Big Media, Big Government, and Manufactured Crises

Guess what? I have fun stuff to blog; but while I get the photos ready, lets' get the first of two major "See, I told you so"s out of the way first.

Last month, in a post about the BP-Obama Oil Spill, I shared the following important quote by Rahm Emanuel, mastermind behind the deceptive but brilliant tactics that put Nancy Pelosi in place as Speaker of the House in 2006, and current Chief of Staff to President Barack Hussein Obama (the first racist president in my lifetime, and the first I know of to have declared open war on the United States):

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that, it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before." - Rahm Emanuel

This quote came before the BP-Obama Oil Spill, but was validated as the central tenet of liberal political tactics as Obama's response to the spill consisted of refusing cleanup help offered graciously by foreign countries, forbidding Bobby Jindal from building sand berms, refusing to utilize cleanup boats from other parts of the country because "they might be needed where they are", and delaying BP from testing and using the cap that finally stopped the leak as long as possible. Meanwhile reporters were denied access to "oil-soaked" beaches, while Obama made an appearance between golf trips to a Gulf Coast beach to pick up tar balls (there are always tar balls on those beaches; they are a natural occurrence, due to natural seepage of oil that has nothing to do with drilling, and the recent oil spill consisted of light crude unlikely to form these balls!).

This "crisis", however, shows that the liberal philosophy goes far beyond simply capitalizing on a crisis. Rahm may as well have said "If there's not a crisis, but an opportunity to manufacture a fake one, don't let the opportunity to fool those stupid plebes that voted for us go to waste!" This was the perfect opportunity to use a net of lies to continue Barack Hussein Obama's war against America's private sector, and fire a volley of unconstitutional decrees aimed at destroying the economy of the Gulf Coast.

The BP-Obama Oil Spill was universally throughout the mainstream media and Big Government billed as the greatest environmental catastrophe in the history of the United States. The Obama Regime felt secure in making such outrageous claims because Big Media is always on the side of Big Government. In fact, Rush Limbaugh has coined a term far more descriptive of Big Media: Partisan Political Operatives.

There were several voices, either completely ignored by Partisan Political Operatives or dismissed as "anti-environment" or "crazy" or "invested in Big Oil", etc., who insisted that this "environmental crises" was anything but. I summarized it last month, a couple weeks before the leak was stopped:

"The Ixtoc I oil spill, about the same size as the BP-Obama spill and also in the Gulf of Mexico, occurred in 1979, and almost no-one remembers it today. This spill is bad, but it will be little more than a sentence or two in our children's history books. Even with the higher estimates of about 130 million gallons of leaked oil, the Mississippi River pours that much new water into the Gulf every 38 seconds. The Gulf is huge. Even without drilling, millions of gallons of oil naturally seep into the ocean daily, and the seawater destroys it. This is far more concentrated, but even with no action whatsoever on our part, in a couple decades it would be cleaned up naturally. The surface of the Gulf is 615,000 square miles, and the volume is 660,000,000,000,000,000 gallons. That's 660 quadrillion gallons, more than any mind can conceive. This spill is tiny, and the Earth isn't even noticing it."

The current evidence from the Gulf of Mexico seems to show that even that was an understatement! Just days after the leak was finally stopped (by BP, not the government!), there are already very few signs that anything ever happened out there. It's such a drastic contrast that even the Partisan Political Operatives who pretend to report news can't ignore it. All over Big Media, they're all scratching their heads, saying "Where is the oil?", and are desperate to find any evidence they can of environmental harm, but it's just not there! The current media template is that "the oil seems to have rapidly evaporated and been broken down by bacteria, but there has to be some sort of long-term damage, and we need to wait to resume drilling until we figure out what it is." If the media had been doing the job they claim to do, reporting news rather than pushing the political agenda of the Obama Regime, they would have been saying all along that "once this is capped, nature will take care of it far better than we can, and in a few months all will be back to normal". Instead, it's a shock and a surprise!

Here it is from the New York Times, "On the Surface, Gulf Oil Spill Is Vanishing Fast; Concerns Stay":

"The oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico appears to be dissolving far more rapidly than anyone expected, a piece of good news that raises tricky new questions about how fast the government should scale back its response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster."

"The dissolution of the slick should reduce the risk of oil killing more animals or hitting shorelines. But it does not end the many problems and scientific uncertainties associated with the spill, and federal leaders emphasized this week that they had no intention of walking away from those problems any time soon. The effect on sea life of the large amounts of oil that dissolved below the surface is still a mystery."

"[...] understanding the effects of the spill on the shorelines that were hit, including Louisiana’s coastal marshes, is expected to occupy scientists for years."

"The gulf has an immense natural capacity to break down oil, which leaks into it at a steady rate from thousands of natural seeps. Though none of the seeps is anywhere near the size of the Deepwater Horizon leak, they do mean that the gulf is swarming with bacteria that can eat oil."

You get the idea. This was known before the BP-Obama Oil Spill, so why were those voicing these opinions treated as fringe kooks? Because that opinion wouldn't hurt Big Oil the way the Obama Regime and his Partisan Political Operatives wanted. Now, the truth is inescapable, so suddenly these people have a voice, but "don't be too hasty saying this is done, 'cause there has to be a problem and we're going to investigate until we find one or make one up!"

From the Washington Post, "Majority of spilled oil in Gulf of Mexico unaccounted for in government data":

That would leave slightly less than 4 million barrels missing.

The best-case scenario is that much of this amount has been eaten by the gulf's natural stock of oil-munching microbes. Several scientists have said they are concerned that these microbes could cause their own problems, depleting the oxygen that gulf creatures need in the water.

But Wednesday, NOAA's Lubchenco said oxygen-free dead zones have not been detected so far. And Ed Overton, a professor at LSU, said he believed the microbial process, supercharged by summer heat, was helping. "We have made a gigantic biological treatment pond in the gulf," Overton said. Because of its work, he said, "we're well, well over the hump. I would say that the acute damage -- we've seen it, it's [already] been done. And that the environment is in the recovery stage."

Notice how they set the tone right from the beginning, suggesting that this is a mystery, and not obvious. The oil is "missing", "unaccounted for", not broken down by bacteria and taken care of by nature, even though the quotes shared say that's what happened. Don't let facts and evidence get in the way of the message!

Another Washington Post article, "Oil in gulf is degrading, becoming harder to find, NOAA head says", says this:

"The light crude oil is biodegrading quickly," NOAA director Jane Lubchenco said during the response team daily briefing. "We know that a significant amount of the oil has dispersed and been biodegraded by naturally occurring bacteria."

Lubchenco said, however, that both the near- and long-term environmental effects of the release of several million barrels of oil remain serious and to some extent unpredictable.

"The sheer volume of oil that's out there has to mean there are some pretty significant impacts," she said. "What we have yet to determine is the full impact the oil will have not just on the shoreline, not just on wildlife, but beneath the surface."

But much of the oil appears to have been broken down into tiny, microscopic particles that are being consumed by bacteria. Little or none of the oil is on seafloor, she said, but is instead floating in the gulf waters.

The head of the NOAA is herself a Partisan Political Operative (that's how you get that job), and so of course is a good source for Big Media, saying here "yeah, looks like the seawater is taking care of it, but... there has to be significant impact, and we're going to look 'till we find it!"

It's not a surprise. Those of us with perspective of history and previous similar events and a dose of common sense knew this was a tiny blip in the big picture, and nothing remotely resembling an environmental crisis. The real crisis is the war being waged on American prosperity by the very man whose responsibility it is to represent the country he despises. Barack Hussein Obama, you and your big ears may have won this battle, but the war will be decided November 2010, and the Last Battle for America will be fought November 2012 (I'm starting to think the Mayans were right, and the world will end in 2012, but it won't be with tidal waves and solar flares, but with the last free country conquered by socialist dictators!).

Meanwhile, here's something ironic: It seems ethanol production isn't so good for the environment, but since ethanol is supported by the Regime and the Partisan Political Operatives, stories like this are rare: From the San Francisco Chronicle, "Dead zone in gulf linked to ethanol production".

(I thought of a clever t-shirt/bumper sticker: "Ethanol: Goes in your mouth, not in your car!")

Some Awesome Things

Before I begin, thank you for the feedback on my recent Twilight post, both here and on Facebook. I haven't responded yet, but there are some interesting comments that might warrant a (hopefully brief) follow-up. I don't want to post about the same thing so soon, though, and there's so much I want to say about politics but am too frustrated to write about, so it's time for an intermission. Also, I have some crazy insomnia going on , so I'd like to share with you some awesome things I have found on the internets. Let's go!

Let's kick things off with a trailer for probably the best movie ever that I haven't seen yet but really want to because it looks like it is full of all things that are awesome except bears and flame-throwers and laser beams. You are not prepared for Sharktopus! It's part shark, part octopus, and it apparently feeds exclusively on girls at the beach, and I want one for a pet.

What a catchy tune! "Sharktopus won't be kept at bay, and you can never never never get away!" Did I mention this is a documentary? Yes, better even than Planet Earth. "Greatness comes at a price, it always has." So true. My birthday is soon; please get me a sharktopus. Also, please get me one of these chainsaw rocket launchers:

Thank you in advance.

Shifting gears, Firefly gets a retro facelift!

It seems that someone got overlooked... but that's because Dr. Simon Tam is starring in his own new spin-off!

I would watch it. I would even buy it on the VHS.

And now some puppets that would make the coolest Halloween costumes ever:

And I thought they smelled bad... on the outside! (I'm tired, give me a break.)

One more. Abbott and Costello, probably the greatest comic duo of all time, debate math:

"Did you ever go to school, stupid?" "Yeah, and I come out the same way!"

Maybe I can sleep now? Nope.

If I Had a Time Machine

...I would not use it for the good of mankind. That's for losers.

First, I'd use it to get lots of money. That's pretty much a given. There's no point going back in time if you don't have any money, so get that thought out of your head right now.

By the way, my time machine would of course be made from a DeLorean (duh):

So, now I have a (hypothetical) time machine and unlimited wealth. Next I conquer the world, right? Wrong! Really, I'm disappointed in you. You should know me better than that; I don't want that headache! I'll stick to complaining about the people who do run it, thank you very much.

No, once I've used my time machine to obtain untold riches, I'd leak the text of the first several chapters of Twilight onto the internet while Stephenie Meyer was still trying to sell the manuscript. Apparently that's enough to stop her from publishing a book. (I guess I lied, I would use my time machine for the good of mankind, but only for selfish reasons.)

That's not what I'd need the money for, though. The money is so I can go back to really good concerts that I wish I'd had the time/money for. Like Metallica's concert with the San Fransisco Symphony in 1999 (before I was even a fan of this amazing band):

If you skipped those videos because you're not interested in metal music, you might give them a try anyway as they could serve to broaden your horizons. These recordings helped open my mind to the idea that metal really is music and not just noise. In particular, this next song is a good door to ease your way into appreciation of metal, and was my first favorite Metallica song:

After enjoying that concert several dozen times (and saying hello to the other dozen me's there, and saying "man, this concert was awesome, you're really going to enjoy it!" and "I've seen this concert three times already, is it still as good the tenth time?" (the answer is yes)), I'd go back two more years, to the east coast this time, and see this one a few times:

Beth Gibbons' voice gives me the shivers, it's so perfect... I've tried to see if I'm in the audience several times while watching these, but I'm not sure. If you see me in the audience, let me know! That would mean that someday I will have a time machine.

There are many concert's I'd selfishly go to (I'd follow an entire tour of Pink Floyd, for examle), too many to post here; but I can't leave this out:

There, did you see me? Right there around 5:04, I'm totally waving at the camera! Go back, see? Right.... there! I knew I'd get a time machine some day!

In between concerts, I'd go back to pivotal points in history to watch how they really unfolded. Also, I'd go way, way back and watch as the Earth formed. I don't have footage or photos to post yet, but I'll blog it when I do, I promise! I also might get cameos in classic films as an extra, and play pranks on famous scientists (go back and read or re-read Darwin's Origin of Species and watch for mentions of pizza). I'd also stop Fox from canceling Firefly and Dollhouse, using Marty's strategy for getting his dad to ask out his mom in the first Back to the Future movie.

Meanwhile, I'll have to make do with YouTube and my DVD of that Portishead concert. That's the closest I have to a time machine at the moment.

Independence Day 2010

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If there is a single sentence that embodies the essence of the United States of America, it is this one, near the beginning of the Declaration of Independence more than 200 years ago. It is the statement on which our nation was founded. The Declaration goes on to say that the sole purpose of government is to protect these rights. These rights are given to us not by any man or group of man, not by any government or institution; it is made quite clear in our founding document that these unalienable rights are given to us by God. It is made clearer in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution that the government's role is not to grant rights, but to protect them; and that the purpose of our founding documents were to protect the people against abuses of power by government:

The Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It cannot be made clearer that government is to be limited. A bloody war was fought to throw off the chains of an oppressive government, and it would all be a waste if we were to become as oppressive ourselves as that government so many sacrificed their lives to free ourselves from.

Sadly, we are doing just that. As we prepare to celebrate our independence from the British Empire, our Congress is preparing to confirm to the Supreme Court Barack Hussein Obama's nominee, Elena Kagan. When asked her opinion of "natural rights" not specifically stated in the Constitution, Elena Kagan responded, "To be honest with you, I don't have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution." In other words, if it's not stated in the Constitution, it's not a right of the people.

But this is the opposite of what the Constitution actually says! Many states refused to ratify the Constitution without the inclusion of a Bill of Rights to specifically limit the government from taking powers, concerned that if the Constitution didn't say the people had a certain right, the government may someday assume it wasn't a right at all. Others countered that if the Constitution did contain mentions of specific rights, that the government might someday assume that those not specifically mentioned were up for grabs. We'll never know what course our history would have taken without the Bill of Rights, but it is clear now that those who argued against the inclusion of a Bill of Rights were justified in their fears.

The one and only purpose of the Supreme Court is to be sure that the Constitution is upheld. Yet we have a Supreme Court who recently only upheld the Second Amendment (right to bear arms) by a margin of a single vote when called on to judge the Constitutionality of an illegal ban on guns in Chicago; and now we are about to confirm a Justice who refuses to acknowledge the specific wording of the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth and Tenth amendments.

This Independence Day, it is time to look back not just to the Constitution, but to the Declaration of Independence. I'd like to quote Abraham Lincoln in a speech given in Peoria, Illinois on October 16, 1854:

"Nearly eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a "sacred right of self-government." [...] Our republican robe is soiled and trailed in the dust. Let us repurify it. [...] Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. [...] If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union: but we shall have saved it, as to make, and keep it, forever worthy of the saving."

Read it again. Lincoln's thoughts at the time were in regards to abolishing slavery, but it is every bit as relevant today. In exchange for government benefits we have bit by bit surrendered freedoms to those whose purpose is to protect those freedoms, and have come to a tipping point at which we may soon lose them all or fight to save them. To quote Tom Waits, "There's always free cheddar in a mousetrap; it's a deal, it's a deal!"

Read Lincoln's words again:

"Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. [...] If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union: but we shall have saved it, as to make, and keep it, forever worthy of the saving."

In short, my point is this: Nathan's makes delicious hot dogs, but I don't like sauerkraut.

(click for full-size)

I Feel Sorry for Stephenie Meyer and You Should, Too

Yeah, more Twilight. If I despise Twilight so much, why do I spend so much time on it? A couple of reasons. First of all, you can't avoid it! Eclipse came out a couple days ago. Everyone is talking about it. It's all over Facebook. I hear about it several times a day. Multiple theaters in Boise have huge signs advertising a Twilight/New Moon double feature preceding the midnight showing of the new movie. Speaking of Boise theaters...

Wow! I can't remember the last time I've been to a real movie theater. There's probably a good one in Denver, but back then there was no way my family could afford that; and most movies aren't worth a first-run showing anyway, especially with passable "cheap" theaters and, even better, waiting for the DVD for a dollar at RedBox to watch in the comfort of your own home with your own snacks and good friends. Sometimes it's good to get out, though, mostly just so you got out. I know this makes me sound like a small-town hick, but Boise has a theater as big as some of the "malls" I've been to!

Back to my point about the futility of avoiding Twilight, I went on a date to see Prince of Persia at a first-run theater last Wednesday. The movie was excellent, but I'll talk about that another time. What I'm trying to say is, the theater was packed with Twilight fans waiting all day for the midnight showing. Long story short, it was 100% worth the elbow to the ribs I received from Cassie to, as we walked past a pack of girls wearing Team Edward shirts, manage to be overheard saying "Man, who knew Edward would actually come out of the closet in the third movie?" Hehehe, I'm evil...

But there's another reason. Had Twilight fandom quickly evaporated as it should have, it would have escaped my attention; but it escalates and escalates, demanding investigation. I read the first book, have seen the first two movies, and am well versed in the details of all but the last book. I have done my research, and if I am to be as objective and intellectually honest as I can be, Twilight fandom is not healthy. It is so unhealthy, in fact, that I genuinely believe it is a favor to society to speak against it. Not with "Oh, it's so dumb, if you like Twilight you're stupid!" but with reasoned, thought-out arguments against the elements of the story.

What are those elements? Twilight revolves around the most bland, empty-headed, your-face-here central character I have ever encountered. I'll get back to this soon. This main character falls in lust (Meyer calls it "love") with a vampire who is over 100 years old and has accomplished nothing in his life, has no personality, likes her for no compelling reason, and is emotionally abusive and controlling (not to mention a creepy stalker). He's a boyfriend who likes her because she smells like steak cooked just how he likes it. But she also likes a warm, fun-loving, easy-going, potentially healthy relationship but also has a dangerous side werewolf. The characters don't learn. They don't develop. The books are 90% fluff (not an exaggeration).

The poor lessons girls (I wish I could say teenage girls, but it spans all ages) learn from these books could be the subject of volumes, and maybe I'll go more into that another time. So many people have already done so.

But this post is about feeling pity for Stephenie Meyer. So back to my point about Bella's lack of personality. It is painfully obvious that Stephenie Meyer is Bella. Meyer looks like her description of Bella. The books were "inspired" by a dream of Meyer's. Meyer spends so much time on Edward's and Jacob's physical descriptions, that the books read as a play-by-play daydream of Meyer's (which they are).

This is my point: Meyer is not well. Stephenie Meyer needs serious help. Before you get all offended, I am not disparaging Mrs. Meyer. We all have our problems. I am saying this out of genuine concern. The abusive relationship between Edward and Bella is Meyer's actual ideal of "true love". This is her fantasy relationship. If she views all the things Edward does to control Bella as okay "because he loves her" and because Bella understands that he loves her, I wonder how healthy Stephenie Meyer's real-life relationships are. Especially her marriage. It's not my business to pry into her marriage; but having been in and seen many unhealthy relationships, I can't help but wonder and have genuine concern.

That's the more serious reason I feel sorry for Stephenie Meyer, but there's also a second reason:

Twilight fandom has stunted Stephenie Meyer's growth as a writer. Twilight was the first thing Meyer ever wrote. Considering this (Twilight fans who think I am closed-minded, listen closely!), Twilight is amazing. Yes, I said it. Twilight is very good. For a rough draft of a first attempt at any form of creative writing, it is excellent. (Keep track: I used "amazing", "very good", and "excellent" in conjunction with Twilight.)

Here's what should have happened: Twilight gets picked up by someone at a publishing agency, who reads it and thinks "This has potential. The Harry Potter phenomenon will soon come to a close, leaving a vacuum for young adult literature, and this could fill it; but it needs work." The publishing agent should have written back to Meyer and said "You have the workings of a really good book, but it needs more character development, better internal logic, a more present and driving conflict, and more believable motivations for the characters. Also, you need an editor." Meyer and an editor should have gone back and forth through several drafts, finally resulting in a very good teen romance novel with a fantasy twist. The end product would be a well-written book worth reading that I am simply not in the target audience for.

Instead, crap is rewarded with high praise and rabid fanaticism. Yes, I just went from calling it "excellent" to calling it "crap". What changed? The context. Twilight is a horrible final product. I hear Host is much better, and will someday read it out of curiosity; but my expectations are very low. Stephenie Meyer could have been, not the next J.K. Rowling, but the next best thing; but because of the high reward for minimal effort, she has been elevated to a status she has not earned. I consider this to be a genuine tragedy. All you Twilight fans, and especially Little, Brown and Company, are responsible for destroying (or at the very least delaying) the potential of what could be a talented writer. I hold you all responsible for depriving the literary world of what could have been good, and seriously annoying those of us who respect art.

Stephen King has famously said that Stephenie Meyer "can't write worth a darn". I disagree. Meyer probably can write, but she has been encouraged not to.

Twilight fanatics, you should be ashamed of yourselves. To those of you who simply enjoy the books (do you really? Do you own a Team Insert-Flat-Character-Here shirt? Be honest with yourself!): you're not really the problem. But there are millions of you who are. I don't mean to offend. I only hope to inspire critical thinking. Let me have it in the comments if you'd like.

Sad face.

Prince of Persia was very good!