“Dr. Stephens, I presume?
“Why yes. And you must be Dr. Johnson! How do you do?”
∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞
B.T.W., the reaction got even worse before it improved. From a purely intellectual perspective, it was fascinating to observe and document the progress of the syndrome. From the perspective of the guinea pig being forced to endure the experience? Hmmm… Let’s just say that “fascinating” isn’t really the first adjective that springs to mind!
“What I’m trying to do more than anything else is bring a disruptive app to politics,” [Cruz] said.
You have to wonder how much the Junior Senator from Texas understands about computers. I guess he’s lucky that the CPAC-type constituency he caters to understands even less than he.
Even Republicans (at least the Silicon Valley type) heaped mockery on him for that one!
A “disruptive app” you say, Senator? Actually there’s a term for that:
Or, if you don’t like that term, here’s another that’s just as appropriate:
The nerdier among you may find Canto XX of Dante’s Inferno amusingly relevant here.
Obama Administration Proposes Ridiculous Anti-Consumer Plan for GMO Labeling
February 28, 2015 | Authors: Gary Ruskin
Despite polls showing overwhelming support for labeling for genetically engineered foods, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack proposed yesterday that consumers should use their smartphones to scan barcodes on food packages to find out whether their food contains GMOs.
Vlisack’s idea is sure to cheer the food industry, while denying Americans the right to know what is in our food.
“Why not just enforce our right to know what is in our food? Why does the Obama administration stand up for Big Food and not consumers?” asked Gary Ruskin, executive director of U.S. Right to Know. “Is the Obama administration is in the pocket of Big Food? It sure acts that way.”
“A fancy smartphone and a pricey data plan should not be prerequisites for knowing if your food has been genetically engineered,” Ruskin said.
We shouldn’t give up the fight, of course, but maybe we should start putting more emphasis on the other side of the equation: rewarding those who do what’s right. Dare one say shift some emphasis from stick to carrot? The original on the left was published in 1902.
Another Arizona state Senator has taken to CNN to try to justify the state’s “license to discriminate” bill (SB 1062), which would allow business owners to use their religious beliefs as an excuse to refuse service to LGBT people. Just like his colleague Sen. Al Melvin (R), Sen. Steve Yarbrough (R), who helped write the bill, could not provide an example of what problem the legislation was trying to fix. He did, however, present a hypothetical situation that it might prevent:
YARBROUGH: The hypothetical that I think is the most useful is: let’s assume that we have three gentlemen who are devout Jewish fellows who form a corporation and go in the catering business. And they’re doing that and then I come to them and I say, “I’d like for you to cater my event, but I would like for you to provide pork products.” And they say, “Well, I’m sorry. Our sincerely held religious beliefs prevent us from doing that.” And my response is, “Well then I sue you, and I get damages against you.”
State Senator Steve Yarborough (R Arizona), Self-Proclaimed Expert on Jewish Religion and Constitutional Law
This hypothetical example Yarborough offers as justification for a bill designed to legalize discrimination against same-sex marriage is patently irrelevant and illogical. For example, anti-discrimination laws prevent a business from denying its standard goods or services to certain customers on the basis of race, religion, etc. They do not require the business to provide additional goods or services to anyone who asks for them. What are the odds observant highly conservative Jews would be selling ritually “unclean” food on their regular menu?
I do business regularly with a company called B&H Photo-Video. I assume the company is owned by Hassidic or ultra-orthodox Jews. Sunset Friday night, they cease doing business until the sabbath ends. That goes for a straight ultraliberal atheist like me; a gay Christian like my friend; a loosely observant Reformed Jew like another friend; a conservative Muslim like yet another friend. No one is discriminated against, and no one is given special treatment. That’s both statutorily legal and morally just.
If Yarborough doesn’t recognize the difference between that reality and the absurd “hypothetical” he posits, then he’s too fucking stupid to serve in public office. If he does recognize the difference but puts that crap out there anyhow, then he’s too cynically disingenuous morally to qualify to serve in public office.
Idaho lawmaker asks if woman can swallow camera for gynecological exam before medical abortion
Kimberlee Kruesi February 24, 2015
BOISE, Idaho — An Idaho lawmaker received a brief lesson on female anatomy after asking if a woman can swallow a small camera for doctors to conduct a remote gynecological exam.
State Legislator Vito Barbieri (R Idaho), Self-Proclaimed Expert on Women’s Anatomy
The question Monday from Republican state Rep. Vito Barbieri came as the House State Affairs Committee heard nearly three hours of testimony on a bill that would ban doctors from prescribing abortion-inducing medication through telemedicine.
Barbieri later said that the question was rhetorical and intended to make a point.
Dr. Julie Madsen, a physician who said she has provided various telemedicine services in Idaho, was testifying in opposition to the bill. She said some colonoscopy patients may swallow a small device to give doctors a closer look at parts of their colon.
“Can this same procedure then be done in a pregnancy? Swallowing a camera and helping the doctor determine what the situation is?” Barbieri asked.
Madsen replied that would be impossible because swallowed pills do not end up in the vagina.
“Fascinating. That makes sense,” Barbieri said, amid the crowd’s laughter.
The committee approved the bill 13-4 on a party-line vote, where it now goes to the House floor for a full vote. Barbieri, who sits on the board of a crisis pregnancy center in northern Idaho, voted in favor of the legislation.
So this pathetically dim bulb blithely admits and chuckles about his abysmally pathetic ignorance regarding the issue at hand (as Rick Perry might have said, “Oops!”), and then votes in favor of a bill codifying that ignorance. So on what conceivable grounds can one claim this asshole should be entrusted with making his state’s laws?
Now we have another GOP lawmaker, tax cheat, and Cliven Bundy supporter Michele Fiore (R). If she sounds familiar, it’s because just last week she suggested “hot, little girls” on college campuses [either carry firearms or admit they enjoy being raped].
State Assemblywoman Michele Fiore (R Nevada), Self-Proclaimed Expert on Cancer Treatment
[No, this is not a gag. This really is Assemblywoman Fiore.
She really is a supporter of Sean Hannity’s BFF Cliven “the racist tax evader” Bundy.
And she really is an Arizona state legislator.]
[T]his week the GOP has collectively decided to show their ignorance of biology, so Fiore [Michele Fiore (R)] contributed by proposing a bill that would let people use drugs without the approval of the FDA. (She thinks the government is holding out on us.) She made her point by literally arguing one of the most ignorant myths out there:
If you have cancer, which I believe is a fungus, and we can put a pic line into your body and we’re flushing with, say, salt water, sodium cardonate [sic-it’s “biocarbonate”] through that line and flushing out the fungus. These are some procedures that are not FDA-approved in America that are very inexpensive, cost-effective.
Flushing yourself with baking soda because cancer is a fungus is listed as one of the top myths according to the UK’s cancer research center.
In other words, this cretin claims that, to cure cancer, all you have to do is flush your system with a combination of salt water and some common substance whose name she can’t spell? Need one say more?
To get a license to drive an automobile, you have to pass a test proving that (a) you’re physically capable of seeing the road and operating a vehicle, and (b) you understand both the rules of the road and the most basic laws of physics necessary for safe driving.
To practice law, counseling others on the understanding, interpretation, and likely consequences of legislation, one must pass a rigorous examination and remain subject to peer and superior review. To make law, however? Ha! Consider the foregoing representative examples. One need not pass an I.Q. test; one need not pass a “civics” test; one need not know anything about the Constitution, the legislative process, or the facts of economics, biology, sociology, physics, or – indeed – anything else! One need not even know how to read or write, let alone think.
But more to follow.
The closer we get to the FCC’s ruling, the more furiously those obsessed with accumulating wealth and power are going to be cajoling, seducing, and/or assailing Congress and the commission. We can’t afford to let up.
Before the FCC votes on net neutrality on February 26 we have one more chance to show our support for an open internet.
We are reminding the FCC the public is watching by parking a giant Jumbotron outside of their building. On the Jumbotron we will display video, messages, images, and other content created by net neutrality supporters.
This is your opportunity to broadcast a message to the FCC. Please click here to send a written message or create an image to be broadcast on the Jumbotron which will be stationed outside the FCC in the days before the net neutrality vote.
Broadcasting your voices on a giant Jumbotron has the power to turn heads at the FCC, wake up the media, and keep up public pressure. We need you to be part of it.
This is a great way to show the FCC the power of the internet. Please click here to write a message or to upload an image to be displayed on the awesome Jumbotron outside the FCC.
Rachel Colyer, Daily Kos