Marine Dad Ordered to Pay Legal Fees of Those Disrupting Son’s Funeral
by David on Mar.31, 2010, under Morons, Religion
This is complete BS. So the guy is harassed at his son’s funeral and sues (the American way) the jerks (extremist Christian anti-abortion assholes). he won $10 million at trial, and just lost on appeal. It’s off to the Supreme Court for this case and that might be a problem as they are right leaning towards anti-abortion and mixed on what free speech is. Harassment is a crime, these assholes should be locked up not just sued. A father should be able to bury his son in peace. The only purpose behind these assholes doing this is publicity. If anything it turns most people against their cause. The people it does attract are mentally ill to begin with. These are people like the Tea Baggers.
Protesters Disrupt Rove Book-Signing Event
by David on Mar.30, 2010, under Morons, Politics
Oh the irony! Karl Rove the douchebag crying because protesters are expressing their first amendment rights while he expresses his first amendment rights. And he’s upset because he’s be branded a war criminal. Well if the shoe fits, wear it. Yes Rove has the right to sell his book. And everyone else also has the right to call him a criminal. I’m really surprised that he hasn’t been indicted, but that’s politics for you.
Mitch McConnell is a big fat liar
by David on Mar.30, 2010, under Bullshit, Morons, Politics
So the Republicans say that health care is a mess and that HCR should be repealed so they can do it better. BULLSHIT. The Nazi party was in power from 2001-2008 and didn’t do shit to help anyone but themselves by spreading fear and lies. As always, not all Republicans buy into the party BS, I would hope that most were center oriented conservatives. Here is what he has to say:
McConnell was emphasizing a new GOP political approach that proposes replacing the new health plan “with commonsense solutions,” rather than just repealing it. Republicans say they can push for parts of the health care overhaul without adopting elements they don’t like, such as tax increases.
Part of the problem with the deficit are the tax cuts. I don’t like taxes and I know you don’t but bills need to be paid and our credit card is over the limit. We don’t need tax cuts, we need the Republicans to stop spending money on pork and banks. We don’t seem to have a problem spending $10 billion on a bomber but we can’t spend it to insure Americans? Bullshit.
The GOP is full of liars and I guess the Dems are going to have to learn how to act like them in order to survive. Letting these old wrinkled morons ruin our country has to stop. Vote this fall, and vote to remove people who are against Americans and taking care of American interests. Anyone who supports the Tea Baggers has to be removed from office (or not voted in). Anyone who supports Sarah Palin needs to be kept out of office.
republican racism, and smaller government
by admin on Mar.27, 2010, under Bullshit, Morons, Politics, Religion
Woe are the Republican’ts. Here is a political organization I used to side with, but not since Clinton. I have yet to understand why racists, religious nuts, and ANY poor person would ever support the republican party (lower case on purpose).
The base of the republican party is business, plain and simple. If they can attract a few nuts by siding with them then they do that for free votes. The republicans don’t care about the environment, the citizens (unless you are rich), or working class people at all. Bush basically suppressed and scuttled the EPA causing companies to dump billions of gallons of waste. And then created legislation to limit lawsuits when people sued the dumpers for creating 4 armed 2 headed freaks for children.
The tea baggers are another example of the republicans attracting semi-organized nutjobs. There are a few normal people in there but we all know that it attracts the “nigger and jew” hating idiots as well as anarchists. Small government sounds wonderful until granny tries to drive her tea bagger mobile to the (now closed) Social Security office. Smaller government means more pollution, more corruption, and HIGHER prices. Why higher prices? Because when private enterprise is unregulated (or even unwatched) prices go through the roof (think utilities). Water, sewer, electric, gas prices would skyrocket. No more review boards to make sure utility cost increases were watched. That’s your smaller government. People don’t know what they are asking for.
Health Care Reform and Right Wing Stupidity
by admin on Mar.21, 2010, under Morons, Politics
So Health Care Reform (HCR) might pass today. This is a good thing. While I hate spending money we don’t have, I hated working in the ER because that’s where thousands of people come for health care because they can’t see a doctor without insurance. You want to know why there is 6 hour wait to see someone in the ER? Uninsured people is why and this will help alleviate that and help stabilize out of control rising hospital costs. Who pays for all those uninsured people, YOU DO! This HCR will eliminate that.
Here is the Republican argument: “The Republicans are unanimously opposed to the legislation, which they say is unaffordable and represents a government takeover of a large part of the country’s economy.” (BBC, March 21, 2010). Unaffordable? Who are they kidding? Their war is unaffordable, the defense budget is unaffordable, farm subsidies and foreign aid is unaffordable. This is for AMERICANS who WORK. And how can this be a takeover of a section of the economy? There is no section of the economy called “uninsured people” that has jobs to lose, or any company that exists. It’s all Republican smoke and bullshit. They just don’t want it because the Democrats do. The health care industry including hospitals, insurance companies, and doctors are going to make even MORE money so they should be supporting this in droves.
Deficit Control
by admin on Mar.21, 2010, under Bullshit, Politics
So the Tea Baggers want deficit control. Here are a few ideas:
- Stop all foreign aid.
- Stop all aid to the states.
- End all subsidies to farmers, mining companies, and anyone else.
- Ban Political Action Committees.
- Cap the amount of money that can be spent on running for political office.
- Create a constitutional amendment to how long all politicians can run for office. It helps stop pork barrel spending.
- A pure line item veto.
- No addons for bills.
- Cancel Social Security, medicare, and anything else that the Tea Baggers rely on.
Tea Party Traitors
by admin on Mar.21, 2010, under Bullshit, Morons, Politics
The United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states “whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
The Tea Baggers forget entire areas of the Constitution they claim to worship. This group of racist gun nuts just rants (behind closed doors) about the nigger in the white house. Here is a man (President Obama) who is not an ass kissing prick like Little Bush and his master, Dick Cheney and he can’t get anything done due to a vocal minority. Is he trying to hurt the USA, no, he is trying to help the every day guy, but the racist right wing won’t have it. They want to stop him. I saw an avatar that said “HOPE he fails,” why? Why would you hope he fails? Every real American should want him to succeed. I never wanted Little Bush to fail, just to resign, or get indicted for his crimes.
I don’t agree with everything President Obama does, but I also know that I shouldn’t be expected to. After health care, the budget deficit has to end. Enough Reaganomics already. Deficit spending is only good for the short term. We need the surpluses of the Clinton years back, we need to repeal the tax breaks that Little Bush gave the richest Americans. We do need to shrink the size of the government while still having regulatory oversight of industries that affect us. I imagine we could cut the staff of the government by 50% and still get the same level of customer service that we get now.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and the TSA
by admin on Dec.26, 2009, under Morons, Politics
Abdul Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23 (a Nigerian) tried to cause a fire onboard a Northwest airlines flight from Amsterdam yesterday. The chemical was a mixture of a liquid and a powder. AFTER igniting the substance he was jumped, beaten (not enough in my opinion), and held while the plane finished it’s its approach and landing.
Umm, what were the people next to him doing while he mixed these chemicals? Well, after he burst into flames (sorta) he was tackled to the aisle by passengers. But he shouldn’t have been allowed on the plane at all.
Now my concern is the TSA, aka America’s brown shirted Nazis. This bloated bureaucratic waste of a government agency (created by Bush, thanks prick) said last year that Lagos airport in Nigeria met minimum guidelines for security. They might have. And these same substances might get through at any airport. But my concern is how the TSA Nazis are going to overreact. I’ll be we are going to have to remove our pants now at security. The terrorists will adjust to that though. Next they will fill their bras with chemicals to mix so passengers will have to go topless through security. One good thing is that unless you are flying Southwest a higher percentage of the passengers are cute so naked women walking through security would be more entertaining.
As always the TSA Nazis will overreact and the security lines will get worse. They will probably ban all liquids again, then all powders. Next will be mandatory abdominal x-rays to make sure you haven’t eaten explosives. It will never stop and the sheep will keep on accepting all these new rules under the misconception that they will be safer. YOU WILL NEVER BE SAFE from terrorism on any flight, ever. There are too many variables to make planes totally terrorist proof. The TSA Nazis merely provide you with the illusion that you are safe. Being a pilot and having worked for a few airlines, I know how the airlines and airports work.
Sheep: Don’t accept any crazy new restrictions. Call your representative, call the TSA Nazis (even though you will not get to anyone worthwhile in that mess). I’d tell you to write on the TSA Nazi blog on their website but it’s restricted ONLY to those that agree with them. They do not allow dissent on their webpage. So much for the freedom they claim to be trying to protect.
UPDATE: Ah, almost as I predicted, a knee-jerk idiotic response from the Gestapo TSA. Increased screenings, and you can’t move from your seat on the last hour of your international flight. God forbid I should have to take a shit or have a bladder emergency. First of all, he was in his seat when he set off the chemicals. So he wasn’t walking around, so why the restriction on walking? Once again, it’s the false impression that they are doing something helpful to make you “safe,” and we all know that’s bullshit. Well, at least you aren’t flying nekkid yet.
Interestingly the current security measures were completely appropriate and would have worked if they were followed. His father called the embassy and warned them. but instead of revoking his visa to the USA, it was flagged for review (big help /sarcasm). Then he was added to the master list of people watched (550,000 people are on this list) but not flagged for increased screening. he bought a ticket with cash and did not check any bags. When I worked for the airlines, those two things are major red flags for increased screening. The current (as of last week) rules work, you just have to use them, morons.
Skepticism and opinions
by admin on Dec.22, 2009, under Science, Skepticism
We all have opinions. But skeptics are supposed to base those opinions purely on science. When there is conflicting science it seems that it devolves into a finger pointing, name calling game. I recently read a great post on the Skepticblog and I’m going to post a portion of it here and link the rest….
Staying on Track
The simple truth is that many skeptics have limited scientific qualifications. Yes, of course, there are towering, world-class scientists in the skeptical camp. But most skeptics are not working scientists. Even skeptics who do have scientific qualifications are frequently called upon to comment outside of their area of domain expertise. (Think of astronomer Phil Plait commenting on vaccines, or neurologist Steve Novella commenting on evolution.)
At the same time, people turn to skeptical media to find out what’s really true about weird things — sometimes life and death things, as in alternative medicine. Skeptics solicit that trust. We make the implicit (and sometimes explicit) promise that we are able to provide the nuanced, objective, evidence-based facts.
That combination of stated commitment to science, limited qualifications, and weighty ethical responsibilities (as when we comment on medicine) place a very high due diligence burden upon skeptics.
So, with last week’s firestorm as a cautionary tale, I’d like to propose some rules of thumb for skeptical discussion of mainstream science:
1) Where both scientific domain expertise and expert consensus exist, skeptics are (at best) straight science journalists. We can report the consensus, communicate findings in their proper context — and that’s it.
Skeptical resources spent on mainstream science journalism are resources taken away from our core mandate (pseudoscience and the paranormal — a mandate no one else has), although science popularization is of course valuable in itself when done responsibly. (My upcoming book is a straightforward kids’ primer on evolution.) But skeptics who do delve into science reporting should consider themselves obligated to stay close to mainstream expert opinion — and, obligated to solicit fact-checking and criticism from actual scientific experts.
Unfortunately, some lay skeptics have the idea that general critical thinking skills qualify them to critique professional science even in the face of wide agreement among domain experts. I submit that this is hubris — and almost always a mistake. (It is also the exact argument that sustains anti-vaccine activism, creationism, and other fringe positions whose examples we might wish to avoid.)
In my previous career as a shepherd, we had a term for a very similar (and almost inevitable) phenomenon: “Rookie Syndrome.” Raw trainee shepherds would arrive in camp, look at sheep for a couple days, and then start to argue with the experienced hands. Why they thought a cursory glance qualified them to challenge domain experts is anyone’s guess, but it happened all the time. With some basic, introductory experience (say, two or three years), they typically became embarrassed about the arrogance and naiveté of their first weeks — during which they had known too little to even realize what they did not know.
Whether it’s sheep, law, stage magic, aircraft maintenance, Shakespeare scholarship, or a scientific discipline, every field has its specialized literature, skills, and knowledge base that take years of work to acquire. In any complex field, such domain expertise is essential to form a qualified opinion. And in most such fields, Rookie Syndrome — armchair quarterbacking — is common.
2) Where scientific domain expertise exists, but not consensus, we can report that a controversy exists — but we cannot resolve it. As Bertrand Russell put it,
when the experts are…not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and… when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.
Skeptics sometimes stumble badly here: we cannot, as laypeople, responsibly wade into an area in which we are not expert and expect to settle expert controversies.
If we’re not qualified, we should not promote our opinions. If we are qualified, we should attempt to convince our fellow experts in the relevant peer-reviewed literature — not skip peer review to make popular appeals in the popular (skeptical) press.
3) Where scientific domain expertise and consensus exist, but also a denier movement or pseudoscientific fringe, skeptics can finally roll up their sleeves and get to work.
This is traditional ground for us, our bread and butter, as when we combat creationism or vaccine paranoia or HIV denial. But note that there are two distinct components to critiquing fringe movements: knowledge of pseudoscience (our own area of domain expertise); and knowledge of the contrasting body of actual scientific literature — a literature on which we are not typically expert.
On the straight science component, we are obligated to defer to the current state of the science. On the pseudoscience component, we are often able to make a contribution in our capacity as the best available experts.
Consider the example of debating creationism. In the past, creationists typically ran rings around biologists. This was not because scientists lacked knowledge of science, but because scientists lacked specialized knowledge of nonsense. That’s where we came in. The history and rhetoric of nonsense is a specialized niche arena — our arena. Skeptics perform an essential public service when we concentrate on that.
This is our primary realm:
4) Where a paranormal or pseudoscientific topic has enthusiasts but no legitimate experts, skeptics may perform original research, advance new theories, and publish in the skeptical press.
This practically endless assortment of traditional skeptical topics (from Nessie to pyramid power to astrology to iridology to UFO crashes to psychic surgery) is where we should focus our energy. In these areas, our contribution is unique, valuable — and, I have argued, an ethical obligation. There are hundreds of topics under this vast umbrella, so it’s not like this “narrow” mandate for skepticism doesn’t offer us enough to do!
In this shadowy, fringe realm, skeptics can indeed critique working scientists. There is no mainstream of consensus science on, say, ghosts; skeptics are the relevant domain experts. And, just as we stumble when we venture outside of our expertise, so too will scientists who charge blindly into our own speciality.
And what are the most powerful, most illuminating, most enduring examples of skeptics schooling credentialed scientists and prestigious mainstream media? Exactly those demonstrations — such as the epic Project Alpha and Carlos hoaxes — brought to us by James “The Amazing” Randi.
….These guys are some of the best skeptics out there. There is a huge misconception that skeptics are conspiracy nuts and are no different than the anti-vaccers. I work in research and even those research doctors don’t know what skeptics are. We have to separate skepticism and science from crazy people. I myself call myself The Angry Skeptic, and I want to make it clear that when I’m talking about a skeptic topic I am basing my post on the most current dominant science. If it’s political skepticism, the “science” is muddier and has to be based on researching through sites like opensecrets.org
Skepicism
