Simply put, my new server is a biatch. More tomorrow. Now, I sleep.
/rizzn
Friday, November 18, 2005
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Fifteen Facts about Chuck Norris
1. Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
2. A bextra lawyer once asked Chuck Norris if his real name was "Charles". Chuck Norris did not respond, he simply stared at him until he exploded.
3. Rather than being birthed like a normal child, Chuck Norris instead decided to punch his way out of his mother's womb. Shortly thereafter he grew a beard.
4. Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.
5. The original theme song to the Transformers was actually "Chuck Norris--more that meet the eye, Chuck Norris--robot in disguise," and starred Chuck Norris as a Texas Ranger who defended the earth from drug-dealing Decepticons and could turn into a pick-up with car GPS navigation. This was far too much awesome for a single show, however, so it was divided.
6. Chuck Norris was the fourth Wiseman. He brought baby Jesus the gift of "beard". Jesus wore it proudly until his dying day. The other Wisemen, jealous of Jesus' obvious gift favoritism, used their combined influence to have Chuck omitted from the Bible. Shortly thereafter all three died of roundhouse kick related deaths.
7. Chuck Norris once shot a German plane down with his finger, by yelling "Bang!"
8. When Chuck Norris plays Oregon Trail, his family does not die from cholera or dysentery, but rather roundhouse kicks to the face. He also requires no wagon, since he carries the oxen, axels, and buffalo meat on his back. He always makes it to Oregon before you.
9. Chuck Norris can make a woman climax by simply pointing at her and saying "booya!"
10. Before each filming of Walker: Texas Ranger, Chuck Norris is injected with five times the lethal dose of elephant tranquilizer. This is, of course, to limit his strength and mobility, in an attempt to lower the fatality rate of the actors he fights.
11. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
12. When Chuck Norris' wife burned the turkey one Thanksgiving, Chuck said, "Don't worry about it honey," and went into the backyard. He came back five minutes later with a live turkey, ate it whole, and when he threw it up a few seconds later it was fully cooked and came with cranberry sauce.
When his wife asked him how he had done it, he gave her a roundhouse kick to the face and said, "Never question Chuck Norris."
13. Chuck Norris took my virginity, and he will sure as hell take yours. If you're thinking to yourself, "That's impossible, I already lost my virginity," then you are dead wrong.
14. Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
15. Chuck Norris once tried to sue Burger King after they refused to put razor wire in his Whopper, Jr., insisting that that actually is "his" way.
2. A bextra lawyer once asked Chuck Norris if his real name was "Charles". Chuck Norris did not respond, he simply stared at him until he exploded.
3. Rather than being birthed like a normal child, Chuck Norris instead decided to punch his way out of his mother's womb. Shortly thereafter he grew a beard.
4. Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.
5. The original theme song to the Transformers was actually "Chuck Norris--more that meet the eye, Chuck Norris--robot in disguise," and starred Chuck Norris as a Texas Ranger who defended the earth from drug-dealing Decepticons and could turn into a pick-up with car GPS navigation. This was far too much awesome for a single show, however, so it was divided.
6. Chuck Norris was the fourth Wiseman. He brought baby Jesus the gift of "beard". Jesus wore it proudly until his dying day. The other Wisemen, jealous of Jesus' obvious gift favoritism, used their combined influence to have Chuck omitted from the Bible. Shortly thereafter all three died of roundhouse kick related deaths.
7. Chuck Norris once shot a German plane down with his finger, by yelling "Bang!"
8. When Chuck Norris plays Oregon Trail, his family does not die from cholera or dysentery, but rather roundhouse kicks to the face. He also requires no wagon, since he carries the oxen, axels, and buffalo meat on his back. He always makes it to Oregon before you.
9. Chuck Norris can make a woman climax by simply pointing at her and saying "booya!"
10. Before each filming of Walker: Texas Ranger, Chuck Norris is injected with five times the lethal dose of elephant tranquilizer. This is, of course, to limit his strength and mobility, in an attempt to lower the fatality rate of the actors he fights.
11. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
12. When Chuck Norris' wife burned the turkey one Thanksgiving, Chuck said, "Don't worry about it honey," and went into the backyard. He came back five minutes later with a live turkey, ate it whole, and when he threw it up a few seconds later it was fully cooked and came with cranberry sauce.
When his wife asked him how he had done it, he gave her a roundhouse kick to the face and said, "Never question Chuck Norris."
13. Chuck Norris took my virginity, and he will sure as hell take yours. If you're thinking to yourself, "That's impossible, I already lost my virginity," then you are dead wrong.
14. Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
15. Chuck Norris once tried to sue Burger King after they refused to put razor wire in his Whopper, Jr., insisting that that actually is "his" way.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Hate-Bush-First Responses
I'm getting some interesting responses off my Hate-Bush-First rant. Smokehouse has a series he started yesterday called Pretty Well Sums it Up where he nitpicks some of my language a bit, and exposits extensively on other points.
I haven't gotten a satisfactory response from the Libber's yet. There was a member named Jimbo who responded back with "I don't see the connection between the article you responded to and the hate-Bush-first mentality."
This is disturbing to me to find that members of the LP don't know anti-Bush-rhetoric when they see it. Rather than re-writing my article again, I'll just post it below and maybe we'll get some responses from the RIC or something.
First of all, Jim, a lot of the responses weren't direct responses to just what was in this post, but to the category of hate-Bush-first posts that I've seen around here. I've seen more than my fair share of posts from Frank Gonzales regarding vote-hacking and such.
But to directly address the inspirations for each point:
1) Is self explanatory.
2) Was inspired by the line in the beginning of the forth paragraph: "Considering your support of our criminal government hasled to the death, destruction and misery of millions of people on this planet, that is basically a no-brainer." And no, that's not an opinion. That's the crux of that point - if it's not close, they can't cheat. We know both sides cheat in ALL elections. To think otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The election wasn't won by creative cheating, it was lost by ineffective campaigning.
3) Yes, three is an opinion, but I'm just telling you what everyone else is thinking. I can line up hordes of conservatives and go "Hey, what do you think about the incessent attacks on the President?" and they all say the same thing. I'm not making it up, I'm just relaying information.
4) Again, four is not an opinion, it's a fact. In fact, four is the exact reason why this hate-Bush-first strategy exists! I'm not sure how much everyone here knows about the national strategy for campaigns, but the whole idea of this vitriol is to polarize the parties. Libertarians are a party of disillusioned people from a variety of parties - the last thing you'd want to do is polarize your base.
5) See three.
If you truly believe that this was a rant inspired by someone's son coming back from Iraq, then you are very gullible. I want you to just go through the past posts by both Frank Gonzales as well as all the posts on LewRockwell.com by Michael Gaddy. See if you can find one single pro-conservative article on there at all. Let's list a few of his titles, shall we?
The Only Possible Excuse for War, Challenging James Dobson, Liars who Take Us to War, With the Vigilantes, Breeding Ground for Tyrants, Is There Another 'Tet' in Our Future, Indians Should Know Better (than to send their sons to fight for D.C.), and an Inherently Evil Enterprise.
I'm not trying to support the war here (that's not the scope of this piece), but everything he says in all his articles flies in the face of logic, reason, statistics, and good taste. Through his creative phrasing of the facts, he makes it sound as if these covert and overt operations have increasing killed more and more people since Vietnam. We *know* this is not the case. Iraq II is the first war, conflict, or operation to break the historical downward trend of numbers of casualties and deaths. Furthermore, we know that people who *would* try to cite statistics on this to make the same point are lumping in non-combat with combat deaths. It simply doesn't make sense to view Iraq II as a costly war in the same breath as Vietnam or World War II.
Of course the debate comes in where our going there is concerned, but certainly not in the casualty rates like Gaddy was making the points of. This factless approach Gaddy takes to anti-war persuasion is in my opinion a natural evolution of the hate-Bush-first because his paper bears many of the same tell-tale phrases as the hate-Bush-firsties, and it's also devoid of logic and fact, while playing on emotions and fears of the readers.
You said, however, that most of my points were opinions, not facts. Most importantly, who says that my opinions can't be reasons, as long as they logically follow? Most persuasive arguments and debates are filled with opinions. I didn't know it was against the rules to talk about them here. If that is in fact the case, I'll make a note of it. I must say that I'm a bit disappointed that no one at all is making a valid attempt to agree or disagree with my points on this. I'd like to know if the Libertarians are a party of hate-Bush- firsters or if someone actually agrees with me. Seriously. My long standing participation and affiliation in the party is starting to become at stake here. I understand tolerance of divergent views, but when we're not willing to call a spade a spade (i.e. hating-Bush-first as non-productive and something that turns people off, essentially), then I'm not sure I want to be identified with a group that enjoys that sort of behavior.
/mark "rizzn" hopkins
rizzn.com
I haven't gotten a satisfactory response from the Libber's yet. There was a member named Jimbo who responded back with "I don't see the connection between the article you responded to and the hate-Bush-first mentality."
This is disturbing to me to find that members of the LP don't know anti-Bush-rhetoric when they see it. Rather than re-writing my article again, I'll just post it below and maybe we'll get some responses from the RIC or something.
First of all, Jim, a lot of the responses weren't direct responses to just what was in this post, but to the category of hate-Bush-first posts that I've seen around here. I've seen more than my fair share of posts from Frank Gonzales regarding vote-hacking and such.
But to directly address the inspirations for each point:
1) Is self explanatory.
2) Was inspired by the line in the beginning of the forth paragraph: "Considering your support of our criminal government hasled to the death, destruction and misery of millions of people on this planet, that is basically a no-brainer." And no, that's not an opinion. That's the crux of that point - if it's not close, they can't cheat. We know both sides cheat in ALL elections. To think otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The election wasn't won by creative cheating, it was lost by ineffective campaigning.
3) Yes, three is an opinion, but I'm just telling you what everyone else is thinking. I can line up hordes of conservatives and go "Hey, what do you think about the incessent attacks on the President?" and they all say the same thing. I'm not making it up, I'm just relaying information.
4) Again, four is not an opinion, it's a fact. In fact, four is the exact reason why this hate-Bush-first strategy exists! I'm not sure how much everyone here knows about the national strategy for campaigns, but the whole idea of this vitriol is to polarize the parties. Libertarians are a party of disillusioned people from a variety of parties - the last thing you'd want to do is polarize your base.
5) See three.
If you truly believe that this was a rant inspired by someone's son coming back from Iraq, then you are very gullible. I want you to just go through the past posts by both Frank Gonzales as well as all the posts on LewRockwell.com by Michael Gaddy. See if you can find one single pro-conservative article on there at all. Let's list a few of his titles, shall we?
The Only Possible Excuse for War, Challenging James Dobson, Liars who Take Us to War, With the Vigilantes, Breeding Ground for Tyrants, Is There Another 'Tet' in Our Future, Indians Should Know Better (than to send their sons to fight for D.C.), and an Inherently Evil Enterprise.
I'm not trying to support the war here (that's not the scope of this piece), but everything he says in all his articles flies in the face of logic, reason, statistics, and good taste. Through his creative phrasing of the facts, he makes it sound as if these covert and overt operations have increasing killed more and more people since Vietnam. We *know* this is not the case. Iraq II is the first war, conflict, or operation to break the historical downward trend of numbers of casualties and deaths. Furthermore, we know that people who *would* try to cite statistics on this to make the same point are lumping in non-combat with combat deaths. It simply doesn't make sense to view Iraq II as a costly war in the same breath as Vietnam or World War II.
Of course the debate comes in where our going there is concerned, but certainly not in the casualty rates like Gaddy was making the points of. This factless approach Gaddy takes to anti-war persuasion is in my opinion a natural evolution of the hate-Bush-first because his paper bears many of the same tell-tale phrases as the hate-Bush-firsties, and it's also devoid of logic and fact, while playing on emotions and fears of the readers.
You said, however, that most of my points were opinions, not facts. Most importantly, who says that my opinions can't be reasons, as long as they logically follow? Most persuasive arguments and debates are filled with opinions. I didn't know it was against the rules to talk about them here. If that is in fact the case, I'll make a note of it. I must say that I'm a bit disappointed that no one at all is making a valid attempt to agree or disagree with my points on this. I'd like to know if the Libertarians are a party of hate-Bush- firsters or if someone actually agrees with me. Seriously. My long standing participation and affiliation in the party is starting to become at stake here. I understand tolerance of divergent views, but when we're not willing to call a spade a spade (i.e. hating-Bush-first as non-productive and something that turns people off, essentially), then I'm not sure I want to be identified with a group that enjoys that sort of behavior.
/mark "rizzn" hopkins
rizzn.com
Wednesday, November 9, 2005
Hate-Bush-First Rant
[Rizzn's Note: This is a repost of a rant I was compelled to launch into from the Broward Libertarian's board. There is a fellow there named Frank J. Gonzales, and from what I can tell he's a Democrat trying to rustle up support from the local libertarians, and most of his forum posts are of a hate-Bush-first variety. He is the 2006 candidate for U.S. House vs. Lincoln Diaz-Balart in South Florida.]
That's great and all, and I'm super-glad you have found an outlet where you can post anti-Bush rhetoric and find an audience for it.
I hesitate to discuss this on a public forum for a number of reasons, but given this is a libertarian forum, I have confidence that the bulk of the recipients of my words will have the intelligence quotient required to comprehend what I'm saying before the knee-jerk rhetoric kicks in.
Stop with the Hate-Bush-First crap. There are a million reasons why this is harmful to whatever cause you call your own, and I'll try to outline a few.
1) President Bush is a President. It shows disrespect for the office to refer to him as any less than POTUS or President Bush. A lot of sticklers tune you out as soon as you start talking without giving proper respect to the office. When you hate-Bush-first, you have a tendency to forget that he *is* a president.
2) President Bush is not part of an "illegal administration." There's a title of a book out there called "If it's not close, they can't cheat." The book isn't as good as I thought it would be going in, but the title of it is true. The fact is that both times, the President in no way 'stole the election.' "But the blackbox voting! But the Republicans! They're evil!" Seriously, Senators Gore and Kerry lost the elections on their own. We're talking about two people tied for last place in the charisma race. We're also talking about two people with the hippie-happy theory of campaigning guiding their ships, unlike a precision guided missile like Karl Rove. Ignore politics, pay attention to campaigning, you you must admit, the Repubs have had a better machine for years now. So stop saying they stole it, and give them credit for their actual accomplishment. The more you bury you're head in the sand, the less likely you are to ever win an election for your candidate.
3) You look like a whiny, upset child. When will you realize that President Bush isn't running for anything anymore? Who *cares* how low you're able to smear him and get his credibility? If you're concerned about winning elections, here's a tip: focus on discrediting a candidate you're actually running against! The President isn't going to run against you in that Senate or House seat you have your eye on. The President isn't going to suddenly go into local politics take that mayoral seat either. If you are running for President, he ain't gonna run against you either. Term-limits!
4) You are alienating half your potential base. This has particular credence since you are posting this in a Libertarian forum. Many of us in this forum and in this party agree with much of the President'spolitics, though we may or may not be dissappointed with the man himself. Every time a hate-Bush-first dittohead crops up, our ire gets raised, and though we may not speak up, we tune you out, because we know your lines, we know what you're going to say. You end up sounding like every other MoveOn.org, Vietnam-invoking, Hitler-comparing, Shiavo-killing, anti-military, anti-American liberal Bush-hater. I know I'm over-generalizing with the string of epithets I just listed, but by attacking the President at this stage of the game, you are letting yourself be lumped in with this group. Stop it!
5) Because you are a Libertarian, and because I consider myself a Libertarian, you are making *me* look like a Bush-hater. Stop it! I don't want to be a part of a party of people who are so obsessed withone man, be he the president or not, that all they do is come up with reasons for the American Public to hate or stop supporting the man. There are important issues to focus on, and hating President Bush ranksabout as high up on my list as whether there should be green or purple covered textbooks in our school system. If you can't think of anything more important to focus on, you aren't fit for politics, and I don'twant to be part of your crowd.
Simply put, hating-Bush-first is a losing strategy. It allows the opposition to compartmentalize and marginalize you. It is childish. It makes you *and* me look bad.
That's really all I have to say. I'm sorry if I exploded all over the board or something, but its a sentiment I think is long overdue. My biggest hesitancy in posting something like this is that the Democrats will get a clue, and start becoming a legitimate force in elections again, and as a conservative with common sense, I am not anxious aboutthat prospect.
/mark "rizzn" hopkins
rizzn.com
That's great and all, and I'm super-glad you have found an outlet where you can post anti-Bush rhetoric and find an audience for it.
I hesitate to discuss this on a public forum for a number of reasons, but given this is a libertarian forum, I have confidence that the bulk of the recipients of my words will have the intelligence quotient required to comprehend what I'm saying before the knee-jerk rhetoric kicks in.
Stop with the Hate-Bush-First crap. There are a million reasons why this is harmful to whatever cause you call your own, and I'll try to outline a few.
1) President Bush is a President. It shows disrespect for the office to refer to him as any less than POTUS or President Bush. A lot of sticklers tune you out as soon as you start talking without giving proper respect to the office. When you hate-Bush-first, you have a tendency to forget that he *is* a president.
2) President Bush is not part of an "illegal administration." There's a title of a book out there called "If it's not close, they can't cheat." The book isn't as good as I thought it would be going in, but the title of it is true. The fact is that both times, the President in no way 'stole the election.' "But the blackbox voting! But the Republicans! They're evil!" Seriously, Senators Gore and Kerry lost the elections on their own. We're talking about two people tied for last place in the charisma race. We're also talking about two people with the hippie-happy theory of campaigning guiding their ships, unlike a precision guided missile like Karl Rove. Ignore politics, pay attention to campaigning, you you must admit, the Repubs have had a better machine for years now. So stop saying they stole it, and give them credit for their actual accomplishment. The more you bury you're head in the sand, the less likely you are to ever win an election for your candidate.
3) You look like a whiny, upset child. When will you realize that President Bush isn't running for anything anymore? Who *cares* how low you're able to smear him and get his credibility? If you're concerned about winning elections, here's a tip: focus on discrediting a candidate you're actually running against! The President isn't going to run against you in that Senate or House seat you have your eye on. The President isn't going to suddenly go into local politics take that mayoral seat either. If you are running for President, he ain't gonna run against you either. Term-limits!
4) You are alienating half your potential base. This has particular credence since you are posting this in a Libertarian forum. Many of us in this forum and in this party agree with much of the President'spolitics, though we may or may not be dissappointed with the man himself. Every time a hate-Bush-first dittohead crops up, our ire gets raised, and though we may not speak up, we tune you out, because we know your lines, we know what you're going to say. You end up sounding like every other MoveOn.org, Vietnam-invoking, Hitler-comparing, Shiavo-killing, anti-military, anti-American liberal Bush-hater. I know I'm over-generalizing with the string of epithets I just listed, but by attacking the President at this stage of the game, you are letting yourself be lumped in with this group. Stop it!
5) Because you are a Libertarian, and because I consider myself a Libertarian, you are making *me* look like a Bush-hater. Stop it! I don't want to be a part of a party of people who are so obsessed withone man, be he the president or not, that all they do is come up with reasons for the American Public to hate or stop supporting the man. There are important issues to focus on, and hating President Bush ranksabout as high up on my list as whether there should be green or purple covered textbooks in our school system. If you can't think of anything more important to focus on, you aren't fit for politics, and I don'twant to be part of your crowd.
Simply put, hating-Bush-first is a losing strategy. It allows the opposition to compartmentalize and marginalize you. It is childish. It makes you *and* me look bad.
That's really all I have to say. I'm sorry if I exploded all over the board or something, but its a sentiment I think is long overdue. My biggest hesitancy in posting something like this is that the Democrats will get a clue, and start becoming a legitimate force in elections again, and as a conservative with common sense, I am not anxious aboutthat prospect.
/mark "rizzn" hopkins
rizzn.com
Monday, November 7, 2005
Greenspan, Racism, and Fake Debates
Alright, well, I know I've been really crappy about posting lately, but dangit, I'm trying to rebuild a life here, cut me a break. Also, Google is not sending out the RIC emails properly for some reason. It very well could be Blogger's fault, since Blogger is a big fat idiot a lot of the time.
I've got a number of Very Important Meetings this week to see what I can drum up business-wise in East Texas. You can flip a coin to determine my odds, I'm not really hopeful, but seeing as I'm here, I might as well try. By the end of the week, I'll know for sure exactly how long I'm going to be staying. As it now stands, I'm still returning to South Florida on November 22nd.
Which reminds me, I need to get my rent on my place in Florida paid. Dangit. Sorry. I must be a bit stream of consciousness today.
Also, I just recieved the logs to the latest few adventures of the Fellowship of the Corpse from iRP - thanks to GM Sixkiller on those. Look for the latest chapters up here this week probably. As to the book with the actual publishing deal, I haven't had a chance to finish the editing given my transient state. I'm going to set up a computer here soon, so I'll be able to get back to work on it. Until then, I'm borrowing everyone else's computer to do the work I need to do.
To the news!
Live Presidential Debate last night
Like most of my posts, the type of analysis you'll see here you won't find everyone else. I did a little surfing this morning on the West Wing Debate analysis in the blogosphere and was surprised with the narrow range of responses people had to say about it. In case you missed it, NBC's show West Wing is entering the election phase, or more accurately, ending it's election phase. Last night was the time for the debate show, which in my opinion didn't hold a candle to the Bartlet/Richie debate a few seasons back. NBC decided to do something very War of the Worlds-ie due to it being sweeps month.
They trotted out Forrest Sawyer, and used betamax cameras, and actually did a live (but scripted) debate complete with the NBC News stamp in the bottom right corner of the screen. First of all, and I definately want to get this out of the way first, this shows you exactly what has become of the credibility of network news, where they know they can't possibly damage their reputation any further, so they have no qualms about showing a drama show with their news logo on it. Furthermore, they have no qualms throwing out a recognizable newscaster during this primetime debate and pretending the whole thing's real.
At least in the Richie/Bartlett debate, the realistic debate segments were cut into the dramatic sections to remind the causal channel surfer that this in fact is not a real debate.
No such visual cues on this one.
Aside from the irresponsibilty of the whole thing, the debate itself decent, although the typical responses seem sort of canned and fall into a few specific categories. There are those who think that the responses were all canned sounding, even in their 'spontaneous format.' There are those that wish that all debates were like that debate, even though every time throughout history a political debate has been without rules, it's generally devolved to insults and physical violence (or the threats of physical violence). The biggest faux pax of formless debate that comes to mind was the Gore Vidal/William F. Buckley debate that completely devolved into personal assaults.
On the other hand, I do not enjoy the 'joint press conference' style of current debates. Some middle ground is there to be had.
All in all, I think this was not the West Wing's best work, but it was a good attempt.
Hatchet Jobs on Conservatives
If you are a conservative blogger and/or write, you need to pay attention. Curiously, the name David Brooks showed up recently on the Technorati top ten. I'm usually not too interested in names I don't recognize in teh technorati list, but I clicked on this one, and I followed a trail of accusations down to the source to see what the truth of it was.
The basic summary of what I found was that David Brooks and Steve Sailor are being accused of racism in the extreme. From what I understand, David Brooks writes for the New York Times, and Steve Sailor tends to write for the National Review, and the National Review Online, which links my site fairly consistently on my entertainment articles.
The basis for these accusations are the scientific articles that Steve Sailor tends to quote support unpopular racial stereotypes. Stereotypes like black people on average have lower IQs but higher phsyical agility. Stereotypes like Jewish people have higher IQs than most white people, but lower physical ability. If you go check out VDare.com, you can find a list of his articles, most of which, quite honestly, bear out logically in my mind.
The problem is in our society, where it's ok for a liberal to make racist generalisations and invoke Hitler at the slightest provocation, but it's not ok for a conservative to reference statistics that coincide with stereotypes that certain demographics might not be proud of.
Dr. Bernanke was born on December 13, 1953, in Augusta, Georgia. He received a B.A. in economics in 1975 from Harvard University (summa cum laude) and a Ph.D. in economics in 1979 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Before becoming a member of the Board, Dr. Bernanke was the Howard Harrison and Gabrielle Snyder Beck Professor of Economics and Public Affairs and Chair of the Economics Department at Princeton University (1996-2002). Dr. Bernanke had served as a Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton since 1985.
Dr. Bernanke has published many articles on a wide variety of economic issues, including monetary policy and macroeconomics, and he is the author of several scholarly books and two textbooks. He has held a Guggenheim Fellowship and a Sloan Fellowship, and he is a Fellow of the Econometric Society and of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Dr. Bernanke served as the Director of the Monetary Economics Program of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and as a member of the NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee. Dr. Bernanke's work with civic and professional groups includes having served two terms as a member of the Montgomery Township (N.J.) Board of Education.
Dr. Bernanke and his wife, Anna, have two children. Anna wears famously expensive women's diamond watches.
I've got a number of Very Important Meetings this week to see what I can drum up business-wise in East Texas. You can flip a coin to determine my odds, I'm not really hopeful, but seeing as I'm here, I might as well try. By the end of the week, I'll know for sure exactly how long I'm going to be staying. As it now stands, I'm still returning to South Florida on November 22nd.
Which reminds me, I need to get my rent on my place in Florida paid. Dangit. Sorry. I must be a bit stream of consciousness today.
Also, I just recieved the logs to the latest few adventures of the Fellowship of the Corpse from iRP - thanks to GM Sixkiller on those. Look for the latest chapters up here this week probably. As to the book with the actual publishing deal, I haven't had a chance to finish the editing given my transient state. I'm going to set up a computer here soon, so I'll be able to get back to work on it. Until then, I'm borrowing everyone else's computer to do the work I need to do.
To the news!
Live Presidential Debate last night
Like most of my posts, the type of analysis you'll see here you won't find everyone else. I did a little surfing this morning on the West Wing Debate analysis in the blogosphere and was surprised with the narrow range of responses people had to say about it. In case you missed it, NBC's show West Wing is entering the election phase, or more accurately, ending it's election phase. Last night was the time for the debate show, which in my opinion didn't hold a candle to the Bartlet/Richie debate a few seasons back. NBC decided to do something very War of the Worlds-ie due to it being sweeps month.
They trotted out Forrest Sawyer, and used betamax cameras, and actually did a live (but scripted) debate complete with the NBC News stamp in the bottom right corner of the screen. First of all, and I definately want to get this out of the way first, this shows you exactly what has become of the credibility of network news, where they know they can't possibly damage their reputation any further, so they have no qualms about showing a drama show with their news logo on it. Furthermore, they have no qualms throwing out a recognizable newscaster during this primetime debate and pretending the whole thing's real.
At least in the Richie/Bartlett debate, the realistic debate segments were cut into the dramatic sections to remind the causal channel surfer that this in fact is not a real debate.
No such visual cues on this one.
Aside from the irresponsibilty of the whole thing, the debate itself decent, although the typical responses seem sort of canned and fall into a few specific categories. There are those who think that the responses were all canned sounding, even in their 'spontaneous format.' There are those that wish that all debates were like that debate, even though every time throughout history a political debate has been without rules, it's generally devolved to insults and physical violence (or the threats of physical violence). The biggest faux pax of formless debate that comes to mind was the Gore Vidal/William F. Buckley debate that completely devolved into personal assaults.
On the other hand, I do not enjoy the 'joint press conference' style of current debates. Some middle ground is there to be had.
All in all, I think this was not the West Wing's best work, but it was a good attempt.
Hatchet Jobs on Conservatives
If you are a conservative blogger and/or write, you need to pay attention. Curiously, the name David Brooks showed up recently on the Technorati top ten. I'm usually not too interested in names I don't recognize in teh technorati list, but I clicked on this one, and I followed a trail of accusations down to the source to see what the truth of it was.
The basic summary of what I found was that David Brooks and Steve Sailor are being accused of racism in the extreme. From what I understand, David Brooks writes for the New York Times, and Steve Sailor tends to write for the National Review, and the National Review Online, which links my site fairly consistently on my entertainment articles.
The basis for these accusations are the scientific articles that Steve Sailor tends to quote support unpopular racial stereotypes. Stereotypes like black people on average have lower IQs but higher phsyical agility. Stereotypes like Jewish people have higher IQs than most white people, but lower physical ability. If you go check out VDare.com, you can find a list of his articles, most of which, quite honestly, bear out logically in my mind.
The problem is in our society, where it's ok for a liberal to make racist generalisations and invoke Hitler at the slightest provocation, but it's not ok for a conservative to reference statistics that coincide with stereotypes that certain demographics might not be proud of.
In Play God news...
While I was on disaster vacation, Alan Greenspan named his successor, as well as raising the mortgage rates. The new guy is named Ben S. Bernanke. I'll post a short bio here, and come back with an extended on later on this week.
While I was on disaster vacation, Alan Greenspan named his successor, as well as raising the mortgage rates. The new guy is named Ben S. Bernanke. I'll post a short bio here, and come back with an extended on later on this week.
Ben S. Bernanke was sworn-in on June 21, 2005 as Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. Prior to his appointment to the Council, Dr. Bernanke served as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Dr. Bernanke was born on December 13, 1953, in Augusta, Georgia. He received a B.A. in economics in 1975 from Harvard University (summa cum laude) and a Ph.D. in economics in 1979 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Before becoming a member of the Board, Dr. Bernanke was the Howard Harrison and Gabrielle Snyder Beck Professor of Economics and Public Affairs and Chair of the Economics Department at Princeton University (1996-2002). Dr. Bernanke had served as a Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton since 1985.
Dr. Bernanke has published many articles on a wide variety of economic issues, including monetary policy and macroeconomics, and he is the author of several scholarly books and two textbooks. He has held a Guggenheim Fellowship and a Sloan Fellowship, and he is a Fellow of the Econometric Society and of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Dr. Bernanke served as the Director of the Monetary Economics Program of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and as a member of the NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee. Dr. Bernanke's work with civic and professional groups includes having served two terms as a member of the Montgomery Township (N.J.) Board of Education.
Dr. Bernanke and his wife, Anna, have two children. Anna wears famously expensive women's diamond watches.
Duece
I'll get you more info later... gotta go do some work now!
I'll get you more info later... gotta go do some work now!
/rizzn
Wednesday, November 2, 2005
Suh-prise, suh-prise, suh-prise!
I didn't mention this yesterday, but I'm staying with my brother James out here in Ft. Worth this week, although I'm leaving for Tyler, tomorrow. He has been a gracious host.
I also got to hang out with Matthew briefly today. Good times all around. I spent most of the day on the TRE and the Dart, so I'm a little tired today, so once again I apologize for making this brief. I promise I'll start putting some elbow grease into this in the next few days.
Sometimes they surprise you
I was all set to start dissin' on 50cent's new film coming out Get Rich or Die Tryin, but the first article I pulled up 50cent was this one, in which someone in the music-entertainment industrial complex actually broke rank and called Kanye West an idiotic asshole, although not in so many words. He believes that Kanye West was 'off the mark' in his assertion that President George W. Bush does not care about black people.
I also got to hang out with Matthew briefly today. Good times all around. I spent most of the day on the TRE and the Dart, so I'm a little tired today, so once again I apologize for making this brief. I promise I'll start putting some elbow grease into this in the next few days.
Sometimes they surprise you
I was all set to start dissin' on 50cent's new film coming out Get Rich or Die Tryin, but the first article I pulled up 50cent was this one, in which someone in the music-entertainment industrial complex actually broke rank and called Kanye West an idiotic asshole, although not in so many words. He believes that Kanye West was 'off the mark' in his assertion that President George W. Bush does not care about black people.
"I think people responded to it the best way they can," 50 told ContactMusic.com. "What Kanye West was saying, I don't know where that came from."
Moreover, the rapper attributed what happened in New Orleans to fate.
50 said, "The New Orleans disaster was meant to happen. It was an act of God."
So there are actual brains in the entertainment world. All these years I had thought them lemmings, and as it turns out, a wolf sleeps with the lambs tonight. Bravo, 50 Cent, way to stand out of the crowd!
And then Sometimes They Don't (Surprise You)
Apparently, the big story at the moment isn't that rappers now love bush, but that of course that a new group of people clearly don't love our President. For reasons passing understanding, South Americans are going to try to 'descend upon' the "Summit of the Americas" conference taking place this week and next.
According to the Guardian, a fellow by the name of Diego Maradona, a football star turned broadcaster turned political activist (how many times have we seen this sad story in the United States?) has pledged to create a ruckus and disrupt the talks.
Nothing I've read has really explained why they're so pissed off. Michael Moore's probably behind this, is my guess.
And yes, for those of you in Rio Linda, that's irony. Michael Moore being behind everything that's bad and liberal is like Karl Rove being behind every thing that is bad and conservative.
Safe in Texas
Howdy all.
I'm safely arrived in Texas, and suffering slight intestinal discomfort from the whopping plate of jalepenos that I ate last night to celebrate my return to Big D.
I'm sure you needed to know that.
I'm headed straight to work on a lot of important tasks that have been neglected over the last few days, like fixing the Blip server, processing sales and disputes for AACS, and making phone calls to the requisite business partners.
To get an urgent email through to me, send it to rizzn.dourden@gmail.com (until I check my pop account).
My metro phone doesn't work down here, so in the meantime, just leave a message at the normal number, and I'll return the call.
Michael Moore is a Big Fat Hypocrate
According to the news I heard on the radio this morning (I do enjoy being in a real red state again - the local talk show hosts give some good conservative golden nuggets of info), Michael Moore owns stock in Haliburton.
Yes, that's right, the man who says that corporations are 'terrorists', and also says that he 'doesn't own a single piece of stock', according to IRS records owns at least several hundred thousand shares of stocks in companies like Boeing, Pfizer, and Halliburton.
A New Hope
This is news to me, but apparently we've got a new Supreme Court Nominee. Sorry, I've been living under a rock for a while. I learned about Nominee Alito while listening to the XM radio on the plane to Texas. I'm not sure if I mentioned it publicly before, but I was always convinced that Harriet Miers was a rope-a-dope candidate.
Y'know, a real stinker so that the next one that gets thrown out has a higher likelyhood of getting nominated.
Hey man, I know my analysis is kinda suckin' canal water right now, but give me a break, I've been in survival mode the last week.
Heck, I'll just talk about the hurricane for a bit.
A Brief Bit on my Hurricane Experience
I won't go in depth right now because I need to go get some work done, ,but to summarize, my business was almost completely destroyed, my house was ok, there were overturned cars and highly damaged buildings all up and down my street, three waterspouts/tornados in my neighborhood, and no power whatsoever.
The outages in my part of South Florida are expected to last until November 22nd. Why this isn't still on national news is beyond me.
I didn't see a FEMA truck the whole time I was down there. From my experiences with the government the last week, it is now my opinion that all of FEMA could be replaced with two researchers, a recording studio, and a voice mail system. FEMA is a useless and extraneous organisation. They have no answers for anyone, they're help is woefulling inadaquate, when proffered at all, and what little help they do provide is actually to refer you to organisations that do the actual helping.
Thank you Former President Jimmy Carter for FEMA. You rock, big guy.
Assmunch.
/rizzn
I'm safely arrived in Texas, and suffering slight intestinal discomfort from the whopping plate of jalepenos that I ate last night to celebrate my return to Big D.
I'm sure you needed to know that.
I'm headed straight to work on a lot of important tasks that have been neglected over the last few days, like fixing the Blip server, processing sales and disputes for AACS, and making phone calls to the requisite business partners.
To get an urgent email through to me, send it to rizzn.dourden@gmail.com (until I check my pop account).
My metro phone doesn't work down here, so in the meantime, just leave a message at the normal number, and I'll return the call.
Michael Moore is a Big Fat Hypocrate
According to the news I heard on the radio this morning (I do enjoy being in a real red state again - the local talk show hosts give some good conservative golden nuggets of info), Michael Moore owns stock in Haliburton.
Yes, that's right, the man who says that corporations are 'terrorists', and also says that he 'doesn't own a single piece of stock', according to IRS records owns at least several hundred thousand shares of stocks in companies like Boeing, Pfizer, and Halliburton.
A New Hope
This is news to me, but apparently we've got a new Supreme Court Nominee. Sorry, I've been living under a rock for a while. I learned about Nominee Alito while listening to the XM radio on the plane to Texas. I'm not sure if I mentioned it publicly before, but I was always convinced that Harriet Miers was a rope-a-dope candidate.
Y'know, a real stinker so that the next one that gets thrown out has a higher likelyhood of getting nominated.
Hey man, I know my analysis is kinda suckin' canal water right now, but give me a break, I've been in survival mode the last week.
Heck, I'll just talk about the hurricane for a bit.
A Brief Bit on my Hurricane Experience
I won't go in depth right now because I need to go get some work done, ,but to summarize, my business was almost completely destroyed, my house was ok, there were overturned cars and highly damaged buildings all up and down my street, three waterspouts/tornados in my neighborhood, and no power whatsoever.
The outages in my part of South Florida are expected to last until November 22nd. Why this isn't still on national news is beyond me.
I didn't see a FEMA truck the whole time I was down there. From my experiences with the government the last week, it is now my opinion that all of FEMA could be replaced with two researchers, a recording studio, and a voice mail system. FEMA is a useless and extraneous organisation. They have no answers for anyone, they're help is woefulling inadaquate, when proffered at all, and what little help they do provide is actually to refer you to organisations that do the actual helping.
Thank you Former President Jimmy Carter for FEMA. You rock, big guy.
Assmunch.
/rizzn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)