"Who or what the hell is Balloon Boy?" I found myself asking this question Saturday, as I'd heard the name in passing repeatedly, but had yet to hear a definition. When I looked it up, though, I was rather glad to have missed it. It was about the dumbest thing I'd heard in a good, long while. It seems like every few months, something gets into the water supply and a bunch of people buy into some ridiculous bullshit or another. If it isn't this, it's the body of Bigfoot, or President Obama's birth certificate, or the LHC causing black holes, or that the world will end in 2012. (Protip: It won't, any more than it ends every December 31.) Hell, if some crazies are to be believed, 'something gets into the water supply' is more right then I know:
Dammit, people, how are we supposed to improve our society, make ourselves more politically aware, if we can't even see through crap like this? Every time one of these hoaxes/conspiracy theories comes along, I hold out hope that people will learn a lesson, that they'll develop some basic critical thinking skills. So far, those hopes have been dashed every time. Not only that, the level of media coverage surrounding stuff like this shows that people don't even have any interest in changing. It all paints one very disturbing picture: If our society is to come to an end, it won't be an apocalypse, it won't be an alien invasion, it won't be a home-grown black hole, and it for damn sure won't be vaccinations. It will be stupid people who lack anything resembling basic reasoning. Don't even try telling me there aren't enough of those to go around.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Down With This Sort Of Thing!
It might have come to your attention that our society is being destroyed from within. It's true. Our morals are steadily being degraded through the evils in our culture. Our precious children are growing wicked and disobedient, and I think we all know the cause: Sex and violence on television. Or, wait, was it rap? Or Harry Potter? Could it have been video games? How about Catcher in the Rye? I thought it was comic books. Yeah, that or Dungeons and Dragons. Maybe I'm thinking of Rock & Roll, with that Elvis shaking his hips, or maybe jazz. It could even have been "beer, pinchback suits, galloping in horse races ("Not a wholesome trottin' race, no, but a race where they sit up right on the horse!"), smoking, ragtime music, knickerbockers rebuckled below the knee, dime novels, modern slang words like "swell", and "So's your old man""? I just can't remember which of those modern evils we're supposed to be outraged about this week.
Some of these might sound nuts, but I swear, they've all been for real. (Except, possibly, for that list at the end, that was a parody out of The Music Man.) Don't believe me? Go check out the work of Jack Chick. On second thought, don't, that dude's just disturbing. Poe's Law in action, but he insists he's for real, and people on both sides certainly treat him as such. (Dammit, I'm getting off track here.) The point is, as long as there's been culture, people have decried the so-called "moral degradation" of the younger generation. There are many reasons for this phenomenon, ranging from an overly active sense of nostalgia to a feeling of "surely WE weren't like this!" Hell, one of the reasons for Socrates' execution was purportedly a corrupting influence on the Athenian youth, and Socrates himself was famously opposed to the idea of WRITING IDEAS DOWN. Yes, it really does go back that far, and get that nuts. Astonishingly, despite all this evil we've apparently built up, somehow society has absorbed it all and remained intact.
The moral crusaders of today of course claim that exposure to the modern media's sex and violence is hurting children and all that. They usually have some anecdotal examples from relatively current events, but they frequently suffer from two major flaws. Firstly, they often fail to due any real research on the events in question, thereby missing the fact that the connections are often EXTREMELY tenuous. Case in point: Virginia Tech. That just HAD to be because Cho had played violent video games! What? He didn't play them? And he was an unmedicated schizophrenic? So what? It fits what I already know is true, and that's more important! This brings me to the second issue: Even if they do find something, they ignore that it's the exception, not the rule. Most of these anecdotes are just like that guy, they already had something majorly wrong with them. Hell, I'm listening to some Black Sabbath right now (seriously), and I'm just sitting here quietly writing, not out going on a rampage.
Further, the draconian solutions these people propose are, I think, rather telling. People tell them that they do, in fact, have the power to keep their kids from watching programming they object to ( very different from "objectionable programming"), but they worry about their kids being able to see it at a friend's house, or go online and watch it, and so on, and so on, and so on. What, then, do they propose? Why, it should be taken off the air entirely! At that point, I lose what little sympathy I had, because at that point it stops being about them living their lives, but rather telling us how to live ours. Our society is not so weak as to be demolished by a bit of language, sex, fake violence, or girls wearing pants instead of a dress. To Mary Whitehouse, Bill Donahue, Jack Thompson, and other crusaders: Your concern is noted, now go away and let the rest of us enjoy ourselves.
While I'm at it, the inspiration for this post's name seems as good a way as any to finish off.
Some of these might sound nuts, but I swear, they've all been for real. (Except, possibly, for that list at the end, that was a parody out of The Music Man.) Don't believe me? Go check out the work of Jack Chick. On second thought, don't, that dude's just disturbing. Poe's Law in action, but he insists he's for real, and people on both sides certainly treat him as such. (Dammit, I'm getting off track here.) The point is, as long as there's been culture, people have decried the so-called "moral degradation" of the younger generation. There are many reasons for this phenomenon, ranging from an overly active sense of nostalgia to a feeling of "surely WE weren't like this!" Hell, one of the reasons for Socrates' execution was purportedly a corrupting influence on the Athenian youth, and Socrates himself was famously opposed to the idea of WRITING IDEAS DOWN. Yes, it really does go back that far, and get that nuts. Astonishingly, despite all this evil we've apparently built up, somehow society has absorbed it all and remained intact.
The moral crusaders of today of course claim that exposure to the modern media's sex and violence is hurting children and all that. They usually have some anecdotal examples from relatively current events, but they frequently suffer from two major flaws. Firstly, they often fail to due any real research on the events in question, thereby missing the fact that the connections are often EXTREMELY tenuous. Case in point: Virginia Tech. That just HAD to be because Cho had played violent video games! What? He didn't play them? And he was an unmedicated schizophrenic? So what? It fits what I already know is true, and that's more important! This brings me to the second issue: Even if they do find something, they ignore that it's the exception, not the rule. Most of these anecdotes are just like that guy, they already had something majorly wrong with them. Hell, I'm listening to some Black Sabbath right now (seriously), and I'm just sitting here quietly writing, not out going on a rampage.
Further, the draconian solutions these people propose are, I think, rather telling. People tell them that they do, in fact, have the power to keep their kids from watching programming they object to ( very different from "objectionable programming"), but they worry about their kids being able to see it at a friend's house, or go online and watch it, and so on, and so on, and so on. What, then, do they propose? Why, it should be taken off the air entirely! At that point, I lose what little sympathy I had, because at that point it stops being about them living their lives, but rather telling us how to live ours. Our society is not so weak as to be demolished by a bit of language, sex, fake violence, or girls wearing pants instead of a dress. To Mary Whitehouse, Bill Donahue, Jack Thompson, and other crusaders: Your concern is noted, now go away and let the rest of us enjoy ourselves.
While I'm at it, the inspiration for this post's name seems as good a way as any to finish off.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Objectivity standards? Yeah, good luck with that.
In our current culture, much has been made of media bias toward one side or the other. On the far-right blog/forum/news site Free Republic, for example, I've actually seen people using the phrase "mainstream media" as a pejorative (just don't ask me to explain why I was there). Indeed, it's undeniable that individual sources sometimes hold a slant toward one side or the other (I doubt anyone would seriously argue that Olbermann and Maddow don't lean to the left, or Limbaugh and Hannity to the right). Overall, however, I would hold that there is only one gigantic, monolithic "Media" in scare tactics, and in practice, any real institutionalized bias is next to impossible. There are just too many agendas pulling in too many different directions to be viable. Still, much has been made about the possibility of objectivity standards. I'm actually opposed to such a push, but not for the same reason as many others.
First of all, is such a thing as "objectivity" even possible? Who defines it? I'm biased, you're biased, that jerk over there's biased, so "unbiased" can really only mean "a bias I agree with." Horrible basis for an organized push. Second of all, how would these standards possibly be implemented? One possibility has been the "He said, She said" approach, the "equal time" method that CNN follows so much these days. However, that plan has major problems with it. After all, in any given argument, one side has more evidence than the other. Wouldn't that approach just be biased toward the side that has no such support? Should the media really give equal time to Obama birthers, 9/11 truthers, young earth creationists, and the Flat Earth Society? Not just no, but HELL NO. The "center" in an argument should not be determined by whichever side's crazier.
I suppose we could implement a method by which the evidence is what's presented, with less regard for framing, but that has practical problems as well. First, a metric fuckton of people just won't watch it (and yes, that's an exact measurement). That may sound overly cynical, but let's face it, in our culture, the Food Network gets comparable ratings to C-Span. People just aren't interested in seeing the solid information. It could certainly be questioned whether bad information is any better than none at all, but I'd rather people at least try to keep informed. Second of all, remember the "bias I agree with" bit earlier? It comes back into play. A good or bad lawyer is determined by "how did they do with my case," and the same is true with the media. If the evidence doesn't agree with what the viewer "knows it should be," suddenly there's a media bias conspiracy again. There's just no winning.
First of all, is such a thing as "objectivity" even possible? Who defines it? I'm biased, you're biased, that jerk over there's biased, so "unbiased" can really only mean "a bias I agree with." Horrible basis for an organized push. Second of all, how would these standards possibly be implemented? One possibility has been the "He said, She said" approach, the "equal time" method that CNN follows so much these days. However, that plan has major problems with it. After all, in any given argument, one side has more evidence than the other. Wouldn't that approach just be biased toward the side that has no such support? Should the media really give equal time to Obama birthers, 9/11 truthers, young earth creationists, and the Flat Earth Society? Not just no, but HELL NO. The "center" in an argument should not be determined by whichever side's crazier.
I suppose we could implement a method by which the evidence is what's presented, with less regard for framing, but that has practical problems as well. First, a metric fuckton of people just won't watch it (and yes, that's an exact measurement). That may sound overly cynical, but let's face it, in our culture, the Food Network gets comparable ratings to C-Span. People just aren't interested in seeing the solid information. It could certainly be questioned whether bad information is any better than none at all, but I'd rather people at least try to keep informed. Second of all, remember the "bias I agree with" bit earlier? It comes back into play. A good or bad lawyer is determined by "how did they do with my case," and the same is true with the media. If the evidence doesn't agree with what the viewer "knows it should be," suddenly there's a media bias conspiracy again. There's just no winning.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Mitteldämmerung
It's a known thing that the increasing media conglomeration has resulted in decreased focus on hard news coverage, but I think that it has been useful in proving one very important thing: the much-vaunted "invisible hand" isn't always the best solution. In this case, the blind appeal to ratings was a rather inevitable result of a bill that amounted to the enabling of a news monopoly. After all, when the various news agencies were forced to coexist, they had to compete in terms of actual quality, and if one failed in this duty, the others would outperform them. Now, though, there's an emphasis on sheer speed and sensationalism. This appears to stem from the new rules, where media outlets compete through buyouts and attempt to corner the market, simply squeezing out their opposition.
This wouldn't be a major issue, except for the fact that in our culture, the average person is less than adept at doing their research. We're a little different, since this is our field, but for the general public... Well, just picture us trying to keep track of all the latest chemistry journals and you'll get the general idea. As a result, people tend to treat whatever the media puts out as important and relevant, regardless of how silly or distracting it really is. (Let's face it, when a network owned by Rupert Murdoch claims that the big, faceless, monolithic media is somehow biased against them, it lacks the ring of truth, given how many outlets he personally owns.) Further, this dumbing-down is nothing less than a death spiral: as the main news sources appeal to the lowest common denominator, the public gets less informed, the denominator drops even lower, and the media dives down after it.
Some people have proposed blogging as an antidote for this, allowing for a more varied outlook on events. This seems to almost affirm an emerging business trend called 'crowdsourcing', but corporate strategy is WAY outside my department, so I can't really comment there. Still, Sturgeon's Law is always important to remember, and with blogs, it appears in full force. After all, with absolutely no quality controls in place, people can make any claim they please, about any topic, and have no real evidence for any of it (case in point, yours truly). Still, there is one very major upside to independent sources such as blogs: they get people engaged. It's been said that you can't get rid of problems, only trade them, and if temporary insanity is the price to pay for a more aware, a more informed, and a more inquisitive populous, that's a worthy trade indeed.
This wouldn't be a major issue, except for the fact that in our culture, the average person is less than adept at doing their research. We're a little different, since this is our field, but for the general public... Well, just picture us trying to keep track of all the latest chemistry journals and you'll get the general idea. As a result, people tend to treat whatever the media puts out as important and relevant, regardless of how silly or distracting it really is. (Let's face it, when a network owned by Rupert Murdoch claims that the big, faceless, monolithic media is somehow biased against them, it lacks the ring of truth, given how many outlets he personally owns.) Further, this dumbing-down is nothing less than a death spiral: as the main news sources appeal to the lowest common denominator, the public gets less informed, the denominator drops even lower, and the media dives down after it.
Some people have proposed blogging as an antidote for this, allowing for a more varied outlook on events. This seems to almost affirm an emerging business trend called 'crowdsourcing', but corporate strategy is WAY outside my department, so I can't really comment there. Still, Sturgeon's Law is always important to remember, and with blogs, it appears in full force. After all, with absolutely no quality controls in place, people can make any claim they please, about any topic, and have no real evidence for any of it (case in point, yours truly). Still, there is one very major upside to independent sources such as blogs: they get people engaged. It's been said that you can't get rid of problems, only trade them, and if temporary insanity is the price to pay for a more aware, a more informed, and a more inquisitive populous, that's a worthy trade indeed.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
The Teabagger Socialist-Free Purity Pledge
(Courtesy of DailyKos via Pharyngula)
The Teabagger Socialist-Free Purity Pledge
I, ________________________________, do solemnly swear to uphold the principles of a socialism-free society and heretofore pledge my word that I shall strictly adhere to the following:
I will complain about the destruction of 1st Amendment Rights in this country, while I am duly being allowed to exercise my 1st Amendment Rights.
I will complain about the destruction of my 2ndAmendment Rights in this country, while I am duly >being allowed to exercise my 2ndAmendment rights by legally but brazenly brandishing unconcealed firearms in public.
I will forswear the time-honored principles of fairness, decency, and respect by screaming unintelligible platitudes regarding tyranny, Nazi-ism, and socialism at public town halls. Also.
I pledge to eliminate all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of and participation in any socialist goods and services including but not limited to the following:
*
Social Security
*
Medicare/Medicaid
*
State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)
*
Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
*
US Postal Service
*
Roads and Highways
*
Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
*
The US Railway System
*
Public Subways and Metro Systems
*
Public Bus and Lightrail Systems
*
Rest Areas on Highways
*
Sidewalks
*
All Government-Funded Local/State Projects (e.g., see Iowa 2009federal senate appropriations--http://grassley.senate.gov/issues/upload/Master-Approps-73109.pdf)
*
Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)
*
Public and State Universities and Colleges
*
Public Primary and Secondary Schools
*
Sesame Street
*
Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children
*
Public Museums
*
Libraries
*
Public Parks and Beaches
*
State and National Parks
*
Public Zoos
*
Unemployment Insurance
*
Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services
*
Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding From Local, State or Federal Government (pretty much all of them)
*
Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived From Any Government Grant or Research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)
*
Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and Velcro (Nazi-NASA Inventions)
*
Use of the Internet, email, and networked computers, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking
*
Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown With, Fed With, Raised With or That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies
*
Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown With or That Contain Inputs From Government Subsidies
*
If a veteran of the government-run socialist US military, I will forgo my VA benefits and insist on paying for my own medical care
I will not tour socialist government buildings like the Capitol in Washington, D.C.
I pledge to never take myself, my family, or my children on a tour of the following types of socialist
locations, including but not limited to:
*
Smithsonian Museums such as the Air and Space Museum or Museum of American History
*
The socialist Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson Monuments
*
The government-operated Statue of Liberty
*
The Grand Canyon
*
The socialist World War II and Vietnam Veterans Memorials
*
The government-run socialist-propaganda location known as Arlington National Cemetery
*
All other public-funded socialist sites, whether it be in my state or in Washington, DC
I will urge my Member of Congress and Senators to forgo their government salary and government-provided healthcare.
I will oppose and condemn the government-funded and therefore socialist military of the United States of America.
I will boycott the products of socialist defense contractors such as GE, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Humana, FedEx, General Motors, Honeywell, and hundreds of others that are paid by our socialist government to produce goods for our socialist army.
I will protest socialist security departments such as the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, TSA, Department of Justice and their socialist employees.
Upon reaching eligible retirement age, I will tear up my socialist Social Security checks.
Upon reaching age 65, I will forgo Medicare and pay for my own private health insurance until I die.
SWORN ON A BIBLE AND SIGNED THIS DAY OF ____________ IN THE YEAR ______________.
Signed: ___________________________ ___________________________
While the above may not exactly reflect the teabaggers' position (sorry, couldn't resist), a public health insurance option is essentially no different from any of the above items. I'm not asking those of you opposed to such a program to change your minds, but please, for the love of any gods you may or may not believe in, learn what "socialism" actually is before you go spouting off about how inherently evil it is.
The Teabagger Socialist-Free Purity Pledge
I, ________________________________, do solemnly swear to uphold the principles of a socialism-free society and heretofore pledge my word that I shall strictly adhere to the following:
I will complain about the destruction of 1st Amendment Rights in this country, while I am duly being allowed to exercise my 1st Amendment Rights.
I will complain about the destruction of my 2ndAmendment Rights in this country, while I am duly >being allowed to exercise my 2ndAmendment rights by legally but brazenly brandishing unconcealed firearms in public.
I will forswear the time-honored principles of fairness, decency, and respect by screaming unintelligible platitudes regarding tyranny, Nazi-ism, and socialism at public town halls. Also.
I pledge to eliminate all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of and participation in any socialist goods and services including but not limited to the following:
*
Social Security
*
Medicare/Medicaid
*
State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)
*
Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
*
US Postal Service
*
Roads and Highways
*
Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
*
The US Railway System
*
Public Subways and Metro Systems
*
Public Bus and Lightrail Systems
*
Rest Areas on Highways
*
Sidewalks
*
All Government-Funded Local/State Projects (e.g., see Iowa 2009federal senate appropriations--http://grassley.senate.gov/issues/upload/Master-Approps-73109.pdf)
*
Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)
*
Public and State Universities and Colleges
*
Public Primary and Secondary Schools
*
Sesame Street
*
Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children
*
Public Museums
*
Libraries
*
Public Parks and Beaches
*
State and National Parks
*
Public Zoos
*
Unemployment Insurance
*
Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services
*
Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding From Local, State or Federal Government (pretty much all of them)
*
Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived From Any Government Grant or Research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)
*
Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and Velcro (Nazi-NASA Inventions)
*
Use of the Internet, email, and networked computers, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking
*
Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown With, Fed With, Raised With or That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies
*
Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown With or That Contain Inputs From Government Subsidies
*
If a veteran of the government-run socialist US military, I will forgo my VA benefits and insist on paying for my own medical care
I will not tour socialist government buildings like the Capitol in Washington, D.C.
I pledge to never take myself, my family, or my children on a tour of the following types of socialist
locations, including but not limited to:
*
Smithsonian Museums such as the Air and Space Museum or Museum of American History
*
The socialist Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson Monuments
*
The government-operated Statue of Liberty
*
The Grand Canyon
*
The socialist World War II and Vietnam Veterans Memorials
*
The government-run socialist-propaganda location known as Arlington National Cemetery
*
All other public-funded socialist sites, whether it be in my state or in Washington, DC
I will urge my Member of Congress and Senators to forgo their government salary and government-provided healthcare.
I will oppose and condemn the government-funded and therefore socialist military of the United States of America.
I will boycott the products of socialist defense contractors such as GE, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Humana, FedEx, General Motors, Honeywell, and hundreds of others that are paid by our socialist government to produce goods for our socialist army.
I will protest socialist security departments such as the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, TSA, Department of Justice and their socialist employees.
Upon reaching eligible retirement age, I will tear up my socialist Social Security checks.
Upon reaching age 65, I will forgo Medicare and pay for my own private health insurance until I die.
SWORN ON A BIBLE AND SIGNED THIS DAY OF ____________ IN THE YEAR ______________.
Signed: ___________________________ ___________________________
While the above may not exactly reflect the teabaggers' position (sorry, couldn't resist), a public health insurance option is essentially no different from any of the above items. I'm not asking those of you opposed to such a program to change your minds, but please, for the love of any gods you may or may not believe in, learn what "socialism" actually is before you go spouting off about how inherently evil it is.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Stop me if this sounds familiar...
I was wandering the Internet the other day, and I came across an interesting letter. It was written by a fairly prominent physicist named Richard Feynman, back when he was serving as a tech adviser for a film back in 1958. As I was reading the letter, it occurred to me that it seemed very familiar.
He was talking about the play of science in the entertainment industry, but so much of what he said seems to reflect the very argument we have about the news media today! We've been treating this conflict between information and entertainment as though it were a recent thing, but this makes it pretty clear that the two ideals have been at loggerheads for the past 50 years and longer. Maybe science was an early battleground, and we're only now seeing the effects elsewhere, or maybe the internal conflict in the news media has always been there, and we just didn't notice until now. Either way, this is not a recent phenomenon, and I think we need to start taking the long view of this if we want real answers.
Mr. Ralph Bown
Advisory Board in Connection with Programs on Science
New York, New York
Dear Mr. Bown:
Thank you for your formidable letter describing the legal interrelations. Who is the "designee"? Is that me or am I an advisor, or what the hell? Put it in clear one-syllable words, please.
Anyway the Warner guys have an author named Marcus. He has come to my office on two occasions each for about half a day (so you owe me one day's pay more). The purpose was to get more complete detailed explanation of some of the scientific matters in the report I wrote (like simultaneity in relativity, how short times are measured, etc., etc.). He is very intelligent and I was successful in explaining a great deal to him.
Although the gimmicks, etc. were not on the agenda, he told me about them, and left a document describing his plans. I made no comment on these ideas, telling him they are not my business.
(On the other hands, my hair stood on end as I read the "ideas" for presenting the material. But I kept my hat on and it wasn't noticed. It will relieve me a little if I can say a word to somebody so I can let out steam. So please don't consider the following as a valid for official opinion. It is just me letting off unofficial views and is to be kept safely within these parentheses).
(The idea that movie people know how to present this stuff, because they are entertainment-wise and the scientists aren't is wrong. They have no experience in explaining ideas, witness all movies, and I do. I am a successful lecturer in physics for popular audiences. The real entertainment gimmick is the excitement, drama and mystery of the subject matter. People love to learn something, they are "entertained" enormously by being allowed to understand a little bit of something they never understood before. One must have faith in the subject and in people's interest in it. Otherwise just use a Western to sell telephones! The faith in the value of the subject matter must be sincere and show through clearly. All gimmicks, etc. should be subservient to this. They should help in explaining and describing the subject, and not in entertaining. Entertainment will be an automatic byproduct.)
Don't worry, I'm keeping my hat on and will limit myself to scientific advice only.
Sincerely,
R. P. Feynman
He was talking about the play of science in the entertainment industry, but so much of what he said seems to reflect the very argument we have about the news media today! We've been treating this conflict between information and entertainment as though it were a recent thing, but this makes it pretty clear that the two ideals have been at loggerheads for the past 50 years and longer. Maybe science was an early battleground, and we're only now seeing the effects elsewhere, or maybe the internal conflict in the news media has always been there, and we just didn't notice until now. Either way, this is not a recent phenomenon, and I think we need to start taking the long view of this if we want real answers.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Some people are content to shoot themselves in the foot the old-fashioned way. Others insist on using an automatic.
I was going to stick with my usual strategy of just picking out something weird from the week to comment on, but with so much stupid shit going down, I can't pick just one. So without further ado:
1: In an event that, at this point, we all know about, Rep. Joe Wilson had a teensy little outburst at President Obama's speech last night. Now, I have no problem with him disagreeing, and I have no problem with him making it known publicly, but there's a time and place. Further, the claim that Obama was lying was more than a little out of line, since the specific portion of the speech he objected to is confirmed in section 246 of the bill currently making its way through the House. In fact, the bill outright states that affordability credits will not be provided to illegal immigrants.
A good friend put it best: "I'm one for revenge, so a well timed, lingering fart by Al Franken during a Mitch McConnell filibuster seems in order."
Adding to the fun, though, is the fact that since this little exchange, Wilson's opponent, one Rob Miller, has received massive - and rapidly climbing - campaign contributions. (See HERE or HERE) When you consider his strong track record of poorly-considered outbursts, I'm going to recommend the GOP muzzle him before he takes down the entire party.
For more fact-checking of his claims, go HERE
2: A couple of weeks back, Glenn Beck went off on this group of ostensibly "militant" group of young black men, as seen here (relevant part starts around 1:10):
Now, however, it's been revealed (not by Beck, of course) that this oh-so-dangerous junior military was, in fact: a group of high-school step dancers rehearsing. No, seriously, check it out:
If you check out the (many, many) videos on Youtube of this, you'll see that wearing camo pants is pretty common for things like this. Hardly the high treason Beck claims to fear. Honestly, I've always thought he was at least bright enough to hide the racist crap, but lately, he's just waved it out for all to see.
3: Speaking of waving things out for all to see, this one has much less relevance to real politics, but it was so damn funny that I had to include it. Apparently, Sacramento assemblyman Michael Duvall (married w/ 2 children) has been found to be in bed with a lobbyist. Not surprising on its own, but when you consider that it's literal, things get more interesting. For added fun, it was discovered when ol' Mikey didn't realize his lapel mike was on and talked about the affair to a colleague. Quite vividly, in fact! Some choicer excerpts:
Honestly, if Wilson needs a muzzle, this idiot needs something else entirely. For the entirety of the story, go read the article HERE. For even more entertainment, here's the news story, complete with audio clip:
EDIT: I know I've gone on long enough, but Jesus, this stuff just keeps on coming:
So, Sean Hannity says, "[Obama] said tonight that insurance executives are bad people." Okay, not true, but whatever. But then he immediately shows a clip of Obama stating, "Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people; they do it because it's profitable." Hannity's not even bothering to hide the fact that he's full of crap on this one!
1: In an event that, at this point, we all know about, Rep. Joe Wilson had a teensy little outburst at President Obama's speech last night. Now, I have no problem with him disagreeing, and I have no problem with him making it known publicly, but there's a time and place. Further, the claim that Obama was lying was more than a little out of line, since the specific portion of the speech he objected to is confirmed in section 246 of the bill currently making its way through the House. In fact, the bill outright states that affordability credits will not be provided to illegal immigrants.
A good friend put it best: "I'm one for revenge, so a well timed, lingering fart by Al Franken during a Mitch McConnell filibuster seems in order."
Adding to the fun, though, is the fact that since this little exchange, Wilson's opponent, one Rob Miller, has received massive - and rapidly climbing - campaign contributions. (See HERE or HERE) When you consider his strong track record of poorly-considered outbursts, I'm going to recommend the GOP muzzle him before he takes down the entire party.
For more fact-checking of his claims, go HERE
2: A couple of weeks back, Glenn Beck went off on this group of ostensibly "militant" group of young black men, as seen here (relevant part starts around 1:10):
Now, however, it's been revealed (not by Beck, of course) that this oh-so-dangerous junior military was, in fact: a group of high-school step dancers rehearsing. No, seriously, check it out:
If you check out the (many, many) videos on Youtube of this, you'll see that wearing camo pants is pretty common for things like this. Hardly the high treason Beck claims to fear. Honestly, I've always thought he was at least bright enough to hide the racist crap, but lately, he's just waved it out for all to see.
3: Speaking of waving things out for all to see, this one has much less relevance to real politics, but it was so damn funny that I had to include it. Apparently, Sacramento assemblyman Michael Duvall (married w/ 2 children) has been found to be in bed with a lobbyist. Not surprising on its own, but when you consider that it's literal, things get more interesting. For added fun, it was discovered when ol' Mikey didn't realize his lapel mike was on and talked about the affair to a colleague. Quite vividly, in fact! Some choicer excerpts:
"She wears little eye-patch underwear <...> So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And so, we had made love Wednesday--a lot! And so she'll, she's all, 'I am going up and down the stairs, and you're dripping out of me!' So messy!"
"So, I am getting into spanking her. Yeah, I like it. I like spanking her. She goes, 'I know you like spanking me.' I said, 'Yeah! Because you're such a bad girl!'"
Honestly, if Wilson needs a muzzle, this idiot needs something else entirely. For the entirety of the story, go read the article HERE. For even more entertainment, here's the news story, complete with audio clip:
EDIT: I know I've gone on long enough, but Jesus, this stuff just keeps on coming:
So, Sean Hannity says, "[Obama] said tonight that insurance executives are bad people." Okay, not true, but whatever. But then he immediately shows a clip of Obama stating, "Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people; they do it because it's profitable." Hannity's not even bothering to hide the fact that he's full of crap on this one!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)