"Thank you!" to all the Conservative posters over on MMFA

Yeah, you read that right!

I've made no secret of the fact that I love MMFA. I love that they call out the Right's lies, that they debunk the myth of the Liberal Media and (of course) that they're LIBERAL.

I love them MORE SO because while they're liberal, they manage to keep partisan politics out of a lot of their commentary. No, they do! Really! I'll explain: They mostly limit their editorial content to criticism of journalistic practices and many sources lack of journalistic ethics.

When they do a global warming article, or Congressional Budget article, or a Gay Right article, for example, they pretty much never actually advocate for the liberal position. Rather, they show how the issue if be misrepresented or deceptively framed, and show either conservative bias (in a supposedly liberal media) or the demostrable falsehood being presented. They criticise the coverage, without advocating for the position. They show you why the story is slanted or false without trelling you WHAT to think. (Only HOW to think!) It's objective, it's effective and I LIKE IT!

But there is another reason I like MMFA: The posters.

First off, most of the liberal posters (many of whom comment here regularly, thank you very much for that, btw!) have positions accross the board that I can relate to. And that goes beyond simply being liberal. (I DO NOT believe that something is inherently good just because it's "liberal." That's largely a mental disorder of conservtaives.) But I just don't find a lot of liberal extremeists there. (And to prove that I do believe there IS such a thing, and just to show the con's that I'm NOT one, my next post will be something alont the lines of "10 liberals I hate," but we'll leave that for now.) Basically I find their liberal posters to be very reasonable and to hold positions that I largely share. (And where some of the lib's there DO lean consrvative, even THAT is on some of the same issues as I do: Death Penalty, Gun Control, Jassie Jackson and Al Sharpton... just to name a few.)

But that's only half of it.

In addition to having some of the best LIBERAL posters, I have to admit that they've drawn in the very best CONSERVTAIVE POSTERS as well. And I know. I've looked on other boards, particularly conservative and even on ostensibly non-partisan boards, and the level of politcial discourse there is somewhere between neanderthal and thuggery. And as tough as I am on the regular Conservative posters over on MediaMatters (and I certainly don't hold back!) I find that they really do they best job, as far as posters go, pretty much anywhere on the web, of arguing the conservtaive position. That's not to say that any of them have ever actually influenced me... But at one point or another, every one of them has made me THINK. And I appreciate that. Plus I respect anyone who can gop into the "lion's den" and advocate for the christians, so to speak. (Think 'Romnan Coloseum' if you don't get the joke there.)

But seriously, I truly believe that the conservative posters on MMFA are among the best that are out there. You guys keep coming back, despite all the abuse, and you keep making GOOD POINTS, at least relative to the morons posting everywhere else. And you really keep the conversation hopping. So I want to give a profound THANK YOU to all the Conservative over there that I've locked horns with, for all the spirtied debate over the past couple of years:

ANOTEHRAMERICAN
BRUCE1ACE
CHENEY2010
DAVE
DAWUSS
DEXTERITAS0071418
FAIRLIBERAL
GALILEONARDO
JETER2
MISSDEE
OSCAR THE GROUCH
POINTOFVIEW
PROUDCONSERVATIVE
RIGHT ON
SLRTX
STARK
T.BOONE SLICKENS
TOMMY
TRUTH AND JUSTICE (that guy was a trip! what ever happened to him?)
and
WESLEY

Hopefully, I didn't forget anyone. Anyway, THANK you guys, for the all the spirited debate.

Now... I don't plan to go any easier on you, and I hope you never feel the need to pull your punches with me, but it's been so much FUN going at it with you guys, and you're a HUGE part of why I've stuck around on that board, where I've just given up (in boredom) on so many others.

And for all my LIBERAL friends? (Oh God, I hope y'all know who you are!) I can't even start to name you off, becasue there are too just many to count. (Although thank you especially to Brabantio, DellDolly and Conchobhar for your regular contibutions to THIS blog!) (And if I'm leaving anyone out, it's becuase I don't know what your handle is over on MMFA!)

Anyway I LIVE for debate. And while it's nice to know I have people who see the world the same way I do, it's also very nice to have worthy adversarties.

So THANK YOU.

Fort Swine and Hood Flu

First things last...

I want to say something about Fort Hood first. Every day more and more right wingers conclude that this was "terrorism" because the shooter was "religiously motivated," largely on the basis that every day more and more right wingers conclude that this was "terrorism" because the shooter was "religiously motivated." Now... as if that wasn't bad enough...

I'm on the way home, listening to NPR. They're reading letters from their viewers and there was one from a LIBERAL who was "appalled" that NPR suggested that Religion and/or Politics MAY HAVE influenced or motivated the shooter. (Or may they were "disgusted" as the suggestion, I can't exactly remember.)

Now... earlier today I was arguing that the Liberal position was NOT that religion/politics played NO role, but rather that it is TOO EARLY to conclude anything and that EVERYONE should wait for the Military to conduct their investigation. Now... I HOPE that I was not overestimating the common sense possessed by the average Liberal, and that NPR merely picked THAT ONE letter because it was contrary to the others. Because it really IS too early to conclude ANYTHING! It's as absurd to say that Religion played NO ROLE, more so really, than it is to conclude with any certainty that this was an act of TERRORISM. The fact is that there are MANY questions that NEED to be explored. Nothing should be ruled in or out at this point from either side. So let's ALL take a deep breath and let the Army do it's job, K?

Something else is bothering me too. I was posting the other day on the Detroit Tiger's Fan Club Forum to promote my new All-Time Teams Baseball Blog, having just finished the All-time Tigers (if you're a baseball fan, check it out, let me know what you think) and I came across a message about how "Obama's #$%@ Health Plan passed!" Now, putting aside...

1) That this is a BASEBALL board, and not a place to discuss partisan politics. (It looks like they've since taken the post down, which shows some good sense on the part of the moderators.) (Same goes for my other blog as well: keep the politics HERE.)

and

2) It's not a LAW yet, it's just passed the first of several votes that will be needed. (So the poster fails Civics 101, on top of it.)

There was one part that REALLY pissed me off. He said, "The government couldn't even distribute enough H1N1 Vaccine, now they're going to run the entire Health Care system!"

AGAIN... putting aside that no version of ANY of the health care bills ever amounted to an anything CLOSE to a "government takeover" of the health care system...

It was not the GOVERNMENT that's caused the shortages of the H1N1 vaccine. The government is only involved at all because PRIVATE ENTERPRISE failed to develop it in time and PRIVATE ENTERPRISE failed to make enough to meet the demand. So the Gov't is involved only to make sure that those with the greatest MEDICAL NEED get it first, rather than those with the greatest financial means. They are REACTING to the shortage, not CAUSING it! If H1N1 was a failure, iot was a filure of PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

And WHICH party has all the politicians that were obstructing all the funding that would have allowed for better production and distribution? Yeah: That would be the, da-da-dahhh: REPUBLICANS.

You got to love how the Right makes themselves into an obstacle at every turn, and then has the nerve to claim that OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS can't get anything done. What makes me SICK is how many ignorant dupes (American voters) keep falling for it time and time and time again! And who's the most complicit in enabling all this nonsense? Our great liberally biased media.

Yeah... RIGHT.

No Friday Fun...

I'm sorry.

This was just too shitty a day to be jovial.

I woke up to the news out at Fort Hood.

As if that travesty wasn't enough, far be it for the RIGHT to miss a chance to distort the facts about a National Tragedy for Political gains. Traitorous, un-American, fucking scumbags.

And after a whole day of hearing half the country MISS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT, I get to drive home to economic reports about unemployment going over 10%.

Here the thing about that... The right blames OBAMA, and says to stop "blaming the previous administration for these things!" (Even though he's been in office 10 months and this recession started almost TWO YEARS ago!) But you know the LAST time unemployment went over 10%? You know was President? REAGAN. And WHO controlled the Senate? THE REPUBLICANS. And even though that was well over a full year into HIS administration, how many conservatives, when presented with those HISTORICAL FACTS, immediately try to blame all THAT on the PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION?! Yeah.. that would be ALL OF THEM.

See, they not only traitorous scumbags, but hypocritical, whiny little bitches to boot.

OK... Bitch session over...

Here's what I wanted to do for my Friday fun, but I was in way too shitty a mood to do it right. I wanted to include a few of my favorite quotes from the campaign trail, some of which were rather unintentionally hilarious. Well, I can't do THAT, but here are a just a few of my fav's overall, anyway. (And I've used all of them on MMFA multiple times, so I'm afraid this will be nothing new to those who already know me.)

"When they stop telling lies about us, we'll stop telling the truth about them."
~Adlai Stephenson-D, c.1952 (about the Republicans, as if you needed to know.)

Scary how apt that still is, fifty-seven years later!

"I don't want the people who managed Hurricane Katrina to be managing my health care!"
~Mitt Romney-R, on the campaign trail, 2008.

I agree entirely, Mitt: I don't want the REPUBLICANS managing my health care either!

On his 11/4/09 Radio Show, Rush Limbaugh touted Doug Hoffmann's "good showing" in the election for the vacated NY-23 seat, applauded the conservative for having "kept a horrible Republican from possibly winning."

Well Rush, there's finally something we can both give him credit him for. You know... I hope y'all pursue this strategy from now though 2010 and on to 2012. It might keep a lot of HORRIBLE REPUBLICANS from winning. And God knows, this country can only benefit from fewer of these HORRIBLE REPUBLICANS .

"It's like they take pride in being ignorant!"
~SENATOR Barack Hussein Obama-D, on the campaign trail in 2008, finally realizing what he's up against.

Good night and good luck!

Conservapedia and the Conservative Brain

For those that aren't familiar, Conservapedia claims to be a kind of conservative balance to Wikipedia. Apparently they realize that they'll never win the argument on anything that is approached rationally and objectively, so they've set up their own repository (suppository?) of "knowledge." And yes, I'm sure the irony is lost on them that if you can't win a rational argument, then YOU'RE WRONG. But, like I've argued before that they evaluate evidence based on their ideology, rather than evaluate their ideology based on evidence and the mere existence of this site is practically the case in point.

Now, to be fair, this site is such a steaming pile of wet, runny dogshit that most conservatives are in fact embarrassed by it. They don't even try. They make less of an effort to appear like a legitimate encyclopedia that Fox does to appear like a legitimate News channel. It's bad. It's so bad, it's not even good for a laugh. They've gone beyond Coulter, and even beyond Colbert. If it were a liberal site SPOOFING conservatives, I'd say they went to far even for that purpose and the humor has been lost in it's heavy handedness.

But just for fun, I figured I'd dignify one of their entries with an objective, academic response. And I think I've found the perfect entry for this futile exercise:

LIBERAL

From Conservapedia:

A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical
standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal
standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses
many words to say nothing. Liberalism began as a movement for individual
liberties, but today is increasingly statist,
and in Europe even socialistic.

Hoo-boy, where to begin?

A liberal (also leftist) - improper and unnecessary conflation of terms. (-1)
rejects logical and biblical standards - logical is matter of unsupported opinion (-1). There is nothing logical about the bible. (As implied here.) It contains both logical contradiction and implies statements of fact that have been disproven scientifically. (-1)
often for self-centered reasons - opinion, not supported. evidence? (-1)
There are no coherent liberal standards - evidence? (-0, for now, but remember this one!)
often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention - irrelevant. opinion, not supported. evidence? (-2)
who uses many words to say nothing - There is no sin worse than hypocrisy. (-1)

The last bit is almost accurate. We'll let it pass, despite lack of supporting evidence presented.

The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and
political movements in history is a story not told often enough...

A cute quote, and properly cited, but irrelevant to the definition of liberal. (-1)
Plus: There is no sin worse than hypocrisy. (-1)

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and
practices:

Wait... I thought...

There are no coherent liberal standards

I guess we'll have to deduct a point for each of these, two if they're false or misstated to boot...

• Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion (-1)
• Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events (-2)

and (-1) for being un-American and violating the first amendment and every parent's right to raise their child in the religion of their choice without gov't interference. (Asshole.)

• Support for gun control (-1, although not this liberal!)
• Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right[2] (-1: You betcha!)

But another (-1) for not recognizing that 'obscenity' is a matter of opinion, and the courts deciding what is and what isn't is tantamount to the gov't censoring speech.) (Asshole.)

• Income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation. (-2: Progressive taxation has been around since the beginning of time and was endorsed by every Conservatives' favorite economist, Adam Smith, for very liberal sounding reasons!)
• Government-rationed medical care, such as Universal Health Care (-2, for the 'Rationing' bullshit.)
• Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled public education (-1: You bectha!)
• The denial of inherent gender differences (-2: for 'inherent.' We don;'t reject 'inherent' differences, only the arbitrary, societal contrived ones.) (Asshole.)
• Insisting that men and women have the same access to jobs in the military (-1, but it's close to a -2!)
• Legalized same-sex marriage (-1: You betcha!)
• Implementation of affirmative action (-2: Hey moron: it's already been implemented. I think the word you're looking got is "maintenance" or "keeping in place.") (Idiot.)
• Political correctness (-3: Liberals hate this shit too. And -1 more for hypocrisy, because Conservatives practically invented this shit!)
• Support of labor unions (-1: You betcha!)
• Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching abstinence from sex.[3] (-3: This goes beyond misstatement. This borders on slandering teachers across the country as child molesters at worst, pornographers at best.)
• A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended (-3: the extra point for hypocrisy: WHO said 'it's just a damned piece of paper'? Plus, each judge has his own opinion about 'what was intended.' So this is saying nothing more than, 'They interpret it differently than we do' or 'they have a different agenda.' Whoop-de-frickin'-do. Not exactly a profound revelation, moron.)

So far they're down 9 points from the opening paragraph, 13 for calling out what 'a liberal generally supports' after declaring that 'there are no coherent liberal standards.' And 11 more for either misrepresenting the liberal position and/or adding hypocrisy to the mix. (So we're doing C+ work so far, and we're barely started!)

The then have several sections which do nothing to further define liberalism, but rather seek to defame it:

• Liberals and Uncharitableness - citing studies that show that people of faith give more money per capita that atheists, even when Church giving is taken out of the equation. Now I can't comment on the study itself yet, though I'm going to look into. This section loses a point for declaring that this data is due to their "reject[ion of] biblical morality (and therefore conservative Christianity ) and hold to moral relativism" Their is so much wrong with this statement I don't even know where to start. (-1 for the unsupported assumption, -1 for the conflation of 'biblical morality' in a general sense with 'Conservative Christianity' and -1 for the whole 'moral relativism' thing. Liberals generally DON'T hold that philosophy. It's basically just a stupid smear that Conservatives use, as well as a word they don't really understand the meaning of anyway. So: -3
• Liberals and Superstition - -1 for assuming that religion and it's attendant rituals, are necessarily different from superstition. -1 for the continued assertion that one can't be any manner of christian unless they're conservative.
• Liberalism in North America today - -1 for the lie that the media tends to be liberal. I've presented my evidence. Where's yours? Talk about begging the question. (-1 for logical fallacy.) This section includes the statement:

Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social
justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic
virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics.

At first, I'm almost inclined to say, "Thank you," but he implies that this belief is not, in fact, the case. In any case, -1, because no liberals actually believe this, and -1 again for hypocrisy, since it's far closer to the delusion that conservative have about themselves. Just substitute the last five words with "secular humanists." (shudder)

• Liberal Rankings of Congress Members - (-1) It basically accurate, but irrelevant, since they don't include the ranking, or even a link to it. (-1) Because the National Reviews ranking have been shown to be flawed, and are constructed to name whomever in on the Democratic ticket as the 'most liberal.' John Kerry in '04, Obama in '08. What, did Kerry move to the right or something?
• Liberalism in Europe today (+1) for admitting that 'liberal' is sometimes used as a 'term of abuse.' (-1) for not adding 'by Conservatives.' (Asshole.)
• Historical Liberalism - (-1) for "In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the U.S. failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq." This is bullshit. We are all on board until Bush decides to go on that stupid, illegal boondoggle in Iraq. And to that we were ALL opposed. Another (-1) for "Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion." which continues to contradict "There are no coherent liberal standards."
• Original meaning: Classical Liberalism - This section is fine. Go figure that it's the shortest section in the whole article!
• Alternative meanings of 'liberal' - The first definition is basically crappy. The rest is fair enough. Again - very short section.
• Liberal Organizations Some of these are questionable (How can the ACLU be called 'liberal' when they've defended religious groups and Conservatives?! This is a Conservative smear, and it's a stupid one.) But we'll let it pass. In general the organization mentioned are ones I'm happy to be affiliated with and support.

So how did they do?

The Opening paragraph and first section lost them 23 points, and the individual section lose them another 12, just with the very little [mis]information they provide. So they're down to a 65 (D work) just on deductions. And given the lack of depth and actual definition of the term, not to mention the complete and utter lack of objective and neutral voice, another 5 point deduction is well earned. And I'm deducting another -1, for the cartoon, which is not accurate and is completely devoid of wit.

59 - FAIL.

Don't know whether to laugh or cry, continued...

I'd like to start by saying that my post yesterday was spiteful, hateful, inappropriate, rude and just plain... wrong.

It probably goes without saying but I was very angry yesterday. But not just about the stories that I mentioned. I was just... angry. And the two stories I mentioned just pushed me over the top.

That being said... It felt really GOOD to rant like that, and I've been smiling ear-to-ear ever since. I went to bed smiling, having been angry all day, woke up smiling and was in the best mood I've been in for quite some time all day today. Last night's post was very... cathartic.

But I do feel it needs some explanation. Notice I haven't apologized for it? Yeah: I don't plan to. But I think some explanation is warranted. I hope it is obvious that I don't actually wish ANYONE to actually die. (Last month's Death Note post not withstanding.) The thing is... I HATE being right all the time! And when [my people: liberals, scientists, environmentalists, etc...] are mocked when we're trying to HELP PEOPLE. Or worse - insulted, by the likes of Bill O'Rielly and Glenn Beck with their, "Environmentalists really hate people" nonsense... I draw no satisfaction to the stupid ignorant sheep who buy into this crap physically harmed by their own folly.

For me, it's not schadenfreude. It's FRUSTRATION. And I have less tolerance for the stupidity (and greed) of the VICTIMS in this case than I do for the perpetrators! Notice in all my ranting, how I never wished any ill on the COMPANIES and their EXECUTIVES who are out there poisoning people? Obviously I want them regulated, but what they're doing is perfectly rational and, in fact, the only, inevitable outcome given the system they're operating within.

That why things need to change!

And THAT'S what gets me so upset about these fools in Texas: They constantly stand in the way of increased regulation, environmental cleanup and renewable energy investment... and then they whine and cry when they get sick! Well... I'm human. I'll admit that I could feel a bit of schadenfreude at their plight and leave it at that with a smug sense of satisfaction.

But I can't feel that way, because their stupidity affects more than just them: it infects the ENTIRE WORLD! Every living being on the planet is affected by the irrational stupidity of these inbreeds! And THAT'S why I'm so angry at them.

Behind hypocrisy, few things piss me off as much as stupidity.

Why Republican's need to learn about DARWIN...

I don't know whether I should be fuming or laughing my ass off. Two stories I heard today.

First on NPR this morning...

Apparently the town of DISH, TEXAS (so named so that the residents get free satellite TV, I shit you not) is experiencing health problems. You see, their downwind for a series of about 1200 compressors along a natural gas line that pump the natural gas for the oil shale in one part of the state to refineries in another. These compressors are HUGE and are basically powered by HUGE internal combustion engines - over a thousand of them. And ever since these have been installed, the resident are getting headaches, dizziness, nausea and all kinds of other symptoms, and the dept of evironmental quality have found high level of carcinogens like benzene and other nasty stuff in the air and water. Trees are dying horses and cows (remember: its Texas) are getting sick, going blind, having other problems and either dying or having to be put down...

And you know what? I say, "SCREW 'EM."

FUCKING TEXAS. A state full of global-warming denying oil-men and cowboy-conservatives who poke fun at enviormentalists and scientists and liberals and Democrats. So FUCK 'EM. I hope they all get cancer and die. Then maybe their neighbors might try LISTENING to the scientists and environmentalists when they warn of problems next time instead of mocking them, listening to the oil and gas companies, and their RELIGION, and voting REPUBLICAN so that these companies can poison them with impunity. FUCK 'EM. They get what they deserve. WAIT, NO I TAKE THAT BACK: THEY GET WHAT THEY BEGGED FOR, WHAT THEY CAMPAIGNED FOR, WHAT THEY LOBBIED FOR, AND WHAT THEY VOTED FOR. So SCREW 'EM.

That might sound harsh, but the problem with Darwin is that his forces work way too slowly, and most of these idiots have already bred.

And should I happen to have any liberal friends down in Texas, I offer no apologies. I'm sure if you look around, you'll see that you're basically surrounded by what I'm talking about. I've been to Texas a few times and I been to Massachusetts countless times. And I guaren-god-damn-tee you there are are more Conservatives in Massachusetts than there are Liberals in Texas.

Second, just now on Countdown...

Congressman Joseph "YOU LIE!" Wilson, who voted against giving more money to fund the distribution of the H1N1 Vaccine, is now blaming OBAMA for their not being enough Vaccine to go around. Why the sudden urgency? Apparently his wife contracted H1N1. Good. I hope she dies. He can live with that, and with his vote, and with his party's stupid, vaccant, useless, greedy political philosophy for the rest of his miserable short-ass life. I say short-ass life, because I hope that she gives it to HIM and HE DIES. And then I hope that Obama and the rest of the Dem's have the BALLS to call out everyone (Republican AND Democrat, if there were nay) who voted against that funding and BLAME THEM for these deaths. Their names should go with H1N1 like Bacon and Eggs. Then MAYBE these assholes will grow up and start helping govern the country, instead of obstructing everything in sight only to turn around and hit the campaign trail crying, "See? The Democrats couldn't get anything done! Vote for us instead!"

I hate these bastards! I hate these bastards! I hate these bastards!

(deep breathing)

(more deep breathing)

(slower breathing)

(normal breathing)

Did anyone ever tell you that it's not good to bottle stuff up? To let stuff build up inside you? It's good advice. See... If you do, something like [the above] might happen, and you'll look like a real asshole.

Oh well.

Works for Lewis Black.

Friday Fun: Atheist Motivational Posters

Som of my favorites from http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/453/collection-of-atheist-and-atheism-motivational-posters/. BTW, I'm not truly an atheist. I believe that true atheism is every bit as arrogant as religion is. But if I'm going to form a null-hypothesis, in the absence of any other tangible evidence, Atheism is the only reasonable position.

Macro versus Micro, Personal vs. Public

There's something I've noticed lately, both in media stories and online threads. It seems to me that there's a lot of confusion about the difference between what makes good public policy versus what makes good private practice. And when speaking about economics I do think that the conservatives make this mistake more ofter, but I don't think it's entirely a conservative problem. To start, I'll use an example that (I THINK) will be non-partisan, and use it to illustrate my concern. Then I'll move onto economics. ;) LOL

CIRCUMCISION and AIDS in AFRICA

I recently read an article about two clinical studies being done in Africa, one with 5000 men and one with around 2800. Roughly half of each group volunteered to undergo medical circumcision as part of the study. After two years, the circumcised group was found to be 48% less likely to be infected with HIV. It was such an effective reduction in transmission that the doctors felt it would be unethical to continue the study, opting instead to allow the reminder to get circumcised right away instead. (Just as an aside, the study went on to say that this reduction was only effective in heterosexual intercourse, and was not effective in homosexual sex. But that's peripheral to what I'm addressing here.)

Now, I'll say it right up front: I've always been against circumcision. IMHO, it's just an unnecessary procedure (mutilation, really) driven by societal pressure and motivated by religious nonsense. There is simply no reason to do it. Period. Do I still feel this way? Well, I have to admit that with something on the order of 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 Africans infected with HIV in certain areas, as a matter of PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY, it makes a hell of a lot of sense. And in that context I can't say that I'm justified in opposing it. Clearly, in that circumstance, there is a overding benefit.

But here is where public policy ends and good private practice begins. It accounted for a 48% reduction. Well, sure, if I'm setting public health policy, a 48% reduction in new cases would be a godsend. But what about ME, the individual? Well, we KNOW there's only ONE WAY to not get HIV via sex: Don't have sex. We also know as a matter of PUBLIC POLICY that this just doesn't work. Condom use is also basically 100% effective. (Or what? 99.9%?) I don't know, but it's a helluva lot higher than 48%. So for ME, I can choose to abstain, or to consistently use condoms, and then there's just no reason for me, the individual, to get circumcised. What's more, if I DID... but did nothing else, does that really help me?

Let's say I sleep around, with a different girl every week. In Africa. And of those ~51 different girls 17 are HIV positive. Now... lets say that there's a 30% chance of me getting HIV from one of them. My chances are about 10% that I'll have HIV within any given year. Now... if you cut my chance in HALF (the ~48% reduction that circumcision gives), then I'm ~5% likely in any given year. Big deal. In the first scenario, I'll be at about a 50% chance after about 7 years. (Buy the time I'm 25, if I become sexually active when I 18.) In the second scenario I'll last about 13-14 years, or until I'm about 31-32. Well, if the average life expectancy (without HIV) is ~72, I'm still losing 40 years or more - over half my life! On the other hand, with a 99% reduction (condoms), I'd have only a 0.3% within any given year, and I would only be about 15% likely to contract it by the time I turned 72! (ANd that assumes I'm still having sex once a week, with a different girl, every week! Not bad for such an old fart, huh?) So clearly condoms are the better PRIVATE PRACTICE, and abstinence the BEST, but we know from experience that neither of these work on a large scale, because none are consistently PRACTICE on a large scale, hence we have a PUBLIC POLICY that, while it would be disastrous as a personal practice, makes far more effective prevention strategy.

See the distinction? (OK, I'll admit that I really have no idea what the transmission rate of HIV is, nor how effective Condoms are. I'm guessing. But the actual numbers aren't really that important. The POINT is that something that can be a very good idea for individual people to do, can be a disaster as a matter of public policy. And YES, I think abstinence-only sex education is the single stupidest idea that our previous president and his merry band of funny-mentalist puppeteers ever came up with. But I wanted to first demonstrate the point with something a little less partisan before I got into...

ECONOMICS

Right off the bat I want to tell you what caused the GREAT DEPRESSION. And believe it or not, it was NOT all (Republican) Herbert Hoover's fault! (How's about that? That surprise anyone?) It WAS the fault of his policies though. After Black Tuesday and the resulting recession he did two things which are TERRIBLE things to do in a recession. He RAISED taxes, AND (and the AND is important here!) he CUT spending. Either one by itself is bad to do in hard times, but the double whammy took us (and the world) over a decade to recover from. You see... GOVERNMENT SPENDING supports people's incomes. Whether you think it SHOULD or not is irrelevant, it DOES. SO CUTTING it cuts people's income, which cuts their consumption, which cuts OTHER people's incomes, etc, etc... Vicious cycle. The same thing goes for raising taxes. In much the same way.

Now, without turning this into a treatise on Keynes (which I promised you awhile back, but still haven't delivered!) You can raise taxes, and raise spending by the same amount and everyone's collective income will go UP by that same amount. (Keynes' models demonstrate this.) Likewise if you cut taxes and cut spending by the same amount everyone's collective income will go DOWN by that same amount. This is because the effect, both positive and negative, of spending is slightly greater than the effect of taxes, AND: the BALANCED BUDGET multiplier is "1." That's an economic fact in every school, even Friedman's. But, as you can imagine, raising taxes and cutting spending would have a DOUBLY NEGATIVE effect. And Hoover did this at the worst possible time! So why is it not his fault? And why did he do this in the first place?

First things last...

He did this because he was committing the very error that I've described above. He assumed that good private practice would make good pubic policy. After all... When a FAMILY hits hard times, they try to do odd jobs to take in more money when the can, and they tighten their budget, so they don't go broke and lose everything. That's common sense. And what's surprising - and a little bit depressing, because it shows how good a job Fox News has done mis-educating people about economics - is that so many Conservatives still think this way! If you listen to them talk about Obama's huge deficits (only about 30% bigger than Bush's really, because Bush never budgeted for the two WARS, so his deficit figures were consistently understated... damned liberal media... Obama IS putting the Wars into his regular budget, and that makes his deficit look so much bigger.) ANYWAY, when you hear them complain about Obama's budget, they all say something to the effect of, "What do YOU do when you get laid off? SPEND MORE?!" No. Of course not. But that's just it: Good private practice does not necessarily make make for good public policy! If the gov't did what individual families do in hard times, tens of millions more would be out of work, consumption (which means, INCOME for the rest of us!) would be even less, etc, etc... Vicious cycle.... Great Depression II. Even the most hard-core supply siders understand this... Why do you think Reagan and Bush never cut overall spending even ONE SINGLE TIME in the sixteen years of their presidencies?!

Now... Contrary to what the Conservative may believe I, and many liberals, ARE concerned about the NATIONAL DEBT. But Deficit reduction is something that's better left when the economy is on better footing. For now? President Obama is doing EVERYTHING RIGHT economically. And the markets have borne that out.

I'll give you another example. Personal Savings. Now, I save. I hope you save. We ALL need to save as much as we can. Max out the 401-K's and IRA's; have six months worth of expenses stashed away in relatively liquid form... We all should do this... And THANK GOD we DON'T! Because if everyone starts pinching every pennies, WE'LL NEVER GET OUT OF THIS ECONOMIC MESS! The fact is, that for ANY of us to get PAID, someone else needs to consume! If everyone cuts consumption, because their worried about their jobs, then companies will loose money, and get what happens next? YOU LOSE YOUR JOB!!! This is why I HATE HATE HATE it when the media report on "consumer confidence."

Most people don't even know what tha term really means. But they hear it's LOW, and suddenly they worry about their job.. so they cut back... and so does everyone else... and POW! Now we have a recession. So companies shed workers. Less income, less 'confidence' about the remaining jobs, less consumption... BOOM! Another bad quarter! It's a wonder we ever get out of these things!

And THAT's where stimulus comes in. People say, "yeah but stimulus money's just temporary." It doesn't matter. Get some income out there, stop the bleeding... companies meet some of their numbers and targets, and stop cutting jobs... people feel a little better about their own job, so THEY spend a little more money... more companies start having higher revenues coming in again... they hire a few more people to help meet the new damand... POW... more income, more consumption, more revenue, more jobs, repeat, repeat, repeat...

Good private practice can often make disastrous public policy and good public policy can be disastrous private practice. We need to get beyond the idea that what's good for US is necessarily good for EVERYONE.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah... and WHY wasn't it all Hoover's fault? Well much as I'd like to lay it all on him, the fact is that he got some bad advice... from FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT! That's right! You see, after Black Tuesday, Hoover was kicking around some of the ideas that Keynes had proposed. He basically had a 'new deal' proposal of his own. ROOSEVELT actually talked him out of it! And later, when Roosevelt became president himself, he saw how badly the conventional wisdom had failed (IOW - he learned the very lesson I'm talking about here!) and he reversed his position and put into place many of the very programs he talked Hoover out of! (The New Deal.) (Yeah - it was HOOVER'S idea!)

Now Roosevelt came around, and the New Deal made life better for millions, put many to work, and there were really only two things he did wrong: 1) He tried to balance the budget too soon. We weren't out of it yet, and I've already explained why raising taxes and/or cutting spending is BAD when doen in bad times. 2) He didn't go nearly far enough. That's obvious when you consider that it really took WWII to end the great depression. Why? REALLY MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING! Totally dwarfed the New Deal. And yet it was still paid for within a decade and a half of the war ending, recostruction and all. (Because when times are going good, you can have a 95% top marginal tax bracket and still grow! But we'll save taxation, spending and Keynes for another time. I'm still trying to make a decent, accurate, simple explanation of Keynes. It's not THAT hard, but I've been lazy about it. I'll work on it! I promise!) ;)

Something I've noticed about Conservatives...

Yeah, yeah, big surprise. Niceguy Eddie's going to bash conservatives. Blah... Blah...

OK I got that out of the way! :) LOL.

There's something I've noticed about conservatives lately. I think it's always been there, but either it's gotten worse since 1/20/2008, or maybe 9/11/2001, or maybe it's always been this way, and I'm just becoming more aware of it lately. But there's something really wrong with the way Conservatives THINK. It's all backwards! And I don't mean that there's something wrong with WHAT they think. That a self-avowed liberal and a typical conservative would have different beliefs or opinions or conclusions is nothing profound. But more and more I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern the WAY that conservatives reach those conclusions... in HOW they think.

And before I go on, let me say that I do not personally speak for ALL liberals (I'm sure many want nothing to do with me! LOL.) So when I say "liberals" I'm speaking for myself and the few liberals I know well, or watch on TV. And obviously, I'm generalizing about conservatives, based on my observations of Fox, AM Radio, etc... and my interactions with conservative posters online (most of whom know I'm liberal) and my friends (who mostly trend conservative) and family (half & half,) none of whom really realize the extent to which I am liberal. (They seem to always assume that I'm somewhere between dead center and moderately conservative. I guess I USED to be, and I just don't go out of my my to present my self otherwise.) But that's what I'm basing this on. So if you're conservative and this doesn't sound like YOU, then either:

1) You're really a moderate liberal and just don't know it. (a few of you)
2) You don't realize that you are in fact thinking this way. (most of you)
3) Despite your misguided political tendencies, you are a very intelligent person and can articulate a good argument, and should really post online more often, because the conservatives who DO post there are embarrassing you. (so far I've only met ONE.)

So here's the way I see it.

When a "liberal" decides on his position, he tends to first look at the available evidence, decide what is credible and factual based on it's objectivity and scientific and academic merit, and construct a position that is supported by this evidence. The resulting ideology is then defined as "liberal," usually by those who disagree with the conclusions.

A "conservative," on the other hand, starts out with a set ideology. He then evaluates the merit of evidence based upon whether or not it fits his ideology. If it doesn't support what he already believe he dismisses it, or its source, as "liberal" and that is enough to satisfy him.

The examples of this are all over the place, but let look at a specific example:

GLOBAL WARMING

Now liberals believe that man's activity is causing a long-term warming trend that is independent of the numerous solar, oceanic, and other warming and cooling cycles that are on-going, well known and accounted for in all of the climate models that support this conclusion. (You see: our position was constructed to be supported by scientific evidence.) This being the case, we consequently believe that we should change our habits to stop or reverse this long term trend.

Now... conservatives DO NOT believe that man's activity is causing a long-term warming trend that is independent of the numerous solar, oceanic, and other warming and cooling cycles, etc... What is their evidence? Mainly studies done that have been funded by the energy industries and conservative think tanks.

WHOA! Hang on a sec... Did I just commit the same crime?! Did I just violate my FIRST PRINCIPLE?! No. And I'll explain why.

First of all, our judgement of the organizations is different. The Heritage Foundation (and other conservative think-tanks) proudly admit to being JUST THAT. They don't deny it. This means that anything they put out is going to be biased. Period. That's their stated purpose.That pretty much destroys any scientific or academic merit or objectivity the evidence may have had. As far as industry science goes... well, I'll admit: SOMETIMES industry is right. There are plenty of examples of say... LAWYERS, and the MEDIA, blaming some problem on some corporation and, in the end, the corporation tunrs out to have been blameless. Dow Corning and their Silcone Breast Implants comes to mind. But in THOSE case the corporate science is under assault by LAWYERS using JUNK SCIENCE to win over JURIES, not SCIENTISTS doing RESEARCH and publishing PEER-REVIEWED papers in ACADEMIC JOURNALS. Independent scientific research does trump corporate science on most days, because they're being paid to do research, not support conclusions.

The fact is that most scientific organizations stand little to gain for going on way of the other. The IPCC and other organizations have little to gain by going against industry. If they were interested in money, there's far more to be made by SUPPORTING industry. (If there was more money in GREEN ENERGY, we'd already be doing it! The big bucks right now are in FOSSIL FUELS, so there's no reason, except the scientific evidence, to have an agenda tha goes against this!) But because they reached a different conclusion, conservatives accuse them of being part of a LIBERAL AGENDA, and thus there data is no good. (In reality, and with most things liberal, the data drives the agenda, not the otehr way around.)

And you see there's also two major problems with their conclusions, independent of the agenda that fuels their research. First of all, the conservatives cannot produce a single Climatologist, doing active research, who supports their position. NOT ONE! (30,000+ Names of "Scientists" on a petition, and NOT ONE active climatologist!) What's more, when politics has been involved not a SINGLE scientist has ever accused the UN or some other Government Body of OVERSTATING the conclusions of their research. Whenever politics gets involved, it is invariably to DIMINISH the perceived threat. But unless they diminish it to the point where it's nonexistant, they're just accused of liberal bias or of havign a liberal agenda and dismissed! Again, the liberal agenda is driven by the evidence, not the other way around!

And besides... If it were not supported by SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, why on earth would liberals, or anyone else for that matter, what to believe this anyway?! The conservatives will tell you it's because we HATE CORPORATIONS. Well, that's mostly bullshit. To the extent that any of us judge corporations harshly, it is because they have ACTED IRRESPONSIBLY, and we KNOW THIS because we have EVIDENCE!

...Which the conservative will simply dismiss as 'liberal'. (See how frustrating these people are?!)

See how that works? He can't convince us, because we don't share his [delusion] preconceived world view, and we can't convince him because he will not accept any evidence that doesn't support his [delusion] preconceived world view. But WHO'S RIGHT? (Personally I'd say the one that supported by the more objective, independant scientific evidence, but then I'm a liberal; so what do I know?)

Why would they think that Academics, Scientists, etc... are inherently liberal anyway? Simple: They comes to conclusions and repeatedy find evidence that doesn't support the conservative agenda or philosphy... So therefore they MUST be liberal! And so they conclude that the evidence must be wrong (or biased) rather then their philosophy or preconceived notions. The best of them may even realize how utterly intellectually dishonestly THEIR SIDE operates, but they still make the mistake of thinking we work the same way. So they HAVE to accuse universities, scientists, academics etc... of having some liberal agenda, because that's the only way they can refute the evidence.

And go figure: as a species we DON'T ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING. So pretty much anything we learn will refute something we thought we knew. All scientific progress is based on this self-evident truth, and all conservative philosophy is built around resisting it!

And when we judge "evidence" from the Heritage Foundation, or some huge corporation to be garbage, it is not because we think they're conservative. We already KNOW they're conservative - they come right out and SAY IT. We treat it like garbage because we have BETTER EVIDENCE. Our side (talking about independent scientists now) evaluates their evidence and either incorporates it into their models or outright refutes it. In the case of global warming, for example, every competing hypothesis to explain the OBSERVED and MEASURED 100+ year warming trend has been accounted for and/or debunked! But the conservative groups will never TELL YOU THAT! They'll just keep bringing up the same old crap, that's been debunked or accounted for a hundred times over. Like when they point out that their hasn't been any warming for the past ten years... WHICH IS PREDICTED AND EXPLAINED BY THE VERY MODELS THEY'RE TRYING TO REFUTE!!!

Liberals ideology on this issue is driven by these models. Conservatives opinions of these models is driven by their ideology.

And if they were to ask us, what we would do if we were confronted with true, actual, objective, scientific evidence to the contrary? Well what do you think we would do? WE WOULD CHANGE. That's what Liberals DO after all: CHANGE. And the world is CONSTANTLY CHANGING. Liberals realize this, and change with it. Conservatives don't and try to resist change. This has ALWAYS been the case. But then again, they don't realize this, because they constantly make the mistake of thinking that we're just like them.

Again: It's not WHAT they think that's the problem. It's HOW they think. And at best, the conservatives of ANY generation are only just them coming to accept what the liberals of two generations ago already discovered, but were mocked for by the conservtaives of the day. The world doesn't change becasue liberals want it to. We jsut want to make sure that our philosphy keeps up with it. And likewise, the world will not STOP CHANGING just because conservatives want it to. But not being one, I have no ideas why they'd want to cling to outdated knowledge, or philosphies that no longer work.

Something about POLLING DATA...

I saw a really stupid item from Fox News the other day on MMFA. They were trumpeting the results of a POLL that, they claimed showed that they were more balanced that the other media outlets. As is par for the course with Fox, there are several problems with both the claim and interpretation.

1) The poll was old and it's data contradicted by a more recent poll's data.
2) It polled the political affiliation of the VIEWERSHIP, not the content of their broadcast: It showed that they have a ~50/50 split of Democratic vs. Republicans viewers, while other networks have almost entirely Democratic audiences.

(So... Going by that kind of logic, Eminem would have been BLACK.)

The thing is... I don't think either poll says anything particularly profound about Fox at all. Consider this: The percentage of Democrats to Republicans in this country in somewhere between 50/50 and 60/40, slightly favoring the Democrats. So what this polling data tells ME is that Republicans pretty much refuse to watch anything except Fox, whilst Democrats prefer to get their news and opinion from a variety of sources. That says for more about Republicans that it does about Fox, and it doesn't say much for 'em at that. (No tolerance for Cognitive Dissonance, you see.)

Now... Goofy Polling Data is far from just a problem at Fox. A few weeks (months?) back, I heard a story on NPR. They were reporting on a Poll that saying (something like) 80% of Americans were "angry" with "how things were in Washington." (The numbers may not be right, and I'm paraphrasing the poll, but I hope you get the idea.) Now, they went to cite the conventional wisdom that an angry populace is a bad thing for the incumbent party. Well... that's certainly possible, but do you know what they DIDN'T report? (Or apparently ask as a follow-up question?) WHY are people angry? WHAT or WHO are they ANGRY AT? It certainly could be that everyone pissed at the Democrats and their "socialist agenda." (Which is nonsense, but you wan't hear that on Fox!) It's also just as likely that people were pissed at Republicans for obstructing EVERYTHING and refusing to work with a party that is trying to work with them to solve this country's problems. Are they angry at the direction we're heading, or the fact that we're not going there fast enough?!

And THAT'S the problem with the way polls are conducted and reported. They always leave me with an OBVIOUS and EASY follow-up question (or two) that was either not asked or not reported. And what good is applying conventional wisdom in this way? If you're just going to make the results conform to conventional wisdom, WHY BOTHER DOING A POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?!

A couple more ideas on health care...

I wanted to add a few ideas to the health care proposal I laid out before. The first two have to deal with malpractice. Malpractice is a big part of health care costs and, because of the surplus of lawyers in this country, it really doesn't act in any ways that bring us better care. And, according to the theory of macroeconomics, if you can lower the cost of production, holding the price steady, you can increase supply. And THAT would help us achieve better care. So here are a couple of areas we could address.

The first is anything stemming from a decision or recommendation or test interpretation that your doctor gives you. The kind of "you DO have cancer / you DON'T have cancer" kind of thing. As part of the plan I've laid out, I would automatically cover SECOND OPINIONS. So if you have a lump, and he says, "it's not cancer," there would then be four possibilities.

1) you accept that information, and he's right.
2) you accept that information, and he's wrong.
3) you get a second opinion and the second doc reaches the same conclusion
4) you get a second opinion and the second doc reaches a different conclusion

In case (1), no problem. In case (2), because you waived the second opinion that you were entitled to, in doing so you are also waiving your right to sue for anything resulting form that information. In case (3) you have confirmation, but they could still BOTH be wrong. Guess what? STILL can't sue. Why? State of the Art. If two (or more) doctors reach the same conclusion - WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH EACH OTHER (obviously) that this would fall under the category of "technology just isn't advanced enough" or "you had a really weird case." Sucks to be you, BUT: It's not the doctor's fault! Your medical expenses from here out are covered anyway, and in absence of entitlement to punitive damages, what are you going to sue for? If you end up in case FOUR, well... time to start asking QUESTIONS, and being part of the process of deciding what the right option is for you: 'Wait and see' or 'Play it safe, but risk the more invasive option.' Depending on the possible risks, you may choose one way or the other, but you have to OWN your choice - can't sue - so ASK QUESTIONS. Find out if one doctors tends to follow one philosophy or the other, find out which one suits your own, after all: the final decision belongs with the PATIENT.

And for anyone who thinks this would put a huge strain on the system, I don't think it would. Most of the things we hear from the doctor we just accept. I don't need a second opinon for a broken arm, or antihistamines for allergies or stitches for a laceration. And if two sets of eyes is what I need to feel at ease about that suspicious lump? Then so be it. Get a second. (In case (4) I'd even cover a THIRD.) Knowing they can't be sued merely for giving an opinion, more Doctors would be likely to GIVE one. So the supply issue will mostly fix itself.

The other major areas for malpractice is mistakes and negligence. Now right of the bat, I want to say that the burden of proof for this would be a lot higher. One of the things that a patient accepts when s/he goes under the knife is the very real possibility that they'll stay there. We usually take for granted that nothing will happen, but every patient must be informed of the chances of death or other complications when they decide to go through with a procedure. (Remember the philosophy that drove the first section? Same thing applies here: You take your chances!) So the mere presence of a dead body DOES NOT entitle someone to some money. And remember: all subsequent medical expenses are covered anyway, so there's no need to sue for that. Unless it's something as obvious as "he left an instrument inside you when he stitched you up" chances are, it's just one of those things that happen. Not everyone can be saved. BUT...

What do you do about BAD DOCTORS? Well, part of Obama's plan that I really like is the requirement for electronic records. I'd take this a step farther a keep records of all of the procedures that a Doctor performs, along with any preexisting complicating factors in the patient and the outcome. To keep it simple, each outcome would be given a 1-5 rating. Something like...

5) No complications, full recovery.
4) Minor complications, full recovery after treatment.
3) Serious complications or only partial recovery.
2) Serious complications, with lifelong or chronic issues
1) Fatality

And in doing this, you can compare any given doctor's performance against the industry standard. In really simple terms, if the "average" for triple-bypass surgery is 4.5 and you've got a doctor who's been a 2.5 for, say, two years now, the answer is NOT to simply pay off patents anyway. The answer is: STOP HIM FROM PERFORMING TRIPLE BYPASSES! He could still practice medicine, but not that procedure. Only maybe only that procedure in a supporting role. And when stripped of the "why's" and "what happened's" you end up with an objective score that the doctor's can't conspire among themselves to fix or hide. (As many suspect happens when a hospital investigates an incident on it's own.)

Now... if it CAN be determined that something went fantastically wrong: they amputated the wrong leg, for example, or sewed up a retractor inside of you, then YES, you can still be compensated - but by the SYSTEM. And the SYSTEM will determine on it's own how to handle the DOCTOR.

We need to get rid of this "us versus them" mentality that we have right now. It doesn't help us, and it doesn't improve our care.

I've got some other ideas about 'tort,' but I'll save those for a later post. Let me know what you think!

Another example of Religion pissing me off.

I've made no secret about the derisive opinion I have for organized religious, particularly the 1930's barnd of Tent Revivalisst inspired cult currently calling themselves the Funny-Mentalists. (Or something like that.) I want to share with you all yet another example of why I feel sorry for the children being raised by these basket-cases...

I was on Netflix last night looking for some new titles. (I did snag both Iriku and Throne of Blood, BTW, Conchobar! LOL.) And I stumbled across one that's not out yet on DVD, but I was curious when it what coming and what people thought of it. It's called PONYO and it was this year's latest (American) release from Hayao Miyazaki, the greatest living animator in the world and one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. This was also the first Miyazaki movie to get a broad release in the U.S. He's been loved in Japan for decades now, but he's still relatively new to American audiences. So, OK... obviously I'm a HUGE FAN of Miyazaki-san. That being said, let me also say the Ponyo is NOT one of his best movies. It's GOOD. Quite good. But not GREAT. It's not the worst he's even done, just somewhere in the middle. As good or better than My Neighbor Totoro, but nowhere near as good as Spirited Away or Howl's Moving Castle. It's a very intelligent, but VERY kid-friendly, kid-oriented movie. Disney might have done something like this back in their Golden Days. (Or, more recently, they DID, since Ponyo is really just a loose interpretation of The Little Mermaid.) I'm saying all this because I don't want anyone to think that I'm pissed about someone just dissing a movie I liked. I'm sure there are MANY hard-core Miyazaki fans (myself included) who LIKED this one, but didn't LOVE it. So you're perfectly free to NOT LIKE this movie for any reason, as far as I'm concerned, except THIS ONE:

User: Jeikobu
Review of Ponyo, 3 Stars:

Miyazaki's latest effort delivers his usual quality on a physical level - spectacular animation, a great musical score, terrific storytelling, deep and charming characters, excellent voice acting
(I speak of the Japanese language version) and nearly unparalleled imagination.

(So far so good...)

Unfortunately, on a spiritual level, it takes a heavy fall. To rate this G is insane. The film exhibits the same problems that have plagued Miyazaki's films since Princess Mononoke - sorcery and false gods. Ponyo's mother, a goddess, is heavily disturbing and offensive for a Christian like myself. Magic is used very often, and the film undermines the specialness of humans by making a fish be capable of becoming a human. (worse yet, Ponyo can transform only because she tasted human blood when she licks Sousuke's cut) Ponyo has a lot of appeal and charm, and is very heart-warming and cute in places. I really did get taken with Ponyo and Sousuke's characters, and if it weren't for the negative content, this could've been my favorite Miyazaki film. Still, the dark spirituality hurts this film immensely, and is one I could never see myself recommending to anyone, especially children.

Did you get that? It's "insane" to give this film a "G-Rating." I-N-S-A-N-E. Why? Because it has MAGIC in it! OH-MY-GOOOOD, NOOOOOO! ANYTHING but MAGIC!!! Do you want to know what I think is "insane?" Being so wrapped up in such a narrow view of your religion that you are OFFENDED by anything that falls short of outright prostilytising, and feel that any story that has magic, fairies, godesses, supernatural beings, etc... that are not of a Judeo-Christian Bibilical nature is somehow, out of hand, not suitible for children, regardless of the remainder of the content.

I guess Harry Potter would have been OK for this moron to take her kids to if only they'd ended up BURNING Harry and his friends and all the teachers AT THE STAKE at the end of the movie!

I do not understand how it is possible for ANY human being, no matter bereft of reason and sanity, to be so utterly brainwashed by their cult-leaders that they feel that everythig outside of their narrow world-view is some kind of competing cult, trying to steal to childeren away from them. I truly feel sorry for these people's kids, who will lead such a dull and colorless childhood, and even angrier when I realize that these kids will grow up to become more stupid, mindless, zombie-like adults who will in turn torture their own kids the same way.

I have news for you idiots: No one ever read Harry Potter and then went out and statered worshiping satan, or practising "withcraft," in the Judeo-Christian sense of the word, because of it. NO. ONE. Modern day Wiccan's and neo-pagans don't even practiove "witchcraft" in the Judeo-Christian sense of the word! AND neither do the characters in Harry Potter (not the GOOD GUYS anyway!) and and neither does ANYONE in Ponyo. How mentally weak must your childeren be, that the mere site of a cartoon Godess will cause them to abandon their faith and go down the wrong spiritual path? (A better question might be: How stupid is your religion that it's grip on the minds of your children is so tenuous?) I'd hate to think of what they'd say about the 1980, Rey Harryhausen classic, Clash of the Titans! ZEUS! And POSIEDON! And THETIS! OH MY! (*head explodes*)

It called FICTION folks! No one ever studied Greek Mythology and started worshiping ZUES! Not even someone stupid enough to believe in the inerrecny of the BIBLE, with all it's internal contradictions and all the nonsensical claims it makes about the physical world that have been DISPROVEN by modern science, would watch "Clash of the Titans" and start worshiping ZUES! ...Or watch/read Harry Potter and start practicing "Witchcraft" (especially since there isn't any actual witchcraft even IN those books!), or watch Ponyo and start worshiping Gran Mamare, the Goodess of Mercy and the Sea!

No, fear not... Becasue about the only thing anyone THAT stupid would do upon seeing these films is START PROTESTING THEM.

Now... I do not think someone is stupid for believing in God, or for practicing a religion. Misguided at best, delusional at worst, but whatever. I'm initially inclined to view it all with a sense of utter indifference. I have very few atheist friends as it is, so who am I to judge? But it IS stupid to hold on to a biblical view of the world that has been DISPROVEN by scientific measurement and observation. What's more... however crazy anyone might think it is to believe in God, it is a hundered times crazier to believe in MAGIC! ACTUAL Magic and Demons and Pantheist Gods from civilizations long extint... It is I-N-S-A-N-E to believe that these things are real.

It's just make believe folks! For Crist's sake, just tell your kids "It's not real. It's just a different way to tell a fun story, and teach a life lesson." and they'll probably accept that and MOVE ON with their lives, paying it very little notice. (Unless they've inherited your propensity to being brainwashed. Maybe you know them better than I do.)