In a not very surprising move, the GOP has suspended its relationship with NBC due to the poor questioning at last Wednesday night's debate. In short, they are taking their ball and going home.
Although, home ain't what it used to be. Similar complaints were aired about Megyn Kelly and Fox News after the first debate. CNN also received a a laundry list of beefs. Essentially, if it's not Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin, Republicans don't have the balls to face anyone who is even remotely contrary to them.
Once again, we see The Adolescent in full play. Whining about fairness...blaming others (the media, liberals) for their problems...tantrums...shutting out reality. They don't want any sort of pesky facts like...oh, the fact that the USA ranks #1 in the world in terms of economic competitiveness...getting out there.
Perhaps they should have a debate exclusively run by conservative media. I think the United States should get unfettered access to life inside the bubble.
I don't have much else to say about the debate. No one really "won" or "lost" in my opinion. All I heard was the same wacky, ideological nonsense combined with fevered predictions of doom and gloom. The media is saying Rubio, Cruz and Christie won and Bush lost. Who really cares?
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Friday, October 30, 2015
The Flea on the Tail Wagging the Dog
When the "Freedom Caucus" ousted John Boehner they claimed to represent "the will of the American people."
So, exactly how representative of America are the 38 Republicans who make up the group that made John Boehner go home crying?
That's something we can figure out with a ballpark estimate: how many people actually voted for these 38 guys (and they're all guys but one) as a percentage of the population of the United States?
The average size of a congressional district is 710,767. The average turnout nationwide in 2014 was 36.6%. The population of the United States is about 322 million.
The final number we need to know is the average margin of victory. Of the Republican seats, most (192) were won by 20% or more, so we'll assume on average that 60% of the votes were cast for the "Freedom Caucus" winner.
If we multiply all this out, we get
The "Freedom Caucus" and the Tea Party represent a tiny percentage of the American population. Because they stay inside the bubble 24/7, associating only with themselves, and only watching Fox News and listening to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, they have fooled themselves into thinking they are in the majority.
But in their hearts they know the truth: the reason they're so hysterical is that they are drastically outnumbered, and with each passing year more and more of them are dying off.
The Republican Party barely escaped total implosion with the Boehner resignation. The old saw about the tail wagging the dog doesn't even apply: the "Freedom Caucus" is the flea on the tail of the dog.
The House and Senate just passed a budget bill that will fund the government for the next two years, freeing us from the tyranny of the "Free Dumb Caucus" threatening to trash the economy every couple of weeks.
The "Free Dumb Caucus" wailed bitterly about the unfairness of "the process." But that process is representative democracy. In a democracy majority rules. And the majority of the House and Senate voted for the measure. (If they want to talk about patently undemocratic unfairness in Congress, they should start with the Hastert Rule.)
Now that the "Free Dumb Caucus" is finding themselves in the same situation that Hispanics and African Americans have been in for centuries, you'd think they'd have a little more sympathy for the historical plight of minorities.
So, exactly how representative of America are the 38 Republicans who make up the group that made John Boehner go home crying?
That's something we can figure out with a ballpark estimate: how many people actually voted for these 38 guys (and they're all guys but one) as a percentage of the population of the United States?
The average size of a congressional district is 710,767. The average turnout nationwide in 2014 was 36.6%. The population of the United States is about 322 million.
The final number we need to know is the average margin of victory. Of the Republican seats, most (192) were won by 20% or more, so we'll assume on average that 60% of the votes were cast for the "Freedom Caucus" winner.
If we multiply all this out, we get
38 "Freedom Caucus" members ˟ 710,767 people per congressional district ˟ 36.6% voter turnout ˟ 60% victory margin = 5.9 million people who voted for a Freedom Caucus memberHow representative is that of the population of the United States?
5.9 million "Freedom Caucus" voters / 322 million Americans = 1.8%The "Freedom Caucus" represents the will of less than 2% of the population of the United States. Yet they somehow think that they should be able to control every policy detail for the rest of the country and dictate who the speaker of the House should be.
The "Freedom Caucus" and the Tea Party represent a tiny percentage of the American population. Because they stay inside the bubble 24/7, associating only with themselves, and only watching Fox News and listening to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, they have fooled themselves into thinking they are in the majority.
But in their hearts they know the truth: the reason they're so hysterical is that they are drastically outnumbered, and with each passing year more and more of them are dying off.
The Republican Party barely escaped total implosion with the Boehner resignation. The old saw about the tail wagging the dog doesn't even apply: the "Freedom Caucus" is the flea on the tail of the dog.
The House and Senate just passed a budget bill that will fund the government for the next two years, freeing us from the tyranny of the "Free Dumb Caucus" threatening to trash the economy every couple of weeks.
The "Free Dumb Caucus" wailed bitterly about the unfairness of "the process." But that process is representative democracy. In a democracy majority rules. And the majority of the House and Senate voted for the measure. (If they want to talk about patently undemocratic unfairness in Congress, they should start with the Hastert Rule.)
Now that the "Free Dumb Caucus" is finding themselves in the same situation that Hispanics and African Americans have been in for centuries, you'd think they'd have a little more sympathy for the historical plight of minorities.
The Gun Free Zone Lie (Again)
The Gun Cult has apparently gotten to Donald Trump. In Wednesday night's debate (more to follow this weekend), Trump had the following to say.
I feel that the gun-free zones and, you know, when you say that, that's target practice for the sickos and for the mentally ill. That's target [practice]. They look around for gun-free zones.
We've heard this giant pile of shit before. Thankfully, the Washington Post today put up a piece how there is zero evidence for this. They link all current studies which show that this claim is FALSE.
We all have to realize that the Gun Cult is largely made up of old, fat white men with tits who were picked on in high school. Having a gun (or 8 guns, as we have recently learned) makes them feel empowered over all past and future bullies. They likely spend hours fantasizing about being Jack Bauer or ___________________ (insert Michael Bay action hero here) and taking down spree shooters should they every come across one.
Yet both the recent shooting at Umpqua Community College and at the Gabby Giffords shooting had good guys with guns who didn't do anything. So WTF are they talking about?
I feel that the gun-free zones and, you know, when you say that, that's target practice for the sickos and for the mentally ill. That's target [practice]. They look around for gun-free zones.
We've heard this giant pile of shit before. Thankfully, the Washington Post today put up a piece how there is zero evidence for this. They link all current studies which show that this claim is FALSE.
We all have to realize that the Gun Cult is largely made up of old, fat white men with tits who were picked on in high school. Having a gun (or 8 guns, as we have recently learned) makes them feel empowered over all past and future bullies. They likely spend hours fantasizing about being Jack Bauer or ___________________ (insert Michael Bay action hero here) and taking down spree shooters should they every come across one.
Yet both the recent shooting at Umpqua Community College and at the Gabby Giffords shooting had good guys with guns who didn't do anything. So WTF are they talking about?
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Tell Me Again About the NRA
The NRA Is Making Sure Scientists Can't Tell You the Truth About Guns
But since the mid-1990s, the federal government has done exceptionally little to investigate the threat posed by firearms, thanks largely to successful efforts by the National Rifle Association to intimidate, threaten and harass the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies.
Indeed.
But since the mid-1990s, the federal government has done exceptionally little to investigate the threat posed by firearms, thanks largely to successful efforts by the National Rifle Association to intimidate, threaten and harass the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies.
Indeed.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Monday, October 26, 2015
This, Too, Shall Pass...
Donald Trump, as is his wont, has stirred up another hornet's nest by ridiculing Ben Carson's Seventh-Day Adventist religion and refusing to apologize. It started at a rally in Florida when Trump said:
I'm Presbyterian. Boy, that's down the middle of the road, folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don't know about. I just don't know about.
When asked about this comment on This Week, Trump said:
I would certainly give an apology if I said something bad about it. But I didn't. All I said was I don't know about it.Yeah, right. It's the old Fox News trick of condemning something by asking leading questions about it.
But this was after Carson questioned Trump's religiousness, saying,
By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches and honor and life and that's a very big part of who I am. I don't get that impression with [Trump]. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get that.And this is also after Carson made lots of political hay among conservative voters by claiming that Muslims cannot be president because Islam is incompatible with the Constitution.
Now, I'm sure Carson is right about Trump: Trump doesn't give a crap about religion; he never has and never will, because it doesn't make him any richer, and money is the only thing Trump cares about.
But Trump is also right about Seventh-Day Adventism: it's a kooky apocalyptic annihilationistic religion. It shares many features with conservative Islam: they insist on an absolutist and "literal" (i.e., their own) interpretation of the Bible. They have a self-proclaimed prophet (more than one, actually) who claimed intimate knowledge of God's holy plan. Their holy day of rest is not on Sunday, in opposition to most of Christianity. They anticipate the world will end soon in a conflagration between the true believers (them) and mainstream Christianity, which they believe is in league with Satan. And this global conflagration will be caused by Christians trying to force the Sabbath to be on Sundays, persecuting Adventists who celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday.
This is Adventist's major concern, and it's totally ridiculous: with each passing year we are getting further and further from forcing the Sabbath to be observed on Sundays, with almost every state eliminating mandatory Sunday closing laws and allowing the sale of everything from automobile to alcohol sales.
But more importantly, why would the creator of the universe care how humans set up their calendar? Which day is the seventh day of rest comes down to whether you define the first day of the week as Sunday or Monday. And that depends on the date when you start the cycle of days of the week.
Adam never wrote a damned thing down: no one did for thousands of years. Moses didn't get the tablets from God telling him to to keep the Sabbath holy until some time between 1600 and 1200 BC. Given that writing didn't exist when the world was created, and arithmetic and calendars wouldn't be created for three or four millennia after the ostensible day of creation, we have absolutely no way of knowing what day should be the first day of the week. Thus, the exact day on which the Sabbath is celebrated is totally arbitrary and essentially random.
Christians have switched calendars four times since the time of Christ: from the Hebrew, to the Roman Julian calendar, to the Christian Julian calendar, to the Gregorian calendar. So how can know really know anything about what the right day is to celebrate the Sabbath?
William Miller, the founder of Carson's religion, predicted the Second Coming would occur on various dates in 1843 and 1844, recalculating the End Times several times. Adventists called it "The Great Disappointment" when Christ failed to appear. Yeah, it's so disappointing that the world didn't end and millions of Christians who weren't Adventists didn't die because they honor Sunday as the Sabbath.
Most Adventists also revere Ellen White as a prophet, even though the Bible is supposed to be God's last word and the Bible warns against false prophets.
Carson himself believes literally that the world was created in six days just a few thousand years ago, and that evolution is the work of Satan.
Like Trump, the average Republican voter knows nothing about Adventism. If they did, they would lump Carson and his religion in with the Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Muslims and Wiccans.
The Republican race is beginning to look a lot like the last Republican primary, when they cycled through nuts like Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum, and Cain before finally deciding on boring Mitt Romney. This time they started out the the boring guys like Bush and Christie, then flirted with Trump because of his big mouth. They're getting tired of the bombast, and already they're toying with Carson because they find his somnolent droning a soothing change of pace.
Carson, too, shall pass, probably when Ted Cruz goes bananas because he's bored and running out of cash.
Start Shittin' Yo Self
Backed by moms and money, gun-safety group expands its clout
Everytown for Gun Safety and its subsidiary, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, have helped push six states since 2013 to adopt more background checks on gun sales — what they consider the single most important measure to prevent shootings. They have also helped thwart legislation in several states that would make it easier to obtain firearms and carry them in more places such as schools.
The biggest weapon the Gun Cult has is fear. They use it every effectively and illogical people fall for it every time. Yet the Gun Cult also has a very big Achilles heel-their own hubris. They think they are invincible and this ever growing group of sensible people proved that they are not.
If I were the Gun Cult, I'd be shitting my self right about now. Pissing off a large group of women who are about to put the first woman in the White House is never a good idea.
Everytown for Gun Safety and its subsidiary, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, have helped push six states since 2013 to adopt more background checks on gun sales — what they consider the single most important measure to prevent shootings. They have also helped thwart legislation in several states that would make it easier to obtain firearms and carry them in more places such as schools.
The biggest weapon the Gun Cult has is fear. They use it every effectively and illogical people fall for it every time. Yet the Gun Cult also has a very big Achilles heel-their own hubris. They think they are invincible and this ever growing group of sensible people proved that they are not.
If I were the Gun Cult, I'd be shitting my self right about now. Pissing off a large group of women who are about to put the first woman in the White House is never a good idea.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
The Fallacy of the Hot Hand Fallacy
In sports there's this thing called the "hot hand." This is where a player gets on a roll and feels he can do no wrong. The Mets' Daniel Murphy is the latest person to be pegged as having a hot hand, hitting a bunch of home runs recently, after having a recent slump and being rather average for most of his career.
Statisticians claim there's no such thing as as a "hot hand," calling it a fallacious belief:
In gambling statistical fallacies take two forms: first is the idea that if you're losing, you're eventually "due" a success. Second is the idea that if you're on a roll, your odds of success are increased. Both are wrong in games of chance like craps and roulette, where each event is random and independent of other events.
Some studies have indicated that success in sports like baseball and basketball has the same characteristic of randomness. This has lead statisticians to believe that one play has no bearing on the probability of success on the next play. That is, if a batter has a record of hitting home runs 16.7% of the time and hits a home run in the first inning, he still only has a 16.7% chance of hitting a home in third inning.
But plays in sports are not random and independent events. They are dependent on the individuals and conditions involved. During a single game, it's the same day, the same stadium, the same batter, the same pitcher, the same defensive lineup, the same weather conditions. Some days batters won't get a good night's sleep. Sometimes the pitcher had and argument with his wife and his mind's not really on the game. On a particular day, a player can play better than he ever has in his life, and his chances of success are better than his career average that whole day.
Thus, a batter hitting a ball is not a totally random independent event, like rolling dice. Many of the conditions are under the batter's or the pitcher's control.
For example, the pitcher can guarantee the batter won't get a home run by walking him intentionally. (This comes at a cost, of course.)
Similarly, if you take a professional baseball player and put him on the plate facing a 9-year-old little league pitcher, he would probably hit a home run every time the kid put the ball over the plate.
Thus, hitting a baseball is not totally random.
The "randomness" in sports comes from two sources: external and internal. External sources of randomness arise from things like air pressure, wind and lighting that may affect the flight of the ball or the player's perception of it. Internal sources of randomness arise from human beings' inability to repeat tasks identically: a pitcher cannot throw a ball at exactly the same speed along the same trajectory every time.
Finally, the player's mental state has a huge impact on performance. People who are wracked with doubts don't usually perform very well. Success breeds success by inspiring confidence and eliminating hesitation and second guessing oneself.
Having said all that, however, any hot hand effects are going to be fairly small, because human beings cannot repeatedly execute physical actions with extreme precision.
The epitome of randomness is flipping a coin. But this is random only because humans cannot consistently apply all the same forces to a coin each time it is flipped, or even flip it from the same height and location.
But if we built a device that flipped a coin in a vacuum, applying exactly the same forces each time with extremely high precision, we could increase the probability of getting the same result by reducing the variation in each iteration. We could potentially build a machine that could make a coin come up heads 9 out of 10 times, or 99 out of 100 times. (100% certainty is unlikely due to quantum effects.)
In gambling the hot hand fallacy still applies to games of chance like roulette and craps (but not necessarily to poker or blackjack, where skill matters).
But in sports where human is pitted against human and most of the factors are controlled by the actors, it is a fallacy to think that the outcome is completely random.
Statisticians claim there's no such thing as as a "hot hand," calling it a fallacious belief:
The "hot-hand fallacy" (also known as the "hot hand phenomenon" or "hot hand") is the fallacious belief that a person who has experienced success with a random event has a greater chance of further success in additional attempts. The concept has been applied to gambling and sports, such as basketball.With random events, such as tossing coins and rolling dice, each toss or roll is independent of all others. If you roll two six-sided die the chance of a rolling a 7 is 16.7% every time, even if you just rolled a 7 the time before. If you roll 10 7s in row, the chance of rolling a 7 is still only 16.7% the 11th time.
In gambling statistical fallacies take two forms: first is the idea that if you're losing, you're eventually "due" a success. Second is the idea that if you're on a roll, your odds of success are increased. Both are wrong in games of chance like craps and roulette, where each event is random and independent of other events.
Some studies have indicated that success in sports like baseball and basketball has the same characteristic of randomness. This has lead statisticians to believe that one play has no bearing on the probability of success on the next play. That is, if a batter has a record of hitting home runs 16.7% of the time and hits a home run in the first inning, he still only has a 16.7% chance of hitting a home in third inning.
But plays in sports are not random and independent events. They are dependent on the individuals and conditions involved. During a single game, it's the same day, the same stadium, the same batter, the same pitcher, the same defensive lineup, the same weather conditions. Some days batters won't get a good night's sleep. Sometimes the pitcher had and argument with his wife and his mind's not really on the game. On a particular day, a player can play better than he ever has in his life, and his chances of success are better than his career average that whole day.
Thus, a batter hitting a ball is not a totally random independent event, like rolling dice. Many of the conditions are under the batter's or the pitcher's control.
For example, the pitcher can guarantee the batter won't get a home run by walking him intentionally. (This comes at a cost, of course.)
Similarly, if you take a professional baseball player and put him on the plate facing a 9-year-old little league pitcher, he would probably hit a home run every time the kid put the ball over the plate.
Thus, hitting a baseball is not totally random.
The "randomness" in sports comes from two sources: external and internal. External sources of randomness arise from things like air pressure, wind and lighting that may affect the flight of the ball or the player's perception of it. Internal sources of randomness arise from human beings' inability to repeat tasks identically: a pitcher cannot throw a ball at exactly the same speed along the same trajectory every time.
Finally, the player's mental state has a huge impact on performance. People who are wracked with doubts don't usually perform very well. Success breeds success by inspiring confidence and eliminating hesitation and second guessing oneself.
Having said all that, however, any hot hand effects are going to be fairly small, because human beings cannot repeatedly execute physical actions with extreme precision.
The epitome of randomness is flipping a coin. But this is random only because humans cannot consistently apply all the same forces to a coin each time it is flipped, or even flip it from the same height and location.
But if we built a device that flipped a coin in a vacuum, applying exactly the same forces each time with extremely high precision, we could increase the probability of getting the same result by reducing the variation in each iteration. We could potentially build a machine that could make a coin come up heads 9 out of 10 times, or 99 out of 100 times. (100% certainty is unlikely due to quantum effects.)
In gambling the hot hand fallacy still applies to games of chance like roulette and craps (but not necessarily to poker or blackjack, where skill matters).
But in sports where human is pitted against human and most of the factors are controlled by the actors, it is a fallacy to think that the outcome is completely random.
Saturday, October 24, 2015
The Republican Brain Part Six: Political Personalities
Getting back to Chris Mooney's book, The Republican Brain, we now turn to "Political Personalities." Recall that Mooney has now firmly established that when people, especially conservatives, here something that causes cognitive dissonance, they feel like they are being physically attacked. So, they experience dis-confirmation bias and furiously hunt for "evidence" that proves that what is causing them physical discomfort simply can't be true. In short, they tell themselves a nice story.
There are many studies to back this up and they are detailed extensively in the first 50+ pages of the book. Now, however, Mooney details the study that blew it all open: The American Psychological Association's study from 2003 that found links between political ideology and personality traits. The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.
So what did they find?
Conservatives are dogmatic, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, fear death, less open to new experiences, less "integrative complexity" in thinking and have more need for closure. Essentially, everything I have been saying on here for years...now backed up by peer reviewed science.
The reaction from conservatives was not surprising. The denounced and condemned the study as "left wing rhetoric." They deluged lead researcher, Stanford's John Jost, with emails that were "incredibly aggressive, obnoxious and threatening." Jost remarked, "Ironically, they epitomized all the things they were trying to deny."
Since their report was released over a decade ago, there have been a myriad of studies which have affirmed the report. So, this report, which was based on 88 different peer reviewed studies, now has just about as many studies, according to Jost. His study has been cited over 800 times since its publication. The science is solid: conservatives have different brains than liberals. It's not merely a matter of philosophy or environment. The way their brains are wired lead them to be dogmatic, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, fear death, less open to new experiences, less "integrative complexity" in thinking and have more need for closure.
In a great number of ways, this explains why we have so much trouble progressing in this country. We certainly have made great strides since Barack Obama took office but we could be so much farther if it weren't for this brain type holding us back. Perhaps we could start by helping conservatives deal with uncertainty and ambiguity in a better fashion. As Mooney notes, dealing with the grays of reality depends on how you fall in the "Big Five" traits of human personality.
He goes on to describe how open minded people (mostly liberals) tend to congregate together. Close minded people (mostly conservatives) do the same thing. So, what tends to happen is that patterns are reinforced that strengthen a person's resistance to objective reality. And the places where each group hangs out is also different with open minded people and close minded people with the latter going to the same, comfortable places all the time. Open minded people tend to try new places to go and are more open to new experiences. It's no wonder conservatives react like they are being physically attacked when they are confronted by new facts. They are likely also in some sort of new environment that makes their cognitive dissonance even worse.
In putting all of this stuff together, it's easy to see that conservatives are in a great need for cognitive closure whereas liberals have a need for cognition. We want more complex problems and don't necessarily see open ended and ongoing issues as the end of the fucking universe. As I tell my teenagers (children and students), that's life. Deal with it. Money offers the example of abortion as a great example of this dichotomy between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives see this issue as very black and white. It's a child life and it's murder. They don't take into the complexity of child birth from an evolutionary standpoint nor do they consider the rights of the mother. Liberals, however, see that there are many factors to consider and the ultimate conclusion, while most definitely not perfect, is that abortion should be safe and legal.
Near the end of the chapter Mooney states
Authoritarians are very intolerant of ambiguity, are very inclined toward group think and are distrustful of outsiders. They have a need for order.
This really sums up today's conservative. They look at our changing culture and are completely horrified. In five years, white people will not be in the majority. Gay marriage is legal in all fifty states. A black man has served as president for the last two terms and a woman is likely to win the next term.
Their entire world is falling apart.
Thank God.
There are many studies to back this up and they are detailed extensively in the first 50+ pages of the book. Now, however, Mooney details the study that blew it all open: The American Psychological Association's study from 2003 that found links between political ideology and personality traits. The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.
So what did they find?
Conservatives are dogmatic, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, fear death, less open to new experiences, less "integrative complexity" in thinking and have more need for closure. Essentially, everything I have been saying on here for years...now backed up by peer reviewed science.
The reaction from conservatives was not surprising. The denounced and condemned the study as "left wing rhetoric." They deluged lead researcher, Stanford's John Jost, with emails that were "incredibly aggressive, obnoxious and threatening." Jost remarked, "Ironically, they epitomized all the things they were trying to deny."
Since their report was released over a decade ago, there have been a myriad of studies which have affirmed the report. So, this report, which was based on 88 different peer reviewed studies, now has just about as many studies, according to Jost. His study has been cited over 800 times since its publication. The science is solid: conservatives have different brains than liberals. It's not merely a matter of philosophy or environment. The way their brains are wired lead them to be dogmatic, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, fear death, less open to new experiences, less "integrative complexity" in thinking and have more need for closure.
In a great number of ways, this explains why we have so much trouble progressing in this country. We certainly have made great strides since Barack Obama took office but we could be so much farther if it weren't for this brain type holding us back. Perhaps we could start by helping conservatives deal with uncertainty and ambiguity in a better fashion. As Mooney notes, dealing with the grays of reality depends on how you fall in the "Big Five" traits of human personality.
He goes on to describe how open minded people (mostly liberals) tend to congregate together. Close minded people (mostly conservatives) do the same thing. So, what tends to happen is that patterns are reinforced that strengthen a person's resistance to objective reality. And the places where each group hangs out is also different with open minded people and close minded people with the latter going to the same, comfortable places all the time. Open minded people tend to try new places to go and are more open to new experiences. It's no wonder conservatives react like they are being physically attacked when they are confronted by new facts. They are likely also in some sort of new environment that makes their cognitive dissonance even worse.
In putting all of this stuff together, it's easy to see that conservatives are in a great need for cognitive closure whereas liberals have a need for cognition. We want more complex problems and don't necessarily see open ended and ongoing issues as the end of the fucking universe. As I tell my teenagers (children and students), that's life. Deal with it. Money offers the example of abortion as a great example of this dichotomy between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives see this issue as very black and white. It's a child life and it's murder. They don't take into the complexity of child birth from an evolutionary standpoint nor do they consider the rights of the mother. Liberals, however, see that there are many factors to consider and the ultimate conclusion, while most definitely not perfect, is that abortion should be safe and legal.
Near the end of the chapter Mooney states
Authoritarians are very intolerant of ambiguity, are very inclined toward group think and are distrustful of outsiders. They have a need for order.
This really sums up today's conservative. They look at our changing culture and are completely horrified. In five years, white people will not be in the majority. Gay marriage is legal in all fifty states. A black man has served as president for the last two terms and a woman is likely to win the next term.
Their entire world is falling apart.
Thank God.
I Agree With Donald Trump!!
I have been saying this since this site started.
And conservatives can't let go of the Benghazi Frisbee?
Even Conservatives Are Calling It A TKO
Benghazi bust
So a hearing billed as an epic, High Noon-style confrontation — granted, the hype came from the media, not Republican committee members themselves — instead turned out to be a somewhat interesting look at a few limited aspects of the Benghazi affair. In other words, no big deal. And that is very, very good news for Hillary Clinton.
Even the New Yorker's Andy Borowitz had this to say...
Clinton Thanks Benghazi Committee for Invaluable Service to Her Campaign
Hilarious!!
Sitting there for 11 hours looking calm, cool and collected (see also: presidential), the Hilz took everything they had to dish out. And the Republicans looked like the children I have always said they are:)
So a hearing billed as an epic, High Noon-style confrontation — granted, the hype came from the media, not Republican committee members themselves — instead turned out to be a somewhat interesting look at a few limited aspects of the Benghazi affair. In other words, no big deal. And that is very, very good news for Hillary Clinton.
Even the New Yorker's Andy Borowitz had this to say...
Clinton Thanks Benghazi Committee for Invaluable Service to Her Campaign
Hilarious!!
Sitting there for 11 hours looking calm, cool and collected (see also: presidential), the Hilz took everything they had to dish out. And the Republicans looked like the children I have always said they are:)
Friday, October 23, 2015
Testimony Analysis
The post testimony analysis is in and it sure makes the Republicans look like fools. Other than Cult news outlets, the rest of the media was mighty impressed that the Hilz stood up to the SS the way she did. If there was ever any doubt that conservatives in this country have authoritarian fantasies (even though they CONSTANTLY complain about authoritarian governments), it was erased yesterday after their Gestapo tactics were revealed in yesterday's 11 hour hearing.
Hillary Rodham Clinton turned an 11-hour congressional grilling into a campaign call to action on foreign policy, using a make-or-break appearance before the Republican-led Benghazi committee to display a commanding, presidential presence under a barrage of questions. For months, Clinton's campaign had circled Thursday's hearing on the calendar as a key hurdle for a candidate who has struggled to fend off a flood of criticism over her use of a private email system as secretary of state.
Instead, amid questioning that often bordered on a courtroom-style interrogation, Clinton avoided any major gaffes, and sought to portray herself above the partisan fray as committee members bickered. At points, she dipped into her campaign arguments, declaring that the U.S. must promote American exceptionalism around the globe.
and
Clinton — who famously fumed last time she testified on Benghazi — didn’t lose her cool this time. But she didn’t look happy either, passing much of the marathon session with an impatient hand on puckered chin, as Republicans droned on like a traffic court judge with a pending dinner reservation. Anti-Clinton conservatives outside the room fumed at how upstanding Clinton looked in comparison to her inquisitors. “Why doesn't Pompeo just go over and swear her in for president now—if he goes on like this, he'll practically get her elected,” tweeted John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine.
I think they just did get her elected, especially given this simple fact.
Hillary Rodham Clinton turned an 11-hour congressional grilling into a campaign call to action on foreign policy, using a make-or-break appearance before the Republican-led Benghazi committee to display a commanding, presidential presence under a barrage of questions. For months, Clinton's campaign had circled Thursday's hearing on the calendar as a key hurdle for a candidate who has struggled to fend off a flood of criticism over her use of a private email system as secretary of state.
Instead, amid questioning that often bordered on a courtroom-style interrogation, Clinton avoided any major gaffes, and sought to portray herself above the partisan fray as committee members bickered. At points, she dipped into her campaign arguments, declaring that the U.S. must promote American exceptionalism around the globe.
and
Clinton — who famously fumed last time she testified on Benghazi — didn’t lose her cool this time. But she didn’t look happy either, passing much of the marathon session with an impatient hand on puckered chin, as Republicans droned on like a traffic court judge with a pending dinner reservation. Anti-Clinton conservatives outside the room fumed at how upstanding Clinton looked in comparison to her inquisitors. “Why doesn't Pompeo just go over and swear her in for president now—if he goes on like this, he'll practically get her elected,” tweeted John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine.
I think they just did get her elected, especially given this simple fact.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Enter: The Gestapo!!
If there were any doubts about how low the Republicans are these days, the ELEVEN HOURS they spent today grilling Hillary Clinton pretty much illustrated how sadistic they are.
They treated her like some sort of evil traitor to our country and why?
Because Obama got bin Laden and made them look bad. What a bunch of fucking assholes!!
Seriously, why didn't they just put on the rack and shine a spotlight on her face while water boarding her.
Because Obama got bin Laden and made them look bad. What a bunch of fucking assholes!!
Seriously, why didn't they just put on the rack and shine a spotlight on her face while water boarding her.
Sign Me Up!
Government To Confiscate One Person’s Guns Just To Make Rest Of Them Squirm
In a massive, highly coordinated raid, 50 armed agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives will reportedly storm the home of a randomly selected law-abiding gun owner in the dead of night and seize every weapon on the premises. According to sources, the surprise operation has been several months in the planning stages and is being conducted entirely for the sake of watching the individual gun owner—and subsequently, the nation’s gun-rights activists as a whole—completely freak out over it.
I say we expand this program to cover all gun bloggers and commenters on gun blog sites:)
In a massive, highly coordinated raid, 50 armed agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives will reportedly storm the home of a randomly selected law-abiding gun owner in the dead of night and seize every weapon on the premises. According to sources, the surprise operation has been several months in the planning stages and is being conducted entirely for the sake of watching the individual gun owner—and subsequently, the nation’s gun-rights activists as a whole—completely freak out over it.
I say we expand this program to cover all gun bloggers and commenters on gun blog sites:)
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Gallup: More Americans Favor Stricter Gun Laws
Tired of being held hostage by the American Taliban? Well, you're not the only one. More Americans favor stricter gun laws and it's not just them. More gun owners want stricter laws as well. Perhaps some are beginning to see the writing on the wall...
The greatest threat to our national security right now is the fucking Gun Cult. As we have done with international extremists, our own local nutjobs need to be taken out. In many ways, this is a form of sedition and they need to be held accountable for their actions.
The greatest threat to our national security right now is the fucking Gun Cult. As we have done with international extremists, our own local nutjobs need to be taken out. In many ways, this is a form of sedition and they need to be held accountable for their actions.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Responsible Gun Owners?
*10/11, SC: grandmother shot by 2-year-old grandson
*10/10, NV: 8-year-old boy fatally shot self
*10/10, MD: 75-year-old man fatally shot by 14-year-old boy
*10/07, CA: 13-year-old girl shot self in hand
*10/02, OH: 12-year-old boy fatally shot 11-year-old brother
*9/26, IN: 18-year-old boy fatally shot by 15-year-old boy
*9/24, OR: 2-year-old boy shot self in leg
*9/24, MI: 6-year-old boy shot self in hand
*9/22, NY 24-year-old mother shot by 3-year-old son
*9/20, UT: 13-year-old girl shot by 11-year-old sister
*9/18, IN: 3-year-old girl shot by 13-year-old boy
*9/14, OK: 16-year-old boy shot self in leg
*9/11, NY: 15-year-old girl fatally shot by 15-year-old boy
*9/08, IL: 15-year-old boy shot self in head
And that's just in the last month...
*10/10, NV: 8-year-old boy fatally shot self
*10/10, MD: 75-year-old man fatally shot by 14-year-old boy
*10/07, CA: 13-year-old girl shot self in hand
*10/02, OH: 12-year-old boy fatally shot 11-year-old brother
*9/26, IN: 18-year-old boy fatally shot by 15-year-old boy
*9/24, OR: 2-year-old boy shot self in leg
*9/24, MI: 6-year-old boy shot self in hand
*9/22, NY 24-year-old mother shot by 3-year-old son
*9/20, UT: 13-year-old girl shot by 11-year-old sister
*9/18, IN: 3-year-old girl shot by 13-year-old boy
*9/14, OK: 16-year-old boy shot self in leg
*9/11, NY: 15-year-old girl fatally shot by 15-year-old boy
*9/08, IL: 15-year-old boy shot self in head
And that's just in the last month...
Get Them Laid?
Last week, both Bill Maher and The Christian Science Monitor laid the blame for spree shooters at the foot of a heretofore unmentioned culprit: the male libido. Consider that all spree shooters are young men and nearly all of them have complained about a lack of sex in their lives. Both Maher and the Monitor posit that if these guys got laid more often...or at all...there wouldn't be as many spree shooters.
Of course, that translate into our society becoming massively less uptight about sex, including the legalization of prostitution. Honestly, our culture needs to unclench about sex and many other problems would go away as well.
Here's the Maher clip. It's the last new rule.
Of course, that translate into our society becoming massively less uptight about sex, including the legalization of prostitution. Honestly, our culture needs to unclench about sex and many other problems would go away as well.
Here's the Maher clip. It's the last new rule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)