Dr. Laura Schlessinger says that women have the power to transform their men, their

marriages, and their own lives. She was on CNN this Saturday on ‘CNN:In the

Money’ to talk to Jack Cafferty about her New book “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands” (Also here). In one of her statements she

said “What I’m trying to remind women is that frankly ladies, we have the power to transform our men, our marriages, and our lives

just by our sweetness, our thoughtfulness, our kindness, and understanding that there’s a male/female polarity. We aren’t

just two people earning money.”


She went on to tell men not to get in touch with their feminine side. That is “our job”, Schlessinger said.


She also that that “ladies, if you want to go on and on and on about something and not resolve it, talk to your girlfriends. If you want a resolution, talk to [your man]. But he is not going to sit there and talk about feelings; he will show you his feelings by what he does.


Dr. Laura and Andy Serwer exchanged this interesting conversation in which Serwer asks Dr. Laura about her book:

SERWER: ….one question I do have, Dr. Laura, are we really that simple? Are men really that simple? There’s something there [in the book]

about we just need a sandwich and some sex. Is that really us?



SCHLESSINGER: It’s one or the other.



SERWER: Sports?



SCHLESSINGER: From your woman you need to know that you’re her hero. It’s very interesting. If you are not sure that you’re

simple, think of this picture. A woman has had a bad day, bad hair day, everything is stressed, and it’s really terrible. She

comes through the front door of the house, and her husband meets her naked and says let’s go make love. You know she will say

how insensitive of you, I have had a bad day. How can you just think about yourself?



Now let’s reverse that. A man has had a really bad day. Maybe he doesn’t even have hair, I don’t know. But his wife meets him

at the door, naked and says let’s go make love. He has forgotten his day.



Yes, you guys are a lot less complex, that in part, your emotional dependency upon us and your lack of complexity here gives

us the power to make our homes and our marriages so much more happier than we are. We are so much in sibling rivalry with

husbands as a male, female; everything I give you is somehow servility. It’s not. It’s called love. The giving gets you back.



LISOVICZ: Dr. Laura, first of all, congratulations. I have never seen Jack Cafferty and Andy Serwer speechless ever. SERWER:

We are loving this. We are basking in it.

Dr. Laura, I love you. You understand us menfolk.


I recommend ALL husbands and wives read her book “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands”.


If you’d like to read the entire transacript from the show you can read it here:

href="http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/28/cnnitm.00.html" target="_blank">CNN: In the Money(Transcript) from Saturday, February 28, 2004.

The Grey Album is an art project/experiment that uses the full vocal
content of
Jay-Z’s Black Album recorded over new beats and production
made using the
Beatles White Album as the sole source material.
Danger Mouse insists he can
explain and prove that all the music
on the Grey Album can be traced back to
the White Album and its
musical content via sampling. Every kick, snare, and
chord is taken
from the Beatles White Album and is in their original
recording somewhere.

———————
DJ Danger Mouse is
doing a good thing here and EMI
is trying to stop him, and served him a Cease-and-desist
order.
I originally heard about this story on Andy
Baio’s Site (Waxy.org)

Apparently EMI is attempting to use the DMCA
to stop DJ Danger Mouse from doing this. 
Fight back!  You can download the entire album
here, as well as here.  If I
can, I may make it available here too.  Stay tuned.

Update:Here is what Lawrence Lessig says about it.

Hate groups, beware!   Tolerance nazi’s are taking over.
From Gay Marriages, Janet’s breast on TV, to Mel Gibson’s new “Passion” movie, people everywhere are crying foul, and the tolerance nazi’s are telling everyone to shut up and like it.
Lately I feel like I’ve been force-fed the liberal gay agenda. Then again, I won’t support the president in putting bias back into the constitution.


I’ll tell you what’s going on here: Political Posturing. This is an election year. It should be no surprise to the general public that companies, political pundits, and politicans will be shoving each other for position, and to take the top spot in media coverage.

Verisign is suing ICANN.



ICANN has a contract with Verisign to run .com and .net.  Verisign has contracts with registrars who sell .com and .net to end-users.  Verisign charges registrars $6.00 for each domain registration sold.  ICANN also has contracts with Registrars.  These contracts stipulates that registrars fund a substantial portion of ICANN’s budget.

This means that Registrars are financing Verisign’s lawsuit
against ICANN who is in turn using Registrar monies to defend it.
.com/.net needs a better management team.

Luca Tedesco emailed me this article
he wrote regarding eliminating Tyrants in today’s world and references work by
John Lock, one highly regarded theorist of modern liberalism.:

JOHN LOCKE AND THE ELIMINATION (ALSO PHYSICAL) OF THE TYRANT

The Anglo-American intervention in Iraq has raised the question whether dictatorial regimes can be peacefully reformed or if revolutionary, and therefore violent, overthrow of institutions represents the only way to set this so called
regime change in motion. This latter option is met with considerable distrust, even among the sector of public opinion and of western culture which professes to be liberal and who would like to convince itself of the possibility of pursuing any aim peacefully.

Yet the revolt against the tyrant and, if necessary, his physical annihilation, is a thesis which dates back to the dawn of the liberal view of the life in society and is, amongst others, accepted and propagated by one of the most highly regarded theorists of modern liberalism, John Locke.

In the XVIII chapter of his work ‘Two Treatises of Government‘ (1690), entitled
‘Of Tyranny‘, the English philosopher, citing the prominent words of King James the first in his parliamentary speech in 1603, writes that the only legitimate laws are those intended to guarantee
“the wealth of the Public, and of the whole Commonwealth“, wealth which is conveyed above all in the intangibility of the property of the citizens, and not the
“private ends” of the monarch.

In the case of this ultimate eventuality should resistance against constitutional government then be considered legitimate? Only if, writes Locke, the situation does not provide organs and procedures which allow the injured party to attain the justice denied by the public authority act exceeding its limits, identified as highlighted earlier, in the
“wealth and property of the people“. In such situations in fact, the violence of established power states this one
“in state of war“, and makes legitimate the resistance against it. The possibility of a revolutionary subversion of the tyrannical regime, though always understood as ultima ratio, is not to be regarded, according to Locke, as a merely hypothetical theory.

It is in fact sufficient, theorises the English philosopher, that illegitimate acts have
“extended to the majority of the people; or if the mischief and oppression has light only on some few, but in such cases, as the precedent, and consequences seem to threaten all, and they are persuaded in their consciences, that their laws, and with them their estates, liberties and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion
too“, to justify resistance. The insurrectional apology takes on very emphatic and vehement tones:
“when people sink into poverty and find themselves faced with the arbitrary government’s
abuse, - writes Locke, again in Two Treatises - extol as much as you want his rulers, like sons of Jupiter, make them sacred and divine, descended or entitled by Heaven […], it will always happen the same thing. The people, universally and unjustly mistreated, are ready to seize the opportunity to rid themselves of the burdens weighing heavily upon
them“.

The government which exceeds the limits of its term in office find itself comparable to the common delinquent. Those in fact, who reject the theory according to which the people should be considered
“absolved from obedience when illegal attacks against liberties and property are
perpetrated“, because this could herald a civil war, “for the same reason (…) could equally say that honest men could not oppose bandits and swindlers, for this could give rise to disorder and
blood-shed“; (statement, the latter, clearly laughable with regards to the common morals). The only acceptable aim of the government, reaffirms Locke, is
“the well-being of man“. What is therefore preferable “for humanity: that the people always find themselves exposed to the boundless will of tyranny or that those governing at times find themselves exposed to opposition, when they become excessive in their use of power and they employ it for the destruction rather than the conservation of people’s
property?” The question is clearly rhetorical. The ruler, on becoming tyrant, can be killed.

Luca Tedesco

Last night, I realized that my emailer was broke. If you’ve lost your password, and never got an email, that’s why. I have fixed it, please try again.

I
was happily typing away at my desk today aside from this weird sickness I find
myself having, when all of a sudden I smell smoke.  "WTF?" I say
to myself.  This isn’t your lightly-scented aroma we’re talking.  I’m
talking I smelled a heap of stench.  I was on IRC at the time, thinking it
was my monitor about to go "poof" and just as I had entered the
message "I think my PC is about to die", I hear 3 loud clicks followed
by *POP*.  My computer was immediately shut down.  It wasn’t my
monitor thank God.  My power supply had died.  So on my (sick) day
off, I ran to CompUSA where there was only 1 teller, and 500 customers, and
bought a 300W power supply.  The only reason I’m typing to you know is
because the new power supply works, and nothing else was fried during the
explosion.

The
#1 man in talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, spoke up today warning about recent
government intervention against broadcasting content.  His comments came
after Clear Channel dropped
Viacom’s Howard Stern show from it’s stations.

"Smut on TV gets praised. Smut on TV wins Emmys. On the radio, there seems
to be different standards," Limbaugh said.
He went on to say "I am in the free speech business. It’s one thing for a
company to determine if they are going to be party to it. It’s another thing for
the government to do it". 

From Limbaugh’s statements, I assume that he is alleging that the Government put
pressure on Clear Channel via new standards brought on by the
FCC, that come
with higher penalties for violating "indecency" laws.

I couldn’t agree more with Limbaugh on this.  The government, under
the Bush Administration, is threatening to strip away many of our rights,
including free speech.

Update: I realize Bush doesn’t control the FCC. It just seems that after 9/11, many things have come into place that seem to be slowly degrading our freedoms–specifically the Patriot Act. If things progress as they seem to be, this will be the begining of the end. We may have some civil war fought by those who want to protect our rights.

Yahoo
is reporting
that A "secret report" written by The
Pentagon on Climate change, famine, and war was obtained by the British
Weekly Observer on Sunday.  Here
is the Observer’s report.  Apparently this report was ordered by an
influential Pentagon advisor but was covered up by "US Defense Chiefs"
for four months.

The Pentagon report, commissioned by Andrew Marshall, predicts that "abrupt
climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries
develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy
supplies," The Observer reported.
The report, quoted in the paper, concluded: “Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life…. Once again, warfare would define human life.”

Its authors — Peter Schwartz, a CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of Global Business Network based in California — said climate change should be considered “immediately” as a top political and military issue.
Some examples given of probable scenarios in the dramatic report include: 

• Britain will have winters similar to those in current-day Siberia as European temperatures drop off radically by 2020.
• by 2007 violent storms will make large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable and lead to a breach in the acqueduct system in California that supplies all water to densely populated southern California
• Europe and the United States become “virtual fortresses” trying to keep out millions of migrants whose homelands have been wiped out by rising sea levels or made unfarmable by drought.
• “catastrophic” shortages of potable water and energy will lead to widespread war by 2020.