Study: Sexual Identity Hard-Wired by Genetics; Conservatives in Deep Denial

It must be a pain in the ass to be a conservative – always on the losing side of scientific debate.

Sexual identity is wired into the genes, which discounts the concept that homosexuality and transgender sexuality are a choice, California researchers reported on Monday.

“Our findings may help answer an important question — why do we feel male or female?” Dr. Eric Vilain, a genetics professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine, said in a statement. “Sexual identity is rooted in every person’s biology before birth and springs from a variation in our individual genome.”

“Our findings may explain why we feel male or female, regardless of our actual anatomy,” said Vilain. “These discoveries lend credence to the idea that being transgender — feeling that one has been born into the body of the wrong sex — is a state of mind. link

If you would like to express your condolences to the Republican party for their failing political platform and their pandering to the religious right, here is their address:

Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

Might I suggest a nice fruit basket?

Are we expecting something…. big?

Top constitutional law scholars and political scientists will huddle in the Senate Judiciary Committee room all day next Monday to weigh the unfathomable: A nuclear device in Washington kills the president, vice president and everyone in the line of succession.

Along with members of Congress, the analysts will seek to determine whether the current system of presidential succession is adequate for the post-September 11 world ?— and if not investigate reforms to the system. Washington Times

Bin Laden Vows More Suicide Attacks

(Reuters) – Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has vowed to carry out more suicide attacks within the United States and against U.S. targets outside America to punish Washington for its “oppression”, the Arabic satellite television Al Jazeera says.

“We, God willing, will continue to fight you and will continue martyrdom (suicide) operations inside and outside the United States until you abandon your oppression and foolish acts,” said the text of an audio tape purportedly by bin Laden made available to Reuters by Al Jazeera.

Two observations. Now that Bush’s approval ratings are in a steady decline, we need to be scared again to keep us in line. After all, there are attack plans for Iran and Syria and the good people in the US need to fall back in line…

And… why in the hell is Osama still a threat? Why is he still out there to make these threats? Oh, I remember, Bush though Saddam was more dangerous. link

The Howard Dean Hype Machine…

After I revealed last week that Wesley Clark is my choice for the Demnon, I received several e-mails from Howard Dean supporters trying to sell me on their man.

First of all, an endorsement from RightwingSlayer isn’t at all coveted. I think any of the candidates will do well without it. Trust me.

But the tone of a few of the e-mails was almost confrontational, as though I had turned my back on the democratic party by not being in Dean’s corner.

Well, I’m pretty disgusted with a small minority of militant Howard Dean supporters. I didn’t say I was disgusted with Dean. Dean is a politician above anything else and he is not immune or above scrutiny, especially in light of what is at stake in 2004. He is a close third in my choice for demnom.

However, there is a little contingent of Dean supporters who can be downright vile in their support of this candidate. I recall reading somewhere that many of Dean’s supporters are new to the political game and have never paid attention to politics until recently. I also personally heard a handful of supporters say this about themselves at the one Dean meet-up I attended. This might explain why some Dean supporters are so thin skinned when it comes to any critiques of him.

Josh Marshall at talkingpoints memo said it best:

There is an awfully distressing tendency among a minority of Dean supporters to serve up no end of lacerating comments about other candidates and then to react with a sort of stunned and outraged shock when anyone criticizes their guy. It’s the flip side of seeing the race in such heroic, if not messianic dimensions.

The primary is actually not concluded yet. And, pace John Calvin, I assume the outcome is not predetermined. So it is still permitted to criticize Mr. Dean and not be an enemy of democracy. link

Look. I’m tired of the game. I will support Howard Dean in a heartbeat if he gets the nod but I’m not fooled by him. He isn’t the man many of his followers have made him out to be.
And although I appreciate the rabid support he has, some of these supporters can be downright funny when defending his record for something.

It typically goes like this on democratic message boards: Someone mentions something about Dean that contradictss the Dean myth. These Dean supporters swoop in with their spin machine and tell us exactly what Dean meant or was thinking when he said something. This hypothesis is then spread among the Deanie masses so when the original point comes up again, they say, “That has already been debunked.”

Well, no, unless you can read Howard Dean’s mind or have afternoon tea with him on a daily basis, the point hasn’t been debunked. It has been spun.

Case in point – Dean’s supposed anti-war stance. It’s a myth.

The record shows Dean thought Saddam had WMDs and supported taking him out…

“I don’t want Saddam to stay in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed.”

“Every day that goes by, we destroy more of Saddam’s weapons or the inspectors do.”

“I think Iraq is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons.” link

Russert: …and I’ll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, “I would be surprised if (Saddam) didn’t have chemicals and biological weapons.”

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry’s comments that President Bush misled the country.

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He’s a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and…

Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and…

Dean: Well, I wasn’t aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled. link

So here is the setup. In these quotes, Dean believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction at one point, and then admits he was midled. Fine.

But then Dean hypocritically attacks John Kerry for claiming people had been misled:

“A bunch of the people who voted for this war are now saying, `Well, we were misled,’ ” said Dean. “The fact is you can’t afford to be misled if you are running for president of the United States.”

What’s that called?

OK, let’s take it further.

On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that “if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization.”

And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that “if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn’t, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.”

Again, this was on January 31. A month or so later (see Dean quotes above), Dean appears to fully believe Saddam has WMDs. Apparantly, Dean (like a lot of people) believed Bush’s false evidence.

Now, let’s tie this up. We have Dean, fully believing Bush’s false evidence, calling for military action even without U.N. authorization.

Dean, fully believing Saddam has WMDs, amends his view on February 20 by stating the US should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm if the UN chooses not to enforce it’s own decisions.

Sorry, people, Dean may be anti-war now, but he hasn’t always been, and the belief that he was is one of many Dean myths.

But let me defend Dean a little bit.

Dean didn’t propogate these myths. His supporters did. Supporters so desperate for an anti-Bush candidate they essentially created one.

I know I’ll get e-mail on this – many pointing out the flaws my choice for demnom, Wesley Clark, has. Go ahead if you want. I’ve seen them all.

And diverting from Dean to Clark isn’t a valid defense, anyway.

If you have been under the impression Dean was this big anti-war candidate, just admit that he was not. It doesn’t have to change your other opinions on Dean.

However, if you really want an anti-war candidate, vote for Dennis Kucinich.

View the new DNC ad against the Bush administration by clicking the above picture… then go here and help put this puppy on TV!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: