’t support solid science, and doesn’t support the Constitution, why should they get my support?

…or anyone’s support, for that matter.

And therein lies the problem

Sep 21st, 2010
by Dan.
1 comment

Tea Party Sign - Listing the Federal Government as a dependentThe Tea Party movement is all the rage in the media these days and, depending on the source, it’s either a long-overdue raising of voices by fiscally responsible, small-government Constitution supporters or it’s a ludicrous outcry of misinformed, ultra-right-wing, white Christians.

The problem, it seems, is that the Tea Party seems to be a bit of both. This charge is almost always vehemently denied, usually by those of the latter group who fancy themselves part of the former. The differences show up fairly clearly when various Tea Party leaders are interviewed.

For instance, Toby Marie Walker, the cofounder and president of the Waco Tea Party, said the following when asked about the issues on which they focus:

Well, we focus around three main issues; constitutionally limited government, free markets and fiscal responsibility. A litmus test that we use is about taxes or spending, and we focus on those issues because that’s what we were founded under.

It’s hard to argue with that. That’s the kind of Tea Party that I can support wholeheartedly and it’s what I’d always loved about the Republican Party in the past (somewhat distant past, sadly). If that were the main message of the Tea Party, then you could call me Mr. Lipton.

However, let’s take a look at the focal points of another Tea Party leader. Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association in Mississippi, says the following when asked what issues he presses. First, his more nebulous response:

Well, the American Family Association, part of why we got involved in this is we believe the country needs not only to be called back to constitutional government, not only back to physical responsibility, but also to the same cultural and social values that were embraced by the founders.

When asked about those “cultural and social values,” Mr. Fischer elaborates this way:

They said that the first of the inalienable rights that was granted to us by the creator is the right to life. So we believe sanctity of life has got to be central to any genuinely conservative movement, belief in a creator and to defending natural marriage and resisting the homosexual agenda.

So Mr. Fischer has an outwardly religion-based focus. Ms. Walker has a strong fiscal-policy-based focus. From what I’ve seen and read, neither of these two positions are uncommon in the Tea Party. Just looking at images of signs from any Tea Party rally will give plenty of examples of both sides; sometimes to the extreme of both sides.

Tea Party Sign - Seriously?Despite some claims that the Tea Party is not a religious movement, it seems that the preponderance of evidence points to its being decidedly, though not necessarily essentially, religious… specifically Christian… sometimes Mormon. Even those who focus on the issue of fiscal responsibility tend to lean toward the notion of “restoring family values,” which is almost always code for “imposing Christian values,” something for which there is no concrete definition, varying widely from sect to sect.

Fischer represents the religious aspect of the Tea Party perfectly, if not mildly in the above interview. Based on some of the signs at Tea Party events, many supporters are far more fervent in their belief that the United States should be a theocracy. Of course, they’ll deny they do want a theocracy. Instead, as Rob Boston of Americans United says, they want to see…

…a flock of “Christian statesmen” who will “align the public policy of the United States with the will of God.”

…which, of course, would be a theocracy.

While the Tea Party represents the laudable ideas of fiscal responsibility, small government, and adherence to the Constitution, it is tainted by the incessantly vociferous bigotry of the religious right and their need to entwine their twisted values around our secular government. While those like Ms. Walker work to keep the message focused on the economy and criticism of government spending, people like Mr. Fischer undercut that message with their insistence on mixing (Christian) church and state, ironically contradicting the very Constitution they so vehemently espouse.

And therein lies the problem.

12345...>]