Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Er...oops?
I'm trying to be surprised that it was a Republican. I really am. Probably liberals' fault though, somehow. Tempted him. Or something.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Michael Moore rips Wolf Blitzer a new one
You know, the sad thing is that Moore is absolutely right. About pretty much everything. CNN, and the rest of the major news organizations, didn't ask the hard questions about the war in Iraq. They didn't do the investigative reporting that would have shown very clearly and easily that the administration is full of crap. And yes, their ridiculous attempts to counter-balance a perceived skew in Moore's films are shallow and misleading. He has every right to be pissed off.
And yet, he does a disservice by allowing himself to go into a hysterical rant. He comes off looking like a loony-toon, which ultimately affects his credibility. The same thing happened at the Oscar's. He ultimately did more damage than good. It's really sad, because he's one of the few people out there actually asking the hard question. I have to imagine that the same drive and outrage that energizes his documentary efforts makes him trip over himself when he actually interacts with the rest of the world. It makes it so easy for right-wing pundits. Look at what happened to Dean just because he let out an excited yell too close to the microphone, for god's sake. And that was just one incident!
Imagine how different it would have been if Moore had said essentially the same things he did but in a calm and composed way. It would have been profoundly more effective.
And actually, the point he should have (calmly) made is something along the lines of the following:
"Wolf, the news organizations have become hostage to this concept of balance. The idea is that a news organization dispassionately gives equal airtime to both sides of an argument and thereby remains objective. That's why you had Gupta's piece on before me to "balance" what I presented in Sicko. That's why you showed a clip of Guiliani and asked me to respond to it.
It sounds nice, but there is a deep, deep problem with it: balance has nothing to do with the truth. And the truth is far, far more important than balance. Think about it: what happens when one side is telling the truth, and one side is lying (as this Administration has been from day 1)? Where is the balance? Halfway between truth and lies, Wolf, are half-truths. At best. And those aren't truths.
I'm telling the truth. It's a truth born of facts that anyone can go verify. They're lying. If you look at the facts, it's quite evident that they're lying. But the news organizations have been too afraid to actually seek the truth because sometimes the truth actually contradicts one side of an argument (as it does in the case of the Iraq war, and as it does in the case of our health care system).
That's why I'm frustrated, Wolf. The whole point of the freedom of the press is to allow it to find the truth and report it. When you turn on the news, that's what you're looking for: the truth. Not competing sound bites: the truth. And if you're not going to report the truth, you might as well not be here. We can just have two podiums in the center of town, and our two political parties can stand there and yell at each other. And everyone else will have no idea what to believe. Probably, they'll believe the more attractive guy. Or the guy who is the most eloquent speaker. But they'll never, ever know what the truth is. And that's a damned shame, Wolf."
Man, I should be a speechwriter. ;)
And yet, he does a disservice by allowing himself to go into a hysterical rant. He comes off looking like a loony-toon, which ultimately affects his credibility. The same thing happened at the Oscar's. He ultimately did more damage than good. It's really sad, because he's one of the few people out there actually asking the hard question. I have to imagine that the same drive and outrage that energizes his documentary efforts makes him trip over himself when he actually interacts with the rest of the world. It makes it so easy for right-wing pundits. Look at what happened to Dean just because he let out an excited yell too close to the microphone, for god's sake. And that was just one incident!
Imagine how different it would have been if Moore had said essentially the same things he did but in a calm and composed way. It would have been profoundly more effective.
And actually, the point he should have (calmly) made is something along the lines of the following:
"Wolf, the news organizations have become hostage to this concept of balance. The idea is that a news organization dispassionately gives equal airtime to both sides of an argument and thereby remains objective. That's why you had Gupta's piece on before me to "balance" what I presented in Sicko. That's why you showed a clip of Guiliani and asked me to respond to it.
It sounds nice, but there is a deep, deep problem with it: balance has nothing to do with the truth. And the truth is far, far more important than balance. Think about it: what happens when one side is telling the truth, and one side is lying (as this Administration has been from day 1)? Where is the balance? Halfway between truth and lies, Wolf, are half-truths. At best. And those aren't truths.
I'm telling the truth. It's a truth born of facts that anyone can go verify. They're lying. If you look at the facts, it's quite evident that they're lying. But the news organizations have been too afraid to actually seek the truth because sometimes the truth actually contradicts one side of an argument (as it does in the case of the Iraq war, and as it does in the case of our health care system).
That's why I'm frustrated, Wolf. The whole point of the freedom of the press is to allow it to find the truth and report it. When you turn on the news, that's what you're looking for: the truth. Not competing sound bites: the truth. And if you're not going to report the truth, you might as well not be here. We can just have two podiums in the center of town, and our two political parties can stand there and yell at each other. And everyone else will have no idea what to believe. Probably, they'll believe the more attractive guy. Or the guy who is the most eloquent speaker. But they'll never, ever know what the truth is. And that's a damned shame, Wolf."
Man, I should be a speechwriter. ;)
Nigger
The NAACP apparently just buried "nigger." Well, thank god. I'm glad that issue's over and done with.
Seriously, I'm getting really sick of this issue. Of all the things that the civil rights community could get hung up on, _this_ is the one they fixate on? People's choice of fucking verbiage? This is more important than raising money for inner city schools? More important than poverty? More important than gangs? More important than scholarships? Really??
Language changes. Words gain and lose meaning. "Yankee" used to be a derogatory word for Americans used by the British. We latched onto it and owned it. Now most of New York cheers every year for the Yankees. The meaning changed. And while I'm not suggesting we create a major league baseball team called the "Niggers" (I'm thinking home field in Mobile...what do you think? Also, have fun imagining what their mascot would be...), I am suggesting that turning the term into something people affectionately call each other might not be such a bad thing. I might even go so far as to suggest that it's the best possible way to drain the power from the word.
(side note: only the BBC and Reuters seem to have had the balls to actually print the word in question instead of pussying out and printing "the N word." Politics aside, it's just bad journalism to assume that your readers know what you're talking about if you write "the N word." It's like writing "hoo ha" instead of "vagina" in an article about gynecology. Fucking grow up.)
Seriously, I'm getting really sick of this issue. Of all the things that the civil rights community could get hung up on, _this_ is the one they fixate on? People's choice of fucking verbiage? This is more important than raising money for inner city schools? More important than poverty? More important than gangs? More important than scholarships? Really??
Language changes. Words gain and lose meaning. "Yankee" used to be a derogatory word for Americans used by the British. We latched onto it and owned it. Now most of New York cheers every year for the Yankees. The meaning changed. And while I'm not suggesting we create a major league baseball team called the "Niggers" (I'm thinking home field in Mobile...what do you think? Also, have fun imagining what their mascot would be...), I am suggesting that turning the term into something people affectionately call each other might not be such a bad thing. I might even go so far as to suggest that it's the best possible way to drain the power from the word.
(side note: only the BBC and Reuters seem to have had the balls to actually print the word in question instead of pussying out and printing "the N word." Politics aside, it's just bad journalism to assume that your readers know what you're talking about if you write "the N word." It's like writing "hoo ha" instead of "vagina" in an article about gynecology. Fucking grow up.)
Skippy's List
A classic that seems to be enjoying a resurgence. :)
Personal favorites:
29. The Irish MPs are not after “Me frosted lucky charms”.
54. “Napalm sticks to kids” is *not* a motivational phrase.
65. There are no evil clowns living under my bed.
79. I am neither the king nor queen of cheese.
99. A smiley face is not used to mark a minefield.
100. Claymore mines are not filled with yummy candy, and it is wrong to tell new soldiers that they are.
129. The Microsoft ® “Dancing Paperclip” is not authorized to countermand any orders.
Personal favorites:
29. The Irish MPs are not after “Me frosted lucky charms”.
31. Not allowed to let sock puppets take responsibility for any of my actions.
32. Not allowed to let sock puppets take command of my post.
33. Not allowed to chew gum at formation, unless I brought enough for everybody.
34. (Next day) Not allowed to chew gum at formation even if I *did* bring enough for everybody.
54. “Napalm sticks to kids” is *not* a motivational phrase.
65. There are no evil clowns living under my bed.
79. I am neither the king nor queen of cheese.
99. A smiley face is not used to mark a minefield.
100. Claymore mines are not filled with yummy candy, and it is wrong to tell new soldiers that they are.
129. The Microsoft ® “Dancing Paperclip” is not authorized to countermand any orders.
145. I should not drink three quarts of blue food coloring before a urine test.
146. Nor should I drink three quarts of red food coloring, and scream during the same.
Google censorship
I hadn't quite realized the degree to which Google "fine-tunes" their results. It appears they do, in fact, exercise a certain degree of censorship, which is kind of disturbing. Observe Zittrain and Edelman's preliminary study comparing the results of google.com versus google.fr and google.de.
The issue is actually a rather interesting one that cuts to the heart of the Internet age. The reason everyone is salivating to invest in Google is that they seem the best positioned company to serve as the portal through which everyone gets to the Internet. AOL tried to do this, in their own way, and this is part of why they were a darling of the tech bubble. But, of course, they failed. They were overly ambitious: they sought to actually reshape the internet by creating a veneer over it. They wanted AOL to _be_ the Internet. Problem is, the Internet doesn't want to be controlled by AOL. Enter Google.
Google had the much more workable idea of simply being a directory for the Internet. They have no interest in controlling every last inch of cyberspace (per se). They just want to be the resource you go to to find what you're looking for. Turns out, this is pretty much just as powerful as controlling the Internet as a whole, and yet it still allows the Internet to grow independently.
However, that power is exactly the trouble. Think about how often you use Google to find what you're looking for. Hell, half the time even if you know what website you're going to, you still go to Google to pull up the actual URL for you because you're lazy. Think about the power that gives them. They control exactly what you can and cannot see. If they choose not to list your website, you may very well never see it! Even if you do, 99.999% of the rest of the population won't (because they're not as tech savvy as you are, you clever dog).
Think, for a minute, what would happen if the government owned Google. What if the government had that kind of power over what information you could and could not find? Wouldn't that freak you the fuck out?
And yet, there are at least some checks on government. You have the power to vote elected officials out of office if they piss you off. You essentially have no such power over Google. You have no say. And there are no laws governing what Google can and cannot list, really. They're completely lacking in oversight. The only thing that's there to keep them honest is whether they can continue to get ad revenue. As it happens, that does tend to keep them somewhat honest, and yet...it should still make you supremely uneasy.
Anyway, here's a list of other sources from someone on the Harvard tech forum mailing list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-03-02-n19.html
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/google/
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
http://www.sethf.com/anticensorware/general/google-censorship.php
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Google_removes_German_BMW_from_search_results
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/google_doesnt_censor/
The issue is actually a rather interesting one that cuts to the heart of the Internet age. The reason everyone is salivating to invest in Google is that they seem the best positioned company to serve as the portal through which everyone gets to the Internet. AOL tried to do this, in their own way, and this is part of why they were a darling of the tech bubble. But, of course, they failed. They were overly ambitious: they sought to actually reshape the internet by creating a veneer over it. They wanted AOL to _be_ the Internet. Problem is, the Internet doesn't want to be controlled by AOL. Enter Google.
Google had the much more workable idea of simply being a directory for the Internet. They have no interest in controlling every last inch of cyberspace (per se). They just want to be the resource you go to to find what you're looking for. Turns out, this is pretty much just as powerful as controlling the Internet as a whole, and yet it still allows the Internet to grow independently.
However, that power is exactly the trouble. Think about how often you use Google to find what you're looking for. Hell, half the time even if you know what website you're going to, you still go to Google to pull up the actual URL for you because you're lazy. Think about the power that gives them. They control exactly what you can and cannot see. If they choose not to list your website, you may very well never see it! Even if you do, 99.999% of the rest of the population won't (because they're not as tech savvy as you are, you clever dog).
Think, for a minute, what would happen if the government owned Google. What if the government had that kind of power over what information you could and could not find? Wouldn't that freak you the fuck out?
And yet, there are at least some checks on government. You have the power to vote elected officials out of office if they piss you off. You essentially have no such power over Google. You have no say. And there are no laws governing what Google can and cannot list, really. They're completely lacking in oversight. The only thing that's there to keep them honest is whether they can continue to get ad revenue. As it happens, that does tend to keep them somewhat honest, and yet...it should still make you supremely uneasy.
Anyway, here's a list of other sources from someone on the Harvard tech forum mailing list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-03-02-n19.html
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/google/
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
http://www.sethf.com/anticensorware/general/google-censorship.php
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Google_removes_German_BMW_from_search_results
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/google_doesnt_censor/
More sex is safer sex
Really fascinating article on why sexually conservative people should have more sex.
I think it's actually a beautiful example of why so much of economics is utter horse shit (making unjustifiable assumptions about human nature), but it's still interesting.
I think it's actually a beautiful example of why so much of economics is utter horse shit (making unjustifiable assumptions about human nature), but it's still interesting.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Your daily douchebag (7/6/07)
Today's Daily Douchebag goes to Mr. Jerry Bowyer, a columnist for the partisan rag National Review. Not satisfied with the Right's existing attempts to associate the conservative pet cause du jour with the fear of terrorism, Mr. Bowyer chose to, well, kick it up a notch. Yup, it turns out that if we nationalize health care, the terrorists win.
Wow. Your douchebaggery, sir, truly stands unrivaled...
Wow. Your douchebaggery, sir, truly stands unrivaled...
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Clinton hypocrisy
Much as I cringe at the idea of agreeing with anything the Bush administration claims ever, I do think there's a degree of hypocrisy in either of the Clintons criticizing Libby's pardon. Yes, there's a big difference between pardoning a guy lying to investigators to protect a breach of national security and pardoning a sleazy friend of yours engaged in some shady financial deals, but still...either justice applies even to the friends of the powerful or it doesn't. Pardons, like impeachments, shouldn't be handed out like "lollipops" (as the duplicitous douchebag Romney so eloquently put it).
Of course, I don't understand why this is a _defense_ of Bush's pardon of Libby. It's a good but ultimately irrelevant point.
Of course, I don't understand why this is a _defense_ of Bush's pardon of Libby. It's a good but ultimately irrelevant point.
Reasons that Transformers was awesome that I didn't know include
Turns out that Peter Cullen, the voice of Optimus Prime in the latest Transformers movie, was also the voice of Optimus Prime back in 1984. According to Cullen, he probably got the part in large part due to lobbying by fans.
I knew the movie was weirdly evocative, and now I know part of why.
*gets a little misty-eyed*
I knew the movie was weirdly evocative, and now I know part of why.
*gets a little misty-eyed*
Apple as shameless ripoff artists
Interesting little bit on all the stuff Apple has shamelessly ripped off. I like Apple's hardware and software, but let's not forget that they are, at core, a shameless, profit-driven company just like everyone else.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
I am the most immature person on the planet
The fastest supercomputer in Japan is located at the Tokyo Institute of Technology.
...whose acronym is TIT.
Hee.
Hee hee hee.
...whose acronym is TIT.
Hee.
Hee hee hee.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Transformers
...was awesome.
Not a good movie, per se, but nonetheless awesome. It had explosions and dueling robots, and that's all I wanted. It didn't dick around with the pretense of plot or character development. Just got right down to the robots shooting at each other. That's all I asked.
In other news, my roommates report that my xbox 360 died. Just out of warranty. Fan-fucking-tastic. Sadly, probably not worth my while to get another one. Boo Microsoft. Apparently I'm joining a disturbingly high number of other people with 360 hardware failure problems.
Not a good movie, per se, but nonetheless awesome. It had explosions and dueling robots, and that's all I wanted. It didn't dick around with the pretense of plot or character development. Just got right down to the robots shooting at each other. That's all I asked.
In other news, my roommates report that my xbox 360 died. Just out of warranty. Fan-fucking-tastic. Sadly, probably not worth my while to get another one. Boo Microsoft. Apparently I'm joining a disturbingly high number of other people with 360 hardware failure problems.
Uh-oh...
Remember that iPhone rant I went on? Well, I just found out that whereas my current data plan is $40/month, the iPhone data plan is $20/month. So really, it would effectively pay for itself in less than 2 years...
...
I think I'm safe, though. For all its fanciness, the iPhone won't be able to connect to my bluetooth GPS receiver, which is dumb. There are (totally unsubstantiated, probably wrong) rumors that the next generation, due out in spring '08 (maybe?) will have GPS built in. Regardless, guess I'm stuck with Windows Mobile for a while. Sigh.
...
I think I'm safe, though. For all its fanciness, the iPhone won't be able to connect to my bluetooth GPS receiver, which is dumb. There are (totally unsubstantiated, probably wrong) rumors that the next generation, due out in spring '08 (maybe?) will have GPS built in. Regardless, guess I'm stuck with Windows Mobile for a while. Sigh.
*shakes head sadly*
Apparently Ann Coulter is approaching the level of being a great American.
And, in the slow, evolutionary sense that a cockroach is slowly approaching being a human being, yes, I suppose that might be true...
And, in the slow, evolutionary sense that a cockroach is slowly approaching being a human being, yes, I suppose that might be true...
Monday, July 02, 2007
Quick!
Act surprised!
Yes, clearly 2 1/2 years is far too harsh for what amounted to treason. You get 16 years for marijuana, 0 for treason. That totally makes sense.
Yes, clearly 2 1/2 years is far too harsh for what amounted to treason. You get 16 years for marijuana, 0 for treason. That totally makes sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)