i really wish there was a filter in google that removed all religious results.

i'm googling something about the sun. i don't want a hundred hits from the book of joshua. in fact, i want precisely zero hits from the book of joshua. i want a hundred hits that cite physicists...

*sigh*. internet, you're just full of so much false promise...

"-joshua". yeah, i know.

answers.yahoo.com.
ask.com.
wiki.answers.com

yeah, that's better. </sarcasm>.

*cries*

i was wondering what happened to that:
http://www.google.com/reviews/t

well, this will do for now.

excuse me, while i block 75% of the internet...

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hide-unwanted-results-of-go/

it's scary, though, to consider a future where search engines are restricted to answers in genesis.

they'd do it if they could.....and might still, and forget to tell us...

"a jury in racisttown, indiana found that the black man is guilty"

ok. the source sucks. this shouldn't be a jury trial, it should be a judicial review. and the idea that you should need a petition to run for office is not an idea that upholds democracy. it would have been far worse had they ruled obama ineligible on a technicality, as he was winning state after state.

but my memory recalls a lot of fishy shit during this period. obama's campaign was praised for it's "efficiency" in going after exactly the right demographics. but if you spend any time analyzing the results (and i spent a little time going through district-by-district and looking at how things were breaking down), the amazing "efficiency" starts to defy reason. it seemed a little *too* efficient, if you see what i mean.

it's not a new thing. both parties do this. the system is fixed to get the establishment candidate. it's no secret, either. jimmy carter is recently on record for stating that the united states would not pass his own foundation's regulations for "free and fair elections". and jimmy carter is not some obscure pinko out to discredit american democracy.

but it demonstrates the lengths that the democratic party, itself, has gone to to keep hillary out of power. this is a story i'm going to be following in the next few years, if she decides to run. just because i find it curious...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/26/officials-found-guilty-in-obama-clinton-ballot-petition-fraud/

the big question is who the democrats are going to run against her...

i got into an argument this evening.

listen: we could build a society where we're not exploiting each other. we have the technology. we just have to do it.

but all anybody ever says is "human nature this" and "work is sacred that". people don't want to build this society, they just want to be the person doing the exploiting.

to an extent, i realize how brainwashed people are, but to an extent they're fulfilling their own prophesy. they don't want to build a society that prevents themselves from holding the whips. people secretly conspire to be monarchs, running their own fiefdoms.

so, fuck you all, then. if you all insist on an exploitative society, i'm not about to bend over and take it. just because you're convinced you can be queen of make-believe land doesn't mean i should have to go do some stupid nonsense all day.

so, i'll exploit y'all by free loading.

don't like that? well, i have plenty of ideas if you want...

oh, i'm a utopian, am i? well, too bad, then. i have alternatives, but if you're going to fix my choice between getting fucked over and fucking you over because you want to fuck me over, then i'm going to fuck you over.

and fuck you for getting upset about it.

no rational individual would choose being exploited by others over exploiting others. it's not the choice i want, but it's the choice i have.

(the truth is i could fudge the accounting so that i'm living off of excess production, meaning i don't actually cost society a dime that they wouldn't have flushed down the toilet anyways, but it's an arbitrary exercise, and it really ignores the point.)

(at the end of the day, 75% of the money they give me goes back to them in taxes - most of it in property taxes. almost all of the rest of it goes towards food that would get thrown out if nobody bought it. i don't really cost the system anything in any kind of measurable terms.)

the day the local supermarket runs out of food, get back to me on this, but i'm not holding my breath on that.

Ali Haider
I agree with Professor Chomsky on many issues but he got it totally wrong on Syria. Should we intervened at early stage ( like what the opposition and Syrian people kept begging us to do ) by arming the Free Syrian Army and providing aerial cover for them ( NFZ) then tens of thousands of souls could be saved. By lack of decisive leadership we made it very disastrous to Syrian people and complicated to us. Now FSA had to fight both Assad and his Hizballah mercenaries and Al Qaida forces in the north. History will witness that our leadership failed miserably on Syria and sometimes you need a president like Bush who talks the talk and walks the walk.

deathtokoalas
the united states has been intervening the whole time, on the side of the saudi-backed rebels. if it weren't for that american intervention, there wouldn't be a conflict there in the first place. the issue is over escalation, not intervention.

the question displayed the ignorance of the interviewer, and old noam would have taken him to task for it in his clearer-minded years.

the world has changed very little; in this interview, jon snow does not come off much different than william buckley.