Usually it’s my fellow bleeding hearts who go overboard with the whole political correctness thing, but apparently the Republican Rogue herself loves to play that card too. It seems that Family Guy, which makes a point of trying to offend everyone equally, stepped over the line by featuring a character with Down syndrome who’s mother happened to be the Governor of Alaska. A little risqué? Perhaps. But here’s the twist. The actress who played the character with Down syndrome? Well, she also has Down syndrome. And she’s more offended about what she thinks is Mrs. Palin’s exploitation of the condition, carrying “her son Trig around looking for sympathy and votes.” I didn’t see the episode myself, but when the executive director of the Down Syndrome Association of Los Angeles figures the character was well rounded enough, well, that’s good enough for me.
Whether or not I’d think it was over the line, it’s my firm belief that an artist’s highest calling is to follow his or her own moral compass. That invariably means that you offend some people. And is it less offensive to pretend like talented folks like Ms. Friedman – who do amazing things despite what the rest of us see as limitations – don’t exist? Or to teach everyone that you must absolutely never find any humour in any situation in which they are involved? Is it less offensive to treat them as if they’ll fall apart the moment some comedian mentions their condition?
Some consolation for poor Trig: We all are forced to suffer embarrassing parents at one point or another. It’s part of growing up.
I remember watching the 2004 U.S. Democratic Primaries and thinking that this Lieberman fellow was so obviously pandering to whatever groups he figured could give him a leg up that even George Bush would be better to have around for another four years if he was the alternative. Thankfully, Joe Lieberman never even got close, placing 7th in the primaries by the time he decided to withdraw. Since then, he’s flailed about like a complete jackass, eventually speaking at the Republican National Convention in support of John McCain, a stunt that seemed more like revenge on the party that shunned him in 2004 than anything resembling independent thought. That seemed to be the peak of the mountain for Joe. It is hard to imagine how one man could do any more to secure his place among the neo-swine. And for a brief time, he was mercifully off our radars, except when he was trying to push his way into a press photo or two (seriously, it’s fascinating to watch the man during these moments). But low and behold, Joe has managed to top himself once again, threatening to filibuster health reform in the States. This Huffington Post article sums it up best:
All in all, there’s no other way to peg Lieberman other than as a desperate hack who will thoughtlessly hurl thousands of Americans overboard for the sake of his unquenchable lust for attention, and his childish, vengeful hobby of tweaking the left.
Yes, despite his tough stance on marijuana and other drugs, Slick Steve Harper really just wants to get high with a little help from his friends. Congrats to the guy for getting up on stage and singing a song. That ain’t the easiest thing to do. But could he have picked something more contradictory? Hopefully he made sure to secure all the rights for performing the song and posting it up on YouTube. Wouldn’t want to piss off any of those record companies that he’s helping to impose draconian copyright laws on everyone.
The thing that bothers me the most about this performance, though, was that Rahim Jaffer was nowhere to be seen. That guy knows how to party, and I bet he could have helped on the harmonies.
Michael Geist gave confirmation today that he did indeed contact Curtis Cook to verify his statement. This assumes, of course, that he would delete a comment on his blog that was claiming to be him if it wasn’t him, which is a fairly reasonable assumption. With his reputation for being rather meticulous when it comes to looking at new copyright legislation, it would be surprising if he did not verify a source as important as Cook. I’m still left a bit disappointed that more people weren’t asking for clarification on this. Yes you could interpret his original post in a way that suggested that he had verified Cook’s identity, but the interaction between Geist and Cook was still hazy, relegated to three words in the blog post: “with his permission”, which still could have meant that it was simply the permission of whoever it was who posted the comment, not necessarily Cook. Now, however, that aspect of the story is clear. More traditional news sources are also starting to pick this up. I don’t believe we should necessarily give traditional news sources any more authority than blogs these days (both are apt to make major mistakes from time to time), but with a greater variety of sources comes a greater variety of research methods, and one would hope that, collectively, any poorly researched aspects of the story would be weeded out.
Now that we can reasonably assume the truthfulness of this development, we can now load the heaps of scorn on the Conference Board of Canada that it deserves.
A week ago, I found myself writing a snarky email to Gillian Shaw about her article on the Conference Board of Canada’s “research findings” on the strength of Canadian copyright. I’m a huge fan of BoingBoing and Michael Geist, and I had been following their reporting on this quite closely. I’m going to put up the content of that email not because I’m especially proud of it (I consider it, more or less, to be giving in to a very seductive form of righteousness that myself and my fellow lefties like to indulge from time to time), but to show how much of “a believer” I was and am in a less-is-more approach to copyright reform. And I’m doing that to give you an idea of how much I did not want to get into the conversation I got into today regarding the latest allegations against the Conference Board of Canada, post fuck up. (And to be clear, they did fuck up. I just think we’re jumping the gun a bit as to how much they fucked up). On with the email, then… (more…)
I thought this article was pretty hilarious. That’s right… Wall street CEOs completely fuck up the economy. Then, as they’re asking for tax payer bailout money, they do things like spend $87,000 on an area rug. And when the common folk get a bit upset they say, hey, wait a minute… we have to spend ridiculous amounts of money just to fit in.
What these guys don’t understand is how good they’ve still got it, even on their poverty level allowance of $500K/year. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it’s time for a history lesson…
Another cause was the fact that Louis XV fought many wars, bringing France to the verge of bankruptcy, and Louis XVI supported the colonists during the American Revolution, exacerbating the precarious financial condition of the government
The inefficient and antiquated financial system was unable to manage the national debt, something which was both caused and exacerbated by the burden of a grossly inequitable system of taxation. Another cause was the continued conspicuous consumption of the noble class, especially the court of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette at Versailles, despite the financial burden on the populace. High unemployment and high bread prices caused more money to be spent on food and less in other areas of the economy.
Sound familiar? That was the French Revolution. You can read all about it in the wikipedia article.
Remember what else happened during the French Revolution?
The common people didn’t cut the noble elite’s salaries, they introduced them to the guillotine.
In times like these, we should all try to be thankful for what we’ve got. And hey, if you’re a CEO on Wall Street and you still have your head, you’re doing a hell of a lot better than your predecessors.
Check out the following video and see if you get any feelings of deja vu…
Now, forget for a moment about the guy caressing his shotgun and the other guy claiming that the Democrats are the root of all evil in the world. Also, forget about the scene where the latter suggests that Republicans are the only ones who allow him to say what he wants to say without fear of going to jail (perhaps it’s because he’s a white male traditional family values sort of guy that he’s never had to worry about saying anything too controversial).
Take that ridiculousness out and what are you left with? You got it. President Obama’s election winning message. It’s as if all the Rush Limbaugh fans (who could never hope to have an original thought) got together and did an awkward tribute video for Barack Obama. Gotta make sure you include lots of regular working class people. Throw out the fear mongering of the Bush years and talk about change and hope. Talk about how the little guy’s getting screwed. Talk about freedom to do what you want to do and the government listening to the middle class for a change.
So that’s how they’re going to rebuild their party? By parroting the stuff that worked for the Democrats and hoping everyone will forget the last eight years? It’s like a guy who beats his wife and then tells her, “Baby, ain’t no one gonna love you like I do.” Ha! All the while, images of Ronald Reagan float from scene to scene as if he was their Messiah and they’re waiting for him to rise again! Somehow, I just can’t buy that the guy who brought us the Iran contra scandal would be able to start turning water into wine.
In case you guys haven’t noticed, YOUR FEARLESS LEADER got us into this cluster fuck of an economy. How about holding off rebuilding the party that made it possible for such a complete dumb ass to lead the free world into disaster for just a few months and pitch in. You guys love talking about patriotism, right? Well wouldn’t that involve lending a hand to the guy trying to fix things? He’s not going to get everything right, but he’s trying, damn it, and you’re being a bunch of twits about it because he’s trying something different. Do you really think he wants to fail? Of course not. That means you share the same goal. Because the Democrats are in charge now and you’re not, they’re going to try a different strategy. You’re just going to have to deal with that. Now it’s your chance to be a sober voice of opposition, to point out specific flaws in any of their proposals and get them fixed. That, or you can keep pouting and let them claim all the credit for any progress that is made.
Most of us know the story of Pandora’s Box. Girl gets box and is told not to open it. Girl opens box. Much badness occurs.
I’m sure some government officials are feeling that way about the Citizen’s Briefing Book. Check out the opening page here, where some of the people in charge give responses to the more popular issues. Nothing strange about that – until you dig a bit deeper and find out how to list the issues with the most popular ones on top. And what’s the most popular issue? That’s right, as of January 23, 2009, it’s still marijuana reform.
Now, I’m not saying that President Obama needs to end the many silly years of drug prohibition as his first act of office or even at all. I think we can all agree (even those of us who support an end to prohibition) that he has much more important issues to deal with. And President Obama has made it clear that he does not support an end to prohibition himself, despite having experimented in his youth. He sees it as just that – something dumb he did when he didn’t know any better. Agree or disagree, that’s his opinion. Given that he doesn’t support it himself and it’s so entrenched in American policy that he’d make a ton of enemies if he tried to push any sort of reform in this area through, I don’t think we’re really justified in expecting this to go anywhere. The time for freedom over our own bodies is still to come. Let’s be happy for now with the breath of fresh air we’ve gotten.
However, if President Obama really wants to put his money where his mouth is on “transparency in government”, he should at least recognize the popularity of the issue on the platform his people set up. For anyone who put so much faith in President Obama’s willingness to listen to the people, it’s got to be kind of troubling to see the responses from his staff address the other “top issues” while dancing around that one most popular issue. As embarrassing as it may be, it’s sticking out like a sore thumb when officials are addressing, via video, other top issues which actually received fewer votes. Yeah, it’s a bit of bad PR to recognize that this is what the people used your new democracy tool to bring up, but you’ve got to take the good with the bad.
I still think this will be an age of enlightenment in leadership, thanks to President Obama, and wish him the best of luck. Seeing him win on November 4th of this year hits near the top of my list of favorite moments. But I will be nevertheless a bit disappointed if he does not continue this meme of openness and transparency that he has unleashed and at least recognizes the top issue in his Citizen’s Brief and explains his reasons for not pursuing it.
Could you imagine anyone who didn’t light up even just a little during President Barack Obama’s inauguration speech? And even with all the speculation, can you imagine anyone who would be 100% certain on the very first day of the new presidency that it is doomed to be a complete failure? How about if the prospect of failure was actually the only thing that gave such a person any joy, even if failure meant this already bad economy going completely into the shitter? Strange days indeed when, instead of the expected cartoon villain, we find out that such a person actually exists in the form of the delightfully belligerent Rush Limbaugh, the self proclaimed “Doctor of Democracy”. Check out his Tuesday address to his equally pig headed fans.
My favorite part is the beginning where the caller says the speech was boring because he couldn’t follow what the President was saying. Meanwhile, the rest of us are thinking: “Finally, a President whose policies and speaking ability aren’t at a level that Rush Limbaugh’s fans can handle!”
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Bloomington, Illinois. Floyd, I’m glad you waited. Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program. Hello.
CALLER: Yeah, Rush?
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: Yeah, mega dittos, sir.
RUSH: I appreciate that.
CALLER: Okay, Bo wanted me to talk about the speech? And provide my feelings on the speech?
RUSH: Yeah, yeah, that’s why we took your call.
CALLER: Okay. I found it very boring. You know, I wasn’t following what he was saying, you know, and everything. And I found myself a couple of times actually drifting off and not paying attention, it was so boring. Also, did you notice at the beginning, maybe I was hearing things, but at the beginning, was the crowd saying, “Obama! Obama! Obama!” Did they do that little chant thing when he stepped up to the microphone?
Looks like the RIAA is dropping the policy of suing individuals who share music online in favor of one that cuts off their internet access after repeat violations. Before you say, “That’s fair,” consider the importance of Internet access today. Consider also that, unlike Cory Doctorow has suggested before, the reverse (cutting off the Internet access of companies who make repeated spurious copyright claims) would be met with outrage from the same people who support such a system. Finally, consider that this creates a situation where the RIAA is effectively allowed to pursue vigilante justice. So, what we’re really saying is that, when big business deems it acceptable, we can strip citizens of basic rights (i.e. the right to free speech in a communication channel that has permeated every aspect of our lives) without the use of our legal system. Read more here.
Or perhaps instead of trying to destroy everything that doesn’t fit the RIAA’s perception of reality (file sharing, the internet, our basic rights, etc.), they could just change the way they approach the business of making money off of music. I hate to invoke Orwell, but the similarity is too obvious to resist.
Brian Toder of Chestnut & Cambronne is the lone voice of reason within the article, which almost makes it sound like the RIAA is doing everyone a favor, when he says this: “People like to share music. The Internet makes it so easy. They have to do something to change this business model of theirs.”
Oh my fellow Canadians… we have had an interesting week, haven’t we? I found myself alternating between excitement over my country actually being represented by a majority (contrary to what one might assume by our Conservative leadership, we actually voted 63% or so in favor of political parties from the left) and anxiety because if a coalition government was not stalled, the overwhelming majority of idiots in my particular province (the lovely Alberta) might truly end up trying to forge ahead with this western separatism bullshit. Alas, Prime Minister Steve Harper ran like a baby to our Governor General and got Parliament prorogued – i.e. shut down – for a couple of months, hoping that the parties he’s been pissing on ever since he won a minority government will start wimping out again.
How dare I call my fellow anti-Coalition Albertans stupid? Well, perhaps some quotes from one of their groups on Facebook to illustrate:
“Canada has never had a civil war. But if they threaten this nations constitution and democracy then that certainly warrants action.”
“How about just nuking Quebec, we would then have a majority Conservative government, and we wouldn’t have to deal with the retarted bilingualism crap. plus we could still Hire Newfies to do all our crap work, like we already do.” (more…)
Check out what Rush Limbaugh has to say about Barack Obama’s amazing acceptance speech on Tuesday. I suppose the guy does make his living off of being a hypocritical jackass, so it’s understandable that he couldn’t even wait a day to reflect on one of the most inspirational speeches of our lifetime before critiquing it.
This is one of my favorite parts:
OBAMA: The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you, we as a people will get there.
RUSH: Okay, I remember that bite. Where are we going? He didn’t tell the crowd where we were going, and the crowd didn’t care where they’re going.
Now, before you get too worked up about this, just imagine Mr. Limbaugh applying this same expert analysis to Martin Luther King: “You have a dream?!?!?! What dream? What kind of funny business are you trying to pull here, mister?”
It’s easy to get angry reading a transcript like this, which just reeks of stupid, but you’ve got to put it in perspective. These are the dying gasps of an old system. It’s a system based on anger and hate, and on Tuesday, the majority of Americans decided it had been around for long enough. It’s all the poor guy knows. As Obama was fond of pointing out about McCain, “He just doesn’t get it.”
Let him rant and point fingers. And let’s concentrate on proving him wrong.
I’m pretty sure everyone’s going to be talking about Tuesday night for a while. The first African American president. Jesse Jackson and Oprah Winfrey not even trying to fight back tears. John McCain making his best speech in years. He may have bought into the tactics of George Bush and his goons when they were proven effective in robbing him of the Republican nomination the first time around, but he was at least a very gracious loser. Hats off to you tonight, Senator McCain.
For some strange reason, I’m feverishly anticipating whatever Sarah Palin is going to say in regards to her defeat. We know it will be something stupid – and we’re now free to laugh about it without that heavy feeling of doom, as she will not be anywhere near the nuclear launch codes for at least another four years. By then it will be 2012, and if you believe the Mayans or Terence McKenna’s wonderfully comical, acid and I Ching fueled “novelty theory” predictions, the last thing we’ll be worried about is Larry Flynt’s new Alaskan muse. (more…)
Just got a message from Stella at wejustlivehere.com and am happy to put it up:
We’d all love to vote in this election because it impacts us as much as folks who’re just born here. So we put up this site to show what would happen if the millions of US aliens who can’t vote, could.
Just taking a glance at the results, one can see why it would be in the Republicans’ best interest to make gaining your U.S. citizenship difficult. Thanks, Stella!
Oh God. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Paris Hilton (to be more specific, whoever wrote this song for her) is actually kind of witty in this video:
But you know, I bet Paris knows that the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee freedom from the press, and that would mean she’s just a little more capable than the current VP on the Republican ticket.
It’s short and well worth the time to read. But to whet your appetite, here’s my favorite part of the article:
I’ve learned that this election is about the heart of America. It’s about the young people who are losing hope and the old people who have been forgotten. It’s about those who have worked all their lives and never fully realized the promise of America, but see that promise for their grandchildren in Barack Obama. The poor see a chance, when they often have few. I saw hope in the eyes and faces in those doorways.
In Obama, the Arts, and Soft Power, Raymond J. Learsy talks about the increased focus Barack Obama would will give the arts if he is when he is elected President.
I have mixed feelings about public funding for the arts. I’m certainly not a big supporter of government grants to individual artists. Perhaps this is because I’ve never attempted to apply for these grants myself. I think I share with a lot of other Canadian artists, a disinterest in trying to mold my work around some status quo definition of “Canadian identity” which is certainly something that helps a lot of the folks I see getting grants. I do see a lot more funding that doesn’t seem as focused on preserving that nebulous notion of Canadian heritage, but the same essential problem still remains. Who decides which artists get funded and which ones don’t?
In a pure market economy, it’s everyone, voting with their money. And while this doesn’t always result in good art, it is fair in the sense that artists are rewarded by how much the public wants them to produce new works. With government grants, you essentially get a small group of people dictating what will be promoted to the public. There’s always the chance of a benevolant dictatorship, but more often than not, it turns into a game of who knows who.
That said, after reading Richard Florida’s The Rise of the Creative Class, I’m intrigued by the ways in which funding the arts can boost today’s rising creative economy sector, thus justifying a certain amount of public funding. Here’s Florida’s thesis in a nutshell: (more…)
I don’t know what’s scarier – Sarah Palin’s complete lack of understanding when it comes to basic constitutional rights such as the First Amendment or the overly confident way in which she shows that lack of understanding.
“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”
This kind of doublespeak is an Orwellian wet dream. And it’s terribly dangerous. Think a bit about what she’s actually saying in that very concise statement – that the press’ freedom of speech is a danger to America. She’s suggesting that the press is actually manipulating an election by exercising their freedom to criicize her. In other words, freedom of speech is a dangerous thing that only a select few, who can use it responsibly, should have. This, of course, is actually a denial of free speech as a basic right.
The full interview is well worth your time. In it, Kennedy delivers a concise, but passionate and convincing (though, admittedly, I’m part of the choir he preaches to) critique of how, over the last eight years, the Bush administration has squandered the goodwill towards America that had been built up over the years by better, wiser leadership, and how that goodwill might be regained. The man shows an obvious love for his country, both in the way he holds to his ideals and in his anger over the way things have gone. He also (only half jokingly) suggests that Canadians can do their part by sneaking over the border and voting for Obama .
And for anyone scratching his or her head and saying, “What’s with the voice?” here’s a link that explains his condition, spasmodic dysphonia, which affects only the voice box of only 0.02% of the population.
I'm currently no. 4. I prefer the historical argument re: the problems alcohol prohibition caused to the "Hey dude, weed rox!" variety.{ 03/11/10 4:25 PM }
I find it amusing how many "end drug prohibition" comments are facing Mr. Harper on his upcoming YouTube interview: http://bit.ly/cHMXpK{ 03/11/10 4:20 PM }
Finally gave in and got the Mac Heist bundle. $19.95 for 7 apps and 3 bonus ones isn't bad. http://bit.ly/heist-it{ 03/09/10 11:44 PM }
@seanhealy highly recommend Paradise Lost for your documentary binge.{ 03/06/10 11:23 AM }
I bet Jay Leno has the best computer hackers in North America working on figuring out the password to @ConanOBrien's twitter account ;-){ 02/24/10 6:41 PM }
.