Locomotive Mule

Whatever Intelligent Design Is, It’s Not a Theory and It’s Not Science

…

If it is true that evolution is no more certain that intelligent design, they ask, why not expose students to both theories? Why keep students for investigating each scientific approach and choosing between them? “It’s an academic freedom proposal,” said Stephen C. Meyer of Seattle’s nonprofit Discovery Institute, the principal generator of I.D. research. “What we would like to foment is a civil discussion about science. That falls right down the middle of the fairway of American pluralism.”

There is one serious problem with the specious idea of teaching intelligent design in science classes as a concomitant scientific theory to evolution: no credible member of the scientific or academic communities has ever proven that intelligent design is anything more than a faith-based philosophy masquerading as science, grounded on the Genesis account of the creation of life. Despite the fact that they have tried, in pressing the intelligent design theory, to distance themselves from their faith, supporters have still not been able to convince the courts that I.D. can stand on its own as a body of knowledge appropriate for science classes.

“The methodology employed by creationists is another factor which is indicative that their work is not science,” the court found in its extensive and insightful decision in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. “The creationists’ methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions [of the intelligent design theory].”

…

Congress Should Censure President Bush

President Bush used the occasion of Veteran’s Day to attack critics of the Iraq war as unpatriotic. In the face of the overwhelming evidence that the war was started on false premises, the president has the audacity to state that anyone who raises questions about the origins of the war are hurting our soldiers and giving aid and comfort to our enemies. The president makes no sense and has no shame.

Bush makes no sense because he pulled a bait and switch and asks us not to notice. He asked Congress for a blank check to use force if necessary against the government of Saddam Hussein because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction which they might use against us. Since this was false, we had no reason to attack Iraq. Indeed, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has pointed out that the war was illegal.

The original bait was false, but the switch is equally outrageous. What is the mission now? Hussein is in jail so we are no longer there to fight him. Bush is acting like a drunk who stumbles into the wrong house in the subdivision and then pulls out his gun and starts shooting when the homeowners start bickering among themselves about the best way try to drive him out. Why not just leave and let everyone live a little longer?

Of course, Bush is not himself bearing arms. It is our young men and women who are doing so. It is Bush who has cavalierly sent our volunteer soldiers, overwhelmingly working class, into harm’s way on false pretenses and keeps them there without justification. He demands the rest of us cheer on this misuse of our own sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, friends and neighbors. But the truly moral thing to do is to stand up and speak truth to power, insist that our young not be sacrificed to an ignoble cause in which torture becomes as routine as drinking a few beers on Saturday night.

There’s more….

Robertson warns Pennsylvania voters of God’s wrath

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city,” Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, “The 700 Club.”

“And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there,” he said.

This is the all forgiving and merciful God that I’m supposed to give my life over to? I don’t think Mr. Robertson speaks for God - his or anyone else’s.

I’m sick of this shit: Live in fear y’all! Fear this! Fear that! Vote this way or bad things will happen. Teach your children this or they'’re going to die horrible deaths. Support this war or you’re a traitor and you’ll damned for eternity.

Fuck you Mr. Robertson.

Let’s Be Blunt: Congressional Leadership Is In Disarray

House Republican leaders scuttled a vote Thursday on a $51 billion budget-cut package in the face of a revolt by lawmakers over scaling back Medicaid, food stamp and student loan programs. The development was a major setback for the GOP on Capitol Hill and for President Bush, who has made cuts to benefit programs a central pillar in his budget plan.

popcorn.

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.
Article 2: Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

Is the U.S. a signatory? It doesn’t fucking matter.

I am sickened by this. If this shit continues, we’re gonna have a revolution in THIS country and guess what? My children will be melted by these fucks - for the same reason they’re melting Iraqi children. Because their parents (a few of their parents) disagree with the occupiers and are willing to do something about it.

These hellish actions taken by the U.S. military at the direction of their politcal masters (that IS how it works) in the name of freedom and democracy and the American people are heinous, repugnant and a whole host of other words that somehow just don’t measure up to the total senselessness of this.

I’m starting to understand why the soldiers returning from Vietnam were reviled and spat upon - I’m trying to keep the military and their leash holders separate, to remember that the guys pulling the triggers are in a shitty place doing a shitty job for woefully shitty pay. But, there comes a time when simple human decency overrides the orders, when the questions have to be asked by those performing the atrocities and answers need ot be demanded.

The political leaders are responsible for this - for now the grunts get a pass - and need to be held accountable - and punished.

Video
Story
Proof

I’m not alone.

Can you spot what’s missing?

November 8, 2005

Honorable Peter Hoekstra
Chairman
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Honorable Pat Roberts
Chairman
Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Hoekstra and Chairman Roberts:

We request that you immediately initiate a joint investigation into the possible release of classified information to the media alleging that the United States government may be detaining and interrogating terrorists at undisclosed locations abroad. As you know, if accurate, such an egregious disclosure could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences, and will imperil our efforts to protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks.

The purpose of your investigation will be to determine the following: was the information provided to the media classified and accurate?; who leaked this information and under what authority?; and, what is the actual and potential damage done to the national security of the United States and our partners in the Global War on Terror? We will consider other changes to this mandate based on your recommendations.

Any information that you obtain on this matter that may implicate possible violations of law should be referred to the Department of Justice for appropriate action.

We expect that you will move expeditiously to complete this inquiry and that you will provide us with periodic updates. We are hopeful that you will be able to accomplish this task in a bipartisan manner given general agreement that intelligence matters should not be politicized. Either way, however, your inquiry shall proceed.

The leaking of classified information by employees of the United States government appears to have increased in recent years, establishing a dangerous trend that, if not addressed swiftly and firmly, likely will worsen. The unauthorized release of classified information is serious and threatens our nation’s security. It also puts the lives of many Americans and the security of our nation at risk.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

William H. Frist, M.D.

Majority Leader

U.S. Senate

J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives

Secret prisons? Can we investigate THAT? What goes on in those prisons? Can we investigate THAT?

“This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative.”
– Ron Ziegler April 17 1973, retracting previous statements that had been revealed to be false.

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan 11/8/05

Note: I started reading this when it was aired on Countdown, so I followed along - the tape doesn’t match the published transcript.

Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from the military?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, let’s talk about people that you’re talking about who have been brought to justice and captured. You’re talking about people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad; people like Abu Zubaydah.

Q I’m asking you –

MR. McCLELLAN: No, this is facts about what you’re talking about.

Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from rules that would govern the conduct of our military in interrogation practices?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are already laws and rules that are on the books, and we follow those laws and rules. What we need to make sure is that we are able to carry out the war on terrorism as effectively as possible, not only –

Q What does that mean –

MR. McCLELLAN: What I’m telling you right now – not only to protect Americans from an attack, but to prevent an attack from happening in the first place. And, you bet, when we capture terrorist leaders, we are going to seek to find out information that will protect – that prevent attacks from happening in the first place. But we have an obligation to do so. Our military knows this; all people within the United States government know this. We have an obligation to do so in a way that is consistent with our laws and values.

Now, the people that you are bringing up – you’re talking about in the context, and I think it’s important for the American people to know, are people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh – these are – these are dangerous killers.

Q So they’re all killers –

Q Did you ask for an exemption on torture? That’s a simple question, yes or no.

MR. McCLELLAN: No. And we have not. That’s what I told you at the beginning.

Q You want to reserve the ability to use tougher tactics with those individuals who you mentioned.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, obviously, you have a different view from the American people. I think the American people understand the importance of doing everything within our power and within our laws to protect the American people.

Q Scott, are you saying that Cheney did not ask –

Q What is it that you want the – what is it that you want the CIA to be able to do that the U.S. Armed Forces are not allowed to do?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not going to get into talking about national security matters, Bill. I don’t do that, because this involves –

Q This would be the exemption, in other words.

MR. McCLELLAN: This involves information that relates to doing all we can to protect the American people. And if you have a different view – obviously, some of you on this room – in this room have a different view, some of you on the front row have a different view.

This is where it’s different - Scotty basically said that the reporters (in the front row) didn’t know what the American people wanted, and were out of touch with Americans. The implication (not very well disguised) was that the reporters were being un-American.

Q We simply are asking a question.

Q What is the Vice President – what is the Vice President asking for?

MR. McCLELLAN: It’s spelled out in our statement of administration policy in terms of what our views are. That’s very public information. In terms of our discussions with members of Congress –

Q – no, it’s not –

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of our members – like I said, there are already laws on the books that we have to adhere to and abide by, and we do. And we believe that those laws and those obligations address these issues.

Q So then why is the Vice President continuing to lobby on this issue? If you’re very happy with the laws on the books, what needs change?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you asked me – you want to ask questions of the Vice President’s office, feel free to do that. We’ve made our position very clear, and it’s spelled out on our website for everybody to see.

Q We don’t need a website, we need you from the podium.

MR. McCLELLAN: And what I just told you is what our view is.

Q But Scott, do you see the contradiction –

The transcript shows a change of topic - in reality it went a little longer with the reporters getting more and more adamant that he “just answer the question”, and somewhat incredulous that he would say “ask questions of the Vice President’s office”.

Kansas education board downplays evolution

TOPEKA, Kan. - Risking the kind of nationwide ridicule it faced six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

The 6-4 vote was a victory for “intelligent design” advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Critics of the new language charged that it was an attempt to inject God and creationism into public schools, in violation of the constitutional ban on state establishment of religion.

All six of those who voted for the new standards were Republicans. Two Republicans and two Democrats voted no.

“This is a sad day. We’re becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that,” said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat.

Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said the decision would encourage school districts in Kansas and elsewhere to make similar moves, distracting and confusing teachers and students.

“It will be marketed by the religious right … as a huge victory for their side,” she said. “We can expect more efforts to get creationism in.”

Once again: the poor, the disadvantaged, and yes, the children are stuck in the middle of a stupid fucking power play.

Who wins?

Chalabi’s back in town.

• Mr. Chalabi Comes to Washington
• Washington elite bring Chalabi in from the cold

Remember this stuff?

• Did Iran Use Chalabi to Lure U.S. into Iraq?
• Iraq: Governing Council’s Chalabi, Iran Reject Espionage Charges

The guy’s a thug.

And then this: Tehran Backing Chalabi as Iraq’s Next PM
I really like this part:

“Asharq al-Awsat” learned that a former adviser to Chalabi who had fled to Iran after US military intelligence in Iraq accused him of providing the Iranian Revolutionary Guards with secret information about the US military and security presence in Iraq and Iraqi officials’ relations with former US Governor Paul Bremer played an important role in arranging Chalabi’s visit to Tehran and his meeting with the officials there, foremost of them the Iranian president, the foreign minister, and senior officials in Khomeini’s office, Iranian intelligence, and the IRG.

If George W. Bush is not an idiot, he sure has the impersonation down:

In the Company of Friends

President Bush last week appointed nine campaign contributors, including three longtime fund-raisers, to his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a 16-member panel of individuals from the private sector who advise the president on the quality and effectiveness of U.S. intelligence efforts. After watching the fate of Michael Brown as head of FEMA and Harriet Miers as Supreme Court nominee, you might think the president would be wary about the appearance of cronyism—especially with a critical national-security issue such as intelligence. Instead, Bush reappointed William DeWitt, an Ohio businessman who has raised more than $300,000 for the president’s campaigns, for a third two-year term on the panel. Originally appointed in 2001, just a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, DeWitt, who was also a top fund-raiser for Bush’s 2004 Inaugural committee, was a partner with Bush in the Texas Rangers baseball team.

Read the rest. I’m starting to wonder if the man’s even fucking sane!??

No! Oh no, no…. I keep forgetting. This isn’t stupidity or insanity or even poor management, it’s just a plain and simple FUCK YOU attitude. He’s in charge and he’s gonna do as he pleases.

All hail King George. [We should all “hail” him with something…..]

Tell a lies often enough and…

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
—President George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

occasionally the truth pops out. (Listen)

Mainstream News Media vs. America

It’s become increasingly clear in recent weeks that a second front has opened in the War on Terror. Now, not only is the United States battling Islamic terrorism and its state supporters, it’s facing another enemy. That enemy is the mainstream news media that is aided by its allies among so-called international human rights organizations, the anti-American left, and detractors within our own military, government and intelligence services who are leaking as much dirt as they can muster. The mainstream news media is doing all it can to defeat the United States abroad.

The mainstream news media for the most part has long had it out for President Bush as well as being transparently opposed to the war in Iraq. But beginning with the Abu Ghraib story, it started focusing almost solely on the U.S. military. The obsession with Abu Ghraib began a narrative in which U.S. soldiers were always the bad guys and the terrorists they fought just innocent victims of American “oppression” or even “imperialism.”

Once again the old cliche is born out: “Everything we needed to learn, we learned in kndergarten”. In this particular case, “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to hide”.

Why is it that “national debate” of the issues is only palatable to these fuckups when that debate is all their way? DoH! Once again, kindergarten had bullies too.

Hats off to Senator Reid. Nice move. Brilliiant actually.

Ignoring the smaller issues (Libby/Cheney) which the Republicans are trying to bury (Alito) and going right for the big picture: the calculated, deliberate lying about reasons and justifications for war.

This can only mean one thing - the Democratic leadership feels the Republicans are on the ropes and they’re gonna start pounding them. Well it’s about time.

But it’s good only of they’re going to follow through and really persue the issue - if they’re just after headlines and votes and are gonna let the whole affair languish and fade, then they’re just as culpable as the traitors they oppose.

The cancer in our government even now metastasizes - no branch or bureau is exempt. The Democrats have a chance to identify and cut out the main tumors. Let’s hope they rise to the occasion and join some of the great men this country has produced in the past.

To the Senators and Congressmen of this country, I blatantly appeal to your egos:

Greatness is earned, not bestowed by title, not purchased, but earned by deeds. To create a lasting legacy for yourselves, to be remembered by my great grandchildren as anything more than corrupt leaches, you must act now, quickly and swiftly to end the corruption and devastating damage this administration and the entire Republican party is doing to this country.
Being President will get your name on an exclusive list, but to turn the fortunes of this country - to restore our national name and reputation to the greatness once enjoyed by our fathers, that, that will get your face on a coin - a monument on the Mall.
So, if deep down you’re concerned with your political legacy (and you know you are) then take the chance, place the bet, show these bastards for what they are.

History awaits.

The Starr standard

Seven years ago, Ken Starr prepared a lurid report for Congress detailing his case against Bill Clinton. At first blush, it wouldn’t appear to have any relevance to the Plame scandal affecting the Bush White House, but I was reviewing the Starr report recently and something jumped out at me.

After he laid out the “narrative” of Clinton’s alleged transgressions, Starr wrote a section he called “Grounds.” In it, Starr details what he described as “acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.” There were 11 in all, most of which dealt with Clinton’s grand jury testimony and remarks during a deposition in Paula Jones’ civil suit. But the last of the grounds for impeachment went a little further.

* Beginning on January 21, 1998, the President misled the American people and Congress regarding the truth of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. […]

The President himself spoke publicly about the matter several times in the initial days after the story broke. On January 26, the President was definitive: “I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never. These allegations are false.”

The President’s emphatic denial to the American people was false. And his statement was not an impromptu comment in the heat of a press conference. To the contrary, it was an intentional and calculated falsehood to deceive the Congress and the American people.

Remember, when Clinton made those remarks, he wasn’t under oath; he was answering a reporter’s question. For Starr, it didn’t matter. Here was a constitutional officer lying to the country, on national television, about a subject that was under a federal investigation. Starr said this was, quite literally, an impeachable offense.

With this in mind, if there was evidence that a constitutional officer in the current White House had lied to the country, on national television, about a subject that was under a federal investigation, under the Starr standard, it too would constitute an impeachable offense.

Well, it just so happens….

In particular, I’m thinking about Dick Cheney, who claimed on Meet the Press in 2003:

“I don’t know Joe Wilson. I’ve never met Joe Wilson. A question had arisen. I’d heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa, Niger in particular. I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, ‘What do we know about this?’ They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, ‘This is all we know. There’s a lot we don’t know,’ end of statement. And Joe Wilson — I don’t who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.”

Patrick Fitzgerald’s indictment against Scooter Libby highlights just how little of what Cheney said was true. Despite his denials, Cheney requested and received a briefing on Wilson’s trip to Niger from the CIA.

Cheney also told Libby about Plame working at the CIA and may have advised Libby on how to deal with questions about Wilson during a July 12, 2003, plane trip on Air Force Two.

Am I saying that Cheney’s intentional and calculated falsehoods on Meet the Press are grounds for impeachment? No, I’m saying that they’re grounds for impeachment using Ken Starr’s standards.

Is Cheney a constitutional officer? Yes. Did he lie to the country? Yes. On national television? Yes. About a subject that was under a federal investigation at the time? Yes.

Don’t blame me; Ken Starr is the one who created the standard. I’m just wondering if it only applies to Democrats.