Inhuman | Aki (portrait, B&W)

This entry has been removed from Preliator and can now be found over at Creativitas. (See here for more info.)

Friday Canine: I’m showing you just how interesting you are

(via jugalbandi)

Limbaugh “provides leadership” for America’s uninsured … not

As if his declaration that America’s healthcare system was “just fine, just dandy” from his perspective as a wealthy celebrity with VIP treatment wasn’t bad enough, Rush Limbaugh goes one step further and declares himself the “leader” of the U.S.’s 47 million uninsured. As if his example was one anyone should follow, even if they could.

Transcript from Politicususa:

“I realize I'm on a tough challenge here, and probably going to lose it because we've had 50 years to establish a mindset which basically has most people believing that healthcare should not cost anything or it should cost very little, and when somebody comes along like me, and accepts responsibility for paying for it, look I am one of the 47 million uninsured, and I'm, look at me in one way, I'm providing leadership. I'm advocating a system get reformed so that people can afford it, that their be a relationship the patient, the provider, and the hospital, without some middle man or two, where people could actually afford it just as they're able to afford other services throughout our economy.”

Yeah, sure, Limbaugh is indeed uninsured. But, that’s because he’s got more than enough money to be able to pay for his healthcare in cash, without insurance. The thing is, not everyone has got tens of thousands just lying around, especially the uninsured, who struggle to even be able to afford food and lodging, much less health insurance premiums.

Worse still, check out the types of arguments and analogies the gasbag uses to try and claim that health insurance really is actually cheap and that anyone can get it:

“You hear here that multimillionaire, only Limbaugh could afford it, that's such a misrepresentation of the truth. I'll just tell you if you can afford a car, you can afford what I did in the hospital. If you can afford a pretty expansive media room, you can afford what I spent in the hospital, and with all the tests and everything else. If you can afford an SUV, could have gone to the hospital 3 or 4 times for what I, it's just a matter of choice, what you want to budget for and pay for, Rush we got to have a car to get to work, and we got to have a house, yeah but everybody says they got to have healthcare too. The people don't prioritize it the way they do other things.”

The problem with this sort of thinking (well, one of the problems) is that Limbaugh makes it sound like, “if you can afford X, then you can afford Y (health insurance)”, when in reality, it’s more like, “you can afford either X, OR Y (health coverage)”. For those who are unable to get insurance, it’s not about being able to get coverage just because they’re also able to get a home or a car; it’s about choosing between the home, the car, and healthcare coverage.

Limbaugh may be one of the 47 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, but his case is a rare exception, not the norm. Others don’t have coverage because they simply can’t afford it, instead choosing to prioritize such things as paying for their home and putting food on the table. Limbaugh doesn’t have coverage, because he literally can afford not to. This is exactly how and why his “leadership” is the worst kind there is for those who don’t have health insurance.

(via @todayspolitics)

Stupid Quote of the Day: Secularism leads to witchcraft, sez Supercrank

Vox Day seems to be quite blind to both irony and hypocrisy. His latest post (which, for the record, is not the immediate focus of this post) is a long screed against a commenter at his blog who disagreed with what he said and whom Vox accuses of using logical fallacies, thus looking like an idiot. I wouldn’t know about that, as my instinct for self-preservation keeps me away from such filthy hives as Vox Day’s post comments, but it’s just amusing to note how he wrote lengthily, almost passionately, about not making logical fallacies when criticizing him, when the very preceding post he made contains nothing but fallacies and pure, condensed, rocket-grade dumbassery:

As I have repeatedly warned, post-Christianity isn't necessarily that shiny, sexy, secular science fiction society that so many atheists fantasize about. Secularism is merely a transition phase from civilization to barbarism:

Witch doctors in Uganda have admitted their part in human sacrifice amid concerns that the practice is spreading in the African country.... The African country's government claimed human sacrifice was on the increase. According to officials trying to tackle it, the crime is directly linked to rising levels of development and prosperity - and an increasing belief that witchcraft can help people get rich quickly.

It is all to telling that so many clueless atheists are more worried about prospective Ugandan laws banning homosexuality than they are about the rise of human sacrifice! And it's interesting to see yet another example smashing the progressive notion that rising levels of development and prosperity will suffice to create a more civilized society.

Sometimes, I wonder how it’s even possible for anyone remotely intelligent – and sane enough not to be in a mental institution – to write such things. It’s beyond stupid; it becomes nothing short of painful to read. (Hence the never-more-appropriate pic at the top.)

The first point is how Vox somehow equates a secular, nonreligious society, to witch hunts and human sacrifices. To put it plainly, this has got to be the single largest non sequitur I’ve ever seen in my entire life. Seriously: no-one, not even a retarded six-year-old, can read something like this and not realize how utterly demented it sounds within five seconds. The very point of witchcraft, the type mentioned here, is that it includes a very highly religious component to it. I’ve already commented on the practice of witch hunts in Africa, especially those aimed towards innocent children, all a practice for preachers and witch hunters to get bleed money from those they claim to help whilst spreading nothing but pain and death. Now, guess which religion is behind all this? You guessed it: Christianity.

WorldNutDaily: classy as ever

Amanda Simpson, both brainy and attractive

As you may be aware by now, President Obama is still breaking ground as he has reportedly appointed the first executive appointment of a transgendered person in naming Amanda Simpson [pictured] as a senior adviser to the Commerce Department. Her job will focus on working with military technology, something that her long career as a military test pilot working for defense contractors centered in advanced technology development – ie. literally, a rocket scientist – leaves her more than qualified for.

Of course, with her being a transgendered woman, you can expect that much of the brouhaha surrounding this particular executive pick will center, not on her stellar career and how she’s the right person for the job, but on how she was born Mitchell Simpson, whom she remained until ten years ago, when she had the sex change done. A second thing you can expect, is that the vast majority (if not all) of those focusing their attention on her gender and sexual identity, will be conservatives and wingnuts. The third thing you can expect, is that you can leave it to the headquarters of Wingnuts Incorporated, the WorldNutDaily, to report on this as though her sexuality and gender identity had any real relevancy in her being selected for her position. Of course, one more thing you can expect, is that the WND will be as classy and respectful as is, well, expected of them to be with regards to anything remotely LGBT-related.

Just take a look at their article, entitled “White House silent on Obama transgender 'appointee': Test pilot had 6 surgeries at cost of $70,000 to switch from male to female”. Because her gender and any surgeries she’s had are of utmost importance, here. (Ed Brayton says that the title used to be “See Obama's transgender 'pick' before and after surgery”, which only makes it even more relevant, what she used to look like as opposed to her present appearance.) You’ll also notice how they simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that Simpson is now a woman, stubbornly referring to her as a man and a “he”.

Let’s get something straight: when a man undergoes procedures to make him a woman, then the only pronoun you use from then on to address said person is “she”. Conversely, when a woman decides to become a man, you shall address that person as “he”. What gender a person was born into is irrelevant; all that matters, is the gender they’re a part of, presently. Hence why it’s called “gender identity”. You don’t call a woman, a man, and vice-versa. It’s not only wrong, it’s incredibly rude and classless.

Again, showing how gay marriage opponents really have nothing to say about marriage and righteousness

Of course, a prime reason used by conservative cranks to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage is that it would corrupt the institution of marriage (ie. “traditional marriage” between one man and one woman), amongst other variations and nonsense. Because, you see, allowing gays to join in matrimony is a violation of God’s Will (to them, anyway), and therefore, it would be devastating to marriage in itself.

Well, then, if those who so fiercely oppose gay marriage on the grounds of protecting heterosexual marriage care so much about righteousness and such, then how do you explain this?

In other words: marrying someone of the same gender = bad. Marrying someone from the your own family = A-okay!

This, I think, is more telling than anything else that can be said.

Note – Personally, I don’t really have anything against incestuous marriages. Just as long as precautions are taken to ensure that no “accidents” happen, then people can knock themselves out and marry whoever the hell they want, as far as I’m concerned.

(via @todayspolitics)

How to respond to nosy government warnings

The government is always quick to make sure anything that you can get for free, be it food, heating or whatever, becomes a money-making business and that getting such things without paying becomes criminalized. After all, they can’t have people getting stuff for free when they could be bleeding money for it, can they? Take this story from the Canadian Maritimes, where an Atlantic storm last Saturday resulted in loads of lobsters washing ashore, much to the delight of the lucky bastards who live there.

Delight that nearly turned sour, that is, when the government reminded them that cooking up lobsters that hadn’t been caught by licensed fishermen during open season was against the law, the point where anyone convicted could be slapped with a whopping $100,000 fine. (But then, with that much free lobster, I bet some would still say it was worth it.)

I say it nearly turned sour, because in the end, no-one gave a shit about the government’s warning. Cue the coolest mayor in these parts:

By Tuesday afternoon, the shore was mostly clear of lobsters and [Petit-Rocher, New Brunswick] Mayor Pierre Godin said as many as 1,000 people -- including him -- had enjoyed many lobster meals since the weekend.

He dismissed the federal warning, saying residents had benefited from washed-up seafood for centuries.

"If it's illegal, they are going to have to make a very, very big prison for us all," he told the newspaper.

When the government tries to criminalize something beneficial that has been going on for hundreds of years, something that is even relied upon by many, then the only responsible way to react is to send them packing back to their little office where they can shake their angry little fists all they want at the injustice of people getting food in a perfectly natural and free manner. Kudos to this Mayor Godin for setting a great example, as far as I’m concerned.

(via Fark)

Wingnuttery can be recognized from anywhere, thankfully

It’s great to see that our neighbors across the pond also realize how crazy Fox News and its pseudo-journalistic personalities are. Watch as Charlie Brooker from Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe offers his remarks on the “news” channel along with its top celebrity cronies, including Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck:

I dunno why, but that line about “Paul Giamatti in a blond wig” had me LOLing. Seriously, Brits, keep sending your vids on how stupid and nutty you find American TV to be!

(via @todayspolitics)

Hypocritical Quote of the Day: shouldn’t you be happy, moron?

From RNC chairman Michael Steele, talking about (being a Republican, what else?) the failed terror attempt on Christmas Day:

Relevant excerpt below, from Think Progress:

‘What it is is looking at the approach this administration has taken from its very first moments coming in talking about closing down Gitmo with no strategy or plan to do that and here we are a year later and Gitmo is still part of the mix. Now with this recent incident given everything in between, there is this image at least that’s been created, this presence of the presidency and so forth that is not consistent in their approach to foreign policy [blah blah blah …]’

Funny how Steele is now bemoaning how Guantanamo Bay hasn’t been closed yet, considering he’s one of the countless Republicans (which is to say, all of them) who’ve attacked Obama’s decision to shut Gitmo down. It’s equally interesting how he demands that there be a plan to deal with the detainees who would be transferred to high-security federal prisons, when this is the exact plan that he whined about when Obama proposed it.

Self-serving politicizing jackass.

(via @todayspolitics)

Stupid Quote of the Day: Mind your own business (and religion), Brit Hume

In the pantheon of people who don’t mind their own business and insist on giving other advice that not only isn’t theirs to give, but that is actually as stupid and insipid as advice gets, an honorary mention will have to be given to Fox News’s Brit Hume, who had these pearls of wisdom to share on the subject of the Tiger Woods affair(… s):

‘Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person, I think, is a very open question, and it’s a tragic situation. He’s lost his family; it’s not clear to me whether he’ll be able to have a relationship with his children, but the Tiger Woods that emerges, once the news value dies out of this scandal; the extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist; I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be, “Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world”.’

Okay. Disregarding the fact that religion has absolutely fuck-all to do with anything with what Tiger Woods did in cheating on his wife with [enter number here] women, or that Christianity is a religion of “forgiveness and redemption” as much as Islam is a religion of “love and peace”, or that his reasoning for why Tiger should convert to Christianity isn’t about how it’s the One True Faith^TM, but simply because it’s more comfortable, which isn’t even an argument at all, or that it’s simply none of his freaking business what religion Tiger follows – let’s just end with the marvelous point made by Ed Brayton as he counters Hume’s staggering hypocrisy regarding Christianity and cheating on one’s spouse:

Maybe if Tiger converts to Christianity, he'll change from cocktail waitresses to hookers like Jimmy Swaggart. Or church secretaries, like Jim Bakker. Or gay prostitutes, like Ted Haggard. Or maybe he'll wait until his wife is in the hospital with cancer to divorce her while cheating with a staffer, like Newt Gingrich.

The only way Tiger Woods will “forgiveness and redemption” is by actually showing some genuine remorse for his actions and trying to clean the huge mess he made. (And, may I add, never to do it again. As if this needed mentioning.) Turning towards another faith won’t do jack shit.

Holy hell – Glenn Beck speaks sense! (For once!)

He said WHAT?!

It must be the End of Days quite shortly, for America’s King Kook, Glenn Beck himself, has officially denounced and derided America’s current favorite conspiracy theory, the Birther lunacy (with the Truther “movement” falling in short second). It must’ve been difficult for Beck to say what he did on his broadcast in openly disavowing this particular conspiracy and its nuts, as it naturally resulted in the whining of, well, other wingnuts who are know gnashing their teeth at Beck for his sudden, inexplicable yet undeniably refreshing decision to actually make sense for the first time in recorded history. (Amongst other tiny little blips of reason.)

Cue the WorldNutDaily, official national headquarters of the Birther lunacy, and their whining in 3 … 2 … 1 …

On the air today, popular radio host Glenn Beck mocked "birthers" and claimed there is a concerted campaign to get those questioning Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility onto the airwaves – a strategy Beck said would actually benefit Obama.

"There's always games being played behind the scenes at a talk radio show," Beck said. "Rush has always called them seminar callers. But instead of being coy with the seminar callers or with you, I'm just going to expose the game that is going on. Today there is a concerted effort on all radio stations to get birthers on the air."

"I have to tell you, are you working for the Barack Obama administration?" Beck scoffed. "I mean, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."

The ongoing dialogue then spun off into ridicule as Beck caricatured those who question the sitting president's eligibility with straw-man arguments reminiscent of jibes made by Obama's apologists in other news outlets.

Beck defined birthers as people who believe Obama was born in Kenya or other foreign country, was raised as a Manchurian candidate and somehow brainwashed Hillary Clinton into not exposing his fraud. According to Beck's running joke, birthers believe someone – maybe Obama's KGB "control" – preemptively placed Obama's birth announcement in 1961 Hawaiian newspapers with a "roadmap" of getting an African man into office.

As for Obama producing a long-form birth certificate to actually prove his place of birth, Beck questioned, "Why do that when these people ['birthers'] are so discrediting themselves?"

The radio host further argued that by distracting the public from actionable issues, "birthers" have become "a dream come true" for Obama, an ideal situation akin to the fantasies of adolescent boys after Hollywood bombshells.

"Barack Obama looks at the birthers as Megan Fox," Beck said, referring to the star and sex symbol of the popular "Transformers" films.

Wow. That must leave the WND with a serious case of teh butthurt, to have America’s chief conspiracy nut deride their cherished nonsense.

The rest of the article is nothing but the same tired nonsense as ever: that Obama’s Hawaiian “Certificate of Live Birth” isn’t the same as an actual birth certificate (when by all practical measures, it is, and the CoLB is also the only certificate given in Hawaii, which means that they couldn’t give a “birth certificate” even if they wanted to because it doesn’t freakin’ exist); that Obama’s father’s dual American-British citizenship voids Obama being a “natural-born American citizen” (which is simply nonsense, as A) a dual citizenship means one is considered to be a naturalized citizen of BOTH countries, not just “half-and-half”, and B) the idea that the father’s citizenship somehow invalidates the son’s when the son was born on American soil is utterly stupid); and so on. These are all claims that have been destroyed countless times over the past year (and more), yet they still persist. Vexing.

Of course, the question to ask is: how insane do you have to be when freaking Glenn Beck is the voice of reason?

(via Dispatches From the Culture Wars)

When you call a dog, a dog …

Then you cannot but agree with Keith Olbermann when he publicly calls Dick Cheney a “traitor” to his own country for his despicable behavior towards the Obama administration, especially since Christmas and the failed terror attempt.

Video: MSNBC’s Countdown, broadcast January 04, 2010

Transcript from Raw Story (I added the first line for completion’s sake):

‘“We are at war,” Dick Cheney came down last week from Mount Megalomania to announce, “and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe.” If Mr. Cheney believes we are at war, then he, as the most recent occupant of the vice presidency, is under the strictest of obligations to put aside his case of terminal partisanship, and rally to the support of his president in a time of war. Instead, his remarks not only give encouragement to the enemies of this country, they give them an exact measure as to how successful they have been in damaging our freedoms.

In a previous time, Mr. Cheney's pathetic exploitation of human fears, his undermining of our courage and resolve and clear-headed calm thinking would have resulted in his being chased off the national stage by a public sick to death of the personal industry he has made of undermining American freedom and of undermining the authority of this elected government. And in a previous, more resolute time among journalists in this country, nobody would be pretending that this obvious fact is not true. It would have been in every newspaper and on every broadcast.

After his disgraceful performance since Christmas, when terrorists attempted an attack in this country, Dick Cheney is the beneficiary. And if he cannot summon exactly the same kind of absolute apolitical patriotism he demanded of everyone else while he was in office, he is, by his own terms, nothing more or less -- morally if not legally -- than a traitor to the United States of America.”

Beautifully said.

(via @todayspolitics)