Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Pop Goes The Bubble!

Pop Goes The Bubble!

It's the American dream to own a big house in a suburban wasteland. People always tell you you're a sucker for renting and throwing your money away. Homes are some of the worst investments you can possibly make. Oh hey, I pay 15k a year in property taxes, insurance and maintenance, but at least I'm not lighting a match to my money by renting!!!

Property tax in Ca may be low, but it isn't that low if your property has been reassessed at all in the last 10 years. And by now I'm sure it comes to a surprise to anyone who doesn't have any common sense or an ounce of logic on their persons, but there was some bad news in the home owner market last week. You see, the existing home sales in July fell 27.2%
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- With home sales plunging to their lowest level in 15 years, economists warn that a double-dip in housing prices is just around the corner, threatening to further slow the overall recovery.

Existing home sales sank 27.2% in July, twice as much as analysts expected, to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 3.83 million units. Much of that drop is attributed to the end of the $8,000 homebuyer tax credit.

That credit brought buyers out in droves, as they tried to sign home contracts before the April 30 deadline. Now, two months later, sales are 34% below April's tax incentive-induced peak.

"Home sales were eye-wateringly weak in July," said economist Paul Dales of Capital Economics. "It is becoming abundantly clear that the housing market is undermining the already faltering wider economic recovery. With an increasingly inevitable double-dip in housing prices yet to come, things could get a lot worse."

The sales pace of all homes -- single-family homes, townhomes, condominiums and co-ops -- is at the lowest since NAR began tracking the figure in 1999. Sales of single-family homes, which account for a bulk of the transactions, are at the lowest level since May 1995.

Inventory has also continued to climb, rising 2.5% to 3.98 million existing homes for sale. That represents a 12.5-month supply at the current sales pace, the highest since October 1982 when it stood at 13.8 months. A six-month of supply is considered normal.

The combination of weak demand and glut of homes has put downward pressure on prices.

And as the recession proved, the housing market and the broader economy are closely intertwined. When housing prices collapse, so does the overall wealth and confidence of Americans.
Bu-bu-bu-bu-but a house is suppose to be an investment! Just ignore the fact that an investment is not guaranteed to rise in value.

You see that little hump on Y? That's the home buyers tax credit from April. See that red line? That's where we're heading to. Hee, yeah. We're fucked.

I know its been said plenty of times, but what the hell were people thinking in between 2002 and 2007? Anyone looking at that data should have been able to see trouble brewing. Let's just ignore the fact that this doesn't even take into account the ARMs that will be resetting in the next 6-12 months... Yeah, we're pretty much doomed.

I would like to point out to all you who want to be a home owner, it's seriously a better idea to rent a nice apartment for a year than buy a house right now. I'm not even joking. Don't go on with this mentality that even though you're a Mcdonalds worker by day, that you can flip low-grade "beef" in the way of homes at night and make a profit. You can't. Stop thinking you can.

Just look at this next chart. I know, charts are boring, but look at it. 150 billion dollars of mortgages reset in Q3/Q4 of 2011, it will be breathtaking.

Just look at that. It's pretty clear that this will all be over by 2012. What a silver lining! Not to mention that the messiah will most likely be here by then, too. Jesus told me so. He also let slip that he was a Muslim and related to Barack Obama. I know, crazy huh.

Banks are already sitting on a massive amount of unforeclosed defaulted properties. I wonder if there is likely to be any real change when more start defaulting or if it will just keep on keepin on. I guess at some point existing bank home inventory will become so unmanageable, they'll start practically giving these homes away with the opening of a new bank account.

Of course only the super rich will be allowed to own homes and you'll have to submit a blood sample, DNA print and your soul to get one.

In the event that you don't understand the reset, let me break it down for you. Because most of those loans were sold with absurdly low teaser rates, lower than even the 4.5 a well qualified borrower could get, they're going to reset well above what the average interest rate would have ever been qualified for.

In fact, one of the more popular loans was a "neg-am" arm or "negative amortization". Meaning you pay a less-than-you-owe monthly payment even on the teaser rate phase. Then when it's time for the loan to reset it doesn't just rest, it "Recasts" to include the entire outstanding balance, which by now has grown really large, at the non-teaser rate, and now over 25 years instead of 30. So in short.. people are going to be fucked.

Just think of this, One in 10 with a mortgage face foreclosure.
WASHINGTON — One in 10 American households with a mortgage was at risk of foreclosure this summer as the government's efforts to help have had little impact stemming the housing crisis.

About 9.9 percent of homeowners had missed at least one mortgage payment as of June 30, the Mortgage Bankers Association said Thursday.

That number, which is adjusted for seasonal factors, was down slightly from a record-high of more than 10 percent as of April 30.

In a worrisome sign, the number of homeowners starting to have problems with their mortgages rose after trending downward last year. The number of homes in the foreclosure process fell slightly, the first drop in four years.

More than 2.3 million homes have been repossessed by lenders since the recession began in December 2007, according to foreclosure listing service RealtyTrac Inc. Economists expect the number of foreclosures to grow well into next year.

The number of Americans missing payments and falling into foreclosure has followed the upward trend in unemployment, which has been near double digits all year and has shown no sign of dropping soon.

And the percentage of loans receiving their first notice of foreclosure also dipped. That fell to 1.1 percent in the second quarter from 1.2 percent in the first quarter.

Besides forcing people from their homes, foreclosures and distressed home sales have pushed down on home values and crippled the broader housing industry. They have made it difficult for homebuilders to compete with the depressed prices and discouraged potential sellers from putting their homes on the market.

Government efforts haven't made much of a difference. Nearly half of the 1.3 million homeowners who have enrolled in the Obama administration's main mortgage-relief program have been cut loose through July, the Treasury Department said last week. The program is intended to help those at risk of foreclosure by lowering their monthly mortgage payments.

Roughly 32 percent of those who started the program have received permanent loan modifications and are making their payments on time.
The percent of fall still to come is 42%. It's going to be comical. Someday, you too may be able to buy a house. Once you're able to hire some guns to evict the squatters and set up a perimeter.

With all that said, let's move on to the next stage of this blog and play a game.. One in which we guess the next bubbles that will be bursting. Take a guess on which of the following will be the next pop that will send America into the hole that we clearly dug for ourselves..

- Student Loans as tuition raises, curriculum increases, boomers never fucking die and no more jobs come to America.

- Drones and Border turrets

- Carbon Credits.
(And the left will take 150% of the blame even though it was never our idea in the first place)

-Real estate again and again.

-Price of organs harvested from tent city dwellers

-Durable goodes
(specifically tools and tooling equipment, appliances, camping/outdoor gear, etc.)
price of organs harvested from tent city dwellers

-Life insurance for the working class.

- Tech Stocks

- Whatever Goldman sachs is making most of their money on right now.

I can't wait for Glenn Beck to explain why investing in gold is a good idea after its price falls $300. Never a better time to buy! When it's going up, you're on the gravy train to a gold plated house. When it's going down "the bottom is near, buy buy buy!" Just like the stock market and every other capitalist scam.

In short Death is certain

Monday, August 30, 2010

Fuck You, Entourage

Fuck You, Entourage

I have to vent here. Entourage, you're suppose to be a silly male version of Sex And The City that guys aren't ashamed to watch.. Well, just a little bit. But you know what I mean. You're suppose to be the lighthearted fun filled half an hour that HBO has around just to fill in time and be a tad comical while laced with male fantasy, but you're just too fucking stupid right now.

Your story lines are all fucking stupid right now and it's hard to picture this being the same show that it was in season 1 through 4. What am I talking about? Let's take Turtle's story right now.

The whole tequilla thing is stupid because why would you want a celebrity endorsing your product if you can't handle or don't want to handle the demand. It ends up sounding like this

Turtle we want to bring this brand to the US. Bring Vince aboard!

*brings Vince aboard, creates insane demand for the tequila*

TURTLE you are not a marketing department why the FUCK did you make my product so wanted in the industry that I cannot possibly keep up with demand! We aren't nearly able to handle this many orders! FUCK! We would need at least $5,000,000 invested to get our new factory built, which would help us meet this new demand and make us very very rich!

*gets $5,000,000 investment*

TURTLE! What the fuck! Why would you get us exactly what we wanted!? Now we are going to explode in a business faster than we ever dreamed! THANKS A WHOLE LOT
Carlos must be the worst businessman possible on the planet. Do I need to point out the obvious in that he takes great pride in his "Family Business" but takes tips from waitresses and lim-hoes drivers in hiring strangers with no qualifications to publicize his booze. Clearly he cares about who works for his family business...

Even how we got here was stupid. Annoying object of Turtle's confused desires feels sexual harassed and quits, then turns around and gets him a job with family friend across the border. Wait what? Then he goes above and beyond the call in every instance to get what was asked for/implied and he faces more hardship. What's wrong with this picture?

It's just so far fetched that it's barely watchable. I'm just glad that there's only one more episode this season so that way we never have to hear about this stupid tequila again. Oh, and for those of you who were hoping on a wing and a prayer that this was some sort of ploy or scam to get Vinny to invest and just be assed out of money, think again. Avion is actually a real product, so they would never do that.

And I guess that's where it the shittiness of this story really starts. It's been nothing more than one season long huge product placement. I'm used to product placement in Entourage, the show has been about 50% name dropping/product placement but this shit's way too much.
The creators of Avion tequila didn't have to pay a penny for all the priceless publicity the new booze brand has gotten on this season of "Entourage" -- all it took was 35 years of friendship.

Marquis Jet tycoon Kenny Dichter, who just launched Avion in New York and California, grew up with Doug Ellin, the creator of the HBO hit about movie star Vince Chase (Adrian Grenier) and his posse.
So I guess it's less product placement and more name dropping. Let me tell you, being in the film industry, I hate name dropping more than a stupid product placement sales pitch. But what gets me is that it's such a terrible product placement because it doesn't do anything favorable to the label. In fact, let's go to an advertising expert to get his take on this plug.

What do you say, Don. Do you like it?

Yeah. That's what I thought. These people are power players in Hollywood. They've drank more high end quality shit than all of us combined. Stuff that has been aging in a barrel for more years than you've been alive. The fact that they are going around acting like they are on ecstasy is just absurd.
"Man, this is really good shit. I feel like I'm floating!"

"This is good tequila, and trust me, I know hard liquor!" (Yeah, right. You cosmo-drinking fairy!)

"And only 50 calories per serving!"

"I hear it's available at all Bevmos, isn't that right, Turtle?"
I recently went to an event that had this as its featured drink. So it was in every free drink for the night. Was it good? You know what, it fucking tasted like tequila. nothing more. I can tell you one thing, this season long ad for that tequila has made me never want to buy it on the simple principal that the make believe owner of this company is so fucking stupid.

Then you have the rest of the back scratching that is just as annoying when you figure how much of a plug it is and how much it takes away from the show to sound like an old radio program with one sponsor.
"I watch Viking Quest on Spike"
Ugh. Really? Do you really need to rub the back of your syndication network like that? They're doing you no favor in showing a watered down version of your show. Let alone the number of ads that they place in the show is at least 5 minutes

But moving on. Sasha fucking Grey.. What the fuck is she still doing on this show? She can't act and when she told Vince to mark his territory, I assumed she wanted him to piss on her or something.

I figured they would play the jealous boyfriend of a porn star card eventually, but I didn't realize it was going to be so annoying when it was put down on the table. Can anyone really be surprised when your dating a porn star and they tell you that they're going to do another scene? It's her fucking job. That's her profession... A porn star!

The better actress, and in my opinion based off not taking a train of guys at a time, the better looking one, Sloane, is getting the shaft in screen time here.

Sasha Grey must be the most annoying thing that has happened to this show, second only to Avion tequila. But not only is she a piss poor actress, but she carries herself with such pretentiousness I want to cringe every time I see her and her smug smile after a delivery of a line on screen.

We get it, you aren't the average airhead that one would expect the porn biz to produce but spare us the never ending intellectual facade. She acts as if she's a bloody Ivy League graduate and not some junior college one who has made a name for herself getting gang banged on camera.

And don't get me started on the Ari storyline. It's a crime that you got rid of all the chemistry between Ari and Llyod, which this season they've had maybe two or three quick interactions. But then you give Ari this really shitty position. How many times do we need to hear his wife play the "bad husband"/"Bad father"/"you don't pay attention to your family"/"I'm jealous of your career" card. It got old a long ass time ago.

Then you bump him down a couple of slots with this whole forced NFL deal. As a resident of Los Angeles, I don't give a shit that we don't have an NFL team here. What a waste of perfectly good land to put a football stadium anywhere on county property. All 12 home games are not worth the money spent on bringing a team here. Besides, if you want to go to a football game, one is only two hours south.

As for his story of being outed as a potty mouth. What a load of horse shit. It made NO fucking sense. Anyone who has met or heard of Ari knows he's intense. How is this news on any level? Not to mention that the writers felt like they didn't have to give a shit about any sort of resolution to this and that any viewer of Entourage would be too stupid to remember anything is even more insulting. Look at Amanda's whole course of action;
"Here, I just lured away your ex employee, convinced her to attempt releasing slanderous material against you illegally in an attempt to destroy your NFL chances at least, but now I'm in a meeting with them, I didn't actually leak your stuff, my assistant did and i was going to bring you back onto the NFL team thing, because I'm a nice person even though your ex-employee left me and pulled out of suing you because she said I was taking it too far."
Fuck off. Seriously, fuck off. What a worthless and pulled out of ones own ass story line that ever was. There's no way to salvage that one. All season long they've showed Amanda as delighting to bring Ari down with the scandal. Now she was just trying to help? Bull fucking shit. Terrible writing, even for Entourage standards.

Oh, and by the way. One thing for TruBlood. Why the fuck do they keep trying to give Tara depth by giving her so many crying scenes? NO ONE CARES!! Hell, I didn't give a shit about her character since they recast the original actress. You've been dead to me since then, why the show can't commit and kill off the worthless character once and for all is beyond me.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Calendar Girls

Calendar Girls

It's never to early to think about what you'll be hanging up on the wall to separate the days next year. So let me be the first to show you the 2011 calendar you'll want to have. Say hello to your Czech Sexy Members of Parliament Calendar!
The 2011 calendar features four women MPs from the Public Affairs party wearing little in the way of clothing in a series of images that dispatch the traditional image of staid and serious parliamentarians. The country returned its highest ever number of women MPs at the last general election.

Two other women, one the party's candidate for the mayor of Prague, make up the numbers, with each politician photographed twice for the calendar, which will be sold for charity.

"We want to draw attention to the fact that we have women in politics," said MP Lenka Andrysova, who appears in one shot in a thigh-high dress kneeling on a shelf.

Katerina Klasnova, the 32-year-old deputy speaker for the lower house of the Czech parliament, is photographed lying on a bed wearing a loose-fitting robe.

The Czech elections in May saw a record 44 women elected into the lower house of parliament. In a significant political shift, young parties such as Public Affairs, in which women have a stronger presence, entered parliament for the first time.

Public Affairs and Top09, another newcomer to the Czech parliament, are now involved in coalition negotiations to form the country's next government.

"Women's political influence is growing. Why not show we are women who aren't afraid of being sexy?" said Marketa Reedova, Public Affair's 42-year-old candidate for the Prague mayor's office.

Public Affairs has previously used glamour to highlight its strong female presence. During the election campaign four of the women who appear in the calendar posed for a billboard poster wearing black swim suits.

As further evidence that few in the Czech Republic have qualms over spicing the world of politics with touch of glamour and sex appeal, in the days after the election the glossy women's magazine "Ona" (She in English) encouraged readers to vote for "Miss Parliament", asking them to choose their favourite female MP.
So with that said, do you want to see the pictures? I mean, they are worth a thousand words, after all.

Wait a minute. What? That's it? That's it?!?! Maybe the foreign films have lead me to think that any time people do calendars that nudity will be included. Oh well. I love this quote
"Why not show we are women who aren't afraid of being sexy?"
I mean, it's about time someone took a stand on the deplorable lack of sexualisation of women in the public eye. Has a woman ever been "Afraid" of "being sexy"? Heads up, you can be a feminist and still like to feel sexy and horny, it's amazing, I know. But it's true, I swear.

Avril Lavigne?

I guess the only time someone really doesn't want to look sexy is if they don't want to look sexy for someone they're not interested in. Don't look at me like that, pervert! sort of thing.

OH MY GOD, I can see their legs AND feet! Don't look now. My favorite is the one of her brushing her teeth. Cause, I mean.. what? I guess they're cute pictures and poses. I don't know. I guess it's just a little vanilla compared to what I would normally expect one of those calendars to have.

That woman looks hot and smart with those glasses and that book. Though the book is an upside down copy of Atlas Shrugged.

I guess your average feminist wouldn't have a problem with strapless dresses and short skirts if guys went around in public showing that much skin with a straight face. But then again, double standards, right?

That's Okay love, sometimes I have trouble getting out of the bath as well.

But I dunno. I'd go around half naked all the time if I had a good enough body for it. I mean, be proud of your sexiness! Though if I had a daughter she will be wearing a potato sack until she is 18, god damn it!

I guess the real indicator of equality is for your average woman to not be judged because you wore the same work clothes three days in row. It's pretty much the definition of male privilege.

Either way, I guess you should clear room on your desk for a new 2011 calendar cause who can pass up some political figures? Pray that the U.S. senate never attempts this.

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Four Scores... Who Gives A Shit

Four Scores... Who Gives A Shit

I have one simple question.. Why do we give a fuck about "What the founding fathers wanted"? It seems like it's always brought up but right wing republicans when talking about Guns or Religion. And may I add that it's ALWAYS used wrong when it's about religion.

But really, why do we give a flying fuck about "what the founding fathers wanted" anyway. They're fucking dead. They also had slaves and were totally against the British. It's pretty clear that our nation is constantly evolving. If we restrict ourselves to the ideas and moral stunted growth of what our founding fathers wanted, we'd still be in those dark ages.

I never understood this talking point and I know the basic "Oh Republican's don't have any king of logic" is a prime excuse, but seriously, what's even the basis for believing that it matters? Why should we care about men who lived a quarter millennium ago?

But maybe it's because they were a bunch of slave owning rich old white dudes just like the republican party and every corporate executive that pulls strings in our society. And that's exactly why they try to play that card.

It's tossed around that they were guided by god, we must revere them to make sure we, as a nation, don't backslide and stay holy to the lord and creator of our fair nation. America without gods constant approval rating and favor towards us is nothing. It's because of him that we are the freest of the free nations in the history of free.

It seems to come down to a massive name drop. I mean, if you're going to try and pitch something to stupid mother fuckers, you might as well make that last ditch effort and answer any objections by dropping the titanic appeal to authority. "Yeah, you know who would've thought this 701 extension/interchange I'm proposing was a good idea? The dude who invented freedom"

No matter how fucking stupid your idea is and easily debunked, you know you're going to get some support by those who want to appease all the morons who are too afraid to go against the word of our smart founders. Just look at the facts:

-powder wig
-flew a kite

It's pretty clear that these dudes were gay. Nothing wrong with that, by the way.. just saying - do you want to oppose gay marriage now? So even if we are just projecting our desires onto them and then call our desires more patriotic than the oppositions, it's all just one big tool to try to prove that our opinion is any more correct than the next guys. In reality, it's not.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that amount these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of drunken sex with transsexuals.
See that. It's actually "the pursuit of property" but if part of Jefferson's desire to have tranny sex with his slaves came out in that draft, our nation would be an entirely different play ground.

On some levels I guess I can see why we care. They were pretty smart. It's the same reason why we care about Marx, Nietzche, Locke, Plato, Rousseau, Avicenna or other smart dead people. Even from beyond the grave they have things they can teach us about society and ways of thinking about it. Though I have to say that Capitalism still is a failed state.

But not to mention that their cultural and legal legacy continues to shape the American psyche and government, so trying to better understand it means we can better understand their long term influences and how they can be interpreted to make that long term influence a more positive thing.

The real irony with this hero worship from republicans was that many of our founding fathers were quite progressive for their time, and yet to idolize the minutiae of their politics rather than the spirit of their ideas today is conservative since it means looking backward. Just try explaining how Smith and Marx are basically using the same line of thought and you'll get laughed at.

If you really cared, and I mean actually cared to know the truth that most of them were already lawyers and/or governors. Ben Franklin spent much of his time being fat and drunk partying it up while fucking bitches left and right in France. Occasionally writing justifications for his continued absence to his lonely sad wife back home in the states.

He was supposed to be the representative to parliament for the colonies but didn't ever go home so he didn't know people were mad in the states over the taxes.

Thomas Paine is probably history's greatest American. He was an advocate for agrarian revolution and the death of the ruling class every day he could. When he came back to the US after narrowly escaping execution, Jefferson put him up in the white house but angry mobs demanded that no such atheist jacobin be allowed in THEIR capital and Jefferson had to send him away in the dead of night.

I just wished that all the frothing over the founding fathers would stop for those single aspects where someone wants to name drop for their own cause. "But Jefferson would be totally for unrestricted cap and trade and off shore oil!" Um, yeah. He'd also be all for every home having a female black slave for their very own as well.

Friday, August 27, 2010

William Henry Harrison - Great President or Greatest President?

William Henry Harrison - Great President or Greatest President?

Gather around, children, so you can listen to the amazing tail of William Henry Harrison. He was your 9th President of the United States and you see, he was the greatest president. His first move as president was delivering a 2 hour inaugural address in the cold rain without any hat or coat, led to his death by pneumonia 1 month later.

This should be widely regarded as ingenious, preserving his legacy by removing any chance of fucking things up. This portrait of William Henry Harrison looks like it could be Dewey from Malcom in the middle all grown up.

You see, by enacting nothing of any consequence, he objectively fucked up less than all other US Presidents combined. In this day and age, say for example 2012, we need a visionary to carry on William Henry Harrions' vision of not fucking anything up. These days, it's increasingly clear that any attempt to make anything better just fucks things up worse.

Bailouts? Should've let them fail. Healthcare reform? Watered down to a glorified insurance company handout package. Financial reform? Still contains retarded loopholes. Who can we trust to not to fuck anything up?

And for those who say he was a war criminal... Well, there's not much of you anyway because who the fuck keeps up with American history anyway? I mean, most of you think that Ben Franklin was one of our Presidents for fucks sake. But anyhow, he was only a war criminal whilst not President, so my statement still stands as accurate.

Only a few others come close. Linden Johnson was close as the great American President just wanted to kill poverty while simultaneously shooting the kids at school. But William was the first person to ever kill a sitting U.S. president, so he has that going for himself.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

No Funbags Makes Babies Cry

How Dare My Baby Want To Nurse off My Funbags!

While I'm always at attention when it comes to boobs, this news story crossed my radar recently and while it's a subject that is a bit of a sore subject, it's still a strange subject. So here it is...
Criticism over breastfeeding 'creepy' article
Breastfeeding baby Breastfeeding has many health benefits for babies and mother

An article in a magazine for new mothers that described breastfeeding as "creepy" has drawn widespread criticism.

Mother & Baby Magazine's deputy editor Kathryn Blundell said she bottle fed because she did not want to put her "fun bags" in a "bawling baby's mouth".

Breastfeeding is seen as the optimum way to nourish a baby in the first six months.

Critics say the article could have put off vulnerable mothers.

Mother & Baby magazine is read by thousands of pregnant and new mothers, with many looking to it for advice on how to manage early motherhood.

'Dangling boobs'

Although she acknowledges breast milk has the edge over infant formula, Ms Blundell says in her article that she did not "fancy it" and went straight to bottle feeding.

She adds: "Even the convenience and supposed health benefits of breast milk couldn't induce me to stick my nipple into a bawling baby's mouth."

She goes on to say that she wanted her "body back" and to give her "boobs at least a chance to stay on my chest rather than dangling around my stomach".

Of her breasts, she adds: "They're part of my sexuality too - not just breasts, but fun bags.

"And when you have that attitude (and I admit I made no attempt to change it), seeing your baby latching on where only a lover has been before feels, well, a little creepy."

The article in the July issue of the magazine has drawn criticism on many parenting websites.

One mother wrote on Baby Centre: "Surely putting her sexual feelings before the 'supposed health benefits' means she is a little creepy?"

Another on Mumsnet said it could have a "bad effect on someone who's feeling vulnerable post-natally and struggling with breastfeeding".

Editor of Mother & Baby, Miranda Levy, says her magazine is a "constant and vocal supporter of breastfeeding".

She said the writer was describing her personal experience and that it had a place in the ongoing parenting debate.

"We have been inundated by supportive e-mails applauding her 'refreshing' point of view; we have made readers feel 'normal'; and less of a failure for not managing to breastfeed," she added.

"The way you feed your baby is not a moral issue and at Mother & Baby we seek to support all new parents."
Health advantages

The Department of Health recommends that babies are fed breast milk alone for the first six months.

NHS leaflets given to pregnant women and new mothers say that breastfeeding protects babies against obesity, allergies, asthma and diabetes.

Breast-fed infants also have a lower risk of gastroenteritis and respiratory and ear infections, research shows.

The advantages also extend to women who breastfeed. They have a lower risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer and tend to lose the weight they gained in pregnancy faster.

Figures show that eight in 10 women in England start off breastfeeding, but only one in five is still breastfeeding by the time their baby is six months old.
I know what you're thinking.. Breastfeeding in public is gross! But is breastfeeding at all gross? Hmm. That's a good thing to think about here. So we have two view points on the matter with this article.

A. Listen, when I got pregnant nobody told me my fun bags were going to be involved! I did not sign up for this BULL SHIT. Get away from that tit, infant, it is not for you. It is only for... my lovers!


B. Women should not be pigeonholed into biologically-mandated roles that have been made obsolete by culture and technology. The modern obsession with breastfeeding is further festishization of the breast by a patriarchal public obsessed with displays of fertility and femininity in the context of pre-approved "nurturing" actions.

I have to say that I'm mostly confused by this whole situation. If you are that spooked by the idea of your body changing shape and that creeped by the physical act of mothering an infant, why get pregnant in the first place? Adopt a toddler and just bypass the whole thing.

How can you possibly go through the entire process of gestating and expelling a baby and then balk at slapping a nip in its mouth like every other mammal on earth? But before we get ahead of ourselves, let me stop for a moment and point out that she seriously said FUNBAGS. How in gods name would taking advice from that woman seem like a good idea?

I suppose men should start calling their moobs "loafs of depression". Will someone shut that damn kid up? Mama's trying to get her freak on all up in here.

Should we actually bring back wet nurses? Because by not breastfeeding she's causing harm. Basically you get your immune system from breast milk. It matters less in a developed nation, but it's still pretty important. It's also really the only thing that triggers oxytocin bonding, which is associated with post-partum depression levels. Whether the infant will thrive or not, it's beneficial to you.

These mothers are literally telling their kids "Sorry babies, these boobs are claimed by grown men and their media-drive fetishization. Have some powdered crap from China instead." Let's be all organic and healthy but then feed our babies chemical sludge instead of risk droopy breast.

It's as if she feels like her body's priority is as a sex object and made a decision based on this internalized objectification that was not optimally healthy for her or her infant. While some people can't breastfeed or have economic reasons that they cannot, she seems to be basiing her objection on being scared that anyone would see her breasts for anything other than plush sex toys.

Woah there! That baby just straight tore through that dress to get some titty. Not a baby you want to fuck with. How you gonna rip a bitch's blouse open like that, you macroencephin fucking fat demon wing baby!

You also don't get pregnant without your boobs being physically altered. They will swell up as milk doesn't just fill in or evaporate overnight. It can take months of painful swelling and leaking before it does. Then after they will deflate and be different than they were before.

There's no reason for the woman in the article to think that denying her kid the opportunity to nurse is going to somehow rush her along in getting back on the sexy train any sooner. Adults need to realize that you have to make some concessions when you have a child. They're the babies, you aren't. So deal with it.

But even then, most women's tits don't get that messed up with one or two kids. Your flat tummy's probably going to never return since chances are your linea alba's gonna get tore up a little. Exercise can help with that but it's a rare luxury once you got a kid to look after.

You should only worry about it if you're one of those religious nuts who just has to crank out kid after kid for "god". Yeah, right there around kid 20 is when you'll be good and messed up. But if you're involved in one of those cults you got a whole host of more important problems than just saggy boobs.

And who said you even had to make a big show out of it. I doubt there's much of a benefit in breast feeding a baby directly opposed to just pumping it out with a machine and feeding them with a bottle of your milk. I did read a report that said that babies who get to suck on boobies develop fewer bad habits relating to sleep and putting foreign objects in the mouth.

Ugh! Disgusting! Look how fat that baby is. Maybe he should be drinking water instead of making out with his mom's tit milk. Hey so-called "Masters", Learn how to draw a tit for christ sakes!

While I completely disagree with the woman, I guess I can see how feeling like you've been a little used can come into play. I'm thankful I'm a guy at those moments when I realize that pregnancy is essentially playing host to a 7lb parasite and at the end of which you're essentially a food source.

Then again, why do I care? If she wants to raise some anemic, immune system-deficient, cavity riddled, pale, weakling that's one more kid my kid will be able to dominate physically and mentally on the playground.

In the writing of this I saw the following news story pop up on my window page about the healthy benefits of breast feeding...
A large part of human milk cannot be digested by babies and seems to have a purpose quite different from infant nutrition — that of influencing the composition of the bacteria in the infant’s gut.

The indigestible substance that favors the bifido bacterium is a slew of complex sugars derived from lactose, the principal component of milk. The complex sugars consist of a lactose molecule on to which chains of other sugar units have been added. The human genome does not contain the necessary genes to break down the complex sugars, but the bifido subspecies does, the researchers say in a review of their progress in today’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The complex sugars were long thought to have no biological significance, even though they constitute up to 21 percent of milk. Besides promoting growth of the bifido strain, they also serve as decoys for noxious bacteria that might attack the infant’s intestines. The sugars are very similar to those found on the surface of human cells, and are constructed in the breast by the same enzymes. Many toxic bacteria and viruses bind to human cells by docking with the surface sugars. But they will bind to the complex sugars in milk instead. “We think mothers have evolved to let this stuff flush through the infant,” Dr. Mills said.

Dr. German sees milk as “an astonishing product of evolution,” one which has been vigorously shaped by natural selection because it is so critical to the survival of both mother and child. “Everything in milk costs the mother — she is literally dissolving her own tissues to make it,” he said. From the infant’s perspective, it is born into a world full of hostile microbes, with an untrained immune system and lacking the caustic stomach acid which in adults kills most bacteria. Any element in milk that protects the infant will be heavily favored by natural selection.

The proteins in milk also have special roles. One, called Alpha-lactalbumin, can attack tumor cells and those infected by viruses by restoring their lost ability to commit cell suicide. The protein, which accumulates when an infant is weaned, is also the signal for the breast to remodel itself back to normal state.

Such findings have made the three researchers keenly aware that every component of milk probably has a special role. “It’s all there for a purpose, though we’re still figuring out what that purpose is,” Dr. Mills said. “So for God’s sake, please breast-feed.”
So any of you who are pro-formulas, you best wrap it up. Make it all natural.

While on the subject, is it just me or has the frequency of casearians in wealthier neighborhoods gone up? It seems to be because it's easier to get c-section scars cleaned up than vaginal reconstruction surgery down the road. I mean, hey, it's just at the expense of your child's lung development and all, but you know, mama want's things to be tight and in place down there.

Then again, on the flip side you have mothers who are way too gung-ho to want to show the world they're feeding..
Mums furious as Facebook removes breastfeeding photos

Facebook has become the target of an 80,000-plus protest by irate mothers after banning breastfeeding photographs from online profiles.

Facebook's policy, which bans any breastfeeding images uploaded that show nipples, has led an online profile by protestors - called "lactivists" in some circles - called "Hey Facebook, breast feeding is not obscene".

The online petition, which accuses Facebook of instituting the policy to "appease the closed-minded", has attracted almost 82,000 supporters.

The actions of the group came to a head over the weekend when the protesters organised a virtual "nurse-in" on the social networking website where for a day angry supporters posted a profile picture of an image of a mother breastfeeding and changed their Facebook status to say "Hey Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!".

A small demonstration was also launched outside Facebook's office in Palo Alto, California.
Hey, you dumb lady. If you're breast feeding maybe you should be busy raising your damn kids instead of fucking around on Facebook and playing Farmville all day! I'm a great mom!- every knocked up slut from here to eternity.

Booo hooo, I have to adhere to the Terms of Service I agreed to. Sell my information to whoever you want but please just let me show my tits and underage non-consenting child to possibly masturbating strangers!

Can I just get offensive here? I mean, it is Friday, time to let loose before the weekend, what is this "miracle of birth" bullshit? As far as things goes, can something really be a miracle if it happens a billion times every day? Get over yourself baby makers.

The true miracle would be if they could shut up about how much it hurts all the time. You know what really hurts? Having to give up half your paycheck for some dumb kid you've never even met. And who gives a shit about how long labor took you anyway? Schedule a c-section like every other rich white woman who has decent health insurance and get over it.

Try having kidney stones and then come back and tell me how bad a naturally occurring process that your body was designed to perform hurts.

I'll never understand women. When I want to see your tits, you won't show them to me; when I DON'T want to see your tits, you can't keep them out of my face. I guess I'm just really impressed that feminist were able to reclaim "funbags"

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

WikiLeaks: Hacking The Gibson As Public Enemy #1

WikiLeaks: Hacking The Gibson As Public Enemy #1

In this edition of Know your Enemy, let me introduce you to Wikileaks.

If you haven't ever heard of Wikileaks and believe it to be some sort of strange Wikipedia website, you are wrong. Most of all, you're pretty out of the loop. That's where Wikileaks comes in. Wikileaks first showed up on the internet around 2007 and the pinned founder Julian Assange is the public face of the site. He's essentially the Bill Paxton character from True Lies.

Their main interest is exposing oppressive regimes all over the world. Highlighting and shedding light to otherwise unscrupulous situations. And since our nations hands are as dirty as the next, it was good to hear that Wikileaks was breaking ground by releasing previously top secret documents.
Julian Assange, proprietor of the WikiLeaks website, on which he has already published about 76,000 classified documents relating to the Afghanistan war, says he will within weeks publish another 15,000. Assange hopes these disclosures will lead to war crimes trials to punish Americans.

The initial disclosure was comprised of raw battlefield reports and other materials classified at the "secret" level. Many of the documents reportedly contained the names and locations of Afghans who have aided U.S. and NATO troops. The Taliban took note and promised punishment of those people. Other damage done by the publication of these documents is still being assessed.

The second round of disclosures may be worse. The Obama administration seems content with chest-thumping threats of possible prosecutions of Assange. Which, even if they are brought successfully, seems a long shot given Assange's life beyond U.S. courts' jurisdiction and thus won't prevent disclosure.

And now, given Assange's actions are based outside the U.S., in nations where Assange is safe from U.S. court action, another "Pentagon Papers" case or even an attempt at prosecution would be pointless. But we have a right to act to protect our secrets. And act we must. So what should be done to prevent Assange from publishing them?

A friend of mine, a more-or-less retired CIA paramilitary operative, sees the solution in characteristically simple terms. "We should go get him," he said, speaking of Assange.

When my friend says "get him," he isn't thinking of lawsuits, but of suppressed pistols, car bombs and such. But as heart-warming as it is to envision Assange surveying his breakfast cereal with a Geiger counter, we shouldn't deal with him and WikiLeaks that way.

At the risk of abusing the Bard, let's "Cry havoc, and let slip the geeks of cyberwar." We need to have a WikiLeaks fire sale.

A "fire sale" (as those who saw Die Hard 4 will remember) is a cyber attack aimed at disabling -- even destroying -- an adversary's ability to function. Russia did this to Estonia in 2007 and Israel apparently did this to Syrian radar systems when it attacked the Syrian nuclear site later that year. The elegance of this is that if we can pull off a decisive cyber operation against WikiLeaks, it can and should be done entirely in secret.

Plausible deniability, anyone?

And it's easier said than done. WikiLeaks functions, according to one expert I conferred with, through a network of computer servers in several countries. Moreover, Assange has a small army of "supporters" helping to hide and distribute information. The servers' network is hidden behind a wall of anonymous communications links. That makes a cyber attack hard to do, but not impossible.

There are legal restrictions that could prevent our military cyberwarriors from holding the fire sale. Could, but perhaps -- if interpreted aggressively -- wouldn't. This would be a good time to follow the military motto that it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. However, STRATCOM (Strategic Command) hasn't -- according to one source -- taken on any offensive missions yet. And the new CYBERCOM boss, Gen. Keith Alexander, hasn't even set policy for how and when such offensive operations could or would be done.

Which brings us back to the spooks. They have the capability, but will they use it?

Probably not. The intelligence community is now ruled by the Department of Justice with the backing of the White House. Attorney General Eric Holder's iron grip even overrides the legal obligation the IC has to advise congressional intelligence committees of its activities. One senior intelligence community source told me that no information goes to Congress unless and until Holder's crew reviews and approves it.

As that source told me, Holder is interested in prosecuting terrorists, not gathering intelligence. It stretches credulity to believe that he -- or Obama -- would allow a fire sale attack on WikiLeaks.

Over the past decade, America has been unwilling to defend its secrets and punish leakers. Under Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, fear of media reaction prevented the investigation of some of the most damaging leaks in history, ranging from the New York Times's publication of the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program to the Washington Post's publication of the CIA's secret prisons for terrorists. The people who leaked those secrets were left unpunished by Gonzales's Justice Department refusal to subpoena the reporters and force disclosure of their sources.

In Unrestricted Warfare, the highly controversial 2002 book by two active duty Chinese People's Liberation Army officers, Cols. Qiao Liang and Wang Xiansui pose the difference between historical warfare and modern warfare by the juxtaposition of two concepts. First, to "fight the fight that fits one's weapons"; second, "making the weapons to fit the fight." They insist that the modern battlefield is everywhere, from distant nations to the streets of every city. And every computer network.

China has probably invested more time and resources to cyberwar than any nation. Its cyber attacks -- espionage and disruption -- on our military, intelligence and defense contractors occur every day. Liang and Xiansui note that computer hackers "…are adopting a new tactic which might be styled 'network guerilla warfare.'" Just so.

The WikiLeaks publication of secret information is just the beginning. There will be more leakers sending more secret information to offshore websites for publication. Unless we interdict and disrupt them, WikiLeaks and its progeny will have free rein to publish any secrets that may fall into their hands, or which they can convince or pay people to give them to publish. The courts are not agencies of national defense. The military and intelligence communities are and it is through them we should act.

Our government has the obligation to act aggressively to protect our secrets. We need to, as Liang and Xiangsui wrote, make the weapons to fit the fight. That includes development, deployment, and use of every cyber weapon our computer scientists can devise to protect our secrets.

WikiLeaks should be hit with the cyber equivalent of napalm. Let's have that fire sale. Burn, baby, burn.
"you want me to hack the planet?" - dj qualls, 2003

One of my favorite things about this whole Wikileaks situation is watching these wannabe armchair cyber-warriors theorize electronic warfare scenarios like they have any idea what they are talking about. Turn off Die Hard 4, homie. None of this Hackers bullshit is real.

It's pretty obvious that they get all their ideas from Hollywood and have zero clue about the reality of the matter, but it's still a little silly, don't you think?

Let me just point something out again from that massive wall of stupidity..
A "fire sale" (as those who saw Die Hard 4 will remember) is a cyber attack aimed at disabling -- even destroying -- an adversary's ability to function. Russia did this to Estonia in 2007 and Israel apparently did this to Syrian radar systems when it attacked the Syrian nuclear site later that year. The elegance of this is that if we can pull off a decisive cyber operation against WikiLeaks, it can and should be done entirely in secret.
Oh, okay. So the model we should follow are from a movie about events that never happened. DDoS attempts that the Russian government probably didn't have anything to do with that turned out to be nothing more than a temporary nuisance, and an attack against Syria's outmoded, centralized air defense network that had more to do with actual, conventional bombs than it did CYBER WAR!

But hey, thank god men of this caliber are keeping a watchful eye out for our country's interest in cyberspace! No wait, not only is this really stupid, but it's totally irrelevant to the case at hand, one that involves hypothetical attacks against a single organization rather than against The Internet: All Of It!

Even better is that Wikileaks is set to release CIA papers TODAY! At least according to yesterday's Twitter feed. I'm crossing my fingers that the paper is titled "How to frame Julian Assange for rape." Even just a memo describing Assange and his background, residences, etc. would be pretty funny.

But this means that I'm certain to remain glued to the computer screen for updates all day. I sure hope that he has plenty more "INSURANCE" files to release and that the C.I.A. didn't just trick him into blowing his load. But let's face it, this is probably going to look a lot like this;
"welp. we broke the rules of engagement a fuckload lately, probably shouldn't have, but w/e this is war"
I think the most comical part of all this is how our nation is talking about our secrets, like Wikileaks is going to tell everyone what we wrote in our Lisa Frank diaries. At best, they're not going to expose anything that people haven't already been talking about for the last 4 years or so in how our nation is fairly corrupt.

This notion that those secrets belong to us, and our possession of them is contingent on our not being in of possession of them. The second everyone knows about our secrets, they'll cease being our secrets. Proof, like that, they'll be our truths or disclosures or our pile of documents that we'll never read or care about. Disclosure is theft! The theft of American property.

Not to mention that by this point, Wikileaks could make up whatever they want now and the government would just refuse to confirm or deny any of it. What's that? Secret documents about how Bush liked to wear women's under pants under his flight suit?

The first of the documents has already been cranked out. And what happens to be the first top secret thing in the pipe line? Looks like you should invest in American Terrorism Futures!
This CIA "Red Cell" report from February 2, 2010, looks at what will happen if it is internationally understood that the United States is an exporter of terrorism; 'Contrary to common belief, the American export of terrorism or terrorists is not a recent phenomenon, nor has it been associated only with Islamic radicals or people of Middle Eastern, African or South Asian ethnic origin. This dynamic belies the American belief that our free, open and integrated multicultural society lessens the allure of radicalism and terrorism for US citizens.' The report looks at a number cases of US exported terrorism, including attacks by US based or financed Jewish, Muslim and Irish-nationalism terrorists. It concludes that foreign perceptions of the US as an "Exporter of Terrorism" together with US double standards in international law, may lead to noncooperation in renditions (including the arrest of CIA officers) and the decision to not share terrorism related intelligence with the United States.
And full document..

This all is referring to US agents and citizens directly funding and/or doing the terrorism. The piece also shows that US agents were involved in the abduction of an Egyptian cleric which they originally said they had nothing to do with. The C.I.A has not commented on any of the allegations, but I'm pretty sure I can guess what they will say..

But even then, everyone probably knew they did have something to do with this already. It is still kind of cool to have them actually admitting to it. I mean, let's face it, does it come as a surprise to anyone that the C.I.A. creates terrorist? I thought, for sure, that everyone already knew that. What next, you're going to want me to be surprise about how the intelligence management all have at least 4 separate computers each and still can't check their email?

Come on Wikileaks, where's the hard hitting shit? I just have to ask where's my god damned F-15's dropping 500 lb bombs on civilians video, Wikileaks. You promised! Most of all, why haven't they exposed the aliens yet? Come on Wikileaks, get on the ball here.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Wont Anyone Think About The Embryos?

Wont Anyone Think About The Embryos?

So yesterday a judge ruled against Obama's stem cell expansion in such a vague way that it's not actually more restrictive than Bush. The best part is that the suit was originally filed on behalf of "embryos."

See the worthless NYTimes article here.
With the case back in his court, Judge Lamberth ruled that the administration’s policy violated the clear language of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, a law passed annually by Congress that bans federal financing for any “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.”
Some change we can believe in. It's actually very funny that this ruling arose from a slap fight between the stem cell community. The case was brought to the judge by Scientist and not from the frothing moralists.

They were working on adult stem cell research and didn't want to compete with the embryonic stem cell community for funding and so they went ahead and got them shut down. Which is really surprising to me in a move to make.

I realize it's all part of our capitalistic society to crush the competition, but adult steam cell research in general is better because it goes around the touchy moral issues, but the results it generates are also far better. How did any of these places have trouble getting funding when there's a whole body of literature support them?

The judge is correct in his reasoning and shockingly, it's Congress and Adult Stem cell Researchers which are the piece of shit here. And as much as he was the president while I grew up more aware of the political system, Bill Clinton shares a bit of the blame here.
The Dickey Amendment (also known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment) is the name of an appropriation's bill rider attached to a bill passed by United States Congress in 1995, and signed by former President Bill Clinton which prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed. HHS funding includes the funding for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. Technically the Dickey Amendment is a "rider" to other legislation, which amends the original legislation. The rider receives its name from the name of the Congressman that originally introduced the amendment, Representative Jay Dickey. The Dickey amendment language has been added to each of the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations acts for FY1997 through FY2009.
And now I believe "Dickey-Wicker Amendment" is probably my new favorite amendment name. Because, really. It's just all sorts of kick ass.

Though what is real bullshit here is that the whole "On behalf of the Embryos" shit is just out there. Embryos aren't citizens until after birth. By no means should they have any legal standing. But I hope you noticed a key component there.. they're making a law on behalf of a citizen... the embryos. So does that mean that any embryo in the united states should be considered protected?

Just think about it.. We're now dealing with terror anchor embryos!

Maybe if we just use Mexican embryos nobody will care. Nobody important, at the very least. It's not like we need embryonic stem cell research anyway. Who cares about advancing modern medicine and improving the quality of life to those who suffer from some potentially curable sickness.

I just don't understand how abortion can be immoral and yet hormone based birth control is perfectly fine to the religious right. I guess it really isn't since birth control implies that sex is happening, which is icky and totally not what the church is down with.

You know, anything that implies sex for something other than having your 18th ignorant future Nascar watching child, which is kind of selfish when you think about it. Wanting so much of you around that you're willing to crank out DNA copies of yourself.

So anyhow, I do find it sort of ironic that the main backers of this is Alliance Defense fund being as they are a pro-christian-speech advocacy group funded primarily by Erik Prince. Yes, that's right kids, if you're not paying attention at home, that Erik Prince - of Blackwater.. Or as they like to avoid media attention now under the name XE.

I suppose it's okay to kill embryos if you kill the woman they're inside of too. You go ahead and sip your nutrients through that umbilical cord and be smug about winning this time, Embryo. Just you wait till the next time we meet on the field of science!

Monday, August 23, 2010



This is a story about a guy who invented something that most everyone of us takes for granted - Clean water. We waste it all the time but there's places on this planet that don't have access to a great deal of it.

So this kid invented a wind-up water purifier that could be produced cheaply enought o make it available where legit water isn't. He won the UK leg of the James Dyson awards so that could help with funding or whatever.

What a dorky looking photo, but the kid's product is legit.
The water bottle contains two chambers. Dirty water is put in an outer chamber and the inner chamber is plunged through it, filtering water particles as small as four microns.

Once filtered, the water is sterilised by a wind-up ultraviolet bulb in a process lasting 90 seconds.

A prototype was effective in killing 99.9% of bacteria and viruses.
Yes, why don't we mark it up 400% and sell it to 3rd world nations. Sorry dude, they're already spent all their money on wind-up laptops. So the market is totally tapped.

I really don't understand how ideas like this and the solar-powered stoves in India don't get more press and money. It's so simple, technologically cool, and most of the time these companies die a sweet death of lack of funding within a few years.

I guess it's because the amount of money they can make investing in technologies that help the third world is a big fat zero.

Especially because most of these super amazing technologies have no practicality in the developing world, either by being ridiculously expensive (olpc) or electronically/mechanically complex.

I guess this one will die simply because it's much like a printer. Sure, the actual printer is cheap, it's really the ink that cost a lot. You need a steady supply of 4 micron filters which would need to be replaced every unspecified amount of time.

Then how long does the UV bulb last for? How mechanically sound is the bottle from breaking, especially all those small pieces in it. How long would it take to get a viable amount of water cranked for cooking or bathing?

It's a great invention on paper and does seem like a great invention for first wold tourist who think that chlorinated or iodated water tastes icky. But then again, they already have that:
The Pure bottle is the brainchild of Timothy Whitehead, a design and technology graduate from Loughborough University, who had the idea while travelling in Zambia.

It eliminates the need for chlorine and iodine tablets which take 30 minutes to work and can leave an unpleasant taste.

The invention will now go forward to the awards' global final in October.

Mr Whitehead said: "I thought that there must be a way of using new technology to clean drinking water. I began experimenting with using ultraviolet light to sterilise water quickly, without any distortion to taste."
So in the end his invention isn't really saving lives. It's an expensive toy to show off that will never replace cheap and effective disinfectant tabs for water purification in the developing world. At least for residents, these things will probably pop up in Eddie Bauers in a few month or perhaps some travel supply stores.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Pay Up America Or You're Fucking Dead!

Pay Up America Or You're Fucking Dead!

Says North Korea as they're currently seeking $75 trillion in compensation from America.
Cash-strapped North Korea has demanded the United States pay almost $US65 trillion ($75 trillion) in compensation for six decades of hostility.

The official North Korean news agency, KCNA, says the cost of the damage done by the US since the peninsula was divided in 1945 is estimated at $US64.96 trillion.

The compensation call comes on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the start of the 1950-1953 Korean War.

KCNA said the figure includes $US26.1 trillion arising from US "atrocities" which left more than 5 million North Koreans dead, wounded, kidnapped or missing.

The agency also claims 60 years of US sanctions have caused a loss of $US13.7 trillion by 2005, while property losses were estimated at $US16.7 trillion.

The agency said North Koreans have "the justifiable right" to receive the compensation for their blood.

It said the committee's calculation did not include the damage North Korea had suffered from sanctions after its first nuclear test in 2006.
You hear that guys? You guys better pay the fuck up or else, I know Kim Jong and he'll fucking kill you all. And for all of you who think that he's just posturing again, you should look up the maximum distance of one of their ICBM's with a nuke?

I can't help but think that North Korea isn't a real place and it's just some sort of Andy Kauffmanesque comedy experiment. But despite the retardation that is North Korea, they are probably right. Even if it is a dictator from a tiny shit hole country whining and flailing, America's carpet bombing of the north was a crime against humanity and they deserve the money.

Global US reparations is really a pretty good idea. Everything that isn't stuck to the ground should probably be distributed to the victims of American imperialism. I don't understand why we haven't just tried to open up North Korea like we did with China. Which eventually caused them to go all mega capitalist.

I say we pay up. In a parallel currency good only within North Korea. Besides, as soon as the midget dies, his fat retarded sons will open up to whoever will make them the richest. More than likely China.

Though I'll be honest. I think $75 trillion is a little excessive. It's not like America even has 75 trillion to its name. Yo, North Korea, we're broke. Maybe we could put it on lay away. Obama could agree and give them one dollar a year for 75 trillion years.

Okay, maybe 2 dollars per year.. But I'm not budging from that offer. Does anyone here have 75 trillion dollars on them? Check the ash tray and bust out your piggy banks, people. Just think about what they could do with the money. With 75 trillion, the DPRK could probably put together one hell of a soccer team. At least one that doesn't lose 7-0 at the world cup.

Instead of giving them money, a free handout, old Kim should open up North Korea to foreign investment to stimulate the economy. Wait.. no. Let's pay them in Furbies.

Assuming Furbies are still going for $300 like they were before Christmas 98, we can be in the black in no time at all. Hand over 250 billion furbies and call it a day. Wait.. no. Perhaps we shouldn't. They'll network them together like Iraq did with PS2's and build a nuclear weapon that can actually reach us.

How about we just give them Florida and call it even?

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Okay......... GO!

Okay.......... GO!

OK Go has a new video out for their song End Love and it's really cool. Here, check it out.

Now if you don't think that's amazing video, I don't know what's wrong with you. It features 18 hours of the band dancing combined with eight full days of LA skyline footage all in various speed settings. According to director Jeff Lieberman:
"The fastest we go is 172,800x, compressing 24 hours of real time into a blazing 1/2 second. The slowest is 1/32x speed, stretching a mere 1/2 second of real time into a whopping 16 seconds. This gives us a fastest to slowest ratio of 5.5 million. If you like averages, the average speed up factor of the band dancing is 270x. In total we shot 18 hours of the band dancing and 192 hours of LA skyline timelapse - over a million frames of video - and compressed it all down to 4 minutes and 30 seconds! Oh and don't forget, it's one continuous camera shot."

"We also made a special friend in the process. Her name is Orange Bill and she's a goose. You will agree that she clearly has a future in music videos."

There other videos have been top notch as well. This Too Will Pass

As you can see, they've moved passed treadmills and I'm loving it. Look, they even got two of my other favorite people involved. Ira Glass and Muppets!

Friday, August 20, 2010

Violence Doesn't Make One Run To The Border

Violence Doesn't Make One Run To The Border

Your average Mexican hating republican would be quick to say that the border needs to be gated because the massive amount of drug violence that is going on. But the funny thing is that studies show that there really isn't much of a crossing for violence to our land.

For anyone with common sense this shouldn't have been a surprise. Hell, even AMC shows realize that there's some levels of respect when it comes to the border. In the show the cartels don't mess with DEA and American law enforcement because they don't want to risk potential backlash. So why is it an AMC show can get it right and many state governments can't?
US border violence: Myth or reality?
BBC News, El Paso, Texas

With Arizona's controversial immigration law due to come into effect this week, the national debate over border security is poised to reignite
Fears over Mexican drug cartel violence near the border are fuelling the debate over immigration and border control, but is the idea that the killings are spreading into the US just a myth?

Related stories

Arizona judge hears immigration law challenge
El Paso feels Mexico drug war
Inside Mexico's most dangerous city
Once upon a time, Spanish settlers named the crossing El Paso Del Norte - the pass to the north.

The border city of El Paso, Texas, lies along the Rio Grande, in the chasm between two inhospitable mountains.

Each day, thousands of people in cars, buses and on foot cross the short bridge that connects El Paso with its Mexican sister city, Juarez, one of the world's most dangerous places.

In the past two years, more than 5,000 people have been murdered in Juarez as drug-related crime has soared.

Politicians, including Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, tend to portray border towns as being pushed to crisis point.

"We see this crime on a daily basis. The federal government must respond more effectively, step up their enforcement and protection of the border before more American blood is shed," Mr Abbott told Fox News.

"It is more dangerous to walk the streets of Juarez, a few blocks from El Paso, than it is to walk the streets of Baghdad. There is a very serious problem that is beginning to bulge at our borders and put American lives at risk."

In mid-July, President Barack Obama ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to patrol the border, just days after a car bomb exploded in northern Juarez, very near El Paso.

Texas Governor Rick Perry called that deployment "grossly insufficient". Many politicians are calling for even more troops.

But the mayor of El Paso, John Cook, isn't one of them.

Second safest city
"The reality is we really don't need the help on this side of the border. We probably have every kind of federal law enforcement agency that you can think of. We're an extremely safe community," Mr Cook says.

Despite Juarez's murder toll, in El Paso, local authorities have recorded just two murders this year. In 2009 there were 11.

"Logically it would seem that if you have violence on one side of the border then you're going to have spillover on the other side," says Mr Cook. "But the reality is that we don't."

According to FBI crime statistics, El Paso is the second safest city in America. Crime rates there have dropped 36% over the past 10 years.

Other cities close to the border, including San Diego in California and Phoenix in Arizona, have similarly experienced declines in violent crime.

Over the same period, federal agencies have beefed up their presence along the border, and a 2,000-mile fence is slowly being constructed.
¡Hay caramba! Frontera de México is getting really fucked up. But is it really? I mean, maybe it is but let's look at some of America's safest cities from 2009;

1. Honolulu, Hawaii
2. El Paso, Texas
3. New York City, New York
4. San Jose, California
5. Austin, Texas
6. San Diego, California
7. Seattle, Washington
8. Portland, Oregon
9. Denver, Colorado
10. Los Angeles, California

Highest Crime Rate Ranking
1. Detroit, MI
2. Memphis, TN
3. Baltimore, MD
4. Washington, DC
5. Atlanta, GA
6. Philadelphia, PA
7. Indianapolis, IN
8. Columbus, OH
9. Milwaukee, WI
10. Dallas, TX

So what I'm trying to say here is that the murderous drug smugglers are a myth invented by the right to advance a racist anti-immigrant agenda. Does that sound fair enough? It seems to be that large cities can afford to provide the public transit and housing services that allow migrants to successfully settle and work. Since they're bigger, they can also more readily absorb the population increase.

This has pushed gun smuggling to Mexico and drug smuggling to America to ancillary towns close enough to the majors to be economically relevant, but far enough away to avoid unwanted attention. These smaller hosts are less able to provide bedrock social services, and the community suffers under the strains, causing tensions to rise.

These guys don't seem to think it's a myth.

Borderland from California is a place. on Vimeo.

Maybe instead of suggesting we militarize the border that perhaps we should sponsor a United Nations peacekeeping mission into Mexico. Juarez city officials have already been pleading for the U.N. to intervene since the Mexican government can't.

But considering the lack of concern for the well being of migrants I thought the mentality here would be easy to follow. As long as it's just Mexicans killing one another and not any whites, then there is no reason to oppose the war on drugs.

There has been battles fought in Juarez where the entire battle plan revolved around attacking from directions that avoided shooting across the border because no one wants the US pissed. It's no doubt that Juarez is terrible, but the whole point of this article is that the violence hasn't spilled over.

But the only reason I see for them to militarize the border is so when the random shootings start happening in America border towns and not Mexican ones, the government can say that they did something.

It's been some time, but the thing you should worry about most is kidnappings. There's police on every corner in the touristy parts of town, but it's purely a show of force to make white Americans and other tourist feel comfortable. Besides that, the police are almost always corrupt and work with the cartels.

It's just a good thing that cartels, government and everyone else involved wont do any "Random shootings" north of the border. No one wants it actually militarized.. well, except for the racist. Besides that, none of these shootings are random.