Cartoons and Pictures From The "Land Of NOMIS"

[Aphos]

[Afterglow]

[Afterglow]

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Isn't that death panel propaganda?

[pieces o nine]

Yes, it is.   

[Aggie]

Re: death panel propaganda - EVEN IF the naysayers are to be believed that prioritization of treatment (and choices made to not treat) would occur, they should call them 'life panels'. From what I've seen, the usual American approach is to let everyone without insurance die equally, or for one's insurance company to fight tooth and nail to deny coverage for treatments.

Very democratic. Unless one has the money to pay for very expensive insurance or out-of-pocket for private treatment, of course.  

[Swatopluk]

Chuck Asay is on the one hand one of the most talented editorial cartoonists I know but his editorial cartoons are almost 100% demagoguery of the vilest kind all of the time. What makes it (for me) especially bad, is that his drawing style is 'soft'. Other hateful colleagues draw their stuff in a 'harsh' style, where the intention jumps at you before one even begins to decode the message. With them a mere glance tells you that the intention is to spread hate. Asay's cartoons look harmless on the outside. No evil grinning donkey with a bloddy dagger stabbing a soldier from behind (a RW favorite often directly copied from the German original. Extra easy since the US adopted the German helmet style). But often he goes far beyond the run-of-the-mill propaganda. To be nasty, they guy would have no trouble to draw propaganda for the holocaust with drawings that would be suitable for primary school or kindergarten (please excuse my Godwin).

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Whew! 

I'm glad some of you people spoke up-- I thought it was just me...

(what didn't much care for that latest cartoon's final panel)

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Anyone you know? 



http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=648

[Aggie]

 

_{oh lovely, it's sparked a jovial rant in agreeance with said list...  scroll down to minimize exposure to said rant.}  

I'd up the points significantly for the abuse of 'quantum', and add a similar line for any reference to restructuring DNA.  In the general sense, it's called "taking scientific buzzwords that the average undereducated public regard as semi-mystical, and abusing them to create an air of scientificity to applications which disavow the applicability of verifiable objective scientific inquiry".  Of course, that's a mouthful.  

_{(an example of what I'm talking about here. Jeez, $20 to restructure DNA? Can you do this with corn plants? Monsanto could save MILLIONS!    Could they please at least grasp enough molecular biology to suggest that a practice may be capable of epigenetic modification over a longer term of practice? That is at least semi-plausible. I guess the upshot is that if you attend one of these sessions and subsequently are diagnosed with cancer, you could sue the practitioner for &#@%ing up your DNA.   Most mutations are maladaptive.)}

This kind of thing drives me up the bloody batty wall.    Using inaccurate metaphors to help understand an underlying process that can't be succintly described in words is one thing (physicists do the same thing all the time when writing for audiences that can't wrangle directly with the mathematics), but the abuse of very distinct scientific terms allows for easy theoretical/experimental disproof of one's modality and bloody well discredits serious metaphysical inquiry.

-------------------------

I also agree heartily with the 100 points for "the establishment doesn't want you to know about this".  There are plenty of things that certain commercial producers don't want you to know about (which are arguably the true 'establishment'), but many of those things actually get funding from the (government) establishment because they want you to know about it.  Things like, oh...  smoking kills you? Sitting on your butt and eating highly processed foods on a continuous basis may just have something to do with increasing levels of obesity and diabetes?  That sort of stuff.  

I am always amazed to what degree the situation is usually "I don't want to know about this, so I'll shut my ears" or else a complete mindless adherence to what the official expert opinion says WITHOUT examining the context of the message, the motivation for the structure and content of the message, or the applicability to one's self and situation (doesn't matter whether that expert is the Pope, the Surgeon General, your chosen alternative health star or a spiritual guru). Thinking is hard, m'kay?  Can't we just outsource it to other people?   Messages to the masses are hoping to achieve the greatest effect on a population basis and are not constructed to promote personalized individual excellence.  You have to do that yourself.

----------------------

FWIW, I'll take the stated 5-point penalty gladly, as I haven't come up with a better term than 'energy' for use in a metaphysical context (that doesn't sound even flakier).  Oh, and for the record, water does do many things that are REALLY REALLY FREAKIN' AMAZING! Any basic education in biology or chemistry can tell you that.  


Blathering over.

[Afterglow]

[Afterglow]

[Afterglow]

[Afterglow]

[Afterglow]