...I think we are running out of adjectives to describe the ignorance in the Republican party.
In the video, Representative Joe Barton, of Texas, questions Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Laureate, about where oil comes from (a question any 4th grader could easily answer). A stunned Chu tries to explain this without insulting the intelligence of everyone present (little did he know, there was no intelligent life present).
What is even more stunning - Barton assumes Chu's hesitation to carefully phrase his words as meaning he is somehow puzzled by the question (did I mention he is a Nobel Prize winner?). If people can get dumber than this, then just shoot me now, please.
Showing posts with label insanity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insanity. Show all posts
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
'Twas the night before teabagging...
Brilliant stuff from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann:
More tea-bag humor from the Rachel Maddow show yesterday, which had Conservatives hot and bothered today.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
More tea-bag humor from the Rachel Maddow show yesterday, which had Conservatives hot and bothered today.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
More Conservative Stupidity
Idiots.
I have a rebuttal, but Krugman says it all here.
What's ironic is the original Boston Tea Party, the inspiration for this travesty, protested a tax cut for the East India Company, which the British government was trying to prop up by giving an unfair advantage.
Anyway, this Slate writer has a great suggestion: let's rename the Republicans the U.S. Teabagging Party.
One can only anticipate what the U.S. Teabagging Party has in store next.
Perhaps a protest of illegal immigrants with a nationwide "Do a Dirty Sanchez" day?
Or perhaps protest vegetarianism by a "Tossing Your Salad" day?
I have a rebuttal, but Krugman says it all here.
What's ironic is the original Boston Tea Party, the inspiration for this travesty, protested a tax cut for the East India Company, which the British government was trying to prop up by giving an unfair advantage.
Anyway, this Slate writer has a great suggestion: let's rename the Republicans the U.S. Teabagging Party.
One can only anticipate what the U.S. Teabagging Party has in store next.
Perhaps a protest of illegal immigrants with a nationwide "Do a Dirty Sanchez" day?
Or perhaps protest vegetarianism by a "Tossing Your Salad" day?
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Sports and Religion
When I first decided to blog, I resolved not to be merely reactionary, which is the modus operandi for most bloggers. My feeling is those blogs that can actually offer something new and refreshing, whether that be a product or an opinion, were those that would add the most value for consumers in this Internet Age. This is an exceptionally cynical approach and, rather than embracing it, I would encourage the rest of you to continue doing something for yourself (as most blogs and networks like facebook do).
Either way, I hope to offer something new here all the time, and I've yet to do so. The title of this post is hardly indicative of that; the role of religion in sports has been discussed ad nauseum. But that's not the direction I'm going in here.
The concept of sports fanatic is a fairly new one. In the 20th century, being a sports fanatic became an acceptable thing to be. A person can obsess over sports; it can be his or her lifeblood. Cloaking yourself in the official garb of your favorite team and player and proceeding to act like a gibbering idiot at sporting events is quite an acceptable past-time. In fact, it can endear you to a large group of people who share the same feelings for that team or player. Large gatherings of 10,000+ people who share these emotions occur frequently and are socially-embraced events.
Conversely, it is quite acceptable to openly despise those who passionately follow other, opposing teams. Watching your team triumph over another on the field, diamond, pitch, or court vindicates your personal faith in the possibility of that outcome, and enables you to continue to be a jerk to those who supported the other side On the other hand, watching your team lose to the other can be a humbling, even humiliating experience (particularly when copious amounts of alcohol and testosterone are involved). Prolonged losing can lead a fan to openly question his or her own faith, and some may even jump the bandwagon (or convert) to a "winning" side.
The concept of religious fanatic... er, excuse me, devout follower is quite an older concept, perhaps 5000+ years in age. I believe the dawn of modern religion occurred when the first caveman clubbed his caveman brother on the head with a primitive mace, causing the caveman brother (not brotha, that would have been a hate crime) to see stars; this caused him to believe he was perceiving the divine, and eureka, you had religion. Quite possibly a similar event occurred repeatedly throughout history in various forms, creating the dawn of every major and minor theology known to man.
In any event, the concept of being a fervent follower of religion has been quite an acceptable thing to be for many thousands of years. A person can obsess over religion; it can become his or her lifeblood. Cloaking yourself in the official garb of your religion (skullcap, burka, robes, or nothing) and titillating yourself into a manic rage at your local church/temple/mosque is quite an acceptable past-time. In fact, it can endear you to a large group of people who share the same fervent emotions for that deity/idol/inanimate object. Large gatherings of these people occur frequently at churches, temples, and in front of rocks and are socially-embraced.
It is also quite acceptable to openly despise those who follow other deities/idols/inanimate objects. Although no physical evidence exists to support any philosophy, verbalized "pimp slaps" of one faith against others vindicates your personal faith in the possibility of being "saved" upon your death (after all, the Earth is a pretty shitty place, what with all these "other" religions and all), and enables you to continue to condemn followers of all other religions to hell. On the other hand, watching another religion triumph over yours can be a humiliating, even beheading experience (just ask the Jews circa 600 AD). Prolonged losing can lead a devotee to question his or her own faith, either on his or her own or by the sword of an opposing devotee, and some may even "convert" (or jump the bandwagon) to a "winning" deity, or risk losing their heads (or even private parts; of course, converting to a religion can also lead to loss of portions of private parts, so you're kinda screwed either way).
This provides with an interesting hypothesis about our species' behavior. The same sort of emotions govern both sports fanaticism and religious fervor, and similar physical outcomes can be achieved via both obsessions. The implication is that humans are inherently obsessive as well as insecure, and require some sort of following to be able to function normally. In an era where religious fervor has faded somewhat, it would seem sports fanaticism has stepped in to fill the void (or are the two related? Hmmm. Perhaps that is why the NFL plays its games on Sunday). Of course, sports is an easy example; people around the world have a variety of obsessions, and the concept could easily be extended to, say, pop music, culture, and political ideology (which could explain the popularity of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Rush Limbaugh). Either way, its not an encouraging sign for our civilization. The solution? I recommend Xanax.
Either way, I hope to offer something new here all the time, and I've yet to do so. The title of this post is hardly indicative of that; the role of religion in sports has been discussed ad nauseum. But that's not the direction I'm going in here.
The concept of sports fanatic is a fairly new one. In the 20th century, being a sports fanatic became an acceptable thing to be. A person can obsess over sports; it can be his or her lifeblood. Cloaking yourself in the official garb of your favorite team and player and proceeding to act like a gibbering idiot at sporting events is quite an acceptable past-time. In fact, it can endear you to a large group of people who share the same feelings for that team or player. Large gatherings of 10,000+ people who share these emotions occur frequently and are socially-embraced events.
Conversely, it is quite acceptable to openly despise those who passionately follow other, opposing teams. Watching your team triumph over another on the field, diamond, pitch, or court vindicates your personal faith in the possibility of that outcome, and enables you to continue to be a jerk to those who supported the other side On the other hand, watching your team lose to the other can be a humbling, even humiliating experience (particularly when copious amounts of alcohol and testosterone are involved). Prolonged losing can lead a fan to openly question his or her own faith, and some may even jump the bandwagon (or convert) to a "winning" side.
The concept of religious fanatic... er, excuse me, devout follower is quite an older concept, perhaps 5000+ years in age. I believe the dawn of modern religion occurred when the first caveman clubbed his caveman brother on the head with a primitive mace, causing the caveman brother (not brotha, that would have been a hate crime) to see stars; this caused him to believe he was perceiving the divine, and eureka, you had religion. Quite possibly a similar event occurred repeatedly throughout history in various forms, creating the dawn of every major and minor theology known to man.
In any event, the concept of being a fervent follower of religion has been quite an acceptable thing to be for many thousands of years. A person can obsess over religion; it can become his or her lifeblood. Cloaking yourself in the official garb of your religion (skullcap, burka, robes, or nothing) and titillating yourself into a manic rage at your local church/temple/mosque is quite an acceptable past-time. In fact, it can endear you to a large group of people who share the same fervent emotions for that deity/idol/inanimate object. Large gatherings of these people occur frequently at churches, temples, and in front of rocks and are socially-embraced.
It is also quite acceptable to openly despise those who follow other deities/idols/inanimate objects. Although no physical evidence exists to support any philosophy, verbalized "pimp slaps" of one faith against others vindicates your personal faith in the possibility of being "saved" upon your death (after all, the Earth is a pretty shitty place, what with all these "other" religions and all), and enables you to continue to condemn followers of all other religions to hell. On the other hand, watching another religion triumph over yours can be a humiliating, even beheading experience (just ask the Jews circa 600 AD). Prolonged losing can lead a devotee to question his or her own faith, either on his or her own or by the sword of an opposing devotee, and some may even "convert" (or jump the bandwagon) to a "winning" deity, or risk losing their heads (or even private parts; of course, converting to a religion can also lead to loss of portions of private parts, so you're kinda screwed either way).
This provides with an interesting hypothesis about our species' behavior. The same sort of emotions govern both sports fanaticism and religious fervor, and similar physical outcomes can be achieved via both obsessions. The implication is that humans are inherently obsessive as well as insecure, and require some sort of following to be able to function normally. In an era where religious fervor has faded somewhat, it would seem sports fanaticism has stepped in to fill the void (or are the two related? Hmmm. Perhaps that is why the NFL plays its games on Sunday). Of course, sports is an easy example; people around the world have a variety of obsessions, and the concept could easily be extended to, say, pop music, culture, and political ideology (which could explain the popularity of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Rush Limbaugh). Either way, its not an encouraging sign for our civilization. The solution? I recommend Xanax.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Not quite Stupidity 101...
...but I'm sure you didn't take these courses while at school. And finally after all these years, I can prove Underwater Basket Weaving is a course.
Friday, March 06, 2009
More Conservative Bilge...
Apparently I am somewhat of a masochist, because I continue to subject myself to the excrement of right-wing shill Charles Krauthammer.
Among the many objectionable statements Krauthammer ejaculates in this swill of an article, a few stood out as particularly retched.
Chiding Obama for lecturing on not finding energy alternatives: "We are paying for past sins in three principal areas: energy, health care and education -- importing too much oil and not finding new sources of energy (as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf?)..."
- Every honest expert has declared neither of those represents a short-term or long-term solution to the energy demands of our civilization.
Apparently, one of the problems of our financial crisis is an increasingly educated population: "Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe."
- Wow. Krauthammer appears to have a major problem with access to education in general, admonishing Obama for wishing to provide "universal access to college". Perhaps he would prefer if people remained dumb; they might find his columns insightful, then.
Finally, he reverts to the McCain-Palin (and now, Jindal) tactic of accusing Obama and Co. of fear-mongering, of taking advantage politically of the tenuous economic climate to forward his own socialist agenda.
"Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions -- the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his "Big Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society".
Please. After Bush and Cheney stood idly by while the specter of a recession loomed, and refused to acknowledge this impending economic doom, we finally have an administration offering solutions to the ills that plague America post-Bush. Granted the solutions aren't perfect: the stimulus bills are peppered with a variety of earmark and congressional pork. Folks, that is simply politics as it is played all across the world, and no bill will pass in Congress without some sort of political favors. Indeed, if the Republicans were not so steadfastly ideological, and did not continue to appease their radical right-wing ultra-conservative constitutents, it is likely the bill would be less bad and potentially more useful. Universal access to education and health-care should not be viewed as privelege; they are fundamental human rights, and in every developed society (except one) they are treated as such.
"The Great Non Sequitur" blares as the title of the article. Who knew it refered to the writer, and not the subject?
Among the many objectionable statements Krauthammer ejaculates in this swill of an article, a few stood out as particularly retched.
Chiding Obama for lecturing on not finding energy alternatives: "We are paying for past sins in three principal areas: energy, health care and education -- importing too much oil and not finding new sources of energy (as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf?)..."
- Every honest expert has declared neither of those represents a short-term or long-term solution to the energy demands of our civilization.
Apparently, one of the problems of our financial crisis is an increasingly educated population: "Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe."
- Wow. Krauthammer appears to have a major problem with access to education in general, admonishing Obama for wishing to provide "universal access to college". Perhaps he would prefer if people remained dumb; they might find his columns insightful, then.
Finally, he reverts to the McCain-Palin (and now, Jindal) tactic of accusing Obama and Co. of fear-mongering, of taking advantage politically of the tenuous economic climate to forward his own socialist agenda.
"Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions -- the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his "Big Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society".
Please. After Bush and Cheney stood idly by while the specter of a recession loomed, and refused to acknowledge this impending economic doom, we finally have an administration offering solutions to the ills that plague America post-Bush. Granted the solutions aren't perfect: the stimulus bills are peppered with a variety of earmark and congressional pork. Folks, that is simply politics as it is played all across the world, and no bill will pass in Congress without some sort of political favors. Indeed, if the Republicans were not so steadfastly ideological, and did not continue to appease their radical right-wing ultra-conservative constitutents, it is likely the bill would be less bad and potentially more useful. Universal access to education and health-care should not be viewed as privelege; they are fundamental human rights, and in every developed society (except one) they are treated as such.
"The Great Non Sequitur" blares as the title of the article. Who knew it refered to the writer, and not the subject?
Saturday, February 21, 2009
What a Joke...
...the Republican Party has become. Or at least, the radical right wing, becoming increasingly synonymous with the GOP, has elucidated for the rest of us just how out of touch and desperate they have become. This week offered several revelations.
1) The latest has to be this Alan Keyes' interview.
2) Increasingly, accepting the stimulus package money has become political, with a spate of Republican governors threatening to refuse the funds. The most interesting is Bobby Jindal, whose state is facing a $1.6 billion dollar budget deficit, and who has given hints that he will turn down $3.8 billion dollars in federal funds offered as part of the new stimulus package. One could argue this is putting conservative ideology over the best interests of the state (although Charlie Crist, increasingly unpopular with the national GOP, will accept the funds). More likely, this is a clear revelation that Jindal is putting his 2012 political interests over those of his state, which is disappointing. Jindal has always appeared to be a smart, practical man, but it now seems the most high profile Indian in American politics is not above the conservative ideological fray. He's had a pretty bizarre week that includes, besides his irrelevant response to Obama's Congressional Address, his story about participating in the exorcism of a college classmate. If this is the best the Republicans have to offer in 2012, then the Democrats should enjoy a healthy majority for several more years to come.
3) I wanted to post more links, but the NYTimes' Frank Rich has penned something far more informative, so check it out.
4) I am wholly unimpressed with the U.N.'s latest campaign, and so should all of you who value freedom of speech. This isn't directly related to the week that was GOP-insanity, but it's an interesting issue nonetheless, and I sincerely hope religious zealots will one day learn to ignore what other people are saying about their religions (if you have faith, it really shouldn't matter to you when I make jokes like this:
Q: How can you recognize a well-balanced Muslim?
A: He's got chips on both shoulders.
Haha - at this point you Muslims should put away your machetes and not threaten to open up a can of Fatwa on my ass). It's funny how people of "faith" always feel threatened by those with "opposing" messages (that whole sentence is a joke). This is probably because the relevance of these religions rests on trying to correlate religion with morality, a concept that completely underestimates the ability of humans to recognize fundamental distinctions between right and wrong. The simplest example of this? If you've ever heard a child exclaim "That's not fair!", you are witnessing the most basic assessment of right from wrong, an assertion from a source that lacks an academic understanding of religious philosophy, yet is able make such a judgement nonetheless. Ultimately, religion (and ridiculous campaigns like the UN's to defend it from "profanity") undermines human intelligence and its capacity to learn and grow as it struggles to stay relevant in this information age.
1) The latest has to be this Alan Keyes' interview.
2) Increasingly, accepting the stimulus package money has become political, with a spate of Republican governors threatening to refuse the funds. The most interesting is Bobby Jindal, whose state is facing a $1.6 billion dollar budget deficit, and who has given hints that he will turn down $3.8 billion dollars in federal funds offered as part of the new stimulus package. One could argue this is putting conservative ideology over the best interests of the state (although Charlie Crist, increasingly unpopular with the national GOP, will accept the funds). More likely, this is a clear revelation that Jindal is putting his 2012 political interests over those of his state, which is disappointing. Jindal has always appeared to be a smart, practical man, but it now seems the most high profile Indian in American politics is not above the conservative ideological fray. He's had a pretty bizarre week that includes, besides his irrelevant response to Obama's Congressional Address, his story about participating in the exorcism of a college classmate. If this is the best the Republicans have to offer in 2012, then the Democrats should enjoy a healthy majority for several more years to come.
3) I wanted to post more links, but the NYTimes' Frank Rich has penned something far more informative, so check it out.
4) I am wholly unimpressed with the U.N.'s latest campaign, and so should all of you who value freedom of speech. This isn't directly related to the week that was GOP-insanity, but it's an interesting issue nonetheless, and I sincerely hope religious zealots will one day learn to ignore what other people are saying about their religions (if you have faith, it really shouldn't matter to you when I make jokes like this:
Q: How can you recognize a well-balanced Muslim?
A: He's got chips on both shoulders.
Haha - at this point you Muslims should put away your machetes and not threaten to open up a can of Fatwa on my ass). It's funny how people of "faith" always feel threatened by those with "opposing" messages (that whole sentence is a joke). This is probably because the relevance of these religions rests on trying to correlate religion with morality, a concept that completely underestimates the ability of humans to recognize fundamental distinctions between right and wrong. The simplest example of this? If you've ever heard a child exclaim "That's not fair!", you are witnessing the most basic assessment of right from wrong, an assertion from a source that lacks an academic understanding of religious philosophy, yet is able make such a judgement nonetheless. Ultimately, religion (and ridiculous campaigns like the UN's to defend it from "profanity") undermines human intelligence and its capacity to learn and grow as it struggles to stay relevant in this information age.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)