Over at Pharyngula there’s a great discussion centering on the work of Dr. Elisabeth Lloyd, who wrote The Case for the Female Orgasm. I have not read Dr. Lloyd’s book, but I remember when her research was release a few months ago, and remember thinking to myself that some jackass would argue that, based on Lloyd’s assertion that the female orgasm is an evolutionary bi-product, that women aren’t ’suppose’ to achieve orgasm, or that her research is sexist and anti-feminist. It appears that my instincts were correct.
Folks - please just because we are products of evolutionary biology doesn’t mean we have to abide by some Calvinesque predetermination of life. Is the female orgasm an evolutionary bi-product of the male orgasm? Lloyd seems to make the case it is — interesting, but hardly a fact we should focus our sex lives on.
Please checkout Dr. Lloyd’s response to her critics at the Philosophy of Biology Blog
The mayor of New Orleans has issued a mandatory evacuation; the state police have issued mandatory evacuations for surrounding parishes. Hurricane Katrina has now been classified as a Category 5 — with sustained winds of 175 mph, and gusts up to 215 mph.
For more info: National Hurricane Center
katrina
Apparently the US has finally ended the Iran Iraq war. The Iranians are claiming victory. A Senior Iran cleric is hailing “Islamic state of Iraq”, and who can dispute him, with such democratic articles in the proposed Iraqi constitution as:
- Article II Sec.1: Islam is a main source for legislation.
- a. No law may contradict Islamic standards.
- Article XVII: Each person has the right to privacy as long as it does not violate the rights of others or general morality.
- Article XXXVI: Guarantees freedom of expression, assembly, protest and the press, “as long as it does not violate public order and morality.
I’m sure that many of these provisions would exist in our constitution, if the republicans could insert them — of course you’d have to substitute christian for the word islam, but word has a search and replace function. . .
Unbelievable. An Anti-gay church plans to protest at soldier funerals. Though the soldiers are not gay the group contends:
“God’s wrath is rightfully killing soldiers who are fighting to defend a nation that defies the Bible” and “They turned America over to fags; they’re coming home in body bags.”
The number of ways this disgusts and infuriates are too numerous to go into.
Religious Bigotry,
Wingnuts
So the American Legion has called for an end to all public protests of the Iraq war: “The delegates voted to use whatever means necessary to ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism.” Mr. Cadmus, national commander, seems to follow the same flawed logic that so many ascribe to progressives; that the soldiers equal the conflict — to oppose the conflict is to oppose the solders. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth, at least among the hundreds of anti-war protesters I’ve spoken to:
“Public protests against the war here at home while our young men and women are in harm’s way on the other side of the globe only provide aid and comfort to our enemies.”, said Cadmus.
Mr. Cadmus also seems to forget what it is that our troops are suppose to be protecting — not oil interests, not president Bush’s career, and not foreign policy, but the Constitution of the United States. I ask Mr. Cadmus to choose between the following:
Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels — men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion
The first is from President and General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the second from Joseph Goebbels. Which one better expresses you feelings Mr. Cadmus? Unfortunately, your words are closer to the latter.
CNN.com - Robertson: Chavez remarks misinterpreted - Aug 24, 2005
I love it! Recently a number of wacko conservatives claim they have been taken ‘out of context’ when they say crass and stupid thing (ie. Rush Limbaugh). Now Robertson is saying:
“I didn’t say ‘assassination.’ I said our special forces should ‘take him out.’ And ‘take him out’ can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP
Though what he actually said was:
“If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it
I guess it depends on what “assassinate” means . . . .
For most of today I have watched the story of Pat Robertson’s call for the assassination of president Chavez grow into a national brouhaha. I had originally heard about this a couple of days ago, and thought to myself: it’s just crazy Pat, being psychotic Pat. However, it now seems that someone in the MSM has decided that if the moral christian leaders wish to lead our country, their foreign policy mutterings should be reported on — that or is was just a slow news day.
Thankfully the US state department has clarified it’s position:
I would say that Pat Robertson is a private citizen and that his views do not represent the policy of the United States,’ State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.
Gee, do you think? I find it both hilarious and sad that someone in our government had to actually take this idiot Robertson seriously and issue an official statement. Do we issue official statements when Ted Nugent goes on a tirade about gun control?
To quote from my youth: Ostende nobis, Domine, misericordiam tuam
Wingnuts
