Archive for May, 2014



Our Grand Cherokee died, more or less, so we got a Wrangler (pre-owned by long margin).  Cruel Wife gets her car back and I get a jeep back.  I am tickled.  It drives like a jeep, it rides like a jeep, and it is noisy.  The short wheel base will murder you if you don’t respect it.  And I love it.


Well.  I am probably busier than any other time in my career at this moment.  It is kind of a crushing load felt by everyone in my company (and our families).  So I come home and don’t want to blog.

But here we are, hmmm?

A constitutional law guy does nothing and then gets elected to be president based on no demonstrable merit whatsoever.  Then, after years of trailblazing goat-paths through mediocrity, somehow manages to blame the system, saying it is broken.  And in his complaints, he manages to twist reality so badly it almost tears the fabric of space and time.

President Obama is taking a swipe at the Founding Fathers, blaming his inability to move his agenda on the “disadvantage” of having each state represented equally in the Senate.

Yeah, that is pretty effed up, all right.  Screwed up by the very senate you own… Tragic.

At a Democratic fundraiser in Chicago Thursday night, Mr. Obama told a small group of wealthy supporters that there are several hurdles to keeping Democrats in control of the Senate and recapturing the House. One of those problems, he said, is the apportionment of two Senate seats to each state regardless of population.

If I need to explain the ways in which that is wrong you probably wandered over here by mistake, but I wanted to point the situation out.

“Obviously, the nature of the Senate means that California has the same number of Senate seats as Wyoming. That puts us at a disadvantage,” Mr. Obama said.

He is missing the point.  That was the intent.

Here is the part where his logic is like a bag of cats, and you can smell crazy all over it.

“So there are some structural reasons why, despite the fact that Republican ideas are largely rejected by the public, it’s still hard for us to break through,” Mr. Obama said.

There isn’t a lick of logic there.


Should women get paid leave for menstrual cramps?  Boy that sure is a litmus issue for this election year, isn’t it?


I notice that the flaw “hubris” hasn’t changed much.  Especially in weather modeling.

What is so entertaining is that they can claim that previous statements could be called wrong no matter how vocal and strident they were before (but wrong) and this time claim certainty that they are incontestably right.  On Themageddon…

“There’s no serious dispute any more about whether the globe is warming, whether humans are responsible, and whether we will see large and dangerous changes in the future – in the words of the National Academy of Sciences – which we didn’t know in the 1970s,” said Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. He added that nearly every U.S. scientific society has assessed the evidence and come to the same conclusion.

His stance in Chillageddon in the 70’s?

“Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in their view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”

Yeah, but this time the hysteria is based on fact, right?

They don’t even have the grace to be ashamed.







Read Full Post »

Multiple levels of crazy.


Been working on this post for days but so very distracted.  Sorry for dated material.

Kitty litter blamed for nuclear issues.  Were they using stuff that wasn’t fresh?  Our cats’ litter box is pretty rank.


See, I just get nasty headaches from not beating the crap out of idiots like this.  Marry your own pr0n-laden computer?

If gays have the right to “marry their object of sexual desire, even if they lack corresponding sexual parts, then I should have the right to marry my preferred sexual object”, he said.

Marry your hand, you ass.  Tell your mom you married Miss Michigan.

Unfortunately for Mr Sevier, the courts in Florida and Utah, found his legal arguments unpersuasive.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, frivolous suits are not hit with a hefty penalty.  He just wasted a lot of time when no one should have given him 3 minutes of their time.


I don’t know the source but it was sent to me.  It fills a niche in the uncanny valley.













We apparently need to address the problem of why black and Hispanic men are less successful.

The “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative aims to address that.

What?  I know lots of blacks and Hispanics who worked hard and are pretty darned successful.  How is this measured?  What percentage is not successful and how do we know they are not?  What is the percentage of not successful whites?  Are the metrics the same?

The following is especially interesting because of the “suggested answers”.  They are asking participants their opinions and suggesting answers.  That is comedy gold when it isn’t just sad.

On jobs, Duncan plans to ask participants the biggest reason why these young men are “less successful in the job market than other young people.” Suggested answers are insufficient education or skills, inadequate connections or networking, or employer stereotypes.

The biggest reason?  I suppose the first pair of answers is best, education and skills.  Those two are the strongest correlations (and causation) regardless of any other factors.  Networking and connections?  Is that code speech for white privilege?  I think it is.  Employer stereotypes is definitely code for racism.

On the issue of criminal justice, Duncan will ask what cause “interactions by boys and young men of color with the juvenille/criminal justice system.” Suggested answers here include exposure to violence, a lack of positive influences, and biased law enforcement.

The first two seem highly likely but the third while some of it is likely some also results from the first two.

And on education, Duncan will ask how to improve education, and suggests the need for a more engaging curriculum, improved teacher quality, early access to college-level work, and increased collaboration between schools, families and communities.

What does “more engaging curriculum” mean?  Less boring?  Gosh, that would be swell.  But sorry, some shit is boring, so suck it up.  The rest of it is an awesome suggestion.  

Duncan will also ask how to improve the graduation rate, and proposes more financial aid, lower college costs, and better guidance when applying to college as possible answers. It also proposes shorter pathways to a high wage career, and a culturally relevant educational environment as other possible answers.

 More financial aid.  Ok, if given to everyone.  Lower college costs.  Ok, if applied across the board.  But who pays for that?  Better guidance?  Is the guidance they have now crappy guidance?  Why?  Did the start with their “B” game?  Why?

What does “shorter pathways to a high wage career” mean?  So less work is required for success?  You get success by not doing the same amount of work than others?  Culturally relevant means what, exactly?  This is code for “we need more black/Hispanic culture in our education because white culture is keeping the black and Hispanic man down.”


Read Full Post »