« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »

October 30, 2007

It's nice to know there are others

It seems so funny to me that when you need something - the perfect quote, a reliable stat to prove your point, a piece of reaffirming information - it comes to you. I have written about this . Today I found this letter, and it was just the thing I was looking for. The post in it's entirety can be found

This past Saturday I attended a peace rally in Philadelphia. It was very healing for me to back in my home town among people of all walks of life —just the pure “heart and soul” of this country.

The rally was part of a larger nationwide antiwar mobilization.

As I was leaving a fellow Iraq veteran pointed out a small gathering of counter-demonstrators and invited me to go with him across the street to confront them. I declined the offer. The Philly PD was out in full force and did a great job of keeping them separated from us. So I didn’t see the use.

I headed for my car that was parked in a garage on the same side of the street as the counter-protest.

I observed them waiving the flag and spouting out the same “we gotta fight em there so we don’t have to fight em here” nonsense. Proceeded by shouts to the anti-war protesters of "support the troops" over and over and over again.

From my observation the pro-war crowd had less than 10 people in attendance. It very well resembled the minuscule 24% of Americans who still agree with Bush. I actually for a moment felt sorry for the fools before I returned back to my realistic senses.

The point I’m trying to make is that there are still people out there dumb enough to believe in Bush’s crap, and they are truly subservient to this wacko mentality of lies, hate, and fear. It’s like they are members of a weird cult or something of that nature. Kinda scary.

For the past 5 years there have been harmless peace vigils on Saturday mornings in the Philadelphia area. These peace vigils are not so peaceful any more. Pro-war groups have decided to counter the vigils with a confrontational standoff involving intimidation, cursing, and needless thuggery. It has turned into a heated street battle between a peace group and a group that advocates for "total victory" in Iraq. Whatever that means.

They love to say we are fighting in Iraq for freedom, yet they persecute anyone who practices it for a peace.

Peaceful people are an easy target for this element to harass. And singing Kumbaya will only get you so far. In my experience with dealing with pro-war groups a diplomatic approach rarely ever works. The only way to deal with them is to stand united, strong, and pacify them with intelligence and facts. It doesn't mean they will go away. But make sure they know you won't either. Demonstrate your commitment and resolve to fight against their hatred and this illegal war.

A lot of these ardent Bush/Cheney supporters are actually veterans. And for the life of me I can't figure out what is driving them. They continue to play the patriot card with every hand. True patriots, in my opinion, have the ability to easily see right through these neocon war mongers/draft dodgers.

The indisputable facts are EVERYWHERE. I can’t get away from the bad news for a minute. Just turn on the TV or open up a newspaper and it’s in your face. The only way for me to avoid it would be to go down in my basement and hunker down with no outside communication and live off can goods like I’m in a nuclear fallout protection mode. I wrote that in a very sarcastic manner of course.

Is there any way to educate them? Will they ever wake up?

I guess I'm frustrated and venting because I already know the answer.

John Bruhns
Iraq Veteran

October 29, 2007

To my Internet friend Nick - whom I will someday solve the world's problems with

Nick,
You have asked me what I would accept as suitable proof of al Qaeda in Iraq. And it has really got me thinking, what would I accept as proof. And so I started reading about other things and got sidetracked. But the question has been sitting in the back of my mind, unanswered, bothering me. Tonight I found my answer. I would have to hear it from a source that I consider trustworthy. I know this sounds simple, and I am sure you will cite a number of sources that you find trustworthy espousing the existence of al Qaeda in Iraq. But Nick, I need a source that I can find trustworthy.

When former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." I find that statement trustworthy.

When Gen. John Abizaid, former CENTCOM commander (who oversaw 3 1/2 years of occupation in Iraq) says, "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that." I find it trustworthy.

When President Bush parades a dead Marines family in front of the cameras ans says to Congress, "Our men and women on the front lines should not be caught in the middle of partisan disagreements in Washington DC. I often hear that war critics oppose my decisions, but still support the troops. Well, I'll take them at their word -- and this is the chance to show it." My skin begins to crawl and there is a sense of dishonesty that surrounds me.

One may say, Nick, that I am being biased, that I am only finding trustworthy the sources that push my political agenda, the sources that I agree with. Well, they would be right (no pun intended). One of the ingredients I need to facilitate my feeling that a source is trustworthy is being able to understand their morals, values, and thought processes - and feeling like they fit with mine. I also like someone who is intelligent, well spoken, and has had first hand experience with the topic they are discussing - which is why I sometimes wonder why people read what I write - but I digress, for me to be able to feel comfortable accepting someone else's view of things I do not have first hand knowledge of, I have to feel like they would see the world in the same manner I see it.

I understand this may not be a fair explanation of what I would find trustworthy. But I can assure you the government in it's current state would not fit my list of qualifications.

That being said. I do value what you have to say, and feel like your thoughts and feelings are truthful and coming from a place of honesty and integrity. The biggest point of contention between the two of us is the way we view the world, because I find you to have high morals and to be very intelligent - which is the reason I love discussing politics with you.

Thank you as always Nick for your contributions!

October 25, 2007

Fanning Fear's Flames

It is being reported all over - Fox News' (which is a VERY liberal use of the word) has once again covered an almost laughable story during their broadcast.

"...the flame throwers at Fox News added their own bit of fearmongering accelerant when on yesterday's Fox & Friends broadcast, they discussed an FBI memo stating interest of the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization in setting these sorts of massively destructive wild fires like those playing out in California."

To see actual coverage of this story, download the clip here:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/22774/1/Countdown-Maddow-Fear.wmv

October 23, 2007

You say tomato, and I say tomahto - let's call the whole thing off!

There are a number of blogs I like to visit on a semi-weekly basis, to check up on the goings on of other people's worlds, to catch up on polotics, or just to get a good laugh. One of my favorites is , a brilliant liberal political blog. Today, they quoted a book, and although I have not yet read this book, I found the quote to be very interesting, and thought reposting it here would be appropriate.

On Sept. 13, 2007, George W. Bush issued his report to the nation on the progress of “the surge” in Iraq. Echoing the British in Egypt, he promised “a reduced American presence” in Iraq, but he added ominously that “Iraqi leaders from all communities … understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship — in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.” (Emphasis [Judis]) In other words, Iraqi leaders who owe their positions to the U.S. occupation want the Americans to stay indefinitely, and Bush is ready to oblige them, albeit with a smaller force. British Prime Minister William Gladstone insisted in 1882 that the British would not make Egypt a colony. He wanted, his private secretary recorded, “to give scope to Egypt for the Egyptians were this feasible and attainable without risk.” But that appeared too risky, and Egypt quickly became part of the British Empire. Bush, too, has insisted that the United States is not engaged in imperialism. America is not “an imperial power,” but a “liberating power,” he has declared. But Bush’s denial rings as hollow as Gladstone’s. What Bush has done in Iraq, rather than what he says he has done, is to revive an imperialist foreign policy, reminiscent of the British and French in the Middle East, and of the kind that the United States practiced briefly under William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt.

Bush’s foreign policy has been variously described as unilateralist, militarist, and hyper-nationalist. But the term that fits it best is imperialist. That’s not because it is the most incendiary term, but because it is the most historically accurate. Bush’s foreign policy was framed as an alternative to the liberal internationalist policies that Woodrow Wilson espoused and that presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Bill Clinton tried to put into effect as an alternative to the imperialist strategies that helped cause two world wars and even the Cold War. Bush’s foreign policy represents a return not to the simple unilateralism of 19th-century American foreign policy, but to the imperial strategy that the great powers of Europe — and, for a brief period, America, too — followed and that resulted in utter disaster.

~ John B. Judis, Bush’s Neo-Imperialist War

Imperialism is defined as the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas. Some are calling the United States' political agression in the Middle East Imperalism, some are saying it is liberating.

You say tomato, and I say tomahto - let's call the whole thing off!

October 22, 2007

Polly Ticks: Politics Understood


I came across this explanation of world ideologies and thought, I couldn’t explain it better myself! Let’s see what you think:



Feudalism
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk

Socialism
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you a glass of milk.

Pure Communism
You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker about who has the most “ability” and who has the most “need”. Meanwhile, no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation.

Russian Communism
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the “black” market.

Perestroika
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it one the “free” market.

Cambodian Communism
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

Dictatorship
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

Pure Democracy
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

Representative Democracy
You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

Bureaucracy
You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

Capitalism
You don’t have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows, because you don’t have any cows to put up as collateral.

Pure Anarchy
You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

Anarcho-Capitalism
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

Surrealism
You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

American Corporate Capitalism
Both cows are bloated with toxic steroids. They are set out to graze on privitazed public parks, release massive amounts of flatulence that destroys the ozone layer, die from excess ultraviolet light, and are processed into meat-like products that look great as a result of clever and unprincipled marketing strategies. When you mortgage your artificially devalued farm at high interst rates in order to buy meat, you consume the poisoned material and develop terminal illnesses because there is no health care plan to treat you. The corporate management uses your purchase price to acquire THEIR meat from cows raised “naturally” on tree-free rain forest land outside of the country where labor and resources are cheap.

British Representative Democracy
Both cows are mad.


I think I’d vote for Surrealism. I’ve always wanted to own a giraffe, and harmonica lessons would be super cool!


~ ~ ~


Polly Ticks: a snarky look at the happenings in the world today entangled in female perception, appears right here at

Have a great blog idea, or just want to chat with me about something I’ve said? Feel free to e-mail me: meagandixon@yahoo.com


October 18, 2007

The Wonderful World of Dating: Conversations in Love


“Let’s run away and get married.” He said, only half joking.

“Las Vegas or Reno?” I asked him, hoping he would understand the idea was funny, not reality.



“Why did we never end up together?” He asked, his eyes full of the hurt he was going through. A nasty breakup, a need to be needed. He was searching for comfort in someone else that he was only going to find within.

“Oh honey, I don’t know. I guess when you wanted to be with me I wasn’t ready, and when I was ready, you were already taken. It just wasn’t meant to be. We make much better friends than lovers.”

“You know Meagan, you are my Corvette.”

“What?”

“Corvette’s are beautiful, and powerful, and every man wants one, but few men get to own one. You are my Corvette, and I guess I’ll have to learn to appreciate you from afar.”

“Huh?... Babe, you need to get a job writing lines for cheesy romantic comedies staring Cameron Diaz. That was too much!”

Where do men come up with this nonsense? I mean really? Really! Was I supposed to swoon and then fall into bed with him? Good thing I like this guy, because that was seriously a deal breaker.

Not even mentioning that being compared to a car is a little unflattering – and it’s the second time it’s happened this month! I do not sound like a car, I do not look like a car, I do not feel like a car, and I am definitely not as fast as a car. Couldn’t they have compared me to a flower, or a kitten, or something cute? He he he, I guess that’s why I love boys, they always keep me on my toes!


~ ~ ~


The Wonderful World of Dating: a semi-caustic look at dating in today’s world, given from the heart of a chronically single girl, appears right here at

As we grow up, we learn that even the one person that wasn’t supposed to ever let you down probably will. You will have your heart broken probably more than once and it’s harder every time. You’ll break hearts too, so remember how it felt when yours was broken. You’ll fight with your best friend. You’ll blame a new love for things an old one did. You’ll cry because time is passing too fast, and you’ll eventually lose someone you love. So take too many pictures, laugh too much, and love like you’ve never been hurt because every sixty seconds you spend upset is a minute of happiness you’ll never get back.

Don’t be afraid that your life will end, be afraid that it will never begin!
~ unknown

Have a great blog idea, or just want to chat with me about something I’ve said? Feel free to e-mail me: meagandixon@yahoo.com


October 17, 2007

The Wonderful World of Dating: Craigslist Love


You have to love Craigslist! It has some of the most interesting and intriguing items listed for sale or trade. When I am having a bad day, and need to lighten the mood, I go to Craigslist to see what nonsense some person has cooked up and attempted to sale on the internet (or I go the personals and laugh and the things people say to attract members of the opposite sex… but that is a story for another blog).


The best is searching Craigslist in big cities, because percentage of interesting posts is exponentially increased by the city population – I am convinced.

So I was perusing New York’s Craigslist when I came across this:

What am I doing wrong?

Okay, I'm tired of beating around the bush. I'm a beautiful (spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I'm articulate and classy. I'm not from New York. I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don't think I'm overreaching at all.

Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around 200 - 250. But that's where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000 won't get me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she's not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I get to her level?

Here are my questions specifically:

* Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars, restaurants, gyms

* What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won't hurt my feelings

* Is there an age range I should be targeting (I'm 25)?

* Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east side so plain? I've seen really 'plain jane' boring types who have nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story there?

* Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows - lawyer, investment banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?

* How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY

Please hold your insults - I'm putting myself out there in an honest way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I'm being up front about it. I wouldn't be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn't able to match them - in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice home and hearth.

It's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

THE ANSWER

Dear Pers-431649184:

I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament. Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I see it.

Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a cr@ppy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't be getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!

So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.

Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful" as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.

By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.

With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way. Classic "pump and dump." I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, let me know.

Hilarious, right!?! There is not much to say, because their posts say it all right? Nope. She responded to his response (with the use of an online thesuraus me thinks)

Dear Sir,

I must confess that I was somewhat taken aback upon reading your email. Indeed, it has taken some time for me to sufficiently recuperate from my surprise. Lest your confidence quickly inflate for little reason (as we know is the predisposition for Wall St. types), allow me to hasten to reassure you that the source of my surprise was neither your candor nor the accuracy of your perception. Indeed, it is your "claimed" success in light of your poor grasp of economics which has me baffled. If the standards required to meet with financial success on Wall St. have sunk so low, perhaps I should indeed "make my own money", except for the fact that the effort/reward ratio is far too high for my liking - especially when so many of your ilk have displayed a far more cogent grasp of market realities than you have.

By now you are likely scratching your ever-vanishing hairline in confusion, so allow me to elaborate, dear man. To build some credibility I will tell you a bit more about yourself. Though you did not mention the details of your occupation, it is clear that you are an investment banker and not a trader, as any good trader would understand that human courtships are based upon a semi-efficient open market, and not an investment banking cartel. However, your inability to grasp the realities of the dating market is not surprising, given that you have successfully employed the tools of collusion and market manipulation rather that true acumen in your supposed wealth generation.

If your grasp of finance were not a minority partner with your ego, you would realize that the "outflows" associated with my depreciating "assets" are quite certain, and therefore subject to a low discount rate when determining their present value. In addition, though your concept of economics evidentially failed to move past the 1950s, advancement in plastic surgery is not subject to the same limitation. Thus, with some additional capital expenditure, the overall lifetime of "outflows" generated by these assets is greatly increased. Sad that Ashton Kutcher has demonstrated understanding of the female asset class which you, in all of your financial "wisdom", have not.

You, on the other hand, are, given the uncertainty of the Wall St. job market, more of an inflation-indexed junk bond with an underwater nested call option. Though you may argue that you are more of an equity investment, my monetary minimums required from you do not change, and if you are unable to pay them, I will liquidate you without the benefit of a chapter 11, just as you would me.

Because your outflows are so much more uncertain with respect to mine, I require additional compensation in the form of a underwater nested call option on your future assets. I say underwater because, even taking into account the value of your junk bond coupon payment to me, the value of my "outflow" is in excess of the market price of your equity (which is quite low due to its riskiness associated with your poor grasp of finance and my existing claim upon your junk bond coupon).

I must thank you though for raising the question, despite the reputation cost of subjecting your weak logic to such widespread scrutiny. This took either considerable courage or ignorance on your part- and we'll give you the benefit of doubt, just this once. My current boyfriend (a trader who lives in Central Park West, of course) and I thoroughly enjoyed discussing your response and we wish you the best of luck in your unhappy pursuit of that elusive market inefficiency.

Boyfriend? Hmmmm, how do you think that conversation would go?

“Hey honey, I just posted on Craigslist to find a boyfriend richer than you, because I have almost drained your bank account, and listen to what he said...”

And his response, “Ohhh, lets write something back together, get the new thesaurus I bought to make myself look intelligent – we may be able to use it.”

Ay ay ay!



~ ~ ~


The Wonderful World of Dating: a semi-caustic look at dating in today’s world, given from the heart of a chronically single girl, appears right here at

As we grow up, we learn that even the one person that wasn’t supposed to ever let you down probably will. You will have your heart broken probably more than once and it’s harder every time. You’ll break hearts too, so remember how it felt when yours was broken. You’ll fight with your best friend. You’ll blame a new love for things an old one did. You’ll cry because time is passing too fast, and you’ll eventually lose someone you love. So take too many pictures, laugh too much, and love like you’ve never been hurt because every sixty seconds you spend upset is a minute of happiness you’ll never get back.

Don’t be afraid that your life will end, be afraid that it will never begin!
~ unknown

Have a great blog idea, or just want to chat with me about something I’ve said? Feel free to e-mail me: meagandixon@yahoo.com

October 15, 2007

The Singing Revolution

I received an e-mail this morning, and thought it was worth sharing:

I just heard about this amazing new film titled "The Singing Revolution." This documentary tells the extraordinary story of the non-violent path Estonia took to free itself from Soviet occupation. The movie will soon be playing in select theaters.

The producers have a special opportunity: If there is enough demand, they will screen the movie in our area. Let's bring "The Singing Revolution" to a theater in Chico , simply sign up on their website: http://www.singingrevolution.com. Those areas that have at least 1500 requests will get a screening.

Most people don't think about singing when they think of revolutions. However, in Estonia , song was the weapon of choice. Between 1986 and 1991, hundreds of thousands of Estonian people gathered to sing forbidden patriotic songs and rally for independence, risking their lives to proclaim their desire for a free Estonia .

"The young people, without any political party, and without any politicians, just came together - not only tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands - to gather and to sing and to give this nation a new spirit. This was the idea of the Singing Revolution." - Mart Laar, Singing Revolution leader and first post-Soviet Estonian prime minister.

All you need to do is click the link www.singingrevolution.com . At the top of the page on the website you will see a statement that says "sign up to have a showing near you". Put in 95926 and your email address. You will receive an instant email to confirm your sign up. In order to complete your signup, you must reply to the email confirmaton.

Please forward this to everyone you know and have them put in 95926 so we can bring it to Chico .