some people can do no right

I don't normally read Forbes because I think it's tripe, but this "welcome screen" (a.k.a., welcome to unwanted advertising interfering with your reading experience) really caught my eye:



On a somewhat related note (involving reading, President Bush's current lack thereof, and the outsourcing of the illegal reading of your private electronic or voice conversations as American citizens), READ THIS.

To some, it's just the same old song and dance, just as when the US government embraced the idea of the "military-congressional-industrial complex" not as loony conspiracy theory but as a business plan and outsourced the building of military hardware to private defense contractors. They then outsourced the military advisors, and now they're looking at the intelligence. It's one thing to outsource the people who follow your orders or give advice, but it's another to outsource the people that actually provide you the data, faulty, politically-motivated, or otherwise, that actually leads to war.

So get this, here's a likely scenario in our future Uneducated State of Ameri-duh: a private contractor, hired by the government to decode intelligence and under pressure to "cut costs" (so to charge only 1.9x what a government employee makes, instead of double), decides its "core competency" is not really intelligence analysis per se, but the delivery of analytical services. And since they need some sort of developing-world interpreters to decode the intelligence, because all of the people at the contractor are American-educated businessmen with little to no knowledge of any language besides English (and a tenuous grasp of that language to boot), they outsource the analysis right to the source.

So imagine having a Chinese analyst, probably in China, decoding intelligence that helps the US determine whether or not we go to war with China over Taiwan. Or, alternately, selling their knowledge to the highest bidder in the Chinese government (not that they don't already, but why make it even easier for them to do so?).

Arguing Against Renewables is like ...

... arguing for a hole in your head when you don't believe in trepanation. Check it out:



Ruining the "view"? Why do we vote for new coal-fired electrical plants - how does doing so enhance one's view?

It only enhances the view because we put the site on unwanted or cheap land, and then fence it off so you can't get too close to actually see how ugly the giant, smoke-billowing towers wreak havoc on you and yours. Oh, and if you are no longer able to see the horizon due to smog and such, because your precious cheap/convenient electricity has pumped too much particulate matter into the atmosphere, how will that haze impact your view, you short-sighted, greedy, selfish, pathetic excuses for a sentient being?

There's only one quasi-logical argument against wind power: migratory birds.

If your argument is that "big" wind is evil because it disrupts migratory birds and/or kills them, what do you think the particulate matter from a coal-fired generator does to their lungs if it can cause asthma and cancer in humans? Isn't a long, drawn-out death from illness worse than a spontaneous, near-instant death? Nature is red in tooth and claw - I recently watched 2 larger birds force a smaller bird into a pond, from which the smaller bird could not get out b/c his feathers got wet and it could not fly. It kept bobbing up and down, trying to get to the edge, but it drowned before it could get there. It took something like two minutes to play out, and it was gut-wrenching to watch. The bird that was forced into the water had recently flown into a glass window of a nearby buiding - it was obviously no threat to the 2 larger birds and in no shape to defend itself properly, but that's just survival of the fittest, isn't it? I guess how you view it depends on whether you believe in social darwinism or you find it ironic that it takes some of mankind's greatest intellectual capacity to understand the most brutal, possibly immutable, laws of the natural world.

Or you could view birds as deserving of the exact same rights as people, in which case do you also think that birds, if they were endowed en masse positions of relative power and a sentience at (or above) our level, would not hesitate to kill a few humans if it meant they could all have labor-free nests or access to practically inexhaustable supplies of food?

thought

all our fantasies are faded by routine ...

There's no other Cheney quite like this Dick

I found it! Score!



After which came the Cheney apologist (from the WSJ no less, I'm sure Murdoch is salivating):



Where is the answer to Stewart's simple question? Why does it take a Comedy Central to air these types of serious questions? History will mark Haye's silence, due to the utter lack of rational justification for the administration's actions, and treat the Bush administration with the contempt it deserves.

The only thing that "changed" after 9/11 was that the administration knew it could get away with lying because people were single-mindedly fixated on swift revenge. Since they (the political elite) often see the general population as uneducated baboons, they knew people would take dubious pronouncements at face value (and that those who did not would be out-shouted by the war-mongers).

For my Republican friends, you can not say I always disagree with your party, but what I agreed was sound policy in 1994 was not so severely altered by faulty intelligence in 2003 that it justified what the administration did (and continues to do). For those of you that knew me then, you've known I've been a critic of Bush since he first lost the 2000 election. I've disagreed with nearly every policy decision by this White House, save attacking Afghanistan and the marine refuge created around Hawaii. Attacking Iraq opened up a second front in a war (essentially on Iran if you look at a map), which is already an extremely poor military strategy to begin with, Generalissimo NeoCon. Idiots.

What the war-mongers do not understand is how to fight an ideology, ironically despite the fact they themselves subscribe to a very similar, reactionist ideology that they subsequently demonize when referring to their enemies. As a result of 9/11, the terrorists are already winning. Your liberties have been restricted. You wring your hands about traveling abroad. You take out extra life insurance and fret about "what if", and Fox News and the like are right there, in your face, reminding you that we can never lapse in our vigilance (while our nation's ports and nuclear facilities go under-protected, and our airports remain insecure). Many of you think such measures are necessary, but a terrorist does not care about the reason people are frightened or have their freedoms restricted, they care only that it occurs. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

You are all less free. For what? For a few extra dollars? For a few extra corpses? For the business interests of the elite who control the U.S.'s military-congressional-industrial complex? (original term by another Republican, 2-term President Dwight D. Eisenhower) Where is the 'outrageous' conspiracy theory when you've got a Vice President, a public servant, who has closed-door sessions with industry on energy policy and who refuses to stop receiving payments from his former employer, who happens to be gouging the US military in Iraq? Here's a hunt that would make Waldo jealous - find the weak link in those logical implications! Basic capitalist theory supports aligning people's personal interests with their actions. The simplest way to profit off a war? Use your influence to start a war! Why deny that people are acting in accordance with the very theories used to justify cutthroat business practices on a daily basis? If it's good enough for our corporate elite, why not for the soldiers fighting for their profits?

If you want to provide the appropriate counter-incentive to the current sytsem of collusion, it's very simple: require every Congressperson to send their son(s) or daughter(s) to fight in whatever war or other military action they allow the President to undertake. It's like a draft-lite, just 535 possible families, not quite Vietnam-era enough. But it's a great step toward a system of true checks and balances.

If you wish to debate the point above don't talk to me - just call your representative (and hopefully ask to get the U.S. the fuck out of Iraq). Or, for a more personal response from the government, just call someone you know who's currently abroad so that your government can (il)legally listen in to the overseas call. If you don't know who to call, just dial me - lord knows I'm enough of a pinko commie liberal to pique the NSA's interests. I mean, Hungary's still Communist, isn't it?

our bestest friends

"China loves me, this I know, lead-tainted Sa-arge, told me so!"



Erin Burnett is a shining light of logic in these dark, lead-colored times. Keep your friends close, keep the tainted pinko Commies closer, Erin! haha

you are dust

... and to (space) dust you shall return.

Reminds me of the Bill Hicks sketch:

"Today young men on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves ... here's Tom with the weather."