Nineteen

Just a Thought

2008-09-20T23:27:00.000-04:00

Regarding Iraq. Let's just assume a democratic government arises in Iraq. It's safe to presume this government being representative of a majority Shiite population will have increased diplomatic ties to Iran. It's safe to presume that this nation will try to reaasert itself as a leader of the Arab world and rearm to solidify this role. Logically, this would also mean Iraq would have to confront the major antagonist in the region (despite what the media would have you believe) Israel. This confrontation wouldn't necessarily be hostile but it would require a sort of detente situation which would lead to an arms race. Possibly weapons of mass destruction in the arsenal. As a democratic nation they would presumably have the moral high ground to develop nuclear arms. Iraqi's would also have to ensure energy security which means more and more of its vast oil reserves would be kept for domestic use with less going to its western allies.

Not by any stretch of the imagination can you imagine the US tolerating let alone supporting any of the circumstances I described. But you have to assume by the general law that any democratic state would pursue the national interest of its citizens that those circumstances would likely arise or be pursued by a responsible democratic Iraq. So a democratic Iraq if you follow my logic is anathema to the US interest. The line that the goal of the war was to bring democracy to Iraq is a farce. The goal, by logical extension, is to create a client state for the pursuit of American interests in the region.

I know this isn't a radical perspective. It is pretty basic common sense knowledge among the intellectually honest observers. Just thought I'd put it out there.

Greenspan is Right

2008-09-15T14:57:00.000-04:00

Financing $3.3 trillion in new tax cuts with borrowed money is insane. That is McCains tax proposal. Add that to a continued status quo in Iraq costing about $10 billion a month which McCain is also proposing to do.

Now McCain says he will pay for this new spending by killing earmarks/pork barrel spending but how much money is he really going to find in earmark spending? A lot of those earmarks are for things like traffic lights, infrastructure projects in small towns, basically things that the average citizen and local governments actually need. McCain's not going to veto every single on of these bills. He will probably veto bills for scientific research deemed unnecessary by his administration or maybe his own discretion and he promises to "make them famous." His whole platform of reform is supposed to cut money from all kinds of departments, agencies and programmes to find the money to finance his massive spending proposals but the reality is, there isn't enough wasteful spending to cut to finance a massive tax cut and a continued War. As well as any other spending McCain plans to do.

I applaud McCain for trying to make transparency important in government so that earmarks are carefully reviewed and known of by the public. It's good that he sees the problem here. McCain says he's going to do it on his own with his famous pen. Barack Obama has a proposal called "Google for Government" which is going to make a lot of things transparent and open and he's been talking about this idea for two years now.

But the problem still exists for McCain. He's going to be financing his tax cuts with debt. Greenspan says its crazy and I agree.
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

Addendum

2008-09-15T03:02:00.000-04:00

Just a quick note: The Blackberry blogging will inevitably lead to a broader spectrum of subject matter for this blog.

And I am working on figuring out how to remove the automatic postscript that follows these particular posts because in no way do I support Rogers. Except with all the money I pay them every month. Aside from that they do not get an ounce of support for their virtual monopoly from me. I hate to advertise them for free on my blog everytime I use my phone to make a post.
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

Blackberry Blogging

2008-09-15T02:54:00.001-04:00

Since I've gotten my Crackberry I've found fewer and even fewer reasons to use a laptop or actual computer. Now that I will be blogging right from the Blackberry I anticipate the volume and frequecy of my posts to increase. Hope you enjoy it as much as I will!
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

The End of the GOP, Pt. 1

2008-09-09T14:25:00.003-04:00

This is the first in a series of posts I plan to make analyzing what I, and many others, see as the final death throes of the GOP and modern American conservatism. The idea to do this series originates from what started as a casual observance of Republican incompetence and intellectual emptiness to what I now clearly see as the failure of an ideology. I'd like to first set the parameters of this discussion. Firstly, I don't believe Republican or conservative ideology is dying on its own. The Republican party has effectively and very quickly killed it. My previous post of a New York Times Magazine piece on Obamanomics (The Obama Economic Doctrine) briefly touched on the failure of a central tenet of modern American conservatism: Reagonomics aka trickle-down-economics aka supply-side-economics. Whatever you want to call it, the idea that favoring economic policies that primarily favor the upper echelons of the wealthy in the hope that excess wealth will trickle down to the bottom of the income ladder enriching everyone along the way, has failed massively in the last quarter century. Of course the exponentially growing gap between the rich and the poor and the socio-economic inequality that is a result is not all to blame on simple tax policy. But it is a factor that has exasperated the effects of globalisation in the United States.

Reagonomics simply has not worked. The numbers don't lie. The economy has grown strongly over the last quarter century but real wages and purchasing power for the 98% of Americans who make up the group that was supposed to be trickled upon has remained stagnant and in some instances declined. While the socio-economic inequality between the top 2% and the rest has increased dramatically.

It's not that Reagonomics is a faulty theory of economics but rather the Republican party has taken that idea and turned it into a sort of dogma. The absolutist version of Reagonomics that doesn't take into account market failures, weakness and irregularity is really the culprit here. And now a timely quote from Barack Obama:

“I think I can tell a pretty simple story. Ronald Reagan ushered in an era that reasserted the marketplace and freedom. He made people aware of the cost involved of government regulation or at least a command-and-control-style regulation regime. Bill Clinton to some extent continued that pattern, although he may have smoothed out the edges of it. And George Bush took Ronald Reagan’s insight and ran it over a cliff."

Absolutely. What's interesting to me now, and what makes me think the GOP is dying, is that the party of ideas is now the party of dogma. Instead of addressing the fundamental problems with their economic principles the modern day Republican party has essentially "doubled-down" on it's gamble. The McCain campaign offers an even more absolutist and extreme version of Reagonomics than the Bush regime. Not only does he want to make the Bush tax policy permanent, he wants to decrease the tax burden on the super rich upper class and keep the tax burden on the rest of the population the same. It's like Wile E. Coyote still clutching the rocket before he realizes he's well off the cliff.

To tie this all together, here is a very well written and provocative analysis of why localities that have the highest degrees of income inequality vote almost exclusively for Democrats and progressive policies while those with a lesser degree of wealth segregation vote primarily for Republicans. And it's not just the bottom rungs of the ladder voting Democratic, the affluent and educated American population is as well. In fact the 10 most educated states are reliable strongholds for the Democratic Party. Here is a short excerpt from this well constructed and insightful piece written by David Frum a conservative author and fellow at the conservative think-tank the American Enterprise Institute:

In short, the trend to inequality is real, it is large and it is transforming American society and the American electoral map. Yet the conservative response to this trend verges somewhere between the obsolete and the irrelevant.
Conservatives need to stop denying reality. The stagnation of the incomes of middle-class Americans is a fact. And only by acknowledging facts can we respond effectively to the genuine difficulties of voters in the middle. We keep offering them cuts in their federal personal income taxes — even though two-thirds of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes, and even though a majority of Americans now describe their federal income tax burden as reasonable.

McCain Speech Reaction

2008-09-04T23:40:00.002-04:00

Tonight John McCain came out with a singular purpose. Biography. He told the crowd and America about who he is and what made him that person. It was very personal. The theme was me, me, me. But in a good way. He tried to show his character. And it was good and effective. He came off as humble at times, and had a good dose of wisdom.

Unfortunately, there was absolutely zero substance. His policy discussion was limited to "I will cut taxes, he will raise them. I will keep America safe, he will not. I will save puppies from Euthanasia, he will set them on fire." It was extremely limited. But John McCain knows he's got no policy agenda to run on. The 2008 Republican platform by all objective measure is more right wing, more corporate and more extreme than the agenda of Bush's Republican party in 2004. In fact, the entire campaign is a relic of the 2004 election. John McCain is counting on the notion that won George Bush the election in 2004. And that was, "Who would you have a beer with?" I'd say Barack Obama but I'm biased. A good number of Americans, especially conservative Americans would say John McCain.

Unfortunately for John McCain 2004 is not 2008. I don't think the American people are going to vote for the guy they like better, I think they are going to vote for the guy with the policies they like better. The McCain campaign will try everything in it's power to keep the issues off the table for the next 2 months and the Obama campaign has to do the opposite. All in all it was a good effort by McCain and his campaign strategy seems clear now. The Sarah Palin pick was to lock down his base and now that he's done that he's going to move to the center, he'll be less partisan, and he'll try to win based on his character. It's all making sense.

America's Other War

2008-09-04T15:01:00.002-04:00

Last night I watched Sarah Who re-declare the culture war that won George Bush the election in 2004. It was ironic that a speech written by Matthew Scully, George Bush's famed speech writer, could extol the virtues of "reform" and promise change. As much as they'd like to convince us otherwise this is the incumbent party who's policies have failed Americans consistently for the last eight years. Last night was no different. The identity politics and the culture war that won the Bush administration a disastrous second term reared it's ugly head back into the election season with a vengeance.

It was a carefully constructed night with zero substance, mind-numbing double talk and irony laced attacks that no-doubt had Karl Rove swelling up with tears of pride. Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts and worth an estimated $200 million, critiquing east-coast elitism. Then there was Rudy Guiliani, former mayor of New York city, sneering about cosmopolitan cities. But they saved the best for last.

Alaska Governor Sarah Who (well, Matt Scully) was mainly attacking Barack Obama's biography. Whaaat? The American people don't know a single thing about her aside from she's got a dysfunctional family, a developmentally challenged child and a penchant for lying to the public. I don't see how you can attack someone's biography when people know so little about you.

In style, her attacks were sarcastic and juvenile. For example she chided Obama's experience as a community organizer and tried to contrast that with the rigors of being the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska population 9000. But the underlying theme of the entire speech was "We're small town American, Obama is San Francisco" and that's the exact same theme the Bush campaign used in 2004 to attack John Kerry. The culture war is on. No mention of policies. No mention of healthcare, the economy, national security or the Iraq war. Those things aren't important. It's not as if we all didn't see this coming:

"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

Squeeze first. Vet later. Vote McCain.

2008-09-01T23:23:00.002-04:00

Several days after choosing her as his VP:

McCain's campaign has dispatched a team of a dozen communications operatives and lawyers to Alaska.

I thought this was a reckless choice but apparently he didn't even vet her properly.

Sarah Who?

2008-08-31T18:53:00.002-04:00

In his first major decision as a candidate for the highest executive office in the United States government John McCain picked the virtually unknown Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin. I was shocked to be honest but I'll reserve judgment until I get to know more about her. However, what little I do know has been somewhat disturbing. Take a look at this local tv news report from her home state regarding the current investigation into allegations that she abused her power as governor by pursuing a personal vendetta against a state employee and firing his superior for not firing said employee.

Obamanomics

2008-08-28T01:37:00.003-04:00

To succinctly address the elephant in the room let me say this: I quit this blog several years ago, I missed it and now I have revived it. I'm going to pretty much continue where I left off, albeit with three years of growth and maturation to bring to the table. I'm sure any readers I ever had have forgotten all about my little blog and I, but hopefully I can bring some readership back. Well, let's get started.

I've just finished reading this very long piece by David Leonhardt for the New York Times Magazine and it so elegantly illustrates some of the reasons why I am for Obama.

As anyone who has spent time with Obama knows, he likes experts, and his choice of advisers stems in part from his interest in empirical research. (James Heckman, a Nobel laureate who critiqued the campaign’s education plan at Goolsbee’s request, said, “I’ve never worked with a campaign that was more interested in what the research shows.”) By surrounding himself with economists, however, Obama was also making a decision with ideological consequences. Far more than many other policy advisers, economists believe in the power of markets. What tends to distinguish Democratic economists is that they set out to uncover imperfections of the market and then come up with incremental, market-based solutions to these imperfections. This helps explain the Obama campaign’s interest in behavioral economics, a relatively new field that has pointed out many ways in which people make irrational, short-term decisions. To deal with one example of such myopia, Obama would require companies to automatically set aside a portion of their workers’ salary in a 401(k) plan. Any worker could override the decision — and save nothing at all or save even more — but the default would be to save.

In his policies you can clearly see Obama's pragmatism and anticipate a departure from the age of ideology. Here is an example where he sees the end of not only encouraging but facilitating savings, a huge problem for the American people that has not been addressed during the Bush administration, and finds the most practical solution for it. You may not agree with his solution but in this example you can see his thinking. This particular solution may lean to the left but at least it's a real solution. In his energy policy his Chicago School economic principles and laissez faire influences come through more brightly. Obama's cap and trade system for regulating greenhouse gas emissions would actually auction off 100% of the permits to pollute allowing the market to set the value of those permits. This would force the competition required so that only the most efficient and profitable corporations purchase the permits. A perfect blend of free market economics and government regulation. Leonhardt does an excellent job explaining this.

He's not an ideologue and so he can borrow ideas from all sides and points of the political and economic spectrum. He's not confined to Reaganism, Clintonian Centrism, or any other -ism of the 20th century.

So I asked Obama whether he thought he had been able to tell an effective story about the economy during this campaign. Specifically, I wondered, did he think he had a message that compared with Reagan’s simple call for less government and lower taxes.
He paused for a few seconds and then said this:
“I think I can tell a pretty simple story. Ronald Reagan ushered in an era that reasserted the marketplace and freedom. He made people aware of the cost involved of government regulation or at least a command-and-control-style regulation regime. Bill Clinton to some extent continued that pattern, although he may have smoothed out the edges of it. And George Bush took Ronald Reagan’s insight and ran it over a cliff. And so I think the simple way of telling the story is that when Bill Clinton said the era of big government is over, he wasn’t arguing for an era of no government. So what we need to bring about is the end of the era of unresponsive and inefficient government and short-term thinking in government, so that the government is laying the groundwork, the framework, the foundation for the market to operate effectively and for every single individual to be able to be connected with that market and to succeed in that market. And it’s now a global marketplace.
“Now, that’s the story. Now, telling it elegantly — ‘low taxes, smaller government’ — the way the Republicans have, I think is more of a challenge.”

Obamanomics is about restoring the role of government in the market without getting in the way and I think he's prescribed a fairly effective method here. He's going to really challenge the idea that trickle-down economics works. It's been ingrained in the American psyche as a truism, but it hasn't really proven true in reality. It's also going to be about "balancing market sensibilities and moral sentiment" as Obama puts it. It seems that as a result of Reaganomics, economic prosperity has not translated into an increase in the standard of living like it was supposed to. And finally, it's going to be about creating sustainable economic growth for the future so we as a global economy don't hit a wall.

A New Day

2008-08-28T01:18:00.001-04:00

Rest In Peace, RealTM

2005-05-31T22:52:00.000-04:00

Res ipsa loquitur.

Happy Birthday RealTM!

2005-05-21T23:58:00.000-04:00

It's been a year since I ventured into the blogosphere and it has been quite an adventure. I've had my ups and downs. Overall it's been a learning experience. As a tribute to the one year anniversary of Nineteen I was going to publish a list of 19 things I've learned since I started blogging but I've decided that'd be a terrible waste of time.

Instead, I'll sum up everything I've learned and everything that represents RealTM in one sentence: colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

That sentence, ofcourse, means absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. Just as this blog is meaningless. Just as RealTM is meaningless. When I decided to use rampant intellectualism as a coping mechanism to deal with the complexities of my life RealTM was born. When I decide to cope with life in another way, RealTM will die. Now, I celebrate the 1 year anniversary of my documented frustration.

Hilarity

2005-03-01T17:37:00.000-05:00

And this has just gotta make you laugh:

White House Spokesman Scott "Go ahead, Jeff" McClellan, on the new Iraq:

Saddam Hussein and his regime leaders are going to face justice for the mass murders of innocent Iraqis who were killed on the orders of a tyrant; for the torture chambers, where brutality was carried out against those who spoke out and disagreed with the regime; and for the rape rooms, where women were taken to be raped.

New York Times, U.S. Cites Array of Rights Abuses by the Iraqi Government in 2004, February 28, 2005:

The State Department on Monday detailed an array of human rights abuses last year by the Iraqi government, including torture, rape and illegal detentions by police officers and functionaries of the interim administration that took power in June.

(Via Martini Republic)

One Step Closer

2005-03-01T12:19:00.000-05:00

The United States Supreme Court has abolished the death penalty for minors under the age of 18. A lot of interesting debate has been sparked by this; and by interesting I mean predictable. We all know how this is going to play out in the realm of political debate on TV and on the internet.

I think it's about time this was done. We're just one step closer to joining most of the civilized world in abolishing the death penalty altogether.

Why I Hate Blogging

2005-02-25T23:05:00.000-05:00

Have you ever had a nagging splinter? In your brain? That's what blogging is, atleast for me. The more I think about it the more unattractive "blogging" becomes to me. It's an excruitiatingly painful endeavor to even think about. Amidst the psuedonym veiled so called experts and political activists the culture of masturbatory self promotion and pretentious commentary on social issues you will find little Ericka; sick of being part of this culture yet irreconcialiablly attached by a single thread. I cant remove this splinter.

Am I a pundit? No. Do I want to be a pundit? I guess I do, in a way. So I have to remain a part of this culture and hopefully, I'll find some kind of motivation to change it, or to feel better about it. Until then, I'll remain in this funk, regretting ever having started blogging. I just don't want to end up being another Ann Althouse.

So for now, I will change my blogging style to a much more personal, trivial manner and infused within my rantings on the daily life of Ericka Gilbeau you might notice my political and philosophical leanings.

Wanted: A Definition

2005-02-07T11:45:00.000-05:00

The outcome of the conference remains skeptical, but the following has been concluded:

Finding a consensus about the formal definition of terrorism remained a problem: One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

What's your say?

Update: This is reminiscent of the "Iraq has WMD's, no doubt."

"[Iran] certainly does sponsor terrorism. There's no doubt about that at all," Blair told a parliamentary committee.

When exactly was the last time an Iranian was involved in the so-called terrorism theatre?

Britain Apologizes for False IRA Bomb Convictions.
"I am very sorry that they were subject to such an ordeal and such an injustice," Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a brief television statement.

But it's all right, Tony, happens all the time, right?

That's Hot

2005-01-27T23:04:00.000-05:00

AP: Gitmo Soldier Details Sexual Tactics
By PAISLEY DODDS, Associated Press Writer

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider's written account.

A draft manuscript obtained by The Associated Press is classified as secret pending a Pentagon (news - web sites) review for a planned book that details ways the U.S. military used women as part of tougher physical and psychological interrogation tactics to get terror suspects to talk.

...

The female interrogator wanted to "break him," Saar adds, describing how she removed her uniform top to expose a tight-fitting T-shirt and began taunting the detainee, touching her breasts, rubbing them against the prisoner's back and commenting on his apparent erection.

The detainee looked up and spat in her face, the manuscript recounts.

The interrogator left the room to ask a Muslim linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The linguist told her to tell the detainee that she was menstruating, touch him, then make sure to turn off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash.

Yes to Alberto!

The Art of Sarcasm

2005-01-27T16:40:00.000-05:00

As many of you have gathered, I'm a staunch defender of freedom, liberty and democracy. I love it. And what better way to deliver the terrific trio then to make Alberto Gonzalez the next Attorney General of the United States. Watch this short movie to see him for the fun loving, caring and compassionate man he really is!

There and back again

2005-01-15T03:00:00.000-05:00

What a terrible year it’s been so far. So what’s the death toll now? 160000 due to the big wave, 15000 or so due to GWB, and this guy celebrated by dressing like Adolf. On a smaller scale, my supervisor from THC quit last Friday due to depression and loss of hope. Why do I grieve for her resignation? Because she was the puppet in my plot of dominating the THC, and now I need to start building new relationships and chisel on the glass ceiling.

Now if only all the money spent celebrating the New Year was saved for the tsunami, would we really have fewer people dead? Sometimes I wonder why we celebrate New Year's anyway. Or worse, birthdays... Does anyone else find birthdays a vain and egotistical celebration? It’s like celebrating Christmas (let’s pretend it really is JC’s birthday for our purposes), but for ourselves. And we invite friends, effectively making it a Mass. I believe Saddam declared his birthday a national holiday (“Saddammass”) and its celebration was enforced.

Speaking of new years, anyone come across the document of predicted global trends by 2015? I’ve lost the link, but these are some of the predicted trends plus my own forecasts:

-Information technology will take over our lives, analogous to the industrial revolution. I look forward to this.
- The rising Middle Eastern corporations will go through changes and would see globalization as an opponent to its rise. Could Dubai be the next NYC? What if they run out of black gold? Apparently, oil is only a minor (less than 40%) contributor to Dubai’s income.
- Iran will have its own space exploration program and Iraq would carry out nuclear experiments. Nah, I don’t think Iran would make it. Unless the connotation here is that Iran would be blown off into space. Iran looks so much like the next target in GWB’s agenda, it’s uncanny. And how can Iraq have nuclear technology? Wasn’t it “librated” from the nuisance of it all? Oh, maybe what is meant is that Iraq would be the site of nuclear experiments. Yes, more plausible.
- Tension builds up between the US and EU, eventually leading to the breaking of their alliance. I don’t see the rationality here.
- Peace would prevail in the Middle East for some period, especially between Israel and the Arabs. There will be a period of “cold peace”, probably. But let’s look at the results of the “cold war”. Well, all the scientific and technological advancements were a side effect of the anxiety of the “cold war”. So one can only deduce that following a “cold peace”, there will be retardation, perhaps?

I think they should've put more thought into predicting future prison abuses. Oh, but somebody already did predict what happened at Abu Ghraib by the dispositional hypothesis.

Reality Bites

2005-01-06T18:31:00.000-05:00

Hi, I'm Ericka and I'm a member of the reality based community. G.W Bush, acting leader of our elected despotism, isn't. According to the Nelson Report, a daily tip sheet written for corporate and government officials by Chris Nelson, former Capitol Hill staffer and United Press International reporter:

There is rising concern amongst senior officials that President Bush does not grasp the increasingly grim reality of the security situation in Iraq because he refuses to listen to that type of information. Our sources say that attempts to brief Bush on various grim realities have been personally rebuffed by the President, who actually says that he does not want to hear bad news.

Rather, Bush makes clear that all he wants are progress reports, where they exist, and those facts which seem to support his declared mission in Iraq...building democracy. That's all he wants to hear about, we have been told. So in are the latest totals on school openings, and out are reports from senior US military commanders (and those intelligence experts still on the job) that they see an insurgency becoming increasingly effective, and their projection that it will just get worse.

Our sources are firm in that they conclude this good news only directive comes from Bush himself; that is, it is not a trap or cocoon thrown around the President by National Security Advisor Rice, Vice President Cheney, and DOD Secretary Rumsfeld. In any event, whether self-imposed, or due to manipulation by irresponsible subordinates, the information/intelligence vacuum at the highest levels of the White House increasingly frightens those officials interested in objective assessment, and not just selling a political message.
We, the people of the reality based community, have been saying this for almost years. It's not a matter of political strategy, rather this man and his followers are blindfolding themselves with this bankrupt ideology because they truly believe in the validity of their position. Conviction is one thing, but complete lack of foresight and reasoning is something to be worried about.

(Via Oliver Willis)

Meanwhile in Iraq, the reality gets dimmer. According to today's WaPo, three-star Lt. Gen. James R. "Ron" Helmly is the most recent senior army official to show outrage over the state of affairs in Iraq:

The head of the Army Reserve has sent a sharply worded memo to other military leaders expressing "deepening concern" about the continued readiness of his troops, who have been used heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and warning that his branch of 200,000 soldiers "is rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force."

In the memo, dated Dec. 20, Lt. Gen. James R. "Ron" Helmly lashed out at what he said were outdated and "dysfunctional" policies on mobilizing and managing the force. He complained that his repeated requests to adjust the policies to current realities have been rebuffed by Pentagon authorities.

Surprise, surprise.

"By consistently underestimating the number of troops necessary for the successful occupation of Iraq, the administration has placed a tremendous burden on the Army Reserve and created this crisis," Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement.

"The memo presents more questions than answers," said Rep. Victor F. Snyder (D-Ark.), who deals with reservist issues in the House. "I think he's really making a plea to the Pentagon to change some of their practices or let him do some things he wants to do."

You can be sure this memo didn't make it to the oval office.

And there's more from the fantasy world of these neocon nutjobs. The debate over Bush's Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzalez has spilled over into a debate on the use of torture on terrorist suspects. I think it's simple; if we are going to call this a War on Terror, then prisoners are effectively prisoners of war. Beyond the semantics, I cannot understand the justification of inhumanities in any circumstance in which we are holding ourselves to a higher moral standard. This is the America that voted for moral values; this is the administration that operates on "moral clarity"; if torture is acceptable then gay marriage and abortion rights should follow suit. Where is the moral clarity?

Oh...I found it!

LEAHY: "Does U.S. law allow for torture, in your opinion?"

GONZALES: "Bush has already said there won't be any torture."

LEAHY: "That's not what I asked. In your opinion, does U.S. law allow for torture?"

GONZALES: "That's a hypothetical question that I won't answer."

LEAHY: "U.S. law. Torture."

GONZALES: "That involves a lot of complex law that I don't know."

Changing the spotlight

2005-01-03T02:04:00.000-05:00

I was thinking about what shapes our concerns. So the little voice inside my head said, "Depends on who you are, right?". Well, that made sense, momentarily, or at least before being confronted with, "What do you mean by 'who you are'?".

"Well," the voice continued, "depends on how you think, what you think about, what makes you think about something, what affects you, how it affects you and so on and so forth. You get the point."

At that point it "seemed" that I got it. So Mr. Or Miss I-earn-big-bucks-and-I-like-my-useless-luxuries would probably be more likely to be concerned about the scratch on his/her Mercedes or how he/she would earn that extra million. Well, really there's more to it.
But, one aspect, (not necessarily the only one, or the most dominant one) that affects an average person's concerns, might be the media he turns to for news. But as it happens, news selected by media often reflect the concerns of the those that own the media. Or alternatively, it makes sense to say that media avoid reflecting those concerns that might be against the interests of the owners.

So we might often be obsessed with concerns, that are not really ours. Doesn't make sense working for other people's concerns, right? But one might argue its a good thing to care about others. Sure, but not at our own expense right? How about focusing our attention on those problems that concern us all in the long run. Yes, I am talking about the environment and the ecosystem. Thanks to our self-created need for luxury, we have threatened our environment and ecosystem enough to totally screw ourselves up in the near, and I mean very near, future. So how about a bit more thought into this masochist nature of us, human beings of the so called civilized world?

Lets change the spotlight, shall we?

Happy New Year

2005-01-01T19:43:00.000-05:00

What a year 2004 was. I'll save you the "What 2004 meant to me" speech and just let you know what to expect for 2005 in terms of this blog.

First and foremost, I'd like send my regards to all those affected by the tsunami.

I'd like to extend a warm welcome to our two new bloggers Ericka Gilbeau and LjohnS. I think 4 bloggers officially makes this a "group blog". I'm sure their contribution will make this a great read.

We're always looking for people who would like to contribute so if you think you've got what it takes then let us know.

This template has gotten rather mundane so don't freak out if you notice something new sometime soon.

On behalf of the Nineteen crew I'd like to wish you all a Happy New Year!

P.S. It just wouldn't feel right without me pointing out some worthwhile reading so how about a report on the Top 10 War Profiteers of 2004? It's definetly a worthwhile read.

Sadness and madness

2004-12-28T19:07:00.000-05:00

I'm sure you have all heard but I must say, the death toll is up to nearly 60,000. Truly sad.

In the blogosphere the insanity continues. Rightwing bloggers have pretty much lost it. Martini Republic has a rather straight forward look at the madness:

The upshot of the rightwing is that the media is to blame, not the incompetent planning of the Bush administration, nor the continued myopia of those who continue to defend its misbegotten policies.

I think this "media's fault" meme is about to die off. I hope the majority of rightwing bloggers are not so out of touch with reality to even insinuate such foolishness.

One Thing...

2004-12-23T19:08:00.000-05:00

Please excuse the limited blogging. Hopefully, the new addition can whip up a nice post soon.

Many of you have probably heard of the Oil for Food Scandal. Here is an alternative look at it:

The red-herring line essentially boils down to this: On U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan's watch, the oil-for-food program was being raided by corrupt businessmen working in conjunction with Saddam Hussein's economically sanctioned regime -- a corrupt network that included Kofi's son.

Serious allegations. But here's why it's a red herring. In terms of moral and legal malfeseance, what's more monumental -- skimming money from a U.N. controlled fund or upholding the severe economic sanctions ever imposed on a nation, as was the case in Iraq, while over a half-million Iraqi children under the age of five die of diseases directly attributable to the sanctions?

Read the whole thing. It's pretty good.

Seek and ye shall find.

2004-12-20T02:45:00.000-05:00

Nab here. I’ve been on a break from Nineteen so I could focus on life, but now life is taking a break off me so I can return here. This is not to say that I’ve ceased thinking Nineteenically over the hiatus, no… I simply had no time to type. I believe tat a man’s identity and existence diminishes when they no longer express their thoughts (here, I assume that everyone thinks, an assumption that is easily disproved and shown to be risky). Because if you do not articulate your thoughts to those around you, what sign do they have of your existence? I think, therefore I am. But I say to you, I think and express, therefore I am.

Leading on. Sometimes, I, myself, feel reluctant to articulate myself to certain people. Why? I haven’t given it much of a thought, but maybe it’s because I do not see a rewarding consequence of conversing with such people. I’ll leave this at this for now and move on to what I had originally intended to write about…

I can’t remember the exact wording, but the original question went something as follows; “If you are looking for an answer, you go to someone who is higher in knowledge than you, right? But what if there is no one higher in knowledge than you? Who do you go for help or advice?”

I think the answer comes down to understanding and mutual knowledge. Someone who is of equal or a slightly higher level of knowledge in a particular issue would be more understanding and attentive to the seeker. Therefore, the seeker and the giver will both gain in experience and knowledge. So what is essentially being asked is, “can I find someone who understands me?” Personally, at the moment, I think there are very few people I know who truly understand me. I think this is the case for most people, there are very few around them who understand them sufficiently to not (mis)judge them. The answer to the question is very subjective, and I think the answer will tell quite a bit about the person. LjonS says “one will have to search within themselves.” One way or another, this is a spiritual answer that I concur with… however, I will explicitly state that I would go to God for advice/help if I cannot find an appropriate human. The upside to this is that your act of seeking will probably lead to you finding an answer (whether due to divine illumination, or the psychological effect of searching for an answer, as in a self-fulfilling prophecy). The downside is that an outcome is not guaranteed, or none should be expected, if you’re not into spiritualism or whatnot.

Further discussion to be anticipated.

Redux Update

2004-12-17T01:07:00.000-05:00

The plan is going...well, as planned. I'm still looking for that special template. Writers in need. Email if you want the job. Be a part of the redux.

In lighter news the new Torture Scandal Continues to Fester.

Jeff Jarvis has another hissy fit:

Well, no, you elipseshead, Cole, that's not what caused the decent and civilized bloggers to call you indecent and uncivilized.

I feel nerdier already. Elipseshead?

But it gets better:

What a crock of Cole crap that is: If I point to a report that Jews were responsible for 9/11 and say nothing to correct or disagree with it, then I'd say I'd be guilty of anti-Semitism and blood libel. That is the ethic of the link.
You can't back away that easily, Cole. You made an unsubstantiated and libelous accusation against these good men and until you apologize, you're not off the hook -- in terms of your responsibility, your credibility, and your morality.

This coming from a guy who defends Howard Stern and free speech like they both had his baby. Obsess much?

I'm not defending Cole here, or just hating on Jeff. I just can't stand this little vendetta. Other bloggers have criticized Cole without looking like complete jerks.

Happy Campers

2004-12-15T02:40:00.000-05:00

"Yay! Bush stole my future!"

Instacomic?

2004-12-15T01:46:00.000-05:00

Instapundit gets a minor defrocking over at The Meme Pool. I don't know whether I lost more respect for Glenn himself or the two clowns interviewing him.

Free Exam!

2004-12-14T12:05:00.000-05:00

I just got back from writing my 3rd exam, PSCI 101. Aside from the short answer definition questions we had to pick 3 of out 9 questions and answer them. The exam was worth 50% of my mark. Here are my answers as I remember them without any post exam insight. I will probably do the post exam insight later today after I get some sleep since I have been on the worst sleep cycle since exam period started. Feel free to critique the answers in the comments section. Questions are in red.

Analyze the concept of civil society. Your answer must demonstrate the links between liberal democracy and market capitalism.

There are many definitions of civil society that differ in minor and major ways. Most definitions share some essential parts. Generally, the concept of civil society refers to a network of civil associations to promote the stability and effectiveness of a democratic government. A civil society is public, citizen run institution or association based on voluntary participation. In that sense, a neighborhood committee, a parent-teacher association or a community sports league is a civil society. Essentially, the purpose of a civil society, and the concept of civil societies is the promotion of active citizen participation in the social and political aspects of life. The importance of civil societies is stressed in liberal democracies.

A liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy where the elected representatives are moderated by a constitution. The constitution of a liberal democracy usually emphasizes protecting individual liberties and the right of minorities in society. As well, the constitution protects rights such as freedom of speech, religion and assembly as well as property and privacy rights. In a liberal democracy, all citizens are equal before the law under the rule of law. Liberal democracies protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority". The concept of open society is usually essential to liberal democracy. In an open society the government is constantly evolving and its policies are open to criticism and change. In an open society, all citizens actively participate in the governance of the state and serve a greater purpose in the decision making process of the government. To encourage active participation open societies and liberal democracies establish civil societies as defined earlier. Liberal democracies also create the conditions necessary to enable a market capitalist economy

Market capitalism is an economic system based on the means of production and distribution of capital being privately owned. Production is then dependent on the basic principle of supply and demand. Liberal democracies enable market capitalism because the basic principles of liberal democracy such as property rights, and the various freedoms allow people to engage in mutually beneficial trade without government planning and extensive interference. Yet, there is still some government intervention in the form of taxes and tariffs but to an extent the economy of a liberal democracy usually is market capitalism. There is no intrinsic link between liberal democracy and market capitalism yet the two concepts tend to connect in many ways. There have been and are states with capitalist economies that are not liberal democracies at all.

The three concepts, civil society, liberal democracy and market capitalism are the separate ingredients that make up the type of society and government we have currently in Canada, the United States, Australia, Britain and various other states worldwide. Each concept can exist in an environment separate from the other two but it seems to work best when it is accompanied by the other concepts.

Conservatism and Socialism have more in common than most people think. Assess their similarities and differences.

Conservatism as a political ideology is characterized by its advocacy of evolutionary and incremental change and its opposition to revolutionary change and the break away from tradition. The intellectual source of modern conservatism is often attributed to Edmund Burke. Burke developed his ideas as a reaction to the ideology of modernism developing during his time that emphasized social construction guided by abstract reason. He believed that abstract reason could not be as effective as tradition in guiding social construction. Modern conservatism, as defined by Burke is founded on an objective moral order, an organic society, an acceptance of inequality, the concept of a positive state, conserving heritage and strong nationalist and patriotic ideals.

Socialism is often seen as the complete opposite of conservatism. The two ideologies actually share a lot in common. There are many different types of socialism and many different interpretations. It can hardly be traced back to a single intellectual source because it is believed socialist beliefs are as old as society itself. Most modern types of socialism share 5 essential properties: the belief that society is deeply divided into classes, public ownership of capital, general welfare, gradualism and a belief that social cooperation is human nature.

The parallels are already evident. Gradualism is one common property of both ideologies. Conservatives believe strongly that change must always be gradual and that revolution causes an unbalance and distress in society. Some socialists believe that change must come about gradually in order to keep the social structure intact. Another similarity is found when the meaning of organic society is explored. Conservatives believe that society is not founded on individual rights and goals, but rather individual duties and obligations to society. Every citizen has a responsibility to society and to state. This is where the concept of the positive state comes in. In a conservative society, the state/society is more important than the individual. In much the same way, socialist societies would also value the state more than the individual because the state is representative of the will of all citizens. Another similarity to the conservative notion of an organic state is the socialist belief that social cooperation is human nature. An organic society is based on civic responsibility and duty that is essentially human nature as evidenced by tradition and customs and not some abstract notion. Socialist would also argue that social cooperation is human nature and not an abstract notion suggesting egoistic individuals doing something for the good of the individual rather than the group as a whole. Socialism and conservatism are often put at opposite ends of the political spectrum but it is clear the two ideologies have much in common. They are both seen as reactions to liberalism and so naturally they share some common properties.

What are the core elements of a liberal conception of society?

Liberalism is the political ideology that establishes defense of individual liberties and rights as the purpose of government. In a liberal society, the state is the employee of the citizens who elect it and give it the authority to govern. The liberal society relies on abstract notions of equality, rights, and laws expressed in a constitution that moderates and gives authority to the elected government. In that sense, the government and the populous have entered into a "Social Contract" as described by Rousseau in his 1762 treatise. Rousseau's social contract says that all persons in order to live in a society agree to a contract which gives them rights in exchange for certain freedoms they would have had in a natural state. Human beings form societies to protect themselves, and the social contract protects the society from itself.

The liberal ideology consists of 7 essential concepts: progress, egoism, rationalism, acquisitiveness, quietism, compassion and atomism. All of these properties are based on ideas that came from the Enlightenment. Progress is key to liberal thought; liberals believe that there is always a better way to do things and society must constantly aspire to finding better things. Egoism is rooted in the humanist movement that came from the Enlightenment. Individual rights, liberties, and aspirations are important aspects of liberalism. Liberal democracies, such as Canada and the U.S. believe in the right of individuals to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Rationalism is important to liberalism because it is the belief in the power of the human mind to rationalize that came from the humanist movement of the enlightenment that will create the progress needed to advance mankind. Acquisitiveness is the liberal belief that human beings are acquisitive in nature, and that each individual wants personal and private property to own. Compassion is essential to liberalism because of the humanist influence and the belief that empowering the less fortunate will only help the fortunate individuals. Atomism contrasts the conservative notion of an organic society. Atomism is the belief that each individual in society is separate from the whole and that each individual seeks personal goals which can only be achieved through cooperation with other individuals. Therefore, human beings create societies out of necessity in order to fulfill individual and personal goals. Liberalism has become the dominant political ideology of western civilization.

Nineteen Redux in '05

2004-12-12T18:50:00.000-05:00

This is the second extended break I've taken from blogging and it's almost over. I've got 2 more finals and then I go on Christm-- I mean Winter Break.

I have to admit, my blog sucks. Thankfully, there is help. The Wall Street Journal (now free) has a how-to piece on successful blogging. Funny. I knew all those things but never did them.

On Affirmative Action

2004-11-30T13:33:00.000-05:00

For almost half a century affirmative action has been a very contentious issue in politics. It has led to bitter debates that go to the heart of society and its organization. Most of these debates have been in the United States. Affirmative action is the process of giving preferential consideration to people who have been discriminated against, usually minority groups and women, in hiring and admissions practices. It exists to distribute access to jobs and education to minorities; especially in areas that have usually been dominated by one group of society. The essential premise behind the practice is that minorities will never be properly represented the workforce and academia unless a real effort is made to reverse the trends that have caused the current unbalance, regardless of whether or not the discriminatory policies have been eradicated. The history of affirmative action is full of hotly contested initiatives for proponents and opponents of the policy and controversial decisions made by the Supreme Court and other high courts. The debate usually exposes deep ideological differences that are often irreconciliable. Both the proponents and opponents have very strong arguments. This paper will explore those arguments, compare and contrast them and show that affirmative action is neccessary to ensuring social justice in North America.

Affirmative action policies date back to 1961 begining with President John F. Kennedy's Executive Order 10925 that stated federal contractors should take "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Kennedy had been elected on a platform emphasizing civil rights during the heart of the civil rights movement. Kennedy also created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. In 1964 the Civil Rights Act was passed, prohibiting employment discrimination by employees whether or not they have government contracts. The rationale for affirmative action was best summed up a year later, when President Lyndon Johnson said in a speech: "You do not take a person, who for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still believe that you have been completely fair." The U.S Supreme Court made it's first decision on affirmative action in 1978 in the Bakke vs University of California case. It supported the principle of affirmative action, as practiced by the University of California but ruled against the use of quota's in admission processes. A year later, the Supreme Court made another decision in the AFL-CIO vs Weber case allowing the use of affirmative action to counter the inbalance created by past discrimination in the workforce. During the 1980's the Supreme Court made three more decisions on affirmative action, two of them in support of it. The biggest challenges and changes occured during the 90's. President Bill Clinton explicitly supported affirmative action in 1995 and encouraged a policy of "mend it, don't end it". After decades of pro-affirmative action policies being pursued by the government there was a sudden shift in attitude. In 1995, the Equal Opportunity Act was introduced to Congress. It proposed an end to the affirmative action laws regarding government contractor's hiring practices. During that same year, the University of California banned affirmative action and a year later the state of California passed proposition 209 effectively abolishing affirmative action programs statewide. The latter part of the 1990's saw many efforts to end affirmative action and many of those efforts succeeded in many states. As recently as 2002, the administration of George W. Bush challenged the University of Michigan's Law School admittance policy of affirmative action as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court heard the case and made a decision on it in 2003 reaffirming affirmative action policies used by universities in admissions processes.

Opponents of affirmative action insist that the policy does not promote diversity and equality but actually does the opposite. If the policy is meant to remedy disadvantage then it should be based on disadvantage rather than race. As well, in special circumstances the program usually doesn't recognize the difference between for example, an underqualified middle or upper class African American student and a qualified working class Asian student. That is because Asians are disproportionately over-represented in institutions of higher education. The main problem is that racism cannot be undone by more racism. Race-conscious policies betray the color-blind society we strive for and create tensions that actually worsen the problem of discrimination. Universities should admit students based strictly on merit, including not only grades and scores but achievements in athletics, extracurricular activites, community involvement and other areas. Admission should be based on this view of merit and not race, which is not an achievement but a trait. As well, affirmative action creates a dillema for those who benefit from it. Louis P. Pojman, professor of Philosophy at the United States Military Academy, presents a common occurance in his essay, "The Case Against Affirmative Action". He states that he "cannot help wondering on seeing a Black or woman in a position or honor, "Is she in this position because she merits it or because of Affirmative Action?" Where Affirmative Action is the policy, the "figment of pigment" creates a stigma of undeservedness, whether or not it is deserved." This circumstance neither benefits the principle of affirmative action, nor does it equate to tolerance and equality in general. Further, Pojman contends that the premise of increasing diversity is flawed. Rather Pojman contends that "Diversity for diversity's sake is moral promiscuity, since it obfuscates rational distinctions." Affirmative action has many flaws and goes against the essentials of civil rights, say the opponents, because it uses the methods and practices that the civil rights movement aimed to abolish and did.

On the other hand, the proponents of affirmative action argue that it is the best way to correct the history of racism and discrimination. The main reason to advocate affirmative action is that systemic discrimination does exist. Recognizing that most of the inequalities in the workplace were caused by systemic discrimination, Canada's Royal Commission on Equality in employment created a systemic response to it and called it "Employment Equity". The purpose of Employment Equity, like affirmative action, is to "eliminate employment barriers for the four designated groups identified in the Employment Equity Act: women, persons with disabilities, Aboriginal people, and members of visible minorities; remedy past discrimination in employment opportunities and prevent future barriers; improve access and distribution throughout all occupations and at all levels for members of the four designated groups; foster a climate of equity in the organization." This is clearly a noble cause justified by the presence of systemic discrimination and other social and cultural barriers preventing minorities from advancement in society. Furthermore, affirmative action is only a method used to meet societal obligations on diversity and equality. For example, many medical schools in the United States have adopted affirmative action policies to promote diversity in the health-care system because of the many benefits that presents. For example, S. E. Lakhan discusses the benefits of diversity in the field of medical research: The American research agenda is primarily promoted and investigated by individuals who feel and see the problems they wish to solve. Diversifying the medical (MD) and doctoral (PhD) student pool will only broaden the research foundation of our country, especially areas of public health, biosocial, and medical concerns. Such a workforce will be equipped with the tools necessary to combat the various ailments our country faces, including racial discrimination. As well, studies indicate that minority patients are less likely to "take the doctors orders" than their white counterparts because of language and cultural barriers. (Lackhan) The social benefits of affirmative action greatly outweigh any disadvantages and problems caused by it and it is essential to meeting societal obligations on equality.

Both sides make legitamate claims, but we must look at the realities rather than the ideals that we have today. In an ideal world, all people have equal opportunity to education, employment and many other things. In an ideal world, systemic discrimination would not exist. The reality is that not all people have equal opportunity and systemic discrimination does exist. Because of previous segregation, society is faced with the issue of inner city public school systems and housing and welfare programs. It is an example of systemic discrimination when an inner city school, attended mostly by minority students, recieves less funding and produces graduates who are far behind their suburban and affluent counterparts who had access to well funded public schools that provided the proper education. Opponents of affirmative action call for merit based admissions procedures, without acknowledging that the individual that the program is geared toward cannot concievably gain the same level of merit as his or her counterpart. Some of the more realistic opponents argue that merit should not be based on SAT scores and grades but achievement in other fields including athletics, music, community programs and other various extracurricular activities. A minority, inner-city student faces the same obstacles in trying to achieve a high score on the SAT as he or she would trying to achieve merit in an extracurricular activity. Some of the inner-city schools are so under funded that they cannot provide athletics programs, community involvement programs, and other "after school" or extracurricular activities. Some of the opponents of affirmative action refuse to acknowledge the social reality. The case for absolute merit qualifications has been shown to be flawed as many minority students who benefited from the affirmative actions policies in law and med school admissions excelled once they were in the program. The reason why they were less qualified than their counterparts was because they did not have the opportunity to qualify. Idealy, affirmative action is unnecessary because all people have the same opportunities not only to gain access to all institituions, but also have the same opportunity to qualify to gain access to those institutions. Unfortunately, reality is much different. There exists a glass ceiling; just because we cannot see it, does not mean its non existent. Affirmative action is a tool for shattering this glass cieling. It is a means, not an ends; a means to achieving social justice and equality.

Late Night Roundup

2004-11-26T01:13:00.000-05:00

LONDON (Reuters) - Parliamentarians will table a motion on Wednesday demanding a debate on Prime Minister Tony Blair's "gross misconduct" in leading Britain to war against Iraq.

Pretty gross if you ask me.

TORONTO (Reuters) - Canada is being considered for a big role in preparing for and possibly monitoring Iraq's upcoming election, a Canadian national newspaper reported on Wednesday, citing sources.

Where was Canada on November 2nd?

U.S., Iraqis Sweep Through 'Triangle of Death' (Reuters)

Whatever happened to the 'Circle of Life'? Lame. I know.

And the "Story of The Night Award" goes to...

Canadian Press -- Globe and Mail
Khartoum — Prime Minister Paul Martin brought a message of hope and peace to a displaced person's camp in Sudan on Thursday.
...
In an unfortunate incident as his convoy was leaving the camp, a security vehicle near the front of the procession struck a five-year-old girl, who was then taken to hospital by ambulance.
...
Ms. Gruer said that Mr. Martin plans to visit the girl in hospital before he boards his plane to leave the area.
...
He drew another ovation with word that the Prime Minister's Office had brought “a planeload” of schoolbooks, crayons and supplies. He told them that Canada would continue to help Sudan.

Nice. Very nice.

Prediction

2004-11-23T01:08:00.000-05:00

Computer of the Future.

Special Deal

2004-11-19T00:04:00.000-05:00

For only $100,000 you too can become an official United States ambassador to some European country! Here's how.

Falluja Arithmetic Lesson

2004-11-18T00:25:00.000-05:00

Funny.

Shooting of Unarmed Iraqi in Falluja Mosque

2004-11-16T09:37:00.000-05:00

U.S. Military Probes Shooting of Iraqi in Falluja
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military has begun an investigation into possible war crimes after a television pool report by NBC showed a Marine shooting dead a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Falluja mosque, officials said on Monday.

Good thing the US isn't subject to international law because that would constitute a war crime.

UPDATE: A reader has brought this to my attention. I thought it would serve other readers better:
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

"CSIS has easy time getting warrants"

2004-11-15T14:18:00.000-05:00

From the Globe and Mail:

By COLIN FREEZE

Judges approve more than 99 per cent of the requests by CSIS to spy on people in Canada, according to records obtained by The Globe and Mail.
While the government says espionage is one of its most intrusive powers, records show that Federal Court judges almost never disagree with Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents who ask for permission to take extraordinary steps so they can discover more about suspected terrorists or foreign spies.

Powell Resigns

2004-11-15T12:06:00.000-05:00

As expected.

Purging the CIA

2004-11-14T23:39:00.001-05:00

I'm not one to shed a tear for the CIA but this definitely does not sit well with me. Whatever objectivity and credibility the institution has ever had has gone down the drain:

CIA plans to purge its agency
Sources say White House has ordered new chief to eliminate officers who were disloyal to Bush

BY KNUT ROYCE
WASHINGTON BUREAU

November 14, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources.

"The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."

Lets hope the mainstream media makes at least a peep about this story. Hyperbole or not.

Tanks in the Streets

2004-11-12T00:27:00.000-05:00

Indymedia LA:

LOS ANGELES, November 9, 2004 - At 7:50 PM two armored tanks showed up at an anti-war protest in front of the federal building in Westwood. The tanks circled the block twice, the second time parking themselves in the street and directly in front of the area where most of the protesters were gathered. Enraged, some of the people attempted to block the tanks, but police quickly cleared the street. The people continued to protest the presence of the tanks, but about ten minutes the tanks drove off. It is unclear as to why the tanks were deployed to this location. Uploaded here is video from the event.

Okay. It didn't register right away. I thought I read it wrong. Then I watched the video. That's unbelievable stuff. It may seem insignificant, but ask yourself: "why would two tanks show up at some random anti-war protest in Los Angeles?" Is there any possible explanation?

Moral Values

2004-11-11T15:45:00.000-05:00

Frank Rich hits the nail on the head:

The blue ascendancy is nearly as strong among Republicans as it is among Democrats. Those whose "moral values" are invested in cultural heroes like the accused loofah fetishist Bill O'Reilly and the self-gratifying drug consumer Rush Limbaugh are surely joking when they turn apoplectic over MTV. William Bennett's name is now as synonymous with Las Vegas as silicone. The Democrats' Ashton Kutcher is trumped by the Republicans' Britney Spears. Excess and vulgarity, as always, enjoy a vast, bipartisan constituency, and in a democracy no political party will ever stamp them out.

...

Mr. Wittman echoes Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?," by common consent the year's most prescient political book. "Values," Mr. Frank writes, "always take a backseat to the needs of money once the elections are won." Under this perennial "trick," as he calls it, Republican politicians promise to stop abortion and force the culture industry "to clean up its act" - until the votes are counted. Then they return to their higher priorities, like cutting capital gains and estate taxes. Mr. Murdoch and his fellow cultural barons - from Sumner Redstone, the Bush-endorsing C.E.O. of Viacom, to Richard Parsons, the Republican C.E.O. of Time Warner, to Jeffrey Immelt, the Bush-contributing C.E.O. of G.E. (NBC Universal) - are about to be rewarded not just with more tax breaks but also with deregulatory goodies increasing their power to market salacious entertainment. It's they, not Susan Sarandon and Bruce Springsteen, who actually set the cultural agenda Gary Bauer and company say they despise.

This article is a must read. Very well written and quite entertaining.

Yasser Arafat Dies at 75

2004-11-11T01:06:00.000-05:00

Gonzales in Ashcroft out

2004-11-10T18:58:00.000-05:00

President Bush has picked Alberto Gonzales as his new attorney general (Reuters). The Republicans really want that Latino vote. Daily Kos is talking about Bush and Latino's.

Also from Daily Kos:

Oh, and in case you're wondering about Gonzales on the issues -- he thinks it's okay to ignore US law and our international treaties against torture (Abu Ghraib can be laid to rest at his feet). And, he is the architect of the Guantanamo policies that have been systematically repudiated by mutiple federal judges.

I'd have to say thats pretty fair. He did author the February 2002 memo suggesting that the Geneva Conventions, parts of which are "obselete" and "quaint" did not apply to "enemy combatants" (A term resurrected from WWII) captured during this "War on Terror". Consequently, many prisoners have been tortured and abused in places like Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-Ray and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. He also authored the Presidential Order which authorized the use of military tribunals to try terrorist suspects and supported the decision to allow foreign combatants in U.S. custody to be deported to nations that allow torture, in order to extract further information from them.

Good pick.

What Barry Says

2004-11-09T01:15:00.000-05:00

This is a beautiful movie. Well crafted.

Karl Rove Explains it All to You

2004-11-08T14:11:00.000-05:00

Still haven't found much time to write. I'll try to get some stuff out this week.

Dirty Tricks

2004-10-31T20:43:00.000-05:00

Daily Kos has a nice round up of the vote fraud and disenfranchisement efforts leading up to the election. For example Democratic areas in Alabama have been bombarded with this flyer:

More at Daily Kos.

Canadians at Risk

2004-10-31T17:06:00.000-05:00

Reuters:

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - A key U.S. anti-terrorism law threatens the privacy of Canadians and rigorous steps are needed to protect private medical and financial information, a government study said Friday.

Current safeguards are not sufficient to prevent the FBI from using the USA Patriot Act to force U.S. firms and their foreign subsidiaries to turn over private data even if doing so violates Canadian law, the province of British Columbia's privacy commissioner said.

CBC:

VICTORIA - B.C Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis says the USA Patriot Act violates provincial privacy laws, because it can order American companies to hand over information on British Columbians in secret.

Summary of the report here and the full report here.

This is some very unsettling news. I'm glad the Canadian government is at least attempting to protect its citizens but it may be too little too late. If the Patriot Act can infringe upon the rights of non-Amricans, I wonder how much power it yields at home?

Sunday Reads

2004-10-31T16:47:00.000-05:00

Arafat possibly poisoned: doctors
At least he's doing well.

Nice story from the NY Times on Somali refugees seeking asylum in Italy:

For the conservative government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, this movement from Italy to other European countries proves his government's central point: that Italy bears a disproportionate burden of migration given its closeness to Africa, and that there must be a unified European immigration policy. One such proposal is deeply dividing European governments: Italy, Britain and Germany support the establishment of so-called reception centers in North Africa so asylum cases can be processed outside Europe.

Reception centers are also known as "camps that would allow Europe to distance itself from its legal obligations to provide asylum - and to, in effect, subcontract that obligation to nations without the same laws or respect for human rights." Excellent read.

Nab's Triangle

2004-10-30T15:31:00.000-04:00

1. Great minds discuss ideas.
2. Average minds discuss events.
3. Small minds discuss people.

With few exceptions, I think people can safely be categorized into one of the above principle groups based on what they most enjoy discussing. Most of us are fed our thoughts by the media, and since we are what we eat, it follows that we are also what we read/watch/follow in newspapers/magazines/TV etc. The majority of us would fall under the third group, the People group. This is the one that enjoys discussing people around us and people we are totally unrelated to, but strive to be like them for materialistic reasons. The Events group is the one that enjoys active discussion of world and local events. Lastly, the Ideas group is the group of people who discuss new and old ideas and ideologies.

The triangle below shows how each group fits with the media.

The higher you are in the Triangle, the more intellectual you probably are. I will now describe each group in greater detail.

Those who follow the People sector are, for the most part, too preoccupied with their trivial lives that they can no longer find time to take a peek at the other side of the wall. It has been discussed numerously before; they are usually sufferers of AAD (RealTM, August 2004.) The underlying symptom behind their juvenile behaviour is their incapacity to original thoughts. Their opinions are usually driven by what they hear from the mainstream media (the People sector of Nab's Triangle) and they have the misled impression that if everyone else believes in something, it must be true. As the Third Principle implies, these people excel at discussing people (i.e. gossip) because such a form of discussion requires little-to-no original thinking, because the majority of the discussion involves reiterating speeches and stories that are of very small Mind Nutrition Value. They avoid unconventional topics because they are not accustomed to the depth involved in them. As a result, the People sector of the Triangle does not cover unconventional issues. The result is a narrow minded, blurry scope that lacks originality and appeal. It can be said that such people are so preoccupied with their soap opera lives and TV that they no longer have time to create their own thoughts. Therefore, they must use pre-packaged thoughts and ideas manufactured by the mainstream media. This sector refuses to accept changes because change would involve rethinking and reforming ideas.

The Events sector might be the most complex because it contains the most diverse people, in terms of interests, intellect and backgrounds. The Events sector of the Triangle shows us that the media coverage here focuses on, well, events mostly. Events from around the globe that deal with politics, society, sports and so on. What distinguishes this group from the previous is the fact that Events people can reflect over what they read and they have the capability to comment on the events with their own thoughts. In a way, the Events people are the mediators between the people and the ideas.

Finally we come to the group of people of which we have the least individuals. These people are capable of discussing anything, but what they enjoy most is discussing ideas that can have a direct effect on events and therefore can affect people. These people are more intelligent because they realize how the Triangle works. Their thoughts are unformulated, they question everything they see and hear, and they are not easily influenced by people who fall under the Events and People groups. Their speech sounds original and moving. Oftentimes, the Ideas people are not appreciated by the People people, because the originality of the Ideas people is unconventional, and small minds are incapable or processing unconventional info.

Clearly, ideas shape events that shape people. This top-down process gives the greatest amount of power to the fewest number of people. Remind you of something?

In feudal societies great power was in the hands of the few. But we live in the enlightened society right? The society of individualism, property rights and representative democracy. That's about as true as this. Obviously, we aren't as enlightened as we thought. When the majority of the people can fit into the Events bracket we can truly say that society has advanced.

Kerry's "Top 10 Bush Tax Proposals"

2004-10-30T01:28:00.000-04:00

This is from John Kerry's appearance on the Letterman Show on September 20, 2004. Don't ask me why I brought it up now.

10. No estate tax for families with at least two U.S. presidents.

9. W-2 Form is now Dubya-2 Form.

8. Under the simplified tax code, your refund check goes directly to Halliburton.

7. The reduced earned income tax credit is so unfair, it just makes me want to tear out my lustrous, finely groomed hair.

6. Attorney General (John) Ashcroft gets to write off the entire U.S. Constitution.

5. Texas Rangers can take a business loss for trading Sammy Sosa.

4. Eliminate all income taxes; just ask Teresa (Heinz Kerry) to cover the whole damn thing.

3. Cheney can claim Bush as a dependent.

2. Hundred-dollar penalty if you pronounce it "nuclear" instead of "nucular."

1. George W. Bush gets a deduction for mortgaging our entire future.

Troubling

2004-10-29T22:57:00.000-04:00

100,000 civilians have died from Iraq War and aftermath: Lancet. This story is a couple of days old but it just hit me that this may be the biggest non issue in this election.

UPDATE: This report seems to have used a method that skews the data. Here is a breakdown of what is wrong with it.

"Whatever It Takes"

2004-10-29T01:22:00.000-04:00

Including cloning to win the Presidency. I guess it is a metaphor for the Bush administration's relationship to the truth.

UPDATE: This video is hilarious. I guess it was before Bush was a "born again."

What a Deal

2004-10-26T00:01:00.000-04:00

Chrétien government spent $570,000 having a logo designed

Really?

2004-10-25T23:39:00.000-04:00

This via Instapundit is quiet puzzling. I could not confirm that story from any other source so I guess its not real news. If it is...all I can say is "unbelievable". I'll see if I can validate that story by tommorow. I doubt its real.

You're kidding me right?

2004-10-24T19:29:00.000-04:00

2003 Ferrari Enzo:

Base Price -- $643,000
Horsepower -- 650 @ 7800 RPM
Gear Type -- 6-Speed Manual with Automatic Shifting and Clutch
0-60 Miles Per Hour in -- 3.3 seconds
0-100 in -- 6.6 seconds
Top Speed -- 209 miles per hour (limited)

2004-2005 Aston Martin Vanquish S V12:

Base Price -- $228, 000
Horsepower -- 520 @ 7000 RPM
Gear Type -- 6 Speed Manual
0-60 Miles Per Hour in -- 4.8 seconds
0-100 in -- ??
Top Speed -- 200 miles per hour

Comments?

Slow Week

2004-10-24T17:56:00.000-04:00

It was a pretty slow week, and now I'm hurtling at 100 miles an hour towards two midterm exams that I'm not too confident about. As well as a paper on "Democracy".

It may be the most challenging but rewarding paper I will write this term. If only I could get started. I will entertain ideas on how and what to write about in the comments section of this post for those who are interested.

The election is also creeping up on me and I know there will be a lot to cover leading up November that will be blog worthy.

"China set to buy up Canada's resources"

2004-10-21T11:55:00.000-04:00

From the Globe and Mail

In an exclusive interview with The Globe and Mail in Beijing this week, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing made it plain that the controversial $7-billion takeover of Noranda Inc. is just a small element in a much more ambitious strategy of investment in Canada's resources sector to feed China's voracious appetite for raw materials.
"Given our rapid economic growth, we're facing an acute shortage of natural resources," the Foreign Minister told The Globe.

"No matter how plentiful our natural resources, when you divide them by our population of 1.3 billion, the figure will be very small," he said.

"The Chinese government is encouraging Chinese enterprises to make investments in Canada, particularly in the field of resources exploitation."

Exploitation? Not the word I would have used. I guess something was lost in the translation.

The other side of the coin.

2004-10-21T00:01:00.000-04:00

Tommy/Bubble Boy

2004-10-20T14:36:00.000-04:00

Today, I stumbled across what I believe to be quite possibly the most ridiculous attempt at feigning rationality and bipartisanship in the history of feigning rationality and bipartisanship. The attempt appeared in the October 15 issue of "Imprint", the University of Waterloo's campus newspaper.

I really don't know where to start with this one.

Tom is a conservative who can "barely tolerate most Republican policies", does not share the same values as George W. Bush on key issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research and thinks George W. Bush is a "moron".

As a "cautious-spending, modern-thinking guy" the fiscal conservative is bewildered by the "big-spending, stone-age-thinking, pseudo-moron" Bush.

So why would this man throw his support behind Bush?

The answer is simple: I like his spirit.

We'll get back to that.

In a related story, George Bush was "One Guy in a Bubble" during the entire initial phase of the Iraq war. Today's Washington Post ran an article by Harold Meyerson that pretty much sums up the entire faith based presidency of George Bush.

"I have no outside advice" in the war on terrorism, President Bush told Bob Woodward in December of 2001. In an interview that Woodward revealed to Nicholas Lemann in last week's issue of the New Yorker, Bush insisted that, "Anybody who says they're an outside adviser of this Administration on this particular matter is not telling the truth. First of all, in the initial phase of the war, I never left the compound. Nor did anybody come in the compound. I was, you talk about one guy in a bubble."

Tom realizes this. He's not stupid:

At the end of the day, we all know that John Kerry would make an acceptable president of the United States. We know that Kerry is capable of making careful decisions, weighing his options and asking other people for help, advice and opinions.

He goes on to state that:

Regardless of which values and policies are important to a particular candidate, they must possess the ability to lead and take decisive action.

Even if those actions are based on a gut feeling, or faith, or how the President is feeling that day.

Tom concludes:

So, whether it is right, wrong or just plain stupid, I would rather endure four years' worth of a misguided, profit-driven war in Iraq than four years' worth of discussions and committee meetings.

I think that last comment speaks for itself. I rest my case.

Philosopher's Errand

2004-10-14T22:30:00.000-04:00

Commuting is a drag. Evil, but necessary. By now it’s become a tedious routine, but I always try to keep myself in focus by finding anomalies throughout the trip. I’ve trained myself to turn something that’s more or less “normal” into something that stands out because it begs questioning. An example illustrating what I mean now follows:

First glance tells us that the aging man above is… well, simply aging. He minds his own business, unaffected by the fact that I am watching him. But is he really unaffected by my observance? Could his actions be, to a certain degree, influenced by my action, namely, watching him? Oh but wait, what is he doing? Is he smoking? What is that, tobacco? Is he even smoking? Maybe he’s simply checking what paper tastes like. But regardless of what he’s doing, why is he doing so? Was he doing that when I were not looking at him? Could it be that my remote surveillance has an effect on his behaviour, such that it is never truly possible for me to know or see what he’s doing at a given instant, because looking at him would change that. Nab’s Uncertainty Principle.

So besides that, I also occupy myself by silently criticizing commercial advertisements that plague my journey. One I’ve noticed today is LifeStyles condoms. “They come in 12 different styles that will keep you in style.” I’d love to meet the imbecile who decided in favour of publicly advertising condoms. So what are we going to see next? Sex toys? How about pistols and weaponry that come in 12 styles? “12 different styles to kill yourself and your neighbour.” I don’t like this, stop it.

Next I have those people that talk to me for reasons beyond my understanding. I had the misfortunate chance to sit next to a man, who I’ll name Teddy, that works for an internet firm (I could tell by his badge and company shirt), who tried to act like an average-commuter-who-engages-in-small-talk. This is my encounter:

Nab: Enters subway train, sits in the nearest available seat, placing his bag between his legs for maximum security.
Teddy: Looks towards Nab, begging for an eye contact.
Nab: Feels intruded because a middle aged bold man is staring at him. Glances towards Teddy, makes a mistake!
Teddy: Smiles inefficiently. Had a good Thanksgiving?
Nab: Unimpressed. Yes, thanks. Shifts back to critical thinking mode.
Teddy: Seeks another approach. Looks at Nab's bag, moved by the “Stop War!" badge. Are you against the war?
Nab: Yes, I’m against the war. Thinks: What’s this guy’s problem now?
Teddy: Oh that’s good. But you’re only –
Nab: Interupts. What do you sell?
Teddy: Oh you want to buy something?
Nab: Definitely not. Thinks: But I definitely have something you should buy. Please go buy the LifeStyles condoms, the world doesn’t need your genes in the pool.
Teddy: Pauses. I’m from –
Nab: Good to know, my stop is here. Walks away, points at the LifeStyles ad. Consider that.
Nab 1-0 Teddy.

My next installment will feature the Missionary Who Almost Cried.

Another Lie

2004-10-14T19:13:00.000-04:00

So I was watching the debate...

SCHIEFFER: Anything to add, Senator Kerry?

KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.

Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden? " He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned. "

We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

The President of the United States said that?

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

Right, he never said that.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

Ok, so what. He lied right to our faces.

Let The Show Begin

2004-10-14T16:05:00.000-04:00

As usual the post debate broohaha is not about the important issues brought forth, the legitimate questions asked or the essential topics that ought to be discussed. Instead, items of debate following the actual debate are insignificant and tired quips about what the motives of a candidate were, or how that particular candidate looked.

Republican's are furious about John Kerry bringing up the sexual orientation of Dick Cheney's daughter. She's gay. Gay. Gay. Gay. Everyone knows that. John Kerry brought it up to infuriate Bush's base and try to divide the party. It won't work, but whose to say he can't try?

The New York Times ran a piece today about the "big controversy".

As for what was said on Wednesday night, perhaps the most emotional reaction was from Mary Cheney's mother. "I did have a chance to assess John Kerry once more," Lynne Cheney said at a post-debate rally in Coraopolis, Pa. "And the only thing I could conclude is this is not a good man. This is not a good man. And of course, I am speaking as a mom and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick."

DICK CHENEY'S WIFE is probably the last person I would expect to say anything about dirty politics. That's like John Gotti's wife saying she doesn't know anything about the mob.

Ofcourse, the Kerry camp had Mrs. Pretend-to-be-naive's counterpart do a little dirty work too.

Senator Edward's wife, Elizabeth, said in an ABC radio interview that Mrs. Cheney had overreacted. "I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences," Mrs. Edwards said. "It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response."

Great. Why don't we just get them to mud-wrestle until the election. Throw in the Bush Twins too.

The End is Near

2004-10-13T22:57:00.001-04:00

Well, in the final episode of the Presidential Debates Road Show both contestants seemed a bit more self-conscious. I noticed a lot of effort made by Kerry to come off as personable and compassionate, while Bush tried to sound smarter.

The debate was on domestic policy. Interestingly, only two-thirds of the debate covered anything domestic.

I don't care anymore. I just want to see the end. This election can't come soon enough. The rest of the blogosphere has already done a good job covering it anyway.

Ann Althouse gets the ironic statement of the night award for her use of the word platitudinous in reference to the "wordy liberal senator from Massachusetts".

Kerry's closing statement: something about "ideers" and reaching higher and grabbing dreams. "Embark on that journey with me." Pretty platitudinous. Bush: there's painting in the Oval Office that has something to do with seeing the sunrise and hence with the way things are getting better in the U.S.

Hans Who?

2004-10-13T13:51:00.000-04:00

Blix Says Iraq War Stimulated World Terrorism

I doubt it, because President Bush said "the world is better off without Saddam Hussein" and he's never wrong. Hans Blix is just a washed up, internationally respected former chief weapons inspector for the United Nations. His insight is meaningless.

Note: Tonight's debate should be interesting. And by interesting I mean completely boring and pointless. Nevertheless, I will blog it.

The 2nd Presidential Workout

2004-10-08T23:09:00.000-04:00

Both men spent a good hour and a half on the excersice bike tonight. Kerry seemed to be in great shape, until he hit the wall with about 23 minutes left. Bush on the other hand got off to a slow start but came back from behind late in the workout to match Kerry's level.

Did Kerry stumble? No. But he did slow down.

Did Bush stumble? Sorry, stupid question. When did Bush stumble? A few times, most notably: "The National Journal named Senator Kennedy the most liberal senator of all". If it even mattered what The National Journal labelled Kerry, I would have something to say about this mix-up.

My favorite question to Bush: "Can you tell us of 3 mistakes you've made as President?" (More or less) Answer: "I don't make mistakes. I've never made a mistake. Grrr." (More or less)

Overall: As I said, both men had a good workout on the bike. Didn't get anywhere. I'd give "The Most Reasonable Player" award to Kerry. Bush gets the "Most Likely to Become a Successful Stand-Up Comedian Among Slack-jawwed Yokels" award. That's the second time he's won the award and his 4th consecutive nomination.

In my honest opinion these debates are not getting anyone anywhere. It's a loss for the American public everytime. They might as well have the election tommorow, because I don't see any Kerry/Bush supporters changing their minds and I'm pretty sure those undecideds will just toss up a coin.

That debate almost made me want to scowl. Almost.

Assorted Candy

2004-10-08T16:57:00.000-04:00

Hilarious.

Also,

Bremer Misleads About His Own Comments

Paul Bremer, said on Monday that "We never had enough troops on the ground" in Iraq.

Today, in the New York Times, Bremer attempted to limit the damage to the administration. Bremer - in a piece entitled "What I Really Said About Iraq" - claimed he only said it "would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting."

And I can almost assure you this never happened: (From today's New York Times)

A year and a half ago, President Bush asked me to come to the Oval Office to discuss my going to Iraq to head the coalition authority. He asked me bluntly, "Why would you want to leave private life and take on such a difficult, dangerous and probably thankless job?" Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality." Today America and the coalition are making steady progress toward that vision.

And another thing from today's New York Times:

Questions for Bush
ANA MARIE COX, editor of Wonkette.com:
Personal experience can often change political opinions. So, just hypothetically: Let's say your vice president's daughter was gay ... Oh, wait. Umm ... What if you were responsible for the biggest deficit in American history - oh, ha. O.K.: Let's say you invaded a country based on faulty intelligence ... Er, oops ... No, we got it: How did "The Pet Goat" end, anyway?

All animals are equal...

2004-10-07T21:20:00.000-04:00

A spur of the instant.
Every once in a while, I get the urge to form my own society of people who hold the same beliefs as I do, or at least concur with them. But then I realize how corrupt it would be, not because I am corrupted, but because politically-oriented societies are always corrupt. No exceptions. Even something as innocuous as a Student Administrative Council is a corrupted society. Our own S.A.C., for example, advertises by telling the students that “any student can be run and hold any position on the council, by being nominated for it by fellow students.” In reality, however, holding any position other than a “commission member” (lowest of all standings) requires that the nominee be voted for by people who are already part of the council. In other words, the only way one can be raised to a higher position, is by being nominated by members higher than you in the hierarchy. In effect, the council is dominated by people who themselves decide who should be on the council, by definition, that is autocracy.

Amplify the above example and you have an outline of how democratic governments operate in reality, one way or another. I think it’s a given that true democracy can never exist unless the leader is prepared to give away his leadership to any candidate at any given time. But that can not happen if the leader’s job is overly luxurious and the decision he makes are not openly decided upon by the people. The leader’s life should be no more than a gift to his people, given voluntarily for the sake of leading the people, not being fed by them.

“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

Interesting...

2004-10-07T15:45:00.000-04:00

Very interesting:

The Scotsman, Scotland's national newspaper, has an interesting article online about a bribery scandal involving Saddam Hussein and the French government. Apparently, the former Iraqi president "was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war." Instapundit is shocked, very shocked.

But there's more.

[T]he Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which returned its full report last night, said Saddam was telling the truth when he denied on the eve of war that he had any weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He had not built any since 1992.

Instapundit has this to say:

Personally, I find it hard to fault the Bush Administration for thinking this way. And had they failed to engage Saddam, we'd be hearing -- from many of the same critics of the war -- that their failure to do so was evidence of ineptitude ("How could you leave such a vicious dictator free to cause us trouble, smack in the middle of the mideast?") along, probably, with claims that it was somehow a way of enriching Halliburton.

I agree it's hard to fault the Bush administration for thinking that way but I wouldn't say war critics would find another way to bash the president. Any war critic that I would trust would not criticize the president for thinking about the safety of his nation, rather the that critic would be questioning the methods and way in which the president chose to keep his country safe.

Meanwhile...

Bush said he took a "hard look" around the world at where terrorists might get weapons of mass destruction and concluded that "one regime stood out" -- Saddam Hussein's. "There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," he said.

Like John Stewart said last night on The Daily Show, "There's nothing better than 20/20 blindsight."

Ankstotle's Inaugural Address

2004-10-06T18:40:00.000-04:00

A boring work environment is very unfortunate, really, I used to think that work is work, no matter what, as long as you are doing your own thing, being independent, its all well and done. For those of you who are annoyed by the run on sentences, feel free to correct them at work, think of it as something to do while you are bored at your work.

As evident by this piece of writing, I am at work and I am bored, not bored because I have no work, bored because I have irrelevant work. I am given projects to do that have no relevance of any kind to the operations of the company. They just expect me to make pretty charts and I am given a week to change the font of the title to bold and underline. Yesterday, I spent about an hour deciding whether Arial or Times New Roman is the font of choice, it was like deciding between Coke and Pepsi. I can swear its the exact same thing when going down with a slice of pizza. Just a fun fact though, I opened a can of coke the other day and that thing fizzed for a good hour after I opened the can. They pack more CO2 in that thing than a small tree and then some.

Its not helping me that its colder inside my cabin than it is outside and I live in Canada where cold weather has the same relation as the TAJ does to MJ. It just makes sense. Heres the crazy thing, I have no windows in my cabin, yet I feel the cold air hitting me harder than the Waterboy (Adam Sandler) himself. Just then, I realized, theres an air conditioner installed on the ceiling, one of those centrally air conditioned. I just found a way to pass some more time, find the guy who controls the central air conditioner and tell him to turn on the heat. I mean cold weather, boring work, and a fizzing coke can are the recipes to a ,drool all over your desk, kind of sleep. Why do you think polar bears sleep in the winter; because its cold and they are bored, thats just a proven fact.

Despite all these minor distractions, it is important to maintain focused and keep on working, hoping that the next time you stare at the clock, the Gods will smile upon you and finally move the minute hand. The other day, I was excited when the PR lady, who is quite a looker, announced coffee truck. I ran harder than a kid running after an ice cream truck and I dont even drink coffee. I got my chocolate chip cookie, said my daily hi to the PR lady, made small talk about how traffic in Toronto is getting worse everyday and back to my seat. It doesnt help when you have 3 supervisors and all 3 of them assigning the same task to you. The work is interesting but there is just not enough to go around but I can not break the code of an employee and ask for more work. Thats like a kid who hates broccoli asking for more broccoli just because his parents think its good for him. It just doesnt make sense.

I spent half an hour the other day looking at gross pictures of my supervisors new born baby just because it was better than sitting in front of a computer, entering useless data. I mean, sure, if I had a kid, Id love it to death, take pictures of it everyday etc and all that good stuff but do I really need to show everyone how sticky kids are when they are born. My first thought was, is that baby sick or just ugly or both? I felt bad thinking that but the thought still holds true. The lesson learned is, no matter how ugly, your kid would always look the best to you. I can really connect with that because the philosophy with babies and cars is the same thing. If its yours, you better get used to it and make the most of the situation.

Now, I just hope my seniors at work dont read this.

I've Got 3 Dimensions

2004-10-05T23:24:00.001-04:00

There are certain individuals in our society that can be accurately described as "one dimensional". This term is very vague and can have a variety of definitions. In my understanding a one dimensional person is like a cartoon character drawn into my three dimensional world, a la "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?".

These characters lack a sense of realism. They seem to transcend reality. I am befuddled by their existence and their ability to survive in my "real world". Someone like Donald Trump, aka The Donald, aka The Dude with the Funny Hair, aka The "You're Fired!" Guy is a cartoon character that should have never made it in my world. He seems to be "unreal". How did this goof get that rich, I ask myself daily.

But the answer hit me suddenly, like a craving for cocaine. I realized, people are not born as cartoon characters, instead they turn into them. This is my naive theory about these one dimensional individuals. Currently, my theory doesn't hold water. It is actually a work in progress. I am convinced The Donald was Mr. Trump, the really good business man and smart executive who takes his life seriously, before he decided to whore himself on TV and become a cartoon character. But I'm not so sure about Paris Hilton, or any of her pseudocrackwhore friends. I think they were born as cartoons.

Report Reveals Disturbing Details

2004-10-02T15:23:00.000-04:00

The report found its way onto the internet yesterday via Banterist. Some very disturbing details and a lot of questions raised. Hopefully, someone can be held accountable.

Here is an excerpt:

Page 26:
Military Notification And Response

NORAD: We have a report the dogs got out. Can you confirm?
ASPCA: Repeat, please.
NORAD: CENTCOM is telling us the dogs got out. Can you confirm?
ASPCA: Dogs?
NORAD: Yes.
ASPCA: Let me check. [8 second silence] Yes, they got out.
NORAD: Who let the dogs out?
ASPCA: Who?
NORAD: Who.

Back on the Track

2004-09-30T23:59:00.000-04:00

It's been some time. Transitioning back into the academic life has been somewhat challenging, given my unconventional views regarding the education system here (or education altogether, for that matter.) Nonetheless, one has no choice, for there is no true choice when every option is predetermined.
Philosophy aside, things are starting to settle into what's becoming a tedious routine. Seeing the same faces everyday, walking the same steps everydayt and recollecting the same thoughts every now and then. Everyday I realize how much potential I have in hating things. No, I don't hate people and I don't encourage it, but I could do it really well if I cared to. I've come to realize that I spend an excessive amount of time rejudging people I already know. For instance, I do this as I listen to intellectually unmoving talks, by some so-called friends, about how they've once again started a new friendship with that girl, unaware of my awareness that such aquaintence is motivated solely by looks. I'd say this approach is harmless, but telling about it everyday is definitely numbing my grey matter. Another class of individuals that can, in principle, deserve my hatred, are those who display symptoms of AAD. I'm not reiterating, but Lord tell me how can some people be so naive about world events that are taking place as we speak? We're in the 21st century for God's sake, it's supposed to be the Information Age or what not, so why do people still refuse to be informed one way or another? Why not broaded their scope of mentality by engaging themselves in a Kerry-style debate, just for the sake of debating? People need to be more opinionated, or they will no longer qualify as persons.
In any case, I suppose being involved with such pitiful people is also becoming part of the routinely cycle. Do I hate? No, but I can't give enough credit to the man who said the following: "I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it." For now, I'll lean more towards the former. Amen.

On the fence

2004-09-30T23:16:00.000-04:00

Oops! I meant to say "on defense". As in, the topic of tonight's highly anticipated, highly publicized and highly "blogged about" debate. It was entertaining, informative and lively. The complete opposite of what I was expecting. Bush remained unwavering in his stance that Kerry wavers on key issues. Kerry dumbed down for his audience to connect. And apparently, the questions were very biased against Bush:

8) OK, I'm not hypersensitive about such things. But these questions are turning out to be extraordinarily biased. Every question seems to be "so, let's talk about the mistakes Bush has made..."

But shouldn't the person making the mistakes be the one to receive the tougher questions? I may be mistaken.

Bush, being the "President next door" type, got major points for his anecdotes and use of words such as "liberty", "courageous", and "freedom", non of which have a clear-cut definition in the realm of W. Kerry, got major points for focusing, giving clear answers and not being as wordy as expected. Both parties will declare a victory for their man, but who will really believe it? I think Kerry didn't win, not to say he lost.

As an opening debate, both candidates did what they ought to do: reinforce their messages to their supporters. In the next debate, I expect Kerry, and to a lesser extent Bush, to reach out the the undecided voters and try to win them over. After this debate, it's clear that a previously undecided voter would still remain on the fence.

Note: You know I wouldn't talk about George without mentioning his trademark Bushisms. The Bushisms were not really quote worthy, as they are kind of expected. Maybe I'll find a gem in the transcript.

He got...

2004-09-29T15:45:00.000-04:00

OWNED! Low Culture just ate New York Post cartoonist Sean Delonas' food.

Note: Maybe I'm a little excited. I don't know why though. Something about our need as humans to laugh at other people's stupidity or whatever. Actually, its because Delonas' cartoon came out 2 days after W made the remark about John Kerry, and one day after I and the rest of the blogosphere commented on it.

International News Article | Reuters.com

2004-09-28T15:39:00.000-04:00

You just cant please the US. I think I see where this is going.

Washington accused Iran of removing a substantial amount of topsoil and rubble from the site and replacing it with a new layer of soil, in what U.S. officials said might have been an attempt to cover clandestine nuclear activity at Lavizan.

2004-09-28T01:05:00.000-04:00

W just delivered a staggering right jab to his opponents weak spot. After weeks of taking, he gave it back. Bush is known to surprise his opponents with sharp blows uncharacteristic of his inarticulate and rather juvenile style.

(Let's hope he's not reading the same article you are.)

"He could probably spend 90 minutes debating himself," Bush said.

Who's Party Is This?

2004-09-26T20:37:00.000-04:00

Every few decades, a generation has a coming of age party. Shaped by the experiences this generation has had the party usually has a very distinctive vibe.

For Somalia's young lost generation, displaced by the ongoing civil conflict and finding itself dispersed around the globe the coming of age party has just begun. And MCing the party, at least for now, is K'naan.

The rapper, also known as Keinaan Warsame has finished recording his sophomore album "The Dusty Foot Philosopher". The first single, "Soobax" has hit the airwaves and is currently being played on MuchMusic Television in Canada.

Pace Magazine has an exclusive interview.

The new era.

2004-09-14T22:58:00.000-04:00

It is my pleasure to present the dawning of a new era, in which blog and blogger come together, for a great and glorious future. Oh, how I've missed this little outlet of mine. As some of you already know, I've gone off to university, so I couldn't write anything for a solid week prior to recieving my internet connection. But that doesn't matter. What's important here is that I now have a much wider range of interesting topics to discuss. Without boring my gracious audience to death, let me just say this: Nineteen will be undergoing some major changes in the next few months. I know I always do this but I just have to say it..."Look out for my next post...Peace"

Untitled

2004-09-08T23:12:00.000-04:00

Until I get time to write, dig this.

An uninformed political rant.

2004-09-04T23:52:00.000-04:00

Is it possible that I am the only person infuriated and frustrated by the incompetence of the news media and the ease by which politicians can manipulate the masses? I am not a conspiracy theorist but, WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON!. You know when pro wrestling decided it would no longer hide the fact that it was fake? When they said to themselves: "Who cares about pretending its real. They dont care. They like it just the same. So why waste our energy?" Well, I believe politicians and government have reached the same point. When some iron pumping lump of steriods and human growth hormone can become the highest elected official in the most populated state in the United States of America and then make a speech about "economic girlie men" to the roaring applause and appreciation of thousands of so called republicans, I guess they just aren't trying anymore. When said official does that with a hilarious accent, they really stopped trying. I haven't been this frustrated since the Olsen Twins countdown ended and I was no where near them. But I digress. Maybe one day CNN and the rest of the so called media will decide the death of thousands of innocent people due to a "miscalculation" by the so called leader of the free world is more of a scandal than Michael Jackson and his "Jesus Juice" or who is banging who in Hollywood. Well, maybe not that. But they're almost there. It's like the world is crumpling all around me and all I can do is laugh it off. I am about to cry here. Maybe we need a revolution. I am not an American, but who are we kidding? They run the world. So a revolution in America can only be good for the world. I'm not talking revolution like guys wearing pink shirts in public, I'm talking revolution like Napolean, Civil War, Che Guevara gun slinging shit. Well, now I'm inciting violence. But as Thomas Jefferson put it, "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."

P.S, I will not be posting anything for the next week as I will be making the transition to living on campus at University, so expect something from Nab and hang tight.

Thou shalt not kiss the arse of fame.

2004-09-02T23:30:00.000-04:00

The other day I was out for some ‘get-together’ time with a few friends, our first destination was a café wherein we were obliged to watch the incomprehensible final episode of the Middle Eastern version of American Idol (which was broadcast on a Lebanese channel.) The two finalists did not impress me and I expressed my opinion of them to my friends, all of which agreed that these singers are unworthy of fame. The finalist who won the competition is seen in the picture below, minutes before the winner is announced, smiling in an orgasmic fashion:

I do congratulate him for feigning humbleness and at least thriving to be a talented fellow. Back to the original discussion – so after the café escapade was over with, we decided to go eat dinner someplace. After being seated, we were watching the local news on TV, and behold, the “superstar” shown above is on the local news. Suddenly, the guy shown above is popular. I emphasized to my friends that I still don’t see the talent in him, something they agreed with. However, one or two of them, who before mocked the singer using homosexual remarks, now seem to respect and almost idolize him. They praised him like he is their first cousin and in all seriousness expressed their newfound emotional attachment towards the pop idol. I like to point out that I am not fond of such hypocritical friends, however, I find it funny that people’s perspectives of others can change in an instant due to fame, wealth and whatever else materialistic attributes. Is this a result of the superficial brainwashing shows the youth watch on TV these days, or are we naturally born shallow and ass-wipers? (Females are especially shallow, and that seems to come natural. Hands down.) People who display such abrupt change in their perspective of others must be avoided, for it is a sign of hypocrisy and they tend to be highly self-interested (read: “Jew.” No pun intended against Judaism though.)
Judge not, lest ye be judged. Until next time, don’t let my writing be your Bible.

For crying out loud!

2004-08-30T23:47:00.000-04:00

Its the Olympics dammit! $1.5 Billion dollars in security, the costliest ever. 70,000 police and soldiers (that's about 7 per athlete and 76 per spectator). But somehow Cornelius Horan (pictured below), a pale, Irish, middle aged, ex-priest cut through the security like hot urine through a snowball.

How on earth can a man, dressed like that, run onto the track and attack an athlete for nearly 15 seconds before someone shows up? I am appalled. Vanderlei de Lima of Brazil deserves a gold medal. As a matter of fact, give him two. That ex-priest seems to be up to old tricks as he looks to be tweaking the left nipple of the runner at his obvious displeasure. He is seen here again, doing the same thing to some sort of security official:

The attacker was carrying a sign that read "The Grand Prix Priest Israel Fulfilment of Prophecy Says the Bible." Go figure.

For surviving this horrid attack, de Lima deserves one gold medal, and for being such a good sport when he finished the race he deserves another. Take it away from the American gymnast who sounds a lot like a girl and give it to de Lima if you ran out of medals.

"Mom, I want choc-" SLAP.

2004-08-26T00:01:00.000-04:00

Normally, I post up my share of Nineteen early Thursday, around 12 am or so. This time I’ve had less to write about and also been somewhat busy for my writing. Statistical data of the site’s traffic has not been very well lately, most likely explanation being inactivity for which I give my part of the apology. It brings me to something I’ve wanted to cover since last week. I’ve received some feedback about Nineteen which questions the purpose of this site. The writing on Nineteen has been criticized as “seeking attention” and that the people writing have too much time on hand. Now I’m a reasonable person and I like to argue logically and reasonably. Firstly, with regards to why we write, my share of the answer is simple – just for the sake of writing. The writing here maybe critical and very subjective, but it is still writing. Orwell’s greatest essays were purely subjective and it criticized other people, yet he is arguably one of the greatest writers of our time. Did he set out with the purpose of criticizing people and thereby seeking attention? I don’t really think so. He wrote for the sake of it. So again are we seeking attention? Hardly, just look at the simplistic layout of the site. If we were really seeking attention, this is what Nineteen would look a little more like:

Maybe worse. Popularity, dear reader, is the effect, not the cause, of the writing. Finally, as to having too much time in our hands - maybe our hands aren’t too preoccupied with our genitals in all our free time (as RealTM puts it.) Whatever is written on Nineteen is only done in our free time, and it only takes a quarter-hour to write something of quality every week. In any case, I’ve been busy the past week so I cramped a 2-week worth of writing into this one.

Moving on... The other day, some kid came to me for advice regarding her course selection for highschool. I did my best to sound enthusiastic by telling them to go screw themselves, but it didn’t work. Flipping through the course selection booklet, I came across some very ridiculous courses. Things like “parenting”, “fashion” and “managing personal and family resources”. Parenting? Who, in a sub-matured state of mind, needs to learn parenting? Isn’t that supposed to be intuitive? It’s like offering a course in breathing or taking a dump. Then there is fashion; that’s not so bad if I want to fall into the snare of corporate whorery. In response to this, one would have to learn how to manage their personal and family resources in order to not spend money on unnecessary products (note to the stupid – a Nike water bottle will not make you any more athletic than you dream of.) Schools shouldn’t spoil and corrupt children this way by offering impractical courses. They should offer more factual teachings, like “Civilized Behaviour” and “Discipline by the Stick.” The other day I was using public transit to get home, and up front where the handicapped are supposed to sit was some blonde MILF with her unmannered child. The boy shouted at his mother with phrases like “Mom, you stole the money!”, “Mom, why are people staring at me?” and “Mom, how come you have hair down there?” Clearly, the child had never been disciplined, very much like his own mother. In my entire life, no one has given me a better reason to split their skull into two like this boy did. How can children go undisciplined in such a way? If a kid talks to me like that or even begins to think about embarrassing me in public, I’d slap him. If that doesn’t work, I’ll use a stick on his back. This is not child abuse, it’s discipline. Stupid teen magazines are the reason why we have parents who are afraid to raise their children right, or maybe they just don't know how to do it. If you can't do it right, place the child in a box addressed to the Nineteen Editor Office and drop it in the mailbox. Say NO to Seventeen!

Update: Just before someone else comes whining about how hitting children does not help in raising them, I guess I have to say it explicitly (thereby beheading the black humour in the article) – I do know, and I do believe, that harming a child is not morally and fundamentally right in raising children. I do know that the best way to teach children about right and wrong is via instrumental conditioning. However, I do think that hitting a child (on the hand, for example) is still effective in disciplining them, though it should not be taken to the level where it will severely harm the child, physically and psychologically. I detest it when people ruin my sarcasm.

From below the 49th parallel

2004-08-18T00:49:00.000-04:00

I'm RealTM, and I approve this message:

Your friendly neighborhood blogger has been in Columbus, Ohio since last week and it hasn't been a total waste of time. It's been quite an experience actually. I have got to say...when it comes to movie theatres, Canada has nothing on America. I saw a movie for 50 cents tonight and it wasn't in Chinatown. I'm going to have to end this transmission, I've got things to do...No really, for once I have something to do. Good bye, and God Bless America!

Good boy! Here’s a cookie.

2004-08-12T00:00:00.000-04:00

Victims of Conformity 2:
(click here for part 1)

Then there are those who want to fit in with a certain group of people because they want to experience the sort of attention that particular group receives. The problem is that those people are trying to fit into a group that they don’t belong to, they’re not qualified for it, and it doesn’t even match their personality that the result is a confused pretender. These pretenders do certain activities just so they can talk about doing it and hope to be accepted by a certain social group. For example, a pretender would go spend money to watch a basketball game, not because he/she enjoys the sport at all, but just so he/she can go back to their friends (some of which are genuinely into basketball) and talk/brag to them about their experience. In reality, the pretender is forcing the basketball game experience onto themselves in hope of developing a passion for it, artificially. What’s more, when the pretender starts talking about their new experience in this field, they talk in a way that makes it sound as if everyone else is completely deprived of such an experience. These pretenders are none more than victims of conformity. Their personality lacks the appeal of uniqueness, their actions have no real motive or reward besides having the opportunity to talk about them. They also tend to be judgmental towards people with real talents and who receive attention they deserve. The pretenders have this idea that if people don’t talk about what they do, they probably don’t do it. For example, based on their reasoning (or lack of for that matter), if I do not talk about how I gave money to charity, then I didn’t do such a thing. This is because they are used to talking about everything they do and hope to receive attention for doing so. Many of their judgments are based on inaccurate assumptions, manufactured by limited views of life.
So how do I feel about those victims? Well, I don’t feel much and I don’t let my ego be touched by their poor judgments. When I achieve, I do not pull up a banner and blow horns in celebration. If you overrate yourself and give yourself too much credit, you’re not leaving much room for people to credit you.
Oh so you got yourself a date? Good job, now go and puzzle out which face you’ll put on for the night.

Cogito, Ergo Sum.

2004-08-10T19:36:00.000-04:00

I think, therefore I am. But what about those who don't think? What about the countless numbers of people I run into daily who seem to be incapable of putting together a logical, rational thought that hasn't already been fabricated by customs, or traditions or "common sense". I'm talking about the people who will say something so irrational that you can question whether or not they are capable of swallowing their spit while breathing. For example: Today at work one of my co-workers, after seeing a fan that had been on for the entire night before, said "Oh, that poor fan. It's been on all night." I didn't know whether to hit her with a hot iron or run home and write a blog about it. How on earth can you feel empathy for an inanimate object? This woman had to apply another one of her prefabricated thoughts to something that does not even fit the criteria for what you can apply it to. At that moment, I thought: What if someone doesn't think for a moment? Would they cease to exist?. Imagine people disappeared into thin air when they didn't think.

Let me focus my rant on a certain group of individuals. I believe I have discovered what ails these people. I have termed it "Accepted Absurdity Disorder" or "AAD". A mental disorder, AAD renders sufferers utterly useless to society. Ironically, this disorder is in effect created by said society. Generally, a person suffering from AAD is unable to recognize the difference between an absurd and a rational thought, making him/her nearly incapable of having an intelligent thought. AAD comes from a collection of prefabricated thoughts and thought patterns similar to cliches that accumulate in an already weak mind. The weak mind accepts these thoughts as originals and resorts to them as often as possible. The thoughts and thought patterns come from many sources but alone they are harmless. It is only when they accumulate in a weak mind that they become "Art-ideos" or "Artificial Ideas" that are to blame for the suffering an humiliation suffered by most people with AAD.

Sufferers of AAD are easily recognizable. The most obvious symptom is lack of communication skills. A few nights ago, while I was chatting with friends on MSN Messenger a girl began to talk to me. I talked back and we began a conversation. The conversation somehow turned into an argument. Now, I'm paraphrasing but not embellishing the conversation.

Girl: Talk.
RealTm: OK
(Long pause because I was busy with other conversations)
RealTm: So what's new.
Girl: Ummm....nothing.
(Another long pause)
Girl: Talk to me
RealTm: You're not making it easy.
Girl: WHAT'S THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN!
RealTm: It means what is says.
(Long pause)
RealTm: How's it going with you and that guy?
Girl: Good.
RealTm: So what are you two doing now? Dating?
Girl: What is this, 21 questions?
RealTm: No, its a two part question.
Girl: Well, it's none of your business.
RealTm: OK.
(Long pause)
Girl: You always have to have the last word don't you?
RealTm: No.
Girl: I'm going to bed. Good night.
RealTm: Good night.
(I close the window and carry on with my life.)
(Moments Later)
Girl: Go to bed.
RealTm: No.
(I'm thinking WTF)
Girl: What is this all about?
(I'm hoping she isn't getting philosophical)
RealTm: What?
Girl: This argument
(Now I'm more than slightly pissed off)
RealTm: Frankly, I couldn't care less. But I will give you a hint why we are having it. Its because you are by far the worst conversationalist I have ever met in my life. If your dull mind were capable of putting together one set of ideas even vaguely comprehensible you wouldn't need to bother me with these infantile yacks you call conversations.
Girl: You talk to much (sic)
(I'm thinking: unbelievable. You come back online to talk to me after we end our conversation and then you tell me I talk too much? Someone should stick an explosive penis down your throat.)
RealTm: I've had enough of this mindless banter. Go to bed.

When I realized that that girl must have had AAD I felt somewhat bad. And she isn't the only one. There are millions of other people like her who have no idea what they are suffering from. The only solution is detoxification of the mind and daily reading of anything published on Nineteen. Other than lack of communication skills, these people are recognized by their contrite speech patterns around dominant males and authority figures, inability to use inductive and deductive reason no matter how simple the problem may be and their proneness to use sentences with improper subject/verb agreement when it doesn't sound cool (RealTm don't know what's that all about).

There is help. Seek and ye shall find.

Dear Nab, Episode I

2004-08-05T01:26:00.000-04:00

Thursday morning, I open my mailbox expecting the usual GGW spam, but hey look - it’s a beautifully sealed envelope addressed to me. I guess somebody out there took my words from my first log literally, but I take full responsibility for that. In any case, here is the letter:

“Dear Nab,

Here is just a little introduction before I start talking about the real problem.
I have known this guy, actually a friend, for over a year now. Things have been pretty good, until the day I found out he wanted to be more than 'just friends'. I was very surprised and could hardly believe a word he was saying. At the time, I didn't even believe that he liked me more than a friend, but he seemed to be really serious about it so I figured he was telling the truth. So anyways, I rejected him, because I only liked him as a friend.
Now, the real issue… This person that I am talking about is a really nice guy even though there are a few things I don't like. This isn't that big of an issue, but it is something some of us have to deal with at times. I guess by now you have figured out that I am a girl. So here is where it all started... One night, two friends call me asking me to come and hang out with them (one of the guys being the person this is about). I agreed, since I was bored and I wasn't busy in the first place. We drove around in my friend's car and at one point the guy [in question] comes to sit at the back with me. I honestly didn't mind that. BUT it's not about the fact that he was sitting beside me, it's about why he was there. I wasn't expecting anything to happen. All I wanted was just to hang out, nothing else. Maybe I gave a different impression, I don't know. And if I did, I was wrong to do that. So what happened was, the guy moved closer to me trying to do whatever. I didn't think it was such a bad thing, because after all he didn't get anywhere with me since I stopped him. That night, I didn't mention anything, but I did feel that I was doing the wrong thing. I just let it go, thinking it was a one time thing and it sure will not happen again. I was wrong. The next time, we hanged out; I thought everything was fine and all that. Well, it wasn't. I wasn't so much in the mood for anything, especially not fooling around. This time when the guy came to the back of the car, where I was sitting, he pretty much didn't care what the heck he was doing. The night before that wasn't as bad. I didn't want to be mean or anything, so I agreed to some of the things that went on. All I did was put my legs over his. I didn’t think it would get any further, I wasn't thinking straight. I just relaxed. But no, relaxing was not such a great idea. He tried going under my shirt, or whatever that was, after I tried to stop him and told him not to. He didn't even care about what I said. Look at this way, if I said no to something like that I think it was pretty clear I didn't want to go any further, and that would have been a good time to stop. First of all, I didn't want go anywhere at all. It wasn't like that. Don't think he raped me or anything. That's silly. Nothing happened. Okay, think about this. If you consider somebody a friend, you don't necessarily expect this kind of thing to happen. I am trying to say is that when someone says 'no' it does mean no. The impression I got about him after those two nights was that the only reason he wanted to hang out was so he can fool around, not because of any other reason. He said that wasn't true. I'm not trying to be rude or however you want to put that, I just don't want this to go on. I don't see a way to tell him how I actually feel about all this and act as if it's normal. I know I can just tell him straight up, no big deal, but he is a good friend and what will he think...

Yours truly,
Anonymous.”

Disclaimer: I hereby wash my hands clean of any damages, physical or psychological, that may result as a consequence of my writing. I have the right to manipulate the letter in any way I find suitable such that it is made liable to criticism and attacks by me and any other reader herein.

Dear Wants-it-but-denies-it,

Thank you for writing and selling your soul to me. I am going to publish your letter so that you may set an example to others of your generation and type. I will tackle your issue systematically so that I have everything covered and solved.
I suppose you have not yet studied The Ladder Theory, since you persist to call this guy of yours a “friend” when clearly he is more than a friend. Use the link provided to go over this theory, it’s a masterpiece.
“I guess by now you have figured out that I am a girl.” – No shit? I don’t think a male adolescent would have issues like yours and write about them. Also, this provokes me to add the following requirement to the visitors of this website:
“REQUIREMENT: STRAIGHT SEXUAL ORIENTATION, NO HOMOS.”

We learn as we go.

So this guy of yours wants “things” from you and you are denying him. Didn’t you go to church, don’t you know that Jesus teaches us to give, give and give to the needy? I suppose the problem you are facing is that you still want to be “friends” with this guy even though he treated you like… like the proper way a guy should treat a girl? You even ventured to put your legs over his, and still expect him to behave like an inanimate stick? That’s not how it works, I’m afraid to say. You see, you’ve thrown a well mixed cocktail of messages and hints to this poor guy, and he is only reacting accordingly. First you say no, and then let him do what he enjoys doing (first night encounter.) Then you say no again, and to prove your point, you place your legs over him (second night encounter.) Dare I say you are in confusion with what exactly you want from the guy? Maybe, just maybe, this explains why I addressed you with Wants-it-but-denies-it. I can’t blame the guy for doing what he did, simply because you haven’t done enough to show him what you don’t want from him. Oh you did say ‘no’ a couple of times. Maybe the message is not clear enough. Here, from now on, wear this badge when you are “hanging out” with guys:

You can get a badge like this one from your local extreme feminist cult; though wearing it would give the false impression that you are approached by guys frequently.

Summing up, to really solve your problem I think it is best to refer him to this article itself. Upon reading your email, he should understand how you felt about the issue and when he reads my suggested (and flawless) solution he will know how to treat you henceforth. The “friends” idea, toss it out the window. It’s a ‘give and you shall receive’ sort of idea that we're looking at here.

I am certain things will turn out fine eventually. I look forward to recieving more issues from readers that I can effortlessly solve.

Let's play "52 Pick-Up"

2004-08-04T01:02:00.000-04:00

Check out this deck.

My Big Fat Greek Ego

2004-08-03T19:41:00.000-04:00

The common premise is that if you find a weakness in something, you should make it a strength. If life were basketball, and you were Michael Jordan, you've succeeded so much that the word success seems too closely associated with failure, you're at a different level now. Unfortunately, life is not basketball. Too often we get caught up in the little problems in life, magnifying them so much that they are permanent distractions. You did not ask to be put on this earth, but your here. You're existing. Drop all the classifications and titles put on you by society. By giving into these glory driven agendas, you are only feeding your own ego. You should just accept the fact no body is the same. It's not your fault that you couldn't become an engineer or a doctor to please your parents, so they can tell their friends that my son (or daughter) is a respected person in society. It's not your fault that your girlfriend is of a different race, and it's definitely not your fault that your parents are racist and can not accept that. When you were born, you had your authentic self. Then they gave you a false self. "You are Christian, you are catholic, you are white, you are German, and you are the chosen race of god", and so on and so forth. They create a false idea of who you are. They give you a name, and around the name they create ambitions, prejucides, and so on. It takes almost one third of your life, for them to work on your ego through the school, through the church, through university and college. By the time you come back home from the university, you have completely forgetooten your innocent being. You are now a very big ego, with a gold medal, topping the university honor roll. Now you are ready to go into the world. This ego has all the desires, ambitions, wants to be always on top of everything and you are exploited by this ego. This never allows you to view even a glimpse of your authentic self. This ego only produces misery, suffering, fighting, frustration, madness, suicide, murder, all kinds of crime. A seeker of truth has to begin from this very point, that whatever you have been told by society, you have to discard. Certainly you are not who you portray to be. Nobody can know your authentic self but yourself, not your parents, not your teachers, not your friends, not your priests. Except yourself nobody can enter into the privacy of your being. Nobody knows about you, so whatever they have said about you is all wrong, put it aside. Dismantle the whole ego. In destroying the ego, you will discover your being. That discovery is the greatest discovery possible. Because it starts a totally new pilgrimage towards ultimate bliss. Towards eternal life. If you choose either frustration, suffering, misery then go on holding onto your ego, nursing it or choose silence and bliss. Recover your innocence. The ego is just the opposite of your real self.

The Best Fans In The World.

2004-08-02T00:53:00.000-04:00

Carlsberg probably has the best beer in the world. The Toronto Raptors probably have the best fans in the world. When rumours flew about the possibility of trading the team's star player the fans got together and did this. For the slow, Vince is the superstar and Peddie is the corporate whore.

Jismodentistry

2004-07-31T23:28:00.000-04:00

Ever seen the movie "The Dentist"? Reality isn't too far off from fiction. Check this.

So talk.

2004-07-29T15:55:00.000-04:00

It’s another Thursday, so here I am writing again. I’ve designated Thursday as my “column day” though I might show up on other days to pitch in a minor article.
It’s often said that good communication and humour are signs of great intelligence. Now I’m not here to criticize people with weak vocabulary, rather make people aware that it’s not how big your words are, but how well you use them. Communication skills are the most essential ingredient in the recipe of life. I have absolutely no doubt in that statement. One of the top 10 candidates of The Apprentice, Troy McClain, made it all the way to the top with only a puny high school diploma. He didn’t even consider going into college, and yet his performance in The Apprentice has now placed him in an executive position in some firm. It’s all about how you make an impression, and making an impression is mostly based on how you present yourself and part of presenting yourself is through the way you talk.
This is true everywhere, it’s not exclusive to the business world. It’s good communication skills that make a person good with conversations, and being a good conversationalist is a plus factor on the attractiveness scale. I’ve come to judge that “wussup”, “sup”, or the even more respected “what’s up?” should no longer qualify as greetings. If I meet a person for the first time in my life and he greets me with a “what’s up” or equivalent, I have no choice but to overestimate the person’s communication skill to be less than or equal to 1, on a scale from 1 to 10. If the person remains silent, I’d give him a 5. There needs to be more variety when it comes to the choice of word/phrase. What’s more important is that you know what you are saying before you say it. If you don’t fully understand what a certain word/phrase means, avoid the embarrassment by not using it.

Here, Orwell’s 6 pointers should give you something to start with:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never us [sic] a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Until next time, fill me up with criticisms.

Edumacate our childrens!

2004-07-29T01:19:00.000-04:00

Does public school make us dumber? Apparently it does.

Disclaimer: Although I went to public school, I feel in no way, dumberer than anyone else.

What is a clown?

2004-07-26T23:46:00.000-04:00

Excess makeup + fake personality = clown.

Give them a foot and they take you three steps beyond.

2004-07-24T22:10:00.000-04:00

Am I the only person who finds the Socratic method slightly offensive? Lately, I have begun to take note of what's going on in my world and make mental file sheets to sort out the people, places and circumstances that I encounter daily. I've been doing this so much that my entire thought process has been comprised of forming aphorisms and applying them to everything. Compliments come with high expectations attached. Especially in a work environment. I'd like to know that when someone compliments me, they aren't doing it to gain my favour. You're still a jackass and I still can't stand your fake smile. But I'll kindly smile back. Also, insults are a sign of faltering imagination. If the only way you can try to deflate my abnormally large ego is to toss petty insults at me, you must realize that I will note your incompetence and remember that humiliating you will not be as nice as watching you fail. I'm not mean spirited, but you deserve it. Here's some food for thought: It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. It's even easier to die for them too. I just finished reading a book. It was OK but I felt dissatisfied with the ending. I think that's the story of my life. Disappointment at the worst possible time. Maybe I should lower my standards and join the masses. From now on, if I find the covers of a book to be too far apart, I'll put it on a diet and read every other chapter. I could have easily read every fifth chapter of that last book and felt slightly less disappointed at the end. But I digress. The purpose of my life, as of July 24, 2004: I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it.

If at any point in reading this entry you felt frustrated by the disconnected and random progression of thought then I would suggest you fill all the holes with segways so that your average mind can comprehend. By the way, perfection is a distant and fading beauty.

Citius Altius Fortius

2004-07-22T22:21:00.000-04:00

First things first, welcome Nab. Very pleased to have your input. I believe you will all benefit from his insight. Now back to our regularly scheduled program. Well, according to a recent poll, 87% of those surveyed in North America "Couldn't Care Less" that the Olympic Games in Athens, Greece are less than a month away. I assure you I am not among the disinterested majority. No, I give a damn. Why am I such an advocate of these games? Because I am a true believer in the will and strength of the corporate spirit. Every 4 years, at these summer games, the best of the best in the corporate world come together to showcase their strength as truly multi-national organizations. It brings a tear to my eye knowing that I share a common bond with some guy in China through not only McDonald's but perhaps Kodak or even Xerox. Every time I take a picture of myself with my tasty meat-flavoured Big Mac and photocopy that picture 16 times to post all over my room and send to my friends, I know I am playing my part as a responsible global citizen. So I suggest you do the same. Be a part of your community and help these nice people take over the world.

On a lighter note, it appears Nab has received his first hate mail. Well done Nab. For the Anonymous sender, I would suggest you see this. If you have done so already, I suggest you ask someone to help you read Rule 1, preferably someone outside your family since stupidity is genetic. Also if your comments contain any combination of the following: "LOL, LMAO, PLZ, JUS, and AIGHT", you will confirm your mental age and IQ are both single digit numbers and that the correct response to your comment will likely include but is not limited to: humiliation, degradation and personal attacks. Its like bullying the dumb kid at school, I'm sure your type are very familiar with that concept. Hopefully this harsh yet just approach to blog policing will not deter the average reader. I hope this is fair warning for those individuals who find the spelling of "the" is far too complicated and prefer "teh".

Note: I didn't make up "Schlumberger", as funny as it sounds. And no, John Hancock has nothing to do with what you think. They are both real companies.

Enter the Nabuchadnezzar

2004-07-22T00:17:00.000-04:00

Nabuchadnezzar (hereafter known as Nab) now enters the realm of Nineteen. Here I come, to bring light where darkness prevails. To bring insight where ignorance resides. Etc.

Like RealTM, you may start to notice the note of all-knowing-ness in my logs. However, my all-knowingness is genuine. I can probably tackle every problem your mind can muster. From modern political issues to emotional problems with your boyfriends/girlfriends. Try me.

If you have something to comment on, I advice you to do so. Keeping thoughts and feelings locked within you is not healthy (not that I care about your health), thought identifying yourself in your comment would be half-decent so at least I know how to address you in my comebacks (otherwise I'd just go for "jackass".) No, "jackass" is not copyrighted.

Update: For the jackass who's posting comments about strangers, I present you a double-cream serving of this.
Another Update: This site, being in its early stages of growth, is not known by a great crowd of people. Having said that, it's quite easy to tell who is commenting by the style of writing and use of vocabulary, given the assumption that the people commenting this far are people who know me in person and secretly hate me. And thanks to my ICT studies from highschool, I know enough to compare IP addresses.

Sue me.

You thought I was crazy...

2004-07-19T23:41:00.000-04:00

...when I said:

Fox News' reports are "deliberately and consistently distorted and twisted to promote the Republican Party of the U.S. and an extreme right-wing viewpoint."

And you all laughed at me. Well, the last laugh is on you my friend.

...

2004-07-18T23:38:00.000-04:00

I cower back to my throne...slightly wounded. Actually, believe it or not, I wasn't saving the world the past few weeks. I've been busy, to say the least. I kinda promised you a movie review but I'm sure you've all gotten something on you're own. All I have to say is, GO SEE IT. Back to what's important, namely Me. I'm really going to start posting more often. Honestly. The catch is, my narcissism will only grow as my posts increase. So you ask, "What has he been busy with lately?" Well, I've started my own company. I am not at liberty to divulge any further information right now, but I'll let you know when I can. I've also been busy planning my university life. So far so good. I've narrowed it down to 8 chicks I'll be rooming with. The final cut will be in a week and only 3 will remain in my room. Its like "Survivor: Allstars" fused with the "Playmates" edition of "Fear Factor". Really exciting. I've got some people I have problems with on the internet. One of them is fairly famous for his acid tongue and masterful writing but alas it is I who is destined to knock him of his pedestal of pseudo pirate mutiny and misogynism. Many of you may know him as "Maddox". Personally, I hate his entrails...I mean guts. Only because he doesn't respond to well written hate mail, or hate mail he cannot grammatically and logically rape. He doesn't acknowledge the fact that he is a moderately funny yet grossly overrated web celebrity. He may have been cool when it was cool to sound like you hate the world, but sorry kids, that fad is gone. He'll have to find another way to attract the web-addicted, angst-filled 12-16 year old demographic lest he be shamed by the one and only RealTM. And I'm sure "Maddox" doesn't read this, or atleast doesn't acknowledge that he does but I suggest as many people as possible send him well written hate mail. If he's anything like I think, and I think he's a lot like I think, he'll ask his wife/girlfriend/significant other, whom I will not demean yet, if he can try to take me down. That's enough about the poor guy. I'll humiliate him later. Live long and....I think it's prosper. Not sure. Someone look that up please.