« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »
June 28, 2006
6.28.06 -- flag-burning joke day
Boy I'm tired. Couldn't sleep at all last night. There were a buncha burning flags partying on the stoop of my building all hours. Cops tried to break up the scene, but, dude! Those flags were, like, on fire. So the cops went somewhere else, hopefully to roust some hipsters. So then the burning flags got noisier, jumping up and down with bottles of vodka yellin, "U-S-A! U-S-A!" Then a neighbor came out to complain, and he got totally beat down (and singed). Then they finally scattered. This morning, all over the sidewalk there's broken glass and condoms (used?). They even managed to flip over a car, a small one. Now my wife and my dog are all on me to do something. Do something like what? I'm just one man.Is there anybody out there, perhaps some governmental body, who can do something about this flag-burning before it's too late?
Posted by mrbrent at 10:56 AM
June 27, 2006
who taught the prez to point his finger like that?
I'm having one of those days where everything I want to say is being said elsewhere. I'm somewhat transfixed by the hue and cry directed at the New York Times over its reporting on yet another secret extra-legal data surveillance program of the Bush Administration. This could be one of those one-day uproars, or this could be a precipitating incident of some import. Briefly:No, the NYTimes was absolutely not out of line to report this story. The Administration can scream "war on terror" until their vocal cords shred -- if they didn't have a history of overstepping, of ignoring the protections accorded by the Constitution, then this would not be news. The Administration's word that they are not breaking rules is not now, nor has it ever been, good enough. And it is breathtakingly stupid to contend that this journalism is hindering anti-terror activities. The only terrorists dumb enough not to expect international wire transfers not to be monitored are the seven stooges that got framed up in Miami next week. The Administration outed an undercover CIA agent tasked with WMD issues our of political spite. It is unreasonable to claim that they have any credibility at all on this issue.
How short-sighted is it for the Administration to step up support for "cracking down" on the press? Cracking down on the press has historical precedent -- namely, the Soviet Union, Red China, etc. How can the Administration be blind to the thematic comparison? Better question: how can the Commie-hatin' neocon base be blind to the comparison? They gonna have one serious case of the willies when they wake up from this.
And as far as the brewing conflict between the New York Times and the Administration? I would welcome it. The Administration may be the head of a shadowy conspiracy devoted to enriching a very small fraction of the populace, but I do believe in the adage concerning picking a fight with someone that buys ink by the barrel.
Far better content than this concerning this dust-up can be found over at Wolcott and alicublog, and at Larry Johnson's page at TpmCafe.
Posted by mrbrent at 11:24 AM
teens - a fun word to say
The Yahoo! Headline Box is concerned with young people today:• Fewer teens seen dropping out, having babies
Hmm. So now they're dropping out, having babies where no one can see them.
Sneaky teens.
Posted by mrbrent at 09:10 AM
June 26, 2006
crazy, stupid
Turns out that the problem is not so much that we're stupid. No, actually the problem is that we're partially schizophrenic.A new study in cognitive science claims that "healthy subjects" perceive misrecollections as fact. Just like crazy people:
The study found that the areas [of the brain] that were activated while remembering whether an event really happened or was imagined in healthy subjects are the very same areas that are dysfunctional in people who experience hallucinations.
I'm going to come out and say that all of us who misremember facts in events are in fact "experiencing hallucinations".
Hopefully our new-found status as honorary crazy persons will allow us some discount at hotels and restaurants. And incourage us to perhaps revisit that few elections.
Posted by mrbrent at 05:04 PM
CEOs want you dead
I'd like to continue haterizing on Big Business for one moment. Last week the Wall Street Journal ran a story on the effect of pension obligations on the corporate bottom line. Since the WSJ isn't so Net-friendly, I had to wait for a DailyKos diary referencing the story. Below please find the lead paragraph:It's almost become an article of faith in the public lore that "generous" pensions for hard-working Americans are the cause of many of the financial binds that private companies (and municipalities) face. I'd bet that many Americans, and readers here, have already internalized this notion--helped by the relentless media stories about the bankruptcies in the airline industry, the crisis at General Motors and a host of other examples.
And what is the jackpot of the story? Worker pensions are in good fiscal shape -- they are being dragged down by gargantuan and underfunded CEO pensions. Which CEO pensions of course are never cut back in the name of thrift. So every time a company defaults on its pensions to its work force, it is basically taking money out of the pockets of our parents and grandparents so that Overpaid Corporate Bigwig can buy another Gulfstream.
More pitchforks; more torches. Soylent Green needs to learn to stand up for itself soon. At the very least, let's bring back the Sherman Act.
Again, why do I waste good ones and zeroes, not to mention your eyeballs, on the hate, considering that hatred of corporate America is a very short drive from Communism? I bring hate because these business institutions do not operate in the interest of the common good. None of us really do, but these corporate concerns are starting to think of the citizenry as markets instead of people. They see us as food. They blame us for their shortcomings. They lack transparency, and they exploit us.
Which is why I also say they are poopy.
Posted by mrbrent at 09:51 AM
June 24, 2006
another sweet moment of snark-belayed
Walking the little dog this morning I noticed something I hadn't noticed before. On my street in Brooklyn, NY, there is a storefront Knights of Columbus. That there would be a Knights of Columbus on my street would come as a shock to no one who knows my street -- we get the free-range marching bands on certain saint's days, and we get a big, noisy, smelly two-week long festival in the summer. In fact, the Knights of Columbus is situated right at the central location for the Feast, as they call it.It's fascinating. Really.
Anyhoo, in one of the dusty old windows of this Knights of Columbus is a hand-painted sign (on posterboard) that reads, simply, "We mourn our loss."
The provenance of this sign is a mystery to no one, especially if you've heard a policy speech from the President lately. However, I dare you to ponder "We mourn our loss" for a minute or two and not get taken by the contextual possibilities of the phrase. Is it a dumb answer to a dumb question? A declaration of the obvious made dogma? A misapplication of the first person plural?
Lesson to learn: you take a loss, you better remember to mourn it, boobie.
Posted by mrbrent at 10:54 AM
June 23, 2006
again with me and the class war
I would like to briefly to step into the issue of CEO compensation. Only briefly. It's Friday, and I want to leave myself enough time to wipe the CEO compensation off my shoe.The shorthand version is this: the compensation of dudes that "run" the corporations that "run" your life has increased at a rate that outpaces most other rates in the natural world, including the rate of increase of your compensation. People like you and me think that this is happening because CEOs are greedy and realized that they can get away with rigging the game so that they walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars. People not like you and me, like Ann Coulter and Peter Braunstein, believe in a sort of "corporate exceptionalism" -- the skills required to successfully navigate a life-sucking business entity can only be rewarded with shipping containers full of twenty dollar bills.
That's kind of where we stand now. Us: please stop raping our economy for personal gain. Them: not loving corporations is akin to not loving freedom, you Commies. Probably this little schism of opinion won't move much in our lifetimes, as the moral superiority of our argument is pretty easily thwarted by the casual gullibility of an American public that wetdreams of getting something for nothing.
So, just as a reminder, some new facts emerged yesterday. Namely, "Chief executive officers in the United States earned 262 times the pay of an average worker in 2005." Math stopped being my strong point years ago, but, by my reckoning, in order for the average U.S. worker to make what the average CEO makes, he would have to work for 262 years.
I know, nobody said life was fair, but nobody said we couldn't have a class war, either.
Posted by mrbrent at 10:45 AM
June 22, 2006
first they came for your guns, then they came for your tissue samples
I've always given the National Rifle Association short shrift. A buddy in high school signed me up as a member as a joke. I accordingly glanced over their shrill literature, shrugged and sent all their donation envelopes back empty. I got no problem with the firearms; I just get all itchy around the redneck hyperbole.Now, years later, I have a very deep concern about the NRA.
Frankly, I'm worried that they might crazy me to death.
I'm tellin' ya, if it's not the UN invading to take away your rifle, it's the invisible robot in your teeth telling you that Jesus wants chicken wings. NOW.
Posted by mrbrent at 12:49 PM
world to bush: cringe
It's time to say this about the President for the couple hundredth time: The man is either dangerously stupid or dangerously deluded, and I can't decide which is worse.Yesterday in Vienna, the President took some questions from the gathered US and EU press, including this one:
To President Bush, you've got Iran's nuclear program, you've got North Korea, yet, most Europeans consider the United States the biggest threat to global stability. Do you have any regrets about that?
Hmm, not a friendly question, but a fair one. And not, you'll notice, a directly accusatory question, but a reference to an aggressive bit of data -- the President is not being asked, "Why are you a global threat?" but instead, "Why are you perceived a global threat?"
The President's considered response?
That's absurd. The United States is -- we'll defend ourselves, but at the same time, we're actively working with our partners to spread peace and democracy. So whoever says that is -- it's an absurd statement.
No, Mr President, it's not absurd. In fact, it's so not absurd that a journalist responded later with a little smack inna face, with facts:
And to the President, Mr. President, you said this is "absurd," but you might be aware that in Europe the image of America is still falling, and dramatically in some areas. Let me give you some numbers. In Austria, in this country only 14 percent of the people believe that the United States, what they are doing is good for peace; 64 percent think that it is bad. In the United Kingdom, your ally, there are more citizens who believe that the United States policy under your leadership is helping to destabilize the world than Iran.
If the President's indignation is feigned in light of his neocon laissez faire world domination fantasies, then that is bad. And if the President actually believes that the rest of the world has no reason to fear us, to fear us invading them, or instigating regional tensions, or accidentally detonating the world, then he is the dumbest man in a country full of aggressively dumb people. Which is also bad. As I said before, neither option is cheering.
Posted by mrbrent at 10:41 AM
ok, then, let's do have a class war
Maybe you guys can help me. I'm pretty sure I left the middle class laying around here somewhere, and now I can't seem to find it.It looks like, well, uh -- it looks like the middle class. You must have some recollection of it. Upward mobility, job security. Folks better off than their parents. You know. Benefits. No, I'm not kidding. Lots of benefits, like health and pension. Whatever. You know what the middle class looks like.
See, I was chatting with a pal last night, and he brought up the middle class, out of nowhere -- as a punchline, actually, and it got me to reminiscing. So I thought I'd dig out the middle class for old time's sake. But I'll be damned if I could find it.
So if you guys could keep your eyes peeled, I'd be in your debt.
Actually, some wiseass suggested that if I was looking for the middle class I should check behind the counter of McDonald's, or in the break room at Wal-Mart. I think she was joking. Though I'm bad with jokes.
[Tip of hat to a Krugman column, discussed here.]
Posted by mrbrent at 10:38 AM
i am an e-andy rooney
I just noticed yet another quirk of the digital age.Whenever I check my e-mail, I always sneak over to the spam folder, where Google helpfully stows all e-mails that the Google robots deem spam, and scan down. You know, in case some important communication accidentally got stashed there -- some message that inadvertently mentions "beateous virginns" or just happens to speak to my unknown proclivity for replica Rolexes. A note from Mom, maybe, or from my parole officer.
Of course, I have not once found a legit e-mail in the spam folder. Also, in the years of receiving actual mail (made of paper), I have never, ever sifted through the junk mail to ensure that someone from Discover wasn't actually sending me a personal note.
And yet, there I am, mucking in the spam folder.
It seems that living amidst all these ones and zeroes have made me anxious.
Posted by mrbrent at 09:45 AM
June 20, 2006
billionaire do-gooding
You could say that Mark Cuban is having a bad week. Billionaire Cuban, who among other things owns the Dallas Mavericks, has had to watch his team get beat by a mostly unlikable Miami Heat three games in a row, causing Cubanesque eruptions of bile and misery. This of course has renewed the debate that has rocked the house of Titivil -- Mark Cuban: Enlightened Capitalist Hero or Loudmouth Moneybags Boor?Me, I like Cuban (I think I've committed to that in print before), and the Cuban-haterizers got a problem with that. Well, Cuban-Haterizers, if you were to examine Cuban's blog, buried in this post you will find a little news:
[Cuban's entertainment concern] HDNet is talking to Dan Rather and we hope to do a deal where he produces a show that uncovers news. Information with a payoff...You may think you know what Dan Rather and HDNet will do together. But you dont [sic]. You have no idea. I will tell you that there wont be any corporate considerations. No earnings per share issues. No worries about advertisers and what they might think.
Cuban may be a billionaire and a bit too much of a distraction for NBA purists, but this billionaire is trying to spend his money on returning Dan Rather to where he belongs -- reporting. And I realize that it's accepted to mock Dan Rather for his foibles, but the dude is a newsman. Let him continue to be that.
Combine Cuban's Rather negotiations with Cuban's funding of a white collar crime investigation website, and what you have is a do-gooder with many, many dollars to throw at do-gooding. So please govern your opinions accordingly.
Plus also go Mavs.
Posted by mrbrent at 01:03 PM
June 19, 2006
forecast: soupy
Attention, whiners of Northeast America! Today it will be very, very hot and humid outside.You know what to do; get to it.
Remember also that your careers are stalled, and your teeth ache.
Posted by mrbrent at 09:40 AM
June 15, 2006
generic dismissal of president
I just can't figure that darn President out. Bush sneaks in and out of Iraq like he's meeting his mistress or something, and then people with certain media-type jobs get all excited about a Bush comeback, like he's actually accomplished one damn thing.It is as if the President is much more concerned with being liked than anything else, demonstrating his capacity to visit people and look people in the eyes. Assuming they can see, of course. Dude is going to try to kiss babies his way into the history books -- "Most Likeable Failed President Ever".
Actually, the trip to Iraq was not so much a midnight tryst with a mistress as it was a midnight tryst with another country. President Bush is cheating on us. He is seeing another electorate on the side.
In which case, obviously, I want a divorce.
Posted by mrbrent at 11:18 AM
June 14, 2006
and they called him the flash
FIFA World Cup news from the Yahoo! Saucy Headline Box of Fun:• Fan on field exposes World Cup security flaws
My understanding was that's not what fans on the field customarily expose.
It's a brave new soccer world, and less naked.
Posted by mrbrent at 10:22 AM
June 13, 2006
palate cleanse
Time to wash the taste of the rants out of the mouth for the brief moment. And what better to make you forget your relative shitty political perspective than a nice heady dose of linguistics and cognitive science.I'm an amateur at these disciplines -- only a very basic understanding. A pre-collegiate understanding. But this story is approachable by us laypersons. Basically, the hook that researchers have found a language that reverses the space-time relationship (i.e., past is behind, and future is ahead) that all other known languages share. The language is that of the Aymara, an indigenous population of the Andes in South America. And according to the researchers, the Aymara physically (metaphorically) locate time in reverse, in both language and gesture. When talking about something that happened a time ago, an Aymara will gesture in front of their person, and vice versa.
Which of course conjures up all sorts of question about how we (and I guess it's a big we) physically locate temporal questions, and why, and whether it makes any sense to try to express aspects of times in a three dimensional world at all.
It's a big thinking question. So please stop working and start thinking.
As a bonus, the Aymara also have another peculiarity:
The Aymara place a great deal of significance on whether an event or action has been seen or not seen by the speaker. A "simple" unqualified statement like "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue" is not possible in Aymara – the sentence would necessarily also have to specify whether the speaker had personally witnessed this or was reporting hearsay.
I only find this interesting because I too have this evidentiary quirk, which has been enraging my friends for years. I find it difficult to answer a commonplace vague question if I can't summon up a concrete answer. For example, "How was your vacation?" in your basic phone conversation would send me into vaporlock, as it is a question that requires more than a one sentence, or even one page, answer. Same with questions regarding the welfare of someone you just e-mailed -- "How is he?" Generally, the answer I give is, "The e-mail didn't say," or some other nonsense which makes my friends not want to talk to me on the phone.
So, yes, sign me up for Aymara night classes, please.
[Brought to attention by Ellis.]
Posted by mrbrent at 11:21 AM
karl rove, still a free man
I will not be pulling my hair out today fretting about the non-fate of Karl Rove. If the big GOP victory of the week is that of a suspected criminal escaping indictment, then that goes a long way to characterize the moral depth and utility of said GOP. So, please, celebrate, that wouldn't be out of place at all.And one minor side point. Where exactly does the news of Rove's non-indictment come from? His lawyer. From the A.P. story by John Solomon:
[Rove's] Attorney Robert Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of Rove.
First of all, would it not be the common journalistic practice to obtain confirmation from the prosecutor before running the story? I doubt that Luskin is lying, but he's a lawyer, and he's Rove's lawyer. He is not a disinterested source.
Of course, this is not so hard to believe, as the journalist in question is John Solomon. The big surprise is not the questionable nature of the scoop; the big surprise is that the scoop does not mention Harry Reid.
Posted by mrbrent at 08:50 AM
June 12, 2006
everyone, your soul needs a shower
The Yahoo! Headlines-In-A-Box secretly thinks you're creepy. Lead headline for a Monday morning:• Zarqawi lived for 52 minutes after strike
I have many thoughts about the murder-by-500-pound-bombs of Zarqawi (including a thought about how Zarqawi was less Public Enemy Number One and more a two bit Jordanian thug happy to take public credit for a movement), but I think the bigger question is this:
When did we as a society become a big honking Death Cult?
I've seen more pictures of this dead guy's face (both cleaned and uncleaned versions) in newspapers and on television this past weekend than I've seen of most dead guys, ever. I'm not opposed to military victory, and whether Zarqawi was Lex Luther or Peter Braunstein, fucker had a lot of innocent blood on his hands. So, yay, less murders. But do we need to be fixated on his corpse? Do we need to obsess about how long Zarqawi survived after the bombs fell? He's dead. He's one in a long line of dead guys. Let's move on, to the World Cup, or Pale Male, or, hey! How about a viable plan for an independent Iraq? Just cool it with the morbidity. I've got friends with kids, and I don't wanna have to explain the reasoning about dragging a cadaver out for a song and dance.
As long as I'm going here, is there anything about us as a society that is redeeming and not nauseating? Anything? A love of poetry? Even the beginnings of a generosity of spirit?
Rhetorical question. Move along. I'm sure that the day will bring some new atrocity to burn our grits.
Posted by mrbrent at 10:06 AM
get the fuck out of my car
Last week I let the Tom DeLay and the Anne Coulter incidents pass without comment. This would be out of character for me, as usually when everybody else is posting about a specific topic, I'm right there with my e-two cents. Plus also I been haterizing on Tom DeLay since waaay before it was fashionable (1998, and I got an audience full of witnesses), so how could I not give him one last literary kick in the nuts on the day of his retirement?Basically the reason is that I am better than they are. No, not "better" in the sense of "not willing to lower myself to that level". I'm more than willing to lower myself to their level. Tom DeLay is one of those lucky idiots who stumble into a world where meanness of spirit is an advantage, and Coulter has the kind of raw sexual presence that makes castration look like a happy alternative.
I mean better in the sense of "quantified goodness". I'm better than they are intrinsically. They are beneath notice, and each of them thrives on notice. Each of them can attribute their success to provoking and outraging. Coulter stepped on the toes of a nation and laughed all the way to the bank; DeLay used his outrageous tactics (impeaching the President over a perjury trap) to mask his more insidious efforts (gerrymeandering the GOP into a permanent majority). Without an audience, each of them loses relevance.
And so, back when these matters were "breaking", no notice for them. DeLay can fade away to a wealthy Texas existence (once he's out of jail), as his body waits for the day to be forever separated from his pernicious soul. Coulter can retire to the life of the skanky ho-bag who haunts the airport bars with tales how she used to be on TV, don't you know who she is!?!
And both of them can sleep soundly in their individual material wealth with the knowledge that it came at the expense of the continued viability of the Republican party.
Posted by mrbrent at 09:29 AM
June 08, 2006
eat the rich
Finally, some good news from the Yahoo! Wunnerful Magical Headline Box:• Senate rejects GOP effort to cut estate tax
Rejects? How much longer must the ultra-wealthy continue to pay their fair share of the tax burden? It's not like the rich actually need anything that the taxes pay for, like infrastructure, for example. The rich don't use roads -- they float, on puffy clouds of kajillion dollar bills! And paying for the armed services? The rich don't serve in the armed services. Why should they pay for it?
Oh, the poor little ultra-rich.
I'm sure this issue will raise its ugly head again soon, but today we can take small solace.
Posted by mrbrent at 11:50 AM
June 07, 2006
jeffrey goldberg
This would mark the first time The New Yorker has pissed me off. I, like many people of similar circumstance, subscribe to The New Yorker. I think my mom got me hooked up in my teens when it became evident that Gotham had more interest for me than those silly Ivys. And at any given time, I've got a foot-high stack of New Yorkers that I need to sift through, or even, on those rainy days, power scan for the features worth plowing through.Lately, I've been grabbing a random issue on my way out the door for subway reading. This morning I had an issue from two weeks ago, and it included an article that I'd heard about. It was an analysis piece from Jeffrey Goldberg about the fate of the Democrat party, it's apparent empty-cupboard strategy for big themes, etc.
I got a thousand or so words into it, and I hit this:
[Howard] Dean got his loudest applause when he suggested that Republicans were conniving with the manufacturers of electronic voting machines, and he singled out Diebold, a favorite target of bloggers whose rage against the Bush Administration seems limitless.
I know we've hit an age of equivalency, where facts are only one side of an argument, but give me a fucking break. To characterize Diebold as "a favorite target of bloggers whose rage against the Bush Administration seems limitless" is perhaps factually correct, but not without the requisite sucker-punch to progressives who a) suspect that Diebold is making no small portion of its profits by fixing elections, and b) believe that its not possible to reserve contempt for an administration hell-bent on destroying, if not the planet, then the lives of the least wealthy 99% of humans. You may smirk at us for feeling this way, but then that would make you a journalist with somewhat of a lapdog perspective, and perhaps your blowjobbery would be more appreciated elsewhere.
Yeah, maybe my rage is limitless, but I don't see a lot of ink wasted in the New Yorker a lot of ink on the ends-justifying lies and dirty tricks perpetrated in order to keep power where it is right now. Which is the source of the rage. What is the source of Goldberg's smirk?
The Administration is the bully that whines when the easy munch-money mark starts fighting back; Goldberg is the moron prig who wags a finger at the mark for kicking the bully's ass.
No, I didn't read anything in the article beyond that sentence.
Posted by mrbrent at 11:20 AM
corporations are wrong
One of these days, I'm gonna pick me a fist fight with some corporations. I'm just gonna call 'em out -- hey, you, you with the limited liability, how bout we step outside and discuss things mano a mano? I'm just sick of grumbling to myself, and it's about time I saved the world with my fists.I know that my allergic reaction to corporations makes me un-American and all that, but the good news is that if I get called un-American only two more times, I get a free ice cream cone in either France or Canada.
Why am I all haterizing on innocent little corporations? Corporations are the embodiment of greed, and I don't mean metaphorically. They are a construct accorded the rights of a person under US law (nope, not kidding, though an admittedly complex issue), but they are not constrained by anything resembling an actual person's conscience. Instead, a corporate has one imperative: increase shareholder value. And as such, these entities achieve a sort of sentience, forever increasing shareholder value without scruple. To accuse a corporation of exploitation, say, is useless, as exploitation is pretty much the sole aim of the entity in the first place.
Corporations are Skynet. They are the singularity. Corporations have figured out that workforce and consumers are not necessary to increase shareholder profit and are therefor expendable. So sing yourself to sleep with this: corporations (and big business, by extension) does not care if you live or die, as long as they make a buck.
And that's on top of the corporate influence over the shitty social policy that Americans have to endure every day.
And if my words fail you, how about a long post about the economic realities of these modern times, complete with many graphs? Let me direct your attention to this DailyKos diary. Therein you will find many numbers and squiggles that go a long way to prove the assertion that corporations are taking a bigger bite of the aggregate wealth generated nationally, and they are dispersing this bigger bite to their executives.
Yeah, the rich get richer, so what, right? Unfortunately, the fantastic riches have to come from somewhere. They come from your generic employee, whose real wage has stagnated for the past ten years, and they come from the US Treasury in the form of the Bush tax cuts. Less money for us, less money for social programs, more money for multibillionaires.
Not the sexiest of arguments for a rainy day but it's filled with truth nuggets. And sure, there are many examples of corporations that ain't all that bad, but to a one you will discover tight control of these entities by good people, and, if you think about it, these good people might not be the best execs in the world, as there is nothing inherent in good and responsible behavior that increases shareholder value.
Which is why I offer to beat corporations like a rented, red-headed step-mule.
More haterizing on corporations here.
Posted by mrbrent at 10:11 AM
June 06, 2006
now go look up the third amendment
Just a quick link to some funny. And not what passes for funny in the circles of Atrios and DailyKos, because that stuff hurts my freakin fillings. I brushed up against this theme a few months ago, but Bob Harris takes it all the way home:Bush Abrogates Third Amendment, Just to Complete the Set
Constitutional law humor just gets my motor running, brah.
Posted by mrbrent at 01:57 PM
down with florid journalism
I only kid the NYTimes because I love the NYTimes. Today's edition has a story [let's see how long the link works] from Adam Nagourney reporting on the looming '06 congressional races. It's not a bad story. It's fine. Unfortunately, it contains this sentence (italics mine):But even for candidates who will not face the voters for five months, the campaign is shaping up as not only the most contested midterm election in over a decade, but also the most substantive.
Um this would be either the third or fourth (depending how much "over" the decade is) midterm election in the past "over a decade". I'm pretty sure that "most contested of the past three midterm elections" is not the sexy Nagourney was looking for.
Or maybe he's slipping quiet irony into the NYTimes.
That sounds a lot dirtier than intended.
Posted by mrbrent at 10:11 AM
June 05, 2006
privilege and its discontents
This is a funny feeling. I remember back when you'd have a friend who had a friend (etc.) who worked somewhere adjacent to the television industry, and they'd have these bootlegged audio/videocassettes that they would dupe for you, and then you and your compatriots would sit back and enjoy the goodness, not a little bit smugly, as you had an access to the goodness that your average citizen did not enjoy.What would be on these videos? Oh, stuff like William Shatner singing "Rocket Man". Yeah, welcome to the party, Double Viking. Wake me when you've posted the drunken Lewis and Martin radio promo outtakes.
I feel like kayfabe's been broken for the world. But I'm just a whiny geezer.
Posted by mrbrent at 10:52 AM
forecast: partly bloggy
On some days, everybody on the Internet writes posts about the same thing. Today is one of those days. This afternoon, the President will conduct a large-ish dog and pony show devoted to the codification of hating gays. Then everyone will write about it. People like us will wring hands and point at threadbareness of pandering political opportunism, and the others will be all like, "Yay, hate!"Of course, the thousands of words that will be volleyed back and forth will mean that the administration's strategy is in some small way working, as there are many things we should instead be talking about. However, our wit and sexiness should count for something, I hope.
Anyhow, please take cover from impending blogstorm.
Posted by mrbrent at 09:22 AM
June 02, 2006
bob and larry, tomato, cuke
Buried inside the headsratching was the ridiculous. This morning's NYTimes ran a little story on the frontpage about how some sports franchises (mostly minor league baseball and arena league football) are running what they call "Faith Nights". Faith Nights are promotional events like Bat Nights, where they hand out bats to the kids. The difference being, of course, that the teams aren't handing out faith. No, it's more like Fireworks night, because at Faith Night, the faith is just asploding all around you. Biblical bobbleheads. Scripture/verse citations on the home team unis. Prayer rugs.Oop. No, no prayer rugs. Wrong "faith".
I don't generally support picking on mainstream Christians on the grounds that the majority of them have no problem interfacing with the rest of us. But it's these "Faith Nights" and similar events that get me worried. A certain group of Christians seem to have lost the ability to exist in a secular world, and feel the need to create these little rifts in the fabric of the world where theocracy is permitted, whether it be a minor league ballpark, or a little town in Kansas where unmarried couples may not cohabitate.
Christians, meet the Amish. Talk amongst yourselves.
Further, the NYTimes story jumped to the sports section, where it ran with a picture of what-looked like the Kool-Aid dude and a giant walking dildo standing on the mound of a ball-field, and was very excited by the prospect of the glaring editorial error. It was not to be:
[Brent High, President of Third Coast Sports] joined forces with VeggieTales, a popular line of Christian-themed children's videos, books and music featuring animated vegetables. VeggieTales' slogan is "Sunday morning values, Saturday morning fun," and Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber have become fixtures at Faith Nights around the country.
I'm all for everyone proselytizing their chosen religion up and down (it's a free country, natch), but if the best you can do is anthropomorphic garden vegetables spreading the Good News of Christ, you're just setting yourself up for some eventual righteously pissed apostates, once they realize that they got took by a tomato and a cucumber. The big difference between a talking tomato and a talking, oh, say, duck? We only sometimes eat a duck.
And for that matter, why does Christian indoctrination of its youth always resemble the garish offspring of brainwashing and blackmail? I only say this as a veteran of Vacation Bible School, where we were taught that Jesus will love you with cartoons and cake, unless you fail to "take Jesus into your heart", in which case, cue the longish description of the horrors of being cast to the fiery below.
Is it any shock that coming around from all that can produce a profound feeling of agnosticism?
Posted by mrbrent at 11:23 AM
June 01, 2006
no news today, try again tomorrow
Is it a slow day at the Yahoo! Box of Headlines?• Look back at June 1 in history
I'd say so, yes.
Posted by mrbrent at 10:01 AM