Well, That's Just Great

RSS

Posts tagged with "politics"

See, Senator Rubio? I can use Twitter to lower the level of political discourse in the country too! #twitter #politics #america #rubio

See, Senator Rubio? I can use Twitter to lower the level of political discourse in the country too! #twitter #politics #america #rubio

So when that uncle of yours starts ranting about traditional American institutions being corrupted, just show him the clip of “Kinky Boots” in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade and watch his head explode.

So when that uncle of yours starts ranting about traditional American institutions being corrupted, just show him the clip of “Kinky Boots” in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade and watch his head explode.

You know what’s worse than voting for a moron?

Voting for a really confident moron.

So, could you Republican voters stop doing that please? Even if the moron, like, really hates stuff you hate?

Thanks,

Ag

It basically comes down to one word: get out and vote yourself.

- Chris Matthews, who apparently can’t count words. (via wellthatsjustgreat)

Aug 1
  • Him (discussing their dysfunctional team): We need to get rid of them.
  • Me: Careful. That's how Hitler got started.
  • Him (complaining about someone with an opinion different from his): Can't someone make him shut up?
  • Me: Careful. That's how Hitler got started.
  • Doctor: Push! ONE MORE TIME! There you go! Congratulations! It's a boy!
  • Me (to the mother): Careful. That's how Hitler got started.
Jul 6

A Proposed New Guideline For Acceptable Exclusion Of People From Debate And Decision Making Related To Climate Change

Scientific consensus is that climate change is happening, it is going to get worse, humans are a factor, and there are steps that could be taken to address the issue. How to address it and how much we can effect it still seems up for reasoned debate. The cost/benefit analysis of any possible solution is certainly up for discussion.

Deniers (of various motivations) cling to scientific outliers and the very few studies that go against the consensus. While they are free to do so, I think it quite clear that they simply have chosen to believe the studies that support their opinions and choose to not believe the contrary ones. I don’t know anyone who carefully evaluated the scientific bonafides of the “Greening Earth Society” and decided that they were trustworthy and THEN discovered the group denied climate change was occurring. No. People who believe climate change is hokum, or that there’s nothing we can do about it, or that it is God’s will go out seeking science that they can use to wave at people as “evidence.” They know without science (you know…real data) on their side eventually they will lose. 

But if the standard is unanimity, we will NEVER do ANYTHING. There is still, literally, a flat earth society. With “scientists” that people can quote. You can find incompetent or corrupt people in any industry. Science is no different. That’s why consensus matters. And reputation. “The vast majority of smart people are saying ‘X’, looks like we should move forward based on what they say.” Not all opinions are equal or even valid. Sorry that your parents told you we were the best and the smartest kid in the world. You ain’t. 

So here’s the standard. Just ask anyone who denies climate change or any of the connected impacts a question like one of the following:

  • What data, what bit of information, or what occurrence would it take for you to believe that climate change was occurring?
  • What finding would convince you that you were wrong and that we can take steps to correct the problem?

Really probe. And if they can’t give a reasonable response*, or if they admit that there is NOTHING that could make them believe it or at least believe it’s possible enough that we need to take action, they’re out of the conversation. That’s it. Your opinion isn’t valid. You’re out. You’re gumming up the works and slowing down the discussion. You’re distracting us from dealing with the real scientific debates that need to occur  You’re causing funding to be directed to the wrong studies. Basically, you’re the guy on the school project who has decided that it doesn’t matter that everyone else wants to work on it, you think the assignment is stupid so you’re going to refuse to let the others work on what they need to in order to get an “A.” You are an idiot, and an ass, and we have no time for you.

Because I can tell you that all it would take for me to become a climate change denier would be for the scientific consensus to shift. That’s it. That’s all it would take. If the vast majority of experts in a field overwhelmingly believe one thing, I’m going to believe them in matters of their expertise.

That’s part of the problem too. Experts aren’t valued in the way they used to be. “I have WebMD! I know as much as my doctor! And I have FOX NEWS so I know everything I need to know that those elitist scientists are hiding from me!”

So that’s the standard. Don’t tell me why you believe something. Tell me what it would take for you to not believe it. And if the answer is “Nothing could” then on a matter like this, you’re out.

Ag

*No, picking an individual scientist, front group, or celebrity that has to change their mind doesn’t count. That’s a dodge.

Jun 2

Follow limit

Hey, folks.

It looks like there is a limit on the number of people you can follow on tumblr and I have hit it. So if I don’t follow you at the moment, even if I would like to, looks like I’m out of luck.

One of the reasons I’m on tumblr is to get exposure to people and ideas I might not encounter if I just visited blogs run by people like me, or who just had similar interests. I long ago passed the point where I knew I would see every post on my dashboard, but I had cultivated a richly diverse dash which at any moment in time would provide me with a wide range of entertainment, inspiration, and, most importantly, thought.

Usually I would start following someone because they reblogged something I created. I would go to their tumblr and if it wasn’t filled with gore or content I found deeply offensive or ignorant, I would follow. My thought was always “Something that I created connected with this person on some level enough for them to put it on their personal page, so there is a chance that we share more in common than would immediately appear obvious based on this Homestuck/1D fandom page!”

I understand the reasons for a follow limit, but it is disappointing. I need new content on my dash, so I will need to start unfollowing some folks so I can follow more new people. I’ll try to focus on less active tumblrs, but I know I’ll end up unfollowing some great people just because they’ve changed their URL or because I haven’t connected their great content with them specifically when it appears on my dash.

But worst of all will be the temptation to unfollow those with whom I disagree politically or philosophically. In this increasingly polarized society, I felt it important to take steps to force myself to hear the arguments and passions of those with whom I do not agree. It wasn’t always easy, because honestly, some of you are friggin’ stupid.

I mean…no, I mean it. There are some seriously ignorant, uninformed idiots on my dash.

But sometimes something that sounds stupid, or sounds ignorant, is in fact just something that seems that way to me based on my limited knowledge and experience. And it’s not until I allow my world view to be challenged that I can realize that maybe, just maybe, something I believe to be true actually is not.

I can’t lose that.

So if I unfollow you and you’d like me to follow you back, drop me a note. I definitely want to keep connected with as many people who have reached out to me as possible. And to the rest, just keep reblogging my stuff! Because I’ll still check out every page of every person who reblogs something of mine!

Because if you show me the slightest bit of approval, I will love you forever. I am, and shall always be above all else, one needy son of a gun!

Much love!

Ag

May 4

Sorry, GW. I lived through it. You got Americans to support the invasion of Iraq because we believed what you told us about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction and about the UN inspectors not being effective*. Your team’s ham-handed attempts to manipulate the history of those days will fail.  And with each choice to do things like this, and not to just say, “I felt it was the right decision at the time but I wish the intelligence had been more accurate and we had made different choices,” it becomes increasingly evident that Iraq wasn’t an honest mistake. We were lied into an unnecessary war. 

Ag

*Some people supported it because of their confusion (encouraged by your team) over there being a link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks. Some had other even less scrupulous reasons to support, but you got most of the reasonable people in this country to support invasion due to the fear of Saddam Hussein launching a chemical or nuclear attack on the U.S. one day.

Hayes Slams Congress for Protecting Air Travelers Alone Among Sequester Victims | Video Cafe

Cancer patients not having access to medications they need, not important enough to spur action.

But travel delays? We will not ABIDE that assault!

I am done. So disgusted.

Ag

nursewithtattoos:

thebadgerman619:

How about we also all just pretend and make believe that all gun owners carry “gun insurance” since their guns can pose a danger to us???

I work in a job that provides health care to a population largely on state aid.  2.6% is a laughable number.  I would say 50%.  I’m IN these homes.  So I have a little more insight on this.  And yes, I think a urine test for every single check is appropriate.  Welfare is not a career.  
I am also a gun-owner, a gun-enthusiast.  I do not brandish, threaten or menace with my weapon.  I don’t have a sticker on my house or car proclaiming it to be “Protected by smith & wesson.”  I have no issue with background checks.  I had to have one to purchase a weapon.  If anyone believes that background check will stop those with “issues” from getting guns, you’re not thinking this through.  Person A can get a gun with no issues, he does and privately sells to Person B for cash.  Person B is a convicted felon and takes anti-psychotics.  Person A&B are brothers, or coworkers, or dating.  Person B breaks into Person A’s house and steals the gun while he’s at work, etc…That will happen in some cases.  I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I also have common sense.  I am happy to see some common-sense laws pass.  I welcome them, but this will NOT prevent another Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora or any other shootings.  The first amendment allows the free-printing of step-by-step directions on how to do everything…including building a bomb like those that just exploded in Boston.  You can google ANYTHING and find out how to do it.  So why isn’t the first amendment being questioned?  Is that knowledge somehow less dangerous?  I don’t think it is.    

Thank you for respectfully and thoughtfully sharing your perspective. I hear what you’re saying about background checks, but if our standard is we won’t pass any law unless we are 100 percent sure it will stop every gun related crime we really don’t understand the point of laws. I know you aren’t going that far, but many folks are. And for me, the law I have advocated that will never get passed  is that gun owners are held responsible for any crime EVER COMMITTED with their weapon. Your kid takes your gun and shoots up the mall? Guess what? You are held equally accountable for that crime. Someone breaks into your house and steals your gun and then three years later it’s used to kill someone? You go to jail for a long, long time. Maybe people will take securing their guns a little more seriously now. Let’s call it the Spider-Man law. Yes, you have the right to bear arms. It shall not be infringed. But “With great power comes great responsibility.” To your other point, the percentage in the graphic comes from data. Actual data from states like my joke-of-a-state Florida that implemented the policy. And guess what we found? The percentage of tested welfare recipients who tested positive for illegal drugs was LOWER than the general population. Anecdotes from people close to a situation have value, but confirmation bias tends to over emphasize anecdotes that reinforce preconceptions. Respectfully,Ag

nursewithtattoos:

thebadgerman619:

How about we also all just pretend and make believe that all gun owners carry “gun insurance” since their guns can pose a danger to us???

I work in a job that provides health care to a population largely on state aid.  2.6% is a laughable number.  I would say 50%.  I’m IN these homes.  So I have a little more insight on this.  And yes, I think a urine test for every single check is appropriate.  Welfare is not a career. 

I am also a gun-owner, a gun-enthusiast.  I do not brandish, threaten or menace with my weapon.  I don’t have a sticker on my house or car proclaiming it to be “Protected by smith & wesson.”  I have no issue with background checks.  I had to have one to purchase a weapon.  If anyone believes that background check will stop those with “issues” from getting guns, you’re not thinking this through.  Person A can get a gun with no issues, he does and privately sells to Person B for cash.  Person B is a convicted felon and takes anti-psychotics.  Person A&B are brothers, or coworkers, or dating.  Person B breaks into Person A’s house and steals the gun while he’s at work, etc…That will happen in some cases.  I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I also have common sense.  I am happy to see some common-sense laws pass.  I welcome them, but this will NOT prevent another Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora or any other shootings.  The first amendment allows the free-printing of step-by-step directions on how to do everything…including building a bomb like those that just exploded in Boston.  You can google ANYTHING and find out how to do it.  So why isn’t the first amendment being questioned?  Is that knowledge somehow less dangerous?  I don’t think it is.   

Thank you for respectfully and thoughtfully sharing your perspective. I hear what you’re saying about background checks, but if our standard is we won’t pass any law unless we are 100 percent sure it will stop every gun related crime we really don’t understand the point of laws. I know you aren’t going that far, but many folks are.

And for me, the law I have advocated that will never get passed is that gun owners are held responsible for any crime EVER COMMITTED with their weapon. Your kid takes your gun and shoots up the mall? Guess what? You are held equally accountable for that crime. Someone breaks into your house and steals your gun and then three years later it’s used to kill someone? You go to jail for a long, long time.

Maybe people will take securing their guns a little more seriously now. Let’s call it the Spider-Man law. Yes, you have the right to bear arms. It shall not be infringed. But “With great power comes great responsibility.”

To your other point, the percentage in the graphic comes from data. Actual data from states like my joke-of-a-state Florida that implemented the policy. And guess what we found? The percentage of tested welfare recipients who tested positive for illegal drugs was LOWER than the general population. Anecdotes from people close to a situation have value, but confirmation bias tends to over emphasize anecdotes that reinforce preconceptions.

Respectfully,

Ag