"Flying is like taking a very expensive Greyhound bus" - Shari Flasness
I found this as a note from the June meeting of the Italian Conversation Group at Sir Ben's in Duluth. The conversation is more often about travel to Italy than speaking Italian.
But Shari's expensive bus is starting to get poor maintenance. See "Fixing American Airlines", 2012-10-23, Jim Hightower, republished in the 2012-10-25 Reader Weekly.
Showing posts with label Jim Hightower. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jim Hightower. Show all posts
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Complaint of "junk science" from a different source
Thankfully, I haven't seen the claim of "junk science" for quite awhile. "Junk science" is a contradiction. If it is "junk thinking", it is not science. If it is science, then it is not "junk thinking". It was often used by the "right" to disparage results they didn't like.
Now it is used by Jim Hightower as a disparagement of someone whose views he doesn't like: "Todd Akin, a devout worshipper of junk science, is a member of the House Committee on Science." See "Welcome to the GOP's Theological Nutland", Jim Hightower, 2012-09-04. Todd Akin is the politician who claimed the bodies of women who have been "legitimately raped" can protect them from becoming pregnant.
It just occurred to me that some people's theological thought has nothing to do with God or with logic. It is more hubris telling God what they think he or she should have done or should do.
Now it is used by Jim Hightower as a disparagement of someone whose views he doesn't like: "Todd Akin, a devout worshipper of junk science, is a member of the House Committee on Science." See "Welcome to the GOP's Theological Nutland", Jim Hightower, 2012-09-04. Todd Akin is the politician who claimed the bodies of women who have been "legitimately raped" can protect them from becoming pregnant.
It just occurred to me that some people's theological thought has nothing to do with God or with logic. It is more hubris telling God what they think he or she should have done or should do.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Quote of the day: Even a dead fish can…
"Swim against the current: Even a dead fish can go with the flow"
Title of a book by Jim Hightower:
"…serious words of wisdom to share here, namely: question authority, trust your values, seek alternatives, break away, stand up for your beliefs, and swim against the current!
"Their book introduces readers to people across the country who have actually done this-people in business, politics, health care, farming, religion, and other areas who are taking charge, living their values, doing good, and doing well."
From the ad at http://www.jimhightower.com/store/swim_against_the_current.
Title of a book by Jim Hightower:
"…serious words of wisdom to share here, namely: question authority, trust your values, seek alternatives, break away, stand up for your beliefs, and swim against the current!
"Their book introduces readers to people across the country who have actually done this-people in business, politics, health care, farming, religion, and other areas who are taking charge, living their values, doing good, and doing well."
From the ad at http://www.jimhightower.com/store/swim_against_the_current.
Why do the "media" call losers "winners"?
Letter to the Editor, Reader Weekly, 2012-05-17 (not published online)
Jim Hightower's comment about Newt Gingrich's "repeated humiliation at the polls" ("A sham for Wal-Mart's Scam: Newt's denouement", Reader Weekly, May 10), reminded me that even his one "victory" was a humiliation. Unfortunately, in the horse race mentality of election reporting, few noted that Gingrich came in far behind a de facto "none of the above".
Several news sources pointed out that turnout was low in the 2012 Presidential Primary in Georgia, but few if any reported a context of Gingrich's "win".
According to The United States Elections Project of George Mason University, Georgia's turnout was 15.8% (see http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012P.html). According to the US Election Atlas, Gingrich received 47.19% of the votes cast in the Republican primary (see http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&off=0&elect=2&fips=13&f=0). That means he received the support of about 7.5% of the eligible voters. I would not consider that a "win"; Gingrich came in a really distant second to a de facto "none of the above". In horse racing terms, he didn't even make the first turn!
Jim Hightower's comment about Newt Gingrich's "repeated humiliation at the polls" ("A sham for Wal-Mart's Scam: Newt's denouement", Reader Weekly, May 10), reminded me that even his one "victory" was a humiliation. Unfortunately, in the horse race mentality of election reporting, few noted that Gingrich came in far behind a de facto "none of the above".
Several news sources pointed out that turnout was low in the 2012 Presidential Primary in Georgia, but few if any reported a context of Gingrich's "win".
According to The United States Elections Project of George Mason University, Georgia's turnout was 15.8% (see http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012P.html). According to the US Election Atlas, Gingrich received 47.19% of the votes cast in the Republican primary (see http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&off=0&elect=2&fips=13&f=0). That means he received the support of about 7.5% of the eligible voters. I would not consider that a "win"; Gingrich came in a really distant second to a de facto "none of the above". In horse racing terms, he didn't even make the first turn!
Friday, November 19, 2010
Reprevaricators?
Jim Hightower recently asked his readers to give a different name to the Republican Party. My favorite was Republicants.
This evening I'm at my daughter's watching more TV in an evening than I watch in a couple of months. She and her husband like watching all the Friday night public TV news programs. One segment included the Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate, Tom Emmer, claiming that the Democratic Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, said that there were 20,000 more ballots cast than there were voters. I'm not sure of the exact figure, but it was large.
OK, don't take anybody's, and I really mean anybody's, assertion as fact. I looked for "mark ritchie" and "more ballots than voters". I couldn't find any source other than Republican or "conservative" sites asserting this. This doesn't mean that Ritchie didn't say it, but it certainly does make one wonder if he did say it.
Unfortunately, this seems to be a conservative strategy to make assertions without proof, repeat them often enough, and hope few challenge the assertions. If anyone does, disparage their credentials or just ignore them. We see this with climate change, we see it with the military, we see it with taxes, we see it with …
I am really saddened by these tactics. First, it is no way to run a democracy or a republic. Second, I used to be a Republican Party active member. When Ronald Reagan was nominated for president, I saw that it was no longer my Republican Party. About the only thing I did after that is support Arne Carlson for governor when the nominated Republican candidate self-destructed in the light of sexual improprieties involving teen-agers.
See also:
Government of whom, for whom, and by whom?
Republicans do not have "people's" support or a "mandate"
A couple examples of how some "discourse"
This evening I'm at my daughter's watching more TV in an evening than I watch in a couple of months. She and her husband like watching all the Friday night public TV news programs. One segment included the Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate, Tom Emmer, claiming that the Democratic Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, said that there were 20,000 more ballots cast than there were voters. I'm not sure of the exact figure, but it was large.
OK, don't take anybody's, and I really mean anybody's, assertion as fact. I looked for "mark ritchie" and "more ballots than voters". I couldn't find any source other than Republican or "conservative" sites asserting this. This doesn't mean that Ritchie didn't say it, but it certainly does make one wonder if he did say it.
Unfortunately, this seems to be a conservative strategy to make assertions without proof, repeat them often enough, and hope few challenge the assertions. If anyone does, disparage their credentials or just ignore them. We see this with climate change, we see it with the military, we see it with taxes, we see it with …
I am really saddened by these tactics. First, it is no way to run a democracy or a republic. Second, I used to be a Republican Party active member. When Ronald Reagan was nominated for president, I saw that it was no longer my Republican Party. About the only thing I did after that is support Arne Carlson for governor when the nominated Republican candidate self-destructed in the light of sexual improprieties involving teen-agers.
See also:
Government of whom, for whom, and by whom?
Republicans do not have "people's" support or a "mandate"
A couple examples of how some "discourse"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)