RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 4 September 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>

, (new)(back)

IQ WIGO

I'm not endorsing this so much as putting it up for discussion. - Ravenhull (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

They could make quite a song and dance about the elitist aspects mentioned in the story. Statistically it's interesting, but of course there's no guarantee that all atheists are more clever than theists any more than one could claim that any given Brit is better at cricket than all Americans. --^{Ask me about your mother} 12:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am proof that IQ is fairly meaningless. I scored near the top during testing by a child psychologist when my Kindergarten teacher wanted me to repeat the year. I was in Mensa briefly during college, along with a stripper, prostitute, a garbage collector and an arcade games repair guy. We were all horribly bored with it in a week. I am a firm believer that a reasonable brain, and a commitment to study is the way to go. Hamster (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The only reason anyone joins MENSA is so they can tell people they're in MENSA. Unfortunately, people stop being impressed by that by the time they hit 20. As for IQ: It's really more a measure of potential (specifically, potential in spatial and abstract thought) than a measure of intelligence. I've met plenty of high IQ morons in my time. Finally, as to the WIGO itself: Kanazawa, the main author of that study, is a world-class crank. Fortunately, most of the folks in the liberal blogosphere seems to recognize this and have washed their hands of the guy. I'm working on some of the hold-outs myself. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Say no more!   ^Contribs_Talk 09:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

CP

I thought this was supposed be a CP-free zone, yet we have several WIGOs with CP snark. Could we please refeain from this, if it doesn't stand on its own as something of interest then leave it out.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. But I'd let the global warming suicide pact thing stand as CPs response to it was quite horrendous - even if the WIGO was set up as "what will Andy think of this?". I'd say to stick in a commented out remind about it, but either people will ignore it, or that in itself would be CP slipping into WIGO:World. ^gnostic 15:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Domestic terror and the media

While people who have been watching Newswipe may remember this, there was an interesting bit where the nature of terrorism and how it's described in the media. Basically, the idea is that there's a set narrative for what a "terrorist" is. And this changes over time whenever there is a major event. In the 80s and early 90s it was all the IRA - terrorists were Irish, wanting independence, generally hating the British for everything. Then in 1995 Timothy McVeigh set off a bomb in Oklahoma and suddenly the media's narrative of a terrorist became domestic, with McVeigh playing the archetype (this was also helped by Waco a few years earlier). Then 9/11 happened and terrorists became Islamic. So the media don't at any time report "terrorist" activity that doesn't fit the current archetype. Post 2001, there have been dozens of domestic terrorist attacks and incidents in the US (including another one in Oklahoma) but they don't get reported. The 2002 Bali bombing was only even reported because of an early connection with Al Qaeda and so on. Anyway, the point is that things like this don't get widely reported if they can't fit into the current "story-arc" (for lack of a better word) that the media present. It's quite sad, but this is the role that the news is currently playing, I'd definitely recommend Newswipe especially for the serious bits where this sort of thing is discussed, I'm going to try and track down the exact episode, I think it's the current series. ^gnostic 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem is, as sad as it sounds, a lack of a body count. Lots of property damage, but not a high body count for people to really rally behind. Not to mention, after 9/11, people don't really want news about an airplane attack. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 00:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why was the underwear bomber a "terrorist?"TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Because he was Islamic, it fits the narrative. While body-count is important, that's only important for when they need to report something outside the established narrative. It's something that grabs the attention so hard it can't be ignored. Hence Oklahoma and 9/11 - which didn't fit the established terrorism model at the time - were capable of changing things. Even still, if a domestic terrorist in the US managed to get a body-count in three figures, it would probably be reported and ignored. Given that there is a two-front war going on, and the current precedent 3000 dead in 9/11 hanging in the background, it might not be enough to shift the media's perception of terrorism back to the domestic front. ^gnostic 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How much of the media's over coverage of Tiger vs its under coverage of this event has to do with the sheer insanity of this Tiger Woods story? Jsonitsac (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What's so insane? world class athlete cheated on his wife, she retaliated violently.... Happens everyday. If it weren't a celebrity with a clean cut image, it would be on page 14 of the local newspaper. SirChuckB^{That is all} 22:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As they're repeating Newswipe and I'm watching the episode I was referencing above, here's the link to Dan Gardner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA2VeSjA45U Also, the 2005 Oklahoma bombing. It's interesting to see that the authorities conclude that Hinrich's wasn't a "terrorist", but as Gardner points out, in 2005 a "terrorist" had to be Muslim - that's narrative. If we can't use the term terrorist to refer to someone who intentionally sets off a bomb, then it's quite clear that it's really just a euphemism for getting rid of Islam. ^gnostic 20:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Obama vs. the Supreme Court

The President has no business criticizing a Supreme Court ruling in his official capacity. If President Bush had criticized one of the court rulings against the Patriot Act in a SOTU address, I think most of us would have been up in arms. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The President has every right to critize the court, just as much as he (or she) has the right to attack Congress and vice versa. How about the eight million times conservative presidents have attacked the Roe V. Wade decision? The President and the Supreme Court are frequently at odds with each other, and this is nothing new. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 19:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The President is sworn to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law in a constitutional manner. If he disrespects a court ruling, it is not the same as if he attacks Congress, because it implies that he is willing to disregard constitutional strictures. The conservative presidents should not have attacked Roe v. Wade either. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Saying that he disagrees with a decision isn't undermining the constitution. Are you saying he shouldn't be allowed to disagree with a vote in congress, or for that matter, that every congressman should be forced to agree with a vote once it has been taken even if they disagreed with it? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

He is sworn to uphold the constitution and enforce the law. He didn't swear to not criticize the SCOTUS. I once knew a guy who tried to censor criticism of branches of the government...turns out that guy was a Red. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I just said that he has no business doing it, not that he should not be allowed to do it. Disagreeing with a vote in Congress is not a problem, since abiding by those votes follows from sticking within constitutional strictures. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You to stop people from doing things the constitution allows them to do, we get it... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction: I want people to stop doing disagreeable things that are permitted by the Constitution and the law. No coercion about it. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I remember a guy who wanted me to stop doing constitutional things he disagreed with, but he didn't try to coerce me. Instead, he gave me these pamphlets to try and do it for him. I think they were red. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you disagree with my asking the contributors at aSK to stop begging for blocks? ListenerX^TalkerX 20:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Asking for blocks? No, not really. wp:wp:Point making? Yes, I do disagree. If discussion fails on WP, you have sensible mediation and dispute resolution. If discussion fails on ASK, proving your point experimentally is the next most viable alternative. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

But I do not suppose you want to stop me from asking them? ListenerX^TalkerX 21:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

...have you been taking me seriously again? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but it is fun to see where logical progressions from random goofiness can lead. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My bad. +1 for ListenerX. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Salt

If memory serves Pratchett mentioned something about "autocondimenters. Not sure which book but apparently there was a study by McDonalds. By eliminating seasoning from their burgers they saved a fortune. 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

It was about Mustrum Ridcully, I'm almost certain, but I can't remember which book either. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The McDonald's bit was mentioned in the Science of Discworld. - π 21:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WowWow sauce comes to mind. 21:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

3D cloak

I find it funny that those guys specifically worked to remove the "bump", yet the bump has been a consistent feature of invisibility devices in movies. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly Health Care Bill WIGO

"ABORTION TSUNAMI!" _{That is all.} The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ann Coulter speech at Ottawa U

A front page story for the Ottawa Citizen (and Metro News Ottawa) shows Ann Coulter complaining that her speech is being threatned by Criminal Charges, despite the University of Ottawa not knowing about the speech. After checking her wikipedia page and noticing her post 9/11 quote, most likely her speech would skirt along Canadian anti-hate laws. But she insists that Canada is targetting Conservatives. So yeah... --15.195.201.87 (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, Coulter should take a camel. --15.195.201.87 (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that this plays right into Coulter's arms. It gives her basis to claim persecution, and her followers well eat up every single word of it. MDB (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ann Coulter still has followers? I thought she'd been demoted to third string. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 17:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I would submit that someone who focuses almost entirely on US politics, and her few references to Canada have been contemptuous, and can still get invited to speak in Canada, has some followers. MDB (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that means she has followers, I think that means she's been successful at promoting herself. Conservative's always bring in controversial figures to speak on campus, regardless of their merit. On the Auraria campus, we've had some conservative speakers that weren't even worth their parking vouchers, but they were spewing something hateful so the local groups brought them in. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 18:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Oops CS Miller (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How the RNC spends its cash

I'm not brave or clever enough to write a WIGO but this could prove interesting. --NotANumber (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

MIT "morality can be altered" WIGO

Well, there goes dualism down the drain where it belongs! Awesome WIGO! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Guardians of the Free Republics

Not sure where exactly they fit on a political chart. I think on a scale reading left to right, they would be lunar. I love this little bit, considering their recent action:

Do all of the above, and more, peacefully, discreetly, quietly and honorably, behind the scenes, without public proclamations or provocative actions against a general public that is mostly unaware of the hijacking of their free de jure American republics, and their hapless media.

Overall, yet another bunch of nuts out there, this batch being anti-'corporate', and pro-soveriegnty... - Ravenhull (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I read their web page and my first thought was "Poe". Green Giant (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Poe's usually don't send letters to 30 governors. That said, my guess is that this group would be lucky if their membership is in the double didgits. Note, their 'Rationels' page cited restoration of Biblical law... -Ravenhull (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Links would be nice... ħuman 05:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Roxxxy

Do you think Roxxxy the sex robot has an "uncanny valley" ;-) ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.143.17.187 / talk / contribs}

Dunno, but in the picture with the news story it looks like she's had a stroke. --Kels (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Pun intended, right Kels? -- Vradient^{Hit me up} 00:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I admit nothing! --Kels (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

death

The new death WIGO is flawed. It is an opinion piece by a journalist, not scientist, and the scientist in the interview admitted there wasn't the evidence to make the statement. Following the scientific pov involves listening to him, not the journalist. If an afterlife had been disproven on the 26th march, we'd all know. And before you ask, yes I'm an atheist Tweety (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what you are. You're taking this way too seriously. Vote it down, move along... P-Foster (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

EC)And? Use the vote arrows, don't unilaterally delete any WIGO. Read the line above the entries. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 16:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have suggested elsewhere that you look at negative proof.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand negative proof bob, as I've said, I'm an atheist so am not disagreeing with the concept. What I disagree with is the presentation as fact, it borders on pseudoscience. If there was some evidence supplied I'd agree with the inclusion, but it's just stating a common theory. It's the kind of thing that gives us a bad reputation. Arguing from reason is better than claimed proof, that's for the religious. And I stated my atheism to prevent misunderstanding of my intent Tweety (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think it's bad you can vote down and make a comment here. You can start a debate page. You can write an essay. What you can't do is delete it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Why? Validity or convenience? It may reflect our views, but that's no reason to peddle shite Tweety (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

FAFUXAKE: it's a report of an opinion, if you don't like it, vote it down (which last time I looked you hadn't). That's the way it's done. Report and comment. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the way the site is run then make a point at community standards. If the community agrees (or cares) and feels promoted to adjust the way the site runs so that it is satisfactory to you then you may unilaterally delete such items. Until then, do not delete WIGO's you disagree with. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. You're the crats. I just hoped this site was based on objective evidence. Tweety (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll explain this with small words. WIGO is for people to share stories that they find interesting for a variety of reasons. WIGOs on their own do not imply that any user or the community at large agrees or disagrees with the material contained in the WIGO--we vote on them to express our agreement, disagreement, enjoyment, hatred, or sense of coolness/lameness of any given WIGO. P-Foster (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm new and still learning the ropes. And small words? Please don't patronise Tweety (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

St Matthew's WIGO

The sad thing is, I think that's a very good point being made there. Then again, I've been a fan of JCSuperstar and Judas's openner does a good job of making the same kind of point. Ravenhull (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the wigo says, "Heaven on Their Minds" positively rocks and always has. ħuman 05:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

New skeleton found

From this article:

"The missing link between humans and their ape-like predecessors could be filled in this week with the unveiling of a 2 million-year-old skeleton believed to be that of a new species of evolutionary primate, according to the London Telegraph."

While this isn't proof of anything, in time more and more fossils will be found that further support evolution. So I pose a question: Is there any amount of evidence that could convince someone like Andy or Ed or Ken or any fundamentalist Christian to accept evolution? Keegscee (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. I should have known that was a stupid question. My apologies. Keegscee (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a stupid question, it's one we probably all ask ourselves from time to time. Sadly, the answer is simple. Like Ed and Andy et al. ħuman 02:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions about Moving the goalposts are not stupid, especially if you don't know it by name. In this case, you'll simply see yet another request for a transitional fossil between the new skeleton and adjacent species on the evolution chain. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

the simple answer is that no amount of proof will ever open their eyes. they have their blinders on, and their blinders say yahweh created the world in 7 days, ~6000 years ago. even though most creationist will say something like "there's no missing link" (or the god of the gaps argument), when confronted with another answer that comes from science, invariably, creationists will just ignore. ^{— Unsigned, by: Diavolos / talk / contribs} 19:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE DOUBLE CHECK THIS

Comments: linking to WP might not be the greatest idea on a breaking news story. try to use their sources. Also, all that bolding isn't usually how we write these, although it might make sense here. Otherwise, everything seemed coherent as far as I could Schlafly-skim it. Further thought - get the strong links in early, the WP-ish support info later. Keep in mind WP is not a newspaper or a history book, and as a wiki can be very volatile. ħuman 06:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

PS, I forgot to say "thank you for taking the trouble to post this". Thank you. ħuman 06:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about linking to Wikipedia, but I haven't gotten much sleep (my eternal excuse) and I wasn't sure what the best news link would be this early on. I thought it would be best for the "what is wikileaks" and "what is this about" links to be basic information dumps with further links, even ones that weren't stable. I appreciate that the WIGO stories are being archived both by month and via "best of", but I have to admit that this particular feature of RW is not the one I see most likely to useful as a historical reference (that is to say, immediate accuracy and clarity isn't a high priority, even for a notable story like this).

If nobody else edits the entry while I'm asleep tonight (and I fully welcome it), I'll check what news sites have the most thorough coverage in the morning and clean the paragraph up a bit. Will probably have a clearer eye towards effective sentence structure without bolding/italics as well. Thanks for the review. Megaten (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and maybe it can become an article over time? Yes, wigos essentially "go away" eventually. Thanks again. ħuman 08:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Polish President Lech Kaczynski + 97 others die in plane crash

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_plane_crash - SMOLENSK, Russia – Polish President Lech Kaczynski and some of the country's highest military and civilian leaders died on Saturday when the presidential plane crashed as it came in for a landing in thick fog in western Russia, killing 97. Refugee^{talk page} 17:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Arresting the freaking pope

Okay, so Hitchens and Dawkins want to put a case together. I think that's awesome. However, I've been reading comments to the effect that people think they're just being self-agrandising pricks and not really doing it for justice, just as publicity. I can see where they're coming from but I don't think it holds too much. Firstly, the comments that say such an action should be left to the civil authorities don't hold because it's very clear that the civil authorities aren't going to do anything about it. It's often "self aggrandising pricks with axes to grind" that are the soul cause of any progress. Would people levy the same comment to Martin Luther King Jr when it was clearly a case for the civil authorities to create racial equality? Probably not. Secondly, they're not just "making a point" for the sake of it, they're making a bloody good point. That just because this man is the head of a religion, he's somehow immune from criticism or arrest. Horseshit, in a fair and just world this sick fuck would be langishing in a jail cell with every other fucker who was told to rape children by an imaginary friend. Civil authorities aren't going to do this, the population at large aren't going to deliver the swift mob-based justice they're known for, so we may as well hope Dawkins and Hitchens can pull this off. ^gnostic 13:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Two words: Papal infallibility. SJ ^Debaser 13:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately he's a "head of state" under diplomatic immunity while visiting the UK. Though what a pissant little place like the vatican is doing with statehood always amazes me. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 13:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

See also ^{Hat tip yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 13:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank Mussolini for that one. As I said in the CP WIGO, I doubt anything will come of this, but if it does, it will be absolutely fascinating from a legal standpoint and hilarious from a fundie-bashing one. Webbtje (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the better question is "will the Pope resign if Hitchens/Dawkins/others keep putting pressure on him?" Benedict is taking a lot of flak, but Papal resignation is still an unprecedented gray area. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Times story: Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI is one hell of a headline. Unfortunately, he said no such thing. This is not the first time that words been put in his mouth, and it probably won't be the last. On the other hand, he does have strong views on the subject.

I linked to that above (see also). ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 16:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Code Pink did it first. 208.38.192.199 (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to see it from Dawkins' own mouth on his website, actually. Possibly yes, nothing will come of it but it needs to be shown that the Pope is an asshat and is far from immune or infallible. ^gnostic 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Waltke's "resignation"

Interesting analysis ^{Hat tip yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 12:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Chemical warfare tests

Nothing new really. People in my home town are still pissed about the secret tests involving spraying cadmium on the population. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Tory billboards WIGO

Sorry Armondikov, but I voted it down, purely because I think this is pretty funny! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But it's the ONLY one!! ^gnostic 23:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This one being a distant, distant second in the level of wit. ^gnostic 23:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I farted. This page has been gas attacked by SuperJosh. Sorry.

I like the one that says "I've never voted Tory before... because I'm not a cunt." Juvenile indeed, but I've never considered myself a recipient of high-brow humour. SJ ^Debaser 23:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

More disclaimers like this please

"*STANDARD REG SCIENCE QUALITY WARNING: The chance that we are following this correctly is roughly equivalent to that of a man with no arms throwing a handful of jelly through a falling doughnut at fifty yards without touching the sides." [1] 16:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)}

Sexy Kids

Did anybody catch the dateline on that Bishop of Tenerife article? It's Dec 27, 2007, a bit late to be included here, no? Jsonitsac (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I commented o it on SB a while ago. 16:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)}

30 months old or not, it still reflects on the RC church's Neutralization of the issue. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Relate Counsellor and gay clients

My fvaourite bit of the article

“”Lord Justice Laws said legislation for the protection of views held purely on religious grounds cannot be justified. He said it was irrational and "also divisive, capricious and arbitrary".

Yay!!!! Jack Hughes (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I almost included that quote in the WIGO. You gotta love it! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence in that a rather good summing-up of religion. It is good to see this kind of response. Allow this guy to refuse to work with gays and really there's no reason why he shouldn't also insist on not having to work with white or handicapped people. --^{Ask me about our fritter} 15:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the earlier story is interesting. This chump's barrister seems to have suggested that denying his client the right to be a bigot could lead to "civil unrest". A thinly veiled threat, and it makes as much sense as arguing that refusing to under-age sex could lead to an armed uprising by Catholic clergy. I'm assuming that meat puppet client is a bit more flexible with his beliefs when it comes to things that don't make him feel icky or would otherwise be hassle for him. --^{Ask me about our flightdeck} 15:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, today's NewsTechnica (set to post at ~17:45 UTC) will be running with the theme - David Gerard (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Too fat to fight

This is likely to get conservatives into a tizzy. Some top former US generals are stating that money needs to be spent on poorer kids to improve their health, so they can then sign up. Spend money on the working class... No. --- Help our armed services... Hell Yes! --- Can't rationalise..... On a more serious note, this is why the welfare service and NHS started in Britain, as during WWI and WWII a lot of the conscripts were too malnourished to fight well. CS Miller (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting aside to that. Was reading the Rise & fall of the 3rd Reich a while back and the author commentated that after fall of France the difference between the healthy, tanned German soldiers and the British troops, with their bad teeth, sunken chests and sallow complexions was marked.

Another aside, wasn't there a report sometime that video games were improving kids' hand-eye co-ord so they could operate modern weapons better. I guess the converse to that is they got fat, sitting on the couch, learning that co-ord. --PsyGremlinTala! 09:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's my take: Yes. The soldiers that we are getting are, by and large (no pun intended), completely out of shape. Note that I said "out of shape", not necessarily "too fat to fight". Weight control is a HUGE (again, no pun intended) deal in the U.S. Army. The weight standards are completely out of whack, though. Capable soldiers are being processed out of the service because they class into the "overweight" category. The emphasis needs to be on more exercise, not lower weight. When a unit is boots on the ground in a combat zone, they need soldiers who are at ease under heavy loads and with enough stamina to operate for hours or possibly even days at a time. The vast majority of the kids we receive have no problem with simply meeting the absolute minimum requirement for passing the physical fitness test. They seem to think of it as "That's all I need to do so that's all I WILL do." Yes, the minimum standard is above what the "Average Joe Six-Pack" can do (push-ups, sit-ups, 2-mile run), but it really underprepares the individual for the demands of combat operations (i.e., more lift and carry, crawl and distance walk, and short, controlled sprints, etc.). In the long run, physical fitness is a window into the soldier's capabilities that can be used as a tool for gauging a unit's strengths and weaknesses. If PVT Snuffy is overweight and just barely passing (or failing horribly at) his PT test, I can almost guarantee you that he is going to be a problem in theater. The unit will be waiting for him as he lags behind on foot patrols, he will be exhausted and useless when he reaches the objective during a raid or cordon and search, he will fall asleep on the screen line or the observation post. Do the fittest of the fit ever do these things? Of course they do. On occasion. PVT Snuffy, with his lack of will for physical improvement and poor eating habits, however, will also undoubtedly be less motivated to memorize battle drills, learn report formats, and self-enforce standing operating procedure. He'll do the absolute minimum that is required of him to maximize his XBox time on his bunk.

On the flip side, if you give me a guy of any weight class (not morbidly obese, but I can work with an "overweight" guy) who is consistently pushing himself to his absolute limit and then trying to squeeze an extra grunt or two out on top of that during PT, and watching what he eats to ensure he has the highest degree of nutrition (kind of hard to do in Army chow halls, but I digress) he can be a NLNGer (no loss no gain) and still be a force multiplier in the unit. He will have the perseverance to not accept flagging or slacking in front of his peers. He will have the drive to push through the mission at 100% peak efficiency and "just be tired later". Those characteristics will carry over into the rest of his military bearing as well. He'll be more motivated to learn the drills and be able to exercise them at peak efficiency. He will want to take control of his own development and memorize the regs and so on...

I'm just sayin'. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Economics of wind farms

David Gerard already posted a report on wind far economics via The Oil Drum blog, over in WIGO Blogs, but I think it deserves a wider audience. CS Miller (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

George Alan Rekers and rentboys

This entry was posted with the wrong poll number - 677 instead of 1677. I have corrected it but it means there were votes cast for wrong WIGO.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

ugh!! Humiliations galore. Eyeaskew (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Neanderthal DNA

Wow! So "Clan of the Cave Bear" was right! </snark> --PsyGremlinSermā! 20:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

1000 point stock market drop

I think there's something to be said that President Obama, Secretary Geithner, and team maintained their composure today and did not react like chickens with their heads cut off. Thankfully, the days of the Greenspan put are over, one of the policies which I believe contributed to the financial meltdown. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Be interesting to see the effects on the Japanese and British stock markets by the time Wall Street wakes up tomorrow. I wish these fuckers would quit ruining my economy. ħuman 02:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Should the Obama approval poll be removed?

I think it gives a great insight about how RationalWikians feel about Obama, but we should discuss this poll. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Errrr. Why? Because it's not an actual "event" or something?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have explained in more detail why it was commented out. Take a look at RationalWiki:Best of the world and note how the vote entry doesn't make sense. WIGO entries normally provide news, ideally with links to a source, but in this case what we're left with is a question divorced from any way of responding to it (the arrows don't appear on the "best of" page. Maybe it's worth a debate page or a poll on the Saloon Bar? --ConcernedResident ^{Pontiac for the ladies} 19:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think something like belongs elsewhere. A talk page like here, or perhaps a debate or forum page. Although it does seem to have attracted a lot of votes! ħuman 19:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why that would be Huw? Somebody rigging the poll? It certainly doesn't belong here anyway.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, probably easier to vote on than anything that requires "click and read) is all. ħuman 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I do see there's a precedent (20-10 vs 2000-10). Maybe we should discuss this in general? ħuman 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, commenting it out does not take it off Bestof. I have to do that manually. -- Nx / talk 19:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If we agree to remove these polls (I think we should) can we ask you nicely to do so? And maybe we should add something to the instructions reflecting this, if we decide on it? ħuman 01:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There's always the Pointless Polls. The WIGO system is good for events and stories but I don't think it's the place for polling the mob. ^gnostic 01:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Especially considering people aren't even dating these things. ħuman 01:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Next wigo world id number borken

I've submitted two entries here recently using the 'Next Wigo World poll number' link, and it always produces an incorrect number. That is all. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 19:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm....definitely saw it produce a wrong number, but not now.. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 19:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck, Martin Gardner died

And all we have is some lame wigo? With an ugly green banner? !!!!! ħuman 10:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Shit, I miss the bastid already. And seriously, what's up with the puke green header? ħuman 10:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Note new, better WIGO text - David Gerard (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I mucked up your version. ħuman 11:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll add it to his article then ;-p - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Arse, why couldn't we send someone else in his place? --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 11:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, he was 95 and motivated a world of geeks. I think that's called "a life successfully lived" - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It was a good life, but I'd still prefer to have sent a few other people in his place. Pat Robertson for one, and perhaps whoever it was who invented that difficult to open hard plastic packaging for headphones. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 11:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this. Fuck. Wherever he is now, I hope there's lots of math. MDB (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

MMR part 2,995,237

RE: Andrew Wakefield stuck off Okay. Good. But still' the reporting goes slightly awry in places. I could article-ify this in some way:

• Myth: "Wakefield's paper sparked the MMR scare"
• Reality: The paper was released in 1998. The "scare" didn't start until at least two years later when Wakefield announced the findings at a conference. Because conference papers This was picked up my the media at large which then blew it out of proportion.
• Myth: "The results were later discredited"
• Reality: The results consisted of thirteen children with behavioural difficulties (aka "autism") being examined. Wakefield claimed to find traces of the MMR vaccine (as the measles virus) in their colons in about half of them. These results weren't discredited as they didn't have much credit to begin with. Follow up studies performed elsewhere were discredited, however, after it emerged that the methods used to detect the measles virus were generating too many false positives.

^gnostic 10:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Full timeline here 12:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday's Chicago rally seems to have been a bit of a flop 11:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much the nutters, but the larger group of parents worried just enough about side-effects and not enough about disease. Broccoli (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a good reason for that. Basically, people aren't built to deal with actual facts, we have to make inferences based on things that grab our attention. If something is present and we can relate to it, it grabs our attention more. So a disease that has almost been wiped out by vaccination just means nothing to people. We've totally eradicated small pox, so if someone said there was a risk of it coming back people would respond with "meh". On the other hand, because of films and TV, and graphic news reports, if someone even hints at Ebola, there's hell on, even though it's not particularly virulent or dangerous to a large population (it is a pretty gruesome one, though). The same kind of happened with BSE, even though you were more likely to die by eating beef then being subsequently struck by lightning (okay, I pulled that statistic out of my ass, but it's just for illustration) people went mental, because the disease was publicised and looked particularly gruesome. Same with the "flesh eating" bacteria. Same with MRSA, really. On the other side of the coin, we have measels, mumps, rubella, flu and so on, prevalent and dangerous but out of the public eye - no one gives a shit because the Daily Mail doesn't tell them to give a shit. Back on the hysterical side of this coin and we can talk about the unwanted side effects of the medication. The wanted effects of vaccines have worked, but they've worked so well that people forget that these diseases are real and dangerous, and this opens the door for people to harp on about side-effects as if they're equally dangerous or more dangerous than the disease the medication prevents. A story of a mother saying how their kid just "got autism" after a vaccine resonates with people more than any amount of doctors, statistics and facts saying otherwise. So there aren't really nutters, just people who are, unfortunately, human. ^gnostic 12:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Earlier entries

Does anyone want an earlier entries like on WIGO CP, someone dose seem to keep adding on? I would like to know in advance because the way it keeps getting done now is just going to upset WIGO bot when I archive this at the end of the month. - π 06:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

light at end of tunnel WIGO

Maybe. A couple of scientists believe that's what it is, but they're just guessing. They really don't know because they lack evidence. But we won't let that stop us from portraying it as settle science! ^{— Unsigned, by: 208.38.192.199 / talk / contribs}

What? I don't care I just needed a time stamp. - π 10:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

To whoever put in the Coleman Wigo

Not cool.... Seriously.... A person's death is not an occasion for mockery, laughter or political points. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 07:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It is WIGOs like that one that make me glad I have 5 IP address. - π 08:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

1. They couldn't even spell "world" for the poll ID. 2. It was so stupid I commented it out. ħuman 08:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You can vap it if they didn't spell world correctly, it won't upset the system. - π 08:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. ħuman 08:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It was very considerate of them to foul up the wigo that badly. - π 10:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

He was only, what, 42? It's freaky seeing people younger than oneself cast off this mortal coil... ħuman 11:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't mean to be offensive towards Gary. As for the misspelling of world, well that was me just being stupid. Sorry for the bad one. Jsonitsac (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That is okay, it wasn't the worst thing ever. We do comment on Conservapedia about this sort of thing, so we need to keep our house clean. Plus it is better to be respectful and unfunny, then needlessly insensitive. - π 12:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Spelling Fix

The last two wigo entries before the one I just added about the African Gay Couple were spelled incorrectly. They were entered as "wrold." I don't know if I screwed everything up, but I fixed the spelling, sorry if it does. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 08:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Teabagger WIGO

I'm not sure how the other questions were posed, but that one seems oddly leading. It would have been more fair to ask if blacks should have equal rights, rather than asking if they should equal rights to succeed. The wording implies some kind of advantage, and that's kind of leading people in to what can be an unintentionally silly position. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 22:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Macs

They still suck. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ do do da de do da de 14:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Good it's not just me.... My first thought upon reading that was "oh good, the pretentious college kid market is still thriving." SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 17:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that they suck - per se - it's just that we can get something that sucks just as badly for a third of the price. ^gnostic 10:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

All the cool kids use Linux. - π 06:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Macs do not suck! How else would I get my fix of smug self-satisfaction and faux hipness? MDB (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

But Macbook Pros make you look creative!! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I type this message from my Macbook Pro. It's only fucked up about twelve times in the nine months I've owned it. SJ ^Debaser 11:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Only. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My Windowns XP aint given me a moment of problems. Aceⁱ⁹ 11:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Josh, you fail at MacBook Pro. Mine is working fine - despite its fairly tough life. My iMac is another matter, but in fairness, its been dismantled and rebuilt from cannibalised machines. The cool kids use OpenBSD. XP is fine in the sense that a car with the brake pedal conveniently located in the boot works. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 11:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll be thanking that brake is in the boot after you have been beaten, trussed up and tossed in the back. Aceⁱ⁹ 11:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of windows servers I have looked after: 9, total number hacked / infected: 0. Number of *nix servers I have looked after: 5, number hacked / infected: 2. And yes, that's with patches applied daily. Sorry mac / linux dorks, but you're running off a 10 year old stereotype. Oh, and Apple are the big evil corporation now, not Microsoft. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

-Technology eh? Two steps forward, one step back.

-Keeps me in business.

-That it does! That it does... SJ ^Debaser 11:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Crundy, I'm not sure vague anecdotes are any better than stereotypes. I could draw the conclusion that you're terrible at maintaining Unix systems, or that your Windows boxes are providing nothing by DNS servers while the Unix boxes provide a far wider range of services outside of the firewall. It pretty much all comes down to what you prefer using, how and why its being deployed, and the expertise you have. Unix and Unix-like systems vary a great deal and it's kind of meaningless to group then together in anything but a very superficial comparison. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 11:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Statistics >>>>>>>> anecdotes > stereotypes. - π 11:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't matter how good a system's security features are, when the user will disable all warnings and safety measures and click through all security prompts to install FREE smileys. -- Nx / talk 11:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

NaughtyXenophobe is right! Aceⁱ⁹ 11:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Rush and Elton

How odd... Elton John performed at the marriage of someone who thought his marriage would destroy the sanctity of marriage, someone who was getting married for the fourth time, to a bride twenty six years younger than him. MDB (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And you'd think $1,000,000 is nothing for Sir Elton. Seems like an awfully low price. Jsonitsac (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow... seems like a paltry amount to sell out for. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I'd say "sell out" (as to any pop/rock star who'll play a celebrity party gig, something just seems wrong about doing that) but I don't really care much for Elton John either way to make such a bold statement. Yeah, seems odd that a very proud gay pop-star would play for someone who is that far into social conservatism; that said, Limbaugh has never done or said anything explicitly homophobic or any kind of jibe. If it was Elton playing at Richard Littlejohn's wedding, I'd take note. Otherwise, meh, really. ^gnostic 19:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In the real world, the corporate and rich-people gig circuit is where musicians who were ever, ever famous for anything actually make some fucking money. See this article by Mike Edwards of Jesus Jones on the joys of being flown out somewhere and paid a bucket of cash to play a single song. Sure beats thrashing the roads in the back of the van. "And that's the council tax bill settled for another year." - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point, of course - but I already knew that. It's where a lot of these guys make their living after their record sales have been replaced with pirated mp3s. But that doesn't stop me feeling a little odd about the situation (hey, ape with pretensions here!). ^gnostic 19:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

They do too. "Asking friends in the music industry about other examples throws up a sonic cathedral of "You absolutely cannot quote me" and "You can't name names". These days, it seems you can pretty much buy anyone if you have the money, but no one else must know." They know they're being whores. But damn they're well paid ones. At last - David Gerard (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as needing the money goes, Elton was pretty well known in the past for profligate spending. I'm not sure if that's changed recently, but it's possible he needed a million.

And it's not the first time he's performed with homophobes -- he performed with Eminem at the Grammies. MDB (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Eminem is a character, the real Marshall Mathers isn't nearly as extreme. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 17:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

World cup gold!

I know Martyn Poliakoff!! (that is all) ^gnostic 14:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In memoriam...

... for Touchdown Jesus (aka Big Butter Jesus)

MDB (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully the Hustler store down the street is alright. Did God miss or something?Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 14:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

American captured in Pakistan

Now that is some serious Machismo. We breed extra chis here in Colorado. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 21:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Overdose fail

Overdose fail, indeed. Traumeel is far from "no active ingredient" homeopathy as it's stated concentrations are between 3X and 8X - which if we use this clever table shows that there should be something in there. However, I decided to dig a little more anyway. Traumeel's website cites 8 papers to prove that it works. Interestingly, I can't seem to find these papers anywhere! Well, I can find the one in Clinical and Developmental Immunology but it seems a little off, the phrases are there, but it's not a controlled study. Indeed, it's very much an in vitro study, which Ben Goldacre readers will be well weary of, as tipping stuff into petri-dishes isn't exactly the same as it working in the body. The rest are mostly from a journal called Biological Therapy and I can't seem to find that, ISI and PubMed certainly don't index it. It's also interesting what the site doesn't quote as studies. Notably the most authoritative work, the Cochrane review that basically concluded "meh" and the most recent, which was placebo-controlled and double-blind which concluded negative too. Compare this with a recent study in an explicitly alternative medicine journal that concludes that it works but is a study a 10th the size and isn't controlled, yet alone blinded. ^gnostic 09:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned the story should be headlined "Fucked up young person fucks up". As the parent of a fucked up young person I wonder lots about the back story. Whilst having a laugh at her stupidity is fun if she's for real then my heart goes out to her, however privileged her background. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also the story is 6 months old. - π 10:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You can overdosze on homeopathic pills by taking half a one. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Logically speaking, not taking them at all should be a lethal dose. --Gulik (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The age of WIGO:WORLD stories often doesn't bother me, BTW, although really old stuff could do with it's own page just as a "link repository" - but between all the WIGOs I think that's a little too much and can probably be dealt with by the SB. And yes, someone overdosing is tragic regardless. I don't care for the comments of "oh but she's soooo privileged" and stuff. Yes, people have worse deals I'm sure, but what causes individual torment is often very relative as it's often caused by some sort of culture shock, where your situation changes, so going from the life of a multimillionaire to someone who earns "only" thirty grand a year is as big an impact (relatively) as someone who earns thirty grand taking a cut to fifteen or someone on a fairly low level wage going unemployed (I use the financial example just as a point, because figures make sense). If you see what I mean. ^gnostic 19:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a fabulous little article in my last Psych textbook about the rates of suicides seen in the upper classes. The author made some great points about how rich people often have higher rates of depression and suicide. We live in a culture (America is the worst, but others aren't far behind) that tend to think the key to happiness is money and fame. Well, these people have money and fame and they're not happy (big surprise) So aside from the depression they're already suffering, they have this little voice in the back of their head (or worse, a friend) telling them that there's something wrong with them, they have it all, how could they be depressed, etc. Which makes them even worse because they feel abnormal..... SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 22:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A very interesting way of putting it. There really is nothing worse than feeling crap and being told you have no reason to feel crap. Sometimes you really don't have a reason and then you just feel like you're whining for the sake of it and that just sets off the loop even worse. ^gnostic 11:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Operation "Top Kill" fails

This is a weird one to vote on. I voted it "down" because it sucks that it failed, not because it's a bad wigo. Color me confused. ħuman 02:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Blame Rachel Maddow for jinxing it. If it weren't for her report saying that the top-kill, sombrero, skimmers, and booms weren't effective in the 1979 spill, it would have worked in the 2010 spill as well. --Sigma 7 (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I keep thinking we need a :)/:( poll, as well as the up-down one we have now. --Gulik (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Cameron cutie

I see she was involved with a "Mr Dinsdale". Can our own SpinyNormal account for his whereabouts lately... --PsyGremlin話しなさい 16:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Catholic

Interesting that the Vatican acts so possessive over the dead men's tombs in Belgium, while simultaneously disavowing any connection with real living abuse in Kentucky. Some sort of double standard going on? 19:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What did they expect to find in the tombs? A big stash of kiddie porn? ^{— Unsigned, by: 77.86.115.165 / talk / contribs}

Can't really deny that it'd be a good place to hide something you want hidden, whatever it may be. X Stickman (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Iceland

Is truly civilised (& bankrupt but that's another story) with the PM getting wed to her same-sex partner. They're also gonna be the first to outlaw the stupid libel crap that bedevilled such as the UK. 12:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah they did kind of screwed up buying all those C grade bank credits though. Whilst I can see the upside pf what they are doing, Iceland is probably going to become a haven for controversialist writers and host to webservers for racist websites. - π 13:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Aussie banker

Surely this is a case of putting the cart in front of the horse - "She claimed that management indicated that she was too beautiful and had breasts too large for the clothes she was wearing."  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's a variant on the standard rapist excuse of "She was asking for it, going around with breasts like that." Jack Hughes (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Research 2000 poll-cooking

The takeaway here, of course, is that you can't bullshit your way around the laws of statistics any more than you can the laws of physics or biology.

But IIRC, that poll showing vast numbers of Republicans believing Obama was foreign or a Muslim? R2K for Daily Kos. Do we cite that anywhere? We need to cite that it's actually now questionable - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This poll - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Female circumcism WIGO

What the FUCK? Paedophiles the world over are jealous that they didn't come up with an idea like that which allows them to legally use vibrators on 6 year olds. The mind boggles. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I just really want to know what Ethics departmant ok'd this one.... Or for that matter, HOW BATSHIT CRAZY DO THE PARENTS HAVE TO BE TO ACCEPT THIS???????? Ok, I need to calm down and relax, but at least I'm not the only one ready to personally beat the shit out of this guy. SirChuckB^{Please Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes} 09:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Might try that on the wife next time I know I'm not getting any. "Look, I know you're not in the mood, but I just need to test your sensitivity with this vibrator purely in the interests of science. Now get 'em off and lie down". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I know the follow up sounds a bit sick... but what about the Mengelian who mutilated these girls in the first place??? Where can I vote that monster into jail? ħuman 10:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fidel Castro alive?

I just came across this, posted just a few minutes ago. Photos of Castro have appeared, and they are claimed to have been taken on Wednesday. Real? Fake? I hope it's real (aw hell, course it is); it'll get all those who claim that he's dead something to nag at, primarily Andy. I'm sure that they'll be denying that its real until the very last second. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Start the countdown

How long before Ernest J. Pagels Jr. is caught in flagrante delicto with trade and a porno DVD in a motel room? The clock is ticking... DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Palin 2012

Oh please let it happen. Please please please! Totnesmartin (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts about that keep coming back to the old saying, "be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it."

I'm not really old enough to remember, but I've heard Democrats during the late Seventies could not wait for Ronald Reagan to get the Republican nomination, because he would be such an easy candidate to beat. MDB (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's true to say she cost McAncient the election, but I'm sure she probably swayed quite a few fence sitters to vote Obama. Wasn't it the fear of President Quayle that scuppered George Senior's re-election? Then again, after Reagan, the Dems were in disarray, given the best they could put forward were Dukakis and Mondale. I guess Palin is the result of the right flanneling around to find a face to represent them. Then again, as George Junior said, 'fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.' --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The economy in the toilet was what scuppered GHWB's re-election. ħuman 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Reagan (or anyone else, actually) had such abysmal approval ratings going into their first election campaign. Also, everyone already knows who she is and what she thinks (for lack of a better word), so she doesn't have a lot of room for improvement. She'd probably have a chance in the primaries, but running would require a lot of hard work...or she could just stay on as a "commentator", raking in cash without having to actually learn about stuff or getting it done. She's got a strong motivation to hint at the possibility of a run to keep the spotlight on herself, but actually running entails a high risk of a devastating loss, which would demolish her image and market value even among her ardent fans. Röstigraben (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've heard it said, and I think it may be reasonable, that Palin doesn't want to be the next President; she wants to be the next Oprah. She's not building a political empire; she's building a media empire. I'm not convinced the case, but I think the argument has weight to it. MDB (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not Oprah, she's too polarizing for that - but she certainly has the potential for being a Rush-like media figure. I think the actions she's taken after the election speak for themselves: she didn't bother to convince people of her political skills by at least completing her term as governor, she didn't spend time to increase her issue knowledge, and she didn't write a conciliatory manifesto that reached out to independents. Instead, she's shaped herself into a hyperpartisan propaganda machine, highly popular among the far right, but without much appeal to moderates and swing voters. Röstigraben (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a cross between Oprah and Rush then. And remember, her upcoming TV show is basically an Alaska travelogue, not political at all (presumably). I could see her having two media "faces" -- the partisan political commentator, and the softer spoken daytime chat show host. MDB (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just what the world needs, another one of that sort. But I can see where that argument is coming from, she hasn't really taken politics seriously enough to run, and you'd expect her to be at least doing that by now. It's true that Obama popped out of nowhere in political terms, but he at least took a decent and serious stab at his career prior to the election. Palin by contrast has done little but be an extra mouthpiece for the US Right. ^gnostic 16:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I take a much more hard-edged view of this. I'd love her to run, because the America I hope and want to believe exists will laugh her off the face of the planet and her candidacy will make people seriously ask what morons exactly the Republicans think they're representing. On the other hand, if the America I fear exists, well fuck 'em, let the stupid country have their moronic clown shoes barmy right-wing Presidency they've been threatening us with for years, and let's be done with this depressing pretence that the vast majority of Americans aren't complete fuckwits. If she got to power (HA!) and created a country for Andy and Rush and Beck and the rest of those fucking asshats, well bully for them, they won't notice my little protest postcards anyway (reading 'Alone in Berlin' chills the soul). But I do, honestly, think the former is much, much more likely. Really. Really? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In the unfortunate and sorry event that she actually gets elected, I'm going to legally move my then-newly majority-aged ass out of here and move to Canada, and then live the next four years laughing as I wake up every morning to watch her on TV. ~SuperHamster Talk 20:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And you think Canada will survive its big brother going mad? It'll get destroyed in the fallout. (as probably will we all) 21:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Palin would actually run, as whoever ran against her could just repeat "quitter" over and over again and it would be over. Don't quit you governorship. Šţěŗĭļė rabbit 21:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Another nutter heard from

Don't like Palin? Try Michele Bachmann for size then ^{Hat tip} 21:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that's the running mate sorted. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion for the Republican Ticket in 2012

I'm probably the only RW member who's heard of him, but I think the 2012 Republican ticket should be Sarah Palin and Greg "Lumpy" Lambert. (Wait, isn't there someone on RW who currently lives in the Knoxvile area?)

Lambert is a Knox County, TN Commissioner. His day job is used car salesman, and first came to national attention with his "buy a car, get a free gun" promotion. No, really. Right-wing as all get out, and, in the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn, "that boy, ah say, that boy is about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." He might be able to look Palin look bright, and that' saying something.

He also carries a pistol wherever he goes (including, I believe, county commission meetings) and once tried to intervene when there was a shooting at a local mall (the police got there first. Lambert is in no shape to get anywhere quickly on foot.)

I remarked to my sister once that Palin and Lambert represent the future of the Republican Party. She responded, "oh, I can't wait to hear this. What is the future of the Republican Party?" I responded, "dolts with guns."

In the interest of full disclosure, I went to high school with Lambert. We were in the same graduating class, and even in the senior play together (and he was damn funny.) Even then, though, he was an idiot. MDB (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not Lynndie England as Palin VP running mate? She's a veteran and a torturer. Everyone's forgotten about Abu Ghraib by now! Thorvelden (talk)

She can be SecState. She's already really made a mark on the United States international standing. MDB (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have quite a bit of sympathy for Lynndie England. She did exactly what she was programmed to do (cf WP:Stanford_prison_experiment) with the active encouragement of her superior officers and, when the shit hit the fan, she was made a scapegoat to cover up the full extent of the abuse. Sure, what she did was wrong, very wrong, but seriously if you had been in her place are you absolutely sure you would have behaved better, I'd like to think I would but experimental evidence doesn't support that. Jack Hughes (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but if you believe the content of The Men Who Stare at Goats, it was a cynical exploit by the intelligence/counter-intelligence agencies of the US military. The conspiracy goes as far as to say that she, among others, was actually ordered to pose like that for an official CIA photographer. Of course, that is pretty far fetched but isn't too beyond what we know wartime counter-intelligence has tried in the past. ^gnostic 20:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)