... a Young Earth Creationist's head just imploded like a swiftly punctured hot water bottle.

To celebrate, let's have another listen to the monkey song.

Related: sometimes polls scare the crap out of me.

UPDATE: Good post here.

Read More »

An interesting teaser from SMASH:

You'll never guess who stopped by my "support the troops" demonstration in San Diego yesterday.

(Hint: His name rhymes with "Ronald Mumsfeld")

IM addendum from Goldstein:

proteinwisdom: I would love to sit around and bullshit with Rusmfeld
proteinwisdom: He's like Sinatra, only with Apache attack helicopters at his disposal

I've already made my feelings plain.

Anyone that wants to throw a fit and righteously delink Reynolds for his mild comments regarding the ACLU might as well go ahead and delink this site too, or surely not add INDC to their blogroll in the first place. You know, save us both the public, ideological heartache when you eventually note that I share Reynolds' INABILITY TO IDENTIFY AND FIGHT AGAINST PURE EVIL. Thanks.

In the interim, enjoy Shepard Smith getting sworn at on live TV.

And please store this excerpt from Hitchens in your debating ammunition depot. Also see video of Hitchens on the Daily Show.

And I had a big long essay highlighting analagous statistical supports (PDF file on standardized test scores), caveats and explanations related to the recent study showing that men have a higher average IQ than women, but this piece by Charles Murray blew my post out of the water, covering every angle I'd hoped to address and many more.

The only subject that none of these pieces cover in any detail is the relative strength areas of women compared to men, like the fact that women typically have a greater degree of bilateral hemispheric lateralization during cognitive tasks (both sides of their brains work in tandem), which probably means that, on average, women can sort out communication context and complex interpersonal interactions a whole lot better than men. Why is this specifically important? Because the author of the controversial study came to this conclusion ...

"The small male advantage in IQ is, therefore, likely to be of most significance for tasks of high complexity," said Dr Irwing.

... which relies on a somewhat subjective view of what constitutes "high complexity." In mathematics, his conclusion applies, in other areas, like contextual verbal communication, not so much.

Anyway, if you're interested in the topic, read Murray's entire piece; it's long, but his discussion of the statistical trends is a definitive resource.

Michael Yon:

Kurilla was running when he was shot, but he didn't seem to miss a stride; he did a crazy judo roll and came up shooting.

BamBamBamBam! Bullets were hitting all around Kurilla. The young 2nd lieutenant and specialist were the only two soldiers near. Neither had real combat experience. AH had no weapon. I had a camera.

Seconds count.

Kurilla, though (down) and unable to move, was fighting and firing, yelling at the two young soldiers to get in there; but they hesitated. BamBamBamBam!

Kurilla was in the open, but his judo roll had left him slightly to the side of the shop. I screamed to the young soldiers, "Throw a grenade in there!" but they were not attacking.

"Throw a grenade in there!" They did not attack.

"Give me a grenade!" They didn't have grenades.

"Erik! Do you need me to come get you!" I shouted. But he said "No." (Thank God; running in front of the shop might have proved fatal.)

"What's wrong with you!?" I yelled above the shooting.

"I'm hit three times! I'm shot three times!"

Amazingly, he was right. One bullet smashed through his femur, snapping his leg. His other leg was hit and so was an arm.

Read the rest; the conclusion of the fight is riveting. And consider dropping a fin in Yon's tipjar.

*** A pleasant English ditty.

(Thanks to M Kusanagi)

*** I'm pretty ambivalent about rapidly rising oil prices. Partly because it serves as a hedge on inflation and rising interest rates, partly because I don't drive and partly because of this.

*** Dean Esmay defends Jay Rosen's right to shut down comments on his blog. Limits on a human individual's capacity to take abuse trump free speech absolutism on blogs.

*** Guest posting at Michelle Malkin's place, Brian Preston reiterates an important lesson from Vietnam. Paging Chuck Hagel and ...

*** ... Professor Bainbridge, who authors a frustrated conservative rant that cherrypicks the worst of selective leftist argumentation regarding our motives for war in Iraq. The Commissar found the post hard to disagree with, and I fired both barrels in his comments.

UPDATE: And one more:

*** Watching the series finale to Six Feet Under, I had the exact same thought.

... in Ruffini's 2008 Presidential Straw Poll.

The results Rudy can be Giuliani sorted by referring Rudy blog, and Giuliani I'm curious Rudy to see Giuliani how Rudy INDC Giuliani Journal's Rudy readers vote Giuliani.

I'm sure that you'll make the right choice.

UPDATE: Ok, WHICH TWO OF YOU VOTED FOR GINGRICH?!

*** My first thought about Patterico writing an Op-Ed for the LA Times was that it was like a treacherous Luke Skywalker manning the bridge of the Death Star.* Then I read the piece, an excellent critique of the paper's Cindy Sheehan coverage, and my fears were assuaged.

* My second thought was that I was a pitiable geek for having the first thought. My third thought was "Ooh, bagels!"

*** The RINO hunt is on.

*** Up the irons!

*** More MSM props for Val Prieto's babalu blog.

*** Check out the Washington Monthly College Guide:

Other guides ask what colleges can do for you. We ask what are colleges doing for the country.

My alma matter sneaks on to the list at #30, so I endorse the effort. Kevin Drum comments:

How much more important, then, is it for taxpayers to know that their money — in the form of billions of dollars of research grants and student aid — is being put to good use? These are institutions, after all, that produce most of the country's cutting-edge scientific research and are therefore indirectly responsible for much of our national wealth and prosperity. They are the path to the American dream, the surest route for hard-working poor kids to achieve a better life in a changing economy. And they shape, in profound and subtle ways, students' ideas about American society and their place in it. It seemed obvious to us that these heavily subsidized institutions ought to be graded on how well they perform in these roles, so we set out to create the first annual Washington Monthly College Rankings.

I'm not receiving e-mail at my normal address (bill at indcjournal). Please get me at wardolino at hotmail. Thanks.

UPDATE: Original e-mail working now.

Skipping the issue particulars, I could have written this exact sentiment authored by Glenn Reynolds:

Hmm. This doesn't seem to me to be a very accurate rendering of what I've said on the subject ... I guess this just demonstrates that you can't please everybody. Or that not everybody reads the posts carefully.

And/or that people project their agenda into your opinion. Case in point: at no point in my my recent post critiquing Jeff Harrell's obscene rant against drugs and the people that use them do I stake out a position on the legalization of drugs. Furthermore, there are no posts regarding drug legalization in my archives.

Yet several readers commented like so (on this and other sites) ...

I think drug legalization would be a nightmare and that you're badly mistaken to endorse it.

One might infer my position based on my arguments against the demonization of drugs, but that would be a risky inference.*

Another fellow tasked my original RU-486 post by stating that I equated "birth and abortion as if the two are morally equivalent medical procedures." Nevermind that I specifically issued the caveat:

Admittedly, is it completely analagous or fair to compare the mortality rate of childbirth complications from pregnancy to an elective procedure? No, but it sure puts things in perspective.

Which just goes to show that no matter how precise and even the attempted logic, there is always someone that will project a totally different argument or exaggerated failing into your language. Reynolds might be particularly susceptible to odd distortion, as his brevity and rhetorical restraint on certain issues serve as an ambiguous rorschach for exercised partisans.

This phenomenon also showcases one tail of the bell curve of SAT reading comprehension scores.

UPDATE: See Glenn Bowen's 8th comment under this post for a real time example; he doesn't grasp the distinction between disagreement and specifically adding, removing or distorting meaning. I suspect that Mr. Bowen is ballbusting, has a previous bone to pick with me or just don't read so good.

Related: How to Improve Reading Comprehension.

Read More »

INDCBill: hey Jeff
proteinwisdom: Yo.
INDCBill: my whole RU-486 fairness schtick? a smokescreen
INDCBIll: a sham
INDCBill: the truth is
INDCBill: I hate zygotes
INDCBILL: zygotes, morulas, blastocysts, all of 'em
INDCBill: don't trust 'em
INDCBill: shifty little criminals
proteinwisdom: I hear you.
proteinwisdom: A blastocyst once stole my credit card
proteinwisdom: rang up $800 in those fancy pasta strainers you buy on late night tv
proteinwisdom: tiny bastard.
proteinwisdom: When I finally caught him, he was face down in a pile of coke
proteinwisdom: surrounded by Russian strippers.
proteinwisdom: So I beat him to death with a rolled up newspaper.
INDCBill: I'd like to see the CitiBank commercial for that

In response to my critique of her post, Michelle Malkin says that she's "not quite ready to start pumping RU-486 into the water supply." Ok, I'll agree with that. She indicates that she should have noted the relative risk and is "worried that these four women (who died) are just the tip of the iceberg." This is a reasonable point-of-view, if expressed reasonably.

She also states:

According to the Los Angeles Times, the FDA is continuing to investigate the drug's safety. Is the FDA "shoehorning science and medicine in order to fit an ideological agenda?" What about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the California Department of Health Services, and the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services--all of which have launched their own investigations? Are they right-wing whackos too?

No, certainly not. Tabling the fact that I wouldn't and have never described Michelle as a "right-wing wacko," I'm sure that there will be significant differences between her condemnatory analysis and the dispassionate investigations of the cited organizations; starting with a bet that they won't title their reports "THE FORGOTTEN VICTIMS OF CHOICE," will utilize relevant perspective of relative mortality for common medical protocols, and come to a conclusion about whether the drug represents a statistically significant health risk that calls for corrective action. These organizations are fulfilling their mandate to look out for public safety, but the jury is still out on their conclusions. As it stands, based on the information we have now, RU-486 can't be depicted as a dangerous drug.

And of course I don't expect a blogger to conduct statistical analysis worthy of a professional epidemiologist for every post on a health issue (my own general analysis was flawed, superficial and exposed to various avenues of criticism), but I would caution Michelle, and anyone else that writes about science or medicine in the context of politics, to use a bit of perspective when working backwards from an ideological presumption. We're all prone to making these mistakes, especially in the context of a political issue that commands our passion.

UPDATE: Hyscience (a pro-life blog) features a must-read on the possible mechanisms of fatal infections from RU-486. He also reaches a conclusion in which ideology and dispassionate analysis are properly demarcated:

Does it look like the just the "tip of the iceberg?" From what we know as we speak, we don't know! Do I think it's the tip of the iceberg? From what I've read about the pharmacology and what I know about the immunoendocrinology, I don't believe that anyone at this time believes it to be the tip of the iceberg.

So far, the risk seems small - unless you become one of the chosen few!

However, I still believe that it's a murder pill, and now (no) one can say that taking RU-486 is without any risk.

I don't agree with his characterization of the drug, but I agree with the way that he presented his case.

UPDATE: Another analysis that I agree with from a pro-life blog, partially and in form, if not all of the political particulars:

Secondly, as much as I hate supporting the pro-choice movement, both the government and the medical community agree that the unborn children killed by RU-486 don’t count as human beings. Further, it’s the law in this country that women have the right to first-term elective abortion–thus whether or not you and I see a need for RU-486, so long as it’s deemed safe by the FDA (which is what this whole circus is over, I know), women have the right to it. Period.

Those of you who’ve been reading for a while might recall that I’m no big fan of abortion or the pro-choice movement (see here for a rant on the subject), but facts are facts, and the facts in this case land fairly solidly in favor of the drug. One can argue against it on moral grounds, but the medical case for it seems pretty air-tight to me.

The medical case may yet prove to be more equivocal than "air-tight" (anything is possible), but based on current information, it's certainly not very questionable. And therein lies the important message from that post, which was probably conveyed better than mine: arguing against the drug on moral grounds, including making the statement that accidental fatalities are less acceptable because of the drug's function, is a distinct argument from criticizing the substance as a pharmaceutical approved for use by the FDA. The benefit of drugs is not established in combative moral terms, despite Paul from Wizbang's otherwise not-unreasonable personal sentiment (that I almost totally disagree with); they have an intended function and value assigned by regulatory bodies and the law as a reflection of society's will. One can argue against the value of this benefit, but it's simply best to make this argument separately from something like assigning outsized, imprecise "moral weights" to pharmaceutical analysis, specifically when those "moral weights" aren't representative of anything remotely approaching societal consensus.

Short form: don't portray a common, legal drug as dangerous just because you don't like what it does.

That post should hold me over for a couple of days, right? Because I'm telling you, I've got nothin.'

Even the energetic Robbo the Llama is out of gas, and he typically puts up posts like a methhead on a mission. With ADHD. A methhead with ADHD on a mission. From God. A methhead with ADHD on a mission from God. Yes, that's how he usually rolls.

Anyway, apologies for light posting.

It's August in DC.

First, read "THE FORGOTTEN VICTIMS OF CHOICE" and see if you can spot the problems with her analysis. No peeking.

Answer:

She includes plenty of hyperbolic condemnation of RU-486, including specific citations and descriptions of four cases in which women who were administered the drug suffered a bacterial infection and died, but includes no information about the statistical incidence of fatal complications related to the drug, and how this compares to the risk of other common medical protocols.

Fortunately, the LA Times article that she selectively excerpted includes some needed perspective:

About 460,000 women have taken Mifeprex safely in this country since it was approved, according to Danco Laboratories, the New York company that distributes the drug in the United States.
...
Outside California, other deaths have been reported in association with use of Mifeprex, and misoprostol. One occurred in Tennessee and five were reported outside the U.S., in Europe and Canada, say doctors familiar with the drugs. But only the Canadian death involved an infection.

So, assuming accurate data (admittedly a big assumption), a total of ten women (reported) have died, presumably related to a fatal interaction with the drug, in 16 years of international use. Of those ten, five occurred in the United States, where 460,000 women have taken the drug safely since its approval, five years ago.

That equals a mortality rate of 0.0000108, meaning that 1 out of every 92,000 people that took the drug have died.

But presumably, Michelle agrees with "Wendy Wright, senior policy director for Concerned Women for America," that a 0.0000108 mortality rate for a drug is unacceptable:

"I've been stunned by the comments that some women have to pay the price of death so that women can have abortions."

Stunned? That a handful of individuals have an adverse reaction and die while undergoing approved medical protocols? Given mortality rates of other common drugs, few statements represent such naivete or intended demagoguery.

What about extrapolating that logic to, say, anti-depressants?

Cherrypicking just one statistically significant study with specifically formulated mortality rates due to toxicity (on anti-depressant use in England and Wales for 1993-95), we find the following:

Overall, the average death rate associated with single-ingested antidepressant toxicity is 0.00034 per year of treatment. In other words, one fatality may be expected for about every 3000 patients treated for one year.

That statistic doesn't even address all forms of increased suicide risk related to anti-depressant usage, rather simple toxicity, not in combination with any other drug ("single-use"). Digging in further, it's revealed that half of these poisonings were identified as intentional overdose. So, assuming that the remaining half constituted accidental overdose or a natural allergy, the fatality risk would ameliorate to 0.000167, or 1 in 6,000 for standard anti-depressant therapy in the UK during that time period.

Given that ostensibly crazy risk, is Wendy Wright also "stunned ... that some" people "pay the price of death so that (depression) can be treated?"

Or, looking at another example more closely related to the topic of reproduction, let's check out the mortality rate of expectant mothers in the United States when actually intending to carry to term:

0.00017, or 1 in 5,882. (UPDATED rate/source. A fraction of this figure may or may not be partially comprised of elective abortion statistics; undetermined)

So, while 1 in 92,000 women have died from RU-486 side effects since the drug's US approval, 1 in 5,882 American women have died in childbirth due to complications from pregnancy during the same period, making having a child 16 times more deadly than having a chemical abortion (the article states "10 to 13 times riskier" than having any type of abortion).

Which begs the equally silly question: why must "some women have to pay the price of death so that women (can have children)." You know, "The Forgotten Victims of (Life)." Admittedly, is it completely analagous or fair to compare the mortality rate of childbirth complications from pregnancy to an elective procedure? No, but it puts things in perspective.

There are other sins of omission in Malkin's analysis, namely, that she doesn't highlight investigators' idea that the 4 bacterial infections - all occuring in a single state, and not a single one in Europe - could be tied to contamination of a certain manufacturing batch of the drug. Another, more likely possibility that the article cites is an off-label method of administration for the second drug used in the RU-486 protocol:

All the women who died, he said, took the follow-up drug, misoprostol, vaginally, instead of orally. It was an "off-label use," which is allowed but not specifically approved by the FDA on the basis of testing.
...
Dr. Philip Darney is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at UC San Francisco, which has done extensive research on medical abortion, and he is not involved in the California investigation. He said that the way the drugs are administered is the likely culprit.
...
Darney said that European practitioners also reduce the amount of the first drug but seldom prescribe vaginal self-administration of the second. Studies have shown that taking the misoprostol vaginally makes the drug slightly more effective, so U.S. health officials will "have to decide if the slight increase in efficacy and convenience of vaginal self-administration is worth the very rare, unusual infection," Darney said.

Mifeprex, Darney said, has "gotten all the attention because it's been labeled the 'abortion pill.'? We think that an explanation for these unusual deaths ? only one per 100,000 cases with this unusual organism ? may be the vaginal self-administration of misoprostol under unusual circumstances. That might answer the very good question of why California, why not in Europe."

And Michelle isn't the only blogger hyping the four deaths. Abusing the liberal media conspiracy angle, Hugh Hewitt authors the following surprising post:

Ru-486 is strongly implicated in four deaths, and the pill is still on the market, unaccompanied by at least a warning? Is that pro-choice politics or good science? And have trial lawyers filed their first class action suit on behalf of the 460,000 who have taken the pill since its approval in the U.S. in 2000?

For one thing, despite the necessary caveat of side effects and related deaths that go unreported (a challenge with epidemiological analysis of any drug), it's probably because up to 459,995 of the 460,000 people that took the drug had a non-fatal, successful experience.

And I call Hewitt's post "surprising," because he took the opposite, perfectly sensible position at the height of the Vioxx scandal (which was potentially responsible for upwards of 25 - 50,000 related deaths), when he wondered if undue media condemnation of the FDA approvals process - specifically condemnation without regard to context - might be unfair and harm legitimate drug approvals by distorting acceptable risk for pharmaceutical development and not counterbalancing it with efficacy. I'm paraphrasing, because Hugh doesn't have searchable archives (FOUND: see last update at bottom of this post).

So, what factor might lead him to such different speculation about RU-486 vs. Vioxx?

Look: pro-choice, pro-life, Democrat, Republican, I don't care what your politics are, in this respect: when it comes to shoehorning science and medicine in order to fit an ideological agenda, misrepresenting risk and utilizing hyperbole, you're doing the public debate a disservice, doing your readers a disservice and emulating the worst flaws of the mainstream media: combining a distorted ideological narrative with superficial analysis of complex issues.

Try not to do it.

UPDATE: Perusing more silliness in Malkin's trackbacks:

Remember how, back in our youth (those of us older than, say, 40), abortion proponents always used the argument that legalizing the killing of unborn children would "keep girls from dying at the hands of back-alley abortionists"? Well, even the most emotionally neutral, anesthetised method of abortion available--RU-486, the so-called "morning after pill"--can kill.

Yes, so can penicillin, at a greater mortality rate than RU-486:

The risk of penicillin fatal allergy is about 1 in 75,000.

UPDATE: Thanks to Hubris, who found what I think may be Hugh Hewitt's old post that contradicts his recent position:

The last thing we need is a witch hunt that shutters the drug development process. The "buy Canadian drugs" chorus is already targeting the American pharmaceutical industry, an industry already absorbing the extraordinary costs of the plaintiffs' bar. I am still on the right side of 50, but seniors and sufferers from any serious disease should shudder when the Lous and Aarons of the world start calling for more regulation, which means fewer drugs and fewer cures.

Quick: What did the new study say about Celebrex? And how many people died from Vioxx? The media's not well known for calculating risk-return ratios, but since no one will ever be able to figure out lives lost due to the nonappearance of drugs that might have saved them, reporters will never have to answer for the cures they prevented even as they conducted weekly cheering sections for embryonic stem cell research.

Pretty inconsistent.

And more from Dean Esmay.

UPDATE: Malkin follows-up. And I follow-up to her follow-up.

Hitchens on Sheehan.

Catalano on Sheehan.

A distracted reader might smell some conflict between those two messages, but he'd be mistaken.

INDCBill: man
INDCBill: it's remarkable
INDCBill: how yelling and swearing at people cuts through layers of beauraucratic inaction
INDCBill: I call a credit card company, politely request some paperwork, and it's a 7 to 10-day wait
INDCBill: I call back later and get a bit more agitated
INDCBill: and it's knocked down to 48 hours
INDCBill: finally, I call back again
INDCBill: yell, swear, cajole, threaten to burn their call center to the ground
INDCBill: and it's on my desk within 30 minutes
INDCBill: I mean
INDCBill: why do I have to cuss and yell?
INDCBill: is this the lesson that I'm supposed to learn?
INDCBill: that instead of issuing polite yet urgent requests
INDCBill: YELLING is the way to make things REALLY happen?
INDCBill: ?
INDCBill: hello?
INDCBill:
INDCBill: ?
INDCBill: hellooooooooooo?
INDCBill:
INDCBill: jeff?
INDCBill:
INDCBill: I ASKED YOU A GODDAMN QUESTION, FUCKER
proteinwisdom: No.

*** Note to US Olympic Committee heavies: "Leave the ferrets alone!"

Note to ferret Olympic hopefuls: "Faster, Higher, Stronger, Sneakier."

*** Now that's a face (and body) that only a mother could love.

Money quote: "There's something quite noble about Sam. Even though he's unattractive, he expects to be treated like royalty."

*** The Legend of Hogzilla.

*** And behold, the noble RINO.

Is it ok to criticize grieving mother Cindy Sheehan?

Jeff Goldstein takes the definitive look.

I say sure it's ok, just make the case civily and well.

Flashback: Similar (but less dramatic) issues cropped up last year with Michael Berg and Sue Niederer's crusades in the name of their slain children.

From who else, but ... the Flea!

Highly recommended contemporary selection that rocks, especially at the 2:40 - 3:40 bit highlighted in those catchy Apple commercials.

I must now recruit a Groove Armada so that I might invade the Boogielands and capture the Bump and Grind.

Rally to me, Centaurians of Rhythm!

What? Why are you looking at me like that?

... that Robert the Llamabutcher has some interesting secrets?

T.M.I., buddy. T.M.I.

(Warning: not for the easily offended - or confused)

INDCBill: man
INDCBill: Hannity is such an ass
proteinwisdom: It's the eyebrows.
INDCBill: and the preening nonsense
proteinwisdom: Yeah, that too.
INDCBill: I'd even go so far as to say
INDCBill: that I'd rather have lunch with Colmes, if forced to choose
INDCBill: that's right
INDCBill: I'd prefer to spend an hour listening to DNC talking points while uncomfortably avoiding that reptilian gaze
INDCBill: than put up with Hannity's company
proteinwisdom: And Colmes would give you his pickle and fries, too.
proteinwisdom: Or at the very least, you could beat him up and take them from him.

... drugs can be pretty damn bad, mmm kay?

What extra-special brand of scribal Tourette's is required to author a screed like this?

I'd excerpt it, but I'm afraid that common internet obscenity filters would start to block my web site from large networks.

I may have to go back on my declaration that the lefties exlusively dominate the blogosphere's nasty discourse, as avowed righty Harrell's piece - in both its rhetorical style and illogical, absolutist, moonbat reasoning - is one of the most oddly harsh things I've read in quite some time. He takes any sins of exaggeration that Tierney committed in the critiqued article, duplicates them ten-fold, and throws on a heaping of wincingly earnest, nasty invective for flavor.

Take a break Harrell. Smoke some weed or something.

And as an aside, what lesser impairment is required to approvingly link such a piece?

Via AoS, who remains on terra firma.

PS - Amphetamines have legitimate benefits beyond use by "Air Force pilots." Perhaps counterintuitively, in moderate amounts, they tend to work as a mood stabilizer and cognitive enhancer, and are the backbone ingredients to commonly prescribed drugs like Ritalin. I'm not suggesting that weekend Meth use has benefits (it's truly an awful, destructive recreational drug), but contextually, Tierney's intent (if not execution) is not quite as wacked as it may seem. It is also possible for an individual to use amphetamine-like substances constructively without medical supervision - an example would be the enhanced cognitive ability experienced by law students that use off-label ritalin (or similar stimulants) to study for tests.

A more reasonable negative assessment of his effort - specifically highlighting flaws in statistical analysis - can be found here:

One of the great drug-war follies is to pretend that drugs such as cannabis and MDMA are as dangerous as heroin (or its close substitute, pure oxycodone), smokable cocaine (including crack), and methamphetamine. It would be useful if John Tierney used his platform on the op-ed page of the New York Times to make that point, and the related point that alcohol is, at a pharmacological level, much more dangerous than many currently illicit drugs.

Instead, Tierney seems to be intent on pretending that some of the really dangerous drugs are in fact no big deal. Last time, Tierney massaged a bunch of statistics he clearly didn't understand to "prove" that Oxycontin abuse is not really a significant problem. Today it's methamphetamine's turn to get a coat of the Tierney whitewash.

Also, see my second comment for more specific criticisms of Harrell's, uh, methodology.

UPDATE: More from Goldstein.

UPDATE: In the midst of quite a long post, Rick Moran authors one of the silliest personal criticisms that I've ever encountered. It goes like this: Harrell should be forgiven for authoring a hasty, emotional post, my post was "an almost equally over the top reaction" to Harrell's comments about physically beating John Tierney and stating that all people who use drugs should be beaten to death, and my "scribal Tourette's" comparison was "uncalled for." See my comment under his post to understand why I believe, despite his post's early protestations, that he is clearly still high. Otherwise, pretty weak, Moran.

UPDATE: John Cole delivers a payload of snark:

Authorities have been instructed to make all future drug war killings public, slow, painful, and if at all possible, open for audience participation. To make a point about how bad drugs are, you see.

War is not a video game. But sometimes, it vaguely resembles one, in a deadly serious sort of way.

Make sure that you read the unverified, anonymous "Synopsis" underneath the video link.

*** In response to Mithras's "conservative blog taxonomy," QandO puts together a great run-down of some of the most well-known liberal blogs - which ones to read daily, which to ignore and which to just rubberneck.

*** RINO Sightings!

*** Looks like a lot of people were flying off the handle at that Voting Rights Act march in Atlanta ...

More about Belafonte here. I particularly like his extreme reaction to being even mildly challenged; it reminds me of talking to Michael Berg.

*** "Netanyahu Quits Over Israeli Gaza Pullout." Political posturing on Sharon's right flank?

Dean Esmay admirably defends himself from the latest lefty hate screed making the rounds:

There are those I suppose who looked at Mithras' piece as humorous. I admit, I chuckled more than a little reading it--but only because I can think of little that belies the fundamentally reactionary and intolerant worldview that has come to define so much of the left today.

I try not to buy into overly sweeping generalizations about "the left" or "the right," but it's apparent that the nasty, sexist, racist attack post authored by Mithras is the embodiment of a certain profane brand of vicious dicourse almost totally monopolized by bloggers on the left. Even the worst scuffles I've enjoyed with righties (and this includes RedStater Josh Trevino's recent descriptions of me as a "monstrous ... paranoiac") can't touch the level of - what's the word? - smug "venom" typefied by Mithras's "Conservative Blog Taxonomy."

This statement doesn't equate to "all lefty blogs practice or endorse the most hateful speech," but it is intended to make the statement that "the large majority of the most hateful speech" is found in the leftward side of the 'sphere, in some of the most popular blogs. Matthew Yglesias once attempted to gloss over the difference by describing profane, personal rants by lefty bloggers as "workaday meanness," but his attempt to equate left-right negativity is terribly unconvincing; the "artfully worded slander(s)" that he bemoans and ascribes to rightward bloggers like Reynolds are in fact perfectly acceptable negative discourse, whereas casual lefty habits of employing racist slurs against conservatives, or engaging in vicious personal attacks like "dry drunk," or "Maglalang" are not.

Volokh discusses the leftosphere's reaction to the worst portion of the screed that attacked Michelle Malkin ...

Is it suddenly (or maybe not so suddenly, if I recall the attacks on figures ranging from Thomas Sowell to Condi Rice) okay to denigrate someone based on their race and sex if they happen to be conservative? And to use especially offensive language while doing so? Attacking Malkin in this way comes with especially poor grace from the left blogger community, which--dare I note--includes, as far as I'm aware, no female, nonwhite blogger nearly as prominent as Malkin.

... as does Goldstein, who features a thorough round-up of reaction.

On the other side of the aisle, TalkLeft asserts sanity:

Personal attacks of the kind Mithras made about Michelle Malkin show his innate prejudices, not her's. A true liberal supports affirmative action - why criticize her for it? A true liberal welcomes women who succeed in their profession. Why does he castigate her for it? Why is her sex even relevant to the discussion? It's one thing to disagree with her views, as I believe everyone should. It's another to attack her for her race or her gender. Mithras was out of line. He may get blog hits for his rant, but he won't get much respect.

Tonight on Pundit Review Radio: intrepid freelance journalist Michael Yon discusses his stellar reporting from Iraq.

ˇYa no mas!

Y feliz aniversario a Val y Maggie.

INDCBill: hey Jeff
INDCBill: there's a lesson in this post
INDCBill: do you know what it is?
proteinwisdom: Novak shouldn't do lines of China White before going on air?
INDCBill: well yeah.
INDCBill: but no
INDCBill: not that part - the last part
proteinwisdom: Oh.
proteinwisdom: What?
INDCBill: it's DON'T MESS WITH INDC BILL
INDCBill: because he is a BAD. ASS.
INDCBill: BADASS
proteinwisdom: Well, yes.
proteinwisdom: If by "BADASS" you mean something like, "whiney little boy bitch that spends a week putting up rebuttal posts that nobody but him even bothers to read."
INDCBill:
INDCBill: I'm rotten to the core

Charles Krauthammer has been on fire this past week, authoring remarkably clear columns on the hot-button issues of Intelligent Design and Embryonic Stem Cell research. Columns that I largely happen to agree with, of course.

First up, ID:

Let's Have No More Monkey Trials
To teach faith as science is to undermine both
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

The half-century campaign to eradicate any vestige of religion from public life has run its course. The backlash from a nation fed up with the A.C.L.U. kicking crčches out of municipal Christmas displays has created a new balance. State-supported universities may subsidize the activities of student religious groups. Monuments inscribed with the Ten Commandments are permitted on government grounds. The Federal Government is engaged in a major antipoverty initiative that gives money to churches. Religion is back out of the closet.

But nothing could do more to undermine this most salutary restoration than the new and gratuitous attempts to invade science, and most particularly evolution, with religion.
...
How many times do we have to rerun the Scopes "monkey trial"? There are gaps in science everywhere. Are we to fill them all with divinity? There were gaps in Newton's universe. They were ultimately filled by Einstein's revisions. There are gaps in Einstein's universe, great chasms between it and quantum theory. Perhaps they are filled by God. Perhaps not. But it is certainly not science to merely declare it so.

To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence.

Read his entire take.

I made a similar (though less elegantly-stated) argument in June:

Who designed the designer? And why must we have a supposedly scientific answer, despite the fact that such an ultimate conclusion can only now be realized via faith and completely subjective reasoning, two human traits that largely fall outside of the mandate of true scientific inquiry.

And while some scientists certainly do cling to imperfect theories and protocols like their very own articles of religious faith, those examples fail to meet the true standard of scientific inquiry as well. Which is why that common strawman used in defense of ID - one that highlights flaws in scientific execution spurred by human emotion - sits mutually exclusive from the fact that science (clearly defined and executed), by its very nature, should maintain a healthy delineation from faith.

I'd even go so far as to say that using science to support religion could actually undermine religion, chiefly by challenging its central reliance.

And Krauthammer's column in today's WaPo is similarly agreeable, pointing out the flaws in both Bush's limit on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, as well as a central sticking point in the pro-ESR bill now working its way towards the Senate:

It is a good idea to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. It is a bad idea to do that without prohibiting research that uses embryos created specifically to be used in research and destroyed.

What is deeply troubling about the Castle-DeGette stem cell bill, which passed the House and will soon roar through the Senate, is that it combines the good with the bad: expansion with no limit.
...
It simply will not do for opponents of this expanded research to say that the federal government should not force those Americans who find this research abhorrent to support it with their taxes. By that logic we should never go to war, or impose the death penalty, except by unanimous consent of the entire population. We make many life-or-death decisions as a society as a whole, without being held hostage to the sensibilities of a minority, however substantial and sincere.

Again, read the whole thing, as it's a typically excellent argument that's very difficult to meaningfully excerpt, relying on economical and constructive movement from point to point.

Via Cole, who has more.

UPDATE: And the RedState reaction. Those RS contributors sure love that word "monstrous," don't they?!

*** I completely endorse this early-handicapping analysis of the 2008 Presidential Race.

Pretty bright for a dude named "Froggy."

*** In case you missed it, the Political Teen has video of Bob Novak's hysterically profane walk-off of CNN. So does the Pundit Guy, with detail about Bob's "instant vacation." Now that's TV.

*** The ACLU is filing suit against bag searches on NYC subways. Putting aside the efficacy of random searches for a moment, I'm unsure how checking bags upon entry to the subway would constitute a much higher violation of civil liberties than the check that every person undergoes before entering a government building. Sure, the subway isn't necessarily the equivalent of a courthouse, but it isn't exactly a public sidewalk, either. I suppose that drug dealers will just have to walk or take a cab to their appointments.

*** After a trip down memory lane, Stephen Green outlines his short position on the BIG THREE: abortion, gun control and evolution. Catching the spirit, John at Texas BestGrok does the same. Despite subtle variations in their opinions, I agree with both of them.

It's comforting to have such esteemed "monstrous" company.

*** UPDATE: Post significantly truncated for clarity and efficaciousness.

To Clarify Trevino's Latest: I don't know who my "stalker" is, but I'm confident that it's someone authoring a parody that I'm intended to find amusing (in any case, I do). Thus, after you've accepted that premise, it's fairly evident that a sanctimonious git like Trevino would never have the wry sense of humor required for authorship.

I was being sarcastic, Trevino. Monstrously sarcastic.

The RedState.org Republican: more like the character-assassinating Kossacks, every day!

Alternately ...

The RedState.org Republican: They're not your mother's Republican!*

* More like your great-grandmother's Republican, actually.

Read More »

*** The life story of the recently deceased Smokey Smith is fantastic. Tossed in jail prior to the ceremony where he received the Victoria Cross? RIP to an inhumanly brave, Canadian ballbuster.

*** Unfortunately, uh ... I'm, uh ... allergic to cats. Yeah, allergic. Also, psycho stalkers.

*** whiteperil authors a post that almost makes me feel guilty for deploying a naughty word yesterday. Admittedly, it's hard to argue with his premise after five minutes reading DKos or Pandagon ...

Via Dean, who has his own thoughts on "salty language."

*** Upon further browbeating from my commenters review, I'm revising my assessment of Rush Limbaugh's remarks about "staff pukes." As "SGM Staff Puke" commented:

But the question is weather or not Rush Called him that, or stated what a caller said. I read the transcript, seems to me he was re-stating a caller.

And indeed, following the Commissar's links to his unpleasant source material, there seems to be a break in the transcript, so who knows? Thus, I'm conditionally downgrading my assessment of Limbaugh to "insufferable blowhard."

But you may have already known that.

You'd think that Bill Gates could afford a self-deprecating sense of humor, wouldn't you?

*** Rush Limbaugh is an assh*le. I don't often break out the angry, profane rhetoric (such a petulant blogger cliche, right?), but in this case, it fits too well to take the pass.

PS - That asterisk is supposed to represent the letter "o", btw.

UPDATE: McQ echoes the sentiment of some of my commenters and says that "staff puke" is simply military vernacular and not a big deal. While I take the point and certainly agree that the Roger Ailes rhetoric referenced in McQ's post is over-the-top, I'm torn, as I still think that Limbaugh's an as*hole. Last time I checked, Rush was more likely to be sitting in an air-conditioned radio booth in Boca Raton, and thus probably lacks the familiar cred to use the colorful derogatory fraternal lingo of the US Military, especially in order to score partisan political points against a vet who's a Dem. Certainly not as bad as it first sounded, but not great either.

The asterisk represents an "s" that last time, just to be clear.

*** Jon Henke authors a good criticism of Kevin Drum's comment about the warmongering "Micheal Ledeen crowd('s)" supposed desire to invade Iran.

*** Ace weighs in on Bush's comments on Intelligent Design. Some individuals will no doubt be surprised to find out that the mighty Thor is not responsible for the creation of lightning.

*** Meanwhile, Goldstein has a unique take on Bush's comments. Three things:

1. I think that it's reactionary for folks to get too upset over what was a relatively standard (and unsurprising) ad hoc political comment to a reporter. Questions that I would ask the folks that are really angry would be, "What did you expect him to say? What would have constituted an acceptable answer to you? And how could he have given what you consider an acceptable answer (likely a categorical rejection of ID) without alienating some portion of his constituency?"

2. I agree with Goldstein academically; ID and evolution theoretically don't have to conflict when they reside in the separate spheres of theology and scientific theory, and hypothetically, I would have no problem with ID being taught as a theory in a class that specifically examined "first causes." Also, Bush's comments, literally parsed, don't advocate pushing ID into a science curriculum. But ...

3. ... that's not completely relevant, since classes on theology don't commonly exist in public schools, and the public debate practically centers around efforts to introduce ID into science curriculums. Thus, while ID may be strictly defined as a rejection of randomness and not an explicit rejection of evolution, in practical terms, it's often being pushed as a validation of religion in a scientific context that somehow contradicts evolution (which is often wrongfully attacked as Darwinism). And this doesn't begin to address the grave flaws in ID from a scientific perspective, namely, that it works research backwards from an unknowable standard premise of what constitutes "sentience" capable of sufficiently complex "intelligent design."

My bottom line? I wouldn't get too worked up about Bush's remarks, as they fit with his character, constituted a shallow attempt to reach bland compromise, and were indeed more artfully phrased than evolutionists are giving him credit for. But - Jeff's reasonable rationale that ID has a place being taught in a theology curriculum - as a first cause issue not in conflict with evolution - ignores the real world context and intent of much of the current debate.

Boy, that last one wasn't really a "quick link," was it?

If this story doesn't choke you up, I'm not sure what will. More details and a donation link here.

Be sure and watch this ABC report on her story.

(Via Florida Cracker, who mentions a forthcoming book)

Back in April, I labeled Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan an "enjoyably shallow twit." I'm revising that assessment - she's the most enjoyably shallow twit in the world.

BEHOLD:

John Edwards makes Givhan’s heart pitter-patter, writing in one ardent passage that his “hair has regularly been referred to as a mop, but that suggests that it is messy or unkempt. Nothing could be further from the truth. He has a precise haircut with artfully clipped layers. His hair is a beautiful shade of chocolate brown with honey-colored highlights. It is not particularly long, but it is smooth and shiny. It is boyish hair not because of the style but because it looks so healthy and buoyant and practically cries out to be tousled the same way a well-groomed golden retriever demands to be nuzzled.”

That right there is hysterical - I'm cryin' over here.

(Via Malkin)

Bonus Flashback Video Reference: "The Choice" (if you don't see the picture, click the little red x and the video will play)