Racist babies!
Posted at 12:45:57 PM on July 08, 2008

Yes, I said racist babies. At least they if they don't like spicy food. Look:

Toddlers who turn their noses up at spicy food from overseas could be branded racists by a Government-sponsored agency.

The National Children's Bureau, which receives £12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care.

This could include a child of as young as three who says "yuk" in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.

The guidance by the NCB is designed to draw attention to potentially-racist attitudes in youngsters from a young age.

It alerts playgroup leaders that even babies can not be ignored in the drive to root out prejudice as they can "recognise different people in their lives".

How superficial can you get? If I don't like the food of Thailand (which I don't), I suddenly have some disdain for the Thai people? That's insane. I don't like lots of food because of its taste and texture--I don't care who makes it. Why do we think babies would be different? Or, more on point, why do these morons think it?

The 366-page guide for staff in charge of pre-school children, called Young Children and Racial Justice, warns: "Racist incidents among children in early years settings tend to be around name-calling, casual thoughtless comments and peer group relationships."

It advises nursery teachers to be on the alert for childish abuse such as: "blackie", "Pakis", "those people" or "they smell".

The guide goes on to warn that children might also "react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying 'yuk'".

I notice we don't wait for there to be an actual problem here--we are to be on the looking for possible problems. Wouldn't that tend to make people hypersensitive?

Staff are told: "No racist incident should be ignored. When there is a clear racist incident, it is necessary to be specific in condemning the action."

Warning that failing to pick children up on their racist attitudes could instil prejudice, the NCB adds that if children "reveal negative attitudes, the lack of censure may indicate to the child that there is nothing unacceptable about such attitudes".

Jesus, they're going to make these kids neurotic and resentful, where the mildest utterance is clamped down on.

What about waiting for someone's feelings to be hurt, and then dealing with the problem individually--with the child's parents--rather than deciding what thoughts are hurtful and not, and how to deal with it? As a for instance, I have a deaf brother. I insult him about it ALL the time. He knows it's said with teasing affection, and he makes fun of my "small hearing brain" and so do I. Anyone who doesn't know us might think we were insulting one another, but we're merely being... well, guys.

Little boys--and big boys--make fun of one another. Often there's something to it, but just as often there's not. Are cases at this preschool going to go to some court to decide which is which, or will some regulation just decide and dictate how we deal with one another verbally?

Sounds like creepy 1984 stuff to me.

PERMA-LINK | MORE: DISCUSS

Stop reading this! Turn off your LCD monitor now!
Posted at 02:41:32 PM on July 03, 2008

At least, that's how you can save the environment from DOOM!

Why do I say this? Because here we have a story that claims, in its headline: "Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming"

Most people will probably say, "ZOMG! NO! Not teh TVs! Don't take my TVs!" My reaction, however, was "Okay, what bit of horse shit are they trying to pass as cavier now?"

Let's look at the story:

A gas used in the making of flat screen televisions, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is being blamed for damaging the atmosphere and accelerating global warming.

Right off the bat this is bad journalism. No attribution as to whom is doing the blaming, the first 'graph here merely hope to inflame rather than inform.

Almost half of the televisions sold around the globe so far this year have been plasma or LCD TVs.

But this boom could be coming at a huge environmental cost.

The gas, widely used in the manufacture of flat screen TVs, is estimated to be 17,000 times as powerful as carbon dioxide.

So, three more paragraphs, no so far no one has said any of this except the "journalist" (and that's in quotes because all this is as yet is an editorial). And it's 17,000 times as powerful as carbon dioxide in what context? Carbon dioxide has what kind of power? Climate destructive power? You realize it's what all plants and animals respire out, right? Carbon dioxide is not some evil Nazi death-camp gas, but the sentence is written as if NF3 is basically Zyclon-B on steroids.

Ironically, NF3 is not covered by the Kyoto protocol as it was only produced in tiny amounts when the treaty was signed in 1997.

Who finds this ironic. I don't? Who the fuck is saying this other than, I guess, ABC News (the Australian ABC, not the Disney-owned American one)?

Levels of this gas in the atmosphere have not been measured, but scientists say it is a concern and are calling for it to be included in any future emissions cutting agreement.

What scientists? Where? How many? And if it's not been measured, how can it yet be a concern?

Professor Michael Prather from the University of California has highlighted the issue in an article for the magazine New Scientist.

He has told ABC's The World Today program that output of the gas needs to be measured.

FINALLY we get an attribution to a real person! SEVEN paragraphs in! But this is ONE guy, so where are the others? Will they be quoted?

"One of my titles for this paper was Going Below Kyoto's Radar. It's the kind of gas that's made in huge amounts," he said.

"Not only is it not in the Kyoto Treaty but you don't even have to report it. That's the part that worries me."

He estimates 4,000 tons of NF3 will be produced in 2008 and that number is likely to double next year.

It worries you because you know it's released from these TVs and causes problems, right?

"We don't know what's emitted, but what they're producing every year dwarfs these giant coal-fired power plants that are like the biggest in the world," he said.

"And it dwarfs two of the Kyoto gases. So the real question we don't know is how much is escaping and getting out."

Wait--you DON'T know if it's in the atmosphere at all, and so... how is this a problem? And 4000 or even 8000 tons of gas isn't that much. The planets' volcanoes put more than 130 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Do a little math: if there's 8000 tons of NF3 out there, and it's 17,000 as strong as CO2, that's the equivalent of about as much CO2 as is put into the atmosphere BY THE PLANET ITSELF. And that's IF all the NF3 were getting into the atmosphere, which not only wouldn't it be, but this ass-hat doesn't know how much is.

Are you getting the insanity of his worry and the yellow journlism of the headline (and article) yet?

Dr Paul Fraser is the chief research scientist at the CSIRO's marine and atmospheric research centre, and an IPCC author.

He says without measuring the quantity of NF3 in the atmosphere it is unclear what impact it will have on the climate.

"We haven't observed it in the atmosphere. It's probably there in very low concentrations," he said.

"The key to whether it's a problem or not is how much is released to the atmosphere."

So the only other scientist quoted in the article basically--in the last couple of paragraphs, says "yeah, we don't measure it, it's not clear what it would do, and it's probably really small." Why isn't that the headline? Because it doesn't fit the media doom-gloom template that says we're destroying the earth. YOU! You specifically with your HDTV and computer monitors and cell phones and GPS systems are DESTROYING THE PLANET!

Except you're not. One guy is worried about it, and has no evidence to suggest why he should be worried. But it's worth a story, huh?

Morons in the media.

PERMA-LINK | MORE: DISCUSS

From the "Who the fuck cares?" department...
Posted at 07:27:14 AM on July 02, 2008

According to this important, breaking news story, a poll indicates that "people would rather barbecue burgers with Barack Obama than with John McCain." Who thinks of these inane poll questions, and then pays people to go forth and ask them of actual citizens? It's insane. Why should anyone care about shit like this? I swear if someone asked me such a question I'd reply: "I don't like burgers. Fuck off."

I don't get why time is wasted on such silly questions. Let's not investigate what these two, and Bob Barr, might actually do in the White House--let's see who's more fun to down a brew with.

We're so doomed.

PERMA-LINK | MORE: DISCUSS

Mixed Feelings
Posted at 11:39:50 AM on June 26, 2008

Yeah, I have very mixed thoughts and feelings about this. You guys know where I stand on the Great Apes, but I wonder if this isn't more complex than the law seems to suggest... I don't know.

I leave this short post as a placeholder for a longer discussion.

PERMA-LINK | MORE: DISCUSS

Ugly New Pilot
Posted at 07:45:50 AM on June 13, 2008

From 2004 to 2006 I had a Honda Pilot (my first Honda, which made me fall in love with Hondas and I've been a loyal Honda owner ever since). I gave up my Pilot in 2006 for an Accord Sedan because of gas prices (then, a cheap-seeming $2.79 a gallon).

Here was that car:

Looks nice, I think, and for a 7 seater, pretty big without being overly big.

Well, here's the 2009 version:



I think that's pretty ugly. I wish they'd maintain the style they have with the new Accords (my 2006 Accord was recently turned in for my pretty new 2008 Coupe model, which you can worship here).

I suppose none of this matters since I both have a 4 year lease on my current Honda and also I won't be going for an SUV anytime soon while gas is $Assrape a gallon.

On the bright side, my new Coupe can get 26 or 27 MPG if I baby it rather than drive it real fast (which I admit, sometimes I do for fun, and then I get 23 or 24 MPG).

PERMA-LINK | MORE: DISCUSS

Oh, Obama! This isn't the way...
Posted at 03:09:54 PM on June 09, 2008

Someone needs a course in economics.

This pretty much tells me Obama does:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Monday he would impose a windfall profits tax on U.S. oil companies as he sought political gain from Americans' pain over high gasoline prices.

Once again, for the presidential candidate sitting atop the crater that was Hillary's political aspirations: Businesses do not pay taxes. It's merely a cost of doing business passed onto the end-consumer. If you tax oil companies for making money, they're going to raise prices to cover it.

Silly Liberal.

PERMA-LINK | MORE: DISCUSS

So who will I vote for?
Posted at 06:03:53 PM on June 04, 2008

Yeah... I've gotten this question a few times from friends over the last couple days, now that it seems clear that it will be McCain vs. Obama.

Honestly, Obama, while a seemingly nice fellow, is just way too far left for me, so it won't be him. Will I vote for McCain? Honestly, McCain, while a seemingly nice fellow, is just way too wrong on certain things for me, so I don't know if it'll be him. Maybe Bob Barr? I dunno. I'm not sure it matters.

Will Obama veto a damaging "global warming" bill? No way. Will McCain? No way. So what's the real difference? I know there are some, but are there many? Sure, Obama isn't experienced but that doesn't mean he won't do well anyway. One never knows.

It's odd for me--a presidential season I really don't care about. Who wins, who loses... I'm just not sure I really care.

PERMA-LINK | MORE: DISCUSS

[ PREVIOUS SNARKS ]