Tax cut religion

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Dancing on the Ceiling - Tax Cut Religion
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

"You call it murder. I call it the market regulating the brother supply."

Debt ceiling minefield

(Steve Sack)

The Harry Potter Book of Mormon parody

Yeah, it's another YouTube video, and another parody, in fact. But isn't this clever?

And the same girl plays all the parts. Really, I had to laugh. She did a great job with this.

The key of awesome

I'm not very musical, but I tend to like parodies. And yeah, I know I've been posting a lot of video clips the last couple of days, but what can I say? I post what I feel like posting.

This video is just one of many in the "Key of Awesome" playlist at barely political. Here's the first, if you want to watch them in order - though I wouldn't say it's one of my favorites. Well, I'm not sure I have a favorite, actually. I like a lot of these.

Um,... note that these aren't exactly safe for work. But then, you shouldn't be watching music videos at work anyway, right? :)

The Manosphere

Sorry, I just think this guy's really funny.

3D printer

Neat, isn't it?

Fox News admits bias?

LiberalViewer does a great job, doesn't he? And so does Media Matters.

Johann Hari on free speech and religious fundamentalism

Great speech, isn't it?

There's a post on Pharyngula (where I got this video clip, too, actually) that's not directly related to this video, but it's still about "making the argument," as Hari says. If you think you've got something to say, say it.

"Fine, make the argument. If you disagree, if you don't like what someone says, argue back. Make a better case. Persuade people. Get it right. Do it better. The best way to discredit a bad argument is to let people hear it."

But don't keep other people from saying their piece. And don't huddle in secret meetings, afraid to let your ideas meet the light of day:

The Intelligent Design creationists have been having a secret meeting in Italy, where they claim to be challenging Darwinian orthodoxies. Well, semi-secret: they brought in David Berlinski's daughter to pretend to be a "journalist" and throw gentle little softballs in youtube interviews, but many of the attendees are anonymous, the meeting program is not available, and the place is stocked with devotees of religious orthodoxy who are singularly clueless about science. What it really is is a great big creationist circle jerk where everyone is free to say stupid things and not have one of those annoying evidence-based scientists in the audience asking difficult questions, and also avoid real journalists who might publicly expose their inanity. ...

Yes, their careers are in danger, because disciplines that value rigor and evidence and science are not going to be impressed at all by deluded cowards who hide in closets and whisper oft-debunked stupidities at one another. If you've got the goods, stand and deliver; show us your evidence, explain your reasoning, persuade people who disagree with you with the strength of your argument. They can't, so they scurry off to picturesque villas in Tuscany, shoo away those difficult criticisms, and sit and reassure each other that they are very clever indeed while mangling information theory and biology.

My favorite quote from Darwin's Origin is so appropriate here.

It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as the "plan of creation" or "unity of design," &c., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory. A few naturalists, endowed with much flexibility of mind, and who have already begun to doubt the immutability of species, may be influenced by this volume; but I look with confidence to the future, to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality. Whoever is led to believe that species are mutable will do good service by conscientiously expressing his conviction; for thus only can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed be removed.

There was an orthodoxy in Darwin's time, too, and it was the dogma of creationism. Darwin's advice to young scientists was to conscientiously express their convictions, and to get out and publish, publish, publish their observations. That's how science progresses, by wrestling with disagreement and confronting it with evidence and experiment.

OK, I didn't originally intend to combine these two things, but I thought they fit. There's a culture that believes in free and open expression, a clear-eyed, courageous, stand-up face-to-face look at our ideas and our beliefs,... and then there's a culture of dogma and faith, afraid of other ideas which might prove better.

I know which culture I prefer.

Black economic gains reversed in the Great Recession

The headline in The Washington Post says it all: "After decades of hard-fought progress, black economic gains were reversed in the Great Recession."

But the figures are just astonishing:

Economists say the Great Recession lasted from 2007 to 2009. In 2004, the median net worth of white households was $134,280, compared with $13,450 for black households, according to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by the Economic Policy Institute. By 2009, the median net worth for white households had fallen 24 percent to $97,860; the median black net worth had fallen 83 percent to $2,170, according to the EPI.

Algernon Austin, director of the EPI’s Program on Race, Ethnicity and the Economy, described the wealth gap this way: “In 2009, for every dollar of wealth the average white household had, black households only had two cents.”

Since the end of the recession, the overall unemployment rate has fallen from 9.4 to 9.1 percent, while the black unemployment rate has risen from 14.7 to 16.2 percent, according to the Department of Labor.

After generations of slavery, segregation, and institutional bigotry, blacks had started clawing themselves out of desperate poverty. Keep in mind that these were often people raised in poverty, people who knew no other life, poorly educated in bad schools, raised in crime-ridden slums, and still suffering from widespread bigotry.

Look at those figures again. Look at the difference between white and black households. Even before this economic collapse, the difference was incredible - and shameful. And now, with giveaways to the wealthy (overwhelmingly white) paid for by cuts in social programs and jobs,... well, as an American, I'm deeply ashamed.

Is it any wonder that people give up?

You know, we didn't lose the war on poverty. We just quit.

GOG.com's "hidden gems" sale

So, now GOG.com is having a "hidden gems" sale. Every day for the next 18 days, they'll have a different "lesser-known" classic computer game on sale.

It's not exactly what I need, since I'm currently (re)playing both X-Com: UFO Defense and Fallout, two of the greatest games of all time. But it's hard to resist...

Today's game is Sanitarium:

A frightening look into the mind of madness, you find yourself continually wondering, as you make your way through the five worlds that your insanity takes you to: is this encounter real, or only the product of a fevered imagination? You are a recent victim of a car crash, and one who has complete amnesia. You awaken in an insane asylum, and immediately you must fend for yourself in a world gone mad—unless it’s you who’s gone mad, and the world is just a reflection of that.

I've never played that one before. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever heard of it. Well, that's the whole point of these "hidden gems," I guess.

These are old games, of course. This one was first released in 1998, so it's not as old as many of the games GOG.com sells. But like all the rest, it's cheap. On sale, it's less than $4. How long would you have to play that game to get your money's worth?

Sanitarium is a point and click adventure game, not normally my favorite kind of game, but it certainly looks like it would be fun for a change. But as I say, I'm already playing two games (actually, far more than that, if you consider all the games on my computer that are half-finished).

But I wonder what's going to be on sale tomorrow...  :)

The new "bridge to nowhere"

(Pat Bagley)

Payback time for Sen. James Inhofe?

From TPM:

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) is pushing a bill that would protect pilots from "agency overreach" by the Federal Aviation Administration, in response to his own experience at the mercy of the FAA after he "scared the crap out of" airport workers last year when he landed his Cessna on a closed runway. ...

Inhofe agreed to and completed a "program of remedial training" in place of legal action in December of 2010, according to an FAA report, after he landed his plane at Cameron County Airport in South Texas last October on a closed runway marked with a large X. ...

Audiotapes of a call from Sidney Boyd, who was supervising runway construction, to the FAA identify Inhofe, and describe how he "sky hopped" over six vehicles and construction personnel on the runway, before he landed. The landing "scared the crap out of us," Boyd said.

Any other pilot would have lost his license right there. But Inhofe is a powerful Senator. So, not only is he still flying, he's trying to punish the FAA for objecting to his reckless actions at all.

Well, I've never understood how Oklahoma could elect an ignoramus like Inhofe, anyway.

Weevils evolved a screw-and-nut joint

(Science News)

From Science News:

Back when hardware meant bony plates and flesh-rending teeth, a living version of the humble screw evolved naturally in, of all places, the leg joints of weevils.

The legs of at least 15 kinds of weevils have tapering, threaded, somewhat pointed ends where their legs meet their bodies. As the leg shifts position, the threaded tip tightens or loosens along a ridge on the inside of a rounded hollow structure, researchers in Germany report in the July 1 Science. “This is the first description of a true screw and nut in an organism,”...

Neat, huh? Of course, their legs don't unscrew completely, since they've got muscles attached to them. But apparently, this screw-and-nut joint allows for some real flexibility in leg positions.

As one scientist notes, "It does confirm my notion that just about anything that is possible, insects will have evolved."

(This reminds me of the g'Keks, who are aliens with biological wheels instead of legs, in David Brin's Brightness Reef. Of course, that's science fiction. And it actually wasn't clear that they'd evolved that way naturally.)

Michele Bachmann surging in the polls

"Bachmann surging" is not a headline you want to read if you care about America, and indeed the world. But here it is in the latest poll from Public Policy Polling:

When PPP polled New Hampshire in April Michele Bachmann was stuck at 4%. She's gained 14 points over the last three months and now finds herself within single digits of Mitt Romney. Romney continues to lead the way in the state with 25% to 18% for Bachmann, 11% for Sarah Palin, 9% for Ron Paul, 7% for Rick Perry and Herman Cain, 6% for Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty, and 4% for Newt Gingrich. ...

Romney's starting to show some signs of weakness in New Hampshire. His support is down 12 points from 37% on the iteration of our April poll...

OK, so it's not the Apocalypse yet, but who else is there? I'm not surprised Romney's support is fading. He's such a phony that it's hard to believe even Republicans would go for him. (Of course, that's not actually the problem. The problem is that his health care reform plan has now become "Obamacare.")

And look who else is in double-digits: Sarah Palin. But Palin is unlikely to run - and give up all of that loot? no way! - and all of her fans are likely to switch to Bachmann. (Can you believe there are that many loons in America?)

Leaving aside the gut-wrenching implications for my country, this poll also shows other interesting results:

Usually a 12 point drop would qualify you as the biggest loser in the poll but Romney's still in first place so that designation probably deserves to go to Gingrich, who's at 4% and in 9th place now after being at 14% and tied for 2nd place on our previous poll. He's the only candidate besides Romney who's seen a double digit drop in his net favorability. It was +9 at 45/36 in April and it's now gone down 27 points to -18 at 33/51, making him the least popular out of 17 people we polled on.

Another big loser on this poll is Tim Pawlenty. His name recognition has sky rocketed from 48% to 72% with New Hampshire primary voters over the last three months. But his horse race support has only gone from 5% to 6%.

So the Gingrich campaign has been a complete train-wreck, right from the start. I don't think I've ever seen a campaign crash and burn so quickly. Hey, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy, huh?

And Pawlenty's name recognition has surged, but when people get to know him, they apparently don't like him. That's never a good sign for a candidate. Really, if Pawlenty could run using just his campaign ads, without voters ever seeing or hearing the guy himself, he might have a chance. But the man in person is just hilarious - inadvertently - if you've come to expect anything like the video clips.

It's hard to really identify any 'winners' on this poll other than Bachmann.

But there are sure plenty of losers, including the entire American people. Really, this is the worst bunch of lunatics I've ever seen run for public office - any public office. George W. Bush might even look good compared to most of them.

As far as I can tell, the only one who isn't completely crazy is Jon Huntsman, and he's sitting at a whopping 6% (PPP notes that it's "better than he's done anywhere else we've polled"). Of course, even Huntsman would have to act crazy in order to keep the support of the Republican base. For better or worse, every candidate runs with party backing.

What depresses me is that the Republicans don't seem to be losing support among ordinary Americans. With extremists like this leading them, why not? Has all of America gone completely batshit crazy? What has happened to us?

I'd hoped we might have learned something from the Bush Administration, but instead, we seem to be doubling down on right-wing crazy.

Abstruse Goose - history of flight

(Abstruse Goose)

If you're a fan of space exploration, check out History of Flight at Abstruse Goose.

Faith vs. evidence - The Atheist Experience

This is an hour-long TV show from Austin, Texas, so you might not want to watch the whole thing. I always think it's interesting (the shows are rebroadcast here on YouTube), but I thought the first part of this one was particularly good.

In the introduction, Jen Peeples takes a passage from the Bible and examines the historical evidence for it. There's actually quite a bit of evidence for this particular passage, but the point is to demonstrate the use of evidence. After all, there are many parts of the Bible where there should be corroborating evidence - assuming that the passage is true - but there isn't.

As I say, I thought it was particularly interesting. The callers,... well, sometimes I think there are better arguments to make with them - I certainly thought that a few times here - but it's easy enough to think of such things after-the-fact. And I'm regularly impressed by how calm and rational the hosts can be. (Usually, Matt Dillahunty is on the show. This time, it's Jen Peeples and Russell Glasser.)

If you're looking for brief video clips from The Atheist Experience, check out their Fan Appreciation Page, which contains excerpts from their shows.

The three characteristics of God

Awhile back, I was reading an argument that God was not just perfectly good, but that he was perfectly good by definition. (Sorry, no link. I don't remember where I was at the time.)

By definition, God had to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent - all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. Indeed, according to this believer, we wouldn't even have the concept of "good" without God.

It struck me at the time that most of our ancestors wouldn't have agreed with this. In fact, this definition would exclude the vast majority of gods human beings have worshiped over the centuries. And I've wondered since then what really would be the characteristics of a god or gods, pretty much by definition.

What can you say about all gods (other than that they don't actually exist outside of our imaginations)? What godly characteristics are inevitable, or nearly so? What characteristics do define the concept?

Well, first of all, gods are powerful, very powerful. Because of that, human beings needed to appease the gods through worship and sacrifice. You really didn't want a god mad at you!

Gods were objects of fear long before they were objects of love, and that still exists today. If you don't obey God, he'll smite you. Or he'll cause natural disasters in your whole country. At any rate, he'll torture you for eternity - lovingly, of course - after you die.

Now gods weren't necessarily all-powerful, certainly not when it came to rival gods. But to an ordinary person, a god was plenty powerful enough. Gods were like kings - indeed, the terminology used with both is very similar - who were also far more powerful than ordinary people, but could be overcome by other kings.

Indeed, gods were similar to powerful human beings in many ways - vain, jealous, randy. You didn't want to anger either gods or kings, so you did what it took to appease them. But in general, the average person was far better off never coming to their attention at all.

Of course, you might petition your god for help, just as you might petition your king. But it wasn't necessarily safe, and help certainly wasn't ensured. As I say, when it came to the very powerful, you were generally better off never coming to their attention at all.

As times changed and people's perception of gods - or God - developed, this fear of coming to a god's attention faded, I think. Maybe that's because believers no longer expected it to happen, since we'd started to understand the natural explanations of diseases and other afflictions, or maybe it was the idea that God wanted prayers and petitions, I don't know.

But one thing that never changed was the idea that God was powerful. God once wiped out the whole world in a flood - every man, woman, and child (and fetus), saving only a handful on Noah's little boat - and he could do it again if he wanted.

So gods are powerful, pretty much by definition - maybe not all-powerful, but far more powerful than us mortals. So how about the all-knowing and the all-good? Well, in the past, gods could be tricked. It would take a very brave, indeed foolhardy, hero to even try to trick a god, and the results weren't always pretty. But it was possible. Gods weren't necessarily omniscient.

And gods weren't necessarily benevolent, either, let alone all-good. Really, I think that idea would have astonished most of our ancestors, as they suffered from floods and droughts, hurricanes and tsunamis, plagues of insects and disease, and all sorts of other calamities. It must have seemed self-evident that the gods weren't always benevolent.

But the gods were - and are - defined by more than just power. Kings are powerful, but they're not necessarily gods. In Europe, kings were divinely appointed, and publicly crowned by God's priests, but they weren't gods themselves. In some ancient cultures, kings might have been considered gods - or were raised to divinity after death - but there was still a difference in those two roles.

I read science fiction stories sometimes where people encounter some powerful creature that either claims to be a god or is actually considered a god. Or sometimes it's human beings who've become gods, due to our advanced science and technology.

But to me, that ignores another fundamental characteristic of gods, that they're magical. God and kings are both powerful, but gods are fundamentally different, because they're magic. (OK, sure, kings are real, too, while gods are just imaginary. I'll get to that in a minute.) Kings are natural creatures, while gods aren't. Call them supernatural, if you wish, but it means magic.

Our ancestors would have considered our technologies to be god-like, no doubt. And we might someday encounter alien creatures even more advanced and more powerful. But power alone doesn't make for gods. Gods are magical creatures. Maybe you could imagine a god that's not powerful, but not one who's not magic, not really.

So if you look at God's fundamental characteristics, it's clear that he must be, by definition, both powerful and magical. What else? Well, as I say, I'd include imaginary. Gods aren't real.

But many people do believe in a god or gods, and we wouldn't have the concept at all if people hadn't believed that they existed (in that respect, gods aren't like orcs or goblins), so I'm not sure if imaginary should be considered a characteristic or not. Hmm,... let's just consider "imaginary" to be implicit in "magical."

But there's one other characteristic that does seem to fit, if not as neatly as "powerful" and "magical." Actually, this particular characteristic is more easily seen today, rather than in the past. In countries where freedom of religion is guaranteed, your God inevitably reflects you.

God likes what you like and hates what you hate. God finds the same things important that you do. God basically agrees with you about everything.

If you think that homosexuality is an abomination, so does your god. If you don't think it's really any of your business, that's what your god thinks, too. If you're a liberal, your god is liberal. If you're a conservative, so is your god.

Basically, your god does what you would do, if you had that kind of power. If you're a kind, gentle person, then your god is going to welcome most people into heaven. If you're Pat Robertson, though, your god is going to smite the wicked. To a huge extent, your god reflects you.

Now this was not usually possible in the past, when you were forced to worship the god your society worshiped. Nevertheless, gods normally reflected the people of the time. You expected your powerful, magical god to be vain, petty, jealous, and randy, because that's pretty much how you'd behave with that kind of power - or, at least, that was your expectation of powerful people.

And although you might not have too much choice when it came to gods, you could still prefer a particular god (while trying to keep all of them happy) or focus on a particular aspect of a god (a goddess, for example, might embody the aspects of maiden, mother, and crone).

And powerful people did have some influence over their gods. Inevitably, gods supported the aristocracy. God wanted your king to be your king. Above all, God always supported his priesthood. Even today, in the Catholic Church, nothing matters more to God than the church itself. That might not be so important to ordinary Catholics, but it is important to priests, bishops, and cardinals who've given their entire lives to the church.

Of course, these days the Catholic Church is somewhat constrained, because it can no longer burn people alive. So, for example, God had to change his mind about divorce. Celibate priests certainly weren't interested in divorce, but their parishioners were, so if God hadn't changed his mind, the church would have suffered.

This is even clearer when it comes to Protestant sects, since believers can and do switch from one church to another to find a god that fits them to a tee. For churches that all supposedly worship the same God and even use the same Bible, they can be night and day different in beliefs. It's not quite as easy for Catholics to switch churches - although something like 25% of American Catholics do end up leaving the church - so their God tends to mirror the Pope's beliefs more than their own.

So what are the three defining characteristics of God, of any god? God is powerful. God is magical. And God thinks exactly what his believers think.

Well, that's exactly what you'd expect from an imaginary being, right?

Right in the shiny part!

What can I say? I thought this was funny.

Be sure to watch to the very end.

QOTD: Romney's endearing lies

Quote of the Day:

I've always harbored a strange affinity for Mitt Romney, and his hilarious lies about how he's described the economy oddly help illuminate why:

Over the last few weeks, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has argued that President Obama's policies have made the economy worse.

Here was Romney in New Hampshire on Monday:

The people of New Hampshire have waited long enough. They want to see good jobs. They want to see rising incomes. They want to see an economy that's growing again, and the president's failed. He did not cause this recession, but he made it worse.

And he said something similar at the New Hampshire debate earlier this month:

He didn't create the recession, but he made it worse and longer.

But at his press conference today in Allentown, PA -- where he was highlighting a company that had closed, after President Obama touted it benefitting from the stimulus -- Romney backtracked on the he-made-it-worse line.

When NBC producer Sue Kroll asked the former Massachusetts governor why he believes that Obama's policies have made the economy worse -- when the economy is now growing (and not shrinking like it was in 2009), when the Dow is climbing (and no longer in a free-fall like it was in '09), and when the unemployment rate is down a full percentage point from where it was in Oct. '09 -- Romney gave this answer:

I didn't say that things are worse.

Imagine George W. Bush in this situation. If confronted with a reporter touting statistics undercutting his economic claim, Bush would simply give a non-quantifiable answer. People are hurtin'. Democrats want to raise yer taxes. Or whatever. Dodging a question like that is not tricky.

But Romney does not, instinctively, want to dodge a question like that. He's not a natural bullshitter. His instinct is to align his position with the facts. Presented with facts demonstrating that the economy is clearly better than it was when Obama took office, he chooses instead to refine his critique.

The result is utterly dishonest, but the instinct underlying the result springs from a desire to engage intellectually rather than deflect the question with nonsensical talking points. I prefer straight-up dishonesty over bullshit. It's evidence of a logical mind at work. - Jonathan Chait

Glenn Beck's last show

"This is the dumbest damn show on air." Well, I finally agree with Glenn Beck about something, I guess. He was referring to his own show, wasn't he?

And now he's no longer on the air at all. But don't worry. This won't be the end of lunacy on Fox. And it won't be the end of Glenn Beck, either, I'm sure. Right-wing crazies seem to be in big demand in America these days.

Heck, maybe Beck will even jump into the Republican campaign for president. Would that be a circus!