Monday, December 4, 2023

It's a Major Award

h/t WRSA

No, not a fishnet-stocking lamp with the glow of electric sex.

Today's Biff Tannen Award Winner:











Also known as How To Tell Me You Saw None Of These Movies Without Telling Me You Saw None Of These Movies.

To the creator of that turdwaffle: Well done. You have earned your Biff Tannen 'Make Like A Tree Award', with magna cum laude turd lump clusters. It also comes with a week's supply of petroleum jelly, and earnest hopes that, at some point, you lube up your other end, and pull your head out of it.

For any Common Core grads out there, we re-iterate the Golden Rule of Comedy:

Comedy = Humor + Truth 

Audience, see if you can guess which item Professor Faceplant left out of this meme.

Here's a hint, from the cast of the above flick:













This is consummate professional actor, Canadian Henry Czerny. He plays the double-dealing back-stabbing CIA professional upper-level bureaucratic apparatchik with incredible precision, as he's done against Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan in Clear And Present Danger, and against Tom Cruise as Nathan Hunt in multiple Mission Impossible movies for 28 years now.


In the movie from which the meme was lifted, and the shots above, he's Eugene Kittredge, not just a CIA guy, and in the latest edition he's the actual
Director of Central Intelligence, IOW the kingshit CIA person at the top of the whole festering dungheap.

Spoiler Alert!








Tom Cruise's Nathan Hunt, OTOH, and his IMF band of merry mischief-makers, are the exact folks Czerny's always backstabbing since the first outing, and whom he's seen explicitly double-crossing in high style, as well as hunting down specifically throughout this latest flick.

Trying to paint the IMF as "the CIA in the movies" is roughly about as retarded as trying to make Macaulay Culkin the villain in Home Alone. It takes a special kind of cultural tone-deafness to paint the IMF as "the CIA", coupled with a total unfamiliarity with any one of the MI movies to date. As in "never saw one of them in your life".

Which wins kudos for most ham-fisted meme fuck-up we've seen in weeks.

Yet again, well-done! Have you thought about working for the Biden Re-Election Campaign?

Don't quit your day job, Bozo.

Pottsreborn should have left this attempt in the pot. And then jiggled the handle until it went down.

Anyone can make a meme that doesn't land. No crime there. But no one should make one so bassackwards it plops, and leaves an odor of epic fail.

Actual movie CIA agents portrayed as good guys aren't hard to find: any version of Felix Leiter, or John Krasinski's Jack Ryan could have been selected with less trouble than swinging a dead cat. So this poor choice was stupid and lazy.

The idea for the meme was great. Rockstar, even. The execution was Special Olympics - Did Not Place.

Two final thoughts:




















Just a suggestion, mind you.

Sunday, December 3, 2023

Well, This Sucks: Light Posting Alert










It doesn't rain in SoCal, until it pours, and I don't get sick, until I do.

I haven't been sick enough to miss a day's work since before COVID, so four years or so at least. But last week on my days off, some rando in my travels passed on their viral crap to me. I didn't think I was sick, no usual symptoms, except feeling worn out and 100 years old, but I knew I didn't feel right. I've been precepting a very good student, and didn't want to bail out on her last  clinical rotations in the ED before her graduation.

COVID test Friday at work was negative, but I just felt sore everywhere, and rather as beat down as Jonah after the whale burped him up. Didn't feel feverish either, but when I checked my temp at lunch, it was 103°, and that was that. No squawk from the bosses about calling out after that.

Not having had the crud of any kind for over four years, I am reminded of how much I did not miss it. I spent most of the weekend in bed with jugs of water and orange juice, and a party-size bottle of ibuprofen.

I will be happy when this passes, but at least I found out I'm not dying, just envious of those that are, and am eternally grateful for the invention of Motrin.

Consequently I won't be climbing the tower to peck out missives until I feel a bit less like hammered whale droppings. Hopefully soon.

Kindly amuse yourselves with the free ice cream over on the right column blog list for a few days.

Sunday Music: Eyes Without A Face

 


In total contrast to his image as MTV's poster boy for sneering bad boy new wave, Billy Idol produced some of the most beautiful tunes of the era, like this one, a #4 hit in 1984, released as the second single off of Rebel Yell.

Wednesday, November 29, 2023

Another Scoop Of Bullshit, With Sprinkles On Top

 h/t Granite Grok








Apparently, unable to help themselves, and tickling the confirmation bias of every "masks don't work" retard on the planet, some Norwegian numbnuts' have burped out another pointless non-study "study", full of more holes than an entire warehouse of Jarlsberg cheese. 

If you're going to consume something, we recommend
this choice unhesitatingly over what's in the header pic.











Notable is their forthrightness in telling you, right in black-and-white, what a load of crap they've excreted.

For bonus points, they waited until 2022 to do this, after COVID had transmogrified worldwide to, at worst, a bad flu, and normally, a 2-3 day cold. Wherein people who actually had it couldn't even tell it was anything to worry about. Genius, right there.

The parts of the self-reported survey no one reads down to that matter:

Additionally, there may be other factors that could confound the relationship between face  mask use and study outcomes, such as participants in high-risk professions or with risk factors for severe COVID-19. Both groups may be more or less prone to wear face masks, while also  observing different social distancing practices than the average population. We also cannot  rule reverse causality, in which those testing positive for COVID-19 were more prone to wear  masks afterwards in order to protect others. Finally, there could be an association between the  inclination to test and the propensity to wear a face mask.

So many of their "frequent" users could have been health care workers in close proximity to active COVID patients. Which screws the pooch decisively, all by itself. They performed no control for this. Then they mention the other two obvious reasons what they think they found is hogwash, so their imaginary "correlation" is so much worthless bullshit. Which they even told people from the outset in their intro summary:

We believe the observed increased incidence of infection associated with wearing a face mask is likely due to unobservable and hence nonadjustable differences between those wearing and not wearing a mask. Observational studies reporting on the relationship between face mask use and risk of respiratory infections should be interpreted cautiously, and more randomized trials are needed.

Thus, any similarity between what they claim to have found, and actual truth, is as likely due to witchcraft, or heavy use of psychedelic drugs while correlating their so-called "data". Monkeys throwing darts at a board would be more reliable. 

Well-played, weasel-word maestros.

And how many participants reported wearing a face mask all the time?

Of the participants, 852 (26.6%) reported using a face mask at least 75% of the time when near others outside their home, 861 (26.8%) reported using a face mask between 25% and 75% of the time, and 1,495 (46.6%) reported using a face mask less than 25% of the time.

So the answer to the question of who wore a face mask all the time is 0%.

They even told people this openly:

Owing to few responses for some of the categories, in our analysis we combined the response categories into: Always/Almost always; Often / Sometimes; and Almost never/Never. This was prespecified in the protocol.

Therefore, they combined that 0% with the 26.6% who wore a mask maybe 75% of the time when near others outside their home.

That's like combining steak and bullshit in equal proportions to make a meatloaf. Consume at your own risk.

Not studied: how many of them had close contact inside their home with friends and family who had COVID, and would likely have transmitted it to them, when nobody in the equation was wearing anything.

The greater point, as usual, is how many of those wearing masks were in proximity to those wearing none, when the whole point of any masking policy involving simple masks is that other people wear them to protect you, not the other way around.










They knew this too, yet continue to test seatbelts to see if they prevent car accidents, and test parachutes to see if they prevent plane crashes, in true anti-scientific jackhole bassackwards fashion.

With two university professors, a master's graduate, and a Ph.D. conducting this "research". Which is as reliable as a mall survey. And you wonder why college, worldwide, is simply shit?

They conclude by summarizing yet again all the ways their "research" is full of shit:

Our findings may be explained by several factors. A major limitation of our study is the non- randomized, cross-sectional study design. It may be that mask wearers were more prone to wear masks to protect others from their own infection. This reverse causality may explain the positive association between risk of infection and mask usage, and could be supported by the finding that participants reporting to wear masks also were more likely to test themselves for COVID-19. Furthermore, there may be other behavioral differences related to perception of  risk [26] or occupation that we did not observe, that are linked to the likelihood of wearing masks [27] or to the likelihood of being tested for COVID-19 when symptomatic. There is also the possibility that mask wearers feel somewhat protected and thus change their behaviors to not observe social distancing, so that any benefit of masking is offset by increased exposure. Lastly, our main outcome was based on self-report, which is also a possible source of bias.

Therefore, any similarity between what they published, and useful information is purely coincidental. Which makes you wonder WhyTF they even bothered to do it, other than to justify their rent checks, and to not be prosecuted for grant fraud, let alone skin-wasting and oxygen theft.

These witless wonders couldn't find their own asses with both hands, a map, and a rear-view mirror. But grant money was at stake, so more shit chowder for the Bubbas is once again on the menu.

And at the end, this pearl:

Recommendations to wear face masks in the community are largely informed by low certainty evidence from observational studies.

No shit, Sherlock.

IOW, TPTB, being even stupider than these educated idiots, made foolish decisions to implement jackassical policies which had no scientific basis, and no possibility of working, because 

a) they wanted to be seen "doing something", even if it was bag-of-hammers-stupid, with a 0% chance of success, like we told you from the outset, and

b) because the sort of people who become TPTB self-abuse themselves to fantasies of telling everyone else what to do, for their own good, no matter how stupid, pointless, and ill-informed those instructions are.

Short answer: in any crisis, ignore any so-called leaders who have no actual bona fides qualifications, any alleged "experts" they call on, and damned near anything they tell you to do that sounds even remotely suspect. And whenever possible, kill both categories before they can breed, for the good of the species.

Total number of "studies" that actually studied mask-wearing efficacy, since about EVER: still only one, AFAIK.

More grant money set on fire, and then flushed down the toilet.

Universities should pay professors to not inflict this sort of bullshit on the people, and dock them salary commensurate with any grant stipends they receive which plop this kind of pure bullshit in public. It's the only way they'll learn to stop doing it, short of kicking them in the dick 100 times a day for a week.

For the record, I'm in favor of that too.

But little steps, right?

Like A Crock









Irish and Kenny posted about Chevy's latest ad for the holidays.

You can find it there; I won't give it more views, but not because it's a tear-jerker.

Why not?

Sorry, would that be the subsidiary of Government Motors?

The ones who took bailouts from taxpayers to continue their failed business model?

The ones chipping nanny-cars, eavesdropping on all conversations in those cars, and turning God Alone Knows What Data over to the feds and God Alone Knows Who, willy-nilly?

The ones pimping Diversity Is Our Strength in every commercial, from mixed-race to Heather-Has-Two-Mommies as the norm, rather than an infinitesimal fractional fringe of society?


Now they want to pander a little, suck up to traditional America, pretend they care about us, and jerk some tears to pimp their cars?

(And while we're up, why isn't Granny black, hispanic, Asian, let alone LGBTEIEIO?? The only thing white people are good for in commercials is to be doddering old fools...? Got it.)

Whatever.

Somebody would have to have Alzheimer's to forget all that and still buy their crappy product.


No Alzheimer's here, nor Stockholm Syndrome either, thanks.

Somebody tell Chevy:

Fire your woketard advertising staff, apologize publicly for at least twenty years of shitting on your customers' heads, make better cars, and then we can talk.

Tuesday, November 28, 2023

Why Richard Dawkins Is An Underbright Lying Twat


For some unknown reason, YouTube burped this excerpt of a greater debate featuring famous atheist Richard Dawkins, and some polite creationist (I frankly couldn't care less about the latter's identity or bona fides; he's an irrelevant variable) onto my feed.

You can watch this entire segment if you like, or even the entire program (it's on YouTube) and nonetheless be stupider for the time wasted.

Dawkins, and by extension Darwin, and all the lazy idiots of similar ilk always default to a knee-jerk lie, rather than address the actual question in this segment.

His idea that there's a "ramp of improvement", like Darwin's half-assed and ignorant suppositions in the mid-19th century, rest on wholesale ignorance of the physiology of vision. Darwin had an excuse: the science hadn't been performed then. Dawkins, however, is simply intellectually lazy, and deliberately mendacious, because by now, the mechanisms enabling sight, particularly human sight, are far better known and such research widely propagated. 

The problem enters in when, rather than addressing the ponderous hole that physiologic truth has blown through his atheistic codswallop, he lazily chooses to simply lie his way around the Great Wall Of Reality into which he's just been run headfirst, at speed.

To wit:

One cannot have "only a quarter of an eye, only a hundredth of an eye, or half an eye, is better than nothing " (3:50ff).

Basic physiology disagrees:

It doesn't work like that.

In the trade, there's a technical term for what you are when you have a half, a quarter, or a hundredth of an eye (and by this we mean not just the eyeball itself, but the entire cascade of processes enabling vision): BLIND.

Darwin, and Dawkins, have a four-year-old's scientific apprehension of how vision happens, which he exhibits in this debate, and which he shares with fellow lunkhead Casper Milquetoast, scientific imbecile, and Defender Of The Faith. Milquetoast should have trounced Dawkins' retardedly facile explanation and mopped the floor with him at that point, but he wasn't bright enough to attempt that, lacking even the most rudimentary concept of vision physiology  himself. As this was programmed, he was either controlled opposition, or deliberately chosen for being this ignorant. The Washington Generals are everywhere, and about as obvious.

The so-called "debate", therefore, is simply a real-life exhibition match between Dumb and Dumber, to make the most annoying sound in the world.

The actual process of phototransduction, which is how reflected light and images are transmogrified into mentally usable images in the brain, is incredibly ridiculously complex. The idea that all the physical structures and biochemical processes that make those structures needful and useful all aligned precisely from beginning to end simultaneously out of random chance and selective evolution is akin to positing that a flight-worthy 747, whole, fueled, and ready for takeoff, would spontaneously generate from enough tornadoes hitting an airplane boneyard. Frankly, of the two cases, the spontaneously assembled 747 is the likelier of the two, by orders of magnitude.

Sh'yeah, that engine could just appear randomly too.











There are thousands of biochemical actions and reactions in the cascade of vision, which have to happen immediately in forward and reverse, acting on microscopic and specialized physical structures that accommodate those processes, every fraction of a second, to get the image from one single light photon to the retina. And as many again to get from the retina to the visual cortex. And then it has to instantly reverse to reset the rods and cones so that you can receive the next image, rather than have visual imagery locked on, or see life like a flickering silent-movie-era projection, flickering in and out forever. And it has to happen the next instant. And the next. And the next, endlessly and seamlessly. As it has since you were born.

If any of the bio-mechanical structures of vision are missing or flawed, you won't see, at least not well. If some certain of them are missing, or if any one of those hundreds of thousands of biochemical and bioelectrical processes fail, you don't see dimly; you're simply and completely blind.

So you can't have any "fraction" of an eye, and build any delusional "ramp of improvement" on that. You have to have the whole process, top to bottom, front to back. There is no reason to expect 99.9999% of them to "evolve" and hang around just waiting perpetually, when they'd serve no purpose without the missing piece(s). One does not see a hubcap, and imagine an entire automobile will eventually spontaneously assemble around it either, and for the same reason: the entire idea is delusionally recockulous.

We'll leave off the problem of the lack of the billions and billions of fossils of blind animals necessary, even over billions of years, before sight developed. The process, even for relatively "simple" eyes in the animal kingdom, is all or nothing. And it's no more likely to have spontaneously and randomly generated than is the computer screen, tablet, or smartphone you're reading this on to have just been burped up by the cosmos out of blind luck.

In Dawkins' delusional universe, these fall off of trees too.














Dawkins, and Evolution since Day One, skips that conundrum by saying, in effect, "but a Galaxy 1 is better than no Galaxy, and an iPhone 1 is better than nothing", which begs the question of how you got from Og and Thag beating on hollow logs to having any Galaxy or iPhone at all, plus the entire cellular telephone network worldwide, without someone to build them in the first place. Just like eyes, and a vision process.

Dawkins knows that (if he doesn't, he's a gibbering moron), and were he ever smacked in the face with that frozen mackerel of truth he's spent a lifetime ignoring, by someone scientifically brighter and rhetorically less handicapped than segment opponent Casper Milquetoast (which is an incredibly low bar), he'd dissemble, dig in and double down. Or else be forced to admit that his pet theory and favorite philosopher is so much codswallop, and had to be for the decades and decades of physiological discoveries of the complexity of vision, of a magnitude never imagined by 1800's dimwit Darwin. But I doubt, with Dawkins being so invested, intellectually and morally, in the lifelong lie, he'd ever be intellectually honest enough to admit that he, just like Darwin, had a grudge against the idea of the divine or supernatural, and both had therefore sunk their spurs into the idea that there is no god, because it makes the rest of their pathetic existence tolerable and comfortable, not to mention lucrative.

He's entitled to go to hell in whatever way he sees fit to do so; that's free will in action.

But to make it his life's work to try and bamboozle others by deliberately ignoring the utter lack of any scientific underpinning for his delusions, and furthermore ignoring the monumental evidence to the exact contrary, and outright lying about both in support of his line of twaddle, is quite inarguably and inexcusably monstrous and damnable.

But it obviously calms the simple-minded on their way to the abattoir.

Sunday, November 26, 2023

Sunday Music: Crazy

 


Seal's first Top Ten hit from his 1990 debut album, which put him on the music map, until 1995's "Kiss From A Rose" launched him into the stratosphere of headliners.

Thursday, November 23, 2023

Be A Man Among Men

Epic Moments














Happy Thanksgiving to one and all.