05.7.2008 | 7:00 pm | Political Correctness, Politics
Michael Bates writes:
I hope I’m not a misogynist, but I hate Hillary and I think I have good reasons. My number one reason is that if future generations look back at our society, a society in which supposedly everybody has the chance to be president, and they see a succession of presidents that goes like this: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, (Is Jeb Bush next and then will Chelsea be ready?) they will without a doubt conclude that democracy stopped functioning and that bothers me a lot.
The next thing that bothers me about Hillary is that she has been a power broker in Washington for thirty years and therefore must be owned by many special interests and I am tired of being governed by special interests. I could list a bunch of other reasons, but I recently got hammered for being a misogynist because of my views. Do my views really make me a misogynist?
Yes, Michael, of course you’re a misogynist. And a racist and probably a homophobe too. Because approximately 100% of the time you start wining an argument with a far left liberal they’re going to start name calling, and they don’t have enough imagination to come up with anything but those tired old standards.
The race card is their favorite, of course. Don’t like Islam? They’ll call you a racist. Point out that Islam isn’t a race, and they’ll insist that you must hate Arabs. Like all demagogues, they don’t respond to reason, logic or common sense. You have a better chance of success teaching the concept of square roots to an Irish Setter. (Gasp. Was that a slur on the Irish?)
I have a long list of reasons I despise Hillary, but to a true lefty, none of them matter. When shared my opinion with a far left friend of mine her reply was, “What’s the matter, don’t you like strong women?” Sheesh. If course I like strong women. That’s one of my reasons for hating Hillary - she isn’t one. A strong woman would never spend decades chained to a serial philanderer. She might forgive him for cheating on her the first time. Maybe she should have forgiven him the second time. But when he did it for the third time a strong woman would have told him the honeymoon was over, although in there case, they still had four days left.
But when a lefty calls you a racist, misogynist or homophobe, don’t despair. Instead, you should celebrate. It means they’re desperate because you’ve backed them into a corner and they have no rational response to you. They’ll never admit that, of course, because in their fantasy word they are always right, and therefore always win every debate. But you’ll know better.
Comments (3)
05.6.2008 | 1:22 am | QH Podcasts, Religion
It doesn’t happen often. It’s a very rare event. But yes, there is a new article on The Hittman Chronicle. It’s titled “Insulting Islam,” and has the audacity to suggest that when it comes to Islamic demands on Western Society we need less tolerance, not more.
It’s also available as a podcast.
This post is to provide a place for public comments. E-Mails are also welcome, of course.
Comments (7)
05.3.2008 | 11:15 am | Junk Science, Nanny Nation
Dr. Shepard was one of the co-authors of the infamous Helena Study. The study made an astonishing claim: That in the six months Helena MT had a smoking ban in place heart attacks dropped by 60%. In order to fully appreciate this entry, I suggest you first read the details of the study here and here.
Tony Masset, a student at Carroll College in Waukesha, WI, attended a presentation by Dr. Shepard. Before the presentation he asked me to suggest some questions he could ask.
Tony tried to record the conversations, but wasn’t able to because of an equipment malfunction. Instead, he wrote down the questions and answers immediately after leaving the presentation. As a result this is an accurate, but not word for word, report.
The first round of questions took place during the presentation.
Tony: “There were only 44 cases. Why didn’t you ask a single person about their SHS exposure?”
Shepard: “Because we didn’t have the data from before the study to compare the results too. So even if we asked them about their exposure it wouldn’t have done us any good because we can not compare it to anything.”
Tony: “Your own graph shows a similar dip in the heart attacks in 1998. Why did you ignore that?”
Shepard: “That data isn’t similar as shown in my graph.” Then he pointed to a new column graph that showed the number of heart attacks by year instead of by month. The average showed the rates increasing every year up to the year of the ban and then slowly climbing again after the ban was lifted.
So when one graph proves you’re a liar, create another that shows you in a better light.
Tony: You announced a 60% reduction in your press conference, but your published study only claimed a 40% reduction. Why?”
Shepard: “We did a (phonetically spelled) qwuaz-eye study and the BMJ wanted us to do a linear study.” I am not sure what it means, I think his point was that he had the data determined using one method but the BMJ wanted them to determine the data using their approved method. It has to be a round-about way of saying “we manipulated the data and they didn’t want to publish our manipulated findings.”
My guess is Shepard was admitting that the 60% number came from a “quasi-study.” In other words, an imitation study, something that resembled a study, but was not a real study. What does this say about his integrity?
After the presentation:
After the questions I stayed to argue with him for about 15 minutes. He had an older listener and a younger college student on each side of him giving him a bobble head visual “surround sound” effect, two people that literally shook their head yes to every single thing the man said! A few things said in our Q&A were:
Tony: “Why can’t the bar owners make their own decision about how to run their business? If it truly was beneficial to bar owners wouldn’t they implement smoking bans on their own?”
Shepard: “People do not have a right to smoke because it harms others so bar owners can’t permit a practice that someone does not have a right to do. And no, bar owners have an irrational fear that they will lose business if they implement a ban so they will never decide to ban smoking on their own.”
Bar owners fear of losing business is hardly irrational. Smoking bans always destroy a significant number of businesses, especially bars.
He brought up various court cases where smokers always lost and concluded, “See, no one has a legal right to smoke.”
Nice sidestep. This is not, and has never been, about anyone’s right to smoke. It’s about junk science and the property rights of venue owners.
Tony: “People can decide for themselves whether they want to patronize a bar or not, so why do we need a blanket ban that forces owners to decide how to run their establishment?”
Shepard: “The employees can’t decide for themselves. They often have no skills, no education, and they need to put food on the table and so they have to bus tables, their choice is taken away. Does the owner have the right to subject employees to that?”
Tony: “The employees chose to work there, they knew people smoked and yet they took the job anyway. If someone doesn’t like where they work they can find another job.”
College student bobble head: “What experience do you have in the work force?”
Shepard: “(smirking) You are falsely believing that people can go out and find a job anywhere at anytime, that there are limitless jobs available, and that people have the ability to change jobs. Most people don’t and those individuals that don’t have a choice of where to work can not be subjected to SHS because of how deadly it is.”
Could Shepard have been any more condescending? He claims his mission is to protect bar employees, but it’s because they’re talentless losers who can’t find work anywhere else.
Tony: “I believe one of the great aspects about living in America is that you can choose to leave a job at anytime for any reason and find one where you want to work. Positions for unskilled laborers are probably the most abundant in this economy and you are going to tell me that it is impossible for them to find another job at a different restaurant?”
Shepard: (smiling as the two bobble heads bobbed up and down)”I think you do not understand the point. Bar owners can not be allowed to subject employees to SHS because of its harmful effects, plain and simple. I also think you are not being sympathetic to the situations most people live in and you have never experienced the choices that they have had to deal with.”
Tony: “I want to go back to the question about the first three months of the ban. During that time, with little compliance, heart attacks decreased. In the second three months, with enforcement, heart attacks returned to normal levels.”
Shepard: “Most businesses were in compliance with the ordinance, only a handful weren’t. Part of the reason the ban was lifted was because of the difficulty with enforcing it. They got fed up with trying and overturned the ban. I think it is unfair to bring up those specific statistics because you are focusing too much on the data.”
This is a flat out lie. A substantial number of businesses weren’t complying and he knows it.
Tony: “We have many taxes on cigarettes, if we ban smoking besides the loss of jobs for those individuals wouldn’t the government just push the tax onto some other product or service because they will not want to lose funding?”
Shepard: “We would double the tax each time the percentage of people that smoke is cut in half. It would maintain our tax income and discourage others from smoking. I would hate to be the guy that pays $1,000,000 for the last pack of cigarettes. Also like you said, those people could easily go find other jobs because it is America.” (Head bobbing and laughs)
Tony: “You really pushed the idea that nicotine is the most addictive drug in the world so why would increases in the tax rate suddenly cause people to break the habit? Why wouldn’t they just go bankrupt making them dependent on societal programs such as welfare, increasing costs for nonsmokers?” (A big point of his was that nonsmokers pay for smoker’s health insurance.)
Shepard: “If you were listening that is not what I said. Poor people that can’t afford cigarettes stop smoking; it is the rich that end up being the primary smokers with higher tax rates because they can afford to smoke.”
It is a joke. On the one hand he says “Because the nicotine is so addictive even if smokers want to quit they can’t.” Yet later he says poor people will stop smoking when they can’t afford cigarettes. Like they can suddenly stop buying them because cost becomes the over whelming factor in the decision to smoke. What will really happen is a poor person will steal cigarettes if they can’t afford them, plain and simple. I wish I would have said that.
A few will steal, but the majority will buy “illegal” smokes, cigarettes that have been purchased without paying the tax. There is a huge black market for cigarettes that aren’t burdened with confiscatory taxes, and it grows every time tobacco taxes are raised.
Well I hope I gave you some insight into how the presentation was conducted. He had an answer to everything I said. I learned a lot. I’d like to take their responses, research them, and blow them out of the water next time I argue. I’d like to find weaknesses in their logic and pick their ideas apart. Hopefully I can strengthen my argument after this.
I think I shocked the people when I told them I did not smoke or drink but I would be the first to fight for everyone’s right to do so. I wish I could remember more of what we argued about at the end or even the points he argued in his presentation.
I want to thank you again for the questions and for reading my e-mail. I love your website and I hope you can maintain it with more relevant information!
Tony Masset
West Allis
Great Job, Tony. Yes, nannies, like all fundamentalists, have stock answers for the tough questions. But, as you learned, there is little substance to those answers. If you keep pressing them they usually end up contradicting themselves, revealing their dishonesty.
Comments (1)
05.2.2008 | 10:38 pm | Political Correctness, Very Old Jokes
Three women from the isle of Lesbos are shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn that gay women call themselves Lesbians. Or if not shocked, at least bitchy about it. They’re suing the “Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece” over their name.
“My sister can’t say she is a Lesbian,” said Dimitris Lambrou. “Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos,” he said.. . .
Lambrou said the word lesbian has only been linked with gay women in the past few decades. “But we have been Lesbians for thousands of years,” said Lambrou, who publishes a small magazine on ancient Greek religion and technology that frequently criticizes the Christian Church.
Waaaaaa. What’s next, suing publishers in Holland for the story of the little Dutch boy who stuck his finger in the. . . naw, too easy.
Comments (4)
04.30.2008 | 11:25 pm | Nanny Nation
MADD is demanding that Grand Theft Auto be giving the rating of Adults Only because players can drive drunk in the game. Citing their tiresome ass numbers, they proceed to give us their standard lecture, and then “suggest” that Rockstar remove the game from the market.
Rockstar has spent an estimated $100 million developing the most eagerly anticipated game ever, and these mouth-breathers think they’ll pull it because it offends their tender sensibilities.
This story was sent to me by Mike T, via Kotaku. Mike writes, “I remembered your MADD show a while ago and am pretty shocked at how dumb these people are.” I’m not. Nannyism is a mental disease, a religious infection that makes nannies immune from reason, logic, facts, or even simple common sense.
Mike says, “I’ve had GTA since it came out and the game *really* discourages you from driving drunk. You crash a lot, (usually with others in the car, sometimes sending them to the hospital,) and it’s a great way to end up with cops chasing you.
Also, the first time I came out of a bar in the game, my cousin, (in the game,) said something like, ‘we really should get a cab. You’re in no condition to drive.’”
My guess in the MADDtards have never played the game, but are going on some report somewhere that someone heard about from someone else who told them that there’s drunk driving in the game.
Wait until they hear about the hookers. . .
Comments (4)
04.29.2008 | 12:29 pm | Police State, Poker, Nanny Nation
North Carolina police staged a military style raid to protect the pubic from….a poker game.
After wasting taxpayers’ money with a ten month investigation, they burst into a home poker game and arrested 27 people, including an assistant prosecutor. They confiscated all the money they could find, including, according to one report, cash that people had in their purses and wallets. Then they went after people who weren’t at the game, but had played on other occasions.
Doesn’t that make you feel safer?
The police were enforcing a law from 1802 that prohibits laying any time of game, in your home, that uses dice or cards. Better find a good hiding place for your Monopoly, Sorry! and Cranium.
Comments (2)
04.28.2008 | 1:21 pm | Junk Science, Nanny Nation
Now that European nannies have succeeded in using bogus claims to outlaw smoking nearly everywhere , They’re moving on to their next target: passive drinking.
Uber Nanny Dr. Peter Anderson claims, “The total tangible cost of alcohol to EU society in 2003 was estimated {pulled out of someone’s ass} to be €125bn (€79bn-€220bn), equivalent to 1.3 per cent GDP, and which is roughly the same value as that found recently for tobacco.” Anderson was a driving force in vilification of Europe’s smokers. His primary tool was lying about the effects of second hand smoke, relying, of course, on ass numbers. “The intangible costs show the value people place on pain, suffering and lost life that occurs due to the criminal, social and health harms caused by alcohol. In 2003 these were estimated {pulled from way up my ass} to be €270bn, with other ways of valuing the same harms producing estimates between €150bn and €760bn.”
Did you really think the nannies would stop at tobacco?
Comments (2)
04.20.2008 | 10:24 pm | QH Podcasts, Politics
Once again the Palestinian people had an opportunely to vote, and once again they chose Hamas, who vows to destroy Israel, by a huge margin.
Jimmy Carter, the most incompetent president in my lifetime, was there to encourage the terrorists. He’s called for them to be recognized by other nations because maybe they might kinda sorta renounce violence sooner or later someday.
I lived through the Carter presidency. After the disaster that was Richard Nixon Americans voted in the mild mannered peanut farmer. His presidency was marked by exactly one accomplishment: he helped broker peace between Egypt and Israel. But everything else he did was a disaster.
Back then I was selling audio and video equipment at a store called Sounds Great. This was long before Best Buy and Circuit City. When you wanted a decent stereo you went to one of independent stores or small chains populated by salesmen who actually knew something about the equipment they were selling.
Under Carter inflation hit a whopping 18%. People were walking into the store carrying wads of cash, announcing they had just emptied their savings accounts and wanted to spend all their money while it was still worth something. This only lasted for a few months, but sales in the store rocketed to an all time high as people made a desperate attempt to spend all their money as fast as possible. But even that was minor compared to what was in store overseas.
America’s embarrassment started when fundamentalist Muslims in Iran toppled the Shah (who had been put there by Americans) and replaced him with the Ayatollah Khomeini. It came as a complete surprise. The ever clueless CIA was unaware of any trouble brewing until they read about it on the front page of the New York Times. Shortly after installing Khomeini Iranians attacked the American embassy and took more than sixty Americans hostage.
Carter’s response was to do nothing except talk, while asking Johnny Carson to avoid the subject in his nightly monologues. I still remember, a month later, watching Steve Martin break the ice with a Khomeini joke. Man, that felt great. Our silliest comic was the first person to stand up to the tyrant.
The days turned to weeks, the weeks turned into months, and still Carter took no action. Some hostages were released early because of health problems. Carter bravely promised he wouldn’t leave the White House until the rest of them were returned.
Americans were pissed and had been demanding action for months when Carter finally decided to do something. He sent a few helicopters on a rescue mission. The mission was a complete failure, with most of the helicopters never even making it to their destination. Khomeini’s popularity skyrocketed.
The hostages never were released under his presidency. They spent four hundred and forty four days being tortured and abused by Iranians. Their release wasn’t negotiated until Reagan won the election, and took place just a few minutes after he took the oath of office. Iran knew better than to keep up their nonsense with Reagan in charge of the military.
Imagine how different things would be now if, back then, Carter was in possession of testicles. He could have given Iran a very short time to release the hostages, perhaps the week or so that it would have taken to get our military in place. And if they still refused he could have gone in with the full might of the American military. They could have razed everything in their path on the way to the hostages.
Imagine the aftermath of that. Sure, there would be moaning and protests and hand wringing and vilifying of the US, but more importantly we would have sent a very important, unforgettable message to the world, especially the Muslim countries: Don’t fuck with us. The consequences are just too terrible.
Would 9/11 have happened? How about the reign of terror leading up to it? We’ll never know, because Gutless Jimmy blew his chance.
As Reagan began to win the cold war, Carter shuffled off and started Habitat for Humanity, a very cool charity that helped low income people become homeowners without giving them handouts. For a decade or so it looked like he might make up for being one our of our worst presidents by becoming one of our best ex-presidents.
But now he’s blown it again, hob-knobbing with terrorists. At a reception he literally hugged and kissed one of them. He’s even spewing their spew, referring to Israel as occupiers.
This, then, is Carter’s legacy. After kowtowing to terrorists while in office, he’s traveling the globe and kissing them. This makes him something far worse than a pathetically incompetent president. This makes him a despicable human being.
Cartoon Credit: Mike Lester, Cagle Cartoons
Comments (6)
04.18.2008 | 12:42 pm | Yeah - That'll Work, Nanny Nation
While most countries are badgering their citizens to lose weight, France thinks they have the opposite problem – some of their citizens are too skinny.
New French legislation makes it a crime to promote excessive thinness. Anyone guilty faces fines of up to $70,000 dollars and three years in jail, where the food is, evidently, abundant and excellent. The law applies to all media, but the primary target seems to be pro-anna web sites which proclaim anorexia or bulimia is a good and preferred lifestyle.
I found this post on a pro anna site: “its so strange ive had like a rice cake and i feel like purging. i think im going to have to. i cant cope today!” Evidently she’s too weak to hold down the shift key.
France’s government did this after a Brazilian supermodel literally starved herself to death, lowering the country’s total IQ by nearly sixteen points.
Ladies, if you’re considering doing something as stupid as developing an eating order on purpose, please accept this observation from an average male guy type person:
Guys like women that are woman shaped. That means curvy bits, not straight lines. Breasts are sexy (we really like breasts). Visible ribs are gross. Hips are sexy. Hip bones are disgusting.
If your boyfriend gets painful bruises when he hugs you he won’t continue being affectionate. Nor is he likely to stay around if he runs his fingers down your shoulder blades and cuts himself.
So have a sandwich.
Comments (2)
04.16.2008 | 12:57 pm | Religion
Aw, the pope is deeply ashamed that his church spent decades shuffling pedophile priests to new congregations in search of fresh meet. Gee, that makes it all better.
Where 
was the Vatican’s outrage when this story first broke a decade or so ago? The Church could have taken the high road and immediately started cooperating with the cops, turning in not only their perverted priests but the cardinals who participated in the pedo-shuffle. They could have used it as an opportunity to portray themselves as a moral authority. Instead, they showed their true colors, and displayed to the world they are a dishonest, corrupt, hypocritical and useless organization. First they tried ignoring the story. Then they tried covering it up. Then they promoted some of the guilty cardinals.
And now, years and years later, the current pope thinks crocodile tears will make it all better. He said “We will absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry.” Ooo, good plan. I wonder how long they worked on it.
Well, at least they put out a coloring book warning kids about their clergy.
Comments (0)
04.14.2008 | 1:12 pm | Yeah - That'll Work, Nanny Nation
Evidently it doesn’t take much to be a professor in New Zealand. Or a “top public health expert,” for that matter.
Professor Rod Jackson (which would be an excellent screen name for a porn star) has declared that butter is poison. He uses the word repeatedly in his rants. He claims “We have a health tax on alcohol and cigarettes and there should be a health tax on butter. It’s the most poisonous commonly consumed food in New Zealand. It’s about the purest form of saturated fat you can eat and it has no protein and no calcium. Butter has had all the good things taken out and just left the poison.” It’s easy to picture him wiping the foam from his chin after his rant.
New Zealand is a very nanny state, but this is too much even for them. There are no plans to make this idiot’s demand into law. For now.
Japans contribution to this kind of lunacy is even worse. The government has mandated that everyone over 40 must have a “regulation size” waist of 33.5 inches. Companies are not only required to monitor their employee’s weight, but also the weight of their families. Companies who don’t comply will be fined 10% of their profits. Expect to see more fat people on the unemployment lines, and blocking the sidewalks begging for change.
There goes Sumo as a national sport.
Japan has socialized medicine like all socialized medicine, is getting difficult fund. This gives them the justification to force people to be healthy.
Meanwhile, back in the states, schools across the country are banning “junk food,” foolishly believing that all you have to do to get rid of something popular is make it illegal, because that always works so well. And everywhere this happens smart, entrepreneurial students load up their back packs with candy, soda and chips to sell to their fellow students. If they’re caught, instead of being given extra credit for their initiative and business acumen, their goods are confiscated and they’re sent to detention. I’ve yet to see an article mention what happens to the confiscated candy, but I’m guessing the teachers aren’t losing any weight.
Comments (2)
04.8.2008 | 11:24 pm | Religion
Imagine that the parents of an 11 year old child refused to give her medical treatment because they believed the ancient god Moloch would save her. They prayed to Moloch for a month, convinced that he would cure her ills, while the child got sicker and sicker. But alas, the child died of juvenile diabetes. Now imagine that the couple has three other children, and the authorities said it’s just fine and dandy for the kids to stay with their parents. “They are still in the home,” the police chief said. “There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see.”
Stop imagining. It happened, except they prayed to a different god. And since their abuse was religious, they get to keep their other three kids, because, what the hell, their belief was sincere.
What the hell is wrong with the police chief? No signs of abuse? How about one dead kid? Isn’t that abusive enough?
Fortunately, this is fairly uncommon, but it happens several times a year in the US, and almost every time the authorities not only let the parents get away with it, but allow them to keep any of their other kids who have been lucky enough to stay healthy.
While researching this story I came across this blog post, which lead to this link showing Jehovah’s Witnesses celebrating the death of their children.
JW’s use most medical care, but refuse blood transfusions. And now they’ve got the gall to present us with the happy, smiling faces of the children they’ve killed. How about showing their lifeless corpses laid out in coffins, you sick bastards?
I am not a big fan of Child Protective Services, whose goal seems to be breaking up healthy families and keeping violent dysfunctional ones together. In these situations they could actually do some good for a change. Once a parent demonstrates that they are too stupid to provide medical care for a child, their other kids need to be rescued from them immediately. The cause of the stupidity doesn’t matter.
And then, of course, the parents need to spend some time in prison. It doesn’t matter how sincere they were. It doesn’t matter which god they believed in. They killed their kid. They deserve severe punishment.
Comments (2)
04.8.2008 | 10:48 pm | Police State, Ridiculous, Big Brother, Politics
If you want to go fishing in any of the Great Lakes, be sure to have your passport. And to fax in all your ID info to customs an hour before you leave. And then visit customs afterward to have your photographs taken, along with a sliver of your dignity.
These are new rules to protect us from terrorists. Don’t you feel safer now? Of course you do, comrade.
Sheesh, could our government get any more stupid and incompetent? Probably. Stay tuned.
Comments (0)
04.4.2008 | 10:34 pm | Pop Culture
I recently added StumbleUpon to my browser. You tell it what kinds of things you’re interested in, and when you’re bored you click the icon on your taskbar and it brings to to a semi-random site that they think will interest you. You can then rate it thumbs up or thumbs down with a mouse click, and comment on it if you’re so inclined.
It’s OK, but not great. They repeat too many sites, including ones I’ve thumbed down. But they also hit some great sites from time to time, ones I probably wouldn’t have found on my own.
One thing it’s taught me, though, is just how many horribly bad comics are on the tubes. Stupid, poorly drawn, just plain bad comics. And the worst of all are the stick figure comics. There are hundreds of them.
You don’t have to be Da Vinci to draw a comic. No one is expecting brilliant artwork. But if the best you can do is stick figures: don’t bother! Stick figure comics are stupid and ridiculous. If you’re stupid and ridiculous you might want to avoid advertising that to the world.
Comments (3)
04.4.2008 | 1:21 pm | Politics
New York State, faced with a five billon dollar deficit, are turning to their favorite whipping boy: Smokers. After making it illegal to have a smoke in a bar, driving people outside in the weather, and going so far as to make it illegal for business owners to provide any kind of shelter for smokers (even something as simple as an awning) they’re looking to screw smokers even more to finance their nanny state.
If enacted this would give NYS the highest cigarette taxes in the nation. According to this article about a third of NYS smokers take steps to avoid being screwed by buying under taxed cigarettes. This Cato study puts the number at 50%. Nicotine nannies scream that this “costs taxpayers X dollars,” which is complete bullshit. These people are merely keeping a bit more of their own money, money the state has no right to.
The idiots in the NYS legislature have no understanding of basic economics, which runs on incentives. When taxes are low, people have little incentive to evade them. Each time they go up another block of citizens decides to do something about it, personally. They should not be considered criminals. They should be considered patriots.
The Boston Tea party was held over a three percent tax. Three percent. Their act of vandalism is widely considered as patriotic. Today’s smokers are paying taxes of hundreds of percent, and it is truly taxation without representation. (When was the last time any legislator, at any level in the government, did something for smokers?) This article, which I wrote in 2000 about a previous tax hike, suggests we have another tea party – and toss our useless, self serving legislators into the Hudson River. It would, of course, increase the pollution, but it would be well worth it.
Barring that, buy illegally. It’s patriotic.
Comments (3)
03.31.2008 | 9:37 pm | Nanny Nation
This just in from the wonderful world of socialized medicine.
The U.K. mandates that anyone who visits an emergency room must be treated within four hours. Sometimes the demand for “free” heath care is so great a hospital can’t meet that deadline. Fortunately, they’ve come up with a novel solution.
They leave the patients in the ambulance.
Outside.
For an hour. Or two. Or five.
Last year they did this with over 43,000 patients.
And of course, while the sick and injured were being kept in the ambulances, waiting and waiting and waiting, those ambulances were unavailable to anyone else who had called in an emergency.
Isn’t government heath care a great idea?
Comments (4)
03.27.2008 | 9:57 pm | Pop Culture
A couple of years ago I started the Podcast Peer Awards. I was tired of top ten lists that always featured the same shows. I was unhappy that the only other podcast award was structured so that the only winners would be those with huge audiances. I wanted a contest where other podcasters would select the best, a contest the public could trust to recommend the best shows anywhere.
No one else was doing it, so I did. Since then over 500 podcasters have signed up as judges.
Winners can be especially proud of their trophies, because winning a Podcast Peer Award is tough. A show can’t win by having a bunch of friends and listeners swamp some voting site. The first step, getting nominated, is easy, but then a show has to get enough votes to qualify for the finals. Since judges can vote for or against a show, only about a third of the nominees score high enough to qualify. Qualifying is no guarantee, though - only the top five qualifiers become finalists. Then the real difficulty begins. Finalists are competing with the very best shows in their category. At this stage the most common comment among judges is how difficult it is to select the best show.
The judges are five hundred of the best, most prolific podcasters in the world. They are not easily impressed. They only vote for the most entertaining, most informative, and best produced shows.
So a hearty “Congratulations!” to all the winners. There are tens of thousands of awards in the arts. Very few are as hard to win as a Podcast Peer Award. The winners should be extremely proud of their accomplishment.
Comments (0)
03.26.2008 | 10:37 pm | Yeah - That'll Work, Nanny Nation, Big Brother
A high school project in New Jersey asked teens to design public policy. They designed one that requires Big Brother to punish kids for making incorrect decisions, proving that government schools are doing a fine job of raising the next generation of sheep.
The new bill would fine kids caught possessing tobacco or smoking in public places.
The article quotes Marie Kakogiannis, a junior at Rutherford High School. “I think it’s a great way for kids not to smoke, but kids are going to find a way to do it. But whatever the government could do to prevent it, they should.”
Only a high school junior, and she’s already a Nicotine Nazi. Isn’t that cute?
Comments (1)
03.26.2008 | 8:08 am | Junk Science, Religion
Although I disagree with a lot of his positions and ideas, I’ve always liked Ben Stein. His nasal “Bueller, Bueller, Bueller” is now part of our language. He continued the persona as a science teacher in “The Wonder Years,” where he’d drone on about horrible events with no trace of emotion. And “Win Ben Stein’s Money” was great fun.
A few months ago I stumbled on this, and shook my head. Ben’s movie “Expelled” is a documentary that claims teachers, professors, and “scientists” who subscribe to “Intelligent Design” proponents are not with the respect they deserve.
Now that the film is getting close to release a lot of unsavory details are becoming public. Ben misrepresented the theme and intent of the movie to get several prominent biologists to participate.
(Note: I haven’t seen the film yet, so this is all third hand.) The movie documents discrimination against people who pretend to be scientists yet subscribe to creationism/ID. They aren’t promoted, published, or treated wonderfully by the colleagues.
That’s hardly surprising. It is, in fact, a good thing.
Imagine a physics professor claimed that there was no such thing as friction, and so perpetual motion machines were not only possible, but could solve all our energy problems. How about a history teacher that included the evil galactic ruler Xenu in his curriculum? How often would they get promoted? How much respect would they get from their peers?
Approximately none, and that’s exactly how much they deserve. The same goes for anyone insisting on creationism/ID.
Ben is trying to make this a free speech issue and is insistent that real scientists are closed minded because they won’t entertain his superstitions. This is beyond pathetic - it’s just sad. It has nothing to do with free speech. Creationists are free to spew their ignorant spew all they want but no one is obligated to provide them with a platform. It has nothing to do with suppressing ideas; their ideas have been checked and discussed and explored ad nauseum, and none of them have been found to have even a trace of validity. (Unlike real science ideas, they haven’t been tested, because they are not testable.) The only point this movie really makes that that scientists accept reality and reject ridiculous fantasies.
You blew it big time, Ben. You’ve spent a lifetime building a reputation as the smartest guy in the room, and now you’ve blown it all on something really, really stupid.
You’ll find lots of links about this story here. Best article title on the list: Ridiculous Demented Right-Wing Wackaloon Theocratic Douchemonkeys Fuck Up Big Time
Comments (2)
03.21.2008 | 2:35 pm | Yeah - That'll Work, Politics
The Democrats solution to most problems, both real and imaginary, is usually a new tax. Rep . John Dingell, known to his friends as Barry, thinks the solution to skyrocketing gas prices is to add a tax of fifty cents a gallon. This, he thinks, will lower consumption. Seriously, that’s the way his mind works.
It will lower consumption, but not of gasoline. Very few of us drive more than we have to, and are unable to reduce our mileage without severe lifestyle changes. Gas is a necessity, and when necessities get more expensive we cut back on the luxuries. For instance, the last surge in gas prices seriously hurt mid and high end restaurants. Not because people didn’t want to drive to them, but because a huge increase in gas prices left them with less discretionary money. If you’re spending an extra fifty bucks a month to get back and forth to work, that’s fifty bucks you don’t have for something else.
Dingle Barry needs to read some Adam Smith, or if that’s too advanced for him, open a lemonade stand in front of his house. Anything that will give him a little taste of Economics 101. (He could also read this helpful article on a related subject: Economics for Democrats.)
Raising gas taxes and forking over more of our hard earned money to the government – yeah, that’ll work.
Comments (1)
« Previous Entries