I’ve long been keeping a horrible secret that I have to reveal now for this post: I like the musical Wicked. I’ve never seen it live cuz when it was playing in LA in 2007 I didn’t dare reveal to anyone that I wanted to see it so I never did, but I did find a pirated home video of the full play on Google Video (it’s been removed but there’s one here too if you’re interested) – anyway – the point is that I know of the song Defying Gravity and recognized the parody when I heard this track from The Book of Mormon that satirizes the silliness of the “we’re a team! but I’m the star…” premise. Listen for yourself:
I can’t help but like Janeane Garofalo even though she can’t help but make irresponsible and unsupported allegations of bigotry against people she disagree’s with. The day the Tea Party began, Janeane jumped on the talking point that its all about racism, which i’m totally down with if one can defend it but… she hasn’t.
I sympathize with her conflict of wanting to be loved by everyone but not shying away from what you believe in even though you know it will cause more people to possibly unjustifiably dislike you. I wish she wouldn’t whine about being “punished” over calling people racist for no good reason. Due to my desperate want to justify my irrational positive attitude toward her, I have been searching for an explanation of wtf she’s talking about. Especially since I dont care about the Tea Party, so if she has a good example of why it’s a racist movement then I’ll me all too happy to throw them under the bus and run back and forth all over them with ridicule. Except she appears to have nothing… On Real Time with Bill Maher (where she also agreed with me that Anthony Weiner should still run for Mayor – though I think he should wait an election cycle before his comeback), on Mark Marons podcast and here on Keith Olbermanns show: they’re racist cuz they’re racist and it’s obvious and she’s just calling it like it is and you’re a jerk if you say boo about it. ug… The only example I’ve ever heard her give was that there was a tea party sign that said something along the lines of “What you talkin bout Willis?” from Diff’rent Strokes. I had no idea that Diff’rent Strokes was a racist show and Garofalo did not explain why that one silly sign was actually an example of racial hatred that tarred the nationwide movement for smaller government.
In the clip below, I share a similar conflict to hers of wanting to be loved but am compelled to speak truth – except it’s that I want TO love [her] but am compelled to point out how colossally retarded what she’s saying is.
As her and Keith have a friendly discussion on exactly how evil the Tea Party is, she actually says that her answer to “what makes you think the Tea Party is racist?” is “what makes you think it isn’t?”…. let that sink in a little…
Before that she makes a legit point that there is racism all over the world, and there is no reason to think it would go away under a black President. but then… she just… this is too painful to go on. I feel like I’m beating up a really adorable 9 year old by picking apart just how unintelligent these comments are, so just watch the video courtesy of the Daily Caller and make your own conclusions on the rest while I go watch old 90s footage of her and cry.
Well, just ONE more comment, because it was at least posed as an actual question even though she meant its argumentative proof (which Olbermann snarkily agrees with): the Tea Party started under Bush in response to his big government spending and bailouts, so their first protest of the guy who was elected by saying he would do more of that is literally the most predictable thing you could have expected form them. C’mon dude. First tell the truth, THEN give your opinion. Protesting someone you disagree with isn’t de facto evidence that you’re a closet Klansmen.
Here’s the “how it works” page on Lytro’s website. If you want to experiment with the technology, try their one-click photo gallery. Just one question: As neat as this is, who’s going to shell out several hundred bucks for a standalone flex-focus camera? I remember dropping $500 in 2002 on a Canon Powershot with 4 megapixel resolution. Fast-forward nine years and I get a better image than that from my iPhone, with plenty of zoom features, filters, etc, available via apps in the iTunes store. Unless I’m a semi-serious photographer, why would I spend extra money on a separate camera that I have to lug around? And if I am a semi-serious photographer, why would I “cheat” by using after-the-fact focus instead of challenging myself to take the perfect shot in real time? There will be a market for this camera, I’m just … not sure who it’ll be.
They’ve got two obvious business strategies going forward, I think, and neither relies on semi-serious photogs. One: Miniaturize the technology to the point where it’s cell-phone ready and then sell it to Apple or Google or whoever. Having a feature like this in the iPhone to let you sharpen up shoddy pics would be lovely. Two: Surveillance. Isn’t that the most obvious application for this? How many times have you watched a true-crime show where the perp walks by a gas-station camera 25 feet away and the best they can do to get a description of him is magnify his face until it’s a pixelated blotch? Universal focus would be a very tasty treat for security agencies. There’s certainly a market for it. Chop chop, Lytro!
Developers at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio have produced dozens of prototypes that would not look out of place in a James Bond movie, based on the flight mechanics of birds, moths and dragonflies.
The Pentagon has rapidly increased its use of drones in the past two years to gather intelligence and launch missiles from the skies over Pakistan and Afghanistan. Supporters claim they have weakened al-Qaeda and reduced the chances of US casualties.
Major Michael Anderson, a doctoral student at the base’s advanced navigation technology centre, who is developing wings based on those of the hawk moth, said: “It’s impressive what they can do compared to what our clumsy aircraft can do.”
Today’s drones, such as the Predator and Reaper, are the size of light aircraft and piloted by remote control.
The next generation will be autonomous, flying themselves and programmed to search out targets, nuclear weapons or even spot survivors of natural disasters.
Commenting on the news that “Jackass” star Ryan Dunn and two others were killed in a car crash at 3AM, Roger Ebert tweeted the following yesterday afternoon:
I don’t know what happened in this case, and I was probably too quick to tweet. That was unseemly. I do know that nobody has any business driving on a public highway at 110 mph, as some estimated — or fast enough, anyway, to leave a highway and fly through 40 yards of trees before crashing. That is especially true if the driver has had three shots and three beers. Two people were killed. What if the car had crashed into another car?
Something called “Hollywoodland” on Breitbarts Big Hollywood site disapproved of this (my guess is because Ebert is a big liberal and Big Hollywood is a Conservative outfit) first setting it up with “Before knowing for sure if alcohol contributed to the awful car crash…” and then posting the tweet and elaboration, going on to say:
There’s a time and place for this discussion. No doubt about that. But before stepping onto your sanctimonius soapbox, it’s a good idea to know the facts.
Blah blah. Eberts original tweet may have jumped to a (very logical) conclusion at a not-s0-tactful time, but his followup is crushingly valid. We’re all allowed to publicly comment our opinions on public news items concerning public people and everyone else is allowed to say it’s wrong or in bad taste or whatever they think, but factually, it’s difficult to argue with Ebert on this one.
I saw this a year or two ago when it was originally released by whoever made it and speculated at the time that it might have been done by tea party people to make opposition to them look retarded (using something as low-maintenance as a beach as their chief example and then immediately going outside america for alleged illustration of “libertarianism”) but ive seen it used positively by a lot of people since then so i assume its intended to be real. which is… weird.
The description on youtube says “You should be forcibly moved to Somalia to live in your libertarian utopia.” um… why? Not exactly fair since the other side can’t say it back to the people who advocate bigger government since they can’t ask for them to be forcibly moved to a Communist utopia, as they’ve all crumbled and disappeared.
I like big government in a lot of areas and have never bought the libertarian line of people being “smart enough to make their own decisions” in every and all areas (hint: people are stupid and need guidance and rules) but it is stupidly insulting to imply that America’s government expansion is whats keeping us from being Somalia – or even that anything like Somalia is the logical conclusion of American libertarian policy. “Government isn’t the solution to our problems, it IS the problem and now you have cholera”… cuz.. libertarian.
Whenever i ask anyone to explain the logic behind it, they just get angry that i pointed out how much sense it doesnt make and since I don’t really care about the Tea Party as an issue or movement, I let them drop it, but anyone reading is welcome to explain this to me… Public land that everyone can enjoy paid by the public is equal to private benefits for individuals paid by the public, how? i could imagine teabaggers making an equally silly video – say, where they claim the government wants to do so much for you that they plan to have union workers wipe your ass for you or something. That’d be an okay satire on the fact that unions prevent individuals from doing things themselves (like shoveling a snowy street) so the union workers can do it. but would anyone actually claim that that is a legit argument the say the anti-teabaggers are passing around this video as if it made logical sense?
UPDATE: American brainwash still makes my default position want to be with the union thugs out protesting across the country but…dude… the Tea Party people are complaining about being forced to pay more for other peoples benefits while the union people are whining about having to pay slightly more of their own benefits…
UPDATE: the video above was shared with me on facebook and I posted this blog of my reaction to it in response.
My response is that it only sounds kind of confused if you think anyone anywhere, including the most vocal of libertarians is advocating that this country be run without government. the blog is confusing because it rejects instead of accepts the strawman fallacy that literally anyone with any presence, power or influence has ever said anything like what the video or your 2nd of the 3 comments says. It only sounds kind of confused if you think anyone anywhere, including the most vocal of libertarians is advocating that this country be run without government. the blog is confusing because it rejects instead of accepts the strawman fallacy that literally anyone with any presence, power or influence has ever said anything like what the video or your 2nd of the 3 comments says.
So I don’t defend the things I bitch about because I’m not bitching about libertarianism or progressivism or conservatives or liberals – I’m anti-fallacy whichever side it’s present on. So even though I disagree with some libertarian philosophy, that doesn’t make me advocate unfair attacks on it. That’s always a bad idea. attack stuff you disagree with based on whatever you disagree with – not by doing the equivalent of calling it’s mother a whore (although, to be fair: Libertarianism’s mother probably was a whore. they DO idolize Ayn Rand after all…).
Bristol Palin’s new memoir was previewed on ABC. The whole thing is really gross and makes me think of the son involved and how this is gonna be looked back on. Same with Rep Weiner’s child. ug…
Wtf is with people getting arrested for recording public servants in public places?
John Stossel summarized the sensible position well:
I believe in the right to privacy.
Yet I can think of someone who deserves very little privacy—a policeman making an arrest. Unfortunately, in some states it’s a crime to make a video of a policeman doing just that. People recording police have been threatened, detained, or arrested. Some were jailed overnight.
That’s wrong. Police work for the public, they’re paid with tax money, and most importantly, they have tremendous power. They’ve got the legal right to pull guns, detain us, lock us up and, in some cases, shoot us. The potential for abuse is great. So it’s a good thing that modern video cameras are now so commonplace. Any abuse of police power in a public place is likely to be recorded. Why should that be a crime in some states?
People can engage in public photography of public Federal buildings. Claiming otherwise is bullshit and that is exactly what happened in New York, resulting in a lawsuit that was settled by the Government issuing a proclamation noting that what the man was arrested for without merit and resulted in the lawsuit, was in no way legally improper.
Recording encounters with law enforcement and other public officials is different. Basically, you can and will be arrested for anything that an enforcement official doesn’t like. If you are willing to get arrested then unless you are violating your states wiretapping laws by recording someone without their consent – you have a good chance of getting your case ruled in your direction and maybe even making some change like the guy in this story did.
In 2009 Elijah Matheney of Pittsburgh was arrested for violating the wiretap law after using his cell phone to record an altercation between his friend and a police officer. Those charges also were dropped, and Matheney sued Allegheny County with help from the Pennsylvania ACLU. The suit was settled in July with a stipulation that the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office inform local police chiefs that recording on-duty police officers is protected under state law. The Pennsylvania ACLU reached a similar settlement with the township of Spring City in 2008 after a man there was repeatedly arrested for recording police.
If the vagueness and inconsistent application of these statutes weren’t bad enough, there is also a clear double standard when it comes to the consequences of misunderstanding what the law requires. Citizens who do not know about wiretapping laws face arrest, felony charges, and jail time. Police and prosecutors who wrongly threaten, detain, arrest, and charge people based on a misinterpretation of these laws are rarely disciplined, much less subjected to civil liability or criminal charges. Police are protected by qualified immunity, which makes it difficult to win damages for an unlawful arrest. Prosecutors are protected by absolute immunity, which makes it nearly impossible.
Who will watch the watchers? In a world of ubiquitous, hand-held digital cameras, that’s not an abstract philosophical question. Police everywhere are cracking down on citizens using cameras to capture breaking news and law enforcement in action.
In 2009, police arrested blogger and freelance photographer Antonio Musumeci on the steps of a New York federal courthouse. His alleged crime? Unauthorized photography on federal property.
Police cuffed and arrested Musumeci, ultimately issuing him a citation. With the help of the New York Civil Liberties Union, he forced a settlement in which the federal government agreed to issue a memo acknowledging that it is totally legal to film or photograph on federal property.
Although the legal right to film on federal property now seems to be firmly established, many other questions about public photography still remain and place journalists and citizens in harm’s way. Can you record a police encounter? Can you film on city or state property? What are a photographer’s rights in so-called public spaces?
These questions will remain unanswered until a case reaches the Supreme Court, says UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, founder of the popular law blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Until then, it’s up to people to know their rights and test the limits of free speech, even at the risk of harassment and arrest.
Who will watch the watchers? All of us, it turns out, but only if we’re willing to fight for our rights.
More development on my favorite invention from the past decade at least: Water that has had electricity passed through it to become an all natural, drinkable disinfectant that is more effective than bleach.
The only downsides are that Electrolyzed water works best on smooth surfaces and slightly less well on others and the fact that it’s still way too expensive:
Researchers note that EO water performs best on smooth surfaces. Bassam Annous, a research microbiologist for the federal Agricultural Research Service, has found it does not work well ridding lettuce and apples of E. coli because the water-based solution cannot penetrate the minute crevices where the bacteria can lurk.
“This is not a silver bullet,” Hung said. “EO water is not perfect.”
Then there’s the price issue.
Viking Pure systems run from $12,000 to $15,000 for larger-scale units and $3,500 for its “mini” units. Though the cleaners cost little to produce, the upfront investment means it makes less sense for a household that goes through a bottle of bleach a year.
Also, it’s hard to get people to accept that it works since they’re used to chemical cleaners:
Deborah Stone, housekeeping manager for Carolina Designs rental agency at North Carolina’s Outer Banks, swears by it and said some of the biggest problems are convincing workers they can clean without suds.
“It’s very difficult for the cleaners to comprehend that because there is no smell and because there are no bubbles, they don’t get the sense that they’re actually cleaning,” Stone said. “You still have those die-hard people that want the suds and the pretty smell.”
