We really do have some idiots in Washington, DC.

I'm not a huge advocate of hate crime laws personally, but it has nothing to do with the objections the Republicans normally like to float. I just don't agree with the idea that just because a crime is committed against a minority that the perpetrator can be sentenced to a much stiffer punishment. It's an unfair legal bill in the first place. However, I do understand the idea behind it, but it's just another good idea that will be abused by the sleazy lawyers of the world.

Steve King while arguing against a bill that will put sexual orientation into the list for Federal Hate Crime Laws decided to take a different route in his stance. He argued that including legislation for the protection of homosexuals in the hate crime laws, it would be opening up the gate to more groups wanting protection based on their sexual practices. He listed off quite a few.

Honestly, why are people electing the dumbest of our population for public office? I mean, Bachmann from MN is extremely stupid, as I pointed out in the opening for my previous post. And now, King from IA can't make a distinction between sexual orientation and a fetish. Please, get a clue about who you are voting for, or just plain don't vote. (I know some people will hate that comment about not voting, but it is seriously better than voting for an idiot because you won't take the time to actually figure out who you are voting for).

Do Conservatives even think before they speak?

Torture seems to be the 2nd hottest topic around at the moment. But swine flu isn't really political or religious unless you're a complete nut like Michele Bachmann. And she's wrong, it wasn't under Carter, it was under Ford. (psst, he's a republican).

Anyway, back to to the topic of torture. A survey released by Pew Research Center on the correlation between church attendance and support for torture is somewhat interesting. 54% of church goers say that torture can be justified. While 42% of people who attend services seldom or never agree that torture can be justified. To me, this is proof that being Christian and attending church services does not instill any more morals or values than can be attained in a non-religious person or home. It doesn't really say "Christians are bad people," nor does it say "atheists are bad people." However, it can be considered to say that more Christians are willing to torture than atheists are.

Not surprising to me, Paliban Daily, a Christian "news" site has a different interpretation of the data.

In a newly-released poll, it is shown that 58% of Americans who avoid church services support the “rights” of terrorists over Americans. We can’t say we’re surprised.

Saying that you cannot torture a terrorist does not place his rights above any American's right, since they cannot be tortured either. I can't say I'm surprised that you are too stupid to understand this.

They were asked how often they attend services, and then asked, “Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?” Torture was not defined, but may be understood from recent news reports to include pouring water onto their faces, making them stand still, and dressing them in itchy wool sweaters. Basically, making them uncomfortable.    

Recently, conservative nitwit Sean Hannity said he'd volunteer to be waterboarded. As if it's some sort of proof that it isn't torture and is, as this article puts it, just "pouring water on to their faces." However, I highly doubt that any of these people realize how scary simulated drowning by an enemy would be. Do you think Hannity would agree if we were going to ship him to Iraq and let some of the rebels there administer the waterboarding? Me neither. And on top  of this, after WW2 the US  prosecuted a Japanese soldier for waterboarding. So it was obviously illegal and torturous then. This all boils down to the conservatives doing their very best to dance around admitting they did something wrong, ever. Waterboarding is much worse than uncomfortable, and everyone knows it.

We see here that the absence of God in their lives has led to these sad creatures favoring terrorist monsters over their fellow man. How can anyone not find this incredibly disturbing? We were disgusted at the immorality of these so-called “people”.

We’re also pleased to announce that more than 6 out of 10 white evangelicals believe that the safety of Godly Christian Americans outweighs the comfort of enemy combatants.

Oh, I do find this incredibly disturbing. And, unfortunately for us all, these terrorists monsters are our fellow man. A radical, crazy, religious, hate-filled sect of our fellow man, much like the 60% of Evangelical Christians who believe that torture can be justified. I'm disgusted at not only the immorality of these people, but in their willful ignorance of their own religion and their willingness to label those who have a good moral grounding in the knowledge of torture being wrong as immoral.

Jesus, without whom there would be no Christians, preached love for all mankind, not just those who love you back. Jesus (if real and here today) would not preach against atheists, gays, or any other minority. He would extend his hand to us and try to convince us of his message, sure, but never hate, exile, or shun us. He walked with lepers in the Bible, I'm pretty sure he could stomach a black, an atheist and a couple of homosexuals. He would never condone this idea that it is alright to kill as long as you are protecting your country. A very popular and well known teaching of Christ is "turn the other cheek." This would mean that we should not retaliate against terrorists, and certainly not torture them for information on how to retaliate. So this "godly 60%" is a complete myth and the author of this article has no real idea what a Christian really should be.

I personally do not believe in the Bible or its teachings as a whole (I agree with parts, 'cause there are some good messages here and there) so I shouldn't be held to it's rigid guidelines. It is a free country. And yet, my morals seem to be more on par with the teachings of Jesus than many of the Christians today. This is not to say that there are not good Christians out there. However, these evangelicals really need to stop trying to injecting their "beliefs" into the lives of others, especially when they can't even follow it themselves.

Stephen Colbert had the chance...

BUT HE BLEW IT!

All the anger, rage, and hate that Colbert has mockingly stored in him while pretending to be a right wing lunatic and he can't even use it for any good at all!

In the audience on Colbert last night was one of the 2 men from the Sonic commercials. He could have destroyed the man, and then I would never again have had to endure something along these lines. Why Colbert, WHY!?! I do enjoy your show and your hilarious caricature of the right wingers, but you have really disappointed me by not taking a stand against other annoyances, such as terrible advertisements that are clearly aimed at the lowest common denominator of intelligence in our sad society, but forcibly rammed down the rest of our throats relentlessly.

However, you did eat an ewok, so I guess I'll forgive you. This time...

Teabagging... are you serious?

I think everyone has made fun of how clueless the chosen name was considering the alternate meaning.

However, that is not my complaint or purpose in discussing it.

On April 15th (also known as Tax Day in the US), many "protests" were organized. "Tea Parties". What are they protesting? Well, lets take a look at it.

It is a throwback to the original Boston Tea Party, which was a protest against Taxation without Representation from the British Government. A just cause. However, these people, no matter how much they want to claim they aren't represented, have elected representatives in office for their area. Unless they live in Washington DC. Speaking of, I do believe it was the conservatives who so opposed giving Washington representatives in Congress, while the citizens of our nations capital do pay taxes. I suppose if they were throwing these tea parties for that purpose, it would make sense, but they aren't. Therefore, this is not paying any homage to the original Tea Party, it is a mere perversion of the original message and is displayed in terrible taste.

Also, some indicate that it has to do with more or higher taxes under the current administration. First, Obama has neither hinted at nor proposed any new taxes. So it must have to do with the planned tax hike for people making over $250,000 a year in 2011(after the current recession is projected to be over). 3%. It is not groundbreaking, it merely puts the tax code back to how it was before Bush slashed taxes for the wealthiest Americans in 2001. How many people will this affect? From the way the conservatives are acting, you would think it was a lot of people. However, according to factcheck.org, if the $250,000 is meant for couples and $125,000 for individuals (which seems likely), it would affect roughly 3.1% of Americans. If it's $250,000 for any household, that figure drops to about 2%. And oh yeah, this is for personal taxes. It doesn't affect businesses & corporations. So the whole idea of "job creation vs. job loss" is nearly a completely moot point, because most companies (even small businesses) are separate from their owner's personal incomes. Not to mention, there are several large loopholes in the corporate tax codes that allow large percentages of income to never be taxed properly (you can google this rather easily, I'm just lazy).

Another reason I've heard thrown about is being upset over wasteful government spending (like this didn't happen under G.W. Bush, his father, or even Reagan). This is one place where I actually find myself agreeing with Conservatives. Though, I never seem to agree on who is responsible for wasteful spending with them. Conservatives want to blame it on the Democrats exclusively and have even proposed a spending freeze. (Also, Economics 101, you do not cut spending or increase taxes during a recession unless you are trying to make it worse, hence why the rescinding of the Bush tax cuts is not until 2011). I want to blame it on the government in general. Nobody seems to pay attention to what the government spends the money on. It over pays for nearly everything (especially when Haliburton is involved, but I'll just leave that whole mess out of it). Democrats & Republicans alike are terrible about weighing the worth of spending versus the price of it. Earmarks contribute and are bipartisan in origin. Blaming one side or the other is irresponsible. However, the Bush tax cuts lower the income of the country and ultimately do contribute to the deficit. So protesting against removal of an irresponsible tax cut is another ultimately bad idea.

So basically, these Tea Parties are nothing but a flailing last(I hope anyway) gasp from a Republican party with no identity, a shrinking base, and no real clue of how to relate to the world today. Such as lovingly referring to their protests as "teabagging" in all seriousness.

Stewart v. Cramer & CNBC

Jon Stewart completely dismantled Jim Cramer's Ego in approximately 5 minutes.

And yet, this is supposed to be one of the premier advice givers when it comes to investment. And as Cramer so eloquently pointed out, Stewart is a comedian. How sad has this world and it's news become when a comedian is the one who has to point out the ludicrous reporting of a major news organization, and the leader of it's specified market (in the case of CNBC, it's business & investing). Yes, everyone is entitled to mistakes. But Cramer, while pleading with people to buy Bear Stearns stock, even says "it acts much better than it should." Isn't this supposed to be a clue? Aren't you an expert and know that if it's too good to be true, then it fucking is?! This isn't a mistake. This is pure and simple: GREED. Nothing more. Nothing less. It's the greed of "oh, it's higher than it should be, it's making money." When in fact, it isn't making money, and it's on the surface of a bubble that has to pop, just as every bubble must, economic or not.

So what does CNBC run the next day on Kudlow?  Well, Art Laffer talking about how Obama is ruining this country, and how the stock market is the proof, since it is forward looking and not backward looking, which rests all blame squarely on the current administration (on the 2nd page, halfway down). Why on earth does Laffer even get to talk after that horrific display? And isn't this the exact thing that Jon Stewart was pointing out originally? Honestly, it seems to me that CNBC not only misses the point when it comes to Stewart's segment on them, but they miss the point when it comes to their own "area of expertise". We should just lump them in with Fox News as a network of self absorbed, self congratulating, out of touch, ignorant, pissy, overly conservative, close-minded idiots.

As you can tell, I don't have much of an opinion on the matter.  /sarcasm off

Facebook Observation

All you have to do is scan Facebook for about 10 minutes and you'll probably find about 4 or 5 of the many "Obama is a liar," or "Obama is a socialist," or "Obama killed the stock market,' or "Obama killed capitalism," or "Obama killed the US" or some other such nonsensical group full of raving lunatics who had condemned Obama's term as president before it had ever started. And all they do is sit around quoting Fox News, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, or some other crazy Right-Wing nutjob source. These people are not just nutjobs because I disagree with them, they are nutjobs because they believe they, and only they, know or can know the truth or the right answer or the right path, and these truths, answers, and paths are often very contradictory.

So what is the motivation for these people? What links them together with so much intolerance towards Obama? Well, it doesn't take much effort to notice that nearly all the active members are also part of some Christian group on Facebook as well. Many are so polarized against Obama based on things such as abortion, which is a stupid reason. If you actually look, not a single major political figure has even attempted to overturn Roe v. Wade. It's all a campaign polarizing argument, and never has any substance. Abortion isn't going to be banned, get over it. Another topic is Stem Cell Research, which most people who are against have no real clue what it even is, or what it's potential is. They just know they're against it, because some figure (either political or religious) said they were supposed to be. Stem Cell research has amazing potential and could be the next great breakthrough in biological science or medicine. Of course, it's hard to convince people who refuse to accept Evolution that science/biology is a good thing.

I'm amazed that after the last 2 voting cycles of Republicans getting their asses kicked, that the Right & Evangelicals are hitching their wagons together. It's obviously failing. More of America is atheist or agnostic or non-practicing every year. This isn't some atheistic recruiting process, or some great evil corrupting minds, as most of the nutjobs would have you believe. It's a natural progression away from a Religion. If you think about it, the world has been dominated by different religions over and over, they keep getting debased and a new one takes it's place. However, in this cycle, science has given us something other than the supernatural to look at and many people are seeing how ridiculous it is to believe in fairy tales and base your entire existence and life upon them.

Some, however, refuse to be a part of the movement towards modernism, free thought, & realism. These are the idiots who comprise the very vocal portions of these Facebook groups. I'm in no way claiming that you cannot oppose Obama or his politics without being stupid. I'm merely pointing out that a large vocal portion of these people are idiots & refuse to actually use their brain for anything other than parroting some other more famous idiots.

Things you can hear in a network lab.

So today, I end up in a discussion about the proposed solutions to the plan of reducing foreclosures. It was obvious immediately that these 2 gentlemen were most likely Conservative Republicans. No big deal. While discussing the housing market, I disagreed with them both over how house prices would recover. I said they would not get anywhere near as high as they were 2 years ago within the next 15. They both disagreed, and said that it would take about 3 or 4, and not more than 7. And finally, one of them basically says "We're both 40, you're 25, we know more than you," which did irritate me, but topics were switched to the Obama plan so I shrugged it off.

They expressed concerns about how people who bought houses they couldn't afford and had no business buying were going to be "bailed out" while people like themselves who have struggled but continued making the payments were to get no help. I made the argument that there were people out there who got conned into adjustable rate mortgages that suddenly shot up prematurely, and people who had lost their jobs due to no faults of their own, and people who's house was suddenly worth half what they paid for it because of the housing bubble busting, and these people do deserve some help.

They both agreed, even though it really seemed neither wanted to. Then they proceeded to bring back up the people who feed off the system, and complain more about them. I agreed, there are far too many people who do that, but there is no macro way to weed those people out, and the others really do deserve help so they can stay in their homes that they've worked hard for. One of them actually said "I guess I should just become a Democrat and feed off the system like the rest of them." This kinda irritated me. I only said "I'm a democrat, and I'm not on welfare, tenncare, or any other government program other than the Pell Grant & Federal Work Study, which I actually do work for." And basically quit participating with them, since they had taken this from a discussion to an "I hate Democrats" meeting rather suddenly.

Not 2 minutes later, I hear one complaining and the other agreeing about how much they hate the idea of "having to do community service in order to get their Pell Grant money from the government." I said nothing, because I'd already determined that these 2 were so completely among the 3R (Retarded Redneck Republican) category that it was pointless and a waste of my energy to try to convince them of their stupidity. But seriously, how do you go from complaining about people getting money from the government, even if they might deserve and need it, to complaining that you're going to have to work for your money from the government? Do people even know what hypocrisy is anymore? I silently laughed to myself about how self absorbed and misinformed these 2 were and continued doing some lab work.

This doesn't even address the fact that, while I haven't researched or heard anything about it in quite a while, I do believe the community service for college money was supposed to be in excess to the already in place Pell Grant. So it would be "working for extra money." Sigh. 

The ID Crowd needs to evolve some eyes...

so it can actually see the facts.

If you want to know where this comes from, look here (more the comments than the incredibly long-winded 17 page load of crap that Luskin spews).

The Theory of Evolution is only a theory, it says so in its title

WRONG! Theory in scientific terms is closer to a fact. Try again.

There are holes in the fossil record.

That may be, but there is also enough evidence in the fossil record to show that Evolution was not only likely, but a forgone conclusion.

If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?

This one has got to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. First, we didn't evolve from monkeys, or even "apes" as they're known today. We evolved from the same species that modern apes evolved from. That species no longer exists today. Seriously, use some brain power before arguing.

You can't be "insert specific faith here" and believe in Evolution.

You can, just so many of you morons choose not to. There are several religious figures who endorse evolution, including the Catholic church (as much of a shock as that may be).

If you are an atheist, you are pathetic and believe there is no purpose for you on this earth.

I am an atheist, and I don't find myself pathetic. I think I have as much purpose on this earth as any religious zealot, I'm just not as annoying. I actually find it pathetic that you must believe in an invisible man in the sky waiting on you to die to find any purpose for your life. But I really don't expect you to understand such things.

Those scientists who accept Evolutionary Theory are deceitfully blocking the facts and research for Intelligent Design.

Are you freakin kidding? Show some facts and research that actually lend credit to Intelligent Design, then we can actually have a conversation about it. Until then, go back to finding some facts and doing some research.

Evolution is false, because it doesn't actually show us how life began.

Well, you're right about one part. Evolution has never even attempted to explain how life began. Evolution is the theory about how life diversified. If you want how life began, go begin throwing stones at Abiogenesis.

The US is a Christian nation/founded by Christians.

You really should look into the history books. This country was not founded as a Christian nation, but more based of religious freedom. And many of our founders were not christian, and some were not even believers. Try again.

If ID is so wrong, why are the proponents of Evolution so scared of it?

We aren't scared of ID somehow being proven or some such nonsense as this question seems to imply. We are scared of the religious fundamentalists, of which there are far too many in the US, supplanting good science and Evolution with belief and ID. They've been trying for years already.

ID is not religious and is not creationism.

Perhaps the actual idea behind ID is not, but the reasons for it being pushed on people, and people buying into it, for the most part, are definitely based on religious reasons. If ID was not so compatible with religious beliefs, the whole idea of it would have died long ago, since it offers no evidence or testable theories. The Kitzmiller case also brought to light that an ID textbook had obviously just replaced the word "creationism" with "intelligent design". Explain that one away.

There are no transitional forms! Darwin even said this would falsify Evolution.

I'm not sure what you want as a "transitional form", but what was meant by this has been found, time and time again. Do some non-religious, non-ID, actual scientific research and you'll find this out for yourself.

If Evolution is real, show me the proof.

I'm not your butler. If you really want the proof and actually care, it's not that hard to find. Go visit a library. In today's world, you can find plenty of information on the internet, but you have to be careful of the sites you believe. The library is a much better source if you're not sure of the information you're looking for. Librarians are very helpful people.

I have a new idea. Keep your religious beliefs out of science, out of schools, out of MY (as in, someone who isn't yourself or part of your religious congregation) life, and definitely out of politics. I'm sure that, along with following scientific facts, is far too hard for the religious fundamentalists however.

Following up about the Financial Crisis.

Well, I suggested that blaming Geithner was stupid, and that you should point fingers at those responsible for the crisis.

Well, Time Magazine took my advice.

I found that interesting.

Science vs Idiocy!

What is it with people and hating science?

You have a whole slew of idiots who completely reject the Theory of Evolution (btw, Happy Darwin Day!) and "back up" their ideas with completely unrelated, false, or otherwise unscientific reasoning, or just downright lie about it. Then they complain they're not given a fair amount of time beside Evolution. This is sort of like saying that Geocentric view deserves as much attention, thought, and teaching time as does the Heliocentric view of the universe. Yet, people cling to their outdated, deceitful, and idiotic views, just because they find the truth of science to be incompatible with their faith. (Also, you can't use it as anti-religious, because plenty of people accept the truth of the Theory of Evolution while practicing their faith, including the Catholic Church).

Then you have the morons who waste our time and tax money in court cases based on Evolution vs. Creationism (or Intelligent Design more recently). However, at least their following their faith. Albeit blindly and idiotically. But they do at least have some excuse.

Unlike these idiots. The anti-vaccination movement promotes the idea that modern vaccinations, such as the MMR for children, actually cause Autism, along with other Neurological Disorders, such as ADHD or Asperger's. Most scientists say otherwise, as does the research.

They claim they know better than basically every major health related organization and study that has been done on the subject. And all because "my kid called me mommy until they got this vaccine." Classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc (and if you don't know, that's Latin for "after this therefore because of this). And a classic case of good ole fashioned American stupidity at work. I'm not saying the Food & Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Institute of Medicine, and the World Health Organization are perfect and never make mistakes, though I do doubt they all make the same mistake very often, but I'd tend to trust them in matters of Health & Safety long before Jenny McCarthy. Yes, the former Playboy model happens to be one of the spokespeople for this idiotic anti-vaccination movement with her Generation Rescue organization, a couple of books, and several painful to watch interviews. She seems to think she knows more than the experts in the field who do research on the topic. I guess posing nude on camera gives you some advanced intelligence in matters of health and science that years of training and education at universities doesn't afford.

Yeah, that's likely. And I think I'll stick to listening to the scientists on the matter, instead of some glorified ex-stripper.

Jim Carrey seems to stay a little more silent about the whole thing. I get the feeling that it's more of a "whatever you say honey" type approach.

And here's the kicker on all of it. The 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield that is credited by many to have got the "anti-vaccination" movement started, and at the very least sparked a large recruitment for the movement, was most likely faked. That's right, Wakefield made it all up, and these idiotic people are still carrying his torch of lies. Way to go morons.

The Media Blame Game

For the last 6 months, it's been anybody's turn to guess wrong in how the market will act that day. It's up, it's down, it went left? Though, it has mostly gone down, unfortunately. The point is, it has been volatile and, for the most part, unpredictable.

Geithner gets up on stage Tuesday and delivers a very bland, anti-climatic layout of the proposed actions for the 2nd half of the TARP funds. Layout is very kind, let's say, he has a very basic idea of some things to do with the money, and no real plan to speak of, which is far from what we were promised by Obama the previous day. And on this day, major stock indexes fell roughly 4%. Including the Dow Jones Industrial average falling 382 points.

So, in this turbulent time, when stock prices are completely wacky to begin with, let's just throw all the blame for the latest market tumble at Geithner. It's all your fault!

Now, don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm not upset and worried about the fact that there is no real plan for the funds, as was promised as late as the previous day. I just find it a bit pretentious to focus all the blame on one man. You can't even put all the blame on the administration. You want someone to really blame? Start looking at bank executives. Start with the people who really let this current recession and financial crisis develop.

That said, Obama, Geithner and the rest of the administration really needs to flesh out a real and working plan quickly, like within a week. Maybe I'm a little demanding, but they did promise we'd have it on Tuesday, then botched the attempt, after all.

Rush Limbaugh: Anti-American?

Of course he is.

Limbaugh: "I hope Obama fails."

Does the man not understand that if Obama "fails" this country and most everyone in it is doomed? He is all but cheerleading for the demise of this country he claims falsely to love so much. He loves his failed ideology and the sound of his own voice far more than this country or anyone else in it.

And as far as Bush not getting a "free pass" his first year.  Well, let's think. He was on Vacation, at his ranch, or just plain doing nothing for nearly a third of the time before 9/11, and then he got his "free pass" for his first year, and the next 3, even though he didn't deserve it then, or now. So cram it.

Limbaugh has long been the voice of the Conservative Right.  So now, I guess their message is "WAHH! WE LOST SO I HOPE THE WHOLE DAMNED COUNTRY GOES UNDER!" Real mature you hapless fanatically religious kooks.

Fox News, onenewsnow.com, Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly, and every dingbat who follows them blindly, this is directed at you:

The United States of America is no longer a country for your 

hatred, no matter how "righteous" you think it may be. We no

longer want you attempting to poison our politics, children, and

lives with your crazy ideas, inane commentary, and falsified 

biased news. We never want to hear from you again. Go away 

and find a new place to spew your bile.

Who honestly listens to these hate peddlers now anyway? 

Whoever you are, you should be ashamed of yourself!

Victimization

I've become the latest victim of the right-wing propaganda machine. NOOOOO!!!!!

During President Obama's swearing in, the lines got mangled and the pace was an atrocity. I thought "Wow, his nerves are going so crazy, he's having trouble with the swearing in." initially.  I thought of it as the first Obama goof (we all know he will make some during speaking, it's inevitable). No big deal, kind of funny actually.

As all the news outlets talk about it (as if they talked about anything else all day on 1/20/09), they kept saying that Chief Justice Roberts was the one in error. I thought it extremely odd the first time I heard it, but by the 10th time, I was thinking "Wow, the media is really going to extreme lengths to not say Obama screwed up at all, even though it wasn't a big screw up."  I created a "conspiracy" of the news media in my own head.

Today, I heard the pace and wording from Bush's 2005 swearing in. It was the exact pace Obama tried to follow.  And where Obama stumbled on the words, it was because they were the incorrect words for the actual Oath of Office. He paused, as if pondering if he should say the correct oath, or repeat Chief Justice Robert's incorrect directions.  He did opt to go with the latter.

As soon as I heard it all... FACEPALM!!!

Victimized by the Right-Wing. Then again, what else is new after 8 years of Bush.