Via a tip from The Mysterious Media Type.

Bond and Cochran: I sure hope there are twenty or thirty agribusiness lobbyists registered as voters in your states, because you're gonna fuckin' need those votes next election.

The rest of us damnsure aren't voting for you.

I'ett u sangue, as the Sicilians say. Go let your own blood. You're less than dead to us.

Maybe it's time for you corrupt little plutocrats to join this Bloomberg Party that's sweeping the nation.

Posted by: Ace at 04:06 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, it's delicious.

Since he likens faith in Islam to the firm knowlege of true mathematics and science -- Muslims preach 2 + 2 = 4, whereas Christians claim 2 + 2 =3 and Hindus believe 2 + 2 = 6 (Jews believe 2 + 2 = a nice round number of Muslim children whose blood should be drank, presumably) -- this Discovery piece on Islam vs. Science bears reading.

“This tendency to use their knowledge of science to ‘prove’ that the religious interpretations of life are correct is really corrupting,” he tells me. Soltan, who got his doctorate at the University of Northern Illinois, works in a small office that’s pungent with tobacco smoke; journals and newspapers lie stacked on his desk and floor. “Their methodology is bad,” he says. Soltan explains that Islamic scientists start with a conclusion (the Koran says the body has 360 joints) and then work toward proving that conclusion. To reach the necessary answer they will, in this instance, count things that some orthopedists might not call a joint. “They’re sure about everything, about how the universe was created, who created it, and they just need to control nature rather than interpret it,” Soltan adds. “But the driving force behind any scientific pursuit is that the truth is still out there.”

...

Chaabouni recalls the early days of her career, in the mid-1970s, when she saw children afflicted with disfiguring diseases. “It was very sad,” she says. “I met families with two, three, four affected siblings. I wanted to do something about it, to know how to prevent it.” There was no facility for genetic research at that time, and for two decades, she lobbied government officials hard for it. “We wanted better conditions and facilities. They also saw we were publishing in international [peer-reviewed] journals. I think the policymakers finally understood the value of developing research.”

...

Over the last 30 years, Chaabouni has also seen how people who once resisted her message have begun listening. Once, genetic counseling or even coming in for certain treatments almost amounted to a social taboo; now, it is becoming more accepted, and things that were once simply ignored or not spoken of—such as autism in children, which is being identified more commonly—are more often out in the open.

For all that, Chaabouni still sees how her advice sometimes clashes with her patientsÂ’ beliefs. Like many Arab and Muslim countries, Tunisia has a high incidence of congenital diseases, including adrenal and blood disorders, that Chaabouni has traced to consanguinity.

“It’s a custom here, and in the rest of the Arab world, to marry cousins, even first cousins,” she tells me, though the practice is becoming less common. “Of course, that means they share a lot of genes from common sets of grandparents.”

In other fields, pure research does not get support; in medical genetics, even practically applicable knowledge can spark conflicts with Islamic culture. “Taking a blood sample to study abnormalities is not a problem,” Chaabouni says. “That’s just investigation. The problem is when you take the results of research into the clinic and try to give genetic counseling to patients. Then you have people who won’t accept the idea that they have to stop having children or that they shouldn’t marry their cousin.”

Here's something that should bother even a secular liberal, but won't, because this is their "authentic culture:"

What about, say, evolutionary biology or Darwinism? I ask. (Evolution is taught in Egyptian schools, although it is banned in Saudi Arabia and Sudan.) “If you are asking if Adam came from a monkey, no,” Badawy responds. “Man did not come from a monkey. If I am religious, if I agree with Islam, then I have to respect all of the ideas of Islam. And one of these ideas is the creation of the human from Adam and Eve. If I am a scientist, I have to believe that.”

But from the point of view of a scientist, is it not just a story? I ask. He tells me that if I were writing an article saying that Adam and Eve is a big lie, it will not be accepted until I can prove it.

“Nobody can just write what he thinks without proof. But we have real proof that the story of Adam as the first man is true.”

“What proof?”

He looks at me with disbelief: “It’s written in the Koran.”

It should be noted that Christian IDers justify their beliefs with actual science (though it's erroneous and informed by a forbidden premise -- "if the non-supernatural explanation isn't immediately obvious, it's well-nigh conclusive evidence of the supernatural theory" -- it's still science, if flawed).

They don't simply "It's in Genesis. Googe it. QED. Duh."

Thanks to dri for the video, via LGF, and Instapundit for the Discovery article.

Posted by: Ace at 03:45 PM | Comments (18)
Post contains 832 words, total size 6 kb.

Thanks to Iceman for fowarding this to me.

This sounds like she's voting in favor of cloture.

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me to express your views on immigration reform. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, the Senate recently debated the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

In its initial form, this bill was unworkable and unfair. I was particularly troubled by its proposal to create a new guestworker program. I have always had problems with guestworker programs because I believe they lead to increased illegal immigration, a downward pressure on American wages, and a loss of workplace protections.

That is why on June 7, 2007, I voted to prevent the bill from proceeding to a final vote. A revised version of the bill has since been introduced in the Senate as S.1639. Be assured that I am working to improve this bill, and I will continue to fight for measures that protect American workers and reduce illegal immigration.

Again, thank you for writing to me. Please feel free to contact me again about this or any other issue of concern to you.

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

It's not definite, but notice how sharply she distinguishes the previous version of the bill (which she voted against closing debate on) and the current version (which she suggests is somehow different, which it isn't). She also says she's working to improve the bill, rather than to simply stop it.

I guess this can be characterized as a simple cover-your-ass leave-all-options-open kind of form letter, but it does seem to lean more towards cloture than the other way.

Posted by: Ace at 02:59 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

The lone holdout -- "Sporty Spice," aka Melanie Chisholm -- decided that the "magic" of the Spice Girls was too precious to deny to the world.

I'm glad to hear that at least she held out the longest. Although most of the girls can sing (except, of course, for Posh), Sporty had by far the most interesting, strongest voice. If not the best judgment in musical covers:

It's probably not the best idea to cover a famous, enduring song when your only new take on it is "making it 90% lamer and 40% gayer."

From Agent Bedhead, which has all the latest on Beyonce's Ass, Demi Moore's Nipples, and (eek) Sting's Penis.

You should click those pictures of Sting's penis. Trust me. It's not so much of a "want to" thing as a "need to" thing. Come for the penis; stay for the chubby assistant who helps him strech his hammies while his naked tadger flops around unrestrained by clothing.

Posted by: Ace at 02:54 PM | Comments (12)
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

Instead of burning a witch in effigy as is the usual seasonal-festival custom, they buried a more relevant figure of fright, "for a Mohammadan-free Denmark," as the group says.

Certainly a world free of "Mohammadans" who seek to impose their medieval diktats on the rest of us through terror would be a nice thing.

While I'm generally of a mind that one shouldn't needlessly offer insult to the deeply-held beliefs of the religious, when the religious folks in question seek to enforce this general code of politeness by bombings, arson, maimings, and murder, insulting their religion becomes not only excusable, but well-nigh necessary.

In a similar vein Christopher Hitchens writes it's impossible to satisfy the vitriolic, violent-minded "Islamic Rage Boy" of internet fame, so it's about time we stopped trying.

This mental and moral capitulation has a bearing on the argument about Iraq, as well. We are incessantly told that the removal of the Saddam Hussein despotism has inflamed the world's Muslims against us and made Iraq hospitable to terrorism, for all the world as if Baathism had not been pumping out jihadist rhetoric for the past decade (as it still does from Damascus, allied to Tehran). But how are we to know what will incite such rage? A caricature published in Copenhagen appears to do it. A crass remark from Josef Ratzinger (leader of an anti-war church) seems to have the same effect. A rumor from Guantanamo will convulse Peshawar, the Muslim press preaches that the Jews brought down the Twin Towers, and a single citation in a British honors list will cause the Iranian state-run press to repeat its claim that the British government—along with the Israelis, of course—paid Salman Rushdie to write The Satanic Verses to begin with. Exactly how is such a mentality to be placated?

...

Rage Boy keenly looks forward to anger, while we worriedly anticipate trouble, and fret about etiquette, and prepare the next retreat. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy, and that I am not prepared to do.

Thanks to CADaddy.

Posted by: Ace at 02:37 PM | Comments (12)
Post contains 373 words, total size 2 kb.

I got through to Gregg and informed his office that no one is buying the Yes on Cloture No on the Bill hoax, and that we all know a vote for cloture is a vote for amnesty.

Since Burr's lines are either overwelmed or he's simply unhooked all the phones, maybe a call to Gregg would be helpful.

And it seems the wobblers are probably not wobbling at all -- they've decided to vote for cloture, but have cravenly decided to not announce this decision. So let Bond, Hatch, and Cochran their services will no longer be necessary if they vote for this abomination.

They think they have safe seats -- assure them they do not.

Gregg's number:

Hatch's:

Cochran's:

Bond's:

Brownback's (update: news says he now will be in DC for the vote, but hasn't said which way he'll vote):

Ensign's:

There are quite a few votes our "representatives" have given us the finger on. They've gotten away with it, by and large. This is not one of those votes that will be forgiven or forgotten. This vote will be remembered, and we are not so stupid as to think a meaningless vote against the bill counts as actual opposition if a Senator guaranteed its actual passage by voting for cloture.

This vote is the final straw, the last nerve, the ulltimate insult. If they defy on us on this bill -- with the tremendous public anger against it --they are plainly no longer interested in representing us, and we are therefore no longer interested in allowing them to serve in that capacity.

Posted by: Ace at 01:39 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

Senators' phones are ringing off the wall, and it's hard to get through. Many don't even want any more phone calls -- they know what the public thinks and they just don't give a wet shit.

Fortunately, the Amnestia, Si! folks have set up that special Out of the Shadows Pro-Amensty hotline for getting through to Senators more quickly. But we can use it too.

That number again:

sherlock suggests this method of cutting through the system even quicker:

HOTLINE SHORT-CUT! A simple and timesaving rage-management strategy.

Believe me you don't want to endure the unctuous recorded moron who answers the hotline - and he can be easily avoided! Let "Mr. Caring" get a few words in and then press "*". You will be told "that it is not a valid response, please retry". Then press "1" and you will be connected to your Senator #1 without having to listen to the brainwashing. Then call back, do the "*" thing, but then press "2". TA-DAAA... you get your other Senator! You didn't really want to ruin your evening by flying into a rage, did you?

PS. My Senators were automatically selected by the system. If you have to enter your area code, you may want to try entering that after the "*", and then if there is another speil, try the "*" + 1 / 2 approach again.

Thanks to someone for the reminder.

Burr's Number Again:

Message: We know the vote on cloture IS the "real vote," and your bullshit claim that it's a meaningless procedural vote is not working. WE ARE NOT GODDAMNED IDIOTS, and we're especially angry you seem to be under the impression that we are.

Let Burr's office know that if he votes for cloture, these goddamned idiots he is defying will be taking their contributions and votes elsewhere -- permanently.

Posted by: Ace at 01:07 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

Let him know how you feel. And, more imporantly, how you will continue to feel during his next primary election.

Burr -- you're gone. The rightroots will not rest until you are either replaced by a Republican primary challenger who actually votes according to our interests -- not according to the interests of tobacco growers who want a constant stream of cheap agricultural labor -- or until a Democrat replaces you.

If you will not vote with us on this issue, we have no further use for you, and it's better that you're simply replaced by a Democrat.

From OpenSecrets.org: The constituency that matters to Burr:

Agribusiness $913,452 total $454,977 PACs $458,475 Individuals

Misc Business $1,416,360 total $528,404 PACs $887,956 Individuals

Not too shabby! Maybe he should weigh this contribution bonanza against the millions in individual donations (which don't come from "individuals" closely associated with a special interest).

Posted by: Ace at 12:21 PM | Comments (14)
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

The upside of Bush Derangement Syndrome?

I was just going to post that Boxer shouldn't be forgotten, and California voters can help defeat this by pressuring her to vote no, citing the liberal sort of reasons for doing so (which, as it turns out, aren't entirely bad reasons for opposing the bill either! -- the bill's a perfect storm sort of piece of shit that manages to actually offend the right and left and center all at the same time, and all for different, but not necessarily contradictory, reasons).

Send her this diary entry from The Daily Kos, just so she knows what the nutroots are thinking. (As if she's not updated about their whims and caprices every ten minutes....)

Posted by: Ace at 12:17 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

NRO's new editorial. Let the scumbags we've elected to defy us at every turn know we won't get fooled again.

The fate of the bipartisan immigration deal now rests with a handful of senators who say that they are against it, but are inclined to vote to let the Senate take it up again. Do not be fooled. Any senator who votes to bring this legislation back to the Senate floor tomorrow is supporting it, and any contrary vote he casts later will be a scam designed to fool gullible voters.

The bill is unpopular, but powerful forces — businesses, journalists, officials in both parties, and racial pressure groups — are determined to push it through. They do not mind if a few senators vote against the bill for the cameras while greasing the track for it when it counts.

Senators who claim to oppose the bill say that they want a new debate on it so that they can improve it. But the broad outlines of this bill are set in stone....

For senators who are professing to wait to see what the final bill looks like before taking a position, the wait is over. The final bill will represent the will of its drafters and defy the expressed will of their constituents. The only way to prevent that inevitable finale, is to bring the curtain down now.

Their scheme is triply deceptive. First, they are attempting to shut down debate -- that's what cloture is -- before there has been any genuine debate on this at all in the Senate. There's been plenty out in America, but the Senate has kept itself nicely insulated from such discord. The whole point of this cloture vote is to shut down debate before debate can tank an extraordinarily unpopular, and fatally flawed, bill.

Second, the cloture vote insures that a vote take place on the bill itself after a very short time, a very short list of amendments, and the possibility that, via Reid's "clay pidgeon strategy," no amendments at all will even be considered.

And third -- the Amnestia Coalition is intending to vote as a bloc against every single amendment that should happen to get by Reid's clay pidgeon strategy, no matter how reasonable (e.g., denying amnesty to gang-members, denying amnesty to those with multiple drunk driving convictions or serious sexual assault/molestation charges -- even this common-sense amendment is considered a poison pill by the Amnestia Coalition and will not be permitted to pass, or even, most likely, be permitted to be raised on the floor at all).

These bastards claim the American people want this bill. If that's the case, why do they fear a lengthy debate? A lengthy debate should only help them if indeed Americans support the bill.

And if the bill is popular -- why the imperative to pass it so long before the elections? Again, if those who seek to push this piece of shit on America truly believe they're acting in accord with the public's wishes, why not extend the debate through next fall and take the vote right before the primary elections? After all-- voting for such a popular bill can't help but improve their poll numbers, right?

This is the worst affront to democracy I have ever witnessed in my lifetime. Not only was the whole corrupt bargain cooked up in secret, not only have they repeatedly attempted to schedule quick votes so that their corrupt deal could be voted on before anyone knew what terms were contained therein and before the public was informed at all on the subject, not only do the proponents of the bill routinely and flagrantly lie about what the bargain is ("Amnestied illegals will be required to pay back taxes!"), not only are they disingenuous about their motives for passing this, not only are the determined to pass this in the face of strong opposition on the level between 50-69% of the public... but, in the end, it's a terrible bill which satisfies no one except corporate lobbyists and racial pressure groups and which they refuse, in order to preserve the fractuous coalition pushing the bill, to improve one iota in any direction.

This is debate? This is democracy? This is the wildly unpopular, ill-considered, poorly-drafted, loophole-ridden, corrupt-payoff bill that we have to pass in order to prove that democracy in America still works?

Gee, I'd've imagined the opposite -- that we could only prove we still have democracy in America by defeating such an immensely unpopular and corruptly fashioned piece of shit.

Posted by: Ace at 12:14 PM | Comments (4)
Post contains 776 words, total size 5 kb.