April 22nd, 2009

#1538: The liberal hate machine

Two links about this one:

Michelle Malkin first; she talks about the ways in which liberals debate issues.

The second is a link from her article, about a liberal blogger spouting the usual anti-feminist trash liberals spout when confronted with conservative women.

The third is too, and it's a report that the New Hampshire Democrat party chairman called the tea party protestors an "unhinged mob".

All of this is, collectively, a perfect example of liberals being unable to argue the issues. It's impossible for them to reasonably discuss any of these issues because the facts do not support their opinions; and so they must resort to name-calling and distortion.

"Distortion?" you ask. Indeed.

Example: when anyone says that something must be done about illegal immigration, the liberal says that person is "anti-immigrant" and possibly "racist" to boot. But notice that the liberal has conveniently left out the word "illegal"; removing that word completely changes the meaning. I don't know anyone who is anti-immigration, but I know plenty of people who don't like having porous borders. There is a difference; people who want the government to crack down on illegal immigration are merely wanting the government to enforce the law. By distorting this and attempting to tar and feather these people as "anti-immigrant", liberals try to seize the high ground.

It's laughable--or it would be, if it weren't so tragic--that our sitting DHS secretary thinks that it's not illegal for foreign nationals to come into the US and live here and work here and take advantage of government programs without documentation. (And without paying taxes.)

I pick this example because Ms. Malkin's discussion of Tom Tancredo's aborted speech at UNC; Tancredo was there to explain why it's a bad idea to give perks to non-citizens which law abiding citizens cannot get. The liberals response was to shout him down, to make it impossible for him to give his speech. That's not "freedom of expression" and it's not "civil disobedience"; it is thuggery, plain and simple.

But that's all they can do. Because if they are honest about what they want, if they try to debate the issues instead of maligning their opponents--when they can't simply shout them down--if they weren't doing their best to obfuscate the issues, no one would listen to them.

* * *

I've been pondering the notion of getting a higher-performance video card for this machine.

When I'm playing WoW, I'm running it in 1024x768 mode. This is a 16:9 monitor, so everything is stretched horizontally. (I've never seen it in a proper aspect ratio, except briefly, so it looks "normal" to me.) Worse, though, is that the graphics appear muddy because the monitor is not displaying in a native resolution.

So I tried changing resolutions, and I found one with the right aspect ratio and which ran in a native resolution, so it looked fantastic.

So what's the problem? Frame rate: 5 FPS

If anything more complex than my character moving around was happening, the screen update slowed to a crawl. And I know it wasn't a problem with the processor. The video card is what is limiting this system's performance; I mean, come on, I've got a dual-core processor running 3 GHz and scads of RAM...and a Radeon X1300 video card. I don't know how much video RAM it's got, but I know it's the card that came with this system...and this system was not exactly a high-dollar screamer of a computer. It might have been as much as one step above a bargain machine; I've had it for two years now and I really can't remember. In any case, I wasn't thinking of 3d gameplay when I bought it, because playing WoW was the farthest thing from my mind.

I was thinking about watching anime, making DVDs, playing Diablo II, surfing the Internet, and writing...and none of that requires a really good video card. For everything I did on this machine prior to starting with WoW, this video card was overkill.

Now, however, I want to upgrade, because the little bit that I saw of WoW in 1680x1050 made it look awesome.

And so I will soon get to wade into the morasse that is the mid-level video card market. ("Not 'high end'?" Are you kidding? On my budget?)

This is gonna suck.

#1539: Actually, it specifies "projectiles". (And, I mock "Earth Day".)

I found a link to this while surfing the blogroll. Short form: California town is allowing people to go shoot rabbits, apparently because there is an excess of the critters hopping around, breeding, and eatin' all the crops, ma!

Except, read this:
...[A] person employed by the association of common interest development may use air-powered pellet projectiles to kill rabbits within 150 yards of an occupied residence without the owner's permission.
"Air-powered pellet projectiles"--now, at first reading, I thought, "Great! What's he supposed to do, throw the BBs at the rabbits?" But reading it again I realize that the pellets themselves must be air-powered, and I'm not entirely sure anything like that exists.

This is a variance for a city ordinance, so one would assume that the wording of the thing is meant to be exact. How the hell can anyone hunt rabbits without a gun?

* * *

...or at least some kind of weapon which fires projectiles? (In b4 nit-picking.)

* * *

Longtime readers of the Fungus know my stand on Earth Day and its related eco-foolery, and I was prepared to allow this one to pass by unremarked upon, but for this article.

Now, when a doomsday cult goes up the mountain to await the end of the world, and the end of the world doesn't come, and they come back down, and then tell everyone that the end of the world is after all next week rather than this week, they are generally--and rightfully--denounced as morons.

Unless the doomsday cult is the environmental movement.

Here is a nice distillation of the predictions from the first Earth Day, in 1970.

Because the environmentalists were all in agreement--there was concensus--let's have a look at the crises which face us today:

- The Earth was has cooled by 11 degrees.
- We're out of oil
- Civilization ended around 1985
- There are over 7 billion people living on Earth
- 20,000,000 people starve to death per year
- The air is so polluted that it's dark all the time and we have to wear gas masks (scientists all agree on this one!)

One issue is so fractally wrong I have to discuss it seperately:
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Wait, nitrogen? Was this douchebag unaware of the fact that some three quarters of our atmosphere is nitrogen? (It was, after all, 1970, so maybe they didn't know things like that back then? WTF.) "Light will be filtered out of the atmosphere"? What percentage of the atmosphere is light? "None of our land will be usable"? Usable how?

I guess I shouldn't be so hard on this guy. After all, in 1970, apparently they thought that you could have both record population growth and widewpread famine. Here's a hint from the future for you biologists in 1970: the population of any organism cannot outstrip its food supply.

The closest these nimrods ever came to being right was about population: they only overshot the real number by 17%. There were around 6 billion people living on Earth in 2000, rather than 7.2 billion.

...and 30 years later we still uncritically swallow their BS. *sigh*