atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#3642: "Foward"!

The Obama campaign meant for the shirts to say that but you can't tell unless you get really close to it. From a distance, it looks like they simply misspelled "forward".

...actually? The little arrow pointing at the R in "re-elect" isn't sufficient. That's an editing mark; when red-marking a piece of text for revision you use a carat ("^") to indicate where a letter should be inserted.

It's stupid.

* * *

So the press et al are furiously at work trying to use the Jack Ryan gambit for Obama again. They figure that it knocked Jack Ryan out of the running in the 2004 Senate elections in Illinois, thus easing the way for Obama; perhaps it will work now!

However, Romney doesn't care. This divorce took place 25 years ago; and anyway, the issue at the core of this tempest in a teapot is too complex for the average voter to care about.

"Wait, a super-rich woman didn't get as much money out of a divorce as she thinks she's entitled to? WTF, I'm feeding the kids beanie-weenies for the third time this week and she's worried about not having enough filet mignon?"

Okay, in the Jack Ryan case, people got that. "WTF, this guy is married to fuckin' Seven Of Nine and he has to go to sex clubs?" It was sex, and sleaze, and Ryan's detractors (ie the Illinois press) could easily connect to the moral outrage most Republicans feel in such cases.

But "Romney testified about the value of a stock 25 years ago in a divorce case that wasn't even his?" Somehow I doubt this is the bombshell the Democrats and press (but I repeat myself) hope it is.

* * *

You stood in line all night to get it. You gave your iPad 2 to your nephew because you no longer needed it. You must have the latest and greatest Apple hardware. And now your iPad 3 is obsolete, seven months after you bought it.

* * *

Democrats consistently oppose voter ID laws because Democrats are the primary beneficiaries of vote fraud.

"Once it's brought up, Pat Moran is quite willing to advise him on how to vote in inactive voter's names, by pretending to be those voters. He advises faking up a utility bill."

* * *

Let's move on to the "Obama Knew Benghazi Was A Terror Attack" segment:

Boortz.

Denninger calls it "treason".

Elizabeth Scalia notes that the media is suspiciously silent.

(Instead the media is focusing on Mourduck and his assertion that a baby is a human being, even from the moment of conception.)

So: people died, Obama lied...but it's election season so no one in the press cares. After all, it's not like Obama is a Republican or anything; he meant well and just kinda dropped the ball on the particulars. Right?

* * *

Vox Day is enjoying the pain of the pro-sciency folks who insist that we should listen to the scientists when they tell us to do things, but not hold them accountable for being wrong.

Commentor Jake nails it:
What I think is being overlooked is that what the scientist did wrong wasn't failing to predict the earthquake. Had they said "we don't know" I suspect they'd be fine.

What they said was: "ignore your long-established tradition of leaving town when tremors start, WE ARE SCIENTISTS, and we declare that there is no danger"
This is why the scientists were jailed.

That old tradition, that's old-fashioned and therefore useless and stupid. Thanks to SCIENCE! we now have a better idea when dangerous earthquakes will happen, and we can confidently say that there are no dangerous earthquakes coming. Why, the fact of these little tremors themselves act to reduce the likelihood that there'll be a serious--

* * *RRRRRRUMBLE* * *

...why are you putting us in jail? It's not our fault those people died; we were just wrong. Don't you understand how science works?

See, that's the problem.

In science, frequently being wrong is expected. You run an experiment and record data and spend time figuring out what the data means--and a lot of the time the data fails to meet with your expectations, and you have to figure out why that is.

(Unless you're a climate "scientist", in which case you figure out how to make the data match your expectations....)

But when it comes to making policy? You can't afford to be wrong, because peoples' lives are at stake. Perhaps it doesn't matter to you that your prediction turned out to be incorrect despite the great care with which you collected the data and analyzed it; but to the dead people and their families it matters a great deal.

You don't have the right to say, "Listen to me, and do what I say, for I am a scientist!" and then avoid all responsibility for the negative outcomes that will inevitably occur.

* * *

Big surprise: people who depend on popularity act like they're still in high school. Fashion designer wants other designers to join in not designing anything for Ann Romney should she become First Lady.

You know what effect this will have, of course; some no-name designer will ignore this foolish boycott and end up being a household name.

* * *

Hey, this is Obama, here, not George Bush! You kids save that stuff for the next Republican President, you hear me??

* * *

My to-do list, in no particular order:
Shower
Take some electronics to recycler
Apply for jobs
Change oil in Jeep
Continue cleaning the bunker
Ride motorcycle
...that last I really want to do today because we're having some fantastic weather. After this, 50s as far as the eye can see. *sigh*

It's 3 PM; I'd better get a wiggle on.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments