What IS it with conservatives and their pejorative use of "liberal elites"? I hear this term being bandied about in reference to coastal city-dwellers and academics, mostly. The claim is a textbook straw man argument, but let's play along for just a moment. "Liberal elites" are supposedly "openly contemptuous of traditional American virtues such as faith in God, patriotism, and self-reliance which they are intent on destroying."

(Incidentally -- I've scoured the web looking for a widely-agreed upon definition of precisely what constitutes a "liberal elite", and not surprisingly, have found none save for the above. Conservatives could just as easily use the term "polka-dotted bloisybonks" for all the evidence provided that they exist.)

These allegations are pure bullshit. And while I realize I'm preaching to the choir, here, I feel compelled to throw in my two cent rant. More after the break...

Oh, the irony. Let's connect the dots, shall we?

Of the 15 states most aggressively involved in the ID debate, 12 are Red, 3 are Blue.
All but one hosts one or more biotech firms.
All produce corn, most produce cotton and/or soybeans.
At present, the bleeding edge of the biotech industry is in agriculture and of course, pharmaceuticals.
Pharmaceutical companies are one of the largest GOP contributors, with agribusiness not far behind.

So, the Republican fundamentalists will find themselves at a cross roads sooner or later, as they continue to push for their watered-down version of science. Industries that are built on life sciences will require minumum base competence of their local labor pools, including a proficiency in the rudimentary mechanics of evolutionary theory. If they find that would-be employees are unable to meet this criteria, just how anxious do you think they'll be to remain in states that are covered in "disclaimer" stickers? How eager will these firms be to just roll over as fundamentalists rail against stem cell research? More on side B...

In yesterday's op/ed for the LA Times, Niall Ferguson falls into the trap of the simple minded by suggesting that somehow, Britain's decline in religious adherence played a role in the recent bombings in London.

Like so many addle minded dolts, he draws the line between the absence of religious practice and the absence of morals. I can't tell you how disappointed I am that a Harvard professor, no less, evidently displays the imagination of a rutabaga. This "no religion = no morals" dichotomy advanced typically by black & white fundamentalists is even more appalling when it falls from the mouth of an educator from one of the finest universities in the country. More on the B side...

One of the blogs I visit regularly is The Mighty Middle. In a recent series of posts (one, two, and three), Michael Reynolds wonders aloud whether the threat of nuking of Mecca would prove an effective (and final) deterrent to terrorism.

I love a great many things about Michael's style and substance, but I can't agree with him on this particularly "ghastly" subject. However, his arguments are far from flippant, and the resulting discussion is undeniably interesting.

On Birth Control:

When the radical right's opposition to Roe v Wade hinges on the presumption that life begins at conception, their efforts are unlikely to stop at simply overturning Roe. The ultimate goal, by logical extension, will be a ban of all hormonal birth control. The argument is that hormonal birth control hinders the uterus lining from adequate development. In the event an egg is released and fertilized, it will be unable to implant properly. This "interruption" would qualify as a thwarting of conception, and fall, therefore, well within the parameters fundamentalists say envelops and justifies their opposition to Roe v Wade.

This is the first in a series of entries about my impressions of the radical right and their positions on reproductive rights. I don't claim to offer any new and stunning insight on the issues at hand, but feel compelled to comment on them in my usual cranky fashion.
More on side B...

I can't resist commenting on the notion that Christians are the victims of wholly unprovoked bashing/criticism/prejudice. Every time I hear the claim, I'm amazed at the incredulity expressed. The "bashing" going on, here in 2005, is simple backlash.

I realize that I'm preaching to the choir in this forum, but wanted to chime in with the source of my contempt for the religious right, as I'm regularly asked to justify it by this very same group. Maybe something here can be added to your own list of rebuttals, and as such, is posted here as a PSA. Besides, I need a Rove break, don't you?