I got bored and went to Joey's blog instead of returning to the joy of the post-filing waiting period of Section 5(b)(1) of the 1933 Securities Act...and noticed that he had posted something about someone named Paul Potts, and included a link. I decided to click it, and it didn't work. So then I YouTubed it, and this is what I found. And having seen it, I thought I'd share it with you. (I usually don't post totally totally lame crap, now do I?) (And I'm guessing you won't watch this because you're probably reading this in class, and it requires sound. Ass. It's worth it.)
Ignoring the last 15 seconds or so of background music, I must admit that I was totally touched by this whole thing in the most non-masculine way imaginable. I guess this is actually the sort of great, human moment reality TV is capable of...as opposed to well, this...
And to be honest...I really can't complain about the latter clip, since I did end up watching 70% of the series in a single sitting after my Fed Courts exam with my boy Tyler, 30 beers, and a lot of pizza and fried foods.
(We had initially planned to play Metroid Prime, but decided to turn on the TV while we were eating...and...whoosh...a 6 hour "A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila" marathon.)
(Incidentally, just like in "Average Joe 2" the girl makes the wrong choice. The SUPER wrong choice. I think Tyler and I actually got upset over this one.)
(Oh, and this clip is worth watching for 2 reasons. 1) Watching the total Steve (whose name incidentally is STEVEN, really) get bypassed for an ugly goofy Italian guy, and 2) catfight at 3:15.)
(It's shocking how much more I had to say about Tila Tequila than the Primaries, or about the actual inspirational, warm, and wonderful clip I had initially intended to share.)
(And no, I won't watch A Shot at Love 2 unless a marathon happens to coincide with my Tax exam.)
24 comments:
A. That Tila Tequila thing might have been the stupidest bit of television I've ever seen,
B. Except for his unfortunate name, Paul Potts kicks ass. Its like naming your kid Benny Mussoloni. But seriously, he has an album called "Once Change" that is really good. Even the slightly disturbing Italian operatic cover of REM's Once Chance.
C. John McCain also kicks ass.
RS
P.S. I shouldn't write before I have coffee. The name of the album is One Chance, and it has an Italian cover of Everybody Hurts.
A. Don't you watch Fox News?
B. Holy SHIT, I did NOT NOTICE Paul Potts' name!!!!! That's RIDICULOUS. Meow Zodeng.
I do not watch Fox News. I get my news from A Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and the WSJ. And the Onion. And Paul Potts is Phnom Phen-omenal.
RS
Ok. I'll admit that one wasn't bad.
But it doesn't mean i don't hate you.
You know how Paul Potts gets those rosy cheeks right? With a bright shade of Khmer Rouge.
RS
Hate.
Also the following is of interst.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/hillary_clinton_s_massive_conflict_of_interests
RS
Two comments.
1) There are not many alternatives. Either you engage in a massive government bailout, which is a terrible idea and runs against all the market mechanisms that you stand for, or the US capital markets and financial system faces imminent collapse.
2) Public ownership of US treasury bonds by foreign powers, particularly China, has necessarily skyrocketed due to the deficit war spending and Republican pork over the last 8 years. Those are your tax dollars paying off Chinese interest due on their bonds. (This is a non-sequitur, but I love jabbing at republicans.)
You're right. Better my tax dollars go to socialized medical care.
RS
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
public_content/politics/
political_commentary/commentary_
by_dick_morris/hillary_clinton_s_
massive_conflict_of_interests
You added the word "socialized" because you realized how utterly stupid you would sound saying something entirely human and reasonable like "better my tax dollars go to medical care" in a snarky way.
Here's the problem with my tax dollars going to socialized medical care. According to our liberal friends, as a privledged person I have a responsibility to other people in this country to fund medical care for them, i.e. socialized medical care.
Why then do those people not have a responsibility to me to live in the best health possible? If I get cancer because I light up a cigarette, I don't look to Bill Gates to cover the cost.
If I'm covering someone's medical care, do I not have the right to expect them to take care of themselves? Engaging in exercise? Not smoking? Presuming yes, can I expect any enforcement if people do not do so? I doubt it, and thus I find that supporting any sort of socialized medical care is utterly retarded.
RS
Also, this is just a way to kill time before the NFL games start. Its either this, or Financial Acct. for lawyers
I think of all of the arguments that have ever been leveled against universal health care, that is probably among the least persuasive.
Why should we pay for public education if you're not going to use it in a stipulated manner?
In line with that, shouldn't our goal being the maximization of individual freedom, and in turn hopefully our collective well-being? Isn't that the premise of public education? Isn't that equally a premise of public health?
(Yes, I'm awaiting the game too. I can only watch the Pats game today though, dammit. Stupid fucking exam)
The game is about to start, so I’ll focus on one theme. If your contention is that our goal should be about the maximization of individual freedom, doesn’t the greatest amount of individual freedom stem from not having to support others except out of voluntary, free choice?
Socialized medicine (or socialized anything for that point) is only supportable if I have some responsibility to my fellow man, in addition to my responsibility to myself. And if I have a responsibility to my fellow man, does he not have a responsibility to me?
That is a very narrow view of freedom. Money is not the beginning and end of freedom, though if put in those terms I would consider the opportunity and ability to pursue money would be closer. Thus, health and education.
And yes, I believe you do have a responsibility to your fellow citizen and your fellow man, and likewise. This just happens to be a day, month, or year when you're doing well enough not to need their help. Life is just too hard.
I'm going to ignore that whole chunk of erudition in the comments and just say how happy I am that you mentioned Average Joe.
-M.
GIL! She fucking chose GIL.
(exact same outcome in Tila...she didnt' choose Dani. Dani was the BEST.)
I'm trying to understand your basic premise. Why do I have a responsibility for my fellow man?
RS
Because we're utterly fucked if we don't. Or at least I think life is better for everyone.
But more realistically, the basic premise of living in a democratic republic under a social compact/ contract of sorts has already bound us together in a thousand different ways. And then as a result we're really disagreeing as to the degree of responsibility, or the "enclaves" of responsibility we should have to each other...despite the fact that your views are couched in a more extreme principle of libertarianism.
Plus, your mom is awesome in bed. So I feel responsible for you sometimes. Call me Pops.
I really don't want to work on this blue sky report...
That being your argument lets engage in a hypothetical. Lets assume Obama wins the presidency, and is successful in passing through a health care reform bill, which funds health care for all through a tax on the top 20% of wage earners. If I choose not to pay the tax, I have my assets seized, go to jail, what have you. Essentially therefore, I pay the tax out of duress, out of compulsion.
Once the rights of the individual to the fruits of their own labor are sacrificed to arbitrary notions of fairness and the public good, justice does not hold sway; the end result is an anemic society that is artificially maintained by those who live by those who produce.
You seem to be arguing from Rawls’ philosophical stance; i.e. all men are inherently equal, but some have been given better opportunities (superior intellect, wealthy family). Thus an unjust disparity exists, and the raison d’etre of political justice is to protect those upon whom chance has not smiled, and to provide for equality for all men, whether rich or poor, intelligent or moronic. The preeminent moral plank of society is to look after the downtrodden, and it is those who have been blessed by nature that must do so. Since all is a matter of chance, the essential unfairness of the existing system must be remedied by justice; the artificial fairness to society dispassionately ignored by nature.
Rawls’ view is not an objective view of individual rights, rather it is an argued principle of justice based on the needs of the neediest in society. Thus, one finds things like a man having a “right” to affordable housing, a job, health care. It is therefore up to those whose productive abilities and accomplishments, translated into financial success, to provide those rights to those who are unable to secure them themselves. The right to property that I’ve earned is sacrificed to some objective notion of “the common good”.
I shudder at the model of justice you espouse, one where the fullest protection of private property is replaced with a vague conception of fairness and human rights enacted at the cost of the individual. No single individual in a just society seeks or accepts something unearned, and I believe that no individual has the right to lay claim on what I have produced.
Half rhetoric, half abstract ideology choosing to misconceive my view to an extreme.
I have a SecRegs exam...and I managed to not read and internet surf through half of the class...so I'm a little freaked out...so I'll respond later.
(And I shuddered last night with your mom. It was THAT good.)
Good luck. Glad you enjoyed my mom.
Come on you coward, respond. I want to "taunt you a second time".
RS
Post a Comment