So - this has nothing to do with anything.
First, a story about Patrick Moberg, whose life imtitated art when he tracked down a woman he had seen on the NY subway and fell in love with on first sight. Oh well, maybe we'll finally get over the romance idea and realize successful relationships are about shared interests and compromises.
Second, and much more important, gymnast Paul Hamm dropped out of the race for the Olympics this year due to a broken hand. Kind of a shame, but at the same time, it leaves the field open for him to represent the United States on Ninja Warrior again. Of course that's if he doesn't mind getting his ass handed to him by the greatest fisherman who ever lived.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Get Off My Side
So - I just finished watching Manufacturing Dissent, a Canadian film in which the documentarians attempt to secure an interview with Michael Moore, surrounded by snippets of Moore's films, controversies, and (essentially) misrepresentations. Now since it is a Canadian company, I have to assume that there isn't much of a political agenda here. Maybe some, but I definitely get the feeling that the writer, Debbie Melnyk, is more upset with him for manipulating his facts than she is for his left-wing looniness. (In fact, she's done a couple other films in Moore's style, with narration, etc., so I think she's an honest fan).
The problem is, as this movie shows, that Moore (in addition to being a crackpot) just blatantly manipulates his footage. Apparently (maybe others follow this more than I do), he completely changed the timeline in Roger & Me, deleted footage of anti-GM rallies to portray Flint as apathetic, and actually interviewed Roger Smith. Twice. But he cuts that out.
Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 are also address in the film, including an interesting interview with the managers of the bank who gave him a shotgun when he opened a bank account. Whole thing was staged beforehand, and again, edited to show it as weirder than it actually was. It didn't really address 9/11, either because the film itself came out only about six months after it, and also because, frankly, that movie had so many holes and blatant manipulations they didn't really need to.
Finally, it shows that Michael Moore is a man with some serious emotional and psychological problems - which leads to his desperate need for attention and his flawed view of reality. As one person in the film put it: "Michael Moore could only exist in a political vacuum. If the left had had any spokesmen, people would be laughing at the man, not with him."
I guess, in one way this is a good thing - to me the strength of liberalism has been its ability to engage in debate with itself. I have never met a conservative who will say that Ann Coulter is a crackpot, or Rush Limbaugh doesn't know what he's talking about. But it seems that more people are telling Michael Moore:
Got Off My Side!
The problem is, as this movie shows, that Moore (in addition to being a crackpot) just blatantly manipulates his footage. Apparently (maybe others follow this more than I do), he completely changed the timeline in Roger & Me, deleted footage of anti-GM rallies to portray Flint as apathetic, and actually interviewed Roger Smith. Twice. But he cuts that out.
Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 are also address in the film, including an interesting interview with the managers of the bank who gave him a shotgun when he opened a bank account. Whole thing was staged beforehand, and again, edited to show it as weirder than it actually was. It didn't really address 9/11, either because the film itself came out only about six months after it, and also because, frankly, that movie had so many holes and blatant manipulations they didn't really need to.
Finally, it shows that Michael Moore is a man with some serious emotional and psychological problems - which leads to his desperate need for attention and his flawed view of reality. As one person in the film put it: "Michael Moore could only exist in a political vacuum. If the left had had any spokesmen, people would be laughing at the man, not with him."
I guess, in one way this is a good thing - to me the strength of liberalism has been its ability to engage in debate with itself. I have never met a conservative who will say that Ann Coulter is a crackpot, or Rush Limbaugh doesn't know what he's talking about. But it seems that more people are telling Michael Moore:
Got Off My Side!
Friday, July 11, 2008
Caution - VERY SENSITIVE and TOUCHY ISSUE
Okay, so I'm late to this Jezebel thing. Hooray for Slate, they do the searches for you.
So - apparently the founders of Jezebel were on a comedy discussion show, got drunk, and made fools of themselves. The problem, most people seem to agree, is that it's a comedy show, and suddenly it turns to the most taboo of subjects - rape.
Here's the link to the taped interview session. I'm not going to link to any other sites, just put "moe", "tracie", and "shoot the messenger" into google and you'll find the commentaries.
There is definitely something unique about the subject - and it is still taboo to talk about. But as I like to say, I'm a combat vet goddamn it, I'll do whatever the fuck I want. There was a book I read a few years ago which caused a lot of controversy, called A Natural History of Rape, which goes into the biological advantages of rape to a male who can not otherwise succeed in finding a mate. Remember, it's all about the genes, not about the organism, or about the community. Now, this book created a lot of controversy. What I found really interesting about it, though, was that the authors say they are going to use "forced sexual aggression" rather than "rape" in their discussions in order to avoid the emotionally laden term, but in their introduction conclusion, and title, they revert to the loaded term.
Returning to the Jezebels, the main disconnect (god I hate that word) - seems to be between older and younger generation feminists, with the host (wo)manning the cannons for the older feminist group. My only comment here is the truism she quotes: "Rape is not about sex, it's about power and violence." Now, I am not about to argue that the two are NOT connected, but I quote from one of my favorite talk show hosts: "Yeah, its just like every other violent act that ends with an ejaculation." Trying to deny the sexual element of rape is like trying to deny the violent element of it. At the same time, I want to stress that personally I think the act is horrible, on the same level as a life-threatening beating. I just don't think the subject, the act, of rape is a monolithic entity in which "got too drunk and didn't have the facilities to say no," "went home with a stranger who turned out to be psychotic," and "man broke into my apartment and held me at knifepoint," can all be equated. Repeating "rape is about power," leads to all sex is rape, and ends up in a big feedback loop in which since sex is rape and rape is bad, sex is bad, and we add on more negative feelings to sex, which leads to guilt about sex, which leads to guilt about rape, etc.
And I think that, speaking as a true cultural relativist, we as Westerners have such a strong response to rape, it is the after-effects which cause the greatest emotional trauma to the victim, what sets it apart from simply an act of violence. The Jezebels, in their odd drunken way, seem to be expressing a point that to them, rape is no big deal. This, of course, gets the host up in arms. But - and this is the important point - power is granted, not taken. (In case you haven't noticed before, I strongly believe in human agency.) The power which rape holds is the social power granted to it by our prudish forefathers, who said that all sex is tainted, combined with a bit of weird perverted New Age mysticism about sex being "sacred". Maybe we're just animals and sex is just sex...
Sex, rape, and power are interconnected, yes. But you can't take the sex out of the equation. Or, rather, maybe we need to put the sex back in the equation.
So - if nothing else, maybe the Jezebels, by being so flippant about the conventions of rape, and discussions about rape, signify that we might be able to separate the two ideas (rape and power) so that we can gain a better understanding of both issues. Maybe being flippant about the emotional consequences is the only way to break the power that power has over rape. Or maybe I'll just get flamed and lose all my female friends.
So - apparently the founders of Jezebel were on a comedy discussion show, got drunk, and made fools of themselves. The problem, most people seem to agree, is that it's a comedy show, and suddenly it turns to the most taboo of subjects - rape.
Here's the link to the taped interview session. I'm not going to link to any other sites, just put "moe", "tracie", and "shoot the messenger" into google and you'll find the commentaries.
There is definitely something unique about the subject - and it is still taboo to talk about. But as I like to say, I'm a combat vet goddamn it, I'll do whatever the fuck I want. There was a book I read a few years ago which caused a lot of controversy, called A Natural History of Rape, which goes into the biological advantages of rape to a male who can not otherwise succeed in finding a mate. Remember, it's all about the genes, not about the organism, or about the community. Now, this book created a lot of controversy. What I found really interesting about it, though, was that the authors say they are going to use "forced sexual aggression" rather than "rape" in their discussions in order to avoid the emotionally laden term, but in their introduction conclusion, and title, they revert to the loaded term.
Returning to the Jezebels, the main disconnect (god I hate that word) - seems to be between older and younger generation feminists, with the host (wo)manning the cannons for the older feminist group. My only comment here is the truism she quotes: "Rape is not about sex, it's about power and violence." Now, I am not about to argue that the two are NOT connected, but I quote from one of my favorite talk show hosts: "Yeah, its just like every other violent act that ends with an ejaculation." Trying to deny the sexual element of rape is like trying to deny the violent element of it. At the same time, I want to stress that personally I think the act is horrible, on the same level as a life-threatening beating. I just don't think the subject, the act, of rape is a monolithic entity in which "got too drunk and didn't have the facilities to say no," "went home with a stranger who turned out to be psychotic," and "man broke into my apartment and held me at knifepoint," can all be equated. Repeating "rape is about power," leads to all sex is rape, and ends up in a big feedback loop in which since sex is rape and rape is bad, sex is bad, and we add on more negative feelings to sex, which leads to guilt about sex, which leads to guilt about rape, etc.
And I think that, speaking as a true cultural relativist, we as Westerners have such a strong response to rape, it is the after-effects which cause the greatest emotional trauma to the victim, what sets it apart from simply an act of violence. The Jezebels, in their odd drunken way, seem to be expressing a point that to them, rape is no big deal. This, of course, gets the host up in arms. But - and this is the important point - power is granted, not taken. (In case you haven't noticed before, I strongly believe in human agency.) The power which rape holds is the social power granted to it by our prudish forefathers, who said that all sex is tainted, combined with a bit of weird perverted New Age mysticism about sex being "sacred". Maybe we're just animals and sex is just sex...
Sex, rape, and power are interconnected, yes. But you can't take the sex out of the equation. Or, rather, maybe we need to put the sex back in the equation.
So - if nothing else, maybe the Jezebels, by being so flippant about the conventions of rape, and discussions about rape, signify that we might be able to separate the two ideas (rape and power) so that we can gain a better understanding of both issues. Maybe being flippant about the emotional consequences is the only way to break the power that power has over rape. Or maybe I'll just get flamed and lose all my female friends.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
*sigh*
I like Obama. I think he is dynamic, attractive, smart, and would make a good leader. But really... I think the dems are gonna lose this one. As the Daily Show has put it: it's only a matter of time until the Democrats once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And what really pisses me off about this is that I don't think the Repucblicans/Conservatives have to do anything.
He's
Doing
It to
Himself.
Now a point on the last one. In 2004, John Kerry won support, in my opinion, because of statements like this:
"I'm tired of these Republicans who spend so much time denigrating Democrats and other people's commitment to the defense of our nation," Kerry said at a rally on the campus of the University of Pittsburgh. "I'm tired of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and a bunch of people who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance. I went [to Vietnam]. I'm not going listen to them talk to me about patriotism." (Washington Post) This statement held a certain truthiness for me, and I remember hearing him say it and thinking "Yeah!" Then he caved on the Swiftboat ads.
I really think that Americans respond to politicians who take on the stupidity of Americans. Now, Obama's made a couple gaffes. (See that horrible seal). And, yes, he is struggling with the Secret Muslim charges. But still, he needs to come out swinging, and he needs to stick to his gun. The flag pin was the first step on his downward spiral. Speaking as a former servicemember and veteran, his statement that wearing a flag pin is not true patriotism inspired the same "Yeah!" response as Kerry's statement. Then he went and put on a flag pin. Now he's turning down the endorsement of a liberal, Democrat, politician, just because he happens to be Muslim. This just makes him appear scared. And we defeinitely don't want a scared president.
He's
Doing
It to
Himself.
Now a point on the last one. In 2004, John Kerry won support, in my opinion, because of statements like this:
"I'm tired of these Republicans who spend so much time denigrating Democrats and other people's commitment to the defense of our nation," Kerry said at a rally on the campus of the University of Pittsburgh. "I'm tired of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and a bunch of people who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance. I went [to Vietnam]. I'm not going listen to them talk to me about patriotism." (Washington Post) This statement held a certain truthiness for me, and I remember hearing him say it and thinking "Yeah!" Then he caved on the Swiftboat ads.
I really think that Americans respond to politicians who take on the stupidity of Americans. Now, Obama's made a couple gaffes. (See that horrible seal). And, yes, he is struggling with the Secret Muslim charges. But still, he needs to come out swinging, and he needs to stick to his gun. The flag pin was the first step on his downward spiral. Speaking as a former servicemember and veteran, his statement that wearing a flag pin is not true patriotism inspired the same "Yeah!" response as Kerry's statement. Then he went and put on a flag pin. Now he's turning down the endorsement of a liberal, Democrat, politician, just because he happens to be Muslim. This just makes him appear scared. And we defeinitely don't want a scared president.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
How Many Soldiers are There Really?
So, this thought combines a number of different elements:
1) Soldiers are a type
2) Iraqi insurgents believe American casualty numbers are highly deflated
3) There is a strange flashing light on Camp Victory
4) A pretty good movie
So, it goes like this:
While in the Army, and especially on my trips to Iraq, I have noticed that soldiers are a type. In fact, there are about a hundred types (this is a rough estimate). But I have seen Brigmans, Smittys, Silbers, Morinis, Gutierrezs, Me's, Hamiltons, Doties, and only a few more. Sometimes two or three times a day. So, this leads me to my theory: there are really only about a hundred soldiers in the Army, and they just push out clones of them when they need them. Now - I know, how do they do this? We'll get to that later, but for right now, just bear in mind that you are required to have a DNA sample on file with the Army...
Next, according to the insurgents, the American press lies about how many soldiers have died, and in fact MANY more soldiers have been killed by them over the years. Yes, I know, this sounds kind of silly, as lying in this case is definitely in their interests to make themselves sound more badass than they actually are. And, of course, there seems to be a long tradition of this in the Iraqi culture... However, let's assume for the moment that our press agents really are in collusion with the government:
What is happening to our troops in Iraq that even though we are losing huge numbers in insurgent attacks, we still have a relatively constant size force in Iraq?
Well, it all goes back to that mysterious flashing light. You see, my friends and I have, at various times, noticed a strange, very quick, very bright, flash at night on Camp Victory. Unfortunately, it was always out of the corners of our eyes. Well, one night, while walking home at 2 in the morning to my tent, I happened to be facing exactly the right direction, and I see a massive lightning bolt arc UP from behind one of the headquarters (I won't mention which one, because then the insurgents will know which one to hit). Ah-ha! Apparently we're running some kind of large Tesla machine there, but for what purpose?
Now, we get to it - go watch the movie mentioned above, and it all becomes clear! We are cloning soldiers, then when they get hit by an IED or an incoming attack, pushing a clone out of the Tesla machine on Camp Victory!
This post is intended in every way to be humorous. I am not making light of soldiers deaths, body counts, or any other statistic produced by the American Press.
No soldiers were harmed in the making of this post.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. รณ 2257 all bloggers and soldiers depicted in this post are over the ago of 18.
1) Soldiers are a type
2) Iraqi insurgents believe American casualty numbers are highly deflated
3) There is a strange flashing light on Camp Victory
4) A pretty good movie
So, it goes like this:
While in the Army, and especially on my trips to Iraq, I have noticed that soldiers are a type. In fact, there are about a hundred types (this is a rough estimate). But I have seen Brigmans, Smittys, Silbers, Morinis, Gutierrezs, Me's, Hamiltons, Doties, and only a few more. Sometimes two or three times a day. So, this leads me to my theory: there are really only about a hundred soldiers in the Army, and they just push out clones of them when they need them. Now - I know, how do they do this? We'll get to that later, but for right now, just bear in mind that you are required to have a DNA sample on file with the Army...
Next, according to the insurgents, the American press lies about how many soldiers have died, and in fact MANY more soldiers have been killed by them over the years. Yes, I know, this sounds kind of silly, as lying in this case is definitely in their interests to make themselves sound more badass than they actually are. And, of course, there seems to be a long tradition of this in the Iraqi culture... However, let's assume for the moment that our press agents really are in collusion with the government:
What is happening to our troops in Iraq that even though we are losing huge numbers in insurgent attacks, we still have a relatively constant size force in Iraq?
Well, it all goes back to that mysterious flashing light. You see, my friends and I have, at various times, noticed a strange, very quick, very bright, flash at night on Camp Victory. Unfortunately, it was always out of the corners of our eyes. Well, one night, while walking home at 2 in the morning to my tent, I happened to be facing exactly the right direction, and I see a massive lightning bolt arc UP from behind one of the headquarters (I won't mention which one, because then the insurgents will know which one to hit). Ah-ha! Apparently we're running some kind of large Tesla machine there, but for what purpose?
Now, we get to it - go watch the movie mentioned above, and it all becomes clear! We are cloning soldiers, then when they get hit by an IED or an incoming attack, pushing a clone out of the Tesla machine on Camp Victory!
This post is intended in every way to be humorous. I am not making light of soldiers deaths, body counts, or any other statistic produced by the American Press.
No soldiers were harmed in the making of this post.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. รณ 2257 all bloggers and soldiers depicted in this post are over the ago of 18.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Back
So, I will hopefully be updating this a bit more often, I'm trying to get in to a regular schedule of work again, and I've noticed that working on this blog was part of my schedule before.
So - I was watching the news (Daily Show - counts as news), and I've noticed something. Apparently Afghanistan is back in the news and important. And how do I know this? Well, I've noticed a very interesting trend in American news coverage. And more specifically, the pronunciations in said news. I first noticed this during the late eighties/early nineties, climaxed by the Tailhook scandal, and harassment became hare-iss-ment. So, context established, I noticed that in news reports the "Talibon have reappeared in Afghanistan" (I'm not going to bother typing a phonetic for Afghanistan because it has been pronounced so many different ways by so many different people). So, by my logic, Afghanistan has come back to the news.
I don't know whether that's a good thing or not, I'll leave it up to smarter minds.
Oh, and Lara Logan is smoking hot. Sorry to objectify.
So - I was watching the news (Daily Show - counts as news), and I've noticed something. Apparently Afghanistan is back in the news and important. And how do I know this? Well, I've noticed a very interesting trend in American news coverage. And more specifically, the pronunciations in said news. I first noticed this during the late eighties/early nineties, climaxed by the Tailhook scandal, and harassment became hare-iss-ment. So, context established, I noticed that in news reports the "Talibon have reappeared in Afghanistan" (I'm not going to bother typing a phonetic for Afghanistan because it has been pronounced so many different ways by so many different people). So, by my logic, Afghanistan has come back to the news.
I don't know whether that's a good thing or not, I'll leave it up to smarter minds.
Oh, and Lara Logan is smoking hot. Sorry to objectify.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Christian Punk'D?!?!?!?
So, I'm reading this Slate article about Christian something or other (rock, etc.) And they mention that there's a Chrsitian version of Punk'd - with the following example:
"In one episode of Prank 3:16, the pranksters fake the Rapture and throw their victim into a panic because she's afraid she's been left behind."
Guess she should read more Tim Lahaye...
And unfortunately, her insight about Christian rock in this context is hardly new and enlightening, even in Slate. Take this description: "You shoehorn a message that's essentially about obeying authority into a genre that's rebellious and nihilistic, and the result can be ugly, fake, or just limp" and then compare Rob Long's discussion of Christian rock and why it is creepy: "rock music—and most other forms of entertainment, when you really think about it—is fundamentally about carnal desire. And Jesus, when you really think about it, is fundamentally not."
Pretty much the same stuff. Rock music is sex, drugs, and rock and roll. (Hurm, that's a bit redundant, I guess). Christian rock is no-sex-before-marriage, body-is-a-temple, and well, I guess rock and roll?
So, maybe what the Christian rockers need to do is rather than steal from regular rock, look a bit more underground... is there Christian punk? Cause they could totally steal from these guys
"In one episode of Prank 3:16, the pranksters fake the Rapture and throw their victim into a panic because she's afraid she's been left behind."
Guess she should read more Tim Lahaye...
And unfortunately, her insight about Christian rock in this context is hardly new and enlightening, even in Slate. Take this description: "You shoehorn a message that's essentially about obeying authority into a genre that's rebellious and nihilistic, and the result can be ugly, fake, or just limp" and then compare Rob Long's discussion of Christian rock and why it is creepy: "rock music—and most other forms of entertainment, when you really think about it—is fundamentally about carnal desire. And Jesus, when you really think about it, is fundamentally not."
Pretty much the same stuff. Rock music is sex, drugs, and rock and roll. (Hurm, that's a bit redundant, I guess). Christian rock is no-sex-before-marriage, body-is-a-temple, and well, I guess rock and roll?
So, maybe what the Christian rockers need to do is rather than steal from regular rock, look a bit more underground... is there Christian punk? Cause they could totally steal from these guys
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
