Archive for the 'FWDAOTI' category
One of the most hilarious things on the blogs recently is, as Isis the Scientist put it, PhysioProf vs. iPad.
It took an Apple product to do it but I do believe PhysioProffe is breaking down at last.
I get it. I do.
You think the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution lets you own guns in the event of a need for armed insurrection against a tyrannical government. Frankly, given what happened under Dubya Bush, I'm kinda surprised more of my libbie-leftie friends didn't join me in this understanding. But whatever.
Most of you, even on the rightwing, tend to reject my argument for equal force- nobody seems to be fond of Michigan Militia wingnuts getting their hands on tanks and F16s and Stinger missiles...so we're stuck with lack of parity. I mean, I don't get it...if you think this is what the 2nd means (and I do) then why you are not trying to pick up one of these modest multi-billion dollar weapons systems on the blackmarket is a mystery to me. but....ok. something less than parity with the US armed forces. That's a first principle.
Second, hunting. Now true, the 2nd Amendment does not seem to guarantee your right to blast small woodland creatures into oblivion but what the heck. Sure. By all means let us justify the sort of weapon that is necessary to bring down a deer or something. And leaves it....well, edible. As opposed to, say, riddled with heavy metal projectiles of a 0.223 calibre.
Third, you seem to think that the solution to gun violence is that we have more guns. More people with more access to guns at any moment in the event we need to
put down a mad dog, I mean, defend a movie theatre against a disgruntled neuroscience graduate student, er, nutter. Fine. I agree. If someone is actively shooting up the place, if we could have some calm, cool, collected return fire....well it looks fine on paper to me.
So how can we have more guns, available for hunting, best for accurate shooting and with some inherent features that exert a calming effect on the rate of fire?
The bolt-action rifle. Preferably with the magazine limited to 3 or 5 cartridges.
So here's what I propose. We ban, and I mean BAN, these stupid penile replacement firearms. Period. No handguns, no AR15 military bullshit. No magazine/clips bigger than 5 in capacity. No goddamn cammo stocks. No. Muppet. Hugging. Grandfather. Clause.
And in exchange you nutjobs can have as many bolt-action rifles as you want and as many long barrel shotguns as you want. You can hunt, grab them out of the rack on your pick 'em up truck in case you happen by a Sikh temple when some shit is going down from a white supremicist and have them under your bed come the armed insurrection.
From this transcript of his remarks:
Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?
And there we have it. The full reveal.
For the slower members of the audience, or those reading after too many eggnogs...an explainer from Comradde Physioproffe.
all these delusional right-wing microdicke Republican gun fetishists ... we all know that their real goal has nothing to with preventing the slaughter of kindergartners, and everything to do with delusional phallic power fantasies to compensate for their real-world angry white d00d ineffectual dicklessness.
So yeah, LaPierre was talking about videogame fans...but dude. Fruedian slip much? Who the hell would compare GrandTheftAuto to porn unless he was popping a chubbie thinking about blowing people away in a hail of semiautomatic fire from his M-16 imitating AR-15 "sporting rifle"? And you know who those people are?
Honestly. Tell me there isn't something wrong with these folks.
The Blue states are getting more government investment in Small Business, the Red ones more government investment in, well, the dole. Interesting, isn't it?
via Rock Talk blog.
NIH head of Extramural Research Salley Rockey has a post up defending peer review.
There has been much talk on the peer review process in our blog comments recently. We are extremely proud of our peer review system and its acceptance as one of the premier systems of peer review around the world. Our peer review system is based on a partnership between NIH staff and our reviewers. Each year we review about 80,000 applications with the help of tens of thousands of outside experts. I greatly appreciate those who have served and encourage everyone to participate in the process when you can.
I merely express my firm opinion, based on my own numerous experiences and without undermining the rules of the respected blog – that is why I am restricted from providing any specific examples. Should my respected opponent be interested in seeing these specific examples, I shall be very happy to share them in a private manner.
"numerous experiences". yeah. so have we all. Had numerous experiences. Mine come from my *cough*cough* years of putting in anywhere from ~2-6 proposals per year, to a 4 year term of service on a study section (~60-100 apps per round), to having local departmental colleagues with similar experiences and through writing a blog that fields many comments from other NIH funded investigators.
I hesitate to suggest I have a full picture on NIH grant review; and I seek data from the broader NIH-wide perspective wherever possible. To buttress my very limited personal experiences. Rockey's post says they review 80,000 applications per year. I don't think anyone's personal experience as an applicant, ad hoc reviewer or even multi-term appointed reviewer is all that comprehensive.
- break- I'm going to return to this thought later-