Twitter theory

Twitter is an aggregator, but not of just content also the reaction to content.  So on the content side you can follow one space agency and if you happen to see a tweet on you TL before it spawns by, cool.  But if you follow every space agency there is a fair chance that any extra-atmospheric event of human interest will get enough aggregation as to be unavoidable.  On the reaction side something that you might normally think is irritating but doesn't rise to the level of action (a micro-aggression perhaps) has to get that pass from everyone who might feel a similar way.  But we know how micro-aggressions work, there is almost always someone for whom that today's fuckery is the last straw so this person reacts.  Since we are social primates with similar interests (as evidenced by us seeing similar things on Twitter) that one person's last straw reaction is another weight to your pile of WTF which may or may not be enough to hit your activation energy.  But again, even if it doesn't set you off, it has to once again run the gauntlet of every similar person which will usually tip someone else over into reactivity and suddenly you have a meltdown in reactor four.

Occupy Santa Rosa

I'm just posting pics.

Play hard ... work hard

To all my happy, happy, gay compatriots [gay, gay, happy compatriots? ;) and your "nefarious" sympathizers and enablers (the latter groups are ones in which I claim membership)]. Congratulations for your perseverance through the idiocy that was/is Prop 8. Enjoy the victory. Celebrate like it's summertime (because it is... unless you live in the Southern hemisphere in which case, do it anyway because it's fun). Party like it's whatever year you like. Serve up and save up good cheer and the positive energy it generates. Because... you are going to need it.

Historically, the incumbent party loses seats in the midterm elections after a wave election (Obama kicked ass in the electoral college, thus meeting the conditions). The Republicans--

I don't mention the tea-hadists (or teabaggers, or 9-12ers, or whatever the clowns feel like calling themselves this week) here because they are functionally identical to the Republicans and a sponsored subsidiary of the same Republicans--

The Republicans already had history on their side to gain seats in Congress and thus more power to either obstruct essentially all non-foreigner killing government function, or if they gain control of the House, launch endless, wasteful, costly "investigations" in hopes of "getting" something on the Democrats.

In addition to history, the Republicans also have the pain and anxiety of a economic downswing (that was largely caused by their fiscal (and militaristic) policies) to boost enthusiasm for their lagging "brand".

You also have the buyer's remorse effect of electing someone who hasn't given you your pony RIGHT NOW! And (unfortunately) mix in the not insignificant portion of... let's just say melanin motivated voters, and you have a recipe for a hard fought election season.

But now we've touched one of the pillars of modern movement conservatism. The gay portion of the "god, guns, gays" trifecta that they've been running on for the last few generations. All that other crap was amenable to some leverage of reason (probably not much). But this is one of those supercharged emotional issues that will bring out the low information, zombie conservative voters in droves. A gay case going up to a federal circuit court (and eventually to the Supreme Court of the U.S)?! A gay case from Sissy punk California home of the San Francisco gay?! You might as well put Crystal Meth, two free all you can eat Hooters passes and a lap dance coupon in the voting booth. They'll be there (and most likely be square).

You think I had it hard the first go round, but I had the tail end of what was the shittiest presidency in the modern era, the inherent interest in a Presidential election, and the top two candidates for my party being first of a kind. Everyone had something to be excited about, everybody had something to vote FOR.

You cats are in it for real. It's a midterm election, so no presidential glamor, the aforementioned systemic hurdles, but on top of that you have to essentially fight conservative white jesus AND not alienate otherwise liberally minded voters who might have to remnants of the anti-gay rhetoric embedded deep in their personality. When I was on the campaign trail, it was still considered gauche to be blatantly racist. It's NEVER been gauche to be blatantly homophobic.

You have your work cut out for you. I'll be there to help, but got damn y'all better put on y'all grown folks drawers 'cause it's going to be fucking ridiculous out there this fall.

But I LIKE Soylent Green!

I have been wondering about this in one way or another for the better part of a year. A comment on another blog caused my mind to focus on it this way today...

Why are people clamoring for a dystopia?

I could see if you worshipped the elder gods and prayed to be eaten first or some such. I could see if you were a dedicated nihilist (although those seem rarer than the first group of people).

I can see being ideologically wound up in bringing about a utopia. Who doesn't want it to be all good? Really, the big problem with utopias is that people can't decide on what is 'good'.

Here you have a large amount of the population who believe that things are jacked up. Ask around. People will tell you about how this is wrong or that is bad.

Now ask them about doing something differently than the way it is currently done.

Sure you'll get some resistance, people generally like their habits; but when you explain the changes and the need for changes, many people accept the change and move on.

Not some people.

Remember these people are a part of the same group that agrees that things aren't right, and yet will strive to their utmost to preserve the status quo.

Now obviously you have some Uberman denizens of fantasyland who think: "I've got mine, screw you", or at least, "I'll get mine, so screw you". Those folks are further around the bend than I'm willing to deal with right now.

You also have the resistance to change I mentioned before, but even if those people don't like the change proposed, they come up with counter proposals and then you can reach some sort of compromise or consensus.

The remainder though, the "I'd rather die than change" people, where do they get their impetus? They don't have any counter proposals, all they have is NO.

I think it is easier to be for something than against something. What do they get out of it? Attention? Some inner joy from being miserably contrary?

My mother gets that way about certain things. You can discuss all of a subject to a certain point and she is right there with you until a certain point. Then I can see that she doesn't like where the conclusion is heading so she'll try to backpedal, but since she was right there agreeing with everything it is easy to get her to realize that she still agrees with you. Then I see her features set into a certain grim determination like she is mentally holding on for dear life. At his point we've been at every point around the conclusion and she agrees with every premise, but refuses the conclusion.

The only analogy I can think of right now is looking at a map with someone; showing them the path and watching them trace out the route's destination and agree to it. Walking on that same path with the person and coming to a bridge and the person doesn't want to cross the bridge. You show them structural engineering books (that they agree with), bridge design manuals (that they agree with). Even pictures of them on other bridges (that they enjoyed being on). But they won't cross this bridge. You cross the bridge, you drive a car across the bridge, you stampede a herd of bison across the bridge, you drive a damn tank across the bridge. They still won't cross it. You blindfold them and lead them across the bridge, and when you take the blindfold off they agree that they are on the other side of the bridge. But (to them) they still didn't cross the bridge. You ask how they got to this side of the bridge and they'll come up with some ridiculous answer that you know they don't even believe, or they'll shrug and say, "I don't know, but what I do know is that I didn't cross that bridge."

How do you even talk to people in this circumstance?

Now, what if you had some people who stood to benefit by encouraging what I can only call the denial of reality. And, those clowns aided and abetted the reality deniers, taking away even your last ditch ‘desire for social primates to conform to the standards of the group’ solution.

Now how would you get through to them?

I haven't been posting.

I've been asked why I haven't been posting. I could say it's because of work, school, and volunteering for the Obama campaign [the preceding is probably poor grammar]. Really, it is because I've been so immersed in the Obama campaign that the campaign or the campaign's subject is all that I would write about. I write about things 'kicking around in my head' and since I spend a significant portion of my free time talking with 'undecided' voters; my blog could easily turn into a 'tech support hell' type of place for low level political operatives. While that would be cathartic for me, and probably funny to some folks; that's not want I want to do.

The tone of my observations on this election season are more than adequately described by the posters and commenters at various sites.

These sites include:

Talking Points Memo
Sadly, No
Balloon Juice
The Huffington Post
The New York Times
The Washington Post
FiveThirtyEight.com
The Field Negro
BBC News
Reuters
McClatchy
CQ Politics
Open Left
FireDogLake
Economist (Democracy in America)
Politifact
Hullabaloo
Crooks and Liars
The Field (Al Giordano)
Too Sense
Slate
The Atlantic (Andrew Sullivan)

and more...

So, if you want an approximation of my opinion; compile the themes for these sites, and you'll find a large degree of accuracy.

Intentional comedy... this time.

See more Adam "Ghost Panther" McKay videos at Funny or Die

Why not pile on?

Listen to conservative pundits actually tell the truth about Sarah Palin.




Dope.

Yeah...

... I hate two sentence blog posts too, but Michelle Obama inspired me all over again. I'll post the speech when I find it. Watch it (if you haven't already or just need an encore).

Build up that wall!

If you are progressive and non religious or merely pro separation between Church and State...

For the first time in the history of the Democratic Party, the Democratic Convention will begin with an Interfaith Gathering. This is also the first official event of the 2008 Democratic National Convention and signals an opportunity for all those in the faith-community to unite around the faith and values they share as Democrats.

But what about Democrats who do not have a faith? What will they do at a gathering that DNC Convention CEO Leah Daughtry declared "is a time of celebration of various religious traditions" in the Democratic Party?

The Secular Coalition asks that you and your friends and family in the secular community. TAKE ACTION NOW.

They provide your standard form letter when you click the link. I wrote my own.

Dear Rev. Daughtry,

I am an Atheist. Your decision to hold an Interfaith Gathering as an official DNC event disturbs and alienates me. One of the United States' major enduring errors is the ongoing deterioration of the Founders' ideal of separation between Church and State.

I do not need a Democratic version of Regents University type appointees polluting my government.

The DNC convention is a political event which showcases our representatives in the government. Their political function is secular and associating their public function with religion, at very least, sends the wrong message.

The Interfaith Gathering is non sequitur for the DNC convention. You could have a perfume appreciation gathering at a bookbinders convention and argue that many bookbinders like and appreciate perfume.

You must understand that as perfume does not thematically advance or enhance the bookbinding agenda; Faith does not thematically advance or enhance the Democratic Party's (and by extension the United States') agenda.


Sincerely,

Let 'em know...

A dissenting opinion on baseball.

Post from Thoughts and Acquisitions

Baseball...I used to love it...

I used to love baseball. I'd not say I lived and died by baseball, but it was a major part of my life growing up.


Over the past two seasons though, I have gone from avid baseball fan, to passive baseball fan, to barely caring about baseball. There are a few people to thank for this. First, I would like to thank Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees. At first I liked A-Rod because he came to the team and was humble enough to take a 3rd base position knowing he wasn't going to take short stop away from Jeter. But then he clouded over the entire team making himself the only player to be seen. And not in an "I hit 8 homers a game and use a bat as a toothpick" kind of way...but in a "more errors than anyone else in the majors and I still get paid more than god because I'm me" kind of way. He showed that the love of the game is even gone for most players. It's just about the cash.


It's important here to note I was raised a Yankees fan. They betrayed me with David Justice and I endured, but A-Rod is getting on my nerves even more now.


Next Yankee up. Roger Clemens. Either he is really honest, or he is totally full of shit. Either way, he has shown a lack of class in all that he's done recently, again erasing all the good things.


Barry Bonds. Biggest Blight on Baseball. Ever.


Now there are other small things, like the fact of pitchers throwing for 3 or 4 innings and calling it quits...benches so deep a team could play against themselves a couple time and still have relief at every position...juicing...umpires on strike...the list goes on.


So I am professional-sportless this summer. Maybe I'll look into Jai-alai...

Wrong about Bonds. It is still 'the' Strike.

That event finally broke baseball's romantic hold as 'America's' pastime.

By showing the nuts and bolts side of financing and business required to run the game. People could view it without the rose colored glasses of their youth.

It also allowed the NBA marketing juggernaut spearheaded by David Stern's savvy and Michael Jordan's popularity to re-enchant the disenchanted baseball fans with an exciting, fast paced sport; seemingly built for the sound bite / highlight media.

If that wasn't bad enough it also allowed the the NFL, which had been making gains all throughout the '80's to finally catch up by also exploiting the vacuum created in sports media by increasing its market share.

With the corporatization [don't you love important sounding fake words?] of all sports (including baseball) you have even more of those remaining fans of their pastoral game lose interest.

Add to that the rise of NASCAR, and now when people talk about sports superstars, baseball players invariably rank right above hockey players, who had their own strike issues which, in the era of media commodity, is essentially suicidal (more on that below), which is to say not near the top of media (and thus [inter]national consciousness).

How is that for a nested statement?

Quick explanation on the path to obscurity.

no content = no visibility ::
no visibility = no recognition ::
no recognition = no casual fanbase ::
smaller fanbase = less revenue ::
less revenue = impaired ability to produce content :: see step one

McCain... how about you STFU?

I won't step on Keith's feet too much here. It does seem like I'm turning into a half-speed video blog, but no matter. John McCain asks for context, John McCain gets context.

(Yes I'm still participating in the John McCain link-o-rama. For details on the John McCain link-o-rama, see the John McCain post below.)

A bit of preview:

"You have attested to: a fairly easy success; an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time; in which we would be welcomed as liberators; which you assured us would not require our troops stay for decades but merely for years; from which we could bring them all home, since you noted many Iraqis resent American military presence; in which all those troops coming home will also stay there, not being injured, for a hundred years; but most will be back by 2013; and the timing of their return, is… not… that… important.

That, Senator McCain, is context.

And that, Senator McCain, is madness.

The Government Accountability Office just released a study Tuesday that concludes that one out of every ten soldiers sent to Iraq, takes with them medical problems "severe enough to significantly limit their ability to fight."

In five years, we have now sent 43-thousand of them to war even though… they were already wounded.

And when they come home, is… not… that… important."
--Keith Olbermann

Make sure you get what you deserve.

Vote Republican?!

Obama to McCain: RTFM

pwned.

"...President Bush told the American people he thought the biggest danger arising from this housing crisis was the temptation to do something about it. Now Senator McCain wants to turn Bush's policy of 'too little, too late' into a policy of 'even less, even later'. That's not the change we need right now. That's what got us into this mess in the first place..."

n00b.

"...Think about that. At a time when we're fighting two wars, when millions of Americans can't afford their medical bills or their tuition bills, when we're paying more than $4 a gallon for gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break for Exxon Mobil. That isn't just irresponsible. It's outrageous..."

John McCain

1--John McCain Votes to Filibuster Minimum Wage Hike
AOL News is highly ranked on John McCain, and the minimum wage increase was incredibly popular.

2--John McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist
This article emphasizes how corporate special interests have formed McCain’s economic policy. If it becomes the top ranked MSNBC article, it will appear in the top ten searches for McCain nationwide.

3--Bush, John McCain plug Social Security
Seniors are going to be the key swing vote in this election, and they hate Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security. This is the best polling message against McCain of all, which isn’t surprising since our victory on Social Security is how began to turn the tide against Republicans and conservatives three years ago. The headline alone ties McCain to Bush, and this article already ranks very high on searches for McCain Social Security.

4--John McCain blasts Obama’s and Clinton’s attacks on NAFTA
This is a great article because it not only ties McCain to NAFTA, which is quite unpopular, but it also draws a contrast between McCain and Democrats on the issue. The LA Times is also in the top twenty searches for John McCain.

5--John McCain in NH: Would Be "Fine" To Keep Troops in Iraq for "A Hundred Years"
McCain’s "100 years" statement ha damaged him already, and this article has already been significantly optimized on Google. While Mother Jones is not an ideal news source, it is the top article for this quote, and appears in the top thirty searches for John McCain already.

6--John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
This is my personal favorite. The headline just makes McCain look like an asshole, and ties him to Bush. Who is opposed to health insurance for kids? CNN also is in the top ten searches for McCain and John McCain A lot of people will see this one.

7--Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, John McCain opposition
While I am not thrilled about using Salon, since it isn’t as well known, and since there is an advertising wall that hides the story, the title is damaging enough. McCain’s opposition to the GI Bill really hurts him, and tying him to Bush is just as bad. This title does both in a clear, straightforward manner.

8--John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion
Pretty straightforward, and extremely important. More than half of all women voters think that McCain is pro-choice. This will quickly change their minds.

9--John McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy
The classic McCain SEO, that still appears in top thirty searches for McCain and John McCain. It is also proof positive that this campaign will work, because it appears as the second CBS news article, but still on the front page in Google searches just below the CBS election center information on John McCain. That is all we need to do to get it on the front page of searches about McCain--optimize it against other CBS articles. Also, even though this SEO campaign was abandoned fifteen months ago, it still ranks in the top forty in McCain searches. If a fifteen month old campaign is still that effective, imagine what we can do with enough participation in this campaign.

What am I doing?

oh yeah...

John McCain
John McCain
John McCain
John McCain
John McCain
John McCain
John McCain
John McCain
John McCain

The best 12 minutes of your day.

Yeah, it's that good. Watch it.

GOD DAMN AMERICA

New York Region

3 Detectives Acquitted in Bell Shooting

By MICHAEL WILSON

Published: April 26, 2008

The detectives were found not guilty on all felony and misdemeanor charges in the November 2006 death of Sean Bell, who died in a hail of 50 police bullets outside a club in Queens.

-Full text-

I could probably better tolerate the breathless recurring coverage of the deadly shark attack if it weren't for the following:

• a person can stay out of the ocean where the sharks are
• that makes a shark attack an avoidable situation
  

• a person can not reasonably stay out of public areas where the police are
• this makes a police attack an unavoidable situation

One of these circumstances are much more likely to affect your average news consumer. I will not 'spot' you any guesses. I'll just inform you of the high improbability that 12% of the entire U.S. population is in the ocean.

I'm waiting...

...for the primary to be over because it is consuming my life (this is what happens when you get involved with actual campaign work).

For our faux news visitors/NYPost readers:

HEADLINE - Kentucky congressman calls Obama "boy".

This is my complete lack of amazement. (hint: click the word 'this')

This is the lame 'explanation'.

Watch it.

Keith Olbermann's special comment.

I'll have it up as soon as it is available.

Now available:


Keith's diary from DailyKos

Laughter soothes...

I won't say it heals in this case for obvious reasons.



Also, this isn't the first time she has mouthed off in that manner, here's what she said 20 years ago about Jesse Jackson:

And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.

Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."

Gleefully jacked from DailyKos who reprinted it from the April 15, 1988 Washington Post

Racist on day one.

Are you fucking serious?!

She's been sick?

She's on medication?

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK.

I don't care if your being beat upside the fucking skull with the ass end of a '72 Buick. You (or anyone apologizing for you) can NOT use that as a got damn excuse. Think about what they are asking you to accept.

Allow me to paraphrase .

Since she is in pain, she's probably cranky and short tempered and less likely to invest the time to sugar coat her statements or tell the necessary social 'white lies' to get along in public.

Ummm... I'll take kiss my black ass for $2000.

That means that she is normally thinking and living in that mind state.

Fuck you Geraldine, eat a dick and choke.

Find out for yourself... here.