I was thinking about how bizarre an idea holy time is. Assumedly, whenever one does anything for holy purposes, it's to communicate with, or otherwise get closer to, God. But since this is about God and not about the human, and any serious believer must admit that an omnipotent God doesn't exist in time, but instead beyond it, there is no such thing as a "week" to an entity like that. In fact, a God like that wouldn't give two shakes about some particular time since all of existence is happening simultaneously for such a being.
As such, ALL time is holy to a supreme entity. Setting aside particular days or weeks, be it Holy Week, Ramadan, or whatever the hell Jewish people do, seems antithetical to the very concept of a supreme deity to which those religions supposedly subscribe. So why bother? If you must fast between sunrise and sunset (which compliments of modern cosmology, seems adorably quaint), why not do it all year? Every day is equally holy to such a god.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Stunted Stunt.
Stunt is a funny word.
Regardless, the House has voted to officially rebuke Joe Wilson for his now-infamous "you lie" comment during Obama's big speech. The GOP is calling the issue over and of course labeling it as a political stunt... which of course it is.
Aaaaaand of course, if the roles had been reversed, the GOP would have been crying and hollering about some evil liberal senator slighting their golden boy. Hell, if it has been them, they'd be calling for the guys resignation. The GOP is good that way.
But that doesn't matter. This is politics afterall.
Regardless, the House has voted to officially rebuke Joe Wilson for his now-infamous "you lie" comment during Obama's big speech. The GOP is calling the issue over and of course labeling it as a political stunt... which of course it is.
Aaaaaand of course, if the roles had been reversed, the GOP would have been crying and hollering about some evil liberal senator slighting their golden boy. Hell, if it has been them, they'd be calling for the guys resignation. The GOP is good that way.
But that doesn't matter. This is politics afterall.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Socialism.
I live in Rhode Island. 180,000 people are on Medicaid, here, and another 180,000 are on Medicare. 360,000. That's over one-third of our entire population.
Governor Carcieri, a few years ago, argued against Harrah's building a casino on Native American land saying that Rhode Island didn't need a casino and that a casino would be "a bad deal for Rhode Island."
Unfortunately, we have two casinos. An ex dog-racing track and an ex-jai alai center. Twin River is getting rid of the dog racing, which loses money, and Newport Grand hasn't had jai alai in years. They're effectively giant rooms filled with video slots and card games. The only thing they don't have are table games. Oh, and behind income tax and property tax, these casinos that don't exist are the biggest source of revenue for the state. As with government run health care, just because politicians say it doesn't exist, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I am a conservative. Sort of. This all connects, I promise. I am also a liberal. Sort of. Strangely enough, I am far from a moderate. In fact, I'm pretty darn radical in many of my views. The problem is, anyone who really thinks about the issues and tries to access as much objective data as they can about any given subject would invariably find it hard to slot themselves neatly into any particular political ideology.
Unfortunately, most of those involved in politics are there for the same reasons people join religions, support Africa, and eat organic food: irrational dogma. It's one of the reasons why I think that, even though politics is held up as some incredibly important thing, it's remarkably unimportant. The system as a whole operates more or less just as well regardless of whatever government is doing. Politics is entertainment for self-important people. The only time politics becomes important is when it deals with freedom. That's the conservative side of me coming out, because in that freedom is free markets. But "conservatives" also support lots of spending on the military, which I think is retarded.
The more liberal side of me, though, recognizes that, while on a systemic level government actions has little effect on fuck-all, on a personal level, government actions can have a great effect. Because here, this is more like the group getting together to assess and deal with specific problems. For example, if the government had not so royally screwed the pooch, Hurricane Katrina is a great example of a government spending lots of taxpayer money to take care of its people.
Another great example is the town of Treese, Kansas. Its sister town Picher, Oklahoma, which is right over the border, was one of the Superfund sites that was basically shut down. A conservative viewpoint is that those living there benefited from the mining and development, so the fact that the land is no 100% fucked shouldn't concern us. They made their own bed, so they can now sleep in it.
But that's not what happened. The EPA, in a rare step, "bought out" and moved the entire remaining population of Picher, which was about 1,800. They then began the cleanup process to remove the epic amount of crap in the ground and water. Unfortunately for Treese, they live just over the border in another state, so they received no buyout. They've been sitting there, waiting. I suspect that the buyout will eventually come, but what's funny is who supports the Treese buyout: Pat Roberts.
Yes, the same hyper-conservative who voted with his party 92% of the time. Who says torture is not so bad. Who voted against TARP. Oh yes, government spending is bad... unless it's for his constituents.
This especially funny since the EPA ran out of Superfund money back in 2003, when Roberts' golden boy, George W. Bush refused to reauthorize the tax. And it's even FUNNIER since Roberts was part of the reason the Superfund laws were not reinstated to begin with after they expired in 1995, much to that evil Bill Clinton's chagrin, who wanted to keep them going. Conservatives believe in sleeping the bed you make. Well, Roberts has been laying down linens for some time. I think it's about time he sleeps in it.
Unfortunately, that would be politics. Government works best when politics are left out, and as such the town should be moved. Hell, pass a bill specifically for it. Government spending can help sometimes. It helps with medicine. And it helps with a dead town, filled with sad people.
Governor Carcieri, a few years ago, argued against Harrah's building a casino on Native American land saying that Rhode Island didn't need a casino and that a casino would be "a bad deal for Rhode Island."
Unfortunately, we have two casinos. An ex dog-racing track and an ex-jai alai center. Twin River is getting rid of the dog racing, which loses money, and Newport Grand hasn't had jai alai in years. They're effectively giant rooms filled with video slots and card games. The only thing they don't have are table games. Oh, and behind income tax and property tax, these casinos that don't exist are the biggest source of revenue for the state. As with government run health care, just because politicians say it doesn't exist, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I am a conservative. Sort of. This all connects, I promise. I am also a liberal. Sort of. Strangely enough, I am far from a moderate. In fact, I'm pretty darn radical in many of my views. The problem is, anyone who really thinks about the issues and tries to access as much objective data as they can about any given subject would invariably find it hard to slot themselves neatly into any particular political ideology.
Unfortunately, most of those involved in politics are there for the same reasons people join religions, support Africa, and eat organic food: irrational dogma. It's one of the reasons why I think that, even though politics is held up as some incredibly important thing, it's remarkably unimportant. The system as a whole operates more or less just as well regardless of whatever government is doing. Politics is entertainment for self-important people. The only time politics becomes important is when it deals with freedom. That's the conservative side of me coming out, because in that freedom is free markets. But "conservatives" also support lots of spending on the military, which I think is retarded.
The more liberal side of me, though, recognizes that, while on a systemic level government actions has little effect on fuck-all, on a personal level, government actions can have a great effect. Because here, this is more like the group getting together to assess and deal with specific problems. For example, if the government had not so royally screwed the pooch, Hurricane Katrina is a great example of a government spending lots of taxpayer money to take care of its people.
Another great example is the town of Treese, Kansas. Its sister town Picher, Oklahoma, which is right over the border, was one of the Superfund sites that was basically shut down. A conservative viewpoint is that those living there benefited from the mining and development, so the fact that the land is no 100% fucked shouldn't concern us. They made their own bed, so they can now sleep in it.
But that's not what happened. The EPA, in a rare step, "bought out" and moved the entire remaining population of Picher, which was about 1,800. They then began the cleanup process to remove the epic amount of crap in the ground and water. Unfortunately for Treese, they live just over the border in another state, so they received no buyout. They've been sitting there, waiting. I suspect that the buyout will eventually come, but what's funny is who supports the Treese buyout: Pat Roberts.
Yes, the same hyper-conservative who voted with his party 92% of the time. Who says torture is not so bad. Who voted against TARP. Oh yes, government spending is bad... unless it's for his constituents.
This especially funny since the EPA ran out of Superfund money back in 2003, when Roberts' golden boy, George W. Bush refused to reauthorize the tax. And it's even FUNNIER since Roberts was part of the reason the Superfund laws were not reinstated to begin with after they expired in 1995, much to that evil Bill Clinton's chagrin, who wanted to keep them going. Conservatives believe in sleeping the bed you make. Well, Roberts has been laying down linens for some time. I think it's about time he sleeps in it.
Unfortunately, that would be politics. Government works best when politics are left out, and as such the town should be moved. Hell, pass a bill specifically for it. Government spending can help sometimes. It helps with medicine. And it helps with a dead town, filled with sad people.
Go Go Gadget Conservation!
Hey! Not too shabby, Rhode Island. We made it on the international scene for our conservation efforts with some little-known beetle. A little recognition is nice, especially since one of our best efforts, the Save the Bay foundation, has received little attention outside of the state even though its success is the most salient. I can now walk down to the Chafee Reserve and see harbor seals. They're noisy. Still, the wildlife has returned in a big way, and that's a thrill.
R.I.’s burying beetles gain international renown (Projo.com)
R.I.’s burying beetles gain international renown (Projo.com)
Friday, September 11, 2009
Creepy Religious Communities are Creepy
Well, this is pleasant.
There's a great episode from Penn & Teller's Bullshit! called The Good Ol' Days. I'd embed it if I could, but Showtime is part of CBS, which still thinks the internet is a fad. I've found it here, but lord knows how long that will remain up. It's real, no viruses, just lots of ads. Keep clicking play and closing pop-ups and you'll eventually get your video.
Basically, their point is that for the good ol' days to appear good, you must dislike the... um, bad youn' days. If you hate what you are/have now, the past will always seem better. That means that communities built entirely around the concept of now being bad and then being good, you have an entire community built around people that are not right in the head (that's a scientific term. Just look it up. DSM-IV. I swear).
I'm all for alternative life-styles. I love them. If you want to live without electricity in a house powered entirely by decaying compost, that's wonderful. I wish you the best of luck in your experiment. But that's not what we're dealing with, here. We're dealing with people that deserve to be mocked. Dressing like it's Little House on the Prairie is just ridiculous. Everyone should wear pants. I assume they don't because dresses make it easier to rape the women.
But no. The women dress like good little women. The children are seen and not heard. And the men control everything. That's archaic, sexist, dogmatic, and outright idiotic. I mock them. I deride them. Every ounce of subjectivity that goes along with this statement I embrace; their way of life is inferior to mine.
We can look at every metric by which to measure a life. Health. Happiness. Satisfaction. Modern medicine, from that evil OUTSIDE world, keeps us healthier longer than ever before. There is no doubt in my mind that we are happier now than we were one hundred years ago. Our children don't die in comical numbers. The legal system protecting us is stronger. The systems that aid us in achieving our goals are larger. Our world is larger, more diverse, and more stimulating.
We can pick apart everything about our modern world. Over-reaching pharmaceutical companies turning us into hypochondriacs. Constant government bickering. Pollution. Yes. We have lots of problems. But they don't even begin to touch the problems faced by our ancestors. We have more food, more resources, more entertainment, more friends, more everything. Transplanting someone from one-hundred years ago and our world would be a paradise of clean streets and plentiful, high-paying work.
The good ol' days sucked. And any society where systemic sexism and violence is accepted, and a utterly simple paradigm of human goodness is the generally held view is a broken, antiquated, dead system. The people in these communities are not good people. They're bad. They're some of the worst.
'The work of the devil': crime in a remote religious community (Guardian.co.uk)
Vow Of Silence: How Do Hundreds Of Rapes Just "Come To Light?" (Jezebel.com)
Sexual Abuse in the Amish Community (ABCnews.com)
There's a great episode from Penn & Teller's Bullshit! called The Good Ol' Days. I'd embed it if I could, but Showtime is part of CBS, which still thinks the internet is a fad. I've found it here, but lord knows how long that will remain up. It's real, no viruses, just lots of ads. Keep clicking play and closing pop-ups and you'll eventually get your video.
Basically, their point is that for the good ol' days to appear good, you must dislike the... um, bad youn' days. If you hate what you are/have now, the past will always seem better. That means that communities built entirely around the concept of now being bad and then being good, you have an entire community built around people that are not right in the head (that's a scientific term. Just look it up. DSM-IV. I swear).
I'm all for alternative life-styles. I love them. If you want to live without electricity in a house powered entirely by decaying compost, that's wonderful. I wish you the best of luck in your experiment. But that's not what we're dealing with, here. We're dealing with people that deserve to be mocked. Dressing like it's Little House on the Prairie is just ridiculous. Everyone should wear pants. I assume they don't because dresses make it easier to rape the women.
But no. The women dress like good little women. The children are seen and not heard. And the men control everything. That's archaic, sexist, dogmatic, and outright idiotic. I mock them. I deride them. Every ounce of subjectivity that goes along with this statement I embrace; their way of life is inferior to mine.
We can look at every metric by which to measure a life. Health. Happiness. Satisfaction. Modern medicine, from that evil OUTSIDE world, keeps us healthier longer than ever before. There is no doubt in my mind that we are happier now than we were one hundred years ago. Our children don't die in comical numbers. The legal system protecting us is stronger. The systems that aid us in achieving our goals are larger. Our world is larger, more diverse, and more stimulating.
We can pick apart everything about our modern world. Over-reaching pharmaceutical companies turning us into hypochondriacs. Constant government bickering. Pollution. Yes. We have lots of problems. But they don't even begin to touch the problems faced by our ancestors. We have more food, more resources, more entertainment, more friends, more everything. Transplanting someone from one-hundred years ago and our world would be a paradise of clean streets and plentiful, high-paying work.
The good ol' days sucked. And any society where systemic sexism and violence is accepted, and a utterly simple paradigm of human goodness is the generally held view is a broken, antiquated, dead system. The people in these communities are not good people. They're bad. They're some of the worst.
'The work of the devil': crime in a remote religious community (Guardian.co.uk)
Vow Of Silence: How Do Hundreds Of Rapes Just "Come To Light?" (Jezebel.com)
Sexual Abuse in the Amish Community (ABCnews.com)
Damnit!
We're not supposed to do this! This crap is done by the side with the crazies on it. There is some information that makes it sound like the guy who did the shooting was more pissed about the graphic images the victim had on his signs, so it may have little to do with actual pro-life/choice debate. I certainly hope that's the case.
That still doesn't excuse the death threats received by the pro-life group. Nasty letters? Fine. Your mother wears army boots? Great! I'm going to kill you? No! It doesn't work. You can't call them retarded extremists if you go and do the same thing!
Anti-Abortion Protester Shot to Death (NYTimes.com)
That still doesn't excuse the death threats received by the pro-life group. Nasty letters? Fine. Your mother wears army boots? Great! I'm going to kill you? No! It doesn't work. You can't call them retarded extremists if you go and do the same thing!
Anti-Abortion Protester Shot to Death (NYTimes.com)
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Damned Lazy Theologians
I hate theology, but I hate philosophy of religion even more. I consider it lazy philosophy. Generally, it requires laying down an ostensibly arbitrary set of rules and ideas (religion), and then commencing intense contemplation of it. At least theology makes no bones about what it actually does. It's meant to be the Supreme Court of sorts for whatever religious formulation you take to be true. If something isn't very clear, you call upon the theologians to think about it and eventually they get back to you. The fact that this process sometimes takes hundreds of years is your problem.
Philosophy of religion, on the other hand, has that pesky word "philosophy" in it. That means that it must deal with things like knowledge and justification and an unerring quest to drill down ever deeper into the fabric of the world and understanding. As such, philosophy of religion has one major issue: it must prove the existence of God.
Until you've done that, speculation on the nature of God is pointless. Hell, you could even go so far as to take the skeptic's argument and say that speculation on anything ever is useless until we prove that the world itself exists. While I, and just about every major philosopher, thinks that the skeptic's argument is a bit extreme, proving the existence of a supreme entity is not.
Philosophy of religion, on the other hand, has that pesky word "philosophy" in it. That means that it must deal with things like knowledge and justification and an unerring quest to drill down ever deeper into the fabric of the world and understanding. As such, philosophy of religion has one major issue: it must prove the existence of God.
Until you've done that, speculation on the nature of God is pointless. Hell, you could even go so far as to take the skeptic's argument and say that speculation on anything ever is useless until we prove that the world itself exists. While I, and just about every major philosopher, thinks that the skeptic's argument is a bit extreme, proving the existence of a supreme entity is not.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Let Them Play Together.
I am utterly convinced that men and women should play sports together. Sporting associations must eliminate the boundaries between the sexes and allow anyone who can compete to play. Currently, a 350 pound, 6-foot-tall woman could not play in the NFL. Why? Because she's a woman. But a 5-foot-tall 180 pound man could. I'm not saying the man doesn't deserve it. But the metric is not performance, and that's what it should be.
Yes, in many sports the performance will skew male, but why exclude? In sports where there's no reason for a performance deficit, women under-perform men. Skiing, snowboarding, auto racing, bowling, darts, you name it, men perform better and earn more money. Raise the women to the same competitive level and just watch as the performance figures rise.
I mention this because of Caster Semenya. The only reason any of this matters is because of the separation of the sexes. Eliminate them. I mention this because if women knew that other women were highly competitive, they might watch sports. As opposed to how it is now, where male sports garner attention from males.
Women In Sports: Sex Objects, Mothers, Or Too "Manly" To Count (Jezebel.com)
Caster Semenya was told lies while she had gender test (Mirror.co.uk)
Yes, in many sports the performance will skew male, but why exclude? In sports where there's no reason for a performance deficit, women under-perform men. Skiing, snowboarding, auto racing, bowling, darts, you name it, men perform better and earn more money. Raise the women to the same competitive level and just watch as the performance figures rise.
I mention this because of Caster Semenya. The only reason any of this matters is because of the separation of the sexes. Eliminate them. I mention this because if women knew that other women were highly competitive, they might watch sports. As opposed to how it is now, where male sports garner attention from males.
Women In Sports: Sex Objects, Mothers, Or Too "Manly" To Count (Jezebel.com)
Caster Semenya was told lies while she had gender test (Mirror.co.uk)
Monday, September 07, 2009
Designing With Purpose.
I hate artists.
I have a lot of friends that are either currently in, or have gone to, art school. There is a strange prevailing notion that if you must survive by selling your art in a commercial sense, then you have failed. As though not getting people to part with god-awful gobs of money for your artistic flights of fancy which you have barfed onto paper, or clay, or stone, means that you are not a TRUE artist.
I think that this is entirely backwards. Art for art's sake is art, but it's also useless. Unless you attach a purpose to it, then you've achieved nothing. Is the purpose to inform? To entertain? To enlighten? Great books live on, enriching and delighting people generation after generation. There is value in that. A painting can have purpose, but the artist must know what it is. The artist must know what he is trying to communicate.
Art is best when it has that purpose. Art without purpose is aesthetic masturbation in the same way that the more esoteric aspects of philosophy are mere mental masturbation. Fun for the person doing it, but why should anyone else care?
I hate artists who think of themselves as geniuses. Andy Warhol, for all of the cool things he created, was not a genius. He was a self-centered twat who thought the absolute world of himself. If Warhol had never lived, the world would be damn near identical to how it is, now. And what have you done as an artist? Why is a painting by any of the manifold artists alive today worth a gajillion dollars? What value does it have that any other aesthetic production doesn't have?
You do not succeed as an artist by selling blowing an artistic cum load to people who are so puzzled by this strange thing whizzing past them called life that they need to reach out and grasp at experiential things to validate their own seemingly meaningless existence. Art critics, grand galleries, bah! It's all worthless.
From an economic standpoint, I cannot argue with the financial value of many of the paintings. They are worth what someone will pay. If someone is willing, regardless of whether I think them an idiot or not, that's how much it's worth. But the entire system built up around that process. The critics who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down, the rich fools who fall in line and purchase and re-purchase as though they have some fundamentally valuable resource.
I find it no surprise at all that all the hollow, ridiculous fools who populated Wall Street, donated such epic amounts of their money to the arts. They began to realize how inconsequential and pointless their little life of number games was. And what do fools without a sense of existential confidence do? The turn to art. Half of the museums in New York announced financial problems as soon as all the rich twits funding them went bankrupt.
There is no value to art for art's sake. It must do something. That end goal may be artistic, but the application must be understood. Some pompous shit can't just barf onto canvas and expect that someone will want it for $50,000. He must know what his art is for.
And that's the key problem. So many artists think that art is an existentially pure entity. They think that it can exist by itself, free of other things. I argue that it cannot. It must be attached to something. Whether it's a painting for a room, or a wall; or a sculpture to welcome people to a stadium. Art is the icing on the cake, but artists think that it's all that exists. A room without a painting is still a room that can be lived in. What is a painting sitting in a field? It's nothing. It's paint on paper in a pattern that is meaningful to only a few.
I love art. Flights of artistic fancy in architecture give a building character, communicate something about the architect, the time, the place, truly the zeitgeist of the building's construction. An artistic building is more valuable than a non-artistic building, but it must still be a building.
Even a great work of art like Starry Night. Once it is created, people enjoy it, they stare at it. But what do they do with it? They put in on their computer desktop. They get a poster of it for their bedroom. They get it on a credit card (like me). They enjoy it as art for its own sake, but they apply it to things. They apply it to the trappings of life, of which art is not a part. They use art to make life better, but art without that life is worthless.
Why am I ranting about this? Because I think that pestilence of opinion in art schools does a disservice to art students. Instead of encouraging them to find new and novel ways to apply their art to things, they are told that art as anything other than a mere expression is inferior. And if you fail at that, well youre' just not good enough.
In economic terms, you are making a product. It is your job to make people want your product. I got to the websites of artists who only upload low-res versions of their work, and then try and sell prints. No! No no no no! You should be doing your best to disseminate your work, get it out there. Give it away! If you don't know what to do with your work, let others see it and decide. You may get a commission to do a mural on a wall. Or a portrait of a family dog. Art was once like that. The great artists of the renaissance usually made their money appealing to the vagaries of the wealthy. They loved their art, but they knew what they made. They made a product that they damn well better sell.
By that useless art school paradigm, 99.9% of artists will fail. By my paradigm, you can become a world-renowned artist, or a great local one, and everything in between. There are many different levels of success in a world of art-as-product, but very few levels of failure.
I have a lot of friends that are either currently in, or have gone to, art school. There is a strange prevailing notion that if you must survive by selling your art in a commercial sense, then you have failed. As though not getting people to part with god-awful gobs of money for your artistic flights of fancy which you have barfed onto paper, or clay, or stone, means that you are not a TRUE artist.
I think that this is entirely backwards. Art for art's sake is art, but it's also useless. Unless you attach a purpose to it, then you've achieved nothing. Is the purpose to inform? To entertain? To enlighten? Great books live on, enriching and delighting people generation after generation. There is value in that. A painting can have purpose, but the artist must know what it is. The artist must know what he is trying to communicate.
Art is best when it has that purpose. Art without purpose is aesthetic masturbation in the same way that the more esoteric aspects of philosophy are mere mental masturbation. Fun for the person doing it, but why should anyone else care?
I hate artists who think of themselves as geniuses. Andy Warhol, for all of the cool things he created, was not a genius. He was a self-centered twat who thought the absolute world of himself. If Warhol had never lived, the world would be damn near identical to how it is, now. And what have you done as an artist? Why is a painting by any of the manifold artists alive today worth a gajillion dollars? What value does it have that any other aesthetic production doesn't have?
You do not succeed as an artist by selling blowing an artistic cum load to people who are so puzzled by this strange thing whizzing past them called life that they need to reach out and grasp at experiential things to validate their own seemingly meaningless existence. Art critics, grand galleries, bah! It's all worthless.
From an economic standpoint, I cannot argue with the financial value of many of the paintings. They are worth what someone will pay. If someone is willing, regardless of whether I think them an idiot or not, that's how much it's worth. But the entire system built up around that process. The critics who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down, the rich fools who fall in line and purchase and re-purchase as though they have some fundamentally valuable resource.
I find it no surprise at all that all the hollow, ridiculous fools who populated Wall Street, donated such epic amounts of their money to the arts. They began to realize how inconsequential and pointless their little life of number games was. And what do fools without a sense of existential confidence do? The turn to art. Half of the museums in New York announced financial problems as soon as all the rich twits funding them went bankrupt.
There is no value to art for art's sake. It must do something. That end goal may be artistic, but the application must be understood. Some pompous shit can't just barf onto canvas and expect that someone will want it for $50,000. He must know what his art is for.
And that's the key problem. So many artists think that art is an existentially pure entity. They think that it can exist by itself, free of other things. I argue that it cannot. It must be attached to something. Whether it's a painting for a room, or a wall; or a sculpture to welcome people to a stadium. Art is the icing on the cake, but artists think that it's all that exists. A room without a painting is still a room that can be lived in. What is a painting sitting in a field? It's nothing. It's paint on paper in a pattern that is meaningful to only a few.
I love art. Flights of artistic fancy in architecture give a building character, communicate something about the architect, the time, the place, truly the zeitgeist of the building's construction. An artistic building is more valuable than a non-artistic building, but it must still be a building.
Even a great work of art like Starry Night. Once it is created, people enjoy it, they stare at it. But what do they do with it? They put in on their computer desktop. They get a poster of it for their bedroom. They get it on a credit card (like me). They enjoy it as art for its own sake, but they apply it to things. They apply it to the trappings of life, of which art is not a part. They use art to make life better, but art without that life is worthless.
Why am I ranting about this? Because I think that pestilence of opinion in art schools does a disservice to art students. Instead of encouraging them to find new and novel ways to apply their art to things, they are told that art as anything other than a mere expression is inferior. And if you fail at that, well youre' just not good enough.
In economic terms, you are making a product. It is your job to make people want your product. I got to the websites of artists who only upload low-res versions of their work, and then try and sell prints. No! No no no no! You should be doing your best to disseminate your work, get it out there. Give it away! If you don't know what to do with your work, let others see it and decide. You may get a commission to do a mural on a wall. Or a portrait of a family dog. Art was once like that. The great artists of the renaissance usually made their money appealing to the vagaries of the wealthy. They loved their art, but they knew what they made. They made a product that they damn well better sell.
By that useless art school paradigm, 99.9% of artists will fail. By my paradigm, you can become a world-renowned artist, or a great local one, and everything in between. There are many different levels of success in a world of art-as-product, but very few levels of failure.
Friday, September 04, 2009
More Anguish.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is all up in arms about a photo of a dying marine that was published by the AP, gasp, even after the family asked the photo not be published.
First off, two things. Whether the family wants news published or not is of no importance. He was a soldier representing the entire country, not just one family.
Second off, this smacks of the same garbage about which the government complained during the vietnam war. That publishing photos of war, and blood, and dying soldiers helped those damned commies. This isn't new behavior from our "free" government, either. Freedom of press and speech is absolute. News is news is news. Facts can, should, and must be disseminated. I'm also not the only one to make the Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan connection.
The government has always been desperate to hide images of war from the masses. As though some mass delusion about war being not so bad will allow them to continue willy-nilly sending soldiers off to die in far-flung hell holes. Just keep the American populace ignorant of the real damage. American consumerism will take care of the rest (note: I love American consumerism, but it can be used as a tool).
Gates “was greatly disappointed they had not done the right thing." BAH! The right thing. He wouldn't know the right thing if it bit him in the face. He's a an ex-CIA, Air Force, and National Security Councel. They have never cared about what is right. They care about minding America's interests and keeping us safe. A noble goal? Perhaps. I think it is. But has nothing to do with what is right. He started work at the CIA in 1966, left in 1974, then came back in 1979. Let's see, during that time the CIA did... too many bad things to list. And what about now? Secret prisons? Black helicopters? Ringing any bells?
Gates' life has never, ever been about doing what's right. And the fact that he would be presumptuous enough to talk about right and wrong is not just infuriating, it's fucking disgusting. He should just crawl into a cave and die.
Robert Gates protests AP decision as 'appalling' (Politco.com)
Censorship in Iraq (Rethink-dispatches.com)
Point and Shoot: How the Abu Ghraib images redefine photography (TheAmericanScholar.com)
First off, two things. Whether the family wants news published or not is of no importance. He was a soldier representing the entire country, not just one family.
Second off, this smacks of the same garbage about which the government complained during the vietnam war. That publishing photos of war, and blood, and dying soldiers helped those damned commies. This isn't new behavior from our "free" government, either. Freedom of press and speech is absolute. News is news is news. Facts can, should, and must be disseminated. I'm also not the only one to make the Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan connection.
The government has always been desperate to hide images of war from the masses. As though some mass delusion about war being not so bad will allow them to continue willy-nilly sending soldiers off to die in far-flung hell holes. Just keep the American populace ignorant of the real damage. American consumerism will take care of the rest (note: I love American consumerism, but it can be used as a tool).
Gates “was greatly disappointed they had not done the right thing." BAH! The right thing. He wouldn't know the right thing if it bit him in the face. He's a an ex-CIA, Air Force, and National Security Councel. They have never cared about what is right. They care about minding America's interests and keeping us safe. A noble goal? Perhaps. I think it is. But has nothing to do with what is right. He started work at the CIA in 1966, left in 1974, then came back in 1979. Let's see, during that time the CIA did... too many bad things to list. And what about now? Secret prisons? Black helicopters? Ringing any bells?
Gates' life has never, ever been about doing what's right. And the fact that he would be presumptuous enough to talk about right and wrong is not just infuriating, it's fucking disgusting. He should just crawl into a cave and die.
Robert Gates protests AP decision as 'appalling' (Politco.com)
Censorship in Iraq (Rethink-dispatches.com)
Point and Shoot: How the Abu Ghraib images redefine photography (TheAmericanScholar.com)
Thursday, September 03, 2009
All They Need are Giant Robots.
Japan is moving forward with a plan to lay down about $21 billion in an orbiting solar power station that will literally beam energy down to the ground 24/7. The orbiting collection grid, which is quite literally measured in multiple acres, sits high enough to never be within the Earth's shadow, thus eliminating many of the problems with ground-based solar energy.I have mixed feelings. Orbiting solar is fucking cool and was in Sim City, but even in Sim City, it was an inferior alternative to the all-powerful fusion plant. But in Sim City, it was cheaper than fusion, which isn't the case today. In fact, it's the most expensive way to provide energy of anything this side of antimatter.
As such, while I commend the forward thinking objective, and the desire to achieve the unlimited energy promised by something such as this, the $21 billion could be better spent on here-and-now technologies. Newer, more advanced nuclear plants could be safe, low-pollution, and provide tens of gigawatts instead of the solar arrays one. $21 billion could buy nearly 10,000 GE wind turbines, producing a theoretical max of over 30GW which could be spread up and down the coast.
For Japan's cities, it could be put towards an initiative to install solar panels on as many urban roofs as possible. Government subsidies for research into LED lighting, advanced refrigeration, and lower-power electronics could help make serious cuts in energy usage, instead of increased energy production. There are so many areas that could put far-reaching and immediate use to the money that I can't help but see this effort as wasteful.
Why not spend $21 billion on solar power from space? (ScientificAmerican.com)
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Obama and Teh Internetts
There's been quite the ruckus over the recent draft of the Cybersecurity bill coming out of Washington and its seeming ability to shut down the internet like some form of digital martial law. Wired Magazine has an article sort of debunking the fear as unfounded. While I'm not falling over myself in fear of the next great Fascist state, as Larry Clinton of the Internet Security Alliance is quoted as saying in the Cnet article, "I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness."
That's my exact issue with it. While I doubt Obama would try and stretch the meaning of the bill to fit some sort of agenda, The Bush/Cheney administration proved that we do have things to fear about future presidents.
If the President finds it necessary. It's amazing the number of things Bush found necessary. That's what scares me. There is no objective metric by which to determine a time for action. It's put entirely in the hands of the big cheese. Again, Bush and Cheney proved that presidents are not to be trusted. I doubt Obama would do anything as wonky and borderline immmoral as the Bush admin, but that's all it is: a doubt. Whether his acolytes want to admit or not, Obama's reversal on Telecom immunity proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he... is... a... POLITICIAN.
He's arguably a good politician, but he's still just that. And as the joke goes, politicians are like diapers, they should be changed frequently and for the same reason. I trust Obama more, but still not as far as I can throw him.
He may "direct the national response to the cyber threat and the timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network." Again, the word direct can be taken many ways. Is he ordering the actions taken? Is he simply the de facto leader of a group of willing, private participants. And what's with the word restoration? Restoration? Restored from what? Restored from an ordered government shut-down? That's worrisome, again, because vague wording that in the hands of a moral and philosophical person may not be a problem, but vague wording in the hands of the next Bush could be a disaster.
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet (Cnet.com)
Umm… Actually Obama Doesn’t Want to Take Over The Internet (Wired.com)
Wouldn't The Last Thing We Want During A 'Cybersecurity Emergency' Be For The Gov't To Take Over Private Networks? (TechDirt.com)
That's my exact issue with it. While I doubt Obama would try and stretch the meaning of the bill to fit some sort of agenda, The Bush/Cheney administration proved that we do have things to fear about future presidents.
In the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network — [the president] may declare a cybersecurity emergency; and may, if the President finds it necessary for the national defense and security, and in coordination with relevant industry sectors, direct the national response to the cyber threat and the timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network.
If the President finds it necessary. It's amazing the number of things Bush found necessary. That's what scares me. There is no objective metric by which to determine a time for action. It's put entirely in the hands of the big cheese. Again, Bush and Cheney proved that presidents are not to be trusted. I doubt Obama would do anything as wonky and borderline immmoral as the Bush admin, but that's all it is: a doubt. Whether his acolytes want to admit or not, Obama's reversal on Telecom immunity proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he... is... a... POLITICIAN.
He's arguably a good politician, but he's still just that. And as the joke goes, politicians are like diapers, they should be changed frequently and for the same reason. I trust Obama more, but still not as far as I can throw him.
He may "direct the national response to the cyber threat and the timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network." Again, the word direct can be taken many ways. Is he ordering the actions taken? Is he simply the de facto leader of a group of willing, private participants. And what's with the word restoration? Restoration? Restored from what? Restored from an ordered government shut-down? That's worrisome, again, because vague wording that in the hands of a moral and philosophical person may not be a problem, but vague wording in the hands of the next Bush could be a disaster.
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet (Cnet.com)
Umm… Actually Obama Doesn’t Want to Take Over The Internet (Wired.com)
Wouldn't The Last Thing We Want During A 'Cybersecurity Emergency' Be For The Gov't To Take Over Private Networks? (TechDirt.com)
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Health Insurance.
I must admit to a degree of confusion over those people who argue against healthcare reform because it would likely end private health insurance. What I don't understand is how, in any stretch of the imagination, that would be bad.
Government run hospitals and clinics, yes, that would be bad, but not insurance. Competition as a benefit is associated with a two-party system. The seller and the buyer. Removing the middle-man between them makes no difference. Insurance works by spreading risk, which means the larger the pool, the better distributed the risk. In a sense, this is what Social Security is. As long as the pool remains a certain size, SS works well.
The loss of private insurance would be a good thing. I have yet to hear a cogent argument for private health insurance, and as a student of economics, I'd love to hear one. The best I've heard is that it's a persons choice to expose themselves to danger, in the same way it's a person's right to not wear a motorcycle helmet.
That's a fine argument, but I think that it entails the elimination of Medicare and Medicaid. And if you're against those, then your position is tenable, but such vast parts of the country heavily rely on those two organizations, that I doubt you'd ever get the bill pushed through.
And this is my own perspective on government, but I think government's ONLY goal is the stewardship of freedom. Any and all actions taken by the government must increase freedom. I pay taxes for the roadways. I lose the freedom to spend the money as I chose, but I gain the freedom of being able to drive damn-near anywhere. A net gain, I think.
I see health care similarly. I lose the ability to choose how to spend my money, but I gain the ability to not worry about my insurance running out or a debilitating injury inhibiting my ability to live. And for me, right now, I'm already spending $160 per month on insurance with a $3,000 deductible. If the government can guarantee that I won't be left for dead for $160 per month in taxes, that's a good deal.
Government run hospitals and clinics, yes, that would be bad, but not insurance. Competition as a benefit is associated with a two-party system. The seller and the buyer. Removing the middle-man between them makes no difference. Insurance works by spreading risk, which means the larger the pool, the better distributed the risk. In a sense, this is what Social Security is. As long as the pool remains a certain size, SS works well.
The loss of private insurance would be a good thing. I have yet to hear a cogent argument for private health insurance, and as a student of economics, I'd love to hear one. The best I've heard is that it's a persons choice to expose themselves to danger, in the same way it's a person's right to not wear a motorcycle helmet.
That's a fine argument, but I think that it entails the elimination of Medicare and Medicaid. And if you're against those, then your position is tenable, but such vast parts of the country heavily rely on those two organizations, that I doubt you'd ever get the bill pushed through.
And this is my own perspective on government, but I think government's ONLY goal is the stewardship of freedom. Any and all actions taken by the government must increase freedom. I pay taxes for the roadways. I lose the freedom to spend the money as I chose, but I gain the freedom of being able to drive damn-near anywhere. A net gain, I think.
I see health care similarly. I lose the ability to choose how to spend my money, but I gain the ability to not worry about my insurance running out or a debilitating injury inhibiting my ability to live. And for me, right now, I'm already spending $160 per month on insurance with a $3,000 deductible. If the government can guarantee that I won't be left for dead for $160 per month in taxes, that's a good deal.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Urban Sprawl
I recently purchased a book. Actually, that's a rather rare event for me. What with the infinite resource of the internet and a total disinterest in fiction, I spend almost no time in book stores anymore. Barnes & Noble has cheesecake to die for, though.
I picked up a book that I can safely say is worth the $20 it cost me. It's called A Field Guide to Sprawl. It is not directly anti-development, but it places images in front of you that can only lead to one conclusion; we're screwing up our planet in spectacular fashion.
The general point of the book is to define urban and rural developmental phenomena. They define well-known terms, like "Big Box Retailer" and a few less-known words, like "Boomburg" and "Starter Castle." You can guess what they mean, for the definitions make little difference to my point.
What the photos drive home is how devastating the current, unchecked, low-density expansion is to the planet and to the overall "nice" factor of our home. We go into an area, overpopulate it, destroy it, then the rich people leave, the poor people are left behind, we have a ghetto, and then we get the eventual sprawl of rich people ever outward, looking to get away from the horrid mess they left behind.
None of this is new. Conservationists and their ilk have been talking about this for the past 50 years. Pretty much since the dawn of Levittown, this has been seen. What I think is changing is that now, as opposed to even as little as twenty years ago, the effects of this sprawl are now very visible. The damage is real, as opposed to way off in the future.
I ranted and raved about yuppies and an earlier post. I hate them. Their unchecked expansion and total stupidity is, as I see it, the most destructive force in America. Materialism, the American Dream, and a population that's becoming ever more delineated economically all fuel the expansion of America outwardly. None of these things are inherently bad, it must be noted. Materialism is a totally valid way of life, drives the economy, and is the only reason 90% of the companies in existence, um, exist. The American dream is a great dream and should be striven for. And an economically delineated population is fine just so long as there is constant economic activity between the groups. But combined, along with the human penchant for thinking about "now" as opposed to "tomorrow," means that people will happily bulldoze trees, and Chem-Lawn the fuck out of their grass if it means being happy now.
We aren't there yet. The world is not coming to and end, but in 2007, the 300 millionth American was born, the 400 millionth will be born sometime mid century, and by 2100 we'll be well past half a billion. All this while household sizes are at record lows. The growth is logarithmic, the worse it gets, the worse the getting worse gets. Within just one lifetime, we'll more than double our population. The US can NOT survive with current demographic distribution and a population of 600 million, or perhaps 1 billion. Eventually, we'll have giant megalopoli covering the entire landmass of the US like some sickened pestilence. Then there will be nowhere left to which the yuppies can escape. No new, virgin land they can bulldoze. It will all be done, and then what?
As I said, the world is not ending. Things are, in reality, pretty good. But we must begin taking action now, or the damage in the future may be too great to repair. Especially now, taking action can be pretty cheap. The government can heavily restrict development on virgin land. In my opinion, there are many areas of the country where development on virgin land should be halted entirely. Then, give developers subsidies and tax breaks for building up instead of out.
Population growth is not bad. In fact, I think it's great. If we are to achieve the wondrous, interplanetary civilization that sci-fi has foretold we actually need more people. It's the unchecked outward, low-density growth that's bad. We spread like a bacteria when we should be building towards the heavens.
I picked up a book that I can safely say is worth the $20 it cost me. It's called A Field Guide to Sprawl. It is not directly anti-development, but it places images in front of you that can only lead to one conclusion; we're screwing up our planet in spectacular fashion.
The general point of the book is to define urban and rural developmental phenomena. They define well-known terms, like "Big Box Retailer" and a few less-known words, like "Boomburg" and "Starter Castle." You can guess what they mean, for the definitions make little difference to my point.
What the photos drive home is how devastating the current, unchecked, low-density expansion is to the planet and to the overall "nice" factor of our home. We go into an area, overpopulate it, destroy it, then the rich people leave, the poor people are left behind, we have a ghetto, and then we get the eventual sprawl of rich people ever outward, looking to get away from the horrid mess they left behind.
None of this is new. Conservationists and their ilk have been talking about this for the past 50 years. Pretty much since the dawn of Levittown, this has been seen. What I think is changing is that now, as opposed to even as little as twenty years ago, the effects of this sprawl are now very visible. The damage is real, as opposed to way off in the future.
I ranted and raved about yuppies and an earlier post. I hate them. Their unchecked expansion and total stupidity is, as I see it, the most destructive force in America. Materialism, the American Dream, and a population that's becoming ever more delineated economically all fuel the expansion of America outwardly. None of these things are inherently bad, it must be noted. Materialism is a totally valid way of life, drives the economy, and is the only reason 90% of the companies in existence, um, exist. The American dream is a great dream and should be striven for. And an economically delineated population is fine just so long as there is constant economic activity between the groups. But combined, along with the human penchant for thinking about "now" as opposed to "tomorrow," means that people will happily bulldoze trees, and Chem-Lawn the fuck out of their grass if it means being happy now.
We aren't there yet. The world is not coming to and end, but in 2007, the 300 millionth American was born, the 400 millionth will be born sometime mid century, and by 2100 we'll be well past half a billion. All this while household sizes are at record lows. The growth is logarithmic, the worse it gets, the worse the getting worse gets. Within just one lifetime, we'll more than double our population. The US can NOT survive with current demographic distribution and a population of 600 million, or perhaps 1 billion. Eventually, we'll have giant megalopoli covering the entire landmass of the US like some sickened pestilence. Then there will be nowhere left to which the yuppies can escape. No new, virgin land they can bulldoze. It will all be done, and then what?
As I said, the world is not ending. Things are, in reality, pretty good. But we must begin taking action now, or the damage in the future may be too great to repair. Especially now, taking action can be pretty cheap. The government can heavily restrict development on virgin land. In my opinion, there are many areas of the country where development on virgin land should be halted entirely. Then, give developers subsidies and tax breaks for building up instead of out.
Population growth is not bad. In fact, I think it's great. If we are to achieve the wondrous, interplanetary civilization that sci-fi has foretold we actually need more people. It's the unchecked outward, low-density growth that's bad. We spread like a bacteria when we should be building towards the heavens.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Jon Stewart vs. M. Bison
The Daily Show lives on finding contradictions by people in the public eye. Fox News is a ripe cornucopia of contradictions. Generally, Fox News doesn't respond because they can't. Whatever was said by the DS writers is rather accurate.
For some reason, Bill O'Reilly decided to respond after the Daily Show's recent piece joking about how Fox News has become liberal.
Now here's O'Reilly's response.
1: I like how O'Reilley opens with a condescending, yet back-handed compliment about how the daily show is usually not mean-spirited and is pretty funny, thus relegating it to mere entertainment.
2: After his first clip, he says "To be fair? Ha!" I want you to listen to the way he speaks here very carefully. Do any of you remember the geeky or nerdy kid back in middle school, as he tries to feign confidence in the face of bullies or mocking. He would talk slowly, acting in a grossly confident manner, trying to mimic confident behavior that they see in other people. They might put their hands behind their back, chuckle arrogantly, or pace around shaking their heads like some kind of James Bond bad guy. I see the same behavior here.
Moreover, unlike Stewart, who makes fun of real contradiction, O'Reilly makes fun of Stewart's joke. Attacking his "to be fair" comment. It was a joke. It would have been like Stewart making an anti-Semitic comment and then attacking him for hating Jews.
3: O'Reilly finally arrives at the pay day, where he will reveal the Daily Show's gross misappropriation of the comment. He says "once again," as though Jon Stewart is constantly taking things out of context and, to my knowledge, he's almost never done that. Importantly, he never contradicts Stewart. If the comment had been something like "survey says: most protesters are simply loons, but we disagree," or something like that, it would have been a legitimate complaint.
But it wasn't. If anything, it made O'Reilly's position worse. He said most have been peaceful, but more than a thousand have been arrested. He argues he was talking about the ones who were arrested, but that doesn't matter. We've had extreme protesters at both the RNC and at the most recent protests, where, oh right, people were armed. It doesn't matter if the protesters were actually loons or not. He said he'd never call protesters loons, but called protesters loons. And then he expanded the description to include people arguing for the "destruction of the American system; for retreat in the face of terrorism." That gross exaggeration includes almost everyone who would have hated Bush enough to stand around outside with signs. So, effectively, he was calling all of the protesters loons.
I also must admit surprise that only 45% of the Daily Show audience is liberal. Why would any conservative watch it when most of the conservative figureheads in the country are constant fodder for the show? Oh, and in another study, Fox News viewers were the second-most clueless when it came to current events, where Daily Show watchers were second-best informed. To be fair, O'Reilly Factor viewers were only a few ticks behind Daily Show viewers.
4: Alright, about playing to your audience, O'Reilly lives in the world's biggest glass house.
5: "Media attacks during Holy week." Why does whether it's during Holy week matter? Regardless, again, this isn't a contradiction. She was still bitching about Christians being attacked. She said no one should be attacked, but that position was immaterial to her complaining that Christians were being singled out. If she had said "Christians are an easy target, but Muslims and Jews get the worst of it." That would have been material to Stewart's comment.
6: Stewart isn't worried? Did he just miss this episode?
7: "Some people believe he's presenting an accurate portrayal of the country on his program, and that is frightening." Again, I reference the study above. O'Reilly has a little more room to speak, since his viewers are decently well-informed, but the network he's on has an audience comprised primarily of idiots.
For some reason, Bill O'Reilly decided to respond after the Daily Show's recent piece joking about how Fox News has become liberal.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Fox News: The New Liberals | ||||
| ||||
Now here's O'Reilly's response.
1: I like how O'Reilley opens with a condescending, yet back-handed compliment about how the daily show is usually not mean-spirited and is pretty funny, thus relegating it to mere entertainment.
2: After his first clip, he says "To be fair? Ha!" I want you to listen to the way he speaks here very carefully. Do any of you remember the geeky or nerdy kid back in middle school, as he tries to feign confidence in the face of bullies or mocking. He would talk slowly, acting in a grossly confident manner, trying to mimic confident behavior that they see in other people. They might put their hands behind their back, chuckle arrogantly, or pace around shaking their heads like some kind of James Bond bad guy. I see the same behavior here.
Moreover, unlike Stewart, who makes fun of real contradiction, O'Reilly makes fun of Stewart's joke. Attacking his "to be fair" comment. It was a joke. It would have been like Stewart making an anti-Semitic comment and then attacking him for hating Jews.
3: O'Reilly finally arrives at the pay day, where he will reveal the Daily Show's gross misappropriation of the comment. He says "once again," as though Jon Stewart is constantly taking things out of context and, to my knowledge, he's almost never done that. Importantly, he never contradicts Stewart. If the comment had been something like "survey says: most protesters are simply loons, but we disagree," or something like that, it would have been a legitimate complaint.
But it wasn't. If anything, it made O'Reilly's position worse. He said most have been peaceful, but more than a thousand have been arrested. He argues he was talking about the ones who were arrested, but that doesn't matter. We've had extreme protesters at both the RNC and at the most recent protests, where, oh right, people were armed. It doesn't matter if the protesters were actually loons or not. He said he'd never call protesters loons, but called protesters loons. And then he expanded the description to include people arguing for the "destruction of the American system; for retreat in the face of terrorism." That gross exaggeration includes almost everyone who would have hated Bush enough to stand around outside with signs. So, effectively, he was calling all of the protesters loons.
I also must admit surprise that only 45% of the Daily Show audience is liberal. Why would any conservative watch it when most of the conservative figureheads in the country are constant fodder for the show? Oh, and in another study, Fox News viewers were the second-most clueless when it came to current events, where Daily Show watchers were second-best informed. To be fair, O'Reilly Factor viewers were only a few ticks behind Daily Show viewers.
4: Alright, about playing to your audience, O'Reilly lives in the world's biggest glass house.
5: "Media attacks during Holy week." Why does whether it's during Holy week matter? Regardless, again, this isn't a contradiction. She was still bitching about Christians being attacked. She said no one should be attacked, but that position was immaterial to her complaining that Christians were being singled out. If she had said "Christians are an easy target, but Muslims and Jews get the worst of it." That would have been material to Stewart's comment.
6: Stewart isn't worried? Did he just miss this episode?
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Home Crisis Investigation | ||||
| ||||
7: "Some people believe he's presenting an accurate portrayal of the country on his program, and that is frightening." Again, I reference the study above. O'Reilly has a little more room to speak, since his viewers are decently well-informed, but the network he's on has an audience comprised primarily of idiots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)