Does Reason Injure Spirit?

From No Reason for the Season by Torie Bosch:

Most of the classic songs and movies that celebrate Christmas don't even mention God or Jesus. Santa doesn't check church attendance to decide whether he's going to give a child a present—he checks whether she's been naughty or nice. He's the perfect secular judge of moral fiber. To say that the secularists injure the Christmas spirit is much like the claim that two men getting hitched will besmirch the sanctity of marriage. Why should the way I mark Christmas bother anyone?

The Ignorance Of Sarah Palin And Ann Coulter

From Sarah Palin: Conservative of the Year by Ann Coulter :

Sarah Palin wins HUMAN EVENTS’ prestigious “Conservative of the Year” Award for 2008 for her genius at annoying all the right people. The last woman to get liberals this hot under the collar would have been … let's see now … oh, yeah: Me!

The entire presidential election year was kind of a downer for conservatives. Once the “maverick” John McCain won the nomination, the rest of the year was like watching a slow motion car crash. Except at least a slow-motion car crash is occasionally entertaining. So it was going to be a long year.

Until Palin.

It was not genius, but ignorance that annoyed “all the right people.” The right people in this case being the American voter.

Let’s hope that future “Conservative of the Year” Award winners are as successful as Palin at winning elections.

Get The Lead Out

Does God hate kids because so many of them care more about Santa Claus than Jesus at this time of year?

From Christmas Lights May Pose Lead Hazard by Emily Sohn:

December is a festive month, but the holiday season is also full of hazards. Falling on the ice, frostbite, overeating, and now this: According to a new study, many types of Christmas lights contain dangerously high levels of lead.

Lead is a toxic metal that can disrupt brain development, especially in kids, causing learning disabilities, aggressive behavior, loss of IQ points, and more. The new study didn't directly link Christmas lights to these problems, but researchers found enough lead on the cords of lights to cause concern.

Church Attendance Is Flat

My guess is that the local bar, pub, and tavern has seen an increase in attendance.

From Poll Finds No Boost in Church Attendance during Economic Crisis by Audrey Barrick:

While tens of thousands of Americans have been laid off in recent months and religious leaders have blamed corporate greed for the economic crisis, churches have not seen a jump in attendance numbers as many might have expected, according to a new poll.

Over the last three months, about 42 percent of Americans reported that they attended church, synagogue, or mosque weekly or almost every week, which the Gallup Poll found to be the same percentage reported earlier in the year.

History has shown that a significant crisis usually results in fuller pews, as was seen after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. During this latest crisis of economic challenges, some reports have indicated that houses of worship have drawn larger crowds.

But while some churches have seen higher numbers, the recent Gallup Poll found "absolutely no change" in church attendance after reviewing almost 300,000 interviews Gallup conducted throughout this year.

Read the rest here.

Paranormal Restraining Orders

Do you need a paranormal restraining order?

From Paranormal Restraining Orders:

David Letterman

Never be hip-mo-tised by David Letterman again!

Is he sending subliminal messages to you too? Known for his severe mental cruelty and insincere marriage proposals, finally be released from his mental harassment and hammering.

The usual suspects, such as God, Satan, and Death are also to be found at Paranormal Restraining Orders. I can understand fearing the Reaper… but David Letterman?

I’d buy a paranormal restraining order against Christmas, but unfortunately there isn’t one. Heck, I’d even buy lots of them, and give them out as Christmas gifts.

The Wit And Wisdom Of Sarah Palin

Whose side was Sarah Palin on? According to her, not enough voters knew how unqualified she was to be running for vice-president. She wanted even more people to know the truth.

From Palin's biggest campaign regret: not enough media interviews by Rebecca Sinderbrand:

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s biggest mistake of the presidential campaign: not enough time with the media, the Alaska governor said in an interview published Monday.

Maybe she really did vote for Barack Obama.

Screw You Joe

Meet the new almost boss, same as all the old bosses.

From Biden on prosecuting Bush officials for torture: ‘I think we should be looking forwards, not backwards.’:

On ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos asked Vice President-elect Joe Biden whether high-level Bush administration officials should be prosecuted for prisoner abuse. “The questions of whether or not a criminal act has been committed…is something the Justice Department decides,” Biden responded. “That’s a decision I’d look to the Justice Department to make.” While stating he was “not ruling it in and not ruling it out,” Biden underscored that he and Obama are are “focusing on the future.” “I think we should be looking forward, not backwards,” he argued.

I’m all for reason, restraint, and letting the Justice Department do their job, but we simply can’t ignore the past eight years, and hold no one accountable.

I condemn the past that is the Bush administration, I do not want to repeat it.

Bailout Money Secret

From Where'd the bailout money go? Shhhh, it's a secret by Matt Apuzzo:

It's something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where's the money going?

But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it.

Read the rest here.

Billboards And Bus Signs And Histrionics, Oh My!

I don’t really care if “theists and atheists are guilty of histrionics.” So what?

From Both theists and atheists are guilty of histrionics by Steve Goble:

On the one hand, I fully support the rights of everyone -- on both sides -- to express their views. I'm deeply grateful to live in a country where people can debate these things openly. It's good that the sign battle has people talking about these matters. As long as people are talking, there's a chance at understanding. Not much of a chance, considering the deep divide, but a chance nonetheless.

It's also refreshing to note that people who feel differently from the majority no longer seem intimidated, and are no longer content to keep quiet. We all live here, and we all have a right to be who we are.

So far, so good.

OK, I have some serious problems with the billboard battles as well, and not so much stemming from the signs themselves as from the reactions they spark. It is appalling that so many people are howling "those people shouldn't be allowed to say that!" Or, "They should get out of America if they don't believe in our God!"

C'mon. It's a free country, remember? If you disagree with one side or the other, that's fine, but don't toss the Bill of Rights into a trash bin. If you dislike the other guy's sign, get your own sign.

It also bugs me that so many people these days instantly see any opposing viewpoint -- on just about any topic, but especially regarding religion -- as a "vicious attack." Say you don't believe in God, or that you want the government out of the religion business, and you are lambasted as an "atheist" who "hates Christians" and wants to "wage war" on "all that is good." If you tell someone you believe in God, you get labeled as an "anti-intellectual theocrat" who wants to "cram religion down everybody's throat."

Sorry. It's not a vicious attack on atheists if someone else believes in God and says so out loud. It's not a vicious attack on Christianity if someone believes in something else, and says so.

I think the histrionics on both sides hinder discussion and understanding. Consider the Bible-believer who says, "This is a Christian nation and if those God-haters don't like it, they can leave!" That person leaves the false impression that Bible-believers are all narrow-minded fools, which is not true. Some Christians believe that, but not the majority.

Consider the atheist who says, "Christians are all morons who want to set up a theocracy and burn the witches!" That person reinforces the false idea that all atheists hate Christians -- again, not true. Some atheists believe that way, but not the majority.

Hysterical, unreasoned comments from both camps prompt sensible people in the middle to keep their heads down and stay out of the discussion -- thereby assuring that nobody is actually listening to anybody.

In a debate like that, who wins?

It all depends on who the moderator of the debate is. If he is biased to one side or the other, then that is who will win. Otherwise this is a debate that no one will really win. The atheists claim their side has already won, the religious believe that their side has already won. Is that the best we can do? Agree to disagree?

I think that the “histrionics” (Steve Goble’s word, not mine) are an important part of the debate. Eliminate the fringe and you have censorship. Who gets to decide which voices are “histrionic” and which are not? The fringe are the most intolerant. Eliminate the fringe from the debate and you eliminate the debate itself.

I think that we are talking about more than one debate here. The debate that concerns me the most is actually the one in which “histrionics” plays the biggest part. The “agree to disagree” world would be one that I could be content with. Unfortunately it is not our reality. The reason many atheists are speaking out more frequently and more loudly as of late is because religion has become increasingly more political. It’s bad enough that religion has always been political, but we did have the Enlightenment and the U.S. Constitution, which led to a period of a little bit of separation of church and state. Now, we are taking steps backward. It seems to me that Roe v Wade was too much for many religious people to take, and that 9/11 and George W. Bush (along with his fundie following) were too much for non-believers to take. Sam Harris acknowledges that 9/11 was a catalyst that caused him to write The End of Faith. This debate is not really about whether God exists or not. It is about whether believing in God has made us more intolerant of one another. It is about whether believing in God can cause one person to kill another person, in the name of God. Let me take a moment here to point out that most atheists would believe in God if they were given irrefutable proof of his/her/its existence. Most atheists simply want to live a life of reason, and would prefer that reason dictate the choices made by others that have an effect on said atheists. In other words, it pisses me off that George W. Bush hears the voice of something akin to the tooth fairy as support for his invasion of Iraq. And I agree with what Sam Harris (who believes that religion played a large part in the 9/11 attacks) writes on page 31 in The End of Faith:

As I have said, people of faith tend to argue that it is not faith itself but man’s baser nature that inspires such violence. But I take it to be self-evident that ordinary people cannot be moved to burn genial old scholars alive for blaspheming the Koran, or celebrate the violent deaths of their children, unless they believe some improbable things about the nature of the universe. Because most religions offer no valid mechanism by which their core beliefs can be tested and revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the superstitions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors. If we would speak of the baseness of our natures, our willingness to live, kill, and die on account of propositions for which we have no evidence should be among the first topics of discussion.

How willing are the religious to have this discussion? This is a simple debate about life and death, about pain and suffering caused because of religious beliefs. (It is curious, as well as despicable, that for those who chant the mantra of “Choose life” that life seems to not be a state of existence that pertains to adults and children.)

If the debate is simply about the existence of God, it seems that this should be an easy debate to have. And it actually is. There is no proof for the existence of God. Believe if you must, but there simply is no proof. Yes, the universe is a wonderful place. Yes, it exists. The fact that the universe exists is not proof that God exists. There is no reason to think that someone had to create the universe in order for the universe to exist. (In spite of the big bang theory, I tend to think that the universe had no beginning, and will have no end. No one had to create anything.)

Let’s get back to Steve Goble. He should read The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. Sam Harris has plenty to say about religious moderates and religious extremists. In fact, Harris’ viewpoint is completely the opposite of Goble’s.

From page 20 of The End of Faith:

While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. From the perspective of those seeking to live by the letter of the texts, the religious moderate is nothing more than a failed fundamentalist. He is, in all likelihood, going to wind up in hell with the rest of the unbelievers. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God. Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance - and it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on par with fundamentalism. The texts themselves are unequivocal: they are perfect in all their parts. By their light, religious moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness to fully submit to God’s law. By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question - i.e., that we know there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us - religious moderation will do nothing to lead us out the the wilderness.

How can we come together when we play by three very different sets of rules? The atheist plays by the rules of reason, the religious moderate plays by the rules of faith and reason, and the religious extremist plays by the rules of faith.

I feel that I must point out to Steve Goble that from the atheists point of view there is no such thing as a reasoned point of view from either the religious moderate or the religious extremist. Therefore, atheists do not see the religious moderate and the religious extremist as “sensible people.”

Steve Goble says “It's not a vicious attack on atheists if someone else believes in God and says so out loud.” I agree. I also know of no atheists making this claim, so I’m not sure what his point is. What is disturbing to many atheists is when the belief in God is taken outside of the realm of the church and into the secular world. I have already mentioned violence and killing. Add to that the issues of abortion, stem-cell research, and the creationism/evolution “debate.” These are vicious attacks on reason and logic, and they are too much to take lying down. These are also “debates” that simply have no place in the secular world, because belief is not proof.

The Saga Continues

Will the sign stealers be joining the atheists in hell?

From Stolen atheist sign to be replaced in Ill. Capitol by The Associated Press:

An anti-religion group plans to replace a sign that disappeared from the Illinois Capitol and will add a biblical warning this time: "Thou Shall Not Steal."

Annie Laurie Gaylor heads the Madison, Wis.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation. She says the sign protesting the display of religious symbols will be replaced Wednesday.

The apparent theft from the Capitol's rotunda overnight Monday was reported to police.

The sign referred to religion as "myth and superstition" and stood near a Nativity scene sponsored by a Springfield group.

An identical atheist sign in Washington state was stolen and recovered, and one in Wisconsin was vandalized.

Let's Leave God (And Rick Warren) Out Of It

Why do we even have an invocation at inaugurations? Obama could prove he is the man who believes in “change” by getting religious ceremonies out of politics. It seems that all of the reporting on this focuses on Warren not liking gays. He also doesn’t like atheists. I didn’t vote for Obama so that he would bend over backwards for the religious right. The religious right has had too many “voices” in politics recently. It doesn’t need another. Rick Warren already has a very powerful forum in which to voice his opinion. Why is Obama giving him another one? If the religious right is going to have a voice in politics, then America won’t ever come together without gays and atheists having a voice in politics as well.

I wonder why Obama didn’t pick Jeremiah Wright?

From Obama defends choice of pastor for invocation:

President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday defended his choice of a popular evangelical minister to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, rejecting criticism that it slights gays. The selection of Pastor Rick Warren brought objections from gay rights advocates, who strongly supported Obama during the election campaign. The advocates are angry over Warren's backing of a California ballot initiative banning gay marriage. That measure was approved by voters last month.

But Obama told reporters in Chicago that America needs to "come together," even when there's disagreement on social issues. "That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about," he said.

Obama also said he's known to be a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays and lesbians, and will remain so.

Read the rest here.

From Warren Says Candidates Have to Believe in God:

KING: Rick Warren is our guest. Rick, let me ask you a couple of Rick Warren questions. OK?

WARREN: OK.

KING: Does a person have to believe in god to be president?

WARREN: I would say so. I couldn't vote for a person who was an atheist, because I would think -- I think the presidency is a job too big for one person. I would think there's a little arrogance that says, I don't need anybody else. I could vote for someone of different religions than mine, but I don't know that I could personally vote for somebody who denies that we need somebody greater than ourselves to help us.

Let's take a moment to reflect and remember how much God has helped out George W. Bush.

I agree with PZ Myers:

Obama had a chance to set a non-sectarian, progressive tone at this event, and he has chosen to kow-tow to the wretched evangelical movement.

"See if you can dodge this, you draft dodger!"

From For a Last Hurrah, Protesters Give Bush the Boot by Dana Milbank:

And so they assembled yesterday on Pennsylvania Avenue, outside the White House gate, to take a few final shots. Literally. They assembled a pile of clogs, boots, flip-flops, slippers and pumps, and, in celebration of the journalist who threw his shoes at President Bush in a news conference Sunday in Iraq, they tossed the footwear at a man wearing a papier-mâché Bush mask and a prison uniform.

"Here's my goodbye kiss, George!" shouted Medea Benjamin, coordinator of the Code Pink activist group, as she hurled a shoe, missing her target.

"For your greed! For your politics!" shouted fellow antiwar activist David Swanson, aiming a pair of clogs at the Bush figure.

"See if you can dodge this, you draft dodger!" contributed veteran Jim Goodnow, launching a pair of boots toward the Bush character's head.

The Bush figure dodged, weaved and taunted: "I can take it! I can take you all on!" But then somebody hit him in the crotch with a sandal, and he fell to his knees.

Read the rest here.

The Era Of “personal responsibility”

From Two Cheers for Rod Blagojevich by Frank Rich:

Blagojevich’s alleged crimes pale next to the larger scandals of Washington and Wall Street. Yet those who promoted and condoned the twin national catastrophes of reckless war in Iraq and reckless gambling in our markets have largely escaped the accountability that now seems to await the Chicago punk nabbed by the United States attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald.

Bush had arrived in Washington vowing to inaugurate a new, post-Clinton era of “personal responsibility” in which “people are accountable for their actions.” Eight years later he holds himself accountable for nothing. In his recent exit interview with Charles Gibson, he presented himself as a passive witness to disastrous events, the Forrest Gump of his own White House.

The Times calls its chilling investigative series on the financial failures “The Reckoning,” but the reckoning is largely for the rest of us — taxpayers, shareholders, the countless laid-off employees — not the corporate and political leaders who led us into the quagmire. It’s a replay of the Iraq equation: the troops, the Iraqi people and American taxpayers have borne the harshest costs while Bush and company retire to their McMansions.

Is Anyone Listening?

Muntadhar al-Zaidi threw his shoes at George W. Bush. His message is Yankee go home. George W. Bush didn’t get the message. He is too stupid, too self-absorbed (like many Americans), and too arrogant to hear. Now more voices have joined the chorus of Yankee go home. Is anybody listening?

From Iraqis urge government to free shoe-thrower:

Protesters across Iraq Tuesday urged government authorities to free the TV correspondent who threw his shoes at President Bush.

Hundreds of students at Diyala University in Baquba carried banners demanding the release of Muntadhar al-Zaidi -- described by demonstrators as an "honorable Iraqi."

Smaller protests emerged in the Anbar province city of Falluja and in two Baghdad locations -- Baghdad University in the northern part of the city and western Baghdad's Ameriya district. In those events, students also took to the streets.

Dhirgham al-Zaidi, the shoe-thrower's brother, said the journalist hated the "material American occupation" and Iranian influence in Iraq.

TV networks across the world continue to air the shoe-throwing scene, which has touched a nerve in the Arab world, where there has been an outpouring of support for al-Zaidi -- a correspondent for the Egyptian-based Al-Baghdadia TV.

Callous George

Is George W. Bush the most callous man on the planet? He is a man with absolutely no empathy. Worse than that, he shows absolutely no desire to be at all empathic.

Here are some selected quotes by Bush from Bush 'Not Insulted' by Thrown Shoes:

In response to the shoe throwing incident:

“…it was amusing.”

“…I thought it was unusual to have a guy throw his shoe at you. But I'm not insulted. I don't hold it against the government. I don't think the Iraqi press corps as a whole is terrible. And so, the guy wanted to get on TV and he did. I don't know what his beef is. But whatever it is I'm sure somebody will hear it.”

Would someone please tell Bush the reason for the shoes being thrown. Death and destruction caused by Bush himself. And yet, Bush is merely amused, but not insulted, by this very courageous demonstration of self-expression. It seems that most of the world knows why the shoes were thrown. Why doesn’t Bush? Is he truly that much of an idiot? Or is he that sheltered by his handlers? Bush looks at this incident and sees something like a silly frat party prank, so he is amused and not insulted. Incurious to a fault, will he ever look beyond the simple act of shoes flying through the air to understand the why of the act?

And what is the deal with “I don't hold it against the government. I don't think the Iraqi press corps as a whole is terrible.”? Has he no concept of individual thought, individual expression, and individual actions? And yes, the only motivation to do anything these days is to get on television. Let's ask Hollywood for a new reality series: "The Amazing Shoes."

“Clearly, one of the most important parts of my job because of 9/11 was to defend the security of the American people. There have been no attacks since I have been president, since 9/11.”

This is a totally illogical statement. There were no attacks before 9/11 on Bush’s watch either. He must have been doing something right then. Right?

In response to al Qaeda not being in Iraq until after the U.S. invaded:

“So what?”

Here is more from Bush 'Not Insulted' by Thrown Shoes:

Raddatz: Just let me go back because you brought this up. You said Saddam Hussein posed a threat in the post-9/11 world. They didn't find weapons of mass destruction.

Bush: That's true. Everybody thought they had them.

Raddatz: So what threat?

Bush: Saddam Hussein was the sworn enemy of the United States. He had been enriched by oil revenues. He was a sponsor of terror. I have never claimed like some said that he -- you know, oh, that he was directly involved with the attacks on 9/11, but he did support terrorists. And, uh, Saddam Hussein had the capability making weapons of mass destruction.

How can Martha Raddatz sit through this and not grab Bush by the throat, like Homer Simpson grabs Bart, and scream “Lies, Lies, Lies!”?

Everybody thought they had weapons of mass destruction, except all of the weapons inspectors searching Iraq, who couldn’t find any.

Perhaps Bush never claimed that Saddam Hussein was directly involved with the attacks on 9/11, but people in his administration certainly did, and the American people believed a lie, and Bush didn’t stand up and tell them it was a lie.

From Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link:

Critics have accused the president and other administration officials of falsely inflating the links between Iraq and al Qaeda in the months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech Monday in Florida, raised eyebrows by reasserting claims that Saddam "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."

From The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq by Linda Feldmann:

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

From Bush Gang Swore Saddam Was Behind 9/11 In Lawsuit by Evelyn Pringle:

Much to the dismay of President Bush, Americans can remember all on their own, without any coaching from Democrats, that in the run up to war in Iraq, it was top official from the administration who were making the claim that Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden and that he was secretly involved to 9/11.

The fact that the administration's disinformation campaign was entirely successful is evidenced by an October 2004, Harris Poll, taken three weeks before the last presidential election, which reported that 62% of all voters, and 84% of those planning to vote for Bush, still believed that Saddam had ''strong links" to Al Qaeda, and that 41% of all voters, and 52% of Bush backers, believed that Saddam had ''helped plan and support the hijackers" who had attacked the country on 9/11.

As we now know, the basis for these allegations were false but the saddest part of the situation is that many Americans are just now beginning to realize that Bush knew the stories were false for more than a year when he cited them as justification for taking the country to war.

Read the rest of the ABC News Martha Raddatz interview with Bush here, if for some reason you need your blood pressure to go up to dangerous levels.

Throwing Shoes At Bush

Muntadhar al-Zaidi literally threw his shoes at George W. Bush.

From Iraqi journalist throws shoes at Bush in Baghdad:

A man identified as an Iraqi journalist threw shoes at -- but missed -- President Bush during a news conference Sunday evening in Baghdad, where Bush was making a farewell visit.

Bush ducked, and the shoes, flung one at a time, sailed past his head during the news conference with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in his palace in the heavily fortified Green Zone.

The shoe-thrower -- identified as Muntadhar al-Zaidi, an Iraqi journalist with Egypt-based al-Baghdadia television network -- could be heard yelling in Arabic: "This is a farewell ... you dog!"

While pinned on the ground by security personnel, he screamed: "You killed the Iraqis!"

Bush, never one to resist an opportunity to prove that he is an insensitive clod, joked about the incident:

Al-Zaidi was dragged away. While al-Zaidi was still screaming in another room, Bush said: "That was a size 10 shoe he threw at me, you may want to know."

I hope that Muntadhar al-Zaidi is not punished severely for this. He is not responsible for killing, maiming, and destroying people’s lives. Bush, on the other hand, is. Bush is the one who should be punished.

What would it be like if Muntadhar al-Zaidi has started some kind of movement? I imagine a future where Bush is inundated with shoes everywhere he goes for the rest of his life.

On the other hand, or foot, the Justice Department has found a way to throw some figurative shoes at George W. Bush.

From Justice Dept. Times Cases For Obama's Arrival by Ari Shapiro:

Some lawyers who have worked at the Justice Department for years say they are delaying certain cases in hopes that the Obama administration will give them more attention than they received from the Bush administration.

That is especially true in parts of the Civil Rights Division, where the Obama administration's priorities are expected to be very different from those of the current administration.

Civil rights prosecutors also say they are dusting off old investigations that have sat untouched for years. They hope new leaders will take interest in those old cases, which makes some companies that have long been under investigation nervous.

The Violater-In-Chief

Hopefully, George W. Bush is an endangered species.

From Conservation Groups Challenge Bush Administration's Gutting of ESA by Dan Bacher:

George W. Bush, the worst-ever president for fish and the environment in the nation's history, will leave office after eight years the same way he came in - with yet another attack on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other environmental laws.

The lame-duck Bush administration finalized a rule change today that greatly weakens the ESA, the only law that stands between many imperiled fish, wildlife and plant populations and extinction.

Environmental advocates and commercial fishermen are vowing to reverse this last-ditch move and restore protections for America's endangered and threatened birds, fish and wildlife, according to a news release from Earthjustice. Conservation and fishing groups, represented by the national environmental organization Earthjustice, announced they will challenge the new rule in federal district court. "The Bush rule change violates federal law by not adequately considering the true impact on wildlife populations it will inflict," the release stated.

Read the rest here.

Quote Of Note - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Regulatory bodies, like the people who comprise them, have a marked life cycle. In youth, they are vigorous, aggressive, evangelistic, and even intolerant. Later they mellow and in old age - after a matter of 10 or 15 years - they become, with some exceptions, either an arm of the industry they are regulating or senile." John Kenneth Galbraith

Deck Us All With Boston Charlie

Since it “Tizzy seas on melon collie”, I present you with Walt Kelly's (Pogo) version of Deck the Halls:

Deck us all with Boston Charlie,
Walla Walla, Wash., an' Kalamazoo!
Nora's freezin' on the trolley,
Swaller dollar cauliflower alley-garoo!

Don't we know archaic barrel
Lullaby Lilla Boy, Louisville Lou?
Trolley Molly don't love Harold,
Boola boola Pensacoola hullabaloo!

Bark us all bow-wows of folly,
Polly wolly cracker 'n' too-da-loo!
Donkey Bonny brays a carol,
Antelope Cantaloupe, 'lope with you!

Hunky Dory's pop is lolly gaggin' on the wagon,
Willy, folly go through!
Chollie's collie barks at Barrow,
Harum scarum five alarm bung-a-loo!

Dunk us all in bowls of barley,
Hinky dinky dink an' polly voo!
Chilly Filly's name is Chollie,
Chollie Filly's jolly chilly view halloo!

Bark us all bow-wows of folly,
Double-bubble, toyland trouble! Woof, woof, woof!
Tizzy seas on melon collie!
Dibble-dabble, scribble-scrabble! Goof, goof, goof!

A hearty bow-wow of folly to you! Now, if you’ll excuse me, I must go and prepare my bowls of barley.

Doing It

From Science!

If you don’t make mistakes, you’re doing it wrong. If you don’t correct those mistakes, you’re doing it really wrong. If you can’t accept that you’re mistaken, you’re not doing it at all.

I think that this applies to life in general… and religion… and playing the stock market… and sex…