Category Archives: Everything Else

A little bit of this, a little bit of that.

Are PACs Donating to Queen GIVE ME BACK MY KIDS Noble?

Posted on by
3

There is a four-way race for the position of D.C. Delegate this year. That seems like a lot of competition, given that the position they are running for is basically just an opportunity to audit the role of congressional representative. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the current Delegate, is guaranteed to keep her post, and she is by far the most well known of the four candidates. One of her opponents this year, Missy Reilly Smith, is getting some publicity, though, for her gross-out campaign videos — which were so bad they got banned from YouTube. A third candidate is Rick Tingling-Clemmens, who is running on a Statehood platform, and also has an awesome name.

And then there is Queen Noble, the Dark Horse of this year’s Delegate race. Noble is running as the candidate for the H.E.R.O.S.H.E.R.O. party:

I am here for my babies kidnapped by kat sabilous department of social services and the department of children and family services in Hollywood, ca. I am Queen GIVE ME BACK MY KIDS Noble, I have 994 trillion law suit active in the us supreme here in dc against this government currently aiding and abetting smith’s kidnapping of my kids in this stolen country. Prima Facie discovery Evidence is proof of target victimization for life and robbed of my family.

H.E.R.O.S.H.E.R.O., by the way, stands for “Helping Equal Rights Opportunity & She’s Helping Equal Rights Opportunity.” That’s from a Missouri Ethics Disclosure Report. But if you want to call Queen Noble, you may be out of luck. Under Committee Telephone Number, she writes “noble hates phones, write something using your racial postal system (see maxine “crack cocaine” waters 35th Dist. SCla. ca)”. To paraphrase the words of a great man, what does this all mean?

It might also be worth pointing out that her campaign expenditures include black-eye peas and corn muffins.  Her previous ballot initiatives include “Bible Belt My Ass.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is not Noble’s first election campaign. She has previously run for Mayor of Cincinnati. In that race, she listed her education as “Jim Crow/George Wallace”, and stated that her qualifications for office were that she is, “Currently a presidential candidate running for the Mayor of Cincinnati 3 times candidate for President 5 times for City Mayor Candidate Congress and City Council Candidate once”.

Here is one of her position papers:

“America” is a stolen Country byway of London England . The German culture is murder, theft, child abuse, mental illness, suicide, genocide at which time to date is also guilty of monopoly of ill gotten gain by way of poor quality unequal health education, well-being, housing, transportation, communications, parks, recreation, justice, law enforcement and clean environments aided and abet by inferior blacks and those calling themselves minorities, the racist culture gave birth to profanity

She has also filed a $994 trillion dollar law suit against the Stolen United States of America, Does, Kenneth D Lewis, Bank of America and Skid Row Housing Trust.

Now here is where the story gets truly surprising: in 2009-2010 alone, Queen Noble’s campaign apparently received $17,000 in political donations from various PACs.

Total 2009-2010 campaign contributions: $17,000

Contributor Total
MINEPAC, A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION $1000
AFLAC PAC $1000
AMEREN FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AMERENFED PAC) $1000
COALPAC, A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION $1000
BAYER CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL ADVISORS POLITICAL ACTION COMM $2000
NATIONAL VENTURE CAPITAL ASSOCIATION VENTUREPAC $2000
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC $2500
FREE AND STRONG AMERICA PAC INC. $4500

So Aflac, Bayer, and a few other boring corporate organizations are reported as having given money to Queen GIVE ME BACK MY KIDS Noble. As is Free and Strong America — a Leadership PAC run by Mitt Romney.

And in 2003, she did even better, receiving over $30,000 total in contributions — including $5,000 from Emily’s List. Apparently Johnson & Johnson, Circuit City, Pepsi, Sears, and the Gap all had their PACs give to her, too, plus there were repeat contributions from alcoholic beverage trade association PACs.

Except at this point, I am kind of suspicious about the accuracy of Congress.org’s data on PAC contributions. This can’t be right, can it? I haven’t figured out where exactly Congress.org got its data, and no other site seems to list these contributions, so maybe people are not giving money to Queen Noble’s campaign after all — I hope not, anyway.

-Susan

Why I Will Never Vote For a Creationist

Posted on by
4

Creationism is my political dealbreaker. I have never voted for or supported a candidate that admits to disbelief in the theory of evolution, and I cannot envision a possible scenario in which I ever would. If there was a worst-case situation, and I was forced to choose between a Marxist candidate and a creationist candidate… well, I’d probably choose neither and vote for the Rent Is Too Damn High guy instead.

Actually, I have two political dealbreakers. In addition to creationists, I won’t vote for anyone who believes extraterrestrials have visited earth. This is a dealbreaker for much the same reason creationism is, although it’s less important, as I would probably never vote for the politicians who believe in aliens anyway. (Sorry, Reagan, that might rule you out too.)

But creationism is the dealbreaker that is more commonly invoked, and it has yet to lead me astray.

It’s not that I think creationists are idiots. You don’t have to be an idiot to be a creationist. What you have to be, though, is willing to discard reality in favor of an abstract ideology. Being a creationist is proof that, based purely upon ideological motivations, you are capable of ignoring the overwhelming wealth of evidence that shows the reality of evolution, and instead carefully construct a fantasy version of ‘truth’ out of the few meager scraps of misconstrued data and outright fabrications that creationism has to offer. And, at least for me, that completely disqualifies you from being an elected official.

There has been a bit of a brouhaha today over Christine O’Donnell’s pedantic denial of the First Amendment’s bar on government endorsement of religion. I wish more attention was being given to the underlying context, though, and not the silly sound bites.

O’Donnell was arguing is that public schools ought to be able to teach creationism, and not evolution, that a government institution should be able to pick the creation myth of a particular religion — in this case, generochristian — and force all to learn ‘intelligent design’ instead of modern biology.

During the debate, O’Donnell argued that Coons’ views on teaching of theories other evolution showed that he believes in big-government mandates. [sic]

“Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools,” she said. “You’ve just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution.”

In fact, O’Donnell believes that forbidding public schools from endorsing religious philosophies “is a blatant violation of our Constitution. The Supreme Court has always said it is up to the local communities to decide their standards.” This is false, of course, but O’Donnell’s ignorance of constitutional law is just a distraction from my main point, which is the O’Donnell’s willful ignorance of science. But it is worth noting that O’Donnell is now on the record enthusiastically endorsing a theory of Constitutional interpretation that would allow public schools to teach theories of Islamic embryology and astronomy or Vedic science. And

When it comes to O’Donnell’s candidacy, belief in creationism is the least of her problems. But it is a very telling indication of her inability to objectively assess concrete real-world situations and reach a conclusion that is not fundamentally dependent upon abstract convictions.

And, on a smaller scale, those who support O’Donnell are displaying the same sort of willful blindness as are creationists. The prevailing conservative ideology is that she is the Tea Party Candidate, the true conservative; that she would be a wise statesmen who could help create a government based on sound conservative principles of governance. And, because of that ideological meme, a disturbing proportion of conservatives are denying an almost objective reality, or as objective a reality as it ever gets in politics: that O’Donnell is unqualified, not particularly bright, devoid of substantive opinions on government policy, and possesses a record marred by dozens of ethical lapses.

To be fair, all of those attributes are endemic among the political class. But O’Donnell is thin gruel even by that low standard. Support for O’Donnell is not based upon any factual evidence of her specific abilities as a politician, but upon the abstract belief that she is the true conservative candidate and therefore qualified to be senator.

-Susan

Gary Bolton is MIA, but the GT200 is Still in Action

Posted on by
5

Back in June, the London Police raided Global Technical, Ltd. — the maker of the GT200 fake bomb detector — as well as two other companies with similar product lines. Since then, however, there have been no further updates either on the investigation or on the activity of Gary Bolton, the officer of Global Technical.

Unfortunately, while Mr. Bolton has gone quiet, the GT200 is still out there on the market. Despite being warned by the UK about the fraudulent bomb detectors, Mexican authorities are still buying the devices, and still believe in their magical narcotic and drug detection abilities.

A friend of mine helped me with translating a couple articles that discuss the GT200, and sadly, neither of them are even slightly critical or suspicious about the GT200’s alleged abilities.

See here:

Dozens of Victorenses who were visiting GranD Campestre (the local mall) were surprised not by the presence of a large group of soldiers, but by the maneuvers they were doing.

Some curious people asked what it was about.

It turns out the military was putting to use in that area a modern detecting device.

It’s the GT200, which, with a long antenna and an inserted card, located cocaine, weapons, gunpowder, marijuana just by holding it near the suspicious vehicle.

And also here, describing how Querétaro’s government has completely drunk the GT200 Kool-Aid:

The Secretary of Citizen Safety in the state of Querétaro is acquiring armored vehicles, vehicles with video surveillance equipment, and the GT200, which, he says “is an instrument used by other national organizations, which allows us to detect at a distance possible explosives, corpses, weaponry, ammunition; it’s sophisticated and it works at great distances.”

Sigh.

-Susan

America: The Only Nation That Requires Its Soldiers to Lie

Posted on by
Reply

In light of today’s Senate vote, which failed to overcome the Republican filibuster to prevent a chance to consider a bill that would provide the President and Department of Defense with the option of maybe ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, I present the following lists without further comment.

Countries That Allow Gays to Serve in the Military
Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Russia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom
Uruguay

Countries That Have Allowed Gays To Serve in the Military and Ended Up Regretting It
None

Countries That Don’t Allow Gays To Serve in the Military
Cuba
China
Egypt
Greece
Iran
Jamaica
North Korea
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Serbia
Singapore
South Korea
Syria
Turkey
Venezuela
Yemen

Countries That Allow Gays In The Military, So Long As They Obsessively Disguise the Truth About Their Lives
United States

-Susan

Christine O’Donnell: Pros and Cons

Posted on by
Reply

Christine O’Donnell is the Republican candidate in Delaware’s Senate race. There are a lot of strong feelings out there about O’Donnell’s candidacy, so I thought I would weigh in with an objective analysis of the pros and cons regarding her suitability for being elected Senator.

Pros:

  • Political platform includes the belief that “[v]oting to spend money we don’t have has become the appealing option for too many politicians. The men and women of America know this is not sustainable.”

Cons:

  • Political platform also includes the belief that “every individual has a unique, unrepeatable preciousness, and that our fiscal policy should be one that encourages and empowers the individual creativity.”
  • Has never articulated any concrete fiscal policy positions, or advocated a specific plan of action she would support in order to reform the federal government’s spending or taxing.
  • Campaigned on MTV to end the epidemic of masturbation that is destroying our country.
  • Is a young earth creationist that advocates teaching creationism rather than Darwinism in public schools.
  • First became involved in politics while working for an anti-pornography crusade.
  • Has a lien filed against her by the IRS for unpaid income taxes.
  • Uses campaign funds to pay her rent and personal expenses.
  • Believes opponents are hiding in her bushes at night to spy on her.
  • Lied about her home being foreclosed on.
  • Lied about receiving a college degree.
  • Lied in court filings about being prevented from attending Princeton for a Master’s degree, when she did not even have an undergraduate degree at the time.
  • Thinks that lying is always wrong, even when it is to Nazis for the purpose of saving Jews you have hidden in your house.
  • Supports the “ex-gay” movement.
  • Uses phrases like “get your man-pants on.”
  • Has failed to pay past campaign debts, while continuing to divert all campaign funds towards spending on the current campaign.
  • Has no savings, no investments, owns no property, and reported receiving only $5,800 in income in the last year.

But she believes in fiscal responsibility, even if she doesn’t practice it, so that makes her an ideal politician, right? Right?

I have mixed feelings about the Tea Party, but one thing that always kept me hopeful it would amount to something useful was the general resistance among the Tea Party infrastructure, such as it is, to get drawn into the ‘culture wars.’ But despite all their claims about a fiscal policy focus, they still wind up choosing candidates like O’Donnell — who are above all social conservatives first, and fiscal conservatives only incidentally. Of course, in O’Donnell’s world, it’s the same thing:

“As I was in Washington, D.C., advocating for the social issues, I realized that they’re all connected, that your approach to protecting the human dignity and protecting the individual definitely reflects in your fiscal policy, and that’s why I’m a fiscal conservative.”

-Susan

Market Failures and Dried Apricots

Posted on by
3

I’ve always liked dried apricots, but the texture of them is, admittedly, kind of disturbing to me. Not to mention their color — that neon-tinged ocher was never meant to be seen in nature. But they make for excellent trail mix and they taste pretty okay, so I’ve learned to ignore the unsettling chewy texture and bulbous appearance.

And then last week I was introduced to sulfur-free dried apricots. And I am never going back.

As it turns out, the dried apricots that are commonly available in stores get their Frankenstein-like attributes from being treated with sulfur dioxide. Unfortunately, this treatment has the mild side effect of completely ruining the flavor. In contrast, sulfur-free dried apricots look kind of like flattened and freeze-dried termites, but they are approximately a hundred times tastier. As a friend of mine put it, “organic dried apricots are nature’s Sour Patch Kids.” They really are. Go buy some now, you won’t regret it.

So why has it taken me this long to discover how much better sulfur-free dried fruit is? Well, probably because I’m an indiscriminate omnivore, and when I see something labeled as “organic” I tend to interpret it as “overly expensive for no justifiable reason.” But it’s also because sulfur-free dried apricots are really hard to find. Grocery stores tend to only carry the sulfur-treated variety — and when placed side by side on a super market shelf, I can see why the sulfured monstrosities might look more superficially appealing to a potential customer. At any rate, stores seem to be inclined to carry the less tasty version over the organic kind, probably in order to appeal to shoppers who are basing their purchase on appearance. Compare for yourself:

Dried apricots that have been treated with sulfur dioxide

Dried apricots that do not taste like ass

Dried apricots are not the only fruit where consumers are forced to settle for pretty at the expense of tasty. The tomato is probably the most notorious example of this — supermarket shelves are lined with bright, round, shiny red tomatoes that seem to come straight from central casting. But when it comes to taste, comparing these Hollywood-perfect tomatoes with a heirloom variety, such as UglyRipe, is kind of like comparing Natty Light with a microbrew. The average tomato available at the supermarket is simply a bland and watery imitation of the real thing.

In the case of tomatoes, though, there is at least a strong argument to be made that the government is to blame for the lesser availability of the ugly-but-tasty varieties. But when it comes to dried apricots, the specter of government regulation cannot be as easily invoked, to explain why the sulfur-treated apricots are widely available and the unprettified kind are so hard to find. True, drying fruit with the help of sulfur dioxide is cheap, but my guess is that the real appeal is the resulting appearance. People just aren’t going to venture out and try and entirely new food type when the appearance is so unsettling. I mean, would I have ever tried the non-sulfur kind on my own, if a friend hadn’t bought some for me to try? Probably not. Because they’re labeled organic, and I don’t swing that way. But also because there is nothing particularly compelling about the sight of a bag of organic dried apricots, which could in fact be confused with a bag of potpourri.

So consumers don’t know enough to go for non-sulfur treated dried fruits. And stores — except for stores that specialize in catering to yuppies, like Trader Joe’s — have little to gain from trying to offer consumers an ugly looking version of a commonly available product. Which means we’re stuck eating a less-good version of dried apricots, unless and until consumers somehow discover en masse how much better the organic kind can be.

-Susan

The Money Tree

Posted on by
Reply

What happens when money starts sprouting on trees?

About what you’d expect: a lot of people didn’t notice, the ones who did seemed to assume it was an art installation and snapped pictures with their camera phones, and then once one brave dude started to harvest a few of the notes for himself with no ill-effects, everyone else joined in.

The money tree was a marketing ploy by RaboDirect Australia, and it reminds me of the old joke about the economist who doesn’t stop to pick up a $20 bill he spots on the ground, because he assumes if there truly were a $20 bill free for the taking, someone else would’ve nabbed it by now.

“We were surprised by the results when compared to the way people treat their savings, which often sit idle in their transaction accounts,” says the bank. “Much like the A$4.7 billion in potential savings Australians are missing out on in lost interest, the majority were unfazed when presented with money actually growing on a tree.”

To be fair, I think I’d have the same reaction as those who stopped and took pictures — it seems fair to assume that if you see a money tree pop up in a park, some hipster art student is behind it. I don’t understand the people who didn’t even notice it, though; I can see how green backs might be missed, but Australian money is bright and gaudy enough to stand out.

-Susan

Dismemberments by Chainsaw: A Review of the Literature

Posted on by
1

Sometimes, I wonder if I should have gone into medicine instead of law. I can’t decide if the following articles confirm or deny that suspicion. From the Journal of Forensic Psychology, we have:

Blood and tissue spatter associated with chainsaw dismemberment.

Randall B.

Department of Pathology, University of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine, Sioux Falls, SD 57103, USA. fornsix@aol.com
Abstract

In response to the unexpected paucity of blood/tissue spatter at the site where a body of an adult woman was dismembered by an electric chainsaw, we dismembered two large pig carcasses with a small electric chainsaw in a controlled environment. These experiments demonstrated first that a large carcass could be easily dismembered by a small electric chainsaw. When the chainsaw bar is held parallel to the ground the majority of the blood and tissue is deposited directly beneath the saw and bar and very little elsewhere. If the discharge chute of the saw however is not oriented directly at the ground, larger amounts of blood and tissue may be sprayed on lateral surfaces or deposited some distance from the chainsaw. The characteristic striations created on the surface of wood as it is cut by a chainsaw can also be found on bony surfaces cut by a chainsaw.

Death caused by a chain saw–homicide, suicide or accident? A case report with a literature review (with 11 illustrations) has a disturbing conclusion. And/or it was ripped from the plot of a CSI episode. (Sadly, the illustrations are locked behind a pay wall).

Reuhl J, Bratzke H.

Center of Forensic Medicine, University of Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Abstract

A 31-year-old farm worker was found dead beside a chain saw. Based on the testimony of a colleague and because of the situation at the site, the police very soon presupposed an accident. It was assumed that the victim had slipped on the sudden ground and had been killed by the subsequent swerving of the saw when starting the engine. The body presented with a deep lacerated wound at the right side of the nape of the neck, including the first cervical vertebra, the medullary canal and the right mandible as well as multiple fissures of the occipital bone, which were attributed to repeated forceful use of the chain by another person. A second wound with relatively sharp edges and a tangential fissure in the corresponding area of the skull raised the suspicion that an axe or some similar device had been used. Although the forensic medical findings seemed to give clear evidence of external violence, no further investigations have been carried out so far by the authorities.

And Unusual suicide with a chainsaw.

Tournel G, Dédouit F, Balgairies A, Houssaye C, De Angeli B, Bécart-Robert A, Pety N, Hédouin V, Gosset D.

Faculté de Médecine de Lille, Institut de Médecine Légale et Sociale, 59045 Lille Cedex, France. gilles.tournel@univ-lille2.fr
Abstract

Described here is a case of suicide with the use of a chainsaw. A female suffering from schizophrenia committed suicide by an ingenious use of a chainsaw that resulted in the transection of her cervical spine and spinal cord. The findings of the resulting investigation are described and the mechanism of suicides with the use of a chainsaw is reviewed. A dry bone study was realized to determine the bone sections, the correlation between anatomic lesions and characteristics of chainsaw. The damage of organs and soft tissues is compared according to the kinds of chainsaw used.

“Ingenious use.” Well, credit where credit’s due, I guess.

-Susan

Saying “Whatever” To The Judge Is Generally Not An Optimal Trial Strategy

Posted on by
Reply

In Kentucky, an attorney is facing jail time for refusing to reveal the name of her client to the court. Attorney Adams represented a minor seeking an abortion in a bypass-proceeding, and in the course of the hearing it was revealed that the girl and her sibling lived in an abusive home. The judge wanted to know the identity of the girl in order to address the abuse:

After 36 years of practice, Amelia “Mikki” Adams faced an attorney’s worst dilemma: Protect the identity of her client — a 17-year-old girl — or comply with a judge’s order to disclose her name.

Adams opted to protect her client, and now she faces six months in jail for contempt of court.

Sounds pretty unjust, no? Although Kentucky has a mandatory child-abuse reporting law — which the judge is relying on in making her demand for the child’s name — U.S. Supreme Court precedent has held that states with laws requiring parental consent for abortion must provide a method by which the minor can anonymously request the court for an exemption. It is unclear which of the laws trumps the other:

“The judge certainly was justified in attempting to deal with the abusive parents,” said Hofstra University law professor Monroe Freedman, an expert on legal ethics who has testified in Kentucky courts. “But the lawyer was unquestionably correct in refusing to divulge the information without making every reasonable effort to appeal the judge’s order.”

On first glance, it sounds like the judge is being extremely unreasonable in holding the attorney in contempt here. … But then, upon reading the transcripts, the real reason for the judge’s harsh stance becomes apparent:

Adams: “ I respectfully decline to give any information that I may have. At this time I have no information. … I do not know anything other than that her initials are “J.J” and that her first name is (redacted). … And she has instructed me to decline giving any information. She is my client. The privilege is hers. It is not mine. … “
[Judge] Karem: “ And how do you know her first name?”
Adams: “ She gave it to me.”
Karem: “ But she didn’t give you her last name?”
Adams: “ She did give me her last name, and I am not going to give it to the court.”
Karem: “ So you do know her last name?”
Adams: “ Yes, I do, and I’m not going to give it to the court.”
Karem: “ That is contrary … to what you told me a few seconds ago, that you didn’t have any other information but her first name.”
Adams: “ I misspoke. I’m sorry.”
Karem: “ At this point I think you need to be quiet.”
Adams: “ Whatever.”
Karem: “Ma’am, you have an attitude.”

Shouldn’t that have at least been “Whatever, your honor”?

While I still respect the attorney and think she made the right call in not revealing her client’s name, I gotta be honest, she kind of deserved to be held in contempt.

-Susan