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.