![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yet another mishmash of strange stuff from around the web and the lists. There's enough out here to keep anyone glued to the screen for days on end. And that's before I think about Youtube.
Anyway, in the international world, after a media blackout was broken by the Drudge Report that Prince Harry of the United Kingdom was serving on the front lines in Afghanistan (as befitting his rank, Second Lieutenant), the prince has indicated that he will try to return to Afghanistan to finish his tour of duty. Unlike the current executive of the United States, if Prince Harry wishes to make reference to his military service, he won't have to worry about people digging up that he didn't actually go.
Domestic news has quite a few doozies. We'll start with allegations that a manager waterboarded one of his subordinates as an example for the work ethic he wanted from said subordinates. Well, I guess if it's legal for the military to do things that would be considered torture by sane people, then it's legal for everyone else, too. Are the people in charge of this country sure they want to keep this trend going? Including, if the description of attachment therapy described at A Search For Survivors is accurate, children? Moving onward in domestic news, the White House continues to insist that the economy is not in a recession. Well, if you say it enough times, then people start believing it. Believing that a $300 check will stimulate the economy, however, is incredible.
Child pron found on quite a few computers - but the article is rather unclear about how this was obtained - whether someone was sitting on a P2P network with some kiddy porn and recording IP addresses (a bait) or somehow being able to get past people's firewalls and directly access their computers to look for child porn. If I recall rightly, there were/(are?) backdoors built into versions of Windows for government access or something like it. I'd like to know how they found the stuff, because I prefer not giving someone unfettered access to my computer, even if it is supposedly only a method the government knows about and can use.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bradhicks has more information about the shooting in Kirkwood, and it looks like his first hypothesis was correct - somewhere in there, the shooter was harassed by the government almost nonstop for a period of time, without relief. Whether that was enough to set him off or that the annoyances continued for years afterward, building up rage, either way, the result was pretty clear. Council members got shot.
With regard to the general election in November, Hal Turner has been speculating on how best to kill the Presidential candidates, something he believes would be a good thing. This is definitely something where the Secret Service is investigating, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see a later article about an arrest of Hal Turner.
Senator McCain, now presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, is doing his very best to show himself as religious wingnut-friendly and willing to entertain anti-vaccination theories, which could have a significant public health impact Senator McCain, already with a high unsuitability factor, only builds more reasons not to elect him. Perhaps as an answer to the whole "Is Barack Obama secretly a Muslim?" nonsense, a possible interpretation of the Constitution would make Senator McCain ineligible for the Presidency. So, if there's no women and no McCain, then Barack Obama should be the legitimate major party candidate and run against all the third-party candidates. Wouldn't that be an election to see?
In the research world, scientists are supposed to do their studies and produce accurate results. Of course, when partisanship gets involved, in who is funding the material or who is commissioning the study, being accurate sometimes gets trickier. Researchers at the University of Minnesota had grant funds provided by agricultural companies pulled after their results went against the conclusions their backers wanted. Hurt feelings from research apparently translates to money loss. That's no way to conduct funding of science.
In other science, the article seems a bit light on the mechanics of how it works, but apparently a son's tooth will be implanted into his father's eye, giving the father the opportunity to see again.
In technology, apparently, the bar for what constitutes hacking has been set pretty low. In that particular enterprise, I wouldn't need anything more than my web browser to "hack" that site. It's kind of like locking your door but leaving the key in the lock, and being shocked when someone opens the door while you're there.
The Unabashed Feminism Department has some articles for us to look at. First, the bureau chief,ldragoon offers up her Feminism 101 Reading List, for those looking for some books. Second, ldragoon also delivers an article on something I think I've linked to before, the increasing prevalence of marketing makeup, make-overs, and adult fashion and sexuality to prepubescent children. There's no way that a six year-old needs to look like they just stepped off a runway in Milan. Much less, I wonder whether a six year-old completely understands all the ramifications of dressing like a fashion model. And finally, while lots of people seem interested in equal rights for women, the funding for international programs is pretty dismal, compared to other international and even United Nations programs. There's still lots more to do, atavistic Angry White Men be damned.
I'm beginning to see a pattern in the rhetoricians that say "Iraq is winnable/We're Winning Iraq!/We Must Stay The Course". It's not quite a contradiction, but it causes some dissonance as I try to logically work out the position. As a representative example, Democrats Dug In for Retreat talks about how things are going swimmingly in Iraq, politically, militarily, and that Iraq can be built into a nation that will be democratic, self-sufficient, and peaceful, and that this progress is rapid. That said, this success requires the continued presence of the United States military for an indefinite amount of time, and that if a Democratic president were to send troops home, all of this great progress will collapse. This is a dissonant, if not contradictory, position. If progress in Iraq really is as glamorous as the "winners" want us to believe, then there should be no trouble at all with reducing the number of troops in Iraq and letting the local police and military pick up the slack. If they're really committed to a unified and diverse Iraq, and properly trained to take on the task, then they should be able to shoulder the load. At some point, they will have to. If things aren't that great, though, then I can understand why a continued presence would be necessary - if it really is the United States military that's keeping the place from dissolving into chaos and civil war, a reduction of troops is an invitation for that dissolution to start. So, which is it, "winners"? Are you confident enough in the local troops and politicians that you'll support a drawdown and bringing troops home, or are you willing to admit that after five years of fighting in the country, there has not been sufficient progress, which in turn, might mean that there won't be enough progress and that troops should be withdrawn now before more of them perish in a futile effort? Either way, there should be support for troop withdrawals, but the numbers should be the debate, not whether they happen at all.
Last for this particular entry, 100 tiny tips on improving your mood. Some of which are probably more effective than others, and that don't necessarily carry potentially poor side effects.
Anyway, in the international world, after a media blackout was broken by the Drudge Report that Prince Harry of the United Kingdom was serving on the front lines in Afghanistan (as befitting his rank, Second Lieutenant), the prince has indicated that he will try to return to Afghanistan to finish his tour of duty. Unlike the current executive of the United States, if Prince Harry wishes to make reference to his military service, he won't have to worry about people digging up that he didn't actually go.
Domestic news has quite a few doozies. We'll start with allegations that a manager waterboarded one of his subordinates as an example for the work ethic he wanted from said subordinates. Well, I guess if it's legal for the military to do things that would be considered torture by sane people, then it's legal for everyone else, too. Are the people in charge of this country sure they want to keep this trend going? Including, if the description of attachment therapy described at A Search For Survivors is accurate, children? Moving onward in domestic news, the White House continues to insist that the economy is not in a recession. Well, if you say it enough times, then people start believing it. Believing that a $300 check will stimulate the economy, however, is incredible.
Child pron found on quite a few computers - but the article is rather unclear about how this was obtained - whether someone was sitting on a P2P network with some kiddy porn and recording IP addresses (a bait) or somehow being able to get past people's firewalls and directly access their computers to look for child porn. If I recall rightly, there were/(are?) backdoors built into versions of Windows for government access or something like it. I'd like to know how they found the stuff, because I prefer not giving someone unfettered access to my computer, even if it is supposedly only a method the government knows about and can use.
bradhicks has more information about the shooting in Kirkwood, and it looks like his first hypothesis was correct - somewhere in there, the shooter was harassed by the government almost nonstop for a period of time, without relief. Whether that was enough to set him off or that the annoyances continued for years afterward, building up rage, either way, the result was pretty clear. Council members got shot.With regard to the general election in November, Hal Turner has been speculating on how best to kill the Presidential candidates, something he believes would be a good thing. This is definitely something where the Secret Service is investigating, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see a later article about an arrest of Hal Turner.
Senator McCain, now presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, is doing his very best to show himself as religious wingnut-friendly and willing to entertain anti-vaccination theories, which could have a significant public health impact Senator McCain, already with a high unsuitability factor, only builds more reasons not to elect him. Perhaps as an answer to the whole "Is Barack Obama secretly a Muslim?" nonsense, a possible interpretation of the Constitution would make Senator McCain ineligible for the Presidency. So, if there's no women and no McCain, then Barack Obama should be the legitimate major party candidate and run against all the third-party candidates. Wouldn't that be an election to see?
In the research world, scientists are supposed to do their studies and produce accurate results. Of course, when partisanship gets involved, in who is funding the material or who is commissioning the study, being accurate sometimes gets trickier. Researchers at the University of Minnesota had grant funds provided by agricultural companies pulled after their results went against the conclusions their backers wanted. Hurt feelings from research apparently translates to money loss. That's no way to conduct funding of science.
In other science, the article seems a bit light on the mechanics of how it works, but apparently a son's tooth will be implanted into his father's eye, giving the father the opportunity to see again.
In technology, apparently, the bar for what constitutes hacking has been set pretty low. In that particular enterprise, I wouldn't need anything more than my web browser to "hack" that site. It's kind of like locking your door but leaving the key in the lock, and being shocked when someone opens the door while you're there.
The Unabashed Feminism Department has some articles for us to look at. First, the bureau chief,
ldragoon offers up her Feminism 101 Reading List, for those looking for some books. Second, ldragoon also delivers an article on something I think I've linked to before, the increasing prevalence of marketing makeup, make-overs, and adult fashion and sexuality to prepubescent children. There's no way that a six year-old needs to look like they just stepped off a runway in Milan. Much less, I wonder whether a six year-old completely understands all the ramifications of dressing like a fashion model. And finally, while lots of people seem interested in equal rights for women, the funding for international programs is pretty dismal, compared to other international and even United Nations programs. There's still lots more to do, atavistic Angry White Men be damned.I'm beginning to see a pattern in the rhetoricians that say "Iraq is winnable/We're Winning Iraq!/We Must Stay The Course". It's not quite a contradiction, but it causes some dissonance as I try to logically work out the position. As a representative example, Democrats Dug In for Retreat talks about how things are going swimmingly in Iraq, politically, militarily, and that Iraq can be built into a nation that will be democratic, self-sufficient, and peaceful, and that this progress is rapid. That said, this success requires the continued presence of the United States military for an indefinite amount of time, and that if a Democratic president were to send troops home, all of this great progress will collapse. This is a dissonant, if not contradictory, position. If progress in Iraq really is as glamorous as the "winners" want us to believe, then there should be no trouble at all with reducing the number of troops in Iraq and letting the local police and military pick up the slack. If they're really committed to a unified and diverse Iraq, and properly trained to take on the task, then they should be able to shoulder the load. At some point, they will have to. If things aren't that great, though, then I can understand why a continued presence would be necessary - if it really is the United States military that's keeping the place from dissolving into chaos and civil war, a reduction of troops is an invitation for that dissolution to start. So, which is it, "winners"? Are you confident enough in the local troops and politicians that you'll support a drawdown and bringing troops home, or are you willing to admit that after five years of fighting in the country, there has not been sufficient progress, which in turn, might mean that there won't be enough progress and that troops should be withdrawn now before more of them perish in a futile effort? Either way, there should be support for troop withdrawals, but the numbers should be the debate, not whether they happen at all.
Last for this particular entry, 100 tiny tips on improving your mood. Some of which are probably more effective than others, and that don't necessarily carry potentially poor side effects.
