Mr. Rafael Chandler has just an announced that his long awaited comic strip for Rainbow Six has been released. Check it out.

In other comic news, Sin City to be released tomorrow. The NY Times(free registration required) had an interesting article about it. Said to feature 'Blood for blood, and by the gallons'. Don't know why the girlfriend doesn't want to see it. To me, looks like a darker, more violent Dick Tracy. We'll see tomorrow night!

I have to hand it to William (f'ing) Shatner. This is a pretty good idea. Surprised it was turned down.

Kind of like Smallville for geekier people. For those people who think they're better than Star Trek, realize right now that you are wasting your time reading some idiot's weblog and then realize that you're not better.

The only thing worse then letting this woman live, is letting her slowly die from starvation. Why is the anger generated by this whole thing not leading to a euthanasia debate? Selfish conservatives want everyone to live and die by their rules. Suffering and common sense are barriers that they run right through.

Ok, so there is some talk about getting rid of the tax system as we know it. Before you cheer, you may want to think for a second. I mean this is Bush, does he really have your best economic interests in his mind? Of course not, he has his own interests (and that of all his rich peeps) in mind.

Currently we have a progressive tax code. That means that different levels of your income are taxed differently. Every dollar from $0-$7150 is taxed the same for Bill Gates as it is for me. But every dollar from $319k - $1 million is taxed more severely. Works for us poor folks, because we have no dollars in that range.

What if i was to tell you that the current system was going to go away in favor of a consumption tax? That is, we only pay tax on things that we buy. So essentially, if you buy a widget, the price will be jacked up, and part of that money (a larger chunk then currently) is given to the government.

Let's just take a second for quiet contemplation. Who is this going to benefit? It seems to me that if you already have a widget, you aren't going to be paying ANY taxes. In fact, if you already have all the widgets you need, you wouldn't owe the government jack. So those with widgets pay $0 dollars to the government, and those who don't have their widgets yet are SOL.

Moreover, it is said that this encourages savings and this is a "plus" of the system (as touted by those who champion this tax scheme). That is, if its going to cost an arm and a leg for a widget, I am not going to want to buy it. So I will save my money and not buy the widget.

Unfortunatetly, when widgets are not bought, they amass in inventory. Worse yet, they are not produced (because no company will produce a widget if no one is going to buy it). So exactly how is this good for the economy. It seems to be disasterous for the economy, particularly if you work at a widget factory. But who is it good for? Oh yeah, those who already own the widget (probably the same person who owns the widget factory, who is then forced to lay you off because those dang widgets aren't selling).

I leave you with a quote from the great socio/economic philosopher, Aerosmith:

Eat the Rich: there's only one thing that they're good for
Eat the Rich: take one bite now - come back for more
Eat the Rich: I gotta get this off my chest
Eat the Rich: take one bite now, spit out the rest

Ok, let's see here:

1. Army missing recruitment quotas
2. Reserves now taking older and older recruits

I just wish i was smart enough to see what all this is pointing to...

Let.s look at this from an economics perspective. Demand is high for soldiers (lots of wars to keep 'freedom on the march', and to 'take the fight to the terrorists'. Supply is low (Because no one actually wants to fight in these wars because they may die and for little cause.)

High demand, low supply should yield a higher and higher pricetag. That is, it will cost us more and more money to recruit, retain, entice new soldiers (more debt for the taxpayer). With me so far?

But what if the U.S. Government is a cartel in this particular example (in fact they are). How could the government, which has unlimited demand for soldiers, keep their wars stocked full of all required troop levels without bankrupting the US treasury? A cartel has the ability to control supply. Hmm, controlling supply. That's a nice way of saying get your selected service cards ready.

I have a bad memory. I will admit that. But why am I the only person that seems to remember things that relate to our current headlines?

Ok, softball issue first. Mark Mcguire was accused of using steroids in 1998! Doesn't anybody else remember that? He acknowledged using androstenedione, but stopped short of saying he used illegal steroids. Ok Mark. Wink wink.

Now on to Bush. A culture of life? Are you kidding me? Someone want to mention his stance on the death penalty? I mean this guy executes the mentally retarded!

And only a smug SOB like Bush would say he is cultivating a culture of life when he declares pre-emptive wars! Pre-emptive! Anyone? Bueller?

What is wrong with our government? I'm used to the stupid political wranglings and have grown accustomed to the idiotic 'values' speeches. Unjustified, unpopular wars? That's nothing new. Mismanagement of governmental funds? Happens every day.

But since when have both parties completely turned their backs on the 10th amendment?

I bet you thought that the World Bank was an evil organization before, huh.

By the way, I'm no bleeding heart on this issue. I feel like if you borrow money, you pay it back (shocking concept). I'm still waiting for my check from Great Britain and France for the Marshal Plan.

There was breaking news from the FCC today. It turns out that the Desperate Housewives/Monday Night Football Intro was not indecent. In other news, sky still blue, people offended by everything still offended.

There is an article on Slashdot about how AOL has changed its Terms of Service for its Instant Messenger. Essentially, if you send an instant message, America Online has the ability to see it, reproduce it, or basically take ownership over it. Just another reminder that there is no privacy rights in the United States and that we may as well rip up the Constitution and start from scratch.

National Wil Wheaton day hailed by ny times, others. Wheaton on CSI tonight.

Without discrimination, I'd have to wait in the women's line for the bathroom.

Ironically, there are more women in this country (not to mention in all bathroom lines). This could be changed if they wanted. Guess they'd rather wait in line. Works for me.

Who's guarding this guy's work, Barney Fife?

"On August 22, gunmen stole a version of Munch's most famous masterpiece, "The Scream,..."
On the same day thieves snatched another Munch masterpiece, "Madonna," from the same museum. That theft is unsolved."

So I guess we are supposed to get all excited about the FEC's new 'crackdown' that will treat a hyperlink to a site the same as a donation to a political organization, etc.

Ok, first of all its the FEC (not exactly the flagship organization in our federal bureaucracy). Second of all, does anyone really think they can regulate the Internet the same as other media? And by the by, it doesn't cost any money to hyperlink to a site, so there is no need for them to develop a dollar amount cost. Its the same cost as me verbally telling someone my opinion.

Just read this story. I'm kinda hoping the Supreme Court rules that Religious symbols can be put on public grounds (even though obviously the first sentence of the first amendment specifically forbids it). Mostly because the fastest growing religion in the United States is Islam...

Time before Christian Crosses are replaced with Muslim Crescents, twenty years. Amount of time thereafter for Christians to completely change their view on this subject, three seconds. Amount of time before Adam is laughing his ass off at hypocrites, zero seconds.

Bush Administration as Inclusive as it is Intelligent...

'If you wont throw away billions of dollars for an antiquated, ineffective defensive shield, I won't bless you with my presence.'