I've decided that the only way to truly show my outrage at humans/entities for their stupidity, illogic, etc. is to rank them. Hence, I am introducing the Fucktard scale (FT scale for short). This is a very simple rating system from 1 to 10 with one being lowest. Points are increased based on how stupid or illogical the thing/person is both in general and during a particular event (Congress increased their FT points by even considering SOPA and PIPA). Of course, the power they hold will be considered as a multiplier when they abuse it.
The way I see it, men like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich rate about a 9 on the scale. The idiot electric car driver I encountered this afternoon is only about a 1 since his actions in that particular case only really effected me and the semi-truck I nearly hit. That leaves men like President Obama sitting somewhere around a 4 (which is pretty good for a politician).
Monday, January 30, 2012
Electric Car or Electric Car Driver?
I like the idea of electric/hybrid cars, a lot, but the current models on the road really piss me off sometimes. I drive a little 4-cylinder sedan and I'm going to get on the highway this afternoon at rush hour. The car in front of me is electric, going 30 on the off ramp and is ever so slowly accelerating even though the ramp is downhill and the posted freeway speed is 55 but most people are going well over 60. Finally he starts to really accelerate as the ramp is coming to an end. The merge lane is not very long and a semi truck (that had been well behind us when we started down the ramp) has nearly caught up. I need to get up to speed and move over quickly but this car is blocking my way. The semi is giving me no ground so I honk and the car in front of me puts on just enough speed to barely edge in in front of the semi. I have to swerve onto the shoulder and hit my breaks to avoid being creamed by the massive truck.
Right now I don't know if I should blame incompetent driving or poor acceleration on electric cars.
Thoughts?
Right now I don't know if I should blame incompetent driving or poor acceleration on electric cars.
Thoughts?
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Sick to my Stomach
I recently saw a photo that made me want to run to the bathroom and hurl. It showed a four-part cutaway of a woman's stomach showing a 23-week-old fetus. In each of the four images it shows a "long toothed clamp" (to use the image's highly technical term) to rip the fetus apart in segments. It even shows an inset image of the 70mm arm that had just been ripped out. The comment below the image unsurprisingly says "Say NO to " ABORTION ".....!!!" I don't know why they put quotations around abortion but that is what it said. I am against abortion but still believe in its legalization for a few reasons.
First of all, the whole pro-life/pro-choice labels are absurd. I'm pro-life, meaning I believe in the preservation of life. And I'm pro-choice, meaning that I believe in the preservation of individual liberty. The names are designed to be inflammatory since no one ever wants to be considered anti-life or anti-choice. That would just be ridiculous.
Next, I find abortion to be morally reprehensible. I believe that when you make the choice to have sex (and only when you make the choice of your own free will) then you are choosing to accept the consequences. One of those consequences, is pregnancy. Even if you are on the pill and he uses a condom there is a statistical chance that you could still become pregnant. In a way you are taking your life into your own hands when you choose to have sex because you do not have absolute control over if you get pregnant or not. It's like anything in life. When you drive or ride in a car you have a 1 in 84 chance of dying. Like to swim in the ocean? Well you have a 1 in 60,453 chance of getting killed by a shark. When using condoms correctly you have a 1% chance of getting pregnant. That means every time you have sex you are spinning the roulette wheel and have a 1 in 100 chance of getting pregnant. That risk is yours to take. If you want a 0 chance of getting pregnant, don't have sex.
That being said, I cannot condone government legislation preventing a woman's right to an abortion, within reason. There are so many circumstances where, until we experience them ourselves, we cannot fathom the choices that come from them. Rape, incest, and medical necessity are the commonly touted ones in this argument but there are many more. Extreme poverty? Choosing to bring a child into the world when you know you do not have the means to feed or cloth that child is a heavy decision. And what about abuse? A 16-year-old who goes through abuse at home and gets pregnant is unlikely to have a nurturing environment not only while she is pregnant but after the baby is born as well. This is also true for grown women in abusive relationships. I would rather see them get out of the situation, but the choice to bring a new life into that same situation is a very heavy one. I could go on for a very long time but each individual circumstance speaks to one main theme, compassion. You never know a man, or woman, until you've walked a mile in their shoes.
The "within reason" that I add to the above paragraph is because of the question of late term abortions. The actual cut off point is debatable since the most preterm baby ever to survive was only 22 weeks into a usually 40 week gestation. In my view, and I am not certain this is always the case, an abortion should be preformed before the fetus is viable which occurs sometime between 22 and 24 weeks. Since most women learn they are pregnant sometime between 4 and 8 weeks after conception this would still leave at least 14 weeks, over 3 months, to make the decision and actually abort the pregnancy. If a termination becomes medically necessary after this point I'd say it is fairly clear that the parent(s) have decided to keep the baby and should be considering a preterm delivery to preserve the baby's life as well as the mother.
A secondary reason I disapprove of legislation against abortion, particularly at the federal level, is that it was never a power that was meant to be given to the government. We let them tell us we can't have an abortion and the next thing we know they'll be telling us we can't have fast food (oh wait, they've already started doing that by banning trans-fats). We must always be circumspect in the powers we give our government because it has been proven, time and again, that when we give an inch they take a mile.
My final argument against banning abortion is a simple history lesson. The first lesson is on prohibition. Did it stop drinking in the United States? Far from it. Next, think of abortion in the 60/70s, and probably even earlier than that. Did abortion cease to exist because it was illegal? No. Back alley abortions, dangerous medications, and inflicting personal injury to induce a miscarriage still took place. Did it deter some? Probably. But many abortions still occurred and often cost the lives and health of the mother as well.
Returning to the original picture I mentioned, this is the sort of sick propaganda that easily enrages people and makes them think "we can't let this happen" without considering the full scope of the question. The image is of a 23-week-old fetus and, as I mentioned earlier, the earliest reported birth where the baby survived was at 22 weeks. This image also depicts the fetus as baby pink (which is not the color babies are at that stage) and sucking its thumb. All these little signals to make us see the fetus as a living, breathing baby and incite more horror when the baby is ripped apart. That gut wrenching reaction works, my own reaction is testament, but there is a deeper, more complicated conversation that must be had before a decision is come to.
First of all, the whole pro-life/pro-choice labels are absurd. I'm pro-life, meaning I believe in the preservation of life. And I'm pro-choice, meaning that I believe in the preservation of individual liberty. The names are designed to be inflammatory since no one ever wants to be considered anti-life or anti-choice. That would just be ridiculous.
Next, I find abortion to be morally reprehensible. I believe that when you make the choice to have sex (and only when you make the choice of your own free will) then you are choosing to accept the consequences. One of those consequences, is pregnancy. Even if you are on the pill and he uses a condom there is a statistical chance that you could still become pregnant. In a way you are taking your life into your own hands when you choose to have sex because you do not have absolute control over if you get pregnant or not. It's like anything in life. When you drive or ride in a car you have a 1 in 84 chance of dying. Like to swim in the ocean? Well you have a 1 in 60,453 chance of getting killed by a shark. When using condoms correctly you have a 1% chance of getting pregnant. That means every time you have sex you are spinning the roulette wheel and have a 1 in 100 chance of getting pregnant. That risk is yours to take. If you want a 0 chance of getting pregnant, don't have sex.
That being said, I cannot condone government legislation preventing a woman's right to an abortion, within reason. There are so many circumstances where, until we experience them ourselves, we cannot fathom the choices that come from them. Rape, incest, and medical necessity are the commonly touted ones in this argument but there are many more. Extreme poverty? Choosing to bring a child into the world when you know you do not have the means to feed or cloth that child is a heavy decision. And what about abuse? A 16-year-old who goes through abuse at home and gets pregnant is unlikely to have a nurturing environment not only while she is pregnant but after the baby is born as well. This is also true for grown women in abusive relationships. I would rather see them get out of the situation, but the choice to bring a new life into that same situation is a very heavy one. I could go on for a very long time but each individual circumstance speaks to one main theme, compassion. You never know a man, or woman, until you've walked a mile in their shoes.
The "within reason" that I add to the above paragraph is because of the question of late term abortions. The actual cut off point is debatable since the most preterm baby ever to survive was only 22 weeks into a usually 40 week gestation. In my view, and I am not certain this is always the case, an abortion should be preformed before the fetus is viable which occurs sometime between 22 and 24 weeks. Since most women learn they are pregnant sometime between 4 and 8 weeks after conception this would still leave at least 14 weeks, over 3 months, to make the decision and actually abort the pregnancy. If a termination becomes medically necessary after this point I'd say it is fairly clear that the parent(s) have decided to keep the baby and should be considering a preterm delivery to preserve the baby's life as well as the mother.
A secondary reason I disapprove of legislation against abortion, particularly at the federal level, is that it was never a power that was meant to be given to the government. We let them tell us we can't have an abortion and the next thing we know they'll be telling us we can't have fast food (oh wait, they've already started doing that by banning trans-fats). We must always be circumspect in the powers we give our government because it has been proven, time and again, that when we give an inch they take a mile.
My final argument against banning abortion is a simple history lesson. The first lesson is on prohibition. Did it stop drinking in the United States? Far from it. Next, think of abortion in the 60/70s, and probably even earlier than that. Did abortion cease to exist because it was illegal? No. Back alley abortions, dangerous medications, and inflicting personal injury to induce a miscarriage still took place. Did it deter some? Probably. But many abortions still occurred and often cost the lives and health of the mother as well.
Returning to the original picture I mentioned, this is the sort of sick propaganda that easily enrages people and makes them think "we can't let this happen" without considering the full scope of the question. The image is of a 23-week-old fetus and, as I mentioned earlier, the earliest reported birth where the baby survived was at 22 weeks. This image also depicts the fetus as baby pink (which is not the color babies are at that stage) and sucking its thumb. All these little signals to make us see the fetus as a living, breathing baby and incite more horror when the baby is ripped apart. That gut wrenching reaction works, my own reaction is testament, but there is a deeper, more complicated conversation that must be had before a decision is come to.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
A Rock and a Hard Place
The race for the Republican nomination has officially turned into a circus. With Romney and Gingrich acting like 5-year-olds fighting over a trip to Disneyland I am dumbfounded by their apparent leadership in the race. A reality TV show would be a more appropriate arena for their bickering. Whether you are for or against Obama it's becoming rapidly apparent that Republicans have little to no chance of winning this election. While the GOP worries about insulting Ron Paul enough for him to run as a third-party candidate (taking his vast following with him), they seem to be turning a blind eye on the shameful behavior of their two leading candidates.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
The Abuse of Statistics in Action
Please look at the following graph and tell me what is wrong with this picture:
Can't see it?
Well the Washington Post did and you can check out their article here. Or you can read on.
Even someone with the most basic understanding of statistics can see where this graph goes wrong. Let me use the example from the above mentioned Washington Post article. If one person increases the national debt from 10 to 20 they are said to have increased it by 100% but then if another person increases the debt from 20 to 30 they are only increasing it by 50%. Beginning to see the problem?
A better way to see who increased the debt is to show the increase in dollars, and even more so to divide it over the length of the president's term. Reagan and Bush the younger may have increased by greater dollar amount but they also served longer terms that both the Elder Bush and Obama so far. Here are a few numbers for you:
President Start of term End of term Total increase Average yearly Increase
Reagen $994B $2.9T $1.9T $238B
Elder Bush $2.9T $4.4T $1.5T $375B
Clinton $4.4T $5.7T $1.3T $163B
Younger Bush $5.7T $10.4T $4.7T $588B
Obama $10.4T $11.8T(2010) $1.4T $700B
Now these are extremely rough estimates that do not take into account the state of the economy, world affairs, war, and certainly not inflation but you see a very different trend. Clinton, a democrat, is by far the best. But it is Obama, another democrat, who is by far the worse, closely followed by the younger Bush. We need to realize that Obama has increased the national debt more in 2 years than Clinton did in his entire 8 years in office.
This graph is laughable. And the fact that it is taken seriously by people on social media sites is even more so. It is sad to see that Americans have fallen so far.
Can't see it?
Well the Washington Post did and you can check out their article here. Or you can read on.
Even someone with the most basic understanding of statistics can see where this graph goes wrong. Let me use the example from the above mentioned Washington Post article. If one person increases the national debt from 10 to 20 they are said to have increased it by 100% but then if another person increases the debt from 20 to 30 they are only increasing it by 50%. Beginning to see the problem?
A better way to see who increased the debt is to show the increase in dollars, and even more so to divide it over the length of the president's term. Reagan and Bush the younger may have increased by greater dollar amount but they also served longer terms that both the Elder Bush and Obama so far. Here are a few numbers for you:
President Start of term End of term Total increase Average yearly Increase
Reagen $994B $2.9T $1.9T $238B
Elder Bush $2.9T $4.4T $1.5T $375B
Clinton $4.4T $5.7T $1.3T $163B
Younger Bush $5.7T $10.4T $4.7T $588B
Obama $10.4T $11.8T(2010) $1.4T $700B
Now these are extremely rough estimates that do not take into account the state of the economy, world affairs, war, and certainly not inflation but you see a very different trend. Clinton, a democrat, is by far the best. But it is Obama, another democrat, who is by far the worse, closely followed by the younger Bush. We need to realize that Obama has increased the national debt more in 2 years than Clinton did in his entire 8 years in office.
This graph is laughable. And the fact that it is taken seriously by people on social media sites is even more so. It is sad to see that Americans have fallen so far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)