Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Stiff Upper Lip? Or Cocksucker... | Notes From The Prayer Warrior »

Friday, November 3, 2006

RSS icon Comments


Um, if Dan thought his gaydar was going off watching Haggart, check out the guy that's taking his place.

Click on the link that says "raw interview"

Posted by Brie | November 3, 2006 6:58 AM

Did the Bush Administration Supress Findings on Global Warming?

Uh, I didn't even read the article, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say, "Yes." Is this even in question?

Posted by Mike in MO | November 3, 2006 7:18 AM

A great big schadendefreud-eatin' grin was plastered all over my face, until I found the following quote from the Washington Post something of a buzzkill:

"Green also noted that under Haggard's leadership, the NAE has sought to widen the evangelical agenda to include global warming, international human rights and poverty issues. Although non-evangelicals may view Haggard as a diehard conservative, within the evangelical movement he is seen as a moderate, Green said.

'If the allegations are proven true, it could discredit a prominent moderate figure in the evangelical community,' he said."

Posted by Eric | November 3, 2006 7:30 AM

Eric, I see you point, but let's be real. Gay hooker or not, this dude wasn't going to change anyone's mind about global warming. Besides, as far as I know, he made most of his noise about the gays. There are plenty of people out there making noise about global warming, etc that don't lobby for anti gay rights legislation...

Posted by Mike in MO | November 3, 2006 7:44 AM

I'm sorry, but screw the gay preacher story.

Why isn't anyone talking about this?

The white house fucking released documents regarding Iraq's nuclear intelligence, including a detailed guide on how to put together a nuke. They put this on the internet for everyone to see.

Gee, I feel safer now that just about anyone can start nuclear war!

Posted by HomelandSecurity | November 3, 2006 8:02 AM

The web site story is the second story linked at the top of the post.

Posted by Lauren | November 3, 2006 8:13 AM

Mike, I'm not saying I feel sorry for the guy. Or even that my (and let me try spelling it better this time) schadenfreude is all gone. It's just taken the edge of the ebullience, you know? Why couldn't it have been Falwell, or our other favorite native son here in CO, Dobson?

You are right that there are lots of people making noise about global warming, but how many of them have 15,000 Colorado Springs Republicans hanging on their every word, each Sunday?

Posted by Eric | November 3, 2006 8:13 AM

"The study was financed by eight diverse organizations"... from one giant corporation to a non-profit funded by giant corporations, with the other 6 completely unmentioned. Those stats sound like such bullshit! Architecture firms and t-shirt vendors will suffer immensely from a rebuilt viaduct! Let it come crashing down during the next earthquake instead...

Posted by wf | November 3, 2006 8:15 AM

Well, yeah, no matter which viaduct plan you pick, you likely put the majority of the smaller Waterfront businesses out of business.

Oh, and what about the ferries?

Posted by Gomez | November 3, 2006 8:36 AM

Why don't those lawmen sweep those Geriatric old pervs in DC out of office. Nationwide manhunt sweeps GOP out of their seats! thats a headline i'd like to see next week

Posted by sputnik | November 3, 2006 8:38 AM

Eric, I hear you about the 15000 rebublicans. And yes, I dream of the day that Falwell or Dobson get theirs. One can only pray :)

Posted by Mike in MO | November 3, 2006 8:39 AM

RE: Hypocrisy and homophobia

A few weeks ago, another Slogger admonished me for pointing out that university research has shown that the most virulent homophobes are the ones that have the most intensely repressed homosexual urges. He called that an “outmoded stereotype,” I believe.

Sir, you owe me a Coke.

Posted by Andrew | November 3, 2006 8:43 AM

Sorry to be so picky, but it's "scandalous" not "scandolous"

Posted by spellcheck | November 3, 2006 9:06 AM

I'm a lousy speller. I will make the change. Thanks.

Posted by Josh Feit | November 3, 2006 9:11 AM


Election's Tuesday.

Posted by david | November 3, 2006 9:19 AM

Good news about the governorships. Most presidents were governors before being elected to the top political job. The more Democrats in the mix, then the better chances for the party to take the White House. Even better that they might take the Congress where, you know, laws are actually written and budgets passed.

Posted by B.D. | November 3, 2006 9:33 AM


What's the big deal? Anyone with a college-level physics background has sufficient knowledge to make a nuclear bomb; heck, even I understand the basic concepts and theories, although I lack the technical expertise. The only real obstacle is of course obtaining a sufficient quantity of enriched Uranium in order to make it work.

Posted by COMTE | November 3, 2006 10:18 AM

@17: it depends how detailed they were, and it sounds like they had info. re: firing switches and other obscure details. But yeah, nothing that an aspiring terrorist with a student visa couldn't learn in college, I'm sure.

That viaduct study is stupid. What are they advocating, "leave it as is"?? Of course it'll have an impact when it's closed, but it would have an even greater impact if it collapsed.

Posted by him | November 3, 2006 10:30 AM

"The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs."

I would assume that if it only takes a college education in physics to make a bomb, that public forums would contain this information. I could be wrong. I am obviously an idiot who can't read given that this story was included in Josh's news post.

I still feel like this contradicts the notion that the Republican party is strong on fighting terrorism.

Posted by HomelandSecurity | November 3, 2006 11:02 AM

@14 - firefox v2 has integrated spell checker. my spelling is horrid and I've found the feature pretty handy.

Posted by charles | November 3, 2006 11:25 AM

Well, again it would depend on the type of bomb to which these documents relate. From the sounds of it, these referenced fairly sophisticated devices that might include implosion-type bombs, which would certainly require much more technical knowledge than a simpler, cruder "gun barrel" type device (i.e. "Little Boy", the first Uranium bomb exploded at Los Alamos).

Posted by COMTE | November 3, 2006 11:26 AM

good point, Charles, altho it hates the word altho and also Mudede if you try to type that.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 3, 2006 12:13 PM

Not only did the documents have fairly detailed bomb-building instructions, but most of them were in Arabic. Handy for the odd Wahhabbi sect or Al-Qaeda cell that doesn't have access to better resources and isn't too conversant in English...

I swear to Dog, those fuckers are TRYING to bring about Armageddon.

Posted by Geni | November 3, 2006 12:28 PM

A moderate Evangelist sounds like a contradiction in terms to me... but I guess it's all relative.

Dear God, but I wish it had been Phelps from KS... that would have made my month!

Posted by Wistful | November 3, 2006 1:05 PM

No, Phelps wouldn't have been nearly as good. Evangelicals hate the motherfucking shit out of that moron, much more than, say, gays do. They'd REVEL in his fall. Having this happen to Haggard, who is one of THE MOST influential evangelical leaders out there, hurts them bigtime. People really do believe in him. Most evangelicals regard guys like Falwell as an embarrassment, but Haggard, even more than Dobson, is THEIR MAN. This is a body blow.

Posted by Fnarf | November 3, 2006 4:44 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).