How to breed a terrorist

I was listening to Hail to the Thief again over the last week. A song I had previously passed over caught my ear, and then I listened to it several times in succession. "I Will" written by Thom Yorke. I will include a link at the end.

I'll let his explanation of the song craft the impact it's had on me (source):

The main inspiration for the song seems to be an incident from the first Gulf War. On February 13, 1991 the US military bombed the Amiriyah bomb shelter, at the time a refuge for over 400 people, nearly all women and children. All of them were killed by two precisely directed bombs, resulting in horrific imprints on the walls. When Thom heard about it, the event deeply disturbed him.

Thom: "I had an extremely unhealthy obsession, that ran through the Kid A thing, about the first Gulf War. When they started it up they did that lovely thing of putting the camera on the end of the missile, and you got to see the wonders of modern military technology blow up this bunker. And then sometime afterwards in the back pages it was announced that that bunker was not full of weapons at all, but women and children. And it was actually a bomb shelter. And so everybody...we all got to witness the wonders of modern technology. And it ran through so much stuff for so long for me. I just could not get it out of my head. It was so sick. And so that's where the anger comes from." (XFM interview, spring 2003)

"As a song it's sort of like a love song, but it's also sort of the angriest thing I've ever written as well. That sort of anger, that you can't even begin to express. This thing about 'you can do anything you want to me, but if you come after my family I will kill you.' You know, that sort of thing, which everyone has in them, I think." (official Hail to the Thief interview CD, April 2003)

It is one the artist's jobs to inform the world of their hypocrisies.

I have no doubt that many husbands and sons became bitter and total enemies of the US that day.

"I Will" by Radiohead [youtube]

FreeRice

www.freerice.com

How does the FreeRice vocabulary program work?

FreeRice has a custom database containing thousands of words at varying degrees of difficulty. There are words appropriate for people just learning English and words that will challenge the most scholarly professors. In between are thousands of words for students, business people, homemakers, doctors, truck drivers, retired people… everyone!

FreeRice automatically adjusts to your level of vocabulary. It starts by giving you words at different levels of difficulty and then, based on how you do, assigns you an approximate starting level. You then determine a more exact level for yourself as you play. When you get a word wrong, you go to an easier level. When you get three words in a row right, you go to a harder level. This one-to-three ratio is best for keeping you at the “outer fringe” of your vocabulary, where learning can take place.

There are 50 levels in all, but it is rare for people to get above level 48.

TOMS Shoes

This is good.

http://www.tomsshoes.com/

Made in China

This was not written by me, but I find it very insightful and relevant to our current economies. I stole it from here:

What you free trade types eternally fail to grasp is that people aren't nice, don't always play by the same rules, and frequently use their economies to damage each other. To me, it seems like you have a rose-colored world view that is simply not borne out by history and current events. Yes, competition is good, it keeps companies on their toes, and certainly excessive protectionism has negative consequences in that regard. No argument from me there. But you have to understand, the converse also has negative effects. That's especially true when dealing with a culture and economy such as China, which doesn't have the slightest conception of Western business ethic, and sees nothing wrong with eliminating the competition by any means whatsoever. Very efficient from their perspective, downright disastrous for us.

I have news for you: raw industrial efficiency is not the only measure of a successful economy. How a nation's economy provides for its people, long term, is an equally important metric. I would say, a far more important one. Throwing away domestic manufacturing in favor of cheap imports from inimical foreign powers is not a good way to serve the needs of your people. In fact, free trade, so far as the United States is concerned, is doing exactly the opposite. We are transferring massive amounts of money to China in exchange for cheap imports, while simultaneously losing the ability to provide for ourselves. What good are these customers of whom you speak, when there are no longer any American producers of those products? Explain to me how this is good, how it grows our economy?

The original poster in this thread was correct: if you have any sense of self-preservation whatsoever you protect your key industries. If you don't, and someone takes them away from you (as is happening with virtually every manufacturing sector in the United States today) you are vulnerable at every level. I'm not saying that means exclude all foreign competition, but it does mean that you make damn sure that foreign competition isn't allowed to operate in a predatory manner. Unfortunately for us, our government and corporate leaders sold us out for a song. Now, I don't know exactly what's going to happen over the next few years, but if what I read about American manufacturing being down to 1950's levels is even close to being true, we are in deep shit.

This is not a joke, this is not some philosophical issue with no real-world effects: when a major economy falls people get hurt. Ours is heading for a fall of Biblical proportions, and it's you Free Traders that will bear a significant responsibility for that event.

Microwave water plants

http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave/plants.asp
http://www.eclecticscience.net/experiments/001-microwave-plants/summary.html

Some (amateur, but with good method) studies debunking the toxic microwaved water myth.

Laws that are dumb

I've recently been considering why I have such an animosity towards police, and I think at the core it's that some of the laws they are obligated (and in some cases choose) to uphold are illogical:

Speeding
I am going to go 10 over the posted limit at almost all times. The only exception is in construction zones where I *always* go to posted limit, because there is alot more at stake. I once got a ticket for going 11 over that limit. I was not endangering anyone, but they deemed me a threat anyway.

Red Light Cameras
...should not exist. They can't look at a multi-faceted traffic situation and make a judgment based on any number of extraneous factors. Road condition (ice, water, snow, dry), hazard avoidance, sunlight, traffic light placement, other vehicles. If I am following a slowly accelerating cement truck at five to ten feet my field of view is obscured and I can't see the light that the cement truck just ran, and of course I end up following him into it. Traveling 34 km/hr.

And at the core of it, the population should never be fined by a machine. Don't ever give up your rights to machines, it's a very dangerous precedent.

Photo Radar
...is unfair: If a dude driving his $80,000 truck goes through a trap at 30 over, he laughs at the $350 ticket and pays it out of his $200,000 a year salary. No consequence for that individual. He does not receive demerits. He *will* speed again, and he doesn't really care either way.

If a single mom with her only child in the backseat goes through a speed trap, and gets that same $350 ticket, it has a serious impact on her continued financial situation. Likely she needs to borrow the money to pay the ticket, and the problems cascade. This indirectly affects the child's life. No demerits, but she probably would have preferred them.

If photo radar needs to exist, then it should be on a demerit only ticketing system, or perhaps a nominal flat-rate fee to pay the operator of the trap. The only time that fines should be imposed is in a normal radar trap situation.

Bicycling on the sidewalk
I know it's only a bylaw, but it's a stupid one. Yes, pedestrians should still have the right of way, but bikes *should be on the sidewalk*. Until we develop an infrastructure to properly support bicycle traffic, they *should not be driving on the roads*. It's dangerous and bad for society when some poor shmuck gets his head bashed in by the mirror on some dudes hummer.

Jaywalking
... what are we, 3 year olds?

Rant off.

Biking in the city.

For those of you who have been to the Netherlands, they have a fantastic system of bike pathways. It is truly brilliant. Every major route has off to the side double wide sidewalks for biking.

Switch to Canada (and the US). *Very* high number of bicycle and car accidents every year. Very little support from municipal gov'ts to make ubiquitous bike paths a reality. Laws that forbid bicycles from riding on pedestrian sidewalks.

Now disregarding the fact that riding a bike in -20 Celcius is generally very cold, it seems to me that despite the great environmental impact that riding a bike (instead of driving) can have, at the end of the day it's an activity that Canadians won't be taking up in droves any time soon. It's too bad. It would also help out healthcare system with a population that is increasing it's exercise regimens.