Disqus - Latest Comments for EricJacobson

Re: "Times Have Changed, Old Man"

EricJacobson — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:16:52 -0000

I think she's undulating in a high, shrill voice...Arab-style. Because the irony would be funny to me.

Re: What The Election Means

EricJacobson — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 14:59:27 -0000

Wow, do you like my insightful reply? It's been a while and I apparently forgot how to comment. Ugh.

Anyway, I agree completely that the two party system in this country is, by and large, an illusion. Here in 'Sota we get to enjoy another wonderful recount process because we don't have Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). It's already shaping up to be as long and ugly as the Franken v Coleman recount of 2008.

How I see it, is that the election processes in the country are structured to discourage third parties from developing and grasping any real power. The mythical non-parties, such as libertarians on the right or socialists on the left, know that if they break away from the Democrats or Republicans that they will lose what little power they currently have. Without their own party base, infrastructure, and financial support to help get candidates elected. Even if they do get elected, they have to beg (and get slapped down) to hold any meaningful committee appointments. So the third parties have to hitch their wagon to one of the big parties in order to have any chance at weilding power. Think about the Tea Party (TP) craze this past election. The TP is really made up of two non-majority Republican factions. One faction has the Sarah Palin, anti-elitist, culture movement. The other faction has the Paul Ryan/Rand Paul, small fiscal government, leave-me-alone movement. They go against the institutional, big government, blow-stuff-up, no taxes Republican party. Both TP movements, along with the RNC, correctly realized that if any of the TP people spun off from the Republican Party that the inevitable result would be an inability to get Republican or TP candidates elected, thereby allowing the Democrats the same power hold. Only through a combined effort could they get anyone elected. The plan worked very well. Now the Republicans can deal with the ideological battles internally again every time Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, Jim DeMint get in a room. This is significantly easier to manage than leaving it up to the general population. However, if we had an election system that was favorable to third parties, Then the TP could have split off on their own, won their own elections, and had a realistic expectation of holding real power in the House after election day. This, of course, would never happen in America. In fact, I submit that it will not happen unless both the Democrats and Republicans experience a TP-like uprising at the same time. Only then will there be enough non-institutional motivation to change the rules that will allow the "new" factions any real power (think European-style coalition governments as the needed change). I'm pessimistic that this will ever happen.

I am very pessimistic on much getting accomplished during the next two years. Boehner has only recently given brief lip service to bi-partisanship. McConnell has reinforced has desire to refuse cooperation with Democrats. Fortunately, in my opinion, many of the items that were passed during the last two years will reap benefits on their own if left untouched. Much of the bailout money has been repaid and the unpaid portion looks to be paid back on-time and in near full amount. The stimulus money did save thousands of jobs, which returns tax revenue to help pay some of it back. The health care reform, even with all of its flaws, is scheduled to save over $1 TRILLION dollars from the deficit over the next 10 years. The Iraq withdrawal is underway, which will reduce military expenditures (although much of the reduction is being shifted over to Afghanistan). Infrastructure projects are already in the works to give a small boost to jobs and business. So even if nothing happens at all during the next two years, some things will still get better.

Re: What The Election Means

EricJacobson — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 14:02:19 -0000

Word up.

Re: A Tale Of Two Elevators

EricJacobson — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:32:05 -0000

I like this version better ;) http://www.dump.com/2009/12...

Re: Protecting Traditional Marriage

EricJacobson — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:31:53 -0000

I'm right there with you, Fury. The idea that I'd have to still be married to my ex is one of the most depressing things I can think of. I'm pretty sure that at least one of us would have checked out by age 40 if we were forced to remain married.

Personally, I'm boycotting marriage. I say that in spite of being madly in love with the woman with whom I imagine spending the rest of my life. But until all our friends can be legally married, we're boycotting the fiasco.

Re: 'A Bit Of A Situation'

EricJacobson — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:23:01 -0000

XKCD is the best webcomic out there. This particular one has been out for a long time, but, sadly, it is still relevant.

Re: Quote Of The Day

EricJacobson — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:57:32 -0000

Can't really argue with that synopsis.

Time for half the Viking fans to get off the bandwagon and call Favre "washed up" and for Chilly's firing. 1st and goal on the 1 and only hand it off to AP once?! *smacks forehead* I'm glad I was hanging curtains instead of watching the game.

Re: The Right America, Religious Edition

EricJacobson — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:11:03 -0000

Sadly, so true. But I did not use the label Conservatives or Republican because I think they are a dying breed. I used Right because I thought that fit better. Maybe it's because I interpret (correct or not, I simply do in this context) the Right to equate to the American Theocrats. Of course, I know people on the Left who also support some theocratic viewpoints. But I generally view the Theocrats as a subset of the Right not the Left.

Re: The Right America, Religious Edition

EricJacobson — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:50:26 -0000

I'm don't quite sure what you imply with your question, so I don't quite know how to respond. I mean, the question taken verbatim asks nothing of value. I think you want to ask a broader question and I'm not exactly sure what that question is. I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Re: The Right America, Religious Edition

EricJacobson — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:58:47 -0000

I like tofu.

Re: The Right America, Religious Edition

EricJacobson — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:56:41 -0000

A football coach wears a big ring with a cross and has a tattoo that says "John 3:16" on his arm. = Protected under the 1st amendment.

A public school football coach instructs his players to enter the game by running under a banner with the school name, a cross, and "John 3:16". = Not allowed under the 1st amendment.

A state employee puts a "My boss is a Jewish Carpenter" bumpsticker on his car and then drives that car to work. = Protected under the 1st amendment.

A state employee puts said bumpersticker on the state-issued vehicle that he drives. = Not allowed under the 1st amendment.

A district judge posts the Ten Commandments on her front lawn. = Protected under the 1st amendment.

A district judge posts the Ten Commandments in front of her bench. = Not allowed under the 1st amendment.

These three examples illustrate the boundaries defined by the 1st amendment. It allows for the personal expression of religious belief while at the same time banning the state from establishing or promoting religion.

I think one of the big faults with the Right’s assertion on this issue is that they view this as a dichotomous issue. Meaning, they think the State is either for religion or against religion. So, according to them, if the State does not rule in favor of religion then it is clearly ruling against religion. But that is not true. Instead, the 1st amendment dictates that the State must absolve itself from any religious context. And therein lays the rub for the Right. Since they misunderstand (or worse, fail to recognize) the concept of the State being absolved from religion they incorrectly conclude that the State (or liberals, the ACLU, etc) hates (or some other appropriate adverb).religion.

This country is not changing and turning away from anyone’s God. This country was founded this way (by evidence of the Constitution); that religion shall not play a role in the government affairs. The Founders strove to create a system on the belief in which the separation between personal empowerment and government power is vital to maintaining a society that fosters the individual spirit, freedom for self determination, and protects against oppression.

To suggest that this country must reclaim its religious roots is to be rather anti-constitutional. To have this viewpoint come from the party that self-promotes itself as the party that observes the Constitution is ironic, to say the least. Irony makes me giggle.

Re: A Glenn Beck Counter-Counter Boycott?

EricJacobson — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:42:22 -0000

or c) The hub-bub dies down so the advertisers can safely return.

Re: Trunk Monkey

EricJacobson — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:59:10 -0000

Brilliant!

Re: In Defense Of The Cows

EricJacobson — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:46:48 -0000

The high price was the second to last thing that pushed me to becoming full veg. Plus I felt like I was cheating when by bought the organic IFC stuff at $6/pound instead of the local stuff I promised myself I would buy. The last thing that pushed me was that I created such a long meat-free streak that I could no longer thinking of a food enticing enough to make me want to break the streak. Yeah, I know everyone says "bacon!" but I was never much of a bacon guy in the first place.

It was really hard at first to eat according to my convictions (I used to be a major bbq guy). But now I don't even think about it. And most of my cooking would be very out of place at a Woodstock-style potluck. These days my biggest annoyance is when restaurants put meat or stock into dishes that don't need it and/or shouldn't have it.

Re: In Defense Of The Cows

EricJacobson — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:23:24 -0000

I am a vegetarian environmentalist and I do have an opinion on this...go figure. Whenever I hear the "don't eat meat and you can save the world/ozone layer/polar icecaps" tripe I tell the veghead to STFU. That line is so horribly phrased and misleading. I hates it.

The last quote highlighted is spot on. Because issue revolves around the industrial food complex (everything evil is an "industrial [insert noun] complex", right?) and all of its requirements to operate that is the bigger issue than cow farts. Want meat? Actively select locally raised, small farm, animals instead of going for a Big Mac or plastic-wrapped Tyson chicken. Of course skipping the meat altogether will have a similar impact, it will cost you a lot less too. Some animals, naturally, require more resources than others. Try reducing your beef intake because of the resources needed to bring that t-bone to your plate (not because they toot a lot in lush, green meadows). Pork ain't much better either. The high density of poultry population of an industrial farm is like an animal version of the slums of Bangkok.

Look, obviously I don't eat meat and I think it's a pretty good idea for others to at least reduce their meat intake. But in my opinion, the reasons you choose to reduce or eliminate your meat intake are equally as important as the action itself. If your reason is because I, a really awesome human, say so or because you fell for the "cow fart" argument then I am still incline to give you shit. Logic and reason, research and understanding are your friend. Be a human and use your brain (even if you choose to eat meat).

Re: 'Gay' No Longer Defamatory

EricJacobson — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:29:45 -0000

I find it interesting that "gay" no longer means "happy or gleeful" to most people and now means "lame or stupid". I think the switch in connotation was initially a derogatory reflection on homosexuals. Thus I tend not to use the phrase. However, I think the term is so flippant and generally not intended to be a perjorative that I usually let it slide and keep my self-righteous, elitist soapbox free for other matters (as opposed to Michael Jackson trying to make "bad" = "good or cool", which was confusing as hell and extremely poor grammar). Sometimes the phrase just seems to fit (e.g., That's so Raven is gay, being stopped at a red light on an empty street at 2 a.m. is gay, Glenn Beck is so fucking gay).

Re: The Right America, Volume 2

EricJacobson — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:06:41 -0000

Polls are not conducted in the manner you described. A basic understanding of statistics and of the polling industry is all that is needed to see the errors of your statement.

Re: Quote Of The Day II

EricJacobson — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:50:28 -0000

Word.

Re: Birther Watch, Ctd.

EricJacobson — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:00:10 -0000

Orly Taitz; proudly filling the media void left by Joe the Plumber.

Re: Nothing Can Stop... THE BLOB

EricJacobson — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:01:42 -0000

I hereby welcome our new algaen overlords.

Re: Quote Of The Day

EricJacobson — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:07:12 -0000

Good for her for saying what other saw but would not say. I like how she calls bullshit when she sees it.

Re: HEY JUDE

EricJacobson — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:13:06 -0000

If you have not already, I strongly recommend listening to the Beatles Love compilation in full 5.1 surround sound. I was introduced to it with sideways glances, but I was completely engrossed in less than 5 minutes.

Re: Evolution

EricJacobson — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:08:19 -0000

The topic of Evolution, like no other scientific topic, highlights the level of American scientific ineptitude on the world stage. It is simply embarrassing.

The fears, mischaracterizations, and flat-out lies about Evolution feed into our misunderstanding. For example, look no further than Diddy's comment. He writes, "...we didnt evolve from monkeys..." as a key point in his comment. *sigh* From a narrow point of view, I suppose, he is correct; humans did not from monkeys. Or apes. Or orangutans. Or any other primates. But that's not the point. The point (and reason for sad dismay) is that that is not what Evolution proves nor is the line being pushed as true by anyone. Everyone should agree that we did not evolve from monkey. Yet the "we didn't evolve from monkeys" line is routinely thrown about by Creationists in ignorance and/or to confuse people. Because what has been proven by Evolution is that we share a common ancestor with apes and chimpanzees (around 5 to 8 million years ago). The difference between the statements "we didn't evolve from monkeys" and "share a common ancestor with apes and chimpanzees" is vast, with the former being patently false while the latter is backed by scientific evidence. Yet this one, seemingly minor clarification, exemplifies why many Americans do not understand the topic. It's a catchy line that is false on all fronts yet is often repeated in error or as a straw man.

Evolution, since it was discovered by Charles Darwin, has been tested literally millions of times. And while, through these millions of tests, there has been clarifications and modification to specific parts of Evolution (that's how sciences rollz, bitchez!) the core principle is undeniable. The core principle being that life (ranging from microorganisms to humans to plants to insects, etc) must - and will - adapt to its environment in order to survive and flourish or it faces a high probability of eventual extinction. As a result, over time, life changes and evolves into life that is better suited to survive in new conditions...or dies.

Since humans learned about Evolution, we have made dramatic gains in areas such as medicine, food production, and even energy production. Our modern society is a direct byproduct of our scientific knowledge. To fail to understand science is to be more prone to making poor decisions in daily life/future planning and more susceptible to charlatans who wish to take advantage of our ignorance for their gain at our expense.

When we are getting whopped by the Estonias and Slovokias of the planet, we should all be ashamed. Very, very ashamed.