Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘right wing stupidity’ Category

Talk of another American Civil War is going mainstream. The MAGAts don’t seem to mind. They think they’ll win one if it happens.

They are, of course, wrong.

Wars are generally won by the organized. Most of the MAGA-hats have never organized anything bigger than a church potluck, and a lot of them couldn’t even manage that. Meanwhile we here in the civilized states have organized some of the biggest corporations known to man, with world-wide supply chains and millions of employees. We control the logistical supply chain of the nation from the civilized states. The ships, trains, trucks, and planes that keep the nation’s goods moving are owned by us and run from our states.

The MAGA-hats are expecting the police and military to enter the fray on their side as their margin of victory. That expectation is the only reason why they would even dare try to wage civil war. But that was true in the first American Civil War too, where most of the U.S. Army and its equipment and gear went to the South. In the end it didn’t matter, the South proved unable to manage its economy to maximize its assets and was beset by inflexible leadership that chose generals based upon compatibility with Jefferson Davis rather than based upon competence (thus the sidelining of their best general, General Joseph Johnston, at multiple critical points because Jefferson Davis didn’t like him). In the end guns win battles but logistics are what wins wars — and we have the logistical expertise here in the civilized states.

My guess — in a second American Civil War the eventual outcome would be the same as in the first — the bubbas will mismanage their economy to the point where their armies collapse for lack of food and boots while at the same time food rots in the field because they cannot get it from where it is grown to where it is needed because they lack the logistical expertise, equipment, or mindset. Things would get bloody long before then, of course, and they could probably win some quick victories before lack of a logistical tail takes its toll, but in the end logistics will tell.

– Badtux the History Penguin

Read Full Post »

I have to laugh at the ammosexual boobs who think the Viet Cong guerrillas won the Vietnam War and thus this proves that unorganized peasants with AK-47’s can defeat the US Army. They didn’t. They were totally destroyed as an effective fighting force in 1968 when the North Vietnamese deliberately sent them all into battle as a distraction against regular U.S. Army units.

All fighting after that was by regular units of the North Vietnamese Army vs regular units of the U.S. Army and Army of the Republic of Vietnam. The NVA were armed with artillery and tanks and surface to air missiles but had trouble moving these into South Vietnam when they infiltrated units into South Vietnam, thus the illusion that the US was fighting a bunch of peasants armed with light weapons. But they weren’t. It was just that U.S. bombing made it hard to move the heavy weaponry into South Vietnam. Once the U.S. left the war and quit bombing, it turned into conventional warfare between conventional army units of the North Vietnamese Army and the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam. It was regular units of the North Vietnamese Army backed by Soviet-provided tanks and Soviet-provided artillery, surface-to-air missiles, and other such heavy weapons who conquered South Vietnam, not some random civilians with AK-47’s.

The myth that the Viet Kong won the Vietnam War is an old one and a deep one, fed by stupid newspapermen and stupid movies and racism on the part of Army grunts over the course of decades. But in the end, it took tanks and artillery and other heavy weaponry to win the war for North Vietnam — not a buncha peasants armed with AK-47’s. All that the peasants ever managed to do was become dead bodies. Which is all that would happen if the ammosexuals decided to take on the U.S. Army, too.

– Badtux the Military Penguin

Read Full Post »

RE: The Medicare cuts forced by the new Republican tax bill:

There are people who vote for the “Leopards Eating Faces” party then are surprised that the leopards actually ate their faces. But they’re outnumbered by far by the delusional morons who claim that no, the leopards did *not* eat their faces (as the blood from the raw meat of their ripped-off faces drip onto the carpet). Or who claim that no, it wasn’t the “Leopards Eating Faces” party that ripped off their faces, it was that woman, over there, who isn’t an elected official and holds no government position of any sort, who actually ripped off their faces. NOT the members of the “Leopards Eating Faces” party.

This has been the most bizarre time in my entire adult life. WTF, people? If you elect a party into office that promises to cut Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, why would you be surprised and upset when they actually do so?! Elect the “Leopards Eating Faces” party into power, and that’s what they do — they rip off people’s faces!

– Badtux the Baffled Penguin

Read Full Post »

So, let’s say you’re a CDC scientist studying the effects of the Zika virus on the fetus in an attempt to figure out how to stop it from creating microencephalitic newborns. You turn in a request. It is denied, because you used the forbidden word ‘fetus’.

Or let’s say that you are a CDC scientist looking for evidence-based screening approaches for colon cancer to figure out how best to detect this killer. Does colonoscopy *really* detect more cancers than other approaches to screening for colon cancer? We don’t know yet because the appropriate studies haven’t been done. So you put in a request for a study that will determine evidence-based best practices for colon cancer screening. It is denied because you used the forbidden term ‘evidence-based’.

Let’s say that you’re studying methods for preventing unwanted pregnancies in order to make recommendations to doctors as to how they can help their patients prevent unwanted pregnancies. You request money for a science-based study of the various available techniques available. It is denied because you used the forbidden term ‘science-based’.

And it goes on and on. Various religious extremist groups object to various scientific terms, and thus scientists can’t use those scientific terms. All just part and parcel of the continuing War On Science….

— Badtux the Sad Penguin

Read Full Post »

“You’re just not willing to accept the truth!” shouted the rightie.

So we were talking about solutions to the housing crisis that afflicts many big cities, and the possibility of the government itself stepping in to build the affordable housing that the private market apparently is unwilling to build. And he whipped out this gem:

“The more the state “plans” the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.” – F.A. Hayek

Nice quote, dude. Doesn’t deal with the reality that is the free-market utopia of Singapore, though. Over 80% of the population of Singapore lives in government-built housing. And Singapore is hardly a place where it’s difficult for the individual to plan, or difficult to live at all. It’s a very livable city-state given the density imposed by its geography (it only has a certain number of square miles and a lot of people to put onto them).

What this brings to mind is the fundamental difference between those of us in the reality-based community and those who are not: Our differing attitudes towards truth. For me, truth is something that is approached by careful examination of reality, making sure that my observations can be replicated by others and that there are no contrary examples to the hypothesis I arrive at about what is true. And even there, I am quite willing to rearrange what I think is true if new information comes in. For example, I once thought that lawsuit costs accounted for much of the high cost of medicine in the United States. Then multiple pieces of data came to my attention: 1) States with strict tort limits that make it very difficult to sue don’t overall have cheaper health care costs than states without those tort limits (for example, California’s tort limits are so strict that finding a lawyer willing to sue on contingency is basically impossible, making healthcare lawsuits basically impossible for anybody who isn’t rich here in California, yet California’s healthcare costs are amongst the highest in the nation), and 2) overall medical malpractice insurance premium costs account for 0.2% of healthcare costs nationwide. I.e., we spend more on tongue depressors than on medical lawsuits. So, given those facts, I changed my view of what was true and decided medical malpractice lawsuits were *not* a major cause of higher health care costs. Because careful observation of reality led me to understand that the truth was not what I thought it was.

Now back to the dude spouting Hayek: You’ll see a lot of that from the un-reality based community. Because they have a completely different conception of the word “truth”. For them, truth is something handed down from authority figures like Hayek. Or by a pastor. Or by God. Or by Ronald Reagan. Whatever. They’re always spouting quotes from those people as if it means something. The thing is, it doesn’t, not really. Ideological hacks have said things for centuries that weren’t actually true when you carefully examined reality to ascertain whether a statement agreed with reality or not. Things aren’t true because someone says they’re true. They’re true because when you make actual observations of reality, your observations agree with the statement, and your observations can be replicated by other people.

But that sort of truth — a truth that is conditional, that depends on the best available observations of reality — seems wishy-washy and somehow “wrong” to these believers in truths handed down by authority figures. So they quote Hayek instead, and shout “you’re just not willing to accept the truth!” if you reject their Argument By Authority Figure argument.

Which is why we have an epistemological problem here in the United States, where a significant portion of the population believes things as “truth” that, if you make systematic observations of reality, just aren’t true. Which is no way to run a country. Just ask the Soviet Union, where the Communist Party to its dying days defended Communism as “truth” even when it was clear to everybody observing the facts of the Soviet economy and Soviet society that Communism just wasn’t working.

As the Soviet Union went, so goes the United States.

– Badtux the Epistemology Penguin

Read Full Post »

Antifa supersoldiers storming the White House

I mean, we successfully finished our revolution today where we kill all the white people and take control of the government, so… pizza? I mean, c’mon, dudes. Being an anti-fascist super-soldier is hunger-inducing work!

Say… how many of the right wing “news” outlets that successfully predicted the outcome of today’s events will go back and issue corrections noting that nothing they predicted happen?

Oh. Right.

— Badtux the Snarky Penguin

Read Full Post »

Rick Perry tells protesters that fossil fuels are good because they prevent sexual assault.

Fossil fuels. Prevent sexual assault. Whuh…. what did I just read?

Uhm, Rick, Rick, Rick… it doesn’t work like that. Really, it doesn’t.

Meanwhile, Antifa supersoldiers are going to kill white people on November 4. Antifa. Supersoldiers. Presumably bred in the secret basements under the closed Walmart stores used for Jade Helm?

So apparently Donna Brazile discovered the smoking gun — a joint fundraising agreement that both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders signed, which proves, PROVES I say, that DNC board member Donna Brazile has books to sell dammit. Also discovered: Debbie Wasserman Schultz did a shitty job as head of the DNC. And water is wet. Oh wait, the last wasn’t in the book. Pretty much the only obvious thing not in the book.

I swear, if I encounter one more piece of stupidity today, I’m going to snap and start biting the heads off of herring…

– Badtux the Fish-breathed Penguin

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »