As this blog is essentially the repository of anything I happen to have going through my mind at any given moment, I find that I'm totally forgetting some important political topic. So, instead (and perhaps to your relief), I'm going to write about an interesting discovery I made regarding cable television. It seems that the corporate powers that be are not so sensitive to what we would prefer to watch, even with hundreds of channels to choose from.
It seems that corporate advertisers really love having macho-male men endorse their products. Usually this means sports stars. But advertisers, ever anxious to megaphone more of their propaganda into your ear at less cost to them, have turned to other "manly" men. You might have noticed how Old Spice has been endorsed by Bear Grylls (as if you need deodorant out in the wilderness), and the spokesperson for Ford is Mike Rowe, the host of Dirty Jobs. Had Steve Irwin (the Crocodile Hunter) not been killed, we'd be seeing him on more commercials as well.
This is part of an overall growing trend where advertisers really don't want to shell out the big bucks to sports figures anymore because their agents have priced them so high that they're almost out of the market. So, to get the "manly" man they want to advertise their macho products, the producers of major cable programming have been strong-armed into producing shows which feature such men.
Maybe "strong-armed" isn't the right word. After all, the History Channel is owned by a consortium of A&E Television Networks, Disney-ABC Television, and NBC Universal (which, in turn, is owned by Comcast and GE). The ones being strong-armed are the junior producers, given a strict edict to find the manliest man shows available -- all so they don't have to pay more money to Jeremy Lin, Aaron Rogers, or Albert Pujols.
Hence, we tune in to Discovery, History, Animal Planet or The Science Channel - formerly havens where we could flee to in order to get something, anything, to feed our mind - only to find stuff non-educating and non-interesting: The Deadliest Catch, Ice Road Truckers, Ice Fliers, American Chopper, American Loggers, Sons of Guns, Storm Chasers, Ax Men, Gold Rush, Full Metal Jousting, Swamp People, Hillbilly Handfishin', etc., etc. Thank heaven for Mythbusters!
In short, this is why we find no history on the History Channel, no discovery on the Discovery Channel, fewer animals on Animal Planet and less science on the Science Channel. Shit, next thing you know, they're going to stop showing music on MTV.
(Oh. Yeah.)
This trend was revealed to me by Steve Boettcher, the co-producer of "Pioneers of Television" which has recently aired on PBS. He has watched this trend from the inside. But he is part of a growing trend of independent producers and filmmakers who are trying to transform Milwaukee into the new home for independent films, which is possible because of our low production cost, close proximity to Chicago, and close ties to many in the independent film industry.
Who knows? Maybe Milwaukee will help solve this problem by producing independent shows that feed the mind instead of advertisers' pocketbooks. Maybe then, corporate interests will see the huge market they have unwittingly alienated.
Eric
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Safe Sex, Unsafe Politics
Well, looks like voters in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado have said "not so fast" to Mitt Romney. And Rick Santorum, campaigning on his "I'm the best of what's left" ticket, has suddenly vaulted in front.
Interesting. In a bid to find an alternative to Romney, conservatives just keep going from bad to worse. Don't rule out a late-entry to this race right before Super Tuesday. If they'll vote for Ol' Ass-Juice, they'll vote for anybody.
The only reason I'm writing about that stuff is to grouse about what he and Romney have decided to fight over lately, and that's the recent rules that would force all hospitals, including those run by religious institutions such as the Catholic Church, to provide workers health insurance that covers contraception, including sterilization.
Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are all calling this a violation of religious freedom, and there I have to fight back. Religious hospitals do not force employees to attend Mass, nor do they refuse to hire Muslim or Hindu staff members. That's because they recognize that their hospitals are about healthcare, not religion. By the same token, the health insurance they provide to such employees must be equally secular.
If the Catholics don't like it, they can damned well get out of the hospital business!
What cracks me up is that these birth control methods are practiced by 98% of so-called Catholics, proving once again that the Catholic Church in the U.S. really exists in name-only. What doubly cracks me up is that anyone, anyone at all, bothers to continue identifying themselves as Catholic in light of the Church not representing one damned thing they believe in, least of all Jesus' own principals.
This is why every Catholic who does not renounce his or her religion is a hypocrite. Oh, wait, TWO candidates are just such people! Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich!
And Newt Gingrich feels it's okay for religions to force people to follow the religious principles he has outright rebelled against through three marriages and numerous affairs. You just can't make this shit up.
So what's really at stake here? Is it a violation of religious freedom to keep religions from oppressing personal liberties? All the Republican front-runners say that it is. They're all wrong. But damn it all, a whole lot of people are infected with the same delusion that they are.
Gingrich did raise one legitimate point where he pointed out how secularists have been consistently restricting religious liberties over the years. This, of course, is because religion has been left to assume unlawful favoritisms throughout most of America's past, and now such illegal perquisites are being taken away. Well, religionists can complain all they want to about that, but it simply isn't a violation of religious freedom to take away a religion's ability to continue to steal undeserved privileges. So there.
It seems there are political social diseases just as there are sexual ones. If we can practice safe sex, can we not also practice safe politics? Especially since so many politicians suffer from mental gonorrhea?
Let's just hope that when these guys decide to fuck us regarding contraception, they'll have the good sense to use one of the condoms they don't believe in!
Eric
Interesting. In a bid to find an alternative to Romney, conservatives just keep going from bad to worse. Don't rule out a late-entry to this race right before Super Tuesday. If they'll vote for Ol' Ass-Juice, they'll vote for anybody.
The only reason I'm writing about that stuff is to grouse about what he and Romney have decided to fight over lately, and that's the recent rules that would force all hospitals, including those run by religious institutions such as the Catholic Church, to provide workers health insurance that covers contraception, including sterilization.
Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are all calling this a violation of religious freedom, and there I have to fight back. Religious hospitals do not force employees to attend Mass, nor do they refuse to hire Muslim or Hindu staff members. That's because they recognize that their hospitals are about healthcare, not religion. By the same token, the health insurance they provide to such employees must be equally secular.
If the Catholics don't like it, they can damned well get out of the hospital business!
What cracks me up is that these birth control methods are practiced by 98% of so-called Catholics, proving once again that the Catholic Church in the U.S. really exists in name-only. What doubly cracks me up is that anyone, anyone at all, bothers to continue identifying themselves as Catholic in light of the Church not representing one damned thing they believe in, least of all Jesus' own principals.
This is why every Catholic who does not renounce his or her religion is a hypocrite. Oh, wait, TWO candidates are just such people! Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich!
And Newt Gingrich feels it's okay for religions to force people to follow the religious principles he has outright rebelled against through three marriages and numerous affairs. You just can't make this shit up.
So what's really at stake here? Is it a violation of religious freedom to keep religions from oppressing personal liberties? All the Republican front-runners say that it is. They're all wrong. But damn it all, a whole lot of people are infected with the same delusion that they are.
Gingrich did raise one legitimate point where he pointed out how secularists have been consistently restricting religious liberties over the years. This, of course, is because religion has been left to assume unlawful favoritisms throughout most of America's past, and now such illegal perquisites are being taken away. Well, religionists can complain all they want to about that, but it simply isn't a violation of religious freedom to take away a religion's ability to continue to steal undeserved privileges. So there.
It seems there are political social diseases just as there are sexual ones. If we can practice safe sex, can we not also practice safe politics? Especially since so many politicians suffer from mental gonorrhea?
Let's just hope that when these guys decide to fuck us regarding contraception, they'll have the good sense to use one of the condoms they don't believe in!
Eric
Saturday, February 4, 2012
You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet
Well, it's February already, and we're a little closer to finding out who the Republican candidate for president will be, and no closer to finding out who the season-starting left fielder for the Milwaukee Brewers will be. It's either Romney or Gingrich, and both of these guys have as much chance of beating Obama as Ryan Braun has of beating his failed drug test.
Meanwhile, Groundhog Day came and went; that superstitious holiday where people go and pester an overgrown rodent on the principle that it knows better than NOAA, the NWS, numerous supercomputer simulations and at least half a dozen strategically orbiting weather satellites when spring will arrive. And these are going to be the same people that will choose the next Leader of the Free World. Eh, who knows? Maybe Mr. Holy Underwear has a snowball's chance in Hades after all. However, Mitt did come out of his hole, saw Newt Gingrich's shadow, and ran back inside, which means at least six more weeks of campaigning.
Meanwhile, the cherry blossoms in D.C. are in bloom. Yeah. In February. No Snowmageddon this year. (Not yet, anyway.) In fact, people are wondering where the heck winter went. Oh, don't get me wrong, we'll get a cold-snap at some point. We always get at least two each year, and we're overdue for our second. But now Europe is getting socked in with record lows and massive amounts of snow, all because the Jet Stream has blown it over to them this time. I seem to recall, back when WE were getting all that snow last year, and global warming deniers were guffawing, how Europe was having unseasonably mild temperatures. Who gets the warm spell next year, northeastern Siberia?
It's not global warming, necessarily. We won't really feel the effects of that until the North Polar Cap is almost entirely gone, and that's a little ways off, yet. No, when that happens, we'll ALL be feeling it.
I guess my point to all this, whether it be sports, or weather, or politics, is that we ain't seen nothin' yet. Things are just getting (pardon the over-extended metaphor) warmed up. In politics, we're just beginning to see the contentiousness that will happen, because as the religious right begins to lose, they will get ten times more shrill. As the polar cap vanishes, global warming will very suddenly become obvious. And sports? Just you wait! Steroids are going to be the least of its problems.
We're on the cusp of producing artificial hemoglobin, which could transport so much oxygen throughout our bloodstream that someone could do wind-sprints for five hours and not break a sweat. We're close to nanobots being able to rebuild broken bones and torn muscles, and viruses being able to rewrite our DNA. If you think steroids are contentious, wait until an athlete's DNA is rewritten to produce more testosterone naturally -- beyond any possible detection. Wait until life-spans are extended and 50 and even 60 year-old athletes glut the market, making it all but impossible for rookies to break in. Wait until that classmate of Ryan Braun's, who rivaled him in high school, decides to retire from that engineering job he was forced to take after he broke his leg in college, and comes back to make a pro career at age 70.
Yes, it's all possible. Because computers can put it all within reach. A computer that filled a room in 1960 could fit into your pocket by 1980, and the computers that could fill a room in 1980 now ride on everyone's hips as smart phones. By 2030, those computers will fit inside a blood cell! Don't think so? Computers have been getting twice as powerful and half as expensive every two years, but it's not a straight curve. It's a logarithmic one -- meaning it's speeding up. And before most of us reach 80, I think one of our super-sophisticated computers will get creative, sentient, and be able to invent new technologies itself. It will built a better version of itself, which will build a better version, and so forth. We humans will never need to invent things again. And so many life-extending technologies will emerge that it will be hard to keep track of it all. Imagine having a brain with its own external computer-drive so that you have photographic memory of everything, and will be able to do six-figure calculus in your head! Imagine old age being conquered and living forever! Imagine being able to give teenagers internal contraception which they can remove when they land a steady job in their 20's? Let's see what the Catholic Church makes of teenage pregnancy becoming a thing of the past!
Now imagine if the rich get their way, and they are able to hoard all that new tech for themselves. If lassez-faire economics gets its way, that will happen. Oh, don't get me wrong, capitalism is fine, but it's not an absolute! And if some government control isn't maintained over free enterprise, then what will happen when all this cool technology arrives is that YOU, Mr. and Mrs. Public, will die, and the rich will live forever!
Don't think so? Just you wait. Two years ago a medical team was able to manufacture a kidney from scratch. Yes! An actual kidney! It's already here. It's arriving just around the corner. We'll be alive long enough to see it, I think. And if we are, we might just live long enough to live forever.
So you'll understand why I'll vote for bad Liberals over good Conservatives in the meantime. I have no intention of being one of the 99% who are denied an indefinite life-span! As for all of you, all I can say is, eat right, exercise, and vote Democrat. That way maybe I can see all of you looking like you did in your 30's, eighty years from now.
Am I way off? Well, you ain't seen nothin' yet!
Eric
Meanwhile, Groundhog Day came and went; that superstitious holiday where people go and pester an overgrown rodent on the principle that it knows better than NOAA, the NWS, numerous supercomputer simulations and at least half a dozen strategically orbiting weather satellites when spring will arrive. And these are going to be the same people that will choose the next Leader of the Free World. Eh, who knows? Maybe Mr. Holy Underwear has a snowball's chance in Hades after all. However, Mitt did come out of his hole, saw Newt Gingrich's shadow, and ran back inside, which means at least six more weeks of campaigning.
Meanwhile, the cherry blossoms in D.C. are in bloom. Yeah. In February. No Snowmageddon this year. (Not yet, anyway.) In fact, people are wondering where the heck winter went. Oh, don't get me wrong, we'll get a cold-snap at some point. We always get at least two each year, and we're overdue for our second. But now Europe is getting socked in with record lows and massive amounts of snow, all because the Jet Stream has blown it over to them this time. I seem to recall, back when WE were getting all that snow last year, and global warming deniers were guffawing, how Europe was having unseasonably mild temperatures. Who gets the warm spell next year, northeastern Siberia?
It's not global warming, necessarily. We won't really feel the effects of that until the North Polar Cap is almost entirely gone, and that's a little ways off, yet. No, when that happens, we'll ALL be feeling it.
I guess my point to all this, whether it be sports, or weather, or politics, is that we ain't seen nothin' yet. Things are just getting (pardon the over-extended metaphor) warmed up. In politics, we're just beginning to see the contentiousness that will happen, because as the religious right begins to lose, they will get ten times more shrill. As the polar cap vanishes, global warming will very suddenly become obvious. And sports? Just you wait! Steroids are going to be the least of its problems.
We're on the cusp of producing artificial hemoglobin, which could transport so much oxygen throughout our bloodstream that someone could do wind-sprints for five hours and not break a sweat. We're close to nanobots being able to rebuild broken bones and torn muscles, and viruses being able to rewrite our DNA. If you think steroids are contentious, wait until an athlete's DNA is rewritten to produce more testosterone naturally -- beyond any possible detection. Wait until life-spans are extended and 50 and even 60 year-old athletes glut the market, making it all but impossible for rookies to break in. Wait until that classmate of Ryan Braun's, who rivaled him in high school, decides to retire from that engineering job he was forced to take after he broke his leg in college, and comes back to make a pro career at age 70.
Yes, it's all possible. Because computers can put it all within reach. A computer that filled a room in 1960 could fit into your pocket by 1980, and the computers that could fill a room in 1980 now ride on everyone's hips as smart phones. By 2030, those computers will fit inside a blood cell! Don't think so? Computers have been getting twice as powerful and half as expensive every two years, but it's not a straight curve. It's a logarithmic one -- meaning it's speeding up. And before most of us reach 80, I think one of our super-sophisticated computers will get creative, sentient, and be able to invent new technologies itself. It will built a better version of itself, which will build a better version, and so forth. We humans will never need to invent things again. And so many life-extending technologies will emerge that it will be hard to keep track of it all. Imagine having a brain with its own external computer-drive so that you have photographic memory of everything, and will be able to do six-figure calculus in your head! Imagine old age being conquered and living forever! Imagine being able to give teenagers internal contraception which they can remove when they land a steady job in their 20's? Let's see what the Catholic Church makes of teenage pregnancy becoming a thing of the past!
Now imagine if the rich get their way, and they are able to hoard all that new tech for themselves. If lassez-faire economics gets its way, that will happen. Oh, don't get me wrong, capitalism is fine, but it's not an absolute! And if some government control isn't maintained over free enterprise, then what will happen when all this cool technology arrives is that YOU, Mr. and Mrs. Public, will die, and the rich will live forever!
Don't think so? Just you wait. Two years ago a medical team was able to manufacture a kidney from scratch. Yes! An actual kidney! It's already here. It's arriving just around the corner. We'll be alive long enough to see it, I think. And if we are, we might just live long enough to live forever.
So you'll understand why I'll vote for bad Liberals over good Conservatives in the meantime. I have no intention of being one of the 99% who are denied an indefinite life-span! As for all of you, all I can say is, eat right, exercise, and vote Democrat. That way maybe I can see all of you looking like you did in your 30's, eighty years from now.
Am I way off? Well, you ain't seen nothin' yet!
Eric
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Wasted Money. Speak UP!
Holy underwear, he's won again.
(I really don't need to elaborate, do I?)
And with that note, it's time to take note of the ridiculous amount of money being thrown around in election campaigns.
Let's see: In Iowa alone, 12.5 million spent just on TV ads, and that's just from the candidates. If one includes the PACs, an additional 14 million.
How effective was that money? Well, the biggest spender by far, Rick Perry, spent 2.86 million to finish a distant fifth. Or, to put it in gasoline terms, his political engine gets 35 gallons per mile. Rick Santorum, by contrast, barely spent anything and tied Romney. In terms of money spent, this is the equivalent of the Toledo Mudhens beating the New York Yankees. Maybe Rick Perry should have had a better stand on the issues and spent less money.
Nah, that would make too much sense!
Since its so blazingly obvious, and has been for a while, that TV ads don't buy victory, why the hell do politicians think they can buy their way in? The short answer is that, every once in a long while, a rich and unprincipled fuck really can buy an election.
We can't outlaw political TV ads, much as we would like to. That would violate free speech. But if professional sports teams have to live with a spending cap, why the hell can't our politicians and PACs?
Nah, that would make too much sense!
What really bothers me about this, is that the idiots wasting so much money on TV ads that ultimately don't matter more than what they do and say are the same morons who are going to get into budgetary battles. To put it in perspective, 5.3 billion was spent on the presidential campaign alone between Obama and McCain, including PACs. McCain, it turns out, actually outspent Obama by just a little bit. (Yeah, how'd that work out?) Republican PACs were outspent by Democratic PACs by a little bit. The annual budget for NASA is 17.8 billion. In other words, just for presidential politics alone, the cost is nearly one third of what it takes to launch things past the troposphere on a regular basis. It used to cost 450 million to launch a space shuttle. President Obama spent roughly 850 million on his election. In other words, just trying to get elected to the White House now costs about the same as launching two space shuttle missions.
Sheesh!
And these are the same people who will turn right around and argue on the House and Senate floors that we have better things to do with our money than launch things at Mars and Jupiter. I agree! But we wouldn't have to even have the discussion if the Space Program came out of your goddamned re-election fund, now would it?!
Here's what really puts it in perspective. The amount spent by the Republican Party during the 2010 election cycle was 1.77 trillion dollars. (The democrats spent 1.8 trillion, outspending them, to get their asses kicked. Case in point again.) I reported in a previous blog about how the national 2011 budget deficit was 1.267 trillion. In other words, both the Republican and Democratic parties outspent the national deficit by at least 30%, EACH! And that's during a midterm election!
Here's a thought: Let's enact an election spending cap, then take all that extra cash and solve our national debt and deficit crisis problems at the same time! Hell, let's pay for medical care for everybody too!
Nah, that would make too much sense!
So, if you think that our money would be spent better on other things, NOW is your chance to speak up! Let politicians know the waste will not be tolerated anymore! Or else, when the time comes to argue over whether to slash Social Security and Medicare, or raise taxes on the upper part of 1%, you will have LOST your right to complain!
I've got it! Let's levy taxes on campaign spending! Brilliant! (That would certainly tax the 1% easily, wouldn't it?)
Nah, that would make too much sense!
Eric
(I really don't need to elaborate, do I?)
And with that note, it's time to take note of the ridiculous amount of money being thrown around in election campaigns.
Let's see: In Iowa alone, 12.5 million spent just on TV ads, and that's just from the candidates. If one includes the PACs, an additional 14 million.
How effective was that money? Well, the biggest spender by far, Rick Perry, spent 2.86 million to finish a distant fifth. Or, to put it in gasoline terms, his political engine gets 35 gallons per mile. Rick Santorum, by contrast, barely spent anything and tied Romney. In terms of money spent, this is the equivalent of the Toledo Mudhens beating the New York Yankees. Maybe Rick Perry should have had a better stand on the issues and spent less money.
Nah, that would make too much sense!
Since its so blazingly obvious, and has been for a while, that TV ads don't buy victory, why the hell do politicians think they can buy their way in? The short answer is that, every once in a long while, a rich and unprincipled fuck really can buy an election.
We can't outlaw political TV ads, much as we would like to. That would violate free speech. But if professional sports teams have to live with a spending cap, why the hell can't our politicians and PACs?
Nah, that would make too much sense!
What really bothers me about this, is that the idiots wasting so much money on TV ads that ultimately don't matter more than what they do and say are the same morons who are going to get into budgetary battles. To put it in perspective, 5.3 billion was spent on the presidential campaign alone between Obama and McCain, including PACs. McCain, it turns out, actually outspent Obama by just a little bit. (Yeah, how'd that work out?) Republican PACs were outspent by Democratic PACs by a little bit. The annual budget for NASA is 17.8 billion. In other words, just for presidential politics alone, the cost is nearly one third of what it takes to launch things past the troposphere on a regular basis. It used to cost 450 million to launch a space shuttle. President Obama spent roughly 850 million on his election. In other words, just trying to get elected to the White House now costs about the same as launching two space shuttle missions.
Sheesh!
And these are the same people who will turn right around and argue on the House and Senate floors that we have better things to do with our money than launch things at Mars and Jupiter. I agree! But we wouldn't have to even have the discussion if the Space Program came out of your goddamned re-election fund, now would it?!
Here's what really puts it in perspective. The amount spent by the Republican Party during the 2010 election cycle was 1.77 trillion dollars. (The democrats spent 1.8 trillion, outspending them, to get their asses kicked. Case in point again.) I reported in a previous blog about how the national 2011 budget deficit was 1.267 trillion. In other words, both the Republican and Democratic parties outspent the national deficit by at least 30%, EACH! And that's during a midterm election!
Here's a thought: Let's enact an election spending cap, then take all that extra cash and solve our national debt and deficit crisis problems at the same time! Hell, let's pay for medical care for everybody too!
Nah, that would make too much sense!
So, if you think that our money would be spent better on other things, NOW is your chance to speak up! Let politicians know the waste will not be tolerated anymore! Or else, when the time comes to argue over whether to slash Social Security and Medicare, or raise taxes on the upper part of 1%, you will have LOST your right to complain!
I've got it! Let's levy taxes on campaign spending! Brilliant! (That would certainly tax the 1% easily, wouldn't it?)
Nah, that would make too much sense!
Eric
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Iowa Caucases, And Reforms
Holy underwear! Mitt Romney has just won the Iowa Caucasians, er, I mean, Caucuses, by eight votes!
I demand a recount! (Hee, hee!)
Bachmann's out.(Apparently, God was just kidding when he told her to run.) Rick Perry is on life support. Newt Gingrich is bitching like the limbless Black Night in Monty Python's "The Holy Grail." It's a beautiful thing.
The two finalists? You have Obamacare, Jr, Mitt "Holy Underwear" Romney, and the only legislator to have homosexual ass-juice named after him.
Oh, for those of you who actually DON'T watch Jon Stewart, let me teach you about the meaning of the word, "Santorum." It began in 1996 when Rick Santorum first won election to the Senate, and garnered ire from gay activists everywhere as he fervently preached that he would, given the chance, repeal all gay marriage. Okay, fine. Then, around the time of 2001, with the "No Child Left Behind" bill pending (yeah, how'd that one work out for us?), Santorum was the guy who added an amendment to require the teaching of Intelligent Design. Maybe I've got my chronology of events wrong, but it was way back then that I became aware that the gay & lesbian community had had enough of this clown, and engaged in the best act of name-calling since the "Pink Lady," Helen Gehegan-Douglas, tagged Richard Nixon as "Tricky Dick."
You see, that gross combination of cum, anal lube and well-churned shit that stains the sheets after two men have enjoyed an intimate night together, officially has a name -- and has for over a decade, now. It's called "santorum," named after you-know-who! And it's his unflinching religious-right-wing nonsense that earned him the title, and forever wrote him into the anals... excuse me, the annals, of history.
So Iowa has given us Mr. Shit, and Mr. Underwear. Put them together and you have... well, you know.
Really, I'm driving towards a serious point with all this silly-talk. Because Iowa has given us one brown-nose, and one brown-ass, and that makes me wonder:
WHY THE FUCK SHOULD IOWA HAVE ALL THE FUN?!
Or New Hampshire for that matter? Why do these tiny little states, have such a big say? Why does Iowa, which ranks 30th in population size, and New Hampshire, with only seven states with fewer people (including Alaska, Delaware, and Hawaii), get such a big say-so? By the time the primaries reach states like Wisconsin, all but one or two candidates have dropped out! Until Barack Obama came along, I really never got to vote for my #1 choice as president, and the tracks were littered with the corpses of all those I never got the chance to vote for. Paul Tsongas, Lamarr Alexander, Arlen Specter, Dick Gephardt... the list of candidates denied to me -- and indeed all of us -- goes on and on. It seems so unfair. And that's because it so fucking IS!
So, if we're to concede that these corn-munchers and cape-codders have too much say-so, what can we do to fix it? What can we do to give the rest of us a taste of the trillion-dollar advertising bombardment that makes us sick to our stomachs, and the inability to go to the grocery store without being glad-handed by some no-name we've never heard of?
Well, we could have the primaries be a national affair done all at once. Certainly we have the technology. But this pretty much guarantees that the candidates will spend nearly all their time in California, and maybe a little bit in New York and Texas. No, having states do primaries one at a time at least guarantees that some of us common folks get to meet the candidates themselves, and this makes just as much sense today as it did back in the days before jet-planes and the Internet meant that candidates had to campaign by shoe-leather and soap-box.
So how about moving everything up? Maybe we could have a January Bonanza? A super-string of Super Tuesdays? Again, this fails. Because even with primary elections taking place at least as frequently as football games (and with just as much hype) you still have the front-running states having too much say, and the later-running states having masses of people eager and willing to vote for a candidate who (damn it all!) drops out just before primary day arrives. It solves nothing.
So what are we to do? It seems we have a choice of evils. Let two or three states have too much power, or let two or three OTHER states have too much power. What's a concerned voter to do?
Here's my solution: LOTTERY! Instead of Iowa and New Hampshire getting first crack EVERY SINGLE TIME, why don't we cycle the order of primaries for each state every time there's a presidential election? We put a bunch of numbers in a basket, start it tumbling, turn on the vacuum cleaner, and the order that each state's number rolls out (with each state's number being the order in which it joined the union, for example Wisconsin, the 30th state admitted, would be #30) is the order of state primaries. So, every once in awhile, a state like Michigan, which has always been near-last, might get to be first! And they'll get a taste of the mind-numbing responsibility of being unqualified judges of who gets to lead the nation.
Not perfect, no. But way better than the stupid shit we currently have where Iowa always picks the person who seldom is the candidate, usually isn't qualified, and even less often the president. I say, give it some thought!
Eric
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Christmas Day Scandal!
Well, it's official. Santa's star player, Rudolph, will not be able to guide the sleigh this Christmas. Apparently, Rudy has tested positive for RGH, reindeer growth hormone, and has received a holiday-season suspension.
This is the latest in a series of scandals to have rocked the reindeer pen at the North Pole. From Blitzen's public struggles with alcohol abuse to Prancer's admitted cocaine addiction, it seems like the days when reindeer were all about innocence during Christmas are over. All eight of the females in the original team (and this is an interesting bit of trivia: female reindeer have antlers, and all Santa's reindeer, save Rudolph, are female -- which is part of why you put him in the very front; if you put him anywhere else, there could be a problem!) have come forward with tales of personal or emotional struggles that have made a simple thing like pulling a sleigh through the air at Mach 3 seem overtly complicated. Donner, who came out of the closet as gay three years ago, and still maintaining she's in love with Dancer, who refuses to speak with her, is not bowing to pressure from the American Family Association to recant her statement. Comet, a long-time opponent of global warming, who had her paddock fall through the ice last year, is still maintaining that was due to a fluke warm-water current.
And here we thought nothing would be more annoying to Santa than Cupid being diagnosed with Crohn's disease in 1987.
It's hard to fault Rudolph. He's even older than Brett Favre, and has to find some way to keep going year after year. And with all the young reindeer who have been showing up with the characteristic bright, shiny nose (which is a scandal in and of itself), there seems to be no shortage of potential replacements. Word is that with Rudolph out, Santa has turned to the Russian Caribou, Alexi Akhnigoyovich, to temporarily take point on the sleigh. There should be no language barrier with the new acquisition, as Santa himself, who wears a red suit and makes lists of people who are naughty and nice, is of course as fluent in Russian as any other Marxist-Leninist.
So here's hoping the best for Santa's reindeer. Hopefully, Vixen's gonorrhea won't attract a cruise missile over Afghanistan.
Eric
This is the latest in a series of scandals to have rocked the reindeer pen at the North Pole. From Blitzen's public struggles with alcohol abuse to Prancer's admitted cocaine addiction, it seems like the days when reindeer were all about innocence during Christmas are over. All eight of the females in the original team (and this is an interesting bit of trivia: female reindeer have antlers, and all Santa's reindeer, save Rudolph, are female -- which is part of why you put him in the very front; if you put him anywhere else, there could be a problem!) have come forward with tales of personal or emotional struggles that have made a simple thing like pulling a sleigh through the air at Mach 3 seem overtly complicated. Donner, who came out of the closet as gay three years ago, and still maintaining she's in love with Dancer, who refuses to speak with her, is not bowing to pressure from the American Family Association to recant her statement. Comet, a long-time opponent of global warming, who had her paddock fall through the ice last year, is still maintaining that was due to a fluke warm-water current.
And here we thought nothing would be more annoying to Santa than Cupid being diagnosed with Crohn's disease in 1987.
It's hard to fault Rudolph. He's even older than Brett Favre, and has to find some way to keep going year after year. And with all the young reindeer who have been showing up with the characteristic bright, shiny nose (which is a scandal in and of itself), there seems to be no shortage of potential replacements. Word is that with Rudolph out, Santa has turned to the Russian Caribou, Alexi Akhnigoyovich, to temporarily take point on the sleigh. There should be no language barrier with the new acquisition, as Santa himself, who wears a red suit and makes lists of people who are naughty and nice, is of course as fluent in Russian as any other Marxist-Leninist.
So here's hoping the best for Santa's reindeer. Hopefully, Vixen's gonorrhea won't attract a cruise missile over Afghanistan.
Eric
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
The Shroud of Turin? Seriously?
Well, it's just been reported in the news that a team of "researchers" (I will not dignify them by calling them scientists) have come forward with the claim that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. The incredible part isn't that a bunch of religiously motivated people have attempted to twist science into confirming their faith. That nonsense has been going on ever since before Darwin turned the cannon of science against religion 151 years ago. What's incredible is that so many reporters would report it as though it were at all credible!
Now, everyone knows that radiocarbon dating put the shroud's age at between 1260 and 1390 C.E., thus making it a medieval forgery. But these researchers say that the sample of the cloth used to make this measurement was likely taken from a piece that was likely repaired with newer material after a fire burned parts of the shroud.
If the PolitiFact meter were put on that one, it would say, "Pants On Fire!"
Shown above, is the shroud itself. It's not as large as I would have liked, but it will do. That white rectangle in the lower left is where scientists clipped a 2" by 8" section which could be atomized for the Carbon-14 test. It's pretty obvious that this section is contiguous with the rest of the cloth. And if that's not enough, there's a PBS documentary that filmed the section being scissored out, and anyone can see bloody well that it's not a "repaired section."
But just for the sheer hell of it, let's play along. Let's say the shroud breaks with every Jewish tradition in folding the body up in a single piece of cloth (not done) folded the long way (also not done) and leaving a narrow, two-dimensional imprint pattern, as if the ultraviolet rays emitted from Jesus upon resurrection only went in a single parallel, straight up or straight down, rather than in a dispersed, outwardly-radiating pattern (as you might expect) which would have created an unrecognizably darkened smear instead of a photograph. You then have a scriptural problem.
The Book of John, chapter 20, verses 6 and 7 clearly state that Jesus' burial cloth was in strips, not a single piece, and that a separate burial cloth had been around Jesus' head. So, logically, we have only three choices: 1.) This passage from The Book of John is fake, 2.) The Shroud of Turin is fake, 3.) They are both fake! The only option we do not have is that either of these things support Christianity!
So go on, you stupid reporters, and uncritically pass along this story without one, single guffaw. Oh, how I miss Christopher Hitchens at this moment. Hell, I miss H.L. Mencken!
Meanwhile, most high school graduates in America can't find Italy on a map, much less Turin. Now you tell ME which is the more important story!
Eric
If the PolitiFact meter were put on that one, it would say, "Pants On Fire!"
Shown above, is the shroud itself. It's not as large as I would have liked, but it will do. That white rectangle in the lower left is where scientists clipped a 2" by 8" section which could be atomized for the Carbon-14 test. It's pretty obvious that this section is contiguous with the rest of the cloth. And if that's not enough, there's a PBS documentary that filmed the section being scissored out, and anyone can see bloody well that it's not a "repaired section."
But just for the sheer hell of it, let's play along. Let's say the shroud breaks with every Jewish tradition in folding the body up in a single piece of cloth (not done) folded the long way (also not done) and leaving a narrow, two-dimensional imprint pattern, as if the ultraviolet rays emitted from Jesus upon resurrection only went in a single parallel, straight up or straight down, rather than in a dispersed, outwardly-radiating pattern (as you might expect) which would have created an unrecognizably darkened smear instead of a photograph. You then have a scriptural problem.
The Book of John, chapter 20, verses 6 and 7 clearly state that Jesus' burial cloth was in strips, not a single piece, and that a separate burial cloth had been around Jesus' head. So, logically, we have only three choices: 1.) This passage from The Book of John is fake, 2.) The Shroud of Turin is fake, 3.) They are both fake! The only option we do not have is that either of these things support Christianity!
So go on, you stupid reporters, and uncritically pass along this story without one, single guffaw. Oh, how I miss Christopher Hitchens at this moment. Hell, I miss H.L. Mencken!
Meanwhile, most high school graduates in America can't find Italy on a map, much less Turin. Now you tell ME which is the more important story!
Eric
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)