My friends, I come to you today to warn you of a menace that threatens us all. Or it may be a threat that menaces us all. It’s just so insidious that I don’t even know. All I know is that I spent my whole lunch break researching this and I can find no evidence against it so therefore it can only be true and if we don't do something about it - right now - it will undoubtedly destroy our way of life which we have fought so hard for.
Let me explain that nature of this threat.
It is about Gratuitous, Lame-brained Extremism.
It is about Narcissistic Nonsense.
It is about Broadcasting by Egotistical, Conspiracy-theorist Kooks!
Now you’re probably reading that and thinking, “Hey Bill! That’s just a bunch of big words to me. That doesn’t look like any kind of threat or menace, or whatever.”
Well, let me break it down for you my friends. The truth is hidden in there, right under our noses.
Gratuitous
Lame-brain
Extremist
Narcissist
Nonsense
Broadcasting
Egotist
Conspiracy
Kook
Do you see it now? It’s hidden right there in plain sight.
Am I alone here?
AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO SEES THIS????
28 September, 2009
20 September, 2009
The Rules: Freedom of Speech
Here’s how it works:
You have the right to say
WHAT you want
WHEN you want
HOW you want
about WHATEVER you want
to WHOMEVER you want
AS MUCH as you want.
You do NOT have the right to be paid for it.
It’s that last little bit that has Glenn Beck and his supporters in such a flurry. Their crying about a sponsor boycott attempting to “censor” Beck conveniently misses the point that the right to express yourself does not offer protection from the consequences of doing so.
No-one is trying to silence Beck. He can say whatever he wants – on his own dime. If his show continues to lose sponsors, there are still thousands of street corners on which he is free to espouse his bizarre rants and theories along with all the other paranoid schizophrenics. But to expect people to continue to sponsor you even when they’re disgusted by what you do? That’s called.... (have you guessed it yet?).... socialism!
What really burns Fox News and the teabaggers up, is that this is exactly the same kind of consumer boycott that Fox advocates against anyone who says anything they don’t like. The only difference is that this one seems to be working. Of course, there’s nothing to stop people from launching a counter boycott and boycotting the companies who have boycotted Beck. But you might as well accept the fact that whatever the public relations departments may say, these companies have bean-counters who have crunched the numbers and determined that sponsoring Beck is going to lose them more custom that it wins them. That’s the free market for ya!
While we’re at it, let’s remember that free expression applies equally to everyone (more socialism!). This means that your own right to express yourself does not protect you from blowback by those who think your free expression makes you look like a jerk. When Kanye West invaded the stage and interrupted Taylor Swift’s acceptance, he was simply exercising his right to free expression. And everyone else exercised their freedom of expression by saying he acted like a dick. The same goes for Serena Williams and Congressman Joe Wilson*.
The interesting thing about these outbursts is that out of all of them, West is the only one who has unequivocally accepted that he did the wrong thing. What does it say when out of a news commentator, a tennis player, a congressman and a rapper, it’s the rapper that shows the most class after making an ass of himself?
*I don’t usually go with the American tradition of referring to politicians by their title, but I do it in this case to distinguish him from the other Joe Wilson, who exercised his freedom of speech for the reason it was originally intended and had his and his wife’s career destroyed for it.
You have the right to say
WHAT you want
WHEN you want
HOW you want
about WHATEVER you want
to WHOMEVER you want
AS MUCH as you want.
You do NOT have the right to be paid for it.
It’s that last little bit that has Glenn Beck and his supporters in such a flurry. Their crying about a sponsor boycott attempting to “censor” Beck conveniently misses the point that the right to express yourself does not offer protection from the consequences of doing so.
No-one is trying to silence Beck. He can say whatever he wants – on his own dime. If his show continues to lose sponsors, there are still thousands of street corners on which he is free to espouse his bizarre rants and theories along with all the other paranoid schizophrenics. But to expect people to continue to sponsor you even when they’re disgusted by what you do? That’s called.... (have you guessed it yet?).... socialism!
What really burns Fox News and the teabaggers up, is that this is exactly the same kind of consumer boycott that Fox advocates against anyone who says anything they don’t like. The only difference is that this one seems to be working. Of course, there’s nothing to stop people from launching a counter boycott and boycotting the companies who have boycotted Beck. But you might as well accept the fact that whatever the public relations departments may say, these companies have bean-counters who have crunched the numbers and determined that sponsoring Beck is going to lose them more custom that it wins them. That’s the free market for ya!
While we’re at it, let’s remember that free expression applies equally to everyone (more socialism!). This means that your own right to express yourself does not protect you from blowback by those who think your free expression makes you look like a jerk. When Kanye West invaded the stage and interrupted Taylor Swift’s acceptance, he was simply exercising his right to free expression. And everyone else exercised their freedom of expression by saying he acted like a dick. The same goes for Serena Williams and Congressman Joe Wilson*.
The interesting thing about these outbursts is that out of all of them, West is the only one who has unequivocally accepted that he did the wrong thing. What does it say when out of a news commentator, a tennis player, a congressman and a rapper, it’s the rapper that shows the most class after making an ass of himself?
*I don’t usually go with the American tradition of referring to politicians by their title, but I do it in this case to distinguish him from the other Joe Wilson, who exercised his freedom of speech for the reason it was originally intended and had his and his wife’s career destroyed for it.
16 September, 2009
Fair crack of the whip
After jockeys threatened to strike over new racings rules restricting the use of the whip, the Australian Racing board has offered a compromise.
Jockeys will be permitted to strike the horse up to seven times over the last 100 metres of the race.
There is a very simple way to figure out what is a fair use of the whip:
Get all the jockeys, stewards and board members together and keep whipping them until they say they’ve had enough.
Jockeys will be permitted to strike the horse up to seven times over the last 100 metres of the race.
There is a very simple way to figure out what is a fair use of the whip:
Get all the jockeys, stewards and board members together and keep whipping them until they say they’ve had enough.
12 September, 2009
What's in a Name?
Listening off and on to the US health insurance debate (if 'debate' can be an appropriate word to describe some of the rubbish that has been said) has made me wonder how they are ever going to get anything passed without it being compromised to death. One chant that has been coming from the disproportionately vocal lunatic fringe has been "read the bill." Of course, they haven't read it either, they're just repeating what they've been told by others who also haven't read the bill, or have and are lying about it. And when I hear this, I think to myself, Geez, where were these people when the Patriot Act was voted on? They didn't seem to have a problem with their representatives not reading that one.
Then it occurred to me: to get things moving on health insurance, they need to do what they did with the Patriot Act and give it a name that no-one would dare vote against. To vote against the Patriot Act would imply that one is not patriotic, or does not support patriotism. Had it been called the "We Get to Listen to Your Telephone Calls" act, then people might have scrutinized it a bit more. The war in Iraq is called Operation Iraqi Freedom. That sounds like a great idea. Had it been given the more accurate name of "Operation Kick-out-the-bad-guys-then-hope-that-everything-else-will-fix-itself," then perhaps approval would have been lower.
So if they want health insurance reform, don't call it something boring like America's Affordable Health Choices Act. Call it the Puppies Are Cute Act and everyone will be on board. Bush's education policy was called 'No child left behind,' so why not call health cover reform, 'No child left uninsured'?
No, I have it: call it the Life Act. Who could possibly vote against life?
As rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but if it were called a vomit flower, most wouldn't bother to sniff it at all.
Then it occurred to me: to get things moving on health insurance, they need to do what they did with the Patriot Act and give it a name that no-one would dare vote against. To vote against the Patriot Act would imply that one is not patriotic, or does not support patriotism. Had it been called the "We Get to Listen to Your Telephone Calls" act, then people might have scrutinized it a bit more. The war in Iraq is called Operation Iraqi Freedom. That sounds like a great idea. Had it been given the more accurate name of "Operation Kick-out-the-bad-guys-then-hope-that-everything-else-will-fix-itself," then perhaps approval would have been lower.
So if they want health insurance reform, don't call it something boring like America's Affordable Health Choices Act. Call it the Puppies Are Cute Act and everyone will be on board. Bush's education policy was called 'No child left behind,' so why not call health cover reform, 'No child left uninsured'?
No, I have it: call it the Life Act. Who could possibly vote against life?
As rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but if it were called a vomit flower, most wouldn't bother to sniff it at all.
02 September, 2009
31 August, 2009
Nothing natural about this disaster
There are at least some places where the fourth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina has not passed without comment - and one of the most misleading comments is that New Orleans was struck by a "natural disaster." It was not. New Orleans weathered the hurricane pretty well. The disaster was caused by the flooding and the flooding was as a direct result of substandard levees, and a knock-on effect of degraded wetlands. Both are man-made problems. The term, "natural disaster," carries an inference that no-one is to blame and it couldn't have been avoided.
I have no special insight. Most of what I know, I have learnt from the brilliant Harry Shearer, another satirist who puts the 'serious' media to shame by doing their job better. I can do little more than 're-tweet' some of his comments below.
This isn't to say that Katrina was not a devastating natural disaster. There are whole towns in Mississippi that ain't dere no more because of Katrina. They were completely blown away, with only a few, seemingly incongruous slabs of concrete to suggest there was ever a town there. They are the victims of the natural disaster. What followed in New Orleans was something different.
At the beginning of Mardi Gras 2006, Harry said that New Orleans is back, and it's on its back, and explained how the two statements can both be true. Equally, New Orleans is both the forgotten disaster and the squeaky wheel - because whenever people talk about Hurricane Katrina, they mean New Orleans, even though the disaster they describe had little to do with the Hurricane, and Mississippi is forgotten. Perhaps it's time to stop using the K word when referring to the catastrophe that struck New Orleans in 2005. It makes it too easy to conflate the Hurricane with the levee failure.
Anyone can make a few cheap shots about maintaining a city below sea level, but the reality is that there are 28 states in the US that rely on similar levee systems, with many of those levees in similar states of disrepair. If the old-Europe cheesesmiths in the Netherlands can work out a way to manage things without human tragedy and international embarrassment, one wonders why the World's Only Superpower® finds it such a challenge.
levees.org
Harry Shearer: Does Obama care about New Orleans?
Playing the Inside Game -- A Cautionary Tale
I have no special insight. Most of what I know, I have learnt from the brilliant Harry Shearer, another satirist who puts the 'serious' media to shame by doing their job better. I can do little more than 're-tweet' some of his comments below.
This isn't to say that Katrina was not a devastating natural disaster. There are whole towns in Mississippi that ain't dere no more because of Katrina. They were completely blown away, with only a few, seemingly incongruous slabs of concrete to suggest there was ever a town there. They are the victims of the natural disaster. What followed in New Orleans was something different.
At the beginning of Mardi Gras 2006, Harry said that New Orleans is back, and it's on its back, and explained how the two statements can both be true. Equally, New Orleans is both the forgotten disaster and the squeaky wheel - because whenever people talk about Hurricane Katrina, they mean New Orleans, even though the disaster they describe had little to do with the Hurricane, and Mississippi is forgotten. Perhaps it's time to stop using the K word when referring to the catastrophe that struck New Orleans in 2005. It makes it too easy to conflate the Hurricane with the levee failure.
Anyone can make a few cheap shots about maintaining a city below sea level, but the reality is that there are 28 states in the US that rely on similar levee systems, with many of those levees in similar states of disrepair. If the old-Europe cheesesmiths in the Netherlands can work out a way to manage things without human tragedy and international embarrassment, one wonders why the World's Only Superpower® finds it such a challenge.
levees.org
Harry Shearer: Does Obama care about New Orleans?
Playing the Inside Game -- A Cautionary Tale
29 August, 2009
An own-goal on reducing violence?
The violence on Melbourne streets is a major problem and I fully support the efforts to have a higher police presence, but I found an attempt at activism held today rather bizarre. ABC News reported that a number of off-duty police were at today's Hawthorn vs Essendon game at the MCG asking people to sign petitions calling for more police. Nothing wrong with that. The bizarre bit is the fact that were using football fans as an example of how people can go out and have fun without being violent. To me, this is a load of toss.
The only reason football goers aren't violent themselves is because they get all their violent tendencies out by proxy on the ground. Let's be honest - regardless of whether it's on a footy oval or outside a King St nightclub, for every punch that's thrown, there are dozens of others getting their rocks off over the act and egging it all on. Football does nothing to reduce the culture of violence. If anything, it promotes it.
At the very same game that the petitioners were campaigning outside, one player was knocked unconscious, which led to an all-in melee (which is politically correct AFL-speak for brawl). And this is the place they chose as an example of well-behaved crowds? I bet nobody left the game in disgust.
Don't get me wrong, I'm for harm minimisation. People have violent tendencies. We're never going to eradicate that, so we might as well manage it. If it helps people get it out of their systems by going to a stadium and watching a few dozen blokes who chose to be in that situation going at it, then that's fine by me. Better that, then hospitalising some poor bugger who accidentally spilt your drink. Just don't tell me that football crowds are in it for good clean fun, because I don't believe it.
Check out these highlights and lowlights from today's game and see if you think it encourages people to reject violence. Such scenes are not atypical of any AFL match.
The only reason football goers aren't violent themselves is because they get all their violent tendencies out by proxy on the ground. Let's be honest - regardless of whether it's on a footy oval or outside a King St nightclub, for every punch that's thrown, there are dozens of others getting their rocks off over the act and egging it all on. Football does nothing to reduce the culture of violence. If anything, it promotes it.
At the very same game that the petitioners were campaigning outside, one player was knocked unconscious, which led to an all-in melee (which is politically correct AFL-speak for brawl). And this is the place they chose as an example of well-behaved crowds? I bet nobody left the game in disgust.
Don't get me wrong, I'm for harm minimisation. People have violent tendencies. We're never going to eradicate that, so we might as well manage it. If it helps people get it out of their systems by going to a stadium and watching a few dozen blokes who chose to be in that situation going at it, then that's fine by me. Better that, then hospitalising some poor bugger who accidentally spilt your drink. Just don't tell me that football crowds are in it for good clean fun, because I don't believe it.
Check out these highlights and lowlights from today's game and see if you think it encourages people to reject violence. Such scenes are not atypical of any AFL match.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)