"Very few animals were harmed in the filming of this war - overwhelmingly it was men, women & children who were killed, maimed, or psychologically destroyed. It's all perfectly legal - and quaint, don't you think?
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Travel Film
Hey Folks,
And this one !!: “Iraq the Musical” :
http://iraqyouknow.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
This is the last video from Ms. Huffington (it's the Beach Boys without the water and without the innocence - just the sand and the degradation).
- Uke Man
And this one !!: “Iraq the Musical” :
http://iraqyouknow.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
This is the last video from Ms. Huffington (it's the Beach Boys without the water and without the innocence - just the sand and the degradation).
- Uke Man
Monday, February 27, 2006
Sunday, February 26, 2006
"Well, Mr. Bush. The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made."
"Wendy’s and Bob Evans Farms, two Columbus companies, were near the top of Ohio’s list"
Hey Folks,
A while back the Dispatch editorialised against Maryland's effort to force businesses (mainly Wal-Mart) to quit shifting their health care expenses onto the taxpayers. Now, Dispatch reporters have laid out evidence that may change their editors' attitude (but don't hold your breath).
It's all reprinted below, if you missed it.
Besides the joy of bashing Wal-Mart, I was particularly pleased to read:
"Wendy’s and Bob Evans Farms, two Columbus companies, were near the top of Ohio’s list."
Isn't it interesting that our compassionate President made the effort just last week to come all the way to Cowtown Columbus to congratulate Wendy's for adopting his wonderful plan to "shaft-the-workers-out-of-health-care-and-increase-profits" !
I wonder why Wendy's wasn't mentioned until near the end of the article. Hmmmmmmm . . .
In any case, the Uke Man did his own expose' right after Bush's photo op at Wendy's Healthful Headquarters.
I've reposted it directly below this one.
- Uke Man
Wal-Mart workers costing taxpayers
Thousands depend on health-care benefits through government
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Catherine Candisky and Jeffrey Sheban
The Columbus Dispatch
Taxpayers are picking up the tab for health-care costs of more Wal-Mart workers and dependents than for any other Ohio employer, long-awaited state figures show.
And McDonald’s has the most workers and family members getting food stamps and cash assistance.
The report, released yesterday by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, shows taxpayers spent millions last year providing Medicaid to 104,652 employees and family members of some of Ohio’s biggest companies.
Two businesses, Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, each had more than 10,000 employees and dependents receiving benefits from Medicaid, the health-insurance program that is funded by the state and federal governments. Wal-Mart workers got an estimated $27.7 million in Medicaid; McDonald’s employees received about $25.8 million.
The report was issued a day after Wal-Mart, Ohio’s largest employer and a frequent target of complaints about low wages and benefits, said it would expand health-care coverage for its 1.3 million employees nationwide.
State Sen. Robert F. Hagan, who introduced legislation last year to force large corporations to pay for employee health in- surance, called the report "a first good step in getting all the information we need" to reform the health-care system.
"When bad apples don’t pay their fair share, it’s costing taxpayers and good businesses that are providing adequate coverage for workers," the Youngstown Democrat said.
The Job and Family Services agency prepared the report after receiving requests from legislators and news organizations, including The Dispatch. Ohio is the 21 st state to produce such a list.
"Wal-Mart employees now top the Medicaid lists in 21 of 21 states that have disclosed," said Nu Wexler, spokesman for Wal-Mart Watch, a union-supported group that pushes for reforms in Wal-Mart’s policies.
"Ohio taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to subsidize the employee health-care plan of a corporation with $10 billion in annual profit," he said.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Kelly Hobbs said the report doesn’t tell the whole story.
"What the list doesn’t address is that Wal-Mart is actually helping Americans leave the ranks of the uninsured."
Hobbs said 7 percent of Wal-Mart employees are on public assistance when they start working for the company, but that figure falls to 3 percent after they’ve been with the company for two years.
She said Wal-Mart "stands ready to partner with elected leaders to bring about solutions to solve the health-care crisis in America."
Wal-Mart said Thursday that it would begin allowing parttime workers to enroll their children in health plans and build more than 50 in-store clinics for workers and the public.
Hobbs said three-fourths of Wal-Mart workers have private health insurance through one of the company’s 18 plans or through a spouse.
Critics say Wal-Mart’s plans are unaffordable for workers averaging $10 an hour. Some states are taking unilateral action.
Last month, Maryland became the first state to mandate that large private employers pay a fixed amount for employee health-care benefits. The new law requires companies with more than 10,000 workers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care. Wal-Mart is the only company that will be affected.
Ohio’s findings, like those in other states, show that many working families earn so little, they still must rely on tax-supported benefits. The data underscore how states and businesses are struggling to deal with health-care costs.
"The health-care system in this state is broken and states cannot fix this problem on their own. It’s a national problem," said Mark Rickel, spokesman for Gov. Bob Taft.
Ohio spent about $11 billion last year on Medicaid. The program covers about 1.7 million low-income children, working parents and blind and disabled Ohioans. It eats up the biggest portion of the state budget.
The burden has put a strain on state budgets across the nation. Last year, Ohio lawmakers cut 25,000 parents from Medicaid to save about $37 million for the two-year budget.
Likewise, many businesses are dealing with skyrocketing health-care costs by scaling back benefits or requiring employees to pay a higher share.
"As health-care costs rise, it’s the lowest-wage workers who are losing benefits," said Gary Claxton, vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation in Washington, which studies health-care issues.
"I don’t think people should be surprised by what they are seeing, and they probably shouldn’t expect a lot more out of these companies. It’s hard to expect an employer to provide health-care benefits to an employee making $7 an hour."
Wendy’s and Bob Evans Farms, two Columbus companies, were near the top of Ohio’s list. The rate of Medicaid recipients, including dependents, came to 36 per 100 employees for Bob Evans, well above the 25 per 100 at Wal-Mart.
Bob Evans spokeswoman Tammy Roberts Myers said late yesterday that company officials hadn’t seen the report.
"It’s something we will certainly be looking at here and discussing," she said.
ccandisky@dispatch.com
jsheban@dispatch.com
A while back the Dispatch editorialised against Maryland's effort to force businesses (mainly Wal-Mart) to quit shifting their health care expenses onto the taxpayers. Now, Dispatch reporters have laid out evidence that may change their editors' attitude (but don't hold your breath).
It's all reprinted below, if you missed it.
Besides the joy of bashing Wal-Mart, I was particularly pleased to read:
"Wendy’s and Bob Evans Farms, two Columbus companies, were near the top of Ohio’s list."
Isn't it interesting that our compassionate President made the effort just last week to come all the way to Cowtown Columbus to congratulate Wendy's for adopting his wonderful plan to "shaft-the-workers-out-of-health-care-and-increase-profits" !
I wonder why Wendy's wasn't mentioned until near the end of the article. Hmmmmmmm . . .
In any case, the Uke Man did his own expose' right after Bush's photo op at Wendy's Healthful Headquarters.
I've reposted it directly below this one.
- Uke Man
Wal-Mart workers costing taxpayers
Thousands depend on health-care benefits through government
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Catherine Candisky and Jeffrey Sheban
The Columbus Dispatch
Taxpayers are picking up the tab for health-care costs of more Wal-Mart workers and dependents than for any other Ohio employer, long-awaited state figures show.
And McDonald’s has the most workers and family members getting food stamps and cash assistance.
The report, released yesterday by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, shows taxpayers spent millions last year providing Medicaid to 104,652 employees and family members of some of Ohio’s biggest companies.
Two businesses, Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, each had more than 10,000 employees and dependents receiving benefits from Medicaid, the health-insurance program that is funded by the state and federal governments. Wal-Mart workers got an estimated $27.7 million in Medicaid; McDonald’s employees received about $25.8 million.
The report was issued a day after Wal-Mart, Ohio’s largest employer and a frequent target of complaints about low wages and benefits, said it would expand health-care coverage for its 1.3 million employees nationwide.
State Sen. Robert F. Hagan, who introduced legislation last year to force large corporations to pay for employee health in- surance, called the report "a first good step in getting all the information we need" to reform the health-care system.
"When bad apples don’t pay their fair share, it’s costing taxpayers and good businesses that are providing adequate coverage for workers," the Youngstown Democrat said.
The Job and Family Services agency prepared the report after receiving requests from legislators and news organizations, including The Dispatch. Ohio is the 21 st state to produce such a list.
"Wal-Mart employees now top the Medicaid lists in 21 of 21 states that have disclosed," said Nu Wexler, spokesman for Wal-Mart Watch, a union-supported group that pushes for reforms in Wal-Mart’s policies.
"Ohio taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to subsidize the employee health-care plan of a corporation with $10 billion in annual profit," he said.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Kelly Hobbs said the report doesn’t tell the whole story.
"What the list doesn’t address is that Wal-Mart is actually helping Americans leave the ranks of the uninsured."
Hobbs said 7 percent of Wal-Mart employees are on public assistance when they start working for the company, but that figure falls to 3 percent after they’ve been with the company for two years.
She said Wal-Mart "stands ready to partner with elected leaders to bring about solutions to solve the health-care crisis in America."
Wal-Mart said Thursday that it would begin allowing parttime workers to enroll their children in health plans and build more than 50 in-store clinics for workers and the public.
Hobbs said three-fourths of Wal-Mart workers have private health insurance through one of the company’s 18 plans or through a spouse.
Critics say Wal-Mart’s plans are unaffordable for workers averaging $10 an hour. Some states are taking unilateral action.
Last month, Maryland became the first state to mandate that large private employers pay a fixed amount for employee health-care benefits. The new law requires companies with more than 10,000 workers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care. Wal-Mart is the only company that will be affected.
Ohio’s findings, like those in other states, show that many working families earn so little, they still must rely on tax-supported benefits. The data underscore how states and businesses are struggling to deal with health-care costs.
"The health-care system in this state is broken and states cannot fix this problem on their own. It’s a national problem," said Mark Rickel, spokesman for Gov. Bob Taft.
Ohio spent about $11 billion last year on Medicaid. The program covers about 1.7 million low-income children, working parents and blind and disabled Ohioans. It eats up the biggest portion of the state budget.
The burden has put a strain on state budgets across the nation. Last year, Ohio lawmakers cut 25,000 parents from Medicaid to save about $37 million for the two-year budget.
Likewise, many businesses are dealing with skyrocketing health-care costs by scaling back benefits or requiring employees to pay a higher share.
"As health-care costs rise, it’s the lowest-wage workers who are losing benefits," said Gary Claxton, vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation in Washington, which studies health-care issues.
"I don’t think people should be surprised by what they are seeing, and they probably shouldn’t expect a lot more out of these companies. It’s hard to expect an employer to provide health-care benefits to an employee making $7 an hour."
Wendy’s and Bob Evans Farms, two Columbus companies, were near the top of Ohio’s list. The rate of Medicaid recipients, including dependents, came to 36 per 100 employees for Bob Evans, well above the 25 per 100 at Wal-Mart.
Bob Evans spokeswoman Tammy Roberts Myers said late yesterday that company officials hadn’t seen the report.
"It’s something we will certainly be looking at here and discussing," she said.
ccandisky@dispatch.com
jsheban@dispatch.com
Casino Health Care
Hey Folks,
Well, the Dispatch has reported: “Bush praises health-savings accounts, but prognosis grim.”
Whenever Bush presents ANYTHING, one thing is perfectly clear: it is designed to make money for those who have money at the expense of those who struggle with what money they have. Nothing different in this case – it’s the same old bullshit.
Bush says “Free Markets and competition have the power to transform our health-care system.” True, but who will benefit from that change?
Bush says, “HSAs are making health care more affordable.” True, but for whom?
According to the story, “The administration argues that, if people are forced to pay more health-care costs out of pocket, they will comparison shop and request quality data, thereby driving down the cost of care.”
Yeah, right! Consumer Reports: “Best Deals on Dialysis !”
The scam, also reported in the story, is: “A consumer who obtains health-care coverage with A HIGH DEDUCTIBLE can set aside money tax-free to pay for such costs as doctor visits or prescription drugs. IF THE MONEY ISN’T USED, it can be rolled over from year to year with any INTEREST earned also TAX FREE.”
The man who was born again and who talks with God wants regular folks to take up gambling! Gambling with their lives. IF the “saved” money is enough (for the rest of ones life) to pay the bills; groovy, Dude! If not, tough shit – we have NEW bankruptcy laws, you know!
If you never, ever get sick; Dude! Think of the Vegas trips you could take on the money you save!! The story reports a Wendy’s corporate pilot who “likes his HSA and Bush’s plan," says he hasn’t yet tapped his account, so "it has turned into a small INVESTMENT”!
Well, isn’t that nice for him.
Of course, things COULD change for the pilot. Even if they don’t, a large portion of Wendey’s employees won’t be so fortunate. But who gives a fuck!? The plan DOES save corporate money!
According to the story, Wendy’s “health-care costs went up only 1 percent last year after HSAs were implemented. Without the change, the increase would have been 11 percent to 13 percent.” So, HSAs DO save money – for Wendy’s!
Do you think that Wendy’s employees “consumer-shopped” their way into a 10 to 12 percent savings for the company? Or do you think the employees took on 10 to 12 percent of the cost and risk?
Pretty obvious. Whenever Bush presents ANYTHING, it is designed to make money for those who have money at the expense of those who struggle with what money they have.
And in this case, it’s the old “divide and conquer” approach: offer a windfall to those who foolishly feel lucky, and they won’t object to screwing their fellows.
The World Can’t Wait!
Bush must go!
Drive him out!
-Uke Man
Well, the Dispatch has reported: “Bush praises health-savings accounts, but prognosis grim.”
Whenever Bush presents ANYTHING, one thing is perfectly clear: it is designed to make money for those who have money at the expense of those who struggle with what money they have. Nothing different in this case – it’s the same old bullshit.
Bush says “Free Markets and competition have the power to transform our health-care system.” True, but who will benefit from that change?
Bush says, “HSAs are making health care more affordable.” True, but for whom?
According to the story, “The administration argues that, if people are forced to pay more health-care costs out of pocket, they will comparison shop and request quality data, thereby driving down the cost of care.”
Yeah, right! Consumer Reports: “Best Deals on Dialysis !”
The scam, also reported in the story, is: “A consumer who obtains health-care coverage with A HIGH DEDUCTIBLE can set aside money tax-free to pay for such costs as doctor visits or prescription drugs. IF THE MONEY ISN’T USED, it can be rolled over from year to year with any INTEREST earned also TAX FREE.”
The man who was born again and who talks with God wants regular folks to take up gambling! Gambling with their lives. IF the “saved” money is enough (for the rest of ones life) to pay the bills; groovy, Dude! If not, tough shit – we have NEW bankruptcy laws, you know!
If you never, ever get sick; Dude! Think of the Vegas trips you could take on the money you save!! The story reports a Wendy’s corporate pilot who “likes his HSA and Bush’s plan," says he hasn’t yet tapped his account, so "it has turned into a small INVESTMENT”!
Well, isn’t that nice for him.
Of course, things COULD change for the pilot. Even if they don’t, a large portion of Wendey’s employees won’t be so fortunate. But who gives a fuck!? The plan DOES save corporate money!
According to the story, Wendy’s “health-care costs went up only 1 percent last year after HSAs were implemented. Without the change, the increase would have been 11 percent to 13 percent.” So, HSAs DO save money – for Wendy’s!
Do you think that Wendy’s employees “consumer-shopped” their way into a 10 to 12 percent savings for the company? Or do you think the employees took on 10 to 12 percent of the cost and risk?
Pretty obvious. Whenever Bush presents ANYTHING, it is designed to make money for those who have money at the expense of those who struggle with what money they have.
And in this case, it’s the old “divide and conquer” approach: offer a windfall to those who foolishly feel lucky, and they won’t object to screwing their fellows.
The World Can’t Wait!
Bush must go!
Drive him out!
-Uke Man
Cheney Cashes In
Hey Folks,
Now check out this one: “Cheney Plays Folsom”:
http://cheneyplaysfolsom.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
- Uke Man
Now check out this one: “Cheney Plays Folsom”:
http://cheneyplaysfolsom.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
- Uke Man
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Twain - the Battle Continues
Hey Folks,
I’ve been re-reading Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur’s Court and sharing pieces of Twain’s political commentary with you here (this is the 34th entry) .
His insights remain pertinent to this day. We haven’t changed much from Twain’s day – or from King Arthur’s, for that matter.
Chapter 43 – That night the Yankee and Clarence waited and watched as more and more knights naively joined their dead brethren, electrocuted all along the fence lines.
“We concluded to make a tour between the inner fences. We elected to walk upright, for convenience sake . . . Well, it was a curious trip. Everywhere dead men were lying outside the second fence – not plainly visible, but still visible; and we counted fifteen of those pathetic statues – dead knights standing with their hands on the upper wire. . .
Pretty soon we detected a muffled and heavy sound, and the next moment we guessed what it was. It was a surprise in force coming! . . . we stood by the inner fence and watched the silent lightning do its awful work upon that swarming host. One could make out but little of detail; but he could note that a black mass was piling itself up beyond the second fence. That swelling bulk was dead men! Our camp was enclosed with a solid wall of the dead – a bulwark, a breastwork, of corpses, you may say."
- Uke Man
I’ve been re-reading Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur’s Court and sharing pieces of Twain’s political commentary with you here (this is the 34th entry) .
His insights remain pertinent to this day. We haven’t changed much from Twain’s day – or from King Arthur’s, for that matter.
Chapter 43 – That night the Yankee and Clarence waited and watched as more and more knights naively joined their dead brethren, electrocuted all along the fence lines.
“We concluded to make a tour between the inner fences. We elected to walk upright, for convenience sake . . . Well, it was a curious trip. Everywhere dead men were lying outside the second fence – not plainly visible, but still visible; and we counted fifteen of those pathetic statues – dead knights standing with their hands on the upper wire. . .
Pretty soon we detected a muffled and heavy sound, and the next moment we guessed what it was. It was a surprise in force coming! . . . we stood by the inner fence and watched the silent lightning do its awful work upon that swarming host. One could make out but little of detail; but he could note that a black mass was piling itself up beyond the second fence. That swelling bulk was dead men! Our camp was enclosed with a solid wall of the dead – a bulwark, a breastwork, of corpses, you may say."
- Uke Man
Not Sold in Any Store!!!
Hey Folks,
Check out this video: “Songs of the Far Right Wing”
http://folksongsofthefarrightwing.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
- Uke Man
Check out this video: “Songs of the Far Right Wing”
http://folksongsofthefarrightwing.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
- Uke Man
Friday, February 24, 2006
a little mind
Hey Folks,
President Bush has recently received a lot of criticism over allowing the United Arab Emirates to administer several large, American ports. Columnist David Brooks is angry about that.
He argued recently that the criticism of Bush results from an hysterical fear of Arabs, a fear not unrelated to ethnic profiling. He points out that a number of professional experts see no problem with the deal. He calls the criticism “bogus,” “illogical,” and “irrelevant.” He argues that there is no connection between the United Arab Emirates and “Taliban radicalism.” He explains how this will cause us financial difficulties, and he ends by claiming that thwarting Bush will give our enemies “All the garbage they need.”
Every one of these points is perfectly parallel with arguments made earlier against invading Iraq, but Brooks was strangely silent then – no mention of hysteria, fear, and racism – no name-calling - no respect demanded for CIA/FBI/State Department professional experts - no objection to linking Saddam to Al Qaida - no concern for the financial consequences of war - and no recognition that attacking Iraq would provide “All the garbage” Osama “needed.”
Well, Brooks may be hypocritical, but he’s not inconsistent!
When we were being pushed into an unnecessary war that could lead to disaster, he was willing to take a chance that thousands of our young people would be killed and tens of thousands maimed. Now that we are being pushed into an unnecessary business arrangement that could lead to disaster he again is willing to take a chance that thousands of Americans will be killed and tens of thousands maimed.
What is it they say about consistency and hobgoblins?
- Uke Man
President Bush has recently received a lot of criticism over allowing the United Arab Emirates to administer several large, American ports. Columnist David Brooks is angry about that.
He argued recently that the criticism of Bush results from an hysterical fear of Arabs, a fear not unrelated to ethnic profiling. He points out that a number of professional experts see no problem with the deal. He calls the criticism “bogus,” “illogical,” and “irrelevant.” He argues that there is no connection between the United Arab Emirates and “Taliban radicalism.” He explains how this will cause us financial difficulties, and he ends by claiming that thwarting Bush will give our enemies “All the garbage they need.”
Every one of these points is perfectly parallel with arguments made earlier against invading Iraq, but Brooks was strangely silent then – no mention of hysteria, fear, and racism – no name-calling - no respect demanded for CIA/FBI/State Department professional experts - no objection to linking Saddam to Al Qaida - no concern for the financial consequences of war - and no recognition that attacking Iraq would provide “All the garbage” Osama “needed.”
Well, Brooks may be hypocritical, but he’s not inconsistent!
When we were being pushed into an unnecessary war that could lead to disaster, he was willing to take a chance that thousands of our young people would be killed and tens of thousands maimed. Now that we are being pushed into an unnecessary business arrangement that could lead to disaster he again is willing to take a chance that thousands of Americans will be killed and tens of thousands maimed.
What is it they say about consistency and hobgoblins?
- Uke Man
My visit to Worthington Kilbourne
Hey Folks,
I visited Worthington Kilbourne High School today to address the “Political Radicalism” classes, and told them to listen to all the speakers but not to believe anything they said – including me. I argued that nobody knew any more about the important aspects of life than they did. I asked, “If experts know so much, why don’t they ever agree and suggested that almost everything they confront in life is dedicated NOT to solving problems for them or helping them to find the truth, but instead was designed to draw them into a particular “camp” – something helpful to the proselytizer rather than the proselytizee.
Two movies provided examples of how I see “culture” or “civilization” operate in this regard.
From The Truman Show:
“We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented.”
From the 1st Matrix :
Morpheus: “Let me tell you why you are here. You are here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life. That there’s something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is, but it is there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. That’s what brought you to me.
Do you know what I’m talking about?”
(Neo) “The Matrix?”
Morpheus: “Do you want to know what it is?
The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes.
It is the world that has been pulled down over your eyes to blind you from the truth, the truth that you are a slave. The Matrix is a dream world built to keep us under control in order to change a human being into a power source for others.
As long as the Matrix exists, the human race will never be free."
* * *
To help challenge the “givens” foisted upon us as we grow up I suggested “questioning the dominant paradigm” – so to speak. Here are some examples:
Question the Matrix
1. Why do politicians spend so much money to get a job that pays peanuts?
2. Why do corporations give so much money to politicians who are elected by and responsible to the People?
3. If, as studies have shown, in most cases the amount of money spent campaigning determines the victor, what is “democracy” based upon – people or money?
4. If our nation’s foreign policy is aimed at “American Interests,” which Americans’ interests are they?
5. Why do the vast majority of people surveyed believe THEY will go to heaven but that most of the other people won’t?
6. If Cuba is our enemy because it is run by a “Communist dictator,” why do we like China?
7. If this nation was founded on “Christian” principles, how could it have
accepted slavery?
8. In WHAT wars did soldiers fight and die to “protect our rights”?
9. If adultery is a sin, couldn’t we eliminate it by outlawing straight marriages along with gay ones?
10. If experts know so much, why don’t they ever agree?
11. If it makes sense to say, “Choose life; your mother did,” what about “Have sex with your mother; your father did”?
12. If a number of religions claim to be the one, true religion, don’t all but one HAVE to be wrong?
13. If, as some say, health care is a privilege not a right, does that mean that sick poor people have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but NOT life?
14. If the “death tax” is so bad, why don’t we hear more dead people complaining?
15. If it is wrong to collect a welfare check for doing nothing, why is it OK to inherit Wal-Mart?
16. If winning athletes thank God, why don’t losers cuss him?
17. If winning athletes used performance-enhancing drugs, should God still get the credit?
18. If God saves the survivors of a disaster, who killed the victims?
19. If God made man in his own image, what does that say about God?
20. Put another way: If we are the product of God’s “intelligent design,” just how intelligent IS he?
21. If a Christian is a capitalist, does that mean he doesn’t covet his neighbor’s wife – just his neighbor’s goods?
- Uke Man
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Twain - Silent Death
Hey Folks,
I’ve been re-reading Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur’s Court and sharing pieces of Twain’s political commentary with you here (this is the 33rd entry) .
His insights remain pertinent to this day. We haven’t changed much from Twain’s day – or from King Arthur’s, for that matter.
Chapter 43 - The Yankee enters the cave, turns
off the current on the outer fences, and returns to the darkness - with
Clarence - to observe:
We started a whispered conversation, but suddenly
Clarence broke off and said -
“What is that?”
“That thing yonder?”
“What thing? - Where?”
“There beyond you a little piece - a dark something -
a dull shape of some kind - against the second fence.”
I gazed, he gazed. I said:
“Could it be a man, Clarence?”
“No, I think not. If you notice, it looks a lit -
why, it is a man! - leaning on the fence.”
“I certainly believe it is; let’s go and see.”
We crept along on our hands and knees until we were
pretty close, and then looked up. Yes, it was a man -
a dim great figure in armor, standing erect, with both
hands on the upper wire - and of course there was a
smell of burning flesh. Poor fellow, dead as a
doornail, and never knew what hurt him. He stood
there like a statue - no motion about him, except that
his plumes swished about a little in the night wind.
We rose up and looked in through the bars of his
visor, but couldn’t make out whether we knew him or
not - features too dim and shadowed.
We heard muffled sounds approaching, and we sank
down to the ground where we were. We made out
another knight vaguely; he was coming very stealthily,
and feeling his way. He was near enough now, for us to
see him put out a hand, find an upper wire, then bend
and step over it, then bend and step under it and over
the lower one. Now he arrived at the first knight -
and started slightly when he discovered him. He stood
a moment - no doubt wondering why the other one
didn’t move on; then he said, in a low voice, “Why
dreamest thou here, good Sir Mar-” then he laid his
hand on the corpse’s shoulder - and just uttered a
little soft moan and sunk down dead. Killed by a dead
man, you see - killed by a dead friend, in fact.
There was something awful about it.
I’ve been re-reading Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur’s Court and sharing pieces of Twain’s political commentary with you here (this is the 33rd entry) .
His insights remain pertinent to this day. We haven’t changed much from Twain’s day – or from King Arthur’s, for that matter.
Chapter 43 - The Yankee enters the cave, turns
off the current on the outer fences, and returns to the darkness - with
Clarence - to observe:
We started a whispered conversation, but suddenly
Clarence broke off and said -
“What is that?”
“That thing yonder?”
“What thing? - Where?”
“There beyond you a little piece - a dark something -
a dull shape of some kind - against the second fence.”
I gazed, he gazed. I said:
“Could it be a man, Clarence?”
“No, I think not. If you notice, it looks a lit -
why, it is a man! - leaning on the fence.”
“I certainly believe it is; let’s go and see.”
We crept along on our hands and knees until we were
pretty close, and then looked up. Yes, it was a man -
a dim great figure in armor, standing erect, with both
hands on the upper wire - and of course there was a
smell of burning flesh. Poor fellow, dead as a
doornail, and never knew what hurt him. He stood
there like a statue - no motion about him, except that
his plumes swished about a little in the night wind.
We rose up and looked in through the bars of his
visor, but couldn’t make out whether we knew him or
not - features too dim and shadowed.
We heard muffled sounds approaching, and we sank
down to the ground where we were. We made out
another knight vaguely; he was coming very stealthily,
and feeling his way. He was near enough now, for us to
see him put out a hand, find an upper wire, then bend
and step over it, then bend and step under it and over
the lower one. Now he arrived at the first knight -
and started slightly when he discovered him. He stood
a moment - no doubt wondering why the other one
didn’t move on; then he said, in a low voice, “Why
dreamest thou here, good Sir Mar-” then he laid his
hand on the corpse’s shoulder - and just uttered a
little soft moan and sunk down dead. Killed by a dead
man, you see - killed by a dead friend, in fact.
There was something awful about it.
Adventures in "Gaming"
Hey Folks,
If you don’t already know, “Gaming” does not refer to hunting quail (or aged lawyers), selling used cars, or behavior at singles bars. It is the genteel term for (dare I say it here in the bosom of Blackwell Country, in such proximity to the Circleville Bible College ?)
GAMBLING!!!!
Periodically, my degenerate friends connive to involve me in their evil pursuits, and we abandon prudence, embrace turpitude, check our wallets, and head for INDIANA, the home of Satan.
Now, thanks to the magic of my Canon graven-image device, the faint of heart can share – vicariously – in the decadence.
Today, the boat !!!!
Tomorrow, the World !!!!
- Uke Man
If you don’t already know, “Gaming” does not refer to hunting quail (or aged lawyers), selling used cars, or behavior at singles bars. It is the genteel term for (dare I say it here in the bosom of Blackwell Country, in such proximity to the Circleville Bible College ?)
GAMBLING!!!!
Periodically, my degenerate friends connive to involve me in their evil pursuits, and we abandon prudence, embrace turpitude, check our wallets, and head for INDIANA, the home of Satan.
Now, thanks to the magic of my Canon graven-image device, the faint of heart can share – vicariously – in the decadence.
Today, the boat !!!!
Tomorrow, the World !!!!
- Uke Man
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Frankenstein's Monster
Folks,
I had to laugh – an insane laugh – when I read the front page of the Dispatch Tuesday!! The chickens are coming home to roost.
The venal political, economic, and social corruption committed by the “leaders,” “opinion makers,” “money interests, and other elite ginks has coalesced into corporeal form and risen from its slab - anxious to embrace enough other mental defectives to be elected governor.
Not unlike the “chosen” leaders of Saudi Arabia who kept their "unwashed" in line and unfocused on important matters via government-sanctioned, religious prejudice and bigotry toward the West, our own reactionary leaders have – for years - “managed” the hoi polloi via religion, prejudice, and bigotry.
Not unlike the situation in Saudi Arabia, the monster here has taken on a life of its own, no longer within control of his “master.” In the lead story, by Joe Hallett it is reported that the Republican gubernatorial candidate Kenneth Blackwell “went nuclear” (of course, that should be “nucular”); he “drew blood,” announced attack ads saying his primary opponent’s “ethics” were “worse than [Gov. Bob] Taft’s” (who, the ad points out, was “guilty of ethics violations”), called his fellow Republican candidate “a clear and present danger,” and accused him of corrupt “pay-to-play schemes” and premeditated accounting misrepresentations.
Surprise, surprise. The Republican establishment, if initially apoplectic, were quick to howl “Foul !” Ronald Reagan (Blackwell’s purported hero) was mentioned (implying, if not actually invoking his “11th Commandment”: “Don’t poop on fellow Republicans”).
Taft claimed to be busy “moving this state forward” and bemoaned “smear tactics.” One of the funnier comments came from Robert T. Bennet, Ohio’s Republican Party Chair. Speaking from his above-the-fold picture – looking like an aged deer caught in the headlights – he said – as any good Republican would:
“The race for governor should be a contest of ideas, not smear tactics [ I can’t keep from laughing as I type this] and attack ads. I expect this kind of negative campaigning from the Democrats, but Ken Blackwell should have a better strategy for winning this primary than simply burning down the house.”
A Saudi Prince lecturing a zealous ayatollah couldn’t have said it better.
Another laugher came from candidate Jim Petro’s campaign manager Bob Paduchik who said, “Ken Blackwell has aired probably the most deceptive and vile political attack [now here’s the funny part] I’ve ever seen.”
Did this guy just fall off a turnip truck? Can he truly be a Republican?
Now, Blackwell - as everybody should know by now - is in tight with the pompous, faith-healing, charlatan ("minister") Rod Parsley. He’s also – like Parsley and our President - in tight with god. As a result, talking sense to the man works about as well as debating a fence post. Taft, Bennett, and Paduchik wasted their breath (see “Bush Administration” for historical parallels).
The article concludes, “But Blackwell said he would continue his anti-Petro tactics: ‘I believe that pursuing a path of truth [it’s probably in “Leviticus” somewhere] and doing it out of love for my party and respect for good government is why we’re going to pursue this issue as aggressively as we’re going to pursue it.’”
The creature believes ! He believes in himself and in his understanding of God and the World. Why shouldn’t he? All the rotten political body parts sewn together in his construction have always been valued by politicians, particularly - in this state and for many years – by Republicans. Racial prejudice and fear, homophobia, exploiting the poor, “supporting” God, keeping women “in their place” (even so far as refusing an abortion to a woman who will otherwise die), cutting taxes for the rich while cutting programs for the needy – all this rotting protoplasm has been lovingly propagated for decades in Republican petrey dishes.
It’s rotten, but it has worked. Enough uneducated, fearful, prejudiced people have been brought around to voting against their own interest to justify the careful and judicious use of despicable, even immoral, tactics.
The present difference is that in the past “good” Republicans tiptoed around their ugly impulses, dressing them up in fancy clothes, hiding behind surrogates, and making use of them as sparingly as political necessity would allow. Hypocrites, yes, but they knew how the truth would make them look - so they hid it.
Now, animated by God’s lightning bolt and the certainty of God’s counsel, Blackwell stands forth proudly proclaiming the holy nature of his rancid crusade, unencumbered by doubt or shame, so convinced of his righteousness that he, like Frankenstein’s original monster, is clueless as to the actual spectacle he presents or the dark significance of his ascendance.
The saddest thing is that he could end up being our next governor. He does have access to and control of the voting machines. But even without that, I don’t feel absolutely certain he won’t be embraced by a majority of Ohio voters. After all, he is God’s candidate; and this is God’s country.
In Ohio, with God all things are possible.
- Uke Man
I had to laugh – an insane laugh – when I read the front page of the Dispatch Tuesday!! The chickens are coming home to roost.
The venal political, economic, and social corruption committed by the “leaders,” “opinion makers,” “money interests, and other elite ginks has coalesced into corporeal form and risen from its slab - anxious to embrace enough other mental defectives to be elected governor.
Not unlike the “chosen” leaders of Saudi Arabia who kept their "unwashed" in line and unfocused on important matters via government-sanctioned, religious prejudice and bigotry toward the West, our own reactionary leaders have – for years - “managed” the hoi polloi via religion, prejudice, and bigotry.
Not unlike the situation in Saudi Arabia, the monster here has taken on a life of its own, no longer within control of his “master.” In the lead story, by Joe Hallett it is reported that the Republican gubernatorial candidate Kenneth Blackwell “went nuclear” (of course, that should be “nucular”); he “drew blood,” announced attack ads saying his primary opponent’s “ethics” were “worse than [Gov. Bob] Taft’s” (who, the ad points out, was “guilty of ethics violations”), called his fellow Republican candidate “a clear and present danger,” and accused him of corrupt “pay-to-play schemes” and premeditated accounting misrepresentations.
Surprise, surprise. The Republican establishment, if initially apoplectic, were quick to howl “Foul !” Ronald Reagan (Blackwell’s purported hero) was mentioned (implying, if not actually invoking his “11th Commandment”: “Don’t poop on fellow Republicans”).
Taft claimed to be busy “moving this state forward” and bemoaned “smear tactics.” One of the funnier comments came from Robert T. Bennet, Ohio’s Republican Party Chair. Speaking from his above-the-fold picture – looking like an aged deer caught in the headlights – he said – as any good Republican would:
“The race for governor should be a contest of ideas, not smear tactics [ I can’t keep from laughing as I type this] and attack ads. I expect this kind of negative campaigning from the Democrats, but Ken Blackwell should have a better strategy for winning this primary than simply burning down the house.”
A Saudi Prince lecturing a zealous ayatollah couldn’t have said it better.
Another laugher came from candidate Jim Petro’s campaign manager Bob Paduchik who said, “Ken Blackwell has aired probably the most deceptive and vile political attack [now here’s the funny part] I’ve ever seen.”
Did this guy just fall off a turnip truck? Can he truly be a Republican?
Now, Blackwell - as everybody should know by now - is in tight with the pompous, faith-healing, charlatan ("minister") Rod Parsley. He’s also – like Parsley and our President - in tight with god. As a result, talking sense to the man works about as well as debating a fence post. Taft, Bennett, and Paduchik wasted their breath (see “Bush Administration” for historical parallels).
The article concludes, “But Blackwell said he would continue his anti-Petro tactics: ‘I believe that pursuing a path of truth [it’s probably in “Leviticus” somewhere] and doing it out of love for my party and respect for good government is why we’re going to pursue this issue as aggressively as we’re going to pursue it.’”
The creature believes ! He believes in himself and in his understanding of God and the World. Why shouldn’t he? All the rotten political body parts sewn together in his construction have always been valued by politicians, particularly - in this state and for many years – by Republicans. Racial prejudice and fear, homophobia, exploiting the poor, “supporting” God, keeping women “in their place” (even so far as refusing an abortion to a woman who will otherwise die), cutting taxes for the rich while cutting programs for the needy – all this rotting protoplasm has been lovingly propagated for decades in Republican petrey dishes.
It’s rotten, but it has worked. Enough uneducated, fearful, prejudiced people have been brought around to voting against their own interest to justify the careful and judicious use of despicable, even immoral, tactics.
The present difference is that in the past “good” Republicans tiptoed around their ugly impulses, dressing them up in fancy clothes, hiding behind surrogates, and making use of them as sparingly as political necessity would allow. Hypocrites, yes, but they knew how the truth would make them look - so they hid it.
Now, animated by God’s lightning bolt and the certainty of God’s counsel, Blackwell stands forth proudly proclaiming the holy nature of his rancid crusade, unencumbered by doubt or shame, so convinced of his righteousness that he, like Frankenstein’s original monster, is clueless as to the actual spectacle he presents or the dark significance of his ascendance.
The saddest thing is that he could end up being our next governor. He does have access to and control of the voting machines. But even without that, I don’t feel absolutely certain he won’t be embraced by a majority of Ohio voters. After all, he is God’s candidate; and this is God’s country.
In Ohio, with God all things are possible.
- Uke Man
We Can't Wait! Drive Bush Out !!!
G.O.P. to W.: You're Nuts!
By MAUREEN DOWD
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
WASHINGTON
It's enough to make you nostalgic for those gnarly union stevedores in "On the Waterfront," the ones who hung up rats on hooks and took away Marlon Brando's chance to be a contend-ah.
Maybe it's corporate racial profiling, but I don't want foreign companies, particularly ones with links to 9/11, running American ports.
What kind of empire are we if we have to outsource our coastline to a group of sheiks who don't recognize Israel, in a country where money was laundered for the 9/11 attacks? And that let A. Q. Kahn, the Pakistani nuclear scientist, smuggle nuclear components through its port to Libya, North Korea and Iran?
It's mind-boggling that President Bush ever agreed to let an alliance of seven emirs be in charge of six of our ports. Although, as usual, Incurious George didn't even know about it until after the fact. (Neither did Rummy, even though he heads one of the agencies that green-lighted the deal.)
Same old pattern: a stupid and counterproductive national security decision is made in secret, blowing off checks and balances, and the president's out of the loop.
Was W. too busy not calling Dick Cheney to find out why he shot a guy to not be involved in a critical decision about U.S. security? What is he waiting for — a presidential daily brief warning, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. Ports?"
Our ports are already nearly naked in terms of security. Only about 5 percent of the containers coming into the country are checked. And when the White House assures us that the Homeland Security Department will oversee security at the ports, is that supposed to make us sleep better? Not after the chuckleheaded Chertoff-and-Brownie show on Capitol Hill.
"Our borders are wide open," said Jan Gadiel of 9/11 Families for a Secure America. "We don't know who's in our country right now, not a clue. And now they're giving away our ports." The "trust us" routine of W. and Dick Cheney is threadbare.
The more W. warned that he would veto legislation stopping this deal, the more lawmakers held press conferences to oppose it — even conservatives who had loyally supported W. on Iraq, the Patriot Act, torture and warrantless snooping.
Mr. Bush is hoist on his own petard. For four years, the White House has accused anyone in Congress or the press who defended civil liberties or questioned anything about the Iraq war of being soft on terrorism. Now, as Congress and the press turn that accusation back on the White House, Mr. Bush acts mystified by the orgy of xenophobia.
Lawmakers, many up for re-election, have learned well from Karl Rove. Playing the terror card works.
A bristly Bush said yesterday that scotching the deal would send "a terrible signal" to a worthy ally. He equated the "Great British" with the U.A.E. Well, maybe Britain in the 12th century.
Besides, the American people can be forgiven if they're confused about what it means in the Arab world to be a U.S. ally. Is it a nation that helps us sometimes but also addicts us to oil and then jacks up the price, refuses to recognize Israel, denies women basic rights, tolerates radical anti-American clerics, looks the other way when its citizens burn down embassies and consulates over cartoons, and often turns a blind eye when it comes to hunting down terrorists in its midst?
In our past wars, America had specific countries to demonize. But now in the "global war on terror" — GWOT, as they call it — the enemy is a faceless commodity that the administration uses whenever it wants to win a political battle. When something like this happens, it's no wonder the public does its own face transplant.
One of the real problems here is that this administration has run up such huge trade and tax-cut-and-spend budget deficits that we're in hock to the Arabs and the Chinese to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. If they just converted their bonds into cash, they would own our ports and not have to merely rent them.
Just because the wealthy foreigners who own our debt can blackmail us with their economic leverage, does that mean we should expose our security assets to them as well?
As part of the lunatic White House defense, Dan Bartlett argued that "people are trying to drive wedges and make this to be a political issue." But as the New Republic editor Peter Beinart pointed out in a recent column, W. has made the war on terror "one vast wedge issue" to divide the country.
Now, however, the president has pulled us together. We all pretty much agree: mitts off our ports.
By MAUREEN DOWD
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
WASHINGTON
It's enough to make you nostalgic for those gnarly union stevedores in "On the Waterfront," the ones who hung up rats on hooks and took away Marlon Brando's chance to be a contend-ah.
Maybe it's corporate racial profiling, but I don't want foreign companies, particularly ones with links to 9/11, running American ports.
What kind of empire are we if we have to outsource our coastline to a group of sheiks who don't recognize Israel, in a country where money was laundered for the 9/11 attacks? And that let A. Q. Kahn, the Pakistani nuclear scientist, smuggle nuclear components through its port to Libya, North Korea and Iran?
It's mind-boggling that President Bush ever agreed to let an alliance of seven emirs be in charge of six of our ports. Although, as usual, Incurious George didn't even know about it until after the fact. (Neither did Rummy, even though he heads one of the agencies that green-lighted the deal.)
Same old pattern: a stupid and counterproductive national security decision is made in secret, blowing off checks and balances, and the president's out of the loop.
Was W. too busy not calling Dick Cheney to find out why he shot a guy to not be involved in a critical decision about U.S. security? What is he waiting for — a presidential daily brief warning, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. Ports?"
Our ports are already nearly naked in terms of security. Only about 5 percent of the containers coming into the country are checked. And when the White House assures us that the Homeland Security Department will oversee security at the ports, is that supposed to make us sleep better? Not after the chuckleheaded Chertoff-and-Brownie show on Capitol Hill.
"Our borders are wide open," said Jan Gadiel of 9/11 Families for a Secure America. "We don't know who's in our country right now, not a clue. And now they're giving away our ports." The "trust us" routine of W. and Dick Cheney is threadbare.
The more W. warned that he would veto legislation stopping this deal, the more lawmakers held press conferences to oppose it — even conservatives who had loyally supported W. on Iraq, the Patriot Act, torture and warrantless snooping.
Mr. Bush is hoist on his own petard. For four years, the White House has accused anyone in Congress or the press who defended civil liberties or questioned anything about the Iraq war of being soft on terrorism. Now, as Congress and the press turn that accusation back on the White House, Mr. Bush acts mystified by the orgy of xenophobia.
Lawmakers, many up for re-election, have learned well from Karl Rove. Playing the terror card works.
A bristly Bush said yesterday that scotching the deal would send "a terrible signal" to a worthy ally. He equated the "Great British" with the U.A.E. Well, maybe Britain in the 12th century.
Besides, the American people can be forgiven if they're confused about what it means in the Arab world to be a U.S. ally. Is it a nation that helps us sometimes but also addicts us to oil and then jacks up the price, refuses to recognize Israel, denies women basic rights, tolerates radical anti-American clerics, looks the other way when its citizens burn down embassies and consulates over cartoons, and often turns a blind eye when it comes to hunting down terrorists in its midst?
In our past wars, America had specific countries to demonize. But now in the "global war on terror" — GWOT, as they call it — the enemy is a faceless commodity that the administration uses whenever it wants to win a political battle. When something like this happens, it's no wonder the public does its own face transplant.
One of the real problems here is that this administration has run up such huge trade and tax-cut-and-spend budget deficits that we're in hock to the Arabs and the Chinese to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. If they just converted their bonds into cash, they would own our ports and not have to merely rent them.
Just because the wealthy foreigners who own our debt can blackmail us with their economic leverage, does that mean we should expose our security assets to them as well?
As part of the lunatic White House defense, Dan Bartlett argued that "people are trying to drive wedges and make this to be a political issue." But as the New Republic editor Peter Beinart pointed out in a recent column, W. has made the war on terror "one vast wedge issue" to divide the country.
Now, however, the president has pulled us together. We all pretty much agree: mitts off our ports.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Twain
Hey Folks,
I’ve been re-reading Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur’s Court and sharing pieces of Twain’s political commentary with you here (this is the 32nd entry) .
His insights remain pertinent to this day. We haven’t changed much from Twain’s day – or from King Arthur’s, for that matter.
Chapter 43 – After the thundering explosion as the charging knights entered the mine-field, heavy smoke obscured the battlefield for half an hour before it dissipated.
“No living creature was in sight! We now perceived that additions had been made to our defences. The dynamite had dug a ditch more than a hundred feet wide, all around us, and cast up an embankment some twenty-five feet high on both borders of it. As to destruction of life, it was amazing. Moreover, it was beyond estimate. Of course we could not count the dead, because they did not exist as individuals, but merely as homogenous protoplasm, with alloys of iron and buttons."
Feeling secure, the Yankee spoke to his “army,” his fifty-two boys, in no uncertain terms that after this victory, only the nights would be left to fight – the commoners having left the scene – and that, as for the knights, “We will kill them all.”
He then sends out work crews laboring through the night to prepare the diversion of a mountain brook just south of his defences, “arranging it in such a way that I could make instant use of it in an emergency.” Later . . .
“As soon as it was good and dark, I shut off the current from all of the fences, and then groped my way out to the embankment bordering our side of the great dynamite ditch. I crept to the top of it and lay there on the slant of the muck to watch. But it was too dark to see anything.”
After a long wait . . .
"At last I caught what you may call indistinct glimpses of sound – dulled metallic sound. . . This sound thickened, and approached – from toward the north. Presently I heard it at my own level – the ridge- top of the opposite embankment, a hundred feet or more
away. . . I heard that metallic noise descending into the great ditch. It augmented fast, it spread all along, and it unmistakably furnished me this fact: an armed host was taking up its quarters in the ditch. Yes, these people were arranging a little surprise party for us. . . I groped my way back to the corral, now; I had seen enough. I went to the platform and signaled to turn the current onto the two inner fences. . . It was my notion that as soon as dawn approached we could expect the ditch’s ambuscaded thousands to swarm up over the embankment and make an assault, and be followed immediately by the rest of their army.”
I’ve been re-reading Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur’s Court and sharing pieces of Twain’s political commentary with you here (this is the 32nd entry) .
His insights remain pertinent to this day. We haven’t changed much from Twain’s day – or from King Arthur’s, for that matter.
Chapter 43 – After the thundering explosion as the charging knights entered the mine-field, heavy smoke obscured the battlefield for half an hour before it dissipated.
“No living creature was in sight! We now perceived that additions had been made to our defences. The dynamite had dug a ditch more than a hundred feet wide, all around us, and cast up an embankment some twenty-five feet high on both borders of it. As to destruction of life, it was amazing. Moreover, it was beyond estimate. Of course we could not count the dead, because they did not exist as individuals, but merely as homogenous protoplasm, with alloys of iron and buttons."
Feeling secure, the Yankee spoke to his “army,” his fifty-two boys, in no uncertain terms that after this victory, only the nights would be left to fight – the commoners having left the scene – and that, as for the knights, “We will kill them all.”
He then sends out work crews laboring through the night to prepare the diversion of a mountain brook just south of his defences, “arranging it in such a way that I could make instant use of it in an emergency.” Later . . .
“As soon as it was good and dark, I shut off the current from all of the fences, and then groped my way out to the embankment bordering our side of the great dynamite ditch. I crept to the top of it and lay there on the slant of the muck to watch. But it was too dark to see anything.”
After a long wait . . .
"At last I caught what you may call indistinct glimpses of sound – dulled metallic sound. . . This sound thickened, and approached – from toward the north. Presently I heard it at my own level – the ridge- top of the opposite embankment, a hundred feet or more
away. . . I heard that metallic noise descending into the great ditch. It augmented fast, it spread all along, and it unmistakably furnished me this fact: an armed host was taking up its quarters in the ditch. Yes, these people were arranging a little surprise party for us. . . I groped my way back to the corral, now; I had seen enough. I went to the platform and signaled to turn the current onto the two inner fences. . . It was my notion that as soon as dawn approached we could expect the ditch’s ambuscaded thousands to swarm up over the embankment and make an assault, and be followed immediately by the rest of their army.”
Monday, February 20, 2006
"There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say,what they do,and this is not a time for remarks like that.There never is."
Ari Fleischer, former White House Spokesman
"The Constitution is just a piece of paper!" - G.W. Bush
Hey Folks,
The Blundo column directly below struck a uke-nerve.
I’m so incredibly driven to distraction by hypocrisy! The lame crap we are fed:
We have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly; we’re “a nation of laws,” no one is above the law, all men are created equal, “life-liberty-and the pursuit of happiness,” “of –by-and for the people,” etc., etc., etc.
It’s not that I have a problem with these high-minded items; I have a problem with the windbags who strut around campaign podiums or editorial pages claiming that these things are already accomplished facts here in this “greatest country in the history of the world,” in this “shining city by the sea,” in this “Christian” nation – claiming that thousands of “brave Americans” have died to “protect” all these imaginary blessings.
Just one example. During Watergate, the publisher of the Washington Post was lionized as a courageous heroine because she printed a news story, a story which was true and for which there was overwhelmingly sufficient supportive evidence. Although EVERYONE advised against it, she printed the story – and has been celebrated ever since.
For what?
For printing an accurate, important, well-supported story in a newspaper, in Washington D.C. in the United States of America where the constitution suposedly guarantees “freedom of the Press.” That’s like being sainted for being Catholic.
Didn’t thousands of American soldiers die to ensure her right to freedom of speech and press? Isn’t publishing honest, supportable stories what newspapers are supposed to do? Doesn’t the constitution protect her right to do just that?
Well, then, why did EVERYONE tell her NOT to? Why was she so heroic in just doing her job.
Blundo has the reason directly below. All these high sounding phrases are ideals or goals – NOT extant facts. Our “leaders” should be working to make them realities – NOT trotting them out as excuses for accepting continued manipulation.
- Uke Man
The Blundo column directly below struck a uke-nerve.
I’m so incredibly driven to distraction by hypocrisy! The lame crap we are fed:
We have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly; we’re “a nation of laws,” no one is above the law, all men are created equal, “life-liberty-and the pursuit of happiness,” “of –by-and for the people,” etc., etc., etc.
It’s not that I have a problem with these high-minded items; I have a problem with the windbags who strut around campaign podiums or editorial pages claiming that these things are already accomplished facts here in this “greatest country in the history of the world,” in this “shining city by the sea,” in this “Christian” nation – claiming that thousands of “brave Americans” have died to “protect” all these imaginary blessings.
Just one example. During Watergate, the publisher of the Washington Post was lionized as a courageous heroine because she printed a news story, a story which was true and for which there was overwhelmingly sufficient supportive evidence. Although EVERYONE advised against it, she printed the story – and has been celebrated ever since.
For what?
For printing an accurate, important, well-supported story in a newspaper, in Washington D.C. in the United States of America where the constitution suposedly guarantees “freedom of the Press.” That’s like being sainted for being Catholic.
Didn’t thousands of American soldiers die to ensure her right to freedom of speech and press? Isn’t publishing honest, supportable stories what newspapers are supposed to do? Doesn’t the constitution protect her right to do just that?
Well, then, why did EVERYONE tell her NOT to? Why was she so heroic in just doing her job.
Blundo has the reason directly below. All these high sounding phrases are ideals or goals – NOT extant facts. Our “leaders” should be working to make them realities – NOT trotting them out as excuses for accepting continued manipulation.
- Uke Man
