Refuge For The Scoundrel

These jackwads are always peddling this standard-issue bullshit as they try to inoculate themselves against the logical and obvious conclusion that they're the fucking problem in the first fucking place.

"...wrapped in the flag, waving a bible..."



--and--



Somebody needs to explain this one thing to me - I need to know what exactly the difference is between these guys:

...and these guys:

How do I differentiate between this guy

...and this guy?

"But he saw too that in America the struggle was befogged by the fact that the worst Fascists were they who disowned the word 'Fascism' and preached enslavement to Capitalism under the style of Constitutional and Traditional Native American Liberty." --Sinclair Lewis

With all the overblown hyperventilation, you'd think this is about something other than simply pulling down your idea of tyranny and replacing it with my idea of tyranny.

Rejecting the process of gaining power thru force of arms and arbitrary terrorism is supposed to be what it means when we talk about American Exceptionalism.

Buncha fuckin' jagoffs.

Welfare Cowboy Update

This just in from DumFux News - all the latest on Cliven Bundy!!!!

New Show

This past Sunday, HBO premiered John Oliver's Last Week Tonight, and I managed to miss it.

YouTube won't let me embed the video, but click here and watch the whole thing.

Here's a screen cap (for reasons unknown even to me):

Another Milestone

Well not quite yet.

Next year will be the 70th anniversary of Nuclear Weapons.  Woohoo.

Here's a cool little animation by Isao Hashimoto that's just scary as fuck:

Post What Now?

Can we dispense with this bullshit about Post-Racial America now please?

  Clippers Owner Donald Sterling to GF - Don't Bring Black People to My Games, Including Magic Johnson
  - Watch More
  Celebrity Videos
  or
  Subscribe

The Best Of Hitch

10 Commandments --Christopher Hitchens

It Won't Stick

Here's Cliven Bundy trying to remind everybody that DumFux News is really in near-perfect agreement with everything he had to say "about the negro":



It's almost impossible for anybody not to know something about what's been happening with ol' Clive by now, and I'm not here to tutor you.  So if you can't keep up, take notes.  And if you're still a little confused, then you're prob'ly gonna be better off in some other class.

Now that I've weeded out the slackers and alienated most everybody else in my vast audience of ones and twos, let's get on with it:  Bundy obviously saw his opportunity to dance in the spotlight and he was determined to do it.  We saw video of him being all folksie and shucks-ma'am.  And we saw him galloping up that little hill with the stars-n-stripes.  And there he was speechifyin' at a podium festooned in red white and blue bunting, flanked by militia members looking all stern and cool and macho as they (almost literally) fondled each others' metal penises etc etc etc.

But then it all went to shit when Bundy took that next fateful step - which everybody "on the left" knew he'd take eventually, btw.  And suddenly, there's Bundy trying hard not to acknowledge that his 15 minutes were up about 20 minutes ago.

So anyway - two things:

1) DumFux News is in full retreat / damage control mode - disavowing him like he was Jim Phelps and the cassette tape's already self-destructing, while Bundy refuses to play along.

2) If history is any guide at all, the gurus at GOP and DumFux News will Etch-A-Sketch the fuck outa this little episode, and in a month or two the bubble-dwellers will be thinking it's all back to "normal" - like none of this ever happened.

The good news may well turn out to be that this has an effect on the big squishy middle.  

Bunches of people vote more or less according to "the fashionable trend".  They don't pay much attention to politics, and they don't know much about positions or policy, even tho' they have a general philosophy in mind and they tend to vote in a certain way.  These are the ones who get really uncomfortable in any discussion where they have to go beyond their usual centrist platitudes.  They haven't spent any real time or effort reading or listening or watching - they leaf thru People and Cosmo and USA Today, and they just kinda pick up a general attitude; they seem to get their political views by some kind of Social Osmosis.

It's not so much that they want to vote for somebody they think will best represent their interests (figuring that out requires work, which requires time, which a lot of people just don't have).  It's more like they only want to avoid being made fun of if they ever reveal who they voted for.

Sean Hannity isn't running away from Cliven Bundy because Bundy's a racist asshole.  

Hannity's running away from Bundy because Hannity's a craven political panderer who knows he has to un-couple Bundy from the GOP's candidates - in a big fuckin' hurry.

Here's what the symbology was supposed to be:  Every vote for a GOP candidate is a vote for freedom-loving patriots in The Real America® (roll the footage of Bundy waving the flag - what, you tho't video like that happened by accident?).

But here's what it is now:  Every vote for a GOP candidate is a vote for inveterate racist fuckheads like The Welfare Cowboy (roll the sound clip of "...about the negro").

When the thing kinda boils down to people thinking "you vote for the guy who's most like you", you're not gonna want people thinking you voted for the GOP because that makes them think you're an inveterate racist fuckhead like Clive Bundy.

Let' see if the Dems can make it stick.

A Little De-Programming, Please

From the film's website

As filmmaker, Jen Senko, tries to understand the transformation of her father from a non political, life-long Democrat to an angry, Right-Wing fanatic, she uncovers the forces behind the media that changed him completely: a plan by Roger Ailes under Nixon for a media takeover by the GOP, The Powell Memo urging business leaders to influence institutions of public opinion, especially the universities, the media and the courts, and under Reagan, the dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine.

Survivorship Bias

Try to focus on whatever killed the dead guy, not on what didn't kill the survivor.

"A stupid decision that works out well becomes a brilliant decision in hindsight" --Daniel Kahneman

From the podcast of You Are Not So Smart:

"Despite how it may seem, success boils down to serially avoiding catastrophic failure while routinely absorbing manageable damage."

Careful Who Ya Hang With

Gawker:

A 21-year-old Italian man was crushed to death today by a giant crucifix dedicated to the late Pope John Paul II. The tragic event happened just a few days ahead of the Pope's canonization.

According to the Telegraph, a piece of the 100-foot-tall crucifix collapsed on the man, Marco Gusmini, during an event near the village of Cevo while he posed for a photo with a group of friends. The cross was designed by sculptor Enrico Job and was created for John Paul II's 1998 visit to nearby Brescia in northern Italy.

Pope John Paul II will become a saint on Sunday in an unprecedented double-canonization with Pope John XXIII. Pope John Paul's canonization is surrounded by a bit of controversy, due to the idea that it is happening too quickly after his death — only nine years — and to the thought that he did not take seriously enough the sexual abuse crises that emerged at the end of his tenure.

And if this sad happening isn't spooky enough for you already, the Telegraph reports that Gusmini is said to have been living on a street named after the other to-be-canonized Pope, Pope John XXIII.

Eek!

So, god is saying, "Don't be such a suck-up"?  That's something else that just doesn't square with what it says in the bible, or with what you hear practically every day.

'Scuse Me, Mr Issa

Darrell Issa's been making a fuss over the IRS flap for a while now, and even tho' it's always looked like the standard fishing expedition; and even tho' there's plenty of evidence that Da Gubmint wasn't just trying to beat down a buncha poor defenseless slobs like Karl Rove, there seems to be something missing in all the hubbub.

Here's a short look at the kind of outfits the IRS was looking into.  Remember, bureaucrats have a lot of shit to get thru in a day.  And so like anybody with a living thinking brain who's trying to work with even a little efficiency, they need to prioritize and organize; and the IRS had some database tools that they were using to help them sift thru all that paperwork and get to the good stuff first etc.

OK, so here's the graphic:

But wait - it seems the outfits that Issa is saying were being Jack-Booted by the army of evil CPAs weren't the ones attracting all the attention after all.  The TeaBaggers are down at #4, and so ermahgerd, Mr Issa has been fibbing this whole time!?!  How could this be?

OK OK, I'll stop because nobody but the bubble-dwellers ever believed it was about trying to rein in the outa-control tyranny of Da Gubmint anyway. 

Unfortunately, a coupla things are still pretty fucked up about it.

First, the law and the attending regulations are vague about what does and what doesn't make your little organization eligible for tax-exempt status.  Laws need to be specific. Laws that are not specific tend not to be enforceable.  Which leads us to the paranoid presumption that maybe somebody wants these laws to go unenforced in order to gain an unfair advantage.

And that gets us to the second part.  By bitching about the IRS, and claiming some kinda bullshit mistreatment, Issa's little dog-n-pony show conveniently distracts us from finding out whether or not any of those outfits might be breaking the law.

Darrell Issa is using his position of wealth and power to protect his clients (ie anyone else in a position of wealth and power) from being held accountable for anything by anybody.  He's protecting them from us; he's facilitating the sale of our Representation to the highest bidder; and he's using our money to fucking do it.

Helluva deal.

Logical Fallacy #11 - Burden Of Proof

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards.[4][5]
In public discourse[edit]

Burden of proof is also an important concept in the public arena of ideas. Once participants in discourse establish common assumptions, the mechanism of burden of proof helps to ensure that all parties contribute productively, using relevant arguments.[6][7][8][9]
Proving a negative[edit]

When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different to the explicit denial "I believe that X is false".[10]
Example[edit]

Matt Dillahunty gives the example of a large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof.[11][12] It is a fact of reality that the number of gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the beliefs a person could hold are more complicated. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as
The number of gumballs is even.
The number of gumballs is odd.

These two claims can be considered independently. For each claim, because of the law of excluded middle, we are forced to either believe or not believe. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of distinguishing either of the two claims. All of the information we have applies to claim 1 in exactly the same way it applies to claim 2. Due to the law of noncontradiction we cannot accept both of the two mutually exclusive claims, so we must reject (or not believe) both. This is the default position, which represents the null hypothesis. The justification for this position is only ever the lack of evidence supporting a claim. Instead, the burden of proof, or the responsibility to provide evidence and reasoning, lies with those seeking to persuade someone holding the default position.

Fair's Fair

Rain Song --Jimmy Page and Robert Plant

This is the springtime of my loving-
the second season I am to know
You are the sunlight in my growing-
so little warmth I've felt before.
It isn't hard to feel me glowing-
I watched the fire that grew so low.

It is the summer of my smiles-
flee from me Keepers of the Gloom.
Speak to me only with your eyes
it is to you I give this tune.
Ain't so hard to recognize-
These things are clear to all from
time to time. Ooooh...
Talk Talk-

I've felt the coldness of my winter
I never thought it would ever go
I cursed the gloom that set upon us...
But I know that I love you so
but I know that I love you so.

These are the seasons of emotion
And like the winds they rise and fall
This is the wonder of devotion-
I see the torch we all must hold.
This is the mystery of the quotient-
Upon us all a little rain
must fall, Just a little rain?

Feels Like Rain --John Hiatt

Because --Dave Clark Five

Because --Beatles

Oops

Once upon a time, you could count on your marketing department to be able to "prove" any conclusion management had already reached.

When the board at BP needed to feel reassured that the company could avoid being tagged as a major contributor to the death of an entire geographical region and the resultant slow implosion of several local economies, they went to their marketing geniuses and we got all those great commercials on TV about "Disaster? What disaster? Everything's great here."  It doesn't matter what's really going on because you're "controlling" the message, so nobody's going to see the real problems because Big Oil owns a majority stake in the politicians in the Gulf States and the money they're able to spend on media makes it easier for people (who desperately need to believe it's all OK) to believe it's all OK, in spite of some small voices to the contrary.

Variations on that little scenario have played out quite often over the years.

Things have been changing a bit though.  Social Media is the way to go now.  You can save many millions of dollars (paying me a few hundred K instead) by putting up a Facebook page and letting Twitter carry your message virally to millions more consumers than TV or even that old-fashioned Inter Tubes thing could ever imagine.

But "control" is an illusion, and what frequently happens on Social Media proves it.  What you get might be very much the opposite of what you were probably expecting and/or hoping for, and it can come as a very rude surprise when you start to understand that you can't cherry pick the feedback.

Mitch McConnell found that out not too long ago (eg).  And now the New York Police Dept is finding out too.  NYPD decided they were in need of a little PR boost, and believing (as all authoritarian organizations do) that the undeserving masses must surely be grateful to us  - or at least respect us for our abilities to crush their puny skulls at the slightest provocation - they went along with the Social Media suggestion by asking their fans to tweet their favorites pictures of the noble NYPD in action.

Here's a quick sampling of what came in by the thousands before they could shut the account down - prob'ly not quite what they had in mind:

Today's Pix

Cuz It Works

Mostly, there's a buncha smart people running the businesses that run the world.  And mostly, these smart people make smart decisions, and (again, mostly) they decide to spend something like half a trillion dollars every year on advertising.  We think that's about right, but nobody's real sure anymore because the outfits doing the spending stopped talking about it openly several years ago, and the outfits that try to keep track of it have come to understand that the information is pretty valuable, so if you wanna know about such things, you get to pay for it (it's all about "The Analytics", dontcha know).  So the rest of us - well, we're just kinda shooting in the dark.

Anyway, smart people spend a fuckload of money on advertising - because it works.