MMM

I think we all know who he is talking about...

Finally, a get-out-the-vote video I can get on board with.

Two rich entrepreneurs. Each own a basketball team. Both have recently decided to use their powers toward causes in which they believe. One is an inspirational endeavor for the very well-being of this country. The other is a bat-shit insane exercise in misguided futility.

See if you can tell which is which:

Mark Cuban [owner of the Dallas Mavericks] has a new pet project: BailoutSleuth.com seeks to keep readers updated on how their money is being spent as part of the $700 billion bailout of financial institutions.

So far the early returns aren't looking good. Yesterday the site's editor, Chris Carey, wrote that the "Treasury Department put out an announcement about a major bailout-related contract with Bank of New York Mellon Corp. that fell short in the transparency department."

The problem? Nearly all the information on compensation was redacted, leading to less than illuminating lines like this: "The Financial Agent shall receive a monthly fee ---------------------------------------."

-link

or

Megaplex Theaters [owned by Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller] will not screen the comedy "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" when it opens nationwide Friday - once again opening the Utah theater chain to charges of hypocrisy for barring movies with strong sexuality but allowing films with graphic violence.
The movie, which stars Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks as roommates who decide to make a sex film to pay off debts, received an R rating after director Kevin Smith successfully appealed an NC-17 ruling.

-link

Priorities...

:)

Anil Dash on the dangers of deliberately obscured semantics on the campaign trail:

Put simply, if Palin says "Barack Obama consorts with terrorists", she is making the assertion that he supports acts of violence against American citizens and the media will refute this obviously false assertion. If, instead, Palin says he "pals around with terrorists", she's used code-switching to mask the seriousness of the charge, obfuscating her meaning enough to get away with making an assertion that inevitably calls for the imprisonment or even assassination of a political opponent.

This clever use of language only hides Palin's meaning from members of the press. Because writers for traditional media are usually highly educated and pride themselves on their mastery of Standard American English, they can often look down on dialects like AAVE and North Central English. Instead these forms of language being seen as legitimate and interpreted in the social context where they've formed, they're dismissed as being the words of "people who don't even speak proper English!" In the cases where the ideas aren't outright dismissed, there is still rampant misinterpretation of meaning: Reporters wrongly see a term like "palling" as imprecise, when compared to a word like "consorting".

But these words are not imprecise to their intended audience. They are, in fact, clearer than using legalistic terms like "consorting". They amplify the urgency of the statements, and increase the sense for Palin's audience that they're on the same page with her, speaking a language too "plain", too full of "straight talk", for the press to understand. And they're right. Palin has consistently pitted herself against the media, depicting them as hostile and foreign to her campaign, and thus making it even less likely they'd take her less formal-sounding charges seriously.

I'm pretty concerned about the possibility of an assassination attempt on Obama's life, even if the recent neo-nazi "conspirators" seemed more like overly-ambitious idiots. I'm not the type to believe that people are malleable enough that they could be so easily incited to violence based solely on speeches, but the crackpot part of the right-wing could easily have its flames of hatred fanned. McCain and Palin should know better. If they are so despicable (as seems likely) that they require a selfish reason to stop, then they should understand that their legacies would be completely ruined should anything happen to Obama. The country would place the blame directly on their doorsteps.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Ok, just a couple things on the whole "Spreading the Wealth" idea that seems to be the failed McCain tactic of the week:

1. Unless you are in favor of eliminating taxes all together, you are in favor of "Spreading the Wealth".

2. The main opponents of "Spreading the Wealth" are the red states, which would be hulking piles of cowpies if it weren't for the blue states "Spreading the Wealth" and supporting their sorry asses.

My favorite new meme.

I've seen some Facebook friends I know from my early days playing classical music around L.A., joining groups like "Protect Marriage - Vote Yes on Prop 8!". It boggles my mind. You're a classical musician. You are surrounded by gay people. Do you really want to deny your colleagues and supposed friends a basic human right? And if you are a conservative - which I'm sure most of you are - think of it like this: Voting Yes on Prop 8 increases government intervention into citizens' lives. It is antithetical to the idea of limited government.

Voting No on Prop 8 doesn't change anything. It won't force schools to teach the merits of gay marriage to your kids. It won't make anyone do anything. Voting Yes, however, does. It will strip rights from thousands of Californians. It will create a second class status for thousands of people, people you know and work with.

The idea of gay marriage offends you? Fine. Then talk to a gay friend about your concerns, write about your thoughts and sent an article to your local newspaper editor or start a blog, work on making your own heterosexual relationship an ideal one. There are any number of positive, societal things you can do that don't rely on the power of the state to force your beliefs onto other people. Skipping those and going directly to the government for support is lazy and cowardly, as well as futile. Government cannot change how people feel, love, and hate, so don't ask it to, it will only do more harm than good.

(video embed)

I find this infinitely more inspiring than any patriotic McCain ad or Obama song. Confront intolerance, disable it with logic, and sent the purveyors walking away in shame. Good stuff. If only there were more people like this at these Republican rallies confronting the lunatics.

The chimp on the segway is fascinating, but I'm more in awe at the sound effects. I had this video on as I was making breakfast and it made my life more exciting.

There is no sub-culture I support more wholeheartedly.

This video is mesmerizing. I believe there has to be some sort of subliminal message here. I feel changed after watching this, in some minute, but core, way.

Scrabble geeks will love this.

And this is creepy as shit.

Now, many of you may be familiar with my loathing of uplifting Obama videos. On one hand, I think it's nice that people are using their creativity for something that they believe in and feel strongly about. On the other, I find them to be condescending, smug, and preachy, while having a heart-warming vintage propaganda tone. Many of them tend to be from the hip hop/R&B world, like the most recent one I've seen, by MC Yogi:



If you don't feel like watching the whole thing, fast-forward to about 3:09 where the sepia-toned MC Yogi gently places his hands together in a pseudo-prayer, as if say, "I've said my piece, now impart with the knowledge I have passed onto you and let's change the world."

That hand-gesture is why I've come to hate uplifting hip hop.

Hip hop is a culture, and like any culture there develops norms of speech and basic communication that people who identify with the culture will adopt. This is why white kids from suburbia will end conversations with, "much love", or interject a few "true dat"s into a conversation. It's not that they are "acting black". It's that they are adapting to their chosen cultural surroundings. It is no more artificial than a person living in a new area of the country subconsciously adapting their speech and accent to the regional dialect. That said, just because it may be largely inadvertent, doesn't mean that some of those norms aren't annoying, or ignorant, or close-minded. It's a common practice to condemn gangsta rap and its offshoots for their use of bitch, ho', etc. and their cynical and negative attitude. Well, I think it's high time to recognize the issue of uplifting, positive hip hop and its naive and condescending attitude.

If Death Row can be seen as the label that broke gangsta rap into the mainstream, then Rawkus is the label that broke uplifting hip hop. It's early lineup was a congregation of some of the best voices of hip hop, which shunned the superficiality of the mainstream and brought hip hop back to its roots of breaks, samples and well-crafted rhymes. Some of the early Rawkus stuff was edgy, brilliant, and often offensive work from visionaries such as Company Flow and the late Big-L, but their defining tracks and albums were from artists such as Mos Def, Talib Kweli, and Common, whose work contained a measure of social consciousness and spirituality. These sentiments were similar to those of the neo-soul movement of the time, with artists such as Erika Badu, Jill Scott, and India.Aire, free from the tough-guy aesthetic of their hip hop counterparts, espousing these values even further, heralding intellect and inner peace as core values of their lives and work, as opposed to the rank commercialism and greed of contemporary hip hop and R&B.

While these are great values, the issue comes out of the style of delivery. The tradition of allegory and storytelling having largely left hip hop and R&B a decade earlier, the prominent mode of delivery of lyrics had become direct. Artist to audience. By the very nature of standing on a stage physically over your audience you are literally condescending. Thus, the communication of personal ideals and beliefs takes on a preaching tone, you are telling a large group of people how to act. No matter your personal humility or good intentions, the act is condescending, which isn't in itself a bad thing. However, when the culture itself becomes infused with this practice, then the style gets filtered down into the modes of communication of the listener.

Just as gansta rap audiences began adopting the language of their larger-than-life idols, fans of this type of socially-conscious uplifting hip hop have adopted the practice of preaching to each other, and whomever they can get to listen. Erika Badu isn't any more qualified to teach you about what is right and good than you are, or I am, or MC Yogi is, but while I once had to endure the new-agey talking points of uplifting hip hop from fans at shows, they're now making YouTube videos about the guy I'm voting for.

Here's why it's dangerous. I was once at a show by an amazing hip hop group called Solilloquists of Sound. Now they would surely consider themselves to be socially conscious, uplifting hip hop. I was there because they are an awesome group: great rhymes, nice beats, a guy playing dual MPCs live. The problem was that in between the tunes they took it upon themselves to "educate" the audience, inform them of the "struggle". They even went so far as to say that there was 'one path', and you were either on it or you were lost. At one point an audience member called out something in respectful disagreement, but was shouted down and dismissed. Now, this makes sense. Performances are in a sense fascistic - the performer is and should be in control - but this can become a bit sticky when politics are involved. It is easy to be told something agreeable and innocuous as "All you need is love", but when you are being told a controversial viewpoint - and anything courageous should be controversial - then unanimity cannot be expected. If there is apparent unanimity, then either people are silencing their dissent, or you have a complete consensus, which should frighten anyone who values free thought.

The above video could easily be dismissed as a somewhat sweet and naive message of inspiration and hope that Barack Obama will win and usher in a brighter future. I hope he'll win too. My fear is in the tone, though. These types of messages can serve to alienate those Americans (most) who don't identify with this doe-eyed youth culture, reinforce the belief that Obama is a vapid idealist, recall the insipid Vote or Die failed pop campaign, and especially repel those wary of the idolatry of many Obama supporters. A counter-argument could be made that they simply do not appeal to cynics, which I'll admit I am, but people are cynical of nebulous, feel-good sentiments in politics for a reason, and giving in to vague notions of hope and trust seems to be the antithesis of independent thought.

I have a general rule in life: the moment that I find myself in broad agreement with a large group of people is the moment where I force myself to reconsider to what I am agreeing.

Ee-yiiiick. Mafoo no likey inspirational culty bullshit like this.

On the plus-side, them some nice pumpkins.