Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Keep Politics out of Medicine...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24844532/

It took Mary Vargas six months and repeated hormone shots to get pregnant with her second child. “We were so excited,” Vargas, 35, remembers about the day she learned the treatments had worked.

Remember this information because according to the anti-choice industry she's a heartless bitch who doesn't care a bit about the fetus she aborted.

Now nearly 22 weeks pregnant, Vargas had two choices: terminate immediately or wait, in which case she would miscarry at any point or spontaneously go into labor at as early as 28 weeks. If her son was still alive at his delivery, doctors warned, he would perish within a short time. And that death would likely be very painful for him. “As a parent, your job is to make sure your child doesn’t suffer unnecessarily,” she says. “He had no chance at life. What we had to think about was how he was going to die. It wasn’t about choice, because the option we wanted — to have our baby — was no longer available.”

This is the real face of late-term abortion. The anti-choice movement doesn't give a shit about this fetus. They wanted him to be born into this world, if he even beat the odds and lived long enough to be born, and spend his very short life in absolute agony. No rational human being would wish that futile, painful existence on anyone.

Later-term abortions — those performed at 16 weeks and beyond — account for only 4.3 percent of the 1.21 million pregnancies ended in the United States each year, according to the Guttmacher Institute in New York City.

Don't tell that to the anti-choice racket. To hear them speak, you'd think there were roving gangs of doctors traveling the countryside by bus enticing young, pregnant women to get abortions at the last minute.

Now, unless a physician can offer unequivocal proof that a patient would die without a D&X, the doctor risks being fined $250,000 and sent to prison for up to two years.

No doctor should have to fear for himself or his family because he performs a needed medical procedure.

At first they considered an induction and delivery, which would give the Vargases a chance to hold him.

“But that didn’t seem like it was best for him,” Vargas says. “I can’t imagine that I would choose to be born into bright lights and alarms and not being able to breathe, even with my mother holding me.”


The fact that they even thought of this shows how even people who end up making the right decision are poisoned by the propaganda of the far-right anti-choice crowd. They were actually considering torturing their unborn child for who knows how long just to make some moron they don't even know feel better about his/her prejudices.

She gets her insurance via her husband’s employer, the federal government, which has a long-standing policy forbidding employees from purchasing any health plan that covers abortion.

That's absurd, we really need to get these Republicans out of office immediately. They are ruining our country.

The nonmedical term partial-birth abortion, coined by the anti-abortion movement, grew out of the idea that the D&X procedure “most resembles infanticide because the baby’s body is outside the uterus already,” says Mailee Smith, a staff counsel for Americans United for Life, a pro-life law and policy group in Chicago.

So she admits that they invented the term, which has no basis in medicine, to scare people.

“In order to prevent the blurring of the lines between infanticide and partial-birth abortion, it’s necessary to ban partial-birth abortion,” she adds.

Or we could continue to allow medical professionals to make medical decisions and tell these people, who have no medical knowledge whatsoever, to go to hell.

The Vargases, like other families, were intent on minimizing their son’s suffering.

That's what normal, loving people do. The anti-choice crowd, on the other hand, gets off one causing as much suffering as possible to both mother and fetus.

In a 2005 study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco found that, based on existing studies of how babies’ brains develop in utero, pain is unlikely to be experienced before around 29 or 30 weeks. Yet a proposed federal law would require doctors to warn women aborting at 20 weeks or after that their baby may feel pain and to offer anesthesia for the fetus; several states have also passed or proposed bills on the issue. Little or no data exists on whether attempts to provide fetal anesthesia would help the fetus or harm the mother, leading the UCSF researchers to write that it “should not be recommended or routinely offered for abortion because current experimental techniques provide unknown fetal benefit and may increase risks for women.”

So you're telling me that even though all available science tells one story, the anti-choicers are pushing an irresponsible and possibly dangerous procedure on women just for the sake of scoring political points. I'm shocked.

Forcing women to undergo unnecessary medical procedures that have no rational benefit for mother or fetus, and may in fact hurt one or both of them, is disgusting but unfortunately par for the course with these people.

The D&X technique is so uncommon that many doctors who perform second-trimester abortions, including Dr. Nichols and Dr. Greene, have never used it.

Again, don't let Operation Rescue hear you. To hear them speak you'd think there were abortion mobiles driving around cities performing late-term abortions on demand.

In this new, threatening climate, doctors don’t want to leave any opening for prosecutors. As a result, hospitals around the country have begun to require that all abortions after 20 weeks be preceded by lethal injection — when the fetus is killed in utero via a shot of digoxin or potassium chloride. The doctor typically injects the drug into the umbilical cord, amniotic fluid or fetal heart via a needle through the patient’s belly the day before the scheduled termination. These injections can be painful for the woman and increase her risk for infection and spontaneous delivery away from the clinic or hospital.

Silly women, you think the people who make these rules give a shit about your life? It's all about that fetus, the more pain the mother experiences the better for these sickos.

“Nowhere else in medicine do doctors require a patient to go through an invasive procedure like this purely for legal reasons,” Dr. Nichols says.

Nowhere else in medicine do you have a medical procedure so unique to women, so tied into every backwards right-wing idea of female subservience, that these anti-choice whackos can't wait to pile on laws to ensure maximum pain and suffering for the women unfortunate enough to get pregnant.

“As doctors we take an oath to do no harm, yet these injections — while the risk is low — are potentially harmful to the mother. And we make patients get them not to benefit them, but to protect ourselves from going to jail. I’m forced to choose my well-being over that of my patients.”

And that is why non-doctors should never be allowed to trump doctors for petty political reasons.

She asked her obstetricians when she could terminate. The head of the practice replied, “We call that murder.” Another doctor in the practice was willing to induce, but, Audrey says, warned her “she couldn’t prevent a nurse from running into the OR with life support. The idea of holding a baby as its organs failed — we couldn’t think of anything worse.”

So evidently there are also doctors and nurses who don't know anything about medicine. I guess someone has to graduate at the bottom of their class.

Directly across a parking lot from Dr. Tiller’s clinic is a facility with a different take on what to do about ill-fated pregnancies. Choices Medical Clinic, a privately funded nonprofit, opened in 1999 and is one of as many as 2,500 “crisis pregnancy centers” nationwide that exist to persuade pregnant women to avoid abortion. Choices was one of the first centers to offer perinatal hospice: end-of-life services for fetuses akin to the standard hospice care available to the sick and the elderly.

These places sicken me. They pretend to be medical centers when in reality they are just places where women are guilted into continuing pregnancies until the fetus is born or it is too late to get a legal abortion. They practice quackery and provide pseudo-medical services such as this hospice care, which I'm sure they charge highly for. In the end they prolong the pain for both fetus and mother and help no one.

The facility doesn’t provide primary medical care; deliveries or inductions are done at local hospitals.

That's because they're not actually doctors, though they pretend to be doctors in order to confuse impressionable young women.

But women who enlist its hospice services are invited to have free sonograms every day of their doomed pregnancy

All those unnecessary procedures can't be good for anyone's health.

and, if they find it a comfort, can have free professional pictures taken of them and their dead or dying children after they are born.

That's just morbid, really sick stuff.

Kim Ortmeier, a 35-year-old stay-at-home mom, first learned about perinatal hospice from her obstetrician.

Prescribing voodoo shit like this should be illegal.

“Abortion was never a consideration,” says Ortmeier, a devout Catholic. “We told our doctor we’d do whatever we could to give her the best possible life she could have.”

Maybe big words are a problem for them but the doctor made it clear the fetus wouldn't have a life. Gasping for air for 20 minutes and then dying doesn't constitute a life. They increased their own suffering, and the suffering of their fetus, for no other reason than the invisible voice in the sky told them to.

When her obstetrician recommended they contact Choices, Ortmeier hesitated. “Because the services were free I wondered if they were quality,” she says.

They should have gone with that thought. Not everything free is low-quality, but in this case that is certainly true.

in Minnesota, women seeking to abort fetuses with fatal anomalies are required by law to be informed about hospice as an alternative.

Another instance of unnecessary obstacles being placed before confused, scared women for no legitimate medical reason.

The Myth of Obama's Jewish Problem...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/140476

Of course it's a myth. It was concocted out of nothing by Republicans, right-wing Jews and Israel hawks who wish we would nuke Iran. None of these people were going to vote for Obama, or Clinton, anyway. They were about as likely to vote Democratic as Joe Lieberman.

But so did rumors that he had a "problem" with Jewish voters because of his family background (middle name: Hussein)

We call that racism.

and that some of his aides held pro-Palestinian views.

How dare they, don't they know that the only acceptable political position is to support the Israeli policy of killing the Palestinian population one smart bomb at a time?

New Jersey Rep. Robert Andrews, an Obama backer, says that two months ago a top Hillary campaign operative told him Obama would have a "hard time winning in November" because of his alleged Jewish problem and indicated Clinton's campaign was going to take advantage of those fears. Andrews says he found such talk "offensive," but he didn't know whether Hillary had sanctioned it. Asked for comment, the Clinton campaign referred NEWSWEEK to an article in the Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger, in which spokesman Phil Singer called similar comments by Andrews "sad and divisive."

Rob Andrews is not the guy you want trumpeting your position. He's a weasley, opportunistic ass and I wouldn't believe him if he said the sky was blue. That being said, he's right on this one thing.

McCain has enlisted high-profile help of his own to help win Jewish votes: Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a self-described "independent Democrat" who has criticized Obama's leadership qualities, has agreed to head up a booster group called Citizens for McCain.

Lieberman is the worst person in the world. I would move to Connecticut just to vote against him. A Republican would be better than him in his seat.

In a brief but animated Senate floor confrontation last week, according to a campaign aide who asked for anonymity when talking about private discussions, Obama told Lieberman he was surprised by Lieberman's personal attacks and his half-hearted denials of the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim.

Obama should have punched him in the face.

Protesting Too Much...

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20080609_A_fight_to_block_parish_merger.html

Wow, these people are really just losing their minds over this. I don't understand what they expect to happen though. The Catholics that haven't already fled the stinking corpse that is the Catholic Church aren't going to church. They can't keep all the churches open for two or three people. Those churches were designed for a time when the church was still considered perfect and Catholics felt compelled to attend mass. They can't be kept open now that people know better.

The organization supports five Boston churches where parishioners are sleeping inside to prevent the archdiocese from padlocking the doors.

We used to call that criminal trespass.

Some local parishioners are even asking the Vatican to intervene, and others seek the bishop's recall.

Ouch, the guy's just trying to balance the budget in tough times and they're going after his job. It makes you almost feel sorry for the guy, almost.

"We as a people have been silent too long," said Walsh, 59. More Catholics are now willing to speak out, believing that blind obedience to the Catholic Church played a role in the child-abuse cases involving priests, he said.

Maybe you should have been on the front lines back then when important things were happening instead of being silent then and bitching now when the issue is a stupid building.

Walsh has been requesting a meeting with the bishop to show him how Queen of Peace can be saved.

I'm sure he's hearing the same about every church in the diocese. He can't keep them all. These people are too selfish to realize they're not the only Catholics in South Jersey.

She and Walsh are cochairs of the Alternate Options Committee,

aka the Close Their Church, Not Ours Committee. Six months from now, when the spineless bishop finally caves into this campaign, we'll be hearing from all those churches.

and it just finished paying about $200,000 for a new church roof and renovations, Walsh said.

Maybe they should have checked with the diocese before laying out that kind of money. It's their own fault for making such a frivolous purchase when they weren't sure their parish would stay open.

"I want to bring them back to church," he said. The consolidation plan is designed to do this, by instilling new life in the parishes, he said.

If you had the ability to bring people back to the church you wouldn't be closing all these churches. Ten years from now you'll be closing even more churches because your ideas are bankrupt. You have nothing to offer people. Within the next twenty-five years, the Catholic Church will be a fringe religion practiced by a few whackos and a bunch of people in third-world countries who only stick around because they want the missionaries to continue giving them food. It will be completely dead in the Western World.

As for the picketing, Galante said he understood that people are emotional because they don't want change and are attached to their churches.

Violent resistance to change is part and parcel of Catholic teaching. You can't teach it for years and then bitch when they turn the hatred towards you.

People really need to get over this. Millions of Catholics have moved on and realized there are more important things than bowing before a statue and eating stale bread and shitty wine. That's healthy. These people can't expect everything to stand still just because they're really serious about it.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Ted Kennedy...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/20/kennedy.tumor/index.html

I was truly saddened to hear about this last weekend. At first, they were saying he was having a stroke. When they announced that it was only a seizure, we were relieved. It seems it wasn't as good a development as it appeared. Hopefully this will be operable and he will live for many more years. We can't stand to lose a man like Kennedy. Even though he will be replaced by a Democrat, thanks to the Governor of Mass. being a Dem, nobody can truly replace Ted Kennedy.

Now She's Making Threats...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

That sounds awfully like a threat to me...

The thing that Clinton realizes but is lying about is that when her husband ran for President, and when Kennedy ran, the primaries weren't stacked up in January and February and they weren't completely done by June. When Bill Clinton ran for President, there were primaries still to be decided in June. This year they were all but over a month ago. The states which voted in May (with the exception of Oregon), and the ones still to come in June, are mostly small states with little if any relevance given the large lead Obama already has. One wonders what excuse Hillary will use once June 3 passes.

When Did We Become Someone Else's Puppet Regime?...

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1808811,00.html

Here we go again. You'd think that after two failed wars (one which was also heavily lobbied for by Israel) the Bush Administration would get the message. They suck at waging wars and everything they touch turns to shit.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut grilled Petraeus on Iran's anti-U.S. activities in the region.

I can only imagine the appearance of Joe Lieberman, literally salivating over the notion of bombing another Muslim country.

And Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia pressed Petraeus on what he meant by the need to "counter malign Iranian influence" and the "consequences for its illegitimate influence in the region."

What about our illegitimate influence in the region? At least Iran's leaders don't need dozens of helicopters and thousands of troops just to take a stroll in the park.

The general, whose confirmation as head of U.S. Central Command was stake in the hearing, did his best to pacify the men and women who held his appointment in their hands, emphasizing his support for "the three rounds of negotiations that have taken place" between Iran, Iraq and the U.S. in Baghdad over security issues.

Petraeus was nominated specifically because he will start a war with Iran. Everyone in Congress knows it. If they didn't know it before, they certainly should have learned the lesson the first time it happened in Iraq. This administration will do anything it can to start wars because it enriches their friends. If Congress confirms Petraeus, knowing full well that he is the Bush Administration's handpicked yes man for war with Iran, then I may just lose all hope I ever had that the Dems are any different from the Republicans. 5 years ago they had an excuse, albeit a flimsy one, since they weren't used to being lied to by a President. Now they have no such excuse. If they buy the same lies, spouted by the same people, they deserve what they get.

In theory, the idea of a war with Iran should be a non-starter in a nation whose war-weary public has no appetite for further military adventures in the Middle East,

When has public opinion ever stopped these morons?

no matter how determined Iran may be to get a nuclear weapon or to arm and train anti-U.S. forces in Iraq.

Of course we have to rely on the word of known liars for all of this. I haven't seen any proof for this that doesn't rely on the same people who lied to us about Iraq.

Republican candidates on Capitol Hill, already facing their worst electoral prospects in a generation, are equally disinclined to support military action against Iran. Even Bush's own cabinet officials, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have been repeatedly cool to the idea in public.

They're sheep, they'll all fall in line.

In Israel, from which President Bush recently returned, one doesn't have to go far to find deep, existential concern. "A military option is not a good option," for dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, a senior Israeli official told TIME on the sidelines of one of Bush's meetings, "But there's only one thing worse than that, which is Iran going nuclear." Those outside the Israeli government express even greater urgency. "I'm worried that by November it's going to be too late," to stop Iran from gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons, said Yossi Kuperwasser, the former senior intelligence officer for the Central Command of the Israeli Defense.

Since when are we taking orders from Israel? If they're so concerned why don't they attack Iran's nuclear facilities? They did it before in Iraq, what's different now? Why should we continue to sacrifice thousands of our troops in another unnecessary war when they don't even contribute a token number of troops to the present war effort?

On military action against nuclear sites in Iran, he said, "Just do it. For Christ's sake, do it and solve our problem."

I don't give a shit about this guy's "problem". It's not our responsibility to solve this guy's problems.

Nor is it only the Israelis who are concerned. Egyptian and Saudi leaders also expressed their worries about Iran's nuclear ambitions when Bush met with them on the trip, several White House aides say. "People in the region really want to see it solved peacefully," says a senior White House official, "but they're also concerned for their own safety and they're also mindful of the calendar, and they know that this President has been very strong."

But I'll bet Egypt and Saudi Arabia don't want the US to start a world war over it. The only people who want to escalate this to WWIII are Bush and Israel.

If diplomatic efforts continue to look unlikely to produce an outcome acceptable to the Administration, would President Bush consider military action?

How could diplomacy have produced an outcome? Diplomacy hasn't even been tried. Bush openly derides the Democratic Presidential nominee for merely suggesting that we start diplomacy, comparing it to the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia in WWII.

Olmert said his impression after talks with Bush was that the President is "exceptionally determined," and that "he has proven this throughout his term in office his preparedness to take exceptional measures in order to defend the principles in which he believes, and in his deep commitment to the security of the state of Israel."

Translation: Bush will manufacture evidence and lie through his teeth in order to do whatever Olmert tells him to do.

It's that kind of talk that has people in Washington worried. Aides to Democratic leaders on the Hill fear that Bush may be planning to bomb Iran between November and January, after the political cost goes down and when he may feel he is doing his successor a favor.

Well then, perhaps they should actually show some balls and not roll over for him like they did on Iraq.

Dan Senor, former military spokesman and foreign policy advisor to the Bush Administration, says he finds that scenario highly unlikely, because he believes it would provoke numerous resignations from the intelligence community and the armed services, both of which groups feel burned from the Iraq experience.

There were resignations when we invaded Iraq, it didn't make a difference then and it won't now.

It Took You Awfully Long to Make This Decision...

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/22/mccains-rejects-hagee-endorsement-spiritual-guide-rod-parsley-now-hits-the-news/

So all these things he said in the past were fine but all of a sudden he's out of line for saying things that he's been saying for years? Are we to believe McCain didn't look at Hagee or Parsley at all before he begged for their endorsements?

Just End it Already...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080525/pl_nm/usa_politics_carter_dc

Why wait until June 3? Obama leads with delegates, he leads with super delegates, he leads in the popular vote, he's going to win the nomination. Why not just end it before Clinton hurts the party more than she already has?

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Rove wants Dems to win now?...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/19/clinton-cites-karl-rove-as-reason-to-stay-in/#more-7211

And her ego was far too big for her to realize that Karl Rove probably doesn't have the best interests of the Democratic Party in mind. He's a freaking McCain adviser. Does it occur to anyone in her cult that he may be releasing this information because they want her to be elected because they know they can beat her?

Sexism is a convenient excuse for failing miserably...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4889014&page=1

Clinton, the first woman to make a serious bid for a major party's presidential nomination, said she did not think that racism was a factor in her bruising battle with Sen. Barack Obama.

Perhaps she should tell her surrogates that racism isn't supposed to be a factor in the election because they obviously didn't get the memo. Her surrogate, and her husband, suggesting that Obama is nothing but an affirmative-action candidate. Her campaign putting stories out there about Obama's pastor and his supposed Islamic heritage. Her surrogates suggesting that he attended a madrassah. Her entire campaign strategy has been based on racist. I haven't seen a single statement however criticizing Hillary based on her sex. Not a single one. In fact she's been immune to some criticism that's been leveled at Obama because of her sex.

Her campaign aides told ABC News that she intends to keep campaigning through the final primary on June 3. Clinton also took a shot at Obama for acting as if he has already won and not even campaigning in Kentucky.

Maybe he's acting like he won because he's won. I think he's been very understanding given her refusal to bow out gracefully but at some point he has to get on with winning the election in November, he can't keep holding her hand and saying "No Hillary, you still have a shot" forever.

Clinton's comments in the Washington Post echo what many of her supporters have bitterly complained about as the long Democratic battle has neared an end -- that she is treated differently because she's a woman and if she eventually loses, it will be because of her gender.

If Clinton loses, which she will, it will be because of who she is and who her husband is. It has nothing to do with her gender. Her candidacy has been important because it has proved that most people are willing to look at a woman in the exact same way they look at a man. They looked at her in an objective and fair manner and didn't like what they saw. Accusing them of sexism is petty and stupid.

Clinton, they charge, has been criticized for things that a male candidate would never take heat for -- her appearance, her emotions, her spouse's sex life.

The petty criticisms seem to have been confined to the beginning of the race, I haven't heard anything about her appearance lately. As for her spouse, if a male candidate had as little control over their spouse as she has over hers (to the point where she's screwing everything that moves) you better believe there'd be a lot of comment on it. Nothing strikes at a man's supposed manhood like being a cuckold. If anything, she gets a lot more sympathy than a male candidate would in a similar situation.

And many of her female supporters worry that their chance to see a woman elected U.S. president ends with Clinton.

She's not the only viable female candidate around. That kind of egotism is what got her into this situation in the first place.

"If Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, we will not support the nominee," she said.

That's the stupidest thing someone could do. Do these women think McCain will care about women's issues? Obama has great ratings from women's rights organizations, McCain doesn't.

"Young people don't understand how far we've come and how hard we've worked to get here. They can't see what it took for us to ensure that Clinton would have a chance at the White House. We have been out there fighting these fights and we've made progress. But as soon as she started running, all this sexist garbage comes out," she said

And I suppose blacks have never had a problem getting elected to public office? Not to mention the constant racism coming from the Republicans, the media and the Clinton campaign from the point he emerged as a viable candidate.

In an ABC News-Washington Post poll, nearly a quarter of Clinton supporters said if she loses, they will vote for Republican nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona over Obama.

There's a very selfish and self-righteous cultishness that permeates the Clinton campaign and it's sickening.

"Women will always have to work harder than men to prove their competence. A man would never be subjected to the same treatment," she said. "It will be hugely disappointing to many women if Clinton is unable to go the distance. But there are plenty of very strong women in public office and other venues who will pick up the torch. Without a doubt, a woman will be president."

I honestly think Clinton's people have forgotten that Obama is black. He's not treated like any other man, he gets just as much crap as she does. Nobody talks constantly about her pastor and I'm sure he's said some pretty crazy, anti-Democratic (anti-democratic too) things. I doubt her pastor is pro-choice, pro-gay and pro-birth control all of which are key Democratic issues.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Stop Throwing Away Good Money...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/11/clinton-adviser-clinton-willing-to-lend-campaign-more-money/

When is it going to end with Hillary? Her campaign is racing full speed towards the cliff and nobody's thinking to put on the brakes. This money she's throwing at her campaign is not going to make any difference. She's already contributed so much while Obama's momentum just increases. By the time she finally decides to drop out she's going to have a huge debt she'll be unable to repay. I don't think Obama should do anything to help her out if she keeps throwing away all this money for nothing, he's going to need every dollar he can get for the general election. Even in the unlikely eventuality that she manages to steal the election, she's going to enter the general election with a huge money problem and no proof that people will suddenly start showering her with money. I know that while I will support her if she's the nominee, I certainly will not be giving her any money.

Saturday, May 10, 2008

The Writing's On The Wall...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/07/democrats.race/index.html

From all that I've heard it appears that Hillary is beginning to see the writing on the wall. People are suggesting that the superdelegates are rushing to Obama and Hillary is making plans to drop out after the late May primaries. I really hope that's true. I've also heard she's going to start acting like a Dem and tone down the hateful rhetoric about Obama.

Sen. Hillary Clinton vowed to stay in the race until her party has a nominee.

What Hillary doesn't understand, or at least doesn't say, is that the party won't have a nominee until she drops out. It's not meant to be for her. She's the only one who can give us a nominee and she can do it by dropping out and endorsing Obama.

Wizardry?!?...

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=79533

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Wizardry!?!? WTF????

First off, last I checked religious beliefs are not sufficient reason for someone to be fired. Since this was a public school district he should sue them, they just can't do that. Second, cheap magic tricks you learn off the back of a crackerjack box do not equal Wizardry. I swear, there are some fucked up people in parts of this country.

And I really want to know what fucked up kid ratted the poor teacher out. How badly did his/her parents screw him up that the first thought upon seeing someone perform a magic trick is to have them burned as a witch?

Hillary's Convenient Voter's Rights Position...

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/hillary_campaign_says_no_to_ne.php

Does anybody actually believe that Hillary gives a crap about the voters of Michigan or Florida? If she had lost the states she'd be demanding that they not be counted. The only thing she cares about is winning. While I wouldn't be devastated if they were counted in a fair and reasonable way (like the one that the state agreed to), they did break the rules. They're not owed anything. Whatever they get is really a gift from the DNC.

And does anybody else question Hillary's sincerity about staying in so everyone in the last states can have a say? If their roles were reversed, Hillary would have started calling for Obama to drop out sometime in February. Bill would be on the stump every day spouting racial codewords and demanding that Obama drop out. They would be screaming for all to hear that she has an insurmountable lead and he's being unreasonable to stay in. In short, everything that Obama has avoided doing even as he has amassed an unassailable lead over Hillary.

Pope Nazi Makes Another Stupid Statement...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/10/pope.sex.ap/index.html

It's almost cute that Pope Nazi thinks anyone cares what he has to say. His own followers don't obey his edicts. Millions of Catholics use birth control. More than half of Catholics support birth control (and I can only imagine the huge majority who would support a woman choosing artificial insemination if that was necessary). All these statements do is prove how little power the Vatican actually has over its own people.

"No mechanical technique can substitute the act of love that two married people exchange as a sign of a greater mystery," Benedict said.

Said the freaky old guy in a dress who took a voluntary oath to never have sex. Here's a hint Joe, it wouldn't be a mystery to you if you hadn't taken the oath.

Kentucky and W. Virginia...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/09/west.virginia/index.html

West Virginians will head to the polls Tuesday for the state's Democratic primary between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But what will the vote there really mean after new delegate totals show Obama with a sizable lead?

I don't see what difference W. Virginia and Kentucky will make. Even if they go to Hillary with huge margins, that's been the expectation from the start. It will not come as a surprise that the old, white, largely uneducated populations of these states go for Hillary. Those people are her bread and butter.

Clinton has a 43-point advantage over Obama, 66 percent to 23 percent, according to a survey from the American Research Group released Friday.

While I doubt these numbers, even if she wins both states by this much it won't matter much. These are small states with very few Democratic delegates. They're some of the reddest of red states. They're not swing states. They're the very epitome of the kind of state that Hillary said shouldn't count in deciding the Democratic nominee (I guess traditional red states only don't count if they vote for Obama). How is she going to explain counting these states as "game changers" when she said the exact opposite of all the red states Obama won?

A big Clinton win will send a powerful message that there are a lot of Democrats not ready to get on the Obama bandwagon.

Everybody has to make a choice. Just because I voted for Obama in our primary doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was the nominee. Just because these people may prefer Hillary doesn't mean they won't vote for Obama when the choice comes in November. People need to stop acting like everyone in America's rural heartland is an ignorant racist who will never vote for Obama just because Hillary happens to be their first choice.

"There was just an AP article posted that found how Sen. Obama's support among hardworking Americans, white Americans is weakening again, and how the whites in both states that have not completed college were supporting me," Clinton said in a USA Today interview May 7.

Hillary needs to stop making racist statements, it's not doing her any favors. Last I checked, whites weren't the group that votes 90+% Democratic.

"They would likely paint him, if he's the nominee, as a far-left liberal who is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-civil union. That will not play well in West Virginia. Social issues register very high on the meter here," Bass said.

Every Democratic President since Roe v. Wade has been pro-choice. I don't see how they would vote for all those Dems but not Obama.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Clintonistas go apoplectic over Richardson endorsement...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/us/politics/22richardson.html...

Man, I have all the respect in the world for President Clinton and all he accomplished, though he could have done far more if he hadn't spent half his time kissing up to the Republicans and the DLC, but the Clintons and their people are seriously flawed human beings. I mean, totally fucked in the head. There is something deeply wrong with them. In this regard they're really no better than Bush or Karl Rove.

"An act of betrayal," said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

How dare he decide Obama is a better choice? Doesn't he know his place? Clinton spent a lot of time doing things for Richardson with the expectation that Richardson would do something for him in the future. Hasn't Bill Richardson ever seen the Godfather?

"Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic," Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

Pure crazy gold. So now, all of a sudden, endorsing someone else is akin to selling someone out to be executed in one of the most gruesome and prolonged ways possible. These guys are good.

...Mark Penn, played down the importance of the Richardson endorsement, suggesting that the time "when it could have been effective has long since passed."

I doubt he'd be saying that if Richardson had endorsed Hillary. But of course all the Clinton people seem to be truth challenged so I guess it's not a surprise. Just say it Mark, you're jealous. You joined the wrong campaign and now you're bitter because Obama's kicking your ass.

Mr. Richardson said he was dispirited by the tone of the Democratic nominating fight, reflecting a sentiment that has been increasingly voiced by party leaders. Unlike many others, though, Mr. Richardson placed the blame on Mrs. Clinton.

Who is blaming Obama? The blame falls quite clearly at the feet of Hillary and her campaign. Who created the 3am ad? Who endorsed McCain over her Democratic opponent? Who has been trying her hardest to destroy any chances of Obama winning should he be the nominee?

Mr. Richardson was still wearing the beard that he grew during what he called a period of decompression after leaving the presidential race.

Is this some sort of rule now? You have to grow a beard when you leave the Presidential race? First Gore and now Richardson, what will Hillary do?

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Don't Mess With Texas...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/02/gun-incident-near-president-bushs-ranch/

Those old ladies in Texas don't mess around. Can you imagine the headlines on Monday if she had shot him?

Crazed Film Murderers for Hillary...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/02/jack-nicholson-endorses-clinton/

Perhaps someone should inform Hillary that receiving the endorsement of the Joker and the asshole Colonel from A Few Good Men is not a good thing, not to mention the murderous father from the Shining. Who's next? Ralph Fiennes as Voldamort? Christopher Lee? Anthony Hopkins?

The End of the Campaign is Nigh...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/01/clinton.snl/index.html

Hillary is really getting desperate. SNL already gave her free campaign commercials in the opening skits two weeks in a row. Now she comes on the show herself and drives home the fact that she really can't stand the thought of losing. If she spent as much time thinking up winning strategies as she does whining about how unfair everything is she'd be winning this thing. Now she's stuck bitching on SNL about how nobody's falling in line behind her candidacy.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

People Should Concentrate on Doing Their Jobs...

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/02/06/abnormal-paps-pap-smears-doctors-refusing-canada

Ok, seriously, this shit has to stop. If you don't want to do your job then quit. Go flip fucking hamburgers at McDonalds. If you're a doctor, be a doctor. If your patient wants a pap smear, give her one. I don't care if she's married or not, that's really none of your business either. If she wants the pill, give her the pill, that's your job. If she's pregnant and she wants a referral for an abortion, give her one, it's not your job to make medical decisions against your patient's wishes. If you're a pharmacist, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose what prescriptions you fill. You see that piece of paper in front of you, that's a prescription. If you wanted to write prescriptions maybe you should have chosen a different specialty. If you want to put your stupid superstitions ahead of medicine, you chose the wrong damn profession.

I can't pick and choose what parts of my job I want to perform and neither should anyone else. You'll notice you don't see any of these sexist assholes refusing to prescribe Viagra to unmarried men. Somehow it seems Christian morality only extends to refusing vital medical care to women.

I guess Canada isn't always the liberal oasis we think it is.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Obama...

Ha ha ha...

Remember Ol' Zell?...

http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/06/lieberman-has-superdelegate-status-stripped-because-of-mccain-endorsement/

See, Ol' Zell was good for something.

False Priorities...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/01/25/archbishop.coach.ap/index.html

I really don't see what his opinion on abortion has to do with winning basketball games. He wasn't hired to teach theology. I've always said that the quality of a Catholic college is inversely proportional to the amount of influence the church as a whole has on its operations. This is a perfect example of this. The only thing that should matter is that he wins the games, everything else is pretty much meaningless.

Scary...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/15/university.shooting/index.html

The fact that he was supposed to be taking meds and stopped doesn't surprise me. I have experience with someone who stopped taking meds and it's truly scary how violent and irrational they can become. There really has to be some way we can compel people to take these medications because it really can make the difference between life and death.

Ticking Time-Bomb...

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/bRuz/~3/236110280/2008_02_10_archive.html

I can't wait for him to freak out in a debate and completely ruin his campaign.

The Cover-Up is Worse Than the Crime...

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-02152008-1488482.html

Man, this whole thing just keeps getting deeper and deeper. What a dysfunctional group of people.
I can only imagine the hurt that would have been prevented for all involved if the Church had just dealt with this problem years ago when it was starting instead of waiting until they were caught.

When the Media Becomes Just Another Party Organ...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1713490,00.html

This shit could have been written by a McCain campaign flunky. This has been the preferred media narrative from the beginning. That McCain is some sort of superman beholden to the Republican Party but somehow warm and fuzzy and comfortable to Democrats. That even though they can't find a single bill of consequence where he voted against the Republicans, he's still a maverick who goes against his party. It's all a crock of bull.

McCain is as partisan as they come. In 2000 people felt sorry for him because of the way the party just chewed him up and spat him out, and because of this they entertained the notion that he was somehow different from all the other Republicans destroying our country. He was special, if he had just won that election somehow we'd be living in a wonderful land of bipartisan agreement and cross aisle love.

McCain has spent the last 8 years crawling so far up Dubya's ass that he could probably blow his nose for him by now. The lesson he learned from 2000 was that he should abandon all independence and become a mindless party hack so he can become President and unleash his horrible Manchurian design upon this unsuspecting nation. The media ignores all this though in the service of their favorite candidate. I hope we can come to realize that he isn't this wonderful "maverick" candidate we've all been waiting for (he's not even as good as he was in 2000 since that ordeal damaged his psyche in ways I'd imagine we'll never fully know). If we don't, we may end up falling for the same trick we fell for in 2000 when we elected George "compassionate conservative" Bush.

who is widely regarded (everywhere except inside the Republican Party itself) as honest, courageous, likable and intelligent.

I've never heard anyone call him these things other than Republican party flacks and nightly news anchors (and Joe Lieberman but he fits into the category of Republican Party flacks).

There is a word for it when a political party chooses a presidential candidate with more appeal in the opposition party than in his own.

There is no proof that he enjoys widespread popularity in the Democratic Party. Unless Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are pulling unprecedented amounts of Republicans across party lines, the poll numbers tend to suggest he's not getting many Dems at all other than Lieberman and the Blue Dog Traitors.

Only a couple of years ago, there were noises that McCain might admit he was much too nice to be a Republican and might run for President as an independent--or even as a Democrat.

That possibility existed solely within the Beltway and the depraved minds of the moronic Washington media elite. That would have been a case of the Democratic Party surrendering and running a Republican in order to win.

Democrats swooned and said they would vote for McCain because he was "honest."

That never happened. In 2000 he was floated as being better than Bush (which is like saying Mussolini is better than Hitler) and was perceived as a more palatable alternative. That doesn't mean Dems are going to jump ship in droves to vote for an emotionally destroyed quasi-corpse just because he seems like their old, crazy Grandpa. It certainly didn't happen "a couple of years ago". A couple of years ago we were kicking the Republicans asses up one side and down the other in the '06 elections.

McCain is perceived as authentic, which is a deeper form of honesty than mere truth-telling.

Only to beltway media elites, Bush was "authentic" to them too. That's another word for Republican in their book so they can paint Dems as effeminate fakes.

He says he's antiabortion? Oh, he doesn't mean that.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Among current or recent figures in American public life, only Colin Powell shares McCain's mystical ability to make liberals believe he secretly agrees with them, no matter what he actually says.

I feel bad for Colin Powell since he was hung out to dry by the neo-con elements in his party. I still wouldn't vote for him for President, Secretary of Defense maybe if he changes parties, but not President.

Then they choose the very guy many Republicans most suspect of being a witch.

That's funny since he's been the heir apparent for the better part of the last four years since he proved himself trustworthy by giving up all his convictions and endorsing Bush in '04.

If you doubt that the whole thing was staged, just consider who the runner-up was. How could a party truly dedicated to self-destruction through ideological purity end up with the choice of McCain or Romney?

The Republican establishment has always been interested in victory at all costs much more than ideological purity. They pay lip service to the ideological morons because they're the ones who man the trenches but they secretly make fun of them at their tea parties in Georgetown.

But the parallel stops there. McCain is widely admired among Democrats, and many Democratic Hillary haters will be happy to vote for him. By contrast, there is no constituency for Hillary among Republicans who can't stand McCain. Nor, for that matter, will many of them vote for Barack Obama.

Bullshit. Is this guy Joe Lieberman's press secretary? As I said before, unless the polls are lying, there just aren't that many Dems running to Papa McCain. A lot of the most loyal Republicans are very unhappy with their party's choice. Many of them could vote for Hillary as a protest (as Ann Coulter has half-heartedly suggested) or more likely they'll just not vote. Anyone who can stand there after the showing that Obama has made among independents and Republicans and say that no Republicans will cross for him in November is an idiot.

If it's Hillary, people's growing dislike of Bush, his horrible war, his crumbling economy, his tiresome smirk, will help McCain. Even though McCain is the candidate of the President's party and even though he is the biggest supporter of the Iraq war outside of the Administration, McCain is the one who will seem like a new broom that sweeps clean.

This is what passes for journalism in Washington. Hillary will suffer for making a few pro-war votes because she's tied to the war in people's minds (by people's, he means the people he meets at cocktail parties in Washington). Meanwhile, McCain (the most vocal and enthusiastic cheerleader for Bush's disastrous war) is somehow completely untarnished by his 5 years of ass kissing and will be seen as a fresh start even though he wants us to be there forever (he's said up to 10,000 years).

Hillary, meanwhile, has been transformed by the Washington press corps in the past few weeks from the first woman with a serious chance of becoming President into a two-headed monster always referred to as "the Clintons."

That's not her fault, the Washington press corps is a bunch of self-important morons who really love the Republican Party.

If McCain were half the principled gentleman he pretends to be, he would drop out now in favor of Rush Limbaugh. Now there's a Republican you can sink your teeth into.

I can only imagine the impassioned missives that Michael and his buddies would be writing right now if Limbaugh was the Republican candidate. I think it would look a lot like what he wrote about McCain, but with McCain's name replaced with Rush Limbaugh's name. In the end, this was the same narrative they set up about Bush v. Gore (Bush is an authentic "compassionate conservative" who goes against his party when he needs to and Gore is a fake, girly man). This is the same narrative they'd set up about any Republican. Believe it at your own, and our country's own, peril.

Chelsea wants it both ways...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/15/chelsea.clinton/index.html

The Clinton campaign cannot have it both ways here. When she was a child, I think the media should have left her alone. Now that she's acting as a surrogate on the campaign trail there's no reason she should be afforded any special deference at all. She has placed herself out there in the public eye as a part of her mother's campaign and she should have to talk to the media.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

When Your Children Just Can't Get Jobs On Their Own...

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-01222008-1475063.html

Nepotism is alive and well in the NJ Republican Party. Too bad actual experience and knowledge is far less important than rewarding the children of well connected Republican politicians. The county will no doubt suffer while she learns how to do her job. Don't hold your breath waiting for the absolute outrage from the comments sections of this paper or the Courier Post, that's only for the perceived infractions committed by Democrats.

When the Truth Just Isn't On Your Side...

http://www.nbc10.com/news/15083420/detail.html

This is disgusting. There should be laws against mailing shit like this. Just goes to show which side has the facts and which side needs to resort to bloody theatrics.

Republican Dirty Tricks...

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-01202008-1474326.html

And yet the idiots with no idea what they're talking about (and the Republicans who know but want to hurt Corzine) will keep calling this a horrible injustice. If the past Republican Governors had raised tolls when they should have, instead of just increasing spending and borrowing the difference, we wouldn't be in this situation right now.

Somehow, if Forester had won I'd imagine all the Republicans who are currently beside themselves with indignation would be just tickled pink at his bold revenue plan. Make no mistake, the outrage is largely a function of the Republican controlled state media trying to get a Republican Governor next election.

Surprising and Not So Surprising...

This is surprising...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/22/heath.ledger.dead/index.html

This, not so surprising...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/22/thompson.out/index.html

This Explains Alot...

http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/01/10/john_vincent_coulter?voted=1


What a horrible, detestable man.

Actually, this explains a lot. She's spent her entire life watching this man behave like a colossal asshole and she determined this was the way to be. She's not really a horrible, soulless harpy, she's just been trying for her whole life to make this man happy.

As Mother and I stood at Daddy's casket Monday morning, Mother repeated his joke to him, which he said on every wedding anniversary until a few years ago when Lewy bodies dementia prevented him from saying much at all: "54 years, married to the wrong woman." And we laughed.

Nothing like belittling your wife to make the funny.

John Vincent Coulter was of the old school,

That's a nice way of saying he was a violent bigot.

Your parents are your whole world when you are a child. You only recognize what is unique about them when you get older and see how the rest of the world diverges from your standard of normality.

Like when you go to school and you notice your friends don't have bruises all over their bodies, that's a real growing experience.

So it took me awhile to realize that by telling my friends that Father was an ex-FBI agent and a union-buster whose hobbies included rebuilding Volkswagens and shooting squirrels in our backyard, I was painting the image of a rough Eliot Ness type, rather than the cheerful, funny raconteur they would meet.

Everybody loves a laugh after a long, hard day of killing small rodents for sport and cracking the skulls of hippies trying to get a living wage.

He just was good.

I don't think that word means what Ann thinks it means.

Father just said, "I don't care. If it's a life, it's a life." I'm still waiting to hear an effective counterargument.

Evidently the life of the girl doesn't fit into the equation.

He hated unions because of their corrupt leadership, ripping off the members for their own aggrandizement.

As opposed to those wonderful anti-union businessmen who were paragons of virtue. Nothing says moral crusader like hiring former cops to shoot striking workers.

But he had more respect for genuine working men than anyone I've ever known.

As long as that working man didn't expect to be paid enough to feed his family. Evidently wanting benefits makes one a non-genuine working man.

He was, in short, the molecular opposite of John Edwards.

At least John Edwards never cracked someone's head open with a baseball bat for wanting dental benefits for his children.

the last book of mine he was able to read.

I'm sure that made dying a lot easier for him. I'd want to die after reading her books too.

In the early 1980s, as vice president and labor lawyer for Phelps Dodge copper company, Father broke a strike against the company, which culminated in the largest union decertification ever -- at that time and perhaps still.

Remember people, this is the kind of thing conservatives consider heroic.

There was massive violence by the strikers, including guns being fired into the homes of the mine employees who returned to work.

I'm sure the strike breakers never used violence. Why, I bet they were perfectly reasonable as they crashed through the lines every day busting heads.

Every day, Father walked with the strikebreakers through the picket line, (in my mind) brushing egg off his suit lapel.

Fuck eggs, throw bricks next time.

By 1986 it was over; the mineworkers voted against the union and Phelps Dodge was saved.

That'll tend to happen when workers are threatened with death by former FBI agents with guns.

For any liberals still reading, this is what's known as a "happy ending."

I'm sure Ann knows all about happy endings.

To Mother's lifelong consternation -- until he had dementia and she could get him back by smothering him with hugs and kisses

Bet she wanted to smother him with something else...

Now Daddy is with Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan.

At least she's mature enough to accept that her father's in Hell.

Go Italy...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7188860.stm

Good for them. The papacy has always been actively hostile to science and this pope is even worse than his predecessor.

Fifteen years ago Pope John Paul II officially conceded that in fact the Earth was not stationary.

It's pathetic that they only did this 15 years ago. I hate to break it to them, but the rest of the world came to this conclusion centuries ago.

Now if only we could get the rest of the world to shun him.

Saturday, November 03, 2007

Maybe They Should Have Thought Before They Elected Him...

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_re_us/sarkozy_stormy_interview_6

If only the French people had some hint that Sarkozy would be a horrible President...oh wait...

Maybe they should have voted for a competent candidate, like Royal, instead of voting for Bush Jr.

I think someone should investigate whether Sarkozy hid his marital difficulties in order to win the election.

It's pretty bad when the guy's wife can't even stand him.
www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1677120,00.html

Wow, yet another reason to hate the Rockies. Now I'm even more happy to see them get their asses kicked by the Red Sox. So much for fate, or destiny, or whatever arrogant bull crap they were saying before the World Series.

"I don't want to offend anyone," Rockies chairman and CEO Charlie Monfort said at the time,

No, heaven forbid they offend someone. Just ignore everything that comes after this and be assured that he doesn't mean to offend anyone.

"but I think character-wise we're stronger than anyone in baseball. Christians, and what they've endured, are some of the strongest people in baseball.

Never have I seen a group so privileged whine so much in my life. You'd think they were being persecuted at every turn, denied jobs and public services, constantly worrying about being found out and murdered instead of being the people singling out others for that kind of treatment.

I believe God sends signs; we're seeing those."

I think if God were to suddenly take an interest in baseball he'd pick a better team than the Rockies. Give the guy some credit.

"The Lord gives you everything you have," says center fielder Willy Taveras, who counts himself among the faithful, "and makes it possible to play this beautiful game."

So I guess you spent all those nights in school wolfing down cheetos and not working hard at all, huh Willy? Success in baseball, or in anything, requires significant personal sacrifice and hard work, don't sell yourself short.

the Rockies stand out for openly touting Christian values — as they define it, strong character and a moral compass

Because of course in asshole land, nobody ever did anything moral or right before Christians came along. Those are human values, they weren't invented by the Church, if they were you could be sure they'd find a way to make you pay for them.

God is "using [The Rockies] in a powerful way."

Evidently whatever he was using them for must have ended because damn did they get bitch slapped by the Sox.

In 2005 and 2006, the Rockies had a "Christian Family Day" at Coors Field.

If that doesn't say "non-Christians we don't want your money", I don't know what does...maybe working in a building called Coors Field?

This season the Rockies renamed the promotion "Faith Day," though there weren't many rabbis or imams at the park.

Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of people in Denver who don't feel the need to spend their entire life believing in something that may or may not even exist at all. Their "Faith Day" isn't exactly fair to the "bright" community.

"To do that to appease other religions is hypocritical to say the least," says McHendry, who helped organize the event. "It was truly a Christian day."

Yes, it was hypocritical, though I'm sure the good Reverend is just suggesting they should be upfront and say right away that they hate all non-Christians.

"Nobody seems to complain when Tiger Woods promotes economic sponsorship by wearing the Nike swoosh on this shirt," says Price.

Yes, and even after the United Zealots of Nike waged their Grand Inquisition against the Holy Reebok Empire. They were really good sports about that whole thing. Business is not religion and vice versa. I don't recall wars being waged based on product loyalty. Also, is he really suggesting that the Christian religion actively sponsors the Colorado Rockies?

"What's the difference with promoting religious affiliation? Isn't that more wholesome?"

Not when you consider how many people have died because of this "wholesome" affiliation.

Rupert Murdoch wants to take over the world...

downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/10/clear-channel-republican...

Clear evidence of why media consolidation is a bad idea.

If They Wanted Human Rights They Shouldn't Have Been Born in Pakistan...

www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/world/asia/04pakistan.html

And this is our ally. I guess we really don't care as much about human rights as we pretend. It seems when we pick an ally we just choose whoever is willing to do whatever we want regardless of the peoples' opinions. Now obviously our government is protesting this but we're not going to go as far as withdrawing support over it, I can guarantee you that.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Stupid...

www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/...

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard...really really dumb...so dumb I'm not entirely convinced it's real and not a parody.

Monday, August 13, 2007

The McCain Campaign is Officially on Life Support...

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070813/ap_on_el_pr/mccain...

Somehow I doubt he would be saying this if he wasn't completely embarrassed by the results.

Bush's Brain Leaves the White House...

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070813/ap_on_go_pr_wh/rove...

Wow, I must say this was a surprise. I'm really curious what must have happened to lead Rove to quit. There must be something big we don't know about yet.

Friday, August 10, 2007

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1649312,00.html

Perhaps the overwhelming support for the war among Americans has something to do with the fact that all the major newspapers and news networks came out in complete support of the war (and many haven't changed their line even now). Americans had come to trust our news media (based on the fact that the media actually used to be trustworthy). Most Americans didn't realize that the reporters they went to for their news knew nothing about what they were reporting on or were in the employ of the very people trying to trick them. Now that Americans are coming to realize that the media is full of shit, the numbers in support of the war have gone down. Make no mistake though, just because Americans were fooled by a duplicitous and willfully ignorant media doesn't mean they have anything to apologize for.

even though it is more responsible than any pundit for U.S. policy in Iraq.

This is bullshit. The government has not listened to the actual desires of the people for a very long time. They would have gone to war with Iraq even if the approval numbers were in the low 20s.

This is not all the fault of the pundits or of "Washington" or of politicians. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq was scandalously unilateral, but it did in fact have the support of most American citizens, which surely egged him on.

I think the author has a problem with cause and effect. Bush was going to go into Iraq whether the American people wanted it or not (which is illustrated by the fact that he's not going to leave Iraq no matter how much the American people want him to). They manufactured support for the war in much the same way toy companies manufacture demand for their products by advertising during children's programming. They bombarded us with positive reporting about the war while completely ignoring and ostracizing those who said we shouldn't go to war. It's no wonder the support was there, there wasn't a single dissenting voice anywhere to be found in the media.

The ensuing disaster is partly the fault of those Americans who told pollsters back in 2002 and 2003 that they supported Bush's war and then in 2004 voted to re-elect him, which he took, quite reasonably, as an endorsement of his policies.

Blaming the victim is a common tactic of the victimizer. The American public was brow-beaten into supporting the war by non-stop pro-war coverage. The American public was deceived into voting for Bush by constant jabs in the media at John Kerry. To suggest otherwise is to diminish the significant effort that was put into creating this result by the media and the Republican Party.

Millions of Americans now apparently regret those opinions.

Because there's finally a voice, albeit quiet, telling them the truth about the war.

But unlike the politicians and the pundits, they do not face pressure to recant or apologize. American democracy might be stronger if they did.

Try as they may to shift blame upon the citizenry, the media will carry the blame for this 'til the end of time. They can't push that blame onto anyone else.

Are you serious?...

www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/stu_bykofsky/20070809...

Wow, and they say Democrats want the terrorists to win.

The problem with this is that Americans won't come together. They will fall behind Bush just like they did after 9/11 because they're scared out of their minds. Which, I think, is what the author actually wants.

Another 9/11 will not trigger a great rush by both sides towards each other meeting nicely in the middle. It will involve the Republicans blaming everything on the Democrats, the Democrats being demonized in the media and the abolishment of the Constitution.

Forget about the '08 election, we'll be lucky if we ever see another election ever again. Bush will declare, much as Rudy Guiliani did after 9/11, that things are just too volatile for an election and will proclaim that out of the kindness of his heart he will stay on just a little bit longer to lead America through this trouble. Unlike Rudy, Bush will conveniently forget to reschedule the election.

It is not Bush and it is not Hillary and it is not Daily Kos or Bill O'Reilly or Giuliani or Barack. It is global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children.

Funny, because Hillary and Obama will definitely be labeled the enemy if we are ever attacked again. Daily Kos will most likely disappear into some sort of American Gulag.

Most Americans today believe Iraq was a mistake. Why?

Maybe because it was?

Not because Americans are "anti-war."

No, we're not anti well thought out and executed war.

Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog.

Untrue, we'd be quite happy to support a war if we actually thought it was a good war and was going to accomplish something. Trying to blame Americans for this by claiming that we're fickle and impatient is stupid.

Americans loved the 1991 Gulf War. It raged for just 100 hours when George H.W. Bush ended it with a declaration of victory. He sent a half-million troops into harm's way and we suffered fewer than 300 deaths.

Americans "loved" the first Iraq War because the media sold it to us non-stop while all dissenting voices were silenced (sound familiar?) and it was over before we could really think about it.

Only someone who's never served in the military, or loved someone who has, can call fewer than 300 deaths a good thing.

America likes wars shorter than the World Series.

America likes wars that are actually fought for good reasons and accomplish something other than bringing down our entire country.

Bush I did everything right, Bush II did everything wrong - but he did it with the backing of Congress.

Only because they were threatened and lied to every step of the way. This war belongs entirely to Bush and those, like the author, who were such ardent cheerleaders in the run up to the war.

Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41.

We knew who the enemy was then.

We knew who the enemy was shortly after 9/11.


Yeah, judging by the media coverage the enemy after 9/11 were the Democrats. We didn't come together quite as much as we completely fell over the cliff and begged Bush to destroy our country so we could feel safe again. That we recovered doesn't mean we can't easily fall off again.

Because we have mislaid 9/11, we have endless sideshow squabbles about whether the surge is working,

Oh yes, who cares whether our soldiers are being launched at a brick wall when we can stare lovingly at our personal picture of President Bush?

if we are "safer" now,

Perish the thought. Who cares if our 6 year "war on terror" has actually accomplished something. Why, that might illustrate that Bush has been an absolute failure.

whether the FBI should listen in on foreign phone calls,

To hell with civil liberties.

whether cops should detain odd-acting "flying imams,"

How dare they fly while muslim?

What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.


Would the author volunteer to be a victim of this attack because I know I won't. He seems to forget that people die in these sorts of attacks, or maybe he didn't forget.

If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.

Yes, let's have another Reichstag fire...uh...I mean 9/11 so we can all rally behind our glorious leader with his manly codpiece and drink the blood of our enemies. To hell with Democracy when we can have a dictatorship.

The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.

The first 9/11 proved that.


Again, the unity we felt after 9/11 had nothing to do with genuinely warm feelings for our fellow Americans (Republicans aren't exactly full of love for New York City and Northern Virginia which are both highly liberal areas). It had everything to do with taking a huge rightward turn while the country cowered and essentially gave Bush unlimited powers to do whatever he wanted. It was a unity where most Americans forgot that Bush was an idiot and allowed him to run amok like a bull in a chinashop.

That America eventually regained its composure only proves that Americans are not as dumb as some people (like Stu) think.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

What?...

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1642885,00.html

This is news? This is something that Time magazine takes the time to post on its website? This stupid ignorant crap?

First off, who the hell cares what some right-wing Christian thinks about Children's books? What are his credentials that quality him to engage in literary criticism?

Joanne Rowling has three fancy houses and more money than the Queen, but she still doesn't have a middle name: the K. is just an empty invention, added for effect when she published her first book.

Oh no, she changed her name to make it flow better, how can we trust her with our children?

In The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien fused his ardent Catholicism with a deep, nostalgic love for the unspoiled English landscape.

And introduced us to an entire race of "witches" with magical powers and eternal life. Make no mistake, right-wing Christians would have the same problems with LoTR that they have with Harry Potter.

What's missing? If you want to know who dies in Harry Potter, the answer is easy: God.

Well how dare she? doesn't she know that all fantasy authors are required to place at least one "God" character in their books? What will happen to the children if they aren't bombarded with thinly-veiled religious allegory in all areas of their lives?

Harry Potter lives in a world free of any religion or spirituality of any kind.

This is a bad thing?

He lives surrounded by ghosts but has no one to pray to, even if he were so inclined, which he isn't.

And yet somehow, with the help of his friends, he manages to do a pretty good job of defeating the demons that haunt him. There might be a lesson in there somewhere.

Rowling has more in common with celebrity atheists like Christopher Hitchens than she has with Tolkien and Lewis.

Because, of course, the lack of a stifling religious message is the only compelling lesson to be taken from the book (as opposed to the strong message of the books which is one of friendship and love). Christopher Hitchens is not a fantasy writer (in fact, I'd say Christian writers seem to drift far more towards fantasy while atheists primarily stick to science and logic, but that's another rant).

This charming notion represents a cultural sea change.

Only for people who demand Christianity be represented in every place in public so they can ignore that nagging little voice at the back of their mind telling them it's all a bit stupid.

When the end comes, where will it leave Harry? He'll face tougher choices than his fantasy ancestors did. Frodo was last seen skipping town with the elves. Lewis sent the Pevensie kids to the paradise of Aslan's Land. It's unlikely that such a comfortable retirement awaits Harry in the Deathly Hallows.

Easily the stupidest thing I've ever heard. For one thing, last time I checked Harry Potter is still a fictional character. Second, just because the books don't end with some Deus ex Machina "happy" ending, doesn't mean Harry doesn't have a happy life (though I haven't read the books yet so I don't know for sure). One doesn't need an overbearing God to be happy in their life.

Friday, June 22, 2007

More lawlessness from the Bush Administration...

www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/22/cheney.documents/

I swear to God, it's like the Bush Administration lives in an entirely different world. Have they never read the Constitution? Are they illiterate?

Imagine for just a second the shitstorm that would occur if anything they've done up to this point had been done by a Democrat: warrantless wiretapping in violation of federal law, torture of detainees, illegitimate preemptive war that subsequently turns into an inescapable quagmire worse than Vietnam, etc...

Sandy Berger was practically jailed for accidentally taking a few documents from the archives. Cheney doesn't even think he's required to submit to the archive system and, when someone points out that he's wrong he tries to have the department eliminated.

It's not even like this is the first time Cheney's done this. He doesn't want to submit to the traditional, and legally mandated, transparency with any of his office's actions. He didn't want to turn over the list of people he met with about the energy policy (mostly because the negotiations involved him asking the industry to write their own legislation), he didn't want to turn over the list of people who've visited his residence (even though he lives in a house owned by the American people), now he doesn't want to submit to rules governing the handling of classified information even though we're in the middle of a war.

What I really want to know though is this, and maybe some wacko right-winger will answer this for me: if Dick is not a part of the Executive branch, what branch is he part of? Is there some crazy secret fourth branch that the framers forgot to mention? Does his occasional role as tie-breaker in the Senate somehow make him a member of the Legislative branch even though that really is mostly a ceremonial role and is entirely reliant on his position as Vice President? (while his role as VP does not in any way rely on his Presidency in the Senate) More importantly, since this does actually appear to be his argument, if he's not a member of the Executive Branch, who is? If the guy who actually shared the ticket with the President, who is essentially just a President in waiting, isn't a member of the Executive how can you claim that anyone other than the President is? Or maybe that's their plan...next we'll be hearing that the Justice Dept. is actually part of the Judicial Branch (or maybe I should stop before I give them any ideas...)

This is the most secretive and ideological administration in the history of this great nation. It's literally scary to think of all the ways they've attempted to hide from scrutiny and exempt themselves from any sort of accountability. Clinton was impeached for receiving an oral favor from a consenting adult female. Bush has lied to Congress, he's lied to Americans about events that have cost thousands of American lives not to mention many more lives outside America, he's kidnapped American citizens and denied them basic judicial rights, he's wiretapped the phones of American citizens in violation of FISA, and that's just the beginning. Cheney's refused to disclose any information about how he does his job despite the very clear requirements for him to do so, he's also lied to Congress and the American people and is equally responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths directly linked to the administrations actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most seriously of all, both Bush and Cheney have willfully failed to capture Osama and appear to not even be trying to catch him. Bush admitted as much when he stated that he wasn't all that concerned about capturing Osama. Where are the articles of impeachment? Where is John Roberts in those absurd academic robes we were treated to when Clinton was impeached?

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Paging scientific method...scientific method to the front desk...

www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

I love how they trot out one "scientist" with an obviously limited understanding of scientific method, to try to claim that science and Christianity have anything in common (I guess this scientist has forgotten centuries of active oppression of science in Christian countries up to and including executions).

I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

So you've run your "beliefs" through the scientific method and...oh wait...of course you haven't.

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"

So he went and adopted the most unlikely explanation, completely devoid of reasonable scholarship and empirical proof.

Science is a hell of a lot better prepared to explain those things because it approaches them from a systematic and empirical direction instead of just coming up with something off the top of your head and declaring the discussion ended.

My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

No more daring than Christianity (or any other religion) since faith is an assertion of a universal explanation of everything completely devoid of evidence and completely contrary to every one of the other belief systems in the world. In the absence of proof, the universal negative is the only position one can take from a scientific perspective. If you don't see a purple elephant, and nobody else can prove they've seen a purple elephant, than the true scientist must say that purple elephants do not exist subject to eventual further scientific discovery. This is not a true universal negative, since there is always room in science for further discovery, it is simply taking the obvious position in the face of no evidence to the contrary. Science could always prove or disprove God once and for all. Anything could happen. Until that time, the proper scientific position is to say it doesn't exist.

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

Reason can't prove the existence of God at all. Reason seeks absolute proof and faith is the opposite of absolute proof. It can be very interesting to listen to the voices in your head, but never forget that those voices are still in your head.

For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life,

There's remarkably strong historical evidence of my life (Did Jesus have a Social Security card or a driver's license? I do.) that doesn't make me the messiah.

who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor,

As did pretty much every religious prophet, preacher, guru, man on the street corner and even most non-theists.

and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing.

Not really. Plenty of people claim to be things they're not. We have places for them now, they're called insane asylums. The last guy we had who did that ended up burning down a building with his followers inside.

After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

Translation: He got sick of being bombarded by obnoxious Christians in every arena of his life so he decided to drink the kool-aid and join the maddening throng.

The proper response to uncertainty is not to embrace the most unlikely explanation. It can be nice to completely abandon reason and just accept things on faith but it's not science.

Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Can a scientist believe in anything without subjecting it to the scientific method? I'm sure plenty a science masters student has wished he could defend his thesis by saying "Well, I can't prove my hypothesis, but I believe it with all my heart."

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers.

Considering well over 90% of Americans believe in some sort of supernatural being, I'd say that number's not very impressive. Most of the 40% were probably educated at Liberty University or other such evangelical "colleges".

Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

Better not say that too loudly around the kool christian kids or they might just throw you out of the party.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Selective reasoning...

www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/22/navarrette/index.html

Sometimes I just have to imagine that Navarrette has a mini seizure every time he hears a Hispanic name/perceived insult to the Hispanic community and just completely loses all notion of reason.

Gonzales is certainly not the first person you would be building your case on when talking about perceived prejudice within the Democratic Party. Holding up Gonzales as a representative of the Hispanic community is a bit like holding up Condi Rice as the true bastion of the African American community (Condi is no Rosa Parks and Gonzales is certainly no Che).

The fact that Gonzales is the first Hispanic Attorney General also holds little sway with me, and I'd imagine with most Democrats other than Joe Lieberman.

an elite media that long opposed him

Now I'm no demagogue, so of course I have nothing on Navarrette, but I'd guess that this has more to do with him being the one who green lighted horrible torture at various US facilities and less to do with where his grandparents were born.

Leading this lynch mob are white liberals who resent Gonzales because they can't claim the credit for his life's accomplishments and because they can't get him to curtsy. Why should he? Gonzales doesn't owe them a damn thing.

Oh, of course, you dislike the Hispanic you must be a bigot. It can't possibly have anything to do with the aforementioned fascist tendencies and pro-torture policies that would make Jack Bauer blush. Liberals have hundreds of reasons to hate the guy without worrying about his heritage (he ok'd every single questionable Bush Administration policy as White House Council and after that earned him the big AG office, he continued to ok every asinine policy for his boss George. Then, when Dubya asked him to fire people just because they weren't political enough, he threw them in the fire with a fervor rarely seen. The guy's a train wreck from a liberal perspective).

Democratic politicians love posing with mariachis as they nibble chips and salsa on Cinco De Mayo. But it was a Republican -- George W. Bush -- who made history by nominating a Hispanic to serve as attorney general.

Here we go. What? Liberals aren't allowed to criticize a Hispanic, no matter how heinous his actions? Giving Dubya credit for nominating the first Hispanic AG is like giving him credit for nominating the first black (and woman) Secretary of State. I don't think either community was pushing very hard for those two to be the first anything.

Gonzales' persecutors are blind with rage, or maybe just blind. Surely they see that the push to dump the U.S. attorneys came from White House political adviser Karl Rove.

But, if Navarrette understood the hierarchy at all, he should realize that Karl Rove doesn't have the power to fire prosecutors (though you might expect the next Republican controlled Congress to change that). He needed someone with that power to throw the US Attorneys under the proverbial bus and Gonzales was more than willing to do it. The distinction between ruthless political operative and willing lackey is paper thin.

The attorney general does have one person in his corner. President Bush came out swinging Tuesday, insisting that Gonzales has his support and warning Democrats not to go on "a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."

Having GW Bush as your chief defender seems quite like having Screech as your tag team partner. Perhaps it looks like a good idea floating in your head but in the end it doesn't mean much.

I've interviewed Gonzales twice since he became attorney general. During the last interview, which took place three weeks ago in San Diego -- that is, before the controversy erupted -- I asked about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. He told me what he has told others: It was about performance.

And it's a well known fact that Mexican-Americans are genetically unable to lie to reporters so I just took him at his word.

An avid baseball fan, Gonzales even pitched an analogy. "What I care about is -- are we trading up?"

I'm sure Karl Rove's protege has years of great legal experience to bring to his job as US Attorney...or perhaps he's just good at making up charges against Dems in swing states.

As a political columnist, I cover liars for a living. And yet, I'd say Gonzales is pretty much as advertised by his old friend, President Bush: an honorable public servant.

And this brings us back to my initial point, I don't think Navarrette can be objective in a case like this. There is absolutely no reason to call Gonzales a "honorable public servant". He's a joke as Attorney General (Ashcroft literally looks better in comparison). He hasn't done a single good thing in his entire time in the position.

He comes across as a straight shooter.

People said the same thing about Dubya...and John McCain.

It may be that he made a whopper here in trusting his No. 2 not to hand over the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys to a political hack like Rove. But then, Gonzales' critics aren't after the truth. They're after him.

I'm sure he knew absolutely nothing about the source of these firings. Give me a break. At best he signed something he hadn't really read just to help his buddy Bush. At worst, and more likely, he knew exactly what he was doing and sacrificed his deputy in order to save his own worthless ass. So he's either a horrible manager (didn't he fire a few people for that?) or he's an overzealous political operative who will do anything for his Republican masters.

Well, if they succeed in running him off without a fair hearing, many Hispanics won't forget the shoddy treatment afforded this grandson of Mexican immigrants. You watch. Democrats will have to intensify their efforts to win Hispanic votes in the 2008 elections. And there's not that much chips and salsa on the planet.

Here we have Navarrette presuming to speak for the entire Hispanic community. I don't think too many liberal Hispanics are looking up to Gonzales as the pinnacle of their community and I don't think the conservatives are ever going to vote Democrat anyway.

If he gets run off without a "fair hearing", whatever that even means, it'll be more about the fact that Bush outright refuses to have any hearings at all and less to do with the desires of Dems. I'm sure most Dems would love to hold all the hearings Gonzales would like before he leaves office but he just might find himself in jail instead of just out of a job. Gonzales might not want to open that can of worms though because he's done far worse things than just firing some US Attorneys.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

It's about time...

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

This is a nice first step. Hopefully someday we can get rid of all this semantic nonsense and just call it what it is, marriage between two people who love each other. But at least this is a good first step.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Chaka Fattah officially ends his run for mayor of Philadelphia...

www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/16692405.htm...

This is stupid and wrong for many reasons.

1) He'll never get it passed and he has essentially ended his chances of winning (which were pretty good before) by scaring many people in the city who rely on those outside the city for their income (business people, anyone who works at the companies owned by those business people, etc...)

2) Repeat after me: "Philadelphia is not London, America is not England". There, wasn't that nice?

Europeans are used to paying through the nose for transportation. They've been paying higher prices than we pay now for gas for decades. If we had the level of taxation on fuel that they have there would be riots.

London is also a very old city that was built long before anyone even imagined motor vehicular transportation. It's crowded and it's congested. The idea of the congestion tax in England was probably a good one but I don't believe Philly is at that point yet.

Also, London has a huge public transportation system unrivaled in this country. Even New York doesn't have the sheer number of subway routes that London has. It's quite possible for someone to get wherever they want to in London on the subway. Philly, with a whopping two subway lines and sporadic bus system that only runs at certain times, does not have anywhere near the transportation infrastructure to make this work. You can't even get to the Art Museum from New Jersey without a lot of trouble (I usually just walk the 20 or so blocks from the Patco station at 15th/16th and Locust to the Art Museum to save myself the trouble, not everyone can walk like that).

3) People will just stop coming into Philly from New Jersey and the Pennsylvania suburbs. It's not like there aren't places outside the city that you can go to have a good time. There are concert venues in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. There are high class restaurants and entertainment. People will just start going to Camden and spending their money there. It will destroy many businesses in Philly that rely on out of towners for business.

Philly already has an absurd liquor tax (trust me, I did a double take when I got my bill) that no doubt causes plenty of people to either not order alcohol or go elsewhere. Instituting this tax will give people yet another reason to bypass Philly for towns that actually want their business.