About Me

My photo
blonde, blue eyed, do you want my likes and dislikes? Just Kidding. I'll fill this out at some time when I know exactly how to describe myself..which might be by someone else, post-mortum, only because I don't think I could sum myself up entirely, because people in general change everyday and can never make up their minds and if they are adamant about something? Well then they're not open to new ideas, research,and realizations. Everyday something happens that makes us different the next day than what we were the day before. That's life.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Email from Michael Moore WTG!!!!!

Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange (A statement from Michael Moore)

Tuesday, December 14th, 2010


Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:

**Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."

**The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."

**Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

**Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."

**Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."

**Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."

And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!

WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.

I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?

But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)

Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?

Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

Instead, secrets killed them.

For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.

Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.

And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.

I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.


Michael Moore



P.S. You can read the statement I filed today in the London court here.

P.P.S. If you're reading this in London, please go support Julian Assange and WikiLeaks at a demonstration at 1 PM today, Tuesday the 14th, in front of the Westminster court.

Join Mike's Mailing List
Follow Mike on Twitter
Join Mike's Facebook Group
Become Mike's MySpace Friend

You are currently subscribed to michaelmoore as: Clearylm@hotmail.com

Add maillist@michaelmoore.com to your email address book to ensure delivery

Forward to a Friend
Manage Subscription

Nuttin' For Christmas (Cris Vangel Remix) - Art Mooney/Massive Attack - ...

jingle bells {Hip Hop Rap} instrumental

Hardstyle Jingle bells

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Too Much Fun To Groove To!


WARNING: The Following Is Abrasive And May Scratch Surfaces

Tweet's To Kill Yourself By Laughter To
half and half and half = A type of coffee so diluted by sugar, cream or milk that it no longer tastes like coffee.

tanorexia = A disease like anorexia, no matter how tan a person is they never think they are tan enough. AKA an Oompa Loompa

nomonym = When you eat something and it tastes exactly like something else.

Dweet = tweeting while intoxicated. Otherwise know as drunken tweeting.

Vatican Roulette = Another name for the rhythm method of birth control.

Social Terrorism = When someone you know comes to visit unexpectedly and inconveniently, often staying for a long time.

Masturdating = Going out for an evening by yourself. IE: dinner at a restaurant, a movie, mini-golf, etc.

Alltheist = A person who tries to claim ties to every religion out of fear of picking the "wrong" one.

It'll make a terd = A phrase used when a meal or dinner you just had was less than desirable.

food baby = When you eat so much at one sitting you look pregnant.

heteroflexible = Being straight by nature but going gay when it seems like the best option at the time.

What the actual fuck? = Expression of surprise or confusion used when what the fuck is insufficient to convey the magnitude of the situation

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

What would he say now? 12/13yrs later?

 Norms, Roles, and Status
Dr. C. George Boeree


Earlier, we talked about contrasts, beliefs, rules, and so on.  We focused in on traits and the inferences we make from them.  In this section, we are going to talk about another set of contrasts and the inferences they lead us to make.  I call these sociocultural or  shared  expectations, and they include norms, roles, and status.

It's one of the great mysteries of the world that, while the laws of nature (like gravity) "weigh us down," their very consistency, their orderliness, their predictability, allows us to use them for our own ends.  Knowing the laws of gravity and aerodynamics and so forth allows us to design and build airplanes that (in a sense) "free" us from those laws!  Our power comes from our knowledge of that background of order.

The social world is also orderly.  Social order doesn't have the necessity that physical order has, and while the force of law or custom may be powerful, ultimately we choose to conform or not.  "You cannot have sex with your mother" is a powerful injunction, but it's still not quite as powerful as "You cannot walk through a brick wall." (Kelvin, p. 21)

Nevertheless, just like in the physical world, in order to act in the social world, we need some order.  The social order is based on shared expectations (beliefs, rules, values) called  norms.

Norms are used as standards with which we measure the appropriateness of behaviors, perceptions, beliefs, and even feelings, within the social group to which the norms are relevant.  "Social group" may refer to an entire culture or society, a subculture or ethnic group, an organization or community, or even a club or gang.

The word norm is from the same root as "normal," and the simplest way of finding norms in some group or society is to see what the people consider to be normal.  Normal (if you remember your basic statistics) means "what is highly probable" -- and you could list various behaviors and ask people to rate them.  (These ratings are known as subjective probabilities.)

How often do you brush your teeth?  Never?  Once a year?  Once a month?  Once a day?  Twice a day?  Three times a day?  Every hour?  Continuously?  In our society, I believe, once or twice a day might be considered normal.  A child might skip a day; a dental hygienist might brush after every meal and snack.

But note:  A norm need not be what everyone says is right or good!  We probably all should brush three times a day, and floss as well, but we don't -- that wouldn't be considered "normal."  Criminals may be abnormal, but so are saints!

On the other hand, sometimes the norm is  not  what most people do.  It's interesting to compare what people  think  is normal with what actually is  normal (statistically) in private domains such as sexuality! Not long ago, for example, society’s norms still included taboos regarding masturbation, even while a majority of people engaged in the practice!

Norms, like habits, seem to maintain their own existence:  "The behavior 'prescribed' by an informal norm is prescribed because it is deemed to be valid.  This validity itself, however, is inferred from the frequency of occurrence of the behavior in question."  (Kelvin, p. 87)  So we brush our teeth once or twice a day because that is normal, and it is normal because we brush our teeth once or twice a day.

Note that one of the most common source of information about "frequency of occurrence" is tradition.  So a norm such as "boys will wear pants; girls will wear skirts" is justified by saying "boys were meant to wear pants; girls were meant  to wear skirts," and that in turn is justified by noting "It has always been so."

Beyond habit and tradition, a group or society may also reinforce norms with sanctions,  that is, with rewards and (especially) punishments.  Then, when norms and sanctions become formalized, they become rules, laws, judicial systems, penitentiaries, electric chairs, and so on.

The classic demonstration of normative behavior is Muzafer Sherif's.  If I shine a pin-point of light on a wall in an otherwise pitch-black room, it would appear to move -- an illusion called the  autokinetic effect.   If I were to ask you how far it moved, you could give a guess -- 5 or 6 inches, perhaps.  What Sherif did was to have a group of people view the dot and give their guesses outloud.  While at first the guesses might differ by a few inches, with each repeated presentation of the light, their guesses would come closer together -- that is, the group would develop a "norm."

If Sherif put a "stooge" -- one of his assistants -- in a group and instructed him to give an inflated guess (14 or 15 inches, for example), the group would tend to make higher guesses in response to the stooge.  If the stooge stuck to his high guesses, he could bring the whole group up to his guess.  Sherif even found that the artificially high norms could last for several "generations" of subjects:  He would replace, after so many guesses, first the stooge, then others of the original group, with new people.  The high norm would only slowly disappear.

So, in the real world, we have many norms that are no longer terribly helpful or relevant, that nevertheless last and last.  There are lots of examples to be found in the relations between men and women!

Conformity to norms

We tend to think of conformity to norms as being bad somehow--a sign of weakness, stupidity, even fascist slavishness.  But, first of all, our lives are full of conformity to norms, much of which we don't even notice because we all conform!  After all, conformity to norms is normal, by definition.

Take clothing:  You may think of yourself as being highly individualistic, and may point out the great variety of styles around you.  But notice instead the similarities:  As you look around you at your fellow students, notice the jeans and t-shirts and preppy hand-me-downs.  And what would happen if one of you came into class in a tuxedo, a chiffon evening gown, a bikini, nothing, a kimono or sari, in the clothing of the opposite sex... well, that wouldn't be "right," would it--perhaps a sign of mental illness.  That is, we would make inferences, as in any act of person perception.

(Remember how wearing conventional clothes suggests to people that you are more trustworthy?  Unconventional clothes suggest the opposite.)

Secondly, imagine what it would be like if everyone wore, did, spoke without regard to "styles," "traditions," norms--without regard to others' expectations?  You'd be living in constant unpleasant unpredictableness.  You've all met "unusual" people, people from whom you never quite know what to expect:  Imagine if everyone acted that way.  The mild irritation would mount to unbearable levels.  It'd be what many people experience when they move to other parts of the world and don't know the norms:   culture shock.

Imagine further what it would be like for young children, who are only just  learning to anticipate people.  Childhood would be even more painful than it already is.  It is not for nothing that we maintain a certain comfortable regularity in our homes, that we don't act crazy in front of children, and that we all sometimes feel a nostalgia for the "simple life" of our home towns.  Developmentally, we grow "into" our individuality from a base of consistency.

There are a number of different ways of describing norms.  The simplest is to contrast   prescribed  and  proscribed  behavior.  Prescribed behaviors are the "musts," the obligations, the things that make you a member of the group.  Proscribed behaviors are the "must nots," the taboos.  Small groups will kick you out if you do these things (like "no shoes, no service").  Societies tend to imprison, institutionalize, excommunicate, exile, or kill you.

Another way refers to the ideas of normality and probability mentioned before:  The horizontal axis represents the variety of behaviors in question; the vertical axis the degree of normality:

We need to add only one thing:  a line that divides the acceptable from the unacceptable behaviors, so:

If we are looking at "appropriate dress for professors" as the behaviors, we might find tuxedos and evening gowns on one end of the curve, and swim suits or complete nakedness on the other end.  In between, anything from blue jeans to three-piece pin-striped suits might be acceptable.  And, perhaps, at the "peak" of acceptability, we might find the style I call "professorial chic" -- for men, patches on jacket elbows, knit tie, hush puppies...; for women, wool skirts, peter pan collars, sensible shoes....

Sherif developed a third way of describing norms that compromises between the gradual curve and the abruptness of "prescribed-proscribed."  There is a set of behaviors in a  latitude of acceptance  which are important to membership; there are also  latitudes of rejection  that include behaviors unacceptable to the group; and in between are neutral latitudes that include the irrelevancies:

A Lutheran, for example, might be comfortable with Episcopalian and Presbyterian church services, be non-committal about a Catholic mass on the one hand or a Methodist service on the other, place Greek Orthodox services beyond Catholic ones as sensual and mysterious, and Baptist services beyond Methodist ones as rather exuberant and excited.

Among the details that Sherif discovered in his research was that the more "ego-involvement" (i.e. passion) in the issues, the smaller the latitude of acceptance and larger the latitudes of rejection.  A very intense Lutheran might not find any services other than his own acceptable.

And people who find themselves at one extreme or the other of a range tend to be more ego-involved.  Extreme religious groups tend to be much fussier about what seems to others to be tiny details.  In some ways it is easier, psychologically, to be an extremist:  It takes less thought, less effort;  You  know.   Moderates, on the other hand, tend to more tolerant, and more confused.


Which brings us to some of the problems we find concerning norms.  One problem is the disagreement about norms that we find when two groups or societies necessarily interact.  Another problem is disagreement  within  a group or society as to the norms, or the latitudes, or the appropriate sanctions.  Many petty squabbles, and quite a few major wars, are based on the social friction that occurs when norms are not agreed upon.

Once upon a time, we lived in small, isolated, and rather authoritarian societies:  Norms were strong, tradition was strong, there was little conflict and little change.  Even today much of the world's people live in what developmental psychologistUrie Bronfenbrenner calls  monolithic  societies.

But nowadays, because of communications and education, we find ourselves more and more confronted with a great variety of norms -- what Bronfenbrenner calls pluralism.   The constant bickering typical of our society is one symptom.  But so is, according to Bronfenbrenner, the development of higher values!  It is difficult to develop a sophisticated value system for yourself if you haven't experienced a variety of value systems.

In monolithic cultures, norms are expected to be known and followed by everyone.     E. T. Hall calls this high context:  You have to be aware of millions of subtle little details in order to know what to do or how to read another person's behavior.  A child in a monolithic culture learns the rules with his mother's milk, and the rules tend to be quite unconsciously adhered to.  Japan is more monolithic or high context than we are, for example.

On the other hand, in pluralistic cultures, norms have to be pretty well spelled out -- what Hall calls low context.  There are fewer norms, they have to be consciously followed, and are often explicitly taught.  Our own culture, especially when you get out of rural areas or the urban neighborhoods, is very pluralistic and low context.


So, norms are shared expectations.  Usually we think of these shared expectations as referring to general behavior expected of everyone in the group.  But we can also have shared expectations concerning specific members of the group.  We may expect them, and they may expect themselves, to perform a certain function, to play a certain  role  in the group.  Roles are shared expectations concerning functions.

There are many different types of roles.  For example, many roles are  formal.   In large groups (organizations, societies), these formal roles have titles and are used to refer to some category of people.  "Doctor," for example, is a title we give to certain people, and we expect them to act in certain ways in certain situations.  And they expect themselves to act so, too.  Note that people who play certain roles may get together to form groups of their own, e.g. the American Medical Asociation.

There are also very tiny roles called low-level implicit positions that have no title, are very short-lived, are found only in certain highly specific circumstances, and may be quite flexible.  "Giving the bride away" at a wedding is an example:  It doesn't have its own title (like "maid of honor"); it occurs only at a specific point in the ceremony and lasts only a few minutes; it never carries over into, say, the reception; and the role, though usually played by the father of the bride, may be played by another person, or even by more than one person -- both parents, for example.

Then there are roles so broad they get confused with biology.  What is "woman," for example?  A certain chromosome arrangement?  Certain reproductive plumbing?  Or is it a way of being loaded with all sorts of cultural expectations?  It is more of the latter than most people realize.

One important thing about roles is that they come in pairs;  role-relations  are always  reciprocal.   We (non-doctors), when we find ourselves in certain situations in the presence of doctors, are expected to behave in certain ways.  Doctors expect it of us; onlookers expect it of us; and we ourselves expect it of us.  We take the role of patient.

This goes back to the idea of contrasts:  To have doctor you must have patient; to have teacher you must have student; husband-wife; parent-child..., and all in reverse as well.  Notice the embarrassment, or even pathology, of someone playing a certain role to the wrong person, or attempting to play it towards everyone.

In my definition I mentioned functions.   For roles to be meaningful to people, they must have a function, a purpose, a task in the society or group; they do not refer to accidental or haphazard behaviors.  The doctor is there for a purpose, as is the patient.  It is the task or function that becomes our standard for evaluating the role-player:  One can be a good doctor or a bad one, a good patient or a bad one, and so on.

But I must point out to you that many, perhaps most, of the behaviors associated with a role are more  symbolic  of purpose than truly purposeful -- although the symbolic is always "purposeful" in that it tells us that a role is present.  Why does the doctor wear a lab coat and write illegibly?  Why does the banker wear a suit?  The bride a wedding dress?

I also keep mentioning  situations.   Roles typically express themselves in the context of certain situations.  At the hospital, in the examining room, at the scene of an emergency...these are appropriate situations to engage a doctor-patient role relationship.  If the doctor asks you to remove your clothing at a cocktail party, you may be suspicious.

Roles also typically express themselves in the  context  of a performance.   The doctor has examining room routines, the banker has certain paperwork, the bride has her wedding....  Notice again the amount of symbolism in the performance, beyond the actually task.

The performance may, however, be much more than symbolic:  It may have functions of its own.  Much of the examining room ritual, for example, is devoted to de-sexualization.  We go out of our way to guarantee asexuality:  The nurse at the door, the air conditioning one setting too cold, the cold, hard, plastic table with paper on it, the cold stethoscope, the rubber gloves, the uniforms, the diplomas on the walls... all help in making the intentions clear.

The lack of warmth exhibited by surgeons is another example:  In order to deal with the realities of surgery, it seems necessary for most surgeons to keep themselves emotionally detached from the people they cut into!  Note the age-old rule among surgeons that they never operate on family members.

Roles may have some specific  prerequisites:  to be a doctor, a certain education is expected, along with experience, licensing, etc.  To be a bride, you must be a woman of a certain minimum age, not married to someone else, etc.  Likewise, roles may also have certain  consequences:  The MD degree opens up a certain range of possibilities;  being a bride results in a specific new role, that of wife.


There are plenty of opportunities for problems regarding roles.  First, we can have misunderstandings between people.  For example, we may not realize we are supposed to be in a certain role relation -- like when one of you thinks you're lovers, but the other doesn't.  Or we may not know what the role entails, what the rules are, what others expect of us.  Or we may both "know" but not agree!

Another source of trouble is that we normally have multiple roles in our lives, and these can conflict.  A man, for example, may be a father and a policeman -- tender and loving in the morning, tough and hard-nosed in the evening.  Normally, this is not a problem--there are different people involved, situations, times...   But what happens when the policeman catches his own son dealing drugs?  Conflict!

Even one  role can actually be many roles, depending on the contrasting role:  A doctor acts one way towards patients, another towards nurses, a third way towards administrators, another way towards fellow doctors.  But what happens when his patient is a fellow doctor?  Or when his administrator tells him he must watch the budget while his nurses point out his humanitarian concerns?  Conflict!

Finally, an individual can become confused about his or her roles.  In the example of the policeman, what would happen if he began to act fatherly to all the juvenile delinquents on his patrol?  Or if he began to bring home the tough cop role to his wife and kids?  Many people have the problem of not being able to leave the job at work.


Status is such a useful word, it is a pity that it is used in so many different ways.  For our purposes, let's define it as "shared expectations regarding influence."  Here's a fuller definition from Sherif:  "Status is a member's position (rank) in a hierarchy of power relations in a social unit (group or system) as measured by the relative effectiveness of initiative (a) to control interaction, decision-making, and activities, and (b) to apply sanctions in cases of non-participation and non-compliance."  Whew!

I used the word influence.  This is what someone has when others change their beliefs or behaviors to fit his or hers.  But, as you are no doubt aware, there are two kinds of influence:  In the first kind, there are sanctions involved, either the use of them, the threat, or just the potential.  This is called power.

Power has several sources.  First, it may be rooted in skill , the knowledge you have that allows you to influence others.  A master chess player controls his opponent by using his superior understanding of tactics and strategy; a master politician does the same through persuasion, manipulation, and gamesmanship.

Power can also derive from resources:   If you have wealth or weapons at your disposal, you have greater opportunity to apply sanctions.  A gun makes for great obedience on the part of others.

And power can derive from legitimacy.  Most people with power don't actually possess that much talent or resources.  They are acknowledged as having power, and therefore influence, and therefore status, by others, who in turn have skills, resources, or legitimacy of their own.  It serves their purposes to support the one, as it once served English barons to have a king:  It provides a social order to work within.

The second source of influence is respect.  This is "power" that is given to you by the people you influence; Rather than complying because of fear or greed, they follow you because of their admiration.

This too has several roots:  The most powerful is the admittedly vague concept of attractiveness, often called "referent power."  We give respect to people for the irrational reason of physical attractiveness, as well as the more rational reason of personal attractiveness.  And we find them attractive not only on the basis of what they are, but on the basis of what they are in relation to us--i.e. their similarities to us.  More of this in the future.

Another basis for respect is expertise ("expert power").  Skills and knowledge relevant to the task are a very rational reason to be influenced by someone.  Note the difference here between the skills mentioned under power and those mentioned here:  The first involve skills at influence, rather than at the task at hand.  But notice that, when we compete with someone, the task is the competition, the influencing, and we may very well respect the other's ability to beat the pants off us!

And a last basis for respect is trustworthiness, a sense that the person is honest, has the best interests of others in mind, has no ulterior motives.

It is interesting to look back at recent presidents to see what might have been the basis of their success in becoming elected to the office:  Kennedy and Reagan were certainly attractive, each in his own way.  Johnson and Nixon were hardly that, but were considered expert politicians.  Carter and Ford, in sharp contrast with Johnson and Nixon, were seen as trustworthy.  I can't pin down Bush and Clinton so easily, perhaps because they haven't had time to become stereotyped in my mind as yet.  But it isn't difficult to analyze the relative importance of the three characteristics for aspiring presidents!

There is one more basis for status and influence which doesn't clearly fall under either power or respect:  Tradition.  Status is clearly an aspect of norms in this regard.  Why do you follow this person?  I've always followed them.  How else to explain the British monarchy, or the die-hard Republican or Democrat who has always voted so, regardless of the issues, the candidate's qualifications, or any other relevant concern.

There are a number of points one should keep in mind about status:  First of all, status is characteristically a part of a broader role, so all the things we've said about roles apply.  Most roles involve some status differentiation (e.g. parent and child), and some roles are mostly a matter of status (e.g. chief, chairperson, president, etc.).

So, status involves the reciprocal nature of roles:  In order to be king, you must have subjects; in order to be a doormat, you must have someone to walk all over you....  And it partakes of the symbolic, ritualistic character of roles, perhaps even more so, inasmuch as most pageantry celebrates status!


Status also has its share of problems -- perhaps more than its share!.  First, there is uncertainty as to relative status.  Just like roles, status is "in the minds" of the people involved, and so always hard to measure.  The results of this uncertainty are all the power struggles we see around us every day.

A set of problems more unique to status derive from the distinction between status based on power and status based on respect:  Sometimes people have no respect for the legitimate authority (national and office dictators, for examples); other times, we find the people we respect unable to achieve the power they need to get things done.

Generally, low status means low freedom:  "The predictability of one's behavior is the sure test of one's own inferiority" (Crozier, 1964, quoted in Kelvin, p. 158).  But influence also means responsibility.  So status may in fact involve a restriction of freedom as well as the increase of freedom we normally expect with status.  If your status is based on legitimacy, you must do right by all those who give you that legitimacy; if your status is based on respect, you must behave in a manner that upholds that respect; and if your influence is based purely on your wits and strength, you can never rest!

Copyright 1999,  C. George Boeree

GetOut - Best Animated Short Film 2009

Monday, November 1, 2010

Fallen Art


The Black Halloween

Stage Fright - the first Skary cartoon ever

Cupid's Last Stand


When Genevieve Ruled the World

The Little Girl Who Was Forgotten

Angst - Beautiful and Strange Animation


Tim Burton's early work

Granny O'Grimm's Oscar Message

Granny O'Grimm's Christmas Greeting

Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty (full film)

la leyenda del espantapajaros -con sonido-

Help! - Funny Animation

Bump In The Night


The Passenger

The Passenger - Trainspotting

U-MV112 - Jim Carroll - People Who Died

Television - Marquee Moon (1977)

Thursday, October 21, 2010

TY @yourmelody1 @thatkevinsmith @ yourmark1


Melody Williams

My tribute to the master @ThatKevinSmith http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKPi48EHPAg Naked Drunk Tweeting Rules Ass!

and here's my hero:)



Saturday, October 16, 2010

What Obama might have said if Michael Moore was his speech writer!

A Senseless War Begins Its 10th Year ...an address to the nation from President Barack Obama (as reported by Michael Moore)

Thursday, October 7th, 2010

My Fellow Americans:

Nine years ago today we invaded the nation of Afghanistan. I’d just turned 40. I had a Discman and an Oldsmobile and had gotten really into LiveJournal. That was a long time ago. It was so long ago, does anybody remember why we're even there? I think everyone wanted to capture Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. But he got away sometime in the first month or so. He left. We stayed. Looking back now, that makes no sense.

Needing to find a new reason for the mission, we decided to overthrow the religious extremists who were running Afghanistan. Which we did. Sorta. Unlike Osama, they never left. Why not? Well, they were Afghans, it was their country. And, strangely enough, a lot of other Afghans supported them. To this day, the Taliban only have 25,000 armed fighters. Do you really think an army that tiny could control and suppress a nation of 28 million against their will? What's wrong with this picture? WTF is really going on here?

The truth is, I can't get an answer. My generals can't quite tell me what our mission is. If we went in there to rout out al-Qaeda, well, they're gone too. The CIA tells me there are under 100 of them left in the whole country!

My generals have also admitted the following to me:

1. There is no way we can defeat the Taliban. They enjoy too much popular support in the rural areas, the majority of the country.

2. Even though we've been there nine years, the truth is the Taliban, not us, not the Afghan government, control the country. After nine years, we’ve only completely run the Taliban out of 3% of Afghanistan.

3%!! (Just for reference, it took us only ELEVEN MONTHS after D-Day to entirely defeat the Nazis across all of Europe.)

3. Our troops and their commanders are still trying to learn the language, the culture, the customs of Afghanistan. The fact is, our troops are simply not trusted by the average people (especially after they've killed numerous civilians, either through recklessness or for sport).

4. The Afghan government we installed is corrupt beyond belief. The public does not trust them. President Karzai is on anti-depressants and our advisors tell us he is erratic and loopy on many days. His brother has a friendly relationship with the Taliban and is believed to be a major poppy (heroin) dealer. Heroin poppies are the #1 contributor to the Afghan economy.

The war in Afghanistan is a mess. The insurgency grows -- and why wouldn't it: foreign troops have invaded and occupied their country! The people responsible for 9/11 are no longer there. So why are we? Why are we offering up the lives of our sons and daughters every single day -- for no reason anyone can define.

In fact, the only reason I can see is that this war is putting billions of profits into the pockets of defense contractors. Is that a reason to stay, so Halliburton can post a larger profit this quarter?

It is time for me to bring our troops home -- right now. Not one more American needs to die. Their deaths do not make us safer and they do not bring democracy to Afghanistan.

It is not our mission to defeat the Taliban. That is the job of the Afghan people -- if that is what they choose to do. There are many groups and leaders of countries in this world who are despicable. We are not going to invade 30 countries and remove their regimes. That is not our job.

I am not going to stay in Afghanistan just because we're already there and we haven't "won" yet. There is nothing to win. No one from Genghis Khan to Leonid Brezhnev has been able to win there. So the troops are coming home.

I refuse to participate in scaring the American people with a phony "War on Terror." Are there terrorists? Yes. Will they strike again? Sadly, yes. But these terrorist acts are few and far between and should not dictate how we live our daily lives or make us ignore our constitutional rights. They should never distract us from what our real priorities are in making our country safe and secure: Everyone with a good job, families able to own a home and send their kids to college, universal health care that's coordinated by your elected representative government -- not by greedy, profit-hungry insurance companies. THAT would be true homeland security.

And what about Osama bin Laden? Nine years and we can't find a 6'5" Arab man who apparently is on dialysis? Even after offering $25 million to anyone who will tell us where he is? You don't think someone would have taken us up on that by now?

Here's what I know: Osama bin Laden is a multi-millionaire -- and if there's one thing I've learned about the rich is that they don't live in caves for 9 years. Bin Laden is either dead or hiding out in a place where his money protects him. Or maybe he just went home.

Just like we should do. Now. My condolences to the families of all who died in this war. Most of them signed up after 9/11 and wanted to do their duty because we were attacked. But we were not attacked by a country. We were attacked by a few religious extremists. And you don't defeat a few thugs by shipping halfway around the world thousands of armored vehicles and hundreds of thousands of soldiers. That is just sheer idiocy.

And it ends tonight.

God be with you.

I'm not a Muslim.

(End of speech, as transcribed by Michael Moore)

Join Mike's Mailing List
Follow Mike on Twitter
Join Mike's Facebook Group
Become Mike's MySpace Friend

Really not that political, but Michael Moore always crack's me up!

Dems Come Alive! ...a follow-up from Michael Moore

Wednesday, October 6th, 2010


Ok! We're halfway through the week and we're off to a great start. Last week I gave the spineless Dems five friendly suggestions for things they could do on the off chance they were interested in winning the midterm elections on November 2nd:

1. Deliver a blunt, nonstop reminder to the American people about exactly who it was that got us into the mess we're in.

2. Declare a moratorium on home foreclosures.

3. Prosecute the banks and Wall Street for the Crime of the Century.

4. Create a 21st century WPA (hire the unemployed to rebuild America).

5. Pledge that no Dem will take a dime from Wall Street in the next election cycle.

So how are we doing 5 days later? Not bad! It turns out that at least some of these ideas were so simple even elected Democrats could come up with them!

1. Dems have started running tough, killer ads that have balls and SAY WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID. Check these out:

In the California Senate race, Barbara Boxer is going after Carly Fiorina on the outsourcing Fiorina did as CEO of HP.

Rep. Tim Bishop of Long Island, New York hits his GOP opponent Randy Altschuler on how HIS business sent jobs overseas.

Richard Blumenthal half-nelsons his Connecticut Senate opponent (and former WWE CEO) Linda McMahon who said we should consider cutting the minimum wage and then lied about having said it.

Jeez, it's like they wanna win! More of these, please -- NOW!

2. Foreclosure Moratorium fever among the Dems has amazingly swept the nation in the last week!

Democratic Attorneys General all over the country are now demanding moratoriums for their states: California (Jerry Brown, now running for Governor), Connecticut (Richard Blumenthal, now running for Senate), Delaware (Joe Biden's son Beau), Massachusetts (Martha Coakley, who probably wished she'd done this earlier since she lost the special Senate race in January to Scott Brown), Illinois (Lisa Madigan), Texas (Greg Abbott -- a Republican!) and Colorado (John Suthers -- another Republican!). And so is Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley (at the urging of Rep. Ellijah Cummings, who you may remember from 'Capitalism: A Love Story').

Meanwhile, the Attorneys General of Iowa, Ohio and North Carolina are opening probes into the mortgage industry. And the banks are feeling the heat -- GMAC, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have already suspended foreclosures in 23 states (with Detroit's Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, calling on them to extend it to Michigan and the rest of the U.S.).

Wells Fargo? Citibank? Are you paying attention? Now's the time to do something good so you can later mention it to the sentencing judge.

Rep. Gabrelle Giffords of Arizona has called for a nationwide foreclosure moratorium, and Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey says that may be necessary.

And it goes on and on. Check the special section on my website that I'm updating every day as more and more Democratic officials announce they will no longer allow banks to kick families out of their homes.

3. Prosecute the bastards! Looks like that's what they're maybe finally going to do. Check out this stunning letter sent to Attorney General Holder yesterday by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and 30 other members of congress (PDF):

"...we urge you and your respective agencies to investigate possible violations of law or regulations by financial institutions in their handling of delinquent mortgages, mortgage modifications, and foreclosures. ... The excuses we have heard from financial institutions are simply not credible three years into this crisis. ... It is time that banks are held accountable for their practices that have left too many homeowners without real help."

According to the New York Times, banks will likely face a "wide range of government investigations" for years. Judges may ask for them to be indicted for perjury or obstruction of justice. The Justice Department could prosecute banks for mail and wire fraud, or for making false statements to the government. And the SEC could open civil investigations.

Now we need to hear the Justice Department announce their investigation.

And look -- Larry Summers is gone. Great move! The people's advocate, Elizabeth Warren, is in -- genius move! If that's the direction Obama is now heading in, then these bankers may be shaking in their Salvatore Ferragamos.

So, not a bad start, Democrats (20 months late)! Just four weeks to go and I'm feeling that maybe, just maybe, we may prevent the All Souls Day Massacre. The pundits, who are essentially tools for the Corporate States of America, may have to eat a lot of crow. And if the Dems escape death's door, they had better not let this nonsense happen again.

So, President Obama and Congress, let's get busy on ideas #4 (WPA jobs) and #5 (pledge to take no further campaign money from Goldman and their friends).

C'mon everybody -- there's at least 3 million of you reading this (including the 700,000 of you who are my Twitter followers and my 300,000+ close Facebook friends). Let's pressure the Dems to quit cowering and kick some butt -- NOW!

Tell them it's easy and to repeat after us:

* Stop the foreclosures!

* Prosecute the banks and Wall Street and war profiteer corps!

* Remind the public 24/7 who created the mess!

* Announce a real jobs program!

* Promise not to take Wall Street's dirty money!

* Win the election!


Do it!


Michael Moore



P.S. On a different subject... One of the most moving, hopeful and powerful documentaries I've seen this year (or any year) opens at the Quad in NYC on Friday. It's called, "Budrus," and it's about a town by that name in the West Bank. The Palestinians in that town (and many of their Israeli neighbors on the other side of the Wall that's being constructed) come up with a way to totally undo the Israeli Defense Forces: pledge to defeat the occupiers by never firing a bullet, never throwing a stone, never causing any harm to their Jewish brothers and sisters. Whoa! What happens next is so effed up, so incredible, you have to see this movie to believe it. The film is brilliant. It won the top Founders Prize for nonfiction film at my film festival this summer. It will soon be coming to other cities. Do not miss it!!!

Join Mike's Mailing List
Follow Mike on Twitter
Join Mike's Facebook Group
Become Mike's MySpace Friend

Monday, September 27, 2010

Lack of Memory or Major Fuck Up With Blogger??

I'm finding dupes, but it's hard because my whole obsession is finding different versions of songs and vids. So either I have amnesia and don't remember posting and reposting, or this is a Blogger thing. Blogger has been acting rather weird and unacceptable lately!

Maybe on the 8th, I'll be turning 93 instead of 39??

PJ Harvey - This is love

Friday, September 24, 2010

A lot of Tuber's make their own vids for songs

I'm not really interested sometimes, usually it's rare if I pick a Tuber's, although some are amazingly talented. This one is quite boring. It's the SONG that needs the attention. Are there any female singer's out there that Thom Yorke couldn't harmonize with and make magic? I would love to hear Thom with Chrissy Hynde (sp) of The Pretenders. Unbelievable that I don't remember how to spell her name. I'm old:(
However, it allows me to look back and wonder what Patty Smith(sp) or Marianne Faithful would've sounded like w/ Thom? Also P.J. Harvey has an amazing ability to duet w/ practically anyone!! There has to be a duet out there with her and Tom Waits.
This is terribly addictive. One duet I would hate to see any of the afore mentioned talents do with is Bono. That just wouldn't work. No offense to Bono.
Peter Gabriel..(wow I'm really dating myself), David Bowie..they're talented voices I would love to hear together in a  P.J. Harvey Duet or even Bjork.
Gabriel was insanely great with Kate Bush! Out of time today..tonight I'll probably be pushing more music down my throat that tastes better than strawberries and champagne!

Radiohead [PJ Harvey & Thom Yorke]- Beautiful feeling (Subtitulado al es...

Massive Attack - Live With Me

Massive Attack - Daydreaming


Actually it's from D.J.Tricky.

Dear Money Grubbing Asshole Capitalist Record Production Company Mutherfucker's

It has happened as stated in a recent post and on MSN.com, that YouTube has removed embedded videos from our Blogs. However, if you simply click the GREEN TITLE above your hopeful visual and musical experience that was let down, you will be redirected to YouTube to the video. Note: I don't know for sure that YouTube is getting something out of this as it is happening from other sites as well. Record Production (PIGS) are the original culprits behind this. Remember NAPSTER? NEVER BLAME RADIOHEAD, recall "In Rainbows" available for free on their main site weeks before the album release date in stores. The album sold better than most albums on their release dates in history (which I like to refer to as "HISTORTY" due to well it's obvious we never know what really happened, do we?). AHEM, Metallica, I used to love them, until LARS vs THOM regarding the attack upon Napster. Well they chimed in again when Radiohead did pre-release for free their album. So, SOME MUSICIANS, and I STRESS, SOME MUSICIAN'S ARE TOTALLY AGAINST AS THEY HAVE BEEN FROM THE GET GO OF THE WAR ON FREE DOWNLOADS TO THE PUBLIC OF THEIR TALENTS. They're artists, they want their art to be heard, seen, out there. Why make art, if no one will ever experience it. IT DOES NOT INTERFERE IN THE ARTISTS ABILITY TO GAIN NOTORIETY AND SALES. IT IS ART. There is more to a video than simply the music alone. Filmmaking is HARD. The Industry is HARD to work in and I give great credit to the writer's, designer's, the imagination/concept, the cinematographer's, the producer's, the director's, and all the hundred's of other's that many people don't even consider or maybe think of when watching the beauty or amazing work that was put into a musical video. Especially a great one. I know this from experience having worked in the industry. 
So at this point I won't put all the blame on YouTube, except that users should get a heads up from YouTube before the embarrassment of downloading a vid and posting to share the artist's talent with others. YouTube should however begin to rethink their name.
I'll leave my friends with this; I like to come up with silly nicknames for people, places, and things. I joke w/ "PATENT PENDING", but guess what? If you wanna use "Corpse" instead of the actual abbreviation for corporations, and "Historty" instead of History. It's YOURS FREE OF CHARGE!

Lovely Weirdo,

Tori Amos, Bjork, PJ Harvey, Massive Attack (mix) - Dissolved by the wat...

Tori Amos, Bjork, Pj Harvey, Massive Attack Mix (Wax Audio)

Björk and PJ Harvey- Satisfaction

PJ Harvey and Tricky - Broken Homes

UNKLE - I Need Something Stronger

Massive Attack - Teardrop

Bjork - Army Of Me