I first noticed the trend after a call to Microsoft's technical support center. My Windows Explorer browser wasn't functioning correctly. For the first ten minutes, the Technician handled my rather routine request for assistance, and the problem was promptly solved. Once corrected, the Tech I was speaking to then spent the the next seven point five minutes asking me if I was satisfied with the service rendered; How satisfied was I? Did he (the technician) perform to my satisfaction? Was there anything else I required? Finally, and most bizarrely, he asked if I was satisfied with this portion of the telephone call, and if not, would I like to speak to his supervisor?
Now, the tech was from India, and he identified himself as Bajnat, or somesuch. He was very polite, and it was a refreshing change from the universal practice of on-line support personnel from India Americanizing their names and passing themselves off as being just down the street, say, from Indianapolis, you'll pardon the pun. In that "Indian As American" scenario - played out countless times in the past five years as American corporations moved their support staff offshore - Bajnat would become Barry, or perhaps Bob.
Now, given that even the most innocent of deception irritates the hell out of me, I was happy to be talking to Baj with at least the prospect of that being his real name, and the sing-songy eloquence of most Indian folk is music to my ears. Pretty quickly though, the post service call effort to garner affirmation got tiresome, and then irksome. My profuse thanks and reassurances that his service had been excellent weren't enough. The questions kept coming, all different, but all a variation on the same theme: had he and Microsoft served me well?
So, how to explain this trend towards relentless groping and verbal frottage by corporations of their customers? I think there's numerous causes; here's the first of them:
1) Overcompensation by monopolistic purveyors of overpriced crap - such as Microsoft and Comcast:
In this instance, I discovered that the browsing problems I was experiencing went away after Explorer was "reset to its factory settings". Translation: he wiped out the Google Toolbar features I had loaded onto my browser, thus depriving me of Desktop access to G-Mail, YouTube and the sundry other goodies Google made available to me. This isn't the first time I've noted Microsoft's nefarious and monopolistic business practices, and they've practically made a hobby over the years of disabling my computer when I used a competitor's products, be it Browser, anti-viral programs, video editing, Media Player, word processing, you name it.
If Microsoft has a competing product, they make damn sure through their Operating System that the competitor's products are hard to install, hard to operate, conflict with other and unrelated products, and can be blamed for sundry malfunctions of the system. It's a no-brainer for Microsoft, since most of their products - and all of their operating systems - are monumentally bad. Since their reputation couldn't sink any lower all on its own, they might as well sabotage those they perceive to be their competitors while they're at it.
That does leave them with the PR problem though, which in my mind explains the frantic efforts to secure my approval via endless pleading. This snivelling behavior is unseemly in a corporation that has ruthlessly and gleefully copied and then destroyed such worthy products as Lotus 123, WordPerfect and Netscape, and is busily working on Google, Yahoo and anybody else who stands in the way of their plans for World Domination.
After all, Dr. Evil didn't have a Customer Service department, much less a budget for PR. Why should Microsoft?
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Real Economic Growth?
I'm a big believer in shorthand. Now, by that I don't mean the lost art of transcription practiced by previous generations of secretaries, notwithstanding that that position as we know it no longer exists; no, what I refer to is a means to capture large or complex subjects with only a few words or images. The benefit for me is that I can get to my points a lot faster. Same for the reader.
For today's example, we must consider the Democratic Party, not as a political party, but as a vast criminal enterprise. At a very fundamental level, there is little difference between the modern Democratic Party and Organized Crime:
- Both are devoted to the accrual of wealth by confiscating it from other people;
- Both are committed to using any means possible to achieve that end;
- Both are the historical beneficiaries of economic catastrophe and the resulting social upheaval;
- To the extent that Organized Crime has in the past century claimed any political affiliation, that affiliation has been with the Democratic Party.
In the Godfather, Don Corleone is quoted as saying that "one man with a suitcase can steal as much as ten men with guns". This neatly describes the modus operandi of Democrat politicians. For example: In the past 40 years, our "Real" economy has contracted significantly. By the Real Economy, I'm speaking of business activity that actually makes things and provides services that people really want. That short list includes food, clothing, a home, transportation, entertainment, education and other items that represent the logical choices made by rational and empowered consumers.
The trend in economic activity, though, has been in exactly the opposite direction. Aided and abetted by Democrats, businesses that represent most of the so-called "growth" in the U.S. economy over the past two generations have four things in common:
a) they aren't things that consumers voluntarily seek out.
b) they don't improve the quality of life.
c) they replace real economic activity, such as manufacturing.
d) Their purchase is mandated or abetted by the Government on behalf of their corrupt patrons.
Among them:
Insurance
Auto; home; health; Life; boat; flood; motorcycle; RV; business......the list of insurance products is never-ending. In the past century, insurance has become the foundation of America's economy, while the rest of the world gets by without any insurance, or only a fraction of what America requires. Why do we have so much? Because government mandates it. Government also sets the price, and government enforces its payment.
The average American family must ask themselves what they would do with the extra $20,000.00 per year they would have if Insurance products and pricing were subject to the same market pressures as, say, DVD Players; and businessmen must contemplate the same thing. Either way, the only thing more ironic than having government guarantee your bloated profits and the enslavement of America to your products is when you actually have to make a payout - such as for Hurricane Katrina - and promptly dump the bulk of the cost for reconstruction on the Taxpayer.
Lawyering
Wills; lawsuits; divorces; prenups; civil law; corporate law; criminal law; Life; Death. Is there an aspect of our lives where Lawyers do not impose themselves? Lawyering now represents over 5% of our GDP, or roughly $700 billion. But how much of that Lawyering would rational consumers voluntarily purchase, if given the option? Would anybody ever voluntarily seek out all this lawyering as opposed to, say, an SUV, college education or a nicer home?
The answer, of course, is no. That said, we don't have much choice in the matter. Democrats have gamed the system by mandating the involvement of lawyers in every aspect of our lives, and in so doing, they have created an entire segment in the Private Sector that is essentially an extension of government. And a damned expensive one at that. Lawyering has replaced the simple concept of Arbitration that had governed most of these activities since the inception of our Republic. Of course, nobody makes any money on arbitration.
Health Care
Now, for Health Care you do get something for your money. The Questions are: How much? Do people voluntarily seek it out? Does it contribute to your quality of life?
The answers are Not much; No; and Not much.
Still in all, Health Care now represents 18% of our GDP, when in 1970 it represented 6%. That means Health Care is sucking 12% more of the nation's wealth away, and we aren't a damn bit healthier, much less wealthier or wiser. That's almost two trillion of our GDP that is NOT real economic activity, but the mere confiscation of our national income by protected Elites. Want to know where your pay raises have been going since 1976? There's your answer.
Education
It's ironic to think that, because the United States overspends on K through 12 education by almost 650 billion dollars per year, that this amount is actually shown as part of the GDP "growth" that suggests a booming economy. Put it to the Rational Consumer smell test, though: would you voluntarily overpay 60% for something if there was an alternative? Of course not. Of course, due to the empowerment of the Education Mafia by the Democratic Party, there is no alternative, no free market, and thus, no rationally priced public education.
My Daddy taught me that there is no free lunch, but Democrat's Daddies taught them the same thing. Didn't matter. When you're devoted to a model based on Organized Crime, free lunches not only matter, they're the whole point. All in all, the so-called "services" described above represent the bulk of our economic "growth" in the past 50 years, and every damn bit of it is a facade.
For today's example, we must consider the Democratic Party, not as a political party, but as a vast criminal enterprise. At a very fundamental level, there is little difference between the modern Democratic Party and Organized Crime:
- Both are devoted to the accrual of wealth by confiscating it from other people;
- Both are committed to using any means possible to achieve that end;
- Both are the historical beneficiaries of economic catastrophe and the resulting social upheaval;
- To the extent that Organized Crime has in the past century claimed any political affiliation, that affiliation has been with the Democratic Party.
In the Godfather, Don Corleone is quoted as saying that "one man with a suitcase can steal as much as ten men with guns". This neatly describes the modus operandi of Democrat politicians. For example: In the past 40 years, our "Real" economy has contracted significantly. By the Real Economy, I'm speaking of business activity that actually makes things and provides services that people really want. That short list includes food, clothing, a home, transportation, entertainment, education and other items that represent the logical choices made by rational and empowered consumers.
The trend in economic activity, though, has been in exactly the opposite direction. Aided and abetted by Democrats, businesses that represent most of the so-called "growth" in the U.S. economy over the past two generations have four things in common:
a) they aren't things that consumers voluntarily seek out.
b) they don't improve the quality of life.
c) they replace real economic activity, such as manufacturing.
d) Their purchase is mandated or abetted by the Government on behalf of their corrupt patrons.
Among them:
Insurance
Auto; home; health; Life; boat; flood; motorcycle; RV; business......the list of insurance products is never-ending. In the past century, insurance has become the foundation of America's economy, while the rest of the world gets by without any insurance, or only a fraction of what America requires. Why do we have so much? Because government mandates it. Government also sets the price, and government enforces its payment.
The average American family must ask themselves what they would do with the extra $20,000.00 per year they would have if Insurance products and pricing were subject to the same market pressures as, say, DVD Players; and businessmen must contemplate the same thing. Either way, the only thing more ironic than having government guarantee your bloated profits and the enslavement of America to your products is when you actually have to make a payout - such as for Hurricane Katrina - and promptly dump the bulk of the cost for reconstruction on the Taxpayer.
Lawyering
Wills; lawsuits; divorces; prenups; civil law; corporate law; criminal law; Life; Death. Is there an aspect of our lives where Lawyers do not impose themselves? Lawyering now represents over 5% of our GDP, or roughly $700 billion. But how much of that Lawyering would rational consumers voluntarily purchase, if given the option? Would anybody ever voluntarily seek out all this lawyering as opposed to, say, an SUV, college education or a nicer home?
The answer, of course, is no. That said, we don't have much choice in the matter. Democrats have gamed the system by mandating the involvement of lawyers in every aspect of our lives, and in so doing, they have created an entire segment in the Private Sector that is essentially an extension of government. And a damned expensive one at that. Lawyering has replaced the simple concept of Arbitration that had governed most of these activities since the inception of our Republic. Of course, nobody makes any money on arbitration.
Health Care
Now, for Health Care you do get something for your money. The Questions are: How much? Do people voluntarily seek it out? Does it contribute to your quality of life?
The answers are Not much; No; and Not much.
Still in all, Health Care now represents 18% of our GDP, when in 1970 it represented 6%. That means Health Care is sucking 12% more of the nation's wealth away, and we aren't a damn bit healthier, much less wealthier or wiser. That's almost two trillion of our GDP that is NOT real economic activity, but the mere confiscation of our national income by protected Elites. Want to know where your pay raises have been going since 1976? There's your answer.
Education
It's ironic to think that, because the United States overspends on K through 12 education by almost 650 billion dollars per year, that this amount is actually shown as part of the GDP "growth" that suggests a booming economy. Put it to the Rational Consumer smell test, though: would you voluntarily overpay 60% for something if there was an alternative? Of course not. Of course, due to the empowerment of the Education Mafia by the Democratic Party, there is no alternative, no free market, and thus, no rationally priced public education.
My Daddy taught me that there is no free lunch, but Democrat's Daddies taught them the same thing. Didn't matter. When you're devoted to a model based on Organized Crime, free lunches not only matter, they're the whole point. All in all, the so-called "services" described above represent the bulk of our economic "growth" in the past 50 years, and every damn bit of it is a facade.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Definition Of Government
A service not willingly employed by anybody that uses their Cerebrum in the decision making process.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Obama - What Did He Know, And When Did He Know It, Pt III
Among others, Barack Obama's claim that he's had no dealings with Governor Blagojevich in the appointment of his replacement in the Senate is the one that stinks the most. As I pointed out in prior posts, not only is it likely that Obama would have a hand in his replacement, it's a virtual certainty, based on historical precedent.
More importantly, there's no legitimate reason why Obama would not want to play a role. This is what makes his denials and his weasel words all the more compelling.
Today, though, I read an article that put this entire thing into perspective, so much so that a child can follow its significance. Charles Krauthammer did a piece on Caroline Kennedy seeking the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. In the course of the article, he mentioned other Senators who have vacated their seats, and literally hand-picked their successors. The most recent of these? None other than Vice President Elect Joe Biden, who has picked Edward Kaufman "a family retainer whom no one ever heard of before yesterday", as Krauthammer describes him, and who will "keep the seat warm" for two years until Biden's son can run for the seat.
Now, this sounds entirely like the process that both Dems and Republicans use to fill open congressional seats, and it redounds to the benefit of the Party and is influenced by the incumbent who holds the seat. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
So, is Obama lying (or at best obfuscating) about his involvement in choosing his replacement, or has every other senator who has vacated his seat simply had some juice that Obama doesn't? And is it just me, or is it curious that Biden should be so all-powerful in this process, but his boss be so curiously neutered?
More importantly, there's no legitimate reason why Obama would not want to play a role. This is what makes his denials and his weasel words all the more compelling.
Today, though, I read an article that put this entire thing into perspective, so much so that a child can follow its significance. Charles Krauthammer did a piece on Caroline Kennedy seeking the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. In the course of the article, he mentioned other Senators who have vacated their seats, and literally hand-picked their successors. The most recent of these? None other than Vice President Elect Joe Biden, who has picked Edward Kaufman "a family retainer whom no one ever heard of before yesterday", as Krauthammer describes him, and who will "keep the seat warm" for two years until Biden's son can run for the seat.
Now, this sounds entirely like the process that both Dems and Republicans use to fill open congressional seats, and it redounds to the benefit of the Party and is influenced by the incumbent who holds the seat. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
So, is Obama lying (or at best obfuscating) about his involvement in choosing his replacement, or has every other senator who has vacated his seat simply had some juice that Obama doesn't? And is it just me, or is it curious that Biden should be so all-powerful in this process, but his boss be so curiously neutered?
Media Bias and The Democrats - The Sin of Omission
Sundry of Liberal friends and acquaintances have taken me to task for claims of Media Bias in favor of Democrats. "How does this Bias manifest itself?" they ask.
Over the years, I have observed in all its splendor the amazing number of different ways there are for The Media to lie, either to the advantage of Democrats or the disadvantage of Republicans. The techniques vary, but all of them - in one form or another - are lies. In fact, most of the techniques they use are standard Democrat Party propaganda, and all too frequently the Democrat propaganda is merely regurgitated whole to the Public.
For the sake of a narrative, I've given each technique a name. And since "technique" is such a morally ambiguous term, we shall call them what they rightly are: Sins. These Sins include Omission, Oblivity, Objectification, Repetition, Retroactivity, Diversion, Demonization, Extrapolation, Amplification, Miminalization, Capitalization, Marginalization, Nullification, Criminalization and Incontinence.
Taken together, these techniques represent not only the means by which The Media write the first draft of history, but subsequently rewrite history. It's important to remember that, for Democrats, nothing is so fluid as fact; nothing so malleable as perception; and nothing so adaptable as the Ethics that govern journalism. And since 90% of all Journalists are Democrats, it's important to understand that there is no distinction between the two.
So, let's break this down into bite size chunks. Here's the first example of Media Bias from the OffHisMeds school of Political Science:
OMISSION - Leave out critical details of a story or context that would foul the message. One of the most common methods of Media Bias, This one is used to both benefit Democrats as well as disadvantage Republicans.
Example: Barack Obama's "stimulus plan", to revive the economy, and to cost $750 billion dollars, would, in his words "create or preserve 2.5 million jobs". That was in November. Now, in December 2008, his stimulus plan will, according to Jackie Calmes of the New York Times "create 3 million jobs", albeit that in the same article the author states that the economy will likely lose 4 million jobs. And just like that, Obama is simultaneously credited with creating 3 million jobs whilst not being called to account for his original weasel-words about perhaps merely "preserving" 2.5 million jobs, much less that his policies - or lack thereof - will cause the loss of 4 million jobs. On down the line, Obama will be credited with creating 3 million jobs, whether he created even one job.
You've just got to know that the Media spin on this news if it had been a Republican president would be that there would be the "loss of 1 million jobs", assuming they'd even have given him (or her) the benefit of the doubt about creating 3 million jobs.
And of course, the most obvious conclusions regarding Obama's program were not addressed at all: a) however many jobs his stimulus package creates, they are all make-work jobs that will dry up as quickly as the money does; and b) the cost, by Obama's own accounting, would be $300,000.00 per job.
Spending taxpayer money on makework jobs hardly seems to be a good deal at that rate. Wouldn't Obama be better off simply writing checks for thirty grand each to 25 million people? That way he could say he created 25 million new jobs, not "preserved" a measly 2.5 million.
I'll make one further prediction: before he's done, the cost of this program will double to $1.5 trillion dollars, probably shortly into his term as president.
Over the years, I have observed in all its splendor the amazing number of different ways there are for The Media to lie, either to the advantage of Democrats or the disadvantage of Republicans. The techniques vary, but all of them - in one form or another - are lies. In fact, most of the techniques they use are standard Democrat Party propaganda, and all too frequently the Democrat propaganda is merely regurgitated whole to the Public.
For the sake of a narrative, I've given each technique a name. And since "technique" is such a morally ambiguous term, we shall call them what they rightly are: Sins. These Sins include Omission, Oblivity, Objectification, Repetition, Retroactivity, Diversion, Demonization, Extrapolation, Amplification, Miminalization, Capitalization, Marginalization, Nullification, Criminalization and Incontinence.
Taken together, these techniques represent not only the means by which The Media write the first draft of history, but subsequently rewrite history. It's important to remember that, for Democrats, nothing is so fluid as fact; nothing so malleable as perception; and nothing so adaptable as the Ethics that govern journalism. And since 90% of all Journalists are Democrats, it's important to understand that there is no distinction between the two.
So, let's break this down into bite size chunks. Here's the first example of Media Bias from the OffHisMeds school of Political Science:
OMISSION - Leave out critical details of a story or context that would foul the message. One of the most common methods of Media Bias, This one is used to both benefit Democrats as well as disadvantage Republicans.
Example: Barack Obama's "stimulus plan", to revive the economy, and to cost $750 billion dollars, would, in his words "create or preserve 2.5 million jobs". That was in November. Now, in December 2008, his stimulus plan will, according to Jackie Calmes of the New York Times "create 3 million jobs", albeit that in the same article the author states that the economy will likely lose 4 million jobs. And just like that, Obama is simultaneously credited with creating 3 million jobs whilst not being called to account for his original weasel-words about perhaps merely "preserving" 2.5 million jobs, much less that his policies - or lack thereof - will cause the loss of 4 million jobs. On down the line, Obama will be credited with creating 3 million jobs, whether he created even one job.
You've just got to know that the Media spin on this news if it had been a Republican president would be that there would be the "loss of 1 million jobs", assuming they'd even have given him (or her) the benefit of the doubt about creating 3 million jobs.
And of course, the most obvious conclusions regarding Obama's program were not addressed at all: a) however many jobs his stimulus package creates, they are all make-work jobs that will dry up as quickly as the money does; and b) the cost, by Obama's own accounting, would be $300,000.00 per job.
Spending taxpayer money on makework jobs hardly seems to be a good deal at that rate. Wouldn't Obama be better off simply writing checks for thirty grand each to 25 million people? That way he could say he created 25 million new jobs, not "preserved" a measly 2.5 million.
I'll make one further prediction: before he's done, the cost of this program will double to $1.5 trillion dollars, probably shortly into his term as president.
Friday, December 19, 2008
A Telephone Conversation Between Spock and Khan
"Khan, look, I know what a pain he can be. No, trust me, you only have to deal with him once every decade, I have to deal with him every day.
No, yours is the superior intellect........It is. No, don't you doubt it for a second; I mean, come on, what's your IQ, 195, 200? 210 you say? Very impressive. Between you and me, I don't think he's very smart. No, really........ No, I don't know if he's ever taken the standardized test. No, I'm not saying test results aren't conclusive, I'm just saying he never took one. I'm pretty sure he dodged it on the entrance forms to Starfleet Academy as well. He called it the "Kobiashi Maru". What does that mean? Well, to hear him tell it, there is no "no-win" scenario. Yes, he actually got a commendation for original thinking. I know, I know, the world IS upside down when cheating on your entrance exams is held up as some kind of higher virtue. Look, I don't doubt it for a moment. Who am I to judge? If I was confronted with such unfairness, I'd probably start my own civilization too. All I'm saying is, don't over-react. You're letting him get under your skin and I think that's affecting your judgment.
He did what? With your wife? Ohh, I wasn't aware of that. In your house? In your BED? That's unfortunate, but I can assure you that I'll be submitting your complaint to Starfleet Human Resources. Between you and me, there's been several reports of, how shall we say, "impropriety" in his conduct while on duty. No, the regulations are unambiguous on this point. When he wears the uniform, he represents the Federation. He's got several Conduct Unbecoming citations already, and his Employment Councilor has made it very clear that such actions on his part will not be tolerated.
All I'm saying is, you can't over-react to everything he does. He said what? Oh my. No, no that's not appropriate. No, it's not. Well, you're just going to have to trust me; "all's fair in love and war" is not official Federation policy. Well just because he said it doesn't make it true. No, no I'm not saying you don't have cause, all I'm saying is, don't get caught up in this Tit for Tat with him; just because he violated your wife while you were in the other room doesn't justify you blowing up the Mining Settlement on Alpha Beti Prime. That's kind of excessive don't you think? He did what to her? How many times? Oh my, how is that even possible? Oh, she's Cetarian, I didn't know that.
Khan; Khan; I've said it before, I'll say it again: yours is the superior intellect. No, I cannot give you the plans for the Genesis Project, but I will be passing on your concerns to my superiors; I understand you've got hostages, Khan, but let me ask you a question: while you're running around trying to destroy civilization, do you know where he is right now? That's all I'm saying Khan; Cetarians are no different than other women except, of course, for the fact that their skin is an erogenous zone. What I'm trying to tell you is that if you were to stay home and pay a little more attention to her, that this wouldn't be an issue.
OK, Khan. OK. He'll get a stern warning, for sure. You have a good day. OK, Bye Bye".
No, yours is the superior intellect........It is. No, don't you doubt it for a second; I mean, come on, what's your IQ, 195, 200? 210 you say? Very impressive. Between you and me, I don't think he's very smart. No, really........ No, I don't know if he's ever taken the standardized test. No, I'm not saying test results aren't conclusive, I'm just saying he never took one. I'm pretty sure he dodged it on the entrance forms to Starfleet Academy as well. He called it the "Kobiashi Maru". What does that mean? Well, to hear him tell it, there is no "no-win" scenario. Yes, he actually got a commendation for original thinking. I know, I know, the world IS upside down when cheating on your entrance exams is held up as some kind of higher virtue. Look, I don't doubt it for a moment. Who am I to judge? If I was confronted with such unfairness, I'd probably start my own civilization too. All I'm saying is, don't over-react. You're letting him get under your skin and I think that's affecting your judgment.
He did what? With your wife? Ohh, I wasn't aware of that. In your house? In your BED? That's unfortunate, but I can assure you that I'll be submitting your complaint to Starfleet Human Resources. Between you and me, there's been several reports of, how shall we say, "impropriety" in his conduct while on duty. No, the regulations are unambiguous on this point. When he wears the uniform, he represents the Federation. He's got several Conduct Unbecoming citations already, and his Employment Councilor has made it very clear that such actions on his part will not be tolerated.
All I'm saying is, you can't over-react to everything he does. He said what? Oh my. No, no that's not appropriate. No, it's not. Well, you're just going to have to trust me; "all's fair in love and war" is not official Federation policy. Well just because he said it doesn't make it true. No, no I'm not saying you don't have cause, all I'm saying is, don't get caught up in this Tit for Tat with him; just because he violated your wife while you were in the other room doesn't justify you blowing up the Mining Settlement on Alpha Beti Prime. That's kind of excessive don't you think? He did what to her? How many times? Oh my, how is that even possible? Oh, she's Cetarian, I didn't know that.
Khan; Khan; I've said it before, I'll say it again: yours is the superior intellect. No, I cannot give you the plans for the Genesis Project, but I will be passing on your concerns to my superiors; I understand you've got hostages, Khan, but let me ask you a question: while you're running around trying to destroy civilization, do you know where he is right now? That's all I'm saying Khan; Cetarians are no different than other women except, of course, for the fact that their skin is an erogenous zone. What I'm trying to tell you is that if you were to stay home and pay a little more attention to her, that this wouldn't be an issue.
OK, Khan. OK. He'll get a stern warning, for sure. You have a good day. OK, Bye Bye".
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Two More Movie Reviews - Milk, Frost and Nixon
Shades of Oliver Stone: will Hollywood never learn that their agenda films are box office poison? Even as we speak, "Milk" - the film that attempts to deify militant homosexual Harvey Milk - is going down in flames (you'll pardon the expression), and will gross less than 20 million in the U.S. It stars a miscast Sean Penn as the flamboyant self promoter of promiscuity. I say miscast because Penn was not able to deploy his one reliable acting tic, the gimmick that has garnered him such critical praise in his storied career: constipation.
As I mentioned in a previous post, Keanu Reeves peaked in his first and arguably seminal role as a goofy teenager in the legendary "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure". So too with Sean Penn in "Fast Times At Ridgemont High". Shortly after his breakthrough performance as the Stoner Spicoli, Penn took himself seriously and became an Actor, with a capital A. Thereafter, he was all business. Thereafter, his facial expression never changed from the rictus that paralyzes the features of a person who has to take a really profound crap.
It's been all downhill from there. Penn's films have garnered critical acclaim but little money, and the ones that made money arguably did so for reasons other than his participation. Take his last legitimate big hit "Mystic River". Tim Robbins carried that movie, and Clint Eastwood directed. Penn was along for the ride.
But the insanity of liberal Hollywood doesn't end with "Milk". Ron Howard - a slightly more agreeable Republican hater than Sean Penn - is about to release "Frost/Nixon", which I predict will also be a total bomb, grossing only 20 million or so. In the department of small consolations, there's no really big stars, so payroll will be low; and it's already garnered the "critical acclaim" that insulates Hollywood Producers from vengeful investors; and, his brother Clint Howard (who appears in all of brother Ron's movies) got some work.
Just a thought here, but if what if they had combined these two movies? Now that might have been box office magic.
As I mentioned in a previous post, Keanu Reeves peaked in his first and arguably seminal role as a goofy teenager in the legendary "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure". So too with Sean Penn in "Fast Times At Ridgemont High". Shortly after his breakthrough performance as the Stoner Spicoli, Penn took himself seriously and became an Actor, with a capital A. Thereafter, he was all business. Thereafter, his facial expression never changed from the rictus that paralyzes the features of a person who has to take a really profound crap.
It's been all downhill from there. Penn's films have garnered critical acclaim but little money, and the ones that made money arguably did so for reasons other than his participation. Take his last legitimate big hit "Mystic River". Tim Robbins carried that movie, and Clint Eastwood directed. Penn was along for the ride.
But the insanity of liberal Hollywood doesn't end with "Milk". Ron Howard - a slightly more agreeable Republican hater than Sean Penn - is about to release "Frost/Nixon", which I predict will also be a total bomb, grossing only 20 million or so. In the department of small consolations, there's no really big stars, so payroll will be low; and it's already garnered the "critical acclaim" that insulates Hollywood Producers from vengeful investors; and, his brother Clint Howard (who appears in all of brother Ron's movies) got some work.
Just a thought here, but if what if they had combined these two movies? Now that might have been box office magic.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Day The Earth Blew Chunks
It is time once again to review a movie we didn't even see, based solely on the Trailer we viewed on the T.V. The movie in question is the modern remake of "The Day The Earth Stood Still", starring Keanu Reeves. I know what you're saying: "How is it possible to review a movie you haven't seen"? Read on, and be amazed.
Not only did the Earth not stand still when this movie came out, it's arguable that it didn't slow down - not even a little bit. That's how bad this movie sucks, thanks to the politically correct anality of its producers. What is it with Hollywood anyway? Why must they constantly flog the movie-going public with their Democrat Party talking points? Have they not noticed that every time they do that, nobody goes to see their crap and they lose billions every year?
Anyway.
In both versions, an alien comes to earth with a serious attitude about mankind, bound and determined to make us see the error of our ways. In the 1954 classic, the alien counseled us to mend our warlike ways or to face certain destruction. Self destruction. He runs around a bit, has an affair with an Earth girl, meets with some scientists, is shot dead when there's a misunderstanding about the intentions of his robot, and is miraculously restored to life long enough to give us a stern tongue-lashing about our warlike ways. Then he leaves.
By comparison, he was an absolute pacifist compared to the modern Alien. This one is here not to counsel, but to kick ass. His beef is not just with our militarism, but the havoc we play on the environment. His vengeful robot Gort isn't just pissed that we tried to kill his master; Gort has issues with humanity that go far beyond that, and to show that he means business, he proceeds to lay waste to the Earth.
Now, many of you may contemplate, as I did, the irony of an advanced race of alien beings and their sentient robots travelling thousands of light years so as to show their concern about Mankind laying waste to the planet by, well, laying waste to the planet. And we shall not contemplate long the irony of these Aliens - as they spout the Democrat party line - generating more Greenhouse Gases than all of industrial society by blowing up significant portions of the Earth. And we shall make only the briefest of mentions that the robot Gort bears more than a casual resemblance to our own expressionless killjoy, Al Gore, much less that both of their methods are - how shall we say? - counterproductive.
What is with these Aliens anyway? Did they not do any research before they attacked the Earth? Did they not know that they had gobs of sympathizers on the ground? People perfectly willing to sell out humanity to alien invaders in order to save the Earth? Hell, we just elected one of them President of the United States.
Keanu Reeves was the perfect choice to play the emotionless judgmental alien, since it so played to his strengths as an actor. Of course, he would also have been perfect for the role of the robot, Gort. Reeves peaked in his first role as a teenage misfit in "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure", and it's been all downhill since then.
I predict short legs for this movie, a disappointing box office haul in the range of $80 million domestically, and the continuing bewilderment of Hollywood producers witless as to the cause of the spectacular failure of all of their anti-Iraq war movies; bewildered that the American public is not chomping at the bit for their brand of propaganda, investors be damned.
Al Gore, however, will include excerpts of this movie in his next slide show.
Not only did the Earth not stand still when this movie came out, it's arguable that it didn't slow down - not even a little bit. That's how bad this movie sucks, thanks to the politically correct anality of its producers. What is it with Hollywood anyway? Why must they constantly flog the movie-going public with their Democrat Party talking points? Have they not noticed that every time they do that, nobody goes to see their crap and they lose billions every year?
Anyway.
In both versions, an alien comes to earth with a serious attitude about mankind, bound and determined to make us see the error of our ways. In the 1954 classic, the alien counseled us to mend our warlike ways or to face certain destruction. Self destruction. He runs around a bit, has an affair with an Earth girl, meets with some scientists, is shot dead when there's a misunderstanding about the intentions of his robot, and is miraculously restored to life long enough to give us a stern tongue-lashing about our warlike ways. Then he leaves.
By comparison, he was an absolute pacifist compared to the modern Alien. This one is here not to counsel, but to kick ass. His beef is not just with our militarism, but the havoc we play on the environment. His vengeful robot Gort isn't just pissed that we tried to kill his master; Gort has issues with humanity that go far beyond that, and to show that he means business, he proceeds to lay waste to the Earth.
Now, many of you may contemplate, as I did, the irony of an advanced race of alien beings and their sentient robots travelling thousands of light years so as to show their concern about Mankind laying waste to the planet by, well, laying waste to the planet. And we shall not contemplate long the irony of these Aliens - as they spout the Democrat party line - generating more Greenhouse Gases than all of industrial society by blowing up significant portions of the Earth. And we shall make only the briefest of mentions that the robot Gort bears more than a casual resemblance to our own expressionless killjoy, Al Gore, much less that both of their methods are - how shall we say? - counterproductive.
What is with these Aliens anyway? Did they not do any research before they attacked the Earth? Did they not know that they had gobs of sympathizers on the ground? People perfectly willing to sell out humanity to alien invaders in order to save the Earth? Hell, we just elected one of them President of the United States.
Keanu Reeves was the perfect choice to play the emotionless judgmental alien, since it so played to his strengths as an actor. Of course, he would also have been perfect for the role of the robot, Gort. Reeves peaked in his first role as a teenage misfit in "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure", and it's been all downhill since then.
I predict short legs for this movie, a disappointing box office haul in the range of $80 million domestically, and the continuing bewilderment of Hollywood producers witless as to the cause of the spectacular failure of all of their anti-Iraq war movies; bewildered that the American public is not chomping at the bit for their brand of propaganda, investors be damned.
Al Gore, however, will include excerpts of this movie in his next slide show.
NBC Strikes Again
NBC finally ran a story about Iraq and Afghanistan that wasn't an outright anti-American diatribe, complete with inflated body counts and justified by "if it bleeds it leads". The story? A five minute piece on a tragic friendly fire incident in Afghanistan.
Assholes.
Assholes.
Monday, December 15, 2008
What Did Obama Know, And When Did He Know It, Part II
Part of the fun of watching the Blagojevich Scandal unfold is to observe the shocked reaction of the Media and the Democrats as they see the wheels come off the Obamamobile. Of course, both of these pillars of society have traditionally set the bar exceptionally low for Democrat politicians when it comes to the Corruption Smell Test. Were it otherwise, most of them would already be in prison, and then where would The Republic and our two-party system of governance be?
My belief as to Obama’s direct knowledge of the crimes is informed by the manifold prosecutions of Republican politicians and their operatives for similar crimes despite profoundly less motive, opportunity or evidence. Let’s call it the “Six Degrees of Scooter Libby” test for criminal political culpability. In this instance, we compare the associations which caused Patrick Fitzgerald to indict Libby, vs. the Hall Pass he's giving to Democrats:
The Crime
In the case of Scooter Libby, there was no crime. Revealing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative is only a crime if she's an undercover agent. She wasn't. Rod Blagojevich selling Obama's Senate seat? Now that is a crime.
Proximity To The Crime
As to the outing of so-called CIA agent Valerie Plame, Fitzgerald already knew it was somebody else (turncoat and Democrat Toady Richard Armitage) before he decided to pursue Libby. In the case of Rod Blagojevich selling Obama's Senate seat, Fitzgerald already knows that Obama and/or his aides were in negotiations with Blagojevich even before the election, were materials witnesses to his crime, and at the very least involved in an attempted cover up.
Motive
Libby had no motive to "out" Valerie Plame as "revenge" for Wilson's so-called fact-finding trip to Africa. In fact, it would have been political suicide for anybody in the Bush Administration to have done so. Obama, on the other hand, had abundant motive and opportunity to negotiate with Blagojevich about his successor, and there is nothing wrong with that, per se. For Obama to deny it, though, is.
Evidence
There was no direct evidence to connect Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, VP Dick Cheney or any of Fitzgerald's other targets to the non-crime of outing Valerie Plame; only the word of a couple of reporters, and as we know from vast experience, when it comes to Republicans, reporters lie. As to the Blagojevich Affair, what's most significant is the number of prominent Democrats who DIDN'T know about his crime, as he apparently called everybody and anybody about selling the seat.
Obama himself refused to absolve his aides from any involvement in his "clarification" of Dec. 11th, saying only that it would be inappropriate of him to comment as to whether his aides were talking to Blagojevich while a criminal investigation was ongoing.
His laughingly transparent "denial" was simply to reiterate that no deal was made with Blagojevich, and that he himself had never spoken to Blagojevich. That said, he's on a slippery slope as his statements get more and more weasel-ish. The only reason for him not to say "neither I or my aides had any conversations with Gov. Blagojevich" is if he or they did. Not that I'm holding my breath for The Media to bring this point up, much less challenge those who do.
As we speak, the Democrats have already stage-managed what had been a minor event to try to knock this story out of the spotlight, with the investigation into the misdeeds of Charlie Rangel. It's the rough equivalent of offering a sacrificial lamb, in hopes that the gods will overlook your more nefarious evil-doing.
Only time will tell if it works....
My belief as to Obama’s direct knowledge of the crimes is informed by the manifold prosecutions of Republican politicians and their operatives for similar crimes despite profoundly less motive, opportunity or evidence. Let’s call it the “Six Degrees of Scooter Libby” test for criminal political culpability. In this instance, we compare the associations which caused Patrick Fitzgerald to indict Libby, vs. the Hall Pass he's giving to Democrats:
The Crime
In the case of Scooter Libby, there was no crime. Revealing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative is only a crime if she's an undercover agent. She wasn't. Rod Blagojevich selling Obama's Senate seat? Now that is a crime.
Proximity To The Crime
As to the outing of so-called CIA agent Valerie Plame, Fitzgerald already knew it was somebody else (turncoat and Democrat Toady Richard Armitage) before he decided to pursue Libby. In the case of Rod Blagojevich selling Obama's Senate seat, Fitzgerald already knows that Obama and/or his aides were in negotiations with Blagojevich even before the election, were materials witnesses to his crime, and at the very least involved in an attempted cover up.
Motive
Libby had no motive to "out" Valerie Plame as "revenge" for Wilson's so-called fact-finding trip to Africa. In fact, it would have been political suicide for anybody in the Bush Administration to have done so. Obama, on the other hand, had abundant motive and opportunity to negotiate with Blagojevich about his successor, and there is nothing wrong with that, per se. For Obama to deny it, though, is.
Evidence
There was no direct evidence to connect Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, VP Dick Cheney or any of Fitzgerald's other targets to the non-crime of outing Valerie Plame; only the word of a couple of reporters, and as we know from vast experience, when it comes to Republicans, reporters lie. As to the Blagojevich Affair, what's most significant is the number of prominent Democrats who DIDN'T know about his crime, as he apparently called everybody and anybody about selling the seat.
Obama himself refused to absolve his aides from any involvement in his "clarification" of Dec. 11th, saying only that it would be inappropriate of him to comment as to whether his aides were talking to Blagojevich while a criminal investigation was ongoing.
His laughingly transparent "denial" was simply to reiterate that no deal was made with Blagojevich, and that he himself had never spoken to Blagojevich. That said, he's on a slippery slope as his statements get more and more weasel-ish. The only reason for him not to say "neither I or my aides had any conversations with Gov. Blagojevich" is if he or they did. Not that I'm holding my breath for The Media to bring this point up, much less challenge those who do.
As we speak, the Democrats have already stage-managed what had been a minor event to try to knock this story out of the spotlight, with the investigation into the misdeeds of Charlie Rangel. It's the rough equivalent of offering a sacrificial lamb, in hopes that the gods will overlook your more nefarious evil-doing.
Only time will tell if it works....
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
What Did Obama Know, And When Did He Know It?
I knew the fix was in when even the ever-vigilant Republican Pit-bull Sean Hannity was willing to give Barack Obama a Hall Pass regarding his involvement – or lack thereof – in the Rod Blagojevich scandal. Blagojevich is, of course, the Democrat governor who attempted to sell the soon-to-be-vacated Senatorial seat of Barack Obama. Blagojevich was caught on tape attempting to peddle the seat to the highest bidder, and also to secure from the Obama administration:
- A Cabinet post or ambassadorship for himself.
- A seat on the board of some public organization for his wife.
- A minimum yearly income of $350,000.
- A luxury box at the Robert F. Kennedy stadium in Washington D.C. and a boatload of Hookers.
OK, I made that last one up, and you may be asking yourself: why does any of this matter, and what does it have to do with Barack Obama? The short answer is that Obama is up to his chiseled cheekbones in the scandal, and the cover-up is happening before your very eyes.
Consider this sequence of events by the key players:
- David Axelrod – Obama’s top aide - declared on November 23rd that Obama had had extensive conversations with Blagojevich about the possible replacements for his Senate seat.
- Blagojevich (as revealed yesterday by the FBI), unawares and on tape, was telling everybody and anybody for the past month that he intended to sell the seat to the highest bidder.
- Blagojevich, unawares and on tape, was telling everybody and anybody that he intended to extract a plum job for himself – such as a Cabinet post or Ambassadorship – from the Obama administration, and while he was at it, a cushy job for his wife as well.
- Blagojevich, unawares and on tape, was declaring that he intended to get said cabinet post and other goodies from Obama, or he would simply take the Senate seat for himself.
- Blagojevich, unawares and on tape, cursing Obama out days later for not giving him any of those goodies.
- Obama on Dec. 9th – the day the scandal broke – claiming he had never spoken to Blagojevich about his replacement.
- Finally, Obama’s spokesman claimed hours later – when Axelrod’s statements came to light – that Axelrod “misspoke” about Obama having spoken to Blagojevich.
Tell me folks, if Axelrod “misspoke” about Obama having spoken to Blagojevich, how could Blagojevich – unawares and on tape – have made statements weeks prior that contradicted Obama’s denial? The short answer: Obama is lying and did speak directly to Blagojevich about filling his seat. After all, why would Axelrod make such a story up?
The long answer:
- Blagojevich was negotiating with Obama’s staff - as well as sundry other operatives in the Democratic party - for his Goodies bag. This is SOP in national politics up until the point that the demands become blatantly illegal.
- Obama and his staff were going through the motions of “Chicago politics as usual” in negotiating a payoff with Blagojevich. After all, some consideration was due the man with the power to make the appointment. After all, they are all descendents of the Daley Machine, and it is not in their political DNA to do otherwise.
- Obama knew about it, but kept himself at arm’s length from the transaction, as he prudently would so as to sustain his public claims that he never had any direct dealings with Blagojevich.
Either way, Obama knew about it. Think about it this way: Which of his aides would dare to keep such a conversation from the new President Elect, fraught as it was with political and possibly legal consequences? Think about it another way: Haven’t we seen these implausible denials from Obama before? I’m speaking of course, of his denial of anything other than the most casual of relationships with the radical preacher Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the domestic terrorist William Ayres and, what the hell, let’s throw in the mobster Tony Rezco for good measure, ironically the man who has bankrolled both Obama and Blagojevich.
I know, I know, I’m being mean-spirited and crudely partisan for connecting the dots in this fashion, what with President Elect Obama not even having taken office and all. Sorry, folks. To accept this surrealistic concoction, I’d have to shave about 100 points of IQ, and I’m going to need every resource at my disposal just to survive his presidency. Plus, the stink of “Chicago-as-usual” politics is all over this scandal, just as there has been a persistent whiff of that same stink over Obama for most of his political career.
It's enough to make one throw the back of one's hand dramatically to one's forehand and declare that some hero should come to save us. Where is the ever-vigilant Patrick Fitzgerald when you need him? Oh joy, he’s actually on the case! Having himself avoided incarceration for his fraudulent prosecution of Scooter Libby in the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson non-scandal, Fitzgerald is the prosecutor for Blagojevich. There’s got to be some Karmic conflict in this one, because it was solely on the basis of Libby’s simple denial of involvement in the Plame affair that Fitzgerald embarked on his witch hunt of Libby, Rove, Cheney GW et al. By comparison, the facts available right now virtually scream of Obama’s involvement as nothing less than an unindicted co-conspirator, and it will be interesting to see if Fitzgerald pursues this as enthusiastically as he did GW Bush and his minions.
Speaking of which, the rank hypocrisy of the Media in their initial attempts to whitewash this one is a sight to behold, as they offered no challenges to any of Obama's statements on the matter. I'll bet GW would have killed for even a small dose of that suspension of disbelief when he was under the Media microscope.
And don’t even get me started on the gutless Republicans for mostly looking the other way. Bill O’Reilly declared last night that he will harass any Conservative commentator who dares to declare that Obama was involved in this scandal; Sean Hannity – after his initial muckraking - apparently got the memo, and is now falling all over himself to declare Obama innocent.
But, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I will grant one scenario that will absolve Obama. If it turns out that he or his aides ratted Blagojevich out to the Feds when he first approached them weeks ago, Obama is off the hook. Either way, I expect Obama and/or his aides to be part of the court proceedings, either as witnesses or co-conspirators.
Either way, it’s going to be fun to watch this one unfold.
- A Cabinet post or ambassadorship for himself.
- A seat on the board of some public organization for his wife.
- A minimum yearly income of $350,000.
- A luxury box at the Robert F. Kennedy stadium in Washington D.C. and a boatload of Hookers.
OK, I made that last one up, and you may be asking yourself: why does any of this matter, and what does it have to do with Barack Obama? The short answer is that Obama is up to his chiseled cheekbones in the scandal, and the cover-up is happening before your very eyes.
Consider this sequence of events by the key players:
- David Axelrod – Obama’s top aide - declared on November 23rd that Obama had had extensive conversations with Blagojevich about the possible replacements for his Senate seat.
- Blagojevich (as revealed yesterday by the FBI), unawares and on tape, was telling everybody and anybody for the past month that he intended to sell the seat to the highest bidder.
- Blagojevich, unawares and on tape, was telling everybody and anybody that he intended to extract a plum job for himself – such as a Cabinet post or Ambassadorship – from the Obama administration, and while he was at it, a cushy job for his wife as well.
- Blagojevich, unawares and on tape, was declaring that he intended to get said cabinet post and other goodies from Obama, or he would simply take the Senate seat for himself.
- Blagojevich, unawares and on tape, cursing Obama out days later for not giving him any of those goodies.
- Obama on Dec. 9th – the day the scandal broke – claiming he had never spoken to Blagojevich about his replacement.
- Finally, Obama’s spokesman claimed hours later – when Axelrod’s statements came to light – that Axelrod “misspoke” about Obama having spoken to Blagojevich.
Tell me folks, if Axelrod “misspoke” about Obama having spoken to Blagojevich, how could Blagojevich – unawares and on tape – have made statements weeks prior that contradicted Obama’s denial? The short answer: Obama is lying and did speak directly to Blagojevich about filling his seat. After all, why would Axelrod make such a story up?
The long answer:
- Blagojevich was negotiating with Obama’s staff - as well as sundry other operatives in the Democratic party - for his Goodies bag. This is SOP in national politics up until the point that the demands become blatantly illegal.
- Obama and his staff were going through the motions of “Chicago politics as usual” in negotiating a payoff with Blagojevich. After all, some consideration was due the man with the power to make the appointment. After all, they are all descendents of the Daley Machine, and it is not in their political DNA to do otherwise.
- Obama knew about it, but kept himself at arm’s length from the transaction, as he prudently would so as to sustain his public claims that he never had any direct dealings with Blagojevich.
Either way, Obama knew about it. Think about it this way: Which of his aides would dare to keep such a conversation from the new President Elect, fraught as it was with political and possibly legal consequences? Think about it another way: Haven’t we seen these implausible denials from Obama before? I’m speaking of course, of his denial of anything other than the most casual of relationships with the radical preacher Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the domestic terrorist William Ayres and, what the hell, let’s throw in the mobster Tony Rezco for good measure, ironically the man who has bankrolled both Obama and Blagojevich.
I know, I know, I’m being mean-spirited and crudely partisan for connecting the dots in this fashion, what with President Elect Obama not even having taken office and all. Sorry, folks. To accept this surrealistic concoction, I’d have to shave about 100 points of IQ, and I’m going to need every resource at my disposal just to survive his presidency. Plus, the stink of “Chicago-as-usual” politics is all over this scandal, just as there has been a persistent whiff of that same stink over Obama for most of his political career.
It's enough to make one throw the back of one's hand dramatically to one's forehand and declare that some hero should come to save us. Where is the ever-vigilant Patrick Fitzgerald when you need him? Oh joy, he’s actually on the case! Having himself avoided incarceration for his fraudulent prosecution of Scooter Libby in the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson non-scandal, Fitzgerald is the prosecutor for Blagojevich. There’s got to be some Karmic conflict in this one, because it was solely on the basis of Libby’s simple denial of involvement in the Plame affair that Fitzgerald embarked on his witch hunt of Libby, Rove, Cheney GW et al. By comparison, the facts available right now virtually scream of Obama’s involvement as nothing less than an unindicted co-conspirator, and it will be interesting to see if Fitzgerald pursues this as enthusiastically as he did GW Bush and his minions.
Speaking of which, the rank hypocrisy of the Media in their initial attempts to whitewash this one is a sight to behold, as they offered no challenges to any of Obama's statements on the matter. I'll bet GW would have killed for even a small dose of that suspension of disbelief when he was under the Media microscope.
And don’t even get me started on the gutless Republicans for mostly looking the other way. Bill O’Reilly declared last night that he will harass any Conservative commentator who dares to declare that Obama was involved in this scandal; Sean Hannity – after his initial muckraking - apparently got the memo, and is now falling all over himself to declare Obama innocent.
But, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I will grant one scenario that will absolve Obama. If it turns out that he or his aides ratted Blagojevich out to the Feds when he first approached them weeks ago, Obama is off the hook. Either way, I expect Obama and/or his aides to be part of the court proceedings, either as witnesses or co-conspirators.
Either way, it’s going to be fun to watch this one unfold.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Globaloney Warming
A friend's daughter called me the other day to ask for some sources of information regarding Global Warming Skeptics, since she knew that I was one. She also asked me what the arguments were against Global Warming theory, as presented by said Skeptics, so here goes:
- Global Warmers don't do the science to reach their conclusions, but that doesn't stop them from routinely reaching their conclusions. For example: there's not enough data to support the claims of Global Warmers that man causes anything. A one degree warming in a century has historical and scientific precedent, and it's arguable that it doesn't mean a thing; yet, this is the primary finding upon which they build their case. The same holds true with all other phenomena they attribute to Global Warming. The one time they did the science (the federal government spent billions for a decade long study on Acid Rain in the 70s and 80s) the results ended up refuting virtually all of their conclusions about the origins and effects of Acid Rain.
Thereafter, Global Warmers relied on speculation and "computer models" to "prove" their theories. Computer Models are a substitute not only for independent thinking, but the Scientific Process itself. So, once they conjured up a Computer Model that supported their assumptions, it was no longer necessary to do any real research.
- Global Warmers game the data regarding hurricanes and other such phenomena, misrepresenting the trends in their occurrence and outright ignoring data that challenge their conclusions. According to them, hurricane activity, disappearing glaciers and "dead zones" in our oceans are all automatically a symptom of Global Warming, even though these things have been happening for countless millennia. Hurricane activity in the last several years is "the worst it's ever been" (and thus a proof of man's involvement), even though it's not the worst it's ever been, even in the past century. But no matter. They're on a mission here.
The "plight" of glaciers is another one my favorites, as Global Warmers have - in their rhetoric - assigned to Glaciers the same status as the Bald Eagle or the Snail Darter. Glaciers are an endangered species, and yet, given that glaciers were created with the most recent Ice Age and the advance of wintry conditions from the North Pole as they headed south, isn't it inevitable that the glaciers would disappear when that Ice Age diminished, as it has for countless millions of years, as it is doing now? Why is it impossible for Global Warmers to believe that we are merely experiencing the tail end of an Ice Age?
Global Warmers also ignore other causes for any warming the Earth has experienced, including unprecedented sunspot activity, volcanoes, the natural cycle of warming and cooling the Earth goes through every 10 to 50 thousand years, or any combination of the three.
- Global Warmers regularly cook the books on the data. In the 90's, when global weather satellites refuted their theory by showing far less warming of the Earth in the past 50 years than ground-based temperature measurements, satellite measurements were discredited and excluded. Never mind that satellites provide 90% of the useful data on weather patterns and climatological trends. In the case of temperatures only, satellites are no good. They can't even agree how much the Earth has warmed. Within the Global Warming community, it might be .75 of a degree, it might be 1.50 degrees. Such inconclusiveness in observations doesn't give one a warm fuzzy regarding the righteousness of their conclusions, if you'll forgive the expression.
- Global Warmers keep moving the bar in defining which pollutants are evil: in the 70s and 80s, it was Ozone, hydrocarbons, sulfur dioxide and CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) that were the villains. Well, we banned CFCs and drastically reduced all the others. Left without a bogeyman, the Global Warmers decided to criminalize CO2. This was their most inspired move yet. CO2 can't be eliminated because the Earth produces it naturally and the very existence of all life depends on it. Thus, they arbitrarily decide that certain "levels" of CO2 are bad, and if it is a "problem" that is beyond our capacity to fix, all the better, as Global Warmers would happily enslave the world to their vision of environmentalism.
- Global Warmers keep changing the Paradigm. It used to be that they obsessed on Global Cooling, which was all the rage in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, seeing as how all that pollution in the atmosphere would act as a blanket and reflect the sun's rays away from the earth. When Global Cooling was decisively disproved, leaving them with egg on their face, the same crowd embraced Global Warming. The new theory posited that "Greenhouse Gases" would trap warmth that would normally escape into space, thus melting the ice caps, changing weather patterns, and wreaking other environmental havoc. Unfortunately, the data did not support large swaths of their model, and now that aspects of Global Warming are being disproved, they have changed their rhetoric to include the term "Climate Change". That way, if the Earth actually cools, Global Warmers can blame that on CO2 emissions. The phenomenon called "Climate Change" also lets the Al Gores of the world blame any and all weather disasters on CO2 emissions, facts be damned.
This Paradigm shift happens in smaller ways too. In America in the 70s, the source of the problem was auto exhaust, but now that that is fixed, it's coal fired power plants. The Big Problem used to be Acid Rain. Once that was found to be a myth, they changed gears and moved on to Smog. After the U.S. got Smog under control, the problem became Global Warming. And so on.
- Global Warmers seek solutions solely from the United States, and ignore the pollution of the rest of the world. Their initiatives for the next century demand nothing of Developing Countries, much less industrial powerhouses like China and India. Beijing alone produces more smog than the Top 20 cities in the U.S. India continues to use CFCs for refrigerants even though there is legitimate consensus that these chemicals destroy the ozone layer. The net of all this is that enforcing their vision on the U.S. alone will accomplish nothing except the likely destruction of the U.S.
- Global Warmers are oblivious of the costs of their initiatives. To them, there is no price that is too high to pay in order to reduce things that they define as pollutants. Case in point: In the past twenty years, the reduction of Greenhouse Gases in automobiles came at the cost of reducing engine fuel efficiency by over 30%. Think of that: your car that gets 20 mpg could get 30 mpg except for some of the more onerous pollution controls. The cost for restoring that fuel efficiency would be a modest proportionate increase of hydrocarbons and CO2. Here's where it really gets good: if we were burning 30% less fuel, there would be an enormous offset in total pollution from cars, but don't bother telling this to the Global Warming crowd; you'll just make their heads hurt by challenging their orthodoxy with facts.
- Global Warmers routinely overstate the impact of Global Warming. For example, they overhype Natural Disasters, such as the Flooding Coastlines scenario. Al Gore posited a rise of 10 feet in the next 50 years when all "credible" claims by actual climatologists posited perhaps 18 inches, and the Putz still won a Nobel Prize and an Oscar. And never mind that there is no evidence to back up even the more conservative scenarios. Global Warming scaremongers are righteous, and righteous makes right, facts be damned. They also refuse to investigate the possibility that Global Warming - if it exists - may actually be beneficial, such as in increasing the growing season in northern climes, for example.
- Global Warmers attempt to criminalize opposition to their views, including politicians, laymen, other scientists and even opposing climatologists. There is no room for a reasoned debate, and no challenging their views on anything, much less the gaping inconsistencies in their model. Anybody who does so is excoriated, shouted down and otherwise harassed. They are very much like the adherents of certain religions who dogmatically cling to their version of reality only, and attempt to repudiate all others.
Unfortunately, the have the resources of the federal government to support them in their environmental jihad; not a positive development for Truth or a reasoned debate.
The fact that the vast majority of Environmental scientists adhere to the Global Warming religion so slavishly is disturbing. Their lack of skepticism about any of their science is disturbing. Their lack of concern about the vast and improbable claims made on their behalf by eco-terrorists like Al Gore is most disturbing. Gore says ten foot floods when the scientists know this to be fraud, yet they say nothing. What do scientists have if not their credibility? Their willingness to be toadies to radicals tells me all I need to know about their integrity, or lack thereof.
Finally, if you really want to understand the Global Warming crowd, you must Follow The Money. Global Warming really got legs when Democrats started figuring out ways to use it to leverage more money out of the pockets of American industry and the American taxpayer. Cap and trade is one example, where the Feds will sell licenses to pollute, raking in untold billions while doing nothing to reduce pollution. "Green" technologies is another moneymaker, starting with Ethanol, wind and solar, and pressing on with moss-covered automobiles that will run off CO2, killing two birds with one stone, as it were. The endless grants by the Federal government, several states and numerous tax exempt foundations all "committed to the cause" ensures that Global Warming science will be highly profitable for at least the next century.
But, the grand-daddy of them all is the Kyoto Protocols, whereby we surrender countless billions to those paragons of virtue at The United Nations in the form of Carbon Credits. This was the heart and soul of the plan that was unanimously rejected by the US Senate during the Clinton Presidency. The premise was that the United States - since we consume more energy per capita than other countries and thus produce a disproportionate share of the evil CO2 - must pay "developing" nations extortion money as an "offset" to our pollution. There's three important points here:
- There are no restrictions or reduction goals set for "developing" countries, including India, China and Russia, the worst polluters in the world. That's right: all of the worst offenders are exempt because they are "developing" nations, and the benchmarks for defining one as a polluter were based on historical averages over the past decades, not on current pollution. Ironically, the UN has no hard data on these countries because they don't measure it, thus drastically underestimating the pollution produced by The Big Three of Pollution.
- There is no limit as to the pollution that the Developing Nations can produce, so there is actually a perverse incentive for them to produce more that could then be sold the U.S. in the form of Carbon Offsets. Thus, we are actually paying them to produce more pollution, so they can they sell it to us in return for more of our money.
- Our billions would literally be subsidizing the so-called "Developing" countries, all of which already have massive trade surpluses with the U.S. So, as we impoverish ourselves and become less competitive in world trade, China, Russia, India and other nations become richer, using our money to bury us in the world economy.
The net result of all this, of course, is that we will end up with much more pollution than what we started with, and the greatest irony of all is that the one nation that outstrips all others in the development and deployment of the technology that actually cleans our air - the United States - would be destroyed.
Only a Democrat could think up such a plan.
- Global Warmers don't do the science to reach their conclusions, but that doesn't stop them from routinely reaching their conclusions. For example: there's not enough data to support the claims of Global Warmers that man causes anything. A one degree warming in a century has historical and scientific precedent, and it's arguable that it doesn't mean a thing; yet, this is the primary finding upon which they build their case. The same holds true with all other phenomena they attribute to Global Warming. The one time they did the science (the federal government spent billions for a decade long study on Acid Rain in the 70s and 80s) the results ended up refuting virtually all of their conclusions about the origins and effects of Acid Rain.
Thereafter, Global Warmers relied on speculation and "computer models" to "prove" their theories. Computer Models are a substitute not only for independent thinking, but the Scientific Process itself. So, once they conjured up a Computer Model that supported their assumptions, it was no longer necessary to do any real research.
- Global Warmers game the data regarding hurricanes and other such phenomena, misrepresenting the trends in their occurrence and outright ignoring data that challenge their conclusions. According to them, hurricane activity, disappearing glaciers and "dead zones" in our oceans are all automatically a symptom of Global Warming, even though these things have been happening for countless millennia. Hurricane activity in the last several years is "the worst it's ever been" (and thus a proof of man's involvement), even though it's not the worst it's ever been, even in the past century. But no matter. They're on a mission here.
The "plight" of glaciers is another one my favorites, as Global Warmers have - in their rhetoric - assigned to Glaciers the same status as the Bald Eagle or the Snail Darter. Glaciers are an endangered species, and yet, given that glaciers were created with the most recent Ice Age and the advance of wintry conditions from the North Pole as they headed south, isn't it inevitable that the glaciers would disappear when that Ice Age diminished, as it has for countless millions of years, as it is doing now? Why is it impossible for Global Warmers to believe that we are merely experiencing the tail end of an Ice Age?
Global Warmers also ignore other causes for any warming the Earth has experienced, including unprecedented sunspot activity, volcanoes, the natural cycle of warming and cooling the Earth goes through every 10 to 50 thousand years, or any combination of the three.
- Global Warmers regularly cook the books on the data. In the 90's, when global weather satellites refuted their theory by showing far less warming of the Earth in the past 50 years than ground-based temperature measurements, satellite measurements were discredited and excluded. Never mind that satellites provide 90% of the useful data on weather patterns and climatological trends. In the case of temperatures only, satellites are no good. They can't even agree how much the Earth has warmed. Within the Global Warming community, it might be .75 of a degree, it might be 1.50 degrees. Such inconclusiveness in observations doesn't give one a warm fuzzy regarding the righteousness of their conclusions, if you'll forgive the expression.
- Global Warmers keep moving the bar in defining which pollutants are evil: in the 70s and 80s, it was Ozone, hydrocarbons, sulfur dioxide and CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) that were the villains. Well, we banned CFCs and drastically reduced all the others. Left without a bogeyman, the Global Warmers decided to criminalize CO2. This was their most inspired move yet. CO2 can't be eliminated because the Earth produces it naturally and the very existence of all life depends on it. Thus, they arbitrarily decide that certain "levels" of CO2 are bad, and if it is a "problem" that is beyond our capacity to fix, all the better, as Global Warmers would happily enslave the world to their vision of environmentalism.
- Global Warmers keep changing the Paradigm. It used to be that they obsessed on Global Cooling, which was all the rage in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, seeing as how all that pollution in the atmosphere would act as a blanket and reflect the sun's rays away from the earth. When Global Cooling was decisively disproved, leaving them with egg on their face, the same crowd embraced Global Warming. The new theory posited that "Greenhouse Gases" would trap warmth that would normally escape into space, thus melting the ice caps, changing weather patterns, and wreaking other environmental havoc. Unfortunately, the data did not support large swaths of their model, and now that aspects of Global Warming are being disproved, they have changed their rhetoric to include the term "Climate Change". That way, if the Earth actually cools, Global Warmers can blame that on CO2 emissions. The phenomenon called "Climate Change" also lets the Al Gores of the world blame any and all weather disasters on CO2 emissions, facts be damned.
This Paradigm shift happens in smaller ways too. In America in the 70s, the source of the problem was auto exhaust, but now that that is fixed, it's coal fired power plants. The Big Problem used to be Acid Rain. Once that was found to be a myth, they changed gears and moved on to Smog. After the U.S. got Smog under control, the problem became Global Warming. And so on.
- Global Warmers seek solutions solely from the United States, and ignore the pollution of the rest of the world. Their initiatives for the next century demand nothing of Developing Countries, much less industrial powerhouses like China and India. Beijing alone produces more smog than the Top 20 cities in the U.S. India continues to use CFCs for refrigerants even though there is legitimate consensus that these chemicals destroy the ozone layer. The net of all this is that enforcing their vision on the U.S. alone will accomplish nothing except the likely destruction of the U.S.
- Global Warmers are oblivious of the costs of their initiatives. To them, there is no price that is too high to pay in order to reduce things that they define as pollutants. Case in point: In the past twenty years, the reduction of Greenhouse Gases in automobiles came at the cost of reducing engine fuel efficiency by over 30%. Think of that: your car that gets 20 mpg could get 30 mpg except for some of the more onerous pollution controls. The cost for restoring that fuel efficiency would be a modest proportionate increase of hydrocarbons and CO2. Here's where it really gets good: if we were burning 30% less fuel, there would be an enormous offset in total pollution from cars, but don't bother telling this to the Global Warming crowd; you'll just make their heads hurt by challenging their orthodoxy with facts.
- Global Warmers routinely overstate the impact of Global Warming. For example, they overhype Natural Disasters, such as the Flooding Coastlines scenario. Al Gore posited a rise of 10 feet in the next 50 years when all "credible" claims by actual climatologists posited perhaps 18 inches, and the Putz still won a Nobel Prize and an Oscar. And never mind that there is no evidence to back up even the more conservative scenarios. Global Warming scaremongers are righteous, and righteous makes right, facts be damned. They also refuse to investigate the possibility that Global Warming - if it exists - may actually be beneficial, such as in increasing the growing season in northern climes, for example.
- Global Warmers attempt to criminalize opposition to their views, including politicians, laymen, other scientists and even opposing climatologists. There is no room for a reasoned debate, and no challenging their views on anything, much less the gaping inconsistencies in their model. Anybody who does so is excoriated, shouted down and otherwise harassed. They are very much like the adherents of certain religions who dogmatically cling to their version of reality only, and attempt to repudiate all others.
Unfortunately, the have the resources of the federal government to support them in their environmental jihad; not a positive development for Truth or a reasoned debate.
The fact that the vast majority of Environmental scientists adhere to the Global Warming religion so slavishly is disturbing. Their lack of skepticism about any of their science is disturbing. Their lack of concern about the vast and improbable claims made on their behalf by eco-terrorists like Al Gore is most disturbing. Gore says ten foot floods when the scientists know this to be fraud, yet they say nothing. What do scientists have if not their credibility? Their willingness to be toadies to radicals tells me all I need to know about their integrity, or lack thereof.
Finally, if you really want to understand the Global Warming crowd, you must Follow The Money. Global Warming really got legs when Democrats started figuring out ways to use it to leverage more money out of the pockets of American industry and the American taxpayer. Cap and trade is one example, where the Feds will sell licenses to pollute, raking in untold billions while doing nothing to reduce pollution. "Green" technologies is another moneymaker, starting with Ethanol, wind and solar, and pressing on with moss-covered automobiles that will run off CO2, killing two birds with one stone, as it were. The endless grants by the Federal government, several states and numerous tax exempt foundations all "committed to the cause" ensures that Global Warming science will be highly profitable for at least the next century.
But, the grand-daddy of them all is the Kyoto Protocols, whereby we surrender countless billions to those paragons of virtue at The United Nations in the form of Carbon Credits. This was the heart and soul of the plan that was unanimously rejected by the US Senate during the Clinton Presidency. The premise was that the United States - since we consume more energy per capita than other countries and thus produce a disproportionate share of the evil CO2 - must pay "developing" nations extortion money as an "offset" to our pollution. There's three important points here:
- There are no restrictions or reduction goals set for "developing" countries, including India, China and Russia, the worst polluters in the world. That's right: all of the worst offenders are exempt because they are "developing" nations, and the benchmarks for defining one as a polluter were based on historical averages over the past decades, not on current pollution. Ironically, the UN has no hard data on these countries because they don't measure it, thus drastically underestimating the pollution produced by The Big Three of Pollution.
- There is no limit as to the pollution that the Developing Nations can produce, so there is actually a perverse incentive for them to produce more that could then be sold the U.S. in the form of Carbon Offsets. Thus, we are actually paying them to produce more pollution, so they can they sell it to us in return for more of our money.
- Our billions would literally be subsidizing the so-called "Developing" countries, all of which already have massive trade surpluses with the U.S. So, as we impoverish ourselves and become less competitive in world trade, China, Russia, India and other nations become richer, using our money to bury us in the world economy.
The net result of all this, of course, is that we will end up with much more pollution than what we started with, and the greatest irony of all is that the one nation that outstrips all others in the development and deployment of the technology that actually cleans our air - the United States - would be destroyed.
Only a Democrat could think up such a plan.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Shinseki, The Media and The Truth
According to an article in the Sunday Chronicle, General Eric Shinseki is getting another shot at the limelight with his nomination as Secretary of Veteran Affairs, and this despite him having been wrong on every major claim he made in his opposition to the war in Iraq in 2001.
He famously took on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when he declared in 2001 that it would take "several hundred thousand" troops to not only pacify Iraq, but to conquer it. The revisionist history that is going on now ignores his claims about the several hundred thousands troops necessary to prosecute the war, and we ended up defeating Hussein handily with a multinational force of 300,000 troops. Amazingly, Shinseki is now almost universally proclaimed as having been right, and the "proof" is the Surge of 2007 that was necessary to secure Iraq. The Surge that succeeded in defeating Al Qaeda and the Shiite militias involved only 30,000 additional troops to the 120,000 that had been in place to support post-war Iraq.
Rather than validating his claims, the actual numbers repudiate him. He was wrong by a factor of two to one in his prediction of the troops necessary to prosecute the war, and by a factor of almost four to one in his prediction of the force levels necessary to secure Iraq. Shinseki also infamously predicted one hundred thousand American casualties in the initial prosecution of the war. He was grossly wrong on that count as well.
But hey, don't take my word for it. Here's Shinseki in his own words criticizing the Rumsfeld strategy in Iraq: "Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division Army". He apparently liked the line so much that he repeated it at his retirement. But as 12 divisions (at 15,000 troops each) totals only 180,000 soldiers, it's hard to comprehend how that squares with his comments that such a strategy would take "several hundred thousand" troops. I'm also struck by the calculated imprecision of his estimates. "Several hundred thousand"? If this guy can't be more precise, who can?
Of course, for Shinseki, his own words do exactly nothing except a) disprove his contention that the U.S. needed ten extra divisions to defeat Iraq and b) prove that he can't add.
And let's not forget Shinseki's major beef with Rumsfeld, and the source of the animus between them: the cancellation of the multi-billion dollar Crusader automated artillery system. Rumsfeld correctly dumped this effort to perpetuate a military model that revolved around ground-based artillery systems and massive infantry deployment when air launched munitions supporting smaller ground forces had already relegated such a strategy to the ash heap of military history.
Rumsfeld took on the military establishment and reshaped our military, all for the better. Shinseki's devotion to that military establishment and to outmoded technology and strategies has been proven wrong. He was dumped for all the right reasons, and efforts to rehabilitate his reputation by distorting the facts serves neither the country or our soldiers, the people Shinseki will soon - if appointed - be tasked to represent.
He famously took on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when he declared in 2001 that it would take "several hundred thousand" troops to not only pacify Iraq, but to conquer it. The revisionist history that is going on now ignores his claims about the several hundred thousands troops necessary to prosecute the war, and we ended up defeating Hussein handily with a multinational force of 300,000 troops. Amazingly, Shinseki is now almost universally proclaimed as having been right, and the "proof" is the Surge of 2007 that was necessary to secure Iraq. The Surge that succeeded in defeating Al Qaeda and the Shiite militias involved only 30,000 additional troops to the 120,000 that had been in place to support post-war Iraq.
Rather than validating his claims, the actual numbers repudiate him. He was wrong by a factor of two to one in his prediction of the troops necessary to prosecute the war, and by a factor of almost four to one in his prediction of the force levels necessary to secure Iraq. Shinseki also infamously predicted one hundred thousand American casualties in the initial prosecution of the war. He was grossly wrong on that count as well.
But hey, don't take my word for it. Here's Shinseki in his own words criticizing the Rumsfeld strategy in Iraq: "Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division Army". He apparently liked the line so much that he repeated it at his retirement. But as 12 divisions (at 15,000 troops each) totals only 180,000 soldiers, it's hard to comprehend how that squares with his comments that such a strategy would take "several hundred thousand" troops. I'm also struck by the calculated imprecision of his estimates. "Several hundred thousand"? If this guy can't be more precise, who can?
Of course, for Shinseki, his own words do exactly nothing except a) disprove his contention that the U.S. needed ten extra divisions to defeat Iraq and b) prove that he can't add.
And let's not forget Shinseki's major beef with Rumsfeld, and the source of the animus between them: the cancellation of the multi-billion dollar Crusader automated artillery system. Rumsfeld correctly dumped this effort to perpetuate a military model that revolved around ground-based artillery systems and massive infantry deployment when air launched munitions supporting smaller ground forces had already relegated such a strategy to the ash heap of military history.
Rumsfeld took on the military establishment and reshaped our military, all for the better. Shinseki's devotion to that military establishment and to outmoded technology and strategies has been proven wrong. He was dumped for all the right reasons, and efforts to rehabilitate his reputation by distorting the facts serves neither the country or our soldiers, the people Shinseki will soon - if appointed - be tasked to represent.
Memo To Pastor Joel Osteen
Caught one of your commercials this morning and seriously, could your hair be any more primped? I'm sorry partner, but I can't take your ministry seriously until you do something about that hair.
"Of any man who competes with his own wife for the gel and conditioner it cannot be said that he has a true Calling". So sayeth the Lord, Proverbs 13.11.
"Of any man who competes with his own wife for the gel and conditioner it cannot be said that he has a true Calling". So sayeth the Lord, Proverbs 13.11.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Kathleen Parker Strikes Again
I've noted with interest Kathleen Parker's conversion over the course of this past election season from a columnist who frequently criticizes Republicans to one who always criticizes Republicans, all the while claiming to be a Republican. This has been off-putting to say the least.
So imagine my delight to see an article that apparently would not be another Republican-bashing exercise when she wrote about Twittering in the Wednesday, Dec. 3rd Viewpoints section. Twittering of course, is a chat room tailor made for short communications from your iPod or a similar device.
Parker made it until Paragraph 12, when she could no longer help herself, bringing up James Dobson, God and the GOP in one sentence. She even managed to work in her recurring paranoia that Republicans are out to get her. It was presented by Parker as an example of Twittering, but it was jarring by its incongruence with the rest of the article. I mean, what's the likelihood that, of all the likely Twitters in the universe, that any one of them would attempt to connect-the-dots between God, James Dobson, the GOP and Kathleen Parker's self-esteem, and end up making them all look bad?
What this had to do with Twittering is anybody's guess, but Parker has now entered the same Special Place as the recently-departed Cragg Hines, where everything is the Republican's fault, and there is not a context, place or time in which it is not appropriate to bring it up.
And just like Cragg, the reliable albeit unintended humor brings a smile to my face every time.
Twittering satisfies need for communication speed
By KATHLEEN PARKERCopyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Dec. 2, 2008, 10:59PM
"I have discovered that all human evil comes from this, man's being unable to sit still in a room."
— Blaise Pascal
We are sitting at a restaurant counter, sipping wine and chatting, when my friend begins twittering.
Not in the usual way. Two women twittering turn no heads. Rather, she is "twittering" via her iPhone, typing out a message to subscribers who inhabit the quantum universe of blogs, URLs and spheres.
For those who still commune by glance and gesture, "to twitter" roughly means to express an abbreviated thought or observation in real time to a live, self-selecting audience of brain voyeurs. People who want to know your every cogitation and sign up for the privilege.
Shorter than a blog posting, a "tweet" consists of a concise sentence or two and essentially answers the question: What are you doing?
Often, the answer is not riveting, as in: "Getting ready for work." Other times, as in the recent election, twitterers have been put to constructive use, such as reporting possible poll shenanigans.
Under ideal circumstances, a tweet would offer something insightful — or newsy, such as: "Rahm Emanuel just walked in."
As, in fact, he did the evening of my twit-initiation. Instantly, my friend's twitterees — all 5,000 of them — knew what she knew and were, for what it was worth, As Good As There.
In the Information Age: Knowing equals Being.
Twittering isn't entirely new, of course. The Facebook generation has been sorta twittering for years, posting prosaic bulletins about their whims and whereabouts, thus providing a glimpse of what the world would be like if hummingbirds could type:
"Jordan is busy busy!"
"Josh is driving to the mountains today."
"Kate is sooooooooo never drinking martinis again."
On Planet Facebook, nothing in one's life is not worth mentioning. To what end, one can only surmise. I am, therefore I am, therefore I am. But what are friends for, if not to feign interest in what's not the least bit interesting?
Serious twitter subscribers expect more than a mood update, I'm told, and presumably won't stick around long for less. Or will they? I recently went to Twitter.com and created my own account. Nary a tweet have I posted thus far, yet already I have a dozen or so subscribers.
Who are they? How long will they wait? Why do they wait? Will they spurn me if I fail to twitter? Would a banter suffice? In the spirit of gamesmanship, herewith a tweet:
"James Dobson's letter-writing campaign to set me straight re God and GOP appears to be backfiring. Most e-mails from his Web site the past two days disagree with Dobson."
As my son would say, "Baaam!"
Truth be known, I confess to a certain, inexplicable calm. Gratification, if you will. Shoulders relaxing. Perhaps, just perhaps, there is something to this twittering business.
One's every-other-thought couldn't be considered compelling, surely. But there may be merit to this yet-new thing. Wouldn't we be interested in, say, Ahmadinejad's twitterings? Barack Obama's? Sarah Palin's?
Come to think of it, how long before we begin to expect, if not demand, that public officials twitter? Already, blogging is de rigueur for anyone seeking a wide audience or market share. Nearly every newspaper Web site now offers multiple, topic-specific blogs to which reporters, editors and columnists are expected to post.
The Obama campaign revolutionized political communication and fundraising. Fireside chats and radio addresses may nurture our nostalgia, but blogs and twitters feed our need for speed. They also give an impression of human contact without the muss and fuss of actual intimacy.
For serious twitterers, there is additionally a commercial aspect. Building one's base, so to speak, eventually leads to possible marketing opportunities. When one has a million subscribers to one's thoughts, then one may have a salable asset. A penny for your thoughts potentially becomes legal tender.
What all this means in the long term is anyone's guess. How much information can a brain usefully process? What end is served by the random tweets of countless individuals? The impulse to stay incessantly in touch can be viewed either as gregarious or as a sign of consuming anxiety. Twittering may be the opiate of the obsessively-compulsively disordered.
Who needs the couch, after all, when no thought is ever repressed?
Something to consider. Or, perchance, to tweet?
So imagine my delight to see an article that apparently would not be another Republican-bashing exercise when she wrote about Twittering in the Wednesday, Dec. 3rd Viewpoints section. Twittering of course, is a chat room tailor made for short communications from your iPod or a similar device.
Parker made it until Paragraph 12, when she could no longer help herself, bringing up James Dobson, God and the GOP in one sentence. She even managed to work in her recurring paranoia that Republicans are out to get her. It was presented by Parker as an example of Twittering, but it was jarring by its incongruence with the rest of the article. I mean, what's the likelihood that, of all the likely Twitters in the universe, that any one of them would attempt to connect-the-dots between God, James Dobson, the GOP and Kathleen Parker's self-esteem, and end up making them all look bad?
What this had to do with Twittering is anybody's guess, but Parker has now entered the same Special Place as the recently-departed Cragg Hines, where everything is the Republican's fault, and there is not a context, place or time in which it is not appropriate to bring it up.
And just like Cragg, the reliable albeit unintended humor brings a smile to my face every time.
Twittering satisfies need for communication speed
By KATHLEEN PARKERCopyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Dec. 2, 2008, 10:59PM
"I have discovered that all human evil comes from this, man's being unable to sit still in a room."
— Blaise Pascal
We are sitting at a restaurant counter, sipping wine and chatting, when my friend begins twittering.
Not in the usual way. Two women twittering turn no heads. Rather, she is "twittering" via her iPhone, typing out a message to subscribers who inhabit the quantum universe of blogs, URLs and spheres.
For those who still commune by glance and gesture, "to twitter" roughly means to express an abbreviated thought or observation in real time to a live, self-selecting audience of brain voyeurs. People who want to know your every cogitation and sign up for the privilege.
Shorter than a blog posting, a "tweet" consists of a concise sentence or two and essentially answers the question: What are you doing?
Often, the answer is not riveting, as in: "Getting ready for work." Other times, as in the recent election, twitterers have been put to constructive use, such as reporting possible poll shenanigans.
Under ideal circumstances, a tweet would offer something insightful — or newsy, such as: "Rahm Emanuel just walked in."
As, in fact, he did the evening of my twit-initiation. Instantly, my friend's twitterees — all 5,000 of them — knew what she knew and were, for what it was worth, As Good As There.
In the Information Age: Knowing equals Being.
Twittering isn't entirely new, of course. The Facebook generation has been sorta twittering for years, posting prosaic bulletins about their whims and whereabouts, thus providing a glimpse of what the world would be like if hummingbirds could type:
"Jordan is busy busy!"
"Josh is driving to the mountains today."
"Kate is sooooooooo never drinking martinis again."
On Planet Facebook, nothing in one's life is not worth mentioning. To what end, one can only surmise. I am, therefore I am, therefore I am. But what are friends for, if not to feign interest in what's not the least bit interesting?
Serious twitter subscribers expect more than a mood update, I'm told, and presumably won't stick around long for less. Or will they? I recently went to Twitter.com and created my own account. Nary a tweet have I posted thus far, yet already I have a dozen or so subscribers.
Who are they? How long will they wait? Why do they wait? Will they spurn me if I fail to twitter? Would a banter suffice? In the spirit of gamesmanship, herewith a tweet:
"James Dobson's letter-writing campaign to set me straight re God and GOP appears to be backfiring. Most e-mails from his Web site the past two days disagree with Dobson."
As my son would say, "Baaam!"
Truth be known, I confess to a certain, inexplicable calm. Gratification, if you will. Shoulders relaxing. Perhaps, just perhaps, there is something to this twittering business.
One's every-other-thought couldn't be considered compelling, surely. But there may be merit to this yet-new thing. Wouldn't we be interested in, say, Ahmadinejad's twitterings? Barack Obama's? Sarah Palin's?
Come to think of it, how long before we begin to expect, if not demand, that public officials twitter? Already, blogging is de rigueur for anyone seeking a wide audience or market share. Nearly every newspaper Web site now offers multiple, topic-specific blogs to which reporters, editors and columnists are expected to post.
The Obama campaign revolutionized political communication and fundraising. Fireside chats and radio addresses may nurture our nostalgia, but blogs and twitters feed our need for speed. They also give an impression of human contact without the muss and fuss of actual intimacy.
For serious twitterers, there is additionally a commercial aspect. Building one's base, so to speak, eventually leads to possible marketing opportunities. When one has a million subscribers to one's thoughts, then one may have a salable asset. A penny for your thoughts potentially becomes legal tender.
What all this means in the long term is anyone's guess. How much information can a brain usefully process? What end is served by the random tweets of countless individuals? The impulse to stay incessantly in touch can be viewed either as gregarious or as a sign of consuming anxiety. Twittering may be the opiate of the obsessively-compulsively disordered.
Who needs the couch, after all, when no thought is ever repressed?
Something to consider. Or, perchance, to tweet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)