We have video!

I finally quit slacking off and got the hang of Apple's iMovie enough to finally produce the first part of "EuroTripping," the video montage of mine and Thomas' trip this summer. There is quite a lot of material to work with, so sifting through it all has been a challenge. 

Part I includes material from Frankfurt and Berlin. The camera took great quality video, but Thomas' unsteady hand made things a little interesting sometimes. 

I'm working on Part II now, which should include Amsterdam and Bruges, Belgium. Here's a teaser: stairs, dogs and sausage. I'll let you know when it goes up! Until then, enjoy Part I. Feel free to give me some comments, or if you see anything wrong, let me know. 

Conservatives say the damndest things: Heritage vs. EPA

After the stunning success of my first weekly post series, "Tuesday Guilty Pleasure," I've decided to start a new one: "Conservatives say the damndest things." This may not be quite weekly like TGP, but I'll do my best to put one of these up every Friday. And for the conservatives in the crowd (if there are any), I'm working on doing the same thing with liberals. We say some crazy stuff as well. 

The inaugural post in this series hearkens back to a controversial post I wrote a couple weeks ago about the Waxman-Markley cap and trade bill. I got this gem of an e-mail from the Heritage Foundation and though I should share it with you. 

Inhofe produced an EPA chart generated last year during the Senate’s debate of the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade legislation. The chart showed that the carbon reductions under that bill would not materially effect global carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. Inhofe then asked Jackson if she agreed with the chart’s conclusions. Jackson replied: “I believe that essential parts of the chart are that the U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels.”

[...]

For example, a recent study of cap and trade by MIT concluded: “The different U.S. policies have relatively small effects on the CO2 concentration if other regions do not follow the U.S. lead. … The Developed Only scenario cuts only about 0.5 °C of the warming from the reference, again illustrating the importance of developing country participation.”

Well duh! First, let's go ahead and throw it out there that part of the reason the bill is so weak is that it would have had absolutely no chance to pass the House if it actually had any teeth because the Republicans and Democrats with no backbone would have never voted for it. God forbid we sacrifice a little bit to, you know, save the world. 

But why are they acting like this is such a big "Got ya!" moment against the EPA. Of course this legislation isn't going to mean much if other countries don't follow along. Despite what many may think, there are other people on this Earth and they're polluting too. At the G8 summit this week, world leaders are working to curb worldwide emissions of CO2, even agreeing today to not let the world temperature go more than two degrees Celsius higher and to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050. 

Of course, China and India are not going to sign on too quickly. But do you really think they would consider it if the U.S. wasn't working to cut back their emissions? If nothing else, this is a symbolic gesture to show that we're taking this seriously. 

The e-mail goes on to say: 

So if other countries will not sacrifice their own economic growth to meet carbon cutting goals, then what is the economic hit Americans are taking? The left is touting a recent Congressional Budget Office study which they say shows Waxman-Markey would only cost Americans $175 a year. However, the left is seriously misrepresenting what the CBO study is. Footnote three on page four of the CBO study explicitly admits: “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

First, it's nice to see that Heritage is finally listening to the Congressional Budget Office about how much this is really going to cost. But this logic just baffles me. "But -- but China isn't doing it so why should we?? It's so not fair!" What are we, bratty five-year-old kids? Grow up. Yes, this is going to cost us a little bit. We've established that. But I'm willing to pay a little price if it means there's some slim chance that we can reduce our effect on climate change. 

Google is taking over the world!!

Today, Google announced that they are releasing a brand spankin' new operating system based on their recently released browser, Chrome. Google Chrome OS is backed by Linux, but the majority of the applications will actually run on the internet. 

From CNET: "

Google Chrome OS is being created for people who spend most of their time on the Web, and is being designed to power computers ranging from small Netbooks to full-size desktop systems," Sundar Pichai, vice president of product management, and Linus Upson, engineering director, said in the blog post.
The move has widespread implications.
One is that it shows just how serious Google is about making the Web into a foundation not just for static pages but for active applications, notably its own such as Google Docs and Gmail. Another: it opens new competition with Microsoft and, potentially, a new reason for antitrust regulators to pay close attention to Google's moves.

Google is all about some Web based applications, but I'm just not sure how practical something like this is. Of course, I'm not terribly tech savvy, but I have reservations about putting so much faith in the internet. Users don't always have internet access. Or what happens when the internet unexpectedly goes down?

I'm not too worried about all of this, though. I'm sure Google has all the answers, or they'll figure it out before too long. Chrome is a pretty sweet browser. I used it on my old PC because nothing else seemed to run quickly at all. And I'm pretty sure I would be lost if I didn't have Gmail and all its bells and whistles. I'm interested to see how this all plays out and how much Microsoft freaks out. 

In other news, it looks like the creators of Twitter is shopping around for a buyer and, thankfully, Murdoch isn't interested. I think I might have to shut down my Twitter account if the big bad wolf takes control. I'm thinking we'll see Google buy it before anyone else does.

Tuesday Guilty Pleasure!

First, a small aside. If you're reading this on Facebook, click the link that takes you to the actual Web site. While I love people finding my blog via Facebook, it's so much more fun and easier for me to have you comment on the actual blog post instead of in the Facebook note. Just come on over and join the party by bookmarking CoreyInscoe.com. Then you'll be able to read my fantastic updates whenever you want. And leave a little note below this post to let me know you got here safely!

Now on to the business at hand. It's time for my weekly confession of something I really like that I really, really shouldn't! This week's selection actually came from a cool little feature I saw last week that ranked the 12 greatest key changes in pop music. As a rule, I can't stand key changes at the end of songs as a way to keep things interesting, especially when it changes about five times while the singer keeps singing the chorus, straining as the notes go higher and higher. 

There were, though, a few songs that caught my attention. This weeks song is hard for me to explain. I really shouldn't like it because, as it says in the post, it's "one big key change." And it's an extremely cheesy and sappy song that no man's man would ever be caught dead singing. But when have I ever claimed to be a man's man?

Honestly, I think I have to attribute it to the way the song just continually builds (thanks, key changes) and finally peaks in a barrage of piano, gospel choir and heavy drum fills. I also love how the beginning is so dark and mysterious, too. Or maybe it's because I have this great '80s movie choreographed in my head as I listen to this song. 

Either way, there it is, another guilty pleasure.

P.S. how creepy is that video?? That was not the gospel choir I was expecting....

Lonely Island

I know I'm late on this one, but if you haven't listened to The Lonely Island yet, you're missing out big time. The rap duo, made up of the hilarious Andy Samburg and his buddies Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone, first hit the scene with the classic "Dick in a Box" featuring Justin Timberlake. But arguably their best song to date is "I'm on a Boat." 
(Unfortunately YouTube won't let me embed the uncensored version, but the link above will take you to it.)

The Lonely Island |MTV Music

You simply can't beat what T-Pain contributes to this song. His verse might be one of the greatest things I've heard all year. And the best part of all of this is that they don't take themselves seriously at all. 

Believe it or not, but they actually recently released a record called "Incredibad" that features the songs I mentioned above alongside many other comedic gems. You can check out all the videos and material on their Web site or on their YouTube channel. 

Steve McNair

When I saw the news last night on my phone, in the middle of 4th of July festivities, I was completely shocked. I looked at multiple Web sites just to make sure it was true. Sure enough, Steve McNair was found shot to death. 

For some people this may not mean a lot: he didn't have the superstar quality of Peyton Manning or the pretty boy charm of Tom Brady, but McNair was by far one of my favorite quarterbacks and someone in the game I really respected. He was a big part of the reason I started pulling for the Tennessee Titans after their heartbreaking loss to the St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXIV. 

The man was a tank. He would have five injuries on five different parts of his body and would still be taking snaps. I always loved when the broadcasters would pull up this little graphic that showed all the injuries he had sustained in a season and never missed a game. He was something to watch, especially when he had the help of running back Eddie George, who, coincidentally, is the one that broke the news to Titans coach Jeff Fisher. 

It's a tough day for a Titans fan and for the whole NFL. Let's hope this trend that started last week will finally come to an end....

Yet another post about the future of journalism

In a post today Ezra Klein proposed that newspapers should be heavily subsidized by the government. I've never liked the idea of government control of newspapers, but this argument is pretty convincing. It wouldn't mean that all news would be controlled by the government, but there would be "public newspapers" that survive through subsidies. 

Thankfully, society has developed models for funding things we deem important but don't entirely trust to the private market. We have public universities and public centers for disease research and public firefighting departments and a public military and public roads. Why should news be different?

You can argue that it must be oppositional to government, of course, and so government funding is a conflict of interest. But many European countries have solved that problem by developing automatic funding structures free of government influence. Meanwhile, it's not as if NPR or the BBC seem particularly concerned about criticizing their respective governments (nor, for that matter, do professors at public universities seem particularly cowed).

Whatever the outcome, it can't be worse than the crap that the Washington Post tried to pull or ugly advertisements and advertorials on the front pages of our favorite newspapers.