factcheck.org is a non-partisan site that researches claims made by politicians and exposes their lies.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Here we go (update)
If you want to read about the lies or "mistruths" that both campaigns have committed go to www.factcheck.org And do not fret if you're looking for information from the Obama camp. There are some articles about them. It's just that McCain has been committing many more falsehoods during their campaign.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Christian the Lion - The Reunion
I was recently shown this and wanted to share it with our loyal readers.
Homer's Question
I finally was able to go watch the newest Batman movie today, The Dark Night, written and directed by Christopher Nolan. The movie is noteworthy for several reasons, as it has received rave reviews, has earned over $300 million domestically and $400 million internationally, and an outstanding acting performance by the actor Heath Ledger who died while the movie was in post-production. It is this film and Ledger's performance that lead me to wonder about Ledger's legacy. His performance in his last complete film was fantastic, in my opinion it should warrant a great deal of Oscar consideration. However, will Ledger's death cause him to be remembered as possibly greater than he was? Or, perhaps by dying during what could be called "his prime", could Ledger's greatness be immortalized as there is no way for him to lower his acting reputation with a string of bad movies.
I believe that the second is as close to a guarantee as you're going to get, the first is more of a possibility. This immortalizing is hard to prevent since there will be no more performances from Heath Ledger. There will be no critics wincing at the sight of his acting in yet another bad movie. All we are left with are memories of his memorable performances in movies such as Brokeback Mountain and The Dark Night. And when it comes down to it, would we want it any other way? Sure, the natural response is yes. Heath Ledger alive and torturing our eyes is much better than having him die a legend. But is it? This is an argument that has existed much longer than we, or anyone we know can remember. Hell, Homer wrote about it in the Illiad.
Achilles is faced with a choice, he can either go to Troy and die young, but be immortalized as a hero, or he can stay home and live a long, uneventful life. As you probably know, Achilles chooses to go to Troy, kills Trojans, takes an arrow in the heel, dies, and then is remembered for thousands of years (whether there was actually a man named Achilles or just a character is open to interpretation, but the outcome is essentially the same). This story can lead us to a rather deep question, of whether it is better to die a hero, or live out a life in obscurity. Now you might say that one doesn't have to die young to be great, and that is true. One can achieve greatness without dying right afterwards, but dying both makes this greatness easier to achieve and also enhances it. Let us examine the music industry for some examples.
The Rolling Stones are a great example of a group that has achieved greatness without having to bite the dust to do it. While Keith Richards may look like he has died, all sources seem to indicate that he is indeed still alive. And I offer my congratulations to them. They didn't have to take the Homer route to fame. The same doesn't go for Elvis and The Beatles, an artist and a group that are both considered to be among the best of all time, if not the best. Would Elvis have the same legacy had he not abused drugs and died in his forties? Would The Beatles have the same mystique had John Lennon not been gunned down? It is very hard to say. Perhaps they would have taken the route of The Rolling Stones and would still be making great music today. A good supporter for this is former Beatle Paul McCartney who is still cranking out music. But let us imagine if their careers had taken a different path.
In the 70's RCA Victor had a hard time getting Elvis into the studio, what if that had continued? Elvis doesn't die in the 1970's, but instead gets dropped from his label. He gets signed to a different label, but by this time has lost interest in music. He releases albums, but they are highly blasted by critics, and he eventually falls into obscurity. Fans long for the days of The King. Meanwhile The Beatles, who had previously broken up, get back together for a grand reunion tour. It makes millions of dollars around the globe, and The Beatles get back together to record music again. The group splinters once again, but this time Paul McCartney carries on The Beatles with a new lineup. They release several CD's, but never at the same level as they did while in the 70's.
Now obviously this is just speculation. There are any number of things that could have happened, and it isn't hard to imagine that artists as talented as Elvis and The Beatles could have created many more legendary CD's. The past can't be changed though, and as a result Elvis and select members of The Beatles will remain forever immortalized in greatness. The same goes for many others in the music industry, 2Pac and The Notorious B.I.G. have both been considered the greatest of all time, The Notorious B.I.G. only ever recorded two albums yet his greatness is almost unquestioned.
But maybe musicians and Hollywood stars are not the only ones who face these questions of greatness. Perhaps all of us are faced with the choice. Put your life on the line for greatness, or live it out in obscurity? The question is yours to answer.
I believe that the second is as close to a guarantee as you're going to get, the first is more of a possibility. This immortalizing is hard to prevent since there will be no more performances from Heath Ledger. There will be no critics wincing at the sight of his acting in yet another bad movie. All we are left with are memories of his memorable performances in movies such as Brokeback Mountain and The Dark Night. And when it comes down to it, would we want it any other way? Sure, the natural response is yes. Heath Ledger alive and torturing our eyes is much better than having him die a legend. But is it? This is an argument that has existed much longer than we, or anyone we know can remember. Hell, Homer wrote about it in the Illiad.
Achilles is faced with a choice, he can either go to Troy and die young, but be immortalized as a hero, or he can stay home and live a long, uneventful life. As you probably know, Achilles chooses to go to Troy, kills Trojans, takes an arrow in the heel, dies, and then is remembered for thousands of years (whether there was actually a man named Achilles or just a character is open to interpretation, but the outcome is essentially the same). This story can lead us to a rather deep question, of whether it is better to die a hero, or live out a life in obscurity. Now you might say that one doesn't have to die young to be great, and that is true. One can achieve greatness without dying right afterwards, but dying both makes this greatness easier to achieve and also enhances it. Let us examine the music industry for some examples.
The Rolling Stones are a great example of a group that has achieved greatness without having to bite the dust to do it. While Keith Richards may look like he has died, all sources seem to indicate that he is indeed still alive. And I offer my congratulations to them. They didn't have to take the Homer route to fame. The same doesn't go for Elvis and The Beatles, an artist and a group that are both considered to be among the best of all time, if not the best. Would Elvis have the same legacy had he not abused drugs and died in his forties? Would The Beatles have the same mystique had John Lennon not been gunned down? It is very hard to say. Perhaps they would have taken the route of The Rolling Stones and would still be making great music today. A good supporter for this is former Beatle Paul McCartney who is still cranking out music. But let us imagine if their careers had taken a different path.
In the 70's RCA Victor had a hard time getting Elvis into the studio, what if that had continued? Elvis doesn't die in the 1970's, but instead gets dropped from his label. He gets signed to a different label, but by this time has lost interest in music. He releases albums, but they are highly blasted by critics, and he eventually falls into obscurity. Fans long for the days of The King. Meanwhile The Beatles, who had previously broken up, get back together for a grand reunion tour. It makes millions of dollars around the globe, and The Beatles get back together to record music again. The group splinters once again, but this time Paul McCartney carries on The Beatles with a new lineup. They release several CD's, but never at the same level as they did while in the 70's.
Now obviously this is just speculation. There are any number of things that could have happened, and it isn't hard to imagine that artists as talented as Elvis and The Beatles could have created many more legendary CD's. The past can't be changed though, and as a result Elvis and select members of The Beatles will remain forever immortalized in greatness. The same goes for many others in the music industry, 2Pac and The Notorious B.I.G. have both been considered the greatest of all time, The Notorious B.I.G. only ever recorded two albums yet his greatness is almost unquestioned.
But maybe musicians and Hollywood stars are not the only ones who face these questions of greatness. Perhaps all of us are faced with the choice. Put your life on the line for greatness, or live it out in obscurity? The question is yours to answer.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Inappropriate Conversations
"See, I can stick my finger up there!"
You don't know who said that, or why, but you automatically came up with the answer to both. On top of it, due to the title of this post I can probably guess what it is that you came up with. Let me assure you that the person who said this said it totally innocently and would have no idea what you would find inappropriate about that quote.
So why do we have to find it inappropriate? Well... let's be honest... It's more fun that way.
Brian and I have a ball talking at Piston games and over Facebook and just in general. Now, we do talk seriously a good part of the time. However, we also like to have our fun too. In other words we'll take our cake and eat it too.
Girls do the same thing. If you disagree you're lying to yourself. However there is a key difference between the two sexes.
Unless the situation calls for serious talk; guys will have their fun at anytime around anyone. But, if the situation call for serous talk; then we only have a little bit of fun, and try to stay serious.
Girls, on the other hand, will have their fun while only their closest friends are around, and will be serious around everyone else. Even the most open of girls do that. And by open I mean the girls that all the other girls think are inappropriate because of what they say and do in front of others, even if it's what these judges do themselves behind closed doors.
This leads me to the problem.
It can drive a girl to anger to be around a guy who is acting or talking "inappropriately". This is a problem, because that is just what guys do. End of story. No amount of anger will change this, but girls refuse to just accept that guys are going to say and do those things. What makes it worse is that girls say and do things just like the guys do, but don't let others see it. I have many an example, but will not share because they could lead to embarrassment. Actually, I just have one very good story... Oh man is it a good story. I just wish there would have been pictures taken... Anyway...
I'm not trying to advocate girls to act like guys, that is the way that they currently act behind closed doors, to everyone. I would not enjoy that, and neither would many other guys around the world (besides girls will act like that whenever you really want them to, it just takes the right provocation). Rather, I just want girls to stop getting mad. Brian and I have had a lot of fun recently. After which I can say that Brian is a sex machine just as he claims; and I am a playa just like Brian has told me. And why don't we just be honest for a second. Those titles wouldn't exist without some inappropriate conversations.
P.S.- I was shown this video by one of my co-workers.
P.P.S. I work in a church.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Writer's Block
This is better than reading a lengthy article on my computer's amazing array of pixels.
Or at least I think it is.
Or at least I think it is.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Here we go
I really didn't want to be the first one to do this. However, I find the ridiculousness of todays politics to much to ignore anymore.
After reading an article referencing about a new attack ad on youtube released by the McCain campaign I decided to try and find it. It proves to be a little challenging. Why? Because John McCain's campaign has 11 attack ads against Obama on it's first two pages of videos. How many does Obama have? That took less time to add up because Obama has... 1... ( I believe that now McCain is up to 13. Maybe more.)
Recently McCain has backed down on something he said repeatedly. That being that he wanted to run a respectful campaign. Respectful. That would be a good idea. But if the numbers don't show you the disrespect than maybe the content will. McCain has blamed Obama for oil prices, while the price of oil is no one persons fault. And rather McCain's former economic adviser (the one who called us a nation of whiners) deregulated the oil and housing industries, which have both been disasters after this. Also, McCain falsely accused Obama of not visiting troops because cameras wouldn't have been allowed in, and went to the gym instead. What's ironic about this attack is that the gym reference is Obama playing some ball with troops. However, Obama didn't play ball instead of visit troops, he instead took up an extra interview with CNN. Also, Obama knew that cameras weren't allowed in, but after the Pentagon checked with them again, they decided not to go. One factor may have been that a volunteer for Obama wasn't going to be allowed in with him. This person isn't a paid staff member and is a former military officer. So basically they weren't going to let a former member of the military visit current wounded troops.
The newest attack ad doesn't even try to hide it's attack on Obama's personality. It calls him the biggest celebrity in the world and compares him with Brittney Spears, and Paris Hilton. This ad also says that Obama isn't ready to lead. So now the McCain campaign is taking after the Clinton's 3 am ads. I guess they didn't learn that these ads don't work. Fox News caught up with Obama and asked him about this latest ad. Obama responded with something along the lines of "I don't pay attention to McCain's ads, but if you notice he doesn't have a whole lot of positive things to say about himself does he? He has a whole lot of negative things to say about me but nothing good about himself." That's not exact, because I can't find the video to take the quote from, but it is the same message.
Finally, McCain has accused Obama of being a traitor. He did this when he said that Obama would rather lose the war in Iraq then lose a political campaign. wow... now McCain says that Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan sounds "pretty good".
Also, I don't know if you remember back when McCain was campaigning for the Republican nomination against George W. Bush 8 years ago; but he eventually withdrew from that race because he felt like the Bush campaign was being to negative, and he denounced running a negative campaign.
Now 13 mins ago Obama might have grown to 2 negative ads on Youtube. Why? Because he released an ad that starts out saying that McCain is running a negative campaign that is based on lies, it then ends with a general outline of some of Obama's plans. Whether this is actually a negative ad is up to you. So here it is:
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Oh the serenity
I don't know how many of us really need to go on vacation. I've been on vacation from my home all summer, because I work far from my home. While I love my temporary living conditions I am exhausting myself in new ways that had never occurred to me back in my home town. For instance I'm now keeping myself busy following the news and playing music. You'd think that wouldn't take up that much time but I'm up until one every night and wake up 6 to 7 hours later to work with children all day. I am tired. I recently even took a weekend up north and was so busy that it tired me out more than anything.
Where is the serenity?
Please do yourself a favor and find it.
That's all I can say to it. At least for someone in your specific situation. Even if you think it would drive you bonkers, still try and find it. Why? Because, you need to; no ands ifs or buts about it. It is really that simple.
I would be a terrible persuader if I left it at that. So how about somethings to chew on. (Note: if you are not religious, particularly not in an Abrahamic religion, some of this might not be suited for you)
There is a particular story about Elijah that can really help spell out why you really do need serenity. The story comes from 1 kings 19: 11-12. This is the story where Elijah goes up onto mount Horeb and listens for the Lord. Now Elijah in doing this has already separated himself from all of the distractions. But that doesn't mean that it'll be easy to hear the Lord, for there is a great wind, an earthquake, and a fire that all come to pass while Elijah is listening. However, after the fire there is a whisper. In fact, it is called a gentle whisper. Basically it's very, very quiet. It is in the silence that follows all of the loudness, that Elijah can hear the Lord.
It is in the Serenity. The absolute mountaintop serenity. If you want to show this sometime there is a cool activity that a bunch of people can do. You'll need yourself and some others minimum. I would say 6 or seven actually doing the activity. If you have an unknowing audience it works really well. In fact, everyone except for you and one other should be totally oblivious to what you're showing. Pick your one person before hand(person 2... you are person 1) and tell them that as soon as the exercise begins they should constantly say very softly things like "I'm here... don't worry... I'm right over here" They should also include the name of person 3. Select person 3. Then select persons 4, 5, 6, 7, 8ish... however many you have.
send person 3 out of earshot for a minute. Tell other volunteers their jobs. These jobs are things like acting like the T.V., Radio, Friends, School etc. Then have person 3 come back. Then narrate their lives. Talk about them waking up, having to go to school/work, hanging out with friends, listening to music etc. As you mention something that another person is assigned to they should begin to act it out. They should be loud... Not overbearing but loud. As soon as one of them starts have person 2 should start with their things, and be un-obvious about it. After you get everyone going start to take away the loud people one at a time until all have faded away. Person 2 keeps going. It is not until all the sound has died away that person 3 or the audience, or anyone else who wasn't let in on the plan, should know that person 2 is speaking. You then explain that they've been talking the entire time.
It is in the serenity that we can hear God. Our connection to God is the most important thing that we have.
Working with kids is a very loud job. Reading the news isn't a very loud endeavor. Both are noisy though.
So where is the serenity?
For me it is in playing music. The only song that I have learned completely on my guitar thus far is one of my all time favorite songs. It's "Worlds Apart" by Jars of Clay. It is in this song that I find my serenity.
My serenity isn't in total silence, and if you can't stand silence than yours might not be either.
Oh the serenity, how you comfort me
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Ahh a mighty fine example of what we've been talking about. Both sides stop, and MEDIA please stop. I mean really, I know that some people in the media are for McCain and some are for Obama, but is attacking Michelle Obama necessary to get McCain into office? If it is then he shouldn't be there... BUT, I don't think it's necessary. BTW... Love Jon Stewart in the end!
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Politics: The Attacks
The modern day American presidential race is an interesting one. Millions of dollars from donors and the candidates themselves are poured into the campaign machine which spits out numerous promotional ads, candidate visits, and attacks on the other candidate through all forms of media. Both sides do it, and often times both sides also condemn the other for doing so. Anybody who turns on the TV in the late summer and fall of an election year has seen them. Obama is a Muslim extremist with a crazy pastor. McCain is an ancient warmonger who wants to keep our troops in Iraq for the next eight years, at minimum. Which begs the question, why can't America focus on the positive?
To me it seems simple. It is much easier to attack the views of an opposing candidate than to lay out one's plans for the next four years. One thing I distinctly remember from the 2004 election was John Kerry's ads. There were two types, the attack ads and the ads promoting Kerry's views. The attack ads were very specific, attacking Bush for his actions regarding this, or his views regarding that. However, Kerry's ads that supposedly informed the public on his views and plans were incredibly vague. The ads centered around a grand 'plan' that was to be enacted when Kerry was elected to office. The average voted was not informed of anything that may be included in this plan, just that it existed. Which leads to the question, why are these politicians so vague?
Personally, I would like to see ads from both Obama and McCain stating their exact views on issues. But that is for debates, newspapers, and political shows. The average American who just watches TV for his/her weekly fix of 24 or Grey's Anatomy doesn't get this. I think this results from a reluctance from politicians who don't want to make statements that can come back to bite them later. It happened to George Bush. Think he regrets telling the public, "read my lips, no new taxes?" I imagine he does, he took a major hit and I believe that was a major helping factor in Clinton's win. Presidential candidates since then do not want the same thing to happen to them. And the thing is, people's views change. There is nothing wrong with that. However, we hold our politicians, the president most of all, to a higher standard. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant, the fact is changing one's views is frowned upon. Especially when those views may have helped one get elected. As a result, politicians protect themselves from this in the best way possible, by force feeding vague promises and attack ads down the public's throat. Unless you pay close attention to politics, that may be all you get. And that is a crying shame.
To me it seems simple. It is much easier to attack the views of an opposing candidate than to lay out one's plans for the next four years. One thing I distinctly remember from the 2004 election was John Kerry's ads. There were two types, the attack ads and the ads promoting Kerry's views. The attack ads were very specific, attacking Bush for his actions regarding this, or his views regarding that. However, Kerry's ads that supposedly informed the public on his views and plans were incredibly vague. The ads centered around a grand 'plan' that was to be enacted when Kerry was elected to office. The average voted was not informed of anything that may be included in this plan, just that it existed. Which leads to the question, why are these politicians so vague?
Personally, I would like to see ads from both Obama and McCain stating their exact views on issues. But that is for debates, newspapers, and political shows. The average American who just watches TV for his/her weekly fix of 24 or Grey's Anatomy doesn't get this. I think this results from a reluctance from politicians who don't want to make statements that can come back to bite them later. It happened to George Bush. Think he regrets telling the public, "read my lips, no new taxes?" I imagine he does, he took a major hit and I believe that was a major helping factor in Clinton's win. Presidential candidates since then do not want the same thing to happen to them. And the thing is, people's views change. There is nothing wrong with that. However, we hold our politicians, the president most of all, to a higher standard. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant, the fact is changing one's views is frowned upon. Especially when those views may have helped one get elected. As a result, politicians protect themselves from this in the best way possible, by force feeding vague promises and attack ads down the public's throat. Unless you pay close attention to politics, that may be all you get. And that is a crying shame.
Monday, July 7, 2008
politics
Brian and I differ greatly on political views. Almost completely really. And perhaps Brian will respond with his own post to this and any readers can watch our debate.
Look at what is said about politicians in todays times. Right wing scare tactics call Obama the anti-christ, just like they claimed about Al Gore and John Kerry. Left wing nuts accuse Generals of betrayal. Obama is called a muslim even though he calls himself christian, and some even go so far as to call him a terrorist. The group Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry which was the precursor to the swift boat ads are now the Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain, and have unleashed outlandish attacks on the Senator. I think they just don't like guys named John.
Why do people think that outlandish attacks do anybody any good. Take for instance the Jeremiah Wright scandal. I know that if my pastors ever said anything that offended someone I wouldn't be held responsible for it. Why then is Obama? People want to know how could Obama sit in the pews and listen to Wright and not leave that church. Here's an idea, take the 4 or 5 couple second long clips divide them into the 4 or 5 20 minute sermons that they came out of and then divide that into how many sermons Obama has heard.
How about I do it for you? I'll be generous and say that there are 20 seconds of clips. I divided that by 60 for 60 seconds in 1 min. I divided that by 20 for 20 mins in a sermon. divide by 1 for one sermon per week. divide by 52 for 52 weeks per year. divide by 20 for years Obama has attended the church. that equals .0000155086849, or roughly .000155% of the sermons Obama heard. It's hard enough for me to remember the sermon I heard yesterday. Come on people be smart here.
People have attacked McCain saying that he was treated "softer" than the other POW's that he was with. They use this as an attack. But just by looking at him you can realize that if they were "soft" on him it still wasn't a pleasant thing to go through. But they're using this as an attack. FOR SHAME. McCain was offered freedom due to his status but he stayed behind. Maybe they went soft on him as a kind of consolation to his staying there, I don't know, but if they did that is not his fault an is certainly no judge of his character.
Maybe later I'll post some more views. Brian is probably upset cause I defended both candidates, but I offer it up to you Brian to start the debate, or add any thoughts to this
Album Review: Tech N9ne - Killer
Killer is the eleventh album from the independent Kansas City rapper Tech N9ne. This is his first double disc release and features mainstream artists such as Scarface, Paul Wall, and Ice Cube as well as numerous appearances from members of Tech N9ne's Strange Music label. Tech N9ne has said that he hopes to reach over one million albums sold with Killer's release.
Personally I am a major fan of Tech N9ne, after listening to his album Misery Loves Company I became hooked (for those who haven't heard this album I highly recommend the song Midwest Choppers). If it was just talent that sold records Tech N9ne would be a multi-platinum selling artist. It is a crying shame that artists like Flo Rida and Soulja Boy top the charts while true MC's such as Tech N9ne get so little recognition outside of select circles. When you combine his lyrical talent with his ability to give terrific live shows you get one of the greatest artists of this decade, regardless of what album sales say.
I greatly anticipated this album and I can assure you, it did not disappoint. After an introductory skit Tech N9ne jumps right in with "Like Yeah", an exciting track that gives the listener a taste of things to come. Both disc one and the first six tracks of disc two are filled with stellar tracks, however the album does take a step backward during the middle of disc two at what is called "The Sextion." To put it bluntly, "The Sextion" contains the type of material that you might hear if rap songs were played when you call 900 numbers. The song "Seven Words" is so blatantly explicit that it is uncomfortable to listen to. It is unfortunate, as the rest of Killer is excellent and definitely worth listening to.
Tracklist with my favorite songs in bold
DISC ONE
1. Dr. Fraziers Office (Skit)
2. Like Yeah
3. Wheaties ft. Shawana
4. Everybody Move
5. Get the F*** Outta Here ft. The Popper & Paul Wall
6. The Waitress
7. Crybaby
8. S*** Is Real
9. BlackBoy ft. Ice Cube, Brother, & Krizz Kaliko
10. Pillow Talkin ft. Scarface
Begin: The Darkside
11. Paint a Dark Picture ft. Dirtball
12. Hope for a Higher Power
13. Worst Case Sceniro (Skit)
14. Psycho B**** II ft. Liquid Assassian
15. Poisonous ft. Liz Suwandi
16. Too Much ft. Kutt Callhoun
End: The Darkside
DISC TWO
1. I Love You But F*** You
2. One Good Time
3. Drill Team ft. Snug Brim, Krizz Kaliko, & BG Bulletwound
4. Beat You Up
5. Let's Go ft. Kutt Callhoun & Mista FAB
6. Why You Ain't Call Me
Being: The Sextion
7. Seven Words ft. Skatterman & Krizz Kaliko
8. The Sexoricst (Infomercial) ft. Krizz Kaliko
9. Kill Call (Skit)
10. Enjoy ft. Krizz Kaliko & Bosko
11. Elbow Macaroni (Skit)
12. I Am Everything ft. H.E.D PE & Kottonmouth Kings
End: The Sextion
13. Happy Ending
14. Can't Shake It ft. Krizz Kaliko & Rob Rebeck
15. HoLier Than You ft. Krizz Kaliko & Strange Lane Choir
16. Last Words
Brian's Rating: 4/5 stars
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)