Protests.. equal time?

Ok, the perennial battle between Palestinians, (who have valid grievances), and Israelis, (who have valid grievances), has erupted again after the cease fire with Hamas ended.

Almost immediately rocket and mortar fire began landing in towns in southern Israel.

For several days the Israelis seemed to hold off on responding except to issue warnings. And then the jets came in and began plastering Hamas's compounds. Nothing new there, right?

Here's the thing though, When Hamas or any other group attacks civilian targets in Israel you never ever see Arab groups protesting those attacks.

On the other hand if Israel responds with it's notoriously heavy handed response, (if you don't comprehend the thinking behind that tactic you need to go back to the time of Golda Mier or read a boook titled Ender's War), there are protests from nearly all corners of the Arab world.

If the people of that region are ever to have peace then both will have to get past the retribution cycle and end the blame game. Easier said than done when most people in the region approach an argument as if it were an art form.

Tunnel Vision

No, it's not a new cool device! It's da Pope!

I wonder if the Vatican is using the lead pipes the Romans were using to pipe water though the city. It's the only explanation I can see for this type of thinking.

Let them eat cake....

Either these execs are clueless or their are unrepentantly shameless.

A picture is worth a thousand words...

And this one captures exactly what seems to be the Senate Republican's stance.

Fiscally Conservative?

Apparently there's a faction of the Republican party that is anything but fiscally responsible.

It used to the democrats that were the friend of big business, and voting Republican meant you opposed that type of collusion. Now the situation has flipped 180 degrees. There may be some real fiscal conservatives in the Republican party, but they are getting harder and harder to find.. it's far easier to find Republican's that talk the talk and are more socially conservative but even there only giving lip service to that ideology.

In the last few days just how much contempt the current president has for the middle class people of our country has come to light. An attempt to rein in the greed found at the top of Wall Street firms and in some banking institutions was eviscerated at the current president's behest.

Why do I say contempt? Very simply it will be every tax payer's dollars that go to provide the money for any bonuses, golden parachutes or pay dividends these executives reap.

Doesn't our president think that these people should be held responsible for the wreckage they've created? No, apparently not.. if your crime is so egregious and your connections so far reaching apparently you can get off scott free for having engineered the failure of your institutions, the bankrupting of hundreds of thousands of people.

Are you responsible for setting in motion events that end up casting millions of people out of work? Not a problem, you're a member of the club, we can't let you suffer. So much for compassion for the people of this country, it looks like that applies to only people above a certain earnings bracket.

Even Worse (Not the Weird Al Yankovic album)

Sometimes your the ball, sometimes your the bat... but are you ever ahead of the curve?

I touched on climate change in my last post.. and today I read this article.

It's always the unanticipated effects that catch you out.

Funnily enough some of the problems like melting permafrost have been considered by some scientists. I see no mention of the methane that will be released when the permafrost melts. It's only a major greenhouse gas.. someone will plug that in soon I'm sure.

Oh, and here's a fun fact: pytoplankton are a major part of the CO2 to oxygen cycle.. kick up the ultraviolet penetrating the earth's atmosphere and you reduce the ability of earth's oceans to take up CO2.

Ever wonder how a mammoth could have been flash frozen even as it was munching green vegetation?
That's been a puzzle to the scientists who were studying it. We may, (relatively), soon be able answer that question. Whether we'll be able to record that information for whoever follows us is another question.

I'm sure there will people that read this and think, "he's a nut job alarmist". To the ostrich's that walk as human beings among us I say this: eat drink and be merry, for in less than a century civilization as you knew it will be gone.

What a legacy....

Greed, Corporate Responsibility, and the American Public

(Or What's Good for GM is Good for America)

As Americans we live with a lot of assumptions. We assume that the government is there to serve us, We assume that the people in big business would not knowingly put out products that are harmful to us, our children and future generations.

I could print up a list of countless examples where all of those assumptions are proven to be erroneous, where the trust is continually be broken. Worse I could cite examples where industries knowingly and falsely deny that their product is harmful to the public.

The Tobacco industry comes to mind. For decades they denied the product was addicted and potentially lethal to the users of their product. In the face of independent scientific and federal studies they brought forth their pet scientists to cloud the issue for decades.

Eventually they caved in and admitted that yes, tobacco can lead to a rather unpleasant death, but they continued to deny that is was addictive.. and then they caved in and admitted it was addictive. Then it's was rumored that they enhanced the addictiveness of certain products. And yet again it came out that in fact they did add chemicals to make them more addictive. And it doesn't just kill the user, oh no.. in the case of the cigarette the user can help kill off the people nearby who happen to be breathing the air the smoke is drifting on.

But it's good for all the farmers that raise the crop, and for the people employed in manufacturing, distributing and advertising the products.
Much as the raising of poppies or coca is in other countries. But the products from poppies and coca are illegal because they're harmful to you. Yeah. Wait.. so I can smoke myself to death.. but anything that might make you feel a buzz is illegal? But what about alcohol? Hmm. Ok, we're diverging from the main track slightly there. But can you spot a trend?

Ok, we all like clean drinking water, clean air, decent food right? Forty years ago climate change was bought to the attention of the federal government by certain concerned scientists. Back then all they were just looking at was CO2 levels, chlorofluorocarbons weren't on the radar and ozone holes weren't even a bad dream.

They basically said, we need to cut back on output or life on this planet is going to get really unpleasant. Their report was met with skepticism. I was 14 when I read about it and the data they had back then was rather compelling, even to a 14 year old*. They hadn't coined a good name for the effects though. What they did do was lay out a line of general projections of what happens when the earth gets too warm.

When other people all around the world began getting similar results and tried getting their governments to pay attention a certain industry got rather upset and bought some scientists of their own that would blow smoke and cloud the issue so that they could continue doing business with no loss of profits.

I'd go so far as to say they bought some politicians, but well then I'd have to lay out substantiation and it would get messy. Besides we all know that you can't buy a public official, right?

But does anyone really doubt that global warming is here now? (Let me clue you in on a little something, it's effects are a lot worse than has been publicly mentioned. A few years ago the Pentagon issued a rather grim assessment of the situation and how it would affect people's ways of life. Be afraid. Or invest in water reclamation systems.

And now we have the global economy meltdown. Yes sir your stock brokerage were out there making sure your investments were safe! And if you believe that now I have a small used planet I'd like to sell you. Cheap.

In all these instances a small group of people made unholy amounts of money while the effects of that lay waste to the lives and the planet they live on. Here's the thing I don't get.. these people have children too. Don't they give a damn about the quality of life their descendants will inherit? Apparently not. Maybe they plan on living in sealed self sufficient bio-domes.

You'd assume that people wouldn't do something as shortsighted as the people behind the decisions that have led to these various debacles. But the proof is in the results.

Apparently it's all about how many credit points you're worth not whether you leave the world a better place than you found it.

Sadly most people are too busy trying to keep their heads above water in an arbitrarily created socio-economic system to really reign in the nut cases that endanger their futures. And it doesn't matter what economic system you look at you always have these fruit cakes grabbing the reigns eventually and heading the horses for a cliff.

I don't have a solution. Throughout history there have been people that proposed alternate modes of behavior and if they didn't get killed for their efforts they were co-opted.

It would be nice if people woke up and held people that make decisions that effect the entire planet responsible for their actions. Just desserts. Then perhaps the greed impulse would start to automatically get restrained. Picture it.

It's just a thought and I know it'll never happen.. but I can dream... for now.

* I started telling everyone I knew about it, friends and acquaintances. 40 years ago if you went around spouting scenarios that see human civilization scraped off the face of the earth you quickly got a label as 'the weird guy'. Now it's fashionable, go figure. I'm comfortable being 'the weird guy' though.

Greed pays...

... well no.. it doesn't in this case!

Picture a sardonic smile here. The boys at SCO thought that they could badger linux users into paying bogus licensing fees and convinced a few companies to cough up some dough.

Interestingly enough Microsoft apparently loaned SCO some money for reasons murky at best.. but consider that at one point in a meeting a certain officer high in MS administration named linux as being the greatest threat to the dominance of the MS Windows operating system.

Draw your own conclusions.

But then they got greedy and sued IBM and Novell. SCO claims that the code that IBM, (which they had acquired from Novell), donated to the linux community was actually owned by SCO by right of purchase.

But in the end the original contracts signed by SCO were examined by a court.. and testimony was given and it turned out that what SCO had actually bought was the right to license the operating system, but the original owners still owned the IP. Oh dear poor poor SCO. After much dragging of their feet it turned out that SCO's claims were all smoke and mirrors and that their claims of IP theft was a thing of fantasy.

Ohh.. but it gets better, Novell looks at the books and says 'Hey, wait a minute! You owe us fees!' And lo, the court agrees!.

Oh what will poor greedy SCO do? Why declare bankruptcy, of course!

At that point some 'company' appears on the scene and says.. oh we'll give you some money poor SCO.. but then they get a good look at the mess SCO had created and realize none of their goals will ever be realized and they suddenly got cold feet. (So much for raking in money from bogus linux licenses!)

Well.. the court say.. 'ok boys, you've had you fun.. pay the money you owe Novell and stop jerking everyone around' to grossly paraphrase. Does SCO even make a token attempt to pay their debt, they do not.. and so the court has issued an warning.


So why the sardonic smile? Because there's nothing I enjoy seeing more than a pack of malicious greedy dirtbags getting their heads handed to them while they figuratively thrashed before their peers. If only it happened in the financial community too.. sigh.. I can dream.

Wall Street's Pork Barrel Revealed

It's the nitty gritty.

Everyone has been saying that default credit swaps were too complex to explain, or they'd resort to double speak in an effort to cloud the issue.

Apparently it's not really that complex, it's just a really bad idea that people bought into... a Wall Street Pyramid scheme that like all pyramid scheme's leaves the last ones in holding the bag.

If you have the stomach for it read this article. And brace for impact.

Yeee-haaa!

Whoa there little doggies!

Can this be true?

Texans indicting the current VP and former US AG of criminal racketeering, color me flumoxed!

Of course the likelihood of it ever going to trial are about as good as the EU's charges of war crimes sticking.

But still it takes guts to go after someone that unloaded a shotgun in someone's face and got away with it.

Is it a flaw of judgement or a flaw of character?

And does it really matter?

Would you trust someone that uses their office to pursue personal vendettas?

Regardless as to whether it was a lapse of reason, (and considering how long the issue was undertaken it can not be called momentary), or a character flaw a person holding public office should be above such petty practices.

They should embody the best qualities we expect a citizen of our country would aspire to embody in public office.

While they have a right to private lives and that privacy ought respected, anything they do while conducting the mandate of the office they are entrusted with should be above reproach in regards to the law and uphold the laws as they applied to that office.

The finding of the inquiry clearly demonstrates that the republican v.p. pick did not apply that ethic to her position.

It is deeply worrying that such a person would seek to position themselves to be in a position to assume the most critical office our nation holds at this most hazardous point in the United States since the Second World War.

Good Grief

This reminds me of the time when Donald Trump declared bankruptcy and the banks his debt was held by paid him more than 100,000.00 a week for 'living expenses' while he recovered.

Fiscally Responsible Party

Ok, well election time is coming around again. And gee, look at how well we as a nation are doing after 8 years of republican guidance on the ship of state.

Don't whine at me that congress is controlled by the democrats, with only a single extra vote in their favor it would take a mass defection on the part of republican senators to get anything that came up from the house to get passed.. and even then you'd have GWB's veto power sitting squarely in the way.

Mired in the wrong war, the economy in dire straits as a direct result of that fiasco. Where is Osama? Not in Iraq and it's been shown time and again that there never was a link between Iraq and that piece of human trash.

The jobless rate is climbing. And last month 49,000 Wall Street employees lost their jobs, with more to follow now that another firm has gone bankrupt.

But wait! It get even better!

The federal government has bailed out in quick succession, Freddy Mac, Fannie Mae and AIG.. all using guess what? Tax dollars. 85 billion in the case of AIG. 85billion that won't go to paying for better schools, or roads or any number of things the average person expect the government to actually take in hand.

Now let's all think about where those dollars are coming from: they aren't coming out of the financial benefit packages of the people that steered those entities into such a morass. No that money comes from every tax payer. Kind of obvious you say, but have you considered what it really means?

Just recently the federal government was sending out checks to 'stimulate' the economy. They'll be wanting that money back with interest.

Much of the genesis of the financial market's problems actually started back in the 1980's. I'd like you to look at which party controlled the executive branch as well as the congress back then.

Now, the republican contender to the presidency is saying we need more regulation. Talk about Flip Flop, the man has until about oh, 4 days ago been all about the free market and deregulation.

Whenever you hear the phrase Free Market think jobs going overseas, think longer work hours for less pay. Think of job security as a myth. There's the Free Market in reality.

When it's presented to the U.S. voter it's couched as being a fundamental cornerstone of democracy. And if it were practiced in a manner that the average citizen imagines it to be then perhaps we'd be in better shape.


But in fact the free market as it is actually run is more on the lines of a plutocracy. And unless you happen to own the corporation or are very upper management the trickle down isn't going to be 'green'.

So, if you happen to be an average joe or jane, and you have a family and love them do yourself a favor and don't vote republican this year. They used to be the party of small government and the common man, but that isn't what the party represents now.

The last time the federal government shrank was under a democratic president who in spite of a republican dominated congress managed to bring a multi trillion dollar deficit under control and by the end of his term had actually gotten the economy to where the country had a surplus.


It's up to you, it's your life. Are you better off now than you were 12 years ago?

Petulant Politics

Or how to end up in a deeper morass.

I've been quiet lately on things political, but today I read what must be the most childish reaction to Obama's apparent win of the democratic nomination to be the candidate for president.

It seems people polled that are Hilary supporters are saying they will not vote for him.

Let's think about that folks.

You have one person that is more likely to pay attention to the bottom line of working americans, undo the tax breaks that shifted a lot of the load onto the middle and lower class while removing it from the wealthy and corporate entities, will work to extricate our troops from Iraq and get 'the war on terror' focussed on the right target. That seems the to be gist of the democrats contenders platform.

The other choice will for president says he doesn't believe in meddling in the economy and with a few tweaks to the current domestic policy will continue policies that so far have shrunk the middle class down into a lower class and the lower class into outright poverty.

He'll keep our troops in a country that has specifically said they want us to leave. At the cost of something like 40 billion dollars a month, while the economy spirals toward disaster and communities are being forced to cut back school and health programs to make ends meet.
That seems the to be gist of the republican contenders platform.

Are these Hilary supporters so petulant and so self obsessed that they'd rather see the republican take charge and continue to steer the country in the direction it has been heading for the past seven years? Really?

God, wake up. If you are at all concerned about your children, about your country, about the air you breathe and the water you drink and whether or not your progeny will be able to go to college then stop acting like over sized 5 year olds and do the right thing.

A Beethoven dud?!

Ok, so it's a quiet day.. and iTunes is playing random tracks.. along comes a tune by Ludwig Van B titled Wellington's Victory.. a rather pointy piece of music he wrote at the request of his patron to commemorate Wellington's defeat of Napolean at Waterloo.

So, I'm just a bit curious to see how it's reviewed on the net.. and I'm surprised at the utter lack of understanding the people that posted their ideas of what this piece was, everything from failed to a dud.

Let's first consider that Beethoven was no fan of the aristocracy, though he depended on them for his livelihood. Second let's consider that his view on war was dim if not vehemently opposed to them.

Now, take those two things into account and consider the piece he presented. It's one of the few pieces of music that requires Muskets and Cannons to be set up on either side of the audience, (at that time his patron and his court).

To be utterly blunt and Beethoven was, this piece was a musical gauntlet tossed into the face of anyone that thought the glorifying war and the deaths of thousands of men was a fine idea.

Beethoven first has you listen to the approaching drum corps of the opposing sides, the call of the two sides signaling their readiness to battle and then musically details the battle the anthems of the two nations involved in this little set to.. and then muskets firing, cannon shredding the ranks with grapeshot, exploding grenades and cannon balls, then the charge of the cavalry into the muddy morass of the battle field.. if you have any experience with war you get a good idea of the hell he's trying to portray.

Then, he gives you the 'pretty' version that his patron probably expected to hear.. and it's obvious if you have ears that he's essentially telling his patron what an ass Beethoven thinks he is for even thinking that the Battle of Waterloo should be commemorated.

So, it wasn't what the crowd expected.. but a dud? It does exactly what the composer intended, puts your right into the midst of the noise and smoke and chaos and then says.. 'Do you really think this is glorious?'.

And then he recaps with sardonic version of Britain's nation anthem.. just in case anyone missed his point. Failed? I don't think so, it may be that it wasn't pleasing to the court audience but then how many battle fields are pleasing? Give me a break.