rssWhen you need someone to bitchslap Rick Santorum, look no further than Mark Morford:
Homophobic Slimeball Republicans Say The Cutest Things
Rick Santorum, noted self-loathing hunk of spasming nightmarish oozing
man-flesh and a general pasty-assed whitebread embarrassment to
humanity as a whole, and also the Senate's third-ranked Republican, if
you can believe it, says he has "no problem with homosexuality -- I
have a problem with homosexual acts." In an interview with the AP that
made reporters and the universe cringe repeatedly, Santorum, R-Pa.,
said he believes homosexual acts are a threat to the American family,
and compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. "I
have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If
that's their orientation, then I accept that. The question is, do you
act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's
actions," he actually said, before being slapped. Which is much like
saying, you know, I have no problem with Republicans, I have a problem
with what sniveling white-ass kitten-molesting Republican homophobes do
and say and eat and hiss and the vicious laws they enact and the
imbecilic hate-filled bile they spread on their dumbed-down
constituents like so much rancid margarine. Following the interview,
the last nodule of Santorum's shriveled soul was yanked through his big
toe by a demon worm and barbecued as an hors d'oeuvre.
Because a US industry lobby group is throwing it's weight around.
This time, it's the sugar industry -- they're threatening to lobby to get the world health organisation's funding cut unless the WHO tones down their "healthy eating" initiative.
The sugar industry in the US is threatening to bring the World Health Organisation to its knees by demanding that Congress end its funding unless the WHO scraps guidelines on healthy eating, due to be published on Wednesday.
The threat is being described by WHO insiders as tantamount to blackmail and worse than any pressure exerted by the tobacco lobby.
In a letter to Gro Harlem Brundtland, the WHO's director general, the Sugar Association says it will "exercise every avenue available to expose the dubious nature" of the WHO's report on diet and nutrition, including challenging its $406m (£260m) funding from the US.
As usual, the sugar industry has their own "science" to counter the rest of the scientific community. And, as usual, said "science" has been done by research organisations fully funded by - ta-da! - the sugar industry. When you hear about people in the US suing corporates for making them fat, you think "how crazy". Then you find out this sort of shit and instead you think "go get the fuckers".
I really don't known what to say here. This is so damn typical of the US political and corporate heavy-weights throwing their weight around - only this time it's the rest of the world that's in the firing line as well.
Look - if you really want to turn yourselves into a third-world backwater, that's your own business. But fuck off and leave the rest of the world alone.
And big points on the timing - with SARS spreading around the world, and the WHO being the agency doing the heavy lifting (and losing people to the disease), what a brilliant time to start threatening to break their kneecaps. (link via uggabugga
Inspired by a something positive cartoon, I read up on the Boston Molasses Flood. And then found out that there was a second Molasses disaster, this one in Mississippi. The second one has an annual festival, for some strange reason. It features a "Molasses Swallerin' Contest", which as well as sounding disgusting, also seems somehow... tasteless. From the history of the second one:
And thrillseekers might want to put the running of the Bulls on hold and instead try the running of the molasses:
Rick Santorum (republican dickwad) had this to say recently:
So, who's stupid enough to try and defend it, or make light of it? Why, the Instapundit himself. Obviously there's no recent easily-slandered protesters available for him. His entire response?
Or maybe, just maybe, the guy's an intolerant bigot, and you're a simpleton who will continually either defend republicans, minimise their offensive behaviour, or simply cover up and lie for them? (See Lott, J.)
Every now and then you get a reminder that while your own government are a bunch of pin-headed mouth-breathers, others are far far worse:
Australia has rejected a push by the United States to restrict the use of needle exchange programs.
The US has made the call during a meeting of justice ministers at a United Nations commission on drugs conference in Vienna.
Members of the European Parliament have also called for the relaxation of the "tough on drugs regime", to allow heroin trials and the legal use of cannabis.
This has been rejected by the majority of representatives, including Australia's Justice Minister, Chris Ellison.
But Senator Ellison says Australia cannot support the United States move against needle exchanges.
"In Russia where there is no needle exchange program, needles are responsible for over 90 per cent of the transmission of HIV AIDS," he said.
"Now in Germany where you do have a needle exchange program, only 4 per cent of the transmission of HIV AIDS is by way of needles.
Stuff like this just leaves me gasping for words. There's absolutely no basis in science or good public policy for restricting needle exchange programs. I mean, even Texas is thinking about needle exchange programs:
The last bill heard by the committee was the controversial SB 438 by Sen. Jon Lindsay, R-Houston. This bill would legalize the establishment of needle exchange facilities for users of IV drugs. This is meant to greatly reduce the further spread of HIV, AIDS and Hepatitis B and C. While it is thought that these centers would promote the use of drugs, evidence shows that by providing these people with a service that brings them closer to the treatment that would be present and available along side the needle exchange. This bill was left pending for further discussion.
Following the link in the article, it's out of committee, with 6 in favour, 2 against, and 1 abstain. Of course needle exchange programs are only "controversial" because a) everyone wants them somewhere else, and b) tiny brained bigots with a slim grip on the world think that it somehow encourages drug use. "Oh excellent! I was considering an intraveneous drug habit, but the high cost of syringes was discouraging me. Now that they're available for free, I can afford a cap of smack a day! Jolly good!"
When you're further from reality than frickin Texan Republicans, it's time to take a long hard look at yourself.
This is an breath-taking piece of work (in all the wrong senses of the word):
A new analysis of bank fees in Australia has found customers are still ahead when lower interest margins are factored in.
The Australian Bankers Association has released a study by accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Drawing on industry figures, the study notes that household and business retail banking customers paid $7.8 billion in fees during 2002.
But compared to 10 years ago, they are paying $17.9 billion less in annual interest costs.
The conclusion is that customers have gained a net saving of $10.1 billion.
What this of course misses is that the interest costs aren't something that the bank controls - what they should be looking at is the difference between the rate that the bank charges for loans and the rate they pay out on investments/deposits. But of course, that wasn't the purpose of the exercise - instead it was to find a way to justify the $7.8 BILLION in fees that were ripped out of their customers last year.
Is there a more reliable mouthpiece for the extremist Likudniks than Billy Safire? In his latest, he provides Sharon with a forum to say what he likes. On the subject of the new palestinian PM Abu Mazen, we get:
Can they do business together? "Look, Abu Mazen is a Palestinian. He's not a member of the Zionist movement. But I believe he is reasonable."
Imagine that. The man selected to lead the Palestinians isn't a Zionist. How inconvenient.
What a tool.
Harold Meyerson writing in TAP compares Bush to various US presidents past in an attempt to figure out where Bush fits in on the scale. His conclusion is really quite savage:
None of these presidents, great or awful, seems quite comparable to Bush the Younger. There is another, however, who comes to mind. He, too, had a relentlessly regional perspective, and a clear sense of estrangement from that part of America that did not support him. He was not much impressed with the claims of wage labor. His values were militaristic. He had dreams of building an empire at gunpoint. And he was willing to tear up the larger political order, which had worked reasonably well for about 60 years, to advance his factional cause. The American president -- though not of the United States -- whom George W. Bush most nearly resembles is the Confederacy's Jefferson Davis.
Yes, I know: Bush is no racist, and certainly no proponent of slavery. He is not grotesque; he is merely disgraceful. But, as with Davis, obtaining Bush's defeat is an urgent matter of national security -- and national honor.
Course, the wingnuts who long for the days of the Confederacy would probably think that this was a feature, not a bug.
Via the liquid list, we have Christian song parodies. That's parodies of songs by a Christian, rather than parodies of Christian songs.
Aside from the general ow, geez, ick, there's also the other minor point -- aren't parodies supposed to be funny? While I find "Spear It In The Side" (to the tune of "Spirit in the Sky") funny, I'm guessing it's not for the same reasons that the christian singer might get amusement from it.
And as far as the music itself, well, you know no-one rocks as hard as a middle-aged white christian from the suburbs. Eeesh.
[update: Don "No Soul" Simmons lives!]
Seems the guards at a detention center in SA weren't prepared to wait til Sunday for their easter egg hunt.
Not in the spirit of easter at all. Hmph.
In a pre-emptive diplomatic strike, Syria's proposed that the entire middle east become a WMD-free zone.
But the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, says Syria is jumping the gun.
"We think the focus at the moment is the search for WMD in Iraq," he said.
"Secondly, we are conerned about Syria's own WMD and obviously, if a council member or any member of the United Nations proposes a resolution for consideration, we are prepared to consider it, that doesn't mean to adopt it, embrace it or endorse it in any way, shape or form," Mr Negroponte said.
This is a smart move, as it puts the focus back on the US hypocrisy w.r.t. Israeli WMD. There's no way the Israeli government will give up any weapons systems voluntarily, and while the US could force them if they chose to do so (he who pays the piper...), the Likudniks in the US regime would never do this.
So Mozilla's Phoenix browser is now called "Firebird". Thought the name was kinda cool (as was "Thunderbird" for the new mail client) til I found out that they're actually named for cars, rather than mythical creatures. Damn. Well, that and Firebird's the name for Borland's open-source database.
Anyway, when I was searching for the "enable smooth scrolling" magic option, I found this one that gets rid of the initial 1/4 second wait before the browser starts rendering the page. If you've got a fast computer, it makes the browser seem soooo much faster. Whee!
Via Tom Tomorrow, this Guardian piece which claims that the US isn't currently planning to invade Syria. It'd be nice if it's true, but I can see all-too-many reasons for it to not be true. Buried in the piece:
Mr Rumsfeld repeated accusations yesterday that Syria had tested chemical weapons in the last 12 to 15 months. However, Syria is not a signatory to the chemical weapons convention and would not be breaking international law if it did possess, nor is it suspected of selling chemical weapons to others.
As Slate's Fred Kaplan points out, Syria's chemical weapons program was largely built once it became clear just how superior the US supplied and funded convential forces of Israel were over the Syrian military. And guess who else isn't a signatory to the chemical weapons convention? (Hint, western neighbour of Syria, Mediterranean coastline, rhymes with "Frizrael"). And, unless I mis-remember terribly, the US refused to allow inspections of their chemical weapons facilities under the terms of the convention. Amazingly, the Bushies haven't yet found a reason to withdrawn from this treaty, signed and ratified under the Great Democratic Satan Clinton.
And before anyone starts with the "but... but... but... they've got WMD, they've got WMD!", well, guess what? So do the US, and the only country in the region with nukes is the neocon's bestest friend Israel. And according to info such as this (which cites the Times of London and AP) Israel also has a biological and chemical weapon program.
So unless the US is planning on rolling out some new "no weapons of mass destruction except for non-arabs" rule that they're planning to enforce, protests about Syria are rather hypocritical.
And no, pointing out that Israel has nukes, chemical weapons and biological weapons doesn't make me an anti-semite. Claiming "anti-semitism" at the slightest hint of disagreement with anything that the Israeli government does is a really really good way to debase the term and reduce it to meaningless catchphrase.
Jay Garner, imperial supervisor of the new Iraq, is either an absolute idiot or a shameless shameless sycophant. From this NYT piece:
General Garner served two tours in Vietnam, first in 1967-68 as an infantry adviser in the central highlands, and as a district senior adviser in 1971-72 in the strategic hamlet program, which involved relocating Vietnamese in remote villages into areas heavily defended by American forces, he said. Over all, he said, the war in Vietnam was a failure because the United States had the "wrong military objective."
"It took too long," he said. "We should have taken the war north instead of waiting in the south. Just like here. If President Bush had been president, we would have won."
Well, I think we know how Garner got the job. "Bad knees and rancid breath", indeed.
"Bush also cured my scrofula with his healing powers," he strangely forgot to add.
[update Sisyphus Shrugged adds: "Truly. If he had been President he might have showed up for work. That always helps."]
Jeez, the designated freely (s)elected leader of the new Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi, seems to have a past featuring enriching himself at the expense of others, abuse of family connections for personal gain, and ripping cash out just before it all goes belly up leaving others holding the bag.
Why would Bush and his court advisors support someone like that? Oh, wait... nevermind.
In the middle of a reasonably thoughtful piece by Max Hastings on the US and the rest of the world, there's this:
France and Germany, to name but two, must learn the lesson from their diplomatic folly, that mere opposition to American wishes is a grotesque way of defining Europeanism.
Why is it that it's always the Europeans at fault in the current situation? Let's look at what happened - we start with a legitimate difference of opinion (and remember, the Germans still let the US use their air-space &c for the war, they just refused to be involved or give the US a UN fig-leaf), which the US then cranked up into a massive hissy-fit. Countries disagree, all the time. It's the US administration and their complete and utter unwillingness to accept any dissent that's caused the rift with Europe.
In the middle of this piece, the above comes across as "yes, yes, the US is crazy-mad-dangerous, but don't rile them up, just smile and go along with them". This is stupid -- the last two years have shown that you achieve absolutely nothing in trying to get along with the current regime in Washington in order to moderate their behaviour. They'll use you while they can, then dump you as soon as you're inconvenient.
Oh dear, what a shame. Asylum seeker ruling a blow to Government.
The full Federal Court ruled yesterday that asylum seekers unable to be returned home cannot be detained indefinitely, dealing another blow to the Federal Government's mandatory detention policy.
The short form of the case: Akram al Masri, a Palestinian, had his claim
for asylum rejected. As soon as he was rejected, he asked to be repatriated
home. Israel wouldn't let him return, so the Australian government kept him
locked up in one of their prison camps detention centres
until they could dump him back in Israel.
It's not going to have a major effect in terms of the number of people affected, but it is nice to see the courts slapping down Ruddock and the "keep the bastards locked up out of sight and out of mind" policy.
Mark Kleiman notes in this piece on obesity:
I wonder if the same is true here in Australia - from what I can remember, I don't think it's as bad here. Certainly the price of fizzy water hasn't gone up as much as many other foods, but there's also a lot more of the more expensive "energy drinks" (Red Bull and similar) on the market now.