Soriority's are shallow? Vain? Yer shittin' me.

Mendacious

Sure are a lot of words in the English language that mean falsifying or lying. This from the osx thesaurus entry for mendacious.

Mmmmmmm

It sounds almost exactly how I make them, but I just got really hungry reading this great description of breakfast burritos...

Changing Your Mind

OB, from ButterfliesAndWheels:

I was thinking earlier today about religion as a meme, and the familiar point that (as Steven Weinberg summarizes it in the TLS) 'the persistence of belief in a particular religion is naturally aided if that religion teaches that God punishes disbelief.' I was thinking about the fact that what that means is that religions that do teach that are a racket, in a quite literal sense. A racket, and also circular. 'Believe in this god because it will punish you if you don't.' 'But why should I believe that?' 'Because it will punish you if you don't.' 'Yes but why should I believe that it's this god that will punish me, what if it's actually a different one that will punish me for believing this one?' 'Because this one will punish you if you believe that.' And so on. That's one of the problems with Pascal's flutter, of course. So anyway, it's circular, and a racket. And it's a very nasty racket at that - one of the nastiest that could be imagined.

Why? Because it systematically and deliberately disables one of the core human abilities: flexibility: the ability to change our minds.

(via Dawkins)

Lieberloop

Glenn Greenwald eviscerates Lieberman on yet another "This Time's Different" op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:

On what conceivable basis is Joe Lieberman accorded even the most minimal respect or credibility? He is obviously a person who will say anything at any time in order to defend this war, and, now that everything he said in the past is revealed to be completely false, he does not have even an iota of integrity or honesty to admit any of that. Instead, he stands up and pretends that he never said any of those things -- he actually pretends that he knew all along that our military strategy was wrong -- and simply makes the same promises and commitments as he has been making all along with a sense of entitlement that he has credibility on these matters and should be listened to.

[...]

George Bush was re-elected, and Americans tolerated the occupation of Iraq long after it was clear that things had gone terribly awry, because the Joe Liebermans in our country continuously lied about what was taking place there, falsely assuring Americans that things were going well, that we were on the precipice of success, that the press accounts of the violence and chaos there were fiction and were merely the by-product of a politically biased media seeking to embarrass the President by concealing the great progress we were making -- progress which Lieberman insisted he witnessed himself during his visit.

Prince Pickles

Japan's new army mascot is called Prince Pickles:

“Prince Pickles is our image character because he’s very endearing, which is what Japan’s military stands for,” said Defense Ministry official Shotaro Yanagi. “He’s our mascot and appears in our pamphlets and stationery.”

The Metropolitan Police Department tries to lighten its stern image with Peopo, which looks like a cross between a rabbit and a space trooper.

Next

Here's my what-to-investigate-now list, as written down during the Oscars...

Alan Arkin films
Pan's Labyrinth
Dom DeLuise films
John Candy films
older Randy Newman albums
older Robert Palmer albums
Walter Mathau
Bosom Buddies
Children of Men
[Borat, The Departed, Little Children, Marie Antoinette]
Milena Canonera (costume designer from Marie Antoinette)
The Accused
The China Syndrome
Guillermo Del Toro
Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (w/ Sophia Loren)
Life is Beautiful
The Lives of Others (winning foreign language film last night from Germany)

Harmless Whip Scorpion

Harmless Whip Scorpion, originally uploaded by BenDownLow.

The finest whip scorpion pic I've seen yet...

Hat Tip to NY1

NY1 is so great. After my complaint email the other day about their parroting of the NY Post story touting a "push poll" that says "Americans Want Victory' or some shit like that, NY1's Steve Paulus wrote me back with another thoughtful, personal response...

Hello,

Thanks for the feedback. Your point about the Post "poll" was raised in
our newsroom before we read your email. We have to be careful to
ALWAYS examine the source of any story.

Thanks again,

Steve Paulus
General Manager, NY1

A class act, that station.

Puretracks Reminder

Must remember to check back with Puretracks in a few weeks...Sounds good.

Other Music has promised to roll out an MP3 store soon, too, and that would be a blast. I like a lot about Other Music, but actually going there is not one of those things.

I Hope I Never

I hope that I never have the occasion to write these words when I'm introducing my own new book:

My friends Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been gracious enough to write the foreword and introduction...

From TomDelay.com.

Media Matters on Push Poll

Media Matters has more on the flawed GOP poll that the NY Post used as the basis to their cover article "America Says Let's Win War," which I wrote about yesterday.

An animated GIF masterpiece. Diddy and Bjork on the phone.

(Via, BoingBoing, who a) has more info, and b) says its been around a while)

Face the NY Post With Skepticism

I write to NY1 again:

I know that the (marvelous) In the Papers segment is just a light-hearted survey of what's going on in the papers, but I had to point out that this morning the NY Post suckered you into coverage of what it called a "poll." It was the front page story "FINISH THE JOB," leading to this story.

But a very cursory glance at the odd story, which runs contrary to all other recent polling, reveals the reason. The "poll" was done by a Republican strategy firm called Public Opinion Strategies, who doesn't even pretend to hide their intentions. From their website, http://www.pos.org/ :

"About half of our research is dedicated to winning elections."

...and on their About Us page they write that they are not "a passive participant that simply produces numbers."

The story here is not about American public opinion, as (the honorable) Pat reported it this morning, but rather that the NY Post is reporting a Republican PR firm's work as public poll. That is unethical.

I really don't care what the Post does. But I do care how it gets covered.

NY Post Reports False Poll

The NY Post is so depressed, they're not even trying. Public opinion is moving away from their false stories, and so they're not even pretending that their stories have any rational basis.

They have a front page story today that reads "Finish The Job." The article begins:

February 21, 2007 -- In a dramatic finding, a new poll shows a solid majority of Americans still wants to win the war in Iraq - and keep U.S. troops there until the Baghdad government can take over.

Strong majorities also say victory is vital to the War on Terror and that Americans should support President Bush even if they have concerns about the way the war is being handled, according to the survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies.

The poll found that 57 percent of Americans supported "finishing the job in Iraq" - keeping U.S. troops there until the Iraqis can provide security on their own. Forty-one percent disagreed.

The article is packed with clearly non-neutral language from the poll.

Despite last November's electoral victories by anti-war Democrats, the survey found little support among voters for a quick pullout of U.S. forces.

Only 25 percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement, "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home." Seventy-four percent disagreed.

Two of the other options also present talking points.

The next most popular policy, favored by 27 percent, was expressed by the statement: "The Iraq war is the front line in the battle against terrorism and our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to the country."

The fourth option, favored by 23 percent, was the statement: "While I don't agree that the U.S. should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and restore security to their country."

This is what's known as a Push Poll. The results are not important (despite the Post's treatment of this as an actual poll, and, sadly, my dear friend Pat Kiernan from NY1 reporting this as "news") - what's important is the message communicated through the "options." The range of options does not properly represent th range of possible opinions. It is skewed towards a certain viewpoint.

But most importantly, who is this polling group called Public Opinion Strategies? Strategies? From their website:

About half of our research is dedicated to winning elections. Our political client base includes 18 U.S. Senators, eight Governors, fifty-four Members of Congress, and numerous state legislative caucuses. The other half of our work is involved in complex public policy battles, working with industry coalitions, government entities and private companies. This work extends to corporate image, community relations, and crisis management research for local companies, Fortune 500 corporations and industry associations throughout the country.

Your goal is political, then why the fuck could this poll possibly be covered as news?

Hilariously enough, their About Us page writes this:

Here's who we are not: a passive participant that simply produces numbers.

* We are strategic partners.
* We use data to make decisions.
* We don't hesitate to have an opinion, make a judgment, and then live or die by the results.

My friends, that is what a poll IS: "a passive participant that simply produces numbers."

And secondly, regarding that final bullet point - how'd that election work out for ya? Does the "dying" by the result start soon? Are your clients satisfied with your advice during the last election?

Diceman Recometh

Ken Levine:

ICE UNDISPUTED – Premiering March 4th, VH-1 unveils a reality show following Andrew Dice Clay around. If a show I pitched to VH-1 was rejected and I read that they picked up an Andrew Dice Clay series I think I’d kill myself.

Always Helpful

Kotaku posted a set of pictures (actually, from a Something Awful forum) related to the question of how much overlay interface is too much. On the above photo, i heartily enjoyed Luke Plunkett's comment:

More games need ninja meters. Actually, all games need ninja meters.

Been a while since I've posted a good old chelicerate. And, to kill a couple of birds, this one's from another beautiful post from BibliOdyssey.

How Can You Have Commitment If You Don't Eat Your Faith?

Seemingly remarkable article at Time.com called "The Religious Right's Era Is Over." He writes:

Evangelicals — especially the new generation of pastors and young people — are deserting the Religious Right in droves. The evangelical social agenda is now much broader and deeper, engaging issues like poverty and economic justice, global warming, HIV/AIDS, sex trafficking, genocide in Darfur and the ethics of the war in Iraq. Catholics are returning to their social teaching; mainline Protestants are asserting their faith more aggressively; a new generation of young black and Latino pastors are putting the focus on social justice; a Jewish renewal movement and more moderate Islam are also growing; and a whole new denomination has emerged, which might be called the "spiritual but not religious."

But the author, Jim Wallis, never passes up an opporunity to point out that the only thing worse than the Religious Right would be an atheist:

Most people I talk to think that politics isn't working in America and believe that the misuse of religion has been part of the problem. Politics is failing to resolve the big moral issues of our time, or even to seriously address them. And religion has too often been used as a wedge to divide people, rather than as a bridge to bring us together on those most critical questions. I believe (and many people I talk with agree) that politics could and should begin to really deal with the many crises we face. Whenever that happens, social movements often begin to emerge, usually focused on key moral issues. The best social movements always have spiritual foundations, because real change comes with the energy, commitment and hope that powerful faith and spirituality can bring.

(My emphasis)

The way I read that paragraph, it goes like this: Politics can't do, it, and "the misuse of religion" is part of the problem. Again, politics is failing, and religion is too often a wedge. But politics should face these issues. At that point, social movements start. And the only effective social movements will have "faith and spirituality" at their core. How in God's Name does that follow?

This a prime example of what Glenn Greenwald calls "desire (masquerading as belief)."

He then goes on to list a few social movements that he implies would never have succeeded without their religion to provide the "commitment and hope," like the abolition of slavery in the US and Britain, the civil rights movement in the US, the overthrow of communism in Europe, democracies in Latin America, the end of apartheid in South Africa,

...how the Dalai Lama keeps hope alive for millions of Tibetans; and, today, how the growing Evangelical and Pentecostal churches of the global South are mobilizing to addresse the injustices of globalization.

What about the good ol' Prohibitionists? Or the Pro-Life movement? They sure have committment. Hell, is this category just "attempts to transform society that have been faith-based?" There are plenty you could pull out and add to Wallis's list that makes the whole "social reform needs religion" thing sound quite equivocal.

The scientific community is largely atheist. Are you saying they have no commitment? No hope? Or is it just that ol' Hitler-y thing where they have the power but not the responsibility?

Wallis's whole point actually seems more susceptible to this criticism ("robots have no ethics") often leveled at scientists. He wants to get the religion machine going, fire it up and start the flame burning for "commitment" (and, in the case of Protestants, "aggression"), but feels that in the past this faith-based commitment got, um, too hot? So just don't run the machine too strong.

History shows that no one - not even Buddhism - can keep the religion machine from runing too hot.

Seems to me that a greater problem than lack of commitment is over-commitment. Witness the US political world right now. It is not for lack of trying that the progressive movement has not been able to avoid the attack on Iraq and keep the government accountable. But there are forces like Bush saying God told him to attack Iraq that yes, perhaps, carry even MORE "commitment." But that level of commitment has another name, and religion generally gets credit for the most ability to inspire it: fanatacism.

I do like to believe the suggestion in the article, that many folks (and there are MANY) who think of themselves as religious, are feeling that their religion is being given a "bad name" and want to reclaim it. Go for it. Christianity is Love. I'll enjoy watching the purging of religious hypocrisy from within in this country.

Rep. Tim Ryan Rocks It!

Go, Tim!