Here in the United States, there is no shortage of serious issues facing us today. The price of gas is rising faster than Fred Mertz's waistline, the dollar is plummeting lower than Britney Spears' sex appeal, and let's not forget that pesky little problem in the Middle East. And now, as if that's not enough, our cows are being abducted at record rates.
Seriously, aliens: wtf?
a collection of musings on life, politics, culture, and humor.
May 16, 2008
May 10, 2008
how not to celebrate winning a WoW tournament
You have to read this.
Because people often have an irrational aversion to clicking on links without knowing what's on the other end*, I'll give you the TV Guide version to get you excited:
13-year-old boys obtain credit card, binge on Oreos and Dr Pepper, and hire hookers to play Xbox 360 with them.
Oh yeah, and they tell the hookers that they're traveling circus midgets, so as to not arouse suspicion.
Bonus: The article contains a stock photo of high heeled snakeskin boots, the international symbol for Texas hookers.
* Case in point: Almost every time I send someone a hyperlink on aim, the response is "what's this?" My response is typically, "Click on it and find out, you jackass."
Because people often have an irrational aversion to clicking on links without knowing what's on the other end*, I'll give you the TV Guide version to get you excited:
13-year-old boys obtain credit card, binge on Oreos and Dr Pepper, and hire hookers to play Xbox 360 with them.
Oh yeah, and they tell the hookers that they're traveling circus midgets, so as to not arouse suspicion.
Bonus: The article contains a stock photo of high heeled snakeskin boots, the international symbol for Texas hookers.
* Case in point: Almost every time I send someone a hyperlink on aim, the response is "what's this?" My response is typically, "Click on it and find out, you jackass."
May 3, 2008
"searing gas pain land?"
There's a lot of talk about gas prices lately, and it seems everyone's got an opinion on the best way to manage the situation. The topic came up at a family dinner last night.
My aunt and uncle support the plan endorsed by John McCain and Hillary Clinton to temporarily remove the federal tax on gasoline for the summer, which sounds great on paper, but wouldn't really do anything to help American consumers.
My grandpa is in favor of increased domestic production, which means expanded offshore drilling, and possibly poking into Alaska. This is, of course, a touchy area. More offshore drilling may indeed help lower prices, but will it be worth the cost? Maybe. I have no idea how much it costs to build those big drills under the sea and pipe it to the mainland, so I can't really comment on whether or not it's a viable option.* As far as Alaska goes, let's just say there's a good reason it's gone largely untapped for three decades, despite the best efforts of the drilling interests.
My brother opposes increased domestic production on the grounds that oil companies will find a way to screw us all no matter what, so we may as well not waste taxpayer money on new drilling facilities and pipelines. Instead, he wants a federal cap on the price of gas at the pump. This sounds pretty good, especially if you believe that prices are artificially high (which I do, but not to the extent that Matt does), but there are always problems when the government starts interfering in private enterprise. Not only does it run counter to the ideals upon which our economy, and indeed our government, are based, but this kind of protectionism can actually bring about terrible consequences, which is no good.
The fact is, gas prices are high because demand is high. Yeah, oil executives are swimming around in giant money bins like Scrooge McDuck these days, which is an indication that they are indeed giant assholes who don't mind ruining the economy and forcing me to work two jobs and still have to downsize to a smaller apartment, so they can light their Cubans with hundred dollar bills while drinking their highballs and sleeping with Playboy models down at Hef's place... but... where was I going with this? Oh yeah; they're charging a lot more than they need to for gas, but that only accounts for part of the high price. The fact is, there's a civil war going on in Iraq that's brought instability to the OPEC region; there's an industrial revolution taking place in China and India, which has dramatically increased demand for oil; and China has introduced a ridiculously inexpensive car within the past year, which means literally millions of folks in the region who have historically been unable to buy cars, now have cars. All of these factors are likely influencing the price of oil far more than executive greed is.
If we really want to bring the price of gas down, we need to bring the demand down. Way down. This means adopting more sensible driving habits, traveling less, conserving electricity at home and in industry (yeah, how do you think power plants generate their power?), and if you're financially able to do so, getting more efficient automobiles. And of course it goes without saying, carpool and use mass transit if those are available to you.
There are also some policy choices our elected representatives can take, such as standardizing gasoline formulas, investing more in alternative energy, subsidizing mass transit to make it more accessible**, and, dare I say it, raising taxes on gasoline.
So there you have it -- Caleb's answer to America's energy woes. Now if only I were a member of the Senate, I could propose a bill that would see the floor for six minutes before being shot down by special interest puppets :-P
* The topic of offshore drilling is more complex than meets the eye. Of course we have to consider the cost of infrastructure and all that good stuff, but we also need to consider the benefits of more American jobs created, localized shipping (which creates a smaller carbon footprint, as well as reduces oil demand, which goes hand-in-hand with the whole point of the project anyway), and the impact on the local economy.
** For all I know, mass transit such as Amtrak is already subsidized, and I'm just not aware of it. If that's the case, it needs to be subsidized a heck of a lot more, in order to make it a more economical option for John Q. Public, who currently sees no monetary incentive for taking the train versus driving.
My aunt and uncle support the plan endorsed by John McCain and Hillary Clinton to temporarily remove the federal tax on gasoline for the summer, which sounds great on paper, but wouldn't really do anything to help American consumers.
My grandpa is in favor of increased domestic production, which means expanded offshore drilling, and possibly poking into Alaska. This is, of course, a touchy area. More offshore drilling may indeed help lower prices, but will it be worth the cost? Maybe. I have no idea how much it costs to build those big drills under the sea and pipe it to the mainland, so I can't really comment on whether or not it's a viable option.* As far as Alaska goes, let's just say there's a good reason it's gone largely untapped for three decades, despite the best efforts of the drilling interests.
My brother opposes increased domestic production on the grounds that oil companies will find a way to screw us all no matter what, so we may as well not waste taxpayer money on new drilling facilities and pipelines. Instead, he wants a federal cap on the price of gas at the pump. This sounds pretty good, especially if you believe that prices are artificially high (which I do, but not to the extent that Matt does), but there are always problems when the government starts interfering in private enterprise. Not only does it run counter to the ideals upon which our economy, and indeed our government, are based, but this kind of protectionism can actually bring about terrible consequences, which is no good.
The fact is, gas prices are high because demand is high. Yeah, oil executives are swimming around in giant money bins like Scrooge McDuck these days, which is an indication that they are indeed giant assholes who don't mind ruining the economy and forcing me to work two jobs and still have to downsize to a smaller apartment, so they can light their Cubans with hundred dollar bills while drinking their highballs and sleeping with Playboy models down at Hef's place... but... where was I going with this? Oh yeah; they're charging a lot more than they need to for gas, but that only accounts for part of the high price. The fact is, there's a civil war going on in Iraq that's brought instability to the OPEC region; there's an industrial revolution taking place in China and India, which has dramatically increased demand for oil; and China has introduced a ridiculously inexpensive car within the past year, which means literally millions of folks in the region who have historically been unable to buy cars, now have cars. All of these factors are likely influencing the price of oil far more than executive greed is.
If we really want to bring the price of gas down, we need to bring the demand down. Way down. This means adopting more sensible driving habits, traveling less, conserving electricity at home and in industry (yeah, how do you think power plants generate their power?), and if you're financially able to do so, getting more efficient automobiles. And of course it goes without saying, carpool and use mass transit if those are available to you.
There are also some policy choices our elected representatives can take, such as standardizing gasoline formulas, investing more in alternative energy, subsidizing mass transit to make it more accessible**, and, dare I say it, raising taxes on gasoline.
So there you have it -- Caleb's answer to America's energy woes. Now if only I were a member of the Senate, I could propose a bill that would see the floor for six minutes before being shot down by special interest puppets :-P
* The topic of offshore drilling is more complex than meets the eye. Of course we have to consider the cost of infrastructure and all that good stuff, but we also need to consider the benefits of more American jobs created, localized shipping (which creates a smaller carbon footprint, as well as reduces oil demand, which goes hand-in-hand with the whole point of the project anyway), and the impact on the local economy.
** For all I know, mass transit such as Amtrak is already subsidized, and I'm just not aware of it. If that's the case, it needs to be subsidized a heck of a lot more, in order to make it a more economical option for John Q. Public, who currently sees no monetary incentive for taking the train versus driving.
April 16, 2008
there's always room for hip-hop!
I just read an AP report that Bill Cosby is releasing a hip-hop album. That's fantastic.I'd make a joke about Bill Cosby rapping about Jell-O Pudding Pops at this point, but the article beat me to the punch. Lame.
Anyway, I look forward to listening to this album. Apparently Cosby is taking it old school: "[H]e’s always been involved in music and he was there for the first generation of spoken word. ... He has always understood rap’s potential, but he was appalled by the foul language and the misogyny — the way people used a medium that could be used to elevate people, to open their eyes and provoke thought,” says producer Bill "Spaceman" Patterson, in this quote which I shamelessly lifted straight from the AP story.
Oh yeah, Bill Cosby won't actually be doing any of the rapping/singing/whatever you call the vocals in hip-hop music. He's commissioning actual hip-hop artists for that part. I was a little disappointed to learn that part, but it's probably much, much better off this way.
March 10, 2008
if that's winning, i'll gladly lose
I got this chain e-mail today. It infuriated me so much that I nearly tore the sender a new e-hole via 'Reply All', but my senses prevailed and I decided to dissect it for public scrutiny instead. So here we go:
Subject: Unfortunately, this says it all!!!
Everyone has a different opinion on the war, and our current President. But, this article makes a lot of sense, and I hope you will read it and give it some thought:
What a difference 60 years makes..!!!
'You aint gonna like losing.' Author unknown.
President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not necessarily his decision to go to war in Iraq .
Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not.
Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders.
Hold on a minute here. It's our duty to back our leaders? Funny, I could've sworn our Declaration of Independence states:
Let's continue...
Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not.
And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war.
Once again, 'sticking with the President' is not anybody's "patriotic duty". By now, you can probably see the horrible road this essay heading down...
Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort.
Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.
Comparing the current war to WWII is like comparing apples and unicycles. The reason WWII had such great citizen mobilization is that it was a war that most people agreed was right, just, and necessary for the survival of a free world. The current war, on the other hand, is almost universally understood to be wrong, unjust, and certainly not necessary for the survival of anything other than war profiteers. Germany and Japan were real hostile forces who were directly attacking us and our allies; Iraq was not directly hostile, never attacked, nor had any plans to attack us or our allies, and has been known for years to have nothing to do with the terrorist networks we were supposed to be warring against. One would have to be either stupid or insane to think Iraq and WWII are anything alike.
You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.
The media stringently censored their personalities in the mid-20th century, and dissenting voices were harassed, fired, or even blacklisted. It's also worth pointing out that George Bush isn't exactly the FDR of our time.
And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops!
Yeah, we've made a lot of progress on that front in the past 60 years. Forced prayers and forced loyalty oaths are decidedly un-American.
Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage.
Often times, bringing our weaknesses to public light is the most expedient way of getting our weaknesses fixed by those who have the power to fix them. And besides, if a newspaper reporter is able to uncover the high casualty weak spots in a city, a terrorist sure as hell already knows about them, or at least knows how to find them at least as easily as the reporter did. And even if he can't, I can pretty much guarantee he's not getting his target intel from the Sacramento Bee.
No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.
"What we're doing to catch spies" is the FOX News way of saying "illegally spying on American citizens, without congressional or judicial oversight, in flagrant violation of the National Security Act of 1947 Title V, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and the Constitution of the United States of America."
A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.
First, the author's thoughtless dismissal of these forms of torture is, well, torturous. These acts aren't the petty, frat-like gags this essay portrays them as. In the conservative, religious, patriarchal cultures of the Middle East, being forced to wear women's underwear ranks closely below being raped. There's also a huge difference between "being scared by a dog" and being threatened with the prospect of literally being eaten alive by snarling attack dogs. I'm not aware of any "enhanced interrogation techniques" involving 'not having air conditioning', but I do know that it's not uncommon to have temperatures of 120+ degrees in Iraq, and if people are being forced into a hotbox in that kind of climate, that's pretty damn disgusting.
Second, if it was revealed that we were torturing POWs during WWII, I doubt that newspapers "would have been laughed out of existence". It wasn't that long ago that Americans thought of their country as a beacon of morality in a depraved world, and torture has always been about as un-American-ly immoral as it gets.
There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crackheads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets.
Al Capone, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson, John Dillinger, Lucky Luciano, Bugsy Siegel, Frank Costello... yeah there were definitely no "dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets" back in the good ol' days.
What does this have to do with the topic at hand, anyway? I thought we were talking about the war...
No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.
If this was still the country our fathers fought to preserve, this war would never have started, 9/11 would have never happened, and Bush sure as hell would never have made it into office. This is what happens when a great nation becomes arrogant and lazy.
It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorra and the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.
No, our attitude changed when we snapped out of our collective jingoistic euphoria and began to realize that we were being manipulated and sold out by our government, and led into a war that had been planned prior to 9/11 [1, 2, 3], based on obviously falsified intelligence.
Oh, and "a cross between Sodom and Gomorra [sic] and the land of Oz"? That's cute.
We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause...Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits.
People who have no ground to stand on love to say things like "it has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million" without actually citing any stats to back up their claims. If those estimates are legitimate, and not just pulled from thin air, I'd love to see them. Until the author can provide me with valid statistics, I'm going to dismiss this as the ramblings of a very ignorant, small-minded, and sad individual.
So...we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall.
Funny, that's exactly where Bush told us to go right after the twin towers fell. That makes us patriots, doesn't it?
Subject: Unfortunately, this says it all!!!
Everyone has a different opinion on the war, and our current President. But, this article makes a lot of sense, and I hope you will read it and give it some thought:
What a difference 60 years makes..!!!
'You aint gonna like losing.' Author unknown.
President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not necessarily his decision to go to war in Iraq .
Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not.
Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders.
Hold on a minute here. It's our duty to back our leaders? Funny, I could've sworn our Declaration of Independence states:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...and that our Constitution spells out, in Article II, Section 4, that the citizenry has the right and responsibility to force out of office any elected leader who betrays the public trust by acting above the law or selling out the People. This is a far cry from the people having the duty to back their leaders unquestioningly, as this essay suggests. Indeed, it's exactly the opposite; since the People elect their leaders, it's the duty of the People to not back those leaders when they fail to represent the interests of the People.
Let's continue...
Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not.
And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war.
Once again, 'sticking with the President' is not anybody's "patriotic duty". By now, you can probably see the horrible road this essay heading down...
Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort.
Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.
Comparing the current war to WWII is like comparing apples and unicycles. The reason WWII had such great citizen mobilization is that it was a war that most people agreed was right, just, and necessary for the survival of a free world. The current war, on the other hand, is almost universally understood to be wrong, unjust, and certainly not necessary for the survival of anything other than war profiteers. Germany and Japan were real hostile forces who were directly attacking us and our allies; Iraq was not directly hostile, never attacked, nor had any plans to attack us or our allies, and has been known for years to have nothing to do with the terrorist networks we were supposed to be warring against. One would have to be either stupid or insane to think Iraq and WWII are anything alike.
You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.
The media stringently censored their personalities in the mid-20th century, and dissenting voices were harassed, fired, or even blacklisted. It's also worth pointing out that George Bush isn't exactly the FDR of our time.
And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops!
Yeah, we've made a lot of progress on that front in the past 60 years. Forced prayers and forced loyalty oaths are decidedly un-American.
Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage.
Often times, bringing our weaknesses to public light is the most expedient way of getting our weaknesses fixed by those who have the power to fix them. And besides, if a newspaper reporter is able to uncover the high casualty weak spots in a city, a terrorist sure as hell already knows about them, or at least knows how to find them at least as easily as the reporter did. And even if he can't, I can pretty much guarantee he's not getting his target intel from the Sacramento Bee.
No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.
"What we're doing to catch spies" is the FOX News way of saying "illegally spying on American citizens, without congressional or judicial oversight, in flagrant violation of the National Security Act of 1947 Title V, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and the Constitution of the United States of America."
A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.
First, the author's thoughtless dismissal of these forms of torture is, well, torturous. These acts aren't the petty, frat-like gags this essay portrays them as. In the conservative, religious, patriarchal cultures of the Middle East, being forced to wear women's underwear ranks closely below being raped. There's also a huge difference between "being scared by a dog" and being threatened with the prospect of literally being eaten alive by snarling attack dogs. I'm not aware of any "enhanced interrogation techniques" involving 'not having air conditioning', but I do know that it's not uncommon to have temperatures of 120+ degrees in Iraq, and if people are being forced into a hotbox in that kind of climate, that's pretty damn disgusting.
Second, if it was revealed that we were torturing POWs during WWII, I doubt that newspapers "would have been laughed out of existence". It wasn't that long ago that Americans thought of their country as a beacon of morality in a depraved world, and torture has always been about as un-American-ly immoral as it gets.
There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crackheads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets.
Al Capone, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson, John Dillinger, Lucky Luciano, Bugsy Siegel, Frank Costello... yeah there were definitely no "dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets" back in the good ol' days.
What does this have to do with the topic at hand, anyway? I thought we were talking about the war...
No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.
If this was still the country our fathers fought to preserve, this war would never have started, 9/11 would have never happened, and Bush sure as hell would never have made it into office. This is what happens when a great nation becomes arrogant and lazy.
It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorra and the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.
No, our attitude changed when we snapped out of our collective jingoistic euphoria and began to realize that we were being manipulated and sold out by our government, and led into a war that had been planned prior to 9/11 [1, 2, 3], based on obviously falsified intelligence.
Oh, and "a cross between Sodom and Gomorra [sic] and the land of Oz"? That's cute.
We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause...Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits.
People who have no ground to stand on love to say things like "it has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million" without actually citing any stats to back up their claims. If those estimates are legitimate, and not just pulled from thin air, I'd love to see them. Until the author can provide me with valid statistics, I'm going to dismiss this as the ramblings of a very ignorant, small-minded, and sad individual.
So...we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall.
Funny, that's exactly where Bush told us to go right after the twin towers fell. That makes us patriots, doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)