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:
Monday, March 29, 2010
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.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Big L - No Endz, No Skinz
A demotivator, textually represented:
demot.toString(all);
image: Girl flipping a hamburger
caption: A Whopper
caption2: Big L wouldn't give a chick ten cents to put cheese on one
demot.toString(all);
image: Girl flipping a hamburger
caption: A Whopper
caption2: Big L wouldn't give a chick ten cents to put cheese on one
Ludacris: You Went Pop
I really, really, really hate to bag on Ludacris. He's got ill rhymes and his first three or four albums were pretty good. And I feel like I'm stating the obvious when I say this, but Ludacris "went pop". I know that Luda has collaborated with other artists who may not be as talented as him, but the "Baby" music video where he appeared with Justin Bieber crossed the line for me as a hip-hop head and Ludacris fan. Though Ludacris' verse starts out interesting enough, it doesn't really say anything that hasn't been said. But honestly this is one of the worst music videos I've ever seen. It's so bad I don't want to even put it in the same category as other videos I examine by actually embedding it. Instead, I'm just going to link to it at the bottom.
I've actually watched the aforementioned video at least two times now, just to study what's wrong with it. I'm disappointed with the monotonous material in this video, not to mention the extreme dichotomization of gender that occurs throughout this clip. Why do the girls in this video (who are dressed in a slutty fashion which is really odd 'cuz they look like they're fifteen.) have to bowl separately from the boys, and then titter amongst themselves at what the guys do? For a self-proclaimed "old soul," Justin Bieber proves to think that this world is pretty superficial. Ultimately, I think that many of the scenes teach kids the wrong things about sex and relationships. For example, I don't agree with the way that Justin tries to restrain the girl in the video and prove his "cool kid" status. I'm wondering what a kid knows about relationships that most people don't know or couldn't figure out themselves. I'm digressing here, I think I might save this talk for another post.
P.S. Before you start telling me that I'm overreacting, please watch the video first and compare it to some of Luda's stuff from ten years ago.
Link
Just Ludacris' verse
I've actually watched the aforementioned video at least two times now, just to study what's wrong with it. I'm disappointed with the monotonous material in this video, not to mention the extreme dichotomization of gender that occurs throughout this clip. Why do the girls in this video (who are dressed in a slutty fashion which is really odd 'cuz they look like they're fifteen.) have to bowl separately from the boys, and then titter amongst themselves at what the guys do? For a self-proclaimed "old soul," Justin Bieber proves to think that this world is pretty superficial. Ultimately, I think that many of the scenes teach kids the wrong things about sex and relationships. For example, I don't agree with the way that Justin tries to restrain the girl in the video and prove his "cool kid" status. I'm wondering what a kid knows about relationships that most people don't know or couldn't figure out themselves. I'm digressing here, I think I might save this talk for another post.
P.S. Before you start telling me that I'm overreacting, please watch the video first and compare it to some of Luda's stuff from ten years ago.
Link
Just Ludacris' verse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
