|
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 
|
1.30.2006
1.27.2006
Think Progress ? UPDATE: Lauer Says ‘Technically Speaking,’ It ‘May Be’ That Abramoff Gave Only to Republicans: "LAUER: Katie pressed him [Dean] on that and we did some research. We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and found out that technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct. But here’s what we found. That 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money — not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients — went to Democrats. So, can Democrats wash their hands of this?" Yes, and yes, and yes. Because receiving money from clients and associates is beside the fact and only cofuses the issue. Abramoff worked for the GOP, not the Dems. Just because the republicans want to try to pull the democrats into this with guilt by asssociation it does not mean that this scandal effects both parties equally. Move Rovian langauge from the lying sacks of shit at the GOP: "The United States faces a ruthless enemy, and we need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in," Mr. Rove said. "President Bush and the Republican Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats." Once again we get false association. This time by suggesting that there is this laudable goal which we should all support and then suggesting that by disagreeing with the president, then democrats, and people like myself who think the president is goin about this all wrong, are in fact wanting to help the terrorists and put american lives in danger. I mean seriously, you really do have to have a malfunctioning critical thinking capacity in order to swallow this shit. Its not either or. I could say: "I plan to launch a nuclear strike on Canada to prove to the terrorists that America will not be cowed, that we will not take acts of terrorism lying down and that the american people are the hardest working, most moral people in the world, who will stand behind me to do what is needed to keep all our precious little baby's safe from our enemies!! There are some who disagree with me." Mind you I think most people would disagree with attackng Canada (except maybe a few people, maybe...) but I can frame it as if opposing the policy means opposing all the other shit I've said as well. Read Rove's statement again. He declares that President Bush and the GOP understand the nature of the threat facing America. I disagree, I think they completely miss the point of trying to combat terrorism, with Iraq being the prime example of their own incomprehension. Witness the recent elections in Palestine, where a democratic process is clearly working against our stated goal of reducing the threat of violence to America and our allies. That example is not necessarily Bush's fault but it does put a lie to the claim that democracy in the middle east will somehow magically solve our terrorist problem. I agree with wat Rob said recently: To get what we want in the Middle East, it’s neither necessary nor sufficient to promote democracy (that is, popular election of leaders). For democracy to work, it needs to be “reality-based,” not a popularity contest between fanatics making promises based in fantasy and theology. We need to promote secularism, transparency, rule of law, respect for minority rights, free market capitalism, “corrupt” western culture, consciousness of universal values beyond clan, ethnicity and religion, and the idea that only civility can produce the kind of decent life these people deserve. Yes, that takes time. But there’s no faster alternative that works – trying to rush it just puts the power of sovereign states in the hands of the people with the craziest platform. If you read what Rob wrote in the bold type, that is the antithesis of the Republican party. Here in the states, they play footsy with the theocrats, they try to cover up their obvious corruption, they play favorites with their political allies and fundraisers in a bold display of blatent cronyism, and they take advantage of the ethnic and religious divisions in this country to win elections. Its as if they are trying to bring the best of all the world's most disfunctional governments right here to the United States. Sometimes it feels like we're just short of having Bush stand on a balcony shooting a gun in the air. | 1.23.2006
We, many Americans live in a society that potentially offers us a life of extreme material comfort. It is there for the taking if we decide it should be ours and we take the right measures to acheive it. Knowing it is out there, versus knowing that life's comfort level has a limited height adds a level of expectation to our lives. Its not simply a matter of being comfortable. Now we feel that success is not simply a matter of reaching a moderate level of material excess, its about reaching an obscene level of material excess. Because once you reach a level of financial security it no longer matters whether you have "enough"; because you do. You have enough when you no longer have to worry about losing your job, or getting sick, or fretting about car repairs. Think about this.. People "get by" very well in some parts of this country on $50,000. Depending on where you live, or the number of people in your family, etc.. it might be lean or it might be living pretty good. A single person living in a place like Oklahoma does well on 50K per year. But let's just say that we make $100,000/yr, which is decent professional salary. If you wanted to live off 100K per year for 60 years then you'd need a total of $6,000,000 total. That seems like lots of money to me, until I realize that some people get paid nearly this much for one year. H. Lee Scott of Wal-Mart recieved a total of $5,392,308 in salary and bonuses for 2004. So yeah, he could spend $100,000 a year for the next 53 years if he did nothing else to make another dime. But instead of making this a post about obscene executive pay I want to take a second, not to think about whether that person deserves that much money, but instead to ask what value that much excess money can really have. At some point the amount of money you have ceases to have a connection to the material comfort it can provide. One person can only use and experience so much in one lifetime. Alternatively, money represents how valuable a person has become. The CEO wants a larger salary from company B because it means that he is stepping up from company A. If company C offers more money they must value that person more. A large salary means that person is more valuable to that company than other people. But that could be done with gold stars as well. In the real world, where money has material consequences, that extra million or two a company gives out to stroke a CEO's ego means a decrease in quality of life to someone who might have received that money instead. It might have meant a small raise to several employees instead. For people still in the rising slope of comfort a few more dollars a month has real value beyond the recognition of one's value. I find this a little disturbing, because in one land, money is used as a measuring stick of one's perceived worth to society, and in another it might be used to keep a loved one alive, or to provide a child with a good education. | 1.21.2006
 Well, back from CO. Incidentally it snowed before I left Denver as well. As you may or may not remember this same thing happened to me before I left Tulsa last week. I finally had a chance to listen to some Christian radio. Whew.. What an experience. I'll leave it at that. Its strange, looking over and seeing mountains. I'm an okie, so I didn't see many mountains growing up. Seeing the mountains in the distance makes you feel like you're living on the edge of something, as opposed to living out in the middle of something. Also... being in a bigger city, one has a greater appreciation for organization. You realize that it takes some effort and planning to keep so many people living so close together without things degenerating into chaos. I suspect this feeling might contribute to either a positive or negative feeling with regard to government usefulness. | 1.11.2006
 Another nice shot with the sun setting in the background. My subjects, big rigs, are nice because there's always one passing by. Of course I hate passing them. When the highway is wet you have to break through the sheet of water flying out from beneath their trailers. Its not much fun if you ask me. |  I'm not so sure how safe taking pictures out the windsheild -- is. But I like this shot and I couldn't resist when the sun started to sit. I set the camera to manual focus at infinity and started shooting. |  Well, the drive up to Denver was fairly uneventful except for a slight bit of snow on the way out of Oklahoma. Kansas is still flat, no changes there. Note to Kansans, you really should try to do something about all that flatness. | 1.09.2006
 Well folks, I'm off to Denver for a couple of days. I'll be taking my laptop with me and might get a chance to write something from there. We'll see. You know, the other day as I was exiting the supermarket I noticed yet another car with a sticker on it imploring me to "Keep Christ in Christmas" and I realized that not once had I seen any anti-christmas bumper stickers. But this was probably about the sixth or seventh of these stickers that I had witnessed. The attack was a fake but the counterattack is real. Gotta keep stirring up the persecuted majority? | No Blog of Significance: What Does He Care?: "Why would Dawkins have any interest in what the human race might or might not enjoy in the future anyway? By his lights, humanity is the pointless, purposeless product of an undirected process that did not have it--humanity, that is--in mind. Humanity has no meaning in an atheistic universe. There is no purpose to existence in Dawkins' world. There is only eat, drink, and be merry--the lowest sort of animalistic, sensual gratification--for tomorrow we die." This in a nutshell is the thiestic misunderstanding of a non-religious point of view. Why, they wonder would a person without a belief in some spiritual mytholgy care about the world? The answer is simple: it doesn't take a religous point of view to care. In fact, I see a non-religious point of view being more immediate when it comes to helping people, there is no "well, there's always the afterlife, maybe that will be better." Part of the reason that I eventually decided that institutional religion was not for me was because of the limitations I felt that it imposed on me. Religions, by their very definition, claim exclusive knowledge of the supernatural. Its a defined set of ideas that you can accept at face value or not. Questioning those beliefs are discouraged, faith is given considerable value, and in some religious traditions, thinking about life and its meaning outside of the guidelines of that faith are strictly discouraged. I thought that asking questions was the fun part? I felt that as I grew and experienced more of life I would gain a better understanding of the world we live in, the societies that surround us, and the universe that extends infinitely around us. Religion was asking me to do something I was not prepared to do, to deny what I experiencing and witnessing in my own life; the truth of reason and observation. I can understand Dawkin's quest, because he feels, as I do as well, that most religions ask us to shut off a part of our brains that provide many of us with a tremendous amount of joy and fulfillment. Curiousity. I too feel that its horribly wrong to try to force a set of beliefs on small children, especially if that means denying them useful information about the world they will encounter. I can't accept that forcing ignorance on someone might be for their own good. Learning what it means to be alive and human through the act of day to day life and the experience of living is incredibly fulfilling. Once you begin to understand your own humanity you have a deeper appreciation for all life. I personally marvel that so many people can devalue the lives of people that aren't like them. I see all human life, indeed all life, as an equally wonderful gift. I resent those things that seek to strip humanity away from us, either by making us just more disposable pawns in tribal power struggles, or by saying that this life is of less value than the one that is promised to follow. I've come to place great value on my own life, and therefore I place a great value on the lives of others as well. In the abscence of religion I care about people and I care about humanity. Is that so hard to understand? As for the big questions -- I think most religions provide inadequate and very limited answers, tainted by own human need to feel exceptional at the cost of others. | 1.07.2006
Whew, Washington wins, but it was close towards the end with Tampa fighting to within a few catches to tie the game. It looked like it was going to be a blowout after the first quarter when Washington got two takeaways to score two touchdowns. After the half Tampa came out on the offensive and Washington relied on its defense to keep Tampa out of the endzone. Their offense looked meek and ineffective, either due to Tampa's excellent defense or Washington's lack of talent. I expected to see more of Clinton Portis but he was a virtual non-factor in this game. We'll see how they do against Seattle. Washington's going to have to discover their offense if they hope to beat Seattle. I'm going with New England to beat Jacksonville. I don't understand how the Jacksonville coaching staff has decided to go with Leftwich with a bad ankle. I've never understood playing hurt players. Sure, they're talented individuals but any hurt player is not going to be able to excel, just look at Steve McNair for the last few years. Good quarterback but he should have taken enough time off to heal well before trying to play again. Its kept him from being great in my opinion. -- MORE -- Well, NE made short work of Jacksonville, due in part to good coaching on the Patriot side of the field and a poor decision by the Jacksonville coaches to put a limping quarterback into the game. Still, I'm not sure that Jacksonville would have been able to compete with the Patriots, who are executing plays with such skill that I see them being a threat to any team this postseason. | Pump your car - and the volume - with Ovation iX Windows CE gas pump - Engadget So now there is a windows CE based gas pump that promises to offer coffee, mp3's, weather etc... and even "full-motion, site-specific video commercials right on a dispenser-integrated 10.4-inch color display, with built-in speaker." And just when I was getting used to being bombarded with advertisements when I go to retrieve my own money from the bank. Now I get to pay for gas and watch commercials at the same time. When did I die and go to advertiser's heaven? I particularly like the way they describe such advances in human living... "Every day, tens of millions of Americans spend five minutes filling their tanks. If we can make those five minutes their most productive of the day, we not only add significant value to the consumer experience, we also help fuel retailers maximize the return on their technological investment. That retail focus is already beginning to shape a new vision of what fueling can -- and should -- be." Vision of fueling? I'm not so sure I want those five minutes of fueling to be my most productive of the day, especially if I'm standing there watching commercials on a 10 inch screen and waiting for a Slurpee coupon to print out. | 1.05.2006
Whew, spent the day sprucing up this musty blog. As you may or not have noticed I have changed up the colors yet again in favor of a more monochromatic look. I've also added a new essay following this update post, so go read that as well. I've added a rotating image file (thanks to photomatt) to the left so that some sort of new information can creep in every once in a while. With the help of a Kapsules widget with an easy drag and drop link to my ftp directory I can add new images quickly and easily -- moreso than I used to. The referral system I was using decided to start charging, so they're gone -- too bad. I've added the audioscrobbler plugin to iTunes so that the songs I listen to there can get inputed on my Last.fm page. As such, I've added two new links for music; one is a direct link to a page showing the top 100 listens in iTunes and the other is a graph showing the top artists on Last.fm. FOOTBALL: I'm looking forward to the NFL playoffs and I've been enjoying the college football of the last two nights. I was a bit disappointed by USC's loss to Texas, but only because I have a deep and prolonged dislike for all things Texas. This Saturday... Washington at Tampa Bay : Washington. Jacksonville at New England : New England. This Sunday... Carolina at NY Giants : Carolina Pittsburgh at Cincinnati : Cincinnati Hope you enjoy the changes and I hope you are having a good new year! | No Blog of Significance: "So, like I say, I like rich people and appreciate what they do, and God knows I'd never presume to tell them what to do with their money, but...well...some things they do just produce an irrational, visceral response in me." Awww... lookie, Dan has a faint, but noticable, bout of class consciousness. Working in retail I deal with people in the act of purchasing. I get to see how different people approach the process. For some its obvious that money does not just represent a path to a purchase, it represents a great sacrifice. The decision to buy something is not simply directed by desire, its driven by a need and an understanding of the future and past sacrifices involved. Money is an exchange of time and energy. When you don't earn much money for the work you do, and there are heavy demands on what you make, that money has greater worth to you. Every dollar is counted versus the value of what it can provide. When you plop down three dollars for a frothy mix of $0.50 coffee and milk it represents three dollars towards much needed food, clothes, rent, car repairs or free time. There is a connection between the work you do and the money it provides. Money has a grounded reality. When you just have money, or it comes to you through the work of others, you lose that connection. Buying a latte is simply a means to fulfill a desire. It doesn't have to come at the cost of rent or free time. Money has a value all its own without regard to work. Money has value through the things it can buy, so buying overpriced luxury items, even things that you may not even need, makes money have value. Desire, not need, is the overriding deciding factor of how money is spent. I see these two different views of money as defining class consciousness more than whether a person is wealthy or not. A person can have lots of money because of their job and still have that connection between labor and money, inherited rich people can have a concept of working class values passed on to them from their parents, or working class people can adopt the owning class attitude about money and usually end up going into debt. There are variations. Simply being rich or poor does not define your class attitudes, though it will be an almost undeniable influence. Between the two competing world views; one of money as a product of labor and as a means to meet certain ends, and one of money as an abstract way of keeping score and as a means of displaying worth through consumption, I think the former view is healthier for us as a society. I confess that this opinion influences my politics. I think we devalue work at our own risk. Its why I detest Bush's policies and attitudes that I feel are rewarding the simple ownership of money over the work involved to create the wealth we have. Its why I resent the corporate sponsored propoganda that seeks to tell us all that wealth is a virtue in inself and that buying overpriced goods in a vain search for self-fulfullment should be our driving purpose in life. Its why I think that while everyone deserves a little indulgence now and then, we should not make it impossible for some to even get the basic needs in life for the sake of giving some people more indulgence then they could ever use in a lifetime. | 1.02.2006
Bush, defending his use of eavesdropping on U.S. citizens. "I was elected to protect the American people from harm. And on Sept. 11, 2001, our nation was attacked. And after that day, I vowed to use all the resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American people, which is what I have been doing and will continue to do." Bush supporters would still defend their dear leader even if they were blindfolded with their hands tied behind their backs. "Its for our own good" They'd say even as they were being marched off to detention. Most of the people that still blindly defend the president's overreach are those that feel that they have a special, secure place in society. When they say "we" they mean "people like me". When they talk about "americans" its a very defined demographic, consisting of people of their same class, ethnicity, cultural background and ideology. And sure, there is a nice secure segment of American society that has the most to gain and the least to lose by the president's policies. They'll get the lion's share of the tax relief, they'll never have to deal with the wrong end of the law, and if things go sour they'll be the ones that get protected. So when Bush says "American People", there are some of us that think "hey, that's me!" and some of us that think "Um.. that's not me." I'm an American Person as well. I just count less in the eyes of policy makers. I don't do enough to make them rich and secure in their careers. I look at 9-11 a little differently. One of my first thoughts after that event occurred was "wow, all that military didn't matter one bit. Surely we'll see the insanity of building up conventional weapons!" Didn't happen, because we are still in the mindset that equates military might with security. But if you think about it rationally, and you accept that terrorism is a result of extreme power differentials, then you come to the logical conclusion that spending ourselves into oblivion building tanks and helicopters is going about it exactly backwards. There is a limit to what traditional weaponry can accomplish. As a deterrent it has worked well for us. Its has kept other nations from launching a state sponsored conventional strike on the United States. But it has lead to what I see as predictable consequences, namely, terrorism and the increased desire for weapons of mass destruction. The question thus becomes, why do we keep on doing what we are doing, spending half a trillion dollars and year on what would appear to be an ineffective way of dealing with new threats? And why do we think that means protection when spending trillions on weaponry didn't do a thing to stop 9-11? Its clear that we have an entrenched interest in keeping the established business going as usual. Its a combination of institutional inertia and money that keeps change from happening. Part of the reason we felt is was so necessary to invade Iraq was to justify a system that was becoming irrelevant in the wake of the 9-11 hijackings. We keep on spending this money because its important to that same group of people that say "hey that's me" when the president talks about "americans". Its important because that money keeps lots of people in their lifestyles. We transfer over 500 billions dollars a year from tax revenues into military related expenses. Now with the latest tax rebates to the wealthy for their republican investment we'll see more of that money coming from working americans than ever before. The benefits will still accrue in the hands of the well connected. That has not changed. What HAS changed is the nature of the threat to ALL americans. But in the interest of keeping the well connected bank accounts padded with green we continue down the same path. I don't feel protected. But I'm sure some "americans" feel "protected". For the record, I DO think that some military is necessary. But the arbitrary goal of fighting two wars at once is insane. We spend more than the next five nations combined, and we do so because its a way for the lawmakers to filter money to their sponsors under the guise of "security". I think we owe it to ourselves to look at the situation as it stands and ask the hard questions. Do we really need to spend so much considering the crisis facing health in America? Is there a better way of dealing with the new threats of terrorism and WMD that we are not addressing for fear of upsetting a few rich people invested in an old system? That's all I ask. | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
