Spectator Consumer

Dave Matthews: Musical Performer of a Generation

2011-04-16T23:47:00.000-05:00

Evolving out of the Grateful Dead-festival revival in the early 90's Matthews' unconventional music has endured for another yet another generation. Matthews was years ahead of his time, and his new Dave Matthews Caravan Tour will sell out the largest venues where it stops this summer. His choice of a wide range of instrumentation and folk vocals has garnered Matthews a devoted fan base of hippies, while still maintaining popularity amongst White Hats who enjoy "slumming it."

For a band that doesn't like theatrics, they sure enjoying putting on a ton of shows, touring nearly constantly. I assume Dave Matthews doesn't need to tour anymore, I hope his new tour comes to Alpine Valley this summer, although there may be issues with Matthews tour getting the three-day event approved by East Troy, the show hasn't been announced yet...it's even possible Alpine's affiliation with the new ticketmaster TM, aka LiveNation TM, is at i

How Long Until Software Critics Get Acclaim as Movie Critics Today?

2011-04-16T23:19:00.000-05:00

The Biggie or Rick Ross of Film Critics

Tech is old, and there have been critics all along, but there is no Ebert!

Great Innovations: The "Netflix" Button on the Samsung Blu-Ray Player Remotes

2011-04-16T22:44:00.002-05:00

The Netflix button...because Americans are too lazy to use press more than one button on their remote at a time.

Makes Me Almost Want to Vote for Hillary

2007-12-27T09:25:00.001-06:00

Fred Thompson should be hired by Hillary, because seriously, I think the Clintons aren't the best people and he makes me want to vote for Hillary. (Don't worry Obamanistas out there, I'm still with you.)

Thompson said, paraphrasing here, "There is no women on the horizon who ought to be President next year." Ok, I realize the guy probably just means Hillary, but nonetheless, what a truly dipshit thing to say.

Thompson's full quote.

Iraq is Wonderful, That's Why You Don't See It On TV

2007-12-27T08:34:00.000-06:00

I just knew we were making real strides in Iraq. What with Bush's upbeat assessments and the little coverage the US MSM has provided this year, could you really doubt progress has been made?

Damn Juan Cole and his party-pooperishness. What a dick this guy is. Like I'm supposed to believe some internationally renowned professor on the Mideast rather than CNN and Fox. Well, you all know where I stand. I'll state it again. Go USA, BEAT EVIL! ...AND TERROR!

Nonetheless, I will be fair and balanced and provide you with Professor Cole's supposed 10 Myth's About Iraq in 2007. Go be depressed all you anti-Americans.

3 Doors Down Propaganda

2007-12-24T11:11:00.000-06:00

Everyone is all up in arms about some "Citizen Soldier" crap playing before some movies recently. I can't recall if I've seen it, but what I don't get is why this is news to anyone.

I can't have been the only one who noticed the nauseating flag waving in the 3 Doors Down video being aired before the Iraq war. Remember, they were on a carrier? "When I'm Gone" was the name of the song? Well here's what one of the 3 Doors dipshits had to say at the time:

"We're not promoting violence against people of Middle Eastern decent that have nothing to do with [September 11], but at the same time, we wrote a song that's basically about going over there and kicking their ass."

So yeah, Citizen Soldier is propaganda. Big surprise. These guys apparently get cut checks by the DoD...real artists, I'm sure. Of course, maybe I'm too cynical, maybe the band is just a bunch of morons and the DoD just found them and paid MTV or whomever to put the song in heavy rotation. Who knows.

All I know is if their music wasn't shitty enough to make you hate them, now you have this.

These Whacked out Iowa Caucuses

2007-12-24T09:52:00.001-06:00

So there are like 1800 or 1900 precincts...in Iowa. Among them are like 3000 delegates. On caucus night you show up at your local precinct and walk to a corner of the room for your candidate. If your candidate doesn't get more than like 15-25% the candidate is "non-viable" and then there is a 30 minute reorganizing of voters to the "viable" or "undecided" camps - this is where the nonsense comes in.

Say Hill decides she can't win in Iowa but wants to sink Obama. Well, she can tell her delegates to caucus for Edwards who then would be guaranteed victory. Forget the fact that he'd be supported by people who don't actually want him to win the nomination.

Crazy ass system.

Smoking in the Mall

2007-12-24T09:43:00.001-06:00

Anyone else noticed this? Every year, and it never fails, you get these bullshit stories about Christmas sales being down from the year before. "Nervous retailers wondering if people will come out at the last minute..." Nonetheless, it seems like most years there are improvements in the amount of money spent when it's all tallied.

This all makes me wonder. Do you think there are Better Business Bureaus or Chambers of Commerce (or whatever) that float this crap every year, or is it just a story lazy news casters use to fill what would be dead air? (Couldn't you always find some shop that's doing poorly? I mean this year it wouldn't be Mylie Cyrus of Hannah Montanta fame, but what about the Disney cut out that came before her...the one with the dimples...whatever her name is? Do you think her sales are going through the roof? I doubt it.)

And if this is a retailer's strategy, it's kind of interesting. Normally retail markets shit we don't need by claiming everyone has to have it. Here it's like the opposite. No one is buying, so we expect you come out and save Freedom and Liberty by buying the latest Chris Brown or Fallout Boy nonsense. It's like reverse mental jujitsu.

I'm sorry, I don't feel sorry if the malls aren't crowded. But I'm so anti-establishment hip you'd know this by now.

We do need to bring back smoking in the malls. Smoking everywhere really. Just have the special locations for it...and not all walled off with glass partitions. Just little areas set aside.

Finding Porn on Your Partner's Computer

2007-08-24T07:54:00.000-05:00

Okay here's an article about a girlfriend who finds porn on her boyfriend's computer. I've read these stories before and frankly haven't cared enough to read. But, I found this on Digg.com which is a web 2.0 meta-link site. The person who posted the story wrote a sensational tagline, like, you HAVE TO READ THIS!. So I figured it would be funny, or at least kinda, you know, different than what one might expect to find in a 700 Club newsletter. Well, I was wrong.

Leave out the power of Jesus to smite out the Satan worshiping meat beaters, and this poor woman's blog post could indeed be mistaken from something churchy (although not Catholic, because they must have a Saint of onanism as they do everything else). The surprising thing for me is the prudishness of the woman who wrote it. She goes on for four damn pages of blog about how she came across the porn (no fault of her own...I'm calling bullshit on that part), that this wasn't her first *OMG* time finding porn on a partner's computer, and it's taught her an important lesson. Let's deal with some of these from my perspective.

Let me preface this, in case you don't know me, I don't exactly have traditional views. I may not own Dildo World, but even though I'm straight, I have no problem with bisexuality - although strangely fashionable amongst women under 25 these day, so much so, I read "bi" and I just roll my eyes and think "there's another girl trying to be too school for skool, predictably rebelling against holy-roller parents, destined to return to church and refuse to let her own daughters date before age 16"; polygamy is fine as well, just not for me as it seems shallow, these are the swingers and nudist colonizers of the 70s all over again, feel free to laugh at them today; BDSM I don't much get, sex and pain are anathema to me - I might tie a girl up if she asked me to...but only because I can sort of understand the weird test of trust (you had the chance to rape me with a can of cheese whip, but you didn't - you really love me honey!). All that said, the evil alternative lifestyles are fine in my book, I don't give a damn what consensual adults do together. If it makes me laugh, all the better.

So, my personal take? I say bring on the vibrators and make use of them in the bedroom. I'm not some porn star and sometimes my saliva and tongue would rather give it a rest - jaw and tongue soreness, sexy. Girls deserve their orgasm, so why not make sure that happens each and every by bringing toys? I'm not going to have trouble getting mine, the least I can do is make sure she does as well. So, quickly onto this article.

This woman's blog post reminds me that EVERYONE is blogging these days, even "traditional" people (as she refers to her own sex - the holy kind Jesus loves apparently). And traditional to her means no toys and it sounds like she thinks missionary got its name straight from the Holy Roman See (which is totally true, except the new evil-Pope is going back to Latin, so be on the look out for slight name change). So I guess I know there are these girls are still lurking out there and haven't gone away (I thought the Internets were a sin to these types, guess not), but I just didn't think they were web-savvy types. I do note, her blog is over done with girly fonts and enough whitespace for a tampon commercial - someone has to design the website for Better Homes and Garden. But these points she brings up are just plain fucked up.

She's a year and half into dating some guy and hasn't discussed doing anything but missionary? She's "shocked" - I tell you!- to learn he likes porn. She questions her own adequacy (and sounds like she should) and then writes a screed against the boyfriend for not being more open. She is liberated, she admits *OMG...again* he caught her masturbating...in her sleep!...damn you demon succubus! She may consider "tantric sex," thanks to her intimate knowledge from local yoga class. (Sorry to burst her naive bubbly but she ought to look into Tantra before she says she wants it, my guess is she'd go to ground convulsing and start speaking in tongues if she really knew what it is - Tantra is high-level Buddhism wrapped in Hindu tradition where the Gods were some kinky mofos). Undoubtedly she means trying out maybe two new positions form the Kama Sutra rather than role-playing Tantric deities and such.

The comments on her blog are interesting. Half seem to be from angered, pornoholic men (why the anger?...perhaps the Beastie Boys need to reprise "Fight For Your to Party" with "Fight For Your Right to 'Bate"); then you have the porn is an addiction crowd (I'm willing to concede it could be for some, since beating the chicken is pleasure inducing - but these people seem think not only is it an addiction, but one worse than alcoholism or sodomizing the family dog); and, of course, her amen corner of regular readers.

Another issue I have this ladies' concerns are the automatic questioning she feels obligated to ask. Because she found porn she feels justified to ask if the guy is into kiddie porn, bestiality, or if she just doesn't interest him enough. Let's get a grip here. I mean if the guy is on some site, XXXdogporking.com, or XXXkiddiepornworld.com (and YES, I'm a member at both! - no, seriously I just made those up, so if they happen to be real I apologize, I'm not trying to promote), but if he had sites like that, well then it would be fine to ask him or simply make the logical presumption and leave the guy ASAP. (My guess is this type of chick is the let's go to counseling and buy some Dr. Phil books type). If all we're talking about is porn though, asking about kiddie porn and sex with animals is just fucked up.

Finally, why would anyone wait a year and a half to discuss this shit? Moreover, why is the guy hiding this? I have friends, man and wife, who've found themselves in the same situation as this lady. More importantly, their respective reactions were very similar to what this woman describes. Hiding the porn, porn found, guy embarrassed, girl questions if masturbation is allowed in marriage... Well color me confused, it simply isn't something any couple needs to hide (although you don't need to inform each other every single time you beat the one eyed burping gecko or turn on the vibe). Couples certainly shouldn't care about this stuff, except maybe to get new ideas to spice up their love lives.

So, what's your opinion? Have at it, and weigh in.

Long-Term Liberal Planning

2007-08-23T05:43:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I was thinking about No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and its ideological underpinnings. Before I go into just what I was thinking, let me give you a quick and dirty overview of the act. The overtly stated purpose of NCLB is to better education. It goes about this by requiring yearly testing between grades 3-8, and 11, requiring both schools and districts, separately, to meet state defined standards. These standards must divide students into subgroups along ethnic lines, as well as special education status, and then mandates that each school "meets or exceeds" across all subgroups. If any subgroup fails, the entire school fails for the year. As written, NCLB is phased in over time, eventually requiring 100 percent of students to meet or exceed state standards in all subgroups. Failure to meet meet or exceed means the school has failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) towards the ultimate 100 percent requirement. If a school continues to fail to meet AYP, funds can be withheld, schools privatized and eventually closed if need be.

NCLB is extremely deft legislation aimed at achieving a covert goal - destruction of the NEA and AFT unions. The act does this by putting children's education as a stated goal, sets impossible marks for schools to meet and then allows for punitive actions which attack unions once schools fail to meet the unachievable standards. The Act is especially clever as it is phased in gradually over more than a decade before the percentages become truly onerous where most (if not all) schools will fail to make AYP. This allows for NCLB to insidiously infect the school system, generally fooling the public into thinking it has education as its real goal. Of course this isn't the case.

NCLB targets large, powerful, labor unions who work against the GOP agenda. It does this by claiming to be for the kids, but then makes requirements impossible to meet. When schools don't meet these standards, union protections go out the window, allowing for the dismissal of tenured teachers, promotion of non-unionized, private schools, and, finally, shutting down public schools altogether. Perhaps you believe I'm being too harsh on NCLB, but one simply needs to read the provision requiring 100 percentage passage across every subgroup to see, if anything, I'm understating what NCLB sets out to achieve. Ok, so how does this impact upon liberal long-term planning?

It's my conviction that after carefully examining NCLB one can easily see the ultimate goal of union busting pretty easily. What isn't so obvious is the long-term thinking and vision of conservatives required to formulate something like NCLB. And, NCLB is not alone. NAFTA and joining the WTO have been long-term strategies to cripple American unions by forcing American labor to compete with labor of Mexico (for example) where labor law is far lacking. Other attacks on the liberal agenda include "reform" of welfare, the attempt to destroy social security and the erosion of antitrust protection. There are many other instances, however I think these will suffice for now.

When taken as a whole, the conservative agenda is sweeping in its aims, its success and the time frame over which it has been, and continues to be pushed. This brings me to my question: Where are similar Liberal strategies? Where can one look and find long-term planning which attacks the fundamental support of the Conservative agenda? Where are they and why haven't they been pushed?

It's obvious Conservatives have an easy target, we call it the New Deal or the Great Society. Although conservatives strike at these programs directly, such attempts almost always fail as the programs are popular. Conservatives have been forced to retreat to a the think tanks and develop long-term projects to achieve their aims. After 30 years of Conservative success along these lines, whether it's NCLB, or media conglomeration, free trade with companies lacking labor policies, or simply the continued growth of the military - Liberals have not formulated their own plans to go at the underpinnings of the conservative agenda. So what might this look like?

I haven't had a great deal of time to think these through, but the first step must be to identify the roots of the Conservative agenda, i.e., what is it about Conservative ideas that makes them popular. Ideas that jump to mind are cheap goods, easy-but poor - employment, private schools/segregation, corporatism, nationalism, militarism, gun rights, bringing Christianity closer to the government, and demonizing governmental regulations. I don't have immediate solutions, and I'm sure my list is far from complete, but Liberals need to think long-term, just as the conservatives have if Liberals can hope to influence future policy. What to do with these? That's the next difficultly.

It's taken Conservatives 60 years in some cases to figure out ways to package their ideas to make them palatable. They've had half a century of people committed to bringing down the New Deal. The Liberals need the same tenacity and planning. Some policies jump to mind however. With the military being so abused and taking so much of the budget, an NCLB for the DoD wouldn't be a bad idea. If teachers have to show results on far less federal dollars, why shouldn't the military have to meet goals where every soldier is paid like their civilian counterpart, that those in the military have to pass tests equal to free-market jobs, and that military contractors be held to 100 percent standards (or else lose their right to bid). More directly, unionizing the military would be a great, long-term strategy to consider. Media must be opened up for compeition, this seems like an easy enough policy to sell. More later...

High School Musical 2: What the Hell?

2007-08-19T00:19:00.001-05:00

Okay, so the whole High School Musical aka Disney Crack, caught my attention when I was subbing 6th grade last year. I had never heard of the movie before the day I subbed, but for the kids this was old hat. All the girls in the class knew ALL the words to ALL of the songs (and most had dance moves...). Even the boys in the class had all seen it. What the hell happened?

It turns out that HSM 1 was Disney's most watched thing of all time. I don't know how they promoted, where they promoted, but somehow this made for cable movie got like 11 million kids to tune in - and that was before the release to DVD. So Friday night we had the premiere of HSM: 2. Did it do well? Try nearly 18 million viewers, the most watched cable show ever. The Sopranos finale had near 12 million viewers in comparison. This really is something else.

I've only seen the first movie, and I can vouch for it sucking. It is exactly what you would expect it to be, perhaps worse. It looks like every other show to air on Disney. The lighting in perfect, everyone has perfect skin, everyone dresses in new clothes and has blindingly white teeth. All races are represented, much like the Village People except without costumes. The songs weren't special. But, I'm not their target audience, obviously, and they did something right.

Here's a link to an article about the hysteria surrounding HSM2. I also caught a little bit about this on NPR Friday, and that reviewer predicted a Broadway version. I'm sure that's correct, but I'd be equally surprised if there isn't a Hollywood release coming next year. Does anyone have any disturbing experiences surrounding this bizarre craze? ...Or maybe just theories or anecdotal reports about the greatest thing since Debbie Gibson and Tiffany?

Superbad a Tad Over-Hyped

2007-08-18T11:13:00.000-05:00

I caught Superbad with some friends last evening and figured I'd post my thoughts. Most of my friends really enjoyed the film, probably more than I did, so take my opinion for what it's worth. I wouldn't say Superbad isn't worth seeing, but I definitely don't believe it's "iconic" or a "defining film of the generation," labels I've heard bandied about.

Superbad is basically a better American Pie. It's smarter, far more vulgar (hence true to life), the dialog is far superior and the overall atmosphere is well achieved. Since many people just love American Pie (another film I thought was ok, but not great), perhaps this is enough of an endorsement, but I had some problems.

For some reason, the pacing in this film is off. I found myself bored and looking at my watch several times in the film. Probably 10 minutes of tightening would have made this stronger. The plot that is there, is simple (and that's not an issue) but it lacks a moving dynamic. Fast Times could get away with this because it didn't tightly narrow it's focus on 3 characters and a single night partying. 1998's Can't Hardly Wait, which also focused on a single night of grad partying, is what Superbad might have been if it would have been a touch more realistic. Teenage romance is funny and I felt like Superbad tried a little too hard to be puerile. Superbad, for all of it's entertaining dialog only uses the main characters as simple cutouts. You never really care about any of these principal characters which hurts the film. The premise is 95 percent on dick jokes and losing virginity, they tried, but missed a real human connection with the lead actors. Another problem is basically no female presence in the film, except to provide sexual objects for our heroes. None of this makes Superbad, bad, it just was a touch disappointing. All that said, Superbad did do quite a few things right.

The trouble getting booze, ending up in strange parties, dealing with odd characters, running from cops, and preoccupation with sex did remind me of countless nights in my own high school past. Although I had many crazy nights in high school (as most of us did), the movie's quest to get booze and hook up with girls was true to life. The social awkwardness, the irresponsible drinking - all of that is captured to a degree that, like all good high school movies, made me a touch nostalgic for those crazy days of wild stupidity. Any movie that can elicit those feelings (almost a little depressing) must be fairly good.

In the end, Superbad gets a lot right, but feels like it missed out a little. Perhaps if the trailers hadn't given away as much as they did, or if the reviews weren't quite so positive, I wouldn't have went in with such high expectations. I went desperately hoping for a Fast Times or a Can't Hardly Wait, and I got a better version of American Pie. No doubt, some will love this movie like no other, it is good, but it's not all it might have been. *** 3/4 stars.

What are your thoughts?

ACLU Targets Reid and Pelosi over FISA

2007-08-18T09:49:00.000-05:00

Post 1201!

This is why the ACLU kicks so much ass. The Democrats rolled over for the Bush administration regarding new powers to thwart FISA and now the ACLU is going after them for it. I'm still at a loss as to why the Democratic leadership went for this. It makes no sense.

We've already discovered that Bush was caught breaking the old FISA wiretap laws. We also know FISA has never been onerous. In fact, all FISA ever required was that AFTER 72 hours of unapproved surveillance the government was required to go before a secret FISA court and present evidence their targets were legitimately related to foreign intelligence. And it isn't as if the FISA court has turned down many requests. Although I can't remember the source or exact numbers, I believe the FISA court had turned down 19 warrant requests out of something like 19,000 presented since FISA was created in the late 70s. If you were the government, you couldn't lose. Nonetheless Bush ignored and broke the FISA statute. It's even puzzling why he chose to do so.

Given that you don't even need court authorization under FISA to wiretap for three days, and given how easy it is to obtain judicial approval, why the hell has Bush ever fought this? I can only speculate.

Did Bush circumvent FISA because he plans (or was) using FISA to wiretap ANYONE and EVERYONE (...essentially, does the Bush administration really not believe in the Fourth Amendment)? Was this some dumbass attempt to push the limits of the "Unitary Executive/Presidency" theory expounded by Cheney? Or was this simply a case of trying to paint Democrats as soft on terrorism?

Whatever the reason, Bush has a long history of abusing FISA, so much so, I've heard at least one Constitutional Law scholar (Turley of GW, I believe) suggest these violations are, and should, be grounds for impeachment. So this isn't minor stuff unless you really don't care about any right to privacy (meaning you don't care much for the Bill of Rights). This latest Democratic move to weaken FISA at Bush's request is even stranger than Bush ignoring FISA in the first place (and, personally, I believe FISA violates the 4th Amendment as it had stood, even if Bush had chose to follow it). As I posited above, Bush at least had some reason for wanting the law changed. So what could have motivated the Dems to go along and broaden FISA, giving people like Gonzales even more power?

A few theories. Theory 1: The Dems are over-confident about 08 and only fear being painted as the party of pussies by the GOP. This is the traditionally, defensive, fear-based, GOP-defined frame Dems often fall prey to. The Democrats are not pussies, at this point with Bush's wars going so wrong it might not matter if people thought that anyway, and most importantly, the GOP will STILL call them pussies. The Dems could authorize the carpet bombing of every country in the world in the GOP would still call them the party of national surrender.
Theory 2: Bush's team has dope on the Democratic leadership and are using it for leverage. No way to know we can verify it, but something has to explain why they went along with the, apparently, toothless Bush. Theory 3: Dem leadership have good intel that we're going to be attacked in soon and don't want to be blamed for it. No way to verify this one either.

Nothing makes much sense, so I'm glad ACLU is going to pressure Pelosi and Reid. There simply is no excuse, at least made public, that rationally explains this nonsense. Congress ought to be impeaching Cheney and Gonzales (low hanging fruit) not giving Bush what he wants. Congrats to the ACLU.

Bioshock = Biocrap

2007-08-17T13:28:00.000-05:00

I don't get all these glowing reviews about Bioshock. Admittedly, I've only played the demo on the 360, so I'll keep my crap rating limited to the 360 rather than the PC version. What I don't get is why everyone and their mother seems to think this is the best game ever.

Let's start off with what everyone raves about, the graphics. If you haven't seen them, they're decent. Nothing special, but okay. The game suffers from many of the problems of Doom 3, everything is too dark. To rectify you can turn up the brightness, but this just washes out the textures and the game looks like it could have come out 3 years ago. Lesson: you have to play with dark, poorly illuminated scenes. What light you do have is horribly overdone in a film noir sort of way. There's never a doubt where you should look, it's spotlighted. The smoke, fog, and reflectivity are more of a distraction as they are used so often. The artistry is also heralded, and while it is using 1920s style architecture and surrounds; you might like this, it isn't my favorite. But this leads to another gripe I have, the game can't hold a reasonable suspension of disbelief.

The wonderful storyline people crap themselves for, is kind of cute. There's an underwater city built in the 40s by some Ayn Rand figure, named Ryan. Ryan built the city as a sort of utopia for self-made men and women. So far, so interesting. Your character enters after a plane crash in the middle of the ocean, right next to a capsule to take you down to the city. Of course, you're right away in a normal, moronic, shooter where you find yourself fighting crazed mutants, robot girls, a mechanical pressure suit-robot thing, and lots of annoying robotic guns (some of which fire on you). Okay, you had a good story line but then they went and fucked it up with the nonsense. I'll accept for a second that in the 40s you can build an underwater city and that residents might eventually go mad, but robots in the 40s? And it gets better, you have "plasmids" which "alter your DNA" and allow you to set things on fire, swarm bees on people, freeze people, shoot them with electricity and some other nonsense. This is just magic, meaning completely unrealistic and fantastic. This is like superhero shit, except without any plausible explanation. Okay, you may say who cares, but I do. Why do I give a shit about a story if it's just nonsense that wouldn't make a bad graphic novel?

I'm willing to tolerate some stupidity for fun (hell I sort of like the Zelda games), but the shit has to have internal consistency. Create a fantastical world, but give me rules that make sense in that world. It's stupid enough they have the period architecture off by a few decades, but the technology is off at least 80 years, and the DNA magic shit is just completely insane (why even attempt a rational explanation?). Then there is the fighting.

The fighting is far too frenetic. You have people shooting at you from god knows where, shrieks of people attacking that are not even in the room. Everyone moves around too fast. Why not take a cue from Resident Evil 4 and use a hybrid system (3rd person, but over the shoulder) if you're going to have all this activity to keep track of. And with all this happening in dark ass rooms with overdone lighting and haze, most of the trouble is simply seeing the shrieking weirdos. But I do have one nice thing to say about it.

If you let the demo for the 360 sit on the start screen it will go through some beautiful animation, however it's pre-rendered and looks twice or three times as good as in-game. Maybe the PC version can churn out graphics this good, if so, it might change my opinion. If the graphics were as good as the pre-rendered stuff, I might be able to put up with the other failings. Too bad that's not the game.

Bottom line. Don't believe all the reviews. Bioshock is just an average game, not as well executed as the mediocre game, Prey (which tied aliens to a native american spirit world...and that made more sense). Prey even looked better and controlled better. I don't know if people just like the strange story, the weird atmosphere or the inappropriate architecture and art, but for some reason reviewers love this one. Maybe they're getting paid or something. 70/100. What's your take if you've played the demo?

Lakoff Goes to Town on Ford and The DLC

2007-08-15T00:22:00.000-05:00

Boy, this isn't pretty. Lakoff, co-author of one the most influential books I've ever read, "Metaphors We Live By," just lays bare the patent silliness of DLC "centrism." Apparently, what provoked Lakoff was this weekend's appearance/debate on Sunday's Meet the Press, between the DLC's Harold Ford Jr. and Daily Kos founder *and NIU Grad* Markos Moulitsas.

The central tenet of centrism, aka triangulation, is the metaphor of a linear politics: right and left. Of course, these are simple metaphors and Lakoff argues they aren't particularly descriptive or applicable to party affiliation. And, it only stands to reason, if right and left aren't helpful, the meta-metaphor of a political "center," serves very like purpose or utility. That leads Lakoff into the second half of his article at The Huffington Post, the senselessness of DLC strategy.

I won't divulge anymore about the article other than to say it is classic Lakoff. First he does away with out-moded metaphors and then attacks (metaphorically and rhetorically :) those who rely on the old assumptions. Check out the article, it's short and sweet. In the end, you almost feel bad for Harold.

Californication

2007-08-14T11:14:00.001-05:00

Don't know if you caught the pilot on Showtime last evening, but you missed out if you didn't. Looks to be a great show. Stars David Duchovny, and it's a comedy. Best pilot I've caught in a quite a while. I have the series dvr'd, so we'll see if the series can keep up with high expectations.

Pollack-O'Hanlon Pro-Surge Deception Outed

2007-08-14T10:16:00.001-05:00

Pollack and O'Hanlon are the two "scholars" who've recently returned from Iraq and written a pro-Surge op-ed for the New York Times. After writing the op-ed the two made over 10 major media appearances in which they contended the "Surge" needs to be given more time and that they'd personally seen signs of progress. The problem with their assessment was the nature of their trip and the lack of transparency they presented in their media appearances.

Most frequently, Pollack and O'Hanlon were described as war critics. They claimed to have spent a good time "on the ground" in Iraq meeting with US soldiers and Iraqi civilians alike. Given such a description, one might easily have been led to conclude the Surge must be working, since even critics were now claiming progress. Unfortunately, these were not critics, they spent very little time on the ground, their agenda and their interviewees was decided by the US military. In other words, this was psychological warfare, or more euphemistically, propaganda. (And one should note, used not to sway Iraqi opinion, but American.)

Glenn Greenwald of Salon has been leading the attack on the Pollack-O'Hanlon cheerleading and was able to confirm the aforementioned details in a 50+ minute interview with O'Hanlon. Click here to read Greenwald's article which includes a link to the transcript. To O'Hanlon's credit, he sat down and did the interview with Greenwald. O'Hanlon admited it was not fair to call him a critic of the war (although O'Hanlon was repeatedly billed as one and claim to be a war critic on Chris Matthews' show). He also confirmed the trip agenda and interviewees were chosen by US military and that little time was spent "on the ground." In my estimation, O'Hanlon realizes he's been caught red-handed and is seeking to maintain academic standing by coming clean now.

Apparently skilled in backtracking, O'Hanlon speaks in terms of needing to have provided more transparency and generally admits to limitations dictated by the conditions of his visit. The game here is to concede the criticisms are valid by claiming simple lack of foresight. In other words, O'Hanlon is smart enough not to stand behind the majority of his deceitful propaganda.* Instead this must merely have been an exercise of a first draft submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Clever, since the objective has already been achieved and the only people paying attention are academics and critics, while the general population has accepted the misleading account and isn't likely to discover how they were misled. (And does anyone doubt this study will be repeated again and again over the next two months on Hannity, Limbaugh and other conservative shows? This is ammunition they need to sell the pro-Surge position. Reliance upon debunked science and reports is common fare for the right. One need only be reminded of the spurious claims of Iraqi WMDs being shipped to Syria, claims that it was proven WMD were discovered in Iraq, discounting or ignoring death estimates, etc.)

Every American ought to question any positive information coming out of Iraq. The Brits just received a report the surge was failing, and Michael Ware, CNN's contrarian reporter in Baghdad paints a very bleak picture when he's allowed air time (increasingly infrequent in recent months). And while I don't believe too many trust the White House anymore, I do fear people's faith in the military.

During times of war the military has one agenda - to win the war. The military lies strategically time and again. I would go so far as to suggest it prudent to question ANY information which seems to be connected with the US military, even if the source seems independent and simply relies on the military for protection. Independent voices are hard to come by when Iraq is so dangerous for reporters, but perhaps that in itself should give you an indication how bad things are.

*O'Hanlon continues to maintain his conclusions are valid. This is predictable given his method of conceding all the details. When called to account for his "reporting" he had three choices: 1. Defend the story and analysis, in toto; 2. concede mistakes were made but defend the conclusion; or, 3. concede the entire report was faulty. Given those three choices, considering how opaque and misleading his report has proven, only the final two would allow O'Hanlon to maintain any academic credibility. A good academic would have picked the third option, for clearly if the premises aren't valid -- if O'Hanlon really didn't get an honest appraisal from Iraqis, if he was unable to spend more than a few hours at any site, and if he depended entirely on the US military for his story -- clearly, his conclusion is merely conjecture. (Note, this third position also makes O'Hanlon look like a rather poor academic, albeit honest.) However, O'Hanlon has decided to try to both maintain his conclusion at the same time as he admits his methodology was flawed.

Effectively, O'Hanlon wishes to appear to be an academic (by admitting error in method) but keep his role as propagandist. Perhaps he can get away with it by maintaining his ultimately positive estimation of the Surge, relying on conservatives in academia to shield him. And, I suppose there is ultimately still a fourth option, retraction and explication in the future. For that, we'll have to wait.

Finally, there has been speculation about just how Pollack-O'Hanlon landed the NYT Op-Ed and all the media appearances when the third member on their trip, the one who didn't share the rosy outlook, only managed a single MSM appearance. Greenwald speculates, this may have something to do with the financial backer of O'Hanlon, a gentleman by the name of Sabin(sp?). Apparently Sabin is long-time supporter of Israel, a neo-conservative and major donor to Brookings. Greenwald has yet to do adequate analysis of this angle, and my guess is this is where the story will die. For some reason, when the machinations of militant Israeli policy advocacy in America come under scrutiny, the scrutiny seems to die a quick death. Of note is the recently convicted Israeli spy who worked at the Department of Defense. Linked to AIPAC, the spy story went unnoticed by virtually everyone due to a paucity of reporting. Of course, maybe it just isn't important when foreign spies are caught in the DOD, even when they're tied to a hugely influential American lobbying group. And, of course, when the White House is caught pushing bogus stories onto the front page of the NY Times by one Judith Miller...well that isn't worth looking into either.

Hot Rod and Sunshine and Instant Freezing in Space

2007-08-13T11:08:00.001-05:00

I've seen a couple movies in the past few days and figured I'd leave my impressions.

Hot Rod
You may have assumed this would be a terrible film. It has all the hallmarks: debut solo opportunity for SNL talent (Andy Samberg), moronic trailer, even more inane "plot" involving a stunt man, it's been panned by the critics, and it's flopped. But you'd be surprised, it fucking sucked.

I'm an Andy Samberg fan. I like the weird comedy his little group of writers bring...Laser Cats, I'm a fan. Nonetheless, the whole movie is 84 minutes of crap. Don't get me wrong, there's enough in here for a short film. And, despite the movie sucking, there were a couple scenes that I found myself spitting up Fanta and making strange noises as I tried to control my laughter. The rest of movie is mildly amusing but predictable. The plot really isn't important, so I won't bother. I read someone compare it to Billy Madison, and I think that's apt. Hot Rod actually had me hysterically laughing a couple times where Billy Madison never did, but Billy Madison had more plot and a better story (can you imagine that?).

My rating: 1 and 1/2 * . Only go if you're really high.

Sunshine
This is Danny Boyle's attempt at sci-fi. If you don't know Boyle, he's the guy responsible for some of my favorite movies of the past 15 years: Shallow Grave, Trainspotting, 28 DAYS (not Weeks) Later. The guy has talent. I'm a sci-fi lover, so when I read a year back he was making this film I was excited.

There's been so little publicity I would have actually missed this film if I hadn't seen a placard for it while standing in queue for Hot Rod. The reviews on Rottentomatoes is about 75 % and over at IMDB a lot people seem to have trouble with the film. So, I went in not really sure what to expect. I knew there would be no aliens, photon torpedoes or hokey costumes; I was right. You have to go into this film thinking more cerebral sci-fi, like 2001, or maybe eXistenZ.

I really like the film. For me, this will almost end up as one of my top 5 films of the year. I know it's not for everyone, but go and check it out for yourself. Not all the science is dead on, but it isn't all way off either. (The hired a guy from CERN to consult).

Rating: **** 4/4.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention the instant freezing in space. In one scene a guy freezes almost instantly when he's exposed to near absolute zero of space without a suit on. This is a normal convention of sci-fi, but it's most likely incorrect. Yes, space is cold, but it's also a vacuum. This means you can only lose heat through radiation (nothing so fast as jumping in a freezing lake, for example). The interesting part is that your saliva would boil instantly and you couldn't hold your breath our your lungs would explode. But, as far as I was able to research on the net, the science opinion is that your skin would prevent you blood from boiling off. So the main problem would be a lack of oxygen which would lead to a loss of consciousness in under a minute (probably 15-30 seconds). But if you could be pulled back in, the actual exposure to space wouldn't do much too you. Interesting.

The Great Hillary Swindle

2007-08-12T11:37:00.001-05:00

There is an idea floating around that Hillary has a realistic chance at winning the Presidency in 08. One of the main arguments in favor of this is her better than expected performance in DNC debates this summer. While I won't disagree that Hillary has softened her edges and made herself a better a candidate, the main reason she looks electable is because the GOP noise machine has gone suspiciously silent.

Hillary's problem has never been, chiefly, amongst Democrats. While it's true that she isn't a favorite for many of us, she is still a Democrat, at least in name, and preferable to the GOP. The problem for Democrats is that the GOP is salivating over the prospect of an HRC candidacy, so much so, I believe they've strategically stopped criticizing her. I believe this is a concerted attempt to get the Dems to nominate an opponent the RNC believes they can easily defeat.

What do I base this on? Well for one, if you listen to Fox commentary and conservatives in general, they have all largely spoken IN SUPPORT OF HRC. This has largely gone unnoticed even amongst liberal bloggers. Let me suggest that when the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh praise Hillary, it might be a wise thing to step back and question their motives. I believe they are doing their best to make certain Hillary is the Democratic candidate so they can easily defeat her in 08.

Take a listen to Hannity, O'Reilly, or and Fox News when they discuss Democratic candidates. Undoubtedly they will praise Hillary's maturity, her experience and speak of her as the Democrat's only sensible candidate. I'm not saying you won't still hear an occasionally barb, but, by and large, the GOP hate machine has been either supportive of Hillary or SILENT. This is strategic.

The vast right-wing conspiracy, call it what you will, are not REALLY supporters of Clinton. In fact, they hate her with a passion, far more than they hate the rest of the DNC field. Until Obama's rise and loss of an inevitable HRC nomination, the GOP was treating Hillary just as they have for the past 15 years. There were no compliments, only jokes, innuendo and mocking. Today you won't hear that.

Remember back to the build-up of the Iraq war, this GOP media can be summoned at will to do the bidding of the RNC. I think a good case study is the upcoming Surge debate. We've been seeing a steady stream of pro-surge coverage across the MSM. Lately, when 3 scholars returned from Iraq, the two with favorable words for the Surge got an NYT lead editorial, and did a tour of all the network and cable shows. What wasn't mentioned was that third scholar. I can't recall his name as he only made it on one network (CBS, one time), his assessment was that the Surge is failing. Now, this article isn't meant to debate which side is right about the Surge, I've made my opinion known on that already. I simply would like you to continue to watch the "pro-Surge" media blitz over the next month. Just last night Fox News aired what was supposedly a "fair and balanced" examination of the Surge. The title of the show may have showed a itsy-bit of bias, see if you can guess what side they came down on, here's the title: "Victory or Retreat?"

So the propaganda machine is still there for a united conservative cause. One has to wonder why they aren't bad mouthing Hillary, one of their favorite punching bags of the past 2 decades? Do you think it's because they really like her views? Do you think the GOP political operatives don't have a strategy for backing a candidate they believe they can defeat in the general? Look at the their past history, they had a book ready to be published for the summer of 04 about John Kerry's swiftboat. That didn't come about overnight. They wanted and pushed for Kerry. (In fact, there have been disturbing allegations that Lieberman, Daschle and the GOP all worked concertedly in Iowa to Defeat Dean in 04...if you want some fun research that can make for an interesting afternoon's reading.

So every time you hear how well Hillary is doing, every time someone tells you how much stronger she has become as a candidate, every time you think she might be plausible, I ask you to listen to the silence from the Right. The Democrats are not likely to get into the scurrilous - scandal-page politics in their primary. Hillary simply has to compete against Democrats on policy, without regard to the mudslinging. None of the candidates want to dirty themselves by attacking Hillary in such an unfair manner. This is really why Hillary is doing so well. She isn't really being tested.

If Hillary wins the nomination, the GOP will have the better part of a year to light into her with every lesbian-joke, every Bill Clinton blowjob, every FBI tape, every Travel-gate, every White Water, Vince Foster, the Clinton body count, Hillary's supposed socialism and radical Feminism...and I'm sure a truck full of shit ready to be dumped on her.

Hillary says she "knows how to fight back." Where and how has this ever been demonstrated? Bill Clinton was impeached over this nonsense. Sure, Hillary won a seat in the Senate, but do you honestly believe the RNC put much into the Rick Lazio campaign? The truth is that Clintons do know about the types of attacks which are sure to come, even so, they haven't ever been able to defend against them. They've never been able to fend off the scandal; it's their Achilles' heal. The public and media love Clinton scandals, and the RNC is expert at creating them and serving them up.

What will Hillary's tough girl strategy be when Rush Limbaugh is accusing her of murdering Vince Foster on a daily basis? When the evangelical church leaders remind their flock that the Clintons are the anti-Christ? How is Hillary going to stop Fox News from running bullshit stories 24/7? Will she be able to stop the MSM from Drudge from World Net Daily from Cybercast News Service chain of fabricated and sensationalized nonsense? I don't see where they've been able to in the past. The truth is that they were terrible dealing with it and there is no reason to believe they won't be terrible with it this time.

In fact, I think HRC has already telegraphed how she intends to respond. When asked about electability, Hillary uses the same tactics and lines from Bill's playbook (which caused him to be impeached). The strategy is to have a fake laugh, then claim the American Public has had enough of this scandal mongering..."The American people are sick of these personal attacks and want real answers." So Hillary's plan is to do just like her husband, ignore, play down, and speak to the issues. Does anyone believe that will work?

Americans love scandal. They still can't get enough Bill Clinton blowjob stories. Don't pretend you're in fantasy land of how things "ought to be." where voters most care about issues. Ground yourself in reality. Think to the 04, 2000 and entire Clinton Presidency and remember how popular the smear tactics were. Swiftboating WORKED, people talked about it instead of the war. In 2000, rather than the economy, Al Gore was called a liar for his claim that he helped build the internet. Then the story was Al Gore's excessive make-up and changing clothes. I've already covered what they did to the Clintons, as if any of us could forget. I'm sorry, but the GOP hate machine WORKS, and it worked against the Clinton's better than anyone else, EVER. It will work in 08, and they know it.

The GOP knows they will wipe the floor with Hillary if she's the nominee of the Dems. The election will be ugly, entertaining, and driven by fake scandals. If Hillary is the nominee, this election will be about the corrupt Clintons, not the war, health care or the economy. The GOP knows political entertainment and they already have the script for Hillary. This is why Democrats cannot nominate her. It's political suicide.

The GOP lies in wait for a Clinton nomination. Their discipline and organization can be seen in their coordinated silence and even praise for Hillary during the Democratic primaries. Democrats need to listen to the silence and remember that the campaign Hillary is running in the primary so effectively will look nothing like the sensationalized hate spewed forth if she wins the nomination.

Hey the Market's Collapsing, Let's Have Dinner

2007-08-09T17:07:00.001-05:00

Well, the Dow fell 380 points today as a French Bank suspended funds and the European Banks pumped a record 130 billion into the market overnight to add some liquidity. This isn't news if you saw this clip on Friday where Jim Cramer calls for people to stop trading as he believes the market is about to go under: Jim Cramer goes nuts about mortgage meltdown and lack of Fed rate cut. Jim Cramer is the kinda crazy guy who hosts Mad Money on MSNBC. While he is over the top, he's also a respected Harvard guy and Wall Street Insider (he used to run a hedge fund). His outburst caused quite a stir, so, on Monday, he posted this more pacified explanation of his rant.

If he's right, 7 million people are likely to lose their homes in the not too distant future. Sorry it's not great news, but everyone ought to be aware this possibility is looming. Wall Street Journal's interactive map of global credit collapse which makes things look pretty damn.

Dating: Are Kids an Issue?

2007-08-09T11:06:00.001-05:00

Say you find someone you're interested in but they have kids. Now, you may have kids as well, in that case I suppose it's a common bonding thing and the Brady Bunch isn't such a bad deal. Additionally, 25 percent of young people under 18 now live with a step-family. For them, I can't imagine kids from another relationship would seem in the least bit awkward. But 75 percent of us don't and didn't grow-up with step-families, so our gut reaction may be to be wonder about kids.

Kids brings added responsibility. They require more maturity and stability. They make trivializing dating less likely (presumably people aren't interested in hurting children by coming into and then leaving their life, so they won't be so cavalier about entering into a relationship where kids are involved. People may question the motivation for wanting for a single parent to get involved. Perhaps the parent needs a second income to do best for the kids and is therefore, perhaps, less interested in romance than in financial security.

So figures for additional thought. Just pulling up the first divorce rate page I found on a Google search produced these stats from 1997-2002. 59 percent of America is married (this continues to fall). 10 percent of population is divorced. Percentage of first marriages ending in divorce 50. Percentage of second marriages ending in divorce 60. Percentage of householders not married in 2000, 48 percent. Percentage of population never married 24 percent. Percentage of population married by age 25, 32 m, 50 f; by 35, 77 m, 84 f; by 45, 87 m, 90 f; by 55, 95 percent of all m and f have been married. Children living with just one parent, 28 percent. Percentage of children who will experience a family divorce by age 18, 40%. Median age for first marriage 25-26, first divorce, 30. Median age for second marriage ~33 and second divorce about age 39.

So lots of stats. But what they tell us that divorce is common, living single is common, single parents are common, marriage survival is about 50/50 these days.

So if you have kids, do you think it should matter to prospective dates? Does having kids impact what you're looking for? If you're single, do you see major drawbacks? (Potentially, you won't be as important to single parent as he/she has children to be concerned about.) Are you worried about being used for money? Do parents find having kids is a negative they have to conceal, or that they would have more success if they did conceal? Should people state their opinion about meeting people with kids in their profile? I'm interested in what people think, so leave your thoughts.

If you care, I'm one of those never married males under 35, still in the majority for my age group. Kids are an issue for me, although not really the per se, but their effect on a potential relationship. With baby sitters needed from the get go, doe-eyed romance isn't as likely. Also, the divorced, single or widowed mother I impute with a cynicism towards men which is perhaps completely unfair. I can tell you, that I would be VERY reluctant to ever consider marrying a two time divorcee, without regards to kids.

So comment away.

Would You Go Fight In Iraq if Asked?

2007-08-08T21:51:00.000-05:00

Say there's a draft and your number comes up. We're past 4 years into this fiasco, so you know what you'd be doing. Here are some pros and cons:

Pros:
1. Patriotism - I'm actually not a fan of patriotism the related concepts of nationalism and ethnocentricism, but I readily admit I'm in the minority on this one. People love their country, so if you went and fought you'd be be fulfilling some national duty.

2. Pay - It isn't great pay, granted, but it isn't slavery. There's a chance to move up and make a career out of it. The benefits are pretty good.

3. You take someone else's place. For me this would be the big pro. As someone who thinks we're on the wrong side of this thing I can't justify it by really any other means. But this is a strong one. Since I do feel the war is wrong, if I don't fight, presumably someone else would have to take my place and risk themselves. I'm single, never married, no kids, so I might even be taking the place of husband/father/mother.

4. You believe in the Iraq war. Well I personally think you need psychiatric help if, at this point, you're still behind this thing. Nonetheless, a good 1/3 of the country disagrees with me so this might be an incentive.

5. Military valor. Another one I don't place much significance in but lots of people in many societies have over the years. Bushido in Japan is but one that jumps to mind.

6. You won't be called a coward.

Cons.

1. Giving up autonomy - especially the right to decide who you'll kill. This is a big deal to me. And yeah, you never have to fire, but if you don't fire in battle you might actually injure more people by not following orders.

2. The war is pretty messed up. We have some Iraqis we like, some we don't. Strategies seem to change pretty regularly. There isn't an easy way to figure out who the enemy is. You may kill innocent people by accident.

3. Who knows how long you'd be over there. Tours keep getting extended, and the war seems to have no end in sight.

4. You may face jail time. You can become a conscientious objector, but the status is hard to get.

So a draft has been declared, your number is up, your eyesight, disability, prior criminal acts, and gender don't matter, you'll be in combat - do you go and why?

Moving in the Left Direction

2007-08-08T11:16:00.001-05:00

Dennis K is is closest to my own heart when we talk policy. And he is brave, the guy has been pushing the progressive agenda forever. People say his main problem is that he looks weird and is short. While I agree these aren't huge assets, I don't think they're what is really holding him back; it's his progressive policy.

Feingold is actually pretty close to DK in policy and doesn't have the looks issue. He's taken more seriously, considered running this cycle, but then backed out. I think he probably saw how difficult it would be for a true progressive to get funding.

What needs to happen for a "true" progressive to get elected is for one of two things to happen. The first is the return to power of organized labor. Taft-Hartley and NAFTA/WTO laregely prevent this from happening. Before a true progressive can find a major funding base to match corporate dollars, liberalism is on a short leash.

Obama, if you listen to his 2004 DNC keynote, advocates a pretty strong form of liberalism he hasn't been speaking of in this campaign - probably for a reason. Obama, I'm guessing, found he had to play down the liberalism in order to attract more major funding sources. This has led to Obama's tough talk on Iran and about pursuing terrorists in Pakistan. Nothing new, but not exactly in concert with Obama's previous positions, like helping to block the attempt cap malpractice awards (Dems did block) and his vote against bankruptcy "reform" (which sadly did pass and will push half bankruptcies out of chapter 7 and into chapter 13, or structured repayment instead of discharge of debts).

Today, on campaign trail, you won't hear Obama endorsing leaving NAFTA or the WTO, there is simply no way to get funded taking such a position. Instead Obama talks of reforming and establishing "worker' rights" in Mexico. That placates both sides in the debate because if Mexico has give worker's the right to collectively bargain, obtain health care and pensions; there simply won't be the gross disparity in wages between the US and Mexico. Obama's position, essentially, means you don't know what you're getting. Someone like me hopes he's only pandering to the money interests to get elected and will push for substantial reform and empower labor once elected...but we don't know. We know Bill Clinton was not in favor of these policies, he's a free trader, I assume HIllary is as well, because she hasn't been talking about amending NAFTA (rather, she says NAFTA is only part of the trade problem - I interpret this as a dodge, perhaps others won't).

The other possibility for a real progressive to succeed is through public financing of federal elections. This IS possible and I think might be part of an Obama legacy should be be elected. A system which allows easier access to the general ballot, coupled with public funds for candidates, effectively negates all the special interests. If we ever get this, we'll finally see real alternatives to the mainstream Dem and GOP candidates. Socialist candidates, libertarians, nationalists, labor, and religious-based parties could all compete as they do in most of Europe. Conservatives hate this possibility because the 1/2 of the country that doesn't vote, would largely vote for these other parties. Obama and a Dem Congress might just have the will to make substantial change. (Of course the Sup Crt. might rule it contrary to the 1st Amendment, but one can imagine a real matching dollar system that might pass muster.)

Frankly, neither situation, empowering labor or fixing election funding, is extremely likely to happen. ...But I believe it is necessary for one or both to happen before real progressives can be viable. We know HRC isn't likely to enact these sorts of policies, with Obama is there is still hope. My hope is that Obama is a significant, yet still incremental, change in the progressive direction. So, maybe DK and Feingold are left out in the cold today, but maybe they won't be 4 or 8 years from now. That's my hope.

Clinton is Bush-lite

2007-08-07T00:49:00.001-05:00

Obama is the best we can do. And I don't mean that to put Obama down, but we have to face facts. Corporations and AIPAC largely control the establishment Democratic party and they've given two choices funding Clinton and Obama. Clinton because that was the plan and is reliably status quo, and Obama because they need to hedge their bets.

Obama has played it smart and close to vest. He's told AIPAC the minimum they need to hear, i.e., he'll talk tough against Iran and continue the general war on terror. Obama's also had to get in bed with major finance. He's probably promised not to shake up NAFTA too much or raise corporate taxes. The thing is, we know what we have with Clinton...it really is just Bush-lite.

If Hillary were to be elected (which is still a long shot for the general imho), sure, we may stop this war in Iraq, but Washington will still be run by the same folks running it now. Obama is more progressive; he might get Taft-Hartley repealed - the bill that killed labor in this country. Also, I think he's likely to lay off the drug war, back medicinal marijuana and decriminalization, the estate and gift tax will come back, and some kind of major health care reform will be offered (not gov't run single payer but probably universal coverage). With Obama you can count on stem cell research funding, social security strengthened, more initiatives like more mental hospitals. One can go on and on, but there are lots of smaller progressive measures Obama will probably make changes with that the Clinton's didn't bother with in their previous 8 years.

HIllary, if she can get elected, will bring what we know what a Clinton administration brings. It will be pro-business, social programs will be "reformed" (cut back) rather than reinforced, the drug war will be increased, and will labor continue to get shafted in favor of supply side economics. Health care from Hillary? Maybe, but she's a major recipient of health care money, her reform is more likely to be a smoke screen.

Obama isn't perfect, he's had to make major concessions to get in this, but he's a progressive. The Clintons are to the right of Nixon in many of their policies if you look at it fairly. We don't need a softer and gentler conservatism, we need the pendulum to swing back towards the young, poor, elderly, labor, the disabled, minorities, and women. We need a President who sees government as something positive that can improve conditions rather than an obstacle that needs to be minimized. Things were better under the Clintons, we didn't have this constant fear-driven war footing and the economy was better - but what else did they accomplish? We can do better.

Dateline Reporter Caught Undercover at Defcon

2007-08-05T18:40:00.000-05:00

Who knew a geek convention could have such a funny story attached to it? Defcon is the annual hacker convention in Vegas. These are hackers in the true sense, some of the white hat, some black hat (although I don't believe the conference would agree) but all of them are into computer security. There are featured presenters, I suspect break-out sessions - it's basically just a convention. Dateline NBC apparently believes it's much more sinister, apparently oblivious to the nature of computer programming with all its debugging, inherent complexities and the necessity society places on data security. ...So they sent an undercover reporter.

The thing is, the geeks knew she was coming. They tracked her flight, knew where she was staying, and even prominently displayed her photo before she arrived non-incognito (maybe that should be cognito?). Anyway, the story, covered by The Inquirer, is worth your time even if you could care less about viruses, worms, botnets, zero - day exploits and trojans. I do, sort of, feel bad for the lady, but that's what you get.

Obama Scores Big in GOP Debate

2007-08-05T12:18:00.000-05:00

Yes, you read correctly, Barrack did very well in the GOP debate held Sunday morning in Iowa. How? Political stupidity on the part of the GOP candidates and a smart answer by Obama.

The issue is the one Obama raised when he explained he would strike Al Qaeda in Pakistan if there was "actionable intelligence" and Musharef was unwilling to act. Initially Obama took flak from the left as this is almost certainly illegal under International Law. Nonetheless, it is the politically savvy answer for a man who is running as anti-Iraq war from the start. So Sunday morning the GOP candidates decided to help out Senator Obama, and screw themselves in the process.

Stephanopolous, moderating the debate, played a clip of Obama's quote and asked the Repulbican candidates to respond. Keep in mind these guys (minus Ron Paul) all back the Iraq war and pre-emptive military action as general policy - that's the background. Now, when Obama says something they obviously agree with; how did they do? Not well.

Every candidate said Obama was wrong! You read right. The hawks supporting the Iraq war think attacking Al Qaeda isn't a good idea! Obama must be laughing. Whoever wins the Dem nomination will be able to use these answers in a general election ad. It's beautiful because it shows the GOP to be simply politically driven opportunists who are stupid on foreign policy - specifically military policy.

To be fair, Romney and Guilianni hedged by saying Obama shouldn't have said it, but of course all options are on the table. (Can't wait for Obama to get a chance to ask how not speaking about this jives with their support of pre-emptive war generally. You can imagine Obama saying, "So you claim you'll attack ANY country if you deem them a threat, but think it's wrong to put people on notice that you would go after Osama if their gov't failed to act? ...This must be the Iraqi pre-emptive war strategy, where it's okay to attack Iraq without provocation or reason, but ignore Al Qaeda even where there is actionable intelligence. George Bush and Dick Cheney would be proud." I'm sure they can tighten that up, but it's a terribly effective message Obama delivered, and now he's in control.

What just happened is the entire GOP field allowed Obama to frame security in a more aggressive, yet more reasonable, military policy. The GOP is still stuck with their Iraq war and look like doves when it comes to Al Qaeda. Even amongst the 30 percent still supporting the Iraq war, how many of them wouldn't want the US to take out Osama? Any? This was amazingly inept and shows just how afraid of Obama the GOP is.

The Obama scenerio is Jack Baurer, GOP dreamland. Al Qaeda found, Pakistan not acting - easy pickings for a GOP candidate. You simply say you don't support much else Obama stands for but "he managed to get something right" (or words to that effect). Of course you say go after Al Qaeda, especially when you've already said you support war in Iraq and preemption. The question is practically redundant, how can you support preemption but not support the Obama scenerio? So why did they answer the way they did? Obama.

Obama cannot seem to be right about anything foreign policy-wise. They all know he's more likable, a better speaker and more intelligent than they are (ok they might not admit all this but they have to know he's formidable). Faced with an Obama clip, the GOP candidates chose to answer defensively, reacting to him, and mangled perhaps the most important question in the 08 election - the war on terrorism.

I still can't believe what I heard. Amazing. I'll repeat it because it is so crazy. The Iraq war supporters said they wouldn't go after Al Qaeda if they had actionable intelligence and Pakistan failed to act.

Big day for Obama and the Dems generally. Another big winner? Fred Thompson who managed to avoid the stupidity by sitting out the debates. You can sense the "clarifications" are being typed as I write. What Mr. Guilianni meant to say.... Mr. Romney, of course, would go after Osama... The question wasn't about Al Qaeda but Obama....

Got to love it.

What do Dems do When Petraeus Says Surge Working?

2007-08-05T12:17:00.000-05:00

Petreaus is set to report on "the Surge" in September. It's clear he'll claim progress and ask for more time. The question then becomes how will the Democratic Congress respond?

They can choose to end the war by cutting military funding completely or putting explicit language in the Defense Appropriations Bill that directs money won't be spent on Iraq. If they do that, Bush will veto and they can't override it. That leaves either a shutdown in gov't with no funding provided until the war ends, or passing a Defense Bill that continues to the fund the war.

A compounding issue is that Democratic politicians will have to go against the military commander on the ground who'll be saying the Surge is working. This is very difficult for them to do. Of course Petraeus will always report improvement (it's his idea) so if they give him more time they'll be right back here again next time authorization comes up.

What do you think they should do? Secondly, what do you expect will happen?

I'm Back and the Backlog

2007-08-04T09:01:00.001-05:00

Okay, I'm going to start posting here once again. I have been keeping another blog, so I'm importing some 30 or so posts over the past few months. This will mean the page will be VERY long for a while. After a week or so I'll cut the number of posts showing back down to 10 (where it had been). I'm sure a couple of the links need updating as well, I'll try to get to that.

Oh, yeah, I also, stupidly, went backwards when updating. This is annoying because the older posts are first except for the top two posts (this being one) they go reverse chronologically. Sorry about that.

Samurai > Ninja

2007-08-04T09:00:00.000-05:00

Samurai have a code of conduct, Bushido, whereas Ninja operated outside of such codes. Samurai produced perhaps the best book ever, the Hagakure. Replete wish stories of seppuku (hari-kari), decapitation and killing justified for basically any violation of honor; what more can be asked for? You can pick out just about any passage from the Hag but here are some quotes

* Singlemindedness is all-powerful.
* Tether even a roasted chicken.
* Continue to spur a running horse.
* A man who will criticize you openly carries no connivance.
* A man exists for a generation, but his name lasts to the end of time.
* Money is a thing that will be there when asked for. A good man is not so easily found.
* Walk with a real man one hundred yards and he'll tell you at least seven lies.

The Samurai adaptation of Zen Buddhism is quite interesting as well. Ninja, in their defense, did have their own code, most famously a book written by Hatori Hanzo. But Ninja were hired to assassinations and sabotage, things not permitted by the code of honor Samurai followed.

So Samurai > Ninja.

Why Tarantino is so Good

2007-08-04T08:58:00.001-05:00

I went and saw Grindhouse yesterday and it confirmed my admiration for Quintin Tarantino. I won't give away the movies, but I do want to talk about why I love the guy's movies so much.

Unlike so many directors out there, Tarantino knows what a movie is about - entertainment. You don't go to a movie to see everyday life. I don't want to be educated by movies, I want the unusual. Tarantino's movies are fantastic because everything in them is meant to entertain. What's in a typical Tarantino flick?

First off you notice the actors and actresses. The actresses are always bombshells and the guys are interesting. I don't want to see disgusting people like in the Cohen Brother movies. When I go to spend several hours of my life watching something, I want attractive chicks. And is it right or fair? No. You might even say anti-women, portraying them as simple bimbos, but Tarantino doesn't do that. His foxy chicks are almost always wearing tight fitting clothing but they have positions of power and authority in the films. But good looking people is not the only reason Tarantino is so fantastic, his dialog is amazing.

I hear dumbasses all the time saying how unbelievable Tarantino's dialog is, as if that's a bad thing. The whole idea is to make characters have conservations that AREN'T believable. You see a Tarantino film you're going to get unrealistic dialog, but the great thing about it the script is that the conversations are BETTER than the real thing. Gilmore Girls, Twin Peaks are famous for doing this on TV. The whole point is to enjoy the ridiculous Hollywood conventions and stereotypes.

So go see Grindhouse, but don't expect any attempt at reality. Reality is the last thing Tarantino is going for.

4-7-7

The 20 Worst Movies I can Think Of

2007-08-04T08:55:00.000-05:00

I've seen some terrible movies. Seriously. The thing is, there is bad then there is a whole 'nother category of crap. To make for a truly terrible movie, you first have to go into it thinking you might like it. There are plenty of shitty movies I've seen that I knew would be awful, and somehow, if you don't have any expectations, they can't truly disappoint you somehow. I wanted to try to think up the very worst movies I've seen. Movies I had some sort of expectation for. I don't know let me start listing.

1. Base-ket Ball
Okay, I figured it would be dumb, coming for the South Park team, but my god.

2. The Fifth Element
Even had Milla Jovovich (sp?) in it, and still sucked.

3. Tenacious D and the Pic of Destiny
I don't get this movie. The D were so fucking funny. How can the crew that came up with "Jesus Ranch" put out such a boring movie?

4. Unbreakable
Sam Jackson and still unwatchable.

5. Leprechaun 5: Leprechaun in the Hood
Leprechaun 4: Leprechaun in Space was awful but in a good way. This one featured Ice-T (OG) and wasn't in the least bit funny.

6. Labyrinth...well scratch that, any movie with muppets or the creative work of Jim Henson.
I hate muppets. They aren't funny, they never were. Ok, the Swedish Chef is mildly amusing.

7. Aqua Teens Colon The Movie
I don't know where to begin.

8. Rocky 5 and Copland
Syl Stallone at his worst. Now Cobra...there's a movie (I have a soft spot for satan worshiping biker gangs).

9. The English Patient, the Crying Game and Lawrence of Arabia
All famously great movies which make me want to fall asleep.

10. Joe Dirt.
You need to see it, but don't.

11. The Wild Bunch.
Why is this considered any good?

12. Raising Arizona
Fuck the Coen Brothers. Fargo was ok, Miller's Crossing I like, but everything else they touch turns to shit. The Big Lobowski and that god awful George Clooney hillbilly movie.

13. Boondock Saints
This is a cult classic that gives cult classics a bad name.

14. Basically anything with John Wayne in it...Ghenghis Khan was sort of funny though.

15. Anything with Billy Crystal.

16. Dirty Work.
Hope you never saw this one. Norm McDonald is in it, 1995. The Fat Boys' Disorderlies is a masterwork in comparison.

17. The second and third Lord of the Ring movies.
The first one was tolerable. The second and third just torture.

18. AirForce One.
Harrison Ford, why did you start sucking so badly?

19. Every movie made, contemplated or yet to be made or contemplated by Jim Jarmusch.
Dead Man especially, but I'm not guessing that samurai movie with Forest Whitticker is any better. [Edit- Ghost Dog was great, so this was wrong]

20. Troy
How can you make a movie about the Illiad and have it be dull?5-7-07

Are We Going Extinct and So What?

2007-08-04T08:53:00.001-05:00

[Still updating with old posts-Ed]Are we going to kill ourselves off as a species in the near future? My guess is no, but with the caveat that I do think we're headed for big time trouble with billions dying off in the near future. But maybe I'm wrong.

Here are some problems we have to deal with...

1)Nuclear war. We're all too comfortable with nukes, we even make fun of those crazy people in the 50s hiding under desks. Ok, hiding under desks was stupid, but if you look at the odds, we're damn lucky there hasn't been a nuclear war yet. 60 years + of atomic weapons and, I believe, 50 years of nuclear weapons (and that's another problem - people don't appreciate what an H-bomb would do). But look at the world, we're all fighting. Even the US is fighting everywhere, and the US isn't even threatened by anyone. (I guess some will say terrorists, but get a grip...terrorists cause terror, it isn't as if we're going to wake up tomorrow as a Muslim theocracy.) And we run up against the odds...there's going to be a nuke war at some point...they only question is when and how bad will it be.

2. Biological warfare. Nukes are one thing, they're big, expensive and hard to make, genetics for biowarfare isn't nearly as expensive. Hell, it could happen by accident. Someone might create a new strain of flu that kills off half the world's population. We do have lots science which could be put to use to make a vaccine, but you never know how long that might take...HIV is proving difficult.

3. Carcinogens. Think of all the garbage we put in our veins, pour down our gullets and breath in the air. And then there is the love of radiation in all its wonderful forms...natural to the whole man-made electro-magnetic spectrum we are bombarding ourselves with everyday. I'm not saying living under high-tension power wires, or leukemia clusters linked to hazardous waste is necessarily a huge threat. I am saying it could be.

4. Nanotechnology. I think it's a Neal Stephenson book that has shields to protect people from microscopic nano warfare. It really isn't that far off.

5. Massive disparity in wealth combined with the spread of information. Why is this a problem? Well half the world really sucks. It never used to much matter because that half of the world had no way of knowing just how bad they had it. Now they have television and the internet. Will half the world sit back and let the other half argue about Paris Hilton? Maybe this isn't a problem = perhaps everyone will just join in the free market...but who's to say. And even they do join the free market, it still poses big problems, just look at Mexico's terrible economy and the resulting illegal immigration to the US.

6. Dependence on oil. This is Jared Diamond's worry (along with the peak oil crowd). We are dependent on petroleum, what happens if it disappears just like the Sperm Whale?

7. Global Warming. Who cares what the cause is, there is too much damn CO2 in the atmosphere. The climate is changing, let's hope it isn't too bad, too fast or that we can adapt.

8. Computer evolution. This can have many deleterious consequences. On the minor side of the equation we have increased dependence on technology, dehumanizing everyone, turning humans into increasingly unhappy cogs in the machine. A major problem would be computer sentience, specifically computers that kill us off. Sounds kind of wacky but when Stephen Hawking is ringing the alarm bell, maybe we should listen.

Now for the other question. So what?
Should we care about posterity? Do we have any responsibility to our children. I know it's cliche to say we do, but maybe we're just biologically programmed to feel that way. And if so, why should we listen to this instinctual desire to propagate? I'm on the side of "might as well." I might have a moral/philosophical grounding for this, but pure selfish motivation suggests we should look out for the future. With life expectancies growing quickly, the promise of cloning, etc...maybe we'll end up living 1000s of years. Not likely, but you never know.5-13--7

5 Reasons Concerts Suck

2007-08-04T08:52:00.001-05:00

Even when I love a band, I almost will never like the act. I might appreciate the lyricism, the music itself, or perhaps even a political message (a la Rage Against the Machine). But it really doesn't matter, if it's popular music, the show is likely going to turn me off. At this point I'm only excited to go to small venues, summer festivals where there's enough room to spread out on the grass (where does that happen?), shows with auditorium seating, and, of course, a Pink Floyd show if they ever get back together. But, barring those conditions, I've decided concerts just suck.

I love music, and I always have. When I was really young I remember singing The Village People's "Macho Man" every time it came on the radio (no acouting for my taste at 4 years). I also recall how excited I was to dance around the living room to Steely Dan's "Reelin' In the Years" every time my parents put on the LP. Around the same time, my childhood crush and I decided that ABBA's "Super Trooper" was the best song ever recorded. Then there was having to have the Ghostbuster's soundtrack (I just couldn't understand why Ray Parker Jr. wasn't the biggest star ever). I even recall the interminable debates I used to have about why the Beatles were obviously superior in every way to the Beach Boys.

When I was in high school going through a brooding-intellectual phase, I wrote down some of my favorite song lyrics and kept them in my wallet at all times *a love song, I think maybe something by the Beatles, but it could have been The Smiths or the Cure or New Order or the Pixies, wish I could remember*. Also in high school, I had a penchant for making mix tapes for girls I was into, once mailing one off to a girl spending the summer in Connecticut with that "I'd Walk a Thousand Miles" song on it - which now occurs to me to be semi-creepy on my part. And then there was making a compilation for the drive to and from a spring dance. Even into a college, there was a certain point I vowed I wouldn't marry anyone who didn't share a love for the song Ziggy Stardust. (I'm sure drug and alcohol abuse can be partly to blame for that one.)

The point is, I'm a music geek and I've always loved music. The odd thing is, I rarely have liked concerts - despite having claimed to love them well into adulthood. So what is it about concerts that has made so many of them suck? Here is a list of 5 reasons.

1. Selling too many fucking tickets. Greedy promoters and club owners are willing to ruin the entire experience by making it impossible to sit down or avoid cigarette burns from people bumping into you. Then you also have to deal with people going and coming from the bar splashing shit all over you. Except for a few bands that appeal to teens, this over crowding is not fun...unless you enjoy smelling sweat and having strangers sweat on you.

2. Mosh pits. Moshing is just bent up sexual frustration for suburbanite meatheads. Even if this is a release for these unhappy celibates, if these guys believed they had the remotest shot of getting laid, they wouldn't be spending their time moshing. So girls, you have to share some of the blame for all the idiots acting like they're at a Aryan-Youth, Neo-Nazi celebration of Columbine.

3. The music is too fucking loud. Sound techs need to go to school. I know some of them do, but not enough of them, and they're not learning what they need to. I think too many are under the misapprehension that volume is the most important attribute of good music. Granted, if you can't hear the music, you have a major problem, so there is a dilemma these guys face. They need to make sure everyone can hear. The problem is that they go way too far and make an enjoyable experience a headache. Most concerts, unless you're talking folk, jazz, blues or any other genre aimed at people over 25; the volume is so loud it's hard to hear people right next to you. How many times have you been standing two feet from your friend and can't carry on a conversation because, even screaming, you can only catch every other word?

4. The vocals aren't loud enough. This probably has to do with the general volume issue, but I want to make explicit you should be able to hear what the damn singer is singing. And the thing is, my guess is that so does everyone else. If it were otherwise the CDs and MP3s would have guitars and drums drowning out the lead singer just like at the concert; it isn't like that for a reason. Shitty sound techs are to blame for this as well.

5. Security busting kids for drinking and annoying everyone about drugs. This isn't as big a gripe because it really only happens at the big venues. But at the big concerts security pretend to be cops, as if it's their duty to enforce societal mores. I'm sorry, but security is there to keep me secure...that is safe. I don't want to be stabbed or shot, but I don't give two shits what anyone else is doing. And, honestly, why should the venue give two shits? You've paid admittance, it's private property, stop the security acting like total assholes.5-12--07

Paris - America's Queen

2007-08-04T08:49:00.000-05:00

Why we don't have royalty I don't know. We have the Presidential Palace (yeah that's what the White House was originally called...and take a look at it, it IS a palace), so why can't we have some royals? We do.

Most people don't appreciate the death of JFK Jr. With his passing the American throne was passed on. At the time you probably missed it, but Paris was there to pick up the torch. With a timely sex tape, an heiress and reality show, she claimed the throne. I don't think their can be any doubt. Britney Spears? I don't think so. The only thing Britney has on Paris is looks and perhaps a slight edge on singing (but that's close). No Paris is America's Queen. And with that title should come some additional liberties.

Royals are almost expected to drive around intoxicated. Sure, as someone pointed out, she could have gotten her driver to drive her, but why should she bother?6--10-07

Vanishing Point - Great Movie

2007-08-04T08:48:00.001-05:00

I finally got a chance to watch the original Vanishing Point. I honestly didn't know about the film until hearing it referenced in Grindhouse (Death Proof). It really is a fantastic film.

There is so much one could go on about the movie. On one level it's completely funny. There basically is no plot: a guy has to get 1970 Super Charged Challenger R/T from Denver to 'Frisco as fast as possible. Naturally, a cop chase ensues - for the entire movie. It's total 70's, drugs, Vietnam incorporated into it, a lynching, a nudist blond riding a motorcycle in for no reason in the desert...hell, even cops being called Nazis and a DJ named Super Soul. So it is laughable. But there is this other side to the movie, a sort of deeper and existential bent.

Remembering that this film did come out after Easy Rider, it's not difficult to see the philosophical similarities (some might even say poor imitation). Nonetheless, the movie's simple premise of the "the last American hero" being hunted down by cops has some meaning. And (spoiler...look away now if you don't want to know) the ultimate suicide scene doesn't give a happy ending. That rebel must die, society must reassert itself.

I suppose part of the attraction is the generic quality. This movie is simply selling Chryslers, and it is sticking to themes and motifs common to the era. The thing is, it's this mastery of form and genre that make it so great. Nearly perfect.6-16-06

Myers-Briggs Typology (Personality Profile)

2007-08-04T08:45:00.000-05:00

I'm still on this Myers-Briggs trip. Several tests peg me as INFP, and now I'm finding others that go all INTP on me. WTF? As far as I have been able to read on the subject it actually sort of matters.

Apparently you want to start by looking at the last letter, P for perceiving or J for judging. That last letter is key. If you're a P you have a dominant trait of that second to last letter, F for thinking or F feeling (remember these styles of thinking...emotionally driven or logically/systemically driven). Since I always get the introverted that means I'm either Ti for introverted thinker or Fi for introverted feelings-based. Next you figure out your auxiliary which is the opposite of your first letter, combined with the second letter. So for me, either way, I'm Ne (extroverted intuitive). Then you get your tertiary indicator by finding the inverse of you auxiliary, so Ne would become S for me (you leave off the i or e). Finally the inferior function is the opposite of the dominant function, so my Fi becomes an Te. The question is then how do these relate?

Okay, from what I know so far, the dominant trait is most evident as a child through adolescence. For me this would mean I was an introverted and logical as a youngster (wrong!). The auxiliary balances things as you mature into adulthood, so according to this theory I'd be becoming more of an extroverted intuitive type. Or maybe it just means I'm looking for patterns and theory in the outside world. This could be true I suppose, but I became more introverted through out my twenties. The tertiary comes in as you really mature in mid life...I haven't gotten there so who knows if I'm going to start caring more about facts here and now and stop with all the theory (I hope not). The inferior indicator is unconscious, so no way to tell about that either.

This all leaves me suspect. I was far more extroverted and concrete as a child, I've only grown introspective and intuitive as I've matured. So that part of the theory doesn't exactly describe my personality development. Overall though, The INTP or INFP descriptions do seem accurate today. An intraverted Thinker with supporting extraverted Intuition is pretty dead on. Those are the INTP characteristics and I probably come closer to that than I am to an intraverted Feelings type person. I guess it's a close call but look at my all my attention to this SYSTEM (seems like Ti). But on more tests than not I actually come out INFP...actually it isn't even close, on like one test I've been INTP.

The theory has mixed reviews amongst clinical and research-based psychologists. Apparently the whole type theory is somewhat suspect and the Resived NEO-PI is now preferred. And if you do take the NEO-PI it looks at five factors and is used more as a diagnostic for treatment rather than as a basis to explain life-long behaviors.

Still interested from hearing from more people about the MBTI.6-16--7

Your Love of Graphic Novels Doesn't Make You Cool

2007-08-04T08:43:00.000-05:00

Okay, I don't know what I'm missing. I know graphic novels are art, but it's become cooler than female bisexuality to claim a deep love for graphic novels. I don't know if you people are too lazy to read or what, but newsflash, graphic novels blow ass. They aren't even novels.

I'm sorry to have to be the one to point this fad out to you, but someone has to. Yes, I want you in the bookstore. Yes, anything to get you reading. ...But the idea is to move on to more complex and thoughtful TEXT. Books aren't the end all and be all, far from it, they are only one outlet of expression. However, they do have depth require more focus than a graphic novel. Books can be fun, difficult, engaging, boring, funny, light, deep, but I'm not here to sell you on them really, just to ask you to consider them.

Graphic novels, I just don't get them, do I? See, my thing is, comics did it but then a more sophisticated version of the same art form evolved. Cartoons. Some cartoons are great, I'm not going to put them down. What I do wonder is why go halfway with the graphic novel? Animation is just graphic art made dynamic. I suppose some will say there is that space in the imagination between the comic or graphic frame and the fully animated which leads a person to speculate and imagine. Is this what people are really getting off on? I mean there isn't much left to the imagination really.

So basically I'm wondering if we've gone post-literate. People just don't want to be troubled to read? Go watch a cartoon then.

EDIT: The original title of this entry was "Post-Literate World, The Rise of the Graphic Novel" no one responded.6-16-07

This was So Special Because...?

2007-08-04T08:41:00.000-05:00

[Still catching up on posts- Ed.]I finished reading Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" last night and was thoroughly awake...sort of. It's post-apocalypto dystopian. It has menacing cannibals. It's kind of sad. It has its moments of suspense. Ash. Oh yes, lots of ash. And cold. But in the end, I'm left wondering why everyone loves this so much.

I know Oprah hearts The Road because of the whole father - son focus, but I didn't learn anything. It was intriguing, I think I can recommend it, you probably won't hate it if you decide to check it out. Book of the year candidate? I'm not so sure.

At least it's not sappy...except for the end. Have you read it? What are your thoughts?

6-17-06

Libido, What is it Good For?

2007-08-04T08:40:00.000-05:00

Larry from Three's Company is just about the last person I'd ever like to be compared to. Am I the only one out here fighting against my own libidinal desires? I hate to be compelled, as I keep repeating, even to the extent I fight my own biological desires, like sleep, hunger and sex. But sex, in particular, I have issues with.

I want to be in control of myself and my actions. There isn't much in this life I have direct and total control over and I dislike urges. Now, just to clear up what some of you may be thinking, I'm not nearly as interesting as you might imagine. When I say urges and fighting libido I'm not speaking of things considered deviant, nor am I talking about homosexual desires. The mundane desires I'm complaining about are traditional, monogamous heterosexual desires. Basically the in-born drive to reproduce.

And I know referring to sex drive as an innate drive to reproduce takes all the romance out of it (and despite this, or because of it, I'm pretty much the epitome of hopeless romantic). This may sound contradictory, but it isn't when you understand my inner-struggle to control my own sexual desire.

Maybe I just have too much sex drive, but actually I think my sex drive is probably average. Nonetheless, I HATE acting differently around women/ladies/girls/chicks (whatever) I find sexually attractive. I don't like losing control to what I feel is a subconscious desire overriding my conscious demeanor. But, try as I may, the libidinal drive happens.

Now I know my friends would be the first to tell you, I don't treat people differently. In fact, they'd tell you I don't show enough indication of desire to those I find attractive. The truth is, I go out of my way NOT to show this. Undoubtedly, and I've had this confirmed by others, women I've dated first believed I had no interest in them. This, of course, wasn't the case.

When I find someone physically attractive I feel almost as if I'm regressing to some atavistic state. Rationally, I feel like I'm objectifying the girl *which I AM doing, at least mentally, if I don't know her. And let me be clear once more, I don't have some inner compulsion to rape someone or doing anything else besides make doe-eyed remarks and generally make an ass of myself. Strange as it may seem, I'm talking normal, boring sexual attraction. I simply feel a loss of rational control, something I pride myself on. Now, I know, that's led to a shitty love life and the aforementioned confirmation by friends. I simply don't do a great job of outwardly displaying these characteristics of desire, and yet still there is the inner conflict.

I think to most women I find attractive I come across either as uninterested or incredibly shy. While I understand where they're getting this, it couldn't be further from the truth. Practically the most embarrassing thing I can imagine is appearing as a ladies man. Men, I believe rightly so, have a reputation for caring primarily about sex. Women are correct to have expectation in the world that a guy she doesn't know well is probably trying to seduce her if he's talking her up (however pathetic that attempt may be). I just don't want to be seen as that guy.

Just as women don't want to be objectified, I don't want to be thought of as slimy or single-mindedly concerned with sex. Yes, it's true that I may really be interested in sex when talking (or avoiding speaking) with a girl I find attractive (in fact, the reality is that that is almost certainly the case). The thing is, even if it's demanding (and perhaps unhealthy) I do a pretty good job at suppressing these desires. So what's to be done?

I guess I'm interested in hearing if there are any other males or females who can relate. I feel like I'm in a very small minority here. Guys seem either oblivious of their desires or appreciative of them. Most guys who appear shy, really are insecure, it isn't that they lack or have any desire to control their libido. But what about guys (or it strikes me now as sexist to presume females might not have similar issues, so also females)...how unique is my mindset?

Some of you, I have a feeling, won't understand my complaint. You'll either offer advice to go with the flow or stop being such a tight ass. Alternatively, I can imagine people offering outlandish proposals like becoming a eunuch or some such thing. My issue isn't that I feel a sex drive is amoral (religion and morality have nothing to do with, evolutionary biology does). I do not wish to get rid of my sex drive. I just wonder why I struggle with it so much and how I can around this.

Yes, I should be more laid back, no doubt - but why do I have these issues with control? Not that being normal is everything, but i wonder how common these feelings are? Any thoughts, opinions, questions or suggestions?

6-18-06

Dirty Mary Crazy Larry

2007-08-04T08:36:00.001-05:00

Another classic 70s car chase movie. I had remembered this one being better... If you can tolerate the plot and acting there is an amazing helicopter/car chase. It doesn't last long, but I swear the main rotor comes a foot from the ground. The insane part about the scene is that Vic Morrow is (supposedly) in the chopper. The dramatic irony is later decapitation of Morrow on the set of the Twilight Zone The Movie. The mode of decapitation? Helicopter accident. Creepy.

Cool car in this movie though. A 1969 Charger with the 440 cu. inch magnum "six pack" six barrel carburetor. In the film the refer to the car as yellow, but it sure looks electric green (and looked liked that on TV a few years back when I first caught it). Not a great movie, but a good genre flick.

There was a trailer for on the DVD for another Peter Fonda film I've never seen called, "Race with the Devil." I found it on netflix and bumped it to the top of my queue. The trailer was possibly the best I've ever seen...it could have been used as a parody in Grindhouse, it was that good. ...Anyway, the plot is right up my alley. There are some devil worshipers chasing Peter Fonda who's in an RV. I heart Satan worshipers as villains (seriously). Toss in Peter Fonda and an RV chase polt...sounds like entertainment to me. ...And probably no one else. :P

6-20-06

Ok, This Pirate Shit Needs to Stop

2007-08-04T08:35:00.001-05:00

It was cute and a little funny 5 years ago. It no longer is. You're on notice. 6-20

Hasselhoff is the New Shatner

2007-08-04T08:34:00.001-05:00

No longer do we have to be afraid of a void or vacuum being left behind when the great Shat passes to the other side. The 'Hoff will is the crown prince of whatever position it is that Shatner holds. It may be undefinable, but we know it's important.

Is there a petition I need to send around, or authorities who should be notified? They have procedures for this sort of stuff like finding a new Dalai Lama, Pope or what have you. Steps need to be taken before to assure an orderly succession.

EDIT: Fuck me. Someone has already beat me to the punch. I knew I was right though. Hoff the Next Shat

EDIT 2: Ok now I've had a chance to read the link and they only give Hoff 6 out of 10 for Shatnerhood. That's total bullshit, who can come close? 6-20-06

Race With the Devil

2007-08-04T08:29:00.002-05:00

[Still updating this blog with older posts from another blog - Ed]After a promo for Race with the Devil on the Drity Mary, Crazy Larry DVD, I quickly found it on netflix and bumped it to the top of my queue. Got it today and watch it. Pretty terrific little film...far better than Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry.

It's the same old 70's horror story: City slickers end up in the boonies and the hill folk don't take kindly to them. It's all fear strangers sort of psychological stuff. The interesting elements to this version is witnessing a Satanic sacrifice somewhere near Amarillo, and a fully pimped 70's RV (WITH A MICROWAVE!...mentioned twice in the film).

Important lessons I learned: When you see a guy with a pelt over his face, people in cloaks, a fire, then lots of nudity off across the river...it's not a party, nor is it an orgy. No need to get a closer look. Another thing. If I do happen to stay and watch, and a girl is sacrificed, DON"T go to the local hick Sheriff for help. (Especially when there is a boar's head mounted on the wall.) It's safe to presume he's in on it too, no need to let him take you back to the site. And, if I do end with this need to speak with the local constabulary, I will not take his advice and get my pimped out RV checked out at the local filling station. Even if all this happens, I sure won't spend another night nearby in an RV lot, leaving my cute little dog behind as let some locals take me to the country western bar where everyone seems to have forgotten their dentures (always a bad sign those prune lipped folk.) When I continually have to pull over at gas stations and shops, maybe I should take note that none of the phones work. It certainly isn't a good idea to keep telling locals where I'm going. And, finally, no matter what. It's always better to keep driving rather than stop and check to make sure everything is alright, because that's just asking for trouble. Oh, and I forgot, when caught prone on the floor of my RV with a rattle snake 3 feet from my face, the key is to stay perfectly still and then grab it with my hand and swing it around like mad.6-23-07

Problems with American Law

2007-08-04T08:29:00.001-05:00

Obligatory Disclaimer: I'm a licensed Attorney at Law here in Illinois, please understand that information presently, and at any other time, unless explicitly stated, is not legal advice and should not be construed as to have created a attorney-client relationship. If you need legal help, please contact your local bar association for a referral to a practitioner in your area.

EDIT: Jesus, I just "read" this over. I think I may have to rethink my stance on the need to proofread. I'm not going to take the time edit this, I wrote it quickly and had fun doing so. I probably could spend 20 minutes correcting and recasting but my point was simply to remind people that America is not, and has never been, a perfect nation. In truth, depending how you want to look at things, it can look pretty shitty. I don't buy into the conservative mantra that we should focus on the good, that is at least as bad as if one were only to look at the failures. We need to keep our eyes open. A big for instance now, if you'll indulge me, is corporate power. Many will read that and turn off their brains as they launch into the free market defense. The answer to corporate power isn't Communism, it's simply making logical, practical, regulations on the power of corporations. You don't have to be Marx or Lenin to appreciate corporations enjoy an amazing amount of influence today. It doesn't make you a socialist to want to see corporations probably shouldn't be writing our laws (for example). Anyway, I don't know what got me going on this, I know I've probably made a bunch of new typos and elisions...

Land of the FREE! A great nation of democracy. Over the past 6 years we've heard these terms bandied about so many times you'd think it was true. Give the devil his due, this isn't to say we're not much better off than we were in times past, but simply recall there never was a golden age. Let's take a look at the US system of law for several glaring examples of hypocrisy.

First we need to consider the rights upon which the US was founded, the very land itself, was, for the most part, illegally obtained. Indigenous people were forced off their land, signed contracts of adhesion under duress, and often simply weren't competent to allow for a fair, arm's length transaction.

Point 2, our strange legal system. Most people are unaware of our dual court system, Equity and Law. While the US Constitution sounds nice (for the most part...but more below) what was left out was the legal system (take a look at how sparse Article III relating to the Judicial Branch was made. The elephant in the room was that while we fought the British, we kept their law. It's called common law and was the basis of the American legal system. Not only did we bring concepts of precedence (stare decisis...let the decision stand, i.e., compare an instant case to decided similarly in the past) but we also kept the Law and Equity distinction. In the English system one could take a case before the Kings court, often simply called Chancery, or a Court of Law. The differences were tremendous. Courts of Law required very technical pleadings, that is, wording to win. You might have a very valid case, but if you simply forgot to plead something your case could be dismissed. In equity everything is different. Equity decides cases based on the weighing of the parties claims and fairness. In Equity the Judge has far more power. Today, all US jurisdiction I know of have merged law and equity, so that you a judge is free to pay attention to law and precedence, or simply ignore it on grounds of equity. This grants the trial court Judge EXTREMELY powerful in that he or she can do whatever they choose.

The electoral process is another instance where everything is not as fair as it is usually glossed. Have you ever noticed who runs primaries? It's the GOP and Dems. With tight grip on the ballot, onerous restrictions are placed third parties and their candidates simply to be put on the ballot. Ever hear about political parties in the Constitution? Well you shouldn't have, they aren't mentioned. The Constitution tried to set up a system where there wouldn't be political parties and their power would be diminished (no unelected Prime Minister here). And, we shouldn't forget that Senators were picked by state legislatures, not by the people. And one can may a very strong case against the 2 Senators per state setup...why is Wyoming represented like California? And Presidential elections? You may think you're voting for the President, but you're simply voting for state electors who usually don't appear on the ballot. Depending on the rules of your state your electors may be split according to the popular vote percentage in your state, but more typically who wins, gets all the electors of a state. What's more, electors generally aren't obliged to cast their votes according to the popular vote (they can vote differently, although this may not be true in every state and seldom happens regardless due to tradition). Then there is the problem we had in 2000 where the loser of the election won the Presidency due to electoral votes. But the Constitution got plenty of things wrong.

Importantly, only white males were give full legal rights. Women could control property (and in many cases could enter into legal contracts) but their powers were limited. Ever heard of Curtesy? Formally, that's a husband right to a life estate (meaning everything the wife owns or has inherited) should he be widowed and an heir has been born. Dowry? We know this one. This was property given to the groom in exchange for taking care of the wife (essentially freeing the family from the "burden" of taking care of an unmarried woman and creating an obligation for the husband).

Famously, blacks were counted as 3/5 ths a person for census purposes, but were afforded no rights (although states could grant rights - emancipation was the most common). Ownership of people was allowed in certain states. It wasn't until the end of segregation and the 1964 Civil Rights Act that anything like color blindness became the law

Women couldn't vote until 1920 (and honestly it was questionable until a 1922 case).

Until about 1950 it was illegal to belong to the communist party. Think about that. You weren't allowed to freely associate based on ideology despite the explicit protection supposedly granted by the 1st amendment. Eugene V. Debs, who ran for President 5 times, spent 10 years in prison for simply speaking out against the draft in WW I. Again, this is despite the clear language set out in the 1st Amendment.

And here's where it gets real tricky. Most non-lawyers think the US Constitution's Bill of Rights applies to them as protection against all government actors. The truth is, until the 14th Amendment and gradual inclusion of rights, traditionally by the concept of "selective incorporation" an individual was NOT entitled to protection against state officials. And who do you normally come into contact with? State officials. Even today there are many rights which are questionable as applicable to states.

The right to a public defender wasn't established until Gideon, and even now you aren't entitled to investigators like the prosecution has its disposal (although many jurisdictions provide this anyway, the resources allocated is nothing like a prosecutors office has to work with - and that's nearly universal). And what if you are convicted of a crime? Do we have adequate facilities to house you? That's real iffy and depends on the state. But it is nearly axiomatic that we don't have enough mental hospitals to keep those who should be locked up to protect society (say a child molester) instead we put them in traditional prisons and let them out early. How many crimes could we cut down on if we simply had facilities to treat those with mental illness? 20 %? My guess is more like 50 %.

Taft-Hartley, 60 years law of land, severely limits the powers of unions to do anything meaningful. People complain about unions doing little for them (which isn't the case typically) but, on the other hand, the unions have been castrated by Congress. Their ability to effectively strike, set up shops and generally the right to collectively bargain has hamstrung unions. If you don't work under a contract, you have little chance to get fellow people together to exert meaningful labor contracts. And, to my corporate minded friends, please explain to me why you can own a company, split profits collectively, free yourself from personal liability, and collectively bargain for the shareholders, but the people you hire don't have equal rights? And this ain't Europe folks. Without a contract your employment is "at will," so you can be fired without cause. Nor is there a right to medical care either, although Hospitals cannot refuse treatment in cases of true emergency.

I could write all day. The US isn't a terrible country, but we certainly are better than we once were. On the other hand, maybe should stop pretending this utopia and focus on continuing to improve.6-23-07

Make Your Fantasy Celebrity Mix & Match

2007-08-04T08:27:00.001-05:00

Pretty stupid idea, but wtf. Pick and choose, if you want to make more categories or critique, be my guest. Yeah it's shallow.

Face: Tie - Jessica Biel and Naiomi Watts

Body: Lindsay Lohan EDIT: Now leaning towards Shakira.

Brains: Rachel Maddow

Humor: Sarah Silverman 6-23-07

Why is it Cool to Bash Michael Moore?

2007-08-04T08:26:00.001-05:00

With Sicko due out on the 29th it looks like Michael Moore is once again kicking ass and taking names. I'm tired of people, even liberals --especially liberals(because I expect it from the right wing), all distancing themselves from him? I don't get it.

You hear stuff like, "I just don't like how he makes himself to be the star of his movies"...huh??? Well, I'd say the subject is, but they are his, films. And then you'll also hear people say he exaggerates...as if they've looked into it. Fahrenheit 9/11 was so scrupulous gone over by researchers and lawyers Moore had his own book, documenting every fucking line and sourcing it ready for the inevitable smear. I'm sure he's taken the same precautions for Sicko as well.

Some people don't like the guy for speaking out against the war...guess what he was right...again. So what. We need a firebrand, a muckraker to stir things up. We need a 1000 more Michael Moore's. But he'll be bashed and he knows it. The guy is a hero. One of the few people willing to continually say, no we've gone too far when we all know damn well he's right. But shoot the messenger, that's just the way it works.

6-23-06

Poll: What's Behind Most Fist Fights?

2007-08-04T08:25:00.001-05:00

Fist-fights you've personally been involved with or witnessed. What's the leading cause? I was just thinking how many fights I've seen in my day and how idiotic they all were. Not a single fight over politics. I'm glad I haven't seen a fight over race or religion, but why shouldn't politics and social issues get people emotional? So I want to know if I'm alone. What is generally the reason for fist fights you've personally seen or been involved with?

I also want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting fights are intelligent, and perhaps that's a factor...maybe only intelligent people argue over politics - but I don't think so. I think it's the woeful state of affairs that most people in America simply could care less. Politics is complicated, doesn't seem sexy, and you can't buy it (well...).

To pick a rough number I'd say I've probably seen 100 fist fights. 80 percent male, 20 percent female (with female fighting on the rise). Of these I'd have to say 90 percent of the men were fighting due to someone picking on someone else. Usually at bars, typically someone is a called a fag... For females it's nearly universally been about boyfriends. I've never seen a fight for anything I would deem worth fighting about. 6-23-06

Eliminating Sweets

2007-08-04T08:24:00.001-05:00

This may prove impossible for me, but it should be fun to try. The idea behind it is pretty much the Zone-Atkins-South Beach-diabetics approach. I'm not doing this to lose weight (I'm in good shape) but I have sugar cravings and I eat a tremendous amount of sweet things. The issue I have are these cravings and the subsequent lethargy and depression for a few hours afterwards. It seriously is a dependency if not an addiction.

I've actually tried this before and haven't had any success. I have cut out sugar colas, but I drink quite a bit of diet. What prompted me lately was reading someone's theory that nutrasweet tastes sweet, so it triggers an insulin response. The claim made was on a diet site and they contended that drinking diet drinks actually increase your appetite. I haven't noticed, but on the other hand I always binge on sweet foods anyway. And, now that I think about it, when my family first switched to diet drinks in the middle of high school, I did lose about 20 lbs...I drank a 12 of coke a day I'm guessing. So the theory may be bunk.

My eating habits are to skip breakfast entirely (I'm not hungry), if I'm smart I eat a salad for lunch , if I'm stupid I get a burrito and end up groggy, have a bad mood and headache. Dinner tends to be a meat or pasta dish. Then, at night I'll binge on some kind of sweets. So now I have a new approach.

I'm going to stop drinking the diet pop and go with water, try to eat some unflavored yogurt, fruit for the morning; a salad for lunch; and try to keep dinner reasonable. I've read about sugar withdrawal lasting up 'til two weeks if you make it. We'll see it goes, but it's tough, cutting out all processed sugars, anything not whole, fruits instead of juice. I'm going to try decaf coffee too. I've never liked it, but maybe increasing my exposure to bitter things will help. (And decaf because I don't do caffeine...cutting that out led to increased energy levels and fewer headaches, so I highly recommend it.)

Anyone tried cutting out sugars or know someone who has? What's the verdict?6-24--6

Students Not Allowed to Advocate Ilegal Drug Use?

2007-08-04T08:23:00.001-05:00

EDIT: I still have yet to read the decision, but from commentary it appears several of the conservative Justices in the majority would have ruled against the school if it was political speech. I still haven't heard anyone ask the obvious question I pose below: What about a student who wishes to advocate for a change in the law? How is a school administrator, not a lawyer or judge, supposed to know what's political speech and what isn't? This particular sign had a stupid message on it, but the kid claimed it was for a political purpose - simply to exercise his right to free speech. I should add that the event was not on school property, but the school allowed students to attend this event (some Olympic parade). The student in question never was marked as present (although I'm not sure if he showed up to school, my impression is that he didn't). He did, however, elect to stand with the school group. I don't know if teachers were there in an official capacity. END EDIT.

The Supreme Court made another terrible ruling today. The court said school administrators can punish students for advocating the use of illegal drugs. The speech in question was "Bong Hits for Jesus."

Think of the ramifications of this nonsense. Administrators now can suspend students for simply writing an article supporting the use of medical marijuana even though it is currently against the law. These drug laws are unconstitutional in the first place if you ask me. What right does the government have to tell you what you can eat, drink or smoke? It is your body. And to get hyper-technical the court even agrees with me, you can't be thrown in jail for simply taking a drug. They get around this by moronic possession charges. Note to the Sups...if you really don't think the gov't has the right decide what we put in our body, why not be consistent and not allow laws meant to do exactly that?

So now students don't have editorial control over their own student newspapers and aren't allowed to even support the use of drugs. This isn't taking drugs. This is simply allowing schools to punish a student for even suggesting that it's a good idea to take those drugs. And, the intent of the student doesn't matter. If the administrator reasonably thinks a student is advocating drug use they can suspend the kid.

Someone remind me about the First Amendment, why do we need it when we have school administrators and judges? 6-25-06

Amazing Sentence from Jude the Obscure

2007-08-04T08:22:00.001-05:00

I know the basic story of Jude the Obscure, but I'm just getting around to reading it for the first time. I had heard or read this sentence before, but I had forgotten (or never knew) where it originated. When I just stumbled upon it, it struck me as the best sentence I've ever read. I think you miss much of the impact without the context...it comes so early in the book and describes Jude as a child, explaining his sensitivity to harming any living creature. Can you imagine writing this?

"This weakness of character, as it may be called, suggested that he was the sort of man who was born to ache a good deal before the fall of the curtain upon his unnecessary life should signify that all was well with him again."6-25-07

10 Questions about the Divinity of Jesus

2007-08-04T08:20:00.000-05:00

[Still updating, original publishing date follows the entry. -Ed.]
Since Jesus isn't here, we're left to wonder if he was God. The idea is that we're supposed to take it on faith. So let's assume he was God, I have questions.

1. Why would God want us doubting his existence? Why let us doubt? What's so fucking great about not knowing? It's been 2000 years...those disciples got to see miracles every damn day and yet we have to go on some stories?

2. If he wanted us to doubt his existence why the need for miracles/magic?

3. What was so special about his magic tricks? Many faith healers claim to cure blindness?

4. We're supposed to believe Jesus raised Lazerus from the dead. If so, how the fuck could any of the disciples doubted this guy was God? If I see someone raised from the dead, you've got my devotion and I'm not leaving your side or turning you in...Same goes with walking on water, I mean wtf, that wouldn't prove it to them? Those disciples must have been some cynical bastards.

5. If Jesus is God/Son of God (like that makes any sense, but I'll go with it) why did he have this sudden change in disposition? The God of the Old Testament expresses all these human emotions, demands worship, kills people off, not to mention he's showing up all the time. Jesus shows up and it's hippie-commune-love-hour, and guess what, God's gonna chill for a couple thousand years and sit this baby out. I guess he/she/it can do anything for any reason, but then why should I worship it? ...Fear? Hurricanes aren't rational and they can invoke fear, maybe we should worship them.

6. He supposedly died for our sins right? The sins of humanity. But then we're told we have individual free will to believe in him? What sort of guilt trip is that and why would God want to make us all feel guilty? I sure didn't whip Jesus, he sounded like a good guy to me, I would have been on his side.

7. If I'm to believe in God, I have to give him credit for all my faculties, including rational thought. Belief that Jesus was God is irrational for so many reasons. Why believe him then? What about the other people of the world with other traditions? None of it makes sense. God also gave us the power of faith, or believing in the irrational, why then does he choose irrational over rational? I can just as irrationally believe my LCD monitor is God, so how are we supposed to know which irrational explanation to believe in? Considering the nature of irrationality, why would Jesus deny salvation to those that chose rational thought, those who chose a different irrational God, or those who never were exposed to his story?

8. He's God why not write down what he wants us to know? The miracle of literacy and scribesmanship too much to ask after bringing people back to life?

9. He's tortured. Yeah I know it's bad, but read up on the Indiana Torture Slaying of Sylvia Likens...Jesus had it easy (Ok that's being a dick on my part, he didn't have it easy, but as tortured killings go, my guess is he doesn't crack the Billboard Top 200.) Why go half-way?

10. Rising from the grave? Okay, why was this so amazing? He had already done it with Lazerus... And if you're going to pull this feat off, why not stick around, be immortal?(6-26-06)

A Liberal's Defense of Ann Coulter

2007-08-04T08:18:00.002-05:00

EDIT: I have not bought a Ann Coulter book, I've never been to her website. (Not that there is anything wrong with doing either.) I just like her tv schtick. And, no, of course I don't endorse any of her particular views, why take them seriously?

I get a kick out of Ann, and I know I'm not the only one. People need to lighten up. Coulter is a ham, and she really is rather funny. Stop being so sensitive to words and ideas. In the word of a student I know (and who's license plate reads) "chilax." And that's what everyone needs to do.

6/27/07

Are You Attracted to Your Opposite?

2007-08-04T08:18:00.001-05:00

Are you more attracted to people who exhibit personality traits which differ from your own? Which old saw is correct, "like attracts like" or "opposites attract?" I'm not speaking for the world as a whole, just taking a survey. So think about what you're like and the people you're attracted to. Any explanation? (7/1/07)

Why the Surge is Insane and Cannot Work

2007-08-04T08:13:00.000-05:00

1. The US is still stuck fighting Hitler; professional military defeats another professional military. Guerilla warfare is not professional versus professional, but professional versus amateur.

2. Guerilla warfare is more sophisticated than traditional US military strategy. US military strategy envisions victory achieved through either A) enemy surrender or B) killing all enemies. Insurgents don't need surrender or to kill their enemies their desires are more limited to forcing US withdrawal or gaining more power for themselves. The goals are far less lofty and easier to achieve for the guerilla fighters.

3. Guerilla's understand that war is struggle for psychological domination and subjugation. Physical warfare is only a strategy towards a goal. The US is tied to its technology, chained to a Hollywood idea of war, unable to understand what war is truly about.

4. Fundamentally, killing people is only a single strategy of war. Death is, like Becker made famous, denied. One of the central myths of western society is that you are immortal. Certainly no one really believes this, but death is given a very special significance. In day to day life there is a strange dichotomy in the west. Day to day, one purchase to the next, mortality is verboten. On the other hand, in our world of entertainment, death is the most important and frequent narrative device. In our movies, on tv, and in books, dying is a the most conventional tool to inspire action and conclude stories. So, when the US fights wars, mortality is given the same weird significance. Americans believe killing should achieve something. A death should provide resolution or give meaning. In truth, death is ubiquitous. All a military death can do is hasten the inevitable death we all face anyway. This is a power delusion, and Americans aren't the only people to fall sway. Hitler must have believed killing Jews would accomplish something - of course, all it did was embolden and embitter living Jewish people. (And I'm not saying this to diminish the many lives which were cruelly ended prematurely, rather, I'm pointing out the idiocy and futility of Hitler's goal.) Hitler caused an enormous amount of suffering, but that also led to devotion to struggle against him. The point I'm trying to make here is that killing isn't nearly as important as the US generally believes. We hype the significance of battle, we're big on strategies, but we pay little attention to the real aim of winning people to your side (whatever your aim may be).

5. As individual awareness of mortality increases, the fear and importance of death diminishes. So, the more Iraqis we kill, more we make living Iraqis realize how trivial life is. This trivialization of life and death prompts people to seek control over their own fate. For many Iraqis, they will choose to fight, thereby empowering themselves by taking control of their life and death. This also gives rise to the martyr and suicide bomber.

6. Guerillas are indigenous. The more "innocent" people die, the more chaos there is, the greater support an insurgency gains.

7. Guerillas create chaos if they are engaged. A country lacking stability, economic prospects, reliable health care, an educational system, electricity, and the freedom of travel all point people in remaining outlet - guerilla war. If an Iraqi cannot gain status and respect, if they lack essentials, they will seek out avenues where they can get respect. The "surge" works perfectly to exacerbate violence, limit travel, and remind the Iraqi public the US is unable to provide stability, safety or opportunity. They blame the US, the insurgency grows.

? What could the US do to achieve its purpose. Well it is NOT too late, it never is, however, the US hasn't shown it has the first clue it knows what it's doing, so it is very unlikely the US will ever help Iraq. Be that as it may, let me suggest a few things.

A)Make clear what the US purpose is. I believe its to establish a western society and keep US forces in Iraq. Oil too, I would presume. (And if this is colonialism, just call it that.)

B)Focus on stability (meaning try not to fire back) rather than quashing violence with violence.

C)Fund the rebuilding of mosques (for example the Golden Dome Mosque should have been rebuilt with American support in months - then it should have been protected).

D)Get the electricity back ON. Make it a priority.

E)Build more things for the Iraqis...schools, hospitals, universities, shopping centers, roads. When they get bombed rebuild them. The key is to get Iraqis to see we're determined to fix Iraq, and make it better for them.

F)Build courthouses and jails to be run by locals. Give the local police whatever they need to make things stable. Pay the police! People need to remember life is precious and the US can protect it. (Sure doesn't look like that's a focus these days...seems like we're into attacking things and torture.)

G)Build and fund FREE papers and news outlets. Encourage and PROTECT their ability to criticize the US. The Iraqis need a non-violent way to express their outrage at America.

H)Pay off the leaders of the insurgency, radical clerics and anyone with power. These people all want power. Give them power to control their own people. Organized crime is preferable because ground rules can be established. Get them involved in politics and government. All this will encourage their desire to have stability of some sort. 7/9/07

Awesome Gadget

2007-08-04T08:12:00.000-05:00

This is my new toy. It's called the Garmin Forerunner 205 (really some wordsmiths in marketing over at Garmin, huh?). Basically its just a GPS watch, with all sorts of cool features.

The watch is a little bulky, but surprisingly comfortable considering the pictures I'd seen online. It syncs quickly with the satellites and yet to lose a signal. Once you get running it seems to track distance VERY accurately and monitors a host of factors along your run. Current pace, distance, time, calories, time of day and elevation. If you're seriously training, or maybe have a cardio issue, they also make the 305 version which tracks heart rate. Now, this is all well and good, but does it help?

I've only used it a couple of days now, but it seems to be very helpful. The software is a little clunky (it's crashed the XP system a few times with driver failures) requiring you hook your watch to a USB cradle, launch their training center software and then import the data. Once imported the fun, and utility, really begins.

The software maps your run for one thing, and when I say map, I mean it. If you go ten feet off in one direction it will detect it. You are able to chart speed, distance, pacing and elevation on a time graph...cool info, but it gets better. (And I have to add that Garmin doesn't claim the elevation works that well as it is largely based off of comparisons to local survey results; they do offer a more sophisticated barometric version or add-on if you really need exact elevation - so far the elevation seems to be pretty accurate.) Using the new map you can now plot course points and use them in conjunction with a "virtual partner" which either runs at a pre-assigned goal pace, or the pace of another run you've had. At any given moment you know if you're falling behind or ahead. And then there is Google Earth integration.

Now my location doesn't have the very high detail sat images, but even with their mapping or image overlay you get a cool look at your route. Better yet, since this is done through a website called "motionbased.com" you can "play" the run of your choice and it will show a little cursor indicating how fast you were going and the elevation. This is perhaps the biggest "neato" feature since the motionbased site is free to use. They even sync your workout time with local temperature and humidity! Then you can decided whether you want your run/race published on the web for your friends to see. The whole system still isn't perfect though.

As I mentioned the software is buggy. Plus the info is so cool, you'd love to have the google mapping and web publishing live, I've already had friends family ask about this. The thing is, this is a receiver and recorder, not a phone, so real-time isn't possible yet. Additionally, I'd like the Nike + style audio real-time info and motivation...perhaps the immediate solution is to use both (the GPS has better accuracy). I would have done the whole iPod thing years ago (before the +) had they developed an AM/FM receiver with manual tuning (yes I know they have a radio add on now, however I don't believe it makes for easy adjustment while attached to your arm; dialing through local stations is my favorite running activity and it's damn near impossible to find manual tuners these days).

All and all, a pretty cool gadget for any runner, biker, hiker etc. And FYI for people who like to travel with their cell (in case of creepy stalker-abductor thug-types) there IS a cell phone service which uses GPS, can play music and allows for uploading of data for analysis. The only catch is that it appears to only be Sprint service and isn't as accurate as the Garmin. Cost is something like 10 bucks a month. Take a look at this guys side-by-side of the GPS phone/mp3 v. Garmin Forerunner here.

7/11/07

NPR Affectation, 9/11 and The Wire

2007-08-04T08:10:00.002-05:00

[Still catching this blog up to date with older posts.- Ed.]Do people really enjoy that folksy banjo-playing jar-whistling music you hear so often on NPR? You know the ones I'm talking about, they're named things like "Uncle Bodine's Barnyard Boys" or some other irritating name? I'm not saying this is a new phenomenon, "O' Brother.." did a whole movie on it. Maybe people really like this stuff but it seems like pure affectation to me. The songs are almost always retarded lyrically, as if they're liked for their stupid simplicity.

Which brings me to Lake Wobegone. I like Garrison Keillor, he can be very funny, but the entire premise of the show is a cynical inside joke about small town living. Don't get me wrong, I have no affinity for rural America but the joke is pretty lame. Bob Newhart's 80's tv show, as well as Northern Exposure covered the ground pretty well. (And Mama's Family together with HeeHaw before it.)

Another thought. Why can't the US government's possible involvement with 9/11 be mentioned in polite conversation or on television without someone name calling the person who brings it up? I know some of you read the 9/11 Report...the novel. Has anyone EVER read a government report so absurdly weird? Since when did government reports become prose non-fiction? Anyway, the general opinion is that clearly, obviously, unquestionably, you're a nut to think otherwise, is that Osama and 19 hijackers carried out 9/11. Furthermore, you can't even speculate about how the towers seemed to come down like a controlled demolition, as if terrorists hadn't tried to do that in 1993 anyway. (Assuming it was these crazy Muslims, why can't you suggest they might have planned to fly into the towers AND bomb them. No gov't involvement needed there. Same group of guys. And people can and do go on and on about the weirdness of the 9/11 attacks (not to mention the strange anthrax mailings). There really are plenty of reasonable questions regarding 9/11 (like how did WTC 7 collapse, why were some terrorists being funneled money through the Saudi's Ambassador's wife?).

I have no idea what happened on 9/11 but that's the point. Not everyone remembers that Bush claimed almost immediately to have proof Al Qaida carried out 9/11, but then refused to make it public showing only Tony Blair and Mushareff (sp). Why has no one lost their job over 9/11? Isn't it very sane to wonder how a jet can fly into the side of the pentagon (forget the absence of physical debris or the lack of even marks on the ground)? Shouldn't someone be fired over that? Would you have guessed any old plan could just crash into the Pentagon? We spend 400 billion a year on military spending and we didn't have functional anti-aircraft in DC when Saddam had it all over Baghdad in 91?

I'm not saying for a second that I have the foggiest clue about what really happened. 19 terrorists really could have simply gotten lucky, but shit me if there aren't legitimate questions about what and how. So why then are people called nuts for speculating? It reminds me of the "it can't be stealing oil" argument you hear so frequently explaining the Iraq war; "where's the proof?," they say. Well it sure doesn't look like it was honestly about WMDs. Lacking a believable governmental explanation about attack Iraq, all you have is speculation. Oil seems like the obvious choice. Maybe it wasn't oil. All I know is it wasn't WMDs and no other reasonable explanation has been offered. Give me a better hypothesis, don't call me crazy for making my own guess.

The Wire is a fantastic show. I'm on season 2 (there have four so far with a fifth, final, season planned for next year. Season 2, isn't as good as 1, but it's still amazing. The show gets terrible nielsen numbers but I'm not the only one who thinks it's great. Rent or buy it if you're not familiar with it. (7/17/07)

Iraqi Oil Law Fun

2007-08-04T08:10:00.001-05:00

Just found a great website for information about the proposed Iraqi oil law. The basics of the law can be found here.. Hard to find good info on this subject as the US government hasn't been wont to let it out in the open. It is, however, one of the Iraqi "benchmarks."

7/18/07

I have Pyroluria and My Nano Blows

2007-08-04T08:09:00.001-05:00

Yes ladies and gents, it appears I have a controversial condition. Pyroluria, for those who contend it's real, results in a vast deficiency in B6, Zinc and Omega-6. The late doctor Carl Pheiffer MD PhD helped advance the notion after studying schizophrenics. Pheiffer claimed 27 percent of all schizophrenics show deficiencies. Today, the Pyroluria crowd seems focused on autism and adhd, specifically the ability of vitamin therapy.

There is very little sound medical literature out there, but I happened on a description which fit me pretty well. Notably, no dream recall, no morning appetite, sensitivity to light, pale skin and white spots on finger nails. All the above apply to me, so I decided to get tested.

Getting tested normally means a urine test sent away to some Kansas lab, but I went for the zinc test. The zinc test involves arranging with a compounding Pharmacist to prepare a zinc drink which you swish in your mouth for 10 seconds. If you have adequate zinc levels you should find it most unpleasant, if you have a slight deficiency you notice a delayed, but pronounced, metallic flavor, and if you have woefully deficient it tastes like water. As an alternative to going to a Pharmacist you can pick up an expensive bottle of Zinc Chk, Zinc Challenge or Zinc Status which are all prepared liquids and do the same thing.

So yesterday I headed into the Vitamin Shoppe (they're online, but if you have a store nearby I highly recommend) and picked up some Zinc Status. Once I arrived home I prepared the dose and expected the experience to be unpleasant (I had taken zinc the previous few nights). But, to my surprise, no matter how long or how much I take of the stuff it tastes like water to me - so much so I had to have it tried out on someone else to verify it wasn't a bad bottle. Sure enough they hated it. So I guess I have no Zinc.

I'm now taking these big doses of B6, P-5-P (what B6 is broken into), Zine and Evening Primrose Oil.

The good news is that treatment comes quickly, usually in a day or two up to a few months. So, I dosed myself up last night and to my surprise had a couple dreams...one a nightmare about a four story house where the top floor needed to be boarded up from something (and it got out)...scary and woke my ass up. That is unusual for me as I never recall dreams. Even if it was unpleasant, it was still a dream, so I'll take that as a good sign.

In other news, I finally went iPod and got my Nano (through Ebay, new) yesterday. Sadly, Mr. Nano is a POS which won't hold a charge or work, really at all. So now I'm trying to get in contact with the seller to try to get this resolved and obtain a replacement. I did have fun importing some old CDs into iTunes. One of the songs was the Pixies' Velouria, which coinkidentally rhymes with Pyroluria (sort of). 7/22/07

Damn that frowny little smiley face on the iPod

2007-08-04T08:08:00.001-05:00

Johnny Hosed by Ebay iPod Selling Asshole Edition - Updated!

Can those Ebay ratings be fake? The guy still hasn't gotten back to me. I think the iPod is used, the Apple logo on the back was worn. I don't know, I guess that's what you get for trying to save 50 bucks. In my defense his ratings are good and I did pay attention to them. Everyone else seems pleased as punch with their shit. All I know is that I want a new one pronto.

(7/22/07)

Need Opinions....Too Much Information for Profile?

2007-08-04T08:06:00.000-05:00

I just added this to my profile under "the most private thing I'm willing to admit." I'm interested whether this is just too much, or if it's a good idea. Previously, I've hinted at it, but I kind of feel like a used car salesman glossing over important info to know. So what's your call?

Text:

The thing is, I have intimacy problems with girls. I'm avoidant, I may even have some sort of AvPD, and definitely a form of social anxiety dealing with the opposite sex. Although this has led to some loneliness, I'm otherwise normal excepting I don't have a wide social circle, preferring old friendships to new ones. Be that as it may, dating is a major complicating factor for me, so I probably should elaborate.

I don't date much. I believe it's from a fear of rejection that I try to keep my distance from girls I find interesting. (I tell myself I don't want to come across as a sleaze-ball-womanizer-sexual-harasser-type, but, to be honest, it's just a defense mechanism because I'm scared of getting hurt. ) Things are much easier online for me (email is a life saver), but some issues crop up here as well.

When I come across someone interesting, what tends to happen is that we start communicating, only to have things fizzle out when the inevitable "let's meet for coffee" happens too soon for me. (I can move at a glacial pace when getting to know someone and it takes me awhile before I feel comfortable talking on the phone or meeting someone in real life). This, I think understandably, can be quite confusing to people.

So, I’ve learned to just be upfront rather than cause hurt feelings later. That means, I guess, I need to make clear I really am, ultimately, seeking some sort of relationship and not just platonic friendship - despite how I come off.

I realize this is complicated, but in the end I think it's only fair as it explains why I'm 31, single and never married. Hope this explains things somewhat. Who knows.(7/23/07)

Defense Mechanisms and Trust in a Relationship

2007-08-04T08:04:00.000-05:00

Ok, this may come off like I'm on crack, but I wanted to come up with a metaphor to explain why and how I picture relationships. ...Especially why I take so long to get to know someone.Allow me some imagery.

Picture getting to really know someone totally as reaching a castle. The thing is, the castle is surrounded by defenses. Some people have the gates flung wide, or maybe they don't have walls surrounding them at all. Most people, I believe, have walls (or to use a computer analogy rings) of trust.

I'm someone who's walls are damn far away from the castle, and they've been built up over the years. However, I don't have other defenses lurking inside. Once I open up to someone I trust them completely. Many people would even say naively.

Most people would have more small defenses around them, but then big walls built very close to the castle. They'll get in relationships, and in the extreme, sometimes marry, never letting anyone reach inside. Most people just let people get closer, more quickly, than I do. But, in the end I think many aren't nearly as trusting in relationships.

(Originally published 7/23/07)

1/5th of iPhones Sold

2007-08-04T08:03:00.001-05:00

1/5th of their initial projection anyway. Is this really a surprise to anyone? I mean, don't get me wrong, I want one, but 600 bucks?

I've bitched about this before, but didn't Apple pay any attention to the PS3 debacle? 600 bucks is just more than young people (target demo) have to readily spend. Even 400 is stretching it for many. Think about it.

The typical iPhone (which I still expect to be a success in some later iteration) user would be social, addicted to their iPod and conscious of trends. We're not talking wall flowers for the most part. This is the crowd spending money at the bars they probably shouldn't spend. They've got car payments, credit card payments, rent to handle. And what are they doing...either they're hired at multiple, low paying jobs with no benefits, or entry-level shit jobs that take up all their time and demand they buy a whole additional wardrobe. 600 is too much.

Yeah, the 30ish hipsters will all have one, I'm sure they're the 1/5th that did buy one. They've got the income or credit(even though they still live above their means) but shit, this is small.

I read somewhere it cost Apple around 300 bucks to make these things, so the need for 100 percent profit? Even though the geeks will probably hold off until the AT&T exclusivity is hacked (another ridiculously moronic move on Apple's part) think of all the high school and college kids that would have found a way to scrape together 400 for one of these.

The good news is that the iPhone is has lots of room and functionality to improve. iPhone 2.0 should have all the kinks worked out and add the missing features. The phone itself is a great first effort, but shit me if they didn't screw themselves going for money with the profit margin and AT & T exclusivity. In case anyone wondered, Apple is making money hand over fist with iPods, iTunes and their laptops. You'd think, when they launch into a new market segment they would have thought things through. (Of course, I realize, much of the iPhone pricing is due to outrageous iPod prices which people continue to pay. Make the iPhone too cheap, they probably figured they'd lose the great iPod sales. (Originally Published 7/25/07)

Prevarication Caught on Tape Attorney General Ed.

2007-08-04T08:00:00.000-05:00

Talking Point Memo's 5 or 6 minute highlight reel from Alberto Gonzales' "testimony" before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. Watching the news last night I thought it had been a poor showing, but this clip is really just something else. Gonzales is practically begging for impeachment or contempt. Just amazing. (Originally Published 7/25/07)

Why the Surge is Insane and Cannot Work

2007-08-04T07:57:00.000-05:00

UPDATE3: Arianna Huffington has written a post very similar to mine. Apparently I'm not the only one who smells a rat. We are of a like mind about what Petraeus will say in September (postive) and that Bush is very likely readying a new post-Surge plan. Let's hope this catches on and people aren't fooled once again. /UPDATE3

UPDATE 2: Okay, just to be fair, they're claiming these troops will only maintain the 15 brigade, pre-surge level and not the 20 brigade Surge level. Still, this doesn't sound right if there are about 3500 troops per brigade. That means the difference between Surge and normal levels is only 17,500? I've read it was up to 30,000. So what gives? No matter, the story is clearly provided to get people ready for the Surge being prolonged, regardless of the excuses. /UPDATE 2

UPDATE: Just today comes a report that the Pentagon plans rotating in another 20,000 troops before the end of the year to maintain the Surge levels until at least spring. This is a perfect example of strategy #8 where the endless Surge is presented as a fait accompli. The report today covered all the bases even claiming that this 20,000 number had been discussed back in May. So duh, don't you feel stupid for not paying attention. ...Of course I follow politics and news to probably an unhealthy degree and I never heard this before today. If this number was bandied about it sure wasn't reported widely. But this is the strategy, and it appears to work. /UPDATE

Two guys from Brookings wrote a piece in the Times today that reports the Surge is showing signs of success. No one is dumb enough to say it's done what they said it would do, militarily or politically. Baghdad STILL isn't secure and no oil law has been passed as the Iraqi P-Funk takes off until September. What's amazing is that the media won't call bullshit.

Keith Olberman will hint at it, but where are the honest reporters out there reminding people that give us another 3-6 months is the battle cry for this war. The liberal blogs even have a name for it, a "Friedman Unit" (or six months). As in pro-war supporter Tom Friedman's oft repeated, ...we should know whether this will work in six months.

So here we are again seeing more "Freidman Units" that will be called for. We've seen this movie before so here are the low-lights about what we can expect between now and Patreus' September report:

1. The first step is to create an extreme time scenario so people will accept "just another few months" as reasonable. We'll increasingly hear that troops will have to stay in Iraq for at least 2 years (2009 seems to be popular of late) but will range up to 20 years or more.

2. There have to be reports of success. All along, no matter how shitty things have spiraled downward, we've always heard things are improving, this time will be no different. The report in the Times on Monday is one obvious example. "We're just starting to see success," one of the authors said on Hardball yesterday, "they deserve a couple more months to see if this improves. This may be the strategy that wins the war." The theme of the Surge being the ultimate strategy which "turns the tide" or "brings victory" will be played up. "Just starting to see positive signs..." We've had so many positive signs emerge from Iraq over the past 4 years it ought to be beating Disney World for family tourist attraction - but alas it's all just a line.

3. Play-up Al Qaida. Bush mentioned Al Qaida 95 times in one speech last Tuesday, think he hasn't seen the memo?

4. Blame the Iraqi politicians. This is clever because it A)minimizes the real military problems and B)distracts from our military failure by placing blame on the puppets we have enshrined in the Green Zone.

5. Declare a lessening in sectarian violence. This is actually is new because the Iraqis have stopped counting bomb victims as sectarian. Now those are Al Qaida, read terrorist, deaths, not sectarian violence.

6. Avoid speaking of the massive increase in American dead. If this is discussed at all, it is explained as due to the more aggressive tactics and larger numbers of troops we're using. (Note the dichotomy with number 7.)

7. The Surge has just started. This crafty lie is only true if you count the very last of the troops entering combat (sometime in June). Two problems with this. One, more troops have been arriving since January, there simply won't be any more increases dating to some time in June. Two, and this is where #6 fits in, American deaths over the three month period ending in June were as high as any three months EVER in the war to date. So even if you want to argue the Surge wasn't fully implemented, it sure was having deadly effect early for American forces.

8. Refer to the September report as simply a "progress report." Speak of the Surge as if EVERYONE knew it would go into next year. This is simply removing the significance of the September report which nearly everyone has said from the Surge's beginning would be the final report on whether the new strategy succeeded.

9. Hint, or overtly claim, that if you criticize the war or Surge that you aren't supporting the troops. This is simply base. Hiding behind the military, pretending to speak on their behalf...as if the military people want to stay in Iraq longer. We have numerous polls showing this has not been the case for a long time (at least Army Times and Zogby I'm aware of).

10. Make the false dichotomy/straw man attack that supposes the alternative to ending the surge is "immediate" or "precipitous" withdrawal of troops. Name one responsible person who has suggest such a move. The alternative to the Surge is drawing down forces and redeploying as fast as we can safely do so. Just like we took time to build our troop levels it will necessarily take time to withdraw them. (And even then most people still want a residual force.)

11. If you say the Surge isn't going well you're aiding the terrorists. This was Edelman's strategy with regard to Hillary Clinton's inquiry about troop withdrawal plans. The idea is to associate any position against the surge as pro-terrorist, anti-American. You'll also hear more along the lines of, "don't look now but we may be winning, Democrats are looking to snap defeat from the jaws of victory." And if they're real assholes, they'll add, "...just like Vietnam."

12. Don't focus on the negatives. Just a week ago the US Embassy in Baghdad was forced to tell visitors not to come as they could no longer protect them in the Green Zone. The Green Zone was coming under mortar attacks and it was simply too dangerous. Did you hear much about this story? I doubt it.

13. Switch attention to Iran's involvement. This makes our mission in Iraq seem much more important and necessary if we are really fighting Iran and not simply failing to suppress a civil war.

14. Have politicians make unsupported claims to success as Joe Lieberman did several weeks ago. He got up and addressed the Senate claiming that war far to early to judge the Surge a failure "we must give the soldiers time." ...Then go on to draw your own conclusions as Holy Joe did, "the Surge is show signs of success." If it is truly to early to judge, isn't it too early to say it's doing well just as he claimed it was too early to say it was failing?

15. Bring up the unanimous approval of Patreus and then claim it is somehow inconsistent to judge his strategy as ineffective. This is done by claiming the man needs more time, as if there is something wrong with giving him a chance and now, later, deciding things aren't progressing as one would like.

16. Finally, make Patreus' recommendations and report the final word on the Surge. Of course the man will say his strategy is having some success. Of course he will ask for more time. This was never in doubt if you know anything about human nature. It's his plan, do you expect him to say he fucked up and some extra time is useless? Petreus will ask for more time and claim some success, that isn't in question and never has been. The Surge needs to be evaluated independently in September when Petreus gives his report.

So, the Surge is going to work even if it's not working (which assuredly it isn't...for why it cannot possibly work, please find my early post on the same topic). The plan has always been to stay in Iraq. The Surge is simply the latest tactic to draw out and prolong the US commitment. Of course, even after the Surge is given extra time to work, they'll simply come out with a new strategy and, likely, a new General to run it. Then, once again, it will be, just give us another Friedman Unit (six months) and we'll know. Don't hold your breath

Why Not to Get that Diamond Ring

2007-02-12T10:58:00.000-06:00

Here's a pretty good summation of the many practical reasons you shouldn't purchase diamonds. The article covers most everything for the fabled scarcity of diamonds, their historic ties to marriage (doesn't date too long ago), to the problem with conflict diamonds and the many fraudulent "conflict-free" certificates out there.

The only issue I have with article is how it suggests diamonds weren't thought special before the 1800s. That simply isn't the case. We know diamonds, along with many other gems have long been valued practically as far back in history as you choose to investigate. The author may be quite correct about the link between engagement rings and marriage though.

Nonetheless, the article is interesting and certainly will keep me from buying one (of course I'm against the giving of expensive things in contemplation of marriage from the outset - crass imo). So, here's the article you should check out.

Obama for President

2007-02-12T10:54:00.000-06:00

As you know, Obama declared for the Presidency over the weekend. I hope you had a chance to sign up for his exploratory committee, but if you missed out and want to get involved, click over to his offical website and sign-up. The site is appears to need a little work still, so don't expect all the "myobama" profile, blog, and networking stuff to work just yet.

Also, a glaring mistake, they don't have official Obama gear available yet. Until they do, head on over to cafepress's Obama section. I've dealt with them several times before and they are reputable, so no worries there. The amount of Obama merchandise already available is staggering, the link will take you to the first of many pages with most designs available in t-shirts, bumper stickers, coffee mugs and all the rest. I have my order in, just remember this site isn't (yet) affiliated with the Obama campaign and what you buy won't give money to the campaign.

Remember that most of the nation still doesn't know Obama yet. Those silly stickers do serve a purpose. Marketing, i.e., name recognition for the many people who still don't know Obama.

Ruminations on Rove's October Surprise

2006-10-15T22:51:00.000-05:00

In 2004 it was the Osama tape, what will 2006 bring? Of course, maybe it was vote fraud as Robert Kennedy Jr. thinks, but whatever it was, Rove delivered. So now the GOP is facing a route, which appears, to be of historical magnitude. But if this is the case, why is Rove so happy? Does he really have another surprise up his sleeve?

Something caught my attention this morning which just might be a clue. What I noticed was a lack of attention by all the major Sunday morning pundicoms regarding one particular matter; Foleygate. The feature story on all the shows was Monday's nuke test by N. Korea. A significant story and it isn't surprising it got major attention--but why did Foley get no play?

The nightly political shows were done with N. Korea talk by Wednesday, too many new developments with the Foley story kept popping up. You have Foley and Reynold's guy going under oath saying he told Hastert's office of Foley two years ago. We have Hastert throwing his own live-in staff under the proverbial bus. There is a list of gay GOP staffers making the rounds on Capitol Hill. We even have a timely book by an insider of Bush's "Faith-Based-Initiatives" program writing a tell all book which ties-in rather nicely tied to the GOP anti-family values narrative. There's even now another gay GOP Congressman, Jim Kolbe, under FBI investigation for camping trips with pages. You can't make this stuff up. So how could the Sunday shows miss this?

My tin foil hat leads me to wonder if someone isn't applying pressure to bury the Foleygate story; why else did they ignore it? Which leads to the obvious follow-up question, who has the power to quash such a story on the major network shows? I wouldn't think Bush could, but who the hell else? Denny Hastert??? And it isn't as if the story is being killed everywhere, it's all over the net, and as I said and the nightly political shows have it covered. The whole thing is weird.

I'm already to the point where I've lost faith in our national election's being legitimate. I'm not convinced they are fixed, but I also don't rule it out. But should the Democrats NOT take over at least one house of Congress, I think I'll have no option but to think manipulation. Perhaps it will be something obvious, like a strike on Iran or perhaps just voting machine rigging, who knows...but how can Democrats lose at this point? What has the GOP done right in the past 2 years?

There are so many scandals a person has trouble remembering them all. Paying reporters, gay hookers posing as journalists in the White House Press Corps, Plame-gate (with Scooter facing trial), Abramoff, Cheney shooting the guy in the face after drinking, the lack of response to Katrina, the continued lying about Iraq, Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Coin-gate, Macaca and noose in the law, illegal NSA wiretapping and bank record search, Abu Ghraib and assorted torture, and now covering-up for a child sex-predator leading directly to the Speaker's Office. And I'm sure I'm forgetting many, AND this is an off-year election where the ruling party typically doesn't fare well.

If the Dems don't win big, the system is rigged.

Rove Upbeat

Loose Change

2006-09-14T06:45:00.000-05:00

So I was pretty damn tired with all the 9/11 memoralization when I happened on Paula Zahn doing an interview with editors of a movie suggesting the US government staged the attacks. I've long been of the the opinion that, at the very least, the US government got burned by intelligence assests, may very well have looked the other way so as to allow an attack. I've also never ruled out the possibility that this was an elaborate "false flag" operation, completely staged, involving a cruise missile and remote controlled aircraft.

Wait, that's a conspiracy theory, you can't believe in those. Conspiracies can't be massive cover-ups, can they? Well, remember, the government version wants you to believe AT LEAST 22 people conspired on 9/11, and, were able to do so under the nose of fairly close US intelligence. So, just remember, despite what you hear, all the explanations are elaborate conspiracy theories; it is simply a matter of which theory you believe.

The major issues which have led me to question the official story has always been the plane into the Pentagon. How could that have happened? Where were the anti-aircraft missiles and guns? Why would a pilot fly into the side of the building instead coming down on it from above (it's only the world's largest building...and it something like 5 stories tall, the thing is like a bull's eye from the sky, seems to me you would aim for the center and try to fall through the top of the building...). And where was the debris? Air disasters leave messes...everyone I know of has strewn shit for miles, but not this one.

As far as the attacks on the towers themselves...well those have always seemed more plausible. Hijackers and flying planes into buildings doesn't strike me as hard to imagine. What is surprising is that WTC 7 appears to have been brought down by controlled demolition late in the afternoon of 9/11 despite never having been hit. That is VERY suspicious. And it has always left a bad taste in my mouth about how no other version or theory has been allowed commercial media coverage. For example, the towers did appear to collapse as you would expect them to had controlled demolition been used. Terroists did try to use a large bomb on the towers in 1993. Why is verboten to suggest BOTH hijackings and bombs in the building couldn't have been part of an al Qaeda plot? Why does that damage the government theory? And yet even that idea is called wacko.

And you may not recall, but Bush never wanted this thing investigated. For a long time he claimed to have "secret" proof that he couldn't share with the public, that Osama was behind this. The secret proof was shown to Tony Blair and the President of Pakistan (who reportedly claimed there was no evidence upon initial meeting with the US, only to change his story a week later). When Bush was finally forced to impanel a commission he chooses Henry Kissinger to head it up? Kissinger of all people? The least reliable, most inside of inside, devious political operative of the past half-century to head the 9/11 commission? And despite Kissinger declining the roll, something half the eventual members of the commission were current or former partners or employees of Kissinger's consulting firm. Almost everyone of the other members seemed to have conflicts of industry, some from the airline industry, like form IL Gov. Jim Thompson, with others, like chairman Kean being hooked up with the mideast oil business. Others were connected to millitary intel or contractors. And fine, they were connected, but also look at how extremely limited their budget was...initially less than the Clinton Lewinsky investigation (maybe even ultimatetly). There are other major problems with the official story.

To name a few, why does Bush hop in a plane upon, finally, getting word of the terrorist attacks? Hello? Isn't being in the air about the worst and last place he ought to have been? Why has so little been made of the funding of some of the terrorists in San Diego tied to the wife of the Saudi Ambassador been so hush hush? And what about the failure to find any of the black box recorders at 911...not one, despite the success identifying almost all victims ? Why weren't the terrorists on the initial passenger lists given to the public? And is it really conceivable that Richard Clarke, on his own authority, could ok plane loads of Saudis to be flown from the US in the immediate days following 9/11? This wasn't the type of call an underling makes, sorry to burst that bubble. The President would have had to make that call to let the Saudi nationals leave, but we're told otherwise. And finally, let us suppose Clarke did act on his own making the decision to ok the Saudi exodus, shouldn't he, and wouldn't you expect him to be fired for doing so???? Oh yeah, then there are the FBI and CIA whistle blowers and the 9/11 families suing the government based on some of the above...and yet that doesn't make this a credible story? No, we're supposed to sit back and read that strange 9/11 "report" which turns out to be a second rate, true crime novel, not a serious report.

So this is all leading to the me posting a link to the google video of the movie Loose Change. It doesn't address all of my concerns, there are certainly far more inconsistencies to consider, but it does do an excellent job. Loose Change 2nd. Ed.

David Brooks Is Right About Tattoos

2006-08-27T13:33:00.000-05:00

We all know tattoos are a fad, who would have guessed that conservative columnist Brooks would bring an excellent Marxian critique to the subject?

In short...tattoos (and he hints at piercings) are the socially acceptable form of rebellion of today. Pretend you're a rebel. Pretend you're a biker of the wild bunch, just make sure to have the latest cell phone.

Nonconformity Is Skin Deep - New York Times

What's UP

2006-08-22T13:09:00.000-05:00

Things since last post:

1. Lieberman lost. Great news, except Lamont is a dork. Let's hope Lamont can win in Novemeber, I expect he will.

2. The Israeli war. Well that was stupid, not to mention criminal on the part of Israel. Turns out that the US and Israel planned the whole thing prior to the kidnappings, so that was all bullshit. And, btw, notice how no mention is made of the return of the kidnapped soldiers? Did I miss that or isn't it important?

3. Iraq falling further into civil war. Well, we knew this would happen after the Bush made the mistake of uprooting the entire society by putting the Shiites in power (Sunnis will never except that). It hasn't helped matters that the US has failed to commit adequeate forces to keep the place safe. Iraq really is turning into Vietnam, although I seriously doubt America is leaving anytime soon because of the oil.

4. Iran. I'm still thinking the US will attack Iran. Low polling, looks like the economy is tanking, and may be the last opportunity to invade Iran before they get a nuke. Of course war would mean potential worldwide economic depression, but increased US debt with an infusion of money into the military sector might keep the US going. And in the long run, if you ever did get governments in Iraq and Iran controlled by the US, it would be mean huge profits, power and prosperity for America. Of course, the operative word in the previous sentence is "if." I don't see how the US could achieve control of Iraq and Iran without millions of troops on the ground for quite some time. That means a draft. Can a draft be sustained politically? Depends on how bad the economy is and how effective the anti Iranian propaganda was. As always, I'm rooting for Russia or China to get smart and sell Iran a couple nukes, one to test detonate and one to protect itself. That would prevent any US invasion and create a great deal of stability very much needed in the mideast.

5. John Mark Karr. Distraction, but no need to poo poo the story, American media IS always a distraction. Like when they fail to show you the pretty dead girls lost in Iraq, or the disturbing pictures of dead and wounded by Israel...all a dog and pony show. So why not JonBenet? I don't see people upset about the thousands of CSI and lawyer shows on television, at least this case is real. So Karr? Don't think he did it. Someone will have to explain to me how he came to be in Boulder, how he figured out the 118,000 dollar figure, why he wrote a ransom note in the first place....etc. Strange character though.

White House misreported flight time of North Korean missile

2006-07-07T11:53:00.000-05:00

They'll lie about anything and everything.

The Raw Story | White House misreported flight time of North Korean missile

Sen. Stevens' explanation of the Internet

2006-07-03T10:13:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of Boing Boing comes one of our esteemed Senators expounding upon a definition for the internet net everyone can understand. Or maybe not. Maybe he's on crack? Scary to think the TelCos would use guys like this to push their non-net neutrality ideas. And, I think I've covered it a little before, but in case you have any questions, here's a brief run down of what's going on.

The deal is, Verizon and Comcast are pushing for a "tiered internet." The scheme works by getting a Congressional "net-neutrality" bill which will change how they handle routing traffic. Calling it "net neutrality" is much like Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" which made it easier to pollute. The idea is to name something the opposite of what it does, pretty sneaky. If the likes of Verizon get what they want (and so far it's passed in both Houses and is scheduled for Committee mark-up) your ISP will be able to throttle whatever content they want. The ISP will then be able to charge web sites and content providers to access their clients at a particular speed. The idea is extortion and bad for everyone on the net because everyone already DOES pay already.

If this should pass, in the future a website would have to pay to be hosted and for the bandwidth taken up on their ISPs side, they would also have to pay customer X's ISP if they didn't want it slowed. Today's system allows the website to shop around and get the best deal for his/her hosting. Customer X shops around as well. Once both of them have paid, customer X can access any content and the site doesn't care where it's served; it's what made the internet the internet. This new system can't really work, when you think about it. A given website probably won't want to pay additional money to reach clients they've been reaching already. But enough with me, read what one our esteemed Senators has to say...
Boing Boing: Sen. Stevens' hilariously awful explanation of the Internet

A Scanner Darkly - Movie Info - Yahoo! Movies

2006-07-02T02:38:00.000-05:00

Perhaps my favorite director, Richard Linklater (Slacker, Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, Waking Life) is set to release his adaptation of PK Dick's "A Scanner Darkly." I'm always excited to see what Linklater brings but this should be especially interesting. Dick, if you haven't read him, is sort of forerunner to today's cyberpunk genre of sci-fi. Mixing drugs, technology and philosophy, Dick is best known by movie goers for Blade Runner, which was based on his short story, "Do Androids Dream Electric Sheep?" ASD is considered one of Dick's best novels, although, truthfully, he's not amongst my favorite authors. Be that as it may, what Dick lacks imo shouldn't impact on a screenplay. Dick never struck me as much of a writer technically speaking, but he had some great ideas, which should translate into a great film with Linklater's aid.

One note: if you've seen "Waking Life" you'll recognize ASD as Linklater's second film using animation over film. Some people don't care for it, I think it all depends on the topic. In this instance I think it should work well as ASD deals with a drug induced mental break down where one learns to question what is being presented. ...Or maybe it is reality?

A Scanner Darkly - Movie Info - Yahoo! Movies

Market Meltdown

2006-07-02T02:21:00.000-05:00

Robert Reich giving depressing news about the housing market. Good think the Fed is suddenly in the mood to lower rates after 17 straight rate increases. Only thing is, why all of the sudden?

American Prospect Online - Market Meltdown

Worth a Read

2006-07-02T02:07:00.000-05:00

Hey, finally found someone with some insight to Iran. We should not go to with Iran, even if they are developing nukes. We have no indication they would be likely to use them, and much that suggests they would not. What's disheartening is the vocal support of the tough guy approach when dealing with Iran, especially when so much can be heard from Democrats.

Once Upon a Time...: And Still One More Time: Stop Helping the Warmongers

Geneva Convention Applies

2006-06-30T11:48:00.000-05:00

In case you missed it, Bush was just handed a stunning rebuke by the Supreme Court. In a 5-3 decision, with Roberts recused, the Court found that Bush's ad hoc military tribunal system was illegal. Bush over-stepped his authority by failing to adhere to the Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. This is an extremely important case which is bound to have lasting implications.

The common wisdom of TV-land (as if) is that this decision "was expected." I'm sorry, but this was anything BUT expected. Yes, I think I know what they mean. I think the punditocracy is confusing what the Court ought rule, with how it would rule. It does not take a law degree to figure out that taking people from another country and holding them indefinitely without a right to an attorney or any kind of probable cause determination isn't legal...especially without express Congressional approval. But what the Court ought to rule and what they have been ruling is not congruent. With a new uber-conservative in Justice Alito, the Court surprised me with this oddly rational decision. How anyone could have assumed the Court would side against Bush will have to do an adequate job explaining why I didn't hear or read anyone making the claim before.

The import of this decision is the surprise. Don't believe what you hear on the news, this Court is conservative. 7 out of the 9 Justices are Republican appointees, and it is this group that said no. Bush has been reeled in (somewhat) by people in his own party. So will this have a practical impact?

The impact, as I see it, is that this decision is demonstrative of Bush's collapsing authority and influence. Absent another terrorist attack, Bush has reached his high-water mark and from hence forth can be predicted to lose more power by the day. This is jumping ship by a GOP party that gleefully was willing to throw away Constitutional protections in the wake of 9/11.

No longer will we have to endure mind-numbing arguments about 9/11 and the "war on terror" being similar to the Civil War or World War II. Let me say it again, NO we are not in the Civil War and 9/11, for all its TV-scariness, was never justifiably compared to World War II. 9/11 killed about the same number of people as the US loses in traffic fatalites every two days. There wasn't a well-organized group that put the US in serious jeopardy. The US could have sustained 3 million deaths on 9/11 and the country would still would not have risked defeat. In a land of 300 million citizens, thousands of nuclear weapons and a military which is funded at levels greater than all other nations combined, this was only propaganda.

9/11 was tragic, but America is so melodramatic, so lost in our own Hollywood fantasies, a few hijacked planes changed our very form of government for going on five years. I'm glad to see, even if it is much later than it should have come, even conservatives are starting to understand how improperly Bush has acted. Let's hope America is smart enough to vote the Dems the House or Senate this fall so real reforms can be made. I still don't believe Dems will retake anything, but I was wrong about this decision, let's hope I'm wrong this fall.

The 10 Manliest Video Games Ever: Manly Video Games Custer's Revenge, Ikaruga, Contra, Metal Slug,

2006-06-30T11:06:00.000-05:00

This article is pretty damn good. I won't give away the titles or the motivating factors but do check it out. It really could have been written for the Onion...

The 10 Manliest Video Games Ever: Manly Video Games Custer's Revenge, Ikaruga, Contra, Metal Slug,

Lost Finale

2006-05-25T23:56:00.000-05:00

Well, it was good, but the show keeps getting more and more Christiany imo. Ran across a great article in the Times. Click Here for the article. Shorter version: 1. The show's producers really are writing these episodes one at a time, in serial fashion; there are general themes but each episode is apparently an entity unto itself. 2. The creators claim that the last scene showing "real time" dispels theories of purgatory or mind control experiment.

My thoughts on the show's direction. If the island is "real" the show loses most of its appeal. I don't really care about an island adventure, it's Lost's willingness to tackle more philosophical questions and pose mystery that makes the show interesting to me. So, sadly, I'm not too optimistic about the direction the show is taking. If we are to believe the creators, there really was an airliner that went down, there are polar bears in the tropics, etc... The show should stay esoteric and not try to explain the weirdness with anything rational.

Regarding this season's theme of "the hatch," I guess we are to believe Locke has been saved by Desmond's heroic sacrifice. Eko and Locke were apparently foils. Eko found God, Locke lost faith. Remaining questions, 1) What happened to the invisible, tree-stomping, mechanical sounding, people-eating dinosaur(s) from the pilot?; Why did they give up looking for the transmitter "by the Black Rock?"; what's with the baby snatching?; what's with all the Christianity...like the sail boat mast-cross?; why was Libby with Hurley in the psych ward?; howcome all the characters seem to be so intricately related?; And what season three intends to answer, wtf is up with "the Others?"

More Confirmation True Bill Returned Last Friday

2006-05-18T07:12:00.000-05:00

Guess I was wrong about Rove's indictment yesterday, but another report has surfaced that seems to clarify everything. Wayne Madsen confirms that Rove was indicted last Friday, that Alberto Gonzales did make a brief stop at the Federal Courthouse (as he did previous to Libby's indictment, we're informed) and that Fitzgerald DID meet with Luskin (Rove's attorney) at Patton Boggs, but it was not a long meeting and did not confirm Rove's indictment. Instead, Fitzgerald informed Luskin that Luskin, himself, was now a subject of the investigation as well. (Remember the widely reported news last October that Rove was set to be indicted except for a last minute claim made by Luskin, that Luskin had met with Vivicka(?) Novak, thus accounting for Roves ability to "refresh" his memory and amend his testimony before the Grand Jury.

So is this it? I don't know. The information is apparently coming from sources inside the Patton Boggs law offices which does raise eyebrows. I happen to think this version makes more sense and explains Leopold's story, largely validating it. Rove has still not been officially informed a true bill was returned but he knows it's coming thanks to Alberto Gonzales. Another tidbit I wanted to add is that Truthout issued yet another defense of their story yesterday, claiming that teams of MSM were camped outside of the Courthouse and PB. They claim the networks have had one source and the video. This does mesh with the claims made on Hardball and elsewhere last Thursday. It has struck me as odd that there wouldn't be tape of SOME of this. Yes these Courthouses do have strange entrances and exits, but it was staked out, there should have been something on tape.

I initially said Friday, looks like I should have stuck with that prediction. Who knows though, the only thing certain is that this current round of rumors will sink or swim by tomorrow; which is itself a relief.

I'm so excited to see Rove indicted, I believe it will finally let the press lose fear and the intimidation factor to question and report. I expect this may be the nail in the coffin for Bush's Administration. The additional hope one can have is that Cheney becomes a subject... Of course maybe this doesn't matter, Libby and Rove will get pardons, if electronic voting machines are compromised you don't have to be ahead in the polls to win in November. Dems need to win the House or Senate for any serious investigation into the President's conduct takes place.

Guessing Rove will be Indicted Today

2006-05-17T06:54:00.000-05:00

What's to understand? Rove is going to be indicted today in all probability...distraction, controlling the news cycle is what this about. Expect another big story today (besides Rove I mean). Consider:
a: How odd was it that Rove chose David Corn of all people to call on at AEI?

b: How convenient this NSA wiretapping story is, remember, everytime it's talked about 9/11 and terrorism is brought back to life.

c: The 9/11 tapes that showed nothing but took up an entire news cycle.

d: Tony Snow's pre-arranged fake crying. Think I'm too cynical. "Tony what is that yellow thing on your wrist?" "Hold on...it's cancer"..tears well up. I have a recent cancer survivor (last year) and he doesn't cry about it. Oh and "tar baby" that doesn't strike you as a little strange? That was either the dumbest thing ever or another distraction.

e: Olberman reported that Fitz and his team were meeting yesterday afternoon to "discuss the case." When has this sort of info been provided before? Looks like the clear "heads up" Fitz promised.

Wouldn't be surprised to see a morning or mid afternoon resignation...

Rove Indicted, FBI tracking the calls of Journalists and Bush playing the Race Card

2006-05-16T06:47:00.000-05:00

First off, you may not have caught it but the liberal net has been closely following the reporting of Jason Leopold who posted this story on Truthout.org on Saturday. Leopold isn't the most reliable journalist working but he claimed to have multiple sources claiming that Rove or his attorneys were presented with an indictment and given 24 hours to get their stuff together. The major MSM has been attempting to vet this story but apparently to no avail.

So, the debate has raged on messageboards at TalkLeft a blog written by a liberl defense attorney, the forums at Truthout, several of the diaries at DailyKos and finally, over at DU. Rove's people have denied the story but Leopold and Truthout editors are sticking by their story and their sources, even going so far as to threaten the outing of their sources if the story turns out to be bogus.

With David Schuster along with the guests of Chris Matthews' weekend show agreeing that Rove will shortly be indicted, Leopold's timing isn't that far off. The oddity is that there haven't been other leaks. So now the 24 hours is up and today, Tuesday may be "Fitzmas," the day Rove is indicted. I suspect it will actually be Friday, but Rove's cocky appearance at AEI on Monday, where he chose to field a question from the Nation's David Corn suggests that Rove knows something is up. Why would he be cocky? Remember Rove will get a pardon when this is all said and done, I suspect yesterday's performance was akin to when a boxer is tagged by his opponent, trying to act tough; always an indication that a punch landed and did damage.

So am I contradicting myself when I say Rove is cocky and that Rove will be pardoned, I dont think so. Remember the Fitzgerald filing of Dick Cheney's handwritten notes on the side of Wilson's oped piece this past Friday. That suggests to me that Fitz is trying to get Rove to cooperate, copping a plea or gaining immunity in exchange for turning state's evidence v. Cheney. The Cheney filing damns the VP because we know Cheney already knew about the Wilson trip prior to the article being written, and the notes suggest Cheney didnt' know, i.e., the notes were "talking points."

Whether Rove was actually indicted, indicted underseal, or merely told an indictment was drafted, I do suspect Leopold's story will be vindicated. Questions remain about what really has already transpired, but even Rove's attory, Bob Luskin said on April 26th that Fitzgerald had promised to clear or indict Rove within a couple weeks...no exoneration yet.

So, anyway, it's been fun to follow the story, they'll be more today I'm sure.

Second, this story about the FBI (not NSA) spying on journalists is alarming. No wonder they have been lapdogs for Bush.

Last, Bush's tactless speech on immigration. This IS race baiting that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity love to accuse the Democrats engaging in. Bush is pushing for an immigration bill simply to stir-up his base. And sadly, it will probably work. World Net Daily, a conservative site is already suggesting the Nazi holocaust proves the US can deport 11 million undocumented workers. I don't link to the cite but to Crooks and Liars where you can read that whacked-out comment.

Fun day.

Why trust Bush on Anything?

2006-05-14T12:26:00.000-05:00

One more thing... why does everyone take this administration's word about the limited nature of the NSA phone records anyway? All the debate seems to take the assumption that the limited nature of the program at face value; why? What has this administration done but lie about everything. From catching the world's largest Perch to WMD to outing Plame, why isn't every argument started with, "Is this true or is this another Bush administration lie?" At this point every debate ought to begin with, "Is any of this honest?" How many times does this administration have to lie?

The NSA Trick

2006-05-14T12:01:00.000-05:00

The NSA trick

Everyone is making a big ado about the collection of phone records by the NSA without paying attention to the source, timing or implication. The affair strikes me as completely orchestrated to benefit Bush while drawing Democrats into an unpopular fight.

First, remember that Bush chose to appoint the NSA warrantless wiretap chief to Director of Central Intelligence. You have to assume Bush is doing this for a reason, while Bush is at 30 percent approval or less, the wiretap program, insanely, is supported by well over half the country. Secondly, all the NSA talk revolves around what? The NSA debate brings back Al Qaeda and terrorism into the political debate. Don't lose sight of the importance of this shift. While Bush is floundering about seemingly without direction, this is one area Bush can win on.

Americans simply do not care about matters of privacy when the GOP scare-mongers get to throw out hypothetical arguments about Al Qaeda destroying American cities. If the Republicans don't mention the possibility of an attack today, they make the argument I heard last evening, "What if we could have prevented 9/11 had we been doing this sort of surveillence?" Amazingingly, this argument still cannot be countered by the Democrats, despite the many times it's been used against them.

What a great distraction for Bush. This morning on Meet the Press Newt Gingrich was able to make the "another 9/11" argument at least 3 times. This is the worst sort of hyperbole and Democrats don't have the ability to answer. Everytime this argument is made, Democrats should mention where the real 9/11 terrorists got their funding, places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, then remind Americans of the reality that Bush is allied with these very countries, and then ask the question if we could prevent another 9/11 by voting out the Republicans creating the policy, isn't it imperative that we ignore Republican scare-mongering? Don't let this people get away with playing on emotions. Don't let them change this to a fake debate based on hypotheticals contrasting privacy with the supposed destruction of American cities that (sadly due to Democrats failure to challenge) Americans have already accepted. Democrats don't emphasize that the Bill of Rights isn't about protecting you from foreign nations, but from the American government.

Lost

2006-05-06T14:31:00.001-05:00

Okay, last night's Lost kicked ass. I guess Michael has cut a deal with the Others...or maybe he's brainwashed. My guess is the whole dealio business. He probably had to get 'Henry Gail' out as part of an agreement to free Walt...which you know they won't do willingly. Finally a good episode, and 3 more in a row...not too shabby.

Long Time Coming

2006-05-06T14:31:00.000-05:00

t has been a long time since I rapped at yous, but this post should make up for it. Finals are over, save a class at a restraunt tonight, so I'm psyched and ready to start my metaphorical yappin.

Let's start off with Silent Hill. The movie is ok. Most of it sucks, but it is interesting enough at the end that I guess I don't give it a thumbs down. Ignore this sentence if you want to see it: Mom has child out of wedlock in the 70s in some conservative coal mining town called Silent Hill; the town is famous for its long association with witch burning and the school teacher isn't too happy about the bastard girl; the child is mocked by the other students, molested by the school janitor and then it gets bad for the kid; the teacher turns out to be the fanatical leader of a local cult believing in human sacrifice, so she gets the town elders together, bully the mother into letting them take the child and then commence to strapping the kid to some metal contrapation over some coal fire; something goes wrong, the hotel where they were burning the kid is set on fire and the kid lives but horribly burned; that night coal fire burns out of control and most of the residents are killed, the town is abandoned; the burnt girl survives in a hospital but can't move and getting more pissed by the second, eventually her hatred breaks her in two, a good side and a bad side; the bad side takes the good side (now a baby) and drops it off at the local orphanage, where our kindly mother (Rose) and Father adopt the Child calling her Sharon; Sharon is messed in the head with bad dreams about Silent Hill, so Rose decides to take her there, turns out the place is hard to get to and the road is blocked off; on the way Rose crashes and Sharon is gone missing, also there is a cop that followed the Mom and also crashed; the film follows Rose's attempt to find Sharon as the town changes everyone once and a while from raining ash to completely demonic...the teacher is still there at silent hill and has attached an air raid siren to warn the other residents when they have to run to the church to avoid the demons; eventually Rose meets with the Demon who is a version of Sharon with bloody eyes and claims to be "The Reaper"; Rose agrees to help the demonic girl who evaporates into Rose's body; Rose goes to the Church and denounces the cult which causes the teacher to stab her in the heart, when she starts bleeding the evil Sharon appears and rips people apart with barbed wire; Rose is reunited with Sharon and they leave silent hill and go home, only to find no one there; turns out Rose and Sharon died in the crash, the ash filled Silent Hill was the evil girl's purgatory and needed to get someone good to enter the church (Rose); after the evil Sharon has taken revenge and sent the cult to hell everything is good except that Rose doesn't realize she's dead; the end.

So it is complicated and I found it interesting, but not a great movie.

Just received my new laptop, a 17" Centrino Core Duo from Dell Outlet...refurbished it only cost me 920 bucks with a bag, shipping and tax. It kicks ass. When you consider the operating system itself costs 300 bucks, and you get a 1 year dell warranty(which you can extend up to three years) it's a steal. Get one.

Loved Colbert's speech at the Press thingy. I'm not so hip on the idea that the Press and President are so cozy, but at least Colbert didn't hold back. Colbert's satire was so cutting the press was left critizing him for being too critical. What fools. The press now must realize they were played, used, to pass on propaganda to start an oil war. They didn't do there jobs and allowed it to happen, and now still jump to the President's defense when he's made fun of. Colbert made no mention of Iraq except to say, "I believe the government that governs least governs best, so we've succeeded in Iraq" The guy is responsible for the needless slaughter of over 100,000 people and who knows how many injured. The press ought to know this, they ought to have boycotted the dinner in protest of the way the President has used them and to what end. Instead they generally were critical of Colbert. Nice job.

Oh, and lets not forget the Democrats. I saw a quote from at least one Democrat denouncing Colbert. When will these idiots ever realize that defending your political opponents isn't going to win you an election? Don't copy them, don't defend them, propose an alternative and give people a choice. Is that too much to ask?

Xbox 360's and the Cult of Ayn Rand

2006-03-19T20:41:00.000-06:00

I broke down and bought an Xbox 360. The graphics are pretty amazing, but that's what 3 double threading cpu cores with 48 programmable shader units will get you.

Once I decided to take the plunge it turned out to be kind of difficult to find one of the bastiges. I know there were major supply backups but I had also heard that was supposed to be over by now. Well, as it turns out, they are still hard to find. As far as I can tell, I was able to buy the only one in DeKalb as of Friday. Apparently the units are starting to trickle in, but only a few at a time. Lucky for me, EB Games had one "core" unit remaining.

Well, kind of lucky. The core only has one corded controller and no hard drive. EBG didn't have a hard drive, but again, lucky for me, Target had exactly one in stock. But then I had to get a couple of wireless controllers... Anyway it did cost a pretty penny, but being a tech geek I justify everything by the relative cost of the components, and by anyone's calculations you're getting a deal if you judge it that way.

So Friday night I was wish some friends playing high definition vid games until the wee hours of the night. We had intended to go out for St. Patty's Day, but we stayed in and played video games. Pretty sad :P.

The Illini were totally jobbed by the refs on Saturday as they lost to Washington, ending their NCAA hopes. Granted Illinois was anemic on the offensive end for two separate 10 minute spurts (one per half) but the game was decided by the Refs. Normally I don't blame refs, but this game was a farce. Washington was in the Double Bonus wiht 8 minutes left in the game (ten team fouls on the Illini and an automatic two shots for every foul thereafter). This may sound petty but it changes everything.

First of all Illinois couldn't play aggressive defense after that, second, when they did, they'd give the Washington Huskies two free shots. On the other side of the court Illinois didn't even get to the line until after Washington was in the double bonus. I haven't even had the stomach to count the foul disparity but it felt like I was watching a Duke game at Cameron indoor (notorious for getting every call). Sad ending for Dee Brown who isn't going to play NBA ball unless he regains his lost speed and James Augustine who probably will get a look in the second round as a foward.

On another note, I caught V for Vendetta yesterday. I'd give it 3 out of 4 stars I suppose, but you have to be into the stylized fighting/action/violence type of film. Walking out of the theater I heard some people saying it was crap, others the best thing ever, so it's hard to recommend.

The best aspect of the film involved a not so subtle allusion to abuse of Presidential authority, loss of privacy and the dangers of governmental police powers. An interesting question is whether, in the end, V was really Natalie Portman. I don't want to disclose more, but like American Psycho, Fight Club and 12 Monkey's, you really aren't certain whether you should take it on the literal level. If you've seen the film and don't know what I'm talking about, email me so I won't have give away spoilers.

Other news...running is still an issue. I ran today but can feel it in my left knee. I definitely will hold off a day, see if I can't get into an every-other-day routine for a few weeks. I'm only doing 3 miles so I really don't think the issue is an injury really, but, on the otherhand, this did first become a problem after that 7 mile run day. At any rate I need to up the mileage so maybe going back up to 5 and every other day will work. Who knows? Probably just need weather to cooperate so I can get back to routine.

Bought tickets for my friend's wedding in Seattle over Memorial Day weekend. The wedding is on Monday of all days, so I'll be gone Friday through Thursday. I managed to book a seat on the same flight as another of my friends on the way out there so the trip ought not to be as boring, if by boring you mean sober.

Oh, and the deal about last Wednesday and the early PE day...turns out it was early bird PE. The kids are supposed to be dressed by 6:45 and then head back to the lockrooms at 7:15. By the time I had found the grade book and taken attendance the kids got about 15 minutes of basketball in; not that they were complaining.

Also, I've been reading Ayn Rand's, "The Fountainhead," and finding it pretty damn good. I don't subscribe to her red scare capitalism but I love her critique of the business world. And she's a hell of a good writer. Previously I had only read "Anthem," which was good, but seemed like a wannabe 1984. But then I'm prejudiced, I feel 1984 is probably the best novel of last century (followed probably by Sinclair Lewis' Babbitt, Plath's "The Bell Jar" and Tom Wolfe's "Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.") But, ask me tomorrow I'll probably give several others instead.

On a final note, I've offered to volunteer as a phone operator for the local NPR station the first week of April. I kind of doubt they'll need me as the week is a busy one for me and I was only able to list a few days I would be able to do it. We'll see, I hope it works out. Maybe I'll make some friends there and get them to air Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!...one can hope anyway.

Running in the Wind

2006-03-14T16:07:00.000-06:00

I haven't written in while, some sort of writer's block I suppose. New and EXCITING (humor me here) stuff:

1. Civic has new brakes, new hood release, and new tires. Not really all that expensive, couldn't have been over 500 all told, but next I need my timing belt and water pump changed, my transmission fluid replaced, new belts for everything else, new plugs...and I think that's it.

None of the stuff NEEDS replacing, just suggested 90,000 mile stuff that I figure I ought to keep up with. One of the principal reasons for getting the Civic new (I rarely advise buying a new car, nothing depreciates faster) was that I would keep this car forever. I love Hondas, you don't even really have to treat them that well for them to run and run, but I love the fact my car is now 8 model years old and yet still drives like it did off the lot. The extra work will cost me another 5 bills or so, but in the long run it's probably worth it. Of course, what I'd REALLY like to do is get a nice set of wider wheels (not pimped out rims, hear me out,) an anti-lock braking system and a big set of vented rotors with some good pads. That will probably put me back quite a bit, when and if, but awd and abs are the only things I wish I had that I don't. AWD is probably a pipedream, so I'd settle on anti-locks. (I'm big on the car safety.)

2. Got a new pair of glasses...finally. I like them better than my previous pair, but I still prefer no glassses and only use them for distance vision, i.e. driving at night. (Have Rx sunglasses for driving in the day, which FYI, is the best fucking purchase you'll ever make. If you need glasses, Rx sunnies are the best thing ever.

3. Continue to watch Pete & Pete, they are fantastic.

4. Haven't started in on renting the first season of 24, but probably will when I get some free time.

5. Started a new course, Classroom Dynamics. The class seems pretty reasonable, but it does entail another drive into Aurora, this class on Monday.

6. I ran too frequently once again, so I haven't run now since like Friday. I'm about to head outside as it's 41 degrees out. The only problem is the wind...I heard 29 avg and 39 gusts. Not anywhere near as bad as yesterday, but still I may end up regretting this. But, I'm itching to run, so I'll give 'er a go.

7. Xbox360s are due in the stores anyday now and I'm seriously contemplating the purchase. Yeah, I know I shouldn't really, they are 400 bucks, but they won't get any cheaper anytime in the next year, so....

That's it for now.

Fox, Gillette Fusion and Claude Rains

2006-03-03T08:45:00.000-06:00

"Taking Time to Thank Fox News and Ruminations on the Gillette Fusion

Number one I just want to take this time to thank the people at Fox News for allowing me the privilege of deciding how to interpret their reporting. ...You know, "We Report, You Decide"? Thanks guys! None of the other networks allow me to decide for myself so it's refreshing you've given me the freedom. Much REZPEK to steal from Ali-G.

The Gillette Fusion shaving system. Well, let me tell you, I'm no average American consumer who sits around and waits for technology to come to him. I went out and bought the 5 bladed Fusion within a week of it's deployment post-Superbowl. As an 'early adopter' I thought I could offer some initial thoughts, considering it has been a month or two now.

The five blade shave is nice and silky smooth. Top notch Mr. Gillette! And that razor on the back for sideburns and 'hard to reach areas' is a blessing I never saw coming. Sure I've had a learning curve and cut deep linear gashes into the side of my face, but that's the price one pays for fine sideburns...and a small price to pay imho.

I'm now considering purchasing the 'Power Fusion' which incorporates all those 6 blades with some battery operated shaking device. Call me a fanboy, but a 10 dollar vibrating razor is exactly what I need to up my shaving experience. Hats off to you Gillette. I'm planning on getting mine tonight, so I can report back tomorrow and in future posts.

Finally, since I've brought up Claude Rains of late (see Casablanca post) I've had the song 'Science Fiction Double Feature' from the Rocky Horror Picture Show playing in head. Here then are the lyrics (notice Claude Rains referreneced in regards to his role as the Invisible Man.)

Science Fiction Double Feature:

Michael Rennie was ill the day the earth stood still
But he told us where we stand
And Flash Gordon was there in silver underwear
Claude Raines was the invisible man
Then something went wrong for Fay Wray and King Kong
They got caught in a celluloid jam
Then at a deadly pace it came from outer space
And this is how the message ran

Science Fiction - Double Feature
Dr. X will build a creature
See androids fighting Brad and Janet
Ann Francis stars in Forbidden Planet
Oh-oh at the late night, double feature, picture show.

I knew Leo G. Carroll was over a barrel
When Tarantula took to the hills
And I really got hot when I saw Janet Scott
Fight a Triffid that spits poison and kills
Dana Andrews said prunes gave him the runes
And passing them used lots of skills
But when worlds collide,
said George Pal to his bride
I'm gonna give you some terrible thrills,

like a:Science Fiction - Double Feature
Dr. X will build a creature
See androids fighting Brad and Jane
tAnn Francis stars in Forbidden Planet
Oh-oh at the late night, double feature, picture show.I wanna go,
oh-oh, to the late night double feature picture show.
By RKO, oh-oh,
at the late night
double feature
picture show.
In the back row
at the late night double feature picture show.

All Song Lyrics from the Rocky Horror Soundtrack"

BYU Professor on WTC Collapse

2006-03-01T19:16:00.000-06:00

Here's a reasonable position forwarded by a Professor from BYU. I don't know the Professor nor am I familiar with the journal in which it will shortly appear. That aside, the electronic "paper" is a worth a read. You may have read bits and pieces of the arguments before, but this is the best case I've seen suggesting controlled thermite detonations brought down the towers.

The paper does not suggest who or why the towers were demolished but simply presents evidence that seem to suggest contradict the official version of events. The main arguments hinge on the temperature needed to compromise the steel framed sky scrapers, the symmetry of the fall, and the presence of molten metal at the site, weeks after the towers came down. Also discussed is Tower 7.

In this paper I question the “official” story that the collapses of the high-rise World Trade Center buildings on 9-11-01 were

Best Movie and Basketball and Smoking Bans

2006-03-01T02:42:00.000-06:00

Best Movie and Basketball and Smoking Bans
Current mood: cold
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

Casablanca
Has to be my favorite movie. I didn't think we had on-demand (movies on demand from cable) anymore, it turns out we at least have the cheapo free movies. I browsed through the freebies, most of which are just terrible, but then I see Casablanca listed.

So, even though it was 11, I pushed the play button, and ended up watching through to the end. Now I'm up at 1 AM and probably have to be at school at 7:30. Maybe not the brightest idea ever. But it never ceases to amaze me how damn good Casablanca really is. Tonight I was noticing, Claude Rains as Capt. Renault.

He's famous for his line, "round up the usual suspects," and his character is essential for comic relief. In many ways the film depends on Rains. His character walks the tightrope between the Nazis and the resistence. The role easily could have been too farcical and turned the film into second rate comedy. The Renault character had to be ultimately likeable; a hard thing to pull-off considering he's taking graft and allowing murder all around.

It seems everytime I watch it, the film delivers some peculiar detail I've failed to properly appreciate before. I've watched it so many times now, but it still has a playful quality about it that keeps me watching. Yes it's set in war time, yes there are Nazis, yes Rick is heartbroken, and yes Ingrid Bergman is crying in half the scenes, but somehow someway the film is joyful. Casablanca was released in 1942, right in the midst of the war, and yet somehow a love story and war-adventure coexist happily. Now, after 64 years, the film is still yet to be bested in my mind. Amazing stuff.

B-ball. Barb girls lost Monday to Park Ridge 34-40. I've never seen DeKalb so enthusiastic about any high school sports team, too bad the girls had to lose. Sucks.

Better news... The Illini beat Minnesota for the 15th straight time. Last night was closer than some of the games, but Minnesota is a better team than generally given credit for. Their senior star, Vincent Grier will be going to the NBA, and the Barn (where they play) is never an easy venue with its strange raised court. The Illini needed the victory to keep their chances alive for a Big Ten title, now they need Northwestern to beat Ohio State in Evanston...I think the game is tonight. While it isn't likely to happen, NU has pulled off some upsets and OSU isn't as good as their record, so here's hoping. Meanwhile, Illinois will finish their regular season at Michigan State next...you can't figure they're likely to win up in East Lansing, but it would be nice to have something on the line to play for.

Finally, I'm not at all happy about this DeKalb smoking ban. I haven't read the ordinance yet, but as I understand it, smoking is banned in all public places-even in the workplace. Bars have been exempted for a year, but I guess they'll go smoke free too. What total garbage.

You don't have a right to a smoke free restraunt, period. Unless the city wants to stop taxing these places, or pay their mortgages or leases, they're PRIVATE and only open to the public. That means AVAILABLE to the public. The government should have no authority deciding an issue where people are free to make up their own mind.

If you don't want to breath smoke, go to a restraunt that is smoke-free, as most are these days. That's what's so wrong about this, there are plently of market choices available already. What the city is doing is saying that even if cigarettes are legal, smoking is legal, establishments are privately owned, and you and the owner both enjoy smoking, well screw you, you still can't smoke.

And, of course, everyone will go along with this because smoking is bad for you and causes cancer. Meanwhile happy, non-smoking citizens will tank up on booze and drive home right next to your car. But, of course, we wouldn't outlaw booze (nor should we). There are risks one assumes living in a public society. Second hand smoke is such a minor problem one wonders why the concern?

As an attorney I have some training in the law that leads me to believe private clubs cannot be regulated in such a manner. The Ku Klux Klan doesn't have to accept blacks, jews or catholics; the Country Club and Frat house can check your family's net worth and ancestry and decide to bar you admittance. By the same token, some of these "public bars" may simply want to become private clubs.

They need not be too strict, in fact, one wonders if a simple per use license might not avoid the law. A movie ticket is a form of a simple license. Long before smoking was banned in public, many theatres required that you smoke in the lobby or face being kicked out. Why coulnd't a local bar have the policy in reverse?

Hypothetical: The Fatty's Club, sells you a license to their club...or call it a membership. Say the membership is 50 cents. Part of the agreement is that you agree to accept smoking in the environment and not complain. If you don't like the rules, Fatty's doesn't let you inside. And why not make it even simpler? The Junction can specifically not be open to the public, but only to those that agree to tolerate smoking. People have tolerated smoking for years, why should they lose business?

Let's just hope businesses have the moxy to challenge this ridiculous policy. I no longer smoke. Don't like being around smoke as a matter of fact. This law actually will lead to a more pleasant dining experience for myself if people comply. Nonetheless, it's wrong to force people to accomdate themselves to me. There are choices for non-smokers. At this point it is harder to find a smoking establishment -- smoke free is the norm. Try lighting up in Wal-Mart, or while you're at the Y, see if you aren't kicked out.

Bottom line: If you don't like the smoke, leave. Move your fat ass out to somewhere else that you like better, or get off your lazy can make your own dinner. It should be against the law for 70 percent of these people to even share the public space. They fight, flatulate, get in accidents, waste time, talk on their phones at inappropriate times, smell, are inarticulate, and let their retarded children run about unchecked. If we want to be safe, we need to outlaw sex in DeKalb. Smoking is the least of our worries.

Hadley says Bombing of Mosque may Bring Iraq Together

2006-02-26T21:48:00.000-06:00

Bush's National Security Advisor Tells Face the Nation the Bombing of the Golden Mosque may Bring the People of Iraq Together -- Seriously
I want to emphasize I have this DVR'ed. I don't feel like much more politics this evening, but I had to mention seeing this. Stephen Hadley, pictured above, is a (the?) NSA to President Bush. He's one of the Iraq war's architects, so I guess it shouldn't shock you to learn he thinks the destruction of a 1000 year old Shia mosque last Wednesday, triggering what may be a civil war in Iraq between Sunnis and Shia, might ultimately "bring Iraq together." The country has a "day-time" curfew in effect for 3 days...meaning the country is under martial law. The Shia run the government, and it's the Shia Interior Department with its death squads that are responsible for maintaining the peace. And this is what Hadley thinks may unify Iraq.

Civil war is the opposite of coming together. Someone ought to tell Steve. If people weren't dying, like if these idiots were playing Stratego or something, it would be funny. Bob Schieffer is so old and has heard so much bull over the years, often times you wonder if the man is awake; when Hadley said this, Schieffer was jolted from his normal comatose state and cut him Hadley off. Ol' Bob was too shocked to even be articulate, he said something to the effect, "You can't honestly be saying this will help matters???"

Which reminds me. On Fox News the other day they were debating whether "all out civil war in Iraq could be good for the US." This war, thank god, has to reach anything like Nam in the death toll inflicted, but the rhetoric is actually more inane and insipid...which I didn't think was possible.

I think civil war has been in the cards once Bush decided to play God and overturn Iraqi society by removing all the Sunnis from power. True, the Sunnis didn't deserve to be in power, but what sort of person can't understand the problems you're going to face once you put the oppressed majority in power, over the rich, educated, former oppressor-minority population. Oh, and don't forget everyone in the nation has a machine gun and has been fighting wars for the past 20 years. Yeah that was a great idea.

Now you know why the American General who used to run the NSA called this Iraq war possibly the worst military strategy in 1000 years (and he meant 1000 years, not like just 1000 sounds like a good big number, I believe he was thinking the Norman invasions).

TIME.com: A Magic Way to Make Billions -- Mar. 06, 2006 -- Page 1

2006-02-26T21:18:00.000-06:00

Tax-Scam Makes Syn-Fuel Industry Afraid to Make Money
This may sound boring. Ok, it kind of is, if not for the sheer gall of the whole thing. I just read this in Time Online, and I was laughing. Basically it's just another way for energy companies to cheat on taxes.

Syn-Fuel is short for synthetic fuel -- they call it "cracked coal." The idea isn't new, I recall reading about the Nazis supplying something like half their military with syn-fuel during WWII, this bleeding-edge science. Don't ask me how it works exactly, but it's sufficient to appreciate that gasoline is a petroleum product, and petroleum is a hydrocarbon. Coal, is a hydrocarbon as well, and by some chemistry trick you can "crack" coal and make some sort of fuel from it...Syn-Fuel.

Back in the 70s people were pissed about the Suadi take over of Aramco and OPEC flexing it muscle. Gas lines ended up producing subsidies and tax breaks for everything from ethanol, solar, wind and syn-fuel. Basically, if you had an alternative to Mideast oil during the Carter admin, times were good. Hell, America even started buying four cylinder Chevettes, Toyotas and started driving 55 (well except for Sammy Haggar).

It didn't take energy companies long to figure out a couple of things. 1. There was a crap load of coal in America and 2. no one really interested in paying the higher price for the syn-fuel. Normally you might think this would lead to no one producing the stuff, but then you and I aren't multi-billion dollar energy companies -- with taxes, and more importantly, tax lawyers on the lookout for a good tax shelter. And guess what? Syn-Fuel is worth more losing money than it is making money.

The trick is in the subsidies. Provided oil is relatively cheap, under 50 bucks a barrel, syn-fuel is no bargain, so the producer loses money making the stuff. Congress in the late 70s wanted to give an incentive to find alternative energy sources Since syn-fuel costs more to make, tax subsidies seemed reasonable. 25 years on, gas (until the past couple years) has been dirt cheap with syn-fuel losing money big time.

The way the sudsides work, a 400 million dollar loss ends up with 800 million dollar tax subsidy, netting a 400 million dollar profit. Not too shabby. The problem is, who the hell is using this stuff? Well no one. That presented a problem.

Yeah they wanted to lose money, but they needed some excuse for the IRS. And, needless to say, energy companies figured out a way to placate the tax man. Right next to the syn-fuel plant, energy companies build another plant that runs on syn-fuel. Nifty trick, huh? This worked out exceedingly well for all these years until gas prices started going through the roof the past couple of years.

With gas prices so high, all the sudden a small profit might be made with this syn-fuel business; simply unexceptable! Well what is an energy corporation to do when the tax lawyers can't help out? Lobby Congress. And lobby they did last year, resulting in a sweet little loop-hole that, for tax purposes, backdated the the price of oil to 2004 levels (this was a 2005 Act). Pretty crafty.

Well now another year has passed and these energy companies are getting worried they may lose their subsidy. The only solution? Get Sen. Rick Santorum to bury an amendment in the new budget. Tricky, tricky tricky.

You almost have to appreciate the devious tactics don't you?
TIME.com: A Magic Way to Make Billions -- Mar. 06, 2006 -- Page 1

Illini Beat Iowa

2006-02-26T12:15:00.000-06:00

Well, the Illini won an important game last night, home versus the Hawkeyes. Illinois more or less thrashed the team that had given Illinois their worst drubbing of the season and kept their chances alive for a Big Ten title. Now, it isn't likely Illinois will win the Big Ten, they pretty much lost that by losing to Ohio State, Indiana, and most importantly at Michigan earlier this week.

The Illini have to travel to the U to take on the Gophers on the 28th, then they will finish the regular season at Michigan State. If they can split these two games they'll be doing well, both will difficult, especially @ MSU.

I don't know how Illinois will fare in the Big Ten Tournament. Anything is possible. Iowa still scares me, as do Indiana and MSU. I'm not concerned about OSU, even though they are the team most likely to win the season title...kind of odd, but with a staggered schedule where you don't see all the teams twice, as is the case with OSU, it's hard to say who the better teams are.

Illinois seems to have MSU's number, but they're a solid team. Indiana has suffered as of late but can beat anyone when they're on...Killingsworth is unstoppable on offense. Iowa is peculiar, they seem give the Illini fits but have trouble with teams U of I handles.

Predictions: Illinois will finish 2nd or 3rd in the Big Ten regular season, lose to Iowa in the Big Ten tournament, and come in as a 5 seed for the NCAAs. I suspect The Illini will get to the "Elite 8" and lose their bracket championship game. Not a bad season considering they lost two number first round draft picks and their best play, Dee Brown has lost a step since breaking his foot last summer.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2006-02-22T23:22:00.000-06:00

Myers-Briggs
So I've taken a few of these Myers Briggs personality indexes or what have you and I'm either INFP or INTP. The 4 letter categories go like this: Extroversion or Introversion (E or I) Intuitive or Sensing,(N or S), Feeling or Thinking (F or T) and Judging or Perceiving (J or P). The first is pretty self-explanatory, the second is about whether you're focused on the outside world of sensory perceptions or your more interested in thinking about things -- less action oriented more cerebral. The third is whether you're empathetic and emotionally driven or rational and logic based, I'm 50-50 here, some tests say one way, some another. The last is hard to define, it's like a judger is a rule-based, step by step, compartmentalized, and perceivers are big picture, looking for consensus and fairness rather than strictly following rules.

They have code names for the types, mine is like "healer" or "teacher." I think it pretty much nails me. But there are lots of other fun personality tests you can take. I tend to deviate from the norm on introversion, empathy and avoidance. Anyway it's interesting.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Latest "Lost" Info

2006-02-18T18:00:00.000-06:00

Thats what the timer showed when Locke missed inputing the numbers...that is before he finally put in the correct code. Here is what some believe the translation is:

So if you buy the Middle Egyptian translation, it would have read "Cause to Die" had Locke not finally typed in the numbers. But was this real? Perhaps this is just in Locke's mind, to quote the Damon Albarn formerly of Blur now Gorillaz, "it's all in your head." And it may well be. Psychedelics in the food would explain much.

On another note, apparently in Sayid's Gulf War flashback, we got a glimpse of Kate's step-father. We know this because he held up a picture with Kate in it.

For a good thread speculating on "the numbers" go here.

VP Accident Tale Filled With Discrepancies - Yahoo! News

2006-02-18T13:08:00.000-06:00

The easiest way to explain the discrpencies is that Cheney was hiding something. Considering the conflicting reports on alcohol and denying police access to Cheney the evening of the shoooting, I'm led to believe he was drunk.

VP Accident Tale Filled With Discrepancies - Yahoo! News

PlayStation 3 costs $900, sez Merrill Lynch mob - Engadget

2006-02-18T09:48:00.000-06:00

This is what it will cost Sony per unit, not what Merrill expects Sony to retail the product. These game consoles are generally put out at a loss, the question is how great of a loss will Sony be willing to take per unit? They can't retail these for much more than 500 I would think. Even if the hardware inside is "worth" it, people still see these as game machines. Even at 400 dollars I suspect a great deal of people will balk at the 360's price...and MS probably knew this which prompted the "basic package" at only 299.

PlayStation 3 costs $900, sez Merrill Lynch mob - Engadget

- Space-elevator tether climbs a mile high

2006-02-15T13:08:00.000-06:00

The idea of a space elevator used to seem reasonable to me...when I was in fifth grade. Somewhere about that time I figured out that if you swing something around, the furthest point from the axel travels much faster than the parts closer to the center. I had been picturing a glass elevator, like Charlie and Chocolate Factory, the forces that would be exerted on such a space elevator, it occured to me, would break said elevator.

Well these guys, if you follow the New Scientist Story, are trying to make such an elevator with a carbon, nanotube string. The string would act as something a robot, powered by lasers from the ground, could crawl upwards. The people involved have made a fiber 1 mile long, pretty impressive.

Only 61,999 more to go.

New Scientist SPACE - Breaking News - Space-elevator tether climbs a mile high

Intelligent Design Loses in Ohio

2006-02-15T08:31:00.000-06:00

Good for them. ...Of course I've never been against presenting ID as long as my religion is heard as well.

AMERICAblog: Because a great nation deserves the truth

Cheney Was Drunk Here's Why it All Makes Sense

2006-02-15T08:24:00.000-06:00

Okay, heres my idea about Cheney (just in case you havent been religiously checking my blog) Cheney was shit-canned when he shot this old guy. Things that make me suspicious: Previous multiple DWIs (although none recently); it was a hunting trip (Aaron would know better) from my stint in Wisconsin, 90 % of hunting accidents semed to be alcohol related; Cheney sure looks to be facing indictment after Libbys testimony, additionally the revelation that just came out regarding his faking the Iraqi/9/11 connection all could lead a man to drink, even if not an alcoholic, which he probably is. So that is all background, then there is the timeline. Cheney shoots some guy around 6 PM and Cheney cant find time to speak with local police until the next day?

The Sheriff was dumb to agree to such a deal, but the SS can be pretty intimidating Im guessing. Then, later Saturday evening the police decided to come question Cheney anyway, they were turned away by the SS. What Cheneys staff did do was to talk this guy to a Podunk little hospital, NOT the Corpus Christi medical facility which, according to a Texan on Olberman last night was as close and offered far superior facilities. After taking the guy to this small hospital they call the White House, who sit on the story. Later that evening they call the White House again to update Rove. Supposedly, Scott McClellan isnt informed until 6 AM Sunday morning, 12 hours after this has happened. At first McClellan tried to claim the White House had no information until Sunday but when forced to answer admitted staff knew by early Sat evening, he thought the question was referring to when did Scott McClellan find out. Then there are the initial reports put out. Peppered was the buzzword used to describe the incident, usually with a hearty, Oh weve all been peppered a few times hunting, har har har.

The other aspect stressed in early reports (these are Sunday remember, after the RANCH owner, not Cheneys office or the White House informed anyone) was that the guy shot was at fault for not identifying himself or following hunting protocol. Reports also suggested a 60 to 90 yard blast, with minor injuries, now we know the guy has up to 200 pellets of bird shot in him. Remember this is bird shot, were talking miniscule mass behind the shot itself, you have to be a small bird or VERY close to be severely injured. Think about all the clothes someone wears huntingall the layers, and this very low mass shot not only ripped through all the clothing, but actually penetrated to some distance into the guy. A trauma surgeon I heard said 30 years sounds like the maximum range, probably much closer.like 10 yards or 30 feet. Then take into account the treatment afforded this guy. Even with a retinue of medical staff following Cheney, they werent able to do much first aid on the scene, that suggests they knew the blast was significant from the start. So they head to this small hospital ER. Is the guy seen, some shot removed, perhaps stitched-up and sent home? No, they admitted the guy, for two days. And this wasnt just regular admission but intensive care. Finally, Monday morning, despite talk that this old guy was chipper and swell, he suffers atrial fibrillation, significant to call it a minor heart attack. The attending docs dont know were the pellet is, and they admit the geezer for at least another week of observation.

Meanwhile, Cheneys office isnt talking, the White House is referring questions to the VPs office (whom they know arent taking questions). And last, but not least, the way the story broke. The ranch lady calling her local paper. First, why skip the national press? But then, more interestingly, the ladys account given to the LA Times and Washington Post seem to contradict one another. One account says the family WITH Cheneys staff decided she should be the one to release the info this decision being made Saturday night (makes sense, chronologically). But then the same lady tells the WaPo, the family decided to contact the local press Sunday morning and leaves out any reference to Cheneys office playing a role. Which sounds more likely to you? And FYI, the woman at the local paper the rancher woman was trying to reach was a personal friend, someone she could count upon.

All leads me to believe there is much more to this story. My theory is Cheney was three sheets to wind when this happened. The shooting was at close range and must have looked really bad (200 pellets in the guy), they take old guy to an out of the way hospital, the SS arranges for Cheney to interview with the Sheriff dept the following morning and then turn away police that come later that night to question the VP. Finally, no attempt is made to make the public aware of the shooting, and the White House is now is full refusal mode about what they knew when.

I can picture Dick after this happenedShit! Get me Ted Kennedy on the phone pronto!