Brownshirt guards prevent free-wheeling discussion at the Creation Museum

It's almost unbelievable. I suppose that too many thinking people were wandering in and criticizing the faux-science exhibits at the "evolution science" museum in Kentucky. Apparently, Ken Ham and his Creation Museum team simply can't stand it when people talk real science in their "museum." They'll shut you up and kick you out. PZ Myers gives a detailed description of his visit, and it's well worth reading the entire thing. It's pretty amazing that a "museum" would so unabashedly attempt to stifle all thinking. Myers almost can't believe his own eyes and ears. Stifling thinking? But that's how it is in most fundamentalist churches too. Fall in line or else. Pretend you know things you don't really know. Pretend that you don't know things that you do know. This is the foundation for an incredibly screwed up community, and the fundamentalists want to export it to the public schools too.

Continue ReadingBrownshirt guards prevent free-wheeling discussion at the Creation Museum

More GOP Astroturf?

I watched Rachel Maddow last night, and one of her segments focused on the disruption of recent Democratic Town Halls by 'grass roots activists'. Her piece exposed the activists as following an agenda designed by a DC lobbying firm. In many ways this is worse that the Tea Party fiasco, since that was unfocused and generally laughable kookery. This, however, is targeted directly at health-care reform, and appears to be heavily funded by lobbyists for that industry (indeed, Rachel mentioned that some firms were sending 'representatives' to every state). I also happened to see many of the same clips on Fox & Friends this morning (forced upon me in the hotel gym). F&F 'reported' the 'protests' as legitimate outpourings of anger against the 'government's plans for healthcare reform'. I was surprised. Not! Think Progress has more on the Lobbyist memo.

Continue ReadingMore GOP Astroturf?

Anti-abortion = anti-contraception?

One of the first posts I wrote at this site was an in-depth look at a "pregnancy resource center" which, to my dismay excelled at spreading untruths about abortion and did its best to discourage the use of effective birth control. What a strange thing, I thought, to discourage methods that would prevent accidental pregnancy which would, in turn, lower the abortion rate. Maybe fighting effective birth control (i.e., methods that don't exclusive rely on just say no) would be good for repeat business at the "pregnancy resource center," but it is terrible for the unwitting clients of these highly dysfunction centers. Along comes this Alternet post by Christina Page, "Why the Anti-Choice Movement Is on the Verge of Civil War." This is a fascinating look at the anti-choice movement's big schism:

The question now is: 'are you pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people's lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so.'"
And consider this--I think that Page's logic is impeccable:

It may come as a shock to most pro-life Americans, but there's not one pro-life group in the United States that supports contraception. Rather, many lead campaigns against contraception. As [anti-abortion yet pro-contraception] Congressman [Tim] Ryan explained, "I think the pro-life groups are finding themselves further and further removed from the mainstream; they're on the fringe of this debate." Considering that the average woman spends 23 years of her life trying not to get pregnant, the anti-contraception approach depends on a scourge of sexless marriages or a lot of wishful thinking.

Where does this lead? If you aren't for preventing accidental pregnancies, you can't truly be anti-abortion. Yet that is the situation with all major anti-abortion groups. For example, none of them support Ryan's legislation that would increase funding to make birth control available, promote effective sex-ed and provide financial incentives for adoption. Yet no pro-life group supports his efforts. Many groups staunchly oppose the use of real birth control (e.g., this one). On the other hand, most pro-life individuals support his efforts. Not surprising, in that 80% of pro-life individuals (90% of Catholics!) support the availability of effective birth control. Page presents many other eye-popping stats in her article. The bottom line?

The greatest opportunity to reduce the need for abortion is to focus the 95% of unintended pregnancies that are highly preventable. The plan is simple: address the lack of and incorrect use of contraception.

This is a solution that virtually all individuals agree on. But all we get from "pro-life" groups is defiance. Therefore, pro-life groups (such as Democrats for Life) are wholly unaccountable to their constituents.

Continue ReadingAnti-abortion = anti-contraception?

National traffic safety agency (NHTSA) causes thousands to die by hiding safety data

From a bureaucrat's perspective, it's just much easier to hide inconvenient information. That doesn't make it right to hide important information. Not at all. Heads should roll for the recently disclosed cover-up by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. People died on the highway because of this cover-up, and not just a few people. Back in 2003, federal government researchers estimated that 955 people died and 240,000 accidents occurred in 2002 due to cell phone use. Extrapolate those numbers out to 2009 and we can reasonably assume that 5,000 people needlessly died in highway wrecks because the government didn't release this shocking cell phone usage data and issue a stern warning that people shouldn't talk on cell phones while they drive, because it's as bad as driving while drunk. This cover-up by the U.S. government means that more people died because of the government's corrupt ways than the number of people who died in the 9/11 attacks. Shouldn't we declare "war" on safety officials who cause people to die by intentionally withholding safety information? I would have a commission get to the bottom of this to find out who made this piss poor decision to withhold the date. All the people involved should (but won't) spend many years in prison for manslaughter. And let's connect the dots. Why would Congress get mad because of the release of this accurate data? Let's see . . . maybe it's because the telecoms, who contribute massive amounts of money to Congress, would see their profits cut if their customers could run up cell phone minutes while driving. Could that be it? Note: The telephone utilities pour more than $40M annually into lobbying Congress and many millions more into political contributions. These politicians and government employees apparently forget who they work for. Here's a hint: their top priority should not be the telecoms and other monied contributors. They work for us. If they would have asked themselves this simple question ("Who do I really work for?"), maybe they would have felt compelled to release important safety data, which could have saved thousands of lives. This recent disclosure is unbelievable and very very sad. The NYT reports:

The former head of the highway safety agency said he was urged to withhold the research to avoid antagonizing members of Congress who had warned the agency to stick to its mission of gathering safety data but not to lobby states. Critics say that rationale and the failure of the Transportation Department, which oversees the highway agency, to more vigorously pursue distracted driving has cost lives and allowed to blossom a culture of behind-the-wheel multitasking. “We’re looking at a problem that could be as bad as drunk driving, and the government has covered it up,” said Clarence Ditlow, director of the Center for Auto Safety.

Continue ReadingNational traffic safety agency (NHTSA) causes thousands to die by hiding safety data

Modern credit card agreements: 29 pages of “tricks and traps”

Elizabeth Warren, the TARP Oversight Chair was on the Rachel Maddow's show discussing the aggressive anti-consumer practices of credit card companies, and warning that the credit card industry is about to try to kill federal efforts to regulate the industry. She reminds us that in 1980 a credit card agreement was only about a page long. Now credit card agreements are 30 pages long, full of "tricks and traps."

MADDOW: Are you worried that the [credit card] industry's going to be about to kill [credit card reform legislation] in the crib? Reporting is that it's their top priority to get rid of it. WARREN: My gosh! I have to tell you, it's like they're stampeding in the halls already in Washington. the Gucci loafers. These guys have built up a huge war chest, they've been interviewing public relations firms to see who can come up with the next Harry And Louise ad to explain to the American people why they're better off with credit cards that nobody can read, hundreds of pages of mortgage documents that nobody can read...the idea is you're better off with how things are...forget all that stuff the happened over the last few years. And we promise to keep things up just like we did before. I just can't believe they're trying to sell that to the American people.
You can read much more on this topic at Jason Linkins' post at Huffpo's new Lobby Blog.

Continue ReadingModern credit card agreements: 29 pages of “tricks and traps”