Too cute by half, at least. The entire article seems to pivot on the idea that technology isn't adapting to the human body fast enough, which, given just the last 20 years of technology, is laughable.
This is on-par with a Slate article arguing that Hermann Cain is really smart, because he's acting like a ridiculous idiot. It's dumbass, faux-intellectual, contrarian bullshit.
This is on-par with a Slate article arguing that Hermann Cain is really smart, because he's acting like a ridiculous idiot. It's dumbass, faux-intellectual, contrarian bullshit.
You're right, Obama totally should be taking a hit in the polls for a natural disaster and subsequent disasters that took place on the other side of the world and are thoroughly out of his control. I mean, totally.
Hah! Middle-ground can be found for all!
Also, his noxious support for Paul Ryan's "seriousness" has been absolutely infuriating.
No, Sullivan isn't right. This part, "That's the price of the job — to defuse or debunk conspiracy theorists or just skeptics with all the relevant information you have" has not always been Sullivan's claim, but he's increasingly been relying on it to justify the absolutely preposterous obsession with Palin and her son that's gotten worse, along with the quality of his writing. Sullivan agreed way back in 2008 that the information Obama provided was just fine; it's only been very recently that, as he gets a ton of blowback over Palin, he wants to appear even-handed. So, he has to carry on this ridiculous assertion that it all politicians should be required to debunk all conspiracy theories about them, at all times. Really. That's the logical endpoint of his argument.
And I don't really care how douchey it is; Sullivan's been an inconsistent, judgmental blowhard most of his career, and his brief fawning over Obama doesn't change that–in fact, it reinforces what an inconsistent, judgmental blowhard he is. He's done good work on torture and equal rights, but other than that, he's incredibly bigoted toward non-Christians (atheists, in particular), in no way even-handed to "the left", moderately misogynistic in the majority of his posts regarding women, and more. The Trig obsession just happens to crystallize so many of his hypocritical and unpleasant characteristics in one neat package.
One of the only things that separates Sullivan from many of the other, always-wrong right-wing talking point machines out there is that, when beaten up for stupid opinions long enough, he'll briefly apologize for the obvious (see his inexcusable "Fifth Column" remarks post 9/11). Being able to occasionally apologize for inexcusable comments doesn't make you a good columnist though; it only makes you slightly less of an ass.
And I don't really care how douchey it is; Sullivan's been an inconsistent, judgmental blowhard most of his career, and his brief fawning over Obama doesn't change that–in fact, it reinforces what an inconsistent, judgmental blowhard he is. He's done good work on torture and equal rights, but other than that, he's incredibly bigoted toward non-Christians (atheists, in particular), in no way even-handed to "the left", moderately misogynistic in the majority of his posts regarding women, and more. The Trig obsession just happens to crystallize so many of his hypocritical and unpleasant characteristics in one neat package.
One of the only things that separates Sullivan from many of the other, always-wrong right-wing talking point machines out there is that, when beaten up for stupid opinions long enough, he'll briefly apologize for the obvious (see his inexcusable "Fifth Column" remarks post 9/11). Being able to occasionally apologize for inexcusable comments doesn't make you a good columnist though; it only makes you slightly less of an ass.
Given the massive layoffs and furloughs Colorado employees have gone through in the last couple years (particularly social workers), I suspect Social Services have an appointment to see him sometime in the year 2015.
I knew three people who were all social workers–all three have been laid off in the last few years.
I knew three people who were all social workers–all three have been laid off in the last few years.
As will the Democratic Party's unfailing ability to somehow contort a pure win into a tortured loss. And their absurd, consistent, hilarious failure to handle basic messaging. Oh, and also, their baffling inability to ever agree on anything, ever.
Not until the Republican Party stops participating in Latino-bashing like it's a spectator sport.
Add to this that, if you bank with Chase and use a non-Chase ATM, not only do you get hit with the ATM fee, you also get charged by Chase.
"You must've thought it was white boy day."
They also conveniently neglected to mention that, statistically, charter schools only do a teensy bit better than public schools, at a much higher price than public schools.
As is privatization.
It might, actually. This country really, honestly doesn't know what a general strike looks like–the last one was over 75 years ago. I think one of the biggest errors of judgment Walker and the WI GOP have made is that, at heart, I really don't think they believe the Union would go through with one. Funny enough, by passing this closed-door, sneaky, stinking heap of shit, they may have finally galvanized the union and the public enough to carry through with it.
I can't tell you how many local friends of mine (in Denver) have posted the original, Discovery News headline: "Rockies May Have Been Formed By Giant Sucking" with absolute glee, given the regular, abysmal performance of our baseball team.
@skt.smth: The private consumption of alcohol in private establishments is responsible for thousands of completely preventable traffic fatalities every single year, but I don't see anti-smoking crusaders taking on bars and requiring them to confirm that their patrons aren't driving a weapon that weighs more than two tons down a public street when they leave.
I mean, it sucks that alcohol gets you drunk and could leave you a danger to yourself and others, but that's what happens.
I mean, it sucks that alcohol gets you drunk and could leave you a danger to yourself and others, but that's what happens.
@skt.smth: Fine, you win. I don't really care what you think about it, and I think you're purposefully missing the point and making illogical arguments because, at heart, you just don't like smokers or, more accurately, don't like smoking. Which is fine!
But this:
I mean, let's take this down to absolute base elements. Smokers use a corporate product for private enjoyment. They are, at bottom, enthusiasts. Why do governments have any responsibility to provide a place for these enthusiasts to enjoy their chosen product? Furthermore, how would that not, in essence, be an endorsement of the consumption of said product?
Could just as easily apply to, say, alcohol enthusiasts, except that the right to enjoy that in private establishments is both long-standing and celebrated, and the right of private establishments to allow the private enjoyment of a corporate product that isn't alcohol no longer exists. Also fine! But don't pretend that you're applying the same principle equally.
But this:
I mean, let's take this down to absolute base elements. Smokers use a corporate product for private enjoyment. They are, at bottom, enthusiasts. Why do governments have any responsibility to provide a place for these enthusiasts to enjoy their chosen product? Furthermore, how would that not, in essence, be an endorsement of the consumption of said product?
Could just as easily apply to, say, alcohol enthusiasts, except that the right to enjoy that in private establishments is both long-standing and celebrated, and the right of private establishments to allow the private enjoyment of a corporate product that isn't alcohol no longer exists. Also fine! But don't pretend that you're applying the same principle equally.
@skt.smth: Okay, fine. Ostensibly, New York plans to enforce this particular ban, which will require police officers to spend time looking for and/or ticketing smokers. I mean, if there's no real plan to enforce it, then what's the point in the first place? Given that this particular city has had a number of serious city operations and city management issues in the last twelve months, it seems that the time, cost and labor spent hunting smokers in Central Park (or finding purveyors of Four Loko, or cracking down on restaurants serving items with trans fats) could be better spent on snowplows, garbage collection, public transportation, city cleanup initiatives, or, really, anything that has a direct impact on the city's 25M+ residents - which, despite your hatred of it, smoking in Central Park does not.
I can understand that you don't care about it's budgetary concerns, but, if you're going to comment on smoking policy, you should at least have a passing interest in the same city's sense of priority.
I can understand that you don't care about it's budgetary concerns, but, if you're going to comment on smoking policy, you should at least have a passing interest in the same city's sense of priority.
@AllTheMuppetsAreDead: It does in Colorado, I think.
