5.31.2004
Before anybody starts blaming those above for the actions of those below, perhaps peruse this.
I believe that there is something that is fundamentally flawed with all humans that brings this sort of behavior out. Some people blame their upbringing, their culture, or their commanders. Others blame a condition. I agree with this latter group. Not a condition of the mind or of circumstance, but of the soul. They (and I) would call it sin. That is not a popular word these days. Despite the obvious logical flaws, we have beome a pluralistic and relativistic world. Many would dispute my use of the s-word, but there is still something deep within us that knows - instintively, deeply, preconciously knows- what is right and what is wrong and I think we all know it when we see it. We see it when priests start chasing little boys, when rock stars start chasing little boys and when little boys grow up to be men who start chasing other men. We see it when the rich and powerful leverage the rules to maintain their riches and power. We see it when the poor think that their problems will be solved if they co-opt the riches and power they simultaneously denounce.
Everybody claims that these sorts of behaviors are ingrained in us in varying ways and degrees so deeply that to deny them is to deny our humanity. But these arguments hold no water. Indeed, to deny them IS our humanity. Because alongside the proclivities and tendencies and "genetic predisposiitons" (if there in fact are such things) lies something that reveals to us that these things are wrong. As CS Lewis said, if you don't believe in an objective, absolute truth, just listen to someone having an argument. Every position is based on the assumption and presupposition that the opposing party has violated some known, common law. There would be no argument without it. So, we can either use these activities to say that nothing is actually right or wrong - a position even its proponents can't and don't entirely buy- or we can realize that there is some sort of objective truth out there. And that we can know it. And that this realization and knowledge propels us to DO something about it. To modify our own actions to conform to this obvious standard. And to try to impel others to do the same.
And everything hinges on that point.
I believe that there is something that is fundamentally flawed with all humans that brings this sort of behavior out. Some people blame their upbringing, their culture, or their commanders. Others blame a condition. I agree with this latter group. Not a condition of the mind or of circumstance, but of the soul. They (and I) would call it sin. That is not a popular word these days. Despite the obvious logical flaws, we have beome a pluralistic and relativistic world. Many would dispute my use of the s-word, but there is still something deep within us that knows - instintively, deeply, preconciously knows- what is right and what is wrong and I think we all know it when we see it. We see it when priests start chasing little boys, when rock stars start chasing little boys and when little boys grow up to be men who start chasing other men. We see it when the rich and powerful leverage the rules to maintain their riches and power. We see it when the poor think that their problems will be solved if they co-opt the riches and power they simultaneously denounce.
Everybody claims that these sorts of behaviors are ingrained in us in varying ways and degrees so deeply that to deny them is to deny our humanity. But these arguments hold no water. Indeed, to deny them IS our humanity. Because alongside the proclivities and tendencies and "genetic predisposiitons" (if there in fact are such things) lies something that reveals to us that these things are wrong. As CS Lewis said, if you don't believe in an objective, absolute truth, just listen to someone having an argument. Every position is based on the assumption and presupposition that the opposing party has violated some known, common law. There would be no argument without it. So, we can either use these activities to say that nothing is actually right or wrong - a position even its proponents can't and don't entirely buy- or we can realize that there is some sort of objective truth out there. And that we can know it. And that this realization and knowledge propels us to DO something about it. To modify our own actions to conform to this obvious standard. And to try to impel others to do the same.
And everything hinges on that point.
5.29.2004
i never thought i'd say this, but i'm on Al Gore's side.
This post is brought to you by:
FEMA-Preparing kids for the Apocolypse since 2002(note)
This post is brought to you by:
FEMA-Preparing kids for the Apocolypse since 2002(note)
This is stupid. The kid doesn't for sure even have his diploma.
It is true that I walked across the stage and shook the hand.... i was not handed my diploma that night because my dad didn't pay the bill until later that year....
That was 1998.... just one year before Jeremy Perlinger graduated.
note: his fucking keywords
It is true that I walked across the stage and shook the hand.... i was not handed my diploma that night because my dad didn't pay the bill until later that year....
That was 1998.... just one year before Jeremy Perlinger graduated.
note: his fucking keywords
5.28.2004
5.27.2004
i put the five cd's i listed on shuffle yesterday, this is how it went
over 4 hours of music, 50 songs and the cd's were hit as so:
belle & sebastian 15
tweaker 12
autechre 9
primus 8
perry farrell 6
most played song "swamp" by tweaker played 5 times
over 4 hours of music, 50 songs and the cd's were hit as so:
belle & sebastian 15
tweaker 12
autechre 9
primus 8
perry farrell 6
most played song "swamp" by tweaker played 5 times
For me its been the usual:
Cake, m doughty, ben folds, new modest mouse, lemon jelly
and just recently..... sight like december
for lines like this:
tell my vision ignores
the obstruction of my brain
and i realize i'm a vibration
oscillating in space
apologizes for plugging this band a second time....
Cake, m doughty, ben folds, new modest mouse, lemon jelly
and just recently..... sight like december
for lines like this:
tell my vision ignores
the obstruction of my brain
and i realize i'm a vibration
oscillating in space
apologizes for plugging this band a second time....
5.26.2004
my fiive most listened to albums the past couple weeks
are probaby:
perry farrell "songs yet to be sung"
autechre "incunabula"
tweaker "the attraction to things uncertain"
primus "brown album"
belle & sebastian "dear catastophe waitress"
see them as you will : )
are probaby:
perry farrell "songs yet to be sung"
autechre "incunabula"
tweaker "the attraction to things uncertain"
primus "brown album"
belle & sebastian "dear catastophe waitress"
see them as you will : )
Definitely check out Modest Mouse's new CD. It's exceptional.
Sight Like December is also an option.
Worthy bands seem so few these days. It seems like when I do find something half-decent I really have to reach to find complete worthiness in it.
Music is not like the ol' days:)
Recently though, Songs For the Deaf has officially made it to my list of "Best Albums of All Time." It is already a classic in my mind...
Sight Like December is also an option.
Worthy bands seem so few these days. It seems like when I do find something half-decent I really have to reach to find complete worthiness in it.
Music is not like the ol' days:)
Recently though, Songs For the Deaf has officially made it to my list of "Best Albums of All Time." It is already a classic in my mind...
5.25.2004
i would highly recommend a band that i just found out about: the Faint
also:
the new Modest Mouse album
Neutral Milk Hotel
and of course, Grandaddy
also:
the new Modest Mouse album
Neutral Milk Hotel
and of course, Grandaddy
question for anyone:
what kinds of musics are you listening to/have been listening to in the past week or two?
I'm just looking for something new, something different, something good...
maybe I'm just getting bored with what I've already listened to?
maybe it's just another phase where I branch out and expand my musical horizons?
whatever it is, post some recommendations!
lately, I've been stuck on:
QOTSA:Rated R
QOTSA:Songs For The Deaf
various lyricless Smashing Pumpkins demos
Two Lone Swordsmen - Driving With My Gears In Reverse(Only Makes You Move Further Away)
what kinds of musics are you listening to/have been listening to in the past week or two?
I'm just looking for something new, something different, something good...
maybe I'm just getting bored with what I've already listened to?
maybe it's just another phase where I branch out and expand my musical horizons?
whatever it is, post some recommendations!
lately, I've been stuck on:
QOTSA:Rated R
QOTSA:Songs For The Deaf
various lyricless Smashing Pumpkins demos
Two Lone Swordsmen - Driving With My Gears In Reverse(Only Makes You Move Further Away)
5.23.2004
"Eating responsibly at McDonald's is like going to a strip club for the iced tea." roger ebert
5.22.2004
5.19.2004
5.17.2004
Chad sez:
>you see disney gets tax breaks from the state of florida.... Jeb Bush.
>its obvious. its logical.
I think its a bit oversimplified. It seems as though Disney would most fear alienating a large portion of their potential fan base. Tax exemptions or deals or whatever are pretty insignificant compared to their core fan base (mostly conservative-leaning family folk). In the end, it is business. If Michael moore wanted to avoid this, he should have created the film/distro thing himself. I am sure he has the money, or could get it. You can't tell me Air America stays on the air because it is commercially viable.
I do think that there is quite a bit of crying wolf involved here (and not just Michael Moore, everybody in the political talk arena is guilty of this). It is pretty formulaic and derivative: Take a large corporation with ties to local and national government (any will do). Mix in backdoor, under-the-table sweetheart deals, which may or may not in fact exist, and then complain about how unfair it is. Bake for many years with a cynical, intolerant mindset. Serve hot off the presses.
"Military-industrial complex", they say. "Get the soft money out of washington!" they exclaim. Like they are surprised that the rich and powerful are intent on staying rich and powerful, and that they are the first figure it out.
I just wish I could hear one original political thought.
"A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, 'hooray for our side'"
>you see disney gets tax breaks from the state of florida.... Jeb Bush.
>its obvious. its logical.
I think its a bit oversimplified. It seems as though Disney would most fear alienating a large portion of their potential fan base. Tax exemptions or deals or whatever are pretty insignificant compared to their core fan base (mostly conservative-leaning family folk). In the end, it is business. If Michael moore wanted to avoid this, he should have created the film/distro thing himself. I am sure he has the money, or could get it. You can't tell me Air America stays on the air because it is commercially viable.
I do think that there is quite a bit of crying wolf involved here (and not just Michael Moore, everybody in the political talk arena is guilty of this). It is pretty formulaic and derivative: Take a large corporation with ties to local and national government (any will do). Mix in backdoor, under-the-table sweetheart deals, which may or may not in fact exist, and then complain about how unfair it is. Bake for many years with a cynical, intolerant mindset. Serve hot off the presses.
"Military-industrial complex", they say. "Get the soft money out of washington!" they exclaim. Like they are surprised that the rich and powerful are intent on staying rich and powerful, and that they are the first figure it out.
I just wish I could hear one original political thought.
"A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, 'hooray for our side'"
I... just.... have... to... link these...
wow...
the originals
You know, I had an idea like that once...
a classic that will withstand the test of time
PRAISE JEBUS!
YOU LOSE!
one of my favorites...
it's loveable, huggable WORF!
explore the rest here!
wow...
the originals
You know, I had an idea like that once...
a classic that will withstand the test of time
PRAISE JEBUS!
YOU LOSE!
one of my favorites...
it's loveable, huggable WORF!
explore the rest here!
5.16.2004
5.15.2004
john stewart made mention of that very point on thursday, cool
the sexist man alive.
actually michael moore knew Michael Eisner was against distributing the movie a year ago. he told him verbally. i have not seen the contracts, but i would tend to believe that Buena Vista distro had first dibs at distributing the dvd. it is TRUE that only recently the shareholders/management decided that Buena Vista was not officially going to do it. there could possibly be language that says disney can sit on the film and not release it for a period of time. i hope not.
you see disney gets tax breaks from the state of florida.... Jeb Bush.
its obvious. its logical.
actually michael moore knew Michael Eisner was against distributing the movie a year ago. he told him verbally. i have not seen the contracts, but i would tend to believe that Buena Vista distro had first dibs at distributing the dvd. it is TRUE that only recently the shareholders/management decided that Buena Vista was not officially going to do it. there could possibly be language that says disney can sit on the film and not release it for a period of time. i hope not.
you see disney gets tax breaks from the state of florida.... Jeb Bush.
its obvious. its logical.
5.14.2004
ben folds / guster / rufus wainwright tour
no minnesota dates fuck
no minnesota dates fuck
5.13.2004
hot chocolate and grahm crackers
such an easy and frequent snack of mine
such an easy and frequent snack of mine
5.10.2004
You may have missed the publicity thing... the NY Times jumped on the story early on when Moore first said that he was being censored. Then it came out that that had been the deal all along, that Miramax (by extension, disney) would make the film but not distribute it. It was just a publicity thing. That is why I was so disappointed. To quote Al Franken, another "Liberal Windbag" as you put it, "If you have to lie to support your position, you obviously don't believe in your position very much." Moore's film will obviously be distributed (Heck, I would distribute it myself... I think it would be a financial slam dunk), but it does cast his conclusions in a poor light.
What do you propose to eliminate "censorship"? Freedom of speech (what is actually guaranteed in the constitution, not the more vague freedom of expression) is not a freedom to say whatever you want. Libel and character assasination are criminal offenses. Not punishable by jail time (that I know of) but usually are involved in financial lawsuits. The first condition is that the statement has to be untrue and the second condition is that the person who said it (or wrote it or whatever) had to know it is untrue and generate the statement anyway. An example would be the tshirt/poster with a picture of Bush and the statement "International Terrorist" underneath it. Other examples are when tabloids publish false articles about celebrities, or when people make slanderous accusations of people for revenge or manipulation (wives in divorce cases are notorious for this). Propriety, while also vague, is another. References to sexual or excretory functions during "prime-time" when children could be watching are closely regulated and, especially recently, are actually being enforced. In the end, there has to be some kind of order to the situation and not just a free-speech free-for-all. There are enough outlets for communication in the correct format that I can't really say that there is any serious censorship at all. The internet is almost completely unregulated, and has the potential to reach the largest audience. Traditional outlets such as books and magazines are similarly open. Broadcast communication is less so because of the financial barriers to entry, but functionally, if you want to see something, there is some forum out there for seeing it. What I find the most frightening is the restriction and innacuracy of news. There is an aspect of a restriction of information, but I think the reinterpretation of information is far more damaging. How do you know what is REALLY going on? It is kind of a two edged sword. Government control is ridiculous. That brings us back to soviet-era information control. Corporate control, while less frightening on the surface, raises some serious questions if you think about it a bit. But I really see no alternative that doesn't lead back to our original situation in an "Animal Farm" type of way. The best thing I can think of is international news. I think there is less chance for overt information control. In the end, there is no even close to good alternative. You could have 100 people describe some event that they all simultaneously viewed and get 100 divergent views. I think that a person has to seriously consider the source (This makes Alex Jones a very dubious source of serious information), and the number of sources reporting the same thing. I try to restrict things to larger reporting wires (AP, Reuters, etc) or very large, hopefully only slightly-biased sources (NZ times, BBC, etc). Google news is great for this because you can read the same story from many different viewpoints and kind of interpolate what is most likely to have happened.
It is very easy to see someone oppose one of our favored sources or trusted experts and cry foul. The harder thing is to objectively look at the situation and discern first of all, if it is really happening or is a publicity manipulation, and then if it has any real effect on our actually getting the information. I think that true censorship is unheard of. Both in the sense that it is rare and in the sense that when it happens, none of us will ever find out about it.
What do you propose to eliminate "censorship"? Freedom of speech (what is actually guaranteed in the constitution, not the more vague freedom of expression) is not a freedom to say whatever you want. Libel and character assasination are criminal offenses. Not punishable by jail time (that I know of) but usually are involved in financial lawsuits. The first condition is that the statement has to be untrue and the second condition is that the person who said it (or wrote it or whatever) had to know it is untrue and generate the statement anyway. An example would be the tshirt/poster with a picture of Bush and the statement "International Terrorist" underneath it. Other examples are when tabloids publish false articles about celebrities, or when people make slanderous accusations of people for revenge or manipulation (wives in divorce cases are notorious for this). Propriety, while also vague, is another. References to sexual or excretory functions during "prime-time" when children could be watching are closely regulated and, especially recently, are actually being enforced. In the end, there has to be some kind of order to the situation and not just a free-speech free-for-all. There are enough outlets for communication in the correct format that I can't really say that there is any serious censorship at all. The internet is almost completely unregulated, and has the potential to reach the largest audience. Traditional outlets such as books and magazines are similarly open. Broadcast communication is less so because of the financial barriers to entry, but functionally, if you want to see something, there is some forum out there for seeing it. What I find the most frightening is the restriction and innacuracy of news. There is an aspect of a restriction of information, but I think the reinterpretation of information is far more damaging. How do you know what is REALLY going on? It is kind of a two edged sword. Government control is ridiculous. That brings us back to soviet-era information control. Corporate control, while less frightening on the surface, raises some serious questions if you think about it a bit. But I really see no alternative that doesn't lead back to our original situation in an "Animal Farm" type of way. The best thing I can think of is international news. I think there is less chance for overt information control. In the end, there is no even close to good alternative. You could have 100 people describe some event that they all simultaneously viewed and get 100 divergent views. I think that a person has to seriously consider the source (This makes Alex Jones a very dubious source of serious information), and the number of sources reporting the same thing. I try to restrict things to larger reporting wires (AP, Reuters, etc) or very large, hopefully only slightly-biased sources (NZ times, BBC, etc). Google news is great for this because you can read the same story from many different viewpoints and kind of interpolate what is most likely to have happened.
It is very easy to see someone oppose one of our favored sources or trusted experts and cry foul. The harder thing is to objectively look at the situation and discern first of all, if it is really happening or is a publicity manipulation, and then if it has any real effect on our actually getting the information. I think that true censorship is unheard of. Both in the sense that it is rare and in the sense that when it happens, none of us will ever find out about it.
5.09.2004
i long for a united federation of planets.
the first step is to start thinking differently.
and not like this.
the first step is to start thinking differently.
and not like this.
5.08.2004
Michael Moore.
He's a personal hero of mine.
Liberal Windbag?
possibly.
everyone has motives.
Michael Eisner of Disney has business motives in mind right?
Nevermind the fact that this move has forced the business/government relationship to "decloak " if you will. Michael Eisner is not contesting that he's afraid of unfavorable treatment from Jeb Bush, flesh and blood of the very subject of Moore's critical documentry.
This is not unlike a more publicized event earlier this year.
This display violates the base philosophy of this country. freedom of FUCKING expression.
He's a personal hero of mine.
Liberal Windbag?
possibly.
everyone has motives.
Michael Eisner of Disney has business motives in mind right?
Nevermind the fact that this move has forced the business/government relationship to "decloak " if you will. Michael Eisner is not contesting that he's afraid of unfavorable treatment from Jeb Bush, flesh and blood of the very subject of Moore's critical documentry.
This is not unlike a more publicized event earlier this year.
This display violates the base philosophy of this country. freedom of FUCKING expression.
5.06.2004
Well, I watched Michael Moore's "the big one" movie. It has been residing on my hard drive for nearly a year now, but I haven't gotten around to watching it until now. Perhaps it was the whole Miramax/publicity thing. I was very disappointed in him over that. To take on the mantle of censored free-speech activist just to attract attention to his movie was I thought a really cheap shot. Especially from him, for all the talk of truth and responsibility. As for The Big One, it wasn't too bad... a few funny moments, but as with Bowling for Columbine, I was unsure of what he was really trying to say. There was lots of talk of outsourcing and downsizing and all, but there was very little in the way of prescriptive action. Lots of publicity, asking ill-prepared PR reps loaded questions and then pushing a camera in their face to watch them stutter, but nothing concrete beyond that.
MM: "What do you think of when you play with yourself in the shower?"
PR Rep: "Well, I..., um... Trying to stay competitive...ummm."
I am kidding, but it did kind of seem like that at times. As for welfare workers and providing jobs for people in Flint, I have to say that I remain unimpressed. I can only speak for myself, but I worked by posterior off in school so that I can have the type of job that I have, and I continue to work very hard at it. And I don't want to hear about any downtrodden poor black people who never had a chance. They have every chance in the world, the same as I had. In this country the only reason people can't obtain a degree is because they don't buckle down and work at it. Brains has nothing to do with it, background has nothing to do with it. Work ethic has everything to do with it. A bit hard core? Yeah, I suppose it is. It is just frustrating to see people lined up looking for handouts who aren't willing to have the foresight and initiative to avoid the position they are in in the first place. I am thinking of the scene where the welfare moms were in the Wisconsin state capitol and one of them looked up at a painting on the wall that said something about justice, and she said "Justice? Where's MY justice?" A high paying job merely because she would like one is not justice. It is the opposite of justice. School is a lot of work, and there are times that it isn't the most fun imaginable, but it is very rewarding on many different levels. That is why I am going back. I should stop thinking about it.... It is getting me riled. I don't blame corporations at all for the outsourcing. Why give ungrateful people more money when there are thousands of people who would be tickled pink to do the same job for less? Talk about helping the poor... Those people are TRULY poor and are, in my opinion, more deserving of a job than many people here. What makes us so much better than them that we DESERVE 30 times the pay for the same job?
I will sign off for now... I need to go to bed and reset my brain. It is too frustrating. Is this what Michael Moore was trying to get across? The sheer, blinding frustration of living in a universe of mental midgets?
MM: "What do you think of when you play with yourself in the shower?"
PR Rep: "Well, I..., um... Trying to stay competitive...ummm."
I am kidding, but it did kind of seem like that at times. As for welfare workers and providing jobs for people in Flint, I have to say that I remain unimpressed. I can only speak for myself, but I worked by posterior off in school so that I can have the type of job that I have, and I continue to work very hard at it. And I don't want to hear about any downtrodden poor black people who never had a chance. They have every chance in the world, the same as I had. In this country the only reason people can't obtain a degree is because they don't buckle down and work at it. Brains has nothing to do with it, background has nothing to do with it. Work ethic has everything to do with it. A bit hard core? Yeah, I suppose it is. It is just frustrating to see people lined up looking for handouts who aren't willing to have the foresight and initiative to avoid the position they are in in the first place. I am thinking of the scene where the welfare moms were in the Wisconsin state capitol and one of them looked up at a painting on the wall that said something about justice, and she said "Justice? Where's MY justice?" A high paying job merely because she would like one is not justice. It is the opposite of justice. School is a lot of work, and there are times that it isn't the most fun imaginable, but it is very rewarding on many different levels. That is why I am going back. I should stop thinking about it.... It is getting me riled. I don't blame corporations at all for the outsourcing. Why give ungrateful people more money when there are thousands of people who would be tickled pink to do the same job for less? Talk about helping the poor... Those people are TRULY poor and are, in my opinion, more deserving of a job than many people here. What makes us so much better than them that we DESERVE 30 times the pay for the same job?
I will sign off for now... I need to go to bed and reset my brain. It is too frustrating. Is this what Michael Moore was trying to get across? The sheer, blinding frustration of living in a universe of mental midgets?
5.03.2004
Not to shoot down your quote, but doesn't the fact that this originated from Berkeley seem a little predictable?
