I don't usually post about music, but I see that Technorati's number 1 linked album is Year Zero by Nine Inch Nails. I've been listening to NIN since 1997 and seen them in concert twice. This is the best album they've done in probably ten years, but still given the taste of most bloggers on that site (Daughtry? Come on.) I'm surprised that the album is doing that well.
You can stream the whole album before it even comes out here.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Objectively Hilarious
If you waste as much time looking for political videos on YouTube as I do, you've probably come across this guy, Brandon Cropper. He's an objectivist who makes these really pompous pro-Ayn Rand videos.
His self-importance is indicative of the attitude of most objectivists.
His self-importance is indicative of the attitude of most objectivists.
No Motive
Something that global warming critics like to say is that it is "politically motivated." What motivation could a person possibly have to convince people of global warming if they didn't really believe in it? The idea that most of the world's scientists and politicians are just in the hands of the big enviro-dollar and that their job security is threatened if they don't tow the line is just silly.
Hmmm, if I were some shrewd scientist just looking to say whatever will get me the most money and job security, whom would I rather please? Exxon or Greenpeace?
Yeah, that's a tough one.
Hmmm, if I were some shrewd scientist just looking to say whatever will get me the most money and job security, whom would I rather please? Exxon or Greenpeace?
Yeah, that's a tough one.
Iraq and Vietnam
What have both of these wars proven? In most previous wars, you had militaries fighting militaries. In WWII, when the militaries of Germany and Japan surrendered, so did the people. The people weren't committed to continue fighting. In Vietnam and Iraq you have a military fighting an entire country, military, civilians and all. These countries have people willing to keep fighting even after their militaries have been destroyed. Therefore I don't see how a victory in either of these places that would look anything like the neat and tidy victories of WWII is possible.
The War on Terror Helps Terrorists
Accoring to this article in The Guardian, a British study has concluded what should be obvious to everybody with a mind by now, that using violence and violence alone to fight terrorists is helping terrorists. The American's seem to think that everybody can be intimidated and frightened into doing what they say, but now that threat of invasion is much more real to Arab countries since the Iraq War, of course they're going to build up their militaries and pursue nuclear weapons with more fervor than ever before.
Those on the right like to say that these people hate us and would have developed these weapons to kill us anyway. If that's the case, why isn't Saudi Arabia doing that? That country is full of people that hate us, yet they aren't preparing their forces to fight the Americans. Why? Maybe because they know that Americans have no designs on that country? If these people can't be pacified through diplomacy and economic development, how do you explain the American alliance with Saudi Arabia? Why was Saddam Hussein not seen as threat during the Iran-Iraq War? The idea that these countries need to be democratized in order to have a peaceful relationship with the rest is clearly contradicted by this.
The righties also like to say that anybody who dares to speculate that maybe military solutions aren't the best solutions to the problem of terrorism are "traitors" who hate America, hate the West and want the terrorists to win. They seem too simple minded to get their heads around the idea that someone could sincerely believe that non-military solutions could be effective. They refuse to even entertain the notion that diplomacy could work, because I don't think they want it to work. They just want to see Muslims punished. They don't want peace, they don't even really want security. They want revenge, and they are willing to sacrifice their safety and the lives of thousands of their children in order to get it. These people are as big a threat to the West as the terrorists themselves.
Those on the right like to say that these people hate us and would have developed these weapons to kill us anyway. If that's the case, why isn't Saudi Arabia doing that? That country is full of people that hate us, yet they aren't preparing their forces to fight the Americans. Why? Maybe because they know that Americans have no designs on that country? If these people can't be pacified through diplomacy and economic development, how do you explain the American alliance with Saudi Arabia? Why was Saddam Hussein not seen as threat during the Iran-Iraq War? The idea that these countries need to be democratized in order to have a peaceful relationship with the rest is clearly contradicted by this.
The righties also like to say that anybody who dares to speculate that maybe military solutions aren't the best solutions to the problem of terrorism are "traitors" who hate America, hate the West and want the terrorists to win. They seem too simple minded to get their heads around the idea that someone could sincerely believe that non-military solutions could be effective. They refuse to even entertain the notion that diplomacy could work, because I don't think they want it to work. They just want to see Muslims punished. They don't want peace, they don't even really want security. They want revenge, and they are willing to sacrifice their safety and the lives of thousands of their children in order to get it. These people are as big a threat to the West as the terrorists themselves.
Freaky Jesus
I just watched the documentary Jesus Camp, and I expected it to be off-putting, but I didn't expect to be as disturbed as I was. For those who don't know, Jesus camp is about a summer camp hosted by Evangelical Pentecostal Christians. They preach to the kids, get them to speak in tongues and teach them about how sinful the world is and how it's their job to fix it. The people who run this camp believe they are training an soldiers for God, so the approach they take to preaching to these kids uses a lot of military oriented language. The reasoning they give for the military theme of her preaching style is that "our enemies" are giving military religious training to their kids, so Christians have to out-fanaticize them.
When I think of a summer camp, I think of swimming and sports and archery and stuff, but nothing like that was shown in this documentary. The only scene that made this look anything like any summer camp I've ever seen is when some of the boys, (most of them were aged 10 to 12) were telling ghost stories in their cabin, until one of the couselors walked in and put a stop to it, because ghost stories are not "godly."
The main activity at this camp seemed to be the sermons, and the speaking in tongues. This documentary claims to be neutral, but it certainly does not put forth a flattering image of the Evangelical movement. There are a lot of scenes of young children spacing out, their eyes glazed over and faces quivering while they prayed. Many Christian groups and leaders, like Ted "I'm Straight Now, Honest" Haggard, who is featured in the movie, condemn the movie as anti-evangelical. However, the leader of this camp, and main focus of the movie, is Becky Fischer says she never felt exploited and has no problem with the movie. To any sane person of course, these people look like freaks. That the people who agreed to be in the documentary feel that this is the image they want to put out to the world is almost as disturbing as the image itself.
Becky Fischer is the kind of middle-aged trailer parkish kind of woman you'd see in the checkout line at Wal-Mart with a cart full of tubes of Pringles. She has a stupid haircut, (most of the people in this movie have really stupid looking haircuts) is hard to look at, and constantly has this bug-eyed look on her face like a lion eying a gazelle. Watching her spherical, turgid body sway around, ranting to a bunch of healthy looking kids like she's some kind of model of virtue for them to follow is especially off-putting and disturbing.
What disturbed me the most about how the parents in this film are bringing up their kids is the home-schooling. They teach them from creationist textbooks and emphasize to their kids that "science doesn't prove anything," and that evolution and global warming are all lies. At one point one of the kids says, "I think Galileo made the right choice to give up science for Christ." What the fuck!? Galileo? They never explicitly show these kids being taught that the sun revolves around the earth, but that's a disturbing implication that this might be the case.
The movie is framed with scenes of a liberal talk show host talking about the Evangelical movement and how dangerous is could become. At the end he interviews Becky Fischer and asks her what he thinks are the implications this kind of movement has for democracy. While paying lip-service to how she thinks democracy is the best system on earth, she says that since it allows everyone an equal voice "it will eventually destroy us."
The goals of the Evangelical movement are clear.
When I think of a summer camp, I think of swimming and sports and archery and stuff, but nothing like that was shown in this documentary. The only scene that made this look anything like any summer camp I've ever seen is when some of the boys, (most of them were aged 10 to 12) were telling ghost stories in their cabin, until one of the couselors walked in and put a stop to it, because ghost stories are not "godly."
The main activity at this camp seemed to be the sermons, and the speaking in tongues. This documentary claims to be neutral, but it certainly does not put forth a flattering image of the Evangelical movement. There are a lot of scenes of young children spacing out, their eyes glazed over and faces quivering while they prayed. Many Christian groups and leaders, like Ted "I'm Straight Now, Honest" Haggard, who is featured in the movie, condemn the movie as anti-evangelical. However, the leader of this camp, and main focus of the movie, is Becky Fischer says she never felt exploited and has no problem with the movie. To any sane person of course, these people look like freaks. That the people who agreed to be in the documentary feel that this is the image they want to put out to the world is almost as disturbing as the image itself.
Becky Fischer is the kind of middle-aged trailer parkish kind of woman you'd see in the checkout line at Wal-Mart with a cart full of tubes of Pringles. She has a stupid haircut, (most of the people in this movie have really stupid looking haircuts) is hard to look at, and constantly has this bug-eyed look on her face like a lion eying a gazelle. Watching her spherical, turgid body sway around, ranting to a bunch of healthy looking kids like she's some kind of model of virtue for them to follow is especially off-putting and disturbing.
What disturbed me the most about how the parents in this film are bringing up their kids is the home-schooling. They teach them from creationist textbooks and emphasize to their kids that "science doesn't prove anything," and that evolution and global warming are all lies. At one point one of the kids says, "I think Galileo made the right choice to give up science for Christ." What the fuck!? Galileo? They never explicitly show these kids being taught that the sun revolves around the earth, but that's a disturbing implication that this might be the case.
The movie is framed with scenes of a liberal talk show host talking about the Evangelical movement and how dangerous is could become. At the end he interviews Becky Fischer and asks her what he thinks are the implications this kind of movement has for democracy. While paying lip-service to how she thinks democracy is the best system on earth, she says that since it allows everyone an equal voice "it will eventually destroy us."
The goals of the Evangelical movement are clear.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Global Warming Questions
Given the quantity and quality of scientists who say global warming is happening, and the shrinking voices of those who say it is not, I tend to believe that global warming is in fact happening. There is some contention, however, as to whether it is caused by human activity. There is a strong correlation between the rise in the levels of man-made CO2, and the rise in temperatures which heavily implicates human activity, but a correlation is not proof. This is where the global warming deniers step in. they say that the increase in solar radiation over the past few years is responsible for the warming, and that the rise in temperature is causing the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere rather than the other way around, or that there is some other reason for the correlation. I personally find this to be far fetched, because if the rise in CO2 is a result of higher temperatures, then you have to have to believe that the majority of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is not the result of human activity. If that's the case what else could have caused this? The deniers like to point out that more CO2 comes from volcano explosions than from industry, but have there really been that many more volcanic activity in the last 150 years that would explain why the levels of CO2 are so much higher than they were over the previous centuries?
We know that more greenhouse gases theoretically causes an increase in temperature. We know that human being have been producing a lot of greenhouse gases.
Is it really all that far fetched to believe that humans are causing this increase in temperature?
That being said, I think some of the things that environmentalists are saying are a little far fetched. Some would like you to think that this spells the end of life on Earth, or for the more restrained ones, the end of civilization. Now, come on. Sure, with all of the areas that would be flooded it would create a huge refuge problem that would cause severe worldwide economic problems, but would that really result in the collapse of civilization? And would the effects of global warming accumulate so quickly that we couldn't adjust to the changes in time?
We know that more greenhouse gases theoretically causes an increase in temperature. We know that human being have been producing a lot of greenhouse gases.
Is it really all that far fetched to believe that humans are causing this increase in temperature?
That being said, I think some of the things that environmentalists are saying are a little far fetched. Some would like you to think that this spells the end of life on Earth, or for the more restrained ones, the end of civilization. Now, come on. Sure, with all of the areas that would be flooded it would create a huge refuge problem that would cause severe worldwide economic problems, but would that really result in the collapse of civilization? And would the effects of global warming accumulate so quickly that we couldn't adjust to the changes in time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)