Did You See This Hilarious Piece At The Onion?

Maasai 'can fight climate change'

Africa should make more use of the skills of its nomadic peoples to help combat the challenges of climate change, the aid agency Oxfam says.

Pastoral communities such as the Maasai in Kenya and Tanzania could pass on survival skills, says a new report.

...

A new Oxfam report, Survival of the Fittest, describes how East African governments have excluded pastoralist communities, adversely affecting their ability to maintain a sustainable livelihood.

"All too often the direct economic value generated by pastoralists is not retained in their communities, and the indirect value is unrewarded and even unacknowledged by decision-makers," said Paul Smith-Lomas, regional director for Oxfam International.

Mohammed Elmi, who in April was appointed as Kenya's first north-eastern minister, said pastoralists had been adapting to changes in climate for millennia, and these skills could help them cope with the continent's increasingly hot weather.

"However, their adaptability cannot be realised without government support and investment," he said.

Oh my God...I can't quote anymore...it's killing me!

The funniest bit is the fact the story is actually from the BBC, not The Onion.

A Novel Excuse

So, McCain does much better than Obama in a televised forum dealing with religious issues. Why is that exactly? Well, Team Obama has the answer:

“Of course McCain looked good,” the anonymous Obama aide said. “He didn’t have to worry about how his answer would be perceived. He didn’t have to work to recall his talking points. He didn’t have to think, or even try to look like he was thinking. All he had to do was blurt out what he believed. Clearly, this gave him an unfair advantage, and we think the American people will see this for what it is…another Republican smear tactic.”

The aide added: "Yeah, McCain has to just say what he believes while we have to lie through our teeth. I mean, c'mon, what kind of moron believes all that bible crap anyway??"


(Gleaned from Right Wing Nation)

UPDATED: Changed to make it clearer that I know what Scrappleface is. I guess I was too subtle.

Sadly, This Passes For Logic These Days

From the Getaloadofthisload file:

For the past 16 years, news organizations have been repeating an obvious falsehood about the 1992 Democratic convention. According to countless news reports -- in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, ABC, NPR, Time, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, The Wall Street Journal, and on and on and on -- then-Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey was denied a speaking role at the convention because he opposed abortion rights.

Really? Give us your evidence.

It's also important to keep in mind that Casey didn't merely want to speak at the convention. He wanted to devote his entire speech to opposing the Democratic Party on a single issue. After the convention ended, Casey released the text of the speech he would have delivered had he been given the chance. The speech ran more than 1,000 words -- and not one of those words was "Clinton." Nor was the word "Gore" mentioned. Casey's speech did not include a single word of praise or support for the ticket being nominated at the convention he wanted to address. Instead, it accused the party of being "far out of the mainstream and on the extreme fringe" on abortion. That's what the entire speech was about: disagreeing with, and insulting, the Democratic Party on abortion.

Ah, so the Democrats didn't want to keep Casey from speaking because he was Pro-Life, they wanted to keep him from speaking because he wanted to speak about Pro-life views.

I'm supposed to believe this amounts to a real difference?

Last time I checked many other things go on at a party convention than the ritual back slapping of the Presidential nominee, including the setting of the goals of the party as a whole. If Casey wanted to address the convention's role in writing the party platform, which it seems clear he did because he didn't address the presidential race at all, then why shouldn't he have been allowed? The notion that he wasn't allowed to speak because because he didn't add to his remarks a stroking of the nominee, regardless of the rest of the content of his proposed talk, is asinine. Even if you granted this rather dumb suggestion it still amounts to silencing Casey because he wasn't going to say what the party bigwigs wanted him to say. Once again, that's a meaningful difference how?

The intellectual shallowness of Media Matters is staggering.

The whining is also a little disconcerting:

Yet here's The New York Times, just last week: "Sixteen years ago, the Democratic Party refused to allow Robert P. Casey Sr., then the governor of Pennsylvania, to speak at its national convention because his anti-abortion views, stemming from his Roman Catholic faith, clashed with the party's platform and powerful constituencies."

No. That is not true. That cannot be true. It cannot be the case that he was not allowed to speak because of his views -- other people with the same views were allowed to speak. [ed. The petulant emphasis is in the original.]

Did the other people speak about abortion at the convention? Why, no they didn't. So, it seems the policy was that Pro-life Democrats could be seen always, but heard only when they didn't speak about abortion. Nothing presented by Media Matters disputes that in the least.

The Sad Truth Is My Chosen Profession Sorta Sucks

I read stuff like this and I begin to have sympathy for Political Scientists who wish to get rid of the Political Theorists. From the journal Political Theory:

Modern sovereignty is anthropocentric, constituted and organized by reference to human beings alone. Although a metaphysical assumption, anthropocentrism is of immense practical import, enabling modern states to command loyalty and resources from their subjects in pursuit of political projects. It has limits, however, which are brought clearly into view by the authoritative taboo on taking UFOs seriously. UFOs have never been systematically investigated by science or the state, because it is assumed to be known that none are extraterrestrial. Yet in fact this is not known, which makes the UFO taboo puzzling given the ET possibility. Drawing on the work of Giorgio Agamben, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, the puzzle is explained by the functional imperatives of anthropocentric sovereignty, which cannot decide a UFO exception to anthropocentrism while preserving the ability to make such a decision. The UFO can be "known" only by not asking what it is.

I think that is what you call "cringe worthy."

Joseph Bottum over at First Things noticed this piece and wrote of it:

This may be the greatest sentence of its kind ever written: “Drawing on the work of Giorgio Agamben, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, the puzzle is explained by the functional imperatives of anthropocentric sovereignty, which cannot decide a UFO exception to anthropocentrism while preserving the ability to make such a decision.”

I mean, this has got it all—a dangling participle, a complete grammatical jumble, and the phrase “the functional imperatives of anthropocentric sovereignty.” Plus it seems to be about how the existence of UFOs demolishes our legal system. What more do you want out of life?

All I wanted was to be able to teach and talk to college kids about Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Mill etc....now I just feel dirty.

What?

I understand when profanity is not printed in news stories. Generally we can all get the gist of what was said with the use of a single letter. However, there are times when it results in one not knowing what the hell is going on. Take this story about the nut case who shot the Democratic party boss in Arkansas:

According to Conway police spokeswoman Sharen Carter, Target fired Johnson before 8 a.m. Wednesday because he had written on a wall. A manager had called police because of an "extremely irate" employee, Carter said. The graffiti, including "Target is run by dumb jocks and sorority w-----," had already been cleaned and Johnson had left by the time officers arrived.

Sorority what? I mean, I can think of some derogatory words that begin with "W" but I have no idea what was used in this case. Am I reading CNN's website or a 19th century victorian novel?

If this was employed to avoid the use of the word "whores," I need to move to a less stupid country.

The Left Advocating For The Political Murder Of Bush?

Here is a well documented post that suggests exactly that.

Warning: Cranks Abound

Stubborn Facts has your well heeded warning for the day: I don't care how much you dislike Obama

Jerry Corsi's new book on him should be ignored, because Corsi is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. If a 9/11 conspiracy theorist claims that the sky is blue, you should ignore him or seek independent verification.

Corsi is an idiot, and the type of idiot who could seriously damage John McCain.

Democrats Already Attempting To Steal The Election?

Yikes:

Ohio is considered a must-win state for both Barack Obama and John McCain. And the highpoint of the presidential campaign in the state could come a month before Election Day.

Ohio has created a window in the election calendar, from September 30th to October 6th, that allows residents to both register one minute and vote the next.

The voting window, so far, is only being implemented in some counties -- typically they are urban areas or those with college campuses. The move figures to benefit Obama and leading Republicans are crying foul. They're considering a lawsuit if it isn't applied all over the state.

In effect this creates one set of voting laws for Democrats and another for Republicans.

I thought this was the sort of thing Democrats were against, but I guess with Obama's "new" politics everything old is new again.

(Gleaned from QandO)

Irrationality

*sigh*

Not only has McCain’s latest celebrity attack ad gotten goofier, it’s also starting to reveal the particularly distasteful “white women like the black guy” tactic that Republicans have used in the past to scare voters away from African American candidates.

Oh, what moronic garbage. Here is the "racially offensive" ad:



Alright, so here is the racial/gender breakdown of the ad:

We are shown:

Black Males (other than Obama himself): 0
Black Females: 1
Non-Black Males: 4
Non-Black Females: 6

Of the Non-Black females we are shown a chanting middle age lady old enough to be Obama's mother, and one teenage Taco Bell employee working the drivethru saying that people have been buying a lot of Taco Bell.

Gee, how outrageous.

Only liberals could look at this ad and think about black men raping white women. And, of course, it is the rest of dumb hill billy America who have a problem.

And, for godsakes, the "Dreamy" meme was created by the media and the Obama camp itself, or have we already forgotten what makes Chris Matthews leg tingle?

UPDATE:

More dastardly advertising! Here is a campaign ad that juxtaposes images of Obama with those of a good half dozen young white women.



The horror.

UPDATE x2:

I think my point should be pretty self evident, but no one ever got rich counting on the quick uptake of ideologues. Obviously, if the mere juxtaposing of images of a black man and a white woman is enough to re-kindle anti-miscegenist tendencies, then one would expect Obama to avoid such images like the plague. The claim is made that the actual content and context of an ad is unimportant as it is the images themselves that cause the supposed reaction. (A reaction which, if true, one should be able to find evidence of in experimental psychological data, but which seems to not exist.) However, if the context and content of the ad is unimportant than the exact same (supposed) reaction should be expected from an Obama ad that shows images of himself juxtaposed with white women. I guess we are supposed to believe content and context only work for mass audiences when the ad makers are Democrats?

When anyone runs an anti-Obama ad with this as its content...



...then and only then can you come crying to me.

Can't Make This Stuff Up...

...but it sure does fit a pattern many want, in vain, to claim doesn't exist. From The Dude Abides.

At 3:30 p.m. on Saturday, March 27, 2004, when I was the religion reporter (I am now its religion columnist) at the Chicago Sun-Times, I met then-State Sen. Barack Obama at Café Baci, a small coffee joint at 330 S. Michigan Avenue in Chicago, to interview him exclusively about his spirituality. Our conversation took place a few days after he'd clinched the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat that he eventually won. We spoke for more than an hour. He came alone. He answered everything I asked without notes or hesitation. The profile of Obama that grew from the interview at Cafe Baci became the first in a series in the Sun-Times called "The God Factor," that eventually became my first book, The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People (FSG, March 2006.) Because of the staggering interest in now U.S. Sen. Obama's faith and spiritual predilections, I thought it might be helpful to share that interivew...

The money quote:

GG:
Do you believe in sin?

OBAMA:
Yes.

GG:
What is sin?

OBAMA:
Being out of alignment with my values.

Don't share the O's values? Welcome to sin my friends.

Misreading Kafka

Something like this can only happen behind the Iron Curtain of yesteryear, or in the academia of today:

The Southern Illinoisan reports today that Professor Cal Y. Meyers has sued Southern Illinois University-Carbondale (SIUC) for barring him from campus on unspecified claims of sexual harassment and various other unspecified offenses. He essentially claims that SIUC has violated his due process rights under the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions and has defamed him for the sake of unjust enrichment. In banning him from campus, SIUC prevented Meyers from directing a $2.5 million center which he had donated to the university.

Indeed, from a due process standpoint, the case against SIUC looks pretty solid. On November 8, 2007, Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Dean John A. Koropchak wrote Meyers telling him that Koropchak had received and investigated a complaint of sexual harassment, that Meyers had already been found guilty, that he was being formally reprimanded, that he must cease contact with students in his department, that "further violations" could lead to termination, and that he must complete sexual harassment training provided by SIUC's Affirmative Action Office by December 1.

According to Meyers' complaint, "Defendant ignored all subsequent inquiries by Plaintiff to ascertain any information regarding the sexual harassment allegation (i.e. the identity of the accuser, the specific allegations, or any evidence involved)."

Then, on January 31, 2008, Chancellor Fernando Trevino sent Meyers another letter of the same ilk. Trevino told Meyers that "additional complaints" for "harassment and retaliation" had been received and that pending an investigation, Meyers was banned from campus on penalty of being charged with trespassing.

To this point, Meyers still had been provided with no details whatsoever about the allegations against him. Moreover, from the complaint it appears rather undeniable that official SIUC policy and procedures for the investigation and adjudication of sexual harassment claims were not followed—not followed at all, it seems. The complaint quotes some of the provisions that were violated.

No hearing, no chance to respond to the evidence, no statement of evidence, no chance to respond to the accuser, no notification of a right to appeal. Nothing. Just two letters with unspecified allegations.

It seems when college administrators read The Trial they only view it as an example to follow instead of as a warning of what to avoid.

Humanae Vitae Triumphant

Over at First Things, Mary Eberstadt has a nice piece about the Catholic doctrine our social and political betters love to hate. Here is a taste:

Perhaps the most mocked of Humanae Vitae’s predictions was its claim that separating sex from procreation would deform relations between the sexes and “open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.” Today, when advertisements for sex scream from every billboard and webpage, and every teen idol is sooner or later revealed topless or worse online, some might wonder what further proof could possibly be offered.

But to leave matters there would be to miss something important. The critical point is, one might say, not so much the proof as the pudding it’s in. And it would be hard to get more ironic than having these particular predictions of Humanae Vitae vindicated by perhaps the most unlikely—to say nothing of unwilling—witness of all: modern feminism.

Yet that is exactly what has happened since 1968. From Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem to Andrea Dworkin and Germaine Greer on up through Susan Faludi and Naomi Wolf, feminist literature has been a remarkably consistent and uninterrupted cacophony of grievance, recrimination, and sexual discontent. In that forty-year record, we find, as nowhere else, personal testimony of what the sexual revolution has done to womankind.

Consider just what we have been told by the endless books on the topic over the years. If feminists married and had children, they lamented it. If they failed to marry or have children, they lamented that, too. If they worked outside the home and also tended their children, they complained about how hard that was. If they worked outside the home and didn’t tend their children, they excoriated anyone who thought they should. And running through all this literature is a more or less constant invective about the unreliability and disrespect of men.

The signature metaphors of feminism say everything we need to know about how happy liberation has been making these women: the suburban home as concentration camp, men as rapists, children as intolerable burdens, fetuses as parasites, and so on. These are the sounds of liberation? Even the vaunted right to abortion, both claimed and exercised at extraordinary rates, did not seem to mitigate the misery of millions of these women after the sexual revolution.

Much more to read over there.

Obama: I Was For It Before I Was Against It

From Donklephant:

Let’s begin with part of Barack Obama’s current speech about energy:

“President Bush, he had an energy policy. He turned to Dick Cheney and he said, ‘Cheney, go take care of this. Cheney met with renewable-energy folks once and oil and gas (executives) 40 times. McCain has taken a page out of the Cheney playbook.”

Here’s the problem. Look at the vote on the 2005 Energy Bill, which Obama is now trying to tie to John McCain. Obama voted for it. McCain voted against it.

Obama says he voted for the bill because it gave so much funding to renewable energy. McCain opposed the bill because he said, at the time, it included too many tax breaks for energy companies.

Smooth.

News Flash: Gathering Evidence More Accurate Than Guessing

Another for the files of an unself-critical life: More than 100,000 rare gorillas found in Congo

An estimated 125,000 Western lowland gorillas are living in a swamp in equatorial Africa, researchers reported Tuesday, double the number of the endangered primates thought to survive worldwide.

"It's pretty astonishing," Hugo Rainey, one of the researchers who conducted the survey for the U.S.-based Wildlife Conservation Society, told CNN Tuesday.

The last census on the species, carried out during the 1980s, estimated that there were only 100,000 of the gorillas left worldwide. Since then, the researchers estimated, the numbers had been cut in half.

Hmmm...sounds like that "estimate" was pretty half-assed.

Actually, I take that back. That hysterical estimate probably led to the research money used to conduct the survey, which was also, probably, the entire point of it.

Once again, the ends are justifying the means.

Obama: Mr. Tin Ear

Yikes. There are reasons to let sleeping dogs lie: Obama wants 'full vote' for Michigan, Florida delegates

Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday that delegates from Florida and Michigan should get a "full vote" at the Democratic convention this month.

"I believe party unity calls for the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be able to participate fully alongside the delegates from the other states and territories," he said in a letter to the co-chairs of the Democratic National Convention's Credentials Committee.

Funny how "party unity" wasn't so important 5 weeks ago.

Welcome to Candidate Obama, always a day late and dollar short.