Here’s my take on this: It’s a horrible decision. It’s punishing the children because of an arbitrary religious law. It’s awful and shameful. But it’s the type of decision that a private institution is allowed to make.

I’m a product of a religious schooling background. The Jesuits taught me how to think, not just how to recite facts and figures. Was there religion involved? Absolutely. We had theology classes every semester. We were not required to be Catholic (nor, legally, could they only admit Catholics, so far as I know) but we were required within a Jesuit school to learn the sorts of religious lessons they saw fit to teach. It was a trade-off. They could teach the sort of things they desired since they received no state or federal monies to do so. People could choose to pay in order to receive these sorts of teachings. It happened that it was a fantastic school with a great reputation, however if its students were unable to get into colleges for lack of critical science or mathematics knowledge I think fewer parents would have chosen to admit their students.

This is why the separation of Church and State is so important. State schooling is religion-free and should stay that way. Religious schooling should be able to teach according to their own laws and morals within the boundaries of the law.

That’s the important distinction there. There’s no law saying I have to be nice. I can be an asshole to everyone, every day and it’s well within my rights. It’s a shitty way to live my life, but should I so choose, it’s a choice I can make. There’s no law (as far as I know) saying they cannot choose to not accept funds from this couple in order to school their children. Is it an abhorrent thing to do? Absolutely. Were I a member of the community would I protest? You’re damn right I would - not because I think it’s illegal, but because I want as many people to know that this place is willing to punish kindergardeners because it’s a couple centuries behind in the biological and ethical categories. Do I, and will I defend their ability to run a school according to their own rules and regulations within the scope of the law? Yes I will. They’re allowed to be assholes if they choose, just like I am allowed.

Part and parcel of me being an atheist is being on the reciprocal side of this argument - where people question my morality or my ethics because they’ve been told for decades that I’ve no moral compass. But as I said above, the Jesuits taught me to think for myself. Part of doing so is allowing others to do so as well. You can disagree with someone’s opinion, but facts are facts. They’re allowed to run this school as they so choose. They’re allowed to punish children for arbitrary distinctions in mistranslated scripture. They’re allowed to for the same reason that I’m allowed to not be forced to be a Catholic or abide by that doctrine.

It’s a classic case of disagreeing with someone’s ideas, but defending their ability to have them.

ericmortensen:

So why have the AP, WSJ, WaPo, CNN, Fox, Time, Newsweek, New York Times (at least they ran a correction), Boston Globe, Gannett, PIttsburgh Tribune Review, Sacramento Bee, Globe and Mail, Washington Times and Congressional Quarterly all said differently? And when will they stop?

(via TPMMuckraker)

“News” is not immune to the power of memes either. “News” isn’t really news anymore - a common complaint, and not one that I’m unique in offering - it’s entertainment. There’s a certain small amount of investigative journalism going on in this country, but more than anything else it’s just repetition of the prevalent opinions.

I don’t want to go into whether the “corporate” structure of news media is affecting this, or whether or not the myth of the “liberal media” has anything to do with it (news flash: an individual media outlet is only as liberal as the multinational corporate conglomerate that owns it) but I think it’s clear that the biggest myth of all is that of the lone crusading journalist; the hardworking mix of gumshoe and writer, independently pursuing hard leads and the merest wisps of information alike in an effort to reveal an unbiased account of “the truth.” Or perhaps the myth isn’t of that person’s existence, but of whether or not we’d listen to them if they did.

NYT during the run up to Iraq, Fox News at all times, the rise of “opinion personalities” as news sources, the evidence is around us all the time. “Just the facts, ma’am” feels quaint because it is - it’s a sign of a time long since passed. More and more, facts hold no sway with people unless they confirm an already-held belief.

We have the greatest and most complete repository of human knowledge that our civilization has ever known, and in a perfect world it would allow “the truth” to be self-evident most of the time - or at least allow us to become better at researching as opposed to just blindly accepting information from The Powers That Be. What it’s actually done is reinforce human nature’s inherent ability to mentally distort facts to support an already believed perception and granted “facts” the same sort of wiggle room as “opinion.”

In an age where we should be smarter and better informed than any generation in history, little things like “the age of the earth,” “is there a scientific consensus on global warming,” and “whether or not the President is a citizen” are somehow in dispute. Facts hold no sway anymore, because this entertainmentization (not a real word…until now) of what used to be strictly informational necessitates an opposing side for all issues - even when the issue itself does not require or warrant it.

Fact: The Earth is not 6,000 years old, but closer to 4.6 billion years old. If your book says differently then your book is wrong.

Fact: There is a scientific consensus on man-made global warming - to the tune of 97% - if your news anchor says differently then they are wrong.

Fact: The President was born in Hawaii. His birth certificate is on the internet and there are news articles from the time period announcing his birth. If your “opinion journalist” says differently then they are wrong.

If you dispute any of the above, please provide evidence, not opinion, and they will be reevaluated. Your opinion on the matter is unimportant. Your “emotions” on the issue are not only unimportant but have no place in any discussion of science or fact. Your “beliefs” should resonate with - and have backing from - factual, demonstrable bases.

Facts should be able to stand on their own merits against all surrounding attacks, but whether this assault on reason is premeditated in an effort to discredit the very foundations of the concept of truth, or whether it’s a result of the idea that all opinions are created equal (they’re not) is unimportant. The result is what’s important, and the simple and indisputable truth is that logic, reason, and science hold less sway on the overall American population than they used to.

At one point, my country was founded with the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

Do we still?

Just because “social networking” is cool doesn’t mean you now need to incorporate it into every consumer electronics device you’re shipping. Yes, a good portion of my business and personal life is spent engaging with others online, but that doesn’t meant I want to be around everyone I know all the time. Sometimes - and I know this is hard to believe - I’m even doing other things for the sole and specific purpose of stepping away from being connected.

For example, I don’t need to have Twitter or Facebook on my ebook reader. It’s a solitary activity that I don’t want or need interrupted; adding SN features makes it the electronic equivalent of a built-in annoying “That Guy” at the coffeeshop who asks constant questions about the book that you were actively reading just moments ago.

“Do you like it?” he or she (or your ebook reader) asks, seemingly unaware that since you’re in the middle of it, any opinion you give will be unformed and still malleable.

“I’ve been meaning to check that out,” he or she (or your ebook reader) says, trying to affect an air of culture after mispronouncing the author’s name and ordering a coffee that has more syllables than the title of your book.

So congratulations, you’ve just created a device whose sole additional selling point is “it’s now easier to annoy you when you’re trying to block out humanity and shut out the world around you.”

I’m also looking at every TV manufacturer displaying their “networked, socially-aware, ultra-thin, 3D television” this year. Excellent; thank you, you assholes.

The best of all possible scenarios is that people can make now fun of me in real-time when I tear up as Sam runs through the airport after Joanna in Love Actually.

The worse scenario (and I’m sure the one that will happen) is that now watching a movie on your couch will be the home version of that time you couldn’t get those five frat guys behind you to shut the fuck up during Return Of The King.

Or, better stated, for anyone who’s ever played on Xbox Live: imagine that same crowd talking nonstop during a movie.

“Who’s the elf faggot?” they’ll shout and laugh.

“Hey what kind of pussy wants to watch this bullshit?” they’ll ask the vast swaths of the internet, content in their pseudo-anonymity and bored of masturbation.

“Hey Barrett, I can’t believe you’ve spent the past hour youtubing recap videos of So You Think You Can Dance. Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyy…”

So to every CES presenter this year: I love social media, I really do. It’s provided me with hours of entertainment, satisfaction, enhanced friendships, and even paid my bills for the past six months. I just don’t need it involved in everything I do, because - present company excepted, of course - people as a general rule are complete bastards.

writer-a:

ericmortensen:

vruz:

—by langer:

Avatar is a bad film.

Not because it lacks any meaningful character development (which it does), not because its plot is laughably flimsy (which it is), and not because it is little more than a big-budget remake of FernGully, but because it is yet another example of b-grade Hollywood moralizing, of not very smart people with typically superficial good intentions offering Americans an insidiously shallow civics lesson along with their 64-oz Cokes and shrink-wrapped boxes of Butterfinger Minis.

American audiences have long preferred to buy their cultural sensitivity on the cheap, and Avatar is no exception here. Cinema regularly lures its viewers into an empty sense of mea culpa by safely buffering any requisite admission of guilt with the distantiation of history, of fairy tales, or of good old fashioned exaggeration. Our collective sins are pointed out for us in a way that doesn’t demand we see those same sins in ourselves. In any theatrical contest between Good and Evil, ticket sales will only ever cover production costs if while being asked to root against our own image we’re allowed to remain reasonably convinced of the implausibility that we ourselves could ever individually be as evil as these representations suggest.

It’s the uncanny valley of morality.

This is why we were all supposed to feel a little bit better about ourselves after watching Crash, because even though the film’s white antagonists didn’t drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag bumper stickers but lived in McMansions and kept hired maids and drank Starbucks and drove BMWs and looked generally indistinguishable from well-to-do liberal types just like us, their racism was so exaggerated and unsympathetic that we could condemn ourselves without any of the uncomfortable consequences of actually condemning ourselves. Then we all patted ourselves on the back and congratulated each other on how far we’ve come by handing this lousy film the Best Picture award. In an age when a political activist is someone who tints his Twitter avatar green, this Oscar was our Emancipation Proclamation.

This is why when watching The Last of the Mohicans we rooted for an indigenous culture that we ourselves had once oppressed as we watched them be subjugated by white colonizers we call our forefathers, since despite our shared lineage with the bad guys we can comfortably cast judgment because theirs were historical sins for which we’ve long since apologized with national monuments and Congressional resolutions, and because the indigenous culture in question has already been so decimated and so quarantined by poverty and desert reservations as to no longer pose any ongoing challenges to our national interest.

And this is why we cheered on a bunch of dwarves and elves and talking trees, because the two white guys oppressing them commanded an army of orcs instead of Blackwater personnel.

In the case of Avatar the bad guys again look just like we do, they wield the mighty hammer of the military-industrial complex just like we do, and they speak the language of colonialism just like we do. Yet in a country where anything short of full-throated support of the military is verboten we’re exonerated for rooting against these former Marines because they’re conquering a make-believe planet populated with make-believe aliens in a make-believe time. We’re allowed to cheer for this oppressed people because the missile strikes come from futuristic gunships and not from Predator drones. And we can safely criticize this fictional military because it takes its cues directly from its heartless capitalist overlords, while ours only takes its heartlessly capitalistic cues through the more familiar proxy of a popularly elected commander in chief.

As with any other case study in the ever-cheapening cinematic pedagogy of morality, it speaks volumes about the contemporary American audience that James Cameron had to spend fifteen years and $300 million inventing a race of people and the necessary technology to tell a story that could have just as easily been told with a handheld camera and a flight to the Ecuadorian rainforest—albeit one that wouldn’t have sold any tickets if it had.

And now millions of Americans get to go home and take comfort in the fact that while our empire may have its flaws and our military may be regularly dispatched to conquer “savages” who made the tragic mistake of establishing their homeland on top of massive deposits of natural resource, well, hey, at least we’ve never blown up a bunch of adorable purple aliens.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. I see films instead of going to confession; it’s so much less painless than self-flagellation.  But thanks for breaking this down for myself and the millions of other addled Americans who left the theater completely overcome by a glucose head rush and a curious sense of unattributable exoneration. Before this post, it was completely lost on me and my fellow hordes of grunting, barely upright knuckle draggers that we were perhaps brainwashed into living another day relieved of guilt… all for the price of a theater ticket.

Pardon the sarcasm.

My question for you is, since we both agree that the weak character development isn’t the main issue here, should we also damn Plato’s Republic and Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings too? Or are we only jumping on allegory-as-film? Is it possible that maybe the theater-going experience isn’t about mea-culpa after all? Just possible? I hope so, otherwise I’m afraid I’m going to have to await your next film before I can feel less guilty about enjoying everyone else’s.

Pardon my french, but remember when you went to the movie because it was fucking fun and didn’t feel the need to check beforehand whether or not you would already pre-agree with someone else’s interpretation of the “message?” This is a watershed film and will be remembered as such. Who cares if you don’t “agree” with the film, there have been hundreds of films I didn’t “agree” with that A) I still enjoyed, B) I still appreciated, and C) I’m glad I watched.

When exactly did your inner child and sense of wonder die? Maybe you can still enjoy a film without dissecting the historic or science-fiction interpretations through the lens of modern politics. Maybe you don’t have to get permission from your overlords to accept the messaging before seeing an entertainment property. Maybe, sometimes, you can just drop into a film and enjoy the ride.

Fuck, modern political discussion is retarded. If The Godfather were released now people would be up in arms over their interpreted “message” of the film. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail - if you’re looking for a reason to get up in arms about “Hollywood liberals” or “liberal messaging” or “forced brainwashing and liberal guilt” you’ll fucking find it everywhere you look - because you’re an idiot and have only one tool at your disposal. You’re a one-trick pony. Actually, you’re also the tool.

We used to play that game in film school - reinterpreting historic films’ messages from a modern context - Star Wars was the communist manifesto, Indiana Jones was just Ayn Rand with treasure hunting, Die Hard was Vietnam, etc. But it was fucking ridiculous, that’s what made it a such a joke!

“Dad, do you remember seeing Star Wars in theaters?”

“No, Tim, I didn’t want to see it. I didn’t agree with the Hollywood Liberal Anti-America brainwashing - of course the “empire” had to be evil. George Lucas just hated America and was sowing seeds of liberal guilt. Darth Vader could have easily been written as a unifier, but they made him the bad guy. And in the end their pagan mumbo-jumbo overthrew what’s obviously meant to be the pope - who of course was also evil. Brainwashing, that’s all it was.”

“Dad?”

“Yes, Tim.”

“You missed out.”

I find it ironic that the same person cursing “the Muslims” for their “backwards” view of womens rights, can then complain about gay marriage.

Not to go all “logical” on you, but in both circumstances you’re falling back on written scripture and “my religion forbids it” as your reasoning. So you can either have one or the other, but not both.  Granted, in either circumstance your “get out of logical fallacy free” card is “but my religion is the one true religion, and the other one is a false religion, so therefore my scripture trumps that one,” in which case I can no longer help you because logic and reason will hold no sway over your beliefs*

*Note, this does not apply to all Christians, Muslims, or other religious adherents - only those who would fall back on picking and choosing from frequently mistranslated scripture as a defense mechanism against modernity and simple humanity.

The link above leads to Justin Kownacki’s treatise addressing the current anti-intellectual and anti-complexity trends permeating society. It’s a good and important read, and you should read it before you read my thoughts below.

While I disagree with a few of his examples, and disagree heartily with the idea that the symptoms are limited to language [Note: Justin didn’t necessarily imply this, I just want to be on the record about this trend manifesting itself outside of textual encounters] I agree fully that there is a decades-old backlash against intellectualism and intelligence. We’re beginning to see the effects on a larger timeline as that anti-intelligence mentality passes from an older generation - who (blatant personal theory ahead!) felt like the world of computers and technology was making them, their experience, and their intelligence obsolete, and therefore rejected it - into a younger generation that has no excuse NOT to be the most cultured, intelligent, and learned generation in history.

But they’re not. They’re rejecting intelligence, intellect, and education (personal and institutional) - perhaps because information is so easy to come by and find that it has no value anymore. Does the lack of effort needed to obtain a bit (or byte) of information man that the information itself has no value? Is the expectation that one can find information at any time, from anywhere, removing the necessity to actually keep said information in one’s brain?

Whatever the reason or reasoning (if indeed there is any) the fact remains: intelligence, intellectualism, and simple reasoning are under attack. It’s somehow okay to be dumb now, and people are embracing it at a staggering rate. Simple, basic logic and reasoning hold no sway in vast sections of the populace, and even the idea of opinion versus fact has fallen into a gray area of differentiation. “Is” has been replaced by “I think” even when it’s obvious that no thought went into the process at all. “I believe” is now “is,” even when it’s not.

I can be very hyperbolic when I’m passionate about something, but I don’t think I’m being overly so here: It’s hurting the country and the world. Dumb is the new black; but it’s not a fashion, it’s a lifestyle choice. I don’t know where this is leading - perhaps a new Renaissance, perhaps Idiocracy - but I’m not as optimistic as I’d like to be that it’ll turn out alright.

mikehudack:

The best article I’ve read about AT&T’s iPhone problem.

While I understand that this would help AT&T’s network issues, as a consumer I’m firmly opposed to a tiered-pricing or limited data program.  I don’t want to deal with the hassles of limiting my minutes AND my data.  I’m opposed to it for wired internet, and I’ll remain opposed to it for wireless data as well.  If this negatively affects AT&T’s business plan then so be it, but as a consumer I’ll gladly pick a different handset and carrier in exchange for not having to deal with that pricing structure.

My knee jerk reaction is “why should I pay more because you can’t back up your contractual obligations? Fix your fucking network and this isn’t an issue.” Yeah it’s expensive, use the income streams from the several million new customers this handset has brought to your system over the past 2.5 years.  Don’t offer me an inferior data plan that will cost me more or try to sell me a $150 device to provide me the service you promised I would have when I put my John Hancock on the dotted line. I, as a consumer, pay for you, the carrier, for network service. Give me service, not excuses; or I’ll start giving you excuses as to why I only paid you 50% of the bill.

I ignored “Let’s Save The Web Series” when it was first written as I disagreed to such a large degree that I was worried about contributing anything constructive to the conversation.  The past month has given me time to better consider what I wanted to say.  In light of the resurgence of the conversation (at least across my little slice of the internet) and while I could probably go on at length, all I will say about Yuri’s opinions is this:

No business has ever succeeded by actively striving to be the “minor leagues’ of anything else. That’s a great way to have your successes marginalized, your stars disappear, and for you to perpetually be thought of as an inferior product.  Branded entertainment is advertising by another name; Burger King (to use your example) isn’t gonna create LOST.  It damn sure isn’t going to create The Godfather (or anything that could potentially alienate a portion of their customers for any reason at all.) Neither of these concepts are conducive to creating art, and for a medium to exist it requires a certain amount of artistic intent and integrity.

Your goals are mutually exclusive.  Something can either be good - to use your words “(not) good for the web but just good” - or it can be the minor leagues/branded entertainment. Having web video be the minor leagues means that it will never mature beyond the bottom entry-level rung of other media. The Departed is good (arguably, it’s “great”) but there’s no way to massage the brand messaging from Kellogg’s into the plotline.

The internet is the largest, most democratic, and most internationally conscious  communications and entertainment medium the world has ever seen. In the few short years of its existence it has shattered an untold number of longstanding businesses and created countless new ones. The full effects of widespread connectivity (economic, sociological and otherwise) are so unfathomable that they won’t be understood for years if not decades; and you’re already prepared to call the death of independent web video? I can’t even confidently say which studios will still be around in five years or who the prevalent financiers of “mainstream” entertainment will be. Hell, a year from now, who will own NBCU?

Web video doesn’t even have a standard consumption unit, or an understanding on what constitutes a “view.”  We’re still “filming radio” by making short TV shows and short films because no one’s yet developed the genres of web video which will stand apart from film and television, and define the medium in the coming decades. Perhaps you’re intending solely to speak on your own behalf, about your own confidence, or about your own products, but anything else is extremely shortsighted.

Web video isn’t over, it’s not on life support and its imminent death has certainly been greatly exaggerated. It’s still warming up for the big fight, waiting for the bell to ring so it can come out swinging. You want to “save” web video? Differentiate it from what people already see around them; make it unlike anything they’ve ever experienced before.

Dear Ralph’s:

Getting into the little box of plastic strawberries I bought last week should be easy.  It should definitely be comparatively easier than growing them myself from scratch. I’m not an idiot, I promise, but if I find myself - a 29 year-old, pretty in-shape guy - having to use three separate tools and summon a goddamn hellspawn demon just to break through the plastic cage of wrath and despair which separates me from sweet, berry goodness, there’s something wrong with your packaging techniques.

Scissors: nope. A knife the size of a machete: not gonna happen. An actual sword: laughably inadequate. It’s the Battletoads of fruit receptacles; the ‘27 Yankees of “convenience” packaging. I’m in my kitchen trying to McGuyver an IED out of a popcorn popper, some old coffee grounds, and a half-stale blueberry scone - all in the name of healthy and easily accessible snack food.

What’s the problem guys? Did you get a shipment of clear plastic gun safes and just decide “fuck it, these’ll work just fine”? Are you helping us save for the inevitable Zombie Apocalypse whereupon strawberries will be the new currency of the survivors? Are you just assholes? Seriously, are you giant, giant assholes?

Black Boxes should be made of this shit; of course since it’s apparently the plastic equivalent of Adamantium, any plane crash would mean a 450MPH indestructible strawberry-centered missile blasting through the countryside like paper mache.

WHY WON’T YOU LET ME IN!  ALL I WANT IS A FUCKING STRAWBERRY!

**Take note USB flashdrive manufacturers, because this applies to you fuckers too. It’s an 8gig USB drive that’s just gonna end up going through the wash in someone’s jeans, not the Arc Of The Covenant; I shouldn’t need to nuke the packaging from orbit just so I can leave behind a fucking powerpoint.

marco:

Just hours after Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed expanding the network neutrality authority of the agency Sept. 21, Senate Republicans moved to block the initiative. Using an appropriations bill as a vehicle, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced an amendment that would deny the FCC any funds for developing or implementing new Internet regulations.

Of course.

Let me be crystal clear: if you oppose Net Neutrality you’re supporting negating the very existence of the single most transformative technology of the past two millennia.  You’re supporting allowing private industry to arbitrarily change the open access rules which have allowed the evolution of human communications to make huge leaps, and you’re not doing it because you agree or disagree with the policy, but because you’re playing party politics.

Now normally, I’m in favor of staying out of local elections if you’re not actually local, but I’ll make an exception here for two reasons: First, the internet is global so you’re actually legislating on much more than just your local constituency.  Secondly, you’re interfering with my workplace and my livelihood - not to mention fucking with the future of international communications and creativity.  All of a sudden the maxim “all politics is local” will take on a whole new meaning.

So it comes down to this: If you oppose Net Neutrality I’ll do everything in my power - small as my sphere of influence may seem - to keep you out of any elected office. That effort may amount to doing my damnedest to make sure you don’t get re-elected, or it may be trying to get you actively kicked out of office but the fact remains that I will be a thorn in your side and a constant pain in your ass.

Your worldview is valuing one private industry’s profits and party politics higher than maintaining the precidents that allowed the largest shift in human communications, information, commerce, and entertainment in the history of our species.  You’re not just fucking with my business, you’re fucking with the future - and you don’t even have a good goddamn reason aside from “I’m a Republican, this is what we do.”

But let’s get back on track: If this sounds petty, remember: you’re firing a shot across my bow, and this is mine in return.  I don’t know how many will help me, but I’m damn sure I’ll know where to find them.  And in the meantime, I’ll be doing my research on what the most effective way to ruin your world is - as you seem to be doing your best to ruin mine.

Barrett Garese

I’ll buy a new 3DTV when I don’t have to put on (and keep track of) special glasses just to watch a football game.

I don’t get this big push for 3DTV, it just seems so…desperate. I get it: television as a medium is dying in its current state. You need something new to drive consumer interaction, habits, and general viewing.  But this smacks of serious desperation and half-baked hardware.

I’ve seen it myself, it’s shiny, it’s…sort of cool to watch.  It’s not mind-blowing and it’s certainly not equivalent to the theatrical 3D experience.  The colors are always a little bit off, they bleed a bit, and everything looks slightly “reflective” if you don’t keep your head 100% still at all times.

Also, “active shutter” goggles (I refuse to call them glasses, they’re big enough to qualify as goggles) suck.  A lot.  The inadequacies are obviously apparent to an embarrassing degree:

They’re big, uncomfortable, expensive (get ready for $100 bucks a pair - minimum - in addition to the cost of your TV) and if they’re not exactly in sync (which they rarely are, and even more rarely stay at) you get incredibly annoying flickering.  Not to mention yet another item I have to keep track of and keep charged just to watch a show.

So no, I’m not buying in until you make 3D a more enjoyable experience for me that doesn’t involve massive - and expensive - compromises on my part just to experience your content.  I’m perfectly happy with the several thousand dollar set I bought a few years back with the last “necessary” feature: 120Hz.  And while I’m in love with that feature (24p blu-ray films with no pull-down artifacts are pretty damn sweet) that was a feature which added to my experience without me having to change my habits, routine, or deal with any negative consequences.  It was just a better experience, and thus worth paying for.  Make 3D the same (better experience, no compromises or negative consequences) and I’ll do the same, but ask me pay thousands of dollars to buy half-baked hardware which is a constant pain in the ass to use and I’ll gladly show you my middle finger of justice - and keep my debt to income ratio exactly where it stands right now thankyouverymuch.

Of course all of these could change upon the announcement that Uncharted 3 will be fully 3D, in which case you’ll find me panting in front of the doors of Best Buy, waving my Amex around at whomever looks like they could sell me a 55” Samsung and have it delivered by the time the game is released.

Americans: you have gone batshit insane, you find it scandalous your children might have to see a video address from your president, in class…

Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer released a statement this week accusing Obama of using taxpayer money to “indoctrinate” children.

“As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology,” Greer said.

“The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans … is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power.”

1. We’re gonna need you to learn the definition of socialism before you use it again.
2. Railing against socialism using the free public education system as your broadcast platform is monumentally stupid.  Like “wear a helmet” stupid.
3. The vast, vast majority of Americans are in favor of massive socializing of heath-care (79-82% depending on the poll) through a government sponsored public option.
4. You obviously don’t even know (or haven’t bothered familiarizing yourself with) what The President is talking about, just proving that your issue is with the man, not the message.
5. You’re making the country dumber by using these tactics as if they’re actual intellectual debate.  To quote Jon Stewart, you’re quite literally “hurting America.”
6. Shut the fuck up.  Seriously, shut the fuck up, I’m tired of hearing it.  When you’re planning on making an actual point, I’ll listen.  If you’re still planning on beating your chest and shouting a lot about things that are at best inconsequential, and at worst flat out inventions of your own imagination, I’ll continue to ignore you like the petulant children you’ve become.
7. You may be “solidifying your base” through use of fear, lies, religious (read: Christian) lip service, and hyperbole, but you’re also making sure that independent voters like myself (people who used to vote republican) are so turned off by your party, leaders, tactics, and ideas, that the last thing in the world we would want to do is validate the bullshit, lies, and dangerous precedent of “party politics over progress” that you’ve established.  I can’t think of a single Republican candidate right now that I would feel comfortable supporting except Meghan McCain - and she’s not running for anything yet.
8. I forget what 8 was for.

This is a great article that breaks down the lies about Healthcare reform, including names and citations about where and how and from whom the lies began; as well as what the truth is.

I found one comment to be exceptionally worth highlighting though:

The American media then presents itself as an umpire between “the rival sides”, as if they both had evidence behind them.

I’m sorry for going off on a rant here, but I frequently find myself in the middle of an argument about “bias” where it seems that the person is suggesting that “all sides” must be considered, regardless of validity or factual accuracy.

This is the tack taken by the “teach the controversy” crowd, aka “Intelligent Design” which is more commonly known as just “Creationism.” The refrain of “teach both and let the children decide” is really saying “tell children that they’re both on equal scientific grounds.” I’m sorry, but they’re just not. We’re seeing the same thing - in many cases from the same people - more and more frequently in topics such as the global warming, defense, and healthcare reform debates.

My stance - and while I’m sure this will ruffle some feathers, I’ll stand by it until the day I die - is that no, not all opinions are created equal. The fact of the matter is that some opinions are uneducated, intellectually off-base, factually bereft, monetarily biased, and not worth considering in any adult conversation.

Douglas Adams perhaps put it better when he said:

“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”

I’ll be a little more succinct: some opinions are fucking stupid, and treating the proponent of a fucking stupid opinion like they have something to add to the conversation is just reinforcing “fucking stupidity” as an equally valid logical counterpoint to “educated response.”

Giving “stupid” the same intellectual weight as “smart” is the same as giving “wrong” the same weight as “right,” and result is that the difference between the two gradually disappears. You keep reinforcing “fucking stupidity” as a logically valid opinion worth considering from an intellectual standpoint, and you’ll keep getting people shouting “Heil Hitler” at Jews talking about national health care reform, or improperly using the terms “Nazi,” “communism,” and “socialist.” Start call a spade a spade, and this whole issue goes away.

Katie Couric could be interviewing Luke Skywalker on the importance of not blowing up Alderaan, and I gotta tell you, Darth Vader’s opinion of “Well, torture didn’t get Leia to talk…what else was I supposed to do?” shouldn’t have the same intellectual weight on the issue. But that’s what we’re seeing every day in the American news media. This fallacy that every opinion is worth considering equally is just simply not true.  Not all opinions are equal or carry equal weight. Not all statements are factually accurate. Not all people constrain themselves to logic, reason, or impartiality and yes, some people will say anything - ANYTHING - to “win” the argument.

So by all means feel free to exercise your right to free speech by having a fucking stupid public opinion, but don’t be surprised if I and others exercise our similar rights to publicly inform you that you’re fucking stupid before sending you back to the kiddie table for juice boxes and crayon time.  I’m tired of being polite (or as close to it as I get) and I’m tired of having to smile and nod at blatant stupidity.  From now on, a spade is a spade, and opinions worth mocking or lauding will be mocked or lauded as such.