Dedicated to offering a unique and thoughtful perspective on what's going on in politics, pop culture, science, art, and current events. The One About... Definitely not more of "that"!
This weekend I'm going to be reviewing both President Obama's Not The State Of The Union speech, and Bobby Boucher er I mean Bobby Jindal's response.
I'll be taking the full text of each speech and making my comments on them.
But there was one part of Jindal's reply that got me mad enough I was yelling at the computer.
Because it's stupid. Because it's Republicant buzzword nonsense. Because it amounts to a kind of lie.
To strengthen our economy, we also need to address the crisis in healthcare. Republicans believe in a simple principle: No American should have to worry about losing their health coverage -- period.
We stand for universal access to affordable healthcare coverage. We oppose universal government-run healthcare. Healthcare decisions should be made by doctors and patients -- not by government bureaucrats. We believe Americans can do anything -- and if we put aside partisan politics and work together, we can make our system of private medicine affordable and accessible for every one of our citizens.
ACCESS! What a giant steaming crock of shit!
Access is a word that Republicants like to use, because it sounds so good and so noble. Oh, well, every thing's okay. After all, thanks to the Party Of Rush, we'll still have "access". No fucking money to pay for it. But we'll have "access", so everything will be alright.
You know what? Access is pretty much meaningless, without the means to pay. Ever watch Breakfast At Tiffany's? If no then go and rent it and watch it. Then come back. It's okay, I'll wait. ... ... Alright. Back? Good. Trippy isn't it. very much a product of its time, but still great. Yeah, yeah, I know Mickey Rooney as Japanese man equals epic fail but it was a different time. Anyone, getting back on track. One of the sweetest scenes in the movie, is when George Peppard and Audrey Hepburn go into Tiffany's, and he wants to buy her a gift. So they cast about for what one can get for... Wait for it. Here it comes. Five dollars. Yep five bucks. Which, even back in the before time, aka the 60's, was not a lot of money, especially in a place like Tiffany's. But the important thing is that their "access" to Tiffany's was not obstructed. Right?
Bottom line, access is only half of the issue. I mean, I've got access to the road outside my house. Right now, I can walk out of the house, down the stairs, and step onto the road. Nothing's stopping me. But without a car I'm not going to get very far very fast.
But that's only part of what pissed me off so royally. The second part, is that basically given the stance that Republican's have taken on an unfettered free market economy in all aspects of life, his statement is a lie.
we can make our system of private medicine affordable and accessible for every one of our citizens.
Oh really? And how do you intend to do that? Given that you lot, all act as if forcing any business to accept less than whatever they think the market will bear, is the equivalent of clubbing Jebus while raping a baby seal, how precisely do you plan to make private medicine affordable for everyone?
Really, I'm curious I want to know. And then after you explain that to me, how about you explain to me about the miracle of how the stork brings babies.
Seriously, I'm mad. I'm mad, because once again, the Republicants are going to fight with all their might, to kill healthcare reform. They will lie, they will manipulate, they will buffalo. And every time they talk down anything that Obama, or the Democrats come up with, they will at the same time sing loudly about the glories of access.
As far as I'm concerned a large boot should have access to their collective asses.
When Barack Obama took office as president of the United States, there were a lot of George W. Bush's policies that were quickly reversed, without a second thought. But one policy in place that has only recently been reversed after much discussion and soul searching on the part of many people, actually belonged to George Bush Sr. and dates back to '91.
Recently, MSNBC published an article, talking about the decision to permit photo's of returning deceased soldiers coffins, to be shown if the soldiers family approves.
Below are excerpts that I feel represent the essence of the article, as always for full content you should click on the link above and decide for your self.
"It's the biggest single aspect of the cost of war. For that aspect to be invisible, undebated, undiscussed by American people is just wrong," said Ralph Begleiter, a journalism professor at the University of Delaware who sued the Pentagon to force the release in 2005 of pictures taken by military photographers at Dover.
"I felt these images were the single most important way that the American people could see the cost of war," he said.
Controversy in America over photos of war dead goes back as far as the earliest battlefield photography, said David Perlmutter, a documentary photographer and journalism professor at the University of Kansas.
Photography pioneer Matthew Brady was believed to have arranged battlefield death scenes during America's bloody mid-19th century Civil War. During World War I much of the coverage of the war was censored, as it was in World War II before President Franklin D. Roosevelt decided the public needed to see how its soldiers were suffering to avoid complacency.
Vietnam brought the war home, however, in new ways, as television film footage caught the daily grind and blood of war. The coverage was blamed in part for the loss of public support.
Photographs of war dead are a source of such debate because Americans "are most concerned about what happens to our men and women in uniform above all other considerations," Perlmutter said.
Hmm. The "most concerned..." As opposed to, job loss, starvation, crime, losing your house, freezing to death etc.? Listen, I'm not going to lie. I do not precisely care for, nor trust, any large organization, with ready access to lots of weapons, and a historically shaky moral compass. There are people, who have taken the best parts of military culture, and used it to bring out the best in them. Colin Powell comes to mind. But there are just as many possibly more who went in as near thugs and came out as fully trained and decorated thugs. And while I do not ever wish death on anyone (well except for Ann Coulter) personally I am much more concerned about civilians being killed while our new savior, er I mean president involves us in a conflict that a lot of people from all walks of life say we should not be in. (However, it still makes me less angry than the civilians killed to distract us from where Big Willy's lil willy went.)
Personally, I am fairly neutral on the subject. I think the best part of the decision is to leave it up to the families, so that no ones grief is added to by this.
However, I think that there is a lot of naivety, and wishful thinking about the subject. The truth of the matter, is that this is 2009 not the 60's. Even with as isolated and insulated as American's can often be, even after 9/11, we have grown up some. The showing of the blood and carnage resulting from the Vietnam War, was an important, and necessary step. But this was at a time when it was much harder to find news and opinion that was outside of what the mainstream wanted to be heard. Today, thanks to a dizzying array of communication technologies, anyone who is not aware of the human cost of war and conflict, maintains that lack of awareness of their own free will.
The bigger problem, is the people who will rationalize the conflicts in Iraq, and Afghanistan, as necessary, or even worse, right and justified, and likewise, the deaths resulting from those conflicts. No matter how much things change, no matter how many people might embrace the idea that militaristic solutions are usually the least effective, there will always be people who will feel differently. Regardless how many pictures of flag draped coffins they may see.
Not too long ago, I was all jazzed, because I heard that the stimulus bill was to have provisions for family planning clinics. And then, because the Republicants had a hissy fit it got removed.
Needless to say, this bummed me out immensely. However, after finding a couple of articles recently, I'm more than bummed. I'm enlightened and pissed off.
The acknowledgment that his moral agenda trumps his professed desire to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, comes on the heels of a new report released today by the Guttmacher Institute, a non-partisan policy institute frequently cited by both sides of the abortion debate. The report found that increasing access to contraception is the most effective approach to reducing unwanted pregnancy rates and the need for abortion. That report specifically concluded that making contraception available to low income women reduces the number of abortions by nearly 40%. When birth control isn't available unintended pregnancy increases by 2 million and the number of abortions spikes by more than 800,000 each year. Researchers noted that providing contraception saves taxpayers 4 times as much as not providing it.
Some 91% of Americans favor contraception and so were startled to discover that groups which claim to be against abortion oppose the very strategy that results in significant declines in abortion. Instead, in a further shock, they support policies that researchers show lead to sharp increases in unintended pregnancy and abortion rate. Many ordinary self-described "pro-life" Americans were confused by news of the seemingly incomprehensible, yet universally-held, position of groups that have, for decades, promoted themselves as opponents of abortion.
The simple truth, is that the so called pro-life movement, does not merely want to end abortion. If they did, then they would indeed embrace making sex education, and contraception readily available. No rather they want to force their narrow minded pro marriage (but only for the straights), anti sex agenda on people. This, is what comes from approaching everything from an ideological perspective, with no practicality whatsoever. It's the same pov that former president Bush had.
Reading this had me mad enough. But it was this next piece from the Huffington Post that really had and has me seeing red.
The contraception "funding" in the stimulus was actually just a piece of language that would allow states to quit writing long waiver applications to get Medicaid funding to cover contraception for low income women in the same way they already cover pre-natal care. But over the past few years, 27 states had already spent the time and money to get the waivers, and a new Guttmacher Institute report shows why: Report co-author Rachel Benson Gold called the family planning program "smart government at its best," asserting that every dollar spent on it saves taxpayers $4 in costs associated with unintended births to mothers eligible for Medicaid-funded natal care.
[...]
Surveying data from the 2006 fiscal year, the report says the national family planning program prevented 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, including almost 400,000 teen pregnancies. Based on statistical analysis and projections, these pregnancies would have resulted in 860,000 unintended births, 810,000 abortions and 270,000 miscarriages, according to the report.
Without publicly funded family planning, it said, the U.S. abortion rate would be nearly two-thirds higher, and nearly twice as high among poor women.
Now, frankly, I already knew this instinctively. But to see it spelled out, in black and white just makes my blood boil. To me, to prevent people from having easy access to contraception, and education, and then further, to prevent them from having access to safe legal abortion, is every bit as immoral and distasteful as it would be to try and force unwilling women to have abortions.
It is long past time, that the so called pro life movement decide which matters more to them. Forcing their religion on those who may not share it, with the end result being that more unwanted children are either born or aborted. Or getting realistic and doing whatever it takes to prevent abortion, even if it means allowing the godless heathens to have sex.
Not too long ago, I wrote an article about TJ Sullivan, and his opinion piece for the LA Observed, regarding his outrage, over people getting their news from the Internet, rather than actual news papers and magazines. His suggestion, was to have all news content providers go dark for 6 days, starting July 4th. I detailed my problems with such a suggestion. The One About Homo Sapiens Unfair To Neanderthals!
Since then, I've been keeping my eye out, for other points of view. Some of which, make a lot of sense, many of which honestly don't quite. But the best I've found so far, comes from Tom Foremski writing for the Silicon Valley Watcher.
His ideas are a mixture of suggestions from the obvious,
1: Focus on original content, do not rewrite wire stories or press releases. If newspapers start charging for content people are more likely pay for content they can't get anywhere else.
To the very business savvy,
8: Don't let advertising networks sell your advertising. They take a huge cut for serving ads and you lose the customer connection. I often see newspapers running Google AdSense on their front page and at the bottom of the ads there is the message: "If you'd like to advertise on this site click here." That click takes prospective customers to Google and not to the newspaper. Newspapers should always own their customer relationship.
To the radical,
23: Create a way of allowing readers to share in the ownership of the newspaper, or somehow give them a role in what the newspaper should be doing to become more useful to its community.
Over all it is a very well thought out, and thought provoking list. Best of all there's no whining.
I have no problem at all, with the idea of free enterprise. However, I firmly believe, that if capitalism is not governed, by both conscience, and common sense, you end up with a system in which anything is permissible, so long as there is money to be made from it. It is that kind of thinking, that has gotten us in the mess we are currently in.
To me, this kind of insanity is best summed up by a brilliant scene in the movie Catch 22
To give you some understanding of what has gone before, Milo Minderbinder (John Voight) is the supply officer, for a small airbase in Italy, during the waning days of the second world war. He runs it like his own personal empire, and everyone on the base has shares in "The Syndicate". To maximize profits, he buys and sells and trades. Wheels and deals. Even if it puts others in danger, so long as profit is made.
In a bombing of the base committed by the pilots themselves at Milo's direction to fulfill a contract, Yossarian's (Alan Arkin) best friend Nately (Art Garfunkel) is killed. Yossarian is in the nearby town after curfew looking for the woman who Nately had spent most of his time with. In the course of his search he runs into Milo.
Milo Minderbinder: Nately died a wealthy man, Yossarian. He had over sixty shares in the syndicate.
Yossarian: What difference does that make? He's dead.
Milo Minderbinder: Then his family will get it.
Yossarian: He didn't have time to have a family.
Milo Minderbinder: Then his parents will get it.
Yossarian: They don't need it, they're rich.
Milo Minderbinder: Then they'll understand.
I tried for several days to find this clip on YouTube, to no avail. It really is something that needs to be seen, for it to have full impact. The way John Voight delivers the final line is said, softly almost tenderly. Not smugly or flippantly. In his mind, the fact that Nately died rich makes it all okay. This is a precursor of the "The one who dies with the most toys wins!" mentality.
It is sick, and perverse, and wrong, and it chills me to the bone how many people with control over our lives believe this and base their actions upon it.
You may have heard his name in the news recently, because of David Letterman, finally after over a decade and a half, airing what should have been Bill's final appearance on his show, before dying of cancer, which instead ended up being pulled for reasons that are at best very murky.
But, as wonderful as it is, that Dave corrected his error in judgement, even if only posthumously, that appearance really does not give you a glimpse at Bill in his prime.
First of all the cancer that would claim his life soon after was hitting him pretty hard, but also he was doing his best to make his very intense humour fit the parameters that network television would allow.
To my mind the true Bill Hicks is best exemplified by this clip from one of best known appearances filmed in England during the Revelations concert.
But I really don't want to talk about Bill's life and history. They are fascinating topics, and you would do well to take some time, and get to know the man and his works better in my opinion. But there are lots of venues to do that. Rather I want to talk about the impact that Bill has had on my life, thoughts, and beliefs.
The first time I saw Bill it was his HBO Special Revelations.
He strode onstage to the blaring strains of Jimmi Hendrix, a wall of flame projected behind him. Wearing a black duster, and a cowboy hat. I saw right away that this was someone different from any other comedian out there. I sat, just barely out of high school transfixed.
Here was someone talking in a way that was raw, and funny, and honest, about this country and the things going on in it.
And then in a single moment I went from merely being entertained to being enlightened.
First (and this is how it rests in my memory not necessarily the order that it appeared in his routine) he talked about the Iraq war (you know before we realized we'd have to start numbering them). And he talked about the fact that many (my words Bill is as he always was much stronger in his opinions) of the weapons used by Iraq in the war came from us.
It was in the context of that he likened the US to Jack Palance's character in Shane, creating a situation to excuse his own violence.
(A word about this video, although there are many wonderful clips of Bill himself, I chose this clip and the next one, which is puppetry by filmaker Andrew Lankes using Bill's audio, to showcase the kind of creativity that the man inspires people to.)
And suddenly my eyes were opened. It was a way of looking at this country and its actions that really I had never thought about before. Maybe it was the use of humor, maybe it was his raw and unapologetic manner in presenting it. But I was awake and it was impossible to go back to believing that this country and its leaders are not capable of performing acts of horribleness.
The other thing he said during his routine forever destroyed my ability to put any real faith in members of either party.
But Bill, did more than shape my politics. He shaped my heart. Here was someone who was standing up and speaking the truth as he saw it. And not to further an agenda for his own benefit. No spin. No bullshit. Just his views. It stuck with me.
But this was in the days before the Internet hit big. So I saw, I enjoyed, and then I kind of forgot about him.
Then, about a year later, he died. I was working as a night auditor, at a local resort, when I saw the piece from the AP, in the local paper. The headline was something to the effect of, "Rock and Roll Comedian Dead." Well, at first I assumed the worst. I figured he'd died stupidly, of a drug overdose. When I read the piece, and discovered that it was cancer, I was saddened, but relieved.
So I read, and I mourned, and then I kind of forgot about him. Or more precisely he moved into the back of my mind.
Then along came Dennis Leary. Who I loved. And one day I was talking about Leary with someone and they said, "Well if you like him, you ought to check out the guy Leary ripped off a lot of his stuff from". And he said the name Bill Hicks. By this point I was living in Seattle and had much greater access to the Internet, music and such. I bought Arizona Bay on CD, and through the web, I quickly discovered that I was not alone in my appreciation for Bill.
A few years later, I met and moved, to be with the love of my life.
I told her about Bill Hicks, and she opined that he sounded interesting. Then I had her listen to Arizona Bay and she laughed her ass off. Suddenly she got that "aha" look in her eyes and dug up an old videotape she had. She put it in, and started fast forwarding. Suddenly she gets to... Bill. "I thought he sounded familiar." It's Bill from several years before his HBO special, part of a showcase of young comedians, hosted by Rodney Dangerfield. It's Bill playing a little nicer, but still being honest, and intelligent. "He always stuck in my mind, but I never thought too much more about him because I never saw him anywhere else."
I rejoiced. Not only, did I not have to worry about the most important person in my life, not getting my love of Bill, but in truth, she shared it, and we didn't even know it.
Finally I was able to see with older wiser eyes the program that had so captured and inspired me. And it was as funny, and brave, and intelligent as I remembered.
And now, a few years later, we come to today. Bill Hicks is in many ways, a big part of the machinery that is my moral compass. Sometimes, I'll start riffing on the stupidity of politicians, or corporations and my s/o will look at me, smile and half joking ask, "Channeling Bill today are we sweetie." I know she's teasing a bit. But she also knows how it makes me feel when she says that. Because if I can manage in my life and my writing to be a quarter as honest, brave, and funny as Bill was, I'll be quite pleased indeed.
It's in part because of Bill, that I started The One About... It's because of him, that even as much as I like President Obama I refuse to let him, or any politician, get a free pass. It's because of Bill, that I strive to find an audience. In the hopes, that through my writing, I can maybe have an impact on someone like he had on me.
And because, blogging is cheaper than therapy, and less likely to land me in jail than getting a gun, and taking the double barrell approach to this countries problems (shh be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting Wepublicans!)
So now, that I have you all fired up about what Bill Hicks means to me, I can hear you asking, "But what I can I do to celebrate Bill Hick's life on this the anniversary of his passing?"
Simple. Today, tell the truth when it would be easier to lie, or say nothing. Today, stop and think, about your most cherished beliefs, and give them a closer look than you might normally. Today, don't buy what they are selling. And if it doesn't kill you give it another try tomorrow.
And now I'll leave you with a final thought right from Bill himself.
My s/o and I share a love of movies. And perhaps more importantly we share a hatred of pretty much the same movies too. Oh sure there are the odd moments of divergent opinions. I could watch Magnolia on endless loop and she threatens my life if I go beyond three viewings in a row. She adores White Nights and I think it's great, for when I'm having trouble sleeping.
But we always agree on the big ones.
Like the movie Ghost. It's playing at our local independent movie theater. We hate it. Immensely. So we were coming home from work talking about that someone should write a movie guide along the line of the books, Eat This Not That. For those of you unfamiliar with the books, they grew out of a column in Men's Health Magazine, where the author would take a food item that was patently unhealthy, and suggest a comparison that was similar in taste but much better for you.
I thought about it and smirked, saying, "Gosh it's too bad we don't know anyone who has a blog where they could post just such a list." And after a few hours of suggesting movies and alternatives back and forth this article was born.
Now before I get to our first batch of selections a word about the rules we created for this (some of which may get broken in future editions if we have a good enough reason to).
First of all this is not to compare the movies of a particular actor, but rather movies with different casts, and stories but with a simple similarity, for example a movie about a love story that transcends death. Also excluded are comparing movies in a series. I might do articles that are more geared toward that another time but not this time. The other rule is that either I or my s/o must have actually seen the movie. No hear say allowed. And so with those rules in mind I present The Movies.
To put it simply Ghost is a big ol' piece of faked up schmaltz. Patrick Swayze's character is a stereotypical emotionally disconnected male who can't say "I love you" to his girlfriend. He gets deaded but because he never admitted his love he comes back because of course she still needs his protection. I mean he's dead and he's still having to bail her dim ass out of trouble. Then finally after saving her he's learned an important lesson about love and says the words. To which she responds with his formerly dismissive "Me too." Wow how fresh how original. I mean we haven't seen that anywhere before have we. But what I love best is when Chewie almost strangles Lando for betraying Han to the... Oh my have I gotten my movies mixed up again? Well it sure seems someone has.
And then you have Truly Madly Deeply. A woman (Juliet Stevenson) has recently lost her long time partner Jamie (Alan Rickman). She is crippled with grief, wishing that he would just come back. And suddenly one day out of the blue, he does. And at first she's ecstatic. But over time she realizes that the Jamie she was wanting back wasn't the real Jamie but rather an idealized version that she held in her mind. The real Jamie is by turns sweet, and selfish, and loving, and lazy, helpful, and over opinionated. In time she realizes that he was not perfect, and that is his final gift to her, allowing her to put him, and their relationship in perspective and move on with her life. The emotions that TMD evokes are much more real, and both of the main characters are fully realized people, not convenient sexist stereotypes.
Now I know that some of you are going to notice that this is the second movie starring Patrick Swayze that comes out on the losing side and you may infer that I have a dislike of the man. Which I do. But honestly that's not the reason for my choice. In both cases he just happens to be in movies that I feel are vastly inferior to other much better done and more originally presented alternatives.
In the case of To Wong Foo, Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes, and John Leguizamo play a trio of drag queens on a road trip who get waylaid in small town America. While there they face trouble from some of the backwards locals who mistake them for women. Yeah that's the reason they are hassling them because they're sexist. *headdesk*
Like so much of mainstream cinema it tries to look edgy while hugging the middle of the road as if it's life depended on it. Add to that performances that excluding John Leguizamo's lack any subtlety whatsoever.
Instead watch Priscilla Queen Of The Desert. It has a similar road trip theme (Priscilla came first btw) but deals with issues of homophobia much more honestly. It also deals with an issue that was not getting a lot of press at the time namely transphobia. The elder statesman of the group is Bernice. A transwoman played brilliantly by Terrence Stamp. Honestly if they had tried to claim that she was played by Stamps here to unknown twin sister I would have believed it. His performance is spot on. Also one has the pleasure of seeing Guy Pierce and Hugo Weaving just before either of them became big deals in American cinema.
Again as is the case with Truly Madly Deeply, the emotions are much more real, and the performances are about a billion times better than To Wong Foo.
Sleepy Hollow probably stands as my favorite non animated Tim Burton film. He takes an almost unreadable 19th century folk tale titled The Legend of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving and turns it into a fun, suspenseful, period drama meets action movie thriller starring Johnny Depp. He does this primarily by taking the meat of the story and then blatantly altering anything that doesn't work for him. As a result Ichabod goes from a doughty school master, to a New York constable sent to the country on an assignment meant as punishment.
And then you have Francis Ford Coppola, who manages to take a brilliant 19th century gothic revivalist novel and turn it into a nearly unwatchable piece of b grade horror lite pap. The first problem is Coppola himself who even while carrying out about how accurate to the book his movie was going to be still feels the need to include multiple things that were never in the book, such as a prologue showing how Dracula became damned, and a relationship between Dracula and Mina that simply never happened in the book. Add to that some of the worst casting ever. Gary Oldman getting confused and thinking that Drac's meal of choice is scenery. Anthony Hopkins financing either a divorce or rehab, turning in a performance so phoned in that I have to pay long distance charges anytime I watch it. Add to that Canoe Reeves turning Jonathon Harker from milktoast into milksop. A Quincy who comes off as a redneck buffoon and a Lucy Westenra who in classic horror trope turns into a slut as soon as she's undead.
And now one for the imaginary friends in the crowd.
Drop Dead Fred is the story of a girl who must seek to protect her imaginary friend Fred from being destroyed by the evil forces of adult narrow mindedness all the while keeping her mother in the dark. Admittedly it's not terribly deep or complex, but it's sweet and funny.
Now take that story, substitute boy for girl, alien for imaginary friend, make it less funny and more treacly and you've got ET. Probably my least favorite Stephen Spielberg movie of all time until Minority Report came along.
Everyone knows of MASH, which was a critical darling and did fairly well at the box office. Far fewer people however know of Catch 22 which at the time did well with neither audiences nor critics. Catch 22 however is the smarter, more original, and braver of the two.
MASH uses the Korean conflict as a back drop and as a metahpor for the Vietnam war. The surgeons on the 4077 are largely portrayed as conscriptees battling both to save lives and to show up the insanity of the uber pro military types, exemplified by Frank Burns. However Donald Sutherland creates a Hawkeye who is very grating, and most of the other characters are largely one dimensional stereotypes, especially the ones who are on the wrong side of Hawkeye's uber liberal morality.
Catch 22 does share a lot of similarities with MASH including a free wheeling narrative style. The big differences are first off it is set during World War Two and makes very pointed commentary about the fact that militarism, war, and military culture are insane no matter what the time period. Alan Arkin's, Yossarian, while in many ways both grating and acerbic still manages to be more likeable than Sutherland's Hawkeye. Plus while there is much buffoonery it's more evenly spread around and even those characters who are Yossarian's friends are shown to be lunatics in their own ways. Add to that one of the underlying messages about the insanity wrought by capitalism (a message that a future article in this blog will be focusing on in greater depth) and you've got a far superior movie on multiple fronts.
Alright then, that wraps up the first of what may be many Watch This Not That articles. Next time I'll turn my attention to some television shows.
Sadly President Obama seems to be lobbing largely marshmallow puff balls at Wall Street. It seems like one minute he's talking tough such as when he talked about a salary cap for businesses taking bailout money. And then either he relents or he does not pursue when someone relents for him. Such as when the salary cap provisions are removed from the stimulus bill.
So when I came across this article recently in USA Today,
I'll admit that part of me is pleased, but my growing doubt and cynicism has me adopting a wait and see approach.
Personally I think that credit card reform and oversight are very much needed.
Some ideas I'd like to see explored include,
New laws that basically force credit card companies to stop sending cards out unasked. Period. Also creating more reasonable standards for who can get credit. And if they give credit to someone that based on truthful information provided no reasonable person would give credit to, then they have to suck it up and take the loss.
Also make it possible to get your credit rating info once a year for free.
Personally I hate credit cards and refuse to use them, but even still these people need to be kept under watch and forced to behave in a moral way.
Sadly however that will only address only a part of the problem.
I'm not sure if it's refreshing or disheartening to discover that the Republican's may not be the only ones that don't quite get it when it comes to the world of technology.
Personally I figured that President Obama's administration had enough businesses to watch out for, what with the banks and certain other big businesses figuring that it's party time on the public dime.
In statements made to Bloomberg, Christine Varney, nominated by President Obama to be the next U.S. antitrust chief, said,
“When all our enterprises move to computing in the clouds and there is a single firm that is offering a comprehensive solution,” Varney said, “you are going to see the same repeat of Microsoft.” As in the Microsoft case, “there will be companies that will begin to allege that Google is discriminating” against them by “not allowing their products to interoperate with Google’s products,”
Now I'm the first to acknowledge, that any company can lose sight of its moral compass and start to do business on the old model of domination and exploitation. And just a few weeks ago I posted an article about my healthy paranoia regarding "cloud computing".
However to say that Google will automatically become Microsoft as it grows is I think more than a bit paranoid and premature.
First of all I think that if you look at Microsoft's history they have always been primarily about control and ownership. By contrast Google has primarily been about openness and collaboration.
It is Google that has tried to create standards that allows all social networking sites to work and play well together. It is Google who treats users as partners rather than merely consumers.
But more importantly than that, by becoming big enough to challenge Microsoft's preeminence Google has shown others what to do when any one software company becomes too big and exclusive. And I'm willing to bet cashy money that if Google goes down the wrong path someone will start making software by way of competition and in short order unseat them.
That's the way it should be, instead of artificial standards being created to justify governmental intervention.
(This post is completely independent and is only my own opinion. However should the fine folks at Google take offense pretty please don't deactivate my Gmail, blogger, calendar, reader, accounts)
It's not because they have been responsible, since Reagan, for turning this country into a plaything for the wealthy. It's not because their views, have largely been sexist, and homophobic, for a great many years. And it's certainly not because they sold their souls? to the religious right.
Nope. None of that is the reason.
And I have to admit, I feel kind of dumb for thinking it was.
Fortunately the lovely and charming Meghan McCain is around to set me straight.
The Republican party isn't exactly Internet savvy. That's no secret. This has been a source of personal frustration for me for a very long time. Unless the GOP evolves as the party that can successfully utilize the Web, we'll continue to lose influence.
I wanted to ask some of the people who have been doing online work for the Republican party if they could somehow explain—or even admit—what has gone so wrong. But when I started calling around asking for people to comment, I discovered most did not want to talk to me. Instead, they told me that not having enough money was a huge factor in our loss—not our misuse of the Internet. Others were just plain angry, blaming the liberal media, and not the party's shortcomings online. Of course, there is truth in some of this. But denial only amplifies the stereotypes about Republicans being disconnected.
Take Twitter, for example. "So many Republicans now want to get on Twitter because they know it's 'cool,'" Rob continues. "But few are taking the time to really think about what they should use it for. When that happens, you get far too many 'I'm sitting on the tarmac waiting for my plane to take off' tweets. That's when you just further become part of the joke and not the solution."
Until the Republican party joins the twenty-first century and learns how to use the Internet, its members will keep getting older and the youth of America will just keep logging on to the other side.
I feel so much better, now that Ms. McCain has explained it all to me. I mean, here I was thinking, that it was that the Republican party is insulated from the concerns of most of the working class and poor, and a lot of the middle class as well. And that, perhaps, the problem was that they refuse to denounce mindless hate mongers, like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. But I guess that's not the problem after all.
So I look forward to the Republican Party mastering this thing called the Internets so that they can resume their rightful place as Masters of the country's destiny. Also I'm looking very much to those flying pigs that should be launching any day now.
The heart of his article is best summed up by the sub headline,
Clinics offering to create designer babies may turn people against a procedure that can save lives.
For the reasons behind this opinion, follow the link and read Mr. Goldberg's fascinating journey, regarding using genetic engineering to secure the health of his son.
Now personally, I think that people who are so fark barkin nit picky as to want to pre-select the eye color of their child, are laughable, and in desperate need of a reality check.
However, I wonder if perhaps, we shouldn't, instead of discouraging genetic engineers to eschew such work, rather be encouraging them.
Now, I am the first to admit, that I know very little about this field, and understand even less. So my thoughts are based on a general sort of logic, and if anyone wishes to explain to me why I'm wrong, please feel free to do so. I'm always open to learning something new.
But it seems to me, that picking eye color, or hair color, should be a fairly simple thing, compared to, oh say, deactivating the genes that cause Down syndrome, or Sickle-cell disease. If this is so, then wouldn't it be better for scientists, and technicians, working in the field of genetic engineering, to get as much practice as possible, with low risk procedures, so they gain proficiency for high risk ones?
In light of this reasoning, people who want to select eye color, or hair color, or what have you are not only providing cash for these businesses to hire and retain the best, but also are an endless source of practice subjects. So that the more serious cases would have their chance of success increased. And who knows if enough rich lunkheads buy into this kind of stuff, then maybe these businesses will do well enough to be able to offer their services at no, or reduced cost to people who normally could not afford them, to deal with truly life, or quality of life threatening issues.
I am a big fan of science. Often however, not so much a fan of scientists. This is mainly because scientists despite their attempts sometimes to pretend different are people, and well I'm not really enamored of people. Especially when they in an attempt to further an agenda want to tell only half the story. My dislike of people and their tendencies to do this was re-enforced recently when I found this article,
Researchers scanned the brains of certain men as they looked at a photograph of a woman in a bikini and discovered that sections of the brain that usually reacted to objects lit up.
With men, who were known to have sexist tendencies, they also discovered that a part of the brain that usually turned on during social interaction actually de-activated when they saw the photograph.
Professor Susan Fiske, of Princeton University, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting that she believes that the results show that some men did not see sexualised women as a "human".
She said the effect was particularly powerful in the workplace and that studies had shown that men interviewing sexually attractive women behaved very differently towards them than other women and men.
The above excerpts what I feel is the core of the article, there is of course more detail to be had by following the link and reading the whole thing.
The bottom line is that I'm deeply unimpressed.
First of all, these conclusions are being drawn based on a photograph? Well, to me, that suggests that the conclusion is only valid as regards that very narrow example. How about some results of brain scans done of men while they are in the same room with an attractive woman? And that leads me to the other major problem I have with their conclusions. No mention what so ever of any studies being done with women as the test subjects. I mean after all women certainly never ever view men merely as objects. Right?
Needless to say, while there are some interesting findings, I personally refuse to take too seriously any conclusions that are presented in such an uneven handed way. If you want to study objectification, that is all well and good. In fact I'd go so far as to say that it's very necessary. But how about doing some real science, and then publishing the results, instead of narrow band tests that give the results that support your particular agenda? Just a thought.
Oh man, oh man, oh man am I pissed off. This is a rare thing. Usually I sit here, gather my news, consider my opinions and then write. But I just happened to be online to catch this one and I am mad enough to spit nails.
I first caught the scent of dung in the air when Politico tweeted a link to this article,
In a move allegedly motivated by concern because the outrage to a cartoon with racist overtones published last week in the New York Post, the Washington Pot offered the follow pre-apology.
"The headline, illustration, and text of 'Below the Beltway,' a column in The Washington Post Magazine today, may cause offense to readers. The magazine was was printed before a widely publicized incident last week in which a chimpanzee attacked a badly mauled a woman in Stamford, Conn. In addition, the image and text inadvertently may conjure racial stereotypes that The Post does not countenance. We regret the lapse."
Curious I went over to look at the cartoon and article. Titled Monkey Business it is an article about an alleged study showing the differences in arousal between men and women.
The following cartoon accompanies it,
In the article the author referencing this study writes,
The study found that men were completely predictable: Straight men reported they were turned on only by images of women, and the machine confirmed that. Same with gay men and images of men. But while women of both orientations reported similarly gender-specific responses, the machine called them liars. The sensors reported that all women were turned on by absolutely everything ... including videos of bonobos having sex. Bonobos are apes.
The author then goes on to detail a conversation he allegedly had with a feminist scholar friend of his.
Gene: So, from a highly scientific perspective, can we agree this study establishes that, deep in their hearts, all women are slutbunnies?
Gina: What this study has confirmed is what we have always known: Women are more complicated and more interesting than men in all observable ways. This includes our appetites in general, and our sexual response in particular. Our sexual response is constructed like the Chartres cathedral, with flying buttresses and Romanesque friezes and colonnades and catafalques and labyrinthine passageways said to have mystical powers. Men's sexual response is constructed like a rubber-band slingshot.
Grr. Frankly if this article and the exchanges there in are meant to be funny they missed the mark by about a mile. It's stupid, insulting, and sexist. The only potential upside is that at least it's egalitarian and manages to insult both men and women.
But the nonsense of pre-apologizing for any racial offense, is not only a smoke screen to try and get people to focus on that rather than it's sexist content, but also is an insult to people who have a legitimate beef with the NY Post cartoon from last week.
It's a classic case of not only missing the point, but of belittling by making a show of being overly sensitive.
The truth of the matter is that nobody in their right mind would look at the cartoon that the WaPost ran with this article and liken it to the one that the NY Post ran. And to act as if those offended by the latter would automatically be offended by the former is to dismiss the legitimacy of those peoples outrage.
So when the WaPost gets called on the carpet for this sexist piece of claptrap I wonder what paper will use it as a smokescreen for some other piece of offensive drivel.
Well gosh. If this isn't a tough time to be a political cartoonist in America, I don't know when was.
First, there was the flap over a cartoon that seemed to liken President Obama to a mugger. And now there is a cartoon that many have charged compare him to a dead monkey.
Oh my.
It used to be so easy. I mean once upon a time, when the POTUS was a white guy, it was pretty much a free for all. It was seldom, if ever, that anyone spoke up, and said that this comparison or that was wrong, or in poor taste, or ...ist of any stripe.
Now suddenly, in not as post race as some would like to believe America, there seems to be some who feel that certain depictions should be considered off limits.
I'm sure there are others who would call such ideas censorship of the most egregious sort.
Now personally, I am for a kind of open and free approach. I believe that anyone be they cartoonist, commentator, comedian, or average citizen should have the freedom to call the president, or any public figure anything they like. And other people should have the freedom to comment on that.
I honestly can't see any other way that it can work. Because the other choices are either censorship, of which I am very much not a fan, or fostering a climate of immunity from criticism which breeds terrible irresponsibility and I'm not a fan of that either.
In other words a cartoon like the one under such hot debate, absolutely should be created and printed. And then those responsible for it should be sitting down and looking at every single letter and email and listening to every phone call that comes their way.
This way no one is squashed, no one is ignored and everyone gets to exercise their freedoms.
What I've found most interesting about this recent to do, is the amount of rather interesting and well stated commentary it's generated. Two of the best I found over at The Huffington Post.
The first (going strictly by timestamp) is by Cenk Uygar, titled,
Here is an excerpt that I think gives the best feel for the heart of his post,
One of the reasons that the country is afraid to talk openly about race is because people are afraid that they are going to be called racists or charged with insensitivity for what they say (or in this case draw). We have to start giving these people a pass even if we suspect that they did not have the best of intentions.
Why? Because if we yell racism every time there is a question about race then people will clam up. Does that mean that nothing should be considered racist anymore or that we shouldn't challenge people on what they have said or done? No, of course not. But it does mean that we should change the way we talk about these issues.
Instead of calling Sean Delonas, the cartoonist at the NY Post, a racist, we should ask him if he understands why his drawing might come across as offensive to some. Not to prove our point, but to start an actual dialogue. Ask him, "Can you not see that given the historical taunts against African-Americans that some may interpret your cartoon as directed at the president? It says in your cartoon that the monkey wrote the stimulus package, whether you intended it or not, can you not see how people might interpret that as a reference to Barack Obama?"
I genuinely want to know his answer to these questions. Not because I want to accuse him of anything, but because I want to understand where he's coming from and explain where we're coming from.
But in order to do this, we have got to lay down our arms first. Progressives who empathize with the fight against racism have to do something magnanimous to start this conversation. They have to turn the other cheek. They have to be open to the idea that people who say or do things that appear racists to them might have a different motivation or perspective. And instead of attacking that person, they have to engage them in a real conversation where you listen to and learn from one another.
Otherwise, none of us are ever going to get all of these feelings surrounding race out into the open. Once the battlefield is joined, everyone retreats to their foxholes.
The second article is by Michael Fauntroy, and is titled,
I feel the core of Mr. Fauntroy's article is best summed up in the following excerpt,
It's appropriate and necessary for the Right to oppose Obama on policy differences. That's the primary role of the loyal opposition. It's absolutely out of bounds to traffic in racism to give voice to that opposition. This is no small point. Obama's supporters must understand that if the Right is allowed to push this garbage with impunity, its volume will only increase. The Constitution offers us many guarantees, even those that make us cringe and angry. Those guarantees should be protected at all costs. But that doesn't mean those who promote racial symbolism should be able to do so in comfort.
I believe that there should be a place in our society for vigorous political debate; it's helps to make a society strong. I also believe that it would be a mistake to have media that comprehensively sings the virtues of any political, social, or cultural leader. But it's at least as dangerous to have a media, particularly a venue as powerful as the New York Post, that proffers racial imagery to attack those with which they disagree.
Bottom line, this is very sensitive issue that is probably going to come up a lot during Mr. Obama's presidency. It is something that we are going to need to find a way to talk about intelligently and openly. With both sides doing their best to truly listen and understand what the other side is saying.
I feel that the two articles I've selected here have that process off to a pretty good start.
Back in 2007 "Sir" Elton John, who over the years, has gone from campy, and outspoken artist, to annoying, crotchety, hasbeen, opined that the Internet should be shut down because it was destroying musical creativity.
Needless to say I was, and still am in total disagreement with him.
Ever since then, I have kept a weather eye out for other celebrities displaying a similar level of paranoia, narrow mindedness, and assumption that because they are famous their opinion should count double over we the peons. And now I've even created an award in their honor. It is The Elton John Memorial Award For Advanced Internet Related Crankiness (anyone who thinks they can come up with a catchier title is welcome to suggest it in this articles comments section). And now ,I'm proud to announce that the first winner of this prestigious award is...(Drum roll please)
Whoopi Goldberg!
In the interest of fairness, I will state up front that over the years I have gone from a fan of the woman and her comedy, to pretty much wishing she would STFU and get off the fark barkin world stage.
Even still, I do not go out of my way to look for fresh reasons to dislike her. And yet she insists on providing them to me.
Some highlights from Ms. Goldberg's screed include,
"There's a Facebook page of mine, I never put it up. I don't like these social sites for this reason, because you don't know what they're going to do with it (your information) and I have no recourse to get it taken down."
And for that reason of course, all social networking sites are ebil. I mean certainly the blame couldn't be placed on irresponsible fans. Why that would be too easy. And of course it's much simpler to complain on The View than to, oh I don't know try contacting Facebook and talking to them, as if they were people of intelligence and goodwill. I mean what kind of idiot would do something like that?
Interestingly enough I have an answer to that. An idiot by the name of LeVar Burton.
Recently Mr. Burton has started a blog, and joined twitter all because of a recent incident of online impersonation that he describes in his first blog post,
In it Mr. Burton gives a brief explanation for what took place and how it led to him starting a blog,
I recently joined a social networking site called Twitter. The reason that I joined is simple. However the reason that I have stayed and made a conscious decision to become as Twitterer myself, is what has led me to this BLOG.
I joined Twitter because it came to my attention that there was someone who was impersonating me! Actually pretending to be LeVar Burton. Now, I must admit to being no stranger to social networking sites and am certainly aware of the number of “fake LeVars” on MySpace and Facebook and I know you can’t control that kind of thing… but! It really bugged me that this “person” had convinced an impressive number of people following his every post or Tweet as they are known in Twitter Dom, that he was me. So with the help of the good folks at Twitter, the ‘fake LeVar Burton’ got kicked to the curb and I reclaimed my inalienable right to speak for myself!
Wow. So he found out that there was someone on Twitter impersonating him, and so he spoke to the people who own and operate Twitter?
What a concept. What a novel idea. How revolutionary.
Ultimately I understand completely why Ms. Goldberg is upset. I mean, I'm nobody, but if I found someone claiming to be me, I'd be none to pleased. But as so often seems to be her wont, she is going about dealing with the problem in a way that doesn't directly address it, and allows her to make a lot of noise. Which I suppose is great if one wants to do that instead of just getting the problem dealt with.
On the upside at least she's not calling for a shutdown of the Internet.
But until now I have not found anyone out there telling a truth that I've known personally for a number of years.
While prosperity is supposed to "trickle down" economic depression trickles up. And it has been for a while now.
But Bill Shore the founder and executive director of the national anti-hunger organization Share Our Strength knows and understands and in a recent think piece at Politico.com titled,
Shore, talks about the fact that the economic boom times were not participated in by all, and that if this country is going to truly be able to return to it's position as a singular nation, that stimulus will have to do more than just put the middle class back on their feet. It must bring the working poor into the embrace of prosperity.
Sadly however I can't say that I have a lot of faith in that happening.
As I've said in the past, I try very hard to give a new president the benefit of the doubt until something catches my attention that I just can't ignore. Usually it takes a few months, sometimes a few years. I'm hoping that President Obama is not going to be setting a speed record, but when I came across this article over at The Huffington Post, I have to admit that I shared pretty much all of the authors feelings.
The long and the short of it is that the provision to cap executive salaries has been excised from the final stimulus bill. For a number of reasons, not the least of which apparently is because the ones who would have been affected whined long enough and hard enough.
"It was not part of the original agreement," said Laura Thatcher, head of the executive compensation practice at Alston & Bird. "If they're going to retroactively change playing rules, it would seem to me that, in fairness, they would have to give the institutions an opportunity to back out of the deal altogether."
So what? Did these people really believe that they should just be able to continue on with business as usual? On the publics money? Well apparently they did. And apparently they will be able to continue to do as they damn well please with no fear of any meaningful consequences.
When the articles author Cenk Uygur says,
I want to know -- no, I demand to know -- who killed this provision? Who argued for taking this cap on executive pay out of the stimulus bill? Do we have a free and strong press in this country? Or are they in on it, too? If not, then find out who did this to us.
The constant non-sensical argument is that if we cap their pay, they won't want to participate in this system. Ooh, don't scare us now. So, we won't get the most incompetent and corrupt losers in America to participate in their own rescue? I'm shivering thinking about the possibility of losing out on the help of these geniuses.
My favorite joke is when people say if we don't continue to pay these clowns millions of dollars they will take their talent elsewhere. I literally laughed out loud after writing that. Please, have at it hoss. Take your talent wherever the fuck you would like.
Is it possible that the Obama administration is behind this move? Absolutely. First, Tim Geithner is a complete Wall Street guy. He believes in protecting the Wall Street bubble. That's why they were ecstatic when he was selected. And Obama himself is a guy who is instinct is almost always to be conciliatory. If Wall Street says this is necessary, he's going to want to reach out and appease them to get things moving. But not this time. This is a conciliatory move we cannot abide.
I voted for Obama, but I did not loan out my intellect to him. I can still make up my own mind on whether he is right or wrong. And if he is participating in this, he is 100% wrong.
I am in complete agreement with him. I ma hoping against hope that the president did not know about this and did not approve it. But sadly that does not change the fact that he is going to be signing it into law. At this point my only hope is that he meant what he said about just because something was removed from the stimulus bill doesn't mean that it won't reappear as part of another piece of legislation or as it's own bill. I'd really like my faith in Obama to live at least longer than my faith in Bush, and preferably longer than in Clinton.
Old Joke: A man walks into a doctors office, he says, "Doctor it hurts when I do this" (raises his arm above his head). The doctor says, "Well then don't do that."
New Punchline: The doctor says, "Well whatever you do, don't stop doing that. After all doing something else would take much to long for you to see results and it probably won't work anyway."
Not very funny? Well neither is the attitude evinced in articles like this one,
Critics of the $787 billion economic stimulus program are not really balking over caulking: They just don't think pouring substantially more money into home weatherization will give a quick kick to the reeling economy.
Obama touts the Energy Department's weatherization program as a "three-fer" that will create tens of thousands of jobs, cut energy costs for many poor and working-class families while making the nation more energy independent.
"That really is an extraordinary step," said Mark Wolfe of the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, which represents state-run low-income energy assistance programs. "A lot of these are great entry-level jobs, but you still have to train people."
And this is not the only thing that I've noticed the Republicants drubbing because basically it's a solution that instead of only thinking of short stimulus attempts to attach the problems of this country in a far reaching and holistic manner.
In many ways I think that this better than anything may serve to frame the debate between the forces of donothingism, and dosomethingism. The do nothings really only want to see the immediate problems solved so that once they are (maybe) then everything can go back to the way it's been for the last several decades.
Whereas those of us who consider ourselves part of the Do Something Brigade, want to see solutions tried that will not only help in the short term, but in the long term as well.
The problem, is that long term thinking has never been popular in this country. We'd much rather let Future US handle it. It's how we dealt with slavery. It's how we dealt with nuclear arms. And a whole host of other problems.
Maybe it's time we realized that the future is now.
Well here we are again. Another Friday and another week full of whiners and wieners. So in my continuing commitment to offer a little bit of good news I found this story,
After selling a majority stake in Miami-based City National Bancshares last November, all he did was take $60 million of the proceeds -- $60 million out of his own pocket -- and hand it to his tellers, bookkeepers, clerks, everyone on the payroll. All 399 workers on the staff received bonuses, and he even tracked down 72 former employees so they could share in the windfall.
Abess didn't publicize what he had done. He didn't even show up at the bank to bask in his employees' gratitude on the day the bonus envelopes were distributed. He was inundated with letters soon afterward.
Asked later what motivated him, Abess said he had long dreamed of a way to reward employees. He had been thinking of creating an employee stock option plan before he decided to sell the bank.
''Those people who joined me and stayed with me at the bank with no promise of equity -- I always thought some day I'm going to surprise them,'' he said. ``I sure as heck don't need [the money].''
Wow! Someone who was under no obligation to do what he did. Doing it because he felt it was right. I'm under no illusions that this is going to spur a wave of similar actions from other bankers. But I'll take my victories of decency over greed where I can find them.
For the greater majority of my life, I knew next to nothing about the group commonly referred to as the Amish. When I moved to the southwest Pennsylvania area however I quickly became acquainted with them through my partner. She had owned a couple of ponies in the past and there had been an Amish saddle maker nearby. As a result she had become very well acquainted with them and their ways.
Some of the things I learned include that Amish differ from area to area, with some being very very liberal, and some being very very conservative and most being in between. That Amish do not so much eschew technology, as view it through the lens of whether it helps bring their community together or pull it apart. That all though there are gender roles they are based more on common sense physicality and are not as rigid as many would assume.
I also through getting to see the shop where the love of my life had spent a great deal of time got a view first hand of the Amish idea of success. The most succinct way I can put it is, "Steady growth, sustainable over generations."
I got to thinking about all this when I found this article,
It is a rather lengthy, very well researched and written piece about some Amish early adopters. It talks about their relationship to technology and their ideas about community.
Personally I think that this country would do well to take a close look at the way the Amish do things and adapt some of their ways for ourselves.
After all much of this current mess I think has been caused by rapid growth with no thought given to long term sustainability. And let's face it the world's history is rife with examples of what using technology without any thought to its potential consequences hath wrought.
The simple truth of the matter is she is a hate monger. It's just that simple. She spews poison all over the world and people permit it because when someone is as outrageous as her, there is no good, honorable way to directly combat them.
There is a very dark very violent comic published by Vertigo (which is an imprint of DC Comics) called 100 Bullets.
The basic idea of the comic is that there is a shadowy group of people who go around giving people (seemingly) at random, a briefcase. In the briefcase is an untraceable gun, with one hundred equally untraceable bullets, that they are free to use any way they like. Of course this being fiction the group giving out the gun and bullets has an agenda and the person selected is subtly manipulated to serve that agenda.
But the very idea has always stuck in my head. If I had such a weapon would I use? And if I used it on whom?
Well, just for gits and shiggles I'm going to pretend that I do indeed have such a weapon. And from time to time I'm going to post about those that I've deemed as I call it "Bulletworthy".
Now just so we are clear this is not me saying I'm actually going to kill anyone. I don't have that kind of time, energy, or money. But rage? Well that sometimes I have in spades.
It's angry hour again, here at The One About... Frankly, there is precious little that infuriates me the way the actions of a certain suspended football player by the name of Michael Vick do. But pulling dead even are the actions of the radical bunch of numb nuts known as PETA.
When the news of Vick's dog fighting crimes came to light, I'll admit that like a lot of people, I assumed that most, if not all of the dogs would have to be euthanized. But you know, I'm just a guy with no training in dog training, and so are most of the people who held this opinion. I figure it's forgivable. But PETA and The Humane Society held the same opinion. So it might be asked was there anyone who had the courage and care to actually check out the dogs and see what their state was? Thanks to a wonderfully in depth article by Jim Gorant for Sports Illustrated titled, Happy New Year, I've discovered the answer is yes. The ASPCA and a group known as BAD RAP (acronym for Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit Bulls) an animal welfare and rescue group based in Oakland California, devoted to caring for and improving the public image of pit bull terriers as pets were two of the most prominent ones involved in a massive rescue and rehabilitation effort.
It was thanks to the actions of these groups that these dogs were given a fair evaluation, and put with people who could aid in their rehabilitation.
The result has been that some of the dogs are doing therapy work, some are living with people who have had troubled pit bulls before, and some might even some day be able to be part of the greater society of dog lovers.
But even if all of the dogs have to spend the rest of their lives with people who are more knowledgeable than most in dealing with dogs from traumatizing backgrounds, they still will be alive, safe, and loved.
So out of fifty one dogs how many are still alive? 47. Yes an amazing forty seven dogs. Of the four that did not survive, two died of "natural causes", one was euthanized for medical reasons and only one had to be put down because of aggression issues. Let me say that again. Only ONE dog out of FIFTY ONE, abused and terrorized animals had to be put down for reasons of aggression. PETA's response to this amazing bit of good news? "Some [of the dogs] will end up with something resembling a normal life," PETA spokesman Dan Shannon says, "but the chances are very slim, and it's not a good risk to take."
This makes me wonder, exactly who is PETA most concerned about? The dogs? The people caring for the dogs? Or their own reputation since they have already been proven wrong in such a public way?
I have my own opinions as to the answer to that.
And if only the story stopped there with a happy ending.
But sadly, Vick is due to get out of jail soon, and is trying to set himself up with PETA to do anti dog fighting PSA's as part of his sentence. PETA is insisting that they will only accept this if he will submit to testing to determine if he has truly changed and realized the wrongness of his actions.
This is great. For PETA. They get to continue to behave like the shameless publicity whores they are, while not having to spend a dime, or do a lick of work to actually help the victims of Vick's actions. Best of all by going, and staying negative, if any of the former fighting dogs should gods forbid injure someone, either accidentally or deliberately, they have covered their ass and get to smugly say, "I told you so," to all those poor dumb bastards who cared more about the dogs than about their public image.
So we have two serious contenders for SUCK of the year in Vick and PETA, and if history is any indication, in a few months we'll have a few more as NFL teams will probably fall all over each other in their attempt to sign Vick. After all there's no such thing as bad publicity. Right?
For another perspective on PETA in regards to the blatant sexism and racism in some of their advertisements and publicity generating stunts I highly reccomend you visit Rotten Little Girls, and read their thoughts on the subject.
The term fills people with a host of feelings. There are a lot of a lot of very bad covers out there. From Pat Boone whiting up Tutti Fruity, to William Shatner butchering Rocket Man.
There are however also a lot of really good ones.
Well I'm going to share some of my favorites, both the original and the cover. Plus two that are on my all time hate list.
First up is a song that many people identify with the best of 80's videos, and a cover by a band that normally I'm not that crazy about.
Land of Confusion by Genesis is best remembered for the use of the puppets from the satire show Spitting Image.
When I first heard Disturbed's version I was impressed. It's tight, recalls the original without being slavish, and gives the song a harder edge that shows how the subject matter is still very timely. I had not until doing research for this article though ever seen the video. I was blown away. It is in it's own way every bit as amazing as Genesis' original.
Sweet Dreams Are Made Of This by the Eurythmics is probably best remembered not only for bringing synthpop into the mainstream but also for Annie Lennox bringing back androgony after it's brief exit from the musical scene.
Tainted Love by Softcell, is a good song with perhaps one of the most stereotypically bad 80's videos around.
The Marilyn Manson cover is a wonderful update. The video is not bad, especially considering the fact that it was made to promote Not Another Teen Movie.
The final entry in the "Covered By Marilyn Manson" sub section of this article is Personal Jesus by Depeche Mode.
The Manson version is musically and lyrically his most faithful. The video expands on the themes in the songs subtext with almost fetishistic images of nazi knockoffs.
Next up is Hurt by Nine Inch Nails off of Downward Spiral which is my favorite album of theirs. Their version of the song is about a drug addicted waste regretting how he's squandered his life.
And then there is the Johnny Cash version which blows NIN version out of the water. Johnny transforms the song into a meditation on aging, regret, and dying.
Next up is I Will Survive by Gloria Gaynor. The song has been embraced by people of a wide variety of backgrounds. From those who simply are drawn to it's message of indominatibility to survivors of sexual assault and abuse.
Cake, a quirky little band in the post grunge 90's did a very trumpet heavy cover. Their style is not everyone's cup of tea but it's probably my favorite version of the song excepting the version that's on Priscilla Queen Of The Desert that has the digirido.
Cake has also covered War Pigs, which is I think one of Ozzie Osbournes best while he was with Black Sabbath and a song that sadly is not dated. I wish it was.
Here I feel that the power of Cake's lead singers voice matches Ozzie's note for note.
Now we have a song that well I only like the original version of Live and Let Die by Paul McCartney and Wings, because it sucks less than pretty much anything else they did.
But the Guns And Roses version pretty much kicks the originals ass and makes it cry like a little bitch.
Here's a song that has been covered, a lot. Knocking On Heaven's Door. Originated by Bob Dylan, it's a toss up as to who's cover is the best known. Bob Marley has done a version as has Eric Clapton.
But a great many people including myself think that Guns And Roses version is the best of the bunch.
And now we come to the two covers that I hate with the undying fire of a thousand suns.
First there is Turn The Page by Bob Seger. It's probably my favorite Seger song and an excellent meditation on the life of a touring rock star.
And then Metallica had to come along and fuck it up. The sick part is that there version isn't too bad until their lead singer starts in with his vocal masturbation. In all fairness my hatred has dimmed some over the years, but still ultimately I know that Hetfield is capable of a better performance than the one he gives here. One only needs to listen to the collabaritive performance the band gave with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra known as S&M to hear that.
And then there's the one that Joe Cocker did that I hated so much that he had to cover another song by the same artists before I was willing to forgive him.
With A Little Help From My Friends by the Beatles is a bouncy happy song.
Which Joe turned into a damn funeral dirge, which I had to listen to add nasaeua when The Wonder Years was on.
Finally Come Together by The Beatles is on of my favorites of their work.
And for the longest time I thought that the cover by Aerosmith, not only improved on the song but was probably one of the greatest covers of all time.
But then the movie Across The Universe came out and there is Joe Cocker doing the best version I have ever heard.
Well that's all for this time. But before I go I feel the need to get on my soap box just a little bit.
I hadn't intended to. But as I was researching youtube to find the videos for my favorite originals and covers I discovered that a small number of them were unembedable. They were the ones "belonging" to either the Sony Music Group or the Universal Music Group. I've encountered this before and it always makes me shake my head. What exactly is the point. If I embed a video on my blog and people see it, then I basically am giving the song, and artist etc free advertising. This is a problem how? To me it's just one more example of how hidebound and out of touch much of the music industry is.
