|
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 
|
11.30.2005
I was just wondering a few things. If religious people think that their religion is directly handed down from God, where do they think the other religions come from? It seems that there are only two other choices; other religions are either culturally derived, or inspired by satan. If you think of institutional religion as a cultural byproduct then you understand the non-religious point of view, we're just spectators without a horse in the race. I find it interesting that people can have an objective view of other people but not of themselves. But that condition seems more the norm than the deviation. Take for instance, this article, quoted and linked by Dan at NBoS. Heshu Yones, a West London teen, fought off her father for a frantic 15 minutes. She ran from room to room in her family home one Saturday afternoon until he cornered her in a dingy bathroom, held her over the tub and slit her throat. Dan reads this article and says: "Such a kind and tolerant, peaceful religion Islam is. Not." We both see the actions of the father as disgusting and wrong. But where he sees fault in the religion, I simply see a religion that reflects a culture that accepts punishing/killing women as acceptable and right in response to what they see as dishonor. I see this same impulse in our own society, especially in arguments that assert that women should be made to carry a child conceived in a "dishonorable" fashion. Ben Shapiro over at ShillHall.com laments the fact that women are not made to feel shame at their choice to have an abortion. "The pro-choice crowd has never wanted abortion to be rare. Were abortion rare, women considering abortions would feel subtle societal pressure to preserve the life growing within them. Such societal pressure would create a "coercive" environment for women, inhibiting their ability to choose. For abortion to thrive, it must be common." ..or, as the guy I linked to in my last post might put it, we can add sexually independent people to the list of "...anti-social groups we've happily persecuted for their transgressive beliefs." After all, sexual deviance must be punished, its even in our own Christian history. 7 " 'Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the LORD your God. 8 Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD, who makes you holy. [b] We can sit here and scoff at the concept of honor, or be appalled that a father might kill his daughter simply for dating a boy. But its just silly to dismiss how powerful cultural, or religious forces can be. ""The idea of honor is in our cultural backyard. Ethnically and culturally, we believe it," said Mohammed Ahmed, a white-haired man who said he was a peshmerga--a fearsome mountain-fighter--with Yones before they immigrated in 1990. umm, yeah... she must be put to death? So too the rebellious son? 18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. I see institutional religion as a hard-coding of societal norms disguised as the "will of god". Its not too hard to see that religious values change to reflect current cultural values. Nobody with a straight face can say that our current society is exactly like it has been for thousands of years prior, yet, amazingly the values we hold as a society still reflect "god's will". God used to be all hung up that we adore the monarch, submit to our lords and burn heretics, now he's cool with democracy, capitalism and letting heretics live on in their disobedience. Funny that... But it leads me to conclude that the path to civilization leads through a restructuring of societies, not religions. I think that Islam, like Christianity can be compatible with modernity but it will take a revamping of many long held cultural traditions and quite frankly, learning to ignore the parts of the religion that directly contradict modern values of tolerance and peace. | 11.27.2005
BrothersJudd Blog: SOONER OR LATER HE OPENS THE DRAWER NEXT TO THE BED (via Rick Perlstein):: "Witches are no more innocent than pagans, anarchists, Bundists, Nazis, Communists, homosexuals, white separatists, Islamicists or any of the other anti-social groups we've happily persecuted for their transgressive beliefs. We're an extremely conformist society which is why we thrive." interesting... anti-social = non-christian. In other words: When you reject Christianity, you reject American culture, thus you deserve to be persecuted until such time that you convert back, rot in prison, or die. Sometimes it seems like you can't throw a rock in a random direction without hitting someone that feels perfectly justified in defining right and wrong based on their own special reading of scripture. I am right, therefore, everyone that is not like me is wrong and deserves to be persecuted. | 11.22.2005
Reading through the various blogs that have linked to me I came across this little nugget which I found amusing... A take on the story of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer: by The Rambling Taoist What rubs me the wrong way is the fact that the young reindeer was ONLY accepted into the "in crowd" WHEN it was discovered that his shiny red nose would benefit the plans of others. Had the thick fog NOT descended upon the North Pole, Rudolph would still be considered a "leper". This is a convenient remainder that economies are artificial constructs and that our worth within an economy depends NOT on our worth as individuals, but on our usefulness to that system. In essence, you are valuable when you become useful to the money making system. All non-productive aspects of who you are are considered worthless. In the Rudolph example, he is only considered valuable when the fog is keeping Santa from flying his sleigh, and only then does Santa have a use for him. Until that point, in the "non-fog" economy, Rudolph is of little use to anyone, and his individualism is considered a negative factor. The other reindeer probably made fun of him, and preached to him about "moral values". Rudolph probably even considered having a painful nose-replacement surgery. In America, and possibly elsewhere, its easy to use a person's financial worth as a measure of their personal worth. People, both rich and poor, think that having money confers a greater since of worth on the person that has it. I've heard it said, mostly amongst right-wingers, that if you can't find a way to make lots of money then there is something wrong with you morally; you're lazy, or unmotivated, or irresponsible. Or maybe you're just a red-nosed reindeer in a non-fog economy? I personally feel that it is a horrible mistake to make value judgments on people simply because they are wealthy or poor. Not all rich people are fine, upstanding, moral people. Some are crooks and assholes. Not all poor people are lazy, irresponsible criminals. Some are really kind and hard-working. And it goes the other way as well. Not all rich people are evil and greedy, and not all poor people are selfless saints. Economic status really is a poor indicator of a person's value. But, there is, in my opinion, a fundamental truth about human beings, and it is this: We assign greater value to the decisions we make than to those of others. So going back to the example of Rudolph; let's say that Rudolph had decided that having a bright red nose was a detriment to his goals in life. So he goes and has it surgically replaced with a normal black one. Its at that point that Rudolph sees possesing a black nose as even more important than most reindeer. If another red-nosed reindeer were to come along, Rudolph would be the first to scorn that new reindeer if that red-nosed reindeer decides that having a red-nose is not so bad, and that rather than replace his nose he'll just learn to live with the consequences. Seeing this new reindeer lead a happy productive life without having to make the same sacrifices, without having to go through the painful nose-replacement surgery, drives Rudolph over the edge. He starts a blog to denounce all red-nosed reindeer as immoral and dangerous to society. In real life though people very much need to place a higher value on the decisions they have made in their own personal life. If a someone has devoted a large majority of their life to a cause or an idealogy they are going to place a greater value on people that have done so as well. People that have made sacrifices to survive or to make themselves useful to the system will find people that haven't made those same sacrifices to be deficient, when really it just means that those people made different choices with their lives. Knowing this about human beings makes them a lot easier to understand. | 11.18.2005
House Republicans Respond to Murtha - New York Times: J.D. Hayworth, Representative from Arizona: (whose " ...media career included both radio and television, most notably seven years as a sports anchor on channel 10 in Phoenix.") "As was mentioned earlier, the majority's exit strategy is victory and freedom for the people of Iraq. Now, sadly, many on the Democratic side have revealed their exit strategy: surrender. The American people will not stand for surrender. The American people are made of sterner stuff. And the American people understand that if we turn tail and leave now more problems will visit our shores and the consequences will be far greater. And, if there's a doubt, take a look at the people of Old Europe. Take a look at the French. Take a look at what is transpiring in the streets of France. ... in respose to Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania (whose notable career included 37 years in the marines.) I believe that and I have concluded the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress. Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, the Saddamists and the foreign jihadists. And let me tell you, they haven't captured any in this latest activity, so this idea that they're coming in from outside, we still think there's only 7 percent. ...and My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq. Part of the debate that got shunted to the side in the rush to go to war was the issue of occupation. The prowar people pooh poohed the idea that the United States would get stuck in Iraq for years. They were wrong about that too. | 11.17.2005
ABC News: Cheney calls war critics 'dishonest, reprehensible': Since the latest Republican talking points have infiltrated my comments I shall address them here. "Administration officials have acknowledged intelligence on Iraqi weapons was faulty, but say Democrats, Republicans and foreign intelligence agencies all believed Baghdad had deadly weapons before the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion." Ah yes, now we trot out the "Well, we all thought it was true" defense. More evidence that Rove is back in charge of the propaganda writing department at the White House. "The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone — but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," said Cheney, a principal architect of the war and a focus of Democratic allegations the administration misrepresented intelligence on Iraq's weapons program. Rewriting history? "We're not going to sit by..."? There's something trademark about the false victimhood of the GOP talking points that instantly makes them recognizable. And of course the claim that others are trying to rewrite history is laughable if you can remember back about six months ago when the talking points were that we needed to invade Iraq to spread democracy throughout the Middle East, and that the WMD argument was simply a convenient rallying point. Not too long ago the WMD argument was considered moot, as we were about to see the emergence of a democratic Iraq which would lead the Middle East in a wave of peace and freedom. Then, it was said, we would realize why Bush needed to use the WMD argument to get the American people on board for this invasion. The ends would justify the means. But that is in the past, and we have a new set of definitions of reality to abide by. I just wish I could get a refund for the all the time I spend refuting each new set of talking points.... ok... Anyone who reads this blog closely understands that I am not a partisan. But that doesn't keep people from assuming that if they can score one on the Democrats that they can get me to back down. Not true. I'll repeat it again for all the obtuse: I don't care about what the Democrats do or say, it doesn't affect what I believe one way or the other. There are, as hard as it may be to believe, people that ignore the partisan bickering and consider it mostly trivial. When we were being lead to this invasion back in '03 I distinctly remember being left out to dry by a large contingent of the Democratic party who thought it would be safer to play along with Bush and his rush to start bombing than take what was then considered "unpatriotic" or "soft" positions on "the war". So you can see why I'm not in any rush to defend them from the Republican attacks. Make no mistake, Bush, as the one who advocated for the war, deserves the bulk of the blame for the deception and mistakes surrounding the debacle in Iraq, but the Democrats who failed to stand up to him are responsible as well. Cheney is right in some regard, the Bush administration DID fool the Democrats into supporting them, but he's also being a world-class asshole by trying to use that fact to diminish his role in leading us into this mess in the first place. right... Since everyone believed that Saddam had WMD's then Bush was right to invade. Since I was actually alive back in 2003 and had the ability to read I will tell you what really happened. Many of the world's intelligence agencies did indeed SUSPECT that Saddam may have rebuilt some of his WMD program. But, and this is a vital point, most people were not sure about the accuracy of this information as there was very little means to actually verify or deny its reliability. The idea, as it was presented, was that Saddam had the INTENT to redevelop his programs, that he had the resources available to him in terms of knowledge provided to him by the United States years ago, and that without inspectors in the country to watch over him it was LIKELY that he was working on something. This was the case, mostly circumstantial, that was presented by Colin Powell before the United Nations. The nearly unanimous verdict by MOST OF THE WORLD, was that this was insufficient proof for invasion. But most people conceeded that it might be prudent to use the threat of force to push Saddam to comply with prior UN resolutions. Most of the world pushed for inspections to verify or deny the existence of dangerous weapons. Many of us (gasp!) thought that taking the drastic step of toppling a nation's government and opening that hornet's nest of trouble should be done with the most reliable evidence available. hence... Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by Unscom in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure. ok, so choke on that... and reality as it really happened. The authorization to use military force was passed in early October to accomplish compliance with United Nations Security council resolutions. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. ...and the part that gets overlooked, the same resolution also calls for diplomatic efforts as well. SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS The Democrats, in my opinion, were wrong to support this resolution, because Bush was showing no inclination that he would make a good faith effort to let diplomatic means play out. The administration was already preparing for an invasion and even efforts by the United Nations inspectors or the other members of the Security Council at finding a peaceful means to ensure that Iraq posed no threat were discounted. Upon hearing that Iraq had agreed to allow inspectors back into Iraq a Bush official said: ""If [Saddam] thinks this is about letting inspectors in, or playing the same old game of give a little when under pressure, he is about to learn differently." I like many others thought the whole ordeal with the Security Council was nothing but a game to get congressional support for a invasion that had been planned since the days immediately after 9-11. This turned out to be the case, the United States went ahead and invaded without the support of the Security Council. When it became obvious that the case for the war; that Saddam was not in compliance with Security Council resolutions, that he had hidden weapons, and that he was intending to use them to harm the United States, started to unravel, Bush went ahead and attacked anyways. But whew... getting the facts straight sure does take time and effort. | 11.16.2005
...as seen on Pandagon: : Christopher Flickinger, conservative chickenhawk. "I'm not in Iraq because I don't have to be in Iraq. We have brave men and women who volunteer and dedicate their lives to fighting for our country so those of us back here at home may carry on with our livelihoods in comfort and security. But, make no mistake, Americans who cherish freedom and liberty will not hesitate to defend the values they hold dear." he goes on to say: "The price of 2,000 lives over a two and a half year period - for the cause of freedom - is small compared to what our forefathers paid." I'm sure there are thousands more disposable people out there to die for his "comfort and security"? That this war is doing nothing more than inflaming even more hatred towards the United States seems inconsequential to people that fetishize war. Here's my issue. People that volunteer to be in the military serve under the command of the political leadership; the president, the congress, and the senate, who have the responsibility to use the military in a way that will protect and defend the United States. We have the responsibility to hold those politicians accountable so that they don't abuse the good faith of the people who volunteer. I personally don't consider 2,000+ lives to be small, especially when you ask the all important questions: Is this war essential for the safety of the United States? Were the political leaders honest and forthcoming about why this war was necessary to protect the United States? I think the answers to those two questions are no, and no. 2,000 lives are too many to be wasted on a war that was conducted primarily to boost political and economic fortunes. That's the way I see it. That's the way the evidence points. And if that is true, only people that think wars should be fought to enrich corporations and make politicians look "manly and strong" should enlist. I think that will be a small army. |  Kicking Television came out this Tuesday. You can hear a sample of four songs here. Many places have great prices the week of release.... I'm just saying. | 11.15.2005
Andrew Leigh on Pajamas Media on National Review Online: "'If we're not certain a story is real,' Simon said, 'we immediately ping our eight wise men and check it out.'" Wise men = people like Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds? You see, I find this whole "bloggers will factcheck the mainstream media" idea kinda silly, as many of these "factchecking bloggers" are nothing more than people sitting around coming up with farfetched theories and pushing their agenda. Its akin to politicians who think they can diagnose a terminally ill patient over the TV. These are the people that got a big head after they caught CBS using a memo of dubious origin. It wasn't, as they claimed, that CBS was deliberately passing a forged memo, attune with their liberal slant, but rather that most mainstream media outlets are sloppy when it comes to making sure their sources are legit before they hit the air. You see, they never produced enough evidence that the document was forged, but they did show that CBS didn't do a good enough job of determining the memos authenticity before running with it. They chased a rabbit into the bushes and came back out with a squirell; hardly a victory. But that does not stop them from using that accidental victory as a basis for their legitimacy. Isn't this all a little pie-in-the-sky, however? Who could imagine supplanting the venerable Associated Press wire service, for instance? Oh good lord!! Charles Johnson is the owner of Little Green Footballs, a blog I consider the most odious of the right wing attack blogs, hurling out insults and smear on a daily basis, with little to no regard to facts at all. Another of their "wise men" is Michelle Malkin, whose new book, "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild" is slowly, and methodically being torn to journalistic shreds by David Neiwert. Its not that ordinary bloggers aren't useful in providing different points of view, and even closer coverage of events, because they are, its that these partisans are basically setting up a network of likeminded people to act as an echo chamber for their attacks on the media's critical coverage of their issues. They've been wrong too many times to count and seem to think that the one time they accidentely hit paydirt makes them credible. As a little point of fact, nearly all of these "fact checking" bloggers were on board with Bush's claims that Iraq had a functioning WMD program and was intent on using it against Americans. Even a broken watch is right twice a day. | 11.13.2005
We shouldn't get too excited at Bush's bad poll numbers as of late. I doubt it will be a true indicator of the rejection of the corruption of the GOP by the majority of Republican voters. Obviously the Democrats would like to portray this as the greater implosion of the GOP and the inevitable electoral losses to follow, but from where I see it, the media has received the signals indicating that the various higher ups and talking heads of the GOP will not be as vigorous in defensing the president as they have in the past. Thus, the language has been getting more critical when stories about Iraq and the president hit the air. The Republicans now have to become focused on bringing Bush's successor into the warm glow of the GOP's "heavenly" light as Bush himself fades into the background. What we are seeing now is the faithful disciples of the Republican party shifting their adoration from Bush in anticipation of the coming annointing of his replacement. ... and then that man will be the "can do no wrong" savior, who will defend the faithful of the world form the evils of terrorism and liberalism. I can't wait... | 11.10.2005
Saw this over at Streak's blog, and I thought it would make a good multiple choice question. Today Pat Robertson, on his 700 Club show said this: “I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.” ok, what did Dover do to reject God from their city? Did they... a) Burn a stack of Bibles and crosses in the city square as they chanted passages from the Communist Manifesto? b) Actually serve God an eviction notice to vacate the city in 90 days or risk forcible removal? c) Round up all the Chrstians and ask them to renounce their religion or risk deportation to Kansas? d) Vote out school official that wanted to teach Intelligent Design in the science classroom? Answer in the comments: (source) | 11.09.2005
Bloomberg.com: Top Worldwide: "Exxon Mobil Corp. Chairman Lee Raymond said Congress should avoid any policies that interfere with oil industry profits because they would discourage investments in exploration, production and refining. In essence he's letting us know that the energy companies have the power to majorly screw us over if we try to dip into their profits for the sake of providing relief. Its a threat guys. Their profits jumped over 50% in the third quarter. Of course they try to justify the high prices and the record profits by citing the damage done by Hurricane Katrina. But we have to wonder; if they were raising prices to compensate for lost production, shouldn't that offset the loses and simply allow the company to keep from losing money in the wake of a natural disaster? Instead of breaking even, or maintaining current profit margins, which might have given them some cover for the high prices, they reported their highest quarterly profit in history. They lost production but still made more money then ever before? Isn't that a bit fishy? Something tells me that they used the hurricane as cover to raise prices above and beyond a fair price. The oil companies know they walk a fine line. They want to raise prices and increase their profits, but they know that if they go too far in what looks like an arbitrary fashion, people might start thinking about moving to alternatives; lower consuming vehicles, less driving, etc.. so they have to make thier price hikes look like a natural reaction to an event. People are willing to accept short term price spikes if they feel that they are in some way justified. But they will not accept sustained price gauging, especially if it looks like profit simply for profit's sake. High energy prices have a huge negative impact on our economy. Its essentially a cost of living increase for anyone that has to use a vehicle for work or transportation. Because of our utter lack of planning when it comes to providing people with viable alternatives to cars, people are forced to keep driving even as prices double. If you factor that into the daily costs people incur, it quickly obliterates the savings some of use have seen from tax cuts. Energy cost are a fixed value, independent of income. Driving a mile costs roughly the same for everyone. So energy prices are going to hurt low income consumers the most. It eats away at disposable income very quickly. The money spent on gas for the car gets displaced other places. So here we have Lee Raymond talking about the "unintended negaive consequences" of transfering some of that profit they gained by spiking gas prices in the wake of Katrina for the sake of providing heating oil assistence to poor people? We should read his statement as it is intended, as a threat. The financial markets and the major corporations have a very clear idea of how money should flow in our economy, and they have the power to punish us if we should tamper with that lucrative cash flow. We should notice the utter lack of "unintended negative consequences" that result from price gauging, excessive executive compensation, or collusion. The intended positive consequences of their actions post-Katrina was that massive amounts of money shifted from worker pocketbooks into the hands of the major oil companies as they kept prices high. The intended positive consequences of their actions resulted in soaring stock prices for September even as we were watching people lose everything they owned. The intended positive consequence of spending over $8 million on think tank shills over the past few years to refute climate change research means that we have done little to address the issue. Funny that, ExxonMobil spends millions making sure that we stay dependent on their products, spiking prices, and paying people to refute claims that their product is causing shifts in global climate that might result in more severe weather, and they have the audacity to talk about "unintended negative consequences"? | 11.08.2005
Sometimes I get tired of politics. It seems to be the same pattern repeating itself over and over again. We're seeing the inevitable fall from grace of the Bush presidency. I should be happy right? Here it is, the thing that I have been predicting all this time, finally coming true for all to see. But, its just sad really. Its not like I'm some sort of seer or something, this was just simple common sense. That so few people, especially those in positions of top opinion makers held their tongues for so long in the face of reality is depressing. That others are still in denial that Bush and his cronies are dangerous is even more depressing. That over two thousand people had to die in Iraq because of a fool's ego is depressing. That we'll see Bush discarded by the right, only to have them trot forth another idiot is depressing. Admitting that this idiot will probably win the next presidential election is depressing. Yesterday as I was driving around Tulsa I saw lots of signs that simply said "Do it for the kids!" in reference to a school bond issue. I started to think that voting wasn't the act of change, but rather the realization of change. Votes reflect general attitudes. I see the general attitude of the nation changing very very slowly. They are starting to realize that Bush is a scoundrel. But that doesn't change what I consider to be the real damage done by years of rightwing attacks on common sense. We still seem to be avoiding the key issues that need to be addressed in our society. We're trapped in patterns of thinking defined by "conventional wisdom". We get trapped in a two dimensional concept of political identity. If you've ever been part of a company, team or other organization with effective leadership you can recognize that we are suffering not just from lack of leadership, but the scourge of bad leadership. Democrats and Republicans alike have totally given up on the idea of governing. They have decided that political gamesmanship is more important than actually taking this country in a direction we might all benefit from. To that end we are bombarded with stupidity from all angles. We are told to find trivial matters more important that real issues. Sometimes I watch in disbelief as we ignore the health care crisis and the erosion of the consumer base of our economy. Leadership is about finding solutions to problems, not just finding a way of blaming others for those problems. | 11.04.2005
Salon.com News | Abramoff-Scanlon School of Sleaze: "'The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees,' Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. 'Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them.'" As if it wasn't already blindingly obvious that the rich and well connected were playing the religious right for the fools they are, Scanlon, a former aid to Tom Delay, comes out and says it. String a little Jesus on that hook and the religious nuts will bite every time. I have this mental image of a bunch of rich assholes sitting around laughing their asses off as they make hand puppets talk like Jesus... "Blessed are the insurance companies and healthcare conglomerates, for they will get protection from liability." "Blessed are the sons and daughters of the filthy rich, for they will inherit billions tax free." hahahahaha!!!!! oh.. wait, I got one!! "Blessed are the shareholders, for they will be blessed with government pork." For the sake of clarification, the "wackos" are those politically motivated religious right wingers that seem to think that god wants them to vote their bigotry and paranoia. They go to the polls to vote for people that are turning this country into an economic backwater because they see themselves fighting some holy war against secular humanists and the homosexual agenda. tools. | 11.02.2005
SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT - cp.sonybmg.com/xcp: "1. Will this disc play on my computer? Then the answer is "NO, IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK!!!" I mean, if the audio sounds distorted when I play it in the player of MY CHOICE, then screw you, I'm not going to purchase a crippled disc. The really sad part? In one instance, with My Morning Jacket, neither the band or the label knew that their release would be issued with new copy protection that would render it useless to people wanting to transfer their music to their iPods. We at ATO Records are aware of the problems being experienced by certain fans due to the copy-protection of our distributor. Neither we nor our artists ever gave permission for the use of this technology, nor is it our distributor's opinion that they need our permission. Wherever it is our decision, we will forego use of copy-protection, just as we have in the past. Its the issue that never seems to die. People (consumers) want greater freedom to copy and transfer music, companies, like Sony, want to restrict the use of that purchased music in a lame attempt to corral you into using their portable products. More info at The Big Picture, and sysinternals | Have a good Halloween weekend? Hope so. Here I am back home again... I spent the weekend out near the mountain props with e. We had a wonderful time, laughing and dressing up like a gray-bearded wizard and a dollar wielding sexy fairy to go see Okkervil River play a great (except for that one long boring song in the middle...) concert. Hey Will, what was up with that one song? oh well... at least you stayed awake for the whole show... The first opening band sucked something awful, but the second opener, Born in the Flood, a Denver band, was pretty decent. You can check out a few tunes here. We picked four nice, diverse pumpkins from over a hundred acres of pumpkins and carved them into happy, robot, M&M and not so happy, faces. We climbed (not scrambled) up hills, making new trails (for no extra charge) and followed the fragrant trail of horse manure back to safety! Apparently, Siam, is now Thailand. So are they now Thailandese Twins? Food from all four food groups (Pizza, Indian, Faux Hamburger and Mexican) was consumed. Tummies gurgled, Pepsi was blamed. Alas, back to work. thanks e. | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
