Meatloaf, WTF???

Marvin Aday, I'm talking to you.

How could you endorse Romney? Are you that desperate for the limelight that you would hang around that empty suit? I love you Meatloaf and I'd do anything for love. Vote for Romney? Well, I won't do that.

Mr. Aday you have a great life. You are a famous singer, you were in Fight Club, and your on-air blow up at Gary Busey is legendary. You even have the coolest son-in-law in the world.  He even hooked you up with Chuck D. to do a song on your new album. Maybe you should ask Chuck D. what he thinks about Romney. But first make sure that there aren't any kids in the room.

All I can do is wonder why and shake my head in disappointment. Oh, Mr. Loaf,  how could you? 

Maybe I'm not really mad at you, Marvin.  Maybe I'm taking my anger out on you instead of the near half of the country that plans on voting for Romney.  I don't understand how they could even think of voting for such an ass.

Sure everyone wants to be civil, but sometimes you have to call an ass an ass.  And that's what he is, an ass.  What else would you call someone who showed such blatant disrespect to the other half of the country by calling them lazy and hooked on the government? He's a man who changes his opinion daily to fit what he thinks people want to hear.  He also believes you should revere him and his wealth, and by virtue of that, elect him to run the country.  And to smugly snark at climate change and global warming the way he did during his convention speech? Global Warming is the most serious problem we face and could lead to the deaths of millions of people worldwide. Certainly not a laughing matter, you ass.

Sure I hope Obama wins.  But having said all of the above, I must make this point: If Romney wins fair and square I will accept it. I will respect the choice of more than half the country. I will move on and hope for the best even if my confidence in this country's future is completely shaken.  I will be grateful if I can look back years from now and view Romney as one of the greatest presidents we've ever had. 

 But if years later I view Romney's presidency as one of the worst ever, I have only one question:

"Meatloaf, what the $%$???"

     

Lamestream media

I'd like to thank Sara Palin for the phrase, "lamestream media".  One of the rare times in her political career that she said something semi-smart.  She's right, but for the wrong reasons.  The media is by no means "liberal".  To believe so reveals more about your biases than it does the ideology of the majority of the news media.  So by process of elimination the media then must be conservative.  Sure, let's use the either/or fallacy because there can only be two possible answers.

Well, it is of course neither. The actual ideological bent of the mainstream media is populism.  What drives this populism? Ratings and profit. At times, depending on the news source, they do actually inform, but they also exist to entertain and make a profit.

My argument would be that this ideology is far worse than a one-sided news organization, and we should not confuse this with neutrality.  For the most part, their reporting reflects what they believe our attitudes are toward a certain subject.   Instead of challenging us, they look to surfeit us.  I see this in the case of the growing public cynicism of the two major parties.  "Both sides do it," they tell us. We like to hear that, and so they like to tell us this.  It's safe and avoids controversy--no complaints from Fox News about not being "fair and balanced" . And what they tell us may be absolutely true, or it may be sort of true.

A quick hypothetical:   An intern for a Democratic Senator is arrested and is found guilty of shoplifting some Twinkies.  On the same day, a group of Senate Republicans knock over Fort Knox.

"Sort of true" would mean that yes, it is correct that both sides steal, but should they be tried for the same crime? I'll admit that there are times that, because of pervasive corporate influence, both sides are equally guilty of robbing the public blind. Not always, but sometimes both sides do do it.

Also, it should be pointed out that as money-making entities, they may have an interest in keeping the election close even though this may not reflect the reality.  They also try to make Romney out to be a legitimate candidate when, in my educated judgement, he stands for nothing in particular. Worse is when  these news outlets and even fact-checkers blame Obama for not getting his facts straight on Romney's platform, when in reality Obama's trying to bulls-eye a dart board on the side of a fast-moving car.  Paul Krugman gives us another example of Reporting that Makes you Stupid :

"Worse yet, some reporting tells readers things the reporters have to know aren’t true. How many stories have you seen declaring that 'both sides think they’re winning'? No, they don’t: the Romney campaign is visibly flailing, trying desperately to find new fronts on which to attack Obama. They clearly know that it will take a miracle — sorry, a last-minute surge — to prevail on Tuesday. It’s OK, I guess, to report campaign spin; but surely it’s not OK to report campaign spin as the truth, which is what these stories are doing."*

 Yes, he is a liberal. His blog is called, "The Conscience of a Liberal".  If you haven't heard of him it might be because the so-called "liberal" media usually doesn't book him to appear on a show or try to interview him.  Anne Coulter, however, enjoys a little more airtime, even when it appears that she has nothing to add to the conversation but bigotry and obnoxiousness.  So when the news media discusses the need for "austerity" and the debt, who will they call?  Surely it is more profitable to bring on a train-wreck-in-progress than an actual voice of reason and a voice of opposition to the beltway zeitgeist of massive spending cuts (then again what does Krugman know about money? He only won the Nobel Prize in Economics). That doesn't always guarantee that he is always right and Coulter's always wrong, but when someone wins a prestigious honor for a paper on stimulus spending, he should be included as one voice in a conversation in economics, and a political hack who disparages opponents any chance she can get should not.  Can Krugman be nasty? Yes, he can. But his substance outweighs this possible nastiness, and that is also why you need a host or a moderator to keep things civil and to the point.  

And what could make this lamestream media possibly be worse? Oh. Did I mention that cable and network news are corporate owned and can in small ways reflect the corporation's interests and biases?  This may not always be the case, but let's not be naive and think they are always looking out for our interests.  Back in the early 2000's, media outlets like Viacom (CBS), and Newscorp (Fox) drastically under reported an FCC ruling that would allow cross ownership of various forms of media--a complete consolidation of power by the wealthy few who could use it to better control the information they give you.  Both CBS and Fox reported this as a non-controversial issue. Does this look like a non-controversial issue?

 So don't trust anything the lamestream media tells you, right?

Of course not. I don't believe that nor am I trying to argue that. My main point is to be careful in what you read, hear, and see.  Even though I am liberal and therefore biased, I try my best to remain neutral with the facts (not my fault facts have a liberal bias).  Of course it's always easier to spew vitriol than to have a nuanced discussion where nothing can easily be pigeonholed (though, I too can be nasty at times). I try to go that extra mile and achieve a nuanced and fair argument every time I argue with someone or write this blog. What I'm trying to write here is that everyone should watch the news with a grain of salt.  Be smart and know who owns the station you are watching and look out for what stories could be a conflict of interest.

The best possible answer to the lamestream media is a free market solution: to have a better press you need a better educated populace.  You must know better to demand better!  In the age of the internet you can comparative shop.  Let others challenge you instead of tell you what they think you want to hear. Unfortunately, it falls on you to tell the mainstream media to not be so lame.

*  http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/reporting-that-makes-you-stupid/

Happy Halloween

It's one of my favorite times of year.  This holy day allows us to explore our dark sides just as Christmas allows us to explore our capacity for love and benevolence.  You can't advance as a human being without the exploration into the duality found in the human heart. A continuing dialectic toward true humanity, if you will.  While you chew on that here are some little known and underrated horror movies to check out.      

Carnival of Souls-A creepy independent film that came out years before Night of the Living Dead.  A detached, emotionless young woman takes a job as a church organist and begins to have strange hallucinations.  It has an ending that doesn't quite follow the rest of the film, but still worth watching. 


The Innocents- Based on the greatest "ghost" story ever written, Turn of the Screw (Unless you count the Masque of the Red Death as a ghost story). Personally like this film better The Haunting (1964). But both are great movies based on great source material.

Eyes Without a Face-This film had the misfortune of coming out the same year as Psycho. It involves a doctor who uses grisly means to help restore his daughter's disfigured face.

The Devil's Reject-I could catch hell for this one (no pun intended).  This movie is certainly not for everybody, and it is one of those movies that I have seen once with no intentions to see it again.  But of all the torture films of the past decade this is the best one.  Unlike the Saw and Hostel films the torture is psychological.  A dark film that has a war on terror subtext about how we can become just as evil as those murderous psychopaths we pursue.

Repulsion - A film I have never seen. But I heard of this film making a top ten horror list, and they really like it on Rotten Tomatoes. A psychological thriller that delves deep into the mind of an insane woman.  Directed by Roman Polanski.

Martin -A Vampire movie without a vampire. Directed by George Romero?  Yes. A young man believes himself to be vampire. A hard one to find and I haven't seen it (Available on Amazon--I don't have that kind of money).  I wonder if he sparkles like the vampires in Twilight.

The Changling- What Actor can convince you he's a legendary-but-crazy general, then a few years later be equally convincing as a grieving professor and classical composer? George C. Scott is that actor.  A haunted house story with a chilling mystery at its center.

REC- I've never seen Quarantine but this is the one to watch.  Like many bit-and-get-infected movies it has it's inconsistencies: some change into zombies the minute after they get bitten, others change after a few hours.  What makes this movie work is the POV shot. The shaky handheld camera never allows you to gain any sense of stability or security. Not ashamed to admit that this movie scared the hell out of me.  

Freaks- If you don't know about this movie by now...God help you. Just in case you haven't:  CGI can never replace authentic circus freaks.  Directed by the legendary Todd Browning. A failure the time of its release, it  has now become a cult classic.

The Body Snatcher-Another movie I don't think belongs here.  Great movie that belongs with the other horror classics of the 30's and 40's.  Karloff and Lugosi together again. One scene from this movie illustrates  how chilling and jolting a horror movie can be without showing any gore or mutilation. I won't give it away but it involves a young woman singing for alms. 

Madhouse -Vincent Price and Peter Cushing in a horror mystery that is a tribute to the great horror career of a Mr. Price. Can't really go without a Vincent Price film, can we?

So crank up some Misfits and watch some of these gems.  For a full spectrum of horror film reviews check out Cinemassacre. That Angry Video Game Nerd knows his horror. Warning: he's doesn't skimp on gory details and his language is nowhere near wholesome.

For the next week I will discuss an even scarier subject: Politics.

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark

Always great stuff on Cracked.com. It's worth checking out this article in particular: 5 Reasons the Scariest Thing Ever Written is a Kids' Book

I remember reading these three books in 7th grade, and yes, I had to spend some nights sleeping with the light on.  I had always had a fascination with the morbid, the dark and the supernatural (ghosts especially), and I believe this book helped foster my love for the ghost story. 

Philosopher George Berkeley and Modern Day American Politics

How could an Anglican bishop who died in 1753 have anything to say about our American political system?  He couldn't and didn't.  Instead, it is his most famous saying that informs American politics today: Esse Percipi Est. In English:  To be is to be perceived.*

Of course this is an extracted and shallow application of a major philosophical concept.

Here is the concept in a nutshell:  in reaction to the developing schools of Materialism, George Berkeley (pronounced Bar-Clay) proposed that the data we receive from the senses were Ideas that gave us no actual proof of the world existing outside our impressions of it.  He's right. I feel my fingertips stroking the keyboard but my feelings are based upon neuro-chemical signals that provide my mind with information.  If I apply nova-cane to these fingertips, I feel nothing. Our senses can actually entrap us and keep us from knowing whether the outside world exists.

He had a solution: the actual world is immaterial and can only exist if it is perceived as existing. So how does our world constantly exist (overcoming the tree-in-the-forest conundrum)? God.  God constantly perceives everything and therefore maintains everything's existence. Although most modern-day philosophers disagree with Immaterialism, many admit that his ideas did provide significant doubt on whether we can actually know of  a concrete reality existing outside our sense experience (see Bertrand Russel's The Problems of Philosophy--a great primer for anyone interested in learning more about philosophy). **

So now to dumb it down even further I will apply it to American politics. Existence of a politician depends upon the electorate's perception of him or her.  Sure the politician exists as an actual human being, but survival in politics entails that you must exist as a perception, or people must perceive you, your political party, and your ideology as being strong, competent, and correct.  It may come as no surprise that you could think of politics as a con-game or as a parlor trick.

Cynicism aside, politics is not a confidence game nor a simple slight of hand.  Sometimes the perception of a politician is accurate, but it must still exist as a perception among the public conscious.  If not, facts mean very little.

An example:


George W. Bush and the Iraq War.  The perception of why we invaded actually changed while troops were still entering Baghdad.  We attacked based upon a perceived threat to our national security.   When Saddam did not use any WMD's to fight off our troops,  the administration steered the public perception to a rationale that this was a purely humanitarian mission to rid Iraq of a horrible dictator  (to hedge their bets before the invasion, the Bush administration even named it Operation Iraqi Freedom). 

Also, the pre-invasion opposition simply failed.  They appeared as objects of paralysis, remnants of the sixties who could not feel the global-intervention paradigm being pulled from underneath their feet (i.e., peace was no longer the answer).  Certainly they had the facts on their side, but they failed to account for people's sense of fear.  Instead of calming fears they walked around with puppets of George Bush and staged esoteric plays by some long-dead Greek guy named Aeschylus.

Bush, of course, did the easy and irresponsible thing: he turned these people into the enemies of freedom (Fox, CNN, and network news helped too). The majority saw protesters as hippie peaceniks with no sense of reality and little understanding of how the real world actually worked. Almost ten years after the invasion this majority now agrees with those smelly hippies. Doesn't change the fact we went to war, but it's a nice consolation.

This unfortunate example proves one thing: win the public's perception--or at least a slight majority of the public--and you win.

 The GOP pays millions to a pollster named Frank Luntz to figure out the words to win elections.  He gave us phrases like "Tax Relief", the "Death Tax", and "Taxing Job Creators".  Properly chosen words can be used to form the proper narratives. The proper narratives then can be used to create the perception of which group is the "tax and spend" party and which is the party of "fiscal responsibility" and "small government".

The Democrats have fought back--with facts mostly on their side--to convince people that the near opposite is the truth, but the Republicans continue to hammer away. Of course fighting is perceived as bad, and what eventually takes over is public apathy and the perception that all politicians are only looking out for their own interests and do not care about serving the public.

To me this is the worst perception of all.

To be continued...     

 For more on Bishop George Berkeley: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley

*Usually written as Esse Est Percipi.  I like the above version better since it sounds nicer and is still grammatically correct (the Ancient Romans were a bunch of Yodas).

** In the stranger-than-fiction world of Cosmology, an idea that has, or almost has, reached a point of scientific consensus is that the universe exists as a three-dimensional hologram. projected by the outer edges of the universe. So Berkeley may be right after all!

Please. Kill Big Bird

In the pre-cable days when there only existed 3 Networks, you needed a station like PBS to provide information that the networks did not, such as science and history documentaries, children's programming, and TV shows from across the pond. But in the Cable Era, do we really need PBS?

We now have channels that provide basically the same level of programming; many channels, in fact. Today we have the History Channel, National Geographic, HGTV, etc. We even have a Science Channel (might cost you extra depending on your service provider, but it exists). These and similar channels now fill the void in ways a single PBS station could not. They are many and they provide 24-hour programming centered around a specific topic. It appears the free market wins out once again.

Now, you could say that PBS makes up a minuscule percent of a percent of overall Federal Budget expenditures, but--some argue--it is the principle. The point is that it should not be subsidized by the government. Also PBS won't die. Instead, its funding would come from advertizing, thus vastly increasing its revenue. Big Bird would not only live on, he could be stronger than ever.

Yet I would rather "Kill Big Bird" than let this happen. For instance, the above argument of having many educational channels for those with various interests? Well let's go back 15 or 20 years before most of these current channels even existed. Then you had at least two channels that provided some of what PBS does: The Discovery Channel and something called The Learning Channel. At one point they had provided us with shows such as The Nature of Things and Connections. *

Ever hear of The Learning Channel? It's still around but now known only by its initials: T-L-C. Yes, that TLC. The same TLC that gives us the current public curio, Here Comes Honey Boo Boo--a disturbing show that was a spin-off of another equally disturbing TLC show, (Toddlers in Tiaras, if you must know). Not to be outdone by this, The Discovery Channel gives us Gun Country, starring has-been rocker and idiotic, insane bigot Ted Nugent. These cable channels have drifted far from their intended purpose.

This is exactly why we need PBS to stay the way it is. It provides the shows that we need, and this has not changed since its inception. Public funding will ensure that programs such as NOVA will never be replaced by People who Devour Raw Sewage for a Mere Pittance**. The latter would be more profitable than the former, but we need NOVA more than we need pointless and exploitative television. We need the permanence of a PBS and in its own words, we need a local station that "allows everyone the ability to explore new ideas and new worlds through innovative online programming and television." Education is the key to a better informed, civic-minded citizenry (i.e.--with an appeal to patriotism--a better America) It must remain free from a free market that is subject to the whims of a fast-food nation and their misguided expenditures.***

To leave PBS to the cruel hand of the free market would give Big Bird a fate worse than death.



*Originally from the CBC and BBC, respectively. But that highlights the third point from my first paragraph.

**Not to put a horrifying image in your head, but could you picture Neil DeGrasse Tyson competing against Brian Greene in such a venue?
I will also mention that I commit the Slippery Slope fallacy in assuming that PBS would continually degrade to the point of the least common denominator. While possible that it may no, I will still argue that even the slightest degradation would be horrible.

***I do not want to sound like a snob.  I also eat fast food and watch bad television programs.  I also don't want to suggest that the above-mentioned channels are useless and you have to watch PBS instead (or that everything PBS features is quality television). I suggest we maintain PBS as an intellectual safe haven.

A Look at the Michigan Election Ballot

Yet again the best way to be informed about ballot issues is to go to the League Of Women Voters of Michigan (for all out-of-staters, enter "League of Women Voters" and the state where you are currently registered). I will give my opinion about each one later on.