The World O' Crap Archive

Welcome to the Collected World O' Crap, a comprehensive library of posts from the original Salon Blog, and our successor site, world-o-crap.com (2006 to 2010).

Current posts can be found here.

Friday, January 21, 2011

January 31, 2006 by s.z.


Making the World Worse, One Corner Comment at a Time


UNSIGHTLY [Kate O'Beirne]
Cindy Sheehan in a t-shirt, with or without a slogan, should be illegal.
Posted at 10:01 PM
Yeah, Cindy is unattractive, so she shouldn't be allowed to have opinions or to even be out out in public. 

It really is a pity that she's so plain, which is the only thing that matters in a woman.  But you know, if only the jocks had invited her to the prom when she was in high school, then she would never have become an unfeminine peace activist, and would instead be happy that her son died in Iraq!
Oh, and here's a photo of the lovely Kate:
 (Remember, God looks at the soul.)

11:43:28 PM    



The Never Ending Story; or, Why Dr. Mike Hates Feminists


When we last checked in on Dr. Professor Mike Adams, he was telling us "Why I Don't Take Feminists Seriously" (the main reason being that they have feminine names, just like lap dancers.)

He got so much positive reinforcement from that column (and taking feminists unseriously is such a pressing problem) that he decided to expand it into a seemingly interminable series.
Here's a brief recap of Part Two (we'll get to the rest later this week).

After I published yesterday’s column (Why I don’t take feminists seriously), a feminist who works in my building really gave me the cold shoulder. In fact, she didn’t say a word to me all day. It was meant to be a form of punishment. But, actually, it was a reward.
So, Reason #5: Dr. Mike doesn't take feminists seriously because they snub him just because he's a jerk. Or, as he put it: "Most feminists do not have a sense of humor" -- if they did, then they'd think he was funny.  (Of course, I think he's hilarious, just not intentionally -- so there seems to already be a problem with his criteria.)

Reason #6:  Feminists care more about abortion rights than they do about consensual oral sex, which proves that they don't give a damn about victims of sexual harassment.

Reason #7: "Feminists really don’t care about racism"
Feminists often quote statistics about the under-representation of women in certain occupations as “conclusive proof” of sexism. They don’t need to rely on specific evidence in individual cases. However, when confronted with statistics showing that the vast majority of abortions are performed on blacks and Hispanics, they remain mute. Surely they know that most people in this country are white. And Planned Parenthood will play a much larger role in keeping it that way than the Ku Klux Klan.
And when confronted with statistics showing that black and Hispanic women have more pregnancies than white women (for instance, data indicating that black teenagers have 2.4 times the pregnancy rate of whites), and informed that many of these pregnancies are unplanned and unwanted, presumably Dr. Mike argues that these women should be forced to bear these children no matter what, in order to further the black and Hispanic goal of race domination.

Reason #8: Feminists belong to the Borg collective.

Feminists only attack Dr. Mike in groups, as shown by the fact that he didn't get any hate mail from feminists about his columns on feminism.  Well, except for that note from Daisy, the feminist who started this whole thing.  And numerous other examples.  But anyway, the important thing is that once, some men criticized Dr. Mike's stupidity on a university mailing list, but the feminists just issued a joint statement.
I saw the significance of this pattern immediately. The men all had individual opinions. The feminists all had the same opinion. The men embraced individualism. The feminists embraced collectivism.
And speaking of individual opinions, you may remember how, post 9/11, Dr. Mike sent, via the university mail system, an abusive email to a student who had sent him an antiwar message.
And how that same day one Krysten Scott, a fellow UNCW student and the secretary of the local College Republicans, sent the student an email which said that "People like you deserve to be dragged down the street by your hair. . . . I hope you will have the good sense to keep you[r] liberal moth shut at a time like this. No one needs your shit."

You may also recall that the student's father claimed that Dr. Mike had encouraged Krysten (and another conservative student) to send threatening email to his daughter, citing the fact that Dr. Mike had sent Krysten six emails the morning that she emailed the student.

So, was that the kind of collectivism that Dr. Mike is talking about? (Btw, the other emailer involved in the case was a male.)

Anyway, if you do remember that incident, then you might also recall that Dr. Mike and Krysten announced their engagement about a year later.  And so you might be interested to learn from Metro Magazine that Dr. Mike's wife Krysten is now the youth director at Wrightsville United Methodist Church.  I'm sure she can teach the young women of the congregation many valuable lessons about tolerance, charity, and the dangers of peer pressure.  Oh, and about why her husband doesn't take feminists seriously, and why women give him E.D.

Next time: Dr. Mike discusses the impropriety of professor/student relationships (but only the ones involving feminists professors, of course).

6:53:04 AM    



This is Your Brain - This Is Your Brain on Rush


Here's an interesting story out of Ft. Lauderdale:  Fla. Doctor Guilty in Pain Pill Case
A former Air Force doctor was convicted Monday of causing the deaths of five patients by overprescribing highly potent painkillers, including morphine and OxyContin.
Dr. Thomas G. Merrill, 70, was convicted on 98 of 100 counts, including illegally dispensing controlled substances and health care fraud. He faces up to life in prison.
Prosecutor Stephen Kunz called Merrill "a drug dealer with an osteopathic license." He said Merrill's practice became a destination for drug seekers throughout Florida.
Here's a doctor who prescribed drugs to anyone in Florida who wanted them, allegedly killing five of his patients in the process -- and yet Rush Limbaugh is still alive.  Proof once again that life isn't fair.
(I mean that it's not fair that Rush had to get his blue babies from his treacherous maid and four different doctors, when other, lesser people just saw Dr Drug Dealer.  It goes to show you that it's hard to be very, very rich.)

Oh, and speaking of Rush, here he is now, talking to his listeners:
[Y]ou're nothing more than drug addicts yourselves and you're rewarding yourself for bad behavior, and you see things that contradict your world view, and you ignore them.
I think that was very astute of Rush.

Okay, actually he thought he was heaping scorn on a WaPo science story , "Study Ties Political Leanings to Hidden Biases."  He blamed the Post and the Democrats for the researchers' findings, pretty much proving the contention of the first study cited.

The first study found that "self-identified Democratic and Republican partisans" discounted information about candidates they liked -- which isn't exactly a scientific breakthrough.  The twist was that the researcher conducted brain scans of the participants, which showed that the "reward centers" in their brains were activated when they did their discounting.  "The psychologist observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information had curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward themselves for wrong-headed behavior"

So you can see why Rush had such a hissy fit while discussing the article -- it knocked both his way of dealing with unwelcome information AND his drug addiction.

The second study discussed in the Post piece allegedly showed that "supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did."
That study was so distasteful to Rush that he never really addressed it. 

Basically, it involved researchers questioning nearly 130,000 whites on their views on blacks, and following that up with a "widely used test of racial bias that measures the speed of people's associations between black or white faces and positive or negative words."  The researchers then examined correlations between voting behavior in all 435 congressional districts and explicit and implicit attitudes towards blacks.
The analysis found that substantial majorities of Americans, liberals and conservatives, found it more difficult to associate black faces with positive concepts than white faces -- evidence of implicit bias. But districts that registered higher levels of bias systematically produced more votes for Bush.
Per Rush, these findings are all part of the liberal plan to blame conservatives for "the crackup taking place on the left." 

And interestingly enough, he didn't read this part of the story:
Jon Krosnick, a psychologist and political scientist at Stanford University, who independently assessed the studies, said it remains to be seen how significant the correlation is between racial bias and political affiliation.

For example, he said, the study could not tell whether racial bias was a better predictor of voting preference than, say, policy preferences on gun control or abortion. But while those issues would be addressed in subsequent studies -- Krosnick plans to get random groups of future voters to take the psychological tests and discuss their policy preferences -- he said the basic correlation was not in doubt.

"If anyone in Washington is skeptical about these findings, they are in denial," he said. "We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks. If people say, 'This takes me aback,' they are ignoring a huge volume of research."  
But back to Rush:
This is all literal lunacy. Trying to attach a psychological disorder to conservatism is what this story is attempting to do.
Well, I thought it was just presenting research which reportedly demonstrated that partisans from both parties don't approach all information rationally, and that racists gravitate to the Republican Party -- hardly controversial claims.  But if you want to see a psychological disorder in action, read this portion of Rush's commentary:
It [the Post story] is more a sign of desperation, more a sign of crackup taking place on the left. ... [Y]ou conservatives, you're just genetic racists, you're genetic bigots, sexists, homophobes, all this. And they do this, they come up with these stories, because they believe this. That is why Senator Kennedy's staff can be informed that Judge Alito has never found in favor of a minority defendant and believe it without researching it, because they look at him as just one of us. He's a genetic racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe. And they can't figure out why they're losing. So it has to be some sort of genetic disorder that they, the sane, simply can't deal with, and analyze, defeat, and overcome.
Yeah, damned liberals, with their "science" and their "psychology" -- it's all part of a plot to make conservatives look bad!

Oh, and despite Rush's preoccupation with genetic conservatism, the Post story didn't mention genetics once.  Do you think that the idea that he became a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe because of his genes is something Rush sees as an excuse or as a curse?  And how does all this tie into the "Rush babies" thing, and Rush's lack of genetic offspring?

4:44:16 AM   

No comments:

Post a Comment