Where's The Outrage?

Yo - "Conservatives",

Michael Jackson was plagued with financial problems at the time of his death in 2009. Last year, the IRS sued Jackson’s estate, claiming that it owed over $700 million in federal taxes.

If you're really all that het up about Da Gubmint staying off everybody's back, then you need to be raising something of a stink every time.  Being selective about your deep concern over who's getting stepped on is why the rest of us are pretty sure you're a lot more worried about who gets to join your little club and who doesn't.  

BTW, here's a tip for ya: You're not in the club.  And your eagerness to slag people in order to keep them out of the club is an obvious attempt to suck up to the bosses who are in the club, and - listen to me now cuz I'm talking sense here - that's not gonna get you into their club.  They need you to think they think you're cool so you'll go on doing the heavy lifting, but you're just another credulous rube gettin' played for a cheap trick.

The Power Of Marketing

A slightly alternative view:

If you buy that new $2000 TV on sale at 20% off, you are not saving 400 bucks - you're spending 1600.

Today's Pix

Today's Arrogance Of Ignorance

If ignorance is bliss, this is one happy lady:




John Cleese wraps it up neatly for us:



hat tip = Addicting Info

Perspective

Happy NFL/Turkey Day

Baloney Detection

1) Is the source reliable?

Errors occur, but if the source's errors tend to be all on one side or bunched together, it should raise a big red flag.

2) Does the source make similar claims on other subjects?

On related (or even marginally tangential) topics, is this source making the same general statements of fact?

3) Have the claims been verified independently?

Can the claimed results be replicated? 

4) How does the claim fit with the way we know the world works?

Too good to be true = prob'ly not true

5) Is the claim falsifiable?

What's the alternative explanation?  What's been done to try to disprove it? 

6) Where does the preponderance of evidence point?

Any claim supported by only a few points, while challenged by lots of other points, is prob'ly bogus.

7) Are you playing by the rules of the scientific method?

UFOlogy vs SETI

8) Is the one making the claim presenting positive evidence?

Or are they just making unsupported denials of an "opposing" theory?

9) Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?

Pointing out a few anomalies or outliers doesn't negate current theory

10) Is the claim being driven by personal belief?

Is Confirmation Bias at work here? Is the claimant pushing a "theory" in support of an ideology and/or religion and/or world view?

Barely A Start

So that's 1 down and only 1,499,999 (veterans living in poverty) to go.

Our veterans would be a lot better off it we'd just stop making so many of them, and if we'd stop acting like spoiled children when it comes to paying what we owe.

Mo' Buttuh

Meanwhile, Back At The Planet

I hate it when I get to thinking there's more truth being spoken by fictional characters on a TV show than by anybody in any position of authority anywhere here in These United States of Opinion-As-Reality.

At the same time, I wonder if this is just to see if anybody's listening. 

And I wonder if this little vignette is simply a plot device in Aaron Sorkin's devious little brain. 

And what if it's only an attempt to illustrate his other point about Crowd Sourcing and the dangers of instant reactions due to the immediacy of social media driving the mob, which is masquerading as "true democracy"?

And I wonder if the whole thing is so twisty-turny that it spins off into the infinite numbers of universes where everything that can happen does happen, and all you have to do to make it real is to say it's real.

And what about the very very very very real shit hitting the fan because of Climate Disruption?

and and and - fuck, I hate my brain sometimes.