April 3, 2009
Sir Elton John is gracing Laramie with his presence today, as part of the Shepard Symposium for Social Justice. While he may not be my favorite solo pop artist of all time, he is right at the top (I think Billy Joel would be my #1 favorite). I still remember listening to him for the first time when I was three of four years old at my cousin's house, and I have been a fan ever since. He is a legend who has written a lot of great songs, and it seems the more outrageous the glasses over time, the cooler he got.
Of all his songs, I think "I Guess That's Why They Call It the Blues" is my all-time favorite. That may be partly because of the many times I sang the chorus, "laughing like children, living like lovers, rolling like thunder, under the covers!" with my scout troop on various activities and excursions, much to the chagrin of our troop leader. Check out the official video on YouTube. It's great! I'm sure it will be a great concert tonight.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Obama on Leno
March 20, 2009
I think it is a pleasure to listen to President Obama, and he is a pretty funny guy to boot. A very good interview.
I think it is a pleasure to listen to President Obama, and he is a pretty funny guy to boot. A very good interview.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Destruction Delayed
March 17, 2009
Well, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (which is apparently the way we measure the success of our president) is up nearly 850 points over a six-day span.
Why aren't people shouting that the economy is on its way to recovery? Why aren't people cheering that Barack Obama has saved us? Okay, so I am kidding. Just a little.
But I do think it's interesting that when the economy is down, the president gets criticized because Wall Street apparently is very worried about his economic plans. So when the economy improves, and the administration starts to sound more positive about the general situation, then they get criticized for sounding too optimistic.
I just know that deep down in the conservative gut, there is utter hatred at the site of the stock market rising. Even though it doesn't prove Obama is not going to destroy the country, as they have so energetically predicted, it at least means that they will have to wait for armageddon at least one more day.
Well, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (which is apparently the way we measure the success of our president) is up nearly 850 points over a six-day span.
Why aren't people shouting that the economy is on its way to recovery? Why aren't people cheering that Barack Obama has saved us? Okay, so I am kidding. Just a little.
But I do think it's interesting that when the economy is down, the president gets criticized because Wall Street apparently is very worried about his economic plans. So when the economy improves, and the administration starts to sound more positive about the general situation, then they get criticized for sounding too optimistic.
I just know that deep down in the conservative gut, there is utter hatred at the site of the stock market rising. Even though it doesn't prove Obama is not going to destroy the country, as they have so energetically predicted, it at least means that they will have to wait for armageddon at least one more day.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Fox News Porn
March 15, 2009
It warms my heart to know so many people watch Fox News, mostly because it's "fair and balanced," especially when these moral folks are supporting the garbage they put on there. I lost the little respect I had for Bill O'Reilly when he did several segments years back about Carl's Jr.'s commercial with Paris Hilton all soaped up and nearly nude, doing a car wash. It was one of the most hypocritical expositions I've ever seen. O'Reilly bloviated about angry parents whose kids could have been exposed to such filth, since the commercials were on at such an early hour. And here he was, on a show that airs at 6 p.m. MST, repeatedly showing clips of the practically naked Hilton.
The current issue is with Fox News reporting on the violence happening in Mexico and the threat to college students who want to go there for spring break. So, naturally (any clear-thinking person would do the same), the segments airing on "The O'Reilly Factor," whatever Hannity calls his show now, and "On the Record" with Greta, were teased with dozens of pictures of buxom women in bikinis dancing around, partying, and drinking beer. When these "fair and balanced" anchors reported on the story, as well as discussed the issues with their guests, naturally, they again repeatedly aired the soft-pornographic material. And why not? You can't talk about the story without showing scantily clad women. It just wouldn't work out.
I certainly will not embed the video, since it is so disgusting, but I couldn't help but comment about another example of how Fox News is so often trash television - the likes of which I would expect to see more from MTV or E!
Bravo. Keep watching, because it's definitely more fun to get informed on the issues while women in bikinis are giving you repeated encouragement. Only a serious news channel would cover stories with such class and conservatism.
Not surprisingly, Jon Stewart picked up on "bad habit" Fox has sometimes exhibited in a clip in 2006, and though I felt it would be wrong to have such inappropriate content posted on such a wholesome website like mine, I suddenly remembered this was coverage by Fox News. So what is there to worry about?
Don't these people realize how they undermine themselves and their imagined "moral" position? Bill O'Reilly has branded himself as a "Culture Warrior." He and his colleagues at Fox are devoted to telling people what is moral and immoral: gays, sex education, abortion, Brittany Spears, etc. When they show this garbage on their shows, how can one take them seriously when they act like they have any authority in moral matters? They are a joke, and I think Bill O'Reilly showing footage like this in prime time is probably more harmful to society than a couple of gay people getting married in California. But people will keep watching him tell us morality is under attack, somehow oblivious to the overt display of hypocrisy, all the while undermining their own "moral" positions.
I've happened upon one of the little secrets on the issue. The following was published in the current issue of "The Week" magazine:
The porn paradox
Guess which states are most interested in online pornography? That’s right—those with the highest concentrations of politically conservative and traditionally religious people. Of the top 10 porn-buying states in the nation, says a new Harvard University study, eight voted Republican in the last presidential election. In states in which laws have been passed banning gay marriage, subscription rates to porn sites are 11 percent greater than in states without gay-marriage bans. In Utah, most people agreed with the statement, “I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage.” Yet Utah boasts the highest porn-buying rate in the entire nation. Why are people in “red” states more likely to indulge in online porn? Perhaps they’re simultaneously repulsed and fascinated by sexuality, study author Benjamin Edelman tells New Scientist. “One natural hypothesis is something like repression: If you’re told you can’t have this, then you want it more.”
So while they point fingers and condemn society for its moral depravity, maybe a simple answer for why this junk is on a "news" channel is that people who watch Fox News like it.
It warms my heart to know so many people watch Fox News, mostly because it's "fair and balanced," especially when these moral folks are supporting the garbage they put on there. I lost the little respect I had for Bill O'Reilly when he did several segments years back about Carl's Jr.'s commercial with Paris Hilton all soaped up and nearly nude, doing a car wash. It was one of the most hypocritical expositions I've ever seen. O'Reilly bloviated about angry parents whose kids could have been exposed to such filth, since the commercials were on at such an early hour. And here he was, on a show that airs at 6 p.m. MST, repeatedly showing clips of the practically naked Hilton.
The current issue is with Fox News reporting on the violence happening in Mexico and the threat to college students who want to go there for spring break. So, naturally (any clear-thinking person would do the same), the segments airing on "The O'Reilly Factor," whatever Hannity calls his show now, and "On the Record" with Greta, were teased with dozens of pictures of buxom women in bikinis dancing around, partying, and drinking beer. When these "fair and balanced" anchors reported on the story, as well as discussed the issues with their guests, naturally, they again repeatedly aired the soft-pornographic material. And why not? You can't talk about the story without showing scantily clad women. It just wouldn't work out.
I certainly will not embed the video, since it is so disgusting, but I couldn't help but comment about another example of how Fox News is so often trash television - the likes of which I would expect to see more from MTV or E!
Bravo. Keep watching, because it's definitely more fun to get informed on the issues while women in bikinis are giving you repeated encouragement. Only a serious news channel would cover stories with such class and conservatism.
Not surprisingly, Jon Stewart picked up on "bad habit" Fox has sometimes exhibited in a clip in 2006, and though I felt it would be wrong to have such inappropriate content posted on such a wholesome website like mine, I suddenly remembered this was coverage by Fox News. So what is there to worry about?
Don't these people realize how they undermine themselves and their imagined "moral" position? Bill O'Reilly has branded himself as a "Culture Warrior." He and his colleagues at Fox are devoted to telling people what is moral and immoral: gays, sex education, abortion, Brittany Spears, etc. When they show this garbage on their shows, how can one take them seriously when they act like they have any authority in moral matters? They are a joke, and I think Bill O'Reilly showing footage like this in prime time is probably more harmful to society than a couple of gay people getting married in California. But people will keep watching him tell us morality is under attack, somehow oblivious to the overt display of hypocrisy, all the while undermining their own "moral" positions.
I've happened upon one of the little secrets on the issue. The following was published in the current issue of "The Week" magazine:
The porn paradox
Guess which states are most interested in online pornography? That’s right—those with the highest concentrations of politically conservative and traditionally religious people. Of the top 10 porn-buying states in the nation, says a new Harvard University study, eight voted Republican in the last presidential election. In states in which laws have been passed banning gay marriage, subscription rates to porn sites are 11 percent greater than in states without gay-marriage bans. In Utah, most people agreed with the statement, “I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage.” Yet Utah boasts the highest porn-buying rate in the entire nation. Why are people in “red” states more likely to indulge in online porn? Perhaps they’re simultaneously repulsed and fascinated by sexuality, study author Benjamin Edelman tells New Scientist. “One natural hypothesis is something like repression: If you’re told you can’t have this, then you want it more.”
So while they point fingers and condemn society for its moral depravity, maybe a simple answer for why this junk is on a "news" channel is that people who watch Fox News like it.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
A Clarification
March 14, 2009
One of the biggest disadvantages of the Internet is that while it gives the illusion of making communication amongst users all the more possible, what it often really does is inhibit quality interactions. Words on a screen can convey a thousand different thoughts and feelings, but there is no human sitting there to explain if there are misunderstandings.
I want to make it clear that many of the things I argue on this site, are more for the sake of argument, and giving a contrary point-of-view, rather than this just being a place for me to establish, unequivocally, exactly what I believe for any out there interested.
There is probably more equivocalness than not in what I'm saying. Therefore when I argue, for instance, that I think this or that about President Bush, or some other defenseless conservative bystander, I am not saying I don't think there are positive things about that person, or that it is impossible for someone to support George W. Bush, or vote for a conservative/republican.
On the other hand, I do make a lot of my observations with the idea (at least in my mind) that there are many conservatives out there today who question my intelligence completely just because I would even consider, for even a second, a liberal perspective, let alone endorse one. Thus, one of the main reasons I exist is to point out the inconsistency that for the last two presidential terms, many of my associates have pointed out how awful it was that liberals hated Bush for no apparent reason, other than to hate (and they - conservatives - are probably right); yet now that the president is a democrat, these same people have turned around and are doing exactly the same thing, justifying it all the way.
I know they probably don't see it that way. But when you've made up your mind, evidence to the contrary be damned, that's what it looks like. When you've established in your mind that the president is a liar, then it is easy to say he is a socialist, even if he says he is not, or that he wants socialized medicine, when he doesn't. Or, the converse: it is easy to believe that a president is a war criminal, even though he says he had America's best interests at heart, because he lied about going to war in the first place.
My purpose is at least a tiny (probably insignificant) attempt at avoiding such extreme positions. Because arguing that someone is less intelligent than me just because they disagree, or because there is no possible rational explanation for liberal (or conservative, for that matter) ideas, is really just evidence of the absence of a good argument.
P.S. I've gotten a couple comments that people are unsure what I believe exactly, and I take it as a compliment. It means I have not been ferociously defending and fighting for one particular viewpoint. I am perfectly comfortable with people wondering whether I'm really a liberal, or a conservative, or some weirdo in between.
One of the biggest disadvantages of the Internet is that while it gives the illusion of making communication amongst users all the more possible, what it often really does is inhibit quality interactions. Words on a screen can convey a thousand different thoughts and feelings, but there is no human sitting there to explain if there are misunderstandings.
I want to make it clear that many of the things I argue on this site, are more for the sake of argument, and giving a contrary point-of-view, rather than this just being a place for me to establish, unequivocally, exactly what I believe for any out there interested.
There is probably more equivocalness than not in what I'm saying. Therefore when I argue, for instance, that I think this or that about President Bush, or some other defenseless conservative bystander, I am not saying I don't think there are positive things about that person, or that it is impossible for someone to support George W. Bush, or vote for a conservative/republican.
On the other hand, I do make a lot of my observations with the idea (at least in my mind) that there are many conservatives out there today who question my intelligence completely just because I would even consider, for even a second, a liberal perspective, let alone endorse one. Thus, one of the main reasons I exist is to point out the inconsistency that for the last two presidential terms, many of my associates have pointed out how awful it was that liberals hated Bush for no apparent reason, other than to hate (and they - conservatives - are probably right); yet now that the president is a democrat, these same people have turned around and are doing exactly the same thing, justifying it all the way.
I know they probably don't see it that way. But when you've made up your mind, evidence to the contrary be damned, that's what it looks like. When you've established in your mind that the president is a liar, then it is easy to say he is a socialist, even if he says he is not, or that he wants socialized medicine, when he doesn't. Or, the converse: it is easy to believe that a president is a war criminal, even though he says he had America's best interests at heart, because he lied about going to war in the first place.
My purpose is at least a tiny (probably insignificant) attempt at avoiding such extreme positions. Because arguing that someone is less intelligent than me just because they disagree, or because there is no possible rational explanation for liberal (or conservative, for that matter) ideas, is really just evidence of the absence of a good argument.
P.S. I've gotten a couple comments that people are unsure what I believe exactly, and I take it as a compliment. It means I have not been ferociously defending and fighting for one particular viewpoint. I am perfectly comfortable with people wondering whether I'm really a liberal, or a conservative, or some weirdo in between.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)