musings { Hilarity of the day...

Obama is the anti-christ.

Ranks up there with the email chain letter my grandma-in-law received warning people to not go see the 'Golden Compass' because in the movie they 'kill God'.

Sad, yet funny at the same time.

politics { "small town values", the GOP has I guess like a trademark or something on them

(disclaimer: I grew up in a 'small town', went to school in a 'small town', worked in a 'small town'.)

politics { Palin, poor choice

I think the Republicans want the issue of her daughter's pregnancy to remain. Like Carville stated, it makes the other issues opaque. And truthfully, examine her politics, examine her experience. She's not qualified (much like Dan Quayle wasn't qualified) to be Vice President. The ugly truth is that she was chosen because of her looks and that her political views would appease certain elements of the Republican base (i.e. the evangelicals) that don't like John McCain. I agree with Carville again, if they wanted a strong and experienced candidate (in my opinion woman or not) they should have chosen Olympia Snowe. Palin was a bad choice, all around, and not because she was a woman. The only way they could have picked a worse candidate would have been to choose Michelle Bachman. They chose her because she's a mommy, she's pretty, she will appeal to the NASCAR dads and can be related to by the suburban soccer moms, because she's anti-gay, anti-sex-ed, anti-contraceptive, pro-gun, pro-life, religious, doesn't believe in global warming, and has been a loyal foot-solider in the GOP. She's a GOP drone who will follow orders well. Much like probably any male candidate they would have chosen. They chose her to appear progressive (as in they chose a woman candidate), help shore up the base. The fact a lot of negatives are coming out (not just her daughter's pregancy, but the fact she ran Ted Steven's 527 and is therefore part of that corruption). The GOP, is going to use the baby to distract from the issues of corruption.

politics { The bullshit of protest democrats

This has been gnawing at me for a while now. I know posting this I will anger some. Some who are close and dear friends.

Here's my memo to you. In short, eat shit. A big heaping bowl of it you fucking hypocrites.

Ok that's a bit harsh. Accurate, but harsh and ultimately counter-productive because by this point you are angry at me. Good. Feel that anger? That's how you make me feel.

This is directed at you, you 'democrats' and left leaning independents who bashed Nader's supporters in 2000, but are now supporting GOP candidates as a 'protest' because Hillary didn't receive the nomination (in a fair contest) or some other real or imagined slight.

This is not an endorsement of Obama. Its merely an instruction for you to wake up and realize the hypocrisy of your position.

There is a big difference between those of us who supported Nader and the Green Party in 2000 and you who are backing the GOP candidates in protest this year.

Here's why. Regardless of how 'good' your GOP candidate is, they are still members of a party whose ideology is one of division, failed politics, financial pillage, bigotry, evangelism, and societal ruin. Those of 'us' who tried to send a message in 2000 by supporting Nader did so because of the green politics and inclusive ideology of the Green Party.

Support of McCain, Coleman, Davis, etc. in protest isn't a protest against the DNC, DFL, or other Democratic Party alignments, its an endorsement of the GOP ideology. A foothold that will allow them to further push their agenda. Your candidates aren't saints. They're still members of the GOP, which means they toe the party line. The same party that had shown us what ruin they could have in six years of total power, and 2 years of partial power.

Every candidate whether Dem or GOP walks the party line. Don't delude yourself that your candidate is different. The shadow players of the GOP are still in control and are still manipulating things from behind the scenes, they have just publicly 'retired' from sight.

But I would like to hear your reasoning for supporting the GOP ideology. I've been hearing a lot of whining about Clinton not getting the nomination, and other such infantile posturing. But I've heard very little publicly about why you support the ideology of the GOP.

One of the few beauties of this country is that we are (sort of) free to express our own opinions and feelings. More power to you. But you're still a hypocrite.

*UPDATE* KoN has put in the comments a link to a great article I think should be read.

musings { WoW as a Terrorist training ground?

Wired, the pinnacle of journalism has posted an article about WoW being used to analyze people's behavior to study terrorism.

My take on this article.

1) They're trying to get play by cashing in on the 'World of Warcraft' popularity.

2) They found retards to contribute to the article. Seriously. I agree WoW is a good place to study social interactions, its an MMO. It has an in-house, partially player driven economy (not a total free economy) so it has its value for studying economics. It would be a good place to observe people for psychological study, as here you have a place where people's identities are hidden behind avatars, and there becomes a certain freedom for ass-hattery. But terrorism? No, griefers aren't terrorists, they're ass-hats.

This article is a stretch. I think even the author realized this as the link at the end between Blizzard and DHS feels weak and half-hearted.

politics { Bush coins

politics/health { Woo! We rank last!

Saw this on GG Rhaposdy. Much like her, I'm not surprised by it.

Yahoo/AP article ranks us dead last in health care among industrialized nations. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it capitalism!

The 19 countries, in order of best to worst, were: France, Japan, Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Some countries showed dramatic improvement in the periods studied -- 1997 and 1998 and again between 2002 and 2003 -- outpacing the United States, which showed only slight improvement.

This is a hot button topic among both halves of my family and with my in-laws. They believe the pablum that we have the best health care in the world because we spend the most. This reinforced with a few Canadians they've met who have spouted the 'people die waiting for chemo' line that is about as true as Regan's 'welfare queen'. But we're not the best. Sure we may have advanced technologies or education, but what good does that do when it can't benefit the most people? Too many in this country can't afford health care and if they can, and they use it, they go bankrupt. How can this be best for society? I racked up $250k in medical bills in 2002 when I had AML. We had to pay around $5k and insurance covered the rest. We had good health insurance. But I can't get my own policy now as an individual because, since I've had cancer, I'm high risk and no company will insure me individually, I can only get insurance through a group policy (and even then, the company that managed my old employer's health insurance tried to get me dropped which is against the law). When I was 20, I had a kidney stone, it was large and had to be removed because it was stuck. $25k in medical bills. I was a student and I had no insurance and no money. I couldn't afford the medical bills. Luckily MN at the time had MNCare, a superset state program that rode on top of other gov't aid like Medicare. It covered me, it helped me pay my medical bills, and have other things done that I couldn't afford such as getting my teeth checked and my eyes checked (and help me buy new glasses). How it worked was you applied for it and if you met the criteria, it would cover you for six months. When I was even younger my family was below the poverty line. We relied on MNCare to help us with medical problems, such as the time I was hit in the head near the temple with a baseball and had a concussion. This was 20 years ago, we had better health coverage (and backup emergency health care aid) than we do now in 2008. I think most people want health care coverage, one that covers all. But many people in this country are greedy or don't want to pay the taxes for the common good of all (yes we would need to pay taxes to fund a socialized medical program). This really isn't that different from other services that benefit all and are in fact socialized, such as police, fire departments, education, Social Security. Why are we so hung up on this benefit to society?

A good example of something that became better when it became a social service was the fire department. Once upon a time fire departments were private companies and you bought coverage from them. This meant if a fire started in your neighborhood and spread, many or no fire departments would respond based on who had coverage. And if they did respond, they would only help those who had their coverage, the rest would burn. This is a good analogy for our health care and why we should have it socialized. Why sit and watch your neighbors house burn, when a system that saves all the houses could exist?

germs { MRSA

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus aka MRSA.

Nasty bug. Resistant to an increasing array of antibiotics. Every time I've been in the hospital I had to sign a waver that I could contract MRSA. We're partly to blame for this bug. Our society prescribes antibiotics like candy and the bacteria they're meant to treat are adapting. We're putting selective evolutionary pressure on them. In the mid to late 90s our society seemed to be at its worst (surpassed only by the Anthrax insanity of 2001-2002) where many household cleaners had 'anti-biotics' in them. Our society has become one of clean freaks. Occasionally I'll see commercials that prey upon our fears to protect our children. Most notable one I can think of is the Lysol commercial where they show a stereotypical housewife going around spraying all parts of her house with the aerosol cleaner. A marketing label 'KILLS 99% of viruses int eh air!' appears overlaid on the image. This is marketing bull shit.



I worry that we may be weakening our immune systems. Kids are supposed to be exposed to things, its what helps us adapt and build stronger, better, immune systems (regular exercise also helps).

On the flip side, we're also a dirty society. I can't count the number of times I've seen people go to the bathroom (number 1 or 2) and not wash their hands, not even the half-assed "I ran water over them" attempt. Proper hand washing is a key to help survive cold and flu season (along with covering your mouth when you cough and avoiding children).

politics { Minnesotans in Iowa

With the election season coming up to full speed, idiocy and ideology are ramping up. I've seen a few emails and heard some rumblings flying around about having MN liberals go to Iowa to door knock. A good example is posted over on Evil Bobby.

Boycott { Mars Corporation and NFL

Makers of Snickers brand tooth decay accelerate among others. During the super-bowl they aired an ad that promoted violence against gays and lesbians and directed you to their website to vote and it also showed NFL player reactions to the ads. These ads were endorsed by the NFL and carried their logo. This was not accidental inconsideration, these ads were designed on purpose. The Mars family are major contributors to the Republican party.

I haven't really eaten much candy since I entered my 30s, mainly because my tolerance for things sickly sweet is diminishing rapidly, so I already am not giving them any money. But their corporation makes many, many things, so I will be checking the labels carefully from now on.

Words { Before there were 'Freedom Fries'

There was 'Liberty Cabbage' (aka sauerkraut).

'Liberty Cabbage' euphemism appeared during World War I when anti-German sentiment in this country reached a peak and people did not really like the Kaiser. While very similar to the idiocy that gripped this country in 2003 at the start of the Iraq War with the whole 'Freedom Fries' b.s., the main difference being, however, we were actually at war with Germany (which I realize still does not make it any more correct), whereas we were not at war with France in 2003.