America turns off the snooze alarm

Good morning, America. This is a new day. The long, dark night of the Bush misadministration ended yesterday, and today the sun rose on something that promises to be very different. It is my fervent hope that the tone set by President Obama in his speech yesterday indeed heralds a positive change in this nation: not only in how we treat our citizens here at home, but in how we relate to the rest of the world. And you will note that I have personalized that. The United States is not an it; the United States is a we. From the White House to the State house, to your house and my house, we're all in this together. And so we have to work together if we want to rebuild the American Dream, if we want to ensure that every man, woman and child in this nation has not only hope for the future, but also has what we need today. Because this is the future we looked forward to, and it is time to roll up our sleeves, forget about who is red or blue, black or white, and focus on the fact that we are all Americans, and we stand or fall together.

Here's a somewhat humorous take on this change, author unfortunately unknown, that's making the rounds today:

Dear World:

We, the United States of America , your top quality
supplier of the ideals of liberty and democracy,
would like to apologize for our 2001-2008 interruption
in service. The technical fault that led to this eight-
year service outage has been located, and the software
responsible was replaced November 4. Early tests of
the newly installed program indicate that we are now
operating correctly, and we expect it to be fully
functional on January 20. We apologize for any
inconvenience caused by the outage. We look forward
to resuming full service and hope to improve in
years to come. We thank you for your patience and
understanding.

Sincerely,
The United States of America

We're all on the tech support team, though, so look sharp and let's keep this thing running properly.

Sponsor an executive today!

I love Canadian comedy.

This is just wrong

Is it just me, or does it seem that favoring a former head of foreign government over the President-elect of the United States when it comes to the use of the Presidential guesthouse just might be a major breach of protocol?

Especially when the President-elect was denied use of the guesthouse before said former head of said foreign government was booked into said guesthouse? (Or so said Margaret Carlson to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. I have yet to find other sources backing this up, but let's just say I wouldn't put it past Bush & Co. to do this and then juggle people and things in an attempt to make the denial look legit.)

Blair House is HUGE - 119 rooms, 35 bathrooms. Howard and the Obamas couldn't have shared? Howard couldn't have stayed in a hotel? The Australian Embassy? The freakin' White House? But no, Bush and his cronies had to snub the incoming President and his family, including two little girls about to start out in a new school.

Fourteen more days to go, people. Only fourteen more days.

Dare we hope for at least some of this?

Apparently, a group of pranksters put together a rather elaborate spoof of a special edition of the New York Times dated July 4th, 2009. They not only put it online, but also printed out over a million copies and handed them out.

See the spoof website. And yes, the links on it work. This thing is good!

And here is the actual New York Times coverage of the story.

Political humor goodness

OMG, another piece of priceless stuff here. Just read the entry. I cannot even begin to describe the awesomeness that is this post on John Scalzi's blog, so go and see for yourself. Make sure you don't have any beverages in your mouth while you read it, if you value your keyboard.

What's Really Going On With Joe Lieberman

Aaaand the winner is.... OBAMA!!!!

*does happydance*

Because sometimes words aren't enough.

Get out and VOTE

I did.

McCain on Healthcare

McCain's "Plan" for Health Care: Do the same for that industry as Deregulation did for Banking

Excerpt:

[The] McCain plan would give people a tax credit — $2,500 for an individual, $5,000 for a family — that could be used to buy health insurance in the individual market. At the same time, Mr. McCain would deregulate insurance, leaving insurance companies free to deny coverage to those with health problems — and his proposal for a “high-risk pool” for hard cases would provide little help.

So what would happen?

The good news, such as it is, is that more people would buy individual insurance. Indeed, the total number of uninsured Americans might decline marginally under the McCain plan — although many more Americans would be without insurance than under the Obama plan.

But the people gaining insurance would be those who need it least: relatively healthy Americans with high incomes. Why? Because insurance companies want to cover only healthy people, and even among the healthy only those able to pay a lot in addition to their tax credit would be able to afford coverage (remember, it’s a $5,000 credit, but the average family policy actually costs more than $12,000).

Meanwhile, the people losing insurance would be those who need it most: lower-income workers who wouldn’t be able to afford individual insurance even with the tax credit, and Americans with health problems whom insurance companies won’t cover.

And in the process of comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted, the McCain plan would also lead to a huge, expensive increase in bureaucracy: insurers selling individual health plans spend 29 percent of the premiums they receive on administration, largely because they employ so many people to screen applicants. This compares with costs of 12 percent for group plans and just 3 percent for Medicare.

No way would this benefit the American people.

Edit: I see I'm not the only person looking at McCain's health care plan today.

*snork*

Found a link to this over on Making Light, and it was just too good not to share with the folks who read my LJ...

A Letter To Moloch

Bwahahahahah! Oh, and be sure to read the comments; they're the best part!

Watching the debate? Play Palin Bingo!

Palin Bingo




And if that's not quite your speed, there's also the Vice-Presidential Debate Drinking Game.

As seen on alt.callahans

Although it isn't exactly a joking matter, I present the following link in the spirit of laughter being better than crying:

Good joke: Homeland Security Alerts

Apparently, Republicans are confused over the concepts of "public" and "free speech"

So much for the First Amendment:

Sign-toting librarian charged with trespassing at public campaign event

Also covered here.

Ah, civil liberties, we hardly knew ye.

A D&D-inspired Look at Politics

Charlie Stross describes the current crop of Presidential candidates in Monster Manual terms.

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

Why do people INSIST on public displays of ignorance?

Honestly, you'd think they would know better. A good friend of mine got the following email, and blithely fowarded it on to a group of his friends, with me being one of the recipients. I've seen this kind of crap before (the original email message has been floating around cypberspace for a while now), and I finally got fed up and had to respond. Allow me to share with you here both the email I received, and the response I sent back. I received:

"CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?

This is very interesting! We all need to read it from start to finish......... and send it on to anyone who will read it. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.

Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply: Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.

Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) (Koran).

Scripturally - no. . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. . . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically - no. . . . Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles, and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish; it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our President? You HAVE to be kidding?! Wake up America ! Obama even says if he wins the election, he will be sworn in on the Quran (Koran)---not the Bible!

PLEASE, please pass this to all in your address book."

After I finished bleaching my brain, I crafted the following response, and sent it out as a "Reply All" - and those of you who know me well know that I NEVER touch "Reply All" without a damn good reason. My response, as sent to the email list:

Where to begin? This is not only highly inaccurate, but also wrong on so MANY levels. This is a screwed-up world we're living in, for sure, but perpetuating false information and feeding erroneous views based on racism and religious prejudice certainly isn't going to do anything to solve the problems. And since I was raised to believe that failing to at least attempt to be part of the solution is a sure way to be part of the problem, I have to say something here. I'm sorry, but PLEASE don't disseminate crap like the anti-Obama email you forwarded. It does neither you, nor anyone else, any credit. You're way smarter than this, my friend. Here, with source links, are ten things that are wrong with the anti-Obama, anti-Muslim diatribe I found in my email box:

1. Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim. He is a Christian, a worshipper at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, where he has been a member for twenty years. [1] The UCC is not and has never been a Muslim group. But since we already have at least one Muslim that I'm aware of in the House of Representatives (Keith Ellison, representing Minnesota's 5th District) and plenty of Muslim Americans living in this country, I feel it is important to make the following points:

2. "Allah" is the Arabic name for the deity the Old Testament Jews referred to by "YHWH". [2] The same one that Christians call simply, "God". In fact, Arabic-speaking Christians call God "Allah". [3] There's no moon-god involved. Also, if a Christian's first allegiance is to God, then by the same logic used herein to suggest that Muslims cannot be good Americans, NEITHER CAN CHRISTIANS. Which, of course, is BS, pure and simple. And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Soviet Russia and Communist China who suggested that a citizen's first and only allegiance ought to be to the state, rather than to any other entity including religious figures? Since when do we make the same demand in America?

3. Nothing in Islam forbids friendship with Christians or Jews. [4] Indeed, Islam in its classical form regards both Christians and Jews as fellow believers in the same Abrahamic God worshipped by Muslims. They are referred to as "People of the Book" - that book being the sacred writings known to Christians as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Torah. [5] Guess what? Muslims believe in the Old Testament too, and consider Abraham a spiritual forefather.

4. Muslims are no more "required" to submit to religious mullahs than Catholics are "required" to submit to the Pope. Since the Pope is not a member of the United States government, does this mean that Catholics cannot be good Americans?

5. The vast majority of religious leaders in Islam do NOT regard America as "the great Satan" nor do they advocate its destruction. [6] Israel is a slightly trickier item, but even so, the majority of Islamic religous leaders have no desire to see Israel destroyed, either. They'd simply like to see more justice for Israel's Muslim residents and neighbors. Christian leaders the world over call for justice and fairness toward Middle Eastern, African and Asian Christians whenever they deem it necessary to do so; what's the difference?

6. Muslims are NOT "instructed" to marry four women. Islam is interpreted as PERMITTING up to four wives, but does not COMMAND this. [7] Old Testament Judaism also permitted a man to have multiple wives.[8] Also, Muslim men are no more instructed to "beat and scourge" their wives [9] than are some Christian groups which practice so-called "Biblical Literalism" and attempt to adhere to certain hand-picked verses. [10] So, again applying the faulty logic behind the statement in the original message, I guess that means Jews and Christians can't be "good Americans".

7. The United States Constitution is IN NO WAY based upon "Biblical" principles. It is and has always been based upon principles explored in the secular movement known as the Enlightenment, many of which were in turn drawn in large part from ancient Greek and Roman governmental principles. A perusal of the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin and others will show this. [11] Furthermore, Islam does not see the Bible as "corrupt" any more than Christians see the writings of non-Christian religions as "corrupt". Not everyone of one faith places the same value on religious books of another faith as on their own; so what? Good grief, there are even differences in Bibles between Catholic and Protestant, or various versions of the Protestant Bible itself. Pot, meet kettle. And none of this has ANY bearing on the United States government. Remember that pesky First Amendment, the one that guarantees every one of us the right to our own religious beliefs? [12] Unless I've missed a memo again, that amendment is still in force.

8. The Islamic nations of the Middle East were historically among the most highly tolerant of other religions during the Middle Ages (as just one example). Christians and Jews were permitted to live and worship openly in the Ottoman Empire [13], for example, during a time when Catholic Europe was persecuting first its own indigenous pagans and later Protestants (and don't forget that Protestants have persecuted Catholics as well). Granted, the Ottomans weren't exactly tolerant of polytheists, but then again, I've never found evidence that those who spout off about "Christian America" and "the evils of Islam" are terribly tolerant of polytheists, either. You might also want to look up the history of both the Morisco[14] and the Marranos[15] in Spain and Portugal during the Spanish Inquisition and its Portuguese counterpart. These were, respectively, Muslims and Jews who had been forced to convert to Christianity or lose their lives. Ironically, during much of the al-Andalus period, when Spain was under Muslim control, Christians and Jews were permitted to worship openly. [16] While modern day Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and certain other Middle Eastern nations forbid conversion from Islam to any other faith, this is not true of all nations with Muslim majorities or primarily Islamic cultures. And there certainly are democratic nations today in the Muslim Middle East, places where non-Muslims enjoy religious freedom. Take a look at Kuwait, for example: a modern Muslim nation, with a secular democratic government and laws, where nearly a quarter-million Christians worship openly. 10% of the population of Syria is likewise Christian, and worships freely. And those are just two examples. [17], [18]

9. There are many descriptive titles given to Allah in Islam, just as in Judaism and Christianity. [19] In all three faiths, a great many of these names refer to love and mercy as qualities held by the deity (by whatever name called!). None of the three have a monopoly on the attribution of mercy and love to the Almighty. For that matter, the Christian portrayal of God is so "loving and kind" that some of his purported followers (thankfully, not all, but that just shows how ANY religion can have its share of nutcases, and that we ought not to judge a faith based on the views of the nutcase minority) believe he would condemn children to eternal punishment in Hell for simply never having been exposed to or baptized into Christianity, which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for love as a divine attribute. 'Nuff said.

10. In the U.S., no religious book is required for swearing in the President or any other federal official. To require one would violate Article VI, Section 3 of the United States Constititution, which states, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." [20] The decision to utilize a Bible, a Koran, the Torah, any other religious book or even none at all is a personal decision on the part of the person being sworn into office, and has absolutely no bearing on that person's fitness to hold public office under U.S. law. To insist, as the original author of this email appears to do, that the President of the United States must be a Christian, or at the very least, must NOT be a Muslim, is a clear violation of the very document our Founding Fathers spent so much time and trouble to put together to guide the fledgling nation they had birthed, and is a most egregious insult to a core principle which they saw fit to enshrine therein.

Primary day in Ohio is coming up, and the national election looms on the horizon. Vote your consciences, everyone, and vote for whomever you feel will be the best person to be our next President, because no matter who gets elected - regardless of party, gender, race or religion - it's going to be a bumpy ride, I fear. But for everyone's sake, *please* base your votes on real-world qualifications of the candidates and their actual positions on the issues facing this nation, and NOT on prejudice or on the scare tactics used by those who don't know what they're talking about and hope you don't either. The U.S. can either be a nation based on the principles of freedom, equality and progress that its Founders intended, or it can become a nation based on prejudice, fear and ignorance. If we choose to base our votes on these latter three, then we have already lost our birthright as a nation. Please share THIS message, in its entirety, with your friends and acquaintances.

[...] For Sale

Courtesy of Making Light

Though I will admit I hadn't been aware they were being marketed on eBay.

Our children is learning... that candidacy and idiocy can go hand in hand

Got this golden nugget of goodness from Eschaton. Enjoy!

Report Shows Voting Machines Easy to Hack

As if we hadn't suspected that all along.

From BoingBoing's Gadget department: Link

Of motes and logs, pots and kettles, and highly polished mirrors

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK) comes this headline: Conservapedia - the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia.

From the article:

Although entries on Wikipedia are open for anyone to edit, conservative campaigners say they are unable to make changes to articles on the site because of inherent bias by its global team of volunteer editors. Instead they have chosen to build a clone which they hope will promote Christian values."I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found that the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views," Andy Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia, told the Guardian. "In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds - so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."

Whereas no one is permitted to sign up to edit Conservapedia at all. I know; I've tried. Oh, and check out this comparison between some descriptions given at Wikipedia and their counterparts at Conservapedia (from the Guardian article):

Dinosaurs

Wikipedia: "Vertebrate animals that dominated terrestrial ecosystems for over 160m years, first appearing approximately 230m years ago."

Conservapedia: "They are mentioned in numerous places throughout the Good Book. For example, the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are almost certainly references to dinosaurs."

US Democratic party

Wikipedia: "The party advocates civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention."

Conservapedia: "The Democrat voting record reveals a true agenda of cowering to terrorism, treasonous anti-Americanism, and contempt for America's founding principles."

No, they're not biased at all, are they?



Just for the sake of interest, here are Wikipedia's entry about Conservapedia and Conservapedia's article about Wikipedia.