Flimsy Sanity

Metafilter

2009-02-25T08:17:00.000-08:00

I don't get on the computer much anymore and when I do, I go to the community blog, Metafilter because it has a little politics and lots more interesting stuff. It is free to read, but costs $5 (lifetime I think) if you want to comment and some of the comments are better than the entry. I ponied up the money when the Sarah Palin business was going on so that I could tell my friend Larry Nelson's Alaska joke about the rarity of women in Alaska. I should have prefaced it with "Relax Ladies, this is a math joke, not a sexist joke". Anyway, what do you call a "ten" in Alaska? A four with a six pack.

Virus problem

2008-12-17T09:15:00.000-08:00

My computer has a virus, so I may be gone for awhile. I trust the country can run itself without my advice.

Divorce lullaby

2008-12-07T09:05:00.000-08:00

Jokes.com

Stephen Lynch - Why Mommy Left

Exactly Right on the Bailouts!

2008-12-05T08:45:00.000-08:00

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - Bean on a Plate Edition

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Boy George

2008-12-05T06:19:00.000-08:00

Boy George guilty of false imprisonment - Yahoo! News Sometimes I get religious and think maybe God did create man just so he could laugh his ass off.

Dinosaurs roamed with man debated by idiots

2008-12-05T06:14:00.000-08:00

OpEdNews Questions Your Pastor Will Hate
Point:

I remember asking about how humans and dinosaurs could coexist. After all, they had to be a part of the creation story, even though not mentioned specifically. Or why would dinosaurs be taken on the ark, only to go extinct such a short time after? And how do you cage a T-Rex or fit a Brontosaurus on such a boat, much less a pair of all sorts?

I got a lot of looks but very few answers. As the years went by, I concluded that none of it was either possible or even addressed in the Bible. I realized humans and dinosaurs had nothing in common (unless you live in the SE USA) and the pastor was either ignorant, deliberately deceptive or hung up somewhere in between himself, not knowing what to say to a kid. I honestly think I would have appreciated knowing what I suspect he knew, that being the story of Noah was fiction and I didn't have to worry about dinosaurs or polar bears for that matter on the ark. It never happened.

Counterpoint:

I hate to bust one of your bubbles, There is only one location on the entire earth where dino remains have not been discovered, and it is the middle east, So dinos not being mentioned in the bible are likely a result of them not being able to survive there, not enough plant life to support the plant eaters and therefore resulting in the others not being there to eat them.

Some Great Quotes

2008-11-28T06:18:00.000-08:00

Using blogger for a file cabinet of things one wants to keep is great because of the ability to run a search and retrieve it. A few quotes I've run across and want to keep are these:

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one...People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news." - A. J. Liebling

"To most of us nothing is so invisible as an unpleasant truth. Though it is held before our eyes, pushed under our noses, rammed down our throats - we know it not". - Eric Hoffer

"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle" - George Orwell

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."- Hunter Thompson

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread". -Anatole France

"Look, if you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you're stupid. Did you hear that? -stupid." -Arthur Sylvester, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, 1965

"No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine."-William Blum

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime" - Balzac

Amazon's Evil Cousin

2008-11-26T12:25:00.000-08:00

Check It Out

"How Modern Liberals Think"

2008-11-26T07:37:00.000-08:00

I was rewatching the TED Jonathan Haidt talk on the difference between liberals and conservatives. He said the conservatives want to preserve and the liberals want to destroy, which I thought was an incredible conclusion for an academic, but I agreed with him that both sides think they are right and neither side listens to the other. A comment on the TED talk linked this video, so I watched about half of it but the hate spewed here was overpowering. We have some common ground of course - both sides agree that the other side will destroy America. Actually, the way things are going we will implode from the greed of our haves and havemores and our "kiss up, kick down" society will probably fight each other for what is left and the meanest most organized dogs will win. Osama must be laughing in his cave.

This right wing darling says liberals hate America and he draws the analogy of a man standing by and watching his wife (who he claims to hate) get beat up. If the analogy would have been more accurate, he would have said that after the wife gets beat up, the perp (cop talk) shoots himself but still the husband goes out and throws a grenade at the town where the man formerly lived.

Cost of Counterterrorism

2008-11-26T04:47:00.000-08:00

Laura Donahue wrote the book, The Cost of Counterterrorism: Power, Politics, and Liberty.

Economics of Innocent Fraud by J.K. Galbraith

2008-11-25T12:31:00.000-08:00

The problem is that work is a radically different experience for different people. For many - and this is the common circumstance - it is compelled by the most basic command of life: It is what human beings must do, even suffer, to have a livelihood and its diverse components. It provides life's enjoyments and against its grave discomforts or something worse. Though often repetitive, exhausting, without any mental challenge, it is endured to have the necessities and some of the pleasures of living. Also a certain community repute. Enjoyment of life comes when working hours or the workweek is over. Then and then only is there escape from fatigue, boredom, the discipline of the machine, that of the workplace generally or of the managerial authority. It is frequently said that work is enjoyed; that common assertion is mostly applied to the feelings of others. The good worker is much celebrated; the celebration comes extensively from those who have escaped similar exertion, who are safely above the physical effort.

Here is the paradox. The word 'work' embraces equally those for whom it is exhausting, boring, disagreeable, and those for whom it is a clear pleasure with no sense of the obligatory. There may be a satisfactory feeling of personal importance or the acknowledged superiority of having others under one's command. 'Work' describes both what is compelled and what is the source of the prestige and pay that others seek ardently and enjoy. Already fraud is evident in having the same word for both circumstances.

But that is not all. Those who most enjoy work - and this should be emphasised - are all but universally the best paid. This is accepted. Low wage scales are for those in repetitive, tedious, painful toil. Those who least need compensation for their effort, could best survive without it, are paid the most. The wages, or more precisely their salaries, bonuses and stock options, are the most munificent at the top, where work is a pleasure. This evokes no seriously adverse response. Nor until recently did the inflated compensation and extensive perquisites of functional or nonfunctional executives lead to critical comment. That the most generous pay should be for those most enjoying their work has been fully accepted.

A synopsis from an Amazon review:

The "innocent" frauds that Galbraith calls to our attention are actually not all that innocent. What he means by "innocent" is that for the perpetrators, there is "no sense of guilt or responsibility" as though the fraudulent were children. Indeed from the perspective of Professor Galbraith's extensive experience and learning, many of the people who run our economies and our political systems are children. At any rate, there is a somewhat lofty and even grandfatherly tone to this treatise.

The first "fraud" is the use of the euphemistic "market economy" instead of the slightly stained "capitalism" to describe the present economic system. (By the way, Galbraith does not number his frauds. I do it for the sake of keeping them straight in my mind.)

The second is the fact that in the modern corporation, ownership--that is, the stockholders--have little to no authority while the professional managers call all the shots including setting their own compensation (fraud #7). Galbraith attributes this to the fact that corporations have become so vast and complex that the relatively unsophisticated ownership cannot really understand how to run the enterprise and so must yield to management.

Fraud number three is one that interests me a lot. Galbraith writes, "Reference to the market system as a benign alternative to capitalism is a bland, meaningless disguise of the deeper corporate reality--of producer power extending to influence over, even control of, consumer demand." (p. 7) This really is one of the most pressing problems of our time because the corporate power, through its ability to influence and control its legions of employees and the media, also has "influence over, even control of" who runs for office and who is elected in national and state governments. Indeed, in fraud #8 Galbraith notes that "A large, vital and expanding part of what is called the public sector is for all practical effect in the private sector." (p. 34) He specifically identifies the "defense" industry as being largely controlled by defense contractors in the private sector. Elsewhere in the essay, Galbraith refers to "the control of consumer choice and sovereignty" indicating that he understands that the control extends to the electorate. (p. 13)

Fraud number four is the way we hypocritically value "work." For some it is toil and for others it is a pleasure and indeed largely the reason for living, and yet how differently we are compensated, with those who need it least often getting the most in financial reward.

Fraud five refers to the corporate bureaucracy. While corporate people sneer at government agencies as being bureaucratic, large corporations have become just as bloated or even more so. (Chapter V: "The Corporation as Bureaucracy.")

Fraud #6 is the phony celebration of small businesses and family farms in the political rhetoric. Galbraith comments, "For the small retailer, Wal-Mart awaits. For the family farm, there are the massive grain and fruit enterprise and the modern large-scale meat producer." (p. 25)

Fraud #9 (I've mentioned numbers 7 and 8 above) is the fraud of economic predictions. Galbraith observes: "The financial world sustains a large, active, well-rewarded community based on compelled but seemingly sophisticated ignorance" (i.e., stockbrokers, stock analysts and other financial prognosticators). He adds, "...those...who tell of the future financial performance of an industry or firm, given the unpredictable but controlling influence of the larger economy, do not know and normally do not know that they do not know." (p. 40)

Finally there is the quaint fraud of the actions of the Federal Reserve Board, which Galbraith claims have no real effect on the economy.

Again, the blog being used as file cabinet. Sounds like a great book by one of my favorite people and a definite interlibrary loan candidate. A much better book than this snoozer or Joe the Plumber's new book unless he writes a sequel about how the government shouldn't pry into private business per his current lawsuit (dare we hope for a precedent?).

Scientology Celebrity Center Death

2008-11-24T04:25:00.000-08:00

Man attacks Scientology Celebrity Center with swords and is killed. Article says the swordsman had a former relation with Scientology, whatever that means. According to this site Scientology often uses sword symbolism, particularly in association with recruitment and in their elite inner organization called the Sea Organization.

Who Will Eat?

2008-11-24T03:30:00.000-08:00

Rich countries launch great land grab to safeguard food supply

Rich governments and corporations are triggering alarm for the poor as they buy up the rights to millions of hectares of agricultural land in developing countries in an effort to secure their own long-term food supplies.

The head of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, Jacques Diouf, has warned that the controversial rise in land deals could create a form of "neo-colonialism", with poor states producing food for the rich at the expense of their own hungry people.

And in a Multinational Monitor article on the ten worst corporations, author Robert Weissman names Cargill as one of the worst, though I don't understand why he didn't include ADM:

The world's food system is broken. Or, more accurately, the giant food companies and their allies in the U.S. and other rich country governments, and at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, broke it.

Thirty years ago, most developing countries produced enough food to feed themselves [CHECK]. Now, 70 percent are net food importers.

Thirty years ago, most developing countries had in place mechanisms aimed at maintaining a relatively constant price for food commodities. Tariffs on imports protected local farmers from fluctuations in global food prices. Government-run grain purchasing boards paid above-market prices for farm goods when prices were low, and required farmers to sell below-market when prices were high. The idea was to give farmers some certainty over price, and to keep food affordable for consumers. Governments also provided a wide set of support services for farmers, giving them advice on new crop and growing technologies and, in some countries, helping set up cooperative structures.

This was not a perfect system by any means, but it looks pretty good in retrospect.

Over the last three decades, the system was completely abandoned, in country after country. It was replaced by a multinational-dominated, globally integrated food system, in which the World Bank and other institutions coerced countries into opening their markets to cheap food imports from rich countries and re-orienting their agricultural systems to grow food for rich consumers abroad. Proponents said the new system was a "free market" approach, but in reality it traded one set of government interventions for another - a new set of rules that gave enhanced power to a handful of global grain trading companies like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, as well as to seed and fertilizer corporations.

"For this food regime to work," Raj Patel, author of Stuffed and Starved, told the U.S. House Financial Services Committee at a May hearing, "existing marketing boards and support structures needed to be dismantled. In a range of countries, this meant that the state bodies that had been supported and built by the World Bank were dismantled by the World Bank. The rationale behind the dismantling of these institutions was to clear the path for private sector involvement in these sectors, on the understanding that the private sector would be more efficient and less wasteful than the public sector."

"The result of these interventions and conditions," explained Patel, "was to accelerate the decline of developing country agriculture. One of the most striking consequences of liberalization has been the phenomenon of ‘import surges.' These happen when tariffs on cheaper, and often subsidized, agricultural products are lowered, and a host country is then flooded with those goods. There is often a corresponding decline in domestic production. In Senegal, for example, tariff reduction led to an import surge in tomato paste, with a 15-fold increase in imports, and a halving of domestic production. Similar stories might be told of Chile, which saw a three-fold surge in imports of vegetable oil, and a halving of domestic production. In Ghana in 1998, local rice production accounted for over 80 percent of domestic consumption. By 2003, that figure was less than 20 percent."

The decline of developing country agriculture means that developing countries are dependent on the vagaries of the global market. When prices spike - as they did in late 2007 and through the beginning of 2008 - countries and poor consumers are at the mercy of the global market and the giant trading companies that dominate it. In the first quarter of 2008, the price of rice in Asia doubled, and commodity prices overall rose 40 percent. People in rich countries felt this pinch, but the problem was much more severe in the developing world. Not only do consumers in poor countries have less money, they spend a much higher proportion of their household budget on food - often half or more - and they buy much less processed food, so commodity increases affect them much more directly. In poor countries, higher prices don't just pinch, they mean people go hungry. Food riots broke out around the world in early 2008.

But not everyone was feeling pain. For Cargill, spiking prices was an opportunity to get rich. In the second quarter of 2008, the company reported profits of more than $1 billion, with profits from continuing operations soaring 18 percent from the previous year. Cargill's 2007 profits totaled more than $2.3 billion, up more than a third from 2006.

In a competitive market, would a grain-trading middleman make super-profits? Or would rising prices crimp the middleman's profit margin?

Well, the global grain trade is not competitive.

In an August speech, Cargill CEO Greg Page posed the question, "So, isn't Cargill exploiting the food situation to make money?" Here is how he responded:

"I would give you four pieces of information about why our earnings have gone up dramatically.

1. The demand for food has gone up. The demand for our facilities has gone up, and we are running virtually all of our facilities worldwide at total capacity. As we utilize our capacity more effectively, clearly we do better.
2. Fertilizer prices rose, and we are owners of a large fertilizer company. That has been the single largest factor in Cargill's earnings.
3. The volatility in the grain industry - much of it created by governments - was an opportunity for a trading company like Cargill to make money.
4. Finally, in this era of high prices, Cargill over the last two years has invested $15.5 billion additional dollars into the world food system. Some was to carry all these high-priced inventories. We also wanted to be sure that we were there for farmers who needed the working capital to operate in this much more expensive environment. Clearly, our owners expected some return on that $15.5 billion. Cargill had an opportunity to make more money in this environment, and I think that is something that we need to be very forthright about."

OK, Mr. Page, that's all very interesting. The question was, "So, isn't Cargill exploiting the food situation to make money?" It sounds like your answer is, "yes."

The Government You Deserve?

2008-11-24T03:09:00.000-08:00

CIA and Drugs

Interesting

2008-11-22T04:11:00.000-08:00

Nader Put Back on the Shelf

2008-11-20T08:28:00.000-08:00

I am afraid everything he ever said will still be true 4 years from now. Going back to my old name until the next round of lies and promises.

Lame Duck Follies

2008-11-18T06:12:00.000-08:00

Administration Protects Bush Appointees by Converting Positions to Career Civil Service Jobs - washingtonpost.com

The transfer of political appointees into permanent federal positions, called "burrowing" by career officials, creates security for those employees, and at least initially will deprive the incoming Obama administration of the chance to install its preferred appointees in some key jobs.

Back from the grave to see everything is still the same

2008-11-18T04:40:00.000-08:00

Bail Out GM?

2008-11-17T12:33:00.000-08:00

GM Must Re-Make the Mass Transit System it Murdered

By Harvey Wasserman

In a 1922 memo that will live in infamy, GM President Alfred P. Sloan established a unit aimed at dumping electrified mass transit in favor of gas-burning cars, trucks and buses.

Just one American family in 10 then owned an automobile. Instead, we loved our 44,000 miles of passenger rail routes managed by 1,200 companies employing 300,000 Americans who ran 15 billion annual trips generating an income of $1 billion. According to Snell, “virtually every city and town in America of more than 2,500 people had its own electric rail system.”

But GM lost $65 million in 1921. So Sloan enlisted Standard Oil (now Exxon), Philips Petroleum, glass and rubber companies and an army of financiers and politicians to kill mass transit.

FDR forced Detroit to manufacture the tanks, planes and guns that won World War 2 (try buying a 1944 Chevrolet!). Now let a reinvented GM make the “weapons” to win the climate war and energy independence.

It demands re-tooling and re-training. But GM’s special role in history must now evolve into using its infrastructure to restore the mass transit system—and ecological balance—it has helped destroy.

The Israeli Mob Recycles

2008-11-17T08:30:00.000-08:00

Bottle recycling adds up to a $5 million-a-year industry, according to estimates by police and environmental groups. Police say criminals sell restaurants protection in exchange for empties, which leave no paper trail and offer crime families a relatively legitimate source of income.

Israeli mob boss killed in car bombing

Roy Zimmerman

2008-11-17T06:16:00.001-08:00

News Roundup

2008-11-17T03:05:00.000-08:00

Obama election spurs race crimes around country

"The principle is very simple," said BJ Gallagher, a sociologist and co-author of the diversity book "A Peacock in the Land of Penguins." "If I can't hurt the person I'm angry at, then I'll vent my anger on a substitute, i.e., someone of the same race."

Hollywood out of step with American morals: poll

Sixty-one percent of those surveyed said that religious values in America are "under attack," and 59% agreed that "the people who run the TV networks and the major movie studios do not share the religious and moral values of most Americans."

Money is the motive. Hollywood makes movies that they hope will make money and many genres are guaranteed like slashers while documentaries seldom pay. Religions that inflame fear and loathing and claim persecution make more money than those teaching peace and love. Same motives, different venues.

Meh

2008-11-17T02:23:00.000-08:00

'Meh': Apathetic expression enters dictionary

"Meh" was selected by Collins after it asked people to submit words they use in conversation that are not in the dictionary. Other suggestions included jargonaut, a fan of jargon; frenemy, an enemy disguised as a friend; and huggles, a hybrid of hugs and snuggles.

Jargonaut gets my vote, who hasn't been a victim of these bullshitters. Frenemy is a great, useful word; although I wish there was one for disloyal family but maybe that is too rare to need a special word; "huggles" is stupid like "humungous" and I hope it disappears. "Meh" is annoying, but "whatever" is more irksome, so I will stick with it.

If You Have the Stomach for It

2008-11-16T11:02:00.000-08:00

Torturing Democracy.

"Don't worry I can get you a job as a dog groomer"

2008-11-13T10:02:00.000-08:00