Author Archives: Dermian Fizalian

In the "RoboCop" Reboot, Samuel L. Jackson Is Basically Bill O’Reilly

by Dermian Fizalian Posted on February 12, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

RoboCop/Facebook

Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi action movie RoboCop (1987) is a famous satire of the excess and greed of the Reagan era. José Padilha’s 2014 reboot of RoboCop (in theaters on Wednesday) is also a critique of American society and power. The remake—starring Joel Kinnaman, Gary Oldman, Abbie Cornish, Michael Keaton, and Jay Baruchel—takes place in the year 2028, mostly in Detroit. The American military is occupying countries all over the world—with the help of completely autonomous killer robots called “drones.” (Get it?) In this not-at-all-distant future, the United States has apparently invaded Iran in “Operation Freedom Tehran.” OmniCorp, which designs and manufactures these military robots, wants to put this technology to use in law enforcement on American soil. Thus begins a debate over civil liberties and human emotion.

But the best thing about the new RoboCop is Samuel L. Jackson‘s turn as the smartly dressed, flag-pin-wearing host of a cable-TV news and commentary show. His perspective is jingoistic, pro-US-empire, and staunchly pro-RoboCop and tough on crime. (“Why is America so robophobic?” he asks during a broadcast; he later asks if the US Senate has become pro-crime.) He cuts the mic of guests he disagrees with and is prone to loud swearing on camera. As you might guess, many critics have already compared Jackson’s character to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly. For instance, the name of the fictional show is The Novak Element, which sounds a bit like The O’Reilly Factor.

O’Reilly and Fox News did not respond to a request for comment regarding RoboCop‘s possible nod to The O’Reilly Factor. Jackson points to a different conservative host as his inspiration (via Blastr):

I play a character by the name of Pat Novak, who’s sort of a combination of Rush Limbaugh and Al Sharpton, if you can combine those two people. So I refer to him as Rush Sharpton…He has one of those shows that’s an opinion show, and his opinion is that automated policing is a good idea, so he’s a proponent of RoboCop.

You can check out Novak in action in the trailer below:

This article: 

In the "RoboCop" Reboot, Samuel L. Jackson Is Basically Bill O’Reilly

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In the "RoboCop" Reboot, Samuel L. Jackson Is Basically Bill O’Reilly

Need a New Stadium? Threaten to Move Here

by Dermian Fizalian Posted on September 28, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Nothing rips out a fan’s heart quite like seeing a hometown team pack up and move to another city. (Or, as the case may be, not seeing a hometown team pack up and move to another city.) While there may be legitimate reasons for franchises to relocate—bankruptcy, low ticket sales, Jay-Z buying a stake—many recent threats to move have one common factor: stadium funding. If your local government decided against spending $400 million of public money to add a few more luxury boxes to Xtreme Cola Guzzle The Flavor® Memorial Arena, get ready to hear your team’s owner talking a lot about the following cities. But which threats will have you back in your seat next season, and which will leave you crying into your Houston Oilers jersey? We’ve got you covered:

Los Angeles
LA has been the NFL’s biggest bogeyman ever since the Raiders returned to Oakland in 1995. Most recently, in his push for a new stadium, Raiders owner Mark Davis said that Los Angeles is “always” on his mind. Miami Dolphins CEO Mike Dee raised the specter of relocating Perfectville to LA after Florida opted against giving the team $3 million a year for 30 years for stadium renovations. The City of Angels also looms over teams like the Rams, Jaguars, and Bills, and it served as a believable enough landing place to get Minnesota to agree to a $975 million deal to make sure the Vikings didn’t leave. The threats aren’t empty, though—LA has two proposed stadium sites that are “shovel ready” along with a massive media market without professional football. With no NFL expansion plans, it seems less a question of if a team will move there and more a question of when.
Relocation likelihood: 5/5 moving vans

Toronto
The Buffalo Bills have played at least one home game in Toronto for the past few seasons, but they were able to convince the state and county to agree to a $271 million stadium renovation deal at the end of last year that comes with a 10-year lease (although the team can opt out relatively cheaply after seven). While the Bills enjoy a relatively large fan base in the area, Toronto officials could look elsewhere in the meantime, with Jacksonville and New Orleans getting special mentions. Whether it’s the Bills, Jags, Saints, or another team who likes Scott Pilgrim enough to move, relocating a franchise to Toronto would be a lot easier than moving one to London. Let’s just hope everyone on Twitter gets their “Are they gonna punt on third down?” CFL jokes out of the way quickly.
Relocation likelihood: 3/5 moving vans

London
While Londoners prepare for a barn-burning matchup of winless teams, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has made no secret of his interest in putting a franchise across the pond. It’s a nice bargaining chip for the league and its owners—as the St. Louis Rams tried to get the city to agree to a $700 million stadium deal, the NFL scheduled them for three years of London home games. This year, the Jacksonville Jaguars were scheduled for four straight London games, with the team’s owner calling the Jaguars “the home team for London.” The league is even pushing a fun club called the Union Jax. Despite these moves, there are plenty of obstacles to putting a franchise in the United Kingdom anytime soon, including huge travel times, players reluctant to move overseas, and the potential for incessant football/football jokes during broadcasts. (Not everyone is so pessimistic.) If a team moves to LA soon, expect London to make a nice new bogeyman.
Relocation likelihood: 2/5 moving vans

BONUS NBA/NHL SITE: Seattle
Your favorite football team might be safe, but that doesn’t mean your local basketball or hockey team is sticking around. Fans of the SuperSonics came tantalizingly close to regaining a franchise this year, only to see the Sacramento Kings stay put. The NBA, on the other hand, saw an extremely effective strategy for getting local officials to help pay for a $448 million new arena in downtown Sacramento. As teams like Milwaukee negotiate new stadium deals, expect threats to turn the team into the new Sonics to come early and often. Seattle also sits pretty as a large market without an NHL team, making the strategy just as useful for hockey owners. The Edmonton Oilers management team took a scouting trip out to Seattle after negotiations with Edmonton over a new arena got off to a rocky start. Both leagues have also discussed expansion, however, so it’s possible the Emerald City could see new franchises without having to poach them.
Relocation likelihood: 4/5 moving vans

Link to article: 

Need a New Stadium? Threaten to Move Here

Posted in alo, Dolphin, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Need a New Stadium? Threaten to Move Here

Watch: How Climate Change Became the "Killing Fields" of Australian Politics

by Dermian Fizalian Posted on September 6, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As you watched last year’s US election, did you find yourself aggrieved by the lack of big climate change talk from your leaders? Well, I have an election you’re going to want to watch. This weekend, a nation gripped to the point of near-hysteria over carbon abatement policies (yes, there is such a country) will finally put to rest an epic struggle that has rolled on for years. Well, that’s the plan, anyway.

In my home country, Australia, carbon pricing has been the “killing fields” of politics, says Lenore Taylor, political editor for The Guardian Australia. In an extraordinary couple of years of drama in Canberra, the usually sedate (read: dull) capital, three leaders—including two sitting prime ministers—have been toppled and replaced by their own parties, partly due to disagreements over climate change.

Saturday’s national election, if we’re to believe the opposition’s rhetoric, will be a referendum on the future of the carbon tax that was introduced by the Labor Party that has been in power for the last six years. Tony Abbott, the head of the conservative opposition is leading opinion polls. In the likely scenario he wins, he has promised to repeal the carbon pricing legislation.

Climate change is by no means the only issue in this campaign: immigration, leadership and economic management have played big. But the election will nonetheless be the culmination of a long and heated national debate about climate change, one unlike any other in the world.

In 2009, the conservative opposition party (called the Liberal Party) replaced its leader Malcolm Turnbull, who was a proponent of an emissions trading scheme, with Tony Abbott, a man who is vehemently opposed to a market-based solution. The following year, Julia Gillard replaced sitting Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd, her boss, as Prime Minister, only to be challenged and defeated by a resurgent Kevin Rudd in 2013. The names and pace of change might be hard to follow, but the message is simple: carbon pricing has cut to the quick of Aussie politics and become a symbol for deep ideological divides. Politicians enthusiastic about putting a price on carbon in other countries must be looking on in horror.

When a carbon tax was finally introduced by the Gillard government in 2011, it faced immediate, vitriolic opposition from an invigorated conservative opposition party led by Tony Abbott, and a fear campaign run by talk radio around the country, which labeled the “toxic tax” as a broken promise. Before the 2010 election, Julia Gillard had said she wouldn’t introduce a tax. In reality, the carbon tax was the fruit of an elaborate negotiation between Gillard, independents and Greens to preserve her vulnerable coalition government (the tax will eventually become a trading scheme). The price she paid was fatal. The opposition has been ruthlessly committed to its mantra ever since: dump this toxic tax. When this pitiless campaign sunk her polling numbers to sub-survival territory, her own party dumped her.

I wouldn’t be so sure this issue will go away after Saturday. Abbott’s bill to repeal the tax would have to be passed by the Senate, Australia’s upper house, which will be hard given the delicate numbers game played between independents and the Greens party. If he’s not successful in ditching the tax, he has said he will fully dissolve both houses of parliament next year, plunging the country into another election. In doing so, he would yet again wed his fate to the policy problem no Australian leader seems able to escape: climate change.

Original article: 

Watch: How Climate Change Became the "Killing Fields" of Australian Politics

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch: How Climate Change Became the "Killing Fields" of Australian Politics

Mitch McConnell’s 2014 Battle Could Be the Most Expensive Senate Race Ever

by Dermian Fizalian Posted on August 12, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In 2014, ground zero for our cash-drenched, post-Citizens United politics will undoubtedly be Kentucky. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell faces a tea party challenger, Matt Bevin, in the GOP primary and, barring a stunning upset, the Clinton-backed Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes in the general election. As I reported in July, Grimes says she’ll need between $26 million and $30 million to defeat McConnell. Only four Senate candidates raised more in 2012.

Now, the Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza has run the numbers and made a odds-on prediction: The Kentucky race will be the first $100 million Senate election—and so the most expensive—in American history.

Cillizza builds a strong case. McConnell, who raised $21 million for his 2008 reelection campaign, already has nearly $10 million in the bank. To get past Bevin, his pesky primary challenger and a wealthy businessman with millions at his disposal, McConnell could end up spending $5 million to win the primary. Cillizza says McConnell could go on to raise and spend upwards of $35 million overall. And if Grimes, the Democrat, meets her $30 million target, then we’re talking about a $65 million to $70 million race.

And that’s before the outside money starts pouring in. Here’s Cillizza:

Consider the two national parties. The National Republican Senatorial Committee will spend almost everything it has to bring McConnell back, given his prominence within the party and the amount he has done for the committee over the years. And, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has plenty of its own incumbents to defend, beating McConnell might make up for lots of other losses in other places, and the committee knows it. It’s easy to see both the NRSC and the DSCC spending in the neighborhood of $10 million each—and that might well be conservative—on Kentucky. Add that $20 million, and the cost of the race is already at $90 million.

The final piece of the spending puzzle is the super-PAC world. A pro-McConnell super PAC—Kentuckians for Strong Leadership—brought in more than $1 million in its first four months of existence. There will be much, much more where that came from. And it’s a certainty that Democrats will set up a super-PAC of their own to support Grimes/beat up McConnell. Aside from those quasi-official super PACs for the two candidates, there will be lots of other interested parties who want to make their voices heard—read: spend money in the most high-profile Senate race in the country. Will all of these groups combine to spend $10 million? Um, yes.

Cillizza’s prognosticating is a little fuzzy on super-PACs, so here’s more to consider. Senate Majority PAC, the super-PAC devoted to electing Senate Democrats, has already hammered McConnell on the airwaves, and it will no doubt continue to attack as long as the race remains competitive. There’s also the American Crossroads super-PAC and its secretly-funded sister nonprofit, Crossroads GPS. The president of the two Crossroads groups is Steven Law, McConnell’s former chief of staff. You can bet that the Crossroads juggernaut will make itself heard in the Bluegrass State. With all those major outside players eyeing Kentucky, super-PAC and dark-money spending could easily blow past Cillizza’s $10-million estimate.

In 2012, the nation’s marquee Senate race was in Massachusetts, pitting incumbent Scott Brown against Elizabeth Warren. That race cost more than $80 million, falling short of the $100 million threshold only because Brown and Warren agreed to a “people’s pledge” keeping most super-PAC and nonprofit spending out of their race. In 2014, the spotlight is on Kentucky, and with no truce in sight, crossing that $100 million milestone is looking like a foregone conclusion.

Link – 

Mitch McConnell’s 2014 Battle Could Be the Most Expensive Senate Race Ever

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mitch McConnell’s 2014 Battle Could Be the Most Expensive Senate Race Ever

Forms Of Renewable Energy And Exactly How Solar Features In It

by Dermian Fizalian Posted on July 29, 2013

What sort of knowledge do you have when it comes to solar power? Do you want to use it? If this is the case, you should become educated about solar energy. Keep reading in order to learn how to take advantage of this solar market.

[I:https://greenenergy4.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/DermianFizalian24.jpg]How many panels you have in place and their efficiency will determine output. Assess your needs carefully and do the math before deciding how many panels you want to purchase. You may decide to purchase fewer panels so that you can invest in those that really do their job well.

In order to maximize the potential from your solar panels, try and find a system that doesn’t directly rely on the schedule of the sun. Many modern solar panels will allow you to store some energy so that you can use it at any time. This is very useful if you use power in the evenings.

If you lease solar panels, be sure the contact can be transferred to your lease. Should you move some day, you may have to continue paying on the lease because you can’t take the system with you. Find a lease that can be transferred to the people who purchase your home, or look for a lease that will allow you to take your solar panels with you when you move.

If you are prepare to invest for the long haul, solar energy is a ideal method to save money. Unfortunately, solar panels are not cheap; therefore, getting your panels paid off and actually saving money could take several years. Solar panels are not for people who move a lot or are just renting a home with no intention of staying.

Be sure the solar energy system you choose can efficiently and reliably store the energy it produces. Batteries can store energy until you are ready to use it. Also, you can sell excess energy to your power company for even greater savings.

If you decide to lease your solar energy unit instead of buying it, make sure your contract offers you the ability to transfer your lease. This is essential if you plan to sell your home before it’s paid off. Having the option to transfer the lease will give the new homeowners a beneficial system, and remove your obligation to pay for it.

[I:https://greenenergy4.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/DermianFizalian39.jpg]You can make a solar system installation more affordable by looking into grants and rebates. The initial cost of getting a solar power system set up can be overwhelming, but you can frequently find financial help. Many government departments will offer you money once your set-up is installed. This can make solar energy a lot more affordable. You can even write off some of your taxes after installing solar panels.

If you own a home, the best thing to do is to get a comprehensive solar panels system. Solar panels are a pretty hefty financial obligation, especially considering how often people move. You don’t want to lose your home or still be paying on solar panels if you decide to move.

If you approached this information openly, you should now have a fuller understanding of the benefits of solar power. Not only will solar energy help you save money, but it will also help to save our planet. Put to use the information that you have gathered on solar panels today.

For more interesting topics about solar energy tips and information, make sure you check the author’ excellent posts on Renewable Energy Education, and Solar Energy California.

Posted in solar power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Forms Of Renewable Energy And Exactly How Solar Features In It