Posts Tagged politics
Hello, would you support horrible things?
Posted by Jacob in Imported from LJ on October 3rd, 2007
How much better off would we be if newspapers printed stuff like this instead of the daily roster of human tragedy?
“She asks me what I think of a pending bill in Congress that would allow the “opening up of our borders” to allow the importation and marketing to seniors of “potentially contaminated” drugs from foreign countries like China and Mexico and if I would support such a policy? Talk about a loaded question.”
Read more about your friendly neighborhood drug company’s efforts to lie to congress through statistics at cranberry190’s blog.
How much has the Iraq war cost you?
Posted by Jacob in Imported from LJ on July 16th, 2007
It’s a crazy country we live in
Posted by Jacob in Imported from LJ on February 4th, 2007
Bomb or Aqua Teen hunger Force advertising device?

For anyone who hasn’t already heard, the residents and city officials of Boston have gone completely insane. It all started when two guys working with Interference, Inc., a marketing company hired by the Cartoon Network, installed the device pictured above and others at various locations in 10 US cities.
The devices had been in place for two to three weeks before a number of overly paranoid residents called police and reported the “suspicious devices”. What followed is absolute insanity. Police closed major thoroughfares and a subway line near where the devices had been installed, and after discovering that they were just battery-powered lights advertising a TV show, labeled them hoax devices. “Those conducting the campaign should have known the devices could cause panic because they were placed in sensitive areas.” “The individuals who placed these packages should be warned that there is a heavy penalty — two to five years imprisonment for each one of them. We are not playing around.” In addition, Time Warner is being fined half a million dollars.
Okay, so let me get it straight. It’s your fault if some idiot panics over your light-up cartoon character, and you deserve to be put in jail for 2-5 years for every one of them you put up? If that’s true, these guys are going to get life in jail! It just blows my mind that the general public has gotten so riled up about this supposed terrorist threat. Let’s see… 2,819 killed by terrorists in the last 5.5 years comes to 513 per year. Compare that some 16,000 murders that take place every year, and I think it’s obvious the terrorist threat isn’t really that big.
If this stuff isn’t thrown out of court, we all need to be afraid, very afraid. Successful totalitarian regimes don’t gain power by force; they convince the populace to hand it to them thankfully in exchange for perceived safety. The news of the day shouldn’t be that two guys freaked out an entire city with their lite-brites, it should be that they were arrested and prosecuted by an overzealous police force working for an over-paranoid populace.
Update: Turner Broadcasting, parent of Time Warner, has agreed to pay a $2,000,000 fine and has publicly apologized. “We understand now that in today’s post-Sept. 11 environment, it was reasonable and appropriate for citizens and law enforcement officials to take any perceived threat posed by our light boards very seriously and to respond as they did.” What, meaning that because the media and the government have gotten people all paranoid over a very small threat, it is reasonable and appropriate for people to be paranoid? I guess that makes sense in a sad sort of way. At least it’s a media company paying the fine.
The good news is that prosecutors are, “in discussions with the [guys who put up the signs] attorneys to resolve the charges before a trial.” So I guess we can hope the real victims of this won’t spend the rest of their lives in jail as officials had originally threatened.
Massachusetts: Constitution? Pfff!
Posted by Jacob in Imported from LJ on February 2nd, 2007
Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
Wait… First Amendment?
I am thoroughly amused by the last punishment, “and may also be bound to good behavior.”
Also, in Massachusetts fornication (sex out of wedlock) is apparently a jailable offense, but concealing the murdur of your baby born out of wedlock will only get you a $100 fine and not more than a year in jail.
Maybe I just don’t understand this “math” stuff…
Posted by admin in Imported from LJ on January 19th, 2007
On the way to work this morning a reporter on NPR was talking about funding for some sort of early childhood development program. Towards the end he reported that a study had found, “a 16% increase in student performance for every dollar invested in the program,” and that, “the program’s budget is 160 million dollars.” I’m really happy about this. I think it’s great that our children’s performance will be boosted by 10,960%.
Seriously, though, he probably meant for every dollar invested per student per year. That still doesn’t make sense, though. If that were the case, it would mean that a $7 investment would more than double a child’s performance. If that’s true, I want me some of that program because DANG it’s effective!
R i i i i i i i g h t…
Posted by Jacob in Imported from LJ on November 21st, 2006
I was listening to MPR over lunch today. They were interviewing Pawlenty. One of the questions for him was whether or not he supported instant runoff voting. He said
1. I support third parties.
2. If third parties get more votes than Rep’s or Dem’s, that’s good.
3. I do not support IRV because it hurts third parties. Things would be harder for third parties if we had IRV (no explanation was given).
Ok, first, WTF? 1) What is he thinking? Harder for third parties to win when people can vote for them without worrying that their second preference will lose because of it? Sure Tim, we’re buying that. 2) What was the host thinking not questioning him on that? I can’t stand it when politicians are allowed to just spit out something blatantly false and the host is just like “oh, yes, ok, let’s be objective and not pass judgment, on to the next question!”
Thankfully another caller got on and said “no offense governor, but I wanted to vote for Hutchinson and was forced to vote for Hatch because I wanted you out of office more than I wanted Hutchinson to get a tiny bit higher percentage of the votes and still not win. What you said doesn’t make any sense. Justify yourself.” Pawlenty again whipped out the BS and said:
1) Now, let’s not be hasty, remember that Perot took votes away from Bush in 1992 and caused Clinton to win. (WTF? Look dumbass, the caller wasn’t complaining that republicans are repressing him by using third parties against democrats. He was saying that in general, a system that forces you to choose between who you really want to win and who actually has a decent shot at winning is not good.)
2) I think it’s important that people have to choose between candidates. It wouldn’t be a legitimate victory if you didn’t have to choose one candidate over another. (Um. Yeah. And how does that make sense? You want it to be more difficult for third parties to win? Oh, did I say that? I’m sorry, you’re right. There must be something inherently more valuable in forcing voters to choose between their ideal candidate and their preference between the two who actually stand a chance of winning. As you suggest, I’m sure keeping our current system really is the best way to help third parties. You lying shmuck!)
And again the host just let him BS his way out of the question. Shame, shame Gary Eichten.
Update: You should look at the comments too, there’s some good stuff.