Tuesday, July 31, 2007


Yawning. I don't get it. Why do we do it? Who knows? The idea that it helps get oxygen to your brain makes sense, because it does seem to wake me up. But I often yawn when I don't want to be more awake, so that's kind of annoying. I'm not the early to bed kind of guy anyway, and don't need for something to come along and wake me up just as I'm finally getting tired.

But looking at the Yahoo mainpage, I saw this story teaser for an ABC News video:
New research challenges the common theory that yawns are triggered by a need to replenish oxygen.

And what is this new theory? Brain air conditioning. This yawn expert of theirs maintains that we yawn when our brains overheat and need to cool down. He went on to suggest that, far from being an insult showing boredom, yawning actually shows that the person is so interested in what you're saying that they need to cool down. It's my guess that this theory was first suggested to him by one of his lab assistants who kept "overheating" every time this guy spoke.

And while I'm willing to acknowledge that this theory is possible, I have some real problems with it. Most of all, why do we yawn when we're tired and inactive, and not when we're active and hot? You'd expect to see joggers doing it all the time, if heat was the issue. Or during the middle of the day, when you're really busy. But no. It only seems to happen when you're really bored or tired, and would seem to be a way to make you more active, not less so. Like your brain is shutting down and needs a breath of fresh air to awaken it. And that would fit in with the traditional explanation of yawns. At no point in the story did they explain this obvious contradiction, or even suggest that it was a mystery.

And does yawning happen in overheated brains and do yawns cool them off? I have no idea. But based upon the feeble research they showed in the video, this researcher doesn't know either. When I first saw the story, I expected to see fancy MRI scans or thermal imaging or something. Instead, the research involved people watching videos of yawning people while holding hot or cold things to their heads. And he found that people holding hot things yawned and people holding cold things did not. And while that is scientific, I was kind of hoping for something a little more. You know, like showing hot brains being cooled off by yawns and cold brains not wanting to yawn.

But no matter, ABC News is convinced. After the segment, their witty news people sat around discussing the issue as if it's now settled fact. Finally, yawns are solved. Have these people no idea of how science works, that they'd allow one dude who calls himself a yawn expert to dictate the answer based upon one test? I don't know if that yawn expert considers the issue absolutely closed, but those news people sure did. Is it really any wonder these people were so easily convinced of the need to allow the Bushies to do whatever the hell they wanted? All these people care about is finding the answers. They could care less if the answers make any sense.

And wow, I forgot what I was missing with television news. They started the segment with a pointless voice-over while showing funny movie clips of people yawning. Because I had no fricking idea what a yawning person looked like. But that's not why they showed it. They knew that my attention span was much too short to watch such a hard hitting news story like this without at least a half-dozen funny clips to keep my attention. And The Simpsons, they yawn too. How important. I can't believe all the time I waste reading news at Talking Points and Carpetbagger, without getting even one funny voice-over movie montage. No wonder all my political opinions are so unserious. Not enough hilarity.

No New Toilets!

While I certainly agree that flush toilets are a huge waste of water and think we need to rethink the idea, I have some issues with this article on better toilet alternatives.

Regarding composting toilets, which use no water and would require us to cart our own crap out:
The technologies remain relatively unpopular because people in developed countries are programmed—and their houses and cities are built—to flush it all away. "Perhaps sometime in the future," said Quitzau, "people in Western cities could accept the idea of using human urine and feces as resources instead of as wastes."

Until then, the unsanitary stigma will haunt some of the modern replacements for water-flushing toilets. Quitzau says composting toilets are unfavorable because, although much improved technologically, they still remind people of ancient, unappetizing waterless technologies, such as the earth closet or outhouses.

And no, the problem isn't that I'm a toilet water snob (in fact, I happen to find all toilets to be unappetizing). The problem is that I don't like the idea of having to store crap in my house or having to cart it out the door and take it somewhere. This isn't about some imaginary"unsanitary stigma". This is about the very real issue of having crap in my house. And I've got two poopy teens and a little booter living with me and have noticed in them a distinct penchant for avoiding chores. So I've got a pretty good idea of who Mr. Crap Carrier would be. It'd be me. Daddy Crap Carrier. "Sorry kids. I'd like to play, but I've got to take out your crap." Thanks, but no thanks.

The article really makes it seem like this is just some silly superstition that got us to start flushing our crap into sewers. But it isn't. We have plumbing because we needed plumbing. We live in cities and cities have too many people for us all to be storing our crap up. And while I suppose this isn't quite so urgent for country folk, I don't think they like the idea of carting their crap around either. This isn't an issue of snobbery or stigma or anything. This is about convenience and not wanting to deal with stinky crap. I have no problem using a new kind of toilet, just as long as I don't have to do anything with the crap afterwards. (And no, squat toilets are not acceptable either.)

Oh, and what is this about:
While drinking-water shortages plague millions in such places as India and in some African nations, Westerners continue to oppose alternatives to the flushing toilet.

Am I missing something? Do we export drinking water in mass quantities? If not, then how is this relevant? Even if we switch to better toilets, the Indians still can't have our water. We'd just use it for longer showers, greener lawns, and more lavish waterparks. But if they want our precious tap water, they can buy Aquafina like everyone else.

And no, once we switch over to their beloved waterless technologies, the article never mentions where my cats would get their drinking water from. How typical. Everything works perfectly well, until you remember the cats.

Monday, July 30, 2007

Master Debater

I can find a way of making all your arguments sound wrong, silly, and stupid. That means that you're wrong, silly, and stupid. Sorry, you'll have to do better next time.

Sunday, July 29, 2007

To the Extreme

As we all know and expect, Republicans constantly attack liberals for having extremist positions. But why is it they only seem to be able to do so by focusing on unknown liberals who are unrepresentative of most liberals (eg, Ward Churchill), or by inventing absurd positions that bare no relation to our actual position? You'd think if we were such oddball extremists it would be easy to find mainstream liberal views that people actually have.

I mentioned the other day Condi Rice's reference of liberals who think terrorism didn't start until after Bush invaded Iraq, and now we go to Carpetbagger with this quote from Giuliani:

“I’m for victory,” Giuliani said. Democrats, he added, are “living in a world where they refuse to admit the existence of Islamic terrorism.”

Huh? What liberal denies the existence of Islamic terrorism? As Carpetbagger says, our argument has always been that Bush was doing a bad job fighting terrorism. Specifically, that we thought the Iraq War was not only a distraction from the fighting terrorism, but that it was making things worse. And just as our Vietnamese opponents didn't follow us home to attack us after we left their country, the Iraqi's won't follow us home either. They just want us out of their country and these aren't the people who were attacking us before we invaded.

Now, this is a debatable point, I suppose. They could argue that this war is different and that these people will follow us home. I have no idea why they'd wait until we left, as an attack on us in America would be far more effective than attacking us in Iraq, and that having our soldiers in Iraq is not preventing that. In fact, I think we're an easier target with the troops in Iraq, particularly when we consider the extra money we're tossing away there that could go towards securing the homeland. And if Al Qaeda wants to attack us, I don't see why they'd wait until after we left Iraq.

But regardless, in no case are we ignoring this threat. You can disagree with our plans for dealing with the threat, but you can't pretend we don't have one. Yet that's exactly what Rudy's doing. And he's doing it because that's what the GOP base wants to hear. But that's not what they need to hear. In fact, it only pushes them deeper into crazytown. And the more they hear this claptrap, the further from reality they become.

That's why it's so difficult for us to talk to conservatives. They have absolutely no idea what we're talking about and their basic assumptions are completely whack. And how can they win arguments if they don't even understand what we're talking about? And so these people continue to push further to the right while imagining that everyone else is shifting left...except they've been told that it's only the "extremists" who disagree with them. But that's no real difference. They think anyone's an extremist who doesn't agree with them. They're just not willing to admit to how big a group that really is.

So they have to doubt the polls and scratch their heads and invent more and more extreme excuses for why people aren't agreeing with them. Media bias. It's the internets. Whatever. They know who the extremists are, and it's the people their leaders say they are. And the guy who gets to be their next leader is the guy who will tell them the most extreme lies about us. That's been working for their current leader, who now polls consistently around 30% approval. Maybe the new guy can push it all the way down to 20%. After all, there's nothing more extreme about your enemy than having a lot more of them.

Friday, July 27, 2007

Why Doesn't Anyone Tell Me These Things?

Wow. I just read a post over at Hullabaloo and apparently war is hell. I had no idea.

Too bad for us that democracy's such a lousy idea that we can only force it on people by gunpoint. Oh wait, no. It was the terrorist groups who use America's aggressive foreign policy as a recruiting tool that we needed to blast to kingdom come. Or whatever. I like to watch things blow up. If only my mysterious knee injury hadn't prevented me from joining...

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Blood for Ghraib

Hey folks. Been busy lately so I haven't had much time to write, but just wanted to remind everyone about how much I truly hate Bush, America, and everything good and holy. Additionally, I hope the troops all die, our media continues to fool Americans, and that our partisan-based obstructionism finally begins to prevail. And don't forget about my cowardly obedience to my Islamofascist masters. Sure, liberals traditionally oppose theocracies, but that's just due to self-loathing of our white Christian heritage. And yes, I have been reading rightwing blogs today.

Oh, and here's my Quote of the Day:
The Iraq War was a godsend for the American left, something they'd have had to invent if it hadn't happened on its own.

That's right. It happened on its own. And oh, what a godsend! After all, we don't really care about human suffering. We just like to make America look bad. I guess that would make Bush the ultimate godsend.

Damn. I just read the source material, and got another good quote:
I recall watching the smoke from the towers late in the day, exhausted from stress and emotions I could scarcely identify, and thinking, "They'll never be able to defile this."

Yes. On 9/11, a conservative was concerned that mass destruction and death might be defiled; and now believes that we did defile it. This brings up the obvious question: What planet are these people from and how do we send them back?

P.S. I still hate baseball, mothers, and apple pie; though my hatred of democracy has waned somewhat since I discovered that Bush really wasn't so crazy about it either. Dictatorships sure sound a heck of a lot better, until you realize that he might be the dictator. I can't wait for the Islmofascists to take over.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

Friday, July 20, 2007

Why Bush Invented Terrorism and the Ideology of Hate

Has anyone ever suggested that terrorism didn't exist before Bush took office or that certain radical Muslim groups didn't hate us? Of course not. I've even spoken with a few truly wacko liberals in my time, and I have no doubt that even they would agree that radical Muslim terrorism existed before Bush came along. For anyone to even suggest that anyone believes such a thing should be considered an utter insult to the intelligence of anyone forced to listen to such drivel.

So how is it that the Bushies continue to argue against such absurd strawmen? It was mindnumblingly dumb the first time they said it, and it hasn't gotten any more intelligent with age. Hell, I somehow imagined that the Bushies had dropped it. But lo and behold, I made the mistake of flipping to my local NPR station yesterday, forgetting that they don't play music at that time of day, and caught the tail end of an interview with Condi Rice making that very stupid argument.

She wasn't even sly about it. She came right out and stated that, despite what Mr. Liberal Strawman argues on a daily basis, terrorism existed before Bush and these people have always hated us. And that meant that Bush isn't to blame for all the anti-American terrorism that his actions created. And what did the interviewer do after Condi said that? What else: she thanked Condi for coming and wrapped up the interview. Or maybe it was a dude interviewer, I can't remember. I was too busy trying to pick the pieces of my brain off the windshield and seats.

And is it at all possible that the interviewer didn't know what a pile of crap Condi had just laid on his/her listeners? I honestly don't know. But even if they did, they very well couldn't correct Condi about it. Why, she'd never come on the show again. It's one thing to make a minor factual error or have an honest disagreement about something. But there's a point of imbecilic obtuseness that one reaches after which it simply isn't polite to talk about it. Like when some homeless guy tells you about the invisible mouse cars flying on your head while pissing himself. And you can't do anything but nod, smile, and look for the nearest exit. This kind of thing happens all the time. It's just not supposed to happen when talking to the Secretary of State.

Neo-Cons Say the Damnedest Things

And really, isn't this one of the key ways that the neo-cons have succeeded as well as they have? They say the most damnedest things possible and just blow everyone's mind. Their material is so completely screwball and they say it so confidently that the listener begins to question their own sanity. After all, how could such sane looking people be so entirely wrong? But they are. They're entirely wrong. And the human intelligence just has trouble dealing with that and decides to split the difference.

And for all the tough talk liberals give about the media being fools for buying into the neo-con arguments, don't you believe it. Cheney didn't get where he is by fooling idiots. He's a tough cookie, and if you faced him in a boardroom discussion, you'd probably get your ass handed to you. For as crazy and wrong as he is, there's unlikely to be anyone who would think you won the debate. The best you could hope for is a draw, and you should thank your lucky stars for that. Same goes for Condi. You'd start off feeling confident, but when facing people who don't give a damn about the truth and have a penchant for taking arguments which are entirely unpredictable and mindnumbing; you'd be left entirely speechless and frustrated. That's how they do it.

But it goes beyond that. People have a weakness for being polite to people they like. And being polite means not crapping on someone's parade when they disagree with you or say something stupid. Even in the blog world, you're likely to slam some dude much harder in his comment section than in the personal email exchange that follows. And it's even harder in person. And that's why Condi was allowed to repeat such tripe in a national interview. Not that the interviewer necessarily believed Condi's idiocy, but simply that it would be too rude to even ask her about it. The nicest thing they could do is to end the interview, and that's exactly what happened.

And really, isn't that what my complaint is? If Condi had a better argument, she'd have made it. I don't expect her to admit defeat right there on NPR, so I guess she had to repeat that lame argument. But it was for no effect whatsoever. She convinced no one with her argument; nor did she offend anyone she hadn't offended long ago. So my real complaint is simply that NPR didn't embarrass her by asking her to explain what she was talking about. Does she really believe that terrorism can't be made worse by our actions? That's entirely idiotic. And she'd have just stalled for time while insisting that her point was entirely sensible. And then it would look like they were harassing her.

But again, I understand why they couldn't do that to her, so I guess I don't know what my complaint really is. I guess I'm just showing off how I know everything and just wanted to mention that these fools are still making these foolish arguments. But I guess you probably knew that too. Sorry for wasting your time.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Closed Thread

This thread is for members only. Non-members will not be permitted to view this discussion.

Member Only Hint: I'm not Mitt Romney.

Late Update:
Two non-members have already had their non-member access to this blog cancelled. Please don't make it a third.

Biobrain Not Biobrain

I've got another confession. And this one's a biggie: I'm not Doctor Biobrain. The person you know and love as Doctor Biobrain is an actor I hired to play me on my blog. His real name is Fredrique Stomplebum, an old vaudevillian I used as a facade to give my blog more legitimacy. I even have a picture of Fredrique Stomplebum portraying Doctor Biobrain, though I'm not at liberty to display this picture as it would hamper his ability to find gainful employment on vaudeville. The picture shows Mr. Stomplebum at my keyboard, typing my blog posts, while wearing a silly hat. The hat that you, my loyal readers, have been imagining me wearing all these years. In short, I'm a total fraud.

But it goes further than that. Mr. Stomplebum has also been writing my blog posts. That's right, all of them. And he's not even Doctor Biobrain when he does so. When he writes these posts, he does so as Pernicious Pete, a somewhat angry liberal who takes vengeance on the world by writing analytical "Big Picture" posts with a mildly biting satirical flair, along with somewhat shorter absurdist material intended as filler. Truth be told, I've never written anything on this blog. Even this post was entirely conceived by Mr. Stomplebum while I sat on my couch across town eating Doritos and watching Sanford & Son. It's the episode where Lamont preaches at Fred for being rude to his bald Latino friend. And let me tell, I'm enjoying myself much more than if I were at some stupid keyboard typing some idiotic confession I could care less about.

But the deception deepens. You see, there is no Mr. Stomplebum. Stomplebum was merely a literary device I created in an attempt to expand my marketing potential. I know this sounds crazy, now that my blog has become such a cornerstone of the absurdist liberal blogosphere in the greater south-central Austin area, but in the early days of this blog, I had trouble attracting readers. Nobody seemed interested in reading yet another liberal blogger rewriting Digby's material. So I secretly created Mr. Stomplebum to anonmously write as Pernicious Pete as a way of giving a certain je ne sais quoi that was apparently lacking from all the other unknown Digby thiefs. And because nobody knew about any of this, I could continue to pretend to write as Doctor Biobrain while all the real credit went to my imaginary braintrust which continued to act as the public face for Doctor Biobrain that no one ever saw.

And this, of course, leads me to my final confession: I'm Doctor Biobrain. I really am a CPA with his own home-based bookkeeping firm in Austin Texas, and I really am married and have a few kids which I rarely ever write about. And I and I alone am personally responsible for all of the writing you see here at this blog. So all the deception and sham you never knew anything about was nothing but a deceptive sham. And I'm truly ashamed of the whole thing. I wanted to tell you much sooner, but decided it was best to continue with the charade, lest people begin to suspect I'm weird for having created multiple levels of anonymous personalities. And I was probably right.

And so to sum up: Doctor Biobrain is a non-existent actor writing as a fictitious entity as a means of fooling no one into not realizing that they weren't reading the real Doctor Biobrain, which is exactly what everyone thought they were seeing in the first place and really were. Is that clear?

Oh, and in other breaking news: I'm really not the leader of the potentially phony Iraqi front of the non-Iraqi Iraqi resistance not lead by someone who may have been killed, captured, or invented; depending on the particular needs of any given government which has or hasn't the picture and/or DNA of the person in question who might never have existed, depending on whether or not you believe the supposed word of someone who may have been tortured...or not. And for those confused, read this.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Confession Time

I schtup Chilean Sea Bass while rubbing falafels on my tuckus. I can't help it. It's my one weakness. Well, that and writing absurdist blog posts mocking political gossip mongers. But in any case, this makes me as bad a person as anyone alive.

And in case you were wondering: Yes, these are all consenting Sea Bass; though I generally have to sedate the falafels first. Don't knock it until you try it.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Simply the Best

As it turns out, I really am the best blogger in the world. Go figure. I thought it was just hyperbole.

Serving Justice

I just read of yet another case of a guy who’s about to be executed who is probably innocent. And the thing that always gets me about these cases is that the police and prosecutors really don’t seem to give a damn that they might be letting a guilty guy get away with a crime. They all firmly believe that bad guys should be punished for their crimes, but when it comes down to it, all they really seem to care about is that they got someone for the crime. And now that they’ve got someone, they’ll be damned to let him go.

Here’s one of the villains in this article:
Georgia officials insist that Davis' failed 2004 federal court hearing is proof he has had his opportunity in court with the new evidence. "They've had a chance to challenge the conviction," said David Lock, chief assistant district attorney in Chatham County, where Savannah is located.

And if you read the article, you’d know that he’s most certainly lying. Because the reason the federal court dismissed his case was because of a law pushed by Newt Gingrich in the 90’s which denied federal courts the ability to hear these cases. It wasn’t that they heard the new evidence and dismissed it. It was because the law forbid them from even considering it.

And this guy most certainly knows that, but doesn’t give a damn. And sure, I’d prefer that he be concerned over the fact that he might be aiding in the murder of an innocent man. But you’d think he’d at least be angered that they might not have caught the guilty guy; who is possibly still on the loose and dangerous. But no. He’s got his guy, and that’s all he cares about.

Filling a Hole

But it’s not just this guy. It seems that once police and prosecutors decide that they’ve got the right guy, they refuse to look at anything that might exonerate that person. And that includes fighting requests to have DNA evidence examined on old convictions. They just don’t want to hear it. It’s like watching Perry Mason and the prosecutor refuses to drop the case after the guilty person confessed. I’m sure Perry kept a gun in his briefcase for just such an occurrence. And yes, that’d be my favorite episode.

But again, even if they don’t care about hurting innocent people, they should at least consider the fact that they’re allowing guilty people to roam free. But I guess these people don’t work like that. Fighting crime is like filling holes. Fill the hole with someone who sorta fits, and move on to the next hole. And if the square peg doesn’t fit into the round hole, just keep hitting.

And I can understand that. When people’s lives are in your hands, it’s probably easier to not consider them as real people. It’s just another job. And it’s got to hurt to truly contemplate that you might be ruining the lives of hundreds of people; so it’s just better to pretend that it’s not happening.

Oddly enough, after I wrote this, I happened to read Wikipedia on Henry Lee Lucas, the Texas “serial killer” who once confessed to over 3,000 murders, many of which he couldn’t possibly have committed. Apparently, after they forced him to confess to crimes he might have committed, police started using Lucas as a clearinghouse for all their cold cases, as a way of getting them off the books. At least two bright police officers actually got him to confess to invented crimes as a means of testing him. Yet his handlers refused to consider that he was lying, or that their role in coercing him to confess may have been a bit problematic.

Eventually, the Lucas thing became such an embarrassment that he became the only guy that then-Governor Bush saved from the death penalty. Hell, that’s almost as big of an honor as getting 3,000 murders attributed to him. I wonder if he got a framed copy of Bush’s commutation letter.

The Job

But this was just an extreme example of what we keep seeing again and again. Our law enforcers really aren’t that concerned with enforcing the law. Sure, they’d like to get the right guy. And they sure want to believe they got the right guy. But when it comes down to it, they just want somebody. And anyone convenient will do. And once they’ve gone through all the time and trouble of catching someone, by god, they want that someone to stay caught.

Criminal defense attorneys often take a lot of flak for defending obviously guilty people, but that’s their job. They’re hired to give someone a good defense, and for as much as that’s a rotten thing, that’s just how our system works. Everyone deserves a good defense; even the scumbags.

But prosecutors do the same damn thing, and most people don’t seem to mind. Just as a defense attorney’s job is to defend their client, a prosecutor’s job is to prosecute that client. But at a certain level, the prosecutor also needs to back away from the case and really decide if he’s got the right guy, and I don’t think they do that enough. They get caught into the trap of wanting to win a case because they want to win, and aren’t really thinking of the consequences.

As with too many of us, our jobs become some sort of abstract thing that is achieved for its own merits. Waiters who think their job is to be tipped and teachers who think their job is to enforce rules and be obeyed. As an accountant, I do that same thing. Amounts of money that I personally would find thrilling to have and devastating to lose have no real meaning to me when I’m punching away at these numbers. But it is real money and this stuff has real consequence, and I have to make an effort to remember that. My job isn’t some abstract thing involving numbers. This is real stuff that affects real people.

And with prosecutors and police, it’s all the more real. This shouldn’t be about closing files and filling holes. This should be about separating the good guys from the bad. And sure, they’ll never get everything right. But they’ve got to try. And it doesn’t end once they decide to prosecute, or even when they get that conviction. They’re never really off the hook.

And I can certainly understand why they wouldn’t want to think about that. But that doesn’t let them off the hook. Their job isn’t prosecuting people and closing cases. Their job is to serve justice. And when they close a case by locking up the wrong guy, they’ve committed two offenses against justice: Injuring an innocent man and allowing a dangerous one to roam free. It might help them sleep better at night, but it only endangers the rest of us.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Why Bush Sucks

Carpetbagger has a post on Bush’s response to a good question on Bush’s use of blaming “al Qaeda” for the attacks in Iraq.

As Bush said:
Al Qaeda in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And the guys who had perpetuated the attacks on America — obviously, the guys on the airplane are dead, and the commanders, many of those are either dead or in captivity, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But the people in Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq, has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And we need to take al Qaeda in Iraq seriously, just like we need to take al Qaeda anywhere in the world seriously.

To which Carpetbagger says “Bush has to know how misleading this is.”

But the thing is, I’m not so sure he does. Because I know a few people like Bush, and they really do believe absolutely insane crap that they should have no business believing. Things that are provably false, which have been explained to them repeatedly, yet they continue to believe it.

Even passively, they take these insane falsehoods as proven fact. Not because someone tricked them into believing it, but because they want to believe it. In fact, they need to believe it, in order for their lives to make sense. They’ll even misinterpret what they’re told and insist that what they heard is what you said. And even if you’re able to convince them they’re wrong, their brains will quickly lapse back into believing what they wanted to believe in the first place.

For example, nobody wants to believe that they’re a bad person (excepting, perhaps, Dick Cheney). But they also don’t like doing the things that are required of good people. So instead, they rationalize that the bad things they’re doing aren’t bad. It’s ok to allow poor people to starve and suffer and die early deaths, because they somehow deserve it. Because what you have is what you deserve to have. And that’s also why people who were born wealthy will convince themselves that they were “self-made” and earned it all; even as their inherited fortunes solely dwindle away due to their incompetence.

And the basic problem is that they really don’t have that sense of truth that the rest of us have. It’s not a character defect or poor parenting. It’s just how their brains work. Not that this is necessarily unique to them. We’re all familiar with the tricks our brains play to make sense of things that don’t make sense. Optical illusions and whatnot, which work when our brains connect things that aren’t really connected.

But of course, the real problem is that they believe crap in the first place and refuse to rethink any of that crap. They’re selfish people who can’t think about people who aren’t on their team. And you’re only on “their” team as long as your interests coincide with theirs. But because they can’t see themselves as being bad people, their brains continue to rationalize these things by demonizing anyone on the other team. Sure, they don’t want other people to suffer, but dammit if those people didn’t do something to deserve it. And it doesn’t matter what that something is. They’ll believe whatever they need to.

And I’m convinced that Bush is like that. He believes what he wants to believe, which is whatever he needs to believe to keep going. In this case, he needs to believe that staying in Iraq is the best thing to do, and he’ll believe and say anything to make that happen. I had more to write, but it’s 3:30 in the morning. I really need to start writing earlier.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

The One True Liberal

This isn't anything new, but I just wanted to reaffirm the fact that no liberal can accurately consider themselves to be true liberals unless they openly state their continued allegiance to me and send me money. That isn't to say that these false liberals aren't capable of aiding the liberal cause, but only that they represent no true liberal ideal and are just wasting their time. And if you've got a problem with that, tough shit. You're the bozo screwing around while the true liberals are working our best to please our liberal god, Karl Marx. So get with the program and stop being such a putz, or you can just burn in Capitalist Hell!

If the Pope can do it, why can't I?

Alcohol 4 Jesus

Why doesn't anyone tell me about this stuff? The Supreme Court ruled against the Bong Hits 4 Jesus dude??? What the hell? That's entirely ridiculous, and I say that as someone named "Doctor Biobrain". I knew the wingnuts on the Supreme Court had no standards, but...my god, this is insane. Thanks a fucking lot, Washington Punditry. Roberts and Alito are great guys. This is awesome. We've got complete freaks in charge of the highest court in the land and there's nothing we can do about it.

The first time I heard of this case, I put it in the no-brainer category. I couldn't even believe it had gone to trial, let alone all the way to the Supreme Court. I'm a bit torn on the whole free speech in schools thing, mostly believing that kids have it, though I can understand the opposing side. But on a public street for a non-school event? That's just retarded. So retarded, in fact, that I'm now stuck to resorting to excessive exclamation points !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

And we're stuck with these freaks for how long? Until they die? Who was the ad wizard who came up with that one? And jesus christ I hope the remaining leftists on the court are taking their multivitamins and wheat bran. Sure, it's unlikely that the Senate Dems would allow another fruitcake through, but I'd rather not take any chances.

Oh, and I hope nobody will mind me giving a big FUCK YOU to Ralph "Dipshit" Nader for doing more than any single individual to bring this about. Even Bush and Rove needed a team of marketing zombies to perform their job, and it was entirely understandable why they did what they did. But Nader? He was supposedly on our team. Hell, I even voted for him, knowing that my Texas vote wouldn't cost Gore anything. But Nader didn't give a damn about my vote. He just wanted to screw the Democrats. And now we're all screwed.

Consistent Messages

And talking about idiots, I read this quote from the school district's superintendent:

"My concern is that [the court's ruling] could compromise our ability to send a consistent message against the use of illegal drugs."

Huh? Schools are now expecting the students to send messages that are consistent with the school's message? What universe is this person from? I could understand if this was a school employee with the bong hit message. But a student? And what exactly has been the school's stance on bong hits and Jesus? It's been awhile since I was in high school, but I don't remember the subject ever coming up. But perhaps that's just me showing my age.

I did like Justice Stevens argument on this:

Admittedly, some high school students (including those who use drugs) are dumb. Most students, however, do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate, and most students know dumb advocacy when they see it. The notion that the message on this banner would actually persuade either the average student or even the dumbest one to change his or her behavior is most implausible

Indeed. But perhaps the wingnuts on the Supreme Court have a little more insight into how influential dumb advocacy can be.

And just to show that it wasn't for vain, I'll repost the banner here:

And can there be any doubt that this banner encouraged far, far more pot smoking because it became a famous court case? Though I suppose it was all done by people who were going to smoke some anyway. But isn't that always the case?

Sunday, July 08, 2007


Everything's getting better tomorrow, I swear. And if it doesn't, there's always tomorrow.

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Another Carnival Victory!

What can I say, Biobrain did it again. That’s right. Yet another big carnival win, this time for the appropriately named Carnival of Truth. Yes, I am the best.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

The War on the Fourth

Well, it’s Fourth of July again, and what can I say. I’m sorry. I have yet again let you down in our eternal quest to end the Fourth of July forever. For as important as killing Christmas is in our goal to banish goodness from the world, obliterating this abominable date from our calendar is clearly the bigger fish. The Fourth of July stands for freedom and liberty and for the independence of mankind. Yet there will still be apple pies eaten today and fireworks fired. It’s enough to make me vomit.

And so I take today’s continued celebration of this day to be a giant wake-up call. I didn’t do enough. Sure, my series of 364-Day calendars have been big sellers in some liberal enclaves, as have my America-bashing history textbooks. But there’s only so many ways to describe Washington and Jefferson as Homosexual Islamocommies before you begin to wonder if it’s really getting through.

So that’s why I’ve decided to take this to the next level: Boycotts. I’m making a list of all the stores which sell Fourth of July paraphernalia in order to stage boycotts of them come next Fourth of July. List in hand, I’ll be sending letters in early June to each of these vendors, warning them to not sell anything even remotely connected with the Fourth of July on that dreaded date. That includes fireworks, hamburger meat, watermelons, beer, and of course, apples for apple pies. By the time I’m done, there won’t be a store open on the XXX of July.

But I need your help. I need each and every member of my loyal readership to immediately start searching out these offenders. Look in every nook and cranny of the world of merchandising. Leave no store unturned. I want names, addresses, and phone numbers. And don’t take their word for it. Insist on seeing all their merchandise. And don’t be afraid to raise your voice. Vague threats are a good way of letting people know you’re serious.

And the best part of all: At the end of the day we’re staging a huge firework burning. That’s right. I’m gathering together all the fireworks I can find, tossing them in a big pile, covering them with gasoline, and lighting those suckers up. That’ll show the little SOB’s.


Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Mea Culpa Time

Ok. It happened. I was wrong about something. Something big. That’s right. I got my Scooter Libby pardon prediction entirely wrong. Here it is: No pardon for Libby. That’s right, I misunderestimated Bush yet again. As I said in March, “with everything else falling apart for the Bushies right now, they won’t possibly risk a pardon.” Oops.

Needless to say, I had the arithmetic completely backwards on that one. Because with Bush’s poll numbers so low, they figured they can’t go down any more. And prison is so unseemly. So the Bushies did an old-school lobbying push on the DC Establishment and hit all the right notes. And with their buddies in line, they figured they had nothing to lose by getting rid of the prison time.

But of course, all this was yet another rationalization from Uncle Dick. And if Cheney needed the decision to go the other way, he would have convinced them of that too. Funny how that works out. The facts always seem to align themselves with whatever Cheney needs to have happen. I guess some people are just lucky that way.

But unfortunately for Dick, he’s had to rely on the “We Can’t Go Any Lower” rationalization too many times. Because that’s all he’s got. He can’t argue from a position of strength, because he doesn’t have any. So he’s now down to telling Bush about the future Americans who will recognize his greatness, because there are so few alive able to do so with a straight face.

Losing the Base

But even worse: The Can’t Go Any Lower argument is entirely false. Bush can always go down further. Believe it or not, even Republicans have their breaking points, and this is just going to be another heap of straw dropping on that poor elephant’s back. I’m not at all suggesting that Bush will drop below the 20’s just because of this, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see the lower poll outliers become even more constant from this.

Sure, the Bushies will be claiming this as yet another sweeping victory for their team. And hell, they might even believe it this time. But this isn’t going away and is yet another indefensible act no one wants to defend. And the last people wanting to defend them are Bush’s already beleaguered allies in Congress. While Bush’s political retirement is inevitable, many of his defenders would prefer to not tie themselves so closely to Bush’s fate. While it’s quite unlikely that Bush will be forced to uncommute Libby’s sentence, he has made himself even more radioactive from his actions.

If nothing else, just read this sample of fiery rhetoric issued from various mainstream Dems. The Bushies have given even right-leaning Dems like Hillary a leftie-rousing club to beat Republicans with. For as much as habeas corpus and Iraq are dangerzones to any “serious” presidential candidate, this Libby thing can be a lot of fun; even for a moderate.

Oh, and as a side note: At this point, there is no one who wants to support Bush. People support Bush because they have to support Bush. Even Bush wouldn’t support Bush, if he wasn’t Bush. Who would? No one. I am quite confident that if people were to objectively answer if they would support a president like Bush, his approval would be no higher than zero percent. And possibly lower.

Fingers do the Thinking

And just to be sure, I actually started doubting my prediction while I was writing the last paragraph of that post. As I wrote: These guys are like the mob and protect their own. Stay loyal and they’ll take care of you. And if you don’t stay loyal…they’ll take care of you. With these guys, loyalty isn’t a choice; but it sure does pay.

Now I’ve got a confession for you people: I often don’t think this stuff out before I write it. I usually will read a news story or blog post, think an opening line or two, and just start typing away as fast as possible. I usually have no idea what I’m going to write until I write it and often learn new stuff as I type. That’s how I do my thing. I let my mind wander and it goes wherever it wants. Some people call it luck, but I call it genius.

And so when I wrote that last paragraph, I began to wonder how that wouldn’t mean that they’d pardon him. But I was so proud of my contrarian prediction, I decided to stick with it. It just sounded right, even if it didn’t quite mesh in my head. And now I know that my fingers were smarter than my brain and I should have just gone with the direction they were pushing in; though this does not mean that I’ll soon be Doctor Biofinger. That just sounds gross.

And in any case, the rest of the prediction was obviously spot-on. Whether or not Libby served jailtime, he was going to be taken care of. And it’s just a matter of time until he’s the elder statesmen called in to save George P. Bush’s butt from that “misguided” invasion of France. And all the DC Establishment will shout a hardy hurray that a grown-up such as Scooter has come to fix everything.

Oh, and I was also totally wrong about Digby being a dude. Oops.