Been hearing this over the last hour on the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8714085.stm
New Glasses!
5 weeks ago
20100531
20100506
seisdemayo
I don't think it makes sense to argue "It's the law" or "they broke the law" when some of the major points under contention are "is the law just?" and "what ought to be the law?". It's also odd, though more disappointing than surprising, that people who claim to dislike big government and the threat of government tyranny are just fine with that government being extra strict toward someone they don't like. No, this isn't just about Arizona, or even just about immigration.
20100327
aninescapablebias
The fundamental ideological bias is ideology itself --the notion that believing the correct principles will lead to the correct conclusions. It's not unlike the basic function of scientific thinking --that knowing the underlying workings of nature will make one better able to understand and predict the specifics of the natural world. Also, easy comfort is found in one's perceived ability to impugn other's ideas by appeal to their specific failures on other issues. If the other guy's value system leads him to conclude that orphans should be loaded into giant hamster-wheel generators or all bridges should be one-way roads like God intended, it's tempting to think his entire value system is discredited by that conclusion. Just as tempting, but even shakier as a useful judgement, is taking one's incomplete strawman idea of what the other guy's value system is or must be, and trying to construct a thoroughly horrid conclusion from it in order to accomplish the above.
The opposite to the fundamental bias of ideology would be that no social or political questions are connected at all, that no underlying principle could possibly lead to better conclusions across multiple issues. I'm not convinced humans can actually think like this. I suspect anyone who might claim to be guided by such pragmatism would be simply unaware of their underlying ideological framework.
The opposite to the fundamental bias of ideology would be that no social or political questions are connected at all, that no underlying principle could possibly lead to better conclusions across multiple issues. I'm not convinced humans can actually think like this. I suspect anyone who might claim to be guided by such pragmatism would be simply unaware of their underlying ideological framework.
20100326
onblogging
James Edward Raggi's blog has a particular geek focus that may or may not interest the half-dozen viewers I get, but he's explained well the nature of blogging in general and the position bloggers find themselves in whether they know it or not.
http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2010/03/little-perspective-on-internet-and.html
http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2010/03/little-perspective-on-internet-and.html
20100324
20100323
adarkknight
How to use Joker in the next Batman movie:
The action rises, as Bats and the new villain vie against one another. There's aerial fistfights, underground vehicle chases, oh-so-serious brooding and shouting and looming, relationship troubles, all the usual fare. At some point, and you could probably get away with it more than once, someone's brilliant plan of the moment goes catastrophically wrong, hundreds of people are imperilled, fire and destruction reign. One expects this in an action movie anyway, but both the hero and villain are robbed of whatever goal they are trying to achieve. And in the wreckage, the Joker's card is found, maybe several, maybe hundreds raining down, with a handwritten message: "MISS ME?"
You could probably get away with making the Joker an offscreen bogeyman for at least two films, if pulled off right. Until a successor to Heath Ledger is found.
The action rises, as Bats and the new villain vie against one another. There's aerial fistfights, underground vehicle chases, oh-so-serious brooding and shouting and looming, relationship troubles, all the usual fare. At some point, and you could probably get away with it more than once, someone's brilliant plan of the moment goes catastrophically wrong, hundreds of people are imperilled, fire and destruction reign. One expects this in an action movie anyway, but both the hero and villain are robbed of whatever goal they are trying to achieve. And in the wreckage, the Joker's card is found, maybe several, maybe hundreds raining down, with a handwritten message: "MISS ME?"
You could probably get away with making the Joker an offscreen bogeyman for at least two films, if pulled off right. Until a successor to Heath Ledger is found.
20100209
itscalledtheruleoflawpeople
The only problem with trying KSM and his allies in criminal courts (apart from the absurdity of using NYC itself, as Keith Knight pointed out, that leaves them no excuse for changing the venue of police brutality cases anymore) is that the practice of keeping them as military prisoners (under the bullshit term "enemy combatant" invented to evade Constitutional and treaty laws dealing with prisoners) has destroyed, corrupted, or never bothered to gather the lines of evidence that would make a criminal prosecution feasible. Said again THE POLICY OF TREATING TERRORISM AS A SINGULAR MILITARY FOE RATHER THAN A CRIMINAL ACT AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IS THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM!
There is no Constitutional alternative to the criminal justice system. People calling for the military to simply take KSM, the Detroit bomber, and others and "try," convict, and punish them are calling for the end of the Constitution itself, the end of the Rule of Law, and the rise of martial law. Not that there's anything new in that. The Cheney administration spent most of the decade eagerly and openly dismantling as much of the Constitution as they could get their claws on, appealing to a mal-educated public's tough-guy-action-movie fantasies to expand central executive power. And a compliant complacent Congress and SCOTUS happily rolled over and let them do it. (Condoleezza Rice at one point actually invoked the popularity of "24" as proof the American people weren't interested in Constitutional restraints on the government anymore.)
Unfortunately, there's no easy unraveling of the prosecution problem now. What little evidence was gathered is dispersed among numerous uncoordinated government bodies, corrupted by entropic time, and tainted with questionable interrogation and imprisonment techniques. Even though KSM was caught not by a military operation, but by a joint international law enforcement operation, it's reached the point where the best hope for conviction by means that let America remain America rests on the likelihood that he wants persecution, martyrdom, and infamous credit for what he's done. Small favors. At least the Detroit bomber is a fresh case that's been handled through professional criminal investigation after the whole National Security angle failed to stop him.
There is no Constitutional alternative to the criminal justice system. People calling for the military to simply take KSM, the Detroit bomber, and others and "try," convict, and punish them are calling for the end of the Constitution itself, the end of the Rule of Law, and the rise of martial law. Not that there's anything new in that. The Cheney administration spent most of the decade eagerly and openly dismantling as much of the Constitution as they could get their claws on, appealing to a mal-educated public's tough-guy-action-movie fantasies to expand central executive power. And a compliant complacent Congress and SCOTUS happily rolled over and let them do it. (Condoleezza Rice at one point actually invoked the popularity of "24" as proof the American people weren't interested in Constitutional restraints on the government anymore.)
Unfortunately, there's no easy unraveling of the prosecution problem now. What little evidence was gathered is dispersed among numerous uncoordinated government bodies, corrupted by entropic time, and tainted with questionable interrogation and imprisonment techniques. Even though KSM was caught not by a military operation, but by a joint international law enforcement operation, it's reached the point where the best hope for conviction by means that let America remain America rests on the likelihood that he wants persecution, martyrdom, and infamous credit for what he's done. Small favors. At least the Detroit bomber is a fresh case that's been handled through professional criminal investigation after the whole National Security angle failed to stop him.
20100113
checkinginwithanaphorism
The word 'freedom' is robbed of all meaning when it is used to refer to private dominion.
20091014
lovethedollar
Capitalism: A Love Story
There are many things which need to be said, but which Michael Moore, by his stunt antics and controversy-inspiring reputation, risks driving people away when he says them.
This is actually the first Michael Moore film I've seen, and I think it's pretty good. It starts off a little shaky, though the introduction about Rome was cleverly done, and the film builds up well to tell its message. Its momentum is broken at a couple points by some of Moore's stunts --I think they're supposed to be comic relief. But overall, it works.
Early on it implies the rise of exploitative corporatist capitalism is relatively recent, coming under Reagan's presidency. The history of wealthy private interests turning the institutions of government to support their ends goes back farther, including the impetus of most of the U.S.'s less well known and less celebrated wars. I'm not quite sure what to make of the fact, but Moore does not delve into this history, nor are the names of any recent or classic critics of capitalism to be heard, nor any interviews of the same. This gives the film a certain quality, as a liquid suspension of moral appeals filled with free-floating facts. Long on facts, short on history. It works, but I can't be sure it's the best way to make a documentary. In particular because it doesn't provide so many useful hooks for viewers to go on and find out more for themselves. The bibliography is a truly critical part of any informative piece, whether written or filmed.
Left-but-not-too-left people often come off as too forgiving and supportive of Democratic Party politicians, seeing them as the good guys merely for being less obvious supporters of corporatism. The film shows a little of this tendency, but does show how prominent Democratic Congresspeople capitulated and sabotaged the mass popular opposition to the bank bailouts.
Moore asks several priests about the moral nature of capitalism. (Answer: it is an evil to be eliminated.) He presents both his own Catholic faith and the words of the American founding fathers as in opposition to capitalism as practiced. The Catholic Church has a sordid political history, with the hierarchy of the Church often supporting reactionary and fascist leaders and causes. But there is also a history of priests working with the people against these powers. In this way Moore illustrates the conflict between unadulterated capitalism and the radical teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
The film also explores co-ops as a valid alternative to the power-profit system of corporations. It shows us a successful American electronics manufacturer and a baked goods producer where every worker is an owner -not with a mere stock option, but an equal-share-owning decision-maker for the business. This part isn't given as much time and attention as it deserves, Moore should show viewers more about cooperatives, participatory economics, and other from-below alternatives. Worldwide, there are actually millions of people who have gainful employment through co-ops. The film could also use some mention of credit unions as a contrast to banks. As Ralph Nader noted when the news was focused on the banks in collapse, the credit unions were generally doing just fine.
Moore seems to take the change and hope message of Obama's electoral campaign at face value (a message numerous left and independent sources in my observation were skeptical of even then.) Seems to. To his credit Moore actually focuses on the direct action from below by people inspired by the message, rather than on any alleged change from above through the administration. He highlights actions such as the taking of Republic Windows and Doors in a strike, community actions directly resisting home foreclosures (not rallying around a government building, but rallying around the bank's agent and the local police as the family moves back in), and a Sheriff's decision not to enforce or allow foreclosures in his jurisdiction. This is the film's closing argument, intended to inspire we the people watching the film to further actions.
See the movie. But don't stop at the movie. Take its message to act, but inform yourself further to understand the context of the problem and the available solutions.
A few helpful google terms: the shock doctrine; economic hit man; Friedman and Pinochet; mutual aid; Noam Chomsky; participatory democracy; Edward Bernays propaganda; Walter Lippmann public opinion
There are many things which need to be said, but which Michael Moore, by his stunt antics and controversy-inspiring reputation, risks driving people away when he says them.
This is actually the first Michael Moore film I've seen, and I think it's pretty good. It starts off a little shaky, though the introduction about Rome was cleverly done, and the film builds up well to tell its message. Its momentum is broken at a couple points by some of Moore's stunts --I think they're supposed to be comic relief. But overall, it works.
Early on it implies the rise of exploitative corporatist capitalism is relatively recent, coming under Reagan's presidency. The history of wealthy private interests turning the institutions of government to support their ends goes back farther, including the impetus of most of the U.S.'s less well known and less celebrated wars. I'm not quite sure what to make of the fact, but Moore does not delve into this history, nor are the names of any recent or classic critics of capitalism to be heard, nor any interviews of the same. This gives the film a certain quality, as a liquid suspension of moral appeals filled with free-floating facts. Long on facts, short on history. It works, but I can't be sure it's the best way to make a documentary. In particular because it doesn't provide so many useful hooks for viewers to go on and find out more for themselves. The bibliography is a truly critical part of any informative piece, whether written or filmed.
Left-but-not-too-left people often come off as too forgiving and supportive of Democratic Party politicians, seeing them as the good guys merely for being less obvious supporters of corporatism. The film shows a little of this tendency, but does show how prominent Democratic Congresspeople capitulated and sabotaged the mass popular opposition to the bank bailouts.
Moore asks several priests about the moral nature of capitalism. (Answer: it is an evil to be eliminated.) He presents both his own Catholic faith and the words of the American founding fathers as in opposition to capitalism as practiced. The Catholic Church has a sordid political history, with the hierarchy of the Church often supporting reactionary and fascist leaders and causes. But there is also a history of priests working with the people against these powers. In this way Moore illustrates the conflict between unadulterated capitalism and the radical teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
The film also explores co-ops as a valid alternative to the power-profit system of corporations. It shows us a successful American electronics manufacturer and a baked goods producer where every worker is an owner -not with a mere stock option, but an equal-share-owning decision-maker for the business. This part isn't given as much time and attention as it deserves, Moore should show viewers more about cooperatives, participatory economics, and other from-below alternatives. Worldwide, there are actually millions of people who have gainful employment through co-ops. The film could also use some mention of credit unions as a contrast to banks. As Ralph Nader noted when the news was focused on the banks in collapse, the credit unions were generally doing just fine.
Moore seems to take the change and hope message of Obama's electoral campaign at face value (a message numerous left and independent sources in my observation were skeptical of even then.) Seems to. To his credit Moore actually focuses on the direct action from below by people inspired by the message, rather than on any alleged change from above through the administration. He highlights actions such as the taking of Republic Windows and Doors in a strike, community actions directly resisting home foreclosures (not rallying around a government building, but rallying around the bank's agent and the local police as the family moves back in), and a Sheriff's decision not to enforce or allow foreclosures in his jurisdiction. This is the film's closing argument, intended to inspire we the people watching the film to further actions.
See the movie. But don't stop at the movie. Take its message to act, but inform yourself further to understand the context of the problem and the available solutions.
A few helpful google terms: the shock doctrine; economic hit man; Friedman and Pinochet; mutual aid; Noam Chomsky; participatory democracy; Edward Bernays propaganda; Walter Lippmann public opinion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
