Fourth Time Gutsy!

Hey, remember when President Obama suggested that Mitt Romney wouldn't have made that "gutsy call" to kill Osama Bin Laden? Of course you do--he even put out an ad about it

It starts out by saying "The Commander-in-Chief gets one chance to make the right decision." As it turns out, according to The Daily Caller, that's not always true. In a book by Richard Miniter, it's claimed that

At the urging of Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission.

Apparently, this Commander-in-Chief gets four chances to make the right decision.

Farleigh-Dickinson Poll Finds Dems Less Informed Than Republicans

 I've been wanting to write a post about the recent Farleigh-Dickinson poll, but haven't gotten around to it until now. I distrust polls in general, because when you start breaking them down, there's almost always some kind of bias inherent in them. The one in question is no exception. (Otherwise, why would I bother, right?) It proffers the claim that people who watch only Fox news are less informed than people who watch no news at all.

Well, they don't come right out and say that, but as you can imagine, that's what most of the liberal media and bloggers latched onto. For example, here's the headline at The Huffington Post:

Study Finds Fox News Viewers Least Informed Of All Viewers

And this one from The Nation:

It’s Official: Watching Fox Makes You Stupider

Of course, I have to point out that The Nation's headline is just factually incorrect. Even if the poll does find Fox News viewers to be least informed, a) being informed and intelligence are two different things, and b) correlation is not causation, and the poll shows no causation. Anyway, you get the idea. Most on the left were drooling over this. But maybe not so much by the time I'm finished...

There are a couple of problems I saw right off the bat. The sample is pretty small to represent the entire nation (1,185), and it does have a MOE of +/- 3%. I would also venture that most people would admit that among the cable news networks, Fox leans right and MSNBC leans left. Yet they include self-described Democrats who watch Fox and Republicans who watch MSNBC, with no indication of why those people were watching a channel they—at least on the surface—are opposed to ideologically. I think that’s important if you’re going to look at whether or not they’ve “learned” from watching. For example, if someone is watching for a news “watchdog” group, they’re watching for incidents of bias, not necessarily watching to glean information.  Should those numbers be included with these statistics? For example, on both international and domestic questions, conservatives watching Fox news scored better than "no news."

But more importantly, if you’re going to accept this as a valid examination of knowledge of current events, you’re going to also have to accept a few of the numbers that they buried. For example:

1. There are eight questions (nine if you count the a & b parts of K6). On all but two of them (K1, K3, K4, K5, K6B, K7, and K8), a higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans answered that they “don’t know” the answer. On the other two (K2 and K6A), it was a tie.
2. A higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans got 0 domestic questions correct, and got 0 international questions correct.
3. A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats (52%-45%) got 4 or more questions correct.
4. Finally, on every single question, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats chose the correct answer (unless I missed one myself, but you can easily follow the link and check me).

Given that a higher percentage of Democrats "don’t know" the answers to these questions, a higher percentage of Republicans got at least half of the questions correct, and—when looking at individual questions—a higher percentage of Republicans got the correct answer on every question, if one argues that this poll is an accurate representation of knowledge of current events, doesn’t one also have to then accept that when looking at their respective groups, Republicans are better informed about current events than Democrats? What other choice is there? If the numbers are valid in one case, they must be valid in the other.

Obviously, I’m being a little facetious about this (hence my own biased headline), but that’s the problems with this type of poll: people can twist the numbers into whatever conclusion they want them to reflect. At least until someone else comes through and twists them another way. You might say, those who live by the statistics die by the statistics. Or maybe better said, those who live by the statistics must live by ALL the statistics.

Un-Truth Team?

Here's a little re-cut I made of Obama's latest ad. Everything in here was in the original, which can be found here.

Blessed Are The Starchmakers!

I've always thought Tom Hanks was a fairly decent guy, and played his political cards close to the vest. However, I recently saw some clips from the new Obama campaign video, and I was literally speechless as I heard Hanks narrate:

"Not since the days of Franklin Roosevelt had so much fallen on the shoulders of one president."

WHAT?!

Yes, that's right--no president in the last 65 years has had to deal with any significant hardships. Unless, of course, you count Truman having to decide whether or not to destroy two Japanese cities to end World War II. Oh, and the Korean War. I guess we can also dismiss JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis. That's the one that brought us within a couple of miles of World War III, in case you were confusing it with some other Cuban Missile Crisis. And pshaw to LBJ and Nixon, who only had to deal with Vietnam abroad and the Civil Rights Movement at home. Carter had a fairly shitty economy and an arguably worse oil situation. (Anyone remember those gas lines?) Reagan? Two words: Cold War. George H.W. had the invasion of Kuwait, and George W. certainly didn't have anything falling on his shoulders, and certainly didn't have it happen on September 11, 2001. But other than that, I guess Hanks is probably right. Once you disregard nearly every president since FDR, he's spot on. (And I want it noted for the record that I resisted the obvious Clinton-Lewinsky joke regarding so much falling on his shoulders.)

A little farther on in the video, I caught this little gem:

"And when he faced his country, who looked to him for answers, he would not dwell in blame, or dreamy idealism."

Again, I say...wait for it....

WHAT?!

That's pretty much all he fucking did! I mean, his campaign slogan was "HOPE and CHANGE," for God's sake! You know, "change" from that shitty situation he kept blaming his predecessor for, and "hope" as in that dreamy idealism he's supposedly not dwelling in. I suppose they had to use an actor to narrate as actors might be the only ones who can say lines like these without actually laughing out loud.

Still, someone needs to tell Tom Hanks that just because he says something in his earnest-y actor's voice, doesn't make it mean shit. I mean, he's not Morgan Freeman. That man could start a new religion by reading his laundry instructions. "It's important to make sure to put plenty of starch on the shirts...."* Next thing you know, people are running around carving "Blessed are the Starchmakers" onto stone tablets, and smiting those wearing wrinkly shirts.

* It's important to read this in Morgan Freeman's voice.

LOST and Confused

I think my feelings about the series finale of "LOST" would be best expressed through interpretive dance...no, wait. Not interpretive dance. That would require kicking myself in the nuts several times. The second best expression would be through a new theme song. Like one of those ones from the 60s and 70s, where you had to explain the concept in the song itself. So here it is. You all know the tune.

Now sit right back and you’ll hear a tale,

A tale of a fateful trip.

That started from Australia

Aboard this flying ship.

Hugo was a mighty wealthy man,

The doctor brave and fair.

Six passengers took flight that day

On Oceanic Air. On Oceanic Air.

The sky was getting turbulent;

The plane was torn in two.

The pilot died from injuries,

And Kate’s armed escort, too. And Kate’s armed escort, too.

The plane touched down on the beach of an uncharted tropic isle.

With Doctor Jack

And Sawyer too

The crippled guy and his chair.

The pregnant girl,

Polar bears, black smoke too

What will these characters do?

So join us here each week my friends,

You’re sure to feel abused,

If nothing is explained on LOST

The viewer just gets used.

No No No No No!!!

Just saw a Dodge commercial with the line "and oh yeah--it literally gave birth to all other minivans."

If I have to explain to you why this is so wrong, you won't care that it is.

It's Like The Picture of Dorian Gray, But In Reverse

Bethenny Frankel ("The Real Housewives of New Jersey") stands next to a large poster of her naked PETA ad, in which the "real" housewife isn't looking so real.

I can only imagine that she forgot the proper punctuation in her written response to PETA's inquiry as to whether or not she wanted the photo altered and "Photoshop? My ass!" became "Photoshop my ass!"

So Many Pants, So Many Fires

I'm Johnny-come-lately on this, I know, but I've been turning it over in my mind, and reading what else is out there, and I think I have something to add. Joe Wilson yelled "you lie" after President Obama made a statement about illegal immigrants and healthcare during last night's speech. Apparently, this was the main event of the speech, and if you listen to the Democrats, as a result of Wilson's outburst, grown men wept openly and grown women fainted. The entire fabric of reality was nearly torn asunder.

Now, a lot of folks out there have pointed out a number of events that make the Democrats seem....shall we say "hypocritical"?

• Bush is "boo"ed at Obama's inauguration
• Bush is "boo"ed at a 2005 State of the Union address
• The 'ol standby "Bush lied; people died" cry
• Harry Reid calls Bush a liar
• Van Jones call Republicans "assholes"
• Numerous Democrats calling the Republican populace "terrorists," etc.
• And so on....

Apart from the fact that Obama's statement was a lie (or at least a half-truth), the thing that really irritated me was that--literally--mere sentences before that, Obama had called talk-radio hosts, cable talk-show hosts, AND politicians...wait for it...LIARS!

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

 I initially thought that Wilson's outburst was disrespectful, but the more I thought about it, and thought about Obama's own accusations, the more I came to think that the latter was worse. Not only was it a thought-out accusation, but unlike Wilson's statement, it left no chance to respond. That is, the president carefully crafted a statement accusing many people of lying, knowing that he had a captive audience, and knowing those accused could do nothing by way of response. Contrast that with Wilson, who--by his own admission--acted on emotion (and apologized quickly). Did he do anything worse than Obama himself did? As Michelle Malkin points out, Obama issued the challenge “If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out.” Why are we shocked when someone actually does what he promises will be done?

Frankly, I'm surprised that these things are as peaceful as they are. In other countries, they sometimes come to blows. Just between you and me, it actually might be worthwhile to see our politicians go at it. Instead of voting for bills, you could use best two out of three falls. Maybe even make C-Span pay-per-view, and help pay off the deficit.  The Combat in the Capitol! The Beat-down in the Beltway! The Altercation over Education!

I'd pay.

Truth In Advertising??

An "honest" R&B song. This ranks right up there with "Dick in a Box" as far as I'm concerned.

I'm Sorry, Blockbuster Online Customer Service; I Can't Hear You!

Must be because you have you have your head up your ass.

I'm a member of both Netflix and Blockbuster Online. Looks like I may have to drop Blockbuster. I've had a few problems with the films over the years, but lately it seems to be getting worse. And the customer service? Well, it all started when I noticed something wrong with my "recommendations...."

(Cue flashback harp music)

On both online sites, you rate movies you've seen and--based on your ratings--new movies you might like are suggested. At least that's how it's supposed to work. That's how it works on Netflix. On Blockbuster Online, though, about half of my shown recommendations were movies I had already rated. It really wasn't that big of a deal...until I got involved with Blockbuster's customer service. I sent them an e-mail alerting them to what was happening. My first response was this (I changed the tracking number):

------ Please do not remove your unique tracking number! ------
<<#8-675309#>>

That's it. Nothing else. No message. Frankly it was a little creepy. Of course I wrote back to ask what the deal was. Then I got a response which included this:

Our system is designed to not recommend movies that have previously been rated by the customer. The recommendations area should only display non-previously rated movies confirmed by the stars being only blue (yellow would indicate that they've been rated.)

There is, however, a limitation to this feature. Once the customer has rated over 1,000 movies, this function is no longer available and the customer may see previously rated items.

There is an enhancement request to up this limit to 2,000 and we hope that will be completed sometime in the near future.

I again responded, letting them know that their system wasn't working the way it was supposed to and that I hadn't rated anywhere near 1,000 films.

From the next e-mail:

Your comments are taken very seriously and we welcome them as a valuable tool needed to improve the quality of our service. I will make sure to forward your feedback to the appropriate department for review.

"Your comments are taken very seriously," which means nothing. I waited for the next e-mail:

I apologize if your issue about the rating system in our website is still not being addressed properly. Since addressing the issue through e-mail is a bit complicated, I kindly advice you to contact us at our Customer service hotline at 1-866-692-2789, we are open from Mondays to Fridays 8:00 am to 8:00 pm Central standard time. Our customer service representative will be happy to assist you and guide you through the website. We will try and come up with a solution or an answer to the recommendations issue in the websiste. We kindly appreciate your patience and understanding.

This was the nicest response yet, but seemed to still be foisting me onto someone else. I grabbed my phone.

After being on hold for about 20 minutes, listening to a recording ("We take your calls very seriously...") I finally got an agent who spoke what I'm pretty sure was English, as I recognized a few words. I briefly explained the problem, at which point she put me on hold again for five more minutes. When she came back, she told me with what I can only assume was a straight face that Blockbuster doesn't use personal recommendations. I explained to her that a previous e-mail from them explained to me that they did indeed have them. This began a strange dance where she would repeat my problem back to me ("You are saying that...") and after I affirmed the problem, she would repeat her claim that there were no recommendations. I eventually gave up, and she asked me if I would care to participate in a satisfaction survey.

You bet your ass I wanted to.

The next thing I know, I'm listening to another recording, asking me to enter my agent number followed by the number I want to transfer my customer to. Over and over and over again. Apparently she couldn't ever transfer me properly.

What started as a non-issue had grown into an "I'm pissed off at your complete lack of competence" issue. I sent yet another e-mail. This one contained this little gem from the Blockbuster help web page on recommendations:

To give you personalized recommendations, we need to know what you think about the titles you've already seen. Start rating movies and let us know what you love and what's not your style....The more movies you rate, the better we are st[sic] recommending titles that you're sure to like. Once you've rated at least 20 movies, we'll be able to provide personalized recommendations. [emphasis mine]

I also pointed out the typo. You'd think that a big company like Blockbuster could afford to hire people to find and correct those kinds of errors. I thought so, too, until I got the latest e-mail today. If anyone can figure out what this means, please let me know:

I am sorry to learn that you were having concern with the personalized recommendation in our movies in our website. I am glad that you have informed us of your concern. The star ratings or personalized recommendation in our website was replaced by the shopping cart. Because majority of our customer is asking for it because of the convenience on purchasing movies on line. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience that this concern brought to you.

It was then I began to suspect that it was not a real person answering my e-mails, but one of those computer programs that's designed to sound like an actual person. I'm going to try including the phrase "open the pod bay doors" in my next e-mail and see what happens.

And here's the kicker....

Today the personal recommendation function that I've twice been told doesn't exist is working fine.

More Modifications

I think, anyway. I saw this picture, and I can't tell if this is an optical illusion, or a case of retouching gone awry. It's a picture of actress Danica McKeller. Take a look at her right leg...


That's right...you can't. It doesn't seem to be there. It could, as I said, be an optical illusion, but there doesn't seem to be enough space between her left foot and the wall behind her to hide her right one. Nor does that dress seem to be loose enough for her to have lifted her leg behind her (for whatever reason). Comments?

A (Modified) Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Megan Fox is beautiful, no doubt about it, but sometimes even the beautiful get some help. You can see from these two photos the adjustments that were made, most notably removing the edge of the tattoo on her arm, giving her more cleavage, and making her right arm thinner. Here's photo 1:

And the touched up photo 2:


And I put together a little animated GIF file to help you see the changes. (Just click on it.)

It's not often I get to inform AND post pictures of scantily-clad actresses. Life is good.

CLARIFICATION: I'm not the one who made these changes. I'm not sure where or for whom they were taken. My understanding is that the altered image was the one used and the other was the original photo as taken. My point was to show how nit-picky the media can be with their retouching of photos.

It Depends on What Your Meaning of the Word 'for' Is

I usually find factcheck.org to be pretty fair, but this article of theirs reprinted over at Newsweek.com (hat tip to instapundit) bothers me a little. It criticizes the RNC for padding its claims that Obama voted 94 times "for higher taxes." While some of the RNC's claims are a bit questionable**, Lori Robertson throws out 23 of the votes because they

are votes Obama cast against changing tax rates from what they were at the time. Taxes would not have gone up. They would have been "higher" only compared to the cuts being proposed.

And?

By Robertson's own admission, the votes are for the situation in which the taxes would be higher. What is the problem here? The claim is not that he voted to raise taxes but that he voted for higher taxes. The statement (as it pertains to the votes in question) is correct. I'd even go so far as to argue that the spirit of the claim is correct. The whole point of the RNC making the statement is to illustrate that when presented with a measure to vote on, Senator Obama often chooses the option that means higher taxes. These 23 votes are in line with that argument, and should be included. So who's padding now?

It may seem like I'm once again picking nits (which is what I thought factcheck.org is supposed to do) but think of it this way: If one is presented with a proposal to lower taxes, and one is given three voting options--for it, against it, or abstain--which one of those votes would you consider voting "for higher taxes"? It certainly can't be abstaining (which I suppose he could have done had he not wanted higher taxes), and it just as certainly can't be voting for the proposal, which would lower taxes. So what does that leave?

What upsets me about this? Robertson and factcheck.org should know better. I've found them to be--for the most part--reliable in the past. Now, I really have to wonder whether this was an unintentional mistake, or a case of manipulating words in much the same way that they accuse the RNC of doing. Either way, it's disturbing.

**For example, the RNC counted 17 votes on 7 measures. While multiple votes on the same measure are technically accurate, given the RNC's statement (they didn't claim he voted on 94 measures, after all) I think this one does smack of "padding."

Somebody Hand Me A Dictionary!

Over at Salon.com there's an article by Andrew O'Hehir about the death of independent film. I've seen the same sentiment in a couple of other places (which I would link to if they weren't print sources, and I could even remember which ones...Entertainment Weekly, possibly?) As evidence, the authors offer the cutbacks/closings of New Line, Paramount Vantage, and Warner Picturehouse. I guess I really should know more about this, but when did "independent" go from being a method of production to being a genre? That is, if a production company is a subsidiary of, or at least subject to closing by a studio, doesn't that sort of preclude that company from being called a maker of "independent" films?

From my Concise Oxford Dictionary:

independent
· adj.
1 free from outside control; not subject to another’s authority.

I'm just sayin'...

Hold the Pickle, the Lettuce, and Whatever Else You Got!

I don't suppose I'm giving anyone any new information when I tell you that those "healthy" (or otherwise) meals you're ordering at your local restaurants aren't quite living up to their claims, but you might be surprised at just how far off that nutritional information is:

Chili's Guiltless Chicken Sandwich has a published total of 490 calories and 8 grams of fat. The lab-tested sandwich had 566 calories (not too bad) but a whopping 23.3 grams of fat.

Applebee's Italian Chicken & Portobello Sandwich advertised 360 calories and only 6 grams of fat. Once again, the lab results were fairly close in calories (395) but three times the amount of fat grams (18.6)

I'm not sure if you're that worried about the nutritional content of food that you should be eating at these restaurants, but still...there's something to be said for truth in advertising.

Those Clever, Evil, Bastards...

Full disclosure: I used to be a pack-a-day-plus smoker. I'm glad I quit. It's a nasty habit.

That said, smokers are not evil. And while Cigarette companies may be evil, let's face it--they're no more evil than other groups that keep pushing products that they know will be harmful--Pharmaceutical companies, McDonalds, Burger King, Hostess, etc. But you wouldn't know that from the commercials that have been on lately.

Now I agree, the anti-smoking brigade had a point about the Joe Camel character. But even so, smoking has always been portrayed as "cool," ever since Bogie, James Dean, Charles Boyer, etc. dangled smokes from their respective lips. It hardly took a cartoon character to tell kids that.

But now I feel like the anti-smoking message has gone a little too far, and that those behind it are making statements every bit as untruthful as the ones made by big tobacco. The most recent one I saw claims to prove that cigarette companies are still marketing to kids because when they hang their signs on a store counter "it just happens" to be at a child's eye level. Do I even need to point out that it also "just happens" to be at that level because the counter is the optimum height for exchanging money, placing purchases, bagging purchases, etc?

At this point, anyone, even a young anyone, who still thinks smoking is good for you is either stupid or a supermodel. This new claim just makes no logical sense at all. It's like saying that God supports pedophelia becuase He cleverly made adult genitalia at a child's eye level. It's called a doubtful cause fallacy, which is what happens when you try to establish a causal relationship between things that don't necessarily have one.

Why do I even care? Well, I guess because I'm a libertarian, and I'm getting tired of borderline-fanatical groups who, when they can't reach their agenda through legislation, often go to extremes to demonize any person/corporation that disagrees with them. (And while I'm at it, the legislators themselves are often pussies becuase they'll tax the things into oblivion, but they won't have the guts to change the law.) Hey, anti-smoking dickwads...right now, cigarettes are legal. You want to put out commercials that show pictures of diseased lungs, I'm with ya. You want to send out scratch and sniff cards that let smokers know what their clothes smell like, I'm with ya. You want to talk about the diseases caused by smoking (although I think you're full of shit with your second-hand smoke claims), I'm with ya. But c'mon...don't insult my intelligence. What have YOU been smoking?

Most Wonderful Time Of The Year, My Ass

I know Christmas is supposed to be a time of cheer and good will and all that, but for me it's a time of final exams, papers, and projects--all of which I have to grade. So bear with me; the pickins is gonna be slim for a while. In the meantime, have a look at the top 10 hoaxes for 2004.

Think Again!

So, you've been keeping up on your science? Well, now that you've read about how soft drinks are harmful to your children, or how obesity kills 400,000 people a year, or how global warming has nearly made the polar bear extinct...you should read this article, which lists the top ten most embarrassing moments in health and environmental science for 2004.

The list spotlights individuals and organizations that -- through exaggerated claims, bad judgment, and/or hidden agendas -- have most egregiously undermined public confidence in the scientific community’s capacity to conduct sound and unbiased research.

JunkScience.com has exposed and debunked flawed research and unfounded scientific claims since 1996.

Re: The polar bear "extinction":

A Canadian Press Newswire story earlier this year reported that, in three Arctic villages, polar bears "are so abundant there's a public safety issue." Local polar bears reportedly increased from about 2,100 in 1997 to as many as 2,600 in 2004. Inuits wanted to kill more bears, which are "fearsome predators."

An aerial survey of Alaskan polar bears published in Arctic (December 2003) reported a greater polar bear density than previous survey estimates dating to 1987.

If polar bears are getting skinnier as the 1999 study suggested, it may be due to greater numbers subsisting on the same level of available food. After all, harvesting Alaskan polar bears has been limited by the Marine Mammal Protection Act and international agreements since 1972.

This might become one of my new favorite sites.