You know how I knew your facebook post was going to be partisan talking-point bullshit? Because you started out with "I've read the entire deal with Iran..." I'm not sure what kind of free time you've got on your hands, but I find it difficult to believe you spent any of it wading through 150+ pages of legalese about reactors, heavy water, and enriched uranium. And even if you did, you'd have to have a "rather particular set of skills" (to paraphrase Liam Neeson) to fully understand it. But I don't know you; maybe that's right in your wheelhouse. However, then you had to go and add "and spoke to many others who have also read it." That, my friend, is a bridge too far. You might be able to convince me that you had read it. It's available online. I even skimmed through it myself. And by skimmed, I mean I read the first couple of pages, and then scrolled through it, looking at random sections. You might even be able to convince me that you fully understood it, even though people who are experts in the field have had some trouble with it. But the idea that you know "many" people who have accomplished a task only slightly longer and less interesting that sitting through a Russian film festival strains credulity.
I actually just felt bad for you when you came up with the howler, "and I was talking to my friend who's an expert in international law...." Oh, of course there are experts in international law out there; most people just call them "lawyers," which makes me wonder why you didn't. This smacks of that faulty appeal to authority, whereby we're supposed to give more weight to your argument because you referenced someone (an unknown someone, in this case) who you've claimed is an "expert" (again, without actually giving any real credentials). I'll bet you were one of those guys who had a Canadian girlfriend, too.
September 08, 2015
August 14, 2015
Yeah, It's An Old Meme. So What?!
I had some time on my hands, and hadn't seen anyone else do it yet, so...
"Hitler Finds Out About Hillary's Poll Numbers"
"Hitler Finds Out About Hillary's Poll Numbers"
March 09, 2015
Never Look a Gift Course in the Mouth.
I fully agree with a student body's right to self-govern. If the students at UC Irvine feel that flying the flag of the country in which they are located sends the wrong message, and endorses American "exceptionalism and superiority," then by all means they should completely separate themselves from that. Completely. I eagerly await, then, the next resolution, which divests UC Irvine from all that dirty, dirty American federal funding as well as federal student loan opportunities. Because clearly, taking that money sends the wrong message, and might lead people to think that one who accepted that money, even tacitly, through attending a school funded in part by that money, was lauding themselves (with an exceptional, superior attitude, I guess) over others.
In case any of you out there don't recognize sarcasm when you read it, let me just say that I do actually applaud those who have strong convictions. But if you feel that strongly about them, live by them. Attend one of the many other universities around the world that don't feel any need to tout American values, including "exceptionalism and superiority." Otherwise, you just seem like a petulant child, throwing a tantrum, telling mommy and daddy how much you hate them, even as you ask to borrow the keys to the car.
I'm not even going to address the "freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible, can be interpreted as hate speech" line of the resolution, because if you think that, even a little bit, then you don't really understand the concept of "freedom of speech." Or possibly language.
In case any of you out there don't recognize sarcasm when you read it, let me just say that I do actually applaud those who have strong convictions. But if you feel that strongly about them, live by them. Attend one of the many other universities around the world that don't feel any need to tout American values, including "exceptionalism and superiority." Otherwise, you just seem like a petulant child, throwing a tantrum, telling mommy and daddy how much you hate them, even as you ask to borrow the keys to the car.
I'm not even going to address the "freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible, can be interpreted as hate speech" line of the resolution, because if you think that, even a little bit, then you don't really understand the concept of "freedom of speech." Or possibly language.
December 03, 2014
Yes, But Stephen...
You shouldn't go calling it "world hunger" when you miss a meal or two, either.
Apart from the fact that I haven't ever heard someone argue (except in jest) that global warming isn't real because one person was cold one time, this is just kind of stupid. He's using a "begging the question" fallacy (among others), where one assumes the very thing one is trying to prove has already been proved. Here, he's attempting to prove global warming exists by comparing it to the already established problem of world hunger, hoping we'll conflate the two. It's like if I tried to say "Bigfoot isn't real because I haven't seen him. Also, my dog doesn't exist anymore because I haven't seen him either." I already know that the dog exists, so I can logically guess that my failure to find him at the current moment doesn't mean he's blinked out of existence. On the other hand, since it's the actual existence of Bigfoot that's at question, the burden is going to be on those who claim he exists to produce the evidence.
Another problem I have with this is reflected in my line above the pic. Clearly, Colbert is insinuating that one single person's experience for one day is not enough to invalidate what he feels is a global problem. If one person is not enough to do so, then are a few years of rising global temperatures in the grand scope of the age of the Earth enough to declare a Global Warming problem? Is missing a meal and declaring "I'm famished" enough to declare world famine? And just how many cold people/days does it take to invalidate the Global Warming theory? There must be a number that would satisfy him, right? After all, to use his own analogy, if everyone "just ate" day after day after day after day, then world hunger would be over, wouldn't it? A theory must be falsifiable to be a good theory. So, I ask again: how many cold people/days (think of it as a unit of measurement, like foot/pounds) would it take? Everyone in my neighborhood? In New York? In the U.S., where recently all 50 states were below freezing? But that's just the U.S. What about Russia, which has been seeing some record cold? And how long? According to some, there's been a pause in global warming for a while now. If true, how long of a pause will be enough?
Sure, Colbert is witty, but wit has little to do with scientific accuracy.
Another problem I have with this is reflected in my line above the pic. Clearly, Colbert is insinuating that one single person's experience for one day is not enough to invalidate what he feels is a global problem. If one person is not enough to do so, then are a few years of rising global temperatures in the grand scope of the age of the Earth enough to declare a Global Warming problem? Is missing a meal and declaring "I'm famished" enough to declare world famine? And just how many cold people/days does it take to invalidate the Global Warming theory? There must be a number that would satisfy him, right? After all, to use his own analogy, if everyone "just ate" day after day after day after day, then world hunger would be over, wouldn't it? A theory must be falsifiable to be a good theory. So, I ask again: how many cold people/days (think of it as a unit of measurement, like foot/pounds) would it take? Everyone in my neighborhood? In New York? In the U.S., where recently all 50 states were below freezing? But that's just the U.S. What about Russia, which has been seeing some record cold? And how long? According to some, there's been a pause in global warming for a while now. If true, how long of a pause will be enough?
Sure, Colbert is witty, but wit has little to do with scientific accuracy.
July 10, 2014
Absolutely DisKosTing
Like so much of what is spewed forth by Daily Kos (and posted on facebook), this image is mostly bullshit designed to trash a politician simply because he has an (R) after his name. That's not to say that many on the right don't do the same sort of thing to the (D)s, but this is the one that's currently pissing me off.
There are a couple of KEY points which this image is not being completely truthful about.
1. He didn't "propose" the bill in the usual sense we think of. In Massachusetts, where Ross is a state senator, they have something called "the right to Free Petition":
2. The picture makes you think that somehow this bill discriminates against women. It doesn't. The bill applies to both women AND men. Funny how they somehow forgot to put that part in, almost like they wanted you to think...oh, I don't know...that this guy is some kind of evil misogynist.
3. The picture leaves out two other very important pieces of information: it would only apply in divorces where children are involved and living with said parent, and it would only apply (based on the wording) to dates or sexual relations taking place within the house. Now those may not seem like important distinctions, but I think most of you are empathetic enough to put yourself in a concerned parent's shoes, and smart enough to see there's a great deal of difference between "a wife can't date or have sex during a divorce," and someone not wanting his or her ex to be getting busy in the bedroom while the kids are down the hall. Hell, I wouldn't want that happening, even if I was the parent getting busy.
I don't want the government in my bedroom, so I find this bill to be misguided, but I can see why a parent going through a divorce might want this in place. My feeling is that someone came up with this, thinking they were protecting children.
You can debate whether or not the bill is appropriate, but do it with all the facts, not the lies of both commission and omission that Kos is handing you. And don't kid yourself--they knew the truth. But that doesn't play into their narrative. They don't want you to revile the guy for creating a repressive, misogynistic bill (because he didn't). They want you to revile the guy because of his political party.
1. He didn't "propose" the bill in the usual sense we think of. In Massachusetts, where Ross is a state senator, they have something called "the right to Free Petition":
In Massachusetts all citizens have the right to petition the state legislature. This procedure is called the right of free petition. A citizen drafts and files a Petition and accompanying Bill. A legislator sponsors the Bill in the General Court. If a legislator disagrees with the contents of the Bill, he/she may indicate this by placing the phrase “By request” after his/her name.If you take a look at the Bill here, you'll see that there is a "By request" after Ross's name. He has also stated that:
State government is not reserved solely for those who have been elected. It belongs to every citizen of Massachusetts. For that reason, when a constituent requested that I file a free petition on his behalf, I did so. While the proposal is not one that I support, I do support his right to participate in state government. This petition is now in the hands of my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the democratic process will allow for it to be considered and voted on by the Legislature. (emphasis mine)
2. The picture makes you think that somehow this bill discriminates against women. It doesn't. The bill applies to both women AND men. Funny how they somehow forgot to put that part in, almost like they wanted you to think...oh, I don't know...that this guy is some kind of evil misogynist.
3. The picture leaves out two other very important pieces of information: it would only apply in divorces where children are involved and living with said parent, and it would only apply (based on the wording) to dates or sexual relations taking place within the house. Now those may not seem like important distinctions, but I think most of you are empathetic enough to put yourself in a concerned parent's shoes, and smart enough to see there's a great deal of difference between "a wife can't date or have sex during a divorce," and someone not wanting his or her ex to be getting busy in the bedroom while the kids are down the hall. Hell, I wouldn't want that happening, even if I was the parent getting busy.
I don't want the government in my bedroom, so I find this bill to be misguided, but I can see why a parent going through a divorce might want this in place. My feeling is that someone came up with this, thinking they were protecting children.
You can debate whether or not the bill is appropriate, but do it with all the facts, not the lies of both commission and omission that Kos is handing you. And don't kid yourself--they knew the truth. But that doesn't play into their narrative. They don't want you to revile the guy for creating a repressive, misogynistic bill (because he didn't). They want you to revile the guy because of his political party.
June 16, 2014
Try Not To Lose THIS One, Lois.
Perhaps we should email this little gem from Consumerist to Lois Lerner?
How to Not Suck at Dealing with Old Paperwork
It's good advice for anyone, actually. Especially this part:
How to Not Suck at Dealing with Old Paperwork
It's good advice for anyone, actually. Especially this part:
"If you prefer digital to paper, you can download account statements and keep the electronic versions, but make sure they have a place to live that’s beyond your hard drive.
Why?
If your computer ever gives you the dreaded blue screen of death, you need to be sure you still have access to your documents."
The Dog Ate My Computer!
I know it's been a while since I've posted anything. It's not that I haven't had a lot to say; it's just that most of it has been said in rambling emails to close friends. I need to get back in the habit of sharing my discontent with all of you.
That said, I had prepared a post on the missing Lois Lerner emails, but then I realized that Dan Mitchell said nearly everything I said, and probably said it better. So I'll link to his post on it. The only thing I would add is to ask you all one question:
If it were you or I that claimed--to the IRS--that the emails they requested for our audit just happened to be lost due to a "computer crash," how do you think they would respond? And take a second to realize that, unlike organizations such as the IRS, most of us likely don't have any kind of backup or redundancy for our home systems.
I can make a pretty good guess how they would respond.
"Computer crash" is the modern equivalent of "the dog ate my homework!" I hear it far too often from students who are looking for a deadline extension. Of course, most of them don't realize the extent of my computer skills, and are stuck when I begin asking them for further details, or just call them on outright fibs.
We ought to handle the IRS with a similar technique. That is, have the Justice Department and/or FBI confiscate all computers related to the missing emails--all servers or clients that created, transmitted, or stored the emails--and have them run through by forensics experts. They may not be able to recover any, but it might be worthwhile trying to find just what happened to them. And if the drives turned out to have been wiped? Well, that in itself seems a bit suspicious, don't you think? It's like a crime scene where they found no forensic evidence of an intruder, but also no evidence of the residents (which you would naturally expect to find in the place where they lived). The logical conclusion would be that the scene was cleaned and sterilized on purpose.
People keep calling this a "scandal," but it seems at this point to be more than that. It's beginning to look, in toto, like a crime, and we ought to begin investigating it as such.
That said, I had prepared a post on the missing Lois Lerner emails, but then I realized that Dan Mitchell said nearly everything I said, and probably said it better. So I'll link to his post on it. The only thing I would add is to ask you all one question:
If it were you or I that claimed--to the IRS--that the emails they requested for our audit just happened to be lost due to a "computer crash," how do you think they would respond? And take a second to realize that, unlike organizations such as the IRS, most of us likely don't have any kind of backup or redundancy for our home systems.
I can make a pretty good guess how they would respond.
"Computer crash" is the modern equivalent of "the dog ate my homework!" I hear it far too often from students who are looking for a deadline extension. Of course, most of them don't realize the extent of my computer skills, and are stuck when I begin asking them for further details, or just call them on outright fibs.
We ought to handle the IRS with a similar technique. That is, have the Justice Department and/or FBI confiscate all computers related to the missing emails--all servers or clients that created, transmitted, or stored the emails--and have them run through by forensics experts. They may not be able to recover any, but it might be worthwhile trying to find just what happened to them. And if the drives turned out to have been wiped? Well, that in itself seems a bit suspicious, don't you think? It's like a crime scene where they found no forensic evidence of an intruder, but also no evidence of the residents (which you would naturally expect to find in the place where they lived). The logical conclusion would be that the scene was cleaned and sterilized on purpose.
People keep calling this a "scandal," but it seems at this point to be more than that. It's beginning to look, in toto, like a crime, and we ought to begin investigating it as such.
November 15, 2013
"No Mr. Bond, I Expect You To....Ow, That Smarts!"
I'm sure someone has pointed this out already, but doesn't Mayor of Toronto Rob Ford look like Chris Farley and Auric Goldfinger had a kid?
Plus
Equals
Equals
November 09, 2013
"And Rather Has The E-mails To Prove It!"
This just in from the fake television listings:
Tune in to MSNBC all this month for our special on the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination, "November 22, 1963: Does Anyone Know Where George W. Bush Was?" Hosted by Dan Rather.
August 19, 2013
Immortal, Schmimortal...Wait, Or Is It "Imschmortal"?
This, from Gawker:
Apparently, you scientists have never seen a '70s Sci-fi movie. Stopping the aging process is just one of those things you shouldn't do because it's never going to end well. You know, like making apes super smart, or making machines super smart, or making Kardashians super smart.
"Gabby Williams is eight years old, but looks like a newborn. She is one of only a handful of people across the world who age at an incredibly slow rate, and scientists are trying to figure out why. Once they do, the discovery could help fight Alzheimer's, and even give us an aging 'off switch,' which would give humans the chance to stay the same age... pretty much forever."
Apparently, you scientists have never seen a '70s Sci-fi movie. Stopping the aging process is just one of those things you shouldn't do because it's never going to end well. You know, like making apes super smart, or making machines super smart, or making Kardashians super smart.
August 06, 2013
Blah Blah Blah Ingrid Haas!
Ingrid Haas (whom I've posted about before) could possibly be the hottest woman on the planet. Even with a possible fictional venereal disease. Check her out in the short film "Blessing in Disguise."
Blessing in Disguise from Eric Kissack on Vimeo.
"Katie just found out that she has an incurable venereal disease. Enter the man of her dreams."
Blessing in Disguise from Eric Kissack on Vimeo.
"Katie just found out that she has an incurable venereal disease. Enter the man of her dreams."
July 25, 2013
With Great Apologies to Johnny Rivers
This little ditty began when I was watching reports of the Anthony Weiner scandal and started humming upon hearing Weiner's nom de porn, "Carlos Danger." It should be sung to the tune of Johnny Rivers' "Secret Agent Man," which, if you're not familiar, can be found in a YouTube video at the end of the post.
By the way, it's sheer, humorous coincidence that the name of the album is "...and I know you wanna dance," which sounds like it could have come straight out of one of Weiner's correspondences. You'll also notice it includes other Weiner-appropriate titles, such as "The Snake," "In the Midnight Hour," and "I Can't Help Myself."
There’s a man who goes by Carlos Danger.
He likes to show his package off to strangers.
If you’ve got curvy hips,
He’ll let you see the tip.
Odds are he won’t get the job of mayor.
Secret Weiner Man,
Secret Weiner Man
He just keeps sending selfies,
Anthony’s got no shame.
Beware of naked pictures he will send,
It’s clear he wants to be more than a friend.
He’ll send a dirty text,
To tell you what’s coming next (he is!)
He really shouldn’t get the job of mayor.
Secret Weiner Man
Secret Weiner Man
Send a photo of your business,
And he’ll send you back the same.
He’ll promise voters better lives on one day,
Then promise you a Politico job the next day.
He does the apology dance,
He wants yet another chance,
Please don’t give this man the job of mayor.
Secret Weiner Man
Secret Weiner Man
If you send him to Gracie Mansion,
You’ve got only yourselves to blame.
By the way, it's sheer, humorous coincidence that the name of the album is "...and I know you wanna dance," which sounds like it could have come straight out of one of Weiner's correspondences. You'll also notice it includes other Weiner-appropriate titles, such as "The Snake," "In the Midnight Hour," and "I Can't Help Myself."
June 04, 2013
Looking For A Good Read?
Well, you're here, so...probably not. But on the off chance that you are, I'm going to share a link to Ken Wheaton's newest novel, Bacon & Egg Man. Here's the review I posted over at Amazon:
Seriously, buy it. If you have a Kindle or Nook or even a Kindle app on your smartphone, you can get it for only 99 cents!! Think about it--you can't even get a blank book for that much. And this one has words in it! Plus, just like The Hunger Games, the Harry Potter series, and Game of Thrones, when they make this bad boy into a movie, all the people that read the novels first can be all judgmental and pretentious. Who doesn't want to be a part of that?
Like Brave New World and 1984, But Without All the Optimism.
Ken Wheaton's second novel (after The Grand Prairie Rabbit Festival) not only takes on the "nanny state," it takes it out behind the woodshed for a whuppin'. The characters are lively, and the writing itself flows smoothly, and--more importantly--is funny. But the real treasure here is the world he creates. It's dystopian, it's somber, but it's not so unfamiliar that we don't recognize our own world in its lineage. As someone who pays attention to current events, I relished finding every little allusion to them in this cautionary comedy. Like a photoshopped photograph imagining our older selves, Wheaton shows us the over-regulated, over-protective world that Wes lives in, our world, where the nanny state mentality has continued ad absurdum. And like the photograph, we laugh at its ridiculousness, but somewhere, in the far corners of our mind, we also despair of its possible truth.
Great dystopian novels always feature the noble struggle of the individual against the collective machine of society, whether it's R.P. McMurphy, John the Savage, Winston Smith, or Guy Montag. I put Wes Montgomery right up there with the rest of them, because I really, really like bacon.
Buy it. Read it. You won't be sorry.
Seriously, buy it. If you have a Kindle or Nook or even a Kindle app on your smartphone, you can get it for only 99 cents!! Think about it--you can't even get a blank book for that much. And this one has words in it! Plus, just like The Hunger Games, the Harry Potter series, and Game of Thrones, when they make this bad boy into a movie, all the people that read the novels first can be all judgmental and pretentious. Who doesn't want to be a part of that?
January 10, 2013
It's Exactly The Same, Except It's Different
Saw this one on facebook today:
Those horrible, horrible Republicans! How could they do this?! I mean, it's not like the House leadership passed their own version of the VAWA, that was closer to the previous version than the one the Senate passed, which added some new provisions, right? Wait..they did?! Well, what the fuck, then, pink sign?!
Look, we all know that violence against women is awful. Domestic violence particularly so. That's why I find this graphic so vile--it uses this tragic topic for purely political purposes. It clearly implies that House republicans don't care about violence against women, and as a result, have decided not to renew this important piece of legislation. Well, here's the truth--the Senate added three new provisions for the new VAWA:
These are the sticking points for the House, at least as I understand them. I'll be honest--I don't really have any problem with any of them. I understand the apparent arguments being made against them. That they give undue authority to N.A. tribal police, that the law as written previously covers G/L/TG victims, so there's no need to single them out, and that the cap is there for a reason. I just don't see them as being as big of a concern as the House does. But here's the thing: if you want to have an argument on the merits of these additions, then HAVE THAT ARGUMENT! But to make people think that the House leadership just doesn't want to pass a VAWA, when in fact they've already passed their own version, is just disingenuous, overly partisan, and frankly, really disgusting. It's amazing to what depths people will sink when they feel the end (voting out republicans) justifies the means (creating some bullshit graphic that unfairly (and untruthfully) paints a picture of political opponents).
Look, we all know that violence against women is awful. Domestic violence particularly so. That's why I find this graphic so vile--it uses this tragic topic for purely political purposes. It clearly implies that House republicans don't care about violence against women, and as a result, have decided not to renew this important piece of legislation. Well, here's the truth--the Senate added three new provisions for the new VAWA:
- It gives Native-American tribal authorities expanded authority to prosecute cases of violence that occur on reservations.
- It specifically bans discrimination against gays, lesbians, and transgender victims by domestic violence organizations that receive federal funds.
- It would raise the number of visas given to illegal aliens who are victims of domestic violence above the current cap of 10,000.
These are the sticking points for the House, at least as I understand them. I'll be honest--I don't really have any problem with any of them. I understand the apparent arguments being made against them. That they give undue authority to N.A. tribal police, that the law as written previously covers G/L/TG victims, so there's no need to single them out, and that the cap is there for a reason. I just don't see them as being as big of a concern as the House does. But here's the thing: if you want to have an argument on the merits of these additions, then HAVE THAT ARGUMENT! But to make people think that the House leadership just doesn't want to pass a VAWA, when in fact they've already passed their own version, is just disingenuous, overly partisan, and frankly, really disgusting. It's amazing to what depths people will sink when they feel the end (voting out republicans) justifies the means (creating some bullshit graphic that unfairly (and untruthfully) paints a picture of political opponents).
December 23, 2012
I've Got Rocks In My Head
Or on my brain, rather. I'm not surprised that this graphic came from The Rachel Maddow Fan Page.
This one is pretty easily dispensed with, I think.
Why wouldn't it be a solution? Think about it for a second. If all those other responsible, law-abiding children on the playground had rocks to begin with, would the child in question still throw the rock? I think not. It's actually a pretty good solution. Sure we could threaten the naughty child with detention if he/she goes through with it, but then that poor other student still gets a rock upside the head. If we ban all rocks on the playground, then only children who don't obey the rules will have rocks...and not be afraid to use them. This seems much more preventative.
Why wouldn't it be a solution? Think about it for a second. If all those other responsible, law-abiding children on the playground had rocks to begin with, would the child in question still throw the rock? I think not. It's actually a pretty good solution. Sure we could threaten the naughty child with detention if he/she goes through with it, but then that poor other student still gets a rock upside the head. If we ban all rocks on the playground, then only children who don't obey the rules will have rocks...and not be afraid to use them. This seems much more preventative.
The Graphic That Broke The Camel's Back
Assuming I'm the camel, that is. I've been seeing a lot of friends and colleagues posting graphics on facebook lately that try to make some political point. I'm always disappointed because they are always posted by people I respect, and who are--most of the time--fairly intelligent people...and the posts are always horrible. They're often illogical, biased, and usually fall apart under the slightest scrutiny.
I've decided to cover some of them here. I don't usually respond to them on facebook, primarily because I work in a place where most people are on one side of the political aisle, and I'm usually on the other. Therefore, I don't advertise my politics most of the time. That said, while most of the ones I choose to cover will likely be from the left, because most of my graphic-posting facebook friends seem to be from that side, if I see an egregious one from the right, I have no problem covering it here.
I thought I'd start with this one, for no other reason than it was the one that finally made me say "enough!" It's in response to the NRA's suggestion that schools employ armed security in the wake of the incident at the Sandy Hook School in Connecticut.
My initial thought was "wait...didn't President Clinton provide funding for placing police officers in schools in the wake of Columbine?" (Hint: he did.) I only bring that up because the two friends who posted it were both Clinton supporters. But apart from noting the hypocrisy, I thought I'd examine it closer, to see if maybe there was a valid argument there.
Clearly, the insinuation is that an armed presence in a school would not prevent a mass killing there, since it was unable to prevent these. And that's pretty much the only point it's making.
All three of these statements are true. There is no arguing that. The problem arises when you look further into the circumstances behind each statement.
Columbine had an armed guard:
Deputy Neil Gardner was the deputy in question here, and most days he would eat his lunch in the cafeteria with the children, but on that day, in a stroke of bad luck, he was eating his lunch in his patrol car when the custodian radioed him to go to the back lot, where a female student had been shot. By the time he got there, the shooting was well underway, but even so, he engaged one of the killers for a few minutes, which may have given a few more students time to escape. Regardless, though, he was not inside the school, which really negates the implication made in the posting.
Virginia Tech had their own police dept.:
Again, true, but hardly comparable given the size of the campus (over 30,000 students on 2,600 acres) in relation to the size of a typical elementary, middle, or high school. Of course they'd have their own police dept. It's only slightly less populous than Virginia's most populous town, Blackburn. That's not the only context that makes the statement deceptive, though. The VA Tech shooting was odd in that two students were killed initially in one building, and then the shooter cleaned up, and two and a half hours later, chained himself inside another dorm across campus, where he killed 30 other people. The police were having a meeting about the first shootings, which they thought were a "domestic dispute," when the second set happened. "By the time officers arrived, the shooting had stopped and the gunman had killed himself, the chief said." This situation is really more akin to the problem of police response time in cities and towns, which would seem to me to be more supportive of the push to allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns to protect themselves. Virginia Tech was a gun-free zone, as were all three places referenced here, as well as the Aurora Theater in Colorado.
Ft. Hood was a military base:
One might forgive this one, because any normal person might assume that "hey, it's a military base! There are guns everywhere!" I won't bother making the tired joke about what happens when you "assume" something. As it turns out, Ft. Hood was--as I mentioned--a gun-free zone. Yes, they have weapons on the base, but "soldiers at Fort Hood don't carry weapons unless they are doing training exercises." Even the shooter's own weapons were not military issue. So for the third time, it turns out an armed presence was not in the actual building(s) where these horrific events took place, which completely belies the one and only point being made in the graphic.
I'm not above having a debate about how to make our schools safer, and whether or not we should have an armed presence in our schools*, but if we're going to have that debate, let's make sure it's not one based on intellectually dishonest information.
*I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue. I find it a little sad that we would even have to consider placing armed guards in our schools, but on the other hand, there are two pieces of information that I keep thinking about. The first is that almost without exception, these kinds of killing take place in gun-free zones, where the killers are certain they won't be confronted with any opposing firepower until the police eventually show up, which can--literally--be a matter of life or death for some. The second is that anytime we have something of value, or something that we want to protect, what do we do? How do we protect banks? Armored cars (besides the armor, of course)? Even our government buildings, including the White House? We protect them with an armed presence. How can we not even consider protecting one of our most valuable resources--our children--that way?
I've decided to cover some of them here. I don't usually respond to them on facebook, primarily because I work in a place where most people are on one side of the political aisle, and I'm usually on the other. Therefore, I don't advertise my politics most of the time. That said, while most of the ones I choose to cover will likely be from the left, because most of my graphic-posting facebook friends seem to be from that side, if I see an egregious one from the right, I have no problem covering it here.
I thought I'd start with this one, for no other reason than it was the one that finally made me say "enough!" It's in response to the NRA's suggestion that schools employ armed security in the wake of the incident at the Sandy Hook School in Connecticut.
My initial thought was "wait...didn't President Clinton provide funding for placing police officers in schools in the wake of Columbine?" (Hint: he did.) I only bring that up because the two friends who posted it were both Clinton supporters. But apart from noting the hypocrisy, I thought I'd examine it closer, to see if maybe there was a valid argument there.
Clearly, the insinuation is that an armed presence in a school would not prevent a mass killing there, since it was unable to prevent these. And that's pretty much the only point it's making.
All three of these statements are true. There is no arguing that. The problem arises when you look further into the circumstances behind each statement.
Columbine had an armed guard:
Deputy Neil Gardner was the deputy in question here, and most days he would eat his lunch in the cafeteria with the children, but on that day, in a stroke of bad luck, he was eating his lunch in his patrol car when the custodian radioed him to go to the back lot, where a female student had been shot. By the time he got there, the shooting was well underway, but even so, he engaged one of the killers for a few minutes, which may have given a few more students time to escape. Regardless, though, he was not inside the school, which really negates the implication made in the posting.
Virginia Tech had their own police dept.:
Again, true, but hardly comparable given the size of the campus (over 30,000 students on 2,600 acres) in relation to the size of a typical elementary, middle, or high school. Of course they'd have their own police dept. It's only slightly less populous than Virginia's most populous town, Blackburn. That's not the only context that makes the statement deceptive, though. The VA Tech shooting was odd in that two students were killed initially in one building, and then the shooter cleaned up, and two and a half hours later, chained himself inside another dorm across campus, where he killed 30 other people. The police were having a meeting about the first shootings, which they thought were a "domestic dispute," when the second set happened. "By the time officers arrived, the shooting had stopped and the gunman had killed himself, the chief said." This situation is really more akin to the problem of police response time in cities and towns, which would seem to me to be more supportive of the push to allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns to protect themselves. Virginia Tech was a gun-free zone, as were all three places referenced here, as well as the Aurora Theater in Colorado.
Ft. Hood was a military base:
One might forgive this one, because any normal person might assume that "hey, it's a military base! There are guns everywhere!" I won't bother making the tired joke about what happens when you "assume" something. As it turns out, Ft. Hood was--as I mentioned--a gun-free zone. Yes, they have weapons on the base, but "soldiers at Fort Hood don't carry weapons unless they are doing training exercises." Even the shooter's own weapons were not military issue. So for the third time, it turns out an armed presence was not in the actual building(s) where these horrific events took place, which completely belies the one and only point being made in the graphic.
I'm not above having a debate about how to make our schools safer, and whether or not we should have an armed presence in our schools*, but if we're going to have that debate, let's make sure it's not one based on intellectually dishonest information.
*I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue. I find it a little sad that we would even have to consider placing armed guards in our schools, but on the other hand, there are two pieces of information that I keep thinking about. The first is that almost without exception, these kinds of killing take place in gun-free zones, where the killers are certain they won't be confronted with any opposing firepower until the police eventually show up, which can--literally--be a matter of life or death for some. The second is that anytime we have something of value, or something that we want to protect, what do we do? How do we protect banks? Armored cars (besides the armor, of course)? Even our government buildings, including the White House? We protect them with an armed presence. How can we not even consider protecting one of our most valuable resources--our children--that way?
December 11, 2012
An Honest Question
In Lansing, Michigan, union members gathered to protest that state's adoption of "right-to-work" laws, which essentially means workers do not have to join a union and pay union dues to work. Unsurprisingly, violence erupted. Steven Crowder, a conservative blogger/comedian/etc. was questioning some of the workers about their views, as you can see in the video below. Some time later, union members began tearing down a tent belong to the group Americans for Prosperity. Crowder confronted them and asked them to stop, and at some point (the video is a little unclear) was attacked.
You see the union member in the video asked why he's against "right-to-work." He responds:
So here's my question, to my left-leaning, union-supporting friends like that fellow:
How on earth is it that you can condemn those who don't want to join a union as "freeloaders," and support a president who reinforces freeloading by nearly half of the country when it comes to, say, Obamacare or any number of other entitlement programs?
Try this: "They can suck all of the health insurance benefits that our taxes have paid for and they get it for free!" Is the reasoning any different here?
Even liberal Mother Jones points out the dangers of "free riders":
But "free riders" in national entitlement programs, who get representation without paying taxes? Apparently that won't diminish our national treasury or lower the membership in the working class. Or so the left keeps saying.
I also noted that several liberal commentators used the word "fair," as in "if workers don't join a union, they should still have to pay equivalent fees, so that it's fair for all workers." It's funny how that word "fair" takes on a completely different meaning when those same commentators talk about taxation
I wish they would make up their minds.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I myself belong to a union. I think they've done some good for the workers, but in the main I resent them because I think they spent far too much time (and far too many resources) as an arm of the Democratic Party. Honestly, the workers have taken a back seat in terms of importance.
You see the union member in the video asked why he's against "right-to-work." He responds:
"...it's the freedom to freeload. They can suck all of the parasitical(?) benefits and our wages that unions have negotiated and they get it for free!"
So here's my question, to my left-leaning, union-supporting friends like that fellow:
How on earth is it that you can condemn those who don't want to join a union as "freeloaders," and support a president who reinforces freeloading by nearly half of the country when it comes to, say, Obamacare or any number of other entitlement programs?
Try this: "They can suck all of the health insurance benefits that our taxes have paid for and they get it for free!" Is the reasoning any different here?
Even liberal Mother Jones points out the dangers of "free riders":
"Right-to-work allows those nonmembers to receive union representation without paying for it—unions deride those folks 'free-riders.' The result of right-to-work laws is that unions see their treasuries diminish and membership take a hit."
But "free riders" in national entitlement programs, who get representation without paying taxes? Apparently that won't diminish our national treasury or lower the membership in the working class. Or so the left keeps saying.
I also noted that several liberal commentators used the word "fair," as in "if workers don't join a union, they should still have to pay equivalent fees, so that it's fair for all workers." It's funny how that word "fair" takes on a completely different meaning when those same commentators talk about taxation
I wish they would make up their minds.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I myself belong to a union. I think they've done some good for the workers, but in the main I resent them because I think they spent far too much time (and far too many resources) as an arm of the Democratic Party. Honestly, the workers have taken a back seat in terms of importance.
October 22, 2012
He LOOKS The Same, But...
Watching Obama talk about the last four years during this last debate, I find myself thinking: "it's too bad that guy wasn't president." It's almost like I was in an alternate universe.
This, of course, also made it knee-slappingly hysterical when Obama accused Romney of revising history. Ultimately, I thought both of them scored some points, but Obama occasionally seemed petulant and too focused on attacking Romney. Romney, for his part passed up--I thought--a number of opportunities to score a knockdown.
It was pretty close to a draw, which means Romney wins. The incumbent should always have a foreign-policy advantage. Here, Obama didn't seem to. The challenger needs to seem "presidential" enough to warrant the vote. I think Romney accomplished that.
Also, the way Obama was occasionally staring at Romney? It seemed like he was trying to make Romney's head explode with just the power of his mind. That kinda creeped me out.
This, of course, also made it knee-slappingly hysterical when Obama accused Romney of revising history. Ultimately, I thought both of them scored some points, but Obama occasionally seemed petulant and too focused on attacking Romney. Romney, for his part passed up--I thought--a number of opportunities to score a knockdown.
It was pretty close to a draw, which means Romney wins. The incumbent should always have a foreign-policy advantage. Here, Obama didn't seem to. The challenger needs to seem "presidential" enough to warrant the vote. I think Romney accomplished that.
Also, the way Obama was occasionally staring at Romney? It seemed like he was trying to make Romney's head explode with just the power of his mind. That kinda creeped me out.
September 26, 2012
This Is What Makes Me Weep
What's wrong with this picture?
"Hey, did you see that one of our ambassadors, along with three other diplomats, was murdered in Libya?"
"Huh....nope. Didn't see that. That's a shame."
"Hey, did you see that last play of the Packers-Seahawks game?"
"JESUS CHRIST, WHAT A TRAVESTY THAT WAS!! SOMEBODY OUGHT TO FIRE THOSE GODDAMN REFS AND THEN DRIVE OVER TO THAT ASSHAT GOODELL'S HOUSE AND BURN THE THING TO THE GROUND!! THAT WAS FUCKIN' BULLSHIT!!"
"Hey, did you see that one of our ambassadors, along with three other diplomats, was murdered in Libya?"
"Huh....nope. Didn't see that. That's a shame."
"Hey, did you see that last play of the Packers-Seahawks game?"
"JESUS CHRIST, WHAT A TRAVESTY THAT WAS!! SOMEBODY OUGHT TO FIRE THOSE GODDAMN REFS AND THEN DRIVE OVER TO THAT ASSHAT GOODELL'S HOUSE AND BURN THE THING TO THE GROUND!! THAT WAS FUCKIN' BULLSHIT!!"
July 30, 2012
"Well, I Didnt WANT To Say That."
I wish that some of the writers out there would learn the difference between the terms "said" and "meant." For example, Greg Sargent, over at The Washington Post, who just posted an op-ed titled "Why Romney Keeps Attacking Things Obama Didn't Say."
It's one thing to argue that Obama's "you didn't build that" quote means this or that, in which case you'd have to admit that if it means anything other than what the Romney camp is implying it means, then the Great Orator...well, screwed up. He could have said, for example, "you didn't build that on your own." Three simple words. Problem solved. What you can't do, however, is argue that's not what he said. He did. Period.
This is also not a situation in which the words have somehow changed. For example, Romney's quote "I like being able to fire people," an endorsement of accountability in private enterprise over lack of accountability in government, somehow (gee, I wonder how) became "I like firing people," as though he took glee in the actual deed. (Go ahead, Google "Romney I like firing people" and see how many people changed the wording.)Here, the words are actually changed, thereby distorting the meaning.
In Obama's case, as I said, you'd have an argument if he had said "you didn't build that on your own," and they cut out the last three words. But he didn't, and they didn't. And can we dispense with the bullshit idea that his "that" somehow referred to the "bridges and roads"? That doesn't even make grammatical sense. You'd have to say "those" because of the plural antecedent.
So go ahead and argue what the words mean if you want, but what team Obama still hasn't addressed is who else deserves the credit for that business. I've pointed out before that he "borrowed" this idea from Elizabeth Warren, who was much more artful (and specific):
The thing she doesn't define, though, is "the rest of us," just as Obama doesn't say who the "someone else" is. The truth is that if you're going to talk about things built by the government, "the rest of us" must be "taxpayers," which means she's ultimately implying that about half the country is not really responsible for the country. It also--ironically--means that the people she's proposing raising the taxes on because they weren't responsible for building roads, etc., are the very same people whose taxes are responsible for...building roads, etc.
Just take government out of the equation altogether. If instead of having those business owners pay taxes to the government, which then used that money for various programs, the businesspeople used their own money directly for those same programs, would anybody question if they were dependent on someone else? It's like arguing that people who donate to charities should acknowledge that they're not solely responsible for those donations--the charity and the charity recipients also deserve some credit. The former because they collected and dispersed the money, and the latter because...well, because they're also people, I guess. The problem is, you could still have charitable donations without charities or recipients, but without the donors, the other two are sunk. And I think, ultimately, that's what's so disappointing (and revealing) to so many people about what Obama said/meant: he gets it backwards. What he ought to be doing instead of reminding taxpayers that they wouldn't succeed without government, is acknowledging that government wouldn't exist without taxpayers.
UPDATE: It's an interesting illustration of bias, I think when you look at the fact that over at Politicfact, Team Romney's claim that Obama said "You didn't build that" (which he did)? "False!" The claim that Romney likes firing people (which is not what he said)? Ehhhh..."mostly false."
This is also not a situation in which the words have somehow changed. For example, Romney's quote "I like being able to fire people," an endorsement of accountability in private enterprise over lack of accountability in government, somehow (gee, I wonder how) became "I like firing people," as though he took glee in the actual deed. (Go ahead, Google "Romney I like firing people" and see how many people changed the wording.)Here, the words are actually changed, thereby distorting the meaning.
In Obama's case, as I said, you'd have an argument if he had said "you didn't build that on your own," and they cut out the last three words. But he didn't, and they didn't. And can we dispense with the bullshit idea that his "that" somehow referred to the "bridges and roads"? That doesn't even make grammatical sense. You'd have to say "those" because of the plural antecedent.
So go ahead and argue what the words mean if you want, but what team Obama still hasn't addressed is who else deserves the credit for that business. I've pointed out before that he "borrowed" this idea from Elizabeth Warren, who was much more artful (and specific):
There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.
The thing she doesn't define, though, is "the rest of us," just as Obama doesn't say who the "someone else" is. The truth is that if you're going to talk about things built by the government, "the rest of us" must be "taxpayers," which means she's ultimately implying that about half the country is not really responsible for the country. It also--ironically--means that the people she's proposing raising the taxes on because they weren't responsible for building roads, etc., are the very same people whose taxes are responsible for...building roads, etc.
Just take government out of the equation altogether. If instead of having those business owners pay taxes to the government, which then used that money for various programs, the businesspeople used their own money directly for those same programs, would anybody question if they were dependent on someone else? It's like arguing that people who donate to charities should acknowledge that they're not solely responsible for those donations--the charity and the charity recipients also deserve some credit. The former because they collected and dispersed the money, and the latter because...well, because they're also people, I guess. The problem is, you could still have charitable donations without charities or recipients, but without the donors, the other two are sunk. And I think, ultimately, that's what's so disappointing (and revealing) to so many people about what Obama said/meant: he gets it backwards. What he ought to be doing instead of reminding taxpayers that they wouldn't succeed without government, is acknowledging that government wouldn't exist without taxpayers.
UPDATE: It's an interesting illustration of bias, I think when you look at the fact that over at Politicfact, Team Romney's claim that Obama said "You didn't build that" (which he did)? "False!" The claim that Romney likes firing people (which is not what he said)? Ehhhh..."mostly false."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)