Pogo, where are you now that we need you?

“We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Check this out: taking money from taxpayers and giving it to criminals. Absolutely. A government-run program in Wisconsin is loaning mortgage money to illegal aliens. And they know they’re loaning taxpayer monies to criminals. And they just don’t care.

“It’s money earned, taxes paid, families need a home. It’s that simple,” said Democratic state Rep. Pedro Colon.

Liberalistas. Pedro, go home. Hey! Here’s an idea! Maybe some enterprising real estate mogul wannabe can find out where these 150 (so far) loans have gone, drop a dime on the “owners” to the INS and scoop a few of the resultant defaulted properties up for a song… It’d work for me.

EDIT: Oh, man, forgot to tip my hat to Ogre. Oh please, oh please, Mr Ogre! It wasn’t an intentional “bad pitch”. 🙂

What do they know that we don’t?

Dr. Sanity asks this cogent question: “…what do the people who are actually fighting the war in Iraq know that the average citizen (who gets their information secondhand, as it were) does[n]‘t know?”_1_

Hmmm, you have to wonder, when retention rates (re-enlistments, like Casey Sheehan’s) are up enough to make up for lagging new enlistments, eh?

See Dr. Sanity’s post.

Follow the rabbit trail

Halo-failo-scan? In which I segue from a blogpost about blogging to a semi-cultural/political rant. IOW: just plain fun, folks.

Haloscan’s been having problems recently. Hmmm… really kinda liked the service. Was nice n convenient: easy way to add trackback functionality to trakbackless blogger account, easily-managed comments and RSS feed.

But you’ve probably seen all the recent complaints of folks’ trackbacks either failing… or being made as multi-trackbacks.  Now, I get three different “reports” on comments. At the Haloscan management site, one set of comments may show.  On my blog, some comments don’t show. And a different set of comments show in the RSS feed for comments.

I suspect, given the fact that I’ve run across a number of other blogs reporting problems, that someone at Haloscan decided to “upgrade” something and improved it until it broke… but just a little, and that things’ll be fixed soon.

But meanwhile… your comments may or may not show up properly or immediately. Feel free to rant and rave anyway.

But try to either make sense or be completely (and humorously) nonsensical when you do.  I don’t have a formal comment policy.  I don’t care one single solitary bit what “kind” of language you use.  But anything that presents itself as a serious comment but is riddled with fallacies (_1_, _2_, _3_) will be subject to mocking deconstruction (if I have time and feel like expending the effort), deleted as too assinine for public exposure or left as the commenter’s own self-parody—the deciding factor: my personal whim.

Many people exercise common sense when formulating their comments. I can appreciate that. Some exercise their sense of humor, and I can appreciate that, usually no matter how weird their sense of humor* may be. Others, and they are few indeed, actually learned in school or elsewhere how to make clear, reasoned arguments. Rare, and greatly appreciated.  People I stand to learn much from.

But some just have no business even having an opinion, because they are both too ill-informed and are idiots (usually, as I have said elsewhere, self-made idiots), unable to recognize the value (or even the existence) of arguments from facts or reason, taking their preconceptual biases as fact and building a “reality-based” fantasyland of idiotarian unreason on that shaky foundation.

Here’s a scary thought: Exposure to such could almost move one to accept Margaret Sanger’s arguments for eugenics. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “Three generations of imbeciles is enough.” In light of the current trend among liberalists, Holmes’ comment begins to have a certain appeal…

But, no.  Better to remove much of the shielding preventing a Darwinist microevolution of the race… Get the “gummint” outa the cradle-to-grave protection racket. Starve the academicians.  Feed the (NON-POLITICAL) scientists. Make artists—all of ‘em—either live or die in the marketplace (no more NEA subsidies). Castrate lawyers making their living off liability suits. No, really: castrate. A lower testosterone level will help. Let folks take responsibility for their own stupidities. Remove the heads of politicians who come up with “great society” ideas that ruin families, destroy communities and enhance their own political power.  Yes, their heads.  They’ve not been using them for any good anyway.

It’s a big job, but these small steps toward re-introducing the idea of personal responsibility. And that would put paid to the Frank Roaches, Dan Blathers, Nancy Pelosis, Teddy Kennedys, Jean Fraud sKerrys and all their ilk.

That it would eliminate many on the quasi-faux-conservative side of the coin as well would be a nice lil side benefit.

*Do note: humor is not always funny. Some of the most humorous of pieces can be dark, broody, macabre.

That’s Rich

Koan of the day: When jackasses are braying in their echo chamber, do they make any sense at all?

Kos and other podpeople follow on Frank Rich’s NYT article “Swift-boating Cindy Sheehan” (and no, I’m not providing them any linkage—the asinine brays can be found easily with Google if you so wish) and are joined in their echo chamber by such as the poor benighted soul who commented on a post of mine below. What none of these jackasses (and I use the term not as a pejorative but as a simple descriptive; after all, do not they nearly one and all claim a jackass as their mascot?) pause to consider is that their use of the term “swift-boating” to describe their contempt of the tactic of actually displaying verifiable facts and on-the-record statements by Cindy Sheehan to discredit her reveals their contempt of any facts that contradict their predetermined viewpoints.

“Swift-boating” as viewed by anyone who actually read the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth materials, viewed/listened to their ads and then dug into the supporting documentation and its background is a term of reasoned argument, not vile invective, as all the little Frank Riches of the Loony Left suppose.  Rather than being character assassination, as Rich and the herd he runs in assert, examining the actual words and deeds of an individual that tend to refute their own current public statements is simply good argument.

Let’s  consider for a second the record of actual character assassination.  Rich portrays the marshalling of facts concerning Cindy Sheehan’s behavior by those who question her motives and actions as a conspiracy to assassinate her character emanating from Karl Rove.  But where’s his evidence? He begins by begging the question of Rovian machinations in character assassination, commits an error (or two) of construction along the way and then simply engages in blatant ad hominem attacks on Karl Rove and President Bush.

(For any leftists visiting, get a good text book on logic and have someone read and explain the section on common fallacies of argument to you. No. Have them read and explain more slowly.)

Now, that’s character assassination. Rich doesn’t even marshall any facts. He has no witnesses to the supposed Rovian marching orders, no documentary evidence whatsoever; he just makes them up as he goes along. That is, to suit his malicious purposes, he writes lies. (Must be lies, otherwise he’d cite some actual verifiable facts to support his statements.) He knows he can get away with this cos any defense to his lies will be portrayed by his fellow Mass Media

Podpeople as evidence that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”—even when the only smoke is what Rich and his fellow Mass Media Podpeople are blowing.

The really sad thing is that Rich can get away with this within his own lil herd of non-critical thinkers, cos, well, none of them seem to be able maintain the remotest relationship with logic or argument from fact or reason.

Hence the echo chamber effect where one braying pod-jackass starts, another follows and soon the whole herd is braying in unison: “The Eeeeeevil Karl Rove is making his minions say bad things about Mother Sheehan!  Heee-Waaaaahhhhh!”

*Yawn*

Ya know, it was bad enough when I had to put up with 7th grade hormone-lobotomized students who couldn’t (or more often simply wouldn’t) think their way out of the cul-de-sacs they marched themselves into with their “speech-challenged piscine*” ways.  Putting up with such stupid behavior in supposed adults is beyond me.  I simply won’t do it.  As soon as someone adequately demonstrates that they are beyond reason, I feel safe in not listening to them any more, except for occasional times stopping by to see if their medication’s been properly moderated, yet.

Life’s too short to listen to people who have proven themselves to be self-made idiots.  (Their podmasters may have handed them their very own self-lobotomy kits, but they didn’t have to use them.)  

*Yeh: Dumb Bass.

Pseudoscience setting policy: a bad idea

From Michael Crichton: Why Politicized Science is Dangerous

Michael Crichton offers an excerpt from his new book, A State of Fear as an introduction to his argument that making policy based on “science” dominated by political ideology is harmful.

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

Read it and think about its application to today’s public policy dustups based on ideology-driven “science”.

Read and consider:

State of Fear

edited to include a more direct link to State of Fear and bumped to top.