If you have not begun either laughing (or crying) uncontrollably, I suggest you re-read the previous sentence again.  I’ll wait for you.

…

….

…..

Ok, well I’m not waiting that long for you.  I still have no alarm clock, so my sleep is still all messed up, which in turn has diminished my patience to that of an army colonel with a bad case of hemmorhoids.

Onward!

Anyways China, in all of it’s totalitarian glory, has decided that Tibetan monks no longer have the right to reincarnate after they die.  While I might agree that China (and by proxy, Tibet) has something of a population control problem on their hands, telling someone that they’re not allowed to come back as a humpback whale is rather mean, don’t you think?  What if John Q. Chinaman wants to be reborn as a desk lamp?  Who the hell are they to tell him he’s not allowed to brighten the lives (no pun intended) of his owners?

The linked article says the reasoning behind the law is to prevent the Dalai Lama from being reborn.  I understand he is currently in the process of planning said rebirth out (he’s 79 years old, you know), which then makes me wonder what in the goddamned fuck that project plan must look like.

1. Die.
2. Soul surf to Barb Smith’s uterus
3. Tell current resident to GET THE FUCK OUT just in time for close up vagina viewing
4. BIRTH.
5. Continue down the path of the divine
6. 2 years of silence to better understand one’s self
7. Obtain bifocals that went out of date before the previous rebirth [I mean seriously, his glasses look like he pulled them out of the unwanted pile at the homeless shelter]

Anyways, back to what I was talking about before I got distracted.  They say it’s to prevent the Dalai Lama from reincarnating, but I guarantee you that there’s some guy in the Chinese government who is scared to death that one of the 32 slaves he owns to cut his 9 toenails will die of malnutrition, only to come back as some useless fucking piece of plastic that wouldn’t be considered a “toy” by any dictionary definition (save for the fact that it’s red and blue) that is then choked on by his son.  

I commend China for wanting to institute such drastic steps to ensure national safety.  People might argue that the rivers of sewage should take precedence.  Or maybe people believe that China should be looking at ways to decrease the smog that on some days is so thick that satellites can’t see through it, althoughmaybe this is part of their national defense strategy, so who knows.  All I can say is that the sooner we stop those damn Buddhists from throwing caution to the wind and coming back as my car tire the better.

The last thing I need is for to finally remember to buy an alarm clock, only to find out it’s some pissed off Chinese dude with insomnia.

The company, Medtronic, developed the implant originally for Parkinson’s patients, but when tested on this coma patient, they found that if they very slightly upped the voltage over time, it would stimulate the right parts of the brain enough to bring him out of a vegetative state.  I know that critics are going to argue “Oh, well if they’re really doing this for the good of the people, they should offer it for free, or not make so much profit,” but unfortunately for those critics, they use those same economic principals (read: capitalism) when they meet with their manager for their performance review/raise, or when they’re searching for a new job.   Companies charge more, and they (usually) pay their employees more as a result.

At any rate, back to the original point of this article.   I think it’s fucking amazing that we have enough knowledge that we can attach wires to someone’s brain and bring them back to consciousness.  I mean, I want you to honestly think about that for a second.  50 years ago, hysteria was considered a form of mental incapacity.  20 years ago, brain surgery was still in it’s infant form of what it is today.  And today, we’re zapping people’s brains with electricity to bring them back to life.

Goddammit, I want a Frankenstein of my own.

Unbelievable.

Remember how we were told that monopolies were bad? No, not the game – Monopoly is awesome – I’m talking about monopolies when one company gets a stranglehold on a particular market with a particular product and by way of force gets to keep competitors out. Whether it’s by erecting barriers of entry to potential competition or by limit pricing, one company makes it to the top and stays there by muscling everyone else out. We know this is bad for the end user because a lack of competition means that one group dictates the price of the product or service, and being the only provider, they can set the price where ever they like, even if it’s unreasonably high and therefore unattainable by John Q. Public.

This ruling maintains that while monopolies are still illegal and unfair to society, duopolies, for example, are now quite legal. What they are saying is that while one operation who sets unrealistically high prices for their products is unconscionable and immoral, allowing two companies to collude on that same unrealistically high price for their products is completely and totally acceptable. How could they ever see this as being a good thing for any economy?

Of course, the justices that make up the panel noted that while the spirit of the law is commendable, the scope of it is too broad, and that the wording should be re-written to be more vague, and that judges ruling on cases using the new laws should emphasize discretion and treat each on a case-by-case basis. Right. That’s exactly what will happen. I want you to think long and hard about the last time a governing body of any kind purposely created any kind of rule or standard intentionally unclear with positive results. If you can come up with even one example that doesn’t have to do with preventing bodily harm, I invite you to submit it.

There are literally thousands of lawyers out there who must be chomping at the bit right now, knowing that political influence in a particular presiding judge may actually have some effect now – the judges have discretion, so why not attempt to affect that discretion, right? We all know that lawyers are the most ethical and upstanding citizens, why not give them another avenue to express their “creativity.”

I cannot wait to see the fallout from this. Every lobby group ever formed based on any kind of economic stance, is going to have an absolute field day with this ruling. I can only hope that there are at least a few decent human beings left who wield the gavel in the court systems down south, because if not, things are about to get a hell of a lot more expensive for our neighbours on the other side of the 49th parallel.

Minimum-Price Accords May Be Allowed, Top Court Says (bloomberg.com)
Supreme Court Decision (PDF)