and this proves it!
Another example, possib leavin' fun near.
No further proof needed - this discussion is closed.
29 December 2007
28 December 2007
A dead mouse is a joke!
Seriously! Just laugh it off. What is wrong with people?
Apparently a lot more than I ever would've imagined, lol!
Apparently a lot more than I ever would've imagined, lol!
27 December 2007
Putin as 2007 Man of the Year? Indefensible!
I think that Time's choice is not entirely indefensible in principle, but it is as a choice for this year. The choice is supposed to represent the person who's made the most impact this year. Putin has done absolutely nothing this year to distinguish himself as a leader (besides be a prig at the G8). Maybe next year, if he hands over the reigns of power smoothly and Russia's recovery continues, then maybe he'd be deserving. But the award is supposed to be about the most impactful person of 2007, and the longer you stretch out the analysis of Putin's reign to support the choice, the less impressive the evidence for this year becomes.
That being said, I think the reason he was chosen is that the Times decision was more superficial than the article makes it appear. For starters, 2005's selection was "you" (pandering) and 2006's was philanthropists (ooh, tough one). To the mass-market audience that reads Time, selecting Gore would've been too similar a theme to 2006's do-gooder winners. Nevermind the fact he made an Oscar-winning documentary about temperature and also won the Nobel prize - that's sooo, like, summertime. Hello! Nobody thinks about melting ice caps in wintertime - it's too cold!
Also, in choosing two positive groups, Time felt it was, well, time for something new, something a bit racy, something that would make its readers feel politically aware ("boy, I've been hearing a lot of things, you know, here and there about Russia recently, but I never knew how big the changes inside really were!") and, at the same time, appeal to the readers who were tired of all the easily-justified choices. Because Putin's Russian has been in the press a lot this year (not as much in the US, but enough to leave that faint impression in people's minds), it was the simplest calculated, just-controversial-enough, choice.
That being said, I think the reason he was chosen is that the Times decision was more superficial than the article makes it appear. For starters, 2005's selection was "you" (pandering) and 2006's was philanthropists (ooh, tough one). To the mass-market audience that reads Time, selecting Gore would've been too similar a theme to 2006's do-gooder winners. Nevermind the fact he made an Oscar-winning documentary about temperature and also won the Nobel prize - that's sooo, like, summertime. Hello! Nobody thinks about melting ice caps in wintertime - it's too cold!
Also, in choosing two positive groups, Time felt it was, well, time for something new, something a bit racy, something that would make its readers feel politically aware ("boy, I've been hearing a lot of things, you know, here and there about Russia recently, but I never knew how big the changes inside really were!") and, at the same time, appeal to the readers who were tired of all the easily-justified choices. Because Putin's Russian has been in the press a lot this year (not as much in the US, but enough to leave that faint impression in people's minds), it was the simplest calculated, just-controversial-enough, choice.
26 December 2007
What Would Dennis Miller Pun?
Sir,
I dare say that I nearly did soil myself reading this.
So true it's sad.
The Onion did this one for the Dennis Millulz!
(apparently, a lot of Onion readers would understand his jokes!)
I dare say that I nearly did soil myself reading this.
So true it's sad.
The Onion did this one for the Dennis Millulz!
(apparently, a lot of Onion readers would understand his jokes!)
24 December 2007
23 December 2007
stewpeed munkeez!
Ha! But I challenge thee, ape, to write the collected works of Shakespeare ... in the original dialect! Mwuahahaha! Speaking of petty, Pavlov-esque experimentations with primates ...
Holiday Incentives
Bah-humbug! Instead of giving to a worthy cause, wouldn't it be more of an incentive if non-comliance meant you funded Al Qaeda instead? I guess in a way a certain type of non-compliance already would - if you chose to drive instead of walk, carpool, or take some other, less-GHG-intensive form of transit (haha, the writer of that site is from Michigan!)
Alas, we can't explicitly link oil money to terrorism, that'd be a discussion too long for our fragile little minds, not to mention wholly unpatriotic!
curr - iculum
On a related note, I should've attended college here! Apparently their entire academic life revolves around Orwell's classic, 1984.
Holiday Incentives
Bah-humbug! Instead of giving to a worthy cause, wouldn't it be more of an incentive if non-comliance meant you funded Al Qaeda instead? I guess in a way a certain type of non-compliance already would - if you chose to drive instead of walk, carpool, or take some other, less-GHG-intensive form of transit (haha, the writer of that site is from Michigan!)
Alas, we can't explicitly link oil money to terrorism, that'd be a discussion too long for our fragile little minds, not to mention wholly unpatriotic!
curr - iculum
On a related note, I should've attended college here! Apparently their entire academic life revolves around Orwell's classic, 1984.
22 December 2007
?tekram eerf
Appears to be more effective than a fence!
However, Pearce is quite wrong in ascribing Arizona's potential recovery to the existence of a "free market" system. If it were truly free, you wouldn't need reactive labor laws specifically targeting illegal immigrants - you'd allow anyone who could work to work and let the wages dictate who belongs here and who doesn't. That'd be closer to a free market solution, but we Americans are too free of intelligent thought to actually implement such a solution, even though it'd likely have the same result.
However, Pearce is quite wrong in ascribing Arizona's potential recovery to the existence of a "free market" system. If it were truly free, you wouldn't need reactive labor laws specifically targeting illegal immigrants - you'd allow anyone who could work to work and let the wages dictate who belongs here and who doesn't. That'd be closer to a free market solution, but we Americans are too free of intelligent thought to actually implement such a solution, even though it'd likely have the same result.
17 December 2007
15 December 2007
don't drink the wa-ater
Heck, don't drink anything, ever out of a hotel glass when you travel. Or, take it as George Carlin would - an opportunity to give your white blood cells some target practice!
12 December 2007
34t m3!
What can I say? w00t! Though dictionaries are a bit slow on the uptake there, that word is so 2005! lol
You know what the most surprising thing about this article is? That he wasn't quoted as saying "w00t, I totally pwn'd the fuckin' WH. GW is such a noob. NOOB! lmfao!"
Next month, a 43-year-old man in adult diapers will hack a Department of Defense server to host a game of Starcraft II. From his mother's basement in South Dakota.
You know what the most surprising thing about this article is? That he wasn't quoted as saying "w00t, I totally pwn'd the fuckin' WH. GW is such a noob. NOOB! lmfao!"
Next month, a 43-year-old man in adult diapers will hack a Department of Defense server to host a game of Starcraft II. From his mother's basement in South Dakota.
11 December 2007
Eat At Paul's
I have to admit, this is a creative way to get attention. It could backfire though. Other candidates could mock him for resorting to gimmicks just to get name recognition.
"He had to resort to a blimp, a blimp people! A dirigible! ... May as well have been the Hindenburg because Ron Paul is a closet Nazi! Did I say Nazi? I meant Mormon! No, that's Mitt Romney ... dammit, I can never keep these ass-faced Republican douches in mind. Who sent up the blimp again? Ru Paul? Is Ru Paul running this year? Damn I miss the 80's ... all that blow. All those hook - " [aide cuts mic]
"He had to resort to a blimp, a blimp people! A dirigible! ... May as well have been the Hindenburg because Ron Paul is a closet Nazi! Did I say Nazi? I meant Mormon! No, that's Mitt Romney ... dammit, I can never keep these ass-faced Republican douches in mind. Who sent up the blimp again? Ru Paul? Is Ru Paul running this year? Damn I miss the 80's ... all that blow. All those hook - " [aide cuts mic]
08 December 2007
milking the consumer
1 Competition is supposed to drive down prices, unless, of course, firms are competing against each other as to who can screw the consumer the hardest through collusion! Hooray for free markets!
2 BBC's anatomy of what appears to be a disasterously American idiocy.
3 Who says that Americans are largely desensitized to violence? Certainly not the VT victims!
4 Save the environment, eat a kangaroo!
Why do people complain that solutions to being environmentally responsible are costly and all that jazz when they come up with even more convoluted, potentially disastrous solutions? Bacteria in livestock? Yeah, like that's a system we can fully control. Not, you know, the highly mechanized, extremely precise industrial and transportation machinery that is responsible for nearly half of the remaining GHG emissions globally. Also, the solution should not necessarily be just make the livestock flatulate less, but to grow them in an environment that's more conducive to health - also known as eliminating industrialized, "factory" farms. That would help a lot, not that anyone appears to be proposing such a solution with any real vigor.
5 This could've been a straight Onion article, lol. Had they published it in 2006, many people would've laughed at its blatant absurdity.
6 110% dude, WTF? Not a single person needed to use the lavatory OR thought to clean said lavatory in FOUR DAYS? Yeah, mark that on my list as the 1001th place I need to see before I croak.
7 I'm surprised he didn't just say "E.T. phone home" and cackle at his wit.
2 BBC's anatomy of what appears to be a disasterously American idiocy.
3 Who says that Americans are largely desensitized to violence? Certainly not the VT victims!
4 Save the environment, eat a kangaroo!
Why do people complain that solutions to being environmentally responsible are costly and all that jazz when they come up with even more convoluted, potentially disastrous solutions? Bacteria in livestock? Yeah, like that's a system we can fully control. Not, you know, the highly mechanized, extremely precise industrial and transportation machinery that is responsible for nearly half of the remaining GHG emissions globally. Also, the solution should not necessarily be just make the livestock flatulate less, but to grow them in an environment that's more conducive to health - also known as eliminating industrialized, "factory" farms. That would help a lot, not that anyone appears to be proposing such a solution with any real vigor.
5 This could've been a straight Onion article, lol. Had they published it in 2006, many people would've laughed at its blatant absurdity.
6 110% dude, WTF? Not a single person needed to use the lavatory OR thought to clean said lavatory in FOUR DAYS? Yeah, mark that on my list as the 1001th place I need to see before I croak.
7 I'm surprised he didn't just say "E.T. phone home" and cackle at his wit.
02 December 2007
hypocrisy, crystallized
Finally - this is exactly my problem with American crony capitalism. When the poor or underprivileged are hurting, it's their own damn fault for not being smarter (reading the fine print, understanding what exactly a variable-rate mortgage entails, etc.). If a business "happens" to profit off that ignorance, well, that's just social Darwinism.
But when it's the mighty who are being screwed, oh how quickly the tables turn. It's not just the big profits of big business that are evil, but the entire insurance industry! What blazing rhetoric! What unbridled hypocrisy! lol
What's not to love about the American system? People wonder why we're so quick to litigate, but my belief is that it's simply because our corporate antagonists have so much greater an upper hand in American than anywhere else that we are more often forced to resort to extreme measures simply to gain some basic injunctions against abuse - injunctions which are commonplace in many other developed nations.
But when it's the mighty who are being screwed, oh how quickly the tables turn. It's not just the big profits of big business that are evil, but the entire insurance industry! What blazing rhetoric! What unbridled hypocrisy! lol
What's not to love about the American system? People wonder why we're so quick to litigate, but my belief is that it's simply because our corporate antagonists have so much greater an upper hand in American than anywhere else that we are more often forced to resort to extreme measures simply to gain some basic injunctions against abuse - injunctions which are commonplace in many other developed nations.
01 December 2007
all your fault
So, let me get this straight. A woman educator in Sudan lets her students name a teddy bear 'Mohammed', and she's jailed, convicted, and deported?
A woman is raped, and she's sentenced to jail time because it's her 'fault'?
Why can't logic and religion reside together, in harmony, inside more people's heads? Why do we let such things get in the way of getting along? I know to many people issues of religion are paramount ... but until everyone can manage getting along, can't we leave religion out of the equation? I mean, wouldn't a just and loving almighty deity respect us more for trying to fix our world and enhance our relationships with one another, for mutual gain and respect, than if we just jump right to religious disputes? Shouldn't we save the afterlife and our views of the spiritual realm for the time after we've mastered this corporeal realm?
One would think ...
and now for something totally different!
On a final note, which is the greater tragedy: being murdered by your father, or having your entire life summed up in the following eulogy?
A woman is raped, and she's sentenced to jail time because it's her 'fault'?
Why can't logic and religion reside together, in harmony, inside more people's heads? Why do we let such things get in the way of getting along? I know to many people issues of religion are paramount ... but until everyone can manage getting along, can't we leave religion out of the equation? I mean, wouldn't a just and loving almighty deity respect us more for trying to fix our world and enhance our relationships with one another, for mutual gain and respect, than if we just jump right to religious disputes? Shouldn't we save the afterlife and our views of the spiritual realm for the time after we've mastered this corporeal realm?
One would think ...
and now for something totally different!
On a final note, which is the greater tragedy: being murdered by your father, or having your entire life summed up in the following eulogy?
Dunaway said Loebsack, 36, who lived in Gastonia, North Carolina, was married and had two children, ages 8 and 10. "It's a real tragedy. She was a beautiful soccer mom," he said.
all your fault
So, let me get this straight. A woman educator in Sudan lets her students name a teddy bear 'Mohammed', and she's jailed, convicted, and deported?
A woman is raped, and she's sentenced to jail time because it's her 'fault'?
Why can't logic and religion reside together, in harmony, inside more people's heads? Why do we let such things get in the way of getting along? I know to many people issues of religion are paramount ... but until everyone can manage getting along, can't we leave religion out of the equation? I mean, wouldn't a just and loving almighty deity respect us more for trying to fix our world and enhance our relationships with one another, for mutual gain and respect, than if we just jump right to religious disputes? Shouldn't we save the afterlife and our views of the spiritual realm for the time after we've mastered this corporeal realm?
One would think ...
A woman is raped, and she's sentenced to jail time because it's her 'fault'?
Why can't logic and religion reside together, in harmony, inside more people's heads? Why do we let such things get in the way of getting along? I know to many people issues of religion are paramount ... but until everyone can manage getting along, can't we leave religion out of the equation? I mean, wouldn't a just and loving almighty deity respect us more for trying to fix our world and enhance our relationships with one another, for mutual gain and respect, than if we just jump right to religious disputes? Shouldn't we save the afterlife and our views of the spiritual realm for the time after we've mastered this corporeal realm?
One would think ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
