Apparently scientists have engineered bees to "sting cancer to death"
To be fair, these aren't actual bees, but a brilliant - albeit terrifying - leap in nanotechnology. These nanobees are actually armed with a cancer-killing chemical extracted from actual bee venom.
Science has done it again. They've taken a very noble concept - in this case, treating cancer - and have gone about it in the most blood-curdling insane way possible. Even the term "nanobees" seems designed to strike fear into the heart of humanity. I can only surmise that mad scientists have taken over the study of nanotechnology.
This all reminds me of the fully realized version of the scientists interviewed on the History Channel's series The Universe. Just watching one episode you can see in all of their eyes the twinkle that says that if they had the resources, they'd immediately make the leap from theoretical astrophysics to super villainous mad science.
Lump this all together with CERN and their black hole machine, and the most obvious conclusion to make is this: all scientists strive to be James Bond villains.
18 August, 2009
Robert Novak (1931-2009)
I'm very sad to say that Robert Novak has passed on.
Love him or hate him, he was a frigging icon. Journalists like him don't exist anymore; they're almost all gone. And he was one of very, very few who could stand to make eye contact with James Carville long enough to scream at him on CNN's Crossfire.
The right loved him, and the left loved to hate him. Whichever side is concerned, he'll be missed.
Love him or hate him, he was a frigging icon. Journalists like him don't exist anymore; they're almost all gone. And he was one of very, very few who could stand to make eye contact with James Carville long enough to scream at him on CNN's Crossfire.
The right loved him, and the left loved to hate him. Whichever side is concerned, he'll be missed.
Media loses its collective shit over armed protesters, shocked to learn it's totally legal
As a gun owner who would relish the chance to carry his rifle over his shoulder wherever he went here in N.Y., I'm having quite a laugh observing the major news coverage of gun-owners exercising their constitutional rights at protests in open carry states.
First was the man in New Hampshire with a pistol strapped to his leg, but the other day in Arizona a dozen such folks showed up - including a guy with an AR-15 - and did it perfectly legally and responsibly.
I linked to the MSNBC report because it's, so far, the most alarmist one that I've seen. In the third paragraph they seem honestly shocked that, despite the presence of firearms, "no crimes were committed."
If you look at the CNN article, it comes off as concerned, but still able to comprehend the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Arizona state law allowing open carry. They even cite statements by US Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan, who, when asked if the President was in any danger at either the Arizona or New Hampshire protests, he responded "Of course not." Unlike MSNBC, CNN also doesn't spin this with the ominous sub-headline of "the beginning of a disturbing trend?"
Yes, MSNBC. One of the most important rights ever recorded on parchment being freely, safely and responsibly exercised is part of a "disturbing trend." These guys weren't saying "Durr hurr I'm gon' kill me a President." The statements they were making were more along the lines of "Remind the government who's boss" and "my rights don't disappear just because."
So, for these two major news sources, the summation is thus:
CNN: Wow, really? *checks the books, does reporting* Hm, okay. It's kosher. Rock on, Constitution.
MSNBC: Wow, really? B-b-b-b-but the Nazis!
First was the man in New Hampshire with a pistol strapped to his leg, but the other day in Arizona a dozen such folks showed up - including a guy with an AR-15 - and did it perfectly legally and responsibly.
I linked to the MSNBC report because it's, so far, the most alarmist one that I've seen. In the third paragraph they seem honestly shocked that, despite the presence of firearms, "no crimes were committed."
If you look at the CNN article, it comes off as concerned, but still able to comprehend the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Arizona state law allowing open carry. They even cite statements by US Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan, who, when asked if the President was in any danger at either the Arizona or New Hampshire protests, he responded "Of course not." Unlike MSNBC, CNN also doesn't spin this with the ominous sub-headline of "the beginning of a disturbing trend?"
Yes, MSNBC. One of the most important rights ever recorded on parchment being freely, safely and responsibly exercised is part of a "disturbing trend." These guys weren't saying "Durr hurr I'm gon' kill me a President." The statements they were making were more along the lines of "Remind the government who's boss" and "my rights don't disappear just because."
So, for these two major news sources, the summation is thus:
CNN: Wow, really? *checks the books, does reporting* Hm, okay. It's kosher. Rock on, Constitution.
MSNBC: Wow, really? B-b-b-b-but the Nazis!
17 July, 2009
Malignant Stupidity still alive as Apollo 11 Landing Approaches
Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of the launching of the first manned mission to our moon. On Monday, it will be the 40th anniversary of the landing itself. Progress.
Granted that we basically owe our space program to German know-how, but damn it, at least we got to the moon before the Russkies. Or did we?
Of freaking course we did. And, of course, like any conspiracy theory, the idea that the Apollo 11 moon landings were faked could easily fade away if only people stopped talking about it. Stop giving it airtime and it will inevitably go the way of the dodo.
CNN hasn't figured this out, and even though some of the article addressing this dumbass theory is as dismissive as possible for a journalist (a dismissiveness usually reserved by CNN for Tea Parties and the Senate and House minorities), there is still a big problem: they're giving credence to inherently stupid ideas.
Allow me to address one of the supposed pieces of "proof" that the conspiracy theorists cite for the hoax.
Apparently, this moon rock has a letter "C" on it. And apparently, in Hollywood, letters are clearly printed on props so stagehands know where to place them. Granted, the "C" is indeed there in this picture.
But then you look at another print of the same rock, of probably the same negative:
I don't know about you, but the prop "C" in picture one looks a hell of a lot more like a piece of dust in the negative when the print was made. Back in ye olden days (1969), photographs were were processed in a photo lab by hand. That's why old film-stock movies have pops, spots and lines in them when you see them blown up on a movie screen. Some of them even look like "C"s! So, where a reasonable person sees a speck of dust, an asshole sees a nefarious, clever (though paradoxically half-assed) plot to deceive the Soviets. Not that I'm necessarily against making fools of the Russians.
Another whopper they serve us is that...well, take a look at this picture
THE SKY IS COMPLETELY BLACK! WHY CAN'T WE SEE THE STARS, UNLESS IT IS ON A SOUNDSTAGE WHERE THEY FORGOT TO PAINT ON STARS?! AHA! GOT YOU!
Settle down, straw man! Here comes another photography concept, that of exposure. Thanks to being very much awash in sunlight, the cameras (yes, real live cameras with film which....they don't make anymore *R.I.P.*) had to be set to expose the film enough to clearly take photographs of the surrounding terrain of the moon. That's another thing, they weren't there to take pictures of the stars, they were there to take pictures of (wait for it) The Moon!
There are other things I could get into, but I don't want to waste any more of my time. Even if Apollo 11 was faked, explain the five subsequent manned moon landings (Apollos 12, 14-17). If one was faked, were they all? Even if Apollo 11 were a hoax, we eventually did get to the freaking moon. But, seriously, to the conspiracy theorists: Get A Life. And to CNN: Cover News, Not Lunatics.
Granted that we basically owe our space program to German know-how, but damn it, at least we got to the moon before the Russkies. Or did we?
Of freaking course we did. And, of course, like any conspiracy theory, the idea that the Apollo 11 moon landings were faked could easily fade away if only people stopped talking about it. Stop giving it airtime and it will inevitably go the way of the dodo.
CNN hasn't figured this out, and even though some of the article addressing this dumbass theory is as dismissive as possible for a journalist (a dismissiveness usually reserved by CNN for Tea Parties and the Senate and House minorities), there is still a big problem: they're giving credence to inherently stupid ideas.
Allow me to address one of the supposed pieces of "proof" that the conspiracy theorists cite for the hoax.
But then you look at another print of the same rock, of probably the same negative:
I don't know about you, but the prop "C" in picture one looks a hell of a lot more like a piece of dust in the negative when the print was made. Back in ye olden days (1969), photographs were were processed in a photo lab by hand. That's why old film-stock movies have pops, spots and lines in them when you see them blown up on a movie screen. Some of them even look like "C"s! So, where a reasonable person sees a speck of dust, an asshole sees a nefarious, clever (though paradoxically half-assed) plot to deceive the Soviets. Not that I'm necessarily against making fools of the Russians.Another whopper they serve us is that...well, take a look at this picture
THE SKY IS COMPLETELY BLACK! WHY CAN'T WE SEE THE STARS, UNLESS IT IS ON A SOUNDSTAGE WHERE THEY FORGOT TO PAINT ON STARS?! AHA! GOT YOU!Settle down, straw man! Here comes another photography concept, that of exposure. Thanks to being very much awash in sunlight, the cameras (yes, real live cameras with film which....they don't make anymore *R.I.P.*) had to be set to expose the film enough to clearly take photographs of the surrounding terrain of the moon. That's another thing, they weren't there to take pictures of the stars, they were there to take pictures of (wait for it) The Moon!
There are other things I could get into, but I don't want to waste any more of my time. Even if Apollo 11 was faked, explain the five subsequent manned moon landings (Apollos 12, 14-17). If one was faked, were they all? Even if Apollo 11 were a hoax, we eventually did get to the freaking moon. But, seriously, to the conspiracy theorists: Get A Life. And to CNN: Cover News, Not Lunatics.
06 July, 2009
FBI says that they are not investigating Sarah Palin
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/06/sarah.palin.fbi/index.html
That settles quite a bit. I was in a bet against a friend who was convinced that charges were on their way (or at least really, really wanted them to be). It looks like this blogger just won himself $10.
That settles quite a bit. I was in a bet against a friend who was convinced that charges were on their way (or at least really, really wanted them to be). It looks like this blogger just won himself $10.
Bidding Farewell to one of History's Weirdest Men
Family Sees Image of Michael Jackson In Tree Stump
In their town of Stockton, CA, "Michael Jackson meant more to us than Jesus, to some people. I think they're both about even."
*sigh*. Thank God I'll celebrating my birthday tomorrow during his televised arena funeral, drunk and away from televisions.
In their town of Stockton, CA, "Michael Jackson meant more to us than Jesus, to some people. I think they're both about even."
*sigh*. Thank God I'll celebrating my birthday tomorrow during his televised arena funeral, drunk and away from televisions.
05 July, 2009
Palin's Gamble in Seward's Folly
CNN has published this article chronicling the conservative reaction to the impending resignation of Alaska Governor and rising GOP starlet Sarah Palin:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/05/palin.reaction/index.html
I have many liberal friends who have been thanking the Heavens that Palin is "out" of politics, and are hoping that she's just going to fade away. This belies the malignant idealism that dominates their thoughts in general, and a cold realist would see this for what it is: she's freeing herself for a bull-rush into national politics, and will most likely run for President in 2012 against the incumbent Obama.
But what I'm not saying to my liberal friends is that this is a good thing for the GOP, or that I support her in this. When she ran on McCain's ticket, she was part of what finally turned me off to his campaign. What she represents is a fresh, young face slapped on a dying wing of the Republican party. And I'm not even buying into the smears perpetrated during the 2008 campaign that she's some sort of illiterate theocrat, looking for any opportunity to ban devil books while machine-gunning innocent little puppy dogs from a helicopter. That's a crock, and we all know it, as much as some of my unsavvy liberal friends like to parrot it back to me.
Her resignation announcement can be a double edged sword in this case. What she could be doing is throwing fuel on the fire for her critics: when just in the past month they have suggested that she's been neglecting her affairs of state in favor of potential national ambitions, now she could be construed as outright abandoning them. Some conservatives think it's a dumb move, since by resigning she's losing potential executive experience for a future campaign, among other reasons (although, with 18 months left of what she's decided will be her last term, there's not too much to lose in the big picture). My parents are fond of their own theory that she has pulled a Nixon, and a major scandal is about to break. Whatever her national ambitions are, I doubt they'll succeed.
Her problem is that she is at least close to being a neo-conservative, and she's also privy to the same sorts of political flaws that plagued most of the other major candidates. When she said that Obama was "paling around with terrorists," it was just as ridiculous as anything said about her. Bill Ayers, while a socialist, former self-declared revolutionary, and all around jackass, isn't exactly Carlos the Jackal. The Weather Underground, while loony, only killed two people, and those were two of their own during a botched bomb-making session. Other than that, the Weathermen didn't kill, let alone wound another human being (that just wouldn't groove). What Palin said made it sound like Obama was inviting Ayman al-Zawahiri over for tea and scones, which is exactly what many true-believers probably thought when she made that statement.
She thought it would work, and now we have President Obama to deal with. A man with the most dangerous quality for the nation's highest office: an honest mission to do some good. One of the most terrifying types of politicians are those who don't seem to realize the damage they might be doing, and Palin's contributions to the McCain campaign led indirectly to this. Roveian political campaigns are out, for now, and so are the neo-conservatives in the Republican Party.
The real future of the party are the old school Republicans; the ones from the 1960s - the Goldwaters, now embodied by the libertarian rightist movement led by Ron Paul. Paul's ideas appeal to young people, and believe you me: I know a lot of new Republicans who registered just to be part of Ron Paul's 2008 campaign. One friend of mine, dreadlocks down to his shoulderblades, bit the bullet and became a Republican so he could participate.
Unfortunately, constitutionalists are not at the forefront of the Republican party, and currently it's the same old hackneyed politicians who run the show. What the Republicans need to supply are statesmen. And if a 2012 Palin campaign takes off and makes it to the top of the 2012 platform, the result won't be the ushering in of this needed generation of statesmen; it will just be the death throes of neo-conservative domination of the GOP, after which real republicans (small "r" a purposeful one) will need to swoop in and take the helm.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/05/palin.reaction/index.html
I have many liberal friends who have been thanking the Heavens that Palin is "out" of politics, and are hoping that she's just going to fade away. This belies the malignant idealism that dominates their thoughts in general, and a cold realist would see this for what it is: she's freeing herself for a bull-rush into national politics, and will most likely run for President in 2012 against the incumbent Obama.
But what I'm not saying to my liberal friends is that this is a good thing for the GOP, or that I support her in this. When she ran on McCain's ticket, she was part of what finally turned me off to his campaign. What she represents is a fresh, young face slapped on a dying wing of the Republican party. And I'm not even buying into the smears perpetrated during the 2008 campaign that she's some sort of illiterate theocrat, looking for any opportunity to ban devil books while machine-gunning innocent little puppy dogs from a helicopter. That's a crock, and we all know it, as much as some of my unsavvy liberal friends like to parrot it back to me.
Her resignation announcement can be a double edged sword in this case. What she could be doing is throwing fuel on the fire for her critics: when just in the past month they have suggested that she's been neglecting her affairs of state in favor of potential national ambitions, now she could be construed as outright abandoning them. Some conservatives think it's a dumb move, since by resigning she's losing potential executive experience for a future campaign, among other reasons (although, with 18 months left of what she's decided will be her last term, there's not too much to lose in the big picture). My parents are fond of their own theory that she has pulled a Nixon, and a major scandal is about to break. Whatever her national ambitions are, I doubt they'll succeed.
Her problem is that she is at least close to being a neo-conservative, and she's also privy to the same sorts of political flaws that plagued most of the other major candidates. When she said that Obama was "paling around with terrorists," it was just as ridiculous as anything said about her. Bill Ayers, while a socialist, former self-declared revolutionary, and all around jackass, isn't exactly Carlos the Jackal. The Weather Underground, while loony, only killed two people, and those were two of their own during a botched bomb-making session. Other than that, the Weathermen didn't kill, let alone wound another human being (that just wouldn't groove). What Palin said made it sound like Obama was inviting Ayman al-Zawahiri over for tea and scones, which is exactly what many true-believers probably thought when she made that statement.
She thought it would work, and now we have President Obama to deal with. A man with the most dangerous quality for the nation's highest office: an honest mission to do some good. One of the most terrifying types of politicians are those who don't seem to realize the damage they might be doing, and Palin's contributions to the McCain campaign led indirectly to this. Roveian political campaigns are out, for now, and so are the neo-conservatives in the Republican Party.
The real future of the party are the old school Republicans; the ones from the 1960s - the Goldwaters, now embodied by the libertarian rightist movement led by Ron Paul. Paul's ideas appeal to young people, and believe you me: I know a lot of new Republicans who registered just to be part of Ron Paul's 2008 campaign. One friend of mine, dreadlocks down to his shoulderblades, bit the bullet and became a Republican so he could participate.
Unfortunately, constitutionalists are not at the forefront of the Republican party, and currently it's the same old hackneyed politicians who run the show. What the Republicans need to supply are statesmen. And if a 2012 Palin campaign takes off and makes it to the top of the 2012 platform, the result won't be the ushering in of this needed generation of statesmen; it will just be the death throes of neo-conservative domination of the GOP, after which real republicans (small "r" a purposeful one) will need to swoop in and take the helm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)