Video-Philes: August 2008: Archives

August 31, 2008

Bill Maher: New Rules 08/29/08 genre: Tongue-In-Cheek & Video-Philes

Nothing makes me happier than knowing Real Time With Bill Maher has returned for the closing weeks of the 2008 election. Honestly, his wit and candor provide a welcome respite for reality in the throes of persistent political rhetoric.

In the following segment, Maher covers the gambit...from the practice of biting one's Olympic medal to the always colorful images seen at the Democratic National Convention to the endless effort of financial institutions to sell us programs to prevent identity theft.

He also has a little fun with Michelle Obama's evolving image...offering the observation that she's a combination of Jackie Onassis and the character from the 80's sitcom 227...Jackee.

Maher closes with a critique on the whitewashing of John Edwards from the Democratic National Convention...noting that Edwards' inexcusable indiscretion didn't warrant the silencing of his message...a message of concern for those who struggle in a state of perpetual poverty.

Maher's observations highlight the degree to which all things sexual drive and influence American politics. In the end, it seems that we would rather focus on the personal lives of our politicians than on the palpable problems of the populous.

Tagged as: 2008 Election, Bill Maher, Craig Ferguson, Humor, New Rules

Daniel DiRito | August 31, 2008 | 8:24 AM | link | Comments (0)
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

August 28, 2008

Live Blogging The Democratic National Convention genre: Polispeak & Video-Philes

Daniel DiRito | August 28, 2008 | 6:45 AM | link | Comments (0)
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

August 27, 2008

1984 - Mario Cuomo DNC Keynote Speech genre: Polispeak & Video-Philes

Thank you very much.

On behalf of the great Empire State and the whole family of New York, let me thank you for the great privilege of being able to address this convention. Please allow me to skip the stories and the poetry and the temptation to deal in nice but vague rhetoric. Let me instead use this valuable opportunity to deal immediately with the questions that should determine this election and that we all know are vital to the American people.

Ten days ago, President Reagan admitted that although some people in this country seemed to be doing well nowadays, others were unhappy, even worried, about themselves, their families, and their futures. The President said that he didn't understand that fear. He said, "Why, this country is a shining city on a hill." And the President is right. In many ways we are a shining city on a hill.


But the hard truth is that not everyone is sharing in this city's splendor and glory. A shining city is perhaps all the President sees from the portico of the White House and the veranda of his ranch, where everyone seems to be doing well. But there's another city; there's another part to the shining the city; the part where some people can't pay their mortgages, and most young people can't afford one; where students can't afford the education they need, and middle-class parents watch the dreams they hold for their children evaporate.

In this part of the city there are more poor than ever, more families in trouble, more and more people who need help but can't find it. Even worse: There are elderly people who tremble in the basements of the houses there. And there are people who sleep in the city streets, in the gutter, where the glitter doesn't show. There are ghettos where thousands of young people, without a job or an education, give their lives away to drug dealers every day. There is despair, Mr. President, in the faces that you don't see, in the places that you don't visit in your shining city.

In fact, Mr. President, this is a nation -- Mr. President you ought to know that this nation is more a "Tale of Two Cities" than it is just a "Shining City on a Hill."

Maybe, maybe, Mr. President, if you visited some more places; maybe if you went to Appalachia where some people still live in sheds; maybe if you went to Lackawanna where thousands of unemployed steel workers wonder why we subsidized foreign steel. Maybe -- Maybe, Mr. President, if you stopped in at a shelter in Chicago and spoke to the homeless there; maybe, Mr. President, if you asked a woman who had been denied the help she needed to feed her children because you said you needed the money for a tax break for a millionaire or for a missile we couldn't afford to use.

Maybe -- Maybe, Mr. President. But I'm afraid not. Because the truth is, ladies and gentlemen, that this is how we were warned it would be. President Reagan told us from the very beginning that he believed in a kind of social Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. "Government can't do everything," we were told, so it should settle for taking care of the strong and hope that economic ambition and charity will do the rest. Make the rich richer, and what falls from the table will be enough for the middle class and those who are trying desperately to work their way into the middle class.

You know, the Republicans called it "trickle-down" when Hoover tried it. Now they call it "supply side." But it's the same shining city for those relative few who are lucky enough to live in its good neighborhoods. But for the people who are excluded, for the people who are locked out, all they can do is stare from a distance at that city's glimmering towers.

It's an old story. It's as old as our history. The difference between Democrats and Republicans has always been measured in courage and confidence. The Republicans -- The Republicans believe that the wagon train will not make it to the frontier unless some of the old, some of the young, some of the weak are left behind by the side of the trail. "The strong" -- "The strong," they tell us, "will inherit the land."

We Democrats believe in something else. We democrats believe that we can make it all the way with the whole family intact, and we have more than once. Ever since Franklin Roosevelt lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift this nation from its knees -- wagon train after wagon train -- to new frontiers of education, housing, peace; the whole family aboard, constantly reaching out to extend and enlarge that family; lifting them up into the wagon on the way; blacks and Hispanics, and people of every ethnic group, and native Americans -- all those struggling to build their families and claim some small share of America. For nearly 50 years we carried them all to new levels of comfort, and security, and dignity, even affluence. And remember this, some of us in this room today are here only because this nation had that kind of confidence. And it would be wrong to forget that.

So, here we are at this convention to remind ourselves where we come from and to claim the future for ourselves and for our children. Today our great Democratic Party, which has saved this nation from depression, from fascism, from racism, from corruption, is called upon to do it again -- this time to save the nation from confusion and division, from the threat of eventual fiscal disaster, and most of all from the fear of a nuclear holocaust.

That's not going to be easy. Mo Udall is exactly right -- it won't be easy. And in order to succeed, we must answer our opponent's polished and appealing rhetoric with a more telling reasonableness and rationality.

We must win this case on the merits. We must get the American public to look past the glitter, beyond the showmanship to the reality, the hard substance of things. And we'll do it not so much with speeches that sound good as with speeches that are good and sound; not so much with speeches that will bring people to their feet as with speeches that will bring people to their senses. We must make -- We must make the American people hear our "Tale of Two Cities." We must convince them that we don't have to settle for two cities, that we can have one city, indivisible, shining for all of its people.

Now, we will have no chance to do that if what comes out of this convention is a babel of arguing voices. If that's what's heard throughout the campaign, dissident sounds from all sides, we will have no chance to tell our message. To succeed we will have to surrender some small parts of our individual interests, to build a platform that we can all stand on, at once, and comfortably -- proudly singing out. We need -- We need a platform we can all agree to so that we can sing out the truth for the nation to hear, in chorus, its logic so clear and commanding that no slick Madison Avenue commercial, no amount of geniality, no martial music will be able to muffle the sound of the truth.

And we Democrats must unite. We Democrats must unite so that the entire nation can unite, because surely the Republicans won't bring this country together. Their policies divide the nation into the lucky and the left-out, into the royalty and the rabble. The Republicans are willing to treat that division as victory. They would cut this nation in half, into those temporarily better off and those worse off than before, and they would call that division recovery.

Now, we should not -- we should not be embarrassed or dismayed or chagrined if the process of unifying is difficult, even wrenching at times. Remember that, unlike any other Party, we embrace men and women of every color, every creed, every orientation, every economic class. In our family are gathered everyone from the abject poor of Essex County in New York, to the enlightened affluent of the gold coasts at both ends of the nation. And in between is the heart of our constituency -- the middle class, the people not rich enough to be worry-free, but not poor enough to be on welfare; the middle class -- those people who work for a living because they have to, not because some psychiatrist told them it was a convenient way to fill the interval between birth and eternity. White collar and blue collar. Young professionals. Men and women in small business desperate for the capital and contracts that they need to prove their worth.

We speak for the minorities who have not yet entered the mainstream. We speak for ethnics who want to add their culture to the magnificent mosaic that is America. We speak -- We speak for women who are indignant that this nation refuses to etch into its governmental commandments the simple rule "thou shalt not sin against equality," a rule so simple --

I was going to say, and I perhaps dare not but I will. It's a commandment so simple it can be spelled in three letters: E.R.A.

We speak -- We speak for young people demanding an education and a future. We speak for senior citizens. We speak for senior citizens who are terrorized by the idea that their only security, their Social Security, is being threatened. We speak for millions of reasoning people fighting to preserve our environment from greed and from stupidity. And we speak for reasonable people who are fighting to preserve our very existence from a macho intransigence that refuses to make intelligent attempts to discuss the possibility of nuclear holocaust with our enemy. They refuse. They refuse, because they believe we can pile missiles so high that they will pierce the clouds and the sight of them will frighten our enemies into submission.

Now we're proud of this diversity as Democrats. We're grateful for it. We don't have to manufacture it the way the Republicans will next month in Dallas, by propping up mannequin delegates on the convention floor. But we, while we're proud of this diversity, we pay a price for it. The different people that we represent have different points of view. And sometimes they compete and even debate, and even argue. That's what our primaries were all about. But now the primaries are over and it is time, when we pick our candidates and our platform here, to lock arms and move into this campaign together.

If you need any more inspiration to put some small part of your own difference aside to create this consensus, then all you need to do is to reflect on what the Republican policy of divide and cajole has done to this land since 1980. Now the President has asked the American people to judge him on whether or not he's fulfilled the promises he made four years ago. I believe, as Democrats, we ought to accept that challenge. And just for a moment let us consider what he has said and what he's done.

Inflation -- Inflation is down since 1980, but not because of the supply-side miracle promised to us by the President. Inflation was reduced the old-fashioned way: with a recession, the worst since 1932. Now how did we -- We could have brought inflation down that way. How did he do it? 55,000 bankruptcies; two years of massive unemployment; 200,000 farmers and ranchers forced off the land; more homeless -- more homeless than at any time since the Great Depression in 1932; more hungry, in this world of enormous affluence, the United States of America, more hungry; more poor, most of them women. And -- And he paid one other thing, a nearly 200 billion dollar deficit threatening our future.

Now, we must make the American people understand this deficit because they don't. The President's deficit is a direct and dramatic repudiation of his promise in 1980 to balance the budget by 1983. How large is it? The deficit is the largest in the history of the universe. It -- President Carter's last budget had a deficit less than one-third of this deficit. It is a deficit that, according to the President's own fiscal adviser, may grow to as much 300 billion dollars a year for "as far as the eye can see." And, ladies and gentlemen, it is a debt so large -- that is almost one-half of the money we collect from the personal income tax each year goes just to pay the interest. It is a mortgage on our children's future that can be paid only in pain and that could bring this nation to its knees.

Now don't take my word for it -- I'm a Democrat. Ask the Republican investment bankers on Wall Street what they think the chances of this recovery being permanent are. You see, if they're not too embarrassed to tell you the truth, they'll say that they're appalled and frightened by the President's deficit. Ask them what they think of our economy, now that it's been driven by the distorted value of the dollar back to its colonial condition. Now we're exporting agricultural products and importing manufactured ones. Ask those Republican investment bankers what they expect the rate of interest to be a year from now. And ask them -- if they dare tell you the truth -- you'll learn from them, what they predict for the inflation rate a year from now, because of the deficit.

Now, how important is this question of the deficit. Think about it practically: What chance would the Republican candidate have had in 1980 if he had told the American people that he intended to pay for his so-called economic recovery with bankruptcies, unemployment, more homeless, more hungry, and the largest government debt known to humankind? If he had told the voters in 1980 that truth, would American voters have signed the loan certificate for him on Election Day? Of course not! That was an election won under false pretenses. It was won with smoke and mirrors and illusions. And that's the kind of recovery we have now as well.

But what about foreign policy? They said that they would make us and the whole world safer. They say they have. By creating the largest defense budget in history, one that even they now admit is excessive -- by escalating to a frenzy the nuclear arms race; by incendiary rhetoric; by refusing to discuss peace with our enemies; by the loss of 279 young Americans in Lebanon in pursuit of a plan and a policy that no one can find or describe.

We give money to Latin American governments that murder nuns, and then we lie about it. We have been less than zealous in support of our only real friend -- it seems to me, in the Middle East -- the one democracy there, our flesh and blood ally, the state of Israel. Our -- Our policy -- Our foreign policy drifts with no real direction, other than an hysterical commitment to an arms race that leads nowhere -- if we're lucky. And if we're not, it could lead us into bankruptcy or war.

Of course we must have a strong defense! Of course Democrats are for a strong defense. Of course Democrats believe that there are times that we must stand and fight. And we have. Thousands of us have paid for freedom with our lives. But always -- when this country has been at its best -- our purposes were clear. Now they're not. Now our allies are as confused as our enemies. Now we have no real commitment to our friends or to our ideals -- not to human rights, not to the refuseniks, not to Sakharov, not to Bishop Tutu and the others struggling for freedom in South Africa.

We -- We have in the last few years spent more than we can afford. We have pounded our chests and made bold speeches. But we lost 279 young Americans in Lebanon and we live behind sand bags in Washington. How can anyone say that we are safer, stronger, or better?

That -- That is the Republican record. That its disastrous quality is not more fully understood by the American people I can only attribute to the President's amiability and the failure by some to separate the salesman from the product.

And, now -- now -- now it's up to us. Now it's up to you and to me to make the case to America. And to remind Americans that if they are not happy with all that the President has done so far, they should consider how much worse it will be if he is left to his radical proclivities for another four years unrestrained. Unrestrained.

Now, if -- if July -- if July brings back Ann Gorsuch Burford -- what can we expect of December? Where would -- Where would another four years take us? Where would four years more take us? How much larger will the deficit be? How much deeper the cuts in programs for the struggling middle class and the poor to limit that deficit? How high will the interest rates be? How much more acid rain killing our forests and fouling our lakes?

And, ladies and gentlemen, please think of this -- the nation must think of this: What kind of Supreme Court will we have?

Please. [beckons audience to settle down]

We -- We must ask ourselves what kind of court and country will be fashioned by the man who believes in having government mandate people's religion and morality; the man who believes that trees pollute the environment; the man that believes that -- that the laws against discrimination against people go too far; a man who threatens Social Security and Medicaid and help for the disabled. How high will we pile the missiles? How much deeper will the gulf be between us and our enemies? And, ladies and gentlemen, will four years more make meaner the spirit of the American people? This election will measure the record of the past four years. But more than that, it will answer the question of what kind of people we want to be.

We Democrats still have a dream. We still believe in this nation's future. And this is our answer to the question. This is our credo:

We believe in only the government we need, but we insist on all the government we need.

We believe in a government that is characterized by fairness and reasonableness, a reasonableness that goes beyond labels, that doesn't distort or promise to do things that we know we can't do.

We believe in a government strong enough to use words like "love" and "compassion" and smart enough to convert our noblest aspirations into practical realities.

We believe in encouraging the talented, but we believe that while survival of the fittest may be a good working description of the process of evolution, a government of humans should elevate itself to a higher order.

We -- Our -- Our government -- Our government should be able to rise to the level where it can fill the gaps that are left by chance or by a wisdom we don't fully understand. We would rather have laws written by the patron of this great city, the man called the "world's most sincere Democrat," St. Francis of Assisi, than laws written by Darwin.

We believe -- We believe as Democrats, that a society as blessed as ours, the most affluent democracy in the world's history, one that can spend trillions on instruments of destruction, ought to be able to help the middle class in its struggle, ought to be able to find work for all who can do it, room at the table, shelter for the homeless, care for the elderly and infirm, and hope for the destitute. And we proclaim as loudly as we can the utter insanity of nuclear proliferation and the need for a nuclear freeze, if only to affirm the simple truth that peace is better than war because life is better than death.

We believe in firm -- We believe in firm but fair law and order.

We believe proudly in the union movement.

We believe in a -- We believe -- We believe in privacy for people, openness by government.

We believe in civil rights, and we believe in human rights.

We believe in a single -- We believe in a single fundamental idea that describes better than most textbooks and any speech that I could write what a proper government should be: the idea of family, mutuality, the sharing of benefits and burdens for the good of all, feeling one another's pain, sharing one another's blessings -- reasonably, honestly, fairly, without respect to race, or sex, or geography, or political affiliation.

We believe we must be the family of America, recognizing that at the heart of the matter we are bound one to another, that the problems of a retired school teacher in Duluth are our problems; that the future of the child -- that the future of the child in Buffalo is our future; that the struggle of a disabled man in Boston to survive and live decently is our struggle; that the hunger of a woman in Little Rock is our hunger; that the failure anywhere to provide what reasonably we might, to avoid pain, is our failure.

Now for 50 years -- for 50 years we Democrats created a better future for our children, using traditional Democratic principles as a fixed beacon, giving us direction and purpose, but constantly innovating, adapting to new realities: Roosevelt's alphabet programs; Truman's NATO and the GI Bill of Rights; Kennedy's intelligent tax incentives and the Alliance for Progress; Johnson's civil rights; Carter's human rights and the nearly miraculous Camp David Peace Accord.

Democrats did it -- Democrats did it and Democrats can do it again. We can build a future that deals with our deficit. Remember this, that 50 years of progress under our principles never cost us what the last four years of stagnation have. And we can deal with the deficit intelligently, by shared sacrifice, with all parts of the nation's family contributing, building partnerships with the private sector, providing a sound defense without depriving ourselves of what we need to feed our children and care for our people. We can have a future that provides for all the young of the present, by marrying common sense and compassion.

We know we can, because we did it for nearly 50 years before 1980. And we can do it again, if we do not forget -- if we do not forget that this entire nation has profited by these progressive principles; that they helped lift up generations to the middle class and higher; that they gave us a chance to work, to go to college, to raise a family, to own a house, to be secure in our old age and, before that, to reach heights that our own parents would not have dared dream of.

That struggle to live with dignity is the real story of the shining city. And it's a story, ladies and gentlemen, that I didn't read in a book, or learn in a classroom. I saw it and lived it, like many of you. I watched a small man with thick calluses on both his hands work 15 and 16 hours a day. I saw him once literally bleed from the bottoms of his feet, a man who came here uneducated, alone, unable to speak the language, who taught me all I needed to know about faith and hard work by the simple eloquence of his example. I learned about our kind of democracy from my father. And I learned about our obligation to each other from him and from my mother. They asked only for a chance to work and to make the world better for their children, and they -- they asked to be protected in those moments when they would not be able to protect themselves. This nation and this nation's government did that for them.

And that they were able to build a family and live in dignity and see one of their children go from behind their little grocery store in South Jamaica on the other side of the tracks where he was born, to occupy the highest seat, in the greatest State, in the greatest nation, in the only world we would know, is an ineffably beautiful tribute to the democratic process.

And -- And ladies and gentlemen, on January 20, 1985, it will happen again -- only on a much, much grander scale. We will have a new President of the United States, a Democrat born not to the blood of kings but to the blood of pioneers and immigrants. And we will have America's first woman Vice President, the child of immigrants, and she -- she -- she will open with one magnificent stroke, a whole new frontier for the United States.

Now, it will happen. It will happen if we make it happen; if you and I make it happen. And I ask you now, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, for the good of all of us, for the love of this great nation, for the family of America, for the love of God: Please, make this nation remember how futures are built.

Thank you and God bless you.

Mario Cuomo - Video Excerpt

Tagged as: 1984 Democratic Convention, Mario Cuomo, Ronald Reagan

Daniel DiRito | August 27, 2008 | 6:00 AM | link | Comments (0)
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

August 23, 2008

Focus On The Family's Stuart Shepard Is "Makin' Stuff Up" genre: Hip-Gnosis & Polispeak & Video-Philes

Focus on the Family's Stuart Shepard, fresh off of his stint as the GOP's self-anointed rain dancer, has turned his attentions to another role...that of a shrill and sophomoric stooge.

In the following video, Shepard is promoting the meme that Barack Obama's favorite answer to criticism of his positions is to assert that the opposition is "Makin' stuff up". I find it rather ironic that a religious organization is comfortable putting a rhetoric rattling GOP sycophant on its website to mimic the manufactured mantra's of the Republican Party.

Perhaps deception is part and parcel of partisan politics...but I wouldn't expect it to be the modus operandi of a group that claims to be promoting Christian values. Apparently Focus on the Family believes that the means by which they support family values is exempt from moral considerations. In other words, It's apparently acceptable to say whatever you want (facts be damned) in order to defeat the candidate you oppose. I guess the road to religious purity is paved with misrepresentations?

I'm not sure whose calling the shots at FOF, but this new video looks to be even more childish that the "Pray for rain" video. In fact, I view this pitiful propaganda piece to be little more than an attempt at retribution by a man whose fragile ego must have been fractured when he had his hand slapped for reducing God's role to that of a petulant partisan. Maybe Stuart needs to change teams...I hear Lucifer is looking for a hypocritical and hateful holier-than-thou henchman.

Tagged as: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Family Values, Focus On The Family, Religion, Stuart Shepard

Daniel DiRito | August 23, 2008 | 2:20 PM | link | Comments (1)
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

August 19, 2008

Keith Olbermann Tells John McCain To Grow Up genre: Polispeak & Six Degrees of Speculation & Video-Philes

In a special comment, Keith Olbermann dissects the rhetoric of John McCain...and reminds the forgetful senator of the many instances in which he has contradicted himself. While it appears that John McCain thinks his age grants him a memory waiver, Keith Olbermann is having none of that.

In typically testy form, Olbermann scolds the McCain camp for employing the politics of our sitting president and embracing its scorched earth strategy...the one that attempts to craft facts from thin air and make them relying on shear repetition of reprehensible rhetoric.

Olbermann takes the Arizona senator to task on his accusation that the Barack Obama candidacy is merely a matter of "ambitions"...pointing out that senator McCain must be at least equally ambitious...unless he's being forced to run for the presidency.

Lastly, Olbermann lambasts the McCain campaign's criticism of NBC...suggesting that the attack on the network is but a lowly attempt to prevent objectivity by spinning a fully suspect story that prefers the stealth nature inherent in the waging a whisper war against his opponent.

Keith Olbermann - Special Comment Part One

Keith Olbermann - Special Comment Part Two

Tagged as: 2008 Election, Iraq, John McCain, Keith Olbermann, Special Comment, Veterans

Daniel DiRito | August 19, 2008 | 8:48 AM | link | Comments (0)
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

August 18, 2008

Mo Want's To Know: How's That New Speedo? genre: Tongue-In-Cheek & Video-Philes

In Mo Rocca's explanation of the following video, he tells his readers that he hesitated to post it because he thought he may have been too annoying. After watching the video, I think Mo's assessment is wrong.

If I may offer my own analysis, I think Mo's concerns come from the the reactions of one of his interviewees (I suspect you can figure out which one). In fact, Mo was simply doing what he does best...asking inane questions about seemingly serious matters. It's what makes Mo so funny. The fact that some folks are too tense to appreciate a little comic relief needn't suggest that Mo was too my humble opinion.

In truth, I think the piece is pretty funny. Besides, if we have to listen to commentators ooh and ahh in horror over the misstep of a gymnast, we're entitled to a little sarcasm, aren't we?

Tagged as: Amanda Beard, Bathing Suit, Comedy, Humor, Michael Phelps, Mo Rocca, Olympics, Speedo

Daniel DiRito | August 18, 2008 | 8:22 PM | link | Comments (0)
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

August 14, 2008

Mo's Olympic Quest - Mastering The Back Handspring genre: Tongue-In-Cheek & Video-Philes

I should be ashamed of myself for stereotyping Mo Rocca. When I imagine Mo and the Olympics, I can't help but think of him as a voyuer...the kind that loves to watch swimming and gymnastics...if you get my drift. I just didn't visualize him as the coordinated, athletic type...despite his stint as a sassy salsa singer.

In the following video, Mo is attempting to overcome his childhood fear...and find the courage to finally execute a back handspring. Too my surprise, Mo actually displays a degree of flexibility and athleticism...and as always...his sense of humor.

Mo has promised a follow up video in which he hopes to complete an unassisted back handspring...without falling and breaking his head off. Stay tuned...there's bound to be some drama.

Woops, there I go again with the stereotyping.

Tagged as: Comedy, Gymnastics, Humor, Mo Rocca, Olympics

Daniel DiRito | August 14, 2008 | 8:37 PM | link | Comments (0)
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

August 12, 2008

The Onion: Olympic Fever Strikes China? genre: Tongue-In-Cheek & Video-Philes

Having the Olympics in China is providing us with a first hand view of message much so that our two political parties might actually be able to learn some nifty new tricks.

It looks like I've been living under the false impression that U.S. political campaigns had a monopoly on spin doctoring. Little did I know that the Chinese have taken it to a whole new level. First we learned that they digitally enhanced the fireworks display at the opening ceremonies. Then we find out that the little girl singing "Ode to the Motherland" was lip-synching. I guess we're supposed to conclude that pretty Chinese children are tone deaf?

All of this comes on the heels of tearing down unsightly housing districts, shutting down factories, and restricting the use of automobiles. In the following video, The Onion takes it a step further and suggests the Chinese are spinning avian flu as Olympic fever.

If I were John McCain or Barack Obama, I'd send a scouting crew to see who they can hire out from under the Chinese government. After all, many of these folks are probably out of a job in a few days...that is if they're able to avoid imprisonment for failing to skew the medal count in China's favor. Come to think of it, I'll bet several of these folks can make our hacker-safe voting machines sing...if you know what I mean.

Tagged as: Avian Flu, Barack Obama, China, Comedy, Human Rights, Humor, John McCain, Olympics, The Onion, U.S. Elections, Voter Fraud, Voting Machines

Daniel DiRito | August 12, 2008 | 8:44 PM | link | Comments (0)
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Physicist Leonard Susskind Refutes Intelligent Design genre: Hip-Gnosis & Video-Philes

It's always refreshing to hear an informed member of the scientific community offer their views on the likelihood of an intelligent designer. In the following clip, Leonard Susskind gives a brief commentary on the subject.

Most notable in Susskind's observations is his willingness to step beyond our earth-centric perceptions of the universe and see the predominance of unintelligence that exists. While many religious apologists point to our planet and its inhabitants as evidence of a creator, Susskind suggests that the random nature of the universe is a far more plausible explanation for our existence.

In other words, why would a divine being create an immense universe with so few parts serving any function in sustaining or propagating those living beings that are presumably his pièce de rèsistance. Rather than view humanity as the work of a designer, unique instances or events can just as easily be explained in terms of mathematical probability.

When someone wins the lottery, we realize that it is a matter of astronomical odds...yet it happens in accordance within predictable mathematical parameters...not as a matter of divine intervention. Consider the sound evidence for the theory of evolution and our ever expanding ability to scientifically explain what we see and experience and the rationale for a creator is increasingly a matter of wishful speculation.

Tagged as: Creationism, Darwin, Evolution, Fora.TV, Intelligent Design, Leonard Susskind, Universe

Daniel DiRito | August 12, 2008 | 6:45 PM | link | Comments (2)
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

August 10, 2008

Stephen Lynch: My Name Is Satan...Call Me Beelz genre: Hip-Gnosis & Tongue-In-Cheek & Video-Philes

I recently posted a video depicting the geographic advances and declines of the various religions of the world. The video was part of a piece in which Dan Dennett discussed memes and the ability of societies to adopt and perpetuate them for generations.

Well, the following video uses the same video...but in this version, we hear comedian Stephen Lynch singing "Beelz", a song he wrote about Satan. I thought it was pretty funny to listen to Lynch sing about the dastardly deeds of the devil while watching the spread of religion.

You can draw your own comparisons and conclusions.

Stephen Lynch - Beelz

Daniel DiRito | August 10, 2008 | 3:33 PM | link | Comments (2)
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

August 5, 2008

Paris Hilton Responds To John McCain's Campaign Ad genre: Tongue-In-Cheek & Video-Philes

So maybe Paris Hilton isn't as vacuous as John McCain wants us to think (looks like a case of bad judgment, eh?). In the following video, the normally ditzy blond offers a lucid response to John McCain's allegedly light hearted campaign ad.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet the farm that the Paris Hilton video will get a hell of a lot more play than McCain's ill-advised effort to sully Barack Obama. From my vantage point, it looks like this is one of those situations where the one who laughs last, laughs best.

Tagged as: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Humor, John McCain, Paris Hilton, Politics

Daniel DiRito | August 5, 2008 | 10:28 PM | link | Comments (1)
AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Read about the Director and Cast

Send us an email

Select a theme:

Critic's Corner

 Subscribe in a reader


Powered by:
Movable Type 4.2-en

© Copyright 2024

site by Eagle River Partners & Carlson Design