Ad hominem arguments are ones that attack the source/arguer rather than the argument. This would be saying "Your cookies are bad because you're stupid." Basically, it's the official word for name-calling, and wherever you see it, it's a good indicator of intellectual stuntedness.
In regards to politics, this means that any sort of commentator or opinion-ator that uses the term "moonbat" or "rethuglican" should be more critically looked as regards to their credibility. Why? Because anyone who simply dismisses another for being ideologically left or right has shut down their brain. This is intolerance at its best, intellectual dishonesty and laziness epitomized. It's easier to call someone a name than (truly) objectively analyze something, and honestly, that's what a lot of people in politics do. They tailor their information to their beliefs, not the other way around.
5/23/2008
5/19/2008
Qur'an shooting.
So if you don't know about the recent incident of a soldier (I think a sniper) using a Qur'an for target practice, look it up.
So let's look at the left and right think-tanks in regards to this issue. The left? Going apeshit, exaggerating and blowing this all out of proportion. Cool. The right? Hmm... hard to say... oh yeah, totally blowing this off as "totally not a big deal... and they apologized! Stupid liberals."
This is why I hate political parties. Both are absolutely insane and idiotic, doing nothing but emotionally riling up people, the left without shame, the right cloaking it in pseudo-reason. Which is typical.
So let's look at the left and right think-tanks in regards to this issue. The left? Going apeshit, exaggerating and blowing this all out of proportion. Cool. The right? Hmm... hard to say... oh yeah, totally blowing this off as "totally not a big deal... and they apologized! Stupid liberals."
This is why I hate political parties. Both are absolutely insane and idiotic, doing nothing but emotionally riling up people, the left without shame, the right cloaking it in pseudo-reason. Which is typical.
4/15/2008
Obama isn't elitist.
Why?
Because his comments about poverty causing people to be bitter and act in discriminatory ways are right. "They took our jobs!" is a real argument against immigration... people with jobs don't say that sort of thing. The effects of de-industrialization are real as well.
Poverty is an enemy of everything, and that's what Obama was saying. It's the conservatives and reactionaries calling him "elitist," "out of touch," and even "Marxist," because he's right to focus on the little people getting fucked by the administration and their ass-backward economic policies.
All this hoo-ha is about nothing except character assassination, again. Being sadly correct doesn't make a person elitist, it makes them right. Don't fall for the bullshit.
Because his comments about poverty causing people to be bitter and act in discriminatory ways are right. "They took our jobs!" is a real argument against immigration... people with jobs don't say that sort of thing. The effects of de-industrialization are real as well.
Poverty is an enemy of everything, and that's what Obama was saying. It's the conservatives and reactionaries calling him "elitist," "out of touch," and even "Marxist," because he's right to focus on the little people getting fucked by the administration and their ass-backward economic policies.
All this hoo-ha is about nothing except character assassination, again. Being sadly correct doesn't make a person elitist, it makes them right. Don't fall for the bullshit.
4/04/2008
This is why conservatives can suck my balls.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/04/oreilly-transgender/
Say what you like about "not all conservatives are this way," but time and again, this bullshit comes from that side of the aisle. Virtually every "true conservative" I know thinks along these lines, as well as most people on some level, and it's complete crap. Intolerance blows.
Say what you like about "not all conservatives are this way," but time and again, this bullshit comes from that side of the aisle. Virtually every "true conservative" I know thinks along these lines, as well as most people on some level, and it's complete crap. Intolerance blows.
3/29/2008
Apparently, race is a birth defect.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that the United States still has trouble dealing with race because of a national "birth defect" that denied black Americans the opportunities given to whites at the country's very founding.
"Black Americans were a founding population," she said. "Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding."
As a result, Miss Rice told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."
Source.
Now, I realize she was attempting to be satirical. At first glance, this seems at first like a great line.
But it's really not, because it places the idea of "race" into the neutral ground of happenstance, of nature, when in reality race is really nothing more than a social construct. The average person can attempt to argue against this point (I gladly welcome the challenge; please, try it) but it isn't the main point of this post.
Please note the bolded section, and the two main points: "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start," and "[she] think[s] [we] continue to see some of the effects of that." To which I say: understate much?
This pairing truly infuriates me, for a few reasons. One: she said this at the behest of another, as the token minority in our administration, in response to Barack Obama's smashing speech. This is a politically correct, useless-in-reality comment.
Two: It implies that African-Americans gota head start... this is patently false. Ever hear of Jim Crow? Yeah... and how that didn't really come off the books until the 60s? And how it's still in effect on a de facto basis? Ms. Rice, what's the deal here? Furthermore, by putting it in the past tense it implies that "head start" was enough to essentially equalize things, and is no longer necessary. Once again, appallingly incorrect.
Three: She thinks we see some effects of that? Thinks?! Where the hell did she grow up so that she completely missed out on the whole racial reality of America? Who is spoon feeding her this shit? Does she really believe what is coming out of her mouth?
The blatant, probably willful ignorance of many of the leaders of this country is still astounding to me, even though I try to expect it.
"Black Americans were a founding population," she said. "Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding."
As a result, Miss Rice told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."
Source.
Now, I realize she was attempting to be satirical. At first glance, this seems at first like a great line.
But it's really not, because it places the idea of "race" into the neutral ground of happenstance, of nature, when in reality race is really nothing more than a social construct. The average person can attempt to argue against this point (I gladly welcome the challenge; please, try it) but it isn't the main point of this post.
Please note the bolded section, and the two main points: "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start," and "[she] think[s] [we] continue to see some of the effects of that." To which I say: understate much?
This pairing truly infuriates me, for a few reasons. One: she said this at the behest of another, as the token minority in our administration, in response to Barack Obama's smashing speech. This is a politically correct, useless-in-reality comment.
Two: It implies that African-Americans gota head start... this is patently false. Ever hear of Jim Crow? Yeah... and how that didn't really come off the books until the 60s? And how it's still in effect on a de facto basis? Ms. Rice, what's the deal here? Furthermore, by putting it in the past tense it implies that "head start" was enough to essentially equalize things, and is no longer necessary. Once again, appallingly incorrect.
Three: She thinks we see some effects of that? Thinks?! Where the hell did she grow up so that she completely missed out on the whole racial reality of America? Who is spoon feeding her this shit? Does she really believe what is coming out of her mouth?
The blatant, probably willful ignorance of many of the leaders of this country is still astounding to me, even though I try to expect it.
3/19/2008
Sweet Irony
If you've been following the democratic nomination, then you know about the war being waged between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Now let me lay down some knowledge that needs to be understood before I make my final point.
- Hillary Clinton has been primarily using her "experience" to say that she deserves to be president. She thinks that her time in the white house as first lady, combined with her experience as a senator is a world of experience. Which is actually probably true to a point.
- She has also said that the president of the United States needs to be "...Ready on day one" and her experience will allow her to do this.
- Hillary has also expressed the notion that if she was given the nomination she'd have Barack Obama on her ticket for vice president.
- She also considers Barack Obama not experienced enough to be president
Now props to my poly sci professor for revealing this contradiction: She doesn't want Barack Obama to be president because he isn't experience enough to lead the country on day one. Yet she wants him as her vice president, who very well may have to lead on Day 2 if anything were to happen. Hopefully he'd learn all he needs to know on Day 1.
3/05/2008
Cuba Signs UN Rights Pact
"At the United Nations, Cuba's foreign minister, Felipe Pérez Roque, signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which have been in force since 1976. He announced on Dec. 10 Cuba’s intention to adhere to the accords. He also said then that Cuba would open its doors in early 2009 to regular scrutiny by the United Nations Human Rights Council."
An interesting development since the end of Fidel.
An interesting development since the end of Fidel.
3/03/2008
An update on the war in Iraq
I've been beginning to notice that there has been a remarkable lack of news about the war in Iraq in recent weeks. So I did a brief seach on google news for "Iraq" and there has been a lack of news everywhere. There were a few articles though, and more importantly, some of those were actually good news, that explains why I haven't heard about it.
I found this article
"AP Count: US Casualties Drop in February
By JOHN AFFLECK – 2 days ago
BAGHDAD (AP) — At least 29 U.S. troops died while serving in Iraq in February, the third-lowest monthly casualty toll for the U.S. military since the American-led invasion in 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
Troop fatalities declined from 40 in January, and also dropped steeply from February 2007, when at least 81 troops died in Iraq.
But Iraqi casualties increased compared with January, although violence was reduced substantially from a year ago.
The AP count revealed at least 739 Iraqi security forces and civilians were either killed or found dead last month, up from 610 in January, which had the lowest monthly death toll since the end of 2005.
In February 2007, at least 1,801 Iraqis were killed.
The statistics on casualties are considered a minimum, and are based on AP reporting. The actual number is likely higher, as many killings go unreported or uncounted.
Three factors are widely credited with reducing violence in Iraq over the past six months: an increase in U.S. troop levels; a cease-fire by radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia; and the decision by tens of thousands of Sunni fighters to accept U.S. funding and turn against al-Qaida in Iraq.
At least 3,973 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to the AP's count. The figure includes eight military civilians. At least 3,237 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.
Since the invasion of Iraq, only two months have had a lighter U.S. death tolls than February, the AP found. They were last December, when 23 deaths were reported, and the month of February 2004, when 20 American troops died. Last month's troop fatalities included three non-combat deaths. "
Now obviously this isn't saying that Iraq is won, but it's saying a few things. One, the hotly-contested surge has had some effect. More troops, less casualties. Two, the US is doing things that I had no idea about, I had no clue there was a cease fire, or that we were giving people a reason (money) not to join al-Qaida in Iraq.
This is important news to me. I looked into my last few copies of the New York Times, and the only relevant information referring to it was last thursday (February 28th), and it was buried on page A10. It was an article about potential troop withdrawals... I guess it's less important than page A3's article on wine buyers in France.
I found this article
"AP Count: US Casualties Drop in February
By JOHN AFFLECK – 2 days ago
BAGHDAD (AP) — At least 29 U.S. troops died while serving in Iraq in February, the third-lowest monthly casualty toll for the U.S. military since the American-led invasion in 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
Troop fatalities declined from 40 in January, and also dropped steeply from February 2007, when at least 81 troops died in Iraq.
But Iraqi casualties increased compared with January, although violence was reduced substantially from a year ago.
The AP count revealed at least 739 Iraqi security forces and civilians were either killed or found dead last month, up from 610 in January, which had the lowest monthly death toll since the end of 2005.
In February 2007, at least 1,801 Iraqis were killed.
The statistics on casualties are considered a minimum, and are based on AP reporting. The actual number is likely higher, as many killings go unreported or uncounted.
Three factors are widely credited with reducing violence in Iraq over the past six months: an increase in U.S. troop levels; a cease-fire by radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia; and the decision by tens of thousands of Sunni fighters to accept U.S. funding and turn against al-Qaida in Iraq.
At least 3,973 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to the AP's count. The figure includes eight military civilians. At least 3,237 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.
Since the invasion of Iraq, only two months have had a lighter U.S. death tolls than February, the AP found. They were last December, when 23 deaths were reported, and the month of February 2004, when 20 American troops died. Last month's troop fatalities included three non-combat deaths. "
Now obviously this isn't saying that Iraq is won, but it's saying a few things. One, the hotly-contested surge has had some effect. More troops, less casualties. Two, the US is doing things that I had no idea about, I had no clue there was a cease fire, or that we were giving people a reason (money) not to join al-Qaida in Iraq.
This is important news to me. I looked into my last few copies of the New York Times, and the only relevant information referring to it was last thursday (February 28th), and it was buried on page A10. It was an article about potential troop withdrawals... I guess it's less important than page A3's article on wine buyers in France.
2/27/2008
My stance on the environment
When it comes to the environment my views are all over the chart. They are inconsistent and don't make any sense. On some things I'll think one way, and on others the complete opposite. I suppose some examples are in order. In my dorm room at the University of Connecticut the TV is on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This may seem like an exaggeration, but it isn't. My roommate and I go to bed with the TV on, and when we go to class in the morning the TV stays on. The light is usually on. Our computers are always on. I have all my chargers plugged in constantly--this matters if anyone is a big proponent of 'phantom energy'--. I worry about the energy crisis, yet I do nothing to prevent it. Why is this?
Perhaps it stems from my frustration with the current system, and what complying with energy conservation will bring about. It is no secret that oil is not a problem that can be solved, only abated. If everyone cuts energy consumption by 15%, what happens? Oil prices will likely tank, and we will go back to abusing oil and cutting back on research on alternate sources of energy. Sometimes, I believe allowing the problem to get worse, is the only way to make progress. Andrew mentioned a number of things plauging our country at the moment--energy, stock market, and the sub-prime mortgage shitstorm--there are a number of things that we can do to stem the flow into recession, but should we? Is a temporary solution going to be best in the long run? It's like welfare, if we stop welfare people will suffer, but instead of relying on welfare and doing nothing, people will go out and get a job. If we allow the system to crumble, people will suffer, but we will be forced to fix the problem. I suppose it's time to bust out one of my favorite cliches, “Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall.” ~ Confucius.
If the problem is fixed though, I still believe environmental conservation is a must. I'd also like to applaud Connecticut Govenor Rell's "OneThing" campaign. The general idea is if 3.5 million people do one thing, it adds up to a whole lot. It truly does. It's people like Rell that let me know that some people are trying to change things, and it just might inspire me to shut off the TV when I'm not in the room.
Perhaps it stems from my frustration with the current system, and what complying with energy conservation will bring about. It is no secret that oil is not a problem that can be solved, only abated. If everyone cuts energy consumption by 15%, what happens? Oil prices will likely tank, and we will go back to abusing oil and cutting back on research on alternate sources of energy. Sometimes, I believe allowing the problem to get worse, is the only way to make progress. Andrew mentioned a number of things plauging our country at the moment--energy, stock market, and the sub-prime mortgage shitstorm--there are a number of things that we can do to stem the flow into recession, but should we? Is a temporary solution going to be best in the long run? It's like welfare, if we stop welfare people will suffer, but instead of relying on welfare and doing nothing, people will go out and get a job. If we allow the system to crumble, people will suffer, but we will be forced to fix the problem. I suppose it's time to bust out one of my favorite cliches, “Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall.” ~ Confucius.
If the problem is fixed though, I still believe environmental conservation is a must. I'd also like to applaud Connecticut Govenor Rell's "OneThing" campaign. The general idea is if 3.5 million people do one thing, it adds up to a whole lot. It truly does. It's people like Rell that let me know that some people are trying to change things, and it just might inspire me to shut off the TV when I'm not in the room.
Declaration of intent.
I couldn't decide whether to post this here or at my other blog, The Top of the Mountain. I'm gonna post it in both places.
Probably in the last year, I've become much more environmentally conscious. I'm not a "GLOBAL WARMING IS GONNA KILL US ALL" guy, not even in the slightest, but I figure why fuck shit up if we can avoid it? If we can reduce pollution and stop being environmental dickheads, just in general, why shouldn't we? So I do my part; I actively recycle, I don't litter (in fact, I generally pick up litter), I don't use grocery bags when I don't need to, I turn off lights... I generally hate waste, so I avoid it.
At the same time as I'm developing this way, I'm looking at the oil situation. Anyone who doesn't see the oil "situation" as a "situation" needs to get a fucking clue. Analysts are saying gas could hit four bucks in the Spring... our economy is slowly beginning to falter, our currency is worth shit, and the stock and housing markets are seriously on PCP.
What's the connection? I've finally internalized the need to do something, to make more of an effort to affect change. I know the efforts I've been making are important, but it's just about time that I put such matters a little higher on the list of things I consider often. I'm not going to become a fanatic or a hippie, that's just not me. But being "environmental" doesn't mean you have to be radical, it means you have to care enough to change your actions a little bit. It's not a big difference... it just means that, whereas in the past I've never really gone out of my way to do anything environmental, I'll do so more often in the future, to some extent.
This is important, finding things to stand for. Even if it's not a defining characteristic, just everyone being a little more environmentally conscious could make the difference. So I say, the little things MATTER, because big things are made of little things. Take the time to consider the effects of certain actions... do you really need a plastic bag for a pack of gum or a gift card? Is it really necessary to do 1 day air on something from across the country? Do you REALLY need to drive around that Suburban. or have every light in the house on, or the temperature at 65 in the summer? A slight change does help.
Probably in the last year, I've become much more environmentally conscious. I'm not a "GLOBAL WARMING IS GONNA KILL US ALL" guy, not even in the slightest, but I figure why fuck shit up if we can avoid it? If we can reduce pollution and stop being environmental dickheads, just in general, why shouldn't we? So I do my part; I actively recycle, I don't litter (in fact, I generally pick up litter), I don't use grocery bags when I don't need to, I turn off lights... I generally hate waste, so I avoid it.
At the same time as I'm developing this way, I'm looking at the oil situation. Anyone who doesn't see the oil "situation" as a "situation" needs to get a fucking clue. Analysts are saying gas could hit four bucks in the Spring... our economy is slowly beginning to falter, our currency is worth shit, and the stock and housing markets are seriously on PCP.
What's the connection? I've finally internalized the need to do something, to make more of an effort to affect change. I know the efforts I've been making are important, but it's just about time that I put such matters a little higher on the list of things I consider often. I'm not going to become a fanatic or a hippie, that's just not me. But being "environmental" doesn't mean you have to be radical, it means you have to care enough to change your actions a little bit. It's not a big difference... it just means that, whereas in the past I've never really gone out of my way to do anything environmental, I'll do so more often in the future, to some extent.
This is important, finding things to stand for. Even if it's not a defining characteristic, just everyone being a little more environmentally conscious could make the difference. So I say, the little things MATTER, because big things are made of little things. Take the time to consider the effects of certain actions... do you really need a plastic bag for a pack of gum or a gift card? Is it really necessary to do 1 day air on something from across the country? Do you REALLY need to drive around that Suburban. or have every light in the house on, or the temperature at 65 in the summer? A slight change does help.
2/10/2008
A quick question.
What the hell does crying have anything to do with the quality of a candidate? Honestly, can anyone tell me? Because quite frankly, I would prefer a president who cries, as crying is an extremely effective stress reliever.
Yes, I'm talking about Hillary Clinton, you dummy.
What's that? It's fake crying? Oh, I see... so you're making a big deal over a candidate laying it on thick... LIKE EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE? Why is it that everyone is so hell bent on trying to dig into their opposing candidates... it drives me nuts.
Conservative blogs make such a massive deal about Clinton's tears, I think they secretly worship her in their basements.
Yes, I'm talking about Hillary Clinton, you dummy.
What's that? It's fake crying? Oh, I see... so you're making a big deal over a candidate laying it on thick... LIKE EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE? Why is it that everyone is so hell bent on trying to dig into their opposing candidates... it drives me nuts.
Conservative blogs make such a massive deal about Clinton's tears, I think they secretly worship her in their basements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)