Illusions

My brother passed on a truely amazing optiical illusion link to me. I had to check to convince myself that Rotating Snakes wasn't actually an animated GIF or some clever flash animation. More information in English is here.

Bush speaks for unity, artic ice shelf divided

It seems some what symbolic that the same day Bush is at the UN spouting his usual dictatorial USA-uber-alles Bush-shit, scientists announce that the Ward Hunt artic ice shelf rended itself in two. And you know, all the kings horses and all the kings men wont be abe to put it back together again.

So now, in the same month Bush has continued his onslaught on the environment while simultaneously denying the existance of global warming, we have a 443 sqare kilometer hunk of ice that has been around for 3000 years, just swaning around in the Arctic Ocean. Maybe it really is symbolic and the Ward Hunt iceberg, formerly known as the Ward Hunt ice shelf, will be headed to Washington and will sink Bush's titanic. You can be sure that as the Neo-Con ship goes down the stock market will keep trading, and the cry will be "Corporations and billionaires to the tax havens first!".

The markets agree, the long dark tea-time is apon us

Well I love to say "I told you so", its more fun than "Doh, I misspoke". So for the record, I told you so. The G7 leaders issued a statement saying they are tired of Japan and China intervening in currency exchange rates by pumping billions in the dollar to maintain the competiveness of their exporters. The result, a weaker dollar - which is good for US exports and the aforementioned deficit, however its also bad for other overseas dollar investors. Consequently we have a nice slide of the dollar on our hands. Only time will tell if this turns into an express elevator to hell for the good old greenback.

Is misspeaking the same as being economical with the truth?

Well one thing is for sure, while the neo-cons have been busy misspeaking and misdoing they haven't been busy looking after the US economy. While they continue to misspeak about the realities of the economy other people are looking with increasing concern about how fragile the much advertised "recovery" is. In the USA the recent IMF World Economic Outlook report didn't receive much attention, hardly surprising, it wasn't much to shout out about and for once the neocons have something we should fear that they are not raming down our throats. Funny how that happens - its always the remote and intangible boogey men that they want us to be afraid of, not the skeletons in the closet at home. Those US news sources that did say something about the IMF report tended to put a nice positive spin on it. CNN lead with "Global economy picking up", and CBS News reported "U.S. Can't Rescue World Economy" as if to say our economy is doing so well, but the rest of the world is doing so badly we just can't be expected to save the rest of the world this time.

However the Guardian story IMF warns trade gap could bring down dollar paints an altogether picture. The outside perspective is that the IMF is saying the US economy is the one that is jeopardizing the entire world economy. Our record deficit, the trade gap, record consumer borrowing, and potential crash in the housing market all spell doom and doom for our economy, the strength of the dollar and hence the world economy. The killer comment is from IMF Chief Economist Kenneth Rogoff:

"If we were looking at a poor developing country, the world gives them just enough rope to hang themselves. A country like the United States, they give them enough rope to tie the noose around their neck several times. But it does happen in the end,"

I hope that the Misspeaker in Chief and his other cronies in the Matrix of Evil can feel the noose tightening. Guys, the last step is a long one down, watch out for the jerk at the end - that'll be you!

The Man who mistook the world for his playground

Just how did the Tard In Chief at the Whitehouse manage to get the media to swallow his idea that its now the UN that is the problem, not the USA? Of course he would claim its always been the UN and if they all had just all rallied behind him, with oil barrels at the ready, and reconstruction contracts in hand, then everything would have been tickety boo.

NEWSFLASH! The UN opposed the Tard In Chiefs invasion in every possible way it could, and they are damned if they are going to bail out this fine mess he's gotten himself into. Why should the nations of the world help foot the $90B bill (and lets face it, its probably going to be much, much higher than that) to rush into Iraq behind Uncle Sam and have him tell them how to put the country back together again. If they want the UN to clean up the mess and put their people in the grave jeopardy now required have a presence there:

• The USA should withdraw completely from Iraq
• The USA should unconditionally apologize to the people of Iraq
• George Bush be required to publically and personally apologize to the people of Iraq, Hans Blix, the UN, and the world
• The USA should immediately rescind its claims to immunity from the International Criminal Court and rescind any immunity agreements it forced other countries to sign
• The USA should immediately be suspended from the UN security council for one year as punishment
• The USA should be forced to pay reparations to the country of Iraq to compensate for the civilians killed and injured by its forces
• The USA should be forced to pay reparations to the country of Iraq to compensate for the damage to non-military targets attacked by its forces

These actions will set the record straight that the UN did not endorse the USA's actions, takes seriously and rogue nation state that sees fit to do whatever it wants, and hopefully get the message across to Iraq that the UN is willing to help them and not bend over and take it from the USA. I realize that the UK and other supporters of the USAs actions get off lightly, however as the prime mover and shaker the USA should bear the brunt, if not all, of the consequences. Lets face it, if no other country had supported it, the USA would still have invaded Iraq.

After the above actions have been taken, the following should occur:

• The UN should be given mandate to form a peace-keeping force in Iraq, which would only include USA troops if it so desires
• The UN should be given mandate to aid the people of Iraq in the reconstruction of their country
• All reconstruction contracts granted so far by the USA should be declared null and void
• The UN Should set a firm date for national elections in Iraq, within a timeframe of not more than a year
• The USA should pay whatever percentage of UN costs for the actions above is deemed fit, up to 100%

Yes, these actions may seem extreme and harsh. However I believe its the only way that the USA and UN can ever regain the respect of other countries. To admit your mistakes and pay for them is the only solution. We cannot go on with a never ending stream of bullshit based on the statement "We misspoke" which in anyone elses books is a cover-up for "we lied". Come on America, you're over 200 years old now, isn't it about time you grew up and learned from your mistakes? If you insist on childish tantrums and name calling can you expect the rest of the world to do anything else other than treat you like a spoiled brat? Or would you rather we run around shouting "Liar, liar, pants are on fire!" ????

Homosexuality bad, slavery good

No, that's not what I believe, so wait just a minute and hear me out!

An email came my way today that included an open letter to Dr. Laura. Dr. Laura is an American radio talk-show personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Paramount Television Group is currently producing a "Dr. Laura" television show (despite widespread protest). Apparently Dr. Laura once cited Leviticus 18:22 (thats the Book of Leviticus from the Old testament for those that don't know) as all the justification she needed for believing that homosexuality is an abomination and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

I think its pretty well established even in recent cases, that, so far, thought crime is not actually a crime in this country. So Dr. Laura is entitled to believe whatever she wants to believe. Just don't go foistering your beliefs on the rest of us okay! It turns out her propensity to express this "homosexuality is an adomination" opinion on air has lead to a threat to censure her under Canadian anti-hate laws.

However such a thing is far less effective than the open letter to Dr Laura, reputedly penned by one Kent Ashcraft. In this letter Kent cites ten other passages from Leviticus and Exodus that clearly show the folly of snatching a single line, out of context, from a book thousands of years old and waving it around as one's justification for believing, doing or not doing anything. The examples he gives include:

• A priest burining a bull at the alter is a nice way to honor The Man upstairs
• Selling your daughter as a servant is just fine and dandy
• Its okay to buy slaves, just so long as they are from overseas
• Its not just bad if you work on the sabbath - you must be put to death for it
• You shouldn't go up to the altar if you have defective vision
• You shouldn't wear clothes made from wool and linen
• etc. etc.

You may think I'm a terrible blasphemer to say these things, if you do you'll have to take me out and stone me if you do. Because that's what you have to do with people who do. But what's that I remember about not casting the first stone if...

Anyway, I think if you ever find yourself in a bible citation battle about what is right and wrong ("Mosquito Coast" has a good example of one) instead of just trying to refute by counter example maybe you should just throw in a Leviticus 25:44 quote and see if they want to agree that taking slaves from foreign countries is okay (albeit in clear contradiction of the fourteenth ammendment). Even if they agree with you, at least you'll know where they stand.

The more astute among you may wondering if that isn't what we're effectively doing with the people of Iraq who are destined to extract oil for us until our debt for invading them is paid. Or to the undocumented immigrant workers in this country. Remember all those workers that many people seem to want to sweep under the carpet and conveniently ignore, while all the time the government is actively pursuing economic policies that endorse seeking labor at the lowest possible cost and with the minimum possible benefits - and its even better if they are employeed overseas, out of sight and out of mind. Just what does that say about our compassion for our fellow humans?

Person to person

Earlier this week the lawsuit "Kasky vs. Nike" was settled out of court when Nike agreed to donate $1.5 million to Washington based Fair Labor Association that monitors employment conditions. You may have heard about this case before as Nike tried to block this suit from ever being heard on the grounds that its speech was protected under the first ammedment and hence it didn't matter if it was true or not. The attempt to block the suit went all the way to the Surpreme Court which decided to not hear it, allowing for the suit to proceed in the California courts, and this weeks important settlement in Kasky's favour.

Today David Lazarus of the San Francisco Chronicle, published a column on the settlement. He gives quite a significant amount of history on the subject of corporate personhood, and two opposing comments from Jeff Milchen, director of ReclaimDemocracy.org and one Ash Bhagwat, a constitutional law professor at San Francisco's Hastings College of Law who said "Corporations are a bunch of rich guys who have gotten together. They have a lot of money and they have a lot of influence. But why is that different from Bill Gates?".

Lazarus expects us to fall for this slight of hand argument by Bhagwat, which he obviously fell for (or never once doubted) and his concluding remark was: "Corporations are people too. Can't we all just get along?"

Well that incensed me enough to send the following letter to the editor of the Chronicle.

Dear Editor,

As a natural human person I find David Lazarus' concluding comment in "Nike: Just like you and me" an insult to my humanity. He invites us to welcome corporate persons as if they were some long lost siblings, while casually dismissing the crucial differences between us. Natural persons are living, breathing and eventually dying entities. Corporations are none of those and have none of the limitations that inspired the Bill of Rights to protect our frail and mortal souls.

Thanks to such attitudes and a long string of legal slight of hand tricks, we are now faced with corporations granted infinite longevity, protections from liability, imprisonment, taxes and so many numerous financial benefits they have now acquired wealth that rivals the majority of all the worlds nation states.

What rational human American could just throw away the rich history of this country’s struggle against the dominance of money over the freedom of the sovereign people of this country? Just how many more will roll over, as Lazarus has, and play ball with the enforced plutocracy of “a bunch of rich guys who have gotten together” before our American spirit will be entirely lost, trampled under foot in the race to riches?

I'll wager they don't print it. What do you think?

Critical mass for cars

Okay it sounds like a stupid idea fresh from Detroit. But hear me out. Yes, Critical Mass for cars turns the thing on its head a bit, but its nothing at all about bikes, you do it on the freeways where bikes aren't even allowed. What you do is get a hundred or more hybrid and fuel efficient car owners to all drive together in one of those classic freeway packs. Keep them all close enough to stop anyone passing, and best of all - drive at the spped limit. There's one thing about all SUV owners, no matter what the traffic speed, they always hate to behind someones car, they love to pick up the cellphone, bitch about the traffic and then pass, weave and get ahead. During commute hours a pack of small, fuel efficient cars that they can see way past, but cannot actually pass will drive them crazy.

Thanks to my friend Jimmy for putting the germ of the idea in my head. His point was that if SUVs want to enjoy the tax and fuel efficiency loopholes assoicated with trucks then they should be jammed into the truck lane with the real trucks. I know this wont really work because they are actually exploiting tax loopholes of commercial vehicles. A small modification might be to tighten the loophole so that a large percentage, if not all, of the mileage has to be for legitimate and documented commercial purposes. Otherwise you have to pay over the odds in tax for your vehicle, or find one that is fuel efficient. What is unfair with that? Californians are saying its unfair to hike taxes for cars because it hurts the poorest in the state, however who can argue that hiking SUV taxes way up would hurt the poor? What poor person that they are trying to protect can afford to run a $20-30K+ SUV that's probably costing $0.20 a mile in fuel alone? Why not tax fuel inefficient luxury cars to subsidize fuel efficient economy cars? Why not heavily tax second, third and fourth cars not used soley for purposes of work, educational, health and social care? This is as fair as the mortgage interest tax relief rules that apply to houses.

My point is there are plenty of ways to raise taxes fairly, its never just the simple black and white options that politicians present to us. After all when it comes to cutting taxes there's never an shortage of interesting and clever ways to slice and dice tax regulations to open up a hole big enough to shove a few trillion dollars through, so why not the other way around?

In the mean time I can't wait to get my hybrid car and start organizing Critical Mass events all around the Bay Area. Power to the fuel efficient! Death to the gas guzzling behemoths!

Get into the laboratory and make me some steak!

My blog on manufacturing diamonds reminds me of what great marvels can be achieved when there is a promise of fantastic rewards at the end. It turns out the Apollo method of manufacturing diamonds will scale nicely to making semiconductor wafers based on diamond. Being a fantastic conductor of heat (the best it turns out) diamond microchips will be able to run very fast, generating lots of heat and yet still staying very cool.

So while lovers and geeks are salivating at the thought of getting their hands on the new laboratory manufactured diamonds, I'm left wondering why people aren't turning their manufacturing skills to other every day items. First and foremost on my mind is why there is not yet any largescale manufacturing or growing of realistic, if not genuine muscle protein. You know, that stuff that's normally sizzling on the BBQ every weekend this time of the year. Yes folks, I'm talking beef, pork, chicken, bacon and all those other things know to be tasty snacks for hungy carnivores and omnivores alike, and lets face it, tasty - yet repellant - to a good deal of vegetarians too.

Now I've eaten a good number of meat substitutes in my day. Most are nothing like the real thing, some come remotely close, some are even tasty in their own right, but damnit why do we still need to keep raising and killing animals, and I'm talking fish, birds and mammals - yes mammals - just to hack the flesh off them and eat them?

I'll be the first to admit, that if I had to hunt for, kill and eat my own meat and had an alternative I probably wouldn't. I just don't have the stomach for it. I'd never last ten minutes at an abortoire, even clubbing a fish to death is a bit much for me. I once shot a rat with a B-B gun, that's about my only claim to fame on the animal killing front. Although it pleased my mother no end, I didn't particularly enjoy watching it thrash away its last seconds as a consequence of the lump of lead I had smashed into it.

The problem is I'm an omnivore - thats the kind of beast I am and that's what my body evolved to eat. I also know I'm an unusual omnivore in that I actually have the choice not to eat meat, or as I'm often reminded by some of my English, Scottish and Irish friends - to eat only meat and no vegetables. The problem is I have a taste for the stuff. Animal flesh, ummmm, love the stuff. I wish I didn't. I wish I found it as repellant and as un-appealing as a plate of feetid mushy peas, or chopped spider legs, or slugs and snails and puppy dogs tails, or whatever your most repellant poison is. But I don't. I was raised eating meat, that's the way I am. And it's a very hard process to just stop doing it when I know that when push comes to shove, killing animals and eating them is the natural thing for humans, left in the wild, to do. Take away our food systems, throw us out in the woods for a few months deprived of protein, and we'll be making traps, chasing deer and trying everything else to fullfill our destiny as the great (white) hunter.

Yes, I know I'm pathetic. I'm filled with awe for my vegetarian friends who have achieved "the switch" (I see some interesting "I switched to plants" Apple parody ads there). Or filled with jealously for the ones raised as vegetarians and find themselves with no taste for flesh or tolerance for eating it. So why oh why, isn't someone helping me out here? Why hasn't someone started manufacturing real steak, real bacon, real lamb (baaaah, we Europeans love our sheep) without actually needing to raise and kill an actually living, sentient animal in between. Just what is the big problem that science hasn't yet figured out?

In the end I think the problem that's holding us up is that not only are huge numbers of people engaged in this process of producing food by raising and killing of animals, its also very profitable for the small number of very large farming concerns doing it. I think we have a situation similar to De Beers locktight-grip on diamonds, only for control of the food chain. There are just too many interested parties for someone to come along and say, yeah, just get this vast vat, poor in some bean proteins we grew earlier, stir, warm, whisk and extrude and three days later, there you have it, a nice slab of New York Strip ready for the grill, and perfect to boot. No captive bolt included, or required. You know if it was really like the real thing I'd pay a premium for it. It wouldn't be like manufactured diamonds where I'd expect to get them for less than "the real thing". I'd actually pay extra for the privilege of not killing animals just as one pays for the privilege of not having ones vege's splattered with chemicals, or ones eggs produced free range, or beef from cattle raised on grass in a field instead of on grain in a stinky dirt bowl next to Interstate 5.

An alternative which some may find sinister or repellant, is the idea of growing meat much as doctors grow skin for grafting. We know it can be done. Its more of a case of finding someone to figure out how and if it can be done on a mass scale. It does seems to me that it should be possible to figure out how to duplicate the qualities of natural muscle fiber without having to grow it from muscle cells. But once again I have to say I find that way less repellant than the current animal slaughter business that I've unwittingly found myself co-opted into. After all, isn't grown a hunk of muscle just growing a hunk of cells, and not really any different from growing a hunk of cells from a plant? Its not like there would be a nervous system and brain in there.

In a previous blog entry I mentioned some of the things I never thought would happen in my lifetime that did. I'd like to formally add: the end of animal husbandry to produce meat for human consumption, most particularly that of mammals. I'll draw the line at getting eggs and milking cows, sheep or whatever by a natural, humane and non-large scale process. While I'm at it I'll also mention the desire to live to see the end of corporate personhood which I think is related. The about it: we can assign human rights to non-human legal fictions created in a court of law solely for the purpose of making and protecting money, yet we cannot assign even the most basic rights to animals. Are we therefore any better than our forefathers who, as late as 1857, decided that people could indeed be designated as property and denied any basic human rights? I think not.

So come on Professor Frink and those of your ilk, get your thinking caps on and your fingers out of your funders wallets. Now get into the laboratory and make me some steak!

Marketing is for ever, diamonds are for whatever

Well you tell me, what are diamonds for? Many people would tell you they are for engagement rings, but they could probably not tell you why that is, other than because they are supposedly enduring, pretty and are rare and expensive gems that are only relinquished from the earths clutches at extreme expense and inconvenience.

As it turns out diamonds are really not that enduring - they damaged or destroyed quite easily by a variety of physical and chemical processes, have many inexpensive immitators that to the unprofessional eye are indistinguishable from the real thing, and finally it turns out are neither that rare, or if the free market had its way, expensive. The only thing that is true that many poor and impoverished souls to toil at a rock face to mine them without ever seeing any of the benefits of their phenomenal later value. Even worse they frequently leveraged as a universal monetary unit more convenient and convertible than gold and thus the control of them is frequently the source of much blood loss, leading to the term "conflict diamonds".

So where did this modern day perception of diamonds as a token symbol of enduring love come from? Why do men the world over feel obliged to fork over three months salary to buy a rock mined by people who are quite probably paid less in their life time than the rock is "worth"?

Well its easy. Marketing. Most particularly market be the De Beers company. Indeed it turns out that diamonds were for the most part largely overlooked as the precious stone of choice. Until the post WWII years that is. That's when De Beers really got going on a very dramatic and powerful marketing campaign to turn them into the "must have" token of love that all men must deliver, and all women must expect. Movie stars, the nations wealthiest and famous were all recruited and made complicit in this campaign. And it worked, it worked so well that now the majority of diamonds are deemed so valuable that the owners dare not take them out in public. Yes the majority are privately held and locked away in safes. The rest, alone with the mines that produce them are almost entirely controlled by guess who - De Beeers. The free market prices are kept artificially high at all times by careful manipulation of supply to meet demand.

Naturally there is a steady demand. People are getting engaged, married and re-married all the time. But all those diamonds just keep ending up in vaults and those that are resold seldom get recycled for engagement purposes. Using old gold may be deemed romantic, but no girl wants an old diamond for her engagement ring. Of course it would be okay, but the marketing people took care to brainwash us all that its not. The reason is if all the people who owned diamonds got them out and decided to sell them it would cause a huge crash in the price of diamonds. There would be diamonds everywhere, they would suddenly be viewed as cheap and cheerful and De Beers would be left rocking (ha, ha, pun intentional) from the consequences.

You may not believe me, but the full scoop was detailed in a three part article in The Atlantic Monthly in the early eighties. Now you all know what I think about corporations that manipulate markets and their customers and exploit pretty much everyone and everything they touch for the benefit of a multi-billion dollar industry. So fast-forward, if you will to the early 2000s....

I was more than delighted to read in Wired Magazine an article about two companies who are independently working on ways to manufacture diamonds. One is Gemisis that is manufacturing colored diamonds in a Russian designed "pressure cooker" contraption. The other is Apollo that is manufacturing white diamonds by a gas sublimation process similar to that used in making galium arsenide wafers for microchips. Both appear to be to be only months away from retail selling of flawless one to five caret diamonds "grown" in just a few days and sold for a substantial discount compared to those mined and sold by De Beers. In reality the actual cost of these diamonds is probably just a few hundred dollars each, the asking prices may be substantially below De Beers inflated prices but they will still be thousands of dollars each. So sorry guys, you wont get away with spending just a days salary on a huge rock for your gal any day soon.

However De Beers has taken note. And they are apparently running scared... They have already started lobbying the US government to strictly regulate the naming of the manufactured diamonds. They don't like "cultured diamonds" but they do like "synthetic diamonds". Not surprising since "synthetic" definitely has overtones of "not the real thing". They do desperately want to portray that only "real" diamonds will do as a symbol of real love, anything else is fake. unforatunately all indications are that a burgeoning number of younger consumers really loathe the background of where diamonds come from and how they got to the window of the jewelers via a huge chain of people starting with exploited miners and ending with rich fat cat diamond dealers. They want to divorce there purchase from all that and have a clean, unblemished perfect diamond that has been manufactured with no risk of blood on its hands and global marketing conspiracies controlling its price. Indeed people who have heard about Apollo and Gemisis are literally holding out and waiting for their products to reach the market.

For those that don't see the argument based on a more ethical origin of the jewel, Gemisis contends its still an easy sell. As they point out, they can easily price their manufactured yellow diamonds at or below half the price of the very rare and expensive De Beers product. And they can also manufacture them with extraordinary perfection and sized. So dollar for dollar a customer can look at two diamonds side by side, one from Gemisis and one from De Beers. To their eye there is no difference - both perfect sparkling yellow diamonds, both the same price. How to choose? The only problem for De Beers is the Gemisis diamond will be twice as big. As well all know, if a diamond is good, a bigger diamond is better and no one but the purchaser will ever know the difference...

So I'm rather pleased that De Beers will finally get a run for its money and quite possibly will loose. It will be forced to unleash more diamonds onto the market to lower its prices and compete, it will eventually be exposed as the "dirty" diamond producer that no one really wants much to have to do with. And all those middle men now actively engaged in the dirtly little trade of pushing shiney stones to happless young lovers who can often as not ill afford them, well they'll just have to go an find something more useful to do with their lives. Its not clear to me how the miners previous engaged in the diamond business will fair - it seems likely there will always be some market for geologicaly manufactured diamonds torn from the earth. It may or may not be enough to sustain them. But likely as not a good number of countries will have to look for other natural resources to defend from exploitative foreign corporations. I hope they fair better the seond time around.

Personally I think its trying to call apples, oranges and oranges, apples. They are all diamonds

Stupid is, stupid does

There is an interesting article on Wired News that suggests maybe some people really are just too stupid to surf. These are not the people who simply fail to get all the latest updates, or mis-configure their router or make some other forgiveable mistake. No, they are the people who download stuff anti-virus software and never bother to install it, buy Kazaa for $29.95 and believe it gives them free music for life, see warnings but never read them, open unknown attachments and get viruses over and over and over, keep forwarding every chain letter or urban legend to all their other clueless friends, and hand over their email address and other personal info to every dumb ass web site that asks for it.

The article suggests there should be a license to surf but I think that will never work. On the face of it we have licenses for some things, like driving, or practicing some life and death professions. But lets face it, society gives people the right to own guns, raise kids, and many other potentially lethal things without any licenses. So why would it ever work for surfing? Critical thinking isn't something you can learn overnight and test for just like that. If it was the world would, or could, be a much better place. We could use that test before letting people on the roads, in planes, in front of a voting machine, in charge of a computer (for whatever purpose). However it turns out that some people really are just too stupid to surf or own and operate any contemporary surfing equipment that is more complicated than a TV with a two button remote.

So here's my shooting from the hip idea... If porn sites get a .xxx domain, kids get .kids.us domain then what about a .stupid, .dummy (or the less inflamatory .simple or .safe) domain extensions for all these hapless surfers. It could be full of harmless websites with no plugins, no Active-X, no VB scripts, no spam, no-porn, no-downloadable anything and supporting only one open port (80), and only licensed and regulated business sites aimed at the intellectually challenged surfers. On second thoughts, I think this sounds just like TV which is maybe exactly why AOL and others are trying so hard to make web surfing an experience so wonderfully controlled and utterly devoid of any requirement of a critical mind capable of independent thought - just like TV!

In our dreams

Bush resigned, read his resignation speech.

Switched2Dean

I just ran into a politcial parody of the Apple "switched" campaign. The people are switching to Howard Dean for President and not to Apple computers. Of course it has a serious message but the imitation is a good one, right down to the music accompanying the switch stories. The Switched2Dean website turns out to have been created by a former work colleague of mine. Nice one Daniel.

Mad in the USA

One thousand small and medium-sized business owners demonstrate "to demand fair trade and denounce the sweatshop buying habits of big retailers like Wal-Mart". Apparently they are waking up to the mega-corporations that are squeezing out the entire middle class of the business world - just like they are doing to the middle class of people. Read Mad in the USA for the whole scoop.

George Bush's address to the fodder units

This weekend was filled with things that really matter: dear friends, enlightened conversation, wonderful food, self-made entertainment and large quantities of red wine.

Unforuntately it all had to come to an end and about 70 miles short of San Francisco we made ourselves suffer while listening to GWBs address to the nation. It would nice if we could say we got some enjoyment from hurling abuse at the radio as his drivel reached our ears. Unfortunately it was such mindless BS that after the first half dozen untruths repeated as the truth, and the one hundredth mention of the war on terrorism I just plain fell asleep. I awoke in time to hear some hapless souls that NPR had called up for comment after the speech. I was rather disappointed that not a single one of them gave the response Colonel Potter from M*A*S*H would have - horse hooey. Unfortunately it was just mindless plattitudes like "yeah, he really answered all the questions I had, I feel much better now knowing we're doing the right thing". I just wonder, did IQs really did drop sharply while we were away, or has everyone really been brainwashed?

The thing that struck me the most was how everything he said was purely subjective. If you hadn't engaged the American "we're only 1 in 20 of the worlds population but we can kick yer ass if you don't kiss our ass" perspective, then most, if not all of what he said would seem completely laughable. I'm awaiting some objective commentary from overseas, but I'm sure they haven't finished laughing their asses off yet. I'll give a great example this which was quoted by the BBC:

"Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there, and there they must be defeated. This will take time, and require sacrifice"

That had me screaming at the radio - to me its as if he's reading a statement by Osama bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people are the ones making a desperate stand. You really have to believe that America was right to even have a chance of seeing this as an objective statement. How about:

"The terrorists became convinced that free nations were decadent and weak."

I'm sorry, but its quite clear that the influences on our governments are decadent, and by their very nature have begat decadent rulers, and are supported by voters who, if they do not already have it, aspire to decadence. The utopian dream portrayed by Western media for all to aspire to is the epitomy of decadence. When those portrayed as terrorists speak of the US as weak then never mean physically weak, or weak in military might, however they mean weak of resolve and weak in that they cannot see their error in pursuing a happiness defined by their own love of manna instead of their own love of life and people. Then there was:

"The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and the resentments of oppressed peoples. When tyrants fall and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every culture reject the ideologies of terror and turn to the pursuits of peace. Everywhere that freedom takes hold, terror will retreat."

So why has and does terrorism still persist in many of the "free" countries of the world? Ask the Basque Separatists, the IRA, people of Palestine, the religious cults, the Branch Davidians, and many other groups throughout the "free" world that are commiting acts labeled as terrorism? Why does the USA itself habor persons who are so disenfranchised by the government and society as a whole they also resort to random acts of violence? I remain unconvinced that there is any evidence that Bush's particular brand decadent greed based freedom could ever erradicate terrorism, more likely it will inspire a whole new cult of domestic terrorism in all countries it encompasses.

To me the very idea that terrorism is caused by just a few crazy people who can be erradicated is a tired and historically foolish notion. Terrorism is the extreme manifestation of rebellion exhibited people who identify with a point of view that they believe has made them disenfranchised from the rest of society. So people killing abortion doctors because that's what they want and society had better give it to them - or else - is just as much terrorism as people flying planes into buildings, or governments pre-emptively marching armies into remote contries because they need to be freed from themselves - or else. Over and over governments attempt to "erradicate" and "destroy" terrorism by attempting to erradicate and destroy terrorists. However you simply cannot do that without eliminating that entire point of view, or integrating it into society in some way.

One could go on, dissecting every sentence of Bush's speech for the propoganda it is. I won't bother because I know that others will better my efforts. Overall the contempt I hold for GWB couldn't be higher right now. The disrespect he shows for the worlds intelligence, their lack of knowledge of history, and the utter disregard for loss of human life he has inflicted, and wishes to continue inflicting is shameful. Remember, when GWB attempts to appease the American civilians, and those in the military who are tired of fighting and just want to come home for pizza, beer and Monday-night football; he is addressing the very same men, women and children that his father branded as OFU - one fooder unit. Can we really expect GWB and those of his ilk to hold us in any higher regard?

Just how can a country ever pretend to bring peace and freedom to the world when it regards even its own people as just a collection of indistinguishable tax paying disposable fodder units with a finite $ value attached to each? Remember, with George Bush and his corporate cronies in charge, the correct answer to the question: "What price freedom?" is "How much have you got 'cause we'll take it all!". Its no wonder terrorists label us decadent and weak. As a tax paying fodder unit I formally raise my hand and wish to be counted as one who would like to displace the decadent and weak who are running the show. They don't speak for me, they don't speak for the majority of my friends, colleagues and associates and nor do we wish them to.

Hey leaders, leave us fodder units alone!

No sooner said than done

Earlier this week I blogged about how overseas competition and restrictive operating system use policies will raise the hackles of Microsoft and others. In a report today it is clear Microsoft is already crying foul over unfair trade practices that might restrict use of its OS overseas. In attempt to quell foreign fear and loathing they have started a programme to share source code and security advice with governments who are concerned about what is inside Windows.

Margarita time

There is an interesting story on alternet this morning about how the press is just begining to find a spine and stand up to the Bush-wash of reporting on Iraq. The author suggests its time to have margaritas and I'm inclined to agree. It seems the press is about to start a rally cry for its favourite pre-election activity, a good old fashioned Presidential lynching. Nothing like building up a man and then destroying him, and pretending you never supported him in the first place. As they say, if you live by the sword you'll die by the sword.

It may be too good to be true, but I'll drink to it anyway. Margaritas anyone?

Iraqi murder rate soars

In my blog entry What price the American dream? I predicted a sky high murder rate in Iraq compared to pre-invasion times. This is one case where I'm unhappy to be right, but recent reports indicate more than 30 murders per day in the streets of Baghdad alone, compared with 48 per month last year. This is one civilian death toll that no one in Washington is talking about. However civilians killed due to the cival disorder caused by GWB's removal of law and order are no different from the civilian deaths before the war "ended". This is a story that has recently vanished from MSNBC, and I could not find it reported elsewhere in the US mainstream media. Having just sat through the first half of the movie "1984" and watched Winston Smith re-writing history in the newspapers at the behest of Big Brother, my mind boggles...

How to prosecute a President for murder

I came across an interesting article via one of my referers (http://wallybrane.blogspot.com/). Read this story about how Karl Rove leaked information that could ultimately lead to GWB being prosecuted for murder. You haven't read about it in the mainstream media yet and nor does anyone want you to.

Debating the debate

Did anyone watch that debate? I really hope that any Californian voting in the recall next month did, while there is much information we are missing I have to say for the most part I was impressed with the amount of information about the candidates that it conveyed. No it wasn't a Hitchens vs. Danner kind of debate, but compared to previous Presidential "debates" I've seen on TV it was actually quite refreshing. Having watched the entire debate on TV (admittedly from the bunker of the Huffington SF volunteers HQ) here is my conclusion:

Gray Davis: I would really like to have seen him be able to enter the debate. During his one-on-one session he at least came across as appologetic and human. Ultimately its crazy, the recall is bogus and he should finish out his term.

Tom McClintock: Be afraid, be very afraid. He is everything in a Republican your mother warned you about and not afraid to shout about it. He is the most un-Californian candidate of all of them. The only sane thing I heard him utter was being pro-medicinal marijuana.

Peter Ueberroth: Failed dismally to make an impression in any respect and should drop out top avoid an embarassing result.

Peter Camejo: In many respects he differs little from Arianna in terms of what policies he supports. However in a debate he gave the most compelling delivery of a message that is alternative to the Republicans. Some people say he's a dreamer, some people say he's too liberal for us, but to me he sounded like the right candidate for California.

Arianna Huffington: As mentioned her policies that were expressed in the debate are close, if not indestinguishable from Camejo. However as a woman, an immigrant and one with the inside story on Republican thinking and why it failed she has some "value add" to bring to the table. She came off as forthright, however on occasion a little to rebelious for TV-land. Her continuous gibes and off-topic rants were interesting but not what they (the TV people) wanted to hear. When it comes down to it TV wants a candidate that plays the game when on camera. I'm not saying that's a good thing (its not) but it has a way of painting such candidates with a negative brush whether they deserve it or not.

Cruz Bustamante: except for his accepting $2 million from the Indian gaming reservations he mostly came off quite well as the "un-Gray" candidate. He very openly admitted the whole energy deregulation thing was a big mistake which he would undo as his #1 priority. I respect a candidate that will openely admit mistakes on camera for the record. As Huffington points out, what is so terrible about selecting a candidate that learns from their mistakes?

Arnold Schwarzenegger: most notable by his absence and coming off very poorly because of it. In some locations sure there will be many who still vote for him, but overall his absence was a big mistake assuming he actually had something credible to say infront of cameras. However I think from his "handlers" point of view it was a calculated absence that avoided him looking like an ass. Its clear he couldn't have held his own with the rest - even Uberroth - and as Huffington said, he's still waiting for his script to arrive before jumping in at the last minute with his lines. For me I completely lost any respect for him as a potential candidate (inspite of his political leanings) after his handing of the "Oui" magazine interview. To deny or gloss over it is just typical polictical BS that we don't need anymore. Arnold, be the man - confess, state your current position on "free love", gang-bangs, drug use and move on. Let your voters judge for themselves, but don't try the typical cover up or denial BS that you'd never let a democrat get away with.

Overall if I had a vote it would be a close choice between Huffington and Camejo. I'm worried that Huffington is being two outspoken on the Indian gaming taxes and anti-prison union rhetoric without enough information to back it up. These two should really combine and focus their messages to double their voting block.

Overall the "left" or progressive message is - increase taxation on the rich so they pay equal percentage of taxes on their income and wealth to those paid by the lower 95% and the undocumented, and close loopholes that let corporations escape taxation. The "center" Democratic message - we just need to do some fine tuning and raise taxes a bit here and there if only the Republicans would play fair. The "right" Republican message - we need to add more jobs to get more tax payers and increase tax revenues without increasing taxes themselves, and we need to privatize as much of government as possible (including educations) to reduce costs.

Finally, a link from MoveOn.org who would like you to pledge to vote no on the recall.