Tags: politics

wall-e farewell

Jam on It, Mr. President

Superman had come to town to see who he could rock.
He blew away every crew he faced until he reached the block.
His speakers were three stories high with woofers made of steel.
And when brought our set outside, he said "I boom for real."

He said, "I'm faster than a speedin' bullet when I'm on the set.
I don't need no fans to cool my ass, I just use my super breath.
I could fly three times around the world without missin' a beat.
I socialize with X-ray eyes, and ladies think it's sweet."

And then he turned his power on and the ground began to move.
And all the buildings for miles around were swayin' to the groove.
And just when he had fooled the crowd and swore he won the fight.
We rocked his butt with a 12 inch cut called "Disco Kryptonite."

Well, Superman looked up at me, he said, "You rock so naturally"
I said, "Now that you've learned to deal, let me tell you why I'm so for real
I'm Prez O.B. from outer space, I came to rock the human race.
I do it right 'cause I can't do it wrong,
That's why the whole world is singin' this song..."
(Apologies to Newcleus)


From liz_marcs:
In an upcoming interview with Katie Couric to be aired this week, Sarah Palin is unable to name any Supreme Court Case other than Roe v. Wade.

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic, to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) FListers, please take the meme to your ElJay to spread the fun.

This is probably one of the most famous Supreme Court cases, if only because you can see its effects every evening on TNT or USA: In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court mandated that no one who watches prime-time police procedurals would be unaware of their rights (to remain silent, to have an attorney present... etc.) when accused of a crime.

Edit: Having just watched the interview, I noticed that Couric asks if there are any Supreme Court decisions that Palin can name that she disagrees with other than Roe v. Wade. The one off the top of my head is probably one that she and I differ considerably on: Bush v. Gore, but one that most people would agree upon is Plessy v. Ferguson.
wall-e farewell

In which I get political...

You should probably skip reading this post.

I don't usually discuss politics, especially when nowadays most verbalized political opinions amount to "you're [sic] candidate sux [sic]" and "if I wasn't [sic] typing away at this keyboard, Id [sic] cum [sic] over their [sic] and punch you in the face, cuz [sic] your [sic] stupid."

This 20-minute presentation from Lawrence Lessig (transcript here), however, has illuminated some of my chief objections to the way candidates in general have run political campaigns in modern times. Collapse )

I don't really have any misconceptions that a single blog-post with links to a quasi-famous law professor is really going to change anybody's mind about who they're should or should not vote for, but I thought the link was effective enough in its presentation to pass it on.

It bears repeating

Yesterday, Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Firefly, and the writer behind Toy Story and Astonishing X-Men, posted a long treatise on how the various societies and cultures throughout the world treat women. The subject is disturbing to say the least, and it may make you cry or recoil in horror simply from reading its description.

But it's one of those things that everyone, no matter their sense of propriety, should think about.

Because it took me a few tries yesterday to pull up the post, and because I've seen various people comment that they haven't seen or couldn't load the post, I'm going to reproduce the entire thing here (Go straight to the post, however, for some discussion about it). Collapse )

Science and the Boing Boing economy

Cory Doctorow, writer, technologist and blogger-proprietor of Boingboing.net was recently interviewed by US News and World Report about the projected downturn in American productivity. His suggestions about what we should do to turn the economy around in the long term resonate pretty well with me, given that I, myself, am something of a technology buff.

A while ago a link came up on Digg.com about a biotech company in Singapore that was able to create human embryonic stem cells without introducing living non-human tissue. In the discussion that followed, two comments stood out to me: "are we losing to Singapore?" and "How is medical advancement about winning or losing?" I've posted about the general American distrust of science previously, where I included the following quote, which I think sums up why medical advancement is about winning and losing:
Jobs and wages depend on science and technology. If our nation can't manufacture, at high quality and low price, products people want to buy, then industries will continue to drift away and transfer a little more prosperity to other parts of the world.
--Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
Our ignorant politics and corporate salad-tossing are eroding our competitive edge against the rapidly-modernizing third world. With the advent of the internet, countries like China and India, countries that value science as a discipline are overtaking American industries. With idiotic laws and copyright policies, the government is (at times, literally) handcuffing software companies with novel products, such as Napster. The kowtowing we do to the RIAA and MPAA will prevent companies like Last.fm and Pandora from seeing their innovative software to a profit. And the president's close-minded veto of government-funded stem cell research will only make for profits for cures created in other parts of the world.

We are shackled to our old ways--we are far too scared, too dumb to change our cars, our business models, our minds. The technology that American ingenuity has created will only bring us so far--if we're unwilling to continue to learn, to stay on the bleeding edge, then we will, as the commenter on Digg stated, "[lose] to Singapore" and all the other developing countries of the world.