Saturday, December 19, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
I have a lot of work to do...
...which of course means, cat video time!! I'm afraid to say it, but my cat is almost as bad as this one:
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Mad Men is disappointing...
SPOILERS BELOW
The first two seasons of Mad Men were great; mysteries, inappropriate comments, drinking like fish throughout the workday - fabulous.
But now, as we near the end of the 3rd season, it's unclear what the point is anymore. We get it: suburban life is stifling and the Mad Men early-60s society is on the brink of dramatic change (possibly?). Don Draper is a mean, womanizing bastard who occasionally cuts someone down in a funny way. He's hot; we get it.
I was excited by Betty's discovery last week, only for it to go nowhere. There's the hope she'll confront Don, or at least have another tryst in the bathroom of some NYC bar again, but so what?
The episodes this season have been meandering and incomplete, and it seems like the writers/directors/producers are self-consciously trying to create a meditative or contemplative atmosphere in the show that simply falls flat.
The show gets a lot of accolades, but in the third season it is truly about nothing. Aside from the fabulous Joan, who cares about these people? They are all awful. They've completely ruined the Peggy story-arch by having her screw Ducky... that was so pathetic.
I'm hoping for a comeback, but expecting to be disappointed over the next month!
The first two seasons of Mad Men were great; mysteries, inappropriate comments, drinking like fish throughout the workday - fabulous.
But now, as we near the end of the 3rd season, it's unclear what the point is anymore. We get it: suburban life is stifling and the Mad Men early-60s society is on the brink of dramatic change (possibly?). Don Draper is a mean, womanizing bastard who occasionally cuts someone down in a funny way. He's hot; we get it.
I was excited by Betty's discovery last week, only for it to go nowhere. There's the hope she'll confront Don, or at least have another tryst in the bathroom of some NYC bar again, but so what?
The episodes this season have been meandering and incomplete, and it seems like the writers/directors/producers are self-consciously trying to create a meditative or contemplative atmosphere in the show that simply falls flat.
The show gets a lot of accolades, but in the third season it is truly about nothing. Aside from the fabulous Joan, who cares about these people? They are all awful. They've completely ruined the Peggy story-arch by having her screw Ducky... that was so pathetic.
I'm hoping for a comeback, but expecting to be disappointed over the next month!
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Radical lawyer, William Kunstler
There are many people I find inspiring, and William Kunstler is one of them. He was a controversial lawyer who represented a wide-range of clients, including the American Indian Movement and John Gotti.
His daughters produced a documentary about his life as a lawyer and a father. Here's the trailer:
His daughters produced a documentary about his life as a lawyer and a father. Here's the trailer:
Monday, October 19, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
10/13
Happy Birthday Chris Carter!
Found this on the interscapes... the sound is sometimes off from the video but it's still funny:
Found this on the interscapes... the sound is sometimes off from the video but it's still funny:
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Movies
After nearly a six month hiatus, I went to the movies today and saw Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore's latest opus about the corruption that led to the economic meltdown.
He is pretty masterful at tugging at your heart strings, and even though I knew was being manipulated emotionally I was glad I went along for the ride. Seeing this movie now couldn't have been timelier - it helps me stay in touch with the reasons I decided to be a lawyer, and the kind of person I want to be when I begin practicing...
On a lighter note, there were some great trailers before the film! I'm excited for both of these:
Ewan and Clooney together!
Alec Baldwin, Meryl Streep, Steve Martin, John Krasinksi!!
He is pretty masterful at tugging at your heart strings, and even though I knew was being manipulated emotionally I was glad I went along for the ride. Seeing this movie now couldn't have been timelier - it helps me stay in touch with the reasons I decided to be a lawyer, and the kind of person I want to be when I begin practicing...
On a lighter note, there were some great trailers before the film! I'm excited for both of these:
Ewan and Clooney together!
Alec Baldwin, Meryl Streep, Steve Martin, John Krasinksi!!
Be wary of white men who co-opt Native traditions
Not all who co-opt traditions, culture, and spirituality are necessarily bad.
Michael Meade is someone I really admire, and I am no New Ager. Meade is a poet and storyteller who weaves together the philosophical and spiritual teachings of many different cultures across the world to help find perspective and meaning in life when (at least in America) it seems that traditions, reflection, perspective, meaning, and purpose are not valued things.
Anyway, my point is, there is a lot to learn from other cultures and perspectives, but it should be done in a respectful manner. There should never be a tragedy like what happened this weekend in Sedona.
This weekend, James Arthur Ray hosted a "Spiritual Warrior" retreat in Sedona. Ray is a motivational speaker affiliated with The Secret (which I think is worth checking out). He has been blessed by Oprah and charges a shit-ton of cash to see him espouse his wisdom and insight. The retreat in Sedona was sold at $9,665.00 per person.
Part of the retreat featured a "sweat lodge purification ceremony." As far as I can tell, the ceremony was not done in conformity with Native traditions, placing participants at great risk. They crammed about 64 people inside a make-shift, tent-like structure that was only about 400 square feet, had them remain in the small space and the heat for several hours.
Two people died and another 19 needed to be treated for burns and other ailments. Here is a news report regarding the incident:
One news report pointed out the problems with the "ceremony":
A local resident was interviewed for the same report:
James Arthur Ray has left Arizona and is refusing to discuss the incident with investigators.
He's sending dispatches from his Twitter account, saying he's been in constant prayer and meditation for the lives that have been lost. I guess this is guru speak for "I'm maintaining constant contact with my lawyer."
Michael Meade is someone I really admire, and I am no New Ager. Meade is a poet and storyteller who weaves together the philosophical and spiritual teachings of many different cultures across the world to help find perspective and meaning in life when (at least in America) it seems that traditions, reflection, perspective, meaning, and purpose are not valued things.
Anyway, my point is, there is a lot to learn from other cultures and perspectives, but it should be done in a respectful manner. There should never be a tragedy like what happened this weekend in Sedona.
This weekend, James Arthur Ray hosted a "Spiritual Warrior" retreat in Sedona. Ray is a motivational speaker affiliated with The Secret (which I think is worth checking out). He has been blessed by Oprah and charges a shit-ton of cash to see him espouse his wisdom and insight. The retreat in Sedona was sold at $9,665.00 per person.
Part of the retreat featured a "sweat lodge purification ceremony." As far as I can tell, the ceremony was not done in conformity with Native traditions, placing participants at great risk. They crammed about 64 people inside a make-shift, tent-like structure that was only about 400 square feet, had them remain in the small space and the heat for several hours.
Two people died and another 19 needed to be treated for burns and other ailments. Here is a news report regarding the incident:
One news report pointed out the problems with the "ceremony":
The ritual in sweat lodges is helpful in restoring balance and changing people's attitudes and self-image, said Joseph Bruchac, author of "The Native American Sweat Lodge: History and Legends."
People have died in sweat lodges in the past. They were either sick tribal elders who voluntarily stayed until they died or people who were in poor health.
"The sweat lodge needs to be respected," Bruchac said. "When you imitate someone's tradition, and you don't know what you are doing, there's a danger of doing something very wrong."
A local resident was interviewed for the same report:
Sedona is an international mecca for New Age beliefs and purportedly the site of numerous "vortexes," or natural energy confluences thought to enhance spirituality and well-being.
Some questioned why there were so many people in the sweat lodge at once.
Jennifer Gentry, a sales associate at Sedona Crystal Vortex in uptown Sedona, said that she has been in several sweat-lodge ceremonies and that they typically are events for four to five people, maybe as many as 10, but never something she has done with strangers.
"In my opinion, it's a sacred ceremony," she said. "You shouldn't sell it, and you shouldn't have that many people in it."
James Arthur Ray has left Arizona and is refusing to discuss the incident with investigators.
He's sending dispatches from his Twitter account, saying he's been in constant prayer and meditation for the lives that have been lost. I guess this is guru speak for "I'm maintaining constant contact with my lawyer."
Friday, October 2, 2009
Hope this makes up for my absence...
So many clips from TDS are worth sharing but this one was the best from last week:
I thought this series of ads was cool. I saw one for the first time this week. There are different versions... here's one:
And, an extended preview for the documentary on the National Parks by Ken Burns. One of my dream jobs would be to practice natural resources law focusing on the protection of our National Parks!
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Democratic Super Majority | ||||
| ||||
I thought this series of ads was cool. I saw one for the first time this week. There are different versions... here's one:
And, an extended preview for the documentary on the National Parks by Ken Burns. One of my dream jobs would be to practice natural resources law focusing on the protection of our National Parks!
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Megan Fox needs to go back to obscurity
This is highly amusing...
Lucky you if you don't know about Megan Fox and Michael Bay. The former is famous for her roles in the heavy-hitting dramas, Transformers and Transformers 2. The latter is the director of such masterpieces.
Well, it turns out that the two of them have had a falling out, and it may or may not be because they screwed. We'll probably never know for sure.
The proverbial shit hit the fan when Fox upped the ante and called Michael Bay "Hitler." At that point, even crew members had to intervene and post a scathing letter on Michael Bay's website.
Some excerpts from the letter (read the whole sordid thing here):
Lucky you if you don't know about Megan Fox and Michael Bay. The former is famous for her roles in the heavy-hitting dramas, Transformers and Transformers 2. The latter is the director of such masterpieces.
Well, it turns out that the two of them have had a falling out, and it may or may not be because they screwed. We'll probably never know for sure.
The proverbial shit hit the fan when Fox upped the ante and called Michael Bay "Hitler." At that point, even crew members had to intervene and post a scathing letter on Michael Bay's website.
Some excerpts from the letter (read the whole sordid thing here):
Yes, Megan has great eyes, a tight stomach we spray with glycerin, and an awful silly Marilyn Monroe tattoo plastered on her arm that we cover up to keep the moms happy.
Michael found this shy, inexperienced girl, plucked her out of total obscurity thus giving her the biggest shot of any young actresses' life. He told everyone around to just trust him on his choice. He granted her the starring role in Transformers, a franchise that forever changed her life; she became one of the most googled and oogled women on earth. She was famous! She was the next Angelina Jolie, hooray! Wait a minute, two of us worked with Angelina – second thought – she's no Angelina. You see, Angelia is a professional.
We know this quite intimately because we've had the tedious experience of working with the dumb-as-a-rock Megan Fox on both Transformers movies.
*****
When facing the press, Megan is the queen of talking trailer trash and posing like a porn star. And yes we've had the unbearable time of watching her try to act on set, and yes, it's very cringe-able. So maybe, being a porn star in the future might be a good career option. But make-up beware, she has a paragraph tattooed to her backside (probably due her rotten childhood) easily another 45 minutes in the chair!
*****
She compared working with Michael, to "working with Hitler". We actually don't think she knows who Hitler is by the way. But we wondered how she doesn't realize what a disgusting, fully uneducated comment this was?
*****
On our first day in Egypt, the Egyptian government wouldn't let us shoot because of a permit problem as the actors got ready in make up at the Four Seasons Hotel. Michael tried to make the best of it; he wanted to take the cast and crew on a private tour of the famous Giza pyramids. God hold us witness, Megan said, "I can't believe Michael is fucking forcing us to go to the fucking pyramids!" I guess this is the "Hitler guy" she is referring to.
So this is the Megan Fox you don't get to see. Maybe she will learn, but we figure if she can sling insults, then she can take them too. Megan really is a thankless, classless, graceless, and shall we say unfriendly bitch.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Scary
You think corporations have too much influence over politics?
Well wait until the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its position on laws restricting the ability of corporations to donate freely to political campaigns and even campaign directly on the behalf of political campaigns.
Your next president, brought to you by ExxonMobil or The Carlyle Group. Gee, I wonder what party/kind of politician they'd support?
Well wait until the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its position on laws restricting the ability of corporations to donate freely to political campaigns and even campaign directly on the behalf of political campaigns.
Your next president, brought to you by ExxonMobil or The Carlyle Group. Gee, I wonder what party/kind of politician they'd support?
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Love this snarky shit
I've been watching "At the Movies" since I was a kid, and I'm not exaggerating. From it's days as Siskel and Ebert, to Ebert and Roeper (after Siskel died), to Roeper with different guest critics after Ebert became too ill. The show was great and I looked forward to it each week.
I can't tell you how PISSED I was when ABC decided to tart up the show by revamping it into utter nonsense.
Well, ABC has heeded the call of lots of angry fans and shit-canned the two imbeciles. Two awesome and totally-worth-watching critics A.O. Scott of the NYT and Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune will now host the show. The first episode of the new and improved "At the Movies" will air on 9/5/09.... Yay!
I can't tell you how PISSED I was when ABC decided to tart up the show by revamping it into utter nonsense.
Well, ABC has heeded the call of lots of angry fans and shit-canned the two imbeciles. Two awesome and totally-worth-watching critics A.O. Scott of the NYT and Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune will now host the show. The first episode of the new and improved "At the Movies" will air on 9/5/09.... Yay!
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
2009 Medal of Freedom Recipients
The full list (and biographies) are here. Some of the recipients:
Stephen Hawking
Sen. Edward Kennedy
Joseph Medicine Crow
Harvey Milk
Sandra Day O'Connor
Sydney Poitier
Mary Robinson
Desmond Tutu
Muhammad Yunus
Stephen Hawking
Sen. Edward Kennedy
Joseph Medicine Crow
Harvey Milk
Sandra Day O'Connor
Sydney Poitier
Mary Robinson
Desmond Tutu
Muhammad Yunus
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Another reason to hate Congress
I don't follow much of the Health Care Reform debacle, mostly because it is difficult to get past propaganda on either side of the issue to actually understand it.
What I do understand is that Obama has given Congress a directive to pass legislation that conforms to certain parameters he's established (what all of them are, I have no idea). Then these parameters are put through the Congressional Clusterfuck Generator to produce legislation that appears to address these parameters, but actually offers a windfall to those companies/industries that were supposed to be "reformed."
Take, for example, the pharmaceutical industry. In this article by the Wall Street Journal (always on the front lines ready to criticize the Democrats), the authors point out how no real "change" is likely to be forthcoming for some of Obama's parameters (namely, cheaper drugs available to Americans). In fact, what's being proposed is the following:
--- No cheaper drugs from Canada
--- No power for the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices
--- Name-brand drugs get 12 years on the market before generics are sold
From the article:
UPDATE: The Associated Press is trying to cut through the bullshit, which helps.
What I do understand is that Obama has given Congress a directive to pass legislation that conforms to certain parameters he's established (what all of them are, I have no idea). Then these parameters are put through the Congressional Clusterfuck Generator to produce legislation that appears to address these parameters, but actually offers a windfall to those companies/industries that were supposed to be "reformed."
Take, for example, the pharmaceutical industry. In this article by the Wall Street Journal (always on the front lines ready to criticize the Democrats), the authors point out how no real "change" is likely to be forthcoming for some of Obama's parameters (namely, cheaper drugs available to Americans). In fact, what's being proposed is the following:
--- No cheaper drugs from Canada
--- No power for the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices
--- Name-brand drugs get 12 years on the market before generics are sold
From the article:
"This is the best year the drug industry has had in decades," said Nancy LeaMond of AARP, the seniors' lobby, which is seeking greater price-cutting on drugs.
***
If Mr. Obama retreats on some drug-industry issues, it might help him land a much bigger prize: a broad health-care bill. "The motivation for the White House and Finance Committee is to take PhRMA and its money out of any possible opposition, and that's really what's driving these agreements, along with the desire to get financing for the bill," said John Rother, another AARP lobbyist, referring to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. "Think about who has money enough to cause a problem."
UPDATE: The Associated Press is trying to cut through the bullshit, which helps.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Let me put it this way
You don't want your A/C to stop working in the middle of July in Arizona. I'm working at home in the midst of it, because no A/C in July with a locked up pet = emergency here. It's been out for about 8 hours now; hopefully fixed soon. They are working on it.
It's 107 outside and Franky is chilling in the bathtub waiting for the heat to subside (poor babes).
It's 107 outside and Franky is chilling in the bathtub waiting for the heat to subside (poor babes).
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Michael & Michael Have Issues
A new Comedy Central show featuring Michael Ian Black and Michael Showalter. They are both from The State (if y'all remember that show?). Here's a clip:
| Michael & Michael Have Issues | Premieres Wed, July 15, 10:30pm / 9:30c | |||
| Fighting for the Intern | ||||
| ||||
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Strange times
I just came across the news that the woman who inspired the famous Rosie the Riveter ad passed away on June 28.
It's very strange how many people are dying, no? On the flipside I know of a LOT of people who are having babies... so many in fact, that I daydream about getting knocked up. Love that biological clock!
It's very strange how many people are dying, no? On the flipside I know of a LOT of people who are having babies... so many in fact, that I daydream about getting knocked up. Love that biological clock!
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Peets - the new Starbucks? Please say no.
I'm on the Peet's email list because (1) I'm a freak and (2) I'm always wondering when I might place an order to have shipped to me.
Today I got an email about a new product line: bottled teas they are selling in select stores:
I know things can't stay the same forever, and they probably shouldn't, but I remember when I worked there forever ago (1996-1997) the menu was still in Italian and we never used fake flavoring. It was all natch to the point that we had to hand-mix chocolate syrup (from ground cocoa powder) that was barely sweet at all. It was important never to serve super-sweet drinks.
People were ridiculous and pretentious about the coffee and the tea, but in my opinion they totally deserved to be. I'm still a loyal Peet's fan... just worried my precious Peet's may go the way of the bottled frappuccino.
Today I got an email about a new product line: bottled teas they are selling in select stores:
I know things can't stay the same forever, and they probably shouldn't, but I remember when I worked there forever ago (1996-1997) the menu was still in Italian and we never used fake flavoring. It was all natch to the point that we had to hand-mix chocolate syrup (from ground cocoa powder) that was barely sweet at all. It was important never to serve super-sweet drinks.
People were ridiculous and pretentious about the coffee and the tea, but in my opinion they totally deserved to be. I'm still a loyal Peet's fan... just worried my precious Peet's may go the way of the bottled frappuccino.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Please, sweet baby Jesus, stop the freak show
Anyone else disturbed at this "outpouring of love" over Michael Jackson? He didn't have a face and he was a child molester. I say good riddance.
The insanity is reaching heights no one thought possible (note the guy in drag(?) playing the damsel in distress):
At least the fact that nearly every goddamn TV station is parsing every single aspect of his life 24 hours per day gives me a reason to keep the TV turned off. Mother Eff.
The insanity is reaching heights no one thought possible (note the guy in drag(?) playing the damsel in distress):
At least the fact that nearly every goddamn TV station is parsing every single aspect of his life 24 hours per day gives me a reason to keep the TV turned off. Mother Eff.
"Change"? "Hope"?
Indefinite detention goes against our fundamental American beliefs. It is shameful that we are continuing to do this even if the threat from these detainees is real.
Our founding fathers supported freedom and liberty - enshrining those values in our Bill of Rights - despite the risk involved in giving people "too much" freedom. As a country I thought we abandoned the Bush era perspective where national security trumped civil liberties?
I'm sure there will be more court battles and Supreme Court decisions, most certainly placing limitations on Obama. Time will tell.
Our founding fathers supported freedom and liberty - enshrining those values in our Bill of Rights - despite the risk involved in giving people "too much" freedom. As a country I thought we abandoned the Bush era perspective where national security trumped civil liberties?
I'm sure there will be more court battles and Supreme Court decisions, most certainly placing limitations on Obama. Time will tell.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
True Blood
Delicious. I love this show already.
One of the characters said "you're dumber than a box of hair!" - They had to hear that one from Suzie!!
One of the characters said "you're dumber than a box of hair!" - They had to hear that one from Suzie!!
Monday, June 1, 2009
Happy June!
Summer is here (it's 100+ degrees daily now) and it's looking to be a good one.
I finished all five seasons of The Wire and plan to go back and re-watch them again. If you haven't seen The Wire, check out this video with the show's creator, David Simon. They show some clips from the show but nothing too revealing plot-wise.
Since finishing The Wire, I started reading the Harry Potter series (2 down, 5 to go) and watching True Blood - which I already love. Wowsa, vampires are HOT. I can almost tolerate the Southern accents because this show is already so good (I've only seen 2 episodes).
Today is the first installment of the David Lynch Interview Project, an online video series with new episodes released every three days for a year.
Last but not least, I'm going to start writing about places to chow in Phoenix (since I can't talk about my job, other than saying that I love it, which I do). Such post forthcoming!
I finished all five seasons of The Wire and plan to go back and re-watch them again. If you haven't seen The Wire, check out this video with the show's creator, David Simon. They show some clips from the show but nothing too revealing plot-wise.
Since finishing The Wire, I started reading the Harry Potter series (2 down, 5 to go) and watching True Blood - which I already love. Wowsa, vampires are HOT. I can almost tolerate the Southern accents because this show is already so good (I've only seen 2 episodes).
Today is the first installment of the David Lynch Interview Project, an online video series with new episodes released every three days for a year.
Last but not least, I'm going to start writing about places to chow in Phoenix (since I can't talk about my job, other than saying that I love it, which I do). Such post forthcoming!
Monday, May 25, 2009
Some more light reading
... regarding the torture debate: here is an essay written by a former military interrogator who worked at Guantanamo. He offers some strong counter-arguments to Cheney's support of torture.
A snippet:
A snippet:
... the former vice president never mentioned the Senate testimony of Ali Soufan, the FBI interrogator who successfully interrogated Abu Zubaydah and learned the identity of Jose Padilla, the dirty bomber, and the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) was the mastermind behind 9/11. We'll never know what more we could have discovered from Abu Zubaydah had not CIA contractors taken over the interrogations and used waterboarding and other harsh techniques. Also, glaringly absent from the former vice president's speech was any mention of the fact that the former administration never brought Osama bin Laden to justice and that our best chance to locate him would have been through KSM or Abu Zubaydah had they not been waterboarded.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
This American Life
You already know how great this show is, but in case you've missed either of these programs I highly suggest downloading the podcasts:
"Bad Bank" (#375 from 3/1/09): Where the economic crisis is explained in layman's terms. One very poignant moment came when Columbia business school professor David Beim stated the following:
I was able to catch up on all of these during my road trip from AZ to CA. Listening to a bunch of them at the same time can be overwhelming, but they are so well done that they often build on themes raised in other programs creating a multi-layered reflection on current events.
"Bad Bank" (#375 from 3/1/09): Where the economic crisis is explained in layman's terms. One very poignant moment came when Columbia business school professor David Beim stated the following:
What is happening to us is something that goes way beyond toxic assets in banks. It's something that has little to do with the mechanics of mortgage securitization, or ethics on Wall Street, or anything else. It says the problem is us. The problem is not the banks, greedy though they may be, overpaid though they may be. The problem is us. We have over-borrowed, we have been living very high on the hog. Our standard of living has risen dramatically in the last 25 years and we have been borrowing much of the money to make that prosperity happen."Scenes from a Recession" (#377 from 3/29/09): Where they focus on odd stories stemming from the recession, including how condo owners are banding together despite the problems caused by vacancies in their building (like feral cats, sinking foundations and leaking roofs) and how the FDIC takes over a bank.
I was able to catch up on all of these during my road trip from AZ to CA. Listening to a bunch of them at the same time can be overwhelming, but they are so well done that they often build on themes raised in other programs creating a multi-layered reflection on current events.
David Lynch's Interview Project
You may have heard about DL's latest opus, Interview Project. The project feels like one part Studs Terkel, one part Richard Avedon.
Beginning June 1st, and continuing every few days for a few months, you can watch each 3-5 minute interview of the 121-part series at the project's website. One installment is located here (I had trouble embedding it or else I would have posted it directly). Enjoy!
Beginning June 1st, and continuing every few days for a few months, you can watch each 3-5 minute interview of the 121-part series at the project's website. One installment is located here (I had trouble embedding it or else I would have posted it directly). Enjoy!
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Say what you will, the man is inspiring
You know, President Obama is not perfect and I didn't expect him to be. He's got a job no one in their right mind would want. He seems to be carrying forward a lot of Bush-like policies. Time can only tell how things progress in our country.
Nevertheless, he is an amazing speaker. He is masterful in his ability to turn a faux-controversy into a call to action. Enjoy.
Part One:
Part Two:
Part Three:
Nevertheless, he is an amazing speaker. He is masterful in his ability to turn a faux-controversy into a call to action. Enjoy.
Part One:
Part Two:
Part Three:
Monday, May 11, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
"Capitalism appears to be an engine for inequality"
I heard an interesting interview with Joshua Cooper Ramo on the Diane Rehm Show (link to real player audio at the site).
Ramo is the author of The Age of the Unthinkable: Why the New World Disorder Constantly Surprises Us and What We can Do About It (video essay about the book and first chapter posted).
Also, here is a video of his appearance on the Charlie Rose show. It should be noted that Ramo is employed by Kissinger Associates - yes, that Henry Kissinger. So, take that for what you will.
I agree we are in a state of change (and not just the Obama/campaign rhetoric). Our leaders need to emerge from the era when their political and intellectual capacities formed (mid-20th century) and either re-think everything or step aside to allow for new leadership. Our global society is moving so fast and if we don't do anything to help anticipate changes we continue to lose opportunities to improve the lives of people around the globe, enforce the rule of law, and protect the environment.
I think we are in a time that could go in one of two ways: a second Age of Enlightenment or a second Dark Ages. To avoid the latter, we must get back in touch with the principles that underlie who we are as a democracy/civilized nation and what we can do to influence countries around the world to follow our lead.
If we forget what freedom, liberty, and equality should mean in our own society we are powerless to stop violations here and beyond. I, for one, don't want to see America turn into a cesspit and we have to do what we can to stop other countries from devolving into one (through influence or otherwise).
For example, why in 2009 is there a huge market in selling women and children into sexual slavery? This is one example, and there are many. But I think we are in a time where we could restore whatever has been lost from humanity that created these problems. But it requires real leadership - not people controlled by corporate interests and held captive by capitalism.
If that's socialist, so be it. I don't care about the labels; those are for talking heads who hate America.
Ramo is the author of The Age of the Unthinkable: Why the New World Disorder Constantly Surprises Us and What We can Do About It (video essay about the book and first chapter posted).
Also, here is a video of his appearance on the Charlie Rose show. It should be noted that Ramo is employed by Kissinger Associates - yes, that Henry Kissinger. So, take that for what you will.
I agree we are in a state of change (and not just the Obama/campaign rhetoric). Our leaders need to emerge from the era when their political and intellectual capacities formed (mid-20th century) and either re-think everything or step aside to allow for new leadership. Our global society is moving so fast and if we don't do anything to help anticipate changes we continue to lose opportunities to improve the lives of people around the globe, enforce the rule of law, and protect the environment.
I think we are in a time that could go in one of two ways: a second Age of Enlightenment or a second Dark Ages. To avoid the latter, we must get back in touch with the principles that underlie who we are as a democracy/civilized nation and what we can do to influence countries around the world to follow our lead.
If we forget what freedom, liberty, and equality should mean in our own society we are powerless to stop violations here and beyond. I, for one, don't want to see America turn into a cesspit and we have to do what we can to stop other countries from devolving into one (through influence or otherwise).
For example, why in 2009 is there a huge market in selling women and children into sexual slavery? This is one example, and there are many. But I think we are in a time where we could restore whatever has been lost from humanity that created these problems. But it requires real leadership - not people controlled by corporate interests and held captive by capitalism.
If that's socialist, so be it. I don't care about the labels; those are for talking heads who hate America.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
In case you're in da club and have to get those dudes off your jock
Fake engagement rings from Mstaken.com! Hilarious...
Of course, you could go the cheaper route and do what a law school friend does: just tell guys you have genital herpes. Enjoy:
Of course, you could go the cheaper route and do what a law school friend does: just tell guys you have genital herpes. Enjoy:
Friday, May 1, 2009
A new Supreme Court justice in our future...
You've probably heard that Justice Souter is stepping down, apparently because he's sick of D.C. and wants to retire.
Souter is one of the so-called "liberal" justices, appointed by Bush I. He has been on the liberal side of most decisions... Whoever replaces Souter will hopefully be equally liberal (or, at least not a religious ideologue) so that we can hope for a re-aligning of the Supreme Court once Scalia and Thomas step down (which may never happen; I could see them staying until they die on the bench).
There's a lot of buzz surrounding Sonia Sotomayor as a potential nominee. I don't know much about her but all I can say is that I do hope we see a female person of color appointed.
Some may gristle at this idea, because it suggests that the person would "only" be selected because they are a woman. Turns out, you can be *both* qualified and a woman! What a revelation!
I got to meet Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently and part of our conversation was about her nomination to the Supreme Court. At the time, Reagan (the beloved icon of the GOP) was insistent that if he were able to nominate someone to the Court, he would nominate a woman. Her name was on the shortlist of candidates and when she was offered the job, it was her HUSBAND who convinced her to take it. He gave up his successful law practice in Arizona to support her move to the Court.
Her appointment opened up countless possibilities for women in the legal profession. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done, but her appointment signaled a sea change in the perception of women lawyers and the respect they were afforded by their male counterparts.
Today most of the students in law school are women. When Justice O'Connor graduated at the TOP of her class at Stanford law school, not one firm would hire her. The only job she could find was as a paralegal sharing an office with a legal secretary. To this she said, "I was happy I had that job - I would have taken any job I could find!"
Our Supreme Court - and it's "ours," not Justice Scalia's, should reflect the diversity in society. In 2009, we should not continue to let old white men dictate their political agenda to us.
The more we can see women and people of color achieve positions at the highest level in our society the more we can hope that tolerance and progressive idealism will filter down to the masses.
Souter is one of the so-called "liberal" justices, appointed by Bush I. He has been on the liberal side of most decisions... Whoever replaces Souter will hopefully be equally liberal (or, at least not a religious ideologue) so that we can hope for a re-aligning of the Supreme Court once Scalia and Thomas step down (which may never happen; I could see them staying until they die on the bench).
There's a lot of buzz surrounding Sonia Sotomayor as a potential nominee. I don't know much about her but all I can say is that I do hope we see a female person of color appointed.
Some may gristle at this idea, because it suggests that the person would "only" be selected because they are a woman. Turns out, you can be *both* qualified and a woman! What a revelation!
I got to meet Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently and part of our conversation was about her nomination to the Supreme Court. At the time, Reagan (the beloved icon of the GOP) was insistent that if he were able to nominate someone to the Court, he would nominate a woman. Her name was on the shortlist of candidates and when she was offered the job, it was her HUSBAND who convinced her to take it. He gave up his successful law practice in Arizona to support her move to the Court.
Her appointment opened up countless possibilities for women in the legal profession. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done, but her appointment signaled a sea change in the perception of women lawyers and the respect they were afforded by their male counterparts.
Today most of the students in law school are women. When Justice O'Connor graduated at the TOP of her class at Stanford law school, not one firm would hire her. The only job she could find was as a paralegal sharing an office with a legal secretary. To this she said, "I was happy I had that job - I would have taken any job I could find!"
Our Supreme Court - and it's "ours," not Justice Scalia's, should reflect the diversity in society. In 2009, we should not continue to let old white men dictate their political agenda to us.
The more we can see women and people of color achieve positions at the highest level in our society the more we can hope that tolerance and progressive idealism will filter down to the masses.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Antelope Canyon, Arizona
I haven't done much exploring of Arizona since moving here in August 2007 (oh law school). I have managed to go to Sedona and Flagstaff - even managed to visit a federal prison in Pioneer recently!
But one of these days I need to trek northwest through the state to the Utah border to visit Antelope Canyon on the Navajo Reservation.
There is a collection of breathtaking photos from the canyon here one of which is this one (hard to pick a favorite):
Photo by Luca Galuzzi
But one of these days I need to trek northwest through the state to the Utah border to visit Antelope Canyon on the Navajo Reservation.
There is a collection of breathtaking photos from the canyon here one of which is this one (hard to pick a favorite):
Photo by Luca Galuzzi
Friday, April 17, 2009
Susan Boyle
I don't watch American Idol or its related shows, but I couldn't help but catch the buzz around Susan Boyle. She is astonishingly good. Her performance is here (is the American version so mean to contestants?), but also check out her rendition of "Cry Me a River":
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Are you listening, California?
At some point this year, the California Supreme Court will issue its decision in the case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Reporters who attended the oral arguments walked away with the impression that the marriages that occurred prior to the passage of Prop. 8 would not be invalidated but that going forward, the Prop 8 will stand.
They based this on the nature of the questions asked during oral argument, which is not the best way to predict what the court will do. Often both sides get a great deal of tough questions even from justices they expect will eventually vote in their favor. For an example (if you really want to geek out) listen to the oral argument in Boumediene v. Bush here; Ginsburg, one of the "liberals" on the court, asks a lot of difficult questions to the attorney representing the Guantanamo detainee who was challenging his detention.
If the California Supreme Court invalidates the marriages that occurred between the time the same court said that the then-current state constitution permitted same-sex marriage and the passage of Prop 8, the court would lose all credibility. They simply can't do it. Prop 8 was not the law during that time, the state constitution was.
The question then becomes whether they can uphold a law that, on its face, discriminates against gays by preventing them from enjoying the fundamental right of marriage. The opponents of gay marriage talk about "protecting the institution of marriage." Aside from not explaining how a gay marriage threatens their straight marriage, the opponents must also identify what the compelling state interest is in discriminating against gays (the legal standard under the Constitution is that some discrimination in our society can be OK, but only if the government entity provides some compelling interest for doing it).
The recent Iowa Supreme Court decision identifies, in the best way I've seen yet, how the state has NO interest in preventing gays from marrying, nevermind a compelling interest for doing so. I highly recommend the read, which you can find here (PDF).
This was recently followed by the Vermont Legislature(!) passing a law allowing gay marriage. These are not the "liberal activist godless heathen" judges - but elected officials saying "no more." Thank god for Vermont!!
I'm not sure how these decisions will affect the California decision, but I'm sure there is a lot of re-writing and debating going on in those justices' chambers - hopefully resulting in the law being overturned.
The federal Constitution, and the equal protection doctrine under the 14th Amendment, cannot be trumped by any state, even when the "will of the people" is to discriminate. This is why our democracy is not simply majority rule; it's meant to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
PS: My theory about these young people who support Prop 8 or similar measures is that they are male, mormon, and bought into the doctrine that prevents them from having sex outside of marriage. Some of them are in their mid-20s and not married, and let me tell you, they are hanging on by a thread.
They have had the "sacredness" of marriage shoved down their throats and have had to live against their biological impulses to believe how "special" and "sacred" marriage is so that they don't violate church rules and engage in extramarital sex.
To them, I'm sure that if gay people ("sinners" in their mind) can marry it starts to challenge the whole idea of how "sacred" marriage is, and pretty soon they have a lot more questions about a belief system that has mandated they behave in a certain way - a way that in my opinion is foolish and antiquated. Once you start to ask questions and show that there are other ways of thinking about marriage, and that it can be equally as valued and cherished without the religious rules governing it, then it can open a can of worms - nothing some of these tightly-wound folks could ever begin to do.
They based this on the nature of the questions asked during oral argument, which is not the best way to predict what the court will do. Often both sides get a great deal of tough questions even from justices they expect will eventually vote in their favor. For an example (if you really want to geek out) listen to the oral argument in Boumediene v. Bush here; Ginsburg, one of the "liberals" on the court, asks a lot of difficult questions to the attorney representing the Guantanamo detainee who was challenging his detention.
If the California Supreme Court invalidates the marriages that occurred between the time the same court said that the then-current state constitution permitted same-sex marriage and the passage of Prop 8, the court would lose all credibility. They simply can't do it. Prop 8 was not the law during that time, the state constitution was.
The question then becomes whether they can uphold a law that, on its face, discriminates against gays by preventing them from enjoying the fundamental right of marriage. The opponents of gay marriage talk about "protecting the institution of marriage." Aside from not explaining how a gay marriage threatens their straight marriage, the opponents must also identify what the compelling state interest is in discriminating against gays (the legal standard under the Constitution is that some discrimination in our society can be OK, but only if the government entity provides some compelling interest for doing it).
The recent Iowa Supreme Court decision identifies, in the best way I've seen yet, how the state has NO interest in preventing gays from marrying, nevermind a compelling interest for doing so. I highly recommend the read, which you can find here (PDF).
This was recently followed by the Vermont Legislature(!) passing a law allowing gay marriage. These are not the "liberal activist godless heathen" judges - but elected officials saying "no more." Thank god for Vermont!!
I'm not sure how these decisions will affect the California decision, but I'm sure there is a lot of re-writing and debating going on in those justices' chambers - hopefully resulting in the law being overturned.
The federal Constitution, and the equal protection doctrine under the 14th Amendment, cannot be trumped by any state, even when the "will of the people" is to discriminate. This is why our democracy is not simply majority rule; it's meant to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
PS: My theory about these young people who support Prop 8 or similar measures is that they are male, mormon, and bought into the doctrine that prevents them from having sex outside of marriage. Some of them are in their mid-20s and not married, and let me tell you, they are hanging on by a thread.
They have had the "sacredness" of marriage shoved down their throats and have had to live against their biological impulses to believe how "special" and "sacred" marriage is so that they don't violate church rules and engage in extramarital sex.
To them, I'm sure that if gay people ("sinners" in their mind) can marry it starts to challenge the whole idea of how "sacred" marriage is, and pretty soon they have a lot more questions about a belief system that has mandated they behave in a certain way - a way that in my opinion is foolish and antiquated. Once you start to ask questions and show that there are other ways of thinking about marriage, and that it can be equally as valued and cherished without the religious rules governing it, then it can open a can of worms - nothing some of these tightly-wound folks could ever begin to do.
The two Michaels take on Billy Bob
In case you haven't heard about or seen the interview where Billy Bob acts like a dick, you can find it here.
In case you have heard about the snafu but don't want to watch it (I'm there with you), please enjoy the following spoof:
In case you have heard about the snafu but don't want to watch it (I'm there with you), please enjoy the following spoof:
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Quantum of Solace
I'm not a huge fan of Bond films, but I'm totally in love with Daniel Craig and thought that Quantum of Solace was awesome. If you like the Bourne films, you'll like this one (now on DVD):
Friday, March 27, 2009
Ghost Twitterers
Sadly that Christopher Walken Twitter page is written by a poser.
There's also a market in "ghost twittering" for celebrities. Lame!
There's also a market in "ghost twittering" for celebrities. Lame!
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
"... that homophobe Antonin Scalia"
Rep. Barney Frank made this statement in a recent interview about gay marriage. I'm sure he's coming under fire for saying this, but when you read Scalia's U.S. Supreme Court opinions regarding gay rights the vitriol Scalia spews is tangible - so one has to wonder if he is indeed homophobic.
For example, from Lawrence v. Texas (a favorite argument by opponents to gay rights/marriage is this "slippery slope" argument - e.g., if you allow gay marriage that means you have to allow people to marry relatives, numerous wives and/or the family dog):
Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority's belief that certain sexual behavior is “immoral and unacceptable” constitutes a rational basis for regulation.
He then reiterates - twice! - the "slippery slope" argument:
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision.
***
The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are “immoral and unacceptable,” Bowers, supra, - the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest.
By the way: state laws against masturbation, adultery, fornication?? Where are these states? I think he's bullshitting. These used to be criminalized but every state I know of (save Utah) must have gotten these laws off the books.
For example, from Lawrence v. Texas (a favorite argument by opponents to gay rights/marriage is this "slippery slope" argument - e.g., if you allow gay marriage that means you have to allow people to marry relatives, numerous wives and/or the family dog):
Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority's belief that certain sexual behavior is “immoral and unacceptable” constitutes a rational basis for regulation.
He then reiterates - twice! - the "slippery slope" argument:
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision.
***
The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are “immoral and unacceptable,” Bowers, supra, - the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest.
By the way: state laws against masturbation, adultery, fornication?? Where are these states? I think he's bullshitting. These used to be criminalized but every state I know of (save Utah) must have gotten these laws off the books.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Apparently, money does grow on trees
I came home tonight and there was a letter stuck to my front door from my landlord... my lease is about to expire and they are telling me that if I renew, I have two options:
I can avoid paying next month's rent, or
My rent will reduce by $100/month.
Now, my base rent before taxes and fees is $684/month. This means that I can pocket the $684 now or save about $1200 over the course of the next year.
I'm going with the latter. Holla!
I can avoid paying next month's rent, or
My rent will reduce by $100/month.
Now, my base rent before taxes and fees is $684/month. This means that I can pocket the $684 now or save about $1200 over the course of the next year.
I'm going with the latter. Holla!
Sunday, March 22, 2009
I twatted
I stole that from Stephen Colbert...
I recently returned to Twitter after first hearing about it two years ago and not understanding what the hell it was.
It seems the site is blowing up now, and even people like Christopher Walken are in on the game.
Are any of you Twatting? Twexting? Twitting? I get the feeling it's like Facebook if FB only had status updates.
You can "follow" tweets without being "friends" on the service. For instance, I just got a tweet from Rob Corddry (a quick search of his previous updates reveals this gem: "My two year old calls glue "gool". What a fucking ASShole!").
Does this mean you have no control who follows you and who might be reading your messages?
If anyone has any tips about how the Eff this Twitter business is supposed to work, or whether I should just stick to FB, I would be forever appreciative. xo
I recently returned to Twitter after first hearing about it two years ago and not understanding what the hell it was.
It seems the site is blowing up now, and even people like Christopher Walken are in on the game.
Are any of you Twatting? Twexting? Twitting? I get the feeling it's like Facebook if FB only had status updates.
You can "follow" tweets without being "friends" on the service. For instance, I just got a tweet from Rob Corddry (a quick search of his previous updates reveals this gem: "My two year old calls glue "gool". What a fucking ASShole!").
Does this mean you have no control who follows you and who might be reading your messages?
If anyone has any tips about how the Eff this Twitter business is supposed to work, or whether I should just stick to FB, I would be forever appreciative. xo
Saturday, March 21, 2009
My favorite movie of all time: True Romance
Fresh off completing yet another Facebook meme, I was reminded how True Romance is my absolute unequivocal favorite movie of all time. This is saying a lot, because it beats out some of my other faves like The Godfather (I & II), Apocalypse Now, Casablanca, Chinatown, Run Lola Run, The Big Lebowski, Good Will Hunting and Erin Brockovich.
Here's a trailer:
Here's a trailer:
Pirkle Jones, 1914 - 2009
Pirkle Jones was not as famous as Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange, but he was just as good. From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Pirkle Jones, a San Francisco photographer whose wide-ranging work focused on everything from pastoral California landscapes to the Black Panthers, grape pickers and foggy cityscapes, died Sunday of heart failure in San Rafael. He was 95.Here and here you can find more info and some of his photographs.
A genial and spirited man who taught for 28 years at the San Francisco Art Institute, Mr. Jones developed his mastery of black and white photography in the late 1940s, studying with Ansel Adams and Minor White at the California School of Fine Arts, which became the Art Institute. He was part of the modernist milieu that included Adams, White, Edward Weston and Dorothea Lange.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
"Some Truths About Guantanamo Bay"
I came across this essay written by Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Colin Powell, about several elements of the GITMO situation that has been under-reported or altogether missed.
For instance, most detainees are not "terrorists" from which any usable/valuable information can be extracted. They certainly don't know how bounties were paid by the U.S. government to turn over "terrorists" and how children as young as 15 were sent there to be interrogated.
The process for classifying someone an enemy combatant (pdf) begins with soldiers on the ground, even though officially it was President Bush's assertion that such classification rested with him.
The military acted on the President's behalf, and as the Wilkerson essay details, the process of classification was shoddy at best as pressure was exerted from Rumsfeld down to produce results. Couple that with a problematic "legal proceeding" (which was established only after several court battles) giving detainees an "opportunity" to challenge their classification as "enemy combatants." These CSRTs have been denounced widely, even by military lawyers who were tasked with upholding the enemy combatant classifications.
There's a lot I can write about Obama and how I think he is more cautious than decisive on this issue, but that's for another blog post (forthcoming). Here are excerpts from the Wilkerson essay, but the whole thing is worth reading:
For instance, most detainees are not "terrorists" from which any usable/valuable information can be extracted. They certainly don't know how bounties were paid by the U.S. government to turn over "terrorists" and how children as young as 15 were sent there to be interrogated.
The process for classifying someone an enemy combatant (pdf) begins with soldiers on the ground, even though officially it was President Bush's assertion that such classification rested with him.
The military acted on the President's behalf, and as the Wilkerson essay details, the process of classification was shoddy at best as pressure was exerted from Rumsfeld down to produce results. Couple that with a problematic "legal proceeding" (which was established only after several court battles) giving detainees an "opportunity" to challenge their classification as "enemy combatants." These CSRTs have been denounced widely, even by military lawyers who were tasked with upholding the enemy combatant classifications.
There's a lot I can write about Obama and how I think he is more cautious than decisive on this issue, but that's for another blog post (forthcoming). Here are excerpts from the Wilkerson essay, but the whole thing is worth reading:
There are several dimensions to the debate over the U.S. prison facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba that the media have largely missed and, thus, of which the American people are almost completely unaware. For that matter, few within the government who were not directly involved are aware either.
The first of these is the utter incompetence of the battlefield vetting in Afghanistan during the early stages of the U.S. operations there. Simply stated, no meaningful attempt at discrimination was made in-country by competent officials, civilian or military, as to who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation.
This was a factor of having too few troops in the combat zone, of the troops and civilians who were there having too few people trained and skilled in such vetting, and of the incredible pressure coming down from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others to "just get the bastards to the interrogators".
It did not help that poor U.S. policies such as bounty-hunting, a weak understanding of cultural tendencies, and an utter disregard for the fundamentals of jurisprudence prevailed as well (no blame in the latter realm should accrue to combat soldiers as this it not their bailiwick anyway).
The second dimension that is largely unreported is that several in the U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released.
But to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership from virtually day one of the so-called Global War on Terror and these leaders already had black marks enough: the dead in a field in Pennsylvania, in the ashes of the Pentagon, and in the ruins of the World Trade Towers. They were not about to admit to their further errors at Guantanamo Bay. Better to claim that everyone there was a hardcore terrorist, was of enduring intelligence value, and would return to jihad if released. I am very sorry to say that I believe there were uniformed military who aided and abetted these falsehoods, even at the highest levels of our armed forces.
****
The fourth unknown is the ad hoc intelligence philosophy that was developed to justify keeping many of these people, called the mosaic philosophy. Simply stated, this philosophy held that it did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance (this general philosophy, in an even cruder form, prevailed in Iraq as well, helping to produce the nightmare at Abu Ghraib). All that was necessary was to extract everything possible from him and others like him, assemble it all in a computer program, and then look for cross-connections and serendipitous incidentals--in short, to have sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified.
Thus, as many people as possible had to be kept in detention for as long as possible to allow this philosophy of intelligence gathering to work. The detainees' innocence was inconsequential. After all, they were ignorant peasants for the most part and mostly Muslim to boot.
Another unknown, a part of the fabric of the foregoing four, was the sheer incompetence involved in cataloging and maintaining the pertinent factors surrounding the detainees that might be relevant in any eventual legal proceedings, whether in an established court system or even in a kangaroo court that pretended to at least a few of the essentials, such as evidence.
Simply stated, even for those two dozen or so of the detainees who might well be hardcore terrorists, there was virtually no chain of custody, no disciplined handling of evidence, and no attention to the details that almost any court system would demand. Falling back on "sources and methods" and "intelligence secrets" became the Bush administration's modus operandi to camouflage this grievous failing.
But their ultimate cover was that the struggle in which they were involved was war and in war those detained could be kept for the duration. And this war, by their own pronouncements, had no end. For political purposes, they knew it certainly had no end within their allotted four to eight years. Moreover, its not having an end, properly exploited, would help ensure their eight rather than four years in office.
In addition, it has never come to my attention in any persuasive way--from classified information or otherwise--that any intelligence of significance was gained from any of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay other than from the handful of undisputed ring leaders and their companions, clearly no more than a dozen or two of the detainees, and even their alleged contribution of hard, actionable intelligence is intensely disputed in the relevant communities such as intelligence and law enforcement.
This is perhaps the most astounding truth of all, carefully masked by men such as Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney in their loud rhetoric--continuing even now in the case of Cheney--about future attacks thwarted, resurgent terrorists, the indisputable need for torture and harsh interrogation and for secret prisons and places such as GITMO.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
The future of newspapers is uncertain but surely grim
Who reads the newspaper anymore? I don't know about you, but I surely don't.
The future for newspapers is bleak, but as this well-written comment states, "Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism."
Problem is, journalism doesn't come for free and someone needs to pay for it. The closest to "free" it could be is government-subsidized, but all of us should be fearful of a state-sponsored press. The papers are too deferential to government as it is without the government paying for it outright.
None of the proposed models are working (from ad revenue to paid subscriptions) and people want free, up-to-date information via the Interwebs. Something's got to give, and as the comment points out, it's unclear what might happen:
The future for newspapers is bleak, but as this well-written comment states, "Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism."
Problem is, journalism doesn't come for free and someone needs to pay for it. The closest to "free" it could be is government-subsidized, but all of us should be fearful of a state-sponsored press. The papers are too deferential to government as it is without the government paying for it outright.
None of the proposed models are working (from ad revenue to paid subscriptions) and people want free, up-to-date information via the Interwebs. Something's got to give, and as the comment points out, it's unclear what might happen:
Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism. For a century, the imperatives to strengthen journalism and to strengthen newspapers have been so tightly wound as to be indistinguishable. That’s been a fine accident to have, but when that accident stops, as it is stopping before our eyes, we’re going to need lots of other ways to strengthen journalism instead.
When we shift our attention from ’save newspapers’ to ’save society’, the imperative changes from ‘preserve the current institutions’ to ‘do whatever works.’ And what works today isn’t the same as what used to work.
We don’t know who the Aldus Manutius of the current age is. It could be Craig Newmark, or Caterina Fake. It could be Martin Nisenholtz, or Emily Bell. It could be some 19 year old kid few of us have heard of, working on something we won’t recognize as vital until a decade hence. Any experiment, though, designed to provide new models for journalism is going to be an improvement over hiding from the real, especially in a year when, for many papers, the unthinkable future is already in the past.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Take over Wall Street from the thieves!
Not sure if you've been following the Cramer vs. Stewart debacle this week, but it's fascinating...
For some background on how truly fucked we are, market-wise, I highly suggest delving into the credit default swap (video that explains it all)/phantom shares (audio) market manipulation that occurred without regulation or oversight for the last several years. We are now in a position where our economy is in tatters and all the money that was "lost" is now in the pockets of hedge funds that benefit from market meltdowns.
Throwing money down the toilet (aka, bailout funds) is not going to fix the problem. We need reform on a wide scale and, not knowing anything about how the market works, it seems like Wall Street should be shut down until there is some stabilization. We shut it down for a few days after 9/11 and somehow our economy didn't collapse.
Anyway, I wanted to post the unedited clips of Jim Cramer's appearance last night on the Daily Show in case you didn't see it. Jon plays clips from a video circulating the Internet where Cramer blatantly and shamelessly explains how you make money from manipulating the market. He describes how "it's easy" to drive the value of a stock down by making up lies about a company and then making sure the rumor makes its way to CNBC and other outlets to help drive down the value. This was illegal for most of the 20th century but was legalized again in 2000.
It's absolutely disgusting that these motherfuckers, who benefit from dropping stock values, have the ability to run companies into the ground and they do so without any guilt or remorse. Somehow it's "legal" even though it is immoral and unethical. See the video I posted earlier about how companies like Overstock and others fell victim to these greedy vultures.
Intro:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3 - Must watch... Jon Stewart doesn't hold back... awesome:
For some background on how truly fucked we are, market-wise, I highly suggest delving into the credit default swap (video that explains it all)/phantom shares (audio) market manipulation that occurred without regulation or oversight for the last several years. We are now in a position where our economy is in tatters and all the money that was "lost" is now in the pockets of hedge funds that benefit from market meltdowns.
Throwing money down the toilet (aka, bailout funds) is not going to fix the problem. We need reform on a wide scale and, not knowing anything about how the market works, it seems like Wall Street should be shut down until there is some stabilization. We shut it down for a few days after 9/11 and somehow our economy didn't collapse.
Anyway, I wanted to post the unedited clips of Jim Cramer's appearance last night on the Daily Show in case you didn't see it. Jon plays clips from a video circulating the Internet where Cramer blatantly and shamelessly explains how you make money from manipulating the market. He describes how "it's easy" to drive the value of a stock down by making up lies about a company and then making sure the rumor makes its way to CNBC and other outlets to help drive down the value. This was illegal for most of the 20th century but was legalized again in 2000.
It's absolutely disgusting that these motherfuckers, who benefit from dropping stock values, have the ability to run companies into the ground and they do so without any guilt or remorse. Somehow it's "legal" even though it is immoral and unethical. See the video I posted earlier about how companies like Overstock and others fell victim to these greedy vultures.
Intro:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3 - Must watch... Jon Stewart doesn't hold back... awesome:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)