New blog; this one died

This whole 'group blog' thing was fun while it lasted - a couple of months about a year ago? - but now it's time to start fresh and on my own.

http://www.monkeytainment.com

Beating the Politician

Before Obama ever has the chance to go up against McCain, he still needs to beat the Politician. I'm not saying that McCain and Obama are not great politicians or that they haven't had great political strategies; they have, and there is no other way to explain their success thus far. Anyone who says Obama is different from other politicians in that he is really just a regular guy is mistaken. However, the Clintons are known as the ultimate politicians because they are able to get you to think exactly what they want you to think, while all the time denying that they even agree.

One example of late is that Clinton has been trying to put the idea in people's minds that Obama would make a great vice president, especially on a ticket with her running for the top spot. This is very blatant, and even though we all get that it's just her strategy, a lot of people are probably sitting around, thinking, "yeah, she's probably right...he would make a great VP..."

Anyway, I digress. Here's the latest that I read.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Geraldine Ferraro says that Obama has only had success because he is a black man. She adds weight to this statement by claiming that she never would have been a VP candidate, had she been a man. She is clearly not making any racist or sexist comments, as she insists, but is merely pointing out her opinions, and claiming they are facts. No big deal. Clinton, and the rest of her staff have now said that they don't agree with Ferraro. But I would be surprised if they hadn't sent her out to say those exact things. Now, I believe there are many people out there, reading Ferraro's comments, and saying, "yeah, Ferraro's right. Obama is lucky to be a black man right now. He isn't really the most qualified person for the job..."

Brilliant politicking.

video evidence of why obama rocks

check out around a minute 43, and minute four (if you can wait that long; this thing loads slow as hell).

Obama's still the man

Need to put this out there: Zach, that whole "disappointed in Obama" thing is crap.

The man is a politician! of course he's done some shady dealing. I made this point a while back and I really believe that it still holds - we're looking for a shit wader not a saint. Saints are nice, but we've got a lot of shit to get through as a country and planet if we're gonna make it. And getting through that shit is going to require that people somehow work together on some really tough issues.

The big point is not so much if he's squeaky clean, but if he's truly got the broad world-view, mentality, and honest respect for other peoples' (domestic and foreign) perspectives to make wise, big-picture, policy choices that people will follow even if it's not 100% in line with how they want things to go down, or topics they want to broach.

The fact that he may or may not, somehow, be implicated in some something that's not quite rosy is beside the point. These crazies just assembled the first artificial bacteria! The world is changing real fast, and we need a leader who recognizes how these changes effect the concept and application of state power, can communicate these new realities to anybody they can get to listen, and acts on these understandings.

Now it becomes an issue of personal assessment.

From what I know about Obama's past work leading efforts to curb nuclear proliferation, increase security for nuclear stockpiles, and initiate and facilitate policies that decrease the likelihood of nuclear accident (missile launches, etc.), he seems to be ahead of the game on these types of issues. I know nukes aren't quite "on point" with my concerns, but this is absolutely part of the global outlook and effectiveness I think is critical. He's made immense progress dealing with Russia on their nukes! Russia takes their nukes very seriously! That takes real political skill and insight. I don't know as much about any work Obama has done on bio-engineering and nano-tech, but at least he's shown that he's cognizant of the dramatic effects technology is having on security issues.

I give Obama a "check" on state-to-state diplomatic dealings, and a "check" on the political implications of technological development.

So what about state-to-people dealings? How well does he communicate with "the people" as a big blob? A big blog that will become increasingly powerful in line with the increasing rate of technological progress - a progress that today lets us assemble bacteria, and today lets us power robots with rat heart cells!

The litmus test I imagine for this is the speech any new President ought to broadcast to the Iraqi people and the world just as soon as they get done with the swearing in ceremony.

I've seen the HRC speak, and I've seen the BHO speak, and I sincerely think that having Obama be the floating head committing the United States to removing troops from Iraq and abandoning efforts to establish permanent military bases is going to be more effective and lead to a more peaceful world than if that head is the HRC. McCain didn't make that last sentence because he's 72 fucking years old and doesn't understand squat shit about the modern world and wants to fight a 100 year war for oil instead of developing alternative sources of energy.

So Obama gets a "check" on the communication part and I think that his opposition to the Iraq invasion further earns him a "check" on the understanding of the appropriate use of force in today's world.

The man could be running a meth-fueled whore ring for all I care. As long as he can deliver where it counts - on globally important issues - I just don't care what politicking he had to do to get here.

Is He Serious?

Because he just finished his speech, I will have to go back and make sure I heard him correctly. I would also like to get a direct quote, to make sure I understand his point. However, let's jump to the conclusion that I heard him right, and understood him properly, and I can always apologize later (or not) because, well, honestly, that's how the real media works in this country anyhow. It's all about who said it first--without getting a confirmation or 2nd source--in the hope that it's right, and basically we won.

Long story short: I think McCain just said (in his stump/victory speech for a triumphant Super Tuesday) that mothers in Arizona can now look at their children, and point to him, and say, yes, someone from Arizona CAN be president. WHAT?!? Did he just really steal Hillary's point about how little girls can look at her and say, yes, a woman CAN do it? Or, black children, who look at Barack, and say yes, an African-American CAN do it? Did he REALLY just go THERE???

I really, really hope that I misheard/misunderstood the man who I unfortunately still presume will be the next president.

Happy to join

So firstly I would just like to introduce myself for all you native Chicago'ans who don't know me. My name is Jeff, I went to Tufts with E-Diz as we call him and am damn good at the Alto Sax. Well, the last part wasn't true but it's always been a desire of mine to either be good at the sax or drums.

Now that that's over with, I wanted to comment on Ethan's post. I don't know if it was my background in Chemistry or just my lack of understanding of the topic but much of that post flew right over my head. I did want to say, though, in response to the possibility of us going to Iran is that it seems in times of war the country just follows the President much more than the President ever follows the will of the country. The people's will, which does fluctuate a lot, is a product of what we see on the news, hear on the radio and talk about in our homes and to our friends/family. That is all based off of the small amount of information that we get, much of which is most likely edited or at least filtered in some way by the government. So when the President says the American people want to go to Iran and so he will go, I believe it's because of a prior decision he has made to go to Iran. And how much can the President really follow the will of the people? What do we know? Not much, it seems, and I bet so many decisions are made for reasons that we have no idea about and circumstances/deals that will never come to light. So how much do I trust my own decision about whether or not to enter Iran, besides the little I can relate it to history (Iraq) and the little common sense that I have?

Secondly, I wanted to respond to the post about McCain. I don't understand why we should trust McCain over everyone else. In fact, if the Republican nomination was about trust, it feels to me that more American's trust Huckabee and Walker Texas Ranger than McCain. I feel like people would vote for McCain because of his experience and global leadership.

I also love seeing ya'll's youtube links, so here's a video that blends the old school with the new skool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU3N5c2Kxnw. I don't know how to link the video to the blog so you'll just have to cut and paste like back in the day.

Bush is a Motha Fucka

Another step on the road to Iran:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/world/middleeast/13cnd-prexy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

What is really truly amazing to me is that they actually -- for real -- think that they can use the same line as in '02-'03 to get everyone on board. And what is even more truly amazing is that I am totally convinced that there is absolutely nothing we can do, except by a change of administration, that can stop them from pulling it off. The power of the Executive is, simply by the nature of our government's institutional construction, capable of getting this country to follow in its step if it actually wants the country to.

"ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — President Bush urged wary Persian Gulf allies on Sunday to rally against Iran “before it is too late,” even as the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that the country had agreed to answer outstanding questions about its nuclear programs within four weeks.

All the departments support the message of the executive or of the particular party in power -- which is a distortion of the people's will. All structures are a distortion of the peoples' will because the will changes too fast for structures to keep up with. So the question is whether it is "better," somehow -- perhaps in individual survival terms -- for us to have a governmental structure that leads to distortions of the peoples' will or not.

Which leads to better overall outcomes: The peoples' will, or distortions that benefit from the advantage of being able to attempt very long term goals?

There are perhaps some things that could be nice to achieve that would take a long time and require very long term goals to structure behavior. But there is a cost to these types of goals: local political backlash.

Which is worse: The consequences of local backlash, or the limitations of goals and the likely volatility of private politics?

These days, with nukes and bio-chems, and nano-tech and bio-engineering advances, along with proliferation of missile technologies and asymmetric military tactics, I'm leaning towards local backlash.

Sweet

Dope.




But really, not so dope.

President John McCain

Better get used to that title. Apologies for the unedited rant, but hopefully you'll get some small sense of beginning, middle, and end.

Around the beginning of the last presidential election campaigns, I knew for a fact that Bush would win reelection. It was obvious. No opponent even had a chance. However, once I began to listen to what each of the Democratic contenders had to say, I began to develop confidence that not only would almost any of them make a better president than Bush, but that a few of them even had a chance to defeat him in the actual election. When Kerry was nominated, I wasn’t sure what to think. I certainly did not think he was the strongest Democratic contender, but I did place John Edwards in my top two (along with Howard Dean), and I thought his Southern heritage could play a big role in helping to change the hands of power. For the most part, however, I still believed that Bush would win reelection. He was simply too popular at the time. When Kerry performed magnificently in the first debate against Bush, my attitude changed entirely. I thought here is a man who could actually save us! After the second debate, his momentum only took a minor hit, as most believed Kerry won again, but not as terrifically as before. After the third debate, the national polls were showing that the two candidates were evening out, and Kerry’s support began to slide, and the rest is history.

I’m not sure when I first realized it, but I think I have known since about the time of the 2004 election cycle that John McCain would be our 44^th president. The only thing is that I somehow managed to forget this fact over the course of the past few months of campaigns. Once again, I have seen the promise of several Democratic contenders, and have been encouraged by the support they have garnered. Once again, I am as disappointed with the prospect of a Republican president—not because of partisan favoritism, but because of the lack of quality candidates on that side. Where am I going with this? Though I cannot remember well enough the details of the presidential elections of 1996 and earlier, I can say that the constant in the elections since 2000 (and I suspect probably every election back to the birth of the union) has been the importance of one key factor: not positions, not values, not even likeability, but trust. Whomever the people trust most, wins. It seems to me that throughout history, one party over the other has always managed to collectively build a level of confidence in the people that it ceases to matter what the candidates say at some point. For the past eight years, that trust has been placed in the Republican Party, and there is no indication of change in sight. McCain is the ultimate nurturer of this trust right now, and that is why he will win. How do I know it is the Republican Party which will win, and further that it will be McCain to lead them to victory? Nothing he does is wrong. Not even supporting President Bush (which he continues to do in his campaign speeches), despite Bush’s dismal level of support, or popularity among the people. There is an unshakable trust which Americans have placed in McCain, which I think would be impossible to break, short of a homicidal rampage carried out by McCain himself against his own supporters at a campaign rally, and caught on film. That is why Republicans will vote for him; it is also partially why most independents and even some Democrats will vote for him. The other half of the story is that as I said before, one party has always dominated the nation in the category of trust. While McCain’s is unbreakable, the Democratic contenders seem very unable to even garner the trust of their own party. Whereas McCain might not be every Republican voter’s first choice, every Republican voter trusts him, and would happily vote for him. On the Democratic side, Obama supporters don’t trust Clinton; Clinton supporters don’t trust Obama; and no one really trusts any of the others. She’s a woman. He’s black. She’s unemotional. He was raised in a Muslim country. She’s a phony. He’s a robot. She’s too similar to Bush. He’s too different. In order to get elected, the people need to believe in you, and no Democrat will be able to compete with that type of support which McCain will rely on to win the presidency.

During the 2004 cycle, I got wrapped up in the excitement of the possibility of a new president, a Democratic, and more importantly sane, president. No doubt I will forget this rant, and nurture the false hope once again that we may have a sane, Democratic president come 2009. My only wish is that McCain will turn out to be more level-headed than we now think, because really the only thing standing between him and the presidency is that same old false hope for change.

Caliente Pockets son muy delicioso.

I saw a gorilla eat its poop live at Lincoln Park Zoo. It was an experience. Its pee, too.

But yeah, moving on, clearly Gaffigan has never actually had a hot pocket, because everything he says is a lie. Well, most of it. I don't know about the lean pockets, or about the breakfast pockets, but I'm down with the calzones. Although, admittedly, today for the first time I did experience the frozen-in-the-middle phenomenon. UNpleasant.

And on an entirely different note, tonight I spent the majority of my time at my friend's place playing Rock Band, which if you haven't played you need to please do that now. Or fork over 500 dollars or whatever it is and get the thing. It's unbelievable.

Can you imagine what video games will be in 20 years? In our lifetime, I remember shitting my pants with excitement over the original Nintendo. I actually shot a duck with a plastic gun, and a dog came and fetched it for me. That was amazing. Now, only... what... 14 or so years later we can simulate being on tour as a rock band, with a drum set, guitars, and vocals. Or we can bowl or play tennis in our living room. Seriously... in the next twenty years we're going to see some crazy things developed.

Video game tester. That'd be the job, right?

big ups

oh yeah, we got ross and barfy contributing. as a reward here is the hot pocket video for ross:



and here is a sweet music video for el barfo:

That video is disgusting

Ethan's previously posted video is absolutely disgusting. I'm over this monkey theme. I think we can all agree that Snoop still has it though. The sensual seduction video is incredible:

Darwin's Proof.

Nature's Greatest Achievement

I think we're well on our way to having the best blog of all time.

Hos, Monkeys, Guns, Robots. What else could we ask for?

I suppose if our lame friends contributed it might be better...

But in the meantime, here's another classic of monkeytainment:

on this amazing theme.



ps, monkeys and guns, hilarious

what happens when you search ethan monkey robot

this is the first image you get.

First one

Here we go i suppose. This is my first foray into the blogging thing.