A story on a bipolar pimp and his legendary star "escort."
Absolutely mindboggling.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Thursday, September 29, 2005
More on Google Print
Couldn't help but point out Tim O'Reilly's op-ed in the New York Times on Google Print.
He's missing the point, intentionally or not. This is not about whether Google Print is good or bad for authors...I have no doubt it is, on par, a good thing (though not as good as he implies...I'll get to that in a minute). The intellectual property laws don't care whether your infringing use is good for the right holder or not. They don't say, "Don't copy stuff! Unless you think it would be good for the author, in which case, hey, go ahead!" You have the god-given right to mismanage your own protected works to your heart's content, and that's exactly what the Author's Guild is doing. Yay for them.
The issue here is control over the material. Google essentially went behind the copyrighters' backs, and that's why they're pissed off. This is a lawsuit about deterrence, not damages. It's a similar issue to audio/video filesharing. It doesn't matter whether P2P networks increase record sales or not. Much as it may be a racket and suck in general, the RIAA owns the copyrights, and they, not you, get to determine what's good marketing and what's not.
I mentioned Google Print not being as good as it seems for authors. This is my general complaint about hype over internet technologies, be it blogs, online shopping, or what-have-you. Some ADHD mental midget inevitably jumps up and exclaims how Technology X is going to change everything for every X you can think of. Now it's Google Print. All those obscure books will become popular suddenly! Lilly Jerkmeoff's book on humane kitten catapulting for rural Iowans will suddenly get the attention it deserves! Yay!
Dude. There are a fixed number of avenues through which people find stuff. The fact that some of them are now web sites doesn't change that. Why do you think everybody's so damn excited about Google? It's because people are lazy and only search for stuff in Google. I don't care if your kitten catapulting literature is available on the web somewhere. If it doesn't come up in the first few links on Google, it might as well not exist.
He's missing the point, intentionally or not. This is not about whether Google Print is good or bad for authors...I have no doubt it is, on par, a good thing (though not as good as he implies...I'll get to that in a minute). The intellectual property laws don't care whether your infringing use is good for the right holder or not. They don't say, "Don't copy stuff! Unless you think it would be good for the author, in which case, hey, go ahead!" You have the god-given right to mismanage your own protected works to your heart's content, and that's exactly what the Author's Guild is doing. Yay for them.
The issue here is control over the material. Google essentially went behind the copyrighters' backs, and that's why they're pissed off. This is a lawsuit about deterrence, not damages. It's a similar issue to audio/video filesharing. It doesn't matter whether P2P networks increase record sales or not. Much as it may be a racket and suck in general, the RIAA owns the copyrights, and they, not you, get to determine what's good marketing and what's not.
I mentioned Google Print not being as good as it seems for authors. This is my general complaint about hype over internet technologies, be it blogs, online shopping, or what-have-you. Some ADHD mental midget inevitably jumps up and exclaims how Technology X is going to change everything for every X you can think of. Now it's Google Print. All those obscure books will become popular suddenly! Lilly Jerkmeoff's book on humane kitten catapulting for rural Iowans will suddenly get the attention it deserves! Yay!
Dude. There are a fixed number of avenues through which people find stuff. The fact that some of them are now web sites doesn't change that. Why do you think everybody's so damn excited about Google? It's because people are lazy and only search for stuff in Google. I don't care if your kitten catapulting literature is available on the web somewhere. If it doesn't come up in the first few links on Google, it might as well not exist.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Wheeeeeee!!!
Mmm...Scott Tennerman's tears...mmmmm...
It's gonna be a good day, Tater.
(kudos if you caught both those references)
It's gonna be a good day, Tater.
(kudos if you caught both those references)
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Whatever you do, don't take responsibility
God, Brown, you really are a douchebag. Most people would look at the situation and say, "My god...why was a man whose only qualification was that he was a horse judge running FEMA?" But you...you had the balls to suggest that the disaster response failure in Louisiana was because the governor was a Democrat.
Wow.
Other douchebags can only look up to you and proclaim, with utmost admiration, that, wow, that guy is a fucking _douchebag_...
Wow.
Other douchebags can only look up to you and proclaim, with utmost admiration, that, wow, that guy is a fucking _douchebag_...
Monday, September 26, 2005
Does their evil know no bounds?
Hmm...if only there were a way to blame high gas prices on environmental protections, and if only there were a prominent political figure we could count on to make such an assinine argument right after two catastrophic hurricanes...
Hot girls...but why?
First things first: I nominate the saluting chick in the Israeli military section as the hottest picture of women in the military, though admittedly she's a bit jail bait-y. But also, of course, the Croatian hottie. Rowr.
Okay, that said, I've poked around a bit, and I still don't understand this. First of all, it's nominally a discussion board about the Iranian military. Okay. But is it serious? Who created it? Why did they misspell defense? Why is there a thread about hot chicks in the military? Not that you need a reason, necessarily, but still...
Okay, that said, I've poked around a bit, and I still don't understand this. First of all, it's nominally a discussion board about the Iranian military. Okay. But is it serious? Who created it? Why did they misspell defense? Why is there a thread about hot chicks in the military? Not that you need a reason, necessarily, but still...
I _do_ have unsightly snakes!
Penny Arcade continues to show their genius.
According to the news post, this here comic was born of similar ancestry.
According to the news post, this here comic was born of similar ancestry.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Stupid joke
Stupid joke my roommate told me:
A man walks in carrying a sheep. He says, "So, here's the pig I've been fucking."
"That's not a pig! It's a sheep!" his wife says.
"I wasn't talking to you," the man replies.
Just thought I'd share that.
A man walks in carrying a sheep. He says, "So, here's the pig I've been fucking."
"That's not a pig! It's a sheep!" his wife says.
"I wasn't talking to you," the man replies.
Just thought I'd share that.
Run that by me again?
On this list of things I worry about when swimming in the ocean, I have to say that armed dolphins never made it that high up on the list...
Saturday, September 24, 2005
A moment for nerdery
Couldn't help but comment on the top 50 sci-fi shows of all time. Yes, I went through all of them.
Clearly the list was put together haphazardly. Among other things, Sliders appears twice. I hope the higher spot was meant to go to DS9, which didn't even appear on the list. DS9, at least the latter seasons (four and five) is definitely top ten, well ahead of Voyager which consistently sucked and was a profound disappointment. Personally, I would have put Voyager much farther down the list. DS9, on the other hand, had very good writing (again, at least at the end), and some of those shows were watchable even to those who aren't sci-fi inclined.
I'm glad to see Babylon 5 given an appropriate nod. Other than the new Battlestar Galactica, which is amazing and will be very difficult to top, it's the best sci-fi show I've ever seen. I was very sorry it ended, and I keep waiting for them to make a decent movie based on it. There keep being rumors, but they never quite pan out. They made a movie out of Firefly (Serenity)...why can't they make a Babylon 5 movie?
(Okwui will be glad to note that Quantum Leap was given an appropriate nod as well)
Clearly the list was put together haphazardly. Among other things, Sliders appears twice. I hope the higher spot was meant to go to DS9, which didn't even appear on the list. DS9, at least the latter seasons (four and five) is definitely top ten, well ahead of Voyager which consistently sucked and was a profound disappointment. Personally, I would have put Voyager much farther down the list. DS9, on the other hand, had very good writing (again, at least at the end), and some of those shows were watchable even to those who aren't sci-fi inclined.
I'm glad to see Babylon 5 given an appropriate nod. Other than the new Battlestar Galactica, which is amazing and will be very difficult to top, it's the best sci-fi show I've ever seen. I was very sorry it ended, and I keep waiting for them to make a decent movie based on it. There keep being rumors, but they never quite pan out. They made a movie out of Firefly (Serenity)...why can't they make a Babylon 5 movie?
(Okwui will be glad to note that Quantum Leap was given an appropriate nod as well)
Friday, September 23, 2005
Clearly I'm procrastinating
The graph [below] represents your place in Intuition 2-Space.
As you can see, you scored above average on emotional intuition and above average on scientific intuition. (Weirdly, your emotional and scientific intuitions are equally strong.)
Take the stupid test yourself.
As you can see, you scored above average on emotional intuition and above average on scientific intuition. (Weirdly, your emotional and scientific intuitions are equally strong.)
Take the stupid test yourself.
An important quandry
Jewmanji has raised the important question of what an appropriate term for hating white people is.
My two best suggestions so far are "mis-honkey" and "misachromy." Suggestions welcome.
My two best suggestions so far are "mis-honkey" and "misachromy." Suggestions welcome.
Just the two of us
I just got to play with an XBox 360.
*wistful sigh*
For a moment, we were together. It was just us. There was an instant connection. I pushed some buttons, and the big blue brute on the screen tossed an adversary in the air so that when the foe fell, he was impaled on the spines of said brute's back, and then he proceeded to pick another adversary up and use him to beat yet a third senseless. I was instantly in love.
Me rikey. Me rikey rots.
*wistful sigh*
For a moment, we were together. It was just us. There was an instant connection. I pushed some buttons, and the big blue brute on the screen tossed an adversary in the air so that when the foe fell, he was impaled on the spines of said brute's back, and then he proceeded to pick another adversary up and use him to beat yet a third senseless. I was instantly in love.
Me rikey. Me rikey rots.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Go get the ball!
Look, you dumb fuckers, I guarantee you the next terrorist attack will not be on a plane. Stop obsessing about it. It would be like robbing the same bank twice.
If these idiots had been in charge after Pearl Harbor, we would have spent our entire war budget on widening harbor openings.
If these idiots had been in charge after Pearl Harbor, we would have spent our entire war budget on widening harbor openings.
Irrational airlines
I once tried to get Okwui to explain to me why it is that people like GE continue to give loans to clearly failing airlines. I never quite got a satisfactory response, and the article I linked to does nothing more to enlighten me. Both mumble something about having lucrative engine-making contracts from those airlines, but that just amounts to lending yourself money as far as I can see. What's the rationale? Do they get all of the money the lent out back in contract work, and they reason that there's at least a small chance they'll actually make a return on the investment, so they theoretically come out ahead? Is it that they want to be able to continue to lease out their aircraft so that they can put the potentially indefinite lease payments on their balance sheet and make it look like their income is higher than it actually is? I really don't fucking get it. It's all a shell game, and it seems like someone should be noticing.
Rational markets my ass. The airline industry should be allowed to collapse in on itself, just like people like the RIAA should be allowed to drown in the shift to the internet as a distribution mechanism. The article seems to suggest the consumers benefit through low prices, but somebody has to be paying for it. Isn't it those same consumers who are paying for things like the United and imminent Delta pension bailout to the tune of several billion dollars? If you're going to subsidize air travel, fine, but let's call it that instead of dumping money into dead airlines.
Rational markets my ass. The airline industry should be allowed to collapse in on itself, just like people like the RIAA should be allowed to drown in the shift to the internet as a distribution mechanism. The article seems to suggest the consumers benefit through low prices, but somebody has to be paying for it. Isn't it those same consumers who are paying for things like the United and imminent Delta pension bailout to the tune of several billion dollars? If you're going to subsidize air travel, fine, but let's call it that instead of dumping money into dead airlines.
Google Print lawsuit
The more I read, the more I find the Google Print controversy interesting (Authors' Guild statement; Google statement).
I've been going back and forth on this issue. I don't think either side's argument is a priori tantamount, which just highlights how woefully inadequate our system of intellectual property is to cope with the information age.
As you no doubt know, copyright is a legal protection granted the author of a work to determine who is allowed to make copies of that work. Note that this is different from having control over any given copy of a particular work. Playboy has no right to tell you that you can't nuzzle the centerfold picture affectionately and whisper how the two of you will run away together if you purchased that copy of the magazine. You will, however, end up having a bunch of angry Bunnies show up at your door with baseball bats if you attempt to make a copy of said picture, particularly if you attempt to sell that copy. Or Hugh Heffner will kick your ass with his walker. Point being, something bad will happen.
Now, that said, certain kinds of copying are allowed regardless of how big of a dick the copyright holder wants to be about it. Reproducing excerpts of a text document, for example, is allowed. This is an example of "fair use," and you see it all over the place: news casts, book reviews, etc.
The crux of this dispute, then, is whether Google Print is covered by fair use. Google will tell you that all you can ever read are excerpts, and these are protected by fair use. I suspect the argument the Authors' Guild will be making, however, is that in order to construct the index Google uses to generate the excerpts, they had to make what amount to illegal digital copies of library books.
Conduct the following thought experiment though: Imagine a man named Google, a social outcast with OCD, goes to a bunch of libraries and individually checks out all the books one at a time. Using each book he has checked out, he constructs a massive index of their contents. By the time he's done, after roughly 80 bazillion years, you have the equivalent of Google Print without any illegal copies having been made.
You see the problem though. That scenario was utterly impossible before the information age. There was simply too much information to process "manually." Computers can easily process that much information, however. The problem is that you have to codify the books so that the computers can process them. Do you count that codification as a violation of copyright? Does just having the bytes-equivalent form of a book in a computer's memory a priori count as a copy? What if, in the process of processing the books, you had to copy those bytes to 1000 different machines (not as implausible as it sounds)? Have you violated copyright 1000 times?
The lesson here, as if you haven't heard me say it before, is that IP law needs an overhaul. Trying to retrofit archaic notions of what constitutes an invention or a copy is utterly hopeless. Without an entirely new system that acknowledges a world where "copies" are irrelevent (having been supplanted by an extremely volatile system of links between pieces of information) and where "inventions" are highly ephemeral creatures that can be easily both created and destroyed, we're going to have a myriad of court cases asking judges to try to cram complex modern situations into an archaic framework that is fundamentally incompatible with them.
Of course, in a system where you can buy such legislation, any kind of overhaul would end up being geared towards the profit margins of large IP holders and not anywhere near a socially beneficial ideal.
But hey, I can still bitch about it.
I've been going back and forth on this issue. I don't think either side's argument is a priori tantamount, which just highlights how woefully inadequate our system of intellectual property is to cope with the information age.
As you no doubt know, copyright is a legal protection granted the author of a work to determine who is allowed to make copies of that work. Note that this is different from having control over any given copy of a particular work. Playboy has no right to tell you that you can't nuzzle the centerfold picture affectionately and whisper how the two of you will run away together if you purchased that copy of the magazine. You will, however, end up having a bunch of angry Bunnies show up at your door with baseball bats if you attempt to make a copy of said picture, particularly if you attempt to sell that copy. Or Hugh Heffner will kick your ass with his walker. Point being, something bad will happen.
Now, that said, certain kinds of copying are allowed regardless of how big of a dick the copyright holder wants to be about it. Reproducing excerpts of a text document, for example, is allowed. This is an example of "fair use," and you see it all over the place: news casts, book reviews, etc.
The crux of this dispute, then, is whether Google Print is covered by fair use. Google will tell you that all you can ever read are excerpts, and these are protected by fair use. I suspect the argument the Authors' Guild will be making, however, is that in order to construct the index Google uses to generate the excerpts, they had to make what amount to illegal digital copies of library books.
Conduct the following thought experiment though: Imagine a man named Google, a social outcast with OCD, goes to a bunch of libraries and individually checks out all the books one at a time. Using each book he has checked out, he constructs a massive index of their contents. By the time he's done, after roughly 80 bazillion years, you have the equivalent of Google Print without any illegal copies having been made.
You see the problem though. That scenario was utterly impossible before the information age. There was simply too much information to process "manually." Computers can easily process that much information, however. The problem is that you have to codify the books so that the computers can process them. Do you count that codification as a violation of copyright? Does just having the bytes-equivalent form of a book in a computer's memory a priori count as a copy? What if, in the process of processing the books, you had to copy those bytes to 1000 different machines (not as implausible as it sounds)? Have you violated copyright 1000 times?
The lesson here, as if you haven't heard me say it before, is that IP law needs an overhaul. Trying to retrofit archaic notions of what constitutes an invention or a copy is utterly hopeless. Without an entirely new system that acknowledges a world where "copies" are irrelevent (having been supplanted by an extremely volatile system of links between pieces of information) and where "inventions" are highly ephemeral creatures that can be easily both created and destroyed, we're going to have a myriad of court cases asking judges to try to cram complex modern situations into an archaic framework that is fundamentally incompatible with them.
Of course, in a system where you can buy such legislation, any kind of overhaul would end up being geared towards the profit margins of large IP holders and not anywhere near a socially beneficial ideal.
But hey, I can still bitch about it.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
The anatomy of swearing
No comment, really. Just thought the New York Times article on swearing was interesting.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Total lack of imagination
How fucking unimaginative is NASA's latest "big project" proposal? The universe is a big place. Can you people honestly not come up with anything better than, "Hey! That moon thing was cool! Let's do that again! Only, you know, _more_. Eh? Eh?"
The Mars thing was at least a good idea. Too bad it was a) a cynical political move to try to divert attention from Bush's myriad other failings, and b) hard to take seriously from a man whose eloquence rivals an 8-year-old Down's kid and whose grasp of and respect for science is that of a late-night televangelist.
The Mars thing was at least a good idea. Too bad it was a) a cynical political move to try to divert attention from Bush's myriad other failings, and b) hard to take seriously from a man whose eloquence rivals an 8-year-old Down's kid and whose grasp of and respect for science is that of a late-night televangelist.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Friday, September 16, 2005
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Blessed are the cheese-makers
Watch Vonnegut on Daily Show if you haven't already. Then go out and read all his books.
Best entry in Vonnegut's "Liberal Crap I Never Want To Hear Again":
"'Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.' The hell I can't! Look at the Reverand Pat Robertson. And He is as happy as a pig in shit."
Best entry in Vonnegut's "Liberal Crap I Never Want To Hear Again":
"'Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.' The hell I can't! Look at the Reverand Pat Robertson. And He is as happy as a pig in shit."
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Correct me if I'm wrong
Isn't this, on some level, a rather ironic headline? How can one "mull" a "decisive" anything? Isn't mulling kind of definitionally indecisive?
Republican logic
Why would you think that a major natural disaster that destroyed huge amounts of the South would actually require federal spending for recovery? Why, funding programs _less_ will actually help! See, if we collect fewer taxes from Trent Lott, he'll actually have _more_ money to spend on reconstructing his house, and it will make him so happy that he might give some of his moving boxes to others who had their houses and life savings destroyed! You know how much poor people seem to like living in boxes. See? Everybody wins!
Sigh. And the scary thing is that there are people in the world that actually buy this shit. Oh, and also loved the clips on the Daily Show where Republican pundits were blaming New Orleans for, you know, existing.
Sigh. And the scary thing is that there are people in the world that actually buy this shit. Oh, and also loved the clips on the Daily Show where Republican pundits were blaming New Orleans for, you know, existing.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Further proof I am a bad person
======================
Email received from roommate:
======================
From: Michelle Butte
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 2:29 PM
To: Nick Murphy
Subject: Support me as I walk in the 2005 Out of the Darkness Community Walk!
Nick, Every 18 minutes in the U.S., someone dies by suicide. This fall thousands of men and women will walk in over 40 communities across the United States, each contributing their voices to break the silence surrounding suicide. These men and women are the Out of the Darkness Community.
By supporting me as I walk in the 2005 Out of the Darkness Community Walks to benefit the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), you will be helping me raise money for AFSP's vital programs to prevent suicide and save lives, increase national awareness about depression and suicide, and assist survivors of suicide loss.
Sponsoring me is simple-- just click on the link at the bottom of this page and follow the prompts to make a donation.
(Michelle's probably-inappropriate side comment: if you only can or want to make a small donation, please consider the victims of Katrina instead. You can support me with a smile and a "good luck!")
Thank you!
Follow This Link to visit my personal web page and help me in my efforts to support American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
=======
My reply:
=======
From: Nick Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 3:54 PM
To: Michelle Butte
Subject: RE: Support me as I walk in the 2005 Out of the Darkness Community Walk!
Michelle,
Every 3 minutes in this country, someone takes a tragically unsatisfying crap. These sad, irregular souls walk the earth in a tormented, constipated haze, desperately trying to remember the simple joy of a good bowel movement. This fall thousands of men and women will travel thousands of miles to cheap mexican restaurants and lentil distributors in an attempt to dislodge the intractable, dehydrated mass that has accumulated in their abdomen, each contributing their own squeaking ripper to break the silence surrounding constipation. The silence...of their ass. These men and women are the Out of the Darkness Community. The darkness...of their ass.
By supporting me as I walk in search of the ultimate Bowel-Buster Burrito, you will be helping me raise money for my vital program to prevent me from not raising money, not to mention raising awareness of Obstinate Turd Syndrome (OTS), depression surrounding OTD, and continuing conspiracy of the United Cheese and Gummy Candy Makers of America. Please...every little bit counts.
Sponsoring me is simple. Just give me a bunch of money. Or a burrito. Or a burrito filled with money. Either way, you're making a difference.
God bless,
Nick
Email received from roommate:
======================
From: Michelle Butte
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 2:29 PM
To: Nick Murphy
Subject: Support me as I walk in the 2005 Out of the Darkness Community Walk!
Nick, Every 18 minutes in the U.S., someone dies by suicide. This fall thousands of men and women will walk in over 40 communities across the United States, each contributing their voices to break the silence surrounding suicide. These men and women are the Out of the Darkness Community.
By supporting me as I walk in the 2005 Out of the Darkness Community Walks to benefit the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), you will be helping me raise money for AFSP's vital programs to prevent suicide and save lives, increase national awareness about depression and suicide, and assist survivors of suicide loss.
Sponsoring me is simple-- just click on the link at the bottom of this page and follow the prompts to make a donation.
(Michelle's probably-inappropriate side comment: if you only can or want to make a small donation, please consider the victims of Katrina instead. You can support me with a smile and a "good luck!")
Thank you!
Follow This Link to visit my personal web page and help me in my efforts to support American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
=======
My reply:
=======
From: Nick Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 3:54 PM
To: Michelle Butte
Subject: RE: Support me as I walk in the 2005 Out of the Darkness Community Walk!
Michelle,
Every 3 minutes in this country, someone takes a tragically unsatisfying crap. These sad, irregular souls walk the earth in a tormented, constipated haze, desperately trying to remember the simple joy of a good bowel movement. This fall thousands of men and women will travel thousands of miles to cheap mexican restaurants and lentil distributors in an attempt to dislodge the intractable, dehydrated mass that has accumulated in their abdomen, each contributing their own squeaking ripper to break the silence surrounding constipation. The silence...of their ass. These men and women are the Out of the Darkness Community. The darkness...of their ass.
By supporting me as I walk in search of the ultimate Bowel-Buster Burrito, you will be helping me raise money for my vital program to prevent me from not raising money, not to mention raising awareness of Obstinate Turd Syndrome (OTS), depression surrounding OTD, and continuing conspiracy of the United Cheese and Gummy Candy Makers of America. Please...every little bit counts.
Sponsoring me is simple. Just give me a bunch of money. Or a burrito. Or a burrito filled with money. Either way, you're making a difference.
God bless,
Nick
Stallman rides again
Yet Another Idiotic Idea by Stallman. Software patents are not a menace. _Stupid_ software patents (like one-click) are a menace. Just because our patent system is broken doesn't mean patents aren't a good idea in principle.
Moreover, it you make the license even more viral than it already is (and yes, boys and girls, it is viral...Microsoft employees are generally not even allowed to touch GPL'd software because it would force all kinds of restrictions on whatever they're working on...it's so wonderfully ironic that free software people rail against shrink-wrap licenses [rightly] when the GPL is the most egregious and aggressive shrink-wrap license there is...anyway...), then companies will avoid it. There are other open source licenses out there, and they will be adopted.
When is Stallman going to get over his messiah complex?
Moreover, it you make the license even more viral than it already is (and yes, boys and girls, it is viral...Microsoft employees are generally not even allowed to touch GPL'd software because it would force all kinds of restrictions on whatever they're working on...it's so wonderfully ironic that free software people rail against shrink-wrap licenses [rightly] when the GPL is the most egregious and aggressive shrink-wrap license there is...anyway...), then companies will avoid it. There are other open source licenses out there, and they will be adopted.
When is Stallman going to get over his messiah complex?
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Rice and race
You know, much as I despise Rice for being an utter sellout, I believe that the Katrina debacle didn't really have anything to do with race. It had to do with money plain and simple. Do you honestly believe that if the residents had been a bunch of poor white rednecks the outcome would have been any different? The problem here is that a) Republicans don't like spending money on anything except the military and corporate welfare, and b) the two FEMA heads Bush appointed are totally inexperienced managing disaster relief because they were simply Bush cronies being rewarded for their loyalty.
Don't make it racial when it isn't and doesn't need to be.
Don't make it racial when it isn't and doesn't need to be.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Renquist dead
This is going to be the fun replacement nomination. Roberts was just a warmup.
I really, really, _really_ hope that Democrats can take advantage of how badly Bush has handled the Katrina debacle to build some sorely needed political capital. There's no historical evidence to suggest that they can, but hey, a guy can dream...
I really, really, _really_ hope that Democrats can take advantage of how badly Bush has handled the Katrina debacle to build some sorely needed political capital. There's no historical evidence to suggest that they can, but hey, a guy can dream...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)