Example: Brain Parasites Parasites that turn victims into mindless, zombie-like slaves are fairly common in nature. There's one called toxoplasmosa gondii that seems to devote its entire existence to being terrifying.
This bug infects rats, but can only breed inside the intestines of a cat. The parasite knows it needs to get the rat inside the cat so the parasite takes over the rat's freaking brain, and intentionally makes it scurry toward where the cats hang out. The rat is being programmed to get itself eaten, and it doesn't even know.
Of course, those are just rats, right?
How it can result in zombies?
Hey, did we mention that half the human population on Earth is infected with toxoplasmosa, and don't know it? Hey, maybe you're one of them. Flip a coin.
Take a deep breath. Relax. It's a joke right? Well, take a look around your office. Could some of your co-workers be infected? How would you know? Have some of them been acting stranger than usual? It could even happen to our favorite office co-workers:
Larry Flynt, editor and publisher of Hustler magazine, just told FOX Business Network’s Neil Cavuto that he’s “hoping to expose a bombshell” that will stand “Washington and the country on its head.” Within the next week or two, he says his magazine will expose a sex scandal of huge proportions involving a prominent United States Senator. Flynt refused to comment on the Senator’s political affiliation, but alluded that he or she is a Republican.
Little birdies are telling me that said prominent United States Senator will be none other than Mitch McConnell. Remember, kids: You heard it here first.
Well, I have to say, I'm actually pretty disappointed in Bill O'Reilly. He had an opportunity to turn this interview with Richard Dawkins into one of his classic, ruthlessly entertaining shouting matches, and he instead approached it in a calm, rational manner that can only hurt his ratings. The topic, as it usually is with Dawkins, was God. Is there a higher power? Did he create humanity? Is he, perhaps, a flying collection of noodles and tomato sauce?
Dawkins and O'Reilly both managed to make some good points, although Bill slipped a bit when his argument against the validity of Zeus and Apollo was that he "just saw Apollo, and he's not looking too good." Gosh, I guess Greek gods just aren't built like Greek gods anymore.
This just in from the Department of Redundancy Department: Apparently, Congress is to blame for the whole waterboarding brouhaha. (Only the Democratic Congress, of course - I mean, come on, we all know that blame depends entirely upon which party you belong to.) See, the federal government is confused about how to handle waterboarding because Congress hasn't specifically said that we can't do it - so say Michael Reagan and Pat Buchanan, who apparently haven't heard of that whole "cruel and unusual" thing.
Why is that redundant? Because Congress already tried to do that, only to be blown off by the White House. After the passing of a bill intended to ensure that detainees would at least receive the same treatment as, say, convicted murderers, President Bush whipped out one of his All-Powerful Signing Statements in order to declare that he could ignore any restrictions on torture when doing so would "assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
Lovely. Honestly, why bother even having a legislative branch anymore? I'm sure the Founding Fathers would agree that checks and balances were, like, so two centuries ago. Let's just text in votes for an all-powerful Decider in 2008, and tell Congress to come back when it can get answers out of terrorists in five screams or less.
Fair and Balanced... For the Candidates We Like Posted by Joe T. October 30 at 5:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
As the Ron Paul phenomenon gains momentum among Nigerians everywhere, there have been a few complaints about the coverage he gets in the mainstream media. The majority of these complaints have been lodged against Fox News, which is about as surprising as a blonde lingerie model managing to screw up a suicide attempt. (Important questions: How is that even possible? Is any stereotype as unprotected by political correctness as blondeness? Was that story referenced for the sole purpose of linking to a very large and very scantily-clad picture of said lingerie model?)
Some people, frequently referred to by on-air talking heads as "Internet lunatics" and similar derogatory e-labels, believe that Paul's anti-establishment message annoys Republican leadership enough for them to actively pull the strings that will keep television coverage of the Texas Congressman twisted and minimalized. They seem to have a case - but, given what could at least be described as moderate levels of success by the Paul campaign, the motive for any underhanded reporting becomes a bit less clear. Is Ron Paul simply a nuisance? Or might Republican leadership be worried that a large chunk of its base could be attracted to Paul's decidedly different brand of politics?
The magical world of the Internets makes this sort of analysis much more interesting, because not only do sites like YouTube allow for inspection of every second of Fox News' broadcasts (and who doesn't want to spend hour upon hour looking at the masterpiece of human genetics that is Neil Cavuto?), but they can also spread moments that were never intended to be recorded - such as this discussion amongst Fox producers that Paul's supporters claim proves bias against treating his candidacy with any sort of legitimacy. Is it enough? Or might the reason behind the subtitled comments be much more mundane? We report, you decide.
The authoritarianism in Russia and the populist demagoguery in Venezuela are both products of the very elections Kagan boosts. The fact is that liberalism has a small constituency in both countries (outside of a very few western European, Anglophone and North American countries, this has often been the case), and when put before the electorates of Russia and Venezuela liberalism fares very poorly. Some of this has to do with the fact that relatively liberal politics was associated with the wealthy elite and tycoons, and the effects of policies carried out in the name of liberalism were generally poor or even disastrous for the people who now back authoritarian populist leaders. There will be objections that Russian elections in particular are not fully “free and fair,” but against this I would note that even with fully free and fair elections the overwhelming majority would still want nothing to do with the Russian liberals. This is hardly surprising: in mass democracy, the politics of liberty tends to lose and lose badly, while one form of demagoguery or another (be it nationalist or revolutionary socialist) usually prevails.
Under those circumstances, a people with a recent memory of a Soviet Republic would likely know the drill. Mutter under your breath, but don't get dead. Right, Anastasia?
"New Book by Media Analyst Brent Bozell Shows How Journalists Refuse to Investigate Serious Charges or Report Clinton Scandals"
Okay kids. Sit down. Take out your notepads. We're going to have a little lesson on how to write a press release title. We're not even going to go further than the title. It would take too long and it's almost happy hour.
Rule #1: Make it interesting. The first interesting phrase in the release is "investigate serious charges." But it's almost at the end. Speaking of which...
Rule #2: Titles should be short. Not long. And definitely not crazy media-conspiracy-theory long like this one. If you're an organization that's into the crazy media conspiracy theories, you can look way more sane by following the "Brevity is the Soul of Wit" rule. It goes as follows: "Brief."
Rule #3: Make it timely (the "new book" angle isn't enough). I want to know why I need to go to Brent Bozell to get all of my Hillary-Gets-Off-Easy news. What is something she JUST DID that she got away with?
Rule #4: New book? Or new study? Because journalists love studies. They get goosebumps just thinking about them. You could write a study showing that the Jews really did make up the Holocaust, and I assure you, reporters will just wave you through, balancing the report by calling it a "controversial study." They can quote all the outraged people they want, they're still publicizing your work, and isn't that what P.R. is all about?
Anyway. I'm not impressed by the press release because I really want this point to go far and wide:
"The national media have flagrantly abandoned their duty as independent and dispassionate journalists," write Bozell and co-author Tim Graham. "When Republicans are investigated by the media, it is done with such tenacity it usually leads to a humiliating resignation or electoral defeat. When there is a hint of impropriety by the Clintons, the media react quite differently."
Partisan cult-of-victimization lines aside, the point stands that the only serious reporting being done on Hillary has been on her laugh, but not very much has been said of her ties with criminal donors. Which, surely, is just the recent news hook Brent Bozell can use to lob his book into the hyperactive media bloodstream.
...Or not:
a) By ignoring the allegation, as NPR and PBS did for 500 days after Whitewater broke,
b) By turning the story into an investigation of the Clinton's accusers, which Mrs. Clinton usually claims to be conservative Republicans, or a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,"
c) With little investigation, the issue is not resolved,
d) The public grows weary of it and no longer cares about the end result.
Wait. Whitewater? That was years ago. And yes, it's an example of how no one cares about something because it was underreported, but again. It was years ago. And no one cares! As far as voters are concerned, it's a little like World War I. It was something important but not as important as the thing that happened after it, but it was kinda confusing, and I think I hear the phone ringing. Heck, why not mention the fact that little scrutiny has been applied to her taking advice from fmr. National Security Advisor and Thief ExtraordinareSandy Berger?
It is a big help to the Hillary campaign that she's scrutinized on things that have nothing to do with policy. But that is, in many ways, the fault of Republicans who thought that demonizing her personality would prevent her from moving forward. It's about time they started raising questions about policy and focused on how similar Hillary is to Edwards. Otherwise, they'll have to sit through more rounds of nonsense like useless comparisons between Hillary and the new Presidette of Argentina.
Voter turnout is abysmal in the free world. So P.J. O'Rourke will forgive me for quoting at length from a recent article of his in The Atlantic that addresses that very issue. I may be teetering on the razor's edge of a copyright violation, but I'm only performing a civic duty. So if posting this is wrong, then I don't wanna be right. ...do you know what causes low voter turnout in America? It’s the result of having the fate of our nation at stake. This began with the bitter presidential election of 1828, which pitted the education, cultivation, and puritan constraint of John Quincy Adams against the yahoo populism of Andrew Jackson, thereby deciding permanently whether America would become a shining city upon a hill or an overlighted strip mall along a highway. Voter turnout that year was 55.2 percent. A dozen years later, a small and unctuous incumbent, Martin Van Buren, the first professional politician to occupy the White House, ran against the vacuous William Henry Harrison, who would die from the pneumonia he contracted by giving an overlong inauguration speech in the freezing rain. Harrison’s platform consisted entirely of the slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.” Van Buren’s platform was even less substantive. There were no issues of note. And voter turnout was 77.5 percent.
In 1860, when a vote for or against Abraham Lincoln meant deciding whether to fight a civil war, 72.1 percent of eligible voters went to the polls. In 1876, when a vote for or against Rutherford B. Hayes meant bubkes, 82.9 percent of eligible voters showed up.
In 1932, with Republicans and Democrats offering radically different political and economic responses to the Great Depression, voter turnout was 56.8 percent. In 1940, with the reelection of FDR a foregone conclusion, turnout was 62.9 percent.
Another way to guarantee that a lower percentage of eligible voters will exercise the right to their franchise is to guarantee their franchise rights. Voter turnout in the presidential election of 1916 was 61.9 percent. Then, in 1920, the 19th Amendment was ratified, giving the vote to women. Voter turnout in that year’s presidential election was 49.2 percent. The Voting Rights Act, ensuring access to the polls for blacks, was passed in 1965. Voter turnout went from 63.3 percent in 1964 to 62.5 percent in 1968. And after the voting age was lowered to 18, in 1971, voter turnout took a further dip, to 56.4 percent in the 1972 presidential election.
Extrapolating from the trend lines evident in Historical Statistics, we see that if one of the 2008 presidential candidates is a vicious moron (entirely possible) and the other is a beneficent genius (not as likely), and all life on Earth is threatened because al-Qaeda has discovered a way to poke every American with a sharp object simultaneously (could happen), and we extend the franchise to absolutely everyone, including preschoolers, citizens of the EU, illegal aliens, space aliens, and household pets (probably resulting in a better-informed electorate), we could achieve a voter turnout of zero.
... Think you could check him out? I don't know him, or anything. He likes to collect butterflies, read radical texts and blow people up. A friend of a friend, really. Hope that narrows things down a bit: "A friend of a friend of mine is a member of al Qaeda involved in a bombing in Bali," [Japan's justice minister Kumio] Hatoyama said, adding the alleged member of the terrorist network had gone in and out of Japan a number of times two or three years ago.
Later on Monday, Hatoyama held another news conference and tried to clarify his comments, saying, "I am not a friend of the terrorist and I do not know him personally."
According to Hatoyama, he does know a man in a butterfly collectors group he belongs to who said he received a message from a man believed to be involved with a terrorist organization.
