« March 2005 | Main | May 2005 »
April 28, 2005
Extry! Extry! Al Gore Still Unhinged
Check out this Al Gore quote from a speech that he gave Wednesday
He also cited recent comments from leaders of two conservative organizations - the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family - about disenfranchising certain courts or denying them funds. "This aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry is actually a throwback to the intolerance that led to the creation of America in the first place," Gore said as many in the audience stood and applauded. The speech was sponsored by the liberal group MoveOn's political action committee.
Decrying non-constructionist judges who force changes over tradition, law, and public opinion is the same as systematically oppressing certain religious groups? Yeah, uh, who’s trying to systematically oppress certain religious groups here? Al Gore sure has gotten “interesting” in the past four years. I'm sure he stays up nights thinking about how much George Bush is like Hitler.
Hat tip to The Museum of Left Wing Lunacy for the link, as well as an interesting Al Gore picture.
Posted by illuminaria at 11:41 PM | Comments (0)
What Do Airports DO With All Those Scissors?
Why they sell them on Ebay of course.
Who doesn't want to buy 35 pounds of plastic handled scissors? They would go wonderfully with your global warming mugs and Easter Island tissue dispenser.
Seriously though, I bet this is a great deal for schools and such. I just want to know why there's not any stashes of fingernail clippers there.
Posted by illuminaria at 11:13 PM | Comments (0)
How Big Is The Wage Gap Really?
I got another email from Friends of Hillary today.
In honor of Equal Pay Day on April 19, Hillary and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT) announced that they were introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act to strengthen equal pay laws and address the pay gap between men and women. "Equality works for all us. Now is the time to make sure that we all work for equality," Hillary said.
The act, which can be found here, extends the Fair Labor Standards Act to apply to applicants rather than just employees. It better defines the allowable factors to validate wage differentials. It extends the non-retaliation provision to say that employers may not retaliate against workers who discuss/disclose their wages or the wages of others. It enhances the penalties. It says that employers may not reduce wages to achieve compliance.
I don’t really have a problem with any of those things, except for the last one. If an employer has a certain budget to pay workers, then it may be impossible to meet that budget and equalize pay without reducing the wages of some people.
It also has a few other interesting sections. For instance, section 5 lays out the ability for the Secretary of Labor to make grants to organizations to teach salary negotiation skill training. I suppose this isn’t bad in theory, but in practice I’m sure it will be taxpayer money being thrown down the hole.
Section 7 says
The Secretary of Labor shall develop guidelines to enable employers to evaluate job categories based on objective criteria such as educational requirements, skill requirements, independence, working conditions, and responsibility, including decision-making responsibility and de facto supervisory responsibility.
This is sort of interesting. Following the guidelines will be voluntary, but still, I doubt that general guidelines of this sort prepared by the government will be all that useful to specific employers with different needs.
Section 8 establishes the “Secretary of Labor's National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace.” Who wouldn’t love to have that award. It even comes with a medal.
Overall it’s not a bad bill, but I question the need for it. Typically in discussions of this sort, you hear that women make between .62-.76 cents on the dollar in comparison to men. Just on the top of my head, I can think of about a dozen reasons for that number to exist other than employer discrimination. First of all, those numbers compare every single woman to every single man. Since you tend to find more women in certain jobs that tend to be lower paying than similar jobs, this does not necessarily reflect discrimination. For instance, there are more female nurses and more male physicians.
Other reasons include education level, marital status, children and choices about maternity leave, experience, willingness to work more hours, etc. etc. Some of these reasons might be due to discrimination in general, although not all I think, but none of these are factors that employers have much control over. (See my discussion on being a woman in graduate engineering.)
Some of these things, such as willingness to work more hours, have more of an effect in certain areas, such as the medical and legal fields. That is probably why there is more focus on the wage gap in these areas, as this fact sheet from the National Women’s Law Center shows by highlighting the fact that though the overall wage gap is .27 cents (women earn .73 cents for every dollar a man earns), the wage gap for physicians is .42 cents.
You never actually hear what the wage gap is when you control for all those factors, so I set out to find some numbers on it.
(Check out the Hillary Watch catagory for more stuff Hillary Clinton has been up to.)
I found a 1999 study, which was mentioned mentioned in a fact sheet from the National Women's Law Center, called New Evidence On Sex Segregation And Sex Differences In Wages From Matched Employee-Employer Data (which, incidentally, was done right here at MU.)
The study uses data from the 1990 census. (Seeing that the data is 15 years old, we can certainly take the results with a grain of salt.) They control for education, marital status, race, and location. They also attempt to control for experience and maternity choices, although they have to extrapolate a estimate of those effects based on the number of children and age since the census does not ask about those things specifically, so we can not be confident that those things are properly controlled for. Using these controls, they say
Overall, our estimates indicate that from about one-quarter to one-half of the sex wage gap takes the form of wage differences between men and women within narrowly-defined occupations within establishments.
Further, when they restricted their study to women under the median age of 40, they found that not only was there less of a wage gap (.26 versus .38), but that a smaller percentage of that wage gap was due to the individual’s sex (20 and 31%).
Since these are women under the age of 40, they presumably entered the workforce around 1968 and later. Since things that happen early in your career have lasting effects throughout your life, a lot of the women being studied in this case probably had more effects of discrimination and family choices than women entering the workforce today, so we should still take these numbers with a grain of salt.
The two different percentages are due to making comparisons using a different number of occupations. Using 13 occupations gives the 31% figure, whereas using 491 occupations gives the 20% figure. Since these occupations cover a wide range of industries, including manufacturing and non-manufacturing jobs, It would not be hard to understand that using more occupations would probably give a more accurate figure. Even within, for instance, a software company, there are many different delineations that would have an effect on salary.
If we go ahead and use these numbers anyway, despite the possible problems and the fact that they are 15 years old, we find that the amount of wage gap due to solely gender and not to education, experience, gaps in career etc., is about .05, meaning that women make 95 cents on the dollar compared to men. That’s a lot different from the numbers you usually hear. And, as the study says,
We do not attempt in this paper to determine the underlying forces that cause men and women to have different wages within narrowly-defined occupations in the same establishments. Our results simply suggest that there is still research to be done in order to identify these forces. In particular, our results leave open the possibility that within narrowly-defined occupations and establishments, men and women are performing essentially the same job but are not being paid equally–a violation of the Equal Pay Act. Further research into the sources of within-establishment, within-occupation sex wage differences is therefore much more important than previously thought.
Therefore, it’s impossible to tell how much of the estimated 5 cent wage gap is directly attributable to employer discrimination and how much is attributable to other factors, such as, for example, willingness to work overtime when needed. It doesn’t seem to me to be something to get in such a tizzy over that we need to pass a new bill when we already have one to address this problem.
Of course people that fought genuine discrimination tend to be unable to let it go once the problem has been mostly fixed, and politicians are always willing to use that, so I suppose this bill is not too much of a surprise. I don't think it would be too out of line to suggest that Hillary is using this bill to appeal to her base and make up for for things her base don't like, such as the religious discrimination act she has been working on with Kerry and her recent comments on abortion.
Update: This Town Hall column points out that women who have never married or had children make .17 cents more on the dollar than their male counterpoints. He also points out that "any half decent businessman would bend over backward to hire women if they were doing equal work so cheaply." I remain unenthused about the terrible wage gap problem.
Linked at Outside the Beltway
Posted by illuminaria at 07:25 PM | Comments (1)
I Can See The Law & Order Episode Now
Seeing as how Law & Order likes to do those "ripped from the headlines" episodes, I can just imagine the episode they will rip from this headline, "Farmer convicted of feeding employee to lions."
A white South African farmer and one of his employees were convicted of feeding his former black worker to lions while still alive in a premeditated murder, a court ruled on Thursday.Investigators found little more than a skull, a few bones and a finger last year in the enclosure for rare white lions in the northern Limpopo province, where the murder took place.
Law & Order would of course manage to find a way to make it a decrial of conservative values, I'm sure.
Previous: Bias On Law & Order? Never.
Posted by illuminaria at 04:01 PM | Comments (0)
April 27, 2005
A Heartbreaking Story of Rejection
Number 2 Pencil has a link to a simply hilarious article by a college journalism intern’s torturous experience of being rejected for a job.
The world of a college journalism intern is not glamorous. It's not exciting, and it isn't fun. It is a true test of skills and stamina, and above all, it makes you wonder if you really want to do what you thought you always wanted to do.Last week, I was flatly rejected by SPIN magazine for a summer internship in New York City. The "rejection e-mail" from SPIN's editorial intern coordinator said something like "after thoroughly reviewing all applications, we have come to a decision, and unfortunately you have not been selected." All I heard was, "You suck."
This girl better grow a thicker skin if she wants to have any job at all, ever. Unless you’re applying at McDonalds, many people have to apply for dozens of positions to even get an interview, let alone get a job. And these are people who actually have, you know, experience and stuff.
I first stumbled upon the internship opportunity on SPIN's Web site, and decided to take a shot at it. The application required a cover letter and resume, and three to five clips of published work. Three to five? I had at least six in my portfolio from my time here at the Transcript and with MCLA's paper, the Beacon. Along with camera-room experience and graphic arts certification, I assumed I was a shoo-in.
They required 3-5 clips of published work and she had 6. SIX. I mean, do you actually think that anyone else applying for that job possibly met those stringent requirements? She was totally a shoo-in. Totally.
[I] started looking for apartments in the East Village in my spare time. I told my friends I was moving to New York for the summer, and told them they should all come along, thinking they would all say something like, "Wow Krystal, I would, but I just can't right now, you know, work and all." To my chagrin, they all said yes. My friend Amy is moving in a few weeks, and I found her a job at a hip vintage store in the East Village. At least it worked out for someone.
Ok, I know I’m in the engineering department and most of us here would are probably familiar enough with reality to not do something like that, but I have never ever heard of anyone applying for a job and being so confident that they would get it that they started looking for apartments and telling everyone that they were definitely moving.
The rejection e-mail from SPIN also welcomed "questions regarding my decision." Naturally, I was a little more than curious. I was, and am, heartbroken, and like any heartbreak, I needed a reason. I asked politely, and received no response. A week later, I sent another e-mail, asking a little less politely, and a little more aggressively. This time I got an answer.
Heartbroken. I mean seriously, she was a shoo-in. This is comparable to divorce or something.
After telling me the delay in correspondence was because they had "fallen a bit behind in the creation of the next issue," I was told that being "snippy" to a prospective employer was "unbelievably off-putting," even if they had already decided not to give me the job.I went home and cried until I passed out, then woke up and cried some more.
Being unfailingly polite to a prospective employer seems like, you know, a good idea. What a surprise that they would get upset if you weren’t. I bet the SPIN correspondent was thinking, “Thank God we didn’t hire her.” I’d love to see her email. “You said you’d email me and you didn’t. Get on the ball!”
Then I thought about what the second rejection e-mail really said.First of all, what does an editorial intern coordinator have to do with the production schedule of a magazine? I read SPIN a lot, and have seen this man's name under a few minor album reviews. Nothing that would delay anyone's schedule. I had gotten a lame excuse for his procrastination, and he obviously didn't take my inquiry seriously.
Totally! I mean SPIN has 2-3 interns, after telling them what to do and corresponding with a few pissy applicants, what could he possibly be doing with his time? Sitting around sipping coffee while everyone else scrambles around?
I love her confidence that she knows what this guy’s duties are and that he should have emailed her back IMMEDIATELY since he obviously has nothing else to do.
Secondly, being "snippy" and being direct are two very different things. He said he would answer questions, and I took him up on the offer. When he didn't reply, I asked again. I wasn't mean or rude, just to-the-point. If he didn't have time to answer my first question, he wouldn't have time to read any unnecessary formalities. I had a question, and I wanted an answer. That's all.
She should have asked once, as politely as possible and if she never got a response, tough. They have no obligation to tell her anything, even if they said they would. I wonder if she would get “direct” with me if I offered to give her some cash, and then took more than a week to give it to her.
But, you know, she was just being nice and respectful of his precious time by leaving out "unnecessary formalities."
Lastly, and most importantly, his reasons for rejecting my application were the font I used in my resume and cover letter headings, and that I didn't show a "passion for SPIN magazine."So I used an interesting typestyle. I thought it was creative and would make my application stand out. Apparently, it made me seem "less serious."
My passion for SPIN is definitely waning, but I do have a passion for music, though rarely have the opportunity to write about it. Not everyone is lucky enough to write about whatever they want, especially if they want to get published. I thought an editorial intern coordinator would know that better than anyone.
Usually when people are going through resumes looking for someone to hire, they pay more attention to who they like and why, not why they are rejecting every single other person. Most of the reasons they would give for rejecting a particular person would be similarly pathetic.
But they totally should have had a good reason for rejecting this girl, because she was a shoo-in!
I was at a party last weekend and everyone asked me about the internship because I talked myself up so much. All I could say was I didn't get it. No one had the time to hear all the reasons why, and I didn't have the energy to talk about it.
Maybe you should have told them that you were an idiot for making assumptions and telling everyone about your cool summer job.
So I'm in for another six months at the Transcript until school starts in the fall. Besides, an internship with SPIN might not be the best thing for me anyway. I have a feeling I'd ask too many questions.
I love stupid kids. She gets rejected, but it’s not because she’s a poor applicant, it’s because she “asks too many questions.” She’s “standing up to authority.” I bet she even thinks her parents are, like, so totally dumb. Geeze, I'm 25 so it's not like I can't understand the hubris of the young, but I don't think I've been that presumptuous in at least ten years.
If there are any “editorial intern coordinators” reading this, while on one of their many coffee breaks, I hope they remember the name Krystal Grow.
Posted by illuminaria at 03:06 PM | Comments (1)
Hillary Promoting Voting Bill
Hillary Clinton Coming To Town For Election Reform ForumFormer first lady Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is coming to [Cleveland] this week.
Clinton is set to host a [one-sided] forum on election reform this Saturday, along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones.
The forum will take place at Warrensville Heights High School.
In February, Sen. Clinton introduced the Count Every Vote act in the Senate. The forum's aim is to make sure every
American, [Democrat, felon, and illegal immigrant] is able to vote and that every vote is counted, [sometimes up to ten times].
They will be discussing irregularities in past elections [other than the 2004 Washington governor’s race,] and their plans toimprove the process[make sure that Democrats win] in the future.
(Note: This article humorously, but truthfully, modified.)
(Check out the Hillary Watch catagory for more stuff Hillary Clinton has been up to.)
Posted by illuminaria at 01:33 PM | Comments (0)
In Defense of Pedophiles?
I vividly remember a few years ago when I came across the NAMBLA website. (And I’m talking about the North American Man/Boy Love Association, not the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes) I was sick and depressed for days; I just couldn’t believe that not only did child-molesters exist, but that they had formed an organization where they tried to convince themselves and others that child-molestation was completely OK and children were sexual beings who should have the right to choose to have sex if they wished to.
What was most sickening was the section of their website where they have testimonials from boys as young as 11 with titles like “For The First Time in My Life I Felt Wanted” and “He Listens to Me, Unlike Most People.” Anyone who is not a child-molester can recognize in this the pedophilic tactic of preying on the abused and the lonely. I’m sure you could find some beaten women to praise their abusive husbands, too, and I’m sure that within their writings you could also find the tells of an abusive relationship.
NAMBLA claims that rape and sexual exploitation is grounds for revocation of membership, and I’m sure that there’s members who really believe that claptrap. They’re the same ones who read “For The First Time in My Life I Felt Wanted” and think it’s a beautiful tale of love rather than a story of abuse. NAMBLA puts out a publication called "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships" that explains how to lure children into relationships, how to fool the parents, how to not get caught, and how to escape if caught. Yeah, but, you know, they’re all about freedom for youth. Their capacity for denial is amazing.
Well this morning on Bill O’Reilly’s show, I heard about a 1997 case where two men, Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari lured a 10 year old boy from his home, smothered him with a gasoline-soaked rag, molested the cadaver, and threw the body into a river. Sicari was convicted of first-degree murder and Jaynes was convicted of second-degree muder and kidnapping. In 2000 the murdered boys parents filed a civil lawsuit against NAMBLA, having already won a civil lawsuit against the two perpetrators.
I think this was a wonderful idea. This is what civil lawsuits are for. Let’s put NAMBLA and their members out of business. Unfortunately there’s an organization who disagrees. Three guesses who it is, and the first two don’t count.
That’s right, the ACLU, and they’re doing it for free while the parents are footing the entire side of their bill. They’ve been holding up the case for the past five years; it still hasn’t gone to trial yet.
Information on this can be found here, here, here, and here. I'm suprised I haven't heard more about this case before.
Here’s the ACLU's press release on the subject from 2000.
In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech.
I’m sorry, but this is completely idiotic. NAMBLA’s content is not free speech anymore than my posting directions of how to build a bomb or exhortations to kill the president would be.
The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
Actually, when this lawsuit was filed, criminal and civil lawsuits had been won against the two men who committed the crime. This is hardly a case of blaming speech instead of people.
In fact, given Jaynes’s diary, I think it is quite easy to see that NAMBLA indeed contributed to his actions.
It was also revealed during the trials that Jaynes was a timid pedophile for years, until he joined NAMBLA in 1996, according to his own diary. Then he became emboldened by the idea that there were others who shared his twisted, sick obsession. He fueled his perversion through the group's Web site and e-mails filled with horrid, pornographic images of children. He read with great interest the NAMBLA publication entitled "The Rape and Escape Manual." [Nickname for “The Survival Manual“ – ed.]
According to the parents’ lawyer, the ACLU is now charging that the lawsuit would violate Jaynes’s freedom of association.
I’m not one of those conservatives who thinks the ACLU is evil incarnate, although they’ve certainly done things I disagree with, such as their seeming vendetta against the Boy Scouts. This case, though, is simply disgusting. My husband says I’m a libertarian except when it comes to protecting children. I agree with that, but I don’t even see how a libertarian could defend this.
Update: The current lawsuit can be found here. Here's some of the allegations.
28. Prior to joining NAMBLA Charles Jaynes was heterosexual.29. After joining NAMBLA Charles Jaynes received and read the NAMBLA Bulletin, accessed and read the NAMBLA website which is provided by John Doe Inc. and by said means of communication began to collect child pornography and various pedophile material.
30. As a direct and proximate result of the urging, advocacy conspiring and promoting of pedophile activity by John Doe Inc., NAMBLA Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller, Herman, Hunter and Schoen, Charles Jaynes became obsessed with having sex with and raping young male children.
31. As a direct and proximate result of the urging, advocacy and promoting of pedophile activity by John Doe Inc., NAMBLA, Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller, Herman, Hunter and Schoen, Charles Jaynes stalked Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts who was ten years old and tortured, murdered and mutilated Jeffrey Curley's body on or about October 1, 1997. Upon information and belief immediately prior to said acts Charles Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website at the Boston Public Library.
Linked at Outside the Beltway's open post.
Update: Today there's been a rumor going around (started by the LA Times) that pedophiles are almost always Trekkies. Turns out it's not quite totally true, but close enough. Right Thinking from the West Coast has a suggestion as to the reason.
I don’t think for a second that there is anything in Star Trek that particularly appeals to pedophiles. But pedophilia requires a high degree of imagination, such as imagining that little children can and will be receptive to sexual advances, that sort of thing. Nobody gets the idea in their head to molest a child and then immeidately runs out and does it. The action comes after years of fantasizing and imagining various scenarios involving children. So it seems to be to be completely reasonable that a large number of these type of criminals would have a passing to strong interest in Star Trek, a show which has always appealed to the imaginative.
Pedophiles definitly need a good sense of the imagination.
More here here and the guy who broke the story herehere
Posted by illuminaria at 12:32 PM | Comments (5)
April 26, 2005
Black Girl Charged With Hate Crime
Via Michelle Malkin, I saw this story about a recent incident at Trinity International University where three students received “racially motivated hate mail.” When the third letter, which was the first to threaten violence, was brought to the attention of the administration, they called in the police and the FBI and evacuated minority students off campus.
Well, today the university released a statement.
The Bannockburn Police Department investigation of hate mail at Trinity International University has reached a successful conclusion. On Monday, task force members were able to obtain a confession from a Trinity student. The student is a female African-American who became disgruntled and wanted to leave the school. The notes became her way to leave the school by implying it was not a safe campus.
See, also, this story
There never was a serious threat at Trinity International University, police Lt. Ron Price said Tuesday.He said the woman, who was arrested and was expected to be charged on Tuesday, was unhappy at the Christian school and wanted to convince her parents it was too dangerous for her to stay.
"It's kind of a sad story, actually," Price said. Her name was not immediately released.
That’s right, she scared the shit out of lots of students and forced the university and the police and the FBI to waste money and time on an investigation because she didn’t want to deal with telling her parents something unpleasant.
People like this who make false accusations - whether they are of rape, molestation, or hatred - make me so angry. Whether it is for revenge, attention, or manipulation, they waste everyone’s time and make it so real incidents will be less likely to be believed.
The hate crime ones are especially heinous because they give credence to the belief that Americans are “really” racist bigots below the surface, when I think that the majority of Americans really aren’t racist anymore.
That’s why I was very glad to read this in the university’s statement.
The student is being charged with disorderly conduct and a hate crime per the Lake County State Attorneys office.
I hope this is not a misprint or misunderstanding on the part of the school. I don’t agree with hate crime legislation, but if it’s going to be around, I’m glad it’s going to be applied in this case. Threatening people simply because they are a particular race is no less heinous if you’re a member of that race yourself than if you're white.
More here where La Shawn decries the unfair application of hate crime laws, and also here, here, and here
Update: This story has the name of the girl, Alicia Hardin, 19, of Chicago. It also says she is charged with a hate crime.
Also, see this story, where you can see an example of, erm, "interesting" english from Jesse Jackson.
''It would have been the height of irresponsibility to have taken three threatening letters not seriously."
Posted by illuminaria at 12:55 PM | Comments (1)
Columbia Peace Protesters
I was astonished today to see that I missed a story that has been around the blogosphere today that happened right here at home.
Rita Preckshot went to a peace rally, and a fight broke out. It started out as a typical Wednesday for Preckshot, a 49-year-old who stands about 5-foot-2 and has hearing aids in both ears. She was standing on her normal spot on Providence Road, holding her signs in support of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. For nearly four years now, this has been Preckshot’s life from about 4:15 to about 5:45 in the afternoon once a week. She started her solo troop-support effort to counteract the peace protesters who stand a couple of blocks away at the intersection of Providence and Broadway. The peaceniks hold signs that say things such as "honk for peace" and "end the occupation."They outnumber Preckshot every Wednesday, but she stands out there just the same, sometimes drawing another supporter or two to help her effort.
…
"He started taunting me and reached out and pushed on my shoulder," Preckshot says. "Each time he pushed, it got a little harder. When I saw his hand come at me again, I grabbed it. I felt fearful."
As Preckshot pushed the man’s hand away, "he slugged me right in the face," she says.
When the police arrived the nonviolent peace protesters declined to help the police locate the suspect. Luckily he was seen by the victim later at another peace protest (flipping her off I might add) and arrested, and not quietly.
As a Columbian, I can’t say that I’m surprised. Those peace protesters are dedicated and a pain in the neck. They show up at every single event in Columbia and shove their flyers in people’s faces. On April 15th they were outside the post office shoving flyers at everyone who was trying to get their taxes filed. The flyers were all about how the tax dollars being used in the Iraq war could be used to fund the health insurance of poor Missouri children. The poor Iraqi children who no longer live under a brutal dictator and are being helped by the troops are, of course, meaningless.
I'm glad Ms. Preckshot isn't letting it stop her.
Posted by illuminaria at 10:21 AM | Comments (3)
April 25, 2005
Global Warming Merchandising
This weekend my friend and me were looking through one of her goofy gift catalogues and came across this item.
Global Warming Mugs
Fill it with a hot beverage and watch the coastlines disappear. When the mug cools off, the coastlines will reappear. Sure to start a conversation, share this set of two 12 oz. ceramic mugs with a friend.
Nice to know that not everyone is taking global warming quite so seriously. Unfortunately, the picture that was in the catalogue is not on the webpage, so you can’t see how much coastline disappears.
While you’re at it, check out this gift.
For centuries, the giant stone statues on Easter Island have puzzled archaeologists and explorers. The tallest one still standing is about 37' high. Considerably smaller and, let’s face it, more practical, our resin tissue holder sits flat or mounts on a wall. Fits standard-size tissue boxes.
I think I'm going to die laughing. I'm sure the practitioners of the ancient religion on Easter Island would be glad to know that replicas of their solemn stone statues are now dispensing tissue through their nose.
Posted by illuminaria at 04:32 PM | Comments (0)
Italian Poodles Cheer, Move Focus to France
You know, whenever I see an animal with one of those ridiculous poodle haircuts, I wonder why PETA isn't jumping in there with accusations of animal abuse. Well, apparently in Italy they have finally realized the great detriment to society of allowing such ridiculousness and made steps to get the law involved.
Dog owners in Turin will be fined up to $650 if they don't walk their pets at least three times a day, under a new law from the city's council.People will also be banned from dyeing their pets' fur or "any form of animal mutilation" for merely aesthetic motives such as docking dogs' tails, under the law about to be passed in the northern Italian city.
"In Turin it will be illegal to turn one's dog into a ridiculous fluffy toy," the city's La Stampa daily reported.
My question is why we are stopping with dogs? Why aren’t there laws prohibiting parents from dressing twins in identical clothing or putting their infant sons in sailor outfits?
More at Say Anything and Ravenwood's Universe
Posted by illuminaria at 02:00 PM | Comments (1)
April 22, 2005
Clinton to Recieve Honarary Degree From Catholic College
Marymount Manhattan College in New York City wants to give Hillary Clinton an honorary degree when she comes to give the commencement speech this May. However, this college was founded as a Catholic institution and has remained close to the Catholic church and other similar organizations over the years. Their decision to honor someone who has been ardently pro-abortion in the past is upsetting some Catholics.
Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society, said it would be a "scandal" for Marymount Manhattan College in New York City to give Sen. Clinton a special degree on Friday, May 20, when she is also scheduled to deliver the school's commencement address.Reilly said his group, which is "dedicated to the renewal of Catholic identity at America's 220 Catholic colleges and universities," specifically objects to the school's plan because Clinton has supported legalized abortion, voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion, advocated expanding embryonic stem cell research and declared contraception "basic health care for women."
In addition, Reilly said the college's actions defy the "Catholics in Political Life" statement that was approved by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2004.
I'm sure people will whine about the Church poking their noses where they don't belong as they did when there was the debate about John Kerry being refused communion because of his pro-abortion stance, but any church has the right to ask that the people and organizations associated with it are consistent with the church's most basic tenets.
Some might see this as a sign that Clinton has been somewhat successful in convincing religious people that she's not so bad, but the article notes that this college has a habit of inviting pro-abortion speakers.
Reilly also noted that Marymount Manhattan's commencement speaker in 2004 was New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, whom he called "a fervent advocate for abortion rights."
(Check out the Hillary Watch catagory for more stuff Hillary Clinton has been up to.)
Update: Commenter Maureen points out this article about Marymount being declared to no longer be Catholic by the Archdiocese of New York. Apparently they had no objections to this.
Officials at Marymount Manhattan offered no objects to the archdiocesan statement. Like many similar institutions, the college had taken legal steps to distance itself from Church authority and from the religious order (the sisters of the Sacred Heart of Mary) that founded the school.
Thanks Maureen.
Posted by illuminaria at 11:21 AM | Comments (4)
April 21, 2005
First Saddam, Now China
I saw over at Wizbang that France has decided to back communist China in their conflict with free democratic Taiwan. While I understand France's penchant for automatically joining the wrong side of every conflict, I wondered what exactly could be their motivation.
At the outset of a three-day visit to China, French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said he supported Beijing's "anti-secession" law on Taiwan, and vowed to keep pushing for an end to an EU arms embargo that could open the door for Paris to sell weapons to the Asian giant.Raffarin also signed or finalized major business deals with Beijing valued at around $3.2 billion (2.4 billion euros).
...
During his visit to Beijing on Thursday, China Eastern Airlines and Shenzhen Airlines signed a deal with the European consortium Airbus to buy a total of 10 A319/A320 planes. And China Southern completed an agreement on its purchase of five A380 super jumbos.
The deals were signed between the carriers and the European consortium's vice-president, Philippe Delmas, who is in China accompanying Raffarin on his visit.
Surprise, surprise. It's money. And they're completely willing to sell weapons to China that will be used to kill Taiwanese. But, as we all know, America is the greedy selfish money-grubbing war-mongering cowboy nation.
Posted by illuminaria at 09:13 PM | Comments (0)
Another Michael Moore Tantrum
Michael Moore press release
Oscar-winning filmmaker and best-selling author Michael Moore announced today the establishment of “The Michael Moore Freedom of Speech Scholarship at Cal State San Marcos.” The $2,500 scholarships will be awarded annually, for a minimum of four years, to the two individual students who have done the most to fight for issues of student rights by standing up to the administration of Cal State San Marcos (CSUSM).
I’m really glad to see that with all his money, Michael Moore has finally begun to start to help the little people that he supposedly stands for instead of abusing them because their employer isn't paying him enough. Let’s see, now Michael Moore has millions of dollars that he’s made by lying and manipulating people, how much are these scholarships going to be? Ahh yes, $2,500 for four years for two students. Let’s just see how much it costs for an full time in-state undergraduate to attend CSUSM….looks like $15,946 a year including fees, books, room and board, and other miscellaneous charges. Way to watch out for the little guys, Michael. I’m sure that will be a big help to the two students you choose.
Moore pledged to establish the scholarship after the Cal State San Marcos student-body came out to protest the school administration and CSUSM President Karen Haynes’s decision to cancel a speaking engagement Mr. Moore had at the school on the grounds that the speaker was too “political.”
So he’s not actually doing this to help anyone, but to throw a little tantrum.
Martinez said Moore's $25,000 speaking fee and $12,000 security and travel accommodations would have come from a combination of funds, from the university, from student-paid campus fees and $6,500 that student government leaders voted 12-3 to spend.
The school canceled the speaking engagement in response to complaints from some students that there were no conservative speakers. How terrible that the students would protest that the school is spending thirty-seven thousand of their dollars on a liberal speaker without any balancing views. What’s even more terrible, is that the school would listen to them.
According to an e-mail she sent to some faculty and students, the president didn't want Moore speaking on campus before the election because she felt the university would be unable to get a conservative whose stature ranks with Moore's. Haynes was unavailable for comment yesterday and her office referred all calls to a campus spokesman."Universities are about the exchange of ideas," Haynes said in her brief e-mail. "Some ideas are uncomfortable, but being exposed to them is how we become confident of our own beliefs and values. That said, however, it is important that discussions be balanced."
Back to the press release…
“I hope this scholarship will encourage students to show courage and stand up for what they believe in”, Moore stated. “It’s not easy to take on the establishment, but when students do so for the right reasons, they should be rewarded.”
Is asking that the money that you pay to the school be used to actually bring a few speakers that don’t stand for everything you stand against a “right reason?” Something tells me not. Obviously Mr. Moore has the right to give his paltry scholarship to whomever he wishes, but the gall of calling it the “Freedom of Speech” scholarship is just ridiculous.
“At a time when the media and politicians have shown a lack of courage, we should look to America’s universities and America’s young people to show us how patriotic dissent is. The University should not be a place for fear, but a place for bravery, free thought, and a little bit of rebellion.”
I’m sure the liberal students at CSUSM live in constant fear that the school might not use everyone’s money to pay for their idol to come speak.
Posted by illuminaria at 02:09 PM | Comments (0)
April 20, 2005
Missed Opportunity for Pope Clinton
Given the news media's focus on the Catholic church's "missed opportunity" for a progressive pope, which Wizbang sagely predicted yesterday, this story is quite funny.
While much of the world awaits smoke-signals from the Vatican cardinals selecting a new pope, New York Rep. Peter King joked Tuesday about a dark horse candidate for the vacant position: Hillary Rodham Clinton.King, a sometimes maverick within his own Republican Party, praised and poked fun at New York's junior senator when they both appeared at a breakfast of construction union officials.
"Maybe we can elect Hillary Clinton pope. God knows what she's running for," joked King, to roars from the crowd.
Hillary responded by denying that she was considering running for president and was instead focused on her upcoming 2006 Senate run, but if elected would be taking the name "Pope Progressivo." Meanwhile in a campaign email, she used the mention of the "right-wing Catholic attack-machine" to appeal for more funds.
(Check out the Hillary Watch catagory for more stuff Hillary Clinton has been up to.)
Posted by illuminaria at 03:29 PM | Comments (0)
Exercising the Constitutional Right to be Stupid.
Via Number 2 Pencil, see this story about a mall that, in response to several recent incidents, is passing out flyers about appropriate conduct and requiring that children under 16 are accompanied by an parent or other responsible adult.
In response parent Leann Newcomb said "I feel as though if I want to drop my kids off, I should. They're responsible." You may want to do it, Ms. Newcomb, but the mall is not required to let you, no matter how responsible you may think your daughter is. They are a private institution with no obligation to act as babysitter to your child.
What was even better, though, was her response to the mall’s rule banning dress "commonly recognized as gang-related…such as long chains …or studded dog or wrist collars, all of which can be used as weapons.”
"They sell that stuff," said Newcomb. "How are they going to tell the kids after they buy that stuff not to wear it? Isn't that a violation of your constitutional rights?"
Words escape me.
Do the schools still teach civics classes? Does anyone pay attention in them? Would it be a violation of Ms. Newcomb’s constitutional rights if I drove to Massachusetts and stuffed a copy of the Constitution where the sun don’t shine?
I can see the Supreme Court cases now – a customer of Victoria Secret sues the company because they objected to her wearing her newly purchased lingerie around the store.
Other annoying examples of constitutional misunderstanding – people who claim it’s a violation of their right to free speech for you to disagree with them or, *gasp*, even call them unpatriotic and children who protest “it’s a free country” when their parents attempt to lay down the law.
Posted by illuminaria at 01:53 PM | Comments (0)
New Blog
There's a new blog at the site What Is Partial Birth Abortion that will be updated with abortion news.
This blog is run by my husband. I've been having an amusing time with him ever since I started my blog because even though he has a BA in computer science, can fix any computer, programs all day, installed Movable Type for me, etc; he still doesn't quite get the concept of trackbacks. I'm not quite sure why. I've explained it to him several times, and a few days later he's asking me another question about it. But he's wonderful, so I'll easily forgive him this one little quirk.
I'll be posting over at Say Anything today and tomorrow. All of those posts will most likely be gratuitously double posted here, but go on over there anyway and check out the other guest posters. And heck, stick around for when Rob comes back. It's a great blog.
Oh, and in case you didn't notice, there's now an "About" link on the main page so you can find out all about me.
Posted by illuminaria at 12:48 PM | Comments (1)
Mayor “Are You Attacking My Manhood” Coleman
Recently talk radio host Glenn Beck has been covering the story of the 16 year old handicapped girl that was beaten and raped on videotape at Mifflin High School in Columbus, Ohio. (Audio can be obtained here. Registration required. Free audio avaliable here.)
While the actions of the students are obviously outrageous, what is even more appalling is that the administration at the school tried to convince the girl’s father to not call the police in order to “avoid media attention.” Surprise surprise, the father called the police anyway and now the school is getting even more media attention for that little gaffe.
But what is simply unbelievable is the fact that the school board decided to fire the principal, but only suspend the assistant principals and then move them to other schools. This, despite the fact that one of the assistant principals was the one that told the girl’s father not to call the authorities.
Glenn Beck was finally able to get Michael B. Coleman, the mayor of Columbus, Ohio on the phone today. (After he tried to back out of his promise to call in two days ago.) The conversation was quite interesting and perhaps indicative of why Columbus has such a problem with their school system.
Glenn attempted to talk to Coleman about the school board’s decision to keep the assistant principals on, and Coleman talked about the criminal side of the investigation and said that he was not allowed to reveal anything about it while it was open, but he was sure everything would be taken care of. Glenn kept trying to steer him back to the subject of the school board and their actions towards the assistant principals and Coleman kept insisting that he couldn’t talk about an open police investigation. About the only thing he said about the schools was that they had paid policemen there and that he, the mayor, had no control or influence over what the school board did.
The best part of the interview was when Glenn attempted to ask him a question, “Doesn’t it offend you as a man….” He didn’t get a chance to finish, but I’m assuming the end of that question was something like, “that the schools would allow something like this to happen to a girl and then do nothing to the people who allowed it to go on.” However, he didn’t get a chance because Coleman interrupted him with “Are you attacking my manhood?”
No wonder the Columbus school district is having so many problems, if no one in the city government is willing to get their hands dirty and deal with the problem. Sending the police over to patrol the schools is a good temporary first step, but it's not a solution. A little something more than that needs to be done, and it seems that the school board doesn’t want to do it and the mayor “can’t get involved.”
Apparently Coleman wants to run for governor of Ohio. I hope all you voters in Ohio remember this incident.
To end this article on a funny note, I’ll relate an exchange with a humorous man who called to say that this incident had nothing to do with Mayor Coleman, but instead was completely the fault of President Bush. When a stunned Glenn asked him why, he said “because Cameron Diaz said that if Bush was reelected, that rape would be legal.” Much laughter was enjoyed by all.
Update: Ohio for Blackwell has a post up on this also, and has the audio of the interview avaliable for free.
Update 2: I just spend a while talking about this with my husband. He listened to the entire Glenn Beck show, whereas I came in midway. Glenn was apparently ripping on the mayor the entire two and a half hours during which it seemed that the mayor was dodging the interview that he had previously agreed to. Glenn began the interview by apologizing for a scheduling mistake that Glenn, the mayor, and every single person in the audience knew that Glenn's staff had not made. Glenn was offering the mayor a way to save face for trying to dodge the interview.
However, my husband thinks, right or wrong, that Glenn treated his guest with hostility from the outset. My husband’s impression of the interview with the mayor was that Glenn had one major question to be answered and after the first time he asked it, the mayor stated concretely that he had no authority over the school board, but that his authority and duty was to the police department which was heading up an investigation into the matter and that to answer Glenn's question would most definitely compromise that case. Glenn persisted. The mayor never deviated from his insistence both that the police were doing all they could to investigate and that he was prohibited from compromising the case by answering Glenn's question.
The mayor did indeed say that he couldn’t talk about the police investigation, and it might be a possible interpretation of his words that the school board’s actions were included in the investigation, but I’m not at all convinced that that is the case. It can also easily be interpreted as him avoiding the issue. Plus, I don’t really see any reason why the school board’s actions would be part of the police investigation into the incident and thus covered by the mayor's inability to talk about an ongoing police investigation. My husband maintains, however, that when investigators initiate a media gag order, that they throw the net wide as to what can not be discussed to allow for possible unforeseen ramifications of information disclosure.
My husband also thinks Glenn, who he usually likes, was stupid and uninformed to be trying to talk to the mayor instead of the school board members. I agree. They are the ones who made this decision and should be anwering for it.
Also, directly after the “don’t attack my manhood” incident, the mayor did finally say “I’m not offended” to Glenn’s question about the school board putting the administrators back to work. That makes me think that he’s OK with the school board’s decision and explains why he’s avoiding the issue elsewhere in the interview. My husband thinks, though, that the mayor was flustered because he thought Glenn was attacking him with schoolyard insults. The mayor lost his composure and didn't really understand the question. He thinks that the mayor was reassuring Glenn that he had not offended his guest and that they could continue the discussion.
I still think the mayor was skirting the issue to cover himself and his people and his town, so I’m just recounting all this for the purposes of full disclosure, since I don’t want to be one of those hysterical pajama people who don't tell both sides of the story. I’m curious, though, as to whether anyone else has any sort of similar reaction to the audio of the interview, or if you all think my husband is nuts too. :)
Posted by illuminaria at 12:09 PM | Comments (7)
April 19, 2005
As If Healthy Eating Wasn’t Hard Enough…
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government on Tuesday discarded its one-size-fits-all food pyramid in favor of 12 different triangle-shaped guides, each geared to people's differing lifestyles and nutritional needs. Inside the familiar pyramid shape, rainbow-colored bands representing different food groups run vertically from the tip to the base. The old pyramid's sections ran horizontally. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns called it "a system of information to help consumers understand how to put nutrition recommendations into action."
When I first read this, my impression was that they were going to have several pyramids based on what kind of a diet you want to follow (low carb, low fat, etc.) Apparently, though, the pyramids all follow the same basic structure, but are different according to age, gender, lifestyle etc. So instead of telling you that you need 6-11 servings of breads, it will tell you that you need exactly 7 servings. Apparently that range thing was a little too complicated for some people. I’m not hopeful that this will fix that problem though, the whole thing looks horribly complicated to me and it’s no longer one single image. The simple pyramid was something people could stick in their head and use to always remember the general gist of things. Now there’s a useless symbol and a webpage where you can go to get everything customized for you. Obese people either won’t be bothering to check a government webpage to see what they should be eating, or they will have already tried so many things that one more addition to the pile of advice isn’t going to make that much of a difference.
You can look at it at mypyramid.gov. (The website must be bogged down today, because I can’t get much of anything.)
People have steadily grown fatter since the food pyramid debuted in 1992. A report last month in The New England Journal of Medicine contended that obesity, particularly in children, was causing a reversal in life expectancy, shaving four to nine months off the average life span. Johanns said the 1992 pyramid had "become quite familiar, but few Americans follow the recommendations." He said that knowledge about nutrition and food consumption patterns has grown significantly in the past dozen years and is reflected in the new food guidance symbols.
Sounds like the old pyramid wasn’t doing much of anything either, I doubt complicating things will help. Anyone who wants dietary complications can buy a 200 page diet book.
Posted by illuminaria at 03:15 PM | Comments (0)
Again With the Right-Wing Attack Machine
Seeing as how I'm now getting email from ‘Friends of Hillary,’ I can tell I’m going to be hearing way more about the right-wing attack machine over the next few years. Let me tell you, it gets really tiring. I’d imagine her supporters don’t object too much, though. See this recent email from Clinton:
With your support, we raised $3,958,924!So just as the right wing attack machines have started gearing up to defeat me in 2006, we're sending a strong signal that we will be ready to fight back.
Apparently one per email isn’t even enough.
They're going to spend millions of dollars on personally negative attacks, hoping to keep me from speaking out on issues important to all of us, like protecting Social Security, the need to count every vote, and the dangers of the "nuclear option" that would end our democratic system of checks and balances.Well, I have news for them: I am going to go right on, working hard and speaking out against the irresponsible, extreme policies of the Bush administration that I believe are leading America in the wrong direction.
And with your continued help, we are going to go on building the campaign we need for 2006. I promise you that we will fight back - immediately and effectively - against the right wing attack machine. We have a long way to go, but because of your help during this first quarter, we are off to a great start.
You go girl!
Meanwhile, a Village Voice article talks about a little-known Republican who wants to run against her for the senate.
Never mind the new Stop Her Now movement, here's the plain truth about mounting a challenge against Hillary Clinton: Even the most seasoned politician would face a hell of a time unseating New York's junior senator in 2006.So what does that mean for the first person willing—foolhardy?—enough to say he'll take her on, a self-styled Republican everyman named William Brenner?
Last month, the Sullivan County attorney announced he was up for the task. Brenner—most folks call him Bill—is a virtual unknown outside the hinterlands of Grahamsville, his adopted hometown. ... Brenner's political pedigree consists of three failed runs, twice for State Assembly, once for U.S. Congress.
Apparently he announced his candidacy a few weeks ago, although Republicans (unsuprisingly) are searching for a slightly more well known candidate. Still, I liked this quote.
Brenner believes he's the one. "I know I'm not the favorite," he cedes. At least one county chairman has already tried to dissuade him. "He said, 'You're crazy going up against Hillary Clinton's machine—she'll chew you up and spit you out.' "
Yes, it's the left-wing attack machine.
Back in Hillary land, a separate email from Ann Lewis details that besides obstructing the confirmation of the FDA head, Clinton has been up to other things as well.
(Check out the Hillary Watch catagory for more stuff Hillary Clinton has been up to.)
Hillary joined her colleague Senator Chuck Schumer to ensure that the new fleet of presidential helicopters will be built in upstate New York. As the New York Times reported, after a last minute attempt to derail the project, the two New York Senators "...rushed to the Senate floor...and threatened to use procedural maneuvers" to tie up the bill unless the anti-Lockheed amendment was withdrawn. "This is a huge deal to our state," Hillary said. "We won this contract fair and square."Hillary also met with the President's nominee for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and called for revision - and strengthening - of the Administration's recent regulation on mercury emissions from power plants. She spoke out against the latest Bush proposal to cut millions of dollars in funds for public housing in New York: "Without these funds, it will be an uphill struggle to provide even basic services to the hundreds of thousands of people who live in public housing across this state." Hillary said "...this is part of a concerted effort on the part of the Bush administration to punish our low income families."
While she fights for her constituents in Washington, Hillary is working for them in New York. She traveled upstate while Congress was on recess, hosting an economic development forum, discussing farm and rural issues, announcing a new pilot initiative to bring broadband technology to North Creek, and joining the demonstration of a new fuel cell powered tank being developed in Honeoye Falls.
The Glen Falls Post-Star, reporting on her trip, told how one program Hillary initiated was already making a difference:
"In a meeting with U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton in early 2003, Karen St. Hilaire casually mentioned her interest in collectables and that she wished there was some way to use e-Bay to revitalize the upstate economy. Clinton, D-NY...arranged a meeting with e-Bay executives two weeks later which led to the development of a new e-commerce program sponsored by the St. Lawrence County Chamber of Commerce...The Northern Adirondack Trading Cooperative has been so successful...[it] will be spinning off a third program later this year...Just this week, for example, a local entrepreneur who makes fishing lures received a $165,000 order from a company in Vietnam"
(The Post-Star, March 31, 2005)
Posted by illuminaria at 12:22 PM | Comments (1)
April 18, 2005
Time STILL Gets It Wrong.
People have been talking about the article in Time about Ann Coulter, and many have pointed out that a photo that Time at first incorrectly labeled as being of anti-Coulter protestors at the GOP convention. The label has since been corrected on the website. However, when I recently surfed on over there to look at it I noticed that the description in the html img tag still says "Protesters blast Coulter at the G.O.P. Convention in New York City last year." Nice try, Time.
<img src="http://i.timeinc.net/time/covers/1101050425/gallery/photos/photo08.jpg" alt="Protesters blast Coulter at the G.O.P. Convention in New York City last year" width="449" border="0">
Posted by illuminaria at 09:07 PM | Comments (0)
Does Universial Preschool Make Sense?
At Number 2 Pencil today, Kimberly mentioned a push by Rob Reiner to make preschool universal. A recent study by the Rand Corporation claimed that making universal preschool available in California would yield $2.62 in benefits for ever $1 spent. The study is here.
The study says that the benefit breakdown is as follows
19 percent of the benefits to California society are realized by the public sector in the form of savings to the education, child welfare, and justice systems and in the form of higher taxes. Forty-eight percent of the benefits are in the form of increased earnings (net of taxes and higher education costs) of participants in adulthood, while another 21 percent of the benefits stem from the value of childcare to the parents. The remaining 12 percent of benefits accrue to participants and the rest of society in the form of savings from reduced child abuse and crime.
This means that even if we assume that all their assumptions and data is correct, in terms of California funds, the state would actually be getting back about fifty cents on every dollar. The rest of the benefits would go to participants, participants’ parents, and “society.” That changes things a bit.
Plus the study makes some assumptions that would very much change the results. First of all they take a study done by Chicago Child-Parent Centers and use the benefits of being in a preschool program that that study found and assign a value to them. The benefits are things such as reduced likelihood of failing a grade and lower incidence of involvements in the juvenile justice system. Thankfully, the CPC study does indeed address and try to reduce the effects of self-selection. However, one of the benefits listed is “lower incidence of child abuse and neglect from ages 4 to 17.” I find it kind of hard to understand how putting a random child in a preschool program will make that child less likely to be a victim of child abuse and neglect. What, does the preschool teach the child to get out of the way when their dad comes home drunk or something? Therefore I would suspect that there are some self-selection effects here and that the findings of the CPC study probably overestimate benefits.
The Rand study also makes assumptions in order to assess how much of the CPC benefits each child will gain. One of these assumptions is that the new universal preschool will be better than current public preschools, meaning that a high risk child attending the universal public preschool will get 50% more of the CPC benefits than if they had attended one of the current public preschools. This assumption is certainly not robust; there’s no reason to think that a universal preschool would be any better than the current public preschools. They also make the assumption that medium and low risk children who currently attend no preschool will get 50% and 25% respectively of the CPC benefits by attending the universal preschool. This assumption is also somewhat suspect. I would think that it is probable that low risk children might even be better off NOT attending preschool.
In fact, it may very well be that the only children who would benefit from universal preschool would be high risk children who currently do not attend preschool. If we use their assumptions on how many children would enroll in the universal preschool, we see that even though the universal preschool plan would mean that twice as many California 4 year olds would be in public preschool (35% to 70%), the overall rate of preschool attendance would only raise from 65% to 80%. Almost 70% of the new children enrolled in public preschools would be low risk children, most of them moved over from private preschools. Only 5.82% of California 4 year olds would be the high risk children not currently enrolled in preschool who would enroll in the universal preschool that the program would help the most. Instead of doubling costs, costs could be increased by less than 20% in order to make preschool available for more high risk children.
I certainly agree that putting more high risk children who don’t get stimulation and learning at home into preschool would help break the cycle of poverty. But I see no reason, even with this study, to make universal preschool available.
Some other interesting tidbits in the study:
As of 2001, 43 percent of U.S. 3-year-olds and 66 percent of 4-yearolds were enrolled in some form of preschool program. These percentages are three times as high for 3-year-olds and twice as high for 4- year-olds as they were in 1970.
Somehow I doubt there were twice as many children with educational problems in 1970 as there were in 2001. Obviously most of this is the increase in popularity of preschool, both due to more working mothers and more focus in educational circles on starting children young. This doesn't really support the idea that preschool is necessary for sucess in school
However, the current enrollment rates are subject to large variations across groups of children, depending on race/ethnicity, family income, parental education, and other factors. For example, enrollment rates are lowest for Hispanic children, and lower for families with incomes below poverty compared with families at the top of the income scale.
In the CPC study, it actually says that poor black children are the most likely to be enrolled in preschool, compared with other poor children. I thought this was interesting.
One of the sharpest contrasts is by mothers’ education, with just 38 percent of 3- to 5-year-olds whose mothers have less than a high school education enrolled in early education programs compared with 70 percent of those whose mothers have at least a college degree.
I’m sure this is not a surprise. Holding income even, more mothers who have college degrees work outside the home, thus more of them have reason to put their children in preschool.
Posted by illuminaria at 07:01 PM | Comments (4)
Warning: 'W' Now Copyrighted.
If anyone was thinking conservatives can't file stupid lawsuits...
A supporter of President Bush is suing the Republican National Committee and one of its suppliers, claiming they stole his design for the ubiquitous "W" bumper sticker logo in the 2004 campaign.Jerry Gossett of Wichita Falls, Texas, says he pitched his design for a logo to the RNC's supplier of campaign materials, The Spalding Group of Lexington, Kentucky, in 2001 and to the RNC in 2003, and was turned down.
...
Gossett, inspired by scenes of firefighters raising a flag at the site of the World Trade Center, drew an American flag fluttering from a large W, next to the number 43 for Bush as the 43rd president.
The Spalding design reads "W '04" instead of "W 43," and is rounded, unlike Gossett's rectangular design. Hollander said key elements in the company's design had emerged as early as 1999.
So it sounds like the only similarity between the two was the 'W.' Imagine that, using a 'W' for George W. Bush's campaign. Only one person in a billion could be genius enough to come up with that idea, obviously it was stolen.
Plus, check out the design. Yeah, it's an interesting idea and it might be improved with some work, but it's not particularly attractive. I'm not suprised that the RNC wasn't interested in it. I really doubt they excitedly called up their supplier and pitched the idea to them.
Gossett says he is a loyal Republican and voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but has become jaded by his experience."The big RNC against little me, there was absolutely no chance to win," he said.
Yeah, um, I don't care if it was the RNC suing you, this is a lawsuit that shouldn't be won.
Posted by illuminaria at 03:43 PM | Comments (0)
Who's Using Terri?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who has accused congressional Republicans of "grandstanding" in the Terri Schiavo case, said his party will use it against the GOP in coming elections."This is going to be an issue in 2006, and its going to be an issue in 2008 because we're going to have an ad with a picture of (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?"' Dean said in West Hollywood, California.
Dean, answering questions at an Access Now for Gay and Lesbian Equality event on Friday, went on to say: "The issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going to be allowed to consult our own high powers when we make very difficult decisions?"'
Hmmm. I don't remember hearing of a bill that would make Tom DeLay the final arbitrator over who should die and who should live. I do believe I remember something about an overwhelming non-partisan majority of Congress voting to allow a judge to review a life or death case where the loved ones disagree about what should be done. Obviously I'm not reading the same newspaper as Howard Dean.
I also think it's really interesting how Democrats accused Republicans of using the Schiavo case for political gain, and then the Republicans drop it and Dean states that the Democrats plan on using it for the next four years.
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said Dean, a physician who practiced internal medicine, was the one politicizing the issue."It's disturbing that Howard Dean would plot to use the life of Terri Schiavo for political gain," Schmitt said Saturday. "This demonstrates a troubling lack of sensitivity and one would hope that Democrat leaders in Congress would reject such a strategy.
"The American people expect their leaders to provide solutions and principled leadership rather than overt partisan politicking."
Karen Finney, Democratic National Committee spokeswoman, defended Dean's comments, saying they were not a reflection of him trying to politicize the issue, but rather he was speaking to "Republican intrusiveness into people's lives."
"This is another example of a Republican party that is overreaching," she said. "Tom Delay and his cronies want to intrude in personal family matters. Democrats believe that individuals and their families should be trusted to make these very personal decisions, not Tom DeLay and not the government.
Yeah, Democrats want to prevent Tom DeLay and his cronies from allowing federal judges to review life and death cases where family member vehemently disagree about what should be done. They also want to prevent Tom DeLay and his cronies from allowing pharmacists to not sell drugs that they morally object to. Why, I bet they even want to prevent DeLay from allowing medical students to not perform abortions.
Those damn Republicans, interfering in our lives and everything. Thanks goodness Dean is on the case.
Posted by illuminaria at 02:55 PM | Comments (0)
April 16, 2005
Hillary Behind War Against DeLay?
Recent attention given to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, in the mainstream media is being orchestrated by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., as a means to be sure the House is in Democratic hands when she runs for president in 2008, a source in the GOP leadership says.Geopolitical analyst Jack Wheeler, publisher of intelligence website, To the Point, says one of DeLay's colleagues told him:
"Hillary's fingerprints are all over it. She has no intention of having to deal with an opposition party controlling the House as her husband did for six years and Ronald Reagan did for eight. She has a very clear plan for seizing control of the entire United States government, which includes orchestrating Democrat control of the House in 2006 so it is firmly in place when she is elected president in 2008."
Wheeler says such a scenario would ensure passage of the senator's so-called HillaryCare health-care legislation nationalizing medicine in the U.S.
"There was absolutely no doubt in [the source's] mind that Hillary is running – not will run, but already is running – for president in 2008," writes Wheeler in his column. "'This should be obvious to everyone,' he said, 'but what is not obvious is that's not all she's doing. Her focus and her goals go far beyond just the White House.'"
Continues Wheeler: "It is, then, at Hillary's direction that the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the entire Liberal Media apparatus are waging a relentless war upon House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The charges against him are either inconsequential or hypocritical – huge front page outrage stories, for example, about him going on a foreign 'junket' with no criticism of Democrats who were on the very same trip, such as Nancy Pelosi. Last week the WaPo ran this above-the-fold headline piece thousands of words long that was pure recycled froth with no substance whatever.
I'd be interested to know how "one of DeLay's colleagues" knows this. My guess is that it's just pure conjecture.
However, it is an interesting idea. If Hillary does have a part in this, she sure is being uncharacteristically subtle about it. Plus, I'm not really sure that she wields control over "the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the entire Liberal Media apparatus." She's not that powerful.
We'll see if anything else develops.
(Check out the Hillary Watch catagory for more stuff Hillary Clinton has been up to.)
Posted by illuminaria at 04:49 PM | Comments (0)
April 14, 2005
More Capricious Pharmacists
I’m still wondering why it’s so terrible to allow pharmacists to not fill prescriptions if they have moral objections to what they will be used for. Yes, I understand that it might inconvenience people who want to get their prescriptions filled right away. But … so what? Did humanity create government to prevent people from being inconvenienced? Are we going to start forcing every single gas station owner to put condom dispensers in the bathroom? Or how about we force every single grocery store to carry organic health food. Wouldn’t want anyone to have to drive a few extra miles for expensive carrots.
Now a bill has been introduced in the House and Senate by Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).
House and Senate backers unveiled a bill dubbed the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act (ALPhA) on Thursday. It would allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription only if the prescription can be passed to and filled by a co-worker at the same pharmacy.
I guess you better not ever work alone if you have a moral objection to contraceptives or the morning-after pill. Forget about opening your own small business.
"What have we come to in this country?" Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat and House sponsor of the bill, said Thursday morning at a rally on Capitol Hill. "We are merely saying, 'let the laws in this country stand.' Let a woman be treated with dignity. When she has a prescription from her doctor, that privacy should be respected."
I’d like to know what we have come to in this country when we try to force people to do something they think is immoral. Let a pharmacist be treated with dignity, as a real person with valid morals, instead of a pill dispenser. If our hypothetical woman wants her privacy respected, then she can go to another pharmacist. (Not that I really see how it’s disrespecting her privacy to not sell her something.)
"Nobody has a right to come between any person and their doctor," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat and co-sponsor, said Thursday. "Today they might not fill prescriptions for birth control pills. Tomorrow it could be painkillers for a cancer patient. Next year it could be medicine that prolongs the life of a person with AIDS or some other terminal disease."
I’ve never heard of a pharmacist being morally opposed to painkillers or AIDS medication, I doubt it’s going to start popping up once the government “allows” them to not sell something. It’s not like crazy religious nuts people are getting morally opposed to more things lately. (It might seem that way, but only because they keep coming up with more things for people to be morally opposed to.) What is this, a slippery upslope argument?
But even if they did, that still doesn’t convince me that the government should be dictating to people what they are forced to sell and what morals they are allowed to have affect their actions. Amazing, I know, with these strongly reasoned arguments they’re coming up with.
Posted by illuminaria at 08:19 PM | Comments (1)
I Desperately Need This
Just think, I might be able to get to work on time with this.
A scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has invented the clever device, which will defy even the most determined alarm clock "snoozers."Research associate Gauri Nanda's two-wheeled "Clocky" automatically rolls off the bedside table when the alarm goes off and the snooze button is pressed.
It travels around the room and its carpet-covered surface bumps into objects that come into its path, until it finds a resting place.
"Minutes later, when the alarm sounds again, the sleeper must get up out of bed and search for Clocky," says the 25-year-old scientist.
"This ensures that the person is fully awake before turning it off."
Posted by illuminaria at 08:07 PM | Comments (1)
Who Said Religion and Science Were Contradictory?
Check out this story.
Students re-enact Red Sea crossing -- with wineStudent engineers sent their gadgets whirring, spinning and buzzing across a pool of water Wednesday in a competition to re-enact the biblical Jewish crossing of the Red Sea and pour a ceremonial glass of wine -- all without anyone touching anything.
The Technion, Israel's leading technical university, hosted the tongue-in-cheek competition with real prizes, a way of tickling the imaginations of budding engineers while providing a laugh or two along the way.
Sounds like fun. Goodness knows engineering like to do quirky things, like the concrete canoe contest and such.
The special contraptions had to cross a three-meter (10-foot) distance with pool of water representing the Red Sea in the middle, pour wine into a glass and place it on the far side.
But come on guys! I’m pretty sure the Red Sea was wider than 10 feet.
Posted by illuminaria at 07:54 PM | Comments (0)
New Scapegoat for School Violence: Talk-Show Hosts
This AP article talks about rises in school violence perpetrated by parents.
The shooting last week of a Texas high school football coach -- allegedly by a player's father -- was just the latest and most extreme example of the threats and assaults that teachers around the country say they are increasingly being subjected to by parents."I know teachers really feel they're in a pressure cooker," said Aimee Bolender, president of Alliance/AFT, a Dallas teachers union. "The respect for authority has definitely changed. Teachers are no longer respected in general."
In Philadelphia in September, a mother slapped a teacher three times in the face after he told her she needed to get a late slip for her daughter, state officials say. In Dallas, police say, a mother stormed into a classroom, grabbed a teacher's hair, and punched her and kicked her April 1 after the teacher scolded the woman's daughter for loitering outside a locker. The mother is herself a teacher in Dallas.
I’d certainly agree that people in our society have lost a lot of respect for authority, although I think part of the reason that people have lost respect for teachers is because their quality has decreased a lot, especially in some areas. It’s not like respect is something you automatically get when you get your teaching degree, it still has to be earned. Not that having crappy teachers is any reason to be violent, of course.
But it’s not really surprising that some parents are having more trouble with violence, if their kids are too. Kids learn attitudes and ways of dealing with things from their parents, after all.
""They feel like the parents come in as CEOs and order them around," Jacobson said. "I've seen many cases of parents going into schools and coercing teachers to change grades."
Again, this is not too surprising considering that kids do this (and get away with it) all the time. How is a child supposed to learn to respect a grade as something given based on valued work, if their parents don’t?
"You listen to the talk show hosts on the radio, you watch the confrontational programs on TV. We're all more sharp and pointed and critical and demanding of each other," district spokeswoman Mary Waggoner said.
But of course, the fact that parents are now doing it gives us a whole new range of simplistic things to blame it on. It’s not just video games and gun rights, it’s Jerry Springer and Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by illuminaria at 07:27 PM | Comments (0)
Mood & Writing
I've noticed that my writing lately has been a more snarky and sarcastic. I'm wondering if this has to do with the crappy stuff that's been going on in real life in the past few weeks.
Either way, I hope you're liking it. :)
Posted by illuminaria at 06:32 PM | Comments (0)
Burying Children Alive?
Via CNN, see this story about children being buried alive. (No, it's not what you first thought when you saw the title.)
Every two years, parents who have vowed to bury their first-born if they are blessed with a child, take part in the Kuzhimattru Thiru Vizha ceremony.The children are drugged to make them unconscious and placed in shallow "graves" in temple courtyards.
The pits are covered with leaves and dirt and the children are pulled out after Hindu priests chant a brief prayer -- lasting up to a minute.
...
Authorities have been trying for years to stop it and people found guilty face up to three years in jail and/or a fine of 5000 rupees ($114).
Wow, if all you have to do to get a child is bury it alive, then sign me up!
Seriously, though, I can't find a single other thing on the web about this, which is interesting considering the fact that it's apparently an ancient ceremony, plus it's just the sort of story that appeals to folks who love to be shocked.
Regardless, what I was curious about was whether the authorities actually starting trying to supress it in response to deaths. Sometimes when you hear about authorities trying to stomp out weird ancient practices, it is because they are odd, as opposed to dangerous. Not that I'm a relativist, but it doesn't sound as if this is a ceremony in which parents are actually trying to kill their children. I mean all they're doing is covering the children up with leaves for up to a minute. I really doubt children are dropping dead all over the place, although I can certainly see how it would be a practice that is somewhat prone to accidents, especially given the drugging.
Either way, it must really suck to be the first born child of parents with secondary infertility in India.
Posted by illuminaria at 04:56 PM | Comments (0)
Do Journalists Ever Take Logic Classes?
Number 2 Pencil points to a post at Eduwonk about the New York Times trying to use a study with very poor sampling to cast doubt on No Child Left Behind, despite the fact that other, better studies have reached the opposite conclusion.
They’re quite right to point this out. Goodness knows I hate it when the media chooses studies to report based on ideology rather than how good the study is. However, there’s also an even more idiotic thing that I found buried in the depths of the article.
In both reading and math, the study determined, test scores have gone up somewhat, as each class of students outdoes its predecessors. But within grades, students have made less academic progress during the school year than they did before No Child Left Behind went into effect in 2002, the researchers said.…
[The] Northwest study tracked student performance at a level that others did not, a factor that may help explain why some of its findings appear unorthodox. Rather than relying on test scores at just one point in the year, the Northwest study looked at how students fared in the fall and then again in the spring, in an effort to see how much they had learned during the year.
Average student scores at a certain grade level may be improving, but individual students aren’t learning as much during the year. Uh-hu…
With this approach, Northwest found that test scores on its exams did, in fact, go up from one year to the next under No Child Left Behind, typically by less than a point. The reason successive classes appear to do a little better than those before them may stem from the fact that younger students have grown up during a time of more regular testing than their immediate predecessors, the researchers said, and are therefore higher achievers.
Oh, I see. So the “only” reason the average testing score is going up within a grade level, is because the younger students who have been exposed to more testing are higher achievers, and have the right amount of knowledge going into the grade to meet the standards after they’ve completed the grade. Damn! You people have convinced me! Standardized testing IS totally useless.
Posted by illuminaria at 04:07 PM | Comments (2)
April 13, 2005
Hysterical Democrats Object to Big-Government
Let’s revisit the morning after pill debate I wrote about recently. Take a look at this column by Susan Paynter, if you can stomach it.
Senators Patty Murray and Hillary Clinton (both mothers of daughters) dug their heels in last week against the Food and Drug Administration's interminable foot-dragging on over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception. And when they did, they stood firm on an increasingly crowded line.
Apparently now to have an opinion on abortion and contraceptives, you not only have to be a woman but you have to be a mother of a daughter. Well shucks, I guess that puts me right out.
It's a line that growing numbers of Republicans and Democrats alike are drawing against governmental poking in our private lives.Poking not in order to protect us but to tell us how to behave.
Oh I love this one. See Democrats may poke into our lives, but it’s just to “protect us,” not to tell us how to behave.
Poking not based on compassion but on control.
Those evil Republicans, on the other hand, just want to tell us what to do so that they can feel the wonderful rush of power coursing through their veins. Every time they see a woman who is pregnant (because she couldn't get an abortion) and barefoot (because her welfare got cut) they say MUHAHAHAHA and jump into their pool filled with money.
Poking to prevent our access to a legal, safe, long-ago approved "morning after pill."
See, not allowing the morning after pill to be sold without a prescription equals preventing our access to it. That’s all doctors are there for, you know, to prevent our access to drugs. All that stuff about making sure it’s properly prescribed and the patient is monitored for ill effects is just a bunch of malarkey they made up to fool the dumb public. Amazing how well it has worked. Even I believe it.
Poking that allows disapproving pharmacists to override us and our doctors when it comes to the filling or refusing of ordinary, everyday birth control prescriptions.
My God, the humanity! Imagine the government poking into our private lives by allowing pharmacists and health care workers to act according to the dictates of their own conscience. Why they should be not poking into private lives by forcing them to do what the government deems right. Excuse me while I faint from horror…..
Poking into whether we can obtain a divorce while we're pregnant.
*sniff* Thank goodness for smelling salts. Anyway, I suppose I might just be misinformed here, but I don’t recall ever seeing anything about a law to prevent women from getting a divorce while pregnant. The conservative media probably covered it up.
Even poking into when and if we can pull the plug on our own suffering and hopelessly ill loved ones.
That’s right! The government is blocking us from pulling the plug on our own suffering. Oh, and I believe I recall that there’s also something about not letting us kill loved ones without their consent…but really, I’m more concerned with my suffering.
(Check out the Hillary Watch catagory for more stuff Hillary Clinton has been up to.)
Murray and Clinton are not trying to solve all of the above. Their target is a limited one. As long as Bush FDA nominee Dr. Les Crawford keeps bottling up a decision (one way or the other) on the sale of Plan B emergency contraceptives, they will bottle up his confirmation. There it will sit, stoppered on the top shelf of the Senate Health, Education and Labor Committee.And the move has been met with whoops by many who've grown sick of a patriarchal, supposedly "anti-big government" administration that may have shrunken federal intrusion. But, now that it's the size of a suppository, it apparently fits snugly into our hospital rooms and bedrooms, doctor's offices and drugstores.
*snort* Interesting anal-ogy there.
Still, when Murray pressed him, Crawford couldn't say when the FDA may act on Plan B. "Are we talking two weeks? Two years? Twenty years?" she asked him.Initially, she was told there were "issues" the FDA couldn't discuss in public.
Then, in private, Murray says she was told that it wasn't the science the agency was still struggling with. It was the "behavior."
In other words, an agency whose role is to protect the public with science is using ideology instead. That would be the same agency that's under fire for putting questionable drugs back on the market under the rationale that the public has a right to make its own health decisions. (Unless, apparently, that public is female.)
Perhaps “behavior” refers to the problem of people abusing over the counter drugs without consulting a doctor, perhaps it refers to the problem of teenagers taking these drugs when their parents wouldn’t approve, or would at least like to know about it, perhaps…. Nah, that’s ridiculous. It’s obviously all about ideology and Republicans wanting to stomp on women.
Crawford could not give Murray a date for an up or down vote on over-the-counter sale of the morning after pill. Certainly it wouldn't happen before today -- the magical April 13 date originally set for his confirmation. So Murray told him, in that case, she couldn't give a date for his confirmation either.
Ah yes, these wonderful senator moms (of daughters) aren’t at all abusing their power. Not at all, that’s something only evil Republicans do.
Apparently Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, also a member of the Health, Education and Labor Committee, is content to wait, saying he trusts that the "FDA will do the right thing," eventually. But thankfully, the senator moms are not.
Perhaps Kennedy understands that the approval process at the FDA takes a while and that they need to consider a lot of factors, one of them not being the ideology of hysterical abortion rights activists.
And apparently, increasing numbers of red and blue voters now are suffering symptoms of discomfort as well. "What's next, (refusal to sell) condoms?" columnist Ellen Goodman wondered recently in print while "Real Time" comic host Bill Maher sarcastically suggested druggists stop selling makeup since "only sluts paint their faces."
Condoms and makeup equals a pill whose long term effects haven’t been studied. Uh-hu.
I'm not talking about notes, calls and e-mail from readers in liberal Seattle, either. Recently I got a card bearing the American flag and the lyrics of "The Star-Spangled Banner," mailed from Sultan.
Ha! Look, a tacit admission that liberals are less likely to be patriotic.
Inside was an article titled "Access Denied" about doctors and pharmacists refusing to write or fill birth control prescriptions. "As to women's options," the writer said, "we surely need less intervention from such as the so-called 'moral majority.' "
Again, pharmacists and health care workers acting on their conscience equals governmental intervention from the “so-called” moral majority. Is anyone not getting the contradiction here?
Like me, the writer must have been proud last week, when Sen. Murray drew the line.
Yes, I’m sure you were both proud of Murray’s tantrum.
Posted by illuminaria at 02:27 PM | Comments (2)
April 12, 2005
The Death-Camp of Religious Tolerance
Yesterday at Wizbang, Jay Tea wrote an uninformed, but somewhat funny piece on the Mormon practice on baptizing the dead. It’s prompted a somewhat hysterical discussion between all sorts of people, from suprised Mormons to lapsed Catholics to offended Jews.
It’s kind of interesting to see such a generally conservative bunch of folks that are typically dismissive of the PC culture all getting so offended because so-and-so is being “intolerant.” It reminds me of this South Park episode.
In that vein, here are the Death-Camp Of Religious Tolerance rules
1. No one is allowed to pray for, baptize posthumously, say a Mass for, or otherwise do anything religious for anyone without the express permission of the person, or if they are dead, their entire family.
2. No one is allowed to politely ask someone to not pray for, baptize posthumously, say a Mass for, or otherwise do anything religious for them or a deceased family member.
3. No one is allowed to say that any part of anyone else’s religion is wrong or by publicly asserting that an opposing doctrine is true, imply that any part of anyone else’s religion is wrong.
4. No one is allowed to say that anyone else is going to hell, or going to be reincarnated as a bug for that matter.
5. No one is allowed to try to convert someone else, no matter how inauspiciously.
6. No one is allowed to tell anyone that they don’t want to convert into their religion because they think it is wrong.
7. No one is allowed to criticize any act, no matter how despicable, if it was motivated in any way by religion, unless that religion is unpopular in the current culture.
8. No one is allowed to make a joke about anyone else’s religion.
9. No one that considers themselves to be “______” is allowed to say another person or group is not “______”, no matter how different their beliefs are.
10. No one is allowed to point out inconsistencies in anyone else’s religion unless that religion is currently unpopular in the current culture.
11. No one is allowed to criticize the actions of any religious group that has experienced persecution, especially if that criticism is directed towards a direct descendant of someone who directly experienced that persecution.
Yes, mein Führer. Ve are making the prisoners make macaroni pictures that illustrate [people from different religions in heaven holding hands and singing.]
(Note: I'm an ex-Mormon, current Christian, for those who are interested.)
In a similar vein, Mormons will be sure to enjoy this post. I just laughed more than I did all last week.
Update: Poor Jay Tea finally got sick of the topic. I don't blame him, things were getting pretty hysterical. It's amazing how defensive people get when you talk about religion (and yes, this includes you, athiests.)
Posted by illuminaria at 06:36 PM | Comments (3)
Clinton Not Subtle, But Not Inept
Via Michelle Malkin, read this article at Red State about Hillary Clinton and her political ineptitude
Hillary’s movement is a big deal first and foremost because everybody notices her movement. Frist and others do not get noticed because, while one can identify their political movements (only through systematic evaluation of their voting records), their positioning is more subtle. But not Hillary’s. There is nothing subtle about her strategic positioning. Not a thing. Everybody talks about Hillary’s political calculations not because they are brilliant but because they are obvious, because everything about Hillary screams political calculation. There is nothing organic to her politics, it all seems artificial.This is the sign of a bad politician. All politicians do the same things. They all change their views. They all move with the political currents. They are all flexible and pragmatic. What differentiates the good politician from the bad one is that you never notice that the good one is pragmatic. A good politician is as smooth as a well-aged, single malt scotch. Hillary is a bad politician. She is like that bottom shelf blended garbage the ABC sells for $12/handle.
Basically the idea is that Clinton is so unsubtle about her moderate moves, people to see her as a political opportunist rather than a trusted champion and this makes her a bad politician.
It’s an interesting point and one I’m glad has been pointed out. It’s quite true that most people who are involved in politics and news aren’t really unsure of her motivations, and I’m certainly one of them.
However, I hope that no one dismisses her as easily beaten because of it. To me, her actions seem similar to that of a good con artist – rather than sneak around hoping no one sees you, go about your task boldly and openly, hoping that everyone assumes that since you look like you’re supposed to be there, you are. This road she’s taking seems like it could succeed for three reasons.
First, while she may not be moderating herself early in her career, she’s doing it far enough ahead of time that while many of your typical partially informed to uninformed voters in 2008 may realize that she’s been gunning for the presidency for a long time, most of them are not really going to remember what her views were then. People are really good at forgetting things when they haven’t heard much about them lately.
Which brings us to the second point, the media is pretty favorable towards her and will probably continue to be in the future. With stories I’ve been reading recently, it’s easy to see that while reports of Hillary’s presidential run and moderation are wide-spread, there is not so much information about the huge disparity between her now and her 10 years ago. No one is writing stories calling her on political changes in opinion. Why would they even have to? The media sees it as so obvious that it would be like reporting that the sky is blue. Voters aren’t going to stay focused on her flip-flopping if the media isn’t.
Finally, Hillary is not going to have so much of a problem with losing far-left voters as other Democrats have. Not only are Democrats pretty desperate to get one of theirs into office, but the fact that Hillary is so obvious about her moderation means that few people in her own party are calling her on her political changes of opinion. Instead they are saying behind their hands, “Yeah, Hillary, go ahead and tell the people what they want to hear, but we know what you’ll REALLY do for us once you get in office.” Again, this prevents debate on her flip-flopping from getting into the media.
Conservatives aren’t afraid of her because she’s a good politician, they’re afraid of her because she could win.
(Check out the Hillary Watch catagory for more stuff Hillary Clinton has been up to.)
UNCoRRELATED has more.
Michael Williams thinks Clinton has no chance of winning.
Posted by illuminaria at 05:05 PM | Comments (3)
Clinton Taking a Different Course on Security Than Kerry
New York Daily News interviews Clinton.
Sen. Hillary Clinton lamented yesterday that Democrats booted security issues in last fall's election and urged her party to embrace the "different course" she's been pushing - or risk another four years of GOP rule.Meeting with Daily News editors and reporters, the New York Democrat said her party must "do a better job" of debunking Republican attacks that Democrats are soft on homeland security as well as national security issues like the Iraq war.
Without directly criticizing Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the 2004 presidential candidate, Clinton argued that more Americans agree with Democratic values than with what she called the GOP's "extremist agenda."
"If you can't persuade a majority of people that you're going to be strong and tough where we need to protect America and our [national] interests, you can't cross the [electoral] threshold," she added.
Yep, she's a whole lot smarter than John Kerry. (Not that that's hard)
(Check out the Hillary Watch catagory for more stuff Hillary Clinton has been up to.)
Posted by illuminaria at 03:54 PM | Comments (0)
Kerry Dumb, But Not THAT Dumb
I’ve been a little suspicious about this meme that popped up yesterday claiming that Kerry (who was recently complaining about some being told the election was on Wednesday) was being fooled by an Onion article that “urged minorities to get out and vote on Nov 3.” I didn’t quite believe this because at the time of the election, I remembered hearing one of the talk show hosts saying it would be really funny if they rented a big truck and drove it around shouting “Due to expected crowding