Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
SNL parodies TSA Groping
I am really pleased that this has become an issue and that there are millions of people who think the TSA is not keeping us safe by groping and fondling my wife and grandma.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, homeland security is renewable energy and healthy eating habits. Sure, there are a few dozen impoverished uneducated Somalis and Taliban that hate America, but the real terrorist threat comes from the oil and coal companies (making our planet uninhabitable for future generations) and the industrial meat complex (killing millions of Americans every day from heart disease and obesity related problems). I know this does not fit the conventional wisdom about 9/11, but look at the numbers - millions of species and the future of the planet (climate change), and millions of Americans every day (heart disease and obesity related problems) versus dudes with Turbans (3,000 Americans and two big buildings). It was still sad, but look at the numbers. You're not looking.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, homeland security is renewable energy and healthy eating habits. Sure, there are a few dozen impoverished uneducated Somalis and Taliban that hate America, but the real terrorist threat comes from the oil and coal companies (making our planet uninhabitable for future generations) and the industrial meat complex (killing millions of Americans every day from heart disease and obesity related problems). I know this does not fit the conventional wisdom about 9/11, but look at the numbers - millions of species and the future of the planet (climate change), and millions of Americans every day (heart disease and obesity related problems) versus dudes with Turbans (3,000 Americans and two big buildings). It was still sad, but look at the numbers. You're not looking.
Monday, November 01, 2010
Gretchen sucks, Mondo should have won
This is my first post about fashion. Yes, it's about the show Project Runway. Yes, I'm married, and for you snickering single dudes out there, this is what happens when you get married. So go listen to Motley Crue and drink 5 beers and a Prairie Fire shot right now.
Anyway, the point is: Gretchen sucks, and Mondo should have won. It has been the Mondo Show for at least 5 episodes. If it were the Gretchen Show I would have stopped watching several episodes ago. Michael and Nina were a little like the Bush Administration, deciding first (to invade Iraq), and then coming up with reasons afterwards. A bad Southwestern 70s catalog? The producers are probably regretting that.
OK, well, that was a nice diversion. Now back to serious matters, such as that our country totally sucks, and all these teabag idiots are going to get elected by Nina and Michael, I mean, the voters tomorrow.
Anyway, the point is: Gretchen sucks, and Mondo should have won. It has been the Mondo Show for at least 5 episodes. If it were the Gretchen Show I would have stopped watching several episodes ago. Michael and Nina were a little like the Bush Administration, deciding first (to invade Iraq), and then coming up with reasons afterwards. A bad Southwestern 70s catalog? The producers are probably regretting that.
OK, well, that was a nice diversion. Now back to serious matters, such as that our country totally sucks, and all these teabag idiots are going to get elected by Nina and Michael, I mean, the voters tomorrow.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Excerpt of interview with Jonathan Safran Foer about Eating Animals
Here's the link:
http://fora.tv/2010/09/21/Eating_Animals_Jonathan_Safran_Foer#chapter_08
I like when he says that all parents make a choice. Meat eating parents are choosing to lie to their children about what meat is and where it comes from. Sounds radical, but he's pretty common sensical.
http://fora.tv/2010/09/21/Eating_Animals_Jonathan_Safran_Foer#chapter_08
I like when he says that all parents make a choice. Meat eating parents are choosing to lie to their children about what meat is and where it comes from. Sounds radical, but he's pretty common sensical.
Excerpt of How To Opt Out of the TSA's Naked Body Scanners at the Airport
I don't know if I totally believe all of this, but I do get annoyed at TSA. They are ridiculous, and I don't think they are making us safer. They are trying to make people scared so that we will be sheep and vote for Dubya and Rumsfeld. Oh, Obama is in office now? Well, it still feels pretty Dubya-ish when you're at the airport.
How To Opt Out of the TSA's Naked Body Scanners at the Airportby Mike Adams
Natural News
I encountered my first airport naked body scanner while flying out of California today, and of course I decided to "opt out" of the scan. You do this by telling the blue-shirted TSA agents that you simply wish to opt out of the body scanner. Here's what happened after that:
A TSA agent told me to step to the side and stay put. He then proceeded to shout out loudly enough for all the other travelers and TSA agents to hear, "OPT OUT! OPT OUT!" This is no doubt designed to attract attention (or perhaps humiliation) to those who choose to opt out of the naked body scanner. I saw no purpose for this verbal alert because the same TSA agent who was yelling this ultimately was the one who patted me down anyway.
For the pat down, first I was required to walk through the regular metal detector. From there, I was asked if I wanted to be patted down in a private room, or if I didn't mind just being patted down in full view of everyone else. Not being a shy person in the first place, I told the agent I didn't need a private room.
He then explained to me that he was going to pat down my entire body, including my crotch and my buttocks, but that he would use the back of his hands to pat down the crotch and buttocks areas. This is probably designed to make the pat-down seem less "personal" and more detached. That way, air passengers can't complain of being felt up by TSA agents who might get carried away with the pat-down procedure. He asked if it hurt for me to be touched anywhere, and I told him no, at which point he proceeded with the pat down.
It was a well-scripted pat-down, covering all the areas of my body, including a mild crotch sweep (it wasn't especially invasive or anything, as doctors will do far worse during a physical exam). He swept my arms, legs, hips, back of the neck, ankles and everywhere else. To the TSA's credit, this guy was fast, efficient and only used a light touch that was in no way disturbing. But it did take an extra five minutes or so compared to walking through the naked body scanner.
Speaking of the naked body scanners, as I was having my crotch swept by the back of the hand of this TSA agent, I was observing other air travelers subjecting themselves to the naked body scanners. They were told to walk into the body scanner staging area and then hold their arms in the air in a pose as if they were under arrest. They were told to freeze in this position for several seconds (perhaps 10 seconds) during which they were being blasted with ionizing radiation that we all know contributes to cancer.
The TSA, of course, will tell you that these machines can't possibly contribute to cancer. But they said the same thing about mammograms, and we now know that mammograms are so harmful to women's health that they actually harm ten women for everyone one woman they help. So I'm not exactly taking the U.S.government at its word that naked body scanner radiation is "harmless."
As these air travelers were being scanned, their naked body images were appearing on a screen somewhere, of course. Some TSA agent was examining the naked body shape and contours of all these people, and even though we were told by the TSA that the image viewing machines cannot store images, we have since learned that the machines actually do have the capability to store those images. In addition, rogue TSA employees could simply use their cell phones to take snapshots of what they see on the screen. There are no doubt rules against such behavior, but it's bound to happen sooner or later.
Meanwhile, my own security screening was proceeding fully clothed. I don't want to broadcast my naked butt cheeks on the TSA's graphic monitors, thank you very much!
Very few people opt out of the naked body scanners
The most fascinating part about this entire process was not the verbal broadcast of my opt out status, nor having my crotch swept by the latex-covered back hand of some anonymous TSA agent, but rather the curious fact that I was the only one opting out. Although I must have watched at least a hundred people go through this particular security checkpoint, there wasn't a single other person who opted out of the naked body scan.
They all just lined up like cattle to have their bodies scanned with ionizing radiation.
To me, that's just fascinating. That when people are given a choice to opt out of being irradiated, they will choose to just go along with the naked body scanrather than risk standing out by requesting to opt out.
You see, I'm not convinced that the TSA's naked body scanners enhance air travel security at all. Previous security tests conducted by the FAA show quite clearly that the greatest threat to airplane safety isn't from the passengers but from ground crews, where bombs and other materials can be quite easily smuggled onto planes.
But even though naked body scanners may not enhance air travel security, they do accomplish something far more intriguing: The successful completion of an experiment in human behavior. If you were to pose the question "Will people line up like cattle to be electronically undressed in front of government security officers?" The answer is now unequivocally YES!
Most people, it turns out, will simply do whatever they're told by government authorities, even if it means giving up their privacy or their freedoms. Almost anything can be sold to the public under the guise of "fighting terrorism" these days, including subjecting your body to what is essentially a low-radiation CT scan at the airport!
I don't know about you, but I don't think I should be required to subject myself to ionizing radiation as a condition of air travel security. Of course, the more technically minded readers among you might counter by saying that high-altitude travel is, all by itself, an event that subjects you to low levels of ionizing radiation (which is true). But that's all the more reason to not add the body's radiation burden any more than necessary. Americans already get far too much radiation from CT scans and other medical imaging tests (not to mention mammograms). Do we really need to dose peoples' bodies with yet more radiation every time they board an airplane?
Trusted traveler program?
I don't know why the TSA never pursued its "trusted traveler" program. I actually suggested this years ago, and there was word that the TSA was working on something similar. The way it worked was very different from the current system. Under the current system, every person entering an airport security line is assumed to be a terrorist, and it is only through the various security screenings that you are eventually deemed to be innocent. This is a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to air security, and it's the system in place all across America (and around the world) today.
Under a trusted traveler program, people who pass rigorous background screening procedures, criminal history checks and other similar tests would be assumed innocent unless suspected of being guilty. They might carry "trusted traveler" cards linked to a federal database so that their status could be verified as they pass through a security checkpoint. They might even have their fingerprint scanned at that checkpoint in order to biometrically verify their identity.
For whatever reason, the TSA is no longer pursuing any such trusted traveler program (at least not to my knowledge). Perhaps the agency just figures it can trust no one. Hence the need to have everybody line up in front of the naked body scanner machines and raise their arms in a humiliating "I'm being arrested" pose.
It's actually just like the scene from the movie called The Fifth Element starring Bruce Willis. Remember the scene where the cops are searching the apartment block and they use an X-ray scanner to see through the walls? As they search the apartment building, they announce that all residents must face the wall and place their hands inside the yellow circles on the wall. This scene eerily resembles what the TSA makes U.S. travelers do right now.
And virtually no one protests. That's the really amazing part about this.
Just wait and watch how this gets even worse. Today, you can opt out of the TSA's naked body scanners, but after a year or two – once the sheeple get comfortable with giving up all their freedoms – these scans will become mandatory. That's the day I give up air travel for good.
Gee, I sure will miss having my crotch swept by the latex-covered back hand of some anonymous TSA agent who's wasting taxpayer money by treating me like a terrorist.
Reprinted with permission from Natural News.
How To Opt Out of the TSA's Naked Body Scanners at the Airportby Mike Adams
Natural News
I encountered my first airport naked body scanner while flying out of California today, and of course I decided to "opt out" of the scan. You do this by telling the blue-shirted TSA agents that you simply wish to opt out of the body scanner. Here's what happened after that:
A TSA agent told me to step to the side and stay put. He then proceeded to shout out loudly enough for all the other travelers and TSA agents to hear, "OPT OUT! OPT OUT!" This is no doubt designed to attract attention (or perhaps humiliation) to those who choose to opt out of the naked body scanner. I saw no purpose for this verbal alert because the same TSA agent who was yelling this ultimately was the one who patted me down anyway.
For the pat down, first I was required to walk through the regular metal detector. From there, I was asked if I wanted to be patted down in a private room, or if I didn't mind just being patted down in full view of everyone else. Not being a shy person in the first place, I told the agent I didn't need a private room.
He then explained to me that he was going to pat down my entire body, including my crotch and my buttocks, but that he would use the back of his hands to pat down the crotch and buttocks areas. This is probably designed to make the pat-down seem less "personal" and more detached. That way, air passengers can't complain of being felt up by TSA agents who might get carried away with the pat-down procedure. He asked if it hurt for me to be touched anywhere, and I told him no, at which point he proceeded with the pat down.
It was a well-scripted pat-down, covering all the areas of my body, including a mild crotch sweep (it wasn't especially invasive or anything, as doctors will do far worse during a physical exam). He swept my arms, legs, hips, back of the neck, ankles and everywhere else. To the TSA's credit, this guy was fast, efficient and only used a light touch that was in no way disturbing. But it did take an extra five minutes or so compared to walking through the naked body scanner.
Speaking of the naked body scanners, as I was having my crotch swept by the back of the hand of this TSA agent, I was observing other air travelers subjecting themselves to the naked body scanners. They were told to walk into the body scanner staging area and then hold their arms in the air in a pose as if they were under arrest. They were told to freeze in this position for several seconds (perhaps 10 seconds) during which they were being blasted with ionizing radiation that we all know contributes to cancer.
The TSA, of course, will tell you that these machines can't possibly contribute to cancer. But they said the same thing about mammograms, and we now know that mammograms are so harmful to women's health that they actually harm ten women for everyone one woman they help. So I'm not exactly taking the U.S.government at its word that naked body scanner radiation is "harmless."
As these air travelers were being scanned, their naked body images were appearing on a screen somewhere, of course. Some TSA agent was examining the naked body shape and contours of all these people, and even though we were told by the TSA that the image viewing machines cannot store images, we have since learned that the machines actually do have the capability to store those images. In addition, rogue TSA employees could simply use their cell phones to take snapshots of what they see on the screen. There are no doubt rules against such behavior, but it's bound to happen sooner or later.
Meanwhile, my own security screening was proceeding fully clothed. I don't want to broadcast my naked butt cheeks on the TSA's graphic monitors, thank you very much!
Very few people opt out of the naked body scanners
The most fascinating part about this entire process was not the verbal broadcast of my opt out status, nor having my crotch swept by the latex-covered back hand of some anonymous TSA agent, but rather the curious fact that I was the only one opting out. Although I must have watched at least a hundred people go through this particular security checkpoint, there wasn't a single other person who opted out of the naked body scan.
They all just lined up like cattle to have their bodies scanned with ionizing radiation.
To me, that's just fascinating. That when people are given a choice to opt out of being irradiated, they will choose to just go along with the naked body scanrather than risk standing out by requesting to opt out.
You see, I'm not convinced that the TSA's naked body scanners enhance air travel security at all. Previous security tests conducted by the FAA show quite clearly that the greatest threat to airplane safety isn't from the passengers but from ground crews, where bombs and other materials can be quite easily smuggled onto planes.
But even though naked body scanners may not enhance air travel security, they do accomplish something far more intriguing: The successful completion of an experiment in human behavior. If you were to pose the question "Will people line up like cattle to be electronically undressed in front of government security officers?" The answer is now unequivocally YES!
Most people, it turns out, will simply do whatever they're told by government authorities, even if it means giving up their privacy or their freedoms. Almost anything can be sold to the public under the guise of "fighting terrorism" these days, including subjecting your body to what is essentially a low-radiation CT scan at the airport!
I don't know about you, but I don't think I should be required to subject myself to ionizing radiation as a condition of air travel security. Of course, the more technically minded readers among you might counter by saying that high-altitude travel is, all by itself, an event that subjects you to low levels of ionizing radiation (which is true). But that's all the more reason to not add the body's radiation burden any more than necessary. Americans already get far too much radiation from CT scans and other medical imaging tests (not to mention mammograms). Do we really need to dose peoples' bodies with yet more radiation every time they board an airplane?
Trusted traveler program?
I don't know why the TSA never pursued its "trusted traveler" program. I actually suggested this years ago, and there was word that the TSA was working on something similar. The way it worked was very different from the current system. Under the current system, every person entering an airport security line is assumed to be a terrorist, and it is only through the various security screenings that you are eventually deemed to be innocent. This is a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to air security, and it's the system in place all across America (and around the world) today.
Under a trusted traveler program, people who pass rigorous background screening procedures, criminal history checks and other similar tests would be assumed innocent unless suspected of being guilty. They might carry "trusted traveler" cards linked to a federal database so that their status could be verified as they pass through a security checkpoint. They might even have their fingerprint scanned at that checkpoint in order to biometrically verify their identity.
For whatever reason, the TSA is no longer pursuing any such trusted traveler program (at least not to my knowledge). Perhaps the agency just figures it can trust no one. Hence the need to have everybody line up in front of the naked body scanner machines and raise their arms in a humiliating "I'm being arrested" pose.
It's actually just like the scene from the movie called The Fifth Element starring Bruce Willis. Remember the scene where the cops are searching the apartment block and they use an X-ray scanner to see through the walls? As they search the apartment building, they announce that all residents must face the wall and place their hands inside the yellow circles on the wall. This scene eerily resembles what the TSA makes U.S. travelers do right now.
And virtually no one protests. That's the really amazing part about this.
Just wait and watch how this gets even worse. Today, you can opt out of the TSA's naked body scanners, but after a year or two – once the sheeple get comfortable with giving up all their freedoms – these scans will become mandatory. That's the day I give up air travel for good.
Gee, I sure will miss having my crotch swept by the latex-covered back hand of some anonymous TSA agent who's wasting taxpayer money by treating me like a terrorist.
Reprinted with permission from Natural News.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Million Letter March for a Better Climate Bill
This video is by a friend of mine.
It's a nice concept, if only millions of letters could change a Senator's mind. But it's a start, and it's hopeful. And hey, Rumsfeld Invaders is supposed to be about that hopey and changey thing in the post-Rumsfeld Obama years.
It's a nice concept, if only millions of letters could change a Senator's mind. But it's a start, and it's hopeful. And hey, Rumsfeld Invaders is supposed to be about that hopey and changey thing in the post-Rumsfeld Obama years.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Climate bill post mortem: part 1 of 1 billion
About why the Senate failed:
"We weren't able to credibly promise political reward or punishment," Bill McKibben said. "The fact is, scientists have been saying for the past few years the world might come to an end. But clearly that's insufficient motivation. Clearly, we must communicate that their careers might come to an end. That's going to take a few years."
A Grist commenter asks, "what are the limits to plain speech and passion in this landscape? I worry we're about to launch the green movement equivalent of the Adlie Stephenson and Walter Mondale campaigns."
About why the CLEAR Act (Cap and Dividend) would have been better:
Peter Barnes wrote on Grist: don't underestimate "the political value of simplicity. It's hard for politicians to vote for a controversial policy like cap and trade (however it is spun) that neither they nor anyone else can explain. Lots of Americans get that putting a price on pollution makes sense, but if you can't tell them in a few sentences how that price will be set and where the money will go, you re not going to win them or their representatives over."
"...average families don't understand the intricacies of different carbon pricing mechanisms, but they can distinguish between having their pockets picked and having them filled."
Direct cash dividends to people "allows moderate Democrats and Republicans to vote for carbon pricing and not be annihilated at the polls."
Cap and Dividend is "an ambitious, workable and durable emission reducing system that already has some bipartisan traction and could conceivably get 60 votes in a more Republican Senate than we now have."
"We weren't able to credibly promise political reward or punishment," Bill McKibben said. "The fact is, scientists have been saying for the past few years the world might come to an end. But clearly that's insufficient motivation. Clearly, we must communicate that their careers might come to an end. That's going to take a few years."
A Grist commenter asks, "what are the limits to plain speech and passion in this landscape? I worry we're about to launch the green movement equivalent of the Adlie Stephenson and Walter Mondale campaigns."
About why the CLEAR Act (Cap and Dividend) would have been better:
Peter Barnes wrote on Grist: don't underestimate "the political value of simplicity. It's hard for politicians to vote for a controversial policy like cap and trade (however it is spun) that neither they nor anyone else can explain. Lots of Americans get that putting a price on pollution makes sense, but if you can't tell them in a few sentences how that price will be set and where the money will go, you re not going to win them or their representatives over."
"...average families don't understand the intricacies of different carbon pricing mechanisms, but they can distinguish between having their pockets picked and having them filled."
Direct cash dividends to people "allows moderate Democrats and Republicans to vote for carbon pricing and not be annihilated at the polls."
Cap and Dividend is "an ambitious, workable and durable emission reducing system that already has some bipartisan traction and could conceivably get 60 votes in a more Republican Senate than we now have."
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Bummed about Schneider
We really need everyone we can get. And Stephen Schneider was a climate hero. It is a huge loss, for the climate and the planet. I hope there are more like him to take up the fight.
Friday, July 02, 2010
An International Climate Framework with Cap, Share & Dividend
The UN needs an equity framework to bring countries together. The best approach is Contraction & Convergence, which sets a future date to converge to global per capita equity in GHG emissions. It can be implemented with Cap & Share www.capandshare.org, where people in 1st World countries must buy the 3rd World's extra permits. This money flow will help the 3rd World leapfrog dirty coal and finance sustainable development. In the meantime, the US should implement its own domestic program that caps total emissions and returns the proceeds from an escalating carbon price back to the people: Cap & Dividend. Please ask your Senator to support the Cantwell-Collins CLEAR Act www.supportclearact.com.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The judge who overturned the drilling moratorium is a cyborg from the future sent here to kill all life on Earth
I've been veg for over 10 years, but still liked lox and sushi (I felt bad while eating it, but it was just so delicious). The BP oil spill finally got me to stop eating fish and shrimp. We should probably start assuming that 30% of American seafood is tainted. The industry will convince the regulators to let them sell it and people will die. Better protect yourselves, because the Terminator machines have risen, it is corporations versus humans, and that judge who overturned the drilling moratorium is a cyborg from the future sent here to kill all life on Earth.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Seafood and oil in the Gulf of Mexico
Should there be health advisories about eating seafood in the U.S. due to the BP Gulf oil spill/disaster? If 30% of American seafood comes from the Gulf of Mexico, how much of that is contaminated by this spill? Even if not directly, once oil enters the food chain and the global industrial supply chain, it could show up anywhere, right? Is that too alarmist? Or six months from now will there be a "suprising" epidemic linked to people who ate contaminated seafood? Maybe we should stop eating seafood (I'll miss you sushi and lox).
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Oops, it's all dead now, let's drill!
From a comment on ClimateProgress.org:
“If BP can “accidently” kill off most of the life in the gulf, then there would be little life to protect from future drilling in the area. So it would in the long run be easier to argue for more drilling in the area because there wouldn’t be much environment left to impact.”
I’m quite sure this thought has occurred to oil executives and their K street buddies. Can’t we send these people out on little boats to the Gulf so they can fully appreciate the splendor they have caused?
The Taliban and Al Qaida terrorists, even if they should build an A-bomb, can never hope to equal the sheer destruction that BP and their corporate partners have caused. These terrorists are sitting on their hands, eating sugared dates and figs, laughing at us and our corporatist system that does their horrible work for them.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Dear Kerry-Lieberman Apologists
The macro-economic birds-eye view says that it doesn't matter if we give billions in subsidies (free allowances) to BP and Exxon (or utilities that are burning coal) rather than to the American people. This is looking at "costs" but not "transfers." I think it is stupid to pre-distribute 40 years of allowance value. When Congress created the Federal Reserve, they didn't pre-set interest rates for the next 40 years. Anyway, the political alliances are too fragile to last, and the edifice will crumble under its own weight. And I won't cry for you, Economists. It's time to value people, not corporations. Three cheers to the Nobel committee for recognizing this with the recent award to Elinor Ostrom.
Our goal is to drive up the costs of fossil fuels, but Exxon and BP will invest the ridiculous windfall profits in climate denial and purchasing Congress following the "Citizens United" ruling. We may need to form a Citizens Energy Consumer Cartel to bargain with OPEC and Exxon and BP. This new cartel will say, we'll let you have rising prices in the face of our falling demand for fossil fuels, but we'll need to divide the windfalls and much of it will return to the people to help us make the changes we need to make.
Sure, they won't like it. They may scream socialism, etc. They may flood the airwaves and fund retrograde candidates. But this is a battle for democracy, the Earth, and civilization.
Our goal is to drive up the costs of fossil fuels, but Exxon and BP will invest the ridiculous windfall profits in climate denial and purchasing Congress following the "Citizens United" ruling. We may need to form a Citizens Energy Consumer Cartel to bargain with OPEC and Exxon and BP. This new cartel will say, we'll let you have rising prices in the face of our falling demand for fossil fuels, but we'll need to divide the windfalls and much of it will return to the people to help us make the changes we need to make.
Sure, they won't like it. They may scream socialism, etc. They may flood the airwaves and fund retrograde candidates. But this is a battle for democracy, the Earth, and civilization.
Friday, May 07, 2010
The Last First Past the Post
The only thing I really know about Nick Clegg, the 3rd party candidate in the UK, is that he is asking for the UK for change to proportional representation in order for him to agree to form a coalition with one of the two other parties. And I think that's great. Most Americans don't know that only a few countries still have first-past-the-post elections. Most countries in Europe and elsewhere have proportional representation. And if the UK switches, in this very public way, it would help educate many Americans about electoral reform. Sad that the 2000 election came and went and the only thing people remember is butterfly ballots and blaming Nader, when they could have seen that a real solution exists, an instant runoff voting system, where you rank your candidates 1,2,3.
PR is just better than FPPE. I won't explain all the intricacies other than providing this link to FairVote. Those guys have been working at this for years, and the Nick Clegg situation must be seen as a huge opportunity for education. Not that anything can really penetrate the Freedom Fries eating USA #1 minds of Amurkins. But who knows, maybe Simon Cowell will start making fun of Amurkins for being the only democracy without PR, and we'll eventually expand our electoral choices beyond McDonalds and Burger King.
PR is just better than FPPE. I won't explain all the intricacies other than providing this link to FairVote. Those guys have been working at this for years, and the Nick Clegg situation must be seen as a huge opportunity for education. Not that anything can really penetrate the Freedom Fries eating USA #1 minds of Amurkins. But who knows, maybe Simon Cowell will start making fun of Amurkins for being the only democracy without PR, and we'll eventually expand our electoral choices beyond McDonalds and Burger King.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Dinosaur Bones in Coal Minds
This cracked me up! A climate denier comment on a recent Huffington Post article about climate deniers:
09:42 PM on 4/26/2010
"Oil and coal are not fossil fuels. If they were, we would have ran out of those energy sources long ago.
How many dinosaur bones have been found in coal minds? How many fossil remains have been pumped out of oil wells?
Oil and coal are naturally occurring products.
Concerning coal-fired powers plants: as a truck drive I often deliver to one in my state. The only thing that is released from it into the air is steam; and no pollutants are released into the ground or the water supply.. Electric plants have come a long ways in creating energy without polluting the environment."
"Oil and coal are not fossil fuels. If they were, we would have ran out of those energy sources long ago.
How many dinosaur bones have been found in coal minds? How many fossil remains have been pumped out of oil wells?
Oil and coal are naturally occurring products.
Concerning coal-fired powers plants: as a truck drive I often deliver to one in my state. The only thing that is released from it into the air is steam; and no pollutants are released into the ground or the water supply.. Electric plants have come a long ways in creating energy without polluting the environment."
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Why Graham's Tantrum might be Good for the Climate
The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman (KGL) climate bill, a mythical bill that no one has even seen but everyone keeps talking about, sort of like a unicorn, may not ever come to exist after Graham suddenly got furious when he found out that immigration might come before climate on the Senate's docket over the weekend.
KGL has changed many times depending on the polls and the business lobbies that its three sponsors met with over the last, what, 6 months, longer? Each change has resulted in more giveaways to coal, nuclear, and offshore oil drilling. I don't recall ever hearing about a change where they said, now that we've met with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, we are strengthening the emission reduction targets, returning even more permit auction revenues back to consumers, and investing even more into new cleaner technologies. But maybe I missed it.
So KGL, RIP. It played a key role in delaying real action on climate for at least 6 critical months, and distracted the Beltway Green Groups from motivating their members, mounting protests and blockades and putting real pressure on lip-service Senators. Now that the Dems 1 year opportunity is passing us by, KGL's delaying tactic was brilliant. Graham may be rewarded by Mitch McConnell for taking one for the team by faking partnership.
Or I could be wrong. All the liberal press keeps saying, Oh, Lindsey Graham was acting in good faith and it was Harry Reid who torpedoed this. How do we know this bail out wasn't planned all along, and this immigration thing isn't just a convenient excuse now that it's getting down to the wire and Graham would have had to finally put his name down on paper.
Anyway, adios KGL, hello CLEAR. The Cantwell-Collins climate bill has been around since December, but in all the anticipation for KGL, remained a runner up...until now. Now it is the last one standing. It is bipartisan. It reduces emissions, gives most of the permit auction revenues back to consumers, invests the rest in clean technologies, and lacks the freebies to coal, oil, and nuclear. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention, it actually exists!
I'm not sure if actual existence is a pre-requisite for the media to take something seriously, or for Senators to start considering supporting something, but maybe it should be.
KGL has changed many times depending on the polls and the business lobbies that its three sponsors met with over the last, what, 6 months, longer? Each change has resulted in more giveaways to coal, nuclear, and offshore oil drilling. I don't recall ever hearing about a change where they said, now that we've met with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, we are strengthening the emission reduction targets, returning even more permit auction revenues back to consumers, and investing even more into new cleaner technologies. But maybe I missed it.
So KGL, RIP. It played a key role in delaying real action on climate for at least 6 critical months, and distracted the Beltway Green Groups from motivating their members, mounting protests and blockades and putting real pressure on lip-service Senators. Now that the Dems 1 year opportunity is passing us by, KGL's delaying tactic was brilliant. Graham may be rewarded by Mitch McConnell for taking one for the team by faking partnership.
Or I could be wrong. All the liberal press keeps saying, Oh, Lindsey Graham was acting in good faith and it was Harry Reid who torpedoed this. How do we know this bail out wasn't planned all along, and this immigration thing isn't just a convenient excuse now that it's getting down to the wire and Graham would have had to finally put his name down on paper.
Anyway, adios KGL, hello CLEAR. The Cantwell-Collins climate bill has been around since December, but in all the anticipation for KGL, remained a runner up...until now. Now it is the last one standing. It is bipartisan. It reduces emissions, gives most of the permit auction revenues back to consumers, invests the rest in clean technologies, and lacks the freebies to coal, oil, and nuclear. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention, it actually exists!
I'm not sure if actual existence is a pre-requisite for the media to take something seriously, or for Senators to start considering supporting something, but maybe it should be.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Good interview with Joe Romm on Deniers, er, Disinformers
I dissed Joe Romm a few blog posts ago for not liking dividends.
But I'm balancing it out with a link to this interview with him, where he talks about deniers, or as he calls them, disinformers.
http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/1687/700_club/
But I'm balancing it out with a link to this interview with him, where he talks about deniers, or as he calls them, disinformers.
http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/1687/700_club/
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Joe Romm hates dividends
Joe Romm hates dividends. Doesn't want the money. Would rather give it to coal companies? Maybe that's going too far. But definitely has the same distaste for giving money to people as I do for fake offsets and giveaways to utilities (he likes those though). In my mind, lobbyists are the problem. In his mind, they are part of the system and must be accommodated.
I tried to comment on his blog, but I got moderated (censored). Luckily, the blogosphere is a democratic forum, so, Joe, here you go:
First they ignore you, then they fight you, then they try to convince you that you don't want a dividend check and that a carbon price will only be "a postage stamp a day," then they lose the Massachusetts Senate seat, then you win.
I tried to comment on his blog, but I got moderated (censored). Luckily, the blogosphere is a democratic forum, so, Joe, here you go:
First they ignore you, then they fight you, then they try to convince you that you don't want a dividend check and that a carbon price will only be "a postage stamp a day," then they lose the Massachusetts Senate seat, then you win.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Exxon behind bin Laden climate tape
I haven't done a conspiracy theory post in a while. Well, OK, maybe I have (some past favorites included Sarah Palin and anthrax), but if so, then here's another one, just for fun.
So, Bin Laden Rebukes U.S. on Climate Change
I can already hear the teabag-climate-denier refrain: “I knew that Al Gore and Bin Laden were friends, and I always thought Gore was a secret al Queda operative, climate change isn't real, I'm an idiot, I don't read books, Sarah Palin is hot, blah blah blah…”
Superficially, Saudi Arabia’s wealth comes from oil, which causes global warming. But oil is also the cause of Western interference in the Middle East. So Bin Laden wants to return to the pre-Western days, by getting the U.S. off Middle Eastern oil?
Seems consistent, but I think there's more to it.
According to Joe Romm, bin Laden called for the “wheels of the American economy” to be brought to a halt to stop global warming. Hmm, this sounds like something the Chamber of Commerce, Fox News, or the chief of Exxon might say about any potential climate legislation. Now we're getting into conspiracy theory territory.
What if the same people who are using bin Laden as their puppet to scare lawmakers into approving trillion dollar defense budgets year after year (remember the Cold War ended back in 1989), and billions in Homeland Security no-bid contracts to look at people naked at airports, and wiretap people's iPhones and blog-tap people's computers, and keep those oil profits coming in until the wells run dry...what if they're now using bin Laden to try to derail climate legislation? Right when the Senate may have the best solution in front of their noses. That's pulling out the big guns (even if the guy is on life support hidden away in some bunker under Abu Ghraib).
Just when the Middle Class is about to get a dividend, a politically supported carbon price to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, and to save our coastal cities from eminent extreme weather events (Bechtel I'm sure wanted those lucrative rebuilding contracts), only a proclamation by Bin Laden could scare people into voting against their own best interest, or at least bridge the gap until the next election cycle when the corporations will unleash a bailout's worth of campaign finance, thanks to the Supreme Court of Robotic Enslavement. Here another link to the judiciary-robot theme.
Weird to think that Bin Laden could have a climate policy. Sitting in his cave, reading James Hansen papers? Almost makes him seem like a real human (not a hologram projection created by Rumsfeld's DIA?). Next will we find out he has an opinion on universal health care, or banking reform? I assume it would involve blowing things up, kind of like the Joker in the “Dark Knight,” but I’d start to get worried if he suddenly came out for universal health care and public floggings of Goldman Sachs executives and their puppet Treasury Secretaries. The Supreme Court definitely sided with McWorld the other day with their campaign finance ruling, and if Jihad starts putting out statements favoring people over corporations, they might attract some interest from the semi-populist teabaggers, and that’s kind of troubling. (note to NSA wiretapper: reference Benjamin Barber’s book Jihad vs. McWorld)
So, Bin Laden Rebukes U.S. on Climate Change
I can already hear the teabag-climate-denier refrain: “I knew that Al Gore and Bin Laden were friends, and I always thought Gore was a secret al Queda operative, climate change isn't real, I'm an idiot, I don't read books, Sarah Palin is hot, blah blah blah…”
Superficially, Saudi Arabia’s wealth comes from oil, which causes global warming. But oil is also the cause of Western interference in the Middle East. So Bin Laden wants to return to the pre-Western days, by getting the U.S. off Middle Eastern oil?
Seems consistent, but I think there's more to it.
According to Joe Romm, bin Laden called for the “wheels of the American economy” to be brought to a halt to stop global warming. Hmm, this sounds like something the Chamber of Commerce, Fox News, or the chief of Exxon might say about any potential climate legislation. Now we're getting into conspiracy theory territory.
What if the same people who are using bin Laden as their puppet to scare lawmakers into approving trillion dollar defense budgets year after year (remember the Cold War ended back in 1989), and billions in Homeland Security no-bid contracts to look at people naked at airports, and wiretap people's iPhones and blog-tap people's computers, and keep those oil profits coming in until the wells run dry...what if they're now using bin Laden to try to derail climate legislation? Right when the Senate may have the best solution in front of their noses. That's pulling out the big guns (even if the guy is on life support hidden away in some bunker under Abu Ghraib).
Just when the Middle Class is about to get a dividend, a politically supported carbon price to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, and to save our coastal cities from eminent extreme weather events (Bechtel I'm sure wanted those lucrative rebuilding contracts), only a proclamation by Bin Laden could scare people into voting against their own best interest, or at least bridge the gap until the next election cycle when the corporations will unleash a bailout's worth of campaign finance, thanks to the Supreme Court of Robotic Enslavement. Here another link to the judiciary-robot theme.
Weird to think that Bin Laden could have a climate policy. Sitting in his cave, reading James Hansen papers? Almost makes him seem like a real human (not a hologram projection created by Rumsfeld's DIA?). Next will we find out he has an opinion on universal health care, or banking reform? I assume it would involve blowing things up, kind of like the Joker in the “Dark Knight,” but I’d start to get worried if he suddenly came out for universal health care and public floggings of Goldman Sachs executives and their puppet Treasury Secretaries. The Supreme Court definitely sided with McWorld the other day with their campaign finance ruling, and if Jihad starts putting out statements favoring people over corporations, they might attract some interest from the semi-populist teabaggers, and that’s kind of troubling. (note to NSA wiretapper: reference Benjamin Barber’s book Jihad vs. McWorld)
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
How Obama can get back on track
Take a risk or two.
Make it clear you represent the people, not the special interests.
Break the gridlock by showing some leadership, getting tough, and not waiting around for Congress. If some Senators are giving you a hard time, let them know that you will be supporting their primary opponents in the next election.
Fire Bernanke and Geithner. They smell of Dubya economic policy, Wall Street Bailouts, and Goldman Sachs bonuses. Corporations already have too much power, time for you to represent the people, and appoint some pro-people, not pro-too-big-to-fail banks, economists (if there are any).
Make it simpler. Sure, they are complex problems, but many of them have one sentence answers. For example:
Health care: Expand Medicare to cover all Americans. There, you did it. Was that so difficult? Some of the elderly might vote against it because they don't care about their own kids or grandchildren, but it seems like every human being (not corporation) would support it. You'll need those votes, after that Supreme Court ruling.
Climate Change: The CLEAR Act. Auction permits to polluters and return the revenues back to people as a cash dividend. The CLEAR Act is only 39 pages long, unlike the 1500 page pork-fest that the House passed.
Iraq: War is over, if you want it. Bring 'em home. Make a spectacle out of it. No need to land an airplane with a "Mission accomplished" banner, but do something honorable and classy, and tell us about the peace dividend and the balanced budget. Sorry to say it, Obie, but same for Afghani-quagmire. Your approval went down after your Peace Prize "War is good" speech. People like you because you can use words and diplomacy and don't need to use guns and swagger like that previous guy. We have problems at home, and stop using these Dubya-inspired wars as excuses.
Guantanamo: Close it. Yesterday. Find a loophole, do what you need to do. This represents an unfulfilled promise, an image of powerlessness, and it bothers me.
Jobs: Disaster prep and relief (Haiti), rebuilding New Orleans, energy retrofits. Make it happen, on the fast track.
Military spending: Cut it by about 50%, balance the budget, and pay for all the domestic programs above. This will take some guts. Do you have it?
I'm telling you, if the State of the Union is the same ol' "The State of the Union is strong, settle down America, eveyrthing is just fine, G-d bless America" eloquent but without substance, we won't be impressed, and we'll be back to yearning for change we can believe in, and I wish that change was the Green Party, but our Coke and Pepsi political system only seems to allow for two parties, and so the other one, the one with no solutions, will benefit, and the American people will suffer.
Make it clear you represent the people, not the special interests.
Break the gridlock by showing some leadership, getting tough, and not waiting around for Congress. If some Senators are giving you a hard time, let them know that you will be supporting their primary opponents in the next election.
Fire Bernanke and Geithner. They smell of Dubya economic policy, Wall Street Bailouts, and Goldman Sachs bonuses. Corporations already have too much power, time for you to represent the people, and appoint some pro-people, not pro-too-big-to-fail banks, economists (if there are any).
Make it simpler. Sure, they are complex problems, but many of them have one sentence answers. For example:
Health care: Expand Medicare to cover all Americans. There, you did it. Was that so difficult? Some of the elderly might vote against it because they don't care about their own kids or grandchildren, but it seems like every human being (not corporation) would support it. You'll need those votes, after that Supreme Court ruling.
Climate Change: The CLEAR Act. Auction permits to polluters and return the revenues back to people as a cash dividend. The CLEAR Act is only 39 pages long, unlike the 1500 page pork-fest that the House passed.
Iraq: War is over, if you want it. Bring 'em home. Make a spectacle out of it. No need to land an airplane with a "Mission accomplished" banner, but do something honorable and classy, and tell us about the peace dividend and the balanced budget. Sorry to say it, Obie, but same for Afghani-quagmire. Your approval went down after your Peace Prize "War is good" speech. People like you because you can use words and diplomacy and don't need to use guns and swagger like that previous guy. We have problems at home, and stop using these Dubya-inspired wars as excuses.
Guantanamo: Close it. Yesterday. Find a loophole, do what you need to do. This represents an unfulfilled promise, an image of powerlessness, and it bothers me.
Jobs: Disaster prep and relief (Haiti), rebuilding New Orleans, energy retrofits. Make it happen, on the fast track.
Military spending: Cut it by about 50%, balance the budget, and pay for all the domestic programs above. This will take some guts. Do you have it?
I'm telling you, if the State of the Union is the same ol' "The State of the Union is strong, settle down America, eveyrthing is just fine, G-d bless America" eloquent but without substance, we won't be impressed, and we'll be back to yearning for change we can believe in, and I wish that change was the Green Party, but our Coke and Pepsi political system only seems to allow for two parties, and so the other one, the one with no solutions, will benefit, and the American people will suffer.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Notes from an Imaginarium
I saw the Terry Gilliam movie "Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus." Very Gilliam-ish, non-linear, and creative. It was great, but weird. I had to watch ESPN SportCenter for an hour afterward to get back to reality.
Here are some notes of my thoughts about themes which are open to interpretation in the movie. If you haven't see it yet, you may want to stop reading now.
The main theme was the father's (Parnassus's) fear of his daughter growing up and losing her innocence. When she turned 16 she could start making choices, and so had the capacity for "sin" which meant that the devil could take her (At the end, the "his" mirror for Valentina said "sin" in the reflection (the "H" had a slant that became the "N")). Parnassus wanted to prevent her from becoming an adult and preserve her childhood, but that would be impossible. She just wanted a "normal" life, and at the end Dr. Parnassus had to acknowledge that this was OK.
Tony (the Heath Ledger character) may have been Valentina's projection of her perfect man. So there was an element of the Fight Club two characters in one. She only slept with Tony in her imaginarium. Anton was intimidated by Tony's presence. When Anton "dies" in Tony's imaginarium, this is Anton and Valentina growing up. Then Tony is killed by Parnassus in P's imaginarium. Tony represents the transition to adulthood for Anton and Valentina, which is Parnassus' fear.
At the end of the movie, Valentina grows up, and she realizes that she really wanted a real person, Anton, not Tony from her imagination, and Parnassus lets her go live her own life.
Does this make any sense?
Here are some notes of my thoughts about themes which are open to interpretation in the movie. If you haven't see it yet, you may want to stop reading now.
The main theme was the father's (Parnassus's) fear of his daughter growing up and losing her innocence. When she turned 16 she could start making choices, and so had the capacity for "sin" which meant that the devil could take her (At the end, the "his" mirror for Valentina said "sin" in the reflection (the "H" had a slant that became the "N")). Parnassus wanted to prevent her from becoming an adult and preserve her childhood, but that would be impossible. She just wanted a "normal" life, and at the end Dr. Parnassus had to acknowledge that this was OK.
Tony (the Heath Ledger character) may have been Valentina's projection of her perfect man. So there was an element of the Fight Club two characters in one. She only slept with Tony in her imaginarium. Anton was intimidated by Tony's presence. When Anton "dies" in Tony's imaginarium, this is Anton and Valentina growing up. Then Tony is killed by Parnassus in P's imaginarium. Tony represents the transition to adulthood for Anton and Valentina, which is Parnassus' fear.
At the end of the movie, Valentina grows up, and she realizes that she really wanted a real person, Anton, not Tony from her imagination, and Parnassus lets her go live her own life.
Does this make any sense?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
