Truth and Consequences

I think part of the problem here is that everyone is shit-scared of what will happen if there really is transparency in the process. Because part of that transparency will be that everyone will get to see just how fucked up some, if not all, of these banks are. And when that happens the economy will REALLY tank.

Those who would accuse the Democrats of being sell outs should ask themselves how they would vote if they were told that their desire for transparency could literally destroy the American economy. Let's not be so eager to paint everyone as bad guys.

I'm all for accountability and oversight, but let's be smart about just what might be the consequences. As bad as things are now it could get a lot lot worse. The choices right now aren't between a bad deal and a good deal. The choices are between a bad deal and a really really bad deal.

Fun with "balloon" animals

Not safe for work (or those who cringe when a balloon is rubbed).

Here are some outtakes.

Can anyone tell me...

...when has a criminal investigation NOT "dwelled on the past"?

Can you see?

I agree with the general sentiment

Remember that hilarity about Obama passing a "bipartisan" stimulus plan? We snickered at the implausibility of Republicans voting for any such package, and once again, we're right. That's why it's best to pass the best bill, rather than water shit down to the point it's useless in order to try and get mass Republican support on anything. It'll always be a fools errand anyway.

However, I think the optics of this are pretty good for Obama and the Dems. If they had just tried to push through a Dems-only package it would be reported as a Dems-only package and the consequences of said package would be seen as Dems-only. By at least making the effort to appear bi-partisan, Obama can now say, "Hey, I tried to get them on board!"

Thought #5

"...do not make yourself the hero of your own novel..." - Checkov

Do not make yourself the hero of your own life. - Me

Thought #4

Creation is a question for philosophy, not science.

Thought #3

The whole of recorded human thinking about every thing imaginable is but a small fraction of the thinking that preceded it. At the moment the first writer put the first words to the page, he was the inheritor of a legacy of thought that stretched back over a million years.

Did the early hominids not have the idle time to contemplate their lot? Did they not have the time (a million years of it) to consider the forms of nature around them? Were they beasts until the first true writer put pen to page?

We like to think that the earliest stories available to us are but the first inklings of human consciousness. But what if they are the product of an intellectual evolution so ancient that it makes our "ancient" world seem like the day before yesterday?

We are the descendants of giants.

Thought #2

How does an omniscient god experience the sensation of ignorance?

If a part of such a god could experience ignorance, how would it experience it? Would it have a separate experience of it's own existence? Would it be aware of it's own ignorance? Would it experience that ignorance as an unnecessary cruelty imposed on it by an uncaring creator?

Would there be more than one such entity? Would it be aware of other entities of ignorance? How would it deal with those other entities? Would it see them as allies in the struggle to understand it's existence, or would it see them as rivals for the creators attention? Would it be jealous of the unique perspective the others have of the experience of ignorance? Would it be envious of the special knowledge that separate experience may give them?

Could this be the source of misery? The illusion of separate existence leading both to a sense of isolation from each other and from god, combined with a frustrating sense that there is more available to them outside their limited reach that others may have access to but are keeping possessively to themselves?

Thought #1

Man is rich only to the extent that he has what he needs to get what he wants.