The website for End It Like Beckham is up. Check it out:
http://www.enditlikebeckham.com/index.html
The premiere date is still TBA. Be on the look out for it.
We're All Left Behind
13 years ago
Monday, August 25, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Why the left hate FoxNews (and why Colin Powell is endorsing Barack Obama).
It has always been my contention that FoxNews is not a conversative news station, but simply the least liberal news station. Often, the same stories are reported and/or emphasized on all the stations. FoxNews merely tends to give pundits of multiple perspectives airtime, whereas the other stations do not. Rarely is there a concrete example of this difference between the two stations. Today offers such an example.
A few minutes ago Bill Kristol (not to be confused with the City Slickers actor Billy Crystal) broke the story that Colin Powell will endorse Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention. While this news is mildly surprising (a Bush cabinet member crossed party lines), upon a moment's thought it makes complete sense (consider what Obama and Powell have in common). Still, you have to wonder why FoxNews received the "exclusive" on this story. The "Bush cabinet member crosses" angle is certainly tantalizing enough for the media to push, so why haven't they?
Simply put, the media wanted to hide this story until closer to the Democratic Convention so they could run it into the ground and thus embed it into our psyches. Why would they approach breaking the story in such a manner? Three days later is the Republican National Convention, where Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman will speak. If the Powell story were broken and then repeated so closely to the Republican Convention, the tale of a Republican crossing party lines to endorse Obama would surely be remembered more strongly than the story of a Democrat (and former VP candidate) crossing party lines to endorse McCain. The only problem is, Bill Kristol and FoxNews blew the media's chance at the creating that storyline by doing their job of reporting the news when they uncover it, in other words, when it's new.
Why does the left hate FoxNews? Because it broke up their media monopoly by no longer playing by their rules. The old media playground clique can no longer control the flow of information and thus the national agenda in the same manner. Although, their influence on the national conversation can still not be understated. I can almost guarantee you that the buzz surrounding these endorsements will be that Powell is more right wing than Lieberman is left wing, so his crossing means more. Afterall, Lieberman has always been a moderate and so has McCain, right? It's just too bad no one will call Powell out on the real reason he's endorsing Obama....
(You know what? I think I will.)
....racism.
A few minutes ago Bill Kristol (not to be confused with the City Slickers actor Billy Crystal) broke the story that Colin Powell will endorse Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention. While this news is mildly surprising (a Bush cabinet member crossed party lines), upon a moment's thought it makes complete sense (consider what Obama and Powell have in common). Still, you have to wonder why FoxNews received the "exclusive" on this story. The "Bush cabinet member crosses" angle is certainly tantalizing enough for the media to push, so why haven't they?
Simply put, the media wanted to hide this story until closer to the Democratic Convention so they could run it into the ground and thus embed it into our psyches. Why would they approach breaking the story in such a manner? Three days later is the Republican National Convention, where Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman will speak. If the Powell story were broken and then repeated so closely to the Republican Convention, the tale of a Republican crossing party lines to endorse Obama would surely be remembered more strongly than the story of a Democrat (and former VP candidate) crossing party lines to endorse McCain. The only problem is, Bill Kristol and FoxNews blew the media's chance at the creating that storyline by doing their job of reporting the news when they uncover it, in other words, when it's new.
Why does the left hate FoxNews? Because it broke up their media monopoly by no longer playing by their rules. The old media playground clique can no longer control the flow of information and thus the national agenda in the same manner. Although, their influence on the national conversation can still not be understated. I can almost guarantee you that the buzz surrounding these endorsements will be that Powell is more right wing than Lieberman is left wing, so his crossing means more. Afterall, Lieberman has always been a moderate and so has McCain, right? It's just too bad no one will call Powell out on the real reason he's endorsing Obama....
(You know what? I think I will.)
....racism.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Nothing is like the Nazis...?
Recently, an anonymous commenter on one of my old posts posted an (apparently) well known internet theory called "Nothing is Like the Nazis" in order to call me an idiot. The text of what he reposted follows:
NOTHING Is Like The NazisI wonder if the commenter and the internet theorist he admires (isnitironic) are following the current Russian invasion of Georgia. I heard one analyst describe it as "Hitler-like." It appears people do think that things in the world can be like the Nazis.
by isntitironic (wanksta extraordinaire)
"Seriously. Those people who don't agree with your 'ship? They are not like the Nazis. Those people who don't agree with your politics? That mod who banned you? That person who corrected the spelling in your fanfic? None of them are even remotely like the Nazis in any way, shape, or form. NOTHING is like the Nazis. Even those guys who hang out at the mall in black leather with shaved heads and swastika bling are not like the Nazis - they're only TRYING to be because they think it makes them rebels, when in fact it merely makes them badly-dressed idiots who will never get laid because if they ever took their clothes off in front of another human being they would find themselves in the incredibly unenviable position of having to convince that other human being that their tattoos are 'just kidding'.
Should you find yourself tempted to compare somebody to the Nazis, follow these steps:
1. Stop typing.
2. Log off and shut down your computer.
3. Visit the nearest bookshop or library. Get yourself a nice cup of coffee and find a book on the Holocaust. Read the book from cover to cover.
4. Spend 24 hours thinking about what was in the book.
5. Get back online and re-read the post that made you angry.
6. If you still feel like comparing something to the Nazis, repeat from step one. Once you have gained some perspective, then and only then may you post your reply."
Medical Proof that Men are Evil!
I'm in the last day of a week long visit to my parents' sitting in the kitchen on my computer. My Dad has FoxNews on the TV in the adjacent room. I'm passively listening, ingesting maybe every other word. Or, at least, I am using that listening technique until I hear an interesting phrase: testosterone toxicity.
Neil Cavuto brought a doctor onto his show "Your World" to discuss the recent "early" deaths of celebrities Bernie Mac and Issac Hayes. Cavuto and the doctor were discussing the cause of Mac's death and his chronic condition of Sarcoidosis, speculating whether it essentially aided and abetted the Pneumonia. Within their speculation, I heard them use a phrase I had never heard: "testosterone toxicity." From context I could basically ascertain that it meant men are more likely to die earlier because they have testosterone. Naturally, I was curious as to this claim, seeing as how I'm a dude and all, so I used the wide wide world of web to instantly Google the phrase and found the following website:
http://www.healthandage.com/Home/gm=20!gid2=2824
The most important excerpt follows:
So basically, any physical condition a man can get is due to testosterone. Or maybe, more simply, the condition of being a man is caused by testosterone, and the physical conditions happen after manhood is, um, achieved. Saying testosterone kills men is like saying players kill a team. Yes, every time a team falls apart, it is due to the players, but that is because you can't have a team without players. What caused the breakdown wasn't the addition of the players, but what happens after they have been added. Of course, it's much better for the feminists to talk about "testosterone toxicity" because now they can say men have a toxic substance coursing their body. Yup, men suck. But hey, at least we aren't weak whiny insecure uppity bitches.
Neil Cavuto brought a doctor onto his show "Your World" to discuss the recent "early" deaths of celebrities Bernie Mac and Issac Hayes. Cavuto and the doctor were discussing the cause of Mac's death and his chronic condition of Sarcoidosis, speculating whether it essentially aided and abetted the Pneumonia. Within their speculation, I heard them use a phrase I had never heard: "testosterone toxicity." From context I could basically ascertain that it meant men are more likely to die earlier because they have testosterone. Naturally, I was curious as to this claim, seeing as how I'm a dude and all, so I used the wide wide world of web to instantly Google the phrase and found the following website:
http://www.healthandage.com/Home/gm=20!gid2=2824
The most important excerpt follows:
Testosterone toxicity
The long, alarming list of possible conditions caused by testosterone includes: cardiovascular disease, blood lipid changes, erythrocytosis (an increased number of red blood cells), fluid retention, prostate enlargement, prostate cancer, liver toxicity, sleep apnea, enlarged breasts, acne or oily skin, atrophy of the testes, and infertility. We shall discuss the most important of these.
So basically, any physical condition a man can get is due to testosterone. Or maybe, more simply, the condition of being a man is caused by testosterone, and the physical conditions happen after manhood is, um, achieved. Saying testosterone kills men is like saying players kill a team. Yes, every time a team falls apart, it is due to the players, but that is because you can't have a team without players. What caused the breakdown wasn't the addition of the players, but what happens after they have been added. Of course, it's much better for the feminists to talk about "testosterone toxicity" because now they can say men have a toxic substance coursing their body. Yup, men suck. But hey, at least we aren't weak whiny insecure uppity bitches.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
"Welcome to the Midside" Addendum: The History of "Shut up, you're wrong."
Over the brief history of this blog, what has been called into question most often is my catchphrase. I now realize that I must explicate its origins and purpose a bit more. Initially, I thought it was clear in conjunction with my tone and style. However, it seems I made an error in calculation.
The origins of "Shut up, you're wrong" aren't concrete in my mind. I came up with it at some point in the latter half of my undergrad experience, most likely later in my third year or earlier in my fourth and final year. Through my observation of arguments, both in and outside of the classroom, I found that most people use one tactic: deny and repeat. I mean to say that they deny their opponent's claim and repeat their own, as if repetition equals validity or truth. Thus, I distilled their arguments down to their basic wording: "shut up, you're wrong." Essentially, both sides go back and forth spouting the phrase with different words each time, sputtering their tires, getting more mud on them than even Brad Paisley would like.
The purpose later evolved into satirical punctuation. Let me explain my use of each of those words separately:
Satire: Whereas the phrase first begin as nothing more than childish mockery, it has now taken on another meaning. It is not an ultimate argument, it is the ultimate argument, at least to those people who will be most offended by it. You see, as I learned more, I discovered that the dichotomy between the belief in objective truth and relative truth is not only the only dichotomy that really matters, but has a direct affect on the tactics of argument. If truth is relative, then it doesn't matter what you argue, just how you argue it. It's also, ironically, why the argument tactic I noticed has become common. As relativism is subsumed into our society more and more, the only thing that matters is your own opinion. Thus, since it is so obviously all that matters, if you deny the other person's opinion and repeat your own, you always win. "Shut up, you're wrong" is the best argument technique EVER, at least when dealing with relativists; yes, all relativists, as even the skilled ones basically say "Shut up, you're wrong" just really beautifully and politely, so as to seduce the other person. All relativist argument is seduction. "Shut up, you're wrong" exposes how crude, similar, and insulting their argument is. It also weeds out the relativists, as they'll be most offended by it.
(Yes, we could delve into a deep discussion about the nature of seduction and if it's as negative as I've assumed it is here. For now, I'll say it is probably possible to distinguish between positive seduction and negative seduction.)
Punctuation: Often, people most remember the last thing: the last act, the final song in a set/on an album, the final movie in a series, the finale episode of a series. Recently I even posted a blog about how the poor last episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer affected my opinion of the entire series. Thus, as a writer, it is important for me to have a trademark memorable "last thing." In America, the most memorable part of any character tends to be his catchphrase, so I turned to some famous catchphrase rhetoricians. Rush Limbaugh is known for the catchphrase he creates and subsequently repeats endlessly. Consider "Shut up, you're wrong" in the same vein as "Talent on Loan from God." From a non-Christian perspective, "Talent on Loan from God" seems pretty arrogant, but from a Christian perspective, from Rush's perspective, all talent is necessarily on loan from God, so it's merely a statement of fact. Likewise, the meaning of my catchphrase changes based upon your perspective (yes Mr. Burke, terministic screens mean a lot changes based on perspective). Professional wrestlers are often known by their catchphrases, which punctuate their "promos." Stone Cold Steve Austin said, "And that's the bottom line 'cause Stone Cold said so." The Rock said, "If you smell what the Rock is cooking." Likewise, "Shut up, you're wrong" ends my promos and is an easy association with the name Jayemel.
There you have it. I hope the meaning of the phrase is more coherent now. Next time you're going to be offended by it, stop and think about what I've written here. And yes, I'm aware that it's a comma splice, but I made a rhetorical choice when choosing a comma over a period. Besides, language is malleable, and if you disagree with that, well then:
Shut up, you're wrong.
The origins of "Shut up, you're wrong" aren't concrete in my mind. I came up with it at some point in the latter half of my undergrad experience, most likely later in my third year or earlier in my fourth and final year. Through my observation of arguments, both in and outside of the classroom, I found that most people use one tactic: deny and repeat. I mean to say that they deny their opponent's claim and repeat their own, as if repetition equals validity or truth. Thus, I distilled their arguments down to their basic wording: "shut up, you're wrong." Essentially, both sides go back and forth spouting the phrase with different words each time, sputtering their tires, getting more mud on them than even Brad Paisley would like.
The purpose later evolved into satirical punctuation. Let me explain my use of each of those words separately:
Satire: Whereas the phrase first begin as nothing more than childish mockery, it has now taken on another meaning. It is not an ultimate argument, it is the ultimate argument, at least to those people who will be most offended by it. You see, as I learned more, I discovered that the dichotomy between the belief in objective truth and relative truth is not only the only dichotomy that really matters, but has a direct affect on the tactics of argument. If truth is relative, then it doesn't matter what you argue, just how you argue it. It's also, ironically, why the argument tactic I noticed has become common. As relativism is subsumed into our society more and more, the only thing that matters is your own opinion. Thus, since it is so obviously all that matters, if you deny the other person's opinion and repeat your own, you always win. "Shut up, you're wrong" is the best argument technique EVER, at least when dealing with relativists; yes, all relativists, as even the skilled ones basically say "Shut up, you're wrong" just really beautifully and politely, so as to seduce the other person. All relativist argument is seduction. "Shut up, you're wrong" exposes how crude, similar, and insulting their argument is. It also weeds out the relativists, as they'll be most offended by it.
(Yes, we could delve into a deep discussion about the nature of seduction and if it's as negative as I've assumed it is here. For now, I'll say it is probably possible to distinguish between positive seduction and negative seduction.)
Punctuation: Often, people most remember the last thing: the last act, the final song in a set/on an album, the final movie in a series, the finale episode of a series. Recently I even posted a blog about how the poor last episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer affected my opinion of the entire series. Thus, as a writer, it is important for me to have a trademark memorable "last thing." In America, the most memorable part of any character tends to be his catchphrase, so I turned to some famous catchphrase rhetoricians. Rush Limbaugh is known for the catchphrase he creates and subsequently repeats endlessly. Consider "Shut up, you're wrong" in the same vein as "Talent on Loan from God." From a non-Christian perspective, "Talent on Loan from God" seems pretty arrogant, but from a Christian perspective, from Rush's perspective, all talent is necessarily on loan from God, so it's merely a statement of fact. Likewise, the meaning of my catchphrase changes based upon your perspective (yes Mr. Burke, terministic screens mean a lot changes based on perspective). Professional wrestlers are often known by their catchphrases, which punctuate their "promos." Stone Cold Steve Austin said, "And that's the bottom line 'cause Stone Cold said so." The Rock said, "If you smell what the Rock is cooking." Likewise, "Shut up, you're wrong" ends my promos and is an easy association with the name Jayemel.
There you have it. I hope the meaning of the phrase is more coherent now. Next time you're going to be offended by it, stop and think about what I've written here. And yes, I'm aware that it's a comma splice, but I made a rhetorical choice when choosing a comma over a period. Besides, language is malleable, and if you disagree with that, well then:
Shut up, you're wrong.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Inspired by (Semi) Actual Events
Today I watched the video for the new Gym Class Heroes' single Peace Sign/Index Down Featuring Busta Rhymes on YouTube. I was first introduced to the song at Warped Tour this past August when lead singer Travis McCoy showed us what it meant by demonstrating how to "put your up your peace sign up, put your index down." I'm sure you're all smart enough to figure out it's a paradoxical hand gesture that goes from positivity to vulgarity. Although, as a hippie hater, the notion of "peace" (in their estimation) is a slur to me, so maybe the hand gesture is just redundant. The song itself is catchy and otherwise un-notable, even with the Busta Rhymes guest apperance. What most bothered me were all the comments on the video. Not one, regardless of a positive or negative senitment, had any semblance of proper spelling, grammar, or even coherent thought. Thus, in response, I penned the following poem in passing.
YouTube comments are more terrifying than terrorism.
Man, your ISP should charge an extra fee
because you're dumb as hell.
Where did you learn to spell? It makes me LOL.
OMG BRB someone's texting me.
"U R L-MNOP."
What does that mean?
This screen is too obscene to get caught inbetween
you and your pointless scene.
Jk I kid. I've got too much wit to hate this shit.
Every bit writ is more shit to spit.
"Writ"? I suppose this is what we git when we don't vote for Mitt.
Now I said "git." I can't; I'm dropping off the grid.
And so to you I bid:
Read a book or something. Pick up some basic knowledge somewhere. Otherwise you and your opinion are irrelevent.
And if you're ready to call me an elitist intellectual at this point, you must have forgotten:
Shut up, you're wrong.
YouTube comments are more terrifying than terrorism.
Man, your ISP should charge an extra fee
because you're dumb as hell.
Where did you learn to spell? It makes me LOL.
OMG BRB someone's texting me.
"U R L-MNOP."
What does that mean?
This screen is too obscene to get caught inbetween
you and your pointless scene.
Jk I kid. I've got too much wit to hate this shit.
Every bit writ is more shit to spit.
"Writ"? I suppose this is what we git when we don't vote for Mitt.
Now I said "git." I can't; I'm dropping off the grid.
And so to you I bid:
Read a book or something. Pick up some basic knowledge somewhere. Otherwise you and your opinion are irrelevent.
And if you're ready to call me an elitist intellectual at this point, you must have forgotten:
Shut up, you're wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
