DeRamos.org

The GOP Going the Way of the Whig Party?

2008-10-13T00:04:00.000-07:00

What happened to America's favorite right-of-center political party? The party of moderately conservative social policies has picked an extremely conservative Plan B candidate (VP pick Sarah Palin) to continue the past eight years of extreme right pseudo-patriotism (in actuality, nationalism). The party of moderate fiscal conservatism (outright libertarianism would be more free market gung-ho) has given into the dreaded big government for the past eight years. One of the final acts of George W. Bush was to "rescue" Wall Street by injecting some socialism, but ironically to the initial benefit of the ownership class.

Ron Paul could have saved the Party of Lincoln and that Reagan ideal of which they often speak. Hell, if John McCain had taken just a piece from the Ron Paul play book, if he had taken a stand against the bailout plan, and especially if he had picked an economic conservative as his VP, not a social conservative, he'd still be The Maverick, and not The Puppet. A paradigm shift to more libertarian policies would have given the GOP more seats in Congress and a legitimate chance at the White House. Don't get me wrong, McCain could very well be elected in November, but when I write "legitimate," I actually mean "won't leave a bad taste in the mouths of Americans."

However, it is likely that the GOP will not have a third term in the White House, and the economic conservatives will finally break from the fundamentalist Christian(-ist) social conservatives. The Republican Party, like the Whigs and the Federalists before it, will be no more. Now, I don't advocate a single-party golden age reminiscent of the 19th Century Era of Good Feelings, as single-party totalitarian regimes scare the crap out of me. I hope the vacuum created by the possible implosion of the GOP will be filled by another main party - as Americans tend to love their false dichotomies - or hopefully several major parties to actually let our great democratic experiment evolve.

To many, on the other hand, the line of the Party of Jefferson remains unbroken (right, Aragorn?). While a quick fact check can easily disprove this notion, the Democratic party name has virtually been a mainstay of the dichotomy for this nation's history of party politics. Of course, this party has survived in name because of its various paradigm shifts (I'm glossing over history, again): From agrarian to urban, from slavery to civil rights, and from states' rights to Federalism (in the original sense, not the Sarah Palin "I'm a Federalist" misnomer). Yes, it is ironic that the surviving nominal descendant of Thomas Jefferson's anti-Federalist, Democratic-Republican Party has become known for its Federalist, big government tendencies. Anyhow, for the most part, these paradigm shifts have helped the name succeed throughout the years, as the party of Andrew Jackson bears little resemblance to the party of FDR, which in turn would not have been an appropriate ideology during Clinton's surplus years.

I don't think the GOP will survive its 20-plus year paradigm shift from Reagan's pro-military, fiscal conservative, moderately socially conservative policies to George W. Bush's pro-police state, fiscally irresponsible, extremely socially conservative policies, especially if they lose this election. Even if they did win the White House...skipping John McCain for the sake of argument...Sarah Palin's fiscally ignorant, theocratic United States of America would finally divide the GOP, not to mention the United States of America itself.

May the Grand Old Party's Elephant safely travel to the final resting place of its ideological ancestors.

To Some, Skewering Both Sides Is Liberal Bias

2008-10-12T16:47:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, I happened upon a blog commenter on the topic of Sarah Palin and Tina Fey, only the commenter talked about the Obama and Ayers guilt-by-association:

Obama/Ayers: Let's not overlook ANNENBERG! They served on the Annenberg board together, overseeing the expenditure of millions of dollars. The records are still "unavailable". Meantime, whenever Obama is criticized he refers to his "fight the smears" website, which cites as its only source of facts, the FACTCHECK.ORG website... which is run by Annenberg!

Umm, what does that say about credibility?

For one thing, Annenberg was founded by Walter Annenberg, who was once an ambassador during the Nixon Administration. The Annenberg board isn't a two-man job, as there are other connections: Obama/Someone Else and Someone Else/Ayers. Would that "Someone Else" be palling around with terrorists (Ayers) and Presidential nominees (Obama), too?

Furthermore, FactCheck.org skewers both major candidates whenever they aren't exactly factual (the Obama camp for exaggerating the current Iraqi surplus and McCain's erroneous assertion of Obama tax increases for everyone). If the Annenberg Foundation was in the tank for Obama, why would it have criticisms of his inaccurate campaign assertions?

FactCheck.org might not be a perfect fact-checking source, but at least it looks fair on paper. Unfortunately, it seems that many partisan hacks - and I skewer socially conservative partisan hacks for this example - immediately cry out bias whenever they're side is critiqued, even if the other side is also critiqued whenever appropriate. It's like an easy punchline, but social conservatives tend to discount bipartisan critiques. I guess their standard of fair and balanced is, you guessed it, FOX News.

Another good fact-checker is Snopes, but they're more of a general urban legends debunker. Also, the pop-up ads on that site are a bit annoying, and they sometimes create their own urban legends to keep the readers on their toes - to not completely trust the fact-checkers.

The moral of the story is to your own research and use multiple sources. However, it says something else when someone accuses a bipartisan fact-checking site (that literally has news items that criticizes both major candidates) of having hard bias for one candidate.

McCain "Supporters" Throw McCain Under the Straight Talk Express

2008-10-11T00:00:00.000-07:00

John McCain's "supporters" - in reality the pro-Palin, anti-Obama proto-"mob" - have thrown their "candidate" under the Straight Talk Express, after McCain tried to defend his opponent Obama. When your professed supporters boo you, that's not a good sign, Senator McCain.

Sarah Palin abused her power as governor of Alaska when it came to firing an official who refused to fire a state trooper involved in a Palin family feud. When your running mate is as corrupt as the Washington your ticket promises to clean up maverick-style, that's not a good sign, Senator McCain.

Also in the news, the economy sucks right now. If the stock market were a game of strip poker, I'd be showing nipple. I'm just sayin'. However, I still stand by my previous blog entries about the virtues of being a cautious investor. When the market bounces back and/or transitions into something similar but hyperinflated...you'll see. We'll be billionaires, either legitimately or because the dollar becomes worthless. Anyway, when people care more about the economy than petty accusations of guilt by association, that's not a good sign, Senator McCain.

Besides, McCain has his own guilt by association problem. No, not Charles Keating, but some of his supporters, similar to those mentioned in the first paragraph.

John McCain pals around with the ignorant (and possibly drunk)! That's not a good sign, Senator McCain.

With less than a month to go, it seems like the election is already said and done. Barack Obama is essentially the President-elect right now, or am I forgetting something?

Noooooooooo! Okay, okay, let's analyze this: While anything can happen in this universe, as evidenced by the photo above (copyrighted by the Associated Press but used here for educational purposes), that was during an era of radio and slow broadcast information. If yesteryear had today's technology, there would not have been that surprise result and subsequent iconic photograph.

Lesson learned. Still, nothing can possibly go wrong, and Obama's victory will be a referendum against eight years of the Bush Administration. The voters will have their fair say, or will they?

D'oh!

(Butterfly ballot photo credit: Ondrejk.)

Palin's Abuse of Power: What Does This Mean?

2008-10-10T17:30:00.000-07:00

AP NewsAlert

7 minutes ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Legislative panel finds Palin abused her power in firing of public safety commissioner.

Give a Democratic President and Congress Two Years

2008-10-10T11:56:00.000-07:00

Here I go again, glossing over history: We had six years of a Republican President and a Republican majority in Congress. Look what happened there. Then we had about two years of a Republican President and a veto-prone Democratic majority in Congress. Ironically, the President still successfully pushed forward his agenda recently - the stimulus checks and the bailout, none of which has done much noticeable good lately.

So here's the deal, America (Bernie Mac, I'm borrowing your phrase - R.I.P., by the way): Chances are, while Congress sucks as a whole, you the voter like your dude/chick in the House and your guy/gal in the Senate. Therefore in this election, Congress won't change much, and the Democrats will still have their slight majority. If we vote in the Democrat Obama to the Presidency, things will get done. His campaign promises to the middle class will mostly go through with the support of a Democratic majority in Congress. Republican McCain won't find such support in office, even with his previous reputation of crossing party lines. In a few short weeks, the bipartisan maverick has ruined his credibility by becoming an erratic, Rovian mudslinging, pseudo-"mavericky" type. If you're not convinced of this, why is one ticket focusing on the economy, while the other is splitting between guilt-by-association mudslinging (defamation if the attacks weren't focused on public figures) and some stuff about the economy?

Let the Democrats have two years. Sure, a lot of things can go wrong, but the chances are good that it won't be worse than the past eight years of the Bush Administration (six with a Republican Congress and a little less than two with today's current situation). If the Democrats just suck in the next two years, or the changes (read: the rectifying of Bush's policies) reek too much of Norwegian socialism for your taste, you have the power to change the face of Congress in 2010. Don't vote for your guy/gal in Congress. Pick someone else. If every district and state in the US does this, well - that's change, right?

At the very least, the majority would then shift from the Democrats to the Republicans in 2010 (that is, if the Democrats don't do their job between 2009 and late 2010). At the very best, Congress will have to modify its seating arrangement to deal with a multi-party scheme, with significant amounts of "independents" and third-party members. If an Obama Administration/new Congress situation doesn't work between 2011 and late 2012, you are free pick a new Representative for your district and a new President for your country.

To reiterate, America, give the Democrats a chance for the next two years. McCain still hasn't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a third Republican Administration would be any different than the past two terms. Here's a silver lining for the Bush supporters and other permutations of Republican-style conservatism: In an Obama Administration, socially conservative attempts at satire might actually be funny in the next few years, where previously it was just asshattery.

In any case, while I've obviously supported one outcome in this election of another, I want you to vote, if legally possible - no matter for whom.

Making Your Production Company "Official"

2008-10-09T00:00:00.000-07:00

Anyone can be a big name director/producer/star...on YouTube. If you are already an Internet sensation, or plan to succeed in that arena (and beyond!), it might be in your best interest to either incorporate a corporation or organize an LLC (or whatever is applicable to your corner of the world). Short of that, you can always work as a sole proprietor or general partnership or other business structure, before you make the big plunge into something more formal. You will get better quality info from self-help books or professionals than this little article, so I'll leave it at that.

Anyway, let's say your name is Jeffrey Champ, and you're a budding filmmaker. You can always call your sole proprietorship company Jeffrey Champ Productions, and you should be good to cash in checks made to that name. However, creative people tend to do business as some sort of creative name, and that's where filing for a fictitious business name (FBN) can help your cause. The law varies from state to state (and if you're not in the U.S., I wouldn't know...period), but the basic process is to file an FBN statement in the county you're doing business and find a local paper to publish your FBN statement for four weeks. The entire process should cost about $100 in filing fees and publisher fees, but don't quote me on that!

With a properly filed FBN, our hypothetical Jeffrey Champ could run his sole proprietorship as SPQR Piggies Productions or any crazy name short of adding Inc., LLC, GmbH, Bank, or other deceptive suffix (the law varies, of course). In other words, YOU the YouTube filmmaker can accept checks written to your screen name on your path to greatness!

Pop quiz, kids! Here's a 16mm film I "Swiss Army Knifed" (wrote/directed/shot/edited/scored/produced) back in college. It's called Cleaning Service:

Using the information given in the article, what did I do wrong when it came to using the film's production company name? (Yes, there are a lot of things wrong about the production itself, but that is another story. Anyway, highlight the paragraph below for the answer.)

(Answer: SPQR Piggies, Inc. is not an actual corporation nor the FBN of an actual corporation. Even if I wanted to use SPQR Piggies as an FBN - Ryan DeRamos d/b/a SPQR Piggies - the government wouldn't allow me to use the Inc. suffix. I'm glad to have made that mistake while in college.)

Ryan DeRamos is an independent filmmaker, songwriter-producer, and blogger. He recently produced the majority of music for the upcoming Mutiny Universe production Élan Vital. Ryan looks forward to contributing more articles at Rama's SCREEN.

John McCain: A GOP Elephant Intentionally Forgets

2008-10-08T00:00:00.000-07:00

I have come to terms with the fact that my short-term memory ain't what it used to be. I used to be able to not study for a quiz in school, cram the period beforehand, and then subsequently ace that quiz. Now I find myself wondering what I'm doing in the kitchen, when I don't feel hungry or thirsty. I'm relatively a spring chicken, so it's quite sad, really. On the other hand, we understand when older folks forget things. It's either an understandable senior moment, or an indicator of Alzheimer's - and that kind of thing is serious. But tolerance for senior moments should not be extended to someone who's running for the Presidency.

The whole McCain shtick of ignoring previous statements seems like he's hoping that swing voters have bad short-term memories and/or can't tell the difference between conditional sentences and regular statements. In any case, McCain probably isn't suffering from senior moments (making my first paragraph moot); he's just intentionally spinning the conversation to his favor (arguably unsuccessfully but the attempt is obvious).

Obama: "And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out."

McCain: "In fact, he said he wants to announce that he's going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable."

(Thanks to William Dipini for providing the link to the debate transcript.)

And here's the much-maligned McCain memory mishap:

McCain: "Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process."

McCain (the absolute next sentence): "Now is not the time to fix the blame."

Remarkable. To be fair, in context, McCain was trying to say that the Democrats were fixing the blame. However, fixing the blame on those he accused of fixing the blame is hilariously ironic. It reminds me of that scene in The Office where Michael Scott tells everyone to be serious, then says a double entendre, then says his signature line "That's what she said," then says that there's no time for that sort of nonsense. Is John McCain actually Michael Scott? After all, he wanted to select Dwight Schrute for the VP portion of the ticket:

Tinfoil hat hypothesis: If the GOP ticket consists of an intentional statement forgetter (McCain) and an intentional question ignorer (Palin), I'm thinking the shadowy powers-that-be have created the ultimate "don't f*ckin' vote for these people" ticket alongside the "f*ckin' vote for the well-spoken Obama and the newly gaffe-reduced Biden" ticket to make the "choice" clear. Obviously, since the shadowy powers-that-be dictated such a ticket, no one really wins in this non-democracy, right? If the Republicans win, we're going down the toilet unhappily. If the Democrats win, we're going down the toilet with smiles on our faces. Am I right? Okay, tinfoil hats off.

It's a good thing I don't take my occasional tinfoilhattery seriously.

I Have Nothing Today, So Watch Some Stewart and Colbert.

2008-10-07T00:00:00.000-07:00

Here's to tonight's debate! What will happen? Anyhow, if you can get Hulu in your region, here's last night's Daily Show and Colbert Report:

Dances with Wolves, Pals with Terrorists, Sleeps with Secessionist(s)

2008-10-06T03:23:00.000-07:00

Here are a few blurbs before I call it a night:

If Barack Obama "pals with terrorists," then I'm sure Sarah Palin "sleeps with a (former) secessionist." How's that for guilt by (piece of) association? How you like them "apples"? Okay, I may have gone a bit too far with the double entendre.

I vaguely remember some college psychology 101 (more like 150 or 220) that stated that negating a statement won't do much good to reverse a falsehood. In other words, if you write "John McCain was NOT involved in the Keating Five scandal" to negate the claim that "John McCain was involved in the Keating Five scandal," people will probably still believe that McCain was involved with Keating. That's why the assertions of "Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim" or "Sarah Palin is NOT baby Trig's grandmother" or "Joe Biden is NO LONGER irrelevant to the campaign" have fallen to more than a few deaf ears and blind eyes. Negative qualifiers just psychologically disappear. (But I could be wrong about this assertion of mine, as I didn't Google or Wiki this concept, only relying on my faulty memory of college book learnin'.)

Speaking of Joe Biden, he suspended his role in the campaign for legitimate reasons, to deal with the passing of his mother-in-law. Condolences to Joe's family, and we can't wait for Joe to return and further cement his relevancy to the campaign.

The voter registration deadline for a few states was last Saturday, and another deadline for a few more states is this Tuesday. So register to vote. You probably know my bias (biases), but don't let me or anyone else tell you for whom to vote. If you want to know the registration deadline for your state, please fast forward to 5:18 in this Colbert Report video clip:

The Problem with Partisan Hacks

2008-10-05T15:35:00.000-07:00

In light of the next few weeks of "us" vs. "them" mentality (and previous years thereof), I feel that it is my patriotic duty to nicely remind those caught up in the hype of the following: Asserted facts need checking, guilt by association isn't sound logic, and the issues probably should take precedence over ad hominem, dirty political attacks. In other words, don't listen to partisan hacks - especially the unfunny, popular ones.

A commenter of a blog article at the Washington Post wrote: "The problem with libs is that they exist." I hope the commenter was being facetious, but for the sake of argument, let's follow the logic of this person's assertion. Let's assume that the commenter is a "conservative" and believes in the one-dimensional, pop culture view of the political spectrum:

Communist <-> Liberal <-> Moderate <-> Conservative <-> Fascist

In the line above, I've italicized the commenter's assumed point of view of "conservative," but it could also easily just be "moderate" or "fascist" for all we know. That is beside the point. Let's eliminate the existence of "liberal" points of view, and to be fair to the commenter, let's remove everything to the left of "liberal":

Moderate <-> Conservative <-> Fascist

Do you think the blog commenter would be satisfied with this ideological spectrum? If the commenter was a "conservative," then the "moderate" point of view would be too "liberal." If the commenter was a "fascist," then everything to the left would still be unacceptable. If the commenter was a "moderate," then he/she would modify the assertion as follows: "The problem with me is that I exist."

In any case, hacks who idealize about a superficial peace created by a single, unifying ideology are akin to racists who idealize about a superficial peace created by a single, unifying tribe. Please follow this slightly absurd train of thought: After the undesirable "races" are eliminated, it may potentially snowball into eliminating undesirable "ethnicities" and then "tribes" until the "supreme human tribe" remains. This "supreme tribe" would then die off by a permutation of the "common cold." Now replace with terms in quotations with whatever political ideology espoused by hacks on all sides.

Back to the Washington Post blog commenter: In a just America (which I'd like to think is "my" America), my point of view, the commenter's point of view, and others' varying points of view are all welcome in this First Amendment-guaranteed country. The only caveat I would add is this: While all ideas are welcome in a just America, the most violent and vile of these ideas need to remain in the realm of ideas. Horrendous actions are not protected by the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, in the commenter's America, my point of view would not be welcome. Therefore, the commenter's America is not the United States of America. Enough downer politics. Check out the latest SNL sketch with Sarah "Maverick Who Dodges Questions" Palin and Joe "Loves His Unstable Friend John McCain" Biden:

In any case, live well, my friends. Cheers.

I'm a Fan of the Greater LA Metro Area, Non-San Diego Southland Professional Sports Teams (Sorry, SD)

2008-10-04T01:27:00.000-07:00

I sometimes feel like Homer Simpson, waving a pennant for everything worth cheering for (or not worth cheering for): School, mid-season, showgirls, millennium, awards, mental, justice, TV sports, French circus, convicts, game shows, girth, XFL, etc. While there is divisiveness by several sports fans within the same city/metro region (Cubs fans vs. White Sox fans; Mets fans vs. Yankee fans; Dodgers fans vs. Angels fans; etc.), I just want my "city" (that big urban/suburban mass known as the Southland of California, the Greater Los Angeles Area, etc.) to win professional championships.

I wanted the Lakers to win in June (dang it, Kobe, losing to the Celtics).

I cheer whenever the Clippers make it to the playoffs ('cause you know, they're probably not making it any further than the first round). Whenever the Clippers meet the Lakers, the back of my head roots for the underdog. For once, maybe Goofus can beat Gallant. Of course, the rest of my being roots for the Lakers, since the NBA has a geographical conference system, and wins over the Clippers helps the Lakers' standings in the Western Conference. Sometimes I wish the NBA were divided into non-regional conferences, like the MLB's NL and AL, and the NFL's NFC and AFC. Anyway...

I have commemorative glasses from the local Mobil, souvenirs of the LA Rams and LA Raiders. They're long gone, but it sure was great when we had both of them.

The Kings were great when they had Gretzky and could've went all the way in the early 90s, and the Ducks were great when they won the Stanley Cup. Admittedly, I'm not much for hockey, but I like it when my SoCal teams win.

Yes, and I like LA's women's pro basketball team and professional soccer team, too, but I'm sure that there's only one team of each in the region...I think...? After a quick Wiki-search, I guess I'm cheering for both the Galaxy and Chivas USA (when I have the time to do so).

Anyhow, that brings me to the Dodgers and the Angels. As I have stated over and over in various posts, I want a Freeway World Series. Unfortunately, the Angels aren't honoring their part of the bargain. It's not like I'm a fair weather fan; I'll still cheer for the Angels next season if they lose one more game against the Red Sox (and thus get eliminated). I'll still cheer for the Dodgers next season if they don't make it all the way this time around (but after 20 years, they're due, dang it!). If, in the now-unlikely situation that they meet in the World Series, I'm probably going for the Dodgers. Growing up, I was the Dodgers kid and my brother was the California Angels guy. For historical childhood reasons, and the fact that it's the Dodgers' twenty years of championship drought versus the Angels' six years of drought, I'm ultimately rooting for the Dodgers.

That said, I'm still rooting for the LA's blue and red teams while they're still in play.

Sorry, Cubbies

2008-10-03T19:06:00.000-07:00

LA Blue Team Update: The Dodgers are two games up against the perennially-cursed Chicago Cubs. If all goes well for the Dodgers this weekend, the fair- and foul-weather Chicago fans will have to wait another year. Apologies to Eddie Vedder and Billy Corgan, and sincere apologies to the centenarians who have waited for so long. Please hold on 'til next year...or so.

LA Red Team Update: It's strange the the worst team in the playoffs - the Dodgers - is leading their series 2-0, while the best team in the playoffs - the Angels - lost Game 1 and are currently losing against the formerly-cursed Boston Red Sox 4-1 in Game 2. Angels, get your act together! I might not need it, but I really, really want a Freeway World Series...for my birthday, of course.

To sully this relatively innocuous baseball-and-apple-pie post (by the way, Marie Callender's has pies on sale for about $7 until the end of the month...mmm, pie), I'm going to write a bit more about last night's VP debate. Anyhow, after reading the articles and blogs of people who paid more attention than me last night, this has come to my attention: Apparently, Sarah Palin admitted at the beginning of the debate that she might not answer the moderator's questions directly. Evidently, "mavericks" who travel in the "Straight Talk Express" like dodging questions (in an unwitting ironic manner of course). And so it was, Gov. Palin went the politically appropriate* route (for her socially conservative base) when it came to the gay civil rights question and spun it to talk about her agreeing with Biden's sentiment against gay marriage.

*Much has been said of the limitations of open dialogue caused by "liberal" political correctness. Not much has been said about "conservative" political correctness, that is, rhetoric that placates the "conservative" (usually socially conservative) base. To prevent confusion, as "PC" is often a pejorative against liberals, I will probably use the term politically appropriate or political appropriateness or similar permutation when it comes to politicians placating their base and trying to mislead swing voters.

Lucid Palin + Lucid Biden = Freakin' Boring (Just Kidding)

2008-10-02T19:54:00.000-07:00

The one and only Vice Presidential debate went quite well. Palin didn't ramble like a high schooler unsuccessfully wingin' it through an oral presentation, and Biden didn't resort to steampunk comic book anachronisms to prove his point. Like last week's Presidential debate, this essentially consisted of live cuts of album tracks, I mean, campaign ads. Only this time, it seemed friendlier than the McCain-Obama ruckus. I'm pretty sure both the Palin and Biden households shared a big table at Applebee's after the debate.

I have a few observations:

1. Like Obama, Biden employed the classy debate technique of concessions and refutations: He praised Palin for looking out for Alaska's taxpayers with the Windfall Profits Tax (his concession), but then pointed out that McCain wouldn't do the same for America's taxpayers and that the Obama/Biden Administration would (his refutation).

2. Palin tried her best to play down the Bush-McCain connection. Instead of either throwing Bush under the "Straight Talk" Express or providing solid proof that McCain will not continue Bush's policies, Palin admonished Biden for "looking at the past" whenever he mentioned Bush.

3. Biden admitted to a changing his worldview when it came to judging the appointment of Federal judges - ideology matters. Palin, on the other hand, held on to an "I'm always right" attitude, in the same manner that she'd rather BS incoherently through Katie Couric's interview than honestly admit to not knowing Supreme Court cases other than Roe v. Wade. There's a difference between flip-flopping when it's politically useful to do so and having an evolving, maturing world view. There's also less shame in saying "I don't know" than incoherently BS-ing.

4. If last week's debate was a bash-Bush-fest, then this week is the "Who is John McCain, really?" debate.

5. For all the pleasantness of this debate, I'm pretty sure Tina Fey still has some good material to satirize (not just mimic verbatim) for a future SNL sketch.

In any case, be sure to visit FactCheck.org and The FactCheck Wire to decipher all the spin (minimal as it was) from tonight's debate.

Politics in Three Dimensions

2008-10-01T13:00:00.000-07:00

Partisan hacks tend to boil down politics in this manner:

"Us" (good) vs. "Them" (bad)
Pop culture tends to see politics in one dimension:

Communist <-> Liberal <-> Moderate <-> Conservative <-> Fascist

A minimal amount of research reveals that libertarians, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, pro-labor liberals, pro-globalization liberals, anarchists, etc., don't quite fit on a straight-line spectrum. The next logical step is to map political ideologies in two dimensions (economic and personal freedom), like the Nolan Chart and its derivatives:

When I took the World's Smallest Political Quiz, I scored 100% for personal issues and 50% for economic issues - placing me on the border between "Left" and "Libertarian."

Even still, there is a bit of a difference between personal freedom and political freedom, as highlighted in this three-dimensional representation of political ideologies, as advocated by a game inspired by a novel, Jennifer Government: NationStates:

I was peeved to no end during that dim period of American history between 2003 and 2006, with all that talk of Freedom Fries and dissent being anti-American/unpatriotic and all that proto-fascist BS coming from the Republican majority (at the time). So, if you add total libertarian political freedom to my 100% personal and 50% economic freedoms (the 50% is heavily nuanced, in my opinion), this is the result:

Apparently, I advocate a "civil rights lovefest" form of government - where people are free to express political dissent and live however they want (as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights), and the government takes a "fair" amount of taxes to provide a "fair" amount of services to the people: Emergency services (police, fire, etc.), a standing army (more standing and defending than invading and empire-building), decent healthcare/education for minors (at the very least), and some minimal safety standards here and there.

That seems fair to me.

NationStates political map credit: Ccrowe1990.
World's Smallest Quiz traced map credit: Stannered.

Stocks on Sale, or Going Out of Business Sale?

2008-09-30T00:00:00.000-07:00

Some of my recent blog entries encouraged working- and middle-class people to invest in companies and become part of the ownership class (technically speaking). With yesterday's $1.2 trillion market fall in mind, I still recommend that hard-working Americans take some more ownership of our country's industries. In fact, if you already set up an account with a broker and loaded it with money that might have become a plasma HDTV, but luckily haven't pulled the trigger and traded (like the E-trade baby) - now's a good time. Maybe. Don't take my word for it, but:

1. Some shares will spike temporarily when the market opens.
2. Some traders will who played their cards right will profit from these spikes.
3. These traders will use their newly-created fortune to buy (a) gold, (b) a cabin in the woods with good foraging land, and (c) a high-powered firearm of some sort.

In any case, try not to worry about the economy. Make sure you have food in your belly, first of all. Regular bank accounts are FDIC insured up to $100,000 for individuals (with variations that up the limit), so keep the bank runs at a minimum. Again, stocks are on sale. Some are going out of business sales, so do your homework.

Plagiarism

2008-09-29T01:22:00.000-07:00

When I was in grade school, we had art class. The teacher would do some arbitrary lesson about drawing circles or whatever, and we'd draw or crayon according to the lesson. We'd submit the artwork, and the teacher would grade us without knowing the criteria for achieving a high grade versus a low grade. I'd get a "check plus" for a phone-it-in drawing, and the dreaded "check minus" for something I poured my young heart and soul into - go figure.

Anyhow, a classmate liked something I drew, and when we received our papers back, I decided to give that drawing to him. I felt like Picasso or whoever, with a fan. Anyway, the dude turned around, covered my signature and showed other classmates the work, taking credit for it.

What a douche. If I ever Quantum Leap back into my younger self at that particular moment in time, I'll be sure to kick that kid's ass.

Anyway, some music blog called "indieducky.com" essentially plagiarized my review of Jeff Ament's Tone album.

This is a screenshot of the original review, written by yours truly, posted on September 15, 2008:

The accused plagiarist took material starting with the second sentence in the second paragraph all the way down to my quip on Jeff Ament's true day job. This is a screenshot the plagiarized article, posted two days ago, on September 27, 2008:

Sure, the accused plagiarist and I differed in our opinion of the Pearl Jam song "Jeremy," and The Strokes were mentioned there but not here - but the rest is obvious. The plagiarized review doesn't seem like a program mishmashed words to create an automated plagiarism full of broken English; it genuinely seems like a person plagiarized my work - why else could there have been a difference of opinion when it came to "Jeremy"?

If you go to the indieducky.com website (which I ain't linkin' to), they're being monetized by Amazon.com Associates ads. If that site makes some money from Amazon.com, well, they definitely owe me.

To the alleged plagiarist (and I use "alleged" as sarcastically as possible): You're welcome. And yes, I do feel a bit flattered that my material is "good" enough to steal.

P.S. Here's a screenshot of another one of 'em plagiarists, with a post from yesterday, September 28, 2008:

Apparently "S. Box" will take credit for their remix of Radiohead's "Nude," but they won't properly quote my work, nor provide a link to the original. I know these "blogs" are file sharers and blatant copyright infringers, but they should at least use their own words when hyping their wares (or is it warez?).

Where's the Parody? Fake Sarah Palin is Real Sarah Palin

2008-09-28T16:00:00.000-07:00

Here's last night's SNL with Tina Fey reprising her fan request role of Sarah Palin:

Compare with the real Sarah Palin interview by Katie Couric:

Or just watch these clips:

I dunno, y'know, reporters...

The part of the Russian Federation seen from Alaska is the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, which according to its description in Wikipedia, is essentially Alaska. Yes, of course, Alaska was once part of Russia.

More plot drift than a typical episode of The Simpsons.

I would like to use a life line.

Okay, the above one was dubbed over with the South Carolina pageant contestant.

Maybe Governor Palin will surprise everyone on Thursday and do really, really well against Senator Biden (or Biden might do really, really poorly). Of course I'm just being nice and/or sarcastic, but anything is possible in this universe, right? Biden might want to watch his language for broadcast TV purposes, even though cussing is badass...but malarkey?

In any case, kudos to Katie Couric for keeping a straight face (or to the CBS video editor for the straight-faced insert shots), although her eyes say, "WTF are you talking about?" Maybe an enterprising YouTube user can get the Palin shots and intercut it with the American Idol reject auditions, with Simon Cowell openly laughing and Randy Jackson covering his face with a sheet of printer paper.

The Google Cardinals

2008-09-28T00:00:00.000-07:00

Here are the top two Google search terms for the numbers from 0 to 22, as of September 26, 2008:

0 is for 02, followed by 007;
1 is for 192, followed by 160by2;
2 is for 2008 Olympics, followed by 2008 calendar;
3 is for 3G, followed by 3M;
4 is for 411, follwed by 4chan;
5 is for 50 Cent, followed by 5 day forecast;
6 is for 6th pay commission, followed by 649;
7 is for "7 Things" lyrics, followed by 7 Zip;
8 is for 888, followed by 84 Lumber;
9 is for 90210, followed by "9 11";
10 is for 10 day weather forecast, followed by 103.5;
11 is for 118, followed by 11 weeks pregnant;
12 is for 123 Greetings, followed by 123Musiq;
13 is for 1337, followed by 13 Days in Hell;
14 is for 144, followed by 1408;
15 is for 15 weeks pregnant, followed by 15th August;
16 is for 160by2, followed by 163;
17 is for 17 Tahun, followed by 17 weeks pregnant;
18 is for 1800Flowers, followed by 1800 Contacts;
19 is for 192, followed by 1984;
20 is for 2008 Olympics, followed by 2008 calendar;
21 is for 21 movie, followed by 21 soundtrack;
22 is for 22 weeks pregnant, followed by 220;
etc.

I'm pretty sure most of the seemingly random numbers (in the hundreds) point to specific websites. A lot of searches probably relates to the purchasing of mere trinkets. I don't know whether Googling for pregnancy information is a good or bad thing. And the popular search for "17 Tahun" apparently leads to photos of sexy Indonesian girls - a popular fetish, evidently. In any case, this is an at-a-glance snapshot of popular culture's relationship to numbers.

Debate #1, or "Campaign Ads (Live)"?

2008-09-27T00:00:00.000-07:00

Last night's debate between John McCain and Barack Obama simply felt like each respective nominee's campaign ads greatest hits, albeit performed live. They didn't really answer Jim Lehrer's questions straightforwardly, nor did they really listen to each other or understand the other's nuanced views. In summation:

1. It was a bash Bush fest. It's a big "duh" for Democrat Obama to do it, and a slightly tougher act for Republican McCain to throw the Republican President under the "Straight Talk" Express.

2. McCain didn't listen to Obama's sentiments congratulating General Petraeus' surge strategy and the troops' bravery in execution. McCain continually insisted that Obama still didn't like the outcome of the surge, even after Obama's statements.

3. Obama didn't listen to McCain's statements to distance himself from the Bush Administration, in which McCain highlighted his votes against Bush's agenda and even comparing Obama's "stubbornness" to Bush's. Obama continually insisted that McCain is the same as Bush, voting with him 90% during the past seven-plus years.

4. To his credit, McCain didn't lose his cool, as anticipated by his detractors.

5. To his credit, Obama frequently employed a classy debate/persuasive tactic: The concession and refutation: "McCain was right about X, but ultimately, it is Y. On the other hand, I can do Z better." Yes, it's straight out of English 101 essay writing for us college-educated folk - and you fancy prep school folk probably learned it in high school.

6. The partisan hacks most likely saw one of two debates (depending on what side they're on), and adamantly believe their candidate schooled the other, to the "despair" of the opposing viewpoints. The English language - likely spoken language as a whole - is definitely flawed when it comes to transmitting direct, singular meaning. There are too many multiple meanings in words, which leads to all sorts of political spin. For all its flaws (0.999... = 1 for some reason), maybe everyone should talk in maths, or at least in mathematical proofs.

Anyway, while this first debate was quite flat - the hype of McCain's campaign suspension actually had more substance (ironically) - I can't wait for the Palin vs. Biden debate this Thursday, as well as the last two Presidential ones.

Until then, be sure to fact check all the candidates' statements, misstatements, and outright propaganda at FactCheck.org.

The Google Alphabet

2008-09-26T13:33:00.000-07:00

According to Google search popularity (as of September 26, 2008):

A is for Amazon, followed by Argos;
B is for Bebo, followed by BBC;
C is for Craigslist, followed by CNN;
D is for Dictionary, followed by Dell;
E is for eBay, followed by Expedia;
F is for Facebook, followed by Firefox;
G is for Gmail, followed by Google Maps;
H is for Hotmail, followed by Home Depot;
I is for Ikea, followed by IMDb;
J is for John Lewis, followed by jobs;
K is for Kelly [sic] Blue Book, followed by Kohl's;
L is for Limewire, followed by Lowe's;
M is for MySpace, followed by Mapquest;
N is for NBC Olympics, followed by NBC;
O is for Olympics, followed by Orkut;
P is for Photobucket, followed by Paypal;
Q is for quotes, followed by QVC;
R is for Runescape, followed by Ryanair;
S is for Sears, followed by Skype;
T is for Target, followed by Tesco;
U is for Utube [sic], followed by UPS;
V is for Verizon Wireless, followed by Verizon;
W is for Wikipedia, followed by weather;
X is for Xbox, followed by XM Radio;
Y is for YouTube, followed, by Yahoo!;
Z is for zip codes, followed by Zappos.

For better or for worse, that's what we and our fellow Web surfers care about. There's apparently a lot of interest in retail stores (evidently, "John Lewis" is an online store in the UK), but not a lot of interest in saving, investing, or making money (other than the vague search for "jobs").

I'll probably blog tomorrow about the Presidential debate (knock on wood!).

Campaign Over. I Win. Freeway Series, Here We Come!

2008-09-25T14:57:00.000-07:00

Please read along and use the appropriate sarcastic finger quotes:

Senator John McCain "suspended his campaign" to "focus on the economy," just as his "convention boost" was all but "erased." He refuses to "debate" Senator Barack Obama on the "issues" on "Friday." In other words, McCain is out.

With Senator McCain, Senators Obama and Joe Biden are probably doing what the Senate (and Congress as a whole) is supposed to do: Keep the President "in check," and to make sure their constituents don't pay for a $700 billion check "in vain." In other words, Obama and Biden are out.

Governor Sarah Palin refuses to take new interviews, and she never really played hard ball with either Charlie Gibson or "Sean Hannity." In other words, Palin was never really "in."

Therefore, I win! Woo-hoo!

In better news, the Los Angeles Dodgers won the NL West after the Arizona Diamondbacks lost to the St. Louis Cardinals. Tony LaRussa (Cardinals' manager), you are too kind to the Dodgers - first with the Oakland Athletics in 1988 and now with the Cardinals! LA thanks you.

Angels vs. Dodgers World Series - here we come! Sorry, Cubs fans.