Where are you, Sean Hannity?!

According to Sean Hannity Logic, doesn’t this mean global warming is real? Why hasn’t he been talking about this weather just as much as he talks about unusually cold weather?

Thought of the day

I heard Sean Hannity talking about trickle-down economics today.


Limbaugh and Hannity involved in fraud?

The above question mark is ironic: like FOX Noise, I’m really outright claiming what I wrote. However, unlike FOX Noise, what I’m claiming has evidence:

But according to an online account, Premiere [the radio company that employs Limbaugh and Hannity] is hiring actors to fake on-air calls to radio shows who do not divulge the scam. Before being abruptly removed, their website read:

“Premiere On Call is our new custom caller service… We supply voice talent to take/make your on-air calls, improvise your scenes or deliver your scripts. Using our simple online booking tool, specify the kind of voice you need, and we’ll get your the right person fast. Unless you request it, you won’t hear that same voice again for at least two months, ensuring the authenticity of your programming for avid listeners”.

As reported, once the actor “passed the audition, he would be invited periodically to call in to various talk shows and recite various scenarios that made for interesting radio.” In addition, the source was specifically told there would be no on-air disclosure of the fabricated nature of the call. He subsequently landed the job, at $40 per hour and a minimum one hour of work per day.

This suggests an array of radio clients is broadcasting bogus calls by actors, categorized by their accents or vocal qualities. Next time you hear a “gruff”, “clean”, “crisp”, “deep”, or “textured” voice, you might just be hearing a Premiere On Call actor secretively playing a real person.

This report stems from an accidental posting that appeared on Premiere’s website. I can’t say I’m surprised at the revelation. Both hosts have a history of being very selective about what information they present; the fact that they would hire actors to demonstrate specific points makes sense. They just aren’t honest guys and this is perfectly within their characters.

Sean Hannity is willing to lie

I had the misfortune of hearing Sean Hannity on the radio the other day. Before I was able to change back to my Elliott Smith, I heard him declare that Nancy Pelosi has a favorable rating of 8%. Eight percent, you say?! Why, that’s sounds atrocious. We knew she was unpopular, but who knew the numbers were so low?!

Except they aren’t.

Hannity was implying – without any shame whatsoever – that Pelosi’s overall favorable rating was 8%. Among everyone. That was precisely his intention and he didn’t bother to correct his lie. Why is it a lie, you say? Because the evidence says so.

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s favorable rating is down seven percentage points since May to 29%, a new low for her since assuming the top congressional post.

That’s the very first sentence in the Gallup write-up of the poll. It’s hard to imagine Hannity missed it.

What the chief liar at FOX Noise did was cite the Republican favorable rating for Pelosi. That is not what he said he was doing on his shitty, nasal-y radio program. He intentionally portrayed his statistic as her overall favorable rating. This man is extremely willing to lie.

What makes this all the dumber is that 29% is already pretty terrible. There’s no need to lie, Hannity.

Sean the con

Sean Hannity is part of a charity which is meant to assist troops and their families in one way or another. According to one source, it’s a scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity’s statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes. Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Sean Hannity logic

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

Limbaugh, Republicans, and Lies

I heard Rush Limbaugh talk about death panels today. He’s a rhetorical, moronic machine. Not ten minutes later, just after a commercial break, a caller explained what the bill actually says. He noted that it primarily and merely offers to pay for doctor visits for those who wish to discuss end-of-life care. This primarily concerns those who have been given terminal diagnoses. As it stands, Medicare and Medicaid do not cover this visits. People, should they CHOOSE, to speak with their doctors over their end-of-life care, they should not have to pay out of pocket.

After the called explained this, Limbaugh claimed that he never uses the term “death panel”, except in quoting that gem of genuine stupidity that is Sarah Palin. He is a liar. A huge, fucking liar. He uses the term regularly, including just moments early on that very airing. This sort of behavior is highly typical of Republicans and conservatives. Lie, lie, lie. No need to help those who aren’t already wealthy.

I think a lot of this, to be frank, dumbness, comes from Reagan. He encouraged economic policies of “trickling-down” money from the rich to the poor. It predictably failed. It caused the economic downturn in the early 90’s. Clinton corrected a lot of this. Then Dubya went ahead and messed things up again. Now it is left to a Democrat to YET AGAIN clean up this inanity.

It’s possible to identify, again and again, why Republican policies are complete and utter failures. But to say why they are so stupid about everything is beyond me.

All it takes to refute something…

…is for some journalist to say you did. According to the headline on that article, James Perloff refuted evolution at some half-baked meeting.

Perloff tried to draw parallels throughout history, attempting to connect individuals such as Andrew Carnegie, Karl Marx, Josef Stalin and Adolph Hitler with the teachings and rationales of Charles Darwin. He also told of his own life’s inner conflict, saying he was briefly turned into an atheist at a young age due to Darwin’s theory.

Perloff went on to say, “Survival of the fittest does not explain arrival of the fittest,” and that, “[the theory of] evolution is just speculation on the past and should not been seen as scientific fact.”

There you go. EVILution has been defeated. Good job, Perloff. Honestly. It should be clear to everyone. If someone can make bogus, tinsel thin connections between ideas and people Real America loathes, then the idea must be false. Just pretend that logical fallacies don’t exist and the argument is air-tight.

The event was held in front of a small gathering and was kicked off with a prayer along with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Harold Shurtleff of West Roxbury, regional field director for the John Birch Society.

I remember as a very young kid playing Street Fighter. When the levels got too hard or my older brother beat me a bunch of times in a row, I’d start up a game just by myself. I would have a Player 2 set up, but no one was controlling it. I’d just wail all my 32 bits on that character. It made me feel good. Does anyone get the feeling that conservatives have the same frustration? I mean, the exact same frustration – one born out of immaturity and a lack of rationale. These people are kicking and screaming their prayers and flag-based prayers all over the place because it makes them feel good. Of course, I was a child when I did it. What excuse do these people have? There are more examples.

Take Sean Hannity. He’s a huge idiot. (I heard him say in the middle of a broadcast, and I paraphrase, “…that isn’t an arrogant statement. America saved the world from Totalitarianism. It did this multiple times. The world has us to thank. That isn’t an arrogant statement.”) He refuses to refer to Obama as “President Obama” in virtually every instance. He insists on calling him “The Annointed One”, or “The One” for short. You can feel his anger and immature frustration. People very rarely identify whining correctly (they tend to conflate it with active disagreement). This is not one of those cases. Sean Hannity and the new breed of ultra-radical conservatives are big, fat whiners.

Conservapedia is another great example of a bunch of crybabies. Their page on evolution (which is just a page on creationism) has a section titled “Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates“. I kid you not. This is their version of 32-bit wailing. They absolutely cannot win. Rather than to accept reality, they set up these conversations in their own heads where they win every time. Sean Hannity does it. John McCain did it. Dubya definitely did it. This is the path of conservatives in America. Yell and whine and if that doesn’t work, beat the crap out of Blanka.

Glenn Beck is such a huge idiot

I, for whatever inane reason, find myself listening to conservat…sorry, fair and balanced news. From what I gather, the station is a combination of FOX Noise radio and a local conservative station, probably a FOX affiliate. It basically consists of four shows: Hannity, Beck, Carr, and some automotive show for whatever strange reason. Beck has the most charisma, so I find listening to his outrageous opinions to be the most tolerable. UPDATE: It turns out they’re all intolerable. And Carr has more charisma.

I was listening to the jackass last night and he was going on about science – no doubt, Ben Stein’s definition of science. This is what he said (paraphrased).

We all know Earth didn’t just come into existence by magic by some invisible guy in the sky! No! It was when two rocks collided that Earth was created!

The sarcasm dripped.

Surely what Beck was referencing was the well-established fact of the accretion process. Apparently this is just too absurd for the man. From what I can tell, the guy has some smarts about him. He managed to attend Yale shortly before dropping out. Really, that’s the problem. A stupid creationist isn’t as common as one might think; what we’re seeing are ignorant creationists. These people, for whatever reason, refuse to educate themselves. That in itself is stupid, but their lack of knowledge is ignorance. It’s no crime, but these people shouldn’t be getting talk shows and Vice Presidential nominations.

Women and science

The mooks over at Conservapedia love to parade out old studies that show statistically insignificant leads for boy over girls in math and science. Despite this heavy dose of misogynistic idiocy, it’s no secret men outnumber women in science. Go one step further: famous men outnumber famous women by a longshot. In thinking of just 10 scientists, Lynn Margulis is the only female that comes to mind.

So when commenters focused on the looks of Sheril Kirshenbaum, she became understandably annoyed.

Now folks, I’m not naive. I recognize everyone forms preconceived notions based on visual and nonverbal cues. As it happens, my next book deals with science and sexuality, so this is a topic I’ve been thinking about a lot lately off the blog. Naturally, attention to physical appearance has been hardwired into our neural circuitry over a few millenia, however, you better believe it’s never acceptable judge anyone based on appearances and number of X chromosomes. And of course I’ve noticed the science blogosphere is buzzing over some neanderthal comments from Monday about my photo. After Phil was kind enough to welcome Chris and I to Discover Blogs, I was disappointed to read several of the responses. For example:

    as a living breathing male of the species, I look forward to any article with Sherils picture attached.

Or even less articulate:

    mmmmmmmm……….. wo-man

Okay, I get it. People are focusing on her looks rather than her credentials. But let’s take a look at that first quote. In full.

Having not read any of their material, I am supremely unqualified to comment on any of their writings.

But, as a living breathing male of the species, I look forward to any article with Sherils picture attached.

That’s just bad practice. While Kirshenbaum has a valid overall point, she misquotes a person. I thought reasoned people had left that up to creationists and other stupid conservatives.

Let’s keep in mind what the original post was all about. It was an introduction. Is there a specific, pre-approved, politically correct response expected? I see an intro to a new blog, a short description, and a picture – the most prominent thing about the post – and not much else. It is entirely reasonable to comment on the picture. Naturally, some level of respect should be given. The above, misquoted commenter did that. He wasn’t vulgar, he noted that he cannot speak of Kirshenbaum’s science credentials, and only then did he say, “Hey, she’s pretty”. Kirshenbaum extends this to a broader point.

I doubt any of the aforementioned anecdotes–or the now infamous comments–were intended to be insulting, but they each highlight a broader social issue. Several female colleagues have similar stories of receiving sexually explicit emails and poetry, while I’ve yet to hear the fellows complain of unwanted advances (though surely that happens occasionally too). This is not an isolated problem, nor is it specific to me as an individual, rather it demonstrates that no matter how much the nature of science has changed, it continues to be very much a ‘boys club.’

This is somewhat inappropriate. Of course, science is a “boys club”. It is a field that is dominated by men, shown to the public through male spokespeople, and probably has a good deal of misogyny running amok. That cannot be extrapolated from a few posts that say “I am attracted to this person”. Let’s drive this home. Here’s another quote from that original post.

Is it just me, or do they look YOUNG? It must just be me getting old I guess. I look forward to reading what they post.

WHOA! WHOA! What’s with all the ageism? Come on, people! Science is such an ‘old persons club’. It’s ridiculous. How about some common respect for the young members of the field?

Don’t miss the point. Please.

Kirshenbaum has valid points and she makes them shine through her other anecdotes. The comments about her being attractive, however, do not illustrate her point. If they do, then I just equally illustrated a point about ageism.

From Kirshenbaum:

Now folks, I’m not naive. I recognize everyone forms preconceived notions based on visual and nonverbal cues. As it happens, my next book deals with science and sexuality, so this is a topic I’ve been thinking about a lot lately off the blog. Naturally, attention to physical appearance has been hardwired into our neural circuitry over a few millenia, however, you better believe it’s never acceptable [to] judge anyone based on appearances and number of X chromosomes.

First of all, I prefer accuracy so let’s augment that last statement a tad. It’s never acceptable to judge anyone based on appearances and number X chromosomes, in most instances. If I’m looking for someone to date, I’m definitely going to find a person to whom I am attracted. If that isn’t physical judgement, I don’t know what is. Second, from the comments I read, there was judgement being passed on Kirshenbaum’s looks, not her quality of science. One cannot necessarily take such comments to be outright ignoring her scientific credentials. The prettiest creationist in the world can open up a blog, but I’m not going to give it any praise for that reason. If I say, “Hey, that creationist is sure pretty, but she’s also pretty dumb”, the first part of my comment may be irrelevant, but it is not harmful and it says nothing of the creationists’ credentials – the latter part of the comment does that. Take out that latter part, and no comment was made on scientific credentials. In other words, no credentials were demeaned. If the post was about Kirshenbaum’s research on a particular topic and people focused on her looks, then, yes, that would be inappropriate and demeaning.

Hell, take the mook Sean Hannity. Torture yourself with just a few interviews. Women will often make the point that while he is attractive, his points are awful and misguided. In other words, “here’s a compliment, but it has no bearing on what I think about what you’re saying.”

Of course, not everyone is so innocent with their compliments. Some people are just saying it for the sake of saying it. If that’s all they’re saying, give ’em hell. If they’re saying it in response to a picture accompanied by little more than a generic intro, it’s difficult to see a problem.

I really want to drive this home and I keep coming up with examples how. Take, for instance, a blogger who has a butt-ugly blog layout. Maybe some gross looking color scheme or whathaveyou. Even simply an ugly avatar. Would it be unreasonable for someone to say “I don’t know anything about John Doe’s science, but that is one ugly avatar/layout/whatever he has”?