My brother Jim has been literally fighting for his life in the SICU, so I've been out of commission here. Will continue for a while. Avoid leptosprirosis, people (if that's what it is, we don't know), it's a bad organism.
***Ehrlichiosis, it turns out, from the bite of the Lone Star Tick. Yuck.***
Monday, July 29, 2013
Friday, July 19, 2013
A Name You've Never Heard
Larry Grathwohl – RIP American Hero
He was the Uncle of a very close friend, indeed, I know his family very well although I've only met Larry a few times. His experiences took a toll on him, and his passing was sudden, if not totally unexpected. RIP, indeed.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Argh.... We Are So Doomed By Our Stupidity
Maybe not yours or mine, but our citizenry as a whole is apparently pretty stupid. Easily duped. Argh!!!!!
What am I talking about? From the start of the Martin/Zimmerman story, the race-baiters have been all over it, and last night, on TV, the last person to talk to Trayvon made it crystal clear it had nothing to do with race.
In fact she practically came right out and said "Trayvon was afraid he was a rapist and didn't want to lead him to his little brother (alone, the Dad and fiancee were out), so he didn't go home." Not too far to figure maybe Trayvon did, in fact go after the guy he thought was a gay rapist, a "cracka" as in "police" not "whitey," and started the fight after all.
Does that change your perception of the event? Does the possibility that Trayvon was protecting his and his brother's manhood from a gay rapist alter your stance?
A caller to the Dana Loesch show asked today, "if you are on the ground getting pounded, would you ask the age of your attacker?"
So, all the portions of the fake media narrative are blown up. No way to know this 6' 2" attacker was only 17, and no racial component at all. If there was a "hate crime" at all, it may have been Trayvon beating up a guy he thought was gay.
What am I talking about? From the start of the Martin/Zimmerman story, the race-baiters have been all over it, and last night, on TV, the last person to talk to Trayvon made it crystal clear it had nothing to do with race.
In fact she practically came right out and said "Trayvon was afraid he was a rapist and didn't want to lead him to his little brother (alone, the Dad and fiancee were out), so he didn't go home." Not too far to figure maybe Trayvon did, in fact go after the guy he thought was a gay rapist, a "cracka" as in "police" not "whitey," and started the fight after all.
Does that change your perception of the event? Does the possibility that Trayvon was protecting his and his brother's manhood from a gay rapist alter your stance?
A caller to the Dana Loesch show asked today, "if you are on the ground getting pounded, would you ask the age of your attacker?"
So, all the portions of the fake media narrative are blown up. No way to know this 6' 2" attacker was only 17, and no racial component at all. If there was a "hate crime" at all, it may have been Trayvon beating up a guy he thought was gay.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Is Civics A Lost Discipline?
I can't believe the level of stupid being exhibited all over the internet and the country over the Zimmerman/Martin case. Locally, I just saw a former teacher on the news totally misrepresent the situation and she probably believes what she said is true. The era of the Low Information Voter is a real thing.
I am sad that so many are participating in, even calling for Mob Rule, and they don't even understand.
I am sad that when presented with the same set of facts, that so many people, some apparently well educated, can't seem to understand how our justice system works and reach a conclusion that is not just wrong, it's stupid.
I am sad that a kid got killed, and that a guy shot him because he thought it was his only choice.
I am ANGRY that our media is this screwed up, that they used this story to create a furor, that they manipulated tapes and created a narrative that barely resembles reality, and angry that they got away with it.
I am sad that so many are participating in, even calling for Mob Rule, and they don't even understand.
I am sad that when presented with the same set of facts, that so many people, some apparently well educated, can't seem to understand how our justice system works and reach a conclusion that is not just wrong, it's stupid.
I am sad that a kid got killed, and that a guy shot him because he thought it was his only choice.
I am ANGRY that our media is this screwed up, that they used this story to create a furor, that they manipulated tapes and created a narrative that barely resembles reality, and angry that they got away with it.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Go Ahead, Tax Carbon, But Nothing Will Change
Thanks to Junk Science, I saw this today:
I love this:
"One can use the EPA’s own model (curiously, acronymed MAGICC) to assess the effects on global temperature of emissions reductions that would be caused by a carbon tax. Assuming outrageously high taxes that would reduce them by 83% (giving Americans the per-capita emissions of 1867), the amount of warming that would be prevented is too small to measure on the 50-year time scale. Anything less does even less."
In other words, the effects are essentially the same as doing nothing. Why then, should we do it??
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Carbon Tax: Washington's Latest Bad Idea, Oddly Shepherded By Republicans
I love this:
"One can use the EPA’s own model (curiously, acronymed MAGICC) to assess the effects on global temperature of emissions reductions that would be caused by a carbon tax. Assuming outrageously high taxes that would reduce them by 83% (giving Americans the per-capita emissions of 1867), the amount of warming that would be prevented is too small to measure on the 50-year time scale. Anything less does even less."
In other words, the effects are essentially the same as doing nothing. Why then, should we do it??
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Monday, July 1, 2013
Today's Thing
Asking $3000? Why do I have to be so short on cash?
Holy crap, this is a steal.
"I am a VW collector in Janesville Wisconsin.The City of Janesville Passed a New Law per Jan.11,2010 having you get rid of any Classic cars or trucks unless they run and drive and must have plates.They say you can hide them from us,then we will not mess with you for now.As a result of this Law that was passed we are selling a VW Thing that has been inside for 20 years.It does have the original engine,all parts are original.The engine is not seized up and I believe it is a duel port 1600.The best engine in my opinion.Plan on going through this part of history as I am sure it needs restoration. Call for a showing Mail back if intrested with your number."
BTW, this Ebay Thing is undervalued currently as well.
"I am a VW collector in Janesville Wisconsin.The City of Janesville Passed a New Law per Jan.11,2010 having you get rid of any Classic cars or trucks unless they run and drive and must have plates.They say you can hide them from us,then we will not mess with you for now.As a result of this Law that was passed we are selling a VW Thing that has been inside for 20 years.It does have the original engine,all parts are original.The engine is not seized up and I believe it is a duel port 1600.The best engine in my opinion.Plan on going through this part of history as I am sure it needs restoration. Call for a showing Mail back if intrested with your number."
BTW, this Ebay Thing is undervalued currently as well.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Apple Ad Lessons
#1 knocked this out of the park today, and it dovetailed so well with a rant I verbalized in my car yesterday about the lack of an investigative, critical mindset in so many Americans. Let's take that first!
My rant was brought on by Reason Mag saying this:
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. With the ruling, same-sex couples that are legally married by a state will now be able to receive federal marriage benefits.
Now, I instantly pondered how I could gently, instructively communicate my thoughts about this to my liberal, Democrat, and/or progressive friends and acquaintances. I can't.
Here's what I want to say: be like me. Be slightly cynical toward your government (at all levels). Be skeptical. Be critical, as I have been trained to be as an English major, like we criticize literature and media. I think the Founders would support me in this. I am not (like those at Reason) Libertarian, I'm a founding principles kind of guy. Representative Republic, you know, not Democracy.
I expect this type of behavior, do you? I don't trust my elected officials or yours. Republicans, Democrats, especially Independents or Socialist Bernie Sanders. None of them. I know a few, and like a few, but I don't trust them. My local radio guy pointed out that as contentious as it seems in DC, that he was told, from a Congressman's very mouth, they all are all buddy-buddy behind closed doors, like a country club. You know the line about making laws and making sausage? You don't want to see either getting made.
So, when a list like the Reason list shows up, or gay friends tout Clinton's words, I want to shout "doofus, you can't take the politics out of politics!" All of them consider the political ramifications of what they are saying and voting on first and foremost. Everything else is a distant second or third. Everything.
The Dems that voted for DOMA did so because it was politically expedient at the time. They gauged the fallout on both sides and voted for it because it was the most beneficial to them at that time. Pres. Clinton could have refused to sign it if he was so against it and dared them to override the veto, as they had a veto-proof majority on the vote (thanks to all the Dems that voted for it with the Republicans), but he chose to do the politically expedient thing and sign it. Why? Probably because he didn't want the issue used against him or his fellow Dems in elections or fund raising, etc.
Here's the thing: I know this about our Congress and therefore I don't trust them to be honest with me about anything. I treat everything they all say as "pending verification."
Shouldn't you?
There are fact check organizations out there, but guess what? None of them are "independent" or "non-partisan" as far as I can tell. So, I don't trust them either. I believe Newsbusters more than FactCheck because I generally agree with their stance, but I still take it with a grain of salt because I am aware of both my bias and theirs.
Now, to Rush's elucidation today.
He reported a buzz in the ad and tech world about how poor the reactions have been to Apple's ad about the feel of the products "designed by Apple in California." (unlike that link, which loves it), and after a conversation with a friend that bought into that narrative, Rush explained that he was missing one crucial point: all the polling data and verbiage about the negative reaction being quoted in the ad and tech mags came from Samsung's Agency.
Therefore, it was nothing but marketing spin aimed at damaging Apple and not actual data. Good luck to Samsung in this spin, I have no allegiance to Apple, but the thing that sticks is that media outlets are reporting the marketing spin as independent data and people are believing it.
This is instructive, especially in light of the DOMA story above. The Dem reactions to the Supreme Court DOMA decision are a bunch of crap, and any decent media outlet would know this, they would, if they weren't in total agreement with the Dems and therefore always find them credible (like I do with News Busters) and don't find it necessary to "verify" anything they say. You remember my comments about Weiner, and Piers Morgan's admission. Citizens should have the same reaction, but so few remember anything political that they don't know that if not for the Dems voting for it, DOMA would not have passed with a Veto-proof majority.
Now, this has larger implications. If the same groups sending out polling data about any Republican are allied ideologically, philosophically, or even financially, to liberal, Democrat, progressive, or socialist organizations, why is there such wide acceptance of what they say? Why is there no skepticism? Why do people believe that one political party is Racist? There is precious little evidence of that. The NAACP is uniformly Democrat, yet the Republicans are racist? The reaction to the Supremes decision about the voting rights acts is laughable, it's as though our nation will accept denying people the right to vote because of the color of their skin or their ideology. Oh wait, didn't the IRS just help that happen? Didn't Eric Holder refuse to consider charging Black Panthers that were armed outside a polling location?
I just want people to be like me. Be skeptical, critical, intelligent about all the media you encounter. Don't worship an ideology, political party, or any human, engage your brain! (On a lighter note, have you seen the Despicable Me characters' "no cell phone" PSA in the movie theaters? Be Like Dave!)
On a related note, in my inbasket was an email from a local channel with these two links consecutively in a list:
Target, Home Depot drop Paula Deen
Another day, another rant from Alec Baldwin
strange, that Deen said one word years ago, has apologized profusely, and is being treated like a pariah yet Baldwin is treated just a little differently even after multiple outbursts of true toxic bile. Hmm.
My rant was brought on by Reason Mag saying this:
Meet the Democrats Who Voted for the Defense of Marriage Act
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. With the ruling, same-sex couples that are legally married by a state will now be able to receive federal marriage benefits.
Some prominent Democrats have lauded this movement towards more equal treatment. In response to the ruling, Bill Clinton tweeted that he is “grateful to all who fought tirelessly for this day.” He also released an official statement condemning the discriminatory nature of DOMA. What Clinton failed to mention was that he signed the act into law.
He wasn't alone in his silence. Other leading Democrats who supported it include Vice President Joe Biden, who voted for DOMA as a senator. Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.), who said, “The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have a negative impact on anyone else, or on our nation as a whole, has always struck me as absurd,” also forgot to note that he voted for DOMA. Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) released a statement praising the forward thinking of the Supreme Court. “The march towards equality... moved forward again today... The Supreme Court did the right thing here and helps us understand that the march to equality in America is unstoppable.” He made no mention of the fact that he, too, voted for the act and against "the march to equality." Sen. Bob Menendez (N.J.) patted himself on the back: “As a member of Congress who signed the amicus brief urging this decision [to repeal DOMA], I am thrilled that the Supreme Court took a strong stand for marriage equality." Menendez saw no need to clarify that this was only after he voted for DOMA in the first place. Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa) voiced his support yesterday saying, "I am glad that the court recognized that all American families deserve the same legal protections," but made no mention of why his point of view flipped.
Here are the Democratic senators and House members still in office who voted for DOMA:
Senate
Baucus, Max (Mont.)
Biden, Joe (Del.) (Now Vice President)
Harkin, Tom (Iowa)
Leahy, Patrick (Vt.)
Levin, Carl (Mich.)
Mikulski, Barbara (Md.)
Murray, Patty (Wash.)
Reid, Harry (Nev.)
Rockefeller, Jay (W. Va.)
House of Representatives
Hilliard, Earl (Ala.)
Pastor, Ed (Ariz.)
DeLauro, Rosa (Conn.)
Brown, Corrine (Fla.)
Bishop, Sanford (Fla.)
Rush, Bobby (Ill.)
Durbin, Richard (Ill.) (now senator)
Visclosky, Peter (Ill.)
Neal, Richard (Mass.)
Cardin, Benjamin (Md.) (now senator)
Hoyer, Steny (Md.)
Cummings, Elijah (Md.)
Levin, Sander (Mich.)
Dingell, John (Mich.)
Peterson, Collin (Minn.)
Andrews, Rob (N.J.)
Menéndez, Bob (N.J.) (now senator)
Schumer, Charles (N.Y.) (now senator)
Lowey, Nita (N.Y.)
Kaptur, Marcy (Ohio)
Blumenauer, Earl (Ore.)
Doyle, Mike (Penn.)
Reed, John (R.I.) (now senator)
Clyburn, Jim (S.C.)
Johnson, Tim (S.D.) (now senator)
Hall, Ralph (Texas)
Doggett, Lloyd (Texas)
Green, Gene (Texas)
Johnson, Eddie (Texas)
Rahall, Nick (W. Va.
Here's what I want to say: be like me. Be slightly cynical toward your government (at all levels). Be skeptical. Be critical, as I have been trained to be as an English major, like we criticize literature and media. I think the Founders would support me in this. I am not (like those at Reason) Libertarian, I'm a founding principles kind of guy. Representative Republic, you know, not Democracy.
I expect this type of behavior, do you? I don't trust my elected officials or yours. Republicans, Democrats, especially Independents or Socialist Bernie Sanders. None of them. I know a few, and like a few, but I don't trust them. My local radio guy pointed out that as contentious as it seems in DC, that he was told, from a Congressman's very mouth, they all are all buddy-buddy behind closed doors, like a country club. You know the line about making laws and making sausage? You don't want to see either getting made.
So, when a list like the Reason list shows up, or gay friends tout Clinton's words, I want to shout "doofus, you can't take the politics out of politics!" All of them consider the political ramifications of what they are saying and voting on first and foremost. Everything else is a distant second or third. Everything.
The Dems that voted for DOMA did so because it was politically expedient at the time. They gauged the fallout on both sides and voted for it because it was the most beneficial to them at that time. Pres. Clinton could have refused to sign it if he was so against it and dared them to override the veto, as they had a veto-proof majority on the vote (thanks to all the Dems that voted for it with the Republicans), but he chose to do the politically expedient thing and sign it. Why? Probably because he didn't want the issue used against him or his fellow Dems in elections or fund raising, etc.
Here's the thing: I know this about our Congress and therefore I don't trust them to be honest with me about anything. I treat everything they all say as "pending verification."
Shouldn't you?
There are fact check organizations out there, but guess what? None of them are "independent" or "non-partisan" as far as I can tell. So, I don't trust them either. I believe Newsbusters more than FactCheck because I generally agree with their stance, but I still take it with a grain of salt because I am aware of both my bias and theirs.
Now, to Rush's elucidation today.
He reported a buzz in the ad and tech world about how poor the reactions have been to Apple's ad about the feel of the products "designed by Apple in California." (unlike that link, which loves it), and after a conversation with a friend that bought into that narrative, Rush explained that he was missing one crucial point: all the polling data and verbiage about the negative reaction being quoted in the ad and tech mags came from Samsung's Agency.
Therefore, it was nothing but marketing spin aimed at damaging Apple and not actual data. Good luck to Samsung in this spin, I have no allegiance to Apple, but the thing that sticks is that media outlets are reporting the marketing spin as independent data and people are believing it.
This is instructive, especially in light of the DOMA story above. The Dem reactions to the Supreme Court DOMA decision are a bunch of crap, and any decent media outlet would know this, they would, if they weren't in total agreement with the Dems and therefore always find them credible (like I do with News Busters) and don't find it necessary to "verify" anything they say. You remember my comments about Weiner, and Piers Morgan's admission. Citizens should have the same reaction, but so few remember anything political that they don't know that if not for the Dems voting for it, DOMA would not have passed with a Veto-proof majority.
Now, this has larger implications. If the same groups sending out polling data about any Republican are allied ideologically, philosophically, or even financially, to liberal, Democrat, progressive, or socialist organizations, why is there such wide acceptance of what they say? Why is there no skepticism? Why do people believe that one political party is Racist? There is precious little evidence of that. The NAACP is uniformly Democrat, yet the Republicans are racist? The reaction to the Supremes decision about the voting rights acts is laughable, it's as though our nation will accept denying people the right to vote because of the color of their skin or their ideology. Oh wait, didn't the IRS just help that happen? Didn't Eric Holder refuse to consider charging Black Panthers that were armed outside a polling location?
I just want people to be like me. Be skeptical, critical, intelligent about all the media you encounter. Don't worship an ideology, political party, or any human, engage your brain! (On a lighter note, have you seen the Despicable Me characters' "no cell phone" PSA in the movie theaters? Be Like Dave!)
On a related note, in my inbasket was an email from a local channel with these two links consecutively in a list:
Target, Home Depot drop Paula Deen
Another day, another rant from Alec Baldwin
strange, that Deen said one word years ago, has apologized profusely, and is being treated like a pariah yet Baldwin is treated just a little differently even after multiple outbursts of true toxic bile. Hmm.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)