TheKey Chronicle

$6 back issues!

Ballpoint Adventures mega-T
THE INKSTREME BALLPOINT
ADVENTURES

Sunday, August 31, 2003

REPUBLICAN VOTING MACHINE COMPANY HEAD WANTS TO HELP BUSH WIN IN 2004

Well, now, this is just the kind of thing that drives a guy crazy. There are all these things that are illegal going on all over the place every day, right in front of our faces, yet, we let them go. We don't get upset. It makes no sense. Whether it's the 2000 election that was not a proper election in any sense of the phrase, or the preemptive Iraq Attack that put the US in violation of the UN Charter - an act that makes the United States a criminal. Here's something else to add to the "crime in plain sight" category.

Walden O'Dell, the CEO of Diebold Inc., a company that is hoping to selling new electronic voting machines to the state of Ohio, has said in a fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

Well, he'd certainly be in the position to do that, would he?

Now, you might argue that the guy has a right to his political opinions. And that's understandable. However, judges, politicians and others in positions of power are expected to step down or resign if they are percieved to have what is a called a "conflict of interest". O'Dell is involved with raising money for the Republican party.

He should not be allowed to turn around and manufacture or even distribute voting machines of any kind electric or not. This is a clear conflict of interest.

But shouldn't we trust him to be an honest, level-headed guy, interested in American values of fairness in the next Presidential election?

HE'S ALREADY SAID THAT HE ISN'T INTERESTED IN THAT.

Here's his quote again: He said he is "he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

What more proof do you need that this guy is not interested in helping America vote for her next President?

Read Cleveland.Com's coverage of this story.


MEDALLION (2003)

The MedallionEntertaining? Sure - I'm sure I would have liked it more if I were 12.
Technically any good? Simple, cardboard, cutout characters and gags that don't fire up the viewers any more than they seemed to be firing up Jackie Chan.
How did I feel as the credits rolled? Saddenned. Chan deserves better scripts than this. Even his sillier other movies are more entertaining than this one. Forlani's cuteness and a few rare fun/funny moments are the infrequent highlights...
Final Rating? DNS (Rent Operation Condor instead!)

Thursday, August 28, 2003

More updates, soon!

Sorry, I've been swamped since I got back from my bro's wedding and will stay swamped until next week. I hope to sneak in an update or two along the way. Please check out the NewsBlog archives if you're looking for some interesting stuff to read! I'll be posting more Otis and Ballpoint soon. Otis is waiting for me to buy more tech pens and Ballpoint Adventures is languishing in my sketch book because I can't get my scanner to work on my XP box. All in time!! Lataz, folkses!

OH yeah and I did just do this at Googlism.com:

thepete is back in studio
thepete is going to save time and self

I don't know what it means, it's just what came out...

Wednesday, August 27, 2003

SCHWARZENEGER: POT SMOKER, GANG BANGER? YEP!

Well, at one time anyway. Sure, the comments he made to Oui magazine in 1977 shouldn't have much or anything to do with his candidacy for governor in California... but then again, maybe they should, just a little...

Here's why: In recent years when major public figures were confronted with accusations/questions regarding embarassing, awkward or even illegal behavior, they have rarely fessed up. Denials and more denials until they are confronted with actual proof. Then they either fess up or rationalize it.

Let's see how Arnold deals with questions that will no doubt fly at him now that thesmokinggun.com has posted an interview Schwarzenegger did with a now defunct skin magazine that was owned by Playboy. Anyway, in this thing Arnold talks about all manner of things - from body building to drugs, to sex, to homosexuality. It's a very interesting read, to be sure.

Obviously, these comments were made when he was 29, twenty-six years ago, during the seventies, so you can't blame him for a lot of the stuff he says. But it should be interesting to see how he reacts to all this stuff. If he's smart, he'll just play it off by saying something like "Hey, it was the 70s, to some degree it was the culture. I regret a lot of what I did back then."

If he's stupid, he'll say the interview was made up and full of lies. If he's a first class numbskull, then he'll not respond at all.

Hopefully, he's one of the last two, so those of us in California will have less of a chance to deal with him. Right now, we need all the help we can get to keep him out of office...

Read thesmokinggun.com's coverage of the story as well as the original article from Oui magazine.

Check out scans of the original OUI article here:
1 2 3 4 5

Be WARNED: Oui was a magazine for adults - as a result, there are words used in the interview and situations discussed that some may be offended by. Don't read this article if you are offended by the use of VERY off-color terms and frank discussion of sexual situations. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! (It's not THAT bad...)


Monday, August 25, 2003

Back from my little brother's wedding - YAY!

It was a beautiful wedding, too - and the best part was it wasn't too long. I've been to so many weddings where the ceremony goes on forever, but this time, that didn't happen. The ceremony was Jewish and short. So, it was interesting and not annoying in the least. We even got souvenir yamakas (sp?) with the date on them so we could remember the day forever. Of course, I'm an atheist, so I didn't wear mine - I figured wearing it would be like lying and plus the Rabbi said I didn't have to. So, there!

Anyway, saw my buddy Stew - that was awesome. We hung out and talked past dawn on Sunday. Did the brunch thing and then there was a big mess with ATA Airlines having booked me on a flight coming in to Newark but out of La Guardia. Of course, stupid me, I failed to notice this on my itinerary. Luckily with some phone calls and $50 from the 'rentals (thank you!!) I was able to get on another flight. The 'rentals were surprisingly cool with having to come back and get me and drop the extra $50 for me to get home. Not happy, mind you, but not upset and oppressive, either. You know how parents can be. But they weren't, which was nice.

Anyway, so now I'm back with a huge (for pay) project hanging over my head, so the pics I took over the weekend will have to get posted later - probably next week. I have huge backlog of photos to sort through first, but I hope to get my energy back in the next day or so in hopes that I'll be able to both get this project done AND sort all the pics. Wish me luck!!

Wednesday, August 20, 2003

CAR POLLUTION HIKING UP HEALTHCARE COSTS

An August 19, 2003 article at the Daily News Los Angeles web site reports that in Los Angeles alone, pollution caused by cars is blamed for costing $1.8 billion in public healthcare costs. Nationwide, the number is in excess of $40 billion. The article goes on to report that more and more people are suffering from asthma everyday according to a Los Angeles-area doctor quoted in the article.

Either way, it's important to note just how many cars there are in the world. You may not live in Los Angeles, but don't you have cars in your town or city? When are we going to learn that cars are bad for us? They kill people directly in accidents and indirectly they cost us billions of dollars in healthcare costs. If it costs us billions to take care of the sick who got that way because of car emissions, wouldn't it make sense to spend billions to create cleaner cars?

It seems like preventative medicine might save us money in the long run.

Read the Daily News Los Angeles article and learn more about what is being called "a public health epidemic".


Tuesday, August 19, 2003

Well, the explosion hit!

In my last blog entry, I was hoping for some sort of stress explosion that might allow me to get past my bottleneck of stressness. Well, it happened - I laid down my scooter with me underneath it. I was zipping up a road I travel on all the time. Just as it began to curve, I was watching for this patch of water - I needed to make sure to not turn too much while in it or I'd lose traction and lay down my bike. But as I looked to see what was around the bend, I saw that I was heading toward two women who hadn't seen me coming and thusly, weren't getting out of my way. I slammed on my brakes right in the middle of the patch of water and laid down my bike.

I got out of it okay, really. Just some scrapes, really. My right knee and elbow just got skinned. My left forearm got a a four-inch-long scrape that didn't bleed so much as it just looked painful (and it was). And finally, my left knee suffered the most, getting a good and blood scrape that has made walking slightly difficult, but not impossible and climbing stairs downright time consuming.

But I'm feeling better fast. I just hope I'm good for this weekend and my little brother's wedding... I think I'm still going, but I don't know if I'll be doing anything in it since no one has told me more than some vague mention of a signing ceremony. I assume I'll get a cheat sheet when I get there. Oh well... it's not MY wedding, so I guess I just have to trust that someone else will tell me what to do. I've called and left messages, but what more can I do??

More on this wedding fun in the days/weeks to come...

CHECK IT OUT! WE DON'T HAVE TO PAY INCOME TAX!!

Well, at least one of us, here in the US has gotten around paying income tax for the years 1996-2001. That's five years of taxes she was able to beat! Pretty cool, huh? Bet you're wondering how she did it. Simple. She asked the USGov to prove that she had to pay income tax. For ten years she had made this simple request and since they could not produce the law that says "Americans must pay income tax!" a court ruled in her favor.

Pretty cool, huh? Here's something from a WashingtonPost.Com article that covered this story:
Last week a jury in Memphis acquitted a woman of criminal charges arising from her refusal to pay federal income taxes on $920,000 she earned from 1996 to 2001. The basis for her refusal, which the jury apparently found sufficient, was that the Internal Revenue Service hadn't showed her where in the law it says she had to pay.
Apparently people have tried similar defenses in the past. And while every previous case has ruled against such income tax protestor, it appears that the USGov is paranoid that everyone will start doing this so much that they've gone ahead and violated an individual's right to free speech. According to the WashingtonPost.Com article
...the IRS has persuaded a federal court in Nevada to bar protester Irwin Schiff from selling a book that contends taxes are voluntary.
There just might BE something to this...

Read the whole Washington Post article and learn all about it!


Saturday, August 16, 2003

Ah, the stress of life...

Sorry about the lack of updates - I'm dealing with familial stuff and the stress of that is weighing heavily on the stress of being away from TheFiancee which is already weighing heavily on me. Then there's the standard stress of trying to be writing and editing what I've written and editing what I've shot and... well, you see where this is going.

If you have too much stress packed into your life, will your life explode?

If so, I'm expecting an explosion any day now...

Praying for one, actually...

Wednesday, August 13, 2003

S.W.A.T. (2003)

S.W.A.T. (Widescreen Special Edition)Entertaining? Yeah, but it was pretty damn predictable.
Technically any good? It's a well made action movie - but it's the ULTIMATE recruitment video for cops. It makes them and guns look so damn cool, it made me miss my days being a stupid, shallow kid. But seriously, this film does have some nice suspense, but the character development was minimal at best. Oh and 90% of the music annoyed the CRAP out of me.
How did I feel as the credits rolled? Put off. I like my action movies with a little more brains - and this movie has none. It's also typical (boring) Hollywood fare. Nothing surprising or cool about it.
Final Rating? DNS (Since there's nothing new or interesting about this cliche cop movie, I just can't recommend it.)

Tuesday, August 12, 2003

What a crazy weekend!!

Sorry I haven't updated in a while - Friday TheFiancee and I went to Six Flags where I proceeded to scream my lungs out on a handful of coasters. After a day of extreme heat and sun in Valencia, we came home only to head to the desert the next evening with some pals (you know who you are!) and hung out for some hours at Joshua Tree - which was very cool considering how not-normally-what-I-like-to-do it is. Then on Sunday we went and saw Godzilla Vs. Megaguirus on the big screen at the Egyptian. It's a fun movie, but definitely a throw-back to the classic Showa-era of the G-monster. You know, when it was more about what monster would fight Godzilla and how many bodyslams each would get. I've heard great things about Godzilla:GMK which I'll be seeing in a few weeks time, back at the Egyptian...

And then TheFiancee left on Monday for 2.5 depressing months away from me. Find out the details at her site and follow her adventures, too. So, it's been a hectic handful of days. I hope to update the site over the next few days. New comics, new TheBeauty, pics from the weekend and plenty more for my NewsBlog, too...

Stay tuned!

Friday, August 8, 2003

THERE IS EVIL - DEPUTY DEFENSE SEC. PAUL WOLFOWITZ IS IT'S NAME

There's a little thing that guarantees relative justice and fairness. It's the concept that an individual can be accused of a crime, but that they are "Innocent until proven Guilty."

The key word there is "proven". In other words, if I see a guy with brown hair robbing a quicky mart while wearing a blue sweatshirt and you happen to have brown hair and a blue sweatshirt, you would NOT be instantly judged guilty of robbing that quicky mart. A prosecutor has to prove that it was you who did it.

This is how the American criminal justice system works, generally and while sometimes criminals get away with crimes, it also means that no man or woman will go to jail (or worse) until they have been proven to have committed a crime.

This is generally how American morals work, too. Well, that's how they are supposed to work, anyway. You can't punish someone until you know they've committed an offense against you.

Well, Deputy Defense Sec. Paul Wolfowitz seems to think it's perfectly okay to pronounce someone guilty if they are only believed to be guilty.

See, despite the fact that no WMD OF ANY KIND have been found yet in THREE MONTHS since the war was effectively called a victory for the USGov, Wolfowitz still believes that the Iraq Attack was the right thing to do for America's safety. He feels that getting Sadam Hussein out of power was a direct blow against the forces of terrorism.

This is despite the fact that no direct connection between Hussein's regime and Al Queda has been made.

Wolfowitz keeps pushing this whole thing with absurd doggedness. He ignores the lack of intelligence and the lack of evidence that is staring him and the rest of the world in the face and says things like "The battle to secure the peace in Iraq is now the central battle on the war on terrorism,"

He doesn't care that more than 150 US soldiers have died since the Iraq Attack began and many more have been wounded. Over 6000 Iraqi civilians have been killed - that's more than twice the number of American civilians that died on 911.

But revenge is not what Wolfowitz is after. He, along with several other hawks co-authored a publication called Rebuilding America's Defenses back in the year 2000. It's a 70+ page report that endorses an expanded military and contains many items that George W. Bush campaigned on back in 2000. It also maintains that an expanded roll for the USMil in the Persian Gulf is a good idea, but doesn't mention anything about any threat Saddam Hussein poses to the US or the world. At least, it doesn't so far - I am currently in the process of reading it. It's very dry stuff and I am notating it as I go. There are a lot of things to object to for even the most reasonable of people.

The point is - Wolfowitz doesn't care how many people die in Iraq on either side. He helped write a report almost four years ago that predicted what is going on right now in the Middle East. He and the rest of the Bush administration will go on insisting how important the Iraq Attack was and how the world is a safer place because Hussein is gone.

He won't even mind that he sounds like an idiot, since so many others won't mind either. Where's the evidence? Where's the proof of guilt? Obviously, Hussein's a bad guy, but what about YOUR motives, Mr. Wolfowitz?

"I think the lesson of 9/11 is that if you're not prepared to act on the basis of murky intelligence, then you're going to have to act after the fact, and after the fact now means after horrendous things have happened to this country," - Paul Wolfowitz on Fox News Sunday, August 3, 2003

What about YOUR motivations, Mr. Wolfowitz?

Read the incredibly scary report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" co-authored by Paul Wolfowitz. It's a PDF file so you'll need some kind of PDF reader. Seriously - it's some scary stuff. While I haven't gotten all the way through it yet, I've heard it calls for "another Pearl Harbor". Remember, this thing was written in 2000 - before 911.

Read the Toronto Star's article on Wolfowitz' press tour where he made the above mentioned claims.

And think about this: Since Paul Wolfowitz, his boss Rumsfeld, HIS bosses Cheney and Bush seem to be taking the US down a dangerous path, shouldn't we be able to stop them based on the very priniciples they are embracing? If it simply LOOKS like they are up to no good, shouldn't we be able to remove them from office? We don't need evidence, RIGHT, Mr. Wolfowitz?

What are you doing with my country, Mr. Wolfowitz?


Thursday, August 7, 2003

THE NEW GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA!

arnoldlook (53k image)


Hey, at least it's not this guy:

gray (118k image)


Ugh... why did Arnold have to run? Because Davis has to go. Too bad the dems couldn't put two and two together and realize that it's a really stupid idea to back a guy who was dumb enough to take advice from Bush and Cheney. That advice wound up costing the people of California (I'm one of them) $9 billion. I don't care if this is a Repub distraction - this kind of thing CANNOT go on and be unpunished.

To anyone who thinks the recall is a "coup" or an attempt to undo democracy - consider the following two points:

1) The recall can still leave Davis untouched. If enough people want him to stay, in the election in October, California voters can say "no" to recalling him then.

2) This is NOTHING compared to what happened to the presidential election in 2000. According to the US Constitution, CONGRESS handles election disputes NOT the Supreme Court!! (I won't even mention the THOUSANDS of people who should have been able to vote but couldn't down in Florida...)

Therefore, anyone having a problem with the recall should remember FIRST THINGS FIRST and demand an investigation into the 2000 presidential election. Even if those people are right - let's deal with one coup at a time, folks!

The creepy Arnold pic above was taken from this site. While almost EVERY pic of Davis is creepy (or at the very least, slimy), the one above came from here.

Monday, August 4, 2003

Just how bad is "Gigli"? It's a Penis-Sneeze

giglibad (9k image)Like the original Terminator movie, Ben & Jen's flop-o-rama movie gives it's own genre a name. For Terminator, the name of a club Sarah Connor hides from the original Terminator in is called "Tech Noir". Since that movie, all (good) movies residing in the same particular corner of science fiction films are referred to as "tech noir" movies. (Dark technology, in case you were wondering.)

Well, Gigli has done the same thing. There's a woefully scripted scene in the movie (in other words, there's a scene in the movie) where the mentally handicapped character Affleck's character has kidnapped in an attempt to extort a federal prosecutor, explains that looking at Lopez' character "makes his penis sneeze."

That's when I realized it - this movie IS a penis sneeze.

And from this day forth, ALL films as bad (or Satan-willing worse) than Gigli will be known to occupy that particular corner of the truly crappy movie genre called the Penis Sneeze.

But if you want to know what other critics thought of this movie, ABCNews.com put together a series of quotes from various reviews. Please note that all of the more positive reviews come from the more mainstream critics. I have a feeling this is because they actually may have met Ben Affleck or J-Lo and don't want to offend. How else can you explain Roger Ebert's comment that "The movie tries to do something different, thoughtful, and a little daring with their relationship, and although it doesn't quite work, maybe the movie is worth seeing for some scenes that are really very good."

SHAME on you ROGER!! I guess you have no soul after all...

I also love Salon.com's Charles Taylor taking the high (pompous) road by claiming that it being so fashionable to criticize Ben & Jen these days will only encourage "the predictable pig pile of critics trying to outdo each other."

God forbid those same critics SHOULD BE RIGHT. Come on, this movie is ill concieved on every level! From the writing to the acting to the direction - even the music is insipid as hell!! The plot is non-existent. The movie goes from the characters talking in a car to talking in an apartment to talking in a car again, to talking at a taco stand and so on - and NONE of that talking has more than a few sentences per scene to do with a plot - the rest of the "conversation" have to do with the characters displaying their firm lack of grip on reality.

Literally, there's one scene where Affleck's character explains that women are at a natural disadvantage for making women feel good in bed. What is this idiot talking about? In another scene Christopher Walken babbles for ten minutes stretching out a scene that should have been no longer than two minutes. In no scene is Lopez' character introduced to anyone beyond the scene where we first meet her character, yet she meets several other people throughout the movie, at one point even saying "it was nice to meet you". In two scenes (since the screenwriter apparently isn't familiar with the concept of the rule of threes) Affleck's character fantasizes about being on a beach with no one around. Knowing that this movie takes place in Los Angeles, I find it odd that his character can't just hop in a car and drive 20-30 minutes to Malibu where there are plenty of quiet beaches to enjoy.

I could go on - really, I could. I haven't even mentioned how both of the lead actors don't bother acting between their lines. They just wait for the next point where they are supposed to talk. At one point Affleck acts for one word and switches it off a milisecond later, going from annoyed sarcasm to blank, nothingness in a motion that would give even the most forgiving movie goers whiplash.

Calling this movie a "film" is accurate in ways not usually defined by the word. As in, this movie isn't a "film" in that it's a piece of art, or anything like that. It's a "film" the way you clean the gross film of residue off of your shower walls, or off of several day-old dirty dishes. Like that kind of film, this "film" stays with you for hours, even days later. It haunts you - constantly making you wonder "WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT?"

And you wonder that about any number of things in the movie.

Anyway, here's that list of quotes from other critics. (Click "more" if the link is bad. If you don't see "more" below, just scroll down.)

Sunday, August 3, 2003

Ah, weekends! What a waste!

Every weekend I say I'm going to get all this stuff done, but I never come close. This weekend, I had some excuses, though - first off, I'm still installing the last of my apps onto my computer which is now all XPish and whatnot. Secondly, my carpal tunnel syndrome kicked in hardcore, so I decided to wrap my wrist up (equally hardcore) and do my best not to use my right hand for as long as I could deal. By Saturday night, it was feeling much better.

Then, on Sunday, TheFiancee returned from a fishing trip up in NoCal and with her she brought SALMON!!! Thanks go out to her and especially her folks for letting her have so much salmon. I can't WAIT to dig in!!

Each night while TheFiancee was away I watched a buttload of Japanese media I've gotten my hands on - some anime as well as some live action stuff. Very cool crap, I must say. Then Sunday night, after TheFiancee got back, we travelled with a friend and his telescope to a lonely rooftop and actually got a pretty good look at the planet Mars which won't be as close to Earth as it is now again for another 600,000 years... it was very cool.

On the web site, I added two new sections in the "About TP.C" section as well as the three new columns below TheBlog, so TAKE A LOOK AT 'EM! I plan on fully migrating the KnowTHIS stuff over here permanently and shutting down the other page. It's all just too much to maintain. Plus, the three guys I talked to about helping out with it all declined, so SCREW Y'ALL!! I'll just do my own little news blog. :P

It's weird, I go through these phases with my web site. First, I want to create this massive network of sites, but then I want to get streamlined, and after that, I decide to get all networky. Then, I switch back, again. Which is where I am now. I'm too busy with a lot of other junk, so this time I'm not going to switch back again. For better or worse, this is my web page, love it or leave it!!

ThePete's NewsLinks!

Here are some of the sites I try to frequent to keep up with the news.
AlterNet
CNN
Coast To Coast AM
Cryptome
C-Span
CommonDreams.Org
Daily Grail
Drudge
EFF
Enterprise Mission
Financial Times
Fortean Times
FNN
Guardian.co.uk
Global Security
Google News
GNN
IndyMedia
Interfax (Russian News)
IPA
The Japan Times

Japan Today
Korea Herald
London Globe
Mainichi Daily News
Middle East Media Research Institute
TheMemoryHole
Mother Jones
MSNBC
US National Archives Search Engine
National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States

OnLisaReinsRadar.com
top.rbc.ru (Russian News)
The Register
Russian Journal
The Smoking Gun
TimesOnline.co.uk
Unknown Country
Unknown News
Washington Post
Wikipedia.Org
What Really Happened

Saturday, August 2, 2003

LABELS - WHO NEEDS 'EM? SADLY, HUMANS.

Life is complicated. It doesn't have to be. But we humans make it that way. Actually some of us make it that way, the rest of us allow it to remain that way. Part of how life gets complicated (actually, I think almost all major problems anywhere) can be boiled down to labels.

Think about it - racism. Blacks Vs Whites. What's the difference? Look at our DNA - our DNA says that there are virtually no differences. Conservatives and white supremicists try to say that blacks are great atheletes, or that Asians are good at math. Really all that stuff comes down to cultural upbringing. In America, these stereotypes are understood as virtual truths. Blacks always go out for sports - it's what they do. Of course, those that don't, we all know, go into crime (right). But don't we know plenty of white folks that are both atheletes and criminals?

Labels help boil things down to simple concepts so people can understand things more easily. Saying someone's black tells us they are of African descent, right? Wrong. You can be from Australia and be black and not be of African descent. But generally, these labels are true, right?

Wrong.

Calling them "black" is trying to cast them as evil, dark, not to be trusted. If we were honest, the label would be "brown". But "black" is more negative by default. People are afraid of the dark, whether they want to admit it or not. And if you call an entire race of people "black", you're going to key into that sub-concious mentality. And that's where we get into the politics of labels.

What's a liberal and what's a democrat? Aren't they the same? Not really. What's a conservative and what's a Republican? These days, those labels don't mean the same thing either.

If you're not a capitalist are you a commie? If you hate communism are you necessarily a capitalist? What if you like elements of both?

Labels are dangerous because they over simplify. I'm a practicing Atheist. Does that mean I think there is no God? No. It's simply a label that people will try to use to color myself and others in one light or another. The truth is, I'm pretty sure there is some order to universe, but I'm not sure the common concept of "God" covers it all. And calling Him "mysterious" doesn't begin to explain this universe we live in.

Over at GNN.tv, there's a great article on how to take down a conservative in an argument. But really, the article is about labels and how, in order to defend against labels created by one side of a political spectrum or another, one must create a new, more honest label to stick/stigmatize the initial labeller. Call it "Reverse Propaganda" or "Honest Propaganda" since it does do everything regular labels do, it's still propaganda, but now you'll be fighting fire with fire.

From the article:

"Cheap labor." That's their whole philosophy in a nutshell – which gives you a short and pithy "catch phrase" that describes them perfectly. You've heard of "big-government liberals." Well they're "cheap-labor conservatives."

"Cheap-labor conservative" is a moniker they will never shake, and never live down. Because it's exactly what they are. You see, cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America – whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you'll work, and the more power those "corporate lords" have over you. If you are a wealthy elite – or a "wannabe" like most dittoheads – your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.


Pretty good, huh? Check out the rest of the article right now and arm yourself with words that will begin to change the world.


Friday, August 1, 2003

PARDON THE LACK OF UPDATES

Sorry, I haven't updated more. Just upgraded to WinXP and it's taken days to reinstall everything. Also, my carpal tunnel syndrome is hitting me hardcore, which is why this post is so short. See that wrist brace in TheMall? Don't buy it - I did, and frankly, it sucks. I'm wearing it right now and an ace bandage around it.

Just watched Gigli - sorry Joe Esterhaus! Somebody made a worse movie than Showgirls! Read my Pocket Review.

GIGLI (2003)

GigliEntertaining? No. No. No. No. Not at ALL.
Technically any good? No. No. No. No. Not at ALL. Saying this movie is crap would be insulting actual crap. Every single moment of the movie is contrived. Every line of dialogue in this movie sounds like it has come out of the mouth of a 14 year-old from New Jersey. (And I should know, I was one.) There's not one right thing about this movie.
How did I feel as the credits rolled? Perplexed - how could a movie be worse than Showgirls??? This is. Ben Affleck should stop acting. J-Lo is J-lousy. And the writer of this piece of UTTER crap, he should be put on a rocket and launched into the sun.
Final Rating? DNS (Seriously - this movie is really, really bad.)