I would define Colbert's "truthiness" as true or wise in a philosphical sense, independent of whether the facts actually support it or whether it has anything to do with facts at all.

Thus a statement can be manifestly false, and yet contain considerable truthiness. Its veracity transcends reality.

The very complexity of the world means that you need organizing principles (that is, ideologies) to help make sense of it. To believe in one's ideology too completely, and to never questions one's ideologies, are serious mistakes. On the other hand, to be a complete political pragmatist without ideology to give structure to this complex world is likely unworkable.

One of the most critical skills in satire are knowing where the boundaries are. Exceed the boundaries and you go from respected to despised.

Colbert's genius is that even those who he is mocking can go along with joke, perhaps ignoring or not understanding that they are being mocked.

To pretend to be organizing such a rally is funny, but to actually hold such a rally is ridiculing the rally participants too directly. The offense would be impossible to ignore, and that's not Colbert's style.

Wouldn't it be easier just to travel at night?

Venezuela's forces are 130,000 strong, and they've been buying a lot of military equipment lately from oil revenues. Colombia's armed forces are 145,00 strong, not counting police, and is also well equiped.

Reminds me of Europe in 1913.

You, sir, have too much time on your hands.

Marshlands. I forgot marshlands.

Even before the modern era, man had spread throughout the planet save Antarctica. Mountains, prairies, woodlands, sea coast, jungle, desert, arctic, we were there. I can't think of a another land species (apart from microorganisms) that was so wide spread.

This suggests that mankind is spectacularly adaptive in comparison to other species.

I've never been impressed with the ability of SF to predict the future, either technologically or socially. Just read the old SF (of which I have a substantial collection). Not much there I would call prescient, despite some authors' obvious attempts at it. The issues of today are poorly reflected in the SF of yesterday.

As such, I am skeptical of SF's ability to help us deal with change and avoid mistakes.

These statistics don't mean much.

The report says 50% of IT executives feel their company's IT is understaffed, 45% say it is appropriately staffed, and 5% say it is overstaffed. But how often do department managers of any type in any situation say they are overstaffed? 5% maybe? And how do these figures compare with the same question asked 5 years ago?

So what's the next enlightening question? How many IT professionals feel they are underpaid?

Many employers say they're going to continue trimming budgets, particularly in human resources.

When I read this I thought "Hot damn, they're going to turf a layer or two of HR personnel. Bout time someone put those useless, meddling bastards up against the wall."

But no. The writer meant get rid of bonuses and perks. Life is ephemeral, bureaucracy everlasting.

Bachelor, are we?

My post wasn't serious. The number of possible bone-headed acts is likely too vast to list, much less remember. There's no substitute for a little mental firepower.

But let's face it - the Darwin Awards are funny in the same way as South Park is. It's the perverseness of it, perhaps a reaction to the stifling and hypocritical political correctness found in segments of our society (e.g., the modern university).