Moving this video to scath's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

I wrote to my Senator (Orrin Hatch-R., Utah, responsible for the Protect IP Act) about SOPA and its problems and gave them a rather "cool" scathing review about its faults and errors and the public demonstrations that have taken place like GoDaddy and the fact that three major companies had pulled out from the SOPA bill (although their political alliance group is still signed into SOPA--so they can still look good in the public eye and still, really, support the bill) and got the "printing press" release as follows (which has nothing to do with what I wrote, really--I know this bill is coming, but really, an auto-send out letter for pissed constituents?):

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act.

On May 12, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy and I introduced the PROTECT IP Act. If enacted, S. 968 would provide law enforcement with important tools to stop foreign websites “dedicated to infringing activities.” In other words, the bill targets the most egregious offenders of online theft who profit from counterfeit products and pirated content. These goods can range from new movie and music releases to pharmaceuticals and consumer products. With this legislation, we send a strong message to those selling or distributing pirated content or counterfeit goods online that the United States will strongly protect intellectual property rights.

The bill authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign infringing Internet site, or the foreign-registered domain name itself. However, DOJ officials must first seek approval from a federal court before taking any action. In determining whether an Internet site is “dedicated to infringing activities,” a federal judge must weigh all of the facts carefully in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – just like what happens today in shutting down an illegal bricks and mortar storefront.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a common assumption with some online users that illegal downloads and purchases online are free and harmless. This is far from true. Fake pharmaceuticals threaten people’s lives. Stolen movies, music, and other products threaten the jobs and livelihoods of many people, and drive up costs for other consumers. Every year, these online thieves are making hundreds of millions of dollars by stealing American intellectual property, and this undermines legitimate commerce.

This also has a direct impact on Utah. As you may know, Utah is considered a very popular state for film and television production activity. Nothing compares to the red rock of Southern Utah or the sweeping grandeur of the Wasatch Mountains. Utah’s workforce is also a draw to filmmakers who come for one of the most highly educated and hardworking workforces in our country. It is estimated that the motion picture and television industries are responsible for thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in wages in Utah. There is no doubt that intellectual property theft has a direct, negative impact on Utah’s economy and its workforce. This same impact can be seen nationwide.

On July 22, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported S. 968 by unanimous consent. While it is unclear when the bill will be considered by the full Senate, the legislation enjoys strong support with 39 bipartisan cosponsors to date. Please know that my Senate colleagues and I are committed to crafting consensus legislation and welcome suggestions on ways to improve the bill. Unfortunately there has been some misinformation circulated about what the PROTECT IP Act aims to accomplish. In an effort to be of assistance, I have enclosed “Fact vs. Fiction” information about the legislation. I hope this information will be helpful to you.

Again, thank you for writing. I welcome your continued input on issues of concern.



Complete BULLSHIT. I hate my politicians, they're fucking half-wits!

Considering his last review of DNF, the upcoming one should be absolutely scathing.

Not scathing enough. Ramp it up another 200%.

I was going to attempt to respond to as many items as I can but I decided to instead try something different.

There are two books that I think you should read and that I think you'd greatly enjoy. One is called "The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer" by Siddhartha Mukherjee and that other is called "Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks and Big Pharma Flacks" by Ben Goldacre.

Look into them a bit, read the descriptions. I recommend The Emperor of All Maladies because it is contains an extremely good account of the progress of the medical industry and it uses cancer research as a cornerstone. Though, I think you'll particularly like Bad Science, especially the section where the author goes into a scathing critique of where mainstream medicine has it's problems. It's actually a really funny book too.

Hell, I'll even buy Bad Science for you and have it shipped where ever you want.

Ok, I will say one thing in response to what you've said. I don't like the idea of a humanistic take on this issue because these problems aren't limited to humans. There is a range of mental conditions that humans experience that have been observed in other animals as well. In the case of mental illness, as in most cases, humans aren't special; we just think we are because we have the perspective that we're looking on everything from the outside.

The reason why I tear apart videos like that is because it's based on flawed reasoning, logical fallacies, misrepresentations and misunderstandings of science and scientific facts, and generally irrational modes of thought. The solution that I'm providing is that the video's topic, and the presenter are full of nonsensical ideas and that real evidence based research should be valued to a higher degree than some guy with his untested and/or unsupported hypothesis.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Batman is probably my second favorite superhero, right after the Amazon princess. I don't compare superheroes with characters from other genres, like horror, science fiction, etc, because they're apples and oranges. He's not my second overall comic book character, but he's still high up. Do you read the new Batman & Robin, with Dick Grayson as the new Batman? I think it's pretty good.
And I read The Dark Knight Returns, and thought it blew. I can't stand Frank Miller, especially his Batman comics. Read this amusing critique of one of his Batman series. He deserves every bit of scorn heaped on him in that scathing review. >> ^Sarzy:
Batman is the greatest comic book character of all time. Of all time!
Yeah, that's right, I said it.



I actually haven't stepped foot in a comic shop in well over a year. Mostly because I'm absurdly broke at the moment, though I am starting to feel the itch to start picking up at least a few comics again.

I completely agree about the Dark Knight Returns, which I found to be kind of shockingly bad, given how revered it is by pretty much everyone. I did really like Batman: Year One, though.

Batman is probably my second favorite superhero, right after the Amazon princess. I don't compare superheroes with characters from other genres, like horror, science fiction, etc, because they're apples and oranges. He's not my second overall comic book character, but he's still high up. Do you read the new Batman & Robin, with Dick Grayson as the new Batman? I think it's pretty good.

And I read The Dark Knight Returns, and thought it blew. I can't stand Frank Miller, especially his Batman comics. Read this amusing critique of one of his Batman series. He deserves every bit of scorn heaped on him in that scathing review. >> ^Sarzy:

Batman is the greatest comic book character of all time. Of all time!
Yeah, that's right, I said it.

@messenger, @Sketch

I don't disagree with your sentiment at all; I find it quite frustrating at times as well, but I stand by my assertion that it won't help to be confrontational. I expect this shift will literally take generations to come about. Arguing with individuals in an effort to "convert" (perhaps de-convert) them rarely works, regardless of how sound your reasoning is.(as you have both noted) Everyone wants to win. Everyone wants to make up their own mind. For a lot of adults, it's quite simply too late to make such a radical change in their concept of existence. The young aren't as rigid, however, and this belief structure can diluted from one generation to the next. I assert the most effective way to change minds over time is to change our culture, and we're well on our way. The beacon of truth shines brightly on its own, while lies take significant maintenance. The more (effectively) open our society becomes the more difficult it will be to spread the influence of obvious lies. This will require work on our part, however, to call out specific, organized and systemic deception efforts over the course of our lives. We've got a long road ahead of us, but it should be interesting if nothing else.

That ad campaign is interesting; that's the sort of effort that we can aspire to in our daily lives. Not confrontational, but when the situation arises, let others know they're not alone with their doubts. Movements need leaders, and we're all capable of that role if we can be disciplined and patient enough.

I don't normally do quotes because it's easy to take someone out of context for your own purposes, but I especially like this one as I interpret it to pertain to this situation:

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." -Sun Tzu

Edit: Example of more constructive, (in terms of construction and delivery) yet just as scathing (in terms of content) criticism. Starts @ 8:07... man I envy the Hitchslap ability...

Not scathing enough.

@blankfist well, that's what makes it opinion and not fact.

As for "fear-based politicking", are you saying all statements that evoke fear are bad in some way? For example, I know this guy who likes to post videos about how the Fed is going to destroy America with hyperinflation. Is he doing something wrong?

Setting that aside for a moment, I didn't come away feeling afraid about anything listening to this clip. Instead, I came away feeling sorrow about the thought that maybe something could have been done to at least lessen the scale of the damage that Loughtner did. I didn't hear a recounting of some dire and immediate threat to me in what he said, I heard a pretty scathing admonition that my own indifference on the topic might have contributed to the death of a nine year old girl. That stung a bit.

I haven't really felt like I cared about gun control as an issue since I was a teen. Even then, it was more about being contrarian with my right-wing friends at school than really giving a shit about it.

It's a topic I think is worth having a debate about again. I'm not thinking anything radical here, maybe just simply limiting the size of clips on semi-automatic weapons again.

Since you're something of an absolutist about these kinds of things, I'm happy to hash it out in terms of me simply supporting bans on private ownership of rocket launchers and nuclear weapons.

The golden globes was actually fun to watch last night because of Gervais. The guy is known for pushing the envelope. I mean some of his jokes in his last special on HBO were 'really' bad, but funny as hell. Last night he was great. Some of these people have ego's that filled that room and most of them need to have their ego's deflated a bit and Gervais was the perfect man to do that.

I've seen on TV all day some really bad 'reviews' about how he made enemies of these actors and how scathing and hateful he was. All of that is bullshit. It was satire, plain and simple. Funny ass satire. If these 'actors' don't understand that it was all in good fun, then they just show us all what kind of people they truly are.

Gervais certainly won't be back next year. He went to far in the eyes of these actors. But I'm glad he did and I knew he would. He always pushes that envelope until he can get as raunchy as he wants, and he is absolutely the master at that art.

you're lucky you added the edit. you were about to find yourself on the receiving end of one of my biting, scathing, "i can't believe that douchebag motherfucker just fucking said that" retorts.

because comments like that show up all the time on this site. seriously. ALL THE FUCKING TIME. it's enough to make my head explode.

and my head is particularly sensitive when it comes to people with disabilities.

also, the word "crippled" makes me cringe and is considered insensitive and offensive. it's the equivalent of calling an african american person "colored". i won't bite your head off though, because most people are blissfully uninformed of person first language.

In reply to this comment by Yogi:
Doesn't anyone else besides me find this funny? Come on who among us hasn't laughed at a cripple...cast the first stone! *ducks*

EDIT: Congrats to the moron who didn't get the joke. In explanation the joke was nobody human laughs at crippled toddlers so I was ducking to avoid all the stones cast in my direction. Get it yet?

^guess one had to be there dude....sounds craptacular from here but I dig complex tuneage-oh, and people who can actually sing on pitch and who don't whiney whine whine....This guys a whiner. Redundant hippy jam-band with mediocre musicianship.....I could go on, my scathing critique meter is reading 7.4 about now>>>>

^ To be honest, I'm going off of what I saw on hotforwords for the cop thing. I don't know if she's authoritative, but she did address the notion that cop was short for copper badges, but said that's not really the origin.

If you want a semantic battle, I'll waste a few brain cells on it. Let's start with the etymology of the word semantic itself:

1894, from Fr. sémantique, applied by Michel Bréal (1883) to the psychology of language, from Gk. semantikos "significant," from semainein "to show, signify, indicate by a sign," from sema "sign" (Doric sama).

In short, semantics refer to the method or process of how people communicate ideas. Normally discussions of semantics are about accurately conveying an idea or concept with words. For example, how do people know the difference between their, they're and there in spoken language? Why doesn't that kind of overloading create a lot communication issues?

A big part of the answer is context. With they're, their, and there, all you need to really know is the grammatical part of speech. Other concepts need a semantic context.

For example, let's talk about a red light. A red traffic light means stop, but a red light in other context might mean that your stereo is in standby mode, your phone is charging, or you're getting close to the whorehouse.

It can also be used metaphorically, as in "She told him she didn't want to see him anymore, but he just loves to run red lights."

I find that you can be selectively obtuse about these different ways of discerning meaning from words.

When I say "I am a liberal", I usually mean this, and not necessarily this.

However, I don't really think being a liberal necessarily is in conflict with being a liberal. I too have a strong devotion to individual liberty, I just think there are more fundamental human rights than you do. But I also think there are limits to rights, and that there's no root violation of "individual liberty" if you have taxpayer subsidized, compulsory social insurance, any more than if you have a taxpayer subsizied, compulsory fire department.

But I don't need to express all of that if what I'm really saying is "I don't think liberals like to be told to think." There's no real doubt about who I'm talking about when I say "liberals". My semantics are clear.

If one wanted to respond to such an assertion, they would take on its semantic content. In other words, they'd say "broad generalizations like that are bad", or "bullshit, liberals are all zombies that do what George Soros tells them to", or even address the implication, such as "conservatives don't like to be told what to think, either!", or "I believe what I believe, and if Rush Limbaugh agrees with me, then I suppose he's on my side."

Incidentally, here's a good etymology of the word liberal. Personally, I'm using the original root definition, "befitting free men, noble, generous," when I describe the people who believe in this. When I'm referring to anti-tax zealots, I'm usually dancing around this, but I can also come up with more scathing barbs as the situation merits.

Charlie Brooker is one of the most scathing analysts for any subject you care to throw at him. His ability to spot hypocrisy and poor quality is more finely tuned even than David Mitchell's. I'd call him a genius if his particular art wasn't "Delivering a depressingly accurate and acidic analysis of things."