The Four Questions of Passover

Posted on April 10, 2011 by acedizzle

American Patriot posted four questions asking our opinions on a few issues, and I am obliging him with a response. These are my responses:

1) What are your opinions (generally speaking – you do not have to write a 50 page essay) of our Founding Documents and their relevance to modern day U.S.?

I believe the founding documents were a framework for our country. The founding fathers (a bunch of f*cking racists with a handful of good ideas1) gave us the tools to change that framework as the times change though. I wish the amendment process would be used much more, instead of just making “laws.” From this point on, I will no longer put laws in quotation marks, but if I talk about federal laws, know that I am air quoting around them in a condescending fashion. One example, at risk of sounding like a hippie, would be medical marijuana prohibition. How do they justify the fact that they had to amend the constitution to make alcohol illegal, and then just include medical marijuana under some blanketing of interstate commerce?

2) Do you believe in a ‘living constitution’?

Do I believe that some things, such as what is considered a liberty and a right require a flexible view along with the evolution of society? Yes, especially with the evolution of technology, and how it can be abused to infringe on personal privacy (Fusion Centers). Do I believe that the Supreme Court should inject their bias into decisions? No. I do not agree with many federal laws that are made by just using their own opinions of vaguely worded amendments to justify their enforcement. I believe that if the country expects us to follow the law, then they should follow the law and do things correctly (amend the constitution). That being said, some things, like the ACA, just wouldn’t get done unless someone took the step and got it done, and I do believe that health care is a right of all people. I think that health care could be better done on a state by state basis though, and the president has made this an option to all states (I loved this decision, although I expect many won’t take him up on it because they don’t have any better ideas). There are some things that cannot be done on a local government basis though, like environmental protection. If states were allowed to make the decision, then other states, down the river or in the direction of prevailing winds, could be the ones taking the brunt of the damages. Although I haven’t been explicit, you may have guessed than I am not a very religious man, because religion sticks too firmly to ideas rooted in the past. I believe that knowledge of history is vital and important but dogmatic adherence to past principles, in the church as well as government, should be frowned upon. Societies change over time, it is guaranteed and unstoppable, and with these changes our society requires a form of government that is as dynamic.

3) What do you think a ‘right’ is and what are basic ‘human rights’ as you see it?

A really complex issue, it’s easier to see when rights are being infringed than to come up with a list of rights. So here I go… I’ll steal and expand on Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (hey, I wrote about that one). Life would be food, shelter, clothing, health care, clean air, clean water, and education2. Liberty is a bit trickier, but I would include protection of free speech, religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, mandatory gun ownership and other similar issues I’m forgetting. Pursuit of happiness is pretty much covered under everything else, again citing Denmark as my example.

4) Where do you draw the line between ‘rights’ that need to be protected by the government and ‘wants’ that should be individual responsibility?

I think that local governments are ideally/uniquely situated to protect rights, since they are in more direct contact with the people. Although without the federal government stepping up on things like civil rights, we might still be stuck in a backwards country in that respect. In terms of wants, I wouldn’t consider “things” a right (the rate of trampoline and Jet Ski ownership in Denmark is disgustingly low) even though they make some people happy.

Kenny "F*cking" Powers

[1] Tosh, Daniel, perf. Happy Thoughts. 2011. DVD.
[2] Our system sucks, but this isn’t the place to expand on that.

Posted in Blog Wars | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Persuit of Happyness

Posted on April 5, 2011 by acedizzle

American Patriot
(In fact, let me digress and play psychiatrist here for a moment: I sense deep seeded, misplaced anger from the above paragraph. It is not atypical for the progressive mind to be ravaged with feelings of inadequacy and anger for perceived injustices. The eventual realization that they are incapable of righting these self perceived injustices makes many of them chronically miserable. This condition, however, is apparently not their fault. In reality, they simply are unfortunate enough to have a specific variant of the DRD4 (dopamine receptor) gene which has been found by scientists at UCSD and Harvard to be responsible for progressivism (which they call liberalism – talk about misnomers! – I’ll write about this in a separate post soon) provided proper socialization has taken place. You should read up on it. I am hoping that a cure is not far behind!)

I had every intention of first giving you my answers to your four questions… But I thought I would rebut this point.

The unhappiness of liberals/progressives does stem from the idea that we are unhappy with the situation of those less fortunate than ourselves. We can look at the example of the happiest country on earth: Denmark. With an economy that I’m sure sickens you, they are able to live as the happiest people on earth. The second most peaceful country on earth and the least corrupt country in the world… once again Denmark. Best business climate in the world? Highest score on the Education Index? Excellent health care? I think you see where this is going. All of this, while still paying the highest taxes of any other country in the world. But they pay these taxes to have the world’s highest level of income equality. What don’t they have to be happy about? Is it just coincidence that all of these things occur in the same country?

Liberals/Progressives in America are unhappy when we see that the very system we believe in, is working so well in other places. You can say we are idealistic, but you cannot say our ideals cannot be reached. We are unhappy because we know that there is a better life out there for everyone, but the greed and ignorance of a few (or many) hinders us from reaching our goal. Although I may be miserable looking at the state of our country, it’s nothing compared to the joy I get knowing I’m fighting for the right thing. I’m reminded of my good friend DonnyBagg saying “It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.1” So before you start blaming everything on our genes, perhaps we just won’t be happy until we have something that makes us smile.

[1] To you doubters… Prove it.

Posted in Blog Wars | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

It has begun. Boom.

Posted on April 1, 2011 by broletariat

Here is American Patriot’s post in response to factose’s comment on his post, “Just wondering…“. Below is my response to all’o’dat.

American PatriotAmerican Idiot :
“As for this one, I am a 30 year student of the collectivist mind. I have many progressive friends as well. I think I can safely say that I know how the mindset works.”

Broletariat:
– You’ve been a student in a capitalist society, and told your whole life that you would be as important as the few people that were successful coming out of the same schools as you (even Charles Taylor went to Bentley U, rep that one). I’m guessing it didn’t turn out that way, considering your busiest blog day was probably over the last 24 hours. Therefore, your whole life you’ve been told that capitalism is easily the best system, because it allowed so many people to become so successful, and you use the failures of extreme examples of progressive thought, at it’s most immature and vulnerable times, to reaffirm that belief.

American Patriot:
“Ever since collectivist policy failures starting with the collapse of the Soviet empire, continuing with free market success stories in China and the U.S. of 1980s and 1990s, and culminating with the failure of european welfare states (PIIGS)”

Broletariat:
– All of this thought lacks real merit. You use the Soviet Empire as an example. The Soviet Empire never instituted democracy. In fact, their knowledge of the evils of capitalism drove them away from the idea that democracy could be a legitimate form of government. That was because the United States had been a poster-child for capitalism by this time, and consequently, democracy went along with it. I’ll agree that totalitarianism is right up there with the worst of ’em (I’m not sure if I hate Kim Jong Ill any less than I hate Muammar Gaddafi). But, it is not fair to judge their failure and attribute it to any sort of economic regulation. It is an extreme example where a small percentage of the population had almost complete control of the country’s wealth (much like the current US).

Again, Chinese “free market success” has only been attributed to the fact that their markets aren’t COMPLETELY controlled by the government, which is communist. Their development is the exact opposite of the United States’ so far. To say that China shows that capitalism, in the same sense as capitalism in the United States (which is what you’re trying to say, even if you don’t directly say it) is the preferred system, is just absurd. In China, the government already owns all the wealth, not huge corporations that put almost no money back into the economy or government, so when they get wealthy the government prospers, not the people. China is moving to a Hybrid Market, which is allowing the people of China to pull themselves up off the ground (they’re a loooong way from that too, by the way).

Failed European Welfare States. Hahahaha. You’re naming Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain. Portugal has no industry to speak of to even come close to having a means of production. Ireland was ravaged by famine and civil strife with Great Britain during the time of the Industrial Revolution, and all of their intellect migrated to the United States. Italy, Greece, and Spain all have, what I like to call, a “commodities” economy. They all rely on tourism and small agriculture. Sound like good examples to compare the United States with.

What I find ironic is that you don’t make mention of the socialist systems that are working, and have been for quite some time. Sweden, Germany, Canada, China (tehe), not to mention the EU as a whole, all have social market economies, and they all seem to be doing pretty well for themselves. And they all have a fairly large means of production… weird how that works?

American Patriot:
“as well as our pending financial collapse due to 53 trillion in unfunded obligations due to three progressive ideals – namely social security, medicare, and medicaid, the former Fabian socialists who pass themselves as progressives have been in search of a new strategy.”

Broletariat:
Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. Our 53 trillion dollars in “unfunded obligations” come from capitalism (Reagonomics) and capitalist imperialism (Oil Wars, most recently in Iraq). Fair Share?Those are the two main factors behind our nation’s debt. The progressive ideals that you are naming – social security, medicare, and medicaid – are in fact funded. They’re just failing because the American public’s tax dollars can’t afford it any longer, and Corporations that have all the money aren’t funding them with their taxes.


American Patriot:
“The new strategy that late 1970s gave birth to with likes of James Lovelock was environmentalism (which later evolved in to today’s green movement). The original movement was soon hijacked by likes of Dave Foreman and, later, Maurice Strong. Hope you are up on your environmentalists otherwise doing research on these fellows will keep you quite busy!”

Broletariat:
– So, wait. We should discount environmentalism because it was originally a socialist plot? So, we should keep destroying the rain forest in the name of free markets? We should keep raising the temperature of the ocean effectuating climate change in the name of consumerism and pollution? I’m not sure where you’re going with this? Are you actually denying the effects of globalization and capitalism on the environment? We should stray from saving the planet because it’s associated with socialism, and we should keep letting unchecked capitalism deprive the earth of resources. Hmmm…?

Also, James Lovelock is a huge proponent for nuclear energy, so what’s your beef with him?

American Patriot:
“Here is the idea:
Use the green agenda as a tool to effectuate social change. Google Van Jones speeches and watch them. Ask yourself why so many in the green movement are avowed Marxists like Van Jones.”

Broletariat:
– I would argue that they are Marxists because they also realize how corporations are exploiting resources under the guise of “free markets”. Why wouldn’t they agree with Marx?

American Patriot:
“There’s no greater social power than the power to ration – an insidious form of leverage over the public. And, other than rationing food (and healthcare), there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the enabler of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society like ours.”

Broletariat:
– I agree, but I don’t agree that it needs to be a form of leverage over the public; instead, it could be an enabler of democracy. You said yourself that it’s a great way to bring about social change? Why isn’t there a push for true democracy in this country? Why do we just assume that a Republic is the best option of government? We have the internet now. Why can’t we utilize the fact that everyone and their dog has internet anywhere they want it? Thank you cell phones. Why don’t we actually run our government according to what people want? If you told the American people that they get to vote on issues of government in every instance, rather than just electing some douche bag who’s going to get paid off by special interest groups as soon as he gets to Washington, I would argue that many people would be much more politically motivated. Then, instead of energy provisions controlling society, you have society controlling energy provisions. That would probably be too “idealistic” or “pragmatic”.

American Patriot:
“Control means power. As to how green initiatives would gradually transform to dependence on central government: the idea is impoverishing of people through policies that would render energy prohibitively expensive to use. With accompanying wealth destruction, human nature would take care of the rest – trading more and more of their liberties for more security in a vicious cycle until any semblance of free markets would eventually disappear.

Broletariat:
– Can you explain this to me further? I feel as though you are making huge, critical leaps in logic here. I understand the concept, but I’m not sure there is any impact to the dissemblance of free markets. The markets are already established? Would they just disappear? The government would come in and shut down all of the businesses? I don’t understand why you think government regulation of the economy is such a terrible idea. Moreover, even in our “free market” system, there is government intervention when it fails. Look at the bailouts. I’d love to hear your opinion on the bailouts of investment banks and the auto industry.

American Patriot:
“Look at the U.K. Prime example of the end result of such policies. I lived there 2 years. Poverty (compared to the U.S.) is stunning. Gas is near $10 per gallon. The government is now discussing energy rationing. Society is in disarray. If you like what you see there, you can defend the green movement all you like.
Don’t take my words, watch likes of Van Jones and Maurice Strong. Then, we can discuss this further.”

Broletariat:
– I don’t believe that you can attribute poverty in the UK to “such policies”. If you get to do that, then I’m just going to argue that poverty in the UK is attributed to a widening gap between the rich and the poor from a reliance on capitalistic ideals.

Gas being near $10 dollars a gallon in the UK has nothing to do with national energy policies. The UK doesn’t have nearly as much of a strangle-hold on foreign oil markets as the United States, or the means of production. The UK doesn’t have oil underneath it’s own land to the same extent as the United States. The UK doesn’t have stock piles of oil reserves that compare to the United States’. One day, oil will run out. It is a finite resource, and the United States uses most of it up. So it shouldn’t be surprising that citizens of European countries have to pay so much more for gas than the American public. In fact, you should be more mad at the United States’ lack of energy policies if you’re complaining about the price of gas in the UK. Soon, the United States’ gas prices will be over 5 dollars. In the US, that is astronomical. It’s not because the government is making it that price, it’s because the price that they are getting it for is increasing. I don’t believe you can’t make that connection.

In sum:
– You have confused so many things together in this response as a whole, it’s a bit much to respond to all of your points. I also want to point out that we were originally only showing you that your facts were completely wrong, and your conclusions misguided. However, you brought it to a-whole-nother realm. You assume so much in your argument, that there’s no way anyone could make sense of it rationally. I’m going to sum up the last four paragraphs into this. Environmentalist policies give too much control to the government, and that would snowball into dependence on a centralized government. You yourself are a proponent for a “Constitutional Republic”, correct? Isn’t that, in and of itself, centralized government? What’s funny, is that you are convinced that capitalism isn’t the reason we have strayed from the Constitution. If we didn’t regulate industries, starting with monopolies after the Industrial Revolution, the American public would have already had to exchange wages for securities, which you say is what they would have to do if the government gets too much power from economic regulation.

I think that is already happening, only it goes by another name. The American public is already trading liberties for security (ask teachers in Wisconsin). The credit system in our country makes everyone a slave to huge corporations, and huge corporations in turn have all the money. They make more political contributions to the media and politicians than 98% of the population could ever possibly make. In turn, they also run the government. Your beef is with centralized government, when really it should be with corporations. Corporations run the government, not the other way around. “Free Markets” encourage greediness, and greediness encourages corruption.

I would venture to guess that you place democracy pretty high on the list of importance when it comes to social philosophy, if not at the top. What you have confused, is that freedom and democracy are one in the same. They aren’t. In democracy, you aren’t free to do whatever you want, you are free to do whatever everyone else wants. The same should apply to our economic system. You are free to do whatever you want, as long as the general public isn’t being violated. That’s what capitalism and “free markets” allow. I suggest you look into what you value most, and then see what market strategy protects those values more. An economy that places society at the top or an economy that places capital at the top.

I don’t believe it is fair for you to confuse the two, and that’s why I disagree with all of your examples against “socialism” (if you are forcing me to tie the associated connotations in). In your examples, those “socialist” economies were either accompanied with civil strife, totalitarianism/communism, or corruption. I feel as though democracy is a check against all of those ills. If we had a true democracy in our country, not only would everyone want to be involved, because then their opinions would actually influence public policy, but there would be real accountability for the outcomes of the choices of the majority. A good example of this are businesses that are already being run completely democratically. The employees all own the business, and all share the profits of the company. What’s funny is that in these businesses, not only are the workers much happier, but they are much more productive as well, in turn making the business successful. Even more interesting, is the amount which some employee owned companies give back. (Here’s just one example, I’m sure you can do some research on your own as well.)

If this concept can work for a large business, why can’t it work for a nation as well? By the way, this is the only example of democracy and “socialism” working together in their truest forms. Your ignorance to just about everything blinds you from true progression. Instead, you for some reason would rather regress, return to an emphasis on the Constitution alone, and do it all over again. Well I’m sorry, American Patriot, it is your ignorance (which I don’t blame you for. You at least try to become informed, it’s just that you have no way of evaluating information on your own, evident in “Just Wondering…“) that limits your foresight, and contributes to the hindrance of this country’s evolution. Oh well, hopefully you can figure it out and join us in trying to bring about real change. Sorry this is so lengthy, but I prefer to actually share how I reach conclusions, rather than just make jumps in logic.

Posted in Blog Wars, politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Ignorance is Bliss… When Assessing Yourself

Posted on March 31, 2011 by acedizzle

not factose

If you tuned in to Comedy Central’s Roast of Donald Trump, you got to watch about 5 minutes of the most painful humor ever attempted. I speak of course of “The Situation.” Mike Sorrentino (I had to Google it, don’t go thinking I have any idea about his name) got up there and showed his incompetence in humor, and almost got booed off the stage. One might wonder, how do you fail so badly? How could he write those jokes ahead of time, look at his sheet of paper, and determine “Yes, these jokes are funny, I should go on television in front of potentially millions and say them?” With his fame (why he has fame is a subject for another day) he surely had the ability to check with someone who was aware of what is funny. If you actually saw it, you know that any dumbass could have told him that, but he has the resources to hire someone who has legitimate expertise. He obviously was confident in his ability to craft jokes, and as Darwin said “ignorance most frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” The Dunning-Kruger Effect explains what is happening.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect was theorized in 1999, by Justin Kruger and David Dunning in their article in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflate Self-Assessment reaches the conclusion that those without metacognitive skills grossly overestimate their abilities, and believe themselves to be far superior than in actuality. This is because although they reach an erroneous conclusion, their incompetence that led them to that conclusion destroys any chance of realizing an erroneous conclusion was reached. Oddly the first study conducted for the paper dealt directly with comedy and a group’s ability to judge whether something was funny/not funny. The more interesting studies concerned a group’s ability in logic and language, in which the skills to reach a logical conclusion, or write a grammatically correct sentence, are also skills needed to determine if a mistake has been made. I mean if a person couldn’t write good stuff good, then he wouldn’t know he wroted something bad (What the heck is this green underline thing?). People in the bottom quartile of the studies tended to overestimate their abilities by more than 50%, while the top quartile tended to underestimate their abilities, due to the false-consensus effect. This is the effect that people generally believe that they are “normal” and most people are like them. This is like the kid in class who gets angry when you ask a question, because it seems so simple to him/her and they can only wonder why don’t you get it? These top-quartile test people were also able to re-evaluate their predictions of scores after seeing the average scores, and their secondary analysis was much more calibrated once realizing that their peers were not as intelligent as they assumed. The paradox that the incompetent can gain knowledge that helps them recognize their failures, in turn making them more competent is an interesting realization. This was illustrated in a logic test where after the test had been taken and they had predicted their results, they were then given a ten minute lesson on logic and then asked to re-evaluate their predictions. After realizing their methods were stupid flawed, they were able to much more accurately assess their performance. As William Ian Miller was quoted in the paper “It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.” Stay with me, not much more about the article specifically. The last thing I found interesting is that people were much more capable of estimating the number of correct questions on a test, than estimating how their performance compared to the performance of their peers. The incompetent didn’t believe they were getting all of their answers right, but they assumed that others would be just as incompetent as themselves (they weren’t). I recommend reading the journal article, but I had to do a quick brush up on statistics for it, and I know how much people hate math.

Most people know someone who is incompetent in something, and so unaware of it that they might even think they are good at it (see 95% of white dancers). A funny little tidbit, a Google search’s auto-fill is Dunning Kruger… and Palin, with many articles citing the Dunning-Kruger Effect as the reason for her inability to recognize her lack of competence (along with the whole of the GOP). She doesn’t know what to call this new thing in Libya… “a war, an intervention, a squirmish1?” It makes sense though, because anyone can see that Sarah Palin really believes in what she says, no matter how irrational it is (I again cite Darwin’s quote). At some point in her academic career, someone must have given her negative feedback, but even if she received negative feedback, she must come to an accurate assessment of why that failure occurred in the first place. Most people would rather blame academic failure on bad luck or bad teachers, than attribute their failure to a lack of ability or effort. The ignorance of people is analogous to Anosognosia (Alliteration! Alliteration! …infinite loop crashes evil robot overlord!).

The most interesting part of the whole study is that the most intelligent of people underestimate their abilities, which is partly due to the aforementioned false-consensus effect. Truly though, it is because those people who really strive for more knowledge realize that no matter how much they know, there is much more they do not. Thomas Jefferson once said “He who knows best, knows how little he knows,” and my good friend DonnyBagg has also commented that “There is seemingly an inversely proportional relationship between how much you know and how much you think you know.” Isn’t that the truth (and great minds think alike!)? To those of you who have ever really started to explore something, you all know that the more you know about a subject, the more you realize that there is much more to learn to gain a full understanding. Everything you learn is but a foundation upon which to learn more, and the desire to learn more is infectious. Physicists start out learning about physics in general, but then start learning about every sub-science involved in physics, and every sub-science associated with those, and so on. Being intelligent is a constant quest for knowledge, and only those that have started on the journey understand this. Like Benjamin Franklin put it “An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.” Intelligent people are great debaters due to their ability to form logical arguments, and see the other person’s perspective2, but anyone knows that it’s risky debating with someone who is incompetent. Even Mark Twain, who was unquestionably a genius, said “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience (See Sean Hannity on The Sean Hannity Show).” This post is getting a little quote-heavy (it’s not over yet), but so many intelligent people spoke precisely about the subject. Unfortunately the ignorance of the masses is going to get worse before it gets better. Prior to the 24 hour news cycle, people read the news, analyzed what they read, and reached a logical conclusion about their feelings on the subject. Today pundits read the news, draw illogical conclusions in line with their stations views, and shout that conclusion into viewer’s ears (See Tracy Jordan on Sports Shouting).

Even they don’t believe the garbage they spew, Bill Sammons said “I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched.” The death of the written word/objective news is killing people’s ability to analyze what is happening and draw logical conclusions, and creating masses of ignorant people (but they are not lacking in confidence3). To be clear, I don’t think there weren’t ignorant people around (history, et al.) before the 24 hour news cycle, but they certainly aren’t helping. Back to Mr. Twain! He was obviously not a fan of the ignorant since he returned to the subject and said, “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” Samuel Clemens saw the Tea Party coming 98 years (minimum) before they showed up… move over Nostradamus.

Speaking of the Germans (Nostradamus was German4 right?)… Fremdschämen is a German word (Four years of German and this is the first time I’ve ever used anything I learned in it… Huzzah!) that we don’t really have in the English language5. Its basic definition is external shame, but it’s the word for the horror you feel when someone is oblivious to how embarrassing/ignorant they are being. That feeling of embarrassment you get in their place, even though their actions have no reflection on yourself, that’s Fremdschämen. The oblivious characters in The Ricky Gervais Show or The Office are so funny because of this feeling of external shame. It’s really just the body’s natural response when you shake it6 when you witness the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

I leave you the same way the authors of the article left their readers (summarized a little, but you get the point). Although I feel that I have done a competent job in my analysis of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, I’m left with a haunting worry that I may have used faulty logic, or poor communication. I assure you that to the extent that this post is imperfect, it is not a sin I have committed knowingly.

[1] I’d go with squirmish Mama Grizzly.
[2] Skill not possessed by the incompetent/ignorant.
[3] Out of 30 developed countries the US ranks 25th in Math and 21st in Science—but #1 in student confidence .
[4] He wasn’t.
[5] It’s laundry, but like a child’s laundry… If you get the reference I applaud you.
[6] I salute you Uncle Jack… with my one remaining hand.

Posted in comedy, philosophy, science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

DBDB Top 250 2: Judgment Day or Revenge of the Fallen

Posted on March 31, 2011 by DonnyBagg

Welcome to part two of my five part series on my top five favorite movies. Part two will be discussing the fourth favorite movie in my list of five favorite movies. In an attempt to stay true to the title of this blog, I would like to inform the audience (anyone who stumbled upon this website in search of a picture of ash ketchums face) that I use no form of a scale, rating system, or criteria of any kind to determine what makes it on the top five. I let my gut do the thinking and it makes 100% of the decisions in my stead, that way I know I am never wrong.

4. Pulp Fiction (Tarantino, 1994)

This was a relatively simple choice. Gangs of New York (Scorsese, 2002) is an amazing film but could be replaced quite easily with a handful of other films that are on just about the same level. We are now moving into the realm of undeniable greatness. I didn’t summarize my last film (which may have been a bit of an oversight) and I certainly don’t plan on summarizing Pulp Fiction. My logic being that a person who takes the time out of their day to read a movie review, especially one as obscure as this, will have already viewed Pulp Fiction numerous times. I also don’t want this article to be a repeat of my last article (but I have a feeling it will be) where I just suck the director and actors dick for a page and a half. You can just go ahead and assume that the writing, directing, and acting were all spectacular. Detractors of Tarantino (I am talking about the partially reasonable ones, not the pussies who think his movies are too bloody) will say that he steals much of his work from other directors and writers. There is no getting around that fact but I believe it can be significantly justified.

The title of Reservoir Dogs (Tarantino, 1992) is an in-joke based off the mispronunciation of Au Revoir les Enfants (Malle, 1987), the robbers code names are swiped from the original Taking of Pelham One Two Three (Sargent, 1974), the hit men’s iconic costumes in Pulp Fiction are actually originally from A Better Tomorrow II (Woo, 1987), Jackie Brown (Tarantino, 1997) has many clear associations to the blaxploitation film Foxy Brown (Hill, 1974) including Pam Grier being the titular star in both movies, Kill Bill (Tarantino, 2003) is just one massive conglomerate made up of parts taken from classic Kung Fu movies, and Inglourious Basterds (Tarantino, 2009) is loosely (I am using the term loosely loosely) based on The Inglorious Bastards (Castellari, 1978). He has also been accused of taking many ideas from his ex writing partner Roger Avary, but from what I have read, the accusations of plagiarism have never been substantiated and appear to be mostly just online gossip (when you little scamps get together, you’re worse than a sewing circle).

As far as his films go, you can look at it one of two ways: Quentin Tarantino can either be a Ned Holdis or a Gregg Gillis. Ned Holdis is the birth name of comedian (I am using the term comedian loosely) Carlos Mencia, who has stolen numerous jokes from more talented comics than himself and pawned them off as his own creation. Many struggling artists do not have time or resources to copywrite their material so these offenses go unpunished and Holdis makes obscene amounts of money. On the other hand, Gregg Gillis is the DJ more commonly known as Girl Talk, who mashes up hits from all genres and makes some of the most delightful music in the world. Many of the songs are heavily copywritten (that is a word, right?) and backed up by gigantic corporations with swarms of litigious lawyers and Gillis makes a pittance from tours around the world (right about now I am wondering, you should be too, what any of this has to do with Pulp Fiction being one of my favorite movies). My point being, Holdis takes from others for personal benefit because he lacks the talent to do it on his own while Gillis takes things he enjoys and puts them together in a unique and original way. Obviously, I see Tarantino as the latter. What he does, he does in honor of the other movies, not in an attempt to steal with the hope that no one notices.

But back to Pulp Fiction, I re-watched most of the film last night to confirm my suspicions and sure enough it is true. There is not one bad scene in the entire movie. Of all the outstanding characteristics, the dialogue stands out the most in my mind. The back and forth between characters rivals the incredible writing of Aaron Sorkin (and sounds much more natural too, nobody I have ever met talks at that pace in a normal conversation). The content manages to be poignant and memorable while simultaneously possessing the feel of an everyday discussion. His dialogue can most accurately be described, by a term I made up just now, as Tarantino-y (let’s try to top that). A style in which his newer films tend to suffer from, most notably Inglourious Basterds, where at certain points the dialogue becomes so esoteric it feels as though he is just trying to impress the viewers. Fortunately, Pulp Fiction finds that happy medium of Tarantino-y (they never did) dialogue that not only makes the film enjoyable to watch again and again but almost mandates it (I pretty much have Samuel L. Jackson’s apartment monologue memorized). So I give it an unheard of:

6 out of 5 signs on my lawn that say…well I am sure you know what they say.

P.S. for anybody who happens to be a big Ned Holdis fan (unlikely) and believe that we steal a bunch of our stuff from other people, then (for what I can only assume is the first time in your life) you are right. The website title is clearly a term coined on The Colbert Report and I personally use multiple lines lifted straight from Arrested Development and 30 Rock (so much so that as I write this article, I have a second browser opened to a google search where I type in part of a line and it auto-fills the rest to complete accuracy). We do this, however, because we are avid fans of these shows. In no way are we trying to claim this material as our own. Now I just need to figure out why the symbol from Ghost Busters (I. Reitman, 1984) is used in our heading. Was that a question or a statement? Well that certainly was a question.

Posted in movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Philosophizing

Posted on March 31, 2011 by broletariat

I’m thinking about all of this stuff, and I decided that I would share my framework of how I view the world. This may sound like babble, but there’s a reason for that. cheesechase

Anyway, I was thinking about how I view the world. I realized how selfish I am, which I blame on consumerism, and thought about how I only care about what’s immediately around me. But then I thought about it a little bit more, and I realized, that is all that matters, on a myopic level. I mean, there’s nothing more for me to evaluate. Sure, my opinions are changed by knowledge I have of other things in the world, but if it weren’t for what was immediately around me at any given time, it would all literally mean nothing to me… and that really made me think.

I truly believe that everything that is “real” is determinant on my perception of those “realities”. I wouldn’t know about anyone else’s reality, unless it was somehow brought to my attention. Therefore, it still holds true that no other reality exists except for the perception I have of my own reality. This applies to everyone. Your perception determines your constitution. Through popularity, there are universal truths in these perceptions, and this is why I hold democratic ideals in such high regard; the more widely accepted perception about a concept or opinion, the more “truth” there is to it (I say this because if you’re judging everything with the knowledge that reality is determinant on your perception, then there are no objective truths).

This taught me two things about myself. First, that literally whatever my perception is of any given thing, whether I found out about it on the news or saw it right next to me, then and only then is it brought it into reality. Secondly, that if I wanted, I could make anything true if I deemed it true. If I like something, or think it is important, I’m probably going to consider that “reality”. If I share it with my friends, or force it upon the people immediately around me (and those of you who know me know that I love to force my opinions on people), I can affect their perception of that thing as either important or worthless, simultaneously bringing it into their own “reality”.

If I extrapolate this theory to everyone outside of that, then that also means everyone’s reality is however they perceive it to be, and they impact however many people they share this miscellaneous item with. To influence them, you must give them a perception of whatever impact you want to have on them (I learned all of this from television. Mostly through advertising. Which I despise, don’t ya just hate commercials?). So now, try to take that in. The good news is that this theory means as long as you are valued in the popular opinion, you can make a lasting impact on the general public. Through these interpersonal transactions, only then are societal “realities” constructed.

This framework begs the question, do you actually care about anything that’s around you, that doesn’t directly benefit you? If something more important came up in your life, would your priorities change? Say you were a person in Africa who was near death, and the local doctor told you he was leaving to go help the people in Japan affected by the earthquake(s) and tsunami (and nuclear disaster that the government is mishandling), how would your perception of the incident in Japan be? How you experience something is going to evoke an emotional reaction, on whatever the level. Those emotional reactions determine how you react. Say because the doctor left to Japan, you somehow found another doctor, you might be a little more sympathetic towards the people of Japan. Say you couldn’t find another doctor; would you care about Japan any more? Also, notice that I chose to look for another doctor right away. Basic survival instincts.

I only care about myself, and when it comes down to it, I am the most important person in any given environment. But if I acted on that basic understanding, I would wear Tap Out shirts and flex-fit hats. Regardless, the basic understanding, that I’m number one, reaffirms that I have a basic instinct for survival. So before anything, I must have that understanding, and so must everyone in the world; so when you think about any other person, you also know their most fundamental needs (and should give you some insight into their opinions). I’m putting this first, because as long as you realize that you only have to be selfish when you need something for your survival, determines your next basic understanding:

The next thing to evaluate is how to survive. Everything that affects my life is how I survive. By the goods, services, and transactions I have in my every day life, like food, water, etc., the next most important facet of life to assess is the system that makes all of that possible: economics. Therefore, right after your basic survival instincts comes your economic paradigm. Really, the only two pragmatic paradigms currently are between capitalism and socialism. Socialism, which is just now being instituted in it’s most democratic sense in the EU, versus the unchecked capitalism that is ruining our country :S.

After you determine how you evaluate economics, everything in the social realm can be evaluated. How we help, or ignore, our fellow members of society stems from our paradigm for the economy. Socialism clearly emphasizes societal progression, whereas capitalism emphasizes personal capital.

So:

1. Realizing that reality only comes into existence from your immediate surroundings, and your opinions/perception of everything that has ever affected you, allows you to make moral decisions about everything thereafter. It serves more as a foundation for viewing everything else. After I realized exactly what I meant (I originally thought of dubbing it “perceptual reality”), I found out that this is actually called phenomenology.

2. Your view of economics, or your means of survival, precedes any social views you may implore. This is due to the fact that your basic instinct to survive, and help the people important to you (hopefully), is such a critical and fundamental instinct that is innate in every living creature.

3. Your political, social, and cultural views are a large reflection of the type of economy you agree with. I would argue that people who urge for capitalism are selfish people, mostly due to the quickness that capitalists are to implore that it is not anyone’s right to “take my money”. Capitalists, that care more about the individual, are less likely to be advocates of civil liberty issues, government regulation, and social programs, like welfare (because of taxes). Socialists emphasize holistic progression, and are probably more likely to advocate equality, taxation, and democracy.

You may be wondering if my foundation for this framework, “phenomenology”, contradicts my emphasis on social progression, because after all, your immediate surroundings should constitute your evaluation of the world (the thought that the only reality is based on your personal perception is seemingly selfish in itself). But I don’t believe “phenomenology” and altruism are mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe guilt and your conscious should be a check against selfishness, and should, at some level, affect your perception and stream of consciousness about your immediate surroundings.

This is all really hard to articulate in one post, so this will be a work in progress, and will probably be constantly evolving. I hope that I get some feedback on this.

Posted in philosophy, politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

1,2,3,4, We declare a blog war.

Posted on March 30, 2011 by broletariat

American Patriot, you are so versed in your opinions that we feel the need to encourage a healthy debate about pretty much everything you’ve posted on your blog. We feel that if we elicit a response from you, we’ll be able to learn from our discussions.

Wait… we just know we’ll look 1,000 times smarter than you because you are completely misinformed and have no idea how to analyze information, much less formulate a logical, reasonable argument. You are the sole reason that this country is spinning in shit-water. Let’s start with this post: Just wonderin’…. I’m fairly certain that factoseintolerant‘s comment about sums it up. I dare you to respond. Feel free to comment/respond to any of our posts. We would love to hear more of your opinions.

In the words of Kesha: Grow a Pear.

American Patriot

American Patriot

Everyone who reads this should visit this ralph-spewing moron’s blog and berate everything he says.

Posted in Blog Wars, comedy | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Water on the Brain

Posted on March 30, 2011 by Benn Gleck

No, I do not have hydrocephalus; I am just thinking about one of life’s all-too-overlooked necessities – water.  Two Hydrogen molecules tethered to one Oxygen molecule is what drives the existence of life on Earth. Water allows plants to grow and animals (humans not exempted) to live. Water is what we wash ourselves with, wash our clothes with, and wash our cars with. Water is the standard for the search of life on other planets.  Perhaps, even more importantly, water is what we use to dissolve those Alka-seltzer tablets after a night of drinking.  What alarms me is that water is also fast becoming the new commodity that is filling the coffers of those in positions to either usurp its availability, or hoard it for its potential profitability.  I’m talking about water privatization, along with the wholesale profiteering of water, and it alarms me. It should alarm you, as well.

bottled water en masse

Thinking back to yesteryear (a word not red-flagged by my spell check), I do not recall walking into a grocery store or drug store and seeing an entire section for bottled and jugged water.  Nowadays, one of the first things a customer is confronted with is a giant cache of water-for-profit. Many times these heaps of containers are individually priced at rates 1,000 times higher than tap water, and many times, they are within arm’s reach of a free water fountain.  But what if that water fountain was not there, or it was coin operated?  What if in turning the faucet on at home, you were met by discolored, non-potable water?  What if in turning that very same faucet on at home, you were met by water that, if touched off by a match, could explode into flame?

flame water

Well, that last scenario is not an over the top, far-fetched, hypothetical one, it is actually happening in the United States as a possible side effect of a process known as ‘fracking.‘ Many who are reading this may have seen this topic covered in more depth in the Oscar nominated documentary, Gasland. While government officials in Colorado (which is not the only place this is happening) have ‘partially explained‘ this coincidence – that supposedly involves natural methane emissions – these events at the very least lend to the vulnerability of our water supply. ‘Fracking,’ however, is not the only issue at play here. According to the EPA, only 40% of our surveyed bodies of fresh water are suitable for swimming and fishing due to water pollution. In Texas, billionaire, and the United States’ largest landowner, T. Boone Pickens, has turned his focus from oil to water by investing more than $100,000,000 USD in water rights dealing with the Ogallala aquifer (which provides water to eight states, including NE, SD, WY, CO, KS, OK, NM, and TX).  Which, by taking advantage of lax Texan water laws, allows Pickens to corner one of the World’s largest reserves of fresh water.  Because of occurrences such as  ‘fracking,’ wanton water pollution, and billionaires buying it all up, I believe, water has become a commodity, to be bought and sold for profit.  What helps these water barons out the most is the fact that we are running out of it, and we all know the laws of supply and demand.

pickens

Water is a basic necessity of life, and as such, should be made available at a reasonable cost to all. Instead, under the guise of increased quality and availability of water, water is being gathered and distributed by private organizations in countries around the world. It becomes easy to see where this trend is heading in America, and all we have to do is look at some other examples of water privatization and its effects to see why this is a bad thing.  In Casablanca, Morocco, the per unit price of water became 300% of what is was prior to privatization.  In France, the story is the same with consumers paying 150% of non-privatized fees.  Monsanto corporation expected to make 63 million dollars from the sale of water to the people of India and Mexico in 2008, where privatization has replaced municipality.  Back in the days of its discovery, oil was, and is still, referred to as ‘black gold,’ and water is quickly becoming ‘blue oil.’

“Governments around the world must act now to declare water a fundamental human right and prevent efforts to privatize, export, and sell for profit a substance essential to all life. Research has shown that selling water on the open market only delivers it to wealthy cities and individuals. The finite sources of freshwater (less than one half of one per cent of the world’s total water stock) are being diverted, depleted, and polluted so fast that, by the year 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population will be living in a state of serious water deprivation.”

–Maude Barlow, chair of the Council of Canadians

The next time you stop to stoop over a water fountain, think about what you are doing and what you used to take for granted.  Water is the source of life on Earth, and should be protected from profitability at the expense of its  reasonable availability. Support your municipal utilities if you have them, and oppose those who want to take away your affordable sources of water by monopolizing it under the banner of profit.  If nothing is done to stop the forces of planned drought, such as T. Boone Pickens, or water-hoarding companies such as Monsanto, the invitations for the next dinner party you receive may read “BYO H2O.”

For more information on the implications of water privatization, or just the topic in general click here, here, and here.
Posted in politics, science | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

OMFG: Squirrels!

Posted on March 30, 2011 by michaelkeaton

I don’t know if Squirrels being the highpoint of my day means I’ve had a lackluster day, or if (in fact) these squirrels are actually awesome. So I submit this story for your consideration.

After class today I was minding my own business, casually walking back home. I happened upon two squirrels vigorously chasing each other around a tree. They must have done 3 or 4 laps before they caught my eye. I’d like to think that one stole nuts from the other, but I have no idea what the beef actually was, probably has something to do with sex.

Anyhow. They continued their radial race round the tree until one caught the other. Then they both instantly dropped from the tree and the race began anew. They were sporadically darting around on the ground, eventually making their way out onto the street where an oncoming car tried to slow down, but not soon enough. One of the squirrels disappeared under the vehicle; the other was not as fortunate. The car’s bumper propelled this squirrel forward. It tumbled into a sort of air-log roll with brief intermissions to hit the ground and bounce back up.

At this moment the driver and I locked eyes. We both shared suspended disbelief and shit eating grins. Not knowing what to do with the driver’s attention, I thoughtlessly pointed at the now aviating squirrel while the driver slowly drove over it. When the car had passed both squirrels abruptly sprinted back up the tree and went back at it like the whole thing never happened.

If this story didn’t amuse you, maybe this will tickle you fancy:


Posted in comedy | Tagged | Leave a comment

DBDB Top 250 or 5 Simple Movies to Watching my Teenage Daughter

Posted on March 28, 2011 by DonnyBagg

So the title is a bit of a stretch (and creepy), right? I was in trouble like three words into that. I would just like to preface this article by stating that this list is not what I consider to be the five best movies ever made it is simply the five movies that I enjoy watching the most at this time. Each film contains a number of redeeming qualities but like all movies they are not without their flaws (that I will gloss over, if not completely leave out). That being said, if you disagree with any movie on this list, you are completely wrong and know nothing about movies, please go fuck yourself.

5. Gangs of New York (Scorsese, 2002)

Most of these picks were tough calls but this may have been the toughest. Scorsese has made so many outstanding films choosing one just seems unfair. I have watched at least 14 of his films and at least three could have made it on this list. People consider his early films monumental in cinematic history and inspire many contemporary directors to produce their own modern day greatness. Although I myself enjoy watching classic films and think there is a great deal to be gained from their viewing, the advances made in cinema throughout the years make it almost impossible for me to enjoy watching them as much as newer films. Let’s face it; blood just seems bloodier in the past ten year. Setting aside his classics, the real choice comes down to Gangs of New York and The Departed (Scorsese, 2006). Gangs of New York wins because it was one of the first true films I had watched in my life that I was able to appreciate. It completely changed my perspective on what a good movie could be. Gangs of New York set the standard in which good movies would be judged against for the rest of my life and to this day has been outshined by very few. The Departed may very well be the more enjoyable of the two. Even having watched Infernal Affairs (Lau, 2002) before The Departed was made, the story is still one of the most intriguing and compelling ever written. It has an equally outstanding cast; Vera Farmiga clearly trumps Cameron Diaz, Jack Nicholson puts up a valiant fight but its tough to top Daniel Day-Lewis, and Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, and Alec Baldwin all knock it out of the park, Fenway Park if I am not mistaken (and to gather that information involved multiple google searches and fact checking with my associates just to get right).

But back to Gangs of New York, Daniel Day-Lewis produces the greatest villain of all time (perhaps a bit of a hyperbole); an illiterate psychotic cleaver-wielding xenophobic gangster, the very best combo. The dialogue he was given makes up a fair amount of my favorite quotes and add to that the hatred in which Day-Lewis spews forth each line it is easy to see why they gave him the best actor Oscar that year (wait never mind, they gave it to Adrian Brody for his performance in Splice (Natali, 2009) or Predators (Antal, 2010) or whatever). It was also released at a point in time where I had only known Leonardo DiCaprio from Titanic (Cameron, 1997), Romeo + Juliet (Luhrmann, 1996), and The Man in the Iron Mask (Wallace, 1998) so I automatically assumed he was a shitty actor fortunately enough this film came out and permanently put him back in my good graces. Does anyone remember when John C. Reilly was a dramatic actor? I do. In 2002, he had parts in three of the five best picture nominations, which has to be some sort of record. His best dramatic performance would have to be in Magnolia (Anderson, 1999) but to be honest he stands out much more in comedies (completely salvaged Cedar Rapids (Arteta, 2011) for me). Cameron Diaz performs well-enough to not damage the work but could easily be replaced with a score of other actresses. Honorable mentions go out to Brendan Gleeson, Liam Neeson, and Jim Broadbent who all contribute great performances as well.

I am not sure what it is, but Gangs of New York is just one of those films that I could watch over and over again and keep on enjoying. There are many great movies out there with equally great attributes but Gangs of New York has a certain quality that sets it above the rest. For example, There Will Be Blood (Anderson, 2007) possesses many of the same characteristics; amazing acting, directing, writing, and characters (including a similarly amazing Daniel Day-Lewis performance) but I would never consider putting it on my top 5 because to be honest it is just not as enjoyable of a movie to watch. I don’t know if that makes it a better or worse film (probably better) but I have watched it twice in four years and most likely won’t watch it again for some time. This paragraph really doesn’t add much to the article, I just hope it helps the readers (robot overlords) understand what I take into consideration when I choose my top 5. I like the story, characters, acting, directing, and dialogue; Gangs of New York is an all around great film. I have nothing more to add. So I give it an obvious:

5 out of 5 notches on Brendan Gleeson’s shillelagh

That took me for fucking ever to write, and went on far too long so I will be breaking this down into 5 separate articles published every few weeks or days or whatever. If you read all the way to the end of this article and disagree completely with what I have to say and believe that Citizen Cane (Welles, 1941), The Godfather (Coppola, 1972), Seven Samurai (Kurosawa, 1954), 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963), and Casablanca (Curtiz, 1942) are the best five films ever made then not only did you miss the point, but I urge you to stop reading because it is only going to get worse from here (Vanilla Sky (Crowe, 2001) made the list) and I would like to reiterate that at any point in time you are free to go fuck yourself. Do I end all of my articles with a question? Yes.

Posted in movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment