Spin control. That's what we're suddenly seeing a lot of in the media. A cause they've championed at the expense of rational debate and thought is blowing up in their faces. I'm of course talking about anthropogenic global warming. Remember the cries of "the debate is over"? Well, the debate was over, as we've now learned, due to the suppression of evidence and contradictory opinion.
But with the confirmation of what many suspected was the gaming of the scientific data, the approach has been to diminish the significance of the find, to attack the integrity or character of those with the temerity to question the legitimacy of what is considered to be a widely-accepted scientific conclusion. If the conclusions were drawn from corrupt data, how can we be so sure they're correct or accurate conclusions?
17 December 2009
30 November 2009
Where is the outrage? Or, at least, where's the coverage?
A recent event is the posting of confidential e-mails and data to a Russian web server. The e-mails and data, lifted from the University of East Anglia's servers, paints a disturbing portrait: Over the past decade, some scientists have compromised on their ethics and politicized the science. You know, the same thing the Bush administration was criticized for during the past eight years. Details of the potential scandal are still forthcoming, such as willful gaming of the data, suppression of data that does not support the climate change alarmism that was the foundation for the Kyoto treaty and could be the foundation for the upcoming Copenhagen conference, and the essential "black-balling" of scientists with a contrarian view. The story reeks of the intrigue one would expect from those seeking political office. But scientists?? If even a fraction of the e-mails have been correctly interpreted, it casts a stain on the entire field of climate research. I'm inclined to believe there has been a breach of scientific ethics. I recall about a year or two ago, a fellow had a website where he had analyzed the thousand-plus global surface temperature monitoring stations, and found an overwhelming majority to be compromised by the stations' placement by non-solar heat sources.
A good scientist comes up with a hypothesis, experiments and collects data, and draws a conclusion based on the data. Inevitably, the data contains outliers, and the veracity of the conclusion depends on how well the scientist is able to explain and justify their existence. With the stations located near non-solar heat sources, such as air conditioner exhaust fans, asphalt, busy roads, etc., the scientist must account for the influence those sources have on the recording of surface temperatures. Of course, a better approach is not having to account for them all, but to ensure the strict conditions under which the surface temperature monitoring stations were originally set up are adhered to. A great scientist minimizes or eliminates those external influences that compromise his/her data.
That hasn't happened. Instead, some scientists have abandoned a search for truth: They draw their conclusions first, and work backwards, collecting the data which supports that conclusion. They dismiss the theories of those with contrary views, often making accusations that their opponents are motivated by financial gain from people or industries standing to gain or lose based on certain scientific "truths". Never is the accuser's motivations questioned, such as the obtaining of politically-motivated government grants.
The university has confirmed the validity of the e-mails and data. So now, we have evidence of people, whom are supposed to be conducting an unbiased search for the truth, are letting their bias influence the data. The data doesn't fit the conclusion? Toss it out. Someone has data that doesn't support your hypothesis? Belittle them, accuse them of being in someone's pocket. Do everything except integrating their data into your conclusions. People, if, as we've been told, the U.S. Constitution is a "living document" that changes with the times, why can't the conclusions be just as flexible. It would seem, in light of the revelations from this data and these e-mails, the science is far from settled.
UPDATE: Listening to Sean Hannity argue with a woman claiming to be a geologist who "has studied this for years." I'm still not clear on why a geologist would be studying the climate. Hannity tries to argue the facts, including some of those listed below:
She's correct: In human memory, the Artic Ocean has never been open to standard ocean-going vessels. In human memory. Well, let's see. How old is the planet? The geologist can probably answer that question: around 4 billions years old. How long have humans been on the planet? For simplicity's sake, let's just examine the history of homo sapiens. According to Wikipedia, they've been around for about 200,000 years, about five hundred-thousandths. To put it in perspective, if the earth was only a year old, homo sapiens would have been around for the past 26 minutes.
But let's look deeper: Sailing vessels date back to about 7000 years ago. Again, if the planet was only a year old, sailing vessels were invented 55 seconds ago. But discovery of the Artic Ocean dates back only to 325 BC (or, 18 seconds ago), and serious exploration limited to the 19th century. It was first navigated in 1896 (890 milliseconds ago), and has only been monitored since1937 (567 milliseconds ago).
The phrase "in human memory" doesn't seem so significant now, does it?
Something else that bugs me about the alarmists is their insistence on believing closed-system models in predicting the coming changes in the open-system known as Earth's troposphere.
OK, the ice is currently melting in the Artic circle. A question: Are the ice floes that are melting composed of freshwater or seawater? Because it makes a difference. As the salinity of the water rises and falls, it has an effect on ocean currents, and by extension, global surface temperatures. It also has an impact on the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide. Again, how can anyone say the science is settled?
A good scientist comes up with a hypothesis, experiments and collects data, and draws a conclusion based on the data. Inevitably, the data contains outliers, and the veracity of the conclusion depends on how well the scientist is able to explain and justify their existence. With the stations located near non-solar heat sources, such as air conditioner exhaust fans, asphalt, busy roads, etc., the scientist must account for the influence those sources have on the recording of surface temperatures. Of course, a better approach is not having to account for them all, but to ensure the strict conditions under which the surface temperature monitoring stations were originally set up are adhered to. A great scientist minimizes or eliminates those external influences that compromise his/her data.
That hasn't happened. Instead, some scientists have abandoned a search for truth: They draw their conclusions first, and work backwards, collecting the data which supports that conclusion. They dismiss the theories of those with contrary views, often making accusations that their opponents are motivated by financial gain from people or industries standing to gain or lose based on certain scientific "truths". Never is the accuser's motivations questioned, such as the obtaining of politically-motivated government grants.
The university has confirmed the validity of the e-mails and data. So now, we have evidence of people, whom are supposed to be conducting an unbiased search for the truth, are letting their bias influence the data. The data doesn't fit the conclusion? Toss it out. Someone has data that doesn't support your hypothesis? Belittle them, accuse them of being in someone's pocket. Do everything except integrating their data into your conclusions. People, if, as we've been told, the U.S. Constitution is a "living document" that changes with the times, why can't the conclusions be just as flexible. It would seem, in light of the revelations from this data and these e-mails, the science is far from settled.
UPDATE: Listening to Sean Hannity argue with a woman claiming to be a geologist who "has studied this for years." I'm still not clear on why a geologist would be studying the climate. Hannity tries to argue the facts, including some of those listed below:
- The current year is shaping up to be the coldest on record
- 1998 was the warmest year on record since modern record-keeping began
- Evidence exists to suggest the Medieval Warming Period experienced warmer temperatures than now
She's correct: In human memory, the Artic Ocean has never been open to standard ocean-going vessels. In human memory. Well, let's see. How old is the planet? The geologist can probably answer that question: around 4 billions years old. How long have humans been on the planet? For simplicity's sake, let's just examine the history of homo sapiens. According to Wikipedia, they've been around for about 200,000 years, about five hundred-thousandths. To put it in perspective, if the earth was only a year old, homo sapiens would have been around for the past 26 minutes.
But let's look deeper: Sailing vessels date back to about 7000 years ago. Again, if the planet was only a year old, sailing vessels were invented 55 seconds ago. But discovery of the Artic Ocean dates back only to 325 BC (or, 18 seconds ago), and serious exploration limited to the 19th century. It was first navigated in 1896 (890 milliseconds ago), and has only been monitored since1937 (567 milliseconds ago).
The phrase "in human memory" doesn't seem so significant now, does it?
Something else that bugs me about the alarmists is their insistence on believing closed-system models in predicting the coming changes in the open-system known as Earth's troposphere.
OK, the ice is currently melting in the Artic circle. A question: Are the ice floes that are melting composed of freshwater or seawater? Because it makes a difference. As the salinity of the water rises and falls, it has an effect on ocean currents, and by extension, global surface temperatures. It also has an impact on the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide. Again, how can anyone say the science is settled?
28 November 2009
Dodged a bullet back in '04.
Back in December of '04, my girlfriend Tawny and I visited my family in Orlando. While there, we stayed a couple of nights over in Kissimmee, within a short driving distance of Sea World. After checking in, a lady with a kiosk set up in the lobby of our motel told us of how we could get 5-day passes to Sea World at a discount rate if we attended a 90-minute presentation at Orange Lake Resort (OLR). Yes, it was a time-share scam. In retrospect, I now realize the lady at the kiosk was the prostitute, and OLR was the pimp. That may be an unfair characterization, as with a hooker and pimp, she's upfront with you about the fact that you're gonna get screwed.
Tawny talked me into agreeing to the whole deal, as she was confident that I could resist the sales tactics. And I did. But had the salespeople not backed down when they did, OLR might be infamous these days as far as spree killings go.
Our "vacation counselor" Tim could not keep the script straight as to whether it was his second or fourth day. He seemed harmless enough until we joined him in a large, spacious room that was a very well-disguised interrogation chamber. Then the arsenal of tactics was deployed. My armor went up, and as they tried to wear me down, my attention wandered to the other suckers/victims/"customers", many of apparently substantially less means than Tawny & I, being put through high-pressure sales tactics at other tables, my bemusement was replaced by anger. I became a New-York lock in the face of such tactics: The harder they pushed, the firmer I held. They brought in the sales manager, whose affectation for gaudy gold cuff-links, a watch, and at least one molar, made it hard for me to keep a straight face when looking at him. They left the table at least once, to give Tawny and myself time to discuss it amongst ourselves. I think her question was something like "Please tell me you're not going to fold." In reality, I think the salespeople were getting worried about the frequency of that pesky "no" word coming out of my mouth. When Tim returned to the table, he softened his approach, put his hand on my shoulder as if he was the stereotypical used-car salemen. I could just picture him saying "UltraC, what's it gonna take to put you in to this time-share?" A moment's glare from me told him his physical contact was unwanted. He continued his soft-pedal approach, even in the face of my saying "The decision is made. The answer is no." When he demonstrated a selective deafness, I'd had it. I stood angrily, in full view of the other suckers/victims/customers, going in one moment from "hard sell" to a disruption that did not escape the attention of the other suckers/victims/customers. After that, they couldn't get rid of us quick enough! After getting our discount passes to Sea World a full 2-1/2 hours after the adventure had started, Tawny and I walked through the parking lot back to our car. It was only then that I realized how angry I'd been, as my hands were shaking from adrenaline withdrawal.
Like I said, we dodged a bullet. Five years later, there is a plethora of websites devoted to complaints about OLR.
Like the old saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true...
Tawny talked me into agreeing to the whole deal, as she was confident that I could resist the sales tactics. And I did. But had the salespeople not backed down when they did, OLR might be infamous these days as far as spree killings go.
Our "vacation counselor" Tim could not keep the script straight as to whether it was his second or fourth day. He seemed harmless enough until we joined him in a large, spacious room that was a very well-disguised interrogation chamber. Then the arsenal of tactics was deployed. My armor went up, and as they tried to wear me down, my attention wandered to the other suckers/victims/"customers", many of apparently substantially less means than Tawny & I, being put through high-pressure sales tactics at other tables, my bemusement was replaced by anger. I became a New-York lock in the face of such tactics: The harder they pushed, the firmer I held. They brought in the sales manager, whose affectation for gaudy gold cuff-links, a watch, and at least one molar, made it hard for me to keep a straight face when looking at him. They left the table at least once, to give Tawny and myself time to discuss it amongst ourselves. I think her question was something like "Please tell me you're not going to fold." In reality, I think the salespeople were getting worried about the frequency of that pesky "no" word coming out of my mouth. When Tim returned to the table, he softened his approach, put his hand on my shoulder as if he was the stereotypical used-car salemen. I could just picture him saying "UltraC, what's it gonna take to put you in to this time-share?" A moment's glare from me told him his physical contact was unwanted. He continued his soft-pedal approach, even in the face of my saying "The decision is made. The answer is no." When he demonstrated a selective deafness, I'd had it. I stood angrily, in full view of the other suckers/victims/customers, going in one moment from "hard sell" to a disruption that did not escape the attention of the other suckers/victims/customers. After that, they couldn't get rid of us quick enough! After getting our discount passes to Sea World a full 2-1/2 hours after the adventure had started, Tawny and I walked through the parking lot back to our car. It was only then that I realized how angry I'd been, as my hands were shaking from adrenaline withdrawal.
Like I said, we dodged a bullet. Five years later, there is a plethora of websites devoted to complaints about OLR.
Like the old saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true...
25 November 2009
Stupid policies enforced by stupid people
So my girlfriend Tawny is looking to get high-speed internet connected at her apartment. Since she has a wealth of technical support resources in the forms of her father, brother Fernando, and myself, she wanted to save a few bucks and go the route of self-installation. And let's be realistic here: Any moron can hook up a cable modem! But no, because she doesn't have an existing cable TV hookup, she has to shell out an extra $60 for a tech to come out. There will be three possible outcomes from the visit:
While some might characterize this as "making it personal", I do not: I've resolved to reciprocate to Comcast's inflexibility on the "professional installation" fee: I will be discontinuing my cable TV service. Let's see, they get a one-time $60 fee out of my girlfriend, while I take $50/mo away from them. I will follow up with a complaint to Comcast corporate, the FCC, and/or public utilities commission. My father recently punished Verizon for piss-poor service in much the same manner.
UPDATE: My girlfriend has decided to tell Comcast what to do with their professional installation fee.
- The tech will not need to hook up the cable to the neighborhood box, but will need to perform the mental feat of connecting coaxial and ethernet cable to the back of the modem, authorizing the modem, and working on my girlfriend's personal computer, potentially violating her privacy.
- The tech will need to hook up the cable to the neighborhood box and hook up the cable modem, making the $60 charge equivalent to $10 work instead of $5.
- The tech will hook up the cable to the neighborhood box, and the modem. Once authorized, she will tell him his services are no longer required and complete the setup herself.
While some might characterize this as "making it personal", I do not: I've resolved to reciprocate to Comcast's inflexibility on the "professional installation" fee: I will be discontinuing my cable TV service. Let's see, they get a one-time $60 fee out of my girlfriend, while I take $50/mo away from them. I will follow up with a complaint to Comcast corporate, the FCC, and/or public utilities commission. My father recently punished Verizon for piss-poor service in much the same manner.
UPDATE: My girlfriend has decided to tell Comcast what to do with their professional installation fee.
17 November 2009
Is anyone else bothered by the historic parallels?
Recently, Sir Ian McKellen states how, upon finding the Holy Bible in a hotel room, he proceeds to deface it. He tears out those sections, such as Leviticus, that have some unflattering things to say about homosexuality.
Well, good for him. Way to demonstrate that tolerance that the gay movement expects-- no demands-- from people who think homosexuality is a sin.
My mother put it perfectly years ago: "I don't care what choice you make, but stop trying to convince me it's normal."
And that's just it. It is not normal. It is not normal sexual behavior. It's simple mathematics. Ninety percent of the country is straight, 10% is gay. So who cares!
Well, the gay movement does. See, it's not enough simply to be accepted, they also must be validated. By everybody! Talk about insecurity!
And if Sir McKellen wishes to rips the pages out of his own bibles, that's his right. But to deface hotel property? Well, I hope he leaves a deposit with them, so they can replace the Bible after his stay. You know, so the next occupant or occupants of the room can read those sections of Leviticus if they want to.
The article's author, Zennie62, says this:
As one who's straight and Christian, but one who believes in civil rights for all - in fact that it's even a conversation is really annoying to me - there are parts of the Bible I elect to skip, like that one. So Sir Ian McKellen's doing a favor for me by taking out a part of the hotel version Good Book I skip anyway.
Me-me-me! These are the same self-absorbed class of people who tell us if we don't want to look at pictures of scantily-clad men and women at the newstand, then don't look. And they're right! Don't look at those pictures if they offend you, and don't read those passages of the Bible if they offend you!
Well, good for him. Way to demonstrate that tolerance that the gay movement expects-- no demands-- from people who think homosexuality is a sin.
My mother put it perfectly years ago: "I don't care what choice you make, but stop trying to convince me it's normal."
And that's just it. It is not normal. It is not normal sexual behavior. It's simple mathematics. Ninety percent of the country is straight, 10% is gay. So who cares!
Well, the gay movement does. See, it's not enough simply to be accepted, they also must be validated. By everybody! Talk about insecurity!
And if Sir McKellen wishes to rips the pages out of his own bibles, that's his right. But to deface hotel property? Well, I hope he leaves a deposit with them, so they can replace the Bible after his stay. You know, so the next occupant or occupants of the room can read those sections of Leviticus if they want to.
The article's author, Zennie62, says this:
As one who's straight and Christian, but one who believes in civil rights for all - in fact that it's even a conversation is really annoying to me - there are parts of the Bible I elect to skip, like that one. So Sir Ian McKellen's doing a favor for me by taking out a part of the hotel version Good Book I skip anyway.
Me-me-me! These are the same self-absorbed class of people who tell us if we don't want to look at pictures of scantily-clad men and women at the newstand, then don't look. And they're right! Don't look at those pictures if they offend you, and don't read those passages of the Bible if they offend you!
Seriously, what's next? Legislation mandating such offensive passages are removed from the book prior to publishing? Destruction of the existing books?
Wait a minute, I think that's happened before:
Who to believe? Me or your lying eyes?
Liberals should sell logic pretzels at the State Fair. They could be sitting on a gold mine.
Yesterday, I observed vaunted liberal tolerance in action as ANSWER protesters smacked a couple of anti-amnesty Tea Party folks for the high crime of snapping pictures and taking video of the crowd. One presumes the Partiers were taking pictures of the signs carried by the ANSWER folks. So despicable, those Tea Partiers exercising their First Amendment rights to document the activities of rival protesters on public property.
Not exactly, according to several YouTube commenters who think the Huffington Post is an authoritative and unbiased source on the matter. What we can't see, according to the commenters, is how the Partiers were intruding on ANSWER's police-designated protest site.
Really, looked like a couple of guys taking some photos and/or video. Looked like some words were exchanged. Then looked like an ANSWER protester felt he wasn't getting his message across clearly through words and opted for a cruder approach.
A self-identified Southerner tries to excuse the outburst of violence, saying:
Well, I'm from the South too, and I'm a firm believer in the notion of the first guy to throw a punch is the one who loses the argument. Neither zenhammer or I know what was said between the Partier and ANSWER fellows. It's possible he could have mouthed off to the ANSWER folks to provoke them. Then again, it's equally possible that the ANSWER folks told the Partier to get lost, and he politely reminded them that he too has Constitutional rights. The point is we don't know. Even if we did, it's irrelevant! Did an entire generation age without hearing the adage "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"? Shameful if that's the case.
We'll use zenhammer's logic for a moment: Since, statistically speaking, a majority of gun-owners tend to be center-right, and name-calling and other forms of verbal abuse now justify violence, I predict a quiet street filled with the blood of ANSWER activists who mouthed off to the wrong Tea Partier. Every heated political dispute devolves into a modern-day recreation of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome: "Two go in, one comes out."
Thankfully, Kennedy and Khruschev, Nixon and Brezhnev, and Reagan and Gorbachev, to name a few, showed a little more restraint in the biggest conflict of ideologies so far, or that particular street corner in Fort Lauderdale might be a little more quiet today. Deathly quiet, in fact.
Roman senators brawled on the floor of the Roman Senate. I would hope we're a little more civilized.
Yesterday, I observed vaunted liberal tolerance in action as ANSWER protesters smacked a couple of anti-amnesty Tea Party folks for the high crime of snapping pictures and taking video of the crowd. One presumes the Partiers were taking pictures of the signs carried by the ANSWER folks. So despicable, those Tea Partiers exercising their First Amendment rights to document the activities of rival protesters on public property.
Not exactly, according to several YouTube commenters who think the Huffington Post is an authoritative and unbiased source on the matter. What we can't see, according to the commenters, is how the Partiers were intruding on ANSWER's police-designated protest site.
Really, looked like a couple of guys taking some photos and/or video. Looked like some words were exchanged. Then looked like an ANSWER protester felt he wasn't getting his message across clearly through words and opted for a cruder approach.
A self-identified Southerner tries to excuse the outburst of violence, saying:
zenhammer
Listen up Sport,
As a Southerner let me tell you that if you get in someone's face down here, you had better be ready to back your words up with action.
These guys ran their mouth and got a knuckle sandwich for their troubles. If these crying bed-wetters cann't handle it, then they should have stayed on their side of the street.
As a Southerner let me tell you that if you get in someone's face down here, you had better be ready to back your words up with action.
These guys ran their mouth and got a knuckle sandwich for their troubles. If these crying bed-wetters cann't handle it, then they should have stayed on their side of the street.
Well, I'm from the South too, and I'm a firm believer in the notion of the first guy to throw a punch is the one who loses the argument. Neither zenhammer or I know what was said between the Partier and ANSWER fellows. It's possible he could have mouthed off to the ANSWER folks to provoke them. Then again, it's equally possible that the ANSWER folks told the Partier to get lost, and he politely reminded them that he too has Constitutional rights. The point is we don't know. Even if we did, it's irrelevant! Did an entire generation age without hearing the adage "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"? Shameful if that's the case.
We'll use zenhammer's logic for a moment: Since, statistically speaking, a majority of gun-owners tend to be center-right, and name-calling and other forms of verbal abuse now justify violence, I predict a quiet street filled with the blood of ANSWER activists who mouthed off to the wrong Tea Partier. Every heated political dispute devolves into a modern-day recreation of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome: "Two go in, one comes out."
Thankfully, Kennedy and Khruschev, Nixon and Brezhnev, and Reagan and Gorbachev, to name a few, showed a little more restraint in the biggest conflict of ideologies so far, or that particular street corner in Fort Lauderdale might be a little more quiet today. Deathly quiet, in fact.
Roman senators brawled on the floor of the Roman Senate. I would hope we're a little more civilized.
16 November 2009
Tolerance
Some liberals just don't like criticism.
Two examples:
Tea Parties Against Amnesty & Illegal Immigration shows two anti-amnesty folks attacked for the crime of documenting the pro-amnesty protest.
Some words are exchanged, and the pro-amnesty folks starting swinging their signs as weapons. The conflict spills onto a busy street. It stops as soon as police and fire sirens are heard. End result? "Racists go home" is the chant by the smug ANSWER folks as the anti-amnesty people walk away. Yes, friends, ANSWER has elevated the discourse to name-calling.
Second was when I posted a video to Facebook, a montage of how other world leaders greeted Emperor Akihito with a handshake while Mr. Obama bows deeply. A couple of liberals and former colleagues of mine let loose with the snark. The names have been redacted to protect the idiots:
Did you see what happened there? First off, commenter #1 tried to frame the context in which I had posted the video, as though I was some sort of anti-Obama birther nut. I'll say this plainly: Truthers and birthers both have screws loose. Commenter #1, whom I've known for years, tried to draw attention away from the fact that a sitting president of the United States had bowed before another foreign dignitary, and refocus on my motives for posting the video. When faced with inconvenient facts, devoted lefties will attack the messenger. By casting me as a nut, he hopes to minimize the damage by getting people to ignore my voice and what I have to say. I deflect the attempt by writing off the incident as nothing sinister, just another example of a foreign policy neophyte stumbling his way through on-the-job training and apparently not listening to the advice of his advisors. Well, I hope his advisors told him not to bow. Otherwise, nobody in his administration is competent.
Commenter #2 follows up with a predictable alternative strategy: Minimize it in terms of what George W. Bush did in office. At this point, it's been ten months, and that's all the left can do when the right points out an Obama foible: Compare it to Bush. It assumes that the criticism would not exist if Bush had been the one bowing. Classic hit-and-run tactic, intended to take focus off Obama and onto my defense of Bush. I won't bite. I don't need to defend Bush because he's not in office any longer. However, by recognizing the tactic and identifying it, I've kept commenter #2 from distracting from the criticism. Pointing out the clear disparity between my grievance and his is a way to return the serve. Lathering my response in sarcasm is just icing on the cake.
This is what happens when the Left enters into the argument with preconceived notions as to how the Right formulates its arguments. Some common tactics are:
In the past, I've debated a few lefties with inferiority complexes. They mask their own insecurities by bragging excessively about how much more money they make than you, or how much smarter they are. Such people can only maintain the illusion of having a superior logical argument for a short while before their insecurities get the best of them. The more you refute their logic, the more frequently their derision will seep through, and the cruder their attacks will become. Many of them seem to exhibit this belief that conservatives are just a bunch of racist redneck high-school dropouts who can't spell or reason through their political beliefs. That's fine, let them underestimate us. And be sure to point out all of their spelling and grammar mistakes when they take that track.
Two examples:
Tea Parties Against Amnesty & Illegal Immigration shows two anti-amnesty folks attacked for the crime of documenting the pro-amnesty protest.
Some words are exchanged, and the pro-amnesty folks starting swinging their signs as weapons. The conflict spills onto a busy street. It stops as soon as police and fire sirens are heard. End result? "Racists go home" is the chant by the smug ANSWER folks as the anti-amnesty people walk away. Yes, friends, ANSWER has elevated the discourse to name-calling.
Second was when I posted a video to Facebook, a montage of how other world leaders greeted Emperor Akihito with a handshake while Mr. Obama bows deeply. A couple of liberals and former colleagues of mine let loose with the snark. The names have been redacted to protect the idiots:
Did you see what happened there? First off, commenter #1 tried to frame the context in which I had posted the video, as though I was some sort of anti-Obama birther nut. I'll say this plainly: Truthers and birthers both have screws loose. Commenter #1, whom I've known for years, tried to draw attention away from the fact that a sitting president of the United States had bowed before another foreign dignitary, and refocus on my motives for posting the video. When faced with inconvenient facts, devoted lefties will attack the messenger. By casting me as a nut, he hopes to minimize the damage by getting people to ignore my voice and what I have to say. I deflect the attempt by writing off the incident as nothing sinister, just another example of a foreign policy neophyte stumbling his way through on-the-job training and apparently not listening to the advice of his advisors. Well, I hope his advisors told him not to bow. Otherwise, nobody in his administration is competent.
Commenter #2 follows up with a predictable alternative strategy: Minimize it in terms of what George W. Bush did in office. At this point, it's been ten months, and that's all the left can do when the right points out an Obama foible: Compare it to Bush. It assumes that the criticism would not exist if Bush had been the one bowing. Classic hit-and-run tactic, intended to take focus off Obama and onto my defense of Bush. I won't bite. I don't need to defend Bush because he's not in office any longer. However, by recognizing the tactic and identifying it, I've kept commenter #2 from distracting from the criticism. Pointing out the clear disparity between my grievance and his is a way to return the serve. Lathering my response in sarcasm is just icing on the cake.
This is what happens when the Left enters into the argument with preconceived notions as to how the Right formulates its arguments. Some common tactics are:
- Attack: Claim the opponent is just parroting what they heard on Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, etc. Accuse him/her of not thinking for his or her self.
- Defense: "Oh, Limbaugh said that too? I didn't know that. Sounds like he's pretty smart."
- Attack: Impugn the opponent's humanity. Mis-characterize or over-simplify the opponent's position as part of the question, like "Why are you so against people having access to affordable health care?"
- Defense: "Who said I was? I mean, besides you, right now?"
- Attack: Lament that things are the way they are through mistakes made by your opponent's party. "This is where eight years of failed economic policies have gotten us."
- Defense: Stick to your principles. "You're absolutely right. We should stop interfering with the free market."
- Attack: Expose the hypocrisy of your opponent. "If you support the war, then you should enlist and head overseas."
- Defense: Point out the absurdity of the comment. "And if you support abortion, you should work in a Planned Parenthood clinic."
- Attack: Diminish your opponent through name-calling. Try to communicate exasperation and that having a rational debate is impossible because of your opponent's partisanship. "Great, another right-wing zombie! Why do I bother?"
- Defense: Communicate that you're exasperated because of the name-calling. "I was just thinking the same thing. You're clearly more interested in name-calling than rational debate. When you feel like acting like a grown-up, I'll be here."
In the past, I've debated a few lefties with inferiority complexes. They mask their own insecurities by bragging excessively about how much more money they make than you, or how much smarter they are. Such people can only maintain the illusion of having a superior logical argument for a short while before their insecurities get the best of them. The more you refute their logic, the more frequently their derision will seep through, and the cruder their attacks will become. Many of them seem to exhibit this belief that conservatives are just a bunch of racist redneck high-school dropouts who can't spell or reason through their political beliefs. That's fine, let them underestimate us. And be sure to point out all of their spelling and grammar mistakes when they take that track.
It's all in how you word it...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/15/michele-bachmann-president-sarah-palin
Bachmann, at 53, is a darling of the so-called Tea Party movement, which has campaigned vociferously against healthcare reform, the economic stimulus package and legislation to combat climate change. Her followers have been behind mass rallies in Washington and smaller ones all over the country. She has emerged as one of the most visible politicians in America, frequently appearing on the conservative Fox News channel, whose hosts often champion her causes.
The Guardian has a long and proud tradition of being the Pravda of the UK, and this propaganda piece is no exception. The Tea Party movement campaigned against healthcare reform? That's subjective. If the Guardian's reporters and columnists were up on their journalistic standards, they would avoid editorializing the facts. Proponents of the "public option" or "single-payer" would characterize the Tea Partiers as being against "reform", but the Partiers would describe it instead as taking a stand against partial or total nationalization of an industry contributing to about one-sixth of the nation's economy. And economic stimulus package? That's what the Bush and Obama administrations have called it, but there are a great many people who see it as reckless spending and attempts to prop up businesses that are "too big to fail." And this columnist, Paul Harris, shows his bias again by seeing the Tea Partiers as opposing "legislation to combat climate change" without acknowledging that:
"Conservative Fox News channel"? Talk about painting with a broad brush! Once again, lefties see the bias in FNC, but not in ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, etc. And is it the channel that's conservative, or is it hosts, specifically the hosts anchoring the news desk? Because opinion programming is by it's very nature biased, and I will allow that FNC has Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'reilly, to name a few conservative/populist news analysts. But they also have Greta Van Sustern, Shepard Smith, and Geraldo Rivera. They have a diversity of opinions. With the departure of Lou Dobbs, CNN has lost its last host with conservative leanings. Anderson Cooper? Wolf Blitzer? Jack Cafferty? MSNBC's line-up is even more skewed, with news anchors such as Contessa Brewer. News analysts? MSNBC's stars are Keith "I went to the agricultural school at Cornell, so technically I'm an Ivy League graduate" Olbermann and Rachel "The Constitution doesn't have a Preamble" Maddow. Conservative opinion? Occasionally from Joe Scarborough.
The reality is that FNC does much better in the cable TV ratings, not just because of the star power of O'reilly, Hannity, and Beck, but because of the diversity of viewpoints. Hannity's "Great American Panels" have a diverse, balanced ideological make-up. O'reilly continually has Al Sharpton and Juan Williams as guests on his show. Here are the results from a recent poll:
The generalizations collapse in the face of simple arithmetic.
Bachmann, at 53, is a darling of the so-called Tea Party movement, which has campaigned vociferously against healthcare reform, the economic stimulus package and legislation to combat climate change. Her followers have been behind mass rallies in Washington and smaller ones all over the country. She has emerged as one of the most visible politicians in America, frequently appearing on the conservative Fox News channel, whose hosts often champion her causes.
The Guardian has a long and proud tradition of being the Pravda of the UK, and this propaganda piece is no exception. The Tea Party movement campaigned against healthcare reform? That's subjective. If the Guardian's reporters and columnists were up on their journalistic standards, they would avoid editorializing the facts. Proponents of the "public option" or "single-payer" would characterize the Tea Partiers as being against "reform", but the Partiers would describe it instead as taking a stand against partial or total nationalization of an industry contributing to about one-sixth of the nation's economy. And economic stimulus package? That's what the Bush and Obama administrations have called it, but there are a great many people who see it as reckless spending and attempts to prop up businesses that are "too big to fail." And this columnist, Paul Harris, shows his bias again by seeing the Tea Partiers as opposing "legislation to combat climate change" without acknowledging that:
- The science on anthroprogenic climate change (previously called "Global Warming" until surface temperatures just wouldn't cooperate) is not settled.
- Cap and trade legislation seeks to impose heavy fines on industries the government deems to be "polluting" the planet with carbon dioxide.
- The Kyoto treaty has been an utter failure, seeking to regulate the emissions of western industrialized nations while giving the rapidly-growing industries of the Chinese and Indian governments a pass. Never mind that all of the nations that signed Kyoto have failed to meet their reduction targets.
"Conservative Fox News channel"? Talk about painting with a broad brush! Once again, lefties see the bias in FNC, but not in ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, etc. And is it the channel that's conservative, or is it hosts, specifically the hosts anchoring the news desk? Because opinion programming is by it's very nature biased, and I will allow that FNC has Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'reilly, to name a few conservative/populist news analysts. But they also have Greta Van Sustern, Shepard Smith, and Geraldo Rivera. They have a diversity of opinions. With the departure of Lou Dobbs, CNN has lost its last host with conservative leanings. Anderson Cooper? Wolf Blitzer? Jack Cafferty? MSNBC's line-up is even more skewed, with news anchors such as Contessa Brewer. News analysts? MSNBC's stars are Keith "I went to the agricultural school at Cornell, so technically I'm an Ivy League graduate" Olbermann and Rachel "The Constitution doesn't have a Preamble" Maddow. Conservative opinion? Occasionally from Joe Scarborough.
The reality is that FNC does much better in the cable TV ratings, not just because of the star power of O'reilly, Hannity, and Beck, but because of the diversity of viewpoints. Hannity's "Great American Panels" have a diverse, balanced ideological make-up. O'reilly continually has Al Sharpton and Juan Williams as guests on his show. Here are the results from a recent poll:
- 40% conservative
- 35% moderate
- 21% liberal
- 36% Democratic
- 28% Republican
- 37% Independent
The generalizations collapse in the face of simple arithmetic.
15 November 2009
Family secrets...
No, not mine. My girlfriend's brother, whom I've previously named Fernando, has tied the knot. He and his new bride were married by a Justice of the Peace inside the same building where his sister works as a law clerk. As his sister's loyal boyfriend, I apprised her of this tidbit of information. She contacted her mother, only to find out that, unlike when news of the engagement was made on Facebook, the mother already knew, but didn't say anything because she wanted Fernando to have the honor of making the announcement to my girlfriend, whom I'll call Tawny for simplicity's sake. So Tawny is the last to find out. Fernando's new wife, whom I'll name Shayla, is a nice girl whom, according to Facebook, has declared a mixture of "atheism" and "misanthropism" as her religion. It's no wonder these two formed a permanent hookup.
By contrast, my family is much better at keeping secrets. For the first dozen years of my life, I never could figure out why my sisters called our father "Bob" instead of "Dad". I just assumed it was something that older children were allowed to do. Then my dad explained to me that he was only my dad, and that he was their step-dad. Over the years, little tidbits of information have eeked out that have completed the picture. While in college, my godmother filled in me in on some of it. I was saddened to hear that she died this year. I was maddened to hear that it happened in June, and my parents & I found out about it with Google in October. Some members of her family are apparently good at keeping secrets too.
By contrast, my family is much better at keeping secrets. For the first dozen years of my life, I never could figure out why my sisters called our father "Bob" instead of "Dad". I just assumed it was something that older children were allowed to do. Then my dad explained to me that he was only my dad, and that he was their step-dad. Over the years, little tidbits of information have eeked out that have completed the picture. While in college, my godmother filled in me in on some of it. I was saddened to hear that she died this year. I was maddened to hear that it happened in June, and my parents & I found out about it with Google in October. Some members of her family are apparently good at keeping secrets too.
12 November 2009
Lou Dobbs
It's a shame that Lou Dobbs is leaving CNN. I think his reputation was keeping CNN's ratings from going completely into the gutter. Over the past year, he's become vocal regarding illegal immigration, making an enemy out of "organizations" (since they advocate for violating immigration law, I think the proper term should be "criminal enterprises") such as La Raza. The New York Times, the much-vaunted "newspaper of record", characterized his views in the opening paragraphs as "anti-immigration." Dammit, it's anti-illegal-immigration. How hard is it to get that right? And while we're on the subject, why the hell are there pro- and anti- sides to a lawbreaking exercise?
A quick glance over the comments explains why the Times' stock is in the crapper: The people writing the comments made their minds up over Dobbs without bothering to inform themselves. I saw the word xenophobe more than once.
OK, you nitwits, I'll explain it to you one more time: It's not about xenophobia. It's not about racism. I don't get a shit if a person is brown, black, or purple, but if they're working in this country illegally, that irritates me. I would be just as irritated if a bunch of Canadians were hanging out by the area Home Depot parking lots, waiting for a unscrupulous, lazy, cheap bastard to come along and offer them sub-minimum wage work for the day. It perpetuates the economic exploitation of a class of people. Gee, that hasn't happened before in this country, has it? I think they called it "slavery." That class of individuals have subsequently discovered they can get state-sponsored handouts if they agree to vote for specific individuals, trading physical slavery for economic dependence, but that's a topic for another discussion.
This is a message to the citizens of the Republic of Mexico from the citizens of the United States of America. Fix your country. Eliminate or minimize the corruption in your government. Revolt if you have to, to effect some change.
Second message is the to the government of the Republic of Mexico: Clean yourselves up. Stop solving your economic problems by relocating them to our country.
Third message is to the citizens of this country whom have decided to foster lawbreaking by exploiting day-laborers: Cut your own damn lawn. Do your own gardening, you cheap bastards. It is possible. I have worked 50-60 work weeks and still found time to get out and run the lawn mower over my little piece of heaven. So can you. Yes, you sacrifice leisure time. Get used to it.
One need look at the Roman Empire or pre-1860s Southern U.S. to clue us into where we're heading fast. Both used slaves extensively. Guess what? Jobs were scarce because slaves were cheaper than paying someone a fair wage.
Unemployment is now at 10.2% and could go higher. There are few or no unskilled labor jobs available for the displaced workforce because of rampant illegal immigration. When times are tough, it's even more criminal to favor non-citizens over citizens for employment.
There's also the crime and committed by, and government benefits given to, illegal immigrants, but that's a topic for another time.
A quick glance over the comments explains why the Times' stock is in the crapper: The people writing the comments made their minds up over Dobbs without bothering to inform themselves. I saw the word xenophobe more than once.
OK, you nitwits, I'll explain it to you one more time: It's not about xenophobia. It's not about racism. I don't get a shit if a person is brown, black, or purple, but if they're working in this country illegally, that irritates me. I would be just as irritated if a bunch of Canadians were hanging out by the area Home Depot parking lots, waiting for a unscrupulous, lazy, cheap bastard to come along and offer them sub-minimum wage work for the day. It perpetuates the economic exploitation of a class of people. Gee, that hasn't happened before in this country, has it? I think they called it "slavery." That class of individuals have subsequently discovered they can get state-sponsored handouts if they agree to vote for specific individuals, trading physical slavery for economic dependence, but that's a topic for another discussion.
This is a message to the citizens of the Republic of Mexico from the citizens of the United States of America. Fix your country. Eliminate or minimize the corruption in your government. Revolt if you have to, to effect some change.
Second message is the to the government of the Republic of Mexico: Clean yourselves up. Stop solving your economic problems by relocating them to our country.
Third message is to the citizens of this country whom have decided to foster lawbreaking by exploiting day-laborers: Cut your own damn lawn. Do your own gardening, you cheap bastards. It is possible. I have worked 50-60 work weeks and still found time to get out and run the lawn mower over my little piece of heaven. So can you. Yes, you sacrifice leisure time. Get used to it.
One need look at the Roman Empire or pre-1860s Southern U.S. to clue us into where we're heading fast. Both used slaves extensively. Guess what? Jobs were scarce because slaves were cheaper than paying someone a fair wage.
Unemployment is now at 10.2% and could go higher. There are few or no unskilled labor jobs available for the displaced workforce because of rampant illegal immigration. When times are tough, it's even more criminal to favor non-citizens over citizens for employment.
There's also the crime and committed by, and government benefits given to, illegal immigrants, but that's a topic for another time.
It ain't over yet
Newsflash to all the media types and liberals who wished otherwise: Conservatism is not dead. In fact, smarter politicians know that conservatism, specifically economic conservatism, is the key to victory. By moving to the right during a recession, by running on a platform of the sound fiscal policies of reduced spending, lower taxes, and less regulation, right-leaning politicos can stand out from the disastrous and undisciplined spending of the Obama administration. And libertarians can hold their nose while pulling the lever for economically conservative politicos whom might also be running on a socially conservative platform.
03 October 2009
Inane liberal sayings
Most if not all conservatives have encountered stupid liberal protesters. You know the ones I'm talking about: The ones whose signs or slogans make no sense. Below is a list of them, starting with my all-time favorite "WTF?" slogan:
- "Speaking truth to power": This has got to be the most overused and least understood saying. Serious, what the fuck does that mean? First off, the "truth" these nitwits engage is often highly subjective, what more informed people would call "theories" or "opinions". But then again, that's what passes for logic from your average emotionally-unbalanced lefty. Take the 9/11 "Truthers": Other skyscrapers have aircraft crash into them, other skyscrapers have sustained large fires, so why didn't those skyscrapers collapse? It must have been a controlled demolition! Never mind the unusual structural configuration of the towers that emphasized the use of the towers' walls to hold the building together. Never mind that while fires in the building may have not reached the melting point of steel, they were hot enough to cause it to lose more than half of it's tensile strength.
- "Illegal war": I hear this in reference to the war in Iraq. Excuse me, what makes that war "illegal"? Didn't Congress vote to authorize the use of military force to compel Saddam Hussein to comply with UN resolutions? Didn't every intelligence agency in the world suspect Hussein's regime of developing Weapons of Mass Destruction?
- "Bush lied, people died": Really? Can you prove that charge? Can you prove that George W. Bush alone knew for a fact something that nobody else besides Saddam Hussein knew for a fact? What kind of stuff are we teaching in schools these days when a president makes a statement which only later turns out to factually unsupportable, yet it is deemed as a "lie" instead of a statement based on faulty intelligence. I say "factually unsupportable" instead of "factually incorrect" because of a simple little issue that has yet to be resolved to my satisfaction: What was in all those trucks that crossed the Iraqi border into Syria prior to the start of the invasion? What came of the rumors that WMDs were buried in the vast stretches of desert in the country?
25 September 2009
Nuclear weapons-- Peace through strength
It must be nice living in the fantasy world that Obama lives in: His push for eliminating nuclear weapons is a good idea in theory, but it won't work too well in practice.
Obama is suffering from the same delusion as some of the scientists on the Manhattan Project did around the time the Trinity test occurred: He's thinking we can put the genie back in the bottle. We can't.
The notion that we can reduce our stockpile to "hundreds" instead of "thousands" neglects a scientific reality of nuclear weapons: Time. The circuits aboard the missile, ranging from navigation to detonation, are subject to the ravages of time. Given enough time, the nuclear material in the warhead can decay to the point where it is no longer sufficient to produce the critical mass necessary for a nuclear explosion. That's why major national powers have stockpiles in the thousands: Some weapons, especially older ones, may not detonate or only detonate as a non-nuclear explosion.
The other consideration is versatility. One commenter on DU said we could have something like 10 warheads to defend ourselves. No, not realistically. Weapon yields vary, depending on whether the weapon is a tactical nuke (intended for battlefield deployment) or a strategic nuke (intended to cause mass destruction and eliminate the enemy's ability and/or will to wage war).
Consider the following scenario: A rogue state has placed short-range nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons aboard a ship. When the ship approaches the coast of an American city, it intends to launch. Intelligence learns of the plot right before the ship comes into weapons range. A nuclear cruise missile could destroy the target with little or no warning, not giving the ship a chance to launch its payload while at the same time vaporizing that same payload. A strategic weapon would gross overkill in such a situation, vaporizing not only the ship, but large quantities of seawater. The radiation would also have a more profoundly damaging effect to the local ecosystem than a smaller tactical nuke. Finally, strategic weapons are often carried by ICBMs or large bombers, increasing the time the rogue ship would have to launch its payload before destruction.
On the other hand, the same rogue state has built 10 strategic nukes to counter our 10 tactical. During an exchange, their weapons level our cities, while ours level only a few blocks.
The threat of Mutually Assured Destruction kept the Cold War from boiling over. Both sides stood to lose too much in a conflict. The guarantee of at best a Pyrrhic victory, at worst the extermination of the human race. When dealing with emerging and aspiring nuclear powers today, however, MAD doesn't fit: Religious fanatics are as a rule prepared to die for their beliefs, and when those beliefs include the destruction of Israel, the deaths of thousands if not millions of Americans, and the ultimate goal of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, the possession by those powers of nuclear weapons becomes a frightening prospect.
Mr. Obama has shown time and again he has little or no business acumen. We first saw with the way his administration took over GM and sought to contradict free-market principles and tell people what kind of car they wanted to drive. Now, we are seeing it with the way Obama tries to pursue a noble and honorable goal in the midst of dishonorable people. In any negotiation, the goal is to get as much from your adversary as possible while giving up as little as possible. What is Iran giving up? What has North Korea given up? We gave them light water reactors for a nuclear power program in exchange for them promising not to pursue nuclear weapons. Instead, history will remember Madeline Albright as someone who foolishly followed in Neville Chamberlain's footsteps. All indications are that, with regards to nations such as Iran, Obama is ready to follow Albright in the hollow pursuits of appeasement.
Obama is suffering from the same delusion as some of the scientists on the Manhattan Project did around the time the Trinity test occurred: He's thinking we can put the genie back in the bottle. We can't.
The notion that we can reduce our stockpile to "hundreds" instead of "thousands" neglects a scientific reality of nuclear weapons: Time. The circuits aboard the missile, ranging from navigation to detonation, are subject to the ravages of time. Given enough time, the nuclear material in the warhead can decay to the point where it is no longer sufficient to produce the critical mass necessary for a nuclear explosion. That's why major national powers have stockpiles in the thousands: Some weapons, especially older ones, may not detonate or only detonate as a non-nuclear explosion.
The other consideration is versatility. One commenter on DU said we could have something like 10 warheads to defend ourselves. No, not realistically. Weapon yields vary, depending on whether the weapon is a tactical nuke (intended for battlefield deployment) or a strategic nuke (intended to cause mass destruction and eliminate the enemy's ability and/or will to wage war).
Consider the following scenario: A rogue state has placed short-range nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons aboard a ship. When the ship approaches the coast of an American city, it intends to launch. Intelligence learns of the plot right before the ship comes into weapons range. A nuclear cruise missile could destroy the target with little or no warning, not giving the ship a chance to launch its payload while at the same time vaporizing that same payload. A strategic weapon would gross overkill in such a situation, vaporizing not only the ship, but large quantities of seawater. The radiation would also have a more profoundly damaging effect to the local ecosystem than a smaller tactical nuke. Finally, strategic weapons are often carried by ICBMs or large bombers, increasing the time the rogue ship would have to launch its payload before destruction.
On the other hand, the same rogue state has built 10 strategic nukes to counter our 10 tactical. During an exchange, their weapons level our cities, while ours level only a few blocks.
The threat of Mutually Assured Destruction kept the Cold War from boiling over. Both sides stood to lose too much in a conflict. The guarantee of at best a Pyrrhic victory, at worst the extermination of the human race. When dealing with emerging and aspiring nuclear powers today, however, MAD doesn't fit: Religious fanatics are as a rule prepared to die for their beliefs, and when those beliefs include the destruction of Israel, the deaths of thousands if not millions of Americans, and the ultimate goal of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, the possession by those powers of nuclear weapons becomes a frightening prospect.
Mr. Obama has shown time and again he has little or no business acumen. We first saw with the way his administration took over GM and sought to contradict free-market principles and tell people what kind of car they wanted to drive. Now, we are seeing it with the way Obama tries to pursue a noble and honorable goal in the midst of dishonorable people. In any negotiation, the goal is to get as much from your adversary as possible while giving up as little as possible. What is Iran giving up? What has North Korea given up? We gave them light water reactors for a nuclear power program in exchange for them promising not to pursue nuclear weapons. Instead, history will remember Madeline Albright as someone who foolishly followed in Neville Chamberlain's footsteps. All indications are that, with regards to nations such as Iran, Obama is ready to follow Albright in the hollow pursuits of appeasement.
21 September 2009
Finding out through Facebook...
My girlfriend's brother got engaged recently. Not a big deal, people get engaged all the time. People get married all the time. But how often is the would-be groom's sister's boyfriend among the first to find out? Through Facebook?
On one hand, it's not like I've just met my girlfriend's family. My girlfriend's mother jokes about me being her favorite son-in-law, much to my girlfriend's chagrin. But I would've figured my Facebook friend would've told his sister first before announcing it to his Facebook friends.
My Facebook friend, whom I'll call "Fernando" and thank him for the music (I'll admit, I'm a straight male who likes to listen to Abba, I counter it with Rob Zombie, so please don't question my manhood), has been married once before. Like approximately 50% of the population, he decided he was married to a psychopath. Like a smaller percentage of those 50%, he was correct in that assessment, as I'm inclined to agree that a woman who piles her ex-husband's clothes in the middle of the living room and sets fire to the pile may indeed have a couple of screws loose. She subsequently had a child, and everyone on the Fernando's side of the family breathed a sigh of relief when the counting backwards yielded a larger amount of time since the divorce papers were finalized than since the little rug rat was conceived.
Now, it seems, Fernando has decided to marry his current domestic partner, a woman with a kid by another man. Nothing wrong with that, I wish them all the happiness. But I doubt happiness is a long-term reality for them. Fernando sometimes has a short attention span. I think he wants to experience the normalcy of family life while remaining a non-conformist. I think once the charm has worn off on taking care of a miniature human being, Fernando's sister will find herself drawing up divorce papers again.
In the past, I've apologized to my girlfriend for being relatively boring, but I think she knows I"m not being sincere.
On one hand, it's not like I've just met my girlfriend's family. My girlfriend's mother jokes about me being her favorite son-in-law, much to my girlfriend's chagrin. But I would've figured my Facebook friend would've told his sister first before announcing it to his Facebook friends.
My Facebook friend, whom I'll call "Fernando" and thank him for the music (I'll admit, I'm a straight male who likes to listen to Abba, I counter it with Rob Zombie, so please don't question my manhood), has been married once before. Like approximately 50% of the population, he decided he was married to a psychopath. Like a smaller percentage of those 50%, he was correct in that assessment, as I'm inclined to agree that a woman who piles her ex-husband's clothes in the middle of the living room and sets fire to the pile may indeed have a couple of screws loose. She subsequently had a child, and everyone on the Fernando's side of the family breathed a sigh of relief when the counting backwards yielded a larger amount of time since the divorce papers were finalized than since the little rug rat was conceived.
Now, it seems, Fernando has decided to marry his current domestic partner, a woman with a kid by another man. Nothing wrong with that, I wish them all the happiness. But I doubt happiness is a long-term reality for them. Fernando sometimes has a short attention span. I think he wants to experience the normalcy of family life while remaining a non-conformist. I think once the charm has worn off on taking care of a miniature human being, Fernando's sister will find herself drawing up divorce papers again.
In the past, I've apologized to my girlfriend for being relatively boring, but I think she knows I"m not being sincere.
Hypermilers: Friends of Gaia, enemies of other motorists
So while sitting at a stoplight this evening, I observed a man sitting on his motorcycle turn the engine off. I recognized what he was doing, for I do it every time I wait for a train crossing, and last year, I tried it a couple of times waiting for stoplights myself: He was hypermiling. When I tried it in my old 15-year-old sport coupe, the results were not ideal: I became the object of irritation to other motorists stuck behind me who ended up having to sit through another light while I furiously tried to get the engine on my car to start again! A train crossing is one thing: Usually you can see the end of the train. If not, you can see the brake lights of the car at the front of the line as its driver sees the end of the train coming and restarts the engine. You have time, you're not under pressure to get that bad boy to fire again. Not so with a stoplight. You might see the cross traffic light go yellow, but that's about it as far as warnings go.
So what happened this evening was predictable: The green left-turn light illuminated for its brief performance, and the hypermiler in front of me is trying to kick-start his chopper. Thanks to the delay, I barely made it into the intersection with a yellow left arrow. I'm pretty sure the guy two cars behind me ran a red light. As for the lover of Gaia? Well, he celebrated his conscientiousness by kicking in the burn and putting at least a quarter-mile of distance between us. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
It got me to thinking, which is probably why the government has got me on a watch list: How many gallons of fuel are being wasted by motorists stuck waiting for another light because they were stuck behind the hypermilers' whose engine may not start on the first try?
So what happened this evening was predictable: The green left-turn light illuminated for its brief performance, and the hypermiler in front of me is trying to kick-start his chopper. Thanks to the delay, I barely made it into the intersection with a yellow left arrow. I'm pretty sure the guy two cars behind me ran a red light. As for the lover of Gaia? Well, he celebrated his conscientiousness by kicking in the burn and putting at least a quarter-mile of distance between us. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
It got me to thinking, which is probably why the government has got me on a watch list: How many gallons of fuel are being wasted by motorists stuck waiting for another light because they were stuck behind the hypermilers' whose engine may not start on the first try?
19 September 2009
Passing the buck...
So I saw a former subordinate of mine today. He's looking for a reference, as well as a recommendation.
Now he asked my former boss' boss, and he asked my former boss. Now he's asking me. My predecessors passed the buck on this guy because of less-than-stellar job performance. Now I'm faced with a decision: Agree to be a reference and paint a glowing portrait of the guy, or agree to be a reference and be tough on him. I would hate to burn a potential networking contact for the future, but I feel it would be irresponsible of me to simply pass a problem off to another employer. Were it not for the layoff, he'd have been reassigned or let go.
So I think I'll do the only thing I can do: Give an honest assessment of my former subordinate's skills and abilities. I won't trash him, but I can't sing his praises either.
I only hope my own references are as fair to me.
Now he asked my former boss' boss, and he asked my former boss. Now he's asking me. My predecessors passed the buck on this guy because of less-than-stellar job performance. Now I'm faced with a decision: Agree to be a reference and paint a glowing portrait of the guy, or agree to be a reference and be tough on him. I would hate to burn a potential networking contact for the future, but I feel it would be irresponsible of me to simply pass a problem off to another employer. Were it not for the layoff, he'd have been reassigned or let go.
So I think I'll do the only thing I can do: Give an honest assessment of my former subordinate's skills and abilities. I won't trash him, but I can't sing his praises either.
I only hope my own references are as fair to me.
17 September 2009
In one motion.
"Insert and remove your card in one motion."
You ever notice that instruction on gas pumps, the automated Post Office machine, and similar credit/debit card readers? How the hell does one accomplish this feat? You slide it into the reader, and then you slide it out. That's two motions-- Two very good motions, she'll tell you if you know what you're doing. But I digress.
It's like the asinine question everyone gets asked at the airport: "Has anyone put anything into your bags without your knowledge?" If they did without my knowledge, THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU ASKING ME? I WOULDN'T KNOW! All that needs to change with that standard question is to replace "Has" with "Could". I'm pretty sure the screener is trying to ascertain if you've been keeping an eye on your bag, but instead it sounds like an on-the-spot litmus test of latent psychic abilities. I've always wanted to point out the insanity of the question, but it would be just my luck if I caught someone in law enforcement without a sense of humor and having a bad day.
I'm sure everybody has noticed the Braille dots on the drive-up ATMs. Just for amusement, I might go to the bank's drive-up ATM when it's busy, wear dark sunglasses, lean well out of the car, pretend to read the dots while everyone else in line looks on in mortal terror, get my cash, and then maybe turn to the car behind me and shout: "Is anybody in front of me?"
You ever notice that instruction on gas pumps, the automated Post Office machine, and similar credit/debit card readers? How the hell does one accomplish this feat? You slide it into the reader, and then you slide it out. That's two motions-- Two very good motions, she'll tell you if you know what you're doing. But I digress.
It's like the asinine question everyone gets asked at the airport: "Has anyone put anything into your bags without your knowledge?" If they did without my knowledge, THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU ASKING ME? I WOULDN'T KNOW! All that needs to change with that standard question is to replace "Has" with "Could". I'm pretty sure the screener is trying to ascertain if you've been keeping an eye on your bag, but instead it sounds like an on-the-spot litmus test of latent psychic abilities. I've always wanted to point out the insanity of the question, but it would be just my luck if I caught someone in law enforcement without a sense of humor and having a bad day.
I'm sure everybody has noticed the Braille dots on the drive-up ATMs. Just for amusement, I might go to the bank's drive-up ATM when it's busy, wear dark sunglasses, lean well out of the car, pretend to read the dots while everyone else in line looks on in mortal terror, get my cash, and then maybe turn to the car behind me and shout: "Is anybody in front of me?"
16 September 2009
Isn't it possible to just disagree?
Apparently not. If you're a conservative who has the temerity to reject the socialism that our president seems to be embracing, the root of your policy disagreements must be because you have a personal problem with the man sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.
Oops, I used the S-word. We've been told that the S-Word is the new N-word.
"The N-word"? Are you kidding me? What are we, in third grade? Is someone going to spank us if we use it? How come blacks can refer to each other as "nigger", but the word is completely off-limits to any other races? I agree with blacks, it is an offensive word, best left to the days of slavery and the Jim Crow South. So they need to stop using it as well. As Chris Rock pointed out in one of his stand-up routines, whites do not go around calling each other "cracker" or "honky."
And what happened to "black" being used to describe someone whose roots trace back to Africa? "African-American" seems silly when used on people whom have been living in the U.S. for generations. I can see a Nigerian friend of mine using it to describe himself: He was born in NJ and grew up in Nigeria. He'd probably just call himself Nigerian-American, though, if he bothered to hyphenate at all. More likely, he would say he's an American. Because being American means you or your ancestors came from somewhere else. Much evidence exists to support that even the American Indians traversed a land bridge from Asia to North America some 12,000 years ago. The bridge is gone, having been replaced with the Bering Strait. Is "Native American" an accurate description? Am I not native to this country? I was born here, too, as was my father, his father, and so on, going back about 12 or 13 generations. At what point do I become "native"?
The point of this tirade is to point out the fallacy in assigning these asinine labels. That's a contributing factor to racism-- the labeling of differences. For this reason, I reject the concept of diversity. Celebrating the differences between people requires drawing attention to those differences. I'll take color-blind equality over diversity any day.
The ascribing of racism to Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) is a desperate attempt by the left. You know they've exhausted their slate of arguments when that's the best they can come up with.
Oops, I used the S-word. We've been told that the S-Word is the new N-word.
"The N-word"? Are you kidding me? What are we, in third grade? Is someone going to spank us if we use it? How come blacks can refer to each other as "nigger", but the word is completely off-limits to any other races? I agree with blacks, it is an offensive word, best left to the days of slavery and the Jim Crow South. So they need to stop using it as well. As Chris Rock pointed out in one of his stand-up routines, whites do not go around calling each other "cracker" or "honky."
And what happened to "black" being used to describe someone whose roots trace back to Africa? "African-American" seems silly when used on people whom have been living in the U.S. for generations. I can see a Nigerian friend of mine using it to describe himself: He was born in NJ and grew up in Nigeria. He'd probably just call himself Nigerian-American, though, if he bothered to hyphenate at all. More likely, he would say he's an American. Because being American means you or your ancestors came from somewhere else. Much evidence exists to support that even the American Indians traversed a land bridge from Asia to North America some 12,000 years ago. The bridge is gone, having been replaced with the Bering Strait. Is "Native American" an accurate description? Am I not native to this country? I was born here, too, as was my father, his father, and so on, going back about 12 or 13 generations. At what point do I become "native"?
The point of this tirade is to point out the fallacy in assigning these asinine labels. That's a contributing factor to racism-- the labeling of differences. For this reason, I reject the concept of diversity. Celebrating the differences between people requires drawing attention to those differences. I'll take color-blind equality over diversity any day.
The ascribing of racism to Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) is a desperate attempt by the left. You know they've exhausted their slate of arguments when that's the best they can come up with.
15 September 2009
Competition is the new buzzword
I've lost count of the number of times I've heard liberal politicians trying to appeal to our inner capitalists by claiming the public option will "provide competition" in the health care industry. Really? There's something like 1300 private insurers spread across the country. If every state had laws forbidding an out-of-state insurer from selling insurance in-state, that still is an average of 26 insurance providers per state. That's a pretty competitive environment.
But wait a minute.
Seriously, wait a minute, I'll be right back.
Intermission.
OK, I'm back, I needed a refill. Now here's the problem with the notion of the public option competing with private insurers: Nobody said the competition would be fair. Since our federal government wants to roll this plan out to us, how does that mesh with state laws governing insurers having to operate within a state in order to sell insurance? You don't suppose the federal government would have an unfair advantage? I mean, another unfair advantage. Consider:
But wait a minute.
Seriously, wait a minute, I'll be right back.
Intermission.
OK, I'm back, I needed a refill. Now here's the problem with the notion of the public option competing with private insurers: Nobody said the competition would be fair. Since our federal government wants to roll this plan out to us, how does that mesh with state laws governing insurers having to operate within a state in order to sell insurance? You don't suppose the federal government would have an unfair advantage? I mean, another unfair advantage. Consider:
- The federal government does not have to make a profit.
- The federal government can operate at a loss.
- The federal government does not have to pay corporate business taxes.
- The federal government has no incentive to do more with less.
- The federal government is not subject to state laws by virtue of federal mandate.
A "Stark" example of elitism
I've followed the rantings and behavior of Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) off and on for a few years. The latest is an elderly man telling Mr. Stark, with regards to the bill of goods the Democrats are trying to sell the public in the form of health care "reform": "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."
To which, classy as always, Stark responded that the old man wasn't worth the urine. Nice way to treat a constituent, Pete.
A brief sojourn over to the Huffington Post told me what I already suspected: Not only were many of the commenters approving of Stark's elitism, they tee-heed about how "cool" and "awesome" it would've been if Stark had actually peed on the constituent. I suppose it's easy to find humor in the matter when one considers anybody with right-leaning political ideology to be subhuman. My God, what the hell's a matter with these people?
Granted, the old man could have been a little less verbally combative with Stark. Then again, Stark has a reputation on the Hill for being a bully. Like most bullies, he threatens from behind false bravado.
As a child, I was picked on bullies from time to time. Every once in a while, the Christian value of "turning the other cheek" that my mother instilled in me would be overridden by a mental shout of "enough is enough!" Said bully would go from yanking me around by my backpack, or trying to trip me, to kissing brick wall or concrete sidewalk. Unfortunately, my timing could have been better, as the teacher would always see my retaliation, but rarely would she see the provocative act.
So I find myself agreeing with the Huff-Post nitwits: Yes, Pete Stark, go ahead: Unzip your fly, whip it out, and let the golden shower fly. Chances are if the old man didn't kick your ass, one of his friends would.
Oh, and a variant of the old man's saying appeared in The Outlaw Josey Wales. The scene involved John Vernon as Fletcher, a Missouri bushwhacker whom was facilitating his men's surrender to the Union at the conclusion of the Civil War. Ironically, he was addressing Senator Lane, a Yankee Senator, played by Frank Schofield. Fletcher protested Senator Lane's use of Kansas Redlegs, the leader of whom he described as a "looter and a pillager". The Redlegs, Fletcher said, were the "worst kind of enemy" the Missouri bushwhackers had. It led to this exchange :
To which, classy as always, Stark responded that the old man wasn't worth the urine. Nice way to treat a constituent, Pete.
A brief sojourn over to the Huffington Post told me what I already suspected: Not only were many of the commenters approving of Stark's elitism, they tee-heed about how "cool" and "awesome" it would've been if Stark had actually peed on the constituent. I suppose it's easy to find humor in the matter when one considers anybody with right-leaning political ideology to be subhuman. My God, what the hell's a matter with these people?
Granted, the old man could have been a little less verbally combative with Stark. Then again, Stark has a reputation on the Hill for being a bully. Like most bullies, he threatens from behind false bravado.
As a child, I was picked on bullies from time to time. Every once in a while, the Christian value of "turning the other cheek" that my mother instilled in me would be overridden by a mental shout of "enough is enough!" Said bully would go from yanking me around by my backpack, or trying to trip me, to kissing brick wall or concrete sidewalk. Unfortunately, my timing could have been better, as the teacher would always see my retaliation, but rarely would she see the provocative act.
So I find myself agreeing with the Huff-Post nitwits: Yes, Pete Stark, go ahead: Unzip your fly, whip it out, and let the golden shower fly. Chances are if the old man didn't kick your ass, one of his friends would.
Oh, and a variant of the old man's saying appeared in The Outlaw Josey Wales. The scene involved John Vernon as Fletcher, a Missouri bushwhacker whom was facilitating his men's surrender to the Union at the conclusion of the Civil War. Ironically, he was addressing Senator Lane, a Yankee Senator, played by Frank Schofield. Fletcher protested Senator Lane's use of Kansas Redlegs, the leader of whom he described as a "looter and a pillager". The Redlegs, Fletcher said, were the "worst kind of enemy" the Missouri bushwhackers had. It led to this exchange :
- Senator: The war's over. Our side won the war. Now we must busy ourselves winning the peace. And Fletcher, there's an old saying: To the victors belong the spoils.
- Fletcher: There's another old saying, Senator: Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
Grammatical pet peeves
We need to replace the English teachers, that's all there is to it. How else can one explain not just one but two or even three generations that use "there" not only as an interjection and noun, but also use it in place of its adjectival and contractional homonyms? When reading some moonbat's leftist rant, which his or her colleagues will later praise as "insightful" and "well thought-out", nothing deflates the argument like someone acting intellectually superior while misusing "there."
Listen up class:
Listen up class:
- There is reason to believe that liberalism is a mental disorder.
- Liberals praise Canada's health system while ignoring the facts from people whom have been treated there.
- Liberals think they're so smart.
- Their logic is mined with non sequiturs and emotional disturbance.
The ultimate expression of a superiority complex...
While enjoying plate-sized pancakes in my favorite diner recently, I spied a woman with half-dollar peace symbols dangling from her ear lobes. No big deal, my life brings me into contact with hippies all the time. But we weren't at an anti-war demonstration. We were just having breakfast.
Get a grip, UltraC, I can hear some saying, they're just earrings. Woman's got a right to wear 'em, got a right to her own opinion, you militaristic, right-wing extremist, you! Quite right, she does. But consider this: Be it earrings, T-shirts, bumper stickers, what have you, we display certain icons because they reflect our interests and passions. With those earrings, the woman is communicating her interest in and comittment to peace. That's cool. Any rational person prefers peace over war. So does her gaudy display of peace symbols imply the rest of us aren't as committed to peace? I think it does.
As for myself, I would agree with that sentiment. I'm probably not as committed to peace as she is, for I recognize that peace, in the absence of force to protect that peace, is not a lasting peace. Think of the Cold War: Numerous skirmishes around the globe, but in the grand scheme of things, the threat of nuclear annihilation ultimately kept the superpowers in check. Both sides having the bomb actually benefited mankind: The Soviet Union's million-strong Red Army was never able to realize its potential following WWII. The USSR had to act through agents to promote political change. The US only used it's most powerful military weapons twice in armed conflict. Following that, it was compelled to abandon its pre-war isolationist policies and become the biggest promoter of democracy in the world. Nuclear war made the prospect of total war simply too costly, but only so long as each side believed the other had the capacity to follow through on threats.
Get a grip, UltraC, I can hear some saying, they're just earrings. Woman's got a right to wear 'em, got a right to her own opinion, you militaristic, right-wing extremist, you! Quite right, she does. But consider this: Be it earrings, T-shirts, bumper stickers, what have you, we display certain icons because they reflect our interests and passions. With those earrings, the woman is communicating her interest in and comittment to peace. That's cool. Any rational person prefers peace over war. So does her gaudy display of peace symbols imply the rest of us aren't as committed to peace? I think it does.
As for myself, I would agree with that sentiment. I'm probably not as committed to peace as she is, for I recognize that peace, in the absence of force to protect that peace, is not a lasting peace. Think of the Cold War: Numerous skirmishes around the globe, but in the grand scheme of things, the threat of nuclear annihilation ultimately kept the superpowers in check. Both sides having the bomb actually benefited mankind: The Soviet Union's million-strong Red Army was never able to realize its potential following WWII. The USSR had to act through agents to promote political change. The US only used it's most powerful military weapons twice in armed conflict. Following that, it was compelled to abandon its pre-war isolationist policies and become the biggest promoter of democracy in the world. Nuclear war made the prospect of total war simply too costly, but only so long as each side believed the other had the capacity to follow through on threats.
Patterns cannot be ignored
Eighty-three to seven. That's the Senate vote on the anti-ACORN amendment to the transportation and housing appropriations bill. It comes on the heels of the U.S. Census Bureau severing ties with ACORN. Elected representatives and bureaucrats on both sides of the political aisle are acknowledging an uncomfortable fact: Doing business with ACORN is political poison. I forget who said it, and I'm sure I'm not quoting them verbatim, but a saying I once heard comes to mind: Once is forgivable, twice indicates a lack of intelligence, but three or more times indicates a pattern of immoral behavior. Such as it is with ACORN. Workers were charged with voter registration fraud in last year's election in more than a dozen states. Members have committed trespassing, vandalism, and have engaged in threatening behavior in their zeal to draw attention to the "downtrodden" whom were kicked out of houses after failing to pay for them, or the bank executives who dared to do their job and make money for their employer.
ACORN's director assures us that the criminal behavior we see on tape-- be it breaking into someone else's house, harassing the children of someone just doing their job, or offering tax advice to people promoting a criminal enterprise-- is the actions of a few bad apples. That may very well be so, but why take the chance? Why take a chance steering more and more taxpayer funds to an organization with so many members who break the law? Why take a chance giving this same organization's members the charge of assisting with collecting census data? We might as well furlough convicts for the purposes of counting people, for it would carry the same taint of corrupted data.
So let the investigations proceed. ACORN is entitled to its day in court, so to speak. But until its management can demonstrate zero tolerance for criminal or unethical behavior, they shouldn't get another red cent.
ACORN's director assures us that the criminal behavior we see on tape-- be it breaking into someone else's house, harassing the children of someone just doing their job, or offering tax advice to people promoting a criminal enterprise-- is the actions of a few bad apples. That may very well be so, but why take the chance? Why take a chance steering more and more taxpayer funds to an organization with so many members who break the law? Why take a chance giving this same organization's members the charge of assisting with collecting census data? We might as well furlough convicts for the purposes of counting people, for it would carry the same taint of corrupted data.
So let the investigations proceed. ACORN is entitled to its day in court, so to speak. But until its management can demonstrate zero tolerance for criminal or unethical behavior, they shouldn't get another red cent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)