From the marketing geniuses who brought you that adorable 4-year old girl who knows she's a PC comes Pandora.
How many times did you spend 99 cents on a song you only wanted to hear right now and only then? What about the pesky tunes that demand the purchase of an entire album? (i.e anything from the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind soundtrack or Marquis Moon ). I've never understood the Microsoft platform's claim to "solutions" until they purchased Pandora : Where self-indulgence plus immediate gratification yields something you might have missed. And listen closely, because you can't hear the same song twice on the same playlist. I'm half sure the Music Genome Project is abject bullshit (I tried to trace it to TED and failed) but eight out of ten times, I'm pretty much down with what it delivers me. There's a madness to the method.
Check it out:http://www.pandora.com/. We want to know if you care more about excessive vamping or challenging harmonics, so please do report back.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Hi-Caliber
I had to come out of retirement to post this video. I think it speaks for itself...
Palin/this guy 2012?
Palin/this guy 2012?
Monday, March 16, 2009
algunas reflexiones sobre el llamado a "debatir"
Recogidas de los anales de Curvas Políticas para la iluminación de un público no-hispanoparlante.
Abstract
This year, Chile is getting ready for what promises to be an extremely disappointing electoral cycle. With a right-wing "lefty" coalition which has been in power for 20 years running out of ideas about what to sell to the electorate, a series of wedge issues has been introduced by the Concertación front-runner, former President Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, so as to make him more palatable to the "progressives" (guys, sorry for the scare quotes, but the state of things really require them) and to differentiate himself from Sebastián Piñera, the right-wing candidate that is leading the polls.
The issue chosen has been the legalization of so-called "therapeutic abortions", or the right to end a pregnancy for medical reasons. Or rather, not the actual legalization, but the idea of actually starting to think about debating this issue... a very Chilean way of beating around the bush instead of seriously dealing with a serious problem.
Monse, of CurvasPolíticas fame, called the bluff of the leading right-wing leaders, who immediately decried this as a vote-buying tactic, and restated their own "pro-life" credentials. I, on the other hand, am more interested in how it is through these rhetorical tricks that the Chilean political-economic oligopoly buys time to hang on to the cliff for just a second longer...
What follows is a number of the responses I wrote in M's blog, surrounding the question of "calling to debate" in full knowledge that folks might not be able to decipher this at this point, and with the probable promise of perhaps maybe sometime in the near future translating the full thing.
xo-- mdq, sometime known as the vif.
Sospechoso que sea un decé el que ponga el asunto en el tapete: first and foremost, porque Chile tuvo aborto terapéutico hasta que reapareció lo Aylwin.
En USA, donde es parte del playbook electoral, se le llama a esta movida plantar un wedge issue (esp "tema tarugo?"). El wedge issue separa las aguas electorales, lo mismo de lo mismo.
Se implanta el tema como algo importante en la campaña, para luego no legislar. Peligros: que la gente en verdad se mobilice, creando una fuerza política regresiva (véase el caso de la Moral Majority y la ascendencia política de la "derecha evangélica" en EEUU durante los ochenta y noventa).
La discusión sobre el aborto terapéutico en Chile se va a quedar probablemente en la decisión de decidir si se decide el comenzar a decidir sobre la posibilidad de empezar un debate sobre el aborto terapéutico en excepcionales y urgentes circunstancias, véase el horroroso "ejemplo" de cabecera en discusión.
Las premisas del juego restringen la posibilidad siquiera de tener una conversación adulta sobre derechos sexuales y reproductivos en términos amplios: i.e., asumiendo la violencia de Estado en el control del cuerpo de la mujer; o tomando en consideración los factores económicos y sociales en juego: número estimado de abortos al año / embarazos no deseados en relación a segmento social -- y la capacidad de ciertos grupos sociales a obtener salud reproductiva dentro y fuera del país; acceso a educación y salud; persistencia de un oligopolio patriarcal y heterosexista que funda parcialmente su prestigio y autoridad en el control sobre el cuerpo de la mujer y su cercanía a la Iglesia.
Esas son las cosas de las cuales no se va a hablar durante la campaña. Por el contrario, si resiste el tema del "aborto terapéutico," lo único que van a quedar son opiniones tan informadas como las del señor Black de porái arriba.
marzo 16, 2009
--
Recuerdo en mi antigua vida mía pasearme por un "debate," o mejor dicho, una encerrona, a la gente de la Morada (que decidió no aparecer, porque se dieron cuenta del tipo de evento al que se las estaba invitando) por parte de un fascistoide grupo con bastante dinero llamado el Movimiento por la Vida-- bon bref, el cuento me llamó la atención porque en su momento me dejó muy claro la manera en que la mitad de la élite leguleya del país, que se entrena en la PUC y sucedáneos tomistas, tienen taladrado en la cabeza que el aborto no puede ser legalizado, por las bases mismas del Derecho Natural y su relación a lo divino -- y como eso prueba que hay un universo político-técnico paralelo que le jura fidelidad a Humanae Vitae antes que al Estado chileno...
just a thought....
marzo 16, 2009
--
(Responde a un comentario indicando que, a pesar del sufrimiento del feto estaría por la legalización del aborto...)
Me gustó tu pósting porque se ve cómo estás intentando establecer una posición propia (que leo como a favor del derecho a elegir, o por lo menos a legalizar parcialmente el aborto), pero todavía operas dentro del "idioma oficial," aún cuando intentas desmarcarte.
Lo que sucede con el debate sobre el aborto es que las posiciones ya han sido definidas a priori por la brigada "anti-sexo," como dice la Monse. En Chile, en efecto, llega a un nivel tal de dominancia que no es posible formular una opinión alternativa sin terminar siendo, literalmente, un comeguaguas.
Parte todo con el problema de definir el concepto de "persona humana." La línea oficial, que es la que aparece en la Constitución de PinoLagos, define a la persona humana en el momento de la concepción (de ahí todo el problema con la píldora del día después). Se deduce entonces que ya que la vida de la persona es sagrada --si se piensa como uno-- el feto=persona debe ser otorgado los mismos derechos que una Juanita Pérez cualquiera. Aún si esto significa estigmatizar el cuerpo de Juanita Pérez, y declararla potencialmente enemiga del estado.
La "brigada antisexo" entonces, se aboca a establecer un espacio anti-diálogo (lo de sagrado = separado no deja duda alguna), y a esparcer un vocabulario que vuelve imposible si quiera referirse al tema. De ahí, todo el cuento sobre si el feto sufre o no sufre, el cuento de que hay que darle gracias a la mamita por no haberme abortado, o la típica antropomorfización de la imagen del feto (que a todo esto, no es una fotografía, sino un sonograma) o la movida de otorgarle estado de "persona" a un conjunto de células que aún no tiene ni terminales nerviosas formadas, ni conciencia de sí, ni capacidad de disponer de bienes materiales-- todas definiciones alternativas de "persona" o "sujeto" en otras latitudes.
saludos.
marzo 16, 2009
Abstract
This year, Chile is getting ready for what promises to be an extremely disappointing electoral cycle. With a right-wing "lefty" coalition which has been in power for 20 years running out of ideas about what to sell to the electorate, a series of wedge issues has been introduced by the Concertación front-runner, former President Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, so as to make him more palatable to the "progressives" (guys, sorry for the scare quotes, but the state of things really require them) and to differentiate himself from Sebastián Piñera, the right-wing candidate that is leading the polls.
The issue chosen has been the legalization of so-called "therapeutic abortions", or the right to end a pregnancy for medical reasons. Or rather, not the actual legalization, but the idea of actually starting to think about debating this issue... a very Chilean way of beating around the bush instead of seriously dealing with a serious problem.
Monse, of CurvasPolíticas fame, called the bluff of the leading right-wing leaders, who immediately decried this as a vote-buying tactic, and restated their own "pro-life" credentials. I, on the other hand, am more interested in how it is through these rhetorical tricks that the Chilean political-economic oligopoly buys time to hang on to the cliff for just a second longer...
What follows is a number of the responses I wrote in M's blog, surrounding the question of "calling to debate" in full knowledge that folks might not be able to decipher this at this point, and with the probable promise of perhaps maybe sometime in the near future translating the full thing.
xo-- mdq, sometime known as the vif.
Sospechoso que sea un decé el que ponga el asunto en el tapete: first and foremost, porque Chile tuvo aborto terapéutico hasta que reapareció lo Aylwin.
En USA, donde es parte del playbook electoral, se le llama a esta movida plantar un wedge issue (esp "tema tarugo?"). El wedge issue separa las aguas electorales, lo mismo de lo mismo.
Se implanta el tema como algo importante en la campaña, para luego no legislar. Peligros: que la gente en verdad se mobilice, creando una fuerza política regresiva (véase el caso de la Moral Majority y la ascendencia política de la "derecha evangélica" en EEUU durante los ochenta y noventa).
La discusión sobre el aborto terapéutico en Chile se va a quedar probablemente en la decisión de decidir si se decide el comenzar a decidir sobre la posibilidad de empezar un debate sobre el aborto terapéutico en excepcionales y urgentes circunstancias, véase el horroroso "ejemplo" de cabecera en discusión.
Las premisas del juego restringen la posibilidad siquiera de tener una conversación adulta sobre derechos sexuales y reproductivos en términos amplios: i.e., asumiendo la violencia de Estado en el control del cuerpo de la mujer; o tomando en consideración los factores económicos y sociales en juego: número estimado de abortos al año / embarazos no deseados en relación a segmento social -- y la capacidad de ciertos grupos sociales a obtener salud reproductiva dentro y fuera del país; acceso a educación y salud; persistencia de un oligopolio patriarcal y heterosexista que funda parcialmente su prestigio y autoridad en el control sobre el cuerpo de la mujer y su cercanía a la Iglesia.
Esas son las cosas de las cuales no se va a hablar durante la campaña. Por el contrario, si resiste el tema del "aborto terapéutico," lo único que van a quedar son opiniones tan informadas como las del señor Black de porái arriba.
marzo 16, 2009
--
Recuerdo en mi antigua vida mía pasearme por un "debate," o mejor dicho, una encerrona, a la gente de la Morada (que decidió no aparecer, porque se dieron cuenta del tipo de evento al que se las estaba invitando) por parte de un fascistoide grupo con bastante dinero llamado el Movimiento por la Vida-- bon bref, el cuento me llamó la atención porque en su momento me dejó muy claro la manera en que la mitad de la élite leguleya del país, que se entrena en la PUC y sucedáneos tomistas, tienen taladrado en la cabeza que el aborto no puede ser legalizado, por las bases mismas del Derecho Natural y su relación a lo divino -- y como eso prueba que hay un universo político-técnico paralelo que le jura fidelidad a Humanae Vitae antes que al Estado chileno...
just a thought....
marzo 16, 2009
--
(Responde a un comentario indicando que, a pesar del sufrimiento del feto estaría por la legalización del aborto...)
Me gustó tu pósting porque se ve cómo estás intentando establecer una posición propia (que leo como a favor del derecho a elegir, o por lo menos a legalizar parcialmente el aborto), pero todavía operas dentro del "idioma oficial," aún cuando intentas desmarcarte.
Lo que sucede con el debate sobre el aborto es que las posiciones ya han sido definidas a priori por la brigada "anti-sexo," como dice la Monse. En Chile, en efecto, llega a un nivel tal de dominancia que no es posible formular una opinión alternativa sin terminar siendo, literalmente, un comeguaguas.
Parte todo con el problema de definir el concepto de "persona humana." La línea oficial, que es la que aparece en la Constitución de PinoLagos, define a la persona humana en el momento de la concepción (de ahí todo el problema con la píldora del día después). Se deduce entonces que ya que la vida de la persona es sagrada --si se piensa como uno-- el feto=persona debe ser otorgado los mismos derechos que una Juanita Pérez cualquiera. Aún si esto significa estigmatizar el cuerpo de Juanita Pérez, y declararla potencialmente enemiga del estado.
La "brigada antisexo" entonces, se aboca a establecer un espacio anti-diálogo (lo de sagrado = separado no deja duda alguna), y a esparcer un vocabulario que vuelve imposible si quiera referirse al tema. De ahí, todo el cuento sobre si el feto sufre o no sufre, el cuento de que hay que darle gracias a la mamita por no haberme abortado, o la típica antropomorfización de la imagen del feto (que a todo esto, no es una fotografía, sino un sonograma) o la movida de otorgarle estado de "persona" a un conjunto de células que aún no tiene ni terminales nerviosas formadas, ni conciencia de sí, ni capacidad de disponer de bienes materiales-- todas definiciones alternativas de "persona" o "sujeto" en otras latitudes.
saludos.
marzo 16, 2009
Monday, February 02, 2009
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The PARAS & Obama's next attorney general
Sorry for the cut-and-paste, but can't put it better than this.
"The selection of Eric Holder as the next attorney general of the United States is a deft political decision. Holder should face little if any opposition during the approval process given his bipartisan history. This would ensure a smooth transition at a time that requires decisive action. Still, Barack Obama's selection may not be something to celebrate.
The choice of Holder reveals a troubling disconnect between a key statement made by the president-elect during the campaign and views held by Holder. This disconnect must be examined in light of the dismal state of US foreign relations. The issue of direct payments to the justice department by offending US corporations is a worrying trend. It is one that has risen sharply under the Bush administration and was first championed by former attorney general John Ashcroft.
In lieu of a trial, companies are allowed to pay a fine directly to the justice department.
These agreements are readily accepted by companies, as they are cost effective, avoid the stigma of public trial and don't set precedents. None of the money paid goes to affected individuals or communities, which leaves any sense of justice wanting. There is also valid concern that abuse of this system may lead to companies being less scrupulous.
"The selection of Eric Holder as the next attorney general of the United States is a deft political decision. Holder should face little if any opposition during the approval process given his bipartisan history. This would ensure a smooth transition at a time that requires decisive action. Still, Barack Obama's selection may not be something to celebrate.
The choice of Holder reveals a troubling disconnect between a key statement made by the president-elect during the campaign and views held by Holder. This disconnect must be examined in light of the dismal state of US foreign relations. The issue of direct payments to the justice department by offending US corporations is a worrying trend. It is one that has risen sharply under the Bush administration and was first championed by former attorney general John Ashcroft.
In lieu of a trial, companies are allowed to pay a fine directly to the justice department.
These agreements are readily accepted by companies, as they are cost effective, avoid the stigma of public trial and don't set precedents. None of the money paid goes to affected individuals or communities, which leaves any sense of justice wanting. There is also valid concern that abuse of this system may lead to companies being less scrupulous.
Representing Chiquita, Holder brokered a deal for the banana giant to pay $25m over five years to the justice department. This arrangement was made after Chiquita admitted in 2003 to providing $1.7m over six years to the paramilitary group The United Self Defense Forces of Colombia. This group was listed as a terrorist organisation by the state department. Chiquita also allegedly provided a cache of surplus Nicaraguan army AK-47s through their own transport network. The payments continued unabated for months after Chiquita's admission.
The company claimed the payments were made to protect its workers, but it is unclear who was protected. Colombia's attorney general, Mario Iguaran, roundly rejects Chiquita's excuses. Iguaran believes the payments were made to secure the unimpeded production of bananas and to quell labour unrest. He claims that at least 4,000 people were killed by these paramilitaries. Hundreds of the victims were banana workers and labour organisers. Iguaran wishes to extradite the Chiquita executives responsible for approving the payments and a lawsuit is currently underway representing the families of 173 workers who were killed by the paramilitaries. Holder continues to represent Chiquita in the resulting civil case.
Holder's reaction to the $25m settlement is unacceptable:
If what you want to encourage is voluntary self-disclosure, what message does this send to other companies? Here's a company that voluntarily self-discloses in a national security context, where the company gets treated pretty harshly, [and] then on top of that, you go after individuals who made a really painful decision.
It's not particularly certain what this painful decision was. Chiquita stood to be in a lot more trouble if they didn't come clean given the climate after September 11. The group in question had terrorist status. The paramilitaries were intimidating and murdering workers. If you have to break the law to do business in a region, you simply need not engage in that business. Holder's commentary is difficult to comprehend in light of the facts surrounding this case.
In the final presidential debate, Obama stated that he firmly opposed a free trade agreement with Colombia. He was concerned about the multitude of human rights violations repeatedly levied against unions and other workers there. Holder's views fly in the face of such concerns.
After eight years of Orwellian double-speak and intentionally misleading statements, US citizens must demand what was promised to both them and the world: change. How would Holder's leadership lead to a meaningful rethinking regarding the accountability of transnationals and their behaviour both at home and abroad? Especially when Holder views a deal so clearly favourable to a giant like Chiquita as excessive punishment despite the facts surrounding the case.
Every client is entitled to representation. Holder's roll as council to Chiquita is not questionable. The question is more fundamental: Does Holder represent the change we need and the change we were promised? It is time that someone who chooses to represent and serve human beings over corporations holds the position of attorney general."
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Health Insurance Companies Want Mandates
Wow. This news puts our primary season debates about mandates in a new light, huh? I think it's interesting that in this case, the interests of insurance companies and citizens may be aligned (though insurers are still strongly against price controls), given something I recently read (can't remember the source) arguing that insurance companies are in danger of sinking themselves with premiums that are reaching a breaking point. At a certain point, premiums get so high that companies that have already passed on a lot of the cost to their employees figure it's no longer worth it to buy insurance. And then what do insurers do? Mandates look pretty good if they may save your business. Having recently been on the anxiety-inducing open market for health insurance, I do think it would be a step forward to just know that you have a guarantee, regardless of the price.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
