LOL, theist gets bitch slapped

I don’t like “lol”. But I really did laugh out loud at this one.

Typical for believers to jump on this without understanding the context. Here’s what one of the study’s authors had to say about the finding:

* The idea of anger toward God can be relevant for SOME (not all!) people who don’t believe in God (e.g., atheists, agnostics).
–For example, some nonbelievers have anger toward God as part of their history, and some report anger when prompted to focus on a residual or hypothetical image of God. (The thinking might be like this: “If God did exist, then he would be a jerk.”)
–IMPORTANT: ** We are by no means claiming that all nonbelievers are angry at God.

More deets:

Sorry, we’re not angry at your imaginary friend.

This comes from Mike D, one of those blogging atheists who does his homework. He was replying to a post that gave an intentionally false impression of a study about atheists. Why do I say intentionally false? Doesn’t that imply lying? Yep. It comes from the biggest liar I have ever encountered, after all. (And he has a history of distorting studies.)

(If the link to Mike D’s post doesn’t work, don’t be surprised. The liar who runs the site is a coward who hates to be embarrassed. He may delete the comment or alter the link slightly.)

To give some background, the reason for the post distorting what atheists believe is that it is a direct response to my post about Christians deep down. (My original posts seem to be the primary lifeline for that site – even if I never get credit.) In my post I made the clear point that it is not okay to say atheists are atheists just because they hate God. That’s tantamount to saying atheists really believe in God, and if that’s true, then they aren’t really atheists. It’s just bullshit rhetoric designed to create a strawman.

And that’s what that whole post goes on to do. And, as usual, it does it in a fundamentally dishonest fashion. I’m not surprised. In fact, my usual reaction is literally to just roll my eyes. But I found Mike D’s honest post to be such a thorough bitch slapping that I couldn’t help but share the joy.

Okay, now the rich have their money

Great, wonderful, magical. The rich have avoided a marginal tax increase so they can keep money that will not find its way to those at the other end of the massive, Republican-caused income gap. (Trickle down economics. Lol.) So can Congress do something that matters?

  • Maybe they can approve the START treaty. I don’t know about you, but I don’t trust Russia, whether in its agenda or its infrastructure and ability to maintain its nuclear arsenal in any manner (such as, I don’t know, keeping track of it). Oh, and Ronald Reagan supported arms reduction. That isn’t a reason for my support. I’m just mentioning it because Dick Morris said exactly the opposite on a radio show last night. He’s a moron.
  • Or maybe they could allow gays to help make us safer. I know, I know. All the right-wing conservative bigots (apologies for redundancy) are going to throw a fit over this – just like they did in response to racially integrating…well, anything. But this is the right thing to do, it will make our 20th century-style military more effective, and there is no rational reason that says we shouldn’t do it. And oh, c’mon. Let’s be honest. We all know what the slime-bag bigots (like McCain) are thinking, and no. No, gay people do not fuck everything that moves. Grow up.
  • Or maybe they could give health care to 9/11 First Responders. I’m grammatically uncomfortable with capitalizing “First Responders”, but I’m more than morally okay with it. I’m just not sure if the Republican’ts are comfortable giving health care to anyone. When Jon Stewart showed his anger over the lack of action on this bill, I figured it really just came down to the Republican’ts sticking together on their crappy do-nothing pledge until the billionaires got their tax breaks. But it looks like it’s going to be tough to scrape together the 60 votes needed to pass this thing. Does it make me a name-caller if I say this group is really fucking scummy? Because I might have to argue that I’m making a descriptive, not a normative, claim.

LePage would be awful for education

Creationist Republican candidate for Maine governor Paul LePage has some terrible ideas on education. Last week he made this risible suggestion:

“Our program is going to offer high school students a choice — you can go four years at high school and get a diploma or go five years and get an (associate’s) degree,” he said. “We’re going to raise the standard for education in the state of Maine. We need to get our best and brightest out there and educated at the lowest possible cost.”

If I may – lol.

Right. Let’s just give away associate’s degrees. I mean, compressing two years worth of courses – most of which need to be taught by those with specialized, esoteric knowledge (not high school teachers) – into one year would totally raise the standard for education in the state of Maine. Or when a Maine high school student goes to take his terrible high school associate’s degree to an actual college or university and he asks if he can get credit towards a bachelor’s, he’s going to find that he suffered an extra year of low-level schooling for nothing. That’s because every other school in the nation (and I would hope even post-secondary schools in Maine) are going to laugh at that useless piece of paper.

LePage obviously hasn’t thought any of this through, unfortunately. But on the bright side, his lack of foresight and of general intelligence helps to explain why he’s now saying something different and superfluous.

LePage said the state needs to toughen its educational standards.

“We want to give our students an option — four years, you get a diploma or you can earn your associate’s degree with collaboration between the community college system and the University of Maine system,” he said. “It’s going to be tough; the kids are going to have to work harder.”

…wwwwhat? Community colleges and the UMaine system do work together – accredited schools tend to do that. Under LePage’s first plan from just a week ago (which I guess he has abandoned?), these two systems would have to lose a lot of credibility to work with high schools to just give away associate’s degrees. But right now it is perfectly possible to gain an associate’s degree at a community college which holds water when transferred into the UMaine system; the systems are already intertwined.

I highly doubt LePage actually thinks before he says anything.

Teddy Roosevelt was not a progressive

Of course Teddy Roosevelt wasn’t a progressive.

Who, you ask, said this? Why, none other than Glenn Beck. Even though I was in my car by myself, I literally lol’d this one. What made it all the greater was that he said this immediately after discussing Roosevelt’s actions toward land conservation. It is for this stuff that I will subject myself to the inanity that is conservative talk radio. It’s pure gold.

Honestly, does Beck just never realize how dumb the words are that come out of his mouth? Christ. Roosevelt was in the Progressive Party of 1912.

To give some context, a resident of Maine had called in to complain about the setting aside of land for preservation in the northern part of the state. This led to a discussion on Ted Turner and all the land he owns in Montana. Beck first argued that government ownership of land is bad because it restricts individual property ownership. Then, and apparently without irony, he argued that Turner’s ownership is bad because he has the land in a trust, meaning that it is locked up effectively for generations. In other words, too much public land ownership is bad because it harms property rights for individuals, but too much private land ownership is bad because then we can’t all use it. Glenn Beck apparently favors a capitalist, communist, free market, socialist, progressive, conservative, libertarian, utilitarian, incoherent moron of a policy in terms of how Americans should own property. Oh, and Teddy Roosevelt wasn’t a progressive.

Sean Hannity logic

It’s frickin’ nice outside right now where I am. According to Sean Hannity logic, global warming is true. For today.