Open Hatch

It was an odd coincidence, after watching so many episodes of the new BattleStar Galactica on DVD, that after I penned that essay yesterday I watched an episode where the abortion debate was raised.

(By the way, I waited five weeks checking three different Blockbuster video stores for the right disc of the right season of BattleStar Galactica to be checked in - there was a conspiracy to keep me from checking out that disc - and then one day my wife brought home the entire season of the show, checked out for far less a price, from the Orem Public Library. Now, as well as for the Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum, I have a testimony that the Orem Public Library is true.)

The premise of the show is that the Cylons, robots created by humanity but which betray humanity, wipe out all the planetary colonies and drive and hunt the very small remainder of humanity into space. The entire show is humanity outsmarting, outmaneuvering, thwarting, and seeking to destroy the malevolent forces which they themselves created - while the evolved Cylons who are indistinguishable from humans fool people into David/Bathseba fiascoes.

In this episode (Season 2.5, “The Captain’s Hand”) President Rosylin is presented with a young pregnant woman who stowed away on the fleet command ship (Galactica), seeking asylum from her evil, fanatic, controlling parents to abort a child she apparently doesn’t want and/or can’t support. Rosylin has begun campaigning for re-election to office (she became President de facto as the highest ranking surviving political officer of the human race), and apparently the majority of the fleet is “pro-choice”, and her whole life Rosylin has fought to support the right, as she puts it, for a woman to control her own body. But General Adama reminds her that after the Cylon struck and nearly destroyed humanity, one of the first things she said to him was that “..if humanity is to survive we need to start having babies now.” Adama points to the number of humans still alive which Rosylin has kept on a whiteboard behind her desk since being sworn into office - around 54,000 - and says “That number hasn’t gone up for a long time.” Despite her position on abortion, Rosylin issues an executive order declaring any interference with the birth of a child as subject to criminal penalty - she makes abortion illegal. At the same time, since the executive order occurred after the young woman’s abortion, and the woman had already claimed asylum, Rosylin does not hold the woman subject to criminal penalty, which outrages the religious, fanatical representative from Gemenon. This principled compromise also outrages the eleven of the twelve colonies who support abortion (uh, how reflective of America or humanity would that be in real life - not very - the issue is very divided, and pretty equally). It also opens the way for a former political ally to come out in opposition and betray her in a factioning bid for the Presidency. Not bending to either extreme, Rosylin outrages everyone. Huh. Sounds like prexy Bush, dudn’t it?
The episode, in my opinion, underscored what Orson Scott Card said of the Science Fiction genre, in his main address at Life, the Universe, and Everything XVII (which symposium I very much enjoyed attending). Card sought to answer the question of why so many prominent writers of Sci-Fi and Fantasy happen to be Mormon. Apparently Mormons have been heavily dominating winners in the Writers of the Future contest for many years - and the contest is run blind. None of the judges know the names of any of the writers who submit, as the names are stripped from the entries before judging. Card argued that Science Fiction often embodies both the American plain narrative style and the American pragmatic hero - the hero who tests and tries things for himself until he finds the best solution - and, Card argues, Mormonism is also an embodiment of both of those, or more specifically, of the Scientific Method in harmony with religion. Mormonism does not ask its followers to simply blindly accept the religion, but to try it out.

“Prove me now herewith“,

- echoes the Mormon God in the Book of Mormon,

“..if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it.“

And again in Moroni:

“..And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.“

If you are showing faith in Christ, if you are sincerely seeking Him, if you have changed your life already, if you are experimenting on the word (Card didn’t mention the verses that say that), and you have a sincere desire to follow these things if they are true, God Himself will manifest the truth to you by the power of the Holy Ghost. If you sincerely try Mormon principles and doctrine in your life, Mormonism promises, you will know for yourself whether the doctrines are true. That, Card argues, is the Scientific Method - run tests, try things out for yourself, experiment on a hypothesis until you have an idea whether it seems true or false - that is the Scientific Method in complete harmony with the Mormon religion.

In summary then, Mormons who are raised with these values of pragmatic experimentation find themselves very easily at home in a body of literature where pragmatic experimentation is the norm.

And what pragmatic truth does this episode of BattleStar Galactica unfold to our view? (By the way - I heard asides from Card that he doesn’t like the overt references to Mormonism made in BattleStar Galactica - because the leaders of the 12 colonies are more like the 12 idiots.) When the human race is driven to near extinction by evil robots, abortion is not a good idea

I’ve read an argument from a Democrat-voting Mormon defending Barack Obama’s stance on abortion (I won’t link to it). This argument seems to present Barack Obama’s reasoning on the issue as similar or identical to the LDS (Mormon) church’s reasoning. I don’t think that is so, and I’m posting my arguments against it. I want to seriously qualify that if Obama’s reasoning doesn’t harmonize with church policy (in my opinion) on this point, there are many other questions surrounding the political position about which the church is neutral (otherwise the church would instruct its members to oppose the Democratic party, which it most certainly does not - the Church is party neutral). But this is what I respond to:

Frequently we generalize and think the church is completely against abortion with no exceptions, but that is not the case. There needs to be an allowance for these times and conditions and Obama’s platform makes concession for these times too. In fact he says, “I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don’t make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy.” Which is what the church encourages. If abortions were made completely illegal there would be no allowance for these rare but serious circumstances.

I checked for a reliable attribution of that statement to Obama, and I believe I found at least one (here). (And as for the banner in that web site - just erase the baby brother from the picture. Oh wait, he’s not there. They aborted him.)

Now, here’s my argument. This paragraph pulls Obama’s statement out of context. I do not personally know any “pro-life” person who has said they would oppose abortion in such extreme situations where the life of the mother is endangered or the pregnancy is the result of rape (or incest, or similar extreme situations). So to present this argument as opposing a reasonable “pro-life” position is at best uninformed. On that point, a reasonable (in my opinion) “pro-lifer” of course agrees. It is misrepresentative to argue this as opposing a “pro-life” position. Unfortunately, building up that argument and throwing it down - it is an obvious candidate for a weak argument and can easily be thrown down - leads to the idea that a pro-lifer opposes abortion in extreme cases such as a mother’s life endangered, or pregnancy by rape.  As I said I’ve never known a pro-lifer who makes such extreme arguments (and if I did, I’d disagree with them). So I would ask the person making this argument which of their far too liberal friends they have not adequately challenged, to not only swallow but regurgitate such a distortion. Professors at a University? Yo. A University often an unhinged liberal maketh. Watch out.

What’s really baffling - and had me confused for a while - is that Obama’s language does not address those situations at all. Reading this link I found where the quote is cited, the only thing Obama says that could unreasonably be construed as touching on maternal life endangerment or rape is the phrase “..a woman’s medical concerns..” - in this wider context:

“..As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient.”

May I point out that he does not mention endangerment of a mother’s life and does not either mention rape etc., but that he does say “a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient.” I place emphasis on the word “and” because it clearly links “medical concerns” to “personal decisions between a doctor and patient.”

The hysterical brouhaha around reproductive activities and the virtual right to pursue them at all expenses - including the new lives they often create (and then summarily destroy by “abortion”) has often, in what I have read of our nation’s history of any legislation even peripherally having to do with sex - has often linked sex with “privacy” or a “right” of privacy which no court or legislation should invade. Never mind how much the Playboy channel proves that sex can often be regarded as anything but a private affair, and the obvious counterpoint that the children produced by sex don’t only belong to a parent - they have a life ahead of them where they will leave their parents and contribute to society and, hopefully, produce more children of their own - a child is not a woman’s only: a child is a gift to a nation and to the world. To characterize birthing concerns as concerns only belonging to the woman herself is utterly mislead and selfish. Getting back to my point now.. this is clearly rhetoric falling in the line of reasoning where a mother’s right to have a baby or not is her own personal “choice” - for which she also apparently has doctor-patient privileges to discuss whether or how do “abort” her own child. Reagan comes back to mind. Where is the child’s right? As he said, the only folks arguing for a “right” to abort were not themselves aborted.

Obama’s statements clearly play into reasoning that a woman has a “choice” to abort a child for any reason - which does not address the true moral question Obama’s (or Clinton’s or any other “pro-choice” person’s) position raises. Obama is clearly not speaking of extreme cases where abortion may be necessary. He’s simply saying it’s a difficult decision for many women.

Understatement of the year: the decision to end a life is a difficult one. Well, unless you are an islamofascist or a soldier in Iraq trying to stop islomofascists from campaigning anymore to send airplanes turned into bombs through American skies. What does Iraq have to do with Al-Qaeda? May I draw your attention to the fact that an organization calling themselves Al-Qaeda in Iraq is still alive and kicking in Iraq, although thankfully our brave soldiers are frustrating them. How does the name this organization gives itself not have to do with Al-Qaeda? (Anyone who buys this “we toppled the towers” hysteria, I will point blank tell them they are not thinking rationally.) The Al-Qaeda trainees who made the decision to crash the planes - they were indoctrinated with an entrenched hatred of Americans, brainwashed into thinking of Americans as amoral, unworthy creatures who have no right to live. Throw in the promise of an unending sex romp with a few dozen hot soon-to-be former virgins in the afterlife, and it’s an easy sell. Also relating to a decision to kill: what do the American soldiers who are out to prevent Al-Qaeda and other islamofascists from destroying American lives and freedom go through? Easy. Pull the trigger on all of them - fight them, or in ten years 9/11 will look like child’s play. Every faithful soldier knows this. Is it traumatic to kill any human, even when they clearly are part of an army out to destroy America - and the democracy America is slowly encouraging in Iraq? Absolutely. A great many soldiers suffer post-tramatic stress disorder (and, gratefully, I’ve heard, our nation is waking up more to that fact and getting returned soldiers the help they need to cope with it).

Barack Obama is okay with aborting a child for any reason any woman would do so. That includes reasons as stupid as the mother being impoverished and living in a cardboard box. I’m serious. That’s not a reason to end a human life, but it is a scenario that modern reasoning often finds justifiable to terminate a human life. Okay, and.. what about adoption? What about the many thousands (millions?) of children born throughout the world in any given year in equally desperate situations but who live good lives? (It comes as a revelation to so much of modernity that a life can be worthwile even without wealth or even basic shelter.) I love the reply Ann Coulter witnesses her father gave her when, as a kid, she related that scenario in asking her father if that would justify an abortion. His reply: “I don’t care. A life’s a life.” Amen. There is no more concise and accurate rebuttal than that.

Look wider at the “pro-choice” cause. More than 34,000,000 million Americans have been reported as “aborted” since 1972 (add up the numbers on that page) - which is far more than the number of Americans lost in all previous American wars combined, while pro-lifers endlessly puppet these illogical lines about “choice”. The “pro-choice” movement is not properly identified as toleration of silent infanticide - standing by while the class of “babies” is unendingly slaughtered. Nobody should be at war over it - killing abortion clinic doctors is a seriously bad and misled thing to do - but the legislative war against the “pro-choice” movement should be far, far more intense and broad than it is. Abortion is doing a far better job destroying American life than Al-Qaeda has reasonable hope to - but Al-qaeda surely would destroy all American lives, given the chance. I realize this comparison may distort pro-lifers as just out to kill babies. That’s stupid. They mean none of that. But unfortunately, their collective means of misled tolerance have in very fact meant more cost of American life than all other American battles combined. Heaven shudders at the bloodbath, my friends.

But the question of abortion is more complicated than that. There are arguments it should be decided per State by State constitutions. I know Democrats who happen also to be Mormons who think it is and should be so. I disagree with them. The first lines of the Constitution of the United States declare “..Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” as inalienable rights. Arguably, the right of life is not universally protected under the United States federal government.

There are arguments that would seem to refute this - or maybe they actually do - but as far as proposing legislation I don’t care. If those arguments hold up, we need to change the legislation that allows them to hold up, in my opinion. Whatever litigious mess got it through our heads that it’s okay for a State to approve killing a fetus in any circumstance - we need to reverse that mess. Because it is not okay, morally, in most of the situations where States in our nation allow it. And in my own opinion, any candidate with a “pro-choice” position offers no hope of overturning that litigious mess.

Because I believe extremist Islam poses a far greater danger, I could vote for a strong pro-war candidate who was also “pro-choice”. I’m fortunate in that regard that McCain is both pro-life and pro-war. And as I’ve said before, Obama and Clinton both speak of “withdrawal” - but that is a euphamism for surrender to an enemy who, if not stopped, would do everything within their then expanding means to literally destroy the United States of America.

And Obama and Clinton both know that, whatever else they say. They can promise immediate withdrawal, but they know they can’t really offer that. One meeting with a war cabinet would scare them silly out of the decision. McCain not only knows that, but he says it, too.

I’m looking for people to form a group in the Provo/Orem (or even wider Utah) area which will work through the excellent creativity (and unblocking) workbook THE ARTIST’S WAY (cover pictured below). If you may be interested, please email me.

Also, I decked out a Creative Reference wiki page listing this and other very useful books.

The opening sequence to THE MATRIX is among the most beautiful art ever done with film and computers. I just found a Windows “screensaver” (imagery that appears on your computer monitor if you leave your machine idle for so many minutes) that emulates the very thing very well - on your computer.

I first tried the official screensaver released by Warner Bros. back in 1999 (Okay, has it been that long or longer since THE MATRIX? - I’m getting old..), and after that I tried three others - this one is far and away the best. It can emulate the opening sequence to THE MATRIX tracing a program to your phone number, calling on your name .. kinda eerie. Exceedingly cool. Change the speed, speed variation, font animation, line density, and color of the scrolling code also.

Caveat: almost predictably, you have to be a geek to install this thing. 1. It runs on windows (hmmm.. the platform on which most internetworked clients in the world are run?) 2. You have to know where your Windows install places the .scr, or screensaver files, and copy the file to that directory. On my Windows XP install, that is C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 - and then 3. You have to know where to change your screensaver.

I am attending the whole of Life, the Universe, and Everything at BYU (courtesy work vacation days). If you know who I am, perhaps I will be delighted to run into you.

The last time I attended was many, many years ago, and I asked David Farland (pen name for Wolverton - who commented here recently) a question. He had presented with other authors (Barbara Hume and Kevin J. Anderson) their recent works in the eternally expanding Star Wars literary universe. Afterwards - and I was quite young - I asked him this question:

“If a Star Trek fan is a Trekkie, what is a Star Wars fan?”

He stammered a bit and answered

“Uh.. I dunno, I guess a.. a ‘Warrie‘.”

That is an excellent answer

This excellent essay by Orson Scott Card (link) really gave me pause. Here’s that link again. If you are a Republican who goes along with common Republican reasoning on immigration, this may be a particularly relevant read. I have said some things at this blog about amnesty vs. naturalization which made basic assumptions that Card’s essay there turn on head. And I think he’s right.

There is not an essay in Orson Scott Card’s “World Watch” columns at ornery.org which I would not recommend - especially to avowed Democrats, because Card divides asunder the hypocrisies (such as in this essay) and off-the-wall illogic of the current Democratic party. It seems to me that most of the flurry toward Democratic candidates hinges on disgruntlement about the war. If that is the case for you, please read Card’s comments on that, also.

The Democrats use the word “withdrawal”, but they all know it’s a euphemism for surrender.

My previous entry gives reasons I could never support Clinton or Obama (because of their stance on partial birth abortion). Here are a few more reasons I wouldn’t support Obama: he has the most liberal record in the Senate. He is farther left than anyone else in the Senate. Also, his church swears to a creed of black nationalism. Here is one link about that (which points out Obama’s spiritual advisor affiliates with terrorists), and here is another. If sympathy for a position that simply returns the worst of white racism is your definition of spiritual, Obama is your man.

I’m the #1 google result (at the moment) for “richard dutcher nudity“!

Well.. I guess I’m honored, but insofar as I am aware, Richard hasn’t dropped his trousers for any photographer.  Sorry guys.   (Or should that be gals?)  Try some other name searches with that word.  You have a virtual world of options!

An article at this blog persuades me.

John McCain is the only pro-life candidate seriously in play.  If Clinton or Obama are elected, they will likely have a turn to appoint a few judges to the Supreme Court - and they will appoint activist judges who will tighten the bulwarks against reversing Roe vs. Wade.  (How common is the knowledge that the victor in Roe vs. Wade has since decided it was wrong?)  Obama and Clinton both favor having a “choice” for partial-birth abortion - sticking a needle of poison into the skull of a baby as it is being born.

If McCain comprehends the wrong of abortion, it’s easy he may comprehend the issue of the life and survival of our nation - and of the Iraqis we have pledged to help build a new nation - a lot better than whichever Democratic opponent he’ll face.   (I say this because something I read frightened me regarding McCain’s foreign policy approach.  But his policy has to be better than Clinton’s or Obama’s.  And regarding that linked article, the landscape has changed since then - Romney has unofficially endorsed McCain as our hope toward winning the war.)  McCain can be talked to if the citizens cry loud enough.  He’s been against building a border fence, but pledged he would.  I doubt it would happen in four years, but he has to take steps.  The first would be firing one of his staff in particular.

To my mind, holding out until victory in the war hangs on the same principle of valuing all life - do we finish the job of aiding the Iraqis in establishing a new nation of independence, no matter the cost, or do we retreat and value the lives of those we began to save less than our own lives?

(How common also is the knowledge that Saddam Hussein enacted genocide on Iraqis?  Nuke questions aside, that is the main reason I supported ousting him.)

Do we value the life of a mother over her child?  Will we terminate the birth of a new nation underway?

I think I may vote for McCain.

I recently heard arguments for universal health care that seemed maybe okay. Then I went back and looked at some things that convinced me against it. The following part of an argument I’ve quoted before most convinces me against universal state-provided health care.

show

I know health care is expensive. That’s why I’m focused not on making it more expensive, but on making it cheaper, and how you do that? You do it with conservatism! I’m by no means out of touch on this. If the health care industry were priced like every other industry is on the patient’s ability to pay, then we’d fix the problem, and that’s the direction we have to head in.

But if we’re going to keep this notion that everybody’s entitled to have whatever they want medically paid for by their neighbors, then we are finished. We are finished as a country; we are finished as a society. You can talk about my wealth, but let me tell you something, sir. I don’t depend on anybody else for anything, and it was one of my objectives when I grew up. I didn’t want to be obligated. I didn’t want to be dependent. I didn’t want to owe anybody. I don’t buy into insurance plans because it’s a hassle! Now, I know a lot of people don’t have that freedom. I used to not have that freedom, either. But I do now because I worked for it — and if I can do it, a lot more people can do it than think they can, and that’s conservatism again. People are much better than they know. They have much more potential than they know. But when you’ve got a Democrat Party and a movement telling them they suck, telling them they can’t get anywhere because the deck is stacked against them and the people stacking the deck are Republicans and so forth, then you are diminishing the country; you’re diminishing the future, and you’re destroying people’s lives.
……
The health care problem in this country is getting worse, while people are voting on for people who are making it worse because they hear these people saying, “I’m going to fix it.” Well, the people in charge of fixing it have no interest in it getting fixed, because if it gets fixed, you don’t need them. You can rely on yourself. This health care debate is one of the most infuriating things I witness every day, because I get so sick and tired of people buying hook, line, and sinker a lie. “I’m going to get everybody covered. I’m going to make sure everybody gets health insurance in this country. We’re going to make sure it’s not just the rich.” It doesn’t happen, does it? When you have government telling private industry how to operate, this is exactly what you get, and it’s going to happen in energy. It’s already happening in a number of other industries, too. It’s happening in the auto industry…

I’ll add to this. I recently read that the top ten poorest cities in the United States have been governed only by Democrats for the past thirty years. Democrats repeatedly promise this and that measure to raise folks out of poverty, which never happenss, but the next time around folks think maybe it will. Lucy lifts the football every time and you still fall flat on your back. No one says what needs saying: your wealth is your responsibility, so go to work. Of course genuine misfortune can prohibit that. But many poor people work 8 or 10 hour weeks when they could work 40. I suspect lack of motivation generated by welfare dependency. Why work if someone else will pay the bill? I think it was on Bill O’Reilly’s radio show I heard this - kids who know they have a large inheritance don’t work and study as hard. (I would like at this point to declare my forgiveness toward my grandparents for dropping tens of thousands of dollars in my lap when I was only a kid. Yeah, the money didn’t stick around long - but I must also credit my own foolishness. Which I also forgive.) When kids don’t know they have an inheritance, they buck up and study and work harder.

If you are rich, stamp out any suspicion in your kids that you are generous by being a chore-driving pig of a parent. Well, be a nice pig and give them ice cream every now and then. By the way, the LDS church has one smart solution to welfare dependency: welfare recipients work in the orchards, canneries, farms and distribution centers that produce the goods they themselves receive.

State health care is welfare. Someone else gives you what you could earn yourself. It takes away working motivation, dragging workers out of the economy, producing less taxes from less work, giving the government less money to subsidize people’s laziness, and the vicious cycle goes downward until somebody thinks it’s a good idea to say that some people deserve taxes and some don’t, and heck, the rich deserve a lot more taxes - and what do you have? An economy that only thrives because America happens to be exceedingly ingenious despite all the retarded “equality” legislation that strangles everyone, and despite most of the middle classes seeing a whopping forty percent of their income go to government programs that do nothing for anyone other than exist as a mirage that something is getting done.

Who thinks universal health care is a good idea? Hillary Clinton is more religious about it than she is about defeating extremist Islam. Except that she isn’t religious about defeating extremist Islam. For all I know Barack Obama thinks state welfare is a good idea, but I’ve tried not to really pay attention to him or to Clinton.

I guess I have to now, because people swallow their balogna philosophies wholesale.

What a way to exit. I’m with him. He’s absolutely right to stand on the most important principle our nation is questioning - our survival. Michelle Malkin copies this transcript from the speech - and I copy it from her -

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues…(audience boos) but I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq… And I agree with him on eliminating Al Aaeda… If I fight on in my campaign all the way to the convention, I want you to know that I forestall the launch of a national campaign.

Crowd: “NOOOOO!”

Frankly in this time of a war, I cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. This isn’t an easy decision. I hate to lose. …Not just about me…I entered this race because I love America. I feel I have to now stand aside. We cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism.

Romney makes a rousing exit.

I like ALLAHPUNDIT’s questions:

What’s the best thing about this? The goodwill it’ll earn him among the party establishment for not dragging out the primary? The fond memory it creates in the mind of the base of a man willing to sacrifice his own ambition to support victory in Iraq? The venom it’ll draw from the left about him using the war as political cover for his own failure? Or the fact that it backs Huckabee into a corner by framing the continuation of his own campaign as effectively furthering the Democrats’ plans for withdrawal?

Bravo.

In this chat with a coworker I comment on the current revision of this Wikipedia article on the Laffer Curve - involving economics (this was an offshoot of discussion about game theory, which is work-related - I find, two paragraphs into the article:

(12:27:18 PM) Alex Hall: “..Critiques commonly point out that socialist states, such as the U.S.S.R., have been able to derive revenues at a 100% tax rate, though they would have derived more if tax rates had been lower.”
(12:27:35 PM) Alex Hall: Oh, good. I’m glad communists can get higher taxes from rates lower than one hundred percent.
(12:27:42 PM) Alex Hall: !
(12:27:45 PM) MoD: hehe
(12:27:49 PM) Alex Hall: Can you believe that?
(12:27:53 PM) Alex Hall: Ah, Wikipedia.
(12:28:18 PM) MoD: Probably has something to do with people earning more or something
(12:28:47 PM) Alex Hall: Maybe. I haven’t investigated that. I think I’ll go home and see if MY LIFE produces any MOTIVATION which might produce any TAXES.
(12:29:01 PM) MoD: hehe
(12:29:11 PM) Alex Hall: LOL what a joke.

Last night I watched ABC around 9:30 to try to follow emerging Presidential Primary results (tragic to be watching ABC’s coverage, yes, but my internet connection wasn’t available). They brought on Huckabee via satellite interview, glowingly fawned over him (following the orders of their favorite party in doing so - now they’re just roping him along to steal votes from Romney) - and they swallowed unchallenged his incredibly deceived line that he’s run one of the most civil campaigns anyone has seen in a while (read my disagreement about that here) - then provided extensive coverage of Clinton and Obama, and covered McCain’s speech claiming he’s the front runner (it has to be said he has about twice the delegates pledged to him now that Romney does - which simply baffles me. The man is simply not a conservative. And Huckabee would like to rewrite the Constitutation to align with his personal religious whims! Romney is the only conservative running!) They had signs sliding on and off the bottom of the screen saying who won what states, and though it was hard to follow them, I gathered Romney had won maybe five or six states (including Utah at 8o percent - I can’t imagine how that happened ) - I had a hard time tracking it. Along with that they had longer heads-ups displaying pictures of candidates with a list of won states underneath them. As I said, from watching the sliding displays I knew Romney won five or six states, but how many states were listed under the picture of Romney? Two - Utah and Masachussets, the states in Super Tuesday he has close ties to. And how much coverage time do they devote to any interviews or footage of Romney? Virtually zero. A few pictures and short clips, interspersed with long clips and coverage of every other candidate in play. And they list only two of the five or six states he won. Virtually zero coverage of Romney and blatantly displaying his gains as far less than they are.

Tell me mainstream media isn’t biased against Romney! The candidate that the liberal mainstream media is blatantly biased against is the candidate that conservatives should be blatantly biased for! Romney has pledged to stick it out to the convention! Rally for him! He’s the only conservative in play!

My sister made this LOLCat, I believe inspired by this oddball video of mine and/or my related t-shirt for it.

Yyech! Furball! It tastes like you got mixed up with another traveler! Dial again!