Click here: Google News
Gimme a break people! Work it out!
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Saturday, March 25, 2006
You misheard them, Randy, they said that YOU were a low-budget film actor
Check out how they portray Randy Quaid suing the producers of Brokeback Mountain for 10 million dollars
Seems objective or does RQ seem like a crackpot? It's the later because the movie credits listed.
How about "The Last Picture Show" or "Parents" or "Independence Day"? No. It's the implicit criticsm of some hack journalist. If you think Randy Quaid is a bad actor, just say so.
Seems objective or does RQ seem like a crackpot? It's the later because the movie credits listed.
How about "The Last Picture Show" or "Parents" or "Independence Day"? No. It's the implicit criticsm of some hack journalist. If you think Randy Quaid is a bad actor, just say so.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Saturday, March 18, 2006
H. Res 635 (Seeking grounds for Presidential Impeachment)
See Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
a few interesting things
1. Isn't Thomas on-line simply fantastic? A well designed, well maintained web-sited chock full of information that the public has the right to know.
2. As the names on this resolution are all Democrats, it is difficult to look at the merits of this resolution, whatever it may finally say and whatever it may be.
3. If Republicans were to get aboard this bill, however, it would be a different story. It would be a story about the separation of powers, and we would see some rarely seen Constitutional issues get played out, maybe even new questions. How? Let's say that for political reasons (as opposed to ones of principal or the respect for law) the Republicans got behind the Democrat's resolution as a calculated manuever intended to steal the Democrat's thunder and retain control of the House, and as such they wrote up Articles of Impeachment having to do with a misuse by the President of his Patriot Act powers. Could the President be impeached for exercising powers that Congress had granted to him? Yes, if he abused those powers in a way that was determined, by Congress to be "high crimes and misdemeanors" What are those? What would happen if the President sought to fight the impeachment dismissed, as a matter of law (arguing that Congress had failed to state an actual offense that was sufficent to be considered a "High Crime or misdemeanor") rather than on the facts. Can the President do that? Procedurally how does that work? Lots of interesting Constitutional questions.
Interesting but strictly hypothetical.
a few interesting things
1. Isn't Thomas on-line simply fantastic? A well designed, well maintained web-sited chock full of information that the public has the right to know.
2. As the names on this resolution are all Democrats, it is difficult to look at the merits of this resolution, whatever it may finally say and whatever it may be.
3. If Republicans were to get aboard this bill, however, it would be a different story. It would be a story about the separation of powers, and we would see some rarely seen Constitutional issues get played out, maybe even new questions. How? Let's say that for political reasons (as opposed to ones of principal or the respect for law) the Republicans got behind the Democrat's resolution as a calculated manuever intended to steal the Democrat's thunder and retain control of the House, and as such they wrote up Articles of Impeachment having to do with a misuse by the President of his Patriot Act powers. Could the President be impeached for exercising powers that Congress had granted to him? Yes, if he abused those powers in a way that was determined, by Congress to be "high crimes and misdemeanors" What are those? What would happen if the President sought to fight the impeachment dismissed, as a matter of law (arguing that Congress had failed to state an actual offense that was sufficent to be considered a "High Crime or misdemeanor") rather than on the facts. Can the President do that? Procedurally how does that work? Lots of interesting Constitutional questions.
Interesting but strictly hypothetical.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Johnny Rotten Phones it In
Thanks to the internet, the "skool-boy" profane note that the Sex Pistols sent to the Rock n' Roll hall of fame (via fax, get it? The connection to the title. Fax Machine? Phone it in. It's a clever play on words. I'm so clever. Yay me!) is preserved for all eternity.
1. That's paradoxical isn't it!
2. At the end of the day, I'm an American. Punk starts and ends with the Ramones.
3. When John Lydon gets inducted for PiL, will he show up in "flock of seagulls" hair acting sensitive?
This leads me in two critical directions. I'll take both of them -- at the same time! (kooky, baby. Very kooky)
FIRST: Punk takes a combination of nilism and self-aggrandizement.
SECOND: So my beef with Johnny Rotten is that its all so carefully posed.
FIRST: Sid Vicious had all the Nilhism, Johnny Rotten had all the self-agrandizement
SECOND: What's punk about saying that you are bigger than rock-n-roll? Nothing.
FIRST: At a certain point Johnny Rotten is just a clown
SECOND: At a certain point Johnny Rotten is just another corporate rock-n-roller wearing a punk mask; a clown.
If Johnny Rotten where merely a clown, but still somewhat punk that would be one thing. But he's not. Moreover, Punk isn't even punk anymore. What do I mean? I mean, you want some punk, here... Check out this episode of The Backyardigans Pablo the Penguin singing about Soccer is more punk than any other music made in the last three year. Bar none. No exceptions. Absolutely. Hands down. says me. Game over. Pack up. Go home. Don't write. No backsiees. Zibbit! No...! I meanit! Zibbit! Most. Punk. Ever. Unhyperbole. None. Literally. Most. Kids show. Dakota likes it. Very punk. Totally.
Anyhow and in conclusion: Johnny Rotten, You can STUFF IT!
"Have some respect for the founders of punk"
1. That's paradoxical isn't it!
2. At the end of the day, I'm an American. Punk starts and ends with the Ramones.
3. When John Lydon gets inducted for PiL, will he show up in "flock of seagulls" hair acting sensitive?
This leads me in two critical directions. I'll take both of them -- at the same time! (kooky, baby. Very kooky)
FIRST: Punk takes a combination of nilism and self-aggrandizement.
SECOND: So my beef with Johnny Rotten is that its all so carefully posed.
FIRST: Sid Vicious had all the Nilhism, Johnny Rotten had all the self-agrandizement
SECOND: What's punk about saying that you are bigger than rock-n-roll? Nothing.
FIRST: At a certain point Johnny Rotten is just a clown
SECOND: At a certain point Johnny Rotten is just another corporate rock-n-roller wearing a punk mask; a clown.
If Johnny Rotten where merely a clown, but still somewhat punk that would be one thing. But he's not. Moreover, Punk isn't even punk anymore. What do I mean? I mean, you want some punk, here... Check out this episode of The Backyardigans Pablo the Penguin singing about Soccer is more punk than any other music made in the last three year. Bar none. No exceptions. Absolutely. Hands down. says me. Game over. Pack up. Go home. Don't write. No backsiees. Zibbit! No...! I meanit! Zibbit! Most. Punk. Ever. Unhyperbole. None. Literally. Most. Kids show. Dakota likes it. Very punk. Totally.
Anyhow and in conclusion: Johnny Rotten, You can STUFF IT!
Monday, March 13, 2006
What to do when Word changes (c) to ©
1. Mentally shout, "DAMNIT ALL TO HELL!" Do not make any outward noise. If you have a stress toy, pick it up and throw it.
2. Ctrl+z
If you want to fix this permantly on your computer:
1. Alt+i, a, x
2. © will almost certainly be the top entry on the "AutoCorrect" tab. Select entry and Click "delete"
3. Click "OK"
4. test it out. Let the wave of goodness that you feel enter your soul and be transformed. If you aren't experiencing a wave of goodness, its time for coffee. Maybe a bathroom break first.
If you want to fix this permantly for all Word users everywhere: I'll add the link when its available.
The "Guerilla/viral marketing-geniuses" must have read your post because they got all "rippy-offee" on the Neon ad-campaign with the "hi_" schtik in week 3 of their Origami hype.
2. Ctrl+z
If you want to fix this permantly on your computer:
1. Alt+i, a, x
2. © will almost certainly be the top entry on the "AutoCorrect" tab. Select entry and Click "delete"
3. Click "OK"
4. test it out. Let the wave of goodness that you feel enter your soul and be transformed. If you aren't experiencing a wave of goodness, its time for coffee. Maybe a bathroom break first.
If you want to fix this permantly for all Word users everywhere: I'll add the link when its available.
PS to Travis
The "Guerilla/viral marketing-geniuses" must have read your post because they got all "rippy-offee" on the Neon ad-campaign with the "hi_" schtik in week 3 of their Origami hype.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Happy Birthday to Travis
I once sat in on a philosophy lecture (at City not at Rice) where the professor was lecturing to freshman about the nature of ethical actions in the Aristotelean model. Aristotle, being Aristotle went about carving up the universe. Separating the good acts from the wicked ones, the intended acts from the unintended ones and the acts which we enjoy from the ones we do not. Then he re-assembles the whole thing in a multi-variable matrix such that the paragon of virtue is the one who does only good acts and all such acts are both intended and enjoyable (to the angel). The paragon of evil does only wicked deed such acts are both intended and enjoyable (to the deamon).
At this point the professor needed to sharpen the discussion a bit to explain that by "intended" Aristotle meant those acts which occured as a result of something that the person could control. He also went on to discuss how it was relevant to do the matrices with only two of the factors such that you could have acts under your control that you enjoy and acts under your control that you don't enjoy and act that merely happen that you don't enjoy. He paused because he couldn't think of things that you do, that you don't control, but enjoy.
"Professor," I said, "How about getting older?"
The professor thought about this out loud. Well, yes... getting older is clearly something that you do. No one does it to you, so it is your act. But you really do not have any intention or control when it happens. But who enjoys getting older?
"Little kids... and Travis," I thought. But I didn't say anything, I just shrugged.
At this point the professor needed to sharpen the discussion a bit to explain that by "intended" Aristotle meant those acts which occured as a result of something that the person could control. He also went on to discuss how it was relevant to do the matrices with only two of the factors such that you could have acts under your control that you enjoy and acts under your control that you don't enjoy and act that merely happen that you don't enjoy. He paused because he couldn't think of things that you do, that you don't control, but enjoy.
"Professor," I said, "How about getting older?"
The professor thought about this out loud. Well, yes... getting older is clearly something that you do. No one does it to you, so it is your act. But you really do not have any intention or control when it happens. But who enjoys getting older?
"Little kids... and Travis," I thought. But I didn't say anything, I just shrugged.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
A Beletaed Happy Birthday to Andy Chen
Of course, through the magic of the Blog editor... I can make it be Andy's actual Birthday.
Apparently, my favorite werewolf actor made this movie about my favorite paragon of hazard.
Apparently, my favorite werewolf actor made this movie about my favorite paragon of hazard.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Full text of Human Rights Record of the U.S. in 2005
It took a bit of searching, but I found a Full text of Human Rights Record of the U.S. in 2005 written by the "Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China" in response to the U.S. State Departments Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2005"
I'll break character for a minute and say something.
Rather than just all dismissing this as the slinging of mud, lies, and nonsense: Wouldn't it be interesting to apply some of those Cognitive Science concepts that I learned at Rice about assuming, for pragmatic purposes, that the speakers are somehow connected to reality and that their locutions are somehow a representation of their frame of reference.
What then?
Discerning anything useful remains problematic, even when making this assumption about the authors. At least, I find it problematic. The whole analysis begs the question as to the intent of the author in making this representation. Merely assuming that the statements are not meaningless is not enough to get us to anything useful.
So what's the way out? Is it more important to understand where these folks are coming from or what they are driving at?
I say "Neither! We must look at the rhetorical method."
It seems that I'm getting back into character, so we'll flow:
What's with this Chinese "Information Office" anyway? From the product (this "report") it must consists entirely of people who can do little else besides merely reading & clipping Google news. The "Washington Post says this bad thing" and "LSE says that bad thing." The whole report reads like one of my 9th grade English papers after I learned how to do block quotes and I learned how to use the school library's database resources of literary criticism and other secondary sources. The rhetoric is clunky and not very persuasive.
I am honestly disappointed, actually, because I "get" what they were going for. The whole Sun Tzu idea of "shooting your enemy with a quiver of his own arrows."
Maybe (just maybe) therein lies the insight: The Chinese "Information Office" officals do not "get" that the specific abuses of power, as documented in the "Western Free Press" do not impeach the credibily of the government. Why not? To state the obvious: because this method is a validation of the "Western Free Press" and "The Free World at Large and in General" (speaking in quotations is hi-larious)but more importantly (and maybe slightly less obviously) everything that China is saying in its report is (literally) old news; there few things less convincing than a rehash.
The US State department itself seems torn: split between its desire to see human rights abuses everywhere, as if it where the kid in the 6th sense, and decrying them versus its need to make Every Single Thing as boring and unreadable as possible through the imposition of "mad-lib" style forms.
The human rights record in (Country) is (pejoritive). Amongst the specific incident of the abuses: (Boy in room) was once (verb) in (awful location) for (odd number) days enduring (something painful)
My fill-in answers are:
Coca-Cola Country
Scheezy
William
denatured
the nose hair cavity
"My Funny Valentine"
the complete discography of Barry Manilow sung by children diagnosed with ADD by Doctors with PhDs but not MDs for a mulit-part documentary shown on PBS
All of that said, it is excellent that the US Government makes public it's feelings about how other countries handle issue of human rights. ("Feelings" its like therapy...) I also think that other countries have a right to take the US to task for our own human rights transgressions. Which brings me to my point:
the most devistating thing that China could have done, imho, is to have read the entire report (all of the countries) and then to have come back and said "Well, US Government, how do you square this representation of how you see the other countries with your bad treatment of countries that you see of as relatively good and seemingly unjust good treatment of countries of whom you see as relatively bad?" and then given specific examples.
In conclusion:
a) I think that China's rhetorical strategy (of shooting the US foreign policy with its own arrows) was ok, just poorly carried out (by relying so heavily on articles from US newspapers, rather than using materials from the US report itself). NITPIE as Louren calls it.
b) The US doesn't specifically need to have a strategy other than to let the world (including, and [really] especially, its own citizens) know what it thinks about the word, including the unflattering things.
c) Analysis of Rhetoric is fun.
I'll break character for a minute and say something.
Rather than just all dismissing this as the slinging of mud, lies, and nonsense: Wouldn't it be interesting to apply some of those Cognitive Science concepts that I learned at Rice about assuming, for pragmatic purposes, that the speakers are somehow connected to reality and that their locutions are somehow a representation of their frame of reference.
What then?
Discerning anything useful remains problematic, even when making this assumption about the authors. At least, I find it problematic. The whole analysis begs the question as to the intent of the author in making this representation. Merely assuming that the statements are not meaningless is not enough to get us to anything useful.
So what's the way out? Is it more important to understand where these folks are coming from or what they are driving at?
I say "Neither! We must look at the rhetorical method."
It seems that I'm getting back into character, so we'll flow:
What's with this Chinese "Information Office" anyway? From the product (this "report") it must consists entirely of people who can do little else besides merely reading & clipping Google news. The "Washington Post says this bad thing" and "LSE says that bad thing." The whole report reads like one of my 9th grade English papers after I learned how to do block quotes and I learned how to use the school library's database resources of literary criticism and other secondary sources. The rhetoric is clunky and not very persuasive.
I am honestly disappointed, actually, because I "get" what they were going for. The whole Sun Tzu idea of "shooting your enemy with a quiver of his own arrows."
Maybe (just maybe) therein lies the insight: The Chinese "Information Office" officals do not "get" that the specific abuses of power, as documented in the "Western Free Press" do not impeach the credibily of the government. Why not? To state the obvious: because this method is a validation of the "Western Free Press" and "The Free World at Large and in General" (speaking in quotations is hi-larious)but more importantly (and maybe slightly less obviously) everything that China is saying in its report is (literally) old news; there few things less convincing than a rehash.
The US State department itself seems torn: split between its desire to see human rights abuses everywhere, as if it where the kid in the 6th sense, and decrying them versus its need to make Every Single Thing as boring and unreadable as possible through the imposition of "mad-lib" style forms.
The human rights record in (Country) is (pejoritive). Amongst the specific incident of the abuses: (Boy in room) was once (verb) in (awful location) for (odd number) days enduring (something painful)
My fill-in answers are:
All of that said, it is excellent that the US Government makes public it's feelings about how other countries handle issue of human rights. ("Feelings" its like therapy...) I also think that other countries have a right to take the US to task for our own human rights transgressions. Which brings me to my point:
the most devistating thing that China could have done, imho, is to have read the entire report (all of the countries) and then to have come back and said "Well, US Government, how do you square this representation of how you see the other countries with your bad treatment of countries that you see of as relatively good and seemingly unjust good treatment of countries of whom you see as relatively bad?" and then given specific examples.
In conclusion:
a) I think that China's rhetorical strategy (of shooting the US foreign policy with its own arrows) was ok, just poorly carried out (by relying so heavily on articles from US newspapers, rather than using materials from the US report itself). NITPIE as Louren calls it.
b) The US doesn't specifically need to have a strategy other than to let the world (including, and [really] especially, its own citizens) know what it thinks about the word, including the unflattering things.
c) Analysis of Rhetoric is fun.
Monday, March 06, 2006
You'd think I would have something to say about the RIM settlement, AT&T purchase of BellSouth, Cisco adoption of SIP or
Nope.
The news is that low-end PC maker AOpen launched it's "Me too" Apple Mini concept.
IMHO, the fact that the PC world is open architecture and that Apple remains just a vexing a problem now as it ever was.
The pastel colored chasis design on the AOpen reminds me of the "translucent teal" craze in low-end PCs that killed the iMac.
Maybe Apple can get Jeff Goldblume to do some more commercials.
Well at least Apple can distinguish itself with its Microprocessor. Oh... nevermind.
Well at least Apple is pioneering the 64-bit computing movement... no?
I got it: At least Apple isn't a target of the black-hat community.
These are cheap-shots, I know, but seriously: What's special about Apple computers now?
The news is that low-end PC maker AOpen launched it's "Me too" Apple Mini concept.
IMHO, the fact that the PC world is open architecture and that Apple remains just a vexing a problem now as it ever was.
The pastel colored chasis design on the AOpen reminds me of the "translucent teal" craze in low-end PCs that killed the iMac.
Maybe Apple can get Jeff Goldblume to do some more commercials.
Well at least Apple can distinguish itself with its Microprocessor. Oh... nevermind.
Well at least Apple is pioneering the 64-bit computing movement... no?
I got it: At least Apple isn't a target of the black-hat community.
These are cheap-shots, I know, but seriously: What's special about Apple computers now?
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Why is Travis so cranky about this?
Because a) the Neon campaign was "hi", not "hello", and b) ... well, the "hi" thing was really it.
Origami: The worst marketing campaign since the introduction of the Neon.
Except when Dodge did it, "hello" was an innovative catch-phrase.
At least be computer-literate and say "Hello, World."
Anyhow early adopters aren't biting on your hype. The presumptious and coy nature of these ads remind me of early commercials for "American Express Blue" which turned out to be "SURPRISE" a credit card.
Maybe it's just because I haven't seen anything truly fresh or original in this product space hit the shores of the United States since they brought over the Libretto from Japan in 1997 and the fact that "origami" seems to be a delibrate nod to the uningenuity of the American palmtop market. Or maybe its because it looks so darn much like the Vulcan Flipstart that it makes me pine for the days when Paul Allen and Bill Gates were on the same team. Or maybe its because its running Windows CE which is only the third worst product ever (#1 BizTalk #2 SMS)
Or maybe its because the X-Box 360 and the wireless optical mouse with the snap-in are evidence that there are lots of really great product designers at Microsoft that I am totally so disappointed to see something so stale buggy hit the market.
No... its the lousy lousy marketing. "Let's brand build!"
How about this, marketing Chuffy, make products that consumers want rather than brand consumers into the products you make?
I would be happy to eat those words, and maybe when they come out with the "version 3.1" of the product, I will.
At least be computer-literate and say "Hello, World."
Anyhow early adopters aren't biting on your hype. The presumptious and coy nature of these ads remind me of early commercials for "American Express Blue" which turned out to be "SURPRISE" a credit card.
Will, why are you so cranky about this?
Maybe it's just because I haven't seen anything truly fresh or original in this product space hit the shores of the United States since they brought over the Libretto from Japan in 1997 and the fact that "origami" seems to be a delibrate nod to the uningenuity of the American palmtop market. Or maybe its because it looks so darn much like the Vulcan Flipstart that it makes me pine for the days when Paul Allen and Bill Gates were on the same team. Or maybe its because its running Windows CE which is only the third worst product ever (#1 BizTalk #2 SMS)
Or maybe its because the X-Box 360 and the wireless optical mouse with the snap-in are evidence that there are lots of really great product designers at Microsoft that I am totally so disappointed to see something so stale buggy hit the market.
No... its the lousy lousy marketing. "Let's brand build!"
How about this, marketing Chuffy, make products that consumers want rather than brand consumers into the products you make?
I would be happy to eat those words, and maybe when they come out with the "version 3.1" of the product, I will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
