Monsanto Doesn't Need Protection. They Need a Boot to the Ass.

(UPDATE: Apparently, this entire thing is false. My statements about Monsanto still stand.)

Salon is reporting on how Monsanto successfully, and anonymously no less, managed to sneak a provision into Agriculture Appropriations Bill — basically the budget for federal spending on farms. This provision does precisely what you would expect a massive, evil corporation would want a provision to do: protect them from fallout caused by their own chicanery. In this case, the little provision is about preventing lawsuits regarding injury caused by GM seeds.

Now, first things first, I am not an enemy of genetically modified food-stuffs. I have almost no doubts about their safeness for human consumption, so this Monsanto Protection Act would likely never be used.¹

The much more dangerous possibility, and the one for which I am leery of GMO anything, is ecological damage. While we can test foods on humans, we cannot test organisms on nature. The consequences of a super-plant, which is precisely what GM companies intends to make, when thrown into nature has a much higher probability of being damaging.

Moreover, I am also a hard-core anti-Monsanto fanatic, so potential application or not, I want to stop Monsanto from doing just about anything. There are few corporations that are as demonstrably evil as Monsanto. They are an appalling corporation run by appalling people. We should not be protecting them; we should be dismantling them.

As Salon notes,

“It sets a terrible precedent,” noted the International Business Times. “Though it will only remain in effect for six months until the government finds another way to fund its operations, the message it sends is that corporations can get around consumer safety protections if they get Congress on their side. Furthermore, it sets a precedent that suggests that court challenges are a privilege, not a right.”

It’s a terrible precedent that Monsanto will work to ensure becomes as solid as possible.

----------------------------------------------------

1: There have been a few scary studies, such as a well-reported one last year involving rats developing tumors. That said, the majority of studies show no issues. That’s not to say there aren’t issues. Indeed, I wouldn't be much surprised if there were, but as it stands, with today’s data, they seem safe. Pesticides are another thing.

Who Is The Bilderberg Group? Who Cares?

You can find out who the Bilderberg Group is via its Wikipedia entry, suffice it to say, it's a small, secret meeting of big, important people to discuss things. Lord knows what gets talked about, probably nothing. What I find interesting about the group is how much attention it attracts, especially from the fringe groups.

Back in the day, and by "the day," I mean 1996-1997, I was big into conspiracy theories. I never believed in aliens (I always thought that was stupid), but things like secret governments, the Illuminati, the Philadelphia experiment, and any number of other crackpot ideas were fair game... Don't look at me like that. Like you didn't have some stupid ideas back in high school.

What I think lies at the heart of conspiracy theory appeal is that the conspiracy exists. At attributes an almost gnostic like aspect to reality, and that we can see through to the hidden but still mechanistic and predictable truth. It's both exciting (the secret knowledge) and comforting (that the knowledge is there to be had at all).

Think, what's scarier? That there is a huge secret government ruling the world and choosing things for its own benefit, or that bad shit really does happen at random. The US government planned 9/11, or that certifiable wack-jobs can actually muster the power to do great damage? That this government will never let things get too bad, or that we really, truly did come within a hair's breadth of the end of the world during the Cuban Missle Crisis?

A world that conspires against you is better than a world with no mind at all, it seems.

Magic Jack

I really have to wonder how long Magic Jack is going to be around.

For those who haven't seen the omnipresent ads on TV, Magic Jack is this USB dongle that you pop into your internet-connected computer, and then plug your ordinary telephone into that dongle (dongle is a funny word). Your phone then acts as it normally would, and the whole deal costs you $40 for the dongle, then $20 per year.

How can they possibly charge only $20 per year for nationwide coverage? Simple. It's a scam! Not for the consumer, mind you, instead it scams the telephone companies themselves. It's a regulatory arbitrage scam. Long story short, back when the feds broke up AT&T in the early 1980's, they ended up with a number of very small local carriers located in lightly-populated, rural areas. These carriers argued (the truth of their argument is an entirely different argument) that they could never be profitable by themselves, so the government included a subsidy for them.

Here's how it works. Carriers aren't allowed to pick and choose to whom they will connect. If I am using Verizon in Boston and make a call to Washington, they are legally required to connect the call to Qwest. Qwest is legally required to accept the call. The major carriers suffer a great number of charges associated with these connections, but since they have such large populations, and each network is suffering equally, the numbers sort of equal out.

The small rural carriers, on the other hand, while still not allowed to pick and choose connections, are allowed to charge termination fees. Essentially, if I use Verizon to call some rural network in Nowhere, Wyoming, the phone company there charges Verizon a lot of money to complete the call. Verizon is legally obligated to pay these fees. Likewise, if those rural networks make a call, Verizon must connect the call and, again, pay the rural carrier money.

Magic Jack exploits this ridiculous, bureaucratic train wreck by having all of the calls you make beam across the internet to Magic Jack HQ, which has a deal with one of these rural carriers (known as CLECs). Your call is then rerouted through this rural carrier to wherever you're making the call. They incur long-distance fees to make these connections, but the termination fees that they're allowed to charge the telephone companies are so absurdly high that they cover all of the long distance and still allow for profit. This is a business model that exists purely because of stupid government fiddling. If we get rid of the subsidy, Magic Jack would disappear in less than a day.

P.S.

In case you needed further proof that Magic Jack is run by scumbags, they offer no contact info on their home page. Their "parent" company, YMAX, which plays the role of the CLEC, is based out of a P.O. Box.

Can A Phone Service Provider Block Calls To Numbers It Doesn't Like? (TechDirt) Read the comments. The inventor of MagicJack weighs in.

To Filibuster or Not To Filibuster

The democrats are trying to change the legislative rules associated with filibuster. Their argument is that the government is broken and drastic measures are necessary. I agree with that, but I'm unsure as to whether I want any legislative changes. Our current system is stagnant, but when our country is packed with such perfect morons as those in, say, Mississippi, I prefer having a government that can't do anything. It's desirable.

The other options is fixing what's wrong with our government. This is a non-option. It's not going to happen. Again, we have morons electing morons. We cannot stop that. There is no way to fix the rift, so we simply compensate for it by preventing the government from doing anything substantive. Yes. It will be bankrupt in twenty years, and we'll deal with it then. There is no way to motivate this country to fix it until we're actually on fire. So don't worry, be happy, and let the government do its thing.

Macchiavelli Was Right

The events of the past few years has had a strong if gradual effect on my political, economic, and moral opinions. I started off this century quite conservative, I guess it's a side effect of being intelligent, young, and living in a well-off area. But I finished the first decade having experienced a huge shift to the left. The core of my political leanings are inherently conservative and I think that anyone who doesn't have that is an idiot, but my belief in ideals has grown. Is our country currently capable of complete medical coverage for its population? Perhaps, perhaps not. Should making it so be a social imperative? Most certainly.

But the two-fold election of George Bush and the economic crash have sent me reeling. George Bush was a terrible president, his staff were self-serving people (at best fools, at worst evil), and yet people elected him twice. People continue to rack up credit card debt while happily becoming indebted to corporations that try very hard to fuck them. I live for my ideals, because what other reason to life is there, but the realities of life in a world of blithering idiots can't be ignored.

I don't mean to absolve myself of idiocy. I am very idiotic about many things. They are things about which I think I am knowledgeable but am not. It's one of the reasons why the dialectic is so important to me. That clash is the only thing that reveals me to be an idiot, and revealing areas of idiocy are the goal of any truly inquiring mind.

The extreme idiots that populate the world aren't of that nature, though. They are ignorant and willfully happy about it. They do not desire to discover where they are wrong because they aren't wrong. They're right, dammit. They watch Glen Beck, roil themselves up with self-righteousness, and then take to the streets and scream and holler about it to anyone who will listen. I have been randomly taken up in conversation about the conspiracy that is global warming THREE TIMES. I wasn't doing anything else but walking.

I have since taken a sort of Machiavellian approach to life. This is actually a new thing. It's an exhaustion, really. I've given up. I can't care, not any more. If banks are out to fuck us, let them. If the government is out to fuck us, let them. My goal, now being aware of that dynamic, is to avoid being fucked and try as hard as I can to throw other people in front of the train. It's not really a pessimistic position, nor is it realistic. It's a deferred idealistic position. I'll have ideals when I think that they'll actually do something. Currently, ideals have no place on the national scale. Hell, ideals on a local scale are even on life support.

Government With Purpose

It's difficult to decide what should and shouldn't be taxed. There are tons of arguments out there saying that taxing inheritances is fine, taxing alcohol is not, estate taxes are death taxes, etc.

I propose a purpose-oriented perspective on taxes. Basically, a tax must be predicated on the relationship that whatever is being taxed has with the point of the tax. For example, people argue that cigarettes should be taxed since smokers cost more medically to society. This argument would be fine if 100% of the taxes went towards medical ends. That's not the case at all. Truly, 100% of the revenue goes to general funds and is spent on things ranging from roadways to generous severance packages for government employees.

For example, 100% of the costs associated with roadwork should be shouldered by tolls and automobile taxes. This has the added benefit of letting people know, on a personal level, how much of their tax money is going to what areas of the government. It forces absolute clarity onto the clusterfuck that is taxation.

But what about things for which there is no taxable representation in society? What about schools, or firefighters? Frankly, I think income and property taxes cover this just fine. Income means money, and money requires a stable governmental system in which to spend it. Income taxes are literally paying for the system that allow the money to exist in the first place. I consider that a fair trade. This same argument applies to sales taxes.

Property taxes pay for police and firefighters. For example, what good are fire fighters if there is nothing to put out? Firefighters need houses, as such, owning a house pays for the work. I've got some problems with property taxes based on how nice your house is, but the size of your house could matter. Regardless, I consider property taxes based on value to be a progressive tax that amounts to robbery. Theoretically, if you mow your lawn regularly, you will end up with higher taxes.

If no good reason can be found for taxing something, the tax must be eliminated. If the money is truly needed for the government to function, the tax must be moved elsewhere so people know what money is being spent where.

Schools are difficult. We cannot put the burden on only the parents, or school becomes unaffordable. An uneducated society is unbearable harmful to everyone alive now and to be alive later. There are many ways I could rationalize education to fit with my general logic, but I think it's sufficed to say that education is undeniably a public good. An educated populace is what has allowed us to reach the heights we have reached and it must be furthered.

Socialism.

I live in Rhode Island. 180,000 people are on Medicaid, here, and another 180,000 are on Medicare. 360,000. That's over one-third of our entire population.

Governor Carcieri, a few years ago, argued against Harrah's building a casino on Native American land saying that Rhode Island didn't need a casino and that a casino would be "a bad deal for Rhode Island."

Unfortunately, we have two casinos. An ex dog-racing track and an ex-jai alai center. Twin River is getting rid of the dog racing, which loses money, and Newport Grand hasn't had jai alai in years. They're effectively giant rooms filled with video slots and card games. The only thing they don't have are table games. Oh, and behind income tax and property tax, these casinos that don't exist are the biggest source of revenue for the state. As with government run health care, just because politicians say it doesn't exist, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I am a conservative. Sort of. This all connects, I promise. I am also a liberal. Sort of. Strangely enough, I am far from a moderate. In fact, I'm pretty darn radical in many of my views. The problem is, anyone who really thinks about the issues and tries to access as much objective data as they can about any given subject would invariably find it hard to slot themselves neatly into any particular political ideology.

Unfortunately, most of those involved in politics are there for the same reasons people join religions, support Africa, and eat organic food: irrational dogma. It's one of the reasons why I think that, even though politics is held up as some incredibly important thing, it's remarkably unimportant. The system as a whole operates more or less just as well regardless of whatever government is doing. Politics is entertainment for self-important people. The only time politics becomes important is when it deals with freedom. That's the conservative side of me coming out, because in that freedom is free markets. But "conservatives" also support lots of spending on the military, which I think is retarded.

The more liberal side of me, though, recognizes that, while on a systemic level government actions has little effect on fuck-all, on a personal level, government actions can have a great effect. Because here, this is more like the group getting together to assess and deal with specific problems. For example, if the government had not so royally screwed the pooch, Hurricane Katrina is a great example of a government spending lots of taxpayer money to take care of its people.

Another great example is the town of Treese, Kansas. Its sister town Picher, Oklahoma, which is right over the border, was one of the Superfund sites that was basically shut down. A conservative viewpoint is that those living there benefited from the mining and development, so the fact that the land is no 100% fucked shouldn't concern us. They made their own bed, so they can now sleep in it.

But that's not what happened. The EPA, in a rare step, "bought out" and moved the entire remaining population of Picher, which was about 1,800. They then began the cleanup process to remove the epic amount of crap in the ground and water. Unfortunately for Treese, they live just over the border in another state, so they received no buyout. They've been sitting there, waiting. I suspect that the buyout will eventually come, but what's funny is who supports the Treese buyout: Pat Roberts.

Yes, the same hyper-conservative who voted with his party 92% of the time. Who says torture is not so bad. Who voted against TARP. Oh yes, government spending is bad... unless it's for his constituents.

This especially funny since the EPA ran out of Superfund money back in 2003, when Roberts' golden boy, George W. Bush refused to reauthorize the tax. And it's even FUNNIER since Roberts was part of the reason the Superfund laws were not reinstated to begin with after they expired in 1995, much to that evil Bill Clinton's chagrin, who wanted to keep them going. Conservatives believe in sleeping the bed you make. Well, Roberts has been laying down linens for some time. I think it's about time he sleeps in it.

Unfortunately, that would be politics. Government works best when politics are left out, and as such the town should be moved. Hell, pass a bill specifically for it. Government spending can help sometimes. It helps with medicine. And it helps with a dead town, filled with sad people.

More Anguish.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is all up in arms about a photo of a dying marine that was published by the AP, gasp, even after the family asked the photo not be published.

First off, two things. Whether the family wants news published or not is of no importance. He was a soldier representing the entire country, not just one family.

Second off, this smacks of the same garbage about which the government complained during the vietnam war. That publishing photos of war, and blood, and dying soldiers helped those damned commies. This isn't new behavior from our "free" government, either. Freedom of press and speech is absolute. News is news is news. Facts can, should, and must be disseminated. I'm also not the only one to make the Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan connection.

The government has always been desperate to hide images of war from the masses. As though some mass delusion about war being not so bad will allow them to continue willy-nilly sending soldiers off to die in far-flung hell holes. Just keep the American populace ignorant of the real damage. American consumerism will take care of the rest (note: I love American consumerism, but it can be used as a tool).

Gates “was greatly disappointed they had not done the right thing." BAH! The right thing. He wouldn't know the right thing if it bit him in the face. He's a an ex-CIA, Air Force, and National Security Councel. They have never cared about what is right. They care about minding America's interests and keeping us safe. A noble goal? Perhaps. I think it is. But has nothing to do with what is right. He started work at the CIA in 1966, left in 1974, then came back in 1979. Let's see, during that time the CIA did... too many bad things to list. And what about now? Secret prisons? Black helicopters? Ringing any bells?

Gates' life has never, ever been about doing what's right. And the fact that he would be presumptuous enough to talk about right and wrong is not just infuriating, it's fucking disgusting. He should just crawl into a cave and die.

Robert Gates protests AP decision as 'appalling' (Politco.com)
Censorship in Iraq (Rethink-dispatches.com)
Point and Shoot: How the Abu Ghraib images redefine photography (TheAmericanScholar.com)

Chestnuts Roasting Over a Mushroom Cloud

I've made a reversal of opinion, recently. I am now all for a major expansion of nuclear power. I originally had worries about the waste, as most people do, but I'm now of the mind that the waste is a small and manageable price to pay for the benefits of nuclear power. I also think that the chance of a nuclear meltdown is so small as to be without concern.

Think about it. No other form of power generation is as efficient, results in as little waste, and can meet our needs. Obviously, forty years down the line, the threat of meltdown might be real, but we simply need to fit that into our regulations. Our government is pretty incompetent, but I would think that the threat of nuclear winter would be enough impetus for them to draft a quality bill.

Moreover, our overall power infrastructure is in dire need of repair, and we may as well integrate that into an overarching redesign of our entire power system. But if we could involve the nuclear companies, and give them the green light to build as many plants as they want as long as they help pay for the required overhaul of the transmission lines, the viability of the plan becomes undeniable.

I'm not saying that other forms of power should be ignored. I love wind power and solar, but they both have serious cost considerations and are intermittent. Tidal and geothermal are excellent sources of continual power, but their reach is limited to those near the water or thermal vents. For those there, excellent. For those not, what, tough shit?

Coal and natural gas power is untenable. Coal sucks in every way it can suck, and natural gas, while cleaner, still pollutes and is a limited resource. Nuclear power combined with wind, solar, and tidal is basically limitless.