Saturday, July 14, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
So I'm Thinking About Moving to YouTube....
Seriously.
Part of it's just my natural restlessness and inability to maintain doing the same thing for a long period of time.
But another part of it is that, besides my faithful friends (thank you, Sanguine, for your consistent checking and commenting on my inconsistent reporting), no one has found this thing after a couple of years.
And that's not a great surprise. There are millions of blogs across the Internet without any real organization or connection.
But YouTube is another matter. People search for videos and find literally almost anything. Videos related to something you are already watching or other videos by the same user are highlighted across the side of the screen.
These connections have propelled over half of my 40 Cornerstone video clips to over 100 views in just a week. On the political side, my random clip that I recorded of Ron Paul on a radio show over a month ago is nearing 12,000 plays, and my recording of Mike Huckabee on NPR last night got 200 views within the first 24 hours. Even my Roller Coaster trip on the Boss (still idling at the Myspace vids) is up to 148 plays in a week (the one dud: my Coldplay stick-figure compilation, still at 7 views in 6 days).
The point is, if it's on YouTube, people find it. They really find it if it's about stuff that interests them. It would be different to "blog" in video form, and it would take more time. I fear that it would become drastically infrequent. But, admittedly, I'm hungry for viewers. And I'm already getting them without even trying at YouTube with my live shows and interviews...
Part of it's just my natural restlessness and inability to maintain doing the same thing for a long period of time.
But another part of it is that, besides my faithful friends (thank you, Sanguine, for your consistent checking and commenting on my inconsistent reporting), no one has found this thing after a couple of years.
And that's not a great surprise. There are millions of blogs across the Internet without any real organization or connection.
But YouTube is another matter. People search for videos and find literally almost anything. Videos related to something you are already watching or other videos by the same user are highlighted across the side of the screen.
These connections have propelled over half of my 40 Cornerstone video clips to over 100 views in just a week. On the political side, my random clip that I recorded of Ron Paul on a radio show over a month ago is nearing 12,000 plays, and my recording of Mike Huckabee on NPR last night got 200 views within the first 24 hours. Even my Roller Coaster trip on the Boss (still idling at the Myspace vids) is up to 148 plays in a week (the one dud: my Coldplay stick-figure compilation, still at 7 views in 6 days).
The point is, if it's on YouTube, people find it. They really find it if it's about stuff that interests them. It would be different to "blog" in video form, and it would take more time. I fear that it would become drastically infrequent. But, admittedly, I'm hungry for viewers. And I'm already getting them without even trying at YouTube with my live shows and interviews...
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Famous People Playing Music Can Save the World?
So apparently there's a big deal about these Live Earth concerts going on all over the world this weekend... something about benefit shows for a climate in crisis with Al Gore smiling for the cameras.
I'm guessing that all the Police and the Linkin Park did for Earth was add more carbon dioxide to the air with their singing.
I mean, seriously, this is such a stupid idea. It convinces the MTV-educated masses that global warming is a conclusive issue, and even worse, that somehow by listening to this music they are doing something about it.
I've only looked into the controversy enough to know that there's some very good arguments for all of these positions: Global warming is caused by human activities; global warming is real but not caused by human activities; global warming is not all real. It's a complicated issue, and I bet even I know more about global warming than half the stars on the stages across the continents.
Oh, excuse me, it's climate change now, because sometimes it results in global cooling. Gotta have our terms straight to convince the masses that we really know what we're talking about.
This blog is pretty much devoid of substance. I'm just casually ranting over the simultaneous obvious worthlessness and perceived effectiveness of "Concerts for Climate Change."
Puh-leez.
Edmond the Hun
I'm guessing that all the Police and the Linkin Park did for Earth was add more carbon dioxide to the air with their singing.
I mean, seriously, this is such a stupid idea. It convinces the MTV-educated masses that global warming is a conclusive issue, and even worse, that somehow by listening to this music they are doing something about it.
I've only looked into the controversy enough to know that there's some very good arguments for all of these positions: Global warming is caused by human activities; global warming is real but not caused by human activities; global warming is not all real. It's a complicated issue, and I bet even I know more about global warming than half the stars on the stages across the continents.
Oh, excuse me, it's climate change now, because sometimes it results in global cooling. Gotta have our terms straight to convince the masses that we really know what we're talking about.
This blog is pretty much devoid of substance. I'm just casually ranting over the simultaneous obvious worthlessness and perceived effectiveness of "Concerts for Climate Change."
Puh-leez.
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, June 17, 2007
A Disciplined Celebrity
Maybe there's still hope for America.
Celebrity headlines are filled with the sad tales of young women who used to be attractive and are now only noted for their friendly encounters with drugs, alcohol, prison, and food (or lack of it).
It's too early to say if 16-year-old Nancy Drew star Emma Roberts, the infamous Julia's niece, will achieve the same popularity status of Lohan or Hilton, but it's not too early to say that if she does, she's got a better chance of surviving with dignity intact.
Why? Parents who aren't afraid to discipline.
She got her cell phone taken away for a week "for talking sassy to her mother." (usatoday.com)
USA Today commenter cambel noted,
Mandy Moore is strikingly absent from the celebrity antics of her peers, although since she accidentally became the poster girl for young Christian women everywhere after A Walk to Remember, followed by her large role in the brilliant but blasphemous comedy Saved, it's hard to say where she now stands in the opinion of the public eye. (How many people will buy her new album that releases Tuesday? How many people even know that she's still a recording artist?)
But if it's too late for Moore, could Emma Roberts be the next role model for impressionable young women? Or are cell-phone privileges that relevant of a punishment? Does this little incident really merit a prediction of her Hollywood success?
I don't know, and I'm not one to be overly optimistic, but considering the trails blazed by those before, I'll be rooting for her.
And I suppose Dakota Fanning's right behind her...
Celebrity headlines are filled with the sad tales of young women who used to be attractive and are now only noted for their friendly encounters with drugs, alcohol, prison, and food (or lack of it).
It's too early to say if 16-year-old Nancy Drew star Emma Roberts, the infamous Julia's niece, will achieve the same popularity status of Lohan or Hilton, but it's not too early to say that if she does, she's got a better chance of surviving with dignity intact.
Why? Parents who aren't afraid to discipline.
She got her cell phone taken away for a week "for talking sassy to her mother." (usatoday.com)
USA Today commenter cambel noted,
thank god her mother is actually disciplining her when she acted like a brat. Sounds like she will turn out ok. If only Lohans mother had tried that once in a while her daughter wouldn't have turned into a coked-out unemployable laughingstock."
Mandy Moore is strikingly absent from the celebrity antics of her peers, although since she accidentally became the poster girl for young Christian women everywhere after A Walk to Remember, followed by her large role in the brilliant but blasphemous comedy Saved, it's hard to say where she now stands in the opinion of the public eye. (How many people will buy her new album that releases Tuesday? How many people even know that she's still a recording artist?)
But if it's too late for Moore, could Emma Roberts be the next role model for impressionable young women? Or are cell-phone privileges that relevant of a punishment? Does this little incident really merit a prediction of her Hollywood success?
I don't know, and I'm not one to be overly optimistic, but considering the trails blazed by those before, I'll be rooting for her.
And I suppose Dakota Fanning's right behind her...
Friday, June 15, 2007
Freedom Is Slavery
Recently, Congress passed and President Bush signed two pieces of legislation that have become highly controversial, despite the complete or near-complete ignorance of the average American, including myself, about their details and contents. Today, we will look at the first.
The Patriot Act was a rather long document signed into law on October 26, 2001. I vaguely remember the Democrats and liberal media whining about losing freedoms, (but of course Democrats and the liberal media were always wrong, and Bush and the Republicans were always right) and I vaguely remember thinking, so what if the government can now see what library books I check out? I have nothing to hide. If it helps catch terrorists, then so be it.
There are also claims that specific provisions in the Patriot Act have resulted in the prevention of terrorist plots on American soil. Well, what greater proof could you need? Who care about what freedoms we do or do not have by this Act if it was this Act and this Act alone that prevented an attack, right?
Unfortunately, life is never that simple.
The passing of the Patriot Act was shady to begin with. Andrew Napolitano, Fox News' Senior Judicial Analyst, states that only two people read the entire Act before the vote was held in Congress, and both voted against it [1]. Napolitano says that Ron Paul and the other Congressmen were given 15 minutes to "look over" the 315-page document on the House intranet. [2]
Napolitano says that John Ashcroft claimed the Act "was so important that they didn't have time to read it before they could vote on it," [3] so Congressmen voted to pass it, even without being aware of what it said. Ron Paul was one of the few who was too suspicious to give them the benefit of the doubt, and he voted NO.
What does all of that mean for us?
First, even if there was absolutely nothing in the Patriot Act that would bother me ~ not a single line that I would have problem giving the government the power to control ~ I still feel uneasy about the fact that our representatives voted to pass it without knowing what all of those things were.
Let's go back to the library books thing. Anyone can check out any book at a library. How could the government know if there are certain books that terrorists are more likely to check out? And if there are, what if I decided to check all of those books out because I wanted to learn things? It's a public library, and I can check out whatever I want! How would that tell the government whether or not I am likely to be a terrorist?
Second, what about this fundamental notion that in a post-9/11 world we have to give up some freedoms in order to protect our freedoms of life and safety? Such a notion would seem to be legitimate, but where does it stop?
Engaging in political discussions on Facebook, I have seen someone named Jyoti Das claiming that his father was looking up stuff online about
9/11 government-caused conspiracy theories, both "for" and "against." A week later, a Secret Service agent showed up at his house and asked some questions. Another man (a white Caucasian) claims that he did "something" to get himself placed on a terrorist watch list, and has spoken with Secret Service agents. If one assumes that these independent stories are not complete lies, there are no doubt other, similar stories out there.
Do you seriously think that there will never be another terrorist attack on American soil? What further liberties will we have to give up so that the government can protect us?
After all, if knowing what library books terrorists check out helps the government identity them, shouldn't knowing what books they buy at bookstores be just as helpful? And what about those who do research online? It's not like it's hard to keep track of what IP addresses my computer requests access to every time I click on a page.
So what is the line? And, yet, if it comes down to giving up freedoms or death ~ how can we argue? Unless, of course, Big Brother only wants us to think that this is what it comes down to.
Such conspiracy-laden speculation, this stripping away of our freedoms in order to protect them, is interesting, that sort of simultaneous exercise in "fun" and "scary." It is probably exaggerated, yet certainly not entirely fabricated, and potentially both frightening and dangeorus.
But, after all, my friends, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35yhSifZ5jI, 4:55
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35yhSifZ5jI, 5:10
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35yhSifZ5jI, 4:45
The Patriot Act was a rather long document signed into law on October 26, 2001. I vaguely remember the Democrats and liberal media whining about losing freedoms, (but of course Democrats and the liberal media were always wrong, and Bush and the Republicans were always right) and I vaguely remember thinking, so what if the government can now see what library books I check out? I have nothing to hide. If it helps catch terrorists, then so be it.
There are also claims that specific provisions in the Patriot Act have resulted in the prevention of terrorist plots on American soil. Well, what greater proof could you need? Who care about what freedoms we do or do not have by this Act if it was this Act and this Act alone that prevented an attack, right?
Unfortunately, life is never that simple.
The passing of the Patriot Act was shady to begin with. Andrew Napolitano, Fox News' Senior Judicial Analyst, states that only two people read the entire Act before the vote was held in Congress, and both voted against it [1]. Napolitano says that Ron Paul and the other Congressmen were given 15 minutes to "look over" the 315-page document on the House intranet. [2]
Napolitano says that John Ashcroft claimed the Act "was so important that they didn't have time to read it before they could vote on it," [3] so Congressmen voted to pass it, even without being aware of what it said. Ron Paul was one of the few who was too suspicious to give them the benefit of the doubt, and he voted NO.
What does all of that mean for us?
First, even if there was absolutely nothing in the Patriot Act that would bother me ~ not a single line that I would have problem giving the government the power to control ~ I still feel uneasy about the fact that our representatives voted to pass it without knowing what all of those things were.
Let's go back to the library books thing. Anyone can check out any book at a library. How could the government know if there are certain books that terrorists are more likely to check out? And if there are, what if I decided to check all of those books out because I wanted to learn things? It's a public library, and I can check out whatever I want! How would that tell the government whether or not I am likely to be a terrorist?
Second, what about this fundamental notion that in a post-9/11 world we have to give up some freedoms in order to protect our freedoms of life and safety? Such a notion would seem to be legitimate, but where does it stop?
Engaging in political discussions on Facebook, I have seen someone named Jyoti Das claiming that his father was looking up stuff online about
9/11 government-caused conspiracy theories, both "for" and "against." A week later, a Secret Service agent showed up at his house and asked some questions. Another man (a white Caucasian) claims that he did "something" to get himself placed on a terrorist watch list, and has spoken with Secret Service agents. If one assumes that these independent stories are not complete lies, there are no doubt other, similar stories out there.
Do you seriously think that there will never be another terrorist attack on American soil? What further liberties will we have to give up so that the government can protect us?
After all, if knowing what library books terrorists check out helps the government identity them, shouldn't knowing what books they buy at bookstores be just as helpful? And what about those who do research online? It's not like it's hard to keep track of what IP addresses my computer requests access to every time I click on a page.
So what is the line? And, yet, if it comes down to giving up freedoms or death ~ how can we argue? Unless, of course, Big Brother only wants us to think that this is what it comes down to.
Such conspiracy-laden speculation, this stripping away of our freedoms in order to protect them, is interesting, that sort of simultaneous exercise in "fun" and "scary." It is probably exaggerated, yet certainly not entirely fabricated, and potentially both frightening and dangeorus.
But, after all, my friends, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35yhSifZ5jI, 4:55
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35yhSifZ5jI, 5:10
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35yhSifZ5jI, 4:45
Thursday, May 31, 2007
There's Something Really Wrong Here....
So we used to think our national debt was *only* nine trillion dollars. Then an article on Tuesday revealed that we have a "hidden debt" of fifty-one trillion dollars, stuff like social securtiy and medicare that for various political reaons doesn't get counted in the regular national debt number.
OK, so $60 trillion in debt is ridiculous enough. But, hey, that number's been getting higher for years and we seem to be doing fine, so what does it matter, right?
I don't completely understand how money works on these large scales, but apparently, we're borrowing millions of dollars a day from China to pay for our stuff, hoping they won't ask for it back any time soon (anyone remember the post-war debts and one of the major causes of the Great Depression?).
Even if that doesn't appear to be an urgent danger, somehow our increasing debt makes the dollar worth less compared to other currencies. Again, I'm not an economics expert, but as our government keeps spending more money than it takes in, and we just keep ignoring the issue and watching the number get bigger, we're increasing our chances of economic disaster.
This is crazy! I'd never heard of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul until three weeks ago, but almost every day I read news articles that confirm that we need someone like him in office to reduce government power and cut federal spending to a reasonable amount, just to get us out of debt before something drastic happens. Another longshot, Mike Huckabee, claims to want to reduce spending and balance the federal budget, but while he was governor of Arkansas he increased spending there by 60%.
By voting against his own Congressional pay raises during nine terms in Congress and never taking a free trip on taxpayer money, Ron Paul has the integrity that no other candidate has yet claimed to match.
Sometimes it is not difficult for me to understand why so many people are passionately convinced that he is the only hope for America.
OK, so $60 trillion in debt is ridiculous enough. But, hey, that number's been getting higher for years and we seem to be doing fine, so what does it matter, right?
I don't completely understand how money works on these large scales, but apparently, we're borrowing millions of dollars a day from China to pay for our stuff, hoping they won't ask for it back any time soon (anyone remember the post-war debts and one of the major causes of the Great Depression?).
Even if that doesn't appear to be an urgent danger, somehow our increasing debt makes the dollar worth less compared to other currencies. Again, I'm not an economics expert, but as our government keeps spending more money than it takes in, and we just keep ignoring the issue and watching the number get bigger, we're increasing our chances of economic disaster.
This is crazy! I'd never heard of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul until three weeks ago, but almost every day I read news articles that confirm that we need someone like him in office to reduce government power and cut federal spending to a reasonable amount, just to get us out of debt before something drastic happens. Another longshot, Mike Huckabee, claims to want to reduce spending and balance the federal budget, but while he was governor of Arkansas he increased spending there by 60%.
By voting against his own Congressional pay raises during nine terms in Congress and never taking a free trip on taxpayer money, Ron Paul has the integrity that no other candidate has yet claimed to match.
Sometimes it is not difficult for me to understand why so many people are passionately convinced that he is the only hope for America.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Ron Paul For President?
USAToday.com posts way too many articles about the presidential candidates with 18 months to go, but I like to click on them and see what comments people leave to get an idea of how much support different candidates have (Regardless of poll results, Hillary, for instance, has virtually no support among USAToday's readers, Republican or Democrat).
Anyway, many of them have made comments to the tune of "Ron Paul is the only real candidate" or "Ron Paul is the only candidate who supports the Constitution" and other such positive statements.
Ron Paul? Who is this guy? I'd never heard of him . So I looked him up on Wikipedia. He's an interesting guy, and while it's still way too early to worry about, I might like him the most out of the candidates so far. A bit of information on the guy:
Although a former Libertarian candidate for president, due to his political ideals and voting record he probably has a better chance at a Republican nomination than Guiliani (unclear abortion views), Romney (unwillingness to elect a Mormon), McCain (too liberal), or Brownback (too unknown).
I'm tempted to predict Ron Paul and Obama as the future contenders at this point, but again, it's way too early. Just thought I'd let my readers know about Ron Paul, since he's an interesting guy whose been getting more attention and rising in various polls.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/AboutRon_fx.html
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/Issues_fx.html
Anyway, many of them have made comments to the tune of "Ron Paul is the only real candidate" or "Ron Paul is the only candidate who supports the Constitution" and other such positive statements.
Ron Paul? Who is this guy? I'd never heard of him . So I looked him up on Wikipedia. He's an interesting guy, and while it's still way too early to worry about, I might like him the most out of the candidates so far. A bit of information on the guy:
- Right now he's a Republican Congressman, listed as a Protestant, for whatever that's worth
- His nickname is "Dr. No" because he supposedly always votes no for bills that are against the Constitution. He has never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program and returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
- Interestingly enough, he has always voted against the War, the Patriot Act, seeming to prefer targeted strikes against individuals. Not sure if that's good, bad, or neutral, but it means he's got a shot at support for votes from the Democratic types
- He used to "be a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology and has delivered more than 4,000 babies. Paul didn't accept Medicare or Medicaid as a physician; instead, he would do the work for free or work out a lowered payment for needy patients."
- He's for limited government that does not pay to solve our problems with our tax money, against amnesty for immigrants and for a fence.
- He's got 17 grandchildren.
Although a former Libertarian candidate for president, due to his political ideals and voting record he probably has a better chance at a Republican nomination than Guiliani (unclear abortion views), Romney (unwillingness to elect a Mormon), McCain (too liberal), or Brownback (too unknown).
I'm tempted to predict Ron Paul and Obama as the future contenders at this point, but again, it's way too early. Just thought I'd let my readers know about Ron Paul, since he's an interesting guy whose been getting more attention and rising in various polls.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/AboutRon_fx.html
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/Issues_fx.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)