Friday, October 16, 2009

John Mayer threatens to sodomize Vulture editor

This John Mayer interview is too good! I had to repost it.

Last night, Vulture had the pleasure of running into world-renowned blues legend John Mayer at a party at the Elle Decor-sponsored Armani/Casa party, where he was playing host. Since he's known for political outspokenness and the trenchant commentary of hits like "Waiting on the World to Change," we figured we'd ask his opinion on health-care reform and Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. Our freewheeling conversation touched on seventies mustaches and his new album, and concluded, naturally, with the threat of forced sodomy. Enjoy!

What do you think about Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize?
I think it's fantastic.

Why? What's your overall opinion?
Do you think I'm smart enough to be able to articulate to you why our president receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is a bit early for things? What's your overall opinion?

I think it's a bit premature. Someone compared it to giving an Oscar to someone still making a film.
So you don't think he should have it.

I don't think it's a bad thing, but maybe someone else deserved it more.
Who? If you don't know who else should have gotten it instead of Obama, I love you, you're beautiful, but shut your fucking mouth.

What do you think about health care? Would you take the public option?
Have you ever heard me play guitar? I'm really fucking good. You know what I'm bad at? Answering questions about public health care. This is not in my wheelhouse. Do you have any questions about music? I almost got a mad need to lighten up. You need to lighten up, because the questions you asked me were all troublemaking questions. If someone gave me the Nobel Peace Prize, and I didn't deserve it, I would just shut my mouth and enjoy the hell out of it.

Which I'm sure he's doing.
What's he going to do, send it back? It's like I'm getting a wrongful bulge in my pants and everyone's thinking I've got a nine-inch cock. I'm not going to argue with them, I'm going to let them think I have a nine-inch cock.

How about a style question?
Yes, this seems to be apropos. Do you get paid for this?

I do it more for fun.
You do this for fun? That's like me saying ... never mind.

What do you think about guys with seventies mustaches?
I don't give a fuck about who wears their face what way. If I could grow a beard, I'd have some nutty things going on on my face.

You can't grow a beard?
It's a pituitary thing. I know you're not that much of a moron.

These are questions my editor wanted me to ask. I'm trying to build my journalistic career here.
You're not building a journalistic career. You're making yourself look like a moron and you're not a moron. Who's your editor?

Jada is making you sound like a moron in front of people.

Why don't you tell me about your new album? You've been in the studio for a while.
I have a record coming out November 17.

Any particular theme or inspiration behind this one that makes it different from previous albums?
Look what we're doing right now! We're connecting right now! This is great! Yeah, it's going to be quite melodically bright, but the themes are all about heartbreak.

How is that different? Haven't you written a lot about heartbreak?
I think most artists do, but this is really breaking into the theme of it as a concept.

Is there hope behind the heartbreak?
The melody is the hope. The lyrics are the heartbreak, the melody is the hope. If you have the lyrics being the heartbreak and the music as the heartbreak, your editor made you ask stupid fucking questions! You're standing in front of me acting as if these questions are fair, but now we're talking about something real. So there was stuff I wanted to put on the record that just didn't fit the concept. So the next record will have that concept.

What concept?
More political things, worldly things.

Such as?
Nothing rhymed with public option.

You don't always have to rhyme, though.
I'm going to forcefully sodomize your editor.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

More on defining "Climate Change"

The term “global warming” is more than just a failed theory, it represents at least 20 years of fear mongering used to promote restrictive regulations and anti-growth legislation. And now it seems that those who have been leveraging the term are just going to shrug it off as though it never happened. Instead, they want to rally around “man-made climate change” as the new threat to the future, taking pains to leave it as undefined as their previously concocted phantoms.

Should the appropriators of the global warming hoax be allowed to simply drop the subject and be let off the hook? Ideally, no. Anyone who attempts to continue arguing a lost debate by playing semantics should properly be called out and made to admit their error. However, the debate over man’s effect on the environment is not structured. The self-proclaimed defenders of the environment need only toss out claims without fear of having to defend them. That is because the debate doesn’t occur behind paired podiums, but in the realm of public opinion.
As far back as this author can remember, one environmental scare has followed another, each with its prescribed political solution and each ecological problem magically going away once the political goal is attained. When is the last time anyone heard about acid rain or the ozone hole? According to various groups on the internet, these things are still problems plaguing us this very moment, but it seems the media stopped worrying about them near the time amendments requiring smokestack scrubbers were added to the Clean Air Act (mid-1990s) or once the UN adopted the Montreal Protocol (1987). Is it possible that if the United States had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the subject of global warming would have vanished from the major news outlets then?

While it would be fun to rub the fallacy of global warming in some faces, it would likely accomplish little. A better approach would be to counter dubious claims with facts. If the public receives a counter to every climate change claim that is made, more and more they will dismiss the claims out of hand without even waiting for the refutation. Like it or not, no one is going to overtly declare a victor, unless one declares it for his own side. Obviously, claims that the debate was over did not make it so. The fact that the term “global warming” is falling out of favor is about as much victory as one will see.

Now, this is not all to say that the term “global warming” should be left to die. In much the same way the global cooling scare of the 70’s is referenced in debunking global warming, both can be used to demonstrate that the ones crying “man-made climate change” have no idea what they are talking about.

The goal isn’t to convert the “true believers” of man-made climate change. No evidence will sway those ones. The goal is to reach the discerning individual who is looking for answers. It is to make him ask, “Why would one make such unfounded claims?” From that point, all the evidence needed exists to show how environmentalists for years have perpetrated their scare tactics to push onerous legislation and regulation that inhibit freedom and enhance government authority.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Obama wins Nobel prize for Participation

Like the fat kid in a grade-school track meet receiving his participation ribbon for showing up, U.S. President Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace prize on the basis of what he is trying to do.

According to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the prize was given to Obama for his "efforts to strengthen international diplomacy," his "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons" and for inspiring hope and creating "a new climate in international politics."

As further justification, Norwegian Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said, "If you look at the history of the Peace Prize, we have on many occasions given it to try to enhance what many personalities were trying to do," "We are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do," and “[The prize] is a clear signal to the world that we want to advocate the same as he has done to promote international diplomacy."

In more realistic terms, they’ve awarded him the prize because he delivers a good speech. What peace-loving politician does not desire all the things just named? If the Nobel Prize were meant to award good intentions, then all good people should win.
Fortunately, there remain those who remember that awards such as the Nobel Prize is intended to reflect accomplishments, not intentions.

"Who, Obama? So fast? Too fast -- he hasn't had the time to do anything yet." - Lech Walesa, anti-communist Polish leader and winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize
"President Obama has yet to prove that he will move seriously on the Middle East, that he will end the war in Afghanistan and many other issues," - Mairead Corrigan Maguire, 1976 Nobel Peace Prize winner, also said she was "very sad" to hear of the award

"He has achieved nothing. He's stumbling. He hasn't achieved any of his promises and nothing is working. He promised to close Guantanamo and now that's not going to happen, and the Arab-Israeli conflict looks like it's going to get very nasty." - Hisham Qasim, Egyptian democracy and human rights activist

“It seems premature to me. I think the committee should be very careful with the integrity of the prize… Sometimes of course the prize is awarded to people who are in the process of making history, so to speak, but in this case I think it is too early to know that.” - Nils Butenschon, director of the Norwegian Center for Human Rights at the University of Oslo

“Good intentions are something and good deeds are something else. And creating reality is not achieved by good intentions; it is by good actions.” - Saad al-Ajmi, former Kuwaiti minister of information

These are just a few prominent individuals with the credentials to put massive weight behind their criticism of the Nobel Committee’s decision. I could go on and on with the words of commentators and pundits who are just as astonished.

Instead, I will sum it up in the President’s own words, “I don’t believe I belong in the company of the transformative figures that have been honored by this prize." At least we can agree with the President on that.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Defining "Climate Change"

“Whoever defines the issue controls the debate.” –Timothy Cummings
Environmentalists have dropped the term "global warming." Maybe not completely, but there is a shift in the environmental movement that moves away from talk of "global warming" in favor of discussing "climate change." This is an insidious move because the term lacks any clarity on what it might mean.
I'm not saying that anyone working to debunk the global warming myth is wasting their efforts. But I am warning that conservatives do not want to appear "out-of-date" on this issue. Rather soon, I believe, environmentalists will concede that global warming is not a threat. But the caveat will be that they are still right in their premise, that human activity may* be affecting the global climate (another meaningless term). Indications of cooling temperatures will be co-opted into climate change theory, regardless of the actual causes.
As for "global warming deniers," they will actually be credited for realizing the “true” climate change trend. But their premise, that climate change is a constant with or without human activity, will be disregarded. Anyone who continues using the term “global warming” after that will be ridiculed as out-of-touch, behind-the-times and compared to Confederate flag waving southerners fighting long ended battles.
Case in point: The EPA website has no page devoted to global warming any longer. You will not find the term on the EPA home page. With help from’s Wayback Machine, I’ve determined that the phrase “global warming” has been gone from the EPA homepage since about January 25, 2006. In fact, you can’t find the term on any page directly linked to the home page. It takes a minimum of three clicks to locate the term “global warming.” Nor will you find it on the EPA topics page:
When searching the EPA website for the term “global warming,” the first result links to the following URL: On that page, one will find the following blurb: “Climate Change or Global Warming? The phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use to 'global warming' because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures."
My premise is that I think it would behoove conservatives to step away from global warming debunking and move toward defining the term “climate change” within a logical framework before it enters the common lexicon. There is no denying climate change is real, we see it with every passing front and each year with the change of seasons. Our planet has undergone epochs of tropics and ice. Deserts and forests have literally migrated across Earth’s surface within recorded history.
But the environmental movement has glommed onto the term “climate change” and is beginning to charge it to suit its ends. We, as conservatives, can help shape the general understanding of those words so that they will be rendered ridiculous in any conversation attempting to link climate change with human activity.
An example of where this has not happened is with the term “greenhouse gas.” Greenhouse gasses are normal, natural things essential to our atmosphere’s proper functioning. True, human activity does emit some of these gasses, but in amounts so overwhelmingly insignificant, it ought to be laughable to think our contribution is meaningful. However, the average Joe thinks our factories and automobiles are spewing immeasurable quantities of some unnatural pollutant called CO2, simply because they only understand the situation with the definitions they have been given.
*Note: The expression that human activity may contribute to climate change is commonly used. Many environmental agencies that wish to retain credibility shy away from making this connection directly, since they know full-well that their premise has a sandy foundation at best. This is a chink in the armor of the environmentalist stance. Exploit it.