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):
Sunday, March 29, 2009
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:
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Ted, sweet Ted
My friend and former co-worker Ted (not Teabagger Ted, but another Ted) is featured in an ad my former employer made... Hilarious:
Meet the Visual QuickStart Guide Bunny from Peachpit TV on Vimeo.
Meet the Visual QuickStart Guide Bunny from Peachpit TV on Vimeo.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Hana Highway, Maui
Little article about the Hana Highway, complete with more pics.
The article doesn't mention Mama's Fish House, though (watch your volume if you click on that link).
The article doesn't mention Mama's Fish House, though (watch your volume if you click on that link).
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The little web radio station that might
I recently read an article in a local mag about a new web radio station, Radio Phoenix.
They are only broadcasting online right now, but are seeking a license to broadcast on the airwaves. Here's a link to connecting to them online.
I've listened to them a bit and I like it - kind of like a poor man's KCRW but a little more leftist, so we'll see how it goes.
There is certainly nothing like this station on broadcast radio in Phoenix, so I hope they are successful!
They are only broadcasting online right now, but are seeking a license to broadcast on the airwaves. Here's a link to connecting to them online.
I've listened to them a bit and I like it - kind of like a poor man's KCRW but a little more leftist, so we'll see how it goes.
There is certainly nothing like this station on broadcast radio in Phoenix, so I hope they are successful!
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Opposing the death penalty... for economic reasons
Here is an interesting article about several states that are considering suspending or ending the death penalty (or advocate doing so) to help offset budget shortages. From the article:
After decades of moral arguments reaching biblical proportions, after long, twisted journeys to the nation's highest court and back, the death penalty may be abandoned by several states for a reason having nothing to do with right or wrong:
Money.
Turns out, it is cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them, according to a series of recent surveys. Tens of millions of dollars cheaper, politicians are learning, during a tumbling recession when nearly every state faces job cuts and massive deficits.
So an increasing number of them are considering abolishing capital punishment in favor of life imprisonment, not on principle but out of financial necessity.
"It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive," though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as "The Hanging Judge of Orange County" for sending nine men to death row.
Deep into retirement, he lost his faith in an eye for an eye and now speaks against it.
Bloomberg report on "phantom shares"
"Why should a group of over-zealous short sellers - and, frankly, they are mostly hedge funds - why should they be allowed to destroy the American dream? It's a matter of fairness. I think what you hear among all of the critics is: let's just be fair, there's no need for this."
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Movie to avoid: Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
I watched this over the weekend and it sucked.
I'm not sure why it's gotten good reviews; it is a typical, clichéd high school boy-meets-girl story (and the stereotypical characters that follow: the popular bitchy girl; the drunken/whorish/party girl best friend (complete with casual jokes to her getting lost, while wasted, in NYC and potentially getting raped); the jerky ex-boyfriend/bully character, etc.).
All of these failed trappings are dressed up as a hip indie flick, complete with an Emo soundtrack and Michael Cera's pouty demeanor. We are supposed to believe that Michael Cera, always known for his portrayal of awkward, geeky guys, is now the biggest catch in Englewood, New Jersey?
Oh, and he's in a band with all gay guys and somehow we're supposed to relish the idea that it's a non-stereotypical portrait of gays. Really? Seems like a pretty typical treatment to me: their sexuality is discussed but never shown (i.e., no kissing or otherwise); they have insights into women's fashion that the female characters lack; and when one of them hits the jerky ex-boyfriend character, he crumbles into a pile of tears. Bitch, please.
Apparently, if you live within bridge and tunnel distance to NYC and you are in high school, it's completely normal to go out all night in NYC. No parents to set rules or boundaries... if you didn't know better, you'd think these kids were 25 and answered to no one. The only mention of a parent was when it was revealed that our heroine was the daughter of some music industry mogul, which enabled her to walk into any club in NYC without waiting and gave her full access to his recording studio at any hour of the night. Sure, I knew tons of girls just like this. In fact, this was my life in high school!
It was annoying, unfunny and a complete waste of time. I was so disappointed I had to post this...
I'm not sure why it's gotten good reviews; it is a typical, clichéd high school boy-meets-girl story (and the stereotypical characters that follow: the popular bitchy girl; the drunken/whorish/party girl best friend (complete with casual jokes to her getting lost, while wasted, in NYC and potentially getting raped); the jerky ex-boyfriend/bully character, etc.).
All of these failed trappings are dressed up as a hip indie flick, complete with an Emo soundtrack and Michael Cera's pouty demeanor. We are supposed to believe that Michael Cera, always known for his portrayal of awkward, geeky guys, is now the biggest catch in Englewood, New Jersey?
Oh, and he's in a band with all gay guys and somehow we're supposed to relish the idea that it's a non-stereotypical portrait of gays. Really? Seems like a pretty typical treatment to me: their sexuality is discussed but never shown (i.e., no kissing or otherwise); they have insights into women's fashion that the female characters lack; and when one of them hits the jerky ex-boyfriend character, he crumbles into a pile of tears. Bitch, please.
Apparently, if you live within bridge and tunnel distance to NYC and you are in high school, it's completely normal to go out all night in NYC. No parents to set rules or boundaries... if you didn't know better, you'd think these kids were 25 and answered to no one. The only mention of a parent was when it was revealed that our heroine was the daughter of some music industry mogul, which enabled her to walk into any club in NYC without waiting and gave her full access to his recording studio at any hour of the night. Sure, I knew tons of girls just like this. In fact, this was my life in high school!
It was annoying, unfunny and a complete waste of time. I was so disappointed I had to post this...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)