Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Hey - Don't We All Want a "Deferential" Media?


The McCain campaign has decided to keep Sarah Palin away from reporters and other agents of the media who will not treat her with the proper "deference." As important as it is to treat the possible future leader of the free world with the proper veneration, shying away from any unpleasant or impolite questions about difficult topics or her questionable past actions, we present the following guide for journalists who may find themselves in the path of this possible future Vice President, the heartthrob a "heartbeat away" from the Presidency:

. . . The problem of gotcha journalism has recently become so pronounced that, now, it’s being engaged in not merely by journalists, but also by voters themselves (though, we should note, we have yet to see any convincing proof that such “members of the electorate” are, in fact, concerned citizens, rather than self-interested partisans and/or individual organs of the liberal media elite out to spread their socialist agenda to freedom-loving Americans). Take, for example, the Temple University grad student who, while waiting in line for a Philly cheese steak on Monday and finding himself face-to-face with Sarah Palin, asked her about Pakistan. (“How about the Pakistan situation?” the sweatshirt-swathed scamp demanded. “What are your thoughts about that?”) Which is shameful. Just shameful. His lips may have said, “Pakistan,” but his eyes said, “Gotcha.”

Where is the deference, Random Grad Student? Sarah Palin has done nothing but volunteer to serve the nation—our nation—by being A Heartbeat Away From The Presidency; how dare you ask her about the situation in some foreign country? Have you left no sense of decency?

This behavior simply cannot continue. The audacity we’ve seen in our media of late—Katie Couric, as you may have heard, recently had the temerity to ask Palin about the economy—is becoming a disgrace to the profession, and an insult to all Americans. Those who care about journalism and its future must unite against such misbegotten attempts to inform the electorate.

...

CJR’s new software guards against gotcha-ism (Megan Garber for Columbia Journalism Review)

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

"Google Goggles" Helps Save You From E-mail Regret


I admit that I looked like an idiot the last time I wrote about a new Google feature. But this one appears to be genuine, even though the press release makes it look like a huge joke. I'm the sort of person who isn't often sure what month of the year it is before I take 1.5 seconds' thought, but a little investigation revealed us safe from the month of April, so I'm going to go ahead on this one:

(from the Associated Press)
If you're the kind of person who types tipsy and regrets it in the morning, Google's "Mail Goggles," a new test-phase feature in the free Gmail service, might save you some angst.

The Goggles can kick in late at night on weekends. The feature requires you to solve a few easy math problems in short order before hitting "send." If your logical thinking skills are intact, Google is betting you're sober enough to work out the repercussions of sending that screed you just drafted.

...

"Sometimes I send messages I shouldn't send. Like the time I told that girl I had a crush on her over text message. Or the time I sent that late night e-mail to my ex-girlfriend that we should get back together," [Gmail designer Jon Perlow] wrote when announcing Mail Goggles on a company blog.


Let me get this straight - this one is real, but the far-more-plausible Google Custom Time was a joke?

Stress Relief Breathing Exercises


I highly recommend the following "Karate meditation" breathing exercise for reduction of stress and anxiety. It's only takes a few minutes and it's quite effective (at least more effective than your usual frantic dwelling on things).

How To Reduce Stress Quickly With Karate Breathing Meditation (Elizabeth Scott for About.com)

Garfield Minus Garfield and Related Surrealism

I've been hip to the whole "minus Garfield" phenomenon for some time now, but every time I come back to it I find a new wealth of humor and resonant comedy. And I'm being serious.

The deal is that Garfield (the comic strip) can be immensely improved by removing the titular character (Garfield himself) entirely. As far as I know, the whole thing began a couple of years ago, on the goofy message board Truth and Beauty Bombs, where an idea proposed by MackJ spiralled into a netwide phenomenon.

Mack proposed that removing Garfield's often-redundant dialogue would improve the strip, and by gum he was right. The strip took an odd, surreal tone that made it much more readable:


But with Garfield acting as the straight man to Jon's depressed madness the strip still didn't have the schadenfreude, the madness, the isolation that it needed to become truly great. Later in the thread, people got the idea to remove Garfield entirely, and the idea took off.

Earlier this year, GarfieldMinusGarfield.net was born, and achieved a modest level of success. The idea is hardly original at this point, and some of the strips featured on the site are direct copies from early samples on the TruthAndBeautyBombs thread, but it's such a convenient place to read Minus Garfield strips that I still feel inclined to celebrate it. If these examples don't compel you to check out the site's archives, feel free to read more of my cynical political ramblings.

Facial Hair Rules and Codes

My school permits moustaches but disallows other types of facial hair. I think the rule might best be summed-up as follows:

"Our apologies - at this university you're not allowed to look like a subversive. Might we suggest something more in the way of the creepy pedophile look?"

Monday, October 06, 2008

U.S. Representatives Voting on Bailout Bill Privately Threatened With Martial Law

"Vote for our unconstitutional bailout bill or face unconstitutional martial law!" Let's spread this freedom and democracy to the rest of the world!

Friday, October 03, 2008

The Upshot of Economic Worries

Always the provocateur, Scott Adams provides a list of positives that everybody can agree on for our economic and credit woes. Spun the right way, we may be inching toward a new utopia:

- Rent gets cheaper when housing prices fall. That's a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.

- While it will be harder to get a mortgage for an $800K house, that house is only worth $500K now. That should make it a lot easier to qualify.

- Gas at $4 per gallon is a necessary condition for creating the next economic boom: renewable energy and green technology.

- A good recession now and then is necessary to purge the economy of things that need purging.

- College students are starting to choose technology majors over finance majors, probably because of the financial headlines, and this bodes well for the future.
I also like Scott's use of trends (evaluating every issue in context of similar situations). God bless this man for moving away from poop jokes:
And allow me to leave you with a pinch of optimism, just because I can. I call it Adams' Rule of Obvious Calamities. It states that any calamity that is foreseeable by the public at large won't turn out so bad after all. The best recent example was the Y2K problem, where computers worldwide were expected to fail. It seemed impossible that those issues could be resolved in time, but they were.
The Credit Crunch Explained (Scott Adams)

Kotaku: Cave Story (Doukutsu Monogatari) Confirmed For Wii


What a pleasant surprise. How fitting that such a fantastic little indie game (and a true labor of love) will see new life (and hopefully a new following) on the consoles. Cave Story (still free for download) is one of the best and most whimsical (not to mention darkest) little platformers I've ever had the fortune of playing through. It's Metroid and Castlevania and Mario and Earthbound and. . . and I need to play it again.

Cinematic Polemic

(DISCLAIMER: I'm going to be discussing two films in this post, neither of which I've seen. If you feel that I've judged either of these flicks incorrectly, I urge you to read this as yet another unasked-for criticism of our culture. Danke schein.)

A couple of highly-charged bits of filmmaking are being thrown into wide release today: Religulous, a Bill Maher/Larry Charles screed on religion, and An American Carol, a shallow assault on progressive "anti-Americanism" that takes aim at traditional right-wing boogeymen (Michael Moore, Islamic fundamentalists, liberal college professors) and evokes ready comparisons to Uwe Boll's Postal.

Both these films seem to make their points earnestly while trying for a few jokes, and both do a hearty job of indicating the problems at work in America - and not in the way they expect.

Religulous, starring Bill Maher and directed by Seinfeld pioneer Larry Charles, is probably the funnier of the two, and fairly transparent. Anybody who knows anything about it already knows nearly everything about it - it's a documentary about religion (more specifically Christianity), and Bill Maher and Larry David are involved. I would expect the "cynical smirk to fair questions ratio" to hover around 5:1 for this one.

And it seems for all the world to be a typical attack documentary; Maher trots the globe, picking the sorriest, most pathetic religious believers and pointing out that they are, in fact, silly goons. It's the film equivalent of Jay Leno asking people on street corners how many sides you'd find on a triangle ("Four! No, wait - is it an odd number?"). When you consider that a good 88% of human beings identify themselves as believers in God, it's no significant surprise that an earnest agnostic-faced atheist managed to find a few stupid jackasses among them to ridicule. I even know a few myself! It's been awhile since the fact that some people believe in God for wrong or even ignorant reasons made headlines, so kudos to Lions Gate for bringing it back to our attention. It's Borat for the Scientific American set! I'm sure the film is profoundly unfair, but if you already love/hate Bill Maher the way most of us do you'll know what to expect.

---

And if there's ever been a film designed by its very premise to repel me, it's David Zucker's An American Carol, wherein a left-wing nutjob (Michael Moore, played by a guy who looks a bit like Michael Moore) is visited by a bunch of right-wing nutjobs (y'know - Kelsey Grammar, Leslie Nielsen and Jon Voight, playing a bunch of ex-presidents who have posthumously converted to neoconservatism), who teach him that America is, y'know, really great and he should just shut his mouth. I never liked Zucker's films (Airplane and assorted spoofs that are essentially live-action versions of Mad Magazine fare), but this might be the first one that's actually dangerous.

I don't have a problem necessarily with reminding us of great, if clichéd, moments in America's past (the Revolutionary War, a general commitment to freedom and rule of law), but of the film's self-righteous militaristic patriotism, a philosophy adopted only recently by the neocon right wing who has done more to destabilize our freedom and civil rights - all while pointing toward brown people as the real enemies - than any flag-burner could ever desire or manage. Doesn't this film miss the point that criticism of a country's flaws, when appropriate, is one of the surest indicators that you love said country and want to improve it, and nationalistic, reactionist regressivism is one of the surest indicators of a slide toward self-righteous depravity and self-assured exceptionalism (one of the few things that could really destroy this country)? For those of you who managed to parse that gramatically-questionable sentence, it was a rhetorical question.

---

Does anybody else worry that the real conservative movement is over, and all we have left is the kind of Reaganesque neoconservative garbage and progressive hogwash that produces films like these? Why can't we get a real conservative picture to theaters, one that champions freedom and small government without legitimizing stingy treatment toward the poor, attacks the spiraling American Military Industrial Complex while understanding the need for a basic national defense, or champions the rights to free expression and privacy from government surveillance and interference without politicizing such an important, basic assault on our liberties? I'd like to see a picture that understands the Constitution and the Bill of Rights pragmatically, as necessary tools for freedom that we follow to the letter simply because they're the only anchors protecting us from misguided or even scheming politicians, without holding up the Constitution as an end in itself.

In other words, why can't we get a picture with some principles worth defending (defined, you'll notice, as those principles which happen to be mine)?

Wednesday, October 01, 2008