Thursday, July 31, 2014

Meet Ryan Anderson

Ryan Anderson is the young gun occupying the William E Simon chair at The Rich Boy Vanity Project Heritage Foundation - the guy's a piece of work.

Quick Recap: The point here is supposed to be about pushing the Phobes at Heritage to defend their stoopid - ie: Marriage Inequality within the IRS Code.  So the questioner asks why he shouldn't be allowed to file a joint tax return with his husband just like all the straight couples get to do - and behold the awesomeness beginning at about 1:00:



Anderson uses Slippery Slope to build a Straw Man made of Special Pleading, and finishes it off with a near-brilliant Tu Quoque flourish, just before he deploys Begging The Question as a lead-up to blaming the victim (it's your own fault because you wanna marry the wrong person).

Once you know what you're looking for, it gets easier to find.

hat tip = Mock Paper Scissors

Irony-Challenged

Whenever I hear "Frivolous Lawsuit" or "Litigation Crazy" or "Litigious", it's pretty automatic that I'm going to think "GOP" because they're the ones who're always carping about how everybody just wants to sue everybody whenever they don't get their way, or they're just looking for a nice fat payday for doin' nuthin' blah blah blah.

Is there anything more frivolous than the crazily litigious House Republicans voting to sue Obama - at the end of the least productive legislative session since Hammurabi and right before these douche nozzles leave town for 5 weeks of vacation?

Don't Believe

"What's it like to lie to children for a living?"

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Logical Fallacy #20 - Begging The Question


Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.[1]

The term "begging the question" originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of Latin petitio principii "assuming the initial point".[2] In modern vernacular usage, "to beg the question" is sometimes used to mean "to raise the question" (as in "This begs the question of whether...") or "to dodge the question".[2]

Today's Rational Thinking



Some of the discussions in the comments sections are trying to address the "economics" of this thing, and it occurs to me that we'll need somebody to look into the potential economic ripple effect of people feeling less comfortable in public places, and so deciding to stay home rather than accept the increased risk (real or imagined) that they'll be the victims of random gunfire while simply attempting to order out at the local deli.

PQED.org

hat tip = Crooks and Liars


Tuesday, July 29, 2014

About That Flag

Some knuckleheads down in Richmond decided a while back to put up the CSA Battle Flag because they tho't it was a good way to show their...uhm...American Pride(?)  Yeah, that one still eludes most of us graced with the sense the good lord gave the average okra pod.

Anyway, they've put up another one, but there seems to be some real push-back goin' on (or at least a little wishful Photoshoppin'):



And BTW:


hat tip = Addicting Info

Today's Pix











Modern GOP Arithmetic

Teacher: Johnny, if you have 12 cupcakes and you give 3 to Jamal, how many cupcakes do you have left?

Johnny: I have 12 cuz I ain't givin' nuthin' to nobody.

Teacher: Well, if you have 12 cupcakes and I take 3 from you and give them to Jamal, then how many do you have?

Johnny:  Then I have 12 cupcakes and 2 dead bodies to dispose of.


(Ed Note: I'm not clever enough to have come up with it on my own - I saw this not too long ago on the discussion thread of a "conservative" website.)

Monday, July 28, 2014

(2nd) Coming Soon

Prob'ly not gonna be what most of us were taught to expect.




And we can always count on the Right Reverend Fishsticks to step in it with a lack of self-awareness that'd make a Sea Sponge blush:



big hat tip = Mock Paper Scissors

He all but says it straight out - torches and pitchforks for everybody - let's go fuck up somebody's embassy!

And as an extra added attraction (after about the 10:30 mark), we get the Denialist Bullshit du Jour, citing Calvin Beisner.  But that's another story.

Classic - and BTW, Black Jesus looks to be more than just taking shots at Xianity.  Aaron MacGruder's critiques of "Black Urban Culture" are often relentless and unblinking to the point of being uncomfortable for me to watch; partly (I suppose) because of the kernels of White Guilt I wish I didn't have to lug around with me, and partly because I just really don't get some of it.

You can send Adult Swim a message here.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Today's Pol Toon

Some Tunes

Listen To The Music --Doobie Brothers





Your Savin' Grace --Steve Miller Band





The Warmth Of The Sun --Beach Boys





I Think It's Going To Work Out Fine --Ry Cooder





Alison --Elvis Costello





Carmelita --Warren Zevon





Can't Find My Way Home --Alison Krauss





Colorado --Flying Burrito Brothers

Saturday, July 26, 2014

KO'd

I miss Keith's rants.



And I wonder why a smart guy like Stephen A Smith decides to say incredibly stupid shit like this:



I understand that Smith's main function at ESPN is Provocateur - the guy who gets paid "to say what nobody else has the balls to say on the air" (which sometimes just ends up being the SportsGab version of "both sides do it; let's hear the other side blah blah blah").  That's his niche, and he's good at it, and he's done quite well by it.

Smith got (rightly) slammed hard because his remarks sound a whole lot like Blame The Victim.



And he continues to get slammed (again rightly) for his stoopid-sounding attempts  "to set the record straight", which sounds like: "I love women; some of the people dearest to me are women; and all they need to do is not make me beat the fuck out of 'em."


















Yeah - kinda like Bull Connor saying, "We have lotsa negras down here; and we don't have a problem with 'em as long they don't do nuthin' that makes us turn the dogs and the fire hoses on 'em."


So maybe we're getting a little better at seeing thru the bullshit(?)  I dunno, but it looks like a feud is erupting inside the ESPN family and it'll be interesting to see how Management handles it.

Who Sez We Ain't Got No Songs?

God Fucks You Up --John R Butler





Fuck Me In Ass Because I Love Jesus --Garfunkel and Oates




More if I find any.

Friday, July 25, 2014

Nexus

Inquiring Minds:
The main focus is on trying to figure out what the real differences are between us politically; and how that knowledge is being used (IMHO) to drive us apart.



But don't forget to take a look at this:



Here's the link to the article in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
A team of Greek and German researchers has shown that the colours of sunsets painted by famous artists can be used to estimate pollution levels in the Earth’s past atmosphere. In particular, the paintings reveal that ash and gas released during major volcanic eruptions scatter the different colours of sunlight, making sunsets appear more red. The results are published today in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU).
When the Tambora volcano in Indonesia erupted in 1815, painters in Europe could see the colours of the sky changing. The volcanic ash and gas spewed into the atmosphere travelled the world and, as these aerosol particles scattered sunlight, they produced bright red and orange sunsets in Europe for up to three years after the eruption. J. M. W. Turner was one of the artists who painted the stunning sunsets during that time. Now, scientists are using his, and other great masters’, paintings to retrieve information on the composition of the past atmosphere.
“Nature speaks to the hearts and souls of great artists,” says lead-author Christos Zerefos, a professor of atmospheric physics at the Academy of Athens in Greece. “But we have found that, when colouring sunsets, it is the way their brains perceive greens and reds that contains important environmental information.”

Workplace Poetry

Friday Tunes

Mr Sandman --Emmy Lou, Dolly and Linda






Anna --Beatles





A Lover's Question --Loggins and Messina






I'll Be Gone --Amazing Rhythm Aces





Lies --JJ Cale





What Do You Want The Boy To Do? --Bonnie Raitt





I Wouldn't Want To Be Like You --Alan Parsons Project





Get It Right The First Time --Billy Joel





Every Night --Phoebe Snow

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Let's All Point And Laugh

...at Ken Ham.
“Life did not evolve but was specially created by God, as Genesis clearly teaches. Christians certainly shouldn’t expect alien life to be cropping up across the universe,” he continued. “Now the Bible doesn’t say whether there is or is not animal or plant life in outer space. I certainly suspect not.”
But regardless of whether there was life in outer space, Ham asserted that it could not be truly “intelligent.”
“You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation,” he explained. “Jesus did not become the ‘GodKlingon’ or the ‘GodMartian’! Only descendants of Adam can be saved. God’s Son remains the ‘Godman’ as our Savior.”
via Mock Paper Scissors and Raw Story:
Friendly Atheist blogger Hemant Mehta called Ham’s quest to end the space program “a new low even for him.”
“Jesus Christ, Ken Ham is talking about the eternal damnation of alien life forms,” Mehta wrote. “They’re all going to hell, apparently, and why go in search of life on other planets if they’re all doomed to a lake of fire?”
Kenny insists tho' that he didn't actually say aliens were all doomed to fry - all he says he said is that aliens can't possibly exist because Adam fucked it up for all mankind forever, and aliens aren't "mankind" so if they exist then they can't be saved because god made Earth for a special purpose and that means it's not possible for god to have made any intelligent life anywhere else...uh oh - Ken just said something's not possible for god.  Programming Glitch or Product Feature?

Do you think there might be a shitload of new traffic flooding Ken Ham's websites right now?  Is it unreasonable to make the radical assumption that he's not exactly sad (or surprised) about that?

I really don't mean to be quite the asshole it always seems I am when I ask this particular question of the Bible Thumpers who'll prob'ly flock to Ham's defense even when there's something so obviously Scammy about this whole thing - I just gotta ask the question:  Seriously, guys - are you that fuckin' stupid?

Today's Moronicity



Lil Brian (bless his heart) tries to make a point about how the sheriff's limited resources are being stretched too thin by helping all those dirty immigrant invaders who're busily destroying USAmerica Inc by trying not to get fucked over - or something.

So here's a question:  How do we fix the problem of underfunded border security when "conservatives" refuse to support funding for better border security?

It's just too fucking typical of the over-delegating under-thinking kind of hands-off "Modern Management Mindset" that always always always ends up saying, "We need you to improve all this mess, but make sure you don't change anything - and just let us know what you need, as long as it's nothing".

These jag-offs wanna slag Obama with some bullshit about "leadership"?

PS) I'm betting there's a fair probability that somebody's good buddy/brother-in-law is putting together a really great private-sector (or even better, a public/private) solution that promises amazing results at the low low price of about 2 1/2 times what it'll cost us if we just figure out a coupla ways to treat people like people instead of using them as political theater props in order to turn their hardship into corporate profit.

No soul and no honor.

Today's Pix











Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Newly Discovered

I stumbled upon this website while scanning thru a piece at AlterNet.org:
It may be easy to draw a caricature of a "quack” as a cross between the ShamWow pitchman and an alchemist, but they’re really not so easy to spot. Modern-day quacks often cherry-pick science and use what suits them as semantic backdrop to fool unsuspecting consumers. Quacks may dazzle people with fanciful research studies or scare them with intimidating warnings before trying to peddle products that make unreasonable promises. And those who use these alternative, unproven products may forego treatments that would be more likely to help them.
In short, quackery is dangerous. It promotes fear, devalues legitimate science and can destroy lives. Here are the four biggest quacks giving dubious health advice in the media and some samples of their detrimental advice.
Science-Based Medicine:
Science-Based Medicine is dedicated to evaluating medical treatments and products of interest to the public in a scientific light, and promoting the highest standards and traditions of science in health care. Online information about alternative medicine is overwhelmingly credulous and uncritical, and even mainstream media and some medical schools have bought into the hype and failed to ask the hard questions.
We provide a much needed “alternative” perspective — the scientific perspective.
Good science is the best and only way to determine which treatments and products are truly safe and effective. That idea is already formalized in a movement known as evidence-based medicine (EBM). EBM is a vital and positive influence on the practice of medicine, but it has limitations and problems in practice: it often overemphasizes the value of evidence from clinical trials alone, with some unintended consequences, such as taxpayer dollars spent on “more research” of questionable value. The idea of SBM is not to compete with EBM, but a call to enhance it with a broader view: to answer the question “what works?” we must give more importance to our cumulative scientific knowledge from all relevant disciplines.
SBM’s authors are all medically trained and have spent years writing for the public about science and medicine, tirelessly advocating for high scientific standards in health care.