Slavery is good

Here Michael Medved blithers about the African slaves and how we did them a favor by bringing them to America. One point stood out:

5. WHILE AMERICA DESERVES NO UNIQUE BLAME FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY, THE UNITED STATES MERITS SPECIAL CREDIT FOR ITS RAPID ABOLITION.

Which brought me to this book review: Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy:

In this eye-opening look at the contemporary American scourge of labor abuse and outright slavery, journalist and author Bowe (Gig: Americans Talk About their Jobs) visits locations in Florida, Oklahoma and the U.S.-owned Pacific island of Saipan, where slavery cases have been brought to light as recently as 2006. There, he talks to affected workers, providing many moving and appalling first-hand accounts. In Immokalee, Florida, migrant Latino tomato and orange pickers are barely paid, kept in decrepit conditions and intimidated, violently, to keep quiet about it.

A welding factory in Tulsa, Oklahoma imported workers from India who were forced to pay exorbitant "recruiting fees" and live in squalid barracks with tightly controlled access to the outside world. Considering the tiny island capital of Saipan, Bowe explores how its culture, isolation and American ties made it so favorable an environment for exploitative garment manufacturers and corrupt politicos; alongside the factories sprouted karaoke bars, strip joints and hotels where politicians were entertained by now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The detailed chapter gives readers a lasting image of the island, touted a "miracle of economic development," as a vulnerable, truly suffering community, where poverty rates have climbed as high as 35 percent.

Bowe's deeply researched, well-written treatise on the very real problem of modern American slavery deserves the attention of anyone living, working and consuming in America.

The United States still has slavery?

And this about Bush, Abramoff and the Northern Mariana Islands, John Aravosis of Americablog in 10/16/06:

Remember how just two years ago George Bush claimed he wanted to put a stop to human trafficking - i.e., women being forced into sexual slavery?

Then why was the Bush administration's premiere advocate for stopping such sexual slavery forced out of his job a while back?

According to the Sunday Los Angeles Times, he was fired because convicted criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff was representing one of the countries that most profits from sexual slavery and human trafficking, the Northern Mariana Islands. Abramoff wanted this Bush administration official fired because the official's anti-human-trafficking agenda - now George Bush's agenda - posed a direct threat to Abramoff's pro-sex-slave client.

But Jack Abramoff doesn't have the power to fire a Bush administration official - all he can do is ask. Someone inside the Bush administration had to do Abramoff's dirty work and fire the official on behalf of Abramoff and his client. According to the Los Angeles Times, that someone was former senior Bush White House official, and now head of the Republican party, Ken Mehlman.

And then my post about the collection of illegal immigrants and others being held in concentration camps in the United States with no oversight.

I've been getting consistent hits on this last year's post about a parody site about slavery being good for the economy. It boggles my mind.

What the hell is going on?

Michael Medved resents the question about evolution

That the Republican presidential candidates had to answer. Trifecta of New Pairodimes takes him apart. Trifecta's responses are italized:

In the midst of the fierce campaign for the Presidential nomination, why did the Republican candidates choose to make an issue of the theory of evolution? In truth, none of the candidates ever emphasized this dispute, until Chris Matthews of MSNBC asked the ten contenders in the first debate if any of them rejected Darwin.

Our batshit insane candidates wanted to paper over their views that Jesus rode on a brontosaurus when a donkey wasn't available. Leave it to the liberal media to make them talk about their views.

When three candidates – Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo – duly raised their hands, the media began focusing on creationism vs. intelligent design vs. evolution, as if the President of the United States got to make curriculum decisions for every local school board in the country.

No, the President gets to appoint 24 year old snot nosed kids to NASA to edit scientists work that mention things such as global warming, and to suggest that they push intelligent design. God don't make junk, and since we are created in his image, it's unpossible for us to foul the air with toxic crap.

Which brings me to another series of questions I'd like to ask these candidates:

If you don't believe in evolution, does that mean you believe the world is only 6 thousand years old?

Or do you believe that we've always been what we are today, but the world does evolve?

If you don't believe in evolution, do you believe in continental drift and plate tectonics?

Do you believe the stars are billions of years old?

If you don't believe in these things, do you believe in science? Facts?

Would you support space exploration?

The Hubble?

The International Space Station?

If you don't believe in evolution, can science teach us anything?

If you don't believe in evolution, and don't believe in the facts that science teaches us, do you believe in the Rapture?

Would you assist the Second Coming if you could?

Just a few questions to hone in on what would really drive a Republican president who doesn't believe in evolution.