O. J. Simpson got his book title all wrong

He should have taken a lesson from Tom Ridge and called it I Considered Not Doing It.

12 years later, I am not surprised

I voted for a Republican for any legislative office, or for any federal or state office, exactly once. And it was because I couldn't pinch my nose with a big enough clothespin to be able to vote for his opponent. The Democrat really looked that sleazy.

It was in 1996, when I lived in Chicago. My district was heavily Democratic, but my US Representative was a Republican, Michael Patrick Flanagan. The only reason he had been elected 2 years earlier was that he had run against Dan Rostenkowski, who was indicted (and soon to be convicted) for mail fraud. I had no reason to vote for him other than that he seemed a lesser evil than his opponent.

The opponent's name? Rod Blagojevich.

Of course, Blagojevich won, with something like 2/3 of the vote, which is why I should file this under "I-told-you-so".

First they came..., 2008 version

First they came for the Muslims,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for Palestinian-Americans,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Palestinian-American.

Then they came for the atheists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a atheist.*

Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up I wasn't worth speaking up for.

*Well, of course I am. And therefore:

Elizabeth Dole is a stinking turd, but I really do not appreciate Kay Hagan for suing her. The premise behind the suit - that being called an atheist can be defamatory - is extremely offensive. Could I sue somebody for calling me a Presbyterian? If not, Hagan's suit ought to be summarily dismissed.

Let's make a clear distinction here. While Hagan's rebuttal ad is, in principle, also offensive to non-Christians, I understand a politician's need to address voters' concerns. It would be crazy to throw the election away to make a point. I want Hagan to win the election, and I won't object to her doing what she needs to win. The ad fits that role. But a lawsuit doesn't help to win the election. By suing Liddy Dole, she is in fact joining her in insulting all godless Americans.

Different-looking people out!

McCain's campaign is now officially fascist.

Of course, that's all Obama's fault. If he had agreed to joint town hall meetings, McCain would not be forced to call the police whenever a slightly darker-skinned person shows up.

My question to everyone who still intends to vote for McCain: Why in the world didn't you vote for Tancredo or Hunter in the primaries?

Cokie, you ignorant slut!

Actually, she is an ignorant jerk:

During coverage of the October 2 vice-presidential debate on PBS' Charlie Rose, Rose asked, "Did either of them make any mistakes that you noticed?" National Public Radio senior news analyst Cokie Roberts responded that Sen. Joe Biden "talked about the Bosniaks." Roberts later said: "[I]f [Gov. Sarah Palin] had said 'Bosniak,' everybody would be making a big deal of it, you know." In fact, Biden correctly referred to certain residents of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Bosniaks.

Why does Cokie Roberts have a job as a journalist? She is clearly not qualified to be a "senior news analyst" if she comments on things she knows squat about without doing any research. Actually, why does Cokie Roberts have any job at all? She is clearly not qualified to be a maid or a cashier if she lacks decency and respect for fellow human beings.

McPotemkin

Next time you read a newspaper and see a letter to the editor praising McCain or Palin, beware: it's probably fake.

What if Osama bin Laden is taping a message when we find him?

Should we let him finish before arresting him?

Apparently, the police in Jackson, AL, think so:

Police allowed Hopkins to finish his sermon before arresting him

WTF!? He is a murderer and (probably serial) child rapist! What is the point of the police waiting? So his holy message wouldn't be lost?

Looks like you can get away with almost anything in the name of religion, and even when you cross all bounds, you still get way more respect than other criminals.

UPDATE: Over at Pharyngula, many commenters think the police did the right thing because (1) Hopkins was not about to flee or commit another crime, and (2) he is only charged with those crimes at this point, not convicted. Those people are completely missing the point. Commenter karen (#31) has it right:

The police wouldn't wait for any other type person to finish his business before arresting him. This is just pandering to the woo.

The procedure for arresting a preacher must be exactly the same as that for arresting anyone else. If it is not, the police is violating the Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

UPDATE 2: It gets interesting. A comment by "Doug the Trucker" (#104) challenges my (and PZ's) view in a valid way:

OK, former LEO here.

We try to avoid creating a scene when arresting someone, especially if it in a public place where an arrest might stir up an even larger problem. From the description, Mr. Hopkins was in a controlled area, wasn't planning on fleeing, and was quickly arrested after the sermon. If there had been reason to believe he was armed, or was about to take off and run, then the officers would have moved in for an immediate arrest.

We try to do this for everyone, not just clergy.

If this is factually correct, I am ready to agree that the police did the right thing. But, for now, I find it hard to believe that the police would normally wait when arresting someone for murder.

UPDATE 3: Another police officer says this is standard. Well, I would hope it would be, but how then do we explain numerous accounts of SWAT team drug raids, high-speed chases, and so on?

Terrorism: right here, right now

Let's be clear: walking into a church with a shotgun and 76 cartridges, and shooting people because their congregation welcomes gays and because most people in it are liberal, is terrorism by any known definition of the word. There is no essential difference between Adkisson and a suicide bomber who blows himself up in a cafe because he believes the patrons' country shouldn't exist. That equivalence does not depend on Adkisson's sanity; many terrorists may be insane to various degrees.

So how do we fight this battle in the "War on Terror"? Do we send Rush Limbaugh to Guantanamo? Do we waterboard Ann Coulter? Do we listen to phone conversations of every subscriber to the National Review? The absurdity of those propositions is not out of line with current policies. The concept of a war against terrorism has always been absurd.

Terrorists are dangerous criminals and we need to approach them as such. At the same time, we also have to work on building a society that is not conducive to breeding and fostering terrorism. That's not a war, but a quest.

Hate is love. Ignorance is bliss.

What does a bunch of homophobic thugs do to a gay man?

They rape him.

What I'd like to know is how they achieved and maintained erection.

New York Times rejects truth as too partisan (episode # 4809785)

Americans must not be informed about the Iraqi Prime Minister's opinions, because that would make Obama look too presidential, too statesmanlike, and too respected. How will McCain compete then, and how will we have a close and exciting election that brings advertisement revenues to the big news media!? Brad DeLong has an excellent summary.

McImus for President?

OK, people, here is the pronouncement from the Politically Incorrect Gods.

The Chelsea Clinton joke was actually funny. Tasteless, rude, and crude, but funny. And "Bomb Iran" would have been funny, too, with a little better delivery. Those are fine jokes to tell your close friends while smoking pot. They just aren't something you should be telling in public as a candidate for political office.

On the other hand, the marvelous ape "joke" isn't even a joke; it's a splattering of vomit. If he really said that, it might have been more considerate of him to just puke on the audience.

The Gods have spoken.

McCain's Ministry of Truth

That John McCain said something stupid in a speech is a "dog bites man" story - not newsworthy at all. But when his campaign expunges the mistake from the video and the transcript of the speech...

Wait -- WTF? Back the video up, listen again, watch carefully. Oh, how interesting. Right before the sentence I'm listening for, there's this white line across the screen showing that they're skipping forward to the next segment of the speech. I guess maybe I DID hear it right; someone in the campaign who knows more about the Constitution than McCain apparently cleaned up his video for him.

...that's getting into quite serious lies-and-fraud territory, and ought to be in the headlines. After all, isn't this presidential thingy supposed to be about character?

Robertson Endorses Giuliani: History Repeats Itself

First time as farce:



And the second time again as farce:



For more detailed captions, see the first comment.

All Men Are Created... Stop Here, Say No More.

Bush believes people are created, but he has a problem with the "equal" part. Ed Brayton shows that the Libby commutation hypocrisy is even deeper than it looks.