Boycott Whole Foods… if you haven’t already done so

Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey, wrote an op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal last week, essentially opposing healthcare reform and claiming that healthcare is not an intrinsic right. Mackey describes himself as a “free-market libertarian” and is well known for his opposition to labor unions. So why are his conservative views on healthcare surprising?

I’m not a Whole Foods person myself. I’ve always seen the so-called Whole Foods “alternative” as a big con. It’s a place for lefties who can afford overpriced food to feel good about themselves. And feeling good about yourself these days doesn’t come cheap. Now all that feel-good investment appears to have been a farce, a Bernie Madoff-esque organic scam.

The idea of a progressive corporation is an oxymoron. Mackey’s views on labor sealed the deal for me a long time ago and this latest revelation shouldn’t be all that surprising. But when issues of identity are at stake, recognizing obvious clues and thinking rationally is not an option – oh how I so want to appear to be progressive...

In any event, I really hope that people will now see this con for what it is and look elsewhere for their feel-good foods. The best part of this whole thing will be when Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the other conservative talking heads come to Mackey’s defense and paint (former) Whole Foods customers as fascists. Perhaps Whole Foods will become the new rage with free-market, healthcare denying, union busting liberals conservatives. I wonder how their stock is doing?

Here’s the AP article on the growing movement to boycott Whole Foods: Whole Foods fans decry CEO’s health care views

 The truth is so boring…

Rachel Maddow is one of the few journalists who has remained firm on exposing the sources of the rightwing misinformation machine on healthcare. Of course, spreading such nonsense as the government instituting “death panels” for seniors is like taking Geritol from an old lady, especially when over half of the population is as dumb as a box of rocks.

 Who’s behind the “grassroots” townhall opposition to healthcare reform?

Spread the word, put it on your blog, tell your grandmother, write your Congress person.

 The TV ad that CNN is refusing to air

The same network that stands behind Lou Dobbs and his birther movement, is refusing to air the following ad from Americans United for Change on health care. The most trusted name in news? I don’t think so…

 Obama’s authentic birth certificate

This should finally put the controversy to rest once and for all…

 Latest victims of the Republican/Insurance industry misinformation machine – the elderly

Obama mentioned it – an elderly woman telling him that she opposes government run healthcare and in the same breath told him not to touch her Medicare. Senators are mentioning it – calls are flooding in from older constituents with the same panicked pleading:

Of course fear need not be rational. I talked to a Blue Dog Democrat the other day—one who favors a strong public option—who told of scores of calls his office has received from older voters on Medicare, the government run health care program for the elderly and disabled. The callers were frightened of a “government takeover” of medicine. Former Senator John Breaux once told a story about a woman who rushed up to him in the airport to plead with him to “keep government out of her Medicare.”

Robert Creamer - Fear, Anger, Hope and Inspiration Will Decide Health Care Battle

And of course the Republican/Insurance industry misinformation machine is once again winning the battle of fear vs. clear thinking. Anger doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of how I feel toward these sleazy bastards.

If you haven’t yet contacted your elected officials, do so now! Send them an email, a smoke signal, anything to let your voice be heard.

 Religion once again killing children

From the AP:

The mother of an 11-year-old girl who died of undiagnosed diabetes as the family prayed for her to get better testified Tuesday that she believes sickness is caused by sin and can be cured by God.

Leilani Neumann told the jury in her husband’s trial that she thought her daughter’s March 2008 illness was a test of her religious faith and she didn’t take the girl to a doctor because that would have been “complete disobedience to what we believe.”

The criminal insanity of this whole thing speaks for itself.

 Point of Inquiry

I’ve added a new link to the sidebar (look to your right), which links to a radio show/podcast with D.J. Grothe called Point of Inquiry. The program is part of the Center for Inquiry and hosts a nice mix of very interesting topics and smart guests. The newest podcast is an interview with Tom Clark (director of the non-profit Center for Naturalism) entitled, “Scientific Naturalism and the Illusion of Freewill,” which I found very engaging - good stuff!

 The United States is not a constitutional democracy

I’ve never actually seen this so-called U.S. Constitution that everyone keeps talking about. Oh sure, I’ve seen plenty of copies of the “Constitution” but never the real thing. They say it’s located at the National Archives, but have you ever seen this document? Are you sure it was the real thing?

These questions won’t go away. No one really knows the reality of the “Constitution” and, thus, the legitimacy of our so-called constitutional democracy. This whole controversy would disappear in an instant if officials would simply release the original “Constitution.”

Nope, the liberal media continues to hide the fact that our “Constitution” really doesn’t exist. They fail to apply critical judgment to this issue and perpetuate this massive deception. So until someone produces the real “Constitution,” I cannot and will not believe the U.S. is a constitutional democracy.

I want my rights back!

 Obama was spot on – the Gates arrest was stupid, really stupid

So you realize the man lives at the house, is not illegally breaking in as reported, is a member of Harvard University, is living in University housing, is in his 60s and partially disabled, and is yelling at you with words that imply your investigative actions (pre-arrest) are racially motivated. What do you do as a Cambridge police officer who trains other police officers about racial diversity?

Seriously, does anyone with half a brain answer that question with ‘Yes, it’s prudent to arrest this man, who’s very likely to be of some importance at the University, because he’s not following my instructions to calm down in his own home and is already telegraphing that charges of racism will surely be part of the mix…’?!

Why would a rational person put themselves in such a predicament? Answer: because ego too often overrides rational thinking. Police officers need more training on how to swallow their pride for the sake of diffusing a situation and not be so hell-bent on demonstrating their authority simply because that authority is being challenged.

Allowing Gates to yell and object and say whatever he wanted would not have jeopardized anything or anyone. He was in his own home, expressing his outrage without harming the police officers or himself or any third parties. Nothing he said was illegal. So why escalate it any further with an arrest?

I suppose the obvious must be stated as well. This does not absolve blame on the part of Gates. He certainly had the choice of acting differently, as did the officer. And If the reports are accurate, Gates was the first to throw race into the mix - unless of course you believe the officer is lying and/or officers investigating reported break-ins should stop investigating once a suspect indicates they live there and are initially refusing to cooperate.

Also, I keep hearing the counterfactual argument that if everything were the same, except that Gates was white instead of black, this wouldn’t have happened. There’s one problem – as given, it’s not really a plausible counterfactual – a white man is not very likely to start yelling at police accusing them of racism when asked to provide evidence of residency and are who they say they are.

Nevertheless, even if we add that factor into it, which is implcitly absent, I don’t see why police would necessarily treat a white man differently while he’s yelling and not following instructions to calm down in his own home simply because he’s white. All things being equal (no pun intended), it’s not at all clear that a white man would have been treated differently in this case. It’s not self-evident and suggesting that there’s no doubt a white man would have been treated differently is disingenuous.

Bottom line – The police officer in attempting to demonstrate and exercise his authority actually demonstrated the weakness of that authority by letting his ego and not good sense dictate his actions.

 The GOP’s understanding of ‘independent’ and ‘nonpartisan’

From the Washington Post:

The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option.

To Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, it is “the nonpartisan Lewin Group.” To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an “independent research firm.” To Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is “well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country.”

Generally left unsaid amid all the citations is that the Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation’s largest insurers.

The Washington Post story shows just how partisan the Lewin Group is. None of this is surprising. Again, the insurance industry is in full-court press on this because they will lose billions if healthcare reform is enacted. Republicans are in bed with the insurance industry and will do whatever it takes to maintain a system that profits on the misfortune of those who become ill.

It’s not an economic question. It’s a moral question. Are we going to allow the insurance and pharmaceutical industries to continue profiting off our ill-health?

Update (July 24, 2009): Minutes ago on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Republican talking heads - Representatives Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Dave Camp (R-Mich.) - tried again to pass off the Lewin Group as a nonpartisan research firm. Mike Barnicle stopped one of the Congressman (Price) and asked if he knew who the Lewin group was and who funded them. Price said, “It’s a study group. it’s a nonpartisan private study group that looks at public policy issues…. I think they are a foundation.” Barnacle knew who the Lewin Group represents when he asked the question but, unfortunately, didn’t press the point and let the Congressmen off the hook. Hopefully, video of this will show up soon - and here it is.

 President Obama addresses bloggers on healthcare reform

The following is a conference call from President Obama and David Axlerod with liberal bloggers concerning the role they can play in helping move healthcare legislation forward. It’s crunch time and from my perspective, this is the most important legislation of my lifetime. The pharmaceutical and insurance industries have a good chance of burying this once again. We can’t allow them to kill this!

Here’s the full 24 minute conversation he had with bloggers (thanks to Crooks and Liars):

I’ll update as needed.

 Are you upset over the Federal deficit?

Republicans are clamoring about how much the American people are outraged about the Federal deficit and using this red herring to stirrup opposition to Obama’s healthcare reform. It’s a gimmick but one that’s proven to be very effective.

It’s effective because American’s have the foresight of a brick and the courage of a wet puppy. They’re barely capable of mustering enough concern for their own long-term economic well-being, so why would they give a damn about the Federal deficit? If they’re honest, they don’t. The vast majority of Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs (because they’re so fiscally conservative themselves) and we’re supposed to believe that such shortsightedness somehow doesn’t apply to their so-called concern for the Federal deficit?

Perhaps we should care about deficit spending… but we don’t. Perhaps we should care about leaving a 2 trillion dollar national debt for “our children and grandchildren…” but we don’t. Perhaps we should end our own personal deficit spending before parroting political gimmicks that sound nice and responsible but require nothing of our own personal responsibility… but we don’t.

This is classic feel-good American apathy at work, requiring nothing on our part other than preference for manufactured opinions that appeal to self-righteous inclinations. We just love to be on the right side of an issue without actually being on that side. We’re always for X, Y or Z as long as it doesn’t apply to us personally – think Republican sex scandals.

So when Republicans roll out their standard politics of fear, we salivate like Pavlov’s dog and choose the path that makes us feel better rather than the path that works toward solving the problem, i.e., the one that requires something other than an opinion. It’s amazing the amount of bullshit people will believe just because someone says it and it makes them feel sanctimonious.

So how shortsightedly sanctimonious are you? How well does your manufactured outrage about healthcare reform increasing the national debt comport with your own fiscal reality? Will the President’s healthcare proposal bankrupt the country? I’ll let him explain:

 CHASE declares war on the American public

JP Morgan Chase is putting the squeeze on their credit card customers in retaliation to Congress passing the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act, which goes into effect next year. Chase and other banks are punishing the American people for the “audacity” of Congress to impose stiffer regulations designed to protect consumers and our economy. So in response, Chase and the other too-huge-to-fail banks like Bank of America are increasing their credit card interest rates and minimum monthly payments. This has put millions of people in the inevitable situation of falling behind in their monthly payments, resulting in further penalties, fees, and so on.

Chase admits that part of their strategy is designed to force customers who took advantage of their low-rate cards years ago to close those accounts or have them closed. They’re changing the terms of agreement for everyone now while they can before the new law goes into effect – hence, the squeeze.

How dare we demand regulation and reform of the banking industry! Just who do we think we are?

Well, corporate America believes they have the inherent prerogative to rob us at will. There’s no free-market competition here - never was. Of course, robbery isn’t the term they would use because they own the money that they’ve allowed us to use. They’ve created these massive corporate fiefdoms (JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, AIG, et al) to which the serfs (that would be us) must loyaly serve. And if we display our disloyalty by asking Congress to regulate them, they will take revenge like any self-respecting feudal lord, by seizing income, property, and limiting or taking away our ability to use their financial system. It’s essentially siege warfare.

It’s not all that difficult to understand. Day-to-day living is impossible without being tied in some fashion to these financial institutions. Your existence as you currently know it is tied to the financial industry. It’s the modern-day equivalent of corporate feudalism. They own the money and you’re simply allow to use (possess) it according to their terms - the very definition of feudalism, functionally speaking.

These are the first of many retaliatory moves from corporate America in the wake of the economic collapse that they themselves orchestrated. If healthcare reform gets passed, we will see the insurance and pharmaceutical industry (fiefdom) declare war on the American people in even more severe terms. That particular corporate fiefdom will literally threaten our lives if we fail to display our enfettered allegiance - it’s already happening. If there ever was a time for a modern-day Robin Hood, it’s now.

For more on this, read the folowing article by Bob Sullivan - CREDIT CARD FIRMS TRY OUT NEW SQUEEZE TACTICS

 When stupidity becomes art

The irony here is just mind blowing. The stupidity coming from her mouth is so pure and unadulterated it almost brings tears to one’s eyes. Without further ado, I give you Arizona State Senator Sylvia (Uranium-238 decay) Allen.

In case you missed it, here are the relevant pieces:

“I can’t say enough how it’s time that we get beyond and start focusing on the technology we have and more forward into the future… this earth’s been here for 6000 years… It’s been here 6000 years, long before anybody had environmental laws and somehow it hasn’t been done away with… We need to get the uranium here in Arizona, so this state can get the money from it, and the revenue from it, and it can be done safely, and you’ll never even know the mine was there when they’re done…”

What’s truly remarkable is not that “It’s been here 6000 years, long before anybody had environmental laws and somehow it hasn’t been done away with…” but that morons like Senator (Uranium-238 decay) Allen are actually in charge of making decisions on behalf of millions and this country “somehow hasn’t been done away with.”

And is it merely coincidental that the Sylvia Allens, Sarah Palins, and Michele Bachmanns of the political world are devout Evangelical Christians? Well, let’s add another to this artful list - Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis…

 Welcome U.S. Senator Al Franken

The Minnesota Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that Al Franken should be certified as Minnesota’s next U.S. Senator. Here’s what they wrote:

“We affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under (Minnesota law) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota,”

The only thing now standing in the way of certification is Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who promised months ago that he would sign the certification papers if the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in Franken’s favor. We’ll have to wait and see how much farther down that road to oblivion Republicans will continue to travel.

Congratulations Senator Franken!

UPDATE: Coleman concedes!

 I’ve been hit by a hacker

Yes that 15 second annoying little tune you hear is the result of someone hacking my site. I’m working on it. I suspect it’s the result of a spammer I pissed off - I deleted his comments and banned his email. Of course, it could be someone who just doesn’t like my blog, but I doubt it given the timing.

Anyone who runs their own blog is fully aware of the crippling effects that comment spammers can have on a site. I spend more time cleaning up spam comments than anything else I do on this site. I’ve done everything I can to protect against comment spam and now they’re retaliating when one slips through and is deleted. I’m almost to the point of throwing in the towel and retiring Buridan’s Ass because of this crap. The readership is relatively small, those who comment are usually personal friends and family, and the therapeutic effects of blogging no longer provide the same satisfaction for me.

The site may be down for some time while I try to fix this. If it starts to take up too much time, I will likely close shop for good.

UPDATE: I’ve isolated the offending file and we’re back to normal for now.

 The oncoming health care misinformation onslaught

It’s already well underway. If you’ve been paying attention, you’ve already seen the Harry and Louise-esque ads from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. It’s only the beginning of what will likely become the mother of all misinformation campaigns to date. It’s going to get ugly and will make the last election cycle look like a series of high-school debates.

Unlike the Harry and Louise days of the early 90s, there’s now a realistic chance of true health reform. Public exposure this time around is not limited to the usual lopsided set of PR campaigns in which the healthcare industry’s big money drowns out all opposing voices. Unlike the mainstream media, where advertising dollars control the message in toto, we have this wonderful thingy called the interwebs; you know, that so-called information highway the corporate world has yet to completely control. It barely existed when the healthcare industry spawned Harry and Louise, but now provides a real possibility for grassroots efforts to trump the big-money-corporate-lying machine.

But then again, big money continues to speak very loudly and effectively within the public sphere. Some have estimated that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries have set aside $200 million to combat the reform efforts. They will succeed *again* if people simply sit by and watch from the sidelines.

Here’s the bigger problem. Obama is already showing signs of caving and suggesting a less than complete set of reforms, to put it charitably. There’s a growing fear of losing everything (re: Clinton’s efforts in the 90s) unless significant compromises are made to satisfy the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. More cynically, the $200 million misinformation and intimidation fund is beginning to pay off very early. I guess we’re just incapable of shaking Harry and Louise from our political consciousness. Less cynically, the video below underscores the problem and the only way to effect a solution as President Obama points out (towards the end of the video):

“…the most important seat at the table belongs to you. To get this done, I need your voice to be part of the debate and it needs to happen now.”

 Reasons for maintaining your internet anonymity

The AP is reporting that city officials in Bozeman, Montana are asking job applicants to list their user names and passwords of…

“any and all current personal or business Web sites, web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc.”

Oh sure, with pleasure, and here’s my bank account number, my pin number, the password to my computer, a blood, tissue and urine sample, the keys to my house, a list of everything I’ve purchased, read or watched over the past 5 years, and please tell me which corner of my bedroom you would like your video camera placed.

You really need to read the article to get the full flavor of this Orwellian paradise called Bozeman.

Most people fail to understand the risks of having an online profile, however small. The Bozeman case highlights exactly why you should never use any identifying information about yourself while online, let alone reveal it. You also want to cover your tracks so that it’s difficult for someone to connect the dots leading to your identity. It’s called data mining and it’s a technique used to gather information on someone(s) or something by following and extracting patterns hidden in otherwise unrelated data.

The best way of securing your online presence is not to have one. But if you must, and most of us do in some form or another, always use several different pseudonyms and multiple (pseudo) emails. Yes, that sounds paranoid but for very good reasons. People have been denied employment and fired for their online activity. In the academic world, search committees routinely lookup a potential candidate’s online activity. This is standard procedure for virtually all corporations.

And just because you’ve been a good little girl or boy online doesn’t mean squat. The fact that you’ve been identified as having an online presence can provide enough reason for an employer to not hire you. The issue here is not what you’ve already said or done online, it’s what you may say or do in the future. If there’s any potential for you to reveal a company’s dirty laundry, you’re a de facto liability to that company.

 PBS votes to ban new religious programming

Of course the emphasis on “new religious programming” is what ought to surprise you - it did me. Apparently PBS had to vote to “compromise” on an already existing restriction that already bans religious programming. So with whom or what were they compromising? Answer: those who proposed to actually follow the rule requiring noncommercial, nonpartisan and nonsectarian programming. Yes, PBS voted to compromise with those who wanted to follow existing rules against sectarian (religious) programming.

I guess for PBS one needs to first propose that an existing rule (restricting religious programming) be followed before it’s actually followed, and then the decision to follow such an existing rule can undergo negotiations and compromises can be made. What a wonderful system, no?

Apparently this rule against sectarian programming has been ignored, e.g., at PBS stations like, KBYU in Salt Lake City, an affiliate of the Mormon Church; KMBH in Harlingen, Texas, operated by the local Catholic diocese; and WLAE in New Orleans, operated by a Catholic lay organization. What? How is it even possible that the Mormon and Catholic churches are being allowed to operate PBS stations?

In the larger scheme of things, this is relatively minor and who really cares? But once again, it’s just another of a long string of “minor” examples where federal funds – our tax dollars – are given to religious organizations for entirely religious purposes. It adds up.

Republicans have taken aim at PBS for years and been very successful in reducing federal funding for PBS because of so-called liberal biased programming. Well, perhaps it’s time for rationally-minded, free-thinking individuals to lobby congressional Democrats to cut off all federal funding to PBS on the grounds that their programming practices are in violation of the 1st amendment’s establishment clause. Yeah, I won’t hold my breath.

Source: the Washington Post

 What was Letterman’s mistake?

Apologizing. Letterman never should have tried to explain himself. He’s a comedian doing his job of pushing the envelope with a public figure who’s an easy target. And yes, Palin’s family is fair game because such attention is precisely what she wants and needs.

Sarah Palin has strategically inserted her family into the political sphere at every opportune moment, all in service of advancing her political aspirations. She has used this strategy as political bait from the very moment she paraded her family across that stage at the 2008 Republican National Convention. It’s a standard move in the rightwing-culture-war-strategy handbook. Playing the martyr, especially when it involves the rightwing sacred cow “the family”, is Culture Wars 101. Palin and her supporters are giddy with outraged delight.

Here’s a little public service announcement to help drive the point home:

Oh the offense, oh the outrage, oh the self-righteous delight!

 John Ziegler - 2009 Ass-Clown of the year award winner

Congratulations Mr. Ziegler! You’ve demonstrated once again that your talent for ass-clownery is of the first order, surpassing perhaps the king of all ass-clowns, Glenn Beck.

Why Contessa Brewer interviewed this guy in the first place is beyond me. He’s known for this sort of adolescent behavior. In fact, he pulled the same sort of stunt with David Shuster in early January of this year. Hopefully MSNBC will have learned its lesson this time.

On the other hand, having Ziegler so closely associated with Sarah Palin must do wonders for her public image. The more air time this buffoon gets defending Palin as her official biographer, the further the Republican Party descends into irrelevance. It’s all good.

 CNN’s John King does it again

On CNN’s program State of the Union, John King once again mislead the public by repeating the out-of-context statement of Judge Sotomayor. It boggles the mind how CNN can continue to get away with this yellow journalism. Ok, dumb question.

So in response to this ongoing crap, I’ve sent CNN the following email - I kinda like my last sentence. By itself it’ll likely have zero impact but, of course, that’s not necessarily the point.

Dear CNN Producers, Reporters, and Commentators,

As a viewer of CNN, I am very troubled with CNN’s reporting on Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Over the past week, CNN has repeatedly and consistently mislead its viewers by taking a statement of Sotomayor’s out of context, thus communicating a meaning that Judge Sotomayor neither suggested nor intended.

There is no ambiguity regarding Sotomayor’s statement, but CNN appears to be content in following a few other news organizations in creating ambiguity and controversy when none exists. Taken within the context of the entire speech, it is clear that Judge Sotomayor is speaking about “seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases…” and arguing against the idea “...that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.” Sotomayor is not making a universal claim about Latina women reaching better conclusions than white males, which is exactly what CNN is suggesting and portraying in its reporting.

I find it shameful that CNN, it’s producers, reporters and commentators would deliberately leave this crucial contextual point out of their reporting. That CNN has made a conscious decision to suppress pertinent information from its viewers, thus helping create unwarranted controversy is more than dishonest. It’s irresponsible journalism.

I would hope that a professional news organization like CNN with the richness of its journalistic experience would more often than not make better decisions than other news organizations who do not share in such rich journalistic credentials.

Addendum:

So CNN continues its refusal to acknowledge its complicity in misleading the public on this issue and instead only mentions that there’s a controversy surrounding the context of this quote. No shit! Well CNN ought to know because they’ve help create and perpetuate this pseudo controversy. Such myopic absence of obvious self awareness is only possible with a brain-dead public that only pays attention to the world when it’s collapsing around them. Oh how the idiocy must burn.

As I’ve watched CNN’s coverage and their manipulation of this story, my reaction is exactly the same as that of Mike Barnicle on MSNBC’s Morning Joe when he said, “My head is going to explode if we don’t point out the context…” 

No Mika my dear, this is not a “totally different understanding of it,” it’s THE ONLY FRIGGEN understanding of it. How can anyone with at least a 3rd grade reading capacity not come away from this speech without understanding that Sotomayor was not making a universal claim about Latina women making better conclusions than white men. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

So why won’t CNN simply reveal the context-setting passages of Sotomayor’s speech? We all know the answer – ratings, ratings, and more ratings. Misinformation is an extremely lucrative business that will not bend to thorough and factual reporting. This manufactured controversy needs to be lifted up by media scholars for years to come as the example par excellence of how blatantly self-generating the news media has become with its content.

 It’s true… Mancow is the Whore of Babylon

On Friday’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Mancow inadvertently revealed a key clue to where his waterboarding stunt may ultimately lead. He claimed that he wasn’t interested in changing the world, but at the very last moment of the interview, Mancow implicated himself when he said, “This has got to be in the book of Revelations.” Revelations indeed!

Confirming what every torture-loving-god-fearing-reality-denying Republican had already suspected, the following photograph mysteriously showed up at the office of the RNC and FOX News - Mancow is the Whore of Babylon!

 What the news media is not telling you… again

CNN has now joined the fray of other news outlets in deliberately taking Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s remarks about Latina judges and white male judges out of context. When her remarks are read in context, it is clear that she is talking about “seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases…” and decidedly not making a universal statement about Latina women reaching better conclusions than white males. Read it in context for yourself (source-MediaMatters):

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

Again, as I’ve stated before, NEVER TRUST WHAT YOU READ, SEE OR HEAR FROM THE MAIN-STREAM-MEDIA. They lie, skew, truncate and fabricate for the sake of ratings and profit, bottom line. Faux News is the undisputed king of kings in this regard, but CNN is becoming a serious contender for that coveted crown.

Nevertheless, Sotomayor’s confirmation is not in any danger because of this blatant misrepresentation. It’s the all-too familiar Republican acts of political desperation at play here along with the media’s willingness to participate and manufacture such pseudo news for ratings – such a lovely symbiosis.

We really need Michael Moore to appear during Wolf Blitzer’s “Late Edition” and again hand CNN their asses like he did with Sanjay Gupta.

 When reality trumps partisanship

The most telling part of this interview is when Mancow mentions that Sean Hannity called him after seeing the clip and still insisted that waterboarding wasn’t torture. Hannity’s statement is not at all surprising. It’s the quintessential religious response to contrary evidence. Sean Hannity will never admit that waterboarding is torture under any circumstances because his thought processes will not allow him to do so.

No evidence could convince Hannity otherwise because it’s not a matter of convincing or reason or logic or fact. None of these factors enter into the equation for Hannity or his ilk because the issue can only be a matter of conviction and belief, not of rational thought. Whatever the Bush administration deemed necessary regarding terror suspects is ex cathedra and thus the gospel truth. If they say it isn’t torture, it’s by definition not torture and unassailably justified. If god says 2+2=7, then 2+2=7.

This is how people like Hannity process information. The world around them is never experienced objectively or subjectively. It is experience doctrinally. When Carrie Prejean said that “Satan was trying to tempt [her],” she was expressing how people of this ilk experience events in their mythical world.

So even if Hannity underwent waterboarding, his experience would not be “This feels like I’m actually drowning…” but amount to something similar to Prejean’s statement, like “I’m being deceived (tempted) into feeling like I’m actually drowning…”

It’s this type of brainwashing that makes religion so potent. It provides the mechanisms by which people can, and all too often, deny their own subjective experiences and feelings for the sake of their beliefs. Hannity doesn’t need to undergo waterboarding because nothing can or will change his mind on the matter.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, when such doctrinalites (new word) so readily reject objective evidence and reason out of hand. If they are willing without hesitation to deny their own subjective experiences, or avoid facing them altogether, for the sake of their mythical world view, denying what’s before their very own eyes is a piece of cake – “Satan is just trying to tempt me.”

 Paging Sean Hannity… Hello… Mr. Hannity? Mancow is in the house and has a few words for you

It should be pointed out that Christopher Hitchens underwent this torture technique well before conservative radio host Mancow did, but when liberals like Hitchens volunteer for such demonstrations it’s seen as staged and unreliable.

They tell us that the average length of time a person can endure waterboarding is 14 seconds. Sean Hannity doesn’t believe waterboarding constitutes torture and, as we all know, Hannity gladly offered to undergo waterboarding for charity and the troops. He would have us believe the human suffering of such “enhanced interrogation” techniques to be trivial.

Well, as we also know, Hannity has yet to make good on his offer (over a month now) to which Keith Olbermann is offering $1,000 for every second Hannity lasts. Olbermann’s offer stands while the coward continues to believe waterboarding is not torture.

 When one disease prevents the treatment of another

The case of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser is making national news again. After Minnesota’s Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg ruled that Daniel’s parents were medically neglecting his well-being by refusing conventional chemotherapy for their son, the judge ordered Daniel to be treated for his cancer. Not surprisingly, Daniel is now attempting to refuse chemotherapy treatments through physical resistance.

His parents must be so proud that their son is remaining true to their religious beliefs to the point of certain death – praise God! Seriously, it’s one thing for adults to refuse medical treatment for themselves for whatever reasons, it’s quite another when a child does the same due to the parents’ religious convictions.

I fail to see much difference, if any, between the actions of Daniel’s parents and the act of performing child sacrifice because the gods demand it. Whether the child is a willing participant has no bearing whatsoever. We have child protection laws in this country for very good reasons. Why some people and groups believe they should be granted special dispensations from such basic legal protections because of their religious beliefs demonstrates the fundamental flaw underlying popular notions of religious freedom in this country. No, your religious beliefs do not give you the right to kill other people, even if they are family members.

There’s no ethical ambiguity here. If a child is allowed to die due to the beliefs and willful actions of the parents, it’s murder. In fact, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch for the State to seek charges against Daniel’s parents for attempted murder.

I see this as simply protecting public health. It’s a case of one disease – religion – contributing to the deadly progression of another disease. Richard Dawkins is dead on when he states:

It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, ‘mad cow’ disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

It’s a sign of a weak society when its citizens are allowed to exercise religious freedom to the point of killing children, as willing participants or otherwise. If religionists are unwilling to think and act rationally for the well-being of their children, then it’s the duty of the State to remove the threat of that disease from those affected. It’s a wonderous thing how religionists in this country fight tooth and nail to ensure the survival of a non-sentient, fertilized egg only to celebrate its premature and unnecessary death years after it has developed into a conscious human being.

Please do your part to ensure your own and the public’s health by inoculating yourself against the disease of religion.

UPDATE: Apparently the mother of Daniel Hauser has taken her son and skipped town, and Judge Rodenberg has issued a warrent for her arrest. From the AP:

A Minnesota judge has issued an arrest warrant for the mother of a 13-year-old boy resisting chemotherapy after the pair missed a court hearing on his welfare.

Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg also is ordering that Daniel Hauser be placed in protective custody so he can get proper medical treatment for Hodgkins lymphoma.

Daniel and his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were due in court Tuesday to tell the judge results of a chest X-ray. But Daniel’s father was the only one to appear. He told Rodenberg that he last saw Colleen Hauser on Monday evening, and she told him she was leaving. He said that was all he knew.