Iowa Cockus open thread

ha! i made a funny!

post predictions in the thread

Conan and Leno: Be Better.

The Late Night hosts returned to their shows last night after two months on hiatus as a result of the writer's strike. Since they have been off the air for two months and some returned without writers we could allow them some time to get back into a groove and find their place in this new environment. We could afford them a degree of understanding and compassion, place ourselves in their proverbial shoes, and wait to pass judgement until at least a few episodes have aired.

Or we could bash some of them.

Mike Huckabee was on Leno last night. Now, admitedly, quality assessments of Huckabee only happen when you really want it. But even if Leno did not want it how could he not rip into Huckabee? Leno had no writers, an hour to kill, and Mike Huckabee sitting next to him on a couch with a camera rolling.

So they exchange jokes and Leno lets Huckabee play guitar with the band.

Really, Jay?

You could not have made a joke about the Romney ad Huckabee would not air but showed to reporters? You couldn't ask him about his comments regarding Jamie Lynn Spears? Jamie Lynn Spears, the little sister of Britney Spears, is 16, preggers, and Huckabee commented on it. The material writes itself. Hell, no writing is even required. You simply say those words and see what Huckabee does.

And then we have Conan O'Brien. Give him an hour of tv time on the day before the Iowa Caucus and he'll spin his wedding ring.

I know that political humor is not for everyone, that some lack the hate required to truly excel at it. But when we live during a time when a comedy show can literally be comprised of naught but sequences of "Today, the president said this:" and video clips there's no excuse for using your television show to spin a wedding ring or let an ignorant, hateful dolt play his guitar.

Wendy Wright Thinks I Want to Give Kids Syphilis

Wendy Wright is the president of the Concerned Women for America. She does not like the idea of kids being given accurate information about their sexual health. She believes that comprehensive sex education is bad because it leads to teens (and everyone else) having sex.

During the Dec. 31 broadcast of Fox News’ Special Report, Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright claimed that proponents of comprehensive sex education are trying to “encourage” sex because “they benefit when kids end up having sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and then they lead them into having abortions.” She then added, “You have to look at the financial motives behind those who are promoting comprehensive sex ed.”

In her mind (and everyone else like her) sex is for one thing: making babies. And the only people who are allowed to make babies are people who are married. The only other reason someone would want to have sex is because it feels good - and we can have none of that. She believes that if she is able to control knowledge, and demonize sex people will only have sex for the correct reasons.

However, absence only education does not work. Teen births in the united states have been GOING UP since W required that schools only teach abstinence in schools. States are starting reject federal funds because this requirement does not halt or slow down teen pregnancies.

Obviously, Wendy Wright cannot make the argument that pleasure is is bad. She would sound like a jackass. So she has to make up some ridiculous story about advocates of a sensible health policy are going befit from teaching kids about STIs. Syphilis is bad. But knowledge is worse. So she goes on fox news yesterday and says that people who want comprehensive sex education in schools want comprehensive sex education because they will financially benefit. Not that her organization benefits from her going on fox news or anything.

Zero Punctuation: Super Mario Galaxy

Our stupid little system.

One of the neat things that happens when one reads books and pays attention to the world in which they live is that one discovers the manner by which ideas and concepts evolve over time. For example, by paying attention and reading books one can learn that the ideas and concepts and beliefs of Judaism and Platonism were combined to create Christianity. This is a handy tidbit of knowledge that is often useful when attempting to analyze what, exactly, is wrong with the Fundamentalist Idiot you meet in your local coffee shop. Turns out she is not crazy: she's a half-Jew Platonist.

More disconcerting than religious evolution, though, is the knowledge one can gain of governments and, most importantly, our own delightful government of the United States of America. Did you know that our political philosophy is based upon the writings of, among others, Hobbes and Locke? Did you know that they were absolutely, undeniably, demonstrably bat-shit crazy?

Oh, it's true.

Hobbes wrote in the Leviathan that in the Natural Condition of Mankind human beings were prone to smashing their neighbor's skulls at night and no progression was possible thereby entrenching man in a life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". This of course explains how we came to this point given that all of our ancestors had their heads crushed by their rock toting neighbors. Locke was arguably the most important foundational writer on the concept of the social contract, a fabrication which can, and I say this with absolutely no respect, fuck its unfounded self right in the ear.

While the evolution of ideas over time is delightful to explore and incredibly interesting a problem occurs when we forget that our current concepts exist as a result of the concepts which existed before them; that our current state is the result of these past states; that our current political concept of marriage comes from the philosophical and non-philosophical views of marriage maintained in the past.

Which probably explains why our legal system cannot handle same-sex divorces.

(I, too, am sort of surprised that it took four paragraphs to get to the point.)

The quote from that article which struck me as most interesting follows:

"In the case of the doctor, she and her spouse each gave birth to a boy fathered by the same sperm donor. They then adopted one another's sons. Biologically, their children are half-siblings; legally, they are full brothers."

That is problematic. Regardless of your own view of homosexual marriage I think we can all agree that in no way does this current system behoove anyone. Think about that situation with regards to the children. They have a common father, each their own biological mother, and legally the same two mothers.

This is what happens when you take political philosophies from the bumblefuck era (late 1600s), combine them with rampant ignorant idiocy, and try to apply all of it to now within a legal framework.

The starting point for a government needs to be reality, an accurate assesment of the world in which we live and the situations therein. People of the same sex can fall in love, procreate, and love their children. When we ignore this; when we shove our collective heads up our assholes and create a political philosophy that starts with "what do I think ought to be the case" rather than "what IS the case" we end up with a stupid little system like the one we have where these two human beings can be married and their inevitable divorce conforms to the established system but those two human beings can only get married in that state and have to utilize a different system for their inevitable divorce.

What would Hobbes and Locke think about same-sex marriages? What Would Jesus Think? What would Plato think? What do we think?

It does not matter!

What matters is the reality of the situation: what actually happens.

"Federal law looks at gay divorcees as strangers," Eppley said. "Bob can't transfer property to Steve without it counting as a taxable transfer, whether in capital gains or a gift and potentially both."

See that? That is law conflicting with reality; a collection of baseless words and ideas causing problems for human beings living in the world who simply desire to live their lives.

If the government is going to be involved in marriage then the laws need to reflect reality and not puritanical idiocy. If you, personally, think that homosexuals are icky then by all means enjoy your missionary style heterosexual sex. But don't legislate morality. Don't fabricate a stupid little system based upon the writing of idiots which needlessly complicates the lives of other human beings who merely want to have access to the same opportunities as the people whose sexuality conforms to what people during the bumblefuck era thought was right and proper.

Huckabee: I see what you did there.

This is great.

Mike Huckabee is holding a press conference right now in which he was supposed to unveil a new negative ad against arch rival Mitt Romney. But Mr. Huckabee came to the press conference and announced he’d had a change of heart and would not be broadcasting the ad after all.

But wait! It gets better.

He then broadcast it for a room crammed with reporters, photographers and television cameras. The assembled media found the display hilarious and at several points laughed out loud.

I'm not going to write that Mike Huckabee fucks children in their assholes with the limbs of aborted fetuses. I'm not going to suggest that each morning he kills a puppy with his bare hands before masturbating onto its dead carcass. I would never write that Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee opens his Bible to a random page every night and covers the page in shit to blot out any text the page might contain. I would never write or suggest those things.

SEE WHAT I DID THERE?

2007: May the door hit you.

Right now in Indiana it is 2007 (AD or CE depending on your own personal preference) but in Australia it is 2008 (AD or CE). Think about that for a moment. Really think about it. I assure you that it does not make one damned bit of sense.

In case you have all forgotten we live here:


All of us on that oblate spheroid rotating in space for no good reason at all. So to say that over there it is 2008 (AD or CE) whereas right here it is 2007 (AD or CE) is entirely fucking stupid.

For one thing we are all on the same damn oblate spheroid; it does not age in sections. It is not the case that the arbitrarily defined section of the globe which contains Australia is somehow older than the section which contains Indiana. It's all, the entire oblate spheroid, the same age. And we all know that age is 6,000 years for Young Earth Creationists, 4.54 billion years for Geologists, and completely fucking irrelevant for everyone else.

For another thing the numbering system itself does not make any sense. 2007? 2007 WHAT? Even the crackpots at conservapedia acknowledge that Jesus Christ was not born in 0 BC/AD/BCE/CE. So, given that the earth is either 6,000, 5.54 billion, or some other fabricated number of years old out of whose hat was 0 BC plucked? To answer my own question it was the hat of Dionysius Exiguus who, being a monk, obviously had a sensible, well-reasoned grasp on reality and undoubtedly a very fine hat.

For a third thing how the hell much sense does it make to group quantities of time in this manner? Is it really sensible to lump that chunk of time together as the 1900s and this chunk of time together as the 2000s? Does that actually behoove human beings in their thinking about the world? Does that allow for an accurate understanding of reality? Certainly it allows for appropriately titled VH1 specials concering various decades but in what sense are those decades meaningful? How does the transition from 2007 to 2008 MEAN anything? What will be different between today (2007) and tomorrow(2008), what is different in Australia (now in 2008) that is somehow not the same in Indiana where it is still 2007?

I contend that there is no meaningful difference but rather an interpretation of perceived differences resulting from this stupid system of measuring prolonged periods of time.

But I digress.

Despite the arbitrary nature of the date, its complete lack of meaning, and irregardless* of how old you, personally, think Earth is I invite you to have an enjoyable end to 2007 and wish you a delightful 2008. With any luck 2008 will be better than 2007. Though, admitedly, that would not be a very difficult task to accomplish.


*This is not a word, Twardy, you fucker.