Last night, Barack gave his nomination acceptance speech in Denver, and while he drew lots of comparisons between McCain and himself, he also did a nice job of keeping it policy-related.

And after listing his priorities (fighting Al Quaeda, climate change, poverty, and genocide, restoring America’s moral standing in the world by engaging in diplomacy instead of cowboyism, etc), he said:

These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.

But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and patriotism.

That is really lovely. But, ok, let me just go ahead and do the character maligning that Barack is too classy for.

(1) John McCain cheated on his wife, the mother of his three eldest children, divorced her to marry his filthy rich 25-year-old mistress (current wife Cindy), who he called a cunt in front of a bunch of reporters.

You haven’t heard about the first story because, I guess, it is unpatriotic to bring up the morally questionable actions of a POW. And you haven’t heard about the second because it’s awkward for news reporters to say “cunt” on the air. So, thank you, internet!

(warning: this YouTube link is fantastic and hilarious, but not work appropriate, so click accordingly)

The full quote, “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt” (this in response to a playful comment about his hair is thinning) raises an interesting question: which is worse, being old enough to say “trollop” or mean enough to say “cunt”?

Which candidate would you support in the 2008 presidential election?

(a) Mitt Romney
(b) Rudy Giuiliani
(c) John McCain
(d) Fred Thompson

According to the latest AP poll of Republican voters, the favorite candidate, leading with 23% of the vote is:

(e) None of the Above

For once, something the GOP and I can agree on!

Silence of the City posts stories that were rejected from The New Yorker’s Talk of the Town section. Good stuff.

SweetJesusIHateBillO’Reilly.com. Pretty much what it sounds like.

I don’t know what to make of Hot Ghetto Mess. This website “holds up a mirror to the black community” in the interest of self examination… or, it perpetuates tired old stereotypes about booties, hos, pimps, crackheads. I’m not sure what my opinion is on this one. I will say this for the website – it’s where I came across this fabulous poodle photo, which I think we can all agree is fantastic.

Hot Ghetto Mess / I Can Has Cheezburger hybrid website spinoff project, anyone? We can get it started right now – anyone have caption ideas?

Bob Novak went on the Hugh Hewitt Show to talk about his memoir, Prince of Darkness (his title, I swear), where he said the following:

I hate to say it, but I think the hatred toward George W. Bush is just mad. I listen to, sometimes in the car radio, on talk shows, and the venom that comes out of the mouths of some of these women, particularly, I’m not trying to be sexist, but they’re so vicious toward him. And I don’t think that really contributes. And also, the bloggers, I don’t read the bloggers very much, but it is really, it’s really vicious.

I don’t know why women would be particularly spiteful toward LOLprez. Let me think… it could be that building a Supreme Court full of justices who want to overturn Roe v. Wade makes some of us a little nervous, or that we find it patronizing when justices make rulings about reproductive health in order to stop adult women from making choices that will make them feel sad later on. Some of us might be slightly less than pleased with the Bush Administration’s emphasis on abstinence only sex “education,” others might be displeased about reports of female soldiers being sexually assaulted by their male colleagues. We might be miffed about the inappropriate appointees at the FDA’s Office of Reproductive Health or the DOJ’s Office of Violence Against Women. But, please, ladies! That’s no reason to be so vicious!

Probably we all just have our periods or something.

Sometimes I wish that the Democrats had the word coopting skills that the right has mastered so well. They call their education plan No Child Left Behind and, of course everyone’s favorite – their suspension of habeus corpus The Patriot Act. Wouldn’t it be nice to sponsor a war deauthorization called Safe and Victorious? Or instead of calling the campaign finance reform McCain-Feingold (catchy though it is), something like The Elections Aren’t For Sale Act.

I don’t know, I’m just tossing out ideas.

Anyway, this is all very tempting until I watch the other side do it, and remember how hopping mad and nauseous it makes me. It’s not enough for the White House communications staff to be hired out of Fox News, the President has to straight up steal their slogan. That’s right, LOLprez announced recently that the Libby pardon was “fair and balanced.” If that sounds familiar, it’s because those words are being tossed around with complete disregard for their definitions in exactly the same way over at Bill O’Reilly & Co.

My new favorite is Sirius Radio, who recently introduced two political talk radio channels: SiriusLeft, and… wait for it… SiriusPatriot. Now, I don’t personally bristle at the label of “Lefty,” but that’s because I am a bleeding heart pinko commie leftwing nutjob, and I embrace the title. Other, more middle of the road Dems who are less enamoured of Ralph Nader probably feel differently about the characterization. But that’s not what gets me. Nor is it the gross lack of any effort to be evenhanded. (Though seriously, is there some sort of problem with the parity of “Right” and “Left”? “Liberal” and “Conservative”? “Donkey” and “Elephant”? These terms come in pairs, they really do.) But no, it’s not the faulty parallelism either. It is the blatant misuse and coopting of the term “patriot.”

Obviously “patriotic” and “conservative” are not mutually exclusive. But they are also not synonymous, and I am really sick of having this word used so innapropriately. I’m saying this as a Democrat, and a democrat, and a liberal, and a patriot, but first and foremost as a person who uses words to communicate with other people, and so depends on other people to use vocabulary correctly.

And so, in the spirit of education and propgation of proper English usage, I am instituting the No Blog Reader Left Behind Vocabulary Initiative of 2007, which seeks to spread knowledge of words. I am starting with these:

Conservative

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style
3. Moderate; cautious
4. (often initial capital letter) Of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Liberal

1. Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

Patriotic
1. Having or showing great love for one’s country.

Make of these definitions what you will, and choose your talk radio accordingly, I suppose.

(Does anyone else find it particulary ironic that the very people [conservatives] who are so eager to use these two very different terms [patriot & conservative] interchangably are the same ones who would like to make English the official language of the United States, thus stopping the translation of any government documents [including ballot materials!] to other languages? Because if I were to get behind such an initiative, I would want to first make sure that I myself were fluent.)

Argh! To lighten the mood, I offer the following fair and balanced image of
Pug Dog Wearing A Birthday Hat.

The Simpson’s movie has been surrounded by a superfantasticrossmarketingmedia blitz including the online make yourself a Simpson game, turning 7-11s into QuikeeMarts, and voting on which Springfield is the home of the Simpsons. Overkill? Yes. Cause for a DOJ investigation? No.

But hilarious Representative Peter DeFazio thinks differently. He represents Springfield, OR and has recently written to Atty General Gonzalez, requesting that he investigate election in the recent Contest ‘O’ Springfields, which was won by Springfield Vermont. The letter is so priceless I’m just going to give it to you verbatim.

Enjoy.

Alberto R. Gonzalez
Attorney General
Office of Attorney General
Robert F. Kennedy Building
950 Pennsylvania, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20530-2000

Heidely Ho Attorney General Gonzales:

I write to you to express the outrage that I, and all Oregonians, feel regarding a recent event. I know there is a strong possibility that you may come back and say that you “don’t recall” to what I am referring, so let me refresh your memory. Recently, 20th Century Fox launched The Simpson’s Movie Springfield Challenge where people could vote on the real-life location of the home of The Simpsons. Naturally, most Oregonians felt confident that we would win, since it is obvious to everyone that Simpson’s creator Matt Groening, who was raised in Oregon, modeled Springfield after his childhood home. Oregon has over 363 miles of the most beautiful coastline in America, the Cascade Mountains, and is the grass seed capital of the world. What does Vermont have? Maple syrup.

This travesty must not stand. Springfield, Vermont is a town of only nine thousand people; yet this community received over fifteen thousand votes. Unless they passed a law giving cows the right to vote, this smacks of election fraud. It also once again highlights the need for electronic voting with a valid paper trail. Was Diebold in any way involved in tabulating the results?

Additionally, it’s my understanding that Springfield, Vermont entered the competition after the deadline. That’s clearly an election violation since they should not have been listed on the ballot in the first place.

Some people will say that we were rolled by the giant pink doughnut, but I believe there were significant voting irregularities. Knowing how passionately the Bush Administration feels about counting every vote, I’m sure you will want to investigate this matter. Additionally, I urge you to petition the Supreme Court to review the facts and consider whether or not this election should be set aside. Given the Court’s recent rulings on election proceedings, I’m sure they will be eager to review the case. I demand that you investigate this miscarriage of justice and restore Oregon as the definitive home of The Simpsons.

Okiliydokily,

Peter DeFazio
Member of Congress

P.S. Also, to see proof beyond a shadow of a doubt where the real Simpsons are live, go to http://www.defazio.house.gov/images/zoom/LGKSWV/simpsonspad.jpg and see for yourself. Photos don’t lie.

P.P.S. Vote Quimby!

Vice President Cheney has been having some trouble lately with his identity. He does not believe the office of the Vice President to be “an entity within the executive branch,” because he breaks ties in the Senate. But he does not seem to self-identify as a member of the legislative branch either, since he refuses to answer questions for pesky congressional committees.

All this confusion has no doubt left sixth grade civics teachers and School House Rock writers with deep misgivings about what they have been teaching the school children of America. I for one got through years of primary, secondary, and higher education without ever learning about the TOP SECRET EXTRA SPECIAL FOURTH BRANCH of the federal government to which Cheney must belong. Sigh – the system has failed me.

In response to all this madness Jon Stewart has started a hilarious new segment on the Daily Show called You Don’t Know Dick. The Colbert Report’s “The Word” segment was also very funny on the topic. You have to laugh when a crazy malicious old guy is running your country with total disregard for the rules.

I was thinking, maybe Dick isn’t being sneaky, maybe he is just confused. He does wear a lot of hats, and perhaps he has just become befuddled by his many roles….

Oh, science, always with the learning and the wackiness. Here are two fabulous tidbits that i learned last week. They may not really be science news, per se, but they were news to me.

This week I learned the best kept secret in ornithology. You didn’t know that ornithologists were secretive, did you? But it turns out they are positively Cheney-esque in their surreptitiousness when it comes to this little tidbit. You may or may not have heard that bird bones are hollow. Easier to fly, ligher, etc. Sure, why not? “But how can they just be hollow? Where does that air come from Where do they put their bone marrow?” you may ask yourself, if you are me, and watching Winged Migration has made you feel particularly investigative. Well I’ll tell you. It comes from their lungs! Bird lungs do not have the same little oxygen absorption thingees in their lungs that we do. Their lungs are connected to a bunch of air sacs, and the air sacs are connected to the insides of their bones! They breathe, and the air goes in their lungs and the oxygen exchange happens (like us) but also the air flows through their bones! I think this is weird and crazy cool, and have been very disappointed with the less-than-enthusiastic response I get when I share this awesome knowledge. But you nerd patrols reading the internetz for fun are bound to be enthused about this wacky science, right? I know I am.

It turns out that Cat Scratch Fever is not just a Ted Nugent song, but also a real disease. Called CSD, for Cat Scratch Disease. You can get it if a kitteh with some special kind of bacteria scratches or bites you. Kittens are more likely to have the bacteria than adult cats, so be careful around adorable pets; it causes swollen lymph nodes, fever, tiredness, and can take up to 3 weeks to go away.

There has been a lot of buzz around this article in New York magazine about the science of gaydar. Basically there are some studies that link certain physical traits to being a straight man or lesbian and other traits to being a straight woman or gay man. Things like, having a longer ring finger than pointer finger is a “masculine” trait, which means you are more likely to have this if you are a straight man or a lesbian, and if you are a straight woman or a gay man, you likely have a longer pointer finger than ring finger, which is a “feminine” trait. My ring and pointer fingers are exactly the same length, so maybe I am bisexual. There’s another one about hair whorls going either clockwise or counter clockwise to indicate gayness or straightness. The details escape me, but you can read the article and get the low down if you are curious.

Interesting stuff, and I know the idea here is to prove that homosexuality is a genetic thing and not a “lifestyle choice” which I absolutely believe and I am all for proselytizing about that all the time. But there is something about this whole set of studies that, to me, smacks of creepiness and seems like it is a slippery slope to eugenics.

There is already a Southern Baptist leader, Rev. Albert Mohler blogging about what a Christian expectant mom is to do if she found out that her fetus/unborn child had some sort of biological predisposition to being gay. What if there were a hormone patch one could wear during pregnancy to ungay the baby? I like watching deeply religious people perform the logic contortionist moves necessary to resolve issues where religion and science come up against each other. I would assume, for example, that if a “gay gene” were discovered and isolated, that many of the arguments against homosexuality would become moot. Thirteen years of Catholic school gave me the impression that you have to make a choice to commit a sin. And if you don’t choose to be gay then how can it be a sin? Don’t worry, I’m well-versed enough in Catholic doctrine that I know there is the whole shbang about being gay isn’t a sin but acting on your gayness is. And to his credit, Mohler is careful in his language abotu condemning homosexual actions, not homosexuals. Fine. Whatever. I’m talking about Reverend Mohler’s ideological cousions, those of the whole “God hates fags” rhetoric. You would absolutely have to abandon that stance if there were a genetic basis for homosexuality, right? Well, this is where it gets fun. Reverend Mohler gives his audience several points to think about in considering what to do, if, hypothetically there were a biological basis for sexual orientation. Here are some of them:

1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.

2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.

3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God’s judgment.

I especially like the part about the human genome showing the effects of the Fall. Yikes. Also:

4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible’s moral verdict on homosexual behavior.

It’s very possible that I am reading this wrong, but it seems to me to say something very very close to, “God can still hate homos even if their homoeyness is genetically determined… and so can I!”

Well that’s all for now. All this talk of science and religion is making me tired, and I have to go walk around my office examining hair whorls.