According to the newly declassified transcript, Mrs. Kennedy was becoming desperate to leave. "Mrs. Kennedy was getting very warm, she had blood all over her hat, her coat...his brains were sticking on her hat. It was dreadful," McHugh said. She pleaded with him to get the plane off the ground. "Please, let's leave," she said. McHugh jumped up and used the phone near the rear compartment to call Captain James Swindal. "Let's leave," he said. Swindal responded: "I can't do it. I have orders to wait."
Look. When the system is named "Patriot", you already have enough information to understand the framing context - if you care to have the particular insight. This is a propaganda tool, like the rockets launched from Airstrip One.
It fulfilled its mission when it was designed, manufactured and labeled as "The Patriot Missile System". Ballistic interception is a secondary mission and fulfillment is unnecessary for success.
250 years ago, there were no "newspapers". They were technologically impossible, and demographically unreadable.
We had broadsheets for the limited press-runs we were capable of. And for the limited, literate population of large cities. These were pasted as bills, and informally circulated in the leaf.
In the time of the American and French revolutions, the day belonged to the pamphleteer. His screeds, fulminations and genuine insights were the fuel for popular discourses. When the American Constitution enshrined a freedom for the press in basic law, it was the pamphleteer and "almanack" editor for whom this waas a guarantee. You may recognize the pamphleteer.
Today we call him "the blogger".
Newspapers grew, as a 19th century phenomenon for the obvious reasons we implied, as literate middle-classes expanded in the cities, with money to spend. Industrial papermaking and printing replaced paper-hanging and letter-press, and it became possible to turn the massive engines of industry to something as trivial as glorified broadsheets, rather than simply the production of necessities. In fact, investment capital seeking returns, demanded finding new avenues for industrialization. The newspaper was born.
Now that the demands and opportunities of 19th century central industrialization have passed from the page of history, why should the newspaper magically be granted an existence, into perpetuity? They did not found our societies, and were instrumental mostly in our worst excesses and prejudices, not in promoting our best values and opportunities.
If they still make buggy-whips, let their time fade away.
There is also the deeper question posed - you were not free to decide on the intrinsic value of the mobile phone. Should it be such a deeply woven thread into the fabric of your existence? If so, how should the technology be designed - under the covers - to strengthen basic law and civic strength. Because instead, we have something that inches us towards Orwell.
EU is a desperate hedge. It will mean little, except by way of contrast with the hideously diminished US.
Look to Brazil and a South American power to emerge. 20 years from now, it will seem as obvious as China does today. It's like India - without quite as much of a ridiculous demographic problem to overcome. By this time the US will be forced, at long last, to concede that its effort in Afghanistan are a failure.
Sadly, I agree. The governments in the "west" are in their "wind-down" phase. They see enormous advantages in operating closed-cartel oriented markets, with severely curtailed republic systems and controlled public messages. It is working well (in their eyes) for China, with whom they imagine they must compete.
"Let 'em buy Mazdas and Nike, and they won't care if they're free. Control the information they are allowed to consume, and they will vigorously attack with extreme chauvinism, any messenger that points out that they are not free."
I am consistently amazed at how deadly accurate was the prescient vision of Terry Gilliam, in the movie Brazil - so clearly seeing the dreadful intersection of a corporate/consumerist substitution for the values of a republic, and the enlistment of "state power" as the lick-spittle to enforce corporate conformity.
Using that IRAC method we've been learning about, a compelling brief on why we should hump each others brains out.
FACTS:
Youre in my class at law school. You are tall, dark and very masculine. I find you quite attractive and its really distracting. I find reasons to look in your direction during class and I blatantly stare at you whenever we pass by one another. You seem to be returning the looks but I cant figure out if youre eye-raping me back, or if its more of a what the fuck is this girl staring at kind of look. Im not Megan Fox, but if I was a guy, I don't think I'd kick me out of bed, so I dare to hope its the former?
Anyway, were expected to absorb class material sufficiently enough to one day pass the bar exam, and this is difficult when Im more focused on whats behind your zipper. Its probably distracting to you as well for some chick to be gawking at you while youre trying to cram massive amounts of information into your brain. (And Im thinking about cramming appendages of yours into orifices of mine.)
ISSUE:
Should we have wild, crazy, meaningless animal sex?
RULE:
Distractions can be very detrimental to success in law school, and should be eliminated whenever possible.
ANALYSIS:
As detailed above in the facts, my desire to be plowed by you is a major distraction from my studies. Its got to be a distraction to you as well since its probably unnerving to be stared at by a predatory sex-starved woman as if she wants to take a bite out of you. Per the above rule, this distraction to both of us needs to be eliminated for us to graduate from law school and pass the bar exam.
Solution? We get it on! I get it out of my system. You not only get laid, but you get the added benefit of not feeling my eyes burning into the side of your head (or your crotch) all through class. We move happily along with our legal education unimpeded by the distraction of sexual tension.
Afraid of possible disadvantages? Ill address any potential concerns here. The quotes are you, and my response follows.
Will I catch any diseases? Nope. Clean as a whistle. Just got out of a long-term relationship and have only been with one person for the past 3 years. Got tested anyway though, and all is well in My-Vagina Land. (Except for its burning desire to be filled with your throbbing manhood.)
Will you stalk me, or expect a relationship or commitment in return? NO. You get free NSA sex. As mentioned above, Im recently out of a long-term relationship. Im not ready for another one nor do I have the time.
What if its really bad, and we end up having to awkwardly avoid one another in class for the next 4 years? I dont plan on it being bad, at least on my end. Hopefully our encounter (or encounters, if it was so crazy awesome we decided to make it an ongoing FB arrangement) would go as follows: We leave class after our respective long days of work and school, both cranky, irritable and in desperate need of blowing off some steam. We go to your place or mine, whichever is closer. Maybe we engage in various acts of foreplay, or maybe were both ready to get to the main attraction so fuck it. You look like you would be HUGE, but I will still bravely tackle that monster and try my best to deep throat the whole thing. You then throw me down on the bed, floor, or any available surface, and have your way with me. This would ideally involve some spanking, hair pulling, and/or explicit dirty talk.
What if a lot of women in the class stare at me, and Im not sure which one you are? What if youre one of the old or fat chicks, or really ugly? Im not going to describe my exact appearance because I will die of embarrassment if someone else in the class se
From the article: 'My town is the best because the incredibly wealthy owners decided to keep the team for now.' Or, 'My political team is the best because it was my dad's and they best stoke my primitive fears,' as opposed to 'They have the best policies for me and my family.'
Required reading. In a couple of short sentences, he exposes and decodes the core cultural aberration of the false spectacle - the pseudo-life - in which people imagine themselves.
"Not only have they created a lawless environment that has allowed us to capture 90 percent of the opium market, but their heroin habits have made a few of us very rich."
"I love the Americans and I hope they stay for many years," he added. "Many, many, many, many years."
Slashdot Mirror
The whole zombie thing is a vomit-bag turnoff.
> For your next trick, can I get an article about how movie vampires represent world-wide fear of religion?
How about a scary story about the American, Kennedy - it includes a body, the real "un-dead" and even... brains.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-m-gillon/a-new-wrinkle-in-the-jfk_b_339026.html
According to the newly declassified transcript, Mrs. Kennedy was becoming desperate to leave. "Mrs. Kennedy was getting very warm, she had blood all over her hat, her coat...his brains were sticking on her hat. It was dreadful," McHugh said. She pleaded with him to get the plane off the ground. "Please, let's leave," she said. McHugh jumped up and used the phone near the rear compartment to call Captain James Swindal. "Let's leave," he said. Swindal responded: "I can't do it. I have orders to wait."
Zombies. Yawn.
Pirates. Yawn.
Ninjas. Yawn.
Strippers? O.K. Where's the Gin?
Both. If you start working for the same historical PsyOps that fueled the Washington Post.
These are "newspapers" as we know them in retrospect.
Franklin produced in small circulation, a forerunner of the newspaper - more like the broadsheets and pamphlets.
Look. When the system is named "Patriot", you already have enough information to understand the framing context - if you care to have the particular insight. This is a propaganda tool, like the rockets launched from Airstrip One.
It fulfilled its mission when it was designed, manufactured and labeled as "The Patriot Missile System". Ballistic interception is a secondary mission and fulfillment is unnecessary for success.
250 years ago, there were no "newspapers". They were technologically impossible, and demographically unreadable.
We had broadsheets for the limited press-runs we were capable of. And for the limited, literate population of large cities. These were pasted as bills, and informally circulated in the leaf.
In the time of the American and French revolutions, the day belonged to the pamphleteer. His screeds, fulminations and genuine insights were the fuel for popular discourses. When the American Constitution enshrined a freedom for the press in basic law, it was the pamphleteer and "almanack" editor for whom this waas a guarantee. You may recognize the pamphleteer.
Today we call him "the blogger".
Newspapers grew, as a 19th century phenomenon for the obvious reasons we implied, as literate middle-classes expanded in the cities, with money to spend. Industrial papermaking and printing replaced paper-hanging and letter-press, and it became possible to turn the massive engines of industry to something as trivial as glorified broadsheets, rather than simply the production of necessities. In fact, investment capital seeking returns, demanded finding new avenues for industrialization. The newspaper was born.
Now that the demands and opportunities of 19th century central industrialization have passed from the page of history, why should the newspaper magically be granted an existence, into perpetuity? They did not found our societies, and were instrumental mostly in our worst excesses and prejudices, not in promoting our best values and opportunities.
If they still make buggy-whips, let their time fade away.
Agreed.
There is also the deeper question posed - you were not free to decide on the intrinsic value of the mobile phone. Should it be such a deeply woven thread into the fabric of your existence? If so, how should the technology be designed - under the covers - to strengthen basic law and civic strength. Because instead, we have something that inches us towards Orwell.
EU is a desperate hedge. It will mean little, except by way of contrast with the hideously diminished US.
Look to Brazil and a South American power to emerge. 20 years from now, it will seem as obvious as China does today. It's like India - without quite as much of a ridiculous demographic problem to overcome. By this time the US will be forced, at long last, to concede that its effort in Afghanistan are a failure.
Sadly, I agree. The governments in the "west" are in their "wind-down" phase. They see enormous advantages in operating closed-cartel oriented markets, with severely curtailed republic systems and controlled public messages. It is working well (in their eyes) for China, with whom they imagine they must compete.
"Let 'em buy Mazdas and Nike, and they won't care if they're free. Control the information they are allowed to consume, and they will vigorously attack with extreme chauvinism, any messenger that points out that they are not free."
I am consistently amazed at how deadly accurate was the prescient vision of Terry Gilliam, in the movie Brazil - so clearly seeing the dreadful intersection of a corporate/consumerist substitution for the values of a republic, and the enlistment of "state power" as the lick-spittle to enforce corporate conformity.
Timon! Pumbaa! The words to that song ARE NOT "Vagina Dentata"!
of an ordinary "Audit Trail". Now, you don't have to rely on manual log-entries and sign-out sheets.
Mother, may I make a call?
Let's kill Google, and hide the body under the floor.
Maybe you forgot to read this a'int my words?
I never post anon. :-)
IT WAS ALWAYS FUNNY
In a "Yakov Smirnov" kind of way. You know. Not at all.
What? Did this guy escape from the Jewish Flintstones? :-)
What happened to Bolt, Baranek and Newmann's team? What about Cerf?
SCREW equations! LAW is where the action is!
I submit this brief in support of why we TOTALLY should get it on.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/lax/1361917175.html
You & Me Doing It v. You & Me Not Doing It (2009)
Using that IRAC method we've been learning about, a compelling brief on why we should hump each others brains out.
FACTS:
Youre in my class at law school. You are tall, dark and very masculine. I find you quite attractive and its really distracting. I find reasons to look in your direction during class and I blatantly stare at you whenever we pass by one another. You seem to be returning the looks but I cant figure out if youre eye-raping me back, or if its more of a what the fuck is this girl staring at kind of look. Im not Megan Fox, but if I was a guy, I don't think I'd kick me out of bed, so I dare to hope its the former?
Anyway, were expected to absorb class material sufficiently enough to one day pass the bar exam, and this is difficult when Im more focused on whats behind your zipper. Its probably distracting to you as well for some chick to be gawking at you while youre trying to cram massive amounts of information into your brain. (And Im thinking about cramming appendages of yours into orifices of mine.)
ISSUE:
Should we have wild, crazy, meaningless animal sex?
RULE:
Distractions can be very detrimental to success in law school, and should be eliminated whenever possible.
ANALYSIS:
As detailed above in the facts, my desire to be plowed by you is a major distraction from my studies. Its got to be a distraction to you as well since its probably unnerving to be stared at by a predatory sex-starved woman as if she wants to take a bite out of you. Per the above rule, this distraction to both of us needs to be eliminated for us to graduate from law school and pass the bar exam.
Solution? We get it on! I get it out of my system. You not only get laid, but you get the added benefit of not feeling my eyes burning into the side of your head (or your crotch) all through class. We move happily along with our legal education unimpeded by the distraction of sexual tension.
Afraid of possible disadvantages? Ill address any potential concerns here. The quotes are you, and my response follows.
Will I catch any diseases? Nope. Clean as a whistle. Just got out of a long-term relationship and have only been with one person for the past 3 years. Got tested anyway though, and all is well in My-Vagina Land. (Except for its burning desire to be filled with your throbbing manhood.)
Will you stalk me, or expect a relationship or commitment in return? NO. You get free NSA sex. As mentioned above, Im recently out of a long-term relationship. Im not ready for another one nor do I have the time.
What if its really bad, and we end up having to awkwardly avoid one another in class for the next 4 years? I dont plan on it being bad, at least on my end. Hopefully our encounter (or encounters, if it was so crazy awesome we decided to make it an ongoing FB arrangement) would go as follows: We leave class after our respective long days of work and school, both cranky, irritable and in desperate need of blowing off some steam. We go to your place or mine, whichever is closer. Maybe we engage in various acts of foreplay, or maybe were both ready to get to the main attraction so fuck it. You look like you would be HUGE, but I will still bravely tackle that monster and try my best to deep throat the whole thing. You then throw me down on the bed, floor, or any available surface, and have your way with me. This would ideally involve some spanking, hair pulling, and/or explicit dirty talk.
What if a lot of women in the class stare at me, and Im not sure which one you are? What if youre one of the old or fat chicks, or really ugly? Im not going to describe my exact appearance because I will die of embarrassment if someone else in the class se
Eat your vegetables, Timmy. There are people starving in India.
Nah.
I'm a lone wolf, or a black sheep. However you look at it.
Read "VALIS" - then figger it out.
Yeah.
The royalties from film-stardom paid for his daily doughnut injections.
From the article:
'My town is the best because the incredibly wealthy owners decided to keep the team for now.' Or, 'My political team is the best because it was my dad's and they best stoke my primitive fears,' as opposed to 'They have the best policies for me and my family.'
Required reading. In a couple of short sentences, he exposes and decodes the core cultural aberration of the false spectacle - the pseudo-life - in which people imagine themselves.
Amazon may find that CHANGING the words is patentable...
But the MISINTERPRETATION is still all my own!
"Not only have they created a lawless environment that has allowed us to capture 90 percent of the opium market, but their heroin habits have made a few of us very rich."
"I love the Americans and I hope they stay for many years," he added. "Many, many, many, many years."