thunkbot

What to do?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 06:52:00 +0000

Anybody got a bazooka?

Country First, or Couric First?

Colbert: Financial Moguls Entering Beauty Pageants for $10

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:31:00 +0000

When all you can do is laugh it off...

A Diagram depicting what would have occurred if AIG

was left to fail...

[Nuclear Fission, aka Chain Reaction]

1 a : a series of events so related to each other that each one initiates the next b : a number of events triggered by the same initial event
2 : a self-sustaining chemical or nuclear reaction yielding energy or products that cause further reactions of the same kind
- chain-re·act /'chAn-rE-'akt/ intransitive verb

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

AIG's reach was far and wide. If any firm was too big to fail, it was them. Moral Hazard can wait for another day.

A Reality TV Show Moment

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:50:00 +0000

John McCain's announcement of his vice presidential pick had all the similtudes of a reality TV show Friday. America's Next Top Veep will be airing this fall in prime time slots, be sure to tune in!

John McCain's selection of his running mate and possible Second-in-Command is a window into how a "President McCain" would make his executive decisions. A 72 year old cancer victim has opted to put the unknown and inexperienced Sarah Palin from Wasilla, Alaska a "heartbeat" away from becoming our new Commander-and-Chief. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have been campaigning longer than Mrs. Palin has been govenor of her state. The move was an obvious political hail mary pass as opposed to a serious and thoughtful choice. It was a last ditch effort to cajole some of the disaffected Hillaryites and to assuage the extreme and religious Right, but was it a presidential decision? Does this reflect prudent judgement or incautious gimmickry? It appears that Senator McCain will be looking for a new slogan because "Country First" is out the window.

Putin Has Evidence of U.S. Involvement in Georgian Offensive

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:57:00 +0000

RE: THE "OCTOBER" SURPRISE

Today in an interview with CNN's Mathew Chance, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused the United States of orchestrating the Georgian offensive to benefit one of its presidential candidates.

Putin told CNN that a U.S. passport with a Texas address was found where the Georgian special operations base was located. He also stated that there was evidence of United States citizens being in the area of conflict during the offensive and that they took part in combat operations.

PUTIN INTEVIEW:

Is the Prime Minister fanning the flames of a conspiracy theory that was developed out of the conspicuous relationships between John McCain's senior foreign policy adviser, Randy Sheunemann and Georgian President Saakishvilli, and the abrupt visits by Carl Rove and Condoleezza Rice to President Saakishvilli just prior to the conflict? Or, is does this corroborate the compiling evidence of an U.S. orchestrated conflict designed in part to increase the chances of continued neocon influence in the White House visa vis a McCain presidency?

This story is in desperate need of some real investigative reporting. MSM has so far given it remiss attention. Developing...

Dear Obama Campaign

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:17:00 +0000

RE: NEUTRALIZING MCCAIN'S LOW-ROAD TACTICS

John McCain has brought a knife to a fist fight after promising to come empty handed. This is not a fair fight and the Obama Campaign needs to neuter this McCain advantage.

Senator Obama and the DNC need to challenge Senator McCain to run a dignified campaign as he promised all Americans not so long ago. This challenge needs to be well coordinated, prominent and ongoing to keep the Media engaged.

One way to keep the media engaged is to incorporate them into the plan. I suggest entering into an agreement with a neutral third party to track John McCain's advertisements, speeches, and statements for all character attacks, questions AND innuendos of lacking patriotism, suggestions of race, etc. The first organization that comes to mind is FACTCHECK.ORG .

To make the challenge 'catchy' the Obama campaign should create a ticking time clock for how many days, minutes, and seconds John McCain has gone without making attacks and not addressing real issues Americans care about. See if he can go a week or even a month. This can be done as a 'widget' on your website and others (much like what the RNC did to Senator Obama counting the days before visiting Iraq). The media loves it. It could be even more effective if Obama himself participated in the challenge. After all, this is where he wants to take the fight, bare knuckles, above the fray. This is where Senator Obama excels and where Senator McCain obviously had trouble operating due to his quick change-up in campaign officials and strategy.

Make the McCain campaign fight on your turf. Give the media a quick and easy reference to gauge who's fighting dirty. Let the media sensationalize on the issues, not the latest negative ad and if it "worked." It is time to focus on the issues this will help us get there.

I urge you to take this idea in consideration.

Regards,

Mark Casias

Obama Supporter

The "October" Surprise

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:08:00 +0000

Has the Media Failed Us Once Again?

While the world was focused on the Olympic opening ceremony, and in the cloak of night, the Georgian military attacked the separatist region of South Ossetia. The timing suggested Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili may have been counting on surprise to fulfill his longtime pledge to wrest back control of South Ossetia - a key to his hold on power. Russia responded by aggressively entering South Ossetia and even further into Georgia proper with Air attacks, tanks, and ground troops.

Since the attack was during the Olympics there was little reporting of the Georgian attack and much more coverage of the Russian retaliation. When the world woke up Saturday morning President Saakshvilli was pleading to the world for help from the bombardment of the Russian imperialists. The West responded accordingly, backing our ally and NATO candidate Georgia. Mainstream media (MSM) covered the story as Russia the aggressor, Georgia the victim of an imperialist neighbor, and the United States (and the West) as the condemner of the Russian response. This viewpoint continues through today.

There may have been an active information campaign to influence MSM's coverage of this flare up. The timing of the invasion, President Micheil Saakshvilli's relentless TV appearances desperately attempting to frame the issue, and President Bush and company's continuous statements warning the Kremlin have successfully guided the media to report on just that, and nothing more. Russian renditions of the incidents are quickly disregarded as product of the KGB propaganda machine. The start of the conflict was not adequately reported and it has still been left ambiguous at best.

Aside from MSM, there are a few sources who have explanations other than Russian neo-imperialism for the conflict in the Caucuses. Paul Craig Roberts, the former assistant secretary of the treasury under Ronald Reagan, defines the turn of events differently. He sees this as a planned aggression by American neoconservatives in an attempt to further their ideological beliefs that America is a dominating hegemon that should neutralize Russia by surrounding it with NATO nations. In an interview with Larry King Thursday night, Mikhael Gorbecov stated that Georgia had instigated the conflict and that "it was a well-prepared project" with strong signs that "they [Georgia] wanted to put the blame on Russia." Mikheil Saakishvilli was interviewed on the same show after Gorbecov. Saakishvilli entered into an ad hominem argument against Gorbecov attacking his character for "vindicating lies and deceptions." Gorbecov also said Saakishvilli "misled the United States, unless to think that it was an American project and that Saakashvilli just implemented it." Robert Shear expanded on these thoughts by reporting the links between Senator McCain's top foreign policy advisor, McCain himself and the Georgian government. Please read Mr. Shear's article.

To further the suspicions of such an "october surprise" Carl Rove met Mikeil Saakishvilli at a Conference in Yalta on July 12. Also Condi Rice met with Saakishvilli days earlier.

Was the Media tooled again? Was there in fact a plot to shift the election to a platform that John McCain can win on? The dots continue to connect. Developing...

Dumb Media = Dumb Public = Dumb Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:47:00 +0000

The prospect of offshore oil drilling has been discussed with much ballyhoo over the past month in the United States. The republican congress and a few democrats looking to capitalize on the public outrage of high gas prices have managed to stage an exaggerated fuss in order to get the attention of mainstream media. The likes of Newt Gingrich, President Bush, and others have used their bully pulpits to push this agenda on behalf of big oil. As expected, the media took the bait. Offshore drilling flooded the airwaves and the World Wide Web.

Pundits and commentators from news channels across the land were touting the latest polls that showed the majority of Americans now favor opening up restricted land to the oil companies. The usual news outlets like CNN, CBS, NBC, and FOX unanimously conferred that indeed an ostensible public consensus on drilling existed. They quoted polling results from the likes of Rasmussen, reporting 67% support for offshore drilling, CNN/Opinion Research Corp finding 69% support, an ABC News/Stanford University poll reporting 63%, and the list goes on and on. What the media failed to report was that some of the very polls they quoted also found that some alternatives to the energy crisis were even more favorable in the public's eye. In fact, the ABC News/Standford University poll found that 78% of Americans favor making "fuel efficiency standards for cars stricter." This was the story that mainstream media should have been talking about, not this drilling nonsense.

The bump in offshore drilling support reflected the public’s concerns and frustrations with our energy situation, and not necessarily a smart means to ameliorate them. When the polling actually provided attractive alternatives like raising the CAFE standards, offshore drilling seemed less appealing. Raising the fuel economy standards on cars would do more to reduce midterm gas prices, increase oil independence, fight climate change and air pollution than any attempt to put more land in the hands of oil companies. By the way, the U.S. is not exactly at the top of its class in this regard [see chart below]. As David Moore points out, many false conclusions about polls can be formed when you do not take into consideration how the issues are framed. He also states that many of the public opinion polls quoted did not make mention of the environmental trade-offs or reveal it likely would takes 5-7 years to start producing oil.

These are all reasons why the media frenzy behind lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling is unfounded. If we cannot count on a truthful national discussion about our energy challenges how can we expect to make wise decisions? Is this not the role of the media, to be a critical third party to powerful interests? The media's superficial and myopic coverage of America's energy issues is doing us all a grave disservice.

"There are Two Types of People..."

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:02:00 +0000

We have had the misfortune to have grown accustom to the perpetually reoccurring phrase, "there are two types of people in this world..." To continue on that tradition of oversimplification I posit that there is a new dichotomy of modern thought emerging today. Those whom are Long-termers and those who can be categorized as Short-termers.

Sweeping statements aside, there seems to be a true split developing between how people think that is identifiable by these opposing perspectives. Perhaps what has made this phenomenon so salient today is the fact that our cultural society has fallen into a malaise of shortsightedness for the past 30 or some odd years and is now crashing into the consequences of such behavior. America has been increasingly driven by the quarterly-performance perspective of Wall Street, the next-election perspective of politics, and the spend-now-worry-later perspective of false wealth. These institutionalized cultural conditions have created a pandemic myopia that clings to the past and refuses to think about the needs of the future. This is unsustainable by definition.

We are just now as a collective society beginning to realize the challenges that we have created, namely; depleting resources, climate change, dependence on foreign oil, faltering infrastructure, failing economy, absent energy policy, shameful health care system, shrinking middle class, and an oligarchy of corporations facilitated by the lobbyists who represent them.

We can illustrate this with a current example. Issue, gas prices are rising and we need a solution. The Short-termers advocate a "fix," which is distinguishable from a solution. They suggest the answer to our energy policy woes would be to open drilling at Alaska's pristine and biodiverse ANWR territory and further deregulation for an industry reliant on a depleting resource. At maximum production, which would not be realized until 2025, we would decrease our foreign oil dependence a whopping 4% according to the DOE. American oil reserves peaked in 1970 and oil will only get more expensive to pump out of the ground, and more wars will be fought for it. On the contrary, Long-termers advocate a modernization of our entire energy policy, redirecting subsidies from fossil fuels to alternative energies and create incentives for increasing vehicle efficiencies and ultimately transforming transportation away from the combustion engine. The Long-term approach would be good for the nation, and not so good for a powerful few,... not to name any names.

Today we face a climax of grave challenges. Ironically, these very challenges have essentially exposed the existence of Long-termers versus Short-termers. As in the case of gas prices, the solutions that are proposed for these challenges can be traced back to either a short-term or long-term perspective. The short-term perspective is making it difficult for the United States to move forward in the sensible progression that is necessary to advance the well being of society. The Short-termer has an inherent disregard for inter-generational equality. Meaning, this line of thought is willing to maximize short-lived wealth at the expense of our children, and their children's children. The Long-termers and Short-termers are slowly magnetizing into their respective camps, furthering their distinctiveness. This is apparent from the types of debates occurring today. Short-termers have the luxury of the status quo advantage and the support of the prevailing powers that are desperately attempting to keep their empires from crumbling. The victor of the Long-termers versus the Short-termers will ultimately decide the fate of America's standing in the world for the 21st century and beyond.

Many of us have been conditioned to think on a short-horizon simply by living out our cultural experience. It is time for some self-reflection and introspection as a society. This will reconstitute our knowledge of self and will recalibrate our decision processes.

Can Education Combat Global Warming?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:17:00 +0000

How can we best position ourselves for managing the unpredictable challenges we face from Climate Change and learn to address them properly? A critical component for preparedness is education. In the absence of adequate scientific literacy across our society we will be without the necessary knowledge base that we will need to act swiftly in policy and innovation. We must raise the bar on our expectations of how our society as a whole will participate in finding solutions and mapping strategies for dealing with climate change. Climate change is a global concern but action must not wait for international policy to be agreed upon. A bold and visionary proposal should be enacted in the United States immediately. A mandate to include climate change science in the curricula of K-12 education is compulsory for preparing our future citizens to manifest solutions and coping strategies.

Education has played an integral role in our country’s history. Often our nation has looked to education as a means to addressing our most pressing challenges. In the early 20th century the High School movement was effective in growing the attendance of secondary education, creating a more productive society and gaining an edge on our European competitors. In response to the Soviet launch of Sputnik, the first example of Federal education legislation was passed, called the National Defense Education Act (NDEA). This led to the advancement of science, mathematics, and foreign language in K-12 schooling. Also, in the 1960s and 1970s education was the battleground for anti-poverty and civil rights laws. It was in the schools of the South where we fought for equal access and for an end to segregation and discrimination. Now we face a new challenge. We must prepare our citizens for a long and arduous fight to combat global climate change. Our education system is a tremendous and dynamic space to establish a robust foundation on confronting this issue.

A federal mandate to incorporate climate change into the curricula of K-12 public schooling will effectively encourage four main results that will provide impetus for properly addressing the realities of climate change. (1) Incorporating climate change science into our education system will vastly narrow the communication gaps afforded by scientific disconnects between the public and the scientific community. The public is only aware of human-induced climate change because of science. Therefore, the lead messengers have been predominantly scientists that speak in the tongue of scientific jargon. By exposing our children to this at an early age and progressively increasing the sophistication of lessons those disconnects will start to vanish and understanding will begin to take root. This deeper understanding will internalize for many citizens and they will be better equipped to demand policy change and participate in public debate in a more engaged fashion. (2) Climate change education will spark interest in the field. The early exposure will provide ample time and opportunity to become creatively involved in the subject. This infusion of enthusiastic students will foster creative problem solving and will advance the science in depth and breadth. In turn, this will increase the pool of possible experts, providing more opportunity for progress in such areas as computer modeling, designing coping strategies, and enhancing climate change metrics. 3) The broader knowledge base will perpetuate climate change considerations in every field and industry. Our children will take with them the fundamental knowledge of climate change into any career path they pursue as we do now with American history, social science, literature, and basic economics. This phenomenon will lead to cooperative and cross-disciplinary innovations and solutions. 4) Finally, because climate change science will have become woven into the fabric of our educational system it will have enduring applications. Climate change is a long-term challenge that demands consistent attentiveness. By implementing a lasting education strategy we will be committing the United States to take substantive action and guaranteeing that education will play a major role in combating climate change.

Climate Change education is not unprecedented. California is pending a bill (SB 908) to mandate that climate change science be included in the required minimum standards of the science curriculum.

The implementation of a federal climate change curriculum initiative has the dual appeal of far-reaching impact and high feasibility. We can obtain our four desired results as mentioned earlier with our current institutions and through our traditional channels of policy development. Education has historically been a cornerstone of American ingenuity and it will again rise to the challenge if called to duty.

Welcome All!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 21 May 2008 05:52:00 +0000