Bill "Sore Loser" O'Reilly: I Won the Rumble!

At least, in his mind he did.

Bill O'Reilly is, as expected, not owning up to how much devastation he incurred by the likes of Jon Stewart, especially when he called him 'The Mayor of Bullshit Mountain'. As you watch the video (provided below), you almost wonder what was going through the old man's mind at that point. You could tell that he wanted to retort, but he just couldn't. Yet it wasn't at the debate where he'd attack Stewart with any measure of effectiveness.

Later, nestled in his safe zone in the 'no spin zone', O'Reilly post-humously claimed victory over Stewart by, shocker alert, taking him out of context. Here's the piece where O'Reilly performs his usual tactic on his merciless opponent:

If you saw Jon Stewart and me Saturday night, you may have noticed there was a very important theme among all the chaos. Stewart, an honest and smart liberal, supports a 'nanny state' where everyone is provided basic life necessities and economic outcomes are guaranteed.

I disagree, not because of the intent, but simply because it's impossible. The Constitution provides Americans protection so they can pursue happiness, but the Founding Fathers did not guarantee happiness or material well-being, and if you try to do that you will bankrupt the nation.

Stewart and I previewed what we'll all be voting on - do you want a nanny state or do you want a self-reliant nation? That's what's at stake in this election. The left-wing press is not going to tell you that; it portrays President Obama as a moderate. And the right-wing media says he's a socialist, maybe even a communist, bent on destroying traditional America. But Stewart and I pinpointed the real situation: nanny state vs. self-reliance.

Polls show the country is deadlocked, but I find it very hard to believe that 50% of us want to be Western Europe. What do you think Europeans are rioting about? They're angry that governments are cutting back on entitlements. This is what the nanny state mentality leads to - give me free stuff or I will hurt you. Jon Stewart doesn't believe that, but it is absolutely true. So I hope you will watch our debate, which is available at TheRumble2012.com.
 

Thanks Steve of oreilly-sucks.com for the quote above.

See how pathetic he has to be to claim victory over Stewart? Of course, he didn't bring his opponent on to discuss the results, or talk about their respective talking points. O'Reilly also assumes of his audience that no one actually bothered to watch The Rumble. One couldn't blame potential audience members from not actually watching the event, because it required paying a fee to do so. Exploitative as he always is, O'Reilly took advantage of this obscure tidbit, and of his audience, and spun the debate as ending in his favor. After all, no one likes 'the nanny state'.
 
Watch the embedded video below and you can judge for yourself as to whether O'Reilly ideologically "beat" Stewart in The Rumble, or whether Stewart argued for a nanny state government that wants its citizens to be dependent on The Man.

Greenpeace is right, Globe and Mail; you're not

The article in question, authored by Margaret Wente: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/greenpeaces-golden-rice-stand-should-appall-us-all/article4541042/

This is a response that I made in the comments section for that article. I am aware that it is categorized as "commentary", but that doesn't diminish the necessity to put this shill, which she seems adamant to paint herself as, in her place on this issue. The issue is GM crops, in the end, but it is specifically about the fledgling "golden rice" that is apparently being manufactured, and thus sold (and therein comes the downsides) to curb the advent of Vitamin A Deficiency (or "VAD"). With my ever-growing knowledge of the dark side of the GMO market, I can only sense negative implications with this crop, amongst the many genetically-modified crops already present (such as virtually all corn you'll buy anymore, as well as nectarines & tomatoes). What's worse is that you can't escape from GM crops, as they are taking more hold on the agriculture industry than otherwise, and Monsanto owns over 90% of the shares of said market.

Without much further ado, I'll present to you the comment that I authored on that page. It had a maximum character count, but it was surprisingly enough to write what I wanted to. I've added a bit more "exclusively" for this post. Just a quick note: it appears that the overwhelming majority of comments get down-voted, thus hinting at a frightfully unattractive community of nitwits.

---

How much were you paid to outright promote GM crops, Mrs. Wente? Your credibility went right out the window when you said that GM crops improve health, which they don't. I'm referring to the following paragraph, completely un-edited so as to not manipulate any information for readers:

Genetically engineered crops do far more than improve people’s health. They can dramatically boost yields in places such as Africa. They are the key to feeding the world’s exploding population. But GM opponents have been tragically successful in stalling the spread of modified crops to the people most in need of it. In China, where people are already terrified about food safety because of major scandals over tainted milk powder, GM crops are generally shunned.

 

Previously, you decried Greenpeace's skepticism in the risks and implications that are not-yet-known, but at the same time quite possible, with the consumption of this new "golden rice." Keep in mind Mrs. Wente that these are genetically modified crops, and given how it appears that every GM crop causes implications in health and even in economics & biodiversity (after all, GM crops negatively impact natural crops), you made yourself appear quite one-sided. Here is the excerpt where you fail to defend your claims with a source while attacking Greenpeace's necessary skepticism:

 

The last thing Greenpeace wants is for Golden Rice to be effective. It insists that the rice poses all kinds of environmental and health risks, even though repeated risk assessments by leading scientific bodies have found no such risks. In fact, according to scientists at the University of California, GM rice reduces pesticide use and improves farmers’ health.
 

Oh, brother. In regards to the last sentence, do you have a study to back up your counter-claim? You should, as a "journalist", provide any and all information to such studies, via sourcing. Let's also not forget how aggressive Monsanto gets with this method of stifling opposition to the ever-growing GM crop market. They pay many "study groups" to produce results that coincide with Monsanto's wishes. They really are that scared of groups like Greenpeace, who help keep people aware of the industry's malpractices. 

 

You're also ignoring the economic implications that GM crops will bring about. I know that the inventor of the GM crop had good intentions with the idea, but that idea has become a ploy to gain a monopoly over what is inarguably the most important industry on earth; agriculture. Monsanto is notable in their quest to dominate the agriculture business by:
 

1) Owning all parties involved in the agriculture industry with their patents and corporate takeovers.
 

-and-
 

2) Using patents to eliminate competition, and the products that they manufacture in greater amounts to destroy any chance of would-be competitors gaining any ground (high costs of seeds, eliminator genes in said seeds which prevents sustained re-growth, buying pathetically weak politicians who implement loopholes and laws to protect Monsanto's interests, etc.).

 

Another economic hurdle will be in how much money is spent on these crops. Millions will be spent on producing this product, but read on further. Greenpeace is right when they note how it is not yet known what side-effects of consuming this rice will bring about. You can ignore it all you want in favor of "feeding the poor", but if it has impacts on health, then it'll do more harm than good in the long run. So to invest in this new product which only addresses VAD, while at the same time there are proven healthy methods of addressing VAD as well as other nutritional concerns such as supplements, proves how short-sighted you are, Mrs. Wente.
 

Shame on this Roger Cooper (a user who wrote a comment on this article previously) for exploiting the sad fact that millions of people around the world are malnourished and starving, while ignoring the sad fact that the parties involved in the sale of GM crops are only in it for the money and nothing more. Only bad things can come of that, especially if this product gains a foothold in its market and gives the producers an excuse to increase their stranglehold on said market.
 

I feel pity for those who fall to the temptation of money, and let it blind them, or allows them to demonstrably deceive those who seek information on the issues that really affect us, like the things we eat to survive. After all, Monsanto doesn't give a spit if you are a healthy individual, just as long as you depend on their often poisonous, artificial "food" products. Politicians routinely display their cowardice, their weakness in resisting the temptation of money to keep them in power, and Monsanto & its few competitors easily stifle progress in the industry this way. It's one of the many reasons why I think all politicians should be fired and lose all their money.

I understand the need to feed as many people as possible, but this actually proves to be a double-edged sword; it is causing the hopeful in these decidedly third-world nations to have to depend on Monsanto more and more, paying more and more money because of the dreaded eliminator seeds. It's also a burden against people who still luckily possess natural, or semi-natural crop seeds because should Monsanto be made aware of any growth they feel would impede on their control of the world's agriculture markets, they'll do what they can to stifle the growth, or sue those in question, or take over their resources, or easily do all three.

Margaret Wente should be ashamed for this shilling, but I doubt she is. She gets paid for it, so why should she be? Money brings down many an otherwise respectable individual, and she appears to be no exception. If anything, I wish for her sake that she didn't stupidly destroy any semblance of credibility she had with the paragraph (which I quoted, and that's the first one I quoted in this post) where she didn't hold back in defending the GM market. You might as well be a spy stating outright to his/her targets that you're spying on them with this gaffe. It didn't bolster her argument one iota, and only proved Greenpeace's point.

With that said, good job, Wente?

Malicious Smile

The new single from Converge's upcoming album "All That We Love We Leave Behind", the song "Aimless Arrow", is the inspiration for this piece. I don't know the lyrics at all, and I don't think anyone knows, but the sound & the feel of the song were enough to inspire me.

---

My back is against the wall, but you wanted it this way.
What you felt for me is now gone; I can see it in your face.
From where did the memories come, when we'd go the extra mile.
A time when I'd beg to god, before his malicious smile.
The burden replaced our hearts; anger was the killing blow.
We could've sought a fresh start, but time sank our souls too low.
The end began too soon.
The end came too swift.

Walt is toppling the mountain - Review for Breaking Bad, episode "Say My Name"

This episode was fairly slow throughout. Very little intensity occured when compared to some of the earlier episodes in the season, but that's only if you take it at face value. Walt continues to devolve into something monstrous, selfish, and most damneding of them all perhaps, confident. This episode is centered almost entirely around Walt's pride (indeed, take note of the title of the episode), which has been the focal point of the season in general, but so far this is the episode in which that story element takes the front seat all the way through., relentless & defiant of all that stands before it. 

This episode may also be the end of the Fring investigation on part of the DEA, but you'll have to read further into my review to understand why. The final episode of this half of Breaking Bad may also mark the eve of the coming conflict, which seems inevitable, between Hank & Walt/Heisenberg, de-facto, man'o-a-man'o. Hank has even been usurped officially by his superiors in the DEA, specifically in the case against Gus Fring's right-hand man, Mike, but Hank will no doubt find his attention turned towards the ever present "blue sky" that Walt produces, right under Hank's nose no less. The vestigial remains of Gus' empire are coming to a heed in a big way, and as always it seems, Walt has something to do with it.

Mike has let a little something slip so far, and that something gets picked up on, big-time, by the DEA. They're hot on his heels with warrants for his arrest, and while he's a very resourceful fellow who has dealt with perhaps worse scenarios before, this occasion will be the end of him in some way or another. His part of the deal with Walt is all that he's vested in now, but that also carries a price. Just when it seemed he was getting out for good, to be a grandfather for good, and to get away from the life that could have seen him dead many times over, Walt decides that he won't let Mike leave on his terms. Just before the episode closes, tinged with a tugging sense of tragedy, Mike, sitting absolutely still and shocked, the last of his blood leaving his body, falls dead.

It wasn't a heart attack that did him. It wasn't ricin that did him. It wasn't even a hit-man or a DEA shootout that did him...

It was Walt, fueled by his craving for further power, who took his life. It was all for the money that he felt was entirely his. It was the Olympic-summit of pride that drove him to make this the old man's last day alive. Some could say it was all coming anyway; after all, Mike has almost killed Walt several times in the recent past, and Walt doesn't let things like that slide as everyone knows. However, did it have to be out of his boundless pride? Could Walt be any less noble and any more morally bankrupt?

Now that just leaves Jesse, and then Hank, and then...Skyler, for Walt to deal with. What further damage he'll do to carve his niche as the great and powerful Heinsenberg, is anyone's guess. After all, the Walt that everyone wanted to love is gone. Just know that crap is going to hit the fan, and it won't be pretty

A Canadian, proudly endorsing:

Humanity is grey

There's a clique of mostly unintuitive folks polluting the internet, and even beyond, who deem intelligence as the ultimate test of a person's worth. These same people often wax misanthropic, or at least border on it, by claiming that the majority of humanity is stupid and needs to go. Hell, even I have had this feeling here and there so I couldn't exactly wash my hands of this.

I do feel an ounce of shame for it, though.

What prompted me to drop my two cents on this subject? Why, the following video of course:

Before I tear into "TJ" here with my frustrations over this overrated wave of misanthropic pessimism, I'm going to summarize him.

I'm a Youtube user and I am subscribed to his channel. He's been around since 2006, about as long as I have. The guy found an audience amongst those interested in, fledgling, or those who hold the sigil of atheism. He's evolved into a fat (noticeably less-so over time due to short-lived weight loss), almost witless rip-off of George Carlin since then and one could never describe his delivery as consistent if they would want to maintain an ounce of dignity. He sometimes pumps out something entertaining, such as his film reviews or where he addresses people directly usually to argue against them, but when he does something like the embedded video above, that's where he dives right into the abyss of pretention.

 

 

Plus, given its premise and what he says, and with a good look at what this guy pulls off with his off-Youtube activities (it's always good to question its veracity, but there is some truth to be found on his Encyclopedia Dramatica article), he really shouldn't throw stones in the glass house he calls home.

 

 

When TJ talks about humanity, he often broadly underhands us as unintelligent, uninteresting nitwits who are just sheeple trudging along for comfort sake. It's as if intelligence is the penultimate measure of anybody's worth or character to people like this conniving motherfucker. Are people like him missing the fucking point? Do they not realize that some of the most heinous people to ever walk the earth were also some of the most intelligent? Do they also conveniently leave out the acts of altruism that people carry out, such as food banks, animal rehabilitation centers, and other usually volunteer organizations that help less empowered in the world? It is one of the things that goes to show that no matter how intelligent you are, if your principles, or lack thereof make you a reprehensible piecce of shit, then your intelligence means nothing to someone like me. To someone like the asshole in the video above, all you need is to be intelligent!

 

 

What is a measure of intelligence, anyway? No one is a jack of all trades, and that applies for even the smartest of folks. A person who may come across, at face value, as a slack-jawed yokel may be quite proficient in repairing downed vehicles. Whereas a person is an experimental physics prodigy, he or she may be out of their element as per the intricate mating patterns of the Portuguese Man 'o War. Is anybody who thinks that the average man or woman is a bumbling idiot who follows the herd, any one of these arrogant assholes starting to see just how much grey there is to humanity?

I think the best way to judge anybody is their strength of character. It's a far more admirable quality to have than just being a smart cracker who can invent a new slice of bread or, as for what happens with many scientific breakthroughs, voluntarily or involutarily strengthens the military-industrial complex in some way. I'm sure if Einstein were alive today, he'd feel immense shame at what some of his inventions were used for. After all, he is one of the brains behind the nuclear missile. But how many oh so intelligent scientists are remorseful knowing that their work is being used to take lives around the world? Keep "strength of character" in mind, think of the potential number of Mensa society members contributing to death & destruction, and then talk to me.

TJ, on the other hand, is anything but as intelligent as he seems to champion in his videos and some of his writings. The guy is really no different from the average man. He's obsessed with the size of his dick, he bumbles at more than half of anything he does (see: 'Freespeech videos' for an embarassing example) , and he is lazy. The guy can't lay claim to much by way of strength of character because of his conning his Youtube audience through e-begging campaigns. The guy once said, "you motherfuckers owe me" in an e-begging video where he was desperate to do the nasty with a fat chick. That is called SELF-ENTITLEMENT folks. He also once gave a lame excuse as for refusing to get a job like any self-respecting asshole (hint: he doesn't really have any) - he doesn't want to work for a giant corporation! To that I say this:

You, Mr. Contradiction Synonymous, "work" for a giant corporation with your moderate Youtube audience & success, and you directly benefit them through monetization. That company is called Google, in case you forgot, and you contribute to their continued rise to be one of the most powerful IT companies on the planet every time you post a video. And for more than a year now, you've actually made a few videos in which you blatantly advertised for numerous products. Your latest baffling piece of advertising crap was for an NCAA videogame by Electronic Arts. This isn't the only time you contradicted yourself, but boy, any time you talk about how giant corporations are shit (I do agree on this to some extent, but I'm more realistic about it than you are), you should simply keep your mouth shut if you want to maintain any dignity whatsoever.

Compared to him, here's my checklist:

• I actually want to work, namely in the IT and Film industries.
• I have an independent spirit and I'm more likely to gift someone else than to even ask for anything.
• I don't care for cliques whatsoever.
• I'm not self-entitled.
• I don't con people out of their money with false advertising or guilt-trips, let alone flat-out incompetence in living up to my end of the bargain.
• I'm not fat.
• I don't envy people for their success; I only think about mine.

Although I have to give him kudos for intending to vote for Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party for U.S. President this year..

Misunderstanding The Occupy Movement; Now in Film Reviews!

Tom Charity, of CNN.com, wrote a review for Christopher Nolan's closing chapter in the current Batman film series, The Dark Knight Rises. In summary, it's a negative review, taking shots at political subtexts in the film. That's not a big deal, for not all moviegoers will get the same reaction. No, the problem lies in a sentence from the review in question.

To quote Charity directly, here's an argument he used to lambast the film:

She's no Joker (who is?), but Hathaway's slinky, light-fingered, high-kicking thief is the film's best idea of fun, even if she's also weighed down with the Nolan brothers' irrepressible urge to smuggle topical, half-baked Occupy sermons into the script (as others have noted, the movie's defense of the establishment in the form of philanthropic billionaires and an incorruptible police force gives it a conservative gloss and makes you wonder what on earth Nolan saw in the two films he's cited as inspirations, "The Battle of Algiers" and "Prince of the City").

Notice the text underlined and in bold. Now, if you are worth a salt at all in terms of the Occupy movement, at least in what you know about it, then considering the context of the entire paragraph, Charity displays ignorance of this movement that should have dissipated by now, almost a year into the movement notwithstanding. I'm irked by statements of this caliber, especially when they're used to down-rate a film.

A problem I have with the film review, other than the reporter's flagrant ignorance of what the Occupy Wall Street, is the fixation on the thematic elements of The Dark Knight Rises. He neglects to mention anything technical, or the plot at face value. There's no mention on the soundtrack, either, which is in some ways more bombastic than the predecessors.

Plus, it is so brief, without actually listing an effective number of arguments against it for him to call it "Nolan's biggest and worst movie to date." Really, Charity? Talk about exaggeration! Oh, isn't that one of the usual suspects in why the mainstream media (CNN, Fox, (MS)NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.) is steadily losing credibility among the masses? And then, given how much information you are capable of extracting thanks to the corporate bosses you work for, you barely use anything to substantiate your arguments.

Mr. Charity, please, don't write reviews until you can actually point out strengths & flaws readily. I know you make a few legitimate jabs in a few places, but that's far too little for an article that, in spite of it being an opinion piece (and not truly factual, because not all viewers will get the same reaction or pick up the same things), really does influence the experience for other potential viewers of the film. And working for CNN, you'd think, given your larger audience, you'd try to give them reason to take your platform seriously. But you pretty much failed to do so on your part. Better luck next time, I guess.

---

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/showbiz/movies/dark-knight-rises-review-charity/index.html