Ad Dishin': Super!

And here are my favorite Super Bowl commercials (and no i don't care if this is "so old;" i like to have things in their right and proper places)

I adore Alec Baldwin and I think Hulu's ad "Alec in Huluwood" might've been my favorite...mostly because of Alec (i'd probably even watch The Shadow again just for him, though young thin Alec somehow less appealing)
From Careerbuilder.com "Tips" (I feel like the woman in the car at least twice a week)


I just thought this Monster.com ad "Need a New Job?" was so simple and so well done (the name of the commercial, however, might be a little too simple and generic? isn't the whole point of your company people "need[ing] a new job?"


I liked the Teleflora (I company I had never even heard of so, good job actually using tha 3 million dollars for good) "Talking Flowers" because it reminded me of Harry Potter and his Howler mail, plus that line "no one wants to see you naked" was just mondo killer. and yes I'm trying to bring back the word "mondo"


Cars.com's"David Abernathy" i really liked a lot, except for the end when I guess the commercial actually had to advertise something; i was just kind of hoping it would go on telling about his life. I'd watch that movie...or at least the extended trailer


and finally Coke's "Heist" i just thought was really pretty and cute and almost imaginative (the deal was sealed when the butterflies, fluttered by.) Plus it reminds me that spring is actually coming...I hate winter, or at least winter in large doses

ahhh, awww, ahh; that made me happy.

Ones I didn't like? Those e-trade babies are really over now, and anything where guys were getting hit with bowling balls and other random stuff (like buses) though I have to admit I laughed at this Doritos commercial, but can you blame me? I mean football in the groin had football in the groin.
But one commerical i absolutely detested to my core and made me vomit a little in my mouth was the Pepsi commercial that seemed to connect, and imply that Will.i.Am. [not] is this generation's Bob Dylan. And I know I hate Will.i.am. but he manages to ruin everything he touches, in my eyes and it sudddenly becomes anathema to me but also intellectually the ad is disingenuoius though you don't have to listen to me (though you should, in all things) the New York Times said so too (but more, y'know, factually)

A commercial by TBWA/Chiat/Day, featuring Mr. Dylan and Will.i.am, rewrites history by presenting Pepsi-Cola as the choice of peaceniks, hippies and other youthful rebels. In reality, the Pepsi-Cola parent, PepsiCo, was led at the time by Donald Kendall, a friend of Richard M. Nixon’s, and the soft drink was considered the Republican soda.

In conclusion, drink more Coke (or actually, just drink more water; all that high fructose corn syrup and other junk isn't good for you.)

Sphere: Related Content

God Made Dirt

and dirt don't hurt. And now it's been scientifically proven

From the New York Times

"...indeed, accumulating evidence strongly suggests that eating dirt is good for you.In studies of what is called the hygiene hypothesis, researchers are concluding that organisms like the millions of bacteria, viruses and especially worms that enter the body along with “dirt” spur the development of a healthy immune system.

“What a child is doing when he puts things in his mouth is allowing his immune response to explore his environment, Not only does this allow for ‘practice’ of immune responses, which will be necessary for protection, but it also plays a critical role in teaching the immature immune response what is best ignored.
...

He said that public health measures like cleaning up contaminated water and food have saved the lives of countless children, but they “also eliminated exposure to many organisms that are probably good for us.”

“Children raised in an ultraclean environment,” he added, “are not being exposed to organisms that help them develop appropriate immune regulatory circuits.

.....

In answer to the question, “Are we too clean?” Dr. Elliott said: “Dirtiness comes with a price. But cleanliness comes with a price, too. We’re not proposing a return to the germ-filled environment of the 1850s. But if we properly understand how organisms in the environment protect us, maybe we can give a vaccine or mimic their effects with some innocuous stimulus.”

Dr. Ruebush, the “Why Dirt Is Good” author, does not suggest a return to filth, either. But she correctly points out that bacteria are everywhere: on us, in us and all around us. Most of these micro-organisms cause no problem, and many, like the ones that normally live in the digestive tract and produce life-sustaining nutrients, are essential to good health.

“The typical human probably harbors some 90 trillion microbes,” she wrote. “The very fact that you have so many microbes of so many different kinds is what keeps you healthy most of the time.”
....
Dr. Weinstock goes even further. “Children should be allowed to go barefoot in the dirt, play in the dirt, and not have to wash their hands when they come in to eat,” he said. He and Dr. Elliott pointed out that children who grow up on farms and are frequently exposed to worms and other organisms from farm animals are much less likely to develop allergies and autoimmune diseases."

You see! Cletus isn't just a slack jawed yokel living in stereotypical hillbilly filth- he's just helping to strengthen his 44 kids' immune systems. Take that Park Avenue!

I knew a girl once who had pica and we would randomly find her with a shoe in her mouth...I wonder what happened to her.

Anywhooo, I try to never use antibacterial soap unless I've been doing something really dirty, because I heard a few years back that bacteria can be good for us and I kinda remembered from high school bio about how those little bacterias being exposed to our body enable our body to build resistances to them and thus make your body stronger in the long run, and I'm all about preparing my body for the coming post-apocalyptic wasteland (without actually having to do something too severe and time consuming)

So in conclusion, eat dirt once in a while. Scientist do, however, still recommend you not eat shit. Sorry Divine (r.i.p.)

Red Hot Chili Peppers- I Like Dirt [song download]
(picture source)

Sphere: Related Content

Cut Off Florida

Florida is totally America’s wang

From USA Today comes the latest chapter in ongoing embarrassment that is the state that brought us bush

Fla. educators to teach evolution as theory, not settled fact

Students in Florida must be taught that evolution is a theory and not a settled fact, according to standards that the State Board of Education just approved in Tallahasee.

"A panel of 68 experts, heavy with science teachers and scientists, drew up detailed, age-specific standards that described evolution as the basic 'concept underlying all of biology.' The standards said evolution was supported by 'multiple forms of scientific evidence,'" The News-Press, a fellow Gannett paper, says. "In a series of public hearings, several conservative religious leaders and parents objected to evolution being 'the' accepted standard. The compromise language approved today cites 'the scientific theory of evolution,' making it officially a theory rather than a settled fact."

The Palm Beach Post story

Science teachers in Florida public schools will be required to teach evolution for the first time after the state Board of Education agreed to adopt new curriculum standards this morning by a 4-3 vote.

The divided vote came as board members argued over an eleventh-hour amendment that requires the standards to refer to the "scientific theory of evolution" instead of "evolution.

The amendment, which supporters refer to as the "academic freedom proposal," was unveiled late Friday. Education Commissioner Eric Smith recommended the amendment, which won praise from religious groups and conservative lawmakers.

Board members Linda Taylor, T. Willard Fair, Kathleen Shanahan and Phoebe Raulerson approved the new standards with the amendment. Member Roberto Martinez, Akshay Desai and Donna Callaway opposed the change.

The state board spent a year deliberating the first changes at five public hearings around the state before the meeting this morning in the state Capitol.

The changes were hailed as a victory by parents, educators and lawmakers who insisted that evolution was far from an iron-clad fact and deserved critical analyses in the classroom.

"There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life," said state Rep. Marti Coley, a Marianna Republican who said last week she would push a bill that would require evolution be taught as a "theory."

A year debating and this is the compromise?
Like there are no questions about creationism? Here’s one- if G*d existed before all creation in the void where did G*d come from- who created her?
What questions are left about evolution? Doesn’t she watch the Simpsons?

Questions solved.

If Florida is America’s wang then it’s about time to
Give America a penectomy

Just snip snip chop and let it float away...

Sphere: Related Content

America: Land of The Dumb and Home of The Unconcerned

Carl: Let's make litter out of these literati!
Lenny: That's too clever, you're one of THEM!
-They Saved Lisa's Brain

there's been a recent spate of op/ed in our nation's major newspapers recently about how just dumb Americans are (and of course by spate I mean there was a piece in the New York Times) and I must say it's about time people understand that we're all American idiots. The most recent example of this intellectual counterattack comes from the Washington Post and an opinion piece called The Dumbing of America and though it is somewhat ironic that the people who would read op/eds in like the Times of the Post aren't really the dumb ones that the articles speak about and need to be informed of their own ignorance, and in fact it could be considered to be a bit of intellectual class sneering down upon the great teeming reality show watching masses, BUT they deserve it; I mean 1 in 5 American adults think that the Sun revolves around the Earth! Galileo almost died for your sins people!

And on to the piece

"The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." Ralph Waldo Emerson offered that observation in 1837, but his words echo with painful prescience in today's very different United States. Americans are in serious intellectual trouble -- in danger of losing our hard-won cultural capital to a virulent mixture of anti-intellectualism, anti-rationalism and low expectations.

This is the last subject that any candidate would dare raise on the long and winding road to the White House. It is almost impossible to talk about the manner in which public ignorance contributes to grave national problems without being labeled an "elitist," one of the most powerful pejoratives that can be applied to anyone aspiring to high office. Instead, our politicians repeatedly assure Americans that they are just "folks," a patronizing term that you will search for in vain in important presidential speeches before 1980. (Just imagine: "We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain . . . and that government of the folks, by the folks, for the folks, shall not perish from the earth.") Such exaltations of ordinariness are among the distinguishing traits of anti-intellectualism in any era.

The classic work on this subject by Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," was published in early 1963, between the anti-communist crusades of the McCarthy era and the social convulsions of the late 1960s. Hofstadter saw American anti-intellectualism as a basically cyclical phenomenon that often manifested itself as the dark side of the country's democratic impulses in religion and education. But today's brand of anti-intellectualism is less a cycle than a flood. If Hofstadter (who died of leukemia in 1970 at age 54) had lived long enough to write a modern-day sequel, he would have found that our era of 24/7 infotainment has outstripped his most apocalyptic predictions about the future of American culture.

Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture (and by video, I mean every form of digital media, as well as older electronic ones); a disjunction between Americans' rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism.

First and foremost among the vectors of the new anti-intellectualism is video. The decline of book, newspaper and magazine reading is by now an old story. The drop-off is most pronounced among the young, but it continues to accelerate and afflict Americans of all ages and education levels.

Reading has declined not only among the poorly educated, according to a report last year by the National Endowment for the Arts. In 1982, 82 percent of college graduates read novels or poems for pleasure; two decades later, only 67 percent did. And more than 40 percent of Americans under 44 did not read a single book -- fiction or nonfiction -- over the course of a year. The proportion of 17-year-olds who read nothing (unless required to do so for school) more than doubled between 1984 and 2004. This time period, of course, encompasses the rise of personal computers, Web surfing and video games.

Does all this matter? Technophiles pooh-pooh jeremiads about the end of print culture as the navel-gazing of (what else?) elitists. In his book "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter," the science writer Steven Johnson assures us that we have nothing to worry about. Sure, parents may see their "vibrant and active children gazing silently, mouths agape, at the screen." But these zombie-like characteristics "are not signs of mental atrophy. They're signs of focus." Balderdash. The real question is what toddlers are screening out, not what they are focusing on, while they sit mesmerized by videos they have seen dozens of times.

Despite an aggressive marketing campaign aimed at encouraging babies as young as 6 months to watch videos, there is no evidence that focusing on a screen is anything but bad for infants and toddlers. In a study released last August, University of Washington researchers found that babies between 8 and 16 months recognized an average of six to eight fewer words for every hour spent watching videos.

I cannot prove that reading for hours in a treehouse (which is what I was doing when I was 13) creates more informed citizens than hammering away at a Microsoft Xbox or obsessing about Facebook profiles. But the inability to concentrate for long periods of time -- as distinct from brief reading hits for information on the Web -- seems to me intimately related to the inability of the public to remember even recent news events. It is not surprising, for example, that less has been heard from the presidential candidates about the Iraq war in the later stages of the primary campaign than in the earlier ones, simply because there have been fewer video reports of violence in Iraq. Candidates, like voters, emphasize the latest news, not necessarily the most important news.

No wonder negative political ads work. "With text, it is even easy to keep track of differing levels of authority behind different pieces of information," the cultural critic Caleb Crain noted recently in the New Yorker. "A comparison of two video reports, on the other hand, is cumbersome. Forced to choose between conflicting stories on television, the viewer falls back on hunches, or on what he believed before he started watching."

As video consumers become progressively more impatient with the process of acquiring information through written language, all politicians find themselves under great pressure to deliver their messages as quickly as possible -- and quickness today is much quicker than it used to be. Harvard University's Kiku Adatto found that between 1968 and 1988, the average sound bite on the news for a presidential candidate -- featuring the candidate's own voice -- dropped from 42.3 seconds to 9.8 seconds. By 2000, according to another Harvard study, the daily candidate bite was down to just 7.8 seconds.

The shrinking public attention span fostered by video is closely tied to the second important anti-intellectual force in American culture: the erosion of general knowledge.

People accustomed to hearing their president explain complicated policy choices by snapping "I'm the decider" may find it almost impossible to imagine the pains that Franklin D. Roosevelt took, in the grim months after Pearl Harbor, to explain why U.S. armed forces were suffering one defeat after another in the Pacific. In February 1942, Roosevelt urged Americans to spread out a map during his radio "fireside chat" so that they might better understand the geography of battle. In stores throughout the country, maps sold out; about 80 percent of American adults tuned in to hear the president. FDR had told his speechwriters that he was certain that if Americans understood the immensity of the distances over which supplies had to travel to the armed forces, "they can take any kind of bad news right on the chin."

This is a portrait not only of a different presidency and president but also of a different country and citizenry, one that lacked access to satellite-enhanced Google maps but was far more receptive to learning and complexity than today's public. According to a 2006 survey by National Geographic-Roper, nearly half of Americans between ages 18 and 24 do not think it necessary to know the location of other countries in which important news is being made. More than a third consider it "not at all important" to know a foreign language, and only 14 percent consider it "very important."

That leads us to the third and final factor behind the new American dumbness: not lack of knowledge per se but arrogance about that lack of knowledge. The problem is not just the things we do not know (consider the one in five American adults who, according to the National Science Foundation, thinks the sun revolves around the Earth); it's the alarming number of Americans who have smugly concluded that they do not need to know such things in the first place. Call this anti-rationalism -- a syndrome that is particularly dangerous to our public institutions and discourse. Not knowing a foreign language or the location of an important country is a manifestation of ignorance; denying that such knowledge matters is pure anti-rationalism. The toxic brew of anti-rationalism and ignorance hurts discussions of U.S. public policy on topics from health care to taxation.

There is no quick cure for this epidemic of arrogant anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism; rote efforts to raise standardized test scores by stuffing students with specific answers to specific questions on specific tests will not do the job. Moreover, the people who exemplify the problem are usually oblivious to it. ("Hardly anyone believes himself to be against thought and culture," Hofstadter noted.) It is past time for a serious national discussion about whether, as a nation, we truly value intellect and rationality. If this indeed turns out to be a "change election," the low level of discourse in a country with a mind taught to aim at low objects ought to be the first item on the change agenda.

We're still in Iraq? How bizarre

(and no I don't buy Jimmy Wales' counterpoint in the same paper, which seems to be based on the whole premise that "we're smarter than you think- look at Wikipedia!" what he feels to mention is that Truthiness has a longer entry than Lutherans, PTI running gags has a longer entry than Meet the Press and on and on. Has he never wikigroaned? Sure there are always going to be some smart people but measuring "intelligence" by how pop culturally aware/obsessive certain people are is not the way to make an argument. I mean my governor, the governor of like the 6th biggest economy of the world is Arnold Schwarzenegger!

(and once again I would highly recommend Idiocracy-

that's where we're headed)

Sphere: Related Content

Wow! Sign Me Up!

Scientology must be the most amazing thing ever! According to these “real testimonials”



The Leader is good, The Leader is great I surrender my will as of this date

Maybe Dianetics and Scientology can help you like it did these people in such amazing ways

• Dianetics help you understand what is it and resolves it
• And will get rid of that internal conversation in your head (so will Thorazine -those voices can be nasty)
• Dianetics will prevent you from getting really really really really nervous and freezing (as will alcohol)
• Your decision making process will be [snap snap snap] right there
• Dianetics will give you the power
• You won’t feel the body anymore, you’ll just float (as will psychotropics)
• You will reclassify into a different person (in what I can only assume to be a Total Recall process)
• When you’re about to die just by doing dianetics with an auditor all your vital signs will get back to normal
• Your Allergies will be over
• Your eyesight will increase tremendously
• Your sense of smell will come back, even after 12 years. Whoa
• Dianetics cures Cancer! Cancer!
  
• You’ll feel lighter, walk differently get a brighter face, clearer eyes
• You’ll realize that you’re not twenty years old
• Your eyes and heart will open
• Feel alert when you click your fingers, Five. Four. Three. Two. One. Bing.

Jesus H Christ that’s all very tempting but I think I'll stick with free will and my own money.

(from BWE )

Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na Leader! Leader! Leader...
Homer: Batman! ... I mean Leader!

Sphere: Related Content

How F*cking Romantic- The Bitter Valentines Day MixTape

In case you didn’t realize it there are a mountain range worth of songs that mention love so I’ve rethought my valentine’s day playlist plan.

So here’s Part 3 of a Tri Part Journey (part 1 "What is Love" here and here is part 2) where it all falls apart


`Watch this, Lis. You can actually pinpoint the second when his heart rips in half"

• The Magnetic Fields- How Fucking Romantic [download]
• The Flaming Lips -Maybe I'm Not The One [download]
• Kaiser Chiefs -Everyday I Love You Less And Less [download]
• Mary Gauthier - Falling Out Of Love [download]
• Led Zeppelin -Heartbreaker [download]
• Travis - The Humpty Dumpty Love Song [download]
• Elvis Presley -Heartbreak Hotel [download]
• Jens Lekman -I'm Leaving You Because I Don't Love You [download]
• Toni Braxton -Un-Break My Heart [download]
• Fleetwood Mac -Go Your Own Way [download]
• The Carter Family -I Never Will Marry [download]
• Jimmy Scott -I'm Through With Love [download]

how fucking romantic
all the stars are out
twinkling twinkling twinkling
and fluttering about

what a tacky sunset
what a vulgar moon
play another charming
rogers and hart tune

how fucking romantic
must we really waltz?
drag another cliche
howling from the vaults

love you obviously
like you really care
even though you treat me
like a dancing bear

toss your bear a goldfish
as he cycles by
don't forget to feed your
bear or it'll die

Sphere: Related Content

There Will Be Blood

spilled in the Democratic Party no matter who wins the nomination. Paul Krugman’s column from earlier this week (that I fully agree with, btw)

Hate Springs Eternal

In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”

The quote comes from “Nixonland,” a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein, the author of “Before the Storm.” As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.

And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.

The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.

I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.

For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.

For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.

But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.

One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It’s a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage.

I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election.

Well that article sparked quite a response as the Times printed Letters to the Editor either in supporting and understanding of Paul Krugman’s column, or whatever Barack supporters think.
I’ve separated them into two sections (because nuance doesn't have a place in our society anymore

Obamans

Re “Hate Springs Eternal,” by Paul Krugman (column, Feb. 11):

Mr. Krugman, a consistent critic of Barack Obama, did not produce a shred of evidence for his categorical statement that the “venom” being displayed in the Democratic campaign comes from Obama supporters, “who want their hero or nobody.” And it seems to perpetuate the same bizarre bitterness that he derides in his column.

Even worse is his assertion that “the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.” I am surprised and saddened that a thoughtful public intellectual like Mr. Krugman would write such a careless and unfair statement at a moment of critical potential in national politics.

Barack Obama is changing the way we think about race in America. His inclusive message is so refreshing that, in addition to strong backing from blacks, he is drawing unprecedented nationwide support from white voters. It is so upsetting that this remarkable and historic feat is belittled as a “cult of personality.”

William Julius Wilson
Cambridge, Mass., Feb. 11, 2008

The writer is a professor of sociology and social policy at Harvard University.

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman decries the “bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination” and then proceeds to contribute to the name-calling by comparing Obama supporters to members of a “cult.” I find that offensive.

I am passionately in favor of a change from the current administration. Does that make me a member of a cult? I am passionately opposed to a Clinton presidency. Does that make me a member of a cult?

Like thousands of other voters who lean Democratic, I don’t pledge allegiance to the Democratic Party. I will vote for the candidate I think will best serve the nation.

I don’t have to give Mr. Krugman or anyone else my strong assurances that I will support the Democratic nominee, and I don’t have to apologize to Mr. Krugman or any Democratic Party apparatchik for passionately opposing Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Robert Bonello
Edina, Minn., Feb. 11, 2008

To the Editor:

As a self-identified progressive, I often find useful insights and information in Paul Krugman’s columns. Not so in “Hate Springs Eternal.”

Mr. Krugman paints supporters of Barack Obama with too broad a brush when he alleges that they “want their hero or nobody,” and therefore engage in venomous attacks on Mr. Obama’s rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I am an Obama supporter, as are many people I know. Every Obama supporter I know wants to see a Democrat next in the White House first, and Mr. Obama as that Democrat only second. The “examples” Mr. Krugman cites demonstrate that Clinton-bashing is popular sport, not that Obama supporters (rather than the media or isolated individuals) engage in it.

To top it all off, Mr. Krugman compares Mr. Obama’s ability to inspire and organize to George W. Bush’s demonstrated penchant for conceit and self-indulgence in Operation Flight Suit. Who’s perpetuating “Nixonland” now?

Brian W. Stull
Durham, N.C., Feb. 11, 2008

To the Editor:

I believe this is the first time I’ve ever disagreed with Paul Krugman. The source of vitriol is not to be found in the putative “cult of personality” among supporters of Barack Obama. The source is not to be found among supporters at all. One needs to look at the leaderships of the campaigns.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign keeps careening between sweetness and scorched-earth policies. Mrs. Clinton has created an impression that she will do anything and say anything to win, from sponsoring flag-preservation legislation to the bizarre racial innuendo by her campaign in South Carolina. (Does South Carolina bring out the worst in every campaign?)

The vitriol is not the result of a cult of personality in the Obama camp. The vitriol is a reaction to very real deficiencies in Mrs. Clinton’s personality.

Bill Morris
San Diego, Feb. 11, 2008

To the Editor:

Can’t Paul Krugman see that there is a growing number of Americans who do not want to relive the days of Clintonian testiness and right-wing vitriol? Former President Bill Clinton alerted many of us to the dangers of a Hillary Rodham Clinton victory by his arrogant behavior in the week before the South Carolina primary.

The fact that many Democratic voters would simply stay home in November rather than vote for Hillary Clinton is not a sign of “hate” or “venom.”

Mr. Krugman brings up his preference for Mrs. Clinton’s health care agenda, but why should we think she could achieve it after a bitter campaign, without enough Democratic senators to break a Republican filibuster and with the same old team back in charge?

Bill Dawers
Savannah, Ga., Feb. 11, 2008

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman, in his account of the strong emotions that the Clinton-Obama race has raised among progressives, doesn’t mention one notable fact.

Many antiwar Democrats continue to view with suspicion Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s attitude toward the Iraq war. Her clarifications for her support of the various pro-war bills proposed by President Bush revolve around her criticisms of the execution of the war, not around the thinking that led us into the war in the first place.

Progressives have found Senator Barack Obama’s more specific denunciation of the whole mind-set that created the war much more helpful. I believe that it continues to be a leading explanation for why he is doing so much better against Mrs. Clinton than anyone originally predicted.

Jon Landau
Purchase, N.Y., Feb. 11, 2008

I agree with Paul Krugman’s assertion that the attitude “their hero or nobody” is divisive and silly. But just because both Democratic candidates are strong doesn’t mean I find them to be equal.
I resent the implication that “hero worship” is inherently dogmatic or without substance. I long for a day when I can name a sitting American president as my hero. [Ed. Note: How old are you that you would ever look up to a politician as a hero? Become someone else’s hero don’t look for someone to elevate as yours. Call me a cynic but I've never "found a hero" in far off places]

For me, one of Barack Obama’s biggest strengths, both as a leader and as a candidate, is that he inspires people to participate in politics who otherwise wouldn’t get involved.

If voters fail to respond to Hillary Rodham Clinton in that way, I think it’s much more a legitimate flaw on her part than it is an example of Americans falling prey to “Clinton rules.”

Though Mr. Obama is my preference, if Mrs. Clinton is the nominee, I will campaign for her 100 percent because I want to see a Democrat in the White House. For the moment, however, this is still a contest, and I feel no obligation to come to the defense of someone who is my second choice.

If Mrs. Clinton can’t stand against me, who sees her merely as the lesser of an embarrassment of riches, how will she ever last when the opponent gets much tougher?

Suzanne Joskow
Los Angeles, Feb. 11, 2008

To the Editor:

The Barack Obama supporters I know would ultimately be happy to see any Democrat become president. “It’s an embarrassment of riches,” I’ve heard from my fellow Democrats countless times. Both candidates are smart, experienced and capable.

I voted for Mr. Obama, but I will support his opponent with unmitigated enthusiasm should she win the nomination. Where Paul Krugman sees a “cult of personality” forming around Mr. Obama, I see involved citizens who are deeply excited about their candidate.

Mr. Obama is not L. Ron Hubbard. If there’s an Obama cult, then there’s also a Hillary Rodham Clinton cult, a John McCain cult, a Mike Huckabee cult and so on. [Ed. Note- Scientologists don’t believe their in a cult started by a crock either. And I don't see anyone getting tattoos for any other politician especially before he's even nominated.]

Mr. Krugman, usually so dead-on, is way off in this case.

Laura Cummins
New York, Feb. 11, 2008

The Leader is good, the Leader is great, we surrender our will as of
       this date!

Realists

To the Editor:

Cult of personality, indeed. Barack Obama has style, but no substance. He has been in national politics only a couple of years. And the media have given him a virtually free ride.
But we did “likability” and inexperience eight years ago with George W. Bush and look where that’s gotten us. It is frightening how easily some of us are persuaded by hype, especially when we are confronting such serious problems as a nation and in the world.
Hillary Rodham Clinton does have substance: knowledge, experience, intelligence, sensitivity, stamina. She has withstood attacks from all sides and come out whole. She is the only candidate in this race in whom I have complete faith and confidence to do the right thing. With all that is at stake, I can only hope that the media will start doing their job and that the American people will see the light this time around.

D. Murphy
Merrick, N.Y., Feb. 12, 2008

To the Editor:

I see nothing illogical that a close competition for the most important leadership role in the world would be extremely competitive. But venomous? We’re not even close. Just this year, the Republicans (John McCain versus Mitt Romney) have been much more combative than Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Perhaps Paul Krugman is closer to the point in recognizing that we are a nation focused on personality; much of what passes for public discourse is driven by celebrity, hyped-up conflict, and the trend for news and sports coverage to resemble each other.

Barack Obama’s supporters certainly did not create this trend, nor can they be faulted for recognizing that character and inspiration are as important as ideas in picking a leader. This is not a result of some irrational spell, and implying that we’re joining a cult of personality really misses the point about our recognizing the qualities our nation needs to effectively move forward to collectively meet our challenges.

Richard C. Hubbard
Evanston, Ill., Feb. 11, 2008

To the Editor:

Senator Barack Obama’s campaign reminds me of a series of revival meetings. There’s the charismatic speaker who uses emotional words to raise the audience to a fever pitch, followed by conversion to his ideas and the passing of the hat.

Supporters who wrap themselves in these emotional promises find that it works for a while. But then it grows quiet, and looking around, the converts see that the revival tent has moved on and everyday life intervenes.

Where is the critical thinking here about how to achieve getting out of Iraq? To help the economy? To solve the health care crisis? There’s just the emptiness of the emotional words, ringing hollow in the air.

Sue Roupp
Evanston, Ill., Feb. 11, 2008

My stance has long been clear on this but they're both b.s. though one is more so than the other but maybe it’s things like this, where Michelle Obama who should be a leader in her husband’s movement says “she’d have to think about supporting Hillary if she were the nominee”
while everything from the Clintons has been of course I’ll support the Democratic nominee, it’s about taking back the white house
And maybe Krugman’s ideas about the cult of personality and the Messianic fervor that Barack is cultivating stems from stuff like this in the media as documented in Slate's Obama Messiah Watch

Is Barack Obama the Nazarene? To answer this question, Slate has periodically gathered gratuitously adoring biographical details from newspaper, television, and magazine profiles of the U.S. senator from Illinois, best-selling author, Harvard Law Review president, Men's Vogue cover model, two-time Grammy winner, efficient note-taker, physics wunderkind, descendent of George Washington's great-great-great-great-great grandfather, teenage jazz enthusiast, possible telepathic communicator with space aliens from distant galaxies, improvement on all civil rights gains since 1957, calmer of turbulent Iownas, and front-running candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

I merely suggested that a few excitable souls in the media bear the apparant conviction that Obama is the Redeemer. To this growing list we must now add the Reuters photographer who snapped this

Hail Michelle,
full of grace,
the Lord is with you.
Blessed are you among women
and blessed is [he that made holy your] womb
Holy Michelle, consort of God,
pray for us sinners
now and at the hour of our death
Amen.

Sphere: Related Content

Where Everybody Knows Your Name

Making your way in the world today
Takes everything you've got
Taking a break from all your worries
Sure would help a lot
Wouldn't you like to get away?

Sometimes you want to go
Where everybody knows your name
And they're always glad you came
You wanna be where you can see
Our troubles are all the same
You wanna be where everybody knows your name

You wanna go where people know
People are all the same
You wanna go where everybody knows your name

This video from back when I liked Shaq and was blinded to his true nature, aka after the 2002 season shows him taunting Vlade Divac and the Sacramento Kings to the music of his ringtone and it reminded me of how much I really love that Cheers theme song
(from Fanhouse )


and so I tried to find, since it is one of the best and most famous theme songs ever, some parodies of it (though not included are the inside joke or too obscure even for me ones)


From the Flaming Moe's episode of The Simpsons


the Fatal Farm alternate Cheers Intro


an interesting animation style, not really sure about what the guy is doing with his voice but here is an (inevitable maybe regrettable) parody Queers


along those same lines here is fat and disgusting Artie Lange singing his Gay Cheers Theme

a Garden State trailer/ Where Everybody Knows Your Name mashup


This isn’t a parody but rather licensed version in Germany where the theme and show was called Prost Helmut

"Prost' is a German form of 'Cheers,' and Helmut is the name given to Norm, so the title literally translates "Cheers, Norm," interesting since George Wendt was not the leading part.

The theme is translated as follows:

To survive the everyday anger
Costs much time
If you work for hours
You're exhausted
Who doesn't want to get away from everything?

Then you search for a bar,
Where you feel at home.
And you can drink away our worries.
Where you meet your friends,
And talk, and drink, and drown your sorrows,
And be happy until the early morning.

Discussions, and fighting, and then we make up
In a close group!
Where Everybody Knows Your Name

and here are the full lyrics to Gary Portnoy's "Where Everybody Knows Your Name"
Making your way in the world today
Takes everything you've got
Taking a break from all your worries
Sure would help a lot
Wouldn't you like to get away?

All those night when you've got no lights
The check is in the mail
And your little angel
Hung the cat up by it's tail
And your third fiance didn't show

Sometimes you want to go
Where everybody knows your name
And they're always glad you came
You want to be where you can see
Our troubles are all the same
You want to be where everybody knows your name

Roll out of bed, Mr Coffee's dead
The morning's looking bright
And your shrink ran off to Europe
And didn't even write
And your husband wants to be a girl

Be glad there's one place in the world
Where everybody knows your name
And they're always glad you came
You want to go where people know
People are all the same
You want to go where everybody knows your name

Where everybody knows your name
And they're always glad you came

Such a great song
Are there any good tv theme songs left? I can’t think of a single one.

Gary Portnoy- Where Everybody Knows Your Name [download]
Flaming Moe's [download]

Discussions, and fighting, and then we make up
In a close group!
Where Everybody Knows Your Name

Sphere: Related Content

The 90’s Show

I do love the 90s (were they really so long ago?) and so do The Simpsons. And I love the Simpsons and I love the Simpsons episode where they loved the 90s.

(90s, Simpsons Love I The: mix and match)

All is full of love (from 1997, another great thing from the 90s)
Anyway here’s The Simpsons episode from Sunday, via Hulu:
“The 90’s Show”




would it ruin the fun if I listed the cultural references I recognized?
Yeah, probably.

Sphere: Related Content

Lies My Teacher Taught Me

or "The World Turned Upside Down...Again"
This has been such a screwed up day: left is right, down is up, and now this:

From the BBC

Chameleons first used colour change to make them more noticeable rather than, as is popularly believed, to blend in, a study suggests.
The reptiles change colour for a variety of purposes - communication, camouflage and temperature control.

However, the reason why they first evolved this ability to flash bright colours was previously unclear.
Scientists report in the journal Plos Biology that it was to allow them to signal to other chameleons.

Co-author Dr Devi Stuart-Fox, from The University of Melbourne, Australia, told BBC News: "[Our research] suggests that chameleons evolved colour change for signalling, to fend off rivals or attract a mate, and not so they could match a greater variety of backgrounds."

What chameleons see

Dr Stuart-Fox's team looked at the colour changing ability of 21 southern African dwarf chameleon species (Bradypodion spp), to compare species colour changing ability and consider evolutionary relationships.

As chameleons have a different visual system to humans, they have a fourth type of cone which is ultra-violet (UV) sensitive, the researchers had to first measure what the chameleons were actually seeing.

The Melbourne-based researcher explained: "We measured colour with a spectrometer, which measures both the UV and visual colour range, and combined this with information on the chameleon visual system to model chameleon colour perception."

Colour contest

By setting individual chameleons up in a duel with a series of opponents, the colour range between the submissive and dominant colours could be measured.

"If a male is challenged by another male they both begin by showing their brightest colours - until one figures out the other is going to win and changes to a submissive, dark, 'don't beat me up colour'," said Dr Stuart-Fox.

The team also looked at how chameleons change colour in response to a predator, by presenting them with a model bird or snake.

It was shown that the most dramatic colour changes were used to socially signal to other chameleons.

"We found that chameleon species that changed colour the most had displays that were most conspicuous to other chameleons. But they didn't have a greater range of background colours in their habitats," said Dr Stuart-Fox.

Chameleons don’t change color to blend in?! Next you’ll be telling me that elephants do forget.

Lisa: Uh huh. In fact, in Rand McNally, they wear hats on their feet
and hamburgers eat people.

Bart vs. Australia

But America still doesn't care about poor people so, at least everything hasn't changed

Sphere: Related Content

Americans, Gladiating

So while watching American Gladiators (meh-I miss writers) I finally remembered something that I was missing and something that I loved from the original show


Atlasphere! In case you don’t remember what it was a wiki-description

“Atlasphere pitted the contenders against two Gladiators for 60 seconds, all rolling around the entire arena floor in metal cage-like spheres. The object of the event was to avoid the Gladiators while trying to roll the sphere into one of four scoring pods spaced out across the arena floor. Originally, the contender had to settle in the scoring pods for one second to score. After its first season, a black sensor was placed in the center of the pod, with the contender only having to roll over it to score. Once done, the sensor would compress and emit smoke and lights to indicate the score.

Originally, the contenders and Gladiators all began the event on the arena floor, but in later seasons, all four began the event on elevated ramps at the four corners of the arena.

1,2, or 3 points were awarded for each score."

Why can't they bring it back to the Revival?

Now that’s a timeless event. And I mean I think Pyro used an atlasphere as a form of transport on The Simpsons
(and looking at this wikipedia article I totally remembered that Skytrack was the sh*t…or at least I think I’m thinking of the American Gladiator version)

The contenders and a Gladiator raced each other on an inverted, Velcro-covered track. Using their hands and feet (each covered in Velcro to assist in moving), they would move down the track to the opposite end, hit an actuator button, and go back to the start line to finish the race.

First place was awarded 10 points, second place 5 points. If the Gladiator came in first or second place, only one contender would earn points in accordance with his or her finish.

I guess I didn't realize at the time how much that looks like some toy car track

Here’s the Season 3 Grand Championship Eliminator (oooh-sounds ultimate and important)


And because I don’t know moderation here’s a clip that features Ellen trying out for American Gladiators from her old sitcom (I think I remember that Joely Fisher was my favorite.)

P.s. Does the new eliminator still have the zip line? Because that’s most what I remember from when I was young and that I really wanted to do it and in its current incarnation I’m not ashamed to admit I don’t pay that close attention to notice

Sphere: Related Content

In Ralph We Trust

In that last post I was going to try to edit and embed the clip from The Simpson episode “E Pluribus Wiggum” where Nelson laughs at I thinkfa reporter from the Washington Post because “your medium is dying. (Nelson! But it is! There’s a difference between being right and being nice”), and I was going to use that to say something like “hopefully they’re not dead yet” but then I started watching the episode again and I had totally almost forgotten how great it is.
Well firstly it was a great episode because of the Bayeaux tapestry conceit in the coach gag
Secondly the whole episode kinda sums up what this whole election seems to be about "hey who’s the new shiny toy, I mean candidate? He must be amazing because he’s new! What are his politics? Who cares he can bring everyone together? Yay!” which was totally how I felt when this episode first aired, I think after Iowa, when I was really bitter
Thirdly Moe when being asked if he has a preference answering immediately “ I like girls”
Fourthly (is that a word?”) Homer actually knowing what a think tank is
Fifthly – Senator “Whinergirl”
Next the Michael Huffington reference
Ah it’s just an amazing amazing episode for so so many reasons that you’ll rediscover
And one you won’t: it’s great because Ralph is really my favorite Simpsons character of like forever (the only Simpsons article of clothing I’ve ever bought was a shirt of Ralph with his finger in his noise, back when I was young. And by young I mean 19)
So here it is


Ralph Wiggum: such a winner

Sphere: Related Content

Barack: Prince of the Land of Confusion

Homer: Do we want old-man Patterson here with his finger on the button?
Patterson: WHAT BUTTON!? What the hell are you talking about?!
Homer: (mocking) Wha..wha..what button? Where am I? Who took my false teeth?

No wonder Barack has such an affinity for Ronald Reagan- they both have no business anywhere near “The Button*”



From the L.A. Times and an article titled “Obama said oops on six state senate votes”

During his eight years in state office, Obama cast more than 4,000 votes. Of those, according to transcripts of the proceedings in Springfield, he hit the wrong button at least six times.

The rules allow state lawmakers to clear up a mishap if they suffered from a momentary case of stumbly fingers or a lapse in attention. Correcting the record is common practice in the Illinois Legislature, where lawmakers routinely cast numerous votes in a hurry.

But some lawmakers say the practice also offers a relatively painless way to placate both sides of a difficult issue. Even if a lawmaker admits an error, the actual vote stands and the official record merely shows the senator's "intent."

Four of Obama's admitted flubs drew little controversy.

On March 19, 1997, he announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6: "I was trying to vote yes on this, and I was recorded as a no," he said. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote.

He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said.

Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.

But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics. On Nov. 14, 1997, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.

The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, "I'd like to be recorded as a no vote," explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group on a 1998 campaign questionnaire that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

The senator who led the opposition to the gambling measure, Republican Todd Sieben, said he took Obama at his word that the initial vote was an error. But Sieben also said the thin margin of victory was a sign that perhaps there was more to the vote than met the eye. "He was obviously paying attention to this vote. It was a major, major issue in the state, and it was a long debate," Sieben said. "The inadvertent 'Oops, I missed the switch' -- I'd be kind of skeptical of that."

On June 11, 2002, Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office.

Shortly afterward, Obama chastised Republicans for their "sanctimony" in claiming that only they had the mettle to make tough choices in a tight budget year. And he called for "responsible budgeting."

A fellow Democrat suddenly seethed with anger. "You got a lot of nerve to talk about being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.

Obama replied right away. "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger. . . . I was not aware that I had voted no on that last -- last piece of legislation," he said.

Hendon said "it happens" that senators press the wrong button. But he was quick to add: "I've never done it."

Illinois has such a screwed up legislature- I mean you can just vote “present” without making a decision and then if you actually do make a decision you can take it back by calling it a “whoopsie”Though I must say that I thnk that article had the first instance of Barack ever admitting he's made a mistake

And on this occasion, in a kinda related note, I don’t totally agree with JRE in some of his off the record remarks in New York this week- I think that Barack is more unfit to “have his finger on the button” than John McCain, I mean what if he’s about to press the button to “end all war and make unicorn’s burst over the rainbows passing hugs and kisses and candy to everyone on earth” but he accidentally presses the “End of the World” button; you can’t just take that back

(though I do agree with John that Barack and Hillary don’t like each other. I never bought into the argument that Hillary would have Barack as her running mate or vice versa and I give that theory even less weight now, even though I’ve been hearing it thrown around a lot recently)

*I really feel this video frightened me a lot when I was small. Kinda scares me a lot now as well. It is a great song though

Sphere: Related Content

Is Mitt Romney Ned Flanders?

I mean they’re both seen as wholesome and goody two-shoes and oh so religious, square and bland.(And I think they're both left handed) Really couldn’t you see Mitt saying something like Hidely-ho Neighborino?

Plus everyone hates them

From the New York Times article titled "Romney Leads in Ill Will Among G.O.P. Candidates"

At the end of the Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire this month, when the Democrats joined the candidates on stage, Mitt Romney found himself momentarily alone as his counterparts mingled, looking around a bit stiffly for a companion.

The moment was emblematic of a broader reality that has helped shape the Republican contest and could take center stage again on Thursday at a debate in Florida. Within the small circle of contenders, Mr. Romney has become the most disliked.

“Never get into a wrestling match with a pig,” Senator John McCain said in New Hampshire this month after reporters asked him about Mr. Romney. “You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.”

“What I have to do is make sure that my anger with a guy like Romney, whose teeth I want to knock out, doesn’t get in the way of my thought process,” Mr. Rollins said.

“The glee the other candidates go after Romney with is really unique,” said Dan Schnur, a Republican strategist who worked on Mr. McCain’s presidential campaign bid in 2000 but is not affiliated with any campaign now.

But Mr. McCain’s advisers, whose distaste for Mr. Romney is vivid, say Mr. McCain has been irked by what they perceive as misleading attacks and Mr. Romney’s willingness to say anything to be elected.

“He doesn’t play by the same rules the rest of us do,” said Charlie Black, a senior McCain strategist.

McCain aides were positively gleeful last week as they watched replays aboard their campaign bus of a heated back and forth between Mr. Romney and an Associated Press reporter who challenged an assertion about the influence of lobbyists in his campaign.
Mr. Schnur used a schoolyard analogy to compare Mr. Romney, the ever-proper Harvard Law School and Business School graduate, to Mr. McCain, the gregarious rebel who racked up demerits and friends at the Naval Academy.

“John McCain and his friends used to beat up Mitt Romney at recess,” Mr. Schnur said

And who doesn't remember the Homer Simpson classic "Everybody Hates Ned Flanders." Just replace Ned Flanders with Mitt Romney (and Rod and Tod with Tagg and Craig) and it works just as well



Everybody in the USA
hates their stupid neighbor.
He's Flanders and he's really, really, lame!
Flanders tried to wreck my song,
his views on birth control are wrong.
I hate his guts and Flanders is his name.
F-L-A-N-D-E-R-S, he's the man that I hate best.
I'd like to see his house go up in flames!
F-L-A
His name is Ned!
E-R-S
That's a stupid name!
He's worse than Frankenstein or Dr. No!
You can't upset him even slightly,
he just smiles and nods politely,
then goes home and worships nightly.
His leftorium is an emporium of Woo!
F-L-A
Don't yell at Ned!
D-E-R
His wife is dead.
Everybody hates that stupid jerk.
Springfield's caught with Homer's joyous loathing!
Filling clubs, with angry valentinos.
You don't have to move your feet,
just hate Flanders to the disco beat.
He's your perky, peppy, nightmare neighbourino!
If you like polite left-handers then I doubt you'll like Ned Flanders
or his creepy little offspring Rod and Tod.
That's us. Hooray!
F-L-A
His name is Ned!
E-R-S
He is so white bread.
The smiling mustache geek who walks with G-d!

Everybody Hates Ned Flanders [download]

Ned Flanders: I wish we lived in a place more like the America of yesteryear that only exists in the brains of us Republicans.

Sphere: Related Content

An Orientation to Scientology

because I had this and just absolutely had to share.
Some brave intrepid soul snuck a camera into a local Org and videotaped the orientation information film that I guess they show to the public (the videographer has probably "died mysteriously") Anyway it is really like the most bizarre thing ever starting with the horrible accents reading court decisions that proclaim that Scientology is a religion to Hubbard's assistant who tells us how all around perfect Lafayette was ("a master mariner" "fully professional in 29 languages" from his writings he was "almost a household name" the government hounded him because Dianetics exposed the secret government mind control program")
Then the bizarre book store scene- I must admit I did not know that his books are flying off the shelves because they're so popular.
Then the woman stating that Man has never had a better friend than LRH (to which I had to respond what about a dog?) the processor saying after auditing that people got 14% brighter.
I really want to know what exactly scientologists do in church- are there like hymns?
Scientology can increase your perception and make you a better photographer
Can make your patients get better faster
Can help you reach your full po-tential as a musician
And the whole "the IRS conducted the largest study ever and found we were a religion" bit didn't really mention Operation Snow White, did it?

Anyway every moment is just so bizarre and priceless and just indescribably amazing that you really need to just watch it. My favorite bit has to be the "altar call" at the end where our trusted narrator, who has to be a robot, tells us sure we can walk out and never mention Scientology again but that would be dumb, like jumping off a bridge or blowing your brains out, but you have ever right to do it.
I'm sorry I'm going on so long it's just...you have to watch


Ps did anyone else totally get a whole "The Leader is Good, The Leader is Great, I surrender my will after this date" vibe from that?
Scientology- sooo wacky

(though I have to admit when I was young, like 9 or 10 and I'd see a billboard or something for Dianetics I really wanted to make my mom buy it for me, because with the cover of like an erupting volcano and the name I thought it must have had something to do with, or be about dinosaurs and I was deep into my Lil Miss Paleontologist phase)

Sphere: Related Content

Fun With Self Auditing

Radar, maybe last week got a hold of what is purported to be "SEC WHOLE TRACK" questionnaire, an internal church document developed Lafayette Ron Hubbard for use during "auditing" sessions and they've done us a great service in publishing some of the 343 questions.
Apparently these questions are asked while hooked up to the E-Meter, something like a polygraph machine (and wouldn't that be a fantastic "Very Special Blossom" episode of Moment of Truth?) but I'm an honest enough person so I think I'll take it right now(and of course you too can play along at home!FFtWF*!) to see if I need to start upon The Bridge.
Oh, LRH

• Have you ever enslaved a population?

um, no

• • Have you ever debased a nation's currency?

I've drawn on money but I don't think that counts

• • Have you ever killed the wrong person?

no, I'm a crack shot

• • Have you ever torn out someone's tongue?

nope

• • Have you ever been a professional critic?

Does what I'm doing now count?

• • Have you ever wiped out a family?

i usually try to leave one survivor to spread the fear and terror of my name and deeds

• • Have you ever tried to give sanity a bad name?

it's more of a mutual antagonism but yes

• • Have you ever consistently practiced sex in some unnatural fashion?

hahahhahahahah. what does that mean?

• • Have you ever made a planet, or nation, radioactive?

not that I am aware of

• • Have you ever made love to a dead body?

gonna have to say no to this one

• • Have you ever engaged in piracy?

::looks guiltily at mp3 collection::

• • Have you ever been a pimp?

my friends call me Bishop Don Magic Juanita

• • Have you ever eaten a human body?

tasted far less like chicken than I had been led to believe, but no not the whole body-I'm not a glutton

• • Have you ever disfigured a beautiful thing?

what's that about beauty being in the eye of the beholder

• • Have you ever exterminated a species?

if you take the butterfly effect far enough

• • Have you ever been a professional executioner?

amateur only. i do it for the love, not the money

• • Have you given robots a bad name?

um, every chance I get. robots are evil and will one day enslave us all

• • Have you ever set a booby trap?

who hasn't?

• • Have you ever failed to rescue your leader?

i like to look at it like "succeeding in not rescuing"

• • Have you driven anyone insane?

probably. ask some of my old roomates and/or coworkers

• • Have you ever killed the wrong person?

as i said before, i'm never wrong

• • Is anybody looking for you?

don't beat around the bush you know you are.

• • Have you ever set a poor example?

i try not to but that kid was really begging for a cigarette and who can resist those eyes?

• • Did you come to Earth for evil purposes?

that's yet to be definitively determined

• • Are you in hiding?

obvi

• • Have you systematically set up mysteries?

i do it in a more haphazard manner and marvel at the added mystery of that mayhem

• • Have you ever made a practice of confusing people?

well, sometimes people aren't sure if I'm a boy or a girl, does that count?

• • Have you ever philosophized when you should have acted instead?

isn't all action a philisophy and isn't philosophy a type of action

• • Have you ever gone crazy?

"no t.v. and no beer make Homer something something"
"go crazy?"
"don't mind if I do!"

• • Have you ever sought to persuade someone of your insanity?

it doesn't take a lot of work (did that help, y'know, persuade you?)

• • Have you ever deserted, or betrayed, a great leader?

i mean, he wasn't perfect, he had his flaws too. i wouldn't say great I'd say Brezhnev-level

• • Have you ever smothered a baby?

heavens no!

• • Do you deserve to have any friends?

honestly, probably not (and that question was mean. Goddamn LRH)

• • Have you ever castrated anyone?

besides myself?

• • Do you deserve to be enslaved?

I'll answer when my master tells me to. (the safe word is sassafras)

• • Is there any question on this list I had better not ask you again?

that one

• • Have you ever tried to make the physical universe less real?

that maybe my life's quest

• • Have you ever zapped anyone?

Bart: Hey Dad, look what I got! [points the gun to him] Zzap! Zzap!
[Homer looks worriedly at Bart]
Zzap! Zzap!

• • Have you ever had a body with a venereal disease? If so, did you spread it?

not that I'm aware of and I really hope not

Well that wasn't that bad! my soul is sooo much lighter than a feather

(*Fun For the Whole Family)

Sphere: Related Content

"Moment of Truth" Has Its Own

So I watched that Moment of Truth show tonight, though perhaps watched is too strong a word, it was on in the background.
Anyway I kinda watched it after the months of hype because it had the potential to be a devastating emotional show for the contestants (even though I decided I would easily win- I have nothing to hide and I have even less shame) just to see what it was all about. And it was..nothing spectacular, it was fine for what it was.
One thing I can say regarding it, ok maybe it's not so much about the show, more about me but I knew exactly when the guy lied before it was revealed (the question was something like "as a personal trainer, have you ever touched a female client more than you've had to?) because you could see it in his eyes especially.
I wonder if that was more noble a thing to do, to lie in front of your wife rather than admit something that could hurt her, though in my mind it just seemed dumb to lie.
I probably won't watch it again (though with the strike now entering its millionth day I'll be forced to) though I'm sure I'll peek on youtube once in a while just to see if there have been any Moe vs. the Polygraph moments

Moe is strapped to a lie detector in the next scene.  Eddie and Lou
administrate the test.

Eddie: Did you hold a grudge against Montgomery Burns?
 Moe: No!  [buzz]
      All right, maybe I did.  But I didn't shoot him.  [ding]
Eddie: Checks out.  OK, sir, you're free to go.
 Moe: Good, 'cause I got a hot date tonight.  [buzz]
      _A_ date.  [buzz]
      Dinner with friends.  [buzz]
      Dinner alone.  [buzz]
      Watching TV alone.  [buzz]
      All right!  I'm going to sit at home and ogle the ladies in the
      Victoria's Secret catalog.  [buzz]
       [weakly] Sears catalog.  [ding]
       [angry] Now would you unhook this already, please?  I don't
      deserve this kind of shabby treatment!  [buzz]

(from the episode Who Shot Mr. Burns Part Two- that is totally one of my favorite moments from the Simpsons)

Sphere: Related Content

Play Beer Pong, Win $50,000

I mean if you insist, I'm not opposed

Play Beer Pong, Win $50,000

It's at times like these when I'm reminded of the wisdom of Homer Simpson :"Alcohol: the cause of- and solution to all of life's problems"
I really think there was a time when I would've dominated this (aka been respectable) like sophomore or junior year but sadly(?) I haven't played Beirut since like April(!)
If this is an annual thing though I may have to start back into training, and trainig hard; 25 thousand dollars could pay for a lot of stuff I need

Sphere: Related Content

Homer Simpson:Picture A Day for 39 Years

The Simpsons, all time is probably my favorite show and it's weird though like in the past season or two it hasn't been as funny as it was at its peak it has become something more. Something in a way better that at times just takes my breath away. At certain moments it just becomes so artistic and beautiful and last night had one of those moments when Homer sees his life flash before his eyes. It's just so haunting

Just so brilliant. And that song; I hear it everywhere but I still have no idea what it is. [Update it's Everyday by Carly Comando download]
fyi, as soon as it showed the youtube screenshot at the end I immediately went onto the real world Youtube to search for it. It wasn't up at the time but I'm glad it (obviously) is now.

And the things you learn when you're not looking;on the description for that video I found out that it was a parody of Noah Takes A Photo of Himself Everyday for Six Years (as seen below)

That's just so...I wish I had that kind of dedication and follow through. Or that I could leave something that original and beautiful in the world.

Sphere: Related Content