What movie is this from?
Extra credit: What recent popular movie (last few years) was heavily influenced by this?
See the comments for the answer as well as a few more pointless trivia questions. I think I'm gonna do a weekly installment of this. God help you.
click here for the new...
FIVE BEFORE CHAOS HAS OFFICIALLY MOVED TO A BIGGER AND BETTER PLACE! PLEASE CLICK THE ABOVE BANNER TO GET THERE, AND DON'T FORGET TO BOOKMARK THE NEW LOCATION. THANKS FOR STOPPING BY!
FIVE BEFORE CHAOS HAS OFFICIALLY MOVED TO A BIGGER AND BETTER PLACE! PLEASE CLICK THE ABOVE BANNER TO GET THERE, AND DON'T FORGET TO BOOKMARK THE NEW LOCATION. THANKS FOR STOPPING BY!Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Free cigar to first hundred answers, call now!
Science Watch: More on Magnet 'Therapy'
If you've been coming here for a while you might remember this post I did last December about bogus 'magnet therapy'. I was poking around the 'Healthy Skeptic' over at CSICOP's website, and there was a brief article about magnetic shoe insoles. Guess what? They don't work any differently than the non-magnetic variety:
In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2003, Dr. Mark Winemiller and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, tested magnetic and nonmagnetic insoles on 101 patients with foot pain. (Fifty-seven patients received magnetic insoles, the others received regular insoles — and neither scientist nor patient knew who was getting what.)
After wearing the insoles daily for eight weeks, both groups of patients reported pain relief, but the run-of-the-mill insoles worked just as well as the magnetic variety.
The good news about magnetic insoles is that they can ease foot pain by providing cushioning and support — just like regular insoles. "If you're going to get an insole," Winemiller says, "I wouldn't bother with a magnet."
As I pointed out in my previous post on this, there's no concrete supportive evidence that magnetic fields affect the iron in the blood, which is the basis for many of the claims of the effectiveness of magnet therapy (see that previous post of mine for more on that). I can see why some people might believe it, because on the surface, it sounds like it makes sense. But it doesn't really work that way.
Christofascist Idiot Watch Update! Late Feb. edition
Is it just me or is the Religious Right a bit quieter since the November elections? Not quiet enough. A legislator in Tennessee is trying to force the creation vs. evolution debate into the forefront again, this time by having the state Education Commissioner answer, once and for all, whether there is a 'Supreme Being' that created the universe.
As the resolution is written, if Seivers does answer no to the first question - stating that the universe was not created by a Supreme Being - she would be offered "the General Assembly's admiration for being able to decide conclusively a question that has long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists, philosophers, theologians, educators and others."
But if she answers yes, or states that the answer to the creation of the universe is uncertain, then there is a follow-up question that must also be answered: Why is creationism not being taught in Tennessee schools?
Wow, how clever. They still haven't gotten over that monkey trial thing down there, apparently. Or grasped the definition of the word, "science", for that matter:
Finney said there is no doubt in his own mind that everything in the universe, including human beings, was created by a Supreme Being.
"There has never been any proof offered that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct," he said.
Uh, okay. If you say so. Curious how the article also gives us the intertwining of the words 'creationism' and 'intelligent design'. I thought ID wasn't religious? Who knew?
Next up, WorldNut Daily is reporting of the heads exploding over the James Cameron documentary about the alleged Jesus tomb thing. Brent Bozell, head of the right-wing crybaby media watch group, Media Research Center:
"Now it's the 'tomb' of Jesus," Bozell said. "What they're really doing is attacking Christianity. The title of the documentary ought to be 'Discovery Channel Says Christianity Is a Fraud' – but they don't have the guts to say it."
Knight told WND that the danger is that people will believe what they see. "We saw this with the 'Da Vinci Code.' People bought into the alleged historical accuracy of claims, made even in a work of fiction, so when a documentary comes along, posing as objective critical analysis, that means more people will buy into the absurd and unproven premise that Jesus was just a man and that his earthly remains have been found."
He noted that the "leap" of logic the film forces viewers to make is beyond belief. "All they can tell us is that two of the caskets in the crypt held remains that were unrelated maternally, then they take the giant leap of logic that these two people were married and they were Jesus and Mary Magdalene."
Apparently , Bozell fails to mention the 'leap' of logic it requires to believe the 'unproven premises' such as a man was born of a virgin and subsequently rose from the dead. And the idea that somehow Christianity is immune to criticism and ridicule is par for the course, as well. Seeing how true believers are reacting to this makes me wonder out loud... what piece of irrefutable proof that solidly debunks the Christian mythology would ever be believed by these people? I'm not implying the tomb is the one, but I think no matter how compelling the evidence may be on these kinds of things, there is no way that people will ever accept them, for their worlds would come crashing down if they did.
Finally, over at Smirking Chimp, Mel Seesholtz has a rundown on fundamentalist homophobia and hypocrisy, 'ex-gay' therapy, the 'Left Behind' video game (where players get to kill the non-believers in bloody displays of Christian love and tolerance), and a host of other things that are indicating a lot of trouble in the ranks of the Religious Right, including their ever-diminishing influence. It's quite an extensive good read, so check it out: 'The Hypocritical Christian Right is being "Left Behind"
Happy Wednesday, everybody.Seven Days and Steve West weigh in on SVR
In the newest issue, Seven Days asks the question: 'Is Second Vermont Republic Affiliated With Racists?' Yours truly gets in a tiny quote there. This is similar to the VT Guardian article in that it doesn't try to spin it one way or the other, just laying out the connections, which is fine. It's good that it's making it into print media now.
Steve West, the host of WKVT in Brattleboro, however, has a different perspective. His show hosted John Odum one week and then a frothing-at-the-mouth Thomas Naylor the next. Here's some of what he had to say:
In the opinion of this writer…………..Dr. Naylor’s press release/rant is paranoiac and mean-spirited, and does not indicate a person who is confident in his position. Someone who feels comfortable in their own skin can weather any kind of criticism, especially anything as “outlandish” or “presposterous” as the things Odum posted, and respond with a measure of cool and comparative aplomb. Now, I know that I can get pretty steamed, too, when I feel I’m being disrespected. But frankly, I don’t detect any disrespect in Odum’s words. Rather, I see someone bringing to light some information that should be pretty easily dismissed, if it has not credence.
Instead, I’m reading a vitriolic screed by a man defending his own anti-racism credentials (which have not been questioned), slamming the character of Mr. Odum (who he does not know), and implying that Mr. Odum’s employer should put a tighter leash on him.
No matter what the details of this discussion……….that’s just not cool.
Any hope of keeping the “moral high ground” that SVR and Mr. Naylor had prior to this phenomenon is gone. He has displayed some fairly childish “schoolyard bully” behaviors, and has entirely alienated at least one potential comrade to the SVR cause……….meaning me.
Well put, Steve. I'm tired of it, too. But SVR has really crossed the line and showed their true colors. Not gonna get this shitstink off of them for a while, if they do at all.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Odum steps back from GMD
If you're familiar with the VT blogosphere, you probably know this already, but John Odum, founder of Green Mountain Daily, has taken a leave of absence from blogging. Basically, his particular line of employment isn't conducive to him being a political blogger, as he invites controversy which sometimes may be at odds with the aims of his organization. Not cool, but understandable.
The latest controversy, of course, stemmed from Odum taking on the wingnuts at the Second Vermont Republic, when he drew attention to the fact that some of their advisory board members have concrete ties with Neo-Confederate organizations, and several are on the watchlist of the anti-hate group watchdog, the Southern Poverty Law Center. Interestingly enough, SVR has ranted and railed against the SPLC with the same attacks that the Neo-Nazis and white supremacists use, if that tells you anything. As I've reported below, SVR's guru Thomas Naylor made the incredibly stupid mistake of sending out a character assassination hit piece on Odum to many, many people, with the intent of causing him trouble at his job. One of the most telling parts in the letter was subsequently removed from the statement on their website...
Now, I don't want to give those people at SVR too much credit for this. Contrary to all the academics, they're not a particularly bright lot of people, as evidenced by the way they've handled this controversy... lies, evasions, lack of concern, and an almost megalomaniacal obsession with the idea that they're somehow relevant to all but a few people. If you read Naylor's hit piece, it sounds more like that of a cult leader with a rapidly fading grip on reality than the respected academic he's known to be,until recently. My point is, don't gloat over this too much, SVR guys... payback truly is a nasty muthah. And there were other forces at work here that had absolutely nothing to do with you. And don't be deluded into thinking that now that Odum's quiet for now that this story is going to disappear. You've just given yourself even more bad press (as if you needed any). And I'm certainly not going anywhere.
But anyways, back to Odum. GMD has and will continue to fill an important niche in the VT political blogosphere. There are a talented group of writers there, as well as many great diarists, so the good work that Odum started will continue. And if you haven't already, come on over and have a read. Post a diary. Help keep it going.
UPDATE: Other VT bloggers chime in...
Cathy at 802 Online
Charity at She's Right
Julie at Reason and Brimstone
Baruth at VDB
Alex at Rip and Read
Monday, February 26, 2007
SVR Update over at VT Secession blog
More from Rowley on the latest lies from Thomas Naylor and Co., plus some new information. It's interesting, since Naylor's smear campaign went public, how the apologists have suddenly become silent.
The path to finding Jesus....
...may actually have been found, in an archaeological site in the Holy Land.
Although the evidence contained in the film and book is hardly definitive, it is compelling. Inscribed in Hebrew, Latin or Greek, six boxes — taken from a 2,000-year-old cave discovered in March, 1980, during excavation for a housing project in Talpiyot, south of Jerusalem — bear the names: Yeshua (Jesus) bar Yosef (son of Joseph); Maria (the Latin version of Miriam, which is the English Mary); Matia (the Hebrew equivalent of Matthew, a name common in the lineage of both Mary and Joseph); Yose; (the Gospel of Mark refers to Yose as a brother of Jesus); Yehuda bar Yeshua, or Judah, son of Jesus; and in Greek, Mariamne e mara — meaning 'Mariamne, known as the master.' According to Harvard professor Francois Bovon, interviewed in the film, Mariamne was Mary Magdalene's real name.I have mixed feelings about this. Most importantly, one cannot rule out fraud, as the issue of the James ossuary illustrates. But if it turns out to be true, what will be the implications? This is basically saying that Jesus got married and had a child, didn't rise from the dead, and wasn't born of a virgin. And I realize many of you reading this are probably thinking, 'Yeah, it's not like we believed those things anyway, what's the big deal?'
Nothing in the film or book challenges traditional Christian dogma regarding the resurrection. But it could pose a problem for those that believe Jesus' ascension, 40 days after the resurrection, was both physical and spiritual. And, if further DNA testing were to link Jesus and Yose with Mary, it would call into question the entire doctrine of the Virgin Birth.
That's what I'm trying to figure out. There's pretty good odds that this could be for real, as Newsweek reports:
To calculate the odds, Mr. Jacobovici took the data to University of Toronto mathematician Dr. Andrey Feuerverger. Factoring in the commonality of these names in first-Century Israel, Dr. Feuerverger puts the odds of this tomb not belonging to Jesus and his family at one in 600.
Another estimate, commissioned by Dr. James Tabor, chair of the department of religion studies at the University of North Carolina, puts the odds at one in 42 million. "If you took the entire population of Jerusalem at the time," says Dr. Taber, "and put it in a stadium, and asked everyone named Jesus to stand up, you'd have about 2,700 men. Then you'd ask only those with a father named Joseph and a mother named Mary to remain standing. And then those with a brother named Yose and a brother named James. Statistically, you end up with one person."
But one can tell, even in the reporting, how much of a bombshell this could potentially be:
Good sense, and the Bible, still the best existing historical record of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, argue against Jacobovici's claims. All four Gospels say that Jesus was crucified on the eve of the Sabbath; all four say that the tomb was empty when the disciples woke on Sunday morning. "The New Testament is very clear on this," says Alan Segal, religion professor at Barnard College. "Jesus was put in a tomb that didn't belong to him and then he rose and there was nothing left."
"Good sense and the Bible?" Is Newsweek implying that doubting the historical accuracy of the Bible is somehow 'bad sense'? Are they implying that the resurrection is actually 'part of the historical record', as in 'actually happened?" So, if this story gets legs (as I'm sure it might be tough, considering how many reporters and news orgs won't want to touch this), be aware of the subtle spin that implies that the Bible is somehow accurate in all of this.
It will be interesting to see how true believers react to this. If they try to use it as proof of Jesus' existence, they're also going to have to accept that the supernatural stuff was a bunch of bunk. But it's not like that particular group tends to be swayed by 'facts'. They don't require evidence to believe what they do in the first place, so they might just ignore it. If it does turn out to be true, it's another argument to use against the literalists. I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this one.UPDATE: More here.
Monday Random Photoblog
Behold the eternal wisdom of the nose...
Driving towards Mount Washington last Saturday.
One of my next door neighbors.Here's to hoping it's a slow week.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Sunday Morning Sly
Sly and the Family Stone - Thank you Falletin' Me Be Myself, 1970, and Larry Graham on bass, too. Enjoy.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
SVR's Thomas Naylor has a serious problem with telling the truth.
UPDATE: In an incredibly stupid move, SVR has posted their attack piece on John Odum on their website. Before reading my post here, go have a look, then come back here. And let me know if you don't agree if it sounds more like the insane rantings of a paranoid demagogue than a well-respected (until recently) academic.
You know, when observing how the Second Vermont Republic is dealing with this ever-increasing scrutiny over their ties to Neo-Confederate organizations, the best comparison I can possibly make is to the tactics of the Bush Administration (ironic, considering how much the SVR rallies against the Bush-led imperialism). Straw man arguments, attacking the messenger, disingenuous innuendo, and bald-faced lies. Did Karl Rove lend them his playbook?
The latest outrage is a letter sent out by Second Vermont Republic's guru/leader, Thomas Naylor, to its members, which is basically a hit piece on John Odum, the Green Mountain Daily blogger who first drew attention to the story broken on the Vermont Secession blog. For an organization that likes to continuously attribute the motivations of its critics as coming from 'fear of the success of SVR (while completely ignoring that to many, SVR is merely a novelty or punchline), they're sure acting like they're the ones with something to be afraid of.
First, they relocate the Langdon St. Cafe appearance, out of concerns of 'risk' (as in the 'risk' of being questioned and confronted about the allegations). Now, they send out this letter. You'd need a Camel' s Hump-sized shovel to get through all of the bullshit in Naylor's letter. Now, Odum's more than capable of defending himself, but considering he's getting all of the heat and attention, and it's involving personal matters now, I thought it was best that I let those of you who are interested know about the latest lies from Naylor, because the SVR certainly isn't going to point you to this blog (but they sure do see to spend a lot of time here, reading).It's curious that FBC has stayed under the radar during all of this, considering the criticisms here on this site have been harsh, and for the most part, accurate.
1) Naylor states that anonymous blogger Rowley's 'only source' is the Southern Poverty Law Center (a credible source by any means, except if one is in one of the hate groups watched by the SPLC). Naylor offers no proof on this allegation whatsoever. Must have heard it from the ghost of Ethan Allen.
2) Naylor the gets into calling Odum a 'Democratic party hack' and, horror of horrors, a 'supporter of Bernie Sanders'. He then keeps insisting that Odum has a problem with the Lincoln revisionism and that he doesn't know the well-known quote from Lincoln about being okay with Lincoln not freeing the slaves to save the Union, (which one doesn't obviously have to be a Neo-Confederate to know-just a Howard Zinn reader). He also says that Odum thinks 'Abe Lincoln was their greatest president' and 'is vehemently opposed to peaceful secession." Once again, there is no record of this as motivated by 'objections to Lincoln revisionism', and Odum has been on record as stating the idea of secession as 'somewhat appealing'. Naylor is just pulling this one out of his ass.
3) He then goes on to somehow insinuate that Odum's non-profit workplace is somehow behind this. He accuses him of calling into the Brattleboro radio show last week on company time, in an apparent attempt to jam him up with his job. Problem is, Naylor's too lazy to look out the window, because there was a huge blizzard that day, and NOBODY went to work, including Odum. The fact that Naylor is resorting to these kinds of attacks (without even bothering to check the weather) is very telling as to who the 'scared' ones are in this.
UPDATE: The above thing about the calling in on the snow day was removed from the website, but not on the actual letter sent out. Here's the text from the original:4) He then cites that oft-cited poll (that nobody seems to be able to obtain specifics on) that 'found that 40,000 Vermonters support secession'. It's a bit misleading, considering that we can't find out exactly how many people were polled, but I'll bet it wasn't 40,000. And one poll doth not a movement make.
5) He once again defends the League of the South, Basani and DiLorenzio, while downplaying the racism rampant in the organizations these people associate. Remember , as SVR's Rob Williams said, 'they don't know and don't care'. He then goes off on some Bernie AIPAC rant. I guess that one plays well with those 'Zionist conspiracy' types who might be listening.
6) He talks about the VNN controversy... apparently there was some posts on the hate site, of dubious origin with DiLorenzio's name on them that I pointed out in the comments section of GMD. Since then, I and numerous others have acknowledged that their veracity may be in question (they're still there, as to not insinuate we're going back and doing some kind of whitewash). Naylor then accuses the 'the blogger' of a cut-and-paste fabrication. That may be true, but the 'blogger' in question is whoever put the posting on VNN, not FBC, Rowley, or Odum, as Naylor is trying to infer.
7) Naylor goes on to list his lifelong opposition to segregation and racism. I don't doubt his accounts on this. He then once again goes on with the blatantly false accusation that Odum has accused Naylor of being racist. Must be Ethan Allen's ghost again.
He wraps up with the laughable and by-now-tired notion, once again, that our motivations are because we somehow fear what this organization represents. First it implies we're in stark opposition to secession (once again, an outright lie), and second it implies that they're much further along in their goals than they actually are. Does he actually believe the words coming out of his mouth?
It would be nice if Naylor could actually point to some real example of these allegations, instead of listening to the voices in his head. Maybe he thinks you're too stupid to bother trying to figure it out for yourself.
I REALLY want to be done talking about this. I have better things to write about.The people who needed to know about this now do, and in the grand scheme of things, SVR doesn't really matter all that much outside of its supporters. But if Naylor's idea of a defense is completely sidestepping the issue here while lying his ass off, it's important you know about it. Hopefully, this will be my last post on this for a while, so those of you who in SVR who are checking this site religiously every few hours out of fear of some new allegation, rest easy. Go back to looking at Confederate memorabilia sites or something.
Friday, February 23, 2007
How's this for a big 'ooops'?
Truth is often stranger than fiction. Or at least funnier...
A man says he broke into an apartment with a cavalry sword because he thought he heard a woman being raped, but the sound actually was from a pornographic movie his upstairs neighbor was watching.
"Now I feel stupid," said James Van Iveren, who has been charged in the case. "This really is nothing, nothing but a mistake."
According to a criminal complaint, the neighbor told police that Van Iveren pounded on the door and kicked it open without warning Feb. 12, damaging the frame and lock.
"Where is she?" Van Iveren demanded, thrusting the sword at the neighbor, the complaint said. "Where is she?"
Brain hurt yet? It's 'Conservapedia!"
Funny story by way of Alien and Sedition:
Oh, this is going to be a hoot. Seems that Phyllis Schlafly's even-loonier son Andrew has finally found a solution to the rampant liberal bias ofrealityWikipedia. Introducing... Conservapedia! It's an encyclopedia of know-nothingism, Godly and patriotic:Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian "C.E." instead of "A.D.", which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance. Read a list of many Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.While I presume that there are more than a few conservatives who just find the damn thing embarassing, that's not going to stop us from having a little fun with it.
Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness".
Talk about an opportunity for shenanigans...
UPDATE: Another good post on this here.
Senator Lieberman, Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
Seems like there's more buzz on the possibility of Bush's favorite Senator, Joe Lieberman (CT-Party of One) picking up his toys and jumping the fence to join the Repugs (officially, that is - Joe's been unofficially one for a long time). Joe's been filling up a diaper load on a daily basis with his obsessive love of all things Iraq, not giving two shits to the overwhelming majority of his constituents who oppose the war.
The panic line seems to be that if Holy Joe jumps ship, he'll 'return control of the Senate to the Republicans'. Not completely true. At that point, it would be a 50-50 Senate, with Dickhead Cheney breaking any tied votes. But a point to ponder... considering the way the Senate has voted lately, and with Repubs jumping ship on Iraq quickly, the chance of 50-50 votes on anything is becoming extremely unlikely. The other concern is that if he did, there would have to be some new kind of power sharing agreement in regards to committees and such, as there was when Sen. Jim Jeffords left the Repubs a few years back. I can't remember where I read this, but I think that once the Senate rules are in place and agreed upon at the beginning of the term, they can not be changed, short of a supermajority. If anyone has more details on this, please leave something in the comments and I'll update it. But if that is indeed true, him leaving the Dems won't really do much in terms of shifting the power.
There are a lot of reasons for him not to make the switch. If indeed, the Senate rules stay in place, it's a damn good bet that he'll lose his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Considering it's the committee responsible for overseeing his buddy in the executive branch, nothing would be better than to get him out of there. He seems intent on not overseeing the President on anything, as evidenced by his response to investigating the Katrina debacle.
It's amazing how the mainstream media is spinning this, as evidenced by the garbage Time put out today on the matter:
If he were to jump ship, the ensuing shift of power to Republicans would scramble the politics of the war in Iraq, undercut the Democrats' national agenda and potentially weaken their hopes for the White House in 2008.What kinda horseshit is that? Lieberman has recently made it his life's work to undercut the Democratic agenda. By what stretch of the imagination would he somehow undercut it more in the GOP? And potentially 'weaken their hopes for the WH in 2008'? How? I thought that was Hillary's job. If the implication is that a McCain-Lieberman ticket would somehow have some chance in hell of winning, then methinks someone at Time's been spending too much time with the crack pipe.
David Sirota has a good take on how Joe jumping ship works out to be a positive for the Dems:
Democrats control the House, and as we've seen on the Iraq debate, a narrow majority in the Senate effectively stops that institution from doing anything. Thus, we have basic gridlock right now. Additionally, most believe that President Bush will veto any good legislation that manages to get out of Congress right now - meaning that gridlock is ensured by the White House. Throwing the Senate to the Republicans by one vote wouldn't change this gridlocked situation at all. Democrats would still have the House and filibuster-ready Senators to stop anything awful from getting to Bush's desk. Meanwhile, Democrats would still have investigatory/oversight power from their House chairmen...So those of you who are frettin' over this, don't. He's nothing but a liability to you Democrats. Him leaving would just hasten his demise into political irrelevancy. So relax. Heck, send him flowers if he does it. He'll need all the friends he can get at that point.
So, to sum up: I hope Lieberman switches because A) it would be advantageous for Democrats in the long-term B) it wouldn't hurt Democrats or progressives in the short-term, if Senate Democrats developed the spine to filibuster horrible nominees (admittedly an "if") and C) while he already is politically irrelevant in terms of actual power, Lieberman's switch would, finally, make him widely perceived as irrelevant, meaning that he would cease to have any effect on the national debate and that his melting, Emperor-from-Star-Wars face would stop appearing on my television set and freaking out my dog, Monty.
UPDATE: This on Media Matters:
As The Washington Post reported on January 5, Republicans would not be able to automatically reorganize the Senate if Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) were replaced with a Republican, effectively the same scenario as Lieberman caucusing with the Republicans:
Republican leaders decided not to seek special language spelling out the terms of a transition in case of a power shift -- say, if Johnson vacates his post and his state's GOP governor appoints a Republican to replace him. Under that scenario, power would effectively shift to Republicans, because Cheney would provide the tiebreaking 51st vote. But for Republicans to take parliamentary control, the Senate would have to vote for new organizational rules, a move Democrats could filibuster.
A similar scenario unfolded in January 2001, when a 50-50 Senate convened. In 2001, Democrats demanded a "kick-out clause" in organizing negotiations that would automatically scrap agreements on committee ratios and funding levels and force new organizational rules. But Republicans decided this month against a confrontation that would come from demanding a similar clause.
Second Vermont Republic Cover Story in the Guardian
They beat the Seven Days paper to the punch on this one. Good, balanced article from Christian Avard. Be on the lookout for more exploding heads.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Would Ethan Allen retreat? I think not...
As much as I was hoping to be done blogging on this, as the non-blog media will now be taking the reins on this soon, I have a bit more to report on the Second Vermont Republic brouhaha. They had some event scheduled at the Langdon St. Cafe in Montpelier to commemorate the 'day of infamy' when Vermont joined the union. Well, it appears they've moved it.
What they're not telling you is the reason it's moving to the cemetery is not merely because of the symbolic significance of it being the resting place of Ethan Allen. Apparently, due to the fact that the word is out on the SVR-Neo-Confederacy link (and no, I don't just mean 'web link' as they'd like you to think; I mean real human links), and that many people are not too pleased about it, the reliable word I've heard is that SVR considers an appearance at LSC too much of a 'risk' (as in 'risk' of people confronting them head-on about the controversy). A cemetery is ideal, because the dead don't ask questions. Gotta be able to suit up the Ethan Allen costume and keep up the facade... move along, nothing to see here. Sounds more like something Bush would do than Ethan Allen, eh? And of course, be prepared for a denial of the motivation behind the relocation. Like everything else in this controversy with these people, denial ain't just that river in Egypt.
So, anyways, if you're one of the pissed with questions, don't let the change in venue stop you. It's at Green Mount Cemetery on Colchester Ave. in Burlington, Sunday Mar. 4th at 2 pm. Show up. Ask questions. And then ask some more.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Michael Medved is a Dimwitted Asshole
I try to stay away from sites like Townhall.com and the like. The sheer amount of vapid stupidity there that wastes electrons is staggering and hard to deal with. You might know of the severely repressed pucker that calls himself Michael Medved. He's one of those types of cons that probably have lots of skeletons in their closet, of the Ted Haggard variety. You know, the kind that perpertualy, frantically obsess over where you're putting your penis (if you have one), especially if involves another penis in close proximity. In his latest column he talks about that NBA controversy that I'm vaguely aware of involving some ranting homophobic idiot NBA player. In his column, he gives us truly one of the meanest, dumbest things I've ever read that didn't come from WorldNut Daily:
Tim Hardaway (and most of his former NBA teammates) wouldn’t welcome openly gay players into the locker room any more than they’d welcome profoundly unattractive, morbidly obese women. I specify unattractive females because if a young lady is attractive (or, even better, downright “hot”) most guys, very much including the notorious love machines of the National Basketball Association, would probably welcome her joining their showers. The ill-favored, grossly overweight female is the right counterpart to a gay male because, like the homosexual, she causes discomfort due to the fact that attraction can only operate in one direction. She might well feel drawn to the straight guys with whom she’s grouped, while they feel downright repulsed at the very idea of sex with her.
James Taylor Quartet -J.T.Q. Theme
No, it's a different James Taylor than the one you're thinkin' of. Maximum funk. Check it out.
Wednesday Linkdump
Good news from South Dakota.. another abortion ban has been shot down. Now I won't feel so bad spending my money on my roadtrip out there this summer.
I'm one of those ones who wouldn't complain one bit if Hillary's campaign came down crashing and burning before 2008. Looks hopeful, thanks to her arrogance and complete lack of principles. Americablog has more.
Mitt Romney's asinine comment last week about how 'we need a person of faith running this country' has brought out some interesting agnostic reflections from Atrios here, here, and here, and Norbizness here and here.
Joe Bageant is one of my favorite social commentators. He's finally moved to Belize, and has a compelling narrative about it.
Finally, Matt Hubbard over at the Chimp gives us the lowdown on FOX News' lame-ass attempt at a show featuring hip young conservatives. Yeah, 'hip' and 'conservative' in the same sentence. Shame on me. Wonder how long that one'll be on the air.
Happy Wednesday.
A new link and some blaxploitation articles...
The events of the past week have me teetering on the edge of blogger burnout, so nothing big today. I've added another site to the 'film links' blogroll, 'Bright Lights Film Journal'.
Also, a few articles to give you some more background on the blaxploitation film craze of the early-mid 70's, here and here. Enjoy.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Camel's Hump
With all the seriousness around here lately, I realized it's been a while since I photoblogged. Regardless of how Vermonters feel about this whole SVR hooha, we can all take pride in the fact that we have Camel's Hump.
Naylor on WKVT AM-Live Blogging
I'm listening to SVR founder Thomas Naylor on the radio right now. The connection to the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission has been cleared up. It's his father, not him, so let me be clear that that has been put to rest.
That said, Naylor's quite the bullshit artist. He's saying a lot of things that aren't true. For example, he say that the SVR critics main problem with DiLorenzio is that we have a problem with his Lincoln revisionism. Bullshit. If you look around all of the coverage, aside from one or two posts in the comments section by someone not affiliated with the blogs in question, I can't find any of us taking issue with the Lincoln revisionism. Frankly, I could care less. He also goes on to say that we feel that the advisory board should all be Vermonters. Can't find anything on that. And of course, he's still got that big-headed 'we're doing this because we fear them' excuse. Saying that the critics of SVR are motivated by the fear that SVR is gaining serious momentum is like me saying that the reason I didn't hook up with all the hot girls in high school was because they were just afraid they couldn't handle my sexual prowess and stayed away. Puh-leeze.
Now he's getting into paranoid mode... odum's working for the official state agenda to dismantle SVR...Oooh... odum worked for Bernie.. that's damning, huh? Not very talented at character assassination.
After listening to this show, I really don't think Naylor is a racist. And I'm glad he had the chance to clear that up. But I do believe he turns a blind eye to it in the service of the greater cause. But he still sounded like this all caught him off guard, and he did bullshit quite a bit. He's pretty good at diversion and evasion. Green Mountain Collective doesn't get it either, according to Naylor. I think they do, and that's why they released that statement concerning SVR.
Science Watch: Teeth Grown in Lab
Here's an interesting one. Japanese scientists have successfully grown mice teeth from single cells:
They used primitive cells, not quite as early as stem cells, and injected them into a framework of collagen, the material that holds the body together.
After growing them, they found their structures had matured into the components that make teeth, including dentin, enamel, dental pulp, blood vessels, and periodontal ligaments.
They were "arranged appropriately when compared with a natural tooth," the researchers reported in the journal Nature Methods.
The teeth grew and developed normally when transplanted into a mouse, said Takashi Tsuji of the Tokyo University of Science in Chiba, Japan and colleagues.
This provides me with great hope, for hopefully I can soon grow a new stomach to replace the habanero-damaged one I'm currently using.
SVR: Dissension in the Ranks
The plot thickens... Vermont Commons contributing editor Robert Riversong has apparently been shown the door. It seems like the inner workings of SVR as not as democratic as they'd like us to think:
Among the stated goals of the SVR are "power-sharing" and "mutuality", code words for what most of us would consider democracy in its local, decentralist form. And yet the "co-chairs" of the SVR have chosen to exercise a rather exclusivist control over both the nature of the organization and it's public statements...SVR has occasionally rethought its mission and purpose, trying at one time to become an organizing hub for the kind of grass-roots movement that is the sine-qua-non of a successful secession trajectory. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, this effort collapsed and the SVR returned to being a "voluntary association" or, as Rob Williams has suggested, a "civic club".
The term "civic club" has always suggested exclusiveness to me (old white men lounging on stuffed chairs smoking their pipes), and the reality of the SVR at this time supports that perception.
Now, to his credit, Riversong has on numerous occasions voiced serious concerns about the certain advisory board members in question, and was not at all comfortable with the League of the South affiliation. Unfortunately, he still hasn't gotten over the delusional heightened sense of importance that seems to plague the organization:
Apparently the Second Vermont Republic (SVR), its sister publication the Vermont Commons (VC), and the movement-at-large toward peaceable secession is gaining enough traction and credibility that it is now being attacked by its erstwhile supporters - "progressive" groups and bloggers.
Uh, no, Robert. Get real. I supported SVR, but even then, I was well aware that most people either don't know about your organization, or consider it a fringe or novelty group at best. And many that do take it seriously are jumping ship because of this controversy. Heck, the mainstream media's reaction to this so far has been, "Who cares?" When I first heard about this story, the first thing that popped into my head wasn't, "Uh-oh, these guys might actually get somewhere. I better do something to stop them!" It was more like, "Wow, a lot of people (including myself) who support them might have an issue with this. I'd better make sure they're aware of it so they can decide for themselves what to do." I felt about as "threatened" as I do when I play with my cat.
The sheer, almost Bush-like hubris and incompetence, in particular of Rob Williams, in the handling of this controversy had led me to suspect that Williams and Naylor were primarily calling the shots. Riversong's latest writing lends credence to that, and should more controversy develop, as I expect it will, I'm not holding my breath that this brain trust of two will handle it any better than they already have.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Good Rude Pundit on Obama
Ok, I know I'm already breaking my promise to not mention Obama (and no, this is one VT blogger who is DEFINITELY NOT on the Obama wagon) but ya gotta check out the Rude Pundit with, 'Obama and The Bloody Toilets of the Right (All Women Edition)'. Maximum rudeness, as usual.
Second Vermont Republic Officially Responds... finally
Today, Second Vemont Republic put out an official response to its controversy regarding Neo-Confederates and such on the advisory board. Better late than never, I guess. Nothing really new. They brought up the fact that none of the critics 'bothered' to contact SVR about this - don't forget, the facts of this case are all in plain sight to see. They go on to explain why the certain people in question are on the board, more of the same thing we've heard from individual responders. They even make a comparison of Thomas DiLorenzio and Howard Zinn in regards to Lincoln revisionism (maybe they should have asked Zinn to be on the board and would have avoided much of this mess, eh?). And then they site that holy poll that said that 8% of Vermonters thought secession a favorable idea:
As a think tank and voluntary association, the Second Vermont Republic does not claim to speak for the 38,000 Vermonters – 8% of the population in the Green Mountains – who, based on the UVM Center for Rural Studies’ recent 2006 poll, seem to favor peaceable secession from the United States.Now, the only reason I bring this up, is that it seems to be a tad misleading. I (as well as a few others) have searched for the exact poll data in regards to this specific poll, and can't seem to find anything. I'm not questioning its existence, but its really heard to tout '38,000' if they only asked 500 people, isn't it? It's pretty safe to say that they didn't poll a huge amount, and SVR's membership, to the best of my knowledge, is a few hundred at best. So just keep that in mind. All through this debate, SVR has conveyed itself with an almost delusional sense of self-importance. Counter that with the majority of the public (and the press) that pretty much view them as a fringe or novelty. It's an awful lot of importance to put on one poll. Let's see if SVR itself has the support of 38,000 Vermonters once this story finally reaches the broader public (if they care at all).
I think the NEFAC statement with the demands was a sore point. They've asked for them in writing from NEFAC. Considering that some of the demands include the dismissal of the advisory board in question, don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen.
So, nothing really new here. There's still a few more shoes about to drop in this story, so it's not done yet. Stay tuned.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
SVR advisory board member defends League of the South ties
What is it with these people? Pride can be dangerous, bro. Kirkpatrick Sale, an advisory board member and director of the Middlebury Institute released a statement defending the ties to the Neo-Confederate group - the League of the South, and gets in a jab at the Southern Poverty Law Center, as well:
We accept the fact that there may be people in the LOS who have expressed intemperate and intolerant opinions—but of what group, we ask, could that not be said? (And the scare-mongering charges along these lines by the Southern Poverty Law Center have much more to do with its desire to squeeze money out of people made to be afraid of hobgoblins than by any genuine exposure of misbehavior.] Moreover, even if there are, as individuals, LOS people we could from our point of view deem racist, that would matter not one whit as to whether they were legitimate colleagues in the secessionist movement. It is irrelevant.You may also find that that SPLC bash he uses is one that is quite similar to the one Neo-Nazis and other people who reeeeally don't like the SPLC use all of the time. Coincidence? So I guess this is more of the same. Racist? We don't care. You may remember VT Commons editor Rob Williams last week, talking about SVR advisory board Don Livingston (another with strong Neo-Confederate ties):
Is he a racist? I don't know. And frankly, it is none of my damn business, at a personal level."Heck of a way to win friends and influence people in a state that prides itself on tolerance and diversity, eh? Great tactic. Do these people sound like anybody you'd like to lead our new independent republic?
Django Kill (Se Sie Vivo Spara)
Tomas Milian plays it mellow this time in 'Django Kill'Our latest spaghetti western is not 'Run Man Run', like I promised, but 1967's 'Django Kill', starring (like half of the other spag westerns I've reviewed) Tomas Milian, and directed by Giulio Questi. This particular film has a bit of a cult following because it's so damn weird, which I'll get into in a minute. And I should note, like at least 20 or 30 other films released in the genre, it has nothing to do with Sergio Corbucci's Django. The film was originally called "Oro Hondo", and it was also called 'Se Sie Vivo Spara (If You Live, Shoot!), but was changed to "Django Kill" for international release to cash in on the Django craze. Milian's 'Stranger' doesn't even have a name, as far as we know.
Quick synopsis: Milian plays a half-breed who, with some Mexican laborers, help some outlaws rob some gold from the Wells Fargo. Milian and the Mexicans are double-crossed, shot and left for dead. Some native Americans find the Stranger, and nurse him back to health, and also give him a bag of gold bullets. He goes and tracks down the bandits, which by the time he gets to the town that they're staying at, have mostly been hanged and killed by a mob in the town. The mayor and the alderman split up the bandits' gold. Chaos then ensues, as a group of gay cowboys (yup!) kidnap the mayor's son, to get the gold. They rape him (thankfully it's implied, not shown), he kills himself and a big shootout in town goes down., with the gold eventually melting all over the alderman's head, and nobody liveing happily ever after. There's also this weird subplot with the Stranger gettin' it on with the alderman's wife, who is locked in the attic and passed off as crazy.
Don't let the extra lump of brain matter at the back of his head fool you; he's not a bright one.Ok, now that that's out of the way... this one, as one reviewer put it, is noteworthy of being the genre's lone 'psychedelic, gothic, political, S&M western,' an appropriate description. The film has a strange surrealistic feel to it, with quick disorienting montages happening now and then, reminiscent of experimental Warhol-esque films of the day, and becomes more prevalent as the movie progresses. The Stranger has all sorts of strange flashbacks, and seems to obsessively wash his hands from time to time. Parts of the film have that scary, David Lynch nightmarish quality to it, or one of those acid-trip-gone-wrong vibes. And the gay cowboy gang is downright freaky, considering the genre. It's also pretty violent. There's an infamous scene where, upon realizing one of the bandits has gold bullets inside him from being shot, the townspeople literally rip him apart to get the gold out of him. There's also a scalping and tons of the fakest looking blood I've ever seen in a movie.
I'm not touching this one. You can put your own damn caption here.But, aside from the decidedly non-spaghetti western weirdness, this movie was pretty bad otherwise. The set looked like something from a western tourist-trap theme park. I had to watch it Italian because the English overdub was horribly acted. There's a scene in the saloon where a girl sings a 1950's-ish sounding jazz ballad (in the late 1800's). The scene where the Stranger is 'tortured' consists of him tied up to a plank while scenes of vampire bats(?) and iguanas(??) are cut to quickly, where it's obvious they're taken from some wildlife film, and are nowhere near Milian. I'm not sure because it was late when I watched it, but I think I actually saw a hand holding the iguana.
One of the better actors in 'Django Kill'
What was good? Well, this was a Blue Underground release, so it looked great and sounded pretty good. There was a few good extras with some interviews. And Tomas Milian's performance was pretty subdued, compared to the over-the-top overacting he seems to be fond of. So would I recommend it? I'd have to say, if only for the sheer strangeness and sometime-art-film feel of it, yes, with reservations, because aside from the weirdness, it's pretty C-grade stuff. Questi is no Leone.Friday, February 16, 2007
Dumb All Over, February Edition
Yeah, I know, two stupids in one day. Must be 'God's Will", right? Anyways, for a good laugh have a read of this at the Burnt Orange Report, about how Texas congressman and confirmed nutjob (I'm not going to tell you which party - you already know that one, don't you?) Warren Chisum (rhymes with 'jism') has circulated a memo to his anti-evolution buddies from.. hope you're sitting down... a group that not only doesn't believe in evolution, but dismisses Copernicus as well. Yup, the earth doesn't travel around the sun. Who knew? Have a look for yourself, it's called the 'Fair Education Foundation', here's what it says on the front page...
"An electromagnet and computerized sensor hidden in itsJeez, I'm surprised that they haven't accused Copernicus and Darwin of working for COINTELPRO, which seems to be the paranoid idiot one-size-fits-all excuse nowadays.
display stand cause the Earth to levitate in the air. Could God have engineered something like that for the real Earth? The Bible and all real evidence confirms that this is precisely what He did, and indeed: The Earth is not rotating...nor is it going around the sun. The universe is not one ten trillionth the size we are told.
Today’s cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as "science".
The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie.
Those lies have planted the Truth-killing virus of evolutionism
in every aspect of man’s "knowledge" about the Universe, the
Earth, and Himself."
Terminal case of the stupids...
You may remember Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA), the GOP blowhard who now leaves his Klan hood at home, but nonetheless wet himself over a freshman congressman, Keith Ellison (D-MN), who was going to be sworn in on the Koran instead of the Bible. Oh, the horror!
Well, just when you thought things couldn't get more ridiculous, as the Iraq war resolution was debated, the stench of xenophobic feces once again permeated the House of Representatives yesterday as Goode once again opened his mouth, as ThinkProgress reports:
When the commentary begins in the Middle East, in no way do I want to comfort and encourage the radical Muslims who want to destroy our country and who want to wipe the so-called infidels like myself and many of you from the face of the Earth. In no way do I want to aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country. I fear that radical Muslims who want to control the Middle East and ultimately the world would love to see “In God We Trust” stricken from our money and replaced with “In Muhammad We Trust.”Must be part of that plan we hear from the GOP abut reaching out to minority voters, I guess. I can only imagine what his constituents believe (or, what he thinks they believe).
Thursday, February 15, 2007
If you're here for the SVR stuff...
If you've come here because of the Second Vermont Republic stuff, and don't want to wade through silly videos from bands no one listens to and the other political rantings, click here for just the SVR stuff. And thanks for stopping in.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A word or two about the blogroll...
Maybe you've noticed the blogroll has gotten bigger lately. And if you've clicked around, you might be surprised at the political diversity of views on there, ranging from anarchist communism on one side to Randian objectivism on the other. I pretty much try to put up blogs I read on a regular basis, whether I agree with them or not. For example, 'Two Know It Alls' is run by a pair of objectivists, a philosophy I find in direct opposition to most of what I personally believe, but they're nevertheless two people with an exemplary sense of logic and language, and their commentaries on atheism are excellent. I'm turned off by the Dem-cheerleading of Daily Kos, but there's still a lot of good stuff on there. I disagree with just about everything Charity at 'She's Right' believes, but she's nice and I like debating her.
And of course, there's a few film links where you can find out more about the kinds of films I talk about on here, as well as some links to the somewhat limited-appeal music I like.
So, if you've been popping back in here on a returning basis (40-something percent of you are), take a minute and try something new on the roll there.
The SVR controversy: What it's really about.
Odum did an interview on a Brattleboro AM radio station this morning (podcast - here)about the Second Vermont Republic/Neo-Confederate controversy, which is, apparently, finally spreading around. He plugged FBC on the show a few times. For those of you checking in here, I'd like to clarify some things regarding my involvement and motivations in this whole thing, not because in any way I feel the need to defend myself, just simply for the reason of clarity.
Basically, other than picking apart some of the pathetic excuses some are offering in defense of SVR's ties with these groups, and spreading the word about it, that's really the extent of my involvement and interest. I've still got tons of schoolwork to do and shitty movies to review and my snowthrower bit the shit right at the start of this blizzard, so it's not like I don't have other places I'd rather put my energy. Really. Reading the racist garbage of The League of the South is not exactly my idea of how I'd like to spend an evening. The person to see for the factual information is 'Thomas Rowley' over at Vermont Secession, where one can read the facts, verify them themselves if they like, and make their judgment. He's been the one doing all of the digging. Green Mountain Daily, and to a lesser extent, this blog, have merely been trying to make sure the information gets out there, a well as provide a perspective of the complex forces at work here.
I just want to be very clear about something, since one of the main defenses so far coming from SVR/VT Commons has been to 'shoot the messenger'. I have no motivations or desire whatsoever to facilitate the demise of Second Vermont Republic or VT Commons. Up until this story broke, I was a supporter (though not a member) of SVR and a regular reader of VT Commons, and I have a great deal of respect for many of its contributors, such as Bill McKibben and Dan DeWalt, among others. My issue is simply this... if SVR is promoting itself as a peaceful, democratic organization that, among other things, lists in its principles: 'economic solidarity, equal access, tension reduction, and mutuality," but seeks advice from people with well-known ties to people whose xenophobia, free-market fundamentalism, anti-labor and racist views stand in direct opposition to said principles, that's bullshit. It's easy to say that, hey, if you're gonna get involved with and support an organization, it is your responsibility to do the research on them, and there is most definitely truth to that. But generally, when one seeks support from the anti-imperialist, grassroots progressive community, it's usually not a stretch to assume the organization shares the view of the community and would take a forceful stand against the opposing principles, not get into bed with them under the guise of 'advice', and furthermore, say those views are 'none of their business.' It's dishonest, and it stinks. Perhaps SVR's reluctance to take political stances on issues should have been a heads up, I guess.
I'm really surprised that this stayed under wraps for so long, considering the information was readily available for anyone who chose to look for it. I'm even more shocked at the responses and reactions from Jim Hogue and Rob Williams, two extraordinarily intelligent individuals that I've had a great deal of respect for until this happened. They should know better.
The other thing I've taken from all this, is judging from the reactions of some of the defenders posting over at GMD, is that there is a stronger right-wing contingent in SVR than more of us on the left ever imagined. When I see people who are somewhat familiar with the workings of the hate-filled Vanguard News Service ('No Jews, Just Right'), attacking the Southern Poverty Law center, and referring to Pat Buchanan's American Conservative Magazine, The New York Sun, and Free Republic as somehow being representative of 'mainstream media', that sets off some alarm bells to me as to the political leanings of the posters.
And that's fine. SVR is free to be whatever they want to be. There is nothing that says they have to be progressive, egalitarian, whatever. They just need to be on the level about it, and not try to rationalize, obfuscate, attack, parse and bullshit their way around it when some people take it upon themselves to alert the larger progressive community from which they draw their support. That's pretty much it, folks. There's not much more for me to do, and I'm glad about that. It's out there, and people will either stick with it or move on to better things. Maybe it will lay the groundwork for a truly progressive secession movement that the right-wingers would loathe to be involved in. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess.
Monibot in the Guardian on 9-11 conspiracies...
I've never been big on the more far-fetched 9-11 conspiracies (like the U.S. Gov't blowing up the Towers, etc. ) I saw 'Loose Change' and although it does ask some questions, much of the 'answers' stretch the limits of credibility. By no means do I buy the 'official story' by any strectch of the imagination, it's just that there are an awful lot of factors that would need to line up to buy some of the more adventurous theories, and when looked at on the macro level, they just don't add up, any more than the official story does. I think the truth lies somewhere in between... BushCo might have very well had prior knowledge, was extremely incompetent or both, saw how they could use it to their advantage (considering that this country reacts like a 4-year old child in these situations), and bam, there you have it. George Monibot in the lefty UK Guardian had this to say:
The next evident flaw is that the plot they propose must have involved tens of thousands of people. It could not have been executed without the help of demolition experts, the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre, Mayor Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains), much of the US air force, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defence Command, the relatives of the people "killed" in the plane crashes, the rest of the Pentagon's staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the CIA, and the investigators who picked through the rubble.Now before you jump down my throat and somehow suggest I'm working for COINTELPRO or something, remember, I'm skeptical about everything. I just don't let my Bush hatred get the best of my imagination. There are a bunch of unanswered questions, but there aren't exactly any answers coming to the forefront with any kind of irrefutable proof. I'm not satisfied from the official story any more than I am by the conspiracy theorists, for both explanations leave many more questions than answers.
The blizzard...
Not only am I reeling because of the 1 hour and 37 minutes of my life that I won't get back because I watched George Romero's 'Land of the Dead" last night, the snowthrower made a loud knock this morning and started pissing oil all over the place. Not good.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The First Domino Begins to Fall...
Now this is what 'having principles' looks like. Looks like Second Vermont Republic is about to lose the anarchists. Unless of course, they do a major purge of the advisory board.. Stay tuned.
Now Pander Bear McCain's with the Creationists
Think Progress is reporting that John McCain, in his perpetual bend-over for the GOP nomination, is delivering the keynote address to the Discovery Institute, the think-tank most responsible for getting the intelligent design assault on science into the public sphere. Problem is, like just about everything else McCain says nowadays, it's the opposite of what he's said in the past. Today:
McCain has an ambiguous record on whether he supports intelligent design in the science curriculum. In 2005, he said it should be taught:
Last year:Daily Star: Should intelligent design be taught in schools?
McCain: I think that there has to be all points of view presented. But they’ve got to be thoroughly presented. So to say that you can only teach one line of thinking I don’t think is - or one belief on how people and the world was created - I think there’s nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought.
Daily Star: Does it belong in science?
McCain: There’s enough scientists that believe it does. I’m not a scientist. This is something that I think all points of view should be presented.
“I think Americans should be exposed to every point of view,” he said. “I happen to believe in evolution…I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not.“About the only thing he's got going for him at this point is the people he's trying to pander to tend not to pay too much attention to hypocrisy, inconsistency, and fact-checking. Keep digging that hole, John. Gonna play well with the swing voters.
Lieberman thinking about jumping the fence?
Let's hope so. Apparently, there is a procedure in place that would not effectively change committee controls and such, should he choose to do so. And he would lose his committee chair position as well. The Dems need to flush Lieberturd. He's not one of them. And when the GOP loses more seats in 2008, he'll be just another insignificant blip on the radar, and he'll be done in CT in 2012 as well.
Monday, February 12, 2007
SVR Responds
Well, Second Vermont Republic has issued a response.
Short summary: it's about secession, not the racism. VT Commons' Rob Williams states : "some of our secession scholars - Don Livingston, for example - happen to be southerners. Anyone who has met and talked with Don knows the man is thoughtful and well-studied. Is he a racist? I don't know. And frankly, it is none of my damn business, at a personal level."
He doesn't know, and more importantly, doesn't care.
So, the long and short of it seems to be, 'Yes, there may be some racists on our advisory board but the advice they give in regards to secession is more important than the racism that many of these people associate with." Okay, I wonder how many Jews or people in the gay community involved in SVR feel about that. But, why disclose that information, right? We'll have to see. I don't think this is over yet.
Happy Darwin's Birthday!
Considering I've expended a considerable amount of mental energy on the Second Vermont Republic/white supremacist link this weekend, and also have a huge amount of reading to do for school right now, I'm pretty tapped. Maybe if you're nice to me you'll get a movie review in a few days.
Anyways, today is Charles Darwin's birthday. If you haven't already, have a look at the brief but good tribute by Darksyde over at Kos, 'Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin.'
Also, another piece that gives hope, about 'Evolution Sunday.'
And unlike Christmas, we know this birthday actually happened! Cheers!
Things You Won't Be Reading About On FBC
In an unprincipled, blatant shill to increase traffic, here's some things you won't be reading about here on FBC anytime soon...
Obama, dead Anna Nicole Smith, BB gun wielding/diaper-wearing astronauts, Thomas DiLorenzio's black friends (are there any?), Harry Potter, Obama, Obama, Obama (gotta try - this one's a hit getter!), and Hillary Clinton.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Now let's take a breather...
Ok, I promise that this Second Vermont Republic/Neo-Confederate story, as important as it is to Vermonters, will not dominate FBC's content for the upcoming future. I hardly see its appeal to Spaghetti Western fans visiting here from Japan or Spain, or those many people who seem to come here for Sam Harris quotes. And there's still a lot going on in the world of right-wing idiocy too important to be ignored. So as new developments come up, I'll be filling you in on them. Still nothing new to report, still no official statement or explanation from SVR. Vermont Seccession has more info on that nasty Thomas DiLorenzio character here.
Monday can be a whole new ballgame, however, as the news cycle picks up. Seems like Vermonters tend to be interested in things other than diaper-wearing astronauts and dead Anna Nicole Smiths.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
And the SVR saga continues...
This whole thing stinks. SVR was one of the first links I added to my blogroll a year ago. Too bad I had to remove it. My issue is not with one of secession, which I am in support of, nor is my issue with the many good people from the progressive community affiliated with SVR.
So, as this story picks up steam on GMD and the word spreads, I don't think it's looking too good for SVR. Last night, SVR co-founder Jim Hogue's head exploded, as he offered a rant of personal attacks, half-baked attacks against the Southern Poverty Law Center, and not much else. Conspicuously absent from his show of indignation was any kind of rebuttal of the charges against SVR. He could have explained why League of the South associate Thomas Dilorenzio is in a position of influence on the advisory board at SVR (more on DiLorenzio from the guy that broke the story in the first place, here). But he didn't.
And if you read through the comments over at GMD, there's a few apologists for the presence of this element in SVR. Apparently, the only 'advice' sought was on matters of secession. Apparently, it must be hard to find advice from anyone NOT affiliated with some sort of neo-Confederacy group. Who knew? Here's what one of the organizations DiLorenzio is affiliated with, the League of the South, (one of the few sites SVR links to), looks like:
Now, on this fine site, if you're not blinded by gratuitous appearance of the Stars n' Bars, one can, among other things, purchase fine literary works such as 'Myths of American Slavery', 'The South Was Right', and 'We Sure Pulled a Fast One on Those Vermonters, Didn't We?' Not sure on the release date on that last one.
DiLorenzio' s revisionist history on Abe Lincoln is also a favorite of the Council of Conservative Citizens, another neo-Confederate group, whose manifest, among other things, states:
(1) We believe the United States is a Christian country.Now, of course he didn't write this, he's just affiliated with this group in some tangential way, and seemingly has their respect and admiration. So did Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond. Perhaps DiLorenzio shares this vision in the form of 'advice' to SVR? And who was okay with that? Who knows? How can we tell? SVR's defenders won't give us anything other than vague apologist claptrap, so how can we know? The sound of the crickets is deafening.
(2) We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people.
(8) Cultural, national, and racial integrity.
We oppose the presence of homosexuals and women in the military services and especially of women in combat roles.We therefore oppose all "sex education" as well as so-called "multiculturalist" and "Afrocentric" curricula, "Outcome-Based Education," and similar radical indoctrination in the schools.We believe in the traditional family as the basic unit of human society and morality, and we oppose all efforts by the state and other powers to weaken the structure of the American family through toleration of sexual licentiousness, homosexuality and other perversions, mixture of the races, pornography in all forms, and subversion of the authority of parents.
UPDATE: Defenders of the SVR-LoS connection continue to do a fantastic job of effectively NOT refuting the charges, while attacking the messenger, saying GMD is 'scared of you thinking outside the box' (what box? the tolerance box?). Okay. Doesn't sound like GMD is the one that's scared, though.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Second Vermont Republic has ties to White Supremacists
I've always been interested in the Vermont secession group, The Second Vermont Republic. The idea of leaving a partnership that includes such enlightened places such as Alabama has always been a rather inviting one. They've made some substantial inroads into bridging a gap between the lefty-left crowd and the libertarian right. But something's not right. Although I'm kinda shocked that it's been under the radar for so long, SVR has some serious ties to figures in the white supremacist movement. There's a LOT to this story, so instead of giving you dribbles and drabs. just check out the full story over at Green Mtn. Daily, it's a bombshell.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Free Speech Alert: Something Smells Funny at the U.N.
I'm generally a supporter of the United Nations, and the concept behind it. I also understand why certain conservatives hate it so much. And I'm well aware it's not a perfect institution, understandable, considering the monumental task its purpose serves. I think if our government took it more seriously, we wouldn't be in this pickle we're in right now,and our standing in the world would be much higher than it currently is. Generally, I find most of what they do to be benign, and I'm certainly not afraid of some world government conspiracy horseshit like some wingers are. So, before you read on, know that I come from this as a liberal (if ornery)secular humanist who holds freedom of speech in the highest regard, not as some 'New World Order/black helicopters outside my window' kinda guy.
However, I came across something by science writer Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars that was quite disturbing. Apparently there has been a U.N Resolution proposed, for 'Combating the Defamation of Religions', voted on two years in a row, now (it's the first resolution on the page):
The Commission adopted by a roll-call vote a resolution on combating defamation of religions (E/CN.4/2004/L.5) by 29 in favour, 16 against, with 7 abstentions, by which it welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism entitled “Situation of Muslim and Arab peoples in various parts of the world”; expressed deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance in some regions of the world; urged States to ensure equal access to education for all in law and in practice; expressed deep concern that Islam was frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism; noted with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; and expressed deep concern at programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at the defamation of religions, in particular when supported by governments.The Commission also urged all States, in conformity with international human rights instruments, to take all appropriate measures to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance, and acts of violence motivated by religious intolerance; urged all States to ensure that all public officials in the course of their official duties respected different religions and did not discriminate on grounds of religion; strongly deplored physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship of all religions; called upon the international community to initiate a global dialogue to promote a culture of tolerance based on respect for religious diversity; called upon the High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote and include human rights aspects in the Dialogue among Civilizations; and requested the Special Rapporteur to examine the situation of Muslim and Arab peoples in various parts of the world with special reference to physical assaults and attacks against their places of worship, cultural centres, businesses and properties in the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001 and to submit a progress report on his findings to the Commission at its sixty-first session.Now, at first glance it seems like there are some noble aims here, for example, preventing discrimination of religion and such. And it was obviously drafted in part, to concerns from Muslim nations. The Western nations and a few others voted against it. Ironically, many of the nations in support of it have abysmal human rights and tolerance records, as Brayton points out:
All Middle Eastern states except Israel voted for the resolution? Can that be serious? We're going to ask the opinion of Saudi Arabia, where schools routinely teach that Jews and Christians are pigs worthy of death, whether we should pass a law forbidding the defamation of religion? We're going to ask nations full of people who burn down synagogues over cartoons drawn halfway around the world and who believe that someone who converts from Islam to Christianity should be put to death whether religions can be criticized? We're supposed to care what China, a nation that has all but destroyed Tibetan Buddhism and routinely locks up and tortures Christians and Muslims, thinks about our laws on religious freedom?Now, although I don't necessarily agree with Brayton's sweeping over-generalization of Muslims (much like Sam Harris does), but he does have a point. I couldn't find Israel's name under the yeah, nay, or the abstention, so I'm unclear as to where the notion of where Israel stands on this. Last May, Dr . Robert Freeman wrote some crazy stuff in an op/ed the Jewish Times, shortly after the Danish cartoon controversy:
Now, this is a touchy subject, aside from political correctness issues that some may have with it. This is one of those rare issues that many people on the left and the right are in support of, although for different reasons and different perspectives. You can easily see that in one of the links that he links to... it's a rightie whose opposition comes not only from free speech issues but equally rooted in that right-wing distaste for all things U.N. But he does make a good point:In order to rectify the situation, and to prevent a future crisis of this type from erupting, what is needed is a "code of conduct" for the newspapers and other media in both the Western and Muslim worlds. All governments must agree that the negative depiction of religion is "out of bounds," and penalties should be imposed on those who violate the code of conduct.
The problem, of course, is to determine the difference between legitimate criticism of someone who acts in the name of a religion, and the negative depiction of that religion.
To solve that problem, I propose the creation of an International Religious Court, composed of Christian, Muslim and Jewish clergymen with one clergyman representing each of the three religions. Anyone feeling that his or her religion was insulted could appeal to the International Religious Court for a ruling on the matter, and the court would then determine whether a penalty should be invoked. It would be the responsibility of the government on whose territory the action took place to impose the penalty.
Prohibiting the dissemination of xenophobic ideas aimed at any religion that constitute incitement to hostility — sounds like a pretty broad proposition. It would cover many atheist criticisms of religion generally; many secularist criticisms of fundamentalist Christianity (or Islam or Judaism); condemnation of religious groups that are alleged to be cults or scams; many theological criticisms of a wide range of religions; many pro-gay-rights or pro-women's-rights condemnations of religions that are seen as hostile to gays or women; and much more.And that, regardless of where your ideological chips fall, is not a good place for us to be in. And once again it ties into that whole modern, outspoken atheist thing that Harris, Dawkins, and (rather feebly) I keep trying to get out there: why should religion be exempt from criticism? Let me be very clear: as much as I have a distaste for all things religion, I would never support any violence or discrimination in any way against any one because of their religion, any more than I would based on their race, gender, sexual orientation or other things of that nature.
But as you well know, some religious people believe some pretty crazy things, sometimes harmful, sometimes harmless, but nonetheless irritating, They are not immune from being asked to defend their claims and belief, and yes, uncivil as it may seem, they are not immune to criticism or even ridicule. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution about having the right not to be offended. It's a really slippery slope to slide down if something like this were to be implemented, and this is one of those instances that I think, although there are good intentions behind it, the U.N. is wrong on this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
