Guess what the election is going to be all about?

Oh, boy. Mitt Romney gave a speech at Liberty University, and made it clear what side he’s taking.

The American culture promotes personal responsibility, the dignity of work, the value of education, the merit of service, devotion to a purpose greater than self, and, at the foundation, the pre-eminence of the family. The power of these values is evidenced by a Brookings Institution study that Senator Rick Santorum brought to my attention. For those who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and marry before they have their first child, the probability that they will be poor is 2%. But, if those things are absent, 76% will be poor. Culture matters.

Wait, what? Has this man never heard of cause and effect? So if you’re a high school graduate and get a good job, you aren’t poor. If you’re poor, you’re less likely to graduate from high school and get a good job. Sure, culture matters: so why are the Republicans trying to perpetuate poverty?

I don’t see where getting married before having children has a causal relationship to the problem, either, or where it’s relevant to gay marriage.

As fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of democratic debate. So it is today with the enduring institution of marriage. Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman. The protection of religious freedom has also become a matter of debate. It strikes me as odd that the free exercise of religious faith is sometimes treated as a problem, something America is stuck with instead of blessed with. Perhaps religious conscience upsets the designs of those who feel that the highest wisdom and authority comes from government.

What’s the probability that a gay married couple are poor? I think if he’s going to try and justify a particular pattern of relationships by correlating them with socioeconomic status, I suspect the lesson might be that the god of the prosperity gospel actually favors gay couples.

I expect that this is going to be a major talking point on the Republican side in the coming months. I hope Obama is ready to sharpen his rhetoric and come out a lot more strongly on the issue than he did in his tepid announcement.

Good, bad, we’re the ones with the big guns

Watch this little sketch first, and think about it.

I am relieved to say that skulls are not an official motif in US military uniforms, although some units do use them. However, we instead have Nazi-like minds at work in our military. Here’s an excerpt from a presentation at the Defense Department’s Joint Forces Staff College, composed by Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley as a proposed model for how to deal with Islam.

It’s a little worse than decorative skulls.

When I hear the phrase “politically correct”, I’m afraid my knee tends to jerk, usually in the direction of some jerk’s groin. It is the tired excuse of the fanatic trying to rationalize the unforgivable. “Oh, excuse me, I’m going to talk about incinerating civilians in a nuclear holocaust, take your ‘politically correct’ objections out of the room.”

And that’s exactly what he’s discussing. Let’s forget civilized accords limiting the conduct of war, and frankly discuss nuking Mecca and Medina. It’s OK, we’re going to remove protections for those caught fighting out of uniform, and pretend that every inhabitant of those two cities is a spy, a terrorist, or a criminal.

You can download the whole presentation; it’s an awful mess of jargon and pointlessly busy military diagrams that say pretty much nothing at all, and it’s main point is to redefine every Muslim in the world as a military combatant who deserves everything we do to them.

It closes with this message:

It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated, Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction. Let it be known that the United States remains, and will forever be, a beacon of freedom, self-determination, hope, and representative democracy. The American people will not be converted. We will not submit. We will not be intimidated, and we will not be driven from this earth.”

That is remarkably tin-eared and hypocritical. It accuses the other side of being a barbaric ideology while planning to nuke the civilian population centers of the Muslim world…oh, wait, “facilitating their self-destruction.” So we’re going to drop a bomb on them and then innocently declare that it was their own fault?

It rather deflates the grand ideals of “freedom, self-determination, hope, and representative democracy” when you use them as buzzwords to justify the murder of millions.

But perhaps that scale of terror is too immense for your brain to absorb. How about this little morsel, instead?

The American military claimed responsibility and expressed regret for an airstrike that mistakenly killed six members of a family in southwestern Afghanistan, Afghan and American military officials confirmed Monday.

…

The victims were the family’s mother and five of her children, three girls and two boys, according to Afghan officials.

This family was just quietly living in this house in Afghanistan, when the full weight of American freedom, self-determination, hope, and representative democracy dropped into their living room in the form of a military airstrike.

I think we’re the baddies.

But at least we apologized nicely. I’m sure that made it all better.

First they came for the political scientists…

Meet Jeff Flake from Arizona. His number one goal is the destruction of the federal government, one piece at a time. His first target: the National Science Foundation. The NSF funds a big chunk of the country’s basic research to the tune of about $7 billion/year, and Flake proposed cutting it by a billion dollars.

He didn’t get what he wanted, fortunately.

But now he’s fallen back on the tricks of anti-science demagogues everywhere, falling back on using his ignorance to justify gutting programs, one by one. He’s managed to block funding of all political science research through NSF, because, he says, they’re “meritless” and “These studies might satisfy the curiosities of a few academics, but I seriously doubt society will benefit from them”.

What did he single out as worthy of cutting?

A project to “develop a new model for international climate change analysis” — apparently, if you close your eyes to a problem, it goes away.

“Understanding the origins of the gender gap in political ambition,” a project to identify why young people aren’t running for office. Oh, that one we can cut, because the reason is obvious: because the offices are full of assholes like Flake.

Strangely, Flake has an MA in political science. I guess he thinks his degree is worthless, not realizing that it’s not the diploma, it’s the brain behind it.

(Also on Sb)

Dudes, get some self-awareness!

Cracked.com, the humor site that has mastered the art of making lists of stuff (and sometimes making them funny), recently posted a list of the The 5 most ridiculously sexist superhero costumes — which is funny, but is kind of an easy target, one that is addressed elsewhere, too.

What made it especially funny, though, are the comments: comic book fans came out in a furious horde to complain that someone dared to criticize the cheesiness and sexism of their beloved medium. So the author turned around and wrote The 8 Stupidest Defenses Against Accusations of Sexism. It’s amusing its own right, and has a nice explanation for why people who like comic books ought to care.

Loving comics is why I’m annoyed at major publishers deciding “We’ll only target half the population, then much less than that” by turning it into expensive fake softcore: ridiculously stupid characters and more camera angle than character development. It’s also why I’m excited by new characters who exist in their own universes, and so are allowed to actually do things that won’t be erased in the next story arc. Atomic Robo features women who kick ass and wear clothes at the same time, as if not being naked were some kind of combat advantage. Empowered proves that joyously, blatant fan service doesn’t preclude a personality or character development. It turns out you don’t need a Y chromosome to have a lead role or protection against chilly breezes.

But, you know, it was inevitable — the comments again steal the show. It’s an interesting mix of people who get it and agree, and other totally clueless pig-people who respond to being called out on their sexism with…more sexism. Here are a couple of quick ones that made me laugh, ruefully.

Damn dude, get a life. Why do you waste your time bitching about this stuff?

Dude, you’re a comic book fan griping about an article about comic books.

Exactly what is so terrible about sexism anyway?

Well, gosh, he’s got me there. I guess if you never want to talk to half the human race, sexism is just peachy.

The latest Sinfest fits in right about here.

“Make him fly, Mother!”

I got a little surprise at the supermarket checkout stand. Time has a provocative cover this week (slightly reworked).

Breast feeding? A good thing. Extended breast feeding? No problem. Sexualizing breast feeding with an attractive woman and an aggressive gaze, in an unusual pose? Weird. The title of the article, “Are you Mom enough?” is also a bit contemptuous. Apparently, it’s not enough to be a nursing mother — you’d better be sexy while you’re at it, and you’re also in competition with all those other mommies to be as aggressively maternal as you can be.

Also, this:

Also, is anyone else having flashbacks to Game of Thrones?

Pastor Tom Estes’ HARD TRUTH

Y’all remember Pastor Tom, right? Weird cranky Christian who got himself banned some time ago, ran a blog that he called “Hard Truth” in which he recited conservative dogma and called himself brave for doing it? He’s back. He’s started up his blog again, and guess what? I partly inspired him!

I wondered over to Pharyngula, where our old pal PZ Myers writes. I looked at a couple things, who he was picking on now, if my name was still in his “dungeon”(it is), and what his traffic was llike. (He has a “sitemeter” link at the bottom of his page) And I was shocked at what I found.

Yes, you are seeing this correct. Pharyngula’s traffic is way, way down. I must point out that I have absolutely no idea what has caused this. But none the less, it was very motivating to see the great Pharyngula down by around eighty-four percent.

This encouraged me because it showed me that changes in this world, however small, however insignificant (which, let us be very clear, the fact that PZ’s traffic is plummeting is very insignificant) can happen, and that Christians have to remain on offense. This is why I’m back doing this. This is why I hope that I can be the best pastor, husband, soul-winner, father, etc. that I can be. Because I know it makes a difference because I know God is still on the throne. Please don’t misunderstand me, seeing a meaningless atheist blog down in traffic is not why I’ve come back to blogging, it was just something that encouraged me along the way to making this decision.

It’s true. You know, that move we made last August? The traffic at Scienceblogs is way, way down, because I’ve moved most of my efforts here, to Freethoughtblogs. The site at Sb only gets partial content, everybody knows it, and so almost everyone comes here now, where traffic is way way up. He has absolutely no way of knowing what has caused this, except maybe for the big bold banner at the top of every page that says:

More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!

You know, the banner with three links to the new network so that no one would miss it. Except Pastor Tom.

Poor Pastor Tom, I have some HARD TRUTH for you: you’re dumb as a bag of slugs.

Before crying triumph at the decline of the heathen, he ought to take a look at Freethoughtblogs. We’re his worst nightmare.

Ken Hates Fags

I’m sure you’ve all been wondering what the views of professional ignoramus Ken Ham are on gay marriage…well, at least those of you who haven’t read the Answers in Genesis articles on homosexuality before. No surprise, Ken Ham is on the side of the haters.

…when Pastor Rick Warren interviewed Obama in 2008 before the election, he said that marriage was between a man and a woman. As he declared this, he said he was a Christian and that “God’s in the mix.” Now I do not know what he meant by that statement, but I’m assuming he’s implying that God has something to say about marriage. And God does have something to say about marriage—He says marriage is between a male and a female and that homosexual behavior is an abomination, and thus “gay” marriage is as well!

Then follows prolonged slavish masturbation over various quotes from Leviticus, Romans, Corinthians, etc., the usual suspects. One mild surprise is this:

A couple of points must be made. First, the Bible explicitly calls homosexuality an abomination (Leviticus 20:13) and places it in a list of other vices (1 Corinthians 6:9–10). It is wrong for any Christian to condone homosexuality, since God’s Word clearly speaks against it. However, it is also wrong to single out homosexuality and shrug off the other sins listed in these passages.

So Ken Ham abides by all the old Jewish dietary laws? Does he kill gays? His bible is pretty clear on that; they’re supposed to be put to death, but they’re walking around, and some probably even visit his “museum”. Does he refuse to get tangled up in lawsuits with other Christians, for instance? Has he offered a sacrifice of a male without blemish from the cattle, from the sheep, or from the goats? Has he put to death anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord?

There are a lot of very specific orders in there. I think Ken Ham has been shrugging off quite a few Biblical sins. That last one, for instance—he should have had his guards gun me down the instant I walked into his little temple to lies in Kentucky.