| Messages for Nathan |
[Oct. 2nd, 2011|05:39 am] |
|
If you want to leave me a message, feel free to leave it here in this post. I also have my IM information and my e-mail address on my user info page so you can IM/e-mail if you prefer. This journal is open to anyone and everyone to comment. Anonymous posting is allowed. |
|
|
| New Persistent style=mine Option |
[Sep. 26th, 2008|09:12 pm] |
There is a new option for paid users that allows you to view all journals/communities in the style of your personal journal. I've been wanting this for quite a while now, especially because some other journals use styles/layouts that are annoying to read and to use.
To enable it, go to the View Options page and turn on "View all journals and communities in your own style." |
|
|
| CORRECTION: SOME senators are being elected in 2008. |
[Sep. 20th, 2008|04:35 am] |
In a previous post of mine, I brought up the fact that U.S. House of Representatives elections are being held this year (as they are every 2 years), but I overlooked that in SOME states (a third of them), U.S. Senate elections are being held, as well.
Class II states are the ones currently up for re-election:
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Here's the explanation from Wikipedia on how U.S. Senate elections are structure:
Senators serve terms of six years each; the terms are staggered so that approximately one-third of the Senate seats are up for election every two years. The staggering of the terms is arranged such that both seats from a given state are never contested in the same general election (except when a mid-term vacancy is being filled). |
|
|
| 102 Minutes that Changed America: Witness to 9/11 |
[Sep. 10th, 2008|04:32 am] |
The History Channel is airing a new documentary this Thursday (September 11th) called 102 minutes that changed America that EVERYONE MUST SEE!!!
It shows footage gathered from many people in New York, all edited together so that it is shown in real time! You get footage from people on the streets, in their homes, in stores, in buildings, and it appears even in a WTC stairwell (not entirely sure if it's a WTC one).
This means that that X minutes into the documentary, it is X minutes into the 9/11 tragedy. I haven't yet watched all of the previews because it's kind of freaky.
Schedule
It airs on The History Channel on 9/11 (Thursday) at 9pm EST/PST, and 1am EST/PST the next day. For listings in other time zones, see this page and select a different time zone from the drop down menu. You can search the listings again, later for future viewings, but it currently only lists those.
Alternately, you can buy the DVD for $29.95. It includes an 18 minute follow-up mini-documentary. If anyone is interested, I may find a torrent when it is pirated in the future for you guys and/or find one those websites that allows you to upload pirated videos with it, if someone uploads it (I may even upload it myself).
( 4 previews of the show... ) |
|
|
| Assorted Political News |
[Sep. 9th, 2008|11:55 pm] |
Olympic Age Fraud
The International Olympic Committee has been given a variety of evidence proving that He Kexin, the Chinese gymnast that won a tie breaker with an American gymnast at the uneven bars, was underage (this gives an unfair advantage). This included various sources, including since-removed internet based news articles. The IOC said that they would take the Chinese passports as proof (via a French gymnastics organization), which is obviously unreliable.
In the past few weeks, one hacker found cached copies of an official Chinese government spreadsheet showing her real age and the IOC was, presumably, able to verify for themselves before it was taken down. They have FINALLY decided to launch an investigation into He Kexin and four other Chinese gymnasts. Of course, they are complete devoid of balls and have said it probably won't change the status of Kexin's gold medal.
RNC uses 9/11 to gain votes
Here's a video of Keith Olbermann castigating the RNC for using graphic footage from 9/11 during the RNC convention on the big screen. There is also video there of the footage they used.
How disgusting. When will they stop taking advantage of 9/11?
Primary Iraqi informant that "proved" there were WMDs was known to be unreliable
The Iraqi informant codenamed "curveball", a chemical engineer that formerly worked on Saddam's biochemical weapons project, had been given a burn notice before he was used as a basis to invade Iraq. A burn notice is basically a notice from one intelligence agency to others establishing that a given source is considered unreliable.
The White House ignored the burn notice completely and as it turns out now, he was completely lying. Curveball now denies even saying there were WMDs in Iraq, so that should give you an idea of how unreliable is. He probably did it for attention, money and protection. He was paid very well for an informant: hundreds of thousands of euros (1 euro currently =~ 1.4 U.S. dollars).
Palin refuses interviews
Palin is refusing interviews to avoid saying anything stupid. So far, she's almost entirely engaged in scripted speaking. In the past, her interviews have revealed her saying stupid things, such as wondering what the VP does and laughing at a woman being called a bitch and having the woman's cancer mocked.
The strategy by the McCain camp, as predicted by various news sources, will likely be to have her go on fluffy talk shows and point at that as her talking to the news. |
|
|
| MTV Video Music Awards Host's Political Commentary Causes Outrage |
[Sep. 8th, 2008|12:36 pm] |
Russell Brand, a British comedian, hosted the recent MTV Video Music Awards. On it, he openly endorsed Barack Obama and took a comedic jab at George W. Bush as a "retarded cowboy," and Levi Johnston (father of Bristol Palin's baby). He also made various sexual comments and derided the pastor father of the Jonas Brothers of the Jonas Brothers band (he apologized for the latter).
Among his commentary: "could I please ask of you, people of America, please elect Barack Obama, please, on behalf of the world."
Not surprisingly, conservatives were outraged at him saying this. However, much to my surprise, various liberal blogs and news sources lost their cool and expressed outrage as well. Even two Associated Press articles read like conservative op-ed pieces, and the Associated Press is normally a very neutral source used by all majors media outlets.
I commend him for his comments--he appealed to a generation of youngsters to vote the right way. Those that were disgusted with his commentary generally expressed sentiment that his statements were highly inappropriate for the VMA, which is supposed to be an apolitical event that is watched by many.
I don't think his joke about Johnston was in bad taste, as it was a joke, and not part of any formal commentary. What do you think?
( Click to read more of his comedic quips... )
Source: Russell Brand upsets MTV audience with sex and politics from the UK news publication, The Telegraph. |
|
|
| Remember to research your U.S. House candidates for this election! |
[Sep. 8th, 2008|10:37 am] |
| [ | Current Location |
| | trash | ] |
A lot of people are very focused on the upcoming presidential election, but many may not be aware that you will ALSO be voting for your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Don't know who is running? No problem! The Project Vote Smart website comes to your rescue! Just type your zip code on the "Find Your Representatives" box at the top left corner, then click "Current Elections" to see the upcoming elections for the current year. Click a specific election to find out who is running and details about each candidate. Remember your district number for the future.
On a specific candidate's page, you'll notice that on the right side there is a link called "Political Courage Test." This is a test designed by the Project Vote Smart people to assess the political views of a candidate, but unfortunately it seems that they allow candidates to leave 30% of the answers blank. This is done to encourage more of them to take the test, as many have been discouraged from taking it for fear that it will be used against them in attacks against their campaign.
Be sure to check out these other sources: OpenSecrets.org for candidate campaign finance information (enter your candidate in the "Search for a Candidate" box on the top right corner), Congressional Quarterly for information about your district and the candidates(just select your district), and Wikipedia (search for both your candidate's name and "United States House of Representatives elections in [insert state], 2008"). |
|
|
| Political Speeches are boring. |
[Aug. 27th, 2008|07:27 am] |
Am I the only one who is not impressed by political speeches in general? Almost all the time, even with the "good politicians," it's just a sequence of preaching to the choir via sound bites. They often don't even write their own speeches. If a politician isn't saying something that is intellectually, NOT emotionally, persuasive, I'm not interested at all.
Politicians receive so much special training from people in public speaking, that it's very rare that I can actually point to tone of voice and content of the speech and say: "I can just TELL that they really mean it and believe it as they say this. It wasn't just something they rehearsed this way."
I know that people were impressed with Clinton's recent speech, but I just couldn't get through it. It just seemed like more of the same to me. Yes, it was nice of her to give that speech to give support to Obama and if you set the bar ethical standards at "better than a slimy politician" she did well, but I consider it a politician's ethical obligation to give such a speech to prevent division.
Don't get me wrong, I see why, politically speaking, such speeches are necessary. I just don't see any value in it to a person like me, especially when you have tons of peons in the audience standing up after every last thing was said.
Even knowing that they at least generally agree with what they're saying, it still comes off as fake to me. Public speaking has become a science in how to manipulate the audience. Even when they're giving views that disagree with their opponents, it is STILL more of the same. Unfortunately, often their points are kept largely vague so as to appeal to most of the audience as possible, so even on that point politicians usually fail.
I like intellectual speeches, not just emotive ones that cater to what the audience wants to hear. Intellectual speeches don't speak in vague terms; they get to the points and do so with actual support for those points.
My ideal politician can give a speech that I can honestly give a standing ovation to. None of them have done this yet. |
|
|
| You take the internet seriously? LULZ! |
[Aug. 26th, 2008|02:36 am] |
Hypocrisy: you take the internet seriously too, buddy.
Frequently you hear people tell others to not take the internet so seriously, but such an idea is just a ridiculous, reactionary response used for people to justify saying anything they want without taking responsibility for it.
Most of the time, the people saying this do take the internet seriously in certain contexts, but convince themselves that they never do that when they're "trolling." In other words, it's usually hypocritical.
The recent ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) sf_drama incident concerning the fake leaked secret of an LJ user having unpaid child support illustrates this. They probably convinced themselves that it's all hilarious trolling, but it wasn't even creative or original. All they've proven is that they can trick their own friends into believing something about themselves. People believe their friends about serious things, how silly of them!
Really, it's completely unethical to trick your own friends and play on their emotions concerning such serious matters. It's one of those "stay out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat" things. When these same people get targeted for something that hurts their feelings, suddenly this kind of behavior is completely wrong.
Nothing is wrong with taking the internet seriously
There's no reason why it's inherently wrong to take the internet seriously. People can develop friends on the internet, just like they can develop friends in real life. While it's true that things in real life tend to be more personalized, this doesn't mean that things online can't also be personalized.
We don't even think to demean the personal nature of the telephone, so why demean the personal nature of email and chat as a matter of course? Even with people who are not friends, they can still say hurtful things.
If people who aren't friends can be hurtful in real life, it only stands to reason that similar behavior online can be hurtful, ESPECIALLY considering that people online often engage in much more rude behavior because they're behind a cloak of anonymity and are "socially protected" by not being in a face to face confrontation.
Lets take an obvious example: someone uses racial epithets to seriously demean someone of a racial minority. Even online, that can be very hurtful. They don't need to be that extreme, either. I've noticed that a disproportionate number of people who minimize the hurtfulness of such online prejudicial insults are white males.
This suggests that while they probably minimize the effects of such statements in real life as well, just not to the same extent, largely because it isn't socially acceptable to dismiss it in real life.
I haven't ever heard much of an argument as to why things said online should not be taken seriously at all. Mostly, it is just an emotional stance based on a spur-of-the-moment feelings about how bad a specific statement is. |
|
|
| Yoda the amazing 4-eared cat |
[Aug. 25th, 2008|05:41 am] |
Not long after pictures of Yoda, a 4-eared cat, were posted on the internet, his pets were fielding phone calls from major talk shows, tabloids, and newspapers wanting pictures and an interview with the Yoda and his pet humans.
What a cutie pie!!! :)))
Yoda's path to Internet stardom began after his owners' son, Glenn Olsen, posted the cat's photo on Flickr, an image and video hosting site. The picture caught the attention of English photo agency Barcroft Media.
[Chicago Tribune] Four ears make Downers Grove cat an Internet star |
|
|
| Gay Culture |
[Aug. 24th, 2008|08:09 am] |
I was wondering about why American gay (male) culture(s) has formed the way it has. There are preferences that are disproportionately common among gay people. This is more of an open ended question, as I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be with the culture(s).
It just seems intuitively strange to me that you'd have a separate [sub-]culture formed with such significant differences from equally progressive, but straight people. I'm sure that there's a bit of nature in there, but nurture seems to be magnifying it so much and what makes this form of nurture so unique is that it occurs primarily in adulthood--after they've come out. The idea of such wide agreement on, for example, what movies/plays are good...it just seems weird to me.
Beyond that, I wonder why some gay people try to adhere to certain stereotypes, especially during public exhibitions (e.g. parades), especially the most "flaming" ones. It seems quite harmful to adhere to those, but I can understand why someone would want to ignore the consequences of doing it. How did those mannerisms and behaviors even become as popular as they are in the first place? |
|
|
| BUKKAKE |
[Aug. 22nd, 2008|11:32 pm] |
Gotta love that there are all kinds of people willing to do illustrations, even very sexual illustrations, for Wikipedia's purposes! The illustration for bukkake is actually well done and demonstrates the material well. There are even pornographic images on Wikimedia Commons (the repository for images/media) for use in Wikipedia articles--apparently Wikipedians got nice cock.
I've been editing the bukkake article, among others, to help come to agreement on the correct IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) transcription of "bukkake," and discuss sources.
( NSFW drawing from Wikipedia... ) |
|
|
| Chevron Corp obstructs justice and violates checks and balances to save $16 billion |
[Aug. 18th, 2008|09:20 pm] |
Or that's what we'd be saying if this was going on in the U.S. Texaco (now owned by Chevron) dumped over 18 billion gallons of toxic chemicals in the Amazon Rainforests of Ecuador from 1971 to 1992. Chevron saved $8.3 billion by dumping this oil and circumventing environmental regulations. The Ecuador-based lawsuit asks for $8 to $16 billion in unjust enrichment.
Chevron has employed a powerhouse of lobbyists to work on their behalf, trying to get the U.S. government to cut off special trade prefrences with Ecuador to get Ecuador to drop the case. I'm offended that they'd try to disrupt the judicial process of another country like that just to save money and avoid pumping out the toxic waste that they dumped in a meager "little countr[y]" (the description given by an unnamed Chevron lobbyist).
From that unnamed lobbyist: "[t]he ultimate issue here is Ecuador has mistreated a U.S. company [...] We can't let little countries screw around with big companies like this—companies that have made big investments around the world."
The poor babies, those huge corporate multinationals! Chevron does damage control in response to the Newsweek article that printed that: "Most importantly, the comments attributed to an unnamed lobbyist working for Chevron do not reflect our company's views regarding the Ecuador case. They were not approved by the company and will not be tolerated."
Yeah, right. I'm sure that they don't represent you at all.
Chevron employed it's own "powerhouse team" of lobbyists: "former Senate majority leader Trent Lott, former Democratic senator John Breaux and Wayne Berman, a top fund-raiser for John McCain." A senior Chevron executive was even able to meet personally with John Negroponte, the Deputy Secretary of State. Let's not pretend for a moment that big oil doesn't have strong protection due to uneven lobbying influence.
One of the lobbyists (or a "counter-lobbyist" if you will) employed by the plantiffs said that he had spoken to Obama about this (before he ran for president), and that Obama himself was offended. The whole situation is disgusting. So while a few congressmen are on the plantiff's side, Chevron clearly has the lobbying advantage.
If Chevron profited that much, they definitely should pay out that much, with added punitive damages for fucking up the waters and money to clean it up.
While the claims made in the U.S.-based lawsuits regarding cancer seem to have been fabricated for money, it is still true that Chevron (then Texaco) dumped the oil (it really bothers me that they tainted the lawsuit like that). I don't know if those in the Ecuador lawsuit claiming medical problems are the same people here, but it's possible, since this involves a new lawyer (the old one was sanctioned for endorsing such lies) and takes places in Ecuador itself, potentially getting more people involved. However, even without serious medical problems, there are still very serious issues with this.
Unfortunately, it appears that the rest of the lawsuit was dismissed due to a two year statute of limitations. I'm not sure what the specific statute is, but I'm guess that's in concern to the dumping and it's fucked up that it's only two years long. If the lawsuit in the U.S. was dropped due to lack of jurisdiction over the dumping itself and accidents concerning it, I can at least understand that reasoning. [Does anyone know what is the case?]
Corporations can do this stuff unnoticed by the law and public for many years, especially when it concerns an isolated region of the world with native people who wouldn't even begin to know how to get a lawyer, let alone have the money for even so much as a legal consultation. Then there's the obvious fact that the dumped and permanently fucked up the local ecosystem, barring Chevron paying to have it fixed.
Of course, the big babies have to whine about being "victimized. From Newsweek:
Chevron argues that it has been victimized by a "corrupt" Ecuadoran court system while the plaintiffs received active support from Ecuador's leftist president, Rafael Correa—an ally of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. The company says a loss could set a dangerous precedent for other U.S. multinationals. "
Sources: Newsweek, Wikipedia, San Francisco Business Times |
|
|
| Russia shows its true colors in Georgia |
[Aug. 13th, 2008|11:28 pm] |
Surprise, surprise, Russia demonstrates that not only are they willing to hypocritically violate peace agreements, but their reaction was just a giant farce to crush the Georgian military. The U.S. is sending humanitarian aid to Georgia.
Russia used excessive force against the worser armed Georgian military, and went across recent truce lines, after previously crushing Georgian military bases (NOT in South Ossetia). This is after bombing the hell out of various parts of the Georgian capital. Russian troops are occupying areas currently past those "truce lines." A Russian official simply said "The administration of this town disgracefully abandoned their posts."
Russia is going lock and step with its history, especially as the former USSR. They are trying their best to annex all of Georgia, much like they did in the past and have done so with many other countries.
How much do you want to bet that the Russian military also killed and injured many civilians as well? No accurate counts of civilian deaths from either side are in yet, but it's clear that a significant number have died. I'll wait until we get independent counts.
So much for Russia carrying a "moral high ground"...over anyone. I'm still shocked that anyone can be zealous enough to think that the U.S. and other countries calling for a cease far ever lost the moral high ground in this. But then again, Western media is all LIES.
---
My 9th grade European History teacher had a theory that all wars were caused by nationalism, and I'm beginning to see a lot of truth to this. Nationalism also contributes to people zealously defending various nations and using xenophobic vitriol against others in spite of the known facts.
Why can't people just get over their petty, pride filled and zealous attachments to their respective nations? Pride in your country is one thing, but it seems that in the majority of cases, it goes beyond that, into zealous nationalism.
It is one of the major things that prevents people from just fucking agreeing concerning world politics, economics, culture, and more. Everything has to be about "but I don't care if we did something bad, look at what YOU did bad in the past!" |
|
|
| OMG FIREFOX EXTENSION |
[Aug. 13th, 2008|09:46 pm] |
| [ | Tags | | | trash | ] |
| [ | Current Mood |
| |  accomplished | ] |
I finished porting the Bookmark All Firefox extension--my first extension.
I finished the harder half of assembling my year old computer (all in parts, never got around to assembling). WOOT. I'll soon have a decent speed desktop computer to use. It has RAID mirroring. For redundancy. |
|
|
| There are "liberal" people who support blatant human rights violations? |
[Aug. 10th, 2008|03:04 am] |
Man, this ended up being much longer of a rant that I had originally anticipated. It's late, so forgive strange typos.
( Read more... )Basically, this started because ZOMGZ ~*Westerners*~ criticize China for human rights violations during the Olympics, even though this has been done for a long time. ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) rubashova and seanseansean blanket accused Westerners of being racist for doing this and condemned the criticism as a whole. I can see legitimate complaints regarding significant racism wrt Middle East, but not China wrt national criticism. We aren't at war with them and the major complaints I've seen have been against human rights violations, as lodged mostly by liberal types who tend to follow that kind of thing concerning obvious violations like the most severe media and internet censorship in the world and annexing countries like Taiwan.
Read the gems--he dismissed all Western ethical claims as bad because they aren't Confucian and said that, in spite of him being self-righteous, Westerners shouldn't make ethical claims against stoning rape victims because they are "self-righteous" (literally the example he used). Any claims of universal human rights are "lol" (his words), unless they're stated by a Confucianism practitioner Nevermind that none of the governments accused of human rights violations are following Confucianism.
( Read more... )
Gems
The post I responded in friends locked, but you can see the thread that inspired his fiends only post, which I read after I had responded in his journal.
idk i thought bringing in 'women as property'is a pretty bad move and i'm with you guys on that part generally speaking. but this phrase said by self-righteous americans always makes me lol. - Because of course, treating "women as property" in other countries as being barbaric, is horrible. The U.S. is well known for stoning rape victims and honor killings, after all.
shall i put it this way: people who are educated, or at least mostly exposed to western press and western ideals in general. - Outright xenophobia and he seems to have an axe to grind against people who have a better education than him, as well as demonstrating staunch xenophobia. I'm sympathetic to people who have worse education opportunities, but not when the say ignorant things like this to justify defending human rights violations. It only speaks to his own ignorance that here are "universal Westeren ideals, unless he seriously considers something like the U.N. declaration on human rights to be bad (e.g. freedom of speech/press/religion, no discrimination based on sex/race, etc...)
also, i'm pretty ambivalent about that. i'm not a fan of people getting stoned in general, especially for getting raped. in fact, i'm very much against it. but to get "self-righteous" about it is as condescending as you can get. - He's "ambivalent," but against it at the same time? Someone clearly can't get over his xenophobia long enough to stand up for basic human rights. This guy is very self-righteous, even in the very same thread he says these things in, so who is he to criticize someone for condemning obviously barbaric behaviors.
tough titties. good luck trying to get people to follow your ideas with such a sanctimonious attitude, westerner. - LOL, what? He's so completely irrational that he doesn't realize that his own approach will win far, far less support
( Read more... )The rest are from rubasbov:
*When Westerners start talking about things in terms of confucian ethics such as 'zhong/xiao/li' etc., then I'll consider the term "human rights" as not normative. - Rejecting universal moral values just because someone doesn't subscribe to your specific ethical philosophy. This is that "Us vs. Them" bullshit--it's not as if Confucian ethics are ~*unique and special*~ and don't share values with the ethics of many Westerners just because all values aren't shared. This just makes him exactly like a typical religious zealot (this is true regardless of whether or not Confucianism is a religion).
You're with us, or against us. Either you agree with everything I say, or you're my enemy. Religious zealots play this immature game all the time "you don't subscribe to my religion, so you MUST be wrong and I refuse to accept anything you say or consider you to have any credibility."
( Read more... )Third, China "makes itself an easy target"? Really? Why aren't people protesting against Singapore? We censor shit a damn lot too, unless they're freely available through western media, in which case it can't be hidden. But even LKY [Lee Kuan Yew] has said that "the western media can be pressured" ... economically into doing what the ruling regime wants.
Yes, and he knows this, but won't admit it. He's being deliberately obtuse. First of all, China is the largest nation int he world, with 1.3 billion people and Singapore has a meager 4.6 million by comparison (288 times the size). This makes it a much bigger issue due to the massive scale that it occurs on. A lot more power to cause a lot more damage with. Anyone who misses that is either being dishonest or obtuse. If they can access Western media, then they are significantly less censored than Singapore.
( Read more... )
Sidenote
In the sf_drama post, someone notes that Poland and Japan have about 60% rates of domestic violence. While their argument was totally incoherent, that statistic is interesting, if true. I wouldn't have expected the rates to be that high. The same source puts the U.S. at a little below 30%. I don't know anything about what severity of DV they're in reference to. |
|
|
| What kind of hairdo is that for a DOCTOR? |
[Aug. 4th, 2008|01:20 am] |
This is a real doctor, from way up north in Canada, where The History Channel's Ice Road Truckers is being filmed. I went all WAT when I saw her hairdo. Normally doctors make themselves to look very clean cut and professional, to a fault. I've never seen a doctor with a hairdo like this before. I wonder if she showed up to her interviews like that.
I don't have a problem with a doctor having a hairdo like that...it's just so out of place. If anything, it indicates they don't hold to such anal retentive standards.
Does anyone know what "aesthetic standards" hospitals tend to have for doctors? Would they actually reject a doctor for a tattoo, hairdo, "unusual piercings," or something like that?
( More pics... ) |
|
|
| BRB |
[Aug. 1st, 2008|12:54 am] |
Damn sickness (ala chronic illness, don't ask if you don't know). In the future, anyone online can assume that if I'm not replying normally, it's because I'm either sick or recovering from being sick. I know that certain people are used to a certain pattern of posting with me, so this will explain everything.
SO ANYWAY. WHO HATES CRISS ANGEL?? I DO!!
He had a "live" show recently, and I watched the second half to see what a farce it is. Criss Angel is known for relying almost entirely, if not entirely, on camera tricks and compensated actors (perhaps some volunteer actors who are fans). In other words, he makes it all about camera work and technology, not about sleight of hand, distraction, and tradition elements; with these kinds of camera tricks, he doesn't need actual skill, just showmanship. This has been confirmed through various means by carefully watching the show, such as seeing supposed random volunteers have their shadows running in the background when they supposedly were being "teleported."
None of his "dangerous" stunts were really dangerous--what a fucking pansy. Even his live burial was faked; he wasn't actually buried. He took a classic trick, that is done in a publicly known way and just cheated, even by magician standards.
ANYWAY, this "live" show was him going through a series of locks, including handcuffs, to make it to the top of a building before it is demolished, where a helicopter awaits him. Supposedly, there is an automatic detonation sequence that can't be reversed and the helicopter must leave 30 seconds before for safety reasons. First of all, neither government authorities, nor the explosives company would agree to something that dangerous if it were for real. Second of all, the helicopter could have easily left 10 seconds before, without getting in the way of any debris.
I was first skeptical when he was "struggling" (faking struggling--even he's skilled enough to break out of basic locks) to make it through the first lock. After that added tension, the fake glass in the windows is basically like breakaway glass and he easily kicks it open (it's possible that's a normal window placeholder for abandoned buildings, but I am skeptical).
Then on the very last lock, he suddenly has trouble again, even though the others were easy. Then "boom" he goes down with the building--suspiciously, the 9 screens showing the inside of the building all go static all at once, before the building even starts collapsing and that static even covers the borders put in place between the views for no apparent reason. It was an obvious setup, and the camera views weren't seamlessly connected enough (i.e. you're supposed to see him at all times, but there are small gaps), so he could have easily taken a different route once inside the building, while a pre-recorded video plays.
Then after the explosion, he walks out safely after a dramatic pause while the helicopter "searches" for him. He only has dust on him, and not a single scratch, even though the building supposedly collapsed on him. Not just that, but the entire time, his family members didn't seem that concerned--their acting sucked. If I were them, I'd shit a brick when he went down with the building and rush to him like crazy after he came out alive (they just sort of walked up casually and it was bad acting again). They obviously knew what was going on.
FUCK YOU CRISS ANGEL AND FUCK THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN YOU. What ever happened to good magic? What must douchebags like this take front stage? I'd love to volunteer to be an actor for one of his stunts, then at the end say "huh wait you didn't do it--that was just camera tricks." I don't have a problem with technological trickery as a primary tactic, as long as you don't pretend like it's like real magic. Criss Angel always says his shit is for real. |
|
|
| ETHICS: When is it ok to kill the few to save the many? |
[Jul. 30th, 2008|03:00 am] |
One difficult ethical dilemma that has faced man for eons is that of sacrificing the few to save the many. I think thath there is some ideal middle ground to this issue and that neither extreme is right.
There are several factors people tend to use in determining whether such an action is ethical:
1. Whether or not the sacrificed/saved are military.
2. Whether or not the sacrificed/saved can be considered innocent (in some cases this means "righteous").
3. The ratio of saved:killed.
4. Alternative options available.
5. Whether similar tactics are being used against yourself.
I haven't considered this issue enough to know precisely where to draw the line. This post is more exploratory than anything else. It is also hard to generalize this issue without a lot of other analysis first, so I'll deal with a real world issue instead. This is one step in helping to flesh out the issues.
If you can think of any other good real or hypothetical scenarios, bring them up!
The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
This is one of the best examples of this kind of ethical dilemma in the real world. The combined death tolls of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki from both the direct blasts and radiation are about 300,000, at the highest (200k from Hiroshima [Little Boy] and 80k from Nagasaki [Fat Man]). By the end of World War II, about 61 million people total died on the Allied side, compared to 11 million on the Axis side. 5,469,000 of civilian deaths were due to Japanese war crimes alone.
I think that most can agree that two atomic bombs is completely unnecessary. The desired effect of getting Japan to surrender could have been achieved with just one bomb. Lets say, hypothetically, they knew what the death counts would be in advance (this is unrealistic given various unknowns). In that case, they would choose the Fat Man bomb as dropped on Nagasaki.
This would mean 80,000 deaths to prevent potentially millions of more civilian and military deaths--keeping in mind that 5.5 million civilians were already killed via Japanese war crimes. This would probably results in at least hundreds of thousands more deaths, but I'm no expert in military strategy and history as applied here.
I can't find a source indicating how many of these deaths were military, but it seems like Hiroshima had much more of a military presence, so that may change this analysis if further information is added. "It is impossible to estimate the proportion of these 103 000 deaths, or of the further deaths in military personnel, which were due to radiation exposure rather than to the very high temperatures and blast pressures caused by the explosions"
So what ratio would be acceptable here (allied saved:axis killed)? 100:1? 10:1? 1:1? 1:5? I think that 1:1 is acceptable if there are no reasonable alternatives, but as you'll see below, I think that there are reasonable alternatives.
Then we consider another part of this issue--the alternatives. There are three major changes that could have been made: the target could have been changed, a smaller payload could have been used, and the civilians could have been warned in advance so that they'd take shelter.
If possible, they should have chosen a medium to large sized military target that is much more isolated from civilians, taking into account nuclear fallout. I don't know enough about Japanese geography and military layout of the time about how to do this. I think that even if the target change wasn't feasible, the other two should have been implemented regardless.
The size of the payload, even in "Little Boy," was overkill. The point of the demonstration was to say "if you don't fuck off now, we can wipe you from the face of the Earth." A single big explosion, but not one quite that big, would have been enough to say that. Potentially, you could drop one relatively small payload on a military target, and a large payload on an uninhabited island to demonstrate that you can cause as much damage as you like.
Destroying a massive amount of infrastructure, aside from crippling the Japanese war efforts, would be a strong demonstration of allied power. You can do this with much less killing of both military and civilians if you warn them a little in advance to have a bomb raid, but not long enough for them to retaliate.
Conclusion
From this example, we can see that demonstration of power is more important than actually using that power to its full extent. While it would be justified to kill some civilians with an atomic bomb, the situation should have been handled much different than it was, resulting in much less deaths.
Unfortunately, demonstration of power only works as a scare tactic in certain situations--namely when you're dealing with a unified nation that wants to protect itself. When you're dealing with extremist religious groups, especially onces that aren't bound by any specific geography and will freely blend in with innocents, it's much trickier.
Sources: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Wikipedia), National Death Tolls for the Second World War (Matthew White's Homepage, World War II casualties (Wikipedia). |
|
|
| Stupid Warning Labels |
[Jul. 25th, 2008|12:05 pm] |
What are some of the most interesting labels you've seen? Below, I've transcribed all of the warning labels on a medication I have (a patch). Take special note that they warn you that it's for external use only--as if anyone would accidentally swallow a patch or put it in some orifice. Even the stupidest people wouldn't do that, excluding maybe really young children and other people with a similar sense of reality. The only ones who would do that are ones who intentionally wanted to use them recreationally.
The rest is just obvious stuff that anyone would know taking the medication, but I can see some of the stupidest adults conceivably trying them and suing. It's the silliness of a litigious society.
MAY CAUSE DROWSINESS.
ALCOHOL MAY INTENSIFY THIS EFFECT.
USE CARE WHEN OPERATING A CAR
OR DANGEROUS MACHINERY. © 1976
THIS MEDICATION
MAY CAUSE
DIZZINESS.
©2000 [vertical on right side]
FOR EXTERNAL USE
ONLY
©1976
It is IMPORTANT to remove the previous
patch each time BEFORE APPLYING A
NEW PATCH. Follow directions for use.
©2002 [vertical on left side]
CAUTION: STATE AND/OR FEDERAL LAW
PROHIBITS TRANSFER OF THIS DRUG TO ANY
PERSON OTHER THAN PATIENT FOR
WHOM PRESCRIBED. |
|
|
