Travesty in the Blind Media
Hurricaine Rita is cockblocking the largest anti-war protest DC has seen since the start of the war.
Bummer.
I guess God is pro-war.
Bummer.
Or maybe, just maybe, the mainstream media is owned entirely by a very small number of large corporations who are more interested in profit than what is good for America. Of course, holding such a position would require thinking and independent research on my part- so I'll just assume God is pro-war and go back to watching these idiot reporters trying to compare some uprooted trees to the destruction of an entire city.
It just makes sense.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Friday, September 23, 2005
Bush Drinking Again???
So it's one of those easy litmus test stories- the kind you immediately believe even though you know there's a 99.9% chance it isn't true- just becuase it fits so well with your already well established view of a person's character. It's like if you read a story that the Wizard of Oz Cheney drinks blood- you'd go "I knew he was a vampire" even though you know full well there's no such thing as vampires.
Then there's the source of the story (Read it here) It's the National Enquirer- not the place anyone should ever go for news- but then again- they're the ones who broke the Rush Limbaugh is a pillhead story- they seem to get the scoops when it comes to substance abuse.
So the yutz might be back on the sauce- I can say with total sincerity that I hope he isn't- for his sake- but more importantly for the rest of our sakes- the world is a trult freaky place right now and we can't afford for the Pres to not be paying attention- especially this Pres who has such a limited amount of attention to give in the first place. I keep thinking about the other day when he said "More better."
So it's one of those easy litmus test stories- the kind you immediately believe even though you know there's a 99.9% chance it isn't true- just becuase it fits so well with your already well established view of a person's character. It's like if you read a story that the Wizard of Oz Cheney drinks blood- you'd go "I knew he was a vampire" even though you know full well there's no such thing as vampires.
Then there's the source of the story (Read it here) It's the National Enquirer- not the place anyone should ever go for news- but then again- they're the ones who broke the Rush Limbaugh is a pillhead story- they seem to get the scoops when it comes to substance abuse.
So the yutz might be back on the sauce- I can say with total sincerity that I hope he isn't- for his sake- but more importantly for the rest of our sakes- the world is a trult freaky place right now and we can't afford for the Pres to not be paying attention- especially this Pres who has such a limited amount of attention to give in the first place. I keep thinking about the other day when he said "More better."
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Lost
I am a huge fan of this show (so far it's the best drama I've ever seen on TV- including HBO) and since my theories regarding what the hell is actually going on changes every few days and certainly every episode I thought I would try to get a snapshot of where I stand right now. Don't bother reading if you don't watch the show- it won't make much sense.
I used to be a big believer in the everyone's dead theory- but according to the message boards I've been perusing over the past few days this theory has been explicitly rejected by JJ Abrams the show's creator- so I won't explore it here even though I think it makes the most sense so far.
Forces at work-
The show seems most interested in opposites- most primarily the individual vs the group and science vs faith. Even though Jack (group/science) is the main character of the show, Locke (Individual/faith) is actually the show's center. Locke is active where Jack is passive- Locke acts while Jack waits. Locke thinks about his personal salvation as the path to the group's salvation- Jack thinks that he himself cannot be saved without acting to save the group.
So far everything that has happened on the show has been the playing out of these two opposing forces.
But things aren't so simple. Not at all.
There are also other pairings that are very interesting-
Sayid vs. Sawyer
We're not supposed to like Sawyer because he's comfortable with the fact that he's a bastard. Instead, we like Sayid- who's a bastard too- but one we feel sorry for because he's bothered by the fact that he's a bastard. Yet, if you think about these two the writers are really screwing with us... Sayid has tortured and killed a whole bunch of people (at least this is implied) while Sawyer has only killed one person that we know of and it was in an attempt at revenge that most people would understand- if not condone. But- we don't like Sawyer- why? I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Sawyer is very much in Locke's Individual camp and everyone that falls on this side of the coin is portrayed in cautious terms on the show.
There are others too- but being that I'm quickly realizing I could write a whole damn book on this subject I'm just going to switch directions and try to focus on...
WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON
The fact that nearly everyone's lives are interconnected together in one way or another in addition to Locke's insistence that the things that are happening are happening for a reason lead me to believe there is some force- whether supernatural or human- that has brought everyone together on the island. The sheer amount of coincidence we would have to swallow for there to be nothing supernatural going on makes me reject the idea that it is a human force organizing what is happening on the island. Particularly the vision Locke has of the plane and the completely accidental way they came across the hatch in the first place, and the presence on charlie's fingers of the tape with the word FATE- If we are told at any point that it's all a coincidence I will be very, very dissapointed- mostly in the writers for sheer laziness.
This is not to say that I think the whole island is magical, indeed at this point, I think the entire island was man made- probably during the 70's judging by the apparant age of the computer equipment found in the hatch. On the boards I've read an explanation that the entire island can be raised and lowered in the water- the more I think about it the more I think that's what's happening, at this point I would guess that the entire island was built as a place to experiment with different kinds of biological agents- the Others could be the the one's who were being experimented on back when the island was in use. They're immune but unable to reproduce- thus their keen interest in children. Only now I think the island is forgotten- Lost- if you will and there are other forces at work.
Still, this isn't exactly a satisfactory explanation becuase of the presence of the black rock- a ship that is clearly really old and somehow sitting in the middle of the place. Unless it used to be on the shore and the island was modified somehow to get it to go up and down- but that's pretty clumbsy. Or maybe the Black rock is the source of the disease that is being studied- the word "Quarantine," the French chics explanations about how her crew died, and the fact that Desmond gives himself an injection of some kind makes it fairly incontravertable that a disease is at play somewhere.
So what about the monsters? First, I think there are different kinds- some biological and some mechanical. The thing that grabs Locke in the Season 1 finale certainly sounded mechanical. But when Locke talks to Kate about it he says it looks like black smoke. The same balck smoke that marks the coming of the Others? I don't know. Then there's the pteradactyl (I can't spell dinosaur names) that probably killed the pilot in the pilot. Then there's whatever monster can make whole rows of trees bend- what the French chic called "the security system."
Oh, and to confuse matters worse- on the official website there is a hidden page that has a "lost" page from the Season 2 pilot where Jack gets tackled- by Jack.
Speaking of the Others- there are a few things to ponder about them. First- they have access to guns and gasoline- and boats- so I have a hard time believing that they're forced to stay on the island- if they are there they are there for a reason...
Okay enough already, I could write for hours about this- I suppose I should just break down and just start posting on the message boards.
I am a huge fan of this show (so far it's the best drama I've ever seen on TV- including HBO) and since my theories regarding what the hell is actually going on changes every few days and certainly every episode I thought I would try to get a snapshot of where I stand right now. Don't bother reading if you don't watch the show- it won't make much sense.
I used to be a big believer in the everyone's dead theory- but according to the message boards I've been perusing over the past few days this theory has been explicitly rejected by JJ Abrams the show's creator- so I won't explore it here even though I think it makes the most sense so far.
Forces at work-
The show seems most interested in opposites- most primarily the individual vs the group and science vs faith. Even though Jack (group/science) is the main character of the show, Locke (Individual/faith) is actually the show's center. Locke is active where Jack is passive- Locke acts while Jack waits. Locke thinks about his personal salvation as the path to the group's salvation- Jack thinks that he himself cannot be saved without acting to save the group.
So far everything that has happened on the show has been the playing out of these two opposing forces.
But things aren't so simple. Not at all.
There are also other pairings that are very interesting-
Sayid vs. Sawyer
We're not supposed to like Sawyer because he's comfortable with the fact that he's a bastard. Instead, we like Sayid- who's a bastard too- but one we feel sorry for because he's bothered by the fact that he's a bastard. Yet, if you think about these two the writers are really screwing with us... Sayid has tortured and killed a whole bunch of people (at least this is implied) while Sawyer has only killed one person that we know of and it was in an attempt at revenge that most people would understand- if not condone. But- we don't like Sawyer- why? I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Sawyer is very much in Locke's Individual camp and everyone that falls on this side of the coin is portrayed in cautious terms on the show.
There are others too- but being that I'm quickly realizing I could write a whole damn book on this subject I'm just going to switch directions and try to focus on...
WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON
The fact that nearly everyone's lives are interconnected together in one way or another in addition to Locke's insistence that the things that are happening are happening for a reason lead me to believe there is some force- whether supernatural or human- that has brought everyone together on the island. The sheer amount of coincidence we would have to swallow for there to be nothing supernatural going on makes me reject the idea that it is a human force organizing what is happening on the island. Particularly the vision Locke has of the plane and the completely accidental way they came across the hatch in the first place, and the presence on charlie's fingers of the tape with the word FATE- If we are told at any point that it's all a coincidence I will be very, very dissapointed- mostly in the writers for sheer laziness.
This is not to say that I think the whole island is magical, indeed at this point, I think the entire island was man made- probably during the 70's judging by the apparant age of the computer equipment found in the hatch. On the boards I've read an explanation that the entire island can be raised and lowered in the water- the more I think about it the more I think that's what's happening, at this point I would guess that the entire island was built as a place to experiment with different kinds of biological agents- the Others could be the the one's who were being experimented on back when the island was in use. They're immune but unable to reproduce- thus their keen interest in children. Only now I think the island is forgotten- Lost- if you will and there are other forces at work.
Still, this isn't exactly a satisfactory explanation becuase of the presence of the black rock- a ship that is clearly really old and somehow sitting in the middle of the place. Unless it used to be on the shore and the island was modified somehow to get it to go up and down- but that's pretty clumbsy. Or maybe the Black rock is the source of the disease that is being studied- the word "Quarantine," the French chics explanations about how her crew died, and the fact that Desmond gives himself an injection of some kind makes it fairly incontravertable that a disease is at play somewhere.
So what about the monsters? First, I think there are different kinds- some biological and some mechanical. The thing that grabs Locke in the Season 1 finale certainly sounded mechanical. But when Locke talks to Kate about it he says it looks like black smoke. The same balck smoke that marks the coming of the Others? I don't know. Then there's the pteradactyl (I can't spell dinosaur names) that probably killed the pilot in the pilot. Then there's whatever monster can make whole rows of trees bend- what the French chic called "the security system."
Oh, and to confuse matters worse- on the official website there is a hidden page that has a "lost" page from the Season 2 pilot where Jack gets tackled- by Jack.
Speaking of the Others- there are a few things to ponder about them. First- they have access to guns and gasoline- and boats- so I have a hard time believing that they're forced to stay on the island- if they are there they are there for a reason...
Okay enough already, I could write for hours about this- I suppose I should just break down and just start posting on the message boards.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
The Exorcism of Emily Rose and the New Religious Propaganda
<>
You can see the trailer here.
The New York Times reviewer of the film “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” hits the nail right on the head when he calls the movie propaganda disguised as entertainment. It seems the marketing people have finally woken up to the buckets of money represented by the “Fundamentalist Market” best embodied by Ned Flanders on the Simpsons. And judging from the fact the movie made 30 million in its first week and the early Sunday matinee I saw was half full- it’s working. But that’s not the whole story to what’s going on with this movie- there’s also a distinct element of proselytizing going on.
Let’s examine this phenomenon.
First, take the commercials. They implement the tried and true “Based on a True Story” (BOATS) maneuver, except in a new way. Instead of attempting to add a dubious realism to an otherwise badly made horror movie, like Poltergeist or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre; the BOATS in this case is used as code, telling the fundamentalists in the TV audience that this is a friendly movie.
Paranoid you say? Not when one takes BOATS in conjunction with the line in the commercial where a man says “I can’t help her. There’s no injection against the devil.”
Taken together with BOATS the marketing people for this movie are sending a clear message- this movie is taking the position that exorcism is true- that God is a fact and so if you are a fundamentalist come and get it!
Which is essentially true- that’s exactly what this movie is. Rent the movie sometime. (I cannot in good faith reccomend you actually go see it at the theatre) Notice that the prosecutor has a Hitler mustache. Notice that the entire story is told from the defendant’s point of view with literally no humanizing elements. And pay extra special attention to the final speech of the film. If you still disagree- I don’t know what else to tell you.
The second tier of the marketing campaign infuriates me instead of making me uncomfortable the way the BOATS stuff does. There’s certainly nothing wrong with getting a film to its core audience- even if they’re using code. The trailer uses every CG effect in the entire film- those distorted demon faces. This is the second head of teenage based religious propaganda- “Trick Them Into Thinking They’re Going to See Something Entertaining.” It is something that’s been growing like wild in the music world with heavy metal Bible Thumpers and Gangsta rappers for Jesus.
If you’re 15 and you watch the trailer, the movie looks like a generic horror film. This is where the true synergy comes in- teenagers are both the ones with the most disposable cash- and they also just happen to be at the age where they are deciding for themselves what their religious convictions are going to be.
So the fundamentalist right gets together with the corporate marketing whores to trick kids into going to the theatre with a multimillion dollar ad campaign. Kids think they’re going to see another variation on “The House of Wax” and what they actually get is religious propaganda that ultimately revolves around one central premise- no matter what “scientists” say- demons are real. Possession is real. Satan, the horny red devil- is real.
And only Jesus can keep us safe. Indeed, medicine will actually make you sicker.
Problem is, the only real evil involved in this whole story are those who use people’s fear and gullibility to relieve them of their hard earned money and purposely design ad campaigns to draw in kids- and then give them a double switch. The worst part is it wouldn’t surprise me one bit to learn people who put together the advertising for this movie are atheist anarchists. For the marketing folks- this whole thing is simply about money. It’s disgusting and cynical in the most corrosive way- and I’m normally no detractor of cynicism.
You can choose to pretend that the election of Bush and the rise of John Roberts to the Supreme Court aren’t connected to the release of this movie and the way that it’s being marketed- but if you do- you’re as deluded as the people sitting in front of me in the theatre who cross themselves every time the dark cloaked demon popped up on the screen. We are moving towards a world where religious myth is seen as being on par with science. It’s happened before- we call it the Dark Ages.
Oh, and as a horror movie- it’s a big sucko stinkhole car crash.
<
You can see the trailer here.
The New York Times reviewer of the film “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” hits the nail right on the head when he calls the movie propaganda disguised as entertainment. It seems the marketing people have finally woken up to the buckets of money represented by the “Fundamentalist Market” best embodied by Ned Flanders on the Simpsons. And judging from the fact the movie made 30 million in its first week and the early Sunday matinee I saw was half full- it’s working. But that’s not the whole story to what’s going on with this movie- there’s also a distinct element of proselytizing going on.
Let’s examine this phenomenon.
First, take the commercials. They implement the tried and true “Based on a True Story” (BOATS) maneuver, except in a new way. Instead of attempting to add a dubious realism to an otherwise badly made horror movie, like Poltergeist or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre; the BOATS in this case is used as code, telling the fundamentalists in the TV audience that this is a friendly movie.
Paranoid you say? Not when one takes BOATS in conjunction with the line in the commercial where a man says “I can’t help her. There’s no injection against the devil.”
Taken together with BOATS the marketing people for this movie are sending a clear message- this movie is taking the position that exorcism is true- that God is a fact and so if you are a fundamentalist come and get it!
Which is essentially true- that’s exactly what this movie is. Rent the movie sometime. (I cannot in good faith reccomend you actually go see it at the theatre) Notice that the prosecutor has a Hitler mustache. Notice that the entire story is told from the defendant’s point of view with literally no humanizing elements. And pay extra special attention to the final speech of the film. If you still disagree- I don’t know what else to tell you.
The second tier of the marketing campaign infuriates me instead of making me uncomfortable the way the BOATS stuff does. There’s certainly nothing wrong with getting a film to its core audience- even if they’re using code. The trailer uses every CG effect in the entire film- those distorted demon faces. This is the second head of teenage based religious propaganda- “Trick Them Into Thinking They’re Going to See Something Entertaining.” It is something that’s been growing like wild in the music world with heavy metal Bible Thumpers and Gangsta rappers for Jesus.
If you’re 15 and you watch the trailer, the movie looks like a generic horror film. This is where the true synergy comes in- teenagers are both the ones with the most disposable cash- and they also just happen to be at the age where they are deciding for themselves what their religious convictions are going to be.
So the fundamentalist right gets together with the corporate marketing whores to trick kids into going to the theatre with a multimillion dollar ad campaign. Kids think they’re going to see another variation on “The House of Wax” and what they actually get is religious propaganda that ultimately revolves around one central premise- no matter what “scientists” say- demons are real. Possession is real. Satan, the horny red devil- is real.
And only Jesus can keep us safe. Indeed, medicine will actually make you sicker.
Problem is, the only real evil involved in this whole story are those who use people’s fear and gullibility to relieve them of their hard earned money and purposely design ad campaigns to draw in kids- and then give them a double switch. The worst part is it wouldn’t surprise me one bit to learn people who put together the advertising for this movie are atheist anarchists. For the marketing folks- this whole thing is simply about money. It’s disgusting and cynical in the most corrosive way- and I’m normally no detractor of cynicism.
You can choose to pretend that the election of Bush and the rise of John Roberts to the Supreme Court aren’t connected to the release of this movie and the way that it’s being marketed- but if you do- you’re as deluded as the people sitting in front of me in the theatre who cross themselves every time the dark cloaked demon popped up on the screen. We are moving towards a world where religious myth is seen as being on par with science. It’s happened before- we call it the Dark Ages.
Oh, and as a horror movie- it’s a big sucko stinkhole car crash.
Monday, September 19, 2005
The Mother of All Rip-Offs
More than ONE BILLION DOLLARS- 1,000,000,000 Has been stolen from Iraq. (It could end up being nearly 2)
Read the whole story HERE.
The snivelling dunce will somehow deny responsibility- but this stuff happened when US appointed people were in charge. Every time you think they've sucked things up over there as badly as they could possibly be sucked up- we find out something worse. Some critics are calling it the single largest theft in human history.
If you voted for Bush in 2004 you really are an idiot. Seriously.
More than ONE BILLION DOLLARS- 1,000,000,000 Has been stolen from Iraq. (It could end up being nearly 2)
Read the whole story HERE.
The snivelling dunce will somehow deny responsibility- but this stuff happened when US appointed people were in charge. Every time you think they've sucked things up over there as badly as they could possibly be sucked up- we find out something worse. Some critics are calling it the single largest theft in human history.
If you voted for Bush in 2004 you really are an idiot. Seriously.
Friday, September 16, 2005
The Day the Lights Came On in New Orleans (For a little while anyway)
OR
The Continuing Presidential Screwjob
Brian Williams via Atios:
I am duty-bound to report the talk of the New Orleans warehouse district last night: there was rejoicing (well, there would have been without the curfew, but the few people I saw on the streets were excited) when the power came back on for blocks on end. Kevin Tibbles was positively jubilant on the live update edition of Nightly News that we fed to the West Coast. The mini-mart, long ago cleaned out by looters, was nonetheless bathed in light, including the empty, roped-off gas pumps. The motorcade route through the district was partially lit no more than 30 minutes before POTUS drove through. And yet last night, no more than an hour after the President departed, the lights went out. The entire area was plunged into total darkness again, to audible groans. It's enough to make some of the folks here who witnessed it... jump to certain conclusions.
OR
The Continuing Presidential Screwjob
Brian Williams via Atios:
I am duty-bound to report the talk of the New Orleans warehouse district last night: there was rejoicing (well, there would have been without the curfew, but the few people I saw on the streets were excited) when the power came back on for blocks on end. Kevin Tibbles was positively jubilant on the live update edition of Nightly News that we fed to the West Coast. The mini-mart, long ago cleaned out by looters, was nonetheless bathed in light, including the empty, roped-off gas pumps. The motorcade route through the district was partially lit no more than 30 minutes before POTUS drove through. And yet last night, no more than an hour after the President departed, the lights went out. The entire area was plunged into total darkness again, to audible groans. It's enough to make some of the folks here who witnessed it... jump to certain conclusions.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA
This is a photo of a note from Pigvomit to Condi I used to have an oil tanker named after me Rice.
I don't know if this is fake, but there's a link to Yahoo/Reuters with the photo HERE.
Notice the question mark. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This is a photo of a note from Pigvomit to Condi I used to have an oil tanker named after me Rice.
I don't know if this is fake, but there's a link to Yahoo/Reuters with the photo HERE.
Notice the question mark. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility,"
For the 1st time EVER.
Notice he's still hedging- "didn't FULLY do its job..." More like didn't EVEN SORTA do its job.
Also, if you can see some video of Peckerhead's admission, he looks like a little kid being forced to apologize by his Mommy- which in this case is probably Rove the Assmonkey.
Now all he has to do is resign.
Hope hope hope.
For the 1st time EVER.
Notice he's still hedging- "didn't FULLY do its job..." More like didn't EVEN SORTA do its job.
Also, if you can see some video of Peckerhead's admission, he looks like a little kid being forced to apologize by his Mommy- which in this case is probably Rove the Assmonkey.
Now all he has to do is resign.
Hope hope hope.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Lying Liars and the Lies They Lie
There are 2 places everyone should visit.
First, go HERE to read about how the shitheads tried to manipulate the press regarding the hurricaine and most disgustingly- the way they were trying to manipulate fire-fighters who were supposed to be dispatched to fight the fires that cropped up throughout the city.
Then, go HERE to listen to the Hurricaine Katrina episode of my favorit radio show This American Life. (The episode in question is called "After the Flood") You will hear first hand accounts of how the cops and soldiers were firing weapons at people to prevent them from crossing bridges out of New Orleans. They weren't helping anyone that was suffering, they were shooting at them and stopping them from leaving. Remember these stories the next time some asshole tells you that "they should've just left."
There are 2 places everyone should visit.
First, go HERE to read about how the shitheads tried to manipulate the press regarding the hurricaine and most disgustingly- the way they were trying to manipulate fire-fighters who were supposed to be dispatched to fight the fires that cropped up throughout the city.
Then, go HERE to listen to the Hurricaine Katrina episode of my favorit radio show This American Life. (The episode in question is called "After the Flood") You will hear first hand accounts of how the cops and soldiers were firing weapons at people to prevent them from crossing bridges out of New Orleans. They weren't helping anyone that was suffering, they were shooting at them and stopping them from leaving. Remember these stories the next time some asshole tells you that "they should've just left."
Saturday, September 10, 2005
"One way or another- this darkness got to give"
-----Grateful Dead
Going to try to start posting again. There's so much that's happened, I feel like I'm fuckin up.
Frankly every time I think about doing this I've just kind of been overwhelmed into silence. All I can do at this point is write some snarky know-it-all bullshit without any evidence or even reasoning- at this point I can't write reasonably- if you are a person so fucking stupid that you don't see how bad things are- you're a fuckwit and I don't like you anyway.
Here's some things I know.
Georgie Boy is responsible for what happened in New Orleans. Not the storm, but what happened, (or didn't) afterwards. N.O. was my favorite American city and now it'll never be the same again- oh and it laid bare the racist /classist/nauseating underbelly of the cancer in the American soul.
Rove won't go to jail for his role in outing Valerie Plame and our stupid ass media has completely forgotten the story- morons morons morons morons.
We've lost the Iraq War- in case you're not paying attention.
The last five years are going to be looked back on as one of the lowest points in American history- mainly becuase we keeping screwing up and WE AREN'T LEARNING ANYTHING.
There is the slimmest of slim chances that what happened with the hurricaine will wake the American people out of their fear centered terror party and realize there are real things to be afraid of- the suffering of the people around them- but I seriously doubt it.
On a personal note.
I got married back on June 25 to the newly dubbed Victoria Hrdina (she's taken my atrocious name without a hyphen.) She is, as far as I'm concerned, the most wonderful woman alive. (Well duh- I married her didn't I?)
I'm gonna have my sixth novel done by Christmas- I'm really excited about this one.
I think Lost is one of the best shows that's ever been on TV.
-----Grateful Dead
Going to try to start posting again. There's so much that's happened, I feel like I'm fuckin up.
Frankly every time I think about doing this I've just kind of been overwhelmed into silence. All I can do at this point is write some snarky know-it-all bullshit without any evidence or even reasoning- at this point I can't write reasonably- if you are a person so fucking stupid that you don't see how bad things are- you're a fuckwit and I don't like you anyway.
Here's some things I know.
Georgie Boy is responsible for what happened in New Orleans. Not the storm, but what happened, (or didn't) afterwards. N.O. was my favorite American city and now it'll never be the same again- oh and it laid bare the racist /classist/nauseating underbelly of the cancer in the American soul.
Rove won't go to jail for his role in outing Valerie Plame and our stupid ass media has completely forgotten the story- morons morons morons morons.
We've lost the Iraq War- in case you're not paying attention.
The last five years are going to be looked back on as one of the lowest points in American history- mainly becuase we keeping screwing up and WE AREN'T LEARNING ANYTHING.
There is the slimmest of slim chances that what happened with the hurricaine will wake the American people out of their fear centered terror party and realize there are real things to be afraid of- the suffering of the people around them- but I seriously doubt it.
On a personal note.
I got married back on June 25 to the newly dubbed Victoria Hrdina (she's taken my atrocious name without a hyphen.) She is, as far as I'm concerned, the most wonderful woman alive. (Well duh- I married her didn't I?)
I'm gonna have my sixth novel done by Christmas- I'm really excited about this one.
I think Lost is one of the best shows that's ever been on TV.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
William Hrdina
Final Exam
This was my final exam for my Polysci class. I am so enamored of my answers to these questions I had to put them up.
Essay Questions
1. Outline and explain Max Weber’s Ideal bureaucracy.
1) One of my favorite oxymorons of all time is the phrase “Ideal Bureaucracy.” It’s not as good as “Intelligence Services”, but it’s close. Even the spelling of the word bureaucracy is an atrocity of language. A better term might be, Oh God I’ve been in the DMV for three hours.
Weber’s ideal bureaucracy comes from law as opposed to from God (in the form of some charismatic guy or gal who says they’ve got God’s ear) or a King. Being based on law gives Weber’s bureaucracy a consistency you don’t find in a charismatic leader or a line of Kings.
The hallmark of this is where one’s loyalties lie. In the ideal bureaucracy your loyalty is to the institution, not to the individuals that make up the institution. This way, if the charismatic leader dies or the King goes berserk, the structure of society and the way it is run remains intact. It also creates a “schema” where our courts have become so enamored of our institutions that they’ve convinced themselves corporations have individual rights and existences outside of the people making them up.
Another characteristic of this ideal bureaucracy is a stable salaried career. A paycheck. A new idea during Weber’s time, the salaried career was immediately identified as a good way of creating institutional stability.
Because bureaucracies are by their very nature immense things, Weber recognized that it would be necessary to specialize, creating niches of intelligence that work together through the policies and procedures of the institution creating a whole made up of many different individuals. This too has upsides and downsides. On the upside we can bore deeply into a thing and learn all about it’s parts. On the downside, by specializing to such a high degree people also become stupid about everything except the one thing they know all about. It also leads to a kind of metaphysical naval gazing that allows for things like what we saw in the Pentagon movie about the Bradley.
Finally, the bureaucracy’s rules have to be written down so that loopholes can be found. Oh wait, no. I meant that Weber says you write down the rules because it creates consistency. Which it does. Only it’s a rigid, stupid consistency massively lacking in common sense. “It’s not my fault, it clearly says here in paragraph 3; section 9, that I’m allowed to steal your sandwich at lunch.
2. According to Patterson, (in his book about politics and the media called "Out of Order") why is the news media not the appropriate organization to organize campaigns (e.g., be the coalition builders between candidates and voters)?
2) First and foremost because of the reasons given in answer 4; but also because the traditional role of the press is as a watchdog over the government. This is where the nickname the “4th branch of government” comes from. “The critical task of the watchdog is not to be confused with the constructive task of the coalition-builder.” Patterson argues the media had the role of coalition-builder forced up on it and because of the necessity of being a watchdog and a coalition builder, fails at both.
p. 52 puts it succinctly
A) Journalistic values and political values are at odds.
B) Journalistic values, introduce an element of random partisanship which works to the advantage of one side or another.
C) Election news serves to drive a wedge between voters and candidates.
3. Patterson argues that political parties use to be the coalition builders and now we (society) ask the news media to play this role. What, according to Patterson, brought about this change?
3) Patterson blames the foisting of elections away from parties and onto the media on the Reform Democrats of the early 70’s. They wanted a system where “the rank and file voters would be the kingmakers.” (p.33) This was opposed to the old system where the party bosses picked the candidates. Now, all the candidates would be running against one another in a free for all and it would be up to the voters to choose the candidates. Patterson argues that it became necessary for the press to step in to magnify the exposure of the candidates in order that the public learn about them.
This is inherently problematic. The press isn’t necessarily interested in politics. It certainly isn’t their reason for the press’s existence. The media is mostly about entertainment. Patterson puts it, “The party has the incentive- the possibility of acquiring political power- to give order and voice to society’s values. Its raison d’ etre is to articulate interests and to forge them into a winning coalition. The press has no such incentive and no such purpose” (P.37). I find this is questionable. I would argue the hard right attitudes of many of the hyper-rich media moguls are indeed about forging the masses of people into coalitions in political support of whatever millionaire is most looking out for their interests.
4. Define schema and then explain and discuss the two types of schemas Patterson presented in Chapter 2.
4) “A schema is a cognitive structure that a person uses when processing new information and retrieving old information. It is a mental framework the individual constructs from past experiences that helps make sense of a new situation.” In other words, a schema is the particular bias structure of an individual. It is the lens through which a reporter reports the news.
Patterson’s 2 conflict schemas:
1) Governing vs. Game
According to Patterson, governing is boring and not particularly interesting as news. Thus, the media has increasingly over time come to view election campaigns as games. The focus of media coverage is about the tactics and positions of different candidates in the “horse race” as opposed to their positions on issues. Everything they do is seen as being done as a maneuver within the game called, “Become the most powerful person on earth.”
Where I think Patterson is wrong is that those who govern no longer see the act of governing as different from the Game the reporters are covering. I understand his point, that the things you want to do to govern, change social security, etc. are not supposed to be directly linked to where a candidate stands on an issue. Patterson sees a disconnect between these things. Only I don’t think there is a disconnect anymore, even if there was one once. Lee Atwater changed governing into a game and it has been ever since. Checkmate on Dukakis was Willie Horton and that ridiculous picture of him in the tank wearing an oversized helmet. He looked like a total jackass. The last 4 Presidents have been all about whose political spin genius was better at transforming politics into a game. You win if you manipulate the media into portraying your image in the way you want to be portrayed. This image is politics now. The actual positions of politicians have no necessary relation to actual policy goals. All that matters is what we think the politician stands for. Atwater did this for Reagan and Bush I, Carville did it for Clinton, and Rove, the biggest evil genius of them all, tells Bush II when he’s allowed to sneeze.
Because of the standardized nature of stump speeches the media will focus on a gaff or the candidates overall position in the field instead of reporting that Bush once again told the crowd he was a uniter not a divider.
2) Reporters vs. voters
I agree with Patterson on this second point. The interests of the reporters (as defined by their view of the campaign as a game) have little to no relation to what the voters actually need. I think far too few voters have any real interest in the issues, they mostly want gossip and rumors, but what they need is information on the issues, whether they think it’s interesting or not.
Focusing on whether or not a candidate is winning or losing does nothing to forward our knowledge about what they will do in office. It also makes it difficult for candidates who lack the “sexy” quality the media is looking for to get any traction, which means the voters never get to find out their names, let alone their positions on issues. Dennis Kucinich vs. Al Sharpton is a perfect example. Al Sharpton got media attention because he’s charismatic and controversial, yet they ignored his progressive agenda on rebuilding US infrastructure because it wasn’t interesting. Dennis Kucinich, in my opinion the Democrat’s best candidate and the only guy who was openly and completely against the Gulf War disaster never got any attention at all from the media. Sharpton and Kucinich had very similar support numbers in the polls, but Sharpton got all the ink. (Don’t get me wrong, even Al’s ink paled in comparison to Bush’s because Bush had all of the money in 2000, and therefore was immediately the guy to beat no matter how many people voted for him in the early primaries, not even being VP trumped Bush’s War Chest.) The result being we elected the dumbest man ever to sit in the White House.
Twice.
Final Exam
This was my final exam for my Polysci class. I am so enamored of my answers to these questions I had to put them up.
Essay Questions
1. Outline and explain Max Weber’s Ideal bureaucracy.
1) One of my favorite oxymorons of all time is the phrase “Ideal Bureaucracy.” It’s not as good as “Intelligence Services”, but it’s close. Even the spelling of the word bureaucracy is an atrocity of language. A better term might be, Oh God I’ve been in the DMV for three hours.
Weber’s ideal bureaucracy comes from law as opposed to from God (in the form of some charismatic guy or gal who says they’ve got God’s ear) or a King. Being based on law gives Weber’s bureaucracy a consistency you don’t find in a charismatic leader or a line of Kings.
The hallmark of this is where one’s loyalties lie. In the ideal bureaucracy your loyalty is to the institution, not to the individuals that make up the institution. This way, if the charismatic leader dies or the King goes berserk, the structure of society and the way it is run remains intact. It also creates a “schema” where our courts have become so enamored of our institutions that they’ve convinced themselves corporations have individual rights and existences outside of the people making them up.
Another characteristic of this ideal bureaucracy is a stable salaried career. A paycheck. A new idea during Weber’s time, the salaried career was immediately identified as a good way of creating institutional stability.
Because bureaucracies are by their very nature immense things, Weber recognized that it would be necessary to specialize, creating niches of intelligence that work together through the policies and procedures of the institution creating a whole made up of many different individuals. This too has upsides and downsides. On the upside we can bore deeply into a thing and learn all about it’s parts. On the downside, by specializing to such a high degree people also become stupid about everything except the one thing they know all about. It also leads to a kind of metaphysical naval gazing that allows for things like what we saw in the Pentagon movie about the Bradley.
Finally, the bureaucracy’s rules have to be written down so that loopholes can be found. Oh wait, no. I meant that Weber says you write down the rules because it creates consistency. Which it does. Only it’s a rigid, stupid consistency massively lacking in common sense. “It’s not my fault, it clearly says here in paragraph 3; section 9, that I’m allowed to steal your sandwich at lunch.
2. According to Patterson, (in his book about politics and the media called "Out of Order") why is the news media not the appropriate organization to organize campaigns (e.g., be the coalition builders between candidates and voters)?
2) First and foremost because of the reasons given in answer 4; but also because the traditional role of the press is as a watchdog over the government. This is where the nickname the “4th branch of government” comes from. “The critical task of the watchdog is not to be confused with the constructive task of the coalition-builder.” Patterson argues the media had the role of coalition-builder forced up on it and because of the necessity of being a watchdog and a coalition builder, fails at both.
p. 52 puts it succinctly
A) Journalistic values and political values are at odds.
B) Journalistic values, introduce an element of random partisanship which works to the advantage of one side or another.
C) Election news serves to drive a wedge between voters and candidates.
3. Patterson argues that political parties use to be the coalition builders and now we (society) ask the news media to play this role. What, according to Patterson, brought about this change?
3) Patterson blames the foisting of elections away from parties and onto the media on the Reform Democrats of the early 70’s. They wanted a system where “the rank and file voters would be the kingmakers.” (p.33) This was opposed to the old system where the party bosses picked the candidates. Now, all the candidates would be running against one another in a free for all and it would be up to the voters to choose the candidates. Patterson argues that it became necessary for the press to step in to magnify the exposure of the candidates in order that the public learn about them.
This is inherently problematic. The press isn’t necessarily interested in politics. It certainly isn’t their reason for the press’s existence. The media is mostly about entertainment. Patterson puts it, “The party has the incentive- the possibility of acquiring political power- to give order and voice to society’s values. Its raison d’ etre is to articulate interests and to forge them into a winning coalition. The press has no such incentive and no such purpose” (P.37). I find this is questionable. I would argue the hard right attitudes of many of the hyper-rich media moguls are indeed about forging the masses of people into coalitions in political support of whatever millionaire is most looking out for their interests.
4. Define schema and then explain and discuss the two types of schemas Patterson presented in Chapter 2.
4) “A schema is a cognitive structure that a person uses when processing new information and retrieving old information. It is a mental framework the individual constructs from past experiences that helps make sense of a new situation.” In other words, a schema is the particular bias structure of an individual. It is the lens through which a reporter reports the news.
Patterson’s 2 conflict schemas:
1) Governing vs. Game
According to Patterson, governing is boring and not particularly interesting as news. Thus, the media has increasingly over time come to view election campaigns as games. The focus of media coverage is about the tactics and positions of different candidates in the “horse race” as opposed to their positions on issues. Everything they do is seen as being done as a maneuver within the game called, “Become the most powerful person on earth.”
Where I think Patterson is wrong is that those who govern no longer see the act of governing as different from the Game the reporters are covering. I understand his point, that the things you want to do to govern, change social security, etc. are not supposed to be directly linked to where a candidate stands on an issue. Patterson sees a disconnect between these things. Only I don’t think there is a disconnect anymore, even if there was one once. Lee Atwater changed governing into a game and it has been ever since. Checkmate on Dukakis was Willie Horton and that ridiculous picture of him in the tank wearing an oversized helmet. He looked like a total jackass. The last 4 Presidents have been all about whose political spin genius was better at transforming politics into a game. You win if you manipulate the media into portraying your image in the way you want to be portrayed. This image is politics now. The actual positions of politicians have no necessary relation to actual policy goals. All that matters is what we think the politician stands for. Atwater did this for Reagan and Bush I, Carville did it for Clinton, and Rove, the biggest evil genius of them all, tells Bush II when he’s allowed to sneeze.
Because of the standardized nature of stump speeches the media will focus on a gaff or the candidates overall position in the field instead of reporting that Bush once again told the crowd he was a uniter not a divider.
2) Reporters vs. voters
I agree with Patterson on this second point. The interests of the reporters (as defined by their view of the campaign as a game) have little to no relation to what the voters actually need. I think far too few voters have any real interest in the issues, they mostly want gossip and rumors, but what they need is information on the issues, whether they think it’s interesting or not.
Focusing on whether or not a candidate is winning or losing does nothing to forward our knowledge about what they will do in office. It also makes it difficult for candidates who lack the “sexy” quality the media is looking for to get any traction, which means the voters never get to find out their names, let alone their positions on issues. Dennis Kucinich vs. Al Sharpton is a perfect example. Al Sharpton got media attention because he’s charismatic and controversial, yet they ignored his progressive agenda on rebuilding US infrastructure because it wasn’t interesting. Dennis Kucinich, in my opinion the Democrat’s best candidate and the only guy who was openly and completely against the Gulf War disaster never got any attention at all from the media. Sharpton and Kucinich had very similar support numbers in the polls, but Sharpton got all the ink. (Don’t get me wrong, even Al’s ink paled in comparison to Bush’s because Bush had all of the money in 2000, and therefore was immediately the guy to beat no matter how many people voted for him in the early primaries, not even being VP trumped Bush’s War Chest.) The result being we elected the dumbest man ever to sit in the White House.
Twice.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
24 and torture
I want to say right out front that I watch 24, I've seen every episode of every season and I think it's a good show- exciting, interesting plot twists etc. But, this season the shows already fascist-tending politics have really gone into hyper-overdrive to a degree that very nearly has me ready to stop watching. Especially regarding one single issue- TORTURE.
I mean everybody's getting some this year. The Defense Secretary's son, women, men, Jack's girlfriends husband, CTU employees, it's like torture-fest 2005.
By this point in the season the message the show is trying to send to viewers is crystal clear. Sometimes (especially with terrorists) you need information in a timely manner so sometimes you have to torture the person to get the information quickly. On the show everyone who knows something tells- all that is necessary is an electrical cord to the chest. The one woman who was innocently tortured holds out until the mistake is discovered and she goes back to work once the torture is finished.
THe thing is- the entire idea is just innaccurate. When you're being tortured you'll say anything, it doesn't have to be the truth, it just has to be whatever will get you to stop sticking the taser against my neck and pressing the button.
Taken by itself you could say that 24's use of torture is just a plot device gone mad, but taken in combination with the Muslim Father who will kill his entire family for the cause it's clear there's an agenda being braodcast here. One that Paul Wolfawitz would like. I keep waiting for the patented 24 twist to recast what's come before- but still, I think whatever gestures the show makes will probably be too little too late. At this point I'm watching as much to boggle at the lengths fiction has to go to justify what our country is doing in real life as anything else.
I want to say right out front that I watch 24, I've seen every episode of every season and I think it's a good show- exciting, interesting plot twists etc. But, this season the shows already fascist-tending politics have really gone into hyper-overdrive to a degree that very nearly has me ready to stop watching. Especially regarding one single issue- TORTURE.
I mean everybody's getting some this year. The Defense Secretary's son, women, men, Jack's girlfriends husband, CTU employees, it's like torture-fest 2005.
By this point in the season the message the show is trying to send to viewers is crystal clear. Sometimes (especially with terrorists) you need information in a timely manner so sometimes you have to torture the person to get the information quickly. On the show everyone who knows something tells- all that is necessary is an electrical cord to the chest. The one woman who was innocently tortured holds out until the mistake is discovered and she goes back to work once the torture is finished.
THe thing is- the entire idea is just innaccurate. When you're being tortured you'll say anything, it doesn't have to be the truth, it just has to be whatever will get you to stop sticking the taser against my neck and pressing the button.
Taken by itself you could say that 24's use of torture is just a plot device gone mad, but taken in combination with the Muslim Father who will kill his entire family for the cause it's clear there's an agenda being braodcast here. One that Paul Wolfawitz would like. I keep waiting for the patented 24 twist to recast what's come before- but still, I think whatever gestures the show makes will probably be too little too late. At this point I'm watching as much to boggle at the lengths fiction has to go to justify what our country is doing in real life as anything else.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Keller Williams Rules
On a musical note, I went and saw Keller Williams last night in Indianapolis. I've seen him quite a number of times (I think around a dozen now) but GODDAMN last night's second set was one of the most high energy kick-ass shows I've seen in years. He's absolutely on fire. Run don't walk to Ticketmaster and see him!!
For those that don't know, Keller is ONE guy who sings and plays bass, piano, tubes, theramin, drums and the fucking best guitar you've ever heard. He uses live looping to layer all of the above into a groove while soloing over the top on geetar. What can you say about a guy who plays original as well as covers Phish, the Bee-Gees, the Dead, Talking Heads and closes with a sing along a cappella version of Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. And that was just during the second set.
On a musical note, I went and saw Keller Williams last night in Indianapolis. I've seen him quite a number of times (I think around a dozen now) but GODDAMN last night's second set was one of the most high energy kick-ass shows I've seen in years. He's absolutely on fire. Run don't walk to Ticketmaster and see him!!
For those that don't know, Keller is ONE guy who sings and plays bass, piano, tubes, theramin, drums and the fucking best guitar you've ever heard. He uses live looping to layer all of the above into a groove while soloing over the top on geetar. What can you say about a guy who plays original as well as covers Phish, the Bee-Gees, the Dead, Talking Heads and closes with a sing along a cappella version of Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. And that was just during the second set.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
HAHAHAHAHAHA
I urge you to go to this website, but hold onto your hats!
This is the sentence at the top of the page:
"The most honest man who ever lived claimed to be the Son of God, is missing from his grave, and is worshipped 2000 years later on every corner of the most powerful nation on earth---how crazy is it not to believe what he says?"
Who can argue with logic like that?
Don't miss the candidates for the antichrist and the "hidden messages" in song lyrics.
I urge you to go to this website, but hold onto your hats!
This is the sentence at the top of the page:
"The most honest man who ever lived claimed to be the Son of God, is missing from his grave, and is worshipped 2000 years later on every corner of the most powerful nation on earth---how crazy is it not to believe what he says?"
Who can argue with logic like that?
Don't miss the candidates for the antichrist and the "hidden messages" in song lyrics.
Guckert/Gannon- The Video Collections
For anyone who's been asleep for the last month, here's 2 collections of Guckert Video.
The first, HERE, is a collection of news stories and parodies about Guckert- this also tells the basic story of what the story is about.
The second, HERE, is a collection of questions the Guckster asked Scott McClellan and the President. Really tough questions, let me tell ya!
For anyone who's been asleep for the last month, here's 2 collections of Guckert Video.
The first, HERE, is a collection of news stories and parodies about Guckert- this also tells the basic story of what the story is about.
The second, HERE, is a collection of questions the Guckster asked Scott McClellan and the President. Really tough questions, let me tell ya!
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Robotic Monkey Arms!!
In a story that should give pause to those who think we aren't living in the future already- scientists have rigged up a robotic arm to a monkey, attatched some electrodes into his brain, and now he can make the arm move.
Think about this for a minute.
We can take wires, stick them in the brain, and boom, we've got a cyborg monkey.
The Luke Skywalker hand is almost a reality.
Now tell me some more about how everyone under the age of 30 aren't potentially going to live forever. Tell me that if we were spending all the money we spend on killing eachother we couldn't have food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education for everyone on the entire planet. Tell me that the only thing holding us back isn't our imagination.
If we could just get the people who want to blow shit up (Both our guys and theirs) to fuck off we'd all be livin large.
In a story that should give pause to those who think we aren't living in the future already- scientists have rigged up a robotic arm to a monkey, attatched some electrodes into his brain, and now he can make the arm move.
Think about this for a minute.
We can take wires, stick them in the brain, and boom, we've got a cyborg monkey.
The Luke Skywalker hand is almost a reality.
Now tell me some more about how everyone under the age of 30 aren't potentially going to live forever. Tell me that if we were spending all the money we spend on killing eachother we couldn't have food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education for everyone on the entire planet. Tell me that the only thing holding us back isn't our imagination.
If we could just get the people who want to blow shit up (Both our guys and theirs) to fuck off we'd all be livin large.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Hunter S Thompson Dies
On the laptop I wrote my first 4 novels on there were 2 pictures taped to the front. One was a picture of Samuel L Jackson from Shaft- and the other was a large black and white photo of Hunter Thompson with his signature cigarette. In many ways, it was these 2 photos that got me through on tough writing days. Thompson himself is a prominent role-model for Lance, the character in Portal.
Now, Hunter is gone.
Hunter S Thompson killed himself yesterday in what the news is saying was a self inflicted gunshot wound. All of the coverage of his death is about his books, of course Fear and Loathing in Vegas topping the list. This kind of bums me out because the HST found in those books were NOT the real man.
They were an image.
A persona as carefully crafted as a professional wrestler's. That isn't to say the man wasn't out on the edge of things, I think he was, but he was much more aware of what he was doing than people give him credit for. To see this side of him though you need to read his letters as chronicled in the two enormous volumes released over the past several years.
They reveal a very smart, very sharp guy who probably understood American Politics better than anyone except Noam Chomsky- of course the lens he was looking through was much different. (He picked out Carter and McGovern months before the mainstream journalists did. But he didn't just pick them, he knew them. Hell, from his letters he knew EVERYBODY- from Carter to McGovern to Carville to Gary Hart. Thompson was one of the people they called and wrote to.
What's funny is I'm not the kind of guy who I would think would like Thompson. What with the guns and the explosives and whatnot- I hate that shit. But through the letters it was obvious that in many ways Thompson was a bit of a wuss. (For example, he writes of his Hell's Angels beatings for years afterward.) Overcompensation is hardly a rare tactic to overcome such things.
I'm very sorry for his son Juan. I don't know if Hunter was planning his suicide or if it was a surprise, but either way, my best wishes to him for his loss.
Now, the media is going to talk about the death of an image and the man will be quietly mourned in the hearts of those of us who saw the genius in what he was doing. To some degree, no one really knew him except his family- I hope when he left he was stright with them, there is no doubt being his wife and kid wasn't easy- of the man or the image.
See you around the bend Dr. Gonzo. We'll miss ya.
On the laptop I wrote my first 4 novels on there were 2 pictures taped to the front. One was a picture of Samuel L Jackson from Shaft- and the other was a large black and white photo of Hunter Thompson with his signature cigarette. In many ways, it was these 2 photos that got me through on tough writing days. Thompson himself is a prominent role-model for Lance, the character in Portal.
Now, Hunter is gone.
Hunter S Thompson killed himself yesterday in what the news is saying was a self inflicted gunshot wound. All of the coverage of his death is about his books, of course Fear and Loathing in Vegas topping the list. This kind of bums me out because the HST found in those books were NOT the real man.
They were an image.
A persona as carefully crafted as a professional wrestler's. That isn't to say the man wasn't out on the edge of things, I think he was, but he was much more aware of what he was doing than people give him credit for. To see this side of him though you need to read his letters as chronicled in the two enormous volumes released over the past several years.
They reveal a very smart, very sharp guy who probably understood American Politics better than anyone except Noam Chomsky- of course the lens he was looking through was much different. (He picked out Carter and McGovern months before the mainstream journalists did. But he didn't just pick them, he knew them. Hell, from his letters he knew EVERYBODY- from Carter to McGovern to Carville to Gary Hart. Thompson was one of the people they called and wrote to.
What's funny is I'm not the kind of guy who I would think would like Thompson. What with the guns and the explosives and whatnot- I hate that shit. But through the letters it was obvious that in many ways Thompson was a bit of a wuss. (For example, he writes of his Hell's Angels beatings for years afterward.) Overcompensation is hardly a rare tactic to overcome such things.
I'm very sorry for his son Juan. I don't know if Hunter was planning his suicide or if it was a surprise, but either way, my best wishes to him for his loss.
Now, the media is going to talk about the death of an image and the man will be quietly mourned in the hearts of those of us who saw the genius in what he was doing. To some degree, no one really knew him except his family- I hope when he left he was stright with them, there is no doubt being his wife and kid wasn't easy- of the man or the image.
See you around the bend Dr. Gonzo. We'll miss ya.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Iraq Elections
A quick reality check for those liberals who are giving Bush "Credit" for the elections in Iraq. Now while I of course agree the elections were a good thing- in as much as they were elections- but I still say Bush gets NO NONE NADA credit for what he did.
Why?
Well, let's use an example.
Say there's 100 people. I blow up say, 10 or maybe as many as 15 of them.
Then I take the remaining people to Disneyland.
Am I a hero?
I don't think so.
But if we didn't liberate them, they'd still be living under Saddam Hussein.
Sure, tell that to the people in Africa.
They don't have enough oil to go to Disneyland.
So until this "Freedom and Democracy" talk applies to everyone, including us in the US, that argument is a dry hump.
A quick reality check for those liberals who are giving Bush "Credit" for the elections in Iraq. Now while I of course agree the elections were a good thing- in as much as they were elections- but I still say Bush gets NO NONE NADA credit for what he did.
Why?
Well, let's use an example.
Say there's 100 people. I blow up say, 10 or maybe as many as 15 of them.
Then I take the remaining people to Disneyland.
Am I a hero?
I don't think so.
But if we didn't liberate them, they'd still be living under Saddam Hussein.
Sure, tell that to the people in Africa.
They don't have enough oil to go to Disneyland.
So until this "Freedom and Democracy" talk applies to everyone, including us in the US, that argument is a dry hump.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
State of the Union Lies and Misdirections.
Every year one of these articles comes out taking Shrub's claims one by one and puts them in context or explains where he's full of shit. You can find this years, HERE.
AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'LL FIND
“In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades. The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom…. And we have declared our on intention: America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world….
“Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace.”
President Bush is certainly correct regarding the correlation between autocratic governance and the rise of extremism. However, the United States has long been the primary backer of repressive governments in the Middle East and, under President Bush, military and security ties with these dictatorships has increased. It is important to note that sixteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, whose family dictatorship has received tens of billions of dollars worth of military hardware and security assistance from the United States since President Bush came to office. The man believed to be the lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohammed Attah, is Egyptian, whose autocratic Mubarak regime receives more than two billion dollars worth of taxpayer-provided military and economic aid annually. None of the hijackers or any prominent Al-Qaeda leader has come from Iran, Syria, Palestine, Taliban Afghanistan or Saddam’s Iraq, the countries that President Bush most commonly cites as needing greater freedom in order to support American security interests.
If President Bush was serious about promoting freedom, he would call for an immediate cessation of arms transfers and any forms of security assistance to Middle Eastern governments which do not “respect their own people and their neighbors.” He has not done so, however.
To cite just one example, there have been few greater allies of freedom than Egypt’s Saad El-Din Ibrahim and his Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, and its journal Civil Society. Among the Center’s activities was monitoring elections and workshops and civic education. Unfortunately, in 2001, Egyptian authorities arrested Saladin and twenty-seven associates, shut down the Ibn Khaldun Center, and banned their journal. Despite this, U.S. aid has continued to flow to Mubarak’s corrupt dictatorship.
Finally, democracies do not necessarily respect their neighbors. Israel is an exemplary democracy (at least for its Jewish citizens), but it has maintained an oftentimes repressive occupation of its Palestinian neighbors since 1967, including widespread and ongoing violations of international humanitarian law.
Every year one of these articles comes out taking Shrub's claims one by one and puts them in context or explains where he's full of shit. You can find this years, HERE.
AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'LL FIND
“In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades. The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom…. And we have declared our on intention: America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world….
“Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace.”
President Bush is certainly correct regarding the correlation between autocratic governance and the rise of extremism. However, the United States has long been the primary backer of repressive governments in the Middle East and, under President Bush, military and security ties with these dictatorships has increased. It is important to note that sixteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, whose family dictatorship has received tens of billions of dollars worth of military hardware and security assistance from the United States since President Bush came to office. The man believed to be the lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohammed Attah, is Egyptian, whose autocratic Mubarak regime receives more than two billion dollars worth of taxpayer-provided military and economic aid annually. None of the hijackers or any prominent Al-Qaeda leader has come from Iran, Syria, Palestine, Taliban Afghanistan or Saddam’s Iraq, the countries that President Bush most commonly cites as needing greater freedom in order to support American security interests.
If President Bush was serious about promoting freedom, he would call for an immediate cessation of arms transfers and any forms of security assistance to Middle Eastern governments which do not “respect their own people and their neighbors.” He has not done so, however.
To cite just one example, there have been few greater allies of freedom than Egypt’s Saad El-Din Ibrahim and his Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, and its journal Civil Society. Among the Center’s activities was monitoring elections and workshops and civic education. Unfortunately, in 2001, Egyptian authorities arrested Saladin and twenty-seven associates, shut down the Ibn Khaldun Center, and banned their journal. Despite this, U.S. aid has continued to flow to Mubarak’s corrupt dictatorship.
Finally, democracies do not necessarily respect their neighbors. Israel is an exemplary democracy (at least for its Jewish citizens), but it has maintained an oftentimes repressive occupation of its Palestinian neighbors since 1967, including widespread and ongoing violations of international humanitarian law.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
2 Quickies
1) The NYTimes spiked the story about Bush's hidden microphone during the debates.
(Spiked, for those who do not know, means they wrote a story, then decided not to run it.)
2) An article about the US General stupid enough to tell a room full of people that it's fun to shoot people.
He can think it's fun all he wants, this is America. He has the right to say it too. But jeez, don't you think it would be better if he had the decency to keep his insane mouth shut? I mean do you really want people to know you are a murdering pig?
These 2 stories are connected.
1) The NYTimes spiked the story about Bush's hidden microphone during the debates.
(Spiked, for those who do not know, means they wrote a story, then decided not to run it.)
2) An article about the US General stupid enough to tell a room full of people that it's fun to shoot people.
He can think it's fun all he wants, this is America. He has the right to say it too. But jeez, don't you think it would be better if he had the decency to keep his insane mouth shut? I mean do you really want people to know you are a murdering pig?
These 2 stories are connected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
