rone: (glyph)

At first, when friends shared stuff from Mike "Dirty Jobs" Rowe, it was an entertaining read.  His show seemed pretty good, too.  But after a while, his common-sense aw-shucks shtick wore thin, and i unsubscribed.  Then, a few weeks ago, he wrote something in which he compared voting to gun ownership, and how, just as some people shouldn't be encouraged to own a gun, some shouldn't be encouraged to vote.  Well, that sure as hell didn't sit right with me.

This clown tries to hide his elitism, expressed through his concern trolling that some people simply aren't equipped to understand the complicated issues behind our domestic and foreign policies and as voters pose too much of a risk, by painting his friends in Hollywood as the real out-of-touch elitists.  It's cute to say that there ought to be an intelligence test to vote in this country, but we already know that this would just be another way to keep marginalized populations out of the ballot box.  It is, not to put too fine a point on it, un-American.  And we already have a tremendous amount of uninformed voters who are already participating, and will continue to participate, on election day.  So fuck off, Mike Rowe, you sad Romney stumper, with your shitty attitude about people who can't be trusted with the vote.  And your enthusiastic recommendation of "Economics in One Lesson" can go sit in the corner with all of the Austrian economics crackpots, too.

rone: (i think too much)
I can't say when the American notion of considering third-party votes wasted began, but I'm fairly certain that the first time I saw it expressed was in the 1996 Treehouse of Horror episode of The Simpsons. Since then, this sentiment has been augmented by the myth of Nader sucking away enough voters from Gore to tip the scales in Bush's favor. Today, this has culminated in the common plea from many to ensure the election of Hillary Clinton because of the desperate and unique existential threat that Donald Trump poses to this nation and, indeed, the world.

I will start off with a very simple declaration: no vote is wasted. Democracy, even in the misshapen state you'll find in our presidential election process, depends on every vote that is cast. Thus, every vote is crucial. To claim that one's vote is wasted because it was cast for an extremely likely loser, but isn't wasted if it's cast for the loser with the most votes, is sheerly disingenuous. To claim that voting for a third party is not only a waste, but not even a political act, as Clay Shirky tendentiously argues, condescendingly strikes at the very freedom of voting one's preference, while neatly delivering a Catch-22 of American politics: voting for one of the two big parties strengthens the two-party system in this country; voting third-party doesn't strengthen third parties, which strengthens the two-party system in this country; not voting doesn't accomplish anything, which strengthens the two-party system in this country. It is an inescapably defeatist narrative, which is usually supplemented by a smug suggestion that the only way to change the process is from within. We can see how well efforts to make the Democratic Party more progressive rather than neoliberal, or to make the Republican Party more conservative rather than regressive and nativist, have fared over the last few decades.

As for the myth of third-party candidates as spoilers, the basic premise is that third party voters somehow owe their vote to the big party that is in some way closer to their views. This is rank arrogation. You may feel that third party voters are misinformed, and perhaps misguided. You might even be right. But that doesn't make them any different than most voters for either big party; Shirky goes out of his way to impugn the motivations of third-party voters without ever questioning those of Democratic and Republican voters. Whoever we vote for will probably not accomplish what we want them to accomplish. Does that mean that our vote was wasted?

The fact is that this point can be made persuasively, as John Halle and Noam Chomsky have done already. In general, we would be better served by cogent points and dialogue, rather than sententious declarations, if not outright accusations that someone is voting wrong (or, worse, a direct appeal to fear, which is the backbone of the Trump campaign, and also informs many of my friends' appeals to vote for Clinton, as they are terrified —with good reason— of Trump).

Our vote is our voice in democracy, and it means what we want it to mean. It might not get us what we wanted it to get us, and it rarely does. But don't let anyone tell you that your vote is a waste.
rone: (FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU)

Look at this shit.  Revolution Analytics broke the way that their site redirects to the new packages location, so some enterprising soul, as a workaround, suggests replacing the systematic way of determining package location with a hardcoded path to the new repository location in R's system configuration.  Ugly, sure, but whatever works in the short term, but then, note the comment posted two weeks later by an actual RA employee who "helpfully" suggests another URL for people using a different version of R, instead of, i dunno, begging forgiveness for their incompetent site administration and promising to fix it.

This was posted three months ago.  FUCK YOU, FIX IT.

So i emailed their support address, noting the brokenness, and asked for an official diagnosis and solution.  The support droid officially responds to my report by copying and pasting the above workaround.  When i asked when they expected to fix the broken redirects, they said, "no ETA." (lagniappe: the support droid's email signature includes "Visit our Support Portal at http:\\support.revolutionanalytics.com" NICE BACKSLASHES DUDE)

So let me get this straight; your software's ability to install packages from your own repository is broken, you offer me a hardcoded workaround that will break by your next release, and you have no clue when you will fix your fucking site?

FUCK

YOUUUUUUUUUU

You know what else?  One of their installation scripts wants to know where the hadoop and hbase executables are on your filesystem.  So if you don't pass along their location with the HADOOP_HOME and HBASE_HOME environment variables, or on the command line, it looks for them by running find / -type d -name hadoop and then find / -type d -name hbaseYOU ARE OUT OF YOUR TINY FUCKING LITTLE MINDS.

rone: (FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU)

If you are not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you've launched too late.

       — Reid Hoffman

This little nugget has been floating around the Internet long enough and it's time for me to step on its neck.  This cheeky morsel of wit is emblematic of why using the Web is so fucking awful, why sites will push out some flashy garbage and hope that it somehow infects its luserbase like shoveling out junk RNA and hoping it turns into a retrovirus.  It's pretending that making Internet-based products is just another facet of the creative process, while at the same time playing the other end and calling it "engineering", when the truth is closer to it being the result of people coding features nobody but Product wants instead of fixing the features that everybody uses, all while under pressure from the VC-ridden board or the crony-ridden major stockholders and yet, somehow, something not entirely offensive emerges, because there's someone who deeply and personally cares, at least until they burn out and move on.

Hoffman's quote is the bizarro version of "Perfect is the enemy of good."  It is a deep exercise in bullshitting oneself and everyone around.  If you ship something embarrassing, you've set your standardThat's who you are.  Don't laugh it off, and for fuck's sake don't spin it as an inspirational quote.  Have some fucking dignity.

rone: (FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU)

So Chris Jones brought this smug little tip list to my attention and, lo, did my gorge rise.  Find here my response:

  1. The "cool" perks are being phased out
    If you're sucker enough to go to a start-up because of the "cool" perks, then i guess you're shallow enough to believe that phasing out flashy crap is a bad sign.
  2. You stop trying to explain to your family and friends what your company does
    The assumption that your family and friends are "laymen" that need special translating skills is obscenely condescending.
  3. The job description you were hired for no longer fits what you do
    Is that a bad thing?  Then maybe talk to your boss about it.  A good company reëvaluates a contributor's role whenever necessary.  Things change.  Are you adjusting?  Do you want to adjust?
  4. You keep hearing "that's bullshit" in your head during the quarterly company pep talk
    Nothing special about start-ups in this regard.  And if your start-up has "quarterly pep talks", you're already in trouble.
  5. You realize that your degree got you here, but you're not using it
    So fucking what?  There are tons of people in tech who have degrees that are unrelated to their job.  Many of them are happy with their work.  We already know that college doesn't do a good job at preparing you for the working world.  Stop deluding yourself.
  6. Your angel investors become, well, demonic
    Finally, unreserved agreement.  I saw it happen at gBox 5 years ago.  I could not leave quickly enough.  VC can also be unwelcomely and destructively meddlesome (that was at Visible Path).
  7. You increasingly compare your life to the movie Office Space
    If this is happening at a start-up, you're utterly fucked.
  8. You increase your blog and web comic consumption, and your performance doesn't suffer
    Don't blame the start-up for your own suck-ass attitude.
  9. Grad school – any grad school – suddenly sounds appealing
    It's not merely about being bored.  Maybe you've just had an epiphany about a change of direction.  Again, this is a personal thing, not a start-up thing.
  10. The CEO defers going public for "another couple of years"
    Your company is massively fucked and you don't even know how bad it is.
  11. You stop recommending friends for positions at the company
    Huge red flag, but again, not start-up specific.
  12. Your job title is increasingly disproportionate to the amount of responsibility you have
    This is just a re-run of 3.  You might be fucked; you might simply be suffering from not having your voice heard.  Find out.
  13. The company overpromises and underdelivers
    See 10.
  14. Your move to full-time from contract keeps getting delayed
    See 10.
  15. Your company is no longer a start-up
    Guess what, you nincompoop: successful businesses are run by grownups. Stop trying to chase the eternal perfect start-up so you can keep being an overpaid adolescent. You want career growth; start-ups want to become a real company, too, either on their own merits or by getting acquired by a real company. Making it to the next level doesn't mean you can't keep going to work on your scooter.

rone: (bofh)

Gene Kim is a guy who's accomplished a lot more in his career than i have.  I kinda-sorta met him in passing at an LSPE Meetup and he seemed like a nice guy.  But his recent writeup, "Why We Need DevOps Now", which title i agree with, is just not good at all (i used the word "terrible" on Twitter, which someone called me on, so maybe i'll try to dial back the hyperbole).

As my friend John Willis told me after I dismissed DevOps as just another marketing fad, “DevOps is the best chance at relevance that IT Operations has had in thirty years.” I immediately realized that he was right.
Is that really all it took?

"John, it's a fad."
"Gene, it's our last, best hope."
"OMG UR RITE!!"



DevOps is real (this article says everything that needs to be said about it) and also a fad, in the same way that Agile Software Development is real and a fad:

BOSS: "We're going to try something called agile programming.  That means no more planning and no more documentation.  Just start writing code and complaining." WALLY: "I'm glad it has a name." BOSS: "That was your training."
A good business avails itself of forward-looking approaches in order to contend with the firehose of change that is our industry's lifeblood.  But we cannot mistake these approaches for anything other than a tool.
Act I begins with IT Operations, where we’re supporting a large, complex revenue generating application. The problem is that everyone knows that the application and supporting infrastructure is... fragile.
I smell a setup.  The scenario described is clearly the result of bad management, who failed to see this sort of undesirable performance down the road and act upon it to preclude the fragility, and it has been that way every time i've encountered it in my career.  It is not, as implied, a result of traditional IT operations.
In Act 2, our life gets worse when the business starts making even bigger commitments to Wall Street, often dreamed up by art or creative writing majors
I have no idea what he's talking about here.  In my experience, publicly-traded businesses (which would be the ones who make a commitment to shareholders, not Wall Street) don't usually have art or creative writing majors making major business commitments; the more likely case is that those positions are staffed with MBAs.  Privately held businesses, on the other hand, tend to be beholden to venture capital firms, whose presence can become far more unwelcome and meddlesome than that of your typical shareholder.
We all know that there must be better way, right? DevOps is the proof that it’s possible to break the core, chronic conflict, so we can deliver a fast flow of features without causing chaos and disruption to the production environment.
YOU NEED MANAGEMENT BUY-IN.  YOU NEED THE SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE WHO CONTROL THE MONEY TO HIRE THE RIGHT PEOPLE AND PURCHASE THE RIGHT EQUIPMENT, THE PEOPLE WHO SET THE COMPANY'S EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL STRATEGIES, THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE YOUR BACK WHEN YOU TELL THE COMPANY, "THIS WILL HURT, BUT IN 12 MONTHS, WE WILL NO LONGER LIMP."  Painting DevOps as a panacæa does all of us who believe in DevOps and work in DevOps a tremendous disservice.  To unfuck a fucked company, you need to fix the culture.  This is why Netflix is a shining example — not because of their use of DevOps, but because their culture enabled them to use their talent in a massively constructive and creative fashion.
"Before you can solve a complex problem, you must first have empathy for the other stakeholders."
Before you can solve a complex problem, you must first understand it.  One of the important factors in understanding it is empathizing with the other parties.  It is not, however, the first thing to do.

Perhaps i'm being too harsh on what's less of a thoughtful article and more a plug for his book.  But i do not find the appeal in being sold on DevOps by starting off with an elaborate strawman.





rone: (FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU)

So Om Malik wrote this thing about what impelled Facebook to buy Instagram.  First off, i can't get past Malik's assertion of "Facebook's achilles heel"[sic] being "mobile photo sharing".  Seriously?  Mobile photo sharing is a hard-driving revenue stream for anyone in this world?  Is there any evidence that this was considered a weakness by anyone at Facebook?  I can lean on my experience and tell you that sharing photos from my Android phone is stone easy to Facebook, because my phone came with the Facebook app installed.  I couldn't've done it on Instagram at all until very recently.  Facebook was worried about Instagram's mobile photo sharing mojo?  I call bullshit.

And calling Instagram "a platform built on emotion"... what the hell is that about?  I wonder if he's an advance Facebook stock share owner, because it sure as hell sounds like he's trying to talk himself into the deal, which is no less than ludicrous.  Who drops $1B, even if most of it is fake money, on an emotion-based platform?  Emotion fades.

Some are comparing it to Google buying YouTube, but others are comparing it to eBay buying Skype.  I think that it's far more likely to be closer to the latter, except worse.  Bottom line: even if, somehow, this turns out to be a good deal for Facebook, it won't be because of them addressing their supposed "Achilles heel", or because of the strength of Instagram's "emotion".

Bonus cluebie: some "business leader" thinks that Twitter "F$($#@ UP in somehow letting Instagram ended up inside of Facebook"[sic], because nothing says "mobile business advisor" than someone playing with ginned-up valuation numbers.

rone: (brock)

Let's be clear: i don't like The Oatmeal.  I found Matthew Inman's humor juvenile but inoffensive at first; even in the cartoons that had material that i liked, his delivery seemed off in the way that the dorkiest of nerds have when they overtell or overexplain a joke.  He finally lost me with his issues-revealing Utilikilts cartoon, and that's colored everything else that i've had the misfortune to witness (and you'd call me an idiot for continuing to follow links there, and you'd be right).  His approach to things in his life is relentlessly adolescent, and his current comic about how HBO has forced him to torrent the "Game of Thrones" series, which has been pounded across my social network with much delight by my so-called friends, is a prime example of this: entitlement and rationalization in the face of unenlightened self-harm (and, yes, the fact that it's about the much overrated "Game of Thrones", which book many of my friends inexplicably love and consequently turned them into morbidly obsessed fans of the HBO series, doesn't help).

Here's the thing: HBO doesn't owe anyone the "Game of Thrones" series outside of the terms in which they make it available (i.e., pay a shitload of money a month to the local cable monopoly and be glad that they deign to convey their munificence to your hovel).  Is Inman truly advocating that we should we bend or break the rules every time an incompetent business doesn't offer us their product in a timely fashion after we've declined to adhere to their idiotic terms and conditions, simply because we really, really want it?

If you're going to torrent it, torrent it, but don't waste time rationalizing it.  Just because the MPAA is acting like Javert doesn't mean that you're Valjean, and "Game of Thrones" isn't a piece of bread.

rone: (FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU)

  • Rampant misuse of 'ETA': the A in ETA stands for 'arrival'.  Some coworkers use it when they mean 'completion', 'delivery', or 'repair'.  Wikipedia alleges that it may be used "metaphorically" or that it could stand for "achieve[ment]", but this smacks of backformation and must be shunned.
  • "Let's take this offline": this means either, "Let's discuss this over private email instead of boring everyone on the CC list with the details," which is stupid because the discussion will still be online, or, "Let's discuss this once the meeting we're sharing with other people is over," which is stupid because, unless the dialogue is occurring between people on a conference call, you're already offline.
Think.  Use the right fucking word, every time.  Only good things can happen.

rone: (brock)

When you write, "I am passionate about designing products that actively engage and delight end-users," i read, "I am a self-absorbed douchebag."  I don't say that i'm passionate about designing systems architectures that dynamically expand to meet the needs of the company's infrastructure.  You know why?  Because i'm not a self-absorbed douchebag and i sure as hell don't want to sound like one.

rone: (brock)

You know what?  I'm officially done with you.  Your insane, stultifying Murray Chass impersonation in your AVClub interview where you babble about how much you hate the stat revolution in basketball was hugely disappointing, but then you followed that up with your craven, spoiled whinge about Belichick's 4th-and-2 decision.  You're transparently trying to become once more a "tortured Boston sports fan".  Your efforts are effectively a karmic counterweight to that wonderful, sublime article about the Dooze you wrote in January; in effect, you shat all over it.

So go cry to your daddy if you want, and do what you have to do to keep the gravy train going, but i am no longer going to tolerate the insipid and inane references to embarrassing crap like pro wrestling, reality TV, and pornography because "in the end, you're entertaining."  You aren't entertaining anymore; you're just another mainstream mediot with a disproportionate sense of self who's desperately opposed to admitting that things often change counterintuitively for the better.  Keep it up, and your kids will be hating your guts in a dozen years.

rone: (Default)

You know what?  I'm officially done with you.  Your insane, stultifying Murray Chass impersonation in your AVClub interview where you babble about how much you hate the stat revolution in basketball was hugely disappointing, but then you followed that up with your craven, spoiled whinge about Belichick's 4th-and-2 decision.  You're transparently trying to become once more a "tortured Boston sports fan".  Your efforts are effectively a karmic counterweight to that wonderful, sublime article about the Dooze you wrote in January; in effect, you shat all over it.

So go cry to your daddy if you want, and do what you have to do to keep the gravy train going, but i am no longer going to tolerate the insipid and inane references to embarrassing crap like pro wrestling, reality TV, and pornography because "in the end, you're entertaining."  You aren't entertaining anymore; you're just another mainstream mediot with a disproportionate sense of self who's desperately opposed to admitting that things often change counterintuitively for the better.  Keep it up, and your kids will be hating your guts in a dozen years.

rone: (brock)

[livejournal.com profile] 2wanda has said before (and i admit that she, as my wife, might be biased) that she thinks that computer systems administrators should unionize because we're the tech workers who are most often abused by companies.  I have mixed feelings about unions, but there's little doubt that the industry takes us for granted far too often.  And yet, in all of my career, i have never encountered a situation so dire as in my current place of employ.  If they'd offered me a full-time position, i would have turned it down and fled screaming; however, the contract lets me stick to fulfilling tasks instead of worrying about my future with the company, or the company's future.

Right now, IT ("Ops" is reserved for another part of the company that fulfills a different role) is composed of the Director, who is a senior sysadmin with a managerial title, and one junior sysadmin.  Normally, that's a bit light for a small startup, but not egregious.  The guy they hired before me absconded with a new Mac laptop and an iPhone after four days there.  The guy they hired before that lasted two weeks before they realized that he was a complete charlatan (he was hired over the Director's objection, too).  The guy who was the boss when the current Director was hired was such an idiot that he recompiled the kernel on the phone system server in the middle of the afternoon, rebooted it, and when it failed to come up, took a few half-hearted stabs at fixing it before leaving for an appointment, leaving the phones down until the next day.  This was normal for him, i was told; he was too often worse than no help at all.

Aside from the personnel problems, the infrastructure is a complete cockup.  A few examples: the whole office is on a /24 (a network segment with 256 IP addresses) that has been out of available addresses for months, predictably yielding IP conflicts; the Ops team works in an office that is restricted to people with an Ops keycard for security reasons, but their network is fully reachable from anywhere in the company; the office has both wired and wireless pipes to the Internet, but they are not set up for failover, nor are services such as VPN set up to use either one; production has been running on network equipment that dates from the Clinton administration, and development is running on servers from a manufacturer that stopped making hardware in 2001; the source control repository that contains the code for the company's applications has not been backed up in months.

The CEO introduced herself to me on Wednesday, and told me, "I'm glad you're here.  We really need you.  As a SaaS company, infrastructure is really important to us."  You know what, lady?  You don't really believe that.  If you did, you wouldn't keep hiring morons, you wouldn't be running your company on spit and baling wire, and you wouldn't be telling your Director of IT that you can't afford to hire the people he needs to keep your fucking company from imploding.

I cannot fathom why so many Internet technology companies run their business on a suboptimal infrastructure that is always the result of an abject failure of prioritization.  They get the best possible developers because they want a top-notch product, they get the best possible sales and marketing because they want to have as many customers as possible, but when it comes to building the base on which everything runs, well, the founders just slapped together some whitebox PCs from Fry's, and the product's been running on that just fine, so why change it?  It's this and eleven billion other idiotic excuses that come from people who Don't Fucking Understand how to build an infrastructure and are, somehow, Utterly Incapable of hiring someone who does.

Why?  It can't be that we're scary; yes, it's easy to lean on the "sysadmins and netadmins are all disturbed or disturbing" stereotype, but you know what, every FUCKING job req out there demands "excellent writing and speaking skills", and people get hired, so maybe we're not nearly as bestial as people think.  In the end, i think it's simply a complete lack of respect for what we do; we're almost never given the resources that we need to do the job right, and when the resource starvation produces less than stellar results, the blame always comes quickly at us.  We need advocacy.  I don't get the impression that SAGE has any idea or interest in it, but they damn well should.  Maybe i'll go yell at them for a while.  Yelling at people is always an effective communication tool.

rone: (Default)

[livejournal.com profile] 2wanda has said before (and i admit that she, as my wife, might be biased) that she thinks that computer systems administrators should unionize because we're the tech workers who are most often abused by companies.  I have mixed feelings about unions, but there's little doubt that the industry takes us for granted far too often.  And yet, in all of my career, i have never encountered a situation so dire as in my current place of employ.  If they'd offered me a full-time position, i would have turned it down and fled screaming; however, the contract lets me stick to fulfilling tasks instead of worrying about my future with the company, or the company's future.

Right now, IT ("Ops" is reserved for another part of the company that fulfills a different role) is composed of the Director, who is a senior sysadmin with a managerial title, and one junior sysadmin.  Normally, that's a bit light for a small startup, but not egregious.  The guy they hired before me absconded with a new Mac laptop and an iPhone after four days there.  The guy they hired before that lasted two weeks before they realized that he was a complete charlatan (he was hired over the Director's objection, too).  The guy who was the boss when the current Director was hired was such an idiot that he recompiled the kernel on the phone system server in the middle of the afternoon, rebooted it, and when it failed to come up, took a few half-hearted stabs at fixing it before leaving for an appointment, leaving the phones down until the next day.  This was normal for him, i was told; he was too often worse than no help at all.

Aside from the personnel problems, the infrastructure is a complete cockup.  A few examples: the whole office is on a /24 (a network segment with 256 IP addresses) that has been out of available addresses for months, predictably yielding IP conflicts; the Ops team works in an office that is restricted to people with an Ops keycard for security reasons, but their network is fully reachable from anywhere in the company; the office has both wired and wireless pipes to the Internet, but they are not set up for failover, nor are services such as VPN set up to use either one; production has been running on network equipment that dates from the Clinton administration, and development is running on servers from a manufacturer that stopped making hardware in 2001; the source control repository that contains the code for the company's applications has not been backed up in months.

The CEO introduced herself to me on Wednesday, and told me, "I'm glad you're here.  We really need you.  As a SaaS company, infrastructure is really important to us."  You know what, lady?  You don't really believe that.  If you did, you wouldn't keep hiring morons, you wouldn't be running your company on spit and baling wire, and you wouldn't be telling your Director of IT that you can't afford to hire the people he needs to keep your fucking company from imploding.

I cannot fathom why so many Internet technology companies run their business on a suboptimal infrastructure that is always the result of an abject failure of prioritization.  They get the best possible developers because they want a top-notch product, they get the best possible sales and marketing because they want to have as many customers as possible, but when it comes to building the base on which everything runs, well, the founders just slapped together some whitebox PCs from Fry's, and the product's been running on that just fine, so why change it?  It's this and eleven billion other idiotic excuses that come from people who Don't Fucking Understand how to build an infrastructure and are, somehow, Utterly Incapable of hiring someone who does.

Why?  It can't be that we're scary; yes, it's easy to lean on the "sysadmins and netadmins are all disturbed or disturbing" stereotype, but you know what, every FUCKING job req out there demands "excellent writing and speaking skills", and people get hired, so maybe we're not nearly as bestial as people think.  In the end, i think it's simply a complete lack of respect for what we do; we're almost never given the resources that we need to do the job right, and when the resource starvation produces less than stellar results, the blame always comes quickly at us.  We need advocacy.  I don't get the impression that SAGE has any idea or interest in it, but they damn well should.  Maybe i'll go yell at them for a while.  Yelling at people is always an effective communication tool.

rone: (drowning cat)

This is over five years old now, but it's amazingly entertaining.  Bernie Sanders pummels Alan Greenspan for being, well, Alan Greenspan.


rone: (Default)

This is over five years old now, but it's amazingly entertaining.  Bernie Sanders pummels Alan Greenspan for being, well, Alan Greenspan.


rone: (invincirone)

Keith Olbermann pulls out all the stops on the "rip Dubya a new asshole" pipe organ and delivers a twelve-minute virtuoso performance.  Thanks to [livejournal.com profile] drieuxster.

rone: (Default)

Keith Olbermann pulls out all the stops on the "rip Dubya a new asshole" pipe organ and delivers a twelve-minute virtuoso performance.  Thanks to [livejournal.com profile] drieuxster.

rone: (what the fuck)

What the fuck, over?  This movie is not funny, it is not memorable, and it is not enjoyable.  It's a story that reads like it was written by some pinhead with ADD who heavily self-medicates with marijuana; a ridiculous amount of random things happened for no damn discernible reason or even a more than tenuous connection between them.  I am a charter member of the Jeff Bridges Fan Club and the way he was wasted was nearly criminal, and the same goes for Steve Buscemi.  The movie needed a lot less John Goodman and a lot more John Turturro.  It feels like some film student decided to ape the Coen brothers.  If i hadn't rented this movie for free with a coupon, i would feel totally ripped off.  Something about the movie made me dodge it when it came out, and all the years since, but i finally decided to fill in a gap in my Coen brothers movie track, and now i'm sorry.  I blame all of you jerks.

Oh, by the way, since it seems that "watch it again another 10-40 times and you'll get it" is a really popular suggestion, i have two words for you: Stockholm syndrome.

rone: (Default)

What the fuck, over?  This movie is not funny, it is not memorable, and it is not enjoyable.  It's a story that reads like it was written by some pinhead with ADD who heavily self-medicates with marijuana; a ridiculous amount of random things happened for no damn discernible reason or even a more than tenuous connection between them.  I am a charter member of the Jeff Bridges Fan Club and the way he was wasted was nearly criminal, and the same goes for Steve Buscemi.  The movie needed a lot less John Goodman and a lot more John Turturro.  It feels like some film student decided to ape the Coen brothers.  If i hadn't rented this movie for free with a coupon, i would feel totally ripped off.  Something about the movie made me dodge it when it came out, and all the years since, but i finally decided to fill in a gap in my Coen brothers movie track, and now i'm sorry.  I blame all of you jerks.

Oh, by the way, since it seems that "watch it again another 10-40 times and you'll get it" is a really popular suggestion, i have two words for you: Stockholm syndrome.

January 2017

S M T W T F S
1 234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 25th, 2017 06:51 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios