Tim Minchin's excellent 9 minute takedown of irrationality (and alternative medicine!):
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Animal Farm Friday - Feeding Frenzy Armageddon
If this doesn't look like what Wall Streeters and predatory mortgage lenders have done to the world, I don't know what does:
Thursday, April 9, 2009
More stupidity from Texas
Why are so many Texans so f-ing dumb? And racist...
On Tuesday, State Rep. Betty Brown (R) caused a firestorm during House testimony on voter identification legislation when she said that Asian-Americans should change their namesbecause they’re too hard to pronounce:“Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?” Brown said.
Obviously, this functionally retarded twat hasn't had to pronounce many Scandinavian names. I wonder how well she does with French names.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Bill-O, the mouse with an erection
Roger Ebert is hilarious!
Bill, I am concerned that you have been losing touch with reality recently. Did you really say you are more powerful than any politician?
That reminds me of the famous story about Squeaky the Chicago Mouse. It seems that Squeaky was floating on his back along the Chicago River one day. Approaching the Michigan Avenue lift bridge, he called out: Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Disillusionist
To say I am disillusioned right now would be an understatement, though a bit accurate. My disillusion spans many levels, but in this post it's focused specifically on one individual.
A certain song comes to mind, as I think the lyrics are somewhat fitting. Here's an abridged set:
The Disillusionist
[...]
Hang around the backstage door
But he knows what you're waiting for
You rub yourself against his fame
Already ready to bear the blame
He asks you Did you like my show?
As if he really wants to know
Then doesn't wait for your reply
He just pulls you back inside
You've started feeling dizzy
It isn't you or is he
Persuade you mentally
Undress you incidentally
Down the swaying corridor
People you feel sorry for
But when he puts the gaze on you
You're amazed at what you'll let him do
He can turn wine into water
Mother against daughter
Juggles busy deadlines
Gets himself in headlines
Surrounded by his minions
Who never have opinions
Performing little tricks for you
Puts it in a fix for you
Smashes your watch with a hammer
Caresses you with camera
And says the magic words
That nobody's ever heard
Now the slur is fading
Reality all-pervading
It only makes you want him more
It only makes you fawn him more
And he does the Indian rope trick
The one that makes you seasick
And he keeps on filling up your cup
But you keep on filling up
And some of it's done with mirrors
And some of it's done with scissors
And some of it's done with cables
And his hands under the table
It doesn't matter you want to believe
It doesn't matter if you have to leave
You won't escape his orbit
And the things that you must forfeit
And the audience seems familiar
Some of them in particular
Bet you they are his plants
When he plays the game of chance
He reads the minds of jilted girls
And the story really unfurls
Cast a fortune for the man in the suit
Who's suffering is very acute
There's a rabbit in his hat
But I thought I smelled a rat
ICRC Report
The International Committee of the Red Cross condemns the leaking of their reporting on detention facilities known as Black Sites. It's fair that they condemn the leak because it could very well undermine their ability to gain unfettered access to prison sites in the future. Because these reports were only made for the purpose of issuance to those running the prisons, and were not for public consumption, this leak could undermine that.
It can be surmised that the individual who leaked the report may well have done so weighing the cost benefit analysis of which was potentially more damaging in the future: ICRC access, or the fact that the ICRC's access is meaningless when torturers can escape accountability.
Take for example that the Obama administration has not merely ignored attempts by citizen groups to hold the Bush administration accountable for torture, the Obama administration has also been very pro-active at defending Bush, Cheney, and their cronies. Never mind that Obama ran on the promise of accountability.
If someone with access to evidence that the US did actively and willingly engage in human rights abuses and torture sees "the leader of the free world" actively and willingly engage in efforts to block investigations of alleged war crimes, that person can hardly be blamed for coming forward with their evidence of crimes.
At this point, a line in the sand has been drawn. Obama has only two options: Choose to accept this evidence and begin DOJ investigations into these allegations of war crimes, or b) Obama can choose to suppress this evidence and refuse to pursue any charges against KNOWN war criminals.
To date, Obama has displayed a propensity in this regard to do the exact opposite of the right thing. But the evidence available in the public domain, indeed via this site, is damning. If Obama chooses "a", he will be at the very list keeping his word.
But I've pretty much lost hope in Obama.
Makes me sad
It seems that there are very few Obama supporters out there who care that Obama is behaving worse than Bush on matters that he and his administration were most despised for. Apart from myself, there are a few at Daily Kos, EFF, Andrew Sullivan, and the inimitable Glenn Greenwald that I count so far. Not many. I'm not sure how many would even bother to read the full story about what Obama is doing and just how wrong all of it really is.
When I wrote a letter to Bill Burton of the Obama campaign last year, explaining how Obama lost my support because of his reversed stance on the warrantless wiretapping issue, it got picked up by Glenn Greenwald, and by the New York Daily News. I got a big spike in traffic but I would rather that Obama would have just kept his word.
Obama pissed off a lot of his supporters other than the likes of me, because he knew that reversing his stance on immunity for telecoms made him look either weak and malleable (perhaps in the pocket of the likes of AT&T, who forked over the cash for the DNC convention), or just a fork-tongued liar. In a weak effort to try to appease some of the angry supporters, Obama issued a statement - perhaps knowingly dishonest even then - that immunity for telecoms didn't shield guilty government officials.
Well, Obama has not only changed his tune on that one, he actually goes one further than Bush. His DOJ is now trying to convince the courts that the government can't even be sued for information relevant to the warrantless wiretapping cases at all.
I guess in this case "change" means being worse than Bush?
I know other Obama supporters don't really care about this, because in their eyes he can do no wrong. He is, as has been said, the Benevolent Tyrant, it seems.
As for me, I'm very, very saddened by this. Saddened because of my own naiveté. Sad for thinking that is was remotely possible for a politician to not be a liar. I put so much effort into Obama's primary campaign because I believed he could be the one politician that could be trusted to do the right thing. Obama promised to bring a new degree of transparency to the White House, but the only transparency we've seen are the drapes pulled back on the front room. But we need light shining on the darkest corners of the White House to expose the evil of the Bush/Cheney regime. Yet, at every opportunity, Obama has done the opposite. Instead of working to hold them accountable, he helps them get away with their misdeeds.
The two most egregious examples of Bush's legacy are the warrantless wiretapping and illegals spying on Americans, and the torture of detainees. Obama is bending over backwards to shield Bush and Cheney and their cronies from accountability.
Obama has totally crossed the line.
Perhaps when the courts of other nations have their own trials, and convict Bush and Cheney of war crimes, then they can turn their attention to Obama for aiding and abetting known war criminals.
As Rachel Maddow says, "the arc of the Universe bends towards justice." Lets hope she's even just a little bit right.
When I wrote a letter to Bill Burton of the Obama campaign last year, explaining how Obama lost my support because of his reversed stance on the warrantless wiretapping issue, it got picked up by Glenn Greenwald, and by the New York Daily News. I got a big spike in traffic but I would rather that Obama would have just kept his word.
Obama pissed off a lot of his supporters other than the likes of me, because he knew that reversing his stance on immunity for telecoms made him look either weak and malleable (perhaps in the pocket of the likes of AT&T, who forked over the cash for the DNC convention), or just a fork-tongued liar. In a weak effort to try to appease some of the angry supporters, Obama issued a statement - perhaps knowingly dishonest even then - that immunity for telecoms didn't shield guilty government officials.
Well, Obama has not only changed his tune on that one, he actually goes one further than Bush. His DOJ is now trying to convince the courts that the government can't even be sued for information relevant to the warrantless wiretapping cases at all.
I guess in this case "change" means being worse than Bush?
I know other Obama supporters don't really care about this, because in their eyes he can do no wrong. He is, as has been said, the Benevolent Tyrant, it seems.
As for me, I'm very, very saddened by this. Saddened because of my own naiveté. Sad for thinking that is was remotely possible for a politician to not be a liar. I put so much effort into Obama's primary campaign because I believed he could be the one politician that could be trusted to do the right thing. Obama promised to bring a new degree of transparency to the White House, but the only transparency we've seen are the drapes pulled back on the front room. But we need light shining on the darkest corners of the White House to expose the evil of the Bush/Cheney regime. Yet, at every opportunity, Obama has done the opposite. Instead of working to hold them accountable, he helps them get away with their misdeeds.
The two most egregious examples of Bush's legacy are the warrantless wiretapping and illegals spying on Americans, and the torture of detainees. Obama is bending over backwards to shield Bush and Cheney and their cronies from accountability.
Obama has totally crossed the line.
Perhaps when the courts of other nations have their own trials, and convict Bush and Cheney of war crimes, then they can turn their attention to Obama for aiding and abetting known war criminals.
As Rachel Maddow says, "the arc of the Universe bends towards justice." Lets hope she's even just a little bit right.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Obama WTF? Embracing warrantless wiretapping
This does it for me.
The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration's position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) warrantless wiretapping program, filing a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA late Friday.
Raisin of Reason: Rational Response Squad
It's a BONANZA today!
These guys (and gal) of the Rational Response Squad are great, and not hard on the eyes either!
Money slogan: "Believe in God? We can fix that."
These guys (and gal) of the Rational Response Squad are great, and not hard on the eyes either!
Money slogan: "Believe in God? We can fix that."
Raisin of Reason: Stop Lying to Your Children...
Stop lying about Santa, and other ridiculous fairy tales.
What I mean by Republiscum
Calling members of the Republican party "Republiscums" is hardly civil, and is certainly demeaning. But I have a damn good reason for it, and this is why:
Republiscums are the bottom-feeders that helmed the ship of State for more than a decade, controlling all three branches of government for at least eight straight years. These scumbags sullied America's reputation around the world, and made a mockery of us to our allies. These repugnant lowlifes advocated and championed the use of torture, that ultimately proved to be useless for anything other than destroying America's collective morality. Now, no longer in power, they continue to strive to avoid any accountability for their crimes, which continues to damage America's image, and her reputation as a nation of laws.
This is what I mean by the term Republiscum. The Republiscums shouldn't just be voted out of office, they should be tried and imprisoned. They are all enemies of the State. For their assault on our Constitution, they should be branded as traitors, and tried for treason, and/or sedition.
When that doesn't work, then it's time for pitchforks and torches, and maybe a little rope.
Senate Republicans are now privately threatening to derail the confirmation of key Obama administration nominees for top legal positions by linking the votes to suppressing critical torture memos from the Bush era. A reliable Justice Department source advises me that Senate Republicans are planning to “go nuclear” over the nominations of Dawn Johnsen as chief of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice and Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as State Department legal counsel if the torture documents are made public.
Republiscums are the bottom-feeders that helmed the ship of State for more than a decade, controlling all three branches of government for at least eight straight years. These scumbags sullied America's reputation around the world, and made a mockery of us to our allies. These repugnant lowlifes advocated and championed the use of torture, that ultimately proved to be useless for anything other than destroying America's collective morality. Now, no longer in power, they continue to strive to avoid any accountability for their crimes, which continues to damage America's image, and her reputation as a nation of laws.
This is what I mean by the term Republiscum. The Republiscums shouldn't just be voted out of office, they should be tried and imprisoned. They are all enemies of the State. For their assault on our Constitution, they should be branded as traitors, and tried for treason, and/or sedition.
When that doesn't work, then it's time for pitchforks and torches, and maybe a little rope.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Don't worry, be happy! Wait, WTF...
Ending the week on [the exact opposite of] a high note, we get the March unemployment numbers. It's official...
...wait for it...
It's a DEPRESSION!
(Told ya so!)
...wait for it...
It's a DEPRESSION!
(Told ya so!)
Corn-fed Bumpkins Out-Progressive California
Just joshin'! No slight toward Iowa, but indeed a hat tip of admiration and appreciation!
Long live the Iowa State Supreme Court for having the courage and compassion to change state law to no longer limit marriage between one man, one woman.
I'm almost in tears.
Now if only California could pull its collective head out of its ass and do the same.
Long live the Iowa State Supreme Court for having the courage and compassion to change state law to no longer limit marriage between one man, one woman.
I'm almost in tears.
Now if only California could pull its collective head out of its ass and do the same.
Animal Farm Friday: Wall St Pigs at the Trough
Not real animals, obviously, but rather than show video of pigs feeding at a trough, I'd go straight to the actual damning story.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Don't read this!
This article will make you want to pull your hair out!
Meanwhile, our tax dollars are going into a giant sink hole that will only make the rich richer, and sink the rest of us into lasting poverty.
AIG was a Ponzi scheme plain and simple, yet the Obama Administration still thinks of AIG as a real company that simply took excessive risks. No, to us what the fraud Bernard Madoff is to individual investors, AIG is to the global financial community.
Meanwhile, our tax dollars are going into a giant sink hole that will only make the rich richer, and sink the rest of us into lasting poverty.
Are the CDS Contracts of AIG Really Valid?
As I was saying just last night...
Read the full article.
The key point is that neither the public, the Fed nor the Treasury seem to understand is that the CDS contracts written by AIG with these various non-insurers around the world were shams - with no correlation between “fees” paid and the risk assumed.
Read the full article.
Raisin of Reason: Them doing our work for us
This is spectacular! I wish all religious people would make videos like this!!!
Sullivan is confused over who are the Makers and who are the Takers
From a commenter taking Andrew Sullivan to task for saying something stupid which he attempts to "clarify", though not satisfactorily:
"It will be between the makers and the takers, the producers of wealth and the recipients of redistribution."
It's the phrase "producers of wealth" that traps many modern conservatives. It's the Larry Kudlow view of the world, in which the debt-fueled paper profits of Wall Street were repeatedly lionized as "the greatest story never told." Bernie Madoff, AIG, and the Saudi royal family are (or were) incredible producers of wealth. The financial services industry got away with its destructive behavior for so long because it was driving GDP growth. Clearly there is a difference between producing "wealth" and producing, as you write in your clarification "something of value." To the extent that wealth production is decoupled from value production, capitalism is failing. The scam artists that drove Wall Street into the ground are walking away insanely wealthy and largely unscathed, and future scam artists are surely taking note.
With that in mind, I'm curious as to how you propose we restore the association between wealth production and value creation.
Sullivan sees the Makers as the capitalists who make wealth, and the Takers as everyone else. This warped perspective is what has got us where we are today, and is what's fundamentally wrong with Capitalism. The Capitalists would be nowhere without Labor, plain and simple, though they live in the illusion that Labor could not exist without them. Depending on how you look at it, there's a measure of truth to this, but only to the extent of the system set in place in Medieval times. The truth is that the Capitalists, indeed Conservatives, are the real Takers, while it is Labor that are the Makers.
Capitalists might put up capital to allow for Makers to produce goods, but they ultimately take the spoils and benefits, and leave the Makers with pittance and scraps to fight over. This has gone on for centuries, and sadly will continue on as long as Labor, the Makers, allow it.
Be Wary of Ads
Picked this up from Josh at TPM. It's an old ad from Enron, trying to make the case for regulation being bad, and weighing down progress. We've all seen and paid for Enron's warped sense of progress, the same way we're seeing and paying for Wall Street's warped sense of progress. This ad is a great example of why everyone must be suspicious and critical of all the ads the various financial services companies are spending millions of your tax dollars on in an effort to gloss over their bad - and sometimes criminally fraudulent - mistakes.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sorry Josh, but Kindle isn't the real story
Josh at TPM has been on a tear this week as he's gotten sucked into the Kindle via the Kindle iPhone app. His inner and outer dialog is interesting to me since I can relate, but I see this from a different perspective than he. For the record, two things make me willing to abandon my principle of not giving my money to AT&T. (Well, three things if you count that it's impossible to get an iPhone from Apple w/o opening an account with AT&T). The TED Talks app, and the Kindle app for the iPhone. But this post is not about TED. It's not directly about the Kindle, nor the iPhone either. It's about the aggregate of all of them, and so much more.
The first time I saw a Kindle, I was impressed by the ePaper (non-backlit screen, basically). As a designer whose eyes spend more time looking at a computer monitor than they do being closed, I can appreciate looking at an LCD screen that isn't trying to attach itself to my brain via optic nerves. Interestingly though, Kindle achieves the same result, albeit less intrusively. I like looking at that ePaper screen (at least the text), so the text makes it into my brain faster than the text I read on typical PC monitors. Funny thing, that. Sadly though, as Josh points out, ePaper sucks when it comes to cool illustrations and maps and stuff. To me, Kindle is the ultimate paperback. I am sure this is what Jeff Bezos had in mind all along. If a book requires rich illustrations, photography, maps, and what not, then it must be bought in print. If the book is all about the writing and needs no serious imagery for support, like most paperbacks, then it's perfect for the Kindle. From this perspective, the Kindle is refining the publishing industry, perhaps.
Kindle is not the Harbinger of Doom to books, no more than iTunes was the Harbinger of Doom to radio and CDs and records, and no more than DVDs are the Harbinger of Doom to the theater industry. All have been refinements, or extensions to the long tail. Without going into a diatribe of all things media, I'll just settle on saying that the Kindle is just another means for people to access content in a way they find suitable for themselves individually. There will be some suffering to some along the way; just like automobiles put some horses out of work, and robotic assembly lines took some people out of work, neither presaged the end of the world or humankind (at least not any more than any standard doomsayer of the day at any given period). But who is complaining about not having to follow the backend of a horse for an entire day every other week just to buy some bags of flour and other staples, when they can drive a car across an entire state in the same time? Who's complaing that they can't spend an entire evening scanning a VHS tape for that one particular scene in a movie, when they can now just jump within a few frames of it n DVD? Who's complaining that that can't carry all 5,000 EPs in the back of their U-Haul when they can fit all 10,000 songs in their back pocket... and also take calls, watch videos, play fames, and send emails from the same device?
I feel where Josh is coming from, I really do. As a hardcore Steampunk fan, I relish the tactile feel of hand-crafted objects, and machine crafted objects. But, as much as I appreciate handmade wrought iron nails, I'm sure that if I was a carpenter back in the day when those were the only nails available, I'd be highly appreciative of the machine punched variety we have today. I'd be even more appreciative of a pneumatic nail gun! All the while, I'd still drool over the artisan craft of hand-carved dowel pins used in place of nails.
Shit. I feel like I can go down this line of examples for years... I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that while "progress" often means the "end" of something, that "end" isn't always so bad. I like to think of progress as clearing out the least visually appealing apples, leaving something more standardized and generally more acceptable. Once the undesirable apples are cleared out, and we're producing the kind of apples that Joe Public scoops off the shelves, that leaves the "heirloom" apples to those of us who appreciate such things. Refinement. Why waste small, flavorful apples with slightly discolored skin on those who'd rather eat brightly painted cardboard with a waxy coating?
Seriously. Anything produced for mass consumption is arguably going to be SHIT at the end of the day. Once you average anything against the spectrum of humanity, you can only end up with shit. It is mathematically impossible to do otherwise. So let the average wallow in their shit. There will always be antiques and heirlooms for those of us who appreciate and crave such things. The information will not necessarily be lost, but the transmitters and receivers will change.
Just a slip there using apples as a metaphor, but funny how Apple is so adept at creating just as much shiny, pretty, juicy things as they are with creating utter shit.
Now, when's that iPhone Nano coming out?
The first time I saw a Kindle, I was impressed by the ePaper (non-backlit screen, basically). As a designer whose eyes spend more time looking at a computer monitor than they do being closed, I can appreciate looking at an LCD screen that isn't trying to attach itself to my brain via optic nerves. Interestingly though, Kindle achieves the same result, albeit less intrusively. I like looking at that ePaper screen (at least the text), so the text makes it into my brain faster than the text I read on typical PC monitors. Funny thing, that. Sadly though, as Josh points out, ePaper sucks when it comes to cool illustrations and maps and stuff. To me, Kindle is the ultimate paperback. I am sure this is what Jeff Bezos had in mind all along. If a book requires rich illustrations, photography, maps, and what not, then it must be bought in print. If the book is all about the writing and needs no serious imagery for support, like most paperbacks, then it's perfect for the Kindle. From this perspective, the Kindle is refining the publishing industry, perhaps.
Kindle is not the Harbinger of Doom to books, no more than iTunes was the Harbinger of Doom to radio and CDs and records, and no more than DVDs are the Harbinger of Doom to the theater industry. All have been refinements, or extensions to the long tail. Without going into a diatribe of all things media, I'll just settle on saying that the Kindle is just another means for people to access content in a way they find suitable for themselves individually. There will be some suffering to some along the way; just like automobiles put some horses out of work, and robotic assembly lines took some people out of work, neither presaged the end of the world or humankind (at least not any more than any standard doomsayer of the day at any given period). But who is complaining about not having to follow the backend of a horse for an entire day every other week just to buy some bags of flour and other staples, when they can drive a car across an entire state in the same time? Who's complaing that they can't spend an entire evening scanning a VHS tape for that one particular scene in a movie, when they can now just jump within a few frames of it n DVD? Who's complaining that that can't carry all 5,000 EPs in the back of their U-Haul when they can fit all 10,000 songs in their back pocket... and also take calls, watch videos, play fames, and send emails from the same device?
I feel where Josh is coming from, I really do. As a hardcore Steampunk fan, I relish the tactile feel of hand-crafted objects, and machine crafted objects. But, as much as I appreciate handmade wrought iron nails, I'm sure that if I was a carpenter back in the day when those were the only nails available, I'd be highly appreciative of the machine punched variety we have today. I'd be even more appreciative of a pneumatic nail gun! All the while, I'd still drool over the artisan craft of hand-carved dowel pins used in place of nails.
Shit. I feel like I can go down this line of examples for years... I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that while "progress" often means the "end" of something, that "end" isn't always so bad. I like to think of progress as clearing out the least visually appealing apples, leaving something more standardized and generally more acceptable. Once the undesirable apples are cleared out, and we're producing the kind of apples that Joe Public scoops off the shelves, that leaves the "heirloom" apples to those of us who appreciate such things. Refinement. Why waste small, flavorful apples with slightly discolored skin on those who'd rather eat brightly painted cardboard with a waxy coating?
Seriously. Anything produced for mass consumption is arguably going to be SHIT at the end of the day. Once you average anything against the spectrum of humanity, you can only end up with shit. It is mathematically impossible to do otherwise. So let the average wallow in their shit. There will always be antiques and heirlooms for those of us who appreciate and crave such things. The information will not necessarily be lost, but the transmitters and receivers will change.
Just a slip there using apples as a metaphor, but funny how Apple is so adept at creating just as much shiny, pretty, juicy things as they are with creating utter shit.
Now, when's that iPhone Nano coming out?
Friday, March 27, 2009
Animal Farm Friday: The Real Deal of the Slaughtered Seal
This is what a seal looks like after its head is bashed in and its fur stripped from its body. Pretty f*ing sick! Ironic that Canada considers itself a civilised nation, yet they continue to allow this shameful brutality to go on.
You can take action to stop it by clicking here.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
A Legend is Lost
I knew something was not right about today, now I know what that something is. And it is certainly not right.
Shane "Cliff Huckstable" McConkey, 1969-2009
Shane was a legend in the making when I first started to BASE jump, and he became legendary beyond the sport for his epic ski-BASE jumps, and most recently ski-BASE-wingsuit jumps, which sadly is what stopped him. It's hard to state the impact his loss will have on the sport, given all that he's done to move BASE forward, but I know it will be massive.
This hurts.
Peace, Shane.
Sue your bank!
If a million consumers filed a million small claims court actions against the banks, ... they would improve their performance. - Ralph Nader
And apparently, it's fairly easy to sue major banks, especially over predatory practices. The key of course is small claims. But it seems a worthwhile endeavor. It gives me an idea or two!
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Big Takeover
The global economic crisis isn't about money - it's about power. How Wall Street insiders are using the bailout to stage a revolution
A MUST READ by Matt Taibbi for Rolling Stone
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The foie gras fight
Just read a mostly decent article on Salon about the fight over foie gras (h/t Kitten). Some very good points were made by the writer, Alex Koppelman, until the last paragraph, which nearly discredits the entire article:
Anti-meat activists - esp. PETA - wage just as intense of a war against factory farms and all meat consumption as they do against foie gras. I'm a former animal rights activist and former PETA member, and am now a co-owner of an organic/human/sustainable meat company, so I have a clear picture of both sides of the "meat debate", and I've had it with jerks who attack groups like PETA out of ignorance and petty spite.
Just as there are some foie gras farms that are inhumane, there are also animal rights activists that are disingenuous. But making gross generalizations about animal rights activists is just as harmful as gross generalizations about foie gras farming practices. Alex Koppelman should keep his frustrations with specific animal rights activists confined to the narrow few that are being deceitful - just like he tries to single out bad foie gras farms from the goods ones, and back off attacking the movement at large.
I'm sick of this kind of sloppy journalism. Salon can do better.
The anti-meat activists can't very well persuade Chicago to ban beef or pork or chicken, so they focus instead on something easier, arguably to the detriment of general livestock. They're demonizing and hurting small farms that care about the health of their animals. Meanwhile, factory farms that do unspeakable things to the creatures in their care are let off the hook.
Anti-meat activists - esp. PETA - wage just as intense of a war against factory farms and all meat consumption as they do against foie gras. I'm a former animal rights activist and former PETA member, and am now a co-owner of an organic/human/sustainable meat company, so I have a clear picture of both sides of the "meat debate", and I've had it with jerks who attack groups like PETA out of ignorance and petty spite.
Just as there are some foie gras farms that are inhumane, there are also animal rights activists that are disingenuous. But making gross generalizations about animal rights activists is just as harmful as gross generalizations about foie gras farming practices. Alex Koppelman should keep his frustrations with specific animal rights activists confined to the narrow few that are being deceitful - just like he tries to single out bad foie gras farms from the goods ones, and back off attacking the movement at large.
I'm sick of this kind of sloppy journalism. Salon can do better.
I wonder if David Axelrod thinks people won't care about this
Citigroup Inc. plans to spend about $10 million on new offices for Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit and his lieutenants, after the U.S. government injected $45 billion of cash into the bank.
People don't care?
I am blown away by this asinine remark by David Axelrod.
Um... David. This is not an either/or situation. People do sit around worrying about their jobs, and being pissed off that the greedy bastards who are largely responsible for them losing their jobs are making off with millions of dollars that their taxes are going to pay (should they be so lucky to find enough work to pay the taxes).
This is stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
“People are not sitting around their kitchen tables thinking about AIG,” Axelrod said. “They are thinking about their own jobs.”
Um... David. This is not an either/or situation. People do sit around worrying about their jobs, and being pissed off that the greedy bastards who are largely responsible for them losing their jobs are making off with millions of dollars that their taxes are going to pay (should they be so lucky to find enough work to pay the taxes).
This is stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Earmark Hypocrites
TPM has a great photo spread of all the earmark hypocrites, the blowhards railing against excessive spending while they're responsible for a loading up the spending bill with pork. You can see right through their slimey tactics. Fatten up the bill first, then attack Obama for passing a bloated bill.
Of all the hypocrites though, the one that has irked me the most is that punk Evan Bayh. Since he's been in office, he's done nothing to stand in the way of GOP/George W Bush spending and budgets, but now that we have a Democratic president, he suddenly grows a pair and is now an instant fiscal conservative? Give me a f***ing break! The chump needs to be taken out behind the wood shed and taught what happens to hypocrites and liars! At the very least, we need to start fielding credible primary challengers to run against this fool when the time comes!
Of all the hypocrites though, the one that has irked me the most is that punk Evan Bayh. Since he's been in office, he's done nothing to stand in the way of GOP/George W Bush spending and budgets, but now that we have a Democratic president, he suddenly grows a pair and is now an instant fiscal conservative? Give me a f***ing break! The chump needs to be taken out behind the wood shed and taught what happens to hypocrites and liars! At the very least, we need to start fielding credible primary challengers to run against this fool when the time comes!
Holy Bile: Pope says condoms don't stop the spread of AIDS
If anyone ever wonders why I HATE religion, especially religious authority, here's a great example:
Never mind that the overwhelming mountain of actual data makes this claim about the most pathetically asinine thing this scumbag Pope has ever said, it's just entirely dangerous as hell. The words of this former Hitler Youth (and child rapist enabler) have the power to condemn millions more Africans to death of HIV/AIDS, simply because of an utter lack of understanding of human nature, and disregard for scientifically proven facts.
The spread of HIV and Aids in Africa should be tackled through fidelity and abstinence and not by condoms, Pope Benedict XVI has said.
Never mind that the overwhelming mountain of actual data makes this claim about the most pathetically asinine thing this scumbag Pope has ever said, it's just entirely dangerous as hell. The words of this former Hitler Youth (and child rapist enabler) have the power to condemn millions more Africans to death of HIV/AIDS, simply because of an utter lack of understanding of human nature, and disregard for scientifically proven facts.
Santelli, Sen. Kyl Push Back Against "Outrage" Over AIG Bonuses
Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought Jon Stewart made the case that CNBC has zero credibility.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Washington is predisposed to see public passion and anger as a threat rather than an opportunity
The title of this post is grabbed (and paraphrased) from David Sirota's excellent post at Open Left.
I'm getting increasingly frustrated by Geithner specifically, and Summers recently. For Geithner, I'm fairly convinced now that he's in waaaaayyyy over his head, and is completely lacking in vision, internally and externally. Ancedotal evidence would indicate that he's trying to balance chainsaws with razorblades; he's trying to keep the richies from having to part with too much cash while the economy collapses on the little people. Which one can stand the bigger loss? Which can tolerate the chainsaw, and which the cuts of the razorblades?
If he had smart leadership behind him, the rich SOBs that got us in this mess in the first place would be getting the full brunt of the chainsaws, face first. But we're not seeing that kind of leadership right now. Again, another day, and we find out that we're into AIG for even more money that they're using to enrich themselves. The very small group of "pirates" that caused the crisis at AIG are raking in the largest amount in bonuses. And once again, Obama is a day late and a dollar short to this mess, and he has to go out and deliver another speech to cover his ass.
No one expects Obama to have all the answers, and this mess is really too big for any one man to handle. But huge mistakes like this just make it that much harder for everyone. It's directly related to shortsightedness, and a distorted pro-business perspective. For example, how in the world is anyone able to say with a straight face that we have to coddle the very thieves responsible for trashing the global economy out of fear that we won't be able to hire the "best and brightest" to get us out of this mess? Who believes that there aren't plenty of smart but cautious economists who could help untangle this Gordian Knot? I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of economists who were actually smart enough to see this house of cards for what it was and decided not to sully themselves by playing the foolish games of the greedy. Why not let the thieves go, and replace them with the smart guys, the ones who weren't spending every waking hour trying to game the system, but the ones who want to make it work?
Who else believes Liddy, the current CEO of AIG, when he says they are bound by contract to pay these bonuses? I know litigation attorneys, and the first thing each of them will tell you is that the validity of any contract depends on which lawyer argues his case better. In other words, there aren't many contracts that can't be "altered". I want to say that Obama should have known this, but now there is a report out that Treasury knew all along about these AIG bonuses, and helped make it happen.
All this said, I'm still not ready to give up hope on Obama. I'm shouting this out because I want him to do better, and I think he can do better. Of course, my entire post is based on what I've pieced together, and my argument is only as strong as the weakest post of all I cited. I need to dig some more to see what the deeper story is here, but so far it's just not looking good.
As much as I'd love to see Geithner go, it's politically untenable, as letting him go would be worse for Obama than just gradually marginalizing him. I think at this point Obama needs to get someone else in to give poor Tim a hand, or 2010 is going to look a lot like 1994. That's the real backlash they need to be concerned with.
Wall Street sycophants like Summers and Geithner continuing to push a red herring that says there's nothing that can be done to stop corporations from using our taxpayer money to subsidize bonuses for the same executives who created this economic crisis.
... the populist anger that the Times examines could be a huge force for good - if the administration gets serious about championing it, rather than trying to suppress it out of deference to a punditocracy that says it is "dangerous" or "unserious" or "too emotional." Doing the latter, in fact, is the best way for the White House to become a target of the public's ire.
I'm getting increasingly frustrated by Geithner specifically, and Summers recently. For Geithner, I'm fairly convinced now that he's in waaaaayyyy over his head, and is completely lacking in vision, internally and externally. Ancedotal evidence would indicate that he's trying to balance chainsaws with razorblades; he's trying to keep the richies from having to part with too much cash while the economy collapses on the little people. Which one can stand the bigger loss? Which can tolerate the chainsaw, and which the cuts of the razorblades?
If he had smart leadership behind him, the rich SOBs that got us in this mess in the first place would be getting the full brunt of the chainsaws, face first. But we're not seeing that kind of leadership right now. Again, another day, and we find out that we're into AIG for even more money that they're using to enrich themselves. The very small group of "pirates" that caused the crisis at AIG are raking in the largest amount in bonuses. And once again, Obama is a day late and a dollar short to this mess, and he has to go out and deliver another speech to cover his ass.
No one expects Obama to have all the answers, and this mess is really too big for any one man to handle. But huge mistakes like this just make it that much harder for everyone. It's directly related to shortsightedness, and a distorted pro-business perspective. For example, how in the world is anyone able to say with a straight face that we have to coddle the very thieves responsible for trashing the global economy out of fear that we won't be able to hire the "best and brightest" to get us out of this mess? Who believes that there aren't plenty of smart but cautious economists who could help untangle this Gordian Knot? I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of economists who were actually smart enough to see this house of cards for what it was and decided not to sully themselves by playing the foolish games of the greedy. Why not let the thieves go, and replace them with the smart guys, the ones who weren't spending every waking hour trying to game the system, but the ones who want to make it work?
Who else believes Liddy, the current CEO of AIG, when he says they are bound by contract to pay these bonuses? I know litigation attorneys, and the first thing each of them will tell you is that the validity of any contract depends on which lawyer argues his case better. In other words, there aren't many contracts that can't be "altered". I want to say that Obama should have known this, but now there is a report out that Treasury knew all along about these AIG bonuses, and helped make it happen.
All this said, I'm still not ready to give up hope on Obama. I'm shouting this out because I want him to do better, and I think he can do better. Of course, my entire post is based on what I've pieced together, and my argument is only as strong as the weakest post of all I cited. I need to dig some more to see what the deeper story is here, but so far it's just not looking good.
As much as I'd love to see Geithner go, it's politically untenable, as letting him go would be worse for Obama than just gradually marginalizing him. I think at this point Obama needs to get someone else in to give poor Tim a hand, or 2010 is going to look a lot like 1994. That's the real backlash they need to be concerned with.
Monday, March 16, 2009
I Watched the Watchmen
I have a confession to make, and one that might destroy my comic geek cred. I've never been a fan of Watchmen.
Don't get me wrong. I have tremendous respect for the impact that Watchmen had on the genre. Were it not for this book, other great works and writers that followed may not have been possible. But it must be said that of many great works that did follow Watchmen, or were inspired by Alan Moore's other works, most of them were actually better than Watchmen, as were many writers being better than Moore. It was through the post-Watchmen writers and books that I found my way to Watchmen. By the time I got to Watchmen in the mid-1990s, it was already past its time. More than a decade after that I see the movie, which is as faithful to the comic as any movie could be, and is exactly why it fails.
Taken at face value, Watchmen is a seminal piece of work, and groundbreaking for the medium, but it is no literary masterpiece. As a comic book, it is masterful. As a work of fiction, it is really quite average. Watchmen is groundbreaking in the sense that this story is one of the first times that comic book heroes are shown to have genuine human failings, weaknesses that can - and do - cause great harm. Even though it is a modest study of human nature, this nature is somewhat distorted by the focus on the heroes, who are arguably still greater than other humans by comparison to the common man in the book. Watchmen is not an examination of the human condition through the fall of people that society has elevated to hero status, it is a story about comic book heroes, written for fans of comic books. In the words of the series illustrator, Watchmen is "a comic about comics". Watchmen was not written for the general public, which is why it should not have been made into a movie, and certainly not a movie that tries to remain as close to the original book as possible. That should have been obvious to anyone paying attention, as the author said this directly:
"What I'd like to explore is the areas that comics succeed in where no other media is capable of operating", and emphasized this by stressing the differences between comics and film.
Watchmen made for a bad movie for many reasons. Criticisms of the book aside, there are many devices that make the story work in book form that cannot be translated to film. The slow pace of character development, minor characters who are actually very important to the plot, various complicated subplots, and the insertion of sometimes seemingly irrelevant back stories, all elements that help immerse the reader into this alternate reality are simply not possible to recreate on film, even in a three-hour movie. In the absence of the devices, all the audience has to suspend disbelief and become part of the Watchmen's world are novel twists on actual historical events and characters, allusions to real-world places and people, flashbacks of events in the characters' pasts that are mostly the standard trope of stereotypical conflicts (adultery, wrong place/wrong time, etc.), and a lot of cheesy, expository dialogue.
The Watchmen themselves are thin and cartoonish in the book, and on the big screen, that becomes even more pronounced. All of them pay homage to characters from early comics, which won't matter a bit to anyone who is not a fan of the medium. And many of those characters were thin and cartoonish out of necessity, and this is a major reason why comic books have always been scorned as unserious.
I take issue with most of the characters in the book, but especially in the movie, since the movie magnifies greatly the weaker aspects of the characters. Nite Owl’s alter-ego has been called an “impotent Clark Kent”, but in the movie, Patrick Wilson is more like Chevy Chase’s Clark Griswald from National Lampoon's Vacation, though he suits up well and has some decent fight scenes (likely a stunt man). Malin Akerman’s Silk Spectre II was most interesting when she had her clothes off, and I don’t mean that in a perverted sense. The rest of the time, she’s just vapid and whiney. She was as convincing in her fight scenes as was Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, which isn’t saying much. As for Matthew Goode’s Ozymandias, I’ll say that his fight scenes were decent enough, but I have nothing else good to say about his otherwise flat and dull performance. Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s The Comedian character was successfully detestable, so much so that you wanted bad things to happen to him, and were satisfied when they did.
The one character with the most potential for being interesting was the least interesting character of all. This is true of the book, and made even worse by Billy Crudup’s weak performance in the movie. I speak of Dr. Manhattan, a superpowered human capable of controlling matter and energy at the quantum level. Many things about this character have always bothered me. While most comic books treat science loosely, Alan Moore feigned scientific knowledge when writing Dr. Manhattan. Unfortunately, Mr. Moore has the same thin grasp of quantum physics as most comic writers, so as cool as the character could have truly been, he turned out to be nothing more than a big blue parlor trick. In the book, his character at once has no emotional concern for humans, yet does. Both of these exist in the character at the same time, but I guess since his character is not of time, this is gag. But it just doesn't make sense. He portends to be beyond other humans, yet he embodies the same pettiness as most humans. As for his magnificence, we see Dr. Manhattan use his powers over atoms to assemble and disassemble machinery, but it's always done in whole parts, not at the atomic level, which would make more sense (although, he does tend to disassemble humans at the cellular level). Also, Dr. Manhattan can grow to forty feet, apparently, completely ignoring the Law of Conservation. I also never quite got his ability to be two places at once. Entanglement doesn't work that way, and even if he is not of time, those who observe him are. So even on a theoretical scale, he couldn't be boning Laurie in one room while working on machines in another. Like I said, parlor tricks. This is too bad, because the real science of quantum physics is extremely cool, and the character could have been really amazing. I get that his character was based on an amalgam of "atomic" characters from pulp fiction and other cheese-ball sci-fi classics (including Captain Atom), and this speaks to why Watchmen is bad for a movie. People are tired of that type of schlock. We've moved on. But Moore doesn’t deserve all the blame for Dr. Manhattan’s poor screen presence. Billy Crudup did a perfect job making the character even more boring than he was in the series.
The one character I found the most interesting in the Watchmen movie is the same as was in the book: Rorschach. Jackie Earle Haley's performance was by far the best of the entire movie. His character wasn't particularly complex, much like the pulp characters he was based on, but was still intriguing. He is the masked vigilante with inexplicable abilities, questionable morals, and is of singular purpose: Justice! Haley's performance was spot on. He made you feel Rorschach's inner rage that burned hot enough to erupt like a volcano at times, and at other times you'd swear he had ice in his veins. He had the best line of the movie, and delivered it - in the prison scene - with awesome perfection:
"None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me."
But one character, no matter how great the performance, could not save Watchmen from itself.
Watchmen began as a comic series cum graphic novel that was an "homage to the simplicity and unsophisticated nature of Golden Age comic books" overflowing with Cold War paranoia, populated with narrow characters and corny dialogue. Watchmen ends as a larger than life example of just that. Such that large screens allow us to see the pores and the wrinkles and the blemishes on the characters’ faces, the big screen exposes what is the worst of the Watchmen comic series, magnified a thousand times.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Is Glenn Beck sorry?
Glenn Beck is a petulant retard. Sorry, that wasn't nice to insult retarded people.
From his site: Do you watch the direction that America is being taken in and feel powerless to stop it?
Do you believe that your voice isn't loud enough to be heard above the noise anymore?
Do you read the headlines everyday and feel an empty pit in your stomach…as if you're completely alone?
If so, then you've fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull the curtain away you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don't surround us at all.
We surround them.
Do you believe that your voice isn't loud enough to be heard above the noise anymore?
Do you read the headlines everyday and feel an empty pit in your stomach…as if you're completely alone?
If so, then you've fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull the curtain away you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don't surround us at all.
We surround them.
I felt that way prior to the '08 elections. But not so much anymore since the right-wing-nuts lost to millions of people voting for Democrats and Barack Obama, not Republicans, and certainly not Glenn Beck.
Sorry Glenn. You're irrelevant. And you might also be guilty of sedition.
Obama Scraps 'Enemy Combatant' Definition For Gitmo
Big ups to big O.
In contrast to other scary positions the Obama administration has taken with regards to executive power, Obama drops the "Enemy Combatant" definition for Gitmo detainees. This brings us one step closer to accepted international rule of law.
No doubt the gun toting hillbillies will be upset by this, though. (And anyone upset by this is pretty much on the same level of "low life" as a gun toting hillbilly in my opinion.)
In contrast to other scary positions the Obama administration has taken with regards to executive power, Obama drops the "Enemy Combatant" definition for Gitmo detainees. This brings us one step closer to accepted international rule of law.
No doubt the gun toting hillbillies will be upset by this, though. (And anyone upset by this is pretty much on the same level of "low life" as a gun toting hillbilly in my opinion.)
Comedians matter
Jon Stewart had already established his credentials as a bulwark against media stupidity when he publicly called Tucker Carlson a dick on national TV, but he may just be immortalized after last night's "gloves off" interview with - nay, utter takedown of - CNBC's Jim Cramer. But, in fairness to Cramer, as Glenn Greenwald so deftly describes, at least he had the temerity to face criticism in person, unlike just about any other so-called journalist. Glenn makes an excellent case that there is nothing unique about Cramer - or CNBC - though, when compared to the rest of our press corps and Establishment Media. Very much worth a read!
I, and many others, have marveled repeatedly over the fact that it is our comedians who are the only ones we can trust to tell us the truth. Jon Stewart uses mockery and juvenile humor to ease the shame and disgust of the nude Emperor rubbing his genitals all over our faces by pointing out that the Emperor is hung like a hamster. Stephen Colbert dons a persona amalgamated of the worst traits of many a pundit to mock just how ridiculous the level of political discourse is in our society. The late George Carlin used biting wit and vulgar profanity to feign anger at our political leaders and talking heads, thus serving as more or less a relief-valve for the rest of us by making us laugh out loud when we might otherwise cry. And the great Bill Maher employs his vaunted wit with biting sarcasm to speak truth to the cadre of cowardly liars who we entrust to lead us.
As put by a particularly smart fellow from a discussion group I'm following:
Comedians play a crucial role in our free society. I'm sure you recall seeing Cabaret -- where the floor show catered to the prevailing power instead of attacked it. It mocked Nazi's at the beginning, and ended by mocking the Jews, playing to the audience. There can be no cows too sacred, no myth too precious to spared from attack or we, too, risk being trapped in a society where all of our expressions must be (literally) politically correct with force of violent sanction applied to those who moon the cow. Comics like Maher (I'll add Stewart, Colbert, Carlin, et al. -ed.) are the bellwether of a free society. - RGB
With apologies to all comedians - women and men - who deserve mention here but are not included (for lack of time), all of those mentioned share in common intelligence, wit, and the courage to stand for truth against powerful forces who are more than willing to lie to and deceive and potentially put in harms way the very people they should be looking out for, but also depend upon for their very existence.
Here is but one segment of several worth watching (and I only wish Jon Stewart was this tough on Bill O'Reilly):
Animal Farm Friday: Quite the blow job!
I love helicopters and blow jobs. Here's both at once, and Bambi too!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Raisin of Reason: The Silent Minority
The awesome Cenk Uygur champions the cause of the godless, and urges us to be silent no more!
There is a minority group in America that is a bigger percentage of the country than blacks or Hispanics. But they are often ignored or derided in public. Almost no politician would ever admit to being one. And they are given no voice in the public arena.
They are the non-religious. A new comprehensive study by The Program on Public Values at Trinity College shows that this group is now a whopping 15% of the country. Mormons by comparison are a puny 1.4% of the population, and people can't shut up about the Mormons. The Senate Majority Leader is a Mormon, one of the top Republican presidential candidates was Mormon and even HBO has a whole show devoted to them.
My guess is that there are actually more than 15%, and that most are too afraid of coming out of the closet for fear of retribution in their jobs, or being ostracized by their communities. But it surprises me that people are more comfortable living lives predicated on mythologies, fairy tales, and superstitions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
