Lies are the New Truth

Most politicians are like right-wing creationists in one aspect: They’re virtuosos at never being backed into a corner to make a testable, unequivocal statement.  Because when that happens, you might have to watch your viewpoint be destroyed (or at least heavily challenged) by the evidence.  For politicians, they risk being caught in a lie.

I want to know something: Who exactly does Nancy Pelosi think she’s fooling?  Are there really some die-hard constituents of hers out there who believe her bullshit?  She made a statement about not knowing enhanced interrogation was being used (even though she’s third in line to be president and on the intelligence committee, for Christ’s sake), then when documents come out suggesting this might be a slight stretch of the truth, she revises her statement.  And then in her speech this morning, more straight-faced, audacious fibbing.  This is amazing.  Does she literally think we’re stupid?

And in the insane world of Washington politics, Nancy Pelosi is leading the charge to ferret out the “truth” about enhanced interrogation.  Shouldn’t she testify?  Shouldn’t she at least remove herself from this position?

Isn’t it also pathetic how Democrats like Pelosi are always playing the innocent victim, acting like the moral hero and heroine fighting against the evil tyranny of the Bush administration?  All of the ones who were silent or complicit during the Bush administration suddenly come out and say they were “against the war in Iraq the whole time,” or they “opposed torture all along.”  What a crock of shit.

On Fox News I heard Andrea Tantaros say that Speaker Pelosi ought to resign.  Don’t you understand, Ms. Tantaros, that Pelosi didn’t really lie?  She didn’t lie anymore than Hillary Clinton lied about the Bosnia “sniper fire” incident, or than Tom DeLay saying that his taxpayer-subsidized golf trips to Ireland or hiring his wife were in the best interests of serving the American people.  It’s not a lie if you have no ethical basis for defining truth.  Most politicians lack this because they actually believe that the self-serving and sanctimonious nonsense they spout is genuine.  People like Pelosi can’t lie anymore than a great white shark can murder.

You got busted, Speaker Pelosi.  I know you don’t understand why all these mean Republicans are trying to ruin your life when you’re really such a good person just trying to do the right thing, but just admit it.  No one held you to a higher standard, trust me.  No one really cares anymore.  We’re all so incredibly jaded by you and your money-grubbing pals that we’re just going to make a sardonic joke about it, then vote you into office again, so you have nothing to worry about.

O’Reilly’s Slippery Precipice

The other day O’Reilly had Margaret Hoover as a guest to talk about gay marriage.  As usual, O’Reilly was using his ridiculous rejoinder to the topic: “If we let gay people get married, we’ll have to let triads get married, and people who want to marry animals!”  In fact, several days before this episode, I remember laughing at an advertisement for it, during which a dire-sounding voice warned that with states legalizing gay marriage, could plural marriage be far behind.

This time, though, I was glad someone finally called O’Reilly on this nonsense.  Ms. Hoover told him that it was “disingenuous” for him to suggest that if we allow gay people to get married, it will inevitably result in triad marriages.  Good for her.

I think I would have used something stronger than “disingenuous,” though.  How about blatant fear-mongering?  How about creating a cheap, cliched illusion to frighten traditional folks into thinking that gay marriage means a slide into deprivation?  Look out, folks!  You have to mobilize now against gay marriage, or polygamy is next!  Then women marrying dolphins, and hell, why not – child molesters marrying kids!

As Ms. Hoover pointed out, and what O’Reilly doesn’t want to admit, it’s a matter of following the law.  If we make a law that says it’s okay for gay people to get married (and we shouldn’t even have to do that, by the way; the whole notion that gay Americans need to ask anyone’s permission to get married is morally sickening), that doesn’t imply anything else.  Those five states that have legalized gay marriage are still keeping polygamy and marrying animals illegal.

Personally, I think polygamy should be legal, as well, but it’s irrelevant to a discussion about gay marriage.  O’Reilly’s other guest, Gretchen Carlson, seemed most perturbed by O’Reilly’s imaginary omen that marriage was going to have to be renamed to include triad unions.

I don’t understand why these people care.  How is a gay marriage going to affect Ms. Carlson’s marriage?  How is it going to affect her kids?  Gay people exist in the culture regardless, and they will continue to exist.  Do traditional folks think that by legitimizing marriage between them, more people are going to “turn” gay?  Do they think that the next generation is going to have a higher percentage of gay people?

Honestly, what is the line of reasoning here?

Bias Alive and Well on Fox News, Part Two

I can’t get over the fact that the host of a national news show like Steve Doocy has the audacity to say that biology textbooks are “so one-sided” when it comes to the topic of evolution.  This is the type of populist nonsense that leads to the utter inability of a majority of Americans to understand science.

I’m not saying that anyone who disagrees with evolution is ignorant.  What I’m saying is that if you’re going to argue against it, at least don’t use ignorant arguments.  At least know the first tiny bit of what you’re talking about.  It doesn’t take an expert in biology or paleontology to understand that “why haven’t earthworms evolved bigger brains yet” or “there are no transitional species” are ludicrous notions completely displaced from reality.

Biology is “one-sided” about evolution because evolution is the cornerstone of biology.  To imply that teaching Darwin’s theory is unfairly one-sided is like saying that teaching Einstein’s theory in physics is unfairly one-sided.  We teach relativity because the evidence supporting it is tremendous.  It’s the same for evolution.

And what exactly is the “other side” for evolution, anyway?  That species don’t change, that everything alive (and the uncountable number of things that have gone extinct) was created by a magic spell?  How is that science?  Do these people even know what science is?

My guess is that they don’t.  They certainly have presented no alternative scientific viewpoint to evolution.  All they ever do is make their tired negative argument: “Evolution can’t explain everything, so maybe [our] God created life!” (Gee, I wonder why the scientific journals aren’t busting down the creationists’ doors, trying to get the scoop on this amazing new breakthrough.)  Again, the obvious analog: “Relativity can’t explain everything, so maybe [our] God created electrons!”

Maybe there will be another courtroom showdown in Texas over this school board issue, like the Dover trial.  I hope so.  I remember Stephen Jay Gould saying something about how even he couldn’t hope to beat the creationists in a debate, because debating is a specific skill where the object is to never present a positive case that can be attacked.  Science doesn’t come across well in an environment where people can legitimately squirm out of presenting a positive argument.  But courtrooms deal in facts, and the opposition gets to directly challenge you to present your facts.  Since the creationists have none, they continue to lose.

Carrie Prejean: O’Reilly’s Go-To Gal

Bill O’Reilly can always be counted on to ram home a point.  Whenever a hint of his “culture war” manifests, he leaps on it with the fervor of Jack Bauer trying to find out who a particular terrorist is working for.  The latest topic is Ms. California, Carrie Prejean.  Some really nasty things have been said about this young lady by the left-wing press for her views on traditional marriage.  So O’Reilly has had enough: Leave the poor girl alone.  She’s an American citizen who simply stated her view, and she shouldn’t be demonized for her view.

I agree.  But even O’Reailly has to see the irony here.  Ms. Prejean, O’Reilly, and most every conservative (or person with traditional values) uses the following argument against gay marriage: A traditional standard for marriage is what is best for society.  That is, they have nothing against gay folks, they don’t really care if they were to get married, but for social cohesiveness, the traditional family is a prerequisite.

That’s well and good.  Personally, I think the argument is fallacious and based on nothing more than custom and religious views (the ancient Greeks celebrated homosexuality, for example, and their society flourished), but at least I can understand it.  What I think they lack is evidence that homosexuality leads to any kind of moral problem.

But to the point: One thing O’Reilly and his ilk constantly bewail as harmful to the culture (in fact the most prominent thing) is sexual immorality.  The loss of boundaries for kids, especially when it comes to sexual behavior.  On any given episode of The Factor, O’Reilly will tell you something about how modern permissiveness is ruining our culture and raising kids to be slutty monsters (a little hyperbole).  I remember he once even likened America’s cultural path to the fall of the Roman Empire.

Enter Carrie Prejean, who - although she supports traditional marriage – has breast implants and has posed nude.  This supposed role model for young people is contributing to a licentious culture in which women are objectified for their body parts.  She’s giving the example to little girls that the way to be cool is to show your fake boobs to a camera.  She’s sending the message:  The only way to succeed is to be a desirable sex object.

Again, O’Reilly must see the irony.

To be clear, I’m not against Ms. Prejean making the choice to pose nude or get breast implants.  I’m not a Chicken Little of culture.  But shouldn’t Ms. Prejean be a part of O’Reilly’s problem?  Isn’t this exactly what he’s always railing against?  How many times has he decried this “shameful” predilection for young people to take off the clothes and pose?  Come on, O’Reilly where’s the tough love for Ms. Prejean?

Nothing to Fear but Swine Flu Itself

I have a few headlines for the media to run with: How to Protect Yourself from Falling Meteors, or Be Prepared for Uranium Poisoning, or Get a Leg Up on Leprosy, or Ten Steps to Prevent a Paper Cut From Leading to Gangrene and Necessitating the Loss of Your Arm.

Or here’s one: Swine Flu Will Kill Your Children.

I don’t understand the media in this country sometimes.  Is forty thousand deaths a year not “sexy” enough for them anymore?  That’s how many people die every year because of morons who decide to drive drunk.  Should we even mention how many people die every year from eating potato chips and sitting on a couch all their lives?  How about from smoking?

Hell, how about death by Craigslist?  So far we’ve got one death caused by Craigslist.  The death county by being associated with OJ Simpson is two.  Being electrocuted by police tasers – two.  The swine flu – one.  Meanwhile, the ordinary flu kills thirty thousand a year.  I’m willing to bet that allergies to peanuts cause more deaths than the swine flu.

This is ridiculous.  The hype over this porky virus makes about as much sense as the dingbats thinking physicists were going to destroy the world when they turned on a particle accelerator.  Our president is warning about the swine flu, our vice president is telling us not to ride the subway, and the media keeps showing pictures of Mexicans with doctor’s masks like there’s a quarantine zone down there and mass graves are being dug.  Gee, I wonder why the multitude of deaths from swine flu in other countries (a whopping ten) is concentrated in countries that barely have clean water and whose hospitals are generally unfit for pet parakeets?

Precautions are good.  Everyone should be washing their hands anyway, as a general rule.  But if you really want to protect your kids, keep them away from junk food and cigarettes and make sure they exercise regularly.

Full-Fledged Socialism, Part Three

“If capitalism leads to good, and socialism to bad, then why do all the other first-world nations (which are all more socialist than the US) have lower murder rates?  The US has highest per-capita number of prisoners of any country in the world…isn’t this an indication that you have a problem that needs fixing?”

So says a comment left on part one of my post.  Apparently the person who left the comment doesn’t understand that capitalism is an economic system.  Murder rates and prison populations are two entirely different issues.  These are mostly reflections of culture, and although a country’s economic system certainly has an effect on its culture, I fail to see a line of causation leading from free market enterprise to higher crime rates.  If the person who left this comment can provide something other than simple correlation, I’d love to see it.  (Furthermore, the high prison population in this country is due, in part, to our ridiculously overblown drug laws – drug laws that have nothing to do with capitalism whatsoever.)

America’s high rates of murder and incarceration are indeed an indication of problem that needs fixing.  But that problem isn’t our free market system and the notion of private ownership.  Capitalism is an economic system, as I said above.  And if you want to measure the efficacy of an economic system, you look at the economic state of the country.

Recession aside, America’s ten-trillion-dollar economy is by far the most powerful on the planet.  No one else comes close, and despite predictions about China and India, no one else will come close for decades.  Numbers two and three on the list (Japan and Germany) have capitalistic economies that are most like our own.  It is also noteworthy that Japan has seen stagnation for years because of deficit spending, big government intervention, and entitlement programs (i.e., a slide toward socialism).  The standard of living in America is enviable, the opportunity second-to-none.  Even our much-maligned health care system is still the best of the world.  (Where do wealthy people come when they want an operation?  Sweden, Canada, Kuwait?  Give me a break.)  The “poor” in America still have cars, air-conditioned homes, and cable TVs.  The number-one health problem for the lower-class in this country is obesity.  Obesity.  Think about what that means.

As for those other first-world countries that are more socialist than we are…why don’t you take a look at how their economies are doing right now?  This recession has brought the weaknesses to the forefront.  The European quasi-socialist states are far more worse off than America, and the reason is – that’s right, again! – deficit spending, big government intervention, and entitlement programs.  What a surprise.

Capitalism is not perfect; nothing made or ran by human beings is or ever will be.  But it is much better than socialism.  It is in fact the best economic system thus far devised by the human race.  It has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in history, and it continues to do so.  And it would do so more effectively if non-productive politicians would keep their noses out of it.

Obama’s Car Company

During Obama’s speech (I’ll call it a “speech” because a real Q-and-A session it most definitely was not) the other night he assured us that he didn’t want the government in the auto business any longer than it had to be.  Yeah, okay.  The problem here is that Obama’s arbitrary designation of how long he should stay in the auto business seems to be based on left-wing ideology rather than things called “facts.”

Honestly, is it not completely and utterly unsurprising that despite all the taxpayer money our government has given Chrysler, all the so-called help, it’s going bankrupt anyway?  Isn’t this exactly what the critics of Obama’s nationalization – oops, I mean economic rescue- plan said would happen all along?  So instead of listening to common sense, historical precedent, and advisors who actually understand how economics works, Obama said we can’t allow the car companies to go bankrupt, so let’s give them money.  And bankruptcy is happening anyway.  Shocker.

It gets better.  Now not only were the taxpayers forced to have a stake in this loser company, but now, in a government-brokered deal, the United Auto Workers Union is going to own a controlling share of Chrysler.  I can’t wait to see how this works out.  Either one of two things is going to happen.  In Scenario A, the union is going to do what they’re best at: Pretending that a company can make a profit while simultaneously paying more to its workers that it can afford.  In this scenario, they continue to give the workers anything they want, no matter if they can afford it, and we’ll watch the continued collapse of Chrysler.  (And of course, Obama will just give them more money.)

In Scenario B (which I think is more likely), the union’s going to have to make some hard choices.  They’re going to relaize that workers have to be paid whatever their employer is willing to pay, and not a cent more, or the whole process breaks down and reality sets in.  They’re going to become the “big bad” corporation that they’ve fought against for years.  Hell, maybe the workers will even start a new union to blunt the “exploitative” UAW.

Back to the main point: You never should have been in the auto business to begin with, Mr. President.  What you spent billions to prevent, what you swore would spell economic ruin if it happened, is happening anyway.  You’re trying to fix a leaking pipe by hiring an accountant, rather than let the plumbers deal with it.  Butt out.

Janeane Garofalo’s Alter Ego

On the show 24, Janeane Garofalo plays a computer analyst for the FBI who can always be counted upon to keep the barbarians like Jack Bauer in line.  When a suspect needed to be shouted at to get information, she was there to protest and remind everyone how bad that was.  When Jack Bauer suggested narrowing a search for suspected terrorists by looking for only Muslims, she balked: That’s racial profiling!

Actually it’s religious profiling.  What’s funny is that Ms. Garofalo probably didn’t have to try too hard to play this character on the show.  After all, she says the same inane things whenever NBC or left-wing talk radio lets her run her mouth on the air.  These people are like broken records: Everything is always a Republican government infringement of rights.  There’s usually racism involved too.  They never say the first word about Obama and his Democratic meddlers taking away our freedoms, because they’re hypocrites, plain and simple.  They don’t care about our rights being taken away; they only care about a left-wing agenda.

Case in point: I bet you’ll never hear Ms. Garofalo flap her lips about how the Fairness Doctrine is pure government censorship, that it would take away the rights of Americans.  And why?  Because it only takes away the rights of the conservatives.

On 24, Ms. Garofalo’s character is too dumb to realize the hypocrisy of her words.  Racial (or religious) profiling isn’t discrimination; it’s called common sense.  It’s the consequence of being a rational human being.  If the FBI intercepts information with the words “infidel,” “bomb,” “Allah,” and “jihad,” you probably shouldn’t worry about searching among white Christians.  Indeed, you’d be derelict in your duty and a moron to boot if you did.  Likewise, if the words were “Hitler,” “white power,” and “Nazi,” you’d better be looking at skinheads and not Saudis.  But that’s never a problem, since racial profiling is universally accepted by all when the race in question is white. (Witness the cowardly and pathetic screen adaptation of Tom Clancy’s The Sum of all Fears, in which the Muslim terrorists were rewritten as neo-Nazis.)

I like 24; it’s good escapism.  But could you imagine someone like Garofalo’s character actually being in charge of the safety of Americans, actually having authority in the matter of hunting suspected terrorists?  Let’s broaden the question and include the real-life Ms. Garofalo and her left-leaning pals.  Listen to the way people like her, Sean Penn, and Bruce Springsteen talk about this country.  This is the delusional mindset that the left has.  Do we really want these types of people representing us, protecting us from people willing to commit suicide just to make a statement?

Janeane Garofalo, Bruce Springsteen, and Sean Penn will never be in those positions, but their intellectual brethren (Pelosi, Napolitano, Reid, and dare I say Barack Obama) already are.  Me, I’ll take the civil-rights violation Jack-Bauer-types any day of the week.

Bias Alive and Well on Fox News

A couple weeks ago, I thought it was a pathetic, sickening display to see that CNN reporter arguing with the tea party protester and making it clear that she was espousing a political agenda rather than reporting the news.

Then the other morning on Fox News, Steve Doocy covered a segment about evolution being taught in Texas public schools, and it was just as shameful.  The problem, Doocy puled, was that science classes are “so one-sided” when it comes to this issue.  Yes, kind of like history classes don’t teach mythology, and chemistry classes don’t teach alchemy, and French classes don’t teach German.  In that sense, I suppose science classes are guilty of being one-sided.  Damn them for daring to solely teach…science!

Doocy’s “fair and balanced” guest was a Casey Luskin, a representative from…wait for it…the Discovery Institute.  Gee, I wonder what the Discovery Institute – the Christian group who thinks courtrooms, public opinion, and sympathetic politicians are the path to legitimate science – has to say on this matter?

In the midst of Doocy and his guest giving each other verbal shoulder massages, the managed to do the same thing that anti-evolution creationists always do: Try to appear legitimate by claiming to only be interested in good, fair science.  Mr. Luskin flat-out lied and said that his group is not interested in having creationism taught in public schools.  Just good science.  What a joke.  Go to the Discovery Institute’s website and you can see the entire purpose of their existence.

Doocy and Luskin appeared to be protesting only the fact that science textbooks still use Ernst Haeckel’s infamous recapitulation drawings and Darwin’s simplistic tree of life.  Certainly there are outdated textbooks in circulation, just as there are textbooks without any mention of the latest advances in string theory and quantum mechanics.  This should be remedied.  Darwin’s tree of life was simplistic way of showing relationships.    But what modern science has discovered is that the tree is much more like a bush that is vastly more complex than anyone could have imagined.  Evolution is not a single tree trunk, as scientists continue to try to explain and people continue to get wrong.

And recapitulation…the fact is that vertebrate embryos are strikingly similar, but no scientist is claiming that they’re identical, as Luskin said.  The things that creationists never talk about are the truly powerful pieces of evidence, such as the fact that human embryos have gill slits at an early age, as well as empty yolk sacs.

This is creationist sophistry, if not outright deception.  They know very well that modern science has affirmed and reaffirmed evolution, that there is no debate on whether evolution happened and is happening in the scientific community.  The evidence supporting evolution is so powerful as to make dissent absurd.  The only “professionals” still protesting it are a handful of Christians and Luskin’s Discovery Institute pals, most of whom openly admit that scripture is the ultimate authority.  That’s fine for them, but it’s not science; it’s the exact opposite of science.

With their kid-glove handling of these pseudo-intellectual anti-evolutionists, Fox News is painfully presenting it’s bias in this matter.

Prison Story, Part Fourteen

I sometimes wonder how cynical being in prison can make a person.  This place is full of vultures and bullies just looking for signs of weakness.  To use a cliched metaphor, sharks are constantly on patrol, sniffing for blood.  They’re used to preying on weaker people, and when they come to prison, it’s no different.  Whether they decide to strong-arm a guy’s shoes or food or just stiff him for something; it’s like they can’t exist without trying to victimize others.

As a rule, I despise these people.  I think anyone who subscribes to that philosophy (take whatever you can get away with) are lazy good-for-nothings who can’t earn their own living or exhibit any sense of responsibility.  To me they’re not men, they’re not adults, and they’re not someone I would ever confide in or be friendly with.

But at the same time, I find it hard to feel much sympathy for their victims.  Everyone has a right to be left alone.  I think it would be great if no one had to be victimized, but in reality (especially the reality of prison), that just isn’t going to happen.

Here’s the point: Ninety-nine percent of the victims in prison don’t have to be victims.  They choose that designation for themselves.  I’m not blaming them, I’m not saying they were asking for it, and I’m definitely not agreeing with the knuckle-dragging morons who decide to jack them.  What I’m saying is that those knuckle-dragging morons would never mess with them if they just stood up for themselves.  Worst-case scenario, they’d have to get in a fistfight.  In many cases, win or lose, that would end it.

Even that is going too far ahead.  Nine times out of ten, it will never get that far.  If these victims put forth the notion that they won’t tolerate that from the get-go, the sharks would move on to someone else.  But they have to do it immediately, no exceptions.  They can’t allow the tiniest bit of victimization, or it will escalate and invite more sharks to the feeding frenzy (more cliched metaphors).

There are guys who project a certain weakness.  They’re timid, or they’re unsure, or they won’t look you in the eye, or they let some loud-mouth walk all over them.  You can’t present yourself like that in prison; it’s absolutely going to cause you problems.  To be clear, I’m not saying people should walk around acting like they’re tough – that will get you in trouble even quicker than being a victim.  But you have to decide where to draw the line.  The closer to “I’m ready and willing to fight” you can draw that line, the better off you’ll be in this place.

There was a terrible prison movie from the eighties called “An Innocent Man,” with Tom Selleck.  The only redeeming feature is a quote that I think is pretty eloquent.  It was from a convict to the new guy: “You don’t have to stand tall in here, but you have to stand up.”