RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive7

Where were you...
... twenty five years ago today (January 28) when you heard the Space Shuttle Challenger had exploded?

I was at my desk at my first "real" job, finishing my lunch when someone came around spreading the awful news. We found a TV and watched the coverage.

I've said before that was the "where were you when you heard..." moment for my generation until 9/11, just like the Kennedy assassination for an earlier generation. MDB (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're old. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Playing a Muddy Waters record on my campus radio show. P-Foster (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um. Not existing. Тиранесcomplaints 15:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Get off my lawn, you young whipper-snappers! Why, when I was yer age... MDB (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * you know I love ya, papa bear. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not a papa bear. You have to be older than me to be a papa bear. MDB (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea. The only biggie I remember is waking up with a simultaneous hangover and comedown in my band's drummer's caravan to someone saying that Princess Di had died. 15:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing it on John Craven's newsround (a children's news program) which had the scoop on the story. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was in school when someone stuck his head around the door at breaktime and said that Challenger had blown up. I remember the horrified silence that followed before we all charged down the corridor to our science teacher's room, where he and his class were watching TV footage of the event. Not a nice day. Darkmind1970 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * when I saw a local paper headline, saying 25 years since the shuttle disaster, my first thought was "thats just wrong, it cant have been then , it was only a few years ago, wasn't it ?" followed by "gee I am old". I saw the Kennedy assasination news as a little kid, challanger, 911, the Darwin hurricane, The Bangladesh floods, 3 mile island , chernobyl, Princess Diana engagement, wedding, sundry royal scandals, and her death, and many others. It would be nice to get a news report of "Field of flowers found where fluffy bunnies frolic" but sadly thats not news. Also sadly mentioning many of these events to a 20 something woman at a perty will get you a strange look and no chance of a cuddle later as she realizes you were old when she was born :( Hamster (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Eighth grade, in class, the teacher said that the Shuttle had exploded on the launchpad and I thought he was joking. So, I said something like 'probably cause the woman (McAuliffe - didn't even have to look up the spelling!) was driving', which got me a trip to the principal's office along with the horrible realization that it hadn't been a joke at all.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * at least you didnt tell the joke that was going around after that event. "What color were the schoolteachers eyes ? Blue, one blew that way , and one blew that way ." Hamster (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The "joke" round my school was "Why do Americans drink Pepsi? 'Cause they can't get 7-up" - there were 7 people on the shuttle. Being a Jean-Michel Jarre fan, Ron's Piece was always a favourite, but it brings back memories now... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My horrible Challenger joke is, "Where will Christa McAuliffe spend her vacation time? All over Florida!"  God... I'm going to hell.......... -- 22:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Redefining" rape
RE: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion

I'm all for not conflating "knife point in a back alley" rape and "I was drunk and forgot to say no" rape, but this sort of thing is taking the piss quite a bit. What is this going to accomplish apart from forcing desperate women into a position of faking injuries and sending the police on wild chases for non-existent attackers? I imagine bleach and coat hanger sales will be on the up again...

And yes, EdgeOfRed, the muppet in the comments of that article repeating complaining that people "didn't read the bill", I did read it. It says: "(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest..." (emphasis added) It clearly wants to limit and narrow the definition (not redefine it, hence the quotemarks in the section title here) as otherwise the "forcible" would be left out. Every word in a law means something and has to be interpreted as meaning something, and in this case it means to refer to only certain sub-categories of the term "rape". And people are right to wonder what this means and what the limitation will apply to. 18:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Am I right in thinking that this would remove the possibility to a government-funded abortion to somebody who has been raped while unconscious through drink or drugs, who has been spiked with a daterape drug and rape, who has been blackmailed into sex, or is severely mentally ill, or who is physically disabled.... Fucking disgusting, if so. 02:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See the comments of the article, most of that would/could/should be covered as "forcible". However, that's the problem. It's NOT properly defined, it's arbitrary. 02:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know too much about the American jury system so please forgive me if this is totally off-base.
 * Does this make abortion a jury decision? Is it a case of "Yup, rape. We all agree on that" then "Nope, not forced, so she can't abort it".... or am I misreading this whole thing? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily a judge or jury thing, but yeah, when you start adding caveats and exceptions to law in this manner it becomes messy as fuck and the only people to benefit are lawyers and their axe grinders. 02:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well... when would the decision happen? Is it the arresting officer? I honestly don't understand how this would work. Of course, I'm making the assumption that the GOP has the faintest fucking idea how it would work in practice, and that the whole thing isn't just a big gesture to their base. Is there more detail available somewhere? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well.  You know what this means.   Republicans are for drugging and raping women.   Obviously.   Good to see they still stand for what they believe in!   17:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And, for more reference on the bill, see Full text of bill.  Of interest is


 * None of the funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion
 * (2) for purposes of determining any deduction for expenses paid for medical care of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or dependents, amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion shall not be taken into account
 * (3) in the case of any tax-preferred trust or account the purpose of which is to pay medical expenses of the account beneficiary, any amount paid or distributed from such an account for an abortion shall be included in the gross income of such beneficiary.
 * So, under no circumstances are federal funds allowed, even through tax breaks on medical saving accounts, which are the saving grace of the republican plan. If you are on SSI and your daughter gets "non-forcibly raped" and you pay for it, you cannot count that medical expense against your income.  Or even worse, if you live in a poor region, have government insurance (and, in this little story, you're on welfare.  I live in Flint, MI - I see it all the time) and are "non-forcibly" raped you cannot get an abortion.  The state has decided it wants to pay for your child forever.  Except we need to get rid of welfare, to keep your lazy ass out of the house.

And still allowed:
 * (1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
 * (2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
 * So rape is only rape if it's "forced" whatever that means. Have to have bruising?  Have to be tied up?  Have to have a weapon present?  If a weapon is brandished, and the women then consents, under fear of her life, is it no longer "forced"?   I honestly have no idea.  It's not defined any further than that, and would presumably be left for interpretation.   18:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Second Amendment Burning Rights
This is a joke right? The site seems to be very Onion-eque, so I'm not sure what this is doing here... Saladin (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's partly joke, partly laughing at gun nuts. This guy is a clear nut: his tee-shirt ("I don't dial 911") shows that, and he's so dedicated to the cause that he tries to use his gun against a fire. For me it shows just what total fucking idiots gun nuts are. THAT is the joke. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably not a true story, though. 02:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's parody, clearly, and doesn't really belong in WiGO world. We don't put onion stories here even when they have on-mission stories. Don't see why this is different. DickTurpis (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've commented it out. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will say that the article is hysterical, I was cracking up when I read it. Saladin (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Stevey Green
Few things.

Oh, how could I forget:
 * 1: Nothing has been proved yet. The lawyer and pedant in me is a bit uncomfortable with the wording of the WIGO as it stands.
 * 2: The guy has been Phyllis-like (but worse) in denying the existence of marital rape for years now. If the allegations are true, they're no surprise, and he'd probably be fairly devoid of remorse or apology.
 * 3: He's a well-known shit who arguably wrecked Stewart Lee's first attempt at a comeback.
 * 4: Again, if what is alleged is true, with any luck the tabloids will stop going to him when they need someone to rant against secularism, the gays, etc etc. Webbtje (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5: The Heil isn't really in a position to moralize about spousal abuse.
 * 6: The Heil has been one of the tabloids doing what I described in point 4 for years.
 * If it were the sun that printed the story I would probably not have wigo'd it. I am no fan of the mail but they do tend to check out their legals a little bit more carefully than the sun et al.Oldusgitus (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Granted, but they have just as much of a history of lie-peddling, poor fact-checking and deliberate distortion. As it happens, I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if Green is just as much of as shit as that article claims, but the fact that this story has (as far as I can tell) only appeared in the Mail makes me a bit wary. Webbtje (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not precious about this webtje. If you or others want it gone then comment it out, I won't be crying too much :-)  Oldusgitus (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want it gone; I'm all whimper and no nibble. (also i have never understood what commenting out is) Webbtje (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This blog puts it much better than I ever could, actually. Webbtje (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a brilliant blog post. Pretty standard hypocrisy from the Daily Fail though. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Normally I wouldn't trust what the mail says about anything. If it reported that the sky is blue, I'd have to check outside before I agreed. That said, however, I think this story is a bit more likely to be true than other stuff if only because Stephen Green is "on their side". They'll spread shit (true or not) about the other side, like Dawkins and (social) liberals in general, but they tend to not attack their own side, since it doesn't attract their usual crowd of people. Hell, check the comments. The people who are usually all "right on, daily mail! Tellin' it like it is!" are suddenly in full on denial.
 * I hate having to think this hard about news stories. It's ridiculous that you can't simply trust a newspaper. X Stickman (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian Police Among Looters
I heard one bit of speculation that a significant number of the looting lawmen in Egypt aren't being agent provocteers as they are guys who see the writing on the wall and are grabbing what they can before they out of a job. - Ravenhull (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's what I'd be doing. 15:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Devil's Advocate: Weren't the police stations looted? --15.195.201.89 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

South Dakota WIGO - everyone must buy a gun
Foolish conservatives continually cite our history as paramount, but ignore it when evidence is produced that they have no idea about our history. Heh - George Washington did it first (and at the federal level)! --Leotardo (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

iPad textbooks a possible solution to the Texas problem?
I was reading the article from the iPad centered WIGO when it mentioned how they could be used in place of textbooks. While they were citing the reduced costs of buying texts, I wonder if this might have a second, and in my mind, more profound effect. One of the reasons people are up in arms about the actions of the Texas School Board is that because the school texts market of Texas is such a major part of the industry, publishers may simply use Texas's standards for all their books for across the nation rather than publishing separate editions. But, since there is no 'printing' costs, an eText could be easily modified to tailor to the requirements of each buyer. Of course, this would mean that there would be districts that buy versions that make the Texas schoolboard look positively liberal, but it also means that more progressive schools could be able to access a better text.

That said, I would think that something halfway between an iPad and a Kindle would be better. A eReader that can do some other apps without having to be as capable (and thus as expensive) as a full blown iPad.

One question I have, how are they limiting things like internet surfing on them? Do they have Safari locked or somthing?

Ravenhull (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as the cost of the iPad vs. a basic eReader goes... Apple has a long history of generous educational discounts, for students, teachers, and educational institutions. An iPad might be cheaper. MDB (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose a 20% discount does count as a "generous discount", but when it costs $500, that's only $100 off. Leaving us at $400, is that cheaper than most other eReaders? -- 06:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sod eReaders, most half-decent and functional laptops are cheaper than that and would have greater functionality and flexibility. eReaders and tablet things may be good gadgets, but they make no sense to use in education where you want something that is not only cheap but also widely usable and able to run a variety of programs. As eReaders just do that, read, and iPads are nothing more than oversized smartphones, they're better off looking at $4-500 laptops or netbooks. 09:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And how does that compare with the price of textbooks which generally have a longer life, don't need batteries and are easier to recycle? Also somebody is less likely to steal a copy of your French grammar than a shiny new iPad. The only real benefit I can see is that it's a lot less to lug around in a satchel. I love computers but when you are doing research it is much easier to have three or four paper tomes with Post-Its than flicking between different windows on a computer screen. 14:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a good point - although textbooks do cost quite a bit when in theory digital versions last forever, which is one of the problems facing a digital economy and the creative arts. I still print out every paper I download just so I can take them on a train and get a highlighter out, it just works well. That said, if I had the ability to do that digitally just as effectively, I'd take the option to have a hundred papers loaded onto a single device (say, integrating an eReader with some sort of highlighting ability with End Note) I'd prefer that over carrying half a dozen in a bag as that much paper does add up to quite a bit of weight. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, cost is one of those things that probably doesn't change much between the two options but merely gets shunted around to a different place; i.e., you're replacing several hundred dollars of hardware every few years when it wares out as opposed to replacing several hundred dollars of textbook every few years when they ware out. 14:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably some sort of specialized device would be better. That does the things you want a book to do, but nothing else..  You could get it down to well under $200 for a device.  Still might be a bit prohibitive for some school districts.  Maybe force everyone to buy one, with subsidies to help those who can't afford it?  Dunno.       And, having used a tablet in a class before (it was one of the laptops with the rotating screen and pen) it was bad-ass.  I wish I could tell you the class, but I forget.  Anyway, the teacher had her laptop hooked to a projector, and each student had one.  She'd write her examples on her screen, which would be instantly broadcast to each student, as well as the screen.  She would then have us finish the examples, and once you hit "done" it'd show up on her screen, and she'd have a good grasp of how many people were getting it.  Even using a good students submission to explain the answer, or a bad one, to show what some are doing wrong.  All of the submissions were "anonymous" (they were random ID numbers on them) so no one knew who's good or bad submission was in front of the room, except for whoever submitted it.   16:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oral sex leads to sex
I went on a date with a guy once, and he ended up spending some time at my place where I happened to perform oral sex on him. Later, he points out that he actually knows my best friend, and that he totally has a major crush on her. She responds to him that while he had a small chance before, that he now has absolutely no chance with her, because he had sex with her best friend (me), to which he tries to pull out the "zomg, we didn't have sex, she only gave me a BJ!!!"

Needless to say, with any situation that involves a pedantic pitch with a deep affinity towards language, trying such a semantic argument is totally not going to work out. We ended up giving him an ultimatum (because you know, he was stupid enough to knowingly do stuff with me, while having recognized me as her best friend) that he had one of two choices, he could either date me, or he could bugger off out of both of our lives. ... we didn't really see him again after that... -- 22:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Er... why in the world (rim shot) is this on WIGO:World? 22:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Random person reports that oral sex leads to sex... it's What's Going On, and it isn't Conservapedia, and it isn't ASK, maybe Clogosphere, but then all the stuff we report about on WIGO:World is on some clogosphere component somewhere... So, since it relates about the real world rather than the clogosphere, I say it's a WIGO:World... -- 22:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems more like a SB thing to me. But whatever. 23:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Back on topic, wouldn't the real story be that kissing leads to sex? That's where it ultimately starts, right? I went from never-kissed-a-girl to no-longer-a-virgin in the six months that it took people in the study to go from oral sex to penetrative sex. P-Foster (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to claim that you're old, but I think the newer generations are starting to go to oral sex first before penetrative sex, being that oral sex is now a reasonably acknowledge thing anymore. -- 02:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just hope you got some reciprocation is all... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * lolololololol, reciprocation... like THAT will ever happen... -- 03:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the gentlemanly thing to do! The one time I've ever not given the return trip is when it turned out the painters needed an extra day and my GF thought they were gone. Now that demanded a couple of free trips to the pole polisher! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "It takes a brave man to swim in the red river, but it takes a hero to drink from it" 10:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had no idea wtf he was talking about "painters"... -- 22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Warning: Poor taste joke alert!
 * What do women and food processors have in common?
 * They both make good food, but you wouldn't want to stick your fingers in them when they're on. 12:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is no time for comedy! We all know what the problem is; girls leak like a rusty Cadillac. Oral sex is not sanctified unless it begins with the cleansing ritual. Cēpacol is the weapon of choice. Next plug the dike with a medical device (no plasticizers please). Unicow (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"I think the newer generations are starting to go to oral sex first before penetrative sex." Don't you worry. We stopped there first. P-Foster (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the wrong question. The question is, "Does sex with the reusable female condom, lead to sex without it?"

Moving on, many times I was in the situation where I'm into the alpha female and she wants to set me up with her friend. I'm not suggesting this was your situation, it just reminded me. Should have settled, but you know, romanticism or something. In the standard "romance" movie, each member of the couple desires no one more. Terrible lies we are told. "Love the one your with" is much better advice. That said, polyamory seems like true love to me. Everyone's so possessive of their lovers. If I love someone I want them to be with whoever they desire. I like to watch them together. I guess I'm a big weirdo. Zingy (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think you meant to post that here - or if you did, you need to learn to make relevant and coherent comments. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How could I "learn" this? Zingy (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that holding hands or, for that matter, saying "hello" leads to sex.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)--BobSpring is sprung! 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's true! That's how I ended up with a kid!!   Also, breathing leads to sex.    18:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Being in a relationship but having friends of the opposite sex leads to sex. That's just science. X Stickman (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"I happened to perform oral sex on him"!? 10:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you know...  she slipped.   She gasped, and, well.  I really don't think I need to go any further.    13:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes... I happened to perform oral sex on him. As in, there was no plan for it to happen, we got back to my place, and it just sort of happened. It's not like "I accidentally performed oral sex on him", or anything like that. It was just spontaneous oral sex. -- 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of the first episode of the West Wing, where Sam tells Toby he "accidentally had sex with a prostitute". Toby pauses for a moment and says "Did you trip over something?" Classic. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I nominate this as the best WGO of all time. I don't even like oral sex all that much. There is just something about an intellectual lady's orations on the subject. Unicow (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Michelle Bachmann airport scanner pictures
Well, in all honesty, Congress-cretin Bachmann, the question of naked body scanner pictures of you appearing on the internet was not on my mind.

Till now.

Now, I am considering giving up all internet access, or perhaps simply gouging out my eyes, to avoid seeing such a thing. MDB (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with her. I also do not want her to go through airport body scans, for fear images would wind up online.   But then there was something I found terrifying in the article.  Now, where was it...  Ah, yes.  Here; "Bachmann began her first swing through her home state as a presidential aspirant."   Scary shit.   13:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Michelle Bachmann has the same chance of winning the Presidency as the Children's Crusade had of retaking the Holy Land. MDB (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware, but that means I may have to listen to more of her insane drivel. Long shots are only good if they're funny.  When they're scary, it's just annoying.   13:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Best of all, if the scanners weren't installed / are removed and a plane gets blown up, guess who'll be at the head of the line, yelling, 'What about security?!' -- Ψ Gremlin  13:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. Objection to the airport scanners has been across the board politically. But a lot of conservatives who object to the airport scanners were just fine with the idea of the government reading their e-mail. But that came about under George Bush, so that was just fine'n'dandy. MDB (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Michele Bachmann has the same chance of winning the Presidency... Such things can come suddenly; seems like yesterday she was still in the State Senate, quacking up the wingnut duckspeak and trying to dictate policy to the University of Minnesota. Then all of a sudden she was running for federal office and became known across the country. 06:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do the words "Michelle Bachmann" and "Naked" make me want to scrub my brain until it bleeds? Ack! By the way is anyone else hoping that the Republican ticket for 2012 is Palin-Bachmann? Think about the sheer amount of stoopid that would be unleashed! Mwah-ha-hahhh! Darkmind1970 (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * THe Plain-Bachman ticket is the one I'm rooting for.  It'd get the Teabaggers all fired up, completely piss off the Republican establishment, and fail embarrassingly at the polls, even if the Democratic opponent was a dead donkey.   DogP (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Advertising Standards Agency ruling
If I'm honest, I don't think it's a big deal. It's annoying, but I don't think the case for protecting the term 'scientist' is compelling. As 'dietician' is protected, but 'nutritionist' is meaningless... we can clearly argue that a fixed and certain level of education makes one a 'dietician.' But would it be right for a non-scientific body to rule on who is, and who is not, a scientist? The anti-Science movement needs to do more to dispel this nonsense, but the way to go about that is not through arguing that you can't call somebody a scientist just because they have a PhD. On the other hand, it does show a certain unwillingness by the powers-that-be to stand up for science. Shame, really. 15:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I used to work the HPC, the body that protects the term 'Dietitician'. I have nothing else to add :( AMassiveGay (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem UFO
I call bullshit and colluded hoax, but what does everyone else think? I haven't seen anything about it in any of the WIGO's but it seemed like a good one to bring up/debunk Saladin (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's collusion it's well done. WIGO pages aren't usually where we do the debunking, it's more of a news ticker, like CP's mainpageright. Perhaps talk:Unidentified flying object would be best? Totnesmartin (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Thanks for the help, I'm relatively new to this... Saladin (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Need links. I have no idea what you're talking about. 18:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Links Sen (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also had to go search YouTube, as I had no clue WTF you were talking about.  I call hoax.  That's easy.  The interesting question is "how".   Is it someone mucking about with digital effects?  Or, my preference, someone with a spotlight, lasers, some other physical(well, optical) hoax that took place over Jerusalem.  But that just seems like a fun thing to do to me, so maybe I'm just projecting.   18:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a cool effect, whatever it is. I agree that the "how" of the hoax is the most intriguing part of it all. My vote goes for some kind of flare/firework because of the flashing before the "takeoff". Until then, I'll repeat the Sagan mantra "extraordinary claims..." and whatnot. Saladin (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a real UFO, but then the aliens themselves uploaded videos on youtube that will be found fake, in order to ensure that any actual live witnesses or videos won't be believed. /Theory Sen (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect the Holy Spirit or possibly angel preparing the way for the Second Coming or just Easter since 2012 is coming soon. Cupid checking his list for Valantines day isnt out of the question. Hamster (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's After Effects and not even done well. 21:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiculturalism
If we look at something Cameron actually said:

...under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream

This is something I kind of agree with. What we end up doing is going up to religious and ethnic minorities and patronising the fuck out of them for the sake of "multiculturalism". I came across this sort of shit in high school where the head teacher came up to one of my friends and asked her to organise a meeting of "all the coloured people in the school" (my response being "what, both of them?"). Anyway, apparently it was because they were doing some sort of event celebrating diversity and multiculturalism, this being at the height of Labour popularity and when these buzzwords were starting to take off, and it was lead by some preppy youngster hired by the council to wet nurse all the ethnic minorities in the local area. So this thing went ahead with a load of diversity workshops and the group leader was asking my friend how she felt different. She replied that she didn't feel different at all and got the response "But you ARE!!". Great way of making people feel included and happy, fuckwads. It seemed that the entire multiculturalism thing was less like making people feel happy about who they were and more like sticking them in little ghetto-like exhibits so that good ol' white folk can point at them and go "oooh, isn't the little brown person funny, look what they do! They're so different, they'll never be like us, who are all superior and normal! Ha!". If Cameron is talking about this sort of shite I say good riddance to it. I'm sick of being told to treat people differently because they have a different shade of skin. You know what we call that? Racism. 14:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Positive discrimination only serves to further point out the differences between people, and I consider it just as disgusting as racism and other negative discrimination. I don't remember any kind of "positive" discrimination like that when I was at primary school, and I come from an area with a lot of Pakistanis and Indians, both immigrant and British, to the extent where white Britons are a minority, (not an exaggeration, statistics show this) not that I give a fuck. My secondary school was mostly white working/middle-class, despite only being up the road from where I live. Neither school did anything to discriminate non-white students either positively or negatively and this is how it should be. 14:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is anyone actually telling you "to treat people differently because they have a different shade of skin" or is that just what you imagining they are telling you?  14:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I very recently found myself explicitly excluded from the UK Civil Service Fast Stream summer placement on the basis that A. my parents aren't poor and B. I'm white. Delightful. Webbtje (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Things like that are breeding grounds for racism. For the politicians crying in the last 2 years, wondering why the BNP are gaining support, they don't have far to look. 17:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose there are other interpretations to people going up to others and saying "you're soooo different, let's look at your differences and see how you're different and not one of us"... 15:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it strange that Cameron, who lived in Notting Hill, a notably cosmopolitan area of London, can view multiculturalism as anything but positive. Certainly from my experiences of London show to me at least that is positive. '...different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream' does not to me mean multiculturalism but some kind of ghettoization. I do not believe this is happening in London, but I can't comment on other parts of the UK. I am also very uncomfortable about any attempt to create some kind on national identity. It is just so... unenglish. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not happening physically, but it is happening in an abstract sense. When we talk about the "black community" or the "asian community" or the "gay community" it's odd because we're talking as if they are living in distinct ghettos. It's all in our language and attitudes more than the physical location of the people - like honour killings sending shock through the "asian community" as if you can only be shocked by this sort of thing if you're a particular ethnicity! But you are right that Cameron's motivations for saying this are nationalistic rather than anything due to progressive equality. This is quite disturbing because hyper nationalism is an easy way to cause people to feel more isolated, rather than included. 18:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cameron continues to depress me. Yes, he's better than Brown (but then a dead Geoffrey Howe would be better than Brown) but he's all mouth and no trousers. Apparently he was baffled by the fact that he failed to win a majority in the 2010 election. Well, duh, he was leading the Tories, what else did he expact? This seems to be his attempt to have a thought. Can someone spray some air freshner around please, he's talking out of the wrong end again. Darkmind1970 (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's quite obvious that the Tories didn't really win the election as much as Labour just lost it. 19:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Giffords asked for Toast
Really, Susan, you do get about! Totnesmartin (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Read this & weep for America! 23:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Dear fuck that can't be real... oh, wait, look at the link farm, dead giveaway that it is real. That said, it does seem to repeat itself so often that I'm sure a Markov chain has to have been involved somewhere. 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I knew (..and had a giant crush on) one of the women killed in this horror show, I reserve the right to kick this guy in the nuts if I ever meet him. P-Foster (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those damn pot smoking liberal faggots! 16:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheney the war criminal
Ugh - how can Ron Paul be one of the most insightful Republicans in so many ways, and completely not in so many others? --Leotardo (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He is a fanatic; he just happens to agree with one of the main camps of fanatics on some things and with another on other things. 02:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He's against the Patriot Act, he's not against legalization of drugs and he's against the War on Drugs. He voted to repeal DADT.  He opposes torture.  He against a Constitutional amendment denying gays their right to marry.  There are a lot of positions he has that I find very problematic, but he's consistent and holds true to his values.  There is a lot to be said for that.  --Leotardo (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RP, despite his kookiness, is one of the few principled members of Congress. It was funny back in 2008 watching the neocons try to paint him as anti-military/anti-'Murrikan when he and Obama were the top recipients of campaign contributions from military personnel (probably a bunch of pinko Yossarians, eh?). Even his cranky anti-Fed crusade helped, along with Bernie Sanders, get the Fed audit into financial reform, which is currently uncovering the extent to which Bernanke bought up shit assets from well-connected firms (cough, AIG, cough, Goldman, cough) and funneled money overseas. So, yeah, I've got way more respect for RP than most congresscritters. /Paultard Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If i can't use the work 'footlong'...
...I am going have to have edit my gaydar profile for fear of being sued. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do gay men have such difficulty juding distances? Because they're always being told |   | is nine inches. MDB (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Jeopardy! Updates (and Spoilers)
So if anybody is going to continue to update the progress of the Watson vs. Brad vs. Ken game please do so only after as many markets have seen it as possible to avoid spoilers. I put it up roughly around the time it would have finished airing on the West Coast, so if you're in Alaska and Hawaii I'm sorry for the spoilers. Jsonitsac (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

NYSE Sale to Deutsche Boerse
So we've finally sold off the NYSE? Just the latest and most massively ironic move in the long line of cities and states pawning off things like parking meters and roads to foreign investors. How long before we're a complete subsidiary of international financiers? If we don't change our priorities, we can kiss the US as the economic powerhouse of the world goodbye. I'm not holding my breath on that, though. To pull a quote from Matt Taibbi's Griftopia, a book that should be on some kind of national required reading list: We paid for this instead of a generation of health insurance, or an alternative energy grid, or a brand-new system of roads and highways. With the $13-plus trillion we are estimated to spend on the bailouts, we could have not only bought and paid off every single sub-prime mortgage in the country (that would have only cost $1.4 trillion), we could have paid off every remaining mortgage of any kind in this country — and still had enough money left over to buy a new house for every American who does not already have one.

But we didn’t do that, and we didn’t spend the money on anything useful, either. Why? For a very good reason. Because we are no good anymore at building bridges or highways or coming up with brilliant innovations in energy or medicine. We’re shit now at finishing massive public works projects or launching brilliant fairy-tale public policy ventures like the moon-landing.

What are we good at? Robbing what’s left. When it comes to that, we Americans have no peer. And when it came time to design the bailouts, a monster collective project spanning two presidential administrations that was every bit as vast and far-reaching (not only into the future, but the past) as Kennedy’s trip to the moon, we showed it.


 * ... and this is why I used to hang out with survivalists. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 16:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah! Well, the Democrats are stinky enough as it is, but now that the Banana Republicans are back, we'll continue to move toward a full-on balls-out kleptocracy.Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I dislike them both too. I've been thinking about actually doing the paperwork and registering as an independent or maybe Green. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 16:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "How long before we're a complete subsidiary of international financiers?" - since about, oh, when was international finance invented? The late 1800s?  05:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Errr, yes, absolutely.  Further proof here - the Chinese own the US hook, line and sinker.   Particularly the sinker part.  DogP (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, China does not own America. You don't even have to look further that the article you linked to in order to see that. First, note how there's no evidence of Geithner acting on this request: "There's no record in the cable of how Geithner responded...a spokesperson for the Fed said in the instance of the June 3 CIC investment, no application for an exemption was made to the Federal Reserve Board." Second, have a look at the numbers quoted in the article: China owns $ 940 billion worth of treasury bills. Sure, that's a huge number, but consider the fact that the US also has a huge economy and is rather heavily indebted. China's holdings amount to less than 7% of total US debt, only slightly more than what Japan holds, and you don't hear reports about Tokyo calling the shots. China is a major investor, certainly large enough that their concerns about the safety of their investment need to be taken seriously, but it's in no position to control US policy. Third, China is not in any position to blackmail the US because, as the article also points out, this is a co- or interdependent relationship. China needs the US as its main export market, creating ample opportunities for retaliation. In fact, this is a major reason why it would be very unwise for China to suddenly recall its money, because it would send the Dollar's value way down, drastically diminishing the profits and competitiveness of China's exporters. True, the US has been running up huge trade and payments deficits, its international investment position has seriously declined, and China has been at the forefront of its creditors. But at the same time, US companies have been able to participate in the China boom and made some very lucrative investments, certainly more profitable than the meagre returns on China's sovereign debt holdings. All of this has created a relationship in which both sides need each other in order to safeguard their continued prosperity, and in which neither can take any drastic action without ultimately harming itself. You could regard it as the economic equivalent of Mutually Assured Destruction - which is not a bad thing, considering that there might be some political clashes down the road, and it's nice to have a form of deterrent that doesn't consist in threatening genocide. Röstigraben (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is why I crack up whenever members of my extended family call for an embargo of all Chinese goods to help American businesses. They also usually mention something about how that will aid in breaking the back of the unions. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 12:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to point out here: why should we really care if the US isn't the economic superpower anymore? Honestly, we bought all our economic superpower status on debt, and just like your neighbor down the street who did the same thing, it's going to come back to haunt us... especially since the Federal government cannot get the "permission" to raise the taxes to the levels required to actually pay off some of the debt, and now we're in the state of "I can only afford to pay the minimum payments on all my credit cards" while still paying for rent and groceries off of debt. Listen, the surivalists are still overboard, if the US defaults it will make the economy suck but never in a way that make the survivalist tactics ideal. Honestly, I'd prefer to emigrate as soon as possible to a country that is willing to hold their taxes at a level that makes their economy stable rather than a debt-spiral. But of course, being born in America, such emigration options are severely limited. Even though I'm skilled labor, and would likely learn whatever language insanely fast, you can't get a job without living there already, and living there already requires a backup income or a "sponsor" (someone you can live with, so you can establish yourself). Bleh... whatever. My point is, even if the US economy falls from superstar status, it's not the end of the world, and it may even be a Good Thing. I honestly think America needs to eat a huge gigantic slab of humble pie... -- 10:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's entirely ego driven. There isn't any particular need for any superpowers, really, it's just that when you get people heading up countries and you add in patriotism and nationalism... well, just imagine trying to build a human pyramid where everyone is doing their hardest to get to stand at the top and that's basically how world politics and economics work together. 12:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * EU has been the largest economy for a while already, so I would not say it's about being the best in some arbitrary metric. Pouring money to the DOD is nationalism in the proper destroy-all-who-oppose-us spirit. Caring about the economy is just sane. Stagnation and falling behind are bad. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The NYSE is only somewhere where stocks of US (and some foreign) companies are traded. It doesn't own those stocks. It's no different from any other company which is foreign owned. Having to rely on foreign funds to buy US debt or to rely on foreign sources for energy are far more worrying. The most popular news source for the right is owned by an Australian. Enough of the jingoism. 15:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "I honestly think America needs to eat a huge gigantic slab of humble pie." Always ironic when liberals start sounding like the liquidationists of the '30s. Or as Andrew Mellon put it:

Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers! It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people. And we saw how well that idea played out. The people who eat the biggest part of the shit sandwich "humble pie" are usually the people who had no culpability in creating these financial Hindenburgs. Raising taxes on anyone but the ultra-rich during a recession is about as close to economic creationism as it comes. You can raise taxes all you want, but you're going to keep seeing diminishing receipts as you do so. "Humble pie" ultimately translates to "liquidating" our labor force; yet more "eat shit" economics. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hurdur... of course I'm not even talking about destabilizing the US economy... I'm just saying we need to eat a huge piece of humble pie, not that we need to be kicked in the nuts. Namely: being kicked off the world's throne would be a good thing for us. Not surprisingly, if the US economy failed, it would take much of the world with it (evidence: it's happened nearly every time the US economy hits the shitter), so the idea of destroying the whole US economy is patently retarded. -- 22:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to see your plan for feeding us this "humble pie" without anyone getting "kicked in the nuts." Raise taxes and pay down the debt? That's Hooverite stuff. The end result is pulling money out of the economy to pay off investors and financiers -- the very last thing we should be doing right now. Said "humble pie" swiftly becomes a "kick in the nuts" as aggregate demand drops off the table and the economy spirals into the shitter. You can't have one without the other. It's not about "USA #1!!", it's about keeping the country, and thus the rest of the world as you note, afloat. It's also about not further pawning off the mistakes of idiotic investors and thievery of crooked bankers even further on the working class. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Breastfeeding
Just when I think Palin couldn't be a bigger moron, she proves me wrong. So now, just because Michelle Obama's come out in favour of it, Palin is suddenly against it. Please can Michelle come out and say that breathing is good for you, so we can watch these mindless maggots shrivel up and die. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Michelle Obama learns to hunt moose. Far, far, funnier. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 15:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Michelle Bachmann storms in saying that it reflected a “hard left” position that “government is the answer to everything.” Oh my God! The reds are coming! Jack Hughes (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So many jokes... ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 15:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Democrats should introduce legislation banning the eating of babies. I can guarantee within a day or two one of the Republicans will find a copy of Swift's Modest Proposal and say "Look, this job-killing baby-eating bill will make people starve to death." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Political binary makes life so much fun! ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 15:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 01000111 01001111  01000110  (Political Binary).-- 16:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Binary solo! (Come on sucker lick my battery.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

With this and the various anti-abortion things going on, a thought occurred to be today: how long until American women start claiming asylum in Canada? Totnesmartin (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Birtherism is a White House strategy
Yes, it is. I've believed this all along, and I know several people who think the same. It's a bloody good idea, too: get your opponents worked up about some utterly bogus topic and keep them away from anything that might be inconvenient.

Eleven states have passed / are considering "Show the birth certificate" law, and if I was a Democrat up for election in 2012, I would want to be standing in one of those states. In a country where people are concerned about jobs, the economy and the deficit, I would *love* to be able to point to my Republican opponent's priority - finding out if someone has a long form birth certificate.

This whole issue has cost Obama nothing, but has caused a large number of Republicans to be painted as nutjobs. A huge gain that comes from saying nothing. Brilliant. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Reminds me of the South Park episode where Dubya was responsible for spreading 9/11 truth theories to make people think his administration was way more competent than it really was and he goes around dropping folders on the floor -- "Oops, looks like I dropped my secret documents." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Palin is a joke
The link from the WIGO is broken and I can't find anything on Alaska Despatch. I guess it's been withdrawn. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've replaced it. The new link is from the writer's blog, but it's identical to the original (see the cached Google version). –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"King of the Birthers" ad
It's not a political ad, it's a book commercial masquerading as a political ad. (It may also be a dessert topping and a floor wax.)

Pretty neat trick, actually -- as I understand it, TV stations are required to sell political ad time at their lowest advertising rates. This could start a whole new trend. "Here the Sam Budweiser campaign headquarters, we always relax with a cold, frosty mug of delicious Budweiser Campaign Beer. It's cool, refreshing taste makes the stresses of running to lead this great nation of ours feel like an election during the Era of Good Feelings. Sam Budweiser reminds you to vote and drink responsibly. Don't vote drunk. Paid for by the Sam Budweiser for President Presidential Committee. I'm Sam Budweiser, and I approved of this message, but not as much as I approve of this wonderful Budweiser Beer." MDB (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Boob staring
Interesting article. I think that staring at any breasts that don't belong to my wife would indeed be the equivalent to a 30-minute workout. A) I'd get slapped and b) my wife would chase up a tree and set fire to it. Darkmind1970 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My wife has just asked me to point out a mistake in my post above as she's not a violent woman. She would not chase me up a tree and set fire to it. Instead she'd chase me up a tree, throw things at me until I fell out of it and then stomp on me.Darkmind1970 (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, in my opinion, the world needs more callipygian women. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 22:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Robotic overlords
I would feel better about that story if the illustration didn't remind me of those scuttly things from Stargate. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't edit WIGOs without discussing.
Unless a WIGO is blatantly racist, threatening, or unarguably offensive, editing WIGOs without discussion is just bad form, especially when you change the meaning of the WIGO which may then not comport with the link anymore. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed the meaning of the wigo to reflect the article - a man who can afford a million-pound house claims to be homeless? my heart bleeds for him. Also, you don't own what you write here, it's not conservapedia. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was boring having two WIGO'S read the same, and there's many different aspects to that story.  I rewrote it, without apology.   We rewrite WIGO's all the time around these parts.   DogP (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the item.  It was only posted as a response/retaliation to the previous WIGO about a Tory council, and it's obviously divisive.   Frankly, it could be WIGO'd as "Fantastically fair public legal system even allows a defense for obnoxious squatters".   Moving on.   DogP (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The man does not claim to be homeless. He claims (and it is) his house. You can vote a WIGO down, but you cannot delete a WIGO just cuz you don't like it. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why did you delete the one I posted regarding the anti-gay activist caught masturbating in public? MDB (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I absolutely can, and will delete a WIGO I don't like.  Sorry, them's the rules.   And I'm tired of debating Libertarians on the internet today.   DogP (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen
The constant reversions wreck both your articles. Do it the hard way. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 00:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in this article/debate/WIGO outside of it keeps showing up on RC repeatedly. Please sort it out somehow instead of edit-warring to attrition.   00:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What's worse is that this is the worst WIGO I've seen on this page in ages. Seriously - fuck off someplace else. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Cyclone Yasi v. Hurricane Katrina
''So, you thought Katrina was big? She's just a pussy compared to Yasi''

What's with the link text? There is no size comparison in that article. According to the ABC they were more or less the same dimensions and maximum windspeed, although last time I looked at this page Yasi had a stated diameter of 300km: http://www.abc.net.au/news/infographics/cyclone-season-2010-2011/comparison.htm
 * Katrina was category 4 category 4, Yasi was a marginal category 5. However I think the point was that Yasi hit a few small towns and a lot of bananas, while Katrina hit a significant city which had large parts below sea levels and (as it turned out) insufficient levee protection. Carcinate (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Stewart on teachers
Awesome, but he always leaves me wondering whether the people he's calling out are really drinking their own kool-aid or if they're just cynical assholes willing to fellate anything that will keep them on tv. I can't figure out which is worse. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Aliens!?
I'm seeing this story on a lot of the major sites. I assume it's rubbish, but where is it being more thoroughly debunked? 23:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily rubbish. The paper has yet to be published, as well. 00:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears to be written by a real scientist and published in a real journal. One can be sure it will be thoroughly dissected - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Grrrr, it seems that I should start my article about the Journal of Cosmology before someone else does. It has a very fresh article in Wikipedia: wp:Journal of Cosmology. --ZooGuard (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha. Real scientist writing outside his field, not very real journal per PZ - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fox News broke the story, which ought to make one immediately suspicious." - As the cool kids say, "lol". 11:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All is explained - Richard Hoover is not a scientist, but an engineer - David Gerard (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Antitheism vs. Accomodationism
Re this story: Leading Christian and Humanist organisations join forces to call bullshit on claims of unfair religious persecution. Question: Do antitheists see this alliance as a bad thing? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, on the contrary. It's nice to see Christians who are willing to speak out against these bogus claims and criticize their fellow believers. It shows that they're willing to put reason and principles first - not all the way, but at least when it comes to practical matters, where there might be common ground. That's not accomodationism, at least not on the side of the humanists - they didn't compromise their principles at all. If anything, it's probably going to be the fundamentalists who will now level such charges against that Christian group. Röstigraben (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Was Michele Bachmann homskolled?
No, she was not skolled at all. This doesn't top the Hoot-Smalley speech, though it's difficult to do that. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You really had to dig back to April 2009? But yes, Smoot-Hawley was actually opposed by FDR in the 1932 campaign.  Some of the same Republicans who talk about Smoot Hawley are also hypocritically against increased immigration from Mexico.  ConservapediaEditor (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin Bank
To whomever put this WIGO I think you should have made it clear that it was executives at the bank who were supporting walker, not just 10 employees. Just putting down "employees" means it could be any 10 people tellers, branch managers, the ATM gnomes, etc. Jsonitsac (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

NPR gets reamed again
What the fuck? I mean, when did it become not acceptable to call a spade a spade? People are supposed to consider the Teabaggers not racist, not xenophobes? That they're not "gun-toters"? The idea that the GOP has been overrun by the extreme right isn't true? We can't live this lie, this is becoming absurd. I'm sick of this ludicrous lack of backbone on the Left - when is anyone going to stand up, be counted, and speak the truth with strength and pride? Fucking hell, I'm getting really worried about living in this increasingly Libertarian, extremist nation. DogP (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just figured, I think a lot of the problem is that the "left" in the USA is actually what would be "moderate" anywhere else. Moderates have a notable lack of backbone. Really, if you want leftists with a backbone, they're going to be attacked as crazy radicals. For instance, I am a stark socialist, and my views are generally regarded as "evil" and "anti-American". It honestly kind of sucks. -- 15:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to remember that this is a center-right nation. Calling racists racist would be overreaching. /Bobo
 * Also, if you think the Tea Party are racist, you're just nutpicking. A few racist signs does not make all of them racists. In fact, they are not racist. They elected Allen West after all. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh come on... electing a black person is not a proof against racism. That's like some people that say, "I can't be racist, I have a black friend!" People are readily and commonly capable of making a singular exception for their friends/relatives. And thus make responses like "black people are all lazy assholes... oh, but not you George, you're totally an exception." -- 17:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * why was there no tea party during the time of Bill Clinton? He's scarcely different than Obama.  Why is it, that when a black man comes to office, people get so up in arms?  Why do we keep hearing about him being a Muslim?  A kenyan?  Racism is more often subtle,  these days--Brxbrx (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd assume that Fox news wasn't able to drum up the people like it can today.  But back on topic, I agree.  I saw his "terrible" filmed conversation, and was like, "Yeah..  and?"  But the reality is, the Repubs have been trying to neuter NPR for years, and this is just serving as an excuse.  The whole, reality has a liberal bias thing.   18:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Typical socialists, always playing the race card.Well, if you can't make a substantive point, just call other people racists! I'm guessing you just have a deep-seated hatred of white people. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with the tea party is the genius of it's design. No, they're not racist, xenophobes, homophobes, gun-toters or anything else because they're only about taxes and deficit. There are plenty of people who are sane and in the tea party for its stated reasons. Even if the majority of the tea party is racist or homophobic, the tea party doesn't endorse either. Saying otherwise is unsupported and opens yourself up to scrutiny. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right wing racists might all be teabaggers but not all teabaggers are right wing racists. Has there been footage of idiot, racist teabaggers? Yes. But Ill need alot more than simple youtube videos before I paint an entire movement as racist or full of them. The tea party encompasses alot of right thinking people, of course you are going to get a diversity of people in them. This would be true of any sufficiently large group. Can we not just give the majority of the tea party the benefit of the doubt before we start willy nilly throwing around words like racist? The left bitches about the tone of stuff coming from the right, and rightfully so, but the left is sometimes just as susceptible to this bullshit rhetoric also. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 21:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice, I was just lampooning the nutpicking defense above. From Wiki:

Polls have also examined Tea Party supporters' views on race and racial politics. The University of Washington poll of registered voters in Washington State found that 74% of Tea Party supporters agreed with the statement "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it", while a CBS/New York Times poll found that 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites, compared with just 11% of the general public, and that they are more likely to believe Obama was born outside the United States.[64][69][70]A seven state study conducted from the University of Washington found that Tea Party movement supporters within those states were "more likely to be racially resentful" than the population as a whole, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology.[71][72] Of white poll respondents who strongly approve of the Tea Party, only 35% believe that blacks are hard-working, compared to 55% of those strongly opposed to the Tea Party, and 40% of all respondents.[73][74] However, analysis done by ABC News' Polling Unit found that views on race "are not significant predictors of support for the Tea Party movement" because they are typical of whites who are very conservative. ...Various polls have also probed Tea Party supporters for their views on a variety of political and controversial issues. A University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the State of Washington reported that 73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power"


 * Also, too, note some infamous 'bagger candidates: Carl Paladino -- blatantly racist, Tom Tancredo -- blatantly racist, Rich Iott -- Liked to play Nazi on weekends, ran on a platform including deportation of all illegals immediately, Sharron Angle -- just watch some of her campaign commercials. Promotion of ACORN conspiracy theories, FEMA concentration camps conspiracies, black uprising conspiracies, etc. No, not all 'baggers are racist, but a hell of a lot of 'em are, and their leaders are willing to pander to racists big time (see, e.g., the recent spate of birther bills in state legislatures). The nutpicking argument would hold water if it were only some nuts holding "niggar" signs at 'bagger rallies. I'd agree in that case, but it's clearly not the case. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say it's still "nutpicking" but at the same time, it's really easy to pick them out. It's like a dried fruit and nut medley, sure it's not all nuts, but they compose a significant part thereof. -- 23:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No way. Like I said, YouTube videos of some guy holding a "niggar" sign and Pamela Geller's blog would constitute nutpicking if it ended there, but it doesn't. Many of the leaders of this thing are racist or pandering to racism. I even forgot to add all the bogus flyers and intimidation tactics targeting minority voters. Not to mention that the story of the financial crisis according to Republicans (not just the teabaggers) was that poor minorities did it by manipulating "affirmative action" lending laws. (See the banking crisis page for some examples.) We have Bachmann and Boehner pandering to racists and birthers recently. Recent poll: Majority of likely GOP voters are birthers. And Sharia law in Dearborn and Oklahoma, oh my! No, this goes way beyond nutpicking. Post-racial America my ass. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh please.  That teabggers are in the great majority out-and-out racists and xenophobes is hardly news.   Their hatred for Obama is based on the theory that "any middle-aged Christian white guy would do a better job" (anti-black), they resent that he isn't' a regular church-goer (anti-secularist), they're blatantly anti-immigration and pro-Southern Wall-building (anti-Latino), they hate 'Moslems' (anti-Arab), they don't like liberal Europeans (anti-French), they're terrified of the economic rise of China (anti-Asian), they're suspicious of the Russians, (anti-Eastern bloc), hate public health care (anti-most civilised nations).   Show me a non-xenophobic Teabagger and I'll show you a straight banana.   DogP (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, everyone is anti-french. Senator Harrison (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not hear the NPR comments yet, but a knee jerk reaction that any criticism of the President is racist is, well, stupid. There are definitely racial elements to opposition to the President. One only needs to go to FreeRepublic or Conservapedia to see this. However, a great many people oppose Obama on ideological grounds or if not ideological grounds than otherwise objective grounds (high unemployment, high gas prices etc.) It's just as easy to find outrageous Democrats as well, so pointing to two or three Republicans and brandishing the entire conservative movement as racist is illogical. Also, opposition to the Community Reinvestment Act or to public health care is not prima facie racist either and alleging it as such only cheapens real instances of racism.

A majority of this country voted for Obama, but now a majority disapproves of his job performance. Is anyone honestly going to claim that those who changed their political leanings in the past 2 years are racist now just because they oppose the President? Falsely alleging racism only gives cover to real racism. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch, I've had the "race card" card played on me. But that don't fly here -- I've been bashing Obama since before he even got elected. Pointing to two or three Republicans? Try reading my above posts again. Never said anything about HCR or CRA, but the CRA narrative was a clever way to pin the financial crisis on poor minorities (Lee Atwater would be proud). It was a triple-whammy for Repubs: blame it on CRA, that means you take any blame off the banks (gotta keep that Wall $t. dough rolling in), you pin it on a Dem (Jimmy Carter), and you get your welfare queens in there for the trifecta. But wait, there's more! You also get to use thinly veiled racist rhetoric and then whine about people playing the race card. It's a brilliant strategy. But it's still the same as saying "What's so racist about states' rights?" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "why was there no tea party during the time of Bill Clinton? He's scarcely different than Obama. Why is it, that when a black man comes to office, people get so up in arms? Why do we keep hearing about him being a Muslim? A kenyan? Racism is more often subtle, these days"

- let me repeat myself but serioulsy, I don't see what the big deal is. it's this guy's opinion, and he's in charge of fund-raising, not content. should we fire NPR conservatives now (lol if ther're any left ;))--Brxbrx (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how many people of the Tea Party movement even know what the Community Reinvestment Act is, much less spend their time elaborating on the CRA being the cause of the recession. Some have, but to imply this is that common of a narrative implies a greater azsumption of financial knowledge than most people have. However, if you were actually being intellectually honest, you would admit that the CRA never explicitly mentions race. Rather, the law, which was passed in 1977, intended to stop the practice of "redlining". Inerestingly though, according to Wikipedia, redlining began, not with the evil bankers, but by the FDR administration in the 1930s who withheld mortgage capital from their new government housing programs from minority communities that were considered to be "high risk". Wikipedia states that this led to the decay of the inner cities. Fast forward to 1968 when the Federal Fair Housing Act was passed. This law (and not the CRA) became the main law that explicitly forbade racial and other discrimination in housing. There has been no significant criticism of this Act having had an effect on the financial crisis. Rather, most of the criticism revolves around the CRA which was passed 9 years later. The CRA, which by statute is so subjectively enforced by the government when banks come up for regualtory decisions without any real defined standards, has forced the banks to make loans they otherwise would not have made because they were too risky. One example is a local bank here offering a loan for only 3% down in an extremely vacant condo complex just to hope to satisfy the regulators of CRA compliance.

To criticize this practice as being reckless is not racist and allegations of such are sickening as it minimizes true racism. The only reason that people play the race card, as you call it, is because they can't discuss the issues on their merits. On one hand, you want to criticize the banks for having had made risky loans and then when it is explained why many of these loans were made, you allege racism. Liberals sure are a schizophrenic bunch.

Last point: anybody who thinks that there was no, as Hillary Clinton called it in 1998, "vast right wing conspiracy" to deligitimize President Bill Clinton has to be under the age of 18. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is so much wrong in the above post that I'd need quite a few pages to address it, so briefly:


 * Implicating the CRA as a primary or in any way non-negligible cause of the crisis immediately confirms that you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. Even the banks didn't try to use this excuse. You have to believe that "affirmative action lending policy" (and yes, the FHA is implicated in these nonsensical conspiracies as well, just not as often) caused a global financial crisis where the bailouts for banks in the US alone was orders of magnitude larger than the size of the subprime market.
 * The CRA is lynchpin of the "affirmative action policy caused the financial crisis" narrative. Whether or not your average teabagger knows the letters CRA (but they sure as hell know the letters ACORN) I can't say, but listen to what Fox, Limbaugh, et al. are saying. They've been pushing the "poor black people diddit" line since day one, tying in ACORN and Obama along the way of course. The general idea being promoted is that poor minorities pushed Dems into passing these affirmative action regulations that "forced" banks to loan to poor minorities who couldn't afford to repay the loan. (Oh, but when the rich default it's called "strategic default.") This is monumental idiocy and gross willful ignorance at best and pandering to racism at worst. The subtext can't be any clearer: See, this is what happens when you give the poor minorities things. (And of course, we got an affirmative action president after the affirmative action financial crisis.)
 * Do you even understand what a credit default swap is? A collateralized debt obligation? Ratings agencies? Naked short selling? The CFMA? Gramm-Leach-Bliley? The shadow banking system? Fed funds policy? Mark-to-market accounting? Liar loans? Ad nauseam ad infinitum. Might be useful to actually understand the topic before accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Now, you're trying to ever so subtly change the topic hoping I won't notice, Because you can't defend the notion that opposition to the CRA is per se racist, you have now moved on to debating the actual impact of the CRA on the financial crisis.  Of course, the exact overall impact of the CRA on the financial crisis is arguable, but that doesn't absolve you of accusing people of racism wily-nily.  Your statement that the bailouts for banks (which legislatively was less than $1 trillion) was greater than the entire subprime mortgage market (which is well over $1 trillion) is very disputable.  (The Federal Reserve's injections to the monetary base were not bailouts before you try to argue that point.)  Second, CRA loans are also given to prime borrowers, so that point really would have no meaning anyways even if it actually were true.


 * I agree with you that the CRA was not the primary contributor of the financial crisis. It may have played a factor, but probably only at the margins.  That's not what this debate is about.  This debate is about calling people racist who happen to disagree with you on a point that can be very intelligently discussed.  Isn't there a racial corrollary to Godwin's law?


 * To answer your question, I understand what all of those things you had mentioned above are. Now my question is, do you, or were you just trying to throw around some words thinking you actually have any clue what you're talking about?  And another question for extra credit points (going back to the original question that you are so desperately trying to change) what do any of those terms have anything to do with the CRA not explicitly mentioning race?  ConservapediaEditor (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I thought you were trying to argue that it was a major cause, so if we're in agreement on that point, my argument should be easy to see. In fact, the actual substance of the CRA has nothing to do with it -- it's what the mythological wingnut version of the CRA is. The same narrative has been repeated ad nauseam: Policy designed to increase home ownership among poor people and minorities forced banks to make bad loans to these people who couldn't repay them, which caused the financial crisis. CRA is the law implicated as the primary cause with the GSEs backing up the bad mortgages, and Obama and ACORN often get thrown in for good measure. This is the narrative that's been constantly pushed by much of the right-wing media, and of course it misinterprets not only CRA, but the entirety of the financial crisis itself to pin the blame on poor people and minorities. Of course, and we agree, that this is complete bull. Not only is that a point that cannot be intelligently discussed, but one that gleefully disregards all contrary evidence to implicate "affirmative action policy" as the cause. For example, another collection of "blame AA" columns. Their words, in black and white, plain as day.
 * Oh, and if the trillions in loans and toxic assets bought up by the Fed and the GSEs don't count as part of the bailout, well then I've got a bridge to sell ya. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between believing an argument is correct, believing it is incorrect, but it's still reasonable (I fall here with the CRA), and believing it may even be unreasonable but it's been made in good faith. At the very least, I believe an argument labeling the CRA as a contributor to the financial crisis is a good faith argument considering the subtle effects of the law and also because, until I have evidence to the contrary, I will assume good faith.  Presuming bad faith is not a good way to convince people about your position (things I've learned from Wikipedia).  It is a point that can be intelligently discussed (and would be a very interesting discussion), but only if you understand finance and economics (similar to discussing evolution without a basic understanding of biology.)  Avoiding discussion and crying racism is an implicit concession of your point, generally.


 * That being said, the CRA was not a significant cause of the financial crisis, and if anyone wants to ask me why, I can explain.


 * Contrary to conspiracy theories, the Federal Reserve only has the ability to inject liquidity and loan money, not bail out individual entities. Thus, any comparision of the Fed's monetary activity size to size of economic activity is an apples to oranges comparison.  ConservapediaEditor (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)