Saturday, March 9, 2013

Overwhelming cowardice



I blogged about this yesterday, but I do like how TYT puts these things.

Cenk Uygur: "The idiot, weak, cowardly Democrats participated in killing a program that not only helped a great deal of Americans, but also registered the poor to vote - and, let's be honest, the poor are more likely to vote Democratic, OK - and helped destroy an organization that did not intend to help them, but had a side-effect of helping them. And they helped bury them for no reason, because of their overwhelming cowardice."

It goes without saying that Republicans did recognize that ACORN helped the poor and, in particular, the minority poor, and that those people would not be voting for the GOP. If ACORN had helped millionaires and billionaires - or even just white farmers in red states - it would never have been targeted in the first place.

Certainly, if such an organization had been targeted, Republicans would have stood up for it. They may be insane, but they don't seem to be nearly as cowardly as the Democrats.

I don't agree with Cenk Uygur about everything, and while I love some of their people (Ana Kasparian and John Iadarola, for example), I think TYT needs to clear out the deadwood on their show. But they can really hit the nail on the head, can't they?

Friday, March 8, 2013

World's wrongest man tries again

Jonathan Chait has an interesting column here:
Michael J. Boskin — former George W. Bush economic adviser, Hoover Institute fellow, and staunch advocate of conservative anti-tax doctrine — appears today, as is his wont, in The Wall Street Journal op-ed pages to warn that the Democratic president’s economic policies will lead us to misery.

If you are an investor, Boskin’s doomsaying is a sure sign of a coming bull market. Four years ago, Boskin penned a Journal op-ed whose thesis was captured in the headline, “Obama’s Radicalism Is Killing The Dow.” That was the signal for the Dow to go on a tear, doubling over the next four years. ...

One might suppose that Boskin has simply suffered a single unfortunate coincidence. In fact, his career is a mighty testament to the power of enduring, invincible wrongness.

Chait has all the details there, and it's pretty funny. I've noticed this before, how some people can be wrong virtually all the time, without it ever seeming to make much difference. Boskin still prognosticates in The Wall Street Journal, but you have to wonder why anyone would still pay attention to him.

Well, when you're faith-based, evidence doesn't mean a thing. You've got your dogma, and you're going to believe it no matter what. And the other people pushing that dogma simply aren't going to care what the evidence indicates. They already know what they're going to believe.

ACORN employee wins $100,000 lawsuit

James O'Keefe

Remember James O'Keefe, the darling of the right for bringing down ACORN, prancing around in that ridiculous pimp suit? It turned out, of course, that he hadn't actually dressed that way and that he'd edited that famous video in other ways, too - specifically to make ACORN employees look bad.

It worked, of course. Those things always do. Republicans jumped all over it (jumping on the bandwagon against ACORN seems to be pretty much the only thing my own senator, Mike Johanns, has ever done in the Senate), and timid Democrats couldn't run for the hills fast enough. Even ACORN itself fired those employees before learning the truth.

By the time multiple investigations showed how much of it was a lie, it was too late for ACORN. They closed in 2010. (Humorously, this hasn't stopped 49% of Republicans from thinking that ACORN stole the 2012 election for Barack Obama. Well, what's a little thing like not existing, compared to the power of the right-wing bubble?)

But now I see that one of those ex-ACORN employees profiled by O'Keefe, Juan Carlos Vera, has won $100,000 - and an apology - from him (and another $50,000, apparently, from O'Keefe's partner in the scam, Hannah Giles).

Yeah, that's good news. I'm happy for Vera, who didn't do anything wrong, but still lost his job and his reputation. But it doesn't come close to making up for the harm all this has done.

James O'Keefe was, and is, a political operative, not a journalist. His intent was to make ACORN look bad, because ACORN helped low-income and minority families register to vote, and those voters tend to support Democratic candidates. At its heart, it was just voter suppression.

And it worked. It was wildly successful. ACORN is no more, and much of the country still believes the worst about them. Is it any wonder that O'Keefe has become such a darling on the right? I'm sure there are more than enough wealthy Republican donors who'll find $100,000 to be a very cheap price for getting all that.

The Fox News-iest segment in Fox News history



As Jonathan Chait puts it, this might be the Fox News-iest segment in Fox News history:
If you have never seen Fox News before, here is a four-minute clip that captures the essence of the network so perfectly that you need never watch anything on it again. It’s all here. At the center, you have an old conservative white guy who is enraged about a fact that exists only in his addled brain. At his side, there’s a blonde sidekick who nods along with him but doesn't get in the way. And ready to absorb his anger is the network’s Emmanuel Goldstein figure, feebly attempting a rebuttal that quickly devolves into a sniveling plea for civility...

The subject of the debate is Bill O’Reilly’s belief, widely shared within the conservative bubble, that President Obama has offered no concessions on long-term spending cuts. This is factually untrue — Obama has offered a plan including more than a trillion dollars in reduced spending to a variety of programs, including Medicare and Social Security, as well as the reduced spending on interest payments. Obama’s budget also details his proposed cuts to scores of programs in an extensive 205-page document. ...

The debate grows more bizarre as Colmes manages to slip in the fact —  a true one — that Obama has proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid:
O’Reilly: “Give me one program he said he’s cut!”

Colmes: “He would cut Medicare and Medicaid … ”

O’Reilly: “That’s not a specific program!”

(Medicare and Medicaid are, in fact, specific programs.)

At this point, O’Reilly pivots from denouncing Obama for failing to name any specific cuts to denouncing Colmes as a liar and claiming that Colmes has failed to name any specific programs that Obama would cut. This is where the segment truly achieves its Fox News transcendence. After all, the viewing audience surely believes O’Reilly that Obama has not named any programs that he would cut. But they just watched Colmes name two programs that he thinks, however falsely, Obama would cut. Yet O’Reilly screams that he hasn’t. ...

Everyone here is playing their appointed role. Colmes is pleading with O’Reilly to stop yelling at him and whimpering things like “we’ll just have to disagree.” Crowley is affirming O’Reilly’s correctness and cheerfully allowing him to interrupt after a couple of seconds of talking so as not to yammer on in a way that annoys him. And O’Reilly himself, after finally calming down, reaffirms his own white-is-black claim with such conviction that viewers have probably already forgotten that he is feverishly denying something that they witnessed with their own eyes. The segment has achieved such Fox News perfection that it can never be reached again. Roger Ailes should simply loop it endlessly for the rest of time.

Yes, everyone is playing his appointed role at Fox. Bill O'Reilly is playing the same part we saw Clint Eastwood attempt at the Republican National Convention: the angry old white man yelling at an imaginary Obama in an empty chair. Facts have no place in that, because it's all just right-wing fantasy.

Monica Crowley, one of Fox's stable of interchangeable blondes, is just someone for the old men in their audience to admire, while she expresses agreement with everything O'Reilly says (clearly, the wish-fulfillment of every old man watching the show). But she's no one O'Reilly ever has to worry about. He just interrupts her and talks over her whenever he wants, because she's not actually important.

And Alan Colmes plays his usual role as the ineffectual liberal whipping boy. He used to share billing with Sean Hannity on the Hannity & Colmes show, but his role there was the same as it is now. He's simply the punching bag. He's not supposed to fight back, certainly not effectively. That's not his role at Fox 'News.'

And if that's Fox News perfection, this might be Glenn Beck perfection:



At least, I've heard that described as Glenn Beck doing the Glenn Beckiest thing ever, though I'm not sure that this is any 'Glenn Beckier' than anything else he does. Heck, he's not even using a blackboard in this clip.

On the other hand, he is mopping the floor with the American flag, then casually tossing it aside, while he tearfully explains how America is "gurgling." (Notice how there's not one piece of evidence to back up his rhetoric? Clearly, this isn't aimed at his audience's brains. This is all emotion, not one shred of rational thought.)

And, hmm,... should someone maybe tell Glenn Beck that movies are fiction? Or would that just break his little heart?

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Dow reaches all-time high


The Dow Jones industrial average, a stock market metric, has just reached a new all-time high. Good news - for me, certainly, and hopefully for the whole country.

But I think it's kind of funny, too. That first arrow indicates when Barack Obama first took office in 2009. Under George W. Bush, our economy had cratered, ending in the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Only our social safety net, which we largely put in place after the Great Depression and which Republicans have been working hard to dismantle, kept this from being even worse than that earlier collapse. Only the remaining regulations on banks, which Republicans had also been working hard to dismantle, kept our economy afloat.

Well, Obama's stimulus measures helped, too, but that barely offset the wholesale cuts at other levels of government. Overall, we didn't do much government stimulus - not nearly enough - since state and local governments slashed payrolls, making the problem even worse. But, of course, we also bailed out big banks (that started under Bush) and kept our automotive industry from collapse (that was Obama, against the opposition of Republicans).

But this worked. Obama quickly halted the collapse, and ever since, we've been slowly climbing out of that hole Bush dug for us.

The overall economy doesn't look nearly this healthy, though. The stock market is a leading economic indicator, and employment is a lagging indicator. And everything Obama has done has been in the face of fierce resistance from Republicans who see improvement as a political danger.

They were desperate to keep us in recession, so they'd have an easier time defeating Obama in 2012. Well, that failed, though they've caused a lot of misery along the way. And now? Well, they seem to be stuck in opposition. No matter what Obama does - even adopting a Republican health care plan, even nominating a conservative Republican as Secretary of Defense - gets a knee-jerk response of instant opposition.

But there are a couple of things which are particularly funny about this. Before I get to that, though, let me quote from Steve Benen:
To reiterate a point from a few months ago, the New York Times recently found that over the last half-century, the president who's overseen the strongest performance on Wall Street was Bill Clinton, and the second best, by a wide margin, is Barack Obama.

And as we discussed in October, the real fun begins when we reminisce about what Obama's Republican critics were saying in early 2009. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal ran an entire editorial in early March 2009 arguing that the weak Dow Jones was a direct result of investors evaluating "Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance."

Karl Rove and Lou Dobbs made the same case. So did Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fred Barnes. For a short while, it was one of Mitt Romney's favorite talking points, too. Even John Boehner got in on the larger attack.

I don't think a strong stock market is necessarily proof of a robust economy, but the right shouldn't try to have it both ways. If a bear market in 2009 is, in the minds of conservatives, clear proof that Obama's agenda is misguided and dangerous, then soaring Wall Street indexes shouldn't be dismissed by those same detractors as politically irrelevant.

First, I remember those right-wing critics in March, 2009. And I remember thinking that they'd been wrong about everything during the Bush administration. Seriously, I don't think that's an exaggeration. Did they get anything right then? If so, I can't imagine what it might have been.

So I figured it would be smarter to bet on the exact opposite happening, and, for that reason and others, I took every bit of cash I could scrape up (not much, after the Bush years) and invested it in the stock market. See that low point in the chart? Yup, Obama's critics weren't just wrong, they were spectacularly wrong.

The stock market will go down eventually. After all, that's what the stock market does. If you don't expect ups and downs, you have no business investing at all.

And note that the right-wing has been working very hard to make that happen. They've done everything up to deliberately damaging America's credit rating to collapse our economy again. And they will undoubtedly point to any drop as evidence backing up their own position. But just look at that chart.

And the second thing is,... well, you know how the wealthiest people in America have been screaming about Obama? Well, guess who owns almost all of the stock in this country? (Refer to my earlier post, if necessary.)

Yes, the wealthy have been making out like bandits ever since Barack Obama took office. And the wealthier you are, the more stock you own, so those billionaires who've been the most unhappy are the same people who've been doing the best. Do you wonder why their tax bills have gone up? It's because they've been making lots and lots more money!

If you're a schoolteacher, a fireman, a policeman, you might have lost your job in government cutbacks. If you're making almost nothing, your hours might have been cut because greedy CEOs - who enjoy a lavish health insurance benefit themselves - don't want to offer health insurance to you. If you're lucky enough to still have a job, you might be facing drastic cuts in hours and pay because of the sequester.

But if you're rich, you're doing great. If you get most of your income from investments (as I do, admittedly, though I'm far from rich), you've been making money hand over fist, plus you pay a lower tax rate than working people, too! (I'm just embarrassed at how little I pay in income taxes, thanks to tax shelters and low rates on capital gains and dividends.)

The stock market tends to be a leading indicator, which is why so many people lost their jobs in 2009 - after Barack Obama took over - even though the stock market crashed in 2008. Employment generally lags, because companies usually don't want to fire people unless it's necessary, and they really don't want to hire new people until they're sure they'll need them (and can't offshore to cheaper workers overseas).

So this is a good sign for the general economy. However, it's far from determinant. And Republicans in Congress are still trying to throw a monkey wrench into the works. This sequestration is bad for a weak economy, and if Congressional Republicans get crazy enough to shut down the government (again), we could end up right back in a deep recession, before we've even climbed very far out of the last one!

But when you hear the wealthy whine about paying more taxes, and when you hear their Republican stooges echo that complaint, think about that graph, above. Remember who owns most of America and who's been making money hand over fist throughout this administration - indeed, for the past thirty years or more.

Given all that, do you feel a lot of sympathy for millionaires and billionaires? I don't.

Dead ACORN grows into zombie tree

Zombies are certainly popular these days, aren't they? And Republicans still like to scare themselves with pure fantasy, so it seems to be a match made in heaven.

From Indecision Forever:
Look, if ACORN wanted to avoid getting its corpse repeatedly kicked by the U.S. Congress, they should have killed some civilians in Iraq and renamed themselves Academi. Instead they're stuck in the darkest timeline:

March 22, 2010: ACORN, an umbrella organization of community organizers that provided lots of figurines for Glenn Beck's fear-diorama, announces it will disband. Later that year it does just that, closing its state affiliate offices and filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

December 5, 2012: Despite not existing, ACORN is blamed by 49% of Republicans for stealing the 2012 election.

Today: A short-term budget bill sponsored by House Republicans includes language to defund ACORN, which continues to not exist.

Do you wonder why we talk about the right-wing anti-reality bubble? Is there any clearer evidence that you live in a fantasy world than blaming a non-existent organization for everything you dislike?

Fox 'News,' Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and other leaders of the Republican Party specialize in keeping their ignorant and gullible supporters hysterical about non-existent threats. Yes, the government is coming for your guns, black people are coming for your money, and zombies are coming for your brain.

The joke's on them, though, because you don't have a brain, and the GOP has already seen to it that you don't have any money. You're still free to shoot yourself with your gun, though. Welcome to 'trickle-down' America.

Wealth inequality in America



Shocking, isn't it? I've seen these figures before, I've seen graphs and charts, but this might be the best depiction of the wealth inequality in America I've ever seen.

Even Republicans think this is wrong. By and large, they just don't know it. Or they've been so brainwashed by Fox 'News' and other wealthy interests that they simply won't believe the data.

Many of the super-wealthy inherit their wealth, and Republicans are campaigning hard to eliminate estate taxes, too. If you inherited a hundred million dollars, you could be a lazy, ineffectual moron and still leave a similar sum to your kids - or even more.

Remember Mitt Romney's suggestion? Just borrow a few million from your parents to start your own business. No problem, right? If the business fails, I'm sure they have plenty more, so you can just try again. (Romney was born rich, and his kids already have a $100 million trust fund. Problems? What problems?)

Meanwhile, middle class kids who try to make something of themselves are saddled with crushing debt just to pay for college. And they're the lucky ones. Without a college education, you'd better lower your expectations drastically.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Ten years later, how the war was sold

Here's a great article in The Guardian by Valerie Plame Wilson, the CIA officer who was outed by the Bush administration, and her husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson. Ten years later, how did the Bush administration sell a war with Iraq, and why did we buy it?
It has been 10 long years since "Shock and Awe" – the opening bombardment of Baghdad – lit up the skies above the Tigris. A decade later, we know far more about the case the Bush administration made to the world to justify its war of choice to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Books like Hubris by David Corn and Michael Isikoff, and British commission and US Senate reports have catalogued the extent to which intelligence was misused to mislead the public. ...

For nearly a year prior to the invasion, President Bush and his administration peppered the airwaves with serious accusations against Saddam Hussein, including claims of aluminum tubes that could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium, and of Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa. The intelligence supporting the claims was either not believed or was highly disputed by the experts. But that did not stop senior government officials from repeating them incessantly; nor did it prevent the powerful neoconservative ideologues who were the war's most fervent supporters from parroting them with menacingly jingoistic passion.

Who can forget the trademark line, delivered by Condoleezza Rice:
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

At that point, I don't think I believed much of anything coming from the Bush administration, but I still respected Colin Powell, and I believed what he said in that speech at the United Nations ten years ago. I believed, as he claimed, that they had proof of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

I still saw no justification for going to war, not then, at least. After all, we were already involved in one war. How many did we need to wage simultaneously? And the United Nations was still in Iraq, still looking for those WMDs. Why not let them continue to look?

After all, we still enforced a "no fly" zone above Iraq, too. Did we really have to invade the country? Right then?

But as it turned out, even Powell's speech wasn't true:
As Valerie watched the speech unfold on TV from CIA headquarters that morning, she experienced what can only be described as "cognitive dissonance". It became clear, as Powell laid out the case for war (with CIA Director George Tenet sitting conspicuously just behind the secretary's right shoulder), that his robust claims about the state of Iraqi WMD simply did not match the intelligence which she had worked on daily for months. ...

The implications suddenly become obvious: we were watching a kabuki play and the outcome was predetermined. The Bush administration was determined to go to war, however bad the intelligence, and not even Secretary of State Powell was going to stand in the way.

We swept all of this under the rug. At the urging of Republicans, and abetted by the timidity of Democrats, we swept all of the disasters of the Bush administration under the rug, from the failure to prevent 9/11 to the lies which got us to invade an innocent country to the torture of prisoners of war to the outing of Valerie Plame herself to the economic collapse we're still struggling to overcome.

And all of that makes the hypocrisy of Republicans determined to milk every bit of political advantage from Benghazi, where four Americans died (when more than four thousand died in Iraq, and almost three thousand on 9/11), so infuriating.

Make no mistake, I'm almost as angry at the Democrats, for their timidity, as I am at the Republicans, for their hypocrisy and their lies. But if we're not going to investigate this stuff, let's at least make sure we never forget it!

Sci-fi sacrilege


Jon Stewart is referring to the sequester, of course, but in this clip, he continues with a theme from last week: our media's screwed up priorities.

John Boehner can claim that taxation - by our elected representatives in a democratic nation, no less - is stealing, and no one even notices. But let Barack Obama mix up Star Trek with Star Wars - in one brief three-word metaphor - and that's news!

But I suppose we get the kind of media we deserve, huh? Well, at least we get better comedians than we probably deserve.  :)

The case of the missing scallop gonads


I thought this was hilarious! It's not about politics or religion, and there's just one small dig at Bill O'Reilly, hardly anything at all, but it's really funny, don't you think?

Yes, I suppose it lampoons the anti-science thinking that's so prevalent on the right, but... no, this is just humor. Enjoy!

Experiences of a gay couple in Texas



I like this, for a couple of reasons. For one, it shows how much we've progressed as a nation, even in Texas.

But for another, it demonstrates how foolish it is to stereotype people. Normally, I have very little good to say about Texas, but we simply can't judge every Texan by who gets elected in their state. Heck, I'm from Nebraska, so I should know that if anyone does, shouldn't I?

And I have nothing good to say about religion, but we can't stereotype religious people, either. I was moved by this guy who acted as he thought Jesus would. I don't think his beliefs are true, but I can't fault his behavior.

I don't actually fault the New Yorkers* here, either. I think that's more of a cultural thing. From what I've heard, New Yorkers simply tend to mind their own business. And I would rather see people vote for gay rights - for civil rights in general - than stand up in person to protest rudeness. Both are admirable, certainly, but if I had to pick one or the other...

But maybe that's because I'd be unlikely to act, myself. I'm very much an introvert, so I'm not sure what I would do. Most likely, I would dilly-dally about it, trying to make up my mind about what was best, until it was too late. That's not very admirable, either, is it?
___
*PS. I kept thinking that this was from New York, but it's Ohio. Well, I'm sure you can find similar anecdotes from most states.

Monday, March 4, 2013

Mr. Deity and David Silverman



There are a lot of inside jokes in this one. Even if you're familiar with the Mr. Deity videos, you might not catch everything that's going on here.

Of course, that's David Silverman, president of the American Atheists, talking to Lucy, before Mr. Deity walks in.

"If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there monkeys, still?" OK, that's an old one. But "how tides work?" That's pure Bill O'Reilly, as is Christianity being a philosophy, not a religion. And the banana, of course, is the atheist's nightmare (according to Ray Comfort).

But I don't know about that part where we have to stop eating babies. They're just so tasty. Can't we just limit it to Sundays? Or even just Holidays?

OK, OK, I guess bacon isn't so bad, either, huh?

Gay teen worried he might be Christian


From The Onion:
At first glance, high school senior Lucas Faber, 18, seems like any ordinary gay teen. He's a member of his school's swing choir, enjoys shopping at the mall, and has sex with other males his age. But lately, a growing worry has begun to plague this young gay man. A gnawing feeling that, deep down, he may be a fundamentalist, right-wing Christian.

"I don't know what's happening to me," Faber admitted to reporters Monday. "It's like I get these weird urges sometimes, and suddenly I'm tempted to go behind my friends' backs and attend a megachurch service, or censor books in the school library in some way. Even just the thought of organizing a CD-burning turns me on."

Added Faber, "I feel so confused."

Rough problem, huh? And at his age, of course, there's the problem of parental concern, too:
Faber's parents, although concerned, said they're convinced their otherwise typical gay son is merely going through a conservative Christian phase.

"I caught him watching The 700 Club once when he thought he was alone in the house, and last week, I found some paperbacks from the Left Behind series hidden in his sock drawer," his mother, Eileen Faber, said. "I'm sure he'll grow out of it, but even if he doesn't, I will love and accept my son no matter what."

Faber's father was far less tolerant in his comments.

"No son of mine is going to try to get intelligent design into school textbooks," Geoffrey Faber said. "And I absolutely refuse to pay his tuition if he decides to go to one of those colleges like Oral Roberts University where they're just going to fill his head with a lot of crazy conservative ideas."

He added, "I just want my normal gay son back."

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Five ways to spot BS on the internet

Hmm,... I write a blog. Should I really be linking to this article on how to spot bullshit on the internet? :)

Seriously, yes. I'm a skeptic, after all. And this is a very good article:
The Internet, while awesome, is also a mind-boggling marvel of bullshit production and dissemination. A misleading or outright fake news story can get forwarded on Facebook a million times before Snopes.com can even write up their rebuttal (no, oral sex does not prevent breast cancer). Since the rise of social media, we get more and more of our news from each other, and far, far too many of us aren't asking ourselves the important question:

"Is the amazing news I'm about to share even fucking true?"

In fact, it's so good I have a hard time deciding what I should excerpt as an example. And it's equally valuable wherever you lie on the political spectrum, too - left, right, or anywhere in between. (We should all take to heart his point about polls!)

But how about this:
In the case of that vaccination story above, it came from NaturalNews.com. And, to be fair, it kind of sounds like a legit site. (Isn't there a prestigious scientific journal called Nature? It's probably related to those guys!) It's only when you read down to the bottom that you see that their anti-vaccine study was based on an online poll conducted at a website called VaccineInjury.info. That is, an anti-vaccine blog got their readers to click buttons on a page agreeing that vaccines are terrible (obviously every study ever done disagrees). But how many parents just skimmed and forwarded it along with an accompanying post like "Scary stuff!!!"

I understand it's not always obvious by just glancing at the URL -- purveyors of bullshit news have figured out how to sneak their product onto domains that also host legit news. For instance, a while back I mentioned a shocking story that ran on Reuters about how fluoride harms brain function, but a closer examination showed that it was just a press release by anti-fluoride wackjobs hosted on a separate part of Reuters' website (with no oversight or fact checking -- you could write one right now and they'd post it).

Oh, and do you still recognize Forbes as the highbrow magazine for investor types? Because guess what: Their website now hosts hundreds of unedited blogs from random, often unpaid writers off the street. Seriously, you can write for them if you want. So now any time you see a Forbes.com story and the URL has "sites/(some dude's name here)" in the middle, you're not reading a news story from professional Forbes reporters/editors, you're reading a blog post from some random person. That's why you can see a "Forbes" article claiming that a majority of scientists doubt global warming -- in reality, it's a press release written by a shill for the Heartland Institute, an oil-industry-funded group that ran billboards comparing environmentalists to serial killers.

Remember, there's a lot of money to be made from bullshit -- that traffic pays the same as any, and they're getting very good at tricking us into doing their promotional work for them.

Some of those five ways to spot bullshit are obvious - most of them, probably. Or you might think that they're obvious until he gets to the examples. Either way, he'll make you think. Even if you're already a skeptic.

Check it out. It's worth a read.

UnReal World is now free


I've mentioned UnReal World before (here, for example), and I've been meaning to write up my latest play of the game, if I ever get back to it (just too many games and not enough time). But now I see that it's free to play.

The game used to be shareware, and you could always play it for awhile, before deciding if it was worth the minimal cost - as low as $3 for the current version only - to continue playing. (It was!) But now, the developer has decided to make it free (donations requested, but not required).

Why? " Foremostly to keep up hasty release pace. Massive AI, end-game and graphics improvements are underway and I'd like to keep releasing new versions whenever substantial new features are up and running. Shortly: less licensing, more development."

Already, he's released version 3.16, when I paid $3 for version 3.15 just two months ago, so development does seem to be increasing. Note that he's been working on the game for 20 years, and this is his only source of income, "just like for the vast majority of the past two decades."

At any rate, if you want to give the game a try, the price is certainly right! It's a turn-based wilderness survival simulation set in Iron Age Finland. Check out my earlier post for more details.

Or check here for posts on other games, sorted alphabetically.

Friday, March 1, 2013

White House 'threat' vs Bob Woodward



This is a follow-up to my previous post, TYT's take on the same issue.

Bob Woodward looks even worse in this one, since it includes more of his interview with Wolf Blitzer. Clearly, Blitzer didn't just jump to the wrong conclusion. No, Bob Woodward very deliberately lied about this entire situation.

Threats from the White House, obscenity from Congress,... nothing from the press


This is what's wrong with our media. Bob Woodward has become a media darling (again) by implying that he'd been threatened by the White House.

Well, here are the full emails from both sides. Where's the "threat"? Where's the "intimidation"? Note that those words were used by Wolf Blitzer, not by Woodward. But Woodward clearly gave that impression, and he even expressed his agreement with Blitzer's interpretation.

This is sensational stuff, especially since it's the Bob Woodward of Watergate fame, and far more people will hear about these "threats" than will ever hear that this was a lie.

Indeed, most people will dismiss a later correction, which usually serves just to reinforce the original claim. Well, the liberal press must be supporting Obama again, huh? I wonder what kind of threats the White House used to shut this down...

And if you think that's bad, this might be worse:


It takes a comedian on Comedy Central to point out the hypocrisy in John Boehner's remarks, because the mainstream media - and Fox 'News,' too - are too busy focusing on "ass" (and not in a good way).

Of course, Fox 'News' would never point out Republican hypocrisy, but neither would most networks. Luckily, we've got political comedians like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Of course, we've got Rachel Maddow, too. She was Stewart's guest last night (here's the short version, and it continued for the internet here). Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as an internet troll? Oh, yeah! (That's in the first clip.)

I really like Rachel Maddow (and I can't say that about everyone at MSNBC). "If you don't want government to work, then government not working proves your point. And so, you probably shouldn't be trusted with the government." There's hope for us yet, I guess.