News and views …
Back to Main
November 21, 2005
Open Threadddd
Comments
re constant reminders
are there any pix out there of bush actually having one of these bike crashes or whatever excuse gets served up to explain the facial lacerations he sometimes sports? and then what can we read into his stmt that “i’m just trying to get on w/ my life”? at least w/ reagan they had the alzheimers excuse once his service was up; unless something related to his alcoholism starts accelerating soon, he’s bound to be a liability, what w/ that mean streak of his 😉
Posted by: b real | Nov 23 2005 5:03 utc | 101
Per Debs is dead fairly recent post, (for which I can’t seem to find at the moment) some but not all of you may be interested in the following posts:
Seven Questions: Battling for Control of the Internet
Sorting though data collected by intelligence agencies could be the next big growth area for technology companies. and Battle for Web Control May Not Be Over and net.wars: ICANN? No, you can’t.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 23 2005 5:15 utc | 102
so what’s the holdup on the al-zarqawi corpse dna test results? remember when saddam was captured in his spider hole and they got the test results back in what musta been minutes? there were stories on how efficient dna testing had become & that forensics could turnaround a dna test in under 12 hours, even in the middle of tikrit. of course they’d actually been in possession of saddam for a period of time prior to his staged capture (if it’s not one of saddam’s reported numerous doubles …and where are these guys now? seems like there’d be some demand for them by the media – for reenactments, biopics, and other propaganda pieces), but the media never really reported that story. so what happened in these past two years that drags out the wait for these highly anticipated test results? surely al-zarqawi’s is a high profile case which would demand quick confirmation. 🙂
Posted by: b real | Nov 23 2005 5:48 utc | 104
Ok, I found did’s comments if anyone is interested…
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 23 2005 6:05 utc | 105
it’s always about oil or whatever else thay can get their thieving hands on
Posted by: DM | Nov 23 2005 10:45 utc | 106
@ DM
The Economy and me makes two – I’ve never studied it at all and can’t even read a newspaper article about it without going Grrr. Some of Billmon’s posts are above my head, which is why I love them, I learn something. The maths is not a problem – my mathematical knowledge is good enough. I think economic models are all folderol – a combination of politics, creative pot-boiling, and obfuscation. My main beef is that accounting is done with money, and not some real measure like:
energy used (energy invested, e.g. oil, water which is pumped, somehow depletion has to be figured in) plus all the rest (labor etc.) plus a hype or fashion factor (added value or whatever you want to call it) .. to estimate transactions and everything else (interest, etc.)
So we have no real picture of how the economy at present actually works, what its long term effects are, where it is leading us, etc.; except that on several counts the result is not felicitous: third world, war, peak oil, etc.
Therefore, no general economic model can be argued for. By me.
The economy is a giant Ponzi scheme, say, foisted on us by the PTB. I notice how in the daily papers I read there is much discussion around Politics, the Arts, Sports, Society, even Science, and what have you: but the economic pages are usually presented as ‘hard facts’. Though that too has been easing up a bit recently. Interesting. Note also that the US (e.g. Bolton at the UN) basically has nothing to say (nothing real I mean) about the organisation of Society – the only thing that counts, in fine, is money, who controls it, who gets it. (Fossil fuels = control, money.)
I am reduced to Greenery – that is communities living in a natural milieu and exploiting it in some rational, ‘sustainable’ appropriate, fashion. Which would be taking economic matters bottom-up and not top-down. That probably wouldn’t work on the ground as a practical application, but certainly it should be studied, if only as an academic exercise to feed the debate.
A simple example: can a medium sized farm in the US produce, feed its workers, survive, by making ethanol of other bio-fuel to man its machines? Naturally, that experiment would be set in the present loony context of exchanges. Still, it would be informative…
Marx and Engels didn’t know about TV and treated the natural environment as a stable, endlessly exploitable, backdrop. (footnotes skipped.)
Posted by: Noisette | Nov 23 2005 18:15 utc | 107