|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
Obama At House Republican Retreat In Baltimore: FU... AIG Loses Exec, Wins TARP Comp Ruling - Regulatory... Man v. Nature Spicy Predictable Consequences not why, but why not Tea Party Zombies Squishy Mice Pumpkin Star Trek Pumpkin Star Trek Follow Up Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
12.30.2004
 Why did God put most of "our oil" under a bunch of Muslims? * Correction noted. CGHill at Dustbury makes a comment on my snarky remark. It's a manifestation of the divine sense of humor. And the punchline? The wasteland briefly known as Palestine, which the Israelis built into an actual country to the general irritation of Arab Muslims worldwide, is the one place in the Middle East that doesn't have any oil. "Israel has received more direct aid from the United States since World War II than any other country." I personally try to avoid picking sides in the Israeli/Palestinian FUBAR but I can't let Chaz get away with implying that the Israelis are just better than the Arabs, without at least mentioning the generous amounts of money that Congress votes to give Israel each year. | 12.29.2004
First: The hate-filled vitriol. “The Patriot Act will put both of you (Neuharth and Mitchell) on trial for treason and convict and execute both of you as traitors for running these stories in a time of war and it should be done on TV for other communist traitors like you two to know we mean business. This is war and you should be put in prison NOW for talking like this. Who the hell do you people think you are? You give aid and comfort to our enemies and aid them in murdering our proud soldiers. You people are a disgrace to America. Your families should be put in prison with you, then be made to leave and move to the Middle East ...This is a great Christian nation and god wants us to lead the world out of darkness with great leaders like President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Communists like Al and Greg will soon be in prison and on death row for your ugly papers. We won the election and now you are mad. We own America and all the rights, you people are trash, go back to Russia and Africa and take your friends with before we put you on death row after a fair trial.” And... the punchline: what instigated such asshattery. "Support Our Troops" is a wonderful patriotic slogan. But the best way to support troops thrust by unwise commanders in chief into ill-advised adventures like Vietnam and Iraq is to bring them home. Sooner rather than later. That should be our New Year's resolution. Pretty tame by most standards. I'm more likely to say that Iraq is a total fuck-up that is getting American soldiers killed for the political agenda of a spoiled rotten little brat that feels he has the right to be president because he was born with a silver spoon up his ass. Am I surprised that the hateful right wing talk radio and websites are bearing such fruit? Not at all. They have a job, to stir up racial and religious hatred for the sake of getting one party elected to office so that their funders can rake in the big bucks. The side effect is that we now have a bunch of white-boy christian jihadists running around threatening to send anyone that disagrees with Georgey W. Bush to jail, or to death. "Hey, it worked!" Go read the rest of the hate mail that this remark inspired. P.S. This is my country too. | 12.27.2004
ABC News: Drug Firms Issue Memos on Michael Moore: "The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday that at least six drug companies have released internal communications telling employees to be wary of filmmaker Michael Moore." I look forward to this. | 12.26.2004
Argentina : NYTimes.com BUENOS AIRES, Dec. 23 - When the Argentine economy collapsed in December 2001, doomsday predictions abounded. Unless it adopted orthodox economic policies and quickly cut a deal with its foreign creditors, hyperinflation would surely follow, the peso would become worthless, investment and foreign reserves would vanish and any prospect of growth would be strangled. So... they grew their economy by refusing to siphon money out of their economy and into the hands of foreign investors? How odd. Notice that we ignore the warnings of the I.M.F. as well. If there is any good to be had from this bogus war in Iraq its that countries like Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela will have a little room to progress according to their own plans with less outside interference. Further discussion on Kos. | 12.25.2004
Rumsfeld spreads Christmas cheer 
(Source: U.S. DoD Photo by Gerry J. Gilmore) Rumsfeld presents Army Sgt. Chris Scott, 29, of Oklahoma City, Okla. a Purple Heart with the same hand that shook Saddam's over 20 years prior.  Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984 Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons I printed off a copy of Document 26 of National Security Decision Directive 114 to keep on my wall so that if anyone should ask why anyone would assume we would use our military for the simple sake of protecting our oil addiction, I can show them. Oil and the Middle East was a concern over twenty years ago and we made the wrong decisions then as we are doing now. We are not taking steps to address the core issue. The "real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil" is still a concern, maybe even moreso today than back then. Have we become any less dependent on Middle East oil? You are an utter fool to think that we would ever let "Iraqi Democracy" interfere with the need to protect our economic interests. We have already decided that the new Iraqi government will be friendly to U.S. interests, giving us preffered access to their oil as well as permission to build military bases in their country. The elections are nothing more than a sham to give our occupation there a thin film of legitimacy. The Iraqis know that should they make the wrong decision they will be punished. | 12.22.2004
What's controversial except for our ongoing hysteria about cuss words... ... and the truth spoken bluntly? | EAWC Anthology: Hammurabi's Code of Laws 132. If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her husband. Pre-dates the Ten Commandments. Also claimed to be from God. When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind. .. and a little traditional marriage: 163. If a man marry a woman and she bear him no sons; if then this woman die, if the "purchase price" which he had paid into the house of his father-in-law is repaid to him, her husband shall have no claim upon the dowry of this woman; it belongs to her father's house. Watch people blink when you ask them about Hammurabi. Ask them about the Epic of Gilgamesh... or anything that doesn't reside within the narrow scope of history that we all seem to know. Even better, ask people why its colder in the winter than in the summer. Ask them how a Television works. | 12.21.2004
Bloomberg.com: U.S.: "An explosion at a U.S. military base in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul caused ``multiple casualties,'' the military said in an e-mailed statement." The other night I helped out this couple at work. They needed a camera so that they could send some pictures of a new baby to its father, who was stationed in Iraq. I asked them where he was stationed, they said "Mosul". | 12.20.2004
President Bush named Time's Person of 2004 `for reshaping the rules of politics': "President George W. Bush again holds the title of Time magazine's 'Person of the Year' -- beating out Michael Moore, Mel Gibson and even his political adviser, Karl Rove." Wow, not much of a victory considering the competition. As much as I defend MM from the wingnuts, he's hardly what I would consider a great contributer to society, doubly so for Karl Rove and Mel Gibson. WTF? Is this an example of how out of touch our world has become that truly great people labor in obscurity while hacks like Bush, Rove, Moore and Gibson get recognition? Or is it some Judo move by the Liberal Media? | Unix, Music, and Politics ... What was I thinking? Every so often I visit Jim's blog, if for no other reason than to get the condensed version of the right wing talking points. His latest post on tax cuts is a case in point. Notice that the entire discussion on taxes revolves around income taxes. Can anyone tell me why? Because income taxes are progressive and they hit the wealthy harder than the poor. The debate is always about how the rich have to pay more in taxes so its all so very unfair. But let's turn the debate over on its head for a second and rebuild from the bottom. Per Jim's example Mary pays 27% taxes and John pays 18% taxes and the claim is that Mary is paying an unfair share of the taxes because she is taxed at a higher rate. But taking a step back we see that our current government is running an budget deficit. The most logical conclusion would be to assume that John is not paying enough taxes and the resulting call would be for taxes to be raised on the poor. Politician: "The poor are not paying their share and we need to tax them at the same rate as the rich! For the sake a fairness, we can't have these poor people getting off paying less than their fair share" Not gonna happen. It would be "fair" to lower the taxes on the rich but not "fair" to raise the taxes on the poor. But unless we cut spending (which means Bush's pet war in Iraq and the other runaway military spending.. i.e. "Missles in Space") it would be just plain stupid to decrease revenue even further. Considering the amount of wealth tranfered to the wealthy through corporate military contracts we can't expect that to happen any time soon. (There's so many aspects to the debate that are simply omitted in Right Wing talk that it effectively makes the listener dumber just by tuning in.) In their neverending quest to bring more fairness to the world the right has also decided that we should eliminate taxes on non-work income, effectively saying that people should only be taxed if they work. If you own investments then you should be able to collect that money with no tax burden. Can you tell me who owns the majority of investments? Not me, that's for sure, and before we roll out the "50% of all household's own stocks" line we should remind our listeners that 80% of all stocks are still owned by about 10% of all investers. Just because my dad has a few bucks socked away in a mutual fund doesn't mean that he is on the same level as a guy that owns millions of shares of stock worth billions of dollars. Let's not confuse the issue by trying to place little guys and big guys on the same playing field. I mean... we are trying to be "fair" here aren't we? And while we're at it let's talk about payroll taxes... Right Wing Radio: (crickets chirping) That's because payroll taxes are capped. During the entire debate about Social Security going broke and "not being there" for the next generation have we heard any talk about how we could just do away with the unfair cap on payroll taxes? Nope.. because the ease at which the rich can frame the debate is simply butter. They DO own the media after all...we seem to forget this simple little fact. The least we could do (for the sake of fairness) is to raise the upper limit on payroll taxes to make up for the gap in possible funding. But we can't do that because it would be unfair to the rich that have been paying a disproportionately low share of payroll taxes. Let's take an extreme example to illustrate my point. The cap on payroll taxes is set at $87,900. In Jim's example both Mary and John pay taxes on 100% of their work income to help fund Social Security. But let's say that Glenn makes a cool $2 million a year. He pays taxes on just his first $87,900, leaving the rest, $1,912,100 tax free. Glenn pays in about $5500, just $1780 more than Mary who makes considerably less. Glenn's effective tax rate = 0.275% Mary's effective tax rate = 6.2% John's effective tax rate = 6.2% My effective tax rate = 6.2% If you make less than $87,900 you pay 6.2% in payroll taxes. As your income goes up your tax rate plummets like a rock. A quick google search of "Payroll taxes cap" turned up numerous hits that all said the same thing "Eliminating the cap would not fix Social Security!" Which amused me, because the argument from Heritage is that this would only prolong the current system until 2024. But you see, I trust Heritage as much as a I trust my boss, because well, they ARE the same thing. Who do you fucking think funds these think tanks, who else has enough money to pay people to sit around make shit up? The prevailing logic is that we should blow a massive hole in SS but leaking money into "nest eggs" for future generations. Nest eggs gently cradled to little baby birds by our friends on Wall Street. "Remember the Great Depression!!!" I call this gambler's logic. I can justify cashing in my paycheck and gambling it at the casino instead of paying my car payment because when I hit it big I can pay my bills AND buy my girl something nice. I can justify borrowing from next week's paycheck because when I hit it big, I can pay back that loan, pay my bills AND buy something nice for my girl. The stinkin' thinkin' only makes sense if you accept the premise that anytime you ask the rich to pay more taxes they'll retaliate by sinking the economy. The Heritage data also makes the assumption that the wealthy will find ways to avoid paying the taxes. Moreover, this would be "The biggest tax increase in us history." But still just a pittance when applied to SS. Big enough to sink the economy, but not big enough to fix anything. Amazing... | 12.19.2004
It seems that we have so few reasons to all get together and be communal that have nothing to do with consumerism. Today as I walked towards the store across the parking lot teeming with people I realized how festive it seemed to be; people out and about, the proximity of people. I wondered where all these people were during the rest of the year... Sitting around doing nothing? We can't afford to all be out shopping for more than a short period of time in December. We have no choice really. Its an invisible gun held to our heads! We live in a very disconnected world. I feel most connected when I am out on the road, cars surrounding me, yet I know that its a false feeling of community. We spend so much time isolated from each other. We sit around in our houses and watch TV. We've made the very idea of gathering for a non-commercial purpose a blasphemous idea, and we can't all afford to spend money all the time... so we retreat from our communities and isolate ourselves. Long ago when I was a little skater I realized that places that feel public are really only public on the condition that you'll be spending money. We have so few public squares that don't exist for a reason other than shopping. There have been challenges to the idea that malls are public spaces. They are not. They exist as places where we can gather to purchase goods. We have elevated the ideals of consumerism to such heights that we can't even imagine what to do in a public space that does not offer us some consumer choice. Its an odd feeling. I'm not sure what the answer is, or whether there is a problem to be addressed but I do know that with all the current talk about "values" we rarely talk about the most pervasive influence on our lives... commercialism. It even feels like religion has become a product. I see fish symbols plastered on cars as if they were Nike symbols and I can't help but think that religious choice is just another purchase decision. Jesus is a brand. What we buy is how we relate to our society? | 12.18.2004
Heather at Freakishly Prompt was wondering: do you think it be too much to ask santa for a boy who'll come over to watch movies, eat pizza, get just intoxicated enough to feel fuzzy and smooch with on friday nights? I say, no need to ask Santa. Getting a boy is easy. Just follow a few simple steps and you should have a boy in no time: Boy fishing: Step 1: Dress up nice, preferably something in a fuzzy sweater. Bring a roll of duct tape. Step 2: Head down to your local computer/electronics store where there is a disproportionate number of boyfish schooling. Step 3: Wander around by yourself until you spot a promising boyfish. Move in his direction while you pretend to be "looking for something" and wait for boyfish to close in. Step 4: Engage boyfish in a conversation about whatever you just happened to be looking at. Ask lots of questions. Laugh at anything he says. Mention being single, mention being free at a specific time on a specific night. (Boyfish are stupid and need lots of help.) Step 5: Lean in close, this should shut down his higher reasoning powers and cause boyfish to issue a date invitation. At this point boyfish should be ready to be reeled in, if not go to Step 6. Step 6: Wait in the parking lot for boyfish to emerge. Tackle him from behind and stuff him into the truck or hatch of your car. Use duct tape if he struggles. Keep boyfish in a bag with enough air for him to breathe for several hours. Take him back to your apartment and let him get acclimated to the new environment before transferring him from the bag to the sofa. Step 7: Feed regularly, they like cookies. ---- Anyone have a guide to girlfishing, preferbly one that has less than a hundred steps? | 12.17.2004
We, the collective english speaking world, don't use the word Smarmy enough. I would use it to describe a guy at work who finds any excuse to touch women; rubbing their shoulders, giving them hugs from behind, bumping into them while walking... etc. I guess if I were a women I would be like "Get your fucking paws off me!" Or have I got it all wrong... do women want random guys trying to touch them for cheap thrills? Anouncement: In an effort to be much cooler than I really am, I will be adding the lowercase letter i to the front of my name. iBruce Until I've finished eating the awesome cookies so thoughtfully sent by Mr. Kilgore Trout I hearby proclaim of the fantabulous Chaotic Not Random, The Best Fucking Blog in the Entire Universe. Cookies make me very very happy! I welcome any and all cookie donations. Simply email me your desire to supply my cookie habit and I will furnish the necessary address. If you have promised cookies to me and have yet to deliver... there is still time before the holidays... ;-) | 12.15.2004
al.com: NewsFlash - Judge embroiders Ten Commandments on judicial robe: "A south Alabama judge refused to delay a trial Tuesday when an attorney objected to the judge wearing a judicial robe with the Ten Commandments embroidered in gold on the front of the garment." That's it, somebody needs to write a new book of the Bible. If I write it and claim to be speaking for god do I get afforded the same kind of religious protection that others do? "Don't Make Me Send My Daughter! : A New Book of the Bible" by God "I see the whole book club thing has gotten a bit out of hand. Sorry about being away for so long, but it wasn't long for Me you see. The universe is big and I had other things to take care of. I left things on autopilot here for a while but now I'm back to finish up some business I left hanging. What I need you to do is rip out the last chapter in the current edition of the Bible and replace it with this chapter. "Revelation" wasn't really my idea to begin with, the publisher insisted that we "leave them wanting more" in case we wanted to do a sequel. I tried to tell him that this was the Holy Word of God and that I didn't do sequels, but he assured me it was general practice in the publishing industry to leave a few loose ends hanging even if there were no plans in the works. So I whipped out "Revelation" as more of a contract fulfillment than anything else. I thought you guys would get it; Prophetic Visions? Seven Headed Creatures? I would have fought much harder against it if I'd know what a horrific legacy of bad album covers it would spawn. But that's all in the past now. So grab a handful of bad phophecy and yank it out. You can either tuck this new chapter into the back cover or wait for the new edition too be out sometime in February. " | Guardian Unlimited | Arts features | 'We have to protect people': "'For instance, there's a reason for stop lights. You're driving a vehicle, you see that stop light, and I hope you stop.' Who can argue with something as reasonable as stop lights? Of course, if you're gay, this particular traffic light never changes to green." - Gerald Allen, Republican State Representative in Alabama. "Traditional family values are under attack," Allen informs me. They've been under attack "for the last 40 years". The enemy, this time, is not al-Qaida. The axis of evil is "Hollywood, the music industry". We have an obligation to "save society from moral destruction". We have to prevent liberal libarians and trendy teachers from "re-engineering society's fabric in the minds of our children". We have to "protect Alabamians". What can I say? If this doesn't speak for itself, you and I are on completely different wavelengths and there is no amount of explanation that can change that. Allen's justification for launching a full scale assualt on our culture and freedom? The election. "14 states passed referendums defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman". Exit polls asked people what they considered the most important issue, and "moral values in this country" were "the top of the list". The dangers of vague language. Meanwhile billions of dollars are being spent on people who are giving the gifts of music, books and movies. We must save people from themselves... again. | 12.14.2004
I often wonder just how much nicer the world would be if people would just stop being so... human? Think about how much time and energy is wasted, how much effort we expend every day dealing with things like email spam. Simply because its a safe bet that there will be enough stupid people out there who will buy something from a spam email. If it didn't work people wouldn't do it right? Think about how much time and money we spend buying locks, alarms, video surveillance and other self protecting measures just because we have to protect ourselves from the actions of a few people that can't play by the rules. It all goes into the big pile of GDP but its really just us getting nothing for our efforts. A small group of people have a disproportionate effect on our lives. Where I work we have a staff of people who sole responsibility is to keep people from stealing from the store. And people steal anyways. A friend of mine had his little truck broken into for the second time this year. They broke out his window and busted up his dash to steal a cheapo stereo. Last time they stole his camera as well as the stereo. Its gonna cost him $150 to replace his window, money he really doesn't have. I've never bothered to replace the factory stereo in my car because I don't to invest in something that might get stolen. I've had the window on my car bashed out once, for a portable cd player, as the car sat in front of my house! All this stuff changes the way we behave. We move out to the suburbs, we stay home, we buy alarm systems, filtering software, locks, safes, guns, etc... and it happens anyways. Then we spend billions each year on prisons, police, judges, lawyers and guards. We lose so much simply because we are human and can't escape our own cursed nature. | Its 28 degrees, it feels like 17 degrees, I have on my big brown courderoy coat and a pair of sweatpants under my outer pants. I'm stopping off at QT at 1:00 AM for some beer and antifreeze (I prefer a 50/50 mix) and as I slump back into the driver's seat of my car, some kids come strolling out of the store wearing short sleeved t-shirts. Shattering the whole illusion I had going... Ya know, there really is no strategy for watching a meteor shower; other than just picking a patch of sky and staring at it for a while. Guilt is an interesting emotion. I've known people that have no feelings that surpass their own need for self satisfaction. How else can you explain how one person can manipulate and take advantage of another person yet feel no remorse for doing so? I've noticed that my least favorite character trait in another person is "selfishness". Self centered people go about life with only one goal in mind; their own personal needs. They seem oblivious of how their own actions affects others. All that ever matters is how they feel, and what they want. A guilty person always sees the broader implications in everything they do and thus seeks to avoid any action that might negatively affect another human being. This ultimately leads to an abdication of responsibility for anything other than their own actions. As in most all other cases, a sense of moderation is key. Guilt can be useful to curb the excess of an ego run rampant, and selfishness can help an individual acheive personal goals. | 12.12.2004
Scotsman.com News - Top Stories - We're closer to knowing why the chicken crossed the road: "'DNA that we and chickens share is likely to be fundamental to our wellbeing.'" We're 60% chicken, 88% rodent. Comforting thought eh? | 12.10.2004
12.09.2004
12.08.2004
Reading through various discussions about politics, war, terrorism, history, etc.. I begin to realize that maybe I have a radical view of human events. I start from an assumption that all human beings behave the same under similar sets of circumstances; and that a fundamental way in which we can predict the best outcome for people is to recreate the condictions in which people are at their best. I also assume that if people are acting in destructive and violent ways, that even though there is a small chance that they may be doing so for no reason, that it is more likely that they have some reason for acting as they do. This assumption is at odds with one that assumes that our enemies have no good reason for trying to kill us. I reject that idea out of hand. It might not make any sense to us, but it does to them, for some reason. (I also assume that most people would rather be sitting around eating good food, listening to good music and having sex than fighting each other. Once people are settled in, well fed and happy it takes alot to get them moving again. Its a lot like friction, it takes more force to start a static object in motion than to move an object that is already in motion. So it stands to reason that the more people we have settled in, and happily going about their business, the less likely there will be conflict. Its really too sad that this is not the case... and quite deliberately so.) Case in point: An article from the Asian Times about the Kamikaze pilots of World War II. Upon interviewing the pilots that, for various reasons, never flew their missions we understand that their primary desire to engage in such tactics emerged from their desire to protect their families from an enemy threat. "It was an order - help your country, your country being the family that you loved, your brothers and sisters, friends, your home town - to protect these things from the enemy," A universal human emotion. The same emotion expressed by sodiers fighting in Iraq. What cannot be disputed is the fundamental "rightness" of that sentiment. What could so be wrong about a desire to protect loved ones from danger? What can be discussed, and the two are deliberately confused, is whether the actions they are engaging in are indeed a fit to their intentions. Did suicide missions into American battleships in the Pacific really protect Japanese women and children from death by the enemy? Is the occupation of Iraq really protecting American women and children from the dangers of terrorism? I assert that very few people will fight simply to destroy an enemy without an underlying motivation. There will always be madmen who kill for the pleasure, but you cannot build an army, or a movement, out of madmen. Any large scale conflict will be fought amongst people who see their cause as just and their "enemy's" cause as a threat to their existence. Why do we fight? To protect things we care about; family, religion, ideals, communities. Even amongst the soldiers in the most evil regimes in history you will find this common thread, misguided as it might be. Maybe I'm an optimist? What goes wrong? Well, to be frank about it, we get lied to. We get manipulated into thinking that our very survival depends on destroying our enemies, who feel justified in fighting us because they feel threatened, and vice versa. The reality of the situation is that to start the whole mess into motion a bunch of people will have had to be motivated into thinking that their very survival is at risk from a non-existant enemy. I think its safe to say that most war is caused by politicians, who for their own political gain, concoct (or exhaggerate) an outside threat for the primary purpose of consolidating their political power. A secondary purpose can include gaining access to the riches of another people, though in this day and age we find its much easier just to steal what we want through legal manuavers. -- Years ago I read a book called "Japan at War: An Oral History". It was a fascinating look into the lives of people living in Japan during WWII. What you find is that people on that side of the conflict shared many of the same values that people on this side of the conflict did as well. What you come away wondering is, "Why were we fighting?" "They were trying to kill us!" | 12.07.2004
I know you're getting updates galore today... but that's a good thing right? Short story.... Yesterday at work I ran into this older gentleman. He reminded me that the anniversary of Pearl Harbor was today and then preceeded to tell me about how he still doesn't trust the "Japs". I kid you not... he said "The Japs". He explained how he tries not to buy anything from Asia and that there is just something "about them" that he doesn't like. This is some 63 years later mind you... I reminded him that the Germans and the Italians were also part of the Axis powers as well. He conceeded that there was something about the Germans as well. I'm sure my German heritage was offended in some way, but I was too busy being amused to really care. I reminded him that we spent some forty years hating the Russians as well and that it might be worth considering that it might be a human character trait that causes nations to go crazy instead of a particular ethnic trait and that we should all remain vigilante about the emergence of such mass hysteria. I was tempted to mention that we can now safely add Middle Easterners to the list of people we have come to hate as a matter of national craziness. I do know for a fact that half-Japanese girls can be incredibly sweet, charming and intelligent. I suppose that is "something". Ran into my friend the panhandler last night, the one that just needs a few bucks to get home from work. I was a little miffed that he didn't remember me. This makes three times that we've crossed paths. He really should take better care to recall which people he's already hit up a few times. I'm about to take this personally! | The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Inventing a Crisis: "But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one. Right. Human interactions are all governed by a set of laws. Whether its politics or personal relationships, you can see recurring patterns of human behavior. Let's look at a scenario from a different sphere to better understand the SS mess. Let's assume that your girlfriend wants to break up with you. She wants to end it because she has met someone new and wants to be with them instead. The most straightforward approach would be to just tell you "Hey, you've really turned into a creep and I met someone I like better", but instead, as is often the case people will hatch schemes to try to make things easier for ourselves. So instead of just coming out and telling you that you no longer tickle her fancy, she might: 1) Invent a crisis, pick a fight and use the ensuing argument as a justification for the breakup. How many people have found their long term relationships torn apart by a simple argument over the toilet seat or how you never can decide where to go out to eat? 2) Start suggesting that you would be better off without her, by suggesting that "You deserve somebody better" or by issuing certain ultimatums about the future. I've heard at least one story of a girl saying that she "just doesn't want to get married right now" only to break it off with one guy and jump into a marriage with some other chap. That's right bud, she didn't want to marry you. Sorry. For the record, my last breakup when along the lines of number 2, only she didn't run off and get married, but she did have someone else already lined up. I started to get little hints that I might be better off with some girl that would want to get married and have kids. This despite my assurance that my immediate plans didn't include either marriage or kids. She never quite understood my fatalism... So I knew what was coming, it was just a matter of "when". Months after the breakup she announced that she would be moving out of state. I knew why she was moving but she seemed hesitant to admit it. And when she finally did confess that she was moving to be with someone else I already knew who and where. I can only assume that she thought she had been clever about hiding her true motivations, but it was painfully obvious what had happened. I tell you this little story to illustrate a point. The real motivations for the push to Privatize Social Security are easy to decipher. It would mean an end to a successful government program that proved that government programs CAN be effective at solving social problems; it would be an incredible boon to Wall Street as an influx of money and a bonanza in various fees and it would tip the labor market even further to the advantage of employers as some potential retirees would be forced to work longer into their golden years. So why don't they just come out and say it? "We want to pad the pockets of our Wall Street buddies, tighten the screws on the working class and prove once and for all that the government exists for the sole benefit of the wealthy and powerful." My guess is that its so we don't have an ugly scene where we throw these yahoos out into the streets and piss on their briefcases. Instead we seem to accept the inevitability of Social Security's demise even though the cost to (really) fix it would actually be less than the current privatization scheme. We'll think that its our own bright idea to throw our money into the toilet behind a promise that we'll strike it rich like Warren Buffet and spend our twilight years relaxing on a yacht despite the fact that we worked for peanuts most of our lives. But then again some people are genuinely surprised when their ex shows up with a new guy on her arm, a huge rock on her finger and little ones on the way when she had just explained to you earlier that week that she just "needed a little space to think things over". Hope, and thus gullibility springs eternal. | Wow, great Monday Night Football game! Even with Testaverde, King of the Clutch Interception the Cowboys managed to pull out an amazing fourth quarter victory by kicking a textbook on-side kick and putting the ball into the hands of rookie running back Julius Jones. Jones is an immensely talented running back that could carry the Cowboys into the playoffs despite the best efforts of Testaverde. The Seahawks have a knack of frittering away a good lead and landing squarely in defeat. They are the second best losers in the League, right behind the Kansas City Cheifs who have most of the same talents they did last year but none of the same results. It looks like the teams to beat this year are the Eagles, Patriots, and Steelers. Barring a major upset it looks like the Eagles will win the NFC and most likely face either the Steelers or the Patriots in the Super Bowl. Because of "regional" covergae and my lack of cable I haven't had a real good look at the Steelers this year but it looks as though the Steelers have found ways to win the games they need, much in the same style as the Patriots. My money's still on the Patriots even though it feels like I'm just playing the odds on favorites... Two more weeks of regular season play. | 12.06.2004
Why I love Atrios: For sake of discussion, let's stipulate that every thing in this excerpt is correct. But, if you have a problem with Michael Moore being the public face of progressive politics, you have a couple of choices. You can spend all your time wringing your hands about it, demanding that all good people can renounce him, thereby alienating him and his supporters. Or, you can realize that there's an extraordinarily lack of leadership in the sphere of progressive politics, especially within the Democratic party itself, and understand that without that vacuum someone like Moore (or Nader) would have a much harder time thriving. So, you can put forward a less tinfoil hat-prone more credible alternative, or you can call on people to condemn Moore. And then call on them to condemn everyone who hasn't condemned Moore. And then call on them to condemn everyone who haven't condemned the people who haven't condemned the people who haven't condemned Moore. And, then, hey, it's 2006 and oh shit we lost again and Karl Rove is still laughing. YES YES YES!!!! People like to talk about Michael Moore. Some people like to make fun of Michael Moore. But when it comes to sheer numbers of asshattery, the right wing has a thousand Michael Moores running around being a thousand times more infammatory. But what the right wing does is they never sit around going "Man, we need to distance ourselves from the loonies!" They embrace the loonies as an integral part of their political strategy. Nobody on the right ever apologizes for Rush Limbaugh even though Rush is wrong EVERY SINGLE DAY. Rush is such a partisan shill that he makes other shills feel inadequate for even opening their mouths. But you never hear people saying that George Bush should publicly denounce Rush. You never hear people say that the republican's should feel ashamed to have such a gasbag pushing their agenda. Hell, he was even an advisor for the Bush re-election campaign. (The wingnuts attacked Moore for simply showing up at the DNC!!!) There are religious nuts like Falwell and Robertson pushing a some LSD inspired wet dream about the end of the world and sending a large majority of the world's population into the fiery pits of hell and nary a peep do we hear about how the conservatives should feel ashamed that such nutjobs are speaking for their side. You got quasi-racists and white supremacists like Buchanan and Francis on the right talking about "values" being under threat from inter-racial sex and dirty immigrants polluting our culture and you still see these guys on TV pushing the GOP agenda. Do the conservatives feel any need to apologize for the hatred spewed by these guys? Nope. You have a nearly convicted criminal like Delay running the congress and a guy like Novak, who has outed a CIA operative, out there speaking for the Republicans. Do they feel like they should kick these guys out of the party and shun them publicly? Nope. Then you have a guy like Grover Norquist who is on record as equating the progressive income tax system with the Holocaust and expressing a desire to deliberately bankrupt the federal government. Is he still bending the ear of the people in the White House? Yup. The GOPpers feel no remorse about keeping this guy on the team. Every two bit AM station has some Scaife funded blowhard pushing some mix of racial resentment, government hatred, stories about the Clintons, mockery of the democratic party, lies, lies and more lies and never do the Republicans feel any need to apologize for any of their operatives. They embrace the Michael Moore's of the right and never, ever apologize no matter how far out there their operatives get. The left has a couple of talking heads like Franken and Moore, loads of really smart and honest people, and a few certifiable geniuses. I feel pretty proud to be on this side of things. Sure I think Moore can be a little outlandish but when you sit back and look at the content of what he says, it may be a little bit shrill but its mostly factual. You can't say the same about the hacks on the right. | 12.05.2004
Morals and values are sticky things to write about. Complicating matters is the vague way in which we all define those terms. Generally we all seem to agree that "the things I do are moral" and "the things you do are immoral". We follow the same pattern to determine whether we are good parents or not. I am, you're not. Some of us see morality as a being nice to people, not talking behind their backs and being polite when we would much rather bang someone over the head with a cast iron skillet. Some of us see morality as being a complete and total asshole to everyone around us for all but one hour on Sunday where we act like a saint. To which I say, if we are having a morals revolution of the first variety, hurrah, but if we are having a morals revolution of the second variety, then poooooh! I have sophisticated ways of expressing my opinions. The crazy part about defining this latest election as one about "values" is that people will see it as an endorsement of "their values". Witness an example: Samual Francis, referring to the add wherein Nicollete Sheridan seduces Terrell Owens for a promo for "Desperate Housewives" that ran before a Monday Night Football game. ABC Sports last week took careful aim at the “moral issues” that are said to have driven this month’s national election and delivered a good swift kick to their dentures on national television. Translation; "People voted on 'values' in this election" Breaking down the sexual barriers between the races is a major weapon of cultural destruction because it means the dissolution of the cultural boundaries that define breeding and the family and, ultimately, the transmission and survival of the culture itself. Oops, I seriously doubt that most people who went to the polls last November to vote for values seriously think that the destruction of our culture is due to white people and black people having sex. But yahoos like Sam Francis seem to think so. He seems perfectly willing to accept this year's election results as a mandate to spread his white superiority. After all, what could be more immoral than promoting the very idea that people should have the right to choose their own sexual partners? But the ad’s message also was that interracial sex is normal and legitimate, a fairly radical concept for both the dominant media as well as its audience. After all, it wasn't too long ago that some stupid white people thought that the Bible gave them the right to whip black people and make them work for free. People would swear up and down that they were moral and righteous people while they did this, because well, they went to church and prayed with their eyes pressed tight shut. We look back on this now and think "silly people, slavery is immoral, why couldn't they see this?" Well, mostly because they were blinded by their own moral superiority to notice that what they were doing was wrong. We do it today as well. Today's churches are not all that different from yesterday's churches. Most pander to whatever the current cultural standards are. They rarely take a revolutionary view of culture, to fight for change based on any moral principles. Jesus was the first Christian to take a real stand against on issues and he got hung up for taking on the powerful. Since then they have been careful not to make that same mistake. These days it seems like too many church leaders are too busy sucking up to the powerful and their money to ask people to do what is right. Some people seem to take offense that I would suggest that the fight to end discrimination against black people bears any resemblance to the fight to end discrimination against gay people. But it does. All the way down from the same biblical arguments, the same cultural arguments and the same moral arguments. What I do is moral, what you do is screwed up. Sounds familiar? as seen on eschaton. | 12.03.2004
Ok, let's say you came upon a survey in which you only knew that the results ranked Kansas as number one and New York as dead last. What would you assume the study had measured? "The best place to practice blinfolded archery?" Good guess! You would be wrong. The study was really measuring "economic freedom". And it was determined by a think tank located in San Francisco with support from a magazine published out of New York City that California(49) and New York(50) were the worst places to do business. Irony.. I dunno, ask Sadie, she'll tell you. Maybe I should call up the Wichita office of Forbes magazine? Maybe I should run into the streets and welcome the economic refuges streaming in from LA and NYC as they seek asylum in "free" Oklahoma(6)? I hereby offer up the spare bedroom for any "freedom seekers" escaping the clutches of repression. Maybe I should call up my friend living with his wife out in LA and ask him if he wants to give up his six figure lifestyle, kick ass job at a game company and house in Hollywood to come live in "low wage freedom" with the rest of us? Maybe I should start reading Newsmax.com? The index shows that the 25 states with above-average freedom include only two “blue” states, New Hampshire (which Kerry barely won and Bush won in 2000) and Delaware. The 25 subpar states included 17 Kerry states. Sheesh.. these people... one guy with a icon of Ronald Reagan (from #49) as his avatar retorted that: The report is about economic freedom, not which states create the most wealth. Leading us to the obvious conclusion that economic freedom DOES NOT lead to wealth creation. Which begs the question.. so what is it GOOD FOR then? Is not the whole argument that "economic freedom" leads to wealth? That's what the authors of the report claim after all? “If all states ranked as free as Kansas, the annual income of an average working American would rise 4.42 percent, or $1,161, putting an additional $87,541 into his or her pocket over a 40-year working life. This would be a sizable addition to individuals’ private retirement accounts,” PRI stated. No word on whether this was reported with a traight face or not. Of course, what they really mean is that "free" = lower taxes. The correlation between lower tax rates and economic vitality is not as tight as they might suggest. States like New York, Massachusetts and California, with their higher tax rates seem to be defying the basic laws of the economic universe by continuing to be the great economic engines of the nation in spite of their lack of "freedom". What this says to anyone not blinded by ideology is that tax rates have less of an impact on economic success than other more important factors. If tax rates were indeed the main indicator of economic health we WOULD see a thriving Kansas and a New York in decline. But we don't, and suggesting that New York and California should be more like Kansas seems absurd considering their success. The only kernal of truth to this idea that tax rates kill economic growth only applies if taxes become so burdensome that they overide other factors, such as; avalability of talent, proximity to other related interests and general livability. But up until that point people would much rather pay higher taxes on higher salaries than lower taxes on lower salaries, provided that at the end of the day they go home with more money in their pockets. I would gladly move to California if it meant making more money, even if it meant paying more taxes. The important indicator is not whether not taxes are higher but whether the gap between costs and income grows. Taxes play a part on the costs end of the equation, as does housing and transportation, but if those costs are offset by an increase in income and an apportunity for career advancement people will move. On the more cynical side of things, this report indicates areas of low wages. THAT is a good thing for companies looking for cheap labor. But don't expect the publishers of this report to give up their plum jobs in the lands of repression to come work in a call center in the freedom of sunny Kansas. | 12.02.2004
The New York Times > Washington > Military: U.S. to Increase Its Force in Iraq by Nearly 12,000: "WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 - The American military presence in Iraq will grow by nearly 12,000 troops by next month, to 150,000, the highest level since the invasion last year, to provide security for the Iraqi elections in January and to quell insurgent attacks around the country, the Pentagon announced Wednesday." I wonder if anyone would be willing to make a compilation of the various justifications for sending even more troops to Iraq. This month and next month it will be elections... and the months after that? Whatever happened to "Once we find Saddam...."? Whoosh.. down the memory hole? | 12.01.2004
First off, my jar of Cheez Wiz says "75% less fat than butter!" What a claim to fame... I wonder though, why not just compare it to lard? Second, I love "The Amazing Race". It appeals to me on so many levels. Its the only show that I WANT to tape if I'm not going to be home. Why? Its sadistic. The contests are a combination of strategy and luck. To get through each leg of the race requires that the teams think fast on their feet and hope for the best. The show is a brilliant sociological exhibition, where we get to watch people deal with adversity and engage in problem solving. We see people at their most raw and revealed. We get to watch the evolution of a relationship between two partners as they experience success and failure. We see how some people that seem nice turn into demons, and we see how some people can keep their lives in persepective even under the most trying of circumstances. Its compelling TV. Much better than most other "reality" shows. Lastly.. I watch "America's Next Hot Model" and I'm pissed that Norelle was kicked off. She was HOT. But that sentiment comes from some "black sheep" part of my brain. | Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says (washingtonpost.com): "Supporters of the abstinence approach, also called abstinence until marriage, counter that teaching young people about 'safer sex' is an invitation to have sex." And teaching a person how to use a gun leads to shooting spree? Gun advocates have been arguing for years that its better to teach someone how to use a gun safely then it is to try to ban guns outright. I agree... but apparently that logic get turned on its head when we're talking about sex. In that instance, its BETTER to misinform kids? | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
