Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Palin Sells Out Cohorts
Sarah Palin Announces She’s Not Running for President and Gives Away the Game… Again
Sarah Palin announced today that she won’t be seeking the nation’s highest office. Hmmm… How shall I put this? I’ll go with... THANKYOUJESUSFUCKYES!
Truth be told, I’m not one of those guys who thinks it would be awesome to have Palin run because it would be an easy victory and, more importantly, hilarious. Call me an old maid; I stick by the tried and true, “keep lunatics as far away from the world’s most powerful office as possible” maxim. Even if there were only a five percent chance that she’d get elected, that’s way too much for my liking. I’ll play it safe and sacrifice all the fun we could have had watching her nervously fumble through geography questions a monkey could answer.
Now, her explanation for not running is that she can be more helpful getting other Republicans elected to important seats. This is obviously pure horseshit and we’ve seen it all before from her. This is the same noble patriot who quit her governorship for a TV deal let’s not forget. And it’s the same reason she won’t run for President. She can make more money on Fox.
So what does this say about her? Well, for one, it means that everything she says is total bullshit. Not only is she lying about her reasons for not directly participating in politics—again—but for all her talk about how dangerous Obama is and how beatable he is, she won’t run against him. Why not?
Let’s think this through from Palin’s point of view. If you were one of the most popular politicians in your party and had spent the last few years trying to take down the leading member of the opposing party—all the while claiming patriotic motivations for doing so—and you had a legitimate chance to unseat the man who you believed responsible for systematically destroying your country, would you step up?
Welp, if you answered no, as Palin did, then you’re no patriot. Who, who has the power to stop such a pernicious force could sit idly by and allow it to continue and still call herself a patriot? Nobody on the Right is confident that this gaggle of half broken losers—Republican candidates—has any chance to beat Obama, whatever their rhetoric. That was given away in their incessant clamoring for Chris Christie to run. So Palin can’t claim she’s not running because she’s confident the Republicans will take back the executive. Clearly she’s willing to cede Obama another four years.
What this means is that not only does Sarah Palin not give a shit about liberals—duh—but she doesn’t give a shit about Conservatives either! How could she if she’ll let Obama continue to dismantle this free market utopia where we should all be free to gloriously beat the shit out of each other in pursuit of profits just as the Founders intended? In her mind, this is supposed to be a land where opportunity thrives, a land where the best government is no government. In theory, this is supposed to allow more of us to prosper. Obama is supposedly fucking that up. So why won’t she help? Why won’t she run?
The reason is—and this is true of all Conservatives today—that once they’ve gotten theirs, the rest of you are on your own! She’s got her gig. She’s making her dough. And for all her talk about how important this country is to her, she won’t step up to the plate to help her fellow Conservatives out. This is the new America. Find out a way to make some cash, hold on to your position tightly, and try not to fuck it up. This is the same strategy employed on Wall Street by the way. She’s making bank and she’s not about to risk that. Not for her party, not for her country, not for God, not for everyday normal Americans, and certainly not for you.
Sadly, those in the upper echelons of the Conservative Party understand all of this. If they share any concrete belief it’s that this country exists as a means to get rich. They don’t begrudge anyone for winning the game, as Palin has. And those on the bottom totally buy her, “You betcha!” populist bullshit, so there won’t be any fallout for her. Which is too bad because if I were a Conservative I’d be pissed, and demand that she defend herself, and as a Liberal, I’d love to see it.
In fact, if any Conservative were logically savvy enough to take her to task for her hypocrisies and had the stones to do it, she wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. The only defense she could even hope to muster for completely selling out her beliefs, her party, and the regular Americans she claims to speak for, is that she’s so fucking stupid that she actually thinks a pundit is more powerful than the President of the United States (which means that she believes that in her current position she is the most powerful person in the world.) The, “No, no, wait, I really am that stupid!” defense is not exactly a proven winner however.
If she truly believes that, then she has to back away from her relentless attacks of Obama. After all, why so vehemently attack a person in a position less powerful than that of a pundit? Why not go after someone with real power like Rachel Maddow or Jon Stewart? Or why not just crush the puny President under the weight of your awesome pundit might? Or, if she doesn’t really believe it—and if she’s the patriot she claims to be—then SHE HAS TO RUN. It’s so simple even she could understand it. Either the President is the most powerful person in America or he is not. But he can’t be both.
Palin’s selfish behavior is what you get when your ideology boils down to individualism on human growth hormone. This glue huffing skanky librarian reveals yet again what it truly means to be a Conservative today. Me, me, only me, and fuck you.
In related news Steve Jobs died today and the first thought of thousands of assholes everywhere was whether or not they should sell their stock in Apple. We are a very sick nation.
Sarah Palin announced today that she won’t be seeking the nation’s highest office. Hmmm… How shall I put this? I’ll go with... THANKYOUJESUSFUCKYES!
Truth be told, I’m not one of those guys who thinks it would be awesome to have Palin run because it would be an easy victory and, more importantly, hilarious. Call me an old maid; I stick by the tried and true, “keep lunatics as far away from the world’s most powerful office as possible” maxim. Even if there were only a five percent chance that she’d get elected, that’s way too much for my liking. I’ll play it safe and sacrifice all the fun we could have had watching her nervously fumble through geography questions a monkey could answer.
Now, her explanation for not running is that she can be more helpful getting other Republicans elected to important seats. This is obviously pure horseshit and we’ve seen it all before from her. This is the same noble patriot who quit her governorship for a TV deal let’s not forget. And it’s the same reason she won’t run for President. She can make more money on Fox.
So what does this say about her? Well, for one, it means that everything she says is total bullshit. Not only is she lying about her reasons for not directly participating in politics—again—but for all her talk about how dangerous Obama is and how beatable he is, she won’t run against him. Why not?
Let’s think this through from Palin’s point of view. If you were one of the most popular politicians in your party and had spent the last few years trying to take down the leading member of the opposing party—all the while claiming patriotic motivations for doing so—and you had a legitimate chance to unseat the man who you believed responsible for systematically destroying your country, would you step up?
Welp, if you answered no, as Palin did, then you’re no patriot. Who, who has the power to stop such a pernicious force could sit idly by and allow it to continue and still call herself a patriot? Nobody on the Right is confident that this gaggle of half broken losers—Republican candidates—has any chance to beat Obama, whatever their rhetoric. That was given away in their incessant clamoring for Chris Christie to run. So Palin can’t claim she’s not running because she’s confident the Republicans will take back the executive. Clearly she’s willing to cede Obama another four years.
What this means is that not only does Sarah Palin not give a shit about liberals—duh—but she doesn’t give a shit about Conservatives either! How could she if she’ll let Obama continue to dismantle this free market utopia where we should all be free to gloriously beat the shit out of each other in pursuit of profits just as the Founders intended? In her mind, this is supposed to be a land where opportunity thrives, a land where the best government is no government. In theory, this is supposed to allow more of us to prosper. Obama is supposedly fucking that up. So why won’t she help? Why won’t she run?
The reason is—and this is true of all Conservatives today—that once they’ve gotten theirs, the rest of you are on your own! She’s got her gig. She’s making her dough. And for all her talk about how important this country is to her, she won’t step up to the plate to help her fellow Conservatives out. This is the new America. Find out a way to make some cash, hold on to your position tightly, and try not to fuck it up. This is the same strategy employed on Wall Street by the way. She’s making bank and she’s not about to risk that. Not for her party, not for her country, not for God, not for everyday normal Americans, and certainly not for you.
Sadly, those in the upper echelons of the Conservative Party understand all of this. If they share any concrete belief it’s that this country exists as a means to get rich. They don’t begrudge anyone for winning the game, as Palin has. And those on the bottom totally buy her, “You betcha!” populist bullshit, so there won’t be any fallout for her. Which is too bad because if I were a Conservative I’d be pissed, and demand that she defend herself, and as a Liberal, I’d love to see it.
In fact, if any Conservative were logically savvy enough to take her to task for her hypocrisies and had the stones to do it, she wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. The only defense she could even hope to muster for completely selling out her beliefs, her party, and the regular Americans she claims to speak for, is that she’s so fucking stupid that she actually thinks a pundit is more powerful than the President of the United States (which means that she believes that in her current position she is the most powerful person in the world.) The, “No, no, wait, I really am that stupid!” defense is not exactly a proven winner however.
If she truly believes that, then she has to back away from her relentless attacks of Obama. After all, why so vehemently attack a person in a position less powerful than that of a pundit? Why not go after someone with real power like Rachel Maddow or Jon Stewart? Or why not just crush the puny President under the weight of your awesome pundit might? Or, if she doesn’t really believe it—and if she’s the patriot she claims to be—then SHE HAS TO RUN. It’s so simple even she could understand it. Either the President is the most powerful person in America or he is not. But he can’t be both.
Palin’s selfish behavior is what you get when your ideology boils down to individualism on human growth hormone. This glue huffing skanky librarian reveals yet again what it truly means to be a Conservative today. Me, me, only me, and fuck you.
In related news Steve Jobs died today and the first thought of thousands of assholes everywhere was whether or not they should sell their stock in Apple. We are a very sick nation.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Lessons from Reality TV
Since I’m told we live in a democracy, I’d like to make a suggestion. With important financial reform currently being considered, I propose an immediate mandate that President Obama, his cabinet, and all members of the U.S. Senate and House assemble on the floor of the Capitol Building, lock themselves inside with three tons of Orville Redenbacher popcorn (that should cover Barney Frank), 552 sleeping bags (that should cover Barney Frank!), and watch the last two seasons of Survivor from start to finish uninterrupted. It’ll be just like that scene from Grease where are all the chicks are hanging around in their curlers and nighties, impromptu pillow fights and gossip galore, spontaneous outbursts into songs about boys and fiscal policy. Totally boss! Check your pulse if the image of a Pelosi/Clinton lingerie pillow fight doesn’t get your juices flowing.
So why Survivor? Well, for those of you who don’t watch it, it’s very entertaining and the last two seasons in particular have been off the charts fun. And with all the excellent work our representatives have been doing in Washington, I just thought they deserved a reward/break. But seriously folks… A guy named Russell Hantz is the reason the show’s been so great lately. And our representatives would be wise to familiarize themselves with this man as they consider financial reform.
To the uninitiated, the basic idea of the show is to be the last person standing. The way to do it, is to not get voted off by your fellow tribesmen, make the finals, and then get the people that have been voted off to award you a million bucks over the other finalist(s) sitting next to you. And that’s the real trick. How do you get the people who you kicked off to turn around and hand you a million bucks?
Don’t ask Hantz because he sure as shit couldn’t tell you. Having made the final two seasons in a row (an historic achievement), Hantz received only two votes last season and not a single vote for the million this season. That’s really bad.
Now for anyone who’s seen him play, Hantz not getting any votes is about as shocking as Rush reneging on his promise to move to Costa Rica if the healthcare bill passed. (I guess he hates brown people more than Socialism after all. But oh the poor Costa Ricans! How will they manage without his Royal Lardness seething at them over the airwaves betwixt ravenous potato chip and opiate binges? Pray for syndication compadres! On the flip side, it would have been fascinating to see how he handled issues of immigration in Costa Rica, considering he’d be one himself and the whole brown/white dynamic would be reversed. Maybe if Obama is successful in banning salt (or chubby unwarranted arrogance) we’ll get to find out. Probably a long shot though.)
But enough about fat assholes. The reason Russell Hantz didn’t get any votes is that he’s a gargantuan dickhole of the first order. Not only is he unable to disguise it, he’s downright proud of it! As I watched him take dirty play to depths previously unreached, even by Tonya Harding standards, I couldn’t help but feel that this guy reminded me of someone. Week after week he’d lie, bully, manipulate, and coerce adversaries and allies alike with a giant shit eating grin plastered across his smug troll face the entire time. So two years in a row he makes the final, and two years in a row he loses in a rout, seeing no love from those he so gleefully screwed over.
But man did he play hard. There was nothing he wouldn’t do to make it through another vote. No lie he wouldn’t tell, no promise he wouldn’t make, no ally he wouldn’t backstab. He bent every single rule the game had and violated every moral code known to man and was an asshole about it the whole time, but never actually broke any rules. And regret? Ahh, you gotta be kidding me, regret is for wimps. “I don’t regret anything I did in the game” said Hantz in an interview.
At a certain point during the season it all clicked for me. This guy IS corporate America incarnate. The game of Survivor is the United States, where the corporations come to battle it out with one another. Hantz is the reason I shiver when I hear guys like Paul Ryan call for the deregulation of markets. As it is these people have no issue breaking a law or skirting a regulation if the cost/benefit ratio is favorable. And you want to reduce the incentive they have not to fuck the rest of us over? HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE CRAZY?!
It’s tough to wrap your head around the fact that, anatomy aside, conservative, free market worshiping businessmen are in fact alien beings compared to anyone else. Apart from masturbating to Atlas Shrugged, they just don’t see the world or life in the same way that the rest of us do. To them, money is God, exalted to its full extent; life is a currency comprised of time; the world, the grid iron where the game is played out. You don’t live or grow, you win or lose.
To illustrate this point I’d like to call on my favorite subject to serve as an example. I remember watching a panel about political issue framing that featured, among others, my absolute favorite conservative cheesedick and everyone’s favorite butch lesbian pollster, Frank Luntz. During the introductions, Luntz notices George Soros sitting in the audience. Giddy as a schoolgirl, Luntz can hardly contain himself. Ignoring the purpose of the introductions entirely, Luntz is so excited he nearly pees his pants in front of the audience. Channeling his inner Rip Taylor, Luntz gushes, “Oh my God, George Soros! I’ve never been this close to so much money in my life!” Giggling nervously to himself, “Adopt me, please!” More fidgety giggling. Everyone watching feels dirty just having witnessed it.
When the goal is to make as much money as possible and life is approached as a game that’s played to win or lose, money is deified and anything goes in pursuit of it. For Luntz, Soros is a demigod because he has so much money. Indeed the conservative exaltation of capital trumps even their hatred for liberals! What does that tell you about the true nature of the ideology?
Guys like Hantz and Luntz are the reason we need strong regulations. Here’s how it works. We determine the rules of engagement, and the corporations –just like Hantz- do everything they can to win within the confines of that system (best case scenario!). The more you relax the rules, the further they’ll go. These people aren’t restrained by morality, they’re restrained only by regulation, and many times not even that. The universal truth is that when profit is exalted and greed glorified, competitors in the market will always play the game as hard as they can, pushing the rules to the absolute limits, violating moral and ethical conduct along the way (only because we can’t regulate it), and many of them downright breaking the rules when the risk/reward ratio calls for it. It’s how Hantz plays, it’s how Wall Street plays.
These guys are animals, killers, predators. They’re nothing like us. When you cage them, they hurl themselves against the bars trying to escape, but bound by the steel confines the zookeeper lives. Remove the cage, and the zookeeper’s hat will enjoy a pleasant cruise down a digestive tract.
So, like Hantz, they play as hard as they can, justifying any unsavory actions and alleviating any burdensome guilt by reminding themselves that it’s a competition, the goal is to win, and that they’re playing within the rules of it. They delude themselves further in their subscription to an ideology that tells them that to behave as selfishly as possible is the most noble of actions. That their selfishness will ultimately serve the greater good. Their justification is the same as Hantz’s. “It’s a game.”
And, like the US corporate sector, if the rules of the game aren’t to your liking, just lobby to get them changed! Hantz did just that on the results show after he found out he failed to receive a single vote for the million. “I believe there is a flaw in the system” he said, and then proceeded to make a transparent, feeble, self serving case to Survivor Host Jeff Probst to alter the entire structure of the game (in tact for twenty seasons) to better suit Hantz’s win at all costs style of play. Sound familiar? Luckily for fans of the show, the host of Survivor isn’t as stupid (or buyable) as the United States Government. Unlike the successes corporations have had lobbying for the repeal of Glass Steagall (among many, many others), Hantz was shrugged off by Probst who clearly found the plea pathetic and laughable. If only the Fed answered to the host of Survivor.
Capitalism is wise in that it respects the nature of humankind. We all have different goals and dreams and motivations, and ultimately we do act in our self interest (though that’s not necessarily synonymous with selfishness). Market economies and private ownership allow us to pursue those ends as we see fit. But relaxing regulations on markets is to ignore the nature of humankind. Sometimes, we can get carried away and become single minded in the pursuit of our objectives. The rules need to be there to discourage behavior driven by our darker nature. It’s naive to believe that we’re all identical and that we all have the same goals, but it’s equally naive to worship a free market system and believe that it somehow extracts the best from us while suppressing the worst. We’ve seen the extreme results of both, and neither is desirable.
In Hantz, we’ve been given a two season glimpse into the psyche of the modern businessman. Take a long, hard look at him when you’re considering legislation. This is the guy you have to legislate for. He’s the one you’re up against. He’s playing as hard as he can. He doesn’t care what he has to do to win. He doesn’t care who is in his way. He doesn’t care what anyone thinks about him. He’ll try to change the rules if they don’t suit him. He’ll do whatever it takes to achieve his objective. He has no conscience, no regret, no friends. “It’s a game” he’ll tell you.
Fine. Then Obama and crew need to make sure that the rules of the game are rigid and the police are awake and alert because we’ve seen the effects that game play like this has on lives and the environment when the rules are flaccid and the cops are asleep at the wheel. Enron? Halliburton? AIG? Goldman Sachs? Is any of this ringing a bell? So please do us all a favor and take a long look at Hantz. This is the dark side of man run amok. Regulate for it please.
And as with all reality shows there needs to be a shocking and dramatic finale, so here it is. What does Russell Hantz do for a living? He owns a multi-million dollar oil company! You can’t make this stuff up! Hey Russ, you wouldn’t have any rigs down in the Gulf that we should know about, would ya?
So why Survivor? Well, for those of you who don’t watch it, it’s very entertaining and the last two seasons in particular have been off the charts fun. And with all the excellent work our representatives have been doing in Washington, I just thought they deserved a reward/break. But seriously folks… A guy named Russell Hantz is the reason the show’s been so great lately. And our representatives would be wise to familiarize themselves with this man as they consider financial reform.
To the uninitiated, the basic idea of the show is to be the last person standing. The way to do it, is to not get voted off by your fellow tribesmen, make the finals, and then get the people that have been voted off to award you a million bucks over the other finalist(s) sitting next to you. And that’s the real trick. How do you get the people who you kicked off to turn around and hand you a million bucks?
Don’t ask Hantz because he sure as shit couldn’t tell you. Having made the final two seasons in a row (an historic achievement), Hantz received only two votes last season and not a single vote for the million this season. That’s really bad.
Now for anyone who’s seen him play, Hantz not getting any votes is about as shocking as Rush reneging on his promise to move to Costa Rica if the healthcare bill passed. (I guess he hates brown people more than Socialism after all. But oh the poor Costa Ricans! How will they manage without his Royal Lardness seething at them over the airwaves betwixt ravenous potato chip and opiate binges? Pray for syndication compadres! On the flip side, it would have been fascinating to see how he handled issues of immigration in Costa Rica, considering he’d be one himself and the whole brown/white dynamic would be reversed. Maybe if Obama is successful in banning salt (or chubby unwarranted arrogance) we’ll get to find out. Probably a long shot though.)
But enough about fat assholes. The reason Russell Hantz didn’t get any votes is that he’s a gargantuan dickhole of the first order. Not only is he unable to disguise it, he’s downright proud of it! As I watched him take dirty play to depths previously unreached, even by Tonya Harding standards, I couldn’t help but feel that this guy reminded me of someone. Week after week he’d lie, bully, manipulate, and coerce adversaries and allies alike with a giant shit eating grin plastered across his smug troll face the entire time. So two years in a row he makes the final, and two years in a row he loses in a rout, seeing no love from those he so gleefully screwed over.
But man did he play hard. There was nothing he wouldn’t do to make it through another vote. No lie he wouldn’t tell, no promise he wouldn’t make, no ally he wouldn’t backstab. He bent every single rule the game had and violated every moral code known to man and was an asshole about it the whole time, but never actually broke any rules. And regret? Ahh, you gotta be kidding me, regret is for wimps. “I don’t regret anything I did in the game” said Hantz in an interview.
At a certain point during the season it all clicked for me. This guy IS corporate America incarnate. The game of Survivor is the United States, where the corporations come to battle it out with one another. Hantz is the reason I shiver when I hear guys like Paul Ryan call for the deregulation of markets. As it is these people have no issue breaking a law or skirting a regulation if the cost/benefit ratio is favorable. And you want to reduce the incentive they have not to fuck the rest of us over? HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE CRAZY?!
It’s tough to wrap your head around the fact that, anatomy aside, conservative, free market worshiping businessmen are in fact alien beings compared to anyone else. Apart from masturbating to Atlas Shrugged, they just don’t see the world or life in the same way that the rest of us do. To them, money is God, exalted to its full extent; life is a currency comprised of time; the world, the grid iron where the game is played out. You don’t live or grow, you win or lose.
To illustrate this point I’d like to call on my favorite subject to serve as an example. I remember watching a panel about political issue framing that featured, among others, my absolute favorite conservative cheesedick and everyone’s favorite butch lesbian pollster, Frank Luntz. During the introductions, Luntz notices George Soros sitting in the audience. Giddy as a schoolgirl, Luntz can hardly contain himself. Ignoring the purpose of the introductions entirely, Luntz is so excited he nearly pees his pants in front of the audience. Channeling his inner Rip Taylor, Luntz gushes, “Oh my God, George Soros! I’ve never been this close to so much money in my life!” Giggling nervously to himself, “Adopt me, please!” More fidgety giggling. Everyone watching feels dirty just having witnessed it.
When the goal is to make as much money as possible and life is approached as a game that’s played to win or lose, money is deified and anything goes in pursuit of it. For Luntz, Soros is a demigod because he has so much money. Indeed the conservative exaltation of capital trumps even their hatred for liberals! What does that tell you about the true nature of the ideology?
Guys like Hantz and Luntz are the reason we need strong regulations. Here’s how it works. We determine the rules of engagement, and the corporations –just like Hantz- do everything they can to win within the confines of that system (best case scenario!). The more you relax the rules, the further they’ll go. These people aren’t restrained by morality, they’re restrained only by regulation, and many times not even that. The universal truth is that when profit is exalted and greed glorified, competitors in the market will always play the game as hard as they can, pushing the rules to the absolute limits, violating moral and ethical conduct along the way (only because we can’t regulate it), and many of them downright breaking the rules when the risk/reward ratio calls for it. It’s how Hantz plays, it’s how Wall Street plays.
These guys are animals, killers, predators. They’re nothing like us. When you cage them, they hurl themselves against the bars trying to escape, but bound by the steel confines the zookeeper lives. Remove the cage, and the zookeeper’s hat will enjoy a pleasant cruise down a digestive tract.
So, like Hantz, they play as hard as they can, justifying any unsavory actions and alleviating any burdensome guilt by reminding themselves that it’s a competition, the goal is to win, and that they’re playing within the rules of it. They delude themselves further in their subscription to an ideology that tells them that to behave as selfishly as possible is the most noble of actions. That their selfishness will ultimately serve the greater good. Their justification is the same as Hantz’s. “It’s a game.”
And, like the US corporate sector, if the rules of the game aren’t to your liking, just lobby to get them changed! Hantz did just that on the results show after he found out he failed to receive a single vote for the million. “I believe there is a flaw in the system” he said, and then proceeded to make a transparent, feeble, self serving case to Survivor Host Jeff Probst to alter the entire structure of the game (in tact for twenty seasons) to better suit Hantz’s win at all costs style of play. Sound familiar? Luckily for fans of the show, the host of Survivor isn’t as stupid (or buyable) as the United States Government. Unlike the successes corporations have had lobbying for the repeal of Glass Steagall (among many, many others), Hantz was shrugged off by Probst who clearly found the plea pathetic and laughable. If only the Fed answered to the host of Survivor.
Capitalism is wise in that it respects the nature of humankind. We all have different goals and dreams and motivations, and ultimately we do act in our self interest (though that’s not necessarily synonymous with selfishness). Market economies and private ownership allow us to pursue those ends as we see fit. But relaxing regulations on markets is to ignore the nature of humankind. Sometimes, we can get carried away and become single minded in the pursuit of our objectives. The rules need to be there to discourage behavior driven by our darker nature. It’s naive to believe that we’re all identical and that we all have the same goals, but it’s equally naive to worship a free market system and believe that it somehow extracts the best from us while suppressing the worst. We’ve seen the extreme results of both, and neither is desirable.
In Hantz, we’ve been given a two season glimpse into the psyche of the modern businessman. Take a long, hard look at him when you’re considering legislation. This is the guy you have to legislate for. He’s the one you’re up against. He’s playing as hard as he can. He doesn’t care what he has to do to win. He doesn’t care who is in his way. He doesn’t care what anyone thinks about him. He’ll try to change the rules if they don’t suit him. He’ll do whatever it takes to achieve his objective. He has no conscience, no regret, no friends. “It’s a game” he’ll tell you.
Fine. Then Obama and crew need to make sure that the rules of the game are rigid and the police are awake and alert because we’ve seen the effects that game play like this has on lives and the environment when the rules are flaccid and the cops are asleep at the wheel. Enron? Halliburton? AIG? Goldman Sachs? Is any of this ringing a bell? So please do us all a favor and take a long look at Hantz. This is the dark side of man run amok. Regulate for it please.
And as with all reality shows there needs to be a shocking and dramatic finale, so here it is. What does Russell Hantz do for a living? He owns a multi-million dollar oil company! You can’t make this stuff up! Hey Russ, you wouldn’t have any rigs down in the Gulf that we should know about, would ya?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The Lookout : A retelling of the boy who cried wolf for modern times
As I have long hoped, my brilliant friends have decided to contribute to the blog and I urge them to do so more! Inspired by the same topic of conversation from Copenhagen Hold Em poker night, below is a story written by Ben Pearson that I found to be pretty effing awesome. Enjoy!
The Lookout : A retelling of the boy who cried wolf for modern times
by Ben Pearson
There once was a small village living down in a valley lined by a mountain range on all sides. All along this range there were outposts, and at each outpost a member of the village was assigned to, among other things, keep a lookout for wolves. No wolf had ever entered into the valley before, but the villagers knew that if one did, it might eat most of the villagers very quickly. Some debated how many villagers a wolf could actually eat, but nevertheless all agreed it was a grave threat.
On one day many years ago, one of the outposts rang their alarm bell, sure that he saw a wolf descending into the valley. Another outpost nearby saw the same thing, and began to ring his bell too. Soon a third and fourth, fifth, six and seventh outpost were all looking in the direction of the supposed wolf. These later outposts however had a better view, and one of them happened to be an expert on very large deer that sometimes visited the valley. "Its just a large deer," he declared, and soon the others saw it too and all the bells stopped ringing.
A few years later a similar incident occurred - of the hundreds of outposts lining the valley- only a few rang their bells before others spotted the false alarm, reported their findings and the bells died down.
Then one evening a few bells began to ring once again. The other outposts went to their lookouts expecting to see a large deer, but low and behold it definitely wasn't a deer! Very slowly a large wolf-like shape was descending into the valley. None could see the wolf completely, as the sun was setting, but each could see enough to ring their bell. One outpost saw a long bushy tail, another could see clearly some very large wolf-like ears. One by one more and more outposts began to ring their bells until 13 of the 16 outposts were ringing their alarm bell. Incidentally, two of the three remaining outposts did not ring their bell because they could not see anything, and the third refrained because although he saw it clearly, he was not convinced that wolfs posed any real danger at all.
Down in the village Bob the hog farmer was very distraught. Plans had been made for this occasion to set loose most of his hogs onto various paths leading out of the valley. The idea was that this would lead the wolf out of the valley as it chased the hogs. At each path hunters were camped, so that they could easily shoot and kill the wolf insuring that it did not return.
Suffice it say, Bob was not happy. He had worked his whole life to raise pigs and his herd of them was only so large because of his great sacrifice and ingenuity over the years. Hogs was all he knew, and to release so many was like to loose a part of himself. A few of the villagers too were unhappy, because they enjoyed eating bacon more than anything else, and were sure that the price of it would go up after this evening.
As villagers began to surround Bob's farm, Bob stood firmly at his gate.
"Remember a few years ago, when we thought it was a wolf but it was a deer? How do we know that its really a wolf?" Bob asked of the approaching villagers.
"Almost all the bells are ringing this time Bob," one villager answered. "Last time only a few rang before the others quieted them down," said another.
"I already donated 2 hogs last winter to be delivered to another valley and keep the wolfs there," Bob reminded the villagers. "So surely I take this threat as seriously if not more than any of you. I'm just not convinced that a wolf is approaching," he continued.
The villagers were unimpressed. "You must release your hogs!" one shouted impatiently.
"If I release my hogs, many in the village will be hungry this winter," Bob said in return. "You think you want me to release them now, but you will likely regret it this winter, especially if there is no wolf!"
There was a moment of silence at this, as some of the larger villagers rubbed their bellies and considered a winter with no hogs. Finally a cousin of one of the lookouts spoke, "There is a wolf. They have seen its bushy tail and it long wolf ears and two of its hind legs. You must release the hogs now!"
One of the larger villagers replied, "A tail and ears? Is that all? Surely we should not go hungry until we see the entire wolf."
Another large villager added, "Look at us, we are acting crazy. In the past we have thought there were wolves but they were only deer. Because of our fear, we are not thinking this through carefully."
The alarms along the mountain range continued to ring, and the wolf entered the village and quickly ate an old woman who was hard of hearing and had not heard the warnings.
"See there, it is a wolf for sure, now release the Hogs," cried the villagers.
Bob, convinced now that it was a wolf, turned toward his the pen to release his hogs. Just then one of the largest villagers grabbed Bob's arm.
"Bob, think of what your doing, we all may go hungry this winter," he said. "Anyhow there is no proof that releasing the hogs will work as planned."
Bob nodded but looked confused.
"We have already seen for sure that the wolf likes to eat old women," the villager continued, "and many of our old women are soon to die anyhow. Perhaps we should send our old women to the path leading in and out of the valley."
A few of the villagers agreed, but others did not and began to shout protests. In turn the ones who agreed began to shout even louder. By now the alarm bells along the mountain range were ringing so loudly, and so many villagers were shouting, that it became hard to hear exactly what anyone was saying at all. In the midst of all of this shouting and confusion, the wolf arrived at the villagers and ate them all very quickly.
The Lookout : A retelling of the boy who cried wolf for modern times
by Ben Pearson
There once was a small village living down in a valley lined by a mountain range on all sides. All along this range there were outposts, and at each outpost a member of the village was assigned to, among other things, keep a lookout for wolves. No wolf had ever entered into the valley before, but the villagers knew that if one did, it might eat most of the villagers very quickly. Some debated how many villagers a wolf could actually eat, but nevertheless all agreed it was a grave threat.
On one day many years ago, one of the outposts rang their alarm bell, sure that he saw a wolf descending into the valley. Another outpost nearby saw the same thing, and began to ring his bell too. Soon a third and fourth, fifth, six and seventh outpost were all looking in the direction of the supposed wolf. These later outposts however had a better view, and one of them happened to be an expert on very large deer that sometimes visited the valley. "Its just a large deer," he declared, and soon the others saw it too and all the bells stopped ringing.
A few years later a similar incident occurred - of the hundreds of outposts lining the valley- only a few rang their bells before others spotted the false alarm, reported their findings and the bells died down.
Then one evening a few bells began to ring once again. The other outposts went to their lookouts expecting to see a large deer, but low and behold it definitely wasn't a deer! Very slowly a large wolf-like shape was descending into the valley. None could see the wolf completely, as the sun was setting, but each could see enough to ring their bell. One outpost saw a long bushy tail, another could see clearly some very large wolf-like ears. One by one more and more outposts began to ring their bells until 13 of the 16 outposts were ringing their alarm bell. Incidentally, two of the three remaining outposts did not ring their bell because they could not see anything, and the third refrained because although he saw it clearly, he was not convinced that wolfs posed any real danger at all.
Down in the village Bob the hog farmer was very distraught. Plans had been made for this occasion to set loose most of his hogs onto various paths leading out of the valley. The idea was that this would lead the wolf out of the valley as it chased the hogs. At each path hunters were camped, so that they could easily shoot and kill the wolf insuring that it did not return.
Suffice it say, Bob was not happy. He had worked his whole life to raise pigs and his herd of them was only so large because of his great sacrifice and ingenuity over the years. Hogs was all he knew, and to release so many was like to loose a part of himself. A few of the villagers too were unhappy, because they enjoyed eating bacon more than anything else, and were sure that the price of it would go up after this evening.
As villagers began to surround Bob's farm, Bob stood firmly at his gate.
"Remember a few years ago, when we thought it was a wolf but it was a deer? How do we know that its really a wolf?" Bob asked of the approaching villagers.
"Almost all the bells are ringing this time Bob," one villager answered. "Last time only a few rang before the others quieted them down," said another.
"I already donated 2 hogs last winter to be delivered to another valley and keep the wolfs there," Bob reminded the villagers. "So surely I take this threat as seriously if not more than any of you. I'm just not convinced that a wolf is approaching," he continued.
The villagers were unimpressed. "You must release your hogs!" one shouted impatiently.
"If I release my hogs, many in the village will be hungry this winter," Bob said in return. "You think you want me to release them now, but you will likely regret it this winter, especially if there is no wolf!"
There was a moment of silence at this, as some of the larger villagers rubbed their bellies and considered a winter with no hogs. Finally a cousin of one of the lookouts spoke, "There is a wolf. They have seen its bushy tail and it long wolf ears and two of its hind legs. You must release the hogs now!"
One of the larger villagers replied, "A tail and ears? Is that all? Surely we should not go hungry until we see the entire wolf."
Another large villager added, "Look at us, we are acting crazy. In the past we have thought there were wolves but they were only deer. Because of our fear, we are not thinking this through carefully."
The alarms along the mountain range continued to ring, and the wolf entered the village and quickly ate an old woman who was hard of hearing and had not heard the warnings.
"See there, it is a wolf for sure, now release the Hogs," cried the villagers.
Bob, convinced now that it was a wolf, turned toward his the pen to release his hogs. Just then one of the largest villagers grabbed Bob's arm.
"Bob, think of what your doing, we all may go hungry this winter," he said. "Anyhow there is no proof that releasing the hogs will work as planned."
Bob nodded but looked confused.
"We have already seen for sure that the wolf likes to eat old women," the villager continued, "and many of our old women are soon to die anyhow. Perhaps we should send our old women to the path leading in and out of the valley."
A few of the villagers agreed, but others did not and began to shout protests. In turn the ones who agreed began to shout even louder. By now the alarm bells along the mountain range were ringing so loudly, and so many villagers were shouting, that it became hard to hear exactly what anyone was saying at all. In the midst of all of this shouting and confusion, the wolf arrived at the villagers and ate them all very quickly.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Copenhagen Hold Em
Hours into a recent, and far too infrequent, poker game with four of my best friends in the world, the wife of my buddy who was hosting came home. Upon hearing ten seconds of the topic of conversation she remarked astutely that we sure don’t talk about the things we used to talk about on poker night. Thankfully it’s true that what seemed important in our twenties seems embarrassingly unimportant in our thirties. So involved were we in our discussion about the proper role of the state in the control of fossil fuel emissions that over the first hour or so we had only played about ten hands. We had to establish a rule whereby the dealer was held responsible for the fluid progression of the game--read, crack the whip--just so we’d remember to play.
One of the interesting things about growing older with a tight knit group of childhood friends is that you get to see them develop their own political outlooks, and not all of them develop along the same trajectory of political ideology. If nothing else, this makes for more interesting and spirited discussions on poker night.
This particular night the discussion revolved mostly around climate change. When an exciting flop didn’t rudely intrude, we discussed the severity of the issue at bay and debated the merits of different political solutions.
Unsurprisingly, for a poker game held amongst residents of Southern California, most participants agreed that climate change is a very serious problem that should be addressed swiftly and directly. But one of our buddies took the counter position. Despite tendencies towards more conservative political positions, when the evening was over he admitted that while he didn’t feel the urgency that the rest of us did about climate change he was largely playing devil’s advocate for shits and gigs. In addition to serving as the key ingredient in what would have otherwise been a more mundane discussion where all conversants agreed with one another (yawn), he enabled us to respectfully challenge each other’s positions while engaging in an important and crucial dialogue. I could only hope that similar poker games were being held across the country.
As the night progressed we challenged one another more and more. As can happen, as the empty beer bottles accumulated the conversation grew livelier, to the point that the devil’s advocate actually began to feel ganged up on. After we date raped him- sorry, different poker night. And don’t worry, we all learned a valuable lesson… just like on Different Strokes, but I digress. Anyway, he felt ganged up on. Admittedly, my own emotions ran hotter as what I perceived to be reasonable and logical points were largely discounted; and no doubt vice versa. But what really stuck with me was an argument he made that I had heard before from Dennis Miller along the exact same lines. It must be orbiting through the Republican cosmos which means soon it’ll be rattling through the right wing echo chamber like oxycontin and hatred through Limbaugh’s bulbous belly or crazy trying to escape from Beck’s vapid porcine noggin like Tim Robbins in Shawshank… New game, the never ending simile.
Anyway, the argument goes something like this:
“Okay, here we are facing what some so called experts contend is a catastrophic challenge. But in a situation that affects the great masses, isn’t it always beneficial to maintain some semblance of healthy skepticism? And why, when I try to impart some healthy skepticism into the discussion am I shouted down and made to feel ostracized by those who have obediently swallowed whatever information the scientific community has spoon fed them? None of us are climate change experts, so we shouldn’t just accept the present current of scientific contention as gospel. It’s like the believers in climate change are some sort of pagan cult that vehemently shout down the opposition at the slightest inkling of dissent. To curb your collective hysteria, you need a sober voice like mine; someone who doesn’t jump the gun whenever someone tells you that they think the shit’s hitting the fan.”
When I heard this argument from Dennis Miller it bothered me. When I heard it from my buddy it bothered me more. At the time I couldn’t pinpoint exactly why, but after thinking about it for awhile, I think I figured it out.
First and foremost, no one who calls themselves a friend wants their buddy to feel ganged up on, ostracized, and unable to speak his mind amongst his own pals. Dennis Miller I give two shits about, upsetting one of my closest friends is a different story.
Second, it’s an annoyingly effective argument. Astounding as it no doubt sounds to conservatives, liberals like to think of themselves as the sober voice of reason in the national political discussion. When you tell them that they’re acting like members of a hysterical pagan cult it catches them off guard. In their minds, that’s how the other guys act. The argument momentarily demolishes their self identity and they’re immediately forced to rethink their position and reflect on their behavior. It’s just in the liberal DNA. Most conservatives aren’t stricken with the burdensome ailments of self reflection and it can make for a stronger, if less logical, debate style.
Finally, it’s logically fallacious. Being emotional about something doesn’t mean that you’re wrong about it. Being a member of a group of people who are emotional about something doesn’t either.
I wanted to understand why I was more emotional over this particular issue than I was over others that I feel just as strongly about. There’s no shortage of hysterical, angry liberals who’ve earned the caricatures bestowed upon them by their conservative counterparts, but I pride myself on being able to hold a polite conversation about volatile issues amongst even the most fervent members of dissenting ideologies. Why was I getting worked up?
Sometimes it’s easier for me to work things out through analogy (read, LSD trip), so I gave it a go here and it helped clarify things for me. Hopefully it translates.
Imagine that you live in a house with only one other person; a roommate. (Awesome so far, right?) Okay, one of the stipulations of your living arrangement is that in order to make any decision about the house, you both have to agree to it. (Just go with it.) So one day you’re in the kitchen and you begin to smell smoke. You tell your roommate that you smell smoke and he says, “Yeah, maybe”. You tell him that you think you should call the fire department, but he says not to be hasty. (In this fantasy scenario, it costs money to call the fire department and he doesn’t want to incur the costs if it’s just a false alarm.)
Now, in addition to this, you live in a neighborhood comprised solely of neighbors who are professional fire inspectors. (What are the odds?!) Slowly, they begin to gather on your front lawn. After a while, they begin to get agitated and start shouting to you that your house is on fire and that you should call the fire department. You look to your roommate who looks undaunted. He calmly points out to you that of the dozens of fire inspectors screaming at you, one or two don’t really seem too concerned. (They must be the smart ones!) He reminds you of the time a couple of years back when some fire inspectors encouraged a neighbor to call the fire department only to find out that there was no fire. He cautions you that it could be that these inspectors benefit in some way each time the fire department gets called and that he doesn’t want to jump the gun. (‘Cause people join the fire department to make money, just like scientists, see?)
So, every possession you care about is in this house. It seems ludicrous to you to ignore, not just the fire inspectors, but the smoke that you can smell as well, just to protect against a nominal fee or a chance that the inspectors might be getting kickbacks. Rational as you normally are, you start to get a little worked up. Minutes pass. Hours go by as you debate with your roommate about whether or not to call. You get more excited. As smoke begins to billow from your vents you get even more worked up. When the inspectors jump and down on your lawn like chimps on meth, stopping just short of flinging their own feces at you as a warning, you can’t take it anymore and you lose it. “Hey dipshit, it seems pretty clear that our house is on fire! You might not give a shit about this house but I sure as hell do! WE NEED TO CALL THE FUCKING FIRE DEPARTMENT.”
He looks at you calmly but sternly and then hits you with it. “Hey, I’m just maintaining healthy skepticism here. I don’t know why every time I suggest that we think about this more and not act hastily, you get so emotional. It’s like you’re a brainwashed member of some pagan cult.”
(Okay, how good was that?!)
To my buddy who played devil’s advocate I offer my apology. You deserve a calm and respectful discussion regardless of anything else. But for guys like Dennis Miller and anyone else who has a role in swaying national sentiment and a hand in generating political capital, try to understand. We’re emotional because we’re pretty sure that our house is on fire. Sadly and obviously it would seem that we can’t call the fire department without your say so. Most issues discussed at the national level have some measure of urgency to them, but the stakes of climate change couldn’t be higher. The urgency with which the vast consensus of credible experts demand we address this issue ensures that it will continue to be an emotionally charged one so long as some of us think all of our shit is about to go up in flames WHILE THOSE WITH THE POWER TO MAKE THE F%@$ING PHONE CALL THAT WILL EXTINGUISH THE GODD%@$ED FIRE CONTINUE TO PLAY KEEP AWAY WITH THE MOTHER@#%@ING TELEPHONE!!!!!
And I’m spent…
One of the interesting things about growing older with a tight knit group of childhood friends is that you get to see them develop their own political outlooks, and not all of them develop along the same trajectory of political ideology. If nothing else, this makes for more interesting and spirited discussions on poker night.
This particular night the discussion revolved mostly around climate change. When an exciting flop didn’t rudely intrude, we discussed the severity of the issue at bay and debated the merits of different political solutions.
Unsurprisingly, for a poker game held amongst residents of Southern California, most participants agreed that climate change is a very serious problem that should be addressed swiftly and directly. But one of our buddies took the counter position. Despite tendencies towards more conservative political positions, when the evening was over he admitted that while he didn’t feel the urgency that the rest of us did about climate change he was largely playing devil’s advocate for shits and gigs. In addition to serving as the key ingredient in what would have otherwise been a more mundane discussion where all conversants agreed with one another (yawn), he enabled us to respectfully challenge each other’s positions while engaging in an important and crucial dialogue. I could only hope that similar poker games were being held across the country.
As the night progressed we challenged one another more and more. As can happen, as the empty beer bottles accumulated the conversation grew livelier, to the point that the devil’s advocate actually began to feel ganged up on. After we date raped him- sorry, different poker night. And don’t worry, we all learned a valuable lesson… just like on Different Strokes, but I digress. Anyway, he felt ganged up on. Admittedly, my own emotions ran hotter as what I perceived to be reasonable and logical points were largely discounted; and no doubt vice versa. But what really stuck with me was an argument he made that I had heard before from Dennis Miller along the exact same lines. It must be orbiting through the Republican cosmos which means soon it’ll be rattling through the right wing echo chamber like oxycontin and hatred through Limbaugh’s bulbous belly or crazy trying to escape from Beck’s vapid porcine noggin like Tim Robbins in Shawshank… New game, the never ending simile.
Anyway, the argument goes something like this:
“Okay, here we are facing what some so called experts contend is a catastrophic challenge. But in a situation that affects the great masses, isn’t it always beneficial to maintain some semblance of healthy skepticism? And why, when I try to impart some healthy skepticism into the discussion am I shouted down and made to feel ostracized by those who have obediently swallowed whatever information the scientific community has spoon fed them? None of us are climate change experts, so we shouldn’t just accept the present current of scientific contention as gospel. It’s like the believers in climate change are some sort of pagan cult that vehemently shout down the opposition at the slightest inkling of dissent. To curb your collective hysteria, you need a sober voice like mine; someone who doesn’t jump the gun whenever someone tells you that they think the shit’s hitting the fan.”
When I heard this argument from Dennis Miller it bothered me. When I heard it from my buddy it bothered me more. At the time I couldn’t pinpoint exactly why, but after thinking about it for awhile, I think I figured it out.
First and foremost, no one who calls themselves a friend wants their buddy to feel ganged up on, ostracized, and unable to speak his mind amongst his own pals. Dennis Miller I give two shits about, upsetting one of my closest friends is a different story.
Second, it’s an annoyingly effective argument. Astounding as it no doubt sounds to conservatives, liberals like to think of themselves as the sober voice of reason in the national political discussion. When you tell them that they’re acting like members of a hysterical pagan cult it catches them off guard. In their minds, that’s how the other guys act. The argument momentarily demolishes their self identity and they’re immediately forced to rethink their position and reflect on their behavior. It’s just in the liberal DNA. Most conservatives aren’t stricken with the burdensome ailments of self reflection and it can make for a stronger, if less logical, debate style.
Finally, it’s logically fallacious. Being emotional about something doesn’t mean that you’re wrong about it. Being a member of a group of people who are emotional about something doesn’t either.
I wanted to understand why I was more emotional over this particular issue than I was over others that I feel just as strongly about. There’s no shortage of hysterical, angry liberals who’ve earned the caricatures bestowed upon them by their conservative counterparts, but I pride myself on being able to hold a polite conversation about volatile issues amongst even the most fervent members of dissenting ideologies. Why was I getting worked up?
Sometimes it’s easier for me to work things out through analogy (read, LSD trip), so I gave it a go here and it helped clarify things for me. Hopefully it translates.
Imagine that you live in a house with only one other person; a roommate. (Awesome so far, right?) Okay, one of the stipulations of your living arrangement is that in order to make any decision about the house, you both have to agree to it. (Just go with it.) So one day you’re in the kitchen and you begin to smell smoke. You tell your roommate that you smell smoke and he says, “Yeah, maybe”. You tell him that you think you should call the fire department, but he says not to be hasty. (In this fantasy scenario, it costs money to call the fire department and he doesn’t want to incur the costs if it’s just a false alarm.)
Now, in addition to this, you live in a neighborhood comprised solely of neighbors who are professional fire inspectors. (What are the odds?!) Slowly, they begin to gather on your front lawn. After a while, they begin to get agitated and start shouting to you that your house is on fire and that you should call the fire department. You look to your roommate who looks undaunted. He calmly points out to you that of the dozens of fire inspectors screaming at you, one or two don’t really seem too concerned. (They must be the smart ones!) He reminds you of the time a couple of years back when some fire inspectors encouraged a neighbor to call the fire department only to find out that there was no fire. He cautions you that it could be that these inspectors benefit in some way each time the fire department gets called and that he doesn’t want to jump the gun. (‘Cause people join the fire department to make money, just like scientists, see?)
So, every possession you care about is in this house. It seems ludicrous to you to ignore, not just the fire inspectors, but the smoke that you can smell as well, just to protect against a nominal fee or a chance that the inspectors might be getting kickbacks. Rational as you normally are, you start to get a little worked up. Minutes pass. Hours go by as you debate with your roommate about whether or not to call. You get more excited. As smoke begins to billow from your vents you get even more worked up. When the inspectors jump and down on your lawn like chimps on meth, stopping just short of flinging their own feces at you as a warning, you can’t take it anymore and you lose it. “Hey dipshit, it seems pretty clear that our house is on fire! You might not give a shit about this house but I sure as hell do! WE NEED TO CALL THE FUCKING FIRE DEPARTMENT.”
He looks at you calmly but sternly and then hits you with it. “Hey, I’m just maintaining healthy skepticism here. I don’t know why every time I suggest that we think about this more and not act hastily, you get so emotional. It’s like you’re a brainwashed member of some pagan cult.”
(Okay, how good was that?!)
To my buddy who played devil’s advocate I offer my apology. You deserve a calm and respectful discussion regardless of anything else. But for guys like Dennis Miller and anyone else who has a role in swaying national sentiment and a hand in generating political capital, try to understand. We’re emotional because we’re pretty sure that our house is on fire. Sadly and obviously it would seem that we can’t call the fire department without your say so. Most issues discussed at the national level have some measure of urgency to them, but the stakes of climate change couldn’t be higher. The urgency with which the vast consensus of credible experts demand we address this issue ensures that it will continue to be an emotionally charged one so long as some of us think all of our shit is about to go up in flames WHILE THOSE WITH THE POWER TO MAKE THE F%@$ING PHONE CALL THAT WILL EXTINGUISH THE GODD%@$ED FIRE CONTINUE TO PLAY KEEP AWAY WITH THE MOTHER@#%@ING TELEPHONE!!!!!
And I’m spent…
Monday, May 3, 2010
Back
So it's been awhile since I've posted anything. The last entry was The Trust Deficit Part II. Since then, two things have conspired to delay a follow up.
First, I found out last week that I was accepted into UCLA and I’ve been consumed with trying to figure out how to make their color scheme more masculine without having to overhaul it entirely. Tradition has its place you know. I thought at first that the blinding radiance of my gruff machismo would have a photosynthetic effect, and that the colors would grow manlier just by basking in my potent virility. But then I caught a glimpse of myself in the mirror and realized that my masculinity actually ranks somewhere between that of Ellen DeGeneres and George Will.
National Masculinity Rankings (2010 U.S. Census Bureau)
645,942: Ellen DeGeneres
645,943: Ryan Fisher
645,944: George Will
Deck me out in baby blue and canary yellow and I fall closer to Elijah Wood.
National Masculinity Rankings (2010 U.S. Census Bureau)
245,695,320: Dakota Fanning
245,695,321: Ariel (The Little Mermaid)
245,695,322: Elijah Wood
So that plan’s shot to shit.
Then I thought about calling one of the D.C. public relations firms employed by our two political parties but came to my senses when I realized that if they’re worth anything close to what they’re paid then our elected officials must actually be entirely corrupt, glue sniffing, hobo molesters instead of the mostly corrupt, alcoholic, hobo molesters we’ve been led to believe they are. Plus I don’t have any money.
Plan C involves calling Erik Prince and convincing him to adorn the Blackwater (now known as Xe) mercenaries in Bruin blue and gold. While this would no doubt toughen up the soft image the colors currently connote, I (unlike our President apparently) am concerned about potential blowback from Iraqis and Afghanis whose families have been inconvenienced (read raped and murdered) by Blackwater security forces operating in the Middle East. After last season’s limp college basketball performance we have enough on our hands without having to worry about a makeshift dirty bomb detonating at Pauley Pavilion.
So as of now there is no plan, but I’ll come up with something.
The other thing was that I didn’t really have anymore to say on the subject of The Trust Deficit for now, but since I tailed the last one with “Part III coming soon”, I felt obligated to come up with something. But most trilogies suck and I’m not gonna force a Matrix Revolutions out just for the sake of symmetry. So I’m moving on but reserve the right as master of my own little slice of cyber space to revisit the issue as I see fit.
This has also taught me a valuable lesson. The beauty of the blog is that there are no rules but the ones that you make for yourself. But an environment completely devoid of structure isn’t conducive to attracting or keeping readers. So I’m committing to a minimum of one new post every week from here on out and adding a couple of new features to the blog. Since I love to share little tidbits of pop culture with anyone who’ll humor me, I’m adding a “Song of the Week”, “Quote of the Week”, and “Moment of the Week” to the blog. Hopefully I can share a little beauty, humor, and knowledge this way as well.
Thanks for continuing to read. I hope you enjoy the new-ish format.
First, I found out last week that I was accepted into UCLA and I’ve been consumed with trying to figure out how to make their color scheme more masculine without having to overhaul it entirely. Tradition has its place you know. I thought at first that the blinding radiance of my gruff machismo would have a photosynthetic effect, and that the colors would grow manlier just by basking in my potent virility. But then I caught a glimpse of myself in the mirror and realized that my masculinity actually ranks somewhere between that of Ellen DeGeneres and George Will.
National Masculinity Rankings (2010 U.S. Census Bureau)
645,942: Ellen DeGeneres
645,943: Ryan Fisher
645,944: George Will
Deck me out in baby blue and canary yellow and I fall closer to Elijah Wood.
National Masculinity Rankings (2010 U.S. Census Bureau)
245,695,320: Dakota Fanning
245,695,321: Ariel (The Little Mermaid)
245,695,322: Elijah Wood
So that plan’s shot to shit.
Then I thought about calling one of the D.C. public relations firms employed by our two political parties but came to my senses when I realized that if they’re worth anything close to what they’re paid then our elected officials must actually be entirely corrupt, glue sniffing, hobo molesters instead of the mostly corrupt, alcoholic, hobo molesters we’ve been led to believe they are. Plus I don’t have any money.
Plan C involves calling Erik Prince and convincing him to adorn the Blackwater (now known as Xe) mercenaries in Bruin blue and gold. While this would no doubt toughen up the soft image the colors currently connote, I (unlike our President apparently) am concerned about potential blowback from Iraqis and Afghanis whose families have been inconvenienced (read raped and murdered) by Blackwater security forces operating in the Middle East. After last season’s limp college basketball performance we have enough on our hands without having to worry about a makeshift dirty bomb detonating at Pauley Pavilion.
So as of now there is no plan, but I’ll come up with something.
The other thing was that I didn’t really have anymore to say on the subject of The Trust Deficit for now, but since I tailed the last one with “Part III coming soon”, I felt obligated to come up with something. But most trilogies suck and I’m not gonna force a Matrix Revolutions out just for the sake of symmetry. So I’m moving on but reserve the right as master of my own little slice of cyber space to revisit the issue as I see fit.
This has also taught me a valuable lesson. The beauty of the blog is that there are no rules but the ones that you make for yourself. But an environment completely devoid of structure isn’t conducive to attracting or keeping readers. So I’m committing to a minimum of one new post every week from here on out and adding a couple of new features to the blog. Since I love to share little tidbits of pop culture with anyone who’ll humor me, I’m adding a “Song of the Week”, “Quote of the Week”, and “Moment of the Week” to the blog. Hopefully I can share a little beauty, humor, and knowledge this way as well.
Thanks for continuing to read. I hope you enjoy the new-ish format.
Monday, April 12, 2010
The Trust Deficit - Part II
If you haven’t read Part I yet, you can check it out beneath Part II. You really should read it first, one coming before two and all.
The Trust Deficit – Part II
So how did we get here? Where did the trust deficit come from? It stems from a combination of things.
First and foremost, a well funded effort to obfuscate any claim at all that threatens to upset the interests of those who hold wealth and power.
That effort has been frighteningly effective. Take climate change. It really is the perfect example because it demonstrates the impressive scope that the obfuscation effort is capable of spanning. It’s one thing to take credible science or some sort of quantifiable data that people accept as trustworthy and flip it on its head by providing contrarian science and data. That’s not too difficult. You just need to find or hire dissenting scientists. Finding a dissenting voice isn’t tough; there are always those who go against the grain. Take this numb nuts with the impressive sounding credentials and substitute a flat Earth for climate change skepticism.
“In 1956, Samuel Shenton, a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Geographic Society took over the Universal Zetetic Society and helped to found the International Flat Earth Society, which he ran, as "organizing secretary" from his home in Dover, in Britain. When satellite images taken from outer space showed the Earth as a sphere rather than flat the society were undaunted; Shenton remarked: "It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye."
Or, you hire them. Like big tobacco did/does, and pay for junk science. Again, easy. All you need is money.
And both are very effective means of providing the contrarian “evidence” needed to obfuscate a debate based solely on data. Once you have contrarian data you feed it to the pundits who saturate the airwaves with the new data, and only the new data. You never hear Hannity or Beck reference any piece of information that doesn’t support their narrative, infinite as that information may be.
If you’re successful in poisoning the data reservoir, the objective is to sway the general public, now completely befuddled by which facts it can trust – the real ones or the manufactured ones – towards your side of the aisle by reinforcing the contrarian data that you’ve manufactured with “common sense” talking points. Once again the pundits are called in, and since nobody can be sure which data is accurate, an appeal to common sense is made.
But what if common sense is overwhelmingly and inherently aligned against your cause as it is for the conservatives in the so called climate change debate? Is it possible to influence people’s minds to the point that they’ll not only reject trusted data – like consensus amongst the scientific community that include esteemed groups like the National Academy of Sciences - but reject common sense as well? You bet your ass.
Think about it. What makes more intuitive sense?
• That climate change consensus is the result of a broadly organized and centralized international conspiracy amongst money grubbing scientists or…
• An epidemic of group think has suddenly begun plaguing a group of people (scientists) who have been trained their entire lives to reject group think and established theory, and who use doubt as a fundamental pillar of methodology within their discipline or…
• That entrenched wealth and power - big oil in this case - are intentionally obfuscating the issue in an attempt to maintain wealth and power?
It’s utterly ridiculous. And there’s plenty more.
We can see the effects of fossil fuel emissions every day with our own eyes in the form of smog above our cities. A simple Google search will provide you all the video of melting glaciers you can handle. It makes intuitive sense to infer that the giant plumes of smoke we see shooting into the sky from factories cause the giant clouds of smog we see hovering over Mexico City, Los Angeles, and industrial China, places with tons of factories. And it makes sense that the dramatic increase in carbon emissions as a result of rampant global industrialization is the cause of increasing temperatures and melting ice caps. It doesn’t require a leap of faith. Pollution wasn’t a problem, but then we started burning tons of shit, and as the population exploded we burned even more shit, and low and behold the planet got sick. A child could put these things together.
The experts reinforce such obvious and natural conclusions. It makes sense to trust our experts; we trust them with our lives every single day. This is the same group of people who using the exact same methodology have figured out how to put a man on the moon and fight disease. If the top ten thousand doctors in the world diagnosed you with cancer would you ask for another opinion or start treatment?
It all adds up. You have to be taught not to reach these conclusions because not reaching them is counterintuitive.
But here we are. Day by day less and less Americans are convinced of man made climate change in spite of the facts. We’ve just learned that the last decade was the warmest on record. We’ve just learned that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, the first was 2005, and all of the next warmest years have occurred since 1998. The Greenland Ice Sheet is going bye-bye, which means I’ll probably have to move because the ocean is estimated to rise 21 feet once it’s all melted away. Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire just broke a record that’s stood for 132 years when the ice melted earlier than ever before, a result of temperatures in Concord seven and a half degrees higher than normal. These aren’t wing-nut sources of science straddling the fringe, this shit comes from NASA.
If all of the data coming from the sources we have historically trusted are saying the same thing, and if what’s being said is directly in line with what we witness with our own eyes, and if every fiber of common sense engrained in us is aligned with the data and the visual evidence, then why are we increasingly skeptical?
Why does increased skepticism seem more prominent amongst conservatives than among liberals?
And why is this increasing doubt a phenomenon unique to Americans? (We don’t even register on the poll. Only 49% of Americans believe that global warming is the result of human activities according to this Gallup poll. South Korea and Japan top the list at 92% and 91% repectively.)
Poll
Is it a coincidence that the people whose skepticism has increased most dramatically are those most likely to frequent American conservative media outlets? Of course not.
It’s the obfuscation stupid. Contrarian data bought and paid for by entrenched wealth and power and drilled into our skulls by the pundits they hire, whom we trust. It’s how political capital is purchased in America today, plain and simple.
Maybe the overwhelming data supporting man made climate change is just the result of a global conspiracy amongst the nefarious scientific community or perhaps it stems from a worldwide epidemic of group think suddenly plaguing a discipline historically rooted in doubt, and maybe burning shit really doesn’t cause smog, and even if it does maybe smog isn’t dangerous to humans or the environment, and maybe the ice caps melting is just a coinciding correlation of exploding industrialism and not the result of it, and maybe the planet getting warmer is just the planet cycling, and maybe all of the scientists have gone collectively stupid at the same time.
Makes sense I guess and I hope it’s true because I don’t want to move. But on the off chance that there is such a thing as man made climate change, I’d like to suggest that we set up filtration systems in the homes of those promulgating the skepticism and funnel all carbon emissions through them before environmental exposure. If it really is harmless, they shouldn’t mind.
Part III to be posted soon.
The Trust Deficit – Part II
So how did we get here? Where did the trust deficit come from? It stems from a combination of things.
First and foremost, a well funded effort to obfuscate any claim at all that threatens to upset the interests of those who hold wealth and power.
That effort has been frighteningly effective. Take climate change. It really is the perfect example because it demonstrates the impressive scope that the obfuscation effort is capable of spanning. It’s one thing to take credible science or some sort of quantifiable data that people accept as trustworthy and flip it on its head by providing contrarian science and data. That’s not too difficult. You just need to find or hire dissenting scientists. Finding a dissenting voice isn’t tough; there are always those who go against the grain. Take this numb nuts with the impressive sounding credentials and substitute a flat Earth for climate change skepticism.
“In 1956, Samuel Shenton, a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Geographic Society took over the Universal Zetetic Society and helped to found the International Flat Earth Society, which he ran, as "organizing secretary" from his home in Dover, in Britain. When satellite images taken from outer space showed the Earth as a sphere rather than flat the society were undaunted; Shenton remarked: "It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye."
Or, you hire them. Like big tobacco did/does, and pay for junk science. Again, easy. All you need is money.
And both are very effective means of providing the contrarian “evidence” needed to obfuscate a debate based solely on data. Once you have contrarian data you feed it to the pundits who saturate the airwaves with the new data, and only the new data. You never hear Hannity or Beck reference any piece of information that doesn’t support their narrative, infinite as that information may be.
If you’re successful in poisoning the data reservoir, the objective is to sway the general public, now completely befuddled by which facts it can trust – the real ones or the manufactured ones – towards your side of the aisle by reinforcing the contrarian data that you’ve manufactured with “common sense” talking points. Once again the pundits are called in, and since nobody can be sure which data is accurate, an appeal to common sense is made.
But what if common sense is overwhelmingly and inherently aligned against your cause as it is for the conservatives in the so called climate change debate? Is it possible to influence people’s minds to the point that they’ll not only reject trusted data – like consensus amongst the scientific community that include esteemed groups like the National Academy of Sciences - but reject common sense as well? You bet your ass.
Think about it. What makes more intuitive sense?
• That climate change consensus is the result of a broadly organized and centralized international conspiracy amongst money grubbing scientists or…
• An epidemic of group think has suddenly begun plaguing a group of people (scientists) who have been trained their entire lives to reject group think and established theory, and who use doubt as a fundamental pillar of methodology within their discipline or…
• That entrenched wealth and power - big oil in this case - are intentionally obfuscating the issue in an attempt to maintain wealth and power?
It’s utterly ridiculous. And there’s plenty more.
We can see the effects of fossil fuel emissions every day with our own eyes in the form of smog above our cities. A simple Google search will provide you all the video of melting glaciers you can handle. It makes intuitive sense to infer that the giant plumes of smoke we see shooting into the sky from factories cause the giant clouds of smog we see hovering over Mexico City, Los Angeles, and industrial China, places with tons of factories. And it makes sense that the dramatic increase in carbon emissions as a result of rampant global industrialization is the cause of increasing temperatures and melting ice caps. It doesn’t require a leap of faith. Pollution wasn’t a problem, but then we started burning tons of shit, and as the population exploded we burned even more shit, and low and behold the planet got sick. A child could put these things together.
The experts reinforce such obvious and natural conclusions. It makes sense to trust our experts; we trust them with our lives every single day. This is the same group of people who using the exact same methodology have figured out how to put a man on the moon and fight disease. If the top ten thousand doctors in the world diagnosed you with cancer would you ask for another opinion or start treatment?
It all adds up. You have to be taught not to reach these conclusions because not reaching them is counterintuitive.
But here we are. Day by day less and less Americans are convinced of man made climate change in spite of the facts. We’ve just learned that the last decade was the warmest on record. We’ve just learned that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, the first was 2005, and all of the next warmest years have occurred since 1998. The Greenland Ice Sheet is going bye-bye, which means I’ll probably have to move because the ocean is estimated to rise 21 feet once it’s all melted away. Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire just broke a record that’s stood for 132 years when the ice melted earlier than ever before, a result of temperatures in Concord seven and a half degrees higher than normal. These aren’t wing-nut sources of science straddling the fringe, this shit comes from NASA.
If all of the data coming from the sources we have historically trusted are saying the same thing, and if what’s being said is directly in line with what we witness with our own eyes, and if every fiber of common sense engrained in us is aligned with the data and the visual evidence, then why are we increasingly skeptical?
Why does increased skepticism seem more prominent amongst conservatives than among liberals?
And why is this increasing doubt a phenomenon unique to Americans? (We don’t even register on the poll. Only 49% of Americans believe that global warming is the result of human activities according to this Gallup poll. South Korea and Japan top the list at 92% and 91% repectively.)
Poll
Is it a coincidence that the people whose skepticism has increased most dramatically are those most likely to frequent American conservative media outlets? Of course not.
It’s the obfuscation stupid. Contrarian data bought and paid for by entrenched wealth and power and drilled into our skulls by the pundits they hire, whom we trust. It’s how political capital is purchased in America today, plain and simple.
Maybe the overwhelming data supporting man made climate change is just the result of a global conspiracy amongst the nefarious scientific community or perhaps it stems from a worldwide epidemic of group think suddenly plaguing a discipline historically rooted in doubt, and maybe burning shit really doesn’t cause smog, and even if it does maybe smog isn’t dangerous to humans or the environment, and maybe the ice caps melting is just a coinciding correlation of exploding industrialism and not the result of it, and maybe the planet getting warmer is just the planet cycling, and maybe all of the scientists have gone collectively stupid at the same time.
Makes sense I guess and I hope it’s true because I don’t want to move. But on the off chance that there is such a thing as man made climate change, I’d like to suggest that we set up filtration systems in the homes of those promulgating the skepticism and funnel all carbon emissions through them before environmental exposure. If it really is harmless, they shouldn’t mind.
Part III to be posted soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)