Monday, September 26, 2016

The Right Wing Blogger Nominee Fucking Tanks

If you want to see how a right wing blogger and/or commenter would do on the big stage, check out the first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Donald Trump was a complete fucking disaster tonight. His chest thumping over how little debate prep he did was incredibly foolish because he LOOKED LIKE A GUY WHO DIDN'T PREPARE AT ALL. His answers were the same style of incoherent rambling one would see in a blog comments section.

His remarks on national security were all over the place and should give even the most stalwart Republican pause. This is a guy we want running our country and keeping it safe? REALLY??!!

I posted a question on Quora regarding who won and the overwhelming response was Hillary Clinton. Check out the responses!

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Completely Ridiculous

Of all the pre-game debate analyses out there, Ross Douthat has the best one. I've been watching with amusement at how most of the media has been pushing the narrative that if Trump simply shows up and doesn't foam at the mouth, he wins. Douthat agrees.

The eve of the first presidential debate is a good time for that exercise, because there’s been so much gaming-out of how Trump might ambush Hillary Clinton, how he might manage expectations well enough to make a poor performance look like victory, that it’s easy to lose sight of the core truth: It will be ridiculous if Donald Trump wins these debates.

Yes, it would. Consider that this is the first time he has stood one on one with an opponent and will now have to get into specifics on policy points. No doubt his current supporters won't care what he does up there (most of them, anyway) but the undecideds (largely white, college educated voters) will most definitely care. He's going to completely tank on many answers and leave the audience wondering exactly why he was nominated given that he knows so little. This works in the GOP primary crowd where having zero intellectual capacity is a crowning achievement. It doesn't work in a general election debate.

Despite recent tightening polls, Trump is still losing this race and here's why.

Trump won't win unless he improves on these numbers.

And, as Douthat notes in his final two paragraphs, this isn't anything new.

This is not a hot take. It is a cold take, a boring take, a take that assumes that the political world, even now, is still relatively rule-bound and predictable. And if I’m wrong, if Hillary manages to throw the debates and the election to Donald Trump, it will be the last such take I offer for many years to come.

I agree and will do the same.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

It's Getting Fimed

Friday, September 23, 2016

Great. Fucking. Ad.

This Hillary!

This is the Hillary that should up at the debates. She was hilarious and perfect! BTW, she taped this two weeks ago when she had pneumonia...

Thursday, September 22, 2016

The Logic of Trump Voters

The next time a conservative peddles the bullshit line about how they are about facts/logic and liberals are about feelings, show them this.

And then remind them their nominee is Donald Trump...

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

The Avengers want you ... to vote this November

A bunch of actors who have appeared in Marvel movies got together for a video encouraging people to vote. Though I can't say I'm all that thrilled about seeing Mark Ruffalo in the buff...

Hypothesis: Why Squirrels Are So Bad at Crossing the Road

I was out riding my bike when a squirrel ran across the trail in front of me. The closer I got, the slower it ran. I was expecting it to turn around and go back the way it came, even though it was almost to the other side, but it made a final mad dash and crossed the trail.

Squirrels are legendarily bad at crossing roads. In the fall their little corpses litter the streets, almost as plentiful as dead leaves. There's even an Internet meme about how bad squirrels are at this.

You'd think they'd be good at evading cars. They can run pretty fast, and they evolved to avoid predators swooping down from the skies. But they're terrible at avoiding cars. So I got to wondering why.

When (most) people cross the road, they look both ways before they cross, then they go. Squirrels don't do this, I noticed on my ride. Their head faces forward, perpendicular to the road. Because squirrels are prey animals, their eyes are mounted on either side of their heads.

This is an advantage when you're in the middle of field, because they have a 360 degree field of view: if anything moves, they can see it and flee it.

Humans are predators, so their eyes are mounted on the front of their heads. They have a field of view of about 150 degrees. This requires us to turn our heads to do things like cross the street. This might seem like a disadvantage, but it's an advantage in this case: two eyes provide binocular vision, and therefore depth perception. This makes it much easier to estimate the distance and speed of oncoming cars or creatures.

When crossing the road, squirrels just charge out. They don't turn their heads to look with both eyes: they keep their heads pointing forward. This allows them to see traffic in both directions, but it hinders their ability to accurately gauge the distance and velocity of oncoming vehicles. They can see the cars, but they can't really tell how far away they are or how fast they're going.

Also, because squirrels have a field of view of almost 360 degrees, and not just 150, they're getting a lot more data all at once, which means more to process, which slows down decision making.

Finally, squirrels were evolved to evade predators. If a hawk is bearing down on you it's probably not a bad idea to retreat to your latest safe location.

My hypothesis, therefore, is that the combination of monocular vision, information overload and millennia of evolutionary programming have conspired to make squirrels really bad at crossing the road.

Raccoons are equally bad at crossing the road, based on the roadkill count. But their eyes are front-mounted, so they don't have the squirrels' excuse. They're just slow and fat.

Gun Nation

A candid look at the hardcore, super owner....

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Happily Dancing Into The Statism They Claim To Hate

I've spent quite a bit of time over the years having discussions with right wing bloggers and commenters. I've asserted many times in those conversations that these folks were closet authoritarians, secretly wanting the statism that they claim to hate. They obviously don't want it when someone who is not completely ideologically pure is in charge (see also: most of the country).

But, boy oh boy, do they want it when someone like Donald Trumps comes along.

Check out this video.

And then take a look at this.

The quote is from Donald Trump's son but it is an official campaign ad. It's pretty much identical to Nazi Julius Streicher's children's book, The Toadstool, in which a mother explains to a son how one Jew can destroy an entire people.

Looking at the video linked above...seeing all the people cheering...looking at just how many people are supporting's clear that I was correct.

These people want statism. And they want it REALLY BAD.

Their adolescent rage over the "elites running everything" (wahhh wahhh....I'm not smart enough.....waaaa.....waaa.....) has led them to the same place that led Nazism to Germany....Fascism to Italy....Communism to Russia...

We all should have recognized this right away when they began accusing the rest of us of pulling our nation into communism or Nazism with our "liberal ways." Generally, when these assholes accuse you of doing something, they are the ones actually doing it.

So, as they happily vote for Donald Trump on November 8th because they want a rebel who will break up the system, recognize what system they are breaking up.

More Guns, Less People

A recent study from Harvard and Northeastern University shows that gun ownership has declined in this country and the people that still do have them are buying more firearms. Half of guns owned in the US are owned by just 3 percent of the population. America’s gun stock has increased by 70m guns since 1994. At the same time, the percentage of Americans who own guns decreased slightly from 25% to 22%.

I've suspected for quite some time that gun ownership was declining. Up until this point, all I had were the many stories I have heard from colleagues, friends and family around Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri since Sandy Hook that they got rid of the their guns. The few that still have them have since bought more. My personal experience doesn't mean shit, though, so this was mere anecdata. Now we have an actual, peer reviewed study that shows this trend to be valid.

The one thing the Gun Cult needs is numbers. Remember, these are very insecure folks who feel inadequate in some way and were likely bullied at some point in their lives. The world is against them and the more guns they own, the better they feel. Having more people owning more guns fees their faux arrogance. Now that we see that the number of gun owners are dwindling, I wonder what they will say.

It's important to note that we now have a definition for someone who owns a lot of guns-the hardcore super owner. The super owner appears quite arrogant on the surface. They scoff at non gun owners and believe they are impervious to any sort of danger that a firearm brings. They also feel that everyone else out there is equally capable of owning a gun so this arrogance extends to other people...people they don't even know! It's an arrogance that is deeply rooted in emotion driven ideology (government tyranny, statism etc). Peak below the surface, however, and you see a massive inferiority complex in the hardcore super owner. They feel unempowered in the face of the fictitious enemies they have created. So, they buy more guns.

In the words of their hero and current GOP nominee...."Sad..."

Monday, September 19, 2016

Too Many Questions

Anything Goes!

This recent post in the Times regarding Donald Trump's "anything goes" precedent he has set in campaigns points out many disturbing trends. There are many salient points in the article but Mr. Martin fails to adequately note that it's the people that want someone like Donald Trump.

These are the people that are firmly in the basket of deplorables, most of whom are likely beyond help. Take, for example, this guy.

We need to turn our backs on the elites, and he's the one who has emerged as the rebel leader in that cause.

Right. Because people that are more intelligent and accomplished than us (see also: adults) should be vilified at every turn. In fact, we should just burn the whole fucking house down and act like...what age level again?.....ADOLESCENTS.

The real danger isn't really Donald Trump. It's the 40 million people who are so lacking in emotional intelligence, maturity, and intellectual capacity that they would allow their own insecurities, inferior feelings, and constant thoughts of inadequacy that they would happily vote for a sociopath for president. Are they that reckless? Are they that catty and bitchy about Hillary Clinton? Do they really understand what's at stake here? Any of you out there who has had to deal with teenagers know the answers to all these questions.

At least the media is finally waking up to the fact that they have been way too easy on Donald Trump.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Friday, September 16, 2016