The Modern Anti-Hero

The modern day anti-hero is in our midst, upon the TV screen: Jersey Shore's Angelina "Jolie" Pivarnick.

But Knuttel, one might say, how could this possibly be?

It's quite simple, really.

First off, no one on the program displays true heroic qualities. None of them have any explicit virtue or anything like that. They may display "jerk with a heart of gold" qualities, but that rarely ever extends beyond their "family" or anyone else allowed within their group. This too extends to Angelina.

So what does she do that makes her heroic, in an anti-hero kind of way?

She remains (or at least remained).

She was an early departure on the first season, leaving the rest of the cast to bond without her. Sure, she did an annoying thing or two (notably cock blocking Mike and Pauly D in an extremely obvious way), but the whole cast annoys each other really. They're all immature, annoying assholes. It's what they do.

So why then does Angelina get outcast as such? Sure, she wasn't there for the first season, but that didn't stop the cast from accepting other second season people, such as her friend Jose.

Week in and week out she continuously took shit from the rest of the cast. She slowly worked at gaining their trust, only to have it taken back in a quarter of the time for something usually trivial, something any other cast member would be just as likely to do -- in the hot tub with Vinny's uncle hitting the ball into Snooki's face could easily be an accident, especially with someone who would probably not be very athletic or coordinated, something that Snooki could have very easily done to Angelina (except she would've brushed it off as nothing and no one would have left the hot tub terribly upset).

Among other things held against her was Vinny taking offense to Angelina saying that JWoww is talking about how drunk Pauly is, saying it like, "she's talking shit," when it's closer to, "she's talking a matter of factly, with little inflection of criticism." This of course leads to a fight. Later after a long dispute between her and Vinny, they end up drunkenly sleeping together. Vinny later states this act as doing it so he has something against her. Let me say that again, Vinny slept with Angelina so he could later hold it against her. How evil is that? Anyways, this comes within a day of Angelina saying she slept with Jose, when she didn't, leading to the later vitriolic accusation of sluttery -- you slept with two dudes under 24 hours. Nevermind the fact that MVP (Mike, Vinny, and Pauly) are either aspiring to or successfully doing this with their respective opposite gender the entire Miami stay.

And then the hammer comes down on her in the form of Mike, formalizing his anger against her and urging every second for her exit. JWoww offers advice to just stay and deal with it, Mike is an asshole, but the damage is done. The pressure is too great, as Mike is a forceful asshole who believes his opinions are synonymous with those of the rest of the house, and besides the advice, she gets no support.

The impetus behind the final argument is a misplaced menstrual pad, though I suspect it was moved by MTV's cameramen or staff. While I believe she is a sloppy and dirty person, I have a hard time believing someone would purposely do something like that -- leaving the alternate hypothesis to be something accidental, like as if she threw it at the trash can, it failed to make it in, and she didn't look back (which is still very dirty). Either way she had deniability.

In any case, her only true crime is being herself. She refused to submit in a culture of misogyny. Simply look at the relatively subdued personalities of the other female cast members, as well as the very one sided accusations of slutty behavior (Mike, for instance, is never criticized for sleeping with many women, rather sleeping with ugly women).

In summary: she is ostracized mainly for not fitting in, and takes abuse from the other house mates on a daily basis for doing this. For refusing to be someone besides herself (when all options are rather morally neutral at best), she is the modern anti-hero. At the very least, she carries the hero's burden. She doesn't want to simply be another guidette, she wants to be Angelina the guidette, and for this she should be commended.

-- Knuttel

Division

Let's take a break from sports for a little bit. It's getting repetitive anyway.

There is a great political movement occurring right now, the tea party. When it first started, it seemed easy to write it off as a fringe movement, relegate it to third party status.

Instead of becoming a third party, they simply became something similar to a PAC. They either fielded or supported candidates from both parties, at least initially. Public figures, all of whom could be described in some manner as "Washington outsiders" started taking charge of the party.

The tea party grew increasingly on a more and more conservative base. Originally, it appeared to be made from libertarians who were fed up with being on the outside looking in as the government grew larger. Other right wing oriented groups latched on, also on the outside since the democrats took control of both electable houses of government in 2008.

And while the economic crisis continues, anger grows; more and more people become dissatisfied with the manner in which the country is run. The tea party becomes a symbol of those who feel ignored by the government, who feel even when they vote for the old party line, they vote for the same thing.

That is how Christine O Donnell beat Mike Castle for the republican senate candidate in Delaware.

By all accounts, Mike Castle had no reason to lose. He was a moderate republican in a Northeastern state. He had a long and competent service record -- currently serving as Delaware's lone house member, also served as Governor and Lieutenant-Governor. Aside from espousing the view that our President was born in the U.S.A., there shouldn't have been any issues, and he likely would have had the support of many democrats, winning the Senate seat.

But that's precisely why he didn't win. The tea party has taken over the right wing of the republican party, adding social conservatism along the way. Simply having a long government career was disastrous, no matter how long or esteemed. Not dealing well with conspiracy theorists also doesn't help when fringe movements close in on a party.

So now all of a sudden, Delaware is a race. What was sure to be a seat for Mike Castle and the republicans is now fair game to both parties.

O Donnel had previously run in the 2006 Primaries for Senate, and also ran on the main ticket in 2008 against Joe Biden. She lost on both occasions, but now has tea party steam backing her up. She's stood for some socially crazy positions, claiming to base it on religion (seeing as how I too am a catholic, I know she's full of shit), and etc, but I'm not gonna point that all out. I'll just direct you to a video which should be up in many places of her on a '90s MTV special when she was in her twenties.

I went to her website to try and figure out what exactly her positions are on anything, and well, I got this. Yeah, it just asks for donations, and doesn't say anything about her campaign or what she stands for. Even funnier, if you click to the next screen, it doesn't have her updated goal of $1,000,000 posted. For a movement that seems to have sprung quickly with the aid of the internet, I am really disappointed in a website like this one.

Why do I care about this? I don't live in Delaware, after all. Well, I live close enough. What happens in Delaware can effect me, and what happens in Delaware could also be a indicator of what is to come in southeastern PA politics. In addition, driving on I-95 in Delaware is already an unpleasant experience, and I do not want this to be even more unpleasant cos some crazy doesn't want to pay maintenance on it. I could decide it's fiscally irresponsible for me to pay car insurance, that doesn't mean I don't need it to drive my car, and doesn't reflect anything about fiscal responsibility.

Maybe conservatives want Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to be the figureheads of the democratic party in 2012, but I think liberals would likewise be interested to see Palin, O Donnel, and Angle as figureheads of the republicans.

What the hell ever happened to constructive lawmaking? You can't fix anything if you can't agree damnit.

Cuba

Some interesting changes for the Cuban economy

The tourism thing shouldn't affect the mainstream Cuban economy too much. It should mostly just create some strips of beach that will turn into tourism destinations. When all is said and done, this part of the change allows foreign investors to lease land owned by the government (really, all of Cuba); the government will not sell-out the people. If, however, we begin to see large-scale renovations in downtown Havana for the sole purpose of tourism, then I would be totally wrong.

The second part seems tied to the first, though I don't know how successful that would be. I see it as an opportunity to sell their produce to tourists, but I foresee these tourism locations could become walled off cities. I dunno, I, as an American, haven't been to Cuba.

Moreso than anything else, it would be interesting to sit back and watch how this would change Cuba and its economy.

-- Knuttel

The mining debacle

Stand Back, and bear with me, as I attempt to clear out my bookmarks once again. This time, however, I likely shall write articles on each one.

Mineral Management Service

The article points out the difficulties a governmental organization can have when, by nature, it has a conflict of interest.

The mineral management service has had the dual task of forging partnerships with corporations for mineral extraction and exploration, while at the same time regulating said partnerships and projects.

Oddly enough it goes against the very nature of the federal government; it has no checks and balances. It should be structured so one government body deals with these corporations and forges partnerships for mining etc (I don't think it would necessarily fly in this country if the government itself did its own mining) and have another government body, entirely separate, that deals with if these mining sites are all up to standard and following proper protocols.

The article goes in length to describe how congress repeatedly blocked offshore oil drilling for most of the coastline. Sadly, this might have had the effect of forcing wells into deeper water within the western gulf region, the only region largely open to drilling.

Really, the issue with the BP well disaster was two-fold -- there was little to no regulation on a well that clearly was not up to code; the well was in deep water territory.

Deep water, by itself, wouldn't be that big of an issue. On the surface, it simply means larger operating costs (larger and deeper platforms) and longer trips to refineries. When something does go wrong, which should be very rare if proper regulation is in place, it means repairs must be done remotely (the water is too deep for scuba crews). Repairs, therefore, take much much longer to complete -- hence the long time-frame of the oil spill.

So what should the legal ramifications of this matter be?

Obviously, the well was not built within regulation, but the regulators weren't doing any regulating...

Should, then, the regulators be held responsible for this? Given the power and influence of a large multi-national corporation of British Petroleum, it's likely the regulators will get thrown under the bus, while BP gets away with so much as a slap on the wrist and a marred public image. Should they be put under criminal charges? Probably, especially given the ecological damage. The courts would be wiser to focus on the business impact of the burst well, lest they be cast off by conservative media outlets as a hippie court (liberal media outlets would likely support the prosecution regardless, though I wouldn't be surprised to hear a few legislators trying to focus on the environmental impact). I wonder if there is actually any precedent for anything like this, maybe some mine leaking waste water into a river, polluting it. I dunno.

This article likely edited out anything about this perilous relationship existing between congress and lobby groups (both left and right). It would be interesting to find a way to accurately fix this, seeing as how there are few other jobs for a voted-out congressman than to work for lobby groups close to whatever their cause happened to be. For former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, this turned out to be a healthcare related lobbying firm. This lobbying job then prevented him from becoming the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Anyways, I digress.

The Mineral Management Service needs to be split. Regulators must not have their favor curried if we expect the law to be carried out.

-- Knuttel

Taco Burgers

The taco burgers were created within a day or two of the first attempt at the salsa.

You may see, however, that this post is well after...

For that reason, even though they were a monstrous hit, I cannot give the specific recipe for the taco burgers. I can only give some key ingredients, and the background story, the inspiration.

It all began when I was watching a Totino's pizza rolls commercial, the one where they are eating the taco flavored pizza rolls, and the one kid takes a bit and exclains, "My pizza tastes like tacos!" Anyway, I took this to heart. If a faceless paste drunk/little kid food company can make one food taste like another, why can't us?

So I began with the obvious, to make one classic ground beef dish taste like another ground beef dish.

Basically I had to reconcile a few key differences. Tacos remain in ground-esque form and are placed in a tortilla of some kind. Hamburgers are formed into patties and placed inside buns.

I, therefore, had to make tacos that could be formed into patties and placed inside buns, if I in fact wanted this hamburger to taste like a taco.

To use a taco kit would be wasteful. I had no intention of using the pre-packaged tortillas, was going to make my own salsa, and would have liked more control over the seasoning process. This also eliminated the possibility of getting a packet of taco seasoning. Not to mention with the size of the event where these would be unveiled, I'd have to do some maths as far as how many and a half packets to use. Plus those things are loaded with unneeded salt (though I think I did use a fair share of salt in mine).

So there was step one. Make my own taco mix. Really, it's not so hard. Just get some chili powder, ground cayenne pepper, paprika, and perhaps most importantly, cumin (I guess those actually all are chili powders...). This is where I ran into another issue -- no chili powder in the house.

I had heard of this Mexican Grocery store near me, on Street road, in like Bensalem or something, so I go there, figuring I can find some good stuff. Digression -- This is the most dice place known to man. It is only like two aisles, YET THEY LITERALLY HAD EVERYTHING. In fact here is where I'd link their website if they had one. Anyways, I spend a lot of time browsing the store and all, and of course the store owners don't know any English, so they're trying to get me to move along, but neither of us understand each other. Really, it was kind of humorous. Anyways, I grab some bitchin' chili powder (with like a hint of lime in it, so dice), and I see in the bean section they got some re-fried black beans. At most of our gringo stores, I only ever see regular red/brown re-fried beans. Eu-fucking-reka. Black beans would make this thing just killer. The color of black beans would more closely resemble cooked beef than the brighter red/brown of other re-fried beans. I could blend this in perfectly, and those who don't notice the bean would only notice it tasting more taco-ish, those who do would appreciate the subtle touch.

I put a few other usual hamburger spices in (Worcestershire sauce, etc, you know the drill), make up the patties, and voila.

The only caveat I have is the beans may have affected their structure a little negatively. If one is not careful when flipping or moving these as they cook, they can, and will, crumble.

I have no pictures cos We ate them all.

The Knuttel attempts to make salsa

Hey, look, it's been over a month since I last posted. Whaddya know. Whatevs, working out shit and junk, guess some of it's cleared up. Some has become murkier.

Regardless, my garden has been spitting out a shitton (it's an actual measurement) of hot peppers, so I made myself a nice big batch of salsa.

Ingredients:
-Shitton Cayenne Peppers (green or red, doesn't really matter, in fact cayenne is simply a marker for the kind of peppers I've been producing)
-Pint of Jersey Tomatoes
-4 Large Bell Peppers (I used green, but etc etc)
-1 Vidalia Onion (added sweetness)
-4 - 5 cloves of garlic
-Olive oil
-2 Cans of Tomato Paste
-Lemon Juice
-Salt
-Pepper
-Powdered Cayenne Pepper
-Chili Pepper Flakes
-Chili Powder (I used this bitchin lime flavored one I got at the Mexican grocery store)
-Oregano
-Thyme
-Thai Basil

Step 1:
Roast or Broil tomatoes and all peppers (chili and bell). You can do this by placing them over a grill, but if you don't feel like setting up the grill for this short step, just pop them in the oven at a 500 degree broil. Don't worry about burning, as the skin will get peeled off, but keep turning them to make sure of an even cook. Like 5-10 minutes a side should be good.
Step 2:
Remove skins of tomatoes and peppers. The skins of these fruits often get in the way of getting a proper salsa texture, so removing them is highly recommended. To do this immediately, take fruit out of heat element and throw in a pool of ice water. Remove skins by rubbing it to get it loose and pulling away.
Step 3:
Dice peppers and onion. Pull apart tomato (this should be fairly easy without the skin). Throw in blender/food processor (though be careful not to liquefy it, you still want to be able to identify the ingredients)
Step 4:
Chop garlic and put in a pot with enough olive oil to cover the whole bottom. Throw some salt, pepper, pepper flakes, cayenne pepper, and chili powder in there too. Keep it moving, cos burnt garlic tastes like ass. Put the burner on high heat.
Step 5:
Put Pepper, onion, and tomato mixture into pot. Drop heat to low. Add Tomato Paste. Cover and let simmer for x time. Keep it moving.
Step 6:
Add herbs (thyme, oregano, thai basil (thai basil has a little bit of a spicier kick to it, i think, and is slightly better suited for this kind of thing than regular sweet basil, though sweet basil should work fine)) and lemon juice. Stir.
Step 7:
Check for taste and adjust accordingly (salt, pepper, etc). Cover back up and let simmer for like half an hour or an hour or so until you get the thickness you want (tomato acts as a thickening agent, see). Keep stirring.
Step 8:
Take off heat and let cool. Put in dishes and junk. Eat.


I only have a picture of it mid-cook, so, let's just say, it's pretty damn awesome. The only thing I can think of is maybe it would work better with only 1 can of tomato paste. I dunno, I guess I can try that out later. It's got a nice little hint of citrusy, some good tomato texture, and the heat is good but not overpowering, has staying power too (like any good heat should).

Next up, the Knuttel attempts to make "taco burgers" (burgers that taste like tacos)

-- Knuttel

Knuttel Clears Out His Bookmarks

OK, so these are all things I bookmarked over the past few weeks with the intention of writing small or full sized articles on them (what's the difference, I dunno, I never wordcount anyway).

Yay, Cleveland does something productive, besides set their river on fire (again).
http://www.usatoday.com

Something on the Oil Spill, in a little more non-traditional way I guess.
http://www.washingtonpost.com

Stuff on Israel and it's recent handling of the blockades.
Washington Post
Washington Post

Shit, that's alot of Washington Post I guess.

-- Knuttel

P.S. if there are any bookmarks on any other computers in my house or whatevs, I'll put them up in like an edited post or something.

What did they expect, it's the Interwebs?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/25/AR2010052504396.html?hpid=opinionsbox1&placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980

Personally I think it's one part stupid people, two parts internet trolls.

The fact that they brag about their twitter followers is alarming.

Seriously, why are politicians concerned about tweets?

Whatevs, that's what happens when you trust your public policy to "a series of tubes".

-- Knuttel

Conference Expansion: The end of the bcs?

If one were to listen to ESPN, one would assume all is peachy keen in bcs land, that this is the perfect system to last for eons, the constant force (which changes formulas almost every year) by which we decide who our College Football National Champion is.

Oddly enough, the conferences are making it look as if the bcs's days are numbered.

You see, the conferences are the foundation of the bcs. It is the reason there are bcs conferences and non-bcs conferences. To have a perfectly stable Big Ten, ACC, Big East, SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, and Notre Dame is what makes the bcs work as it does. (It is true that about a decade ago, the ACC poached some of the Big East's best schools, but the Big East responded by poaching some of the rising non-bcs talent in the eastern half of the country, and focusing more on becoming a basketball conference).

As we speak, the conferences are out in their meetings, in their own little bubbles, plotting and planning on expansion.

Namely the Big Ten and the Pac-10.

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1090747

It's been common knowledge that the Big Ten has been looking to expand, though they haven't really shown their hand at how or how large. Already, despite their name, they have 11 schools (one can see it in the logo), though current NCAA rules state a conference needs 12 schools to have a conference championship game -- otherwise the conference gives the title away by conference standing, which is outrageous, Penn State has technically been co-champions for both of their Big Ten championships, both with Ohio State, a team that they also beat in both of those seasons.

Alas, I digress. Common sense seems to dictate Notre Dame is a target, seeing as how it almost joined the Big Ten in recent history, has rivalries with many Big Ten teams, and lies in the heart of Big Ten territory (Indiana, on the outskirts of Chicagoland). Simply adding Notre Dame would make it 12, and enable a conference championship game. But Notre Dame likely won't go for this, citing tradition (bs) and playing service academies out of respect (padding the schedule, they don't play airforce though, and have FINALLY started losing to Navy). So the Big Ten will likely target other schools. They can either go east, west, or arguably both.

East-ways they can give Penn State some east-coast company by taking a Big East school -- rumored candidates include Rutgers, Pitt (which would re-enable the fabled PSU/Pitt rivalry), Syracuse, and West Virginia.

West-ways they'll likely target some Big 12 schools, and this is where it gets really interesting. Missouri is all but looking for an excuse to jump to the Big Ten. They already have a rivalry with Illinois in basically every sport, and don't like the Big 12's revenue sharing model, which directs most of the funds to the University of Texas. They can also target Iowa State (to complete the Iowa pair), Nebraska, and maybe even Colorado or Kansas (getting Kansas with Missouri would keep that rivalry intact). They also are rumored to target the University of Texas itself.

This is where the Pac-10 comes in. They are looking to expand eastward, get into some new markets. The link I provided earlier (which isn't as much hearsay as one may believe, I've seen similar info on other sites) shows the Pac-10's plan to annex UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado -- making it a 16 team conference. The six invited Big 12 schools would likely form a division with Arizona and Arizona State, making an inland division and coastal division.

IF something like this were to go down PRECISELY like this, it would effectively end the Big 12 as a conference (though to be fair it's only like 15 years old anyway). The northern teams head east to the Big 10, the southern teams head west to the Pac-10.

The problem is, not every Big 12 school is on board with this.

Texas has no incentive to leave the Big 12, so long as it stays intact. It gets the most money from the revenue sharing model and is still a member of a bcs conference.

Texas A&M may not want to play so many games on the west coast. Already school officials have grumbled about past games on the west coast, and students being forced to return very late. If they were to join the Pac-10, this would be a very regular occurrence. Also, while they are a chief rival of Texas, they may want to get out of their shadow. Alternate plans show this school heading to the SEC if the Big 12 crumbles.

Which brings me to my next thing -- Oklahoma and Oklahoma State may want to also head to the SEC to get out of the Big 12. It would reunite them with fellow former Southwest conference member Arkansas, and would move them away from Texas, who as was previously stated, takes a substantial piece of revenue.

The legislature of the State of Texas may also mess this scenario up, as they may want to keep the 4 Texas schools of the Big 12 together (notice I have never mentioned Baylor until just now). It may also affect the other Texas schools of division 1 football -- Houston, Rice, SMU, TCU, Northern Texas, and UTEP (the first 4 of those former members of the Southwest football conference).

I wonder if the Pac-10 is also looking at the non-bcs risers of late. All of them fit in the geographic region that is either typically covered by the Pac-10, or is targeted by them now. Boise State and Utah being in the former category, TCU in the latter.

So all of this, in the end, focuses on the State of Texas. Why? The same reason Texas gets most of the money in the Big 12's revenue sharing agreement now -- Television.

The Big Ten Network has been a large success for the conference (after a bumpy start getting it broadcast) and has shown an effective way for a conference to monopolize and control the television coverage, and therefore incoming revenue, of the conferences sports, while also giving the conference a way to show it's other athletics which wouldn't usually get televised (soccer, swimming, track, etc). Notre Dame would hypothetically open the conference up to a national audience, though I don't think Notre Dame has the same national pull it had in, say, 1948. Which brings us to Texas. Texas is the second most populous state in the nation (California, the first, is under a pretty tight Pac-10 grip), and thus the target of many of these conferences. Plus it is in the middle of the country, so it's not like the Big East is asking for USC, it's the conference moving either east-ward or west-ward.

The large market is also the reason some of the Big East schools are targets of the Big Ten -- getting Rutgers, Syracuse, or UConn would open the conference to either the state or city of New York. Pitt and West Virginia are both geographically closer to the Big Ten and have ties with Penn State.

Anyways -- what does this mean for the bcs?

Well, let's assume the Big Ten expands to 16 schools (what they are is kind of irrelevant, and will just be a large puzzle making excercise for me), the Pac-10 also wants to expand to 16-ish schools so it can compete. The SEC and ACC pick up the scraps of the Big 12 and Big East and also create 16 team conferences (again, I don't really care if the numbers are off by a little). BOOM. 4 Conference champions. 4 team playoff for the national champion -- just like that. Yes, this would likely exclude the non-bcs conferences, in the grand scheme of things the big conferences don't care about the little ones -- Joepa I feel usually speaks out against the conferences out of his own frustration of being continuously left out while Penn State was independent until the 90s (that's over 20 years of putting up with that shit, I don't care if he's 80 something, you have to remember that). Maybe it will force the non-bcs conferences to consolidate into their own bigger conferences -- this would be much easier if the current powers don't jump to higher grounds -- and they can enter into the playoff process. BOOM. 8 team playoff for the national champion. The problem of working around the current Conference format to slide in some sort of national championship is no more.

Expanding the conferences not only makes the "selection" process that much simpler, but it also destroys the historic bowl ties, that nostalgia loosely holds in place. Where does the Cotton Bowl go if the State of Texas is split up? Will People want to see a Rutgers/Colorado Rose Bowl? Sure, they'll probably still exist, but they'll probably have a better chance of surviving as consolation games, and nothing else (though to be fair, when there's like 40 bowl games, they're pretty much all consolation games).

The bcs is complaining about how long and painful a playoff system would be, yet the NCAA is considering adding even more teams to their annual basketball tournament. It's already at 65, which would be about half of Division 1-fbs football.

People must hate that tournament if they have to add even more schools to get people to watch it.

-- Knuttel

ESPN and BCS in bed

Yes, it is true. I do believe that I have written of their partnership in the past, and may have even commented on the "pro-bcs" commentary during the "national championship" as a definite downside.

But now, in what can only be called the off-season, ESPN's College Football live takes shots at bcs naysayers.

Boise State's President outright slammed the bcs in a recent statement. Attacking the notion that "every game counts", he states:

"But how do Boise State’s games count under the BCS when four of the past six years we went undefeated in the regular season, and yet never even came close to having an opportunity to compete for the national championship? How did all of those games, and all of those perfect records, count under the BCS? In fact, in two of those four undefeated regular seasons, Boise State was foreclosed from even playing in a major bowl."

The statement was also wrapped around revenue issues, showing how the Mountain West and WAC (the conference which Boise State is in) have higher TV Ratings, higher rankings, and higher game attendances than the ACC and Big East, yet the ACC and Big East receive 19 Mil in Bowl revenues yearly, The Mountain West and WAC getting 9 mil if they make the big bowls.

This made headlines on College Football live, and instead of having at least a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons of either situation (with or without the bcs), they simply take turns bashing the idea that there could be anything resembling a national champion without the bcs, and come to the conclusion that the President of Boise State must be a lunatic.

Before ESPN, and its family of networks (actually the ABC/Disney family of networks) got their hands on a big portion of the bcs pie, they never made a huge deal about the "awesomeness" that is the bcs, and how we would all be wandering nomads in the desert without its brilliance, guidance, and wisdom. Sure, they were invested in the bowl system, but it wasn't uncommon for commentators to say "hey, maybe the champion should be decided through a playoff, but hey, there's no reason we have to get rid of this great bowl system we have."

They could at least get half way there.

Now they are miles away. The only way this could seemingly get fixed is if legal action is taken. I don't want that to have to happen, because the people who won't read about how bad the bcs really is, are the people who only watch ESPN for their sports news, are the people hate government intervention of any kind (save for their welfare checks). So naturally, they will assume the bcs was given to us by God, and his prophet, Lee Corso, and the government is trying to take away all that is holy in college sports.

Come on, this isn't Europe! We don't have a series of tiered leagues, with a points system tied to relegations and promotions. We don't decide who the winner of a league is by points total at the end of the year (the NHL has the President's trophy, but the winner of that definitely does not always win the Stanley Cup). And perhaps most importantly, we don't have an over-reaching Police State watching our every move and locking us away when we say something benignly offensive to the regime.

Fuck the Queen.

See, say it along with me. It's liberating. And it's American.

Why can't there be a civil debate about how we should go about replacing the bcs (cos anyone with half a brain could tell you having the bcs would be a wrong move)?

http://news.boisestate.edu/blog/2010/05/25/statement-of-boise-state-university-president-robert-kustra-regarding-bcs-revenue-discrimination/

-- Knuttel

Lack of Responsibility and Oversight

Lack of responsibility and oversight, this may been seen to be an issue with corporations, but it is indeed also an issue with the elected officials of our government.

But elections keep them in check, no?

Well, they do to a certain extent, but it's a system that's far to easy to go around.

First of all, the "one and done," a politician who only runs for one term, he can do whatever he wants. He has no stake in becoming re-electable. Depending on the office, or sometimes nothing at all, this can be a good thing or a bad thing -- as he can either ignore public opinion entirely just to get something that wouldn't otherwise be done, or he can raid the government's coffers for his friends, family, and self.

But that's a small issue, really. The bigger issue is the Party system, and how it stays afloat.

First, in order to get elected, the candidate likely needs support of the larger party infrastructure. Thus, if the candidate is moderate (or even on the "opposite" side of the spectrum) he must radicalize himself in at least small regards to get actual support for his campaign.

Second, he must likely win a primary, where he is only competing for votes amongst his party. Needless to say, this means the winner will much more likely be on the far wing of his party than on the moderate side of politics in general (which would actually make him the extremist in this group). The other party's candidate will likely win in the same manner.

Third, this creates a scenario where a left winger will likely be running against a right winger. In parts of the country where the one party is weaker, this opposite candidate might actually be a moderate, which actually creates competition in these areas, so long as the dominant party isn't too dominant. In any case, this creates an "us against them" mentality among supporters of the candidates. You are either for the candidate or against them, there is no middle ground, no one votes for independents (very rare exceptions to this rule).

Now, fourthly, someone on either edge of the spectrum has now won, and will attempt to push through his radicalized agenda, with the help of his even more radicalized party. If a moderate happens to slip through the cracks in this stage, he must now adopt a more radical stance than the one he ran on, in order to get party support for his projects, otherwise he will be an extremely unproductive "voter" who does nothing for the people who elected him.

At the heart of this issue is the primary system. Most states use a closed primary system, such as my own state of Pennsylvania. As an independent, I cannot partake in anything happening at all today (which is primary voting day), and can only watch in bemusement. I like the idea of the primary, as the people are selecting who will represent their side. But the ultimate resolution is this man will support their side, and likely not much else. There will be no candidate to stride the divide, unite the people and work for something that will work for everybody.

The primary system forced long tenured Connecticut Senator Lieberman to run as an independent a few years ago, and now he's not nearly as endeared to the party's base as he once was. This year it forced Crist, the Senate candidate in Florida, to run as an independent. Even more, he had to declare his independence way before the primary (which I think is also happening today).

It may also force Arlen Specter out of office. He has been Pennsylvania's Senator for I want to say five terms. For the most of that time, he was a Republican the Democrats in the state could vote for. Now, since he switched parties, he's just a Democrat not all the Democrats will vote for. He was forced out due to radicalization within his own party -- Pat Toomey would have been very likely to beat him in the Republican primaries (he kept getting closer and closer). Now Democrats are running Admiral Joe Sestak against him, which bugs me even more because I like Joe Sestak.

Aside: why do the Democrats of Pennsylvania only run good candidates against Arlen Specter? Seriously? In 2004, Joe Hoeffel was run against him, a candidate I would have loved to see in office, but I did not want to see Specter go. Now, in 2010, Joe Sestak is running against him, and I would also kinda like to see him in the Senate seat. Meanwhile, in 2006, Rick Santorum, who by then had made enough gaffs to make Joe Biden blush and was clearly on his way out, had only to run against Bob Casey, a boring "moderate" (a democrat who loves to spend the tax payers money but hates killing babies) who had only held the positions auditor general and state treasurer; his family was also very political (his dad was Governor of Pennsylvania), making him an insider even if he didn't do anything. I believe Sestak was still in the Navy at this point, but why couldn't Hoeffel run against Santorum?

Whatevs.

Todays primaries will likely be very amusing at the least. Perhaps we can see how much pull the new tea party has, as Rand Paul (seriously, who names their kid after a crappy author) might take his primary in Kentucky. There'll probably be a recap of the results later on.

New Sheeit

Ok, so it's been over a month since my last "real" post.

that will soon amended be!

Have been working on a short story (too long to post here, i guess), so that has been taking up my time.

it is almost over

world happenings!

-- Knuttel

Champions League Quarter Preview

Now, let's take a break from the NCAA March Madness tournament, as march is winding down. I bring to you, from the other side of the ocean, SOCCER -- specifically the Champions League.

Champions League is like their equivalent to Major League Baseball -- it has the best teams from one region (MLB - North America, CL - Europe) from one sport (MLB - baseball, CL - soccer), all from different countries (MLB - USA, Canada, the south; CL - France, Italy, England, Spain, Germany, Russia, etc).

And now for my completely unbiased preview of upcoming Champions League play




Shit yeah, motherfucker

Anyways.

The games are played in pairs - one home and one away for each team. Winning both games guarantees advancing. If both games tie or end with one win/one loss, then goals are added up. The team with more goals advances. If that doesn't do the trick, then away goals count for more, and the team that scored more away advances. IF that doesn't declare a winner, then they play overtime or something in the last game.

Matchups are as follows:

Olympique Lyon vs Bordeuax
Bayern Munich vs Manchester United
Arsenal vs Barcelona
Internazionale Milan vs CSKA Moscow

Naturally, we all know Lyon is going to advance like a truck (a renault truck?) past oblivious Bordeaux. That's a given. What's not given, though, is why UEFA (the european soccer FIFA or whatever) decided to pit these two against eachother. Clearly UEFA is afraid of the dominance that is Ligue 1, and they are scared of France dominating the world of soccer, much like Zinedine Zidane dominated the belly of Marco Materazzi. By pairing these two teams against eachother, UEFA doesn't have to worry about 2 French teams being left in the semi-finals, and then 2 French teams facing off for the title. This way, they can nip it in the bud, deal with one at a time, divide and conquer.

I'm onto your games UEFA.

Bayern Munich vs Manchester United

This would be interesting if it were FC Shalke 04 vs Manchester City, but alas we're given these two teams instead. And it's not like they even have all their awesome players -- Ollie Khan, Lothar Matthaus, Christiano Ronaldo, George Best -- ALL GONE. All moved to the greener pastures of other, better, teams or retirement; or in the case of George Best, the green beneath him is simply his own vomit.

Arsenal vs Barcelona

Arsenal is an interesting story in that despite having the only undefeated team in the modern history of the English Premier League, they managed to remain completely irrelevant. This is also in addition to the fact that they are essentially London's team (yeah, I know London has like 20 teams, but only Chelsea recently actually plays dece). Yep. Irrelavent despite being from the capital city of the country who claims to have invented the sport (though to be fair, I think the English would claim invention of the potato if you gave them the chance). But alas I stray, point being, best player on that undefeated team is currently on Barcelona, who happen to be reigning Champions League Champions (sounds a bit redundent, hey I know, Europe isn't really known for refinement and culture). This best player (from Arsenal, he's probably not the best on Barcelona, at least not at this point in time) -- Thierry Henry, longtime legend of French soccer, who gloriously single handedly defeated Ireland to qualify France for the 2010 World Cup. Just saying.

Internazionale vs Moscow

The other team from Milan, the team that manages to not be more Evil than AC Milan (by holding scum like Marco Materazzi on the roster) faces down this years eastern europe cinderella story (fuck, I thought this was soccer, not basketball). Personally, I was looking forward to a Turkish team holding that title this year, or maybe even Olympiakos from Greece. Sparta Praha also would've been pretty dice, but they just haven't been the same since the fall of the Soviet Union. Anyways, of all the games, this is probably the one I am least likely to watch.

Predictions are for suckers and psychics (read:suckers)

-- Knuttel

Covering Up My Dirty Past

I recently conducted an excavation and extraction of certain items from my closet in order to clear up space.

You see, I had this gi-hugic container taking up waaay too much floorspace.

So I tore it apart, mining only ore, and smelting it to get rid of all the useless impurities.

Thus I am left with the metal of my middle school and high school years (even my freshman year of college) (1995/6/7ish - 2005). For the record, what I refer to as middle school actually begins in 4th grade (most of the stuff I found was actually 6 onward btw) as it was a school that went from Pre-K to 8th, but I transferred into in 4th grade.

So what makes the Knuttel of these years?

Well, first off, I think it's safe to say I was largely an outcast for most of my middle school years. There were a variety of factors to this, but that's irrelevant. During 8th grade I was comfortable there, but I can tell from certain things that I was still not understood as a person. Good times, where for the most part, what I had was music (listening and playing) and literature (reading and writing). So even though I was good at science then, and through High School, it was never totally recognized by myself as a passion. Oddly enough, my scientific interests of the time were largely creative, though I actually think arrived at independently. I found a book I used to keep in 5th grade that listed all my "inventions", which were really hastily drawn pictures with part descriptions, half using real and often incredibly simplistic technology, the other half using things you'd find in an episode of star trek. Needless to say, pretty much everything in the book either is/has the capability to be made already, or won't exist anytime soon. Not to mention a large portion of them are simply presented as concepts (i.e. the concept of a star ship, no really). Makes sense the science I entered college for was Physics (I think I wanted to do theoretical to boot), as opposed to engineering or biology/medicine.

The High School I left for was larger, and therefore less personal, and thus the material left behind was less personal. But it still appeared to be that guy -- creatively endeavored with an aptitude in science.

Sometimes I wish math never failed me (or maybe it's supposed to be vice versa, but whatevs).

Regardless, High School socially was exponentially better. And college seemed to run straight in. I guess it was kind of like that, taking 4 AP classes senior year (with block scheduling, so for one semester it was nothing but AP), it really was a college year in high school.

But that's besides the point, really, isn't it?

What is the point?

The point is the past is the past. All it does is create a foundation for the present. Besides that, it's already happened, and there's really nothing you can do about it. There are no time machines (not even in my little invention book). What's done is done, and deal with it.

Maybe I should've started in the social sciences/liberal arts instead of starting in physics, but it doesn't matter because I did what I did. Simple as that. I wonder if there are any people who have finished with a physics degree at the age of 22 having already finished a play (musical too) at 18. Maybe that's just an indication that I would've left eventually anyway. I would've had to make sacrifices sometime along the way, and given up on what had actually given my life meaning to that point. My early grades pushed me against the wall quickly, so I went to another wall, with perhaps the unintended side effect of not "caring" about grades, rather the experience of learning -- I ended up learning alot of what was not on the curriculum, following my own studies, while simply trying to maintain passing grades. And so I graduated with a GPA below 3. High School finished with 3.5 (well, 90).

So I guess the biggest question about this experience isn't really what to make of my past; my past already happenned; but what to make of my future.

What does the future hold for Knuttel?

Will he finally get in (and stay in) to OCS (finding out I was disenrolled from Fall 09 about a week ahead of time was a killer)? This Fall marks my last attempt to get into Quantico.

Will he return to school (and if so, for what)?

Will he find a job to pass the time and get seriously (and I mean seriously) back into writing?
-- If recent activity on the blog is any indiciation, this may be most likely.

Will he submit his body for government experimentation?

Will he join a cult, or maybe even become a cult leader?


I mean, really, the possibilities are endless. And I must say, it is both thrilling and terrifying.



if only

-- Knuttel

13

Subtitled: my own trek, or, the king's highway
or even simply, the 13s (thirteens). grammar's such a fickle thing anyway.



So there it lay, most of one of my recent travels. This particular travel took me into Center City, and the next day into the furthest reaches of what I would consider suburbia. My launching location to each of these being in the heart of suburbia, Levittown. In order to make the trip appear as a single line, i had to approximate around the launch/center point. Besides, why would I be so stupid as to reveal my actual address to the interwebz so willy nilly?

The purpose of this is of no importance to the casual reader as well, let's just call it a wild goose chase. If you know, well you know, and if you don't, well whatevs.

Let's just call this a juxtaposition piece. One minute I am in the heart of Center City, Philadelphia; I board the el (which is at this juncture, de-elevated, that is to say, underground), about 5-10 minutes later I am above ground (elevated, finally) and travelling through North and North East Philadelphia to arrive at the Frankford Transportation Center I guess about 15 minutes after that. The rest is all driving down Frankford Ave/Bristol Pike (route 13), and later on, down 213 and 413 to reach Richboro, a bucolic and open outer suburb.

It's just an interesting experience, watching the buildings and concrete slowly peel away for trees and grass.

That being said, I, Knuttel, am decreeing the border of North East and Far North East Philadelphia not to be Cottman Ave, but rather to be Pennypack creek. And while I'm on it, why can't the city's main source of public transportation, and really the only one (not counting the slow and overpriced regional rail) capable of launching one far distances, reach even Cottman Ave? It falls around 20 blocks short of it!! Academy and Grant, fine, whatevs, they're kinda far out from Center City, but Cottman is a major Philadelphia road, and it is not easily accessed by the incredibly under built civic transportation structure of the nation's fifth largest metropolitan area. To put this in contrast, the other end of the Market/Frankford line actually ends outside the city limits.

Alas, I digress.

The border shall be set at Pennypack because it actually does act as a border. Cottman attracts growth both ways towards it. After Pennypack, there really isn't that much of a difference in the outlay of the land until maybe as far as Croydon, at least through most of Bensalem. In fact, the border between Philadelphia and Bucks County can pass you by if you don't pay attention to it, and before you know it, the road you're on is no longer Frankford ave, but Bristol Pike.

Once one arrives in Levittown "proper" (simply to differentiate from Croydon), it is painfully obvious one is in the suburbs. This is also on purpose, it was John Levitt's plan all along. It has the side effect of halting the city merger of Trenton to Philadelphia, as Trenton's growth southward doesn't extend so much in it's own state, but rather across the river and into Morrisville. As Levittown is much smaller than it once was, population-wise, this actually turns into a benefit, as Levittown merely looks like a suburban wasteland, rather than an industrial one.

Heading back out again, things are mostly similar until one reaches the area of the Oxford Valley mall and the highways that surround it. It really is funny how things change on the other side of the tracks (in this case, actual tracks from the R3 line, as well as highways I-95 and Route 1).

Once the line is breached, gray gives way to green (and given time of year, that is kinda significant, as trees aren't in bloom yet). First one must go through Langhorne, which always felt a little strange to me. It just seems a little too developed to be that heavily forested. Anyways, getting past that, things really open up.

I dunno, maybe it's just a little hard to express, but imagine within an hour going from claustrophobic skycraping city to wide open fields. It plays with your senses a little bit, that's for certain.

and now for music.
isn't this the goal?



-- Knuttel

Is Knuttel Really Talking About Tim Burton?

So Tim Burton has another re-make coming out soon. And it stars his usual cast, and I'm also going to presume Elfman is doing the score.

What should one make of his career?

He's spent virtually all of his career doing re-makes of one sort or another, and almost all of them are incredibly stylistically similar. So stylistically similar I often make the bad joke "I liked Edward Scissorhands the first time I saw it."

Basically every film he's done has either had a mid-20th century (50s-ish) or cheapened Victorian feel. Adding the 50s bit really makes it to include all of his films. The Victorian imagery style he uses is so gaudy and while stylistically true, so uncharacteristically Victorian, it just seems to cheapen the whole 19th century. I'd imagine many a steampunk enthusiast to abhor the coming of a Tim Burton film.

It's like he caught in some sort of permanent suburban mailaise, imagining up places he's never been, in a time he never will be a part of, with all the money Hollywood can throw at him.

I always thought it was a demand we have of our "artists" (something I'd always assume a good filmmaker to be) to progress with their work, or at the very least to not stand still. One must move about and explore. What can the medium do, what can it not do, where should we go, are there places we should refrain from going? These are questions one must ask. And no, "but it's in 3D" does not yet fully count unless one is really planning on exploring the medium (I heard Cameron did this in Avatar, but I don't have much interest in seeing it). As of now, I still see it as an expensive Hollywood excercise in survival.

Another note, something with which I disagree with him almost unequivocally -- Just because something is strange, bizarre, or even trippy does not mean that it is dark and possibly brooding. This trait of his has seemingly gotten worse in recent years, possibly due to the rise of emo music mid decade.

Even so, how can one say the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the original Planet of the Apes were not dark. Darkness is very much often hid amongst the light. In fact, the early music of Black Sabbath pretty much defined that sentance. Everyone remembers "Iron Man" and "Paranoid", but what about "Planet Caravan", "Laguna Sunrise", "Changes", and even "NIB" (which has a very positive message actually).



Maybe I'm just angry he lacks the proper respect one should have for an audience. He never challenges it, he simply expects them to show up when the time comes, hand over money to see his movie and possibly buy paraphanelia, and until then drool over press releases from the set.

-- Knuttel

Texas Tea

Forming amongst a loose coalition of protesters during last years tax season as a response to the bailouts, the "tea party" has since become something slightly more tangible.

Depending on who you ask, the Tea Party is either a small government (Libertarian) or 10th Amendment/state's rights (Statist) party. Regardless, both can agree that they want a smaller Federal government. This tieing in with the Libertarian boom of the last decade can cause a radical shift of the Party system as we know it. It could abandon the Republicans, to be doomed alone with the Christian right. It can rip the social liberals/apathetics from the Democratic party, leaving them alone with those in favor of large federal infrastructure.

But earlier this week was the first real test of their principals, and how they hold up via candidates, in the Texas State Primaries.

As the Tea Party doesn't have any real party affiliations, I think there were Tea Party representatives on both the Republican and Democratic Ballots. Given recent political history, this meant most of the candidates were on the Republican ballot.

Given recent political history, this meant most of these Tea Partiers were lined up against incumbents.

With the recession/depression/economic whatever, congress's dealings whith said whatever, and really congress's approval rating since 2006, you would think this would be to the incumbent's disadvantage. One must need only look to the McCain-Feingold reform to be instantly corrected on this silly mistake.

Congress has always had Franking privelages. This means they can mail stuff anywhere for free. This means any Congressman can simply spam newsletters and pamphlets whenever he wants. This is a significant cut on overhead that was invaluable in the days when people still used mail. Add this advantage to the McCain-Feingold act and, well it simply isn't fair. The bill puts a ceiling on the amount of money the candidate can accept from any single organization/person (different amounts in each case). This effectively makes it an even playing field, as far as funding is concerned.

The incumbent has the pleasure/displeasure of being known. They have recognition. All publicity is good publicity. Period. Plus, the incumbent already has a support infrastructure in place. They don't need to waste money on building their campaign process and plan. They already have that, or at least some semblance of it from previous campaigns. Newcomers start from scratch.

Well, it looks like I'm rambling a bit now about "campaign finance reform" and it's effects on actual campaigns, but I'm getting to my point, I swear.

The tea party candidates were blown out of the water.

They weren't close anywhere. Really.

The closest they might have done was disrupt Senator K Bailey Hutchinson's gubanatorial campaign. That's debatable, and it wasn't even under the dubious categorization of "vote stealing" (something which I will deny ever ever exists, you run your campaign on who else is running and you vote on who runs, to speculate other scenarios is reckless and irresponsible), but rather under the category of something more akin to a PAC taking apart a candidate. Think of it this way. She got swift boated -- except instead of for serving in Vietnam and earning a purple ehart, to be discredited by disillusioned veterans who may or may not have served for you, she had a very successful career as a congresswoman for Texas and was always able to pull money and projects back into her state/districts and was discredited for supporting the state of Texas by wasting the federal governments money on projects which may or may not have helped her state/districts.

My wording is awkward, but trust me, there's an analogy in there somewhere.

Regardless, I think this actually serves as a good example of the short term future of the party.

They will act as a PAC, or series of PAC's, rather than a party which runs successful candidates. This is the same strategy which has kept the ideals of the green party alive, as Ralph Nader's presidential campaign numbers continue to dwindle.

Given the nature of their party's politics and views, they should probably be advised to get some butts in the seats. They can act as an influencer, but if they actually want to change policy at their pace, they need to get their own representatives in government.

Both the parties of today were created upon single issues, really, so it's not entirely out of the question to say this party can't do it.

The Democratic party, while claiming ties back to the founding fathers (especially Jefferson), came into something more of their modern manifestation as the "vote for Andrew Jackson" party. There was really only one party then, but that's when the distinction was began between Democrat-Republicans and Jacksonian Democrats.

The Republican party has a much more cohesive tie to one single party. It was formed in the 1850's as an abolitionist party, and grew largely out of the ashes of the crumbling Whig Party, which refused to take an official party wide stance on the issue. At the end of the decade, they managed to put a President in the Oval Office, Abraham Lincoln.

So the question is will they be able to do it? Or even simply, will they try?

Ron Paul is a good bet for someone who has at least the capability to do it. He has drawn the ire of both the major parties, supports most of the Tea Party's central ideals, and has the support of the internet (which may only equal to one person in real life). Not to mention, if he can win his home state of Texas, well that would change the entire political landscape.

German Music Time!!



-- Knuttel

How Do You Open A Door On The Anatolian Peninsula?

With a Tur-key!

Hah, get it?

All kidding aside, something possibly momentous has occurred in American-Turkish relations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8550765.stm

Yeah, it is non-binding, and yeah Congress has yet to vote on it, but it's already stirred up some controversy.

Background information:
The land of Armenia had been under control of the Ottoman Empire. Being a Christian people, they were granted some rights, but not all the rights the Muslim Turks and Arabs were. World War I begins in 1914. The Ottoman Empire sided Germany and Austria-Hungary to form the Central Powers. Russia, on the north-eastern border of the empire, was part of the opposition. In 1915, several prominent Armenians were convicted of treason etc and accused of aiding the Russians (another Christian nation). This escalated to a very systematic effort to relocate and sometimes execute/massacre the Armenian population. This lasted until the later part of the decade, forcing many Armenians to run away and try and find places of refuge. The scale of the events was so comprehensive it actually caused the creation of the word "genocide". The government of the later Republic of Turkey (the Ottoman Empire dissolved very quickly thereafter) has maintained the stance that these actions were entirely military in nature and were not intended to eradicate the Armenian peoples. Similar actions were carried out to lesser extents to the other minorities on the Anatolian peninsula, notably Greeks and Assyrians, also Christian. This may have been the largest factor contributing to the Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek diasporas. The total death count has been largely disputed, but it is largely recognized as the first modern genocide, similar to the later German Holocaust. As many as 20 countries have officially called these events the Armenian Genocide.

The United States of America has to now not officially taken a stance on the events, as Turkey has been a key ally of the past fifty years. In addition to its geographic importance over the years (proximity to the Soviet Union in the past, the Middle East, specifically Iraq, now) Turkey has one of the largest militaries in the world.

That being said, the majority of the Armenian diaspora went to either Russia or the USA, and the Armenian population of America has continuously fought to have the event recognized.

Regardless of the semantics involved in naming this event, it should at least be recognized in some capacity as more than a military event. -- I really do hate semantics like this. I once got a professor started on a tirade because I mentioned the conflict in the Balkans of the 90s as a genocide, when it was really just a type of conflict. I also got him started on another tirade because I referred to the Latino section of cultures or whatever as Hispanic.

Anyways, I see this turning out one of three ways.

1. Turkey mans up and calls it a genocide, and everyone except the Turks are happy.
2. Turkey blows up a bunch of smoke in the short term, but it doesn't really mean anything and they forget about it.
3. The nation suffers a backlash and goes stronger away from secularization (which itself has two sub-outcomes)
a. The military stages another coup and restores the secular Republic of Turkey.
b. The government simply becomes Muslim, and may even attempt to establish a caliphate.

It's kind of funny how something so "non-binding" can get people really upset.

-- Knuttel

Post-Olympic hangover stew

So a few things which have been stewing inside this head of mine, some of which happened during the Olympics, some after, mostly who cares.

I read an article about Warren Buffet on large CEO bonuses.
-It basically states that if the CEO is at a chance to earn the corporation large amounts of money, there shouldn't be anything against rewarding him for it. But when the CEO or other high ranking corporate officials are willing to gamble with their organization's equity so willy nilly, they should stand to lose money, or at the very least not get rewarded with such huge bonuses. Buffet went on to include the fact that up to 90 percent of his personal wealth is tied up in investments in his companies. Thus, Warren Buffet himself is very much at risk for losing huge amounts of money if he invests too riskily. He did take a decent hit during the economic downturn.

I largely agree with this. I always worked under the assumption that a company bonus was earned for good performance. Running a fortune 500 into bankruptcy, while quite an achievement, is not something to be rewarded with a bonus.

To state that this would drive away talent is ludicrous. The bonus is still there, it just has to be earned. And by guaranteeing it, you're actually telling these people that they can't achieve this. You're basically just throwing money at them and hoping the problems will get solved, much like the government does with public education.

And if these people truly are the gods among men they claim to be, these holy captains of industry, is there really a harm in letting them loose upon the other fields of our economy and infrastructure? Can not these captains pilot the small businesses, of whose virtues we often extol? Can not these gods of men lead our government, on scales local, state, and federal?

Or are they just another group of charlatans. A group of outcasts, clinging onto their wealth and worldly possessions?

If this is the case, why can't we simply cast them out of eden?

fuggem

-- btw, the article was from over the weekend, and i dont really feel like digging it up. so if you're interested, look it up.

The Cafferty report: how sunday night CNN makes my brain bleed
I could only take about 5 minutes of it, really. And it's not like they were entirely making bad points or asking bad questions, they weren't. It was just so bad.

The questions were asked at the wrong people. The points were made out of context. It was designed to make you angry at something (regarding the government likely), but it just made me mad at the formatting.

They did a piece on the congressional pension system, and how longterm congressmen (especially senators) can really rack up huge annual pensions (Chris Dodd's was in 6 figures).

But calling these congressmen themselves and asking why they are due to receive these pensions? These are the people that have earned, or at least felt like they earned them. Even if it is waaaay too much, do you think they are going to comment on it, or at least if they are, are they going to say something that pleases you?

Sure, maybe reform is to be had there, as reform can help many a things, but if you really want to make the point, you have to hit the right spot. Find the keystone of this pension arch, and tug at it until the thing collapses. Until then you're just throwing rocks.

Healthcare: The return
They couldn't get it done the first time, so here they are to fail again.

Really, they get nothing done as far as healthcare, or even insurance reform is concerned unless some sort of public option is to be included. Making sure everyone is elgible for an insurance that has a ceiling rate is great and all for everyone, but in the greater scheme of things, it passes on the cost of liabilities of those lesser health. And making it illegal not to be covered would simply mean a much higher cost for someone of awesome health, such as I. At the very least, make the age for insurance dependency higher than 18. College extends it for most to 22, but even then, most starting jobs, regardless of where you came, don't initially offer insurance. Some entry level positions simply don't offer benefits. Most companies you have to work there for a few months.

That's time you're unisured, and time you would be forced to have insurance.

And for all of this, Speaker Pelosi gives herself an A.

fugger. really.

-- Knuttel

double feature of music. descending progression that gets stuck in your head like mad and possibly the greatest example of shoegazing ever made.





night

And where the fuck were you?!?!

I love playing with the emphasis on that. I think the closeness of where to were really helps with it.

Anyways, I obviously have been away from this for a while. I'm contemplating maybe some format changes, cos let's be honest, no one reads this anyway.

In any case, there will be something "real" up likely tomorrow, maybe on Haiti, maybe on more pressing matters, like the Lifetime movie Cyber Seduction. Whatever the case may be, prepare to be enthralled.

So lately I've been organizing my efforts to be an even more super awesome person on my road to personal betterment. A few nights ago, after "Jersey Shore" came to a close, I popped in my old smashing pumpkins dvd (Vieuphoria, if anyone's wondering), and as I'm watching Billy Corgan straight up wail out song after song, I realize something -- I used to be able to play like that, and what the fuck happenned. Ok, maybe not that good. But the point stands. I used to have well above average chops and a fuggin awesome ear, and due mostly to "guitar atrophy", I've lost ability in both, though mostly the former.

That being said, I have not-so-carefully crafted a list of songs from four artists, three of which had a pretty profound influence on my "playing days". It could get expanded or amended in the future, but goddamnit, I am going to learn these songs; every single one. Let's see how far i get/bad it gets before I make any changes.

so the list, broken down by album (from american release) + 1 single


Smashing Pumpkins
Gish
Siva
Rhinoceros
I am one
Crush
Siamese Dream
Geek USA
Cherub Rock
Soma
Hummer
Quiet
Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness
Zero
Muzzle
Where the Boys feared to tread
Bodies
Jellybelly
An ode to no one
Xyu
Thru the eyes of ruby
Porceleina of the oceans
1979
Here is no why
To forgive
Bullet with butterfly wings
Love
Tales of a scorched earth

Blur
Modern life is rubbish
Popscene
Parklife
This is a low
London loves
Blur
Beetlebum
m.o.r
on your own
you’re so great
movin on
13
Bugman
Coffee and tv

Radiohead
Pablo Honey
Blow out
The bends
Street spirit
Sulk
Planet telex
Black star
My Iron lung ep
The trickster
Permanent daylight
Ok computer
Airbag
Paranoid android
Lucky
(single)
talk show host
Kid a
Morning bell
Everything in its right place
National anthem
Amnesiac
Knives out
I might be wrong
Dollars and cents
Hail to the thief
2+2=5
Backdrifts
Go to sleep
There, there
Where I end and you begin

Mastodon
Leviathan
Seabeast
Blood and thunder
Iron tusk
Blood mountain
Colony of birchmen
Hunters of the sky
This mortal soil
Sleeping giant
Crack the skye
Oblivion


Those last ones are gonna be a doozy, damn hybrid picking.

and now, because it would be unfair to pick one video after listing a bunch of awesome music, an equally awesome link.

Jersey Shore Nickname Generator
Could You be the next "the situation" or "ms./mrs the situation"?
Maybe you'll find out what a snooki is....

-- Knuttel