Archive for December 2009

Essay of the Day

But these days a new double standard has emerged where it’s okay to celebrate men manning up, but telling women they need to recover some of their femininity is offensive. To wit:

A woman telling a man to stop looking like a slob and dress up. Awesome!

A man telling a woman to stop looking like a slob and take care of herself. Sexist!

Saying that men should stop hooking up with women. Awesome!

Saying that women should stop sleeping around. Sexist!

Saying that men should get off the couch and go to work. Awesome!

Saying that a woman should be nurturing with kids. Sexist!

Saying that men should take the initiative in relationships. Awesome!

Saying that a woman should let the man lead (ever!). Sexist!

Read the whole thing.

Update: Added in response to R’s comment:

Continue reading ‘Essay of the Day’ »

Guide to Electoral Landslides

How to win Congress back in 2010:

  1. Vow to repeal the healthcare takeover
  2. Vow to drastically cut spending.

How to make Obama a 1-termer in 2012 and lock up Congress and the White House for the next decade:

  1. Pass the two bills that you pledged in 2010
  2. Make Obama veto them.

As a Grove Rat,

I say that this is pure-D bullshit.

A short-sleeved squabble ended suddenly Thursday when Town East Mall security raided a kiosk and seized a stash of T-shirts that had southeast Dallas business owners up in arms.

Half an hour after the raid, a half-dozen Pleasant Grove business owners gathered at the Southeast Dallas Chamber of Commerce and celebrated a medium-sized victory.

In the center of the room, draped across the back of a chair like a pelt, was one of the vanquished T-shirts:

“Welcome to Pleasant Grove,” it read — below a silkscreen image of a man tossing a body into the trunk of an old Buick.

Yeah, not having T-shirts on sale is going to cause someone to forget getting their car broken into, or make them think that the gun shots in the distance are “fun” shots.

(FWIW, I have one of the “Only the Strong Survive” shirts that I got as a gift a few years ago.  They told me about the Buick one and I told them that I would have rather had that one.)

It Pays for Itself!

Just saw on CNN that Obama has a new plan to stimulate the economy — reinsulate all the office buildings.


I wonder how quickly he’s going to get to yanking Carter’s old sweaters out of the closet.

If it made economic sense, businesses would already be doing it.  Businesses know a lot more about saving money than you do, Spendy McSpenderson.  And where is the money going to come from?  Let’s see, banks won’t loan the money, because they know as soon as they do, inflation is going to explode, and if you just print money to pay for it, the result is… inflation.

So the real plan is to inflate us out of this depression.  Way to come up with a new plan, FDR.

The Palin Project

Wouldn’t it be great if Saracuda got herself a front row seat to this?

Also, I love how little attention this oh-so-scathing-with-two-snaps-up-speaking-truth-to-used-to-be-power EXPOSE on her is getting.  I guess they decided to go for confusion rather than photoshopping blackface on her or something.  Imagine the uproar if someone had done an “expose” book on Obama with the title, “Dreams of my Fuhrer”?

Rubber, road. Road, rubber.

Global warming emails:Bad Astronomy

As far as the scientists’ attitudes go, much hay has been made of that as well. But I wonder. Imagine you’ve dedicated your life to some scientific pursuit. You do it because you love it, because you want to make the world a better place, and because you can see the physics beneath the surface, weaving the tapestry of reality, guiding the ebb and flow of forces both subtle and gross.

So here’s a legitimate question:  do you really support science?  What if the science makes the world a worse place?  Are you still going to do it?  What if the only way to make the world a better place (in your image, at least) is to abandon science?  Because quite frankly, that is what I see when I look at CRU.  I see people who had an idea of what a “better” world would be… and the science didn’t support them. They had to choose.

What is particularly galling is to see people who call themselves “skeptics” supporting this shoddy, politicized religion masquerading as science.  A lot of comments are made about this paper being paid for by Exxon, and that paper being paid for by Exxon, and therefore we can’t trust them and they aren’t real science.  How, then, are we supposed to trust papers paid for by governments, when the people who run the governments are the ones who will benefit from the control policies based on these papers?  How is that conflict of interest any better than Exxon’s?  Because we trust government?  There are a few billion people murdered by their own governments in the 20th century alone that would counsel against that attitude.

The examples of code in the hacked files may have been early versions, or had some estimations (called, not always accurately, fudge factors) used in place of real numbers… the thing is, we don’t know. Drawing conclusions of widespread scientific fraud from what we’ve seen is ridiculous.

Drawing any conclusion but fraud is ridiculous given that CRU still refuses to disclose the current code.  When a priest claims a miracle but won’t allow you to see the back side of the altar, a skeptic would not hesitate to call him a fraud, whether he could explain what the priest did or not.  Why would we give someone the benefit of doubt because they fancy themselves as a scientist rather than a priest?  Humans are human.

I’ll note that some people are still upset by my use of the term deniers. Again, to be clear: a skeptic is someone who uses evidence and logic to reach a conclusion. A denialist is someone who will say or do anything to deny an issue. I stand by my definition.

And I assert that your position is not based on logic, given that it is all, 100%, based on an appeal to questionable authority, with a nice big bandwagon fallacy thrown in for good measure.  An authority that, by all appearances, is no such thing.

NPR reporter pressured over Fox role

NPR reporter pressured over Fox role:

“This has been a building thing. There has been a concern in the upper regions of NPR that Fox uses Mara and Juan as cover” to defuse arguments that the TV network is populated with right-wing voices, said the source, who asked not to be named.

How dare they defuse arguments that they are populated by right-wing voices by not being populated by right-wing voices?  Why, the next thing you know, NPR will be defusing arguments that they are not a real reporting agency by actually doing real reporting.