The thing that’s important to remember is that last year NBC made a show starring a monkey and a lot of you bought advertising on it. So clearly none of us have any idea what we’re doing.
We believe conspiracy theories to feel in control. But they have the exact opposite effect.
Believing George W. Bush helped plan the Sept. 11 attacks might make you feel in control, it doesn’t actually make you so. Earlier this year, Karen Douglas, a University of Kent psychologist, along with a student, published research in which they exposed people to conspiracy theories about climate change and the death of Princess Diana. Those who got information supporting the theories but not information debunking them were more likely to withdraw from participation in politics and were less likely to take action to reduce their carbon footprints.
Alex Jones, a syndicated radio host, can build fame as a conspiracy peddler; politicians can hint at conspiracies for votes and leverage; but if conspiracy theories are a tool the average person uses to reclaim his sense of agency and access to democracy, it’s an ineffective tool. It can even have dangerous health implications. For example, research has shown that African-Americans who believe AIDS is a weapon loosed on them by the government (remembering the abuses of the Tuskegee experiment) are less likely to practice protected sex. And if you believe that governments or corporations are hiding evidence that vaccines harm children, you’re less likely to have your children vaccinated. The result: pockets of measles and whooping-cough infections and a few deaths in places with low child-vaccination rates.
Reagan's foreign policy wasn’t what you think—and doesn't matter today.
The suggestion that any Administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish. No great country has that sort of influence on the internal developments of any other one.
The idea that Reagan “won” the Cold War is one of the more pernicious and enduring distortions of Reagan’s real success, which involved both opposing and engaging with the Soviet Union as its system collapsed from within largely on its own. The claim of winning the Cold War greatly exaggerated the ability of the U.S. to shape events in other countries. That in turn has inspired later generations of conservatives and Republicans to imagine that they can successfully promote dramatic political change overseas in order to topple foreign regimes. As Kennan said in the same op-ed: “Nobody—no country, no party, no person—‘won’ the cold war. It was a long and costly political rivalry, fueled on both sides by unreal and exaggerated estimates of the intentions and strength of the other party.”
Congratulating Reagan for winning the Cold War is one more form of widespread abuse of Reagan’s legacy that has adversely affected how conservatives think about foreign policy and the proper U.S. role in the world. This has warped how the right understands American power and U.S. relations with authoritarian and pariah states for the last two decades. It also blinds many conservatives to the fact that other nations resent and reject American interference in their political affairs. In spite of the failures of nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan and the collapse of the so-called Freedom Agenda, this myth continues to make many on the right overly confident in our government’s ability to influence overseas political developments to suit American wishes.
Christopher Alberts, the Senior Vice President of Communications for the National Geographic Channels, told me that they have “one of the best policies there is”, but refused to send it to me or tell me anything about it.
Why are these factual networks, whose survival depends on building trust with their audiences, so reluctant to clarify their ethics policies with respect to wildlife?
What does it mean for conservation if high-rating shows on leading channels are portraying wildlife in a negative, seemingly misleading way to millions of viewers worldwide? And why are so few people saying anything about it?
The Guradian’s Adam Welz eviscerates NatGeo, Discovery, Animal Planet, and the History Channel’s horrific violence against animals, including shooting bears, wolves, wolverines, crocodiles, snakes, and many other animals in full view of the camera.
Welz’s piece struck a cord with me this weekend. This is not education, it’s promotion of fear of nature for ratings and money. It’s exploitation to the vilest degree. I believe these channels have to answer for this bizarre blood lust.
(via climateadaptation)
NatGeo is controlled by NewsCorp. History Channel is A&E. Discovery Channel & Animal Planet are siblings. It’s all pretty gross, but National Geographic should be particularly ashamed of itself.
I snapped a pic of this wine listing because I found it so pretentious. Then I found another vintage online that is somehow even worse:
This wine defines the term elegance. Singing with a perfect pitch, it emphasizes first and foremost a distinct high toned fruit clarity. The challenging, steep, limestone terroir is reflected in the wine’s rare intensity of varietal flavors. It has quickly thrown off its adolescent gangliness and now shows a sleek and lithe runner’s physique. Starting with berry patch bouquet, the nose quickly develops a liqueur-like suppleness across the palate revealing a black cherry and black currant compote of ripe flavors dusted with sweet baking spices.
Kanye turns the page on rap.
Kanye’s work is always conceptually and musically interesting, but his vocals are rarely compelling. I hope he’s secretly taking singing lessons and will unleash the results at some point in the near future.
Also…Gary Glitter.
There is no IRS scandal. Republicans pursue it anyway. Obama reaps the rewards.
Tea Party and right-wing groups are in the minority of those targeted.
Of the 298 groups subjected to additional review, 72 were “tea party” groups, 11 were “9/12″ groups and 13 were “patriots” groups, according to the inspector general’s report.
Controversial IRS practices are reported and investigated in a timely manner.
The Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration sent a letter to Congressman Darrell Issa and Congressman Jim Jordan on July 12, 2012 informing them they would be auditing the IRS in response to their concerns that certain groups might be receiving extra scrutiny. The letter came in response to a June 28th letter of that year from Congressman Issa and requests for an investigation.
The letter states that after meeting with the staff of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which Issa chairs, the IG Office of Audit began work on the issue. The IG offered in the letter to provide a status update to the staff of the committee throughout the investigation as well as provide copies of interim and final reports..
Conservatives outside of Congress admit there’s no “there” there.
”While there’s still more information to be gathered and more investigations to be done, all indications are that these decisions – on the AP, on the IRS, on Benghazi – don’t proceed from [Obama],” wrote Ben Domenech in The Transom, his influential conservative morning newsletter. “The talk of impeachment is absurd. The queries of ‘what did the president know and when did he know it’ will probably end up finding out “’just about nothing, and right around the time everyone else found out.’”
Heritage Foundation tells elected Republicans to stop legislating in order to focus on scandal.
Michael A. Needham: “We urge you to avoid bringing any legislation to the House Floor that could expose or highlight major schisms within the conference. Legislation such as the Internet sales tax or the FARRM Act which contains nearly $800 billion in food stamp spending, would give the press a reason to shift their attention away from the failures of the Obama administration to write another ‘circular firing squad’ article.”
Onslaught of false attacks backfires, leads to three point increase in Obama’s approval rating.
We urge you to avoid bringing any legislation to the House Floor that could expose or highlight major schisms within the conference. Legislation such as the Internet sales tax or the FARRM Act which contains nearly $800 billion in food stamp spending, would give the press a reason to shift their attention away from the failures of the Obama administration to write another ‘circular firing squad’ article.
Heritage Action’s Chief Executive Officer, Michael A. Needham, in a letter telling Republicans not to legislate in order to focus on taking down Obama.
Heritage Action is the lobbying arm of the Heritage Foundation.
At Google Conference, Cameras Even in the Bathroom
As I approached the line to the restroom, I took a deep sigh, thinking that I might find some respite from the hundreds of cameras strapped to people’s heads at the conference.
Yet when it was finally my turn to approach the rows of white urinals, my world came screeching to a halt. There they were, a handful of people wearing Google Glass, now standing next to me at their own urinals, peering their head from side to side, blinking or winking, as they relieved themselves.
‘photos every day’
this is a spot by tbwa/chiat/day for apple, called ‘photos every day’. the craft is fantastic, and there’s some subtle, unusual attention to detail in it.
let’s take a look at the sound mix. here’s a waveform of the spot:
and now here’s the waveform of a conventionally mixed spot — this is that ‘old spice’ commercial everyone flipped out for a couple years ago. it might as well be any ad you see on tv today.
huge difference. there’s incredible restraint in the amount of compression applied to the music in ‘photos every day’. (from wikipedia, compression “reduces the volume of loud sounds or amplifies quiet sounds by narrowing or “compressing” an audio signal’s dynamic range”.) my point here is that if you caught this on tv, it would be substantially ‘quieter’ sounding than other ads around it.
the other interesting thing about the mix is that the iPhone shutter click sound is substantially undermixed. it comes across as incidental, and unobtrusive. the ambiences are the real star here, and the sound editor wasn’t even afraid to drop them out entirely for effect (see snowy skyscraper, 0:23).
Fresh basil keeps much better and longer at room temperature with the stems in water.
Elisabeth Prueitt, Tartine Bakery, San Francisco
If the basil doesn’t have roots, cut the stems like you would fresh flowers. Change the water every few days.
THE BEASTIE BOYS IN CONVERSATION, 1991
- MCA: Mike nearly got in a fistfight with the singer of R.E.M. Now, Mike's on a crazy mission to find him.
- Ad-Rock: Georgia's too far, but I hear Sting's in Malibu!
- Mike D: Sting looks like he's in shape.
- Ad-Rock: You sneak up behind him, crouch down, and I'll push him over your back!
- Mike D: But Sting's the type of guy who'll sue you.
- MCA: Actually at home Mike lip-synchs to R.E.M. records in front of the mirror.
- Ad-Rock: [Imitating Stipe] "That's Mike in the corner, losing his — " I don't even mind that song, man!
- Mike D: Aw, you guys are gettin' so soft …
- SPIN: The Source said you were soft, Mike, for buying gourmet tuna paté — said you'd been in Cali too long.
- MCA: That's a bad attitude. Big Daddy Kane be buying that shit all the time! If Q-Tip bought it, they'd be impressed.
- Mike D: People don't realize how much hip hop stars have always been into gourmet foods. Chef B-Boy-Ardee is no joke!
- Ad-Rock: I heard a Salt-n-Pepa song one time, where they named every rapper in New York. And they didn't name us! I was like listening to this shit, goin', "Damn, wussup wit that?"
- MCA: You could've waited till the cows come home!
The Simpsons and Twin Peaks premièred a few months apart from each other in 1989/1990, and at the time, it felt like a real sea change had taken place in the culture. That feeling dispersed becauseTwin Peaks imploded in its second season, and instead of a bunch of brilliant network shows, what we got in their immediate wake was a shitload of forgotten animated shows whipped up by hacks and Cop Rock. But one thing that both those shows had that really shook things up was a critical, self-aware attitude about TV. Earlier shows that tried for something halfway similar turned spoofy and paper-thin, like It’s Garry Shandling’s Show, a sometimes moderately diverting late-’80s show that, at the time, impressed some critics who’d just learned to type the word “post-modern,” and that, in retrospect, was barely a pimple on the ass of Shandling’s later The Larry Sanders Show. But The Simpsons and Twin Peaks actually managed to make shared jokes based on the fact that smart viewers who’d grown up watching TV understood the basic mechanics of how the shows worked, while still getting the viewers involved in the characters and the stories.
