Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.
Feel free to contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)
Monday, April 30, 2012
I wish I could sum it all up, but I can't. Check out his column for the Daily Beast, entitled, "Tax Me, For Fuck's Sake!"
It's great stuff.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Exhibit A: The Dow Jones Industrial Average. Generally considered one of the best indicators of overall economic health in this country. Now, to put in context just what a wet, steaming pile of bullshit it is that people are talking about Obama like (1) he's done anything wrong, (2) that there IS actually anything wrong, and (3) that [even though it isn't wrong] it's all his fault, I want to start back a bit, to when George W. Bush took office, just to remind everyone what a shitty stock market REALLY looks like. This is the DJIA from Inauguration day, 2001 to Election Day, 2004 (From Yahoo Finance):
Well, maybe the DJIA has a Liberal bias or something. I wonder what the S & P 500 looked like during Bush's first term:
The average growth rate in private real quarterly GDP since 2000 has been 1.76%, so the private sector of the U.S. economy expanded in the first quarter of 2012 at twice the average rate over the last 12 yearsI keep hearing about how slow, and sluggish and disappointing that 2.2% rate is, but "double the rate of the last twelve years?!" Seems like we're doing just fine in that regard as well. BTW, you see those RED LINES? Well, the Conservative Toadies in the Mainstream media won't tell you this, but... those are REDUCTIONS in Government Spending. And contrary to what the Macroeconomic Failures who drew up the Paul Ryan Budget will tell you: That's a drag on the economy. So, if you think Obama should be doing more (meaning SPENDING more?) I'd agree with you 100%. But that criticism sure as hell isn't a reason to vote Republican! And if you think he should cut more? Then you're either a Billionaire or an idiot who doesn't understand how economics works and will be out a job sooner than he thinks.
Speaking of which, unemployment is becoming so much NOT A PROBLEM, that Fox News has gone so far as to allege a conspiracy over the numbers! Sarah Palin even questioned their accuracy! Eric Bolling again accused the BLS of being partisan! Imagine the gall it takes, for a guy on FOX NEWS to accuse the BLS of partisan bias! There should have been a quantum singularity forming in his crotch due to the gravity created by his massively HUGE BALLS.
Here's an unemployment chart that ought to get Obama re-elected:
Wow. Again what do we see? Things getting worse and worse and worse under Bush... And things getting better and better and batter, and the staying in the green under Obama.
Now, I'm going to look at energy and gas prices next, and I've never been shy about delving into social issues myself, but on a purely economic basis? Everything got worse under Bush, and everything has gotten better under Obama. That not my opinion: That's what the data says. It's not a "liberal talking point" either: It's MATH.
If anyone needs a quick reference here you go:
As of 4/29/2012:
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -5.13%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -24.23%
Under Obama: UP, 66.4%
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -13.16%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -38.6%
Under Obama: UP, 74.28%
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -28.03%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -46.88%
Under Obama: UP, 113.05%
I'm still stunned by this. Can you imagine what they'd be saying about Obama's economy if his markets had George Bush's returns? Oh, yeah, but Bush gets re-elected after net first-term losses, and the so-called 'Liberal' media media keeps up the narrative that Republicans know their asses from their elbows when it comes to the economy.
One final note, regarding the millions of people still trying to find work. In no way is my post here implying that your plight is not real. You're out of work. And no amount of economic data is going to put food on your table. (Of course... the Republicans want to kill anything that WILL do that as well.) The point here is WHY. WHY are there are so many unemployed people? And WHO, WHO is going to make things better and who will make them worst? History says the Republicans will make it worse. They're the ones who MADE IT BAD in the first place. And AUSTERITY won't fix anything. Obama has been embracing Austerity at an astounding rate, mainly to appease the Right, and it is the number one thing HAMPERING our economic recovery. The Right will only give you more of he only thing Obama actually IS doing wrong economically. And that's not my opinion, or mere conjecture. I KNOW this because they've promised as much. That's what massive SPENDING CUTS will do folks: Kill the economy. DO NOT give the Republicans this chance!
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Also, some of my future posts may be in audio format as well, IDK. We'll see.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
Now... I don't see any "political bias" when I look at the Freakanomics guys. I see them getting in plenty of hot water with both Liberals and Conservatives, and there is very little that "politically correct" about them, no matter how you slice it. Also, it should be mentioned that while I don't always agree with their conclusions, there is no denying that they'll give you something to think about, and a perspective that, regardless of your ideology, you likely hadn't considered before. And I like that sort of thing no matter where it's coming from.
But that post really made me laugh out loud. Particularly the summary/brief that was posted about the paper (my favorite parts in bold.):
The authors test the hypothesis that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.Yeah... Ain't that the truth!
Another book recommendation, from Professor Carroll, which I'll definitely be checking out myself:
The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality by Chris Mooney
Should be a fascinating read!
And I no longer have any interest i discussing the details of this part of it or that part of it anymore. There is no doubt that there was a lot of bullshit going on, and there always will be. But to oppose it on any kind of PRINCIPLE? Like hating big corporate banks (Liberals), hating gov't spending (Conservatives) or hating the fact that we're Socializing (Conservatives) corporate losses (Liberals)... Well, all that's just foolishness. Because at the end of the day, this (or something like it) was necessary and, in a big picture sense, it WORKED, warts and all.
So while I have been defending from all sides as a necessary evil (and even "good" legislation in the sense of what it saved us from), I was only a little bit surprised just now too read that it may actually turn a profit, paying for itself and then some for taxpayers. Now I couldn't care less if it ACTUALLY manages to one or not. Remember: That won't detract from my view that it was NECESSARY, for better or worse. But... (1) Who doesn't like a little gravy with their biscuits? and (2) It certainly goes to show how irrational the critics (regardless of ideology) are who are crying about how much it cost, and what a big waste it was. Because not only did it save us from a far worse, longer lasting catastrophe (and thus remains as one of the few things George W. Bush did that DIDN'T turn into one!) but even if it fails to turn a profit as currenlty predicted? The loss will likely be minuscule in comparison to the amount of money originally outlaid, and the [largely phony] cost that people are assuming it ended up having.
Which might just end up being less than none.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
What was NOT appropriate, and what I am happy to see being resolved, was for Martin to continue to go uncharged, based on a self-defense claim that was never subjected to examination in trial or by a jury of his peers. And this is a claim that, even given Florida's "Stand Your Ground" / ("Kill-at-Will") statute is undermined by two facts which are not in dispute, even by Zimmerman himself:
1) Martin was unarmed.
2) Zimmerman left the safety of his car to PURSUE Martin, and did so against the advice of the Police on the 9-1-1 call.
Standing you're ground =/= pursuing someone, and pursuing someone certainly =/= an act of self defense. Ultimately this case may be decided on how the "Stand Your Ground" / (Kill-at-Will) law is interpreted by the Jugge, Lawyers and Jury.
If Zimmerman is found guilty, then it will serve a s precedent to others who would follow Zimmerman's example. It will come to resemble more "Stand you ground" and less "Kill-at-will." It doesn't address ALL the concerns in this ALEC / NRA conceived monstrosity of a legal technicality, but clarifying that HUNTING SOMEONE DOWN is, in fact, still against the law in this Country, and in the State of Florida, can only be a GOOD THING.
If he is found innocent?
Hoo-buy... Well, first of all, I hope that the inevitable and richly deserved and justified public outcry will remain non-violent and non-destructive. Considering what has been presented of this case by the media, to the public? I am too optimistic about this point. (Just being realistic here.) But once the populace realizes that the Liberals' long-held concerns about these kinds of laws are VALID? And that HUNTING SOMEONE DOWN is, in fact, actually LEGAL in some parts of the Country? I have to believe that the repeal, or at least a significant re-work, of the law will become a matter of complete inevitablilty.
I would say that is also a good thing, but I can find no comfort in the fact that a young man had to die to bring attention to a stupid law that makes a death like this one inevitable.
And, for the record, I very much support the Second Amendment, and gun OWNERSHIP rights. This is no more about the Second Amendment that a citizen's boycott of Rush Limbaugh's corporate sponsors is about the First Amendment. This is NOT an issue of gun OWNERSHIP, it is an issue of gun USAGE. So while I despise guns on a personal level, I fully cherrish the fact that my choice of owning one remains my own to make, and thus I fully support the Rights of Americans (violent felons and the mentally ill excepted) to OWN guns. I do not however support ANYONE'S right to pursue and gun down an unarmed person with one.
Friday, April 6, 2012
I had them marked as "private" instead of "unlisted" on YouTube. So they were playing fine for ME, because it's MY channel, and I'm always signed in!
But they should work now. Sorry about that. (Nobody told me!)
BTW... if you're wondering, my goal was to post a joke a day for the entire month of April.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
I want to adjust the size of the different elements of my bog, but I really have no idea what screen sizes to assume most people have.
Mine's 1920x1080 on my desktop, and IIRC my laptop's like 1400x800.
What do you guys have your screens set to?
I may or may not make a regular post later tonight. I've got plans today, but we'll see how it goes.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
valuable than that of a talk-show host with a high-school diploma, or a bought-and-paid-for politician, or that most absurd of scientific references: the Bible, or the ideology that they have chosen to follow.
In general, these people call themselves "Conservatives."
Now I have always claimed to be a man of science - by both philosophy and by profession. I have also claimed that I never let ideology do my thinking for me. If I identify with a certain group on a given issue (or on most issues) it is because their position matches the evidence. And because it matches my own. Which must first match the evidence, regardless of the ideological implications of this. So let's be clear, here: Liberals are not right because they agree with me. Nor am I because I agree with them. (When we DO actually agree, that is.) And of infinitely more importance, Scientist and Academics are not right because they agree with Liberals, or because they agree with me.
WE are right because we agree with THEM.
And you can take almost any Scientific and/or Economic issue and see this quite clearly, if you bother to actually LOOK and actually care about BEING RIGHT, rather than being Liberal or Conservative. And, yes, to be fair, Liberals ARE guilty of pseudo-science too: witness the lawsuits brought against Dow Chemical over their perfectly harmless silicone breast implants, back in the late '80's, and early '90's, for example. But as Liberals have come to embrace science more and more over the past decade or two, Conservatives have reactively pulled away from it. One recent Conservative commenter on this blog said it best, I think: "We're Conservative because we don't want to be Liberal."
(And apparently they don't care a lick about being RIGHT, it seems.)
So anyway... I'm on Wikipedia today, just putzing around. Now I didn't used to consider Wikipedia to be a credible reference. I once told someone, "Don't quote me Wikipedia! ANYONE can edit Wikipedia! Shoot, even I'VE edited Wikipedia!" But I will say that in past year or two, I notice that they've gotten really good about requiring CITATIONS for the facual statements being made. (It's probably also helped that I've limited my own input to the one subject that I actually DO know more about than anyone else: Baseball. LOL) Anyhow, one particularly well-cited article that I read recently was the one on HOMOSEXUALITY.
Very interesting read. Here are a few of the statements I found to be particular relevant to some of the more spirited discussions we've had recently...
Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors.
Supported by two citations!
While some religious organizations hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural or dysfunctional, research shows that homosexuality is an example of normal variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.
Homosexual behavior is also widely observed in animals.
That statement was supported by no less than FIVE citations!
[Homosexual] relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential psychological respects.
People with a homosexual orientation can express their sexuality in a variety of ways, and may or may not express it in their behaviors.
The longstanding consensus of research and clinical literature demonstrates that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.
There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment.
The American Psychological Association says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society. The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by the science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
FIVE Citations spread throughout that paragraph.
Scientific research has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents...
[And] ...According to scientific literature reviews, there is no evidence to the contrary.
Here are some particularly important ones:
Stigma, prejudice, and discrimination stemming from negative societal attitudes toward homosexuality lead to a higher prevalence of mental health disorders among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals compared to their heterosexual peers.
Evidence indicates that the liberalization of these attitudes over the past few decades is associated with a decrease in such mental health risks among younger LGBT people.
Sexual orientation does not affect the likelihood that people will abuse children.
Claims that there is scientific evidence to support an association between being gay and being a pedophile are based on misuses of those terms and misrepresentation of the actual evidence.
Now... Admittedly, some of those citations are from the same source. But, all and all, this is a ~11,000 word article, in which I didn't find a single line in that doesn't fit perfectly well into my views on the matter, and it is supported by a total of 211 different sources.
TWO. HUNDRED. and ELEVEN.
See... Being Liberal doesn't make me right.
Being RIGHT makes me right.
And they day the Conservatives decide to start being right, and the Liberals decide to abandon all reason, knowledge and wisdom? I'll happily identify as a Conservative. Until then? I don't require an ideology to do my thinking for me, nor will I labor under the delusion that I can do to do a little bit of five-minute crack research and think that somehow I know something that the world's collective, foremost experts don't. I'm content to let those with the inclination to spend their lives researching and studying something to figure it out. Because if you're capable of recognizing who is and is not a credible source, and the data supports the position you are accepting?
Well, shoot... I'll always be right.