"An' that's been corrobiated by The Minstry of Truth!!"
Monday, July 31, 2006
The only thing Krugman has wrong is assuming this to be a democracy with a free press!
Hey Folks,
When you get through the last paragraph below, stop and consider what EXACTLY "democracy" IS in this land. NOT what you and I think is meant by "democracy," but what it actually IS in practice under this system.
Hint: To get started, first consider the nature of the "democracy" Dubya is "spreading" in foreign lands.
The notion of a "free press" is just as laughable, but I'll address that at a later date.
- Uke Man
July 28, 2006
Reign of Error
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Amid everything else that’s going wrong in the world, here’s one more piece of depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up from 36 percent in February 2005. Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had strong links with Al Qaeda.
At one level, this shouldn’t be all that surprising. The people now running America never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don’t like have been established, whether it’s the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down the memory hole.
But it’s dismaying to realize that the machine remains so effective.
Here’s how the process works.
First, if the facts fail to support the administration position on an issue — stem cells, global warming, tax cuts, income inequality, Iraq — officials refuse to acknowledge the facts.
Sometimes the officials simply lie. “The tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive and reduced income inequality,” Edward Lazear, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, declared a couple of months ago. More often, however, they bob and weave.
Consider, for example, Condoleezza Rice’s response a few months ago, when pressed to explain why the administration always links the Iraq war to 9/11. She admitted that Saddam, “as far as we know, did not order Sept. 11, may not have even known of Sept. 11.” (Notice how her statement, while literally true, nonetheless seems to imply both that it’s still possible that Saddam ordered 9/11, and that he probably did know about it.) “But,” she went on, “that’s a very narrow definition of what caused Sept. 11.”
Meanwhile, apparatchiks in the media spread disinformation. It’s hard to imagine what the world looks like to the large number of Americans who get their news by watching Fox and listening to Rush Limbaugh, but I get a pretty good sense from my mailbag.
Many of my correspondents are living in a world in which the economy is better than it ever was under Bill Clinton, newly released documents show that Saddam really was in cahoots with Osama, and the discovery of some decayed 1980’s-vintage chemical munitions vindicates everything the administration said about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. (Hyping of the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had W.M.D. has made a comeback.)
Some of my correspondents have even picked up on claims, mostly disseminated on right-wing blogs, that the Bush administration actually did a heck of a job after Katrina.
And what about the perceptions of those who get their news from sources that aren’t de facto branches of the Republican National Committee?
The climate of media intimidation that prevailed for several years after 9/11, which made news organizations very cautious about reporting facts that put the administration in a bad light, has abated. But it’s not entirely gone. Just a few months ago major news organizations were under fierce attack from the right over their supposed failure to report the “good news” from Iraq — and my sense is that this attack did lead to a temporary softening of news coverage, until the extent of the carnage became undeniable. And the conventions of he-said-she-said reporting, under which lies and truth get equal billing, continue to work in the administration’s favor.
Whatever the reason, the fact is that the Bush administration continues to be remarkably successful at rewriting history. For example, Mr. Bush has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn’t let U.N. inspectors in. His most recent statement to that effect was only a few weeks ago. And he gets away with it. If there have been reports by major news organizations pointing out that that’s not at all what happened, I’ve missed them.
It’s all very Orwellian, of course. But when Orwell wrote of “a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past,” he was thinking of totalitarian states. Who would have imagined that history would prove so easy to rewrite in a democratic nation with a free press?
When you get through the last paragraph below, stop and consider what EXACTLY "democracy" IS in this land. NOT what you and I think is meant by "democracy," but what it actually IS in practice under this system.
Hint: To get started, first consider the nature of the "democracy" Dubya is "spreading" in foreign lands.
The notion of a "free press" is just as laughable, but I'll address that at a later date.
- Uke Man
July 28, 2006
Reign of Error
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Amid everything else that’s going wrong in the world, here’s one more piece of depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up from 36 percent in February 2005. Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had strong links with Al Qaeda.
At one level, this shouldn’t be all that surprising. The people now running America never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don’t like have been established, whether it’s the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down the memory hole.
But it’s dismaying to realize that the machine remains so effective.
Here’s how the process works.
First, if the facts fail to support the administration position on an issue — stem cells, global warming, tax cuts, income inequality, Iraq — officials refuse to acknowledge the facts.
Sometimes the officials simply lie. “The tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive and reduced income inequality,” Edward Lazear, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, declared a couple of months ago. More often, however, they bob and weave.
Consider, for example, Condoleezza Rice’s response a few months ago, when pressed to explain why the administration always links the Iraq war to 9/11. She admitted that Saddam, “as far as we know, did not order Sept. 11, may not have even known of Sept. 11.” (Notice how her statement, while literally true, nonetheless seems to imply both that it’s still possible that Saddam ordered 9/11, and that he probably did know about it.) “But,” she went on, “that’s a very narrow definition of what caused Sept. 11.”
Meanwhile, apparatchiks in the media spread disinformation. It’s hard to imagine what the world looks like to the large number of Americans who get their news by watching Fox and listening to Rush Limbaugh, but I get a pretty good sense from my mailbag.
Many of my correspondents are living in a world in which the economy is better than it ever was under Bill Clinton, newly released documents show that Saddam really was in cahoots with Osama, and the discovery of some decayed 1980’s-vintage chemical munitions vindicates everything the administration said about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. (Hyping of the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had W.M.D. has made a comeback.)
Some of my correspondents have even picked up on claims, mostly disseminated on right-wing blogs, that the Bush administration actually did a heck of a job after Katrina.
And what about the perceptions of those who get their news from sources that aren’t de facto branches of the Republican National Committee?
The climate of media intimidation that prevailed for several years after 9/11, which made news organizations very cautious about reporting facts that put the administration in a bad light, has abated. But it’s not entirely gone. Just a few months ago major news organizations were under fierce attack from the right over their supposed failure to report the “good news” from Iraq — and my sense is that this attack did lead to a temporary softening of news coverage, until the extent of the carnage became undeniable. And the conventions of he-said-she-said reporting, under which lies and truth get equal billing, continue to work in the administration’s favor.
Whatever the reason, the fact is that the Bush administration continues to be remarkably successful at rewriting history. For example, Mr. Bush has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn’t let U.N. inspectors in. His most recent statement to that effect was only a few weeks ago. And he gets away with it. If there have been reports by major news organizations pointing out that that’s not at all what happened, I’ve missed them.
It’s all very Orwellian, of course. But when Orwell wrote of “a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past,” he was thinking of totalitarian states. Who would have imagined that history would prove so easy to rewrite in a democratic nation with a free press?
Sunday, July 30, 2006
The Uke Man is Going to California !!
Hey Folks,
Breaking News:
The Uke Man will be traveling to California in early October to play two shows and visit my nephew Nate!! And I’m so very pleased and excited about all three parts of this adventure.
I haven’t seen much of Nate, my brother John’s son, since he moved to the land of tall timber; now we can make up for lost time. I once gave Nate an old electric guitar I had and later gave him a ukulele – I’ll soon find out if he can play it.
Breaking News:
The Uke Man will be traveling to California in early October to play two shows and visit my nephew Nate!! And I’m so very pleased and excited about all three parts of this adventure.
I haven’t seen much of Nate, my brother John’s son, since he moved to the land of tall timber; now we can make up for lost time. I once gave Nate an old electric guitar I had and later gave him a ukulele – I’ll soon find out if he can play it.
He lives in Arcata, up near the top of California – says his “town park” consists of those giant redwoods we all saw in the Star Wars movie as the home of the Ewoks. He also lives within walking distance to the Pacific Ocean where surfers play among the sharks.
I look forward to the reunion: Nate, the water, and the trees.
I look forward to the reunion: Nate, the water, and the trees.
While in Arcata, I’ll be playing an entire evening at the Six Rivers Brewery, which Nate tells me is THE watering hole in that part of the world.
There’s a chance too of doing a local radio interview/studio performance at KHUM ( it streams at: http://www.khum.com/fsetstream.html). Great fun!!!
There’s a chance too of doing a local radio interview/studio performance at KHUM ( it streams at: http://www.khum.com/fsetstream.html). Great fun!!!
After my time at Nate's, it's off to Santa Cruz for a second reunion with my pal Andy Andrews and the Ukulele Club of Santa Cruz ( http://www.ukuleleclub.com/ ).
Not only is Andy a warm and generous guy (a humane lefty like me – it must run in the Uke Family), but he’s famous as well (as is his club) – just recently interviewed on NPR!!!
Give a listen:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5584525
Not only is Andy a warm and generous guy (a humane lefty like me – it must run in the Uke Family), but he’s famous as well (as is his club) – just recently interviewed on NPR!!!
Give a listen:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5584525
In 2004 I met Andy when band mates Peter English, Ty Barnes and I played Uke-Fest West ( http://www.ukefestwest.com/ ) in Santa Cruz, put on by Andy and the Santa Cruz Club and held in the beautiful Cocoanut Grove facility.
Since then we’ve stayed in touch and got together a bit in New York City during the 2006 NY Uke Fest, where Andy invited me to visit when I could.The rest will soon be history!!
Thanks, Andy.
I’ll report more, folks, as it develops.
- Uke Man
Since then we’ve stayed in touch and got together a bit in New York City during the 2006 NY Uke Fest, where Andy invited me to visit when I could.The rest will soon be history!!
Thanks, Andy.
I’ll report more, folks, as it develops.
- Uke Man
The Ukulele Club of Santa Cruz
is proud to present
Recently escaped from
a Red State!
The Ukulele Man
Tom Harker
Thursday October 12
A Pox on Bush & Co.
Hey Folks,
The Herbert column (below) made me keep remembering how obvious all of what he says about Bush and the Neo-Coneheads was from the start - from lo0ng ago!!
It's really sad that it took all this destruction and tragedy to make significant numbers of Americans admit it.
More and more I see this "faith-based," "guessing," blind "Hero/savior worship" (as opposed to self-reliance and acceptance of personal responsibility) as the mechanism that brought us here - in the face of OBVIOUS, overwhelming, objective indications of the regime's incompetence.
I agree that the harm will be very, very long in addressing; the world we have come to know growing up may be gone for good.
I'm glad I'm old. A pox on the fools running things and upon the blind worms squeeking their "Leaders" praises.
-Uke Man
July 27, 2006
Failure Upon Failure
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Imagine a surgeon who is completely clueless, who has no idea what he or she is doing.
Imagine a pilot who is equally incompetent.
Now imagine a president.
The Middle East is in flames. Iraq has become a charnel house, a crucible of horror with no end to the agony in sight. Lebanon is in danger of going down for the count. And the crazies in Iran, empowered by the actions of their enemies, are salivating like vultures. They can’t wait to feast on the remains of U.S. policies and tactics spawned by a sophomoric neoconservative fantasy — that democracy imposed at gunpoint in Iraq would spread peace and freedom, like the flowers of spring, throughout the Middle East.
If a Democratic president had pursued exactly the same policies, and achieved exactly the same tragic results as George W. Bush, that president would have been the target of a ferocious drive for impeachment by the G.O.P.
Mr. Bush spent a fair amount of time this week with the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. There was plenty to talk about, nearly all of it hideous. Over the past couple of months Iraqi civilians have been getting blown away at the stunning rate of four or five an hour. Even Karl Rove had a tough time drawing a smiley face on that picture.
“Obviously the violence in Baghdad is still terrible,” said Mr. Bush, “and therefore there needs to be more troops.”
One did not get the sense, listening to this assessment from the commander in chief, that things would soon be well in hand. There was, instead, a disturbing sense of déjà vu. A sense of the president at a complete loss, not really knowing what to do. I recalled the image of Mr. Bush sitting in a Sarasota, Fla., classroom after being informed of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead of reacting instantly, commandingly, he just sat there for long wasted moments, with a bewildered look on his face, holding a second-grade story called “The Pet Goat.”
And then there was the famous picture of Mr. Bush, on his way back from a monthlong vacation, looking out the window of Air Force One as it flew low over the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. “It’s devastating,” Mr. Bush was quoted as saying. “It’s got to be doubly devastating on the ground.”
I’ll tell you what’s devastating. The monumental and mind-numbing toll of Mr. Bush’s war in Iraq, which is being documented in a series of important books, the latest being Thomas Ricks’s “Fiasco.” Mr. Ricks gives us more disturbing details about the administration’s “flawed plan for war” and “worse approach to occupation.”
Near the end of his book, he writes:
“In January 2005, the C.I.A.’s internal think tank, the National Intelligence Council, concluded that Iraq had replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for a new generation of jihadist terrorists. The country had become ‘a magnet for international terrorist activity,’ said the council’s chairman, Robert Hutchings.”
Saddled with one failure after another, the administration seems paralyzed, completely unable to shape the big issues facing the U.S. and the world today. Condoleezza Rice is in charge of the diplomatic effort regarding Lebanon. She’s been about as effective at that as the president was in his response to Katrina.
But Dr. Rice is still quick with the scary imagery. Her comment, “I have no doubt there are those who wish to strangle a democratic and sovereign Lebanon in its crib,” recalls her famous, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
It might help if she spent less time giving us provocative metaphors and more time on the very difficult nuts and bolts of trying to maintain or bring about peace.
It may be that a hamstrung Bush administration is a better bet than the same crew being free to act as it pleases. Imagine how much better off we’d have been if Congress had found the wisdom and the courage to prevent the president from invading Iraq.
In two years and a few months Americans will vote again for president. I hope the long list of tragic failures by Bush & Co. prompts people to take that election more seriously than some in the past. If you were about to be lifted onto an operating table, you’d be more interested in the competence of the surgeon than in his or her personality.
Mr. Bush’s record reminds us that similarly careful consideration should be given to those who would be president.
The Herbert column (below) made me keep remembering how obvious all of what he says about Bush and the Neo-Coneheads was from the start - from lo0ng ago!!
It's really sad that it took all this destruction and tragedy to make significant numbers of Americans admit it.
More and more I see this "faith-based," "guessing," blind "Hero/savior worship" (as opposed to self-reliance and acceptance of personal responsibility) as the mechanism that brought us here - in the face of OBVIOUS, overwhelming, objective indications of the regime's incompetence.
I agree that the harm will be very, very long in addressing; the world we have come to know growing up may be gone for good.
I'm glad I'm old. A pox on the fools running things and upon the blind worms squeeking their "Leaders" praises.
-Uke Man
July 27, 2006
Failure Upon Failure
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Imagine a surgeon who is completely clueless, who has no idea what he or she is doing.
Imagine a pilot who is equally incompetent.
Now imagine a president.
The Middle East is in flames. Iraq has become a charnel house, a crucible of horror with no end to the agony in sight. Lebanon is in danger of going down for the count. And the crazies in Iran, empowered by the actions of their enemies, are salivating like vultures. They can’t wait to feast on the remains of U.S. policies and tactics spawned by a sophomoric neoconservative fantasy — that democracy imposed at gunpoint in Iraq would spread peace and freedom, like the flowers of spring, throughout the Middle East.
If a Democratic president had pursued exactly the same policies, and achieved exactly the same tragic results as George W. Bush, that president would have been the target of a ferocious drive for impeachment by the G.O.P.
Mr. Bush spent a fair amount of time this week with the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. There was plenty to talk about, nearly all of it hideous. Over the past couple of months Iraqi civilians have been getting blown away at the stunning rate of four or five an hour. Even Karl Rove had a tough time drawing a smiley face on that picture.
“Obviously the violence in Baghdad is still terrible,” said Mr. Bush, “and therefore there needs to be more troops.”
One did not get the sense, listening to this assessment from the commander in chief, that things would soon be well in hand. There was, instead, a disturbing sense of déjà vu. A sense of the president at a complete loss, not really knowing what to do. I recalled the image of Mr. Bush sitting in a Sarasota, Fla., classroom after being informed of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead of reacting instantly, commandingly, he just sat there for long wasted moments, with a bewildered look on his face, holding a second-grade story called “The Pet Goat.”
And then there was the famous picture of Mr. Bush, on his way back from a monthlong vacation, looking out the window of Air Force One as it flew low over the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. “It’s devastating,” Mr. Bush was quoted as saying. “It’s got to be doubly devastating on the ground.”
I’ll tell you what’s devastating. The monumental and mind-numbing toll of Mr. Bush’s war in Iraq, which is being documented in a series of important books, the latest being Thomas Ricks’s “Fiasco.” Mr. Ricks gives us more disturbing details about the administration’s “flawed plan for war” and “worse approach to occupation.”
Near the end of his book, he writes:
“In January 2005, the C.I.A.’s internal think tank, the National Intelligence Council, concluded that Iraq had replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for a new generation of jihadist terrorists. The country had become ‘a magnet for international terrorist activity,’ said the council’s chairman, Robert Hutchings.”
Saddled with one failure after another, the administration seems paralyzed, completely unable to shape the big issues facing the U.S. and the world today. Condoleezza Rice is in charge of the diplomatic effort regarding Lebanon. She’s been about as effective at that as the president was in his response to Katrina.
But Dr. Rice is still quick with the scary imagery. Her comment, “I have no doubt there are those who wish to strangle a democratic and sovereign Lebanon in its crib,” recalls her famous, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
It might help if she spent less time giving us provocative metaphors and more time on the very difficult nuts and bolts of trying to maintain or bring about peace.
It may be that a hamstrung Bush administration is a better bet than the same crew being free to act as it pleases. Imagine how much better off we’d have been if Congress had found the wisdom and the courage to prevent the president from invading Iraq.
In two years and a few months Americans will vote again for president. I hope the long list of tragic failures by Bush & Co. prompts people to take that election more seriously than some in the past. If you were about to be lifted onto an operating table, you’d be more interested in the competence of the surgeon than in his or her personality.
Mr. Bush’s record reminds us that similarly careful consideration should be given to those who would be president.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
A Nation of Men Not Laws
Hey Folks,
We've all heard it proudly stated some time or other that we are "a nation of laws, not men." What a laugh.
It never has been that. The "law" has ALWAYS been selectively enforced - not to mention selectively constructed - to help out the ruling class.
Dubya, however, has taken disrespect for the law to such a high level and so blatantly that it's pinching the ginks at the top a bit too.
When THAT happens - THEN - we hear squeeling from the "vigilant" press.
You see, the law is designed to pinch US !! Not them.
Lou Dobbs (below) says, "Why is the president ignoring our laws?" What he really is asking is, "Why has the president started ignoring the law in new ways? What's wrong with ignoring it the usual way?"
You see, the law has always been ignored in order to help the few men at the expense of the many people. Dobbs is squeeling because part of that "few" suspect they are being thrown in with the rest of us - the masses who already (since "civilization" began) have been getting shafted by selectively crafted laws and selected enforcement of those laws.
Think about it. It's true.
- Uke Man
p.s. Dobbs makes a fairly good argument (though suspiciously heavy on the immigrant aspect), but where have he and his brother clowns/clones been in the memorable past??
Dobbs: Why is the president ignoring our laws?
Bush, feds flout the Constitution by finding ways around laws
By Lou Dobbs CNN
(a ukethanks to Steve)
NEW YORK (CNN) -- With upraised right hand and left hand on the Bible, each of our presidents, from George Washington to George W. Bush, has solemnly sworn to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States.
The American Bar Association claims President Bush has violated that oath by issuing hundreds of "signing statements" to disregard selected provisions of the laws that Congress passed and he signed.
A bipartisan, 11-member panel of the ABA found that President Bush is not only disregarding laws but using such signing statements far more than any president in history. In fact, Bush has used signing statements to raise constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws. All of the presidents combined before 2001 had issued only 600.
The ABA asserts that signing statements cannot be a substitute for a presidential veto and that such an assertion of presidential power amounts to a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court already has ruled unconstitutional.
The matter will likely be resolved in court. But it stands as a metaphor for a 21st century America that is no longer secure in the claim to be a nation of laws.
The federal government is failing to enforce our laws on a wide range of issues. Trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is clearly a treaty, have not been approved by two-thirds of the Senate as required by the Treaty Clause of the Constitution.
That clause states the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." And why has the Senate not been required to approve these treaties? Because the last three presidents have claimed these trade deals are executive agreements rather than treaties.
But if these so-called free-trade agreements are not to be considered treaties, then they are clearly within the power of Congress, not the president. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign nations." But Congress has given up its exclusive constitutional authority to negotiate and regulate trade agreements by ceding "fast-track authority" to the executive branch.
The president's fast-track authority is set to expire next year, more than 30 years after its passage. It is no coincidence that the United States has now posted a trade deficit for 30 consecutive years.
The federal government is also undermining the rule of law in this country when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws and securing borders and ports.
The Bush administration in its first four years was responsible for 318 fines against employers who hired illegal workers, an average of fewer than 80 each year. That's down from 5,587 fines against illegal employers during the eight years of the Clinton administration, according to the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, an average of 698 each year. And the problem is getting worse; in 2004 only three employers received fines for illegal hiring.
Work site arrests have fallen even more drastically under this president. From 1995 to 1998, there were between 10,000 and 18,000 work site arrests of illegal aliens each year. But during the Bush administration, work site arrests fell to just 159 in 2004.
Apprehensions along the border averaged 1.05 million from fiscal year 2001 to 2004, according to the independent, progressive group Third Way, down from 1.52 million from 1996 to 2000. Border apprehensions have plummeted more than 30 percent, despite a doubling in the number of Border Patrol agents over the past decade and the rising number of attempted crossings.
It is not only the federal government that had diminished our claim to be a nation of laws. More than 70 U.S. cities, including New York, Los Angeles, California, and Chicago, Illinois, have set up "sanctuary" policies that offer safe haven from the law to illegal aliens and their families.
"It most certainly is a blatant violation of the law," says Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado. "There is a provision of the 1996 Immigration Act that is very clear: It says states and localities can't do this. The unfortunate thing is there are no teeth in it."
As Abraham Lincoln said, if bad laws exist they should "be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed." President Lincoln devoutly believed that rule of law assured that ours would continue to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
And that should be the first demand of every American today.
We've all heard it proudly stated some time or other that we are "a nation of laws, not men." What a laugh.
It never has been that. The "law" has ALWAYS been selectively enforced - not to mention selectively constructed - to help out the ruling class.
Dubya, however, has taken disrespect for the law to such a high level and so blatantly that it's pinching the ginks at the top a bit too.
When THAT happens - THEN - we hear squeeling from the "vigilant" press.
You see, the law is designed to pinch US !! Not them.
Lou Dobbs (below) says, "Why is the president ignoring our laws?" What he really is asking is, "Why has the president started ignoring the law in new ways? What's wrong with ignoring it the usual way?"
You see, the law has always been ignored in order to help the few men at the expense of the many people. Dobbs is squeeling because part of that "few" suspect they are being thrown in with the rest of us - the masses who already (since "civilization" began) have been getting shafted by selectively crafted laws and selected enforcement of those laws.
Think about it. It's true.
- Uke Man
p.s. Dobbs makes a fairly good argument (though suspiciously heavy on the immigrant aspect), but where have he and his brother clowns/clones been in the memorable past??
Dobbs: Why is the president ignoring our laws?
Bush, feds flout the Constitution by finding ways around laws
By Lou Dobbs CNN
(a ukethanks to Steve)
NEW YORK (CNN) -- With upraised right hand and left hand on the Bible, each of our presidents, from George Washington to George W. Bush, has solemnly sworn to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States.
The American Bar Association claims President Bush has violated that oath by issuing hundreds of "signing statements" to disregard selected provisions of the laws that Congress passed and he signed.
A bipartisan, 11-member panel of the ABA found that President Bush is not only disregarding laws but using such signing statements far more than any president in history. In fact, Bush has used signing statements to raise constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws. All of the presidents combined before 2001 had issued only 600.
The ABA asserts that signing statements cannot be a substitute for a presidential veto and that such an assertion of presidential power amounts to a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court already has ruled unconstitutional.
The matter will likely be resolved in court. But it stands as a metaphor for a 21st century America that is no longer secure in the claim to be a nation of laws.
The federal government is failing to enforce our laws on a wide range of issues. Trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is clearly a treaty, have not been approved by two-thirds of the Senate as required by the Treaty Clause of the Constitution.
That clause states the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." And why has the Senate not been required to approve these treaties? Because the last three presidents have claimed these trade deals are executive agreements rather than treaties.
But if these so-called free-trade agreements are not to be considered treaties, then they are clearly within the power of Congress, not the president. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign nations." But Congress has given up its exclusive constitutional authority to negotiate and regulate trade agreements by ceding "fast-track authority" to the executive branch.
The president's fast-track authority is set to expire next year, more than 30 years after its passage. It is no coincidence that the United States has now posted a trade deficit for 30 consecutive years.
The federal government is also undermining the rule of law in this country when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws and securing borders and ports.
The Bush administration in its first four years was responsible for 318 fines against employers who hired illegal workers, an average of fewer than 80 each year. That's down from 5,587 fines against illegal employers during the eight years of the Clinton administration, according to the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, an average of 698 each year. And the problem is getting worse; in 2004 only three employers received fines for illegal hiring.
Work site arrests have fallen even more drastically under this president. From 1995 to 1998, there were between 10,000 and 18,000 work site arrests of illegal aliens each year. But during the Bush administration, work site arrests fell to just 159 in 2004.
Apprehensions along the border averaged 1.05 million from fiscal year 2001 to 2004, according to the independent, progressive group Third Way, down from 1.52 million from 1996 to 2000. Border apprehensions have plummeted more than 30 percent, despite a doubling in the number of Border Patrol agents over the past decade and the rising number of attempted crossings.
It is not only the federal government that had diminished our claim to be a nation of laws. More than 70 U.S. cities, including New York, Los Angeles, California, and Chicago, Illinois, have set up "sanctuary" policies that offer safe haven from the law to illegal aliens and their families.
"It most certainly is a blatant violation of the law," says Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado. "There is a provision of the 1996 Immigration Act that is very clear: It says states and localities can't do this. The unfortunate thing is there are no teeth in it."
As Abraham Lincoln said, if bad laws exist they should "be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed." President Lincoln devoutly believed that rule of law assured that ours would continue to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
And that should be the first demand of every American today.
Faith (fantasy) v. Reality - Again!!
Hey Folks,
I’m sorry if I sound like a broken record, but here it is again (see Mo below).
As Kurt Vonnegut pointed out:
Human beings have had to guess about almost everything for the past million years or so. The leading characters in our history books have been our most enthralling, and sometimes our most terrifying, guessers…
But the guessers, in fact, knew no more than the common people and sometimes less, even when, or especially when, they gave us the illusion that we were in control of our destinies. http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/07/faith-and-reason.html
As I’ve pointed out ( same link) it’s a lot EASIER to have faith, put our own intellect in storage; and rely on God, Jesus, or the “great leader.”
The problem is that, at best, the guessers are just guessing; at worst, they KNOW – and NOTHING will challenge that “knowledge,” not even the destruction of everything we hold dear. So it is with Dubya.
We COULD just lie back and enjoy it, singing all-together:
“Put your hand in the hand of the man who spread democracy; put your hand in the hand of the man who made us free.”
God bless the child emperor!!
- Uke Man
July 26, 2006
The Immutable President
By MAUREEN DOWD
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Washington
It’s too bad President Bush spurns evolution — both in his view of the universe and his view of himself.
Scientists see more and more evidence that human evolution not only exists but is ongoing, as people adapt to changing circumstances with shifts in everything from skin color to the protein structure of sperm.
But with W., it’s more a matter of survival of the stubbornist.
If you turn on TV, you see missiles flying, bodies lying, nuclear missiles unleashed and a slaughterhouse in Iraq. But don’t despair, because yesterday President Bush announced the establishment of “a joint committee to achieve Iraqi self-reliance.” He called it a “new partnership,” as if it were some small business.
Isn’t it a little late, in July 2006, to be launching a new partnership for such an old mess? Isn’t it a little late to realize that Baghdad, a city where 300 garbage collectors have been killed in the last six months, according to press reports, has spun out of control?
In a press conference at the White House with his rogue puppet, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Mr. Bush explained that “our strategy is to remain on the offense, including in Baghdad.” Then why, after three and a half years, does our offense look so much like a defense?
The president sounded like a Jon Stewart imitation of himself when he assured reporters that Mr. Maliki had “a comprehensive plan” to pacify Iraq. “That’s what leaders do,” W. lectured, in a familiar refrain. “They see problems, they address problems, and they lay out a plan to solve the problems.”
If only the plan were a little less robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul, and a little more road-to-Damascus epiphany. Taking troops out of Anbar Province, where the insurgency is thriving, to quell violence in Baghdad doesn’t inspire confidence that the plan is truly “comprehensive.”
And despite W.’s praise of Mr. Maliki’s leadership, the plan to start from scratch, in essence, stabilizing neighborhood by neighborhood in Baghdad is, as The Times’s Michael Gordon writes, “an implicit acknowledgment of what every Iraqi in Baghdad already knows”: the prime minister’s “original Baghdad security plan has failed. In the past two weeks, more Iraqi civilians have been killed than have died in Lebanon and Israel.”
Mr. Bush also sent Condi Rice to lay out a plan to the Arabs and Europeans about the destruction and refugee flight in Lebanon, but the plan turns out to be a plan to do nothing until Israel has more time to kick the Hezb out of Hezbollah.
W. says he supports more diplomacy, but it’s the diplomacy of sanctimony. He now grudgingly notes that “the violence in Baghdad is still terrible,” but doesn’t seem to grasp the tragic enormity of an occupation that is sliding into civil war and constricting his leverage to deal with all the other crises crackling around the world. The U.N. reported last week that in May and June no less than 5,818 Iraqi civilians were killed.
Although he talked about whether America could be “facile” and “nimble” enough to change with the circumstances in the Middle East, in fundamental ways, he has not changed his attitude at all.
Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe says he conducted four “freewheeling” interviews with the president last week, and concluded: “Bush thinks the new war vindicates his early vision of the region’s struggle: of good versus evil, civilization versus terrorism, freedom versus Islamic fascism. He still believes that when it comes to war and terror, leaders need to decide whose side they are on.”
The president sees Lebanon as a test of macho mettle rather than the latest chapter in a fratricidal free-for-all that’s been going on for centuries. “I view this as the forces of instability probing weakness,” he said. “I think they’re testing resolve.”
The more things get complicated, the more W. feels vindicated in his own simplified vision. The more people try to tell him that it’s not easy, that this is a region of shifting alliances and interests, the less he seems inclined to develop an adroit policy to win people over to our side instead of trying to annihilate them.
Bill Clinton, the Mutable Man par excellence, evolved four times a day; he had a tactical and even recreational attitude toward personal change. But W. prides himself on his changelessness and regards his immutability as the surest sign of his virtue. Facing a map on fire, he sees any inkling of change as the slippery slope to failure.
That’s what’s so frustrating about watching him deal — or not deal — with Iraq and Lebanon. There’s almost nothing to watch.
It’s not even like watching paint dry, since that, too, is a passage from one state to another. It’s like watching dry paint
I’m sorry if I sound like a broken record, but here it is again (see Mo below).
As Kurt Vonnegut pointed out:
Human beings have had to guess about almost everything for the past million years or so. The leading characters in our history books have been our most enthralling, and sometimes our most terrifying, guessers…
But the guessers, in fact, knew no more than the common people and sometimes less, even when, or especially when, they gave us the illusion that we were in control of our destinies. http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/07/faith-and-reason.html
As I’ve pointed out ( same link) it’s a lot EASIER to have faith, put our own intellect in storage; and rely on God, Jesus, or the “great leader.”
The problem is that, at best, the guessers are just guessing; at worst, they KNOW – and NOTHING will challenge that “knowledge,” not even the destruction of everything we hold dear. So it is with Dubya.
We COULD just lie back and enjoy it, singing all-together:
“Put your hand in the hand of the man who spread democracy; put your hand in the hand of the man who made us free.”
God bless the child emperor!!
- Uke Man
July 26, 2006
The Immutable President
By MAUREEN DOWD
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Washington
It’s too bad President Bush spurns evolution — both in his view of the universe and his view of himself.
Scientists see more and more evidence that human evolution not only exists but is ongoing, as people adapt to changing circumstances with shifts in everything from skin color to the protein structure of sperm.
But with W., it’s more a matter of survival of the stubbornist.
If you turn on TV, you see missiles flying, bodies lying, nuclear missiles unleashed and a slaughterhouse in Iraq. But don’t despair, because yesterday President Bush announced the establishment of “a joint committee to achieve Iraqi self-reliance.” He called it a “new partnership,” as if it were some small business.
Isn’t it a little late, in July 2006, to be launching a new partnership for such an old mess? Isn’t it a little late to realize that Baghdad, a city where 300 garbage collectors have been killed in the last six months, according to press reports, has spun out of control?
In a press conference at the White House with his rogue puppet, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Mr. Bush explained that “our strategy is to remain on the offense, including in Baghdad.” Then why, after three and a half years, does our offense look so much like a defense?
The president sounded like a Jon Stewart imitation of himself when he assured reporters that Mr. Maliki had “a comprehensive plan” to pacify Iraq. “That’s what leaders do,” W. lectured, in a familiar refrain. “They see problems, they address problems, and they lay out a plan to solve the problems.”
If only the plan were a little less robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul, and a little more road-to-Damascus epiphany. Taking troops out of Anbar Province, where the insurgency is thriving, to quell violence in Baghdad doesn’t inspire confidence that the plan is truly “comprehensive.”
And despite W.’s praise of Mr. Maliki’s leadership, the plan to start from scratch, in essence, stabilizing neighborhood by neighborhood in Baghdad is, as The Times’s Michael Gordon writes, “an implicit acknowledgment of what every Iraqi in Baghdad already knows”: the prime minister’s “original Baghdad security plan has failed. In the past two weeks, more Iraqi civilians have been killed than have died in Lebanon and Israel.”
Mr. Bush also sent Condi Rice to lay out a plan to the Arabs and Europeans about the destruction and refugee flight in Lebanon, but the plan turns out to be a plan to do nothing until Israel has more time to kick the Hezb out of Hezbollah.
W. says he supports more diplomacy, but it’s the diplomacy of sanctimony. He now grudgingly notes that “the violence in Baghdad is still terrible,” but doesn’t seem to grasp the tragic enormity of an occupation that is sliding into civil war and constricting his leverage to deal with all the other crises crackling around the world. The U.N. reported last week that in May and June no less than 5,818 Iraqi civilians were killed.
Although he talked about whether America could be “facile” and “nimble” enough to change with the circumstances in the Middle East, in fundamental ways, he has not changed his attitude at all.
Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe says he conducted four “freewheeling” interviews with the president last week, and concluded: “Bush thinks the new war vindicates his early vision of the region’s struggle: of good versus evil, civilization versus terrorism, freedom versus Islamic fascism. He still believes that when it comes to war and terror, leaders need to decide whose side they are on.”
The president sees Lebanon as a test of macho mettle rather than the latest chapter in a fratricidal free-for-all that’s been going on for centuries. “I view this as the forces of instability probing weakness,” he said. “I think they’re testing resolve.”
The more things get complicated, the more W. feels vindicated in his own simplified vision. The more people try to tell him that it’s not easy, that this is a region of shifting alliances and interests, the less he seems inclined to develop an adroit policy to win people over to our side instead of trying to annihilate them.
Bill Clinton, the Mutable Man par excellence, evolved four times a day; he had a tactical and even recreational attitude toward personal change. But W. prides himself on his changelessness and regards his immutability as the surest sign of his virtue. Facing a map on fire, he sees any inkling of change as the slippery slope to failure.
That’s what’s so frustrating about watching him deal — or not deal — with Iraq and Lebanon. There’s almost nothing to watch.
It’s not even like watching paint dry, since that, too, is a passage from one state to another. It’s like watching dry paint
Friday, July 28, 2006
Somebody throw a bucket of water on her !!
Condi’s Flying Dutchman
By MAUREEN DOWD
Washington - As USA Today noted about summer movies, the hot trend in heroines “is not the damsel in distress. It’s the damsel who causes distress.”
Uma, Oprah. Oprah, Condi.
The more W. and his tough, by-any-means-necessary superbabe have tried to tame the Middle East, the more inflamed the Middle East has become. Now the secretary of state is leaving, reluctantly and belatedly, to do some shuttle diplomacy that entails little diplomacy and no shuttling. It’s more like air-guitar diplomacy.
Condi doesn’t want to talk to Hezbollah or its sponsors, Syria and Iran — “Syria knows what it needs to do,’’ she says with asperity — and she doesn’t want a cease-fire. She wants “a sustainable cease-fire,’’ which means she wants to give the Israelis more time to decimate Hezbollah bunkers with the precision-guided bombs that the Bush administration is racing to deliver.
“I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling, and it wouldn’t have been clear what I was shuttling to do,” she said.
Keep more civilians from being killed? Or at least keep America from being even more despised in the Middle East and around the globe?
Like Davy Jones, the octopus-headed creature who had to keep sailing Flying Dutchman-like without getting to land in the new “Pirates of the Caribbean,’’ Condi had a hard time finding an Arab port in which to dock.
The Arab street, declared prematurely dead by the neocons after the Iraq invasion, is so incensed over scenes of mass graves, homeless children and Israeli ground incursions into Lebanon that Egypt spurned Ms. Rice’s bid to meet next week in Cairo. (Her only consolation is that at least the autocratic Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, is listening to the Arab street as she has been harping on him to do for more than a year.)
The Arab allies, who agreed to meet her and European envoys in Rome, clearly did not want to be used as a stalling tactic on Arab turf, with Condi miming diplomacy to buy time for Israel. Maybe, like Jack Sparrow, they can at least bring a jar of Arab turf with them.
In a twist that illustrated the growing power of Shiites and Iranians, even the Shiite Iraqi prime minister broke with the Bush stance and denounced Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Is there no honor among puppets?
Condi was as cool as ever in the State Department briefing room yesterday,perfectly groomed in a camel-colored suit with an athletic white stripe. Like her boss, she does not show any sign of tension over the fact that all of theirs chemes to democratize the Middle East ended up creating more fundamentalism,extremism, terrorism and anti-Americanism. Having ginned up the idea that AlQaeda was state-sponsored terrorism backed by Saddam, now W. and Condi have to contend with the specter of real state-sponsored terrorism.
Like a professor who has grown so frustrated with one misbehaving student that she turns her focus on another, Condi put aside the sulfurous distraction of Iraq and enthused over the need to make the fragile democracy in Lebanon a centerpiece of the “new Middle East.”
She said that the carnage there represented the “birth pangs of a new Middle East, and whatever we do we have to be certain that we are pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old one.” Yet everything in the Middle East seems to be reeling backward in a scary way, and neocons are once more mocking W. as a wimp who should blow off the State Department and blow up Syria and Iran.
Having inadvertently built up Iran with his failures in Iraq, W. is eager now to send Iran a shock-and-awe message through Israel.
The Bush counselor Dan Bartlett told The Washington Post that the president“mourns the loss of every life, yet out of this tragic development he believes a moment of clarity has arrived.”
W. continues to present simplicity as clarity. When will he ever learn that clarity is the last thing you’re going to find in the Middle East, and that trying to superimpose it with force usually makes things worse? That’s what both the Israelis and Ronald Reagan learned in the early 1980’s when they tried disastrously to remake Lebanon.
The cowboy president bet the ranch on Iraq, and that war has made almost any other American action in the Arab world, and any Pax Americana that might have been created there, impossible. It’s fitting that Condi is the Flying Dutchman, since Lebanon represents the shipwreck of our Middle East policy.
By MAUREEN DOWD
Washington - As USA Today noted about summer movies, the hot trend in heroines “is not the damsel in distress. It’s the damsel who causes distress.”
Uma, Oprah. Oprah, Condi.
The more W. and his tough, by-any-means-necessary superbabe have tried to tame the Middle East, the more inflamed the Middle East has become. Now the secretary of state is leaving, reluctantly and belatedly, to do some shuttle diplomacy that entails little diplomacy and no shuttling. It’s more like air-guitar diplomacy.
Condi doesn’t want to talk to Hezbollah or its sponsors, Syria and Iran — “Syria knows what it needs to do,’’ she says with asperity — and she doesn’t want a cease-fire. She wants “a sustainable cease-fire,’’ which means she wants to give the Israelis more time to decimate Hezbollah bunkers with the precision-guided bombs that the Bush administration is racing to deliver.
“I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling, and it wouldn’t have been clear what I was shuttling to do,” she said.
Keep more civilians from being killed? Or at least keep America from being even more despised in the Middle East and around the globe?
Like Davy Jones, the octopus-headed creature who had to keep sailing Flying Dutchman-like without getting to land in the new “Pirates of the Caribbean,’’ Condi had a hard time finding an Arab port in which to dock.
The Arab street, declared prematurely dead by the neocons after the Iraq invasion, is so incensed over scenes of mass graves, homeless children and Israeli ground incursions into Lebanon that Egypt spurned Ms. Rice’s bid to meet next week in Cairo. (Her only consolation is that at least the autocratic Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, is listening to the Arab street as she has been harping on him to do for more than a year.)
The Arab allies, who agreed to meet her and European envoys in Rome, clearly did not want to be used as a stalling tactic on Arab turf, with Condi miming diplomacy to buy time for Israel. Maybe, like Jack Sparrow, they can at least bring a jar of Arab turf with them.
In a twist that illustrated the growing power of Shiites and Iranians, even the Shiite Iraqi prime minister broke with the Bush stance and denounced Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Is there no honor among puppets?
Condi was as cool as ever in the State Department briefing room yesterday,perfectly groomed in a camel-colored suit with an athletic white stripe. Like her boss, she does not show any sign of tension over the fact that all of theirs chemes to democratize the Middle East ended up creating more fundamentalism,extremism, terrorism and anti-Americanism. Having ginned up the idea that AlQaeda was state-sponsored terrorism backed by Saddam, now W. and Condi have to contend with the specter of real state-sponsored terrorism.
Like a professor who has grown so frustrated with one misbehaving student that she turns her focus on another, Condi put aside the sulfurous distraction of Iraq and enthused over the need to make the fragile democracy in Lebanon a centerpiece of the “new Middle East.”
She said that the carnage there represented the “birth pangs of a new Middle East, and whatever we do we have to be certain that we are pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old one.” Yet everything in the Middle East seems to be reeling backward in a scary way, and neocons are once more mocking W. as a wimp who should blow off the State Department and blow up Syria and Iran.
Having inadvertently built up Iran with his failures in Iraq, W. is eager now to send Iran a shock-and-awe message through Israel.
The Bush counselor Dan Bartlett told The Washington Post that the president“mourns the loss of every life, yet out of this tragic development he believes a moment of clarity has arrived.”
W. continues to present simplicity as clarity. When will he ever learn that clarity is the last thing you’re going to find in the Middle East, and that trying to superimpose it with force usually makes things worse? That’s what both the Israelis and Ronald Reagan learned in the early 1980’s when they tried disastrously to remake Lebanon.
The cowboy president bet the ranch on Iraq, and that war has made almost any other American action in the Arab world, and any Pax Americana that might have been created there, impossible. It’s fitting that Condi is the Flying Dutchman, since Lebanon represents the shipwreck of our Middle East policy.
And No One but Grunts Will Ever Pay a Price
Group: U.S. military urged abuse in Iraq
By DAVID B. CARUSO, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - The group Human Rights Watch said in a report released Sunday that U.S. military commanders encouraged abusive interrogations of detainees in Iraq, even after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal called attention to the issue in 2004.
Between 2003 and 2005, prisoners were routinely physically mistreated, deprived of sleep and exposed to extreme temperatures as part of the interrogation process, the report said.
"Soldiers were told that the Geneva Conventions did not apply, and that interrogators could use abusive techniques to get detainees to talk," wrote John Sifton, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch.
The organization said it based its conclusion on interviews with military personnel and sworn statements in declassified documents.
A Pentagon spokesman, Cmdr. Greg Hicks, said he wasn't aware of the report, but noted the military is reviewing its procedures regarding detainees following a Supreme Court ruling that the Geneva Conventions should apply in the conflict with al-Qaida.
The Bush administration had previously held that certain enemies, including terrorists, were illegal combatants and not protected by those rules.
The conventions prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."
Human Rights Watch focused much of its report on a detention facility called Camp Nama at Baghdad International Airport.
One soldier, whose name was withheld from the report, described a suspected insurgent being stripped naked, thrown in the mud, sprayed with water and then exposed to frigid temperatures in an attempt to soften him up for interrogators.
Commanders, the soldier said, seemed confident that their treatment of prisoners was legal.
He described computerized authorization forms that had to be filled out before subjecting detainees to strobe lights, loud music, extreme heat or cold, or intimidation by barking dogs.
The allegations of abuse at the camp were first reported in March by The New York Times.
By DAVID B. CARUSO, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - The group Human Rights Watch said in a report released Sunday that U.S. military commanders encouraged abusive interrogations of detainees in Iraq, even after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal called attention to the issue in 2004.
Between 2003 and 2005, prisoners were routinely physically mistreated, deprived of sleep and exposed to extreme temperatures as part of the interrogation process, the report said.
"Soldiers were told that the Geneva Conventions did not apply, and that interrogators could use abusive techniques to get detainees to talk," wrote John Sifton, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch.
The organization said it based its conclusion on interviews with military personnel and sworn statements in declassified documents.
A Pentagon spokesman, Cmdr. Greg Hicks, said he wasn't aware of the report, but noted the military is reviewing its procedures regarding detainees following a Supreme Court ruling that the Geneva Conventions should apply in the conflict with al-Qaida.
The Bush administration had previously held that certain enemies, including terrorists, were illegal combatants and not protected by those rules.
The conventions prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."
Human Rights Watch focused much of its report on a detention facility called Camp Nama at Baghdad International Airport.
One soldier, whose name was withheld from the report, described a suspected insurgent being stripped naked, thrown in the mud, sprayed with water and then exposed to frigid temperatures in an attempt to soften him up for interrogators.
Commanders, the soldier said, seemed confident that their treatment of prisoners was legal.
He described computerized authorization forms that had to be filled out before subjecting detainees to strobe lights, loud music, extreme heat or cold, or intimidation by barking dogs.
The allegations of abuse at the camp were first reported in March by The New York Times.
Dubya's Résumé
GEORGE W. BUSH
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington , DC 20520
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
LAW ENFORCEMENT
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine , in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.
MILITARY
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam
COLLEGE
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.
PAST WORK EXPERIENCE
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in Midland , Texas , in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas . The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry, including Enron CEO Ken Lay, I was elected governor of Texas .
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union . During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America .
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.
With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida , and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT
I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.
I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.
I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.
In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, had a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President. I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History: Enron.
My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.
I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution.
More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip- offs in history.
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.
I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.
I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.
I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.
I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law. I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S . "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.
I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.
I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.
I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families-in-wartime.
In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.
I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD. I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden [sic] to justice.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review. I am a member of the Republican Party.
PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN THE 2006 MIDTERM ELECTIONS.
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington , DC 20520
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
LAW ENFORCEMENT
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine , in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.
MILITARY
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam
COLLEGE
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.
PAST WORK EXPERIENCE
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in Midland , Texas , in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas . The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry, including Enron CEO Ken Lay, I was elected governor of Texas .
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union . During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America .
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.
With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida , and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT
I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.
I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.
I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.
In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, had a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President. I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History: Enron.
My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.
I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution.
More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip- offs in history.
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.
I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.
I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.
I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.
I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law. I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S . "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.
I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.
I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.
I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families-in-wartime.
In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.
I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD. I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden [sic] to justice.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review. I am a member of the Republican Party.
PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN THE 2006 MIDTERM ELECTIONS.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Stagecoach BBQ - Tonight
Hey Folks,
For some good food and good, free live music; stop in at Stagecoach BBQ & Blues tonight (Thursday)!!!
Every Thursday my friend John Locke (“An Englishman Abroad”) hosts an open stage at the Stagecoach. A lot of talent from around central Ohio do their stuff, and you won’t be disappointed (I’ll do a few myself).
AND!!!! the food is FANTASTIC and reasonably priced!! Great beer too!!
The music starts a little after 6:00 and ends at 9:00 when the restaurant closes.
The BBQ is in South Bloomfield on Route 23 (S. High Street) about 15 minutes from 270 - map & menu & more at: http://www.stagecoachbbq.com/ .
See you there.
- Uke Man
For some good food and good, free live music; stop in at Stagecoach BBQ & Blues tonight (Thursday)!!!
Every Thursday my friend John Locke (“An Englishman Abroad”) hosts an open stage at the Stagecoach. A lot of talent from around central Ohio do their stuff, and you won’t be disappointed (I’ll do a few myself).
AND!!!! the food is FANTASTIC and reasonably priced!! Great beer too!!
The music starts a little after 6:00 and ends at 9:00 when the restaurant closes.
The BBQ is in South Bloomfield on Route 23 (S. High Street) about 15 minutes from 270 - map & menu & more at: http://www.stagecoachbbq.com/ .
See you there.
- Uke Man
Anna and The Annadroids: The Robots' Dream Tour - update
Hey Folks,
Here's a chance to see Anna and The Annadroids: The Robots' Dream Tour before it leaves for New York City in early August.
The information is below, lifted from the Anatomical Scenario web site ( http://www.anatomicalscenario.com/ ). Visit the website or click on the blue entries for further information.
- Uke Man
- Anna and The Annadroids: The Robots' Dream Tour - work in progress
The Ohio State Summer Concert SeriesThursday July 27 (first half of our NY-bound, evening-length concert)Friday July 28 (second half of our NY-bound, evening-length concert) Sullivant Hall Auditorium 8 pm $10
The Ohio State Summer Dance Concert Series organizers have graciously invited Anatomical Scenario to present the entire concert that we are taking to the New York International Fringe Festival in August, but there's a hitch.
You have to come out both nights to get to see it all. Because this series features works and works-in-progress created by a variety of local Columbus dance artists, we will be staging Anna and The Annadroids: The Robots' Dream Tour in two sections.
Other local dancers will perform duirng the first half of this OSU program, and we will be performing the first half of our show on Thursday and the second half on Friday. See what's going on in the dance scene this summer and also get a sneak preview of our production as we polish it up for its run in New York.
Sullivant Hall Auditorium 1813 North High Street, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210. Located just across the plaza from the Wexner Center and Mershon Auditorium Yahoo map & directions .
Here's a chance to see Anna and The Annadroids: The Robots' Dream Tour before it leaves for New York City in early August.
The information is below, lifted from the Anatomical Scenario web site ( http://www.anatomicalscenario.com/ ). Visit the website or click on the blue entries for further information.
- Uke Man
- Anna and The Annadroids: The Robots' Dream Tour - work in progress
The Ohio State Summer Concert SeriesThursday July 27 (first half of our NY-bound, evening-length concert)Friday July 28 (second half of our NY-bound, evening-length concert) Sullivant Hall Auditorium 8 pm $10
The Ohio State Summer Dance Concert Series organizers have graciously invited Anatomical Scenario to present the entire concert that we are taking to the New York International Fringe Festival in August, but there's a hitch.
You have to come out both nights to get to see it all. Because this series features works and works-in-progress created by a variety of local Columbus dance artists, we will be staging Anna and The Annadroids: The Robots' Dream Tour in two sections.
Other local dancers will perform duirng the first half of this OSU program, and we will be performing the first half of our show on Thursday and the second half on Friday. See what's going on in the dance scene this summer and also get a sneak preview of our production as we polish it up for its run in New York.
Sullivant Hall Auditorium 1813 North High Street, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210. Located just across the plaza from the Wexner Center and Mershon Auditorium Yahoo map & directions .
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Joseph Smith, killed by an angry mob
lynch: to put to death by mob action without legal sanction - Webster's Seventh Collegiate Dictionary
So!! What are we to make of all this??
Hey Folks,
The story below presents an interesting situation. We are told that the Smithsonian planned an exhibit to "pay tribute to influential Americans," but that two Washington churchgoers and two of their congressmen "complained that it portrayed Mormon church founders in a negative light"; specifically they objected to the text saying Joseph Smith was "lynched" and Brigham Young was a "tyrant."
The museum made changes.
Now here is the interesting part: WAS Smith "lynched" and WAS Young a "tyrant"? Important questions!! and ones the reporter should have investigated.
If the two leaders have been misrepresented, then the objection is justified, and the Smithsonian's capitulation is honorable.
But if Smith WAS lynched and/or Young WAS a tyrant the museum's action is a disservice to truth and history - and, indeed, the future; just one more mundane example of the rampant sacrifice of reality on the altar of "let's pretend; it makes me feel much better."
My guess (and fuzzy recollection) is that Smith WAS lynched. The word is pretty precise, and the onus of any lynching is on the mob, not the victim. I find it beyond disgusting when a national repository of history, culture, and science warps the truth because a few ignoramuses either don't understand the language or are afraid of the truth.
And this is nothing new; the Smithsonian has done it before.
- Uke Man
Complaints prompt change in Mormon exhibit
SALT LAKE CITY - AP - Smithsonian Museum curators changed a new gallery exhibit after two Utah congressmen and others complained that it portrayed Mormon church founders in a negative light.
The National Portrait Gallery's American Origins display pays tribute to influential Americans from 1600 to 1900, including Joseph Smith, founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Brigham Young, the second leader of the faith, who led the emigration into what would become Utah.
The text accompanying portraits of Smith and Young offended at least two Washington-area church members who got a sneak preview of the display. The text reportedly said Smith was "lynched" and Young was a "tyrant."
The church members notified Republicans Sen. Bob Bennett and Rep. Rob Bishop, whose offices contacted the museum.
Bethany Bentley, spokeswoman for the National Portrait Gallery, confirmed that changes were made based on the complaints.
"It's very common (to make changes) and it happens with many of our labels," she said.
Bentley said changes were under way before Bennett's office called and that all were made before the gallery opened July 1.
The story below presents an interesting situation. We are told that the Smithsonian planned an exhibit to "pay tribute to influential Americans," but that two Washington churchgoers and two of their congressmen "complained that it portrayed Mormon church founders in a negative light"; specifically they objected to the text saying Joseph Smith was "lynched" and Brigham Young was a "tyrant."
The museum made changes.
Now here is the interesting part: WAS Smith "lynched" and WAS Young a "tyrant"? Important questions!! and ones the reporter should have investigated.
If the two leaders have been misrepresented, then the objection is justified, and the Smithsonian's capitulation is honorable.
But if Smith WAS lynched and/or Young WAS a tyrant the museum's action is a disservice to truth and history - and, indeed, the future; just one more mundane example of the rampant sacrifice of reality on the altar of "let's pretend; it makes me feel much better."
My guess (and fuzzy recollection) is that Smith WAS lynched. The word is pretty precise, and the onus of any lynching is on the mob, not the victim. I find it beyond disgusting when a national repository of history, culture, and science warps the truth because a few ignoramuses either don't understand the language or are afraid of the truth.
And this is nothing new; the Smithsonian has done it before.
- Uke Man
Complaints prompt change in Mormon exhibit
SALT LAKE CITY - AP - Smithsonian Museum curators changed a new gallery exhibit after two Utah congressmen and others complained that it portrayed Mormon church founders in a negative light.
The National Portrait Gallery's American Origins display pays tribute to influential Americans from 1600 to 1900, including Joseph Smith, founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Brigham Young, the second leader of the faith, who led the emigration into what would become Utah.
The text accompanying portraits of Smith and Young offended at least two Washington-area church members who got a sneak preview of the display. The text reportedly said Smith was "lynched" and Young was a "tyrant."
The church members notified Republicans Sen. Bob Bennett and Rep. Rob Bishop, whose offices contacted the museum.
Bethany Bentley, spokeswoman for the National Portrait Gallery, confirmed that changes were made based on the complaints.
"It's very common (to make changes) and it happens with many of our labels," she said.
Bentley said changes were under way before Bennett's office called and that all were made before the gallery opened July 1.
Have you heard of Sen.Sam Brownback? He's nuts
Hey Folks,
Check out the yo-yo on the frayed string.
- Uke Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5GHTZDEtZA&feature=Views&page=5&t=t&f=b
Check out the yo-yo on the frayed string.
- Uke Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5GHTZDEtZA&feature=Views&page=5&t=t&f=b
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
American Values
Hey Folks,
The reaction Leonard Pitts Jr. reports below demonstrates the racism too many people harbor. These weak-witted cowards feel compelled to attack Pitts' to divert attention from themselves.
They strenuously resist the notion that rich white people instituted American slavery, that the wealthy and the middle class exploit Blacks, and - especially - that whites have anything to do with the present difficulties Blacks face.
Appallingly, many see murder of black kids as black problem only
Monday, July 17, 2006
LEONARD PITTS JR.
We begin with the obvious: Florida is an American state. Miami is an American city. And Sherdavia Jenkins, who died in Miami just over two weeks ago after being struck by random bullets, was an American child.
So I would have thought it uncontroversial to observe, as I recently did, that her death and the indiscriminate slaughter of American children – in Miami or anywhere else – qualified as "an American problem." Apparently, I was wrong. That is, at least, the feeling of dozens of folks who’ve written in correction and rebuke.
True enough, they say, Florida is an American state and Miami an American city, but Sherdavia was an "African"-American child. Her suspected killers also were black. Therefore, her murder was not an American problem. It was, rather, a black problem, and only a black problem, born of black dysfunctions for which black people, as Bill Cosby has recently said, bear the onus.
To say I’m appalled is to understate.
I suppose the first thing that needs saying is that these individuals are wrong on the facts. Like it or not, we live interconnected lives on a small planet. Take the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as illustration. They grew out of grievances half a world away to which most Americans would have told you on Sept. 10 they had no connection. We now know better.
Similarly, even those who live on the good side of town, far from the grimy inner city where Sherdavia died, are affected by conditions there, if only through higher police costs, the loss of businesses from the inner city, the disintegration of families, the decimation of the tax base, the failure of schools and the resultant proliferation upon our streets of undereducated, poorly socialized young women and men who have known little but privation and violence all their lives. You think that proliferation doesn’t endanger you? You’re living in fantasyland.
For all that, though, what appalls me most isn’t the inaccuracy of what people said, but the niggardly coldness of it.
A few years ago, this nation suffered a spate of random school shootings in places including Conyers, Ga., West Paducah, Ky., Pearl, Miss., Santee, Calif. and Littleton, Colo. Virtually all the shooters were white, as were the majority of the victims. The anguished reporting of news magazines, newspapers and cable news anchors clearly identified this as an American crisis. I don’t recall anyone contradicting them, don’t remember any black activist, preacher or columnist arguing that since it was white boys doing the killing and white kids doing the dying, it was white people who had the problem.
How callous such a statement would have been.
Apparently, there is a different standard where black children are concerned. Then, some of us feel free to disclaim involvement, concern or simple human empathy and to preach to people sick with grief from the Gospel of Cosby.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: I’m not mad at Bill Cosby. Not only do I support much of what he has said in recent years about the need for blacks to take ownership of their own problems, but I was saying it publicly before he was. It is painfully obvious to me that many blacks have failed to pick up the gauntlet of the civil-rights movement, failed to confront the myriad dysfunctions of our communities.
But here’s the thing: As culpable as we are for failing to confront those dysfunctions, we did not create them. They were created for us by our white countrymen. For criminy sake, read a history book! I’m sorry, but black poverty didn’t just happen. Black unemployment didn’t just happen. Black self-loathing didn’t just happen. Black urban misery didn’t just happen. The murder of Sherdavia Jenkins didn’t just happen.
No, the roots of these obscenities go deep. And wide.
So yes, people, the indiscriminate murder of black children is an American problem.
Too bad ignorance is, too.
Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald.
lpitts@herald.com
The reaction Leonard Pitts Jr. reports below demonstrates the racism too many people harbor. These weak-witted cowards feel compelled to attack Pitts' to divert attention from themselves.
They strenuously resist the notion that rich white people instituted American slavery, that the wealthy and the middle class exploit Blacks, and - especially - that whites have anything to do with the present difficulties Blacks face.
Hence: "Oh, no!! This is an 'African-American problem' not an 'American problem.' "
People often use the term "ignorance" in one of two ways: to mean "lack of knowledge" or to mean "stupidity."
Pitts says ignorance is an American problem. I agree, and I mean that in the second sense.
- Uke Man
Appallingly, many see murder of black kids as black problem only
Monday, July 17, 2006
LEONARD PITTS JR.
We begin with the obvious: Florida is an American state. Miami is an American city. And Sherdavia Jenkins, who died in Miami just over two weeks ago after being struck by random bullets, was an American child.
So I would have thought it uncontroversial to observe, as I recently did, that her death and the indiscriminate slaughter of American children – in Miami or anywhere else – qualified as "an American problem." Apparently, I was wrong. That is, at least, the feeling of dozens of folks who’ve written in correction and rebuke.
True enough, they say, Florida is an American state and Miami an American city, but Sherdavia was an "African"-American child. Her suspected killers also were black. Therefore, her murder was not an American problem. It was, rather, a black problem, and only a black problem, born of black dysfunctions for which black people, as Bill Cosby has recently said, bear the onus.
To say I’m appalled is to understate.
I suppose the first thing that needs saying is that these individuals are wrong on the facts. Like it or not, we live interconnected lives on a small planet. Take the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as illustration. They grew out of grievances half a world away to which most Americans would have told you on Sept. 10 they had no connection. We now know better.
Similarly, even those who live on the good side of town, far from the grimy inner city where Sherdavia died, are affected by conditions there, if only through higher police costs, the loss of businesses from the inner city, the disintegration of families, the decimation of the tax base, the failure of schools and the resultant proliferation upon our streets of undereducated, poorly socialized young women and men who have known little but privation and violence all their lives. You think that proliferation doesn’t endanger you? You’re living in fantasyland.
For all that, though, what appalls me most isn’t the inaccuracy of what people said, but the niggardly coldness of it.
A few years ago, this nation suffered a spate of random school shootings in places including Conyers, Ga., West Paducah, Ky., Pearl, Miss., Santee, Calif. and Littleton, Colo. Virtually all the shooters were white, as were the majority of the victims. The anguished reporting of news magazines, newspapers and cable news anchors clearly identified this as an American crisis. I don’t recall anyone contradicting them, don’t remember any black activist, preacher or columnist arguing that since it was white boys doing the killing and white kids doing the dying, it was white people who had the problem.
How callous such a statement would have been.
Apparently, there is a different standard where black children are concerned. Then, some of us feel free to disclaim involvement, concern or simple human empathy and to preach to people sick with grief from the Gospel of Cosby.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: I’m not mad at Bill Cosby. Not only do I support much of what he has said in recent years about the need for blacks to take ownership of their own problems, but I was saying it publicly before he was. It is painfully obvious to me that many blacks have failed to pick up the gauntlet of the civil-rights movement, failed to confront the myriad dysfunctions of our communities.
But here’s the thing: As culpable as we are for failing to confront those dysfunctions, we did not create them. They were created for us by our white countrymen. For criminy sake, read a history book! I’m sorry, but black poverty didn’t just happen. Black unemployment didn’t just happen. Black self-loathing didn’t just happen. Black urban misery didn’t just happen. The murder of Sherdavia Jenkins didn’t just happen.
No, the roots of these obscenities go deep. And wide.
So yes, people, the indiscriminate murder of black children is an American problem.
Too bad ignorance is, too.
Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald.
lpitts@herald.com
There's no Racism in America !!
Hey Folks,
What does it say about humanity that we allow the insanity that is racism to exist at all? Worse, what does it say that we use racism to obtain and maintain selfish advantages? But I answer my own question.
And how sad that blacks and whites alike who suffer severely at the hands of those at the top are so easily distracted from their misery and doing something political about it by the irrelevancies of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, stem-cell research/evolution, and religion.
Mark Twain knew what he was doing when he called us "the damned human race."
- Uke Man
July 24, 2006
Black and Blue
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
What does it say about humanity that we allow the insanity that is racism to exist at all? Worse, what does it say that we use racism to obtain and maintain selfish advantages? But I answer my own question.
And how sad that blacks and whites alike who suffer severely at the hands of those at the top are so easily distracted from their misery and doing something political about it by the irrelevancies of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, stem-cell research/evolution, and religion.
Mark Twain knew what he was doing when he called us "the damned human race."
- Uke Man
July 24, 2006
Black and Blue
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
According to the White House transcript, here’s how it went last week, when President Bush addressed the N.A.A.C.P. for the first time:
THE PRESIDENT: “I understand that many African-Americans distrust my political party.”
AUDIENCE: “Yes! (Applause.)”
But Mr. Bush didn’t talk about why African-Americans don’t trust his party, and black districts are always blue on election maps. So let me fill in the blanks.
First, G.O.P. policies consistently help those who are already doing extremely well, not those lagging behind — a group that includes the vast majority of African-Americans. And both the relative and absolute economic status of blacks, after improving substantially during the Clinton years, have worsened since 2000.
The G.O.P. obsession with helping the haves and have-mores, and lack of concern for everyone else, was evident even in Mr. Bush’s speech to the N.A.A.C.P. Mr. Bush never mentioned wages, which have been falling behind inflation for most workers. And he certainly didn’t mention the minimum wage, which disproportionately affects African-American workers, and which he has allowed to fall to its lowest real level since 1955.
Mr. Bush also never used the word “poverty,” a condition that afflicts almost one in four blacks.
But he found time to call for repeal of the estate tax, even though African-Americans are more than a thousand times as likely to live below the poverty line as they are to be rich enough to leave a taxable estate.
Economic issues alone, then, partially explain African-American disdain for the G.O.P.
But even more important is the way Republicans win elections.
The problem with policies that favor the economic elite is that by themselves they’re not a winning electoral strategy, because there aren’t enough elite voters. So how did the Republicans rise to their current position of political dominance? It’s hard to deny that barely concealed appeals to racism, which drove a wedge between blacks and relatively poor whites who share the same economic interests, played a crucial role.
Don’t forget that in 1980, the sainted Ronald Reagan began his presidential campaign with a speech on states’ rights in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964.
These days the racist appeals have been toned down; Trent Lott was demoted, though not drummed out of the party, when he declared that if Strom Thurmond’s segregationist presidential campaign had succeeded “we wouldn’t have had all these problems.” Meanwhile, the G.O.P. has found other ways to obscure its economic elitism. The Bush administration has proved utterly incompetent in fighting terrorists, but it has skillfully exploited the terrorist threat for domestic political gain. And there are also the “values” issues: abortion, stem cells, gay marriage.
But the nasty racial roots of the G.O.P.’s triumph live on in public policy and election strategy.
A revelatory article in yesterday’s Boston Globe described how the Bush administration has politicized the Justice Department’s civil rights division, “filling the permanent ranks with lawyers who have strong conservative credentials but little experience in civil rights.”
Not surprisingly, there has been a shift in priorities: “The division is bringing fewer voting rights and employment cases involving systematic discrimination against African-Americans, and more alleging reverse discrimination against whites and religious discrimination against Christians.”
Above all, there’s the continuing effort of the G.O.P. to suppress black voting.
The Supreme Court probably wouldn’t have been able to put Mr. Bush in the White House in 2000 if the administration of his brother, the governor of Florida, hadn’t misidentified large numbers of African-Americans as felons ineligible to vote. In 2004, Ohio’s Republican secretary of state tried to impose a ludicrous rule on the paper weight of voter registration applications; last year, Georgia Republicans tried to impose an onerous “voter ID” rule. In each case, the obvious intent was to disenfranchise blacks.
And if the Republicans hold on to the House this fall, it will probably only be because of a redistricting plan in Texas that a panel of Justice Department lawyers unanimously concluded violated the Voting Rights Act — only to be overruled by their politically appointed superiors.
So yes, African-Americans distrust Mr. Bush’s party — with good reason.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Which One of You is Doing This?
Police in Germany are hunting pranksters who have been sticking miniature flag portraits of George W. Bush into piles of dog poo in public parks.
"This has been going on for about a year now, and there must be 2,000 to 3,000 piles of excrement that have been claimed during that time," said Josef Oettl, parks administrator for Bayreuth.
The series of incidents was originally thought to be some sort of protest against the US-led invasion of Iraq. But then when it continued, it was thought to be a protest against George W. Bush's campaign for re-election. But it is still going on and the police say they are completely baffled as to who is to blame.
"We have sent out extra patrols to try to catch whoever is doing this in the act," said police spokesman Reiner Kuechler. "But frankly, we don't know what we would do if we caught them red-handed."
Legal experts say there is no law against using feces as a flag stand and the federal constitution is vague on the issue.
Personally, I think it is mighty considerate to provide unwary pedestrians with an obvious visual marker that prevents them from accidentally stepping into dog poo. I wish people were so considerate in NYC, where there is plenty of dog poo to step in.
Get your own flags, free, submit your Bush poo-flag photos, and browse the online Bush poo-flag gallery.
Get rid of those Immigrants - as soon as they get done helping me make money!!
Hey Folks,
Ain't life grand!! Yeah, those damned immigrants!! Those wonderful immigrants!! I want 'em!! Get rid of 'em!! I want!! I don't want!! - Love 'em!! Hate 'em!!
Here we have another reminder of emotion/fear/greed v. rationality. But as the Stones pointed out, "You can't always get what you want."
- Uke Man
Immigrant labor dilemma hits California beach town
By Mary Milliken Mon Jul 17
LAGUNA BEACH, California (Reuters) - Laguna Beach is such a picture-perfect southern California beach town that the youth-oriented television station MTV chose it to stage a reality show with its blond, bronzed and privileged teen set.
But for some grown-up drama, there is Laguna Beach's day labor center for immigrants, where the deepening division over the tide of illegal workers in the United States is on display.
Opponents, mostly from other Orange County towns, call the center a magnet for illegal immigrants that encourages more to sneak over the border from Mexico. The anti-immigration Minuteman Project has organized protests at the center and challenged its legality.
Proponents, including the City Council, say it is an exemplary center that concentrates workers in one area on the outskirts of town and eliminates "swarming" where workers gather on residential street corners and surround trucks looking for day labor.
Even those who oppose illegal immigrants turn to the center for their business -- a sign that the road to resolving the illegal immigrant problem will be tortuous.
"I don't think these people should be here because they are illegal, they are breaking the law," Jeff Hillman said as he picked up a day laborer to dig a hole for $12 an hour, almost twice California's minimum wage.
The chosen laborer, Marcos Jimenez from Mexico, heard Hillman's opinion and jumped out of his truck with a slam of the door.
"If he doesn't want to give work to an illegal immigrant, why doesn't he go hire a white guy, an American citizen, someone who speaks English better?" Jimenez said in Spanish.
Hillman, who does construction in Laguna Beach, admitted to the contradiction, but said: "The competition is doing it and I need to stay competitive. They do it, so I do it once in a while too."
No other laborer at the center agreed to work for him that day.
'LAGUNA WELCOMES SLAVE TRADERS'
On a typical day, some 50 mostly Mexican workers will arrive around 6 a.m., take a number and wait for the pickup trucks to come by seeking labor to work on house construction or maintenance. Around half go home empty-handed.
They say they are treated well, for the most part, and they often get lunch and a bonus for a job well done. Skilled workers can earn up to $150 a day.
"It is part of a system that has been working in this country for 400 years, so you can't suddenly stop it," said David Peck, head of the nonprofit group, Cross-Cultural Council, that runs the center with city funding of $20,000 to $30,000 annually and private donations.
"And meanwhile there are 11 million people (nationwide) who are working in the jobs like the ones we are providing."
Peck is anxious to see Congress enact immigration legislation this year that will help define the immigrants' place in the United States. Of the two competing bills in Congress, he prays for the failure of the tougher one that would make him a criminal for aiding illegal workers.
But Minuteman member and Laguna Beach resident Eileen Garcia promises to be dogged in her efforts to close down the center, which she says uses scarce city funds needed by legal residents.
Garcia discovered the center was squatting on California state land, but the city council ruled last week that the center could continue to operate on the site for another year while it seeks to acquire the land from the state.
That prompted Garcia and Minuteman leaders to call a protest over the weekend across from the center. As they held up signs saying "Illegal aliens steal American jobs" and "Laguna welcomes slave traders," the workers and their supporters shouted "Racist, Nazis" in English and Spanish.
Meanwhile, Laguna Beach, a town favored by artists and the gay community for its progressive and tolerant nature, chafes with all the controversy.
"We are just trying to deal pragmatically with the problem a small community faces and this is a solution that works for us," said City Manager Ken Frank, who estimates 90 percent of residents back the day labor center.
Ain't life grand!! Yeah, those damned immigrants!! Those wonderful immigrants!! I want 'em!! Get rid of 'em!! I want!! I don't want!! - Love 'em!! Hate 'em!!
Here we have another reminder of emotion/fear/greed v. rationality. But as the Stones pointed out, "You can't always get what you want."
- Uke Man
Immigrant labor dilemma hits California beach town
By Mary Milliken Mon Jul 17
LAGUNA BEACH, California (Reuters) - Laguna Beach is such a picture-perfect southern California beach town that the youth-oriented television station MTV chose it to stage a reality show with its blond, bronzed and privileged teen set.
But for some grown-up drama, there is Laguna Beach's day labor center for immigrants, where the deepening division over the tide of illegal workers in the United States is on display.
Opponents, mostly from other Orange County towns, call the center a magnet for illegal immigrants that encourages more to sneak over the border from Mexico. The anti-immigration Minuteman Project has organized protests at the center and challenged its legality.
Proponents, including the City Council, say it is an exemplary center that concentrates workers in one area on the outskirts of town and eliminates "swarming" where workers gather on residential street corners and surround trucks looking for day labor.
Even those who oppose illegal immigrants turn to the center for their business -- a sign that the road to resolving the illegal immigrant problem will be tortuous.
"I don't think these people should be here because they are illegal, they are breaking the law," Jeff Hillman said as he picked up a day laborer to dig a hole for $12 an hour, almost twice California's minimum wage.
The chosen laborer, Marcos Jimenez from Mexico, heard Hillman's opinion and jumped out of his truck with a slam of the door.
"If he doesn't want to give work to an illegal immigrant, why doesn't he go hire a white guy, an American citizen, someone who speaks English better?" Jimenez said in Spanish.
Hillman, who does construction in Laguna Beach, admitted to the contradiction, but said: "The competition is doing it and I need to stay competitive. They do it, so I do it once in a while too."
No other laborer at the center agreed to work for him that day.
'LAGUNA WELCOMES SLAVE TRADERS'
On a typical day, some 50 mostly Mexican workers will arrive around 6 a.m., take a number and wait for the pickup trucks to come by seeking labor to work on house construction or maintenance. Around half go home empty-handed.
They say they are treated well, for the most part, and they often get lunch and a bonus for a job well done. Skilled workers can earn up to $150 a day.
"It is part of a system that has been working in this country for 400 years, so you can't suddenly stop it," said David Peck, head of the nonprofit group, Cross-Cultural Council, that runs the center with city funding of $20,000 to $30,000 annually and private donations.
"And meanwhile there are 11 million people (nationwide) who are working in the jobs like the ones we are providing."
Peck is anxious to see Congress enact immigration legislation this year that will help define the immigrants' place in the United States. Of the two competing bills in Congress, he prays for the failure of the tougher one that would make him a criminal for aiding illegal workers.
But Minuteman member and Laguna Beach resident Eileen Garcia promises to be dogged in her efforts to close down the center, which she says uses scarce city funds needed by legal residents.
Garcia discovered the center was squatting on California state land, but the city council ruled last week that the center could continue to operate on the site for another year while it seeks to acquire the land from the state.
That prompted Garcia and Minuteman leaders to call a protest over the weekend across from the center. As they held up signs saying "Illegal aliens steal American jobs" and "Laguna welcomes slave traders," the workers and their supporters shouted "Racist, Nazis" in English and Spanish.
Meanwhile, Laguna Beach, a town favored by artists and the gay community for its progressive and tolerant nature, chafes with all the controversy.
"We are just trying to deal pragmatically with the problem a small community faces and this is a solution that works for us," said City Manager Ken Frank, who estimates 90 percent of residents back the day labor center.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Fun,fun,fun 'til Daddy blows us all away!!
Hey Folks,
Here's a video of some of the fun war can bring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3U040optE4&feature=Views&page=2&t=t&f=b
- Uke Man
Here's a video of some of the fun war can bring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3U040optE4&feature=Views&page=2&t=t&f=b
- Uke Man
"Lets Play War"
Hey Folks,
I’ve seen it so many times – having been a teacher for 31 years.
The schools are all screwed up largely because of politics – the politics of who spends money on whom, who can exploit whom, who can avoid responsibility by blaming schools, and who can curry favor by claiming to “improve” the schools without spending money - or by making a lot of money for people who already have a lot of money but want more. Following directly behind those causes, though, (and related to them) comes the asinine situation Paul Krugman describes below:
Foolish people who might be good at something but don’t have a clue about educating children are in control (Mark Twain said, “God made idiots for practice; then he made school boards). These naïve wielders of power put their trust in superintendents and “curriculum coordinators.” In their ignorance boards rely on the counsel of these people, and support the imposition of their policies upon teachers and other staff.
These superintendents often are former coaches who’ve outlived their sporting days (save for golf) or educators with limited classroom experience who early on sought a bigger financial payoff via administration. The curriculum coordinators are usually former teachers as well, teachers of a specific area (e.g. math, English, 3rd Grade) who were instantaneously elevated - by fiat - to guru status, supposedly capable of “directing” ALL the various aspects of the curriculum and expected to whip the teachers into proper practices.
Neither group holds credentials solid enough to justify the board’s confidence or the imposition of their individually determined policies on the staff. Yet, that is how it goes.
As a result, we have the least informed overseeing the least prepared as they impose their will on those in the best position to do some good. It is no wonder the schools are a mess. School Boards generally don’t know anything; so they rely on the superintendent. Superintendents generally don’t know anything; so they rely on the curriculum coordinator. The coordinators don’t know anything; so they rely on the latest recycled fad coming out of the universities or the latest politically-oriented, grant-powered scheme from the State Department of Education. All this shit runs down hill and lands on teachers and kids.
It never works, but it goes on and on and on. The price of fantasy is the death of reality.
Presently, in a larger context, we have Dubya relying on Dickie and Rummy who, in turn, rely on Neo-Coneheads like William Kristol; all imposing their fantasies on the rest of us - the shit runs down hill on our young American soldiers, old people, sick people, retirees, workers, the poor, and hundreds of thousands of people in other parts of the world.
The price of fantasy is the death of reality and the ruination of real people.
- Uke Man
July 21, 2006
The Price of Fantasy
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Today we call them neoconservatives, but when the first George Bush was president, those who believed that America could remake the world to its liking with a series of splendid little wars — people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld — were known within the administration as “the crazies.” Grown-ups in both parties rejected their vision as a dangerous fantasy.
But in 2000 the Supreme Court delivered the White House to a man who, although he may be 60, doesn’t act like a grown-up. The second President Bush obviously confuses swagger with strength, and prefers tough talkers like the crazies to people who actually think things through. He got the chance to implement the crazies’ vision after 9/11, which created a climate in which few people in Congress or the news media dared to ask hard questions. And the result is the bloody mess we’re now in.
This isn’t a case of 20-20 hindsight. It was clear from the beginning that the United States didn’t have remotely enough troops to carry out the crazies’ agenda — and Mr. Bush never asked for a bigger army.
As I wrote back in January 2003, this meant that the “Bush doctrine” of preventive war was, in practice, a plan to “talk trash and carry a small stick.” It was obvious even then that the administration was preparing to invade Iraq not because it posed a real threat, but because it looked like a soft target.
The message to North Korea, which really did have an active nuclear program, was clear: “The Bush administration,” I wrote, putting myself in Kim Jong Il’s shoes, “says you’re evil. It won’t offer you aid, even if you cancel your nuclear program, because that would be rewarding evil. It won’t even promise not to attack you, because it believes it has a mission to destroy evil regimes, whether or not they actually pose any threat to the U.S. But for all its belligerence, the Bush administration seems willing to confront only regimes that are militarily weak.” So “the best self-preservation strategy ... is to be dangerous.”
With a few modifications, the same logic applies to Iran. And it’s easier than ever for Iran to be dangerous, now that U.S. forces are bogged down in Iraq.
Would the current crisis on the Israel-Lebanon border have happened even if the Bush administration had actually concentrated on fighting terrorism, rather than using 9/11 as an excuse to pursue the crazies’ agenda? Nobody knows. But it’s clear that the United States would have more options, more ability to influence the situation, if Mr. Bush hadn’t squandered both the nation’s credibility and its military might on his war of choice.
So what happens next?
Few if any of the crazies have the moral courage to admit that they were wrong. Vice President Cheney continues to insist that his two most famous pronouncements about Iraq — his declaration before the invasion that we would be “greeted as liberators” and his assertion a year ago that the insurgency was in its “last throes” — were “basically accurate.”
But if the premise of the Bush doctrine was right, why are things going so badly?
The crazies respond by retreating even further into their fantasies of omnipotence. The only problem, they assert, is a lack of will.
Thus William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, has called for a military strike — an airstrike, since we don’t have any spare ground troops — against Iran.
“Yes, there would be repercussions,” he wrote in his magazine, “and they would be healthy ones.” What would these healthy repercussions be? On Fox News he argued that “the right use of targeted military force” could cause the Iranian people “to reconsider whether they really want to have this regime in power.” Oh, boy.
Mr. Kristol is, of course, a pundit rather than a policymaker. But there’s every reason to suspect that what Mr. Kristol says in public is what Mr. Cheney says in private.
And what about The Decider himself?
For years the self-proclaimed “war president” basked in the adulation of the crazies. Now they’re accusing him of being a wimp. “We have been too weak,” writes Mr. Kristol, “and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.”
Does Mr. Bush have the maturity to stand up to this kind of pressure? I report, you decide.
I’ve seen it so many times – having been a teacher for 31 years.
The schools are all screwed up largely because of politics – the politics of who spends money on whom, who can exploit whom, who can avoid responsibility by blaming schools, and who can curry favor by claiming to “improve” the schools without spending money - or by making a lot of money for people who already have a lot of money but want more. Following directly behind those causes, though, (and related to them) comes the asinine situation Paul Krugman describes below:
Foolish people who might be good at something but don’t have a clue about educating children are in control (Mark Twain said, “God made idiots for practice; then he made school boards). These naïve wielders of power put their trust in superintendents and “curriculum coordinators.” In their ignorance boards rely on the counsel of these people, and support the imposition of their policies upon teachers and other staff.
These superintendents often are former coaches who’ve outlived their sporting days (save for golf) or educators with limited classroom experience who early on sought a bigger financial payoff via administration. The curriculum coordinators are usually former teachers as well, teachers of a specific area (e.g. math, English, 3rd Grade) who were instantaneously elevated - by fiat - to guru status, supposedly capable of “directing” ALL the various aspects of the curriculum and expected to whip the teachers into proper practices.
Neither group holds credentials solid enough to justify the board’s confidence or the imposition of their individually determined policies on the staff. Yet, that is how it goes.
As a result, we have the least informed overseeing the least prepared as they impose their will on those in the best position to do some good. It is no wonder the schools are a mess. School Boards generally don’t know anything; so they rely on the superintendent. Superintendents generally don’t know anything; so they rely on the curriculum coordinator. The coordinators don’t know anything; so they rely on the latest recycled fad coming out of the universities or the latest politically-oriented, grant-powered scheme from the State Department of Education. All this shit runs down hill and lands on teachers and kids.
It never works, but it goes on and on and on. The price of fantasy is the death of reality.
Presently, in a larger context, we have Dubya relying on Dickie and Rummy who, in turn, rely on Neo-Coneheads like William Kristol; all imposing their fantasies on the rest of us - the shit runs down hill on our young American soldiers, old people, sick people, retirees, workers, the poor, and hundreds of thousands of people in other parts of the world.
The price of fantasy is the death of reality and the ruination of real people.
- Uke Man
July 21, 2006
The Price of Fantasy
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Today we call them neoconservatives, but when the first George Bush was president, those who believed that America could remake the world to its liking with a series of splendid little wars — people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld — were known within the administration as “the crazies.” Grown-ups in both parties rejected their vision as a dangerous fantasy.
But in 2000 the Supreme Court delivered the White House to a man who, although he may be 60, doesn’t act like a grown-up. The second President Bush obviously confuses swagger with strength, and prefers tough talkers like the crazies to people who actually think things through. He got the chance to implement the crazies’ vision after 9/11, which created a climate in which few people in Congress or the news media dared to ask hard questions. And the result is the bloody mess we’re now in.
This isn’t a case of 20-20 hindsight. It was clear from the beginning that the United States didn’t have remotely enough troops to carry out the crazies’ agenda — and Mr. Bush never asked for a bigger army.
As I wrote back in January 2003, this meant that the “Bush doctrine” of preventive war was, in practice, a plan to “talk trash and carry a small stick.” It was obvious even then that the administration was preparing to invade Iraq not because it posed a real threat, but because it looked like a soft target.
The message to North Korea, which really did have an active nuclear program, was clear: “The Bush administration,” I wrote, putting myself in Kim Jong Il’s shoes, “says you’re evil. It won’t offer you aid, even if you cancel your nuclear program, because that would be rewarding evil. It won’t even promise not to attack you, because it believes it has a mission to destroy evil regimes, whether or not they actually pose any threat to the U.S. But for all its belligerence, the Bush administration seems willing to confront only regimes that are militarily weak.” So “the best self-preservation strategy ... is to be dangerous.”
With a few modifications, the same logic applies to Iran. And it’s easier than ever for Iran to be dangerous, now that U.S. forces are bogged down in Iraq.
Would the current crisis on the Israel-Lebanon border have happened even if the Bush administration had actually concentrated on fighting terrorism, rather than using 9/11 as an excuse to pursue the crazies’ agenda? Nobody knows. But it’s clear that the United States would have more options, more ability to influence the situation, if Mr. Bush hadn’t squandered both the nation’s credibility and its military might on his war of choice.
So what happens next?
Few if any of the crazies have the moral courage to admit that they were wrong. Vice President Cheney continues to insist that his two most famous pronouncements about Iraq — his declaration before the invasion that we would be “greeted as liberators” and his assertion a year ago that the insurgency was in its “last throes” — were “basically accurate.”
But if the premise of the Bush doctrine was right, why are things going so badly?
The crazies respond by retreating even further into their fantasies of omnipotence. The only problem, they assert, is a lack of will.
Thus William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, has called for a military strike — an airstrike, since we don’t have any spare ground troops — against Iran.
“Yes, there would be repercussions,” he wrote in his magazine, “and they would be healthy ones.” What would these healthy repercussions be? On Fox News he argued that “the right use of targeted military force” could cause the Iranian people “to reconsider whether they really want to have this regime in power.” Oh, boy.
Mr. Kristol is, of course, a pundit rather than a policymaker. But there’s every reason to suspect that what Mr. Kristol says in public is what Mr. Cheney says in private.
And what about The Decider himself?
For years the self-proclaimed “war president” basked in the adulation of the crazies. Now they’re accusing him of being a wimp. “We have been too weak,” writes Mr. Kristol, “and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.”
Does Mr. Bush have the maturity to stand up to this kind of pressure? I report, you decide.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Repression's Little Helpers - or How to Make a King
Repression always needs aides who abet
Monday, July 10, 2006
ROBYN BLUMNER
Repression doesn’t just happen. It has to be organized, arranged, justified and marketed to a willing populace. In other words, it takes a team. Most tyrannies aren’t of the epic variety involving a Josef Stalin or a Saddam Hussein. They are subtler, sapping freedom from a system that precariously depends on the integrity of those in charge. It doesn’t take much more than a corrupt sheriff, a mayor who helps a developer grab private property with eminent domain, or a president who claims that terror suspects have no rights, to harm our foundational constructs of liberty.
And aides to petty and great tyrants have a central role: to dispense with core values that get in the way of power. They make the world less just and humane, since those are the rules that protect the vulnerable from the strong, and such people have been enlisted to make the strong stronger.
In a nation of laws, lawyers are the most helpful in this regard, and the Bush administration has had two standouts: David Addington, who is Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, former counsel and longtime associate, and John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who worked in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the executive branch on the constitutionality of policy.
These men embroidered the legal justifications for a kinglike presidency that may disregard federal law, constitutional rights and the express terms of ratified treaties if the president believes it furthers national security.
Emanating from this tyrannical idea has come an entire legal regime giving the president the power to approve torture, secret prisons, indefinite detention, kangaroo military commissions and warrantless domestic surveillance. These are programs contrary to law and our moral fiber.
Yoo and Addington were working at the behest of President Bush and Cheney (OK, mostly Cheney), but their enthusiastic embrace of presidential supremacy makes them guilty men.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has thrown the word treason at The New York Times for informing the American people of the Bush administration’s surveillance of international financial transactions. I say what The Times did in disclosing a follow-the-money program that the administration has been essentially crowing about for years is piffle compared with the acts of Yoo and Addington, who conspired to undo checks and balances by granting the president dictatorial powers.
In the July 3 New Yorker, reporter Jane Mayer lifts the veil off the secretive Addington and describes a man obsessed with setting forth a "new paradigm," in which the commander-in-chief may "disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries."
The plan predates 9/11, according to Bruce Fein, a Republican activist who worked in the Reagan administration Justice Department and has known Cheney and Addington for decades. "The idea of reducing Congress to a cipher was already in play," Fein told Mayer. "It was Cheney and Addington’s political agenda."
Insiders told Mayer that administration lawyers who raised questions about the plenary powers being seized by the president were dismissed by Addington as giving away the store.
This doctrine also fit the thinking of Yoo, who rose in the Office of Legal Counsel to be the go-to guy on warpowers questions. His popularity had to do with his answers, which tilted toward expanding presidential power.
Yoo is a primary author of the memo giving legal cover to torture and he opined that the administration may deny the Taliban and prisoners captured in the "war" on terror the protections of the Geneva Conventions. On these points, Yoo’s reasoning was as dangerous as it was strained.
But the Supreme Court just made mincemeat of Yoo’s manifesto on executive-branch unilateralism, and he has been on the defensive ever since.
In Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, five members of the court said Bush doesn’t have the authority to put Guantanamo detainees through show trials of his own making. The court retrieved Common Article 3 of the Conventions from the dustbin that Yoo had thrown it, and said its fair-trial protections for prisoners do apply to the detainees at Guantanamo.
The ruling was a respite from the disastrous course on which we’ve been set by all the vice president’s men, who have rolled up their sleeves.
Robyn Blumner writes for Tribune Media Services.
blumner@sptimes.com
Monday, July 10, 2006
ROBYN BLUMNER
Repression doesn’t just happen. It has to be organized, arranged, justified and marketed to a willing populace. In other words, it takes a team. Most tyrannies aren’t of the epic variety involving a Josef Stalin or a Saddam Hussein. They are subtler, sapping freedom from a system that precariously depends on the integrity of those in charge. It doesn’t take much more than a corrupt sheriff, a mayor who helps a developer grab private property with eminent domain, or a president who claims that terror suspects have no rights, to harm our foundational constructs of liberty.
And aides to petty and great tyrants have a central role: to dispense with core values that get in the way of power. They make the world less just and humane, since those are the rules that protect the vulnerable from the strong, and such people have been enlisted to make the strong stronger.
In a nation of laws, lawyers are the most helpful in this regard, and the Bush administration has had two standouts: David Addington, who is Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, former counsel and longtime associate, and John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who worked in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the executive branch on the constitutionality of policy.
These men embroidered the legal justifications for a kinglike presidency that may disregard federal law, constitutional rights and the express terms of ratified treaties if the president believes it furthers national security.
Emanating from this tyrannical idea has come an entire legal regime giving the president the power to approve torture, secret prisons, indefinite detention, kangaroo military commissions and warrantless domestic surveillance. These are programs contrary to law and our moral fiber.
Yoo and Addington were working at the behest of President Bush and Cheney (OK, mostly Cheney), but their enthusiastic embrace of presidential supremacy makes them guilty men.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has thrown the word treason at The New York Times for informing the American people of the Bush administration’s surveillance of international financial transactions. I say what The Times did in disclosing a follow-the-money program that the administration has been essentially crowing about for years is piffle compared with the acts of Yoo and Addington, who conspired to undo checks and balances by granting the president dictatorial powers.
In the July 3 New Yorker, reporter Jane Mayer lifts the veil off the secretive Addington and describes a man obsessed with setting forth a "new paradigm," in which the commander-in-chief may "disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries."
The plan predates 9/11, according to Bruce Fein, a Republican activist who worked in the Reagan administration Justice Department and has known Cheney and Addington for decades. "The idea of reducing Congress to a cipher was already in play," Fein told Mayer. "It was Cheney and Addington’s political agenda."
Insiders told Mayer that administration lawyers who raised questions about the plenary powers being seized by the president were dismissed by Addington as giving away the store.
This doctrine also fit the thinking of Yoo, who rose in the Office of Legal Counsel to be the go-to guy on warpowers questions. His popularity had to do with his answers, which tilted toward expanding presidential power.
Yoo is a primary author of the memo giving legal cover to torture and he opined that the administration may deny the Taliban and prisoners captured in the "war" on terror the protections of the Geneva Conventions. On these points, Yoo’s reasoning was as dangerous as it was strained.
But the Supreme Court just made mincemeat of Yoo’s manifesto on executive-branch unilateralism, and he has been on the defensive ever since.
In Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, five members of the court said Bush doesn’t have the authority to put Guantanamo detainees through show trials of his own making. The court retrieved Common Article 3 of the Conventions from the dustbin that Yoo had thrown it, and said its fair-trial protections for prisoners do apply to the detainees at Guantanamo.
The ruling was a respite from the disastrous course on which we’ve been set by all the vice president’s men, who have rolled up their sleeves.
Robyn Blumner writes for Tribune Media Services.
blumner@sptimes.com
How to fold a shirt!!!!!
Hey Folks,
Check this out !! (I guess I'm easily amused).
- Uke Man
(a ukethanks to Sondra)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbTnRkEn8U8&search=How%20to%20fold%20a%20shirt
Check this out !! (I guess I'm easily amused).
- Uke Man
(a ukethanks to Sondra)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbTnRkEn8U8&search=How%20to%20fold%20a%20shirt
Friday, July 21, 2006
The Pot & the Kettle
O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An’ foolish notion
What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us
An’ ev’n Devotion
-- Robert Burns "To A Louse"
(Bobby Burns’ famous poem about a lowly louse he saw creeping on a lady’s bonnet at church)
A more modern version might put it this way:
Oh, that God would give us the small gift
To be able to see ourselves as others see us
It would save us from many mistakes
And foolish thoughts
We'd be more humble about displaying our supposed status
And to what and how we apply our time and attention.
Hey Folks,
Ol' Bobby Burns knew what to wish for; too bad we so rarely get it. Yep, we're much better at seeing the dust speck in our neighbor's eye than the telephone pole in our own. The story below is a good example.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't wish to defend capitalist, repressive Russia; I simply wish to point out capitalist, repressive America's hypocrisy.
My comments are in blue.
Ghosts of Soviet propaganda machine haunt Russian media
by Sebastian Smith Wed Jul 12
MOSCOW (AFP) - Dead bodies, striptease quiz shows, gala concerts for the secret services: nothing is off limits on Russian television (is that different here? or are they not counting cable?) -- except objective news coverage ("Foxxx News"?),say critics of media freedom under President Vladimir Putin (We have plenty of similar critics here too, but they aren't granted access to mainstream media outlets as often as stories like this one are).
Russian television today is light years from its drab Soviet incarnation, full of brash, sometimes stomach-churning programmes, as well as slick dramas.
But the ghosts of Soviet propaganda haunt the hourly state news broadcasts (propaganda? Remember Armstrong Williams, Jeff Gannon, and government produced TV "news" "reports" by actor/"reporters"?) dominated by dreary footage of Putin and his ministers at work, patriotic features on army life (Seen any patriotic shows on US TV in the last few years?), or alarming reports about the pro-Western governments in Georgia and Ukraine (heard any alarming reports about "lefty" governments in OUR neighborhood or in the Middle East lately?) .
Putin, who hosts the G8 summit in Saint Petersburg later this week, is accused of destroying media freedoms won in the 1990s by monopolising television and marginalising the few remaining independent newspaper journalists (Kkkarl Rove & W & others haven't worked their asses off to restrain and intimidate critical media outlets???) .
Russia ranks below countries like Egypt and Haiti in terms of journalists' freedom, the US-based organisation Freedom House says (I wonder how Russian-based organizations rank American journalists' freedom?) .
A study released in April by the Centre for Journalism in Extreme Situations, which defends journalists' rights in Russia, found that 91 percent of political news on the national television channel ORT was devoted to Putin and his "ruling powers." (I wonder how that works out on the state-lapdog Foxxx channel?)
Almost three quarters of that coverage was positive and the rest neutral, while opposition voices barely got a look in, the study found (hmmmm... sounds like Foxxx to me) .
"There's not censorship as there was in the Soviet Union," said the centre's director Oleg Panfilov, "but there is self-censorship, there's internal editorial censorship, when editors are too scared to give information, and there's censorship by owners." Hott damn!!! That's EXACTLY like it is here!!
The Kremlin has also come under fire in Washington and other Western capitals, but insists there is nothing to apologise for. Have you ever heard Dubya and the Neo-Coneheads apologise about anything?
Putin told a gathering of world media executives in June that Russia's media law "is recognised as one of the most liberal in the world" (It probably is, probably almost as liberal as our practices here, but that doesn't prove anything. Richard Nixon was liberal compared to Bush). And last week, his close advisor Vladislav Surkov dismissed allegations of anti-opposition bias on state-run television as "a matter of taste."
Nikolai Svanidze, a presenter on state-owned Rossiya channel, even suggests that Russians actually demand one-sided news (We say that the "sponsors" demand it) .
"Our guests from the United States and European countries may not understand what I'm talking about, but the classic Soviet viewer is not used to alternatives," he said. "It's tiring to have a choice because you have to think." (Sounds like what conservatives might assert about American viewers. To some extent, are they correct [e.g. Foxxx viewers] ?) .
The Kremlin's defenders also point to the lively Internet scene in Russia and several high-quality newspapers which frequently publish criticism of the authorities. Our own freedom-loving government is presently working to make the internet more efficient for wealthy profit-oriented corporations and less efficient and effective for regular folks who might have independent ideas but not a lot of money.
But experts said newspapers and Internet sites have a puny impact compared to the three national television channels, which reach almost all this vast country's 143 million people. Serious newspapers rarely have circulations of much more than 100,000. Similar situation here.
"There are still media outlets that are not controlled, but those voices are almost totally irrelevant in Russian politics and with the Russian people," said Maria Lipman, an expert on Russian politics with the Carnegie Moscow Center think tank. How much effect does Air America have?
"Free voices are for all practical purposes dissident voices." Ahhhh-ha!!!!
A free media was seen by many as one of the biggest achievements of former president Boris Yeltsin's rule, reversing abruptly from 2000 when Putin took over.
Putin accused media barons of trying to undermine the state (an American corporation would ALWAYS think of America and her people FIRST!! Halliburton? Enron? GE? Pfiser? Sure!!) and in 2001, state-run gas company Gazprom took over the trailblazing television channel NTV. Several leading publications were shut down.
Gazprom has since gone on to buy Ekho Moskvy radio and the once highly authoritative daily Izvestia, while other Kremlin-linked businesses have also moved into the media sector (following Rupert's lead).
But Margarita Simonyan, head of the new English-language 24-hour channel Russia Today and a rising media star, says that press freedom under Yeltsin is a myth.
"Television was as much an instrument for corporate aims (sponsors) as any other," she said. "The idea that television was free in the 1990s is hilarious." Does anyone seriously believe it is "free" here?
Simonyan also defended the blanket coverage given to the Kremlin on the main channels.
"The state channels show the president of Russia," she said. "State television should tell the people what the state is doing."
Sergei Parkhomenko, who lost his job as editor of the Itogi news magazine under Putin, blamed Russian society.
"Freedom of speech came as a gift. It fell from the sky. But people quietly let it go. Now they struggle to remember why it is they need it," he said. If this last comment doesn't fit the good ol' US of A, nothing does!!!!
- Uke Man
260 Lunatic Congressmen Foaming at the Mouth
Hey Folks,
Mark Twain said, "America has no indigenous criminal class, save Congress." Yep!!
These are the same cruds who claim Johnny can't read; they must not have done very well in school themselves - especially in Civics Class.
This time they want to pass a law saying the courts can't oversee the constitutionality of their perverted actions; essentially an unconstitutional law prohibiting the courts from determining the unconstitutional law to be unconstitutional.
What next? a law prohibiting the executive from acting as the executive? prohibiting the minority party from voting on prohibitory laws? Why not? The courts can simply be prohibited from ruling on the prohibitions?
At some point they could prohibit Twain as well.
- Uke Man
House OKs bill guarding Pledge from courts
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God."
The legislation, a priority of social conservatives, passed 260-167. It now goes to the Senate where its future is uncertain.
"We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage," said Rep. Zach Wamp (news, bio, voting record), R-Tenn. "It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God."
Opponents said the legislation, which would bar federal courts from ruling on the constitutional validity of the pledge, would undercut judicial independence and would deny access to federal courts to religious minorities seeking to defend their rights.
"We are making an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United States which, thank God, will fail," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
The pledge bill would deny jurisdiction to federal courts, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to decide questions pertaining to the interpretation or constitutionality of the pledge. State courts could still decide whether the pledge is valid within the state.
The legislation grew out of a 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court in 2004 reversed that decision on a technicality, saying Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow did not have legal standing to sue on behalf of his daughter because the mother had custody of the child. Newdow has since revived the case and last year a U.S. District Judge ruled in his favor.
Newdow, an attorney and medical doctor, said in an interview that he hoped the bill would pass to expose the aims of its supporters. "They're willing to ruin this country so they can keep their God in our country. I love the fact that they are having a vote." He said he expected a final ruling in his case in about a year.
Supporters argued that the "under God" phrase, added to the pledge in 1954, was intrinsic to the nation's heritage and traditions and must be shielded from unelected judges. "This is an issue that clearly resonates to what we are about as a country," said House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
Rep. Todd Akin (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo., who sponsored the measure, said that denying a child the right to recite the pledge was a form of censorship. "We believe that there is a God who gives basic rights to all people and it is the job of the government to protect those rights."
Davison Douglas, a professor at the William and Mary School of Law, said constitutional scholars are divided over whether such congressional restrictions on judicial review would pass constitutional muster.
He noted that "past efforts to bar all federal court review of hot-button social issues have consistently failed. Hence, if this bill is enacted, it would be a highly significant landmark in terms of congressional efforts to control the actions of federal courts."
There is a companion Senate bill, but it is unclear whether the Senate will take it up in the current session.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said that while he supported the pledge and disagreed with the 9th Circuit Court's ruling, the bill would "intrude on the principle of separation of powers, degrade our independent federal judiciary and set a dangerous precedent."
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., said the effort to strip courts of authority could come back to haunt his fellow conservatives if liberals gain control of Congress in the future. As an example, he said Congress could prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on a state's decision to ban guns.
The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said that under the bill, "religious minorities will no longer have the right to go to federal court to defend their deeply held religious beliefs."
The pledge bill was part of the House GOP's "American values agenda" that House Speaker
Dennis Hastert' name=c1>SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3>
Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said would "defend America's founding principles." Another part of that agenda, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, was defeated in the House on Tuesday.
Also on Wednesday, the House was voting on legislation that would designate a 29-foot-high cross as a federal war memorial to prevent it from being removed from public land in San Diego.
Mark Twain said, "America has no indigenous criminal class, save Congress." Yep!!
These are the same cruds who claim Johnny can't read; they must not have done very well in school themselves - especially in Civics Class.
This time they want to pass a law saying the courts can't oversee the constitutionality of their perverted actions; essentially an unconstitutional law prohibiting the courts from determining the unconstitutional law to be unconstitutional.
What next? a law prohibiting the executive from acting as the executive? prohibiting the minority party from voting on prohibitory laws? Why not? The courts can simply be prohibited from ruling on the prohibitions?
At some point they could prohibit Twain as well.
- Uke Man
House OKs bill guarding Pledge from courts
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God."
The legislation, a priority of social conservatives, passed 260-167. It now goes to the Senate where its future is uncertain.
"We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage," said Rep. Zach Wamp (news, bio, voting record), R-Tenn. "It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God."
Opponents said the legislation, which would bar federal courts from ruling on the constitutional validity of the pledge, would undercut judicial independence and would deny access to federal courts to religious minorities seeking to defend their rights.
"We are making an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United States which, thank God, will fail," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
The pledge bill would deny jurisdiction to federal courts, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to decide questions pertaining to the interpretation or constitutionality of the pledge. State courts could still decide whether the pledge is valid within the state.
The legislation grew out of a 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court in 2004 reversed that decision on a technicality, saying Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow did not have legal standing to sue on behalf of his daughter because the mother had custody of the child. Newdow has since revived the case and last year a U.S. District Judge ruled in his favor.
Newdow, an attorney and medical doctor, said in an interview that he hoped the bill would pass to expose the aims of its supporters. "They're willing to ruin this country so they can keep their God in our country. I love the fact that they are having a vote." He said he expected a final ruling in his case in about a year.
Supporters argued that the "under God" phrase, added to the pledge in 1954, was intrinsic to the nation's heritage and traditions and must be shielded from unelected judges. "This is an issue that clearly resonates to what we are about as a country," said House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
Rep. Todd Akin (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo., who sponsored the measure, said that denying a child the right to recite the pledge was a form of censorship. "We believe that there is a God who gives basic rights to all people and it is the job of the government to protect those rights."
Davison Douglas, a professor at the William and Mary School of Law, said constitutional scholars are divided over whether such congressional restrictions on judicial review would pass constitutional muster.
He noted that "past efforts to bar all federal court review of hot-button social issues have consistently failed. Hence, if this bill is enacted, it would be a highly significant landmark in terms of congressional efforts to control the actions of federal courts."
There is a companion Senate bill, but it is unclear whether the Senate will take it up in the current session.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said that while he supported the pledge and disagreed with the 9th Circuit Court's ruling, the bill would "intrude on the principle of separation of powers, degrade our independent federal judiciary and set a dangerous precedent."
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., said the effort to strip courts of authority could come back to haunt his fellow conservatives if liberals gain control of Congress in the future. As an example, he said Congress could prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on a state's decision to ban guns.
The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said that under the bill, "religious minorities will no longer have the right to go to federal court to defend their deeply held religious beliefs."
The pledge bill was part of the House GOP's "American values agenda" that House Speaker
Dennis Hastert' name=c1>SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3>
Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said would "defend America's founding principles." Another part of that agenda, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, was defeated in the House on Tuesday.
Also on Wednesday, the House was voting on legislation that would designate a 29-foot-high cross as a federal war memorial to prevent it from being removed from public land in San Diego.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
"Pay no attention to the facts at the bottom of the page!"
"The Great & Glorious Economist of Oooze
has spoken!!!"
has spoken!!!"
More Double-Speak "Business Reports"
Hey Folks!!
What have I been saying about "Business Reports"? Here's a PERFECT example.
Check out the headline: "jobless claims fall." Then check out the emphasized words. THEN, read the last paragraph!!!
- Uke Man
New jobless claims fall on fewer auto layoffs
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of people filing initial claims for U.S. employment benefits last week fell 30,000 to its lowest level in a month because of fewer claims from the automobile industry, the government said on Thursday.
New claims for state jobless benefits fell to 304,000 in the week ended July 15, from a an upwardly revised 334,000 new applications in the previous week, the Labor Department said.
The weekly jobs data, which gives an early reading on the resilience of the labor market, was well below Wall Street expectations of 320,000 claims. The department originally reported claims at 332,000 in the July 8 week.
Two weeks ago jobless claims rose 20,000 as auto plants closed for their annual summer maintenance. A Labor Department analyst said the bulk of last week's decline was due to fewer claims filed in the automobile industry.
The four-week moving average of new jobless claims, regarded by economists as a more accurate reflection of the labor market than the more-volatile weekly number, also fell, dropping to 316,750 from 318,000 the prior week.
The number of Americans already on unemployment benefit rolls after drawing an initial week of aid rose to 2.51 million, the highest since early February, in the week ended July 8, which is the latest period this data are available.
What have I been saying about "Business Reports"? Here's a PERFECT example.
Check out the headline: "jobless claims fall." Then check out the emphasized words. THEN, read the last paragraph!!!
- Uke Man
New jobless claims fall on fewer auto layoffs
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of people filing initial claims for U.S. employment benefits last week fell 30,000 to its lowest level in a month because of fewer claims from the automobile industry, the government said on Thursday.
New claims for state jobless benefits fell to 304,000 in the week ended July 15, from a an upwardly revised 334,000 new applications in the previous week, the Labor Department said.
The weekly jobs data, which gives an early reading on the resilience of the labor market, was well below Wall Street expectations of 320,000 claims. The department originally reported claims at 332,000 in the July 8 week.
Two weeks ago jobless claims rose 20,000 as auto plants closed for their annual summer maintenance. A Labor Department analyst said the bulk of last week's decline was due to fewer claims filed in the automobile industry.
The four-week moving average of new jobless claims, regarded by economists as a more accurate reflection of the labor market than the more-volatile weekly number, also fell, dropping to 316,750 from 318,000 the prior week.
The number of Americans already on unemployment benefit rolls after drawing an initial week of aid rose to 2.51 million, the highest since early February, in the week ended July 8, which is the latest period this data are available.
Or as Maureen Sees the Dunce-Prince
Hey Folks,
Doesn't it make you wonder.
Just how is it that a slug like George W. Bush could become president, be elected to a second term, and continue - at this late date - to be supported by even 30-some percent of Americans?
I'm on record - from before his first day in office - that, were he in my eighth grade English class (in his present adult form), he would be the LAST student chosen for any sort of responsible task - especially one that required "putting our best foot forward."
What does it say about this country, its political system, its media, the intelligence and wisdom of its people?
What kind of primitive understanding of the world and our individual place in it; what craven fear; what ignorant assumptions; what brazen rationalizations; what blind and tranquilizing faith allowed this horrendous debacle?
Our child-president is a disgrace and a shame; and whether or not this country and everything about it deserves George W. Bush and deserves to indelibly share in his disgrace and shame, remains to be seen.
It's nip and tuck, folks, and I don't think the odds are in our favor!!!
- Uke Man
July 19, 2006
Animal House Summit
By MAUREEN DOWD
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Reporters who covered W.’s 2000 campaign often wondered whether the Bush scion would give up acting the fool if he got to be the king.
Would he stop playing peekaboo with his pre-meal moist towels during airplane interviews? Would he quit scrunching up his face and wiggling his eyebrows at memorial services? Would he replace levity and inanity with gravity?
“In many regards, the Bush I knew did not seem to be built for what lay ahead,’’ wrote Frank Bruni, the Times writer who covered W.’s ascent, in his book “Ambling Into History.” “The Bush I knew was part scamp and part bumbler, a timeless fraternity boy and heedless cutup, a weekday gym rat and weekend napster, an adult with an inner child that often brimmed to the surface or burst through.”
The open-microphone incident at the G-8 lunch in St. Petersburg on Monday illustrated once more that W. never made any effort to adapt. The president has enshrined his immaturity and insularity, turning every environment he inhabits — no matter how decorous or serious — into a comfortable frat house.
No matter what the trappings or the ceremonies require of the leader of the free world, he brings the same DKE bearing and cadences, the same insouciance and smart-alecky attitude, the same simplistic approach — swearing, swaggering, talking to Tony Blair with his mouth full of buttered roll, and giving a startled Angela Merkel an impromptu shoulder rub. He can make even a global summit meeting seem like a kegger.
Catching W. off-guard, the really weird thing is his sense of victimization. He’s strangely resentful about the actual core of his job. Even after the debacles of Iraq and Katrina, he continues to treat the presidency as a colossal interference with his desire to mountain bike and clear brush.
In snippets of overheard conversation, Mr. Bush says he has not bothered to prepare any closing remarks and grouses about having to listen to other world leaders talk too long. What did he think being president was about?
The world may be blowing up, and the president may have a rare opportunity to jaw-jaw about bang-bang with his peers, but that pales in comparison with his burning desire to return to his feather pillow and gym back at the White House.
“Gotta go home,’’ he tells the guy next to him. “Got something to do tonight. Go to the airport, get on the airplane and go home.” A White House spokesman said Mr. Bush had nothing on his schedule after he returned to Washington on Monday about 4 p.m.
When he began meandering about how big Russia was, you expected him to yell, “Yo, Condi!’’ and ask his secretary of state: “Hey, what’s the name of that other big country that has more people than any other country in the world? It begins with a ‘C.’ Dad spent some time there.’’
Perhaps it’s that anti-patrician chip on his shoulder, his rebellion against a family that prized manners and diplomacy above all. But when bored or frustrated, W. reserves the right to be boorish — no matter if the setting is a gilded palace or a Texas gorge.
He treated Tony “As It Were” Blair like the servant in “The Remains of the Day,’’ blowing off his offer to help with the Israel-Lebanon crisis, and changing the subject from substance to fluff at one point, noting about his 60th-birthday Burberry gift: “Thanks for the sweater. Awfully thoughtful of you.’’ Then he razzed the British prime minister, who was hovering and wheedling like an abused wife: “I know you picked it out yourself.”
After doing his best to undermine the U.N. and Kofi Annan, W. talked about the secretary general like a fraternity pledge he wanted to send out for more beer or a keg of Diet Coke: “I felt like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen.’’
His loosey-goosey confidence that everything could be fixed with a phone call — and not even a phone call made by him, and not even a phone call made to the Iranians, who have more control over Hezbollah — was striking. He seems to have no clue that his own headlong, heedless actions in the Middle East have contributed to the deepening chaos there, and to Iran’s growing influence and America’s diminished leverage.
Mr. Bush may resent the sophistication required of a president. But when the world is going to hell, he should stop chewing and start thinking.
Doesn't it make you wonder.
Just how is it that a slug like George W. Bush could become president, be elected to a second term, and continue - at this late date - to be supported by even 30-some percent of Americans?
I'm on record - from before his first day in office - that, were he in my eighth grade English class (in his present adult form), he would be the LAST student chosen for any sort of responsible task - especially one that required "putting our best foot forward."
What does it say about this country, its political system, its media, the intelligence and wisdom of its people?
What kind of primitive understanding of the world and our individual place in it; what craven fear; what ignorant assumptions; what brazen rationalizations; what blind and tranquilizing faith allowed this horrendous debacle?
Our child-president is a disgrace and a shame; and whether or not this country and everything about it deserves George W. Bush and deserves to indelibly share in his disgrace and shame, remains to be seen.
It's nip and tuck, folks, and I don't think the odds are in our favor!!!
- Uke Man
July 19, 2006
Animal House Summit
By MAUREEN DOWD
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Reporters who covered W.’s 2000 campaign often wondered whether the Bush scion would give up acting the fool if he got to be the king.
Would he stop playing peekaboo with his pre-meal moist towels during airplane interviews? Would he quit scrunching up his face and wiggling his eyebrows at memorial services? Would he replace levity and inanity with gravity?
“In many regards, the Bush I knew did not seem to be built for what lay ahead,’’ wrote Frank Bruni, the Times writer who covered W.’s ascent, in his book “Ambling Into History.” “The Bush I knew was part scamp and part bumbler, a timeless fraternity boy and heedless cutup, a weekday gym rat and weekend napster, an adult with an inner child that often brimmed to the surface or burst through.”
The open-microphone incident at the G-8 lunch in St. Petersburg on Monday illustrated once more that W. never made any effort to adapt. The president has enshrined his immaturity and insularity, turning every environment he inhabits — no matter how decorous or serious — into a comfortable frat house.
No matter what the trappings or the ceremonies require of the leader of the free world, he brings the same DKE bearing and cadences, the same insouciance and smart-alecky attitude, the same simplistic approach — swearing, swaggering, talking to Tony Blair with his mouth full of buttered roll, and giving a startled Angela Merkel an impromptu shoulder rub. He can make even a global summit meeting seem like a kegger.
Catching W. off-guard, the really weird thing is his sense of victimization. He’s strangely resentful about the actual core of his job. Even after the debacles of Iraq and Katrina, he continues to treat the presidency as a colossal interference with his desire to mountain bike and clear brush.
In snippets of overheard conversation, Mr. Bush says he has not bothered to prepare any closing remarks and grouses about having to listen to other world leaders talk too long. What did he think being president was about?
The world may be blowing up, and the president may have a rare opportunity to jaw-jaw about bang-bang with his peers, but that pales in comparison with his burning desire to return to his feather pillow and gym back at the White House.
“Gotta go home,’’ he tells the guy next to him. “Got something to do tonight. Go to the airport, get on the airplane and go home.” A White House spokesman said Mr. Bush had nothing on his schedule after he returned to Washington on Monday about 4 p.m.
When he began meandering about how big Russia was, you expected him to yell, “Yo, Condi!’’ and ask his secretary of state: “Hey, what’s the name of that other big country that has more people than any other country in the world? It begins with a ‘C.’ Dad spent some time there.’’
Perhaps it’s that anti-patrician chip on his shoulder, his rebellion against a family that prized manners and diplomacy above all. But when bored or frustrated, W. reserves the right to be boorish — no matter if the setting is a gilded palace or a Texas gorge.
He treated Tony “As It Were” Blair like the servant in “The Remains of the Day,’’ blowing off his offer to help with the Israel-Lebanon crisis, and changing the subject from substance to fluff at one point, noting about his 60th-birthday Burberry gift: “Thanks for the sweater. Awfully thoughtful of you.’’ Then he razzed the British prime minister, who was hovering and wheedling like an abused wife: “I know you picked it out yourself.”
After doing his best to undermine the U.N. and Kofi Annan, W. talked about the secretary general like a fraternity pledge he wanted to send out for more beer or a keg of Diet Coke: “I felt like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen.’’
His loosey-goosey confidence that everything could be fixed with a phone call — and not even a phone call made by him, and not even a phone call made to the Iranians, who have more control over Hezbollah — was striking. He seems to have no clue that his own headlong, heedless actions in the Middle East have contributed to the deepening chaos there, and to Iran’s growing influence and America’s diminished leverage.
Mr. Bush may resent the sophistication required of a president. But when the world is going to hell, he should stop chewing and start thinking.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks
and stones." -------------- - Albert Einstein
and stones." -------------- - Albert Einstein
World War III
Hey Folks,
If you missed the Colbert Report (or even if you didn't) check out the video below.
Colbert does a great job exposing the suppressed excitement and glee of the assembled Foxxx ghouls. Try not to spit on your monitor screen.
- Uke Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIkZ3p11PiY&search=World%20War%20III
If you missed the Colbert Report (or even if you didn't) check out the video below.
Colbert does a great job exposing the suppressed excitement and glee of the assembled Foxxx ghouls. Try not to spit on your monitor screen.
- Uke Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIkZ3p11PiY&search=World%20War%20III
Duncing around the Issue
Opinion
Cenk Uygur: The Ugly Truth:
Our President is an Imbecile
Cenk Uygur
You know it, I know it and the American people know it. But everyone is afraid to say it. They say it privately, but people are afraid of saying it publicly because you will be branded as a liberal, elite, intellectual snob. But believe me, you don't have to be an intellectual to see how painfully stupid our president is.
Just look at the conversation he is having with world leaders at the G-8 summit. Mics picked up the casual talk between the world leaders. Forget that Bush appears to have three sandwiches in his mouth while talking. Forget that he calls out to the Prime Minister of Britain as if he is Flounder in "Animal House." Forget that he uses profanity. I don't give a shit about those things.
I thought it was ridiculous that people made fun of George H. W, Bush for vomiting on the Japanese Prime Minister. What was he going to do? He had to puke, so he puked. It happens to the best of us, and more importantly, has nothing to do with his intelligence or how capable he is as a leader.
But his son's verbal vomit does have a lot to do with his ability to lead this country and the world. What I found to be the most damning is the least quoted part of Bush's comments. As you read this transcript, remember that this is not a small child talking, but the President of the United States of America:
possibly to Chinese President Hu Jintao, a guest at the summit. Bush: "Gotta go home. Got something to do tonight. Go to the airport, get on the airplane and go home. How about you? Where are you going? Home?
Bush: "This is your neighborhood. It doesn't take you long to get home. How long does it take you to get home?"
Reply is inaudible.
Bush: "Eight hours? Me too. Russia's a big country and you're a big country."
At this point, the president seems to bring someone else into the conversation.
Bush: "It takes him eight hours to fly home."
He turns his attention to a server.
Bush: "No, Diet Coke, Diet Coke."
He turns back to whomever he was talking with.
Bush: "It takes him eight hours to fly home. Eight hours. Russia's big and so is China."
Russia's big and so is China??????? This guys sounds like a third grader. Do you know anyone who would have a conversation like this with their neighbor, let alone a business associate, let alone a world leader? Who's proud to know that Russia is big and so is China?
Can anyone now credibly claim that Bush is secretly working on a master plan behind the scenes and that he's just playing cowboy for the cameras? I hope the master plan doesn't involve figuring out how long it takes to get to China.
If someone is this ignorant, they're usually embarrassed and try not to talk much. But this guy is so dumb he has no idea how dumb he is. This sounds like a conversation you might have with a child, a mentally challenged child. Johnny, do you know how big Russia is? How about China?
This would all be unfortunate if George was your dentist, or worse yet, your accountant. But he is the leader of the free world. This man makes life or death decisions every day. If you say you're not scared about that, you're lying.
Would you let him do the books for your business? Would you trust your company in his hands for eight years? (No matter how Republican you are, you know you just said no to that question.) Would you trust him to be your kids' guidance counselor and take his advice seriously? If your kids were in the Army and he was their field commander, would you feel good about putting their lives in his hands?
Come on, no one is crazy enough to say yes to that. Yet, he has all of our lives in his hands. The emperor has no clothes. The emperor has no clothes. It's about time someone in the mainstream media said it.
In the old empires, there would be a lot of marriages between the royal families. And from time to time, these inter-family marriages would produce a mentally challenged son who would inherit the throne. This would set the empire back for hundreds of years. I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying. Russia is big and so is China.
The Democrats for a long time have felt embarrassed about pointing out the obvious. The emperor has no brain. This is what I can't understand about the Democrats, they're always playing patty cakes while the Republicans are ripping their face off.
John Kerry should have stood at the lectern during the debates and pointed to
George Bush and said, "The leader of this country has to be the best and the brightest. If any of you think that he is the best and the brightest America has to offer, go ahead and vote for him!"
The theory is that people would be turned off by that. The theory assumes that people are also idiots and they love their cohorts. That is simply not true. Everyone understands that they have a friend they'd like to go fishing with and a friend they can trust to look after their affairs - and they're not necessarily the same guy. And that your fishing buddy might not be a great choice for President of the United States of America.
Kerry should have embarrassed Bush, made people feel sorry for him. It would have hurt in the short run and given him a temporary downward blip in the numbers, but in the end, when people went into that voting booth, they would have felt pity for Bush - in that scenario, Kerry wins easily. Nobody votes for someone they pity.
Unfortunately, right now we are in the position of being pitied by the rest of the world. We have a third grader for a President. And worse yet, the Vice President has him convinced he is the second coming of Winston Churchill. Scared yet?
The Young Turks
Cenk Uygur: The Ugly Truth:
Our President is an Imbecile
Cenk Uygur
You know it, I know it and the American people know it. But everyone is afraid to say it. They say it privately, but people are afraid of saying it publicly because you will be branded as a liberal, elite, intellectual snob. But believe me, you don't have to be an intellectual to see how painfully stupid our president is.
Just look at the conversation he is having with world leaders at the G-8 summit. Mics picked up the casual talk between the world leaders. Forget that Bush appears to have three sandwiches in his mouth while talking. Forget that he calls out to the Prime Minister of Britain as if he is Flounder in "Animal House." Forget that he uses profanity. I don't give a shit about those things.
I thought it was ridiculous that people made fun of George H. W, Bush for vomiting on the Japanese Prime Minister. What was he going to do? He had to puke, so he puked. It happens to the best of us, and more importantly, has nothing to do with his intelligence or how capable he is as a leader.
But his son's verbal vomit does have a lot to do with his ability to lead this country and the world. What I found to be the most damning is the least quoted part of Bush's comments. As you read this transcript, remember that this is not a small child talking, but the President of the United States of America:
possibly to Chinese President Hu Jintao, a guest at the summit. Bush: "Gotta go home. Got something to do tonight. Go to the airport, get on the airplane and go home. How about you? Where are you going? Home?
Bush: "This is your neighborhood. It doesn't take you long to get home. How long does it take you to get home?"
Reply is inaudible.
Bush: "Eight hours? Me too. Russia's a big country and you're a big country."
At this point, the president seems to bring someone else into the conversation.
Bush: "It takes him eight hours to fly home."
He turns his attention to a server.
Bush: "No, Diet Coke, Diet Coke."
He turns back to whomever he was talking with.
Bush: "It takes him eight hours to fly home. Eight hours. Russia's big and so is China."
Russia's big and so is China??????? This guys sounds like a third grader. Do you know anyone who would have a conversation like this with their neighbor, let alone a business associate, let alone a world leader? Who's proud to know that Russia is big and so is China?
Can anyone now credibly claim that Bush is secretly working on a master plan behind the scenes and that he's just playing cowboy for the cameras? I hope the master plan doesn't involve figuring out how long it takes to get to China.
If someone is this ignorant, they're usually embarrassed and try not to talk much. But this guy is so dumb he has no idea how dumb he is. This sounds like a conversation you might have with a child, a mentally challenged child. Johnny, do you know how big Russia is? How about China?
This would all be unfortunate if George was your dentist, or worse yet, your accountant. But he is the leader of the free world. This man makes life or death decisions every day. If you say you're not scared about that, you're lying.
Would you let him do the books for your business? Would you trust your company in his hands for eight years? (No matter how Republican you are, you know you just said no to that question.) Would you trust him to be your kids' guidance counselor and take his advice seriously? If your kids were in the Army and he was their field commander, would you feel good about putting their lives in his hands?
Come on, no one is crazy enough to say yes to that. Yet, he has all of our lives in his hands. The emperor has no clothes. The emperor has no clothes. It's about time someone in the mainstream media said it.
In the old empires, there would be a lot of marriages between the royal families. And from time to time, these inter-family marriages would produce a mentally challenged son who would inherit the throne. This would set the empire back for hundreds of years. I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying. Russia is big and so is China.
The Democrats for a long time have felt embarrassed about pointing out the obvious. The emperor has no brain. This is what I can't understand about the Democrats, they're always playing patty cakes while the Republicans are ripping their face off.
John Kerry should have stood at the lectern during the debates and pointed to
George Bush and said, "The leader of this country has to be the best and the brightest. If any of you think that he is the best and the brightest America has to offer, go ahead and vote for him!"
The theory is that people would be turned off by that. The theory assumes that people are also idiots and they love their cohorts. That is simply not true. Everyone understands that they have a friend they'd like to go fishing with and a friend they can trust to look after their affairs - and they're not necessarily the same guy. And that your fishing buddy might not be a great choice for President of the United States of America.
Kerry should have embarrassed Bush, made people feel sorry for him. It would have hurt in the short run and given him a temporary downward blip in the numbers, but in the end, when people went into that voting booth, they would have felt pity for Bush - in that scenario, Kerry wins easily. Nobody votes for someone they pity.
Unfortunately, right now we are in the position of being pitied by the rest of the world. We have a third grader for a President. And worse yet, the Vice President has him convinced he is the second coming of Winston Churchill. Scared yet?
The Young Turks
The Imbecile Strikes Again !!
Bush vetoes stem cell bill as promised
AP - WASHINGTON - President Bush cast the first veto of his 5 1/2-year presidency Wednesday, saying legislation easing limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research "crosses a moral boundary" and is wrong. "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said at a White House event where he was surrounded by 18 families who "adopted" frozen embryos not used by other couples, and then used those leftover embryos to have children.
*** *** ***
Hey Folks,
The vast majority of the unused, frozen embryos involved here will be thrown in the fertility clinic trash can. Since that is the "taking of innocent life," how will the clinic workers and owners be punished?
Shouldn't such freezing of microscopic - invisible to the eye - embryos be outlawed? If embryos constitute a "human being," it's already murder or at least manslaughter, since clinicians know that most of the embryos they produce will either fail to develop in the woumb or will eventually be discarded - since more embryos are produced than often are needed to institute a pregnancy (hence, the surplus in question)?
This is more Bush bullshit - plain and simple! Another example of unscrupulous, self-serving politicians playing on the stupidity of backward, ignorant dupes; religomatons incapable of differentiating between dogma and ethics.
Legitimate ethical questions can be raised regarding the general topic, but this is not one of them!!
- Uke Man
AP - WASHINGTON - President Bush cast the first veto of his 5 1/2-year presidency Wednesday, saying legislation easing limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research "crosses a moral boundary" and is wrong. "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said at a White House event where he was surrounded by 18 families who "adopted" frozen embryos not used by other couples, and then used those leftover embryos to have children.
*** *** ***
Hey Folks,
The vast majority of the unused, frozen embryos involved here will be thrown in the fertility clinic trash can. Since that is the "taking of innocent life," how will the clinic workers and owners be punished?
Shouldn't such freezing of microscopic - invisible to the eye - embryos be outlawed? If embryos constitute a "human being," it's already murder or at least manslaughter, since clinicians know that most of the embryos they produce will either fail to develop in the woumb or will eventually be discarded - since more embryos are produced than often are needed to institute a pregnancy (hence, the surplus in question)?
This is more Bush bullshit - plain and simple! Another example of unscrupulous, self-serving politicians playing on the stupidity of backward, ignorant dupes; religomatons incapable of differentiating between dogma and ethics.
Legitimate ethical questions can be raised regarding the general topic, but this is not one of them!!
- Uke Man
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Oh!!!! (o) or Ahhhhhhh!!!! (a) / Male!!!! and Female!!!!!!!!!!!
The Spanish Computer
(a ukethanks to Sondra&Paul)
A Spanish teacher was explaining to her class that in Spanish,unlike English, nouns are designated as either masculine or feminine.
"House" for instance, is feminine: "la casa."
"Pencil," however, is masculine: "el lapiz."
A student asked, "What gender is 'computer'?"
Instead of giving the answer, the teacher split the class into two groups, male and female, and asked them to decide for themselves whether"computer" should be a masculine or a feminine noun.
Each group was asked to give four reasons for its recommendation.
The men's group decided that "computer" should definitely be of the feminine gender ("la computadora"), because:
1. No one but their creator understands their internal logic;
2. The native language they use to communicate with other computers is incomprehensible to everyone else;
3. Even the smallest mistakes are stored in long term memory for possible later retrieval; and
4. As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself spending half your paycheck on accessories for it.
The women's group, however, concluded that computers should beMasculine ("el computador"), because:
1. In order to do anything with them, you have to turn them on;
2. They have a lot of data but still can't think for themselves;
3. They are supposed to help you solve problems, but half the time they ARE the problem; and
4. As soon as you commit to one, you realize that if you had waited a little longer, you could have gotten a better model.
The women won.
***
Hey Folks,
I don't know about you, but Freud & I know why it's "el lapiz" not "la lapiza."
In a more philosophical vein, I'd say that while the logic of the joke amuses, the reality is that it's "el computador" (not "la computadora") for reasons of macho - reasons not that much different from those that determined the gender of "el lapiz."
Freud probably would agree.
- Uke Man
(a ukethanks to Sondra&Paul)
A Spanish teacher was explaining to her class that in Spanish,unlike English, nouns are designated as either masculine or feminine.
"House" for instance, is feminine: "la casa."
"Pencil," however, is masculine: "el lapiz."
A student asked, "What gender is 'computer'?"
Instead of giving the answer, the teacher split the class into two groups, male and female, and asked them to decide for themselves whether"computer" should be a masculine or a feminine noun.
Each group was asked to give four reasons for its recommendation.
The men's group decided that "computer" should definitely be of the feminine gender ("la computadora"), because:
1. No one but their creator understands their internal logic;
2. The native language they use to communicate with other computers is incomprehensible to everyone else;
3. Even the smallest mistakes are stored in long term memory for possible later retrieval; and
4. As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself spending half your paycheck on accessories for it.
The women's group, however, concluded that computers should beMasculine ("el computador"), because:
1. In order to do anything with them, you have to turn them on;
2. They have a lot of data but still can't think for themselves;
3. They are supposed to help you solve problems, but half the time they ARE the problem; and
4. As soon as you commit to one, you realize that if you had waited a little longer, you could have gotten a better model.
The women won.
***
Hey Folks,
I don't know about you, but Freud & I know why it's "el lapiz" not "la lapiza."
In a more philosophical vein, I'd say that while the logic of the joke amuses, the reality is that it's "el computador" (not "la computadora") for reasons of macho - reasons not that much different from those that determined the gender of "el lapiz."
Freud probably would agree.
- Uke Man
ANATOMICAL SCENARIO
BENEFIT CONCERT - $5- at the door
Sat. July 22nd 9-2 am @ Little Brothers (614) 421-2025
Featuring: Pretty Balanced, Starving Goliath, Happy Chichester and Jamnesia.
Come party with The Annadroids and
help send them on their way to New York City.
Win Big Raffle Prizes:
Restaurant Gift Certificates, Annadroid Gear, Body Work, Yoga Classes …
BENEFIT CONCERT - $5- at the door
Sat. July 22nd 9-2 am @ Little Brothers (614) 421-2025
Featuring: Pretty Balanced, Starving Goliath, Happy Chichester and Jamnesia.
Come party with The Annadroids and
help send them on their way to New York City.
Win Big Raffle Prizes:
Restaurant Gift Certificates, Annadroid Gear, Body Work, Yoga Classes …
Hey Folks,
Come out Friday and
support ANATOMICAL SCENARIO !!!
A friend, James Pryor, whom I met as part of the Grimaldi Circus Fantastique production, is also integrally involved in the dance troupe Anatomical Scenario.
This is a cutting-edge assemblage – out of a thousand applicants to perform in the New York International Fringe Festival, James’ group was one of two-hundred selected, and one of a handful of dance acts invited to perform.
Come out Friday and
support ANATOMICAL SCENARIO !!!
A friend, James Pryor, whom I met as part of the Grimaldi Circus Fantastique production, is also integrally involved in the dance troupe Anatomical Scenario.
This is a cutting-edge assemblage – out of a thousand applicants to perform in the New York International Fringe Festival, James’ group was one of two-hundred selected, and one of a handful of dance acts invited to perform.
Check out their videos (broad band/fairly brief download time – worth the short wait) :
Zip Lock: http://www.anatomicalscenario.com/images/movies/WebZipLock.mov
Go-Go Droids: http://www.anatomicalscenario.com/repgogodroids.htm
Withdrawal: http://www.anatomicalscenario.com/images/movies/WebWithdrawal.mov
More videos at: http://www.anatomicalscenario.com/repvideos.htm
Website: http://www.anatomicalscenario.com/
Zip Lock: http://www.anatomicalscenario.com/images/movies/WebZipLock.mov
Go-Go Droids: http://www.anatomicalscenario.com/repgogodroids.htm
Withdrawal: http://www.anatomicalscenario.com/images/movies/WebWithdrawal.mov
More videos at: http://www.anatomicalscenario.com/repvideos.htm
Website: http://www.anatomicalscenario.com/
Other Performances:
Cm2 Gallery Hop Skip and Jump Site-Specific Performance Series
Saturday August 5th between 7-10 pm. Fashiondroid Voguebots will model droidwear and interact with shop-buy-swipers in storefront window displays at G&Co on the corner of Buttles and High.
New York International Fringe Festival - FringeNYC August 11-27th - Anna and The Androids: The Robots' Dream Tour
WWW.ANATOMICALSCENARIO.COM
Cm2 Gallery Hop Skip and Jump Site-Specific Performance Series
Saturday August 5th between 7-10 pm. Fashiondroid Voguebots will model droidwear and interact with shop-buy-swipers in storefront window displays at G&Co on the corner of Buttles and High.
New York International Fringe Festival - FringeNYC August 11-27th - Anna and The Androids: The Robots' Dream Tour
WWW.ANATOMICALSCENARIO.COM
Come on out, Folks!! It will be a great time and you'll help some talented people get to the Big Apple!!!
- Uke Man
- Uke Man
Born-again Potty Mouth
Bush to Syria: 'Stop this shit'
(from Hill Street Blue - a ukethanks to Phyll)
July 17, 2006
An unaware President George W. Bush, whose language behind the scenes has always been colorful, said into an open microphone Monday that Syria should press Hezbollah to "stop doing this shit."
Bush was talking privately to British Prime Minister Tony Blair during a lunch at the Group of Eight summit in St Petersburg about an upsurge of violence in the Middle East, not realizing a microphone was transmitting what he said.
"I think Condi (Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) is going to go pretty soon," Bush said.
Blair replied: "Right, that's all that matters, it will take some time to get that together." Rice said on Sunday she was thinking of going to the Middle East if it would help.
Blair said Rice has "got to succeed" if she goes to the region. Bush replied: "What they need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit."It's not the first time the unwary President, who claims to be a born-again Christian, has been caught cursing. He called a New York Times reporter a "son of a bitch" to an open mike, told Wall Street Journal reporter Al Hunt "fuck you" in front of his daughters and, in a meeting with members of Congress, called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper."
"Like Nixon, Bush's private persona is much different," says retired political scientiest George Harleigh, who served in both the Nixon and Reagan administration. "Nixon cursed like a sailor when he was out of public view. So does Bush."
(from Hill Street Blue - a ukethanks to Phyll)
July 17, 2006
An unaware President George W. Bush, whose language behind the scenes has always been colorful, said into an open microphone Monday that Syria should press Hezbollah to "stop doing this shit."
Bush was talking privately to British Prime Minister Tony Blair during a lunch at the Group of Eight summit in St Petersburg about an upsurge of violence in the Middle East, not realizing a microphone was transmitting what he said.
"I think Condi (Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) is going to go pretty soon," Bush said.
Blair replied: "Right, that's all that matters, it will take some time to get that together." Rice said on Sunday she was thinking of going to the Middle East if it would help.
Blair said Rice has "got to succeed" if she goes to the region. Bush replied: "What they need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit."It's not the first time the unwary President, who claims to be a born-again Christian, has been caught cursing. He called a New York Times reporter a "son of a bitch" to an open mike, told Wall Street Journal reporter Al Hunt "fuck you" in front of his daughters and, in a meeting with members of Congress, called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper."
"Like Nixon, Bush's private persona is much different," says retired political scientiest George Harleigh, who served in both the Nixon and Reagan administration. "Nixon cursed like a sailor when he was out of public view. So does Bush."
Monday, July 17, 2006
Don't believe it? Check out any night of Hannity Insanity
How Conservatives Argue
Liberal: The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: No, it doesn’t.
Liberal: Yes, it does. The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: What about Guam? What about that Guam, huh? Or theVirgin Islands?
Liberal: Those are territories, not states. The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: Oh, so you’re saying those don’t count?
Liberal: Yes.
Conservative: Oh, so the people there don’t count? They’re not good enough, huh? I thought you liberals wanted everybody to be counted.
Liberal: No, I said the territories don’t count as states. The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: You’re really something, you know that? You liberals are always going on about how all of us conservatives are racists, how we don’t care about anybody but people who look like us. But you don’t even want to count the blacks who live in Guam as Americans.
Liberal: First of all, I never said all conservatives are racists.
Conservative: Yes, you did.
Liberal: No, I didn’t.
Conservative: Michael Moore says it.
Liberal: I’ve never heard him say that.
Conservative: Yes, he does! He most definitely does!
Liberal: Look, I don’t know what he says. That’s beside the point. And the people in Guam “count,” whatever that means. I don’t even know who lives in Guam; I don’t know the first thing about Guam. I’m just saying Guam isn’t a state it’s a territory. The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: What about Puerto Rico?
Liberal: What?
Conservative: What about Puerto Rico, huh? You love all those Mexicans coming across the border stealing our jobs you must LOVE Puerto Rico, right?
Liberal: I’ve never been to Puerto Rico.
Conservative: Well, I have, and those kind of people would be pretty offended to hear liberals like you saying they aren’t real Americans!
Liberal: I didn’t say that!
Conservative: You said they didn’t count!
Liberal: I didn’t say that either! No, wait, just wait… (takes deep breath). I only said the USA has fifty states. Puerto Rico isn’t a state it’s a commonwealth.
Conservative: And they don’t speak English!
Liberal: Well, many Puerto Ricans do.
Conservative: How do you know that? I’ve been there you haven’t!
Liberal: All right, OK, fine, whatever. But the USA has fifty states.
Conservative: Well, I say Puerto Rico counts.
Liberal: Fine, but not as a state.
Conservative: Well, that’s YOUR opinion.
Liberal: It’s not my opinion it’s a fact.
Conservative: Says you!
Liberal: No, not just “says me.” It’s a fact. Look it up.
Conservative: I don’t have time.
Liberal: You don’t have time to find out if the USA has fifty states?
Conservative: Listen, you may have time to sit around all day surfing on your liberal websites, downloading Michael Moore, but I’ve got things to do.
Liberal: Like reading about blacks in Guam and Mexicans in Puerto Rico?
Conservative: See, that’s why you guys always lose. I’m trying to have a nice conversation, and you just keep up with the insults!
Liberal: Listen, I didn’t mean to insult you.
Conservative: Oh, yes you did!
Liberal: No, look, I’m sorry, OK? I didn’t mean to insult you. Honestly. It’s just that… well, the USA has fifty states. That’s a fact. And I’m just trying to state a fact, and you’re getting very defensive, and…
Conservative: Oh, so now I’m defensive.
Liberal: Well…
Conservative: You just said you weren’t going to insult me!
Liberal: Look, I’m just trying to say the USA has fifty states!
Conservative: According to YOUR sources!
Liberal: MY sources?! What are you talking about? Look it up!
Conservative: I told you, I don’t have time to spend all day cruising the internet, looking up geography questions! Maybe if you were busier at your job, trying to live the American Dream, you wouldn’t have time for all this hate!
Liberal: I work hard at my job!
Conservative: Then why are you spending all day downloading Michael Moore?
Liberal: I don’t spend all day downloading Michael Moore! I don’t even know what you mean by that! All I’m saying is that the USA has fifty states!
Conservative: Again, according to YOU!
Liberal: Not just me! Here, here’s the World Book Encyclopedia. Look it up it’s fifty states!
Conservative: Oh, sure, the World Book! Yeah, like I’m going to believe the World Book!
Liberal: What?
Conservative: Come on, it’s a liberal rag!
Liberal: (Long, teeth-gnashing pause) Look, just look up “United States of America.” Ten bucks it says, “the USA has fifty states.”
Conservative: Ten bucks, huh?
Liberal: Yeah, ten bucks. (pause) Wait, that’s the “M” volume.
Conservative: I know.
Liberal: You need to look under “U” for “United States.”
Conservative: I’m not looking for “United States.” I’m looking for “Moore, Michael.”
Liberal: What?!
Conservative: And when I find a big glowing article about him, you’re going to owe me ten bucks!
Liberal: Why would I owe you ten bucks?!
Conservative: You bet me ten bucks that the World Book Encyclopedia isn’t liberal.
Liberal: No I didn’t!
Conservative: Yes, you did! You bet me ten bucks that I couldn’t find a liberal article in the World Book. So when I find Michael Moore’s picture, you owe me ten bucks!
Liberal: Oh, my lord…
Conservative: AHA!
Liberal: Listen, you idiot, just because you found Michael Moore’s picture in the World Book doesn’t mean that I owe you ten bucks! It doesn’t mean the World Book is a liberal encyclopedia! And it certainly doesn’t mean the USA doesn’t have fifty states!!
Conservative: Oh, no? Look at this!
Liberal: (pause) “Massachusetts”?
Conservative: Bingo!
Liberal: What the hell does Massachusetts have to do with anything?
Conservative: The COMMONWEALTH of Massachusetts!
Liberal: So?
Conservative: So you said Puerto Rico is a commonwealth!
Liberal: Oh, no…
Conservative: You ADMITTED Puerto Rico was a commonwealth! Admit it, you said it!
Liberal: Oh, man…
Conservative: So if Massachusetts is a commonwealth, and Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, then they BOTH must be states! HA!
Liberal: OK, look…
Conservative: You owe me twenty bucks!
Liberal: What?
Conservative: Come one, pay up! Twenty bucks, let’s go!
Liberal: I don’t owe you twenty bucks!
Conservative: And I’m not even counting Pennsylvania!
Liberal: Pennsylvania?
Conservative: That’s a commonwealth, too!
Liberal: It’s a commonwealth, but…
Conservative: And Washington!
Liberal: All right, look, I lived in Seattle Washington is NOT a commonwealth!
Conservative: Seattle’s not even a state it’s a city!
Liberal: Yes, it’s a city, in Washington State! Washington’s a state!
Conservative: I’m talking about Washington D.C.
Liberal: What?
Conservative: Washington D.C. It’s a city.
Liberal: I know what it is!
Conservative: Well, you liberals are always going on about “Statehood for Washington!” Which, you admit, is already a state!
Liberal: Washington D.C. is not a state!
Conservative: Washington State is!
Liberal: You just said Washington D.C.!
Conservative: And you said it should be a state!
Liberal: I never said that! I mean, it should be… but I never…look…
Conservative: Should Washington be a state?
Liberal: Well…
Conservative: Simple question.
Liberal: Washington State?
Conservative: Yes or No?
Liberal: Washington State or Washington D.C.?
Conservative: Right.
(Long pause)
Conservative: He snorts cocaine.
(Long, painful pause)
Liberal: (slowly) This is Washington D.C. you’re talking about.
Conservative: Yeah. The mayor snorts cocaine.
Liberal: Actually, he’s no longer the mayor…
Conservative: I don’t think a state should have a governor who’s used drugs.
Liberal: He’s not the governor; Washington’s not a…
Conservative: Except maybe California.
Liberal: OK, OK, stop for a moment…
Conservative: I mean, that was a long time ago…
Liberal: Listen, listen…
Conservative: I don’t see Michael Moore making any movies about cocaine in Washington State, do you?
Liberal: Please, STOP!
(pause)
Liberal: Look, I’m just trying to make a simple point here…
Conservative: What about…
Liberal: STOP!!!
(long pause)
Liberal: I’m just trying to make a SIMPLE point here. It’s not a big deal it’s just a fact. The USA has fifty states. That’s all! Yes, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, but it isn’t counted among the fifty states. Yes, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are commonwealths too. So are Virginia and, I think, Kentucky. I don’t know about Kentucky for sure, and you know what it doesn’t matter! They’re consideredstates, OK? They’re states. Washington D.C. isn’t one, even though I wish it was. Guam isn’t one. There are only fifty. Fifty states. Fifty stars on the flag fifty states. That’s all. Fifty.
(long pause)
Conservative: Rush is so right about you people.
Liberal: Huh?
Conservative: Rush. He gets it. You people are the worst.
Liberal: I don’t…
Conservative: Here I am, trying to have an honest political discussion, and all you can do is bring up this liberal claptrap! You call people like Rush racists, but you don’t want to count Mexicans as Americans. You insult the Governor of California every chance you get. You get all your information from encyclopedias and MichaelMoore. You want free cocaine in Washington, and you want Seattle to become a commonwealth, and you won’t pay me my fifty dollars even after I proved that blacks run Guam! And then, worst of all, you insult our flag and our troops!!! You disgust me!
Liberal: Good-bye.
Conservative: See, there you liberals go again! Sneaking off to download porn from Kentucky! I’m not forgetting you owe me 100 dollars!
(pause)
Conservative: That’s it, cut and run!
(long pause)
Conservative: Why do you hate America?
Liberal: The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: No, it doesn’t.
Liberal: Yes, it does. The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: What about Guam? What about that Guam, huh? Or theVirgin Islands?
Liberal: Those are territories, not states. The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: Oh, so you’re saying those don’t count?
Liberal: Yes.
Conservative: Oh, so the people there don’t count? They’re not good enough, huh? I thought you liberals wanted everybody to be counted.
Liberal: No, I said the territories don’t count as states. The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: You’re really something, you know that? You liberals are always going on about how all of us conservatives are racists, how we don’t care about anybody but people who look like us. But you don’t even want to count the blacks who live in Guam as Americans.
Liberal: First of all, I never said all conservatives are racists.
Conservative: Yes, you did.
Liberal: No, I didn’t.
Conservative: Michael Moore says it.
Liberal: I’ve never heard him say that.
Conservative: Yes, he does! He most definitely does!
Liberal: Look, I don’t know what he says. That’s beside the point. And the people in Guam “count,” whatever that means. I don’t even know who lives in Guam; I don’t know the first thing about Guam. I’m just saying Guam isn’t a state it’s a territory. The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: What about Puerto Rico?
Liberal: What?
Conservative: What about Puerto Rico, huh? You love all those Mexicans coming across the border stealing our jobs you must LOVE Puerto Rico, right?
Liberal: I’ve never been to Puerto Rico.
Conservative: Well, I have, and those kind of people would be pretty offended to hear liberals like you saying they aren’t real Americans!
Liberal: I didn’t say that!
Conservative: You said they didn’t count!
Liberal: I didn’t say that either! No, wait, just wait… (takes deep breath). I only said the USA has fifty states. Puerto Rico isn’t a state it’s a commonwealth.
Conservative: And they don’t speak English!
Liberal: Well, many Puerto Ricans do.
Conservative: How do you know that? I’ve been there you haven’t!
Liberal: All right, OK, fine, whatever. But the USA has fifty states.
Conservative: Well, I say Puerto Rico counts.
Liberal: Fine, but not as a state.
Conservative: Well, that’s YOUR opinion.
Liberal: It’s not my opinion it’s a fact.
Conservative: Says you!
Liberal: No, not just “says me.” It’s a fact. Look it up.
Conservative: I don’t have time.
Liberal: You don’t have time to find out if the USA has fifty states?
Conservative: Listen, you may have time to sit around all day surfing on your liberal websites, downloading Michael Moore, but I’ve got things to do.
Liberal: Like reading about blacks in Guam and Mexicans in Puerto Rico?
Conservative: See, that’s why you guys always lose. I’m trying to have a nice conversation, and you just keep up with the insults!
Liberal: Listen, I didn’t mean to insult you.
Conservative: Oh, yes you did!
Liberal: No, look, I’m sorry, OK? I didn’t mean to insult you. Honestly. It’s just that… well, the USA has fifty states. That’s a fact. And I’m just trying to state a fact, and you’re getting very defensive, and…
Conservative: Oh, so now I’m defensive.
Liberal: Well…
Conservative: You just said you weren’t going to insult me!
Liberal: Look, I’m just trying to say the USA has fifty states!
Conservative: According to YOUR sources!
Liberal: MY sources?! What are you talking about? Look it up!
Conservative: I told you, I don’t have time to spend all day cruising the internet, looking up geography questions! Maybe if you were busier at your job, trying to live the American Dream, you wouldn’t have time for all this hate!
Liberal: I work hard at my job!
Conservative: Then why are you spending all day downloading Michael Moore?
Liberal: I don’t spend all day downloading Michael Moore! I don’t even know what you mean by that! All I’m saying is that the USA has fifty states!
Conservative: Again, according to YOU!
Liberal: Not just me! Here, here’s the World Book Encyclopedia. Look it up it’s fifty states!
Conservative: Oh, sure, the World Book! Yeah, like I’m going to believe the World Book!
Liberal: What?
Conservative: Come on, it’s a liberal rag!
Liberal: (Long, teeth-gnashing pause) Look, just look up “United States of America.” Ten bucks it says, “the USA has fifty states.”
Conservative: Ten bucks, huh?
Liberal: Yeah, ten bucks. (pause) Wait, that’s the “M” volume.
Conservative: I know.
Liberal: You need to look under “U” for “United States.”
Conservative: I’m not looking for “United States.” I’m looking for “Moore, Michael.”
Liberal: What?!
Conservative: And when I find a big glowing article about him, you’re going to owe me ten bucks!
Liberal: Why would I owe you ten bucks?!
Conservative: You bet me ten bucks that the World Book Encyclopedia isn’t liberal.
Liberal: No I didn’t!
Conservative: Yes, you did! You bet me ten bucks that I couldn’t find a liberal article in the World Book. So when I find Michael Moore’s picture, you owe me ten bucks!
Liberal: Oh, my lord…
Conservative: AHA!
Liberal: Listen, you idiot, just because you found Michael Moore’s picture in the World Book doesn’t mean that I owe you ten bucks! It doesn’t mean the World Book is a liberal encyclopedia! And it certainly doesn’t mean the USA doesn’t have fifty states!!
Conservative: Oh, no? Look at this!
Liberal: (pause) “Massachusetts”?
Conservative: Bingo!
Liberal: What the hell does Massachusetts have to do with anything?
Conservative: The COMMONWEALTH of Massachusetts!
Liberal: So?
Conservative: So you said Puerto Rico is a commonwealth!
Liberal: Oh, no…
Conservative: You ADMITTED Puerto Rico was a commonwealth! Admit it, you said it!
Liberal: Oh, man…
Conservative: So if Massachusetts is a commonwealth, and Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, then they BOTH must be states! HA!
Liberal: OK, look…
Conservative: You owe me twenty bucks!
Liberal: What?
Conservative: Come one, pay up! Twenty bucks, let’s go!
Liberal: I don’t owe you twenty bucks!
Conservative: And I’m not even counting Pennsylvania!
Liberal: Pennsylvania?
Conservative: That’s a commonwealth, too!
Liberal: It’s a commonwealth, but…
Conservative: And Washington!
Liberal: All right, look, I lived in Seattle Washington is NOT a commonwealth!
Conservative: Seattle’s not even a state it’s a city!
Liberal: Yes, it’s a city, in Washington State! Washington’s a state!
Conservative: I’m talking about Washington D.C.
Liberal: What?
Conservative: Washington D.C. It’s a city.
Liberal: I know what it is!
Conservative: Well, you liberals are always going on about “Statehood for Washington!” Which, you admit, is already a state!
Liberal: Washington D.C. is not a state!
Conservative: Washington State is!
Liberal: You just said Washington D.C.!
Conservative: And you said it should be a state!
Liberal: I never said that! I mean, it should be… but I never…look…
Conservative: Should Washington be a state?
Liberal: Well…
Conservative: Simple question.
Liberal: Washington State?
Conservative: Yes or No?
Liberal: Washington State or Washington D.C.?
Conservative: Right.
(Long pause)
Conservative: He snorts cocaine.
(Long, painful pause)
Liberal: (slowly) This is Washington D.C. you’re talking about.
Conservative: Yeah. The mayor snorts cocaine.
Liberal: Actually, he’s no longer the mayor…
Conservative: I don’t think a state should have a governor who’s used drugs.
Liberal: He’s not the governor; Washington’s not a…
Conservative: Except maybe California.
Liberal: OK, OK, stop for a moment…
Conservative: I mean, that was a long time ago…
Liberal: Listen, listen…
Conservative: I don’t see Michael Moore making any movies about cocaine in Washington State, do you?
Liberal: Please, STOP!
(pause)
Liberal: Look, I’m just trying to make a simple point here…
Conservative: What about…
Liberal: STOP!!!
(long pause)
Liberal: I’m just trying to make a SIMPLE point here. It’s not a big deal it’s just a fact. The USA has fifty states. That’s all! Yes, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, but it isn’t counted among the fifty states. Yes, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are commonwealths too. So are Virginia and, I think, Kentucky. I don’t know about Kentucky for sure, and you know what it doesn’t matter! They’re consideredstates, OK? They’re states. Washington D.C. isn’t one, even though I wish it was. Guam isn’t one. There are only fifty. Fifty states. Fifty stars on the flag fifty states. That’s all. Fifty.
(long pause)
Conservative: Rush is so right about you people.
Liberal: Huh?
Conservative: Rush. He gets it. You people are the worst.
Liberal: I don’t…
Conservative: Here I am, trying to have an honest political discussion, and all you can do is bring up this liberal claptrap! You call people like Rush racists, but you don’t want to count Mexicans as Americans. You insult the Governor of California every chance you get. You get all your information from encyclopedias and MichaelMoore. You want free cocaine in Washington, and you want Seattle to become a commonwealth, and you won’t pay me my fifty dollars even after I proved that blacks run Guam! And then, worst of all, you insult our flag and our troops!!! You disgust me!
Liberal: Good-bye.
Conservative: See, there you liberals go again! Sneaking off to download porn from Kentucky! I’m not forgetting you owe me 100 dollars!
(pause)
Conservative: That’s it, cut and run!
(long pause)
Conservative: Why do you hate America?
A Must-Read !! "New York Times" Editorial
The Real Agenda
Published: July 16, 2006
It is only now, nearly five years after Sept. 11, that the full picture of the Bush administration’s response to the terror attacks is becoming clear.Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power.
Over and over again, the same pattern emerges: Given a choice between following the rules or carving out some unprecedented executive power, the White House always shrugged off the legal constraints. Even when the only challenge was to get required approval from an ever-cooperative Congress,the president and his staff preferred to go it alone. While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism, the methods this administration has used to do it have been shaped by another,perverse determination: never to consult, never to ask and always to fight against any constraint on the executive branch.
One result has been a frayed democratic fabric in a country founded on a constitutional system of checks and balances. Another has been a less effective war on terror.
The Guantánamo Bay Prison
This whole sorry story has been on vivid display since the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions and United States law both applied to the Guantánamo Bay detention camp. For one brief, shining moment, it appeared that the administration realized it had met a check that it could not simply ignore. The White House sent out signals that the president was ready to work with Congress in creating a proper procedure for trying the hundreds of men who have spent years now locked up as suspected terrorists without any hope of due process.
But by week’s end it was clear that the president’s idea of cooperation was purely cosmetic. At hearings last week, the administration made it clear that it merely wanted Congress to legalize President Bush’s illegal actions— to amend the law to negate the court’s ruling instead of creating a system of justice within the law. As for the Geneva Conventions,administration witnesses and some of their more ideologically blinkered supporters in Congress want to scrap the international consensus that no prisoner may be robbed of basic human dignity.
The hearings were a bizarre spectacle in which the top military lawyers —who had been elbowed aside when the procedures at Guantánamo were established — endorsed the idea that the prisoners were covered by the Geneva Convention protections. Meanwhile, administration officials and obedient Republican lawmakers offered a lot of silly talk about not coddling the masterminds of terror.
The divide made it clear how little this all has to do with fighting terrorism. Undoing the Geneva Conventions would further endanger the life of every member of the American military who might ever be taken captive in the future. And if the prisoners scooped up in Afghanistan and sent to Guantánamo had been properly processed first — as military lawyers wanted to do — many would never have been kept in custody, a continuing reproach to the country that is holding them. Others would actually have been ableto be tried under a fair system that would give the world a less perverse vision of American justice. The recent disbanding of the C.I.A. unit charged with finding Osama bin Laden is a reminder that the American people may never see anyone brought to trial for the terrible crimes of 9/11.
The hearings were supposed to produce a hopeful vision of a newly humbled and cooperative administration working with Congress to undo the mess it had created in stashing away hundreds of people, many with limited connections to terrorism at the most, without any plan for what to do with them over the long run. Instead, we saw an administration whose political core was still intent on hunkering down. The most embarrassing moment came when Bush loyalists argued that the United States could not follow the Geneva Conventions because Common Article Three, which has governed the treatment of wartime prisoners for more than half a century, was too vague.Which part of “civilized peoples,” “judicial guarantees” or “humiliating and degrading treatment” do they find confusing?
Eavesdropping on Americans
The administration’s intent to use the war on terror to buttress presidential power was never clearer than in the case of its wiretapping program. The president had legal means of listening in on the phone calls of suspected terrorists and checking their e-mail messages. A special court was established through a 1978 law to give the executive branch warrants for just this purpose, efficiently and in secrecy. And Republicans in Congress were all but begging for a chance to change the process in any way the president requested. Instead, of course, the administration did what it wanted without asking anyone. When the program became public, the administration ignored calls for it to comply with the rules. As usual, the president’s most loyal supporters simply urged that Congress pass a law allowing him to go on doing whatever he wanted to do.
Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,announced on Thursday that he had obtained a concession from Mr. Bush on how to handle this problem. Once again, the early perception that the president was going to bend to the rules turned out to be premature.
The bill the president has agreed to accept would allow him to go on ignoring the eavesdropping law. It does not require the president to obtain warrants for the one domestic spying program we know about — or for any other program — from the special intelligence surveillance court. It makes that an option and sets the precedent of giving blanket approval to programs, rather than insisting on the individual warrants required by the Constitution. Once again, the president has refused to acknowledge that there are rules he is required to follow.
And while the bill would establish new rules that Mr. Bush could voluntarily follow, it strips the federal courts of the right to hear legal challenges to the president’s wiretapping authority. The Supreme Court made it clear in the Guantánamo Bay case that this sort of meddling is unconstitutional.
If Congress accepts this deal, Mr. Specter said, the president will promise to ask the surveillance court to assess the constitutionality of the domestic spying program he has acknowledged. Even if Mr. Bush had a record of keeping such bargains, that is not the right court to make the determination. In addition, Mr. Bush could appeal if the court ruled against him, but the measure provides no avenue of appeal if the surveillance court decides the spying program is constitutional.
The Cost of Executive Arrogance
The president’s constant efforts to assert his power to act without consent or consultation has warped the war on terror. The unity and sense of national purpose that followed 9/11 is gone, replaced by suspicion and divisiveness that never needed to emerge. The president had no need to go it alone — everyone wanted to go with him. Both parties in Congress were eager to show they were tough on terrorism. But the obsession with presidential prerogatives created fights where no fights needed to occur and made huge messes out of programs that could have functioned more efficiently within the rules.
Jane Mayer provided a close look at this effort to undermine the constitutional separation of powers in a chilling article in the July 3 issue of The New Yorker. She showed how it grew out of Vice President Dick Cheney’s long and deeply held conviction that the real lesson of Watergate and the later Iran-contra debacle was that the president needed more power and that Congress and the courts should get out of the way.
To a disturbing degree, the horror of 9/11 became an excuse to take up this cause behind the shield of Americans’ deep insecurity. The results have been devastating. Americans’ civil liberties have been trampled. The nation’s image as a champion of human rights has been gravely harmed.Prisoners have been abused, tortured and even killed at the prisons we know about, while other prisons operate in secret. American agents “disappear”people, some entirely innocent, and send them off to torture chambers in distant lands. Hundreds of innocent men have been jailed at Guantánamo Bay without charges or rudimentary rights. And Congress has shirked its duty to correct this out of fear of being painted as pro-terrorist at election time.
• We still hope Congress will respond to the Supreme Court’s powerful and unequivocal ruling on Guantánamo Bay and also hold Mr. Bush to account for ignoring the law on wiretapping. Certainly, the president has made it clear that he is not giving an inch of ground.
Published: July 16, 2006
It is only now, nearly five years after Sept. 11, that the full picture of the Bush administration’s response to the terror attacks is becoming clear.Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power.
Over and over again, the same pattern emerges: Given a choice between following the rules or carving out some unprecedented executive power, the White House always shrugged off the legal constraints. Even when the only challenge was to get required approval from an ever-cooperative Congress,the president and his staff preferred to go it alone. While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism, the methods this administration has used to do it have been shaped by another,perverse determination: never to consult, never to ask and always to fight against any constraint on the executive branch.
One result has been a frayed democratic fabric in a country founded on a constitutional system of checks and balances. Another has been a less effective war on terror.
The Guantánamo Bay Prison
This whole sorry story has been on vivid display since the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions and United States law both applied to the Guantánamo Bay detention camp. For one brief, shining moment, it appeared that the administration realized it had met a check that it could not simply ignore. The White House sent out signals that the president was ready to work with Congress in creating a proper procedure for trying the hundreds of men who have spent years now locked up as suspected terrorists without any hope of due process.
But by week’s end it was clear that the president’s idea of cooperation was purely cosmetic. At hearings last week, the administration made it clear that it merely wanted Congress to legalize President Bush’s illegal actions— to amend the law to negate the court’s ruling instead of creating a system of justice within the law. As for the Geneva Conventions,administration witnesses and some of their more ideologically blinkered supporters in Congress want to scrap the international consensus that no prisoner may be robbed of basic human dignity.
The hearings were a bizarre spectacle in which the top military lawyers —who had been elbowed aside when the procedures at Guantánamo were established — endorsed the idea that the prisoners were covered by the Geneva Convention protections. Meanwhile, administration officials and obedient Republican lawmakers offered a lot of silly talk about not coddling the masterminds of terror.
The divide made it clear how little this all has to do with fighting terrorism. Undoing the Geneva Conventions would further endanger the life of every member of the American military who might ever be taken captive in the future. And if the prisoners scooped up in Afghanistan and sent to Guantánamo had been properly processed first — as military lawyers wanted to do — many would never have been kept in custody, a continuing reproach to the country that is holding them. Others would actually have been ableto be tried under a fair system that would give the world a less perverse vision of American justice. The recent disbanding of the C.I.A. unit charged with finding Osama bin Laden is a reminder that the American people may never see anyone brought to trial for the terrible crimes of 9/11.
The hearings were supposed to produce a hopeful vision of a newly humbled and cooperative administration working with Congress to undo the mess it had created in stashing away hundreds of people, many with limited connections to terrorism at the most, without any plan for what to do with them over the long run. Instead, we saw an administration whose political core was still intent on hunkering down. The most embarrassing moment came when Bush loyalists argued that the United States could not follow the Geneva Conventions because Common Article Three, which has governed the treatment of wartime prisoners for more than half a century, was too vague.Which part of “civilized peoples,” “judicial guarantees” or “humiliating and degrading treatment” do they find confusing?
Eavesdropping on Americans
The administration’s intent to use the war on terror to buttress presidential power was never clearer than in the case of its wiretapping program. The president had legal means of listening in on the phone calls of suspected terrorists and checking their e-mail messages. A special court was established through a 1978 law to give the executive branch warrants for just this purpose, efficiently and in secrecy. And Republicans in Congress were all but begging for a chance to change the process in any way the president requested. Instead, of course, the administration did what it wanted without asking anyone. When the program became public, the administration ignored calls for it to comply with the rules. As usual, the president’s most loyal supporters simply urged that Congress pass a law allowing him to go on doing whatever he wanted to do.
Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,announced on Thursday that he had obtained a concession from Mr. Bush on how to handle this problem. Once again, the early perception that the president was going to bend to the rules turned out to be premature.
The bill the president has agreed to accept would allow him to go on ignoring the eavesdropping law. It does not require the president to obtain warrants for the one domestic spying program we know about — or for any other program — from the special intelligence surveillance court. It makes that an option and sets the precedent of giving blanket approval to programs, rather than insisting on the individual warrants required by the Constitution. Once again, the president has refused to acknowledge that there are rules he is required to follow.
And while the bill would establish new rules that Mr. Bush could voluntarily follow, it strips the federal courts of the right to hear legal challenges to the president’s wiretapping authority. The Supreme Court made it clear in the Guantánamo Bay case that this sort of meddling is unconstitutional.
If Congress accepts this deal, Mr. Specter said, the president will promise to ask the surveillance court to assess the constitutionality of the domestic spying program he has acknowledged. Even if Mr. Bush had a record of keeping such bargains, that is not the right court to make the determination. In addition, Mr. Bush could appeal if the court ruled against him, but the measure provides no avenue of appeal if the surveillance court decides the spying program is constitutional.
The Cost of Executive Arrogance
The president’s constant efforts to assert his power to act without consent or consultation has warped the war on terror. The unity and sense of national purpose that followed 9/11 is gone, replaced by suspicion and divisiveness that never needed to emerge. The president had no need to go it alone — everyone wanted to go with him. Both parties in Congress were eager to show they were tough on terrorism. But the obsession with presidential prerogatives created fights where no fights needed to occur and made huge messes out of programs that could have functioned more efficiently within the rules.
Jane Mayer provided a close look at this effort to undermine the constitutional separation of powers in a chilling article in the July 3 issue of The New Yorker. She showed how it grew out of Vice President Dick Cheney’s long and deeply held conviction that the real lesson of Watergate and the later Iran-contra debacle was that the president needed more power and that Congress and the courts should get out of the way.
To a disturbing degree, the horror of 9/11 became an excuse to take up this cause behind the shield of Americans’ deep insecurity. The results have been devastating. Americans’ civil liberties have been trampled. The nation’s image as a champion of human rights has been gravely harmed.Prisoners have been abused, tortured and even killed at the prisons we know about, while other prisons operate in secret. American agents “disappear”people, some entirely innocent, and send them off to torture chambers in distant lands. Hundreds of innocent men have been jailed at Guantánamo Bay without charges or rudimentary rights. And Congress has shirked its duty to correct this out of fear of being painted as pro-terrorist at election time.
• We still hope Congress will respond to the Supreme Court’s powerful and unequivocal ruling on Guantánamo Bay and also hold Mr. Bush to account for ignoring the law on wiretapping. Certainly, the president has made it clear that he is not giving an inch of ground.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Magical Puzzler!!! How's it work?
Hey Folks,
Can anybody figure out how this (click below) works??
If so, please let me know via the Comments option, and I'll put it up on a full posting.
I have some notions, but I'm still stumped.
- Uke Man
http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/games/magic-gopher-central.swf
Can anybody figure out how this (click below) works??
If so, please let me know via the Comments option, and I'll put it up on a full posting.
I have some notions, but I'm still stumped.
- Uke Man
http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/games/magic-gopher-central.swf
What have I been saying!!!!
Hey Folks,
You’ve heard me say a lot about the struggle between “Faith” and “Reality Based” perspectives. Well, yesterday I heard an audio clip of Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham attacking people I often post here: Dowd, Herbert, and Krugman.
Nothing these folks had ever said or argued was even mentioned, much less shown to be incorrect. Instead Billy & Laura simply accused them of “hating Bush” and being afraid of Fundamentalist Christians. O’Reilly added that Krugman was a “socialist economist!”
Faith-based Foxxx: If they say anything critical of Bush, they’re bad. If they report on the economy based on facts rather than the “official” dogma, they’re a socialist.
Well, you decide. Below is a recent Krugman column. Do you think he’s bad?
I say, we need more of these evil, no-good, very bad socialist economists!! But that’s just my factually-based opinion.
- Uke Man
July 14, 2006
Left Behind Economics
By PAUL KRUGMAN
I’d like to say that there’s a real dialogue taking place about the state of the U.S. economy, but the discussion leaves a lot to be desired. In general, the conversation sounds like this:
Bush supporter: “Why doesn’t President Bush get credit for a great economy? I blame liberal media bias.”
Informed economist: “But it’s not a great economy for most Americans. Many families are actually losing ground, and only a very few affluent people are doing really well.”
Bush supporter: “Why doesn’t President Bush get credit for a great economy? I blame liberal media bias.”
To a large extent, this dialogue of the deaf reflects Upton Sinclair’s principle: it’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. But there’s also an element of genuine incredulity. Many observers, even if they acknowledge the growing concentration of income in the hands of the few, find it hard to believe that this concentration could be proceeding so rapidly as to deny most Americans any gains from economic growth.
Yet newly available data show that that’s exactly what happened in 2004.
Why talk about 2004, rather than more recent experience? Unfortunately, data on the distribution of income arrive with a substantial lag; the full story of what happened in 2004 has only just become available, and we won’t be able to tell the full story of what’s happening right now until the last year of the Bush administration. But it’s reasonably clear that what’s happening now is the same as what happened then: growth in the economy as a whole is mainly benefiting a small elite, while bypassing most families.
Here’s what happened in 2004. The U.S. economy grew 4.2 percent, a very good number. Yet last August the Census Bureau reported that real median family income — the purchasing power of the typical family — actually fell. Meanwhile, poverty increased, as did the number of Americans without health insurance. So where did the growth go?
The answer comes from the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, whose long-term estimates of income equality have become the gold standard for research on this topic, and who have recently updated their estimates to include 2004. They show that even if you exclude capital gains from a rising stock market, in 2004 the real income of the richest 1 percent of Americans surged by almost 12.5 percent. Meanwhile, the average real income of the bottom 99 percent of the population rose only 1.5 percent. In other words, a relative handful of people received most of the benefits of growth.
There are a couple of additional revelations in the 2004 data. One is that growth didn’t just bypass the poor and the lower middle class, it bypassed the upper middle class too. Even people at the 95th percentile of the income distribution — that is, people richer than 19 out of 20 Americans — gained only modestly. The big increases went only to people who were already in the economic stratosphere.
The other revelation is that being highly educated was no guarantee of sharing in the benefits of economic growth. There’s a persistent myth, perpetuated by economists who should know better — like Edward Lazear, the chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers — that rising inequality in the United States is mainly a matter of a rising gap between those with a lot of education and those without. But census data show that the real earnings of the typical college graduate actually fell in 2004.
In short, it’s a great economy if you’re a high-level corporate executive or someone who owns a lot of stock. For most other Americans, economic growth is a spectator sport.
Can anything be done to spread the benefits of a growing economy more widely? Of course. A good start would be to increase the minimum wage, which in real terms is at its lowest level in half a century.
But don’t expect this administration or this Congress to do anything to limit the growing concentration of income. Sometimes I even feel sorry for these people and their apologists, who are prevented from acknowledging that inequality is a problem by both their political philosophy and their dependence on financial support from the wealthy. That leaves them no choice but to keep insisting that ordinary Americans — who have, in fact, been bypassed by economic growth — just don’t understand how well they’re doing.
You’ve heard me say a lot about the struggle between “Faith” and “Reality Based” perspectives. Well, yesterday I heard an audio clip of Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham attacking people I often post here: Dowd, Herbert, and Krugman.
Nothing these folks had ever said or argued was even mentioned, much less shown to be incorrect. Instead Billy & Laura simply accused them of “hating Bush” and being afraid of Fundamentalist Christians. O’Reilly added that Krugman was a “socialist economist!”
Faith-based Foxxx: If they say anything critical of Bush, they’re bad. If they report on the economy based on facts rather than the “official” dogma, they’re a socialist.
Well, you decide. Below is a recent Krugman column. Do you think he’s bad?
I say, we need more of these evil, no-good, very bad socialist economists!! But that’s just my factually-based opinion.
- Uke Man
July 14, 2006
Left Behind Economics
By PAUL KRUGMAN
I’d like to say that there’s a real dialogue taking place about the state of the U.S. economy, but the discussion leaves a lot to be desired. In general, the conversation sounds like this:
Bush supporter: “Why doesn’t President Bush get credit for a great economy? I blame liberal media bias.”
Informed economist: “But it’s not a great economy for most Americans. Many families are actually losing ground, and only a very few affluent people are doing really well.”
Bush supporter: “Why doesn’t President Bush get credit for a great economy? I blame liberal media bias.”
To a large extent, this dialogue of the deaf reflects Upton Sinclair’s principle: it’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. But there’s also an element of genuine incredulity. Many observers, even if they acknowledge the growing concentration of income in the hands of the few, find it hard to believe that this concentration could be proceeding so rapidly as to deny most Americans any gains from economic growth.
Yet newly available data show that that’s exactly what happened in 2004.
Why talk about 2004, rather than more recent experience? Unfortunately, data on the distribution of income arrive with a substantial lag; the full story of what happened in 2004 has only just become available, and we won’t be able to tell the full story of what’s happening right now until the last year of the Bush administration. But it’s reasonably clear that what’s happening now is the same as what happened then: growth in the economy as a whole is mainly benefiting a small elite, while bypassing most families.
Here’s what happened in 2004. The U.S. economy grew 4.2 percent, a very good number. Yet last August the Census Bureau reported that real median family income — the purchasing power of the typical family — actually fell. Meanwhile, poverty increased, as did the number of Americans without health insurance. So where did the growth go?
The answer comes from the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, whose long-term estimates of income equality have become the gold standard for research on this topic, and who have recently updated their estimates to include 2004. They show that even if you exclude capital gains from a rising stock market, in 2004 the real income of the richest 1 percent of Americans surged by almost 12.5 percent. Meanwhile, the average real income of the bottom 99 percent of the population rose only 1.5 percent. In other words, a relative handful of people received most of the benefits of growth.
There are a couple of additional revelations in the 2004 data. One is that growth didn’t just bypass the poor and the lower middle class, it bypassed the upper middle class too. Even people at the 95th percentile of the income distribution — that is, people richer than 19 out of 20 Americans — gained only modestly. The big increases went only to people who were already in the economic stratosphere.
The other revelation is that being highly educated was no guarantee of sharing in the benefits of economic growth. There’s a persistent myth, perpetuated by economists who should know better — like Edward Lazear, the chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers — that rising inequality in the United States is mainly a matter of a rising gap between those with a lot of education and those without. But census data show that the real earnings of the typical college graduate actually fell in 2004.
In short, it’s a great economy if you’re a high-level corporate executive or someone who owns a lot of stock. For most other Americans, economic growth is a spectator sport.
Can anything be done to spread the benefits of a growing economy more widely? Of course. A good start would be to increase the minimum wage, which in real terms is at its lowest level in half a century.
But don’t expect this administration or this Congress to do anything to limit the growing concentration of income. Sometimes I even feel sorry for these people and their apologists, who are prevented from acknowledging that inequality is a problem by both their political philosophy and their dependence on financial support from the wealthy. That leaves them no choice but to keep insisting that ordinary Americans — who have, in fact, been bypassed by economic growth — just don’t understand how well they’re doing.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Georgie Porgie Putin & Pie
Hey Folks,
Here's part of a news report on how Georgie Porgie and Putin Pie played together in the sand box (with my comments in blue).
- Uke Man
There was a quick handshake but little warmth between Bush and Putin during a photo opportunity opening their talks. For the second day, Bush spent part of it mountain biking.
Despite the sparring, there was none of the tension and anger that crackled in Bratislava, Slovakia, 17 months ago when Bush challenged Putin over Russia's crackdown on dissent and retreat from democracy (Georgie knows all about THAT!!) and the Russian president slapped back.
After that jarring meeting, Bush concluded that lecturing Putin in public was unproductive. Still, Bush said he offered Putin some suggestions ( I'm sure Putie Pie took them right to heart ).
"I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq ( well, we all knew that, but some parts of the world don't want to be institutionalised ) where there's a free press and free religion," Bush said at the news conference, "and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same thing."
Putin, in a barbed reply, said: "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, I will tell you quite honestly." (damn!! they never talk back like that on Foxxx News )
Bush's face reddened as he tried to laugh off the remark. "Just wait," Bush replied about Iraq. (snappy comeback!!!)
Putin also said Russia would not take part "in any crusades, in any holy alliances" — a remark seemingly intended to win points with Arab allies.
Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley , said he was perplexed by the comment. ("to perplex" means "to disturb mentally"!!! the Bush Administration can't blame THAT on Putin!! They've been mentally disturbed from the beginning!)
Hosting the Group of Eight summit for the first time, Putin dearly wanted to win approval for Russia's admission to the World Trade Organization, the 149-nation group that sets the rules for world trade.
The United States is the only country that has not signed off on Russia's membership in the WTO, and Bush dashed Putin's hopes for getting in now.
"We're tough negotiators," ("and until you kiss my ring, you can't ride my mountain bike either!!!") Bush said, adding that any agreement would have to be acceptable to the U.S. Congress.
Here's part of a news report on how Georgie Porgie and Putin Pie played together in the sand box (with my comments in blue).
- Uke Man
There was a quick handshake but little warmth between Bush and Putin during a photo opportunity opening their talks. For the second day, Bush spent part of it mountain biking.
Despite the sparring, there was none of the tension and anger that crackled in Bratislava, Slovakia, 17 months ago when Bush challenged Putin over Russia's crackdown on dissent and retreat from democracy (Georgie knows all about THAT!!) and the Russian president slapped back.
After that jarring meeting, Bush concluded that lecturing Putin in public was unproductive. Still, Bush said he offered Putin some suggestions ( I'm sure Putie Pie took them right to heart ).
"I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq ( well, we all knew that, but some parts of the world don't want to be institutionalised ) where there's a free press and free religion," Bush said at the news conference, "and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same thing."
Putin, in a barbed reply, said: "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, I will tell you quite honestly." (damn!! they never talk back like that on Foxxx News )
Bush's face reddened as he tried to laugh off the remark. "Just wait," Bush replied about Iraq. (snappy comeback!!!)
Putin also said Russia would not take part "in any crusades, in any holy alliances" — a remark seemingly intended to win points with Arab allies.
Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley , said he was perplexed by the comment. ("to perplex" means "to disturb mentally"!!! the Bush Administration can't blame THAT on Putin!! They've been mentally disturbed from the beginning!)
Hosting the Group of Eight summit for the first time, Putin dearly wanted to win approval for Russia's admission to the World Trade Organization, the 149-nation group that sets the rules for world trade.
The United States is the only country that has not signed off on Russia's membership in the WTO, and Bush dashed Putin's hopes for getting in now.
"We're tough negotiators," ("and until you kiss my ring, you can't ride my mountain bike either!!!") Bush said, adding that any agreement would have to be acceptable to the U.S. Congress.
WW III
Hey Folks,
I don't often post jokes here, but this one seemed to say quite a bit about why we are in our present mess.
-Uke Man
WORLD WAR III IS COMING
(a ukethanks to Cathy)
President Bush and Rumsfeld are sitting in a bar.
A guy walks in and asks the barman, "Isn't that Bush and Rumsfeld sitting over there?" The bartender says, "Yep, that's them."
So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor! . What are you guys doing in here?"
Bush says, "We're planning WW III." And the guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"
Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Muslims and one blonde with big tits."
The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big tits? Why kill a blonde with big tits?"
Bush turns to Rumsfeld and says, "See, I told you no one cares about 140 million Muslims".
I don't often post jokes here, but this one seemed to say quite a bit about why we are in our present mess.
-Uke Man
WORLD WAR III IS COMING
(a ukethanks to Cathy)
President Bush and Rumsfeld are sitting in a bar.
A guy walks in and asks the barman, "Isn't that Bush and Rumsfeld sitting over there?" The bartender says, "Yep, that's them."
So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor! . What are you guys doing in here?"
Bush says, "We're planning WW III." And the guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"
Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Muslims and one blonde with big tits."
The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big tits? Why kill a blonde with big tits?"
Bush turns to Rumsfeld and says, "See, I told you no one cares about 140 million Muslims".
Friday, July 14, 2006
Is Ralph the dog Rick finds attractive?
A Peach of a Scandal in Georgia
By Garrison Keillor - The Baltimore Sun - Thursday 06 July 2006
If a preacher secretly accepts a bucket of money from a saloonkeeper to organize a temperance rally at a rival saloon and maybe send in a gang of church ladies to chop up the bar with their little hatchets, this would strike you and me as sleazy, but others are willing to make allowances, and so Ralph Reed's political career is still alive and breathing in Georgia. He has bathed himself in tomato juice and hopes to smile his way through the storm.
The facts are fairly simple.
Mr. Reed left the Christian Coalition in 1997 as it was sinking, and he was paid by Jack Abramoff to organize opposition to a gambling bill in the Texas legislature, which would have opened the door to competition for Mr. Abramoff's client casinos in Louisiana.
So Mr. Reed got the good Christians of Texas to bombard the legislature with phone calls and letters denouncing gambling, for which Mr. Reed was paid millions of dollars in gambling money, by way of Mr. Abramoff's bagman, Grover Norquist.
Mr. Reed also helped defeat a state lottery and video poker in Alabama, in behalf of casinos in Mississippi. In Alabama, he told Mr. Abramoff, he had "over 3,000 pastors and 90,000 religious conservative households." He enlisted these Baptists in a fight against one saloon while he was on the payroll of another.
Imagine if Ralph Nader had solicited money from Ford and Chrysler when he went after General Motors' Corvair. Or the Southern Baptists raising money from Sony and Universal to condemn movies by MGM.
A true party loyalist would withdraw from the Republican primary for lieutenant governor of Georgia and say, "I will not allow this mess to distract people from the good work of my party." But Mr. Reed is no quitter.
"Had I known then what I know now, I would not have undertaken the work," he said, when the details came out in a Senate Indian Affairs Committee report.
Mr. Reed insists he didn't know it was gambling money, which, given the e-mail traffic between him and Mr. Abramoff, is a thin twig on which to hang a defense. Either Mr. Reed understands English or he does not. Mr. Abramoff tells him that he'll get a check as soon as the Coushattas send in the money. The Coushattas were in the casino business. You don't come up with $5.3 million from selling beaded coin purses.
Mr. Reed also argues that his stopping gambling in Texas and Alabama was a good thing in and of itself, even though he was hired by rival casinos to do it. Using the same reasoning, Lucky Luciano was on solid moral ground when he knocked off Dutch Schultz.
The sexual trespass of a president is a story any mortal can understand, and the use of your father's influence to sneak you into a military unit where you're less likely to face combat is an act of cowardice all of us cowards can appreciate.
But the chutzpah of Mr. Reed in wheedling money from Mr. Abramoff to snooker Christians into an uproar against gambling is cold-hearted greed. And his work in behalf of the sweatshops and sex factories of the Marianas, arguing that the Chinese women imported there were being given the chance to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, takes us to yet an entirely new level.
Mr. Reed is a Presbyterian, and the Westminster Confession says, "He that scandelizeth his brother, or the Church of Christ, ought to be willing, by a private or public confession and sorrow for his sin, to declare his repentance to those that are offended; who are thereupon to be reconciled to him, and in love to receive him."
But Mr. Reed is running for office, and that's no time for repentance. Time to hunker down and hope that the prosecutors are occupied with other matters. Smile and shake hands and keep changing the subject. If a reporter mentions Mr. Abramoff, smile and say, "I've said as much as I'm going to about that, and now I want to talk about my plan to strengthen families in Georgia."
Gambling? "I've always been opposed to gambling."
Deceit? Greed? "No charges have been filed. I have been exonerated of wrongdoing."
Will it work? We shall soon see.
By Garrison Keillor - The Baltimore Sun - Thursday 06 July 2006
If a preacher secretly accepts a bucket of money from a saloonkeeper to organize a temperance rally at a rival saloon and maybe send in a gang of church ladies to chop up the bar with their little hatchets, this would strike you and me as sleazy, but others are willing to make allowances, and so Ralph Reed's political career is still alive and breathing in Georgia. He has bathed himself in tomato juice and hopes to smile his way through the storm.
The facts are fairly simple.
Mr. Reed left the Christian Coalition in 1997 as it was sinking, and he was paid by Jack Abramoff to organize opposition to a gambling bill in the Texas legislature, which would have opened the door to competition for Mr. Abramoff's client casinos in Louisiana.
So Mr. Reed got the good Christians of Texas to bombard the legislature with phone calls and letters denouncing gambling, for which Mr. Reed was paid millions of dollars in gambling money, by way of Mr. Abramoff's bagman, Grover Norquist.
Mr. Reed also helped defeat a state lottery and video poker in Alabama, in behalf of casinos in Mississippi. In Alabama, he told Mr. Abramoff, he had "over 3,000 pastors and 90,000 religious conservative households." He enlisted these Baptists in a fight against one saloon while he was on the payroll of another.
Imagine if Ralph Nader had solicited money from Ford and Chrysler when he went after General Motors' Corvair. Or the Southern Baptists raising money from Sony and Universal to condemn movies by MGM.
A true party loyalist would withdraw from the Republican primary for lieutenant governor of Georgia and say, "I will not allow this mess to distract people from the good work of my party." But Mr. Reed is no quitter.
"Had I known then what I know now, I would not have undertaken the work," he said, when the details came out in a Senate Indian Affairs Committee report.
Mr. Reed insists he didn't know it was gambling money, which, given the e-mail traffic between him and Mr. Abramoff, is a thin twig on which to hang a defense. Either Mr. Reed understands English or he does not. Mr. Abramoff tells him that he'll get a check as soon as the Coushattas send in the money. The Coushattas were in the casino business. You don't come up with $5.3 million from selling beaded coin purses.
Mr. Reed also argues that his stopping gambling in Texas and Alabama was a good thing in and of itself, even though he was hired by rival casinos to do it. Using the same reasoning, Lucky Luciano was on solid moral ground when he knocked off Dutch Schultz.
The sexual trespass of a president is a story any mortal can understand, and the use of your father's influence to sneak you into a military unit where you're less likely to face combat is an act of cowardice all of us cowards can appreciate.
But the chutzpah of Mr. Reed in wheedling money from Mr. Abramoff to snooker Christians into an uproar against gambling is cold-hearted greed. And his work in behalf of the sweatshops and sex factories of the Marianas, arguing that the Chinese women imported there were being given the chance to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, takes us to yet an entirely new level.
Mr. Reed is a Presbyterian, and the Westminster Confession says, "He that scandelizeth his brother, or the Church of Christ, ought to be willing, by a private or public confession and sorrow for his sin, to declare his repentance to those that are offended; who are thereupon to be reconciled to him, and in love to receive him."
But Mr. Reed is running for office, and that's no time for repentance. Time to hunker down and hope that the prosecutors are occupied with other matters. Smile and shake hands and keep changing the subject. If a reporter mentions Mr. Abramoff, smile and say, "I've said as much as I'm going to about that, and now I want to talk about my plan to strengthen families in Georgia."
Gambling? "I've always been opposed to gambling."
Deceit? Greed? "No charges have been filed. I have been exonerated of wrongdoing."
Will it work? We shall soon see.
"Sunny Day in Bagdad" MP3
Hey Folks,
I want to share a new song with you, "Sunny Day in Baghdad."
It's at my band's "My Space" :
http://www.myspace.com/ukulelemanandhisprodigalsons
It's the 1st song at the top. Give a listen to the others too, if you want.
- Uke Man
I want to share a new song with you, "Sunny Day in Baghdad."
It's at my band's "My Space" :
http://www.myspace.com/ukulelemanandhisprodigalsons
It's the 1st song at the top. Give a listen to the others too, if you want.
- Uke Man
Words !!!
Hey Folks,
You've heard of "A man a plan a canal Panama" !!! If not, read it backwards; here you go:
!!!"amanaPlanacanalpanamA"
Words are funny and fun.
Here's one way to rearrange the letters of "Rush Limbaugh!!!!!":
"sh!!! humbug LiaR!!"
I've also come across a couple interesting word "accidents" related to religion (look them up in your own dictionaries if you have any doubts):
1. "Fundament"!! - This obviously is the root of "fundamentalist," that group of idiots - regardless of their orientation (Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, etc.) - who want to wipe out (or at least convert) any and every person who doesn't share their personal view of the supernatural.
Here's how my Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines "fundament":
"1 a obs: the base on which a structure is erected. 2 a: BUTTOCKS b: ANUS"
There you have it!! On the one hand, fundamentalists are asses; and on the other, their "erections" are associated with buttockses and anuses!
Now check out the meaning of "cretin"! Again, according to my Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary a "cretin" is:
"Christian, human being, kind of idiot found in the Alps"
Must be a reference to "Fundamentalist" Christians.
Life is strange, and isn't it amazing how our language reflects that strangeness!!!
- Uke Man
You've heard of "A man a plan a canal Panama" !!! If not, read it backwards; here you go:
!!!"amanaPlanacanalpanamA"
Words are funny and fun.
Here's one way to rearrange the letters of "Rush Limbaugh!!!!!":
"sh!!! humbug LiaR!!"
I've also come across a couple interesting word "accidents" related to religion (look them up in your own dictionaries if you have any doubts):
1. "Fundament"!! - This obviously is the root of "fundamentalist," that group of idiots - regardless of their orientation (Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, etc.) - who want to wipe out (or at least convert) any and every person who doesn't share their personal view of the supernatural.
Here's how my Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines "fundament":
"1 a obs: the base on which a structure is erected. 2 a: BUTTOCKS b: ANUS"
There you have it!! On the one hand, fundamentalists are asses; and on the other, their "erections" are associated with buttockses and anuses!
Now check out the meaning of "cretin"! Again, according to my Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary a "cretin" is:
"Christian, human being, kind of idiot found in the Alps"
Must be a reference to "Fundamentalist" Christians.
Life is strange, and isn't it amazing how our language reflects that strangeness!!!
- Uke Man
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Hey Folks!!!
At long last!!!
“Uke Man Cookies” – manufacturer of the cookies you love to bite- introduces the long-promised (and just in time) delectable edible “Kkkarl Rove” Cookies.
$350.00 per dozen (free shipping), or – if demand is sufficient – free instructions for making your own will be posted here.
Enjoy!!! I know I will!! Grinding that S.O.B. up, swallowing him, bathing him in acid, and then finally expelling him into the sewer will certainly help make ME a calmer fellow!!!
- Uke Man
At long last!!!
“Uke Man Cookies” – manufacturer of the cookies you love to bite- introduces the long-promised (and just in time) delectable edible “Kkkarl Rove” Cookies.
$350.00 per dozen (free shipping), or – if demand is sufficient – free instructions for making your own will be posted here.
Enjoy!!! I know I will!! Grinding that S.O.B. up, swallowing him, bathing him in acid, and then finally expelling him into the sewer will certainly help make ME a calmer fellow!!!
- Uke Man
Gremlins !!!
Hey Folks,
At last I can post here again!!
My web-host changed its operation, and then for a day or two (seems like a week) no postings would show up on the blog.
There was no way to tell you, and it looked like I might never get it working again.
But with the help of Ron, Ty, the Help-Group at Blogger, and sleepless nights with my mind going over and over all the insights these folks had provided, I FINALLY zeroed in on the culprit in the ointment. I called the Web-host, checked out the theory, got the necessar code (or whatever you call it), fixed it, and NOW – for better or worse:
The Uke Man is Baaaaaaaaaaaaaack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At last I can post here again!!
My web-host changed its operation, and then for a day or two (seems like a week) no postings would show up on the blog.
There was no way to tell you, and it looked like I might never get it working again.
But with the help of Ron, Ty, the Help-Group at Blogger, and sleepless nights with my mind going over and over all the insights these folks had provided, I FINALLY zeroed in on the culprit in the ointment. I called the Web-host, checked out the theory, got the necessar code (or whatever you call it), fixed it, and NOW – for better or worse:
The Uke Man is Baaaaaaaaaaaaaack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Monday, July 10, 2006
"Surprise! Surprise! Surprise, Seargent Carter!!"
Hate Groups Are Infiltrating the Military, Group Asserts
By JOHN KIFNER
Published: July 7, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07recruit.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.
"We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad," the group quoted a Defense Department investigator as saying in a report to be posted today on its Web site, http://www.splcenter.org/. "That's a problem."
A Defense Department spokeswoman said officials there could not comment on the report because they had not yet seen it.
The center called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to appoint a task force to study the problem, declare a new zero tolerance policy and strictly enforce it.
The report said that neo-Nazi groups like the National Alliance, whose founder, William Pierce, wrote "The Turner Diaries," the novel that was the inspiration and blueprint for Timothy J. McVeigh's bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, sought to enroll followers in the Army to get training for a race war.
The groups are being abetted, the report said, by pressure on recruiters, particularly for the Army, to meet quotas that are more difficult to reach because of the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq.
The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator, saying, "Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members."
Mr. Barfield said Army recruiters struggled last year to meet goals. "They don't want to make a big deal again about neo-Nazis in the military," he said, "because then parents who are already worried about their kids signing up and dying in Iraq are going to be even more reluctant about their kids enlisting if they feel they'll be exposed to gangs and white supremacists."
The 1996 crackdown on extremists came after revelations that Mr. McVeigh had espoused far-right ideas when he was in the Army and recruited two fellow soldiers to aid his bomb plot. Those revelations were followed by a furor that developed when three white paratroopers were convicted of the random slaying of a black couple in order to win tattoos and 19 others were discharged for participating in neo-Nazi activities.
The defense secretary at the time, William Perry, said the rules were meant to leave no room for racist and extremist activities within the military. But the report said Mr. Barfield, who is based at Fort Lewis, Wash., had said that he had provided evidence on 320 extremists there in the past year, but that only two had been discharged. He also said there was an online network of neo-Nazis.
"They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military," he said. "Several of these individuals have since been deployed to combat missions in Iraq."
The report cited accounts by neo-Nazis of their infiltration of the military, including a discussion on the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. "There are others among you in the forces," one participant wrote. "You are never alone."
An article in the National Alliance magazine Resistance urged skinheads to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units.
The Southern Poverty Law Center identified the author as Steven Barry, who it said was a former Special Forces officer who was the alliance's "military unit coordinator."
"Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war," he wrote. "It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed.' "
He concluded: "As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood."
By JOHN KIFNER
Published: July 7, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07recruit.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.
"We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad," the group quoted a Defense Department investigator as saying in a report to be posted today on its Web site, http://www.splcenter.org/. "That's a problem."
A Defense Department spokeswoman said officials there could not comment on the report because they had not yet seen it.
The center called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to appoint a task force to study the problem, declare a new zero tolerance policy and strictly enforce it.
The report said that neo-Nazi groups like the National Alliance, whose founder, William Pierce, wrote "The Turner Diaries," the novel that was the inspiration and blueprint for Timothy J. McVeigh's bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, sought to enroll followers in the Army to get training for a race war.
The groups are being abetted, the report said, by pressure on recruiters, particularly for the Army, to meet quotas that are more difficult to reach because of the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq.
The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator, saying, "Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members."
Mr. Barfield said Army recruiters struggled last year to meet goals. "They don't want to make a big deal again about neo-Nazis in the military," he said, "because then parents who are already worried about their kids signing up and dying in Iraq are going to be even more reluctant about their kids enlisting if they feel they'll be exposed to gangs and white supremacists."
The 1996 crackdown on extremists came after revelations that Mr. McVeigh had espoused far-right ideas when he was in the Army and recruited two fellow soldiers to aid his bomb plot. Those revelations were followed by a furor that developed when three white paratroopers were convicted of the random slaying of a black couple in order to win tattoos and 19 others were discharged for participating in neo-Nazi activities.
The defense secretary at the time, William Perry, said the rules were meant to leave no room for racist and extremist activities within the military. But the report said Mr. Barfield, who is based at Fort Lewis, Wash., had said that he had provided evidence on 320 extremists there in the past year, but that only two had been discharged. He also said there was an online network of neo-Nazis.
"They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military," he said. "Several of these individuals have since been deployed to combat missions in Iraq."
The report cited accounts by neo-Nazis of their infiltration of the military, including a discussion on the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. "There are others among you in the forces," one participant wrote. "You are never alone."
An article in the National Alliance magazine Resistance urged skinheads to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units.
The Southern Poverty Law Center identified the author as Steven Barry, who it said was a former Special Forces officer who was the alliance's "military unit coordinator."
"Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war," he wrote. "It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed.' "
He concluded: "As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood."
Karma? or another Virgin in Heaven
Hey Folks,
A few years back there was a terrible flood in the Mississippi River valley. The Falwell/Robertson/Christian-Fascist crowd were quick to explain that God was pissed off with evil homos/lesbians, sex-fiends, liberals, Democrats, and other sinners.
Soon, however, it was discovered that churches, overwhelmingly concentrated in the flood plain, had suffered much more severely than brothels, beer-joints, and other dens of iniquity - which tended to be located on hillsides and other higher (less expensive) ground.
At that point, the holy hounds suddenly quit baying.
I wonder what they think of the story below.
Did Lynn Stanley really piss God off? Or was she so bless-ed in his sight that he just couldn't wait any longer to rock her in the bosom of Abraham?
- Uke Man
Arizona anti-gay marriage leader dies in car crash
Associated Press
Wednesday, July 5, 2006
(a ukethanks to John)
A woman who was spearheading the ballot effort to prohibit gay marriage in Arizona has been killed in an automobile crash, authorities said.
Lynn Stanley, chairwoman of the Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition, died in a crash early Monday on Interstate 40, according to the state Department of Public Safety.
Authorities said Stanley, 58, was returning to Phoenix from Las Vegas, where she was visiting two sisters, at the time of the accident.
The Protect Marriage coalition collected some 300,000 signatures to place its measure on the November ballot, said Nathan Sproul, a political consultant for the effort.
Amending the state Constitution, as the Protect Marriage coalition intends, requires at least 183,917 valid signatures.
The group planned to submit its petitions today, with Stanley on hand to celebrate the accomplishment.
Her death has led the initiative to delay its submittal until Thursday, the deadline to turn in signatures.
A few years back there was a terrible flood in the Mississippi River valley. The Falwell/Robertson/Christian-Fascist crowd were quick to explain that God was pissed off with evil homos/lesbians, sex-fiends, liberals, Democrats, and other sinners.
Soon, however, it was discovered that churches, overwhelmingly concentrated in the flood plain, had suffered much more severely than brothels, beer-joints, and other dens of iniquity - which tended to be located on hillsides and other higher (less expensive) ground.
At that point, the holy hounds suddenly quit baying.
I wonder what they think of the story below.
Did Lynn Stanley really piss God off? Or was she so bless-ed in his sight that he just couldn't wait any longer to rock her in the bosom of Abraham?
- Uke Man
Arizona anti-gay marriage leader dies in car crash
Associated Press
Wednesday, July 5, 2006
(a ukethanks to John)
A woman who was spearheading the ballot effort to prohibit gay marriage in Arizona has been killed in an automobile crash, authorities said.
Lynn Stanley, chairwoman of the Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition, died in a crash early Monday on Interstate 40, according to the state Department of Public Safety.
Authorities said Stanley, 58, was returning to Phoenix from Las Vegas, where she was visiting two sisters, at the time of the accident.
The Protect Marriage coalition collected some 300,000 signatures to place its measure on the November ballot, said Nathan Sproul, a political consultant for the effort.
Amending the state Constitution, as the Protect Marriage coalition intends, requires at least 183,917 valid signatures.
The group planned to submit its petitions today, with Stanley on hand to celebrate the accomplishment.
Her death has led the initiative to delay its submittal until Thursday, the deadline to turn in signatures.
"Dubya on the Loose" by Dr. Seuss
I'm the decider.
I pick and I choose.
I pick among whats.
And choose among whos.
And as I decide
Each particular day
The things I decide on
All turn out that way.
I decided on Freedom
For all of Iraq.
And now that we have it,
I'm not looking back.
I decided on tax cuts
That just help the wealthy.
And Medicare changes
That aren't really healthy.
And parklands and wetlands
Who needs all that stuff?
I decided that none
Would be more than enough!
I decided that schools
All in all are the best
The less that they teach
And the more that they test.
I decided those wages
You need to get by
Are much better spent
On some CEO guy.
I decided your Wade
Which was versing your Roe
Is terribly awful
And just has to go.
I decided that levees
Are not really needed.
Now when hurricanes come
They can come unimpeded.
That old Constitution?
Well, I have decided
Is "just goddam paper,"
It should be derided.
I've decided gay marriage
Is icky and weird.
Above all other things,
It's the one to be feared.
And Cheney and Rummy
And Condi all know
That I'm the Decider -
They tell me it's so.
I'm the Decider
So watch what you say
Or I may decide
To whisk you away.
Or I'll tap your phones.
Your e-mail I'll read.
`cause I'm the Decider -
Like Jesus decreed.
Yes, I'm the Decider
The finest alive
And I'm nuking Iran.
And that ain't no jive!!
I pick and I choose.
I pick among whats.
And choose among whos.
And as I decide
Each particular day
The things I decide on
All turn out that way.
I decided on Freedom
For all of Iraq.
And now that we have it,
I'm not looking back.
I decided on tax cuts
That just help the wealthy.
And Medicare changes
That aren't really healthy.
And parklands and wetlands
Who needs all that stuff?
I decided that none
Would be more than enough!
I decided that schools
All in all are the best
The less that they teach
And the more that they test.
I decided those wages
You need to get by
Are much better spent
On some CEO guy.
I decided your Wade
Which was versing your Roe
Is terribly awful
And just has to go.
I decided that levees
Are not really needed.
Now when hurricanes come
They can come unimpeded.
That old Constitution?
Well, I have decided
Is "just goddam paper,"
It should be derided.
I've decided gay marriage
Is icky and weird.
Above all other things,
It's the one to be feared.
And Cheney and Rummy
And Condi all know
That I'm the Decider -
They tell me it's so.
I'm the Decider
So watch what you say
Or I may decide
To whisk you away.
Or I'll tap your phones.
Your e-mail I'll read.
`cause I'm the Decider -
Like Jesus decreed.
Yes, I'm the Decider
The finest alive
And I'm nuking Iran.
And that ain't no jive!!
Quote with Comment
Hey Folks,
Another "business report."
I just felt the need to point out a few things. In the article below I've put pertinent parts in red (suitable for skimming, if you're short on time) and made my comments in blue.
Basically I hope to show how the dominant and determining perspective of the piece is NOT that of the (majority) workers but of the (minority & wealthy) owners. In my opinion, the facts behind the story bode badly for workers, but the story has a positive tone in that regard. It also has a happy tone regarding the situation of the upper-crust ginks who are benefiting from the workers' malaise.
Jobless claims fall by 2,000 last week (sounds good)
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON - The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits declined slightly last week, indicating continued strength in the labor market despite a spring slowdown in the economy (notice that the claims are "new"; so the number of unemployed hasn't decreased; the number is simply increasing at a very slightly reduced pace - this is called "strength").
The Labor Department said Thursday that applications for jobless benefits totaled 313,000 last week, a drop of 2,000 from the previous week ( 2,000 out of 313,000 is a .64 % [less than 1%] decrease; moreover it is a .64 % decrease in only the number of newly unemployed - not everyone who is unemployed).
That was a slightly better performance than economists had been expecting (they always say this whenever it happens, which - at first blush - seems positive [oh, goody!!! things are better than the economists predicted!!!], but it means nothing other than that the economists were wrong; i.e. if they predicted total disaster, and things were slightly better than predicted, it's still disaster) . They had forecast that jobless claims would rise by 2,000.
In other economic news, the nation's retailers reported that sales stalled in June as shoppers curbed their spending on other items because of soaring gasoline prices.
As the nation's retailers began reporting their monthly sales early Thursday, disappointments included Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (nice !!), Costco Wholesale Corp. and Limited Brands Inc. Retailers who reported solid sales included Bebe Stores Inc. and Children's Place Retail Stores Inc.
June is considered the second most important month of the year in a retailer's calendar behind December. It is a month when merchants start to clear out summer goods to make room for fall merchandise.
In a third report, the Institute for Supply Management said that its index of activity in the service industry, where most Americans are employed, dipped in June to a weaker-than-expected reading of 57 (so, the service sector which pays less than other sectors and in which most Americans work "dipped" - but didn't they say earlier that "continued strength in the labor market" was indicated?).
That was down from a reading of 60.1 in May and provided further evidence, analysts said, that the economy is slowing.
"The economy is still growing decently. It's just that it is not surging," said Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors, a private consulting firm.
The government is scheduled to report new unemployment figures on Friday. Analysts are expecting the jobless rate will remain at 4.6 percent and they believe businesses created 160,000 new jobs in June. That would be a significant rebound after only 75,000 jobs had been created in May, the smallest gain in seven months (Again they sound so cheery, saying "This turd smells really sweet compared to the stench of the last one!") .
Economists believe the weak job growth in May overstated the slowdown in the job market (Yeah, they wouldn't want any workers to get upset! Don't worry, say the economists, the bad news is overstated!! These are the same economists who - it says above - fucked up on their most recent prediction!) but they are looking for more moderate gains in employment in the months ahead as the economy slows from the sizzling pace of the first three months of the year, when the economy expanded at a 5.6 percent rate.
A number of recent indicators have provided evidence that the economy slowed in the spring under the impact of surging gasoline prices, rising interest rates and a cooling housing market.
The decline of 2,000 in jobless claims last week was the first drop in three weeks. The four-week moving average for claims edged up slightly to 308,500, compared with 306,000 in the previous week, but still remained at a level that analysts believe shows a healthy labor market. (Yeah, more people are unemployed but that shows " a healthy labor market"! Healthy for whom??).
The previous week, the number of claims for jobless benefits totaled 315,000. During that week, 30 states and territories had an increase in claims and 23 had decreases.
The state with the largest increase in claims was North Carolina, with a rise of 6,495. The increase was attributed to layoffs in a variety of industries including transportation, primary metals, construction, textiles and lumber.
There was an increase of 5,291 layoffs in New Jersey, a rise blamed on layoffs in transportation, warehousing, trade, service and public administration.
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Missouri and New York all reported increases in jobless claims of more than 1,000.
Six states had a decline in jobless claims of more than 1,000, led by Pennsylvania, which saw a drop of 3,070, which it attributed to fewer layoffs in transportation, wood products and service industries.
Wisconsin reported a drop of 2,412 in jobless claims applications which it attributed to fewer layoffs in such industries as construction and transportation.
The state data lags behind the national jobless claims data by one week.
*** *** *** ***
There you have it folks! Judge for yourself. You know what I think.
- Uke Man
Another "business report."
I just felt the need to point out a few things. In the article below I've put pertinent parts in red (suitable for skimming, if you're short on time) and made my comments in blue.
Basically I hope to show how the dominant and determining perspective of the piece is NOT that of the (majority) workers but of the (minority & wealthy) owners. In my opinion, the facts behind the story bode badly for workers, but the story has a positive tone in that regard. It also has a happy tone regarding the situation of the upper-crust ginks who are benefiting from the workers' malaise.
Jobless claims fall by 2,000 last week (sounds good)
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON - The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits declined slightly last week, indicating continued strength in the labor market despite a spring slowdown in the economy (notice that the claims are "new"; so the number of unemployed hasn't decreased; the number is simply increasing at a very slightly reduced pace - this is called "strength").
The Labor Department said Thursday that applications for jobless benefits totaled 313,000 last week, a drop of 2,000 from the previous week ( 2,000 out of 313,000 is a .64 % [less than 1%] decrease; moreover it is a .64 % decrease in only the number of newly unemployed - not everyone who is unemployed).
That was a slightly better performance than economists had been expecting (they always say this whenever it happens, which - at first blush - seems positive [oh, goody!!! things are better than the economists predicted!!!], but it means nothing other than that the economists were wrong; i.e. if they predicted total disaster, and things were slightly better than predicted, it's still disaster) . They had forecast that jobless claims would rise by 2,000.
In other economic news, the nation's retailers reported that sales stalled in June as shoppers curbed their spending on other items because of soaring gasoline prices.
As the nation's retailers began reporting their monthly sales early Thursday, disappointments included Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (nice !!), Costco Wholesale Corp. and Limited Brands Inc. Retailers who reported solid sales included Bebe Stores Inc. and Children's Place Retail Stores Inc.
June is considered the second most important month of the year in a retailer's calendar behind December. It is a month when merchants start to clear out summer goods to make room for fall merchandise.
In a third report, the Institute for Supply Management said that its index of activity in the service industry, where most Americans are employed, dipped in June to a weaker-than-expected reading of 57 (so, the service sector which pays less than other sectors and in which most Americans work "dipped" - but didn't they say earlier that "continued strength in the labor market" was indicated?).
That was down from a reading of 60.1 in May and provided further evidence, analysts said, that the economy is slowing.
"The economy is still growing decently. It's just that it is not surging," said Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors, a private consulting firm.
The government is scheduled to report new unemployment figures on Friday. Analysts are expecting the jobless rate will remain at 4.6 percent and they believe businesses created 160,000 new jobs in June. That would be a significant rebound after only 75,000 jobs had been created in May, the smallest gain in seven months (Again they sound so cheery, saying "This turd smells really sweet compared to the stench of the last one!") .
Economists believe the weak job growth in May overstated the slowdown in the job market (Yeah, they wouldn't want any workers to get upset! Don't worry, say the economists, the bad news is overstated!! These are the same economists who - it says above - fucked up on their most recent prediction!) but they are looking for more moderate gains in employment in the months ahead as the economy slows from the sizzling pace of the first three months of the year, when the economy expanded at a 5.6 percent rate.
A number of recent indicators have provided evidence that the economy slowed in the spring under the impact of surging gasoline prices, rising interest rates and a cooling housing market.
The decline of 2,000 in jobless claims last week was the first drop in three weeks. The four-week moving average for claims edged up slightly to 308,500, compared with 306,000 in the previous week, but still remained at a level that analysts believe shows a healthy labor market. (Yeah, more people are unemployed but that shows " a healthy labor market"! Healthy for whom??).
The previous week, the number of claims for jobless benefits totaled 315,000. During that week, 30 states and territories had an increase in claims and 23 had decreases.
The state with the largest increase in claims was North Carolina, with a rise of 6,495. The increase was attributed to layoffs in a variety of industries including transportation, primary metals, construction, textiles and lumber.
There was an increase of 5,291 layoffs in New Jersey, a rise blamed on layoffs in transportation, warehousing, trade, service and public administration.
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Missouri and New York all reported increases in jobless claims of more than 1,000.
Six states had a decline in jobless claims of more than 1,000, led by Pennsylvania, which saw a drop of 3,070, which it attributed to fewer layoffs in transportation, wood products and service industries.
Wisconsin reported a drop of 2,412 in jobless claims applications which it attributed to fewer layoffs in such industries as construction and transportation.
The state data lags behind the national jobless claims data by one week.
*** *** *** ***
There you have it folks! Judge for yourself. You know what I think.
- Uke Man
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Faith and Reason
Hey Folks,
Below is part of what I share with highschool seniors four times a year. It deals with a critical divide in the contemporary world.
In "A Man Without a Country" Kurt Vonnegut says:
Human beings have had to guess about almost everything for the past million years or so. The leading characters in our history books have been our most enthralling, and sometimes our most terrifying, guessers.
. . .
We must acknowledge that persuasive guessers, even Ivan the Terrible, have sometimes given us the courage to endure extraordinary ordeals which we had no way of understanding. Crop failures, plagues, eruptions of volcanoes, babies being born dead - the guessers often gave us the illusion that bad luck and good luck were understandable and could somehow be dealt with intelligently and effectively. Without that illusion, we all might have surrendered long ago.
But the guessers, in fact, knew no more than the common people and sometimes less, even when, or especially when, they gave us the illusion that we were in control of our destinies.
A major point of Vonnegut's book is that in the last two-hundred years we have learned so much that we no longer need to or should rely on guessers. But thousands-of -years-old habits are difficult to shake. My comments below suggest why that is.
- Uke Man
October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine -
Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
-"Are you gonna believe me, or your lying eyes?" - Grouch Marx, Red Foxx, et. al.
Can we KNOW anything? I think we can.
Is it easy to know things? I don’t think so.
Is it good to know things? I think so.
Is it easier to accept things than it is to know them? Sure.
Do people want to know things, or would they rather accept things they are told and act as if they are known? Good question.
It seems that, at least in terms of how things have been run historically, folks prefer to have their “knowledge” placed in their heads by someone else. Every “civilization” that has ever existed has rested on a dream world - created out of whole cloth, but nevertheless accepted by its people as real. Successive “civilizations” laugh at the “silly” notions of defunct cultures, but go to vicious war to establish the “truth” of their own.
There are a lot of possible explanations for why this has always been the case, but I’m not getting into that now. Instead, let’s look at the possibilities of doing it differently. Perhaps if enough people could become aware of the simple truth above about the relativity of cultural “truth,” it could lead to a saner, better world.
Here is a list of options. If forced to decide, which one of each pair would YOU choose?
Science or Faith
Learning or Accepting
Education or indoctrination
Thought or emotion
Knowing or Guessing
Self or Authority
Evidence or Dogma
Activity or Passivity
The Present or the Past
Sanity or Adjustment
Doubt or Certainty
Discovery or Testimonials
Reality or Virtual Reality
Objectivity or Spin
Truth or Fiction
Freedom or Security
Independence or Dependence
Intelligence or Emotion
Courage or Cowardice
Explanations for the dream-world nature of “civilizations” can be found in the second options. The inherent difficulty of the first options – along with the ease of the alternatives - explains the attractiveness of the second options.
In reading an article on the use of aroma in Las Vegas casinos, I came across this comment:"Our olfactory receptors are directly connected to the limbic system, the most ancient and primitive part of the brain, which is thought to be the seat of emotion."
Our ancient, primitive natures DO make it easy for us to FEEL rather than THINK. Isn’t it ironic that many of the folks who most strenuously object to the notion of evolution – the idea that we descended from animals - are the ones relying disproportionately on their ancient, primitive (animal?) brain centers?
Though they may feel a necessity to do so, they don’t really NEED to. Each of us is equipped to make either the difficult choice or the easy choice. It really IS up to us. It all depends on whether we are courageous enough to use our neo-cortex rather than our limbic system.
- Uke Man
Below is part of what I share with highschool seniors four times a year. It deals with a critical divide in the contemporary world.
In "A Man Without a Country" Kurt Vonnegut says:
Human beings have had to guess about almost everything for the past million years or so. The leading characters in our history books have been our most enthralling, and sometimes our most terrifying, guessers.
. . .
We must acknowledge that persuasive guessers, even Ivan the Terrible, have sometimes given us the courage to endure extraordinary ordeals which we had no way of understanding. Crop failures, plagues, eruptions of volcanoes, babies being born dead - the guessers often gave us the illusion that bad luck and good luck were understandable and could somehow be dealt with intelligently and effectively. Without that illusion, we all might have surrendered long ago.
But the guessers, in fact, knew no more than the common people and sometimes less, even when, or especially when, they gave us the illusion that we were in control of our destinies.
A major point of Vonnegut's book is that in the last two-hundred years we have learned so much that we no longer need to or should rely on guessers. But thousands-of -years-old habits are difficult to shake. My comments below suggest why that is.
- Uke Man
October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine -
Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
-"Are you gonna believe me, or your lying eyes?" - Grouch Marx, Red Foxx, et. al.
Can we KNOW anything? I think we can.
Is it easy to know things? I don’t think so.
Is it good to know things? I think so.
Is it easier to accept things than it is to know them? Sure.
Do people want to know things, or would they rather accept things they are told and act as if they are known? Good question.
It seems that, at least in terms of how things have been run historically, folks prefer to have their “knowledge” placed in their heads by someone else. Every “civilization” that has ever existed has rested on a dream world - created out of whole cloth, but nevertheless accepted by its people as real. Successive “civilizations” laugh at the “silly” notions of defunct cultures, but go to vicious war to establish the “truth” of their own.
There are a lot of possible explanations for why this has always been the case, but I’m not getting into that now. Instead, let’s look at the possibilities of doing it differently. Perhaps if enough people could become aware of the simple truth above about the relativity of cultural “truth,” it could lead to a saner, better world.
Here is a list of options. If forced to decide, which one of each pair would YOU choose?
Science or Faith
Learning or Accepting
Education or indoctrination
Thought or emotion
Knowing or Guessing
Self or Authority
Evidence or Dogma
Activity or Passivity
The Present or the Past
Sanity or Adjustment
Doubt or Certainty
Discovery or Testimonials
Reality or Virtual Reality
Objectivity or Spin
Truth or Fiction
Freedom or Security
Independence or Dependence
Intelligence or Emotion
Courage or Cowardice
Explanations for the dream-world nature of “civilizations” can be found in the second options. The inherent difficulty of the first options – along with the ease of the alternatives - explains the attractiveness of the second options.
In reading an article on the use of aroma in Las Vegas casinos, I came across this comment:"Our olfactory receptors are directly connected to the limbic system, the most ancient and primitive part of the brain, which is thought to be the seat of emotion."
Our ancient, primitive natures DO make it easy for us to FEEL rather than THINK. Isn’t it ironic that many of the folks who most strenuously object to the notion of evolution – the idea that we descended from animals - are the ones relying disproportionately on their ancient, primitive (animal?) brain centers?
Though they may feel a necessity to do so, they don’t really NEED to. Each of us is equipped to make either the difficult choice or the easy choice. It really IS up to us. It all depends on whether we are courageous enough to use our neo-cortex rather than our limbic system.
- Uke Man
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Wha duh they haite aMerkka???
"Hey Rednecks, save your athletic cups!! The Dixie Chicks will make you rise again!!" - Uke Man
The Editorial Beasts of the Wall Street Urinal
July 7, 2006
The Treason Card
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
The nature of the right-wing attack on The New York Times — an attack not on the newspaper's judgment, but on its motives — seems to have startled many people in the news media. After an editorial in The Wall Street Journal declared that The Times has what amount to treasonous intentions — that it "has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it" — The Journal's own political editor pronounced himself "shocked," saying that "I don't know anybody on the news staff of The Wall Street Journal that believes that."
But anyone who was genuinely shocked by The Journal's willingness to play the treason card must not have been paying attention these past five years.
Over the last few months a series of revelations have confirmed what should have been obvious a long time ago: the Bush administration and the movement it leads have been engaged in an authoritarian project, an effort to remove all the checks and balances that have heretofore constrained the executive branch.
Much of this project involves the assertion of unprecedented executive authority — the right to imprison people indefinitely without charges (and torture them if the administration feels like it), the right to wiretap American citizens without court authorization, the right to declare, when signing laws passed by Congress, that the laws don't really mean what they say.
But an almost equally important aspect of the project has been the attempt to create a political environment in which nobody dares to criticize the administration or reveal inconvenient facts about its actions. And that attempt has relied, from the beginning, on ascribing treasonous motives to those who refuse to toe the line. As far back as 2002, Rush Limbaugh, in words very close to those used by The Wall Street Journal last week, accused Tom Daschle, then the Senate majority leader, of a partisan "attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism."
Those of us who tried to call attention to this authoritarian project years ago have long marveled over the reluctance of many of our colleagues to acknowledge what was going on. For example, for a long time many people in the mainstream media applied a peculiar double standard to political speech, denouncing perfectly normal if forceful political rhetoric from the left as poisonous "Bush hatred," while chuckling indulgently over venom from the right. (That Ann Coulter, she's such a kidder.)
But now the chuckling has stopped: somehow, nobody seems to find calls to send Bill Keller to the gas chamber funny. And while the White House clearly believes that attacking The Times is a winning political move, it doesn't have to turn out that way — not if enough people realize what's at stake.
For I think that most Americans still believe in the principle that the president isn't a king, that he isn't entitled to operate without checks and balances. And President Bush is especially unworthy of our trust, because on every front — from his refusal to protect chemical plants to his officials' exposure of Valerie Plame, from his toleration of war profiteering to his decision to place the C.I.A. in the hands of an incompetent crony — he has consistently played politics with national security.
And he has done so with the approval and encouragement of the same people now attacking The New York Times for its alleged lack of patriotism.
Does anyone remember the editorial that The Wall Street Journal published on Sept. 19, 2001? "So much for Florida," the editorial began, celebrating the way the terrorist attack had pushed aside concerns over the legitimacy of the Supreme Court decision that installed Mr. Bush in the White House. The Journal then warned Mr. Bush not to give in to the "temptation" to "subjugate everything else to the priority of getting bipartisan support for the war on terrorism." Instead, it urged him to use the "political capital" generated by the atrocity to push through tax cuts and right-wing judicial appointments.
Things have changed since then: Mr. Bush's ability to wrap his power grab in the flag has diminished now that most Americans no longer consider him either competent or honest. But the administration and its supporters still believe that they can win political battles by impugning the patriotism of those who won't go along.
For the sake of our country, let's hope that they're wrong.
The Treason Card
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
The nature of the right-wing attack on The New York Times — an attack not on the newspaper's judgment, but on its motives — seems to have startled many people in the news media. After an editorial in The Wall Street Journal declared that The Times has what amount to treasonous intentions — that it "has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it" — The Journal's own political editor pronounced himself "shocked," saying that "I don't know anybody on the news staff of The Wall Street Journal that believes that."
But anyone who was genuinely shocked by The Journal's willingness to play the treason card must not have been paying attention these past five years.
Over the last few months a series of revelations have confirmed what should have been obvious a long time ago: the Bush administration and the movement it leads have been engaged in an authoritarian project, an effort to remove all the checks and balances that have heretofore constrained the executive branch.
Much of this project involves the assertion of unprecedented executive authority — the right to imprison people indefinitely without charges (and torture them if the administration feels like it), the right to wiretap American citizens without court authorization, the right to declare, when signing laws passed by Congress, that the laws don't really mean what they say.
But an almost equally important aspect of the project has been the attempt to create a political environment in which nobody dares to criticize the administration or reveal inconvenient facts about its actions. And that attempt has relied, from the beginning, on ascribing treasonous motives to those who refuse to toe the line. As far back as 2002, Rush Limbaugh, in words very close to those used by The Wall Street Journal last week, accused Tom Daschle, then the Senate majority leader, of a partisan "attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism."
Those of us who tried to call attention to this authoritarian project years ago have long marveled over the reluctance of many of our colleagues to acknowledge what was going on. For example, for a long time many people in the mainstream media applied a peculiar double standard to political speech, denouncing perfectly normal if forceful political rhetoric from the left as poisonous "Bush hatred," while chuckling indulgently over venom from the right. (That Ann Coulter, she's such a kidder.)
But now the chuckling has stopped: somehow, nobody seems to find calls to send Bill Keller to the gas chamber funny. And while the White House clearly believes that attacking The Times is a winning political move, it doesn't have to turn out that way — not if enough people realize what's at stake.
For I think that most Americans still believe in the principle that the president isn't a king, that he isn't entitled to operate without checks and balances. And President Bush is especially unworthy of our trust, because on every front — from his refusal to protect chemical plants to his officials' exposure of Valerie Plame, from his toleration of war profiteering to his decision to place the C.I.A. in the hands of an incompetent crony — he has consistently played politics with national security.
And he has done so with the approval and encouragement of the same people now attacking The New York Times for its alleged lack of patriotism.
Does anyone remember the editorial that The Wall Street Journal published on Sept. 19, 2001? "So much for Florida," the editorial began, celebrating the way the terrorist attack had pushed aside concerns over the legitimacy of the Supreme Court decision that installed Mr. Bush in the White House. The Journal then warned Mr. Bush not to give in to the "temptation" to "subjugate everything else to the priority of getting bipartisan support for the war on terrorism." Instead, it urged him to use the "political capital" generated by the atrocity to push through tax cuts and right-wing judicial appointments.
Things have changed since then: Mr. Bush's ability to wrap his power grab in the flag has diminished now that most Americans no longer consider him either competent or honest. But the administration and its supporters still believe that they can win political battles by impugning the patriotism of those who won't go along.
For the sake of our country, let's hope that they're wrong.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Doo-Dah Video
Hey Folks,
Here's a video of the whole Doo-Dah Parade!! Check it out!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCzARaX4yEw&search=Doo%20Dah
(a ukethanks to Emily)
- Uke Man
Here's a video of the whole Doo-Dah Parade!! Check it out!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCzARaX4yEw&search=Doo%20Dah
(a ukethanks to Emily)
- Uke Man
We need a better, smarter way
June 29, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
The Wreckage in the China Shop
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
After all the sound and fury of the past few years, how is the U.S. doing in its fight against terrorism?
Not too well, according to a recent survey of more than 100 highly respected foreign policy and national security experts. The survey, dubbed the "Terrorism Index," was conducted by the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine. The respondents included Republicans and Democrats, moderates, liberals and conservatives.
The survey's findings were striking. A strong, bipartisan consensus emerged on two crucial points: 84 percent of the respondents said the United States was not winning the war on terror, and 86 percent said the world was becoming more — not less — dangerous for Americans.
The sound and fury since Sept. 11, 2001 — the chest-thumping and muscle-flexing, the freedom fries, the Patriot Act, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the breathtaking expansion of presidential power, Guantánamo, rendition, the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars — seems to have signified very little.
An article on the survey, in the July/August edition of Foreign Policy, said of the respondents, "They see a national security apparatus in disrepair and a government that is failing to protect the public from the next attack." More than 8 in 10 of the respondents said they believed an attack in the U.S. on the scale of Sept. 11 was likely within the next five years.
Many of the respondents played important national security roles in the government over the past few decades. They included Lawrence Eagleburger, who served as secretary of state under George H. W. Bush; Anthony Lake, a national security adviser to Bill Clinton; James Woolsey, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Richard Clarke, who served as counterterrorism czar in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and was in that post on Sept. 11th; and Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan.
Noted academics and writers who specialized in foreign policy and national security matters also participated in the survey.
"Respondents," according to a report that accompanied the survey, "sharply criticized U.S. efforts in a number of key areas of national security, including public diplomacy, intelligence and homeland security. Nearly all of the departments and agencies responsible for fighting the war on terror received poor marks.
"The experts also said that recent reforms of the national security apparatus have done little to make Americans safer. Asked about recent efforts to reform America's intelligence community, for instance, more than half of the index's experts said that creating the office of the director of national intelligence has had no positive impact in the war against terror."
The respondents seemed, essentially, to be saying that the U.S. needs to be smarter (less like a bull in a china shop) in its efforts to combat terrorism. "Foreign policy experts have never been in so much agreement about an administration's performance abroad," said Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a participant in the survey. "The reason is that it's clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force."
The respondents stressed the importance of ending America's dependence on foreign oil, saying that could prove to be "the single most pressing priority in winning the war on terror." Eighty-two percent of the respondents said that ending the dependence on foreign oil should have a higher priority, and nearly two-thirds said the country's current energy policies were making matters worse, not better.
"We borrow a billion dollars every working day to import oil, an increasing share of it coming from the Middle East," said Mr. Woolsey, the former C.I.A. director.
The respondents also said it was crucially important for the U.S. to engage in a battle of ideas as part of a sustained effort to bring about a rejection of radical ideologies in the Islamic world. That kind of battle requires more of a reliance on diplomacy and other nonmilitary tools.
If the respondents to this survey are correct, the U.S. needs to be moving in an entirely different direction. The war against terror cannot be won by bombing the enemy into submission. The bull in the china shop may be frightening at first, but after a while it's just enraging. We need a better, smarter way.
Op-Ed Columnist
The Wreckage in the China Shop
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
After all the sound and fury of the past few years, how is the U.S. doing in its fight against terrorism?
Not too well, according to a recent survey of more than 100 highly respected foreign policy and national security experts. The survey, dubbed the "Terrorism Index," was conducted by the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine. The respondents included Republicans and Democrats, moderates, liberals and conservatives.
The survey's findings were striking. A strong, bipartisan consensus emerged on two crucial points: 84 percent of the respondents said the United States was not winning the war on terror, and 86 percent said the world was becoming more — not less — dangerous for Americans.
The sound and fury since Sept. 11, 2001 — the chest-thumping and muscle-flexing, the freedom fries, the Patriot Act, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the breathtaking expansion of presidential power, Guantánamo, rendition, the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars — seems to have signified very little.
An article on the survey, in the July/August edition of Foreign Policy, said of the respondents, "They see a national security apparatus in disrepair and a government that is failing to protect the public from the next attack." More than 8 in 10 of the respondents said they believed an attack in the U.S. on the scale of Sept. 11 was likely within the next five years.
Many of the respondents played important national security roles in the government over the past few decades. They included Lawrence Eagleburger, who served as secretary of state under George H. W. Bush; Anthony Lake, a national security adviser to Bill Clinton; James Woolsey, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Richard Clarke, who served as counterterrorism czar in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and was in that post on Sept. 11th; and Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan.
Noted academics and writers who specialized in foreign policy and national security matters also participated in the survey.
"Respondents," according to a report that accompanied the survey, "sharply criticized U.S. efforts in a number of key areas of national security, including public diplomacy, intelligence and homeland security. Nearly all of the departments and agencies responsible for fighting the war on terror received poor marks.
"The experts also said that recent reforms of the national security apparatus have done little to make Americans safer. Asked about recent efforts to reform America's intelligence community, for instance, more than half of the index's experts said that creating the office of the director of national intelligence has had no positive impact in the war against terror."
The respondents seemed, essentially, to be saying that the U.S. needs to be smarter (less like a bull in a china shop) in its efforts to combat terrorism. "Foreign policy experts have never been in so much agreement about an administration's performance abroad," said Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a participant in the survey. "The reason is that it's clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force."
The respondents stressed the importance of ending America's dependence on foreign oil, saying that could prove to be "the single most pressing priority in winning the war on terror." Eighty-two percent of the respondents said that ending the dependence on foreign oil should have a higher priority, and nearly two-thirds said the country's current energy policies were making matters worse, not better.
"We borrow a billion dollars every working day to import oil, an increasing share of it coming from the Middle East," said Mr. Woolsey, the former C.I.A. director.
The respondents also said it was crucially important for the U.S. to engage in a battle of ideas as part of a sustained effort to bring about a rejection of radical ideologies in the Islamic world. That kind of battle requires more of a reliance on diplomacy and other nonmilitary tools.
If the respondents to this survey are correct, the U.S. needs to be moving in an entirely different direction. The war against terror cannot be won by bombing the enemy into submission. The bull in the china shop may be frightening at first, but after a while it's just enraging. We need a better, smarter way.
Camp-Town Races Run All Day . . .
Hey Folks,
If you've never seen the Doo-Dah parade on the 4th of July, either you've missed out or are a stiff-necked, conservative Republican who wouldn't be caught dead mingling with derelicts like the Uke Man ( if you're reading this blog, you couldn't be the latter [ FBI & CIA sneaks and toadies excepted] ).
This was the first time the Uke Guy participated - first time I'd been invited. At first I declined - the feet and knees are not good at long treks. Then!!!! I remembered my bicycle!!! Ah ha!!!
The rest is history!!!
Here are some photos. MOST CAN BE ENLARGED SIMPLY BY CLICKING ON THEM !!!!!!
Doo-dah, Doo-dah!!!!!! - Uke Man
If you've never seen the Doo-Dah parade on the 4th of July, either you've missed out or are a stiff-necked, conservative Republican who wouldn't be caught dead mingling with derelicts like the Uke Man ( if you're reading this blog, you couldn't be the latter [ FBI & CIA sneaks and toadies excepted] ).
This was the first time the Uke Guy participated - first time I'd been invited. At first I declined - the feet and knees are not good at long treks. Then!!!! I remembered my bicycle!!! Ah ha!!!
The rest is history!!!
Here are some photos. MOST CAN BE ENLARGED SIMPLY BY CLICKING ON THEM !!!!!!
Doo-dah, Doo-dah!!!!!! - Uke Man
Quote with Comment
Economy growth boils, but may be cooling
(entire story at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy )
By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer Thu Jun 29
Hey Folks,
I've said it before, and I'm saying it again: the so-called business reports are totally from the perspective of the high-suck rich ginks!
This is a good example. True to form, it says things are hunky-dorey - "boiling" even. Yep, 5.6% growth; 13.8% increase in profits. Whoopie-F'n-Doooo!!!
Not until the end do you hear that workers got screwed: fewer jobs and higher interests rates from the Fed to further impact workers while protecting investors.
But who cares about the majority of people who work?
- Uke Man
WASHINGTON - The economy grew at its hottest pace in 2 1/2 years in the opening quarter of 2006 but signs suggest it has cooled since then. The Commerce Department reported Thursday that economic activity expanded at a 5.6 percent annual rate in the January-to-March period. The revised reading on gross domestic product was an even stronger showing than the 5.3 percent pace estimated for the quarter a month ago . . .
And, companies' profits continued to grow briskly. One measure of after-tax profits in the GDP report showed profits rose 13.8 percent in the first quarter. It was the second consecutive quarter of such strong growth . . .
In a third report, America's net debtor position deteriorated last year, with foreigners owning $2.69 trillion more in U.S. assets such as stocks, bonds and real estate than Americans own in foreign assets. In 2004, the investment gap totaled $2.36 trillion .
An inflation gauge closely watched by the Fed showed that core prices — excluding food and energy — rose 2 percent in the first quarter. That was the same as last month's estimate and was down from a 2.4 percent advance in the fourth quarter. [Inflation at this level kills workers with stagnant wages, but is fine for the capitalist with 13.8% profit increases ].
The inflation reading, however, was taken before oil prices shot up to a record high of $75.17 a barrel in late April. They are now hovering above $72 a barrel.
To fend off inflation, which has been creeping up, the Federal Reserve was expected to boost interest rates at the end of its two-day meeting Thursday [it DID] . The Fed's goal is to raise interest rates enough to keep inflation in check but not so much as to hurt economic activity. [i.e. keep wages and hiring down by decreasing demand for workers - by reducing the amount of money available for increased production - and thereby maintaining high profits for those who don't work - at the expense of those who do]
Job growth lost momentum heading into the summer [nothing new there].
Employers boosted payrolls by just 75,000 [fewer than the number of new workers entering the job search] in May, the fewest new jobs since October. [ yep, it's a boiling economy, and the worker is getting cooked - Uke Man]
(entire story at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy )
By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer Thu Jun 29
Hey Folks,
I've said it before, and I'm saying it again: the so-called business reports are totally from the perspective of the high-suck rich ginks!
This is a good example. True to form, it says things are hunky-dorey - "boiling" even. Yep, 5.6% growth; 13.8% increase in profits. Whoopie-F'n-Doooo!!!
Not until the end do you hear that workers got screwed: fewer jobs and higher interests rates from the Fed to further impact workers while protecting investors.
But who cares about the majority of people who work?
- Uke Man
WASHINGTON - The economy grew at its hottest pace in 2 1/2 years in the opening quarter of 2006 but signs suggest it has cooled since then. The Commerce Department reported Thursday that economic activity expanded at a 5.6 percent annual rate in the January-to-March period. The revised reading on gross domestic product was an even stronger showing than the 5.3 percent pace estimated for the quarter a month ago . . .
And, companies' profits continued to grow briskly. One measure of after-tax profits in the GDP report showed profits rose 13.8 percent in the first quarter. It was the second consecutive quarter of such strong growth . . .
In a third report, America's net debtor position deteriorated last year, with foreigners owning $2.69 trillion more in U.S. assets such as stocks, bonds and real estate than Americans own in foreign assets. In 2004, the investment gap totaled $2.36 trillion .
An inflation gauge closely watched by the Fed showed that core prices — excluding food and energy — rose 2 percent in the first quarter. That was the same as last month's estimate and was down from a 2.4 percent advance in the fourth quarter. [Inflation at this level kills workers with stagnant wages, but is fine for the capitalist with 13.8% profit increases ].
The inflation reading, however, was taken before oil prices shot up to a record high of $75.17 a barrel in late April. They are now hovering above $72 a barrel.
To fend off inflation, which has been creeping up, the Federal Reserve was expected to boost interest rates at the end of its two-day meeting Thursday [it DID] . The Fed's goal is to raise interest rates enough to keep inflation in check but not so much as to hurt economic activity. [i.e. keep wages and hiring down by decreasing demand for workers - by reducing the amount of money available for increased production - and thereby maintaining high profits for those who don't work - at the expense of those who do]
Job growth lost momentum heading into the summer [nothing new there].
Employers boosted payrolls by just 75,000 [fewer than the number of new workers entering the job search] in May, the fewest new jobs since October. [ yep, it's a boiling economy, and the worker is getting cooked - Uke Man]
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Fair & Un-Balanced
Hey Folks,
The dicks on Foxxx News don't have a clue, and when they meet up with people who do, they look very much like poo!!
Ca-ca, schiste, crap, and shit! Foxxx news!! Foxxx News!! They are it!!!
Click here, my Dear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xuDdYd2u1g&search=Senator%20Levin
It really pisses them off when they get crossed up and called out. Look at the moron's face at the end!!!
- Uke Man
The dicks on Foxxx News don't have a clue, and when they meet up with people who do, they look very much like poo!!
Ca-ca, schiste, crap, and shit! Foxxx news!! Foxxx News!! They are it!!!
Click here, my Dear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xuDdYd2u1g&search=Senator%20Levin
It really pisses them off when they get crossed up and called out. Look at the moron's face at the end!!!
- Uke Man
What a Joke !!!
Hey Folks,
The story below breaks me up!!
The Vatican is “worried” – according to the head of the “Pontifical Council for the Family” – that its positions might be seen in some countries as crimes – that the church might be brought before some international court.
What a joke! This from an organization that gave its blessing to the subjugation and slaughter of the “New World’s” indigent people; the organization that hauled innocent old women and others into star chambers to condemn them to death by burning; the organization that tried, convicted and then denounced Galileo (for 500 years) for the transgression of trusting his senses and his mind; the organization which gave its tacit approval to the judgment and persecution of Jews as the murderers of Christ.
What a joke!
THEY are afraid of being taken to court!! Not to worry. Even if the Church were taken to court, it could never be treated as arbitrarily, unmercifully, and selfishly as the Church has treated humanity over the centuries.
What a joke: They are afraid that their inhumane contemporary treatment of people might land them in a compassionate court somewhere in the world. Too fucking bad!!
And since this AP story broke, I’ve heard that the Vatican plans to excommunicate anyone who even works in connection with stem cell research!! Doesn’t sound like the Church is hesitant to judge others – even though it is scared shitless that someone might judge it.
There’s a statement in the Bible that deals with this:
“Judge not lest ye be judged.”
Maybe someone at the ““Pontifical Council for the Family” ought to do some summer reading.
- Uke Man
Vatican worried about positions on family
By MARIA SANMINIATELLI, Associated Press Writer Wed Jun 28
VATICAN CITY -
The Vatican is worried its opposition to abortion, embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage could one day land it before an international court of justice, a senior Vatican official said in an interview published Wednesday. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, who heads the Pontifical Council for the Family, reiterated traditional Roman Catholic Church positions and criticized some European countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands and France, for giving legal recognition to civil unions.
"We worry especially that, with current laws, speaking in defense of life and the rights of families is becoming in some societies sort of a crime against the state," Lopez Trujillo told the Catholic news magazine Famiglia Cristiana for its issue scheduled to hit the stands Thursday. The remarks were posted online on Wednesday.
"The church is at risk of being brought before some international court if the debate becomes any tenser, if the more radical requests get heard," the cardinal said, speaking ahead of the Roman Catholic Church's World Meeting of Families in Valencia, Spain from July 1-9.
Lopez Trujillo did not comment further about any legal problems the Vatican could face, but his words touched upon a concern among religious organizations everywhere: the right of religious freedom versus countries' anti-discrimination laws.
Chai Feldblum of Georgetown University's Law Center said the chances of the church being punished for stating its beliefs were slim to none, at least in the United States, though its stances could lead to Catholic organizations losing state funding.
"I cannot fathom a religious organization being punished for speaking its belief against abortion or gay marriage," said Feldblum, a veteran gay rights advocate.
"What is illuminating is not the reality of the legal penalties they face, but an acknowledgment that public morality is shifting under their feet," Feldblum said.
In recent years, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada legalized same-sex marriage, while Britain and several other European nations now give such couples the right to form partnerships that entitle them to most of the same tax and pension rights as married couples — laws the church is firmly against.
In the interview, Lopez Trujillo reiterated that according to church rules, women who have abortions, the doctors and nurses who help them and the father, if he is going along with it, are excommunicated. The same goes for embryonic stem cell research.
"It's the same thing. Destroying the embryo is equivalent to abortion," Lopez Trujillo said.
He also criticized what he described as a movement to impose new human rights.
"It's happening for abortion, which is a crime, and instead it's becoming a right," the cardinal said.
He also compared gay marriage to "absolute emptiness," saying the only possible couple is made up of a man and a woman.
Earlier this month, the Pontifical Council for the Family issued a 57-page document in which it said that the traditional family has never been so threatened as in today's world. It also lashed out against contraception, abortion, in vitro fertilization and same-sex marriage.
The Vatican's document did not break any new ground, but marked the first sweeping comment on the issues during Pope Benedict XVI's papacy.
The story below breaks me up!!
The Vatican is “worried” – according to the head of the “Pontifical Council for the Family” – that its positions might be seen in some countries as crimes – that the church might be brought before some international court.
What a joke! This from an organization that gave its blessing to the subjugation and slaughter of the “New World’s” indigent people; the organization that hauled innocent old women and others into star chambers to condemn them to death by burning; the organization that tried, convicted and then denounced Galileo (for 500 years) for the transgression of trusting his senses and his mind; the organization which gave its tacit approval to the judgment and persecution of Jews as the murderers of Christ.
What a joke!
THEY are afraid of being taken to court!! Not to worry. Even if the Church were taken to court, it could never be treated as arbitrarily, unmercifully, and selfishly as the Church has treated humanity over the centuries.
What a joke: They are afraid that their inhumane contemporary treatment of people might land them in a compassionate court somewhere in the world. Too fucking bad!!
And since this AP story broke, I’ve heard that the Vatican plans to excommunicate anyone who even works in connection with stem cell research!! Doesn’t sound like the Church is hesitant to judge others – even though it is scared shitless that someone might judge it.
There’s a statement in the Bible that deals with this:
“Judge not lest ye be judged.”
Maybe someone at the ““Pontifical Council for the Family” ought to do some summer reading.
- Uke Man
Vatican worried about positions on family
By MARIA SANMINIATELLI, Associated Press Writer Wed Jun 28
VATICAN CITY -
The Vatican is worried its opposition to abortion, embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage could one day land it before an international court of justice, a senior Vatican official said in an interview published Wednesday. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, who heads the Pontifical Council for the Family, reiterated traditional Roman Catholic Church positions and criticized some European countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands and France, for giving legal recognition to civil unions.
"We worry especially that, with current laws, speaking in defense of life and the rights of families is becoming in some societies sort of a crime against the state," Lopez Trujillo told the Catholic news magazine Famiglia Cristiana for its issue scheduled to hit the stands Thursday. The remarks were posted online on Wednesday.
"The church is at risk of being brought before some international court if the debate becomes any tenser, if the more radical requests get heard," the cardinal said, speaking ahead of the Roman Catholic Church's World Meeting of Families in Valencia, Spain from July 1-9.
Lopez Trujillo did not comment further about any legal problems the Vatican could face, but his words touched upon a concern among religious organizations everywhere: the right of religious freedom versus countries' anti-discrimination laws.
Chai Feldblum of Georgetown University's Law Center said the chances of the church being punished for stating its beliefs were slim to none, at least in the United States, though its stances could lead to Catholic organizations losing state funding.
"I cannot fathom a religious organization being punished for speaking its belief against abortion or gay marriage," said Feldblum, a veteran gay rights advocate.
"What is illuminating is not the reality of the legal penalties they face, but an acknowledgment that public morality is shifting under their feet," Feldblum said.
In recent years, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada legalized same-sex marriage, while Britain and several other European nations now give such couples the right to form partnerships that entitle them to most of the same tax and pension rights as married couples — laws the church is firmly against.
In the interview, Lopez Trujillo reiterated that according to church rules, women who have abortions, the doctors and nurses who help them and the father, if he is going along with it, are excommunicated. The same goes for embryonic stem cell research.
"It's the same thing. Destroying the embryo is equivalent to abortion," Lopez Trujillo said.
He also criticized what he described as a movement to impose new human rights.
"It's happening for abortion, which is a crime, and instead it's becoming a right," the cardinal said.
He also compared gay marriage to "absolute emptiness," saying the only possible couple is made up of a man and a woman.
Earlier this month, the Pontifical Council for the Family issued a 57-page document in which it said that the traditional family has never been so threatened as in today's world. It also lashed out against contraception, abortion, in vitro fertilization and same-sex marriage.
The Vatican's document did not break any new ground, but marked the first sweeping comment on the issues during Pope Benedict XVI's papacy.
Bon Mots
(a ukethanks to Travis)
Ah, yes, divorce......., from the Latin word meaning to rip out a
man's genitals through his wallet. - - - Robin Williams-
Women complain about premenstrual syndrome, but I think of
it as the only time of the month that I can be myself. ---Roseanne-
Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place. ---Billy Crystal-
You can say any foolish thing to a dog, and the dog will give you
a look that says, "My God, you're right! I never would've thought
of that!" ---Sean Connery-
According to a new survey, women say they feel more
comfortable undressing in front of men than they do undressing in front of other women. They say that women are too judgmental, where, of course, men are just grateful. ---Robert De Niro-
In the last couple of weeks I have seen the ads for the Wonder Bra. Is
that really a problem in this country? Men not paying enough attention to women's breasts? ---Hugh Grant-
We have women in the military, but they don't put us in the front
lines. They don't know if we can fight or if we can kill. I think we can. All the general has to do is walk over to the women and say, "You see
the enemy over there? They say you look fat in those uniforms." ---Elayne Boosler-
There's a new medical crisis. Doctors are reporting that many men are
having allergic reactions to latex condoms. They say they cause severe
swelling. So what's the problem? ---Dustin Hoffman-
There's very little advice in men's magazines, because men don't think
there's a lot they don't know. Women do. Women want to
learn. Men think, "I know what I'm doing, just show me somebody naked." ---Jerry Seinfield-
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. ---George Clooney-
Instead of getting married again, I'm going to find a woman I don't like and just give her a house. ---Rod Stewart-
See, the problem is that God gives men a brain and a penis, and only
enough blood to run one at a time. ---Robin Williams-
Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks or where he lives, but
he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it is. ---Barbara Bush (Former US First Lady)-
You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary
friend. ---Yasir Arrafat (On going to war over religion)-
On the one hand, we'll never experience childbirth. On the other hand,
we can open all our own jars. ---Bruce Willis (On the difference between men and women)-
And God said: “Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on
me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame
everything on Satan.” ---George Burns-
What are the three words guaranteed to humiliate men everywhere? “Hold my purse.” ---Sandra Bullock-
The Web brings people together because no matter what kind of a twisted sexual mutant you happen to be, you've got millions of
pals out there. Type in “Find people that have sex with goats that are on
fire” and thecomputer will ask, “Specify type of goat.” ---Jason Alexander (George Castanza on Seinfeld)-
Women might be able to fake orgasms. But men can fake whole relationships. ---Sharon Stone-
There are only two reasons to sit in the back row of an airplane:
Either you have diarrhea, or you're anxious to meet people who
do. ---Henry Kissenger (former US Secretary of State)-
I saw a woman wearing a sweatshirt with 'Guess' on it. I said, 'Thyroid
problem?' ---Arnold Schwarzenegger-
Sincerity is the most important thing in acting. Once you learn how to
fake that, you have it made. ---Sam Goldwyn (Hollywood producer)-
Hockey is a sport for white men. Basketball is a sport for black men.
Golf is a sport for white men dressed like black pimps. ---Tiger Woods-
I read somewhere that 77 per cent of all the mentally ill live in
poverty. Actually, I'm more intrigued by the 23 per cent who are apparently doing quite well for themselves. ---Jerry Garcia (Grateful Dead)-
Capital punishment turns the state into a murderer. But imprisonment
turns the state into a gay dungeon-master. ---Rev. Jesse Jackson-
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-b*tch. ---Jack Nicholson-
If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an
infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without even
considering if there is a man on base. ---Dave Barry-
What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?
---Marilyn Pittman-
Relationships are hard. It's like a full time job, and we should treat
it like one. If your boyfriend or girlfriend wants to leave you, they
should give you two weeks' notice. There should be severance pay,
and before they leave you, they should have to find you a temp. ---Bob Ettinger-
My Mom said she learned how to swim when someone took her out in the lake and threw her off the boat. I said, 'Mom, they weren't trying to teach you how to swim.' ---Paula Poundstone-
A study in the Washington Post says that women have better verbal
skills than men. I just want to say to the authors of that study: D'uh.
---Conan O'Brien-
If life was fair, Elvis would be alive and all the impersonators would
be dead. ---Johnny Carson-
Bigamy is having one wife/husband too many. Monogamy is the same. ---Oscar Wilde-
Marriage is a great institution, but I'm not ready for an institution yet. ---Mae West-
Suppose you were an idiot . . . And suppose you were a member of Congress . . . But I repeat myself. ---Mark Twain-
Our bombs are smarter than the average high school student. At least
they can find Kuwait. ---A. Whitney Brown-
When I die, I want to die like my grandfather who died peacefully in
his sleep. Not screaming like all the passengers in his car. ---Author Unknown-
Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group
for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar. ---Drew Carey-
If this is logical and makes sense: “Choose life; your mother did,” what about “Have sex with your mother; your father did”? --- Uke Man
Ah, yes, divorce......., from the Latin word meaning to rip out a
man's genitals through his wallet. - - - Robin Williams-
Women complain about premenstrual syndrome, but I think of
it as the only time of the month that I can be myself. ---Roseanne-
Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place. ---Billy Crystal-
You can say any foolish thing to a dog, and the dog will give you
a look that says, "My God, you're right! I never would've thought
of that!" ---Sean Connery-
According to a new survey, women say they feel more
comfortable undressing in front of men than they do undressing in front of other women. They say that women are too judgmental, where, of course, men are just grateful. ---Robert De Niro-
In the last couple of weeks I have seen the ads for the Wonder Bra. Is
that really a problem in this country? Men not paying enough attention to women's breasts? ---Hugh Grant-
We have women in the military, but they don't put us in the front
lines. They don't know if we can fight or if we can kill. I think we can. All the general has to do is walk over to the women and say, "You see
the enemy over there? They say you look fat in those uniforms." ---Elayne Boosler-
There's a new medical crisis. Doctors are reporting that many men are
having allergic reactions to latex condoms. They say they cause severe
swelling. So what's the problem? ---Dustin Hoffman-
There's very little advice in men's magazines, because men don't think
there's a lot they don't know. Women do. Women want to
learn. Men think, "I know what I'm doing, just show me somebody naked." ---Jerry Seinfield-
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. ---George Clooney-
Instead of getting married again, I'm going to find a woman I don't like and just give her a house. ---Rod Stewart-
See, the problem is that God gives men a brain and a penis, and only
enough blood to run one at a time. ---Robin Williams-
Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks or where he lives, but
he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it is. ---Barbara Bush (Former US First Lady)-
You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary
friend. ---Yasir Arrafat (On going to war over religion)-
On the one hand, we'll never experience childbirth. On the other hand,
we can open all our own jars. ---Bruce Willis (On the difference between men and women)-
And God said: “Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on
me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame
everything on Satan.” ---George Burns-
What are the three words guaranteed to humiliate men everywhere? “Hold my purse.” ---Sandra Bullock-
The Web brings people together because no matter what kind of a twisted sexual mutant you happen to be, you've got millions of
pals out there. Type in “Find people that have sex with goats that are on
fire” and thecomputer will ask, “Specify type of goat.” ---Jason Alexander (George Castanza on Seinfeld)-
Women might be able to fake orgasms. But men can fake whole relationships. ---Sharon Stone-
There are only two reasons to sit in the back row of an airplane:
Either you have diarrhea, or you're anxious to meet people who
do. ---Henry Kissenger (former US Secretary of State)-
I saw a woman wearing a sweatshirt with 'Guess' on it. I said, 'Thyroid
problem?' ---Arnold Schwarzenegger-
Sincerity is the most important thing in acting. Once you learn how to
fake that, you have it made. ---Sam Goldwyn (Hollywood producer)-
Hockey is a sport for white men. Basketball is a sport for black men.
Golf is a sport for white men dressed like black pimps. ---Tiger Woods-
I read somewhere that 77 per cent of all the mentally ill live in
poverty. Actually, I'm more intrigued by the 23 per cent who are apparently doing quite well for themselves. ---Jerry Garcia (Grateful Dead)-
Capital punishment turns the state into a murderer. But imprisonment
turns the state into a gay dungeon-master. ---Rev. Jesse Jackson-
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-b*tch. ---Jack Nicholson-
If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an
infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without even
considering if there is a man on base. ---Dave Barry-
What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?
---Marilyn Pittman-
Relationships are hard. It's like a full time job, and we should treat
it like one. If your boyfriend or girlfriend wants to leave you, they
should give you two weeks' notice. There should be severance pay,
and before they leave you, they should have to find you a temp. ---Bob Ettinger-
My Mom said she learned how to swim when someone took her out in the lake and threw her off the boat. I said, 'Mom, they weren't trying to teach you how to swim.' ---Paula Poundstone-
A study in the Washington Post says that women have better verbal
skills than men. I just want to say to the authors of that study: D'uh.
---Conan O'Brien-
If life was fair, Elvis would be alive and all the impersonators would
be dead. ---Johnny Carson-
Bigamy is having one wife/husband too many. Monogamy is the same. ---Oscar Wilde-
Marriage is a great institution, but I'm not ready for an institution yet. ---Mae West-
Suppose you were an idiot . . . And suppose you were a member of Congress . . . But I repeat myself. ---Mark Twain-
Our bombs are smarter than the average high school student. At least
they can find Kuwait. ---A. Whitney Brown-
When I die, I want to die like my grandfather who died peacefully in
his sleep. Not screaming like all the passengers in his car. ---Author Unknown-
Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group
for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar. ---Drew Carey-
If this is logical and makes sense: “Choose life; your mother did,” what about “Have sex with your mother; your father did”? --- Uke Man
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Limbaugh "Gets off" - avoids "Hard time"
Limbaugh will not be charged over Viagra
By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.
- Rush Limbaugh will not face charges in Palm Beach County for the bottle of Viagra found in his luggage that was prescribed in his doctor's name, prosecutors said Wednesday.
Charges could have nullified the conservative radio host's plea agreement in a "doctor shopping" case.
Limbaugh, 55, was detained for more than three hours at Palm Beach International Airport on June 26 after he returned on his private plane from a vacation in the Dominican Republic.
The state attorney's office said Dr. Steve Strumwasser's name was on the Viagra bottle, not Limbaugh's. Strumwasser, who is Limbaugh's psychiatrist, told authorities he "agreed to have his name on the label in an effort to avoid potentially embarrassing publicity for the suspect," according to a filing by the prosecutor's office.
"Thus, the medication contained in the subject pill bottle was legitimately prescribed to the suspect by his physician," the filing said.
It is generally not illegal under Florida law for a physician to prescribe medication in a third party's name if all parties are aware and the doctor documents it correctly, said Mike Edmondson, a spokesman for the state attorney in Palm Beach County.
However, since the doctor wrote the prescription in Miami-Dade County, the case has been forwarded to prosecutors there for review.
The Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office had no immediate comment.
Charges in the Viagra case could have nullified a deal Limbaugh reached with prosecutors last month in which a single "doctor shopping" charge was deferred for 18 months, so long as Limbaugh does not get arrested for any reason.
Authorities had accused Limbaugh of illegally deceiving multiple doctors to get overlapping painkiller prescriptions. Limbaugh denied the charges but acknowledged he was addicted to painkillers.
By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.
- Rush Limbaugh will not face charges in Palm Beach County for the bottle of Viagra found in his luggage that was prescribed in his doctor's name, prosecutors said Wednesday.
Charges could have nullified the conservative radio host's plea agreement in a "doctor shopping" case.
Limbaugh, 55, was detained for more than three hours at Palm Beach International Airport on June 26 after he returned on his private plane from a vacation in the Dominican Republic.
The state attorney's office said Dr. Steve Strumwasser's name was on the Viagra bottle, not Limbaugh's. Strumwasser, who is Limbaugh's psychiatrist, told authorities he "agreed to have his name on the label in an effort to avoid potentially embarrassing publicity for the suspect," according to a filing by the prosecutor's office.
"Thus, the medication contained in the subject pill bottle was legitimately prescribed to the suspect by his physician," the filing said.
It is generally not illegal under Florida law for a physician to prescribe medication in a third party's name if all parties are aware and the doctor documents it correctly, said Mike Edmondson, a spokesman for the state attorney in Palm Beach County.
However, since the doctor wrote the prescription in Miami-Dade County, the case has been forwarded to prosecutors there for review.
The Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office had no immediate comment.
Charges in the Viagra case could have nullified a deal Limbaugh reached with prosecutors last month in which a single "doctor shopping" charge was deferred for 18 months, so long as Limbaugh does not get arrested for any reason.
Authorities had accused Limbaugh of illegally deceiving multiple doctors to get overlapping painkiller prescriptions. Limbaugh denied the charges but acknowledged he was addicted to painkillers.
They Killed Kenny ! Party Time!!
Enron founder Kenneth Lay dies at 64
AP - HOUSTON -
Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay, who was convicted of helping perpetuate one of the most sprawling business frauds in U.S. history, has died. He was 64. Nicknamed "Kenny Boy" by President Bush, Lay led Enron's meteoric rise from a staid natural gas pipeline company formed by a 1985 merger to an energy and trading conglomerate that reached No. 7 on the Fortune 500 in 2000 and claimed $101 billion in annual revenues.
AP - HOUSTON -
Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay, who was convicted of helping perpetuate one of the most sprawling business frauds in U.S. history, has died. He was 64. Nicknamed "Kenny Boy" by President Bush, Lay led Enron's meteoric rise from a staid natural gas pipeline company formed by a 1985 merger to an energy and trading conglomerate that reached No. 7 on the Fortune 500 in 2000 and claimed $101 billion in annual revenues.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Golden Rule in Progress
Hey Folks,
Just a while back I was at Comfest sitting at the Not In Our Name booth where we have Bush "Wanted Posters" on display. Most folks are lefties at Comfest, but one DH came by, pointed at the wanted poster and said "That's disgusting." I said, "He's [Bush] disgusting." He said, "You're disgusting." I said, "You are disgusting." He couldn't think of anything but repeating himself; so, again he said: "You're disgusting."
I said, "Your Mama," and he left - which was his first wise act.
I explained to the other folks standing near the booth that I had followed the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That SOB had come up, unsolicited, and gotten in my face (i.e. he "did unto me"). Obviously he wanted me to do unto him as he had done unto me; so I did.
Once he understood the ground rules, he stopped looking for trouble.
- Uke Man
Just a while back I was at Comfest sitting at the Not In Our Name booth where we have Bush "Wanted Posters" on display. Most folks are lefties at Comfest, but one DH came by, pointed at the wanted poster and said "That's disgusting." I said, "He's [Bush] disgusting." He said, "You're disgusting." I said, "You are disgusting." He couldn't think of anything but repeating himself; so, again he said: "You're disgusting."
I said, "Your Mama," and he left - which was his first wise act.
I explained to the other folks standing near the booth that I had followed the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That SOB had come up, unsolicited, and gotten in my face (i.e. he "did unto me"). Obviously he wanted me to do unto him as he had done unto me; so I did.
Once he understood the ground rules, he stopped looking for trouble.
- Uke Man
Revolution!!!
Hey Folks,
It’s “the 4th of July”!!!
Or is it “Independence Day”???
Or is it a commemoration of “The War for Independence”???
Or is it a commemoration of “The Revolutionary War”???
Or are we not supposed to say, “revolution”???
I’m often accused of “not liking America” (my friends know better that to say, “Whaah d’ya haiite aMerrrka?”).
Well, ah don’t haiite aMerrrka! But I confess that I don’t like it much – what it is, that is. Ah luv aMerrrka – as it’s sposed to be. It just hain’t what it says it is; an’ ah don’ like thet!!!
Now, you see, I’m not picking on America. It DOES suck when it comes to living up to what it claims it is, but every other fucking country in the world today is guilty of the same hypocrisy. The reason I concentrate on aMerrrka is that aMerrrka is the “only remaining super power” (as Condie, Rummy, Dickie, Dubya, & the Neo-Coneheads have pointed out over and over again [with intense pride and secret longing] ).
As such (as my old pal Harold used to say), aMerrrka is in a position to do the most damage and – hence – deserves the greatest surveillance. That’s not haiite; that’s prudence.
In that vein, I ask, “Why not celebrate the “American Revolution” on the 4th of July? Why “Happy Independence Day” instead of “Long live the Revolution”?
Think about it.
Clearly, the revolution is officially over; we stopped that evil King George and that was all we needed to worry about; we have our very own American-King-George now!! Just think: “INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!” Yep! At last the landed aristocracy of the colonies was free of the king, and free to pocket the entirety of what they gathered from the labor of slaves and un-propertied whites – no more sharing it with British bluebloods – Colonial bluebloods could keep it all!!!
I guess that helps explain why it’s “Independence Day.” It’s not much of a revolution when one small parasitical group is replaced by a different minority of blood-suckers. But if that’s the case, why do we CELEBRATE the 4th? (“Ohhh, it’s sooooooo good to be screwed by independent American lords instead of those British fiends!!”)
There I go again, haiiten aMerrrka!!
“Golly! Our brave soldiers died in the War of Independence so we could be free and vote!! Damn you, Uke Man!!!”
Sorry, don’t think so.
Not one soldier who fought or died before 1920 can be said to have protected the right of all Americans to vote.
Here is a listing of America’s involvement in wars (colonial & national):
American History Timeline
American Involvement in Wars from Colonial Times to the Present
July 4, 1675 -August 12, 1676
King Philip's War
New England Colonies vs. Wampanoag, Narragansett, and Nipmuck Indians
1689-1697
King William's War
The English Colonies vs. France
1702-1713
Queen Anne's War
The English Colonies vs. France
1744-1748
King George's War
The French Colonies vs. Great Britain
1756-1763
French and Indian War (Seven Years War)
The French Colonies vs. Great Britain
1759-1761
Cherokee War
English Colonists vs. Cherokee Indians
1775-1783
American Revolution
English Colonists vs. Great Britain
1798-1800
Franco-American Naval War
United States vs. France
1801-1805; 1815
Barbary Wars
United States vs. Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli
1812-1815
War of 1812
United States vs. Great Britain
1813-1814
Creek War
United States vs. Creek Indians
1836
War of Texas Independence
Texas vs. Mexico
1846-1848
Mexican War
United States vs. Mexico
1861-1865
Civil War
Union vs. Confederacy
1898
Spanish-American War
United States vs. Spain
1914-1918
World War I
Triple Alliance: Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary vs. Triple Entente: Britain, France, and Russia. The United States joined on the side of the Triple Entente in 1917.
1939-1945
World War II
Axis Powers: Germany, Italy, Japan vs. Major Allied Powers: United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia
1950-1953
Korean War
United States (as part of the United Nations) and South Korea vs. North Korea and Communist China
1960-1975
Vietnam War
United States and South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam
1961
Bay of Pigs Invasion
United States vs. Cuba
1983
Grenada
United States Intervention
1989
US Invasion of Panama
United States vs. Panama
1990-1991
Persian Gulf War
United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
1995-1996
Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina
United States as part of NATO acted peacekeepers in former Yugoslavia
2003
Invasion of Iraq
United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
Now Folks!! You may have forgotten, but almost none of the poor pukes who fought (or died) for "independence" ever got to vote. Remember!!! Only LANDED rich folks got to vote!! Not one of those poor souls who walked barefoot in the snow at Gettysburg with the sainted Washington ever was allowed to vote - and none of their kin were either!!
Of course, after the "War for Independence," slaves WEREN'T made "independent" - and they didn't get to vote either - just like the "Indians" - as they were called back then.
Even rich WHITE women couldn't vote - nobody died so that Martha Washington could vote.
In fact, even after the Civil War (called the "War of Northern Aggression" by many Southerners [for obvious reasons] ), when Blacks supposedly could vote, poor Martha and every other woman - black or white - weren't able to vote - no matter how many young underprivileged American kids had died in one of our glorious wars!
If Martha had lived to be 189 years old, THEN she could have voted - but NOT because of anything any soldier ever did - including her husband. If anything, over many years, soldiers and police participated in the persecution of women who were seeking the vote.
As for "freeing the slaves," you can believe that that is what the Civil War was about if you want to, but it's been established in the "reality based community" that slavery - at best - was a side issue. The war WASN'T fought to free the slaves. And to the extent that slaves DID find some freedom after the war, it was short-lived - replaced by "Jim Crow." As for Blacks voting, have you ever heard of a "poll tax," a "literacy test," or "lynching"?
Even if you pretend that Blacks COULD vote, Black women couldn't until 1920.
So, in which of our glorious wars did our brave soldiers die in order that we could vote? Here are the wars we waged after 1920 - take your choice:
1939-1945 World War II, 1950-1953 Korean War, 1960-1975 Vietnam War, 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion, 1983 Grenada, 1989 US Invasion of Panama, 1990-1991Persian Gulf War, 1995-1996 Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
How many of those do you think threatened our right to vote or our freedoms? How many of those wars' "evil-doers" were bent on tapping our phones? Attacking our free press? Urging our troops to break the Geneva Accords? Demanding that their Church and our State be combined? Bullying those who question our government's policy? Anxious to persecute American gays?
Korea? Viet Nam? Cuba? Grenada? Panama? Iraq I ? Bosnia? Herzegovina? Iraq II ?
It seems to me that our own government is a much bigger threat to our voting (see Florida 2000, Ohio 2004) and to our freedoms under the constitution. If that is the case, our soldiers are fighting and dying to justfy the LOSS of our freedoms and the right to vote, George Bush's War of Dependence, so to speak.
I'd rather have a second Revolution.
- Uke Man
It’s “the 4th of July”!!!
Or is it “Independence Day”???
Or is it a commemoration of “The War for Independence”???
Or is it a commemoration of “The Revolutionary War”???
Or are we not supposed to say, “revolution”???
I’m often accused of “not liking America” (my friends know better that to say, “Whaah d’ya haiite aMerrrka?”).
Well, ah don’t haiite aMerrrka! But I confess that I don’t like it much – what it is, that is. Ah luv aMerrrka – as it’s sposed to be. It just hain’t what it says it is; an’ ah don’ like thet!!!
Now, you see, I’m not picking on America. It DOES suck when it comes to living up to what it claims it is, but every other fucking country in the world today is guilty of the same hypocrisy. The reason I concentrate on aMerrrka is that aMerrrka is the “only remaining super power” (as Condie, Rummy, Dickie, Dubya, & the Neo-Coneheads have pointed out over and over again [with intense pride and secret longing] ).
As such (as my old pal Harold used to say), aMerrrka is in a position to do the most damage and – hence – deserves the greatest surveillance. That’s not haiite; that’s prudence.
In that vein, I ask, “Why not celebrate the “American Revolution” on the 4th of July? Why “Happy Independence Day” instead of “Long live the Revolution”?
Think about it.
Clearly, the revolution is officially over; we stopped that evil King George and that was all we needed to worry about; we have our very own American-King-George now!! Just think: “INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!” Yep! At last the landed aristocracy of the colonies was free of the king, and free to pocket the entirety of what they gathered from the labor of slaves and un-propertied whites – no more sharing it with British bluebloods – Colonial bluebloods could keep it all!!!
I guess that helps explain why it’s “Independence Day.” It’s not much of a revolution when one small parasitical group is replaced by a different minority of blood-suckers. But if that’s the case, why do we CELEBRATE the 4th? (“Ohhh, it’s sooooooo good to be screwed by independent American lords instead of those British fiends!!”)
There I go again, haiiten aMerrrka!!
“Golly! Our brave soldiers died in the War of Independence so we could be free and vote!! Damn you, Uke Man!!!”
Sorry, don’t think so.
Not one soldier who fought or died before 1920 can be said to have protected the right of all Americans to vote.
Here is a listing of America’s involvement in wars (colonial & national):
American History Timeline
American Involvement in Wars from Colonial Times to the Present
July 4, 1675 -August 12, 1676
King Philip's War
New England Colonies vs. Wampanoag, Narragansett, and Nipmuck Indians
1689-1697
King William's War
The English Colonies vs. France
1702-1713
Queen Anne's War
The English Colonies vs. France
1744-1748
King George's War
The French Colonies vs. Great Britain
1756-1763
French and Indian War (Seven Years War)
The French Colonies vs. Great Britain
1759-1761
Cherokee War
English Colonists vs. Cherokee Indians
1775-1783
American Revolution
English Colonists vs. Great Britain
1798-1800
Franco-American Naval War
United States vs. France
1801-1805; 1815
Barbary Wars
United States vs. Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli
1812-1815
War of 1812
United States vs. Great Britain
1813-1814
Creek War
United States vs. Creek Indians
1836
War of Texas Independence
Texas vs. Mexico
1846-1848
Mexican War
United States vs. Mexico
1861-1865
Civil War
Union vs. Confederacy
1898
Spanish-American War
United States vs. Spain
1914-1918
World War I
Triple Alliance: Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary vs. Triple Entente: Britain, France, and Russia. The United States joined on the side of the Triple Entente in 1917.
1939-1945
World War II
Axis Powers: Germany, Italy, Japan vs. Major Allied Powers: United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia
1950-1953
Korean War
United States (as part of the United Nations) and South Korea vs. North Korea and Communist China
1960-1975
Vietnam War
United States and South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam
1961
Bay of Pigs Invasion
United States vs. Cuba
1983
Grenada
United States Intervention
1989
US Invasion of Panama
United States vs. Panama
1990-1991
Persian Gulf War
United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
1995-1996
Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina
United States as part of NATO acted peacekeepers in former Yugoslavia
2003
Invasion of Iraq
United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
Now Folks!! You may have forgotten, but almost none of the poor pukes who fought (or died) for "independence" ever got to vote. Remember!!! Only LANDED rich folks got to vote!! Not one of those poor souls who walked barefoot in the snow at Gettysburg with the sainted Washington ever was allowed to vote - and none of their kin were either!!
Of course, after the "War for Independence," slaves WEREN'T made "independent" - and they didn't get to vote either - just like the "Indians" - as they were called back then.
Even rich WHITE women couldn't vote - nobody died so that Martha Washington could vote.
In fact, even after the Civil War (called the "War of Northern Aggression" by many Southerners [for obvious reasons] ), when Blacks supposedly could vote, poor Martha and every other woman - black or white - weren't able to vote - no matter how many young underprivileged American kids had died in one of our glorious wars!
If Martha had lived to be 189 years old, THEN she could have voted - but NOT because of anything any soldier ever did - including her husband. If anything, over many years, soldiers and police participated in the persecution of women who were seeking the vote.
As for "freeing the slaves," you can believe that that is what the Civil War was about if you want to, but it's been established in the "reality based community" that slavery - at best - was a side issue. The war WASN'T fought to free the slaves. And to the extent that slaves DID find some freedom after the war, it was short-lived - replaced by "Jim Crow." As for Blacks voting, have you ever heard of a "poll tax," a "literacy test," or "lynching"?
Even if you pretend that Blacks COULD vote, Black women couldn't until 1920.
So, in which of our glorious wars did our brave soldiers die in order that we could vote? Here are the wars we waged after 1920 - take your choice:
1939-1945 World War II, 1950-1953 Korean War, 1960-1975 Vietnam War, 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion, 1983 Grenada, 1989 US Invasion of Panama, 1990-1991Persian Gulf War, 1995-1996 Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
How many of those do you think threatened our right to vote or our freedoms? How many of those wars' "evil-doers" were bent on tapping our phones? Attacking our free press? Urging our troops to break the Geneva Accords? Demanding that their Church and our State be combined? Bullying those who question our government's policy? Anxious to persecute American gays?
Korea? Viet Nam? Cuba? Grenada? Panama? Iraq I ? Bosnia? Herzegovina? Iraq II ?
It seems to me that our own government is a much bigger threat to our voting (see Florida 2000, Ohio 2004) and to our freedoms under the constitution. If that is the case, our soldiers are fighting and dying to justfy the LOSS of our freedoms and the right to vote, George Bush's War of Dependence, so to speak.
I'd rather have a second Revolution.
- Uke Man
Monday, July 03, 2006
It's Ok, as long as we get our bowl of pottage!!
Civil liberties now at greatest risk in all of U.S. history
Thursday, June 29, 2006
JONATHAN TURLEY
The disclosure of a secret databank operation tracking international financial transactions has caused renewed concerns about civil liberties. But this is just the latest in a series of secret surveillance programs, databanks and domestic operations justified as part of the war on terror.
Disclosed individually over the past year, they have become almost routine. Yet, when considered collectively, they present a far more troubling picture, and one that should be vaguely familiar.
Civil-liberty-minded citizens may recall the president’s plan to create the Total Information Awareness program, a massive databank with the ability to follow citizens in real time by their check-card purchases, bank transactions, medical bills and other electronic means. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, was assigned this task, but after its
Thursday, June 29, 2006
JONATHAN TURLEY
The disclosure of a secret databank operation tracking international financial transactions has caused renewed concerns about civil liberties. But this is just the latest in a series of secret surveillance programs, databanks and domestic operations justified as part of the war on terror.
Disclosed individually over the past year, they have become almost routine. Yet, when considered collectively, they present a far more troubling picture, and one that should be vaguely familiar.
Civil-liberty-minded citizens may recall the president’s plan to create the Total Information Awareness program, a massive databank with the ability to follow citizens in real time by their check-card purchases, bank transactions, medical bills and other electronic means. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, was assigned this task, but after its