blink

iran: a nation of bloggers.

2008-12-13T10:44:00.000-08:00

harper vs himself

2008-12-03T23:46:00.000-08:00

harper keeps doing it to himself. you wouldn't think someone could put both feet in his mouth at the same time, but you would be wrong. he's been telling everyone with an ear that the coalition is illegal, and that it would mean the rest of canada would be held hostage by the bloc quebecois. the reality is, it's all misinformation, because all he has left is lying and fear tactics. the truth is, the coalition is legal, so legal in fact that he tried the same thing in 2004, and in 2000, the former reform party also tried to form an alliance with the bloc quebecois. the coalition won't be held hostage, because it's only a coalition between the liberals and ndp, and the bloc have agreed to support the coalition on all confidence votes.

do i want to see the coalition take over government? not particularly. what i would like to see, is harper being the bigger man and looking out for canada's interests. i want to see him do what a minority prime minister should do: and that's reach out to the opposition, and come up with a budget that is inclusive and built on compromise. if that means he has to get on his knees and beg for opposition support, then so be it. but what does he do? instead, he goes on national television, proving to canada how arrogant he is by not asking for support by the coalition, but by condemning it. all this time, he's been trying to govern as if the conservatives have a majority mandate, which they don't. bully politics and fear tactics is all harper knows as a prime minister. i don't think harper has a compromising bone in his body. conviction is one thing, but we shouldn't mistake arrogance for conviction. the more harper rants, the more it becomes clear that he is not looking out for the best interests of the nation; he's only looking out for his own bruised ego.

it's too late now. the coalition smells blood in the water; they have a taste for power and they'll do whatever they can to bring down the government. i'll admit, this is the most entertaining canadian politics has been in a very long time.

buddy can you spare a dime?

2008-12-02T22:04:00.000-08:00

would nationalizing gm be a good idea? maybe, maybe not. what i do know is that the big three basically screwed themselves by making oversized vehicles that the market doesn't want nor need. this isn't anything new. the writing was on the wall. so now they're expecting a bailout. the last thing they need is more money. on top of that, you have unions that have priced their members out of the market. so you have a company making a product no one wants, with the forsight of a blind mole, and an overpaid workforce. it's a recipe for disaster.

the result? union busting. most likely. it's unfortunate, but on one hand, shoveling money into a black hole ain't gonna fix it. on the other, getting paid on average $28 to work on an assembly line is completely outrageous. this goes to show how much of a balance there needs to be amongst business leadership, planning, product, and unions, in order have a successful business.

prime minister dion?

2008-12-01T20:37:00.000-08:00

so it appears prime minister stephen harper is on the verge of one cluster-fuck meltdown, with the liberals and ndp poised to take control of a coalition government, backed by the bloc quebecois. some would call it a political coup, while others would call it politically necessary.

the coalition would involve 24 cabinet members, six of which were ndp, with the minister of finance being a liberal, and the coalition itself would expire june 30, 2011. the bloc has agreen not to defeat the coalition government, and this agreement would expire or renew in 18 months.

how could this work? well, when facing a vote on a major bill, such as the one coming up, if it is voted down, the government faces a vote of non confidence. at that point, the governor general could dissolve parliament and an election would be called. however, the governor general could decide to allow the opposition to govern as a coalition, because technically they will have enough seats to run the government.

the problem is, the conservative government is seen as too slow on the draw when it comes to the canadian economy. while we aren't technically in a recession yet, the sensible reaction would be for the government to go on the offensive; to be proactive with its fiscal policies, to try and head off the recession. also, the conservatives were planning on eliminating the $1.95-a-vote subsidy for political parties. the subsidy is a much needed source of funds for the opposition, as well as smaller canadian political parties. it guarantees that a person is not "throwing" their vote away when they don't vote for the major parties (eg: green party). it makes sure that all parites are given a fighting chance, instead of the old system where only the parties backed by rich supporters could ever get a chance. to their credit, the conservatives backed down from this a few days ago.

how successful would such a coalition be? who knows. but the reality is, harper has been playing hardball politics ever since his party came into power. this most recent blunder by harper is futher evidence of his hardball tactics, as he tried to bluff the opposition into swallowing their demands. the gamble was that the opposition would dare not vote down the bill because they woudn't want to trigger another election so close to the last, but it appears his bluff has been called. the very same hardball politics is being tossed back in his face. i suppose when you live by the sword, you die by it too.

harper has called this move illegitimate because of the past month's election outcome. apparently harper likes to piss in our faces and tell us its raining, cause back in 2004, harper sent the governor general a letter which requested that should paul martin's liberals be defeated, the opposition should be considered to lead:

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority," the 2004 letter stated.

oh how temporary our memories can be! as much as the conservatives complain, the facts remain that the canadian political system allows for it the coalition, and together, the opposition has 60% of the popular vote, so one could contend the opposition has the mandate, and not the government.

what does this mean for the canadian economy? i personally think our economy will hold out in the long run, but political uncertainty doesn't help. today the tsx saw its biggest single day point drop since black monday in 1987. if the coalition succeeds, the fact that such a leftist leaning party like the ndp is in power could further erode business confidence, cause let's face it: the ndp has never really been known for fiscal brilliance. when faced with the possibility of losing their jobs, the middle class doesn't give a shit about the poor. so what canada needs is a plan. at this point, any plan will do so long as the government delivers it with conviction, because the markets are psychological more than anything. people need confidence. on a good day, i wouldn't trust the opposition to agree on driving directions together let alone run the government together, but there's a first time for everything.

regardless, this is gonna be an interesting week.

(source)

your weekly address from the president-elect

2008-11-17T07:28:00.001-08:00

stand by me

2008-11-14T10:25:00.000-08:00

sometimes you come across things that just make you feel good.

top 5 things george w. bush must do before he leaves office

2008-11-11T07:52:00.000-08:00

the first press conference

2008-11-07T20:05:00.000-08:00

a few observations about obama's first press conference. strictly shallow, of course.

1) nice to see a president that doesn't mangle the english language.
2) when obama smiles, it's warm and inviting. when bush smiles, it's like he secretly spat in your soup before giving it to you. you know, it's that "gotcha!" smirk.
3) for the past eight years i found these press conferences both horrific and unbelievably amusing. oh how i long for those days. however, bush still has a couple more months in power, so one can hope.

and the winner is...

2008-11-04T23:22:00.000-08:00

congrats america. you just elected a rock star.

election day

2008-11-03T18:17:00.001-08:00

so tomorrow is the big day. there's not much to say, because so much has already been said about this election. but what i will say, is that this has been one of the most amusing election seasons i've ever been a part of. for me, this definitely ranks right up there with the fiasco of the 1995 referendum vote in canada, or the 2000 post-election chad-filled campaign. between grown men who don't believe in evolution, to gun-toting milfs, to chuck norris and paris hilton referring to that "white haired dude," it's been a wild ride.

that being said, the united states has a golden, once in a lifetime opportunity to right what was so wrong over the past eight years. while the rest of the world evolved, the united states regressed, allowing fear to control every aspect of american life. here's a chance to literally change the face of american politics and set a course for a revival of american idealism and pop culture. i would argue, that the election result tomorrow will have to be difinitive. it may not necessarily need to be a landslide, but it has to be a big enough gap to leave all doubters behind. anything short of that would be disappointing.

you have one vote. don't fuck it up.

yes. right on.

2008-11-03T07:27:00.001-08:00

slumdog millionaire

2008-10-31T23:33:00.001-07:00

bill maher and larry charles on the hour.

2008-10-30T00:06:00.001-07:00

either you're a rationalist, or you're not.

free levi

2008-10-22T22:19:00.000-07:00

acorn.

2008-10-20T21:13:00.001-07:00

happy halloween!

2008-10-17T09:48:00.000-07:00

market timing

2008-10-17T09:21:00.001-07:00

market timing is the strategy of buying when the market is low, and getting out when the market reaches its absolute peak. the ability to market time is like a superpower. if you can do it, you wouldn't tell anyone about it. unfortunately, no one in the world can market time effectively on a consistent basis. those that can, you will probably never hear about since they aren't going to share their powers. people get lucky, but that's about it. for example, there is an investor, we'll call him mr. m. mr. m invested $250,000 in the market back in 2004. he cashed out at $700,000 on july 2007. the market peak was august 2007. now i don't think this guy is a genius. far from it. his timing may have been luck, may have been due to some shrewd investing, or he may be a market timing guru. i doubt it's the latter, but if he successfully does it again, i may change my mind.

the market right now is pretty beat up. has it reached the bottom? maybe. the tsx was at a high of 15,000 points, and now it is below 10,000. that's a huge drop. the past week we've seen consistent drops, repeatedly. we're not talking about a slight slope, we're talking about deep cliffs. the problem with wondering when the bottom will hit is that you don't know you've hit bottom, until you've already hit it and by then it is too late.

warren buffett, one of the most successful investors in the world, put in several billion dollars into the market a couple weeks ago. but it's been dropping since then. he may have been a couple weeks too early. the key, i find, is to put money in when the world is going to implode. and that's what we've been seeing in the past week, with asian markets dropping nearly fifty percent and everywhere else almost as bad. when everyone says the world is ending, that's when you put money in. as buffett said, "be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful." and people are fearful right now. fear is definitely in the air. i haven't felt this level of fear from the general public since 9/11.

so i put in some money yesterday, to dollar cost average since i bought pretty high before. do i think the bottom is here? i have no idea. truth to tell, it'll probably get worse before it gets better. i don't think any real recovery can come about without some true systematic change, as well as the lubrication of the banking system to free up cash (which is what that $700 billion u.s. bail-out plan was supposed to do). but all i know is that the markets will come back. i previously bought some funds at around $29 a unit, which are now down to $15. averaging out the buys will help me out. i plan on buying a little more soon, sort of slowly buy in, depending on how the markets look. if this week was indeed the bottom, i'm gonna be kicking myself that i didn't put all my money in yesterday. but such is investing.

w.

2008-10-17T00:11:00.000-07:00

john cleese vs sarah palin

2008-10-16T23:06:00.001-07:00

the day after the vote.

2008-10-15T10:01:00.000-07:00

so another election day has come and gone in canada, with another minority government; this time a stronger conservative minority. i can’t say that i’m surprised. in fact, i’m bored to tears by it. in my own riding of vancouver center, hedy fry won by five thousand votes. she’s held this riding since 1993 for the liberals, so short of some sort of internship sex scandal, it's not like it was going to change up any time soon. actually, that’s a red herring: there are no sex scandals in canadian politics. at least not many. oh how i long for some mp to be caught in a public bathroom with an undercover cop soliciting sex. sigh.

at any rate, i have to say i really do enjoy the voting process. the voting line is the only line up that i enjoy waiting in. there’s a positive feeling of exhuberance every time i vote. i can’t help it. exercising my right to vote is something i value greatly. i couldn’t imagine not being able to vote, to not have a voice.

that being said, voter turnout is supposed to be the lowest ever this time out. in the past, this sort of thing would bother me. i always felt it was one’s civic duty to be active in politics, to be engaged, to be involved and educate oneself on the issues. but after spending so much time working with people in the finance industry, i’ve decided that some people are just too stupid to be allowed to vote. if you are not capable of grasping the issues, or just too lazy, or if you can’t be bothered to care, then the best thing you can do for the country is to stay home on voting night. i’d much rather have ten percent of the voting population vote with confidence and insight, than ninety percent of the voting population vote out of ignorance.

on a related issue, there were some problems with the new identification procedures for voters. apparently it’s too difficult to have proper identification when going to vote that shows your current address. people are whining about this. really? i carry two pieces of id with me every where i go, with everything updated accordingly. it’s 2008 for crying out loud. there is no place for ignorance like that, especially since proper identification has been advertised in the mail, on television, on radio, on the internet, and in the papers for weeks now. some people were apparently turned away from the voting booth because of this. i suppose it does seem a bit harsh, but the reality is, you can’t even rent a video without first showing proper id. what makes you think you can vote without it?

sometimes the level of stupidity is overwhelming. and i for one am thankful for those who chose not to vote because of ignorance or apathy. because at the end of the day, voting is a right, and you have the right not to vote if you don’t want to. and if that’s the case, so be it, because the country will be better off for it.

now that we have the tiresome canadian election out of the way, i can now focus back on the american election. bring on the conservative nut jobs, old man foibles, and moose-gutting milfs! america, oh how i missed you so!

undecided voters

2008-10-13T22:45:00.000-07:00

after all the interviews and debates, with less than a month to go in the united states election, any remaining undecided voters out there are idiots. that's all i have to say about that.

oh, and canada votes tomorrow. yawn.

really, aig? really?

2008-10-12T22:51:00.001-07:00

Science is good.

2008-10-10T07:41:00.001-07:00

warren buffett

2008-10-05T23:21:00.000-07:00

warren buffett had a conversation with charlie rose on october 1st talking about the current financial crisis. he is seen as one of the world's greatest investors, and is the ceo of berkshire hathaway. his personal worth is estimated by forbes as $50 billion. good enough for second richest american.

what i've learned over the last few months is that a) everyone thinks they know what is going on. b) nobody has any answers, and c) there's more hurt to come. that being said, if there is anybody that has any clue as to what should be done, it's warren buffett. the following is a very candid and informative interview.

biden vs palin

2008-10-05T23:18:00.001-07:00

this is just painful. i can barely watch...

2008-10-03T00:16:00.000-07:00

jon stewart once said of george bush: he's not stupid. stupid is, "oh my god, i just ate soap!" well, i'm starting to think sarah palin is the "i just ate soap" level of stupid.

survival of the fittest

2008-09-29T20:02:00.000-07:00

the proposed $700 billion bailout plan by negotiated by u.s. congressional leaders was voted down today in the house of representatives. this resulted in a panic sell off with the tsx dropping 840 points and dow jones falling over 777 points. these were the biggest single day losses since the tech crash and 9/11 respectively.

the bailout plan was supposed to be a government package to buy bad loans from bank books, thus freeing up liquidity. it was thought that the bad loans were essentially clogging up the lending of new money. essentially, the u.s. tax payer was supposed to eat the bad loans.

personally, i am glad the bailout plan did not get passed. is my portfolio suffering from it? definitely. i’m down about 25% from the beginning of 2007, and i’m probably going to go down further after today’s raping of the markets.

why am i glad? because I think wall street has to learn some tough lessons. unfortunately, the little man gets hurt also. the bail out would have helped my portfolio, but only briefly. it's like putting a band aid over broken bones. however, what you’ll see is a stronger market when it comes back. and it will come back. we just don’t know when. it’s all about survival of the fittest. only the well capitalized, well organized, well managed and well positioned companies will survive, and really, that’s how it should be when it comes to capitalism.

in 2008, there has been a great push by the u.s. government to nationalize parts of the financial system. what the government is doing is not saving bear stearns or AIG; what it’s doing is protecting the system. the government picks and chooses who it wants to bail out. bear stearns, yes. AIG, yes. lehman brothers, no. it all depends on how much of the system is tied up with the company. the more intertwined (in this case, the more collateralized debt swaps on the books), the better the chances of a government hand out. the problems today stem from systemic problems and bad decisions; the system is sick and needs to change, and the only way things will change is if there is financial ruin. the reality is, wall street has the rest of the country by the throat, so the government has no choice but to save these companies. it’s socialism without all the benefits of socialism. (eg: national bail outs, but no national health care.)

what you’ve seen in the past few months is financial history. four of the top five investment firms are no longer what they were, or just no longer. bear stearns: dead. lehman brothers: bankrupt. merrill lynch: takeover by bank of america. morgan stanley: in negotiations. goldman sachs is the only one still standing. but for how long? these institutions have are just that: institutions. they’ve been around for a very, very long time and they’ve been doing business a certain way. as the years went by, with increased de-regulation, there just seemed to be no accountability, especially since everybody was winning. greed was the mother of all, the engine of capitalism; and ironically, it’s greed that may ultimately undo capitalism.

it is entirely possible that years from now, people will look back at 2008 as the passing of the guard, financially speaking. the united states used to be the big manufacturer. now they’ve shipped their manufacturing overseas. after that, the only thing the united states made was money. money with money. now they messed that up. of course the markets will recover, and of course more money will be made, but everything has changed. all the manufacturing is in china and india. all the money is in the middle east as well as the oil. just like how the british passed the mantle to the united states after world war 2, the united states is passing it off to asia and the middle east. you can look out east for the new super powers. that’s where all the money is, and that’s where all the power will lie.

now i’m not saying this is the definitive start to the decline of the american empire – in truth, it probably started years ago. what i’m saying is that the only thing the united states has that seems untouchable at this point is its popular culture. not much to go on, i know, but 2008 isn’t over yet, and 2009 ushers in a new president. or an old one. obama may be the inexperienced one, but he’s better capable of understanding the nuances of the economy and markets than mccain. mccain, on the other hand, admitted to not knowing much about economics. his position on deregulation has helped fuel fire to this eventual melt down. yes, he's a p.o.w., but getting tortured and surviving doesn't make you a good decision maker, or an informed decision maker. if you were basing your vote strictly on the economy, the choice seems clear.

i suspect a revised bailout will be forthcoming, after the politicians have had a chance to seriously consider other proposals, which will only work to sustain the hemorraging, not fix it. in the meantime, my personal options are to sit tight, stick with my guns, and when the times is right (eg: market bottoms out), it's time to buy more, because right now, investors are selling quality to shore up their losses, so there's an irrational sell off of quality stocks. after all, the best time to buy a name brand, is when it's on sale.

here is what the people thought about the bail out:

snl: palin vs couric

2008-09-28T20:03:00.000-07:00

biden

2008-09-16T23:35:00.001-07:00

this is what biden should have done from the start. traditionally, the vp has always been the attack dog.

snl: palin vs clinton

2008-09-14T14:34:00.000-07:00

who is sarah palin?

2008-09-09T22:38:00.001-07:00

sarah palin is just another politician. albeit a very fertile one.

mommy and me

2008-09-07T10:26:00.000-07:00

via onegoodmove, bill maher

the stills - being here

2008-09-06T11:18:00.000-07:00

yeah. so fucking good.

Science is good.

2008-09-06T10:59:00.001-07:00

flow

2008-08-30T09:00:00.001-07:00

water. i've been saying for a while now that water will be the most coveted resource in the near future, that major wars will be fought over this. either you have it, or you don't.

sarah palin

2008-08-30T00:32:00.000-07:00

sarah palin is john mccain's running mate. really? sarah palin? who the fuck is sarah palin? according to the cbc, she's 44 years old, she's pro life, a hunter and gun advocate, a mother of five who went through with her last birth knowing the baby would have down syndrome, a former union member married to a blue collar union man and a political reformer who fought corruption. and, she's absolutely inexperienced at the federal level. oh, and did i mention she could easily be president of the united states? john mccain (sometimes known as vlad the impaler), basically has one foot in the grave, and should he die in office, she'd be running the country.

this came out of left field, surprising everybody. the obvious ploy here is to steer those 18 million disgruntled hilary clinton supporters, but i have a feeling she'll be too conservative for their liking. however, should they decide to vote for mccain based on the fact that he chose a woman (not just any woman, but a party-line conservative woman) as his running mate, then so be it. after eight years of bush, and a potential four years of mccain, i'm starting to wonder if there is any truth to the saying that americans get the president they deserve.

realistically, senator joe biden should be able to eat palin alive on pretty much any major federal issue, and obama should be able to handle mccain easily. but stranger things have happened. we are, after all, talking about a voting population that gave bush a second term.

it looks like history will be made regardless of which party wins the election. this has officially turned into a circus.

finally, you know when something strange happens and you get a nervous smile on your face? yeah, you know, it's that "what the fuck just happened?!" look. well, if you look carefully, it definitely appears that even mccain has no idea what just happened.

Bill Maher on Larry King

2008-08-24T09:59:00.000-07:00

on edwards and how religious folk are less moral.

on his movie religulous.

on how the candidates disappoint him.

a picture is worth a thousand words...

2008-08-16T12:40:00.001-07:00

u.s. debt

2008-08-16T12:02:00.000-07:00

ever wonder just how exponentially the u.s. debt increased since the birth of the nation? treasurydirect.gov is a financial services website that lets you buy and sell securities directly from the u.s. department of the treasury in paperless, electronic form. they have a historical record of the u.s. debt outstanding since 1791.

some interesting numbers:

1860 - year before the civil war: $64,842,287.88
1866 - year after the civil war: $2,773,236,173.69

1916 - year before the u.s. entered the great war: $3,609,244,262.16
1919 - year after the great war: $27,390,970,113.12

1940 - year before the u.s. entered world war 2: $42,967,531,037.68
1946 - year after world war 2: $269,422,099,173.26

1964 - year before the u.s. entered full combat into vietnam: $311,712,899,257.30
1974 - year after the u.s. left vietnam: $475,059,815,731.55

1980 - year before ronald reagan's presidency and escalation of the cold war: $907,701,000,000.00 **
1992 - year after end of cold war and collapse of the soviet union: $4,064,620,655,521.66

2000 - year of george w. bush's run for the presidency: $5,674,178,209,886.86
2007 - latest numbers: $9,007,653,372,262.48

** numbers rounded.

paris hilton vs mccain.

2008-08-16T12:01:00.000-07:00

the kinks

2008-08-16T10:14:00.000-07:00

the best part of the performance is the drummer. he looks like he'd just rather be anywhere but there. they don't make drummers like that anymore. pity.

breast feeding = entitlement

2008-08-13T18:24:00.000-07:00

parents tend to think that their child is the center of the universe. that having a baby is the be-all, end-all of all that is honorable and holy, to the point where it allows people to think they can do whatever they want, whenever they want. but i tend to disagree. breast feeding in public? sure, it's necessary, the child has to eat, so it's imperative women be allowed to breastfeed when necessary. what's not necessary, is for me to see it. and as far as i can tell, women tend to know when their child needs to eat, what times they eat, etc. a child is not a ticking time bomb: it's only courtesy to be discreet about it, whether finding a corner to breastfeed in, or using a blanket. i would liken it to having to sneeze. cover your mouth. but 50 women would disagree with me...

hope, motherfuckers. hope.

2008-07-24T22:53:00.001-07:00

cellphone shakeup

2008-07-22T16:21:00.000-07:00

cellphone carriers rogers, bell and telus dominate the canadian cellphone market. for years, the lack of competition has allowed the big three to do pretty much whatever they wanted. not only do you get higher fees, but you get poor customer service and ridiculous add-on service charges that seem to punish long time clients in favor of new users.

the federal government just had an auction for new bandwidth, setting aside 40% strictly for new carriers. the other 60% was pretty much bought up by the big three. the results come as a shock. now i ask you... how does this come as a shock? of course the big three will buy out most of the bandwidth. they have the money, and it is in their interest to stay dominant. the only thing preventing this new strategy to introduce new competition and lower prices from being yet another federal fuck up, was the setting aside of that 40% for new carriers. hopefully that will be enough. canadians are way too polite when it comes to crappy service and expensive fees. it's time something changed.

Cellphone carriers already feeling the competition: Prentice

spiritualized - soul on fire

2008-07-21T23:02:00.000-07:00

the most pathetic victims

2008-07-19T14:01:00.000-07:00

via the party party.

impeach the mother fucker

2008-07-15T21:48:00.000-07:00

via americannewsproject and onegoodmove

dead.

2008-07-12T11:29:00.001-07:00

former george bush press secretary: tony snow.

snakecharming the masses

2008-07-10T21:27:00.000-07:00

the stills have a new album coming out august 19th. they're one of the most underrated canadian bands out there. a couple of years ago, when the montreal scene was exploding, i really felt they were overlooked or not given the credit they deserved. well, their last album, without feathers, was simply amazing and on constant rotation on my itunes. it's a full, meaty album and this new one seems to just continue with their evolution, while keeping their distinct 80's flavor. a little romantic, a little vicious, but completely wonderful. probably my favorite canadian band. besides loverboy of course.

check out their myspace page for more new music. destroyer, from their brilliant last album:

snakecharming the masses from their new album:

subprime swindle

2008-07-09T21:11:00.000-07:00

there's plenty of blame to go around when it comes to the subprime debacle. you can blame the legislators, the politicians, the bankers, the regulatory bodies... everyone gets a part of the blame. except for the home buyer, who was apparently "swindled" into buying into a mortgage or refinance loan when they clearly could not afford it. more accusations point towards a war against black america. a battle to repossess some of the hard-earned wealth achieved by black america.

now, was there some deception? yes. but is the home buyer completely innocent when it comes to the subprime debacle? no. there comes a point when you are buying something, or contemplating buying something, when you realize you probably can't afford it. however, you turn that switch off, or you justify it to yourself by saying, "but house prices will never stop going up..." which is what happened with the average american home buyer.

there is a big lie that continues to exist till this day: that somehow you need to own a home in order to be successful. that somehow you need to own a home to be a real adult. that the home is the be-all, end-all to the completion of a family unit. this is bullshit. homes cost money. lots of money. but a person can live a very respectable and fulfilling life renting for the rest of his or her life, so long as they save and invest their money. but people want to buy homes, and it's this delusion that helped spur people to sign into agreements for homes that they couldn't afford. homes are still seen as the ultimate in personal wealth. it's a status symbol. and that's where most of the problems lie.

i disagree that the subprime fiasco could be an issue of color. if it is, it's only about one color: green. too many people got too greedy too fast, including the home buyer, because for years people were just raking it in, only to realize too late that nothing lasts forever. was this foreseeable? of course. but no one bothered with the warning signs. if anything, markets, no matter what markets, tend to be cyclical. at some point in time, a market correction occurs. it was about time for one.

do i plan to be a homeowner at some point? yes. but not at the risk of my life savings, and not at the risk of my standard of living. does this mean i may have to rent for the rest of my life? probably. but that's okay.

bottom line: if somebody tells you something that is too good to be true... it usually is. it doesn't matter if it comes from your financial planner or your parents or your god. there are no guarantees in finance, just as there are no guarantees in life. because nothing goes up forever. not even housing prices.

obama and the democrats: sell outs

2008-07-09T13:42:00.000-07:00

following 9/11, president george bush allowed the national security agency the ability to secretly wiretap american civilians without a court order, all in the name of fighting terrorism. when this was revealed a couple years ago, there was a lot of debate and anger over this, as it was considered an invasion of privacy on a scale previously unheard of. many lawsuits ensued against telecoms like at&t, verizon, etc.

today, the democratically led senate voted 69 to 28 in favor of broadening the government's spy powers and providing immunity to the telephone companies that participated in the illegal spying, as well as killing all pending lawsuits against them. senators barack obama and john mccain voted in favor of the bill, while coincidentally senator hilary clinton voted against it. in the past, obama had long opposed the idea, but his flip-flop on the subject is unfortunate to say the least. apparently now that obama is the presumptive democratic presidential nominee, and barring some sort of melt-down, will be the next president of the united states, he feels the president having more, unwarranted powers is a good thing. of course it's a good thing, cause he won't be a regular civilian; he'll be president. of course, president bush is very happy and he'll be signing it into law shortly.

once again, the democrats show absolutely no backbone. they talk big, but when it comes down to it, they always crumble. they're afraid of looking weak on national security? well that's a legitimate concern, but what would you call someone who says one thing, does another, and never seems to stand up for their own principles when push comes to shove? i can think of a few things. let's start with "turn coat" for example. or "yellow." or "pussy." only politicians seem to be able to get away with this kind of behavior. if your doctor or professor or parents displayed this kind of behavior, would you stand for it? sometimes i think the democrats don't ever deserve to be in power. at least with the republicans, they tend to show the courage of their convictions, no matter how ludicrous or stone-aged.

those in favor of the bill say that you have nothing to worry about so long as you don't "have al qaeda on your speed dial." well, that's not the point. the point is that the government now has the legal support to invade your privacy whenever it wants. there is a reason why positions of authority have checks and balances and limitations; it's to prevent the abuse of such power. history has shown that whether power is abused depends on who wields it and how they wield it. there is no guarantee the next president will have any restraint.

realistically, if the government wants to spy in on you, they'll do it, legal or not. there is no need to officially legislate it, thereby reducing your rights and handing it over to the government. this sort of power swap is dangerous, because when you give the government more powers, it's next to impossible in getting the power back.

(source)

100 dollar bill y'all

2008-06-26T13:55:00.001-07:00

so i got my $100 climate action dividend from the campbell government today. if you don't know, the british columbia government is putting forward their $1 billion dollar plan towards climate initiatives. this starts with the $100 cheque sent to every bc resident in the mail. the purpose is to spend it on green initiatives, like buying more energy efficient light bulbs, or purchasing eco-friendly upgrades to your home, etc.

how am i going to spend my cheque? well, coincidentally, i am about to embark on my camping trip into good old mother nature's back yard that is garibaldi lake. which means i'll be putting that $100 cheque towards gasoline.

coldplay - viva la vida

2008-06-23T21:14:00.000-07:00

coldplay is one of those bands that are like u2 for me: in that they are capable of writing some really amazing songs, but their albums just don't do it for me. i've never been able to enjoy one of their albums from beginning to end in its entirety. their last album, x&y was as close as it ever got for me. until now. maybe it's a lack of good music in the last little while, but coldplay's viva la vida is fantastic. it's lacking that one spine-tingling, must-have song (eg: yellow, the scientist, fix you), but it has a much better overall flow, and each song on the album is equally balanced with the next, without any stinkers. the brian eno production is spot on. i could listen to this album for a very long time.

blind melon

2008-06-17T00:15:00.000-07:00

blind melon is back from the ashes after a 12 year hiatus with shannon hoon version 2.0. sort of like getting used to microsoft vista after you've been used to xp for so long, if you know what i mean. but in all honesty, it's actually a really good album. i give this new guy a year before he's found dead on eightballs.

gore for obama

2008-06-17T00:11:00.000-07:00

gore endorses obama. which means obama is gonna lose.

science is good

2008-06-14T06:24:00.001-07:00

cool. not cool.

2008-06-14T06:19:00.000-07:00

it's a fact!

2008-06-13T21:15:00.000-07:00

via onegoodmove.org / factcheck.org

moby

2008-06-11T16:42:00.000-07:00

this interview is a little old now, but it's pretty good. i think moby would be a good person to be friends with. it's been a long time since i've listened to "play." i think i'll go do that now.

the tory environmental plan: oil industry approved!

2008-06-11T12:33:00.001-07:00

religulous

2008-06-07T09:26:00.000-07:00

religulous, the new "documentary" by bill maher. it doesn't matter if you believe that a man came back from the dead, or in magic underwear, or the flying spaghetti monster, cause it's all the same. religion makes the world bat-shit crazy. it's unnecessary, and it's a crutch for weak minded individuals who cannot find the strength in themselves to solve their own problems. at worst, it ruines peoples lives and only aggravates the percieved differences between people, emboldening war mongers all for something essentially someone made up, and has no proof of. at best, it's a big lie that makes people delusional, hoping that the next life is better than their current one. it denies people the opportunity to really evaluate their lives and improve it, to really enjoy their lives because they believe if they somehow limit themselves and adhere to a ridiculous set of man-made rules, that somehow they will be rewarded in a second life that probably doesn't exist. just because your life isn't the way you think it ought to be doesn't mean the hand of god is the answer. it came from a book? well, pixies and fairies and trolls are from a book too.

like an enema

2008-06-06T23:20:00.000-07:00

a canadian perspective. oh rex! and to think, it only took over 200 years. better late than never?

kluge? that's like a hammer, right?

2008-06-04T11:03:00.000-07:00

obama clinches win

2008-06-04T10:47:00.000-07:00

the insider

2008-06-01T08:20:00.000-07:00

former press secretary scott mcclellan has a new book out, called "what happened: inside the bush white house and washington's culture of deception," which talks about everything from the valerie plame scandal to the iraq war and how the bush administration sold (mislead) it to the world.

the thing about whistle blowers like mcclellan, is the obvious criticism against him and others who come out, is why wait so long? why not tell the truth when it is most important and prevalent? why wait until after the fact? the only reason i can come up with is the obvious: self preservation. i mean, consider the average joe and their careers. how often do you see someone stick their neck out for anything? how often have you seen things at work that may not be right, but you swallow it anyway? or better yet, the times when you have spoken out, what happened? were you rewarded for your honesty? did other employees back you? or did they back off with their tails between their legs, leaving you to get your head chopped off? now imagine that type of situation, only with about a million times the pressure. now imagine that situation when you're a part of the government that's running the sole superpower in the world. i don't know too many people that would have the balls to come out like that.

ultimately, is it better late than never? i don't know, but what i do know is that mcclellan basically confirms what all the critics of the bush administration knew years ago. there have been many books like this, the difference this time is that it's from an insider. at this point, i don't know what good it will do. the administration is on the way out. i suppose it would help people learn from the past and not let what happened in iraq happen to iran, but are people really that smart? certainly history doesn't record that. the human species seems doomed to repeat its mistakes, grooming itself for self destruction. never again? that saying seems like a joke sometimes. i hope i'm wrong.

part 2 part 3 part 4 part 5

hans blix

2008-05-30T22:11:00.000-07:00

remember hans blix? the man sent in to look for nuclear weapons in iraq? well, he's still alive, and he's talking about trying to get the current nuclear powers to disarm. note to blix: this world is about who carries the biggest stick. disarmament... it's just not going to happen.

robo-monkey

2008-05-28T10:43:00.001-07:00

pictures of then

2008-05-20T23:10:00.000-07:00

press play.

there can be only one

2008-05-18T10:20:00.000-07:00

a nice little spoof of the nba commercials by a show that lost its pop cultural relevancy years ago: saturday night live.

BO HC
Uploaded by littlepiggy13

"we'll do it live!"

2008-05-13T10:36:00.000-07:00

this is the funniest thing i've seen all year. oh, bill! i believe this is called a hissy fit.

what then now, bitches?

2008-05-02T13:32:00.000-07:00

where does the responsibility for war lie? is it with those who opt to wage the war? those who bring it upon themselves? you and me, the global citizen? or does responsibility begin and end at our borders, this antiquated notion to protect sovereignty? academy award-winning actress deanna durbin has an opinion about it. too bad she's dead.

winners and losers

2008-05-01T14:24:00.000-07:00

statistics canada is showing that despite the strong economy, rising housing prices, and low inflation, not everyone is benefiting from the growth canada seems to be enjoying.

the long and short of it:

the short of it is, the poor are poorer, the youth are poorer, especially men, and immigrants are earning less, which basically means they're poorer. basically, if you're young, male, poor and fresh off the boat, you're proper fucked.

the long of it can be found here, according to cbc. the age old question remains: is there an economic pie, and if so, what are the gains? are they zero-sum, or relative? it seems the more money there is in the system, the more it tends to accumulate into the hands of a select few, making the rich, filthy rich. but i'm not a class warrior. i'm really not.

state of the nation

2008-04-29T08:09:00.000-07:00

so i figure a bit of an update is in order. i've had a few setbacks as of late, the primary one being my computer hard drive died. this means i lost everything, including all of my writing. this is the second time something like this has happened to me. i was halfway done my manuscript. this would have been the third time i have attempted it. i should have backed up my hard drive when i had the chance. you'd think i'd know better by now, but apparently i don't. am i doing this to myself subconsciously? perhaps. self-sabotage happens to be quite a common human trait.

ultimately, i'm not too worried by the loss of my writing. i'll probably return to it, but my primary focus will be my exams and finishing my financial planner certification. hopefully that isn't too far away. perhaps afterwards i'll have more time to start writing seriously and perhaps even dedicate a bit more time to my blog.

battle in seattle

2008-04-13T18:12:00.000-07:00

on november 30, 1999, the world trade organization ministerial conference took place in seattle, washington. that day, the city's police officers clashed with thousands upon thousands of protesters who took over the streets, shouting anti-globalization slogans. ultimately, what was supposed to be a peaceful, but forceful demonstration, became violent, starting with the destruction of property by certain groups of protesters, and ending with the police using tear gas, pepper spray, and physical force. over 600 protesters were arrested as a result.

i was a third year political science student at the time. this was two years after the a.p.e.c. summit that took place on my campus at the university of british columbia, which had also degraded into clashes with the police, albeit on a smaller scale. i recall watching the images play out on the television set, thinking that the more things change, the more they stay the same. my opinion now, as it was back then, hasn't changed much beyond the knowledge that business men will continue to make money, regardless, and that progress will, 9 times out of 10, be driven by this insatiable desire to make money. the following january, in my first class of the semester, my prof had a map out and was discussing something completely off topic. his hand came across seattle and he joked, "... and here's the smoldering black dot that is seattle..." which got a chuckle from the class. and we moved on.

so what does all this mean? is it all futile? maybe. is there an alternative? of course, but the alternative is far worse.

and of course, this all gets the hollywood treatment...

(source)

bzzr

2008-04-09T10:40:00.000-07:00

if this doesn`t convince skeptics that global warming is a threat, then nothing will:

By The Associated Press

WELLINGTON, New Zealand - The price of beer is likely to rise in coming decades because climate change will hamper the production of a key grain needed for the brew - especially in Australia, a scientist warned Tuesday.

Jim Salinger, a climate scientist at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, said climate change likely will cause a decline in the production of malting barley in parts of New Zealand and Australia. Malting barley is a key ingredient of beer.

"It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up," Salinger told the Institute of Brewing and Distilling convention.

Similar effects could be expected worldwide, but Salinger spoke only of the effects on Australia and New Zealand. He said climate change could cause a drop in beer production within 30 years, especially in parts of Australia, as dry areas become drier and water shortages worsen.

Barley growing parts of Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales would likely be harder hit than growing areas in New Zealand's South Island.

"It will provide a lot of challenges for the brewing industry," even forcing breweries to look at new varieties of malt barley as a direct result of climate change, Salinger said.

New Zealand and Australian brewer Lion Nathan's corporate affairs director Liz Read said climate change already was forcing up the price of malted barley, sugar, aluminium and sugar.

Read said that in addition to climate change, barley growers are grappling with competition from other forms or land use, such as the dairy industry.

he's a dick, but he's our dick.

2008-04-08T21:03:00.000-07:00

technology

2008-04-06T10:48:00.000-07:00

clearly, i am getting old.

helter skelter

2008-04-01T17:08:00.000-07:00

former democratic presidential candidate, and now soon to be libertarian party member: mike gravel vs helter skelter.

piece of the pie

2008-03-22T21:53:00.000-07:00

is wealth a zero sum gain, or is it all a relative gain?

hookers, midgets, and subprime

2008-03-22T17:55:00.000-07:00

the subprime debacle is a mess. we all know that now. what ideally was a great investment vehicle, turned sour really hard and fast, with many lives financially ruined as a result. if you don’t know what subprime is by now, the long and short of it is simply about houses being bought by people who can’t afford them, mortgaged by firms that never bothered to do proper credit and liquidity checks on the home owners. these firms then sold off these securities to investors packaged as consolidated debt obligations (fancy for saying lots of different types of debts rolled into one) to improve their cash flow. these investors in turn receive a consistent flow of money. everyone makes money, everyone wins, so long as housing prices keep going up. well the housing market burst, and the initial home owner couldn’t afford their monthly payments and everything goes down hill from there. basically, it’s like investing in a box. someone offers you this box, has no idea what's in it, but assures you that it will make you money. so you buy it, but little do you know, there’s a ticking time bomb in that box.

now where is the accountability? people are hurt, people are angry, and people have lost their life savings. some are now looking towards people like james cayne, who is the chairman and former chief exectuve of bear stearns. bear stearns was, up until a week ago, one of the largest global investment banks and securities trading and brokerage firms in the world. cayne’s stake in bear stearns was 1 billion. seemingly overnight, it collapsed to 14 million at the price jp morgan chase offered as a buyout to the insolvent bank last sunday as a result of their involvement in the subprime crisis.

now, please stop the tears. don’t cry for cayne, because between 2004 and 2006, he was paid about $40 million in cash, as well as stocks and options. bear stearns was neck deep in these highly lucrative, but risky subprime securites, which helped drive profits and share prices. this investment practice has caused the collapse of this 80 year old firm, one of the biggest financial collapses in recent years.

should cayne be held accountable? he did, after all, stear the ship straight into the iceberg. but will he be held accountable? no. because the bailout is already under way, and the government cannot have this collapse echo into the rest of the market, even though it already seems to have done its damage. so while you have people now homeless and others without their life savings, you have men like cayne walking away with millions. literally millions. these men take enormous risks all for the bottom line, and when things go wrong, they retire somewhere on some island with hooker maids and midget butlers (i'm not too positive about that last bit of info, but i've heard stories...) seriously, if i did my job even half as poorly as cayne did, i would never be licensed again by anyone. ever.

cayne is but one example of many who have walked away from their shitty job performances with millions. now is this fair? no. but it’s the way things are. until there is real accountability for these actions, nothing is going to change. honestly, i don't think "risk" has any meaning to these people. i think the saying is, “the rich get richer by ass raping everyone.” i think confucius said that. go to wikipedia. i’m sure it’s in there somewhere.

source

the olympics

2008-03-22T10:28:00.000-07:00

everything is political. it doesn’t matter what it is, whether it’s religion or science or art. everything is political because money drives politics. and if money can be made off something, or if you can leverage something to make money off it, it becomes political. this is no different for the olympics, which have long since lost its idealistic sheen as a forum for world athletes to show off the human spirit.

the olympics are coming to beijing, but in light of the consistent human rights violations by the government against its own people, and the people of tibet, idealistically, a boycott would be in order. actually, beijing should have never been awarded the olympics in the first place, but that’s a different matter.

as a result of all the unrest from the recent crackdown in tibet, the government is considering banning live television shots of tiananmen square during the games. i guess reminding people that they violently crushed a pro-democracy rebellion two decades ago, and the possibility of repeated protests during the games being broadcast live isn’t something the chinese government is looking forward to. and i don’t blame them. their bottom line is holding onto power, no matter what the cost, even if they have to offend some big u.s. television networks that have paid millions to broadcast the games and are counting on those great shots of the square. the end game is all that matters, which in this case is to enjoy all the benefits of becoming a superpower, while still holding onto all the power.

will there be a boycott? probably not. at least not by any major industrialized nation, because there is too much money riding on this. barring some sort of implosion, china will be come one of the next great superpowers. their economy will be off the scale. one of the major reasons why the world markets haven’t collapsed under the weight of the sub prime mess, is because of china and india, two of the largest, most populated countries in the world whose economies are boeying the world markets, with the united states as the linchpin in all of this, because recession or not, the united states consumes more than anyone else on the planet.

george bush and other politicians will have you believe that the olympics should only be about the athletes, and that it should be kept separate from politics. well, with all due respect, that is bullshit, because it’s the politicians and the businessmen that are making this political, because they see this as yet another – albeit massive – economic opportunity. heck, even nixon was ahead of the curve decades ago when he went over to china to normalize relations and open trade! the hypocrisy is right in our faces. politicians don’t have the right to dictate what kind of politics is good for the pallet. politicians are hoping the olympics helps open yet another door for more political discourse and economic gain. if that is the case, they’d better be prepared for all the rest of it, like human rights, because once those doors are open, there’s no stopping it.

ultimately, the olympics may be the best thing to happen for human rights in china. If carried out right, there is a massive opportunity to expose the chinese government, because there will be hundreds of thousands of reporters and cameras from all over the world descending on beijing. and everyone, especially the chinese government, knows that the biggest threat to power in this day and age, is the marriage of technology and ideas.

now the question is, what will happen when those protests and pro-democrazy rallies start to crop up during the olympics, which you know they will. which side of the chinese government will we see? the one promised the international olympics committee years ago that the games would promote greater openness, and a friendly, confident chinese nation... or the one that recently killed 19 tibetan protesters last week?

source

president obama

2008-03-18T01:10:00.001-07:00

tracy morgan on obama vs clinton. funny shit.

via onegoodmove.org

tsx

2008-03-11T20:14:00.000-07:00

the toronto stock exchange just released their new logo:

young, dumb and full of...

2008-03-04T23:56:00.000-08:00

so lately i've been regressing to things from my past, particularly pop culture. whether it was music or movies or toys, it all seemed to point back to the good ol' 80's. a time when mullets and "rat-tail" haircuts ruled the earth. remember those? rat-tails? i had one as a child. i cannot tell a lie. however, i feel as though i was an unwilling victim in that particular fashion case.

anyway, with everything so much ado about politics these days, what with clinton gaining ground down south and our old friend stephen harper being accused of bribery here in canada, i've been turning to some old political movies. movies exemplifying the glorious mix of reaganomics, ubber corporate greed, and the age-old standby of young kids so dumb and full of... passion. and politics.

one such movie was st. elmo's fire. a movie, much like the 80's, which had no closure and no resolve, yet captures its place in time so perfectly. it was back in the day when rob lowe had credibility, ally sheedy was still kinda hot, and demi moore still believed she could have a career without a boob job. here's my personal favorite exchange in the movie:

leslie: alec is becoming a republican... and he wants to get married! oh, my god!
jules: i always knew he was a republican.

i can't say it's a great movie, or even a good movie, but it is an appropriate one, if that makes any sense. it captures very well that time in one's life just after graduating from college, where we're faced with the question, "what now?" some of us ran, and some of us took a stand, and there are still a few of us that have yet to find their way nearly ten years out of university. so yeah... what now?

got cash?

2008-03-04T10:12:00.000-08:00

via: thepartyparty

science and technology in the primaries

2008-03-01T07:58:00.000-08:00

some how, some way, science has become the enemy in the united states in the last seven years. there has been a systematic attack on science, whether it is evidence on global warming or the argument of creationism over evolution, to stem cell research, you name it. the bush administration has certainly been no friend to science, essentially stalling progress in the united states, while other countries advance in leaps and bounds. why would it matter if the united states wants to regress to the dark ages? it matters because whether you like it or not, the united states is still the lone world superpower.

i certainly find it interesting that those who don't don't believe in evolution or the evidence supporting global warming, are quick to rely on science to develop their missile defense systems. apparently it's all about cherry picking science apart. i should remind those same people that the reason they're here today, is because of science. science built the houses they're living in, the engineered clothing they're wear, the genetically modified foods they're eating. and science is what will save them when they're lying on a hospital operating table.

as the primaries, particularly the democratic primaries wage on, no issue is taken lightly. while obama and clinton may be arguing over who is gonna dismantle n.a.f.t.a. first (re: not gonna happen), the issue of science and technology and the direction it will take in the near future is currently being debated, along with who would be the better president for science. science has certainly done its share of bad along with the good, but we wouldn't be here today without it. although, i am still disappointed about no flying cars. we can cure diseases, but we can't send a chevy through the air? what the fuck?

nader 4 prez. again.

2008-02-24T18:10:00.001-08:00

ralph nader announces his candidacy for president of the united states. as usual, the uncompromising nader makes some great points. but he won't be a factor this year. at best, one can hope he manages to keep the real issues on the table. but i'm not holding my breath. he's definitely right though: if the democrats can't landslide the republicans this year, they should just go home.

larry king vs jon stewart

2008-02-21T23:23:00.001-08:00

frank luntz

2008-02-20T23:33:00.000-08:00

this is just a great discussion which ranges from the primaries and obama's viability as president to roid-monkey baseball players. maher's show is always boring whenever he is preaching to the choir. it's when he has the voice of descent on the show, especially someone as entertaining and as articulate as frank luntz, that the show gets interesting. despite who you may agree or disagree with, political discourse is always way more fun when you have some head butting. without it, you might as well go masturbate.

what have you done for me lately?

2008-02-20T19:54:00.000-08:00

barack obama is running the ultimate feel-good campaign. he's what one would call a miscellaneous candidate. do you know what he stands for? hope. what does that exactly mean? his message appeals to a broad spectrum of people, he inspires, but who wouldn't want hope? i'd like to meet the person that doesn't want hope. yes, he inspires, and he surely is the greatest orator since ronald reagan, but disney vibes do not make a good government. i like obama, but there is a huge question mark over his head: is he qualified to hold the highest office in the land? with all that has gone on in the last eight years, what the united states needs is someone who can fix things, to get things done. and obama hasn't done anything. so here's another question: what has he done for the united states lately?

castro

2008-02-19T15:09:00.000-08:00

castro steps down as cuba's leader after 49 years, ending the longest rule in the world for a head of government. he presided over what seemed like a benign / oppressive dictatorship, depending on who you ask. he also survived 10 separate united states administrations' attempts at toppling him. that's gotta be a record, right?

via cbc

wanted: more white babies

2008-02-18T15:16:00.000-08:00

a looming catastrophe is coming as birthrates are falling for white, christian western children. this is the crux of "the demographic winter." as western society evolves and education amongst western women increases, you're seeing less and less babies born in the west. this of course wouldn't concern any rational, open-minded civilian, but for those afraid of immigration and interracial breeding, it's like armaggedon. yet another example of the box that religion and nationalism locks us into. it's 2007 goddamnit! can we please move past irrational racial and religious prejudices, and work on getting us some flying cars already?

who is your celestial daddy?

2008-02-17T10:17:00.000-08:00

so the question is, what is the real republican religion? god? or money?

science is good for you.

2008-02-08T23:37:00.000-08:00

via: new scientist

superdelegates 101

2008-02-08T23:17:00.000-08:00

it's a bird, it's a plane, it's... a superdelegate. don't know what the heck that is? well, it's got something to do with the primaries. an explanation, via the series of tubes called the internet, courtesy of the nation.

tom delay vs science

2008-02-08T22:55:00.000-08:00

"it is arrogance to suggest that man can effect climate change. there's no science that supports such a notion." - tom delay.

you heard it, right from the horse's mouth, man-made climate change doesn't exist. republican tom delay, former majority house leader, and currently awaiting trail for alleged money laundering, scoffs at the idea that humans are effecting climate change. he also believes in absolutely no restrictions on the right to bear arms. for tom, it is freedom at all costs, regardless of consequence.

what tom and his ilk (re: cave-dwelling, crazy-ass republicans) doesn't understand, is that real freedom isn't the right to do whatever you want, whenever you want and damn all the consequences. that sort of freedom is a trap. that sort of reckless freedom only ensures that your rights will encroach on the rights of others to live their lives. that's not freedom: that's just being selfish, which is pretty much the root of our problems. and you wonder why some people hate western society.

starsailor

2008-02-05T22:43:00.001-08:00

spin city

2008-02-03T01:17:00.001-08:00

a rather interesting piece on the "spin" room by matt taibbi. during the political debates, reporters and media are not allowed in the actual debate room. rather, they're herded into another room, boldly called the spin room, where the media tag lines are created for mass consumption. it's not enough to allow viewers to make up their own minds about the debates; they are fed spoolfuls of bullshit. still, if you're one who was watching the debates and believes everything the media says happened, then you probably deserved to be spun. and for the record, taibbi is right: everyone knew what bush would do once given the authorization for war. it's just another case of democrats being week and spineless. sometimes i wonder if democrats should even be allowed to lead, especially when they prove to be no better than opportunistic parasites who have no stomach for real political dog fights.

politics and an engorged penis.

2008-02-03T01:02:00.000-08:00

frank luntz of faux news breaks down the obama factor, the youth vote, and interesting democratic sex, vs happier republican sex. nothing like two pasty white men talking about sexuality to get the old juices flowin'. way to pole the electorate.

who then now?

2008-02-02T01:04:00.000-08:00

this is what the media wanted: a two horse race. john edwards dropped out this past week, and while his unabashedly populist campaign didn't gain the traction one would have hoped it would, his ideas live on. he was, after all, about ideas and standing along side them, willing to go down with the ship.

we are now left with a choice between the familiar and the unknown. hilary clinton, of course, is the familiar, while barack obama is the unknown. most of us can imagine what a clinton presidency would be like. but an obama one? there's the variable. obama is charismatic and he's all for change, but what does he exactly stand for? i'm still unsure about that. he speeks in such vague general terms sometimes, that it's easy to see how his platform can appear to be a catch-all, but he doesn't stand for his ideas like edwards was willing to do. and you know that saying: if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

what you have now, however, is an opportunity for a real shift in the direction of not only the american psyche, but the global psyche, away from the past eight years. while i love what an obama presidency would represent, i'm afraid it may be a disaster waiting to happen. there's this great opportunity, and this man, while instilling hope, may not have the political will to truly make a stand, and thereby drop the proverbial "ball." still, obama seems to be someone who can reach out to all sides, and in this day and age, a real uniter is needed.

the nation editor, christopher hayes, seems to think so. i'm not the biggest fan of hilary, so i hope he's right. or perhaps at this point i'm so jaded, that all i want in the white house is someone who can string together a complete sentence. remember that time? when a leader could be substantial, eloquent and intelligent? yes, those were the days...