Ignorance is Dissed Vol. 1

From an Economist article detailing the crumbling American infrastructure:

If America does not act, says Robert Yaro of the Regional Plan Association (RPA), a body that plans for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut region, it will have the infrastructure of a third-world country within a few decades. Economic growth will be constricted, and the quality of life will be diminished.

(italics mine, for emphasis)

I bet you didn't know that. I for fuck sure didn't.

The rest of the article teeters between nyah-nyah British alarmism over the hypothetical American infrastructure collapse and a startlingly honest take on a country that must now deal with the fallout of its second major natural disaster in three years (only this time around white people will have to care, because their pocketbooks will be affected). We're a country that builds to bridges to nowhere in Alaska while bridges in Minnesota collapse.

This is just the kind of story that I feel like isn't getting any run in American media, either print or otherwise. It's really a shame. Though, to the credit of American journalism, the San Diego local morning news today was running a story on the North Pole ice melting just today. So I guess that's something.

I can haz Internet memes?

This probably falls somewhat outside of the guidelines of this blog, but an interesting Internet project is now underway. It aims to categorize all the different memes that sprung up from were disseminated by the Internet. As you can see, it includes everything from "all your base are belong to us" to "badger badger badger" to LOLCats to Rick Rolling. And, oh yeah, it also has all the links to videos of the same.

It's a great time waster (I spent around 5 hours on it yesterday) and, best of all, you can contribute by inserting your own memes!

Posting on more serious topics will resume soon.

climate change's first victim - santa claus

according to britain's the independent, there's a 50/50 chance there will be no ice at the north pole this summer. say what you will about all the other problems in the world right now, this is the scariest one of all. this kind of heating gets exponentially worse as white, light-reflective ice turns into dark, light-collecting water. we're all gonna die.

last year, it was bad enough that the mythical northwest passage, which eluded european explorers for centuries, actually opened up and became navigable.

oh, and there's one other thing:

If [the melt] happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice above.

are you ready to go to war with russia? you'd better be. they want the oil down there as much as we do, and they're planting flags down there all neil armstrong-like to prove it. imperialistic, no?

So What You're Saying is, I have a Shot

If you needed further, proof, here it is. There is a God.

Lara Logan likes to fuck.

She apparently likes to fuck married dudes while she herself is married.

Though, according to wikipedia, she's going through a divorce right now.

I posted her video last week. Click here to see this woman in all her glory.

Not only is she amazing, but she's apparently down to get her nut, even in a war zone.

I might actually enlist if it means I have a shot with her.

Like seriously where do I sign up to do whatever it takes to win Lara Logan's affections? At the very least, can I figure out where to go to offer this woman some young love?

No. Seriously. I want her. Where do I sign up. Obviously she's a strong, forward-thinking woman who knows her shit on all the issues and isn't shy about getting hers. I think we'd hit it off.

Lara Logan is a goddess. That's the point of this blog.

Can I get a poster of her? Can it be this?



So hot.

I do say, I find this Scalia fellow to be most peculiar

So the Supreme Court overturned D.C.'s handgun ban, and Justice Scalia took enough time away from his hobby of inventing bullshit semantic justifications for torture to write the majority opinion. From the AP:

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

Oh my fucking Lord, one of the most senior Supreme Court Justices is John Saxon in "Mitchell":

Sure, a gun in your house is 40 times more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. But you know what, that's okay. Some people love their guns and are willing to risk their lives like that. Some of them even think that private gun ownership is necessary to prevent the U.S. from turning into a police state. They have the right to bear arms and it would be wrong to violate constitutional rights, even if it protects people from potential harm or death. Isn't that right, Justice Scalia from two weeks ago?

"It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed... The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today."

Oh. Well that almost seems kind of, sort of inconsistent. Actually, a lot of conservatives were pretty pissed off about the habeas corpus decision: Scalia, McCain, reliably douche-y political cartoonist Michael Ramirez:

"Habeas Corpses." That's the kind of clever wordplay that wins you the Pulitzer. Twice. I'm not kidding.

So tell me what I'm missing here. Putting Americans' lives in danger in order to uphold the right to own something 40 times more likely to hurt you than help you, and also maybe prevent the U.S. from turning into a police state, but that seems a little specious to me = good. Putting Americans' lives in danger in order to uphold the right to keep the government from throwing you in prison indefinitely without charging you with a crime, which kind of sounds like a police state to me = bad. I don't get it. It's illogical. In fact, I'm going to make a political cartoon about it right now.

Pulitzer Prize, please!

putting the 'peak' in peak oil

the saudis pulled together a quick meeting about the oil problems in the world, and have produced marginal results. from the ny times:

The Saudis, who considered the meeting a success because of the high attendance, announced a production increase of 200,000 barrels a day and an expansion of their output capacity if needed in coming years.

But news of the immediate production increase had already been absorbed by the world market for oil. Some experts had anticipated that the Saudis might announce a bigger increase.

dude, we know you don't have as much as you're pretending. stop grandstanding, monarchs. you're gonna be irrelevant as hell in 20 years. you know how i know? oil STILL GOT MORE EXPENSIVE TODAY:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil prices surged nearly 4 percent to a record over $140 a barrel on Thursday after Libya said it was studying possible options to cut output in response to potential U.S. actions against producer countries.

U.S. crude settled up $5.09 at $139.64 a barrel, after hitting an all-time high of $140.39 earlier, eclipsing the previous record of $139.89 a barrel hit on June 16. London Brent crude settled up $5.50 at $139.83 a barrel.

nothing's more tragically amusing to me these days than petty dictatorships trying to flex their petro-nuts.

Notes from the Right-Wing: Buttclowns in Silly Black Dresses Get It Wrong Again

I'm Joeverkill, and this is Notes from the Right-Wing.

Those clowns in black dresses on the Supreme Court have done it again. In a 5-3 decision, the Court decided to cut Exxon-Mobil some slack. Why? Beats me. From the AP:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday slashed the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million, a decision that could have broader implications for limiting how much courts can order businesses to pay....
Justice David Souter wrote for the court that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, $507.5 million, an amount equal to about four days worth of Exxon Mobil Corp.'s profits last quarter.

Are you kidding me?

By passing this judgment, the court has overstepped their bounds and imposed a punitive damages limit on every case litigated in American courts from now onward. As Justice Ginsberg stated, "The new law made by the court should have been left to Congress."

What effect will this ruling have? Suppose a company -- let's say DHL, for example -- decides to save some dollars by hiring multi-count violent convicts as delivery men. Let's say one of these guys delivers your package four hours late on a Friday, and then decides to rape and murder your wife, mutilate your kids, and cut off all of your limbs. DHL loses the case in court because they're obviously negligent in this situation. Damages come out to about a million dollars, including medical bills and lost wages. (Not very much, but the accountants double-check the math and that's what it comes out to). And yay! the court awards the maximum punitive award possible, which is another one million dollars. Maybe you're happy with two million dollars. Probably not. But I tell you who is happy: DHL. Two million dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to what they make in a day, and in fact it turns out they saved about a hundred million by hiring all those convicts. So their stockholders open up some champagne as your mutilated children take you home and help you eat through a straw for the rest of your life.

Limiting punitive damages hurts smaller businesses and helps larger businesses. Corporations with deep pockets can now afford to be negligent, and that is terrifying.

Moreover, the Court's ruling is discriminatory. Assume, for example, two separate cases: one in which an poisoned can of Coke kills a Red Cross worker, and one in which a can of Pepsi kills Alex Rodriguez, the best shortstop in baseball. Alex Rodriguez's wife brings a lawsuit against Pepsi, the damages are assessed at about 400 million dollars (including lost wages at about $24 million per year over about 6 more years, plus endorsement deals, etc.). The Red Cross worker's wife brings a lawsuit against Coke and the damages are assessed at about $400,000 (including the guy's $12,000/year salary and the cost of a therapist for his wife). So the Red Cross worker's wife gets a maximum of $800,000. Alex Rodriguez's wife, who is already a multimillionairess, gets a maximum of about $800,000,000.

So why should Alex Rodriguez's wife get one hundred times as much money for an identical lawsuit? Moreover, why should Pepsi get away with paying 1/100th of what Coke paid?

It makes no sense. Setting firm limits on punitive damages in relation to compensatory damages is completely unjust and illogical. How about we let the judges and juries decide how plaintiffs get? What doesn't make sense about that?

I'm Joeverkill, and this has been Notes from the Right-Wing.