All baseball, no cheney...

The V.pee went to enjoy a "good ball game" only to be booed by the crowd when shown on one of the ballpark videoscreens. The crowd booed... boooooooooooooooooo. At the V.pee. There is mention of this in an espn article that I found via the crankpot.

On a more frightening note, the head of federal voting commission, Deforest B. Soaries, has announced that they are seeking government guidelines for what to do in the event that a terra attack prevents or postpones a presidential election...

If this is true, what makes it even more interesting is that---

"Soaries was appointed to the federal Election Assistance Commission last year by President Bush. Soaries said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in April to raise the concerns."

I realize the obvious implications are completely speculatory, yet scary to think about. I have had a bad feeling about possible roads the monkey could lead us down since he was elected, who knows what'll happen next... Again, found the article at the crankpot, who said it best when they said, shit.

Skippy...

Many thanks to skippythebushkangaroo for sending some traffic my way. Also, I had posted a link to skippy's three part rebuttal to lisa myer's "fact checking" of moore's film. Those links have changed, so here they are again if anyone is interested... one, two and three. I've been working all day, so there will be some posting later on. Ciao

Argghh...

Damnitt, I said no more politics for a few days, but I found this over at thecrankpot and thought it should be posted. 'Tis a nice little sum up of many of the questions raised in Farenheit... enjoy.

Why the far right is trying to keep Americans from seeing Fahrenheit 9/11
... and the lies, frauds and deceptions they're using -


The issue then becomes, is the movie accurate?
Do the Saudis own 7% of this country?
Does the President’s family have deep ties to the Bin Laden family?
Did the President arrange for the Bin Laden family to be flown out of this country on 09/13, while there was a ban on flights, and then lie about it for two years?
Have they made the billions of dollars from the Saudis that Moore asserts?
Did the Taliban meet with GW Bush in the late 90s to discuss a pipeline through Afghanistan?
Did GW Bush sit in that classroom reading My Pet Goat while we were under attack?
Did he use macho tag lines, while soldiers were dying, such as bring em on and we’re gonna smoke em out?
Did the White House really turn over the President’s military records with the name of James Bath crossed out with marker?
Did the Patriot Act get passed without being read?
Did Halliburton make billions upon billions of dollars in no-bid contracts from this war?
Is that profiting, from a war, which some are calling war profiteering?
Was the man GW Bush named to run Afghanistan, Hamid Karzi, a consultant for Unocal, the same company that wanted that infamous pipeline?
Did Bush spend 42% of his first year on vacation?
Did he not read the intelligence briefings, which may have tipped him off to 9/11?
Were the soldiers lied to about how long they would be in Iraq?

...

Were 27,000 votes not counted in Florida?
Did John Ashcroft really lose a senatorial race to a dead guy?
Does Dubya seem like a dishonest fellow? ( I know this wasn't particularly addressed in the film)
Were the saudis that got flown out of the country on sep. 13th really let go without even being questioned by the FBI?


There are a few on here that I know are questionable if put into the proper context, but nonetheless a nice summary of some of the things addressed in the film.

Playing god with cheese...

What does one get when they play god with milk? Cheese, sour cream, butter, etc. What does one get when they play god with miracle grow? Plants that are healthy and rich, hopefully anyway. What the heck am I talking about? Phrases like, "we can't do that, that would be like playing god." Actually, I was thinking about this in relation to genetic research and manipulation, but it could apply to many different things.

One large issue in the topic of genetic research is whether or not it would be moral to do things like study stem-cells, or clone people. One reason that some will call it immoral to do so is that it is god's job to create things, not ours apparently. What about the fact that we as humans do nothing but create different things for ourselves. We play god with everything. We modify, amplify, expand and inflate. We blow up and magnify anything that we can possibly do so with... so wouldn't it seem to be a natural step?

How could it be ethically dangerous to say, research stem cells for the purpose of curing diseases. It doesn't seem like it would be. After all, the stem cell is microscopic, with no concsiousness. One worry might be over how far something like this could go. Before we know it, we'll be cloning ourselves for the sake of living again, or cloning massive amounts of worker zombies, army zombies, or robots... Dawn of the Dead... or modifying our children to have blue eyes and IQ's of 175. I feel that what us humans do with ourselves is already in "nature's" hands. With the ball of civilization rolling like it is, there is really no telling what is next. Imagine all of the 6.5 billion people on earth and every city, every house, every building, dam, airport and roadway. What is everyone doing? Living, working, learning, laughing, smiling, lying, thinking, creating a plan, having no plan, walking, running sleeping... playing soccer and so on. The ball is rolling, where will it go?

Something different...

No more about Farenheit for a while, I've seen it, know what I think and that's good for now. In fact, I'm going to make a point of not discussing politics on this site for a few days as I feel I need a little break from even discussing any of it. So, something different, soon. Ciao

You heard it here... last

There is so much in the news and on the internet about Moore's film that I hate to bore you with more, but I went to see it, and... aaaannd... it was good! Suprise, right? It was interesting to see that there were many different types of people in the crowd. I saw parents with their kids and quite a few elderly "folks". I'm sure that many who attended already had disdain for Dubya, particularly the couple next to me that would utter things like "what an asshole" every now and then.

But really, even though the film had a very biased approach, it raised many questions about the people in charge of this country. The first half was mainly bits of clever editing in which Bush's business ties to Saudi leaders are recounted, the Florida vote is recounted and subject to a loss of 27,000 votes, and Bush goes on vacation, for 42% of the first eight months in office... here is an interesting discussion on the the latter matter.

It was definitely a documentary, but it covered so many issues very quickly while keeping tight with the editing. Moore never really reaches a point, but rather leaves it open for the viewer to decide based on what is presented. One can't argue with the eggs being thrown at Bush's motorcade during his inaugaration, or the 700 billion that Saudi Arabia has invested in our economy, or the huge profits being made by friends of the henchmen.

There were attempts at persuading with emotional rhetoric, such as the woman who lost her son, or the innocent civilians that are killed during the war. Some might say that things like this will exploit the army in a negative fashion, though I would have to say that they were more attempts at justifying the argument that we have sent our troops to an unnecessary war... which is one of the main points of the film. I don't know that it will change people's minds about the monkey, but it will definitely reinforce the views of people that already don't like what has happened and it should at least get people thinking, which is good. People. Thinking. This is good.

Comic relief...

Just picked up a George Carlin book that I had lying around... here's a few little quips:

"I've never been quarantined, but the more I look around the more I think it might not be a bad idea"

"If there really are multiple universes, what do they call the thing they are all a part of?"

"THE CHRISTIANS ARE COMING TO GET YOU, AND THEY ARE NOT PLEASANT PEOPLE"

"One of my favorite things to do at a party is to take a bunch of PCP and start taking people's rectal temperature without permission"

"When he got loaded, the human cannonball knew there were not many men of his caliber"

"If you listen to his voice carefully without looking at the screen, Ted Koppel sounds like he's taking a shit"

"SPOTS ARE DOTS UP CLOSE" "DOTS ARE SPOTS FAR AWAY"

"There is now a Starbucks in my pants"

More on Moore, one more time...

Haven't really got much today, and I still haven't seen Farenheit, though when I finally do tommorow, I'll post my initial reaction/review/thoughts on it. So far the reviews are looking good and boxofficemojo is reporting about 8 million for yesterdays ticket sales. I feel like I've seen it already from all of the reviews and such that I've read recently, and though I know that for the most part it will adhere to my personal taste, there are a couple of things that I can already tell bother me about it.

First, the title. I see where Moore is coming from, but it sounds kinda cheesy, aside from the fact that Mr. Bradbury originally coined the title. Even months ago I thought that was a bad move; he might as well have called it Puppetmaster. Second, the woman in the movie whose son is in Iraq. Again, I see why it's there from Moore's standpoint, but attempting to appeal to the emotions is what is provoking any critic of this movie to say that it doesn't support "facts" (which I would guess is authentic footage of Dubya and others making monkies of themselves). And then we get into the whole issue of whether it could be considered a documentary if it doesn't "cut to the chase", like "normal" documentaries do. Of the latter, I could care less what the movie is classified as in so far as it is powerful in showing people a different side of Dubya's legacy. I will say that similar instances bothered me a bit in Bowling for Columbine, such as the very end when he leaves the little girl's picture in front of Charlton Heston's house. It just seems to take away from the point.

Overall, I can't imagine these things will ruin the film, considering the reports of applause after virtually every show house viewing in the country. Moore's style is to present things in such a fashion that it makes one feel something inside, not just intellectually, but emotionally. So while it does bother me that drama and emotional rhetoric were added to the film, I'm sure there is enough footage that speaks for itself.

P.S. Much thanx to the show house doorman's inside perspective and reaction to the film.

Analyze this...

SKIPPY has devised a brief but decent three part rebuttal to MSNBC's Lisa Myers' "fact checking" of Moore's film. Go here and scroll to the MSNBC/factual post heading. It seems that her idea of "fact checking" is based on clouded confusion about what the facts are... Check it out.

Sold out...

You know it, I went to see Farenheit and it was sold out, which didn't suprise me a bit. I can't wait to see how it does over the weekend. In the meantime, there is some of the inevitable resistance from the right over the advertising of this film. The Boston Herald reports today on the decision of a legal panel from the FEC to ban ads that promote the film after July 30th.

Their justification for such legal action is that they consider Farenheit to be a political advertisement, as opposed to a film that naturally gets to run trailers because of it's status AS A FILM. I suppose one could argue that the nature of the film is political and therefore inadverdantly advertises against a candidate, yet not only has Moore never endorsed Kerry (which if he had might make it more like an advertisement), but neither is it technically an advertisement for anything other than the movie itself. Wouldn't IFC and Lionsgate films also have to be in the business of political advertising for it to be considered as such? If the FEC manages to make this happen, it's hard telling how far such limitations could go. On the other hand, I am guessing that the reason why companies and unions would be prohibited from advertising against a candidate 30 days before primary election would be so that partisan powers don't flood the media, and voters can be more clear on issues(even though the media is flooded by partisan powers anyway).

Also, got to read a decent, critical review of the film over at slate, go check it out... laters

Bullseye!

This is an interesting piece of work that my buddy Miguel recently conjured up from the inner caves of his soul. Rather pretty. Diggin it. 

Abubu Garefref...

-"The Prime Minister brought up the Abu Garef ---- si -- situation..." Dubya, Washington, D.C., Jun. 22, 2004 (go to dubyaspeak for more such statements)

I know I pick on this guy a lot, and he is an easy target, but he never fails to astonish me. There was a clip of him saying the above quote on the news this morning and it just blew my mind. As soon as he realized that he mispronounced the prison in Baghdad that has further put his administration's policies into question,(I don't think we need to go any further) there was a pause, then a look on his face that was a cross between anger, dissapointment, and sadness. I'm assuming that it had dawned on him what he just said. Is he just bad with speech, or is the situation so meaningless to him that he doesn't care to learn the correct pronunciation? I would guess a bit of both. I realize that nobody is perfect, but he does have arguably the most important job in the US. Such a person should at least have good communication skills, something of which the monkey has none. Very contradictory. Very disapointing.

Why blog weblog...

Why do I, buyankasha, blog? Why have I taken on this new hobby? Initially, a blog was something that I began to hear about less than a year ago (though blogs have been around for at least five years) and seemed like nothing more than random message boards, which I guess is still technically what they are. Then I realized that there is a blog for just about every subject that one can think of, many like diaries; "I went to the store today", "I don't think that so and so should happen". Just hundreds of thousands of people randomly clicking away at their keyboards for what I assume is the hope that someone out there will read it and hear what they have to say.

Since then I have realized that some blogs are much more than diaries. I started about a month ago and have subsequently ran into articles in both TIME and The New Yorker about the blogging phenomenon. So apparently I have hopped on the bandwagon and now am not sure exactly what I want this blog to do. Considering the very low amounts of traffic that this site gets, I have to decide whether I want to take it further to get people reading this by e-mailing other bloggers to link up to, or not take it seriously and be fine with the few people that are reading. After all, if I am writing about something that I think is interesting, and constantly updating,(which is only a burden in the sense that no one is reading it anyway)I have to wonder what the point is if there is no one to discuss all this poop with.

And then I wonder, well what exactly is my motivation for this if not to dig up tidbits for myself and others to think about and enjoy? It's also a place where I can gain different perspectives and open discussion on many different issues that matter to me. Something that bothers me a little bit though is that if I do direct traffic to this blog, I will begin to feel obligated to keep up the pace, which I may not always be able to do because of the fact that there are only so many hours in a day and I have to sleep at least five of them.

One other thing that I ponder as of late is the political nature of this site; do I want to be so heavy on the politics? Am I automatically in the category of "political blog"? More than likely I will continue with whatever comes up in the world of politico, but I will also be posting whatever might be on my mind that I feel is worth posting... could be anything, but mostly politics for a while. In any case, I have been learning a lot from having to lightly research issues before I post about them. So, onward to blogdom it is.

And thanx to those that have been reading and hopefully continue to read this blah... ciao

In the news, but not really...

Read an interesting post yesterday over at thismodernworld about recent happenings in Saudi Arabia. The issue here is the fact that the Saudis are our allies... and they run a brutal dictatorship. Anybody sense the contradiction here? I saw an episode of South Park once where Cartman travels back to meet with the founding fathers and it is decided that the government of this country will be founded on saying one thing and doing another. I don't recall hearing hardly anything in the news about Saudi Arabia since 9/11, aside from the fact that TWENTY-EIGHT pages of a report issued on the happenings of that day were blacked out due to the content in the report that focused on Saudi Arabia.

Why no Saudi News? One might ask. And I would say that while I am not privy to classified information, nor do I(and probably 90% of all other human beings) really, truly know exactly what is going on with this administration's decision making processes, one could venture to guess a couple of different reasons for the lack of Saudi coverage in the news...

1. The media is focused elsewhere, for obvious reasons.

2. There is nothing to cover... we'll come back to this one.

3. Certain people with certain interests don't want the masses to know much about that part of the world due to the impending contradiction.

4. The leader of the free world smokes cigars with the leaders of Saudi Arabia.

So, back to 3, what is there to cover? Well, maybe that our ally runs a brutal dictatorship... the kind that this administration has serious contempt for, the kind that harbors terra, the kind that was home to the majority of 9/11 hijackers... the kind that the monkey loves to do business with, hmmm... sigh. In any case, I'm sure this will be covered in Moore's new movie, opening this Friday. It is my hope that "conservative minded" (I hate labels like "conservative", or "liberal", because these categories are too general and tend to understate a myriad of different personalities) people go to see this movie for themselves as it will hopefully show them what many have known for quite some time, that something isn't right here. It's just one thing after another.

Go here and scroll down a bit to read about this... ciao

Too much to do...

Sorry, nuthin to see here today; I've got too many things to attend to. Maybe later if I'm up to it. Otherwise, blogging in blogdom will resume tommorow... Ciao

CEO pay and the free market...

Found an interesting post over at Winning Argument that is relevant to recent discussion on this blog...

"... CEOs are paid 300 times the average worker. While the average worker earned $517 per week in 2003, the average CEO for a large company earned $155,769 a week. In 1982 CEOs made just 42 times the average worker. (Business Week)"

"Some argue that because CEO pay is determined in the free marketplace it is fair. The problem with this argument is that it naively assumes a perfect market. But such a market doens't exist. There are few long-term performance measures used to evaluate CEO pay. And CEO salaries are not set by disimpassioned economists but by close associates who have a personal and professional interest in seeing CEO pay rise no matter how the company performs. (Ivey Business Journal)"

It may be true that salaries are determined by the free market, but that doesn't mean there isn't something wrong when the largest amounts of wealth end up in the hands of 5-10% of the world's population...

One more thing...

Albert Camus('kamoo') writes,

"If the slave says yes to everything, he consents to the existence of a master and to his own sufferings. Jesus or Lao Tzu taught non-resistance. If the master says yes to everything, he consents to slavery and to the suffering of others, and the result is the tyrant and the glorification of murder. Is it not laughable that we believe in a sacred infrangible law---thou shall not lie, thou shall not kill--in an existence characterized by perpetual lying and perpetual murder?"

Camus is a well known existentialist(one who studies the nature of existence) and wrote a rather sobering book called "The Rebel" Here is a bit about that if one is interested.

More Jerks...

Anonymous writes:

"...what if the owner (greedy money hungry one) truly believes they are providing a valuable service to humanity by providing minimum wage jobs to people who otherwise wouldn't be qualified to do anything else? I'm questioning your assumption that the grocer, butcher, etc. doesn't realize the moral consequences while the owner or rich person always does. Does lack of realization of the consequences of your actions really make the actions more acceptable? Shouldn't everyone be expected to take moral responsibility for their own actions and more importantly figure out what the moral consequences are?"

-and-

"For example, I would suggest that the Iraq war is more of a byproduct of people deciding to drive everywhere they go, living 30 miles away from where they work, and becoming indignant when they have to pay more than $2.00 a gallon for something that causes more death and general damage to our society than most things you can possibly think of. In the same way, the fact that the U.S. loses manufacturing jobs is because people decide they would rather pay less at the retail outlet. I would suggest that politicians are an easy target (o.k. Bush is really easy) but they are only a reflection of the individual choices we all make. We need leaders that lead but only those that give us what we want are elected."

Well, here goes. Assuming that every person believes in their own set of morals, or that moral codes are entirely relative to each person, a lack of the realization of consequences might make actions more acceptable in the sense that certain consequences will seem positive to some and negative to others. With that said, the owner who uses "unethical" means (without getting into the question of what it means to be ethical) might have their own set of moral standards such that they wouldn't consider their actions immoral. My personal moral standard is that people generally shoudn't do to others what they wouldn't want done to themselves. As a result, I naturally assume that "greedy money hungry jerks" might not be too pleased with themselves if they were on the recieving end of their actions and thus refer to them as such.

The CEO of a corporation who is aware that their product contributes to thousands of deaths every year might not consider themselves immoral, yet they have the ability to recognize a general moral consensus within the society/culture that they live. So again, should this person have to change their moral code for the welfare of others? I don't think that the issue is about whether the CEO believes that they are providing a service to their employees, but rather about whether the CEO uses their status to run a business like a money hungry jerk... the somewhat hackneyed Enron case is a good example... here are a few jerks joking about ripping people off.

---"They're f------g taking all the money back from you guys?" complains an Enron employee on the tapes. "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"

---"Yeah, grandma Millie, man"

---"Yeah, now she wants her f------g money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her a------ for f------g $250 a megawatt hour."

Now of course, if there exists some kind universal moral standard then a lack of awareness of consequences wouldn't be anymore acceptable than had the person known. But if there isn't a univeral moral standard, and we're really just a bunch of animals with the ability to reason that create morals for the sake of our species, there is nothing left to talk about. Maybe we just "are" like everything else that lives... just doing what they can to survive. Certain people react to certain "negative" actions and deem them immoral because they are an infringment on their survival. At any rate, people have written entire volumes on this subject and I am digging a hole, so on that note...

Morality is a deep philosophical problem that I would guess has troubled humans since the beginning of their existence, or awareness of existence anyway... with all of the questions that arise, it is hard to believe that everyone could agree on a moral standard and therefore it would seem that all beings should do whatever they feel is right... even if it seems really f$%#ed to others; kind of a troubling thought... ciao

Bush notes...

...thismodernworld deciphers the notes that Bush has scribbled in front of him at yesterday's cabinet meeting. Here is the pic of him with notes for reference that if looked at in photoshop could probably be readable. Go here and scroll down a bit to read what it says... the notes reflect the usual rhetorical devices that Bush has trained himself on.

Just a couple of things...

YEAH, JUST A couple of things and then back to my wholly biased pseudo-reporting about certain happenings in this week of politics...

Most people that know me know that I spend some deal of time thinking about whether some things are fated to happen. Also, as a result of my latest perusal into Kerouac novels, I have been thinking about different times that I have had a brush with death and how at any moment our lives could expire.(Kerouac talks a lot about dying. Somewhat ironically, he died instantly in a car accident while in his forties) I know, nobody likes to talk about it, but dying someday is possibly the only real certainty in life; it's inevitable, and one never knows when.

To name the main instances, I have been in a car that brushed up with the back wheels of a semi-trailer while on the interstate, had a crossbow dart shot and stuck about 6 inches from my neck, hit a rock embankment head on going at least 60 mph, hit a tree head on going at least 50 mph, no seatbelt, ever... granted, none of these times did I experience literal near death in the sense that I saw a white light or that my bodily organs were on the verge of shutdown. These times were more like something that could have happened instantaneously (For the record, I was never driving)

So where am I going with this? Not sure... it's just interesting to consider in relation to all of the precautions that some people take to avoid the inevitable. It could be pure chance that I was never injured any of those times. Or it could be, in defiance of logic, that everyone has "their time" to go, and thus should not be so afraid to try different things because what happens happens and what doesn't doesn't. I know, sometimes precautions are taken that successfully save lives, like seatbelts... or nutrasweet? Or the death penalty? OR PRINTING ARTICLES ABOUT THE WEST NILE VIRUS ON THE FRONT PAGES OF NEWSPAPERS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE YEAR WHEN THERE IS A LESS THAN 1% CHANCE OF DEVELOPING ANY SYMPTOMS FROM AN INFECTED MOSQUITO!! LESS THAN 1 PERCENT! WAR IS PEACE---FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
Ok, maybe I'm crazy, but isn't there higher chances of something totally random happening, like a car accident, or a giant beetle eating your face off? Maybe we all should have our own personal bio-bubbles so that we don't have to worry about whether the killer mosquitos will get us... I suppose what I'm saying is that we should just live, (while I sit here on my computer, free of outside dangers) and not be afraid to put ourselves in different situations, or situations that are completely foreign to us (while I sit here in a town that is more than familiar to me), because doing so is what helps a person grow, take on different perspectives, realize just how small they are and stop taking life so seriously. ON THAT NOTE...

"none of us is much more than a pimple on the ass-end of creation, so let's not get carried away with ourselves... accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace, and maybe even glory." --Robbins Fierce Invalids Home From Hot Climates

More on jerks...

Since it has been concluded that virtually all occupations within a free-market seem to carry some kind of moral baggage (the clerk that works for someone who profits from selling meat products, the CEO of most any major corporation, the person selling fruit on the street for profit), it should be pointed out that there might just be varying degrees of jerkhood, kind of like Dante and the nine levels of hell... The clerk probably has little awareness in regards to how business is conducted, whereas the owner(s)/manager(s) know exactly what is done to see that their establishment makes money.

Now assume that the person who "runs the show" is using unethical means to insure their place in the market. Who is more of a jerk? The clerk, who is unaware, or the owner who is completely aware? The seemingly obvious answer would be the owner. What if we assume that the clerk does know what is going on at said establishment. Does this make the clerk a jerk for continuing to work there, for continuing to support such an organization? It would seem so, but there is still a clear difference between the clerk and the owner... the owner has control, the clerk doesn't. The degree of control that the clerk has amounts to whether or not they should decide to stay working there, which could have strong consequences in regard to their life situation.

So should the person that has the power to change the way they do business do so for the sake of being ethical? What if it means losing business, or even going out of business... this is probably a hard choice for some jerks to make, especially if they have been running things a certain way for a long time. Questions like this could be applied to many situations. If a person is aware that 8 billion chickens are slaughtered every year in the US alone, should they feel like more of a jerk the next time they eat chicken than if they hadn't been aware of this fact? I guess it would depend on one's moral standards, which after all is the root of this discussion... moral standards, who decides what they are? Religion? Politicians? Parents? GOD? Your T.V.? I personally believe that each individual decides for themselves what they think is morally right and wrong, or rather, that the whole issue is relative to the agent. As one can imagine, this creates a multitude of problems because everyone's standards never completely agree with everyone else's.

It seems clear to me that this is why there are constant battles, disagreements, wars and the like. But at the same time, many are compelled to look out for the well being others... possibly in hopes of reaching a moral consensus that might never arrive. There may be too many individual, cultural and societal differences in experience and tradition that are responsible for our worldview for such an objective consensus to ever be reached.

Which leads me to a requested topic for a soon-to-be-posted post... How much of what we do and how we think is controlled by our DNA? Maybe everything that we do, from the individual to the mass is literally programmed into us and this idea that we have control over certain things (what we like, what we eat, how we act) is ridiculous. There does always seem to be a battle between instinct and intellect, and we would be lost if we used either to an excessive degree. Maybe our DNA forces us to create morals for the stability of the species. Anyway, gotta run...more on this later.

Other things...

Sorry about the moderately light posting, I've been working on other things. As one can see, I've added a poll to my sidebar that will be updated every other week or so. Also, there is a counter at the bottom of the page that is counting down minutes to the monkey's dismissal from Pennsylvania ave. More later tonight or tommorow... ciao

Help your kids do good...

If you want your children to help make a difference in the world of policy, then the Presidential Prayer Team For Kids is exactly the place you need to visit. If you want your child to be an upstanding, loyal citizen to this country; a good natured, praying pupil who supports their leaders at all costs for god's sake, then we must do this for all of our children. Finally, the day is here when our youth can really be involved in the well being of our land, by praying, to the western god, who has been genderized and lost through the centuries... without getting in to how I feel about all of that religous or spiritual stuff, I'll just say that I think all "versions" of god and the beliefs that surround them seem to have very insightful suggestions as to how to live with exceptional moral standards, give or take a few things, and to exclude one relgion from the other seems a bit shortsighted, by my standards anyway... So it seems interesting, this website... kids praying for politicians, hmmm. Are you kidding me?

Afghan example...

Found this at randomwalks...

January 04, 2002
Hamed Karzai worked as a consultant for the huge US oil group Unocal, which had supported the Taleban movement and sought to construct a pipeline to transport oil and gas from the Islamic republics of Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan.
Saudi paper profiles new Afghan leader (Financial Times)-

Karzai is the "head" of the Afghan government, placed there, by our government... and former consultant for Unocal. Just thought that was interesting in light of his visit to Washington today.

New link...

I added another link to the sidebar, check out the cosmic iguana. There is an article here about a PR firm that is trying to prevent Moore's movie from being released. Apparently some theatre owners have recieved death threats. People are nuts. Found it over at thismodernworld. Ciao

Exhausted...

I'm pretty burnt out with nothing to talk about so no posting until tommorow night.

In the meantime... What do you suppose the Taoist approach to a mosquito would be?

Had to do it...

For shizzle, check this out

Aaghhhhh... sorry Michael. Go here to see more 

Trailer...

Here is the trailer for Moore's new movie... it's at least worth watching

NO POST...

I am realizing more and more how time consuming this ordeal has become...and I have to work all day, so no posting until later. I wish I could get paid to do something like this, but it's fun anyway. In the meantime, go here for a little Tom Tommorow... ciao.

fun stuff...

Go here. Found the link at Skippy's.

Greedy, money hungry jerks...

Definition of a greedy, money hungry jerk: One who uses their talents and energy to acquire as much wealth as they can regardless of moral consequences, i.e., lying to others, stealing from others, killing others, taking out life insurance policies on your employees and then not awarding any to the family of the deceased, (Wal-Mart has done this in the past) etc.

In regards to whether liberal speakers should be charging so much to speak at universities, someone left a comment and touched on a few points that I would like to discuss. First is the idea that the market determines these figure's salaries. Of course, if nobody was interested these people, nobody would buy their products and there is no way any of them could charge as much as they do even if they wanted to. Essentially, the idea is that we make things valuable by buying into them, which is true to a large degree. So, if the market(us) determines that Noam Chomsky is worth 15,000 per speech, then it is because Noam Chomsky has a demand such that people will pay that amount money to see him. But of course the average consumer doesn't directly determine such value. Business men determine such value and corporations determine such value, with the help of the consumer. I'm willing to bet that if the people really had a say in it, certain events wouldn't charge as much, but that must be obvious. Nobody wants to pay one hundred dollars to see KISS one last time, but some will because that is what they have to pay to see them.

The one who is doing "the books" is the one who determines monetary value... "Hey, we can charge this much because the people will pay it", not, "Hey, we could charge this much but we don't need to as it will contradict our message and go against what we are trying to educate people about". Surely one shouldn't ask the grocery store clerk to take less pay because the store makes profits. Making profit isn't necessarily the issue. Stopping greedy, money hungry jerks is.

But back to the clerk, there is a moral question here... If Micheal Moore should charge less, then shouldn't the clerk take a lower pay rate? I mean, provided the place he or she works for is making profits. Wouldn't this put just about every occupation into an immoral category because they profit from others? Well, it would seem to be yes, even though they are completely different situations. The clerk likely works where he or she does because they choose to, or because they have to. Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore don't have to charge 15,000 dollars at each event to make a living...they can always choose to do so or not. The clerk can't always just choose to be a prominent figure, though ultimately it would seem that the responsibility lies within our own selves when deciding who we want to be, in most cases anyway.

I would agree that technically one can't avoid being hypocritical when speaking out against a system that they pariticipate in, though one has to consider that some people use such a system as a means to manipulate and cheat others, (see definition of money hungry jerk above) and it wouldn't necessarily be considered hypocritical to speak out against such people while profiting yourself. It would seem that how one goes about profiting would be an issue... does the way so and so runs their business affect others in a negative fashion? Even if the masses create it, even if they chose it, does that make it right? What if they were manipulated into accepting it, manipulated into liking it? Something to be considered... more on this later

In case you didn't hear... one hundred thousand times...

Ronald Reagan has passed away. Ronald Reagan has died. Ronald Reagan is no longer with us. Ronald Reagan has moved on to a different plane of existence, provided such a plane exists. Didn't you hear?

Back...

So, I finally got to review my blog after a week and there's a fair amount to read. Thanks to all who have been posting comments for they give me something to think and write about. Be sure to come back tommorow as there will be heavy posting in lieu of all the comments...ciao

HAPPY BIRTHDAY KIRA!

Leaving...

YEP, I'm leaving, for quite a while...don't know if I'll be back again. Just kidding, I'm leaving for a week and won't have friggin internet access (though I know I'm going to end up in some internet cafe, which is sad for some reason). So... no posts for a week.


I DECLARE THIS AN OPEN TOPIC POST...PUT SOMETHING IN THE COMMENTS...I DON'T CARE WHAT...BUTTERFLIES, DARK SKIES...THE COSMIC JOKE...SO YOU, YES YOU, NOW IS YOUR TIME TO SHINE.

Left wing speakers/educators hypocritical? --- George Tenet resigns...

Someone left me a link to an article that explains what some famous left-wing names charge to come speak at venues, namely universities in the US...some speakers mentioned were Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Jesse Jackson. It is here if one is interested. Apparently these liberal activists charge quite the fee for their presence, with Al Franken charging $25,000 for his words. A few things came up in my mind as I was reading this. First, the obvious one. How the hell could these people be "speaking out" against things that they are a part of themselves? That wouldn't be very prudent.

Why don't we see too many conservative speakers on campuses? I'm sure they are there, but speaking from the standpoint of the college I attend, I don't recall many. Though I can think of a few liberal speakers that have been here...Ludacris, Michael Moore, Darrel Bodley, but this may also be due to my not noticing conservative activities on campus, though I am pretty sure I would have. So why do they charge so much? Did Michael Moore really charge 15,000 to come to this school? Did this school pay him that? I don't know...but I can't imagine they would have, it was free to students. Maybe...who knows. Assuming he did, what are the implications? He clearly doesn't need 15,000 dollars to come here...maybe a thousand, to be comfortable. Should liberal activists live up to their apparent criticisms and try to avoid capitalism? It would only seem fair to practice what one preaches. I guess I might say that these people are trying to point out some pitfalls of capitalism and the mass pools of power that can be concentrated as a result. Maybe people like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore are trying to compete, as one is forced to naturally, in a brutal world, where 10% of the people have copiously large amounts of money and 15,000 dollars dosn't mean much. Now that's a lot to me, and it does seem a bit strange that they would have to charge that much, but would they be heard without the money? The one who has money is sometimes the one who has prominence in this sea of people. It seems that those with the most resources tend to have the most influence. I don't think it is capitalism, per se that Noam and Mike (Not mentioning Jesse Jackson because I don't know what to think of him) are speaking out against, but more about what can happen if "the machine" isn't kept in check somehow. Orwell's 1984 is a compelling example of a possible end result of capitalism. And in this world where one isn't heard unless they have adequate resources, aka:money, even the liberal minded have to compete. In any case, definitely something to think about.
IN OTHER PLACES...

GEORGE Tenet announced his resignation from the CIA today...hmmm. What's going on around here? Personal reasons apparently...his son's in college and his wife wants him home...I wonder if he had thought about that when he became THE director of the CIA. Not to criticize, maybe that is the case, just odd timing wouldn't you say?

More on Moore...and the monkey...

Well, Michael Moore's movie found a distributer and is to be released in theaters on June 25th. I am sure that everyone knew his movie would find a distributor, but I wasn't expecting it so quickly.

On a different note, just from the brief surfing and other snippets I have come across in the last few days, it has become clear to me that a vote for the monkey could be regarded as a character flaw.

First, what is the deal with this Chalabi guy and his apparent involvement with this war from as far back as '98. The kicker is that this guy was a spy for Iran or something and that the monkey administration trusted this guy's intelligence over our own government's intelligence...dude. Not cool. What's more is that the administration is denying ever having privleged ties with this guy, when they paid him millions of dollars for his role in intelligence, up until last month. There's some media blabber about Bush having his laywer by his side, just in case. If you're interested, here's an article, from PBS, ironically enough.

What else, someone turned up with alleged recordings of former enron employees saying some prettty crazy things...check it out

More later...ciao

Synchronistic happenings...

Yeah, so the last post, the one about the media and competition and whatnot...I was on my way to work this morning, listening to NPR, and there's this guy going off about competitive programming, he's saying things like "yeah, and the viewers can't choose to pay for the programming that they want", and, "many shows nowadays foster such a competitive atmosphere. Then, in the latest NEW YORKER, there is an article that I haven't read in it's entirety yet, but is related to PBS and how the network has negotiated big money deals with right wing interests. So scratch PBS off of the list of "independent" television networks. I'll explain that whole horatio alger thing later. And while I couldn't find a link to that PBS article (trust me, it's there), I did find a link to an amusing column about the "armchair warrior"....go now. So anyway, writing about media control and then the very next day being hit with those two related tidbits was kinda crazy...'tis great when that happens.

T.V./MEDIA - BRAINFOOD - SPOONFED

EVER feel like a zombie? Ya know, when you stare at the same thing for prolonged periods of time. Do you ever wonder about the way the media is configured for our viewing pleasure? Do you ever wonder why sometimes when you change the channel because a commercial is on, it seems like there's a commercial on every other one of the channels that you might normally watch. Now this might be common sense for some, but for others it should be known that every thing that we see on the death tube was controlled by TEN media conglomerates in 2002, while in 1983 there were FIFTY companys responsible for most of mass media IN THE WORLD. So yeah, TEN companies. Are your interests being served? Do you get what you pay for? Like most everything, there is two sides to this.

One side is the viewers, the other is those that provide the viewing. So, what do we got? Ten media conglomerates who all compete against each other for the "best" viewing experience. TEN. I'm not sure of the technicalities of how they make their money, but I assume that other corporations sponser various programs, or television channels with mo money, mo money mo monneyy, and whoever has the most viewers wins because they get the big monneyyy sponsers. Just to backtrack a bit, but what are we watching? Let's see... news, American Idol, Entertainment Weekly, The Cooking Channel, The Travel Channel, Comedy Central, Discovery, The History Channel, etc. What gets the most ratings? Things like "American Idol", sports, news, "Who wants to be a millionaire?", feckin Maury Povich (is that how you spell Povich?). Granted, shows like "Seinfeld" and "Friends" do well, but it seems that by and large the programs that get the most ratings are the one's that have an element of competition in them...

I'm sorry, the programs that get the highest ratings are not by and large like the ones I just mentioned, though "American Idol", and "The Bachelor" are in the top twenty according to this. So maybe the majority of people aren't watching shows like "my big fat husband", or "survivor" it just seems like that is the majority of what is available. Overall, I would say that shows like this tend to create competitive atmospheres...doing so keeps large companies rich, and the viewers viewing. These programs play on a person's basic insecurities sometimes by inflating the viewer's ego with programs that show people in situations of which are so utterly ridiculous that one is forced to think, "I'm glad I'm not in that person's situation...they're messed up"...see Maury Povich. Or maybe we feel sorry for them, in any case it nurtures a competitive atmosphere. I'm not exactly versed in psychological jargon, but they say that the human brain is malleable, or shapeable, bendable. The brain can be formed, manipulated, programmed without the user being aware of it. Now I wouldn't say that there is a conspiracy to brainwash people (or would I) through the media, but I might say that it happens without intention. Like I said, companies advertise, companies pay media conglomerates to advertise on their network so the network can "give the viewers what they want". Naturally, the viewers view, and the companies get paid. Now of course people can choose to watch other things, or not watch at all, but they don't, and that's fine. What isn't fine is that what we watch is determined by TEN companies that have special interests when it comes to what we see and what we don't see on t.v., TEN!.

As I said, the people watch, naturally, but they don't have much of a say when it comes to what they watch. Sure one can change the channel, or not watch... but can someone honestly tell me that the companies which make up the advertising/media complex have the viewers' best interests in mind? The top 10% of the population of the world decides for the other 90%. We are given a smorgasboard of channels and we think, "what will I do with all of these channels, there is so much variety", when the reality is that most of them are a bunch of fecken crap with nothing but "paid programming" and a mediocre lineup of programs that display a narrow view of life and a narrow view of the world. IFC and PBS and maybe C-span seem to be the only networks that are remotely independent nationwide. Of course one could have an independent network, but it won't get big money sponsors unless it promotes their interests, and won't be able to compete with the top TEN. I just know that there is stuff out there that is really good and isn't being seen. It bothers me that I have to dig for it, look in non-mainstream sources. I suppose that if I didn't have to dig for it, it would just be mainstream again. So with that, I think it would be cool if we could pick the channels that we want and just pay for those, but if we did this, people wouldn't make their ridiculous amounts of money promoting instant gratification and ignorance, with the exception of a few. The root of this discussion is the "Horatio Alger" myth, which I'll post something about next time...ciao