Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
Those who really really want a gun, are the very ones who really, really shouldn’t be allowed to have one.
Generating right-left asymmetries
Vertebral variation, Hox genes, development, and cancer
Acoelomorph flatworms and precambrian evolution
Evolution of alcohol synthesis
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Those who do not remember the National Lampoon are condemned to repeat it | Main | Echinoderms in motion »
Category: Politics
Posted on: October 3, 2006 7:49 PM, by PZ Myers
While everyone seems to be hammering on the GOP for their love of child-molesters, we're all forgetting that the Republicans are compensating for that with a bold foreign war to save Iraqis and their children. Why, look at the selfless summary by Mike DeWine:
"We're not in Iraq for the Iraqis; we're there for us."
Uh, whoops. Never mind.
Maybe "We're there for us!" could be the new GOP slogan.
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
I thought it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom? Wait, who's confused here, me or DeWine?
Posted by: ATM | October 3, 2006 8:18 PM
And to think there was a time when I considered DeWine to be relatively independent and principled, and that this time was earlier this year. Glad to have the illusion shattered before the election rather than after, not that this was what actually did it.
Posted by: Viscous Wizard | October 3, 2006 8:38 PM
Not everyone may recognize that that's Republican United States Senator Mike DeWine (Ohio), who is running for re-election against stalwart Democrat Sherrod Brown.
It seems worth making clear.
But now: Veronica Mars!
Posted by: Gary Farber | October 3, 2006 8:59 PM
Whoops, actually not for another hour.
But "maybe 'We're there for us!' could be the new GOP slogan" is a very fine suggestion.
Posted by: Gary Farber | October 3, 2006 9:02 PM
The only reason to look forward to an invasion of Iran is to see what they name it.
In the old days, operations were given obscure code names. The reason was that we didn't want the target of the operation to know what we were really up to.
Now we give them seemingly transparent names like "Operation We're Good, They're Bad." The reason is that we don't want the target of the operation to know what we're really up to.
It's just that the target has changed.
Posted by: Craig | October 3, 2006 9:18 PM
And that would be the Sherrod Brown who voted pro-torture, as of course did DeWine. Oh, god, voting is going to be such fun.
I wonder if we can send DeWine to Guantanamo for giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 3, 2006 9:19 PM
Posted by: Caledonian | October 3, 2006 9:26 PM
Come now -- the whole point about torture being bad is that it's bad *even when you're torturing bad people.*
Posted by: JBL | October 3, 2006 9:37 PM
And some people need to be reminded of that. They also need to be reminded of the distinction between 'legal' and 'ethical'.
Besides, I don't think we'd have to torture more than one or two former members of the Supreme Court before the august body recognized such practices as being unconstitutional. That's the beauty of it, you see -- they're perfectly safe as long as they rule correctly.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 3, 2006 9:50 PM
Yeah, but if all the pro-torture people were imprisoned at Guantanamo, we'd be free to stop torturing. It'd just be a nice place to put them so we don't have to look at them for a while.
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 3, 2006 9:54 PM
"In the old days, operations were given obscure code names. The reason was that we didn't want the target of the operation to know what we were really up to."
Churchill on code names for military operations:
Mixed bag, Winston was, but quite right in this.Posted by: Gary Farber | October 3, 2006 10:13 PM
Isn't it obvious that the US is in Iraq for selfish reasons? As far as I can tell, DeWine actually told the truth this time.
Posted by: Alon Levy | October 3, 2006 10:52 PM
I don't understand what you're saying... the first sentence sounds like classical eliminationist rhetoric: torture them and they'll rule against torture. Then the second pokes fun at that attitude. Can you clarify?
Posted by: Alon Levy | October 3, 2006 10:55 PM
Ah, no - my point is slightly different.
If we keep abducting and replacing the Supreme Court members who fail to acknowledge the grossly obvious truth that the new law is unconstitutional, eventually we will hit upon enough justices to reverse the decision. In which case, the final justice combo will be safe from rendition, since the Executive Branch can no longer use such tactics.
The justices expended will really have nothing to complain about - their treatment was, as they affirmed, perfectly legal.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 3, 2006 11:12 PM
I don't think the executive branch is going to target justices who don't agree with it...
Posted by: Alon Levy | October 4, 2006 12:43 AM
Since when did altruism enter the picture? It was always about our agenda.
Posted by: NatureSelectedMe | October 4, 2006 3:02 AM
"We're not in Iraq for the Iraqis; we're there for us."
Sounds like a good working definition of imperialism to me.
Posted by: gravitybear | October 4, 2006 8:38 AM
I don't think the executive branch is going to target justices who don't agree with it...
That depends on whether you regard their spin machine as part of "the executive". Remember the Coultergeist's comments about rat poison? Or how Judge Jones needed US Marshal's protection during Kitzmiller?
These people are quite wiling to target judges that do not rule the way they want them to rule.
Posted by: Graculus | October 4, 2006 10:01 AM
Maybe it's just because I teach history, but the idea of torturing a couple of justices seemed to me to be a reference to a famous anecdote from the waning days of the great 17th century witch hunts. A sceptical inquisitor was explaining to a local ruler that he doubted the value of information obtained under torture. After a bit of give and take he put the thumbscrews on the duke, who held out briefly and then exclaimed, "One more turn and I would have confessed to anything!" That was the end of torture for information in his jurisdiction. By the mid 18th century it was convential wisdom among European jurists that torture was useless for obtaining information, though it lived on for a while as an exemplary punishment. Of course was still used ousinde the legal system by people such as Napoleon who did not know, or did not care, about the courts' experience.
Posted by: David | October 4, 2006 10:26 AM
You know that'll never happen -- there is no such thing as honesty in politics.
Posted by: Warren | October 4, 2006 10:34 AM
The real problem is not that we're in Iraq for us as opposed to for the Iraqis, but that being in Iraq doesn't do any good for US. A grown-up realist would never go into Iraq for the benefit of Iraqis, which is sad, but neither, really, would anyone else, whatever they may say. At least the grown-up realist would also not go into Iraq on the misguided theory that it's good for us.
Posted by: CJColucci | October 4, 2006 1:33 PM
It's not exactly a matter of disagreement. I can imagine the next President targeting justices that favor this particular form of civil rights violation. If he or she doesn't... well, the system will be pretty effectively broken.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 4, 2006 7:03 PM
Craig: "Operation Nuclear Takeout" - that way they can use it both ways - to mean taking out Iran's nuke capacity and the use of nukes in the process. (I still find the hypocrisy the second most appalling thing in all of this - the first is the utter callousness over Iranian and American and (etc.) lives.)
Alon Levy: Of course it is obvious. But from a regime of liars and thugs, you hardly expect honesty.
Posted by: Keith Douglas | October 5, 2006 3:53 PM