Snake Oil Chart

Check out this chart of "natural" remedies. Worth the gander.

Weird Goober

Found this very odd goober at work today. I really don't know what it is and didn't have time to investigate. So odd...

Holding Hands

When did you stop holding your parents hand? I don't mean the every-once-in-a-while-I-love-you kind of hand-holding. I mean the I-need-reassurance-because-I'm-a-kid-crossing-the-street kind of hand-holding. I seem to remember it being before I was ten, but not as far back as six. What happened in those years that makes a kid think, I'm not afraid to walk alone? Do we stop holding our parents hands because it becomes something else? Something you do with a lover more than with your parents. Do you remember the first time you held someone's hand in that way, as something more than security? A hand kiss before the real kiss.

Did you know that if you type "holding hands" into Google, the first link to a Wiki about "How to hold hands." Seriously? We need instruction on this most basic forms of affection? I understand there's some finesse involving in making the move to hold someone's hand, but it is a rather natural motion. Nick told me that if your hand is on top of the hand holding sandwich, you are taking a dominant position, and vise versa on the bottom. Apparently men in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East don't need any instruction as they hold hands with each other. Really goes to show how homophobic our western culture can be sometimes. What else can explain the utter lack of affection and physical contact between us males? It's just unmanly? I doubt it, everyone feels comfort from physical contact. Period.

Here's the reason's people hold hands according to Wikipedia, my favorites are arm wrestling and sky diving.

in various rituals:

• handshake
• in certain religious services, to pray
• in various religious rituals

to express friendship or love

to enjoy physical intimacy (not necessarily of erotic character)

for emotional support

to guide (a child, a blind person, in darkness, etc.)

to urge to follow

to keep together (in a crowd or in darkness)

to help the other walk, stand or climb up

to dance

to arm wrestle

when crossing the street

while sky diving

to rescue in a dangerous situation:

• pulling someone to safety

Toyota, The Supreme Court, and the Recession

There is one tenuous string connecting the recent gas pedal recall, the Supreme Court decision regarding campaign finance, and the entire Recession- it's name is George W. Bush. I know, I know, haven't we blamed him enough? Well until I see his and Cheney's asses dragged before a Grand Jury- No we haven't blamed them enough.

First I'd like to start with a small discussion on what I consider to be the three major pillars of power in the United States; 1. The Government, 2. The Media, 3. Corporations. These three powers keep each other in check as a sort of unwritten checks and balance system that is on a social level (rather than the checks and balances that the Gov't has between the judicial, executive, and legislative branches). Hence the First Amendment stating keep your grubbing fucking hands off the media.

Corporations don't really need that protection because they have their own protective power- MONEY! Hello, Supreme Court, I'm talking to you. What The Fuck (I thought an abbreviation would just dilute) were you thinking? Did you think that that Corporate America was not influencing politics enough? Did you think that somehow we had left them out of the power pie in the last decade? Corporate America almost single handedly erased 20 years of gains by the middle class in a matter of 5-8 years depending on how you want to slice it. Now they can spend any amount of money they want influencing the other two pillars. The Media has already been bought by Corporate America, luckily it is really difficult to run a for profit newspaper these days because of things like blogs and the internet. That all has yet to be flushed out, but I can guarentee that if there is money to be made there, Corporate America will be on the coattails. So anyway, "Screw You little guy, your opinion doesn't count," is what I heard from these five robed ones.

Whew, I feel better. What does this have to do with GW? Well he got the chance to appoint two of those five justices to the court. What a wonderful legacy he is leaving us to deal with for the next 10-20 years. I can only hope that Obama gets to swap out at least one of the conservative judges during his (fingers crossed) eight years in office. It really is going to be the only way we have a chance to balance the court back out to something more reasonable (if this recent act of lunacy is any indicator).

Next, Toyota- lately in the news is this huge recall over gas pedals. Did you know that the agency that oversees transportation saftey The National Traffic Highway Safety Association (NTHSA) didn't have a head for the last eight months while GW was in office. Also, since Obama has been in office we haven't had a head either. The wonderful Republicans have been blocking most of Obama's nominees for other more important offices and so the committees are way behind in approving other less important offices like NTHSA. Basically the NTHSA has gotten behind the ball on looking into reports. They actually did look into the Toyota gas pedal issue a few years ago, but took Toyota's word that it was "operator error" meaning people were pressing the gas instead of the break. Yeah, that was their argument, and the NTHSA accepted it.

The bigger issue here is why they would side with Toyota? Well it is because of the politics of GW Bush. He systematically put people into the various watchdog agencies (EPA, FDA, CPA, etc) who were friendly to business. He made sure that the so called revolving door was in full effect by allowing lobbyists, industry insiders, and former employees of the very businesses they were supposed to be watching run the show. This is all very well documented and explains the various issues that we have seen cropping up regarding lead paint in toys, insane credit card companies raping people, and now cars going on acceleration rampages.

Finally, I'd like to wrap this all up by pointing to the complete and epic failure of government regulators to notice the ridiculous practices going on Wall Street. Many people have been asking why the failure? I have always thought that the answer is relatively simple. The people who were watching were specifically hired to look the other way. They knew shit was going down, but why would they rat out the very people that they were working for in the first place? When you put stupid people in charge, stupid things happen. The bigger issue is when you put a stupid person in charge of the entire country- REALLY stupid things happen.

To Save the Planet

I don't know why environmentalist and climate scientists even think they can "Save the Planet".

There really isn't anything to save.

It really isn't about "Saving the Planet". It isn't about "Healing Mother Earth" either. Stopping global warming is really about saving our own asses. The whole environmental moment is just as self-serving as dumping loads of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere unchecked. Really it is.

We aren't really trying to be "green" in order to help the planet remain alive, we are trying to keep humanity alive. That's really all that this stuff is about- having a planet that is habitable by humans for generations to come. Besides, the Earth is going to survive anything we humans can do, including global warming, deforestation, and species extinction. You name it, the Earth can survive through it.

I am tired of this misnomer "Save the Planet", and I think it is wrong. It should be "Save Your Ass," or perhaps "Save the Children,", or even better "Save Your Children's Asses". The fact of the matter is, Mother Nature will remove us from the planet, without thought, remorse, and with a swiftness that is frightening. This isn't about her, she can take care of herself.

From Preacher

I've been reading "The Greatest Graphic Novel Ever" called Preacher by Garth Ennis.

Here is a gem I found today, seems fitting considering the times:

"The Myth of America: That simple, honest men, born of her Great Plains and woods and skies have made a nation of her, and will prove worthy of her when the time is right...

Under a harsh light it is false. But a good myth to live up to, all the same."

An Arguement for Taxing the Wealthy

I was recently sent a mass email (I will paste the email into the comments) from a family member which outlined the plight of the small business owner. Basically, when you own a company and it makes a profit at the end of the year, this is what you have to put on your tax return. So, when one considers Obama's screw all the people who make over $250,000 shtick, one cannot help worry about the group that is responsible for something like 80% of all employment (I'm not sure about this number and didn't feel like looking it up, feel free to do so, it might be even higher). Personally, I think it would be dumb to do anything to hinder job growth right now. The email that I am referring to was told from the perspective of the president of a company who made $530,000 in profit from the company. He argued that with that $530,000 he has to re-invest in the company so it can grow, and that how can he do that when he is getting taxed so strongly. With these things in mind, I present An Argument for Taxing the Wealthy (including small business owners to make over $250,000).

1. While it is true that the profit of a small business gets recorded as income for the business owner, I'd like to point out that the taxable income (net) is after business expenses which includes re-investing in the company. So using the above example, if this guy were to invest $284,000 back into his company then his net would be $250,000- and he'd be under the threshold. And by the way, if someone were to net out more than $250,000 from their company- well then I'd argue that they do deserve to pay that extra 5%, as you will see below.

2. Furthermore, a small business is an asset, just like a home or a car is an asset. When you re-invest into an asset, you typically increase the value of the asset in the process. I mean what kind of a moron would invest money in their company without the hope of it increasing the revenue/profit/value of the company by doing so. So, the boo-hoo I have to re-invest into my own company line is bullshit, you are investing in an asset you posses just like you invest in your 401k, or your house- the hope is that you will be able to sell it later and cash out the money you put into it. Now granted, a small business is a LOT risker than a 401k, savings, or a home- but hey that's the perils of a small business owner.

3. People should pay in proportion to the services they use, right? If I use more electricity, I should pay more. If I drive a truck on the government funded highways, and I profit from these taxpayer funded roads, then I should pay more to help keep them up and running. This is also true for the wealthy. By definition, if you are wealthy then society has benefited you. Granted, you may have worked hard for you money, but regardless, the social system that we live in and is how it is structured has lead to you being able to accrue wealth in one form or another. If we had a chaotic society, or an anarchical society, then odds are, you wouldn't be doing as well, or benefiting so much (freedom of economy is typically the first thing to go in a totalitarian or fascist regime).

This disproportionate benefital relationship between the haves and the have nots rationally leads to the conclusion that the haves should pay a bit more to keep society functioning, so that their business will continue functioning, so that they will be able to continue with their way of life. It is actually a selfish view that I am taking here, even though the results are unselfish. Makes sense to me...

4. This guy is basically a proponent of the trickle down economic theory adopted by Regan in the 80s. All that I have to say is that after 20 years of growth, this latest downturn has reduced us to pre-1982 levels and erased all of the supposed gains that trickle down economics (which reigned over those 20 years) produced. This may be surprising, but trickle down economics do not work. It has been proven to not work over these past 20 years, over the past 8 years, the average income of Americans has fallen by approximately 5%. Meanwhile, the top 1% wealthiest managed to accumulate 99% of the wealth in the country, a first in the history of the US. Never before in the history of our country has so much wealth been accumulated into such a small percentage of people.

Really though, is it surprising that trickle down economics does not translate into wealth for the middle class? I mean basically what you are saying is, Once you are rich, you stop being greedy. That really is the fundamental tenet of trickle down economics. Being as skeptical as most conservative economist who believe this, you would think that they wouldn't believe so strongly in the philanthropic soul of the rich. They got rich by being cut throat and saving every dollar they can (which I have no problem with), but why would you expect that to change if you just give them more?

5. $250,000 for your net income is over 500% of what the average American makes. That's five times (5x) more than the average American makes. I mean if you make that much more than the average person, shouldn't you foot a greater percentage of the bill? I make more than my girlfriend does (right now) so I pay proportionately more rent and bills and stuff. I consider this just and fair, why wouldn't this same principle apply to the wealthy?

The Universal Villian

Here is an article on a blog that Liz likes called Jezebel about this ad from Dockers.

I thought the article was rather funny, especially the sarcastic remark to Dockers. I mean seriously, do you really think that wearing a pair of Dockers will make you manly? Thinking that manliness is somehow a function of what you look like on the outside is a serious misrepresentation of all that is man. But, I may ask what is manly?

From what I can tell from Jezebel and other female writers, it is something dark and evil. Manliness seems to wreak of patriarchy and misogyny according to these writers. Personally, I really don't see how opening a door for a person (note not woman) is somehow degrading. You don't open the door because you think the person is weak, you do it to be polite. A little bit of social grace in an otherwise rude world.

The bigger question I have right now, at this instant in time, what is equal? I mean that's what we are all striving for with the whole gender/minority inequity thing right? We are trying to make things equal and fair. Well what does that look like?

Is it that women need to be in overarching power, the kind of power that men have had for eons? Control of all systems of society from the economy, education, and government for a long period of time to balance out the past wrongdoers?

Or is equity when we have it 50/50? Equal numbers of female CEOs and judges and senators and a female president from time to time? Split nicely down the middle across the board, everywhere? In this case men have to lose some pay, and women need to gain some. Men need to give up many many seats in the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. BUT, we would need some quotas for men's admission to universities and some balancing of the workforce for men as well. Sounds kinda wacky right?

Or could it be that maybe men are ahead in certain regions, and women are ahead in certain regions? How large of inequities in a given region are acceptable? To me this seems to be the inevitability. There is no way that we will ever have a statistically perfect 50/50 split of power between men, women, minorities, you name it. It will always ebb and flow.

Now I'm NOT suggesting that things are anywhere near equal right now. Women need to be paid the same as men, and need to have a hell of a lot more positions of power in business, education, and the government. Period. The thing that I am questioning, is when is enough enough?

Furthermore, when can men stop being punished for being men?

When can we be released from the role of Universal Villian?

Update: After I wrote this, I went to lunch and read this section of my favorite graphic novel, Preacher. Just too fitting to not add it to the end.

Down with the Trolls

Looks like shit hit the fan tonight with the Trolls. There were four or so cop cars sirens blasting chasing down people streaming from the undersides of the bridges. I could hear on the nearby cop radio people yelling and excited voices. So often do cops remind me of teenagers jacked up on adrenaline. None-the-less, I am glad that the police officers were there as there was a female victim of violence, and boy did they act fast. The witness to the crime was a tall scruffy looking man who was walking in orange crocs.

As soon as the first cop called it in, BAM, there was at least four cops patrolling (trolling ha) the local neighborhood. The firefighters showed up and started treating the girl who was directly across the street. She seemed shook up, but otherwise in good form. The interesting part is that every five to ten minutes another cop car zooms by at top speed, lights, sirens, the works.

As the incident wears down, the police take their statements from the witness. The SFFD ambulance takes the victim away to the local somewhere, and the street quiets back to it's normal grumble.

The Mark of the Beast

Today at work, I was chatting with one of my coworkers about her cat's new found outdoor adventuring. I suggested that she get her cat microchipped, in case she gets lost especially w/o a collar and tags, the pound will know who to call. She quickly shook her head in a peculiar way and said quitely, "I don't believe in that." Immediately, I said, "Why?" Her response- "It's against my religion."

Woah, wait a second, backup here. The last time I heard this mumbo-jumbo was back when I was living in Michigan, and thought it was shit back then. First of all, we are talking about cats and dogs, and cows here, not people. Though some nutter parents are considering microchipping their kids, creepy if you ask me (control freak much?) How does this all relate to religion? Well those microchips are the mark of the beast. Yup you got it, the Devil works through silicon! Who knew...?

Here's the two relevant passages, forgive me for using two different Bible versions, but since it's all the word of God, I suppose it doesn't matter of they were edited by King James or not.

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

-Rev. 13:17-18 (KJB)

He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

– Rev. 13:16-17 (NIV)

Left hand everyone, that's the key. You can do whatever you want to your left hand, bar code it, microchip it, tatoo 666 all over it, and it doesn't matter. Right hand only, oh and watch the forehead too...these passages just go to show how bonkers this whole line of reasoning really is. Now it may be that this whole thing is metaphorical, as religion really should be received. Perhaps it is some kind of a spiritual marking that it is referring to, and the whole forehead/righthand/lefthand thing is just some made up bullshit passed on over the years.

Furthermore, the kind of nutters that believe this crap are the same nutters who think that kitties have no soul, and are simply beasts put on earth for us humans. In that case, she should feel free to microchip her kitty anyway, who cares if it is a minion of the devil?