RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive8

This is an archive page, last updated 25 July 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <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)

Okay, I confess

I only posted the squirrel WIGO because I like using the words "squirrel" and "terrorizes" in the same headline.

(I'm fascinated by squirrels. It's something I picked up from my dad.) MDB (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You're not a janitor by any chance? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because tree rats - err... squirrels - look nice doesn't mean they are nice. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I was mugged by a group of squirrels in a London park. True storyAMassiveGay (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Squirrels = food. Тy^Talk. 19:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be some kind of law that prevents you from eating cute animals. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rabbits, deer, shrimp, horses, fish, snakes, alligators, sea slugs, elk, buffalo, goats, sheep, cows, frogs, crayfish, lobsters, mussels, squid, octopi, clams, oysters, ducks, chickens, geese, turkeys, doves, crickets, guinea fowl, curbs, bears, and moose are all delicious. Тy^Talk. 19:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If god didn't want us to eat people, he wouldn't have made them out of meat! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Diet Soylent Green is twinks! ... of liberals? (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Illegal to have money if you're poor"

Read the text of the bill. That is all. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not accurate. It's making it illegal for them to purchase alcohol with their EBT cash assistance allowance. After that, in order to ensure that alcohol, cigarettes and lottery tickets are not purchased with the money, they ensure that every purchase has to be done through an EBT card, not through cash, which would be the easiest way to launder cash assistance benefits into alcohol, and other disallowed purchases. More accurately, this bill is intended to make it effectively illegal for people on welfare to buy alcohol, and cigarettes at all. Usually, EBT benefits aren't granted to anyone who has really any cash or income on their own. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's more the cash that you're no longer allowed to have cash on you, effectively. The original was no cash at all, but was then adjusted to be $20 per month. The intentions are grand, indeed, but the execution is a bit "WTF" as not everywhere you'd ever want or need to spend money would have a card machine. ^{d hominem} 17:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Texas HB 2454

[1] - A bill has been introduced into the texas legislature to ban discrimination of proponents of intelligent design in academia. Complete text below.

 	82R10215 TRH-D
 
 	 By: Zedler	H.B. No. 2454
 
 
 	
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
 	
AN ACT
 	relating to prohibiting discrimination by public institutions of
 	higher education against faculty members and students based on
 	their conduct of research relating to intelligent design.
 	       BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
 	       SECTION 1.  Subchapter Z, Chapter 51, Education Code, is
 	amended by adding Section 51.979 to read as follows:
 	       Sec. 51.979.  PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON
 	RESEARCH RELATED TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. An institution of higher
 	education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner,
 	especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty
 	member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct
 	of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other
 	alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.
 	       SECTION 2.  This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
 	a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
 	provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution.  If this
 	Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
 	Act takes effect September 1, 2011.

Just something to keep your eye on. We can still laugh at them. That said, it appears that you can't discriminate against teaching about FSM either (or, heaven forbid, Brahma on his lotus flower). --Shagie (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If anybody is interested it opening up a fund for Texan scientists wanting to get the hell outta there, I'd skip a few meals to help them. --Ullhateme (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to amend the bill to protect mad scientists.

It is worth pointing out that the Texas legislature actually passed a resolution honoring Albert deSalvo for his efforts in the field of population control. MDB (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Earthquake in Burma

Seems to be a lot of earthquakes happening at the moment. Is this usual? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The Earth rumbling is fairly common. Hence why the death toll in Japan wasn't an order of magnitude or more higher and their nuclear plants didn't all explode at once - they are prepared for this sort of thing. ^{d hominem} 12:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, they're all centred on places known for higher tectonic activity. Namely the Pacific plate. If there were multiple 7.0+ earthquakes in the UK and Europe or the eastern US, I'd be concerned. ^{d hominem} 12:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Good info here. Basically you can expect 15 mag 7-8 quakes per year with one 8+. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Any one else misread the headline when they clicked on the link? I thought the death toll was 74,111 until I looked again. I admit it would have been a large and oddly precise figure. Old Fashioned Architect (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of precise death tolls, when you get to 5 figures you must run into problems of people dying of natural causes, or of causes highly indirect to a disaster. E.g., natural causes exacerbated by the disaster, or a regular accident that would have otherwise not occurred if there was no disaster. How do you generate a precise figure? ^{d hominem} 13:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Must be global warming. MasterDebater (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, a bunch of libtards in Wisconsin who can dish it, but they can't take it.

You liberal weenies don't like them open records laws so much now, eh? MasterDebater (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ the most colourful sig on RationalWiki! 00:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Real intelligent response, did you learn that in the public schools? MasterDebater (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to be assumed troll, then don't lead off with "libtards"... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Big Society research

So when this "research" is done and they conclude that it's an absolutely shit idea, what happens? ^{d hominem} 14:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Students will throw paint at Top shop. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a really awful story. It is never a good idea for the government to direct scientific research. I'm reminded of a line from The West Wing, where one of Bartlet's daughters says "If the government was in charge of science funding we'd have the best iron lung money could buy but no polio vaccine". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's humanities research rather than scientific, but I assume the principle still applies. It will be gathering opinions, working on definitions and long-winded essays into "society" and "responsibility". Sound and fury, signifying nothing. ^{d hominem} 14:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. Please consider the word "scientific" deleted from my original utterance :) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Is "big society" actually a...thing? I thought it was just some campaign slogan BS. I'm trying to draw a 'Murrican analogy here -- wouldn't it be like teabaggers telling universities they need to research "small gummint"? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it'll be like... just a series of surveys? "When the council stops funding the local youth centre, will you volunteer to run the place for free? Yes/No". X Stickman (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much spot on. ^{d hominem} 22:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wonderboy

RE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369595/Jacob-Barnett-12-higher-IQ-Einstein-develops-theory-relativity.html

I imagine that this can only go one of two ways. Either we get a revolution in physics, or it turns out the kid just happens to be good at maths but is actually talking crap and then suffers a mental breakdown by age 18 as many child prodigies seem to do. I'm hoping for the former, we haven't had a good shake-up of the fabric of reality for a while. Also, he's a smug looking git isn't he? ^{d hominem} 18:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Terry Jones

What's the general consensus here on this mess? Personally, I think that Harris is right on the money about this being yet another sign that moderates need to hold their batshit compatriots accountable, but reading Jones' website pisses me off almost as much (Bible followers calling a book "hate literature" is very much pot/kettle territory). If he were burning the Qur'an (Bibles, BOM's, etc. as well) as a free speech message as opposed to a "my God has a bigger dick that your God" fest does anyone think this might have turned out differently? Saladin (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably should have turned out differently in the sense that this Qu'ran burning was carried out by a tiny fringe group of nutters, and they should retsina the right to do this. It's unfortunate that we have so many religious nutjobs who'll go out and kill over matters that a child should be able to see as bring trivial and dumb. Moderates will do what they always do. They can't easily condemn people like Jones or the Phelps. Same damn books, same religions, just varying levels of commitment and interpretation. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 01:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to blame a non-perpetrator of violence for the Afghan violence, blame Hamid Karzai who made this story into an issue after it had been ignored by the media. Frankly, I hope Terry Jones burns more Korans and while he's at it, draws Mohammed sucking a cock. Intimidation is no excuse to suppress free speech. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving my post from WIGO: Blogosphere, as I accidentally made a duplicate topic there: In general, I think Harris conflates geopolitical factors with religious ones too often, but I think he's right on in this case. Jones is basically an IRL troll, but the point is, as we non-believers like to say, "You don't have the right not to be offended." PZ Myersdesecrated a Qur'an during the "cracker incident." Does anyone think that if he had gotten the same play in the media that Jones did, the same thing wouldn't have happened? In other words, what good is a right if you can't actually exercise it? Of course, Jones is not entirely blameless, but let's condemn the zealots and maniacs who think it's okay to kill people because someone burned a book. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

the problem here is that people dont seem to realize that actions have consequences and that for many people their religion is not a trivial matter. For a Christian minister to burn a holy book while his country maintains an army of occupation was certain to get a response from devout muslims. Its like shouting FIRE in a crowded building. 67.72.98.45 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And therein lies the conundrum...CLEARLY the mobs doing the killing bear 100% of the responsibility for such atrocities, but what I was curious about was whether the religious nature of the burning, by which I'm referring to the overall message of Christian/American exceptionalism and Islamic inferiority, exacerbated the situation. Of course, if this had been an atheist burning books to demonstrate free speech, it's difficult to imagine the Islamic fundie response being any tamer given the wonderful "lip service" that we're given in the Qur'an... Saladin (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Shouting FIRE in a crowded" room is slightly different as the constraint preventing you doing so (or at least making you an asshole for doing so) is objective and enforced by society as a whole. In the case of Koran burning, it's a single group of people holding hostage the rights of others with specific threats. Muslims shouldn't be going mental over this stuff, particularly killing people. Period. The difference between the two situations would be whether everyone in the world would react the same way to a set piece of "trolling". Not everyone will kill and main over a Koran burning. Everyone would, however, react in the same way if you told them there was a fire and you had to get out quickly. ^{d hominem} 10:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

its seen in a large part of the muslim countries as the USA forcing their Christian values on the filthy heathens, and using military force to do so. Muslims are a pretty large group of people with quite different views to the average American, so you are saying their rights and opinions are worthless ? Perhaps you could travel to say Syria , and refer to some guys wife as a filthy cum-slut whore ? let me know how that works out for you. Free speech , right ? you should be fine :( 69.95.240.216 (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What, so you're arguing that it's perfectly acceptable for certain people to be allowed to threaten violence to get their way, over book burning or cartoons. ^{d hominem} 15:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, did any of those people in Afghanistan ask to die? Did any of those injured or killed burn a Koran, paint a picture of Muhammad fucking a pig or make a blasphemous statement? Did the people in various Danish embassies do any wrong or ask for what happened to them? No. The fault is entirely with the Muslims who think they can pressure people into conforming with violence. Perhaps their values do need to be overwritten. ^{d hominem} 16:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

EC It's not acceptable "for certain people to be allowed to threaten violence...over book burning or cartoons." That being said, it's not really smart, respectful or wise to attack things that people venerate/hold dear as part of their overall sense of identity. My take on the Qur'an burning or the Muhammad cartoons has always been pretty ambivalent. I'm really not sure how productive acts like that are, beyond saying "Look at me. I occupy a position of privilege and live in a society where I can do whatever I damn well please and not take the feelings of other human beings into account." It's a big planet with lots of different people living with lots of world views, and the Western notion of absolute freedom of expression, damn the consequences is only one way of balancing out the relationship between intellectual pursuit and respect for how other people understand themselves as human subjects. P-Foster (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd have thought that the bar on "shouting fire in a theatre" or whatever, should apply. --Scream!! (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My preferred take on the subject. P-Foster (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The difference is whether that point is used in just a pragmatic sense (in the sense that you don't cover yourself in raw meat and jump in with some lions) or whether it's used to justify or defend the actions of militant Muslims who are killing people. But again, did any of the people who have been killed ask for it? No. So the fault still lies entirely with the extremists who do the murdering. Do we have to respect that it's their right to kill people when they're angry or upset? ^{d hominem} 17:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. That's a really good 'toon. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

" Do we have to respect that it's their right to kill people when they're angry or upset?" No, and I don't think anyone is arguing that. But we're pretty stupid and self-centered if we thing that poking things with a sharp stick doesn't have consequences, justified or not. P-Foster (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

One bunch of nutty religious fanatics burn a book which they believe is significant. This causes another group of (even more?) nutty religious fanatics to kill completely innocent people. What do the two groups have in common?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to point out to people in this section that shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is no longer illegal in the United States. The only speech that can be made criminal in the US is speech that is intended to insight immediate lawless action, and yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater does no such thing. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 17:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So by "immediate" does that mean it's perfectly legal to shout "I think we should all kill the director because this film is awful!" in a movie theatre? I mean, there's no way you can act on that immediately. Except at a premier. ^{d hominem} 16:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much... although, you might be able to be in trouble for saying "I think we should all get together right now and go kill the director!" Forming a mob with the intent to killing someone would be immediate, and lawless, so... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Palin support

Below 25% is never bad news. It's impressive because it's below the crazification factor. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to snark the point that there are still 70 million Merkins who think she isn't a demented halfwit. --PsyGremlinFale! 15:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If we were simply willing to resort to their methods, we could significantly reduce that number. My local Wal-Mart still sells firearms. In fact, I know a fairly stupid person that would totally go to prison for not giving up the name of the gentleman he just handed some weapons and ammo, and then let leave without paying through the garden section. Not that that ever happened. Or will. Majintahu (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yuri's Night

I went to a Yuri Gagarin party last year. It was pretty weird, but that's par for the course with a bunch of drunk nerds all in one place, eh? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds about as fun as the Saint Patrick's Day party thrown down at the University of Missouri at Rolla. It's an all engineering school, with courses in mining and demolitions, as well as mechanical and chemical. The town is boring as all FUCK the rest of the year. There are 3 girls (Maybe. I'm being generous.)and no homosexual men. That place is a sexual dead zone. But once a year, a few students are sacrificed to the patron saint of engineers. I also have a really fun story about an entire dorm floor that were failing and about to be kicked out.

Rocky Mountain Pictures

Interesting to note that the same company released both Expelled: No Intelligence Here and Fatass Shrugged. I must keep my eyes peeled for more Rocky Mountain Pictures releases. --DogP (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Superman

RE: http://swampfoxpress.com/entertainment/superman-renounces-his-citizenship/

"Show me any one country that has done more for the world than America. We have fought for more people and sacrificed more treasure than any other country in history."

Erm... Rome? Perhaps, who made an empire above and beyond for its day. Or the Mongol Empire, where it's said a virgin could walk from one end to the other and not be raped. Facetious, I know, but hilariously butthurt comments there. How dare Superman say there's something bigger than America, you know, like the world. Ah well. Never underestimate stupidity. ADK^{...I'll glug your cheeseburger!} 22:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

“”Who buys comics? Mostly Americans I reckon…

That's the thing. They don't realize the rest of the world is a real place. Quote relevant. Mei III (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

comics are quite popular in the world, though the style is quite different from what you'll find in the states. The Franco-Belgian comic scene is likely the most noteworthy. Surely, you have heard of Asterix le Gaulois?---brxbrx 23:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you have misinterpreted me. Mei III (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is even worse than the time Superman became a commie! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The guy started out as a socialist wirtten by two evil jews two amazingly talented people, and the whole "and the American way"-crap was smeared all over it in the 50's (I think it was then, maybe even the 60's but definitly not the 70's) as a way of saying to the American kids "yeah, we know he was a socialist, but we've gotta beat these evil commies to the ground!". Sorry for me Superman should always be a left-wing guy, Batman is for conservatives - the non-paranoid/crazy/psychopath is for us. A whole different thing is that that actually makes sense in context of the story told the last few years: The guy's been to space hanging outwith a bunch of Kryptonians for a year then he walked "the earth" (the USA btw, as that'll be all of it) for - well not a year but I think 8 months? - No wonder he feels diconnected coming home seeing tea baggers and other egotistical ragtag (did I use that right?) scumming all over the streets of Metropolis and Smallville. But even if so Clark Kent is still a gringo, and therefor Superman too. Btw, DC will never stop publishing Superman, because they could loose the rights if they did - so even if it sold 0 issues the'd keep makin' it in some form (also if that "let's not buy Superman anymore"-shit would work - I'd go and buy 2 every month just to make that campaign fail). --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 23:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Asterix is fucking awesome. ADK^{...I'll sniff your heretic!} 23:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey the comic I grew up with was Tintin of all things. And I live in Louisiana. Тy^Talk. 00:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Tintin is awesome. Particularly the one where he went to Thailand and had to fight evil ladyboys AMassiveGay (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can also recommend the novel Tintin in the New World, in which Tintin sleeps around, kills a husband in jealously, and goes on the lam. Really. Great book, interesting concept, by Frederick Tuten. I too grew up on Tintin and Asterix & Obelisk - marvelous stuff both. --DogP (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there any proof global warming caused the Southern tornadoes or are we just trying to one-up Andy's "global cooling" rants?

Because as we all know, there were no tornadoes before global warming. This is just as ridiculous as Andy's global cooling claims and only adds fuel to such counterclaims. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There were most certainly tornadoes, and severe ones, and deaths before 'global warming' came into the lexicon. But such a severe set of storms and such high fatalities are very rare. And as the planet warms, more and more severe weather events are happening with increasing regularity, and this is just another. Remember the severe winter storms the East Coast has just had this winter? --DogP (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A single event isn't proof or indication of anything. What you need to look at is a combination of frequency and severity, of which individual events can be part of and very salient indicators of. ADK^{...I'll crystallize your chiffon!} 14:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I put up a post on this in WIGO: Blogosphere. In short, the record keeping makes it difficult to tell. One hypothesis is that tornado activity will increase but the storms won't be as strong. However, there's not enough data to look at past trends, so we have to rely on predictions from raw physics of it. Asking for proof that the storms were caused by AGW, though, is not even wrong, and equating it with "global cooling" theories is wronger than wrong. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Right now, it is in the 40s (F) in the afternoon in Dallas in May. For those of you who unscientifically cling to individual weather events, has a spate of global cooling hit? ConservapediaEditor (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, you do realize that temperature and extreme weather events are two entirely different things, right? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. What if instead of a cold weather day in May, we were talking instead about the record breaking low temperatures and ice during Super Bowl week here? Severe tornadoes occurred well before global warming ticked up; just watch the Wizard of Oz. All of these events are individual data points that don't prove or disprove any thesis. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you're still in not even wrong territory. The point is not that tornado activity proves AGW, but to figure out what effect AGW will have extreme weather events, of which tornadoes are a subcategory. As I noted above, with respect to tornadoes, the question is very much wide open in the literature. Try reading this FAQ on hurricanes, which is a similar issue with more research on it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

1974 for tornadoes. Hurricanes are affected by the water temperature that they pass over. A small rise in surface water temp could allow hurricanes to build more intensity and remain active longer, which would be bad. 67.72.98.45 (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, clearly you haven't watched The Wizard of Oz lately. See, because of global warming climate change, we no longer get tornadoes severe enough to whisk us to Oz. If only we'd reduced our carbon output, those recent death would not have happened, they'd all be happily wandering the Yellow Brick Road. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 00:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Coffee shitted out by Civets

This has been around for ages. You can get on firebox. Oh, by the way, in my humble tea drinking opinion all coffee is shit coffee. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You can get beer made out of it. - π 10:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If I want to be all exotic I will just stick to some tea picked by monkeys. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is it more expensive than regular tea, monkeys work cheaper than people? - π 11:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Massively expensive civet shit coffee is so very Emperor's New Clothes--Brendiggg (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's still not as bad as Whiskey made from diabetic's urine. --PsyGremlinHable! 11:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Pah that is nothing. i can make urine from whiskey. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just found the wine for RationalWiki. - π 11:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm impressed, it wasn't "goat wine". But at $40 a bottle I'd expect it to give you a massage and oral sex first. ADK^{...I'll advocate your infinity!} 12:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

$40 is cheap compared to some wines. - π 12:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Did somebody say goat wine? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 12:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

WHC speeches

Seth Godin sounds like he's reading from notes. Obama's comic timing, OTOH, is perfect. And the expression on Trump's face is a new form of beauty - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, while dumping on Obama (and pretty much all of our politicians, by extension) is one of my hobbies, he does have a good sense of humor. The Lion King thing was brilliant. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Seth's best line is cut in that YouTube clip. He ends that clip with "It's not a strong field, and I'm not sure if it can beat you in 2012". He continued with "But I tell you one person who can. The 2008 Barack Obama." –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Rich person killed" WIGO?

The WIGO about a rich person being killed and Republicans not assuming a black man is responsible refers to this article, which doesn't seem related at all. Anyone have the actual article? Or am I missing a joke here? άλφα^Talk 20:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a complete idiot, I just got the joke... wow, sorry about the useless post up there. I need to wait a few seconds or so before I actually press save. άλφα^Talk 20:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Slut walk

Dave Krueger at the Agitator has the definitive argument against the "they were asking for it" stupidity: Got carjacked? Musta been your own damn fault for driving an expensive car. Got mugged? Musta been your own damn fault for wearing a suit and gold watch. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Clinton is a woman?!?!

RE: http://thedailywh.at/tag/der-tzitung/ and other links.

If you look carefully, they seemed to have got someone else in the background too just by the door. Not sure who that is, though. ADK^{...I'll forage your raccoon!} 18:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you look double carefully you can already see some deceit image manipulation in that they've pixelated the photo on Hillary's laptop. ADK^{...I'll deteriorate your mandate!} 18:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, the photo was pixellated because it was classified intel. This one from the comments section is golden: "I really want to know who those folks teach their kids was Israel´s Prime Minister from 17 March 1969 to 3 June 1974." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you're right, they shopped out another woman too. Not sure who she is, probably a White House aide or some kind of intel agent. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember for sure, but I seem to recall reading that she's a high ranking counter-terrorism official. MDB (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they have any problem teaching that a woman was in charge, they just won't include any pictures of her, because including a picture of a woman is scandalously pornographic. I mean, I can talk here about how Marilyn Monroe was in Playboy, but not include any pictures of it. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I figured that much, it's just that it exists on the original image. Just a kinda observation, really. ADK^{...I'll overthrow your pen!} 18:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Huckabee's cartoon

RE: http://learnourhistory.com/go.cfm?do=Video.Play&vid=1

Surely this just has to be some nerdy piss-take in the style of Objective4Kidz, right? I mean the Space Marine helmet gives it away. ADK^{...I'll cruise your deviant!} 11:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's full of crazy anachronisms (what is that skyscraper behind Reagan? As he had his back to the Brandenburger Tor just a few meters from the Berliner Mauer, it had to have been in East Germany... I didn't know East Germany was so prosperous to put up modern looking skyscrapers... good for them!... I watched another one of the videos as a clip about the Berlin wall... of course, it totally rapes German history of the events... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you expect from someone who thinks David Barton is a distinguished scholar. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, wingnuts stink @History!

@1:00 in this cartoon (beware the first fifteen seconds are the same nauseating "time machine" as above), the newspaper hawker calls out that "US declares war on Germany and Japan!" On December 8 1941 US did indeed declare war on Japan, three days later Germany declared war on USA! But it's only a (history) cartoon, I'll bet Tom and Jerry didn't know no better ether. 02:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Edit break

We have been over this before, does anyone want me to fix it up so that we can have a recent entries break like on WIGOCP? - π 01:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure why not. Тy^Talk. 02:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Better or would you prefer level 3 and 4 headings? - π 02:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What ever you feel is best. Тy^Talk. 02:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I leave it as is for now. - π 02:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I hope my Archive bot will work. - π 02:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The other WIGOs seem to be ticking over faster than WIGO:CP at the moment so it would make sense. ADK^{...I'll sacrifice your okra!} 08:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Collect call from Pope?

Mayhaps this is the thing that gets god all ready to go ahead with the rapture? Imagine, the Pope talking to someone (who is NOT on planet Earth) and it's NOT God! 22:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

sad wigo is sad

[2] I gave it a score of neutral. Maybe we shouldn't be rating such occurrences?--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We could comment out the votepoll tags and simply bullet the item? 03:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Or you can tell people what the fuck up and down mean. Does it mean I approve if I vote up? Well, yeah, cos if some fundie bitch wants to be dumb, so be it but clicking UP doesnt mean everyone is pointing and laughing. Even though I am. Nightwish (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Light bulb gestapo

I actually live with someone who has believed that since the "Green Police" super bowl commercial. Our attic is filled with case after case of incandescent light bulbs. Тy^Talk. 18:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you ask him to send me some? Everything over 60w is banned in these parts by the light bulb gestapo. M.B.E (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

She. But I'll see. She hoards all sorts of stuff . Тy^Talk. 18:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I for one, have no issue with the govt mandating that only environmentally friendly lightbulbs be used. --Damo^Hi 18:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Her view is that it is unconstitutional. Like The TV analog-digital switch, etc. Тy^Talk. 18:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Further to the point, though, is that the ban on incandescent bulbs is non-existent. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am no US constitution scholar - under what section of the constitution could it be illegal? I am intrigued. --Damo^Hi 19:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Her belief is that if it isn't mentioned in the constitution, the federal government has no business interfering with it. Hence the EPA, OSHA etc. should have been done at the state level. Тy^Talk. 19:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

IOW, it's the usual wingnut pseudolaw. Time to get rid of the Air Force -- it should be done at the state level. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I usually bring up the CIA and FBI at this point. We also hoard food, bullets, and fabric softener. Тy^Talk. 19:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I bet there are several tens of thousands of Japanese wish they had your gift of forward thinking. M.B.E (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘What, no gold bricks? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Only one. She gets the whole "can't eat gold" thing.Тy^Talk. 20:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Court order

The wording the BoN added doesn't tie up to the source - no mention about 2 hours before closing, or tat she was about to lose. Remove entry? --OompaLoompa (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Better source for Obama's mistaken date?

Can we find a better source for Obama's mistake when writing the date, or do we have to keep it from the equivalent of a clog? People complaining in the comments how this shows how he's a complete idiot and unworthy of being president, yet GWB put some binoculars to his face with lens cap covers. Presidents make mistakes, we don't need to point to a worthless clog. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Palin overload

Ahh make it stop!!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahaha! Now we must find even more Palin-related news! Тy^Talk. 16:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Much as I hate Thatcher, her snubbing of Palin is hilarious. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't Thatcher have something akin to alzheimer's? I know she has had a stroke(s), and suffers ongoing memory loss. What ever one thinks of her policies I think that is a tragic end for the woman. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have said before that senility is such a horrifying thing I wouldn't wish it on Thatcher - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Student Loan SWAT

The source of the story says "The Department of Education emailed Raw Story with a comment from spokesman Justin Hamilton to say the search warrant and raid were related to a criminal investigation, not a student loan default. The ABC affiliate has yanked its story that made the now seemingly false claim."

I'm removing it from the WIGO. It would also help if people actually read the stories they posted. --OompaLoompa (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I posted that when the story broke, apparently its been retracted, so yeah, its worthless now. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hot Chicks with PhDs in Mathematics

Here is my crazy idea for how to challenge gender sterotyping... let's create a calendar called "Hot Chicks with PhDs in Mathematics". One per a month, an alluring picture of a beautiful young woman with the abstract of her PhD thesis underneath. One can stare at her beautiful body while one racks one's brain to try to make sense of the prodigous output of her superior mind. Okay, orthodox feminism will surely object, but I think it might actually be effective.... I find the idea of women who are smarter than me sexually arousing... and I don't have a PhD in anything... and though I quite possibly will get one some day, I am sure it won't be in maths... so I think any woman who has one in maths is smarter than me, and pretty much always will be... and that turns me on... I have some other suggestions for calendars too, like "Hot Chicks Who Are Experts In Akkadian"... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. A calendar of "Intelligent women beating a sexist, hormone-riddled creep to death for calling them 'hot chicks'" --OompaLoompa (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit too harsh, don't you think? Taking my flippant remarks a bit too seriously? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Something similar has been done, for men. Someone wanted to disprove the stereotype that all scientists look like Albert Einstein, so they created the "Studmuffins of Science" calendar. The requirements to be featured were:

1. Have a Y chromosome.
2. Hold a PhD in a scientific field.
3. Be hot.

Sadly, they only did 2-3 editions of the calendar, in the late Nineties.

I would so buy one if they did another ones. For now, I have to settle for my "Fanboy of the Month" calendar. (Hot geeks.) MDB (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A friend of mine showed me one, it was something like Hot Seminary Students of the Pontifical Universities of Rome... I could see how if I was a straight woman (or gay guy), I might be interested... studs study scholasticism! (((Zack Martin)))^™

Oh, BTW, some women have a Y chromosome... you probably want to rephrase your statement "Have a Y chromosome" to the more accurate "Be male" (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sign me up for a copy, though I the chance that I could make sense of a math dissertation is about nil. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The intelligence of the models is not a factor in my choice of porn. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh... I was thiking they could keep their clothes on... so wasn't really thinking of porn. But anyway, a beautiful body is attractive, a beautiful mind is attractive, the two together is doubly attractive? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find much disagreement on this site...except for the "clothes on" bit. ;) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've oft been told that I'm the smartest girl that Random Guy #47832 has ever met, and I kind of object to it, because even though it is intended as a compliment, the fastest woman in the world at the 100m dash is still slower than a large number of men. So, putting some sort of qualification on the statement makes it sound degrading, like there's a special woman's division of intelligence that is dumbed down specially for our benefit. (à la Andy's "women get an easier version of the test" sort of "chivalry".)

But then this section seems like a person admitting that a known attractive girl gets special consideration, because I'm an attractive woman (not that I've demonstrated this to most anyone here) and I'm intelligent; yet Mara and I only ever get into fights over stupid minutiae. (Which is what intelligent people are apt to do.) So where is this "smart women are sexy to me" attitude? Is Maratrean constantly stroking one out when I'm badgering him about some random detail XY, or do I have a special exceptionary status because I'm a faceless drone on the intarwebs? Of course, I suppose there is another option... I have an abrasive personality, like most extremely intelligent people tend to have, but instead of being called esoteric, and getting a free write off like Paul Erdős, or Donald Knuth, as a woman I'm judged on different criteria, and called a "bitch", and thusly written off as attractive at all, because despite the qualifiers of "smart" and "sexy", I am nevertheless possessed of an unappealing personality.

I suppose I have also found the classification of "smarter" to often be entirely subjective anyways... as in someone is only smarter, when you still yet agree with what they're saying. After all, Andy would totally reject that a woman were smarter than him if a) she were a woman, or b) she asserted belief in evolution. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Random Guy #47832 needs to get out more. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose he doesn't like annyoing gals?

And btw, a man can be attracted to a woman and still despise her, take Sarah Palin for example - or don't. --ǓḤṂ^³ 23:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather date a smart person who disagrees with me, than an idiot who hangs on to my every word. But apparentyl I'm just weird that way. Of course a smart person who agrees with me most of the time(anyone who agrees with me all the time would be suspect) would be on the top of this theoretical hierarchy, but what can I say? And Eira, I've met people much more vitriolic and abrasive than you. I think you are rather strange(but again, so am I), but nowhere near "bitch" territory. Тy^Talk. 03:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Eira: when I wrote the above, I wasn't thinking of you at all. You obviously are quite intelligent, but I don't know you well enough to say more than that about the topic. I think, there is no reason why women can't be equally successful in intellectual pursuits to men; I think our society, however, does at times undermine women in this area. For example, I remember reading about one study done of first year computer science students, who were asked to self-rate their technical abilities, and then they did some objective measurements. They found that the male students generally overrated their own abilities, while the female students generally underrated theirs. The suggestion of the authors was that the female students had equal ability, but they had absorbed social understandings that devalued their own ability, and that their lack of self-confidence might end up undermining their results. It reminds me of the time my sister asked me to assemble her new computer. "You can do that - you just need to plug the right cable in the right socket, mostly they are different shapes, so you can't plug them in wrong, and they are colour coded anyway". "But, that's a boy's job." My sister is certainly intelligent enough to do it; was she undervaluing her ability?

I do find you abrasive, but I don't think your gender has anything to do with that; I don't like abrasiveness in general, and I am equally put out by abrasive men. In fact, concerning the question of why there are not that many women in the open source world (i.e. it's even more skewed male than computing in general), the suggestion has been made that aspects of open source culture put many women off; one of which is the abrasiveness so common in that subculture. Which makes your own abrasiveness and involvement in that world somewhat ironic. I think women, on average, have less tolerance for abrasiveness than men, although you are obviously a fair way from the average in that regard. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's good to see that you have a mostly healthy understanding of the issues that face women in areas of expertise that are stereotyped to be domains of men, however you seem to have a misunderstanding about abrasiveness and women. There is nothing about women that makes tolerance of abrasive personalities lower or anything... as a woman, I can readily provide anecdote that there are plenty of abrasive women... likely around the same rate of occurrence as in men.

The difference is however that women are socially stigmatized against expressing abrasive personalities, and often times are admonished for showing levels of abrasiveness that are otherwise acceptable in men. As an example, at my work, I wrote a clear business case for a course of action and asked for the action to be taken. My boss objected to it saying that it were rude. Why? Because I was "too demanding". Yet it carried the same tone that I saw often expressed by men. So, women are widely held to a double standard where they are not allowed to be direct and clear in what they want, and have to side-step all of that by making things requests. Rather than "put this light for this camera shoot over there" to "I think the shoot would look better if we had this light over there, what do you think?" This behavior is expect even of women in superior job roles to men in inferior job roles.

The abrasive attitude shown by me is not ironic at all. I am of the understanding that you studied Computer Science, what percentage of your class was female? I'm willing to bet it is low. The women who make it all the way through the program often come out tough as nails and bitter as hell. You have to be better than the men all the time just to be seen as an equal. It takes a toll. So, in a way, I am simply the inevitable product of the system that has chewed me up and spit me out. (This description is not simply metaphoric... it is an accurate analogy for the mental abuse I suffered in one of my jobs.) Honestly, I haven't met a woman working in CS who hasn't been forced to adopt masculine-like traits just to survive... and then subsequently treated poorly for not conforming to stereotypes. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As to whether tolerance for abrasiveness is lesser among women on average or not, I suppose this is a matter of anecdote and impressions; obviously if our experiences differ, so will our impressions. It would be interesting if one could find some actual quantitative research on this topic, I'm sure there must be some. I must emphasise the words on average - to say that the male average is X and the female average is Y doesn't mean there aren't many men with values around Y and many women with values around X. In fact, sometimes I think on some of these measures (tolerance for abrasiveness being one of them) I think I am nearer the female average than the male one despite being male. I do remember reading somewhere (I think it was LWN) a discussion of some of the reasons why women aren't so common in those environments, and inter alia, abrasiveness, impoliteness and incivility were suggested (by a woman) to be possible reasons why. Unfortunately I can't find the actual discussion to show you now though. Also, I wasn't making any comment on the gender distribution of abrasiveness; my comment was about tolerance for abrasiveness, not abrasiveness itself. (I'd expect more abrasive people would generally have more tolerance for abrasiveness in others, but my personal experience tells me that isn't always true.)

In terms of your experience with your boss, I am sorry to hear that. It does sound like a double standard. But, I would add, I don't think being assertive or direct are necessarily abrasive; to me, abrasiveness is more about ad hominems, inability to word things diplomatically, etc. It's the difference between "I don't think your idea will work, because of X" and "You are an idiot, and that is the stupidest idea I have ever heard, because of X".

"I haven't met a woman working in CS who hasn't been forced to adopt masculine-like traits just to survive". Well, my best friend at work, she can be assertive, but I would not call her abrasive. From my discussions with her in the past about this topic, she certainly has faced issues in her career that a man would not have faced; but I'm not sure she'd agree with your description of a computing career as "the system that has chewed me up and spit me out". (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

@Eira: I doubt you'll disagree, but I think it still pervades the culture in general, just to a far more obvious extent in "men's work." If you're the average white dude, it can be difficult to see and understand even if you are "aware" of the problem. I started to see things much differently when I was with my ex- and watched her struggle with breaking out of the traditional gender roles to embrace her dominance. And that's something that can be kept hidden behind closed doors, unlike being gay, black, etc. Which is why I always have to do a severe facepalm/headdesk whenever I hear crap like "Why do we need feminists? Feminism has already achieved its goals" or "Uh-oh, it's that angry black guy going off on a rant and being really black again." And then, ironically, the "gee sure is tough to be a white guy these days" nonsense obscures the cases where the white guy really did get shafted. But, then again, I'm just some kind of feminazi crypto-homo perverted nutcase (or vile mouthpiece for the patriarchy if you're an anti-sex feminist). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

@Nebby: you have a penis, therefore everything you say is a lie and oppressive of women. lol ;) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Russell Crowe is right about circumcision

Though he's an idiot for saying “My friend, "human" science has caused too much damage, don't be a moron.”

Also nice "doctor" comment OompaLoompa, especially when American, Australasian, British, Canadian and Dutch doctors (there are probably more countries but wikipedia is brief) do not consider it necessary.

Solarius (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Palin and Flesch-Kincaid

This story is nonsense. Take a look at the equation for the F-K test. You can run gibberish through it and it can come out as either 1st grade or 12th grade. Looks like people with way too much time on their hands running Palin's emails through a word processor. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What a fucking ridiculous WIGO entry. 121.45.195.139 (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a 10.3. 121.45.195.139 (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Gingrich - professor?

I loved this line from his spokesperson..."But DeSantis added: "We believe that to 99% of those reading, this is a distinction without a difference, but we are happy to add this for the sake of specificity. The change will be made today." That's cause 99% of your followers have no idea what it actually means to go to school, get a degree, study, get another degree (or two) and then become a professor and teach. hell, 99% of your followers thinks Obama's birth certificate is fake. Including YOU!.En attendant Godot 18:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Deeply conflicted over the war memorial

OK, on the one hand, I fully and freely acknowledge the sacrifice of those who gave their lives so that I can live in freedom and desecrating a war memorial is beyond the pale but, on the other hand... If you're going to do it then that's the way to do it. Jack Hughes (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not exactly a "memorial". Let me give some more context:

• Bulgaria was an Axis ally during the Second World War (it started neutral). When the Soviet Union approached through Romania, the Bulgarian government was overthrown in a coup d'etat and/or rebellion. Which didn't stop the USSR from declaring war on Bulgaria and occupying it a few days later. The Germans were too busy with retreating from Greece to do something meaningful about it, and probably felt bad when the Bulgarian army was sent to fight them (the word "turncoats" is sometimes thrown around...) So no, there were no epic battles between the Soviets and Nazi Germany on Bulgarian territory.
• As a result of the above, post-WWII Bulgaria was a "people's republic", a part of the Eastern Bloc, with the usually stuff happening in such places: repression of dissidents, purges, penal camps, etc. A slightly more benign result was that Bulgarian culture, both elite and popular, became heavily dominated by Soviet culture.
• As a result, a lot of monuments glorifying the Soviet Army as "liberators" were erected along with the other products of the commies' monumental mania (seriously, those people loved monuments - the more grand, the better). A lot of this stuff is controversial now, including the Soviet Army Monument in Sofia. Some of the local right-wingers want to demolish it (as we did with the Mausoleum - yes, we had one) or to move it somewhere else or store it in a warehouse (as we did with the most egregious examples of pro-Communist sculptures). The local commiessocialists maintain that it's a war memorial to the liberators and there's nothing wrong with the Soviet Union anyway. Others say it's acceptable as a monument to the sacrifice of the army, not the regime for which it fought, and should be seen as that. I think that either they should modify the inscriptions to make that clear (which will clash with the statues, which are triumphant, not tragic) or put up plaques with the historical context, preferably with the words "NEVER AGAIN" (communist monuments) written somewhere on it in big capital letters. (This is the other popular position for "keep it" - as a reminder of that era.) I also particularly like the fact that the plaza around it is currently a gathering place for skaters and BMXers. :)
• Seen in this context, turning the statues into Western characters and writing "In step with the times" gains several extra layers of meaning in addition to "it would be fun if we painted this guy as Superman".
• As an aside, monuments to the Bulgarian soldiers who fought and died in the wars of the 20th century (WWII, WWI and the two Balkan wars) and in the Liberation war of 1877/8 already exist and no-one but the most idiotic tagger is going to desecrate them. Ditto for the monuments to the Russian soldiers who fought in the same war - their claim to the title of "liberators" is much stronger.--ZooGuard (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, ZG, I can now laugh with a clear conscience! Jack Hughes (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Gay marriage is legalized in New York State

FUCK YEAH!

FUCK YEAH!

FUCK YEAH!

FUCK YEAH!

FUCK YEAH!

FUCK YEAH!

FUCK YEAH!

FUCK YEAH

Fitting, no? Congrats to any gays in New York that finally have this freedom--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, enter CP with the dick quotes. DickTurpis (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

All right, I'm off to marry a dude, no homo! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard anyone discussing it, but isn't this the first state to do so by legislative, rather than judicial, action? That's sort of a big deal, is it not? DickTurpis (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No, Mass was the first. I'm pretty sure it's legal (or civil unions) at least in a few other states. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

But wasn't it the courts that did it in Massachusetts? Or am I remembering incorrectly? DickTurpis (talk)

Reading fail. You're right, MA did it judicially. You might be right. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Learn it, motherfucker: I am ALWAYS right! DickTurpis (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, you're wrong. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

<Aschlafly>Nebuchadnezzar (if that is your real name), you're clueless. Everyone with an open mind knows that Vermont was part of New York in its early history, and no letters from George Washington to any of his family members has ever established this alleged "state's" independence. Therefore Vermont is merely a part of New York, rendering my statement entirely accurate. Deny this and lose all credibility.</Aschlafly> DickTurpis (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the correct response was: "More liberal deceit from Wikipedia!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

D'OH! DickTurpis (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

We should also give props to the Republican senators who went against their own party to get this through - and have probably sacrificed their careers in order to do the right thing. Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 09:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

US Airways dress code

Can we get this quite straight. The reason the person was kicked off the plane wasn't because of the way he was dressed, it was because of the way he reacted when asked to pull his pants up. Amongst other things I believe he's been charged with assault. If he'd been a decent human being about it, as the tranny was, then there would have been no problem. It's not, repeat not, a dress code, it's a behaviour code and I salute US Airways for not tolerating belligerence and abusive behaviour. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The guy who was kicked off the plane was a UNM (University of New Mexico) Lobo Football player. Naturally, this means that this has received significant coverage here in Albuquerque. Facts, he was not belligerent, or "not acting like a decent human being". He was told that he was violating the dress code, and that he had to pull up his pants. He said that he would take care of it when he got to his seat, and there wouldn't be any problems.

A US Airways spokesperson stated to KRQE News that their dress code forbids "indecent exposure or inappropriate [attire]" [3]

In fact, there is also cellphone footage of him discussing the matter with the captain and the police: YouTube: Deshon Marman on US Airways flight 488, 6/15/11 Do you hear any "belligerence or abusive behavior" on his part? I don't. I hear him being respectful, yet assertive of his rights. Nothing here indicates a necessity for disembarking the whole plane and then attempting to arrest him. Again, all over him having saggy pants that he corrected prior to sitting down, which was stated as a violation of dress code.

Then, the "tranny", as you put it so eloquently, flew just days prior to Deshon, and when individuals complained to the boarding crew, they were instructed that there was no dress code, and they could not do anything about the attire that they were wearing. Where was the disembarking of the plane and confrontation with the "tranny" over their attire? Where were the police called in to have a conversation with them, and tell them that their dress code forbids inappropriate attire, and that they would have to cover up?

It's quick and easy to fault the individuals themselves for harassment that they receive at the hands of law enforcement (you know, like blaming the rape victim for being dressed like a slut), but being black shouldn't mean being treated like a criminal... the authorities had numerous opportunities to deescalate the situation, but rather than do so, they escalated the issue, disembarked the plane, told Deshon that he would have to leave, then attempted to arrest him for trespass when he failed to leave. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Religion more popular among people who've been hit on the head

Weird it comes up again now, that's been true for a long time. People who have suffered severe cognitive incidents (stroke, trauma, oxygen deprivation, dementia) also tend to be the most insanely religious. My wife did testing for impairment after college, she was warned about this very thing, but she had the best stories. ~ Subsound ~ 15:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Willie Soon is an oil shill

No shit? Good to see this getting play in an outlet like Reuters, where the denialists are often portrayed as good, honest, "skeptical" folks just asking questions. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do Southerners vote Republican?

Too much sun apparently. --uhm, t! 20:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, another take on the question. P-Foster (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Numbering

Because the automatic numbering script searches out the highest number and adds 1 to it, it won't work until we either a) delete/archive the wrongly labeled ones or b) change the label and reset the vote counter. ADK^{...I'll browbeat your diet coke!} 17:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've disabled the automated script on WIGO:World for now, that should stop it accidentally being used to continue the wrong trend. ADK^{...I'll ablate your crab cake!} 10:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's easy enough to fix - just change the vote numbering. It just goes to show that using technology allows people to make fuckups that much faster. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 10:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing the ID wipes the accumulated votes, though. Also, there are three more affected near the top. It depends what you think is the lesser of the problem, wiping existing votes or having to do manual entry for a couple of days. ADK^{...I'll legislate your icicle!} 10:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that a WIGOW entry rarely gathers more than 20 votes, the easiest route is to reset it now and carry on from there. Because there'll always be some numpty who'll come along and fuck it up while we wait for it to restore. Also, it'll take more than a few days for the paste fuction to catch up. This way, it's fixed. --PsyGremlinSprich! 10:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's just not my personal preference to scramble the IDs like that. Well, technically, un scramble the IDs, but after people have started clicking the arrows they're sort of set in their way. If no one has any pressing objections to reseting them like that, I'll undo the edit notice changes and change the commented-out notes. ADK^{...I'll exercise your newspaper!} 10:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Doo eet! --PsyGremlinFale! 10:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Business as usual. ADK^{...I'll cure your spawn!} 13:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly the wrong place for this but what the hell

Anyone who can, particularly in the UK, can you get this Billy Bragg you tube vid spread far and wide. Let's at least try to see if we can do something to stop murdoch. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Any place is good for Billy Bragg. Thanks. Dendlai (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And Scousers really don't buy The Sun, or its sister paper the News of the World. Even if it is the "historic" last issue. (Personally I think of it not so much as a "collectors item" but more akin to that last bit of shit you wipe from you arse.) Toffeeman (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)