They're run absolutely nothing like this. I mean, come on - no one that old knows wtf "pwnd" means!
06 September 2007
02 September 2007
RIAA = asymmetric profit structure
Yeah, where was this support when Apple launched? Nowhere. Now that it's actually a successful business model, the corporate drones want a bigger slice of the theoretical pie. Theoretical because I sure as hell am not going to pay more than about $1 per song.
The artists are the ones who deserve a larger percentage of my dollar, not these fat-cat executives!
They aren't getting it - they get TEN PERCENT OR LESS of the revenue from each song sold on iTunes! That's not Apple's fault, it's the fucking bullshit industry. Why do you think artists are quick to open their own sites and tour so heavily? That's their only chance to make a decent profit from their work.
Also, if you think about it, how exactly are NBC and its cohorts going to undermine Apple? They can't promote another service that charges more for media, so they'll subsidize some cheap knock-off in order to gain market share, then jack the prices sky-high. Sounds fun, I can't wait until you help them do it! Yes, you, you fucking ingrates - where are the how-to articles on getting real music back on the radio and break the recording industry's stifling grip on artistic talent? That'd be too "subersive" for the mainstream media (and against the media conglomerate's interests, since Universal owns NBC, which owns MSNBC, and the whole thing is owned by GE).
The artists are the ones who deserve a larger percentage of my dollar, not these fat-cat executives!
They aren't getting it - they get TEN PERCENT OR LESS of the revenue from each song sold on iTunes! That's not Apple's fault, it's the fucking bullshit industry. Why do you think artists are quick to open their own sites and tour so heavily? That's their only chance to make a decent profit from their work.
Also, if you think about it, how exactly are NBC and its cohorts going to undermine Apple? They can't promote another service that charges more for media, so they'll subsidize some cheap knock-off in order to gain market share, then jack the prices sky-high. Sounds fun, I can't wait until you help them do it! Yes, you, you fucking ingrates - where are the how-to articles on getting real music back on the radio and break the recording industry's stifling grip on artistic talent? That'd be too "subersive" for the mainstream media (and against the media conglomerate's interests, since Universal owns NBC, which owns MSNBC, and the whole thing is owned by GE).
27 August 2007
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?).
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?).
24 August 2007
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?
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?
21 August 2007
19 August 2007
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?
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
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."
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."
28 June 2007
vicarious irony
I walked into the break room and CNN International was showing a story on Paris Hilton's release from jail. I found the situation amusing because the reporter on scene was reading a viewer's statement, and that viewer was questioning why the media was there. The reporter, of course, treated it as the rhetorical question it was not.
Breaking News - You are the media! Why are you there?
Breaking News - You are the media! Why are you there?
08 June 2007
Random stories that have caught my interest of late.
No one told me that the circus was coming to town! And here I am without any popcorn ...
So, how does international law work again? State-running tyrants are evil, but state-sanctioned tryanny is A-OK? To be fair, I am sure they were asking for it.
Things would be so much easier if only the same rules applied to everyone!
No one told me that the circus was coming to town! And here I am without any popcorn ...
So, how does international law work again? State-running tyrants are evil, but state-sanctioned tryanny is A-OK? To be fair, I am sure they were asking for it.
Things would be so much easier if only the same rules applied to everyone!
30 May 2007
Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a RIM technician!
Does anyone really wonder why a lot of the world hates the U.S. and its brand of laissez-faire capitalism more generally? A lot of people claim to, but they seem to miss the more subtle, often cultural cues.
They do get part of it right, in that a large part of it has to do with envy — envy that something as frivolous as "Blackberry Thumb" can be a person's sole reason for visiting a doctor.
If there are any doctors to be had, that is. Because, you know, doctors live just around the street corner everywhere in the world, just like milk and apples come from your local supermarket conglomorate.
Behold, the ridiculously small-minded American excecutive. Your thumb hurts? Boo-hoo. Either work out or stop typing so many useless e-mails! You aren't providing leadership or clarity, you're cluttering the already-saturated information channels of your colleagues.
Also, for those of you that aren't aware, Research In Motion (RIM) are the makers of the Blackberry, which has become ubiquitous in the modern business environment. The title has nothing to do with rimming, though that would make for an extremely amusing title.
"What do you do?"
"Not much, just working as a RIM technician right now, looking to get into something a bit more advanced later on. You know, something that stretches my skills a bit."
" ... I'll bet you are!"
Though it is said that developing world countries are contracting our maladies, so I guess they are going to need a lot of RIM technicians after all.
All this text is making my fingers cramp ... medic!
They do get part of it right, in that a large part of it has to do with envy — envy that something as frivolous as "Blackberry Thumb" can be a person's sole reason for visiting a doctor.
If there are any doctors to be had, that is. Because, you know, doctors live just around the street corner everywhere in the world, just like milk and apples come from your local supermarket conglomorate.
Behold, the ridiculously small-minded American excecutive. Your thumb hurts? Boo-hoo. Either work out or stop typing so many useless e-mails! You aren't providing leadership or clarity, you're cluttering the already-saturated information channels of your colleagues.
Also, for those of you that aren't aware, Research In Motion (RIM) are the makers of the Blackberry, which has become ubiquitous in the modern business environment. The title has nothing to do with rimming, though that would make for an extremely amusing title.
"What do you do?"
"Not much, just working as a RIM technician right now, looking to get into something a bit more advanced later on. You know, something that stretches my skills a bit."
" ... I'll bet you are!"
Though it is said that developing world countries are contracting our maladies, so I guess they are going to need a lot of RIM technicians after all.
All this text is making my fingers cramp ... medic!
08 May 2007
Walking home from bowling I had a thought: the current Industrial Revolution (e.g., 'modern' society post 1700-ish) is experiencing a condensed form of resource abuse in the same style as agriculture did. The Middle East used to be quite habitable, and there is evidence to suggest intensive farming by humans is a large part of the reason it's so arid today (not universally). Until people thought of things like crop rotation or terraced farming, we were on a path to self-destruction (albeit over a much longer time horizon and with a lot lower public knowledge of the consequences). Industry finds itself in the same predicament today, whether it cares to admit it or not.
My hope/dream is that we can one day find new ways to fully make use of the land, in the same way modern farmers have been able to (and like native Americans used to in their hunting). If we could live in a "carbon neutral" society, whereby we exhausted only those emissions absorbed by plants through photosynthesis, or didn't emit anything beyond negligible emissions at all, that would truly be a great achievement for civilization.
My hope/dream is that we can one day find new ways to fully make use of the land, in the same way modern farmers have been able to (and like native Americans used to in their hunting). If we could live in a "carbon neutral" society, whereby we exhausted only those emissions absorbed by plants through photosynthesis, or didn't emit anything beyond negligible emissions at all, that would truly be a great achievement for civilization.
13 March 2007
To pay proper homage to our vanity, MySpace and Facebook should merge to become MyFace.
goddammit! (looks fake though)
Random thought: "no external being can do more than distract us from ourselves." Yup, that sounds just about right: the perfect philosophy for the angst-filled, single, and childless! w00t!
goddammit! (looks fake though)
Random thought: "no external being can do more than distract us from ourselves." Yup, that sounds just about right: the perfect philosophy for the angst-filled, single, and childless! w00t!
07 March 2007
A human behavioral universal: "The surest path to failure is that of least communication."
I don't know if anyone's said it before me (Google agrees I'm the first to string that particular string of characters together in such an order in recent, technologically-documented history (lol, can we have BC, AD, and TD - technologically documented? or maybe DD - digitally documented or ADHD - All Documented on Hard Disk)).
Yes, I use nested parens, because my logic be so wicked thick the standard syntaxes wilt under its force. :oP
I don't know if anyone's said it before me (Google agrees I'm the first to string that particular string of characters together in such an order in recent, technologically-documented history (lol, can we have BC, AD, and TD - technologically documented? or maybe DD - digitally documented or ADHD - All Documented on Hard Disk)).
Yes, I use nested parens, because my logic be so wicked thick the standard syntaxes wilt under its force. :oP
27 February 2007
I think I'm becoming de-sensitized to stupidity.
I mean, I'm all for discrimination against fat people, but what are overweight people supposed to do? Avoid looking in the mirror? Become even more delusional? Skinny American girls will not only starve themselves whole-heartedly (now that they're going to be encouraged by their mothers to focus even more of their waking hours on their body image) but they're also going to be hit by buses more often as they recklessly swivel their heads away from fat people crossing intersections.
Personally, I say confront a caloric monster and either knock the food from their hand or run circles around them while poking them with a stick. They'll soon tire of trying to swat at you and since you're filling their vision they'll be even more motivated ("prodded" even) to envision themselves as being skinnier, lighter, and less prone to furniture collapse.
I mean, I'm all for discrimination against fat people, but what are overweight people supposed to do? Avoid looking in the mirror? Become even more delusional? Skinny American girls will not only starve themselves whole-heartedly (now that they're going to be encouraged by their mothers to focus even more of their waking hours on their body image) but they're also going to be hit by buses more often as they recklessly swivel their heads away from fat people crossing intersections.
Personally, I say confront a caloric monster and either knock the food from their hand or run circles around them while poking them with a stick. They'll soon tire of trying to swat at you and since you're filling their vision they'll be even more motivated ("prodded" even) to envision themselves as being skinnier, lighter, and less prone to furniture collapse.
21 January 2007
European attitudes toward sex, Part II:
prostitute monument!
(a nice complement to the Homomonument)
However, in a lame attempt to pre-emptively put Europe to shame, the US has its own, not nearly as nice, monument. However, it is only for a single prostitute.
Nothing to compare to an entire society for greater prostitution awareness!
prostitute monument!
(a nice complement to the Homomonument)
However, in a lame attempt to pre-emptively put Europe to shame, the US has its own, not nearly as nice, monument. However, it is only for a single prostitute.
Nothing to compare to an entire society for greater prostitution awareness!
14 January 2007
I dub myself the Oracle of Cynicism. Check these extrapolations from a single news article:
1) Corporations don't give a shit about your average worker. What is GOOD FOR YOU IS BAD FOR THEM. Case in points:
"The average hourly wage jumped 8 cents, or 0.5 percent, to $17.04, versus forecasts for a 0.3 percent increase."
How does Wall Street respond?
"On Wall Street, stock and bond prices fell as the report raised inflation concerns and dashed hopes that the Fed might cut interest rates soon."
"Stock traders basically got a little bit of good news on employment front since they were worried about weakness, but they'll be concerned about the wages," said Anthony Chan, chief economist for JPMorgan Private Client Services.
They want workers to work more for less, DESPITE the US's consumer-driven economy:
"Chan said the report could show that consumers will keep spending at higher than expected levels, which could limit any expected slowdown in the economy this year. "Betting against consumers is like betting against the house at the casino," he said."
2) You may think that's hypocrisy, but this is even better:
""This is further evidence that the president's economic policies are working and producing strong wage gains for America's workers, and we should be cautious of future policies that would slow these gains," Labor Secretary Elaine Chao said in a statement."
Ohhhmmmm ... ohhhhhmmmmm ... I'm seeing a vision ... it's ... it's President Bush and his minions ... they're opposing something vehemently ... the blue-blooded, overpaid failures of executives and felons within the administration are opposing ... RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE.
Wait, hold on ... the Democratss are being labeled as being just as bad as the bloodsucking Republicans for not both raising the minimum wage AND tying it to inflation, so that it'd actually be somewhat fair. Possibly even livable. The conservative pundits insinuate they're failing to push their agenda through due to lack of leadership, but the situation is a result of the Dems being forced to compromise with the unyielding Republicans, who'll allow a lower wage hike as long as they can piggyback something on the bill ... what is it ... I see numbers and ... oh it's another corporate kickback to make the "transition" more bearable for corporations. And also more 'competitive', at your expense.
1) Corporations don't give a shit about your average worker. What is GOOD FOR YOU IS BAD FOR THEM. Case in points:
"The average hourly wage jumped 8 cents, or 0.5 percent, to $17.04, versus forecasts for a 0.3 percent increase."
How does Wall Street respond?
"On Wall Street, stock and bond prices fell as the report raised inflation concerns and dashed hopes that the Fed might cut interest rates soon."
"Stock traders basically got a little bit of good news on employment front since they were worried about weakness, but they'll be concerned about the wages," said Anthony Chan, chief economist for JPMorgan Private Client Services.
They want workers to work more for less, DESPITE the US's consumer-driven economy:
"Chan said the report could show that consumers will keep spending at higher than expected levels, which could limit any expected slowdown in the economy this year. "Betting against consumers is like betting against the house at the casino," he said."
2) You may think that's hypocrisy, but this is even better:
""This is further evidence that the president's economic policies are working and producing strong wage gains for America's workers, and we should be cautious of future policies that would slow these gains," Labor Secretary Elaine Chao said in a statement."
Ohhhmmmm ... ohhhhhmmmmm ... I'm seeing a vision ... it's ... it's President Bush and his minions ... they're opposing something vehemently ... the blue-blooded, overpaid failures of executives and felons within the administration are opposing ... RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE.
Wait, hold on ... the Democratss are being labeled as being just as bad as the bloodsucking Republicans for not both raising the minimum wage AND tying it to inflation, so that it'd actually be somewhat fair. Possibly even livable. The conservative pundits insinuate they're failing to push their agenda through due to lack of leadership, but the situation is a result of the Dems being forced to compromise with the unyielding Republicans, who'll allow a lower wage hike as long as they can piggyback something on the bill ... what is it ... I see numbers and ... oh it's another corporate kickback to make the "transition" more bearable for corporations. And also more 'competitive', at your expense.
05 January 2007
04 January 2007
People often wonder how how I find so many odd links online. Today I searched 'ferrous' online just to be sure I had the definition correct. This was on the first page of the Google results. Check out 'filthy scum.'
Also hucking filarious, especially the karaoke version.
New corporate acronyms
Demonstrating an Understanding of Marginal Benefits - DUMB
usage - "Man, I remember when Ford bought a stake in Mazda. They were dumb."
Corporate take on poetry: Process-Oriented Emotive Mechanism - POEM
Finally, if you're wondering what the tone of my book will be like, this is a good indicator :-P
Also hucking filarious, especially the karaoke version.
New corporate acronyms
Demonstrating an Understanding of Marginal Benefits - DUMB
usage - "Man, I remember when Ford bought a stake in Mazda. They were dumb."
Corporate take on poetry: Process-Oriented Emotive Mechanism - POEM
Finally, if you're wondering what the tone of my book will be like, this is a good indicator :-P
02 January 2007
Random thoughts I had to purge from my mind:
1 Those who most worry about the afterlife are those who fear death most.
2 It's weird to think how much money has changed. Imagine it's 1800's America and you've got a few cents. You could buy quite a bit for less than a dollar. (I'll look up what the housing prices could have been like, but even recent examples illustrate the point.)
For the sake of argument, imagine a house in 1820 is $2000. Today, say a house of a similar size would run you say $200,000. Now, I'm not interested in the exact numbers and the inflation rates, currency adjustment, changes in technology, etc., but what's interesting to me is the principle. If you had 10 cents in 1820, the value of that was a lot more than today. The money was worth more relative to your house and also could buy you more in the store. Yet in both instances it may have been necessary to mortgage your home in order to be able to afford it. One would think that we'd be less attune today to things like those marginal sales at most retailers (10% off this, 30 cents off that - with coupon, etc.), yet if anything those types of minor discounts and disparities, in sales, loan rates, etc., are more prevalent than ever before. Who would have conceived of a second mortgage in 1820, let alone 1950? Yet they're happening today, with all sorts of minute differences in rates between various lenders.
Aside from all the formal (governmental and financial institutions) changes to currency, it's interesting that cents, such as they are today, are still valued. To a large extent, I believe this is a result of economies of scale. In 1820, your local tailor may gripe over a penny would have been because that penny had real purchasing power - not because it would or would not cost his shareholders (like he'd have any!) so many thousands of dollars. Today, we may not gripe over pennies, but we do gripe over all sorts of values under $1 - despite the fact that those cents are far less valuable to us than they possibly ever have been. Part of this is also because we're so hyper-aware of prices in our intense consumer atmosphere, but behind that intense consumerism looms the giant corporations who make or lose millions on our pennies. It's in their best interests to keep meticulous track of every penny to maximize their profits and offer consumers appropriate incentives to sell their products.
I'm not saying we should be frivolous with our money. This is a principle that very much cuts both ways. If anything, the focus on small denominations of money is a good thing in general, as it should foster much-needed fiscal responsibility on both the corporations' and consumers' parts.
I'm merely fascinated by the fluidity of our monetary construct.
3 As history progresses along its spiral, we seem to be heading (and all distopian novels echo this) toward a society in which "the state" (primarily government, but increasingly corporations) supersedes the family as the societal 'safety' net. Corporations are obviously reluctant to fill this role (and certainly don't do so out of any obligations to moral or altruistic constructs), but they still provide pensions so they do participate. The government is still primarily responsible for wealth distribution and this is the role which used to be played primarily by the extended 'family' - e.g., tribe - in more ancient Western cultures (or in some non-Western cultures even today).
I wonder how much this has to do with individualism - I won't take a handout from my dad (to prove my independence) but free money from the government? Bring it! I'm not sure I understand fully the motivations behind this shift, but it's there and I think it's not too difficult to extrapolate from it a future society in which people socialize in familial ways with non-relatives (obviously quite far in the future, since even in the most extreme examples Western culture has not yet totally eradicated the familial ties - though children divorcing parents is arguably at the cusp of such a reality). My idea (which is part of my coming novel, Aanthe) is further along the time line - a time when children don't know who their parents are, are raised communally according to genetic predispositions (possibly administered by the state/corporations), and where the random genetics that dictated who was born into what family are instead manipulated such that aptitudes dictate your place within the state/corporation (e.g., engineer, biologist, doctor, etc.). People of that time would look back on the randomness of the genetic ties that bind us today as an absurdity because they can much better control the genetic odds to group people into what they would presumably perceive to be much more rational groupings based on inherent aptitudes and temperament.
1 Those who most worry about the afterlife are those who fear death most.
2 It's weird to think how much money has changed. Imagine it's 1800's America and you've got a few cents. You could buy quite a bit for less than a dollar. (I'll look up what the housing prices could have been like, but even recent examples illustrate the point.)
For the sake of argument, imagine a house in 1820 is $2000. Today, say a house of a similar size would run you say $200,000. Now, I'm not interested in the exact numbers and the inflation rates, currency adjustment, changes in technology, etc., but what's interesting to me is the principle. If you had 10 cents in 1820, the value of that was a lot more than today. The money was worth more relative to your house and also could buy you more in the store. Yet in both instances it may have been necessary to mortgage your home in order to be able to afford it. One would think that we'd be less attune today to things like those marginal sales at most retailers (10% off this, 30 cents off that - with coupon, etc.), yet if anything those types of minor discounts and disparities, in sales, loan rates, etc., are more prevalent than ever before. Who would have conceived of a second mortgage in 1820, let alone 1950? Yet they're happening today, with all sorts of minute differences in rates between various lenders.
Aside from all the formal (governmental and financial institutions) changes to currency, it's interesting that cents, such as they are today, are still valued. To a large extent, I believe this is a result of economies of scale. In 1820, your local tailor may gripe over a penny would have been because that penny had real purchasing power - not because it would or would not cost his shareholders (like he'd have any!) so many thousands of dollars. Today, we may not gripe over pennies, but we do gripe over all sorts of values under $1 - despite the fact that those cents are far less valuable to us than they possibly ever have been. Part of this is also because we're so hyper-aware of prices in our intense consumer atmosphere, but behind that intense consumerism looms the giant corporations who make or lose millions on our pennies. It's in their best interests to keep meticulous track of every penny to maximize their profits and offer consumers appropriate incentives to sell their products.
I'm not saying we should be frivolous with our money. This is a principle that very much cuts both ways. If anything, the focus on small denominations of money is a good thing in general, as it should foster much-needed fiscal responsibility on both the corporations' and consumers' parts.
I'm merely fascinated by the fluidity of our monetary construct.
3 As history progresses along its spiral, we seem to be heading (and all distopian novels echo this) toward a society in which "the state" (primarily government, but increasingly corporations) supersedes the family as the societal 'safety' net. Corporations are obviously reluctant to fill this role (and certainly don't do so out of any obligations to moral or altruistic constructs), but they still provide pensions so they do participate. The government is still primarily responsible for wealth distribution and this is the role which used to be played primarily by the extended 'family' - e.g., tribe - in more ancient Western cultures (or in some non-Western cultures even today).
I wonder how much this has to do with individualism - I won't take a handout from my dad (to prove my independence) but free money from the government? Bring it! I'm not sure I understand fully the motivations behind this shift, but it's there and I think it's not too difficult to extrapolate from it a future society in which people socialize in familial ways with non-relatives (obviously quite far in the future, since even in the most extreme examples Western culture has not yet totally eradicated the familial ties - though children divorcing parents is arguably at the cusp of such a reality). My idea (which is part of my coming novel, Aanthe) is further along the time line - a time when children don't know who their parents are, are raised communally according to genetic predispositions (possibly administered by the state/corporations), and where the random genetics that dictated who was born into what family are instead manipulated such that aptitudes dictate your place within the state/corporation (e.g., engineer, biologist, doctor, etc.). People of that time would look back on the randomness of the genetic ties that bind us today as an absurdity because they can much better control the genetic odds to group people into what they would presumably perceive to be much more rational groupings based on inherent aptitudes and temperament.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
