Last night, after the Orlando Magic defeated the Boston Celtics in Game 7 of the NBA Eastern Conference semi-finals, Magic center Dwight Howard told TNT's David Aldridge that he credited God for his team's victory.

"First, I want to thank God, man, because without Him none of this would be possible.  I told my guys before the game if we come out, we play 100%, play hard for 48 minutes, then God is gonna do the rest, and He did it tonight.  We got a good victory, man -- it's all because of Him." -- Dwight Howard

I'm not going to quibble with Howard about his religious preference, and far be it from me to know exactly which words would best motivate his teammates before a big playoff game -- for all I know, they could be devout Christians too.

But Howard goes one further by suggesting that God actually had a rooting interest on a basketball game, and that He favored Howard's team.  Howard was comfortable enough to make that statement in front of a national TV audience without concern for how his words might be considered dismissive of non-believers.  He may not have meant it that way, but it's an example of how our culture reveres the religious -- yet ignores and stigmatizes atheists.

Before I get to the rest of the diary, let me first offer my congratulations to Dwight Howard and the Orlando Magic.  They deserve tremendous credit for dethroning the reigning NBA champs on the road in Game 7 -- and for doing so in convincing fashion.  They played great defense and, for the moment, have put to rest the concern that they are too young or inexperienced to win on the big stage.  As they prepare for the Eastern Conference Finals, LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers should absolutely be taking the Magic seriously as worthy, championship-contending opponents.

But having said that, this atheistic NBA fan would still like to address a couple points about the notion that God played a role in who wins a sports match.  This diary is not really an objection to Dwight Howard per se, but rather the culture that encourages its athletes to project a religious image while simultaneously discouraging non-religious perspectives.

***************************

If we take Dwight Howard's words at face value -- that the Magic's victory in Game 7 is "all because of Him," meaning God -- then we might also assume that he believes this was part of God's plan.  In other words, Howard believes God wanted the Magic to win because they "played 100% and played hard for 48 minutes."  Does that also mean that God wanted the Celtics to lose?  Did the Celtics not also play hard for 48 minutes?  They didn't play as well as the Magic, sure -- but I don't believe the defending NBA champs lost for lack of trying, and I certainly don't believe it was in God's plan to reward one team over the other when they were clearly both trying to win.

Instead, I prefer more empirical evidence that might explain why the Magic won.  Like the fact that Orlando shot 51.4% from the field, including 13 for 21 from 3-point range and a stunning 66.7% in the 4th quarter.  Or the fact that Boston shot just 39.2% for the game.  Or the fact that Celtics star Paul Pierce (16 points on 4-for-13 shooting) never got on track.  Or the fact that Hedo Turkoglu was on fire (25 points on 9-for-12 shooting).  Or the fact that Orlando had 5 more assists than did Boston.  Or the fact that Orlando had 8 blocked shots compared to Boston's 3 -- and we haven't even got to the defensive impact that Kevin Garnett might have had were he not injured.

There are a lot of reasons why the Magic won the game -- take your pick.  Maybe the statistics aren't the sexiest bit of information, and maybe they don't measure those intangible qualities like hustle, or energy, or player confidence -- but the important thing is that it was the players on the court whose actions dictated the game's final result.  Perhaps if Boston knocked down their shots when they had the opportunity, or if Orlando didn't hit so many 3-pointers, then we might be writing a different story.  Either way, to say that the outcome of the game rested in God's hands discredits the efforts of the players who left it all on the court.  It would have been arguably worse if Dwight Howard had said that the Magic won only because of Dwight Howard -- but again, the emphasis for the team's performance should be on the team itself, and not one individual or one's belief in a higher power.

But you know what?  What happened in Game 7 isn't the main point of this diary.

Lots of star, religious athletes praise God for their success in various sports.  Kurt Warner gave glory and praise to Jesus after winning Super Bowl XXXIV.  Tim Tebow puts his faith as his #1 priority (above his family) and endorses Bible verses on his eye-black.  Terrell Owens gives God the glory after making catches.  Josh Hamilton credits Jesus with helping him to overcome his cocaine and heroin addiction.  Jonathan Horton wears a necklace that says "Thanks be to God that gives me victory" and a bracelet inscribed with a verse from Philippians.

Imagine, for a minute, if any of these athletes were not Christian, but atheists.  Now, imagine if they decided to tell everyone on camera that they didn't believe in God and that they didn't praise Jesus for whatever happened on the field.  Imagine that one of Howard's teammates was standing next to him after Game 7, and then said to TNT something like, "I don't thank God.  We got a good victory, Dwight, but it's not because of Him.  I don't believe in God."

What do you think would happen?  They would get blasted for it -- by the press, by fellow athletes, perhaps by fans too -- for saying something "offensive."  They would be told to shut up and keep their opinions to themselves.  After Josh Hamilton's incredible performance at the 2008 Home Run Derby, Rick Reilly callously declared on the air that it was a "lousy night to be an atheist."  Reilly ignorantly used Hamilton -- whose incredible journey from drug addict to Major League all-star should rightly be celebrated by any sports fan -- to stigmatize those who do not share Hamilton's religious faith, as though all of us evil, subversive atheists were secretly praying for Hamilton's failure.  The message was clear: Promoting religious values in sports are good, but promoting atheism?  That's bad.

When Brigham Young wide receiver Austin Collie caught a game-winning touchdown against Utah in 2007, he said this:

"I believe the Lord has truly blessed me.  It's the reason why I'm playing football, and if you don't believe that, the next time you receive an award, then don't say you want to thank God first for your success. That is the same exact thing. For people to make an issue out of saying that the Lord helps me out is ludicrous.

He would later go on to say:

"To tell you I got here on my own and that the Lord hasn't had a hand in my success and our team's success and every other athlete's success in this world is just BS, because He's had a hand in every person's life."

See Collie's argument here?  "If I want to praise God for how I do on the field, I can do it.  But if you don't want to praise God or believe in God at all, then keep your mouth shut.  Oh, and if you don't believe what I say, then you're wrong."  Collie was criticized on some sports radio talk shows for his comments, but his remarks were, unfortunately, part of our sports culture which values religious athletes but devalues atheistic ones.

Consider, also, that it isn't just individual athletes and sports pundits who use their star power as a pulpit to promote a religious message -- it's the teams themselves.  Pretty much every major sports organization has chaplains and connections to large religious organizations such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Athletes in Action, and other organizations which team chaplains often refer to as "sports ministries."  Here's an interesting section from Tom Krattenmaker's excellent 2006 article in Salon, titled Going Long For Jesus, about the close relationship between Christianity and professional sports:

To promoters of sports-world Christianity, faith is a wholesome force that helps players curb the worst temptations in pro sports -- violence and greed, for starters. Chaplains of pro sports teams say their role is to offer prayer services and spiritual counseling to religious players, whose demanding schedules often prevent them from attending church.

.....

But the Christianizing of sports comes at a scarcely examined cost, both to fans who would prefer watching the game without a dose of in-your-face religion and, in the view of some critics, to religion itself. The problem is that the sports-world faith movement isn't only bringing religion to professional locker rooms but a potentially divisive brand of conservative Christianity, replete with a worldview shaped by an intolerance of gays and lesbians, women's rights and other religions.

Whatever religion these athletes choose to believe in is their prerogative and their Constitutionally-protected right.  I personally don't think less of Dwight Howard simply because he believes in God.  Really, I don't.  An athlete's religion, or lack thereof, does not matter to me when they step on the field of play.  Hell, give me a God-fearing man who can play quarterback for the Chicago Bears and play it great, and I'll more than gladly trade you all the crappy quarterbacks in my favorite team's history, no matter if they were religious or atheistic.  I would also venture a guess that no single atheistic Red Sox fan would ever trade in their World Series titles in 2004 and 2007 just because Curt Schilling endorsed President Bush in 2004 and believes that his pitching in the Bloody Sock Game was "God's work."

What I have a problem with is the idea that athletes and sports organizations should be using their high-profile status to spread a religious message, when that message may alienate non-religious fans.  I understand that Dwight Howard was happy about his team winning last night, and again, he and his team deserve a lot of credit for that.  But his words seemed to carry the sting of proclaiming that God willed his team to victory, and that teams that lose were clearly not given God's grace.  It doesn't bother me that Dwight Howard is a Christian.  It DOES bother me that he wants to superimpose a Christian cross on the NBA logo.

As an atheist and a firm believer in the separation of Church and Sport, let me state the following:  I don't believe in curses or superstitions.  I don't believe that a person's religious or non-religious preferences are relevant to how they play on the field.  I don't believe that professional sports should be promoting overtly religious messages in their product.  I don't believe that athletes are blessed by God with superior athletic ability, but are instead the products of years and years of genetics, evolution, and natural selection.  And I certainly do not believe that God would care about who wins the Super Bowl, the NBA Finals, the Stanley Cup, the World Series, or the World Cup.

I just want athletes who are atheists (and I know they're out there) to feel comfortable to express themselves for who they are, without fear of being demonized as a bad person or as someone without good moral values.

So let me offer a suggestion to Dwight Howard and all athletes who choose to use the camera to thank God for their victories in sports: It is okay if you don't.  Honestly.  I will not think any less of you as athletes or as persons for believing in a higher power, and I'm sure that most fans wouldn't mind if you chose not to promote your belief that God helped you win that game.  If you wish to express gratefulness for anything, please be grateful for the fact that you are playing a game as your full-time job.  Be grateful for the fact that millions of people look up to you and admire you and follow you all year round in the hopes that your team wins.  Be grateful for the fact that you are skilled enough to be working in a profession that not only pays a huge amount of money, but that only a very small handful of people in the entire country ever get to do.  Be grateful for the fact that you can do sports for a living when millions of families living in poverty, who live with no roofs over their heads, often cannot even get enough food to survive.

Of course, you are grateful for these things.  You have chosen to be grateful to God for these wonderful privileges.  I am grateful for my privileges in life, but I also choose to believe that there is no God and never was.  I just want other athletes who share my view to know that it is not a problem.

Thanks for reading, and peace to all.

*************************************

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

At Friday's press conference, President Obama interrupted Robert Gibbs to make a brief statement regarding David Souter's retirement.

Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President.  So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity.  I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book.

.....

I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role.  I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

Now, I'm no lawyer or nothin', but I'm going to put in my vote for someone who is: Glenn Greenwald.

Before I get shouted down for thinking a little outside the box, let me qualify that this is somewhat of a tongue-in-cheek endorsement.  Actually, more than anything else this is a piece that simply outlines my admiration for Greenwald's writing -- an appreciation for his thorough analysis of legal issues and the political discussion surrounding those issues.  Greenwald himself would probably laugh at the idea, and I doubt that President Obama would even consider him for the position, much less nominate him, anyway.  It should also be noted that there are plenty of other qualified candidates under consideration who would make exceptional Supreme Court justices, and this diary is not intended to discredit any of their qualifications or abilities to act as federal judges.

But if you'll indulge me, allow me to present my case to the jury, if you will.  In the spirit of a lengthy Greenwald post, enjoy a lengthy (but hopefully well-reasoned) explanation.

**************************

Why Greenwald, you ask?  For a few reasons.

First, he meets (obliterates, really) the first criterion of having a sharp and independent mind.  It is well-documented that Greenwald has been relentless in his criticisms of the Bush Administration's policies on torture, State Secrets, warrantless wiretapping, and detention.  He also has no qualms about criticizing both Democrats and Republicans who were complicit in allowing these policies to be implemented (see a sample of his writings over the years on the subject here, here, here, and here).

Second, it is clear from reading Greenwald's blog that he is an independent thinker with a deep understanding of constitutional law.  He has written extensively about the implications of previous federal court decisions (see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Ali Al-Marri and Jose Padilla cases, and Boumediene v. Bush), and his arguments are well-researched and based on his experience as a civil rights litigator.  His writing reveals that he does not allow political bias to color his reasoning -- an important asset for any impartial judge of the law.

Third, I'd like to address a few concerns that some in the progressive sphere might have about Greenwald as a SCOTUS justice.

1. "He's been too critical of President Obama."

A nominee for SCOTUS is under no obligation whatsoever to agree with the President on everything, and Obama, for his part, has said numerous times that he welcomes criticism.  Greenwald has, in my view, correctly criticized Obama for reversing his position on FISA during the campaign, and also for continuing (at least for the moment) the Bush Administration's policy on State Secrets, which permits the "dismissal of entire lawsuits in advance based on the claim that any judicial adjudication of even the most illegal secret government programs would harm national security."  Greenwald has examined these issues with a keen, critical eye and deserves real credit for speaking truth to power.

For what it's worth, Greenwald has also praised Obama for his decision to release the now-infamous Bush torture memos (here and here), as well as his decision to nominate Dawn Johnsen to be the head of the Office of Legal Council.

2. "He's an egghead.

I, for one, would be proud to have an "egghead" replace Souter.  Or rather, I would be proud to have a legal scholar with a strong intellect and who understands all of the ins and outs of federal law and its applicability as a SCOTUS justice.  Someone who has great knowledge of the law is exactly what I think most people would want in a judge, just like most people expect that a brain surgeon would have great knowledge of medicine and its practice.  Personally, I don't see how a judge who understands the law, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights could be considered a qualified SCOTUS justice WITHOUT being an egghead (Clarence Thomas notwithstanding).

3. "He isn't an 'old-school, ideology-driven, politically-savvy liberal.'"

Appointing someone simply for being "ideology-driven" and "politically-savvy," even someone with liberal values, would be an unwise decision, and would potentially corrupt the federal judicial system.  As dhonig astutely pointed out, "Bad precedent for 'good' political purposes today can be used to support 'bad' political purposes tomorrow."  George Bush once nominated Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court -- but once it was revealed that she was an unqualified hack, nominated solely because of her loyalty to Bush, she withdrew before the Senate even had a chance to vote on her.  Appointing ideologues who fit a certain political litmus test was a hallmark of George Bush's tenure, and President Obama has already made very clear that he has no interest in continuing that.  

Besides, I'm not exactly sure how being "politically-savvy," at least in the way I understand it, is of much help to a SCOTUS justice when he or she is seated.  It isn't the job of Supreme Court nominees to help enact the President's agenda -- that's the job of Congress.  SCOTUS justices are also (I would presume) barred from giving and accepting donations to individuals or organizations involved in Supreme Court cases, lest there be serious charges of conflicts of interest and corruption.  The only time when a SCOTUS justice has to employ any political savvy is before they're seated -- specifically, when the nominee answers questions from the Senate during the confirmation hearings.  But even then, all one has to do to understand a nominee's positions on controversial legal issues is to read the documents from his or her prior rulings and casework.

4. "He's a white male.  We've got plenty of those in the SCOTUS."

Sorry, but Greenwald does not have to apologize for the color of his skin or for being born a dude.  Nor do any of the other potential SCOTUS nominees who happen to be white, male, or both.  Still, if diversity is one of your primary interests, then you'll be pleased to know that Greenwald has been openly gay for more than 20 years.

5. "He's too young."

Hey, other SCOTUS justices have been younger.  Ever hear of Joseph Story?

6. "His blog posts are too long!  I'm busy!"

Well, a lot of Supreme Court documents are quite long.  In that sense, I think Greenwald's lengthy posts make him well-suited to what he'd be doing as a SCOTUS justice.

7. "He has never been a judge."

You're right.  You've got me there.  If President Obama is looking for someone with experience as a judge on his or her resume, then obviously Greenwald is out of the running.

But as I've stated many times above, Greenwald has already shown a great intellect in discussing political and legal matters which could potentially arise in SCOTUS case.  Plus, let's be honest here: It's not like prior experience as a judge is a natural prerequisite for making good decisions.  There are SCOTUS justices today who, along with their prior experience as federal court judges, have used and continue to use ignorant arguments to support their arch-conservative beliefs (See: Scalia, Antonin).

8. "He's not progressive enough."

In the preface of his first book How Would A Patriot Act?, Greenwald explained that he once held some views that would be considered "conservative," and others "liberal," but he has steadfastly rejected applying the traditional labels of the political spectrum to himself.  He has also frequently criticized the establishment media for being overly sympathetic to Republicans and for dishonestly framing the anti-torture movement as a left-wing "fringe."  

I suspect that Greenwald would scoff at the notion that his political positions are somehow ultra-liberal, even if the media characterizes them as such.  But more importantly, I don't see the evidence for the claim that he does not share what we in the blogosphere would consider "progressive" values, given his bluntly honest positions against the extremist policies of the Bush Administration.  Here are some of Greenwald's statements and positions on a list of issues on which he could potentially be asked to rule in court (emphasis mine):

Torture: Strongly opposes the torture techniques outlines in the Bush torture memos, strongly supports prosecutions for those who authorized torture (see links above).

Warrantless wiretapping: "This is not about eavesdropping. This is about whether we are a nation of laws ... The heart of the matter is that the President broke the law, repeatedly and deliberately, no matter what his rationale for doing so was ... The National Security Agency eavesdropping scandal is not an isolated act of lawbreaking. It is an outgrowth of an ideology of lawlessness that has been adopted by the Bush administration as its governing doctrine." -- Greenwald, July 12, 2008.

Marijuana policy: Greenwald recently completed a report for the Cato Institute on the success of marijuana decriminalization in Portugal.  

"There is clearly a growing recognition around the world and even in the U.S. that, strictly on empirical grounds, criminalization approaches to drug usage and, especially, the "War on Drugs," are abject failures, because they worsen the exact problems they are ostensibly intended to address." -- Greenwald, March 14, 2009

Gay civil rights: Greenwald opposed Proposition 8 and supports repealing DOMA.  He also strongly supports a bill that would "grant gay American citizens the right to have a permanent visa issued to their foreign national spouses," a right that is prohibited by DOMA.

Affirmative Action: Greenwald has not written much about Affirmative Action in his blog, though he has criticized conservative opposition to it.

"[Conservative magazine] National Review ... hates 'handouts,' believes strongly in the glorious virtues of self-sufficiency and pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps (and, apparently, by one's unsevered umbilical cords); demands meritocratic policies; and is filled with spine-stiffening courage and toughness. They're the people who hate affirmative action because of how 'unfair' and 'un-meritocratic' it is, but who thrive on legacy admissions to college and have their moms and dads get them jobs and make their careers." -- Greenwald, October 16, 2007

"[University of Oklahoma Professor David Deming] explained that Sarah Palin compares favorably to Obama because she -- unlike he -- was 'unassisted by affirmative action' and 'is not embarrassed by being an American.' ... The right-wing blogosphere lavished praise on [Deming's] article ... and explained that 'Barack Obama despises America and American values because he has never known or experienced them, as he did not grown up in a normal American culture' ... The need to banish the faction that has been driven by drooling, ugly cretins like these -- the people whose twisted mentality brought us torture and rampant lawlessness and endless authoritarian destruction and who crave still more of all of that (and economic crises always exacerbate hatemongering extremists and render their bile infinitely more dangerous) -- is, by itself, reason enough to care about the outcome." -- Greenwald, September 26, 2008

Of course, the issue that nearly everyone worries about when nominating a SCOTUS justice is abortion.  In his blog, Greenwald has not divulged much of his own personal views on reproductive rights, but before the 2008 primaries he did make the following observations (again, emphasis mine):

"Writing at The American Prospect blog, Dana Goldstein criticizes Andrew Sullivan for endorsing Ron Paul as the GOP candidate (Sullivan also endorsed Democrat Barack Obama, his clearly preferred candidate) and specifically objected to Sullivan's praise of Paul on civil libertarian grounds. Goldstein's complaint: Paul's pro-life position means he believes in freedom 'only when it comes to half of the population' and therefore no 'thinking person committed to individual rights' could coherently support him.

...

If one accepts Goldstein's premise -- that no decent person would ever support any pro-life politician regardless of other concerns -- it is difficult to understand how her position is reconciled with support for Democrats generally, given that they have installed in one of their two most powerful positions -- Senate Majority Leader -- a fairly dogmatic pro-life politician in Harry Reid.

...

If the standard is (as Goldstein suggests) that, regardless of any other considerations, anyone who is pro-life ought to be removed from good company -- along with those who support any such individuals -- that's a perfectly principled position, but it ought not be applied selectively. It would mean, by definition, that none of the Democratic Senators (who unanimously chose to elect as their Leader one of the very few pro-life Senators in their midst) can be said genuinely to support individual rights, and that doesn't appear to be a conclusion which many people actually embrace." -- Greenwald, December 20, 2007

While these statements do not speak to the legal ramifications of Roe v. Wade nor his position on it, Greenwald does make a good point that a progressive voter should not oppose one candidate (in this case, Ron Paul) for the sole reason he's anti-choice, but then at the same time support another candidate from the opposite party (Harry Reid) when he's taken the exact same view on abortion.  It also bears mentioning that Greenwald did not support Paul's candidacy, nor did he ever defend Paul's actual position on abortion itself -- he simply pointed out the fallacy in applying abortion as a sole litmus test for supporting or rejecting a political candidate.

I will not purport to know what Greenwald's views on women's reproductive rights are.  In fact, one thing of which I am certain is that when the Senate grills the SCOTUS nominee on his or views on abortion, the nominee -- no matter who it is -- will duck and dodge the question to avoid answering it at all costs.  However, given his objective analysis of legal and political issues in his writing, I happen to think that Greenwald would not use his own personal beliefs to cloud his judgment.  He does not seem to agree with the idea of letting a simple abortion litmus test dictate how one votes for a political candidate, so I find it hard to believe that he would use a simple abortion litmus test to dictate how he would vote on any potential abortion laws.  Rather, I think he would acknowledge that, whatever one believes about reproductive rights, current federal law states that abortion is legal, and that if the SCOTUS were to overturn Roe v. Wade, it would take a fundamental, seismic shift in our nation's laws predicated on strong evidence that abortion were somehow unconstitutional.

By the way, for those of you who might still be worried about Roe v. Wade being overturned in the future, let me point out that while I understand the concern and that I, too, would dread that outcome, it's worth mentioning that arguably the most right-wing government of our lifetimes could not get Roe v. Wade overturned during the past eight years.  That, of course, does not mean that progressive voters should be complacent about it -- it's just merely to state that I hardly think a Greenwald nomination would ensure that it would happen.

**************************

I also think there's a perfectly legitimate argument that Greenwald would lose his effectiveness to speak truth to power if he were to become a SCOTUS justice, instead of an independent journalist and legal scholar.  I think that's most likely true.  His blog allows him the freedom to examine complex and controversial political issues, and then post his analysis for a wide audience on a near-daily basis -- which then allows amateur bloggers like me to read, re-read, analyze, and re-analyze his arguments within a matter of minutes.

But regardless of whether or not he served as a voice of reason in the blogosphere or in federal court, I believe Greenwald would still fit the most important criteria for Obama's SCOTUS nominee: To be a person who is "dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role" -- to be somebody who share's the President's respect "for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."  After reading his work, and despite the fact that I personally don't agree with everything he writes (such as some of his points in this post), I can conclude confidently that Greenwald cherishes these constitutional values to their core, as befits an honest intellectual and rational scholar of the law.

Finally, I encourage any and all of you to read and consider other diaries profiling the qualifications and experience (both positive and negative) of other potential SCOTUS nominees (such as this one on Kathleen Sullivan and this one on Sonia Sotomayor).  I will do the same, and if you disagree with the premise of this diary, no problem.  Again, it was primarily a simple way of showing respect for Greenwald's writing.

Thanks for reading this far!  And if Glenn himself is reading this, feel free to shoot the idea down right on the spot -- if nothing else, you've got yourself another dedicated reader.

**************************

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

The truth is that no one without a vested interest in the profitability of vaccines has studied all 36 of them in depth. There are more than 100 vaccines in development, and no tests for cumulative effect or vaccine interaction of all 36 vaccines in the current schedule have ever been done. If I'm mistaken, I challenge those who are making such grand pronouncements about vaccine safety to produce those studies.

........

I've also heard it said that no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism has ever been found. That statement is only true for the CDC, the AAP and the vaccine makers who've been ignoring mountains of scientific information and testimony.

As an epidemiologist, I get so friggin' fed up with the anti-vaccine crowd dismissing the best available science that, if they had spent just a minute looking through a scientific journal, they could easily see for themselves.  Like this large, population-based study from Lancet in 1999, which concludes:

Our results do not support the hypothesis that MMR vaccination is causally related to autism, either its initiation or to the onset of regression--the main symptom mentioned in the paper by Wakefield and others. The data on clinical presentation and immunisation status of the cases in our study were recorded before the recent publicity suggesting a possible link between MMR vaccine and autism. The two datasets were collected independently of each other, so avoiding the bias that can occur when cases are ascertained as a result of a perceived link with vaccination. This study does not rule out the possibility of a rare idiosyncratic response to MMR. However, if such an association occurs, it is so rare that it could not be identified in this large regional sample.

Or this one, from PLoS ONE:

The objective of this case-control study was to determine whether children with GI disturbances and autism are more likely than children with GI disturbances alone to have MV RNA and/or inflammation in bowel tissues and if autism and/or GI episode onset relate temporally to receipt of MMR. The sample was an age-matched group of US children undergoing clinically-indicated ileocolonoscopy.

.......

We found no differences between case and control groups in the presence of MV RNA in ileum and cecum. Results were consistent across the three laboratory sites. GI symptom and autism onset were unrelated to MMR timing. Eighty-eight percent of ASD cases had behavioral regression.

Or this one, from the American Journal of Preventive Medicine:

Methods

Between the mid-1980s through the late-1990s, we compared the prevalence/incidence of autism in California, Sweden, and Denmark with average exposures to Thimerosal-containing vaccines. Graphic ecologic analyses were used to examine population-based data from the United States (national immunization coverage surveys and counts of children diagnosed with autism-like disorders seeking special education services in California); Sweden (national inpatient data on autism cases, national vaccination coverage levels, and information on use of all vaccines and vaccine-specific amounts of Thimerosal); and Denmark (national registry of inpatient/outpatient-diagnosed autism cases, national vaccination coverage levels, and information on use of all vaccines and vaccine-specific amounts of Thimerosal).

Results

In all three countries, the incidence and prevalence of autism-like disorders began to rise in the 1985-1989 period, and the rate of increase accelerated in the early 1990s. However, in contrast to the situation in the United States, where the average Thimerosal dose from vaccines increased throughout the 1990s, Thimerosal exposures from vaccines in both Sweden and Denmark--already low throughout the 1970s and 1980s--began to decrease in the late 1980s and were eliminated in the early 1990s.

Conclusions

The body of existing data, including the ecologic data presented herein, is not consistent with the hypothesis that increased exposure to Thimerosal-containing vaccines is responsible for the apparent increase in the rates of autism in young children being observed worldwide.

Or this one, from the Archives of General Psychiatry:

The estimated prevalence of autism for children [in California] at each year of age from 3 to 12 years increased throughout the study period. The estimated prevalence of DDS clients aged 3 to 5 years with autism increased for each quarter from January 1995 through March 2007. Since 2004, the absolute increase and the rate of increase in DDS clients aged 3 to 5 years with autism were higher than those in DDS clients of the same ages with any eligible condition including autism.

The DDS data do not show any recent decrease in autism in California despite the exclusion of more than trace levels of thimerosal from nearly all childhood vaccines. The DDS data do not support the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal during childhood is a primary cause of autism.

That's just a sample of the hundreds of articles that completely contradict everything Mr. Carrey is saying.  So no, Jim.  The mountains of evidence are not on your side.

Of course, he goes on:

With vaccines being the fastest growing division of the pharmaceutical industry, isn't it possible that profits may play a part in the decision-making? That the vaccine program is becoming more of a profit engine than a means of prevention?

Ah, yes!  The vast vaccine-wing conspiracy to make profits!  Just like that heartless doctor, what was his name, Dr. Jonas Salk!  We all remember Dr. Salk's pyramid scheme to reap in the billions of dollars for his polio vaccine.

Mr. Carrey, I work for a pharmaceutical industry (GlaxoSmithKline).  And I can tell you that its main profits don't come from vaccines at all.  The studies I cited above were not even done by the pharmaceutical industry.  They were done by academicians and epidemiologists who were seeking the best evidence explaining the link between vaccines and autism, and they all found NO link.  Get the point?

Of course not.  Carrey keeps on writing:

We have never argued that people shouldn't be immunized for the most serious threats including measles and polio, but surely there's a limit as to how many viruses and toxins can be introduced into the body of a small child.

Really, Mr. Carrey?  You've NEVER argued that children shouldn't be immunized against other serious threats?  Hmm, I seem to recall your girlfriend arguing just that on Larry King last year.

MCCARTHY: We get that they're saving lives, but the increase is ridiculous, you guys. Look, it's plain and simple. It's bull (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

KARP: No, it's not.

MCCARTHY: Too many shots too soon.

(CROSS TALK)

MCCARTHY: My son died in front of me due to a vaccine injury. And there are many -- every week I get a picture of a dead child.

KING: You lost a son?

MCCARTHY: Evan died in front of me for two minutes, cardiac arrest. Every week, I get a picture sent to me of a child that died following a vaccination.

(CROSS TALK)

MCCARTHY: Are we considered acceptable losses?

KARP: Jenny, let's bring it down just a notch for a second here. When we look at autism, 75 percent of kids with autism, there's demonstrated change that the child has in the first year of life before they get to this period when they're getting the Mumps, Measles vaccine.

MCCARTHY: Give me Mumps and Measles. I'll take that way over autism any day.

Enough of this.  I would spend more time blaming Mr. Carrey for spreading false information, but I think that the Huffington Post has to answer for this bullshit too.  So, Huffington Post, a couple questions:

2. Are you more interested in posting editorials from celebrities who deny the best available science, instead of posting the results of the best available science?

*********************************

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

The following is a light-hearted story of young love, young love lost, and growing up ten years ago to the day, on the day we commemorate the victims of the horrific tragedy at Columbine.

And enjoy a little music as you read this diary.

"Impromptu in G-Flat Major" by Franz Schubert, Op. 90 No. 3, played by Alfred Brendel.

************************

On Tuesday, April 20, 1999, I had a mission.  I had a clear objective, I had a strategy, and I was going to go to bed that night knowing I did what I needed to do, no matter what happened.

I was going to ask that girl that I liked to prom.

I was 15 at the time, just a pimple-faced freshman in a new school.  Though I had a couple crushes, I had never been on a date with any girl at that point in my life.  But prom was coming up, and I still didn't have a date.  My school was unique in that it let any student go to prom, regardless of their class year -- it just meant that I couldn't go to any of the hoppin' after-parties they supposedly had set up for the student body.

So the pressure was on.  I spent most of the day wracking my brain about how I was going to approach that utterly terrifying, mortifying moment that hits every young (heterosexual) male at some point in his life: Asking a girl out.  Was I going to call her?  Was I going to approach her after school?  Was I going to leave her a tiny little note with a heart on it asking if she'd be my date, and then hope to get a note with a heart that said "YES!!!" a la Pedro in Napoleon Dynamite?

Well, she wasn't at school that day, so that took out stopping her in the hallway after school, and presumably she wouldn't be seeing any notes from me if she were absent.  So, the phone it was.  But boy, was I nervous.  What in the hell was I going to say?  Was I going to stammer my way through the question?  How would I sound?  Was my voice going to crack?  What would I say if she said no?  Would my question come out sounding like a jumbled cacophony of adolescent mumblings, like, "Willugodoprmwthmeeee?"

And all that was before asking her to prom in the first place.  That didn't even get into the far-more difficult problem of how on earth I was going to tell her that I liked her.

See, when you're 15, and you barely understand anything about your own body, much less why you're attracted to another person, your mind -- and your hormones -- start racing in peculiar and hilarious ways.  You fixate on all the little details about everything that can go wrong.  You become nervous and terrified to the point of tricking yourself into thinking that if you sit there and do nothing, the problem will just go away.  And you build up something as trivial as prom night to be, to paraphrase Ferris Bueller, the end-all be-all event of human existence, as though you were asking your date to marry you.  Hey, in my defense, I'll bet there was a time during the Middle Ages that if you were a courting a lady at the age of 15, you were basically making a declaration of marriage, if it wasn't already arranged by your parents.

Complicating all of this was that I had my sights set on someone whom my brother had once briefly dated.  He didn't harbor any romantic feelings for her by the time I was ready to ask her out, but it did add another level of thorns to an already thorny situation for me.  So I wasn't about to ask his permission, but at the same time it did make me wonder how he would react if he had found out I was even remotely interested in her -- and sooner or later, he was going to find out.

Eventually, I settled on a six-pronged, telephone-based strategy.  That is, an introduction, followed by a three-part interview consisting of one question each, followed by a self-evaluation.  It went as follows:

1. Say hello.

2. Ask if she's going to prom.

3. If yes to #2, ask if she had a date to prom.

4. If no to #3, ask her to prom.

5. If yes to #3, blame self for not asking her sooner.

And then the sixth step was that if she said yes to #4....well, I didn't plan for that.  Feel delighted, I guess.

This was my mission.  And yes, I DID actually plan that strategy.  So that night, after doing some push-ups and a meditation exercise (yeah, you do this stuff when you're young, stupid, and infatuated with someone), I boldly marched over to the phone and dialed the number.  She picked up.  The mission was underway.

The first step went fine.

The second step went fine.

The third step went fine.

And then, the critical fourth step......

wait for it......suspense..........................

"Sure!"

************************

I hung up.  Man, was I relieved.  And man, was I thrilled.

She said yes to me!

I must have booked it faster than Usain Bolt out of the house.  I was springting around the block and cheering at the sky like I had just won the lottery.  I mean, for all I felt, I DID just win the friggin' lottery.  She said YES!  As I recall while running around the block, I had "I'm So Excited" by the Pointer Sisters stuck in my head the whole time.  I dunno, it seemed appropriate.  And yes, for the record, I am heterosexual.  Can you blame me if my mind took me to funny places when I was in a state of utter bliss?

On April 20, 1999, my first foray into love and dating began.  I asked a girl out, and she said yes.  Yeah, I was the man that day.

Or so I thought.

It turned out the happiness was very, very short-lived.  Not even 24 hours did it last.

The next night, she called me.  I thought she was calling to figure out all the gory prom details -- you know, the limo, the dress, where we were gonna get dinner, the works.  But that wasn't it at all.

She told me that she had to turn me down because she had already been asked to prom months before by someone she had once dated (a friend of mine, actually), before they had broken up.

Cue this young man's heart ripping in half.

The moment I asked her to prom, I foolishly thought that there would be no one else.  She said yes the first time.  I couldn't accept that she said no the next day.  With that rigid mindset, I then worked tirelessly to win her over after she had turned me down.  It was frustrating and painful, but I had to do it.  It was love, man.  At least, that's what I thought it was at the age of 15.

About a year later, after repeated efforts to get closer to her, I eventually came to realize that she and I were not right for each other.  My family also took great pains to ensure my well-being after the emotional toll the year had taken on me.  My sense of misplaced devotion to this one person didn't allow me to think rationally or even remotely consider asking out other girls.

A blinding force, that crazy little thing called love.

************************

I didn't know anyone at Columbine.  Living in a suburb north of Chicago, I didn't even hear about what had happened until right after I came back inside from running around the block.  My head was still swimming with the thrill of (then) having a prom date, but I turned on the news, and all that anybody was talking about was that 15 people were shot dead inside a high school in Littleton, Colorado.  Scores of others were wounded.

I remember my mother came home from work late that night, and that she didn't say much.  She clenched my shoulder and kissed me on the cheek before going to bed.  A goodnight kiss from my mother was nothing unusual, but this time it had felt like there was more urgency and concern to it.  She later told me that she touched my shoulder that night because that was her way of expressing just how grateful she was that nothing as terrible as Columbine ever happened to me or my brothers.

I don't believe in fate.  I think our lives, while heavily governed by the laws of evolution and natural selection, are mostly a series of unexpected, random events that set in motion a series of other unexpected, random events.  To this day, I still have no idea how April 20, 1999 changed my life forever.  Who can say?  Maybe if she had been my prom date, we would have been in a long-term relationship.  Maybe I would have gone to a different college.  Maybe I would have focused on a different career path.  Maybe I would never have made the wonderful friends I've made along the way in ten years.  Maybe I would have never met the amazing girlfriend I love very much and to whom I've been in the same relationship for more than three years.

All I really know is that, in spite of my foolish notions of love when I was young, I had much reason to be happy on 4/20/99, and I still cherish the happy memory of that day.  Happy because I had taken a first step to telling a girl that I liked her.  But more importantly, forever grateful that I'm still alive to laugh and share my life with my family and friends, acknowledging the terrible sadness that the victims at Columbine are not.

Ten years ago, my father told me that I would look back on that whole prom experience and laugh.  He was right.  And even in the face of a tanking economy, two wars abroad, and the 10th anniversary of a horrific episode of school violence, I hope each and every one of you take a little moment today to laugh, sing, and smile.  A little laughter, a little music, and a little love goes a long way to adding years to your life.

By the way, to the girl that I asked out ten years ago (if she's reading this): No hard feelings from me.  It taught me just a little bit more about myself.  I'm still learning things about myself I didn't know before.  I hope you'll have many more years to learn, and think, and cherish your happy memories, just like I have.

Peace to all.

************************

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

I will apologize in advance for this being a short blog post, but my head is swimming with happiness right now.

Only 2 weeks ago, Massachusetts and Connecticut were the only states that recognized gay marriage as legal.  Now, in the span of just 5 days, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, and Vermont overturned their Republican Governor's veto on the gay marriage bill which had previously been passed by the Vermont legislature by an overwhelming margin.

It has taken decades to reverse legalized discrimination against gays and lesbians, even in the most liberal states in America.  And now, the number of states where gay marriage is now legal has DOUBLED IN JUST 5 DAYS.

Did the world I live in just turn upside-down?

That's like if a bat-boy was called up as a pinch hitter, and then he hits 2 grand slams in the same night.  It would be like if you were in a small-town garage band, playing at a local bar to a crowd of maybe 20 people, and then being asked to tour with Radiohead the next day.  It's like hitting the lottery jackpot.....twice in a row.

Or, maybe this wasn't impossible.  Nate Silver predicts that by 2012, half of all the states will vote against a marriage ban.  His model was nearly perfect in predicting California's vote share in favor of Prop 8, so I'm inclined to think he could very well be right.

Nonetheless, the thought that 2 states would overturn a marriage ban in such a short period of time.....I don't know any other way to say it, but it was unthinkable for me.  I guess that's what happens when you pessimistically prepare for the worst each time a gay marriage bill comes to the floor for a vote, or gets passed to the courts to decide.

Either way, yes....the world turned upside-down.  And I like it that way.

DIARIST'S WARNING: THE FOLLOWING DIARY CONTAINS GRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPHS.

Turn up your radio dials, TPM readers, and fire up the Bachmann-Freeper-Overdrive.  'Cause America's favorite batshit wingnut is (still) going off the rails on a crazy train!

Alright, enough with the classic rock metaphors.  But seriously, you'll love this:

"And so we need to once again decide, do we want to be free, or do we want to be slaves? We have to make that decision. And I know I've made my choice, you've made your choice. And we have to act in concert if we want to make sure that we can hold on to what we have." -- Rep. Michele Bachmann, during an interview on April 1 with the right-wing blog Atlas Shrugs (as reported by Eric Kleefeld)

Wow, did Bachmann really just say that?  Yes, she did.  She tried to drum up fear about how our nation's first black president is returning America to the days of SLAVERY.  On April Fools' Day, no less.  How long until she starts comparing Obama to cancer, or Pol Pot, or Hitler?

I'm so glad Bachmann has made her choice about not wanting to be a slave.  Not wanting to be a slave is the first step in organizing an army for an orderly revolution against our democratically elected government.  As Steve Benen at Political Animal points out, Bachmann didn't say why the American people would want to be slaves -- does ANYBODY actually want to be a slave? -- nor did she say to whom the people would be enslaved.  

I'll get back to the slavery bullshit in a minute.

Earlier in the interview, Bachmann railed against the White House dropping the term "War on Terror" as a dangerous boost of confidence to terrorist organizations.  She also said that Obama's secret plan to replace the dollar with global currency -- the plan that doesn't exist and that Obama himself doesn't support -- is "stealing" from the American people's freedom.

"By scuttling adherence to the Constitution, we are scuttling political freedom as well, because economic freedom is inextricably entwined in political freedom. We can't have one without the other."

.....

"We are gambling with some very risky dice right now by not continuing to operate under a Constitutional form of government.  And that is....that is stealing from the American people.  It's reaching into the American people's freedom bank account and stealing from them the asset that is more precious than anything: Our freedom."

Whoa, did Obama secretly break into the National Archives last night, rip up the Constitution, and all of a sudden turn our democratically elected government into a fascist dictatorship?  I didn't get the memo.  I would have thought Obama -- a Constitutional law professor -- wasn't so big on his ninja robbery skills, but rather, um, obeying the Constitution and GOVERNING AS A CONSTITUTIONALLY-ELECTED PRESIDENT.

Also, what in the hell is a freedom bank account?  More importantly, do I have one of those?  Are there Freedom ATMs where I can make withdrawals on my freedom?  Like, can I decide that I only want to withdraw 60 freedoms today, but then pay an extra 2.50 freedoms as a service fee?  Can I invest in a freedom stock and get freedom tips from Jim "Freedom" Cramer?  Can I get a freedom portfolio to buy a freedom house?

Alright, enough joking.

See, we here in Non-Crazyland remember that America once had a not-so-pleasant history with slavery.  Bachmann might recall that poor, black people were involved.  I have a hunch that our nation's first black president isn't going to be returning America to slavery.  Call me crazy.

For Bachmann's reference, here's what slaves in real American history looked like:

And the people that Bachmann wants to protect from her batshit concept of slavery?  Those would be the rich, privileged, fundamentalist crazies who will do anything to fight higher taxes on the wealthiest people in America -- people who never once had to worry about the poverty and abuse such as the real slaves in American history once faced.  People like this:

For all her ranting and raving about how Obama is stealing people's freedom from their "freedom bank accounts," Bachmann and anybody who supports that dingbat would do better to remember that those real slaves in 1860 didn't actually have any freedom at all.  They were bound, chained, and forced to perform cruel labor for their white masters under threat of whipping, beating, and torture.  So when she makes some dumb remark about how the American people will be slaves under Obama and how their "freedom bank accounts" are being compromised, she might want to open a book and find out what real slavery was.

So no, Bachmann.  Imposing higher taxes on extremely wealthy people, or pushing for tighter regulation of banks that caused the economic collapse, or calling for a more sensible and diplomatic foreign policy, is not slavery.  It's called being progressive, rational, and patriotic.

Oh, but there I go again.....assuming that wingnuts have any logic or reason at all.....

*****************************

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

INTRODUCTION: Since his election as RNC Chairman, Michael Steele has been under fire for his frequent gaffes and incompetence.  Steele recently said in an op-ed in Politico that the special election in NY-20 was a referendum on President Obama's agenda.  The goal of this study was to quantify the prevalence of Utter Bullshit in Steele's words.

METHODS: A thorough review of the paragraphs and sentences in Steele's 4/1/09 op-ed in Politico was conducted.  Word counts were performed using Microsoft Word.  Bolded words were defined as wrong, and underlined words were defined as misleading.  Words with regular font were defined as correct.  Utter Bullshit was defined as the composite total of wrong and misleading words.

RESULTS: Steele's op-ed contained N = 852 words.  427 words (50.1%) were designated as wrong, and 306 words (35.9%) were designated as misleading, yielding an overall Utter Bullshit Score of 86%.

CONCLUSION: I ♥ Michael Steele.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The author would like to thank the TPM Cafe community for permitting him the forum with which to conduct this analysis; and of course, Michael Steele.

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PREVALENCE OF THE UTTER BULLSHIT OF MICHAEL STEELE.
By SuperBowlXX

The present study has reproduced the entirety of Michael Steele's op-ed, originally found here.  The author estimates that 86% of Michael Steele's words in the editorial are Utter Bullshit; non-Utter Bullshit words include simple words like "the" and "and."  Similar findings on Rush Limbaugh's use of Utter Bullshit words were demonstrated by the author previously.  The results of the present study strongly indicate a substantial increase from normal levels in the prevalence of Steele's Utter Bullshit on April Fools Day (p < 0.001).  The authors hypothesize that this was not a coincidence, but rather it was "all part of Steele's plan, baby."  Please see the Appendix for further descriptions of the formulas used to calculate the Utter Bullshit Ratios.

Table 1:

Tuesday's special election in New York's 20th Congressional District was closely watched, and rightly so. The election represented the first opportunity for voters to give Democrats a progress report on President Barack Obama's economic recovery policies and, judging by the results, voters don't like the "change," let alone the taxing, spending and borrowing, that's coming from Washington.

Total Words = 57
Correct Words = 3 (5.3%)
Misleading Words = 12 (21.1%)
Wrong Words = 42 (73.7%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 18.0

The NY-20 race was actually not the first opportunity for voters to give President Obama a progress report.  Running polls of President Obama's approval rating have been running for quite some time, as far back as January.  In addition, judging by the results of NY-20, the Democratic candidate Scott Murphy had more votes by the end of the night than Republican opponent Jim Tedisco, pending the outcome of absentee and military ballots.  That Murphy leads the vote count in a race where the Republicans spent more money than did the Democrats, particularly in a district which has 70,000 more registered Republicans, shows that Steele is both wrong and dishonest in Table 1.

Table 2:

Make no mistake -- we believe Jim Tedisco will win once all the absentee and military ballots are counted. And let's be clear, this is not a recount.

At least 4 percent of the votes have yet to be counted in the first place. Tedisco's victory will be a credible repudiation of the spending spree that Obama and Congress have been on since January. Even the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee acknowledged over the weekend that the race was "a referendum on the Economic Recovery Act and Barack Obama's policies."

Total Words = 92
Correct Words = 18 (19.6%)
Misleading Words = 25 (27.2%)
Wrong Words = 49 (53.3%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 4.1

Steele and the GOP certainly do believe Jim Tedisco will win after all ballots are counted, and it is yet too early to determine if he is wrong here.  However, the sentence "And let's be clear, this is not a recount" has been labeled as misleading for the following reasons: 1) "Let's be clear" is a bastardized version of President Obama's frequent argument modifier "Let me be clear" -- evidence suggesting that Steele is in fact jealous of Obama -- and 2) the NY-20 race is not a recount YET.  Republicans simply haven't gotten around to overturning the results, despite their threats to do same before the ballots were closed (not to mention the GOP's hypocrisy re: recounts in recent elections).  So while this statement is not incorrect per se, it still falls under the broad category of Utter Bullshit.

Furthermore, all precincts have reported in NY-20.  Steele is misleading the reader by leaving out the detail of absentee and military ballots, of which there are currently 5,907 out of 155,000 votes cast (~3.9%).  The bolded statement in Table 2 is both astoundingly wrong and stupid because the race in NY-20 yielded, for now, the opposite result from what might have been expected several weeks ago, when Tedisco was way ahead in the polls in a solidly conservative district.  The fact that voters went to the polls and helped Murphy climb all the way back into the race, with a potential victory, potentially explains the exact opposite of what Steele is claiming.

Plus, the sentence "a referendum on the Economic Recovery Act and Barack Obama's policies" was not uttered at all by the DCCC executive director, Brian Wolff.  Typing the phrase into Google, with quotation marks, produced one hit -- specifically, Michael Steele's own editorial.  Actually, Wolff did say this on March 11: "The stimulus package and the economy, and our candidate, are striking a tone with voters in the 20th District."  Wolff's statement was in response to Tedisco, who said that he would have voted No on the stimulus with the rest of the Party of No, despite the fact that most Americans support it.

Table 3:

Well, the DCCC is right -- this likely Republican victory is a referendum on the president. Democrats sent mailers out to voters linking their candidate to the president, and the Obama campaign team used its much-vaunted e-mail list to rally its troops in support of Scott Murphy. Obama himself made a high-profile endorsement of Murphy in the closing days of the race, Vice President Joe Biden cut a radio ad and a robocall for Murphy, and the Democratic Party ran an ad in the closing days featuring the president himself.

Total Words = 89
Correct Words = 5 (5.6%)
Misleading Words = 74 (83.1%)
Wrong Words = 10 (11.2%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 16.8

The underlined statement in Table 3 is not technically wrong -- President Obama and Vice President Biden did write e-mails and cut ads in support of Murphy in the heat of a close race.  However, the statement is misleading because Steele is implying that support for a Democratic candidate by the White House would mean a rejection by the voters of the President if Murphy should lose -- but not a rejection of Republican policies if Murphy should win.  The Utter Bullshit about the concept of NY-20 being a referendum on anything cuts both ways, but unfortunately Mr. Steele wants to have it both ways.  One might recall that a giant smackdown of Republican policies did take place on November 4, 2008, and the current polls on the approval of Congressional Republicans still seem to reflect this sweeping rejection of the GOP.  The approval ratings of both Democrats and Republicans are not likely to move that significantly as a result of this race.

Table 4:

Well, the voters have spoken, and while the results are still pending, Republicans are confident that the final vote tallies will show those voters have rejected the president's approach. This will be true even in this Democratic-leaning district that candidate Obama carried in the presidential election and the previous Democratic candidate for Congress carried with more than 60 percent of the vote.

Total Words = 62
Correct Words = 0 (0%)
Misleading Words = 24 (38.7%)
Wrong Words = 38 (61.3%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = Undefined

See the explanation for Table 3 about the abject bullshittery on the referendum talking point.  The district is not Democratic-leaning, as stated previously, and Republicans didn't sound very confident about the NY-20 results, as per House minority leader John Boehner's words on voting day.  The underlined statement is for the most part true, but it is considered misleading for assuming that a district that Obama won and went more than 60% for the Democratic candidate in November is somehow offering a wholesale rejection of the President because the NY-20 race was a toss-up (see Figure 1).

Figure 1:

Table 5:

Look at it this way: Does any student of politics think that this race would have been competitive if it had been held last November? Answer -- no. The ground has shifted, and is shifting, as the voters become increasingly worried about Obamanomics.

And who can blame them?

Total Words = 47
Correct Words = 5 (10.6%)
Misleading Words = 27 (57.4%)
Wrong Words = 15 (31.9%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 8.4

While the author of the present study is a student of politics, he is also a student of epidemiology.  And one of the more important lessons that an epidemiologist will teach his or her students is the idea of the counterfactual conditional -- that you can take Population X, expose it to drug Y, and measure the rate of disease following the exposure, but you cannot then measure the rate of disease in Population X as though it were never exposed to the drug, because they were already exposed a priori.  In other words, you don't live in a parallel universe -- well, most of us don't, but Michael Steele seems to be doing that just fine, because he somehow knows that Murphy would have beaten Tedisco by a lot more in November than he did in March.

Steele's Utter Bullshit logic, of course, is puzzling.  Yes, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand did win her race in NY-20 in November by a wide margin, but she was a popular Representative in upstate New York and an incumbent.  An outsider candidate with no public office experience like Murphy would not necessarily have been favored in November against a 26-year veteran of New York political office like Jim Tedisco since the Republicans had a built-in registration advantage over Democrats, and a big one at that.  Utter Bullshit applies to this statement because Steele is apparently living in his own world, and he still thinks that the outcome of the NY-20 race was a rejection of President Obama when the simple reality is that only a month ago, Tedisco would have mopped the floor with Murphy.

As for the question "Who can blame them?", Steele is deliberately misleading the reader by suggesting that voters are now turning en masse against Obama and his agenda.  Hardcore Republicans certainly are, according to the latest polls -- but most Americans are on board (for the moment), and most Americans aren't actively hoping for the President to fail (nor are they apologizing to Rush Limbaugh for suggesting that Rush is entertainer who spouts ugly and incendiary bullshit).  So when Steele asks, "Who can blame them?"  The author answers, "I do.  I blame them for buying into discredited right wing talking points and Utter Bullshit."

Table 6:

As the Democratic Party's candidate for president, Obama pledged he would be a responsible steward of the taxpayers' money, saying, "I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don't work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper."

That was then. Today, a mere two months into his administration, Obama and congressional Democrats have demonstrated that their only solution to the current economic crisis is to spend, tax and borrow. The Democrats' reckless approach will leave our children and grandchildren with a staggering national debt owed to China and oil-rich countries in the Middle East.

Total Words = 109
Correct Words = 23 (21.1%)
Misleading Words = 32 (29.4%)
Wrong Words = 54 (49.5%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 3.7

The Utter Bullshit-a-thon continues.  President Obama did say the quotation above, as Steele claims, during the second debate with John McCain.  Of course, Steele is ignoring the fact that many of his party's own brethren railed against earmarks in the stimulus, yet still tried to take credit for the earmarks that made it into the final bill.  Steele wades further into an Utter Bullshit storm by criticizing Obama's "reckless" approach to fixing the economy when Obama's predecessor did quite a few reckless things himself.  You know, like getting the U.S. into a war in an oil-rich country in the Middle East, exploding the national debt, and turning a budget surplus from 2000 into a huge budget deficit, all while slashing taxes for the wealthiest and creating the worst economic collapse since 1929.  This ain't Obama's recession, Steele.

Table 7:

First came the president's $787 billion economic stimulus package. Not only did the version congressional Democrats passed and he signed into law contain billions of dollars in pork-barrel spending -- spending Obama pledged to weed out as a candidate for president; it offered families little hope by way of direct job creation at a time when unemployment rates are at historic levels. It also contained the loophole allowing millions of dollars in bonuses to be distributed to executives at American International Group, which, because of mismanagement, had already been bailed out by the taxpayers.

Total Words = 93
Correct Words = 9 (9.7%)
Misleading Words = 52 (55.9%)
Wrong Words = 32 (34.4%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 9.3

Oh noes!  Not the awful PORK spending!  We wouldn't want THAT around to do anything reasonable like volcano monitoring, would we (see Figure 2)?

Sarcasm aside, Steele is still serving up a hefty plate of Utter Bullshit here.  First of all, McCain was the earmark warrior.  Obama was pretty clear when he said, repeatedly, that eliminating $18 billion worth of earmarks won't do a whole lot to settle the problems of the economy.  Nor will a complete five-year spending freeze, as Steele's colleagues have so kindly proposed.  Second of all, Steele then goes on to criticize the stimulus because he doesn't think it will create jobs, but of course, Steele also thinks that government never created a single job anyway.  Third, it might surprise Steele to know that the American public overwhelmingly doesn't blame Obama for the stuff that AIG pulled -- yet that didn't stop Steele from dropping yet another brick of Utter Bullshit into Politico's servers.

Figure 2:

Table 8:

Then came the president's jaw-dropping $3.6 trillion budget proposal that some members of his own party couldn't fully support. His budget came on the heels of $787 billion in economic stimulus spending, $410 billion in spending on a fiscal year 2009 omnibus package that contained 8,000 earmarks and billions of dollars in spending for corporate bailouts. It will raise taxes on the very job-producing small businesses our economy needs right now. And it will leave a $9 trillion debt hanging over the heads of our children and grandchildren.

Total Words = 88
Correct Words = 13 (14.8%)
Misleading Words = 36 (40.9%)
Wrong Words = 39 (44.3%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 5.8

True, some blue dog Democrats have voiced their concerns about the President's budget.  But what's so jaw-dropping about returning to the marginal tax rates that were in use during the Clinton years?  That the rich may have to pay a little more in.....(gulp).....TAXES???  Besides, the voters still favor the President's agenda over that of the Republicans on health care, taxes, energy, the deficit,....oh and the budget plan too.  But I guess we're still a center-right country, right Steele?

As for the national debt, Steele is riding his way into Utter Bullshit town by lamenting the possibility of a $9 trillion debt should Obama's budget be signed into law.  Not that the prospect of a rising national debt is a humorous topic, but isn't it funny how Steele never seemed all that worried about the national debt doubling under George Bush?  Steele seemed rather busy encouraging America to drill, baby, drill.  Also, according to CBS, the national debt stood at $9.8 trillion in September, before Obama took office.  The author of this study doesn't consider himself a math expert, necessarily, but isn't the $9 trillion debt that Steele envisions LESS than a $9.8 trillion debt?  I can't figure that one out.  Oh well, let's move on.

Table 9:

Tuesday's close election shows that voters are not comfortable with Obama's prescription for our economy's current ills, and his exorbitant spending proposals are a pill that is simply too tough to swallow.

Total Words = 32
Correct Words = 0 (0%)
Misleading Words = 0 (0%)
Wrong Words = 32 (100%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = Undefined

See the explanations for Utter Bullshit in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 6.

Table 10:

Republicans have a different approach, one that spends much more wisely on priorities that will improve our economy and help families. One that lowers taxes and will create much-needed jobs. One that abides by the same fiscal responsibilities that millions of American families follow and won't spend money that we don't have today with the hope that it can be repaid decades from now.

Total Words = 64
Correct Words = 5 (7.8%)
Misleading Words = 0 (0%)
Wrong Words = 59 (92.2%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 11.8

The only patently true, non-bullshit words in Table 10 are the first five.  Republicans DO have a different approach to fixing the economy compared to Obama, and it's in a nice li'l booklet that has graphs and everything (see Figure 3)!

Figure 3:

Table 11:

The fact that Democrats did not sail to victory in yesterday's special election in New York should be seen as a wake-up call to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Voters want our economy to improve and want their elected officials to make it a priority, but they haven't given the White House and Congress a blank check. America's elected officials need to find solutions, but they must be fiscally responsible ones. We simply can't spend our way to economic recovery.

Total Words = 80
Correct Words = 35 (43.8%)
Misleading Words = 16 (20.0%)
Wrong Words = 29 (36.3%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 1.3

Voters are watching. They have seen how congressional Democrats have simply rubber-stamped Obama's spending proposals. Tuesday's election was a vote of "no confidence" in the Democrats' tax, spend and borrow approach.

Total Words = 31
Correct Words = 3 (9.7%)
Misleading Words = 0 (0%)
Wrong Words = 28 (90.3%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 9.3

Steele out-bullshitted himself by first mentioning in Table 8 how some Democrats objected to President Obama's budget -- but then he backtracks by saying that Democrats just rubber-stamp everything the President wants!  Did Steele forget his party's own rubber-stamped, unanimous DONUT they handed the President when voting on the stimulus bill?  Steele then calls the NY-20 race a "vote of no confidence" in the Democrats, even though the Democratic candidate got more votes than the Republican (not counting absentees).  Ah well, who are we to expect reason and logic about how voting and winning elections work from a guy who got beaten the last time he ran against a Democrat, who lied about which party he belonged to in order to mislead voters (see Figure 4), and who bussed in homeless people for his GOTV efforts?

Figure 4:

Finally, Steele caps off his stupendous Utter Bullshittery with this gem in Table 13:

I hope Obama and congressional Democrats are listening.

Total Words = 8
Correct Words = 0 (0%)
Misleading Words = 8 (0%)
Wrong Words = 0 (0%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = Undefined

Do you really want us to be listening to you, Steele?  I call bullshit on that too, because every time you say or write words, both bullshit and hilarity ensue.  The author of this study concludes that Steele should be hoping Democrats are NOT listening to him, because we're both listening and laughing our asses off.

***************************

FINAL RESULTS:

Total Words = 852
Correct Words = 119 (14.0%)
Misleading Words = 306 (35.9%)
Wrong Words = 427 (50.1%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 6.2
Adjusted Utter Bullshit Ratio = 7.3

In conclusion, we have investigated the level of Utter Bullshit from Michael Steele and have determined that 86% of the words contained in his Politico editorial are characterized by false, misleading, wrong, stupid, and Utter Bullshit information.  The author would like to caution that 86% may be a conservative estimate, as it does not take into account other factors like this:

***************************

APPENDIX

The Utter Bullshit Ratio (UBR) for each Table (block of text) represents the ratio of Utter Bullshit (wrong and misleading words) to correct words.  The Crude UBR, therefore, represents the UBR for the whole editorial.  The UBR was calculated using the following formula:

UBR = (Wrong + Misleading)/Correct

The Adjusted Utter Bullshit Ratio (AUBR) represents the ratio of Utter Bullshit to correct words in each of the 13 Tables (blocks of text).  As each block contains a specific percentage of text for the whole editorial, the Tables are weighted differently to calculate an adjusted ratio.  The AUBR was calculated using the following formula:

AUBR = a1x1 + a2x2 + ... + a13x13

where a1, a2, ... , a13 represent the "weights" of each Table - the proportion of the total words in each Table with respect to the total number of words for the whole editorial - and x1, x2, ... , x13 represent the UBRs of each Table.  Adjustment caused Michael Steele's Utter Bullshit Ratio to increase by 17.7%.  NOTE: The AUBR formula excludes Tables 4, 9, and 13, where the crude UBR could not be defined because the # of correct, non-bullshit words = 0.

***************************

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

Via Think Progress, Bloomberg reports that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, will introduce a proposal today to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by the year 2020.

President Barack Obama has called for the U.S. to reduce emissions 80 percent by 2050, and get a quarter of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Waxman's proposal would follow those goals.

......

Waxman's plan to cut emissions is similar to a proposal by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group that favors federal action on emissions limits and includes utilities, oil companies and environmental organizations. The group in January proposed reducing such greenhouse gases by up to 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

Actually, Waxman's proposal is a little more aggressive than Obama's current plan, at least in the short term, for reducing emissions.  Whereas Obama has asked Congress for legislation that would result in reductions of roughly 15 percent by 2020 and over 80 percent by 2050, Waxman wants to cut emissions 20 percent by 2020, 42 percent by 2030 (a doubling of the emission reduction in just 10 years), and 83 percent by 2050.

The Waxman proposal currently does not provide details on the mechanisms for implementing a cap-and-trade system for curbing emissions.  However, according to Reuters, Democratic aides have said that the cap-and-trade system would not begin until 2012, when it will be required to reduce emissions from 2005 levels by 3%.

My first take is that I'm quite pleased that Rep. Waxman is moving forward to aggressively tackle global warming caused by greenhouse gases.  Such a proposal would never have gained traction under the Bush Administration, and I'm skeptical that the legislation would have ever gotten out of the Senate, much less the former President's desk.

However, I'm also tempered by the fact that the recession might force the U.S. to scale back their efforts to curb emissions, whether or not it's the right thing to do.  Obama's Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu warned last month:

...reaching agreement on legislation to combat climate change would be difficult in the current recession because any scheme to regulate greenhouse gas emissions would probably cause energy prices to rise and drive manufacturing jobs to countries where energy is cheaper.

"The concern about cap-and-trade in today's economic climate," Dr. Chu said, "is that a lot of money might flow to developing countries in a way that might not be completely politically sellable."

Still, getting the Waxman proposal to the floor of Congress is a very exciting development.  You can bet that the Party of No is just rearing to dig in its heels:

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Obama's climate control ideas would cost households $3,100 a year "just for doing the same things people have always done, like turning on the lights and doing laundry."

That would be, by my calculation, a little more than $1.50 a year since Jesus was born, right Mitch?  Perhaps he forgot to mention his support for that oh-so-much-better energy proposal of Drill Baby Drill.  Maybe he also forgot to mention his support for a mega tax cut to the rich while basically screwing people making less than $250,000 -- you know, like most of those people living in the Midwest who actually do their own laundry.

House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) also weighed in on the Waxman proposal a little while ago:

"This change would effectively bar the American auto manufacturers from competing in the largest market in America," Boehner wrote, "unless they make substantial changes in manufacturing that would increase costs to consumers, making the "Big 3″ even less competitive -- and making their collapse even more likely."

That last statement by Boehner in opposition to Waxman's proposal came in November of 2008.  Obviously, not much has changed since then....except the fact that the Big 3, the automakers whom Boehner wanted to "protect" by blocking tougher emissions standards, might be headed for bankruptcy -- and that was BEFORE Waxman even introduced his proposal.

The first hearing for Waxman's legislation is expected to take place during the week of April 20.  A full committee vote may occur as early as the week of May 11.

********************

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

Oh.  Good.  GOD.

This could be the most disgusting attack ad I've ever seen.  It's set to be released today.

And you know the funniest part of it?  It didn't come from some whacko crazy 527 group.  It's directly from the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Where's Keith Olbermann when you need him?  Here's hoping he names the f**kers who made this ad the Worst People In The World.

Happy March Madness, TPM readers!

Yesterday, President Obama filled out his NCAA men's basketball bracket on ESPN.  He picked three #1 seeds to make the Final Four (the other being #2 Memphis), with North Carolina emerging as the champion.  You can view the bracket here.

The President makes his selections.

They're safe picks, and probably match those of many people involved in office pools around the country.  UNC is a really good team and college basketball fans have every reason to think they could come out on top.  

However, it's been interesting reading around the blogosphere about whether or not the President's bracket is at all politically motivated -- in much the same way that people speculated he backed the Steelers over the Cardinals in Super Bowl XLIII solely because Pennsylvania voted for him, because McCain is from Arizona, and because of his ties to Steelers owner (and new ambassador to Ireland) Dan Rooney, and not because Obama happens to be a football fan who thought the Steelers were a better team.

Nate Silver weighs in on Obama's bracket:

There are 63 games in the men's tournament. In one case, two teams from the same state (Louisville and Morehead State, both from Kentucky) are set to square off. In the other 62 games, Obama has the team from the state which was closer in the November election advancing 35 times (56% of the total).

.......

Although Obama did not pick very many upsets, just about every time he did it tended to favor the team from the swingier state. With that said, there are a couple of upsets that Obama could have reasonably picked but didn't, such as #3-seeded Missouri over #2-seeded Memphis or #2-seeded Michigan State over top seed Louisville.

But yes: the President does appear to have been mixing his hoops with his politics. Will the nation ever recover?

Nate is, of course, being facetious.  But it sure looks like the President is gearing up for his 2012 re-election campaign by picking teams from the swing states.  Look for him to back the University of Missouri in 2010, Indiana University in 2011, and the University of Florida in 2012 (of course, since he doesn't want to anger Florida State fans, he'll pick them for the college football national championship in the same year).

Another thoroughly enjoyable read was this article from Chris Good in The Atlantic.  Here's a money passage:

For starters, Obama is conservative. Maybe not slash spending and overturn Roe v. Wade conservative, but cautious and risk averse. His UNC pick is shared by many, and his Final Four are Louisville, Pittsburgh, UNC, and Memphis--all 1 seeds aside from Memphis, whom many have predicted to beat Connecticut. He's picked a total of three upsets in the first round (not counting his two predictions for 9 seeds to beat 8 seeds), his most notable being a win for VCU (11) over UCLA (6) in the East region and another for Temple (11) over Arizona State (6) in the South. Aside from a Maryland (10) victory over Cal (7) in the West--a pick many are making--that's it. The only thing risky about these picks is that they may cost Obama some support in California in 2012--and he's probably not worried about that.

It's no wonder the president siding with the received wisdom, playing it relatively safe: after all, we're in a crisis, and this is no time to take chances. If Obama were to pick, say, 13-seeded Cleveland State to beat 4-seeded Wake Forest, and underdog Akron to make the Elite Eight (saying, perhaps, "I think the Mid America Conference is due to make a splash), the stock market might dip 200 points tomorrow.

And no one wants that.

That's right.  The Prez doesn't f**k around.  Stick to what works, don't be a maverick (MAN do I hate that phrase by now) and pick #12 seeds to go all the way.  If some mid-Major Cinderella team comes in and crashes the party, then bully for them, but you won't be called some college basketball guru for selecting your teams that way -- you'd be called lucky.  Of course, you'd be lucky if you got all four teams in the Final Four right anyway, but less so than if you made wildly unconventional picks.

Oh and guess what?  There are some wingnut crazies who weigh in on this too!  Whoda thunk it?  I won't link to them, but you'll have to trust me on what they said.  I looked it up.  Here's what right-winger Debbie Schlussel had to say:

Well, I'm so glad we have a Commander-in-Chief who has his priorities straight. As the economy continues to sink ever lower, President Barack Hussein Obama is acting like a distracted kid in a candy store, instead of a President of a country in major distress. While Americans continue to lose their jobs en mass, stock and housing values continue to plummet, the mortgage crisis continues, and there are signs that gas will rise to $4 a gallon by year's end, Obama is on ESPN picking his final four NCAA basketball tournament semi-finalists and appearing on Jay Leno. Look at me, I'm the Prez. This is, like, waaaaay totally cool.

OMG!  I am, like, totally ROFLERS right now, Debbie!  The Prez filling out a bracket for 10 minutes is, like, TOTALLY distracting!  GOSH!  Just like those other "distractions" away from the economy that the "Democrat Party" is up to!  And Debbie knows what she's talking about when it comes to distractions, since she's written all about the secret radical Muslim ties of our 44th President.

Not to be outdone, a nutjob named Allahpundit wrote the following over at Michelle Malkin's blog Hot Air, which was featured on its front page just yesterday:

Something new for your "What if Bush did it?" file. Texas Rainmaker tipped me to it last night but I ignored it, figuring some White House staffer just filled out a bracket for Obama and handed it off to ESPN. Tain't so. Watch him go round by round by round. Is this what he was busy doing the last few weeks instead of checking up on AIG? Besides strategizing about Rush Limbaugh, I mean.

A new CNN poll finds 55 percent already complaining that The One's taken on too much and needs to focus on the economy. This won't help his numbers.

Yep, the "doing too much" theme creeped its way into this frantabulous piece of writing.  Similar bizarre freeper ravings can be found over at Free Republic.  No word on whether Allahpundit threw a hissy fit when George Bush was throwing out the first pitch at a Nationals game, or attending an Army-Navy football game (which I think takes a couple more hours than filling out a bracket....whatever), or celebrating John McCain's birthday while New Orleans was drowning.

Hell, even Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski complained that Obama should be focusing on the economy, and not his Final Four bracket.  Guess Coach K was miffed that Obama didn't pick them.

Anyway, it's good to see that everybody is excited for the NCAA tournament.  I'm personally hoping for a #16 seed to knock off a #1 in the first round, even if it causes my own brackets to go up in flames (come ON, Morehead State!).  But if nothing else, hopefully I won't embarrass myself in the $5 office pool I have running with my friends from grad school.  I just know that the person who'll end up winning it will have picked teams based on which uniform colors he or she liked.

Thanks for reading, and enjoy March Madness!

**************************

Cross-posted at Daily Kos