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
Monday, May 14, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Chart Thursday: Spidey sets records
MOVIES (Last weekend, May 4-6)
1. Spiderman 3 ($151 mil, 1st wk)
2. Disturbia ($5.8 mil, 4th wk, $60 mil total)
3. Fracture ($3.7 mil, 3rd wk, $26.7 mil total)
4. The Invisible ($3.3 mil, 2nd wk, $12.4 mil total)
5. Next ($2.9 mil, 2nd wk, $12 mil total)
ALBUMS (5/1 - 5/7)
The top five:
1. Ne-Yo, Because of You, 251K (new)
2. Michael Buble, Call Me Irresponsible, 212K (new)
3. Rush, Snakes and Arrows, 93K (new)
4. Avril Lavigne, The Best Damn Thing, 86K (495K in 3 weeks)
5. Tori Amos, American Doll Posse, 54K (new)
------
Other interesting selections:
7. Daughtry, Daughtry, 50K (2.4 mil in 24 weeks)
10. Carrie Underwood, Some Hearts, 44K (5.3 mil in 77 weeks)
87. Elliot Yamin, 8K (180K in 7 weeks)
93. High School Musical Soundtrack, 7K (3.9 mil in 69 weeks)
114. Kellie Pickler, Small Town Girl, 6K (518K in 27 weeks)
157. Kidz Bop, Kidz Bop 11, 5K (242K in 11 weeks)
SONG DOWNLOADS (5/1 - 5/7)
The top five:
1. Maroon 5, "Makes Me Wonder," 177K (421K total)
2. Ne-Yo, "Because of You," 117K (206K total)
3. Carrie Underwood, "I'll Stand By You," 114K (238K total)
4. Avril Lavigne, "Girlfriend," 103K (1.2 mil total)
5. T-Pain, "Buy U A Drank," 89K (535K total)
------
Other interesting selections:
12. Carrie Underwood, "Before He Cheats," 52K (1.17 mil total)
32. Daughtry, "It's Not Over," 23K (1.20 mil total)
COMMENTARY
Thanks to excessive popularity and ever-increasing ticket prices, Spiderman 3 broke various records as it took in five times as much money as all other movies combined last weekend. I must be the only one in the country who hasn't seen it yet.
Meanwhile, some rapper who calls himself Ne-Yo sold the most albums and came in second on downloads. I haven't bothered to look up the lyrics yet. Maroon 5's new song stays on top for a second week. I've heard it once; it's OK.
Unfortunately, pop radio keeps playing the latest country single from Carrie Underwood, pushing her album's sales well over five million and threatening to overtake Daughtry's average yet decent single in downloads.
Speaking of Idol economics, Bon Jovi's feature on American Idol put all six of his performed songs in the top 50 for last week's downloads. Regardless of the overall talent or actual interest of the show in successive seasons, it continues to generate loads of money for both performers and the performed.
1. Spiderman 3 ($151 mil, 1st wk)
2. Disturbia ($5.8 mil, 4th wk, $60 mil total)
3. Fracture ($3.7 mil, 3rd wk, $26.7 mil total)
4. The Invisible ($3.3 mil, 2nd wk, $12.4 mil total)
5. Next ($2.9 mil, 2nd wk, $12 mil total)
ALBUMS (5/1 - 5/7)
The top five:
1. Ne-Yo, Because of You, 251K (new)
2. Michael Buble, Call Me Irresponsible, 212K (new)
3. Rush, Snakes and Arrows, 93K (new)
4. Avril Lavigne, The Best Damn Thing, 86K (495K in 3 weeks)
5. Tori Amos, American Doll Posse, 54K (new)
------
Other interesting selections:
7. Daughtry, Daughtry, 50K (2.4 mil in 24 weeks)
10. Carrie Underwood, Some Hearts, 44K (5.3 mil in 77 weeks)
87. Elliot Yamin, 8K (180K in 7 weeks)
93. High School Musical Soundtrack, 7K (3.9 mil in 69 weeks)
114. Kellie Pickler, Small Town Girl, 6K (518K in 27 weeks)
157. Kidz Bop, Kidz Bop 11, 5K (242K in 11 weeks)
SONG DOWNLOADS (5/1 - 5/7)
The top five:
1. Maroon 5, "Makes Me Wonder," 177K (421K total)
2. Ne-Yo, "Because of You," 117K (206K total)
3. Carrie Underwood, "I'll Stand By You," 114K (238K total)
4. Avril Lavigne, "Girlfriend," 103K (1.2 mil total)
5. T-Pain, "Buy U A Drank," 89K (535K total)
------
Other interesting selections:
12. Carrie Underwood, "Before He Cheats," 52K (1.17 mil total)
32. Daughtry, "It's Not Over," 23K (1.20 mil total)
COMMENTARY
Thanks to excessive popularity and ever-increasing ticket prices, Spiderman 3 broke various records as it took in five times as much money as all other movies combined last weekend. I must be the only one in the country who hasn't seen it yet.
Meanwhile, some rapper who calls himself Ne-Yo sold the most albums and came in second on downloads. I haven't bothered to look up the lyrics yet. Maroon 5's new song stays on top for a second week. I've heard it once; it's OK.
Unfortunately, pop radio keeps playing the latest country single from Carrie Underwood, pushing her album's sales well over five million and threatening to overtake Daughtry's average yet decent single in downloads.
Speaking of Idol economics, Bon Jovi's feature on American Idol put all six of his performed songs in the top 50 for last week's downloads. Regardless of the overall talent or actual interest of the show in successive seasons, it continues to generate loads of money for both performers and the performed.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Terrorists Can't Burn DVDs, or Military Forts
Sounds like we got lucky on this one.
The big headline is that they foiled a terrorist plot by six Islamic militants to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey.
The details are still unfolding, but it appears that these guys weren't in any hurry. The feds have been investigating this for fifteen months, apparently. They also say that they don't know if it's linked to al-Qaeda, although the guys were watching bin Laden videos in their free time. I suppose the government is paranoid about linking anything without undeniable evidence these days...
It also appears that the first tip came from a store clerk when a customer asked to have a DVD made of a video that "showed men in military fatigues shooting assault weapons while calling for jihad, or holy war, and shouting in Arabic, 'God is great.' "
Wait... so we caught the guys because they didn't have DVD-writeable technology? And they were dumb enough to have it done at a store?
Thank God for snooping, curious clerks. But what does that say about our official intelligence? It was only after the clerk called police that the smart boys discovered that some of them were here illegally and had illegal firearms. What if they had actually been smart enough to avoid letting incriminatory footage into the hands of an outsider?
Well, New Jersey's safe for now. Mother Nature's looking more dangerous than Father Turban these days. A tornado wiped out 90% of a small Kansas town, only killing 10, while the rest of the state as well as parts of Missouri are flooding, thanks to all the recent rainfall.
And there's thunderstorms forecasted for tomorrow.
The big headline is that they foiled a terrorist plot by six Islamic militants to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey.
The details are still unfolding, but it appears that these guys weren't in any hurry. The feds have been investigating this for fifteen months, apparently. They also say that they don't know if it's linked to al-Qaeda, although the guys were watching bin Laden videos in their free time. I suppose the government is paranoid about linking anything without undeniable evidence these days...
It also appears that the first tip came from a store clerk when a customer asked to have a DVD made of a video that "showed men in military fatigues shooting assault weapons while calling for jihad, or holy war, and shouting in Arabic, 'God is great.' "
Wait... so we caught the guys because they didn't have DVD-writeable technology? And they were dumb enough to have it done at a store?
Thank God for snooping, curious clerks. But what does that say about our official intelligence? It was only after the clerk called police that the smart boys discovered that some of them were here illegally and had illegal firearms. What if they had actually been smart enough to avoid letting incriminatory footage into the hands of an outsider?
Well, New Jersey's safe for now. Mother Nature's looking more dangerous than Father Turban these days. A tornado wiped out 90% of a small Kansas town, only killing 10, while the rest of the state as well as parts of Missouri are flooding, thanks to all the recent rainfall.
And there's thunderstorms forecasted for tomorrow.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Gas Breaks Record, Breaks From Pattern
Gas prices have risen a lot over the last three years, and there's been a lot of fluctuation. I've carefully followed the prices of both gasoline and crude oil since Katrina damages sent crude oil to a record $70 and local gasoline to a record $3.09 a gallon.
There have plenty of gas price spikes since then, and many like to accuse the big oil companies of deciding to gouge prices because they can. However, I knew there was more than that, because gas prices would typically spike whenever the price of crude oil jumped, and trickle down when it had some catching up to do. After two years, I became familiar with the relative prices (for a while, $70 meant $3 a gallon; $65 meant $2.50, and $60 meant $2) and I could guess with decent accuracy what days the price of gas would go up.
This custom graph from stlouisgasprices.com shows that in the last three years overall gas prices and crude oil have risen and fallen together, suggesting that the big oil companies aren't randomly raising prices because they can. The two red spikes in the middle are post-Katrina and post-Rita, after which crude oil dropped back to "normal" and gas prices trickled down to under $2 through the end of 2005.
Suddenly, last month, that pattern was broken. Gas jumped several times without a justified spike in crude oil. Notice the very end of the above graph, where blue drops and red rises. If we zoom in to the last six months, there is a clear and sudden disparity:
Since the beginning of April, I have not been able to predict what gas prices will do. At the end of this week, St. Louis prices shot up to a record $3.19, while crude oil dropped to $62. Last summer, crude oil in the record $70's kept us under $3 for gas.
Before, conspiracy theorists claimed that big oil companies jacked up the price just to make more money, but the data showed a different cause. But now, I don't know. For the last month the past patterns led to the prediction that gas would slowly trickle down until it had caught up with crude oil. Instead, gas has continued to spike, reaching new records.
Reading several articles across the 'net gives some insight. "Reduced output due to refinery problems" seems to mean that the crude oil bought is not being refined into gas as quickly as it usually is. If gasoline supplies have been declining for twelve consecutive weeks, a decreasing supply coupled with increasing demand (of US gas short-term, not world oil long-term) this would anticipate a rise in gas prices that was unrelated to the price of crude oil.
I still don't like that it's broken years of its pattern, though. I don't like it.
There have plenty of gas price spikes since then, and many like to accuse the big oil companies of deciding to gouge prices because they can. However, I knew there was more than that, because gas prices would typically spike whenever the price of crude oil jumped, and trickle down when it had some catching up to do. After two years, I became familiar with the relative prices (for a while, $70 meant $3 a gallon; $65 meant $2.50, and $60 meant $2) and I could guess with decent accuracy what days the price of gas would go up.
This custom graph from stlouisgasprices.com shows that in the last three years overall gas prices and crude oil have risen and fallen together, suggesting that the big oil companies aren't randomly raising prices because they can. The two red spikes in the middle are post-Katrina and post-Rita, after which crude oil dropped back to "normal" and gas prices trickled down to under $2 through the end of 2005.
Suddenly, last month, that pattern was broken. Gas jumped several times without a justified spike in crude oil. Notice the very end of the above graph, where blue drops and red rises. If we zoom in to the last six months, there is a clear and sudden disparity:
Since the beginning of April, I have not been able to predict what gas prices will do. At the end of this week, St. Louis prices shot up to a record $3.19, while crude oil dropped to $62. Last summer, crude oil in the record $70's kept us under $3 for gas.
Before, conspiracy theorists claimed that big oil companies jacked up the price just to make more money, but the data showed a different cause. But now, I don't know. For the last month the past patterns led to the prediction that gas would slowly trickle down until it had caught up with crude oil. Instead, gas has continued to spike, reaching new records.
Reading several articles across the 'net gives some insight. "Reduced output due to refinery problems" seems to mean that the crude oil bought is not being refined into gas as quickly as it usually is. If gasoline supplies have been declining for twelve consecutive weeks, a decreasing supply coupled with increasing demand (of US gas short-term, not world oil long-term) this would anticipate a rise in gas prices that was unrelated to the price of crude oil.
I still don't like that it's broken years of its pattern, though. I don't like it.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Chart Thursday: Avril and Disturbia top low sales week
MOVIES (Last weekend, 4/27-4/29)
1. Disturbia ($9 mil, 3rd wk, $52 mil total)
2. The Invisible ($7.7, 1st wk)
3. Next ($7.1, 1st wk)
4. Fracture ($6.8 mil, 2nd wk, $21 mil total)
5. Blades of Glory ($5.1 mil, 5th wk, $108 mil total)
ALBUMS (4/24 - 4/30)
The top five:
1. Avril Lavigne, The Best Damn Thing, 121K (408K total in two weeks)
2. Joe, Ain't Nothing Like Me, 98K (first week)
3. Nine Inch Nails, Zero, 57K (246K in two weeks)
4. Various, Now 24, 55K (656K in five weeks)
5. Daughtry, Daughtry, 49K (2.3 mil in 23 weeks)
------
Some interesting albums:
108. tobyMac, Portable Sounds, 7K (156K in 10 weeks)
129. Relient K, Five Score and Seven Years Ago, 6K (158K in 8 weeks)
SONG DOWNLOADS (4/24 - 4/30)
The top five:
1. Maroon 5, "Makes Me Wonder," 244K (new song)
2. Carrie Underwood, "I'll Stand By You," 124K (new song)
3. Avril Lavigne, "Girlfriend," 116K (1.1 mil total)
4. Kelly Clarkson, "Never Again," 107K (new song)
5. Timbaland, "Give It To Me," 97K (648K total)
COMMENTARY
Last weekend no movie made $10 million. I remember articles fretting about the movie industry last year when the top movie was under $30 million. Regardless, they're up 3% on the year, and besides, Spiderman 3 will make more money this weekend than all the movies put together did last weekend.
Meanwhile, album sales, which have been dropping for several years, thanks to illegal downloading and not helped by legal single-song downloading, hit a new record low last week. Avril's latest sits at the top for two weeks in a row, although the stupid song "Girlfriend" finally fell from the top downloads, thanks to a new Maroon 5 song.
1. Disturbia ($9 mil, 3rd wk, $52 mil total)
2. The Invisible ($7.7, 1st wk)
3. Next ($7.1, 1st wk)
4. Fracture ($6.8 mil, 2nd wk, $21 mil total)
5. Blades of Glory ($5.1 mil, 5th wk, $108 mil total)
ALBUMS (4/24 - 4/30)
The top five:
1. Avril Lavigne, The Best Damn Thing, 121K (408K total in two weeks)
2. Joe, Ain't Nothing Like Me, 98K (first week)
3. Nine Inch Nails, Zero, 57K (246K in two weeks)
4. Various, Now 24, 55K (656K in five weeks)
5. Daughtry, Daughtry, 49K (2.3 mil in 23 weeks)
------
Some interesting albums:
108. tobyMac, Portable Sounds, 7K (156K in 10 weeks)
129. Relient K, Five Score and Seven Years Ago, 6K (158K in 8 weeks)
SONG DOWNLOADS (4/24 - 4/30)
The top five:
1. Maroon 5, "Makes Me Wonder," 244K (new song)
2. Carrie Underwood, "I'll Stand By You," 124K (new song)
3. Avril Lavigne, "Girlfriend," 116K (1.1 mil total)
4. Kelly Clarkson, "Never Again," 107K (new song)
5. Timbaland, "Give It To Me," 97K (648K total)
COMMENTARY
Last weekend no movie made $10 million. I remember articles fretting about the movie industry last year when the top movie was under $30 million. Regardless, they're up 3% on the year, and besides, Spiderman 3 will make more money this weekend than all the movies put together did last weekend.
Meanwhile, album sales, which have been dropping for several years, thanks to illegal downloading and not helped by legal single-song downloading, hit a new record low last week. Avril's latest sits at the top for two weeks in a row, although the stupid song "Girlfriend" finally fell from the top downloads, thanks to a new Maroon 5 song.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Health Care, Haircuts, and A Republican Actor (553 days to go)
One poll says Obama is ahead of Hillary in Democratic polls. Not that you can't find one poll that says almost anything you want.
Hillary has said she has a universal health care plan for a while now, without admitting where the money will come from. Obama has pretty much said, me too. Now Edwards says, "Me three... but it might take more taxes." At least he's honest. Apparently all the Dems are for this Universal Health Care thing.
Not sure whether it's better to take even more money from the wealthy just because they can afford it (the fundamentals of socialism) or leave the poor hard-working folk in debt from hospital bills. Not sure whether the President has much say over health care, either... I need to check my Constitution, but I would've thought that was more of a Congress thing (which Obama and Hillary are supposed to be a part of when they're not campaigning for an election 18 months away). Maybe Congress should just regulate ridiculous hospital bills ~ that might solve a lot.
Meanwhile, conservatives are having a lot of fun with the $400 haircut that John Edwards took out of our tax dollars or his campaign funds or whatever... He said it was a "mistake." Ad hominems are so much fun in politics, because the character of the person is just as important as their arguments.
On the Republican side of things, the latest rumors are that Fred Thompson will be entering the race (what's with this "enter the race" colloquialism anyway? If you don't enter soon enough, will you be too far behind? Not if the race hasn't even started yet.) Apparently he was an actor turned senator. *shrug* Everybody seems to have fond memories of Reagan. But everybody's also glad that Ahnold doesn't qualify.
Well, that's about all we have for now. I can't say much more because I just can't bring myself to do in-depth research into the qualifications, viewpoints, and policies of anybody when we still have 553 days to go.
Edmond the Hun
Hillary has said she has a universal health care plan for a while now, without admitting where the money will come from. Obama has pretty much said, me too. Now Edwards says, "Me three... but it might take more taxes." At least he's honest. Apparently all the Dems are for this Universal Health Care thing.
Not sure whether it's better to take even more money from the wealthy just because they can afford it (the fundamentals of socialism) or leave the poor hard-working folk in debt from hospital bills. Not sure whether the President has much say over health care, either... I need to check my Constitution, but I would've thought that was more of a Congress thing (which Obama and Hillary are supposed to be a part of when they're not campaigning for an election 18 months away). Maybe Congress should just regulate ridiculous hospital bills ~ that might solve a lot.
Meanwhile, conservatives are having a lot of fun with the $400 haircut that John Edwards took out of our tax dollars or his campaign funds or whatever... He said it was a "mistake." Ad hominems are so much fun in politics, because the character of the person is just as important as their arguments.
On the Republican side of things, the latest rumors are that Fred Thompson will be entering the race (what's with this "enter the race" colloquialism anyway? If you don't enter soon enough, will you be too far behind? Not if the race hasn't even started yet.) Apparently he was an actor turned senator. *shrug* Everybody seems to have fond memories of Reagan. But everybody's also glad that Ahnold doesn't qualify.
Well, that's about all we have for now. I can't say much more because I just can't bring myself to do in-depth research into the qualifications, viewpoints, and policies of anybody when we still have 553 days to go.
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Just Say No to Crushing That Baby's Skull
So yesterday the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that it was not unconstitutional to ban partial-birth abortion. I guess that's a good thing. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not so sympathetic of a type of second-trimester abortion that involves cutting open the baby's (excuse me, fetus's) skull so you can suck out the brains and collapse the skull to make the dead thing easier to remove. What about the baby's rights?
But I digress.
The bottom line is that I don't really like the method of this decision any more than I do the original decision that made abortion OK in the first place. Sure, I'm all for it, just like I'd be all for the Supreme Court deciding that it's unconstitutional to play Nickelback on the radio (cruel and unusual punishment). But that's not the way these decisions should be made.
The commenters and bloggers are all dissecting this decision and arguing about women's rights and child's rights and all the hashed and re-hashed arguments. But frankly, the Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with any of that. It all came down to the personal opinions of whoever happened to be presiding at the time of the decision, just like the first decision did.
The problem with the judicial system is that they have to decide between constitutional and non-constitutional. This is an either/or fallacy because sometimes events are simply a-constitutional, not mentioned one way or the other. And thus, our conservative victory yesterday is a shallow one, because in the future a different set of judges could use the opposite arguments to make the opposite decision. Much of our law has been reduced to an oligarchy of nine.
But that is all the stuff of old conservative rantings. What's new here is that we feel the need to get the feedback of all the presidential candidates. As if their opinion would really make that much difference if they were elected (unless a justice happens to die and they get to pick a new one that agrees with their abortion views AND gets confirmed by Congress. But we just replaced two). As if their statements are any more meaningful than the decision itself, since they are only saying what will appeal to their potential voters. In case you hadn't guessed, all the Republican candidates supported it, and all the Democratic candidates opposed it. (see http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/04/high_court_upho.html for specifics)
In other words, things have become so politicized that we can't even know what the candidates really think about anything. Everything they say will be dissected by the media and public, so every response has to be carefully orchestrated. Even the sincerity of something like sending condolences to Virginia Tech loses its meaning because... well, what else are they going to say?
Supreme Court making laws... Presidential candidates forced to say things... we are simply experiencing the inevitable results of massive-scale democracy mixed with the corruption of power. I guess Carmen (don't you remember, back in the day, when he was cool?) got it right when he said, "The only hope for America is Jesus..." Let's humble ourselves, turn from our wicked ways, and pray for God to hear from heaven and heal our land. May corruption be removed, and may truth be made known and set us free.
Edmond the Hun
But I digress.
The bottom line is that I don't really like the method of this decision any more than I do the original decision that made abortion OK in the first place. Sure, I'm all for it, just like I'd be all for the Supreme Court deciding that it's unconstitutional to play Nickelback on the radio (cruel and unusual punishment). But that's not the way these decisions should be made.
The commenters and bloggers are all dissecting this decision and arguing about women's rights and child's rights and all the hashed and re-hashed arguments. But frankly, the Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with any of that. It all came down to the personal opinions of whoever happened to be presiding at the time of the decision, just like the first decision did.
The problem with the judicial system is that they have to decide between constitutional and non-constitutional. This is an either/or fallacy because sometimes events are simply a-constitutional, not mentioned one way or the other. And thus, our conservative victory yesterday is a shallow one, because in the future a different set of judges could use the opposite arguments to make the opposite decision. Much of our law has been reduced to an oligarchy of nine.
But that is all the stuff of old conservative rantings. What's new here is that we feel the need to get the feedback of all the presidential candidates. As if their opinion would really make that much difference if they were elected (unless a justice happens to die and they get to pick a new one that agrees with their abortion views AND gets confirmed by Congress. But we just replaced two). As if their statements are any more meaningful than the decision itself, since they are only saying what will appeal to their potential voters. In case you hadn't guessed, all the Republican candidates supported it, and all the Democratic candidates opposed it. (see http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/04/high_court_upho.html for specifics)
In other words, things have become so politicized that we can't even know what the candidates really think about anything. Everything they say will be dissected by the media and public, so every response has to be carefully orchestrated. Even the sincerity of something like sending condolences to Virginia Tech loses its meaning because... well, what else are they going to say?
Supreme Court making laws... Presidential candidates forced to say things... we are simply experiencing the inevitable results of massive-scale democracy mixed with the corruption of power. I guess Carmen (don't you remember, back in the day, when he was cool?) got it right when he said, "The only hope for America is Jesus..." Let's humble ourselves, turn from our wicked ways, and pray for God to hear from heaven and heal our land. May corruption be removed, and may truth be made known and set us free.
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, April 01, 2007
It started out with a kiss, how did it end up like this...
I watched three very different movies recently, and noticed an eerie similarity. There's not a whole lot of common elements among an insightful, blasphemous commentary on the world's perception of Christians, a completely random but hilarious sci-fi spoof, and an intense but over-the-top drama about malevolent weather patterns.
Except when it comes to romance...
In Saved, the guy likes the girl from the beginning. A couple scenes before the end, just before the resolution, she realizes she likes him too. They kiss. Now the relationship starts and carries into the conclusion...
In Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the guy likes the girl from the beginning. At the very end, just after the resolution, she realizes she likes him too. And here comes the kiss. And now they're together for whatever sequel does or does not come...
In The Day After Tomorrow, the guy likes the girl from the beginning (no way). A couple scenes before the resolution, she realizes - no, not that she likes him too. She realized this awhile ago. Instead, she realizes that he likes her, too (what a plot twist!). And there's the cue for the kiss. And now as the movie ends, they have a relationship...
We have a very definite pattern. Whether the guy chases the girl across the galaxy, around a Christian school, or into a public library in downtown New York, once they both realize they like each other, it's "Let's make out and now we're together..."
Something's terribly wrong here. Now don't mistake me for being prudish or old-fashioned. Although I have heard that in the "old days" you didn't kiss a girl until you knew you were going to marry her ~ something that doesn't strike me as a bad concept. But that's not my point. Let's dig deeper. I've frequently pointed out how popular music's lyrics about sex reveal an underlying focus on selfish pleasure instead of unselfish love and respect. I think kissing in movies reveals the same thing.
Let's be real. At the risk of oversimplification, making out is pretty unique as far as romantic pleasures go. On one side of it we have kid stuff like putting your arm around her, which also works for encouragement and comfort and manly stuff like that. On the other side of it we have adult stuff like sex, which also works for getting pregnant. But I'm pretty sure that the only direct purpose of making out is to have a lot of fun.
And it's simply not smart or mature to begin a relationship based on the pleasure you get out of it. That's why I roll my eyes whenever the movie couples have to kiss as soon as they realize their mutual attraction. That's why I love the scene in Return of the King when Faramir and Eowyn look into each other's eyes and she just puts her head on his chest and he holds her and they both smile.
It's easy to forget about how these ultra-pretty movie hero relationships might have gone after the movie was over. It's easy to forget that their characters were engineered to be "perfect" for each other, something that may or may not be true about whomever you happen to "like" at the moment. So this is just a friendly reminder that if you don't feel like making out the moment you find that special person, that's quite alright.
Quite alright, indeed.
Edmond the Hun
Except when it comes to romance...
In Saved, the guy likes the girl from the beginning. A couple scenes before the end, just before the resolution, she realizes she likes him too. They kiss. Now the relationship starts and carries into the conclusion...
In Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the guy likes the girl from the beginning. At the very end, just after the resolution, she realizes she likes him too. And here comes the kiss. And now they're together for whatever sequel does or does not come...
In The Day After Tomorrow, the guy likes the girl from the beginning (no way). A couple scenes before the resolution, she realizes - no, not that she likes him too. She realized this awhile ago. Instead, she realizes that he likes her, too (what a plot twist!). And there's the cue for the kiss. And now as the movie ends, they have a relationship...
We have a very definite pattern. Whether the guy chases the girl across the galaxy, around a Christian school, or into a public library in downtown New York, once they both realize they like each other, it's "Let's make out and now we're together..."
Something's terribly wrong here. Now don't mistake me for being prudish or old-fashioned. Although I have heard that in the "old days" you didn't kiss a girl until you knew you were going to marry her ~ something that doesn't strike me as a bad concept. But that's not my point. Let's dig deeper. I've frequently pointed out how popular music's lyrics about sex reveal an underlying focus on selfish pleasure instead of unselfish love and respect. I think kissing in movies reveals the same thing.
Let's be real. At the risk of oversimplification, making out is pretty unique as far as romantic pleasures go. On one side of it we have kid stuff like putting your arm around her, which also works for encouragement and comfort and manly stuff like that. On the other side of it we have adult stuff like sex, which also works for getting pregnant. But I'm pretty sure that the only direct purpose of making out is to have a lot of fun.
And it's simply not smart or mature to begin a relationship based on the pleasure you get out of it. That's why I roll my eyes whenever the movie couples have to kiss as soon as they realize their mutual attraction. That's why I love the scene in Return of the King when Faramir and Eowyn look into each other's eyes and she just puts her head on his chest and he holds her and they both smile.
It's easy to forget about how these ultra-pretty movie hero relationships might have gone after the movie was over. It's easy to forget that their characters were engineered to be "perfect" for each other, something that may or may not be true about whomever you happen to "like" at the moment. So this is just a friendly reminder that if you don't feel like making out the moment you find that special person, that's quite alright.
Quite alright, indeed.
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Kiva.org: A Stroke of Brilliance
So I logged into MySpace yesterday and was greeted with banners telling me about a new MySpace section about making a difference in the world and all of that. This being related to my purpose in life, I clicked on it to see if it was all talk or if there was anything real to it.
To my surprise, there was.
Amidst the fluff and vague optimism was a link to Kiva.org. This website is using a truly unique idea to help people out of poverty in poor countries. It involves people with money giving money to people without money. But it's a far cry from the generic donate-money-to-some-charity-and hope-it-gets-to-an-African-kid-and-not-the-CEO-of-the-charity stuff that usually stops me from running to charities with even some of the little money that I have.
At Kiva.org, you lend money to an entrepreneur in another country (translation: somebody trying to start a business but having no money to meet the start-up costs), and after they get their business going, they pay you back. Kiva hooks up with your PayPal account (used safely by millions of eBayers to take care of the transaction)
Sound like a scam? Far from it.
I googled "Kiva.org" to see what people were saying about it. You know, see if it was for real and if it really worked. Well, that took me to the Wikipedia page for Kiva.org (yeah, there's a page for everything), which told me that
1) this thing is being supported and encouraged by PayPal (duh), MySpace (where I found it), YouTube, Google, and Microsoft. With these gigantic corporations involved, it doesn't sound like a sneaky scam for your money.
2) Depending on which part of the Wikipedia article you read, these loans are being repayed, a few months or a year later, at a rate of 100% or 99%.
"In a little over a year, Kiva has rapidly grown to become the most trafficked site in microfinance with +35,000 Internet lenders generating +$3 million in loans to thousands of entrepreneurs in +25 developing countries – all with a +99% on time repayment rate thus far. Kiva is staffed and governed by experienced consumer Internet and microfinance leaders."
Just go to Kiva.org and look at the home page. These aren't random guys from poor countries asking for some money with a vague idea of starting a business with it. They're asking for specific amounts to meet specific needs to get a specific business going in a specific location. You can donate in multiplies of $25 to meet a percentage of their need. Kiva takes care of the rest. A few months later, their business is going, and you get your money back. You can then reinvest or keep it.
So, what do you have to lose? Nothing. Unless you just happen to invest in the less than 1% whose business fails. And even that seems more productive than donating to a random charity, where you have no idea where the money goes or what good it does.
I'm definitely going to pick somebody and lend some money. You should, too. Especially if you have a job. If you have more than a couple hundred dollars sitting in the bank, taking out $50 of it has no real effect on your life. And then, a year later, when you get it back, it'll feel like free money, and you'll know (not just hope) that you helped somebody out by getting a business going in a poor country.
This is an excellent idea and I offer it my full support.
Edmond the Hun
To my surprise, there was.
Amidst the fluff and vague optimism was a link to Kiva.org. This website is using a truly unique idea to help people out of poverty in poor countries. It involves people with money giving money to people without money. But it's a far cry from the generic donate-money-to-some-charity-and hope-it-gets-to-an-African-kid-and-not-the-CEO-of-the-charity stuff that usually stops me from running to charities with even some of the little money that I have.
At Kiva.org, you lend money to an entrepreneur in another country (translation: somebody trying to start a business but having no money to meet the start-up costs), and after they get their business going, they pay you back. Kiva hooks up with your PayPal account (used safely by millions of eBayers to take care of the transaction)
Sound like a scam? Far from it.
I googled "Kiva.org" to see what people were saying about it. You know, see if it was for real and if it really worked. Well, that took me to the Wikipedia page for Kiva.org (yeah, there's a page for everything), which told me that
1) this thing is being supported and encouraged by PayPal (duh), MySpace (where I found it), YouTube, Google, and Microsoft. With these gigantic corporations involved, it doesn't sound like a sneaky scam for your money.
2) Depending on which part of the Wikipedia article you read, these loans are being repayed, a few months or a year later, at a rate of 100% or 99%.
"In a little over a year, Kiva has rapidly grown to become the most trafficked site in microfinance with +35,000 Internet lenders generating +$3 million in loans to thousands of entrepreneurs in +25 developing countries – all with a +99% on time repayment rate thus far. Kiva is staffed and governed by experienced consumer Internet and microfinance leaders."
Just go to Kiva.org and look at the home page. These aren't random guys from poor countries asking for some money with a vague idea of starting a business with it. They're asking for specific amounts to meet specific needs to get a specific business going in a specific location. You can donate in multiplies of $25 to meet a percentage of their need. Kiva takes care of the rest. A few months later, their business is going, and you get your money back. You can then reinvest or keep it.
So, what do you have to lose? Nothing. Unless you just happen to invest in the less than 1% whose business fails. And even that seems more productive than donating to a random charity, where you have no idea where the money goes or what good it does.
I'm definitely going to pick somebody and lend some money. You should, too. Especially if you have a job. If you have more than a couple hundred dollars sitting in the bank, taking out $50 of it has no real effect on your life. And then, a year later, when you get it back, it'll feel like free money, and you'll know (not just hope) that you helped somebody out by getting a business going in a poor country.
This is an excellent idea and I offer it my full support.
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, March 11, 2007
We keep on waiting, waiting on the world to change...
Now we see everything that's going wrongJohn Mayer's hit single "Waiting on the World to Change" beautifully captures the apathy of today's youth. We know the world's not perfect, but we just don't know what we can do about it. This often causes us to just give up or stop caring. After all, what real difference could I make even if I wanted to? So we just keep on waiting and maybe something will change.
With the world and those who lead it
We just feel like we don't have the means
To rise above and beat it
I think deep down inside most of us have a desire to do something of significance. Every now and then I'll get a glimpse of this, such as the Facebook group "For Every 1,000 that join this group I will donate $1 for Darfur," maxing out at almost 500,000, and its hundreds of spin-off groups. We'd all love to do something to help the suffering over there, but when you think about it, even if this guy gives $498 to some charity, what is that really going to do? How do we know that throwing money out there will even do anything? So we keep on waiting...
But that doesn't have to be the end of it! The individual today has more power to change the world than at any previous point in history. A regular college student can start a facebook group with the potential to unite hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. Anybody can upload a home-made video to YouTube and get millions of views. Admittedly, the majority of the groups and videos never rise above the double- or triple-digit status in recognition, but the point is that the potential is there for something that wasn't possible even five years ago.
Music sales used to be influenced by how well record labels marketed their artists into radio stations and MTV, etc. Now a regular guy who makes it on American Idol can choose to sing a song and see iTunes downloads for the week go up 1000% or even more. (3300 to 36,000 for Keane's "Somewhere Only We Know" two weeks ago; 600 to 24,000 for Jason Mraz's "Geek In the Pink" last week)
Do you realize how incredible that is? Thousands of dollars are made (or not made) based on one individual's song choice. Alan Greenspan used to be the only single person with that kind of economic power. Every single person has a greater potential for influence than ever before!
So how do we bring peace to Darfur? How do we feed the homeless and reduce crime and change social attitudes of abortion and reduce the selfish message of pop culture and stop political corruption? How do we move from the hypocritical irony of words to real, effective action that changes the world?
Well, I don't know. I just know that it's possible. Anyone can do something to make a change, but anyone can't change everything. God has put different passions in the hearts of different people, and they'll each have to work with others to get things done.
One day our generationI don't know how it's going to happen. I just know that waiting isn't going to do it.
Is gonna rule the population
So we keep on waiting
Waiting on the world to change
Edmond the Hun
Friday, March 02, 2007
We’re just the boys and girls that think they always know...
There are very few things that make me angry. One of them is pop culture's destructive degeneration of healthy relationships.
It's time for some more venting.
The fourth-highest selling album of last week was Kidz Bop 11. If you don't know, Kidz Bop is a strangely successful series that takes radio hits and re-records them with kids singing them. Apparently 75,000 kids convinced their parents to buy the latest one. Cute? Maybe occasionally.
Some of the hit songs are harmless. As much as I despise Nickelback, at least "Far Away" is about commitment through the distance. But something about ten-year-olds singing about destructive relationships just really gets me. James Blunt's "You're Beautiful" was bad enough. But this latest installement includes Beyonce's You're-not-"Irreplaceable" (I could have another you in a minute) and Hinder's "Lips of An Angel" (It's hard to be faithful to my new woman because I'm still in love with you).
Seriously?! And then we wonder why these kids grow up to be teenagers who sleep around and cheat on each other and break each other's hearts and have no idea what a healthy relationship looks like.
I'll tell you why. It's because our culture doesn't know what a healthy relationship is anymore. We've forgotten that having sex whenever you want isn't any better for you than eating whenever you want (Parenthetical citation: C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity). Pop culture seems to think that relationships are simply about getting what you want.
We haven't quite forgotten that relationships are about the simple joy of spending time with someone, that when she's in your arms there's nothing else in the world. But we have forgotten that relationships are about unselfishness. They're about respect. They're about your attraction for that special someone causing you to desire their happiness and safety above anything else. Some people call that love.
Emery said it best in their song "So Cold I Could See My Breath"
How quickly lust can pretend it's love
Designing words to help us believe
It’s so much more than just tonight
So we have got to get this right
How quickly words can become our hands (you want it more, you want it more)
Resigning everything we believe (you want it more, you want it...)
You want it, you want it
More
We’re just the boys and girls that think they always know
With answers for the world
The ambiguity shows
Even those who don’t agree with the Christian view of sex within a lifetime-lasting marriage must see that it’s dangerous to teach kids that relationships are not at all about commitment or respect or any of those unselfish virtues that actually make relationships work…
Edmond the Hun
It's time for some more venting.
The fourth-highest selling album of last week was Kidz Bop 11. If you don't know, Kidz Bop is a strangely successful series that takes radio hits and re-records them with kids singing them. Apparently 75,000 kids convinced their parents to buy the latest one. Cute? Maybe occasionally.
Some of the hit songs are harmless. As much as I despise Nickelback, at least "Far Away" is about commitment through the distance. But something about ten-year-olds singing about destructive relationships just really gets me. James Blunt's "You're Beautiful" was bad enough. But this latest installement includes Beyonce's You're-not-"Irreplaceable" (I could have another you in a minute) and Hinder's "Lips of An Angel" (It's hard to be faithful to my new woman because I'm still in love with you).
Seriously?! And then we wonder why these kids grow up to be teenagers who sleep around and cheat on each other and break each other's hearts and have no idea what a healthy relationship looks like.
I'll tell you why. It's because our culture doesn't know what a healthy relationship is anymore. We've forgotten that having sex whenever you want isn't any better for you than eating whenever you want (Parenthetical citation: C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity). Pop culture seems to think that relationships are simply about getting what you want.
We haven't quite forgotten that relationships are about the simple joy of spending time with someone, that when she's in your arms there's nothing else in the world. But we have forgotten that relationships are about unselfishness. They're about respect. They're about your attraction for that special someone causing you to desire their happiness and safety above anything else. Some people call that love.
Emery said it best in their song "So Cold I Could See My Breath"
How quickly lust can pretend it's love
Designing words to help us believe
It’s so much more than just tonight
So we have got to get this right
How quickly words can become our hands (you want it more, you want it more)
Resigning everything we believe (you want it more, you want it...)
You want it, you want it
More
We’re just the boys and girls that think they always know
With answers for the world
The ambiguity shows
Even those who don’t agree with the Christian view of sex within a lifetime-lasting marriage must see that it’s dangerous to teach kids that relationships are not at all about commitment or respect or any of those unselfish virtues that actually make relationships work…
Edmond the Hun
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Let's Talk About...
Rice: US Will Join Iraq Talks Involving Iran And Syria... US-North Korea Talks Set for March... Iran hopes to resume nuclear talks ...
Talk, talk, talk. Everybody seems to think that talking is the way to prevent international crises involving nuclear weapons in the hands of bad guys. Or, at least, everybody hopes it will. Because if it doesn't, somebody's gonna have to start fighting, and the U.N. won't start it and the Americans are getting tired of fighting, period.
This is nothing new. In April 2006, my last post before my unexplained hiatus was about this same issue... I re-read it and everything I said was still true: Everybody wants Iran to stop; Iran doesn't want to stop; Nobody's willing to make Iran stop. It doesn't take a master of Aristotleian logic to figure out what's bound to happen in a few years.
The Economist thinks that "economic sanctions" (whatever that really means) will begin to take its toll on Iran's, er, economy. It also notes rising dissent and criticism for their leader's positions and statements, something unheard of a couple decades ago. There still seems to be optimism that we can convince Iran to stop researching nukes without military action.
Maybe so. Or maybe by the time they get nukes they'll be smart enough not to use them on anybody. But the only thing that's changed amidst the haze of diplomacy and rhetoric these last ten months is that Iran is 10 months closer to a nuke than it was before. And as long as Iran holds the trump card of the price of oil, that's the only thing that will continue to change.
Maybe I'm being pessimistic. Or maybe I'm just not in denial about diplomacy as a panacea. Sooner or a later things are bound to get messy...
Edmond the Hun
Talk, talk, talk. Everybody seems to think that talking is the way to prevent international crises involving nuclear weapons in the hands of bad guys. Or, at least, everybody hopes it will. Because if it doesn't, somebody's gonna have to start fighting, and the U.N. won't start it and the Americans are getting tired of fighting, period.
This is nothing new. In April 2006, my last post before my unexplained hiatus was about this same issue... I re-read it and everything I said was still true: Everybody wants Iran to stop; Iran doesn't want to stop; Nobody's willing to make Iran stop. It doesn't take a master of Aristotleian logic to figure out what's bound to happen in a few years.
The Economist thinks that "economic sanctions" (whatever that really means) will begin to take its toll on Iran's, er, economy. It also notes rising dissent and criticism for their leader's positions and statements, something unheard of a couple decades ago. There still seems to be optimism that we can convince Iran to stop researching nukes without military action.
Maybe so. Or maybe by the time they get nukes they'll be smart enough not to use them on anybody. But the only thing that's changed amidst the haze of diplomacy and rhetoric these last ten months is that Iran is 10 months closer to a nuke than it was before. And as long as Iran holds the trump card of the price of oil, that's the only thing that will continue to change.
Maybe I'm being pessimistic. Or maybe I'm just not in denial about diplomacy as a panacea. Sooner or a later things are bound to get messy...
Edmond the Hun
Monday, February 26, 2007
Pirates hijack food aid ship off Somalia
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-02-25-shiphijacked_x.htm
I just thought that was a cool headline. And they even waited until after the aid was dropped off.
I just thought that was a cool headline. And they even waited until after the aid was dropped off.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Everybody wants to be president... (616 days to go)
Well, we only have 616 days left until it's time to vote for another president, so I better update you on the latest. Tom Vilsack (Tom who?) has dropped out of the race, bringing the Democrats down to seven wanna-bes. The Republican number is steady at five.
Since this is my first post about the Presidential race, I'll lay out all of my notes thus far:
1) Hillary and Obama haven't been getting along in their recent campaigning. This might damper hopes of a Clinton-Obama ticket.
2) I don't think Hillary will get the Democratic nomination. She leads in some polls but a lot of people hate her. Enough Democrats are aware of this that they will be reluctant to give her the nomination because it might cause potential voters to swing Republican simply to avoid making Hillary the First Man.
3) A lot of people hate her. I already said this, but it deserves its own point for this reason: Some radical conservatives hate her so much that they would rather see her dead than become president. I suppose this scenario is more like a Tom Clancy novel than real life, but I cannot say that I would be surprised if someone attempted to assassinate her while she was campaigning, especially if she actually gets the Democratic nomination. I'm just being real about the level of hatred and disgust some people have for this woman.
4) So far Republican candidate Sam Brownback is my favorite based on his beliefs and positions. However, I would like to learn more about his experience, knowledge, and abilities before I would commit to supporting him. Because there lies the moral dilemma: do you vote for the one who believes all the right things about abortion and gay marriage (things which the President alone has little control over), or the one who would be the best at leading the country and interacting with other countries and all of that political stuff?
Well, that's all I got for now. We got plenty of time to decide...
Edmond the Hun
Since this is my first post about the Presidential race, I'll lay out all of my notes thus far:
1) Hillary and Obama haven't been getting along in their recent campaigning. This might damper hopes of a Clinton-Obama ticket.
2) I don't think Hillary will get the Democratic nomination. She leads in some polls but a lot of people hate her. Enough Democrats are aware of this that they will be reluctant to give her the nomination because it might cause potential voters to swing Republican simply to avoid making Hillary the First Man.
3) A lot of people hate her. I already said this, but it deserves its own point for this reason: Some radical conservatives hate her so much that they would rather see her dead than become president. I suppose this scenario is more like a Tom Clancy novel than real life, but I cannot say that I would be surprised if someone attempted to assassinate her while she was campaigning, especially if she actually gets the Democratic nomination. I'm just being real about the level of hatred and disgust some people have for this woman.
4) So far Republican candidate Sam Brownback is my favorite based on his beliefs and positions. However, I would like to learn more about his experience, knowledge, and abilities before I would commit to supporting him. Because there lies the moral dilemma: do you vote for the one who believes all the right things about abortion and gay marriage (things which the President alone has little control over), or the one who would be the best at leading the country and interacting with other countries and all of that political stuff?
Well, that's all I got for now. We got plenty of time to decide...
Edmond the Hun
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Run For Your Lives...
So apparently on April 13, 2036, an asteroid will a few thousand miles by Earth. There is a 1 in 45,000 chance that Earth's gravity will suck it in and spell doom for lots and lots of people. Cool, huh?
The scientists that figured this out think the U.N. should do something about it. Blowing it up might cause lots of little asteroid fragments to hit us, so that option's out. A boring but safer idea (anyone ever read Asimov's Nemesis?) is to get a spaceship or something with some mass and use Newton's gravity formula to nudge it off course just a bit.
Three things here. One, I'm not too worried about dying from an asteroid hit with those odds (which are much worse than my odds of fatally slipping in the bathtub or dying in a car accident, and much better than my odds of dating a supermodel, according to http://www.funny2.com/odds.htm). Besides, a big explosion might be pretty cool.
Two, regarding the state of the Earth in thirty years, I'd be more concerned about all this global warming stuff than a 1/45,000 asteroid. Whether or not you believe humans are the cause of it or not, there are some pretty interesting graphs and figures out there. And how much less oil will we have by then?
Third, they're expecting the U.N. to get something done?
The scientists that figured this out think the U.N. should do something about it. Blowing it up might cause lots of little asteroid fragments to hit us, so that option's out. A boring but safer idea (anyone ever read Asimov's Nemesis?) is to get a spaceship or something with some mass and use Newton's gravity formula to nudge it off course just a bit.
Three things here. One, I'm not too worried about dying from an asteroid hit with those odds (which are much worse than my odds of fatally slipping in the bathtub or dying in a car accident, and much better than my odds of dating a supermodel, according to http://www.funny2.com/odds.htm). Besides, a big explosion might be pretty cool.
Two, regarding the state of the Earth in thirty years, I'd be more concerned about all this global warming stuff than a 1/45,000 asteroid. Whether or not you believe humans are the cause of it or not, there are some pretty interesting graphs and figures out there. And how much less oil will we have by then?
Third, they're expecting the U.N. to get something done?
Sunday, February 18, 2007
painting your trash gold while you sleep
Fall Out Boy's first single from their new album, "This Ain't A Scene, It's An Arms Race," has been the most (legally) downloaded song for the past four weeks. I still haven't heard it, but I did look up the lyrics just to see if it contained sexual innuendo like their previous hits.
Well, I didn't find any, but what I did find made me laugh at its blunt irony. Let's take a look at some of these lyrics:
I am an arms dealer
Fitting you with weapons in the form of words
And I don't really care, which side wins
As long as the room keeps singing
That's just the business I'm in
This ain't a scene, it’s a god damn arms race
This is what I get out of that: The guy's saying, We're feeding words to our fans, and we don't really care about the meaning of the actual words as long as everyone keeps listening to our music.
I'm a leading man
And the lies I weave are oh so intricate, oh so intricate
I love this line! Fall Out Boy is one of the most popular bands right now, and the guy here is freely admitting that they are feeding their listeners lies about life, love, and relationships. But the lies are so intricate and subtle that most people don't even notice.
...At night we're painting your trash gold while you sleep
That's my favorite line of the whole song, because in one line it describes what most of pop culture does to its listeners... it takes our trash ~ our selfishness, our pride, our lust ~ and paints it to look like gold, to make us think that we want it, that it's cool to pursue and fulfill our desires and pleasures regardless of the consequences, all while we're sleeping and don't even notice.
How many hundreds of thousands of people have this song and don't even realize what it's admitting ~ and therefore confirming the very things it's admitting: We're corrupting you, but you don't care, and we don't care, just keep giving us your money.
I'm tired of them painting our trash gold while we sleep. But I'm awake now. Are you?
Well, I didn't find any, but what I did find made me laugh at its blunt irony. Let's take a look at some of these lyrics:
I am an arms dealer
Fitting you with weapons in the form of words
And I don't really care, which side wins
As long as the room keeps singing
That's just the business I'm in
This ain't a scene, it’s a god damn arms race
This is what I get out of that: The guy's saying, We're feeding words to our fans, and we don't really care about the meaning of the actual words as long as everyone keeps listening to our music.
I'm a leading man
And the lies I weave are oh so intricate, oh so intricate
I love this line! Fall Out Boy is one of the most popular bands right now, and the guy here is freely admitting that they are feeding their listeners lies about life, love, and relationships. But the lies are so intricate and subtle that most people don't even notice.
...At night we're painting your trash gold while you sleep
That's my favorite line of the whole song, because in one line it describes what most of pop culture does to its listeners... it takes our trash ~ our selfishness, our pride, our lust ~ and paints it to look like gold, to make us think that we want it, that it's cool to pursue and fulfill our desires and pleasures regardless of the consequences, all while we're sleeping and don't even notice.
How many hundreds of thousands of people have this song and don't even realize what it's admitting ~ and therefore confirming the very things it's admitting: We're corrupting you, but you don't care, and we don't care, just keep giving us your money.
I'm tired of them painting our trash gold while we sleep. But I'm awake now. Are you?
The Return of the Hun
It's been a long time, but I'm back. I will be focusing, as before, on news and politics and what it has to do with our daily lives, but also on pop culture and its influence on youth.
I'm sick of watching Christians argue about the proper things to do instead of going out and telling the lost about Jesus.
I'm sick of watching pop culture corrupt youth with its twisted ideas about love, relationships, and God.
I'm sick of reading things like 18,000 children dying every day of hunger, knowing that even if somehow I could give one of them my lunch, they might still die the next day, and knowing that even if I could somehow feed one of them for a lifetime, they would still die and maybe miss heaven, and there would still be millions of others who suffered hungry deaths, wondering, with all the corruption in the church, and the corruption in the world's political systems, and the corruptions in modern culture, if it's even possible to make a difference anymore, but knowing that these passions burn inside me and that I cannot give up or despair.
So I will work. I will learn about the world and what's going on inside it. I will observe modern culture and how it affects us. I will figure out how to use the incredible new technologies of networking and information flow, such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, and others, to spread the love and hope found in Jesus Christ. I will find others who share these passions and work together to be part of a revolution. And most of all, I will cry out to God to save my generation.
Maybe I'm a little fanatical. Maybe these ambitions won't last. Maybe I can't do anything to make a difference in the world and all I'll ever do is work a job accomplishing some tasks along with everyone else.
But there's a dying world out there, and I'm sick of my own inability even to reach the ones I see every day. Besides, what have I got to lose?
I'm sick of watching Christians argue about the proper things to do instead of going out and telling the lost about Jesus.
I'm sick of watching pop culture corrupt youth with its twisted ideas about love, relationships, and God.
I'm sick of reading things like 18,000 children dying every day of hunger, knowing that even if somehow I could give one of them my lunch, they might still die the next day, and knowing that even if I could somehow feed one of them for a lifetime, they would still die and maybe miss heaven, and there would still be millions of others who suffered hungry deaths, wondering, with all the corruption in the church, and the corruption in the world's political systems, and the corruptions in modern culture, if it's even possible to make a difference anymore, but knowing that these passions burn inside me and that I cannot give up or despair.
So I will work. I will learn about the world and what's going on inside it. I will observe modern culture and how it affects us. I will figure out how to use the incredible new technologies of networking and information flow, such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, and others, to spread the love and hope found in Jesus Christ. I will find others who share these passions and work together to be part of a revolution. And most of all, I will cry out to God to save my generation.
Maybe I'm a little fanatical. Maybe these ambitions won't last. Maybe I can't do anything to make a difference in the world and all I'll ever do is work a job accomplishing some tasks along with everyone else.
But there's a dying world out there, and I'm sick of my own inability even to reach the ones I see every day. Besides, what have I got to lose?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)