Showing posts with label bigotards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bigotards. Show all posts
Monday, December 21, 2009
things cops are allowed to do to strippers
if an on-duty cop can't wait outside of a strip club until a dancer leaves, follow her to a secluded stretch of road to pull her over, whip out his erect penis and ejaculate on her, i think we'd all be less safe. thank sweet birthday jesus for good cops like david alex park, and for the jury who ruled that the slut deserved it. hooray for justice!
Friday, July 03, 2009
accidental email
I think it had been over two years since I stopped getting political emails from my family, but I got one this week. Below is the original email and my response. For previous editions of this fun little game, see here and here.
-----
----
Obama scares me too, for a few of the same reasons. These 3 in particular:
>You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild
>and irresponsible spending proposals.
When the Republican Congress moved in lock-step to pass everything
Bush/Cheney told them to, they were rightfully criticized by Democrats
as mindlessly following executive orders. Now Democrats are doing the
same thing. In many cases they're actually saying that they oppose
the legislation that they're voting in favor of, but believe it is
more important to support "their" President. It is hard to see what
the point of Congress is, from a check-and-balances perspective, if
they just do whatever the executive says. It scares me to see how
easily people in positions of extreme power will cynically invoke or
ignore important principles at their convenience.
>You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view >from intelligent people.
I find this scary too, and this is true of all presidents in recent
memory. More on this later.
>You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
The media is highly deferential to power. Bush had an abysmal
approval rating for much of his presidency, and still the media
refused to call him on his blatant lies and multiple crimes against
humanity. A popular president like BO will get and even easier time
from the media, which is pretty damn terrifying. Just like Congress,
the mainstream media has abandoned any adversarial function it should
be performing, if it ever actually served one at all.
That said, the rest of the list is fairly insane. What does it say
about the author that he can begin a list with "I know nothing about
Obama," then go on to list 19 things he knows about Obama? He claims
to even know Obama's deepest feelings and desires (e.g. "you falsely
believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient"). I guess if you
can simultaneously hold two contradictory beliefs, you can believe
pretty much anything, regardless of reality, which partially explains
the craziness here.
I won't address everything point by point, though I'm tempted, but
there are two general themes of his list that I'd like to comment on.
The first theme concerns these items:
> You scare me because you lack humility and 'class',
> always blaming others.
> You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned
> yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you
> refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who
> wish to see America fail.
> You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the
> 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
The mainstream American media allows a certain a spectrum of opinion
about American foreign policy. On the right/nationalistic/reactionary
extreme is the opinion that the US Government (hereafter "USG") is a
force for pure good in the world that is always perfectly morally
justified in anything it does and is always selflessly trying to
spread freedom and democracy across the globe. On the left/liberal
extreme is the opinion that the USG is a force for good in the world
that always acts with the purest intentions, but that has sometimes
gotten carried away in its quest for spreading freedom and democracy
and in a few isolated incidents has made regrettable mistakes. That
is the spectrum of opinion that is allowed in the US media (I say
"allowed" because editors and their bosses self-censor, not because of
any state censorship.)
The far right side can't stand even the suggestion that the USG has
ever done anything wrong, and so anyone who ever acknowledges American
misdeeds is instantly part of the "Blame America First Crowd," and
endlessly beaten over the head with this slur. This is objectionable
on several different levels.
One level of offensiveness is the inability or unwillingness to
distinguish between a group of people and their rulers. Is "America"
a nation of 300,000,000 people or the comparatively tiny group of
people that control the USG? To criticize the actions of a government
is not the same as criticizing the people of the nation, especially a
nation whose government often acts against the wishes and interests of
its population, as ours does.
So what would it mean to "wish to see America fail"? The overwhelming
majority of "radical extremists" who he's characterizing this way are
those who object to the actions of the USG, some of whom maybe even
wish for the dissolution of the government. But that doesn't mean
they wish harm on the 300,000,000 who live in the US; they think those
people would be better served with a different social arrangement.
Conservatives like Mr. Pritchett claim to value limited government.
They loved Reagan's "the government is the problem" line and supported
Gingrich when he led a shut down of the federal government in
opposition to Clinton. One would think such people would be cautious
about slinging accusations about "wishing to see America fail." But
given the breath-taking contradiction he chose to lead off this
tour-de-force screed, I don't suppose that connection has ever
occurred to him.
Beyond that, it should be noted that Obama himself is well within the
mainstream spectrum of opinion. And nobody within the spectrum
"blames America first." They all assume that America has noble
intentions, and any misdeeds they reluctantly acknowledge are taken to
be aberrant: it isn't really our fault because we were trying to help
but got carried away, or a few bad apples ruined it, or those
ungrateful Iraqis weren't willing to accept our help, etc.
My final note on that matter is that at no point does it have anything
to do with reality-based argument. There's no attempt to understand
the world, no argument as to why Obama's alleged "blame America first"
is factually incorrect or illogical. It is simply a smear designed to
demonize and avoid intelligent debate. If, as I would contend, the
unmistakeable reality is that foreign policy of the USG is not and
never has been about spreading freedom or democracy, and that it has
repeatedly immorally destroyed innocent lives around the world, should
we not acknowledge this as our first step to correcting it? (Not that
Obama does so.) Yelling "BLAME AMERICA FIRST" eliminates that
possibility, which is of course the entire point of yelling it. And
you have to yell it even at the people on the left end of the
permissible spectrum so that people outside it to the left (i.e. the
reality-based community made up of the vast majority of the rest of
the world) are ignored. And this is from the same guy who complains
about someone "refusing to listen or consider opposing points of view
from intelligent people."
So that wraps up my first general theme about discussion of American
foreign policy and "blame America first."
My second comment on general theme concerns the subtle bigotry running
through many of those items above plus these:
>You scare me because after months of exposure,
> I know nothing about you.
> You scare me because I do not know how you paid
> for your expensive Ivy League education and your
> upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
> You scare me because you did not spend the formative years
> of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
whom can name an immigrant among their recent ancestors. The idea
that there is a single American culture or that spending 4 years of
your childhood in another country is necessarily sinister is
incoherent at best. It strikes me that when you combine that
xenophobia with the innuendo about mysteriousness about his life and
finances, it taps into the same pockets of fear and anger that in less
polite company express themselves as overt racism. Combine THAT with
the "Blame America" nonsense, and you get "Obama is a secret Muslim
working with the terrorists to destroy America, because after all he's
a nigger with a funny name so it is obvious." The conservative
commentators he listed regularly invoke this kind of bigotry, often in
not very subtle ways, and certainly deserve scorn. (Not that Obama
actually "demonizes" yet alone "wants to silence" them).
I suppose I'll leave it at that for now.
-----
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
By Lou Pritchett
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I k now nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because yo u have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.
Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or p ublished it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.
Obama scares me too, for a few of the same reasons. These 3 in particular:
>You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild
>and irresponsible spending proposals.
Bush/Cheney told them to, they were rightfully criticized by Democrats
as mindlessly following executive orders. Now Democrats are doing the
same thing. In many cases they're actually saying that they oppose
the legislation that they're voting in favor of, but believe it is
more important to support "their" President. It is hard to see what
the point of Congress is, from a check-and-balances perspective, if
they just do whatever the executive says. It scares me to see how
easily people in positions of extreme power will cynically invoke or
ignore important principles at their convenience.
>You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view >from intelligent people.
memory. More on this later.
>You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
approval rating for much of his presidency, and still the media
refused to call him on his blatant lies and multiple crimes against
humanity. A popular president like BO will get and even easier time
from the media, which is pretty damn terrifying. Just like Congress,
the mainstream media has abandoned any adversarial function it should
be performing, if it ever actually served one at all.
That said, the rest of the list is fairly insane. What does it say
about the author that he can begin a list with "I know nothing about
Obama," then go on to list 19 things he knows about Obama? He claims
to even know Obama's deepest feelings and desires (e.g. "you falsely
believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient"). I guess if you
can simultaneously hold two contradictory beliefs, you can believe
pretty much anything, regardless of reality, which partially explains
the craziness here.
I won't address everything point by point, though I'm tempted, but
there are two general themes of his list that I'd like to comment on.
The first theme concerns these items:
> You scare me because you lack humility and 'class',
> always blaming others.
> You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned
> yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you
> refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who
> wish to see America fail.
> You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the
> 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
about American foreign policy. On the right/nationalistic/
extreme is the opinion that the US Government (hereafter "USG") is a
force for pure good in the world that is always perfectly morally
justified in anything it does and is always selflessly trying to
spread freedom and democracy across the globe. On the left/liberal
extreme is the opinion that the USG is a force for good in the world
that always acts with the purest intentions, but that has sometimes
gotten carried away in its quest for spreading freedom and democracy
and in a few isolated incidents has made regrettable mistakes. That
is the spectrum of opinion that is allowed in the US media (I say
"allowed" because editors and their bosses self-censor, not because of
any state censorship.)
The far right side can't stand even the suggestion that the USG has
ever done anything wrong, and so anyone who ever acknowledges American
misdeeds is instantly part of the "Blame America First Crowd," and
endlessly beaten over the head with this slur. This is objectionable
on several different levels.
One level of offensiveness is the inability or unwillingness to
distinguish between a group of people and their rulers. Is "America"
a nation of 300,000,000 people or the comparatively tiny group of
people that control the USG? To criticize the actions of a government
is not the same as criticizing the people of the nation, especially a
nation whose government often acts against the wishes and interests of
its population, as ours does.
So what would it mean to "wish to see America fail"? The overwhelming
majority of "radical extremists" who he's characterizing this way are
those who object to the actions of the USG, some of whom maybe even
wish for the dissolution of the government. But that doesn't mean
they wish harm on the 300,000,000 who live in the US; they think those
people would be better served with a different social arrangement.
Conservatives like Mr. Pritchett claim to value limited government.
They loved Reagan's "the government is the problem" line and supported
Gingrich when he led a shut down of the federal government in
opposition to Clinton. One would think such people would be cautious
about slinging accusations about "wishing to see America fail." But
given the breath-taking contradiction he chose to lead off this
tour-de-force screed, I don't suppose that connection has ever
occurred to him.
Beyond that, it should be noted that Obama himself is well within the
mainstream spectrum of opinion. And nobody within the spectrum
"blames America first." They all assume that America has noble
intentions, and any misdeeds they reluctantly acknowledge are taken to
be aberrant: it isn't really our fault because we were trying to help
but got carried away, or a few bad apples ruined it, or those
ungrateful Iraqis weren't willing to accept our help, etc.
My final note on that matter is that at no point does it have anything
to do with reality-based argument. There's no attempt to understand
the world, no argument as to why Obama's alleged "blame America first"
is factually incorrect or illogical. It is simply a smear designed to
demonize and avoid intelligent debate. If, as I would contend, the
unmistakeable reality is that foreign policy of the USG is not and
never has been about spreading freedom or democracy, and that it has
repeatedly immorally destroyed innocent lives around the world, should
we not acknowledge this as our first step to correcting it? (Not that
Obama does so.) Yelling "BLAME AMERICA FIRST" eliminates that
possibility, which is of course the entire point of yelling it. And
you have to yell it even at the people on the left end of the
permissible spectrum so that people outside it to the left (i.e. the
reality-based community made up of the vast majority of the rest of
the world) are ignored. And this is from the same guy who complains
about someone "refusing to listen or consider opposing points of view
from intelligent people."
So that wraps up my first general theme about discussion of American
foreign policy and "blame America first."
My second comment on general theme concerns the subtle bigotry running
through many of those items above plus these:
>You scare me because after months of exposure,
> You scare me because I do not know how you paid
> for your expensive Ivy League education and your
> upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
> You scare me because you did not spend the formative years
> of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
> You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the
> Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing,
> conservative points of view.
Again, America is a nation of 300 million people, the vast majority of> Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing,
> conservative points of view.
whom can name an immigrant among their recent ancestors. The idea
that there is a single American culture or that spending 4 years of
your childhood in another country is necessarily sinister is
incoherent at best. It strikes me that when you combine that
xenophobia with the innuendo about mysteriousness about his life and
finances, it taps into the same pockets of fear and anger that in less
polite company express themselves as overt racism. Combine THAT with
the "Blame America" nonsense, and you get "Obama is a secret Muslim
working with the terrorists to destroy America, because after all he's
a nigger with a funny name so it is obvious." The conservative
commentators he listed regularly invoke this kind of bigotry, often in
not very subtle ways, and certainly deserve scorn. (Not that Obama
actually "demonizes" yet alone "wants to silence" them).
I suppose I'll leave it at that for now.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
EQUALS
I kind of like how his real middle name is put in quotes to make it sound as if it was actually his nickname. That's a nice touch. His turban and goofy grin look really sinister too. Definitely looks like someone we should be torturing down in Gitmo or bombing in Pakistan, not the one who should be ordering the torture or boming.Personally, I'm looking forward to more dead fetuses, especially if they would have grown up into the kinds of people who put up this sign. And more gay weddings? That's just fun for everyone. Restricting firearms seems like a good self-preservation strategy for "Hussein."
Image via Lenin.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Gore compares Obama to Genocidal Maniacs
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Columbus for President!
Christophorus Columbus wasn't the only Real American Hero to delight in the slaughter of the Native Americans. The Primate Diaries reminds us that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson continued that fine tradition three centuries later.
But hey, everyone was racist back then so I guess we'll just pretend it never happened.
President Thomas Jefferson, father of American anthropology and "friend to the Indian," came to support and continue the genocidal policies begun by George “Town Destroyer”6 Washington who famously ordered"the immediate objectives are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements. It will be essential to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent their planting more." 7
According to Jefferson,“[t]his unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.” 8
Furthermore, in a letter to his Secretary of War, Jefferson ordered“if we are ever constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississippi.” 9
Jefferson later explained that this was “necessary to secure ourselves against the future effects of their savage and ruthless warfare” since all “benevolent” efforts at development had failed. 10
But hey, everyone was racist back then so I guess we'll just pretend it never happened.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Sarah Silverman
This discussion of Sarah Silverman is exactly right. I greatly enjoy what I've seen of her standup and TV show. Chick is funny.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Romney: bigot, hypocrite
Romney says: I'm a bigot against some people!!
Christians say: We're bigots against Romney!!
Romney says: Bigotry is wrong!!
I've come to realize that principles mean nothing to these people. They're just convenient props for self-promotion. Until they become inconvenient, at which point they're completely disposable. Fucking assholes.
Christians say: We're bigots against Romney!!
Romney says: Bigotry is wrong!!
I've come to realize that principles mean nothing to these people. They're just convenient props for self-promotion. Until they become inconvenient, at which point they're completely disposable. Fucking assholes.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
billo the racist
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/07/normalizing-white-supremacy.html
Bill O'Reilly: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Trakker gets it right
I'm so sick of assholes attributing their own religious ideas onto our founding fathers. Trakker is too:
Forgive me Trakker for quoting your post in its entirety. Everyone should check out the rest of his blog.
Opening page on GOP Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter's website:
Only god knows the number of a man's days. Those days are fleeting. Jerry Falwell did not waste a moment of his alloted time. He spent his life laboring for God and country and for the next generation. Like our first President, George Washington, Jerry Falwell made it clear our country could not survive without religion and morality. They were both right. He leaves a long lasting legacy. He will be sorely missed.
When hiring workmen for Mount Vernon, George Washington wrote to his agent, "If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists."
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Jerry Falwell said on the 700 Club, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"
Yeah, they both left a legacy, but only one is missed.
Forgive me Trakker for quoting your post in its entirety. Everyone should check out the rest of his blog.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
the list of bullshit
1.) The offensive foul call against DJ Strawberry that changed the end of the Maryland game today. Not that the Terps played very well, but they deserved a fair shot at the end, and the defender looked to be moving. You can't call a questionable charge in the last minute of a close game.
2.) This couple getting kicked out of an IHOP for a quick kiss on the cheek. Fuck those facist bigotards.
3.) Anyone who doesn't love MAN BEARD BLOG. A haiku in honor of MBB:
2.) This couple getting kicked out of an IHOP for a quick kiss on the cheek. Fuck those facist bigotards.
3.) Anyone who doesn't love MAN BEARD BLOG. A haiku in honor of MBB:
Brambles of whiskers
Adorn his rugged visage
Fellate him or die
Adorn his rugged visage
Fellate him or die
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Pete Stark steps up
Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) recently "came out of the closet," "outing himself" (There are many parallels between prejudices against atheists and homosexuals, something I've seen noted by Richard Dawkins, among others. Contrast the tone of that link to this one from a San Francisco paper.) as a non-theist. He's the first member of Congress ever to publicly make such a declaration.
Here's a nice celebration of this significant event by Sam Harris. The American Humanist Association took out an ad in the Washington Post to congratulate Stark.
And here's an insane response from the Christian Seniors Association, a group that says that "the liberals in Congress want to throttle any school child who bows his or her head in prayer" and that liberals are "bullies who are so determined to use the power of government to silence prayer and every other religious expression of free speech." It is completely appropriate that lamentation that there is an atheist Congressman is accompanied by such idiotic nonsense.
There's plenty more backwards stupidity (and I should note that when I mention "nonsense" and "stupidity" in this context I'm not referring to their religion, but to their arguments) from Christians:
Here's a nice celebration of this significant event by Sam Harris. The American Humanist Association took out an ad in the Washington Post to congratulate Stark.
And here's an insane response from the Christian Seniors Association, a group that says that "the liberals in Congress want to throttle any school child who bows his or her head in prayer" and that liberals are "bullies who are so determined to use the power of government to silence prayer and every other religious expression of free speech." It is completely appropriate that lamentation that there is an atheist Congressman is accompanied by such idiotic nonsense.
There's plenty more backwards stupidity (and I should note that when I mention "nonsense" and "stupidity" in this context I'm not referring to their religion, but to their arguments) from Christians:
"It is unfortunate in a society that is going down the path of godlessness and making right wrong and wrong right, that we continue down this path by celebrating one member of Congress who denies that God exists altogether," Concerned Women for America Director of Legislative Relations Mike Mears told Cybercast News Service.Perhaps George Bush the elder will now suggest that Pete Stark should not be considered a citizen or a patriot.
"The founding fathers ... founded this country on godly principles," Mears said. "Fifty-one of the 56 signers [of the Declaration of Independence] had a Christian worldview and [Stark] wants to change that and celebrate - basically - godlessness."
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
Germany sucks too
The German government puts people in jail for saying things they don't like. Fucking bullshit, even if the victim of it is an asshole. Assholes should be allowed to speak.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
PUNISH THEM! KILL THE GAY!
What is so terrible about two people of the same gender rubbing their parts together? Why is this such an offensive thing?
Nigeria is preparing to pass laws that makes it a crime, punishable by 5 years of hard labor, for two gay people to be in the same place, or for someone to express gay love in a letter. What the fuck? Actually I guess they're getting off light, considering that under Islamic law, gay sex requires the offenders be stoned to death, which also happens in lovely Nigeria.
But it isn't just the asshole Muslims that are behind this. Jesus is all in favor of it too:
(I saw this story at Dispatches from the Culture Wars)
Nigeria is preparing to pass laws that makes it a crime, punishable by 5 years of hard labor, for two gay people to be in the same place, or for someone to express gay love in a letter. What the fuck? Actually I guess they're getting off light, considering that under Islamic law, gay sex requires the offenders be stoned to death, which also happens in lovely Nigeria.
But it isn't just the asshole Muslims that are behind this. Jesus is all in favor of it too:
The new bill has the support of Nigeria's Anglican Church, and its leader Archbishop Peter Akinola who has been at the forefront of opposing gay clergy in the denomination. Conservative Anglican churches in the US have aligned themselves with Akinola.This gigantic bigotard, who is some kind of Christian leader in the United States, calls Akinola "a shining example of one brave man" for his inflamation of hatred.
(I saw this story at Dispatches from the Culture Wars)
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Oh how funny and clever!
Oh how funny and clever!
100 years earlier...
Oh how funny and clever!
ADELAIDE, Australia, Jan 9 (Reuters Life!) - An Australian zoo has put a group of humans on display to raise awareness about primate conservation -- with the proviso that they don't get up to any monkey business.
Over a month, the humans will be locked in an unused orang-utan cage at Adelaide zoo, braving the searing heat and snacking on bananas. They will be monitored by a psychologist who hopes to use the findings to improve conditions for real apes in captivity.
100 years earlier...
Oh how funny and clever!
The first day of the "exhibit", September 8, 1906, visitors found Benga in the Monkey House.[2] A sign on the exhibit soon read:The African Pigmy, "Ota Benga."
Age, 23 years. Height, 4 feet 11 inches.
Weight, 103 pounds. Brought from the
Kasai River, Congo Free State, South Cen-
tral Africa, by Dr. Samuel P. Verner. Ex-
hibited each afternoon during September. [3]Bronx Zoo director William Hornaday saw the exhibit as a valuable spectacle for his visitors, and was encouraged by Madison Grant, a prominent scientific racist and eugenicist.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
links adspar likes 3
Here is the third installment of a recurring feature, creatively titled links adspar likes. These should keep you busy with good reading material while you're bored at work, and it makes me feel productive because most of the links are educational and/or thought-provoking.
I feel like if I was more ambitious I could form some grand thesis with all of these. Maybe someday it will turn into that. But for now I'm just linking up some cool shit for anyone who cares. On to it...
Freedom to choose won't make you happier
from Science Blog
adspar's quick summary:
Research shows that there is often no difference in how happy people are when they choose between options versus when the option is chosen for them.
why you should read it:
This is an idea I encountered recently in Daniel Gilbert's Stumbling on Happiness. He actually takes it a step further and cites studies that indicate in many situations people are less happy when they have a choice than when a choice is made for them. This has important implications for the standard idea that an option is valuable by definition. Anyway, maybe next time you go out to dinner, just have someone else pick your meal for you.
How Cooperation Can Evolve in a Cheater's World
from Terradaily
adspar's quick summary:
Evolutionary biologists have developed a model that can theoretically explain how cooperation behavior can evolve.
why you should read it:
I'm not really sure that this is anything new. It reminds me a lot of the iterated prisoner's dilemma games that game theorists have played with for decades. But this study is applying it to biology instead of economics, which is useful to reference the next time I hear someone suggest that human altruism/cooperation is a challenge to the theory of evolution, which people often mistakenly see only as a "dog eat dog" kind of system. While eating your neighbor can be a good evolutionary strategy, teaming up with him can sometimes be better.
Government funding of studies you don't agree with
by Tara C. Smith
adspar's quick summary:
This is a good conversation about a general problem raised by the stem cell research debate. Should the government be conducting research that some people find objectionable?
why you should read it:
Some have made the point that people shouldn't have to see their tax dollars spend on something they find objectionable, excluding cases necessary for the maintenance of a well-ordered society (like military action). That sounds reasonable at first, until you consider that almost ALL scientific research is bound to piss off some tax-payer. How then should the government make its scientific funding decisions? Great discussion in the comments here.
Not cool: a brief rant
by Hume's Ghost
adspar's quick summary:
MTV's show My Super Sweet 16 is the most offensive show on television.
why you should read it:
I completely agree.
The Example of Fairness & Equality Being Exhibited by Representing Them at All Is, Of Course, Completely Lost of Them
from Godless Wonder
adspar's quick summary:
There is a church group that protests at military funerals. They say that God hates America because we're tolerant of homosexuality, and that death of troops is God's revenge on us. But there are laws that prevent picketing or protesting near funerals or cemeteries. The ACLU is representing this group in a lawsuit, claiming that such protest is protected free speech.
why you should read it:
First of all, those church people are scumbag bigotard assholes. I wish impotence upon them all. However I don't know what to think about the ACLU's position here. I'm generally supportive of the Voltaire (mis)quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." But shouting hateful insults at funerals crosses some line of decency that I just can't agree deserves free speech protection. One of them had a sign that said "THANK GOD FOR 9/11." How do people become so twisted?
They make me feel like this angry German kid. Seriously, you need to watch that video, which contains insane displays of profanity.
Thus ends links adspar likes 3. All of the links for it are neatly available here. I actually had a lot more content, but I'm tired so I'll just push that all into link4.
RIP: APA
I feel like if I was more ambitious I could form some grand thesis with all of these. Maybe someday it will turn into that. But for now I'm just linking up some cool shit for anyone who cares. On to it...
Freedom to choose won't make you happier
from Science Blog
adspar's quick summary:
Research shows that there is often no difference in how happy people are when they choose between options versus when the option is chosen for them.
why you should read it:
This is an idea I encountered recently in Daniel Gilbert's Stumbling on Happiness. He actually takes it a step further and cites studies that indicate in many situations people are less happy when they have a choice than when a choice is made for them. This has important implications for the standard idea that an option is valuable by definition. Anyway, maybe next time you go out to dinner, just have someone else pick your meal for you.
How Cooperation Can Evolve in a Cheater's World
from Terradaily
adspar's quick summary:
Evolutionary biologists have developed a model that can theoretically explain how cooperation behavior can evolve.
why you should read it:
I'm not really sure that this is anything new. It reminds me a lot of the iterated prisoner's dilemma games that game theorists have played with for decades. But this study is applying it to biology instead of economics, which is useful to reference the next time I hear someone suggest that human altruism/cooperation is a challenge to the theory of evolution, which people often mistakenly see only as a "dog eat dog" kind of system. While eating your neighbor can be a good evolutionary strategy, teaming up with him can sometimes be better.
Government funding of studies you don't agree with
by Tara C. Smith
adspar's quick summary:
This is a good conversation about a general problem raised by the stem cell research debate. Should the government be conducting research that some people find objectionable?
why you should read it:
Some have made the point that people shouldn't have to see their tax dollars spend on something they find objectionable, excluding cases necessary for the maintenance of a well-ordered society (like military action). That sounds reasonable at first, until you consider that almost ALL scientific research is bound to piss off some tax-payer. How then should the government make its scientific funding decisions? Great discussion in the comments here.
Not cool: a brief rant
by Hume's Ghost
adspar's quick summary:
MTV's show My Super Sweet 16 is the most offensive show on television.
why you should read it:
I completely agree.
The Example of Fairness & Equality Being Exhibited by Representing Them at All Is, Of Course, Completely Lost of Them
from Godless Wonder
adspar's quick summary:
There is a church group that protests at military funerals. They say that God hates America because we're tolerant of homosexuality, and that death of troops is God's revenge on us. But there are laws that prevent picketing or protesting near funerals or cemeteries. The ACLU is representing this group in a lawsuit, claiming that such protest is protected free speech.
why you should read it:
First of all, those church people are scumbag bigotard assholes. I wish impotence upon them all. However I don't know what to think about the ACLU's position here. I'm generally supportive of the Voltaire (mis)quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." But shouting hateful insults at funerals crosses some line of decency that I just can't agree deserves free speech protection. One of them had a sign that said "THANK GOD FOR 9/11." How do people become so twisted?
They make me feel like this angry German kid. Seriously, you need to watch that video, which contains insane displays of profanity.
Thus ends links adspar likes 3. All of the links for it are neatly available here. I actually had a lot more content, but I'm tired so I'll just push that all into link4.
RIP: APA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)