I love Texans...and Zombies

via Metafilter

Nick Muntean, a University of Texas student, organized 15 random actors to act as zombies as they lurched towards the American Idol auditions, warning the already rejected-hopefuls outside that, "Television rots your braaaaaaains!"

In perfect irony, one American-Idol wannabe, Jacob Gandia remarked, "I don't get it."

Unfortunately, the producers had discovered the call for zombies on Craigslist, so they were all ready waiting for the zombie invasion. Eventually, they convinced all of them to sign release forms so Fox could broadcast their images on American Idol.

Sigh. Even brain-eating zombies get co-opted by Fox...American Idol no less!

New Orleans is sinking man and I don't wanna swim...

that, and probably because I wouldn't be able to if I was there when Hurricane Katrina makes landfall. I hope that damage will be minimal and casualties none or few, but being a Category 5 (which is the most powerful, and only 3 or 4 have ever been recorded) and all, the Southern US coast won't be a pretty sight afterwards. No joke, this storm's got everyone pissing their pants.

Nature sure can get angry when it wants to...

A valiant effort, Jon. But alas.

Tonight's Daily Show was a good reminder why Jon Stewart is just a comedian, as much as people would want him to be otherwise.

A comparison. His guest last night was Senator Trent Lott, who'd published his memoirs, "Herding Cats." the entire interview was light (but not silly) as Stewart and the former majority leader traded barbs (particularly about Lott's remarks at Strom Thurmond's birthday) and discussed the book. A wholly enjoyable segment.

Tonight's guest, however, was Christopher Hitchens, out promoting his book, "Thomas Jefferson: Author of America" With a understandably huge interest in the Iraq war, Jon had someone on who had an understanding of the geopolitical issues surrounding the war and thus had an the opportunity to ask Hitchens why if there were other countries that were perhaps a greater threat to the US (Iran, North Korea), why they went into Iraq instead.

The first point they discussed was some Bushisms, particularly the "We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." Hitchens argued it was bullshit, as the global war on terror is either everywhere or nowhere--there can't be a 'there' and a 'here.'

While I agree with that, I wonder if it's possible that the disconnect exists because somehow Bush thinks that the US is somehow should be above the fray, so that while the war on terror is fought 'down there' in the world so that it's not fought 'up here' in the US? Or is it merely a statement that logically isn't true, as Hitchens argues?

Next, Hitchens said that countries had signed a convention (couldn't make out which one...anyone out there that can help?) stating if any of 4 principles were broken, a country's sovereignty was forfeit. Since Iraq broke these four principles, it's sovereignty was forfeit. Therefore, Bush was merely upholding that convention by following US policy, as passed in the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act...

But if you read the act, you'll find this statement: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." (bold emphasis mine). It is NOT US policy to be the effort to overthrow the regime. Regardless of other arguments about the war, this one by Hitchens isn't true.

Hitchens also stated that Bush was correcting Pres. G. H. W. Bush's mistake of letting Saddam Hussein continue to run Iraq.

My question about this argument is, regardless of whether it was a mistake on the Senior Bush's part (it was), were there other MORE immediate threats to the US besides Iraq that would've warranted action in 2002-3?

For the first time since I've started watching the Daily Show, it wasn't a comedic interview as Jon turned it into a really serious debate. And while he's a smart guy, Jon couldn't give us any good responses to Hitchen's arguments. They were few and it seemed that at times he fell back on HIS talking points about wanting the war to be accountable (which it should always be) and be run competently (is it?) or making jokes to try to fall back on what the interview should've been like. Hitchens definitely sensed that the crowd wasn't going to be on his side (as he snidely remarked about the lack of applause on anything he said...). Maybe it was the lack of time that didn't allow Hitchens and Stewart to flesh out their one-on-one, but Stewart definitely seemed to be on the defensive for most of it as Hitchens through strike after strike.

In my opinion, Jon Stewart doesn't have the knowledge to have a serious debate with a guy like Hitchens. BUT, he would definitely make a good moderator on a debate program, kind of like Crossfire, but good. Imagine though, A one-hour debate show, with Jon Stewart as the moderator and host, Christopher Hitchens as one guest, Fareed Zakaria as the other.

Now THAT would be a show I'd tune in to...even if it was on CNN.

Update 2:16 AM: corrected the title of Hitchen's book.

Nothing, just look at the picture...

Courtesy of these guys...

First Hello Kitty...now THIS!

Good Idea: Getting kids to eat healthier.

Bad Idea: Getting kids drinking beer...

...well, not quite. My friend Erica pointed me towards this bizarre story. Apparently, there's a company in Japan that markets a non-alcoholic drink called "Kidsbeer" (I can't make this shit up). It's a guarana-based drink (so think Molson Kick but without the alcohol) and comes in the same brown bottles as regular beer. The best part, however, are the quotes that the president of Kidsbeer gives,

"Children copy and mimic adults...If you get this drink ready on such occasions as events and celebrations attended by kids, it would make the occasions even more entertaining." (Because, You obviously can't have fun without drinking beer...)

and the product's slogan,

"Even kids cannot stand life unless they have a drink"
(Are kids' lives that miserable in Japan???)

This is definitely one product that goes in the "What the world could do without" pile.

Oh Ezra, why you gotta be like Godzilla?

So this was supposed to be an early night for me until I came across this piece by Ezra Levant. Let the dissecting begin:

"Don't believe what the Alberta-bashers tell you."

I'm really sick and tired of this everyone against Alberta mentality. Can we (that's all of Canada, just in case anyone's wondering) all please grow up and start acting like mature adults?

"Oh, sure, crude oil hasn't been $65/barrel before. But that's not because oil is more expensive than ever. It's because inflation has eroded the value of the dollar."

I'm not an economist nor have I followed gas prices, but it sounds reasonable.

"Of course, nobody talks this way about other items that we have to buy -- like, say, automobiles. The average auto in North America is 62% more expensive today than it was in 1980, in real dollars. But cars are made in Ontario and Quebec. Oil is drilled in Alberta. It's easy and fun to pick on Alberta for its oil wealth. (Want proof? Canada's auto industry negotiated an exemption from the Kyoto Protocol. No fanfare, just a quiet side deal. Alberta's oil remains in the Kyoto bulls-eye.)"

It's not that we're purposefully avoiding the discussion about automobile prices or other petroleum-based product, it's just that we're a little slow. Sorry, our bad.

And again, who's picking on Alberta? This isn't a schoolyard! Anyone who thinks Alberta controls world oil prices and thus screwing them of their money are idiots. I frankly wouldn't want the auto industry to get that exemption and instead be forced to raise fuel efficiency standards, but my government dropped the ball on that one.

Oil companies are demonized as large, impersonal, profiteering organizations rigging prices.

Mr. Levant should know that EVERY large corporation is demonized as such. Stop singling out Oil Patch. You're biased against the rest of the corporations in Canada!

"Most reporters have an anti-business bias to begin with. Add in oil and you tap into their environmentalist biases, too."

Most reporters also work in a 'business.' I guess they're biased against themselves. Damn self-hatin' reporters.

I also didn't know that not liking pollution was a bias. I guess I'm biased against pollution.

"There are some notable voices -- Gwyn Morgan of EnCana and James Buckee of Talisman are examples of oilmen with the courage to challenge the economics and science of Kyoto."

Here's what I pulled off of EnCana (bottom of the page, "the Voluntary Challenge and Registry Inc.") and Talisman's (2004 Corporate Responsibility Report, section titled "Kyoto Protocol") website. Granted, EnCana's more vague on what they're doing about climate change, but they acknowledge it while Talisman has a full section on working on the Kyoto Protocol. Either Morgan and Buckee are saying one thing but doing another (which is which is the reader's guess) or Mr. Levant's behind in the news...

Take out the inflammatory rhetoric about Canada against Alberta, the Feds against Alberta, the auto industry against Alberta, the media against Alberta and Godzilla against Alberta (Alberta just can't get any breaks, apparently), and what you have is, well, 3 paragraphs arguing that oil prices aren't that high but everything else has become more expensive, so suck it up. Which is pretty reasonable. It's too bad it got buried by the other nonsense. It's just frustrating when pundits from one side or the other accuse their opposites of being inflammatory. The hypocrisy is just so blatant, kinda like the people in the Godzilla costumes. Now if only we can all stop fighting imaginary battles and get on with governing the country.

On a related note, I don't want people to think I'm just picking on the conservative pundits. They just tend to be the loudest and get noticed more often. If I find a liberal pundit saying stupid things, I will go to town on it.

Thoughts for the evening

Watching the Daily Show I wondered, "Does Pat Robertson or anyone else for that matter realize how ridiculous he (Robertson) looks praying to GOD to open up more US Supreme Court vacancies, besides the fact that he's doing it on television?"

And reading CalgaryGrit, I'm surprised by the knee-jerk reactions that some conservative commenters have towards any responses from anyone from Ontario. I mean, I wouldn't be the first to say that there are dingbats (and I use the term in the most lovingly way, of course) on all sides of the political spectrum who couldn't argue themselves out of a paperbag and only know to spew vitriol at each other.

But when someone like James Bow (and there were others) tries to have a reasoned debate about the the NEP (which I know is a source of resentment by people from western provinces) and all we get are comments like,

"Alberta was going into a recession anyways so it was ok to steal 80 billion dollars from them" (as if it's some ongoing conspiracy hatched up by Trudeau to screw each and every Albertan personally...)

and,

"nice attempt at revising history. Where do you live now? Oh, yea it's Toronto" (because where you live automatically invalidates your opinion, right? Isn't that what SOME people, whom I shall not name, accuse left-wing commenters of doing? Congratulations, you've won a free pass to Hypocrisyville!)

it's little wonder why no one takes you seriously...because no one should. In any case, I don't know anything about the NEP and I would LOVE it if some conservative commenter can just go onto CalgaryGrit and debate with James Bow and all the others in a civilized manner so that maybe, just maybe, I'll learn something new about our national history.

Michaelle Jean, Governor General of Canada

I should be reading Robert Wright's A Short History Of Progress; instead, I'm blogging about the comments made in a Globe and Mail forum about PM Martin's appointment of Michaelle Jean as our next Governor General (GG).

While most were delighted about the appointment, others were less enthused. The extreme comments being the 'let's get rid of the position completely' to 'she's a journalist and therefore she automatically doesn't qualify,' 'well, we might as well have Ron Maclean as our GG' and 'why can't we get a Aboriginal Canadian (agreed, but there can only be one person in that position at a time, folks). The other negative comments generally centred around the "why couldn't we appoint a Canadian-born person' and 'Martin's kowtowing to minorities, Quebeckers, women and therefore ignoring white men from the West.'

How quickly some forget. That's not to say that there weren't commenters who defended the decision. But blogging being what it is allows me to research first.

1) Starting with the Right Honourable Vincent Massey in 1952, we've alternated GGs from Quebec and the rest of Canada. I don't really see a problem with that (we are a bilingual country) though if people want to alternate between provinces and territories, I don't see a problem with that either. In any case, Martin may not be changing this recent tradition (for better or worse), but I don't think he's kowtowing to anybody (The timing certainly benefits him, but prominent Quebeckers have been speculated upon these last few weeks anyways).

2) The last 'white, Canadian-born' Governor General was the Right Honorable Romeo LeBlanc, and he stepped down in 1999. Gosh, that's, like, in the last century! It's been such a long time! Get over it, people. By the time Ms. Jean steps down, it'll have barely been a decade. Are our collective memories that short? Oh by the way, EVERY Governor General before Adrienne Clarkson has been 'white.' But then, we aren't looking at the colour of their skin, right? Or appeasing the 'white' population, were we?

3) As for appointing a CBC journalist, skimming the biographies, the only people with prominent journalism experience but no political experience since Massey has been, wait for it, two: Ms. Jean and GG Clarkson. TWO! Jeanne Sauve (sorry, don't know how to add accents) and Romeo LeBlanc served both on Parliament Hill and in journalism. Plus, pre-Massey GGs were usually Earls or Viscounts and such. How does that make them any more qualified to serve as Head of State then Ms. Jean?

4) The last three non-Quebecker GGs (Rt. Hon. Roland Michener,Rt. Hon. Edward Schreyer and Rt. Hon. Ramon Hnatyshyn) were born in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. How's that for not representing the West? If anybody should be pissed, it should be the Maritimers. Everyone before Massey (born in Toronto) were British nationals. Guess what, as our country changes, those who serve as its head should probably change in accordance. Why is that so shocking?

I don't know if Ms. Jean is qualified or not for the position. She's certainly accomplished. I thought GG Clarkson did a fine job serving Canada's interests at home and abroad, as did all of the previous GG. I wish Ms. Jean much success in her position and hope that these next few years she's able to show those naysayers why she was the right choice.