|Paul (27 May 2004 17:51): This is pretty scary. As early as 1997, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al were advocating "American global leadership" and complaining that "Cuts in...defense spending...are making it increasingly difficult to maintain American influence around the world."|
|m (8 Nov 2004 18:49): woo! I've got a job!
and with only vague ties to the DoD, not explicit bomb-making ones.
rock on crazy bomb makers!
|zong (10 Nov 2004 10:20): Where will it be?|
|m (10 Nov 2004 11:18): In Anaheim (where Disneyland is) about 45 commuting minutes away from here in LA.|
|m (10 Nov 2004 11:49): huh. I guess I'll be doing my first few weeks of training in maryland, starting next monday.
|m (13 Nov 2004 11:34): by "starting next monday" I mean "starting the following monday".
and that my company so far is dumb.
|zong (13 Nov 2004 17:29): So who are you working for anyway, eh?|
|Paul (5 Jan 2005 16:23): Read how the US does it with Super Imperialism macroeconomics... (warning: macroeconomics are confusing)|
|zong (15 Jan 2005 0:50): Macroeconomics is all funny money.
The US is technically bankrupt. Probably the world, too.
I mean, in the end, the world economy is a closed system, so there is no external source to "borrow" from. We are all just borrowing from the future.
|zong (15 Jan 2005 8:42): It's just a guess. Can somebody verify if it is actually that bad, i.e., have numbers on liquid assets, GNP, debt, etc.?|
|m (15 Jan 2005 12:05): treasury dept debt faq|
|m (15 Jan 2005 12:06): heh. I said dept debt.|
|zong (15 Jan 2005 14:18): 4.2) How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
Please follow these important steps to make a contribution to reduce the debt. Make check payable to the "Bureau of the Public Debt"
In the memo section of the check, make sure you write "Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public "
Mail check to -
This is just bizarre. Is this like voluntarily taxing yourself?
BTW, does anybody know, in the US, (1) if you must accept the US Dollar as tender for any transaction, and (2) if you must only accept the US Dollar as tender for any transaction? What I am wondering whether it is allowed to isolate a local economic system.
|Paul (16 Jan 2005 20:01): Local currency systems like MadisonHours claim to be legal. (But using gold as currency may not be legal since 1933.) I doubt the mechanics of local currency systems, though I'd participate if one was near me; after all, I doubt the dollar but participate in it.|
| (18 Jan 2005 18:46): "Congress of Racial Equality...King Holiday Celebration 2005...Honorees: Mr. Karl Rove..." (full program)
|zong (22 Jan 2005 15:40): They've got to be racially equal!|
|m (22 Jan 2005 23:22): Performance By:
Mr. Danny Rodriguez
"The Singing Cop"
|m (22 Jan 2005 23:26): paul, you need to stay up later on some nights and hang out with the boys.
i.e. me and zong.
|(1 Feb 2005 18:30): The US does it super-imperially.|
|Paul (1 Feb 2005 19:28): What are we to make of the Iraqi elections? Is Iraq actually getting democracy? Do people have the info to make educated choices, or is it more like US-style McDemocracy?|
|Grant (3 Feb 2005 21:10): I'm waiting for the two-party system proponents/apologists to take hold in McDonalds. That's going to be great. It will be the 'two-combo' system. There are other combos on the menu, but if you ask for them they just give you one of the other two, anyway.|
|Grant (3 Feb 2005 21:22): And now, some lists.|
|m (4 Feb 2005 11:39): Killing people is cool|
|m (4 Feb 2005 11:44): I can't tell if that link will stay good or not -- here's a cnn one: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/02/03/general.shoot/|
|Paul (4 Feb 2005 17:13): Alarming as it is, I'd rather have generals say they like killing people, and do so, than
dissemble, "we hope not to hurt anyone," and go bomb a village.
|zong (5 Feb 2005 1:15): Elections in Iraq aren't new. It's what comes out of it that matters. After all, there are thousand ways to manipulate things to go your way in politics, even without external (US) preferences or backings which are sure to have some effect.|
|zong (5 Feb 2005 2:13): Iran attack "not on the agenda," Rice says. So, it figures that war is on this December.
Those with a some memory may recall how the last round got started by Bush stating in May, 2002, that "I have no war plans on my desk."
|zong (23 Feb 2005 11:14): Ahoy, Bush and Shroeder are talking in one voice again, about, guess what?|
|m (23 Feb 2005 19:16): Proliferation? Our shared mistrust of people who look different? I don't get it -- what?|
|zong (23 Feb 2005 22:33): no... on the importance of "using" "diplomacy,"
on having "no" plans (TM) on the table but leaving no "options" off the table.
except it could be true this time? or maybe the next time? or maybe the last time? oh wait.
|Paul (24 Feb 2005 16:41): that really sucks. After Iraq got hit without even having WMDs, it seems unlikely Iran can squeeze by. What are your guess-probabilities whether the US will bomb Iran and when?|
|Paul (24 Feb 2005 19:36): Sorry, I can't resist quoting this /. post:
"it's only a crime if it wasn't a rich person that did it." --anonymous coward
|zong (24 Feb 2005 22:24): i would say that if this stalemate continues, it will happen for sure, even within this year.|
|Paul (9 Jun 2005 15:15): If you wonder about this, why not sign this.|
|DK (13 Jun 2005 22:48): I think it should be readily apparent to anyone but the most intellectually crippled that Bush lied his sorry ass off* to get us involved in an idiotic war in Iraq. Now it's going to cost a ridiculous amount of money. I think we should fully fund the war in iraq by taxes on corporate profits at oil companies. Or alternatively, draft the whole white house to fill out the ranks of the army...|
The funny thing is, that out of all the countries to invade, Bush managed to pick one with relatively few long term benefits. We would have been much better off invading Iran or North Korea to disarm their nuclear weapons programs. At least that would have had some benefits and might have arguably been worth it.
Either way, I hope he chokes on another prezel...
| (16 Jun 2005 23:08): Long term benefits for whom?|
|DK (18 Jun 2005 20:19): Well I'd consider invading N. Korea to destroy their nuclear weapons program beneficial (to us).|
Ditto for Iran (hey Rumsfeld, they have oil...go sic em!)
|Paul (21 Jun 2005 6:12): Be careful what you wish for.|
|z (30 Jun 2005 14:59): All over today's news, Bush Wants Answers on Iranian Leader's Past.|
Ho ho. The heat just got turned up a notch.
|Grant (30 Jun 2005 19:21): Don't worry about world domination - we've got a plan.|
A plan to protect the nation from... science.
|m (4 Oct 2005 18:22): man, how sleazy is Tom Delay?|
|Paul (26 Oct 2005 12:03): Ads sometimes just need the right juxtaposition:|
|Paul (1 Dec 2005 5:28): doh|
|Paul (26 Mar 2006 6:36): iefd.org ... I can hear the right-wing pundits fuming already|
|m (29 Mar 2006 7:19): Girls, Lisa. Boys kiss girls.|
|m (21 Sep 2007 8:00): fuckers!|
|G (21 Sep 2007 9:28): Getting paid in CAD, yet, eh?|
|m (21 Sep 2007 11:09): yeah, but the paychecks: not that big in any currency.|
|m (21 Sep 2007 16:12): |
I don't know why he has metal tentacles or a lizard/snake tongue, but, you know, maybe he is an oil-robot.
|m (29 Sep 2007 17:14): Guess who doesn't live in boring US -- ho!|
|Paul (20 Aug 2008 4:16): Gorbachev (who, you might recall, presided over the dissolution of the USSR) writes a good description of Russia's stance:|
"Russia has long been told to simply accept the facts. Here’s the independence of Kosovo for you. Here’s the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, and the American decision to place missile defenses in neighboring countries. Here’s the unending expansion of NATO. All of these moves have been set against the backdrop of sweet talk about partnership. Why would anyone put up with such a charade?"
|Paul (16 Jun 2010 16:01): Aha, a clear explanation of why anti-business pro-government views don't seem to inspire anybody anymore. His point seems to be that we need neither bigger nor smaller government, but better government, and better business too.|
|Paul (1 Sep 2011 5:32): Somehow I suspect the White House will not have the resources to keep to their promise to "respond to any petition that gains 5,000 signatures in 30 days"|
|m (27 Jun 2013 18:45): Read this and tell me it isn't wonderful|
|R (28 Jun 2013 14:58): It was also pretty wonderful when the Stranger's blog linked to it as factual. :D|
|m (29 Jun 2013 19:44): I know! That's where I found the link too.|
|Paul (3 Sep 2013 19:54): Wtf? Is Obama about to bomb Syria? Can any good come of that? (hint: refer to recent decades of foreign entanglements) (easier hint: no)|
|m (3 Sep 2013 22:18): quick summary of various arguments for and against|
|m (4 Sep 2013 7:35): Articulation of some good-looking nonmilitary options|