Clinton Derangement Syndrome vs Bush Derangement Syndrome

Is it possible to suffer from Clinton Derangement Syndrome and Bush Derangement Syndrome on the same day? Because I'm there right now.

First, the Clinton part. Hillary, you know, trained lawyer, sworn civil servant, and full-blown policy wonk known for having absolutely every fact at her fingertips, this weekend said:

Anybody who committed a crime in this country or in the country they came from has to be deported immediately, with no legal process. They are immediately gone. You put them on a plane to wherever they came from.

And I quote from the Constitution of the United States, Amendment Five (you know, one of those rights):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Hillary knows she can't make this claim; a new legal action (like deportation) requires a new legal process. It says "person," not "citizen", and the courts have always taken this to mean any person on American soil. Hillary wants the Gitmo Rules to apply here on US soil. If that doesn't scare the bejeezus out of you, it should.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration comes forward with another tool for killing people. There's a drug called naloxone which blocks the brain receptors for heroin and can stop a heart-seizing overdose in its tracks. Along with needle exchange programs, public health workers in several states are now giving out or selling for about $10 "rescue kits" to drug users so they can save their friends if one goes too far. People on the front lines are pleased to have another life-saving tool at their disposal.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy is not pleased. She's unhappy because the kits "encourage drug use by making it seem safer." She believes, "Sometimes having an overdose, being in an emergency room, having that contact with a health care professional is enough to make a person snap into the reality of the situation and snap into having someone give them service."

She believes that letting kids die or, better yet, watching a friend slowly asphyxiate because his autonomic breathing reaction has failed, watching him slowly turn blue, spasm and die in front of his eyes, is a "good deterrent" to drug use.

Mark Klein writes:

Why not just go all the way and poison the heroin supply? If withholding Narcan in order to generate more overdoses in order to scare addicts into quitting were proposed as an experiment, it could never get past human-subjects review. But since it's a failure to act rather than an action, there's no rule to require that it be even vaguely rational.

This is the exact same argument the fundies use when they oppose Gardisil: "If teenage girls are shielded from the cervical cancer consequence of sex, they'll have more sex! We must oppose this cure for cervical cancer at all costs!"

When both Radley Balko and PZ Meyers agree that the Bush Administration is not only wrong, but morally culpable for heinous deaths, I sit up and listen.

The WaPo Scares Me

From the Washington Post, Jan 28, 2008:

For years, President Bush and his advisers expressed frustration that the White House received little credit for the nation's strong economic performance because of public discontent about the Iraq war. Today, the president is getting little credit for improved security in Iraq, as the public increasingly focuses on a struggling U.S. economy.

That is the problem Bush faces as he prepares to deliver his seventh and probably final State of the Union address tonight.

"Probably final?" "Probably final?" Is the WaPo joining with the National Review in wondering if the only thing that can preserve the WaPo way of life is a coup?. Maybe they've been reading Philip Atkinson's Conquering The Drawbacks of Democracy again.

A depressing tally

Was doing Quicken this weekend. Put in a receipt for my co-pay at the doctor's. In the memo field I wrote, "Elf's stomach." Doing so overwrote the previous memo, "Elf's knee." I bet before that it was "Elf's shoulder." It's a long tally of breakdowns. I'm starting to feel like my car.

When you're not allowed to "teach the controversy"

One of the tactics of the Intelligent Design movement has the name "Teach the Controversy." TtC involves convincing those schoolboards wishing to be convinced that there is a controversy among scientists about the efficacy of the modern evolutionary synthesis, which unified genetics, morphology, and paleonotology (among others) into a unified whole we now call "biology." They attempt to show, by selective quote mining of the working science literature and the introduction of their own, unreviewed material, that there are "gaps," that students aren't being told about evolutionary biology's failure to explain these gaps, and that these gaps can best be explained by their pet theory.

Evangelical writer Steve Martin (no relation to the comedian or the furry artist, for which all concerned are probably grateful) documents a case where "Teach the Controversy" failed, but from the other side. Richard Colling at Olivet Nazarene University wrote a book in which he attempted to reconcile his faith with evolutionary biology, and concluded that biological evolution in its entirety could stand evangelical scrutiny and survive intact. This so infuriated the Young Earth Creationists at ONU that they pressured the school president to suspend Colling from all teaching responsibilities, effectively removing him from the ebb and flow of school life.

I really can't say I'm surprised. "Teach the Controversy" is a political tactic, not an honest concern.

Martin's website, "Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution" is a curiosity, that's for sure. He's fond of saying:

Cognitive dissonance is when I simultaneously hold two beliefs that I recognize as being in opposition or in tension. It is not holding to two beliefs that someone else thinks are in tension.

"For me, they're just not," is not an answer to the question, "Why aren't they?" Like most people in Martin's camp, he's still playing pick and choose among fundamental premises.

I do believe I'm getting the vapors

So, let me get this straight. According to the National Organization for Women, if a woman is the frontrunner candidate, that's a great thing. Like all frontrunner candidates, however, she must defend her frontrunner status from all of her rivals. However, if she voluntarily gets on stage with her rivals, and they do what all rivals do in this circumstance, and she happens to be a woman (cue George Carlin asking, "Wait, where's the surprise?"), then it's a metaphorical psychological gang-rape and her rivals should all be beaten down for it.

Not done calling Obama and Edwards willful rapists, at least in their own minds, NOW has issued another press release calling Ted Kennedy's support for Barak Obama (who previously got 100% acceptability rating from NOW) "the greatest betrayal!" (Exclamation point in the original). They write, "We are repaid with his abandonment! He's picked the new guy over us." They go on:

This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women's rights, women's voices, women’s equality, women's authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who "know what’s best for us."

You have to love that us. I doubt Hillary perceives herself as part of them.

[Hat Tip: Hilzoy and Andrew Sullivan.]