Impeach the Quadrumvirate! NOW!

We've never impeached a Supreme before; however the mechanism is in place and it IS possible! All we need is the "will" of Congress. But, first, Congress needs more progressives before we can take down Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito...

Court Rebukes [Bush] Administration in Global Warming Case

In a defeat for the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that a U.S. government agency has the power under the clean air law to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming.

The nation's highest court by a 5-4 vote said the Environmental Protection Agency "has offered no reasoned explanation" for its refusal to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions from new cars and trucks that contribute to climate change.

The ruling came in one of the most important environmental cases to reach the Supreme Court in decades. It marked the first high court decision in a case involving global warming.

[...]

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court majority, rejected the administration's argument that it lacked the power to regulate such emissions. He said the EPA's decision was "arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law."

In sending the case back for further proceedings, Stevens said the high court did not decide which policy the EPA must follow. "We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute," he wrote.

The Bush administration has consistently rejected capping greenhouse gas emissions as bad for business and U.S. workers.

The court's four most conservative members - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both appointees of President Bush, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - dissented.

From the full NYTimes article, we see their "reasoning"(?):

The lawsuit was filed by 12 states and 13 environmental groups that had grown frustrated by the Bush administration's inaction on global warming.

In his dissent, Roberts focused on the issue of standing, whether a party has the right to file a lawsuit.

The court should simply recognize that redress of the kind of grievances spelled out by the state of Massachusetts is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts, Roberts said.

His position "involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem," he said.

The time has come for Congress to address the damage done to our environmental laws by President "I'm still waiting for the Rapture" Godsend. We, as humans, are the last group to be considered in DC decision-making! Being poisoned by the air we breathe, the water we drink and the plastics next to our skins--all unimportant to BigCorporate America (and the shareholders who reap their profits from "blood-money") and, thus, to George and much of Congress.

Medical journal headline I'd like to see: Political Donations Cause Politicians to go Deaf and Blind. The study shows that the larger the campaign contribution, the greater the vision- and hearing-loss...
* * * * * * * * *The above-image shows:

The Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States as of 2007. Top row (left to right): Stephen G. Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Samuel A. Alito. Bottom row (left to right): Anthony M. Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Antonin G. Scalia, and David H. Souter.

A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder

Sometimes you come across a book that just begs to be read...especially when it tells you something that you want to hear. Well, I wanted to hear it--I don't know about you...

"A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder", authored by Eric Abrahamson and David Freedman, and published by Little, Brown and Co.

Are You a Slob? Good, You're More Productive

Karen Jackson would be the first to admit her desk looks like a disaster area.

Her stacks of papers and photographs are so sloppy that the Texas schoolteacher won first place in a contest to find America's messiest desk...

[Abrahamson and Freedman's new book] argues neatness is overrated, costs money, wastes time and quashes creativity...

Barry Izsak, head of the National Association of Professional Organizers, disputes the authors' claims, saying they oversimplify and confuse mess with disorganization...

Freedman argues that it is neatness that is expensive.

"People who are really, really neat, between what it takes to be really neat at the office and at home, typically will spend anywhere from an hour to four hours a day just organizing and neatening," he said.

From The Books, a sales site:

Ever since Einstein's study of Brownian Motion, scientists have understood that a little disorder can actually make systems more effective. But most people still shun disorder—or suffer guilt over the mess they can't avoid.

From a personal perspective, most (if not all) of the people I know who suffer from incipient or latent "obsessive-compulsive tendencies" and those with "anal-retentive proclivities" ALSO suffer from a delusional belief in a gawd.

It is only "MY general rule" and is based on friendships and relationships with "neatniks", including my ex-husband. He is German-Lutheran and his father is a neat-freak; and he was further damaged by his parents divorce and his mother remarrying--a career soldier! Poor guy never had a chance... And I (in some mistaken notion that I could have a happy marriage with a man who never threw his clothes on the floor, always put his towels in the hamper and was diligent about the toilet seat) married a mental mess!

There is a bright side to that dark tale: he dragged me to a counselor and told him, "Fix her!" Well, Steve and I fixed ME, the marriage ended, and I was healthier than when I started it. My ex-husband probably still muddles along, wiping down countertops to avoid serious discussion, rearranging his sock&underwear drawer when anxious, and impulsively buying nice presents for his new wife today and suffering "buyers remorse" tomorrow...

Are you in a relationship with an "opposite"? Are you neat--or messy?

(Cross-posted from God is for Suckers!)

Scripture brings out the "bully" in christians!

Research links some scriptures to hostile acts

Just let me say this straight out: I'm not surprised at the findings of this study. What irks me is that its methodology makes it utterly useless.

PROVO — Chances are, not many people in Utah would like to think of scripture as a violent medium that promotes hostility.

But a study of 490 students — 248 of them at Brigham Young University — suggests a correlation between exposure to scriptural violence that is condoned by God and increased aggression.

University of Michigan psychologist Brad Bushman, BYU professor Robert Ridge and three other researchers co-wrote "When God Sanctions Killing," which will appear in the March issue of Psychological Science magazine.

Although the study points to a correlation between scriptural violence and aggression, Ridge said the research is not meant to attack scripture study.

You would think for a control group, they would use all US students, not mix in a group from The Netherlands! They recruited two groups, one of which was 99% bible+gawd believers (from Utah) and the other (control group?) was 50% pro-gawd and 27% pro-bible.

For the test, they were divided into two-person-teams and shown various passages from the bible, some of which were violent. They each wore headphones and had a buzzer ("weapon") that they had to push "as fast possible" for 25 trials. The fastest was given the "honor" of choosing how loud the buzzer would sound into the other's headset!

...Aggression was measured by the frequency with which the winning students blasted their partners.

The study indicated that those with a stronger religious background responded with slightly more hostility — and louder blasts — than those who were not as religious.

And Ridge says that indicates a correlation between aggression and isolated violent passages.

The correlation also mirrors studies that show the relationship between hostility and violent movies, music or video games. The key difference is that if scriptures are read as a whole and not taken out of context, the results can be the opposite, Ridge says, as the overall themes of the Bible, specifically, are peace and love.

WTF does that mean? Is Ridge a xian? Oh, hell yeah! Is the bible full of violence that masks its "true message of love"? Yes! Do people read the bible just for the "juicy violent bits"? Maybe. Do people come away from a bible reading remembering the violence and forgetting the love? I wouldn't be surprised!

Daniel Judd, BYU professor of ancient scripture, who was not involved in the study, said he agrees with the importance of understanding scriptural context. Taken by itself, a scriptural passage can wrongly rationalize negative behavior, he says.

"You can use scripture to justify anything you're looking for," Judd said.

Now there's a newsflash!

Cross posted from God is for Suckers!)

In which the Political Magician's "coin trick" is revealed...

“It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system for, if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” — Henry Ford

Admitting to my limited experience in understanding Economics 101, I was always mystified as to where the money went that was lost in the Market Crash of 2001. If money is a real commodity, MY loss might be YOUR gain--but it doesn't disappear. Someone made money--but who? I'm still mystified...

Now we find that the Federal Reserve Bank has propped up the Markets following the "dips/dives" of the last two weeks. For background on the "money quote", you can read the link first. Or not.

Pushing On a String - The New York Fed

Edit: as an after thought to writing this post last night, I might add that I am reserving judgment as to success or failure since it's still early in the process. As I noted in the comments section, The Federal Reserve has evolved from hands off (eg. not doing anything about the 1929 to 1932 stock market collapse) to a Central Bank that has learned to take aggressive action, to the extent that it can, by providing money, or liquidity.

My point of concern here is that even for our times $55 bln in one week is a lot of coin -an annual rate of nearly $3 TRILLION. $55 bln a week makes the war in Iraq look like a petty cash expense. While I realize the Fed won't need to inject $55 bln every week into the system, I can't help but to wonder how much moolah it will take if the Fed has to address a market emergency that goes beyond the stock market and into the realm of something scary like the [10-15 times] leveraged OTC derivatives market.

Really the question that comes to mind - What is it that Bernanke and Paulson are afraid of to not allow the market to fall naturally? There's also the inflationary issue. While these open market operations involve money that is lent out for periods of 1 day to a few weeks, there is basic 'Money 101' velocity of money where each loaned dollar that is used ends up in someone else's pocket and so on. So even if the original loan is paid back each loaned dollar perhaps is spent on a futures transaction, then re-loaned by the seller of the futures contract, spindled, washed, rinsed, etc.

Effectively, billions are being created out of thin air by the NY Fed operations which end up being added into the money supply over time. It's no wonder they eliminated reporting M3. This sudden currency creation, in my simple mind, would seem to be dollar negative and bad from an inflationary standpoint for everyone over time.

Oh, and with a 2008 presidential election cycle ahead, there also the question of what happens to Republican chances of capturing the White House again if the stock market goes into a bear market and the economy tanks into a recession. Perhaps that adds an extra dimension of urgency to keep the markets propped up? Now I'm getting too conspiracy theorist.
The specter of collapse and recession-cum-depression is coming clearer.

It seems to me that this "magician's trick" of conjuring money from thin-air is a very dangerous practice! Like a high-wire artist, one mistake can mean a deadly crash to the ground. Our economy, as Paul Krugman has been saying in various ways, is balanced on the razor sharp edge of collapse. Given the known cronyism and incompetence in the Bush administration, can we really trust that those in charge know what they're doing?

For some historical context and clarity on a few recent trends, I suggest a speech by Paul Krugman, NYT columnist and Professor of Economics, Princeton. Entitled A History of America's Disappearing Middle Class, it was delivered at the Economic Policy Institute's recent conference on The Agenda for Shared Prosperity.

Krugman is noted for his populist-based analysis of past, present and future economic issues. He has increasingly used a "political science" frame to express his views, believing that this is critical for his readers to understand the significance of events and policies that begin and end with GWBush.

How does the future look to you? Hopeful or hapless? Boom or bust?

(For more info to back up Krugman's references to unionism, see my Martian.Anthropologist posts Is Labor's "Day in the Sun" Over? Part One and Part Two.)

(Cross posted from God is for Suckers!)

Brokeback, Wyoming!

Wyoming Kills Anti-Gay Bill , courtesy of ColoradoConfidential blog:

In a dramatic March 1 vote, the Wyoming House Rules Committee killed a bill that would have allowed the state to deny recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

In a state that is large (ninth in size) and underpopulated (50th in the US), one that is still filled with working cowboys and ranchers, and one that still has more men than women, a bill denying civil rights to GLBTs was defeated in a House committee after being passed by the Senate. And feelings are running high!

Of course, from this distance I can't prove it, but this is what I think: Activist-outsiders (non-Wyoming citizens) have pushed this through the legislative process. What they thought would be a cakewalk, with a Republican House and Senate (oh, never mind that the governor is a Democrat!), has turned into a sour disappointment for them. And they will likely be back next year...

According to the post on CC, two Republicans House members spoke very eloquently at the Rules Committee's hearing. One has a gay daughter; the other is very young and spoke of gay rights as being "my generation's civil rights struggle".

From 27-year-old Rep. Dan Zwonitzer(R) of Cheyenne:

"Under a democracy the civil rights struggle continues today, where we have one segment of our society trying to restrict rights and privileges from another segment of our society. My parents raised me to know that this is wrong.

"It is wrong for one segment of society to restrict rights and freedoms from another segment of society. I believe many of you have had this conversation with your children.

"And children have listened, my generation, the twenty-somethings, and those younger than I understand this message of tolerance. And in 20 years, when they take the reins of this government and all governments, society will see this issue overturned, and people will wonder why it took so long.

"My kids and grandkids will ask me, why did it take so long? And I can say, hey, I was there, I discussed these issues, and I stood up for basic rights for all people."

But equally dramatic -- and perhaps more surprising -- was the testimony of conservative Rep. Pat Childers (R) of Cody. Childers’ daughter is gay. "My testimony was clearly stating that I oppose the legislation because I just think it is flat wrong," he says.

Childers also compared gay rights to earlier civil rights efforts. "People say you can’t compare gays with blacks. I disagree. Do we deny a class of people their rights? I say, ‘No.’"

SF 13 [the bill had no name] was killed by the House Rules Committee 7-to-6.

Close enough, for this year. And I hope the vote is 13-0 against it next year...

Your body. Your billboard.

Just remember: This is your country, your government, your democracy, your Constitution and Bill of Rights! I urge you work to take it back. It I can tolerate your religion if you can tolerate my rights

Be a smart ass! Vote Democrat

Mommy! There's a Republican under my bed!

won't be so easy in two or five or ten years...

We have a lot of work to do before Election2008. In order to create a "veto-proof" Congress, we need 69 more Dems in the House and 12 more in the Senate.

Remember that Giuliani or Romney may be elected--don't think it couldn't happen! And if it does, and if we respect the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, then we need to get and keep the reins of Congress. The RaptureRight was weakened in the 2006 election but they have "Divine Powers of Restoration" and, after all, GAWD is on their side...

Work on a campaign. Give any amount of money to candidates (a ton of small contributions from the people can equal the corporate whores who want to own their "johns"!). Find a group in your state that's working on Campaign Finance Reform.

In other words, get involved!

And while you're working or playing, why not display your displeasure with the GOP/RaptureRight and President Godsend's minions AND the votes-for-sale neo-cons in DC? I won't promise that you won't get some feedback but I will offer you this possibility: according to many polls, Americans are coming around. You could even make a friend or two...

Sport a Tshirt with a message, such as these:

Liberals: We Founded America, We Can Save It

Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children, and die, Republicans have done quite a job getting government out of our personal lives.

Feminism is the radical notion that women are people

The Apocalypse Is Not An Exit Strategy

Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative.

Can I cut off your reproductive rights if you cut off mine?

The GOP: Building a bridge to the 19th century

How about compassionate competency?

I support our veterans--I VOTED for one

If you destroy Liberty to defend America, then what are you defending?

Separate Church and Hate

Can you remember when the only red states were in the USSR?

I can tolerate your religion--if you can tolerate my rights

Clinton and Monica. W and Iraq. Which one is harder to swallow?

Jesus, save us from your followers!

Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church

* * * * * * *

How will you explain to your grandchildren about the dinosaurs that frollicked with Adam and Eve?

By: Naomi

The American Soldiers' Dilemma in Iraq

(For a larger image of the cartoon below, go to Vagabond Scholar and click on cartoon to enlarge.)



Here is the transcript:

A. This is an al-Qaeda terrorist in Iraq He hates Shi'ites. He hates Americans. He is our enemy.

B. This is a Sunni insurgent in Iraq. He hates Shi'ites. He hates Americans. He is our enemy, too.

C. This is an Iraqi who supports the Shi'ite-led Iraqi government. He hates Americans. He is our friend.

D. This is a Shi'ite militian man. He hates Sunnis. He supports the Iraqi government who are our friends. He is our enemy.

E. This is an Iraqi Kurd who hates the Turks who are our friends. He is our friend.

F. This is a Turk who hates the Kurds who are our friends. He is our friend, too.

G. This is an Iranian who supports the Shi'ite-led Iraqi government who are our friends. He is our enemy.

H. This is a Syrian Sunni foreign-fighter in Iraq. He hates the Iranians who are our enemies and the Iraqi government who are our friends. He is our enemy.

I. This is a Sunni from a moderate Arab country. He hates Iran. He hates America. He is our friend.

J. This is a Shi'ite who works for the Iraqi government who are our friends. He supports the Iranians who are our enemies. He hates Americans. He is our friend.

Question: Who do you shoot? Turn over for answer:

Answer:
Definitely shoot A, H and B.
Sometimes shoot C and D.
Don’t shoot E, J, F and I.
Try not to shoot G, but if you do, we won’t worry too much about it.

Cartoon by Darryl Cagle, from a post on Vagabond Scholar.

What can I add to this, except: What a catastrophuck!

It's (almost) Presidents' Day!

I took a quiz (and aren't they silly!) to find out what US president would suit me--if I was into being courted by a president, that is. (Jackie Kennedy v Marilyn Monroe, Hillary Clinton v Monica Lewinski--there's courted, and then there's "courted, right?)

So which one did I end up with? James Madison!

James Madison (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836), an American politician and fourth President of the United States of America (1809–1817), was one of the most influential Founding Fathers of the United States.

More than anyone he designed the new Constitution of 1787, and is known as the "Father of the Constitution". In 1788, he wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, still the most influential commentary on the Constitution. As a leader in the first Congresses he drafted many basic laws and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and thus he is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights".

As a political theorist Madison's most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to limit the powers of special interests, which Madison called factions. He believed very strongly that the new nation should fight against aristocracy and corruption (especially of British origin), and was deeply committed to creating mechanisms that would make Republicanism in the United States work in practice.

And he was married to one of the foremost feminists of Colonial America: Dolley Todd Madison!

Hah! Take that, Jackie, Marilyn, Hillary and Monica!

The Anti-bible takes on the "global worming"

Picture this: We're a small band of rational minds on a mission, in the Xian Wilderness, to re-establish a True Enlightenment. Attacked on all sides by subhuman theist-zombies, and running low on ammunition (Dawkins/Harris/Dennett/Pollit need to publish more often!), we've circled the wagons against the DimWarriors of XianDarkness. It looks bad for our brave band...

Suddenly, a shout! "Look! On the ridge!"

Can it be? YES! It's the 10th Cavalry of Reason, bringing us copies of "The Quotable Atheist"!

A little over-the-top. Sorry...

Ammunition for Atheists

The following is an excerpt from Jack Huberman's new book, The Quotable Atheist: Ammunition for Nonbelievers, Political Junkies, Gadflies, and Those Generally Hell-Bound (Nation Books, 2007).

The world (not just America) is deeply divided.The main fault line is where the tectonic plates of religion and of reason/secularism/ modernity/science/Enlightenment meet and grind against each other, making an absolutely unbearable noise. It's sort of like ... forget it, I can't describe it.

[Quoting End of Faith, by Sam Harris]"...Only 28 percent of Americans believe in evolution; 68 percent believe in Satan. Ignorance in this degree, concentrated in both the head and belly of a lumbering superpower, is now a problem for the entire world."

We need to change the cultural climate so as to make supernatural, occult, and faith-based claptrap feel unwelcome and to make adults ashamed of the blithe surrender of their otherwise sound minds to idiocy.We need climate change. Bullshit levels are rising globally, threatening to submerge intellectually low-lying areas. Much of the United States is already inundated.Temperatures are rising; IQs are dropping. Four of the five stupidest years on record have occurred since 2000.

I would of course have preferred a declaration by the president of the United States -- purportedly God's messenger on earth...Failing that, it is up to atheist/secularist groups and individuals to do what we can to stop global worming (people groveling like worms before nonexistent deities). That's where this book comes in.

You can read the rest of the post and samples (link above) from Richard Dawkins, Phyllis Diller, Phil Donahue, Frederick Douglass, Jerry Falwell, Thomas Jefferson, Michael Moore, and Katha Pollit. (Jerry Falwell? WTF?)

By: Naomi

America's Day of Shame!

If you read Martian.Anthropologist, you'll remember VastLeft, of VastLeftWingConspiracy blog, and a regular contributor on MA. As a favor, he asked that I post on as many blogs as I can that today is the anniversary of a shameful day: Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, a respected military man and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, addressed the United Nations on Saddam Hussein's non-existent "weapons of mass destruction". If not exactly treason, it has damaged his reputation irreparably. (I lifted the photo from the Day of Shame website; I can't do "teh photoshop"--otherwise, it would be "stamped" with the word "Whore!")

Do you remember watching his speech to the UN? Did it make your afraid? In the photo, he's holding that "tell-tale" vial of (supposedly) anthrax. How well did he convince you that it really held Death?

On February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations to rally support for an invasion of Iraq.

Outside of war co-planner the United Kingdom, few international troops would join the U.S. in the invasion and occupation.

Yet Powell's speech had a galvanizing effect on America's mainstream media. As one, they declared the presentation "compelling."

For a nation living in the ghostly shadow of the twin towers, the MSM's Good Warmaking seal of approval was enough to keep that treasonous question — "why?" — relatively unheard.

In this space, we'll consider what was lost that day, as we mark a sobering holiday: America's Day of Shame.

Please visit VastLeft's log page and share your thoughts about this tragic occasion — your recollections of the run-up to the Iraq war and your ideas on how we can fix a news establishment that traded its reporter's fedora for a cheerleader's uniform.