Australian [chat] Party
The best argument for a multi-party system: The Australian Sex Party
I would vote for them
Saturday, August 15, 2009
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm is the next expansion for World of Warcraft. Dark and forgotten threats that have long stayed out of sight have finally arrived on our shores, unleashing a cataclysmic event upon Azeroth and now preparing more nefarius plans to take it back...
Some things addressed in the post:
Level Cap: 85
New Classes:
Cataclysm doesn't introduce any new classes to the game. Instead, Blizzard have offered more race and classes combinations to players.
New Races: Goblin / Worgen
New Content:
Cataclysm will be the first expansion not to introduce a new continent, instead making use of previously unreleased zones and revamping existing ones.
- Flying in Azeroth
- Classic Dungeon Revamp
- Unreleased Zones & Dungeons
Disclaimer from mmo-champions: "None of the information below has been officialy announced by Blizzard, this is only a compilation of information gathered from reliable sources. Just keep in mind that it takes a LOT to make me post something on the front page and I'm definitely not speculating here."
Julia Hall: Planted Question
The problem with politics is that sometimes Michelle Malkin is right. Apparently the little girl, Julia Hall, who asked Obama the "what's wrong with the fuckheads?" question at the New Hampshire town hall was the daughter of an Obama campaign contributor, according to this Boston Globe story.
So now I have to figure out what to do with this. If W had taken a softball question from a planted little girl a ruckus would be raised. When Obama does it...I'm fine with it. Which seems to indicate that I do not have a problem with "took a planted question" but rather my opinions of various political happenings are skewed to my own political stance. I like Obama; I do not like W. So when W does X I am irritated, when Obama does X I am ok with it.
The problem, though, is in discerning the constancy of that X, whether "Bush takes a planted question" is, in fact, the same as "Obama takes a planted question". What are the questions? What are the contexts of the questions? I think this plays into the larger Health Care debate issue. Are Health Care protestors the same as War protestors? Is yelling at a congress person about Health Care the same as yelling at a congress person about W's war?
For myself, though, the question is this: Does asking these questions make me an apologist? Am I attempting to have my cake and eat it too? Did I fault W for doing that which Obama now does?
Perhaps there is a nuance to be understood whereby the context of the debate matters. If I yell facts at a congress person is this different from yelling fabricated lies? I would think so. Are there situations where answering planted questions serves the greater good while other situations in which anwering planted questions merely serves one political party? Perhaps.
If one assumes an external world one might sensibly assume that the external world is a complicated place. So Obama took a planted question in order to discuss the folly of the current Health Care debate. Ok. Maybe that is a bit underhanded. Or maybe it was a necessity so that Obama could address the larger attitude of the current political zeitgeist. I do not know which it is.
But Michella Malkin is still a stupid fucking cunt.
FNC goes up as GOP goes down
I like the oral sex euphemism of this story. Here is the graph:
FNC goes up as the GOP goes down
Rachel Maddow is a Badass Motherfucker
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Friday, August 14, 2009
Robin Williams is impossible
Robin Williams was on The Tonight Show thursday night. At the end of the episode they showed one minute of footage from them trying to shoot bumpers with Robin Williams. It was fucking win.
BREAKING NEWS
Glen Beck is a demagogue.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Glenn Beck's Operation | ||||
| ||||
Thursday, August 13, 2009
NOW That's What I Call... a mighty scam
a 419, and one many magnitudes better than the Micheal Jackson Left You Money one.
Dear Mr. Sir,
REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE-STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
I am Dr. Bakare Tunde, the cousin of Nigerian Astronaut, Air Force Major Abacha Tunde. He was the first African in space when he made a secret flight to the Salyut 6 space station in 1979. He was on a later Soviet spaceflight, Soyuz T-16Z to the secret Soviet military space station Salyut 8T in 1989. He was stranded there in 1990 when the Soviet Union was dissolved. His other Soviet crew members returned to earth on the Soyuz T-16Z, but his place was taken up by return cargo. There have been occasional Progrez supply flights to keep him going since that time. He is in good humor, but wants to come home.
In the 19-years since he has been on the station, he has accumulated flight pay and interest amounting to almost $ 15,000,000 American Dollars. This is held in a trust at the Lagos National Savings and Trust Association. If we can obtain access to this money, we can place a down payment with the Russian Space Authorities for a Soyuz return flight to bring him back to Earth. I am told this will cost $ 3,000,000 American Dollars. In order to access the his trust fund we need your assistance.
Consequently, my colleagues and I are willing to transfer the total amount to your account or subsequent disbursement, since we as civil servants are prohibited by the Code of Conduct Bureau (Civil Service Laws) from opening and/ or operating foreign accounts in our names.
Needless to say, the trust reposed on you at this juncture is enormous. In return, we have agreed to offer you 20 percent of the transferred sum, while 10 percent shall be set aside for incidental expenses (internal and external) between the parties in the course of the transaction. You will be mandated to remit the balance 70 percent to other accounts in due course.
Kindly expedite action as we are behind schedule to enable us include downpayment in this financial quarter.
Please acknowledge the receipt of this message via my direct number given below only.
Yours Sincerely, Dr. Bakare Tunde
Astronautics Project Manager
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Guns: William Kostric and Chris Matthews
William Kostric protested Obama's Health Care town hall in Portsmouth, New Hampshire today. William Kostric wore a gun to the protest. This, of course, resulted in people flipping their shit. The problem with the shit flippers, I think, is found in the following exchange between Kostric and Matthews:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
William Kostric: "I'm advocating an informed society, an armed society, a polite society...that's all there is to it."
Chris Matthews: "You speak in a different way than most people. I think, what the trouble is, you alarm many people that believe when you bring a gun violence might be afoot. Because they associate a gun with violence and they associate a gun with force. But you say you're not interested in using force to get your way politically."
William Kostric: "A firearm is a defensive tool."
Chris Matthews: "So bringing a show of force to a political debate was not meant as a violent act?"
William Kostric: "Not at all."
Now, as I've said before, the Second Ammendment is pretty damned unintelligible. In District of Columbia v. Heller we received some clarification. Regardless, at the present moment, it is legal to openly carry a gun in New Hampshire. So, great.
There exist dipshits who think guns are the means of settling an argument, who embrace a "right makes right" mentality. The difficulty is that not everyone who carries a gun is a dipshit. Assuming that William Kostric is genuine he is not one of the crazies. Presumably he is not going to open fire at a crowded mall given that, to quote Kostric, "a firearm is a defensive tool."
The difficulty I have with this situation is Matthews' "they associate a gun with violence and they associate a gun with force" comment. I can understand how one might arrive at or support that association. The question is whether or not the association is reasonable, whether there is some causal link between guns and violence. My guess is not that guns cause violence, that there is some innate quality to the thing which somehow sparks violent tendancies. Rather, individuals who are themselves violent can utilize guns as they could utilize a knife, an explosive, a pencil, a car, etc. to perform violent acts. Interestingly, no one freaked out at the number of people who drove to the protest, despite the existence of car bombs. But when one guy brings a gun everyone freaks out. This, I think, is a problem.
In the media coverage I saw of this event the verbage of "he had a gun" carried with it an undertone of violence, of the threat of assassination, of evil. It was not taken to be a fact, akin to "he wore shoes", but rather the "gun" was somehow indicative of violence, harm, danger. This despite the fact that no one was shot or harmed at the protest in spite of the gun.
There are some who characterize alcohol or marijuana as themselves evil, a root cause of society's ills. This characterization results not from an understanding of the things in themselves but rather is based upon an illusion crafted out of cherry picked examples. Sure, there are alcoholics who beat their wives or drug addicts whose addiction started with pot. But there are also individuals who can drink a beer after work and then do their taxes, who can smoke a joint and then watch a movie with their kids.
If we can dismantle illusions and talk about the things in themselves, if we can undermine bullshit-stupid conceptualizations of objects and rather discuss the objects themselves, why not do this with guns? Why are these objects not all on equal footing? The left might endorse alcohol and marijuana but loathe guns. The right might endorse gun rights but loathe alcohol and marijuana. If one assesses the whole situation, the big picture, I think one will see that both sides are being moronic.
What if each side stopped being moronic and assessed the things in themselves? What if each side abandoned socially constructed illusions and rather engaged with reality? What if we stopped being stupid?
William Kostric can carry a gun to a political protest and not shoot anyone. Perhaps this indicates something regarding guns and people being shot.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Daily Show Cliff May Torture Interview
We seem to have stopped talking about torture recently given that, I suppose, we're bored with it or we'd rather argue about Health Care. Here's my question: If one rewatches the Cliff May torture interview from the Daily Show does one find Cliff May to be more sensible than we did at the time of the interview? Going back and rewatching it? I think Cliff May is rationally arguing and Jon Stewart is embracing an idealism which might have resulted from reactionary fervor.
Part 1:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Cliff May Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
Part 2:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Cliff May Extended Interview Pt. 2 | ||||
| ||||
Part3:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Cliff May Extended Interview Pt. 3 | ||||
| ||||
Sunday, August 9, 2009
The Hangover: Stu's Song by Ed Helms
I m teh posting this song cause it is stuck in my head and I want to be able to find it quickly and, oh yeah, fuck you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
