Life sure is frustrating

(Blunt Card)

The hurt talker

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Hurt Talker
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

That rant by radio personality Laura Schlessinger has been both disgusting and - for me, as a white man and an American - embarrassing. How can anyone in America be this clueless?

Obviously, it's not about saying "nigger" on the air. I hate even posting the word, considering the tragic history of race relations in our country, but as Jon Stewart says, it is a matter of context. But when she gets a call from a young black woman, concerned about the racial slurs she hears from her white husband's family and friends, what does "Dr. Laura" advise?

First, she starts ranting about Barack Obama. Yeah, of course. Because that's so pertinent to the problem, right? "Without giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply 'cause he was half-black. Didn't matter what he was gonna do in office, it was a black thing. You gotta know that."

Sure, just like a lot of whites voted for McCain just because he was white. And we all know how welcoming the Republican Party has been to minorities, don't we? Gee, I wonder if the GOP's "Southern Strategy" of appealing to white racists has been noticed by black voters at all? Or did they really think that Bill Clinton was black, too?

But really, what does this have to do with her caller's problem? Well, apparently, now that we've elected a black man to the presidency, African Americans should stop complaining about being called "nigger." Jebus, what do they want, anyway??? We elected one of "them," so isn't that enough? They actually want fair treatment, too?

So what's Dr. Laura's advice to the young woman whose in-laws call her "nigger"? It's that the black woman should get a sense of humor! Or else she shouldn't have married a white man in the first place. (Apparently, in Dr. Laura's mind, that's just what white people do. So blacks should get used to it, or stick to themselves. Yeah, segregation... *sigh*  Don't you miss it?)

A lot of people - myself included - thought that this was disgusting and wrong. In fact, there was so much criticism that two of Dr. Laura's sponsors got cold feet (not at all an unusual response to controversy, is it?). So Dr. Laura has announced that she is leaving radio, claiming that her First Amendment right to free speech is being violated.

Of course, where there's right-wing lunacy, Sarah Palin is bound to show up, in this case supporting Dr. Laura with one of her goofy tweets: "Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")."  Heh, heh. Does she do that on purpose, I wonder? Or is she just not that bright?

Anyway, as all rational people understand, free speech also includes the right to criticize someone else's speech. All Americans are free to criticize Dr. Laura and Sarah Palin alike. Since the government didn't get involved with this at all, there is no First Amendment issue here.

Or are they suggesting that the government should get involved, that their idiotic comments should be immune from criticism? Hey, why should right-wing lunacy get a free ride? If you don't want to be ridiculed, don't be ridiculous.

And I've got to laugh when the right-wing, which seems to worship private businesses and corporate interests, complains that it's not fair when corporate sponsors drop them like a hot potato. How is that not fair? What, do you want the government to prevent your sponsors from leaving? Honestly, is there anything about this that makes sense?

To recap, Laura Schlessinger never "lost her First Amendment rights." She can say whatever loony thing she wants. But I can criticize her for it, because I've got First Amendment rights, too. And depending on the details in their contract, her sponsors can stop paying her vast sums of money when she gets too loony even for them. That's not a First Amendment issue at all, but contract law. She can take them to court if it violates some prior agreement. (This is what conservatives say they want. Or does she expect special treatment here, too.)

Neither Laura Schlessinger nor Sarah Palin, celebrities both, have any right to be immune from criticism. The criticism doesn't even have to be just, though it certainly seems to be in this case. But then, if you disagree with this post, you can criticize me, too. Should I then claim that my First Amendment rights are being violated, because someone dares to disagree with me? Or is it only right-wing extremists who are supposed to be immune from criticism?

Fox News: fair and balanced?

(The Far Left Side)

Losing his religion

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Losing His Religion
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

The funny thing about this...  OK, OK, I don't mean "humorous," because for humor you can't beat a random black carpenter walking past the anti-mosque loonies and being berated (falsely) as a Muslim. It's a sad reflection of the bigotry and ignorance of these people (all white, of course), but it is pretty funny.

I particularly liked this comment from Stephen Colbert: "Still, it was pretty insensitive of him to seem a Muslim so close to Ground Zero."

No, the... weird thing about the increase in the number of people who think Barack Obama is a Muslim (one in five Americans? is it something in the water making us this stupid?) is that progressives like me have been disappointed in Obama's record on the strict separation of church and state. He's been bending over backward in his support of Christianity (admittedly, while acknowledging the diverse beliefs - including non-belief - of America's citizens).

I wish Barack Obama would lose his religion. But really, that's none of my business. However, as an American, it is my business that the wall of separation of church and state in this country remain strong. For 200 years, opponents have chipped away at it. They were particularly active during the McCarthy era and again during the eight disastrous years of George W. Bush.

I'd hoped that Obama would be more aggressive at rebuilding that wall, turning our country back on the right path again. But, as with most other issues, Barack Obama hasn't been very aggressive at all. In fact, he's bent over backward compromising with people who will never give him an inch in return.

OK, maybe he believes this. Obama was never as progressive as his opponents have made him out to be. (Obama as a Marxist is one of the funnier lies of the far-right.)  And the Christian church has traditionally been powerful in the black community. Well, for a long, long time, it was the only institution permitted them by white racists. It's no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a minister.

Nevertheless, it's ironic, isn't it, that the result of his efforts has been an increase in the number of people who think he's Muslim? Well, Barack Obama is a black man with a funny name. Racist whites find it very easy to believe the worst of someone like that. He might as well be wearing a skullcap, like that carpenter.

And, yes, 30% or more of Americans believe in all sorts of things that aren't backed by good evidence at all: UFOs, ESP, homeopathy, God. We skeptics believe that it's important to have evidence for your beliefs. Otherwise, how can you ever tell when you're wrong? After all, none of us is infallible. In fact, without evidence, you're just believing what you want to believe.

And from believing without good evidence, it's just a short step to believing despite the evidence. That's how we end up with global-warming deniers, young-Earth creationists, and supply-side economists. And yes, that's how we end up with 18% of Americans believing that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Evil or stupid?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Parent Company Trap
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Is Fox "News" evil, or just stupid? You decide. Either way, I agree that, as a nation, we should stop watching Fox.

In a way, I hate to be posting so many clips of the Daily Show, but I'm a big fan. And I have to admit that I'm really short of time these days, and posting videos (and cartoons) is quick. I've got lots of topics to blog about, and I plan to get to them as soon as I can. But for now, these video clips are very useful.

And this one is a follow-up to a previous clip, so that's a good excuse, too, right?

"Carbon dioxide is plant food"

Water is "plant food," too. At least, it's essential to plant (and animal) life. So therefore it's impossible to have too much water?

Think of that. No one would be dumb enough to think that too much water can't possibly be a problem - ever - just because water is essential for life. So why are people this dumb when it comes to global warming?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only rational position on a complicated scientific issue like this is to accept - tentatively, as all science is accepted - the overwhelming consensus of the scientists who specialize in that field. They are the ones with the education and experience to clearly evaluate competing claims. Choosing to believe anyone else, including individual scientists who dissent, is just picking what you want to be true.

The consensus might be wrong, of course. There are no guarantees. The Earth could be flat. The universe could be only 6,000 years old. The Moon could be made of green cheese. But that's not the way to bet. In fact, it would be a very, very stupid bet, since your odds would be terrible and the likely result disastrous. And you're not just betting with your own life, but with everyone else's.

This

(Jesus and Mo)

Guilt by association

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

How did we Americans get to be such hopeless cowards? I really don't understand it. Jon Stewart is right to say, "In our panic, we've lost sight of something very important." But how did we get to be so panicky, all the time?

Of course, the Republicans did - and continue to do - this same guilt-by-association, fear-mongering thing against Barack Obama. Well, fear-mongering has worked well for them for years, all through the Bush administration and even before that. OMG, we're all gonna die!!!  Be afraid, be very afraid.

But how can this continue to work, year after year? How can Fox "News" base an entire business model around it? Are we Americans just especially gullible, or are we really this cowardly? What has happened to us?

As an aside, note the Saudi Arabian who owns 7% of News Corp. - the same News Corp. that just gave $1 million to the Republican Party. Nice, isn't it, that foreign interests can influence our political system like this? How is this even legal?

Activist judges

(Mark Fiore)

How far we've come

Ed Stein's commentary:

On the wall of the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island–the oldest synagogue in America–is a letter from President George Washington welcoming the congregation to our shores. It is a moving document, for it affirms that this new nation, only a few years old,  intends from the beginning to live up to the ideals upon which it was founded.

Washington eloquently states, “The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

Here are the words of Newt Gingrich, welcoming another religious congregation: “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington,” and “we would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There is no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.”

At least he can speak in complete sentences, unlike Sarah Palin, who tweeted her own strident opposition to the mosque with these words: “Doesn’t it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate.”

My, how far we’ve come.

If you think that's bad, here's Ron McNeil, Republican candidate (FL) for the U.S. House of Representatives:

“That religion is against everything America stands for. If we have to let them build it, make them build it nine stories underground, so we can walk above it as citizens and Christians.”

Ron, even leaving aside the bigotry of this, and our First Amendment rights of freedom of religion, not all Americans are Christian. I'm not, for example. Many Americans are Muslim. Who are you to restrict any American's religious beliefs?

Yet this is the kind of unthinking nonsense that goes over big in the GOP these days. Incredible, isn't it?

Follow the money

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
News Corp. Gives Money to Republicans
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Stephen Colbert covered this earlier, but it's worth the emphasis. Besides, Jon Stewart has his own humorous take on it.

$1,000,000 to the Republican Party? So much for "fair and balanced," huh? Of course, this just makes it official. But I'm with Stewart. I think the Republicans should be paying Fox "News," not the other way around.

"Mouse and Dragon" by Sharon Lee & Steve Miller

(cover from Fantastic Fiction)

Mouse and Dragon is the new Liaden Universe novel from Sharon Lee and Steve Miller, and like the last two of their books I've reviewed (here and here), it's for existing fans of the series only. It's a direct sequel of Scout's Progress, first published ten years ago. In fact, it starts immediately where the previous book ended, with no prologue or other explanation.

Scout's Progress was a standalone book, albeit part of a series with common characters and setting. Mouse and Dragon is definitely not. The first book was a real tearjerker, especially at the end, and this one starts off the same way (and continues pretty much for the whole book). It's more romance than science fiction, but all of these books have been heavy on the romance. Still, it's a fascinating culture with some great characters. Unfortunately, we already know all that.

As usual for these authors, this book is well-written, but it suffers from two problems. The first is that we already know what's going to happen. The book fills in a small gap in the series (a gap that didn't need to be filled, IMHO), so we know exactly how it's going to end. And I've got to say that the authors really have nothing new to say about the setting or the characters. As part of a long-running series, it's just... filler. Their last book, Saltation, had the same problems.

I haven't said anything about the plot, because there's nothing much to say. Although we thought that Daav Yos'Phelium and Aelliana Caylon had solved their problems and were free to marry, Clan Mizel drags its feet. Of course, we know the problem is solved, if you're familiar with the series (and if you're not, you shouldn't be reading this book). And we know what happens after that. There aren't any surprises - indeed, there can't be any surprises, not without contradicting the rest of the series.

And as I say, we don't learn anything new about Liaden culture or about these familiar characters. So why continue a series if you don't have anything new to say? At least Saltation can promise something new in the next book. This one can't even do that much.

OK, if you're a diehard fan of the series, and you want every detail you can get of the Liaden Universe, no doubt you'll want to read this. It's a romantic tearjerker, just as you'd expect, and it's an enjoyable read. But it's just cotton candy. There's nothing of substance to it. It's an entertaining read, but an hour later, you'll wonder what was the point.

I hate to say this, because I really admire Sharon Lee and Steve Miller. I'm a big fan. They tried getting away from the Liaden series with The Tomorrow Log (2003), but I'm guessing that didn't sell very well. And maybe they really don't have anything new to say about Liad. But one of my favorites in the series is the standalone novel, Balance of Trade, which has completely different characters on a different world. And even Fledgling introduced a new character on a new planet, with a culture all its own.

So instead of filling in these tiny gaps in the existing story, or even continuing into the future with the same characters, why not move on to the next generation? Or make a bigger change, to a different planet with all new characters, even if it's still in the Liaden Universe. A universe is a big place, after all.

The Gaping Hole

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jon Stewart & Anderson Cooper Look at Gaping Holes - Security<a>
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

This is my third posting about Gomer (see here and here), but what can I say? He's the gift that keeps on giving. Unfortunately, Louie Gohmert is a congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives, not a stand-up comic.

The bright side is that he's not my congressman. But someone (Republicans in Texas, in this case) voted him into office. Yes, he's actually supposed to be a leader in America. Hard to believe, isn't it? Sadly, he's not an aberration, not in today's GOP. What in the world has happened to my country?

Is this kind of marriage even legal?

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Fox News and Republican Party Make it Official
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

Not just a catchy slogan

Ed Stein's commentary:

I know people are angry; heck, I’m angry. It’s an inevitability of American politics that the party in power during bad economies gets punished at the polls, and the Democrats certainly haven’t distinguished themselves with the power we’ve given them. But I keep coming back to this question–what has the Republican party done to earn our trust? Their unanimous obstruction of any and all proposals has paralyzed Washington, and helped create the climate of voter anger. To remind you of how extensive this opposition has been, Republicans unanimously (or almost unanimously) opposed the health care bill, the energy bill, the financial reform bill , aid to small businesses, the extension of jobless benefits, the oil spill protection act, and recently and most egregiously, help for 9-11 first responders. More than 120 Obama nominees for important posts and judgeships are still blocked.  This is the party we will reward in November, expecting them to do what, exactly? Other than absolute opposition to anything Obama, do they have a plan for getting the nation back to work (other than cutting taxes for the wealthy and cutting Social Security for the rest of us)? So, is this how we will conduct business from now on? The minority party, so long as it has at least 41 votes in the Senate, simply filibusters everything, and sweeps to power in the next cycle. When and if the GOP regains the majority, I can’t wait to hear their furious denunciation of the filibuster they abused to such devastating effect when they were the minority.

But the Democrats will never filibuster everything, not like the GOP has. Republicans tend to value order and obedience above all else. They find it easy to march in lockstep. Any dissent is considered traitorous and is quickly punished. Republicans don't always agree, but they're far more likely to follow the leader anyway.

Democrats aren't like that. Getting them all facing in the same direction is like herding cats. You can do it, sometimes, but it's a lot of work. You can't do it as a regular thing. Democrats tend to value diversity and independence more than obedience and order. And while the GOP is all right-wing these days, Democrats run the gamut from liberal through moderate to very conservative.

Stein says that Democrats "certainly haven't distinguished themselves," but if they found it easy to march in lockstep, they'd be Republicans. And the fact is, if majority vote still ruled in the Senate, the Democrats would have distinguished themselves. They easily had the majority of votes for nearly every issue. And they've got Joe Biden to break ties. When was the last time that was needed? Never, in this Congress, because majority vote is meaningless now.

Republicans are filibustering everything. This is unprecedented (and unconstitutional, I'd say). At most, there were only 58 Democrats in the Senate (now only 57), and it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. There are two independents who caucus with the Democrats, but one is Joe Lieberman, who campaigned for John McCain and has supported more Republicans than Democrats in recent years. So, frankly, it's remarkable that they've been able to pass anything at all, let alone bills on critical issues like health care reform and financial reform.

I'm angry, too, but I'm angry at the Republicans. And I'm angry at the America people who are apparently too dumb, too gullible, too bigoted, too short-sighted, too cowardly, and/or too apathetic to see what's going on and hold the Republicans responsible. All through eight long years of the Bush administration, I was just astonished at what had become of my people. But today, I think, I'm even more astonished. What has happened to us?

"Is it right or wrong???"

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mosque-Erade
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

It's simple enough, don't you think? Your religion is your own business, and you can build a mosque anywhere you can build a church or a synagogue. I don't know why the right-wing has such a difficulty understanding this simple concept: American Muslims have the same rights as you do.

Was this a good location for a Muslim cultural center? That's not my decision. Or yours. Or even the president's. The fact is, idiots are protesting mosques all around the country, so I think the location of this one is just an excuse for bigotry. It's going in a Burlington Coat Factory, for crissake, next to a strip club, and apparently you can't even see Ground Zero from there (it's two blocks away). What's the big deal?

The 9/11 attackers were Muslim, true, but have Christians never committed murder for their religious beliefs? Tagging the group with the actions of individuals is how bigots always treat minorities. But you'd be aghast if that was applied to you, wouldn't you? Should we restrict your rights because Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people when he bombed that federal building in Oklahoma City? Obviously, we can't trust white Christian men, right? Should we prohibit the building of Catholic Churches within a certain distance from schools and playgrounds because some priests have been pedophiles?

I have no liking for Islam, myself. I don't like any religion much, and Islam is one of the worst, as far as I can tell. But we have freedom of religion in this country. I'm free to criticize and even mock their religion, which I do, but I still support their right to believe anything they want. And we have freedom of speech and freedom of association, too. So no matter what you believe, you can get together with fellow believers and worship - or not - as you see fit. That's your right as an American, a right that applies to Christians and non-Christians alike.

I really don't understand the self-proclaimed "patriots" on the right. They claim to love this country, but they're oh so eager to destroy what makes America America. They have no use for freedom of religion (except their own) or the strict separation of church and state (as long as their belief is in the majority). They despise traditional legal freedoms, like habeas corpus and our longstanding prohibition of torture. Really, they're a lot like our enemies, aren't they? The America they want to create bears no relation at all to the America I love. And when they don't get their way in every little thing, they threaten secession! Some "patriots"!

Finally, I chose to quote Jon Stewart for the title of this post. He's right, that's the real question here. How has American news journalism declined this badly? Is it all a result of the financial success of Fox "News"? Journalists talk only of political repercussions. Is that what's really important here - and in every other issue, too? How about right and wrong? How about constitutional and unconstitutional? How about American and un-American?

The war on brains

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Funny, isn't it? Now Einstein's theory of relativity is a liberal plot. You know, I'm wondering how anyone could possibly write a satire of these people. What could you say that would be funnier and more idiotic than what they really believe?

Rachel Maddow does a great job with this, but I saw it first on TPM:

To many conservatives, almost everything is a secret liberal plot: from fluoride in the water to medicare reimbursements for end-of-life planning with your doctor to efforts to teach evolution in schools. But Conservapedia founder and Eagle Forum University instructor Andy Schlafly -- Phyllis Schlafly's son -- has found one more liberal plot: the theory of relativity.

If you're behind on your physics, the Theory of Relativity was Albert Einstein's formulation in the early 20th century that gave rise to the famous theorum that E=mc², otherwise stated as energy is equal to mass times the square of the speed of light. Why does Andy Schlafly hate the theory of relativity? We're pretty sure it's because he's decided it doesn't square with the Bible.

In the entry, "Counterexamples to Relativity," the authors (including Schlafly) write:

The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.

Heh, heh. Of course, for those of us with a few brain cells still functioning, Einstein's theory of relativity has nothing to do with relativism as a moral or philosophical stance. The names are similar, that's all. But Schlafly should know that. After all, he has a degree in "Engineering Physics," supposedly. What, is that Princeton's version of Rocks for Jocks or something?

Of course, maybe he skipped that part of the course. It's dangerous, you know. As Conservapedia warns, "virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible..." Well, that's the whole point of Conservapedia, isn't it? Conservatives never want to hear anything that might cause them to question their preconceived biases. Cults are the same way. You keep your people from interacting with anyone outside the group. That way the group's views are all they ever hear.

Indeed, science makes every effort to counter preconceived biases. We all have them, even scientists. But the scientific method has been designed to overcome such problems. It's the best way we've ever discovered to overcome biases and determine the real truth. Maybe that's what bothers conservatives the most.

And yes, people who get a good education in science tend to stop reading the Bible. Gee, I wonder why that is? It's not just physics, either. In fact, I believe that understanding biology tends to have a bigger impact on fundamentalist religious beliefs. But any science will do. Science is a way of looking at the real world that makes it harder to lie to yourself. Give it half a chance, and you'll start to understand why your religious fantasies can't hold up to an honest examination.

OK, it's easy to laugh at lunatics like Schlafly, when they come up with something crazy and new like this. But what about the old crazy? What about global warming deniers? What about creationists? These people are just as crazy, but we don't laugh anymore, do we? To any rational American's intense embarrassment, they're darned near mainstream. Evolution is the bedrock of modern biology, and global warming is the overwhelming consensus of climatologists. But only a minority of ordinary Americans accepts either. I guess there's nothing as easy to spread as ignorance.

And now, rejecting science has become the standard Republican position. How's that for scary? One of the two major political parties in America is explicitly anti-science. That's not to say that the Democrats are pro-science, necessarily, because all politicians are terrified of seeming to be anti-God. And the left has plenty of woo of its own, mostly New Age and alternative medicine pseudoscience. But at least the Democratic leadership tends to support science, if not as vigorously as I'd wish.

But the Republican leadership is explicitly anti-science these days, even more so because they're terrified of appearing sane in the age of the Tea Party and Fox "News." When crazy is in charge, you can't afford to be any less crazy than the real lunatics. In fact, you need to try to lead the parade of crazies, if you can. We've seen what happens when you can't keep up. It's the French Revolution all over again, with Republicans running as fast as they can to keep up with the extremists.

It's a frightening time. We are abandoning science just when we need it the most. So yeah, laugh at Schlafly and the other crazies. We've got to keep our spirits up somehow.

Guild Wars 2

I don't play MMOs, and I'm hopelessly incompetent at most real-time combat in games, but I've got to say that this looks intriguing.

Be sure to watch it full-screen, and give it time to load, if necessary. The graphics really are something, don't you think? We're getting closer and closer to being able to explore a whole new world, gorgeously detailed. It might be worth buying the game just to look around, avoiding combat as much as possible.

And I like the implication that they're trying something new. Well, it's different right from the start, since this is an MMO without monthly fees. But we need bold experimentation. Sure, this is a marketing video, but it's a very effective one. Is it a stretch to think that the game itself might be equally impressive?

Incidentally, this is safe for work, assuming that you can watch gaming videos at work in the first place. I don't know what the bold warnings are all about, that the video "may contain content inappropriate for children." If it does, I sure missed it.

How did someone this dumb get elected?

Frankly, it's incredible that someone as dumb as Louie Gohmert (R - TX) is a congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives. OK, he's from Texas, but still.

I posted about this previously, just briefly, but Gohmert is continuing his asinine campaign. Well, that's what his party, now firmly controlled by teabaggers who seem to be completely insane, wants to hear. It's just incredible, don't you think? No doubt they think that Barack Obama was a "terror baby." Heh, heh.

I watched the entire video clip above, but I'll understand if you couldn't get through the whole 9 minutes. Don't worry, you didn't miss anything. It's the same thing, from beginning to end, with Gohmert shouting down Anderson Cooper and refusing to give any evidence at all to support his claims. Well, of course not. There isn't any.

Tom Toles' rant - heat exhaustion edition

Tom Toles' commentary (not directly on the topic of this cartoon, but close enough):

This will be my last rant about the climate. Cartoonists sometimes look just like the archetypical cartoon character crawling across the desert. Gary Larson did a cartoon about two guys crawling across a desert, dying of thirst. They have come upon a drinking fountain. One is letting it run without drinking and saying he's going to let it run until it gets cold. That's about as sensible as the debate on climate change.

We are apparently going to let the debate on the science run until hell freezes over. If you can't accept the conclusions of 98 percent of the scientists whose FIELD IT IS, then why even bother with science? If that high a percentage of field of study is to be discounted ENTIRELY, then we are in deep trouble, which, of course, we are. It would be so simple if it were just a matter of ignoring the yelping commenters hereabouts: "Move on, Mr. Cartoonist! Chill out Tommy! There are more important things to worry about!"

Really? Which would those things be? This may be the only political issue whose results could be catastrophic PERMANENTLY. But the deliberate dust storm thrown up by fossil-fuel-centric interests has succeeded in contaminating and paralyzing the American response. Quite a victory for the deniers! It looks like mass-suicide to me. And so, my final rant on climate. Except not really. There has to be a drinking fountain out there somewhere.

He makes a great point there, doesn't he? If you're going to ignore the conclusion of 98% of the scientists who specialize in this field, why bother with science at all? If your uneducated guess, your gut feeling, or the ignorant ranting of some politician is worth more to you than the overwhelming consensus of the scientific experts - on a scientific issue like this - what's the point of even giving lip service to science? Why pretend that you see any value in science at all?

Of course, we do the same thing with evolution, and in that case the consensus of biologists is far higher than just 98%. But evolution isn't an issue this immediately dangerous to human life. And opposition to that is not just a matter of ignorance, but of clinging desperately to ancient religious beliefs. Well, global warming deniers show a similar faith-based mindset, I must admit. Heh, heh. It's kind of ironic, I guess. If anything shows that we're just one species of ape, only slightly smarter than other apes, it's this.

That political cartoon is a good one, too, isn't it? Unfortunately, that mad dog could destroy our country, if we let it. I thought the GOP was bad during the Bush years, but we really hadn't seen anything yet, had we? They almost destroyed us then, and now they seem determined to finish the job. And so far, we seem to be dumb enough to let them.