Apr 08

Mickey Rooney's dead -

davidessman:

davidessman:

secotm:

Will there be obit cartoons? I’m genuinely curious about this (not very curious, but curious nonetheless). On the one hand he was famous decades ago, but not so much today. Obit cartoons are an easy out for cartoonists, something to be dashed off in less than an…

perhaps more will surface tomorrow.

Dave Granlund with a short joke?

Now I’m wondering if people had some ready to go and they just had to add the ‘2014’ to it.

Apr 07

Republicans see themselves as normal but paint themselves as kooks?
Bill, how could you mess up such a simple premise?

Republicans see themselves as normal but paint themselves as kooks?

Bill, how could you mess up such a simple premise?

Mickey Rooney’s dead

davidessman:

secotm:

Will there be obit cartoons? I’m genuinely curious about this (not very curious, but curious nonetheless). On the one hand he was famous decades ago, but not so much today. Obit cartoons are an easy out for cartoonists, something to be dashed off in less than an hour. But will any editors send them back, saying “No one knows who Rooney was”?

I think I think more about this business than actual editorial cartoonists.

jiminy jillikers!

I legitimately think that’s the only thing most people in Gen X, Y, whatever know Mickey Rooney for. That and maybe Breakfast at Tiffany’s.

Hence my curiosity about cartoons about him. Maybe some where he’s with Judy Garland for the older crowd? The people who actually read newspapers?

Mickey Rooney’s dead

Will there be obit cartoons? I’m genuinely curious about this (not very curious, but curious nonetheless). On the one hand he was famous decades ago, but not so much today. Obit cartoons are an easy out for cartoonists, something to be dashed off in less than an hour. But will any editors send them back, saying “No one knows who Rooney was”?

I think I think more about this business than actual editorial cartoonists.

Apr 06

Enough about guns, let’s talk about belly buttons

If there are any creationists reading this, and you buy into the Omphalos hypothesis (that not only did God create the universe 6,000 years ago but made it look older than it is), can you explain why Adam and Eve would need belly buttons? The hypothesis takes its name from the Greek word for ‘navel,’ so that’s one of the crucial bits of it.

But why were the navels needed in the first place? I’m less curious about the idea of an all-loving creator who feels the need to lie to his creation than I am the need for belly buttons.

It’s always the cartoons about guns that get me a lot of reblogs from conservatives arguing with me, which then get a ton of likes from other conservatives. Nowhere near as much on abortion or economic policies or anything else, near as I can figure. Just guns.

Because this is Tumblr - where emotions reign supreme - I’m wondering if gun advocates are just that much more emotional than, say, pro-lifers. Except that doesn’t quite make sense because the pro-life side is all about emotional appeals. Maybe pro-lifers aren’t as prevalent on Tumblr? Or maybe they keep missing all my abortion related posts while gun advocates, for whatever reason, never miss my gun-related ones.

armedplatypus:

secotm:

If the problem is a gun the solution is more guns!
I’m trying to think, is there any other issue where the solution is more of the problem? Also, scroll down to the bottom of this article.

secotm… Did you not even pay attention to that comic?
How can you agree with disarming soldiers on their own home turf when it has been proven twice now to only leave them defenseless and open to attacks?
I read that article and nothing in it makes a damn bit of sense… 
I live on a military base
I know what it’s like
I’m fucking defenseless.
And yet i’m the best shot with a pistol in my company and top 10 in the battalion.
HOW can you agree with disarming someone like me?

Emphasis mine, because twice. Two times. That’s your cause for fear? There are how many hundreds of military bases in the US? Not overseas, not in territories we’re occupying, but on US soil where logically there is minimal threat of attack.
I’ve lived on a military base on US soil. I know what it’s like. I wasn’t living in fear of a crazed gunman coming for me, I wasn’t worried about being defenseless.
Which raises the point of the fact that this was not a sane man, but even if he was the article I linked to (which apparently you didn’t understand) said that mass shooters don’t pick gun-free zones for being gun-free and only 15% of mass shootings take place in those areas. The Fort Hood shooter (this second one) picked the location for reasons other than the question of whether his intended victims may be armed or not.
And also the article mentioned that the fantasy of an armed civilian stopping a mass shooter doesn’t align with reality. It’s the police and other law enforcement officers who usually stop them, and a civilian getting involved would only make things worse.
But here I am trying to make a rational argument when you’re clearly emotionally distraught and not thinking straight, afraid that I’m out to disarm everyone despite the clear and present danger of mass shooters we all face on a daily basis (even though as the number of mass shootings has gone up (and the perception of them has skyrocketed thanks to constant media coverage) violent crime has been falling for a couple decades and the world is not as terrifying as you think it is).
Hey, if you want to live in fear go right ahead.

armedplatypus:

secotm:

If the problem is a gun the solution is more guns!

I’m trying to think, is there any other issue where the solution is more of the problem? Also, scroll down to the bottom of this article.

secotm… Did you not even pay attention to that comic?

How can you agree with disarming soldiers on their own home turf when it has been proven twice now to only leave them defenseless and open to attacks?

I read that article and nothing in it makes a damn bit of sense… 

I live on a military base

I know what it’s like

I’m fucking defenseless.

And yet i’m the best shot with a pistol in my company and top 10 in the battalion.

HOW can you agree with disarming someone like me?

Emphasis mine, because twice. Two times. That’s your cause for fear? There are how many hundreds of military bases in the US? Not overseas, not in territories we’re occupying, but on US soil where logically there is minimal threat of attack.

I’ve lived on a military base on US soil. I know what it’s like. I wasn’t living in fear of a crazed gunman coming for me, I wasn’t worried about being defenseless.

Which raises the point of the fact that this was not a sane man, but even if he was the article I linked to (which apparently you didn’t understand) said that mass shooters don’t pick gun-free zones for being gun-free and only 15% of mass shootings take place in those areas. The Fort Hood shooter (this second one) picked the location for reasons other than the question of whether his intended victims may be armed or not.

And also the article mentioned that the fantasy of an armed civilian stopping a mass shooter doesn’t align with reality. It’s the police and other law enforcement officers who usually stop them, and a civilian getting involved would only make things worse.

But here I am trying to make a rational argument when you’re clearly emotionally distraught and not thinking straight, afraid that I’m out to disarm everyone despite the clear and present danger of mass shooters we all face on a daily basis (even though as the number of mass shootings has gone up (and the perception of them has skyrocketed thanks to constant media coverage) violent crime has been falling for a couple decades and the world is not as terrifying as you think it is).

Hey, if you want to live in fear go right ahead.

Is this satire? -

"There was a bird outside my window"?

That was quick

It’s not as if my coming out as an atheist means I’m dedicating myself to finding articles on religion to talk about here, but after posting that piece I was checking Twitter and I saw Glenn Greenwald (a man I respect on a lot of issues) had linked to an article at Salon-dot-com about Richard Dawkins and Islam. Curious, I followed the link and found a brief yet oh-so-stupid article about how Islam is not anti-science based on the fact that there was a time when Islam produced many scientists and philosophers. Yes, I know about the Islamic Golden Age, but that was over a millennium ago.

The author of the article also mentions her own interest in science growing up, but she’s an American and Islam doesn’t have any influence on our culture or politics. If you want to discuss the relationship between Islam and science today you need to consider the places where Islam has power. As Jerry Coyne states

There is no reason for us to engage with Islamic theology beyond showing that it’s studying a nonexistent subject—and that it’s oppressive and pernicious as well.  I, for one, don’t really want to spend a lot of time studying Al-Tulsi’s theory of evolution so long as Muslims are throwing acid in the face of schoolgirls, executing gays and imprisoning blasphemers, stoning adulterers, and giving women’s testimony in the courts only half the value of a man’s. Saeed’s religion is oppressive, retrogressive, and an impediment to free thinking. And it’s inimical to science, as we can see by its rejection of human evolution.

Islam’s history is not as relevant as Islam today, and Muslims living as minorities don’t represent the heart of the religion as much as Muslims living in the majority do.

***

Beyond Salon hosting this ‘article’ to begin with I’m put off by the shameless call for attention of putting Dawkins’ name in the title, Dawkins and Hitchens in the subtitle, and then great big pictures of Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins underneath it when the author doesn’t even mention Dawkins until after a few paragraphs talking about her own love of science growing up and then a few more about Islam’s relation to science 1,000 years ago. She only mentions Dawkins in one paragraph, and when she links to what he has actually said it’s nothing about Islam’s relation to science.

So what we have is a not-particularly gifted or at all convincing writer trying to frame the ‘Islam and science’ question from the points of her own upbringing in a Christian nation and where Islam was centuries ago, but then whining a bit about people today saying unkind things about her religion without considering herself where her religion stands in this modern world.

And Salon published it! There was a time when Salon was publishing Tom Tomorrow and Keith Knight and Glenn Greenwald and it seemed to be building up as a serious journalism outfit. But looking at it today, I see sidebar ads with linkbait headlines like ‘Top 10 blah blah blah’ and links to Buzzfeed or the Huffington Post and slideshows… Is this what Salon has become? That desperate for hits and revenue?

I’m not even defending Dawkins here, I do think he has inflated the threat of Muslim extremists, but now Salon is inflating his/Hitchens/Harris’ Islamophobia to get people to read this drivel?

If the problem is a gun the solution is more guns!
I’m trying to think, is there any other issue where the solution is more of the problem? Also, scroll down to the bottom of this article.

If the problem is a gun the solution is more guns!

I’m trying to think, is there any other issue where the solution is more of the problem? Also, scroll down to the bottom of this article.