People are just like cars, doncha know?

My dedication to civility and respect is going to be tested right off the bat, I see.

I'd never heard of Neal Boortz before, but apparently he thinks that society should value people in the same way it values automobiles when it comes to fixing damaged ones, and who should pay.

I had just walked into my local ABC store to pick up some brandy for the wife and some vodka for myself, and this guy's radio show was blaring through the speakers.

He started by presenting a hypothetical: if you crashed your car and didn't have insurance, and then go to an insurance company to apply for coverage with the added demand that they pay for the crash, even though it happened before coverage started, you would rightly be denied coverage for that car.

From there, he takes the analogy to health care with a particular harshness that I felt was uncalled for, and I'll paraphrase what he said to as close as I can remember it:

"So let's say that you don't have health insurance, and you contract diabetes because you're a fat pig, and then you decide you need insurance to help pay for the disease you contracted. Why should anyone insure you at all? You didn't have coverage prior to the disease you contracted."

He said "fat pig" with such vitriol I could practically hear the spittle pelting his microphone.

I was pretty disgusted, obviously, because this man seems to think that people are no different than cars, and should be "totalled out" if they're "wrecked" and are unable to pay for "repairs."

I took my purchase up to the counter and asked the clerk who it was that was on the radio.

"Boortz," he said simply.

"Well, it's kind of silly to treat people and cars as being the same, isn't it?"

The clerk, a man in his 40s, simply shrugged, looked away and curtly replied, "Have a nice day, sir." He obviously did not want to talk politics, though I can't fairly say whether it was him or another employee who appreciated Boortz's "insightful commentary."

So I took my bag and left.

Perusing Boortz's site, he keeps a blog where he posted pretty much the same argument:

...my "talking point," as you put it, is that it makes no logical sense whatsoever to require an insurance company to sign someone up for an insurance policy to provide coverage for an even that has already taken place. If you applied for homeowner's insurance after your house burned down it is a pretty safe bet that you're application will be declined. If you call Geico and try to insure your car after you've wrecked it, you're unlikely to get coverage for that wreck. Can someone please explain to me then just why it is generally accepted that a person ought to be permitted to contract a disease first, and then buy insurance to cover the costs of that disease after the fact? If that's the routine, they why would anyone ever buy insurance until they're actually sick?

Of course, that isn't how it happens in the real world. In general, there are only two reasons why people go without health insurance: either they cannot afford the premiums or they're stupid.

Now, there are plenty of stupid people in the world, and the American electorate has more than its fair share, but among the nearly 40 million who go without, affordability is the reason, not because they want to be Evel Knievel when it comes to their own health. There are plenty of stories of people who have to choose between feeding their family, paying their mortgage, or paying their insurance premiums. And the number keeps rising.

But that's just a minor mistake when taken against the assertion that people are to be treated like houses and cars. One wonders what kind of world it would be where Boortz's pragmatism ruled, cetainly not the kind that values human life: "What's that? You say you've got a debilitating illness that is life-threatening? Sorry brother, it's not cost-effective to save your life, doesn't matter if it was your own fault or not. I got mine, so sod off."

Here's the second part of his argument, where he stretches things way beyond reality.

Now .. here are some hard truths that are going to anger some of you. First, you have no right to health care. To obtain health care you must have access to the services of a health care practitioner and the products manufactured by drug and medical implement companies. To claim a right to health care you are claiming a right to the time and property of some other person. How do you then balance your claim of a right to a portion of that person's life against their own right to protect their lives and property? The argument for a right to health care simply cannot be sustained until you are willing to accept the idea that one individual in our society has a right to the life and property of another.

But that's bollocks, of course. This is the same kind of reasoning that would demolish such "socialist" government programs like fire and police departments. Fire and police are paid through community taxes (i.e. everyone's "lives and property" as Boortz puts it), so that if one person's house is burglarized or catches fire, that person can rely on the government for help. It's part of our social contract, we take care of each other for things that happen which are beyond our control. We cannot control whether or not a certain exposed wire is going to spark the insulation into a fire anymore than we can control whether or not a criminal will choose to burglarize our home.

The same is true of most diseases, we cannot control, and diabetes is included, even type 2 adult-onset, which doesn't just happen to fat people.

Anyway, this is rather moot because their is no comparison between the fire and police departments and health insurance, precisely because health insurance is not a government program (not yet, at least, and not anytime soon). No one is going to take Mr. Boortz's "life and property" by insuring someone with a disease that is expensive to manage. The problem is not, as Boortz seems to think, with people who want insurance to give them a free ride on someone else's dime, but rather that people who would like to be able to buy into the system, to contribute what they can for their own health.

Sure, such people do cost more to insure, but Boortz is far off-base from the reality. If someone with, say, cystic fibrosis, were to try and buy into a large health giant like one of the BC/BS "non-profits," I doubt the rest of everyone else's premiums would change. Of course, add a whole bunch and the picture changes, but as long as those with the pre-existing conditions are paying their fair share, no-one has any right to complain, because the alternative, already a reality, is that those people are left out in the cold, either to live in misery or, just as likely, die in misery. And if the measure of a society is how well it takes care of the least of its members, then ours falls far short of even being called "decent."

But let's let Boortz finish his point (here's where he alludes to the "fat pig" with diabetes from his radio show):

Second point: Your medical misfortune does not constitute a lien on my life or property unless I have voluntarily entered into a contract with you. Yes .. if you have diabetes or some disease that is going to cost you $20,000 a year, or more .. that's sad. Less sad if you ate yourself into that situation .. but sad nonetheless. As sad as it is your medical condition gives you no claim on my bank account. You can rely on your own resources, your family, your church, a charity or the voluntary goodness of strangers all you want; but to use the government as an instrument of plunder to seize the property of another for your health care needs is immoral .. no matter how grave your condition may be.

This is libertarianism at it's most vacuous, because the logic applied here also can be applied to the aforementioned fire and police departments. The fact is that we all must sacrifice something for the benefit of all (including Mr. Boortz, whether he likes it or not) when it comes to issues that affect us all.

We all contribute to taxes that pay for fire departments, because we want the benefit of our community's protection in case our house catches fire.

We all contribute to taxes that pay for police departments, because we want the benefit of our community's protection in case we're robbed.

We do this not only to protect ourselves, but because we value our neighbors and countrymen. We value their lives and happiness, which is why we protect their safety, so why wouldn't we want to protect their heath?

What Boortz is trying to claim smacks of Jane Fonda's ill-advised attempt to not pay her taxes during the Vietnam War, her reasoning being that because she did not support the war, she should not have to see her tax money used to pay for it. Of course, that argument failed because, as the judge pointed out, she benefits from national defense regardless of whether she agrees with what the military does or does not do. She lives in safety and enjoys her rights because of the protection afforded by the military through her taxes.

The same can be true of health insurance. It won't, of course, as a national health plan will not pass congress, not in its current state of partisan gridlock where lies, rumours, and hearless "logic" like Boortz's tend to get the most attention. But a small justice can be done by requiring that insurers accommodate those with pre-existing conditions. Because we value our fellow citizens enough to bring them in from the cold, even if it means we have to spare a few cents extra overall on our insurance premiums. To do otherwise is downright inhuman.



Update: I noticed that Boortz also writes a column for the WorldNetDaily, which if I recall, is run by fundamentalist Christian Joseph Farah. How "Christian" is Boortz if he advocates letting people suffer and die to save his own bottom line? Well, no one ever accused the WorldNetDaily of being consistent...or honest...or accurate...or fair...or, well, you get the idea.

No other word for it: This is *fucked* up.

So it's been roughly a month since I posted, and a lot has happened in that time: I got engaged, then my fiancee's mother died of lung cancer, then I started the new semester. I might post about some of that stuff; seeing my fiancee's mother pass away before my eyes is an experience that I will never forget.

But for now, I'd like to jump right back into things. First off: Minneapolis Police at the RNC. What are they doing?

Well, it seems that the Republican Nat'l Convention is going on and they don't want the rabble (i.e. ordinary Americans) to be heard voicing their dissatisfaction with the last eight years during which the Republicans have run this country into the ground.

So here's what we've come to:




WHAT. THE. FUCK.

[via Pharyngula]

An excellent peek into how the rest of the world views US policial life

Here's a REALLY good short-take from the BBC on the art of the "U-Turn," or flip-flopping as it's commonly known here in the states. The article gives a nice run-down on the major "about faces" that both Barack Obama and John McCain have done on specific issues life campaign finance, immigration, as well as the one flip-flop that means I will very likely NOT be voting for John McCain this year.

Another McCain, quote, shift was in his relationship with the religious right of his party.

During his 2000 bid for the Republican nomination, relations between Mr McCain and Christian Coalition founder Jerry Falwell were notoriously fractious.

The Arizona senator memorably described Mr Falwell and fellow members of the religious right as "agents of intolerance".

But in 2006, ahead of his second presidential run, Mr McCain delivered the commencement address at Mr Falwell's Liberty University, after which he attended a small private party hosted by his former political adversary.

He's simply changed too much since 2000 when I wrote his name in on my ballot.

I say we help them out

Ok, sit down for this one.

Seriously, sit down, I'm not paying for your ER visit when you split your head open from the *headdesk* that I'm about to lay on you.

Some people want to write-in George W. Bush in the 2008 election, they want four more years of "God's president."

Stay the Course

Under the strong leadership of God's President we've been safe for 7 years. But if we abandon God now, we could be hit again.

We don't need to worry about the details, we just trust in God and vote our faith. When we step out in faith and leave the details to God, there's no limit to what can be accomplished.

There is a lot of Poe's Law-induced confusion with this; it could be a clever attempt at satire, and it most likely is, but let's say for the moment it's real.

So what should we do about this? I say we help them out.

I'm being completely serious. Even if Bush was actually running, and even if there wasn't that pesky little 22nd Amendment, there is no way Bush could get elected again. These morons seem to think that there's enough latent support (through evangelical dissatisfaction with McCain and a screeching fear of the "Islamic-Atheistic-Hindu" Barack Obama) for Dubya to get a write-in campaign going and re-elect the Decider.

So I say let them throw away their votes, because it's assholes like these who subjected the rest of us to 8 years of failed policies.

Bush is a failure in so many ways, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are only the most visible. The environment, the economy, civil liberties and human rights, health care, and on and on and on.

So yeah, let's help these poor folks out. Print out a couple copies and post them on the bulletin board of your local Baptist church, maybe we'll be able to keep a few rubes from fucking up yet another election.

[H/T to Dispatches from the Culture Wars]

Oh, this is too rich...

So there's a another new "marriage protection" amendment that's been introduced in the Senate, and the hypocrisy parade is in full swing. Just have a guess at who two of the Republican sponsors are...

Yep. It's the two Senators who have shown the LEAST concern for the "sanctity" of marriage: Sen. Bob "Dress me up in Diapers" Vitter and Sen. Larry "Tap Dancing Daisy" Craig.

Jesus' General has already lampooned them thoroughly:

"If we allow homosexuals to marry, who's going to take care of the needs of the many straight, married men who like to blow guys in public restrooms?"
---Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID)

"Being diapered by a prostitute didn't end my marriage. But if my wife knew homosexuals were marrying each other, she'd divorce me in a minute."
--- Sen. Bob Vitter (R-LA)

Ya gotta love the transparent, unabashed crassness of this bill. It's 2004 all over again, and the Republicans are once again trying to mobilize all the bible-thumping, gay-hating, slack-jawed yokels which make up their base. "Da Gayz R gettin married! Oh noes!"

On a related note, someone tried to convince me that James Dobson, one of the consummate Liars for Jesus, doesn't have anything against gays, even after I showed him this quote:

"Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth."
---On gay marriage, from The Daily Oklahoman, Oct. 23rd, 2004

Apparently, accusing your opponent of being bent on the willful destruction of the whole world doesn't mean you hate them. Yeah right, and I'm supposed to believe that Hitler didn't really hate the Jews, even though he accused them of, well, pretty much the same thing Dobson is saying of homosexuals.

The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.
---Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

For Hitler, Jews were interested only in money and domination through political power, and that would lead to the destruction of civilization. For Dobson, the homosexuals are only interested in sex, though they only seek power insofar as it allows them to have more sex, as Dobson implies here:

"The state legislature here in Colorado has frankly become just about as radical and extreme as the California Legislature, in an effort that was designed to obviously appease the homosexual community give access to all public restrooms by people of the opposite gender," Dr. Dobson said on his radio program last week.

It's all part of a huge conspiracy. The homosexuals want to control everything so they can destroy civilization.

Sorry to have broken Godwin's Law, but they're just too similar. Not that Dobson is advocating the wholesale murder of homosexuals, though his opposition to anti-discruminatory and hate-crime legislation which includes protections for homosexuals suggests that he doesn't mind if other people take the task on their own. He's perfectly content to play his role as a Julius Streicher with his own verson of Der Sturmer in the form of his daily radio broadcasts.

Seriously, it's nuts like Dobson that enable Republican hypocrites like Vitter and Craig to mobilize the legions of the ignorant so that they can continue to treat America like their own personal ATM. But it's not the nuts like Dobson or the Republican shills who parrot his shit, it's the credulous fools who vote for those shills.

We can't let 2004 happen again.

[H/T to Dispatches for the Culture Wars]

EPIC WIN!

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

It would seem that Dobson isn't as relevant as he used to be! A group of Christian pastors has repudiated James Dobson over his remarks on Obama, and what's more, they started a website with a title that just too rich not to type out in full caps:

JAMESDOBSONDOESNTSPEAKFORME.COM

And just LOOK at their statement! It's so much win!

James Dobson doesn't speak for me.

He doesn't speak for me when he uses religion as a wedge to divide;

He doesn't speak for me when he speaks as the final arbiter on the meaning of the Bible;

James Dobson doesn't speak for me when he uses the beliefs of others as a line of attack;

He doesn't speak for me when he denigrates his neighbor's views when they don't line up with his;

He doesn't speak for me when he seeks to confine the values of my faith to two or three issues alone;

What does speak for me is David's psalm celebrating how good and pleasant it is when we come together in unity;

Micah speaks for me in reminding us that the Lord requires us to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with Him;

The prophet Isaiah speaks for me in his call for all to come and reason together and also to seek justice, encourage the oppressed and to defend the cause of the vulnerable;

The book of Nehemiah speaks for me in its example to work with our neighbors, not against them, to restore what was broken in our communities;

The book of Matthew speaks for me in saying to bless those that curse you and pray for those who persecute you;

The words of the apostle Paul speak for me in saying that words spoken and deeds done without love amount to nothing.

The apostle John speaks for me in reminding us of Jesus' command to love one another. The world will know His disciples by that love.

These words speak for me. But when James Dobson attacks Barack Obama, James Dobson doesn't speak for me.

In addition, there's a run-down of what Barack has said in comparison with the distortions of Dobson.

Finally, people of faith are starting to wake up and smell the bullshit of these bigoted asshats.

(H/T to The Friendly Atheist)

Hello Pot? This is Kettle...YOU'RE BLACK!!!

Hehehe, ya gotta love the irony of sectarian bickering.

It was only a matter of time before one of the fundies-in-chief, this time the "reverend" James Dobson (head of a mass organization of religious bigots known as Focus on the Family), to formally attack Barack Obama as not being "Christian" enough. He's taking issue with a speech Obama made two years ago about the role of faith in democracy.

Now, Obama takes a very rational, pragmatic view of Biblical scripture, taking into account that we live in a secular, pluralistic nation and that in order for us to co-exist, we have to translate religion-specific morals and values into universals so that they are, in Obama's words, "subject to argument and amenable to reason." Further, Obama had the audacity to point out that using "god told me" as a justification for anything is totally unacceptable in our democracy.

But as is the case with most fundies, this painfully obvious fact flies clear over Dobson's head. Whatever, he said he wouldn't vote for McCain anyway, so he's just flailing about trying to still look relevant.

History: UR DOIN RONG!!! pt. 2

Ok, so apparently the religious right went digging around and they finally found what they were looking for: a 150 year old tome that purports to “prove” that the United States actually was founded as a Christian nation.

Is anyone else laughing at this? Instead of doing there own research into primary source material, doing their own analysis and work, what do they do? They go to an ancient tome! Sound eerily familiar?

Anyway, it’s available online both at Google books and ScienceBlogs has a downloadable pdf of it if you care to look, just head over to Greg Laden’s blog for the link. (H/T to Greg for the lulz!)

The most idiotic "I told you so" I think I've ever heard...

And it's from Charles Krauthammer, who had the solution to our current gas crisis 25 years ago. And what is that solution?

Why, it's a gas tax of course!

Some things, like renal physiology, are difficult. Some things, like Arab-Israeli peace, are impossible. And some things are preternaturally simple. You want more fuel-efficient cars? Don't regulate. Don't mandate. Don't scold. Don't appeal to the better angels of our nature. Do one thing: Hike the cost of gas until you find the price point.

Unfortunately, instead of hiking the price ourselves by means of a gasoline tax that could be instantly refunded to the American people in the form of lower payroll taxes, we let the Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians and Iranians do the taxing for us -- and pocket the money that the tax would have recycled back to the American worker.

Oh, he's serious, I assure you. But wait, he's only getting started. Apparently, completely unbeknownst to the rest of the world but knownst to Krauthammer, oil prices will fall if we cut back on our consumption.

Want to wean us off oil? Be open and honest. The British are paying $8 a gallon for petrol. Goldman Sachs is predicting we will be paying $6 by next year. Why have the extra $2 (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gasoline tax and be recycled back into lower payroll taxes.

Announce a schedule of gas tax hikes of 50 cents every six months for the next two years. And put a tax floor under $4 gasoline, so that as high gas prices transform the U.S. auto fleet, change driving habits and thus hugely reduce U.S. demand -- and bring down world crude oil prices -- the American consumer and the American economy reap all of the benefit.

Yeah, it's not like we have a dwindling supply of oil, or that India and China are drinking up more and more as they're economies modernize, or that a big chunk of our oil comes from volatile regions with bad people, or that speculators on the market tend to artificially inflate the price of commodities.

Yeah, let's tax it, that'll drive down costs. Who needs to develop alternative fuels? Conservation and reducing consumption? Hogwash!

Sorry Charlie, but you're just fucking stupid.

...and the cycle begins again

As if the diplomatic situation with Iran wasn't precarious enough, here comes the Israeli deputy prime minister stating in no uncertain terms that Israel will be forced to attack Iran if it doesn't halt its nuclear program.

We already all knew Israel would act in its own security interests, and so did the Iranians, no doubt. Does Ahmadinejad really think Israel wouldn't strike Iran, especially with their blitz of Lebanon and Hezbollah, who didn't have nuclear weapons? So what is the significance of having it stated so publicly and unequivocally?

Personally, I think the Israelis just handed the Iranians a powerful propaganda tool. I could see the Ayatollahs using this as a excuse to drum up nationalistic fervor: "The Israelis want to attack us! So we MUST have a nuclear capability!"

It doesn't matter that the Israelis said hostilities would be conditional upon Iran abandoning its nukes; do you really think a totalitarian regime like Iran's really cares about context when quoting its enemies?

This was a diplomatic blunder. Not to mention the fact that such an increase in tensions also artificially increases the price of oil, but hey, at least we'll only have to deal with a recession, surely not an out and out energy crisis plunging us into a full-on depression, right? RIGHT?

But what's done is done. Bush's plan for peace in the Middle East marches on inexorably towards what I'm sure will be a stunning success. :\

New summer job

It's been a busy two weeks. I finally got a job, and it's a good thing too. The temp agencies that I had left my resume with probably never would've gotten back to me, and some of the other places I sent it to probably wouldn't either (how many students are there in Chicago looking for summer work?).

So what job is it?

I'm working as a canvasser for Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. representing the Democratic National Committee.

I hate political parties, normally. Well, lemme rephrase, I hate the polarization that our two-party system has created in this country, especially in recent times thanks to quintessential douchebag Karl Rove.

But still, this election is too important to leave to chance...and I need the money. They gave me an interview and sent me out with a canvassing team to evaluate me and today I'm supposed to go out by myself canvassing and if I raise something like $100 then I'm automatically on staff.

So no waiting, that's good. I only have 8 weeks to work anyway, and I need to make the most of it. I move back to Carbondale in August.

Plus, this beats working some lame office job (I've done enough of those anyway), because I'm actually getting PAID to talk to people about politics!!! w00t!

I do have a script that I'm supposed to follow, though they explained to me that it's fine to personalize what I say to people, just so long as I stay "on the outskirts of the script."

Anyway, I'm a little apprehensive because on Monday, my "observation day," one of the team members I went with got a gun pulled on her when she knocked on someone's door. I wasn't with her, but she was freaked out, understandably. I realize that this doesn't happen often, and that it probably shouldn't have happened (we were in Evanston for pity's sake!). But still, it's a little scary to think about.

Anyway, I'll be campaigning for the Democrats this year. I usually support the dems anyway, but I've never worked for them. It's kind of weird, to be honest. The people are awesome, they're very energetic and enthusiastic, full of idealism. And it shows, sometimes in awkward ways. I've heard more than a few crazy ideas around that office, lemme tell ya. But the staff is young, on average I'd say about 5-8 years younger than me. The gap might not seem very large, but that 5-8 years means I remember more of what the Dems did when they were in power. I remember a lot of the things Clinton did pissed me off, and when I met Dick Durbin two years ago in Carbondale he pissed me off too with his lame answer to my question about why Dems weren't confronting the Bush Administration's denialism on global climate change (he claimed that nothing would get done by people in Washington, that change had to come from the people, starting at the local level, the grassroots. To which I reminded him that he was in Washington, and the way we little people change things is by changing the people in Washington. He seemed non-plussed by my response, but it's his own damn fault.)

Anyway, this should be an interesting job to say the least. I may even grow to like it. I just don't want to be one the sidelines this year. As much as I respect John McCain, a lot has happened since the 2000 election. I can't stand with him on foreign policy, much less domestic. I'm not totally happy with Barack's stated positions either, but he seems to have a much better grasp of the nuance of different situations. Plus, he talks to people like adults, unlike the Republican spin machine which only tells people who to hate and why, the truth be damned. So that's why I took this job.

Oh, and I need the money too. :P

Voter idiocy leads to idiots in public office

I would think that's a pretty simple-to-understand truism, but apparently some people still haven't been paying attention.

Watch this quick video. It's of three women from Lynchburg, Tennessee commenting on election year politics...



Aside from the obvious stupidity of voting for a candidate based solely on their stated religious beliefs, did you also notice how the old woman never thought to question something she heard at church about Barack Obama? As if it had been God himself spewing that old lie about Obama being a Muslim--she never questioned it!

Ugh, then there's the old "we are a Christian nation" bullshit. I'm starting to get really sick of hearing it. But then, that's what usually happens in home-schooling.

But the irony of ironies is that young girl. Did you catch what she said about Bush? Watch it again.

Apparently, she realizes that voting for someone just because they say they'll "foilow the word" is bad because Bush is the penultimate example of that error...but her family has no problem giving Mike Huckabee the same free religious pass that gave us EIGHT FUCKING YEARS OF SHIT under Dubya.

Thanks ladies. You are living examples of why stupidity should be physically painful. Like shock collars or something.

Stem Cells Get Lost in Politics

Stem Cells are amazing things. They can be coaxed by medical researchers to assume the form of almost any tissue needed, leading to the hope that some of the most debilitating diseases could be ultimately cured. But the damned little things are so versatile that they seem to be able to conform to almost any political view as well:

The political fray has obscured quiet efforts in recent months to compare stem cells from many different sources. Experts doing the research say some cells may be best for treating certain diseases, while others are easier to grow in the lab. The upshot is likely to be an array of trade-offs that lack the clarity of the moral debate.

"You can't say one cell type is better than another," said Dr. Anthony Atala, director of Wake Forest's Institute for Regenerative Medicine, who is leading one stem cell comparison study. "Each cell has its own properties. We won't know what the properties are unless they're studied and we find out which cells do best for certain applications."

This reminds me of a paper I wrote on the controversy surrounding Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem. Commenting herself on the madness of the controversy, the great twentieth century sociologist and philosopher said that there are certain groups with "down-to-Earth interests...whose excitement is entirely concerned with factual matters and who therefore try to distort the facts." Too true.

The Tribune article also included a nice little graphic showing the different lines of stem cell research being pursued today. Have a look.

Unnatural "Pipe Fittings"

Apparently, we are to believe that homosexuality is a "choice" and can be "cured," so says the White House's nominee for Surgeon General.

From the article:

Sixteen years ago, [Dr. James Holsinger] wrote a paper for the church in which he likened the reproductive organs to male and female "pipe fittings" and argued that homosexuality is therefore biologically unnatural.

"When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur," Holsinger wrote, citing studies showing higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases among gay men and the risk of injury from anal sex.

Is anyone surprised to hear this kind of drivel from a Bush nominee? I'm not. Oh, and that whole thing about homosexuality being unnatural, here's a great little tidbit about homo dolphins!