I think it would be hilarious to see some of the most dugg-down comments of all time.. Please help make this as interactive as possible and contribute your most dugg down comment.. This is both fun and educational, please follow the simple steps below:
1. Go to here (sometimes it takes a sec but it works) and input your user name to get your digg comment statistics.
2. Find your most dugg-down comment and paste it as a reply to this blog, -OR- email it to me and I will update this blog entry accordingly.
It's time for me to put up or shut up, so I'll start it off with my personal most humiliating, most dugg-down comment ever:
Article: Evolution of versions Windows. 7/16/2007
DiggsUp 7
DiggsDwn -75
FinalRating -68
TotalDiggs 82
Comment: Does anyone use "Winblowz" anymore?
Monday, July 30, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
Awesome Videos
Why Iran Hates Us In 3 Minutes
Eisenhower's Farewell Speech (FULL) in Two Parts
Even Rats Can Experience Joy
Eisenhower's Farewell Speech (FULL) in Two Parts
Even Rats Can Experience Joy
Saturday, July 21, 2007
The Absurdity of Our Winner-Take-All System
Our current political system and electoral process is an absurdity of epic proportions. Our Constitution directs the Feds to ensure a "Republican Form of Government" for We The People. I think it's more important to focus on how this concept isn't reflected in our political process.
For starters, we have a Winner Take All voting system. Representation of the individual is impossible in this type of environment, as it allows the majority to trump the minority. When someone wins an election, they tend to clean house and surround themselves with like-minded people. This is natural, of course, but it fosters divisions within society because the majority (popular) ideology is represented while the minority (individual) ideology is ignored, shunned, sometimes oppressed.
True representation is only achievable in a proportional-type electoral system, one in which the results of a popular platform vote are used to directly determine the makeup of the government body being formed. As an example, take the simplified table below:
Republican 30%
Democrat 30%
Socialist 10%
Libertarian 10%
Green 10%
Religious Party 10%
The table is fiction, used for example, and it's results determine how much representation each political faction would have in government. After the platform vote, each faction would vote in their own elections (this could be done simultaneously), voting for who they want to represent them, not who they think will win. Using the House of Representatives as an example, Republicans would get 435*30% = 130 representatives (rounding would have to be dealt with, but this is not important for the illustration). Democrats would get 130 seats and the other 10 percent'ers would get 43ish each.
Of course, the results would be much different in actuality, and there would probably be more platforms represented, for which the more the better. The more representation the People have, the more each faction must compromise, and that creates a better chance that any new legislation will be geared towards the benefit of the People, rather than geared towards the interests of the money'd elite, as it is in our current winner take all system of representation.
For starters, we have a Winner Take All voting system. Representation of the individual is impossible in this type of environment, as it allows the majority to trump the minority. When someone wins an election, they tend to clean house and surround themselves with like-minded people. This is natural, of course, but it fosters divisions within society because the majority (popular) ideology is represented while the minority (individual) ideology is ignored, shunned, sometimes oppressed.
True representation is only achievable in a proportional-type electoral system, one in which the results of a popular platform vote are used to directly determine the makeup of the government body being formed. As an example, take the simplified table below:
Republican 30%
Democrat 30%
Socialist 10%
Libertarian 10%
Green 10%
Religious Party 10%
The table is fiction, used for example, and it's results determine how much representation each political faction would have in government. After the platform vote, each faction would vote in their own elections (this could be done simultaneously), voting for who they want to represent them, not who they think will win. Using the House of Representatives as an example, Republicans would get 435*30% = 130 representatives (rounding would have to be dealt with, but this is not important for the illustration). Democrats would get 130 seats and the other 10 percent'ers would get 43ish each.
Of course, the results would be much different in actuality, and there would probably be more platforms represented, for which the more the better. The more representation the People have, the more each faction must compromise, and that creates a better chance that any new legislation will be geared towards the benefit of the People, rather than geared towards the interests of the money'd elite, as it is in our current winner take all system of representation.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Grand Master Debater -- How Ron Paul is Manipulating the MSM
Ron Paul has gotten some attention from the MSM lately.. I covered the Stephanopoulos set-up already, and there has since been a FOX News smear attempt by a chap named Cavuto.. It is completely reasonable to assume the biased interviews will continue, but at what point will the MSM realize they are biting off more than they can chew?
The MSM brought out one of their big guns with Stephanopolous.. Stephanopolous -- Genius, Rhodes Scholar, Oxford Graduate, Lawyer, Celebrity, Handsome Man.. He is a complete package, let me affirm.. Yet, the simple Dr. easily riposted Steph's every deft attempt to corner him.. This was an epic showdown, it was David vs. Goliath, and Goliath got spanked yet again..
The Cavuto interview was another smear attempt, one in which FOX propagandists tried to associate Dr. Paul with violent extremism.. Dr. Paul again guides the interview in his own favor, forcing a very perturbed Cavuto to try and try to steer the direction of the interview, only to be foiled again and again by the Master..
Questioning a tough interview would be pointless if the MSM treated all Presidential candidates the same, but they don't.. There is an obvious and underlying bias against anyone opposed to the status quo..
Arguably, Ron Paul's greatest asset is his skill at debating.. He masterfully guides the topic to his own ends, defining and arguing his positions on his terms, not the terms of his adversary.. He always has a retort, and even when caught off guard (as in the Stephanopolous hit piece) he adjusts quickly, artfully resetting the topic to his own advantage..
The MSM hit pieces are backfiring.. Will they take notice? Let's hope not!
The MSM brought out one of their big guns with Stephanopolous.. Stephanopolous -- Genius, Rhodes Scholar, Oxford Graduate, Lawyer, Celebrity, Handsome Man.. He is a complete package, let me affirm.. Yet, the simple Dr. easily riposted Steph's every deft attempt to corner him.. This was an epic showdown, it was David vs. Goliath, and Goliath got spanked yet again..
The Cavuto interview was another smear attempt, one in which FOX propagandists tried to associate Dr. Paul with violent extremism.. Dr. Paul again guides the interview in his own favor, forcing a very perturbed Cavuto to try and try to steer the direction of the interview, only to be foiled again and again by the Master..
Questioning a tough interview would be pointless if the MSM treated all Presidential candidates the same, but they don't.. There is an obvious and underlying bias against anyone opposed to the status quo..
Arguably, Ron Paul's greatest asset is his skill at debating.. He masterfully guides the topic to his own ends, defining and arguing his positions on his terms, not the terms of his adversary.. He always has a retort, and even when caught off guard (as in the Stephanopolous hit piece) he adjusts quickly, artfully resetting the topic to his own advantage..
The MSM hit pieces are backfiring.. Will they take notice? Let's hope not!
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Ron Paul PWNS George Stephanopoulos
Watch Interview Here
It's quite obvious to me this was an attempted hit/smear of Ron Paul, though it was indirect.. Check George's demeanor at the beginning of the interview.. He is smugly confident, arrogant in his belief that he will be able to trick RP into looking like a cad..
As RP eloquently (he is one damn good debater) ripostes George's tough questions (valid questions), you can literally see the agitation on George's face build up.. George, he's a genius (by IQ) BTW, did a fine job of trying to set up RP for embarrassment, especially at the end when he so disrespectfully snubs RP by claiming that RP winning "isn't gonna happen." You can see the shock in RP's face, I don't think he was expecting such a low blow..
The same trick was used on Ross Perot by Al Gore leading up to the 1992 elections.. THAT RP lost his cool and showed a childish, angry personality.. It worked to remove some of his support.. THIS RP brushed it off valiantly.. Good job RP!
Time stamps of relevance in the video:
around 2:30 RP is answering the question of rapid withdrawal from Iraq with such grace and savvy that George can't help but look annoyed.. He's almost grimacing, where's that cocky smile we saw in the beginning of the interview?
around 2:58 we can see George in deep contemplation over his adversaries deft counters.. George is probably thinking, "This SOB isn't going where I am leading him, how do I crack this guy?"
5:26 we see more "deer in headlights" looks from George.. He's not in this interview at all.. Who knows, maybe he just doesn't like RP..
6:05ish we see an extremely handsome and sexy 1987 version of the good Dr. He was, and still is, very good looking.. Oh yeah, there was an interview going on..
6:25 why is George clinching his jaw?
7:39 is the beginning of the infamous "not gonna happen" statement.. George's ego is shining brilliantly at this moment, in full glory of his own magnificence..
7:41 RP is caught off guard
7:42 RP nervously adjusts by asking George to clarify the strength of his assertion
7:47 George sarcastically asserts his omniscience
7:49 RP accepts George's opinion and summarizes with a politically correct version of "Opinions are like @$$holes."
7:57 RP changes the tone to one of confidence and hope
8:02 we get George's final glaze-eye'd stare. Where's the smugness, where's the grin?
In conclusion, I think George's behavior speaks for itself.. He was one way when asking the questions and quite another way when RP was answering them.. I think this has more to do with how RP handled things than anything else.. RP took George's questions and answered them in a way that made it quite clear that RP knows his stuff and is a serious voice of reason.. I think the intentions of the interview backfired.. And for these reasons, my final conclusion is thus: Ron Paul PWND George Stephanopoulos; hard.
It's quite obvious to me this was an attempted hit/smear of Ron Paul, though it was indirect.. Check George's demeanor at the beginning of the interview.. He is smugly confident, arrogant in his belief that he will be able to trick RP into looking like a cad..
As RP eloquently (he is one damn good debater) ripostes George's tough questions (valid questions), you can literally see the agitation on George's face build up.. George, he's a genius (by IQ) BTW, did a fine job of trying to set up RP for embarrassment, especially at the end when he so disrespectfully snubs RP by claiming that RP winning "isn't gonna happen." You can see the shock in RP's face, I don't think he was expecting such a low blow..
The same trick was used on Ross Perot by Al Gore leading up to the 1992 elections.. THAT RP lost his cool and showed a childish, angry personality.. It worked to remove some of his support.. THIS RP brushed it off valiantly.. Good job RP!
Time stamps of relevance in the video:
around 2:30 RP is answering the question of rapid withdrawal from Iraq with such grace and savvy that George can't help but look annoyed.. He's almost grimacing, where's that cocky smile we saw in the beginning of the interview?
around 2:58 we can see George in deep contemplation over his adversaries deft counters.. George is probably thinking, "This SOB isn't going where I am leading him, how do I crack this guy?"
5:26 we see more "deer in headlights" looks from George.. He's not in this interview at all.. Who knows, maybe he just doesn't like RP..
6:05ish we see an extremely handsome and sexy 1987 version of the good Dr. He was, and still is, very good looking.. Oh yeah, there was an interview going on..
6:25 why is George clinching his jaw?
7:39 is the beginning of the infamous "not gonna happen" statement.. George's ego is shining brilliantly at this moment, in full glory of his own magnificence..
7:41 RP is caught off guard
7:42 RP nervously adjusts by asking George to clarify the strength of his assertion
7:47 George sarcastically asserts his omniscience
7:49 RP accepts George's opinion and summarizes with a politically correct version of "Opinions are like @$$holes."
7:57 RP changes the tone to one of confidence and hope
8:02 we get George's final glaze-eye'd stare. Where's the smugness, where's the grin?
In conclusion, I think George's behavior speaks for itself.. He was one way when asking the questions and quite another way when RP was answering them.. I think this has more to do with how RP handled things than anything else.. RP took George's questions and answered them in a way that made it quite clear that RP knows his stuff and is a serious voice of reason.. I think the intentions of the interview backfired.. And for these reasons, my final conclusion is thus: Ron Paul PWND George Stephanopoulos; hard.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Ronald Reagan Knew How To Cut and Run
It was in 1982, under President Ronald Reagan, that a "coalition of the willing" (the MNF - Multinational Force) was sent to Lebanon to quell violence and stabilize the country. About a year later came the infamous Beirut barracks bombing, which killed 241 Americans and 58 French.
The MNF had initially adopted a defensive posture, but the barracks bombing soon changed that. What resulted was a back and forth series of retaliatory strikes, and the MNF soon found itself caught in the middle of a civil war. When the Lebanese government eventually collapsed, chaos engulfed the region and Reagan got the hell out of Dodge (source), in the middle of a civil war he helped create.
Reagan understood the insanity of maintaining an aggressive military force against the "irrationality of Middle Eastern politics." Instead of "staying the course," he decided to "cut and run," and it was the best decision he made during his command of the MNF. Israel didn't get smothered, the Middle East didn't coalesce into the dreaded Ottoman Empire, and America wasn't pummeled with Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Maybe the Republicans could learn a thing or two from the man they love (at least in claim) to emulate and respect. It's doubtful though, because that requires a perusal of history, something the Republicans think is unpatriotic and a threat to national security.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
