Google: Jesus is a Blogger

Blogs are everywhere. Everyone seems to have a blog.

When, eventually, everyone has a blog, Jesus will be one of them.

I'm not a Christian, by the way, at least in any formal sense. But I am fascinated by the idea of a second-coming of some sort, where a prophet rises again, although perhaps in some metaphorical sense. People are searching for leadership right now, and false prophets are everywhere. Every asshole with a blog thinks people should be listening to him. And eventually, I figure, there will be a few that wield considerable power and influence.

Blogs have become our brains on display.

So when the time comes that our saviour returns, you'd think he'd use His blog to reach the people. Television would naturally follow, but the message would have to start online. Only once He had a huge following, would a blogging Jesus put His face on TV. Blogging Jesus probably has poor posture and bloodshot eyes. Not to mention bad breath.

But I'm sure he cleans up nice enough.

So once people start listening online, he makes some appearances on television, and quickly becomes a Mega-Celebrity! A Celebrity of such proportions, no existing terms currently exist! All around the world would hail His influence and celebrate the joy he brings to the world. He would make us laugh, and make us see the world for how it truly is. He would point to truth, and we would all recognize it.

And the world would come together.

So, as some would dare speculate, and either the Anti-Christ and/or Jesus is walking around right now, I would suggest that Jesus has probably registered a Blogger account. Or one of these damn things. Maybe he's got a MySpace page!

Problem is with that theory, is that blogging isn't really an ideal medium for spreading the Word of God. Blogging seems to turn speech into writing, but is not fast enough. Only the best typists can type as fast as they can talk, so it is a necessarily slower process. But it's not like writing, either, because you don't edit nearly as much. So blogging also loosens the noose of proper grammer and spelling. If you've read many blogs, spelling mistakes are literally everywhere. And people accept it because they understand that people blog on the fly. People blog when they are inspired, and edit sparingly. This allows posts to be brilliant from time to time, but also makes for painful reading at other times if the blogger isn't good at what they do.

Blog posts would therefore tend to be more like speech than real writing. Writing that is destined for print has more stake in being consise and/or accurate. Blog posts are intended to incite an instant response, one that hopefully creates a valuable conversation. In theory, posts create a conversation in proportion to their value to the blogosphere. Good ideas get linked, bad ideas don't. Obviously in practice, it takes more than just good ideas, but also good presentation, including spelling and grammar, and other aspects of readability.

But most importantly posts must engage the reader in thought. If a blogger doesn't instantly connect with a post, you might as well give up. Blog posts aren't newspaper articles; you're not presenting a string of facts. You're presenting argument. If your reader falls asleep at line 10 it doesn't matter that you found God Almighty hidden in line 15. A really good way to instantly engage a reader is with humour. Nearly everyone laughs (those who don't are usually very sad people), so if you're funny, your chances of gaining a following are instantly higher.

So note to Jesus: When you start to blog, make sure you are:

1) funny (or engaging in other ways)
2) have something to say
3) consise (short and understandable)
4) around often

Basically, what we need bloggers to do is this: get to the point, make it good, funny if possible, and then let us go. We're more likely to comment if your point is good, because there's more we can add. And we will come back if you have good things to say.

Think of it this way, blogger-friend. Since you're going to be online pretty much every day, it's ok if you stink from time to time. You can make up for it afterwards. Look at Letterman, he's on 300 days a year, and he can stink for half of them and I still watch. So as long as you're as good as you think you are, and only as long as you deserve, I'll read your blog.

Liberals vs. Conservatives

The Viscount LaCarte tells us why he is a liberal.

As a Canadian, I often think of conservatives in terms that are often used to describe the NDP (New Democratic Party), our left-wing/labour party. A lot of people say the popularity of the NDP is based on unrealistic idealism; they say, "it's easy to propose national daycare programs, increased funding for schools, healthcare, and and job-retraining programs when you have no chance of ever forming government". This is exactly how I feel about popular conservative thought: most of it is an over-simplified idealistic fantasy. It's the stuff of Ayn Rand novels. No regulations, no taxes, no government, no nothing, just the invisible hand. Everything will work out perfectly if we just leave it to the free market.

Well anyone with a bit of knowledge knows that's not how it works. But the neo-conservative messsage has been sold so well that people with no knowledge of economics put their faith in the market without really understanding how it works. When was the last time a right-wing talker mentioned the term "market failure"?

You don't have to be a communist to believe that markets fail-- any pro-market who ignores that fact is either disingenuous or ignorant. I'm afraid that our current pro-market culture has become a bit of a cult...

Errol Morris: There Is Such a Thing as Truth

NPR : There Is Such a Thing as Truth

So Errol Morris says that truth exists, does he? And I was completely convinced that it no longer existed, or at least no longer mattered. Am I too cynical?

Is it wrong to think that after 5 years of having Orwellian doublespeak beamed into my head by CNN that it doesn't matter whether or not I remember the sequence of events that led up to war in Iraq? Up isn't down, and dissent isn't treason, and slogans are not reason... but does it matter? Bush says America doesn't torture, okeedokie. Now watch this drive.

A while back I wrote something that I may or may not have posted, about why truth matters. I think I've slipped a bit since then, because after ever arrow of truth that is slung, the behemoth of corporate-Republican nationalism simply bats it away with sneering arrogance that is inexplicably seen as strength by the majority. And I have to believe it is a majority, because otherwise there would be rioting in the streets, right? Well, perhaps exactly what other people believe is another truth that is hidden from view.

Because regardless of what the polls say, and what certain trusted friends say during bull sessions, there is a pervasive chill in the air that doesn't allow most of us to show our true feelings about the state of America and the world at large. We've been divided into tribes, and learned to hide our feathers, on the off chance of offending someone. And after all, our true feelings, or mine at least, are absolutely ugly sometimes. My anger and disgust, while entirely justified, doesn't seem appropriate to share at the water cooler. Or at the dinner table, or right before bed. Or any social occasion, or where children are present.

No, and that's why so many of us tap away at our blogs, sharing our disgust and anger with anyone and no one.

Sigh.

Dead Bodies Now Shown With Increasing Frequency On Prime Time TV

Dead Bodies Now Shown With Increasing Frequency On Prime Time TV… | The Huffington Post

Whenever I read stories about sex and violence on TV, two positions always arise. One is the liberal viewpoint that Americans are preoccupied with sex, and that violence never seems to get a mention. Surely violent images on TV is more harmful than sexual images. The other position is that parents should control what their children watch. Both of these positions, while valid, are simple justifications for maintaining the status quo. We just love our sex and violence and want to keep it on TV.

But what people never seem to talk about is what the increasingly violent and sexual nature of television says about us as people. Turning up the heat on TV is necessary to keep our attention. From a producer's perspective, it's about competition- how to keep your viewers interested. And the main competition on TV is the news-- how can you compete with war, torture, sex crimes, and the destruction of the planet? We are becoming desensitized at an alarming rate, not only because of the entertainment we watch, but the news we watch. The cycle gets evens worse though, because news organizations base their editorial choices on the same criteria- what story will get the public's attention?

Our reality is becoming warped, and the number of dead bodies shown in crime dramas is proof positive of that.

The Cheap Crap Economy

David Sirota has a good post about why Walmart is a bad thing. People assume that low prices are a good thing, a sign of efficiency, capitalism doing its thing. No regard is given to the fact that those low prices are being subsidized by cheap foreign labour, unfair wages and lousy benefits. The blind-capitalist right-wing has so much faith in free market economics that none of this matters, so it is rarely talked about, except in do-gooder circles (like this one). But it does matter, because in the long run, doing what is best for Walmart's profits means the dumping of cheap crap on North American consumers, the depressing of wages and the loss of jobs. Eventually we won't have enough money to afford to buy all that cheap crap. It seems to be a law of capitalism that the people who work at a certain store could never afford to shop there. The problem is, for Walmart workers, there isn't a cheaper place to go.

The Reversal of Objectivity (and other principles of journalism)

The Blog | Andrew Gumbel: What Did We Know About Bob Woodward? And When Did We Know It? | The Huffington Post

How interesting that Bob Woodward, the shining example of American journalism, has become a key Bush supporter of late. Of course he would reject such a characterization, on the basis that his reporting is "objective". We report, you decide. Objectivity has reversed. Objectivity used to mean reporting the facts-- now it means choosing not to connect the dots if it forms a picture that is unfavourable to those in power. 30 years ago Bob Woodward dug up facts to paint a picture that brought down a president. Today he ignores the obvious to prop one up.

What this shows us is not that Woodward sold out, but that he never ought to have been put on a pedestal in the first place. Dividing reporters into good guys and bad guys is a mistake. We were wrong to place so much faith in the principle of objectivity- it is quite clear that everything is ultimately subjective, from the decision of what story to write to how the story is framed. Each of these decisions are informed by political biases, and even Bob Woodward is subject to bias.

Also interesting is that another principle of journalism is undergoing a reversal - the protection of anonymous sources. Like Bob Woodward waving the flag of objectivity, Judy Miller drapes herself in the principle of anonymous sourcing as if it weren't completely obvious that she is perverting the concept 180 degrees.

Children Will Listen (Alas and Hurrah)

The Blog | Deepak Chopra: Children Will Listen (Alas and Hurrah) | The Huffington Post

What we are teaching our kids today is that the 60s were a mistake, which means that idealism is a bad thing. Peace, love, and understanding is something to laugh at. War is inevitable. Greed is good. You are not your brother's keeper. On top of that, we can't save the planet. And it's working: The kids of today just don't give a fuck.

SHUT UP! You're both right...

The thing that bothers me the most about blogs is that they encourage disagreement and black and white thinking. This is the most obvious on political blogs, where those that line up on the other side of the aisle can never be right, and those on your side can never be wrong. I can't think of a less constructive way to have a conversation. And people say that blogs are a good thing for politics?

The fact is, while not every opinion is created equal, and blogs allow each other to evaluate and comment on those opinions, much of the dialogue online is of an unnecessarily combative nature. People go out of their way to not get the point. People quibble about details, remove context, and attack personalities and motives rather than ideas.

What is often missed is the fact that behind every blog entry is a person who feels strongly enough about something to write it down, whether they communicate it successfully or not. Whether what someone says is literally true, it is usually motivated by a position that has some value. In our polarized political climate, the valid underlying positions that people hold are rarely discussed, in favour of hyperbole and distortions. We would do well to realize that this happens on both sides of the political spectrum.

Revision Thing: A history of the Iraq war, told entirely in lies

This article may be one of the best things I've read in a while. It's apparently been around since September 2003, but is even more mind-boggling today:

Revision Thing With sources.

Original Harper's article

Bush is a Lemon

Cenk Uygur at the Huffington Post sums up how many of us feel about the man we call President. "There will be no comeback," he says, and I fear he is probably right.

After all, comebacks are for those with internal fortitude, resolve, and ideas. Comebacks are for those who despite their setbacks have something inside them that has propelled them to where they are, and have the perseverence to know they deserve to succeed. Bush has made it surprisingly far on an extraordinarily small amount of talent.

It's time to face reality, folks.

This President is a lemon.

The Closing of the Senate

Harry Reid closes the Senate

I really do hope that this is the start of something big. Could this be the moment we were all waiting for? Or will it be another opportunity for the republicans to twist reality into another bizarre shape until the public is once again frustrated and gives up on expecting anything to change?

If you listen to the true believers, like Santorum you'd be forgiven for being cynical. These guys are so slick, so slimey it's incredible. They've been lying so long they don't realize it anymore. I have to hand it to them, they really have redefined politics - it isn't about public service anymore, it's about public relations. They sound so perfectly reasonable when they spew their lies that you almost think you're crazy, until you go back and check the facts again. How do they do it? They are simply pathological...