EFFin' Unsound

Post by Carl

Yes, I’m aware that this is a couple weeks old. I’m also aware that it’s super nitpicky. But shit’s important.

Bruce Chapman likes to imagine himself an expert on global affairs. So he constantly writes about elections in far off countries. But his expertise in foreign affairs is just as make believe as his expertise on evolution. A couple weeks ago, in discussing the upcoming British election, he had this to say:

The last time the Liberal Party constituted a majority in Parliament was in the 1920s when it was eclipsed on the Center/Left by Labour. Since then the Liberal ticket has been a kind of retirement home for protest voters and those too fastidious to back a party with a real chance of governing.

The last time Liberals had a majority was 1918. David Lloyd George was a Liberal PM until 1922, but from the 1918 election on, he was in charge of a coalition that was majority Tory.

Now, I claim no expertise, and I fuck a lot of things up on this blog and elsewhere. But that’s just the thing. I knew that was wrong when I read it, and unlike Chapman, I don’t pretend that I’m some sort of expert on world affairs. And, I’m sorry, but if you don’t know that Liberals haven’t had a majority since they lead Britain into WWI, you probably have no place commenting on the history of the Liberal Party in British politics.

Post by Carl

I don’t have an opinion on the Trib not running a Charles Krauthammer piece about Washington Nationals baseball. But I do think it’s an amusing coincidence that one of their editors wrote about it so close to Charles Krauthammer Day, 2010.

Post by Carl

I’m opposed to the anti-panhandling bill the council passed and McGinn will — or has by the time this gets written — veto. Having lived downtown for a while, I think the council should probably be focused on other livability issues. Joni Balter was hilariously happy before the vote and upset after it. Some excerpts, first from the conclusion of the yay, they’re going to get those nasty people off the street piece:

This represents a good vote for O’Brien, not only because it shows independence from McGinn, and that matters. But also because it reflects sensible thinking about downtown and the fact that the urban core should welcome all comers and the streets should be passable and approachable for everyone.

Nothing says “approachable for everyone” like arresting people for asking for money. Anyone can come downtown and be arrested. It’s a beautiful dream. Also, independence from a mayor who, despite some stumbles out of the gate, is relatively popular isn’t the most important thing for a city council member. I know the Times’ Ed board doesn’t like him, but on the other hand, the ed board is basically irrelevant.

In her follow up, she uses the same language:

The wise course was to pass the law with six votes and give police an additional tool to make downtown Seattle feel safer and more welcoming to all comers.

Downtown is perfectly safe. I realize that as a man and a fairly young, able bodied one, that there may be a perception, or a fact, that it’s less safe for women, or people generally more likely to be victims of crime. Still, as I said in the HA piece linked above, there are better ways to make people safe than outlawing aggressive panhandling. If the cops can’t stop the open drug use, or the fighting around closing time, why divert resources to people who ask for a donation near a parking meter?

Burgess, who worked very hard on this legislation, making major refinements, could not collect – or hold – his much needed sixth vote.

Oh, well, if he worked hard, O’Brien and McGinn should ignore their campaign promises. What does Balter think of O’Brien going back to what he was elected on?

Monday, as O’Brien’s latest change of heart was registered, he was a profile in cowardice. The strong statement released Friday was out the window. He voted no.

Awesome.

Monday, as O’Brien’s latest change of heart was registered, he was a profile in cowardice. The strong statement released Friday was out the window. He voted no.

The battle isn’t completely over. The mayor could opt not to veto the bill. And he should think twice before he does the predictable lefty thing. Councilmembers Bruce Harrell and Tom Rasmussen, early supporters of the legislation, joined Nick Licata in voting no Monday.

Stop being so damn liberal. What do you think, you represent Seattle?

Post By Carl

Lou Guzzo is excited about going to mars 20 years ago. I’d say it makes sense to go to L4 and L5 first.

What timing! With hints of Armageddon in the air, terrorism everywhere, and radioactive clouds wafting overhead, a national commission suggests we should soon head for the moon and Mars. The National Commission on Space was deadly serious, if you’ll pardon the expression.

Radioactive clouds wafting overhead?

The commission recently suggested to the President that we should put settlements on the moon by 2017 and on Mars by 2027. Now, that’s only seven and 17 years from now! Wow! Think about it, my friends. We barely have time to pack and consider what we’ll need up there.

I’m like 99% sure Lou is referring to this. Because it doesn’t look like the National Commission on Space has done anything much “recently”.

The commission said we should be able to do it easily because the technology exists to do so. I think it’s symbolic that the ambitious report was made to the President by a fellow named Tom Paine, who was then the chairman of the Space Commission. It was another Tom Paine who provided the Common Sense that helped launch the first American revolution. Remember him?

Thomas O Paine died in 1992. That report he “recently” authored was that one from 1986. That president he made his report to is also dead. I’m all for institutional memory, and seeing how we live up to our aspirational goals. But since we’re not actually on track to meet them, let’s not pretend we’ve only got 7 years to get to the Moon, and 17 for Mars. And don’t talk about what good timing it was.

How did the Space Commission decide in favor of moon and Mars settlements? Paine said commissioners traveled across the country, asking questions of young people. And what did the future space travelers tell them? They said they were sick and tired of looking at TV reruns on earth. Honest! If that’s the best reason the new generations can find to travel in space, I think I’ll unpack and forget the whole thing.

Those youths are now 30 and 40 somethings. This has possibly been the strangest thing Lou has written.

Post by Carl

A while ago I was catching up on reading the Seattle Times’ editorial page blog, and there were a few calling out for shorters. That was a week or so ago, and I didn’t write it. But this morning I went to the blog and everything I’d thought about making fun of was still there. So while none of these are anything approaching current, they still amuse me.

* Shorter Lynne Varner and Bruce Ramsey: Bruce, bullying is bad. Yes, Lynne, but have you ever considered that bullying isn’t all that bad.

* Shorter Bruce Ramsey: Here’s a post about how bad the roads are in California. Don’t worry though, I’ll blame it on a budget crisis, and not really mention that tax cutting for 40 years might be behind it.

* Shorter Shauna Nuckles: Instead of a serious discussion about Obama’s policies, here’s an overly extended metaphor about ice cream.

Post by Carl

I get email from Ken Hutcherson. He’s upset that The Snoqualmie Valley Record won’t run his asshole ad about gay folks. I agree with Pastor Teh Hutch!!!!!!!!! that they probably should run the ad, that doesn’t make the content of the ad any better.

The Snoqualmie Valley Record is not fair! Following is an ad I wanted to purchase and run in their newspaper but the Publisher made a personal decision not to run the ad citing his paper is read by families and children and the content is not appropriate for them, even though every statistic quoted here is the truth.

They think that you citing decades old “statistics” (the most recent he cites is from 1992) about syphilis and the number of sexual partners people have aren’t family friendly! Not fair! No newspaper has ever declined to have anything gay friendly on the basis of not being family friendly.

Let the people of the Snoqualmie Valley decide if they will allow the truth to be suppressed. If anyone is interested in picking up this ad and running it, the advertising dollars are available for you.

And to think, I’m running it for free.

Pastor Hutcherson

Text of ad:

The National Day of Silence, sponsored by GLSEN is upon us again. According to GLSEN’S website, “On the National Day of Silence hundreds of thousands of students nationwide take a vow of silence to bring attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in their schools.” In other words, the purpose of the day is to stand in solidarity with homosexual victims.

Here’s some friendly advice: Nobody knows what GLSEN is. Gay, Lesbian, Straight (student, supporter?), Education (Easter?), Network (noodles?). I really have no idea, and if I don’t know, people reading an ad in The Snoqualmie Valley Record won’t either.

But morally, we should, um stop bullying. I’d think that would be your best bet if you want to be seen as taking the moral position.

The illusion that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal way of living has been successfully propagated by promoting a “victim” image for homosexual persons, and by the pseudo-science alleging a ‘gay’ gene.

So you hate pseudo-science? Well I can’t wait to read your totally science based list of reasons that gayness is awful.

The following evidence does show that homosexual persons are indeed victims — but overwhelmingly of their own behavior, not that of others:

A note on the formatting here. In the Pastor Hutch Ad, these are footnoted. For simplicity in responding to them, I’ve combined the “evidence” and the footnote in one place. The evidence is bold, the footnote is normal text. He doesn’t provide links (it’s meant to be a newspaper ad) and I’m too lazy to look for all of them. The decision to end the sentences without a period is all Hutch.

Homosexuals account for 60% of all syphilis cases and 17% of all hospital admissions in the United States “Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea.” Lancet, April 25, 1987

Oh my God. We need to beat up gay kids because in 1987 gay people were admitted to hospital 17% of the time. The evidence is as overwhelming as it is stupid.

25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics Kus, R. “Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America.” Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987,

The comma at the end is also Hutch’s. This doesn’t give similar statistics for straight people, but OK, in 1987 a quarter to a third of tehgay were alcoholics. So, we should be OK with bullying kids who weren’t even born then. Makes sense to me.

30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals Kaifetz, J. “Homosexual Rights Are Concern For Some,” Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992

This one is science? Again, how many straight people abused children. What does Los Angeles in 1992 have to do with the Snoqualmie Valley in 2010?

50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals; homosexuals are 25 times more likely to commit suicide than the average person Kaifetz, J. “Homosexual Rights Are Concern For Some,” Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992

And the best way to stop people from committing suicide is to bully them. What more evidence do you need?

The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65) Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978

Less than a decade after Stonewall, gay people’s lives were difficult. So bully them.

The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65) Fields, Dr. E. “Is Homosexual Activity Normal?” Marietta, GA

No date given for this piece of evidence, so sometime between caveman times and today, lesbians died at 45 years old.

43% of homosexuals admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime and 28% admit to 1,000 or more in a lifetime Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978

It’s my understanding that in the 1970′s everybody had 500-1000 sexual partners, so maybe you should find some statistics that are more current. Oh, and also, who cares? Anyway that’s the totality of the evidence. Has it convinced you to beat up a gay kid? There’s more ad though.

As parents and school board members, why are we excited about promoting this lifestyle? If any other lifestyle produced these statistics, would we be having a day to celebrate it?

Discouraging bullying = celebrating that in 1978 a minority of gay people had had 500 or more sexual partners. Der, it’s the same thing.

Oh…and God called; He wants His rainbow back!

The end!

Post by Carl

This is an old one by FW Con, but another post I’m working on is taking longer than I thought, and I’ll probably be writing something for HA soon. So I thought I’d mention this.

Just in case you are wondering if I am consistent, let me be clear. I am never going to accept a social security check. I am never going to pay for my medical care with anything but my own money. I am never going to use food stamps, and so on and so forth. I want out of all federal programs that are extra-constitutional, now and forever.

FW Con can’t imagine him or his family needing help, so he can issue that statement. Will he refuse to eat food grown on farms that receive federal aid, or that go through meat inspection? Will he only buy cars made before there were emission standards? Will he refuse to ride on Federal highways? The answer to the last one seems to be that they’re unconstitutional, but no mention that he won’t use them:

As far as the highways are concerned, those should be built with private monies or by the states, not the federal government.

His view of the Constitution is so narrow that even though there is explicit authorization to build roads, he thinks the Constitution is against them. The powers granted Congress in the interstate commerce clause, and the clause relating to their power to lay taxes and provide for the common defense and general welfare is plenty enough authority to build roads. But, even if you somehow believe they need to say the Federal Government has the power to build roads, the framers actually spelled out that Congress has authority, “To establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” In the time that was written, post roads from New York to Boston were commonly used for non-mail things as well. So any road that a Postal Service truck or mail carrier can travel on (any road) have explicit authorization under the Constitution to be built by the Federal Government.