When the movie Mortal Kombat came out, I remember being totally amped after seeing it, jumping out of the theater, kicking into the air with my friends, quoting the characters, etc. I was most likely jacked up on sugar and caffeine, too. When I saw the new Dark Knight movie, for better or worse, my excitement was a bit more contained. But I was gratefully reminded of my never-ending life-quest to be a mysterious bad-ass (I'm working on it). I don't know how much this has to do with Jimmy Justice, but I'm glad he's doing what he's doing, and I hope he inspires others as well.
read more | digg story
04 August, 2008
20 May, 2008
Re: Senate Republican Conference on U.S. Energy Policy
Haven't simultaneously watched C-Span and recorded my reaction in a while, so here we go:
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK) rattles off about smarter technology for oil extraction, and that since we know how to use it, nothing can go wrong (by this logic, everyone gets their driver's license, therefore, there should be no car accidents).
Sen. Kyl (AZ) grins like a lustful carnie.
Sen. Wicker (MS) talks to slow. I think he just finshed a sentence, but he sounds confused - and he's reading off of notes! But he is able to stutter out the question of "What are... do we... have any facts about oil spills?" Yeah, unless I've got some cold hard charts in front of me, a duck dipped in oil looks fine to me.
Sen. Allard (CO) is a tool.
Sen. Warner (VA) thankfully does make the point that the biggest government usage of fuel comes from the Dept. of Defense.
omg. Sen. Stevens (AK) is their first speaker. He sounds as stuttery and fumbly-bumbly as he did when talking about the Internets as a Series of Tubes. It's pretty much incomprehensible. I am hearing some Clinton-bashing, some dates, and more stuttering (nothing against anyone with speech impediments; everything against narrow-minded, curmudgeonly senators). Haha. He just tried to make the point that investments in renewable resources can't even come about without ANWAR drilling revenues! Please, go on. I am totally believing you...
Sen. Sessions (AL) rests his head on his hand like he's drunk.
In response to Session's question, Stevens confuses the impact that ANWAR oil production would have on gas prices versus the real effects that Saudi Arabian oil production has on prices.
Sen. Domenici (NM) is now calling not drilling in ANWAR "wrong" and blames Democrats.
He is the second senator to mention the bike/car binary (As in, "I don't think we can all just stop using cars and start riding bikes!" - which, btw, NO ONE is suggesting).
Domenici and Stevens start to stroke each others' balding heads over the suggestion that ANWAR can produce more oil than previously believed, thanks to the record price per barrel.
Stevens is now bitching like a little baby, comparing the 70 permits needed to start oil production in ANWAR, versus the lack of regulation in Russia and Norway. Awww... then why don't you go ahead and run for Senator of Russia?
Oh man, Stevens is again cursing over Clinton's veto of some related bill in 1995. I can't take anymore. If Stevens was my grandpa, I would never visit him. There's no reason I need to watch anymore. These Republicans are boring. Going to bed.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK) rattles off about smarter technology for oil extraction, and that since we know how to use it, nothing can go wrong (by this logic, everyone gets their driver's license, therefore, there should be no car accidents).
Sen. Kyl (AZ) grins like a lustful carnie.
Sen. Wicker (MS) talks to slow. I think he just finshed a sentence, but he sounds confused - and he's reading off of notes! But he is able to stutter out the question of "What are... do we... have any facts about oil spills?" Yeah, unless I've got some cold hard charts in front of me, a duck dipped in oil looks fine to me.
Sen. Allard (CO) is a tool.
Sen. Warner (VA) thankfully does make the point that the biggest government usage of fuel comes from the Dept. of Defense.
omg. Sen. Stevens (AK) is their first speaker. He sounds as stuttery and fumbly-bumbly as he did when talking about the Internets as a Series of Tubes. It's pretty much incomprehensible. I am hearing some Clinton-bashing, some dates, and more stuttering (nothing against anyone with speech impediments; everything against narrow-minded, curmudgeonly senators). Haha. He just tried to make the point that investments in renewable resources can't even come about without ANWAR drilling revenues! Please, go on. I am totally believing you...
Sen. Sessions (AL) rests his head on his hand like he's drunk.
In response to Session's question, Stevens confuses the impact that ANWAR oil production would have on gas prices versus the real effects that Saudi Arabian oil production has on prices.
Sen. Domenici (NM) is now calling not drilling in ANWAR "wrong" and blames Democrats.
He is the second senator to mention the bike/car binary (As in, "I don't think we can all just stop using cars and start riding bikes!" - which, btw, NO ONE is suggesting).
Domenici and Stevens start to stroke each others' balding heads over the suggestion that ANWAR can produce more oil than previously believed, thanks to the record price per barrel.
Stevens is now bitching like a little baby, comparing the 70 permits needed to start oil production in ANWAR, versus the lack of regulation in Russia and Norway. Awww... then why don't you go ahead and run for Senator of Russia?
Oh man, Stevens is again cursing over Clinton's veto of some related bill in 1995. I can't take anymore. If Stevens was my grandpa, I would never visit him. There's no reason I need to watch anymore. These Republicans are boring. Going to bed.
22 January, 2008
18 November, 2007
Selling Obama Short, What We Have Is A Failure To... Imagine
I clicked onto this article from the SF Chronicle - Obama's transformative powers - expecting to read something insightful, not knowing who Debra J Saunders is. Boy, nothing could have been further....
The unfounded criticisms of Obama within the article underscore a larger theme permeating many Democrats' cloudy, and sometimes senseless support for Clinton: familiarity breeding consent. In other words, they'd trade the good ol' boy we thought we could have a beer with, for the wife of the other good ol' boy we already had a beer with. And because Barack's last name isn't Clinton or Bush, his "lack of experience" makes the rest of the "lurking" world scarier. The ignorance of Saunders' characterization of the rest of the world notwithstanding - I invite her to take a walk through any impoverished city within the U.S. to find out what else might be "lurking" - the infantile pining for Hillary reveals a lack of imagination and a blatant disregard for the idea of learning from one's mistakes. As a New Yorker, I am happy to say that Sen. Clinton is fine as just that - senator. Unfortunately, her infamy pre-shadows her. As president, she could only polarize, and would no doubt incite Republicans to draw up another ContractWith On America. The fact that Obama has not been in D.C. long, or the White House ever, is precisely one of the reasons he should be the next president.
The unfounded criticisms of Obama within the article underscore a larger theme permeating many Democrats' cloudy, and sometimes senseless support for Clinton: familiarity breeding consent. In other words, they'd trade the good ol' boy we thought we could have a beer with, for the wife of the other good ol' boy we already had a beer with. And because Barack's last name isn't Clinton or Bush, his "lack of experience" makes the rest of the "lurking" world scarier. The ignorance of Saunders' characterization of the rest of the world notwithstanding - I invite her to take a walk through any impoverished city within the U.S. to find out what else might be "lurking" - the infantile pining for Hillary reveals a lack of imagination and a blatant disregard for the idea of learning from one's mistakes. As a New Yorker, I am happy to say that Sen. Clinton is fine as just that - senator. Unfortunately, her infamy pre-shadows her. As president, she could only polarize, and would no doubt incite Republicans to draw up another Contract
05 November, 2007
Samantha Power Breathe's Life into Obama's Campaign
I can't believe I forgot to post this by now:
Barack Obama for President, '08.
Ok, now onto the more interesting part, which is the recent addition* of reknowned author and scholar Samantha Power to Obama's Campaign. In an interview on MSNBC (with an interminably obnoxious host formerly known for sporting a bowtie - thank you, Jon Stewart), the bottom of the screen lists Power as Obama's Senior Foreign Policy Advisor, which, if true, could be the best move so far Obama has made for his campaign. ("Note to self regarding campaign: less re-closeted entertainment, more Pulitzer Prize-winning, teaching-at-Harvard advisors.")
*Apparently she's been advising Obama for a while; it's only her tv appearances which are recent. Here she is on Charlie Rose:
Barack Obama for President, '08.
Ok, now onto the more interesting part, which is the recent addition* of reknowned author and scholar Samantha Power to Obama's Campaign. In an interview on MSNBC (with an interminably obnoxious host formerly known for sporting a bowtie - thank you, Jon Stewart), the bottom of the screen lists Power as Obama's Senior Foreign Policy Advisor, which, if true, could be the best move so far Obama has made for his campaign. ("Note to self regarding campaign: less re-closeted entertainment, more Pulitzer Prize-winning, teaching-at-Harvard advisors.")
*Apparently she's been advising Obama for a while; it's only her tv appearances which are recent. Here she is on Charlie Rose:
19 October, 2007
Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Jean Schmidt (R-OH): Children - Pets or Slaves?
<Shudder!> I have seen evil, and it's Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Jean Schmidt (R-OH) speaking at the much-touted event put on by the Family Research Council. Listening to their postured and contrived arguments about family values is like listening to Alberto Gonzalez talk about upholding the law maggot-infested carcasses justify their existence.
Regarding sex ed, the reps. of course support abstinence-only education, in turn, conflating the notion of providing education on measures of prevention with advocating early sexual activity; in other words, they believe education promotes practice. Let me tell you, education does not promote practice - just ask millions of students who've taken French 1 and can't recall a single verb conjugation. Furthermore, they forget that there was already a time when all we had was abstinence-only education - it was called our entire history up until the development of modern science!
"We love our kids. We just prefer to love them in a pre-1700's, pre-vaccine, pre-Newtonian, Salem Witch Trial kind of way!"
Social and religious conservatives brandish their naivete best when they pontificate out loud on how to control, legislate, and decide for everyone, what everyone can do behind closed doors. Which apparently is easier in the South, where most of those doors are screen doors. Their notion of "parental control" being exerted over children-as-property is actually strikingly similar to the way a remote control works on a tv: both are operated exclusively from the couch, both confuse the user, and while parental control sometimes employs battery, remote controls just run on them.
Their overall hypocrisy is captured succinctly in this line by Blackburn:
"This should not be a partisan issue. This should not be a partisan issue... As Connie mentioned, the liberal media would have you believe..."
Ah yes...
And then thankfully they leave and I begin to laugh when Fred Thompson comes on after them. He can't say the phrase "...as President of the United States, I..." without sounding like a terrible con-man at my front door. I can't bare to watch anymore. But for the right, this FRC event is like church and the county fair combined into one; coming to see these crazies speak is both affirmation and an excuse to get Granny out of the house, so they'll mos def get their applause on.
Regarding sex ed, the reps. of course support abstinence-only education, in turn, conflating the notion of providing education on measures of prevention with advocating early sexual activity; in other words, they believe education promotes practice. Let me tell you, education does not promote practice - just ask millions of students who've taken French 1 and can't recall a single verb conjugation. Furthermore, they forget that there was already a time when all we had was abstinence-only education - it was called our entire history up until the development of modern science!
"We love our kids. We just prefer to love them in a pre-1700's, pre-vaccine, pre-Newtonian, Salem Witch Trial kind of way!"
Social and religious conservatives brandish their naivete best when they pontificate out loud on how to control, legislate, and decide for everyone, what everyone can do behind closed doors. Which apparently is easier in the South, where most of those doors are screen doors. Their notion of "parental control" being exerted over children-as-property is actually strikingly similar to the way a remote control works on a tv: both are operated exclusively from the couch, both confuse the user, and while parental control sometimes employs battery, remote controls just run on them.
Their overall hypocrisy is captured succinctly in this line by Blackburn:
"This should not be a partisan issue. This should not be a partisan issue... As Connie mentioned, the liberal media would have you believe..."
Ah yes...
And then thankfully they leave and I begin to laugh when Fred Thompson comes on after them. He can't say the phrase "...as President of the United States, I..." without sounding like a terrible con-man at my front door. I can't bare to watch anymore. But for the right, this FRC event is like church and the county fair combined into one; coming to see these crazies speak is both affirmation and an excuse to get Granny out of the house, so they'll mos def get their applause on.
16 October, 2007
Rep. Chris Smith's (R-N.J.) Yahoo/China Statement Echoes AT&T/U.S. Relationship
I just read this and thought the (unintended?) parallel would be hilarious, if it wasn't so indicative of hypocrisy. From The Hill article, "House panel targets Yahoo," author writes:
“Last year, in sworn testimony before my subcommittee, a Yahoo! official testified that the company knew nothing ‘about the nature of the investigation’ into Shi Tao, a pro-democracy activist who is now serving 10 years on trumped-up charges,” Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) said.
“We have now learned there is much more to the story than Yahoo let on, and a Chinese government document that Yahoo had in their possession at the time of the hearing left little doubt of the government’s intentions," Smith said. "U.S. companies must hold the line and not work hand in glove with the secret police.”
Ahem...*cough*atandt*cough*... excuse me. Anyway, this coming from a guy who voted for warrantless wiretapping. Go figure. And according to his record, he actually seems more interested in the U.S. removing "the line" for companies altogether. Granted, he seems nicey-nice about this imprisoned activist, but I think Smith - as well as many a supposed Christian Republican - suffers from not heeding this classic Biblical quote when it comes to other countries: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye" (Matthew 7:3).
Hey, New Jersey's 4th! What gives with this guy?!
“Last year, in sworn testimony before my subcommittee, a Yahoo! official testified that the company knew nothing ‘about the nature of the investigation’ into Shi Tao, a pro-democracy activist who is now serving 10 years on trumped-up charges,” Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) said.
“We have now learned there is much more to the story than Yahoo let on, and a Chinese government document that Yahoo had in their possession at the time of the hearing left little doubt of the government’s intentions," Smith said. "U.S. companies must hold the line and not work hand in glove with the secret police.”
Ahem...*cough*atandt*cough*... excuse me. Anyway, this coming from a guy who voted for warrantless wiretapping. Go figure. And according to his record, he actually seems more interested in the U.S. removing "the line" for companies altogether. Granted, he seems nicey-nice about this imprisoned activist, but I think Smith - as well as many a supposed Christian Republican - suffers from not heeding this classic Biblical quote when it comes to other countries: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye" (Matthew 7:3).
Hey, New Jersey's 4th! What gives with this guy?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)