More lies about marijuana legislation

It's about that time again.

Ever since marijuana was decriminalized (not legalized!) in Massachusetts, some people have been trying their hardest to subvert the legislation by creating ridiculous bills intended to recriminalize it, or at least to exact further punishment upon those who dare to smoke it.

Fine. They're allowed to do that, even if it's against the will of the voters and subverts the intent of the law. They can bring up all the bills they want, no matter how stupid they are.

It's even conceivable that there are good arguments to be made for changes to the law as it stands. Unfortunately, I haven't heard any of those arguments (the closest we get is "there are loopholes," which is pretty meaningless in itself). Instead, we get a lot of lies.

Let's look at some, as displayed in the Sentinel's Bill would fine drivers caught with marijuana article. First a little background on the bill in question:

A bill up for debate today in the Legislature would slap drivers caught with marijuana in their vehicle with a $1,000 fine. Those found in possession of the drug while driving would also have their licenses suspended for up to 90 days.

The bill slated for a hearing today at the Statehouse before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary was filed by state Sen. Scott Brown, a Wrentham Republican who is running this fall for U.S. Senate.

Not that I needed one, but there's yet another reason not to vote for Scott Brown!

Here's Brown's argument for why his dumb bill isn't just a waste of everyone's time:

Brown says he thinks driving under the influence of marijuana is just as dangerous as alcohol. He thinks the state should crack down on driving with pot just as it does against open alcoholic beverages in cars.

What does that have to do with fining and suspending the licenses of people who merely possess marijuana in their car? By all means punish those who are driving under the influence, but just because you have pot in the car doesn't mean you've been smoking it, or that your passengers (if there are any) have been blowing smoke in your face. There are already laws to deal with driving under the influence, how about we stick with those?

Brown is also wrong about it being "just as dangerous as alcohol." Here's a nice epidemiological study (pdf) about just that issue. I'm not going to go over the whole paper, so let's just skip to the end and give their conclusions:

Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence
indicates that:

1) There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
2) The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
3) It is not possible to exclude the possibility that use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.

Yup, there's no evidence that cannabis use alone (as opposed to cannabis + alcohol) increases the risk of traffic fatalities or serious injuries, and it may even reduce those risks. Cannabis use may increase the risk of minor accidents, but even that is unclear.

So no, it's nowhere near as bad as alcohol. Scott Brown is wrong. I'm going to assume he's just an ignorant twit and not a liar, but the effect is the same. He's introducing legislation based on a false premise.

It would be nice if he were the only guy to be spreading falsehoods in this article, but as usual we need to hear the fact-free meanderings of some poorly-informed cop too.

"When you look at the laws we are passing that outlaw smoking, this law just doesn't make any sense. You can't smoke a cigarette outside a hospital, but you can smoke marijuana," said [Lowell Police Superintendent Kenneth] Lavallee.

This just isn't true. I'm going to assume that a Police Superintendent actually knows the law still prohibits possession of marijuana. If someone is smoking pot outside a hospital he or she can be fined and the pot can be seized.

If Lavallee doesn't know that, he should probably seek a new line of work. If he does know that, he's lying to you.

Because that's what these prohibitionists do. They don't have data to back up their assertions. They don't have evidence for their claims, nor have they generally even sought such evidence. They just make false statements that support what they want to believe, and expect people to fall for it.

Once these people can actually formulate a cogent argument, based on facts and not just what they personally believe, then maybe we would have a reason to take them seriously. As it is, they're just a bunch of liars and fools, spreading falsehoods to promote their own prohibitionist leanings.

Don't fall for it.

Rush Limbaugh's Foreskin

First, my apologies for making you think about Rush Limbaugh's genitals. If I could make you unthink it, I would.

Why am I talking about Rush Limbaugh's junk today? Simple. It's because he thinks the government wants our foreskins.

Let's quote the corpulent fart-balloon!

RUSH: By the way, leave our penises alone, too! This is getting out of hand. There is a story that some officials in the Obama administration are pushing for circumcision for all boys born in the USA to fight HIV/AIDS. Not that I'm against circumcision, but it's a family's decision. Leave our penises alone, too, Obama! [...] So here's Obama out there saying we have to have circumcision of every young boy born in the country.

Trust me Rush, nobody wants your flaccid penis.

Some background would be sensible at this time.

The CDC (known to fearmongers as "officials in the Obama administration," apparently) are debating whether to recommend male circumcision as a potential way to reduce the transmission of HIV. They haven't made any recommendations at this point, and may or may not end up actually recommending it.

So yeah, that part about Obama "saying we have to have circumcision of every young boy born in the country" is quite simply a lie. Nobody's saying that. Nobody will say that, ever. If the CDC recommend circumcision, it's about as relevant as when they recommend not eating a dozen eggs every day. Decent advice, but it's up to you whether or not to follow it.

The evidence does suggest that male circumcision decreases the relative risk of transmission of HIV via penile-vaginal sex. But these studies are mostly on African populations, where there's a greater rate of HIV in the population, relatively few circumcised males (compared to the US), relatively little condom use (thanks, Catholic Church!), and where the majority of HIV infections are transmitted through heterosexual sex. In other words, it may not work the same in this country.

Notably, circumcision doesn't appear to make much difference in penile-anal sex. Since the majority of HIV cases in this country are found in males who have sex with males, we have a very different situation. We also have a lot more circumcised men, a lower rate of HIV, and more condom use. What works in Africa may not make any difference here. Or it may. That's why it's being debated.

There's this weird thread running through an awful lot of conservative bullshit these days, and this is yet another example. For some reason, conservatives seem to believe that whenever anyone even tangentially associated with the government makes a recommendation, that means they're going to force you to comply with it.

This is, of course, ridiculous. Even if they actually wanted to force everyone to get circumcised (which they don't, because c'mon), it's not like the CDC have a legion of jackbooted thugs they're going to send out with foreskin-snippers to make sure all foreskins are harvested (for use in kosher hot dogs).

Going a step further, even if you're batshit crazy and think that CDC goons are really going to come after you with pinking shears, it wouldn't work. It's just not something people would comply with if they're not willing to do it otherwise. For a guy who thinks the government is incapable of doing anything right, Rush sure seems to think they're capable of some pretty extraordinary things.

Of course, the idea that the government would force men and boys to cut off their foreskins is just totally objectionable. Yet Limbaugh has no problem at all with telling women what to do with their genitals. Seems like a little double standard there. Or for Rush, maybe I should say a teensy-weensy little "are you sure that isn't a Jujube?" double standard.

Furthermore, what's up with these conservatives constantly focusing on things that make them so terribly easy to ridicule? Does Limbaugh not realize that his status as a Viagra-popping sex tourist means that when he makes up lies about circumcision people are going to make dick jokes at his expense? Similarly, are teabaggers blind to the fact that taping teabags to their hats makes them laughingstocks?

Concerned citizen or scrotum aficionado?

You can't make up stuff this stupid. If you did, nobody would believe it.

Should I even go over the long history of white fears about black men cutting off their penises? The history of lies about sexual abuse perpetrated by black men being used as a fear tactic to fight racial integration? The implicit racism in this whole "a black man is going to cut off your penis!" bullshit?

Nah, dick jokes are less depressing.

Question 2. Yes!

Dammit.

I was all set to write about this plan to shut off streetlights. I was going to debunk the idea that it would lead to more crime, which is very popular among the big piles of stupid who frequent the S&E's message boards.

But I figure the paper itself will probably do an editorial about it within the next week or so, and I can deal with it then. The S&E isn't representative of the community by any means, but they do a great job of promoting the ideas of the cranks who hang out on their message boards.

So instead, I'll deal with their current stupid editorial. As you've probably already figured out, it's about Question 2, and in a totally-not-shocking move is called Vote no on Question 2.

It's also laughably inept. Full of strawmen, non sequiturs, and just plain nonsense. It deserves a thorough fisking. Which will commence right now.

It actually starts off perfectly fine. Just the facts:

Question 2 proposes to decriminalize possession of one ounce or less of marijuana.

It would not, however, legalize possession. Civil penalties would be enforced, and crimes such as driving under the influence of marijuana or intent to sell marijuana would remain the same.

Civil penalties for those age 18 or older would include forfeiture of the marijuana and a fine of $100.

Those under 18 would be subject to the same penalties, if they complete a drug-awareness program within one year of the offense.

The program would include 10 hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning the abuse of marijuana and other drugs.

If the program is not completed, the youth's fine could be increased to as much as $1,000. The offender could also face delinquency proceedings.

The main purpose is to prevent a one-time youthful offense from becoming a lifetime criminal record, which can make it difficult to gain employment, rent an apartment and secure student loans.

That is all correct. Sadly, that's the last we'll see of the facts for awhile. Wave goodbye if you like!

Here's where it starts to go terribly wrong:

We understand the intent. However, if this question is approved, what kind of message will it send to kids?

That breaking the law a little is OK? That if laws are broken often enough eventually we'll soften those laws?

I've lost count of the number of times I've read editorials in the S&E bitching about "sending the wrong message" to kids. It's one of their favorite arguments, perhaps because it doesn't actually mean anything. It's a thought-terminating cliche, so they can just sit back after using it and look smug. No followup required!

They do follow it up, though. With some nonsense about "breaking the law a little" being OK. Huh?

Possession of marijuana would still be illegal. It would just be a civil instead of a criminal offense. There's punishment if you do it, it's just that the punishment is more in line with the level of the offense. "Breaking the law a little" doesn't even make sense, and certainly isn't relevant here.

And yeah, if laws are broken enough, maybe they should be softened! What's wrong with that? We all break the old "blue laws" all the time (need I bring up fornication again?). Times change, laws change with them. If a law is so ridiculous that most people feel fine about breaking it, then maybe it needs to change. Has the S&E forgotten that this is a democracy?

On we go!

Massachusetts laws already require judges to dismiss charges and seal the records of first-time offenders.

Most first-time offenders are now required to participate in substance-abuse education and community-service work.

Okay, I was wrong up above. There were a couple more facts that snuck in. Unfortunately it appears they're attempting to be used to suggest that the criminalization of marijuana possession is fine because first-time offenders can have charges dismissed. This happens after a period of probation, which the editorialist neglected to mention.

Regardless of how these facts were meant to be used, we can just say "yep, that's true" and move on. It's not like the editorialist actually used them to make a coherent argument.

Back to crazy!

It is important to know that the marijuana available today is much stronger than it was 30 years ago.

Actually, no. It's not at all important to note that. Even if it's true, it's totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. Question 2 deals with decriminalization of up to an ounce of marijuana, not the potency of the pot. Could we stay on topic, please?

It typically contains nine times the amount of mind-altering THC and is twice as carcinogenic as tobacco.

Dammit, what did I just say?

Still, nine times the THC? What wondrous times we live in to get such good pot! Sadly, it's not true. The pot today is pretty much the same as the pot 30 years ago.

Also, it's good to know that smoking pot is equivalent to smoking two cigarettes. If someone smokes ten joints that's like smoking a pack of cigarettes, cancer-wise! And if they do that every single day for multiple years it could be a problem!

But nobody smokes 10 joints a day, every day, for years and years. That would be insane. Studies have shown no connection between marijuana use and cancer. So why even bring up the carcinogens?

Oh, scare tactic. Right.

They don't really care about the health risks of smoking pot. It's not a health issue to them at all, really. It's a criminal issue. This talk of health risks is just meant to make marijuana seem more dangerous than it actually is.

We're starting to approach the end of the editorial. Time for the writer to bring out his big guns!

Making possession of one ounce or less of marijuana a civil offense would serve to embolden drug dealers and prompt teens to think it's acceptable to use the drug.

Seriously? You're sticking with the lame "sending kids the wrong message" non-argument? I'm pretty sure "teens" don't base their judgment on the acceptability of using marijuana on whether it's a civil or criminal offense. Has the editorialist even ever met a teenager?

Also, "embolden drug dealers"? What the fuck? Question 2 has nothing at all to do with drug dealers. No laws about dealing are changing. It's about possession, not selling. Drug dealers will be no more or less bold if this question passes than they were before.

But hey Mr. Editor, you're on a roll. You've provided not one valid argument against Question 2. Could you maybe vomit out some more irrelevant and/or discredited talking points? Please?

Plus, marijuana often serves as a gateway to stronger and more addictive substances that destroy lives and families.

Thanks, that's perfect!

First, this is of course irrelevant to the issue of Question 2. Question 2 is not "is pot good or bad?", it's about how to properly deal with people who illegally possess it. Do we fuck up their lives permanently for a little pot, or use a lesser punishment?

This "gateway drug" nonsense has been around forever. You'd think people would stop using it, because it's such a ridiculously easy argument to debunk.

Here's how it generally goes. The anti-pot brigade brings out some scary junkie. Someone who's done every drug they could find, and committed any number of crimes to finance their drug habits. They then point out that this person started with marijuana.

Kapow! Marijuana leads to heroin junkiedom!

But it doesn't. You can't work backwards. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in this country. So chances are that if you're someone who does less popular illegal drugs (like heroin, crack, etc) at some point you've probably also used marijuana. You're even more likely to have used the terrible gateway drug of alcohol, which of course should also be banned!

Of course most people who use marijuana don't go on to use anything else. Just like most people who drink alcohol don't go on to use other stuff. There's no causative link at all.

Hey, remember back when this editorial was dealing with facts? I miss those days.

Oh well, one more sentence to go. What's their coup de grace?

Decriminalizing marijuana amounts to an endorsement of substance abuse, and we do not support it.

That's not even an argument. It's just a lie. Well, the bit about endorsement is. They're probably not lying about not supporting it.

First off, nobody endorses substance abuse, you fucking moron. Even beer commercials--which explicitly endorse substance use--don't endorse substance abuse. Learn the difference.

Second, making marijuana possession a civil rather than a criminal offense doesn't even endorse substance use. It changes the penalties for something that remains illegal.

Let's say that somehow mail fraud had picked up the death penalty as its usual punishment. If you mail fireworks, you get executed. If they then change the law so that the penalty for mail fraud is a steep fine, that doesn't mean anybody endorses mail fraud. It just means that the original punishment was unnecessarily harsh.

It also doesn't mean people (or "teens" or whatever) are going to suddenly go out and commit mail fraud because the penalties aren't as bad anymore.

Question 2 is about changing the penalty for possession of small amounts of marijuana from being something that can ruin your entire life to something that will be a pain, but not ruin your life. That's it.

It won't increase drug use, it won't bring society to its knees. It'll stop some of the harm that's done to people in the name of the ill-conceived "war on drugs," which is truly just a war on the American people.

The gobshites at the Sentinel won't recognize this, of course. But they're clearly not operating in the real world. For those of us who are, voting YES ON 2 is a good idea.

Presidential Debate Liveblog!

Hey, it's a presidential debate between John "McNasty" McCain and Barack Hussein Obama! With commentary from me for some reason!

Will liveblogging it be fun? Probably yes for like the first 15 minutes, then I'll likely get annoyed and sick of the whole deal, but will keep going because I'm a masochist.

Complicating matters, I will be totally sober during the debate, as my body has recently decided that alcohol == headaches. This will make the debate remarkably less enjoyable, and I don't recommend that anyone follow my lead. In fact, I recommend you take a drink every time you hear the word "maverick." It will help dull the pain.

I'm going to be watching the debate online via Hulu, who will be using this as their first ever live stream! So maybe we'll get some awesome technical difficulties along the way and I can call the whole thing off. That would be pretty sweet.

Incidentally, tonight's moderator will be Tom Brokaw, NBC's liaison to the McCain campaign. Damn that liberal bias!

Okay, here we go!

8:45 - Yeah, it's 15 minutes early. I wanted to be ready. Also, I started watching the Tina Fey thingy on Hulu here and just discovered that at the end she says "maverick" in case you're playing a drinking game! I did not know that when I wrote that shit up above!
8:51 - Now I'm just watching this:Way to be exciting, Hulu!
8:58 - Okay, timer's over and it's beginning and I'm treated to several terrible commercials. I think they're just streaming whatever dumb shit is on NBC right now.
9:00 - Yes, we will be having "undecided voters" asking the questions this evening. No mention if they're illiterate too or just regular morons.
9:03 - Brokaw is getting all down on the economy. "We don't know where the bottom is." Hee.
9:03 - Some bald guy sitting in the bald section asks about bailing out bald people. Obama: "It's the Republicans' fault you bald guys are suffering."
9:05 - Obama has steps: 1) Fire fat cats 2) Reform system.
9:06 - McCain thinks it's all about energy independence and "keeping taxes low." The question was about bailing out normal bald guys, dude!
9:07 - Oh, the actual plan is buying everyone's house. That makes perfect sense.
9:08 - McCain will not appoint Tom Brokaw to be Secretary of the Treasury or whatever. That passes for humor. He also thinks the CEO of eBay "inspires trust and confidence."
9:10 - Obama likes Warren Buffet, then makes fun of McCain for thinking the fundamentals of the economy are sound.
9:11 - Some guy asks a question I missed because my dog is being obnoxious. McCain talks about Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, blaming Obama for encouraging them?
9:14 - Obama "McCain's all about deregulation and is a big fat liar but I'm trying to look dignified so I won't actually say that. But his campaign chair's a lobbyist for Fannie Mae, so nyah."
9:16 - Brokaw: "Are you saying the economy is going to get worse before it gets better?" Obama: "No, blah blah blah." WRONG.
9:17 - Same question to McCain, same basic answer but stutters a lot and is still trying to make up for 3 weeks ago by calling American workers the "fundamentals" of the economy.
9:18 - Some southern woman: "How can we trust either of you when both parties are responsible for this big clusterfuck we're in?" THANK YOU STUPID WOMAN FOR YOUR DEEPLY PROBING QUESTION.
9:20 - Barry: "Yeah, we suck. Here's a bunch of empty gibberish meant to placate you since you didn't bother to ask a real question."
9:21 - McNasty: "I'm a reformer! I love Joe Lieberman!"
9:23 - Oh my god he won't shut up.
9:24 - Brokaw, "Health care, energy, or entitlement reform, put them in order of importance!" This is a question?
And yes, I think Brokaw is drunk.
9:25 - McCain won't put them in order, he just says they're all important. Obama's cool with prioritizing, energy #1, health care #2, education #3.
Wait, was education a choice?
9:28 - Some old lady with AOL wants to know which animals the candidates will sacrifice to Ba'al.
9:30 - McCain wants to sacrifice earmarks. So he's killing a pig. Probably Babe.
Also says "We're not rifle shots here, we're Americans." which makes no damn sense.
9:30 - Obama: Remember 9/11? We really should have sacrificed back then instead of shopping like idiots. YES, BUT WHAT ANIMAL?

9:33 - Brokaw: "EVERYONE'S DRUNK!!!" This is somehow related to the economy.
9:34 - OMG Obama said some people are living "high on the hog." Why is he so sexist about Sarah Palin's lipstick?
9:35 - McCain's dementia kicks in: "Obama wants to nail Jello to the wall like Herbert Hoover... Protectionism... we'll get to that... he wants to increase taxes... small business are going to cut jobs... the economy is bad..." He moves his fist during the whole thing like his Jeopardy buzzer is broken.
9:37 - Brokaw won't let Obama respond to McCain's crazy, and starts making up questions. Brokaw asks about reforming Medicare and Social Security because the Greatest Generation is really concerned about them.
9:39 - Obama: "I'm going to ignore your dumbass question, Tom. Instead, here's all the ways McCain just lied to you."
9:40 - Man, McCain and Brokaw sure are chummy. McCain: "I'll answer your question." Then he doesn't.
9:42 - Someone assassinate Tom Brokaw now, please.
9:43 - Audience lady asks how we're going to move fast on environmental issues and "green jobs."
9:43 - McCain: "Seriously, I love Joe Lieberman. Also nuclear power!" Because environmentalists really love nuclear power.
9:45 - Obama sees the "green jobs" as being just like computers. Yes, we'll have a big bubble when everyone gets involved, which will then burst. Obama also likes nuclear power, but other stuff too.
9:47 - The splitscreen reveals the horror:
9:48 - Ooh, even better!
9:50 - Question: "Should healthcare be treated as a commodity?"
9:50 - Obama has mastered the "Yeah that sucks, here's another plan" response. "If you like what you have, keep it. If you don't have health insurance, you can have ours. Also, McCain's plan sucks." THIS IS TRUE.
9:53 - McCain thinks putting everything online will make healthcare fine. He wants you to go across state lines for health care. Like a common criminal fleeing the po-po's!
9:54 - McCain thinks people have health insurance that pays for hair transplants. "I might need one of those myself." Nobody laughs.
9:55 - Brokaw: "Health care: Privilege, right, or responsibility?" WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?
9:55 - McCain: "Responsibility, but we're not giving it to you. And Obama wants to fine you!!!"
9:56 - Obama says it should be a right and looks totally frustrated that everything McCain says about him is a lie. Then tries to correct the lies. Tough luck, Hopey, nobody cares about your dirty liberal facts!
9:57 - I hope you commenters are keeping up the cleverness. I can't read all your comments because this liveblogging is surprisingly difficult. You guys should take over.

9:59 - Foreign policy time. Some guy named Phil asks how economic stress will affect our nation's ability to be a peacemaker in the world. No $$$$ means no bullets!
10:00 - McCain: "we have gone to all four corners of the world and shed blood... so we are peacemakers." What?
10:01 - Obama goes off on how all our wars suck. McCain is scribbling something and looking grumpy that Obama doesn't love war as much as he does. Why do you hate war, Hopey?
10:03 - So the answer to Phil's question is "we're fucked!"
10:04 - Why is buttplug Brokaw asking questions? Stop breaking the rules, Tom!
Anyway, he asks when it's cool to go invade other countries. I think he's pissed that Hopey's down on war.
10:05 - Hopey says we'd stop Hitler. Smart move! Also, remarkably good ideas for Darfur.
10:06 - McNasty looks pissed and is saying "my friends" way too much. Stop raining on his war!
10:07 - Old white guy says we need "a cool hand" in charge. The most impulsive man on the planet, with a huge gambling problem, thinks he's a "cool hand"!
10:08 - To clarify, that was old white guy McCain, not old white guy Brokaw.
10:08 - "Should the US respect Pakistani sovereignity and not pursue Al Qaida there, or should we do them like we did Cambodia?" - some lady.
10:09 - Obama: "Yep, Bush sure fucked that one up pretty awful didn't he? Maybe if he wasn't such a dick we wouldn't have to even worry about that question!" Then, after a lot of talking, he says yeah we'll kill Bin Laden if the Pakistani government won't do it.
10:10 - McCain: "My hero is Teddy Roosevelt... talk softly, big stick.. Obama wants to talk to Pakistan before invading them..." I think he's developing a lisp.
10:12 - Finally, he ends with the exact same policy as Obama.
10:13 - Obama wants a followup and McCain gets pissy and wants his own. Obama's followup: "What the fuck, John McCain? Why do you keep lying about everything I say?"
10:14 - Oooh, Hopey brought up McNasty's "bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" song! This rebuttal right here is where Obama just won the debate.
10:15 - McCain's rebuttal to the rebuttal: "Not true." Then goes into a story about joking with a veteran that stops after "I was joking with a veteran."
10:17 - Brokaw asked some question about Afghanistan I wasn't paying attention to, and the responses are boring. Oh my god I'm going to murder everyone if this doesn't end soon.
10:18 - McCain is hung up on Obama not "admitting he's wrong about Iraq." Yeah, that's going to happen.
10:19 - Some dick on the internet wants to apply pressure to Russia on humanitarian issues without starting another Cold War. McCain takes this opportunity to say Putin is a big KGB apparatchik or whatever. This question is idiotic.
10:20 - Where are all the Code Pink protesters? There must be undecided Code Pink protesters, right?
10:21 - Obama talks about supporting Russia and ex-soviet republics to help keep from having problems in the first place. This is too nuanced! What about Putin's crazy KGB eyes?
10:23 - Brokaw: "Yes or No, is Russian under Putin an evil empire?"
10:24 - Obama: "it's nuanced, you ass!"
10:24 - McCain says "Maybe" and gets a laugh and then goes on for awhile saying nothing at all.
10:25 - Another bald dude asks if we'd wait for UN Security Council approval before defending Israel if Iran attacks Israel. He also wants to know if we would wait for approval from Papa Smurf before rescuing Brainy from Gargamel. He is clearly an undecided voter.
10:26 - McCain: "Hell yes! We'll bomb those fuckers all the time! I love these imaginary questions! Hey, did you see that episode of 24 where Jack Bauer tortured that guy?"
10:27 - Obama: "Maybe we should avoid that in the first place, dumbass. But yeah, if your totally imaginary scenario comes to pass we'll do what we need to do."
10:29 - Last question! From someone in New Hampshire:
"What don't you know and how will you learn it?"
THIS IS THE STUPIDEST QUESTION EVER. THANK YOU NEW HAMPSHIRE FOR SUCKING SO BAD.
10:30 - Obama "Whatever, dummy. Here's some stuff I do know." Then just stump speech for awhile. He does this stuff well. Change, hope, courage, sacrifice, new direction!
10:32 - McCain: "What I don't know is what's going to happen." Also where countries are on the map? Then to the stump speech.
10:33 - Fine, I'll say it for you guys: MAVERICK MAVERICK MAVERICK MAVERICK
10:34 - Oh thank god it's over. Hahaha they both just stood in front of Brokaw's teleprompter!

Okay, I have no clue what that debate was all about. Hey commenters, you rule!

I AM NEVER DOING THIS AGAIN.

The twisted mind of Nathan Bech

Alas.

You'd think that after my nice civil discussions with a member of his staff, I'd lay off Nathan Bech for awhile. He did tell me I'm Bech's harshest critic, after all. Maybe I should pause and let others catch up to my level of harshness. Or maybe the guy just deserves a break.

Truth be told, I probably would have given him a break, because I'm not super-interested in giving him a ton of press, and I'm not too concerned about him winning the election. Olver should retain his seat easily.

But if there's one thing I can't resist, it's a batshit-insane press release. And Bech has served one up to me on a golden platter.

To be honest, I don't even know where to start with this piece of bullshit. Let's just quote and fisk, shall we?

Olver Home Heating Plan Fails 75% of Needy Bech says "Drilling will provide relief for all."

21st July 2008

Nathan Bech (R - West Springfield) expressed bewilderment about incumbent John Olver's (D- Amherst) continued unwillingness to loosen regulations for new refineries or to allow drilling for oil in ANWR and offshore drilling in the United States. "Olver knows seniors and poor people will freeze this winter if we do nothing. He knows his plan won't work and still he pursues the same failing polices," said Bech

Here's the first problem (aside from the fact they forgot a period at the end of that paragraph): Bech is talking about "this winter."

Does he seriously think that ANWR and offshore drilling will keep anybody from freezing this winter? Because that's just insane. Try 2030, if you're lucky.

But I've been over all that before, so let's not worry about it now.

Moving on..

In a speech before the House of Representatives on Wednesday July 16th Olver explained, "A whole new crisis looms as families face a price approaching $5 per gallon for heating oil for their homes. That's twice last winter's price. Last winter in Massachusetts and New England alone, 350,000 low-income families used the LIHEAP program to get by, yet only one in four of the families eligible by income use [sic] the program. Many of those already eligible families will be in desperate need of help this winter, and many more middle-income families' budgets will be severely stressed by the doubled price of home heating oil."

See where I put that "[sic]"? There's an intentional misrepresentation a typo there.

If you compare Bech's press release to Olver's, you'll see that Olver didn't say that only one in four eligible families "use" the program, he said they "used" the program. There's a subtle but important difference, which Bech will now further twist to his own bizarre interpretation.

Oddly, you'll also find Olver's "middle class" replaced by Bech's "middle-income." But it's the use/used distinction that Bech exploits.

Witness the insanity!

Bech argued that Olver's own words prove three quarters of the people refuse government handouts for heating oil. "The people of central and western Massachusetts do not want to be dependant [sic] on welfare to heat their homes. We are self sufficient and don't want to take handouts. We simply want government to get out of the way and let increased supply lower costs. If we allow new refineries to be built and if we allow off-shore drilling energy prices will go down," said Bech.

Holy fuck that's stupid.

Seriously, Nathan? You seriously think that Olver's words "prove three quarters of the people refuse government handouts for heating oil"? Are you high? Do you have even the faintest idea what you're talking about?

Now, a sane person hearing that only a quarter of eligible recipients get help from LIHEAP might imagine many reasons for why that's the case.

For instance, they might assume that most people who are eligible for assistance are unaware of it, so they never even think to apply for help. Or they might assume that the application process is so grueling that a lot of eligible people don't make it through. Or they might assume that there are other programs that people use in its place.

They absolutely do not assume that poor people are refusing "government handouts" that would help keep them from freezing to death!

The only people who would assume that are either rich assholes that are totally disconnected from reality, or deranged militia members living in shacks and preparing for "the coming race war." Either way, they share a detachment from reality.

Want to know why only a quarter of people eligible for LIHEAP get help? Maybe this is related...

The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is not an entitlement program, meaning that you are not guaranteed help because you meet certain criteria. Congress provides a specific amount of money each year for LIHEAP.

When the LIHEAP funds are gone, LIHEAP grantees can no longer provide federal help until Congress provides funds for the next Federal Fiscal Year that begins on October 1st of each year. Therefore, it is possible (at the time one applies) that a state will have exhausted its available federal LIHEAP grant monies, and thus be unable to serve additional households even if those households are eligible to receive help.

Yeah, and how's that funding going?

Oh, not so well:

FY 2009 Proposed Funding
The President’s proposal for FY 2009 LIHEAP funding is a cut of 22 percent, reducing the block grant from $1.98 billion to $1.7 billion and the emergency contingency fund from $590.3 million to $300 million. The President has proposed zero funding for the Community Services Block Grant and the Weatherization Assistance Program.

Starting to see a trend here?

The whole point of Olver's speech to Congress was to try to get more funding for LIHEAP. That's why he was talking about people who are eligible but couldn't use it. Only a quarter of those eligible get help, not because they refuse it, but because there's no fucking money to give them!

It takes a truly twisted mind to turn an attempt to get proper funding for heating assistance for poor people into a claim that people reject that very assistance out of some twisted desire to conform to Republican ideals. It's impressive, in the same way that 2girls1cup is impressive. And both can cause nausea.

Must we go on with this?

Yeah, we must...

Olver blamed Republicans for the crisis saying, "Congress must end rampant speculation in crude oil futures, yet our Republican colleagues in both branches have consistently opposed such legislation."

Hey, that's true! Maybe things are looking up!

Bech responded, "It is Economics 101, when action to increase supply is taken, the price of futures goes down and speculators leave the market place. When the executive offshore drilling ban was lifted last week the price of crude went down $9 a barrel with in [sic] hours.

Hey, he's doing pretty well. Bech and Olver agree that speculation is a problem, they just differ in the best way to solve it. I'm inclined to agree with Olver and disagree with Bech on this matter, but reasonable people can differ.

Maybe this is a sign of an upcoming improvement in the Bech press releases! Oh, but wait... that quote didn't close... there's one more sentence to go...

Olver doesn't seem to have a problem with speculators in the pharmaceutical industry; after all he has thousands of dollars in Pfizer stock."

FUCK!

I thought we were talking about energy costs and LIHEAP and people freezing this winter, and Bech comes out with a slam that Olver owns stock in Pfizer? What the fuck is that even supposed to mean? How is it relevant to anything anyone is talking about? Is speculation some sort of problem when it comes to pharmaceutical prices? How does this have anything to do with anything???

I give up. This is way past just honesty problems. This is dementia.

Piles of bullshit

I don't typically aim to get into national politics here, but when the local paper is running opinion pieces that lack the slightest intellectual honesty it's time to make an exception.

Today's craptacular editorial is entitled Hypocrisy in Congress, and comes to us courtesy of either the Sentinel & Enterprise or one of the copywriters at their parent MediaNews Group. (I'm going to assume the latter, since the NH Broacaster has the exact same editorial.)

Let's start at the beginning:

Two weeks ago, congressional Democrats and Republicans extended unconditional support to Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, President Bush's new commander in Iraq.

Really? "Unconditional support" seems like an odd thing to offer, given that they'd totally be abdicating their responsibility of oversight.

In fact, nobody offered anything like unconditional support of Gen. Petraeus's strategies or anything else. What they did was to vote for his confirmation unanimously. Unanimous is not the same as unconditional. When right-wing media tool Chris Wallace made the same dubious connection, here's what Jim Webb had to say:

WEBB: When the administration puts forward a general officer to fill a billet that exists, I will take a look at his qualifications and see whether I believe he is qualified to be a commander. That doesn't mean that I have to back a political strategy that impels him into motion.

Back to the editorial:

However, those same lawmakers that praised Petraeus are now working to deny the crucial funding the general needs for his troops to get the job done.

What hypocrites!

Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, and a host of Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Ted Kennedy and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are working together to get approved a non-binding resolution condemning Bush's troop surge and the money required to support the mission.

Interesting leap of logic here.

Warner, Reid, and Kennedy all voted to confirm Petraeus. That vote was to put him in position as commander of the Mulitnational Force in Iraq. Not for a troop escalation, nor for any of Bush's other plans. Simply for Petraeus as being qualified for the job he was nominated for. Period.

There's no hypocrisy at work here, there's oversight. That's something the conservative press has a hard time accepting, so maybe I can provide a metaphor that could help.

Let's say I run a factory and have just hired a new foreman. The board of directors has approved him as being someone who's fit for the job. We're having trouble with our production due to some machines that have broken down. The new "Diplomacy 1500 (r)" machine is sputtering terribly, for instance, and a number of men have died trying to replace its normal role (which involves welding thermite to TNT or something, you get the point).

Ignoring this, I decide the best course of action would be to hire 21,000 more employees to do the incredibly hazardous job the machine used to do. My foreman agrees with me that this would be effective. The board of directors, on the other hand, thinks we should fix the damn machine and refuses to fund the new hires. Some dolt at the local paper than accuses the board of being hypocrites for hiring the foreman even though he disagrees with them.

This isn't hypocrisy, it's oversight. It's what's keeps us from making horrifically stupid mistakes over and over again, and it's what was missing when Republicans controlled Congress.

At least there's one thing I can agree with in this editorial:

If pulling the plug on all U.S. military operations in Iraq is what Congress really wants, then lawmakers should do it

Yes, yes they should.