Menu Bar
spirot's Comments
Re: Derren Brown: Real-Live Zombie Game
Possibility 1)
It's bullshit. Of course. Obviously. Jury is out on whether Derren Brown is a genuine douchebag or whether he just plays one on tv. The guy playing the part of the guinea pig is pretty good at pretending. He took some acting classes in middle school maybe; maybe he got to play McMurphy in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest; received a favourable notice from the school newspaper. The people playing his mates are less adept at pretending... or maybe just not as theatrical.
Possibility 2)
It's genuine. If so then...
Nope. I can't even pretend to seriously explore this as a possibility. Can't do it.
However, I find it fascinating the nature of the hoax that they are proposing.
I've pulled a few hoaxes in my day and even when I think the fiction I'm proposing is blatantly on the surface, even when I feel like I'm pretty much mouthing the words "this is not real", people will still commit themselves to belief. And I'm not even a professional huckster like Mr. Brown (if that's his real name). He knows that some people - maybe a lot of people - will not be able to see through the hokum. He knows that people are going to believe.
So what is it that he's asking them to believe apart from the fiction of "we've invented a hypnotizing machine in the form of a video game". They are asking people to believe that 1) Darren Brown is a kidnapper. 2) Darren Brown is a torturer. 3) Every single person involved in the execution of this stunt was willing to be complicit in a criminal act of abduction and unusual cruelty for the sake of a really cheesy television spot.
That is, I think, brave. And if Derren Brown (if that's his real name) is actually a humble, salt-of-the-earth dude, and he is willing to drag his own name through the mud in the interest of his craft, then I applaud him.
Or maybe he's just a douchebag.
It's bullshit. Of course. Obviously. Jury is out on whether Derren Brown is a genuine douchebag or whether he just plays one on tv. The guy playing the part of the guinea pig is pretty good at pretending. He took some acting classes in middle school maybe; maybe he got to play McMurphy in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest; received a favourable notice from the school newspaper. The people playing his mates are less adept at pretending... or maybe just not as theatrical.
Possibility 2)
It's genuine. If so then...
Nope. I can't even pretend to seriously explore this as a possibility. Can't do it.
However, I find it fascinating the nature of the hoax that they are proposing.
I've pulled a few hoaxes in my day and even when I think the fiction I'm proposing is blatantly on the surface, even when I feel like I'm pretty much mouthing the words "this is not real", people will still commit themselves to belief. And I'm not even a professional huckster like Mr. Brown (if that's his real name). He knows that some people - maybe a lot of people - will not be able to see through the hokum. He knows that people are going to believe.
So what is it that he's asking them to believe apart from the fiction of "we've invented a hypnotizing machine in the form of a video game". They are asking people to believe that 1) Darren Brown is a kidnapper. 2) Darren Brown is a torturer. 3) Every single person involved in the execution of this stunt was willing to be complicit in a criminal act of abduction and unusual cruelty for the sake of a really cheesy television spot.
That is, I think, brave. And if Derren Brown (if that's his real name) is actually a humble, salt-of-the-earth dude, and he is willing to drag his own name through the mud in the interest of his craft, then I applaud him.
Or maybe he's just a douchebag.
By: spirot
Re: Apocalypse Now: Marlon Brando Finale
Acting Lessons 101? Yeah. I suppose as part of the section How Not To Act. Brando would have benefitted from some rudimentary acting lessons before he flew off to the Philippines. It may have prevented him from being a lazy apathetic spoiled slob. Perhaps a refresher course on Preparing For Your Role with a special focus on How To Learn Your Lines.
The credit for the resonating power of Kurtz more properly rests with Coppola who took Brando's shit and polished it into shinola, and Dennis Hopper (another jackass who didn't learn his lines and therefore had to improvise - but at least Hopper improvises well).
Coppola was over a barrel in that he couldn't do what he should have done on principle (i.e. fire the overpaid Brando and hire an actor who was ready to do the job). Stuck with Brando, Coppola created a context in which Mushmouth's incoherence made sense. The fractured Kurtz persona is a result of the improvisational genius of the director. This clip
reveals an actor who can barely put together a sentence and is incapable of - or worse, not interested in - improvising with another actor.
Dennis Hopper's performance on the other hand generously paints the picture of Kurtz well before we see the pre-incarnation of Jabba The Hutt waddling around and mumbling like a drunk. Sure, Hopper was high as a kite and tripping in the atmosphere but he is engaged! He is listening. His energy is focussed on something larger than himself. It is Hopper's commitment to the story and legend of Kurtz that allows the Million Dollar Man to screw the pooch so atrociously later in the film.
Just because Brando was sometimes great, doesn't mean he was always great (Island of Dr. Moreau).
Terry Malloy - genius.
Stanley Kowalski - genius
Don Corleone - genius
Kurtz - actor who forgot the way.
The credit for the resonating power of Kurtz more properly rests with Coppola who took Brando's shit and polished it into shinola, and Dennis Hopper (another jackass who didn't learn his lines and therefore had to improvise - but at least Hopper improvises well).
Coppola was over a barrel in that he couldn't do what he should have done on principle (i.e. fire the overpaid Brando and hire an actor who was ready to do the job). Stuck with Brando, Coppola created a context in which Mushmouth's incoherence made sense. The fractured Kurtz persona is a result of the improvisational genius of the director. This clip
reveals an actor who can barely put together a sentence and is incapable of - or worse, not interested in - improvising with another actor.
Dennis Hopper's performance on the other hand generously paints the picture of Kurtz well before we see the pre-incarnation of Jabba The Hutt waddling around and mumbling like a drunk. Sure, Hopper was high as a kite and tripping in the atmosphere but he is engaged! He is listening. His energy is focussed on something larger than himself. It is Hopper's commitment to the story and legend of Kurtz that allows the Million Dollar Man to screw the pooch so atrociously later in the film.
Just because Brando was sometimes great, doesn't mean he was always great (Island of Dr. Moreau).
Terry Malloy - genius.
Stanley Kowalski - genius
Don Corleone - genius
Kurtz - actor who forgot the way.
By: spirot
Re: Mysterious Island: 1961
Great. I was all set to sit down and watch season 4 of Lost and now some jerk has gone and ruined the surprise of Michael getting pinched by a giant crab. Thank you so much, M&C. Is it not common courtesy to post a spoiler alert?
By: spirot
Re: Hugh Hewitt vs Sam Harris
I thought Harris was side-stepping Hugh's argument. Harris was weak.
WEAK!
I am not sympathetic with Mr Hewitt's world view at all, which made this all the more frustrating to watch. As a self-proclaimed proponent for rational reasoning, it is incumbent upon Sam Harris to be both rational and reasonable, and in this clip he was neither.
Harris' insistence for an explanation for why there are no Palestinian Christian suicide bombers and suggesting that this is "practically a science experiment" was bewildering. Putting aside his attempt to compare the situation in Palestine to a petri dish, his argument is still ludicrous... unless he is suggesting that Palestinian Christians are faithless.
Furtherly unreasonable and frutstratingly irrational arguments continue: see his quickness to invoke the spectre of terror... TERROR... TERRORISM... "People are flying planes into our buildings because they think God wrote their book." Really? That's the rational and reasonable conclusion to the events of 9/11? That's why they did it? Sounds remarkably close to the irrational logic that they did it because they hate freedom (not because it was a response to American foreign policy and imperial occupation). Invoking 9/11 to add emotional weight to your argument is irrational whether you are Bill O'Reilly or you are Sam Harris.
His suggestion that a close reading of the New Testament yields inconsistencies is not inaccurate, but it is irrelevant. A close reading of scientific history and literature would yield inconsistency too. The infamy of eugenics does not invalidate science as a whole. You would not discredit the scientific method because scientific reports do not share the same conclusions. It is not reasonable to discredit the general message of the New Testament because it is not completely consistent. Nor is it logical unless....
Unless! Unless one makes the irrational presumption that all people of faith are fundamentalists... or that all people of faith are slavishly devoted to texts that they believe were written by a god. Harris makes these presumptions (when it suits his emotionally based arguments).
Harris is irrational.
His arguments are emotional.
He let the atheist side down. He lost this one.
WEAK!
I am not sympathetic with Mr Hewitt's world view at all, which made this all the more frustrating to watch. As a self-proclaimed proponent for rational reasoning, it is incumbent upon Sam Harris to be both rational and reasonable, and in this clip he was neither.
Harris' insistence for an explanation for why there are no Palestinian Christian suicide bombers and suggesting that this is "practically a science experiment" was bewildering. Putting aside his attempt to compare the situation in Palestine to a petri dish, his argument is still ludicrous... unless he is suggesting that Palestinian Christians are faithless.
Furtherly unreasonable and frutstratingly irrational arguments continue: see his quickness to invoke the spectre of terror... TERROR... TERRORISM... "People are flying planes into our buildings because they think God wrote their book." Really? That's the rational and reasonable conclusion to the events of 9/11? That's why they did it? Sounds remarkably close to the irrational logic that they did it because they hate freedom (not because it was a response to American foreign policy and imperial occupation). Invoking 9/11 to add emotional weight to your argument is irrational whether you are Bill O'Reilly or you are Sam Harris.
His suggestion that a close reading of the New Testament yields inconsistencies is not inaccurate, but it is irrelevant. A close reading of scientific history and literature would yield inconsistency too. The infamy of eugenics does not invalidate science as a whole. You would not discredit the scientific method because scientific reports do not share the same conclusions. It is not reasonable to discredit the general message of the New Testament because it is not completely consistent. Nor is it logical unless....
Unless! Unless one makes the irrational presumption that all people of faith are fundamentalists... or that all people of faith are slavishly devoted to texts that they believe were written by a god. Harris makes these presumptions (when it suits his emotionally based arguments).
Harris is irrational.
His arguments are emotional.
He let the atheist side down. He lost this one.
By: spirot
Re: BBC Horizon: Living with ADHD
My qualifications are that I'm a free-thinking human being. If we disagree, then no degree of qualifications on my part are likely to sway you.
I do not generally dispute that an imbalance in brain chemistry would likely cause a behavioural disorder. I do not dispute that such an imbalance could find its source in genetic material (and therefore could be transferred from one generation to the next).
My dispute is specific to the observations, methods, and conclusions of this television program. I dispute the diagnosis of the individuals in this program which is clearly stated at the beginning of the show - "a chemical imbalance in the brain".
In this show, I witnessed children very normally testing the limits of acceptable behaviour. I witnessed repeated events in which authority figures fail to set and maintain a system of discipline. I witnessed unfocussed behaviour being rewarded with attention. I witnessed a cavalier attitude towards medication. All of these things I consider to be causes of the said behaviour, not the effect of it.
But with the weight of your own personal experience, do you believe that the humans presented in this program are affected by a brain chemistry balance or are there other more plausible causes for the behaviour demonstrated?
I do not generally dispute that an imbalance in brain chemistry would likely cause a behavioural disorder. I do not dispute that such an imbalance could find its source in genetic material (and therefore could be transferred from one generation to the next).
My dispute is specific to the observations, methods, and conclusions of this television program. I dispute the diagnosis of the individuals in this program which is clearly stated at the beginning of the show - "a chemical imbalance in the brain".
In this show, I witnessed children very normally testing the limits of acceptable behaviour. I witnessed repeated events in which authority figures fail to set and maintain a system of discipline. I witnessed unfocussed behaviour being rewarded with attention. I witnessed a cavalier attitude towards medication. All of these things I consider to be causes of the said behaviour, not the effect of it.
But with the weight of your own personal experience, do you believe that the humans presented in this program are affected by a brain chemistry balance or are there other more plausible causes for the behaviour demonstrated?
By: spirot
Re: BBC Horizon: Living with ADHD
I have my doubts about the scientific validity of testing and determining these disabilities, but
I will steer myself away from the contentious question of whether the behavioural stigmata of ADHD, ADD, OCD, etc. are useful or real.
In this program it is claimed that...
ADHD is the diagnosis for these humans.
ADHD is a result of "a chemical imbalance in the brain".
The condition can be transmitted generationally through genetic material.
That being the case...
I'm not convinced that what we were presented with here were examples of a neurobehavioural developmental disorder. The behaviours that were exhibited by these human beings did not seem to be anything other than what common sense should expect.
Undesirable behaviour? Perhaps.
Abnormal? Not at all.
For example:
We have a circumstance in which a young human male is focussed and thrives in a regimented physical activity (football), yet is disruptive and uncontrolled at home where the adult authority figure (and de facto role-model) is... well... nonchalant about authority would be the charitable way of putting it.
If he was unable to exhibit control or to maintain focus in both environments, then you might conclude that the "problem" might be in his head. However, he is disciplined in a disciplined environment. He is undisciplined in an undisciplined environment.
That's normal. That's to be expected.
That's cause and effect.
That's not ADHD... that's being an ape... that is to say... it's human.
All the behaviour that was demonstrated in this piece was reasonable within the circumstances presented (ESPECIALLY the circumstance that everybody knows they have television cameras on them). These were completely normal minds acting normally within disordered environments.
I would say that watching this was not unlike watching Supernanny except that would be doing a disservice to the show Supernanny. While it caters to the same cheap voyeurism as this Horizon program did, at least Supernanny dares to examine their case studies with a more rigourous consideration of environmental dynamics, family structure, diet...
... and drugs.
I cannot be the only person who noticed the substitution of cocaine for Ritalin in the medication history of one of these parents. And now that pattern of behaviour has been passed on to her children. If we had been told that the kids were using cocaine, then we wouldn't need ADHD to explain their behaviour. Yet, we are told that they are being prescribed Ritalin as a result of their ADHD-like behaviour, and we are expected to accept that as reasonable? Would it not be responsible to ask if Ritalin might be a contributing factor in their ADHD behaviour? A cause rather than an effect?
I think so.
These very same children and their very same behaviours could be presented as examples of demon possession and I wouldn't consider it to be a sloppier piece of reasoning than to conclude that they have
a chemical imbalance in the brain
or a neurochemical behavioural disorder
or a disability.
I will steer myself away from the contentious question of whether the behavioural stigmata of ADHD, ADD, OCD, etc. are useful or real.
In this program it is claimed that...
ADHD is the diagnosis for these humans.
ADHD is a result of "a chemical imbalance in the brain".
The condition can be transmitted generationally through genetic material.
That being the case...
I'm not convinced that what we were presented with here were examples of a neurobehavioural developmental disorder. The behaviours that were exhibited by these human beings did not seem to be anything other than what common sense should expect.
Undesirable behaviour? Perhaps.
Abnormal? Not at all.
For example:
We have a circumstance in which a young human male is focussed and thrives in a regimented physical activity (football), yet is disruptive and uncontrolled at home where the adult authority figure (and de facto role-model) is... well... nonchalant about authority would be the charitable way of putting it.
If he was unable to exhibit control or to maintain focus in both environments, then you might conclude that the "problem" might be in his head. However, he is disciplined in a disciplined environment. He is undisciplined in an undisciplined environment.
That's normal. That's to be expected.
That's cause and effect.
That's not ADHD... that's being an ape... that is to say... it's human.
All the behaviour that was demonstrated in this piece was reasonable within the circumstances presented (ESPECIALLY the circumstance that everybody knows they have television cameras on them). These were completely normal minds acting normally within disordered environments.
I would say that watching this was not unlike watching Supernanny except that would be doing a disservice to the show Supernanny. While it caters to the same cheap voyeurism as this Horizon program did, at least Supernanny dares to examine their case studies with a more rigourous consideration of environmental dynamics, family structure, diet...
... and drugs.
I cannot be the only person who noticed the substitution of cocaine for Ritalin in the medication history of one of these parents. And now that pattern of behaviour has been passed on to her children. If we had been told that the kids were using cocaine, then we wouldn't need ADHD to explain their behaviour. Yet, we are told that they are being prescribed Ritalin as a result of their ADHD-like behaviour, and we are expected to accept that as reasonable? Would it not be responsible to ask if Ritalin might be a contributing factor in their ADHD behaviour? A cause rather than an effect?
I think so.
These very same children and their very same behaviours could be presented as examples of demon possession and I wouldn't consider it to be a sloppier piece of reasoning than to conclude that they have
a chemical imbalance in the brain
or a neurochemical behavioural disorder
or a disability.
By: spirot
Re: BBC Horizon: Living with ADHD
If this is intended to be a genuine exploration of a misunderstood neurological condition, then it fails.
I saw nothing in here that convinced me that such a thing as ADHD exists as a genuine and measurable medical condition... especially one that is supposedly a result of "a chemical imbalance in the brain".
All I saw here were scores of examples of what happens when young apes live without discipline and who are constantly being given attention whenever they are being hyperactive.
I saw nothing in here that convinced me that such a thing as ADHD exists as a genuine and measurable medical condition... especially one that is supposedly a result of "a chemical imbalance in the brain".
All I saw here were scores of examples of what happens when young apes live without discipline and who are constantly being given attention whenever they are being hyperactive.
By: spirot
Re: Behind the Big News
"Documentary"? This isn't a documentary. It's propaganda. It's a recruitment video. It's a marketing tool.
I don't think it's entirely flawed and it has given me cause to investigate some things on my own which is always a good thing... but c'mon! Inflammatory statements based on superficial arguments, unsupported conclusions, emotionally manipulative production tricks, and flagrant self-promotion with absolutely no counter-point. The producers of this piece are as guilty of the sins of omission, misdirection, and advancing an agenda at the expense of objective reporting as the media outlets they purport to eviscerate.
Line up your grains of salt before you press play. If you plan on watching this, then make sure you stick around to the last moments to see how obviously biased the entire exercise is.
SFX anthemic hymn.
MONTAGE
blue skies. monuments of independence. stars and stripes. the very fountain from which Liberty itself drinks
VOICE OVER
"TRUTH. It's the foundation upon which freedom is built. And it's one of the strongest weapons against the revolutionary agenda..."
SFX news media theme. trumpet blast.
VOICE OVER
"...Behind The Big News."
DISPLAY "Behind The Big News" media outlet style graphic
ROLL CREDITS leading with prominence to contact information for the John Birch Society.
I don't think it's entirely flawed and it has given me cause to investigate some things on my own which is always a good thing... but c'mon! Inflammatory statements based on superficial arguments, unsupported conclusions, emotionally manipulative production tricks, and flagrant self-promotion with absolutely no counter-point. The producers of this piece are as guilty of the sins of omission, misdirection, and advancing an agenda at the expense of objective reporting as the media outlets they purport to eviscerate.
Line up your grains of salt before you press play. If you plan on watching this, then make sure you stick around to the last moments to see how obviously biased the entire exercise is.
SFX anthemic hymn.
MONTAGE
blue skies. monuments of independence. stars and stripes. the very fountain from which Liberty itself drinks
VOICE OVER
"TRUTH. It's the foundation upon which freedom is built. And it's one of the strongest weapons against the revolutionary agenda..."
SFX news media theme. trumpet blast.
VOICE OVER
"...Behind The Big News."
DISPLAY "Behind The Big News" media outlet style graphic
ROLL CREDITS leading with prominence to contact information for the John Birch Society.
By: spirot
Re: Ayn Rand's Message to the GOP Candidates
Yes, Ayn... but.
No, Ayn... but.
What is most interesting to me (about this very interesting find from the past and a genuine thanks for sharing) is how locked in she is to the Liberal/Conservative left/right us/them dialectic.
While her depth of thought is a tad more contemplative than the Coulter says/Olbermann says/O'Reilly says/ pingpong match we are inundated with in current times, Rand is still propagating a vision that is locked into a house that is still pseud-leftist-liberal vs pseudo-conservo-robot-right.
The failure for me in watching this (and not coincidently my complete lack of interest in Ayn Rand as a "philosopher) is the complete and absolute absence of a spirit of inquiry. She doesn't ask a single question; she proclaims. She defines her presuppositions as truths... not as starting points for a discussion of potentials, and wondering, and what-ifs, and maybes. She is not possessed of an ounce of doubt.
If if found her conclusions rational, then perhaps I would go along for her ride. However, when she throws out such nuggets as, "...it is much more preposterously irrational to use the old as a standard of value...", then I just can't buy in.
Why? Why is the old more preposterous than the new? Why is the traditional inherently more preposterous than the untested?
In the end, it seems to me that what she is proposing is an end to theology in government and to embrace reason. I concur. (Although I can't concur with the equation of rationalism with capitalism.) However, it doesn't matter whether I agree with her endpoints or not.
Ironically, her arguments for rationalism are irrational. Her logic is flawed. Her conclusions have been determined before her inquiry has been conducted.
For instance: "Intellectually, to rest ones case on faith, is to concede that reason is on the side of ones enemies, to concede that there are no rational arguments to support the ideas which created this country." How is that a rational argument? The presence of faith demands the absence of reason? Furthermore, if you embrace faith, then you have automatically endowed your enemies with reason? How is this any more rational than to say "you are either with us or you're against us"?
If, in the end, this might convince a so-called Conservative to reconsider the pillars of their political agenda - to perhaps place The Constitution above The Holy Bible - then bravo. That does not excuse her lack of intellectual rigour.
No, Ayn... but.
What is most interesting to me (about this very interesting find from the past and a genuine thanks for sharing) is how locked in she is to the Liberal/Conservative left/right us/them dialectic.
While her depth of thought is a tad more contemplative than the Coulter says/Olbermann says/O'Reilly says/ pingpong match we are inundated with in current times, Rand is still propagating a vision that is locked into a house that is still pseud-leftist-liberal vs pseudo-conservo-robot-right.
The failure for me in watching this (and not coincidently my complete lack of interest in Ayn Rand as a "philosopher) is the complete and absolute absence of a spirit of inquiry. She doesn't ask a single question; she proclaims. She defines her presuppositions as truths... not as starting points for a discussion of potentials, and wondering, and what-ifs, and maybes. She is not possessed of an ounce of doubt.
If if found her conclusions rational, then perhaps I would go along for her ride. However, when she throws out such nuggets as, "...it is much more preposterously irrational to use the old as a standard of value...", then I just can't buy in.
Why? Why is the old more preposterous than the new? Why is the traditional inherently more preposterous than the untested?
In the end, it seems to me that what she is proposing is an end to theology in government and to embrace reason. I concur. (Although I can't concur with the equation of rationalism with capitalism.) However, it doesn't matter whether I agree with her endpoints or not.
Ironically, her arguments for rationalism are irrational. Her logic is flawed. Her conclusions have been determined before her inquiry has been conducted.
For instance: "Intellectually, to rest ones case on faith, is to concede that reason is on the side of ones enemies, to concede that there are no rational arguments to support the ideas which created this country." How is that a rational argument? The presence of faith demands the absence of reason? Furthermore, if you embrace faith, then you have automatically endowed your enemies with reason? How is this any more rational than to say "you are either with us or you're against us"?
If, in the end, this might convince a so-called Conservative to reconsider the pillars of their political agenda - to perhaps place The Constitution above The Holy Bible - then bravo. That does not excuse her lack of intellectual rigour.
By: spirot
Re: Ferguson: If You Don't Vote, You're a Moron
As George Carlin said, "I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a fucking thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with."
- George Carlin.
That sure sounds to me like advocacy for not voting. In this quote he reserves the right to criticize only for those who don't participate. He lionizes the apathetic as if not caring is a virtue.
Just because he's George Carlin doesn't mean that he wasn't capable of being full of shit sometimes and in this case he was full of shit.
No, you don't have to vote. However, if you choose the Carlin Option (not to vote) then you choose not to take any responsibility.
If you take a public forum and advocate for people to not exercise their democratic franchise, then you're delivering an irresponsible message, and I don't care if you're a preacher, a stand-up comedian, a broadcaster, a parent,... whatever... that's bullshit.
Democracy demands excellence and diligence, not apathy and abdication.
And no matter what kind of doublespeak you try to employ, the 'no votes' DON'T count. They have an effect, but they don't count. The effect they have rewards the corrupt.
Vote Green. I dare you.
- George Carlin.
That sure sounds to me like advocacy for not voting. In this quote he reserves the right to criticize only for those who don't participate. He lionizes the apathetic as if not caring is a virtue.
Just because he's George Carlin doesn't mean that he wasn't capable of being full of shit sometimes and in this case he was full of shit.
No, you don't have to vote. However, if you choose the Carlin Option (not to vote) then you choose not to take any responsibility.
If you take a public forum and advocate for people to not exercise their democratic franchise, then you're delivering an irresponsible message, and I don't care if you're a preacher, a stand-up comedian, a broadcaster, a parent,... whatever... that's bullshit.
Democracy demands excellence and diligence, not apathy and abdication.
And no matter what kind of doublespeak you try to employ, the 'no votes' DON'T count. They have an effect, but they don't count. The effect they have rewards the corrupt.
Vote Green. I dare you.
By: spirot
Re: Ferguson: If You Don't Vote, You're a Moron
George Carlin, brilliant as he often was, was a moron when he said that, and I refuse to believe that he actually believed that. But if he was sincere and not just being provocative, then... "fuck you Carlin."
I applaud Ferguson's passion here but he closes with a false statement. There are more than "two patriotic candidates". Many more
According to a page on wikipedia the following are all registered options for the 2008 presidential election.
Ralph Nader - independent
Alan Keyes- independent
Kelcey Wilson - independent
Cynthia McKinney - Green Party
Charles Jay - Boston Tea Party
Gene Amondson - Prohibition Party
Gloria La Riva - Party for Socialism and Liberation
Frank McEnulty - New American Independent Party
Gene Amondson - Prohibition Party
Chuck Baldwin - Constitution Party
Ted Weill - Reform Party
Brian Moore - Socialist Party USA
Roger Calero - Socialist Workers Party
Bob Barr - Libertarian Party
The question of whether any of these candidates have a realistic hope of moving into the oval office is irrelevant. A vote for any of these candidates is a chance to register a vote for change, choice, and dissent.
And even if you can't place yourself somewhere between the Libertarian and the Prohibitionist,
even if you can't get past the idea of strategic voting and to do as your heart tells you to (Green Party... you know you want to)
even if you are so finicky and precious that nobody in the above list is able to spark your fire... then there is always the option of spoiling your ballot. Throw your wooden shoe into the machine. Eat the paperwork.
But if you don't show up, if you choose the Carlin option to not participate and to be a cynical nihilist, then you are not just a moron. You're a slug.
I applaud Ferguson's passion here but he closes with a false statement. There are more than "two patriotic candidates". Many more
According to a page on wikipedia the following are all registered options for the 2008 presidential election.
Ralph Nader - independent
Alan Keyes- independent
Kelcey Wilson - independent
Cynthia McKinney - Green Party
Charles Jay - Boston Tea Party
Gene Amondson - Prohibition Party
Gloria La Riva - Party for Socialism and Liberation
Frank McEnulty - New American Independent Party
Gene Amondson - Prohibition Party
Chuck Baldwin - Constitution Party
Ted Weill - Reform Party
Brian Moore - Socialist Party USA
Roger Calero - Socialist Workers Party
Bob Barr - Libertarian Party
The question of whether any of these candidates have a realistic hope of moving into the oval office is irrelevant. A vote for any of these candidates is a chance to register a vote for change, choice, and dissent.
And even if you can't place yourself somewhere between the Libertarian and the Prohibitionist,
even if you can't get past the idea of strategic voting and to do as your heart tells you to (Green Party... you know you want to)
even if you are so finicky and precious that nobody in the above list is able to spark your fire... then there is always the option of spoiling your ballot. Throw your wooden shoe into the machine. Eat the paperwork.
But if you don't show up, if you choose the Carlin option to not participate and to be a cynical nihilist, then you are not just a moron. You're a slug.
By: spirot
Re: Dennis Kucinich: Hearings on Impeachment
Spirot is a neocon? Wow. What's the evidence for that spurious and completely inaccurate charge? Just because I suggest that the donkey is full of shit, doesn't make me an elephant, man. Being a neocon would require me to be partisan, which I am not. I hold the whole of the system in contempt regardless of what color the necktie is.
Clearly I was wrong about Kucinich (and others) on the issue of this particular vote. Thanks for the correction. I misunderstood Kucinich's intent and the context for his comments. (I thank loqi for eloquently providing clarity to what was obviously fuzzy for me.)
I was projecting a generalized frustration on to the wrong target. I mistook Kucinich for one of the legions of people who seek now to absolve their culpability with the excuse that they were misled then. My rant was launched from Kucinich's comment:
"Many members of Congress relied on these representations from the White House to inform their decision to support the legislation that authorized the use of force against Iraq. We all know present and former colleagues that have said that if they knew then what they knew now they would not have voted to permit an attack upon Iraq".
It is obviously difficult for me to make the case for a greater intellectual rigor when I was clearly lacking on this point with regards to my impression of what Kucinich was saying... but the question to all those that claim to have been misled is: "Were you misled because you were ignorant or could you see the truth but chose to support the lie?"
I have no patience for anybody that claimed to have been misled by the smirking chimp. The lies were clear at the time. No hindsight was necessary in order to identify the imperialist occupation agenda that was behind the invasion of Iraq. There were plenty of little boys pointing out that the emperor wore no clothes but unlike in the H. C. Andersen story, the majority chose not to heed what was obvious.
If Kucinich was the little boy, then I applaud him, and I amend my question to direct it not at Kucinich but at the Members of Congress he refers to in the above quote. I direct the question also to every journalist (or those posing as journalists), every Senator, every member of the armed forces, and to every voting citizen that claim to have been misled.
Kucinich's point is to "hold accountable those who misled this nation" and the action in question is to impeach the smirking chimp. I assume that he would not expect that action alone to solve the accountability question. The Executive and its cabal are corrupt. That's obvious.
So is Congress.
So is the Senate.
So is the Judiciary.
So is the Military.
So is the Fourth Estate.
The President did not act alone. That he lied is the thin edge of the wedge. To right this wrong merely by scapegoating Bush is illusory. What is more troubling to me is the masses' collaboration with the lie; what is most frustrating is the disingenuous complaint of "we were misled". He led those that followed exactly where they wanted to go.
Clearly I was wrong about Kucinich (and others) on the issue of this particular vote. Thanks for the correction. I misunderstood Kucinich's intent and the context for his comments. (I thank loqi for eloquently providing clarity to what was obviously fuzzy for me.)
I was projecting a generalized frustration on to the wrong target. I mistook Kucinich for one of the legions of people who seek now to absolve their culpability with the excuse that they were misled then. My rant was launched from Kucinich's comment:
"Many members of Congress relied on these representations from the White House to inform their decision to support the legislation that authorized the use of force against Iraq. We all know present and former colleagues that have said that if they knew then what they knew now they would not have voted to permit an attack upon Iraq".
It is obviously difficult for me to make the case for a greater intellectual rigor when I was clearly lacking on this point with regards to my impression of what Kucinich was saying... but the question to all those that claim to have been misled is: "Were you misled because you were ignorant or could you see the truth but chose to support the lie?"
I have no patience for anybody that claimed to have been misled by the smirking chimp. The lies were clear at the time. No hindsight was necessary in order to identify the imperialist occupation agenda that was behind the invasion of Iraq. There were plenty of little boys pointing out that the emperor wore no clothes but unlike in the H. C. Andersen story, the majority chose not to heed what was obvious.
If Kucinich was the little boy, then I applaud him, and I amend my question to direct it not at Kucinich but at the Members of Congress he refers to in the above quote. I direct the question also to every journalist (or those posing as journalists), every Senator, every member of the armed forces, and to every voting citizen that claim to have been misled.
Kucinich's point is to "hold accountable those who misled this nation" and the action in question is to impeach the smirking chimp. I assume that he would not expect that action alone to solve the accountability question. The Executive and its cabal are corrupt. That's obvious.
So is Congress.
So is the Senate.
So is the Judiciary.
So is the Military.
So is the Fourth Estate.
The President did not act alone. That he lied is the thin edge of the wedge. To right this wrong merely by scapegoating Bush is illusory. What is more troubling to me is the masses' collaboration with the lie; what is most frustrating is the disingenuous complaint of "we were misled". He led those that followed exactly where they wanted to go.
By: spirot
Re: Dennis Kucinich: Hearings on Impeachment
Accountability, eh?
So... we have Mr. Kucinich here absolving himself from his own responsibility to have made informed and reasoned decisions. He was misled. He suggests that he and his buddies would have acted differently way back when if they had only known what the real story was.
For any member of Congress that had voted to allow and allocate resources for the Executive to invade, yet now takes the position that they would have voted differently if they had known the truth; there seems to me only two plausible pleas such a member could take.
The first is a position of incompetence. The shifty eyed nonsense that Cheney's gang put forward as a justification for invasion was as full of holes then as it is now. For one to claim that they were misled and outwitted by George W. Bush paints a very sad self-portrait. If you are so lacking in intelligence, Mr. Kucinich, you really need to recuse yourself from representative democracy altogether. If you truly believed the story way back then, then you and yours better take responsibility for your gullibility and your lack of diligence. You are a fool. All of you. Your collective ignorance does not excuse your individual ignorance.
Impeach the president? Dissolve Congress while you're at it because each Member of Congress that supported those resolutions is as culpable for the consequences.
Because the only other alternative to being ignorant of the reasons for war, was that you were cognizant of them... which would make you a liar now and an accomplice then.
So which is it, Mr. Dennis Accountability Kucinich? Were you incompetent or were you an accomplice?
Are you ignorant or are you dishonest?
So... we have Mr. Kucinich here absolving himself from his own responsibility to have made informed and reasoned decisions. He was misled. He suggests that he and his buddies would have acted differently way back when if they had only known what the real story was.
For any member of Congress that had voted to allow and allocate resources for the Executive to invade, yet now takes the position that they would have voted differently if they had known the truth; there seems to me only two plausible pleas such a member could take.
The first is a position of incompetence. The shifty eyed nonsense that Cheney's gang put forward as a justification for invasion was as full of holes then as it is now. For one to claim that they were misled and outwitted by George W. Bush paints a very sad self-portrait. If you are so lacking in intelligence, Mr. Kucinich, you really need to recuse yourself from representative democracy altogether. If you truly believed the story way back then, then you and yours better take responsibility for your gullibility and your lack of diligence. You are a fool. All of you. Your collective ignorance does not excuse your individual ignorance.
Impeach the president? Dissolve Congress while you're at it because each Member of Congress that supported those resolutions is as culpable for the consequences.
Because the only other alternative to being ignorant of the reasons for war, was that you were cognizant of them... which would make you a liar now and an accomplice then.
So which is it, Mr. Dennis Accountability Kucinich? Were you incompetent or were you an accomplice?
Are you ignorant or are you dishonest?
By: spirot
My comment was not about trying to persuade people to see the hoax that it is. It just clearly is a hoax. That's it; that's all. If others can't see that, what do I care? If I cared to convince people otherwise, then I would have elaborated on why it's a hoax. If someone wants to believe this narrative of a hypnosis machine, fine with me.
I don't know what Criss Angel has to do with it but since you brought him up... his persona is a douchebag too. Whether he and Derren are both stand up dudes when they take their performer masks off is something I don't know... but the smuggery of douche that is part of their performance persona is as thick as a thick thing that sticks to things that thick things stick to. If we're all honest with one another, if we met a Criss Angel or a Derren Brown at a wedding, we'd probably want to spill drinks on them. Entertain us on tv, fine, just don't date my sister.
Whether I have experience hoaxing folk or not was not the point, I guess. I'm not a forensic medical examiner, nor do I specialize in the gadgetry of advanced computer-aided analysis, but that doesn't make me unable to judge that the science on CGI Miami... sorry, CSI Miami is bullshit.
Bringing up my experience with hoaxes wasn't about whether I'm any good at hoaxing, whether my hoaxes compare with the production values of Mr. Brown et al... my point was that I have experienced how willing people are to believe. Even with my own flawed material, people just want to believe. People want to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that he walked on water and raised a man from the dead. People want to believe that their President is motivated by the highest and noblest ideals. People want to believe Bill O'Reilly. People want to believe Olbermann. People want to believe Derren Brown built a hypnosis machine in the form of a video game. They want to believe these people and they want to believe that they're being told truth.
The point I am striving to make is that Derren Brown is asking people to believe. Most of what he is asking us to believe is about his video game zombie hypnotizer machine. But he is also asking us to believe that Derren Brown is the kind of person that kidnaps and tortures innocent people. And if Derren Brown is not actually the kind of person that kidnaps and tortures innocent people, then his mediated sense of self is akin to Andy Kaufman... and that is awesome.