Consider Your Independence In The Face Of Consensus Reality

This will make you laugh - But I hope it makes you think too.

Elevator Psychology

The Codex is Back - This Time In Canada

I'll quickly refer you to a Thunked Out post from may of last year about the "Codex Alimentarius". If you didn't read it the first time I urge you to read it now, and tell someone you know to check it out. DSHEA 1994 (the legislation currently in place that blocks the Codex from coming to the United States) was prevented from being overturned in Congress. The people have won fro now. The big Pharmaceuticals do not give up easily and we can definitely expect future attempts to thwart the legislation that protects us from the Codex. For Now they've they've turned their attention toward Canada:

Peggy Nash, NDP MP, Opposes Bill C-51 Part 1

STOP BILL C-51 ! The Criminal Gardening Bill



This whole thing is so fucking crazy and backwards that it still shocks me. If you still need proof that Government does not have your best interests in mind THIS IS IT! Large forces are at work to fuck you over. The fact that they think you will swallow something that goes against every ounce of common sense you have shows their arrogance. Keep track of whats going on with this and let others know about it.

VPs & Wiki with a side of Tounge in Cheek

In early 2006 The Sun, A Lowell Massachusetts newspaper, published an article titled "Rewriting history under the dome", which revealed favorable editing by Congressional staff members of Congressman Marty Meehan's (D) Wikipedia entry. The controversy sparked a subsequent Wikipedia investigation of all Internet addresses assigned to the Congress of the United States and led to IP address 143.231.249.141, the proxy through which most of the U.S. House Internet traffic passes, being repeatedly blocked over a period of months while the whole mess was sorted out by Wikipedia administrators.
The investigation discovered well over a thousand edits by IP addresses allocated to the US House of Representatives and Senate. Biographical information on various politicians was edited by their own staff to remove undesirable information (including pejorative statements quoted, or broken campaign promises), add favorable information or "glowing" tributes, add negative information to opponents' biographies, or replace the article in part or whole by staff authored biographies.
Most of the changes were determined to be "in good faith". The minority that were deemed improper include: Marty Meehan (D), Norm Coleman (R), Conrad Burns (R), Susan Collins (R), Joe Biden (D), Gil Gutknecht (R), Trent Lott (R), Phil Gramm (R), David Davis (R), David Dreier (R), Richard Pombo (R) Mark Green (R), Jim Nussle (R) and Jerry Weller (R). In addition to favorably editing their Boss' pages some staffers were found to have inappropriately edited other's pages as in the case of Nancy Pelosi's (D) staff entering libelous statements.

It should be noted that no one really knows who specifically edited these pages, it is only known which IPs the edits came from. The author assumes it was staff members because no one in Congress is known to do shit for themselves, or anyone else - with the obvious exception of constantly redecorating their pockets.

Why bring this up?

Because the only blemish on the record of Sarah Palin the author could find, other than suspicious use of her influence to attempt to get her ex-brother in-law fired, is Wikipedia related. (Mike Wooten, the ex-in-law, is involved in a custody battle with Palin's sister.)

One could see how a man in a custody battle suddenly not having a job would then have less chance of winning. Action of this nature, though unethical, is accepted by most people. Perhaps more by women than men in this specific case. That acceptance should come as no surprise, as this social world we live in is currently subject to what the author calls "Relative Ethics". That is to say, the degree to which ethics matter to an observer, or are applied in scrutiny of a given situation, is relative to who is involved in said situation.
I mean who're we talking about here? The guys a jerk right? Whats the big deal?
Relative Ethics. Beautiful.
Author's note: the application of Relative Ethics in a situation involving someone you don't like is referred to as a "justified lapse of ethics".

Sarah Palin's Wikipedia entry was edited less 24 hours before she was announced as the Republican Vice-presidential candidate by someone who made more than 30 favorable changes and additions, and attempted to minimize the negative portions of the article.
The changes were noticed by Wikipedia editor Justin Deal about 15 minutes after the official announcement of her candidacy. As he took a closer look at what was done to the page what he found raised "a red flag": The number of changes, timing of changes, fact that the person making the changes has never edited a Wikipedia entry before, which is normally fine, but combined with the first two reasons raises suspicion (most editors work on numerous entries over extended periods), some of the new material indicates the person appears to know Palin well (it is a Wiki no-no to write/edit entries about yourself or have someone who knows you do it for you), the person attempted to include a quote praising Palin (another Wiki no-no. Quotes are a one way street on Wiki, a person's entry can include quotes by that person, but not about that person. Imagine the pointlessness of Hitler's Wiki entry including a quote from his mother saying how he was such a nice boy.)
Wikipedia administrators have restricted Palin's page from further changes. This is uncommon, but not unheard of. President Bush's page is permanently restricted from changes except by an elite few editors.

Still, why bring this up?

Because the shrewd person who made the changes knew that tonight, as the people who have no idea who Sarah Palin is, log on to the Internet and Google her, the first result they will see is the link to her Wikipedia entry.

In the interest of more clarity let's take a closer look at Wikipedia. There are numerous rules and guidelines to editing Wikipedia. The editors and administrators are quick to make changes when things aren't right. Sometimes disputes arise and a discussion page is opened. Changes to the main page are flagged as being in dispute and the reader is referred to the discussion page to find out why. People have spent years arguing over single phrases in controversial entries like "Abortion".

Wiki newbies are encouraged to avoid using "Weasel Words".

Essentially, this means don't write the way newspapers and TV news-writers do, but let me elaborate anyway.

It's all about phraseology. Don't make statements like "Montreal is the best city in the world", or even "some people say that Montreal is the best city in the world" because some people don't say that, and some probably say it is the worst. Avoid things like "Most scientists believe that..." and "according to some studies" or "contrary to popular opinion". Moving on, "it has been proven that" allusion to proof does not constitute proof, "Science says" that science is an abstract concept which in actuality is not capable of speech. Catching on? The word "seemingly" inserted into a statement raises the question of to whom the proposition seems thus, and on what evidentiary basis.
Don't add words that make a sentence longer without adding information. Don't use the passive voice. Avoid convoluted syntax;say things as simply as possible. Do not implicitly endorse faulty logic - The word "clearly" and other words of its kind assert that a conclusion has been demonstrated. Many people think... is often a lead-in to a bandwagon fallacy (argumentum ad populum) put there to lead the reader to accept a conclusion based on a claim that "many" others believe it. Don't be repetitious by documenting everything that might have conceivably been said on the subject by anybody, ever. Perhaps most importantly, no partisan opinions (like quotes). [Wikipedia]

These rules are not set in stone, and as with all things there are exceptions, but if one of the editors can find a way to keep the integrity of the content without using "weasel words" they will make changes. Incidentally, the editor who originally red flagged the Palin edits has recused himself from editing her page because he has personally written blogs stating she should be McCain's choice as a running mate.

What are the reasons Obama and McCain chose their respective running mates?

Please note: the following are the opinions of the author and should be viewed as nothing other than reasons why he thinks the candidates chose their running mates.

BIDEN

1. He's white.
2. Experience (He's got 35 years, Obama has jack).
3. "Blue Collar" Background (Though he's a lawyer, he apparently lived in some places where the people "work". He may actually be smart enough to know that no one who is "Working Class" or "Blue Collar" refers to themselves that way, and might be able to get the Obamas to knock it off.
4. Attack dog (Biden's been in the Senate a long time so his vicious partisan attacks on McCain will seem "credible").
5. He looks old (Silly? Not really. People tend to vote their age).

PALIN

1. She's a she (McCain's record has left him with weak support among women and this changes everything, he will grab disgruntled Hillary supporters, and he now appeals to the confused voters who don't care about much except being part of something big - like making history by voting for a woman or a black guy).
2. She's a Washington "outsider" (sounds great, let's hope people don't realize that everyone was once).
3. Lack of Experience (awesome reverse psychology here - McCain is hoping he can get Obama to talk about her lack of experience, and shoot himself in the foot before getting it caught in his mouth)
4. Reformer (She's made big changes in her state, and will bring the fight to DC - again let's hope that people don't realize that the way to turn a "reformer" into an "insider" is to send them to Washington. This IS McCain's answer to Obama's whole "change" theme).
5. She gone against her own party (this is huge at a time when people are so tired of endless partisan games)
6. She's young (again, people tend to vote their age. McCain's secretly poor health is apparent when you look at the guy, but when she stands next to him he just looks better).

And we follow the circus to the next town...

If a contest was held in fantasyland, or rather a different fanatsyland than this one, to select who among these four (McCain, Obama, Palin & Biden) is the best all-around person for any given political office, the author would choose Sarah Palin, hands down, every time. It should also be mentioned that Wikipedia is an excellent resource. In numerous studies it was found to be as good or better than the top encyclopedias in the world as far as the accuracy and depth of information in it's articles. Not without controversy. This has annoyed Encyclopedia Britannica to no end and they have repeatedly challenged any and all such findings to no avail. The author used Wikipedia to help him write this article, and thanks them kindly.

Endangered

Last licks perhaps? I'm not really sure why they would do this but here it is:

"New regulations, which don't require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews government scientists have been performing for 35 years, according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press."

***

"Under current law, federal agencies must consult with experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether a project is likely to jeopardize any endangered species or to damage habitat, even if no harm seems likely. This initial review usually results in accommodations that better protect the 1,353 animals and plants in the U.S. listed as threatened or endangered and determines whether a more formal analysis is warranted."

Decline in species diversity should concern you. This game that is currently being played on the world stage is deceptive and divisive. Climate change is important - but pollution and big agriculture needs to be the focus. Ignore the greater crisis to fight the medias baby battle and be marginalized.