What else is new?

Quick, what does the following list suggest to you:
Lamaze classes;
baby showers;
“parenting skills”;
preschool anxiety all the way up to college;
transitional phases;
timeouts;
chronic credit-card debt;
the indiscriminate wearing of athletic garb;
political correctness;
anti-political correctness;
midlife crises;
couples therapy;
divorce mediation;
Botox;
dermatological fillers;
cosmetic surgery;
the new-and-improved menopause;
wearing sunglasses in winter even though you’re not famous;
comb-overs;
an obsession with the daily lives of the celebrated and merely notorious;
real estate as a means to an end;
a debilitating reliance on takeout dinners;
a preference for esoteric coffee beans;
an aversion to butter;
an uneasy feeling of identification with Bob Dylan;
a denial of death;
cilantro, cilantro, cilantro;
framing every photograph you’ve ever taken;
the belief that your dog/cat is you;
an excessively personalized vision of retirement;
older single mothers;
grandfatherly second-time fathers;
a fear that you’ve become your mother or father;
a free-floating feeling of grievance that you’ve failed to make obscene amounts of money as a hedge-fund manager;
a gut instinct that immortality might be just around the next technological bend.

If you still haven’t figured out that I’m talking about the so-called baby-boomer generation, you might consider the possibility that the reason you are having difficulty making out the fine print of any given subtext is because you need reading glasses.

Once upon a complacent time we may have thought that we were, to quote John Lennon, clever and classless and free. Nowadays, I wager that many of us have come to realize that we are stuck in the muck and mire of habit and convention. We have become chips off the old block, carrying around our parents’ voices in our heads even as we swat away their child-rearing beliefs, conservative spending habits and stoic acceptance of mortality. Behind all this busy reinvention of the wheel of life, of course, sheer dread lies in wait: the fear that we’re fast gaining upon that demarcation line where you stop being young and you start being something else entirely, someone belonging to a different order of nomenclature. (It might well be that the Sturm und Drang of middle age comes down to nothing more significant than a problem of taxonomy.) Heck, if we knew we were going to grow older this quickly, we would have frozen our youth like a carton of ice cream to be savored at a later date.

What generations before us were spared is the relatively recent invention of middle age as a sustained mentality — one predicated on an awareness of its own growing remove from that elusive property known as hipness. Indeed, the enshrinement of hipness as a long-term attitude — the idea that first you’re cool and then you’re uncool and then you die — is probably the worst legacy of the culture of the 60s. The result, the evidence of which is all around us, is a collective failure to maintain our generational integrity. Our lives are characterized by a sophomoric vicariousness: we behave as though our children’s triumphs and disappointments were our own and, facilitated by an increasingly euphemistic attitude toward extinction (now coyly referred to as “passing”), as if our deaths belonged to someone else entirely. They are not, we hurry to reassure ourselves, “ominous and intimately” our own, as John Updike, that connoisseur of waning potential, observed in “Rabbit at Rest.”

We are a strange bunch, we who belong to the New Middle Ages, half intractably cynical and half hopelessly expectant. Many of us, that is, believed we could put in for one order of rose garden, with a schmear on the side. We came of age convinced that life — far from being the vale of tears that people who lived in the Old Middle Ages conceived it to be — was supposed to make us happy in some ineffable but all the same transporting way. I remember many years ago, when I was a very unhappy young woman and had relayed my tale of what I perceived to be overweening early damage (this was before the rise of the ubiquitous dysfunctional family) to a dispassionate and renowned family therapist, he leaned forward in his chair and asked me, “Who gave you your expectations?”

At the time I was more than a bit miffed. Where was his famous therapeutic empathy? Or ordinary human understanding, for that matter? These days, however, I tend to see things more from his viewpoint. Which is to say that while I don’t whistle as I work, I do try to lead a productive life in my own inevitably hobbled way. For one thing, reality has hit me in the eyebrows, where I first started going gray some years ago and where I keep going grayer, underneath renewed coatings of eyebrow tint. For another, both my parents are dead now, which makes me an adult orphan. (Although there must be a statute of limitations on how old you can be and still reasonably consider yourself an orphan.) If there is no way out of it, there are ploys around it. The poet Philip Larkin, for instance, deftly avoided the encroachments of middle age — “This loss of interest, hair and enterprise,” as he characterized it in “Continuing to Live” — by insisting that he had never been youthful in the first place. In the poem “On Being Twenty-Six,” Larkin was already envisioning the dismal and definitive endpoint: “Talent, felicity —/these things withdraw,/And are succeeded by a dingier crop/That come to stop.”

But even Larkin was stumped by the reality of living in time: “Where can we live but days?” Where indeed. Fueled by an increasing fear and demonization of Old Age, ours is a generation bred on the notion of doing it our way, right up to our method of retirement. Given this curious and entitled perspective, middle age becomes a life raft that we can’t afford to fall off — because once we do, we’re going down, down into those depths for which there are no transitional phases or, God knows, “feeder” schools.

Hold on, now. Being young was never as great as it’s made out to be and being middle-aged is not as bad as all that. Take a deep breath. With a modicum of luck, there’s lots up ahead to hold your interest. There’s still time enough to soften your views and limber up your affections, still time to take chances. Still time, you never know, to undo having become exactly what you did not want to be. Bruce Springsteen, one of the very few rock stars to age gracefully, sums up our plight in his anthemic “Thunder Road”: “So you’re scared and you’re thinking/That maybe we ain’t that young anymore.” And then, being Springsteen, he immediately offers us a way out. “Show a little faith, there’s magic in the night.”

The London 2012 Olympics won't use security technology unless it's being provided by a major sponsor of the event. No matter how much safety your product would contribute to Londoners, there's no chance of it being used unless your company bribes the International Olympic Committee.

Giving an otherwise rather dull and predictable keynote speech at Infosecurity Europe about the IT security demands of running the London Olympics, Derek Wyatt MP has let it slip that UK Government hands are tied when it comes to security technology. He also made it clear that he has no idea where the security threat will come from stating “who are the enemy? I wish I knew” and “don’t ever underestimate the intelligence of the opposition, whoever that is.” But the biggest concern I have over the ramblings of the Right Honourable gentleman came when he started talking about the problems faced in identity management and authentication not only during the event but in the run up to it, with the construction of the venue. Wyatt sound quite upbeat about the possibility of using the London ‘Oyster’ card, used for public transport travel, which could be upgraded fairly easily to incorporate biometric data and turned into a mini-ID card. He also sounded quite impressed with the idea of using the Nokia based authentication system for mobile phones. Upbeat and impressed, and then he dropped the bombshell, which I hope will not be a bad choice of words for the future, when he casually revealed that because neither of these companies was a ‘major sponsor’ of the Olympics their technology could not be used.

Yes, you read that right, as far as the technology behind the security of the London Olympic Games is concerned best of breed and suitability for purpose do not come into, paying a large amount of money to the International Olympic Committee does.

So who has bought their way into being the security experts of choice, and with whom our security and that of the visiting millions will rest? Visa. Oh whoopy-doo, I admit to feeling much more reassured now, after all these are the same people who do not suffer from any problems with identity and authentication and fraud and crime on a huge scale within their own business sector after all. Not.

And in case you are wondering why anyone should get wound up by the ramblings of some MP you have never heard of, the fact that he was speaking in his official capacity as Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Olympic Group might just grab your attention as it did mine.

Even when questioned by a member of the British Computer Society Security Group who was as shocked as I, and expressed total disbelief that potentially far better technologies were to be overlooked simply because a sponsor had to be used, Wyatt gave a half-hearted shrug of the shoulders response along the lines of it is out of our hands.

Personally I find it beyond contempt that security decisions that will impact upon the whole country, and the billions watching around the world, come down to a money making opportunity for a sponsor rather than being a Government controlled process. Wyatt readily admits it is nothing to do with him, his committee or indeed the Government as the deals arrangements are between the IOC and their sponsors. He also readily admits he doesn’t see why the UK should have to foot the £1billion cost of security in that case.

But again, he misses the point. Security in this case should not be about money, or who foots the bill, but about preventing lives from being lost and terror winning a gold medal on the world stage.

Visa have, as of yet, to reveal what plans it has for the games…

I know. I know. I told myself that I would not. But I didnt have a choice - I was tired, sleepy and there was nothing else around.

Is there anyone who goes into Starbucks and wants to talk to people behind the counter?

Let me explain

So I am in glasgow. I am feeling miserable, tired and sleepy. Why the hell are employees in starbucks being overly nice to everyone who walks in? Who in their right mind walks into Starbucks in the afternoon for that cheerful pick me up from behind the counter? Shut up and give me my coffee! I dont want you to make small talk with me! I just want the shot of java! Shut up! I dont want you to ask me how my day is! Would it be a good day if I am in Starbucks at 2.15 in the afternoon?

An another thing - when I ask for a grande mocha, why do I get half a cup? Did I miss a memo saying that a grande one means fill it up as you feel like? I only noticed it when I took a first sip. I got back to the counter and told them. They filled it up again, but why do I have to ask? Its not like its busy - I am the only one at the counter!

I am just bitching. Sorry.

Mooninites coming to Hub: Theaters ‘toon’ out Tom’s plea
By Tenley Woodman
Boston Herald Features Reporter
Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Score one for the Mooninites.
The “Aqua Teen Hunger Force” movie behind January’s marketing-stunt-turned-bomb-scare opens in Boston Friday (the 13th, no less) despite Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s plea to local theaters not to screen it “out of respect to the people of Boston.”
No such luck. “Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters” opens Friday on two screens: AMC Boston Common and Kendall Square Cinema in Cambridge. Elizabeth Wolfe, vice president of publicity for First Look Pictures, said the film’s distributor had no trouble getting Boston theaters to show it.

As of press time, the mayor’s office had no comment.
Boston came to a near standstill Jan. 31 when more than three dozen battery-powered light boards, some with dangling wires, were discovered around the city. Public safety officials launched an all-out terror response, only to discover the boards depicted the cartoon character Mooninite from “ATHF,” a cult-hit series on Cartoon Network.
The two men who posted the boards still face felony hoax charges; Cartoon Network’s parent company, Turner Broadcasting, and its marketing firm agreed to pay $2 million in restitution to city and state agencies that responded to the terror alert.
With the movie opening looming, the official response from those agencies - including the Massachusetts State Police, Boston Police Department and the attorney general’s office - was “no comment.”
Some pop-culture observers think that’s the most effective tactic.
“I think the worst thing the mayor can do it at this point is to give it legs that it doesn’t already have,” said Doug Quintal, undergraduate program director and executive in residence for the department of marketing communication at Emerson College. “If it was banned in Boston it would get bigger numbers nationally because it would be front-page news.”
January’s brouhaha may spark greater turnout from the film’s target audience, said Sasha Norkin, professor of broadcast journalism at Boston University’s College of Communication.
“I think too much was made of it and Turner stepped up and paid their end of it,” said “Aqua Teen Hunger Force” fan Jeff Burns, 28, of Brighton. “I’m going to go see it anyways.”

So we've all heard about the FBI's misuse of national security letters.
The Justice Department's inspector general came out with a report on
March 9 describing "serious misuse" of the letters, which are secret
subpoena-like documents that can be sent to businesses including banks,
telephone companies, and ISPs:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0703b/final.pdf

I wrote about the inspector general's report here:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6166015.html

And in fact the inspector general, Glenn Fine, is going to be testifying
about them in the Senate on Wednesday at 10am ET:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2616

Fine showed up before a House committee on Tuesday and faced a hostile
audience -- not that the FBI's illegal acts are his fault, mind you, but
Bush administration officials seem oddly reluctant to testify in public
under oath nowadays:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032000921.html

The odd thing is that everyone, or nearly everyone, seems to think this
is entirely unexpected. In fact, it's a natural consequence of giving
the federal government more and more power over the years (national
security letters were made much more powerful by the Patriot Act).
Incentives matter, and the FBI has plenty of incentives to expand its
power and surveillance ability and precious few incentives to preserve
Americans' constitutional liberties.

To give credit to EPIC, they realized this and sent a letter to the
Senate in June 2006 asking for more oversight:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/sen_iob_letter.pdf

So have libertarian writers, who for years have called national security
letters "the ultimate constitutional farce," which is about right. The
letters represent FBI agents _authorizing themselves_ to seize
information without bothering to get a judge's approval, after all:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/napolitano2.html

Occasionally other evidence about illegal FBI eavesdropping comes to
light, which is what I described in an article published two days before
the DOJ's report:
http://news.com.com/2100-1039_3-6165067.html

That article outlines how FBI agent Scott Wenther submitted a 42-page
sworn affidavit that was intentionally designed to mislead the court
into approving what a judge called an "illegal" wiretap. I've put the
some of the court documents here:
http://politechbot.com/docs/fbi.agent.scott.wenther.affidavit.030607.txt
http://politechbot.com/docs/fbi.wenther.opinion.030607.pdf
http://politechbot.com/docs/fbi.wenther.defendant.brief.030607.pdf

This is of course the same federal police agency that is using our tax
dollars to lobby Congress to mandate data retention, which should make
us think twice about how _that_ nice part of the surveillance apparatus
will be used and misused:
http://www.politechbot.com/2007/01/24/not-just-isps/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2026580,00.html

My new mobile is lumbered with a bewildering array of unnecessary features aimed at idiots

Charlie Brooker
Monday March 5, 2007
The Guardian

It is astounding how quickly you get used to technological change. For instance, within the space of 18 months, I have gone from regarding wireless broadband as an outlandish novelty to considering it my God-given right. Cables appal me - they belong to the stone age - alongside electric typewriters, fax machines, video recorders, pagers and the plough. But there is one device I just can't get comfortable with - my mobile phone. I'm not some medieval yeoman, infuriated by mobiles full stop. Just this particular model.

The trouble started the afternoon someone from Orange rang me up to say, "Hey, valued customer - do you want a free phone?" At first I wasn't interested, but he went on and on about how popular and great the Samsung E900 was, then promised me free texts at weekends for life if I said yes. So I gave in.
The phone arrived the next day and immediately began elbowing me in the ribs. It seems to have been designed specifically to irritate anyone with a mind. It starts gently - a pinch of annoyance here, an inconvenience there - but before long the steady drip, drip, drip of minor frustrations begins to affect your quality of life, like a mouth ulcer, or a stone in your boot, or the lingering memory of love gone sour.

The menu system is a confusing mangle of branching dead ends. It has touch-sensitive buttons that either refuse to work, or leap into action if you breathe on them. One such button also terminates calls, so it is easy to cut people off merely by holding the phone against your ear to hear them. It has no apparent "silent" mode, and when you set it to vibrate, it buzzes like a hornet in a matchbox.

It is lumbered with a bewildering array of unnecessary "features" aimed at idiots, including a mode that scans each text message and turns some of the words into tiny ani- mations, so if someone texts to say they have just run over your child in their car, the word "car" is replaced by a wacky cartoon vehicle putt-putting onto the screen. There is also a crap built-in game in which you play a rabbit ("Step into the role of Bobby Carrot - the new star of cute, mind-cracking carrot action!").

When you dial a number, you have a choice of seeing said number in a gigantic, ghastly typeface, or watching it moronically scribbled on parchment by an animated quill. I can't find an option to see it in small, uniform numbers. The whole thing is the visual equivalent of a moronic clip-art jumble sale poster designed in the dark by a myopic divorcee experiencing a freak biorhythmic high. Worst of all, it seems to have an unmarked omnipresent shortcut to Orange's internet service, which means that whether you are confused by the menu, or the typeface, or the user- confounding buttons, you are never more than one click away from accidentally plunging into an overpriced galaxy of idiocy, which, rather than politely restricting itself to news headlines and train timetables, thunders "BUFF OR ROUGH? GET VOTING!" and starts hurling cameraphone snaps of "babes and hunks" in their underwear at you, presumably because some pin-brained coven of marketing gonks discovered the average Orange internet user was teenage and incredibly stupid, so they set about mercilessly tailoring all their "content" toward priapic halfwits, thereby assuring no one outside this slim demographic will ever use their gaudy, insulting service ever again. And then they probably reached across the table and high-fived each other for skilfully delivering "targeted content" or something, even though what they should really have done, if there was any justice in the world, is smash the desk to pieces, select the longest wooden splinters they could find, then drive them firmly into their imbecilic, atrophied, world-wrecking rodent brains.

Anyway, over the past week, I've bumped into other people scowling at the same poxy phone as me. And in each case, the story is the same: Orange rang up and offered them one for nothing. It's spreading like a sinister virus, putting me in mind of the meteor storm at the start of Day of the Triffids - a seemingly innocent event that rapidly cripples humankind. My theory: the government is offloading these twittering handheld crapstones on to as many people as possible in a bid to whip us all into a state of perpetual, simmering anger in readiness for some kind of bare-knuckle street war. Don't say I didn't warn you.

IgnopediA

Continuing our uniquely unreliable interactive knowledge resource

Bling (requested by reader B Stephenson)

The word "bling" refers to any unnecessary accumulation of metal or jewellery which impresses the simple-minded. Examples of bling-related activity include: driving a car with shiny platinum rims, arriving at a movie premiere in a hat made of glittering diamonds, or pointing at a big block of gold and cooing away for hours on end like an unforgivable moron whose mere existence ultimately cheapens us all. Bling is the single most shallow, boring and wilfully superficial cultural phenomenon ever to excite humankind, which is saying something for a species already hooked on internet poker.

In recent months, collective guilt over the planet's future and the disparity of global wealth have exerted a cooling effect on bling's popularity, although genuine justice will never be achieved until everyone responsible for promoting, propagating, passively approving of, or even being ironically amused by any and all aspects of bling culture has been hunted down and jailed for a minimum of 37 years in a maximum security prison with no carpets, hot water or bog roll.

Submit queries to ignopedia@guardian.co.uk

Steer your mice towards charlie.brooker@guardian.co.uk


And the comments are classic. To read it here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2026580,00.html

Apparently, a memo went out with Georgia state Rep. Ben Bridges's signature claiming that "Indisputable evidence — long hidden but now available to everyone — demonstrates conclusively that so-called ‘secular evolution science’ is the Big-Bang 15-billion-year alternate ‘creation scenario’ of the Pharisee Religion... This scenario is derived concept-for-concept from Rabbinic writings in the mystic ‘holy book’ Kabbala dating back at least two millennia." The Anti-Defamation League is demanding that Bridges apologize. He says that he didn't write the memo and didn't personally issue it. Rather, it was penned by his former campaign manager's husband, Marshall Hall. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
The memo calls on lawmakers to introduce legislation that would end the teaching of evolution in public schools because it is “a deception that is causing incalculable harm to every student and every truth-loving citizen.”

It also directs readers to a Web site www.fixedearth.com, which includes model legislation that calls the Kabbala “a mystic, anti-Christ ‘holy book’ of the Pharisee Sect of Judaism.” The Web site also declares “the earth is not rotating … nor is it going around the sun...."

Bridges acknowledged that he talked to Hall about filing legislation this year that would end the teaching of evolution in Georgia’s public schools. Bridges said the views in the memo belong to Hall, though Bridges said he doesn’t necessarily disagree with them.

“I agree with it more than I would the Big Bang Theory or the Darwin Theory,” Bridges said. “I am convinced that rather than risk teaching a lie why teach anything?”

Link to Atlanta-Journal Constitution, Link to more at Talking Points Memo, Link to Scientific American's "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"

Actually, it's an abstract post-digital conceptual art project *disguised* as a video download service (this page on the site renders like this in Firefox). After a few deep bong hits, the rich layers of overlapping text probably make sense, as would the notion of paying $20 for a 240X320 movie in a DRM-laden Windows Media file that won't play on Zune, PSP, iPod, or computers running Mac or Linux.

Viacom did a general search on YouTube for any term related to any of its shows, and then spammed YouTube with 100,000 DMCA take-down notices alleging that all of these clips infringed its copyright and demanding that they be censored off the Internet. YouTube made thousands of clips vanish, and sent warning notices to the people who'd posted them, warning them that they were now on a list of potential copyright infringers and telling them that repeat offenses could lead to having their accounts terminated.

This is shockingly bad behaviour on the part of both Viacom and Google, YouTube's owner. Viacom's indiscriminate spamigation is incredibly negligent and evil. They certainly know that a search for a term like "Redbones" will catch videos like Jim Moore's Sunday nite dinner at Redbones in Somerville, Mass (a 30 second clip of Moore and several friends "having dinner in a ribs place in Somerville"). The idea that they have members of the bar -- officers of the court! -- signing affidavits swearing that they have a good-faith belief that these clips infringe their copyrights is disgraceful. Practicing law is a privilege, not a right. The law societies should be holding these attorneys to account for this kind of behaviour.

But Google's lawyers should have known better, too. The DMCA says that if a web-hoster ignores a takedown request, it's liable for copyright damages if the material in question is found to be infringing. YouTube can't afford to just let any lunatic -- including the savage pricks at Viacom -- indiscriminately censor the content it hosts. That's not fair to its customers.

It would cost a lot in lawyer-hours to investigate takedown requests and pick out the ones worth paying attention to, but that's part of the cost of doing business as YouTube. It costs a lot to provide the bandwidth for the files, but YouTube/Google wouldn't dream of skimping on connectivity. Lawyer-letters are just another load that GooTube needs to provision for.

And Google can take steps now to reduce that load: sue the living shit out of Viacom. We've got precedent -- the Diebold debacle -- for the idea that abusing the DMCA takedown process is illegal. Courts have been willing to punish this kind of excess by awarding fees and damages.

If Google sued every company that used indiscriminate takedown notices to remove material that it hosted -- on Blogger, YouTube, and elsewhere -- they'd put the fear of god into bullies like Viacom. They'd change the landscape so that DMCA notices were only used by people who were genuinely being ripped off, and not firehosed by idiots to every site that matches a search-term.

Big companies can sometimes make the world a better place by using the courts to set clear precedents that work for all of us. Sony gave us the Betamax decision. Verizon gave us RIAA v Verizon. Google could save us from takedown spammers.

I just got off the phone with Citibank after noticing a bunch of "Foreign Transaction Fees" on my bank statement -- turns out that when you use your credit or debit card outside of the US, Visa and Mastercard charge three percent in transaction fees on the spend. It doesn't matter if you use an ATM, buy over the Internet/phone, or walk into a store -- the credit-card companies always dip their beaks. When you pay your hotel bill, when you buy a plane ticket, every time you use Amazon.uk to order a British release (Citibank told me that they even charge the fee when I withdraw from my Citibank US account while at a Citibank UK ATM, using Citibank's own network!).

What makes this such a rip-off is that the credit-card companies already charge a fee -- up to five percent! -- to the merchants for processing the transaction. So Mastercard and Visa are getting a slice from the store, and a slice from the customer. In a global marketplace, Mastercard and Visa are acting like letting you spend your own money is a special service deserving its own fee.

The Citibank rep I spoke to told me that the fee used to be one percent, and that it was hidden on the credit-card bills, but that in 2006, the fees tripled and Citi started to break them out on the bill so you could see how badly you're getting hosed.

I called up Citibank UK and asked them if I was charged any fees when I used my Citibank UK debit card outside of Britain that they told me that no, Citibank UK customers are spared this particular screw-job from the credit-card companies.

When you add it all up, the credit-card companies must be making billions off of American customers -- and all the while they're double-dipping, charging the merchants, too.

Most UK banks will tax you if you take money out of a foreign ATM or use the card abroad (Lloyds, Bank of Scotland, Barclays). Barclays does something truly bad: if you buy foreign currency or travellers cheques *in the UK* they hit you with the handling fee, even though they are not even converting the money. Take the money out of the ATM outside the post office and pay in cash, and you save. Not only is there no moral justification for this, its an odd trend. Imagine if banks started charging you more for alchol or eating out compared to supermarket purchases.

Nationwide and Citibank are the unusual banks in that they don't make up a bogus fee and stick it on your cards when you go abroad.

This shows that:
1. its a bank thing, not a Visa fee
2. its entirely optional
3. they do it, because they can get away with it.

Osama bin Laden Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Well, it makes as much sense as this prediction:



Former US vice president Al Gore is seen as a possible winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to save the planet from global warming, the head of the Oslo Peace Research Institute has said.

His efforts to save the planet include (from the same article)…

The former US vice president is currently criss-crossing the globe with his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, a hard-hitting rallying cry against global environmental catastrophe.

Is he doing it on a bike? Hand-powered scooter? Electric glider?

Of course not, he’s “criss-crossing the globe” in “one of the most wasteful uses of fossil-based fuels imaginable,” a private jet.

Gore is the same guy that warned us that global warming was more dangerous than terrorism, while simultaneously maintaining a toxic waste dump on his own property.

At Sierra Club meetings, he advises Americans to conserve, then promptly leaves in a gas-guzzling Cadillac Escalade.

And while he “lectures Americans on excessive consumption,” he lives “in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.)… none of which use “green energy” offered by the local utility companies.

This is like saying Osama bin Laden is “saving the planet” from terrorism.

In addition to news of Gore’s lead in the polls, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 2002 to a man who supports Palestinian terrorists and Nazis, so bin Laden could apparently win it also, for paying lip service to the “religion of peace” while terrorizing the world.

Apparently lip service to a cause is the more important attribute.

If you have ever been turned down for admission by a college or university, it might have been because your essay was sub-par. If you feel that was the case, you might want to read this particular college application essay (of course, your parents might have been responsible). Then again, English is a crazy language.

If you already are in college, and you're having a tough time of it studying for finals, this

letter might put things in perspective (in addition, you might want to compare the typical MIT student's views to your own). Also remember that professors are often trickier than you are (and don't forget the college academic structure). Then
again, you might be going to a college with students of questionable intelligence... try reading these accounts of the history of the world, according to various student bloopers. Various other works of "irrefutable" logic have been written, like the Darksucker theory, the shit list, one definition of tape trees, a study on twinkies, and another student's view of physics, sex, and religion. Some students spend their time creating 80's tests, while others wax inventive on their thermodynamics finals.

Of course, no college humor is complete without some sort of sexual jokes (this is just a fact of college life and maturity levels... :^P). Common contributions (or detriments) include lists of sorority jokes (and just to be fair, here are some stupid men jokes), information about condoms,
comparisons between the Internet and a penis (for the computer savvy)...

Occasionally some college student will have a bright idea and decide that a person's sex life is linked to their favorite color; not that this is particularly true, but their predictions are often amusing. Some enterprising students once measured the
caloric output of sexual acts; others were content with just listing how each profession did the sex act. This is how college students view their old age, as well...

If you actually read any of the above articles, then you obviously realize the maturity level of some college students. It's not much better than what children think of love.

So I am in New York now. Still. To get all the documents to be able to enter UK, I would have to get Entry Clearance from UK embassy in New York. To get that from them, you have to have the original Work Permit (HSMP - highly skilled migrant professional. hehehehehe). Instead of getting it in my hands on the 16th of January, I got it on the 18th, because the company that JPMorgan was delegating the work to are more incompetent than the JPMorgan HR staff. They send it to my UK address. WTF! After I spoke to them a couple of times and everytime I would tell them that I am in New York and they have my parent's address on file.

So because I got that permit thing on thursday, I went to the courier service that does the same day turn around for Entry clearances. Except, because UK deported me (or if you want to call it denied entry ), there is a huge X in my passport. So now the 'same day turn around' is going to be unknown amount of time because they have to do inquiries about me. What the hell? I was hoping to get out of here on the weekend and now I am in the office waiting for that email or a phone call from the visa guy telling me that everything is ready.

So right now I am in the office on 47th and park. Working here day to day waiting for this Entry clearance bullshit. Then I am leaving the next day, hopefuly.

I feel like such an illegal immigrant, who worked on the strawberry picking farm in california, and then being sent back to mexico after INS agents raided the farm baraks.....

So this is what happened to me when I was returning from New York on Jan 2nd this year.

At Newark airport checkin I was informed by my friendly VirginAtlantic rep that the flight was oversold. But because I had already prearrange the seat online, I was already checked in into my Premium economy class seat.

I got to the gate and waiting for the flight, I noticed that there are lot of people who were very happy, for some reason. Turns out that because the flight is oversold, they are moving select passengers up a class.

So you guessed it - I was upgraded to first class (or as they call it 'Upper Class'). That was great!

But the story is not about that, although the service on Virgin Atlantic First class is a story by itself.

Upon arrival to Heathrow terminal 3, I got to the passport control and the guy asked me the purpose of my trip. I said that I 'live there'. He reponded with 'Can I see you EC visa'.

Thats where it all gone pete tong.

When I first moved to UK, the company I worked for arranged the visa and work permit and when I quit that company and got hired through a recruitment agency to a company where I work now, I was assured that everything will be take care of on the visa and work permit front.

The thing is, that the first company only did 1/2 of work. They provided me with the work permit in the UK, but what I was missing was called EC - Entry Clearance. You get it from Embassy in New York. Its like a page in your passport telling INS agents that you are ok with US Government.

Turns out that when I left the first company, the work permit got anulled and the company that I was getting hired by should've applied for the new work permit and then got the EC clearance for me before allowing me to start working. I got hired by the new company on Oct 16th and worked for them from then on. Turns out that I was working for them illegally because no work visa or EC clearance was ever provided.

So getting back to the guy that stopped me at the passport control. He took all my documents - passport, boarding card and my now worthless work visa - and went away to consult with the 'Senior passport' dude. When he came back he asked me if I could prove to him that I work in UK. I whipped out my work pass, my bank ATM card and my National Insurance Card - thats like Social Security card. I also dialed up my HR department only to find out that they are not in the office until Jan 8th!!! The friendly passport dude tells me that 'thats the way the world tuns'. What? What am I supposed to do when the Immigration officer stops you at a border and you cant prove to him that you live there? Call the main office of your company. So I did. A receptionist answered the phone. I explained to her that I am stuck in Heathrow terminal 3 and the control officer will not let me into thte country unless I speak to an HR person. She said - No problem I can verify to them weither you work here or not.

Excieted, I hand over the phone to the passport dude, he spells out my name, she tells him that I dont work there. What? Anyway, at this point, I dont even have my luggage with me, because I never made it to the carousel to pick it up. A burly woman comes over and takes me to gt the luggage. She goes through it, for some reason. They take me to a holding cell, where they strip you from everything you own - wallet, money, phone, luggage. Its basically a jail cell where you are waiting for an immigration official to come and interview you. Why is it that your phones are not allowed, but there is a public phone for you to make calls from?

After sitting there for about 1 hour, the same burly woman comes over and takes me to a room where she fingerprints me, takes a photo and basically creates a record of me trying to sneak into the country illegally. Fuck me! After that they return me to the holding cell where there are a couple of interesting characters: 4 asian dudes, 1 italian, 1 australian chick and 1 guy from UAE. The UAE guy has been in this situation before, but this time, he got stopped on the highway for traffic violation and they found out that his visa was overstayed by 5(!) days. He lived and paid taxed in UK for 5 years before this moment and they treated him, just like me, like a criminal. I would understand if he was a NRA dude on government help, defrauding UK citizens of money. He had a steady job and paid taxes. Now they are going to send him to UAE, where he doesnt live anymore. What is he suppose to do?

The australian chick was in even worse postion. She finished college in Australia earlier this year, took a 3 month break and was now on her way to her family in UK with her diploma. The UK immigration stopped her and told her that she will not be allowed into UK becuase she is coming there to get a job. They desided that because she had her diploma with her.

So the interview dude comes over and we go to a video-taped room where he takes a statement from me about this whole incident. I tell him everything and he asks me a couple of questions. Everything is fine. I ask him what is going to happen to me? He says you are going to be deported and not allowed back into the country without a proper visa. I tell him that its not my fault and that my company is the one who fubared on this. He assures me that he will get to the bottom of this and let me know. He comes back in about 30 minutes and tells me that he was able to get intouch with someone at my company's HR department and they have taken full responcibility for what happened. That is not a good thing. That means that they will still deport me on the first available flight, but at least the HR has taken responcibility.

The flight I was put on was 1600 VS001 out of heathrow to EWR. Besides the fact that I had to pay for it, it was booked solid. I just spent 8 hours on the plane coming to Heathrow, then 7 hours in the holding cell and now I am going to be spending another 8 hours on the plane on my way back to New York. Nice! I come back to Newark on 3rd at 10pm. 24 hours after I left.

So lets examine this - thousands of people sneak into the country illegally everyday. They deside to make an example out of me and create a record for me because my company's HR people didnt bother to check if it was ok for me to start working. My companys HR is blaming the Recruiting agency for not 'transfering the visa from my previous employer'. What? Didnt you check?

The good thing is that my company is paying for all charges that I inccur in NY. Within reason of course. And they are starting the process of getting the visa again.

The bad thing is that I am here while my child and my fiance are in UK. I have not seen them since Dec 29. We bought a house and have someone coming to live there on the 8th. When I was c9oming back to UK on the 3rd, we were going to be preparing the house for that person. Now my fiance has to do everything herself. You better beleive it my company is paying for everything, but how do you put the price on not being able to see your family and being in a foreign country?

So I am in New York now. Working from my company's New York office on Park Avenue. I spoke to the person responcible for clearing this fiasco and they said that it should be mid-week when they should hear back anything about my work permit. After that I should go to the Embassy in New york and get that EC clearance. Fun, eh?

Americans Say Next Bill Gates is Currently Studying Math in Beijing

The next Bill Gates is not going to be American and 12-year-olds should start tutoring congressmen about the Internet according to a poll that 463 Communications and Zogby International will be releasing tomorrow.

The poll is the first Zogby/463 "Internet Attitudes" survey of more than 1,200 American adults. It tells us that only 21 percent of Americans think the next Bill Gates will be born in the U.S.; 83 percent say 12-year-olds know more about the Internet than their congressperson; and, that America has turned into a nation of voyeurs thanks to technology.

Internet vs. Printing Press: We asked people what was a greater invention, the Internet or the printing press? And, while the Web is roughly 550 years younger than that little thing Johannes Gutenberg changed the world with, the Internet still got nearly-one third of the nods. More interestingly, is what demographic groups more heavily favored the Internet.

While whites favored the printing press over the Internet by 69% to 27%, only 57% of African Americans favored the printing press and 41% chose the Internet. Moreover, Hispanics actually favored the Internet 51% to 47% and Asians surveyed also chose the Internet by 85% to 12%. (Note, that since the survey stayed true to national averages, the number of Asian Americans surveyed were not statistically significant. That said, 85 to 12 percent is pretty remarkable and probably deserves some further study).

Also, there is a geographic divide on this issue. Confirming eastern snobbery that Californians don't read books, those in the east favored the Internet the least (29.6 %) and those in the west favored it the most (38.1 percent).

The Birthplace of the Next Bill Gates: Here again, there was a regional divide with the east being more dour and the west being more optimistic. Only 18.1% thought that the next great tech leader would be born in the US. More than 27 percent in the West think we have a shot at the next golden child.

This questioned also created one of the bigger generational divides. Those 18-29 years-old think Japan will be the birthplace (35%) over China (27.3%), the US (14.2%) and India (7.6%).

Yet, those who lived through the great Japan threat of the 1980s felt differently. The saw it China (27.8%) closely followed by the US (26.4%), then Japan (18%), and India (16.4%).

Twelve-Year-Olds More Internet-Savvy than Congresspersons: With a top-line 83% to 10% spread, consistency of results across demographic groups on this question the rule of the day. Still, if a interesting nugget could be found, it's that those who said they attended church services more than once a week gave their congressman the nod 14.6% of the time, while those attend church once or twice a month chose their congressman 8% of the time, and only 2% of those who go to church only on religious holidays picked their local representative in Congress.

Loss of Car vs. Loss of Internet for a Day: Of those surveyed making more than $100,00 a year, 31% said that losing Internet access for a day would be more disruptive to their job than their car not starting. Only 6% of those making less than $35,000 felt the same.

Conservatives were the ideology that could go Internet-free the easiest (7.3%).

Global Internet Access in 2017: Here, 66.1% said the Internet will be accessible in any location on the planet in ten years. 27.3% disagreed. Those will college degrees were the least optimistic. Nearly 37% didn't think there would be global universal access. But, only 18.1% of those with high school degrees agreed. Likewise, self-described progressives were the most dour ideology (41.2% said no) and conservatives the most optimistic (71.3% said yes).

YouTube vs. Evening News: Seventy-percent said they would rather watch the evening news coverage instead of a citizen video report on an event. Though, only one year after YouTube burst onto the scene, fully 25% of those 18-49 years old would chose citizen video. Only 10.3% of those 65 or over agreed.

Advertisers will note that of those who have never shopped at Wal-Mart, only 58.7% chose TV news, while those who go to the super-sized store a few times a month pick Katie Couric over Rocketboom 72.3% of the time.

Self-described progressives picked citizen video 30.4% of the time, while only 18.5% of those calling themselves conservative did.

Voyeur Nation. More than two in three Americans believe what Paris Hilton and Britney Spears already know. Sixty-seven percent agreed that new camera and Internet technologies are turning us into a nation of voyeurs and paparazzis. Still, for some reason, only 59.2% of those living in suburbia agreed, while 75.5% of those living in rural areas were with Paris and Britney. Also, progressives seemed to be the least worried about all those camera phones. Only 51.9% think we're voyeurs. Conservatives disagree, again (by a margin of 71.9% to 17.4%).

Finally. A bonus question for sticking with us here. We didn't mention it on our press release, but we also asked: "Which political party do you think has a better grasp of the Internet and its importance - Democrats or Republicans?"

The results:
Democrats: 29.7%
Republicans: 20%
Neither: 12.4%

Those 18-29 years old chose the Democrats (45.6%) most. Fifteen percent of Republicans agreed.

Independents favored Democrats (21.3% to 13.5%).

Incredible how companies treat technologically savant employees.

These are organizations that have fired, threatened, disciplined, fined or not hired people because of their blogs:

1.) Delta Air Lines
2.) Wells Fargo
3.) Ragen MacKenzie
4.) Starbucks
5.) Microsoft
6.) Friendster
7.) the Houston Chronicle
8.) the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
9.) Nunavut Tourism, (Canada)
10.) Harvard University
11.) Maricopa County Superior Court of Arizona Self Help Center and Library
12.) Mike DeWine, US Senator (R-Ohio)
13.) the Durham Herald-Sun
14.) Kerr-McGee
15.) ESPN (fired someone for making anti-semitic comments in his non-anonymous blog)
Note: I don't agree with Mr. Easterbrook's comments, but technically he was fired for his blog, which is why he made this list.
16.) Apple (according to this blog entry AND this article AND this article)
17.) Statistical Assessment Service (DC nonprofit)
18.) Minnesota Public Radio
19.) The Hartford Courant
20.) the International Olympic Committee (barred athletes from blogging during the Olympics last summer)
21.) Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
22.) the National Basketball Association (NBA)
23.) Kres Chophouse & Lounge, Orlando, FL
24.) Student Advantage / CollegeClub.com
25.) Waterstone's (UK)
26.) USGS (?)--from an anonymous tip
27.) the US Armed Forces
28.) Gap, Inc.
29.) Google
30.) CI Host
31.) Alexander, Holburn, Beaudin & Lang, Vancouver, Canada
32.) Capgemini, Spain
33.) Cottingham & Butler/SISCO
34.) www.BlackStar.co.uk (now www.Sendit.com)
35.) Lancaster University, UK
36.) Gleim Publications (anonymous tip)
37.) US Army Corps of Engineers
38.) Blockbuster
39.) AutoTrader.com
40.) Mobil Travel Guides
41.) Chabad-Lubavitch (Jewish 'evangelical' organization... excommunicated "Shmarya" because of his blog)
42.) Long Island Press
43.) http://www.cartegraph.com/
44.) Kaiser Permanente
45.) STREAM International
46.) Barnes & Noble College Bookstores
47.) State Farm Insurance (anonymous tip)
48.) A*STAR, a Singapore government agency
49.) Delone Catholic High School

The House of Representatives passed a bill from G. Bush JR to redefine the treatment of detainees and US Senate did the same. Buried deep inside this legislation is a provision that will pardon president Bush and all the members of his administration of any possible crimes connected with torture and mistreatment of detainees dated all the way back to Sep 11, 2001. At least President Nixon had Gerald Ford do his dirty work for him. President Bush is trying to pardon himself.

Here is the deal - under the war crimes act, violations of the Geneva Convention are felonies in some cases punishable by death. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Convention applied to Al Quad and the Taliban detainees, President Bush and his boys were suddenly in big trouble. They've been working these prisoners over pretty good. In an effort to avoid possible prosecution, they are trying to cram this bill through Congress before it goes on a break. The reason for this rush to do this is that if Democrats get control of the Congress and the House of Representatives, this kind of legislation will not pass. You want to know the real disgrace of what they are trying to do? Senator Bill Frist and Senator Dennis Hastert and their republican stooges apparently see nothing wrong with this.

The Act has also been denounced by critics who assert that its wording makes possible the permanent detention and torture as defined by the Geneva Conventions of anyone - including American citizens - based solely on the decision of the President. Indeed, the wording of section 948b of the act appears to explicitly contradict the Third Geneva Convention of which the United States is currently a signatory.

Here is the Paragraph that is most disturbing.

Sec. 948b. Military commissions generally

(a) Purpose- This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.

(b) Authority for Military Commissions Under This Chapter- The President is authorized to establish military commissions under this chapter for offenses triable by military commission as provided in this chapter.

(c) Construction of Provisions- The procedures for military commissions set forth in this chapter are based upon the procedures for trial by general courts-martial under chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code of Military Justice). Chapter 47 of this title does not, by its terms, apply to trial by military commission except as specifically provided in this chapter. The judicial construction and application of that chapter are not binding on military commissions established under this chapter.

(d) Inapplicability of Certain Provisions- (1) The following provisions of this title shall not apply to trial by military commission under this chapter:

(A) Section 810 (article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to speedy trial, including any rule of courts-martial relating to speedy trial.

(B) Sections 831(a), (b), and (d) (articles 31(a), (b), and (d) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to compulsory self-incrimination.

(C) Section 832 (article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to pretrial investigation.

(2) Other provisions of chapter 47 of this title shall apply to trial by military commission under this chapter only to the extent provided by this chapter.

(e) Treatment of Rulings and Precedents- The findings, holdings, interpretations, and other precedents of military commissions under this chapter may not be introduced or considered in any hearing, trial, or other proceeding of a court-martial convened under chapter 47 of this title. The findings, holdings, interpretations, and other precedents of military commissions under this chapter may not form the basis of any holding, decision, or other determination of a court-martial convened under that chapter.

(f) Status of Commissions Under Common Article 3- A military commission established under this chapter is a regularly constituted court, affording all the necessary `judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples' for purposes of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.

Furthermore:

No court, justice or a judge shall have the jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever including any action pending on file after Sep 11, 2001.

Basically this states that no one shall have the authority to hear any cases relating to charges made against someone who is deemed an enemy of United States as defined in this bill. And the definition of who the enemy is really for interpretation by George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. That means that anyone can be held as an Unlawful Enemy Combatant without due process or recourse.

With the signing of this bill, George Bush becomes the greatest threat to freedom of all Americans.

I want to talk about an issue. The US Government voted not to raise the minimum wage, which for the last 9 years has been $5.75 per hour. So if you are working 40 hours a week, you are making $200 large ones. They DID, however, vote themselves a pay increase, but they didn’t vote to increace the minimum wage. I believe they were going to raise it to $7.25, so if you were working 40 hours a week, you would be making $280 large ones. Or may be $300 large, I don’t know. I just want to say - GOOD! I'm glad they didn’t do it. Because, you know, the lower strata of American society have had a free ride for too long. And if you were to give them $7.25 per hour, you know it would just go 'in their nose and out their hose'. You know what I'm talking about, don’t you? You don’t want to give them walking around money. So kudos to American government for literally taking a giant shit on poorest people in the country. Cause they deserve it!

FOR THOSE WHO DONT UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS:

Increase in Minimum Wage = Increase Cost of Production = Increase in Price of Good = Zero Increase in Purchasing Power

Increasing the minimum wage affects long term contract producers. Those who are required by contract to produce a good at a pre-determined price. But this effect only happens if the long term contract producers can not predict the increase in minimum wage. Aside from that effect minimum wage is a change in numbers not a change in situation.

The fact that the gap between rich and poor in this country is widening and that the rich tend to hoard their wealth rather than invest it into communities is why we have things like social security, welfare, and federally mandated minimum wages. We could do a lot better by the majority if we eliminated payroll taxes and instituted a national sales tax. This is a fair tax and the wealthy can't dodge it.

Cost of living has increased. Ergo, wages need to increase to match that. No full-time job should pay a wage that sets a reasonably-sized household at the poverty level; anyone who is contributing an honest day's work to society should be getting a quality standard of living in return. The only other solution is to completely eliminate inflation. But thats communism.

http://jim.com/econ/chap19p1.html

This is not a commentary. It is an obituary.

The United States, age 230, passed away yesterday following a short bout of internal complications.

Well, “passed away” isn't quite the term for it. It was murdered – cynically cut down in what should have been its prime; assassinated by fear, slayed by ignorance, silenced by contempt, butchered by congressional cowardice and whacked by a venomous president. Rasputin himself died at the hands of fewer conspirators.

The killing field was, of course, Washington, D.C., and the murder weapon was the Military Commissions Act of 2006 – Enabling Act of 1933, anyone? -- which authorized not a war on terror, but a war of terror – the rape of this erstwhile nation of laws, not men, and directed straight at the forehead of any who oppose the new American regime; directed at those who one man, and one man only, deems properly subject to indefinite incarceration, torture, and extermination.

The Act's wording of “unlawful enemy combatants” defies any definition other than: Whomever the president says is an unlawful enemy combatant. We'll just have to pray that over the next two years George doesn't go back on the bottle and start reading disagreeable newspapers and blogs.

Does writing this qualify me as a U.E.C.? Or any of its publishers? Does this open, expressed outrage at the gang of treasonous criminals at the helm of this mess of a reordered government complicate their lives enough or please our foes enough to land me under the prohibition against aiding foreign enemies and comforting them with material support?

Who knows? Could. Might. Maybe. That would be determined not by statute, not by rules of evidence, not by a jury, not by a judge, not even by the court of public opinion. That would, instead, be determined by one man, in secrecy -- an unsettling, intolerable peskiness to dictatorial tranquility to be whisked away under the cover of night.

And that is no hysterical exaggeration.

Not all in Congress sold out their country. In fact, there were 202 “no” votes cast in both Houses against liquidating the U.S. Constitution. Pat Leahy, for one, solemnly noted its extermination by saying "It is a sad day when the rubber-stamp Congress undercuts our freedoms, assaults our Constitution and lets the terrorists achieve something they could never win on the battlefield." And Russ Feingold, speaking on behalf of the 300 million who apparently don't care, rightly observed that the bill "allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court." Oh well.

The political vilification employed by Bush's enablers and pulled out of their fascistic asses was as over the top as over the top gets. House Sprecher Dennis Hastert -- chief enabler of that marvelously unique strain of totalitarianism: pedophiliac fascism -- disgracefully sputtered that "The Democratic plan would gingerly pamper the terrorists who plan to destroy innocent Americans' lives," and that Democrats had supported "new rights for terrorists" and "put their liberal agenda ahead of the security of America."

House co-conspirator John Böhner helpfully added that "Capitol Hill Democrats have yet to offer any solutions or formulate any serious national security policy on how to keep America safe in a post-9/11 world." The targets of such dishonorable ridicule should have countered that Herr Böhner's deportation would be a start.

In the midst of all this constitutional demolition, der Präsident boiled down all the fussy complexities in his own homey way by asking, “With the distance of history,” the question will be: “Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously?”

Ironic, wasn't it?

The World Health Organization's estimates agree: globally, there are one billion overweight adults, and 300 million of them are obese; in contrast, about 800 million do not have enough to eat. Today obesity is a problem mainly in rich countries, but the WHO estimates that by 2010 the developing world will have more than caught up.

---Oh happy days! We can all relax!---

While President Bush and other Republican politicians spent the day exploiting the memory of those we lost five years ago, the nation overlooked a grim milestone: More Americans have now died in Iraq than died on 9/11. Iraq didn't attack us on that day, and our misguided policy there has now taken more American lives than Al Qaeda.
Here are the numbers: 3,015 Americans have died in Iraq as of September 9.

---2,666 of these were military deaths and 349 were civilians. And I thought the war was getting to the point---