Home

Advertisement

Customize
Dah Default.

November 2009

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Click 'em, you know you wanna

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Powered by LiveJournal.com

Oct. 8th, 2008

Dah Default.

Just had an ironic thought...

In the Marvel Universe, you have Satana, half-human daughter of Satan that embraces her heritage. In DC, you have Raven, half-human daughter of Satan (Trigon claims the name, so...) who denies it. Suppose a malicious Alien Space Bat were to reverse those two particular characters and their role in their universes, but leaves the rest of the DCU and the Marvel Universe untouched?

Methinks this ought to be written. Methinks I will write it.  Me also think that this is ripe for some LULZ.

And incidentally, why do half-humans in comics never seem to get that humans have our own darkness? What would someone like say, Raven, or even Hagrid (grsnarlHarry Pottersnarlgr) say when they discover such lovely entries in the Hall of Human leaders like Timur-i-leng, or Ivan IV or Shaka Zulu or Butesa I or even Adolf Hitler and Stalin and the other cliche 20th Century dictators? Methinks they would not necessarily be so openly favoring their human side. That should have been touched on when the comics were in the Cold War. Perhaps Raven and Starfire wind up back in the WWII era and Raven has to save Starfire from the Einsatzgruppen that are about to perpetrate Babi Yar and in the process figures out that...gasp....humans are not the saints the comic books make them out to be!

Another story that deserves to be written. The daughter of the Devil caught up in the middle of the nastiest war fought thus far between two rival groups of humans (and give or take 1,000 years, something far nastier is bound to come along), the war between the Axis and the Soviets. Oh, yes. Some of the LULZ in that involve how a half-human would intersect with things like Nuremberg Laws and Old Joe Stalin's love of deporting his rivals.

Even funnier would be if she winds up in a place like Leningrad when this little time-warp snafu happens...around the time of the Red Army liberating it.

I'd better quit while I'm ahead, I might have 2 dozen ideas before I'm through here.


Sep. 22nd, 2008

As it says: Don't. Say. A. Word.

This guy is awesome:

Off goes the head of the king, and tyranny gives way to freedom. The change seems abysmal. Then, bit by bit, the face of freedom hardens, and by and by it is the old face of tyranny. Then another cycle, and another. But under the play of all these opposites there is something fundamental and permanent — the basic delusion that men may be governed and yet be free.

and:

Human life is basically a comedy. Even its tragedies often seem comic to the spectator, and not infrequently they actually have comic touches to the victim. Happiness probably consists largely in the capacity to detect and relish them. A man who can laugh, if only at himself, is never really miserable.

and:

The older I grow the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom.

and lastly,:

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people

This guy got more good quotes in one lifetime than many cultures do in a millenium.


Sep. 8th, 2008

Dah Default.

This is pure gold:

5 Myths About Those Civic-Minded, Deeply Informed Voters


By Rick Shenkman
Sunday, September 7, 2008; B05

One thing both Democrats and Republicans agreed about in their vastly different conventions: The American voter will not only decide but decide wisely. But does the electorate really know what it's talking about? Plenty of things are hurting American democracy -- gridlock, negative campaigning, special interests -- but one factor lies at the root of all the others, and nobody dares to discuss it. American voters, who are hiring the people who'll run a superpower democracy, are grossly ignorant. Here are a few particularly bogus claims about their supposed savvy.


1. Our voters are pretty smart.

You hear this one from politicians all the time, even John McCain, who promises straight talk, and Barack Obama, who claims that he's not a politician (by which he means that he'll tell people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear). But by every measure social scientists have devised, voters are spectacularly uninformed. They don't follow politics, and they don't know how their government works. According to an August 2006 Zogby poll, only two in five Americans know that we have three branches of government and can name them. A 2006 National Geographic poll showed that six in ten young people (aged 18 to 24) could not find Iraq on the map. The political scientists Michael Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter, surveying a wide variety of polls measuring knowledge of history, report that fewer than half of all Americans know who Karl Marx was or which war the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought in. Worse, they found that just 49 percent of Americans know that the only country ever to use a nuclear weapon in a war is their own.

True, many voters can tell you who's ahead and who's behind in the horse race. But most of what they know about the candidates' positions on the issues -- and remember, our candidates are running to make policy, not talk about their biographies -- derives from what voters learn from stupid and often misleading 30-second commercials, according to Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center.

2. Bill O'Reilly's viewers are dumber than Jon Stewart's.

Liberals wish. Democrats like to think that voters who sympathize with their views are smarter than those who vote Republican. But a 2007 Pew survey found that the knowledge level of viewers of the right-wing, blustery "
The O'Reilly Factor" and the left-wing, snarky "The Daily Show" is comparable, with about 54 percent of the shows' politicized viewers scoring in the "high knowledge" category.

So what about conservative talk-radio titan
Rush Limbaugh's audience? Surely the ditto-heads are dumb, right? Actually, according to a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Rush's listeners are better educated and "more knowledgeable about politics and social issues" than the average voter.

3. If you just give Americans the facts, they'll be able to draw the right conclusions.

Unfortunately, no. Many social scientists have long tried to downplay the ignorance of voters, arguing that the mental "short cuts" voters use to make up for their lack of information work pretty well. But the evidence from the past few years proves that a majority can easily be bamboozled.
Just before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, after months of unsubtle hinting from Bush administration officials, some 60 percent of Americans had come to believe that Iraq was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, despite the absence of evidence for the claim, according to a series of surveys taken by the PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll. A year later, after the bipartisan, independent 9/11 Commission reported that Saddam Hussein had had nothing to do with al-Qaeda's assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, 50 percent of Americans still insisted that he did.

In other words, the public was bluntly given the data by a group of officials generally believed to be credible -- and it still didn't absorb the most basic facts about the most important event of their time.

4. Voters today are smarter than they used to be.

Actually, by most measures, voters today possess the same level of political knowledge as their parents and grandparents, and in some categories, they score lower. In the 1950s, only 10 percent of voters were incapable of citing any ways in which the two major parties differed, according to Thomas E. Patterson of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, who leads the Pew-backed Vanishing Voter Project. By the 1970s, that number had jumped to nearly 30 percent.

Here's what makes these numbers deplorable -- and, in fact, almost incomprehensible: Education levels are far higher today than they were half a century ago, when social scientists first began surveying voter knowledge about politics. (In 1940, six in ten Americans hadn't made it past the eighth grade.) The moral of this story: Schooling alone doesn't translate into better educated voters.

5. Young voters are paying a lot of attention to the news.

Again, no. Despite all the hoopla about young voters -- the great hope of the future! -- only one news story in 2001 drew the attention of a majority of them: 9/11. Some 60 percent of young voters told Pew researchers that they were following news about the attack closely. (Er -- 40 percent weren't?) But none of the other stories that year seemed particularly interesting to them. Only 32 percent said that they followed the news about the anthrax attacks or the economy, then in recession. The capture of Kabul from the Taliban? Just 20 percent.

Six years later, Pew again measured public knowledge of current events and found that the young (aged 18 to 29) "know the least." A majority of young respondents scored in the "low knowledge" category -- the only demographic group to do so.

And some other statistics are even more alarming. How many young people read newspapers? Just 20 percent. (Worse, studies consistently show that people who do not pick up the newspaper-reading habit in their 20s rarely do so later.) But surely today's youth are getting their news from the Internet? Sorry. Only 11 percent of the young report that they regularly surf the Internet for news. Maybe Obama shouldn't be relying on savvy young voters after all.



____________________________

P.T. Barnum's laughing at 21st Century America from the grave.

And guess who else laughs with him?

Emperor Norton.
 


Dah Default.

For some perspective on 2008 and modern times in general:

To the Modern-day Left and Right:

Get over yourselves. This is not, and never will be, the most DANJERUS TIME IN HISTOREE!!!!

1500 years ago, the Plague of Justinian killed half of Europe's population, paving the way for an extraordinary expansion of Islam. Guess what? More dangerous than today.

1500 years ago, nomadic peoples collapsed two of the greatest political units of the time. Guess what? More dangerous than today.

500ish years ago, the Black Death swept through Eurasia. 30% of Europe died, and that only 500 or so years after the Plague of Justinian. Guess what, class? You got it! More dangerous than today!

400ish years ago, death sliced up 90% of the population of the Americas. More dangerous then to live in this part of the world than today.

700ish years ago, a man named Timur swept through Central Asia and destroyed, (and by that I mean destruction, there was nothing left of them) Central Asian Christian communities far more thoroughly than Hitler's war did to the Jews. Twas not a good time to be a Christian. More dangerous than today.

800 years ago, a Mongolian nomad united the tribes. Within 10 years of his death, Eurasia was unified under ironclad regimes. You know the drill, more dangerous than today.

1600 years ago, a mass migration of Germans disrupted virtually all civilization in Western Eurasia, fleeing the Huns. More dangerous than today, and it took 1400 years for parts of that old civilization to recover the population they had prior to it.

600 years ago, another Volkerwanderung sliced through one of the largest cities of America, turning the Toltecs into a vanished people. More dangerous than today.

Near 500ish years ago, a tyrannical man named Pakachuti conquered vast swathes of America, again more dangerous to be an American than today.

Near 2300 years ago a tyrannical man named Alexander conquered a truly civilized empire. Far more dangerous, particularly after he died, than to be living today.

You see, dangerous times today may and do exist, but compared to the utter catastrophes of the past...

today is nothing.

 



Feb. 22nd, 2008

Dah Default.

Dictatorship in reality.

( You are about to view content that may not be appropriate for minors. )

Advertisement

Customize