acroyear: (coyote1)
"I pledge to continue to represent you all to the best of my abilities without regard to race, creed, religious beliefs, national origin or sex.  That's the kind of Sterling Americans you all have been for me and for our community and I pledge to continue to be that kind of Sterling American for you." - Roger Delgaudio, Sterling/Loudoun, "There is no place in Sterling for hate" (from his monthly newsletter to us residents)

Yeah, that's right.

Roger Delgaudio is a man so Conservative he hasn't even caught up to the fact that most of the country, and most of his subjects, considers discrimination and prejudicial writings against people on account of sexual orientation is Hate.

Some of his choice quotes (as 'public policy spokesman for a pro-family group', as he brushes off) he WON'T put in the electorate newsletter, but loves to put in that sidelines business, "Public Advocate" (which he operates on government resources, which is why he is under investigation...I note his letter didn't say a thing about the actual charges in the slightest)
  • "The homosexual lobbies fully support the invasive body cavity searches of elderly citizens, small children, young women and the absurd and dangerous X-Ray machines that scan the human form in minute detail— anybody and everybody for little security reasons whatsoever." - October 24, 2012
  • It was worse than I ever imagined. Row after row of boxes bulging with pro-homosexual petitions lined the walls, stacked to the ceiling. My mind reeled as I realized hundreds, maybe thousands, more boxes were already loaded on the tractor-trailers. [...] Driving away, my eyes filled with tears as I realized he might be right. This time the Radical Homosexuals could win.
  • [An open Letter to Mitt Romney on who should be his VP candidate] “Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Joe Farah, or Chuck Norris would be a great pick from just ten top conservative leaders,”

Another (very specifically fundraising) letter he wrote mentions dangerous legislation like

  • 1) The Homosexual Classrooms Act, requiring every school — even private and religious schools — to teach appalling homosexual acts.
  • 2) The Offense to Marriage Act, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act which has stood for over a decade against the Homosexual Lobby.
    If passed, wedding gown-clad men smooching before some left-wing clergyman or state official is just the beginning.
    You’ll see men hand-in-hand skipping down to adoption centers to “pick out” a little boy for themselves.

  • 3) The Gay Bill of Special Rights, granting special job rights to homosexuals. Every homosexual fired or not hired becomes a potential federal civil rights lawsuit.
    Radical homosexuals will terrorize day cares, hospitals and churches.

culminating, of course, with "In fact, if I’m to effectively defeat even one of these bills, I’m going to need an immediate influx of funds." - Fear-mongering, hatred, and an annoyingly active imagination unable to see reality in the slightest, and his flock should give him money for that. 

How detached from reality is he? He even made a post (I think a tweet, but I can't recall now) about how "his" Sterling so overwhelmingly voted Republican in November (facts? Obama took 65%, Kaine took 68% - both contributing to their late-night wins once the votes were counted - and within Sterling, Wolf was in the minority, though he took his district thanks to Fauquier and Winchester, not Loudoun which went 50/50).  A few hours later, he took that one down.

By the way, the mailing list of people who love to read that kind of stuff?  In the months prior to the election, he sold it.  To Bachmann, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, likely more.

He personally takes home about $171,000 a year writing this stuff, according to analysis of public tax filings.  And this is a 'non-profit' advocacy group, btw.  And that's on top of his PACs, his investments, and his income from the Loudoun Board.  He actually primarily lives in Falls Church (ironically because it has better schools for his kids, who knew?).

And no, I have NO intention of linking to to those pages...but he clearly owns it, as shown by the whois records for the domain.

But no, he's not one who "hates" and there is no "hate" in Sterling, except against him.

Really.


acroyear: (geek2)
What Is Real, Anyways?

An essay I just wrote complaining about the constant barrage of 'is it photoshopped?' that still persists in spite of years of photographers trying to explain it.  I probably won't change any of the nay-sayer's minds either, but I at least wanted to say something, and along the way, show off the different ways a single image might be seen.
acroyear: (fof good book)
...and it isn't just the whole "Thanking God When We Win" (as if God really cares who wins a football game).
When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.  But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.  When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered merely by repeating their words again and again.  So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him. (Matthew 6:5-6:9)
The problem isn't that he is a Christian.  The problem is that he is going out of his way to make a display of the fact that he is a Christian, and then he is reaped praises by the evangelicals for his display of faith.  Yet these same Evangelicals would condemn a player in the harshest of terms if he happened to be Muslim and decided that in the middle of a game he was going to make a display of praying towards Mecca.

This is not true Christianity.  This is wearing the label of Christianity on as a badge of honor, praised upon by others in a show of pure, raw tribalism.

This is what God truly commanded us NOT to do when we were ordered (by those very Commandments these people want to put up in every American courthouse, in spite of the dubious Constitutionality of them) to "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.".  That is what he and others are doing, they are wearing God's name as a vanity (the true meaning of this term), and as such he is in my opinion setting a bad, very UN-Jesus-like example to his fans.

And yeah, I have a problem with that.  People like him are the reason I have overtly declared (in spite of my faith, such as it is), that I am not a 'Christian' anymore.  I refuse to wear the same label as they choose to own and control and wield as a tool to control others.  They can have it.
acroyear: (sick of politics)
The latest proof that Gerrymandering works.
acroyear: (sick of politics)
who do i reward?  the republicans for gerrymandering 2 democrats out of a seat and putting me in the district of an extremely outspoken bigot with an astoundingly obvious corrupt pro-business history (who's gone even more reactionary in the current campaign to appease the tea party, who actually doesn't really have that big a presence here...), or the democrats for robocalling me daily, sometimes hourly, and waking my kid up every time we tried to actually give her a nap at home?

note that actual policy hasn't even come close to coming into play here...

sigh...

there's reasons this blog got less political (and considerably silent).  I'm just sick of it all now.  I can't even keep up with Ed Brayton's Dispatches since the move way from sci-blogs.  It used to be 4 a day, maybe 6.  Today, he can point out ultra right-wing hypocrisy stories up to 10 to 12 a day.  The fact that such bigotry (against gays, muslims, and atheists) and rampant political hypocrisy not only exists and festers, but actually has the active support of at least 30% of the population (and the another 20% are willing to turn a blind eye to it all in order to ensure their party wins the election by bringing out this basests of base) is getting to be just too much.
acroyear: (weirdos...)
...that many of the same politicians that are against "cap and trade" deals when it comes to corporations and greenhouse gases or mining limits, are all for the very same "cap and trade" policies when it comes to, say government spending on disaster relief where (for example) one Mr. Cantor from VA thinks we shouldn't allocate money to FEMA for the hurricane without offsetting costs elsewhere (in the same, already trimmed too much, FEMA budget).

The fact that Cantor is right there representing communities (hint hint, Mineral, VA) much affected by a natural disaster in the last week seems to be completely lost to him.

As will his political future.  Dude, you weren't put there to represent a national platform, you were put there to represent the needs and concerns of your constituents, and they WILL notice you not caring about their needs as you rant about natural disaster spending.

Or if they don't, well then I suppose they deserve a schmuck like you.

Shame is, the rest of us don't.
acroyear: (Default)
Disney Princess and Disney/Pixar Toy Story Cruising Cool Pogo Sticks - Product Recall - Toys"R"Us Corporate:
The bottom rubber tip attached to the pogo stick frame may wear off, posing a fall hazard. Also, the end caps on the handlebars can come off, exposing sharp edges, posing a laceration hazard.
ok, this one got to me. We've known for decades that "bottom rubber tip may wear off" and "end caps can come off" for things like this. Seriously. *Decades*.

So why do we still end up with companies making these things that haven't figure out how to NOT have that happen?  I realize it is a hard problem, but considering these problems existed in the 60s and the 70s, you'd think after 40 years WE'D HAVE SOLVED THEM BY NOW.

I just don't get it...
acroyear: (yeah whatever)
...by a Republican with bigger asperations...

Rick Perry on gay ‘marriage’ in NY: ‘That’s their call;  it’s fine with me.’ | LifeSiteNews.com: 7/25/2011
“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me.”

“If you believe in the 10th amendment, stay out of their business if you live in some other state or particularly if you’re the federal government.”
...Perry backs a constitutional limit on marriage - Yahoo! News: 7/30/2011
"Yes, sir, I would. I am for the federal marriage amendment," he said. "And that's about as sharp a point as I could put on it."
Like Gingrinch and Romney, it is amazing how quickly they backpeddle on their own personal rational beliefs as soon as someone points out that the nutcases that decide the upcoming primaries don't like what you said.

Is there not ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN in power who can actually have a rational thought, express it openly, and then continue to support it in spite of the "Tea Party" and Christian Right?

Neither "Paul" counts - both of them have also flip flopped on statements, or (like Scalia and Roberts) found alternative logic, to violate their supposed core principles when it suits them.
acroyear: (don't go there)
So there's this piece of the WTC framework that "looks like a cross", and it is right now part of the government-paid memorial as part of the site, intentionally because it looks like a cross and thus has God's Blessings over the site.  An atheist group has filed suit claiming establishment.  I think they have a case, only because (just like creationists on school boards) the words of those who put it there show that it clearly was put up BECAUSE it was a cross, with all the religious implications.

In a comment on FB, I didn't explicitly support the atheists but at least defended James Madison and tried to get the pro-cross type to reconsider why she felt it was necessary for government (or "majority") endorsement of Christianity.  That, of course, got ignored.

What she said that pissed me off?

"this is about putting a part of the building that remained standing back in its original location and it happens to be in the shape of a cross. If that does not tell you that God was looking over them, then what would?"

My answer that I didn't write, but was fucking obvious to me:

"The towers still standing."
acroyear: (sick of politics)
Loudoun's Republican majority just redistricted the county seat districts, and put us and one other zone, both of which had voted Democrat in the last local election, into uber-right-nutcase Delgaudio's Sterling district.  A similar "consolidation" hits Leesburg as well.  Basically, the Republican board just redistricted 2 Democrat-held seats right out of existence.

Fuckers.

On the other hand, it does slightly increase the left-leaning edge to Sterling and gives us a chance to kick this royal homophobic bastard out for the first time in decades, if we can somehow unite to get some turnout...
acroyear: (fof not quite right)
State of Alaska Prints Out Palin's E-Mails; Online Distribution 'Impractical' - Slashdot:
"Three years after numerous citizens and news organizations requested the release of Sarah Palin's gubernatorial e-mails, the State of Alaska is finally making ready to make them available. In print. In Juneau. News organizations must fly or sail to Juneau and pick up the 24,000 page disclosure in person. The state claims it impractical to release the original electronic versions of the e-mails, so the Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times, Mother Jones, ProPublica and MSNBC each plan to turn some or all of the printouts back into searchable, easily distributed electronic data. Thanks, Alaska."
"Impractical"? So you can't throw 'em up on a FTP site.  Fine.

1) that's what bittorrent was made for, and here's a legitimate use-case.

2) Anybody ever consider sneakernet?  (e.g., bits on plastic?)

No matter how big they are, there's no reason they can't just fit on a couple of dvd-roms or an 8gig flash drive. If she actually has more than 8 gig of email, I'll be stunned.
acroyear: (don't let the)
So PrismNet has said it sold off the io.com domain and won't tell us to whom.  Doesn't seem like much, right?

Except it is.  It is a huge deal.  And not just for those who currently have io.com email addresses.

Back in the golden age of a zillion ISPs, you didn't buy your own domain.  You hosted on someone else's.  Your account was YOURNAME@ispdomain.com, and your website was often www.ispdomain.com/~YOURNAME.  This was true for io.com, for erols.com, and continues to be true as a service offered by a number of cable and phone companies, as well as a handful of 90s-era ISPs still out there.

Prismnet acquired io.com (originally owned by Steve Jackson, as Illuminati Online, a spin-off of the BBS that the secret service tried to kill in 1990) sometime in the mid 2000s.  Out of my loyalty to SJ, io.com was my first hosting company, and I quite liked how they ran it.  When Prismnet came along, they (unlike A Small Orange's acquisition of Drak) changed the pricing structures to things that were horribly out of whack with industry practices.  I'd have paid my "lifetime" drak price and only gotten about 2 years, with fewer services and less support.  Needlesstosay, prismnet had to go.

BUT that meant going through every single place out there that was legitimately sending me email and changing my email addresses.  That took time.  And I know I didn't get them all.  I know that plenty of them ignore the email change and continued to send to the old one long after I'd said I'd changed it.  I also know that plenty of spam services out there have that ancient email, thanks to how public I was with it back in the 90s, particularly in usenet (AFR).

Spam messages tell someone a lot more than just that I'm a guy named Joe who doesn't need viagra.  If your email address is sold (perhaps in violation of terms of service, but there you go), it is often sold with other marketing information about your interests, and even perhaps your name and things you've bought from the company that sold you out.  The address might also be linkable to other online services and eventually connect to your real address (whois is horrible for this).

While Prismnet was still the owner of io.com, I could trust that they were a legitimate business that would be taking all email messages still floating out there going to acroyear at io.com and routing them into the /dev/null bitbucket.  Good riddance.

Except that's no longer the case.  acroyear at io.com is no longer trustworthy.  The new owners of io.com could configure their email systems to capture all io.com email traffic intended for current and former io.com customers, and perhaps some very personal information being sent by someone who didn't get the memo that your address changed (acroyear at io.com is still in plenty of address books out there I'm sure...).  Rather than route it to null, they could be capturing that and selling it to other servers that will use that to connect your old address to your new one and put you in touch with a whole new level of spam hell you never thought possible. 

The fact that Prismnet won't tell us who bought it is extremely troubling to me.

For the current customers still living on io.com addresses, its even more troubling to them: they now have less than 3 weeks to get everybody they know to change the email on file.  Most probably won't get to them all until its too late and this new company gets serious, and *current*, private information about them.

And the trouble is that this is true for any domain that goes into the "available" bucket - a piece of what was once your identity is now no longer in your control, or in the control of a company you trust.  This is a BIG deal...

[update] - I actually described a related problem with the resale of domains and addresses over 2 years ago.

on DRM

Apr. 27th, 2011 10:30 pm
acroyear: (fof earplug)
I really, really, REALLY hate DRM. Especially when it screws honest people. - WWdN: In Exile:
This [the hassle it takes for Will to actually read his own works on the platform of his choice] is the sort of thing that drives honest people to piracy, because the pirates are providing a better end user experience for them than the legal alternatives.
Dan Bricklin, who was the coder that developed the first spreadsheet all those years ago, wrote more or less the same thing about the original Napster. "Theft" or not, it provided the interface of convenience that was more important than anything else to the user base.  What was important about Napster wasn't the music itself, but the direct ID3-based search model, something iTunes and Amazon took quite a while (re: years after Napster's legal demise) before really supporting.

Torrents are the same way - a simple search finds what they want, in a format that gives no restrictions on where it can be played, for how long, leaving the viewer in total control.  The lack of control (hell, the 2 dozen wasted DVD-ROMs I have of "Digital Copies" that have all expired, having never watched a single one) is actually a major turn-off.
acroyear: (claws for alarm)
He's not saying anything terribly original here (education, after all, is just a token example of his overall rant that government is unproductive), just expressing what is now the winning framing of the problem of public education. This framing wins in the popular mind because it promises simple answers to complex problems and appeals to common sense. To grasp what's wrong with it, you have to take a step back and look at how the problem is being framed, which is a hard mental step for many.

To break out of framing, it's best to first locate an absurdity. For example, it sounds real reasonable when he says that if education had undergone a "productivity revolution" we would have half as many educators. OK, so instead of "half as many educators", why didn't he conclude that all our students would be completing high school at the age of 12? Or that our students would all be speaking twice as many languages when they graduated high school? Why does "half as many educators" sound reasonable, while learning twice as fast does not? It's because my absurd examples remind you that we're talking about real human kids, not industrial products.

It's hard to see how there could be any improvement in U.S. education while the problem is framed as it is. Note the framing implicit in the phrase "standardized achievement test scores". I could replace this phrase with "arbitrary test scores" and factually be talking about the same tests as him. You see, these standardized tests are indeed standardized, they're just not particularly rational tests. What do these tests measure? Well, to find out what a test measures, you have to have some (hopefully more objective) measure to compare it with. For example, you could compare the results of these tests with how much money the test taker earned later in life, how likely they were to never be in jail, how much taxes they paid, etc. If you could agree on what the goal of education is (which Moore implicitly assumes to be simply manufacturing a product -- a student with high test score), you could try to measure outcomes later in life, compare them to the test scores, and then start to learn whether the test had any relevance to those goals whatsoever. But you can't even have that conversation, since the problem is framed to assume that everyone agrees that "standardized achievement test scores" are objective and desirable measures of education.
Ron Burk: Education is an Industry

It also badly frames the problems against the upper echelon of academic achievement.  "No Child Left Behind" is often translated (especially by teachers) as "No Child Gets Ahead".  The emphasis on the standardized test scores means in inherent lack of interest for the more intelligent kids out there because, well, they "ace" those tests without having to even think.

and so they stop working, out of sheer boredom.  and then stop thinking. 

and then they become serious problem underachievers (who still ace standardized tests), or worse, get incorrectly diagnosed with ADD when the reality is they're just bored shitless.

but that's beause "industry" doesn't create smart kids or great products.  industry creates mass-reproducible products.  *Craftsmanship* creates great products, and in the case of the intelligent, educated, child, it's a one-off.  It can't be replicated a zillion times once it's done.  It will cost the same amount for the next one.

But if you don't pay for the next one, there won't be a next one, because they'll have been lost in the hamburger grinder of Pink Floyd's The Wall.
acroyear: (waitaminute)
Is this a question worthy of asking (or answering) on the SATs?:
Reality television programs, which feature real people engaged in real activities rather than professional actors performing scripted scenes, are increasingly popular. These shows depict ordinary people competing in everything from singing and dancing to losing weight, or just living their everyday lives. Most people believe that the reality these shows portray is authentic, but they are being misled. How authentic can these shows be when producers design challenges for the participants and then editors alter filmed scenes?

Do people benefit from forms of entertainment that show so-called reality, or are such forms of entertainment harmful?
Oh good grief.

Can ANY form of entertainment be considered "harmful"?  There's a can of worms is one that has had psychologists and sociologists arguing for decades since CPE Bach invented the Sonata Form and his father, J.S., yelled back "turn that crap down!".

The arguments that a form of entertainment is harmful are, generally, just made up (as anybody who grew up watching the Tipper Gore rock album stickers hearings on TV saw). It is a "creative writing" exercise at best, as for anybody who prefers to base their written opinions on actual well-known facts (or even an existing text such as an analysis of a Shakespeare play) there is simply nothing to go on here. Anything written would get a historian or journalist yelling back "citation, please", and of course there would be none to give.
acroyear: (weirdos...)
Michele Bachmann, on a speech in New Hampshire:
You're the state where the shot was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord.
oh, and then she decided to directly insult my ancestors::
You've done it very well for almost 20 generations from the time the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, and I'm sure the very first one came up to New Hampshire and said, ‘This is where I want to be.'
Uh, no. New Hampshire was independently founded as a fisherman's wharf village, and the Puritans generally stayed out (as did other, even more restrictive sects). As things progressed, the British authorities would attempt to unite the two colonies (given that Maine was already part of Massachusetts so administration of the region was difficult) several times in the 17th century, and the religious differences between the states made unification government almost impossible.  New Hampshire was particularly unimpressed by late-century Massachusetts religious laws* that actually illegalized (to the point of the death penalty) being a member of certain sects (like Quakers).

So no, pilgrims and puritans did not go up the coastline to settle in New Hampshire - they would have found themselves very unwelcome up there.

Update:"Michele Bachmann will appeal to those who like Sarah Palin but wish she would be a little less intellectual." - Charles Walcott, Prof @ VA Tech

* this would be a point actually in New Hampshire's favor, but not something Bachmann would want to emphasize after being so vehemently against the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque".
acroyear: (grumblecat)
Shitty journalism for the sake of sensationalism and relevance, and Channel 9 just did it in spades:

High-Profile Montgomery Cop Paid For Not Working | wusa9.com:
ROCKVILLE, Md. (WUSA) -- Bound by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement with its police union, the Montgomery County Police Department continues to pay an officer who performs no duties after being charged and acquitted of perjury for making statements in a criminal trial that proved to be untrue.
it isn't the paid leave of absence, it is the fact that the bureaucracy around actually conducting this "investigation" is taking a year and a half with no sign of actually even taking place, nevermind ending any time soon.

as for the initial acquittal, that isn't enough - the department needs to close all open items of concern because even with an acquittal there can still be a civil suit that the department will have to deal with...but that still doesn't mean the department has to keep this person on the payroll doing nothing while waiting for said civil lawsuit to finally arise. i wouldn't be surprised if they're not finding a conclusion to the investigation just as a stalling tactic because the civil case can't be filed until the investigation is considered 'done'.

but trying to pin this as being "because of collective bargaining" - that's baiting a story as being political when no politics were involved, and there was no reason to do that. VERY bad reporting, channel 9. ALL police departments have "paid leave while under investigation" policies. the fact that this particular department founded it as a result of a particular union bargain was utterly irrelevant to the situation. it was a blatantly biased fact, solely put in (and in the first paragraph) to evoke emotional reactions from those following the Wisconsin situation, and making civil service unions look bad for no reason other than sensationalism.

This type of yellow journalism was (I thought) passe 95 years ago.

(Update: and when somebody decides to defend the anti-union stance by citing Walker's "teacher's union's rules forced me to fire the teacher of the year" editorial in the Wall Street Journal, I almost am too sick to laugh at the ignorance...)
acroyear: (fof earplug)
Journalists angry over the commission of journalism - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com:
To Kurtz, when a journalist accurately points out that a powerful political leader is lying, that's "taking sides," a departure from journalistic objectivity, something improper. In reply, Dickey agreed with that assessment, noting that "part of the soul of [Cooper's] show is to take sides" and be "committed to a certain vision of the story." Like Rainey, Dickey was forced to acknowledge that all of the statements Cooper identified as "lies" were actually lies, and thus magnanimously decreed: "I think Anderson can be forgiven for using that word in that context." Kurtz then patronizingly noted: "And of course, Anderson Cooper was repeatedly punched in the head when he was covering the demonstrations" -- as though his departure from good journalistic objectivity can at least be understood here (though of course not justified) because of the emotional trauma he suffered.

Rainey, Kurtz and Dickey all have this exactly backwards. Identifying lies told by powerful political leaders -- and describing them as such -- is what good journalists do, by definition. It's the crux of adversarial journalism, of a "watchdog" press. "Objectivity" does not require refraining from pointing out the falsity of government claims. The opposite is true; objectivity requires that a journalist do exactly that: treat factually false statements as false. "Objectivity" is breached not when a journalist calls a lie a "lie," but when they refuse to do so, when they treat lies told by powerful political officials as though they're viable, reasonable interpretations of subjective questions. The very idea that a journalist is engaged in "opinion-making" or is "taking sides" by calling a lie a "lie" is ludicrous; the only "side" such a journalist is taking is with facts, with the truth. It's when a journalist fails to identify a false statement as such that they are "taking sides" -- they're siding with those in power by deceitfully depicting their demonstrably false statements as something other than lies.
acroyear: (don't let the)
Because it will. Some are saying that Krugman's getting this one wrong, saying that there isn't a speculation bubble growing on particular agriculture commodities, and is hunting around for any non-economic excuse he can to pin the blame on.

Clouded Outlook: Yes, world food prices are higher because of speculation:
Wheat prices are up about 50 percent in six months. The supply decline during that period was 0.1 percent. However, the anticipated decline in supply for this year is over 5 percent. That sounds a lot like speculation. Buy now on the expectation of higher prices in the future.

Low interest rates facilitates speculation in wheat. Suppose a speculator can take out a loan at 1 percent, buy a few tonnes of wheat at $200, stash them away in a warehouse and sell them six months later at $325. Does that not sound like a familiar wheeze? Here is a clue; think houses, dot.com companies, and currency futures.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world pays more for their food. Moreover, there is a kicker. The greater the amount of inflation, the greater the incentive for commodity dealers to speculate. More speculation means more hoarding, which in turn, creates more inflation. There is only one thing that can stop this cycle - higher interest rates.

For a liberal like Mr. Krugman, this is a very uncomfortable chain of events. He argued vociferously for lower rates. He believed that looser monetary policy would reduce the interest burden on US borrowers and prevent a further deterioration in US economic activity.

However, those low rates are now facilitating a speculative binge that is seriously hurting the world's most economically vulnerable people.
The ultimate effect of the bail-out was that the greedy shitheads who got us into this mess ARE STILL THERE. And they are still looking for the easiest way to turn an investment profit that outdoes inflation and then some.  With tech-companies saturated (or the smaller companies bought up too quickly or incorporated into mutual funds that have almost no growth at all regardless of company performance), housing still a total no-show (truth being that if the banks actually dumped all the property they own on foreclosures (if they could figure out who actually owns the damned things), they'd depress the market so much that we'd be guaranteed double-dip and then some - it cost less for the banks to hold onto the derelict property and pay property taxes than they would actually lose by dumping the property - and that's a GOOD thing because depreciating the property values even more would just hurt state governments to the point of bankruptcy worse than California's seen already), and oil speculation also already saturated, there's simply nothing left.

So the economic geniuses INVENT a scarcity where one doesn't exist, ride it for a few years on a handful of negative-sounding (but ultimately meaningless) headlines, make a fortune, get alliances with redneck farmers to lobby congress not to intervene by illogically associating regulation of speculation with an attack on their subsidies (nevermind how much these farmers are tea-party supporters supposedly against government handouts in the first place - right hand, meet other right hand), and...

sigh

...I think we've seen this movie before.

Wake me when when the tulips bloom.
acroyear: (don't let the)
The WTF World of Wikipedia | GamesRadar:
Call of Duty: 13,069 words.  WW2: 11,884 words.

See what we mean? When the deadliest, costliest war in the history of mankind has been trumped by a videogame franchise about that war, you know something's off. One involved over 50 countries and took over 70 million lives; the other involves button mashing and tea bagging.

On an encouraging note, we did have to add all the Call of Duty games' individual pages together to reach the crazy number above.
So this site, which admitted up front that it had to fake the data, is then cited as a source in a wired article, which now shows *two* editor/writer teams to be full of shit.

They collected the total words from ALL Call of Duty wikipedia pages and compared it to the SINGLE front page for WW2, and decided that says something about our culture and values.

Yeah, it says that we value anybody who can make up a statistic using a total bullshit process as long as it looks cool and seems controversial.

Then again, I doubt these idiots could count or add well enough to total up the number of words from the European Campaign page, the Pacific Campaign Page, the pages that cover the diplomatic efforts before the war, the pages to cover every single Operation, the pages that cover each battle within the operation, the pages for every ship involved, the pages for every single army and marine unit involved, the pages on the civilian actions back home, the pages on the internment camps, and the biographies of every notable participant, civilian or military, that you can follow to the point of never seeing the end of.  The "0-9" index of WW2 Pages (nevermind the alphabet letters) on Wikipedia is bigger than 13,000 words.

Nah, easier to just lie to your readers, with the little bonus that you're at least TELLING them you're lying to them.

Most of the other comparisons are also bogus, like the Pokeman (everything's on one page) vs Poker (with least 25 pages dedicated to every aspect of it).   The Poker Hands page ALONE is bigger than the Pokeman page, and that's before you follow the link to the even larger page on poker hand probabilities.

Profile

acroyear: (Default)
Joe's Ancient Jottings

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
91011 12131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 12:06 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios