The Meatrix
I'm not a super big animal rights activist, more because I think we have humanity problems that should take priority. But I definitely am not in favor of factory animal production. I came across this site called "The Meatrix." It's really clever and gets it's point across without feeling the need to show you nasty slaughtered animal remains.
Saturday, March 06, 2004
Friday, March 05, 2004
The Shrubster cashes in on other people's pain
Bush's new "campaign ads" (Read- propaganda campaign) have the gall to show footage of 9-11. This is hardly surprising. I can absolutely guarantee they're going to use that fake-ass picture of Saddam Hussein too.
Still. I think this is important. Let's look at what our President actually did when he heard a plane crashed into the world trade center. This man has a hazier sense of reality than Nixon did. Yet the country is split 50/50 over the man. Apparantly half of us are crazy. Good times.
Bush's new "campaign ads" (Read- propaganda campaign) have the gall to show footage of 9-11. This is hardly surprising. I can absolutely guarantee they're going to use that fake-ass picture of Saddam Hussein too.
Still. I think this is important. Let's look at what our President actually did when he heard a plane crashed into the world trade center. This man has a hazier sense of reality than Nixon did. Yet the country is split 50/50 over the man. Apparantly half of us are crazy. Good times.
Watergate Reloaded
Remember Watergate? Nixon's gestapo broke into the Democratic offices at the now infamous hotel. THis led, eventually, to Nixon's downfall. Well it turns out our friends in the GOP have been at it again.
" A three-month investigation by the Senate's top law enforcement officer found a systematic downloading of thousands of Democratic computer files by Republican staffers over the past few years as well as serious flaws in the chamber's computer security system. " According to the Washington Post.
Again, somehow this isn't news. I wonder how many gay marriages were performed today?
Remember Watergate? Nixon's gestapo broke into the Democratic offices at the now infamous hotel. THis led, eventually, to Nixon's downfall. Well it turns out our friends in the GOP have been at it again.
" A three-month investigation by the Senate's top law enforcement officer found a systematic downloading of thousands of Democratic computer files by Republican staffers over the past few years as well as serious flaws in the chamber's computer security system. " According to the Washington Post.
Again, somehow this isn't news. I wonder how many gay marriages were performed today?
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Rich People
Today I'd like to say a little bit about rich people. Not, gee I can afford to go out to eat every night at a fancy restaurant rich. I mean really, really rich. I mean this rich:
1. William Gates III, U.S., 48, $46.6, Microsoft
2. Warren Buffett, U.S., 73, $42.9, Berkshire Hathaway
3. Karl Albrecht, Germany, 84, $23, supermarkets
4. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud, Saudi Arabia, 47, $21.5, investments
5. Paul Allen, U.S., 51, $21, Microsoft, investments
6. Alice Walton, U.S., 55, $20, Wal-Mart
6. Helen Walton, U.S., 84, $20, Wal-Mart
6. Jim Walton, U.S., 56, $20, Wal-Mart
6. John Walton, U.S., 58, $20, Wal-Mart
6. S. Robson Walton, U.S., 60, $20, Wal-Mart
These numbers are in BILLIONS. You notice these people are almost all from the US. In the United States there are 275 billionaires whose worth combines for 908 BILLION. That's a lotta meatballs! I want to focus especially on #6. The Wal-mart family. Wal-mart sucks. They don't pay their managers shit. They refuse to allow unions. They've been responsible for the loss of literally millions of small business jobs. The family's worth combines for 100 Billion dollars. Since the current world population is around 6 billion the Wal-mart family has the cash to buy every single person on the planet earth a Value Meal at McDonalds.
Or even better. This one stupid family could end world hunger. All by themselves. It's the least they could do to make up for their staggering greed.
What will it cost to feeed the world? According to the UN it will take an estimated $5 billion a year to solve world hunger. Together they could make sure no one on the entire planet starved for twenty years!! When people complain about the tax cuts for the rich, THESE are the people we are talking about. Rich people are not a family making a combined 150,000 dollars a year. Rich is 5 million and above. Rich is Billions. And there aren't that many of these people. A few thousand in a world of billions. Are we really still so naive to even suggest there are a few thousand people who deserve to be worth a Billion dollars? They aren't. No one is.
I'm not a socialist or a capitalist. (I think there should be a hybrid. Food, clothing, shelter, health care, education is socialized, everything else can be capitalism) But we need to revoke inheritance laws for amounts over, I don't know, 20 million dollars a person. If you cannot live on 20 million, you'all can kiss my ass.
Today I'd like to say a little bit about rich people. Not, gee I can afford to go out to eat every night at a fancy restaurant rich. I mean really, really rich. I mean this rich:
1. William Gates III, U.S., 48, $46.6, Microsoft
2. Warren Buffett, U.S., 73, $42.9, Berkshire Hathaway
3. Karl Albrecht, Germany, 84, $23, supermarkets
4. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud, Saudi Arabia, 47, $21.5, investments
5. Paul Allen, U.S., 51, $21, Microsoft, investments
6. Alice Walton, U.S., 55, $20, Wal-Mart
6. Helen Walton, U.S., 84, $20, Wal-Mart
6. Jim Walton, U.S., 56, $20, Wal-Mart
6. John Walton, U.S., 58, $20, Wal-Mart
6. S. Robson Walton, U.S., 60, $20, Wal-Mart
These numbers are in BILLIONS. You notice these people are almost all from the US. In the United States there are 275 billionaires whose worth combines for 908 BILLION. That's a lotta meatballs! I want to focus especially on #6. The Wal-mart family. Wal-mart sucks. They don't pay their managers shit. They refuse to allow unions. They've been responsible for the loss of literally millions of small business jobs. The family's worth combines for 100 Billion dollars. Since the current world population is around 6 billion the Wal-mart family has the cash to buy every single person on the planet earth a Value Meal at McDonalds.
Or even better. This one stupid family could end world hunger. All by themselves. It's the least they could do to make up for their staggering greed.
What will it cost to feeed the world? According to the UN it will take an estimated $5 billion a year to solve world hunger. Together they could make sure no one on the entire planet starved for twenty years!! When people complain about the tax cuts for the rich, THESE are the people we are talking about. Rich people are not a family making a combined 150,000 dollars a year. Rich is 5 million and above. Rich is Billions. And there aren't that many of these people. A few thousand in a world of billions. Are we really still so naive to even suggest there are a few thousand people who deserve to be worth a Billion dollars? They aren't. No one is.
I'm not a socialist or a capitalist. (I think there should be a hybrid. Food, clothing, shelter, health care, education is socialized, everything else can be capitalism) But we need to revoke inheritance laws for amounts over, I don't know, 20 million dollars a person. If you cannot live on 20 million, you'all can kiss my ass.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Remember the other day (2/28) when I gave that link about us going to war in Pakistan in the spring? Well it's definitely going to happen. But at least W made some kind of a deal first. Story here.
At the same time there's increasing rumblings that we're gonna get out of Iraq before the election. THis could be really good, or more likely, really bad. I'm undoubtably a "Bring the boys back home" guy. I want the men and women of the armed forces to be removed from their illegal, unfortunate position. My fear is that W is just yanking them out of Iraq so that they'd be available to go into whatever country is next on his radar. This Haiti thing stinks more by the hour, but it's not even a story on the news. We've taken out 3 countries now. I'm hoping the number doesn't rise any higher.
At the same time there's increasing rumblings that we're gonna get out of Iraq before the election. THis could be really good, or more likely, really bad. I'm undoubtably a "Bring the boys back home" guy. I want the men and women of the armed forces to be removed from their illegal, unfortunate position. My fear is that W is just yanking them out of Iraq so that they'd be available to go into whatever country is next on his radar. This Haiti thing stinks more by the hour, but it's not even a story on the news. We've taken out 3 countries now. I'm hoping the number doesn't rise any higher.
Super Tuesday
John Kerry's the nominee. Big whoop.
But there's something else going on as well. For the entire election cycle I've been complaining that Dennis Kucinich is getting the Nader treatment mainly because the media doesn't want an anti-corporate candidate to get any attention. He's still not getting any, but he has gotten himself on most of the ballots and he is getting into the debates which has raised his exposure slightly. Sure, the media's doing their best not to ask Kucinich any questions in the debates, but his message is able to trickle out in starts and stops. And the polls are reflecting it. I'm not trying to overstate this, he's a distant 3rd right now. But after initially being perpetually stuck with 2% of the vote (The percentage of progressive and politically aware people who delve into this stuff make up about 2% See- Nader voters.) Dennis is doing better. In Minnesota, New York, and Ohio (his home state) he did quite well with 17/5/9 % respectively. Like I said, not spectacular, but improving- especially Minnesota. It seems to indicate the more people know he's there, the more votes he's attracting. It seems obvious, yet the indication is actually quite depression. No TV, no votes. Lots of TV, votes. So the media can, like Sharpton says, "Pick the candidate for the people" Not a good thing.
Kerry is going to get creamed because there are a huge number of basically progressive people who don't vote because the democrats cannot find a non-wanker to run for office. It happened to Gore (and he still won) and it's gonna happen to Kerry. I would like to see a candidate like Kucinich get his message out for one reason. I want to see what happens. It's easy to pontificate about the size of the untapped progressive base. If, just once, the corporate whores would let a candidate with a progressive message into the mainstream coverage we would see whether people voted for them or not.
Everyone is voting for Kerry because the media is telling us "He can beat Bush." No he can't. And even if he could, he will continue being the same crap-ass corporate slave he is now. The AFLCIO gives him an endorsement and he's still in favor of NAFTA. Please. Edwards, same deal. So, of course, the media's gonna say that.
I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist, but come on. There doesn't have to be collusion of any kind. All five of the giant Media Corps can do the equation on their own. Big money corporate candidate helps who? Why big corporations of course. An Anti-corporate candidate? S/He helps workers and the environment. (Walmart absolutely refuses to allow their workers to unionize, they buy a whole lot of commercials) S/He fights against the military industrial complex (NBC owned by GE who makes all kinds of weapons stuff) and basically tries to reign in the out of control ,madness of international conglomerations. (Halliburton Halliburton Halliburton) The media doesn't want that. No gigantic company wants that. So we get stuck with Kush and Berry. Again. Yippee.
John Kerry's the nominee. Big whoop.
But there's something else going on as well. For the entire election cycle I've been complaining that Dennis Kucinich is getting the Nader treatment mainly because the media doesn't want an anti-corporate candidate to get any attention. He's still not getting any, but he has gotten himself on most of the ballots and he is getting into the debates which has raised his exposure slightly. Sure, the media's doing their best not to ask Kucinich any questions in the debates, but his message is able to trickle out in starts and stops. And the polls are reflecting it. I'm not trying to overstate this, he's a distant 3rd right now. But after initially being perpetually stuck with 2% of the vote (The percentage of progressive and politically aware people who delve into this stuff make up about 2% See- Nader voters.) Dennis is doing better. In Minnesota, New York, and Ohio (his home state) he did quite well with 17/5/9 % respectively. Like I said, not spectacular, but improving- especially Minnesota. It seems to indicate the more people know he's there, the more votes he's attracting. It seems obvious, yet the indication is actually quite depression. No TV, no votes. Lots of TV, votes. So the media can, like Sharpton says, "Pick the candidate for the people" Not a good thing.
Kerry is going to get creamed because there are a huge number of basically progressive people who don't vote because the democrats cannot find a non-wanker to run for office. It happened to Gore (and he still won) and it's gonna happen to Kerry. I would like to see a candidate like Kucinich get his message out for one reason. I want to see what happens. It's easy to pontificate about the size of the untapped progressive base. If, just once, the corporate whores would let a candidate with a progressive message into the mainstream coverage we would see whether people voted for them or not.
Everyone is voting for Kerry because the media is telling us "He can beat Bush." No he can't. And even if he could, he will continue being the same crap-ass corporate slave he is now. The AFLCIO gives him an endorsement and he's still in favor of NAFTA. Please. Edwards, same deal. So, of course, the media's gonna say that.
I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist, but come on. There doesn't have to be collusion of any kind. All five of the giant Media Corps can do the equation on their own. Big money corporate candidate helps who? Why big corporations of course. An Anti-corporate candidate? S/He helps workers and the environment. (Walmart absolutely refuses to allow their workers to unionize, they buy a whole lot of commercials) S/He fights against the military industrial complex (NBC owned by GE who makes all kinds of weapons stuff) and basically tries to reign in the out of control ,madness of international conglomerations. (Halliburton Halliburton Halliburton) The media doesn't want that. No gigantic company wants that. So we get stuck with Kush and Berry. Again. Yippee.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Haiti
As usual the truth that is beginning to trickle out about Haiti bears almost no comparison to the truth as its understood by everyone on the planet except the white House. Aristide didn't leave Haiti voluntarily. We made him. Now, as per usual I should point out that I'm not a very big Aristide supporter. He's an autocrat with a crappy human rights record, but in an argument that starting to get stale I'm forced to use it so often with this white house, this DOES NOT give us the right to throw him out of his country. He was elected, whether we like it or not. Aristide's election was, all things considered, MORE legitimate than Shrub's. There's a whole plethora of stories on this here
Why we're culpable. Again. Haiti, you may remember was a hot spot all through the 90's. Everyone from us to the UN did their best to calm things down in this terribly poor nation. A lot of progress was made, even if things were in no way perfect. But they held elections and Aristide, took power. He was deposed after a coup d' tat but was reinstated by international decree. So things went through the 90's. Then Shrub gets elected and his admin. makes it clear that he doesn't give a rat's ass about Haiti and there are rumors that we funneled money to the rebels there. (We won't know the truth about this for 10 years) What is incontrovertible is the tacit approval Bush's minions gave to the violence that is happening there right now. By saying outright the US wouldn't step in to stop the violence over the past 3 weeks or so BushInc. was giving the rebels the green light to try to take the country. This understanding of events may have been subject to interpretation. I was glad when I heard Aristide left on his own- we shouldn't have encouraged the rebels, but it was an internal affair (assuming we were not giving the rebels cash). But then Aristide comes on TV and says, "I didn't want to go. The US made me." Now, if there was any question as to what Bushco wanted, it's gone. Once again we've shat on democracy, and I won't be a bit surprised if Bush comes on TV at some point and says we did what we did (or didn't do) in Haiti to protect democracy. If he was ready to go on his own, good. If not. Well the man was elected and as much as we might not like him, that's the way democracy works, not matter how much that fact causes furrows of confusion to appear on Shrub's overprivelaged brow.
America has become so Orwellian it almost seems pointless to talk about anymore. Once again we are openly meddling in the affairs of foreign powers. Will anyone even say the word "war crimes?" I doubt it. But they probably should.
As usual the truth that is beginning to trickle out about Haiti bears almost no comparison to the truth as its understood by everyone on the planet except the white House. Aristide didn't leave Haiti voluntarily. We made him. Now, as per usual I should point out that I'm not a very big Aristide supporter. He's an autocrat with a crappy human rights record, but in an argument that starting to get stale I'm forced to use it so often with this white house, this DOES NOT give us the right to throw him out of his country. He was elected, whether we like it or not. Aristide's election was, all things considered, MORE legitimate than Shrub's. There's a whole plethora of stories on this here
Why we're culpable. Again. Haiti, you may remember was a hot spot all through the 90's. Everyone from us to the UN did their best to calm things down in this terribly poor nation. A lot of progress was made, even if things were in no way perfect. But they held elections and Aristide, took power. He was deposed after a coup d' tat but was reinstated by international decree. So things went through the 90's. Then Shrub gets elected and his admin. makes it clear that he doesn't give a rat's ass about Haiti and there are rumors that we funneled money to the rebels there. (We won't know the truth about this for 10 years) What is incontrovertible is the tacit approval Bush's minions gave to the violence that is happening there right now. By saying outright the US wouldn't step in to stop the violence over the past 3 weeks or so BushInc. was giving the rebels the green light to try to take the country. This understanding of events may have been subject to interpretation. I was glad when I heard Aristide left on his own- we shouldn't have encouraged the rebels, but it was an internal affair (assuming we were not giving the rebels cash). But then Aristide comes on TV and says, "I didn't want to go. The US made me." Now, if there was any question as to what Bushco wanted, it's gone. Once again we've shat on democracy, and I won't be a bit surprised if Bush comes on TV at some point and says we did what we did (or didn't do) in Haiti to protect democracy. If he was ready to go on his own, good. If not. Well the man was elected and as much as we might not like him, that's the way democracy works, not matter how much that fact causes furrows of confusion to appear on Shrub's overprivelaged brow.
America has become so Orwellian it almost seems pointless to talk about anymore. Once again we are openly meddling in the affairs of foreign powers. Will anyone even say the word "war crimes?" I doubt it. But they probably should.
Monday, March 01, 2004
Lord of the Rings and the replacement of Cheney
Well, it won everything. Clearly the oscar voters were rewarding the entire series and not just the Return of the King. I was torn, Lost in Translation is a great movie, it was the best movie this year. LOTR is the best movie over the past three years. It almost should have it's own category. There is mere mortal film and then there's LOTR which was directed by a man who by all reports is an actual hobbit.
In the news, there's a rumor, originally floated by the MSNBC gossip columnist that Cheney is getting replaced, most likely by Guliani. I think the funniest thing about it is anyone's ability to know how much of it is bullshit. This white house is so closed that nearly anything could actually be happening in there. For all we know of Bush's decision making process he's reading the cracks in chicken bones. Paul O Neill was the Secretary of the treasury and according to Suskind's book with him The Price of Loyalty, Bush never really gave any sign he followed or cared about the substantive points of any given debate. His mind was made up when he walked into the meeting. How he came to the decision is a mystery. So maybe Cheney's out, maybe he's not. Not like it really matters. He could go back to Halliburton and duck out of those nasty question about him and selective intelligence reading and those ever-present energy meeting questions. Or they could reinstall him in Rumsfeld's job and Rummy could knock Powell out of the administration. Powell's been battling the WH all along on everything (Iraq, Afghanisatn etc.) in spite of playing ball in the end on every occasion. The whole thing could just be a trial balloon. Rove makes a call and sees what happens...
Oh yeah, we're finally going to Haiti. Too little too late.
Well, it won everything. Clearly the oscar voters were rewarding the entire series and not just the Return of the King. I was torn, Lost in Translation is a great movie, it was the best movie this year. LOTR is the best movie over the past three years. It almost should have it's own category. There is mere mortal film and then there's LOTR which was directed by a man who by all reports is an actual hobbit.
In the news, there's a rumor, originally floated by the MSNBC gossip columnist that Cheney is getting replaced, most likely by Guliani. I think the funniest thing about it is anyone's ability to know how much of it is bullshit. This white house is so closed that nearly anything could actually be happening in there. For all we know of Bush's decision making process he's reading the cracks in chicken bones. Paul O Neill was the Secretary of the treasury and according to Suskind's book with him The Price of Loyalty, Bush never really gave any sign he followed or cared about the substantive points of any given debate. His mind was made up when he walked into the meeting. How he came to the decision is a mystery. So maybe Cheney's out, maybe he's not. Not like it really matters. He could go back to Halliburton and duck out of those nasty question about him and selective intelligence reading and those ever-present energy meeting questions. Or they could reinstall him in Rumsfeld's job and Rummy could knock Powell out of the administration. Powell's been battling the WH all along on everything (Iraq, Afghanisatn etc.) in spite of playing ball in the end on every occasion. The whole thing could just be a trial balloon. Rove makes a call and sees what happens...
Oh yeah, we're finally going to Haiti. Too little too late.
Sunday, February 29, 2004
Now it turns out that the US was probably bugging Hans Bilx's offices in New York. This comes amid allegations we did the same to Kofi Annan.
"As well as the claim that Mr Annan was bugged, another former secretary general, Boutros-Boutros Gali, also expressed suspicions yesterday. Richard Butler, a predecessor of Mr Blix as chief UN weapons inspector, joined in too, saying it was "plainly silly" to think his phone calls were not being monitored during his tenure."
These are our allies. How would you feel if your friends felt the need to bug your house?
Read the story here
"As well as the claim that Mr Annan was bugged, another former secretary general, Boutros-Boutros Gali, also expressed suspicions yesterday. Richard Butler, a predecessor of Mr Blix as chief UN weapons inspector, joined in too, saying it was "plainly silly" to think his phone calls were not being monitored during his tenure."
These are our allies. How would you feel if your friends felt the need to bug your house?
Read the story here
everyone should watch Now with Bill Moyers on PBS every Sunday on Channel 11 (wttw0chicago) at noon. It's the most progressive news cast on TV.
I'm watching the Democratic "debate" and Al Sharpton just called the media out something fierce. For ten minutes the debate goes back and forth between Kerry and Edwards, completely ignoring Kucinich and Sharpton. Finally Al speaks up. "Is this a four or a two man debate?" He demands. Dan Rather tries to defend himself by saying that the people have spoken and they want to hear from viable candidates. Al blows up. He points at Edwards. "The people have not spoken. This man won one single primary. That's it. One. You're trying to decide who the nominee is. You're trying to pick and choose candidates. If this is only a 2 person debate, if you want to choose the nominee, please just admit it." (paraphrase) It gets better after that but still 4 out of 5 questions are to Kerry/Edwards and Sharpton and Kucinich are given 10 seconds to answer instead of the 30 Kerry/Edwards get. Kucinich is getting more opportunities than Sharpton. They're mostly ignoring Dennis and completely ignoring Al. It's really frustrating. Al's a great speaker, they should let the man talk.
Elisabeth Bumiller (NY Times- one of the moderates) is an idiot. She keeps cutting people off, not to force them to answer the question, but to change the subject to something else. She actually just asked Kerry if he's learned how to be likable from Edwards? That's simply not a question. Even Dan Rather was like, whatever you loon, and totally recast the question. He asks, "Does Sen. Kerry have enough Elvis to beat GW." Yeah, he really raised the bar. Morons. Bumiller asked Edwards a good question on gay marriage though.
Kucinich and Sharpton are actually answering questions. Kerry and Edwards (Kerry is much worse.) are just mush talking. Dennis keeps trying to call out Kerry on Iraq. "Answer the question John." Of course he doesn't.
Elisabeth Bumiller actually said that John Kerry was the most liberal senator. That's like calling a cat a whale. Dennis then defines what liberal is. John Kerry isn't. He's offering "mainstream American values." Kucinich is like, "I'm a liberal. I'm progressive. Kerry/Edwards are not."
Fucking Bumiller just asked, "Is God on America's side?" What the hell kind of question is that? Did she really just ask that? We Americans really freak me out. It was the last question. Fitting.
Elisabeth Bumiller (NY Times- one of the moderates) is an idiot. She keeps cutting people off, not to force them to answer the question, but to change the subject to something else. She actually just asked Kerry if he's learned how to be likable from Edwards? That's simply not a question. Even Dan Rather was like, whatever you loon, and totally recast the question. He asks, "Does Sen. Kerry have enough Elvis to beat GW." Yeah, he really raised the bar. Morons. Bumiller asked Edwards a good question on gay marriage though.
Kucinich and Sharpton are actually answering questions. Kerry and Edwards (Kerry is much worse.) are just mush talking. Dennis keeps trying to call out Kerry on Iraq. "Answer the question John." Of course he doesn't.
Elisabeth Bumiller actually said that John Kerry was the most liberal senator. That's like calling a cat a whale. Dennis then defines what liberal is. John Kerry isn't. He's offering "mainstream American values." Kucinich is like, "I'm a liberal. I'm progressive. Kerry/Edwards are not."
Fucking Bumiller just asked, "Is God on America's side?" What the hell kind of question is that? Did she really just ask that? We Americans really freak me out. It was the last question. Fitting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
