I did not write or publish this article and I do not own or claim to own it. It was copypasted from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332
Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths
by Julian Assange
December 7, 2010
IN 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide’s The News, wrote: “In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win.”
His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch’s expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.
Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public.
I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth.
These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created around these core values. The idea, conceived in Australia , was to use internet technologies in new ways to report the truth.
WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?
Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.
People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.
If you have read any of the Afghan or Iraq war logs, any of the US embassy cables or any of the stories about the things WikiLeaks has reported, consider how important it is for all media to be able to report these things freely.
WikiLeaks is not the only publisher of the US embassy cables. Other media outlets, including Britain ‘s The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais in Spain and Der Spiegel in Germany have published the same redacted cables.
Yet it is WikiLeaks, as the co-ordinator of these other groups, that has copped the most vicious attacks and accusations from the US government and its acolytes. I have been accused of treason, even though I am an Australian, not a US, citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls in the US for me to be “taken out” by US special forces. Sarah Palin says I should be “hunted down like Osama bin Laden”, a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a “transnational threat” and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister’s office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.
And Australians should observe with no pride the disgraceful pandering to these sentiments by Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organisations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small.
We are the underdogs. The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn’t want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings.
Has there been any response from the Australian government to the numerous public threats of violence against me and other WikiLeaks personnel? One might have thought an Australian prime minister would be defending her citizens against such things, but there have only been wholly unsubstantiated claims of illegality. The Prime Minister and especially the Attorney-General are meant to carry out their duties with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two mean to save their own skins. They will not.
Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: “You’ll risk lives! National security! You’ll endanger troops!” Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can’t be both. Which is it?
It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US , with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone.
US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan . NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn’t find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.
But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts:
The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran ‘s nuclear program stopped by any means available.
Britain’s Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect “US interests”.
Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.
The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay . Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.
In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said “only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government”. The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth.
Julian Assange is the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Microblogging on Twitter
This medium hasn't really worked out that well for me so I thought I'd move to a more active social networking and microblogging hybrid: Twitter.
Follow me to twitter.com/GodIsBunk
Hope to see you
Follow me to twitter.com/GodIsBunk
Hope to see you
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
I might've given Rand Paul too much credit
Hmm, well I suppose that Rand Paul is in favor of allowing public businesses to discriminate. I think that this is probably against Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution which states that the Federal government has the power to regulate commerce "among the several States," and that discrimination is thus illegitimate for reasons discussed in the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States case.
Another reason why I think that discrimination is probably wrong is because, let's face it, many businesses serve the public as a whole, like salons, eating establishments, doughnut shops, delicatessens, etc. Disallowing a certain group of people from entering a particular store is going to have a significantly negative effect on the population as a whole. People forget about the whole segregated lunch counter thing and try to play it off like there's a choice to discriminate. It's my belief that this country should not be ridiculous enough to look the other way as people try to form alliances and in-groups based upon something as ridiculous as skin color. We're all equal.
Another reason why I think that discrimination is probably wrong is because, let's face it, many businesses serve the public as a whole, like salons, eating establishments, doughnut shops, delicatessens, etc. Disallowing a certain group of people from entering a particular store is going to have a significantly negative effect on the population as a whole. People forget about the whole segregated lunch counter thing and try to play it off like there's a choice to discriminate. It's my belief that this country should not be ridiculous enough to look the other way as people try to form alliances and in-groups based upon something as ridiculous as skin color. We're all equal.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
HuffPost liberals freak out about Rand Paul
Why is this news story such a bombshell that it deserves a huge, all-caps title? Liberals are freaking out and saying Rand Paul's "against" the Civil Rights Act. This must mean that he's in favor of repealing the Act and he's a huge racist, right? Wrong on both counts. I watched the debate he had with Maddow, and every other sentence that came out of his mouth was something about how he is NOT RACIST and believes in the equality of persons regardless of their race, etc. He also said that he would not support getting rid of the Act and that this wouldn't be something on his legislative agenda if he were elected to Senate.
Obviously what people don't understand is that Libertarians are more than a little nutty when it comes to restricting people's liberties and such. Paul probably thinks it's okay to discriminate in some circumstances that are currently not allowed by law. He's not in favor of legislating morality, which is something that I probably agree with to a certain extent. He said that 9 out of 10 sections of the law he absolutely agrees with. Those nine sections concern public discrimination which is a no-brainer for anyone except racists. Paul is not in favor of public discrimination.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
So Reuters ran a story about a company that sells dispersant chemicals being used right now in the Gulf of Mexico. This company is called Nalco Holding Co.
The article reads,
Well isn't that great. While all the animals are dying and millions of gallons of chemicals are being dumped in the Gulf of Mexico to avert a leak that, by the way, is still leaking, these bastards are bathing in the money they just got from selling this shit. I see RECORD PROFITS coming out of this. And it's all at the expense of poor people, so who gives a damn, right?
What a disgrace.
The article reads,
* Shares up 20 cents after the bell
May 17 (Reuters) - Water treatment services firm Nalco Holding Co (NLC.N) said on Monday it will likely have generated about $40 million by the end of this week from the sale of dispersants following the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Well isn't that great. While all the animals are dying and millions of gallons of chemicals are being dumped in the Gulf of Mexico to avert a leak that, by the way, is still leaking, these bastards are bathing in the money they just got from selling this shit. I see RECORD PROFITS coming out of this. And it's all at the expense of poor people, so who gives a damn, right?
What a disgrace.
Monday, May 17, 2010
YT Roundup 5/10/10-5/16/10 (Muhammad Rmx)
Well, I missed doing my weekly roundup yesterday. And I haven't been watching any YT videos since Saturday when I came back home from college. I've been doing other things and I have sorely neglected this blog. Therefore I will do my best to give you a good update this week to make up for my tardiness.
This is an interesting clip from James Randi, who shares with us a story about being kind to others. This is an interesting video that illustrates that you don't have to believe in God to be moral. Duh...
As an active YouTube user, I really like subscribing to people who actively seek to make good videos that convey their own opinions. MrFreedomDemocracy, a user on YouTube, does a good job talking about fiscal and social issues on his channel. He usually plays political clips and talks about them.
This is a video that does a great job summing up some of my thoughts on religion. I encourage you to read some of the annotations he added to the video that clarifies what he's saying. I'm a little bit mixed on the idea of drawing Muhammad because I know it offends people, but I think that the spirit in which this video is made is pretty positive.
This video is related to the last one in that it actually has a personification or whatever of Muhammad. It is a pretty funny parody of religion. Pizza be upon you.
Footage of the cartoonist (Lars Vilks) who started the whole drawing Muhammad thing being attacked, yet again, by intolerant Muslims who want to silence him. This kind of silencing of dissent and free speech is unacceptable in Western society. I can't emphasize that enough. I think that these videos make it clear that Muslims are never going to be able to restrict speech through violence, a theme that thunderf00t has seized upon in recent weeks/months.
This is a remix of a Gary video posted a long time ago that talks about what he refers to as "the long goodbye". He argues that humanity is on a slow roll to oblivion, and, if I remember the video correctly, he talks about potential things that can be done to possibly prevent this. Stopping our descent into oblivion would require considerable changes to society and the world. This is something that I find very insightful and I really suggest you watch.
An old vid, but a goodie. This is my main man Tom Friedman shutting down Rummy on the invasion of Iraq. Rummy tried to claim that no one in the Bush Administration said that Iraq was an "immediate threat." However, Tom comes back with some quotes straight out of Rummy's mouth in which Rummy claimed that no state posed a more immediate threat to the U.S. than Iraq. Rummy tries to come back at the end of the segment but his answer is really halfhearted and I think he knew that he was defeated. Either that or he was focusing on retaining his composure and just spouted some random crap.
I just wanted to throw this video in the mix because it shows how low the standard for broadcast journalism has truly become. When a chicken crossing the road is news, that's when it's time to get a little peeved with the idiots responsible for telling the public what's supposedly going on. I guess I can forgive KTLA because it was on a morning news show (which are notorious for being not real news), but, still, this is one of the dumbest stories that I've ever seen. Not to mention the fact that KTLA thought that this news story was so good that they decided to feature it on their own YT channel page.
The reporter reminds me a lot of Arnie Pie from The Simpsons, who would try to be a hero and intervene in the news. This lady is like "Okay, I am now going to save the chicken." And then she tries to call the chicken over to her side of the street, which is very dangerous to the chicken's health (since it has to cross the street in traffic). What's more, it's not like the chicken understands English or anything, so why is this dumb c**t trying to act like a hero? She ends up looking like a total joke.
And her name is Jennifer Gould. More like Jennifer Ghoul, amirite?
This is not a new video that I found, but it's definitely a good one nevertheless. I never got around to favoriting this video back in the day.
Guit1.wav from the original Half-Life: Counter-Strike game. This was definitely a favorite of mine back in 5th/6th grade, when I played this game as much as possible. This is from when you're Counter-Terrorist and go left out of spawn. You can hear this music being played in the background. This is very unique because none of the other maps have any custom music loops in the background, let alone at a position where combat usually never takes place. Many of the comments talk about how people would just sit in this corner where they could hear the music and let others fight it out. By the way, the piece is by Mauro Giuliani and it is called "Rossiniana 2".
The only thing that Republicans can say in opposition to Kagan is that she's secretly gay. I think that the charge that she's not liberal enough has a lot more substance than anything GOPers can say against her.
I'll just throw this one in as a bonus.
A good commentary regarding the oil spill. Not for those who don't appreciate liberal use of the word 'fuck'.
Ever since this dude Lance Baxter was fired from Geico for calling FreedomWorks while drunk and asking what percentage of them were mentally retarded, he has gone on to be a formidable enemy of the Tea Party movement, as you can see with this well-made video on the subject of Teabagging.
Well, I guess that's it for the highlight reel. I hope to have some more funny videos up later. Go Lakers!
This is an interesting clip from James Randi, who shares with us a story about being kind to others. This is an interesting video that illustrates that you don't have to believe in God to be moral. Duh...
As an active YouTube user, I really like subscribing to people who actively seek to make good videos that convey their own opinions. MrFreedomDemocracy, a user on YouTube, does a good job talking about fiscal and social issues on his channel. He usually plays political clips and talks about them.
This is a video that does a great job summing up some of my thoughts on religion. I encourage you to read some of the annotations he added to the video that clarifies what he's saying. I'm a little bit mixed on the idea of drawing Muhammad because I know it offends people, but I think that the spirit in which this video is made is pretty positive.
This video is related to the last one in that it actually has a personification or whatever of Muhammad. It is a pretty funny parody of religion. Pizza be upon you.
Footage of the cartoonist (Lars Vilks) who started the whole drawing Muhammad thing being attacked, yet again, by intolerant Muslims who want to silence him. This kind of silencing of dissent and free speech is unacceptable in Western society. I can't emphasize that enough. I think that these videos make it clear that Muslims are never going to be able to restrict speech through violence, a theme that thunderf00t has seized upon in recent weeks/months.
This is a remix of a Gary video posted a long time ago that talks about what he refers to as "the long goodbye". He argues that humanity is on a slow roll to oblivion, and, if I remember the video correctly, he talks about potential things that can be done to possibly prevent this. Stopping our descent into oblivion would require considerable changes to society and the world. This is something that I find very insightful and I really suggest you watch.
An old vid, but a goodie. This is my main man Tom Friedman shutting down Rummy on the invasion of Iraq. Rummy tried to claim that no one in the Bush Administration said that Iraq was an "immediate threat." However, Tom comes back with some quotes straight out of Rummy's mouth in which Rummy claimed that no state posed a more immediate threat to the U.S. than Iraq. Rummy tries to come back at the end of the segment but his answer is really halfhearted and I think he knew that he was defeated. Either that or he was focusing on retaining his composure and just spouted some random crap.
I just wanted to throw this video in the mix because it shows how low the standard for broadcast journalism has truly become. When a chicken crossing the road is news, that's when it's time to get a little peeved with the idiots responsible for telling the public what's supposedly going on. I guess I can forgive KTLA because it was on a morning news show (which are notorious for being not real news), but, still, this is one of the dumbest stories that I've ever seen. Not to mention the fact that KTLA thought that this news story was so good that they decided to feature it on their own YT channel page.
The reporter reminds me a lot of Arnie Pie from The Simpsons, who would try to be a hero and intervene in the news. This lady is like "Okay, I am now going to save the chicken." And then she tries to call the chicken over to her side of the street, which is very dangerous to the chicken's health (since it has to cross the street in traffic). What's more, it's not like the chicken understands English or anything, so why is this dumb c**t trying to act like a hero? She ends up looking like a total joke.
And her name is Jennifer Gould. More like Jennifer Ghoul, amirite?
This is not a new video that I found, but it's definitely a good one nevertheless. I never got around to favoriting this video back in the day.
Guit1.wav from the original Half-Life: Counter-Strike game. This was definitely a favorite of mine back in 5th/6th grade, when I played this game as much as possible. This is from when you're Counter-Terrorist and go left out of spawn. You can hear this music being played in the background. This is very unique because none of the other maps have any custom music loops in the background, let alone at a position where combat usually never takes place. Many of the comments talk about how people would just sit in this corner where they could hear the music and let others fight it out. By the way, the piece is by Mauro Giuliani and it is called "Rossiniana 2".
The only thing that Republicans can say in opposition to Kagan is that she's secretly gay. I think that the charge that she's not liberal enough has a lot more substance than anything GOPers can say against her.
I'll just throw this one in as a bonus.
A good commentary regarding the oil spill. Not for those who don't appreciate liberal use of the word 'fuck'.
Ever since this dude Lance Baxter was fired from Geico for calling FreedomWorks while drunk and asking what percentage of them were mentally retarded, he has gone on to be a formidable enemy of the Tea Party movement, as you can see with this well-made video on the subject of Teabagging.
Well, I guess that's it for the highlight reel. I hope to have some more funny videos up later. Go Lakers!
Sunday, May 9, 2010
YouTube Roundup 5/2/10-5/9/10
So I have some pretty good videos this week that I'd like to share.
Bush's lighthearted moments before he tells the American people about the war.
Another animal video. This time it's a jazz trumpeter and a donkey. Very cool.
Big L (feat. Big Daddy Kane) - Platinum Plus (Instrumental)
Produced by DJ Premier
Album: Platinum Plus (Single)
A dope hip-hop beat!
Dan Barker eviscerates Fox News hack on National Prayer Day.
A funny satire of Palin. These are some funny-ass questions that Powell asks her.
Michael Steele defends trips to Hawaii as not lavish. Good news, he had to dig himself out of a snow-bank to get to the airport.
This is a ridiculous and graphic raid where police barge into a home and kill the homeowner's dogs right in front of their kid. This shows how fucked up the justice system is in this country. Cops can just bust into your house and do anything they want. Then, when they screw up, they get put on "paid leave" until the whole thing boils over, and then they can go back to work fucking with people some more.
Cenk Uygur eviscerates Ken "Kluclownski" over allegations of Obama's "imperial presidency." This hack refuses to admit Bush was more of an imperial president than Obama. He goes on and on about these Czars that Obama has hired and it is very silly.
Brief clip of William Shanahan, the grandfather of the Kritik argument, talking about debate. I totally agree with him. Sometimes it can be crucial to mock what other people hold in high regard to illustrate that these ideals can be subject to criticism. People forget that you can't have rights without having duties that accompany these rights.
This clip from a news program is hilarious because it shows how biased Fox News viewers are. Just look at the debate numbers at the bottom of the video. 89% say that McCain won the debate? And by that big of a margin? Come the fuck on.
Dope 90s hip-hop track featuring Method Man, RZA, and SHAQUILLE O'NEAL. Sounds like a RZA beat. Shaq wasn't that bad on this song. You can actually hear what he's saying.
Final story: Cenk calls out Republicans for their chicanery in running against progressive Bill Halter.
Bush's lighthearted moments before he tells the American people about the war.
Another animal video. This time it's a jazz trumpeter and a donkey. Very cool.
Big L (feat. Big Daddy Kane) - Platinum Plus (Instrumental)
Produced by DJ Premier
Album: Platinum Plus (Single)
A dope hip-hop beat!
Dan Barker eviscerates Fox News hack on National Prayer Day.
A funny satire of Palin. These are some funny-ass questions that Powell asks her.
Michael Steele defends trips to Hawaii as not lavish. Good news, he had to dig himself out of a snow-bank to get to the airport.
This is a ridiculous and graphic raid where police barge into a home and kill the homeowner's dogs right in front of their kid. This shows how fucked up the justice system is in this country. Cops can just bust into your house and do anything they want. Then, when they screw up, they get put on "paid leave" until the whole thing boils over, and then they can go back to work fucking with people some more.
Cenk Uygur eviscerates Ken "Kluclownski" over allegations of Obama's "imperial presidency." This hack refuses to admit Bush was more of an imperial president than Obama. He goes on and on about these Czars that Obama has hired and it is very silly.
Brief clip of William Shanahan, the grandfather of the Kritik argument, talking about debate. I totally agree with him. Sometimes it can be crucial to mock what other people hold in high regard to illustrate that these ideals can be subject to criticism. People forget that you can't have rights without having duties that accompany these rights.
This clip from a news program is hilarious because it shows how biased Fox News viewers are. Just look at the debate numbers at the bottom of the video. 89% say that McCain won the debate? And by that big of a margin? Come the fuck on.
Dope 90s hip-hop track featuring Method Man, RZA, and SHAQUILLE O'NEAL. Sounds like a RZA beat. Shaq wasn't that bad on this song. You can actually hear what he's saying.
Final story: Cenk calls out Republicans for their chicanery in running against progressive Bill Halter.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Site updates
New functions that will impress the user! Added, on the right-hand side near the top of the page, is a link to an "ABOUT THIS BLOG" section. I know that's always what I look at for a tl;dr assessment of blogs, and I really like it when blogs really get down to business and tell you what they're talking about so you don't sort through a bunch of garbage trying to find some gold nugget when in fact they never discuss anything of any significance at all. I've been frustrated with blogs.
Turn it up LOUDER!
Yuck. More consumption and reproduction today. Well, I didn't contribute to any reproduction today, but I certainly participated in consumption of food products. I consumed animal tissue today. I can't say that I'm proud of doing it, but it filled me up and allowed me to do an important thing I had to do without feeling hungry at all.
It's like that one guy said. Life is a bitch and then you die. I'm sorry to have turned all dark these past few posts, but come, let's "kick the ballistics here." We're all just tacitly accepting this titillation machine that is society.
I think it'd be the ultimate irony if Republicans were staged actors who convincingly acted the roles of being bigoted assholes for some other person controlling all this shit behind our backs. Matter of fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit. You could easily make a sitcom based on what is happening in the political arena. The shit on both sides (but primarily on the Right side) is really over-the-top now to the point that it's so comical. But now the comedic effect is getting played out and it's sinking in that these Republican arseholes are actually legit trying to stall all progress that's happening, despite it being watered down and having a bunch of concessions and whatnot. They're actually united in their opposition to financial reform. I can't think of any party that would really unite on the side of the banks other than some kind of High Federalist or Modernist party of the 18th Century.
So that's why I feel reserved in just doing the day-to-day "fundamental questioning" that this blog tries to offer. Some of the shit that Republicans/Conservatives say is just blatant self-pwnage. Additionally, there are so many things to prove untrue every day that I could never catch up. I feel like some of this stuff is so obvious that I feel like an idiot pointing it out. Am I an idiot for pointing out the obvious?
And I feel like I need to express a few things about the phrase "fundamental questioning" before we continue this inquest, folks. The phrase "fundamental questioning," which is the title of this website, is taken from Jeanne L. Schroeder's 2002 article about Lacanian discourse theory. I don't remember the full quote, but I might post the article if you're interested (why would you be? ;D). This might imply that I believe in the so-called "Lacanian discourse theory" bullshit. I don't think it's a theory at all. It's a joke; it's a sick perversion of a debate argument. But what I agree with in the article is that academia does a lot of bad things to stifle real education and that they promote nonsensical crap as the answer. At least that's how I interpret it. And my interpretation is just as good as anyone else's, I think. I've done the reading on this topic and I will post citations. My entire high school career centered around making this argument make sense to people who weren't familiar with Lacan at all. It also doesn't really advance any kind of meaningful answer at all with regard to how the world works. Ultimately it falls back to psychoanalysis for the answer, which is really just a huge intellectual void. Trust me, I've gotten myself sucked into this void more times than I care to recall. But my point is that this psychoanalytic crap doesn't make a lick of sense.
What (sometimes) makes sense is is psychological appraisals of humanity and making moral judgments based upon those findings. We need to figure out how humans function based upon some kind of scientific (or at least TESTABLE) backing rather than rely upon these whacko assertions about the superego and all that. It's an interesting concept [psychoanalysis], don't get me wrong, but seriously, folks, there isn't an actual part of the brain that actually functions as a literal superego that is being mean to you and telling you that you suck and that you don't fit into the expectations of society and blah dee blaah. You can't just make up these generalizations because then you'd be no better off than a Christian who pounds his Bible and says that everything in there is the truth. When we boil down psychoanalysis, we can see that it's not scientific at all, and all it's good for is jerking ourselves in philosophical situations.
tldr: I love doing the philosophical circle-jerk thing. But seriously, it's not connected at all to the real world. That's what I'm getting at
It's like that one guy said. Life is a bitch and then you die. I'm sorry to have turned all dark these past few posts, but come, let's "kick the ballistics here." We're all just tacitly accepting this titillation machine that is society.
I think it'd be the ultimate irony if Republicans were staged actors who convincingly acted the roles of being bigoted assholes for some other person controlling all this shit behind our backs. Matter of fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit. You could easily make a sitcom based on what is happening in the political arena. The shit on both sides (but primarily on the Right side) is really over-the-top now to the point that it's so comical. But now the comedic effect is getting played out and it's sinking in that these Republican arseholes are actually legit trying to stall all progress that's happening, despite it being watered down and having a bunch of concessions and whatnot. They're actually united in their opposition to financial reform. I can't think of any party that would really unite on the side of the banks other than some kind of High Federalist or Modernist party of the 18th Century.
So that's why I feel reserved in just doing the day-to-day "fundamental questioning" that this blog tries to offer. Some of the shit that Republicans/Conservatives say is just blatant self-pwnage. Additionally, there are so many things to prove untrue every day that I could never catch up. I feel like some of this stuff is so obvious that I feel like an idiot pointing it out. Am I an idiot for pointing out the obvious?
And I feel like I need to express a few things about the phrase "fundamental questioning" before we continue this inquest, folks. The phrase "fundamental questioning," which is the title of this website, is taken from Jeanne L. Schroeder's 2002 article about Lacanian discourse theory. I don't remember the full quote, but I might post the article if you're interested (why would you be? ;D). This might imply that I believe in the so-called "Lacanian discourse theory" bullshit. I don't think it's a theory at all. It's a joke; it's a sick perversion of a debate argument. But what I agree with in the article is that academia does a lot of bad things to stifle real education and that they promote nonsensical crap as the answer. At least that's how I interpret it. And my interpretation is just as good as anyone else's, I think. I've done the reading on this topic and I will post citations. My entire high school career centered around making this argument make sense to people who weren't familiar with Lacan at all. It also doesn't really advance any kind of meaningful answer at all with regard to how the world works. Ultimately it falls back to psychoanalysis for the answer, which is really just a huge intellectual void. Trust me, I've gotten myself sucked into this void more times than I care to recall. But my point is that this psychoanalytic crap doesn't make a lick of sense.
What (sometimes) makes sense is is psychological appraisals of humanity and making moral judgments based upon those findings. We need to figure out how humans function based upon some kind of scientific (or at least TESTABLE) backing rather than rely upon these whacko assertions about the superego and all that. It's an interesting concept [psychoanalysis], don't get me wrong, but seriously, folks, there isn't an actual part of the brain that actually functions as a literal superego that is being mean to you and telling you that you suck and that you don't fit into the expectations of society and blah dee blaah. You can't just make up these generalizations because then you'd be no better off than a Christian who pounds his Bible and says that everything in there is the truth. When we boil down psychoanalysis, we can see that it's not scientific at all, and all it's good for is jerking ourselves in philosophical situations.
tldr: I love doing the philosophical circle-jerk thing. But seriously, it's not connected at all to the real world. That's what I'm getting at
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Not new thoughts -- primer
I know the meaning of life that nature intended. It sucks. It's all just consumption and reproduction, isn't it? That's really the evolutionary goal if you think about it. Desire manipulates people to think and act in really funny ways. All we're doing in life is chasing desires, some perverted, some realistic. And don't even start with the whole God thing.
Living in this society is kind of like injecting heroin into yourself. The addiction is this game that we're all playing here in society. Get a fucking job, go here, go there, look at the tree, walk into the building, stare at a squirrel, eat dinner, go home, go to bed. In society, we have these responsibilities that keep us tethered to the heroin of society and its attendant problems. It's not exactly easy to leave society, either. This society won't tolerate people killing themselves and being rid of their conscious lives which might suck a whole lot.
Most wealth is inherited in this day and age. The rich get richer and everyone else wallows in the mire. The government owes a whole lot of money to these folks, and you wonder why all the legislation in this country contains so many favors, handouts, loopholes, watered-down provisions, etc. People lament giving up their money because they have this sense of entitlement. We think it's okay that Mark McGwire's son automatically gets to play pro baseball.
That's why "get money, get bitches" is so irrelevant to me. I don't like either of those things a whole lot.
You can never get ahead in life. You can only help to clean up existing messes while you're here on this planet. Our stuff comes at a price paid by more than just the consumer.
Living in this society is kind of like injecting heroin into yourself. The addiction is this game that we're all playing here in society. Get a fucking job, go here, go there, look at the tree, walk into the building, stare at a squirrel, eat dinner, go home, go to bed. In society, we have these responsibilities that keep us tethered to the heroin of society and its attendant problems. It's not exactly easy to leave society, either. This society won't tolerate people killing themselves and being rid of their conscious lives which might suck a whole lot.
Most wealth is inherited in this day and age. The rich get richer and everyone else wallows in the mire. The government owes a whole lot of money to these folks, and you wonder why all the legislation in this country contains so many favors, handouts, loopholes, watered-down provisions, etc. People lament giving up their money because they have this sense of entitlement. We think it's okay that Mark McGwire's son automatically gets to play pro baseball.
That's why "get money, get bitches" is so irrelevant to me. I don't like either of those things a whole lot.
You can never get ahead in life. You can only help to clean up existing messes while you're here on this planet. Our stuff comes at a price paid by more than just the consumer.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Page Design will be altered
I changed the background from white because it's a strain on the eyes when you have a huge, bright monitor. I will continue messing with the layout. If anyone wants to comment, feel free.
YT Roundup, a day late
So things have been pretty uneventful lately, haven't they? At least they have here on my end. Things just keep crawling along with the rising and setting of the sun. I guess people might have thought that I have abandoned this blog. But that's not so! I aim to keep writing, just not at the 1/2 post/day rate that defined the first two months of the blog. I don't like holding myself to any kind of strict schedule. Content comes about at irregular times, so it doesn't make sense to report on something constantly. Might as well go at the speed of life.
For all the Fallout 3 players out there, demonstrating the frustration VATS sometimes gives us when our projectiles land off course or are, in this case, evaded.
I don't like Faux News but this is an entertaining story. It's an interesting interview with the deputy/trooper guy, who has some insightful commentary on what happened. There's also the raw video if you're interested.
Carl Levin eviscerating Goldman Sachs crony on damning emails. A great example of how government can do a good job sometimes.
More boom-bap 90s tracks from my main man, BoomBap90s. That mofo got the fat toons, seen?
A strange video that illustrates some religious morality in action. This is the theocracy of Sarah Palin. In crapitalism we trust!
One of many good speeches given by Obama this past week. Those speechwriters really do know how to crank out some good material. This is Barack bringing back the preacher voice, reiterating his commitment to education. Hopefully he will reform the educational system sometime soon. I'd like to see some drastic progress on that in combination with deficit reduction. How is that gonna work? Beats me, I don't get paid to research these things. But if I were (to get paid), I'd have some pretty dope solutions for the world that would benefit mankind a great deal. My policies might not go over well with the super-rich, but these things would happen anyway and they would have to get used to it. Just like civil rights. /rant
Other than that, I'm pretty heated about the fact that the Gulf of Mexico is covered in oil. Where are the space pictures when you need them. People need to be shown that consumption has a price. I'm not saying that it's a good thing that this happened, but now that it has happened, let this be a profound lesson to the Drilly Baby Drilly crowd. I was watching this video where crony after crony would repeat ad nauseum that offshore rigs were completely safe, completely safe, completely fail-safe. Reminiscent of the shit they were telling people about the economy right before that shit cratered. This is exactly like what happened with the economy. You got a whole industry that self-regulates and is unhealthily obsessed with that black sludge in the ground called oil. Is it any surprise that Halliburton built all that "fail-safe" technology? Where are those commercials talking about how technologically-advanced these oil rigs are? That commercial with that smart-ass scientist dad who rips off his kid's idea of how to finish drinking a milkshake by manipulating the bendy-ness of the bendy straw and reversing it to create a futuristic snake-like oil-sucking device for the commercial. I take a crap on your technologically-advanced oil rigs. I wipe myself with clean coal and flush the whole shebang down the drain. Oil companies need to dig themselves. They steez be on the wackness, dawg.
Gary made an interesting video where he was answering this buffoon named gratex. This dumbo just made stupid allegations in the annotations for his video that Gary was some kind of baby killing Satanist. Gary pwned gratex and then pwned all of the comments. I was flattered he read my comment (longcatisloooooong) where I said that gratex's video made no sense and how it was just a bunch of allegations. Gary didn't understand that I was on his side, and just shrugged off my comment. Okay, my bad. I guess I could have been more specific, maybe I should take a hint and use some cuss words, eh? Then Gary would get the message right quick. He's really the master of bad language.
For all the Fallout 3 players out there, demonstrating the frustration VATS sometimes gives us when our projectiles land off course or are, in this case, evaded.
I don't like Faux News but this is an entertaining story. It's an interesting interview with the deputy/trooper guy, who has some insightful commentary on what happened. There's also the raw video if you're interested.
Carl Levin eviscerating Goldman Sachs crony on damning emails. A great example of how government can do a good job sometimes.
More boom-bap 90s tracks from my main man, BoomBap90s. That mofo got the fat toons, seen?
A strange video that illustrates some religious morality in action. This is the theocracy of Sarah Palin. In crapitalism we trust!
One of many good speeches given by Obama this past week. Those speechwriters really do know how to crank out some good material. This is Barack bringing back the preacher voice, reiterating his commitment to education. Hopefully he will reform the educational system sometime soon. I'd like to see some drastic progress on that in combination with deficit reduction. How is that gonna work? Beats me, I don't get paid to research these things. But if I were (to get paid), I'd have some pretty dope solutions for the world that would benefit mankind a great deal. My policies might not go over well with the super-rich, but these things would happen anyway and they would have to get used to it. Just like civil rights. /rant
Other than that, I'm pretty heated about the fact that the Gulf of Mexico is covered in oil. Where are the space pictures when you need them. People need to be shown that consumption has a price. I'm not saying that it's a good thing that this happened, but now that it has happened, let this be a profound lesson to the Drilly Baby Drilly crowd. I was watching this video where crony after crony would repeat ad nauseum that offshore rigs were completely safe, completely safe, completely fail-safe. Reminiscent of the shit they were telling people about the economy right before that shit cratered. This is exactly like what happened with the economy. You got a whole industry that self-regulates and is unhealthily obsessed with that black sludge in the ground called oil. Is it any surprise that Halliburton built all that "fail-safe" technology? Where are those commercials talking about how technologically-advanced these oil rigs are? That commercial with that smart-ass scientist dad who rips off his kid's idea of how to finish drinking a milkshake by manipulating the bendy-ness of the bendy straw and reversing it to create a futuristic snake-like oil-sucking device for the commercial. I take a crap on your technologically-advanced oil rigs. I wipe myself with clean coal and flush the whole shebang down the drain. Oil companies need to dig themselves. They steez be on the wackness, dawg.
Gary made an interesting video where he was answering this buffoon named gratex. This dumbo just made stupid allegations in the annotations for his video that Gary was some kind of baby killing Satanist. Gary pwned gratex and then pwned all of the comments. I was flattered he read my comment (longcatisloooooong) where I said that gratex's video made no sense and how it was just a bunch of allegations. Gary didn't understand that I was on his side, and just shrugged off my comment. Okay, my bad. I guess I could have been more specific, maybe I should take a hint and use some cuss words, eh? Then Gary would get the message right quick. He's really the master of bad language.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
"OF COURSE!!!!" -Cenk Uygur
Typical conversation with an all-too-common YouTube asshole who disagreed with FairEconomics about MannixThePirate's retarded response to Gary's response to MannixThePirate's fail-plagued rant about taxation and economics. Whew. Did you get through that sentence alright? Here's a video for context:
One message that was sent to me after I made a nasty comment replying to a follower of MannixThePirate was:
I'm not even going to address these comments because the person writing them is an absolutely retarded weasel and a simp. This person is most likely a high-school retard who is some how acting out and on some kind of trip about how cool cars and and fireworks and beavis and butthead kind of humor are. Looking at his most recently posted comments, he actually directs people to false-flag Gary's video response to MannixThePirate as you can see, temporarily, here:
blah
Yeah, just another typical "Libertarian" retard out there who gives the party a bad name. I'm telling you, actual Libertarians ought to be more upset than they are about having people butcher what they believe in and falsely align themselves with them.
One message that was sent to me after I made a nasty comment replying to a follower of MannixThePirate was:
your a communistI was also indulged with mind-blowing comments such as this one:
its capitalism its not fair
lifes not fair
in capitalism the more you put into society the more you get out of it, so if you want equality your probabely just lazy
I'm not even going to address these comments because the person writing them is an absolutely retarded weasel and a simp. This person is most likely a high-school retard who is some how acting out and on some kind of trip about how cool cars and and fireworks and beavis and butthead kind of humor are. Looking at his most recently posted comments, he actually directs people to false-flag Gary's video response to MannixThePirate as you can see, temporarily, here:
blah
Yeah, just another typical "Libertarian" retard out there who gives the party a bad name. I'm telling you, actual Libertarians ought to be more upset than they are about having people butcher what they believe in and falsely align themselves with them.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Snapshots from my phone
Hope you enjoyed these quick snapshots of my life.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
New Favorites on YouTube
Okay, time for another edition of what I will call the YouTube Roundup. Since I struggle to keep this updated, I might as well repackage the things I favorite on YouTube into a "best of favorites" type of deal.
One of my friends showed me this song and it kicks ass.
This is an interesting Japanese animation. Worth watching.
I loved the Boondocks Season 1. I haven't seen Season 2 yet, but Season 3 starts May 2 on Adult Swim.
A funny dog behavior video. This dog is pretty interesting and there are a few other videos featuring it, along with several other animals that this person owns. The owner of this channel seems to like animals a lot, which is cool because I also like animals, interacting with them, and watching their behavior.
A funny satire video about alternative medicine and homeopathy. I can't believe people still buy shit like this at the grocery store and the drug store.
This video has a good message behind it, and it's pretty catchy. It's also visually stunning in HD.
James Randi is a funny guy and he's worth watching because he's very clear and has the ability to emulate many of the "impossible" feats of "magic" that knuckleheads do to amaze a crowd of people.
One of my friends showed me this song and it kicks ass.
This is an interesting Japanese animation. Worth watching.
I loved the Boondocks Season 1. I haven't seen Season 2 yet, but Season 3 starts May 2 on Adult Swim.
A funny dog behavior video. This dog is pretty interesting and there are a few other videos featuring it, along with several other animals that this person owns. The owner of this channel seems to like animals a lot, which is cool because I also like animals, interacting with them, and watching their behavior.
A funny satire video about alternative medicine and homeopathy. I can't believe people still buy shit like this at the grocery store and the drug store.
This video has a good message behind it, and it's pretty catchy. It's also visually stunning in HD.
James Randi is a funny guy and he's worth watching because he's very clear and has the ability to emulate many of the "impossible" feats of "magic" that knuckleheads do to amaze a crowd of people.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Gifted Unlimited Rhymes Universal (GURU): Rest in Peace
VANCOUVER — Rapper Guru, who co-founded the band Gang Starr, is dead at 43.
The musician, who mixed rap with jazz stylings, succumbed to cancer Monday night, his management said. His real name was Keith Elam.
The rapper had suffered from cancer for over a year.
MTV said in a release: “According to [producer] Solar, Guru suffered from the malicious illness for over a year and after numerous special treatments under the supervision of medical specialists failed, the legendary MC succumbed to the disease. Guru always tried to keep this harrowing diagnosis in private but in early 2010 he had to admit himself to hospital due to serious effects caused by the disease.”
Guru and DJ Premier founded Gang Starr in 1985, producing six albums. The two had a falling out and Guru went on to make solo albums.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/Rapper+Guru+succumbs+cancer/2930006/story.html#ixzz0lnr9Ku9C
Guru was a LEGEND and was on countless ill tracks. He extended himself beyond hip-hop to jazz and other types of music. His legacy goes back decades. It is hard to even fathom how much of an influence he was on the development of hip-hop, since he had been through it all... You will be missed.
The musician, who mixed rap with jazz stylings, succumbed to cancer Monday night, his management said. His real name was Keith Elam.
The rapper had suffered from cancer for over a year.
MTV said in a release: “According to [producer] Solar, Guru suffered from the malicious illness for over a year and after numerous special treatments under the supervision of medical specialists failed, the legendary MC succumbed to the disease. Guru always tried to keep this harrowing diagnosis in private but in early 2010 he had to admit himself to hospital due to serious effects caused by the disease.”
Guru and DJ Premier founded Gang Starr in 1985, producing six albums. The two had a falling out and Guru went on to make solo albums.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/Rapper+Guru+succumbs+cancer/2930006/story.html#ixzz0lnr9Ku9C
Guru was a LEGEND and was on countless ill tracks. He extended himself beyond hip-hop to jazz and other types of music. His legacy goes back decades. It is hard to even fathom how much of an influence he was on the development of hip-hop, since he had been through it all... You will be missed.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Stating the obvious but I feel like it needs to be said
Republicans are on the side of the bankers because they don't support financial reform. The system is very unstable as-is. Most people don't realize how big of an issue naked credit default swaps and derivatives are.
The Democrats need to frame this issue in November as "Sen. XX didn't support financial reform" and then attack that person based upon those beliefs that are so misguided and so blatantly in favor of special interests.
The Democrats need to frame this issue in November as "Sen. XX didn't support financial reform" and then attack that person based upon those beliefs that are so misguided and so blatantly in favor of special interests.
November 2012, then again, the world will blow up and who cares
Sometimes I feel like if I were able to gamble on politics I would be a very rich man. Me and every other cynical person out there. But if I were breaking down the 2012 Presidential Election and analyzing the Republican contenders, I would talk about the top five Republicans in the Straw Poll at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference as well as some other contenders.
And y’know I don’t think it is too early to start talking about the republican nominees. Because in gearing up for the 2008 election, everyone was spreading all kinds of rumors about who was going to run for president, was it Hillary, was it Barack, etc, etc, at this same point in time in the presidency when we look at the 2012 election.
But y’know these predictions are somewhat ludicrous to make right now. Given the current political climate it is very unlikely that any Republican contender will be able to challenge Barack if the election were to happen today. But honestly I can’t predict what the President will be able to accomplish or if an international news story will break about Obama praying to Allah (WTF? Or something just as devastating but more believable). So that’s why I’m going to just rag on the current GOP contenders, because there’s already so many things stacked against all of these people that they’d be hard-pressed to get over the steaming BS they’d piled so high. I might as well just give a rundown on why none of these people are capable of running the country at all. They are all dumber than your average bear, believe in a lot of crazy stuff that would ruin the country, and have all been trumped up as popular candidates because of all the things in the news about them these days.
Sarah Palin: half-term governor, failed VP nominee for a trainwreck of a campaign, annoying “hockey mom”. Come on, you know it’s too easy to bag on her. She has a gaffe list a mile long and her name itself is at the heart of so many scandals. She is the most brainless of all the candidates.
Newt Gingrich: extreme, crotchety, past-his-prime-oh-wait-he-never-had-one, failure. Hawkish.
Ron Paul: right on some issues but has no understanding of economics and is adamant about it
Mitt Romney: annoying family values conservative who reminds me of Reagan 2.0: more religious, more bereft of intelligence, more boring, quite possibly more wives
Bobby Jindal: the candidate favored among, and I use this term very loosely, “intellectual Republicans”. I call this guy the hawk in disguise, but I don’t think he has enough popular support and I think that he might piss off some Rednecks.
And y’know I don’t think it is too early to start talking about the republican nominees. Because in gearing up for the 2008 election, everyone was spreading all kinds of rumors about who was going to run for president, was it Hillary, was it Barack, etc, etc, at this same point in time in the presidency when we look at the 2012 election.
But y’know these predictions are somewhat ludicrous to make right now. Given the current political climate it is very unlikely that any Republican contender will be able to challenge Barack if the election were to happen today. But honestly I can’t predict what the President will be able to accomplish or if an international news story will break about Obama praying to Allah (WTF? Or something just as devastating but more believable). So that’s why I’m going to just rag on the current GOP contenders, because there’s already so many things stacked against all of these people that they’d be hard-pressed to get over the steaming BS they’d piled so high. I might as well just give a rundown on why none of these people are capable of running the country at all. They are all dumber than your average bear, believe in a lot of crazy stuff that would ruin the country, and have all been trumped up as popular candidates because of all the things in the news about them these days.
Sarah Palin: half-term governor, failed VP nominee for a trainwreck of a campaign, annoying “hockey mom”. Come on, you know it’s too easy to bag on her. She has a gaffe list a mile long and her name itself is at the heart of so many scandals. She is the most brainless of all the candidates.
Newt Gingrich: extreme, crotchety, past-his-prime-oh-wait-he-never-had-one, failure. Hawkish.
Ron Paul: right on some issues but has no understanding of economics and is adamant about it
Mitt Romney: annoying family values conservative who reminds me of Reagan 2.0: more religious, more bereft of intelligence, more boring, quite possibly more wives
Bobby Jindal: the candidate favored among, and I use this term very loosely, “intellectual Republicans”. I call this guy the hawk in disguise, but I don’t think he has enough popular support and I think that he might piss off some Rednecks.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Reflection upon middle school issues
I was inspired to write this because of some news headline about the ex-boyfriend (1) of this one celebrity saw her at the same club or social function he was attending and send out some "tweet" about how she was fat, when, in fact, she would be considered very slender for anyone outside Hollywood.
Well this "one celebrity" turned out to be Mischa Barton, a teen idol and star on the hit FOX show "The O.C." Back in middle school (7th/8th grade), all the girls would stay talking about that particular television program nonstop, including during class. I was unfortunate enough to be in the same Spanish (Spanish 1.5???? That's how I spoke of it back then...) as many of these annoying girls who held these conversations, so of course I had an earful of it back then.
I'm not going to mention how certain people clowned me and singled me out for laughter at a time when that meant something to me during these years, because it might stir up some unnecessarily hostile words on my part and because it's off topic. But I feel that this relates to what I'm talking about because if it hadn't been for my desire to feel like I was part of the "cool crowd," I would not have given two shits about who Mischa Barton was and what she meant to these impressionable girls who were my classmates. I would not have been able to recognize something important that I will discuss now.
Starting.... now.
Yeah. Now.
If it hadn't been for me wanting to fit in so badly (and if it hadn't been for teacher, whose brain did not wake up in time for class), I would not have been able to, first of all, listen in and and actually participate occasionally (in my unconventional manner) in these discussions back when I was a kid. Also, I would not have been able to finally make sense about some of the issues facing young adolescents today. I need not delve into how delicate a stage this can be for some youth with regard to the formation of these notions of what it is that makes a woman, according to a particular society. I am obviously waxing on about the U.S. here, hence the emphasis on the word "woman"; there is no need to get testy.
Anyways, the popular girls, who had come to the conclusion that Mischa Barton was the epitome of all things sexy about a woman, projected her as an idol to which any "cool", much less reasonable boy of that age would find themselves physically attracted. They would accomplish this by asking certain questions of the male students who participated in the conversations that were held during the Spanish class (and ostensibly outside of class as well). They would do things like transition from the topic of celebrities to which celebrities a certain male student found attractive. Speaking from experience, I had NO IDEA who any of these celebrities were. I couldn't put a name to Ms. Barton's face to save my dog's life. And I'm pretty sure the male students didn't know who these people were either. But the popular cliquish girls would always end up asking the question, "What about Mischa Barton?" and then start singing the praises of how great she looked in some bullshit magazine that they were reading during the Spanish class under the table and whatnot. I distinctly remember the magazines being a big part of the Spanish class, and our teacher did nothing to stop this behavior; in fact, she seemed more interested in celebrities than teaching the damn class. She would turn most classes into chit-chat about "bullshit, balloons, and Looney Tunes" to quote my e-pal DoNotGod Gary. This behavior of identifying Mischa Barton, among other celebrities who were clones of her, happened so frequently that I'm sure that the male students had to have been influenced somewhat by what happened during that year of Spanish. Being constantly inundated by peers who purportedly have style and fashion sense (not to mention teachers) about which celebrities are hot and which are not would seem like it would make a lasting impression upon someone just forming an idea of what sexuality is supposed to be about. Obviously my view is that stick-women are distorted-looking and many suffer from the whole throwing-up thing and the not eating thing. So obviously I don't want to put too much blame on any individual actor/actress for being some kind of example about this because I might be speculating about someone who might have a legitimate condition where they magically see themselves as fat (2). But I do want to point out that it's not healthy for both men and women to desire that image and idolize people who manage to pull it off (but only temporarily of course, beauty only lasts so long!)
I believe that this shaped much of the daily chit-chat discussed by the "cool" crowd in the halls and/or the locker room. I want to specifically point out that many of the male students in the grade came to be known as people who were specifically attracted to the celebrity known as Mischa Barton to the extent that other girls in the grade were not even on their radars. It was almost as if this notion that mischaB.equals("sex god") was inadvertently given too much credibility by the same girls who manufactured it in the first place, whilst chit-chatting about it during Spanish.
I'm not going to say that this show is any more responsible for how our youth is being told that it is okay for women to act sluttily compared to other shows I've seen out there. People are being misled by the bling and the shiny things and the "beautiful" things when these are just washed-up norms created by our society, which is probably a notoriously poor judge of what it means to be in a meaningful relationship, seeing as how more than 50% of marriages in CA end in divorce. So society must have people trippin' about what love and commitment is really all about. People discover after much undue pain and heartache (and even then, some still don't discover) that getting along with someone and having a meaningful exchange is more than this skin-deep fraud that is being perpetuated by many elements of the "entertainment" business.
Notes
(1) Brandon F**king Davis
(2) I'm not trying to belittle bulimia or anorexia, that's just how I see it... feel free to correct me if you think I'm messing up here.
Well this "one celebrity" turned out to be Mischa Barton, a teen idol and star on the hit FOX show "The O.C." Back in middle school (7th/8th grade), all the girls would stay talking about that particular television program nonstop, including during class. I was unfortunate enough to be in the same Spanish (Spanish 1.5???? That's how I spoke of it back then...) as many of these annoying girls who held these conversations, so of course I had an earful of it back then.
I'm not going to mention how certain people clowned me and singled me out for laughter at a time when that meant something to me during these years, because it might stir up some unnecessarily hostile words on my part and because it's off topic. But I feel that this relates to what I'm talking about because if it hadn't been for my desire to feel like I was part of the "cool crowd," I would not have given two shits about who Mischa Barton was and what she meant to these impressionable girls who were my classmates. I would not have been able to recognize something important that I will discuss now.
Starting.... now.
Yeah. Now.
If it hadn't been for me wanting to fit in so badly (and if it hadn't been for teacher, whose brain did not wake up in time for class), I would not have been able to, first of all, listen in and and actually participate occasionally (in my unconventional manner) in these discussions back when I was a kid. Also, I would not have been able to finally make sense about some of the issues facing young adolescents today. I need not delve into how delicate a stage this can be for some youth with regard to the formation of these notions of what it is that makes a woman, according to a particular society. I am obviously waxing on about the U.S. here, hence the emphasis on the word "woman"; there is no need to get testy.
Anyways, the popular girls, who had come to the conclusion that Mischa Barton was the epitome of all things sexy about a woman, projected her as an idol to which any "cool", much less reasonable boy of that age would find themselves physically attracted. They would accomplish this by asking certain questions of the male students who participated in the conversations that were held during the Spanish class (and ostensibly outside of class as well). They would do things like transition from the topic of celebrities to which celebrities a certain male student found attractive. Speaking from experience, I had NO IDEA who any of these celebrities were. I couldn't put a name to Ms. Barton's face to save my dog's life. And I'm pretty sure the male students didn't know who these people were either. But the popular cliquish girls would always end up asking the question, "What about Mischa Barton?" and then start singing the praises of how great she looked in some bullshit magazine that they were reading during the Spanish class under the table and whatnot. I distinctly remember the magazines being a big part of the Spanish class, and our teacher did nothing to stop this behavior; in fact, she seemed more interested in celebrities than teaching the damn class. She would turn most classes into chit-chat about "bullshit, balloons, and Looney Tunes" to quote my e-pal DoNotGod Gary. This behavior of identifying Mischa Barton, among other celebrities who were clones of her, happened so frequently that I'm sure that the male students had to have been influenced somewhat by what happened during that year of Spanish. Being constantly inundated by peers who purportedly have style and fashion sense (not to mention teachers) about which celebrities are hot and which are not would seem like it would make a lasting impression upon someone just forming an idea of what sexuality is supposed to be about. Obviously my view is that stick-women are distorted-looking and many suffer from the whole throwing-up thing and the not eating thing. So obviously I don't want to put too much blame on any individual actor/actress for being some kind of example about this because I might be speculating about someone who might have a legitimate condition where they magically see themselves as fat (2). But I do want to point out that it's not healthy for both men and women to desire that image and idolize people who manage to pull it off (but only temporarily of course, beauty only lasts so long!)
I believe that this shaped much of the daily chit-chat discussed by the "cool" crowd in the halls and/or the locker room. I want to specifically point out that many of the male students in the grade came to be known as people who were specifically attracted to the celebrity known as Mischa Barton to the extent that other girls in the grade were not even on their radars. It was almost as if this notion that mischaB.equals("sex god") was inadvertently given too much credibility by the same girls who manufactured it in the first place, whilst chit-chatting about it during Spanish.
I'm not going to say that this show is any more responsible for how our youth is being told that it is okay for women to act sluttily compared to other shows I've seen out there. People are being misled by the bling and the shiny things and the "beautiful" things when these are just washed-up norms created by our society, which is probably a notoriously poor judge of what it means to be in a meaningful relationship, seeing as how more than 50% of marriages in CA end in divorce. So society must have people trippin' about what love and commitment is really all about. People discover after much undue pain and heartache (and even then, some still don't discover) that getting along with someone and having a meaningful exchange is more than this skin-deep fraud that is being perpetuated by many elements of the "entertainment" business.
Notes
(1) Brandon F**king Davis
(2) I'm not trying to belittle bulimia or anorexia, that's just how I see it... feel free to correct me if you think I'm messing up here.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Faux News indirectly responds to TYT
Fox News "criticizes" Republicans... what'll it come to next? Well clearly it's engineered by Democrats!
Monday, April 5, 2010
Rethinking capitalism
It's a well-known fact that political buzzwords thrown around today to describe different political ideologies do not correspond to reality. Words like Socialist, Nazi, Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Communist, Anarchist, Totalitarian, and Fascist are all used to malign someone's image in a certain way. People try to use these buzzwords to try and discredit someone's argument. For example, "WE can't have a public option cuz that's Socialist." Calling it Socialist immediately makes it explicit that the policy about which we are debating cannot work for Amerikkka because it is fundamentally against our way of life and traditional American values.
That's why today I wanted to talk about another word: capitalism. Libertarians and Republicans have a very different understanding about the way in which capitalism is supposed to function. Republicans, as believers in Reagan's agenda, posit that capitalism is merely self-interested parties trying to accrue duckets by any means necessary. For Republicans (and Democrats too), being a big corporation implies that that corporation exerts a lot of influence in Washington. In other words, mixing politics and the economy is okay.
For Libertarians, the free market should remain "free" in the sense that no one should exert undue influence on the market such that another individual is not free to start a competing proprietorship or corporation. This means that no one company can become so large as to completely dominate a sector of the economy. According to Libertarians, this usually happens when a corporation tries to mix with government to get special favors or dispensations.
So, to clarify, the Republican conception of capitalism couldn't be farther off from what Libertarians believe. Republicans are big believers in corporations like Enron, who pretty much became so large that they created their own private markets or dominated the ones that were already in existence. They thrive on corporate handouts, and the Citizens United ruling probably made them want to go out and dance in the street. I hate when Republicans tout "free market ideals", as if those were synonymous with the version of capitalism to which Republicans actually subscribe. It's time for Republicans to own up to the fact that they're not really pro-free-market at all. If anything, they're against the free market the most. Was it not Adam Smith who postulated that capitalists are the worst for the free market, because they are the ones who look to profit by any means necessary?
People are confused by economic and political terms. It doesn't help that the Republicans throw around buzzwords so that it appears that they support free-market principles when in fact they hate the free market. It is reminiscent of 1984, where the language itself becomes so muddled and "refined" that if people start to hear pro-capitalist rhetoric couched in terms of the "free market," people will start to think that increases in numbers of House/Senate Republicans will correlate to how free the market is, when in fact it's just the opposite.
That's why today I wanted to talk about another word: capitalism. Libertarians and Republicans have a very different understanding about the way in which capitalism is supposed to function. Republicans, as believers in Reagan's agenda, posit that capitalism is merely self-interested parties trying to accrue duckets by any means necessary. For Republicans (and Democrats too), being a big corporation implies that that corporation exerts a lot of influence in Washington. In other words, mixing politics and the economy is okay.
For Libertarians, the free market should remain "free" in the sense that no one should exert undue influence on the market such that another individual is not free to start a competing proprietorship or corporation. This means that no one company can become so large as to completely dominate a sector of the economy. According to Libertarians, this usually happens when a corporation tries to mix with government to get special favors or dispensations.
So, to clarify, the Republican conception of capitalism couldn't be farther off from what Libertarians believe. Republicans are big believers in corporations like Enron, who pretty much became so large that they created their own private markets or dominated the ones that were already in existence. They thrive on corporate handouts, and the Citizens United ruling probably made them want to go out and dance in the street. I hate when Republicans tout "free market ideals", as if those were synonymous with the version of capitalism to which Republicans actually subscribe. It's time for Republicans to own up to the fact that they're not really pro-free-market at all. If anything, they're against the free market the most. Was it not Adam Smith who postulated that capitalists are the worst for the free market, because they are the ones who look to profit by any means necessary?
People are confused by economic and political terms. It doesn't help that the Republicans throw around buzzwords so that it appears that they support free-market principles when in fact they hate the free market. It is reminiscent of 1984, where the language itself becomes so muddled and "refined" that if people start to hear pro-capitalist rhetoric couched in terms of the "free market," people will start to think that increases in numbers of House/Senate Republicans will correlate to how free the market is, when in fact it's just the opposite.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Who is the fool
Conspiracy theorists
Religious nuts
Hardcore right-wing free marketers
These are somewhat distinct categories. One needn't fall into any one category to fit in any other. Yet all these categories share the fact that they require one to believe in all these ridiculous assumptions in order to make their story believable. I think a great deal of arguments put out by people who would fall into one or more of these categories should be met with a lot of skepticism and, yes, questioning assumptions.
Religious nuts
Hardcore right-wing free marketers
These are somewhat distinct categories. One needn't fall into any one category to fit in any other. Yet all these categories share the fact that they require one to believe in all these ridiculous assumptions in order to make their story believable. I think a great deal of arguments put out by people who would fall into one or more of these categories should be met with a lot of skepticism and, yes, questioning assumptions.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Updates, more news, and other things
Sorry for the lack of posting. I know, I'm full of fail and AIDS.
Updates: If you watched that video in the last post, Cenk predicted what Republicans and the insurance companies were going to do to people. He had the foresight to predict that insurance companies were trying to weasel their way out of having to cover children, which they're doing now. He also had the foresight to predict that insurance companies were going to raise peoples' rates to make a quick buck for four years until they have to extend coverage to everyone, all the while spending the profits so they can lie about how the Democrats "raised everyone's premiums with that damn health-care bill!!1" Cenk was talking about how we haven't fixed the root of the problem, which he thinks is the insurance companies themselves (simplifying his message down a ton of course), and that's exactly what's going to resurrect and bite Democrats in the you-know-where. And I believe that this may very well lead to some sort of backwards, confused Republican backlash that may sneak its way in through the ballot box like it did so many other times in the past. Not to get all paranoid, but you never know these days with politics. One step forward could send the whole thing off balance if pushed in the wrong direction by outside influences with money. It's so easy to see Congress being pushed and shoved by lobbyists in every direction. Just look at AIPAC, the "Clean Coal" lobby, the NRA, the prescription drug companies, and the Chamber of Commerce (such a blatant example, oh my, do I even HAVE to go there). So apparently of course the White House is all up in arms about this but there's not much they can even do.
I've been playing the video game Just Cause 2. It's quite slow in framerate on many computers, I'm pretty sure, so if that bothers you, you may want to wait for the patch. But I have been playing it anyway, despite the times when the framerate pretty much drops to very low single digits. It makes a mockery out of what a sham a political system can be despite its intricate cities and futuristic design elements. This amoral/anti-moral, sort-of-anarchist shooter encourages the player to go and blow up government property and sabotage government fuel dumps, SAM missile sites, radar towers, and the like. The problem is that the game does not a lot depth in the different cities. The only difference in the cities is that some of the taller buildings look different. Wow, big deal. Sometimes the missions can be annoying and can take more than a few tries just because of what they require you to do in succession, and if you die in the last scene then you have to do it all over again. Also, what's with not having garages and traditional safehouses, with all the weapons being available for free? I would have like to see that implemented. Also, in GTA, safehouses were good for shooting cops and then closing the door, hiding yourself from cops, and continuing to shoot them while they were besieging your safehouse. They would continue to come indefinitely until the army came and then most of the time I'd get bored and save the game, saving my progress and removing all my heat. I'd give this game 4 out of 5 stars because it's such a pretty-looking and expansive sandbox shooter, but suffers from some bad issues with destroying things in-flight with other aircraft (IT IS SUPER HARD, WHYYY) and problems with depth and safehouses.
I've also been thinking about the Catholic Church. I know, it's super easy to hate on the ol' "CC", but I just can't resist. In response to the whole Ireland sex abuse thing, the Pope "broke taboo" and said he was sorry that the whole thing happened. Okay, yeah, that ought to reverse all of the trauma experienced by young boys induced by the priests at the church... And what's more, we now find out that HE himself is a big player in this sex abuse scandal out of Wisconsin that was completely covered up by the Catholic Church. He did not defrock this one priest who got off on molesting deaf children. But we needn't merely treat this as simply more ammunition against the Catholic Church. We should consider the children whose lives were permanently damaged by predators in positions of religious authority who used the worst forms of coercion to get their jollies. It goes without saying that the Church doesn't want people to find out who the pedos are within their ranks who are abusing the children.
Video:
Updates: If you watched that video in the last post, Cenk predicted what Republicans and the insurance companies were going to do to people. He had the foresight to predict that insurance companies were trying to weasel their way out of having to cover children, which they're doing now. He also had the foresight to predict that insurance companies were going to raise peoples' rates to make a quick buck for four years until they have to extend coverage to everyone, all the while spending the profits so they can lie about how the Democrats "raised everyone's premiums with that damn health-care bill!!1" Cenk was talking about how we haven't fixed the root of the problem, which he thinks is the insurance companies themselves (simplifying his message down a ton of course), and that's exactly what's going to resurrect and bite Democrats in the you-know-where. And I believe that this may very well lead to some sort of backwards, confused Republican backlash that may sneak its way in through the ballot box like it did so many other times in the past. Not to get all paranoid, but you never know these days with politics. One step forward could send the whole thing off balance if pushed in the wrong direction by outside influences with money. It's so easy to see Congress being pushed and shoved by lobbyists in every direction. Just look at AIPAC, the "Clean Coal" lobby, the NRA, the prescription drug companies, and the Chamber of Commerce (such a blatant example, oh my, do I even HAVE to go there). So apparently of course the White House is all up in arms about this but there's not much they can even do.
I've been playing the video game Just Cause 2. It's quite slow in framerate on many computers, I'm pretty sure, so if that bothers you, you may want to wait for the patch. But I have been playing it anyway, despite the times when the framerate pretty much drops to very low single digits. It makes a mockery out of what a sham a political system can be despite its intricate cities and futuristic design elements. This amoral/anti-moral, sort-of-anarchist shooter encourages the player to go and blow up government property and sabotage government fuel dumps, SAM missile sites, radar towers, and the like. The problem is that the game does not a lot depth in the different cities. The only difference in the cities is that some of the taller buildings look different. Wow, big deal. Sometimes the missions can be annoying and can take more than a few tries just because of what they require you to do in succession, and if you die in the last scene then you have to do it all over again. Also, what's with not having garages and traditional safehouses, with all the weapons being available for free? I would have like to see that implemented. Also, in GTA, safehouses were good for shooting cops and then closing the door, hiding yourself from cops, and continuing to shoot them while they were besieging your safehouse. They would continue to come indefinitely until the army came and then most of the time I'd get bored and save the game, saving my progress and removing all my heat. I'd give this game 4 out of 5 stars because it's such a pretty-looking and expansive sandbox shooter, but suffers from some bad issues with destroying things in-flight with other aircraft (IT IS SUPER HARD, WHYYY) and problems with depth and safehouses.
I've also been thinking about the Catholic Church. I know, it's super easy to hate on the ol' "CC", but I just can't resist. In response to the whole Ireland sex abuse thing, the Pope "broke taboo" and said he was sorry that the whole thing happened. Okay, yeah, that ought to reverse all of the trauma experienced by young boys induced by the priests at the church... And what's more, we now find out that HE himself is a big player in this sex abuse scandal out of Wisconsin that was completely covered up by the Catholic Church. He did not defrock this one priest who got off on molesting deaf children. But we needn't merely treat this as simply more ammunition against the Catholic Church. We should consider the children whose lives were permanently damaged by predators in positions of religious authority who used the worst forms of coercion to get their jollies. It goes without saying that the Church doesn't want people to find out who the pedos are within their ranks who are abusing the children.
Video:
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Repeal and replace... (and recycle!)
"Repeal and replace will be the slogan for the fall," McConnell said in an interview on John King, USA.
CNN
So the mantra for the fall is revealed. This is perhaps breaking news. Now that you've heard the news, straight from Sen. McConnell's mouth, let's have a little bit of discussion about it... and then, you, the reader, don't have ANY reason to watch the news, yet alone Republicans for that matter. Because you and I know that if this is really what Republicans are going for, then they will shove it down the American people's throats like there's no tomorrow. Now for a more or less substantive talk about this slogan:
This is a really problematic slogan. Sure, it has two 'r's in it, but both of the ideas that they're advocating are nonsensical and ridiculous. I guess the ultimate goal of this midterm election would be to oust the Democratic Party completely from any and all seats they hold, and then immediately repeal the bill just signed into law. This is a very bleak possibility and would certainly exacterbate the growing tensions in the US between reform and conservatism. The country is polarized as it is, and this slogan is only going to increase the divide between Republicans and Dems. It's a slap in the face to have a bill immediately repealed, especially after a year. It'd be the death of Barack Obama's presidency. This notion is an affront to the progress accomplished so far and convinces me that all Republicans want to do is drag their knuckles and spout off about how the Dems are a bunch of "baby killers".
Moreover, it's untenable to really believe that repealing the bill is somehow possible. Unless something huge goes down and public opinion radically shifts (knock on wood), the Democrats will almost certainly retain a majority in at least one of the houses, making the possibility to repeal the bill close to nil. Additionally, Barack Obama will still be President, so any legislation they manage to put on his desk will be promptly cast off with contempt. Barack will be like, "Get that s*** offa my desk!" And everyone will film it. And Conservatives won't have the 2/3rds required to override the bill.
Furthermore, what would one want to repeal the bill for anyway? For one thing, the bill just did a whole lot of good in this world. It immediately eliminated pre-existing condition discrimination by healthcare companies against children, which is a very messed up practice if you ask me. It allows people under the age of 26 to stay on their parents' health plans. It will eliminate pre-existing condition discrimination for all, and it will probably save money and reduce the deficit if you believe the Congressional Budget Office. And Republicans want to repeal all this. Does the GOP think it's okay to discriminate against people and not offer them a health plan because they have an illness? So, it's okay to do that to children? Obviously conservatives must believe that we must continue being slaves to the healthcare companies, who rob us of our money for things we had no control over (being sick), and screw us over by dropping us when we become sick? These are things that are not consistent with the way I want my country to be run. This is corporate-run America, ladies and gentlemen, and I'm hearing the crybabies demanding like children that we return to it. "MAMA I WANT IT BACK GIMME IT!!"
I suppose I'll touch a little upon the word "replace" as well. My first impression was that they wanted to replace the POTUS, the President of the United States. Upon further reflection, it must be about replacing the Congresspeople who voted for the health care package. But the sentiment is still there--the President did this country a wrong and he, too, should be "replaced." In this three-word statement there exists a great deal of latent animosity, hidden behind those words. They might as well say their slogan is "Socialist and Abortionist", because I, for one, can detect the sentiment behind those words, and what they really mean to conservatives. These are not things that people normally say right after legislation is passed, even controversial legislation. This slogan does a great job of portraying how damn riled up they are. And it's going to cost them, too. People make all the wrong decisions when they're mad, even Republican strategists. This slogan was obviously constructed out of fear and anger, and they're going to use and abuse these tactics day in and day out for the past six months, in hopes that they can convince a few more idiots that "Barack's a damn Socialist! (And BABY KILLAH!)"
Upon even further consideration, I can see them using this slogan to further co-opt the Tea Party Movement. They want to "repeal" a lot of things, including Barack's package. It's so funny to think of these organizations as distinct entities anyway. It's interesting because the Teabaggers were financed by Fox News from the start. I know that there are some Libertarians and people who call themselves Libertarian in the movement as well, but the way that these rallies are politicized on TV serves to suit the Republican Party. This is because of the way that Fox News has power over these protests from the get-go. They pump enormous amounts of money into the Tea Party Movement by hosting rallies across the country. Fox advertises on its shows that their anchors will speak at these Tea Party rallies (bias? what bias?). And then they bring out their cameras to film their people talking at these rallies, making all the points that Fox News has told them to make. And to top it all off, they broadcast precisely edited clips of these rallies on the show, and broadcast them 24/7. (Some call that news, I call it 21st Century propaganda). Parting shot: the Tea Party was once an interesting objection to the government excessively controlling our lives, but the fools at Fox News have muddied the waters to the point where they have completely co-opted the Tea Party's discourse. They are using the Tea Party protesters to shout obscenities and slurs at minorities and gays in Congress. They are using the Tea Party to incite violence and nothing else.
Republicans are going to milk the healthcare issue for the next couple of months, probably spread some more false rumors about some supposed ill effects of the bill somehow already manifesting themselves (even though most of it hasn't gone into effect, LOL), and pretty much fuss around Washington fuming and saying Nay and No to progress. Being out of power is a real bitch, eh?
CNN
So the mantra for the fall is revealed. This is perhaps breaking news. Now that you've heard the news, straight from Sen. McConnell's mouth, let's have a little bit of discussion about it... and then, you, the reader, don't have ANY reason to watch the news, yet alone Republicans for that matter. Because you and I know that if this is really what Republicans are going for, then they will shove it down the American people's throats like there's no tomorrow. Now for a more or less substantive talk about this slogan:
This is a really problematic slogan. Sure, it has two 'r's in it, but both of the ideas that they're advocating are nonsensical and ridiculous. I guess the ultimate goal of this midterm election would be to oust the Democratic Party completely from any and all seats they hold, and then immediately repeal the bill just signed into law. This is a very bleak possibility and would certainly exacterbate the growing tensions in the US between reform and conservatism. The country is polarized as it is, and this slogan is only going to increase the divide between Republicans and Dems. It's a slap in the face to have a bill immediately repealed, especially after a year. It'd be the death of Barack Obama's presidency. This notion is an affront to the progress accomplished so far and convinces me that all Republicans want to do is drag their knuckles and spout off about how the Dems are a bunch of "baby killers".
Moreover, it's untenable to really believe that repealing the bill is somehow possible. Unless something huge goes down and public opinion radically shifts (knock on wood), the Democrats will almost certainly retain a majority in at least one of the houses, making the possibility to repeal the bill close to nil. Additionally, Barack Obama will still be President, so any legislation they manage to put on his desk will be promptly cast off with contempt. Barack will be like, "Get that s*** offa my desk!" And everyone will film it. And Conservatives won't have the 2/3rds required to override the bill.
Furthermore, what would one want to repeal the bill for anyway? For one thing, the bill just did a whole lot of good in this world. It immediately eliminated pre-existing condition discrimination by healthcare companies against children, which is a very messed up practice if you ask me. It allows people under the age of 26 to stay on their parents' health plans. It will eliminate pre-existing condition discrimination for all, and it will probably save money and reduce the deficit if you believe the Congressional Budget Office. And Republicans want to repeal all this. Does the GOP think it's okay to discriminate against people and not offer them a health plan because they have an illness? So, it's okay to do that to children? Obviously conservatives must believe that we must continue being slaves to the healthcare companies, who rob us of our money for things we had no control over (being sick), and screw us over by dropping us when we become sick? These are things that are not consistent with the way I want my country to be run. This is corporate-run America, ladies and gentlemen, and I'm hearing the crybabies demanding like children that we return to it. "MAMA I WANT IT BACK GIMME IT!!"
I suppose I'll touch a little upon the word "replace" as well. My first impression was that they wanted to replace the POTUS, the President of the United States. Upon further reflection, it must be about replacing the Congresspeople who voted for the health care package. But the sentiment is still there--the President did this country a wrong and he, too, should be "replaced." In this three-word statement there exists a great deal of latent animosity, hidden behind those words. They might as well say their slogan is "Socialist and Abortionist", because I, for one, can detect the sentiment behind those words, and what they really mean to conservatives. These are not things that people normally say right after legislation is passed, even controversial legislation. This slogan does a great job of portraying how damn riled up they are. And it's going to cost them, too. People make all the wrong decisions when they're mad, even Republican strategists. This slogan was obviously constructed out of fear and anger, and they're going to use and abuse these tactics day in and day out for the past six months, in hopes that they can convince a few more idiots that "Barack's a damn Socialist! (And BABY KILLAH!)"
Upon even further consideration, I can see them using this slogan to further co-opt the Tea Party Movement. They want to "repeal" a lot of things, including Barack's package. It's so funny to think of these organizations as distinct entities anyway. It's interesting because the Teabaggers were financed by Fox News from the start. I know that there are some Libertarians and people who call themselves Libertarian in the movement as well, but the way that these rallies are politicized on TV serves to suit the Republican Party. This is because of the way that Fox News has power over these protests from the get-go. They pump enormous amounts of money into the Tea Party Movement by hosting rallies across the country. Fox advertises on its shows that their anchors will speak at these Tea Party rallies (bias? what bias?). And then they bring out their cameras to film their people talking at these rallies, making all the points that Fox News has told them to make. And to top it all off, they broadcast precisely edited clips of these rallies on the show, and broadcast them 24/7. (Some call that news, I call it 21st Century propaganda). Parting shot: the Tea Party was once an interesting objection to the government excessively controlling our lives, but the fools at Fox News have muddied the waters to the point where they have completely co-opted the Tea Party's discourse. They are using the Tea Party protesters to shout obscenities and slurs at minorities and gays in Congress. They are using the Tea Party to incite violence and nothing else.
Republicans are going to milk the healthcare issue for the next couple of months, probably spread some more false rumors about some supposed ill effects of the bill somehow already manifesting themselves (even though most of it hasn't gone into effect, LOL), and pretty much fuss around Washington fuming and saying Nay and No to progress. Being out of power is a real bitch, eh?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Healthcare and the end of the world
Congressional Republicans and loudmouths alike, in light of the fact that they will be defeated on healthcare after a year of belligerently saying no, have sullenly and begrudgingly acknowledged what is going to happen tomorrow. After a few days of gathering requisite support from the Democratic rank-and-file, in a few hours, a great thing will happen. The House will vote to pass the healthcare bill (although the final product will not be the bill's current form). There will be no chance for Republican opposition after this point other than some more whining about how what has happened is somehow not fair. No. It's not that it's not fair. It's that the GOP, unsurprisingly, is being a sore loser. They constantly whine about how the procedures in Congress are being manipulated unscrupulously. Yet when they controlled the majority, didn't they try to put procedures in place to try and ban the filibuster? These idiots act as if they're being abused somehow by what the Democrats have done, when in fact it's the Republicans who have been doling out the abuse, screaming "ZOMG ZOCIALISM" and "HURR DURR TAXES" in our faces for the past year? They're abusing me by putting forth the same stupid claims about how the world's gonna end if we pass healthcare.
So it's the day of reckoning today, and if Republicans are right, expect the economy to crash tomorrow, for everyone to lose his or her job, for the government to immediately establish "death panels" that will judge whether your parents should continue to live. Oh, and the government--it's going to become SOCIALIST tomorrow. It's all going to happen, before your very eyes. I plan on listening to conservative programs tomorrow like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and listen to them rage about the vote. They hate when things aren't under their control. I want Glenn to pull his hair out, do some yelling and screaming, and maybe fake-cry. I want O'Reilly's conniving ass to make some stupid ass commentary about how it's all somehow meaningless and it's not really a win for Democrats. It's all predictable to me now. People eat it up like stumbling into a pancake breakfast after three days in the desert. And the wheels of hypocrisy and fear-mongering will continue to turn. Yet something major has been accomplished, and it once again reaffirms that change, albeit slow, is possible. I, for one, am inspired by what looks to be the final crucial vote on HCR.
So it's the day of reckoning today, and if Republicans are right, expect the economy to crash tomorrow, for everyone to lose his or her job, for the government to immediately establish "death panels" that will judge whether your parents should continue to live. Oh, and the government--it's going to become SOCIALIST tomorrow. It's all going to happen, before your very eyes. I plan on listening to conservative programs tomorrow like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and listen to them rage about the vote. They hate when things aren't under their control. I want Glenn to pull his hair out, do some yelling and screaming, and maybe fake-cry. I want O'Reilly's conniving ass to make some stupid ass commentary about how it's all somehow meaningless and it's not really a win for Democrats. It's all predictable to me now. People eat it up like stumbling into a pancake breakfast after three days in the desert. And the wheels of hypocrisy and fear-mongering will continue to turn. Yet something major has been accomplished, and it once again reaffirms that change, albeit slow, is possible. I, for one, am inspired by what looks to be the final crucial vote on HCR.
Conservatism in the Toilet Stall with Legs Spread Wide
So with the news that notoriously homophobic GOP California Congressman Roy Ashburn is gay, and was ashamed into coming out after arrested for DUI after leaving a gay nightclub, we can add this guy to the ever-growing list of homosexual politicians in the Republican Party. Yes, GOP, it seems that, these days, there are more gay politicians in your ranks than in the Democratic Party. How gleefully ironic. I guess that means that all those slams that people make about liberals being homosexual "bounce off me and stick to you."
Ashburn has voted against every single gay-rights-related bill that has gone through Congress, according to Project Vote Smart, a nonprofit, independent research group that catalogs voting records of elected officials.
The BBC reported (in the first link) that "Mr Ashburn said his votes reflected the way his constituents wanted him to vote, not his own 'internal conflict'." According to the 2004 Political Courage Test (formerly known as the Congressional Election 2004 National Political Awareness Test), he answered "No" to the question "Should same-sex couples be allowed to form civil unions?" and "Yes" to the question "Should marriage be restricted to a union only between a man and a woman?" I don't know what to make of these statements. This test is supposed to reflect what the elected official actually believes him/herself, not the beliefs of his or her constituents. I wonder if this guy actually believes that he shouldn't be allowed to marry someone whom he loves who happens to be of the male gender. How can this guy sleep at night? Obviously not well, judging from his late-night activities...
Perhaps the broader point to all this is that a lot of what the Republican Party holds to be true is damaging to people. Saying that marriage is between a man and a woman and being gay is like slaves saying that they shouldn't be allowed to be set free. You're denying yourself rights. You're playing yourself.
Ashburn has voted against every single gay-rights-related bill that has gone through Congress, according to Project Vote Smart, a nonprofit, independent research group that catalogs voting records of elected officials.
The BBC reported (in the first link) that "Mr Ashburn said his votes reflected the way his constituents wanted him to vote, not his own 'internal conflict'." According to the 2004 Political Courage Test (formerly known as the Congressional Election 2004 National Political Awareness Test), he answered "No" to the question "Should same-sex couples be allowed to form civil unions?" and "Yes" to the question "Should marriage be restricted to a union only between a man and a woman?" I don't know what to make of these statements. This test is supposed to reflect what the elected official actually believes him/herself, not the beliefs of his or her constituents. I wonder if this guy actually believes that he shouldn't be allowed to marry someone whom he loves who happens to be of the male gender. How can this guy sleep at night? Obviously not well, judging from his late-night activities...
Perhaps the broader point to all this is that a lot of what the Republican Party holds to be true is damaging to people. Saying that marriage is between a man and a woman and being gay is like slaves saying that they shouldn't be allowed to be set free. You're denying yourself rights. You're playing yourself.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Metablogging!? WTF?!
Blogging about blogging is a notoriously dry subject. So I will just say that I am going to be writing about a number of things in the next couple of days that you, the reader, can look forward to within the next couple of days:
- My trip to a spiritual community in Northern California
- Some things I noticed in the various airport newsstand
- General remarks on the current political climate (in California and USFG)
- More about why the Republican Party is, to quote Hal Turner, "Gay Old Perverts" (I think you can guess who I'm going to lampoon this time!)
Sunday, March 14, 2010
What happens at a Young Republicans Club meeting?
Sauce: TBogg's Blog.
Tupac said, "Thug Life!" These guys say, "Smug Life!" By the way, isn't it funny how the Tea Party protestors call themselves "teabaggers"? More latent homosexuality from the Republican Party! I, for one, love when things like that happen. Watch this video from my girl Rachel Maddow!
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Virtues
Jay-Z once said something like, "The unwritten code of the streets is to never snitch." In my experience with the streets, I think that this statement is mostly true. However, there are some other things that one should not do "in the streets". In this post I will identify some other rules by which people should abide.
1. Don't blow the spot.
If your homies have a designated area where chilling occurs, do not tell anyone where this place is located.
A general exception to this rule: If you believe that the other homies would approve of such an act and if the homies are friends with such person. You (the person bringing an outside person to the spot) must believe in good faith that the person being brought to the spot will not disclose its location to anyone, or will not personally chill in the spot while the homies are not present.
The reason for this rule is created from the hope that people will not start to go to the spot when the homies are not there. If the homies were to go to the spot and encounter others, this would be treated as an imminent invasion and would be dealt with by any means necessary. There are other minor reasons, such as the fact that the homies may be the target of immediate suspicion if its members were to return to a spot that had previously been burned by someone else, not knowing that it had been burned. The homies would be unwittingly chilling in a "burn spot".
2. Be honest about how much dough you hold when you're with the crew
There is a distinction to be made between how much dough you hold, how much you're willing to piece up on food or other items, and how much you're willing to spend on yourself. I argue that there should only be a distinction between how much dough you hold and how much you're willing to piece up, but that's another story. If the homies are piecing up, you should put down how much you're willing to piece up, but don't claim that that's "all my dough". Because it's not, it's just all you're willing to piece up. Too often I see this distinction being lost upon the homies and I think we should recognize if someone is being stingy or straight up lying about not having dough sometimes when it is pretty necessary (gas, food, an extra couple of dollars here and there).
3. Don't pinch communal purchases (or other people's items, for that matter...)
If items are commonly purchased (by piecing up, or by donation), then no one homie shall take for himself a personal share of the item when the homies are finished kicking it without everyone agreeing to the decision. The usual process for allocating the items commonly purchased and remain when the homies are finished kicking it is to divide equally the spoils, or according to who pieced up what amount (if the amounts differ significantly).
4. In general, try to share and share alike with the homies whilst kicking it
In my experience, the gathering of homies for the purpose of chilling is at its best when everyone contributes something to the overall experience. Whether that be providing food, smokes, a car, or other supplies, each homie should do his part to add something. Each homie should try not to be parasitic when it comes to chill sessions.
5. When chilling is occurring in a moving car for an extended period of time, the driver should make it clear to everyone in the car where the car is currently heading, if there is a destination
This is to avoid confusion as to where the car is going at present. If many things are being done in the car in succession, sometimes the current destination is confusing for some homies in the car.
That's all for now, I can clarify any slang I have used if it is needed.
1. Don't blow the spot.
If your homies have a designated area where chilling occurs, do not tell anyone where this place is located.
A general exception to this rule: If you believe that the other homies would approve of such an act and if the homies are friends with such person. You (the person bringing an outside person to the spot) must believe in good faith that the person being brought to the spot will not disclose its location to anyone, or will not personally chill in the spot while the homies are not present.
The reason for this rule is created from the hope that people will not start to go to the spot when the homies are not there. If the homies were to go to the spot and encounter others, this would be treated as an imminent invasion and would be dealt with by any means necessary. There are other minor reasons, such as the fact that the homies may be the target of immediate suspicion if its members were to return to a spot that had previously been burned by someone else, not knowing that it had been burned. The homies would be unwittingly chilling in a "burn spot".
2. Be honest about how much dough you hold when you're with the crew
There is a distinction to be made between how much dough you hold, how much you're willing to piece up on food or other items, and how much you're willing to spend on yourself. I argue that there should only be a distinction between how much dough you hold and how much you're willing to piece up, but that's another story. If the homies are piecing up, you should put down how much you're willing to piece up, but don't claim that that's "all my dough". Because it's not, it's just all you're willing to piece up. Too often I see this distinction being lost upon the homies and I think we should recognize if someone is being stingy or straight up lying about not having dough sometimes when it is pretty necessary (gas, food, an extra couple of dollars here and there).
3. Don't pinch communal purchases (or other people's items, for that matter...)
If items are commonly purchased (by piecing up, or by donation), then no one homie shall take for himself a personal share of the item when the homies are finished kicking it without everyone agreeing to the decision. The usual process for allocating the items commonly purchased and remain when the homies are finished kicking it is to divide equally the spoils, or according to who pieced up what amount (if the amounts differ significantly).
4. In general, try to share and share alike with the homies whilst kicking it
In my experience, the gathering of homies for the purpose of chilling is at its best when everyone contributes something to the overall experience. Whether that be providing food, smokes, a car, or other supplies, each homie should do his part to add something. Each homie should try not to be parasitic when it comes to chill sessions.
5. When chilling is occurring in a moving car for an extended period of time, the driver should make it clear to everyone in the car where the car is currently heading, if there is a destination
This is to avoid confusion as to where the car is going at present. If many things are being done in the car in succession, sometimes the current destination is confusing for some homies in the car.
That's all for now, I can clarify any slang I have used if it is needed.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Richard Dawkins "Stumped" By Creationist Question... and IDiots rejoice!
(Before any keyboard commandos out there get all in a tizzy, the title of this post is satirical. I'm doing it to make a point.)
The title of the video is "Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question (RAW FTGE)".
Well, I was having a gay old time browsing the YouTube when all of a sudden I saw this related video after watching a cool video of a 2003 Special Election candidate running to oppose the raise in student fees for the UC/CSU/CC systems of California; this is something that interests me as both a student and a believer in higher education. My reaction was a bit hesitant at first when I noticed the "(RAW FTGE)" in the title of one of the related videos, so I thought I might as well give it a look, as I was promised by the title that it wouldn't be full of Creationist propaganda by the "raw footage" part. But, as you're about to see, it was, implicitly. Pic related.
Here is the video:
So everyone who dislikes Dawkins can finally rejoice! The leader of Atheism is dead! The Wicked Witch of the West is no more! All is suddenly well!
Not so. Like most in this world, there is one more take on this "raw footage" that we haven't even examined yet: Dawkins' explanation. There might be a possibility that this is something more than a "Gotcha soundbite" (as John McCain famously said about Sarah Palin's remarks on "cross-border attacks"). His reply was found on the Australian Skeptics' website.
I'm not going to get into the details of the argument, but I think I might just post Dawkins' side of the story:
He then goes on to provide an informative discussion of information in genetics, and how it's something that is more complicated than can be explained in a short interview being shown to people with no presumed knowledge of the subject (much less a Creationist documentary, LOL). Believe him or not, at least he made his point explicitly clear. This quote was taken from the first paragraph of his article. So there you have it. It's not as if there's some kind of mystical hole in Dawkins' theory all of a sudden. This is just more skulduggery by the same ignoramuses who want to keep us in the dark praying to cloud-people to watch over us in our times of need, all the while being totally passive in what goes on around in government. The people who promote this deception on YouTube are the same crowd who would like to see us go back in time while we mistreat those who are not White, Straight, Protestant, American and "anything that I am and you're not".
Which brings me a more abstract conclusion than usual; the Internet is a great tool for doing your own research on things, and not accepting someone else's conclusions, provided you have the requisite tools for separating BS from reliable information. I felt my intuition telling me not to click on the Dawkins video in the first place, because deep down I knew I would have to deal with some sort of dumb argument that would eventually shown to be proven false. The truth eventually comes out if you are willing to do the 2-second Google search or follow enough YouTube links to arrive at someone who has devoted the time to provide the truth. I've gotta give it up to the people in the YouTube trenches doing the debunking we sorely need on the Internet. Because if no one makes responses to these videos, what stops people from blindly believing these idiots? People need to be exposed the truth, and at the same time, people need to be willing to reach out of their comfort zones of their own private philosophies and allow their beliefs to be challenged. I hope that if someone is hesitating to click on a video because it might show them something uncomfortable that might challenge (or even offend!) their views, that he/she should just click on that video and analyze it to see if it's worth investigating further or whether it is just another clichéd, rehashed, manufactured argument put forth by anti-intellectuals and people who deny the theory of evolution. (By the way, it's my belief that in good time people will associate those who denied evolution as ridiculous idiots who believed in something as ludicrous as the idea that gravity doesn't exist).
I was also thinking that the ID-vs-Science debate would be a great drama, if intelligent arguments were personified as villains and the scientists leading the quest for knowledge were some kind of super-justice-squad. I should patent that idea or something, because it sounds like a novel idea. I'd watch that show.
Well, I was having a gay old time browsing the YouTube when all of a sudden I saw this related video after watching a cool video of a 2003 Special Election candidate running to oppose the raise in student fees for the UC/CSU/CC systems of California; this is something that interests me as both a student and a believer in higher education. My reaction was a bit hesitant at first when I noticed the "(RAW FTGE)" in the title of one of the related videos, so I thought I might as well give it a look, as I was promised by the title that it wouldn't be full of Creationist propaganda by the "raw footage" part. But, as you're about to see, it was, implicitly. Pic related.
Here is the video:
So everyone who dislikes Dawkins can finally rejoice! The leader of Atheism is dead! The Wicked Witch of the West is no more! All is suddenly well!
Not so. Like most in this world, there is one more take on this "raw footage" that we haven't even examined yet: Dawkins' explanation. There might be a possibility that this is something more than a "Gotcha soundbite" (as John McCain famously said about Sarah Palin's remarks on "cross-border attacks"). His reply was found on the Australian Skeptics' website.
I'm not going to get into the details of the argument, but I think I might just post Dawkins' side of the story:
they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists — a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
He then goes on to provide an informative discussion of information in genetics, and how it's something that is more complicated than can be explained in a short interview being shown to people with no presumed knowledge of the subject (much less a Creationist documentary, LOL). Believe him or not, at least he made his point explicitly clear. This quote was taken from the first paragraph of his article. So there you have it. It's not as if there's some kind of mystical hole in Dawkins' theory all of a sudden. This is just more skulduggery by the same ignoramuses who want to keep us in the dark praying to cloud-people to watch over us in our times of need, all the while being totally passive in what goes on around in government. The people who promote this deception on YouTube are the same crowd who would like to see us go back in time while we mistreat those who are not White, Straight, Protestant, American and "anything that I am and you're not".
Which brings me a more abstract conclusion than usual; the Internet is a great tool for doing your own research on things, and not accepting someone else's conclusions, provided you have the requisite tools for separating BS from reliable information. I felt my intuition telling me not to click on the Dawkins video in the first place, because deep down I knew I would have to deal with some sort of dumb argument that would eventually shown to be proven false. The truth eventually comes out if you are willing to do the 2-second Google search or follow enough YouTube links to arrive at someone who has devoted the time to provide the truth. I've gotta give it up to the people in the YouTube trenches doing the debunking we sorely need on the Internet. Because if no one makes responses to these videos, what stops people from blindly believing these idiots? People need to be exposed the truth, and at the same time, people need to be willing to reach out of their comfort zones of their own private philosophies and allow their beliefs to be challenged. I hope that if someone is hesitating to click on a video because it might show them something uncomfortable that might challenge (or even offend!) their views, that he/she should just click on that video and analyze it to see if it's worth investigating further or whether it is just another clichéd, rehashed, manufactured argument put forth by anti-intellectuals and people who deny the theory of evolution. (By the way, it's my belief that in good time people will associate those who denied evolution as ridiculous idiots who believed in something as ludicrous as the idea that gravity doesn't exist).
I was also thinking that the ID-vs-Science debate would be a great drama, if intelligent arguments were personified as villains and the scientists leading the quest for knowledge were some kind of super-justice-squad. I should patent that idea or something, because it sounds like a novel idea. I'd watch that show.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
More YT Videos, DURR HURR
I apologize for "lagging it" on updating this blog. To put it bluntly, I've been remiss in that I haven't been writing anything. I am fairly sure that not many people are clinging to my every word, but nevertheless I feel compelled to produce another quality entry, since it's been quite a while.
The title really speaks for itself. I'm going to introduce you to some new YouTube videos I've been watching.
This video appeals to the activists out there. This is some video from the Pomona College Workers for Justice coalition out there. They interrupted a meeting to deliver a bunch of signatures to President David Oxtoby demanding that the workers of Pomona College be allowed to employ the card-check system for unionization. Apparently Oxtoby is not too fond of this proposal, from what I've been told by the WFJ. Here is a clip:
So there you have it. But that's not all. Here is an example of an already-good hip-hop song that was remixed by Pete Rock, a great producer, to make it even better. This is a song called "Jussummen" by Diggity-Das Efx. (We can only guess what's in that delicious-looking cone of paper.)
I never disappoint. So I'll share this video that I think is very insightful. I believe it's a clip from a documentary. It features Noam Chomsky and Peter Singer, two very intelligent men whom I respect a great deal. They are talking about abortion in this video, and I think they have some very important points that liberals and conservatives alike need to consider before going on about rights and whatnot. This clip is so insightful that I might break it down piece-by-piece in a later blog. You never know. Enjoy:
I love Bone Thugz-N-Harmony. So naturally I play this song on the first of the month. Need I say any more?
I've a habit of saying something that is somewhat of a conclusion after every post. This is my attempt at wrapping things up. Yeah. Hope you enjoyed these clips.
The title really speaks for itself. I'm going to introduce you to some new YouTube videos I've been watching.
This video appeals to the activists out there. This is some video from the Pomona College Workers for Justice coalition out there. They interrupted a meeting to deliver a bunch of signatures to President David Oxtoby demanding that the workers of Pomona College be allowed to employ the card-check system for unionization. Apparently Oxtoby is not too fond of this proposal, from what I've been told by the WFJ. Here is a clip:
So there you have it. But that's not all. Here is an example of an already-good hip-hop song that was remixed by Pete Rock, a great producer, to make it even better. This is a song called "Jussummen" by Diggity-Das Efx. (We can only guess what's in that delicious-looking cone of paper.)
I never disappoint. So I'll share this video that I think is very insightful. I believe it's a clip from a documentary. It features Noam Chomsky and Peter Singer, two very intelligent men whom I respect a great deal. They are talking about abortion in this video, and I think they have some very important points that liberals and conservatives alike need to consider before going on about rights and whatnot. This clip is so insightful that I might break it down piece-by-piece in a later blog. You never know. Enjoy:
I love Bone Thugz-N-Harmony. So naturally I play this song on the first of the month. Need I say any more?
I've a habit of saying something that is somewhat of a conclusion after every post. This is my attempt at wrapping things up. Yeah. Hope you enjoyed these clips.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
