Category Archives: Blogs' Archive

Just watched Eurovision, the movie. Not Eurovision, like actual Eurovision. But, it was equally entertaining, if not more so. If Will Ferrell doesn’t totally make you cringe, that is.

I thought they captured the Eurovision atmosphere and, even more importantly, the Eurovision mania atmosphere, very well. It had some very funny scenes of stupid songs from bands in over the top costumes, and some actual, very nice musical numbers, and a super shmaltzy love story.
Will Ferrell, to me, is sort of a lesser Adam Sandler. Their comedy persona is based on being so obnoxious that you just have to get over it and laugh at them, although when one of their films misses, it’s cringeworthy.
This film was a bit cringey (not nearly as bad as Elf) but, like I said, as a documentary on Eurovision, it went right to the core. Also, it worked pretty well as travelogue, with lots of beautiful Icelandic scenery, whales, glaciers, fishing boats, and there was quite a bit about elves,who were never actually seen but played an important part in the plot.

I’ll give it a 3 stars out of 5. It’s on Netflix so, if you’re tired of murder and want some cheap laughs, there are worse ways to waste an hour and a half.

Caitlin Johnstone is a better writer, and by far a more diligent journalist than I am, so you can read her take on this story here. What I’m going to say is basically in agreement with that.
The story is that Russia paid Taliban fighters a bounty to kill American troops and Trump knew about it and did nothing. Johnstone (and myself) believe the story is probably bullshit.
First, it is very similar to the reporting done about Saddam Hussein and his ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ which I put the old scare quotes around because, of course, they never existed. But the New York Times claimed he did, and said they had a source. Then, the White House said ‘Hey, the New York Times said it, it must be true.’ The New York Times, instead of saying ‘hey, wait a minute, we were quoting you, so you can’t use our story as proof that you were telling the truth if you weren’t actually telling the truth,’ just carried on with their story.
This is similar. The Times published the story, saying they had a government intel source. The Washington Post covered the story, using the New York Times as a source, and so on.
2nd point, U.S. intelligence agencies lie all the damn time. They lied about the weapons of mass destruction, they lied about the babies being pulled from incubators, they lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and never stopped lying for the rest of that war, they lied about the Lusitania, it really was hauling munitions, and they lied about the U.S.S. Maine.
3rd, it’s not something the Russians had to do. The Taliban are perfectly happy to shoot at Americans, without being paid a bonus for it. Just as U.S. troops are willing to shoot at the Taliban, or drone bomb a wedding party, whichever comes first.
4th, we could solve the whole problem just by pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. I don’t have any idea why we are even there.
5th, if the story is true, of course, impeachment proceedings should start tomorrow. But, they won’t.

Therefore, it’s logical to assume the story is false.

Sure, the electoral college may be outdated and need to go. A bigger part of the problem is that all of the mainstream media, the big newspapers and major TV stations, are owned by a handful of extremely wealthy people, and they control the narrative. Another part of the problem is that the American public is poorly informed, partly because of the educational system, partly due to its isolation from the rest of the world, partly due to the American attitude that stupid people are just as smart as smart people.
For whatever reasons, our elections don’t tend to work out well. Democracy is a noble ideal, but people are only people, and prone to mistakes. Elections should be a method for finding the best choice, the best candidate, and if we could eliminate the guesswork, that would be a good thing, right?
I think it should be done like this. Around about the end of January (really, election campaigns should not last more that a year. That’s ridiculous) there should be nominations. Anybody can submit the name of any eligible candidate they like (this could run concurrently for all other offices, local state and national), as long as they meet the legal requirements.
Then you could have a couple of elimination rounds. Have everybody text their vote, or do it on-line, like in a telethon or talent competition. Have everybody list their top ten, and candidates that didn’t make anybody’s list except their own and their family would be out. That should be good enough to get rid of those candidates who are totally not serious. A Vernon Supreme or two might squeak through the first rounds, but basically, you’d have lowered the numbers from thousands to hundreds.
Then, they are all given a psychiatric evaluation, and an IQ test, the results of which would be made public, or maybe not, but anybody with a score lower than 100 on an IQ test, or a shaky psychiatric evaluation, just gets dumped by the judges at that point. It’s a basic thing.
Then, those remaining all get audited. We need to check not only for financial improprieties, but also conflict of interest. If there’s anything criminal, they are summarily eliminated by the judges, as above. If it’s not illegal, but just embarrassing, well, they can stay in if they want to. Let the public decide.
Now we’re up to May, and it starts to get interesting. The candidates have to perform in a bunch of simulations – alien invasions, zombie uprisings, stuff like that, sure, but also more real time events. We’ve got the technology to make this an incredible show.
Then another round of voting from the public. By now, we should be down to 20 or 30 candidates, and we know they are all legit, and intelligent, and psychologically capable.
And so, the debates begin. Once a week, each time on a specific topic. The environment deserves a couple of hours. Foreign policy deserves a couple of hours. Race deserves a couple of hours. And so on.
After each debate, another round of voting. By about September, we should be down to one candidate, with people pretty much in agreement that it is a totally awesome choice.
Then, the major parties could choose a candidate each, if they like. But at least one would be vetted.

Doxxing is not very nice. I don’t know if it’s actually illegal. That’s kind of a gray area, because on the one hand it’s freedom of speech and freedom of information, on the other hand it could get somebody killed.
I’m generally opposed to doxxing, although, full disclaimer, there have been specific instances (remember Martin Shkreli?) when I’ve cheered it on, or at least got a good chuckle out of it.
Doxxing is posting somebody’s personal information, i.e. name, address, phone number and stuff like that on-line, sometimes accompanied by a particularly incriminating video, in order to stir up shit against them.
It’s new technology, but the phenomenon is old. Back in the day before the internet, before TV and radio, even before the printing press, people could assemble a crowd in front of a person’s house, because people were not invisible and somebody in the crowd knew where they lived. Many, many people have been hurt by the mob before this. Some for being tyrants. Some for being witches.

Anyway, back to the present. St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson (Democrat) doxxed a whole bunch of people, those who dared to write her letters saying that St. Louis police should be defunded. As soon as the blowback started, she did take it offline and issue an apology. To her credit, she might not be completely tone deaf.
And I imagine, if there’s no specific violence against the people she doxxed (who were stating a popular, and credible political opinion btw), the whole thing will blow over fairly quickly.
And I imagine Lyda Krewson will not try this tactic again in future. Doxxing is a double edged sword, with razor sharp edges.

So, The Dixie Chicks have shortened their name to The Chicks, which is not too surprising, it goes along with all the Confederate flag banning and statue trashing which I’m generally in favor of, although I think it’s largely a bunch of people wanting a symbolic victory desperately, as a real one seems totally outside of our grasp.
I’m not bothered, their music will be just as good, but they didn’t really need to. They aren’t personally associated with the racism for which their region of the country is so well known, I don’t believe there was a huge hue and cry from their fans to change it, and even the word ‘Dixie’ is not necessarily offensive by itself. No more than just saying ‘The South’ is.
Originally, it referred to New Orleans, because back in the day they use to print their own banknotes, all the big cities did, and a $10 bill in New Orleans said ‘Dix’ on it, which is French for ten. They became known as Dixie notes, and New Orleans became known as Dixie, but the name had spread to include the whole South before the Civil War.
So, the term ‘Dixie’ precedes the term ‘The Confederacy.’
Still, their choice and I’m fine with it. Thinking it was unnecessary is not the same as thinking it was wrong.
Today, I’ve seen several posts from virtue signalling ‘liberals’ saying that now they should change the name ‘Chicks’ because it’s sexist. That would really be a step too far. If the name of their band was ‘The Bitches’ or ‘The Hoes,’ that would be a different matter. But, it’s an all girl band. They can call themselves whatever they damn please.