Immigration and Customs Enforcement Puts 104 in Custody on Actual Ice

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Puts 104 in Custody on Actual Ice, originally uploaded by thepetecom.

Not too much to say that this screencap doesn't already say (source ). Since the creation of the INS, over a hundred people in ICE custody have died--10 of which were only exposed thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request. That's a little bit like the old "you never asked!" joke.

Regardless, people who may not even have been guilty of anything at all died in custody and no one seems all that concerned.

Just thought I'd mention it since illegal immigrants probably don't deserve to die just because they broke an immigration law or two.

Just sayin'.

700,000km Wad of Trash Floating in the Pacific Ocean

700,000km Wad of Trash Floating in the Pacific Ocean, originally uploaded by thepetecom.

This shouldn't be too surprising, but the lack of surprise doesn't make up for the lameness of its existence. Yep, it's a giant floating wad of refuse the various Pacific ocean currents have picked up and gathered toward the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The Wikipedia entry for the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" explains that "The patch is characterized by exceptionally high concentrations of suspended plastic and other debris that have been trapped by the currents of the North Pacific Gyre."

It goes on: "It has been estimated that 80% of the garbage comes from land-based sources, and 20% from ships at sea. Pollutants range in size from abandoned fishing nets to micro-pellets used in abrasive cleaners. Currents carry debris from the west coast of North America to the gyre in about five years, and debris from the east coast of Asia in a year or less. An international project led by Dr. Hideshige Takada of Tokyo University studying plastic pellets, or nurdles, from beaches around the world may provide further clues about the origins of pelagic plastic, including that of the Pacific garbage patch."

OH and here's what Wikipedia says the wad does to wildlife: "Many of these long-lasting plastics end up in the stomachs of marine birds and animals, including sea turtles, and the Black-footed Albatross. Besides the particles' danger to wildlife, the floating debris can absorb organic pollutants from seawater, including PCBs, DDT, and PAHs. Aside from toxic effects, when ingested, some of these are mistaken by the endocrine system as estradiol, causing hormone disruption in the affected animal. Marine plastics also facilitate the spread of invasive species that attach to floating plastic in one region and drift long distances to colonize other ecosystems."

The Wikipedia article also mentions that the debris field is: "estimated to be twice the size of Texas."

Isn't that great? It's a giant floating garbage pile bigger than the biggest state in the union (assuming two-Texases > Alaska). I'm pretty sure there isn't a person alive who wouldn't find this fact pretty disappointing. Luckily, there are a few people looking into whether or not it can be cleaned up, but the fact that this has happened at all is pretty sad.

Thanks be to @Blogdrop who posted about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch" on his Posterous blog, blogdrop.posterous.com. You should go subscribe to it--it's got a lot of great stuff--art, politics, current events, environmental stuff, too.

Oh the Hypocritical Lies: Death Panels have been around for years...

Oh the Hypocritical Lies: Death Panels have been around for years..., originally uploaded by thepetecom.

UNBELIEVABLE.

This is what I'm calling the voices against health care reform.

These people are either the biggest idiots or the biggest liars (with Sarah Palin, it's very hard to tell).

So, Palin and others are "scared" there will be these government death panels deciding who lives and who dies based on how sick you are. What a crock. Companies have had this power for years now. Salon.com recently did a piece called "The 'death panels' are already here." The Salon piece mentions the case of Nataline Sarkisyan, who died in 2007 after insurance company Cigna dragged their feet because they decided a liver transplant wouldn't save her life (she later died without the transplant).

Sounds pretty death-panelrific to me, but I remembered a case from further back--after about 30 seconds of Googling I found an excerpt on Michael Moore's YouTube page from his old series The Awful Truth where he explored the case of Christopher Donahue, a man who's insurance company, Humana, was refusing to pay for the pancreas transplant he needed to survive. Michael Moore held a funeral for Donahue outside of Humana's headquarters, which Donahue, himself, attended. Before long, Humana caved and paid for the transplant, but as we saw years later with Nataline Sarkisyan, not all companies are as "generous" as Humana.

So, the next time you hear someone praise the free market for all things, think about this kind of situation.

If we truly believe all humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, doesn't the "right to life" mean we have to make sure everyone can get health care? And if companies are going to put their "right" to make as much money above our right to life, doesn't that mean that these corporations are anti-American and, really, anti-human? Pretty bizarre that they're in the "business" of providing health care insurance when they look to ways to avoid doing just that.

So, UNBELIEVABLE, once again, that these idiots or assholes honestly think the government would institute death panels when they've existed for over a decade. That's right--the Michael Moore show, The Awful Truth episode I described above was aired in 1999.

We've had death panels since last century--thanks, Sarah Palin (and others), for finally getting around to noticing just now.

#BBCNewsFAIL: Why Capitalism and News Gathering Often Should Not Mix

#BBCNewsFAIL: Why Capitalism and News Gathering Often Should Not Mix, originally uploaded by thepetecom.

OK, we all know how companies need to make money to survive, but, most of the time, I feel like commercialism has no place in news-gathering. The screencap above (original here) is a perfect example.

There's nothing quite like an advertisement for life insurance right next to a story about someone who got killed.

It all reminds me of the web piece I put together shortly after 911: thepete.com/thespecialpages/disgustingpeople/

Today or eight years ago, money spent on advertising next to coverage of death and destruction seems to be money very poorly spent. In fact, I'd say it's damaging to both the news source and the sponsor to do it this way.

The Virgin Megastore in Times Square has Shut Down

The Virgin Megastore in Times Square has Shut Down, originally uploaded by thepetecom.

Guess we haven't hit bottom yet!

Apple Inc. Thinks My Mom Wants an iPod Touch for Mother's Day

Apple Inc. Thinks My Mom Wants an iPod Touch for Mother's Day, originally uploaded by thepetecom.

This from the morons who thought "cut and paste" wasn't anything people wanted on an iPhone.

Tee-hee! This is where marketers are really starting to piss me off.

"Let's try to convince EVERYONE that they need to buy our stuff--even people who would NEVER buy it!! Who cares if we waste a bucket-load of money and alienate customers who actually WOULD buy our stuff!! WE MUST BRAINWASH MORE PEOPLE TO BUY OUR CRAP!"

It must be tough believing your own line of bullcrap.

Well, my mom doesn't own an iPod now and she seems pretty confident that she doesn't want an iPod ever. She wants a Kindle long before she'll go for an iPod, so, all Apple has managed to do with their recent email to me is piss me off and make me hate them more.

IT'S A RECESSION DICKWEEDS, MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRY TELLING US HOW YOUR STUFF IS CHEAP.

Hell, it's really a depression, in which case, it's downright immoral to be trying to convince people to buy an iPod for Mom rather than, you know FEED themselves.

But hey "they've got to make a living, right?"

Sure! And that's much more important than me EATING.

Sorry, Mom! No iPod for you this Mother's Day. I hope you'll forgive me!

Yes, I am a Mac person, but I prefer to stay loyal to my soul rather than some stupid company, thanks.

All of Your Paranoia about Government and Corporations is Accurate (and then some)

Above: money doesn't make the world go 'round--but it does keep the system moving.

Yeah, pretty sad when things in the real world happen like they would in a novel--you know when the people you trust betray you in a way you would never have expected? Let me get more specific.

Remember that thing called "government" that's supposed to protect your rights and help organize society in a way that allows humanity to have an easier, more enjoyable time?

How about corporations? Remember them? They're the groups of smaller businesses that team up to help better provide for the communities they exist in.

Well, that's the way both were originally supposed to work, anyway. Alas, they've supplanted those wonderful ideals with concerns only for themselves. Corporations have the same rights as we individuals and, while they can't vote, politicians make sure big businesses are more than equally represented in government.

Capitalism is dead and probably has been for years--it's only recently that we've discovered its body. See, Capitalism too, has been supplanted by the system of Corruptionism.

The basic idea is that our leaders (both political and corporate) tell us that they care about all humans, our rights, the environment and our morals, but all they really care about is taking from us and giving to themselves. We give our money to corporations in exchange for products and services we don't need (but are literally brainwashed to believe are necessary) and the corporations take that money and pay off politicians to make laws that make it easier for corporations to make even more money off of us.

Politicians are corrupt because they take money for favors. We are corrupt because our money comes from corporations that we then use for things we don't bother realizing we don't need. Corporations are corrupt because the people who run the corporations take money, ignore their own morals, and keep the corporate interests going.

Everyone is corrupt in this system.

Maybe the Corruptionist system (like most systems) can actually function to make life easier for us. However, take it to the extreme and we get what we have now.

Last month Matt Taibbi wrote an amazingly in-depth piece that you can find at RollingStone.com that covers the bail-out, the AIG mess, corrupt politicians and most importantly how this whole thing has functioned as a non-violent coup meant to wrest control of government (and therefore us) from our elected leaders. Of course, I'd suggest that our elected officials haven't had any substantive power for years. Regardless, the reality seems to be that now they don't. Here's a bit from Taibbi's article:

People are pissed off about this financial crisis, and about this bailout, but they're not pissed off enough. The reality is that the worldwide economic meltdown and the bailout that followed were together a kind of revolution, a coup d'état. They cemented and formalized a political trend that has been snowballing for decades: the gradual takeover of the government by a small class of connected insiders, who used money to control elections, buy influence and systematically weaken financial regulations.

The crisis was the coup de grâce: Given virtually free rein over the economy, these same insiders first wrecked the financial world, then cunningly granted themselves nearly unlimited emergency powers to clean up their own mess. And so the gambling-addict leaders of companies like AIG end up not penniless and in jail, but with an Alien-style death grip on the Treasury and the Federal Reserve — "our partners in the government," as Liddy put it with a shockingly casual matter-of-factness after the most recent bailout.

The mistake most people make in looking at the financial crisis is thinking of it in terms of money, a habit that might lead you to look at the unfolding mess as a huge bonus-killing downer for the Wall Street class. But if you look at it in purely Machiavellian terms, what you see is a colossal power grab that threatens to turn the federal government into a kind of giant Enron — a huge, impenetrable black box filled with self-dealing insiders whose scheme is the securing of individual profits at the expense of an ocean of unwitting involuntary shareholders, previously known as taxpayers.

That article has been sitting in a tab in Firefox since last month and is so incredibly long I still haven't finished reading the whole thing. It's a pretty good read, so far, though.

As much as I'd like to be wrong about this, the moral of the story seems to be that, ultimately, every ounce of stereotypical paranoia any of us have had about politicians and businessmen being liars has been accurate.

Politicians and businessmen are all lying--all the time. They may not even be aware of their own dishonesty, but the reality sure seems to be that eventually, any corporation and every politician will sacrifice what ever it/he/she needs to in order to make as much money as it/he/she can.

Click here to see visit my Disgusting People (Magazine) page which I set up just days after 911.

One good example of this is when People Magazine put out their 911 Memorial Issue, just a few days after 911. They ran ads opposite pictures of the disaster. My "favorite" was a picture of a man on his knees, mouth agape, seemingly staring across the gap between the page his picture was on and the page facing him which featured an ad for State Farm life insurance.

I emailed the editor and complained. She replied with a bunch of rationalizations and apologized only for my offense. Members of an email list I was subscribed to at the time seemed nonplussed by my offense at People Magazine's behavior.

"They have to make a living don't they?" said one person on the list.

Here we are 8 years later and things have only gotten worse. We're all just fodder for the machine of Corruptionism--we seem generally OK with that and so do our political leaders. So much so that, morals are put aside in favor of bringing in the cash so we can buy our iPods, pay our bills, and feed our kids. Our government takes our money (both directly through taxes and indirectly by having the Fed inject new cash into the system) and gives it to these corporations to keep them going and to quite literally reward them for their horrible behavior.

Just keep doing what you're doing, the government seems to be saying.

But "corruption" is the right word for it, isn't it?

Naomi Klein on Corporate Opportunism

Photo Credit: Mariusz Kubik

Wandering the vast Internetz over the today I came across a post on DeusExMalcontent.com from last year referencing a couple articles I missed from Naomi Klein.

Naomi Klein, in case you've not heard of her, is a Canadian journalist who covers things decidedly unpopular to the establishment. Now, I'm sure most people would think of her as a "left wing" reporter, but I see her work as more anti-both sides of the political spectrum. She tends to slam both parties after all--the Republicans for their blind support of businesses and banks, and the Democrats for their lack of spine.

The first article the Deus Ex Malcontent blog points to is a Harpers.Org article from September of 2004. It's all about the US Iraq Attack and how it was never about WMD or Iraqi Freedom or even about the oil. It's really about creating a blank slate by clearing the playing field, both literally and mentally.

Buy it!

This article seems to have been the basis for Klein's latest book The Shock Doctrine which compares the very frightening practice of shock treatment therapy to the way the military and big business seem to work in concert to remake a people into good little capitalists. The idea is that shock treatment regresses a single person back to near-infancy (as the theory goes) so that a new personality can be grown on a blank slate. The Shock Doctrine, Klein argues is the same process but on groups of people.

In the case of Iraq, the entire country is bombed into psychosis so that the survivors will be willing to accept any kind of (capitalist) society so long as it doesn't include the shit being bombed out of them.

The other article the Deus Ex Malcontent blog post points to is a piece by Klein on how the Beijing Olympics were just a huge advertisement for the efficiency of government oppression in creating the perfect little free market capitalist society. In the article, Klein explains:

These Olympics are the coming out party for a disturbingly efficient way of organizing society, one that China has perfected over the past three decades, and is finally ready to show off. It is a potent hybrid of the most powerful political tools of authoritarianism communism -- central planning, merciless repression, constant surveillance -- harnessed to advance the goals of global capitalism. Some call it "authoritarian capitalism," others "market Stalinism," personally I prefer "McCommunism."

While I respect Naomi Klein, I find the word "McCommunism" a bit too glib, especially since the word communism stops meaning anything once people are told to buy and sell things that aren't theirs in the first place. The idea behind communism (I thought) is that the state/people own everything right? But this isn't anything vaguely communistic.

I'm thinking it's more a "Corruptionist" society.

Let's think about it for a sec:

In China, corporations buy their way into markets, essentially bribing the Chinese government to make foreign investment easier. If government wants the big businesses to function in their towns, cities and country, they'll do what big business needs them to do. Anything to get the money flowing.

HEY! That's just like America!

I guess that makes the US a Corruptionist society, too, huh?

Posted via email from thepete's posterous

Economic Crash Now Directly Risking Human Lives

I first found this Salon article through a posting at DisInfo.com a great Digg alternative for folks who like to think for themselves but still like to see what sites/articles other, like-minded, folks are checking out. The Salon.com article in question is entitled "Is a shortage of patients hurting hospitals?.

The headline alone turned me off to reading the rest of the article, though--the DisInfo post points out: "Hospitals, doctors, and dentists are of late experiencing a shortfall of patients, as people who have been laid off lose their insurance (and thus the ability to pay for treatment)"

So, this is where the rubber hits the road--the private health care industry, that forces all Americans to pay for health care is now too expensive for a growing number of Americans to pay for.

The economic downturn is now putting a tremendous number of human lives at risk.

And it's all in the name of making a profit, making a living, keeping businesses alive.

So, now businesses are more important than the lives of average Americans.

THIS is where our wonderful system has taken us.

Maybe now we can agree that capitalism unbridled is a bad idea.

Maybe now we can agree that the free market in all corners, unregulated, is a bad idea.

Perhaps, at this point, we can move toward universal health care for everyone since so many more of us now, thanks to the mistakes/insane greed on Wall Street and in Washington DC, can't afford a doctor's visit.

I don't see any other way to cut this one.

You can't blame all the people who got laid off during this economic crash for getting laid off.

Free health care MUST happen now.

If only our politicians would realize this.

Boycott Kellogg's for Poisoning Us, Not for Ditching Phelps

Thomas Hawk suggests on his blog that we boycott Kellogg's cereals because they dropped Michael Phelps as a spokesperson for Corn Flakes cereal.  As we all have heard, the polygoldmedallic Olympic athlete was caught on camera sucking on a bong (you suck on bongs, right? I don't do that stuff so I've no idea).  Now, I'm absolutely, positively ALL for a boycott of Kellogg's cereals.  But not for the reason Hawk seems to be putting forth.

Now, while I agree that marijuana should be legal, it's still bad for you as smoking anything is.  Pot may have some benefits, but it's still smoking and smoking is bad for you.  Hell, I think we should boycott Michael Phelps for being an idiot and doing things to his body an athlete shouldn't do.  I mean, come on--a guy who swims doing something that could impact his capacity to breathe well??

What a fracking moron.

But I don't think we should bail on boycotting Kellogg's.  Remember, I said I am all for avoiding their cereals--the question is why.

The image attached to this post gives it away.  We're all led to believe by the Kellogg's Company that Corn Flakes is a tasty, reasonably healthy cereal.  Hell, it's got a polygoldmedallic Olympic swimmer on the box!  How could it not be healthy?  But check out the ingredients:

MILLED CORN, SUGAR, MALT FLAVORING, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, SALT, IRON, NIACINAMIDE, SODIUM ASCORBATE AND ASCORBIC ACID (VITAMIN C), PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE (VITAMIN B6), RIBOFLAVIN (VITAMIN B2), THIAMIN HYDROCHLORIDE (VITAMIN B1), VITAMIN A PALMITATE, FOLIC ACID, VITAMIN B12, AND VITAMIN D.

Sure, it's got STACKS of vitamins in it, but its second and fourth-most plentiful substances are refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup.  Those two things are actually quite bad for you.  Refined sugar leaches vitamins from your system and messes with your adrenal glands.  HFCS has been linked to the rise of obesity in the US.

THIS is why we should boycott Kellogg's cereal.  Not because of some stupid marketing choice but because they put things harmful to our bodies in cereals that are supposed to be "part of this nutritious breakfast."

And kids, don't smoke.  It's just bad for you.

Posted via email from thepete's posterous

Forgot to include a link to the original ingredients on Kellogg's own website: http://www2.kelloggs.com/Product/ProductDetail.aspx?product=449

Chicago Factory Worker Occupation Shows What Happens When the System Fails (We All Fail)

OK, so here's how I was told it was supposed to all work growing up:

1) You go to college
2) You get a good job (because you went to college)
3) Your boss pays you because he makes money in the business you both work at.

The reality in 2008:
1) college is becoming much too expensive for the majority of Americans to afford
2) no one is hiring because no one is making any money because no one is buying because no one is making any money etc, etc...
3) Your boss lays you off because most of point 2 applies to him AND in the case of one Chicago factory, he doesn't even pay you

See, here's what's going on right now in a factory in Chicago according to an article at ChicagoTribune.com:

Workers laid off from their jobs at a factory have occupied the building and are demanding assurances they'll get severance and vacation pay that they say they are owed.

About 200 employees of Republic Windows and Doors began their sit-in Friday, the last scheduled day of the plant's operation. On Saturday, about 50 workers could be seen through a window sitting on chairs and pallets on the factory floor. Reporters were asked to stay out of the plant's work area.

If you have a Digg.com account, please Digg this important labor rights story

See, the company that owns the factory isn't making much money these days thanks to no one spending any money thanks to them not making any money these days.  Sorry, you know this bit.

But remember a few months back when King George talked about our entire economy being in danger? He also made the point in that speech that "every day lending" had to continue. This suggests that loans are something businesses take out all the time just to keep the gears of capitalism lubricated.

This suggests that without said loans, most businesses would fall apart.

Whose idea was a system that had to perform like a shark? If it stops moving, it dies.

The problem is, that because we're all relying on this system, we all suffer.

So, banks fail, and can't give every day loans to businesses that rely on those loans to pay employees. Employees then can't eat or pay their bills or their mortgages and so they go hungry and homeless. Then, the banks don't get paid back and they can't give loans and they can't loan to businesses and--sorry, again, you know this bit...

Yeah, good plan, assholes. Does anyone else see the circle-jerk-cum-downward-spiral there?

And just why should businesses need every day loans to pay their employees?

Shouldn't their employee's pay come from what the company makes? And if they can't make money why are banks giving loans to them?

This whole system sounds completely screwed up and I've lost even more faith in American political, business and financial leaders for supporting this thing. As a fiction writer I couldn't get away with a premise like this one.

You know the old saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link? What happens when all the links are weak? The chain morphs into another cliched metaphor--the house of cards. This was just a matter of time, folks. The signs of our failing economy were all around us, too. I've been blogging for years about various canaries in the mineshaft. I wrote a post a year-and-a-half ago about how Tower Records closing down was a sure sign our economy was in decline, like it or not.

As a former fanboy I watched my most prized scifi toys sell for a fraction of what they should have gone for. As an inhabitant of a major American city, I saw a number of local businesses close and get replaced by chains like Starbucks or Blockbuster (even if they weren't coffee shops or video stores in the first place). Another canary is that our currency isn't based on any thing real--no gold standard, no silver standard, just the credit of Americans as being able to produce goods and services.

Of course, America just lost over a half-million jobs last month, so you can imagine how much that hurts the value of our dollar.  Less jobs means less ability for the American people to produce goods and services which means less value for our dollar. That, in turn, weakens our economy even more.

You know what this all is?  It's a series of dominoes falling in very slow motion.

These dominoes are still falling. Can the Obama administration stop them?

Posted via email from thepete's posterous

Diamonds are for Terror: My Favorite Part About the Yes Men Parody of the New York Times

So, you have probably heard of that parody version of the New York Times the infamous Yes Men gave out recently in Times Square (of all places).  Well, they went full tilt and put up a website for it, too: http://www.nytimes-se.com/

If you're not aware, the Yes Men are high-end pranksters that don't just play dumb jokes on people, they play jokes on entire corporations.  Democracy Now's Amy Goodman reported on the Yes Men's NYT parody last week, explaining that "One previous prank had a Yes Men member posing as a Dow Chemical
spokesperson to announce responsibility for the Bhopal chemical
disaster, forcing the company to remind the world it had done anything
but."

Whoops!

Obviously, I dig these guys.  They've got a movie and a book that goes into more detail regarding their activities, so I'll stick to the depressing stuff.


While their humor is pretty much brilliant (and a little dry--they way I like it), one of the sharper jabs I'm sure got missed by most folks checking out the http://www.nytimes-se.com/ was the ad for De Beers diamonds.  This was great--it promised that "Your purchase of a diamond will enable us to donate a prosthetic for an African whose hand was lost in the diamond conflicts.  De Beers. From her fingers to his."

Zowee.  See, what corporations do (this is true of other corps, not just De Beers) is go into 3rd world nations and effectively bribe the governments into letting them take most of a particular resource and most of the profits made from that resource, as well.  The people of the country see little or no change in their standard of living and in the case of the the diamond conflict, were caught in the middle.  Rebels rose up against governments and tried to convince locals to work with them, not the government.  According to Amnesty International, Sierra Leone's Revolutionary United Front's "signature tactic was amputation of civilians: Over the course
of the decade-long war, the rebels have mutilated some 20,000 people,
hacking off their arms, legs, lips, and ears with machetes and axes."

AA also reports: "People had their hands chopped off by RUF units and were sent wandering hopelessly to spread the message of terror."

Weee!  God damn!  Is greed a horrible thing, or what?  Those rebels may have represented the interest of the people in wanting their piece of the diamond pie (like Alaskans get of the Alaskan oil pie) but the RUF and all others in positions of power took things way too far.  You may feel the urge to suggest that De Beers has "got the right to make a living" but can you say that when other people are dying for that living?  Or are being horribly mutilated?

The selling of high end gems taken from mines in countries where poverty is rampant is unfair, cruel and just plain shitty.

When are we going to start talking about greed being reeeeally bad?  When is De Beers going to start talking about making up for their greed?

Well, thanks to the Yes Men, they might just have an opportunity to be guilted into doing it right now.

Don't buy diamonds.  They're pretty, but pricey in more ways than you probably want to consider.

Posted by email from thepete's posterous

CNN, Chevron & McCain, OH MY!

Saw this on my iPhone tonight and couldn't help but think "Wow, CNN brings us a pro-McCain headline sponsored by Chevron. Taste that irony!"

Seriously, even Fox News is admitting that Obama won this final debate and CNN.com says "McCain puts Obama on the spot."

Was Chevron that specfic when they bought the ad space?

Drill, baby, drill, indeed.
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

George W. Bush Solves Economic Crisis by Snapping Fingers!

This is a totally useless observation, but I noticed tonight while looking at the pic of Bush delivering his historic "we're screwed" speech to the nation a little black spot under his jaw. Can you see it? WTH is that? Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.   Replies.

Ugh, so here is a fun one--George W. Bush trying to convince us all that he's right about something else that has gone to shit under his watch.

Seriously, everything this man touches turns to fine smelling feces. I challenge anyone to name something he's gotten right. I mean, do we really need me to go through this transcript to know that Bush will distort the facts, deceive us and dodge responsibility? Well, I'm a glutton for punishment (it comes from watching every episode of MST3K several times over), so here we go!

The below transcript of Bush's historic "We're Screwed" speech comes from JPGardners' Donkelphant.com and remember, Bush's comments will be in italics while mine will be factually accurate and not in italics.

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening.

Oh, Al Gore was there? :P (Get it? It says "THE PRESIDENT". YES I'm still bitter god damn it!!)

This is an extraordinary period for America’s economy.

THIS GUY IS SHARP, BOY! What's next? An observation that touching open flames cause pain??

Over the past few weeks, many Americans have felt anxiety about their finances and their future.

"Few weeks"?!?!?!

Try "few years" idiot. I've been blogging about the value of the dollar dropping for three years, possibly more.

It's really hard not to use the word "retard" in connection with this fool, but I don't want to insult anyone who is actually mentally handicapped.

I understand their worry and their frustration.

Ah, so you're not frustrated? Why should you be? You're wearing a beautiful new golden suit spun with gold so fine that you can't see it, you tremendous feeb.

Sorry, I know it's not mature to call people names, but this fucker won't go away! He's committed crimes, failed to protect Americans from terrorists and killer storms, bungled two wars almost simultaneously and now he's managed to oversee one of the biggest economic failures America has seen since the Great Depression.

Ah, good stuff! o_O

Can We All Agree that Any Extreme is Bad?

This is just a quick post because the thought occurred to me while considering the blatant hypocrisy of the Federal Reserve and the USG bailing out/taking over banks.

See, we need banks in order for our monetary system to function. Without them we'd all be carrying too much cash or we'd make our homes a magnet for home robberies. Banks also allow for a much smoother and faster (believe it or not) transfer of money from one person or corporation to another.

Sure, they also allow for quite a bit of money laundering (read: crime) but there's essentially no modern tool of society that can't be repurposed for corruption and greed. The point is, we need the banks.

So, the USG and The Federal Reserve effectively nationalizes a bunch of them. Now the Fed is not really part of the government--the USG pretends to oversee it but really, the Fed chairmen over the years have been so good at obfuscation that I blame no politician for not wanting to exert force over these guys. Of course, I DO blame politicians for not doing it despite not wanting to--but I'm getting off-topic.

OK, so here the USG/Fed are, taking over banks--essentially owning said banks. So, now our tax dollars (and any investments in the Fed) make each of us (and investors in the Fed) partial owners of these banks. You know what this looks like, right?

Communism.

Or even Socialism.

Or both!

So, isn't this completely hypocritical of a government whose excuse for not nationalizing health care is that government-run health care would be too much like socialism?

Doesn't this make the government completely full of shit when it gives us any reasons for anything (especially after losing all credibility in stating facts about "enemy" countries)?

Let's also consider how nationalized health care benefits would help hundreds of thousands of people--possibly millions of people--who don't have health care insurance (like yours truly).

Yes, banks are important, too.

But which is more important to prop up?

1) America's financial health
2) Americans' actual health

I say both. Instead, we worry about "isms" and assume that they're all bad except for the one the rich folks practice: Capitalism.

The catch is, that we can see that no regulation on banks has gotten themselves into this predicament. Our economy is failing and some people are calling for even LESS regulation. It's unchecked greed that caused this problem.

Surely, as with complete socialism, you can see that complete capitalism is also dangerous. Leaving everything to the "free market" means greed and power can rule all things.

Only a just set of regulations can keep the power-brokers from abusing their power.

This is especially obvious when you consider that sometimes socialism is OK. The USG/Fed and the rich folks of America are happy to see the banks be bailed out. Meanwhile, I would like to see health care be free for all Americans.

So, once you realize that in some cases socialism is OK, why do so many people insist that we stick to one "ism"? Surely, ANY extreme is bad--so why not regulate socialism AND capitalism and any other "ism" that will help America and the American people be stronger?

Why is Muslim extremism bad and Christian extremism not?

Why was Soviet extremism bad and American extremism not?

Why is Socialism bad, except when it helps the rich?

How can you say your way is better or best and assume that other folks who say the same thing about their own way are wrong?

What if you're both right and in some ways bits of all ways just might be the best way of all?

Wal-Mart Hates America (but loves your money!)

I grabbed this screencap a couple days ago from WSJ.com, though the article was originally posted on August 1, 2008 (here: http://online.wsj.com/…03381.html ). It's all about how Wal-Mart is concerned about a Democratic win in November. They're worried that laws might be passed that would make forming unions easier.

Has Obama even said anything about unions or Wal-Mart? I'm pretty sure he'll be in the same boat as McCain and any other politician in the back pocket of TheBigBusiness. They'll say unions are good, but won't do anything to help them.

Personally, this isn't even why I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart. I saw the documentary "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices" where they make the claim that the family behind the mega-chain has their own nuclear fallout bunker.

To date I haven't found anything that denies the existence of this bunker.

So, if the anti-union stance isn't enough and the insanely low prices guaranteed by exploited workers in foreign countries don't stop you from shopping at Wal-Mart, how about the thought that Wal-Mart will build a nuclear-proof bunker for themselves, but won't mobilize their billions of dollars on protesting the existence of nuclear weapons?

They'll take your money but when the shit comes down, they don't give a crap about anyone but themselves (their low prices at the cost of exploited workers should prove this already to you).

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz.  Replies.

Nate Ritter: How to Beat Time-Warner Hi-Jacking

On Monday, I blogged (here: http://thepete.com/…y-internet ) about how Time-Warner Cable (aka "Road Runner") was hi-jacking (high-jacking?) web searches. Essentially, if you type in an incomplete on incorrect URL each browser is supposed to do what you want in that situation. In the case of Firefox (the only browser I use), I believe, it defaults to using google to make a best guess as to what you were aiming for. T-W recently started usurping this feature and instead funnels you to an advertising-rich page (seen at the above-linked, uh, link). Internet savior Nate Ritter has come up with a solution.

Here's what he says in a recent post on his site (here: http://blog.perfectspace.com/…erception/ ):

I really hate their page. It honestly sucks.

So, I turned it off. I disabled it.

If you have the same issue and don't like it, you can disable that setting too. Here's how. Go to http://ww23.rr.com/prefs.php and choose "Disable" for the option labeled "Web Address Error Redirect Service: This preference allows you to opt in or out of Road Runner's non-existing domain landing service." Then click the "Save" button.

I did it and it worked for me. Have a look at the screencap above to see what the page looks like.

Be sure to swing by Nate's blog if you have a mo' and any interest in "community, entrepreneurship and business strategy". He's a great guy--during the San Diego fires last year he live-Twittered the entire experience. I found his Twitterstream infinitely more informative (and engrossing) than the news I would get from CNN or any other mainstream news source. Follow his Twitters here: http://twitter.com/nateritter
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz.  Replies.

Time-Warner Cable Hi-Jacking My Internet

So, one of the cool geeky things about using Firefox as a browser (as a scifi fan) is that if you want to get to the official website of Doctor Who, you just type in "dr" into the URL field and hit return. Doing that usually sends me right to http://bbc.co.uk/doctorwho

Well, tonight I tried it because I wanted to find out if they had announced the air dates in the UK for the new series of the show only to discover that Road Runner Internet (the official name for Time-Warner Cable) had cut me off at the pass and shoved a bunch of ads in my face instead of giving me what I wanted. See the above screencap to see what I saw.

So, we pay for cable TV and get programming with commercials. We pay for cable broadband and we get Internet... with commercials.

Does anyone else think this might be getting a little out of hand?
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz.  Replies.

UPDATED: http://thepete.com/nate-ritter-how-to-beat-time-warner-hi-jacking

Is America Getting Copyright/Patent Crazy?

The above screencap comes from a TUAW.com post (here: http://www.tuaw.com/…ion-cards/ ) on a lawsuit being brought against Apple Inc for violating a patent on "retail point of sale for online merchandising"--aka gift cards you buy in a store and redeem online. This is a seriously absurd idea to me--does someone own a patent on gift cards you buy in a store and use in a store? Does someone own a patent on buying things with a credit card? How can you patent a concept so common and logical that you'd expect that it's just a natural part of evolving commerce?

A few weeks back, I posted the first part of my vlog series on waiting for my XO laptop to show up (see it here: http://tv.thepete.com/…-day-4-pt1 ). I posted it to Revver who, at first, rejected it because it contained footage of me on hold. What's that got to do with anything? Well, the hold music was copyrighted. They didn't want to get sued if the copyright-holder of the crappy music got mad. Of course, my video is a documentary, technically, so the music was part of the event I was documenting--so, it falls under fair-use. Still, it was enough for Revver to be paranoid. After telling them to send any interested lawyers my way, they let the video get posted.

Then, while shooting another Vlog entry just a few weeks later, I wondered if my footage of Hollywood Boulevard would get my vlog entry rejected from Revver because of all the copyrighted logos I was capturing outside the Hillary/Obama debate that night. The vlog post didn't get rejected and you can see it here: http://tv.thepete.com/…and-barack

Still, it made me think about one of my favorite shows on TV--"Mythbusters" and how every time they have a brand name logo on a T-shirt, bucket or anywhere else, the post-production guys have to blur said logo out.

Then there was the case of the YouTube video that inspired Prince's lawyers to send a C&D letter because one of his songs played in the background of the video which featured a baby doing something cute.

It's one thing to protect yourself or your company from a genuine loss of business, revenue or reputation. However, to me, suing because of any of the above examples seems idiotic and greedy. Not EVERY use of copyrighted material or patented processes equates to lost revenue or a ruined reputation.

Remember that time Oprah said she wouldn't eat hamburgers ever again?

First off, yeah RIGHT.

Second off, she got sued by a bunch of meat industry guys.

So much for free speech, huh?

I mean, I HATE Oprah--her saying she'd never eat a hamburger again made me WANT to eat more burgers!!

Publicity is publicity, guys. Unless you're some fool who decided patenting a process as basic as selling gift cards you redeem online. That's just the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Why not patent coupons?

Here's an idea, let's patent "the process of displaying logos, products and slogans with the intent to entice monetary transfer in exchange for product or service included in display."

We'll call it "ADVERTISING!"

Sorry, I tend to be cranky in the mornings.
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz.  Replies.

Oil Hits $100 A Barrel

The above screencap comes from an AP.org article at Biz.Yahoo.com (find it here: http://biz.yahoo.com/…rices.html ). The article reports some interestingly conflicting news. Mainly it says that oil prices have broken $100 a barrel despite falling demand. This kind of journalism cracks me up. According to a Bloomberg article I found (here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news ) the *US* demand for oil has dropped a whopping (not) 1.8 percent--this is US demand only, however. So, it's odd for the AP article to point out that oil prices are rising "despite" falling demand.

The fact of the matter is that there is a finite amount of oil on this planet and since more and more people are born every day it only makes sense that, unless major cultural changes are made, demand for oil will go up and up and up, planet-wide, while supply goes down and down.

OK, so a 1.8 percent of people who were using oil in the US aren't using it now (which makes no sense in itself), big deal--what about the millions of new people using oil today in China? What about people in other developing nations that are inching their way toward 1st World status?

Of course, the main news here is that the crack-cocaine of American life just got even more expensive. This means that it'll get more expensive to:

1) fill up your tank
2) heat your home
3) cook
4) buy anything with plastic or petroleum products in it

Yep, things like computers, DVDs, make-up, and just about anything else you use has oil in it. So, as oil prices rise, eventually, that rise in price will trickle down to each of us.

Too bad we can't, oh, I don't know--find some *other* way to power our cars, heat our homes or make plastic!

Of course, we have (even vegetable-based plastic exists: http://www.sony.net/…04/01.html ), but no one wants to talk about those things.
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz.  Replies.