<$BlogRSDURL$>
Radically Inept
Saturday, July 17, 2004
  Hmmm, things aren't looking real pretty for the fundamentalists

Maybe the 'Intelligent Design Theology' (sorry, doesn't qualify as a scientific theory) will come to the Fundamentalist's rescue

Via The Corpus Callosum come thisTheStar.com - Mars probe detects hint of life:
"Data from a spectrometer aboard the European Space Agency's Mars Express probe appears to have recorded radiation indicating pungent ammonia gas in Mars' atmosphere, BBC News Online reports.
Since ammonia can survive for only a few hours in the Martian atmosphere before breaking down, it must be constantly replenished from one of two possible sources: active volcanoes - of which none have been found on Mars - or microbes.
'Ammonia could be the key to finding life on Mars,' a NASA scientist told the BBC. 'There are no known ways for ammonia to be present in the Martian atmosphere that do not involve life.'
Ammonia is a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen atoms. Nitrogen is rare in the Mars environment, and researchers say the presence of ammonia may indicate that Martian microbes may be hoarding it."
I mean I guess god could have intelligently designed microbes for Mars, but sort of seems odd, don't you think? 
|
  Oh hell, a scam I haven't seen before

I can see how this one gets through:
From: researchingyou@researchbackground.info

On 7/17/2004 7:23:58 PM, researchingyou@researchbackground.info wrote:
> ****NOT COMMERCIAL EMAIL****
>
> A user at our website is trying to meet people who know you.
>
> >
> This email was sent to you to make you aware of this fact.
>
> We are building a community that fosters interaction between each and
> every individual possible. Our mission is to help connect people with one
> another, wherever they are, to share their experiences, give advice and
> provide information.
>
> To view all of the postings at our website about this email address use
> this link:
>
> http://h.wores.biz/sel.php
Someone's researching me? Yeah, it gets your attention. But the email content makes no sense. I mean, "A user at our website is trying to meet people who know you". What the hell does that even mean? "Someone has begun the process of meeting people who know you via our website", well tell the fuckers to go away, and while you're at it. Quit sending me inane bullshit.

And: "We are building a community that fosters interaction between each and
every individual possible. Our mission is to help connect people with one another, wherever they are, to share their experiences, give advice and provide information." I don't want to interact. I don't want to share my experience. I most certainly do not need your advice.

sorry...


 
|
  Why are the Democrats pursuing irrelevancy?

I posted about catching Thomas Frank discussing his new book What's the Matter with Kansas? : How Conservatives Won the Heart of America on BOOK TV before.

Now the latest TomDispatch includes this Red-State America Against Itself
By Thomas Frank
. It's an excellent article, though I may be biased as I agree w/ his overall analysis; especially this:
Democratic political strategy simply assumes that people know where their economic interest lies and that they will act on it by instinct. There is no need for any business-bumming class-war rhetoric on the part of candidates or party spokesmen, and there is certainly no need for a liberal to actually get his hands dirty fraternizing with the disgruntled. Let them look at the record and see for themselves: Democrats are slightly more generous with Social Security benefits, slightly stricter on environmental regulations, and do less union-busting than Republicans.
This is exactly what I came away with when I attended a couple of local democratic functions, including hearing DNC chair McAwffle.

All they kept talking about was how 'we' were going to beat the republicans. How this seat was vulnerable, or the strategy for winning various seats. And I kept repeating the same question in various forms:
"But why should I vote for you? Why should "I" care if you win? What is the party's goal? What are 'we' going to do, when 'we' win?
They just sort of stared at me blank faced, like I was a little slow child and didn't understand adult politics.

Okay. Maybe I'm not as astute as I think I am, but I do know sales. You don't get sales or market share by saying 'Buy Me, So My Competitors Lose'. The customer has no dog in the fight. They'll buy on something, and now you've lost the ability to influence that decision.

What is the democratic party offering me? Pretty much nothing, as far as I can tell. In fact, I happen to have come to the belief that the democrats are an irrelevant party. It's the party of soft corporatists vs the party of strong corporate owners, the average American isn't even represented in the fight. As Thomas says
The true lesson for liberals in the Kansas story is the utter and final repudiation of their historical decision to remake themselves as the other pro-business party. By all rights the people of Wichita and Shawnee should today be flocking to the party of Roosevelt, not deserting it. Culturally speaking, however, that option is simply not available to them anymore. Democrats no longer speak to the people on the losing end of a free-market system that is becoming more brutal and more arrogant by the day.

The problem is not that Democrats are monolithically pro-choice or anti-school-prayer; it's that by dropping the class language that once distinguished them sharply from Republicans they have left themselves vulnerable to cultural wedge issues like guns and abortion and the sneers of Hollywood whose hallucinatory appeal would ordinarily be far overshadowed by material concerns. We are in an environment where Republicans talk constantly about class -- in a coded way, to be sure -- but where Democrats are afraid to bring it up.
Yeah. It often does seem to be the party of pussies vs the party of bullies. Geez.

But I kind of think that if the dems were smart, they'd let Edwards bring his a fairly effective populist appeal to the campaign, and more importantly, to the party platform. Then I might have some reason to vote democratic this year.

Otherwise, I'm writing in one of my favorite atheists, Ted Turner for the shot at the presidency. Feel free to join me, if by November the dems are still totally, Radically Inept and still haven't addressed the issues that count. We can all write in Ted.

As those great philosophers once said:
Otter: Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons. But that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
Vote Ted Turner in 2004.

When the parties fail, populism wins out. The hard part is making sure the populist agenda isn't something ridicules like fascism or the equivalent.

As Thomas conclues:
"Sociologists often warn against letting the nation's distribution of wealth become too polarized, as it clearly has in the last few decades. Societies that turn their backs on equality, the professors insist, inevitably meet with a terrible comeuppance. But those sociologists were thinking of an old world in which class anger was a phenomenon of the left. They weren't reckoning with Kansas, with the world we are becoming.

Behold the political alignment that Kansas is pioneering for us all. The corporate world -- for reasons having a great deal to do with its corporateness -- blankets the nation with a cultural style designed to offend and to pretend-subvert: sassy teens in Skechers flout the Man; hipsters dressed in T-shirts reading 'FCUK' snicker at the suits who just don't get it. It's meant to be offensive, and Kansas is duly offended. The state watches impotently as its culture, beamed in from the coasts, becomes coarser and more offensive by the year. Kansas aches for revenge. Kansas gloats when celebrities say stupid things; it cheers when movie stars go to jail. And when two female rock stars exchange a lascivious kiss on national TV, Kansas goes haywire. Kansas screams for the heads of the liberal elite. Kansas comes running to the polling place. And Kansas cuts those rock stars' taxes.

As a social system, the backlash works. The two adversaries feed off of each other in a kind of inverted symbiosis: one mocks the other, and the other heaps even more power on the one. This arrangement should be the envy of every ruling class in the world. Not only can it be pushed much, much farther, but it is fairly certain that it will be so pushed. All the incentives point that way, as do the never-examined cultural requirements of modern capitalism. Why shouldn't our culture just get worse and worse, if making it worse will only cause the people who worsen it to grow wealthier and wealthier?"
You know, I am wondering who will eventually rise and become the voice of the masses. It will happen if the parties fail to address the problems. I see neither party offering hope. I see neither party offering a goal, a vision for how our society should look in four years (unless it's supposed look like war torn Beirut or something), much less ten or twenty years down the road, unless it's global corporate feudalism.

Personally, I have nothing against our government. It's the people running it that are the problem. The problem isn't with a federal system, the problem is the corruption of the people. And sadly, it's a corruption of our culture that everyone sees, but no one seems to be able to lead the resistance.

I thought "Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life"and apparently made into a film, by Sissela Bok, deeply disturbing. We've come to a point in our culture where we can't imagine a society w/o lies, and we've given up on the truth as an even 'ideal' worth pursuing. People wonder why so much of the world tries to resist our culture? I think 'cause it's about bankrupt.

Quick example: I don't remember the specific product/service (I made a point not to), but there's this commercial where you are supposed to infer that it's a father teaching his obviously scare son, whose wearing water wings, to swim or dive into the pool or something. Then the kid points and says, 'Dad, look a quarter', and the dad pushes the kid into the pool in his greedy haste to get the 'quarter'. There's also a version where a guy steals peanuts from the guy next to him on the plane. The slogan is something like, 'That's our kind of customer'.

Well it also means, you're not my kind of company. If you figure your best customers are greedy and deceitful, than I'm going to guess it's reflected in your corporate culture. I can see no reason why the rest of the world would even want anything to do w/ a culture that will ultimately destroy their integrity. Personally, I refuse to buy products or brands that promote lying, stealing and greed in their marketing campaigns. Sort of another futile gesture, but...

On more positive note, one partially successful venue for marginalizing the corporate influence, and possibly retaking our government, appears to be single issue advocacy campaigns like MADD or NRA.org, and multi-issue organizations like MoveOn.org. We'll see how far it evolves.

Remember, if they offer you nothing, vote anyway.

Vote Ted Turner For President in 2004
 
|
Friday, July 16, 2004
  US - Anglo relations: The Anglo view our unique relationship

blogjam provide us with this unique perspective on our entanglements w/ English leadership: Bush & Blair: The Special Relationship.

That was also via BUSHFLASH.COM, and he has a lot of ANIMATION FEATURES
|
  Now here is some heart warming notalgia

I found this via Technorati: Search for http://radicallyinept.blogspot.com/, UNKNOWN NEWSwhich is a pretty interesting site, and I especially liked this link to:Thanks for the Memories.

*sniff* I'm sorry. It was such a simpler time back then. How did it all change? What happened to the laughter?

And Eric's main page, G.W. BUSH- THE THIEF, THE LIAR - ANTI-WAR, ANTI-BUSH FLASH. looks pretty cool (before warned: it says flash, it means flash).

 
|
  Strange. I thought they were going to use logic...

Funny. I fell for their blog spiel:Samizdata.net:
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, libertarians, extropians, futurists, 'Porcupines', Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
Karl Popper? Really? Than I would have expected a little more logic, but I've really not seen much evidence of any adherence to that level of logic, I mean, "And on foreign policy . . . "t
"Last post for awhile on US Presidential politics. I promise. Having set the table on the domestic side below, a post came along from Mr. Bevan at Real Clear Politics (an invaluable site for US political junkies, by the way) which does a nice job of framing the choice facing American voters this fall on the foreign policy side(opinion):
[N]o Democrat, with only one or two exceptions in the entire elected party, would have looked at the exact same intelligence Bush looked at with respect to Iraq after 9/11 and done much of anything - even though they agreed with Bush at the time that Hussein was a serious threat.

And this statement is based on???
And:
Indeed, far more damning than Bush acting on evidence almost everyone in the world believed to be true is to look at a hypothetical in reverse: What if all of the WMD intelligence on Iraq had been spot on and John Kerry were President at the time and chose not to act because of pressure from his party or the objections of allies? I think most Americans would find that prospect deeply disturbing."
Yeah.What if?What if Baby Bush turns into a blackman over night? "I think most Americans would find that prospect deeply disturbing." Yeah, what if?

I know, some of you are thinking, "Yeah, but that's just one post". And, maybe it is. Yeah, I'll check back another time, but in my browsingof the to date, I really haven't run into any posts of any intellectual rigor.

Ah, but than I follow one of their prime links to White Rose, and she's citing a Tech Central Station article, "Viva la "Tech" Revolucion!" :, which includes this inane set of passages:
"It was not only among Marxists that Che's theories took hold. For decades following the end of the Vietnam war, it was commonly accepted and widely taught, even in American schools, that dedicated and highly mobile insurgents had a powerful advantage over conventional militaries, especially on their own ground. Just as the British failed to put down the American revolution, we were taught, American forces failed to win against the more agile and motivated Vietnamese locals fighting for their own land. The defeat of the Soviets by Afghan guerrillas turned the theory into dogma -- never seriously questioned until after the astonishingly rapid overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Baathists in Iraq.
Wow, based on this kind of thinking, I bet the White Rose might be open to an invitation from Patrick Cox to spend a few months touring the countries. Yes, the war is over, people. American soldiers are forcing the now pacified Iraqis and Afghans to shoot and bomb them daily.

First, just a small, slight criticism, um, the Baathists lost the initial conventional battle, cause, um, if you look, close, we control the Fucking Green Zone that keeps getting mortared and attacked, and an Airport that you have to 'race' to, in hopes of avoiding DEATH. Oh, and once again, um, Afghanistan? I hate to bread it to you, but we're barely safe in Kabul. Patrick, maybe you ought to, um, try, uh, getting some facts together before you post.

The reason the White Rose (wonder if that's her reference) and Patrick don't go vacationing there, is because we're STILL at WAR!

So, we'll see. Maybe when the kids grow up...

 
|
  Admin Odds and Ends

I think I'll spend a good amount of time tomorrow working on a story, so expect light blogging.  The Wife has taken the grandson and our presumably future daughter-in-law up to the Wife's father's for the weekend.  So, I have few chores to do, and then I'll write.
 
I might have some to spend  time working on organizing the site.  I keep promising...
 
I also am looking at still more blogs to add.  One I found...
 
Oh, it's desrving of it's own post...


 
|
  Just what is the power of blogging? Answer might be found here

From After Gutenberg, which is a site that I'm going to spend a little time exploring, comes this, connections which gets you to some people who are doing alot of thinking about blogging,

Mathemagenic: learning and KM insights - Tuesday, May 11, 2004
|
  And it just keeps getting worse

Via TheAgitator.comcomes Stifling Dissent:
"A husband and wife who wore anti-Bush T-shirts to the president's Fourth of July appearance aren't going down without a fight: They will be represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union as they contest the trespassing charges against them Thursday morning in Charleston Municipal Court.
Police took Nicole and Jeff Rank away in handcuffs from the event, which was billed as a presidential appearance, not a campaign rally. They were wearing T-shirts that read, "Love America, Hate Bush."

Spectators who wore pro-Bush T-shirts and Bush-Cheney campaign buttons were allowed to stay..."
And I know everyone caught "The Daily Show" in reference to Boston's FreeSpeechZone.

"This Is Not America"

 
|
  I'm being 'ruled' by moronic judeo-christians partnered w/ greedy corporatists

I had other things I was going to post, but I stopped by The Corpus Callosum and found Thursday Breast Blogging
Politicians Make Boobs of Themselves
in which Joseph j7uy5 states "that the Bush Administration recently dropped an ad campaign that would have promoted breastfeeding. Apparently, this decision was made in response to political pressure from the infant formula industry. What is more shocking is that the American Academy of Pediatrics supported the industrial leaders in this."

So, I'm intrigued and follow the link to Pharyngula, who started the ball rolling on this.

But the event which was the catalyst, "1-Hour Arrest":
"For Mercado and her family, last fall was a happy time, one they wanted to record and save in the venerable tradition of the family photo. Johnny Fernandez, Mercado's boyfriend, had just emigrated from Lima, Peru, ending a year long separation, and on top of that, it was their son's first birthday.

The photographs they took over several days in late October included pictures of Fernandez reunited with the family at their modest home in suburban Richardson. Others captured their 1-year-old son Rodrigo, and 4-year-old Pablizio, from Mercado's earlier marriage, playing in a neighborhood park. Using the camera's timer, they also took three snapshots of themselves, naked in their bed. They arranged their bodies in ways that showed less flesh than most freeway billboards.[...

...]In one--the photo that would threaten to send Mercado and her boyfriend to prison--the infant Rodrigo is suckling her left breast.

After Mercado dropped off the film for processing, a technician viewed the images and decided they were 'suspicious,' according to a police report. As required under Texas law, he immediately contacted local police. Mercado says that when she went to pick up her pictures, the clerk told her there would be a delay, and then only returned three of the four sets of prints.
To Richardson police, who arrived at the store that afternoon and apparently made up their minds from the content of the pictures alone, this was nothing short of a felony case of child pornography. "We thought they contained sexuality," says Sergeant Danny Martin, a Richardson police spokesman, explaining why two Richardson police detectives began pursuing a criminal case. "If you saw the photos, you'd know what I mean."

With nothing else to support their contention that the photos were related to sex or sexual gratification, the police and the Dallas County District Attorney's Office presented the photos to a grand jury in January and came away with indictments against Mercado and Fernandez for "sexual performance of a child," a second-degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. The charges centered on a single photo, the breast-feeding shot. Fernandez and Mercado say they took it--although the child had ceased breast-feeding--to memorialize that stage of their baby's development. [...

..]Mercado, who brushed back strands of brown hair from her reddened eyes as she spoke, has a story that has not changed from the start. She told the Richardson police officer who responded to the store's call that she had always taken pictures of her children nude, and that it wasn't uncommon in her native Peru to do so. They were innocent baby pictures, taken for the family's benefit, she said.[...

...]"We fought so hard to come to this country," says Mercado, a 33-year-old who was a nurse in Peru and aspires to become licensed in the United States one day. "For this to happen is unbelievable.""
Sorry, Mercado, this is amerika; where Corporations sell with sex, but the morons say you're not allowed to have any. So the entire country suffers from massive sexual neuroses. The men buy viagara so they can masturbate to pictures of women breast feeding on the internet. In your particular case, you brought out the Oedipus complex in the Richardson police dept. through your depraved indifference of what your act might spawn.

Watch for an epidemic of incest among your city's leadership,over the coming months. Oh, this could spread like wild fire in a city like your's.

So, see. You are responsible for leading men astray. It's sort of like the Taliban, but the rules aren't clear. But I'll try to exlpain for your own good:
It's sort of like living under the Taliban, but the rules aren't clear. But this is a good rule of thumb, "If you are selling something, sex is good. If you want to enjoy sex, you are bad."
Understand?

 
|
  You know, it really does remind me of The Crusades

From American Leftist, via American Samizdat, "comes a little number that Joe likes to call the 'perp walk'.Thanks to Joe Wezorek.

If you feel it is underserved, check out US gov't has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq posted by Bill from thoughts on the eve of the apocalypse.

As usual, I'll stand by my previous comments on the subject here and here.



 
|
  I've been one-upped, and I wish I'd of thought of it

You know, I kind of thought my little letter to the scammers was pretty good, "Thanks, but I think you have the wrong guy", but I've been totally out classed by Mike NLN. Via lies.com comes a link to this excellent article Turning the tables on Nigeria's e-mail conmen, which includes:
"He then tried to hit me for $18,000 for processing fees for transferring millions," Mike says.
He wrote back as Father Hector, saying that the church had plenty of money, but there was a withdrawal fee of $80.

"I persuaded him to send me the $80, which he did, inside a birthday card, by courier," Mike says.
Man, I should have thought to do the reverse sting, damn.
There are a couple of interesting points in the article. Ever wonder if such a stupid scam, w/ so many grammatical, spelling, legal and business errors could ever convince anyone to part w/ their account information? I did. But,
Police estimate that every year, US citizens alone are conned out of some $200m.
Man, I knew our education system sucked, and now I don't think we need any further evidence of an education system in crisis. Mike however seems to have the real reason:
I asked Mike why these people who are themselves scammers can't spot an obvious scam.

"I think it operates in much the same way as it does with real victims. Greed clouds their judgement. The guy obviously thought he was going to get $18,000 so easily, he was blinded by his own greed."

"Which is what happens to those who fall for the 419 scams; they just see all these millions."

This would all be funny if it wasn't for the millions of dollars being stolen and probably put into drugs or other criminal activities.

Mike and his friends send all their e-mail exchanges to the police in the UK, Nigeria and to the FBI - he says they've had no response. And even warning the victims does no good. Most of them don't want to believe they're being scammed.
Ah, though you wouldn't think that a good christian nation like ours would allow our greed to override the teachings of and our personal faith in Jesus, but I guess maybe it's Supply Side Jesus in which most americans believe. "Wealth means godliness" is probably the single worst mutilation of the teachings of Jesus, I can think of, but worse, as I said, I've been totally out classed:
Mike says that any money they get from these reverse stings to a children's charity in the north of England.
I would probably have kept the money, and set up business. Maybe not, but I don't feel much compunction toward 'christian charity'.




 
|
Thursday, July 15, 2004
  When the rich can get richer at everyone else's expense...

MaxSpeak, You Listen! points to this excellent article, Guardian Unlimited | JK Galbraith: A cloud over civilisation which is an excellent article, and points to the growing power of corporations:
"As the corporate interest moves to power in what was the public sector, it serves the corporate interest. It is most clearly evident in the largest such movement, that of nominally private firms into the defence establishment. From this comes a primary influence on the military budget, on foreign policy, military commitment and, ultimately, military action. War. Although this is a normal and expected use of money and its power, the full effect is disguised by almost all conventional expression.

Given its authority in the modern corporation it was natural that management would extend its role to politics and to government. Once there was the public reach of capitalism; now it is that of corporate management. In the US, corporate managers are in close alliance with the president, the vice-president and the secretary of defence. Major corporate figures are also in senior positions elsewhere in the federal government; one came from the bankrupt and thieving Enron to preside over the army.

Defence and weapons development are motivating forces in foreign policy. For some years, there has also been recognised corporate control of the Treasury. And of environmental policy."
Corporatism/Consumerism (C2) versus democracy, and the money is on their side. 
|
  Using the corporate model to beat corporations

Ah, where to start. Okay, about four or five years ago, I ran into a pdf on theGlobal Social Contract Theory. I put it to my desk top, but never read it. I decided that I wanted to start looking at the concept without I having my thinking w/in the frames of the existing arguements, both pro and con, see what I came up with. I didn't want to start thinking from the confines of pre-existing boxes. So, yes, I started down the course of intentional ignorance. Also, since reinstalling the operating system, I can't find the origninal pdf.

Now, I just finished looking over a few of the documents I linked to above, and I'm glad I did. The following will be sort of my starting point on developing this idea further. Also in the following, "I believe", "I think", "I feel", etc. should be considered place holders for terms like "premise", and a host of qualifiers. I think it will make it more readable, and I'm not truly locked into anything. In fact, consider this public musings on the subject, and criticism and debate is welcome, just don't think I'm locked into what I'm expressing.

I've wanted to post on this subject for a long time, but just never got around to starting. It was in the "United States of America, Inc.", that I set out part of my thinking:
I consider our public lands and natural resources as assets. And as assets, I want top return upon their sale. No one can convince me, that it is in my interest as a shareholder, to give away assets to other corporations. Let them instead pay market value. If private property owners are receiving X dollars/per acre for allowing their forests to be havested, or for energy extraction, than that's the return I want. You can argue that I will pay more for goods as a result, but I think the off set to my tax obligations, and potentially, actual real dividends in my account, will more than make up for it. Also, if the market is depressed, than I agrue for holding on to the assets until the market improves. Long term investment is what I'm after anyway, not quarterly profits. It maybe a corporation, but it still is a 'government' of the people, and I really would prefer to maintain, and possibly increase my share of the equity.[I'll have to return to this and present a clearer argument.]


I decided it deserved a more indepth post, but it may prove to be a good starting point. And the point here is that I do believe it might be good to start w/ an economic basis for the contract w/ the state, rather than a moral, ethical, humanist, evolutionary, etc. As an atheist, I find I can not argue convincingly from an objective basis for moral and ethical arguements. I have mine, but I have no basis other than a contract type theory. And one written from the view point that I live in America and subject myself to the laws of the government, by choice. Not everyone has this choice, granted, but just as I am not going to deal with morals and ethics, I am not yet ready to address wealth distribution.

So, anyway, if we start w/ the idea of 'government' being an economic enterprise, a corporation, with our elected officials acting in the roles of corporate officers and board members, and we the citizens are the shareholders, as such we have an initial relationship, on a 'contractual basis' with our government.

How many shares do I have? One. How many shares does anyone have? One. So, individuals have an interest in forming share voting collectives to attempt to influence any corporate vote for their own interests. Obvious groups that behave this way already is already a large and growing number, but would include MoveOn.org: Democracy in Action (maybe change their tag to 'Shareholders in Action'?), the NRA,etc. Single issue groups some may argue? But there is no limit to how many issues nor any restrictions on which 'single issue' issues the individual shareholder may back. The shareholder is able to decide.

The advantage that the US of A, Inc. has over other corporations, at least from the respect to possessing the mechanism to change corporate officers, is the pre-existing shareholder-corporation by laws, ie. the constitution and the The Bill of Rights. A fine set of documents laying out the roles and responsibilities of the various parties, including some well laid out default rules.

Now, a problem in any contractual agreements occurs when one of the parties refuses to adhere to the Complete contract, especially if the second parties affected by the first party, lack the ability to force the first party to comply with the existing specifications. However, in this case, we have a fairly reputable system of arbitration, and who's rulings have historically been enforced, for good or ill.

So, as I stated above, as a shareholder, I want a return on my investment. And I am a long term investor (hopefully, I won't have cause to sell short in a few months), and I want the assets of the corporation.

To Be Continued... And surely edited...

 
|
  The gift of music

It's been a real interesting past 4 or 5 months on the music front. The Pacifier has given the Wife and I about 10 or twelve cd mixes with a huge variety of styles of music.

I think I'll wait to see if the blogger, who has also sent cds and a dvd (with some excellent animated graphics [psychedelic - think 60s, 70s] timed to the music) wishes to claim credit.

And today, an excellent .wma of John Mayall's "Black Cat Moan" off of Cross Country Blues from Brian in Australia.

So, John, take it away...

 
|
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
  Wow. Man, everyone is laughing at us. Our stature has really fallen.

You know, it used to be we could make fun of the USSR and China, in that sort of respect for 'might', disdainful kind of way. Now, the USSR has been replaced by a mostly chaotic group of poor countries. And NO ONE laughs at China anymore.

They maybe too busy laughing at us, Inspector Lohmann:
"America is definitely the brunt of jokes in mainstream Canada; I suspect America is the brunt of jokes throughout the world. I'm glad for it, since humor is the little guy's weapon against bullies. I'm also glad that it's still possible to laugh at America: as long as it's possible to laugh at something there's always hope. But I don't know how much longer that'll be possible: America and the world made fun of Germany and the Nazis for a while until they stopped being so funny."
The sad part is, I can't really muster up much indignation. We've done it again. We've gotten our selves in a yet another mess for no good reason. And we bragged about how we didn't need help anyone's help.

But if that's true, why is everyone upset that all of our allies, except the anglos, are dropping out of our 'coalition of the radically inept? Why should we care?

Look, ya'll just send your sons and daughters down to the recruiters, and we lick this little problem in no time. It's true, we really don't need any outside help, we just need all you patriotic, flag waving patriots, citizens and non-, to get off your dead asses, and join the military for, say the next ten, fifteen years. That will solve it.

Remember how well that worked for the USSR in the first Afghan, and our success with the tried and true body count method of measuring the progress of war? How can you shy away from the opportunity?

So who's with me? Send your spoiled brats down to the recruiter of their choice TODAY!! We will make fighters out of them one and all. And when they come back, you will see immediately that they are not the same old cocky kids they used to be (Warranty not included).

And, what about you? Under 30? Consider it as retraining for a growing employment sector. With benefits including free training! I see palpapate with excitement at the thought. Go. Go now. Demonstrate your personal support for our efforts in Iraq.

So go ahead now and laugh you foreign bastards. You wait and see. When hundreds of thousands of Americans volunteer for military service, well you guys are on the short list called 'All Other Countries'. 
|
  I seeee yoouuuu! And I know whether you've been naughty or nice

This is an issue I've been watching for the of privacy vs transparency closely for the past three or four years. This article does a great job of presenting what I think is the current situation, the probable future, and the best way for society to deal with the changes."We like to watch" by Harry Goldstein:
"This much we do know: a combination of political, cultural, and economic factors are transforming our world into a place where people, transactions, and things can be observed, monitored, and recorded almost everywhere, and almost all the time. Within the next several years, we'll be awash in powerful, cheap sensors: radio-frequency ID (RFID) tags that track objects (and the people who happen to be wearing, riding, or chatting into them); biometric sensors that will identify us by our unique irises, fingerprints, voices, walking patterns, or other physical quirks; Global Positioning System receivers, embedded into all manner of things, able to track us to within a meter; and tiny, high-resolution digital still and video cameras, also built into everything, from cellphones to wallpaper.

The resulting torrent of data will cascade into government and corporate data systems, as well as that system of systems, the Internet. Facts and information that are largely incoherent but overwhelming in volume and detail will accumulate in databases too scattered and numerous -and valuable- to be shut off completely from the rest of cyberspace.

Without a doubt, though, we'll try to do just that. In fact, we've already started. Researchers, mostly in academia, are now working on various privacy-enhancing technologies [see 'Sensors & Sensibility' elsewhere in this issue]. But champions of a transparent society, where the light of accountability would shine upon all of us, contend that over the longer term these privacy enhancers will be like sandbag walls against that relentlessly rising tide of data. They'll keep little areas 'dry' for a while, and give some of us a measure of comfort, but will fail to shield us in any absolute, permanent, or globally effective way. Without a doubt, though, we'll try to do just that. In fact, we've already started. Researchers, mostly in academia, are now working on various privacy-enhancing technologies [see "Sensors & Sensibility" elsewhere in this issue]. But champions of a transparent society, where the light of accountability would shine upon all of us, contend that over the longer term these privacy enhancers will be like sandbag walls against that relentlessly rising tide of data. They'll keep little areas "dry" for a while, and give some of us a measure of comfort, but will fail to shield us in any absolute, permanent, or globally effective way. We must embrace the technologies of surveillance, these advocates contend, and in doing so, ensure that we can point the electronic eye right back at the people and institutions who watch us.

This viewpoint—articulated most comprehensively by science fiction novelist David Brin in his 1998 treatise, The Transparent Society—runs contrary to the opinions many of us hold about privacy. At the other end of the privacy spectrum, activist groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center seem to see ominous portents in every new sensor advance and federal initiative. Each side is grappling with the continuing evolution in seeing and knowing that has been remaking society for centuries."
And I agree that David Brin does a good job, if a little dry, on presenting the issues in The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?, but I think it is the inevitability of the loss of privacy that defines our future.

I also believe that the elite and the government will eventually, and maybe not even last considering they are focal points of the media and the masses, be transparent. Information flows will defeat attempts to constrain information. Any action will result in so many data points, it will always be possible for someone to put the picture together.

The other side of the coin is credibility. At first I expect a continuing reliance on push mis/dis information out will be effective for some time to come, but that eventually it will be impossible to keep the 'truth' hidden. You can look at the history of the last century and see a movement from the 'transparent' lives of small towns, villages and farms, to the privacy of anonymity in large urban settings. However, as technology has progressed, anonymity has been lost. And the media delves ever further into the private lives of people, including presidents, than it did a mere 30-40 years ago.

Harry Goldstein summarizes with in part with this:
IT WILL NOT BE EASY to create a truly transparent society. For most of us, being more accountable, and holding others to account, will be a challenge. But the benefits might well outweigh the costs, as in this scenario, circa 2010:

Passing you on the street, I swipe my RFID reader to obtain your name and address. Googling you on a few public databases, including one of new homeowners in the neighborhood, I discover that you're in the market for a used lawn mower. Your bank account is in order, and your credit is fantastic, even after you paid off your ex-wife's debt as part of your recent divorce settlement. You had a quadruple bypass last year and need a riding mower just like the one sitting in my garage. Your spy tracker alerts you to the fact that I'm checking you out, prompting you to launch your own investigation. You learn I suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder and am taking medication to keep my life together. But you also know that my disorder manifests as a cleaning fetish; it's a good bet that the lawn mower I listed on eBay is in pristine shape. Furthermore, you can infer that I'm so desperate to make my credit card payments this month that I'll sell you that mower for a song.

Ideas and attitudes about personal privacy differ from culture to culture, era to era. Is it such a stretch to believe that the developed world's collective attitude toward privacy is evolving to a point where we're no longer concerned with who's watching us or what they know about us, as long as our lives are safer and more convenient? After all, we live in a time when we automatically remove our shoes so airport screeners can check for explosives; when we are videotaped every time we conduct an ATM transaction or walk into a store or office building; and when we are tracked every time our computer accepts a cookie from a Web site we've visited.

For entertainment, we gather in front of the tube for mass-mediated group therapy sessions called reality shows. Hundreds of millions of us around the globe tune in to watch people who eagerly endure excruciating plastic surgery; stab each other in the back for a chance to work for Donald Trump; or wolf down sea worms, cockroaches, and worse to survive on a desert island. For Generation Y, "Big Brother" is a reality television show, where, for a chance at winning half a million dollars, contestants volunteer to be cooped up in a house with total strangers and have their most private moments broadcast to a hungry audience.
Yes, but think of the social re-adjustments that will be required to varying extents in all cultures. What is the actual rate of incest in our country, and which families are involved? Who has used illegal drugs in the past? Does monogamy rise as the ability to have clandestine affairs fades away? Or do we adjust to some other arrangement? Who beats their children? Who is cruel to animals? All will potentially be known, but certainly knowable.

And what about lying?


 
|
  How to waste a perfectly good army without really trying...

NOTE: Transferred from American Samizdat to fit blog format, 1039 hrs, 071404.

You know, if there was one issue that I think all Americans could agree on, it might well be that the Commander-in-Chief not squander his military.

Sun Tzu in his
The Art of War, written 2500 years ago, states, from I. Laying Plans::
3. The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.

4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.

5,6. The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.z,
And from, II. Waging War
1. Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.

2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
Well, actually, in just reviewing the bullet points of the first three chapters, I don't think we've followed any of the tenents.

I bring this up, because I fear that Baby Bush is destroying our military. Possibly the single greatest trust we put in our president is to keep America safe. How will he be able to do that, when he is successfully squandering our military might?

And talk about intelligence failures. In fact, TomDispatch does in Welcome to Bushworld reports:
Bush administration and CPA officials have been claiming forever that there are only 5,000 members of the Iraqi insurgency. Now, the reliable Jim Krane of the Associated Press (Iraq Insurgency Larger Than Thought) raises the figure to 20,000 (including part-timers) and offers the following comments, based partly on information from "a U.S. military official in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity":
"The official and others told The Associated Press the guerrillas have enough popular support among nationalist Iraqis angered by the presence of U.S. troops that they cannot be militarily defeated. … One hint that the number is larger is the sheer volume of suspected insurgents -- 22,000 -- who have cycled through U.S.-run prisons. Most have been released. And in April alone, U.S. forces killed as many as 4,000 people, the military official said, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militiamen fighting under the banner of a radical cleric. [Yet] there has been no letup in attacks… Most of the insurgents are fighting for a bigger role in a secular society, not a Taliban-like Islamic state, the military official said. Almost all the guerrillas are Iraqis, even those launching some of the devastating car bombings normally blamed on foreigners -- usually al-Zarqawi…

"Civilian analysts generally agreed, saying U.S. and Iraqi officials have long overemphasized the roles of foreign fighters and Muslim extremists. Such positions support the Bush administration's view that the insurgency is linked to the war on terror. A closer examination paints most insurgents as secular Iraqis angry at the presence of U.S. and other foreign troops."
.
I found this quote Tom cites especially to the point:
In A Time of Reckoning in the American Conservative magazine, Andrew J. Bacevich makes a simple point about the intelligence war the U.S. has so decisively lost:
"In a situation truly without precedent in all of American military history, American forces in Iraq have for more than a year been engaged in a full-fledged shooting war and still do not know whom they are fighting. The reliance on generic terms to describe the 'terrorists,' 'insurgents,' or 'foreign fighters' tells the story. Exactly who is the enemy? How is he organized? Who gives the orders? What are his aims? We don't know. And as long as we don't, the enemy will retain the initiative."
Once more, a partial look at the wisdom of Sun Tzu, from III. Attack by Stratagem:
18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
Which summarizes a chapter that includes:
12. There are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army:--

13. (1) By commanding the army to advance or to retreat, being ignorant of the fact that it cannot obey. This is called hobbling the army.

14. (2) By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army. This causes restlessness in the soldier's minds.

15. (3) By employing the officers of his army without discrimination, through ignorance of the military principle of adaptation to circumstances. This shakes the confidence of the soldiers.

16. But when the army is restless and distrustful, trouble is sure to come from the other feudal princes. This is simply bringing anarchy into the army, and flinging victory away.
Tom also points to: They throw rocks, don't they?: Scott Wilson of the Washington Post in what passes for an upbeat story in today's Iraq reports that, in the Shiite slum of Sadr City in Baghdad (In Place of Gunfire, a Rain of Rocks),
"it is perhaps a measure of progress that U.S. soldiers… are feeling the sting of stones more often than bullets… [T]he daily rock fights between U.S. soldiers and ordinary Iraqis, many of them children, highlight the mutual antipathy that has built up since the handover of political power to an Iraqi government… Candy, once gleefully accepted in this part of Baghdad, is now thrown back at the soldiers dispensing it. The military partnership with new Iraqi security forces appears to be foundering on a mutual lack of respect. The Iraqi police occasionally ignore U.S. orders, described as recommendations by U.S. commanders in the days since the handover, to conduct night patrols in troublesome districts and prohibit Sadr's militants from manning traffic checkpoints. The Iraqi National Guard has refused dangerous assignments, even when accompanied by U.S. troops…

"[On patrol in Sadr city], Sgt. Timothy Kathol, 24, of Amarillo, Tex., handed a bag of lollipops up to the gunner as the stones continued to rain down. 'They throw rocks, we throw candy -- really hard candy,' Kathol said. 'With sticks in it.'"
I am going to highly recommend that readers scan The Art of War. And it will get worse. An army with bad morale disintegrates. We've seen it happen. And as this drags on, and more and more stress is put on our military, especially if we've lost the moral high ground (think Abu Ghraib Prison), the public more and more begin to question the war, the soldiers and marines on the ground begin to question the mission (especially since there apparently is not plan), and then, you have a military fit for nothing. Corruption, drug abuse, even "Fragging" and "Combat Refusals". Oh, I just tried to Google Search: 'awol rate iraq', and find no current stats, and the old site is down. Hmmm...When the drug abuse hits (and there is plenty of herion and hashish in the region), you'll know the end is near for our domestic security, our ability to project force, or even to help bring order to a small country off our shores like Haiti, will vanish.

Really, if you want a deeper understanding of Iraq, read The Art of War. It's scannable since it's presented here as a series of bullets, and is not that long. Though, you will get more out of it, if you actually read and think.

If you do decide to read The Art of War, please keep in mind, all that has happened in the effort leading up to the war, the 'end' of the war, and the post war-war, and let me know, if you can find anything we have done well, based on Sun Tzu's sage advice.

Oh, and there are some great editions of Sun Tzu that provide alot more depth, should the reader be interested in greater depth, including histoical contexts. 
|
  Science Monday! on wednesday

How scared should I be?
New Scientist, "Brain implants 'read' monkey minds":
"Brain implants have been used to 'read the minds' of monkeys to predict what they are about to do and even how enthusiastic they are about doing it.

It is the first time such high level cognitive brain signals have been decoded and could ultimately lead to more natural thought-activated prosthetic devices for people with paralysis, says Richard Andersen project leader at the California Institute of Technology, in Pasadena, US.

By decoding the signals from 96 electrodes in a region of the brain just above the ear -- called the parietal cortex - the researchers were able to predict 67 per cent of the time where in their visual field trained monkeys were planning to reach.

They also found that this accuracy could be improved to about 88 per cent when the monkeys expected a reward for carrying out the task.
The team were even able to predict what sort of reward the monkeys were expecting - whether it was juice or just plain water -- from their brain signals."
I was thinkin' about just leavin' the country. Now I'm thinkin', maybe I should hi-jack a shuttle and just leave humanity behind. How many years would it take me to reach, say, Europa?

And don't tell me there's no life on Europa. I have it on good authority that not only is there life, but bitchin' babes.
 
|
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
  So much info, so little time

Blogger was down for maintenance, so I was unable to access earlier.

I did post my first contribution to American Samizdat, "How to waste a perfectly good army without really trying...".

I'll try to get some science posts together for tomorrow/later today. 
|
  "Follow the Money"

Follow the Money continues to be good advice.

I was wandering around American Samizdat, and went into the comments section on Corporatism is not Conservative, and then from the comment thread to thoughts on the eve of the apocalypse. I started looking at Bill's links, and noticed Guerrilla News Network, which I hadn't visited in months. Well, that's were I found this interview with Dan Briody , who is the author of The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of the Carlyle Group. It's a good interview, and includes the history of the The Carlyle Group, and is certainly worth your time.

I just wanted to direct you to this, a response to the question 'how is the Carlyle Group profiting on the war':
"Briody: The Carlyle Group [Investments] is a private equity firm, which essentially means that they invest in private companies - they take money from private investors and then invest that money into private companies. They essentially work like a mutual fund would, only instead of buying and selling stocks, they buy and sell companies. So they have different funds and among those funds are industries that are heavily government regulated. So health care, telecommunications and two of the biggies are defense and aerospace. Those are the industries that Carlyle [Fund(s)] got their start on back in the early 90s. It is what they have built their practice on.

The way that Carlyle [mgnt] is able to succeed at investing in these heavily government regulated industries is they hire ex-politicians - George H. W. Bush, John Major, Frank Carlucci, former secretary of defense under Reagan, James Baker III. These are guys that have access to former heads of state, foreign business leaders, and they enable Carlyle [Geography] to really get its tentacles out all over the world and do some very serious investing with heavy-hitter investors from all around the world. And it also gains them access to investment opportunities.

After 9/11, Carlyle was set up in a number of defense properties. They owned a company called United Defense - this was probably the biggest boon after 9/11 that Carlyle experienced. United Defense [Products] was a company that makes the Bradley fighting vehicles, the Crusader gun system - these are things we have seen on TV a lot since the Iraq war started, and United Defense [Capabilities]was able to go public months after September 11 because of the huge increase in defense spending. Carlyle made $270 million on one day in that IPO and then went on to make close to a billion dollars on paper from that transaction over time as the stock price continued to go up. This was an enormous investment for them and it was a huge win.

Their other aerospace companies, their other defense properties, their security companies, their biological cleanup companies - all of them scored major contracts after September 11, which improved the fund - the defense and aerospace funds invested in, which are billion dollar funds - $1-2 billion funds - huge private equity funds. The list of benefits is long, but we will never know exactly how much Carlyle made from 9/11 because they are not under any obligation to disclose that information.


They are never going to tell."
I think that is as concise an answer as I've ever heard.

Note 1, we have not seen the Crusader gun system, it was never fielded. Rumsfeld stopped its funding shortly after the Carlyle Group took United Defense public. Good timing that.

Note 2, they no longer broadly boast of their relationship w/ Pappa Bush on their web site. Curious, eh?
Briody: I think the most disconcerting thing about George H. W. Bush working for this company is that Bush Sr. was the head of the CIA for a long time and as such he continues to have access to CIA briefings as do all ex-presidents actually, but very few of them take advantage of this right. Bush Sr. continues to get briefings from the CIA. Now you can imagine what kind of an advantage that could be for a company that does international business especially in the areas of defense and aerospace, but even in telecommunications, health care and other types of international business. It's a huge advantage - an unfair advantage really and certainly some of the other big private equity firms aren't allowed access to this type of information and nor should they be. It kind of creates an un-level playing field when you look at it in that respect. Did Bush Sr. actually use this information to trade on or to benefit the Carlyle Group? Nobody knows and until he starts talking about this issue, we will never know.
And, a question: Just how much will Baby Bush and the girls inherit, especially if Papa Bush passes during the current 'death tax' hiatus? 
|
Monday, July 12, 2004
  More admin odds and ends

Well, I am in the process of adding a few more blog links, though I still haven't got them categorized as I have promised, yet.

First, let me say, I have experienced an unexpected and intriguing opportunity. Dr. Menlo has extnded to me the invitation to post at American Samizdat. I have accepted. I am not sure how I will divide my postings. I will, of course, put notice here, whenever I post at American Samizdat. I think it will be an interesting experience to contribute to a group blog, but some of my favorite blogs to visit are group blogs, including The Panda's Thumb, pandagon, corrente, The Blogging of the President: 2004, North Georgia Dogma and of course, Fafblog!.

So, I've decided to try it. Besides, it will take collective effort, really on a global scale, to push back the menace to society that is rampant, corrupt global corporations. So, I'm game. Besides, could I resist an invitation from a blog that has "Rebel Scum Since 2001" as their motto?

Also, I will be adding Inspector Lohmann to the link list, also. I keep gooing back, and it is so much easier not have to find his link in the comment section.

Oh, I can't resist this observation from C-SPAN today. I caught a few minutes of the senate debate on the 'our government should define marraige in our contitution' act. I got to see U.S. Senator Rick Santorum-Pennsylvania say that the `Federal Marriage Amendment' had bi-partisan sponsorship">bi-partisan sponsorshipBecause, get this, Senator Zell Miller, Democrat from Georgia is a co-sponsor. Which, as we all know, is the truth on the surface, but look at how his voting pattern rates.

Oh, then Santorum made the idoitic statement "marriage as defined in the constitution." I would have hoped that a senator, especially a republican senator, would have read the Constitution by now.

 
|
  United States of America, Inc.

TomDispatch has an excellent article on the senate intel report in the "The CIA did it!". I'll let you go there and read it for yourselves.

I'm going to take a different tact.

One of my favorite ways to view our country is in keeping, oddly, w/ Baby Bush' leadership style:
"The CEO In Chief
This is, of course, no departure from Bush's leadership style since the day he assumed the presidency. Bush has always taken pride in his image as the CEO-president, a smartly dressed executive who lives by synchronized watch and day planner, who delegates tasks where appropriate, and who works out regularly, eats right and gets plenty of bed rest."
He claimed to be a CEO kind of prez. Well, that's fine w/ me.

But, that makes me a shareholder. And as a shareholder, I want to look at our earnings report, projected earnings, asset values, capitalization, etc. I, of course, also want to look a corporate liabilities, debt, p/e ratio, cost of labor, and total overhead. From what I've been able to piece together, this CEO and this country are underperforming in all areas, except the cost of labor. The cost of labor is the cheapest it's been in a while.

On the otherhand, the rest of the corporate report looks lousy. Corporate debt at an all time high. Projected revenues down. Asset values stagnant.

Quick aside: I consider our public lands and natural resources as assets. And as assets, I want top return upon their sale. No one can convince me, that it is in my interest as a shareholder, to give away assets to other corporations. Let them instead pay market value. If private property owners are receiving X dollars/per acre for allowing their forests to be havested, or for energy extraction, than that's the return I want. You can argue that I will pay more for goods as a result, but I think the off set to my tax obligations, and potentially, actual real dividends in my account, will more than make up for it. Also, if the market is depressed, than I agrue for holding on to the assets until the market improves. Long term investment is what I'm after anyway, not quarterly profits. It maybe a corporation, but it still is a 'government' of the people, and I really would prefer to maintain, and possibly increase my share of the equity.[I'll have to return to this and present a clearer argument.]

Anyway, as a CEO, Baby Bush sucks. The corporation is in it's worst state in years, and the CEO keeps saying, "It's not my fault." As a shareholder, my thoughts run toward, "So, what? I want a CEO in charge who can fix it." Not just say, "Well, I would have done better, but for the fact that my employees didn't do a good job..." Screw that.

I am calling on all shareholders of the United States of America, Inc. to FIRE this CEO, who has failed to bring any substantial returns on investment and operations in three and a half years. It is time for a shareholder revolt!
Baby Bush, "The CIA did it. The congress did it (energy give away bill}. 9/11. Bill Clinton."

Shareholder, "I understand. What did you do? More importantly, what do I pay you to do?"

Baby Bush (after consulting w/ Cheney and Rove), "Protect the assets of the United States of America, and increase corporate value."

Shareholder, "You have failed. You are fired."
Just one man's opinion.


God Damn! He's on to us. How to retain power in face of a shareholder revolt? See: Inspector Lohmann who cites U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack
Newsweek cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Departmen last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the vote if an attack occurred on the day before or on election day.
Oh hell! Now I understand. This will guarantee an attack. Nobody is as good for terrorists as Baby Bush. He's just enticing them.  
|
Sunday, July 11, 2004
  Here be monsters

Actually, not monsters but orcas. Via Modulator, comes this link to ORCA LIVE. He's also got a link to some good maps, and info on the Sound. 
|
  Is it okay because they are Muslim children?

Wow. I had heard that Hersch had said these existed, and posted on it, see "A different take on the torturers", and I've been waiting to see this story get legs. Well here it is in German, WILLKOMMEN BEI REPORT MAINZ, and here is a summary in English, B E L L A C I A O - An account of mistreatment of girls and boys in Iraqi prisons: "Undressing, blows and cold water" -.

I am revolted at the idea that my government sexually abused children, AS POLICY!!!

Where was the mention of torturing children in the released policy memos and legal opinions? I'll probably address this again as the story develops, but I stand by my previous comments.

Anyway, thanks to American Leftist, and lies.com for the heads up. 
|
GEORGE W. BUSH - TOUGH ENOUGH TO TORTURE CHILDREN
Any subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, or employees of any site employing compulsory user registration mechanisms are not authorized to access the content or services of this site.

ARCHIVES
02/15/2004 - 02/22/2004 / 02/22/2004 - 02/29/2004 / 03/07/2004 - 03/14/2004 / 03/14/2004 - 03/21/2004 / 03/21/2004 - 03/28/2004 / 03/28/2004 - 04/04/2004 / 04/04/2004 - 04/11/2004 / 04/11/2004 - 04/18/2004 / 04/18/2004 - 04/25/2004 / 04/25/2004 - 05/02/2004 / 05/02/2004 - 05/09/2004 / 05/09/2004 - 05/16/2004 / 05/16/2004 - 05/23/2004 / 05/23/2004 - 05/30/2004 / 05/30/2004 - 06/06/2004 / 06/06/2004 - 06/13/2004 / 06/13/2004 - 06/20/2004 / 06/20/2004 - 06/27/2004 / 06/27/2004 - 07/04/2004 / 07/04/2004 - 07/11/2004 / 07/11/2004 - 07/18/2004 / 07/18/2004 - 07/25/2004 / 07/25/2004 - 08/01/2004 / 08/01/2004 - 08/08/2004 / 08/08/2004 - 08/15/2004 / 08/15/2004 - 08/22/2004 / 08/22/2004 - 08/29/2004 / 08/29/2004 - 09/05/2004 / 09/05/2004 - 09/12/2004 / 09/12/2004 - 09/19/2004 / 09/19/2004 - 09/26/2004 / 09/26/2004 - 10/03/2004 / 10/03/2004 - 10/10/2004 / 10/10/2004 - 10/17/2004 / 10/17/2004 - 10/24/2004 / 10/24/2004 - 10/31/2004 / 10/31/2004 - 11/07/2004 / 11/07/2004 - 11/14/2004 / 11/14/2004 - 11/21/2004 / 11/21/2004 - 11/28/2004 / 11/28/2004 - 12/05/2004 / 12/05/2004 - 12/12/2004 / 12/12/2004 - 12/19/2004 / 12/26/2004 - 01/02/2005 / 01/02/2005 - 01/09/2005 / 01/09/2005 - 01/16/2005 / 08/28/2005 - 09/04/2005 / 09/11/2005 - 09/18/2005 /


  • Site Feed

  • Back to Radically Inept Main Page

  • Selected pieces cross posted at:
  • American Samizdat


  • Authors' Bios:
  • Somewhat accurate, no where close to complete
  • Photo
  • Rick Eddy's bio

  • Radically Inept attempts at shorts, and personal vignettes:
  • A Modest Proposal: A Solution to the Problem of Poverty in America
  • Wherein I confess my complete ignorance of 'common knowledge'
  • Learning from Mikey
  • I remember the Army...
  • A memory hole

  • Rick Eddy pieces:
  • Osama's Hair Stylist
  • Speed and Shorty come by for a visit
  • A rant and a Prediction
  • Rick Eddy on NASCAR and 'Bidness'
  • The continuing saga of Rick Eddy on The Temple of Doom:
  • Rick Eddy on the Temple of Doom (Part One)
  • Rick Eddy on the Temple of Doom (Part Two)
  • Rick Eddy on the Temple of Doom (Part Three)
  • Rick Eddy on the Temple of Doom (Part Four)
  • Rick Eddy on the Temple of Doom (Part Five)


  • The Dailys:
  • lies.com
  • MaxSpeak
  • pandagon.net
  • The Blogging of the President: 2004
  • Modulator
  • North Georgia Dogma
  • The Corpus Callosum
  • Drunken Monkey Style Blogging
  • Fafblog! the whole worlds only source for Fafblog.

  • As time permits:
  • Intel Dump
  • Orcinus Fair and Balanced
  • FuturePundit.com
  • Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal a Weblog
  • Marginal Revolution
  • How Appealing
  • Chris C Mooney
  • Kevin Drum
  • Cyborg Democracy
  • Cursor.org
  • Iraq Now
  • butterfliesandwheels.com
  • Atrios
  • Talking Points Memo
  • Roger Ailes
  • The Panda's Thumb
  • corrente
  • WorldChanging: Another World Is Here
  • The Truth Laid Bear
  • Fables of the reconstruction
  • Oliver Willis: Like Kryptonite To Stupid
  • Kieran Healy's Weblog
  • Happy Furry Puppy Story Time with Norbizness
  • TheAgitator.com
  • Paperwight's Fair Shot
  • Lotus - Surviving a Dark Time
  • thoughts on the eve of the apocalypse
  • The River
  • Mind is Moving
  • commonSci
  • dr. menlo: promoting people over profits since 2000
  • Where We're Bound
  • Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things
  • NET POLITIK
  • Public Domain Progress

  • Infrequent, but worthy posters:
  • Rogue Analyst (My other blog)
  • CenterPoint - A Centrist Weblog
  • scratchings
  • Inspector Lohmann


  • Excellent sources of info:
  • Farmers and Consumers Market Bulletin
  • TomDispatch
  • KurzweilAI.net
  • Open Government Information Awareness
  • SPACE.com
  • Agnosticism / Atheism - Skeptical Inquiry, Freethought, & Religious Philosophy
  • Defense and the National Interest
  • Google News
  • TCS: Tech Central Station - Where Free Markets Meet Technology
  • ajeeb, News
  • Corp Watch
  • Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments
  • GlobalSecurity.org
  • Moving Ideas: Connecting You To The Progressive Community
  • The Memory Hole [rescuing knowledge, freeing information]
  • The International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal
  • -:| CHINA TODAY |:-
  • Alex Jones' Prison Planet.com: The Earth Is Being Turned Into A Prison Planet
  • Alex Jones Presents Infowars.com to Fight the New World Order --There's a War on For Your Mind
  • THE WAR IN CONTEXT:: Iraq, the War on Terrorism, and the Middle East Conflict - in Critical Perspective


  • Fun and off the beaten path:
  • GHOST TOWN - Chernobyl Pictures - Kidofspeed - Elena
  • Cooperative Extension Service (GA)- Publications
  • MEGA START PAGE
  • The Vaults of Erowid
  • Eyeballing Series


  • What I'm listening to:
  • Radio Paradise - eclectic online rock radio
  • Shameless plug
  • Big Rock Studio Technologies


  • Powered by Blogger

    Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com Site Meter