Skip to content
thepete.com - » In TheNews thepete.com

TheAdvertising:
:gnisitrevdAehT

The Story of @Megapixel or How Social Media Allows Us to Remember Those We Never Knew


by ThePete 9:00 pm 2009-07-01
Categories | $ | Comments (0) »
listen via talkr

The content of this post was first published on my TwitWall but under a different title.

So, I was just minding my own business today when I saw a Tweet from @bsimi">@bsimi explaining that today at the @RSHotel dirty martinis would cost $7 in memory of Megapixel. I didn’t know her, and my instinct is to double check before I assume things I read online reflect reality.  Some people have dry, even invisible, senses of humor, so it pays to confirm stuff.  Sadly, it’s true–Meg Porter, aka Megapixel on Twitter, died in a car accident a week ago yesterday.  Seems she may have been on a single-lane road when a big-rig was going the other way.  Regardless, it was sad–she was just 24 years-old. 

What makes her death even more poignant is that while she had over 3000 followers on Twitter, she let everyone follow her life via her vlog posts on MegPorter.com.  I haven’t had a chance to look at many of them, but in the few I watched she seemed like a pretty normal 24 year-old woman–her whole life ahead of her.  Life is funny this way–some of us go away early, some of us stick around, while others can’t decide what to do.

The thing is, thanks to social media, no one goes away fully.  We’ve all heard the phrase "they’ll live on in our hearts" and it’s true but now, those who have passed on can live on through their own words, their own voice, their own face through social media–in a tiny tiny, but significant way, it’s like they’re immortal. 

So, when I found Meg’s blog I saw the YouTube video she recorded back on the 21st and immediately thought "Oh, @bsimi">@bsimi is just kidding or something."  If I hadn’t Googled any further, I’d have never known the difference. 

I’m not sure what I’m getting at, really.  I think maybe I’m hoping stories like this one will encourage us all to blog/vlog/record/document/whatever our lives more. 

As scary as it is to contemplate, we may check out before we expect to.  Best to make sure there’s something people can remember us by.

Just my ¥2, of course.

Totally forgot to add this link:

megan-porter.gonetoosoon.org/

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 0.0/1 (0 votes cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Why Google is Actually Quite Evil


by ThePete 10:00 am 2009-06-23
Categories | $ | Comments (0) »
listen via talkr

See those ads on my site? Yeah–the ones from Google. Those are pretty unfair and yet we’re supposed to believe they are the key to surviving on the Internet as a content provider. The theory is that they’re just like TV commercials or print ads–advertisers pay you to advertise their products. Simple, right?

Wrong.

Google Ads (at least the ones on my website) pay webmasters per click.

How many TV advertisers pay TV networks based on viewers “clicking through” their TV commercials?

How many magazine or newspaper advertisers are paid based on how many people actually go to an advertiser’s website?

So, you get TV, newspapers and magazines getting paid big bucks just show ads.

But as a webmaster, I have to rely on the ability of a Google Ad to find it’s market in my audience. The thing is, I don’t want the ads to be obtrusive, so I go with text-only ads. Of course, it’s against the Terms of Service (ToS) to ask my site visitors to click on ads (even politely), so my only choice is be obnoxious to my audience by going with graphical ads or trust Google to do their job and display the best ads.

Not very fair since Google regularly misinterprets the words on this site. Back during the 2008 presidential election, I was slamming Bush and conservatives who would vote for him and what ads pop up on my site? Republican dating sites.

Well done, Google.

Now, to be honest, I don’t really pay attention to how many unique visitors I get per day. When I have checked I discovered it can range from a few hundred to a few thousand every day. Yet, do I get paid for every unique visitor who has a Google Ad downloaded to his or her browser? No.

Meanwhile, Google gets to traffic in my information, your information, and all the while they claim that their interest is in “not being evil.”

Sorry, G, but displaying your ads is a service I provide to you. Yet you only pay me when people click. You benefit no matter what because your logo is displayed to every visitor I get. Your clients benefit no matter what because their ads are displayed to my audience whether my audience clicks or not.

Does this seem fair to anyone?

So, claiming to not be evil and getting a service from people without paying for it?–that seems pretty evil to me.

Am I going to take the ads down? No way. I make a couple hundred bucks a year off of them and that’s a couple hundred bucks I wouldn’t get otherwise. But imagine how much I’d be making if I were paid based on how often an ad was displayed to a visitor…

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 1.0/1 (1 vote cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Election Fun In Iran: Unrest of Citizens, Arrest of Loser & Oppression of Media


by ThePete 4:40 pm 2009-06-13
Categories | $ | Comments (0) »
listen via talkr

I reeeally wish I had more time to cover this. Basically, Iran had a huge election and the main challenger, a dude called Mousavi lost. Protests have erupted as claims of election fraud have, as well. ABCNews has said that their footage of the scene of protests in Tehran has been confiscated and that the pictures/video coming out of the capital city of Iran were shot with cell phones (ironically, I watched this report on my iPhone).  Meanwhile, rumors are swirling that Mousavi has been arrested and, according to @SashaKane in a Twitter post he may have also been charged with: “…high crimes
and treason against then Country of Iran???”

The reason this is all worth following is because Iran is already on our “Would Like to Invade” list–I think it’s in the number one spot, if I’m not mistaken–Ahmadinejad claiming a victory when there are reports that almost no Ahmadinejad voters could be found in Tehran, followed by
oppression of the media, protests and rumors of his competitor’s arrest don’t exactly make Iran a less irresistible target for invasion by the USG.

In fact, as we all know, weaker justifications for invasion have been used in the past.  Iran becoming unstable might almost be seen as a good reason to invade.

Either way, stuff to be concerned with for sure…

Screencap source: andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/mor…

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 0.0/1 (0 votes cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

The Next Time Dick Cheney Opens His Fat Mouth Remember This


by ThePete 2:02 am 2009-06-02
Categories | $ | Comments (0) »
listen via talkr

This is semi-old news, but with Cheney making the rounds again recently I felt this story would be good to conjure up–it’s from 2004 but important to think about when Dick Cheney goes on and on about "protecting America."

In an October 12, 2004 article on CommonDreams.org, Jason Leopold wrote about how Dick Cheney was helping Iraq break international law:

The report on Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction, prepared by Charles Duelfer, a former U.N. weapons inspector and head of the Iraqi Survey Group, said Saddam Hussein used revenue from the oil-for-food program and “created a web of front companies and used shadowy deals with foreign governments, corporations, and officials to amass $11 billion in illicit revenue in the decade before the US-led invasion last year," reports The New York Times.

Sure, $11 billion is chump change compared to what we’ve actually spent on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but that was, to use the old cliche, a lot of money back then. Leopold goes on, however, later in the article, to say:

But the one company that helped Saddam exploit the oil-for-food program in the mid-1990s that wasn’t identified in Duelfer’s report was Halliburton, and the person at the helm of Halliburton at the time of the scheme was Vice President Dick Cheney. Halliburton and its subsidiaries were one of several American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000 by skirting U.S. laws and selling Iraq spare parts so it could repair its oil fields and pump more oil.

Leopold cites UN documents in the article as his source for this story. While he doesn’t link to the docs themselves in his article, in the face of evidence like this, if true, it’s hard to give any credibility to Cheney at all and I find it very frustrating that the media gives a man like this, who is no longer in power, a voice on TV and on the radio. Frankly, it makes me question the entirety of mainstream media.

As if there wasn’t already enough reasons to mistrust the mainstream media.

One other thing about Cheney: this is more proof that our leaders are just corrupt businessmen who couldn’t care less about human life and just want to make money. If he really thought that Saddam was a bad guy, why did the company he was CEO of do business with him? Because he doesn’t care who is bad or not. It’s all about the green.

Democracy? Republic? Free country?

Nah, it’s called a Corruptocracy.

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 1.0/1 (1 vote cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

ObamaWatch: Obama Admin Considering Indefinite Jailing for Terror Suspects #obamawtf


by ThePete 1:37 pm 2009-05-21
Categories | $ | Comments (0) »
listen via talkr

My sister-in-law, Lisa (she runs OnLisaReinsRadar.com ), Tweeted yesterday about how every day there’s something new from the Obama camp that makes her what to ask "WTF?"

I agreed and suggested a daily ObamaWTF Tweet. Here’s mine for today, taken from today’s DemocracyNow.org headlines:

Obama Considers “Preventive Detention” for Indefinite Jailings

The Obama administration, meanwhile, is reportedly considering a “preventive detention” system that would indefinitely jail terror suspects in the United States without bringing them to trial. The New York Times reports President Obama discussed the proposal at a meeting with human rights advocates at the White House. Two anonymous advocates told the Times that Obama indicated he favored applying the system to future cases, not prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. Obama is set to deliver a speech later today outlining his plans on how to deal with closing Guantanamo.

Original here: www.democracynow.org/2009/5/21/headlines#5

This’ll be no big deal assuming Obama doesn’t do it–but why is he considering this at all? I think there’s an amendment in the Bill of Rights promising due process and a speedy trial or something like that.

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 0.0/1 (0 votes cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

International Monetary Fund sez Earth’s Economy on it’s Back Until 2010


by ThePete 1:35 pm 2009-05-18
Categories | $ | Comments (0) »
listen via talkr

Last month, the International Monetary Fund (not to be confused with the Impossible Mission Force) revised their prediction that the
planet’s economy would be back on its feet by 2009, saying it wouldn’t likely happen until 2010 at the earliest. Funny how, here it is,
2009, and they decide, as mid-year rapidly approaches, that the economy won’t be out of bed before December 31.

Really? What gave you that idea?

Sheesh. Why does the incompetent news media keep listening to the incompetent money people who failed to see this mess coming at all?

They lied to hide that things were falling apart, they lied when things were falling apart, why should we believe any of them now?

What’s almost as bad as letting the people who caused this mess stay in charge so they can fix it? Expecting those same people to be
honest and accurate when it comes to seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

If there is ANYTHING I have learned so far this century it’s that there is NOTHING that "experts" in government, finance or business possess that should allow them to call themselves "experts." Whether you’re Jim Kramer, the dude in the White House, or the doughy white guy in the picture in the CNN.com article I capped for this post (original here: www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/04/22/imf.forecast/index.html ), odds are you’re so entrenched in the current system you’re too blind to see that system’s blatant problems.

After the last, near-decade of messes, I feel like anyone who doesn’t end their claim with the phrase "I could be wrong" should not be trusted. Hell, I’d be fine with a seeing a simple "IMHO" someplace in a press release from the WHO or the NHS or NOAA or whomever.

If We, The People, have any brains, we’re about to enter another era like the 1960s, where the motto becomes "Question Everything" because that’s exactly what we should be doing. We’ve been trusting our leaders in government and business to keep our civilization running and we see now that we have been lied to across the board. So we need to ask questions at every turn–stop trusting big business to tell us what is going on with big government. Question it all–don’t read one article and be satisfied–find other sources in and outside the country–talk to people about what you read, compare notes. Think for yourself and, again, relive that motto from the 1960s: question everything!

This time, though, let’s lay of the drugs, OK? I think that crap made the last generation forget all the stuff they were supposed to question and that got us back into this mess. It’s believed that Thomas Jefferson once said "The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance." Where Tom said that or not, it’s true.

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 1.0/1 (1 vote cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Why Jury Duty in the 21st Century is a Joke


by ThePete 7:53 pm 2009-05-16
Categories | $ | Comments (0) »
listen via talkr

Last week I had to show up at a courthouse to see if the City of New York needed me for a jury. Luckily, after two days, they let me go, case-free. I say “luckily” not because I don’t believe in doing my civic duty. I do–I’ve served on a jury once before and enjoyed it, though it was a little scary sending some gang-guys up the river for ten years (I don’t like forcing anyone to do anything, but we did find that they had committed a crime).

No, the problem I have with jury duty in today’s world has nothing to do with the “serving on a jury” part and everything to do with how the the whole thing works.

1) No pay. In some circumstances there is compensation for jurors. In LA, it was something like $5 a day. For only some (but not all) jurors here in the Big Apple, you get $40 a day. That’s still a joke. Most employers I’ve worked for do not pay for hours you don’t work. So, the idea that it’s “our duty” to serve is ridiculous. It’s our duty to provide for ourselves and our families while having enough money to play our role in society as consumers to keep the economy going. I can’t do that on $40 a day. Not while living in a major American city, anyway.

2) I’ve been sued. I lost because I couldn’t afford a lawyer who would force the collection agency suing me to prove I owed them money. Our civil legal system is a system that believes in the phrase “guilty until proven innocent” which is completely the opposite of what I believe to be fair and just. Showing up for jury duty is supporting a system that victimizes the poor and uneducated. But I do it because they’ll fine you over a grand if you don’t go. Funny, I don’t remember being threatened with a fine if I didn’t vote in the last election.

3) Our government, at large, has shown that it, in itself, is a joke, unable to protect us from terrorists, hurricanes, or even useless, unannounced photo-ops that disrupt a huge chunk of NYC. 8 million more voters wanted Obama in office, only months after getting into office, we see him stick with many of the same policies as the Bush administration. This is on top of that fact that the city wants me to see the inside of a court room as a juror long before George W. Bush will see the inside of one as a defendant in his own war crimes trial makes me wonder just what my “civic duty” will be done for.

4) The jury orientation video they show us here in NYC compares the modern court system to the court system used to try witches.

I shit you not.

They hired actors and reenacted a witch trial where they throw a woman into a lake and watch her drown, clearly informing us that we should feel lucky that we no longer do this. Yeah, tell that to the dude who got waterboarded 80+ times, man. Give me a break.

I’m so glad we have progressed as a society!

What a stupid thing to be thankful for. Why not thank the world for existing for another day? Or thank the universe for not imploding? Or thank clocks for not suddenly starting to run backwards?

So, here’s how we fix the jury duty system in the US:

1) Pay jurors what they make at their regular job or pass a law forcing employers to pay employees while on jury duty. It’s simply not fair that the individual must suffer while the company does not.

2) Only call citizens with employment. Come on, man–I’m trying to get a small business going and I lose two days in a row because I have to do my civic duty? What about my civic duty to become a productive citizen? No, call the folks with jobs and make sure point 1 is done. We shouldn’t be punished for being out of work even if it’s by choice. Think of it like taxing the rich more than the poor.

3) Stop with the patronizing videos. I don’t need Diane Sawyer telling me how “most people find jury duty enjoyable” or a lecture on civics and history from Ed Bradley who died three years ago.

4) Understand that government is government on all levels unless attempts are made to differentiate between federal, state and local–which you can’t really do easily. So, when government anywhere looks incompetent, sadly it reflects on all of it. It may not be fair, but neither is our legal system. It’s the people in the system who must change things so that faith in this system can be restored. Personally, I don’t see the difference between the most powerful, suit-wearing white men and the minority/disabled/females I always see working in courthouses.

Someone once said that all politics is local–well, then isn’t that a good reason to make sure government on the lowest levels works the best? Why is it that I already think the NYC government is kinda crappy? I’ll tell you–because I haven’t been a NYC resident for a year and I’ve already gotten called for jury duty. When I go, it takes them two days to not stick me on a case unlike Los Angeles, who only took one day to not stick me on a case.

To top it all off, if I had been placed on a case, I’d have been placed in a civil case–like the one I was in, as a defendant, against a collection agency that was, in fact, suing me illegally. Yeah, turns out that despite the fact that I had no recent (within the preceding 6 years) credit card debt the judge in the case didn’t bother to ask to see any proof that what the credit card agency was accusing me of was true. Yeah, that’s our “justice” system for ya.

So, anyone in New York City who was looking for a jury for their civil case last week, be glad I didn’t end up on your jury–unless you’re the individual going against a company or two–then I’m your man, assuming you’re just looking to win and not hoping for a fair trial.

And please don’t tell me to suck it up, man. I’m so done with that kind of thing. If we spend every challenge “sucking it up” things will never change.

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 1.0/1 (2 votes cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Why Trekkies are Annoying About the Rules: A Shortish Rant from a Reformed Trek Fanboy


by ThePete 12:21 pm 2009-05-11
Categories | $ | Comments (0) »
listen via talkr

Thanks to the new “Star Trek” film (those are finger-quotes, by the way) I and many other disinterested parties are forced to put up with reading how “good” (again, finger-quotes) the new scifi actioner is from people raving on Facebook, Twitter and via other media. The thing is, for many folks, folks like me, it’s just not possible for any new Trek to be good in the way Trek was when we were growing up on it.

Trekkies usually get slammed for taking the franchise too seriously. The thing is, that’s how it was designed–to be taken seriously. The creator of the series, Gene Roddenberry, at one point, decided there were rules and encouraged fans to follow them–he authorized reference manuals, the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Mr. Scott’s Guide to the Enterprise, to name just two of MANY. Gene spoke of certain things being part of the continuity (anything on TV or the big screen and the aforementioned manuals) and others not (the novels). The idea was to make this future as real as possible for fans and as a result many of us ate it up–it was so easy to immerse ourselves in.

But after Gene died, people took over the franchise and, sadly, they just didn’t give a crap about those rules. As a result, slowly but surely, those rules started getting broken and eventually came to be ignored entirely–so much so that there was no point in even paying attention or caring.

After a couple years of the rules being broken, I tossed Star Trek aside. Got sick of caring only to have my intelligence insulted.

So, here we are, well over a decade since I was last fired up about new Trek, and everyone is ranting and raving about how great this new Trek is, when any old-school Trekkie worth his salt knows that the movie couldn’t possibly follow the rules Trek originally followed. When folks who still care about Trek bring this up, they’re made fun of for taking it too seriously.

Well, that’s why they got into it in the first place. Star Trek represented structure in a real world where structure is often hard to find. Stability, guaranteed by moral leaders, interested in saving lives, bringing peace, living and dying with and for principles.

Yeah, when’s the last time you saw that in real life??

So, please don’t waste your time wondering why Trekkies can’t deal with the continuity problems. It’s because they were told to care and they did care only to have the powers-that-be betray the trust showed them.

In 1994, I moved to Los Angeles with the goal of one day writing for Star Trek. I had started to see a drop in quality of the writing and felt I should get in there and try to help. I got as far as a meeting with one of the producers of Deep Space 9. I handed him a script and it was rejected because it was too similar to an episode they had recently produced (that I had no way of knowing even existed). Two weeks later, the producer left the show removing my access. Needless to say, the show only got worse from there–not by just my estimation, but by everyone’s.

Now I’m supposed to go back? Drop my $20 on a movie ticket and popcorn and try to accept that Spock could somehow be young enough to hang with Kirk in his 20s? Or that the Enterprise bridge should glow white like it was designed by Apple? Or accept it all because a time-travel story makes it all go away at the end? Meh…

When I stopped caring about Trek all those years ago, I stopped caring…

Hell, if we wanted to just have fun, we’d watch Star Wars.

…or something that didn’t go on long enough to disappoint.

Have you ever heard of something called “anime”? ^_^

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 1.0/1 (3 votes cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Can We Just Stop Blaming the Poor Folks for Our Crappy Economy PLEASE?


by ThePete 3:06 pm 2009-05-05
Categories | $ | Comments (0) »
listen via talkr

I am sick of seeing/hearing people explain that the cause of our crappy economy is/are the sub-prime mortgage defaults. This seems to place the onus for the mess that is upon us on the poor in the US.

Think about how stupid that is.

Let’s blame the poor for our bad economy.

Right, that’s logical… or it would be, if we lived on Bizarro World. How is it that people with little money can mess things up for those with lots?

First, you have to admit that the defaulted sub-prime loans were just a single factor (of many) in all of this. Then, you have to ask a very important question.

Recently, I came across yet another person on a socnet laying blame for our economic crisis at the feet of people unable to pay off their mortgages. The following is what I posted in response–it includes that very important question:

I think the bigger problem is why soooo many people couldn’t keep up with their mortgage payments. If so very many people defaulted that it caused this massive failure of our economy, it seems more important to me that we ask why so many people couldn’t pay their loan payments. Surely, they can’t ALL be “lazy” or whatever.

I’d much rather solve the problem of so many people unable to make enough money to live comfortably, pay their bills and stay healthy.

However, in typical ThePete-fashion, I’ve a bit more to say. So here’s that:

So, if they weren’t all deadbeats, why couldn’t they pay their mortgages? Because they hadn’t seen a raise or a promotion in their jobs in a while? They lost their job because of downsizing, outsourcing or a personal medical issue? How much of those reasons are economically related?

How many of those reasons are related to the business’ well-being put in front of the employee’s well-being? To me this always comes back to all of us putting the right of a company to survive above the right of an individual to have a job that allows them to play their part in society.

And which would you rather do?

1) Prop up a faulty system, allowing the people and structures that failed once an opportunity to fail again

2) Let businesses fail, sending everyone, business owners and employees alike, a massive wake-up call that they can’t just assume everything will just work the way it should without folks paying attention and thinking for themselves

I know I’ve loaded those options a bit, but it strikes me as odd that we should save the employees by saving the bosses who got greedy and were the largest catalyst of all this in the first place.

And on top of that, you’ve got to wonder about a system that is so unstable that, when one thing goes wrong, it falls to pieces.

No, to me there’s something very very basic about our economic that is overflowing with wrongability.

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 0.0/1 (0 votes cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Think Specter’s Switch to the Democrats Means Anything? You Need to Understand Our One-Party/Two-Head System


by ThePete 1:49 pm 2009-04-28
Categories | $ | Comments (0) »
listen via talkr

Think about it: our system allows for legalized bribery. Every politician is pro-corporate because that’s where the overwhelming majority of their campaign contributions come from. To keep those contributions flowing (which allows them to keep getting re-elected) politicians will do anything these corporate donors ask. Does it really matter if one of them takes money from Coke instead of Pepsi? Or barters favors with agribusinesses instead of the oil industry? What happened to government for the people, by the people?

What’s worse is that some companies and industries will give to both parties to make sure that whomever wins, they’ll have influence.

Back on April 13, 2009 Noam Chomsky was on Democracy Now and he addressed this issue this way:

You can learn a lot from campaign contributions. In fact, one of the best predictors of policy around is Thomas Ferguson’s investment theory of politics, as he calls it—very outstanding political economist—which essentially—I mean, to say it in a sentence, he describes elections as occasions in which groups of investors coalesce and invest to control the state. And he takes a look at the formation of campaign contributors, and it gives you a surprisingly good prediction of what policies are going to be. It goes back a century, New Deal and so on. So, yeah, it can predict pretty well what Obama is going to do. There’s nothing surprising about this. It’s the norm in what’s called political democracy.

I know I’m quoting the infamous Noam Chomsky, but he’s quoting Thomas Ferguson and who cares as long as what they’re both saying is accurate?

Sure, there may be some slight ripples, but ultimately, the problems with our system will still be there no matter which side of the aisle Specter iss sitting on. Our system is built on corruption. Is it any less corrupt because companies you like get their way?

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 1.0/1 (1 vote cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

The Virgin Megastore in Times Square has Shut Down


by ThePete 4:12 pm 2009-04-24
Categories | $ | Comments (0) »
listen via talkr

Guess we haven’t hit bottom yet!

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 0.0/1 (0 votes cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Dems Debate Whether to Investigate Crimes of Bush Admin or: Why I Refuse Party Affiliation


by ThePete 11:06 am 2009-04-24
Categories | $ | Comments (2) »
listen via talkr

Geh… This is just sad beyond words. WashingtonPost.com is reporting that the Democrats in Washington are torn as to whether or not to go after Bush Admin officials for approving torture.

So, FOR YEARS there have been loads of evidence that the Bush Administration committed crimes. The GAO actually found that they had violated federal law (go to the GAO website and do a search for "covert propaganda"). We all know that acts of torture were committed in Iraq, we know the Bush Admin misled us into war in Iraq and mismanaged our war in Afghanistan.

Yet, no investigation let alone impeachment hearings for any Bushites.

The excuse while Bush was in office was "We can’t impeach him now, there just aren’t enough votes."

Then, once the Democrats took the majority in Congress, the excuse became "Well, there’s not enough time left before Bush steps down."

For anyone who thinks the law should be enforced the last eight years have been very hard.

But it’s not getting any easier now. If EVERYTHING ELSE wasn’t enough for you, Obama just released memos PROVING Bush officials were down with torture–those of us with morals would THINK we’d finally see some criminal charges.

Maybe we still will–but not before the Democrats debate about WHETHER TO ENFORCE THE LAW.

This is why I refuse to be in either political party. The Democrats are wondering if international and US law needs to be enforced and the Republicans feel the law can go to hell if the cause is just.

The most depressing thing of all is that Obama was supposed to change all of this. Now we see that Democrats and Republicans, alike, believe that the law is to be enforced on the little people and that for the rich (mostly white) folks in government, the law is simply not a concern if one’s motives are pure.

I said mostly white, above, because now, apparently, Obama is in violation of the law too–international law demands that war crimminals be prosecuted.

So while I’ll never call him "King Barry," Barack Obama is, and will continue to be, above the law until he goes after the Bush Administration.

Progress?

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 1.0/1 (1 vote cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

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


by ThePete 1:03 pm 2009-04-22
Categories | $ | Comments (4) »
listen via talkr

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

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

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

It must be tough believing your own line of bullcrap.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 1.0/1 (1 vote cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

MainStream Media Love tehPirates NOW, but Where were They Last Year?


by ThePete 2:26 pm 2009-04-20
Categories | $ | Comments (0) »
listen via talkr

News.bbc.co.uk reported on this over the weekend and it struck me as very odd. The media seems to be making such a big deal out of these pirates now, but with pirates commiting statistically approaching 1 attack per day last year, where has the MSM been?

That said, I don’t think the pirates should be getting that much coverage anyway since they’re really not pirates in any real sense. I mean, these are Somalis for crying out loud–it’s not like they’re plundering ships for gold–what kind of funding do they even have?

The other day on Democracy Now, they had a guy on who said what we call “Somali Pirates” the Somali people call “the Somali Coast Guard”. What do you want? They’re a 3rd World country!

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 0.0/1 (0 votes cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

US Gov to Boycott Racism Conference in Rare Show of Honesty


by ThePete 10:52 am 2009-04-20
Categories | $ | Comments (0) »
listen via talkr

Reuters.com reported over the weekend that the US will not be attending a United Nations conference on racism. The reason? Apparently, the declaration the conference wants everyone to sign onto calls Zionism racist.

I don’t know about you, but when a single religion/race gets it’s own country, I’m thinking that’s racist.

Regardless of that, however, it seems pretty ridiculous for the USG to decide that because of this one difference of opinion they’re going to boycott the whole thing. For a country founded on the blood of millions of Native Americans, built on the backs of generations of African American slaves, which has exploited cheap immigrant labor from the beginning (and still does to this day) this move by the US seems like a rare example of honesty.

How ironic that we have a black president right now. I suppose it just goes to show you that there is no real difference between the races–a black man can be just as racist as the white guys who came before him.

Or maybe… could this be Classism? After all, the idea here is that we are boycotting the UN conference on racism, thus sacrificing our support of all races in favor of just one–and it’s a race (well, religion, really) stereotypically known for controlling wealth (not that I believe this–I just know others do).

I’ve got nothing against anyone’s belief system (believe what you need to in order to get by, I say) but when you use your religious beliefs to harm the rights of others (COUGHpalestineCOUGH) I start to have problems.

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 0.0/1 (0 votes cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Stateside Secretive Prisons for Mostly Muslims (Questionably Guilty, too)


by ThePete 6:09 pm 2009-04-17
Categories | $ | Comments (0) »
listen via talkr

Damn, I wish this didn’t make me feel so gross. Let me quote from the post on DemocracyNow.org that the included screencap comes from:

While President Obama has pledged to close Guantanamo and the secret overseas CIA prisons, calls are increasing for him to reexamine the treatment of prisoners detained as part of the so-called war on terror being held inside the United States.

With little public scrutiny, the Bush administration opened two secretive prisons in Indiana and Illinois, known as Communication Management Units, or CMUs, that are designed to severely restrict prisoner communication with family members, the media and the outside world. Dozens of Muslim men are still being held at the CMUs, as well as other prisoners, including environmental and animal rights activists.

Man, do we really think America is so weak that it can be threatened by folks fighting Global Warming and trying to free monkeys from labs? No wonder we think Al Qaeda are so bad-ass and killing a bunch of Somali pirates is something to be proud of (come on, they’re pirates… from Somalia).

Here’s a bit more from the DN transcript:

Prisoners held inside the special unit include Dr. Rafil Dhafir, the Iraqi-born doctor from upstate New York who is serving a twenty-two-year sentence for violating the Iraqi sanctions by sending aid to Iraq through his charity Help the Needy; Yassin Aref, the Kurdish-born imam from Albany, New York, who was convicted in a controversial FBI sting operation; and also the environmental activist Daniel McGowan. He’s serving a seven-year sentence for his role in two acts of arson.

Some critics have suggested McGowan and other non-Muslim prisoners are being held in the CMU, because the federal government wants to avoid accusations that the CMUs are designed to only hold Muslim men.

And from a bit further on lawyer for one of the prisoners of a CMU prison, Kathy Manley says:

Well, yeah, it’s unconstitutional to treat people more restrictively in a prison context because of their race or religion. And they’re clearly doing that. I mean, the CMU in Terre Haute is almost 90 percent Muslim.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: New boss (almost the) same as the old boss.

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 0.0/1 (0 votes cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Obama Administration Lets the Bush Administration Get Away with It


by ThePete 10:24 am 2009-04-17
Categories | $ | Comments (0) »
listen via talkr

From the left-capped post on the Obama Administration releasing memos admitting that the Bush administration tortured available now at DemocracyNow.org:

The so-called “torture” memos from the Bush administration’s Office of Legal Counsel were released as part of a lawsuit and freedom of information request filed by the ACLU. Three of the memos were authored by Steven Bradbury in 2005, then a lawyer in the Office of Legal Counsel, and one in 2002 by then-head of the office, Jay Bybee.

The memos dispassionately describe the use of tactics such as waterboarding, holding prisoners in small dark boxes, exploiting prisoners’ fears of insects, forced nudity, and shackling and depriving them of sleep for as many as 11 days. They also include extensive legal arguments as to why these tactics do not amount to torture under US and international law.

Also from the post:

President Obama issued a statement calling for ‘reflection not retribution’ and reassured CIA officials that they need not fear prosecution.

I guess this shouldn’t be too surprising. In America, if you’re rich, a politician (or, let’s face it, white), you can get away with anything. The banks and auto industry failed to make the best choices for the American people and for themselves, but rather than let them fail, they get rewarded with bailouts.

Likewise, when the previous administration violated laws, ethics and the very principles this country was founded on, they are now being rewarded by being given the gift of "getting away with it" from the Obama Administration.

I’ll tell you, though–it makes you wonder just what Barack’s boys have in mind for his first four years… I mean, why cover the last guy’s ass unless you think your own ass will need covering?

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 0.0/1 (0 votes cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Rich Folks Still Setting Agenda, Still Pretending They’re Not


by ThePete 12:46 pm 2009-04-15
Categories | $ | Comments (2) »
listen via talkr


Doesn’t $1.1 trillion seem small to you?

Earlier this month, the twenty most powerful/wealthy nations got together to talk about how to solve the problems Earth’s economy is facing. It seems it’s set to contract for the first time in thirty years. Huh. Neat.

This was Obama’s first big deal abroad and here is, in part, what the above-displayed article from NYTimes.com reported about him back on April 2, 2009:

“Today, we’ve learned the lessons of history,” Mr. Obama declared in a news conference in which he was noticeably relaxed, taking questions from journalists from India and China. But he also said that getting more than 20 countries to agree to common steps was particularly hard because “each country has its own quirks.”

The meeting, he said, exemplified the power of developing nations, heralding a new age in which decisions about the future of the global economy will no longer be made by an elite club of Western powers that have set the global rules since the Bretton Woods agreement in July 1944.

Really?

What do you call 20 rich folks in a big room in the UK, exactly?

Another thing that bugs me about this is that $1.1 trillion is nothing compared to the amounts we’ve been spending here in the US on our own economy. Wasn’t it over $4 trillion we spent just last autumn when we bailed out banks?

What’s worse is that this is a lot of money to prop up an economic system that just may have reached it’s shelf-life. There’s talk of creating one super-sized mega-system–a single, global economy with one currency.

I really hope that doesn’t happen. Not just because it would make the New World Order freaks pee themselves with “I-told-you-so” flavored glee, but because bigger is NOT better.

The whole problem here is that things got so big they crumbled under their own weight. I think we need more, smaller economic systems. I’m fine with trading with other nations, but “globalism” doesn’t appear to work when taken so far.

Just my ¥2, of course.

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 0.0/1 (0 votes cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Nobel-Winning Economist Says Obama’s Plan Hurts the Folks Who Elected Him (that’s us)


by ThePete 2:12 pm 2009-04-14
Categories | $ | Comments (2) »
listen via talkr

Read it!

Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who spoke out against Bush’s lack of economic responsibility-taking for the disaster we’re still living through is now pointing his finger at Obama. See, as politicians go, Obama is way better than Bush, but he seems to be just as bad in certain ways. According to Stiglitz, Obama’s big solution to our economic issues is “ersatz capitalism.”

“Ersatz,” in case you’re curious, is defined by Merriam-Webster.com as “being a usually artificial and inferior substitute or imitation.” So, in this case, it’s not capitalism that Obama is practicing here. Thankfully, he’s not saying it’s socialism, either, but here’s what he does say:

What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a “partnership” in which one partner robs the other. And such partnerships — with the private sector in control — have perverse incentives, worse even than the ones that got us into the mess.

So what is the appeal of a proposal like this? Perhaps it’s the kind of Rube Goldberg device that Wall Street loves — clever, complex and nontransparent, allowing huge transfers of wealth to the financial markets. It has allowed the administration to avoid going back to Congress to ask for the money needed to fix our banks, and it provided a way to avoid nationalization.

But we are already suffering from a crisis of confidence. When the high costs of the administration’s plan become apparent, confidence will be eroded further. At that point the task of recreating a vibrant financial sector, and resuscitating the economy, will be even harder.

I’ve been saying, for a while now, that the government has been using the same old tricks to try and fix a failing system. Obama’s government is no different in this sense. He is trying the same tricks that got us into this mess in the first place. Instead of forcing the men in suits to take responsibility for their choices, he’s letting (almost) everyone keep their jobs and money while the real cost of the failure gets dumped on to us little people.

Gotta love that (crisis-of-)confidence builder, Obama. I almost miss Bush who you could always tell was a lying bastard. Obama seems like such a nice guy, but now he’s ignoring the needs of actual Americans in favor of the needs of made-up businesses with corrupt people running them. Lovely.

Hay, Barry, where’s my universal health care, man? I haven’t seen a doctor in a decade. Yeah, you’re welcome for your vote, jerkweed.

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 0.0/1 (0 votes cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

How I (don’t) Celebrate Easter (as an Atheist)


by ThePete 3:28 pm 2009-04-12
Categories | $ | Comments (6) »
listen via talkr

OK, I hadn’t planned on blogging anything special on Easter this year but a Christian friend of mine replied to a microblog post I put up earlier today and it got me thinking about a few things:

1) The majority of Americans are Christian.

2) A tiny fraction of Americans are atheists.

3) Atheists don’t get holidays.

4) When we get snarky in the face of quite a few public displays of affection for God, Jesus, etc, why aren’t we just ignored like we usually are?

It seems disingenuous, to me, that the majority feels the need to defend itself against the minority. As an average atheist, it seems like I should have the right to be exponentially louder than the average Christian since there are so many of them out there. I need to speak up in order to be heard over the voices of all those believers.

Yet, I feel like I get lectured when I do speak up for myself and my beliefs.

I don’t need to be told about how there’s a God, or how Jesus died for my sins or whatever else. I’ve heard it all before. None of it is enough for me–not that I’m saying anything against you.

My friend explained that he felt the need to defend the intelligence of believers despite me not saying anything about the intelligence of believers in the first place. Really, it’s not about how smart or dumb you are–it’s about what you choose to believe and what you choose to do with that belief.

If it helps you to believe that there is a benevolent being watching over us that can be appealed to for help, by all means, believe in Him. Personally, I’d rather assume that there is no God and behave according to my own morals.

What bothers me is when people who normally talk about politics, current events, or other non-God-related things start talking about how “He is Risen”. Suddenly, I’m wondering why they felt the need to say such a thing to me. Yes, OK, you’re Christian, Happy Easter, enjoy the chocolate.

Then I see it again and again and I’m suddenly feeling like a freak for not believing that Jesus even existed. But whatever, man–people believe what they want and I’m fine with that. But on days like today, it’s hard to move on, so I joke about how I’m going to take a moment to marvel at how the seasons work at keeping us alive and then watch “The God That Wasn’t There” again.

Of course, my snarkiness is taken as disrespectful, or, at the very least, in need of a reply/counter-argument/etc. It seems like the majority can’t leave the minority to it’s whinyness. And that’s ultimately, fine, too–I mean, it’s the Internet, right? The majority of the web is porn and what isn’t porn is divided up between illegal file sharing and useless arguments (it would seem).

What bothers me is when a belief in something un-provable replaces the known facts of a situation.

I could die of an aneurysm before I finish typing up this post. However, some of you would suggest “well, say a prayer, make sure God is happy with you and He won’t let that happen.”

Right, or I could just understand that I could die and move forward with the idea that I should live my life to the fullest because I could die at any time.

See? It’s up to personal choice.

No right or wrong answer. Both sides can’t prove they are right.

So, if you’re a “believer” please, the next time you see one of us “non-believers” commenting about how we don’t believe or are annoyed by religious holidays or whatever, keep your opinion to yourself. You’re the majority. Anything you say is going to sound just as pompous, self-righteous and insulting as what we said in the first place. The difference is, we’ve already heard what you have to say and that’s why we’re atheists.

It might serve you to listen to our opinions since you may not have heard them before–it’s not like we atheist have dramatically influenced culture for centuries the way y’all have.

VN:F [1.2.0_562]
Rating: 0.0/1 (0 votes cast)
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

TheBlurb: Why can't everyone support Iranians and their quest for liberty?
updated on 06/30/09 22:57:59 Change it! Archives