Doesn’t matter. Had sex.

I was not looking for cats. However, this picture is so perfect to be a ThinkPad wallpaper that have to use it.

BTW, Social Wallpaper is a really cool site.

Submitted by: Nobody-

Tagged: dancing , gif , this kid , wtf , creepy Share on Facebook

What's unusual about this 1649 engraving by Claude Mellan, Sudarium of Saint Veronica?

The image is produced by one continuous spiraling line starting at the tip of Jesus' nose.

part 1 here

IV.

"I can't tell if you're defending hipsters or hating on them."   They're ridiculous. Feel better?  They're not the problem.

It's a simple thesis and no one wants to hear it: hipsters may lack drive, but the world they live in wasn't set up by them, it was set up by their parents, i.e. the Dumbest Generation Of Narcissists In The History Of The World, the ones who magnified the importance and cost of college without having any idea of what should be its purpose, let alone its content. 

If you want to tell me a 30 year old hipster should be lashed for not trying to better himself, I'll bring the whip, but the 30 year old chose his pointless major when he was 17 and you think the outcome is all his fault?  A 17 year old can kill two people and still be considered too young to be criminally responsible, and anyway in that case you think the problem was video games and bullying.  Of course Gerry The Hipster is made of soy and ennui, but there's plenty of blame to go around.  When he was 17 the system incentivized him to destroy his life, tempted him with beer, babes, and BS-- and the promise of an upper middle class lifestyle provided he went to "a good school" (read: gave the system $100k of his post tax, pre-interest money), never mind for what.   Like a good American, he did what he was told.

The society that taught people to want a defective college degree is, unfortunately, going to be expected to support those that bought it, it's still under warranty.  At the very minimum, it owes them their money back, and if they don't pay you should sue for breach of contract. "At the conclusion of this course, students will show a proficiency in...."  The plaintiff rests.

"They should have studied more." Agreed.  But then you shouldn't have admitted them, you shouldn't have passed them.  Inflate the grade, Gresham's Law the society.

All along you've said "you need to go to college so you can get a good job" but the system was not designed to raise producers, it was designed to raise consumers.  Well, here we are.  Why are you surprised that they need consumer stamps?  Why are you surprised they moved back in with you?   "We did the best we could."  No you did not, I was there, I saw it.  You borrowed against their future, and they can't pay it back.  And now you're yelling at them.








V.


While the idea of a Metafilter post-doc receiving food stamps AND telling me they're entitled to it makes my eyes go Sauronic, it's that rage that requires some examination.  Why rage?  Why not just roll my eyes and go back to drinking rum and soldering op amps?  What is the social importance of my rage?

Society is nothing more than individual psychology multiplied by too many to count.  If narcissism is what drives this society, then only narcissism will explain it.

So start with an interesting hypothetical: does everybody need to work anymore?  I understand work from an ethical/character perspective, this is not here my point.  Since we no longer need e.g. manufacturing jobs-- cheaper elsewhere or with robots-- since those labor costs have evaporated, could that surplus go towards paying people simply to stay out of trouble?  Is there a natural economic equilibrium price where, say, a U Chicago grad can do no economically productive work at all but still be paid to use Instagram?  Let me be explicit: my question is not should we do this, my question is that since this is precisely what's happening already, is it sustainable?  What is the cost?  I don't have to run the numbers, someone already has: it's $150/mo for a college grads, i.e. the price of food stamps.  Other correct responses would be $700/mo for "some high school" (SSI) or $1500/mo for "previous work experience" (unemployment).  I would have accepted $2000/mo for "minorities" (jail) for partial credit.


VI.

While all those monies have different names and different "requirements" they are all exactly the same thing: paying people who are off the grid, whether by choice or circumstance, indefinitely.  i.e. Living Wages. However, they can never be called that.  They have to pretend to be something else: this is for food, this is because of a medical problem we just made up, this is because you were caught with weed so we'll leave you in here for 6 months until we sentence you to probation.  And they have to have these fake reasons to give taxpayers a little emotional distance, deniability, otherwise they'd go John Galt, after all, they have all the guns.  If they can invade Iraq, how hard is it going to be to take the Whole Foods on 3rd?

That "emotional distance" is not hyperbole, it's not me being a lefty deconstructicon, it is an absolute requirement of a psychic defense of identity, of self-worth.  The point is not to get you to accept that hipsters deserve food stamps, the point is the opposite: to enrage you, infuriate you, so that you will resist-- because then and only then will you pay for it.

If this seems implausible to you, which it must-- that's exactly the point of it--  consider the following extreme analogy, which surprisingly will be easier to understand, which is also the whole point:  Say your father raped you repeatedly for a decade. Hold on, slow down, it gets worse: now you're 40, and he shows up asking you for $2400 because, and I quote, "you have a responsibility to take care of me."  There he is in your living room, eyeballing the nice things in your home.  If it is a fact that you will inevitably give him the money, is it easier to for you to pair it with your venom or your sympathy?  Though it's enraging, there is a perverse pleasure in giving that bastard the money.  It tells you that you showed him that you are better than him.

That's how America works.  The system needs you to be willing, not wanting, to pay for this, and getting the existing (narcissistic) society to believe that it is their "responsibility" (Left's word) to pay for "laziness" (Right's word)-- to WANT to pay for this-- is absolutely impossible.   Why can't we just all agree on what a fair share might be, take care of each other?  Didn't you major in English Lit?  "Homo economicus" is not reality,  envy is an immutable characteristic of our consciousness, it is practically Kantian, some of you will get a minor hold of it but even your priests are chock full o' it.   If the porn isn't high res you can't get horny, but you can hate a guy at 1000 paces without a scope. That's human nature.  Envy, rage.  It's not all we are, but you cannot discount it.
 
The only way to get them to agree to pay is to give them a way of rationalizing the "responsibility" as, in some way, for them: you'll get a tax break, you'll be rewarded in heaven, you are a better person for it, thanks, this means a lot.  Can you imagine a hipster looking at a salesman and saying thanks for your service?   So that's out, use the default: rage.  Just like how you get people motivated to go to war.  No, no, no, no, not the people already waving flags, I mean the people who don't want war.  Said every liberal in Congress one magical day in 2003: "I'm not going to let those oil bastards Cheney and Bush get away with their racist  imperialist plan, which is why I'm going to scream obscenities at them as I vote Attack."

The system isn't thinking short term, it needs this to work long term, those hipsters are going to be getting food stamps forever, or do you think if the economy rebounds, old liberal arts majors will suddenly become appealing?  Like a woman who squandered her youth on fun but disreputable men, she will find herself at 45 wanting to marry, but alone.  "That is such a disgusting, sexist, archaic thing to say."  I feel your rage, and you are right.  Alone nevertheless.


VII.

You might retort that there's no money to pay for 25 more years of hipster apathy.   Admittedly, this is a compelling argument.  But the total cost of food stamps is $80B.  The annual budget deficit is over ten times that.  America's economy is one big gigantic retail sales event.  Is the economy back to like it never happened?




The underemployed econ majors will recognize that this isn't "real", inflation adjusted sales and the last few years are based on overpriced high-end goods that only Aspirational 14% can afford, and that for the other 85% of America purchasing power has dropped to 1997 levels, but as Whole Foods says, whatever.

$80B is a lot, but how much is actually going to hipsters, how many hipsters are there, really?  73?  74?  What purpose does this rage serve?  If you Rage Against The Hipsters, you will be that much more likely to "allow" food stamps for everyone else.  The hipsters are diversions.  They are sacrifices. How much hate have you focused on Gerry since you heard about him?  All of it.

To clarify, this is not some kind of socialist ploy, it is a function of the way America (read: narcissism) works, it doesn't need to be centralized, it is the sum of individual vectors pointing in different directions.  Here's the other side's example:  when they talk about raising taxes on the rich, why do they pick a "low" point and push it higher?  Should the highest rates be at $250k/yr?  $300k?  Another way of doing it, which is precisely why they cannot do it, is start at the top and move down.  "We need $1T.  Ok, top five guys pay 90%.  Not enough?  How about top ten guys pay 90%.  Not enough? Top...."  I'm not advocating this or any other policy, not my place, I am pointing out that doing it the way it's done protects the 1% by letting the Aspirational 14%-- who crave recognition and are easily identifiable and hatable because they are poseurs, just of a different kind-- act as human shields.  They take the bullets, the unknown mega-rich take tinted window rides to the Hamptons.   During those tumultuous 80 seconds of OWS-- and BTW, those people gave up hanging out after only a trimester, do you really think they're ready for 40 hour work weeks?-- the majority of the personal attacks were against people who made $50M.  It's easy to hate, and so the media nudges you in the wrong direction.

VIII.

You might think that the rage is the spark for a transformation of America, a full scale Dagny Taggart meltdown or Bolshevik revolution, depending on your hat.  That's not how it works.  If this is narcissism, then its purpose is protecting identity, defending against change. Doesn't matter what side you think you're on, unless you are unplugged you are for the status quo.

Here's an example: in the "radical left" (their words) magazine Jacobin, the editor writes a defense of Gerry and Sarah as a way of arguing for the abolishment of, well, everything Randian.   He's against the  "work ethic", he wants a paradigm shift away from American producerism-- the idea that your value is based only on what you can produce for the economy--  towards social rights, e.g. Living Wages.  I disagree with everything in it, so what?  but it is very well written and reasoned, and if I played the same game as him I'd want him on my team.

The point here is that he wants CHANGE.  Here is the last paragraph of the article, tell me if you can find anything supporting the status quo:

Rather than the "deserving" or "working" poor, with its connotations of moral judgment and authoritarian social control, it is time to begin speaking the language of economic and social rights. For instance, the right to a Universal Basic Income, a means of living at a basic level that would be provided to everyone, no questions asked. Against the invidious politics of the work ethic, it's time to argue that some things should be granted to everyone, simply by virtue of their humanity. Even hipsters.

Sounds sublime.  But Gerry already had a living wage-- he spent it on the University of Chicago, 41 years of food stamps in 4 years.  If everybody knew in advance the outcome was going to be unemployment and living wages, then why doesn't Frase challenge the capitalist assumption  that college is money well spent-- could have been used differently?  He can't.  This thought cannot occur to him, not because he is dumb, he clearly isn't, or because he is paid by a college-- money is irrelevant to him.  He can't because his entire identity is built on college, academia.  He is college. Take that away, he disintegrates. So in the utopia he imagines, college still exists AND people get living wages.  Call me a Marxist, that's what we have now.

Second, and more importantly, he thinks he's a radical progressive, that he wants a paradigm shift away from capitalism towards social rights-- but he wants to keep everything else about capitalism completely intact.  He is explicitly against producerism, but he wants to replace it with consumerism.  He wants to make sure people can get what they want, not teach them how to want.  In his utopia of no questions asked Universal Basic Income, do retail sales go up or down?  The system has won.


IX.

If rage is necessary to keep this all going, how is it elicited efficiently?

Peter Frase, defending Gerry and Sarah:

But what the [Salon] article seemed to call forth in its readers was unending bile and rage directed at people deemed insufficiently deserving of a public benefit.

Let's do this right.  If it is rage, then the rage is because of a threat to identity. What possible threat to identity could Gerry and Sarah pose to hardworking Americans?  The answer is that someone wrote an article about how great Gerry and Sarah are, e.g. Peter Frase.

Frase again:

But they aren't the only people who react to stories like this with rage or contempt rather than empathy. Consider the following comment, left under [Gerry's] response to the article about him:

I'm sorry but you are a selfish, whiny leach. I can say this because I a middle-aged woman and have been trying to find work for two years without success though I have a masters degree in a fairly desirable field. I have dwindling savings and two kids. Because I stayed home with them for a few years I don't qualify for unemployment and that has also damaged my marketability in the job world. Despite all of this I have never resorted to public assistance and will not. In addition, I have a back problem that surgery did not correct so I am in physical pain 24 hrs a day. Still I have taken temp jobs and we have cut back in many ways. I am proud of my fortitude and resourcefulness, because we will make it through this time and my kids will learn valuable lessons from me about self-reliance.

Here we have a person who has been marginally employed for two years and suffers physical pain 24 hours a day--and rather than demanding something better for herself, she demands that other people suffer more!

Wrong, read her words, they are right in front of you.  Before that article in Salon, this mother was allowed to believe that her staying off the dole had some honor in itself-- some validation of her identity-- and it allowed her to survive her hardships.  Now she is forced to swallow that these people are not merely as good as her, but more valuable-- they get an article, they get defenders like you, they are praised for their intrinsic human value, and all she gets is mocked, belittled, "she's too stupid to know what's good for her!"-- all she can do is comment on their life-- and her small act of rebellion is to at least use the space to tell the world she  exists.  Rage is her defense that keeps her intact while the world seemingly ignores her. 

Husband hates that his wife reads about the faux-celebrities in magazines. They say words to each other.  What do they actually hear?  

She hears this: "Anyone who likes that is lazy and stupid. You're stupid." 

He hears this: "I know they don't actually do anything, but they're more interesting than you."

This is the surprising result: since they wall off into psychic cocoons, therefore the marriage remains intact, for a while longer.

X.

Back to college.  Since the problem is college,  does college accept any responsibility?  I went to The Chronicle of Higher Education to find out.  Surprise, no.





What did I expect?  They apparently intended this picture to evoke sympathy, isn't it a crime that 33000 PhDs are on food stamps? 

You can imagine how the other side reads it, some highlights: hyphenated name; stupid thing to get a PhD in; fat; what's an "adjunct"; why so much cheese; tattoos; place is a mess.

Nowhere does the article address the fact that it should not have allowed her to get a PhD in medieval history, let alone help her pay for it.  Do you know what The Chronicle does focus on?  That she's not black.  First sentence of the article which is entirely about branding:

"I am not a welfare queen," says Melissa.

For a lefty loosy publication like The Chronicle, what difference does it make if she's white?  Why does her PhD make her more deserving that a welfare queen?  Because to The Chronicle, the PhD has value.  It doesn't.  I'm not saying she isn't smart, I'm saying the PhD in no way communicates to me she knows medieval history better than any D&D player.  She may know more, but how do I know?  I don't even find "MD" particularly valid, but at least you can sue a doctor.

But my reason for showing you her is to highlight the perverse logic of the university which will doom us all: since the only maniacs who would ever hire these PhDs are universities, then the solution to their unemployment is more money for universities:

Ms. Bruninga-Matteau does not blame Yavapai College for her situation but rather the "systematic defunding of higher education." In Arizona last year, Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, signed a budget that cut the state's allocation to Yavapai's operating budget

Why would you expect her to answer differently?

All the system had to do, starting around 1965, is not incentivize this madness.  If there were not guaranteed student loans, up to any amount, available equally across majors and across colleges, independent of skills or promise or societal need, none of this would have happened.  Easy money got us into this mess, and easy money will keep us sailing until we go right off the edge of the map.


part 3

---

http://twitter.com/thelastpsych

We are seven:

          ————A SIMPLE Child,
          That lightly draws its breath,
          And feels its life in every limb,
          What should it know of death?

          I met a little cottage Girl:
          She was eight years old, she said;
          Her hair was thick with many a curl
          That clustered round her head.

          She had a rustic, woodland air,
          And she was wildly clad:                                    10
          Her eyes were fair, and very fair;
          —Her beauty made me glad.

          “Sisters and brothers, little Maid,
          How many may you be?”
          “How many? Seven in all,” she said
          And wondering looked at me.

          “And where are they? I pray you tell.”
          She answered, “Seven are we;
          And two of us at Conway dwell,
          And two are gone to sea.                                    20

          “Two of us in the church-yard lie,
          My sister and my brother;
          And, in the church-yard cottage, I
          Dwell near them with my mother.”

          “You say that two at Conway dwell,
          And two are gone to sea,
          Yet ye are seven!—I pray you tell,
          Sweet Maid, how this may be.”

          Then did the little Maid reply,
          “Seven boys and girls are we;                               30
          Two of us in the church-yard lie,
          Beneath the church-yard tree.”

          “You run about, my little Maid,
          Your limbs they are alive;
          If two are in the church-yard laid,
          Then ye are only five.”

          “Their graves are green, they may be seen,”
          The little Maid replied,
          “Twelve steps or more from my mother’s door,
          And they are side by side.                                  40

          “My stockings there I often knit,
          My kerchief there I hem;
          And there upon the ground I sit,
          And sing a song to them.

          “And often after sunset, Sir,
          When it is light and fair,
          I take my little porringer,
          And eat my supper there.

          “The first that died was sister Jane;
          In bed she moaning lay,                                     50
          Till God released her of her pain;
          And then she went away.

          “So in the church-yard she was laid;
          And, when the grass was dry,
          Together round her grave we played,
          My brother John and I.

          “And when the ground was white with snow,
          And I could run and slide,
          My brother John was forced to go,
          And he lies by her side.”                                   60

          “How many are you, then,” said I,
          “If they two are in heaven?”
          Quick was the little Maid’s reply,
          “O Master! we are seven.”

          “But they are dead; those two are dead!
          Their spirits are in heaven!”
          ‘Twas throwing words away; for still
          The little Maid would have her will,
          And said, “Nay, we are seven!”
                                                              1798.

Letter to the New York Times, March 26, 1911:

Dear Mr. Editer

i Went down town with my daddy yesterday to see that terrible fire where all the littel girls jumped out of high windows My littel cousin Beatrice and i are sending you five dollars a piece from our savings bank to help them out of trubble please give it to the right one to use it for sombody whose littel girl jumped out of a window i wouldent like to jump out of a high window myself.

Yours Truly,

Morris Butler

Dedicated to Fiona, who’s a Timmy Tofu fan and she’s celebrating a birthday today – happy birthday Fiona!

Here’s more Timmy Tofu!

iraffiruse:

Frozach Submitted

Scientists seem to have unlocked another technology that was only available in fantasy movies.  Physicists at Duke University have announced that they have successfully cloaked an object with “perfect” invisibility, straight out of Harry Potter.

In 2006 David Smith and his colleagues developed a theory called “transformation optics”.  The theory is based on redirecting magnetic fields around an object making it invisible, according to ScienceNOW.

All attempts at testing the theory provided some level of invisibility but it wasn’t until Dr. Smith started experimenting with metamaterials, which are designed to bend light and other radiation around them that they were able to create a Harry Potter style invisibility cloak.

Graduate student Dr. Landy says all earlier versions of a Harry Potter cloak suffered from reflected light.  Landy explained to Phys.org that “it was much like reflections seen on clear glass. The viewer can see through the glass just fine, but at the same time the viewer is aware the glass is present due to light reflected from the surface of the glass.”

The new cloak got around it by reworking the materials.

“Landy’s new microwave cloak is naturally divided into four quadrants, each of which have voids or blind spots at their intersections and corners with each other,”explains io9. “Thus, to avoid the reflectivity problem, Landy was able to correct for it by shifting each strip so that is met its mirror image at each interface.”

Smith said of the research:

“This to our knowledge is the first cloak that really addresses getting the transformation exactly right to get you that perfect invisibility.”

So the Harry Potter cloak might not be for sale anytime soon but the possibilities are endless.

Scientists Create Perfect Harry Potter Invisibility Cloak is a post from: The Inquisitr

Já tava na hora de falar de homeopatia aqui.

O Plausuto de Prata 2012 vai pro filme holandês A Caça (“Jagten”), de Thomas Vinterberg. Não tem absolutamente NADA à ver com homeopatia. Não se menciona produtos homeopático no filme; nenhum personagem toma bolinhas branca; em cena nenhuma aparece nada q siquer remotamente lembre ou referencie ou sugira homeopatia. Si vc quiser esquecer por duas horas de q existe homeopatia sobre a face da Terra, veja A Caça, q ainda tem a vantagem de ser um excelente filme: não é qqer um q ganha o Plausuto de Prata, não, viu; precisa tomar muito xarope.

O filme narra um episódio na vida dum cara q trabalha numa pré-escola. Uma aluninha duns 4 ou 5 anos conta ä diretora q o cara lhe mostrou seu colossal caralho túrgido e latejante. À partir daí a vida do cara é progressivamente destruída. Òbviamente, a garota não disse “colossal caralho túrgido e latejante”; ela disse “pipi apontando pra cima”. O motivo por quê ela disse isso é excruciante (Hell has no fury like a little girl scorned.) e as várias etapa do martírio vão se ramificando por todos lado num crescendo de histeria coletiva. Si vc tá pensando em trabalhar com crianças –ou com senhoras hipoplausibilética–, veja antes esse filme.

Vale lembrar q A Caça NÃO é um filme sobre homeopatia, tá?

Mas ¿que cargas d’água deu neste blogue de falar de homeopatia, q NÃO aparece no filme?

Ok, já vou explicar. É q sesdia nosso eduzinte doutor viu o filme, e tbm sesdia um leitor mencionou homeopatia nos comentário. Nada à ver, uma coisa com a outra. Mas vcs já conhecem nosso humanista, não? Si ele pensasse mais lateralmente, viraria do avesso. Ele mesclou o filme e a menção do leitor, e de repente sacou por quê existe homeopatia. Si vc entender tbm, de quebra vc vai poder extrapolar o raciocínio doutoral pra outras idéia maluca da humanidade.

A homeopatia é um fenômeno lingüístico concretizado através dum ritual.

Não; homeopatia não funciona. Sim; ela é uma babaquice tremenda. Não; não é de psicolingüística e efeito placebo q o doutor tá falando. Ele tá falando de como a idéia da homeopatia surgiu e por quê ela faz tanto sucesso entre o populacho prepedeuta.

Os produto homeopático são feito assim, ó: o homeopata pega uma certa quantidade de substância ativa –sei lá, 10 ml de xarope, só pra exemplificar– e aí ele mistura em 1 litro d’água, fazendo uma diluição de 1 pra 10². Aí ele chacoalha, chacoalha, chacoalha até ter certeza de q o xarope tá totalmente diluído. Aí ele pega 10 ml desse líquido e mistura em mais 1 litro d’água e chacoalha, chacoalha, chacoalha &c, fazendo uma diluição de 10⁴; aí ele pega *esse* líquido e mistura em *mais* 1 litro d’água &c &c &c e faz isso isso um total de 30 vezes. Ou seja, aqueles 10 ml de xarope terminam diluído à um fator de 1 pra 10⁶⁰: 1 molécula de xarope pra cada sesqui-quaqui-decaqui-cuncaqui-sentaqui-xupaquilhão de moléculas de água. ¿Sabe qtos átomo tem no universo visível? 10⁸⁰. Qdo ele termina as 30 diluições e tem em mãos um litro de produto homeopático, uma coisa de q ele pode ter certeza quase absoluta é q nesse litro não há siquer uma única molécula de xarope. Xarope é o homeopata.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Mas ¿quê tem isso à ver com lingüística? E ¿quê tem isso à ver com o filme, meudeusdocéu?

Ok, ok; já tamos chegando lá. Olha o q acontece na cabeça do homeopata qdo ele faz a primeira diluição de 1 pra 100: ele pensa “Hmm… Aqui tem xarope.” Qdo ele termina a segunda diluição, será 1 parte de xarope pra cada 10 mil partes d’água. Ele pega um litro da mistura e pensa “Hmm… Belo xarope.” Ao terminar a terceira diluição, qdo é 1 parte de xarope pra cada milhão de partes d’água, ele pensa “Hmm… Xarope do bom, hem.” ¿Quê tá acontecendo? À medida em q a diluição prossege, a palavra ‘xarope’ passa à se referir à cada vez menos xarope na realidade, mas a palavra continua intacta. Ou seja, com o passar do tempo, a palavra ‘xarope’ é potencializada, pois –na cabeça inepta do homeopata– o poder da diluição é cada vez maior, já q a *palavra* vai se referindo à quantidades cada vez menor. A palavra ‘xarope’ continua ali: ela não vai sumir NUNCA, embora o xarope em si já tenha sumido. Ao fim do processo, ela é quase mágica; na cabeça do homeopata, a palavra empresta “existência” à algo q não existe. O processo tornou impossível pensar naquela água sem pensar em xarope.

Qdo fizeram as conta e ficaram sabendo a verdade, os homeopata inventaram q a água tem “memória”, q ela irônicamente retém o *efeito* do xarope, apesar de não sobrar vestígio dele. HAHAHAHAHAHA Na verdade, o efeito do xarope tá é no rótulo, q diz (caso alguém tenha esquecido) “XAROPE”. A palavra nunca vai embora. Através da palavra, o nada “criou” algo.

Em A Caça, acontece algo similar ao ritual lingüístico homeopático. Num momento de raiva, uma garotinha diz algumas palavrinha de cunho sexual, e por mais q a diretora, as mãe, os pai, a comunidade toda chacoalhem e chacoalhem, por mais q o cara negue e se defenda, as palavrinha não somem NUNCA. Pelo contrário: elas são potencializada pela inépcia dos adulto e por sua inclinação à crer no pior. As palavra se espalham e outras criança começam à contar histórias sexual com o cara, enquanto a imaginação dos adulto extrapola e eles passam à crer q as criança não tão contando tudo q sabem pois os próprio adulto não conseguem confrontar a própria lubricidade. Qdo a menina se dá conta do q desencadeou, ela tenta se desdizer; mas é tarde demais: as palavra “pipi apontando pra cima” emprestaram existência à algo q nunca existiu. Tornou-se impossível pensar no cara e na menina sem a intermediação dum colossal caralho túrgido e latejante.

Irônicamente, qdo tudo é desmentido, resta no cara a memória de ter sido violentamente rejeitado pela comunidade; não sumirá nunca, a memória do efeito q as palavra da menina causaram; pelo resto da vida, o cara será atormentado por seu martírio. As palavrinha dela nunca vão embora. Através das palavra, o nada “criou” algo.

E a questão é essa, não? Pois, assim como a denúncia dramática não resulta em culpa, tampouco a farfúncia homeopática resulta em cura. No tribunal popular assim como na ciência médica, não se pode deixar q a mediação das palavra crie delírios.

Agora quero ver si vc consegue ver A Caça sem pensar em homeopatia.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

C.Q.D.

Então há chances reais de descriminalizar no Colorado?

-iwilldestroyyou:

Vote Yes on 64 Coloradans!  

Finding a voice for the brain injured

The Netherlands is predominantly famous for 2 things, the first is that it’s regularly cited as one of the best places to live in the world (and most liberal), secondly they are the envy of the world when it comes to flowers. They have fields of flowers so famous in fact, that tourists flock to them each year.

So it’s small wonder really that Zundert, a country town in the heart of Noord Brabant should be host to what is now the biggest and most impressive flower parade the world has ever seen.

It’s called Bloemencorso, with each entry being a float made entirely of flowers, but not just any flowers – they can only be dahlias. That’s the only rule – you can create, design and construct anything you like. The town and local judges then vote for their favourite flower floats and the winners are celebrated, with their works lauded around town until it all begins again the following year.

As you can imagine, it takes A LOT of work. Hundreds of people collaborate to construct each float, frantically working away wrapping wire, sticks, glue, cardboard not to mention thousands of flowers together to create these gigantic and jaw-dropping creations. This year fish, vampires, tigers & even meerkats all got their day in the sun – which makes you wonder what on earth will happen next year!

If you’re in the Netherlands and are planning on watching this eye-catching event, you’d better be there between September 1 & 2 – as that’s the confirmed date for the 2013 show.

In the meantime, here’s some inspiration from this years magnificent entries. You can view more here.

↬ Colossal

ENJOYED THEM? SHARE THEM!

Jamie Hanson/Newspix / Rex Features


Jamie Hanson/Newspix / Rex Features

allcreatures:

This koala joey was found abandoned beside a road in Brisbane, Australia last month. Named after the man who discovered him, Raymond was dehydrated and skinny, and weighed just 260g. It is believed his mother was either been hit by a car or was too ill to care for the 2-3-month-old. Initially, carers feared that Raymond wouldn’t survive because he weighed so little and wouldn’t feed properly. Julie Zyzniewski, who is looking after him, says: He had to be coaxed to feed. He was frail and his future was uncertain. Suddenly, one day he decided life wasn’t so bad and he has been absolutely powering along ever since.

Now, Raymond spends his days sitting at Julie’s desk, where she is able to feed him his diet of special bottle formula every three hours. According to Julie she is fortunate that her boss Paulette Jones has a soft spot for wildlife.

Pictures: Jamie Hanson/Newspix / Rex Features (Photos and captions)

Momento cultural: filhotes de coala (na verdade, de marsupiais em geral) se chamam “joey” em inglês.

O plano de logística anunciado pelo governo parte, corretamente, do diagnóstico de que o setor público não tem sido capaz de planejar a infraestrutura. É preciso definir uma hierarquia de problemas prioritários a resolver, fazer bons projetos para solucioná-los, escolher a melhor modalidade de exploração (concessão, parceria público-privada, ou gestão 100% pública), ou, ainda, integrar diferentes projetos. De fato, atualmente constroem-se hidrelétricas sem que seja aproveitado o potencial para a construção de eclusas que viabilizem o transporte aquaviário; projetos de transporte urbano não têm conexão entre si; obras ganham prioridade por desejo de governantes, e não como resultado de estimativas de seu retorno econômico e social.

Foi criada a Empresa de Planejamento e Logística (EPL), com a tarefa de definir prioridades, planejar e integrar os investimentos em infraestrutura. A EPL poderá chamar para a mesma mesa diversos ministérios, Ministério Público, IBAMA e TCU durante a elaboração dos projetos, para encontrar soluções técnicas que evitem contenciosos futuros e reduzam o risco de paralisação de obras. Poderá, também, avaliar a posteriori os investimentos realizados para evitar repetição de erros e aperfeiçoar o processo de planejamento.   Trata-se, portanto, de um poderoso instrumento de planejamento e gestão que pode levar a grandes ganhos na qualidade da infraestrutura disponível.

Porém, a pressa de concluir projetos para mostrá-los na propaganda eleitoral pode dificultar a estruturação da EPL. Trata-se de uma empresa nova, que precisará contratar engenheiros, organizar seu funcionamento, estabelecer rotinas. Isso toma tempo. Apressar projetos significa manter a lógica de querer fazer rápido e acabar fazendo malfeito, o que desestrutura qualquer tentativa de hierarquizar e estudar os problemas e projetos. O timing da política é diferente do timing do desenvolvimento econômico, e a pressa é o que diferencia o político comum do estadista.

Há também o risco de o governo se afastar do diagnóstico de que o problema central está na qualidade dos projetos e, como já ocorrido no passado, voltar a direcionar as suas baterias para o sintoma e não a causa do problema: a atuação de órgãos de controle (TCU, órgãos ambientais, Ministério Público). Esses órgãos, na maioria das vezes, interrompem obras que estão baseadas em projetos ruins, superfaturadas ou com outras irregularidades graves. É verdade que há casos de atuação quixotesca, como a recente interrupção da construção de Belo Monte, ou decorrente de interesses privados. Mas essas são exceções, que podem ser combatidas com recurso a instituições como o Conselho Nacional de Justiça, ou pelo debate nos fóruns governamentais. Atropelar os órgãos de controle é fazer a festa de quem quer lucrar à margem da lei.

Outro risco está na origem da EPL. Originalmente ela seria a ETAV, empresa criada pra administrar o Trem-Bala: um projeto que está longe de ser prioritário, com graves falhas de planejamento e com alto risco de gerar grande passivo para o governo. Se a transformação da ETAV em EPL decorre de que o governo resolveu colocar o Trem-Bala em banho-maria, passando a priorizar projetos mais importantes, temos um cenário benigno. Porém, se o governo insistir em levar a frente aquele projeto, a EPL corre o risco de concentrar toda a sua incipiente capacidade gerencial e técnica em um único projeto de alta complexidade, e será incapaz de cumprir a função de viabilizar os melhores projetos de infraestrutura.

Há, ainda, o risco de a EPL ser capturada por interesses corporativos de grupos dedicados a cultivar boas relações políticas, ou de se transformar em um planejador estatal à moda antiga, que acredite ser capaz de impor projetos aos parceiros privados. Disso resultariam projetos ruins, com alto custo de oportunidade na alocação de recursos públicos e privados.

Restam duas questões centrais. A primeira é como financiar o aumento nos investimentos em infraestrutura. O capital privado que será investido em infraestrutura não é “dinheiro novo” que entra na economia. Permanece no país o velho problema de baixa poupança (sobre esse assunto, leia neste site “Incentivar o consumo ou a poupança para estimular o crescimento econômico?”). O capital que o setor privado investirá em infraestrutura terá que ser deslocado de outros investimentos, que passarão a enfrentar escassez de financiamento. Tal escassez só não ocorrerá se o governo aumentar a sua poupança, por meio do controle do gasto corrente, reduzindo a sua demanda por recursos para financiar sua dívida. Ou, alternativamente, teremos que absorver poupança externa, aceitando a valorização do real e a ampliação do déficit em conta-corrente. Ou seja, o uso de concessões e parcerias público-privadas (PPP) não afasta a restrição ao investimento imposta pela baixa poupança nacional. Ela apenas viabiliza que, havendo uma madura e equilibrada relação contratual, os investimentos em infraestrutura sejam mais produtivos.

O segundo problema reside na enfática determinação do governo de tabelar a rentabilidade dos parceiros privados, impondo limites à taxa interna de retorno das concessões. Ora, cada candidato a concessionário tem o direito de apresentar, no leilão de concessão, a oferta (e consequente taxa de retorno implícita) que lhe parecer mais adequada, taxa essa que levará em conta o risco específico de cada um e será confrontada com a remuneração das demais possibilidades de aplicação dos recursos envolvidos. Ao final, o leilão decide quem leva a concessão.

Quem compra sapato barato, leva para casa um produto de qualidade inferior. Na compra de infraestrutura é a mesma coisa: dificilmente se pagará barato por uma estrada de primeira. A diferença em relação ao sapato é que o comprador dessa mercadoria sofre sozinho as consequências da sua escolha. No caso da infraestrutura todo o país sofre com a escolha errada do governo.

Download:

• veja este artigo também em versão pdf (clique aqui).

Publicado no Valor Econômico em 1/10/2012

Oh, look:


This is a video of SEO marketer Fox & Friends getting "punked."  Other headlines read "Gloriously Punked", "Pranked", "Owned", and "Pwned."  

Right wing marionette Gretchen Carlson thought she was interviewing a former Obama supporter turned Romnomaniac, but no:

the man who pranked Fox News said he's always believed "Fox News is a fake news organization," and explained that he wanted to shame the conservative television channel for being "stupid" and looking for interview subjects as if they were "casting a part in a show.

Pwonage.

I.

The thing is, your brain has to be full of prions to think that this "Punked By Obama Supporter" video shows Fox being punked, either that or you're in first grade where the following exchange is considered an awesome practical joke: "I told you my name's Bill, but it's not, it's Will!  All this time you thought it was Bill!  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"  I'd warn that kid he's going to get himself beat up at recess if I wasn't helping collect the dirt bombs.

Imagine you are in the target demo for Fox & Friends (i.e. your ex-husband drives an F150 and your daughter's Nokia is bedazzled), would you feel punked?  What would you see in the video?  You'd see a wise ass, a self-aggrandizing cynic, a douchebag.  So if he's pro-Obama, then the point is obvious: pro-Obama people are idiots.  Thanks, Max, you helped the cause.

Imagine Gretchen Carlson doing what she should have done if she was smart: kept the interview going longer.  "Oh, I'm sorry, Max, we must all be dummies here at Fox because when you told us you were pro-Romney we... just believed it.  We do that with the Bible and pre-war intelligence, too, gosh golly.  Well, you have a Columbia education and I'm giving you a national platform, why don't you tell us why we're all stupid here for supporting Romney?  Why should we want Obama for a second term?  Please, no soundbites you got from twitter."  As the kid's head melts like he was staring into the Ark of the Covenant we'd see clearly that he isn't an Obama supporter at all.  He may be voting for Obama, I have no idea, but he wasn't there for Obama, he was there for himself under the pretense antagonizing Fox, which is why his main argument was "s'up."  Advice for aspiring comics like Max: if you get to go on TV, you should probably prepare some material.

Note, however, that the key antagonism here isn't between Romney's ideas and Obama's ideas, or even Romney and Obama, but Romney supporters and Obama supporters.  This is textbook contemporary political debate: attack people you hate.  The college kid doesn't like Obama, he just hates Romney supporters.  And Gretchen Carlson doesn't like Romney, she hates Obama supporters.  The debate isn't the point-- indeed, you are not supposed to see how similar they are-- the hate is the point.  The candidates themselves are interchangeable.

We typically think of, say, Fox and MSNBC as opposites, as enemies, but everything else about them, from their paychecks to their zip code to their terrible, terrible, just plain awful hairstyles are identical.  It's expedient to say Obama and Romney are opposites and color code them red and blue or black and white depending on whether you drink sugar water or rice beer, but those distinctions make it really hard to make sense of the world, here are 3 simple questions you will be unable to answer:

1. Who is more likely to oversee the end of war in Afghanistan? 
2. Who is more likely to raise taxes on the rich?
3. Who is less likely to send covert paramilitary troops into Iran, and more likely to sell them weapons? 

The answer to all of those is Reagan.  History is confusing, and colors aren't going to help.


II.

It's easy to guess that the target demo for Fox & Friends is white women over 55 who have to get their teenage kids off to the methadone clinic and are perfectly content with a flip phone.  "I don't need a touchscreen to fellowship with the Lord."  Fair point.  Gretchen Carlson is a standard example of what that demo calls a "well put together woman"-- heavy foundation, dresses that fit easily over Spanx and the hypercoiffed hairdo preferred by men who first ejaculated in the 1970s.  I just got the shivers.  Fun fact: Michele Bachmann was her babysitter back in the day.  "Michele who?"  Exactly.  Remember how you were told she mattered, and you believed it?  Kept you out of the game for 2 years 11 months, well done.  Assange was right, the internet does make it easier for us to think for ourselves.

What's not easy to guess, yet importantly true, is that the other target demo for Fox & Friends is everyone who viscerally hates that first demo.  Do you think it upsets Fox that their footage is making The Huffington Post a lot of money?  All part of the plan.  The battle isn't Red v. Blue, but Purple v. You.  You lose.

She is thoroughly hated, not for legitimate reasons like having hair in the shape of a Death Squad Commander but for silly reasons like her regressive politics.  I know, I know, she's a conservative ideologue wingnut that covertly serves the 1% by.... serving as an easy target for the left?  Hmm.

As #50ShadesOnKindle as she appears to be, as sure as you are she is irredeemable,  here's a thought experiment to show you how much you are being fooled: what would it take to get her to convert to Obamanism?  Say Fox closed and MSNBC offered her a $500k/yr gig going pro-B.O.  Could she do it? 

Of course you could say, "everyone has a price, and $500k seems close," which is true but misses a very important nuance.  In theory, she could put on a happy face and banter pleasantly with Rachel Maddow every morning ("we both went to Oxford and like lesbian haircuts!") then use her large paycheck to Gattaca scrub away the icky feeling under 45 minutes of scalding water.   But that doesn't happen, that can't happen, not anymore-- there are no hypocrites, there are no shills; and cynicism only works looking out a window, never  through a looking glass.  No, she was born in 1966, which puts her firmly in the Dumbest Generation Of Narcissists In The History Of The World, the one that values authenticity over anything else, so she couldn't just lie for the money, she'd have to make herself believe it.  And it would be easy for her to do.  She'd start out with some "I'm a fiscal conservative, but socially liberal" stances, "gay marriage seems fine, I guess, of course civil and women's rights" an hour or so later she's figured out that social security may be a mess but she's not against the idea of a government backed social safety net..."  Nine seconds after that she'd understand that taxing the super-rich is demonstrably ethical and, in retrospect, maybe we should not have gone into Iraq... After a month of reprogramming, all of her hate will be for the 22nd Amendment because it single handedly prevents Bill Clinton from being President a third time.  "God," she'd lament, "if we could just have gotten that wonderful man a live-in  concubine, we'd be in much better shape today."

The point isn't that she doesn't have political beliefs, but that they are founded on an artificial premise supplied to you by the media, of which ironically she is both supplier and victim.  If you look at Presidents without the filter of an LCD screen, they don't really play by the Red/Blue color scheme.  (Congressmen do, which is why they are useless.)  In fact if you really follow their actions, Presidents all appear to be.... doing the same things.  Quoting Homer Simpson, as he presses the button for Romney: "I'm voting for the guy who invented Obamacare."

Their supporters, however, will stab you in the throat for driving the wrong bumper sticker.  How do you generate that kind of rage without filming his wife blowing the neighbor?  ("Woah!" Sorry, it's the porn book again.)  In the age of authenticity and identity an easy way is for the media to "expose" people, e.g. show that what the candidate believes and what he says are different, i.e. that at best they "just say stuff to get elected" and at worst they are hypocritical ideologues, but this way of thinking is a media template, this is not how individual psychology works, not today.  Do you think that when everyone in Congress voted to invade Iraq, they were saying to themselves, "I really think this is a bad idea, but the stupid rednecks in my zipcode all want it, and I want to get re-elected, but I feel a little guilty for doing it"?  WRONG.  Each of them created an explanation for why voting for war was right.  NO GUILT.  Some truly wanted it, sure; others... figured out how to want it.  The important thing is to stay true to yourself.

Ours is a narcissistic society, i.e. each of us has never experienced hypocrisy because we are constantly amending our moral code so that we don't ever do something against our conscience, "this situation is different"; but since each of us has never committed the sin of hypocrisy, it must, therefore, be the worst of all sins.  So on a societal scale, who will find and "punish" hypocrisy?  The answer is the media.  If you consider the media is, for all intents and purposes, society's "maternal superego"-- the one that makes you feel b/m/sad for not being as fulfilled as you're supposed to be-- then the media's job is to pretend to have uncovered the REAL motivations for things.  Now you feel better.

This explains the furor over the "leaked" Romney speech in which he was cleverly but dangerously, secretly, recorded saying... what?  Talking on his flip phone to the chairman of the Illuminati, telling them to open the moongate and let commence the demon invasion?






No, he was recorded saying the exact same thing he has always said, in the exact same words, not to a clandestine polycephalic conspirator but a room full of Viagra addicts.  "I'm just going to say a few spontaneous, off the cuff remarks I've prepared on colored index cards, Ann, can you pass me my bifocals?"  I'm not endorsing his message, only observing that he was stupendously on message.  I want to meet the one person in America who was surprised by this speech so I can harvest his liver for a transplant.  It's laughable for the Huffington Post to be appalled at Romney for saying that 47% of the population is dependent on the government and will vote for Obama no matter what.  First of all, the correct dependency figure is 95%, and second, duh, that's why they're called swing states.  Don't you have a map of this on your site?

So what made this video so astonishing and newsworthy isn't what he said but the very fact of its existence-- that it was a "leak".  If he had said those exact same words to Gretchen Carlson at 7am standing on his mark it wouldn't have even made her own show: too boring, Mitt is droning again.  But the video conveys the impression of the "real" feelings of Mitt Romney as opposed to "what he says just to get elected" even though those are the same thing. 

If your personal politics are making it difficult to understand this, let's try it the other way. The Right's main criticism of Obama is that he is... secretly more liberal than he appears to be.  Hence their obsession with his former weatherman or imam or whatever he was and alleged recordings of him saying he hates whitey.  I'm no Obamaton, but so what?  I've observed him daily for four years pretending to be George Bush.  What is he waiting for?  The last day of his last term so he can call Russia on his flip phone and tell them we surrender?  "I use a Blackberry."  Very progressive.  So we learn today that what a person does is less important than what he says, and what he says is less important than what he truly believes, and this rule holds even if they're the same thing.  I'm not one to throw stones, but I blame the parents.  


III.

Remember Wikileaks?  The hot video back in 2010 was the recording of the helicopter attack that killed civilians and/or Iraqis.
 







This is the kind of stuff Wikileaks thought would affect change in policy.  Well, they did help get us a new President, but a change in policy? What was the debate this video inspired?  The discussion went very quickly from being about what was in the video-- and forcing us to decide what we want to do with our helicopters--  to being about the video itself-- its existence, the leak.  In this way, the exact same video was used to fuel your hate for the other side.  Meanwhile... anyone else find it interesting/duh that if you whistleblow for the U.S. government you get $104M, but if you whistleblow against the government you get two years solitary confinement without trial, in both cases under Obama?  "Suicide risk."  You don't say.

IV.

Back to Fox & Friends, hey, what do you know, none of us watch Fox & Friends, yet here we are.

The standard media constructed bipolar political conflict is a cash cow for sure but it's not real, please stop yelling at each other, it is madness.  The real battle is depicted perfectly in the above video, you just can't see it because the Lefty-Loosey title is, "Punked By Obama Supporter."  If the Righty-Tighty title was used, it would say:  "See This Unemployed Jerk? Why Does He Deserve Free Healthcare?"  But the true, Bilderberg/Area 51 title cannot be spoken aloud: "Pick Whatever Side You Want, As Long As You Vote To Reduce Corporate Labor Costs."

You probably thought that squirrel rodeo-riding that rattle snake is real.
Nope!-- sorry about that...

The novelty taxidermy mount of an Antelope ground squirrel riding a 4ft. Arizona black timber rattlesnake, by Wild Things Taxidermy, is currently available for one more day, on eBay.

via

brandizzi: RT @drunkeynesian: In praise of the extremely ugly and highly functional corporate website http://t.co/VfdjSllK

brandizzi: A Child’s Isolating Illness http://t.co/XGiQeWNN A história de uma família lidando com o mortal câncer de um bebê.

Awesome trees from Brasília, from an amazing competition.

When life gives you lemonade…

iamdkj:

lmfao

Eis uma fantasia realmente assustadora.

via