random links from random places via 022708

In spite of the fact that I still think people aren't fully understanding the notion of re-training (a post I will have to get to later...and it's not that I disagree that it's a Bad Thing for people to be forced to learn new skills for new jobs due to globalization...but rather I think people who have not had any amount of training on new technologies and have established careers might need to have training available to them at low cost JUST IN CASE they want or need to change careers and find that the harsh reality is that they will have to learn to deal with new technology in a way they aren't currently being asked to) this article [via Crooks and Liars]goes a long way towards explaining why I miss Edwards and fervently hope Obama (uh, if he's the nominee) chooses him as his running mate:

Edwards took a huge swing at corporate lobbyists by singling out the NAFTA-like Chapter 11 rights. As I explained (and Public Citizen has a much more detailed explanation): Let's say a company doing business in a country that has a party to one of these so-called "free trade" agreements believes a law violates rights or protections the company has under the trade deal. The company can take its case before a trade tribunal, which can, then, rule that a law--say an environmental law or labor--is illegal under the so-called "free trade" regime and award tax-payer dollars to corporations. And this tribunal operates behind closed doors, with no public input or scrutiny and none of the basic due process or transparency one would expect in open courts.

    Edwards' position was really important. These Chapter 11 rights are one of the most odious provisions of so-called "free trade" deals. They allow companies to undercut our democracy--laws that are passed by the people we elect can be overridden by an unaccountable, unelected tribunal. Edwards stood up and, effectively, said he would not sign trade deals with these undemocratic provisions.

    Neither Sen. Clinton or Obama have made that specific pledge. Too many people think that globalization is just a slogan to mouth without looking at the rules that are governing trade. The fact is: globalization is nothing new. We've traded ever since humans walked on the earth. We need to stop being enthralled by the slogan "globalization" and think about how we set up rules that govern those trading relationships.

My friend Harold sent me this link about evolutionary "propaganda." Although, I don't know...after reading these bios, I kind of feel like the ministry is a hoax...what do you think?

"Diamond" Jack Holgroth is a Game Theoretician who currently teaches a course in Advanced Game Theory for Theologians at Fellowship University. He served our country during the Cold War as a Game Theory Tactician for the Department of Defense and single-handedly developed an elegant solution to the "Fisherman's Quandary", a game theory problem that was crucial to the winning of the arms race and that was famously intractable - until Diamond Jack came along. Jack also enjoys vexillology and can signal Bible passages from memory in fluent semaphore.

(although, secretly, I would like to see Bible passages recited in semaphore. hahahaha. That's freaking BRILLIANT.)

ACK! there is all sorts of brilliance on this site. My friend Chris just messaged me and encouraged me to mouse over the baby on this page. EEEEK! If you click on him a lot, he cries! I made baby Jesus cry!

Anyway, on to more serious items...or item, as I am running out of time...this Alternet article about how well Obama plays the media game is interesting to me:

The media can also veto candidates, as in the case of John Edwards. He was not by definition a "marginal" candidate: a U.S. senator and vice-presidential candidate in the last election, at various junctures he polled better against potential Republican contenders than the other Democratic candidates. He led his rivals in introducing a serious health care plan, and arguably transformed the contest in his appeal to the Democratic base on that and other issues.

But the media rejected Edwards, by a combination of ignoring him and subjecting him to much more negative reporting than the other major contenders. The same was true in 2004 for Howard Dean, who rallied the Democratic base but found himself with five or six times as many negative articles in the media than his major democratic primary opponents.

[...]

On the other hand, Obama knew how to define his candidacy within the limits of the media's constraints and still have a mass appeal. From the beginning of his campaign he mostly avoided challenging powerful interests, and talked about "getting all sides to the table" and overcoming "decades of bitter partisanship." The media and punditocracy lap this stuff up like honey. At the same time he was able to tap into the voters' deep desire for change, with inspirational speeches, transcendental narratives, and celebrity-studded videos.