Bob Fitrakis
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Stealing elections:They say it's God's plan, but does the Devil make 'em do it?
Hey Folks,
I know Bob & Harvey - top notch intellects with irreproachable integrity and energetic scholarship. If they say this is possible, it IS possible. And the Uke Man isn't the only one saying that; these guys have a national audience that listens respectfully to what they have to say.
Time will tell, and as some or all of this shit comes down - and I'm sure some of it definitely will - the more people among us who know what to look for, the better.
If it ALL comes to pass, it seems to me that our options are two: rebellion or kissing our asses goodbye.
- Uke Man
For more of Bob & Harvey go to: http://www.freepress.org/index2.php
A loaves & fishes/Holy Ghost victory for the GOP in November?
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
October 17, 2006
The polls all point to a Democratic sweep in November. The news pours in about pedophile Republicans and Team Bush contempt for their fundamentalist bedmates. Iraq implodes. Deficits soar. Katrina lingers. Scandal is everywhere.
On the other hand, there are rumors of an "October Surprise." An attack on Iran. A new terror incident. Osama finally captured.
Gas prices are down, the stock market up.
None of it dampens the Democrats' euphoria. They think they are about to win. In conventional terms, they should.
But think again. Please.
It will take just two Biblical fixes for the GOP to keep the Congress, and thus solidify their power in this country, possibly forever: a loaves and fishes vote count, a Holy Ghost turnout.
We coined the phrase "loaves and fishes vote count" to describe the tally in Gahanna, Ohio, 2004. This infamous precinct in suburban Columbus registered 4258 votes for George W. Bush where just 638 people voted. The blessed event occurred at a fundamentalist church run by a close ally of the Reverend Jerry Falwell.
These numbers were later "corrected." But they reflect a much larger reality: the 2004 election was stolen with scores of dirty tricks for whose second coming the Democrats have yet to fully prepare.
In the two years since the fraudulent defeat of John Kerry, we've unearthed an unholy arsenal by which that election was stolen. They include: outright intimidation, wrongful elimination of registered voters, theft, selective deployment of (often faulty) voting machines, absentee ballots without Kerry's name on them, absentee ballots pre-punched for Bush, absentee ballots never mailed, touch screens that lit up for Bush when Kerry was chosen, lines for black voters five hours long while white voters a mile away voted in fifteen minutes, tens of thousands of provisional ballots pitched summarily in the trash, alleged ex-felons illegally told they could not vote, Hispanic precincts with no Spanish-speaking poll workers, deliberate misinformation on official web sites…and that's not even the tip of an iceberg whose bottom we may never see.
Thanks to a federal lawsuit, we have finally been able to look at some of the actual ballots from Ohio 2004. Just for starters, researchers Stuart Wright and Dr. Richard Hayes Phillips have found a precinct in Delaware County where 359 consecutive voters allegedly cast ballots for Bush. Dr. Ron Baiman found another precinct in Clermont County where a random inspection found 36 straight replacement ballots, a phenomenon that can be accomplished only by divine intervention or outright fraud.
These initial snippets have been unearthed with no cooperation or participation from the Democratic Party. The official Democratic spin is that they have "looked into the matter." But public records indicate that they have yet to visit the actual ballot storage facilities to examine the public records from the 2004 election.
In sum, we see no indication that the Democrats are prepared for the inevitable…that Karl Rove will steal again, and more, in 2006.
In Ohio alone, four election boards have already eliminated some 500,000 voters since the 2000 election---ten percent of the state's electorate---from the registration rolls in four Democratic counties. No similar purges have occurred in rural Republican counties. The Democrats have said or done very little about it.
To date there is no logical explanation from John Kerry as to why he conceded with 250,000 votes still uncounted while Bush's alleged margin was just half that. Nor have we heard about Democrat plans to monitor the ever-larger numbers of electronic voting machines deployed throughout the United States with no paper trail and no transparency for programming codes and memory cards that are privately owned, with no public inspection allowed.
Which is brings us to the Holy Ghost turnout. As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has reported in Rolling Stone Magazine, in Georgia 2002, U.S. Senate incumbent Max Cleland went into Election Day with a very substantial lead in the polls. He proceeded to allegedly lose by a substantial margin. Church-state operatives like Ralph Reed attributed this astonishing turn-around to an alleged last-minute mass turnout of evangelical voters.
Similar things were said about Florida and Ohio 2004.
But it never happened. There are no visual reports or other reliable indicators of extraordinary lines or massive late-in-the-day crowds at the polls. Throughout all those election days, it was every bit as quick and easy to vote in rural precincts that gave Bush his miraculous victory as it was impossible to do so in your average black neighborhood. But there was no extraordinary turnout of last-minute Bush voters.
What happened instead hearkens to the Holy Ghost, made manifest in electronic voting machines that cannot and will not be monitored. The miraculous pro-Bush margins give new meaning to the phrase "ghost in the machine." While the Democratic vote count was slashed and trashed in urban precincts, the rural voting stations, through the miracle of untrackable electronics, materialized just the right number of GOP votes to keep the Men of God in the White House (where it's recently reported they dare to mock those earthly evangelicals who allegedly gave them their margin of victory).
There's absolutely nothing to prevent this from happening again in 2006. Major studies from the Conyers Committee, the Government Accountability Office, Princeton University, the Brennan Center, the Carter-Baker Commission, and esteemed others, have all come to the same conclusion: it takes just one individual with inside access---or even just a wi-fi machine---to change the outcome of any election anywhere.
Electronic voting machines can be pre-programmed, re-programmed, re-calibrated, electronically adjusted, hacked, jimmied, jammed or otherwise blessed with a few well-placed electrons and---LO AND BEHOLD!---a Democratic landslide can be born again to a Republican deliverance.
We already see the signs. The corporate bloviators predict a last-minute surge for Bush. The Fox/Rove media machine has planted suggestive stories at the New York Times and elsewhere about the alleged hidden powers of the GOP juggernaut. They will, they say, once again turn out those invisible legions of evangelical voters when and where necessary.
Every two years, Rove leaks some story that is implausible and easily refuted: four million new evangelical voters are identified nationwide; or, a late surge of homophobic Old Order Amish rush to the polls in Ohio; or shy and reluctant right-wing Republican women flood the polls at closing and slip out unseen without speaking to exit pollsters (but, they are only shy in the early evening in Republican counties).
And the Democrats? They say they are also turning out voters. But what happens when their names are miraculously gone from the new electronic registration rolls? When there aren't enough machines in their precincts on which to vote? When they press a Democratic name on their touch-screen and an anointed Republican's lights up? Or when techno-gods from private partisan vendors barge in unchallenged to "adjust" the e-machines in the middle of the voting process.
So far, the Democrats have heaped abuse on those who dare to warn of all this.
But as it is written, so it shall be: unless there are armies of trained, dedicated citizens prepared to monitor this upcoming election, electronic and otherwise, the Holy Ghosts will vote, the loaves & fishes will multiply and be counted, and the GOP will once again emerge with total control of the checks and the balances---this time, perhaps, for all Eternity.
Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman are co-authors, with Steve Rosenfeld, of WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO?, just published by The New Press. Fitrakis is of counsel and Wasserman is a plaintiff in the King-Lincoln lawsuit that has preserved the Ohio 2004 ballots. Fitrakis is an independent candidate for Ohio governor, endorsed by the Green Party; Wasserman is author of SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth, A.D. 2030.
I know Bob & Harvey - top notch intellects with irreproachable integrity and energetic scholarship. If they say this is possible, it IS possible. And the Uke Man isn't the only one saying that; these guys have a national audience that listens respectfully to what they have to say.
Time will tell, and as some or all of this shit comes down - and I'm sure some of it definitely will - the more people among us who know what to look for, the better.
If it ALL comes to pass, it seems to me that our options are two: rebellion or kissing our asses goodbye.
- Uke Man
For more of Bob & Harvey go to: http://www.freepress.org/index2.php
A loaves & fishes/Holy Ghost victory for the GOP in November?
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
October 17, 2006
The polls all point to a Democratic sweep in November. The news pours in about pedophile Republicans and Team Bush contempt for their fundamentalist bedmates. Iraq implodes. Deficits soar. Katrina lingers. Scandal is everywhere.
On the other hand, there are rumors of an "October Surprise." An attack on Iran. A new terror incident. Osama finally captured.
Gas prices are down, the stock market up.
None of it dampens the Democrats' euphoria. They think they are about to win. In conventional terms, they should.
But think again. Please.
It will take just two Biblical fixes for the GOP to keep the Congress, and thus solidify their power in this country, possibly forever: a loaves and fishes vote count, a Holy Ghost turnout.
We coined the phrase "loaves and fishes vote count" to describe the tally in Gahanna, Ohio, 2004. This infamous precinct in suburban Columbus registered 4258 votes for George W. Bush where just 638 people voted. The blessed event occurred at a fundamentalist church run by a close ally of the Reverend Jerry Falwell.
These numbers were later "corrected." But they reflect a much larger reality: the 2004 election was stolen with scores of dirty tricks for whose second coming the Democrats have yet to fully prepare.
In the two years since the fraudulent defeat of John Kerry, we've unearthed an unholy arsenal by which that election was stolen. They include: outright intimidation, wrongful elimination of registered voters, theft, selective deployment of (often faulty) voting machines, absentee ballots without Kerry's name on them, absentee ballots pre-punched for Bush, absentee ballots never mailed, touch screens that lit up for Bush when Kerry was chosen, lines for black voters five hours long while white voters a mile away voted in fifteen minutes, tens of thousands of provisional ballots pitched summarily in the trash, alleged ex-felons illegally told they could not vote, Hispanic precincts with no Spanish-speaking poll workers, deliberate misinformation on official web sites…and that's not even the tip of an iceberg whose bottom we may never see.
Thanks to a federal lawsuit, we have finally been able to look at some of the actual ballots from Ohio 2004. Just for starters, researchers Stuart Wright and Dr. Richard Hayes Phillips have found a precinct in Delaware County where 359 consecutive voters allegedly cast ballots for Bush. Dr. Ron Baiman found another precinct in Clermont County where a random inspection found 36 straight replacement ballots, a phenomenon that can be accomplished only by divine intervention or outright fraud.
These initial snippets have been unearthed with no cooperation or participation from the Democratic Party. The official Democratic spin is that they have "looked into the matter." But public records indicate that they have yet to visit the actual ballot storage facilities to examine the public records from the 2004 election.
In sum, we see no indication that the Democrats are prepared for the inevitable…that Karl Rove will steal again, and more, in 2006.
In Ohio alone, four election boards have already eliminated some 500,000 voters since the 2000 election---ten percent of the state's electorate---from the registration rolls in four Democratic counties. No similar purges have occurred in rural Republican counties. The Democrats have said or done very little about it.
To date there is no logical explanation from John Kerry as to why he conceded with 250,000 votes still uncounted while Bush's alleged margin was just half that. Nor have we heard about Democrat plans to monitor the ever-larger numbers of electronic voting machines deployed throughout the United States with no paper trail and no transparency for programming codes and memory cards that are privately owned, with no public inspection allowed.
Which is brings us to the Holy Ghost turnout. As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has reported in Rolling Stone Magazine, in Georgia 2002, U.S. Senate incumbent Max Cleland went into Election Day with a very substantial lead in the polls. He proceeded to allegedly lose by a substantial margin. Church-state operatives like Ralph Reed attributed this astonishing turn-around to an alleged last-minute mass turnout of evangelical voters.
Similar things were said about Florida and Ohio 2004.
But it never happened. There are no visual reports or other reliable indicators of extraordinary lines or massive late-in-the-day crowds at the polls. Throughout all those election days, it was every bit as quick and easy to vote in rural precincts that gave Bush his miraculous victory as it was impossible to do so in your average black neighborhood. But there was no extraordinary turnout of last-minute Bush voters.
What happened instead hearkens to the Holy Ghost, made manifest in electronic voting machines that cannot and will not be monitored. The miraculous pro-Bush margins give new meaning to the phrase "ghost in the machine." While the Democratic vote count was slashed and trashed in urban precincts, the rural voting stations, through the miracle of untrackable electronics, materialized just the right number of GOP votes to keep the Men of God in the White House (where it's recently reported they dare to mock those earthly evangelicals who allegedly gave them their margin of victory).
There's absolutely nothing to prevent this from happening again in 2006. Major studies from the Conyers Committee, the Government Accountability Office, Princeton University, the Brennan Center, the Carter-Baker Commission, and esteemed others, have all come to the same conclusion: it takes just one individual with inside access---or even just a wi-fi machine---to change the outcome of any election anywhere.
Electronic voting machines can be pre-programmed, re-programmed, re-calibrated, electronically adjusted, hacked, jimmied, jammed or otherwise blessed with a few well-placed electrons and---LO AND BEHOLD!---a Democratic landslide can be born again to a Republican deliverance.
We already see the signs. The corporate bloviators predict a last-minute surge for Bush. The Fox/Rove media machine has planted suggestive stories at the New York Times and elsewhere about the alleged hidden powers of the GOP juggernaut. They will, they say, once again turn out those invisible legions of evangelical voters when and where necessary.
Every two years, Rove leaks some story that is implausible and easily refuted: four million new evangelical voters are identified nationwide; or, a late surge of homophobic Old Order Amish rush to the polls in Ohio; or shy and reluctant right-wing Republican women flood the polls at closing and slip out unseen without speaking to exit pollsters (but, they are only shy in the early evening in Republican counties).
And the Democrats? They say they are also turning out voters. But what happens when their names are miraculously gone from the new electronic registration rolls? When there aren't enough machines in their precincts on which to vote? When they press a Democratic name on their touch-screen and an anointed Republican's lights up? Or when techno-gods from private partisan vendors barge in unchallenged to "adjust" the e-machines in the middle of the voting process.
So far, the Democrats have heaped abuse on those who dare to warn of all this.
But as it is written, so it shall be: unless there are armies of trained, dedicated citizens prepared to monitor this upcoming election, electronic and otherwise, the Holy Ghosts will vote, the loaves & fishes will multiply and be counted, and the GOP will once again emerge with total control of the checks and the balances---this time, perhaps, for all Eternity.
Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman are co-authors, with Steve Rosenfeld, of WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO?, just published by The New Press. Fitrakis is of counsel and Wasserman is a plaintiff in the King-Lincoln lawsuit that has preserved the Ohio 2004 ballots. Fitrakis is an independent candidate for Ohio governor, endorsed by the Green Party; Wasserman is author of SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth, A.D. 2030.
Back in the Classroom
Hey Folks,
Today (Tuesday) I’m off again to Thomas Worthington High School to open their speaker series for the Political Radicalism class. I’ve been organizing my thoughts.
Some years ago when I first undertook this responsibility, I was billed by the course’s founder, Tom Molner, as a “Secular Humanist.” To be perfectly honest, I accepted the characterization because for years I’d heard people I found repulsive (e.g. TV Evangelists and rabid “Conservatives”) complaining about these Secular Humanists. That worked for me.
Nevertheless, I really was clueless as to what I actually was thought to be. Over the years of ignorance I’ve continued to be myself and gradually learned what I “was.”
Early on, I guess I was confused because the political right so hated “secular humanists” that I thought they must be really far-out, hard-line, in-your-face, radical people; and how could that be me?
Secular Humanism, as I understand it now (for whatever that’s worth), is so sensible and mild that it is no wonder I was confused by the vicious attacks against it. Really, it’s simple: I believe in science – i.e. learning and knowing via our senses and the scientific method. To do that, I need to keep an open mind and think for myself. I need to recognize that learning is an endless process and that knowledge – while always growing - is always incomplete. And to continue growing, I need to avoid passive adherence to dogma and taking things on faith.
At some point it dawned on me that this approach was seen as a threat to folks who don’t believe in science, who don’t want to learn and know via their senses; who – for whatever reason – cannot accept the open-ended, forever incomplete search for knowledge and truth; who need, instead, the certainty of transmitted dogma or “received truth.”
I knew there were people like this – quite a few of them - and it was obvious that they didn’t agree with me; but it WAS surprising that – in America – they would feel threatened and threatened to such a high degree of agitation. I guess I was naïve, but I’m learning.
I had passively accepted the dogma, the underlying mythology inculcated during my youth regarding this nation. I had “taken on faith” that this was a free and tolerant society, that we all had the right to our opinions and, though we might disagree, we would “fight to the death for your right” to have your views, that we all were free to embrace any religion or no religion (and be respected in the process).
So, it was a difficult lesson to learn that there actually WERE millions of people who would fight (some to the death) to marginalize, demonize, or eradicate my views, my knowledge, my religion (or lack thereof). It was difficult to accept that anyone (in the official “America”) would want to impose their personal “faith” on everyone else – especially since they didn’t want anyone else imposing strange personal faiths on them (remember: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"??).
Beyond that, it was even more difficult to imagine that (in America) not being able to force everyone else into one's personal orthodoxy would be understood as persecution. But I’ve learned.
I’ve learned by using my senses to observe and to keep my mind open, by challenging dogma and official myths when discrepancies in their doctrine are perceived – rather than burying the discrepancies to protect the dogma.
And I intend to keep at it. It’s the only way that makes sense to me. Nobody knows any more than I do about ultimate matters – certainly not the charlatans who enthrall their fearful sheep preaching the evils of evolution, contraception, gays, stem-cell research, feminists, college professors, flag burners, socialists, communists, vegetarians, hippies, Mexicans, liberals, and (gasp!!!!!) Secular Humanists.
- Uke Man
Today (Tuesday) I’m off again to Thomas Worthington High School to open their speaker series for the Political Radicalism class. I’ve been organizing my thoughts.
Some years ago when I first undertook this responsibility, I was billed by the course’s founder, Tom Molner, as a “Secular Humanist.” To be perfectly honest, I accepted the characterization because for years I’d heard people I found repulsive (e.g. TV Evangelists and rabid “Conservatives”) complaining about these Secular Humanists. That worked for me.
Nevertheless, I really was clueless as to what I actually was thought to be. Over the years of ignorance I’ve continued to be myself and gradually learned what I “was.”
Early on, I guess I was confused because the political right so hated “secular humanists” that I thought they must be really far-out, hard-line, in-your-face, radical people; and how could that be me?
Secular Humanism, as I understand it now (for whatever that’s worth), is so sensible and mild that it is no wonder I was confused by the vicious attacks against it. Really, it’s simple: I believe in science – i.e. learning and knowing via our senses and the scientific method. To do that, I need to keep an open mind and think for myself. I need to recognize that learning is an endless process and that knowledge – while always growing - is always incomplete. And to continue growing, I need to avoid passive adherence to dogma and taking things on faith.
At some point it dawned on me that this approach was seen as a threat to folks who don’t believe in science, who don’t want to learn and know via their senses; who – for whatever reason – cannot accept the open-ended, forever incomplete search for knowledge and truth; who need, instead, the certainty of transmitted dogma or “received truth.”
I knew there were people like this – quite a few of them - and it was obvious that they didn’t agree with me; but it WAS surprising that – in America – they would feel threatened and threatened to such a high degree of agitation. I guess I was naïve, but I’m learning.
I had passively accepted the dogma, the underlying mythology inculcated during my youth regarding this nation. I had “taken on faith” that this was a free and tolerant society, that we all had the right to our opinions and, though we might disagree, we would “fight to the death for your right” to have your views, that we all were free to embrace any religion or no religion (and be respected in the process).
So, it was a difficult lesson to learn that there actually WERE millions of people who would fight (some to the death) to marginalize, demonize, or eradicate my views, my knowledge, my religion (or lack thereof). It was difficult to accept that anyone (in the official “America”) would want to impose their personal “faith” on everyone else – especially since they didn’t want anyone else imposing strange personal faiths on them (remember: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"??).
Beyond that, it was even more difficult to imagine that (in America) not being able to force everyone else into one's personal orthodoxy would be understood as persecution. But I’ve learned.
I’ve learned by using my senses to observe and to keep my mind open, by challenging dogma and official myths when discrepancies in their doctrine are perceived – rather than burying the discrepancies to protect the dogma.
And I intend to keep at it. It’s the only way that makes sense to me. Nobody knows any more than I do about ultimate matters – certainly not the charlatans who enthrall their fearful sheep preaching the evils of evolution, contraception, gays, stem-cell research, feminists, college professors, flag burners, socialists, communists, vegetarians, hippies, Mexicans, liberals, and (gasp!!!!!) Secular Humanists.
- Uke Man
Monday, October 30, 2006
"They were so much 'many' then; they're 'fewer' than that now."
Hey Folks,
More from the “free” press!!
Now, I don’t have enough information to determine the motive behind this article being screwed up (ignorance? stupidity? politics? self-censorship? fear? collaboration?), but it clearly IS screwed up, and another example of how we are brainwashed to see things the way we are “supposed” to see them.
My comments are in red.
- Uke Man
Brazil president readies for runoff vote
By MICHAEL ASTOR, Associated Press Writer
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - Facing a surprisingly rough campaign, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has revived the populist rhetoric he had largely shed since taking office. Apparently, Silva was elected by appealing to the majority in his country - the regular people, but was losing support as a result of reneging on his campaign stance.
Fiery speeches contrasting the lives of Brazil's poor with the wealthy elite have left many Brazilians wondering whether he would push the country to the left if he wins a second four-year term in Sunday's runoff election. The "elite" are a small group; the "poor" are a large group. What (who?) is meant here by "many"? Obviously, the poor would "hope" for rather than "wonder" about a turn to the left - as in Venezuela; are the poor or the wealthy "wondering"? From whose perspective is this story being told?
Silva, a former union firebrand [ not a union "organizer," a "firebrand" - hmmm ... fire is destructive, isn't it! hmmmm ...] and Brazil's first working-class president, faced similar fears four years ago [ there's the answer as to perspective; it IS the "elite," the minority, who are "wondering" - the story is from THEIR perspective] but calmed them by adhering to market-friendly, pro-business policies that won praise even from conservatives. Oh, I see. He got elected by promising to aid the powerless majority, but then behaved well by actually serving the small, conservative, wealthy minority - who now fear he might - to get elected - actually serve the majority of people who voted for him in the first place and desperately NEED his attention.
But with his administration engulfed in corruption scandals, Silva has returned to his traditional base — the poor — rallying them with claims that his opponent, Geraldo Alckmin, would sell off cherished state assets and eliminate popular programs such as Family Allowance, which gives needy families monthly subsidies. OK, sounds familiar: make promises to the people / get elected / screw the people / lose support / make promises to the people and/or scare them ...
"The rich don't need the Brazilian state. The ones who need it are the poor people of this country," Silva said at rally on Sao Paulo's poor east side. "The poor are the ones who need public universities because the rich can pay — or even study in Paris."
While few believe [ here we go again: "few"!! Well the elite are already the "few." So, we are given a report on the view of a few of the few - THEIR perspective - as if THAT is what matters in a so-called "democracy."] Silva would adopt the radical populism of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez [How could he! Helping the mass of people rather than the few would be ass-backwards!] , they worry that he could entrench divisions in Brazil, which has one of the world's widest gaps between rich and poor. This is the wackiest sentence in the piece! These vultures don't worry that outrageous divisions exist; but ONLY that the victims of "one of the world's widest gaps between rich and poor" might think about it too much and stay angry about it.
"It's very easy to mobilize the poor. What's hard is to demobilize them after the election," said Bolivar Lamounier, director of the Augurium political consulting firm. "I'm afraid if he wins a second term, which looks likely, he will be tempted to take an authoritarian turn." So, according to the political consultant, the problem isn't the situation of the poor; and exploiting the poor to get elected is OK; the problem is puting the poor back in their cages after the election - democracy at work again!! (Notice how his tone reflects that of one on high explaining to another of the anointed the fine points of manipulating lesser beings, farm animals, or characters in a video game).
According to a poll released Thursday, Silva was leading Alckmin 63 percent to 37 percent — even better than his 2002 victory of 61 percent to 39 percent over Jose Serra. The poll interviewed 2,000 voters and had a margin of error of 2 percentage points. Hmmmm ... it seems weird that 63% of those polled on the election support a turn to the left, but "many" of those the reporters polled fear it.
In the first round on Oct. 1, Silva fell just short of the 50 percent needed to avoid a runoff. Polls had predicted he would win outright but then news media ran photos of $770,000 in cash that members of his party allegedly planned to spend on purchasing an incriminating file about Alckmin and his allies. Well, Silva's guys are crooks, but crooks trying to get the goods that prove Alckmin is a crook. Doesn't it seem strange that this stuff is seen as indicting only one of the crooks? - sounds like Foxxx News (and what happened to Dan Rather) to me.
Although Silva was never personally implicated, the expose reinforced suspicions of government corruption — suspicions driven home by Alckmin in his campaign speeches. Silva most likely IS corrupt - and Alckmin probably is too - but neither side really cares about that; the scary possibility is that one crook - in order to get elected - will chum up the masses and then not be able to calm them back into submission.
It was then that Silva stepped up the class-driven rhetoric.
He called Alckmin a tool of the rich and out of touch with the common man, while his allies painted a corruption scandal enveloping Silva's party as an elitist-driven conspiracy.
"The raw and naked truth is that, in the elite's political program ... the poor have not been included," Silva said at a Sao Paulo rally. "During elections the poor are worth more than bankers, but after the elections the poor are not even invited in for coffee."
The first-round vote split the nation along geographic lines, with Silva winning handily in Brazil's poor north while Alckmin took the industrialized south, including Sao Paulo, the state he served as governor.
In the second round, Silva counterattacked with an appeal to national pride, claiming that Alckmin would privatize government-run companies that are sacred cows to many Brazilians — oil giant Petrobras, Banco do Brasil, the national post office.
Alckmin called the president a "liar" to his face during their first debate — but Silva hammered away at the theme, and analysts say many of Brazil's 125 million voters believed him. Now the "many" really IS the "many."
"It's not very difficult with the low level of education in Brazil to motivate this prejudice," Lamounier said [Yeah, they're so stupid that when you screw them , they think you screwed 'em!]. "It was very hard to carry out privatization in Brazil, and while it made good business sense, when poor people got their phone bills or light bills they just saw that things cost a lot." There are plenty of people with more education than Mr. Lamounier who would call him a flunky of the elite (check out economist/author Greg Palast).
Alckmin has played on fears that Silva, like Chavez, could rewrite the constitution to give the poor more power. Silva has denied any attempt to split the country along class lines. Two shitheads at work: one wants to make sure the majority has minimal political power; the other vows not to split a country that is already split by "one of the world's widest gaps."
His socialist fire has already inflamed prejudices among upper-class Brazilians. Well, at least the PREJUDICE is admitted - notice, again, that helping the masses as opposed to the elite few is characterised as "fire" and "inflaming."
"If he's elected I hope he gets impeached during his first days in office," said Remo Dalla Zanna, a 67-year-old economist. "He's not the kind of person I want governing my country [ notice "my country" - John Jay, I believe, said of the USA that it "should be run by the people who own it."] . I don't want a crude and ignorant union leader. No one I know is going to vote for him." Well, I guess that means he'll surely win - how many voters does a member of a small elite group "know"?.
The poor majority [ the reason he'll win ], in large part, remains Silva's devout power base.
"With Lula, things have gotten much better for the poor," said Celsinha Coqueiro de Sousa, a 52-year-old maid, "and I hope they will get even better." Well!! isn't that just what you'd expect from some crude, ignorant, working-class peasant ?!! - - - - Uke Man
Associated Press writer Hellen Berger contributed to this report from Sao Paulo.
More from the “free” press!!
Now, I don’t have enough information to determine the motive behind this article being screwed up (ignorance? stupidity? politics? self-censorship? fear? collaboration?), but it clearly IS screwed up, and another example of how we are brainwashed to see things the way we are “supposed” to see them.
My comments are in red.
- Uke Man
Brazil president readies for runoff vote
By MICHAEL ASTOR, Associated Press Writer
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - Facing a surprisingly rough campaign, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has revived the populist rhetoric he had largely shed since taking office. Apparently, Silva was elected by appealing to the majority in his country - the regular people, but was losing support as a result of reneging on his campaign stance.
Fiery speeches contrasting the lives of Brazil's poor with the wealthy elite have left many Brazilians wondering whether he would push the country to the left if he wins a second four-year term in Sunday's runoff election. The "elite" are a small group; the "poor" are a large group. What (who?) is meant here by "many"? Obviously, the poor would "hope" for rather than "wonder" about a turn to the left - as in Venezuela; are the poor or the wealthy "wondering"? From whose perspective is this story being told?
Silva, a former union firebrand [ not a union "organizer," a "firebrand" - hmmm ... fire is destructive, isn't it! hmmmm ...] and Brazil's first working-class president, faced similar fears four years ago [ there's the answer as to perspective; it IS the "elite," the minority, who are "wondering" - the story is from THEIR perspective] but calmed them by adhering to market-friendly, pro-business policies that won praise even from conservatives. Oh, I see. He got elected by promising to aid the powerless majority, but then behaved well by actually serving the small, conservative, wealthy minority - who now fear he might - to get elected - actually serve the majority of people who voted for him in the first place and desperately NEED his attention.
But with his administration engulfed in corruption scandals, Silva has returned to his traditional base — the poor — rallying them with claims that his opponent, Geraldo Alckmin, would sell off cherished state assets and eliminate popular programs such as Family Allowance, which gives needy families monthly subsidies. OK, sounds familiar: make promises to the people / get elected / screw the people / lose support / make promises to the people and/or scare them ...
"The rich don't need the Brazilian state. The ones who need it are the poor people of this country," Silva said at rally on Sao Paulo's poor east side. "The poor are the ones who need public universities because the rich can pay — or even study in Paris."
While few believe [ here we go again: "few"!! Well the elite are already the "few." So, we are given a report on the view of a few of the few - THEIR perspective - as if THAT is what matters in a so-called "democracy."] Silva would adopt the radical populism of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez [How could he! Helping the mass of people rather than the few would be ass-backwards!] , they worry that he could entrench divisions in Brazil, which has one of the world's widest gaps between rich and poor. This is the wackiest sentence in the piece! These vultures don't worry that outrageous divisions exist; but ONLY that the victims of "one of the world's widest gaps between rich and poor" might think about it too much and stay angry about it.
"It's very easy to mobilize the poor. What's hard is to demobilize them after the election," said Bolivar Lamounier, director of the Augurium political consulting firm. "I'm afraid if he wins a second term, which looks likely, he will be tempted to take an authoritarian turn." So, according to the political consultant, the problem isn't the situation of the poor; and exploiting the poor to get elected is OK; the problem is puting the poor back in their cages after the election - democracy at work again!! (Notice how his tone reflects that of one on high explaining to another of the anointed the fine points of manipulating lesser beings, farm animals, or characters in a video game).
According to a poll released Thursday, Silva was leading Alckmin 63 percent to 37 percent — even better than his 2002 victory of 61 percent to 39 percent over Jose Serra. The poll interviewed 2,000 voters and had a margin of error of 2 percentage points. Hmmmm ... it seems weird that 63% of those polled on the election support a turn to the left, but "many" of those the reporters polled fear it.
In the first round on Oct. 1, Silva fell just short of the 50 percent needed to avoid a runoff. Polls had predicted he would win outright but then news media ran photos of $770,000 in cash that members of his party allegedly planned to spend on purchasing an incriminating file about Alckmin and his allies. Well, Silva's guys are crooks, but crooks trying to get the goods that prove Alckmin is a crook. Doesn't it seem strange that this stuff is seen as indicting only one of the crooks? - sounds like Foxxx News (and what happened to Dan Rather) to me.
Although Silva was never personally implicated, the expose reinforced suspicions of government corruption — suspicions driven home by Alckmin in his campaign speeches. Silva most likely IS corrupt - and Alckmin probably is too - but neither side really cares about that; the scary possibility is that one crook - in order to get elected - will chum up the masses and then not be able to calm them back into submission.
It was then that Silva stepped up the class-driven rhetoric.
He called Alckmin a tool of the rich and out of touch with the common man, while his allies painted a corruption scandal enveloping Silva's party as an elitist-driven conspiracy.
"The raw and naked truth is that, in the elite's political program ... the poor have not been included," Silva said at a Sao Paulo rally. "During elections the poor are worth more than bankers, but after the elections the poor are not even invited in for coffee."
The first-round vote split the nation along geographic lines, with Silva winning handily in Brazil's poor north while Alckmin took the industrialized south, including Sao Paulo, the state he served as governor.
In the second round, Silva counterattacked with an appeal to national pride, claiming that Alckmin would privatize government-run companies that are sacred cows to many Brazilians — oil giant Petrobras, Banco do Brasil, the national post office.
Alckmin called the president a "liar" to his face during their first debate — but Silva hammered away at the theme, and analysts say many of Brazil's 125 million voters believed him. Now the "many" really IS the "many."
"It's not very difficult with the low level of education in Brazil to motivate this prejudice," Lamounier said [Yeah, they're so stupid that when you screw them , they think you screwed 'em!]. "It was very hard to carry out privatization in Brazil, and while it made good business sense, when poor people got their phone bills or light bills they just saw that things cost a lot." There are plenty of people with more education than Mr. Lamounier who would call him a flunky of the elite (check out economist/author Greg Palast).
Alckmin has played on fears that Silva, like Chavez, could rewrite the constitution to give the poor more power. Silva has denied any attempt to split the country along class lines. Two shitheads at work: one wants to make sure the majority has minimal political power; the other vows not to split a country that is already split by "one of the world's widest gaps."
His socialist fire has already inflamed prejudices among upper-class Brazilians. Well, at least the PREJUDICE is admitted - notice, again, that helping the masses as opposed to the elite few is characterised as "fire" and "inflaming."
"If he's elected I hope he gets impeached during his first days in office," said Remo Dalla Zanna, a 67-year-old economist. "He's not the kind of person I want governing my country [ notice "my country" - John Jay, I believe, said of the USA that it "should be run by the people who own it."] . I don't want a crude and ignorant union leader. No one I know is going to vote for him." Well, I guess that means he'll surely win - how many voters does a member of a small elite group "know"?.
The poor majority [ the reason he'll win ], in large part, remains Silva's devout power base.
"With Lula, things have gotten much better for the poor," said Celsinha Coqueiro de Sousa, a 52-year-old maid, "and I hope they will get even better." Well!! isn't that just what you'd expect from some crude, ignorant, working-class peasant ?!! - - - - Uke Man
Associated Press writer Hellen Berger contributed to this report from Sao Paulo.
Happy Halloween
Hey Folks,
If you're from Ohio, this is a hoot!!! My guess is that even if you're not from Ohio, you can appreciate it.
But first, check out this DeWine ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbZ_w-LSytg . I bet that the three crusty biddies are Mike's old girl friends. Mike knows how to pick 'em!!
-Uke Man
Politicians’ revenge: when ads attack back
Sunday, October 29, 2006
MIKE HARDEN
Forget Haunted Hoochie and the other Halloween fright sites in Central Ohio. Last night I dreamed I was trapped in a catacomb where all the political TV ads of 2006 came to life.
Greeted at the entrance by a trio of pinch-faced crones, I was led to a torture chamber where a writhing figure was being stewed in a cauldron.
"Eye of newt and toe of frog," one of the witches recited of the recipe.
"Then throw in Sherrod Brown, the dog," a second cackled.
The trio screeched in unison, "We don’t trust you, Sherrod Brown," whacking him down into the broth with spatulas the size of canoe paddles.
Thunder crashed and lightning flashed, but behind a curtain churning the storm machine I glimpsed Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett, dressed as Elmer Fudd, chanting, "Be afwaid. Be vehwy, vehwy afwaid."
A spindly, aged man grabbed me by the lapels, imploring, "You’ve got to help me. I can’t find my way home."
"But you’re Bob Shamansky," I said. "You’ve got three homes. You ought to be able to find one of them."
"No, forget the Sham," hissed Emily Kreider. "Help me find a polling place where I can vote — retroactively."
A thunderous rumble echoed down the passageway. I looked up to glimpse a squadron of giant Macy’s Parade figures bumping their heads on the ceiling. There was Bob Taft, Tom Noe and Bob Ney.
"Make them disappear, for God’s sake!" Mike DeWine pleaded. "The Democrats are eating my lunch."
"Very well," answered the Good Witch of the Right, waving a wand and suddenly obscuring the figures in a gray plume.
"More smoke," DeWine commanded. "I think we need some more smoke. Don’t you think it makes it look more dramatic? "
I crawled from under the smokescreen and followed the faint strains of the movie theme from The Godfather into a semi-darkened den where a graying former political Capo di tutti capi held court behind a huge walnut desk.
"Don Celeste," his visitor began.
"It’s Dick," the godfather interrupted. "Cripes, Ted, I’m your brother."
"Forgive me, godfather. The Republicans are killing me. They’re running bad 8 mm footage of me taken with the same camera that shot Bigfoot. They say I’m just like you. Tax, tax, tax. Family tradition."
"Your point?" the godfather asked.
I crawled on.
"Pssssst!" I heard from a dark recess. "It’s Zack Space."
"Right," I answered. "And this here is Moon Unit and Dweezil."
"No, that’s really my name. You’ve got to save me from Joy Padgett."
"What’s she look like? "
"Little apple-doll lady. A real Tupperware Madonna. Drives a car with Terry Anderson’s stuffed head as a hood ornament."
I crawled on, buoyed by the sight of a faintly glowing exit sign in the distance. To reach it, I would have to make it past Mary Jo Kilroy’s bad-hair-day photo and three howling dogs.
My hands and knees were cut and scraped, but I didn’t look as bad as the GOP’s autopsy photo of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
I burst into the chill October air, gasping for just a breath of clean air. I would have paid good money for a Fred Ricart commercial.
Behind me, I could hear faintly the closing moments of the Kilroy ad for The Pryce Is Wrong. At the end of it, someone had supplanted Bob Barker’s pet-friendly goodbye:
"Make this a better world. Please remember to spay and neuter all politicians."
mharden@dispatch.com
If you're from Ohio, this is a hoot!!! My guess is that even if you're not from Ohio, you can appreciate it.
But first, check out this DeWine ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbZ_w-LSytg . I bet that the three crusty biddies are Mike's old girl friends. Mike knows how to pick 'em!!
-Uke Man
Politicians’ revenge: when ads attack back
Sunday, October 29, 2006
MIKE HARDEN
Forget Haunted Hoochie and the other Halloween fright sites in Central Ohio. Last night I dreamed I was trapped in a catacomb where all the political TV ads of 2006 came to life.
Greeted at the entrance by a trio of pinch-faced crones, I was led to a torture chamber where a writhing figure was being stewed in a cauldron.
"Eye of newt and toe of frog," one of the witches recited of the recipe.
"Then throw in Sherrod Brown, the dog," a second cackled.
The trio screeched in unison, "We don’t trust you, Sherrod Brown," whacking him down into the broth with spatulas the size of canoe paddles.
Thunder crashed and lightning flashed, but behind a curtain churning the storm machine I glimpsed Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett, dressed as Elmer Fudd, chanting, "Be afwaid. Be vehwy, vehwy afwaid."
A spindly, aged man grabbed me by the lapels, imploring, "You’ve got to help me. I can’t find my way home."
"But you’re Bob Shamansky," I said. "You’ve got three homes. You ought to be able to find one of them."
"No, forget the Sham," hissed Emily Kreider. "Help me find a polling place where I can vote — retroactively."
A thunderous rumble echoed down the passageway. I looked up to glimpse a squadron of giant Macy’s Parade figures bumping their heads on the ceiling. There was Bob Taft, Tom Noe and Bob Ney.
"Make them disappear, for God’s sake!" Mike DeWine pleaded. "The Democrats are eating my lunch."
"Very well," answered the Good Witch of the Right, waving a wand and suddenly obscuring the figures in a gray plume.
"More smoke," DeWine commanded. "I think we need some more smoke. Don’t you think it makes it look more dramatic? "
I crawled from under the smokescreen and followed the faint strains of the movie theme from The Godfather into a semi-darkened den where a graying former political Capo di tutti capi held court behind a huge walnut desk.
"Don Celeste," his visitor began.
"It’s Dick," the godfather interrupted. "Cripes, Ted, I’m your brother."
"Forgive me, godfather. The Republicans are killing me. They’re running bad 8 mm footage of me taken with the same camera that shot Bigfoot. They say I’m just like you. Tax, tax, tax. Family tradition."
"Your point?" the godfather asked.
I crawled on.
"Pssssst!" I heard from a dark recess. "It’s Zack Space."
"Right," I answered. "And this here is Moon Unit and Dweezil."
"No, that’s really my name. You’ve got to save me from Joy Padgett."
"What’s she look like? "
"Little apple-doll lady. A real Tupperware Madonna. Drives a car with Terry Anderson’s stuffed head as a hood ornament."
I crawled on, buoyed by the sight of a faintly glowing exit sign in the distance. To reach it, I would have to make it past Mary Jo Kilroy’s bad-hair-day photo and three howling dogs.
My hands and knees were cut and scraped, but I didn’t look as bad as the GOP’s autopsy photo of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
I burst into the chill October air, gasping for just a breath of clean air. I would have paid good money for a Fred Ricart commercial.
Behind me, I could hear faintly the closing moments of the Kilroy ad for The Pryce Is Wrong. At the end of it, someone had supplanted Bob Barker’s pet-friendly goodbye:
"Make this a better world. Please remember to spay and neuter all politicians."
mharden@dispatch.com
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Sorry
Hey Folks,
I'm sorry the blog went bare today (Sunday, October 29).
Blogger.com was inert all day long!! Couldn't post anything!!!
- Uke Man
I'm sorry the blog went bare today (Sunday, October 29).
Blogger.com was inert all day long!! Couldn't post anything!!!
- Uke Man
Speading "democracy" on the mushrooms
Well Folks,
The election is nearing, and most agree it’s important. Will the Democrats replace the Republicans? Will Nancy Pelosi or Bella Lugosi end up Speaker of the Mouse? Will the Monkey Man in the White House menagerie eat a banana in celebration or will Dennie Hastert throw up his kielbasa?
Will it be Morning in America or Mourning in America? Will we all be Raptured or Ruptured? Is Obama the savior, come at last to cast the Beast into the six-hundred-sixty-six foot deep lake of fire? Or is Bush here for two more years?
Will gays be allowed to get married? Will Rick Santorum be freed to have sex with more than one dog? Will the money we don’t have for Social Security be used to attack Iran? Will raising the minimum wage destroy Capitalism as we know it? Will the CIA dispatch Pat Robertson to assassinate Hugo Chavez? Will we finally support our troops with armored jock straps? Will we still be afraid, very, very, very afraid?
Will the “will of the people” be thwarted again by crooked voting machines? Or in new and improved ways? Will the price of gasoline go up or down after the election? Will anyone who supports taxes be elected? Will the new judges be activists or pacifists? And what about the children!!
Now, I guess all of this is important to someone - but I’m looking at this upcoming election a little differently. Generally I don’t even call it an election – it’s a test, one we’ve failed regularly for some time. Rick Santorum might be on to something with his man/beast preoccupation.
We’re taught that humanity is special. In one book it says god took five days of practice working up to making us - his pride and joy; and THEN he put so much effort into our creation that he took the next day off (he was self-employed) to rest up.
We’re supposed to be special because we walk “upright” (although that never made sense to me – just like that stuff about having opposable thumbs – it always seemed to me that if humans could, for example, put their elbows in their ears, THAT would “prove” we were “special” – we’re such a modest species).
We’re special, too, because we “think” – unlike the beasts (yeah, I know, Rick and other dog-lovers say dogs think, but animal-lovers have stars in their eyes ). We’re “rational” – or we must have been once, back in the “Age of Reason” anyway. We recognize “time” and comprehend our eventual demise. We’ve been to the Moon and invented hair transplants, buttocks enhancement, and right-turn-on-red (after stop).
We’re special !! Or so we’re told. I’m beginning to wonder.
So … for me this election is important too. It will answer that old question we used to hear women periodically ask their men in the old black-and-white movies: “Well, what are you? A man or a mouse?” To put it another way: “What are we? Humans? Or just another kind of beast?
The Bush machine has been purring right along quite successfully for six years without a hitch by dealing with us as if we were only stupid animals. The R’s throughout the country, too, have been doing quite nicely - thank you - for a long time now, via the same approach.
What’s that Duhbya said, ”Fool me once … uh … shame on you. Fool me … uh … can’t fool me again.” Like most things the dauphin utters, it seems to be untrue. This election will determine whether it is or not.
For just as long, the Democrats have stood bravely forth as the loyal opposition jellyfish; going along and pretending not to (at least as much as they felt it was personally prudent to pretend). Now how these stalwarts actually behave – should they win as the polls predict – or how they react – should Kkkarl Rove, Diebold, et.al. succeed in stealing the election again - will shed light on the advisability of our putting faith into the “democratic electoral process.” Likewise, how we react to that illumination will tell whether we are actually men or truly beasts.
If we act at the polls out of fear, hatred, faith, prejudice, ignorance, greed; or on the basis of thirty-second mud slides (“Don’t vote for Rapunzel !! She let her hair down. If her hair can’t count on her, how can we?”), we have no right to be called “special.”
If the Republicans steal the election and we don’t hit the streets, we have no right to be called “special.”
If the Republicans steal the election and the Democrats don’t hit the streets, and we don’t go after both of them, we have no right to be called “special.”
If the Democrats win the election and give us a new/improved Republican Light (with extra Lieberman) and we don’t hit the streets, we have no right to be called “special.”
Two quotations come to mind:
“Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public” - H.L. Mencken
“As my old Pappy used to say, ‘You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, and those are pretty good odds.’ ” - Brett Maverick
I’m betting with Mencken and Maverick.
- Uke Man
The election is nearing, and most agree it’s important. Will the Democrats replace the Republicans? Will Nancy Pelosi or Bella Lugosi end up Speaker of the Mouse? Will the Monkey Man in the White House menagerie eat a banana in celebration or will Dennie Hastert throw up his kielbasa?
Will it be Morning in America or Mourning in America? Will we all be Raptured or Ruptured? Is Obama the savior, come at last to cast the Beast into the six-hundred-sixty-six foot deep lake of fire? Or is Bush here for two more years?
Will gays be allowed to get married? Will Rick Santorum be freed to have sex with more than one dog? Will the money we don’t have for Social Security be used to attack Iran? Will raising the minimum wage destroy Capitalism as we know it? Will the CIA dispatch Pat Robertson to assassinate Hugo Chavez? Will we finally support our troops with armored jock straps? Will we still be afraid, very, very, very afraid?
Will the “will of the people” be thwarted again by crooked voting machines? Or in new and improved ways? Will the price of gasoline go up or down after the election? Will anyone who supports taxes be elected? Will the new judges be activists or pacifists? And what about the children!!
Now, I guess all of this is important to someone - but I’m looking at this upcoming election a little differently. Generally I don’t even call it an election – it’s a test, one we’ve failed regularly for some time. Rick Santorum might be on to something with his man/beast preoccupation.
We’re taught that humanity is special. In one book it says god took five days of practice working up to making us - his pride and joy; and THEN he put so much effort into our creation that he took the next day off (he was self-employed) to rest up.
We’re supposed to be special because we walk “upright” (although that never made sense to me – just like that stuff about having opposable thumbs – it always seemed to me that if humans could, for example, put their elbows in their ears, THAT would “prove” we were “special” – we’re such a modest species).
We’re special, too, because we “think” – unlike the beasts (yeah, I know, Rick and other dog-lovers say dogs think, but animal-lovers have stars in their eyes ). We’re “rational” – or we must have been once, back in the “Age of Reason” anyway. We recognize “time” and comprehend our eventual demise. We’ve been to the Moon and invented hair transplants, buttocks enhancement, and right-turn-on-red (after stop).
We’re special !! Or so we’re told. I’m beginning to wonder.
So … for me this election is important too. It will answer that old question we used to hear women periodically ask their men in the old black-and-white movies: “Well, what are you? A man or a mouse?” To put it another way: “What are we? Humans? Or just another kind of beast?
The Bush machine has been purring right along quite successfully for six years without a hitch by dealing with us as if we were only stupid animals. The R’s throughout the country, too, have been doing quite nicely - thank you - for a long time now, via the same approach.
What’s that Duhbya said, ”Fool me once … uh … shame on you. Fool me … uh … can’t fool me again.” Like most things the dauphin utters, it seems to be untrue. This election will determine whether it is or not.
For just as long, the Democrats have stood bravely forth as the loyal opposition jellyfish; going along and pretending not to (at least as much as they felt it was personally prudent to pretend). Now how these stalwarts actually behave – should they win as the polls predict – or how they react – should Kkkarl Rove, Diebold, et.al. succeed in stealing the election again - will shed light on the advisability of our putting faith into the “democratic electoral process.” Likewise, how we react to that illumination will tell whether we are actually men or truly beasts.
If we act at the polls out of fear, hatred, faith, prejudice, ignorance, greed; or on the basis of thirty-second mud slides (“Don’t vote for Rapunzel !! She let her hair down. If her hair can’t count on her, how can we?”), we have no right to be called “special.”
If the Republicans steal the election and we don’t hit the streets, we have no right to be called “special.”
If the Republicans steal the election and the Democrats don’t hit the streets, and we don’t go after both of them, we have no right to be called “special.”
If the Democrats win the election and give us a new/improved Republican Light (with extra Lieberman) and we don’t hit the streets, we have no right to be called “special.”
Two quotations come to mind:
“Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public” - H.L. Mencken
“As my old Pappy used to say, ‘You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, and those are pretty good odds.’ ” - Brett Maverick
I’m betting with Mencken and Maverick.
- Uke Man
Happy Days ????
Hey Folks,
You may have heard from me before that, in my view, every society/culture/civilization’s “Prime Directive” is to further its own existence while maintaining or accentuating the disparate benefits and degradations of its various citizens.
Furthermore, this is accomplished by inventing a mythology to justify, disguise, or distract from the blatantly depraved, prejudicial, or otherwise unsavory reality of the system.
This Orwellian reality is evident today in the Bush regime’s attempts to replace science and the “reality based community” with “faith” – faith in the leader and faith in the leader’s god - "Watch the Wizard, not the man or the depravity behind the curtain."
Well, listening to NPR Saturday, I heard a piece discussing a memoir from the 50’s. It struck me how clearly it demonstrated the disconnect between what really was and what the culture had created for itself to believe.
Give a listen and see what you think:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6394288
- Uke Man
You may have heard from me before that, in my view, every society/culture/civilization’s “Prime Directive” is to further its own existence while maintaining or accentuating the disparate benefits and degradations of its various citizens.
Furthermore, this is accomplished by inventing a mythology to justify, disguise, or distract from the blatantly depraved, prejudicial, or otherwise unsavory reality of the system.
This Orwellian reality is evident today in the Bush regime’s attempts to replace science and the “reality based community” with “faith” – faith in the leader and faith in the leader’s god - "Watch the Wizard, not the man or the depravity behind the curtain."
Well, listening to NPR Saturday, I heard a piece discussing a memoir from the 50’s. It struck me how clearly it demonstrated the disconnect between what really was and what the culture had created for itself to believe.
Give a listen and see what you think:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6394288
- Uke Man
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Faith(less) Healing
Hey Folks,
More evidence that this is the "Greatest Nation on the face of the earth" and that "if you don't support the president, you don't support the troops."
- Uke Man
September 4, 2006
Health Policy Malpractice
By PAUL KRUGMAN
( a ukethanks to Phyll)
Let me tell you about two government-financed health care programs. One, the Veterans Health Administration, is a stunning success, but the administration and Republicans in Congress refuse to build on that success, because it doesn't fit their conservative agenda.
The other, Medicare Advantage, is a clear failure, but it's expanding rapidly thanks to large subsidies the administration rammed through Congress in 2003.
I've written about the V.A. before; it was the subject of a recent informative article in Time. Some still think of the V.A. as a decrepit institution, which it was in the Reagan and Bush I years. But thanks to reforms begun under Bill Clinton, it's now providing remarkably high-quality health care at remarkably low cost.
The key to the V.A.'s success is its long-term relationship with its clients: veterans, once in the V.A. system, normally stay in it for life.This means that the V.A. can easily keep track of a patient's medical history, allowing it to make much better use of information technology than other health care providers.
Unlike all but a few doctors in the private sector, V.A. doctors have instant access to patients' medical records via a systemwide network, which reduces both costs and medical errors.The long-term relationship with patients also lets the V.A. save money by investing heavily in preventive medicine, an area in which the private sector - which makes money by treating the sick, not by keeping people healthy - has shown little interest.
The result is a system that achieves higher customer satisfaction than the private sector, higher quality of care by a number of measures and lower mortality rates - at much lower cost per patient.
Not surprisingly, hundreds of thousands of veterans have switched from private physicians to the V.A. The commander of the American Legion has proposed letting elderly vets spend their Medicare benefits at V.A. facilities, which would lead to better medical care and large government savings.
Instead, the Bush administration has restricted access to the V.A. system, limiting it to poor vets or those with service-related injuries. And as for allowing elderly vets to get better, cheaper health care: "Conservatives," writes Time, "fear such an arrangement would be a Trojan horse, setting up an even larger national health-care program and taking more business from the private sector."
Think about that: they won't let vets on Medicare buy into the V.A. system, not because they believe this policy initiative would fail, but because they're afraid it would succeed.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration is pursuing a failed idea from the 1990's: channeling Medicare recipients into private H.M.O.'s. The theory was that H.M.O.'s, by bringing private-sector efficiency and the magic of the marketplace to health care, would be able to do what the V.A. has achieved in practice: provide better care at lower cost.But the theory was wrong.
Years of experience show that H.M.O.'s actually have substantially higher costs per patient than conventional Medicare, because they add an expensive extra layer of bureaucracy and also spend heavily on marketing. H.M.O.'s for Medicare recipients prospered for a while by selectively covering relatively healthy older Americans, but when the government began paying less for those likely to have low medical costs, many H.M.O.'s dropped out of the Medicare market.
In 2003, however, the Bush administration pushed through the Medicare Advantage program, which offers heavy subsidies to H.M.O.'s. According to the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Medicare Advantage plans cost the government 11 percent more per person than traditional Medicare. Oh, and mortality rates in these plans are 40 percent higher than those of elderly veterans covered by the V.A.
But thanks to the subsidy, membership in Medicare Advantage plans is surging.On one side, then, the administration and its allies in Congress oppose expanding the best health care system in America, even though that expansion would save taxpayer dollars, because they're afraid that allowing a successful government program to expand would undermine their antigovernment crusade and displease powerful business lobbies.
On the other side, ideology and fealty to interest groups make them willing to waste billions subsidizing private H.M.O.'s. Remember that contrast the next time you hear some conservative going on about excessive spending on entitlements, and declaring that we need to cut back on Medicare and Medicaid benefits.
More evidence that this is the "Greatest Nation on the face of the earth" and that "if you don't support the president, you don't support the troops."
- Uke Man
September 4, 2006
Health Policy Malpractice
By PAUL KRUGMAN
( a ukethanks to Phyll)
Let me tell you about two government-financed health care programs. One, the Veterans Health Administration, is a stunning success, but the administration and Republicans in Congress refuse to build on that success, because it doesn't fit their conservative agenda.
The other, Medicare Advantage, is a clear failure, but it's expanding rapidly thanks to large subsidies the administration rammed through Congress in 2003.
I've written about the V.A. before; it was the subject of a recent informative article in Time. Some still think of the V.A. as a decrepit institution, which it was in the Reagan and Bush I years. But thanks to reforms begun under Bill Clinton, it's now providing remarkably high-quality health care at remarkably low cost.
The key to the V.A.'s success is its long-term relationship with its clients: veterans, once in the V.A. system, normally stay in it for life.This means that the V.A. can easily keep track of a patient's medical history, allowing it to make much better use of information technology than other health care providers.
Unlike all but a few doctors in the private sector, V.A. doctors have instant access to patients' medical records via a systemwide network, which reduces both costs and medical errors.The long-term relationship with patients also lets the V.A. save money by investing heavily in preventive medicine, an area in which the private sector - which makes money by treating the sick, not by keeping people healthy - has shown little interest.
The result is a system that achieves higher customer satisfaction than the private sector, higher quality of care by a number of measures and lower mortality rates - at much lower cost per patient.
Not surprisingly, hundreds of thousands of veterans have switched from private physicians to the V.A. The commander of the American Legion has proposed letting elderly vets spend their Medicare benefits at V.A. facilities, which would lead to better medical care and large government savings.
Instead, the Bush administration has restricted access to the V.A. system, limiting it to poor vets or those with service-related injuries. And as for allowing elderly vets to get better, cheaper health care: "Conservatives," writes Time, "fear such an arrangement would be a Trojan horse, setting up an even larger national health-care program and taking more business from the private sector."
Think about that: they won't let vets on Medicare buy into the V.A. system, not because they believe this policy initiative would fail, but because they're afraid it would succeed.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration is pursuing a failed idea from the 1990's: channeling Medicare recipients into private H.M.O.'s. The theory was that H.M.O.'s, by bringing private-sector efficiency and the magic of the marketplace to health care, would be able to do what the V.A. has achieved in practice: provide better care at lower cost.But the theory was wrong.
Years of experience show that H.M.O.'s actually have substantially higher costs per patient than conventional Medicare, because they add an expensive extra layer of bureaucracy and also spend heavily on marketing. H.M.O.'s for Medicare recipients prospered for a while by selectively covering relatively healthy older Americans, but when the government began paying less for those likely to have low medical costs, many H.M.O.'s dropped out of the Medicare market.
In 2003, however, the Bush administration pushed through the Medicare Advantage program, which offers heavy subsidies to H.M.O.'s. According to the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Medicare Advantage plans cost the government 11 percent more per person than traditional Medicare. Oh, and mortality rates in these plans are 40 percent higher than those of elderly veterans covered by the V.A.
But thanks to the subsidy, membership in Medicare Advantage plans is surging.On one side, then, the administration and its allies in Congress oppose expanding the best health care system in America, even though that expansion would save taxpayer dollars, because they're afraid that allowing a successful government program to expand would undermine their antigovernment crusade and displease powerful business lobbies.
On the other side, ideology and fealty to interest groups make them willing to waste billions subsidizing private H.M.O.'s. Remember that contrast the next time you hear some conservative going on about excessive spending on entitlements, and declaring that we need to cut back on Medicare and Medicaid benefits.
"We can all go to hell together, or we can go separately."
"The climate is not that pleasant, but all our friends will be there."
"Christian Country" my ass !!!
Famous Americans and one Roman Pagan said the following:
1. "While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us." - James Madison
2. "Neither religion nor liberty can long subsist in the tumult of altercation and amidst the noise and violence of faction." - Samuel Adams
3. "I hate polemical (hostile) politics and polemical divinity." - John Adams
4. "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." - In a treaty with the Muslim nation of Tripoli initiated by Washington, completed by John Adams, and ratified by the Senate in 1797, the Founding Father of the U.S. so declared this.
5. "As to Jesus of Nazareth ...I think the system of morals and his religion as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have...some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble." - Benjamin Franklin
6. "I do not worry whether or not God is on my side; I worry that I am on God's side." - Abraham Lincoln
7. "Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no Gods, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in doing so."
- John Leland, a Baptist evangelist who worked with Jefferson and Madison to secure religions freedom in Virginia.
8. I never told my religion nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wish to change another's creed. I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives." - Thomas Jefferson
9. He believed that a separation of church and state was necessary to protect the church, because the ambitions and vices of men could pervert the church, turning faith into a means of temporal (secular) power.
- Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island
10. "When a religion is good, I perceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support [it]. so that its [believers] are obligated to call for the help of a civil power, it is a sign ...of its being a bad one." - Benjamin Franklin
11. "I write with freedom, because, while I claim a right to believe in one God, I yield as freely to other that of believing in three. Both religions, I find, make honest men, and that is the only point society has any right to look to." - Thomas Jefferson
12. Every man is acocuntable to God alone for his religions opinions, and ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." - George Washington
13. On the Great Seal of the United States appear the words, "Annuit Coeptis" or "Providence has favored our undertaking." Name the phrase's source. - Virgil, in Georgics
14. "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my legs." - Thomas Jefferson
1. "While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us." - James Madison
2. "Neither religion nor liberty can long subsist in the tumult of altercation and amidst the noise and violence of faction." - Samuel Adams
3. "I hate polemical (hostile) politics and polemical divinity." - John Adams
4. "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." - In a treaty with the Muslim nation of Tripoli initiated by Washington, completed by John Adams, and ratified by the Senate in 1797, the Founding Father of the U.S. so declared this.
5. "As to Jesus of Nazareth ...I think the system of morals and his religion as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have...some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble." - Benjamin Franklin
6. "I do not worry whether or not God is on my side; I worry that I am on God's side." - Abraham Lincoln
7. "Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no Gods, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in doing so."
- John Leland, a Baptist evangelist who worked with Jefferson and Madison to secure religions freedom in Virginia.
8. I never told my religion nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wish to change another's creed. I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives." - Thomas Jefferson
9. He believed that a separation of church and state was necessary to protect the church, because the ambitions and vices of men could pervert the church, turning faith into a means of temporal (secular) power.
- Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island
10. "When a religion is good, I perceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support [it]. so that its [believers] are obligated to call for the help of a civil power, it is a sign ...of its being a bad one." - Benjamin Franklin
11. "I write with freedom, because, while I claim a right to believe in one God, I yield as freely to other that of believing in three. Both religions, I find, make honest men, and that is the only point society has any right to look to." - Thomas Jefferson
12. Every man is acocuntable to God alone for his religions opinions, and ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." - George Washington
13. On the Great Seal of the United States appear the words, "Annuit Coeptis" or "Providence has favored our undertaking." Name the phrase's source. - Virgil, in Georgics
14. "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my legs." - Thomas Jefferson
Friday, October 27, 2006
Yep, No racism in this country !!
Hey Folks,
You know, periodically we hear how racism is a thing of the past in the US of A. Yeah, right.
White people say that - and some Black, Republican Uncle Toms who make a living working propaganda for the Man say it too. But it's bullshit just the same.
Talk is cheap; and behavior contradicts the talk. Check out the story below. But first check out the political ad put out by the National Republican operation aimed at Harold Ford, the Tennessee son of a Black man and a White woman, which - in this country - makes him "Black."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vZF5ZTu2Go
Now, I'm sorry, but anybody with a brain can see what these Republican fucks are doing in this ad: racism as old as slavery: "this Negro is aiming to despoil white women!!"
The fact that there are plenty of White people (and some Black people too) willing to publicly deny this ad is racist, proves my point. The story about the Masons just underlines it.
- Uke Man
Masons struggle with racial separation
By JAY REEVES, Associated Press Oct 23
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - The Masons, the storied fraternal order whose members have included Mozart, George Washington and John Wayne, has become entwined across the Deep South with the remnants of another tradition in these parts: strict segregation.
Nationwide, Masonic groups operate in a separate-but-supposedly-equal system in which whites typically join one network of Masonic groups, called Grand Lodges, and blacks typically join another, called Prince Hall.
But in the South, it goes further: White-controlled Grand Lodges in 12 Southern states do not even officially recognize black Masons as their brothers — the Masonic term is "mutual recognition" — and in some cases, black lodges have taken similar stands.
Masons have quietly debated race relations for years, and the issue is increasingly coming into public view.
In Alabama, some dissident whites have split from the lodge system, and Republican Gov. Bob Riley's membership in an all-white lodge has drawn fire in his campaign for a second term. In North Carolina, white Masons recently voted down a bid to recognize members of the black group as fellow Masons.
"Only the states of the old Confederacy, minus Virginia and plus West Virginia, don't have mutual recognition," said Paul Bessel, a Maryland Mason who wrote a book on the topic. "There are, I'm sorry to say, some Masons who are racists. But the vast majority don't feel that way."
Grand Lodges and Prince Hall groups coexist with few problems and officially recognize each other in 38 states and the District of Columbia, with members free to mingle and attend each other's meetings. Frank Chandler, a leader of the black Masonic group in Delaware, was happy to see mutual recognition granted in his state last month.
"The importance of it to me is that this is 2006. If we as black folks and they as white folks can't live together, we're got real problems," said Chandler, a retired Delaware state trooper.
But Bessel said the separation in the Deep South is entrenched and remains in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.
It also extends to Shriners, the men who wear funny red hats and operate a network of 22 charity hospitals for children. Shriners draw all their members from Masonry, and many of their policies are based on Masonic rules, Bessel said.
The Masonic movement, also known as Freemasonry, began in Enlightenment-area England and is known for its white aprons and architectural symbols. It came to the United States more than 250 years ago. Mainstream Masonry was controlled by whites, so blacks began meeting at lodges of their own in the 1770s; the organization that resulted was later named for one of the founders, Prince Hall.
The all-black lodges flourished alongside their white counterparts. White Masons in Washington state, briefly considered admitting Prince Hall Masons in 1890, Bessel said, but the resulting uproar kept most such proposals on hold until 1989, when the Grand Lodge of Connecticut passed a resolution formally recognizing black Masons.
Since then, 37 other state organizations have granted mutual recognition.
In Alabama, where critics say Grand Lodge members rejected a move to recognize black Masons in 1999, a few white Masons have formed a group outside the old system.
The issue also has become political, with Democrats accusing Alabama's governor of racism for his membership in an all-white lodge. Riley said he didn't know there were two separate Masonic groups and hadn't heard of mutual recognition until questioned recently by an Associated Press reporter.
This fall, white Masons in North Carolina refused to grant recognition to Prince Hall Masons. The vote was 681 for recognition and 404 against — just short of the two-thirds majority required, according to Ric Carter, editor of the state's Masonic newspaper. Black Masons in North Carolina granted recognition of white Masons in 2004.
The whites' refusal to reciprocate "raises the ugly head of racism, segregation, all over again," said the leader of Prince Hall Masons in North Carolina, Milton G. "Toby" Fitch Jr., a state judge and former majority leader in the North Carolina House.
"The best analogy I can give is Baptist churches: You have black Baptist churches, and you have white Baptist churches. But they both recognize each other as being Baptist. We are talking about accepting the fact that `you practice Masonry and I practice Masonry.'"
The head of Prince Hall Masons in Arkansas, Cleveland Wilson, said neither black nor white groups there have discussed mutual recognition. Extending Masonic brotherhood would be nice, he said, "but we're fine without them."
"I'm of the attitude that since they haven't shown any interest, I'm not interested either," Wilson said.
You know, periodically we hear how racism is a thing of the past in the US of A. Yeah, right.
White people say that - and some Black, Republican Uncle Toms who make a living working propaganda for the Man say it too. But it's bullshit just the same.
Talk is cheap; and behavior contradicts the talk. Check out the story below. But first check out the political ad put out by the National Republican operation aimed at Harold Ford, the Tennessee son of a Black man and a White woman, which - in this country - makes him "Black."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vZF5ZTu2Go
Now, I'm sorry, but anybody with a brain can see what these Republican fucks are doing in this ad: racism as old as slavery: "this Negro is aiming to despoil white women!!"
The fact that there are plenty of White people (and some Black people too) willing to publicly deny this ad is racist, proves my point. The story about the Masons just underlines it.
- Uke Man
Masons struggle with racial separation
By JAY REEVES, Associated Press Oct 23
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - The Masons, the storied fraternal order whose members have included Mozart, George Washington and John Wayne, has become entwined across the Deep South with the remnants of another tradition in these parts: strict segregation.
Nationwide, Masonic groups operate in a separate-but-supposedly-equal system in which whites typically join one network of Masonic groups, called Grand Lodges, and blacks typically join another, called Prince Hall.
But in the South, it goes further: White-controlled Grand Lodges in 12 Southern states do not even officially recognize black Masons as their brothers — the Masonic term is "mutual recognition" — and in some cases, black lodges have taken similar stands.
Masons have quietly debated race relations for years, and the issue is increasingly coming into public view.
In Alabama, some dissident whites have split from the lodge system, and Republican Gov. Bob Riley's membership in an all-white lodge has drawn fire in his campaign for a second term. In North Carolina, white Masons recently voted down a bid to recognize members of the black group as fellow Masons.
"Only the states of the old Confederacy, minus Virginia and plus West Virginia, don't have mutual recognition," said Paul Bessel, a Maryland Mason who wrote a book on the topic. "There are, I'm sorry to say, some Masons who are racists. But the vast majority don't feel that way."
Grand Lodges and Prince Hall groups coexist with few problems and officially recognize each other in 38 states and the District of Columbia, with members free to mingle and attend each other's meetings. Frank Chandler, a leader of the black Masonic group in Delaware, was happy to see mutual recognition granted in his state last month.
"The importance of it to me is that this is 2006. If we as black folks and they as white folks can't live together, we're got real problems," said Chandler, a retired Delaware state trooper.
But Bessel said the separation in the Deep South is entrenched and remains in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.
It also extends to Shriners, the men who wear funny red hats and operate a network of 22 charity hospitals for children. Shriners draw all their members from Masonry, and many of their policies are based on Masonic rules, Bessel said.
The Masonic movement, also known as Freemasonry, began in Enlightenment-area England and is known for its white aprons and architectural symbols. It came to the United States more than 250 years ago. Mainstream Masonry was controlled by whites, so blacks began meeting at lodges of their own in the 1770s; the organization that resulted was later named for one of the founders, Prince Hall.
The all-black lodges flourished alongside their white counterparts. White Masons in Washington state, briefly considered admitting Prince Hall Masons in 1890, Bessel said, but the resulting uproar kept most such proposals on hold until 1989, when the Grand Lodge of Connecticut passed a resolution formally recognizing black Masons.
Since then, 37 other state organizations have granted mutual recognition.
In Alabama, where critics say Grand Lodge members rejected a move to recognize black Masons in 1999, a few white Masons have formed a group outside the old system.
The issue also has become political, with Democrats accusing Alabama's governor of racism for his membership in an all-white lodge. Riley said he didn't know there were two separate Masonic groups and hadn't heard of mutual recognition until questioned recently by an Associated Press reporter.
This fall, white Masons in North Carolina refused to grant recognition to Prince Hall Masons. The vote was 681 for recognition and 404 against — just short of the two-thirds majority required, according to Ric Carter, editor of the state's Masonic newspaper. Black Masons in North Carolina granted recognition of white Masons in 2004.
The whites' refusal to reciprocate "raises the ugly head of racism, segregation, all over again," said the leader of Prince Hall Masons in North Carolina, Milton G. "Toby" Fitch Jr., a state judge and former majority leader in the North Carolina House.
"The best analogy I can give is Baptist churches: You have black Baptist churches, and you have white Baptist churches. But they both recognize each other as being Baptist. We are talking about accepting the fact that `you practice Masonry and I practice Masonry.'"
The head of Prince Hall Masons in Arkansas, Cleveland Wilson, said neither black nor white groups there have discussed mutual recognition. Extending Masonic brotherhood would be nice, he said, "but we're fine without them."
"I'm of the attitude that since they haven't shown any interest, I'm not interested either," Wilson said.
Yeah, we better cut back - in OTHER countries !!
Hey Folks,
I have this fantasy that some future winter, when people are suffering from 112 degree heat in Minneapolis, a vigilante group will arrest Rush Limbaugh, strip him naked, stake him down on his back in Death Valley over a hill of fire ants, pour honey all over him, and leave him talking to himself about how there is no global warming and how eco-nazis hate Bush and are trying to destroy the economy (which – by the way – is "booming"), while yellow-jackets and deer flies gradually get wind of the delicious honey-sweat-fear aroma.
If he’s lucky, Rush’ll still be high on Oxycontin.
I have this fantasy that some future winter, when people are suffering from 112 degree heat in Minneapolis, a vigilante group will arrest Rush Limbaugh, strip him naked, stake him down on his back in Death Valley over a hill of fire ants, pour honey all over him, and leave him talking to himself about how there is no global warming and how eco-nazis hate Bush and are trying to destroy the economy (which – by the way – is "booming"), while yellow-jackets and deer flies gradually get wind of the delicious honey-sweat-fear aroma.
If he’s lucky, Rush’ll still be high on Oxycontin.
Human beings generally are stupid enough to either believe assholes like Rush or ignorant enough to be immobilized by doubt spawned by apparently self-confident windbags like Rush.
As a result, we are doomed to learning the hard way and somewhat deserving of what we get.
Still, when the shit hits the fan - as laid out in the story below - I'd really like to join the posse that brings justice to Mr. Limbaugh.
- Uke Man
Humans living far beyond planet's means: WWF
By Ben Blanchard Tue Oct 24
BEIJING (Reuters) - Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday.
Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.
"For more than 20 years we have exceeded the earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said, launching the WWF's 2006 Living Planet Report.
"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape, an American, said in Beijing.
People in the United Arab Emirates were placing most stress per capita on the planet ahead of those in the United States, Finland and Canada, the report said.
Australia was also living well beyond its means.
The average Australian used 6.6 "global" hectares to support their developed lifestyle, ranking behind the United States and Canada, but ahead of the United Kingdom, Russia, China and Japan.
"If the rest of the world led the kind of lifestyles we do here in Australia, we would require three-and-a-half planets to provide the resources we use and to absorb the waste," said Greg Bourne, WWF-Australia chief executive officer.
Everyone would have to change lifestyles -- cutting use of fossil fuels and improving management of everything from farming to fisheries.
"As countries work to improve the well-being of their people, they risk bypassing the goal of sustainability," said Leape, speaking in an energy-efficient building at Beijing's prestigous Tsinghua University.
"It is inevitable that this disconnect will eventually limit the abilities of poor countries to develop and rich countries to maintain their prosperity," he added.
The report said humans' "ecological footprint" -- the demand people place on the natural world -- was 25 percent greater than the planet's annual ability to provide everything from food to energy and recycle all human waste in 2003.
In the previous report, the 2001 overshoot was 21 percent.
"On current projections humanity, will be using two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050 -- if those resources have not run out by then," the latest report said.
"People are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources."
RISING POPULATION
"Humanity's footprint has more than tripled between 1961 and 2003," it said. Consumption has outpaced a surge in the world's population, to 6.5 billion from 3 billion in 1960. U.N. projections show a surge to 9 billion people around 2050.
It said that the footprint from use of fossil fuels, whose heat-trapping emissions are widely blamed for pushing up world temperatures, was the fastest-growing cause of strain.
Leape said China, home to a fifth of the world's population and whose economy is booming, was making the right move in pledging to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years.
"Much will depend on the decisions made by China, India and other rapidly developing countries," he added.
The WWF report also said that an index tracking 1,300 vetebrate species -- birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals -- showed that populations had fallen for most by about 30 percent because of factors including a loss of habitats to farms.
Among species most under pressure included the swordfish and the South African Cape vulture. Those bucking the trend included rising populations of the Javan rhinoceros and the northern hairy-nosed wombat in Australia.
(Additional reporting by Alister Doyle in Helsinki)
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Star Wars
Hey Folks,
Back when Ronnie Reagan was talking “Star Wars,” the anti-missile missile “defense” system, it was clear to me what he was driving at. It wasn’t “to further U.S. national security, homeland security,” but to further “foreign policy objectives” (see story below).
It was sold to the gullible as being designed to protect them; but actually the strategy was to build a protective shield around us so that we could nuke anyone we wanted without fear of retaliation.
Actually, I probably should say: It was blackmail – i.e. with the impermeable shield, everyone would know that we COULD nuke them and they would be shit out of luck to do anything about it; hence, they would fall in line with “American interests” – i.e. with the interests of the minority of rich Americans.
Nowadays, the focus is a bit different. Yeah, we’re working on the Star Wars anti-missile missile (to take care of any Axis of Evil upstarts), but the future is in killer satellites and Moon-based micro-wave death rays that can zap anything that moves outside the lines of “American interests.”
Hence, the Bush Regime’s policy regarding space.
- Uke Man
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President Bush has signed a newly revised space policy that sets defense as a priority and rejects future negotiations that might limit U.S. flexibility in space, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
The document, released earlier this month with no public announcement, emphasizes security issues, the newspaper reported.
Bush's top goals, as stated in the document, are to "strengthen the nation's space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives" and to "enable unhindered U.S. operation in and through space to defend our interest there," the newspaper reported.
The top goals of the Clinton administration had been more of a balance of science and security, the Post said.
The Bush administration said the first full revision of overall U.S. space policy in 10 years was not a step toward putting weapons systems into Earth orbit, the newspaper reported.
A senior administration official, who asked not to be identified, told the paper: "This policy is not about developing or deploying weapons in space. Period."
The newspaper cited two arms experts who said that the Bush policy goes beyond the previous Clinton policy which opened the door to developing space weapons.
Theresa Hitchens, director of the nonpartisan Center for Defense Information, was quoted as saying that the Bush policy "kicks the door a little more open to a space-war fighting strategy" and has a "very unilateral tone to it."
The Bush administration official strongly disagreed with that characterization, saying the policy encourages international diplomacy and cooperation, The Washington Post said. But the official said the document also made clear the U.S. position: that no new arms-control agreements are needed because there is no space arms race, the report said.
According to the report, the Bush policy accepts current international agreements but states: "The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space."
Back when Ronnie Reagan was talking “Star Wars,” the anti-missile missile “defense” system, it was clear to me what he was driving at. It wasn’t “to further U.S. national security, homeland security,” but to further “foreign policy objectives” (see story below).
It was sold to the gullible as being designed to protect them; but actually the strategy was to build a protective shield around us so that we could nuke anyone we wanted without fear of retaliation.
Actually, I probably should say: It was blackmail – i.e. with the impermeable shield, everyone would know that we COULD nuke them and they would be shit out of luck to do anything about it; hence, they would fall in line with “American interests” – i.e. with the interests of the minority of rich Americans.
Nowadays, the focus is a bit different. Yeah, we’re working on the Star Wars anti-missile missile (to take care of any Axis of Evil upstarts), but the future is in killer satellites and Moon-based micro-wave death rays that can zap anything that moves outside the lines of “American interests.”
Hence, the Bush Regime’s policy regarding space.
- Uke Man
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President Bush has signed a newly revised space policy that sets defense as a priority and rejects future negotiations that might limit U.S. flexibility in space, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
The document, released earlier this month with no public announcement, emphasizes security issues, the newspaper reported.
Bush's top goals, as stated in the document, are to "strengthen the nation's space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives" and to "enable unhindered U.S. operation in and through space to defend our interest there," the newspaper reported.
The top goals of the Clinton administration had been more of a balance of science and security, the Post said.
The Bush administration said the first full revision of overall U.S. space policy in 10 years was not a step toward putting weapons systems into Earth orbit, the newspaper reported.
A senior administration official, who asked not to be identified, told the paper: "This policy is not about developing or deploying weapons in space. Period."
The newspaper cited two arms experts who said that the Bush policy goes beyond the previous Clinton policy which opened the door to developing space weapons.
Theresa Hitchens, director of the nonpartisan Center for Defense Information, was quoted as saying that the Bush policy "kicks the door a little more open to a space-war fighting strategy" and has a "very unilateral tone to it."
The Bush administration official strongly disagreed with that characterization, saying the policy encourages international diplomacy and cooperation, The Washington Post said. But the official said the document also made clear the U.S. position: that no new arms-control agreements are needed because there is no space arms race, the report said.
According to the report, the Bush policy accepts current international agreements but states: "The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space."
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Does my Free Press look fat in these pants?
Hey Folks,
Here’s another double-barreled example of the “Free Press.”
First of all, these “talk shows” are actually corporate and privately financed propaganda machines. And the ones invited to the Bush panic convention are zealots of the right.
The story mentions the financial difficulties of Air America (the new, center-to-left talk show network) which finds it much, much more difficult to find deep-pocketed corporate/millionaire benefactors; but the reporter doesn’t comment on the implication that the press is “Free” only for those who can Pay for it. Nor does she comment on the result of that implication: i.e. one side of the debate is widely disseminated and one is suppressed.
That's a Free Press? Well, supposedly it is HERE but not in any country with which we butt heads.
Finally, the story itself presents a false and misleading “fact”:
“On Tuesday the White House invited more than three dozen hosts from both sides of the political spectrum so they could interview top administration officials” (emphasis added).
That’s just flat-out false. One has to wonder whether the reporter is stupid, simply passed along the official bullshit shoved her way by the White House, or has been so acculturated by the ubiquitous propaganda that she BELIEVES what she says.
Free Press, my ass.
- Uke Man
REUTERS
Bush, Republicans turn to talk shows for help
By Andrea Hopkins
CINCINNATI (Reuters) - American radio talk-show hosts have become frontline warriors in a drive by President George W. Bush and his Republicans to pull off a surprise and maintain control of Congress in November 7 elections.
In the face of opinion polls favoring Democrats and bad news from Iraq, Bush turned to the powerful hosts of talk radio two weeks before Americans elect 435 representatives to the U.S. House and a third of the 100-member Senate.
On Tuesday the White House invited more than three dozen hosts from both sides of the political spectrum so they could interview top administration officials.
Radio personalities and programs play a political role in many countries. In America, they have become largely a powerful ally for conservatives, even as the rise of Internet blogs has broadened the spectrum of voter voices being heard.
"The liberal media wants to suppress the vote, they want to convince you that this race is over, they want you to go away and they want us to lose. I'm here to tell you that you have the power (to prove them wrong)," conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity told a Republican rally in Cincinnati last week in a jab at what conservatives call a liberal mainstream media.
Hannity, who does a show for ABC Radio that reaches 13 million people a week as well as a television show for Fox News, said his shows give politicians the opportunity for "real interviews, not soundbites" -- the sort of unfiltered access to voters that mainstream media don't offer.
"Look, on my radio program today I had the vice president, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, Karl Rove, Tony Snow and Dan Bartlett. That's all in one radio show," Hannity told Reuters in an interview.
American University communications professor Jane Hall said that access appeals to politicians frustrated by a traditional news cycle they have little control over.
"It's a way to go around the filter, go directly to people who might be more inclined to agree. It's a friendlier audience," Hall said.
UPHILL BATTLE
The five largest U.S. talk radio shows by audience are all conservative programs with audiences of between 4 million and 14 million people a week, according to trade magazine Talkers. Rush Limbaugh, who declined to be interviewed, has the largest audience, while Hannity is a close second.
Earlier this month, the liberal news and talk radio network Air America filed for bankruptcy after slightly more than two years on the air.
Analysts said the rise of other populist media -- most notably the Internet -- along with growing schisms among conservatives over immigration, the Iraq war, budget deficits and social policy will make it tougher this year for talk radio to help Republicans chalk up an election win.
"Talk radio is still predominantly a conservative phenomenon, but it's getting smaller in scope and if it's going to be effective for conservative Republican candidates, it's going to have to be more intense than it used to be," said Michael Frank, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think-tank.
"The conservative base itself is not exactly united and cheering on behalf of one party this time ... and that may blunt some of the effectiveness of talk radio as a kind of organizing tool for Republican candidates."
Still, radio hosts are hoping the political activism of their audience will result in another strong Election Day turnout for Republicans. A study by Talkers magazine found 74 percent of talk radio listeners voted in 2004 -- well above the average U.S. election year turnout.
"If all of us go out to the polls and get every person we know to go out the poll ... the great thing that will happen on election day is we will confuse and confound the pundits and confuse and confound the liberal media," Hannity told the Republican rally in Cincinnati.
His audience was enthusiastic.
"I'm old, I'm tired, I've got diabetes, and I'm freezing to death, and yet I'm glad I came here -- it makes me want to work harder," said Zip Jaycox, 79, a self-described "strong Bush supporter and strong Republican" volunteer who goes door-to-door with her husband to rally party voters.
"We're going to get out and work like the very dickens."
Here’s another double-barreled example of the “Free Press.”
First of all, these “talk shows” are actually corporate and privately financed propaganda machines. And the ones invited to the Bush panic convention are zealots of the right.
The story mentions the financial difficulties of Air America (the new, center-to-left talk show network) which finds it much, much more difficult to find deep-pocketed corporate/millionaire benefactors; but the reporter doesn’t comment on the implication that the press is “Free” only for those who can Pay for it. Nor does she comment on the result of that implication: i.e. one side of the debate is widely disseminated and one is suppressed.
That's a Free Press? Well, supposedly it is HERE but not in any country with which we butt heads.
Finally, the story itself presents a false and misleading “fact”:
“On Tuesday the White House invited more than three dozen hosts from both sides of the political spectrum so they could interview top administration officials” (emphasis added).
That’s just flat-out false. One has to wonder whether the reporter is stupid, simply passed along the official bullshit shoved her way by the White House, or has been so acculturated by the ubiquitous propaganda that she BELIEVES what she says.
Free Press, my ass.
- Uke Man
REUTERS
Bush, Republicans turn to talk shows for help
By Andrea Hopkins
CINCINNATI (Reuters) - American radio talk-show hosts have become frontline warriors in a drive by President George W. Bush and his Republicans to pull off a surprise and maintain control of Congress in November 7 elections.
In the face of opinion polls favoring Democrats and bad news from Iraq, Bush turned to the powerful hosts of talk radio two weeks before Americans elect 435 representatives to the U.S. House and a third of the 100-member Senate.
On Tuesday the White House invited more than three dozen hosts from both sides of the political spectrum so they could interview top administration officials.
Radio personalities and programs play a political role in many countries. In America, they have become largely a powerful ally for conservatives, even as the rise of Internet blogs has broadened the spectrum of voter voices being heard.
"The liberal media wants to suppress the vote, they want to convince you that this race is over, they want you to go away and they want us to lose. I'm here to tell you that you have the power (to prove them wrong)," conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity told a Republican rally in Cincinnati last week in a jab at what conservatives call a liberal mainstream media.
Hannity, who does a show for ABC Radio that reaches 13 million people a week as well as a television show for Fox News, said his shows give politicians the opportunity for "real interviews, not soundbites" -- the sort of unfiltered access to voters that mainstream media don't offer.
"Look, on my radio program today I had the vice president, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, Karl Rove, Tony Snow and Dan Bartlett. That's all in one radio show," Hannity told Reuters in an interview.
American University communications professor Jane Hall said that access appeals to politicians frustrated by a traditional news cycle they have little control over.
"It's a way to go around the filter, go directly to people who might be more inclined to agree. It's a friendlier audience," Hall said.
UPHILL BATTLE
The five largest U.S. talk radio shows by audience are all conservative programs with audiences of between 4 million and 14 million people a week, according to trade magazine Talkers. Rush Limbaugh, who declined to be interviewed, has the largest audience, while Hannity is a close second.
Earlier this month, the liberal news and talk radio network Air America filed for bankruptcy after slightly more than two years on the air.
Analysts said the rise of other populist media -- most notably the Internet -- along with growing schisms among conservatives over immigration, the Iraq war, budget deficits and social policy will make it tougher this year for talk radio to help Republicans chalk up an election win.
"Talk radio is still predominantly a conservative phenomenon, but it's getting smaller in scope and if it's going to be effective for conservative Republican candidates, it's going to have to be more intense than it used to be," said Michael Frank, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think-tank.
"The conservative base itself is not exactly united and cheering on behalf of one party this time ... and that may blunt some of the effectiveness of talk radio as a kind of organizing tool for Republican candidates."
Still, radio hosts are hoping the political activism of their audience will result in another strong Election Day turnout for Republicans. A study by Talkers magazine found 74 percent of talk radio listeners voted in 2004 -- well above the average U.S. election year turnout.
"If all of us go out to the polls and get every person we know to go out the poll ... the great thing that will happen on election day is we will confuse and confound the pundits and confuse and confound the liberal media," Hannity told the Republican rally in Cincinnati.
His audience was enthusiastic.
"I'm old, I'm tired, I've got diabetes, and I'm freezing to death, and yet I'm glad I came here -- it makes me want to work harder," said Zip Jaycox, 79, a self-described "strong Bush supporter and strong Republican" volunteer who goes door-to-door with her husband to rally party voters.
"We're going to get out and work like the very dickens."
Something to Consider
Hey Folks,
I don't know what to make of this, exactly; but I DO wonder why I had never heard a word about this charge in the "mainstream" media.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm . . .
- Uke Man
from: All Headline News
Syria Says US Behind Attack On Own Embassy
September 13, 2006
Ryan R. Jones
All Headline News Middle East Correspondent
Jerusalem, Israel (AHN) - Senior Syrian government official have accused the US of being behind Tuesday's assault on its own embassy in downtown Damascus.
A Baath party official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told WorldNetDaily, "We in the government are 100 percent sure America was behind this attack, which is not the same as other attacks by Islamic groups."
He explained, "Only the Americans can succeed in carrying out an attack just 200 meters from President [Bashar] Assad's residence in the most heavily guarded section of Syria."
The official charged that Washington had orchestrated the attack to "prove Syria is filled with terrorists and to put us in a weak position" in order to extract political concessions. Following the attack, Bush administration officials said they hoped the incident had convinced Damascus of the dangers of Islamic terror and the need to cooperate with the West against the phenomenon.
The US and several of its European allies have repeatedly demanded over the years that Damascus close down the local offices and training camps of several organizations hostile to Israel and the West.
The identities of those who attacked the US embassy Tuesday have not been revealed. Three of the gunmen were killed by Syrian guards during the assault. A fourth was reportedly captured.
I don't know what to make of this, exactly; but I DO wonder why I had never heard a word about this charge in the "mainstream" media.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm . . .
- Uke Man
from: All Headline News
Syria Says US Behind Attack On Own Embassy
September 13, 2006
Ryan R. Jones
All Headline News Middle East Correspondent
Jerusalem, Israel (AHN) - Senior Syrian government official have accused the US of being behind Tuesday's assault on its own embassy in downtown Damascus.
A Baath party official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told WorldNetDaily, "We in the government are 100 percent sure America was behind this attack, which is not the same as other attacks by Islamic groups."
He explained, "Only the Americans can succeed in carrying out an attack just 200 meters from President [Bashar] Assad's residence in the most heavily guarded section of Syria."
The official charged that Washington had orchestrated the attack to "prove Syria is filled with terrorists and to put us in a weak position" in order to extract political concessions. Following the attack, Bush administration officials said they hoped the incident had convinced Damascus of the dangers of Islamic terror and the need to cooperate with the West against the phenomenon.
The US and several of its European allies have repeatedly demanded over the years that Damascus close down the local offices and training camps of several organizations hostile to Israel and the West.
The identities of those who attacked the US embassy Tuesday have not been revealed. Three of the gunmen were killed by Syrian guards during the assault. A fourth was reportedly captured.
Andy Rooney Videos
Hey Folks,
Grumpy, angry, disgusted old men can say anything we want. Here's Andy Rooney saying some sensible things (a ukethanks to Sondra) .
The first one up is most recent and on Iraq, the second discusses Korea and "nookular" weapons. Give those two a look. And there are a lot more of them there if you're interested.
-Uke Man
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/scp_v3/viewer/index.php?pid=16598&rn=49750&cl=1012930&ch=334515&src=news
Grumpy, angry, disgusted old men can say anything we want. Here's Andy Rooney saying some sensible things (a ukethanks to Sondra) .
The first one up is most recent and on Iraq, the second discusses Korea and "nookular" weapons. Give those two a look. And there are a lot more of them there if you're interested.
-Uke Man
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/scp_v3/viewer/index.php?pid=16598&rn=49750&cl=1012930&ch=334515&src=news
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
And the Republicans want Reagan on Mt. Rushmore
Hey Folks,
Here it is: the Old Double Standard coming back to bite us in the ass!!
Their wall bad; our wall good!?!?! One dead Empire deserves another!!
- Uke Man
Gorbachev: Don’t build new Berlin wall
Last Soviet leader strikes Reagan-like pose in Texas talk
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Bob Campbell and Ruth Campbell
MIDLAND REPORTER-TELEGRAM
MIDLAND, Texas — Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev compares the United States’ proposed 700-mile wall on the U.S.-Mexico border to the Berlin Wall.
Addressing a news conference Tuesday at the University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Gorbachev was by turns serious and flippant.
"You remember President Reagan standing in Berlin and saying, ‘This wall should be torn down,’ " said the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize winner, the last leader of the Soviet Union.
"Now the United States seems to be building almost the Wall of China between itself and this other nation with which it has been associated for many decades and has had cooperation and interaction with.
"I think what is really needed are ideas and proposals about how to improve that cooperation and work out all of those issues regarding immigration flows. I don’t think the U.S. is so weak and so much lacks confidence as not to be able to find a different solution."
At a lecture later Tuesday, Gorbachev, 75, who lives in Moscow, said it’s not too late for the United States to bring other countries in on an exit strategy for Iraq.
The war was a mistake from the start, Gorbachev said.
Through an interpreter, Gorbachev spoke in the town where President Bush grew up as part of a lecture series at the University of Texas of the Permian Basin.
Here it is: the Old Double Standard coming back to bite us in the ass!!
Their wall bad; our wall good!?!?! One dead Empire deserves another!!
- Uke Man
Gorbachev: Don’t build new Berlin wall
Last Soviet leader strikes Reagan-like pose in Texas talk
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Bob Campbell and Ruth Campbell
MIDLAND REPORTER-TELEGRAM
MIDLAND, Texas — Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev compares the United States’ proposed 700-mile wall on the U.S.-Mexico border to the Berlin Wall.
Addressing a news conference Tuesday at the University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Gorbachev was by turns serious and flippant.
"You remember President Reagan standing in Berlin and saying, ‘This wall should be torn down,’ " said the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize winner, the last leader of the Soviet Union.
"Now the United States seems to be building almost the Wall of China between itself and this other nation with which it has been associated for many decades and has had cooperation and interaction with.
"I think what is really needed are ideas and proposals about how to improve that cooperation and work out all of those issues regarding immigration flows. I don’t think the U.S. is so weak and so much lacks confidence as not to be able to find a different solution."
At a lecture later Tuesday, Gorbachev, 75, who lives in Moscow, said it’s not too late for the United States to bring other countries in on an exit strategy for Iraq.
The war was a mistake from the start, Gorbachev said.
Through an interpreter, Gorbachev spoke in the town where President Bush grew up as part of a lecture series at the University of Texas of the Permian Basin.
Olbermann Speaks for the People Again
Hey Folks,
Here's a good example of how "Freedom of the Press" works. If you've got the bucks and the clout, you can spead all the shit you want. If you publish something true that Big Brother doesn't like (e.g. our soldiers being picked off), they'll come after you (the Bush Regime, not Bin Laden).
Check it out: http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=4c3af3a0-b29b-4a15-830a-a2eb710be4dc&p=News_Comment%20-%20Analysis&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15392701/&fg=
- Uke Man
p.s. Yeah, be afraid, but of the right things: our terrorist President & his Pals!
Here's a good example of how "Freedom of the Press" works. If you've got the bucks and the clout, you can spead all the shit you want. If you publish something true that Big Brother doesn't like (e.g. our soldiers being picked off), they'll come after you (the Bush Regime, not Bin Laden).
Check it out: http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=4c3af3a0-b29b-4a15-830a-a2eb710be4dc&p=News_Comment%20-%20Analysis&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15392701/&fg=
- Uke Man
p.s. Yeah, be afraid, but of the right things: our terrorist President & his Pals!
Monday, October 23, 2006
Duhbya does Dallas" Freedom of the Press?? Addendum
Hey Folks,
I just posted about how we don’t have freedom of the press, and then today I hear a story about CNN running a video of Iraqi snipers killing our soldier/children and then being demonized for showing it.
Yep, they need to slam CNN hard for showing the truth to Americans!! Don’t they know we’re at war? (and everything is going well – and we don’t need a free press at the moment ??)
It reminds me of when Churchill, as a reporter in the imperial wars in southern Africa, said that reporting a defeat of British forces – when it wasn’t true – would be terrible; but reporting a defeat of British forces when it WAS true would be even worse.
Yep! If only everyone had kept their mouths shut about Sherman burning Atlanta, the South would have won the war (of Northern Aggression?).
I guess it’s not just “Watch what you say” in this country; it’s also, “Watch what you find out.” Either way, saying or learning could interfere with Big Brother’s merchandising plans – and our present Big Brother really understands and depends on “merchandising.” His daddy bought him an MBA from Harvard.
-Uke Man
See the Video in question: http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2006/10/18/ware.iraq.insurgent.video.cnn
I just posted about how we don’t have freedom of the press, and then today I hear a story about CNN running a video of Iraqi snipers killing our soldier/children and then being demonized for showing it.
Yep, they need to slam CNN hard for showing the truth to Americans!! Don’t they know we’re at war? (and everything is going well – and we don’t need a free press at the moment ??)
It reminds me of when Churchill, as a reporter in the imperial wars in southern Africa, said that reporting a defeat of British forces – when it wasn’t true – would be terrible; but reporting a defeat of British forces when it WAS true would be even worse.
Yep! If only everyone had kept their mouths shut about Sherman burning Atlanta, the South would have won the war (of Northern Aggression?).
I guess it’s not just “Watch what you say” in this country; it’s also, “Watch what you find out.” Either way, saying or learning could interfere with Big Brother’s merchandising plans – and our present Big Brother really understands and depends on “merchandising.” His daddy bought him an MBA from Harvard.
-Uke Man
See the Video in question: http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2006/10/18/ware.iraq.insurgent.video.cnn
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Freedom of the Press ??
Hey Folks,
This (news item below) sounds bad to our ears, but let's think about a few things.
First of all, we don't have freedom of the press here - by any objective measure. If you don't believe that now, you probably never will. But if you have an open mind, take a look at the news or read some books by insiders. What you'll find is that almost nothing on the real left makes the news (for a lot of reasons you can find by reading on the subject).
Even without reading you can see so much by looking (bless Yogi Berra). Look at the media and see who is labeled as a lefty: Kennedy, Clinton, and a whole bunch of democrats, to name a few. In some places - like Ohio - even Republicans are labeled as lefties (Sen. George Voinovich for one). But these folks aren't lefties at all!! They're centrists, and the right calls them lefties to demonize the true left (and the Democrats are perfectly fine with that; they oppose the left themselves).
If you take the time to investigate, you'll find that Tricky Dickey Nixon (Republican) was farther left than Bill Clinton. And the right, who call for building a Berlin Wall on the Mexican border, calls the Democrats leftist because they think that this particular "solution to the immigration problem" is a bit inhumane and counterproductive.
Well, the actual left would suggest that there should be no borders at all; that borders are arbitrary lines, and that people should be able to move freely wherever they want on the earth.
When have you ever heard anything like that in our "Free Press"? You haven't. But - objectively - the opposite end of the "build a wall" spectrum is clearly "let people go wherever they want." That's the left on this issue.
Now multiply that a million times, and you'll have some idea why I don't believe we have freedom of the press (and that's just a small piece of the total argument).
Having said all that, you should understand (whether or not you agree with it) why I find it hypocritical to judge others' "Press Freedom." Does anybody have press freedom? I don't think so.
In regard to Cuba's limitations on the web, Marshal McLuhan's statement, "The medium is the message," is instructive.
I believe that the "prime directive" of any culture is to maintain itself as it presently is, with all its disparities, contradictions, prerogatives, etc. - without regard to anything else. All must give way to maintain, solidify, or enhance the situation of those who benefit from the social system. The media are a primary tool of this directive. As suggested by McLuhan, the very nature of each system's media (including the manipulation of it), reflects, supports, and promulgates the "necessary myths" for that system's continuation.
That explains why there are certain things we never hear in our own media. It explains why there are things the Cuban government doesn't want its population to hear. Both systems are working in conjunction with the "prime directive.
Now, determining whether that is good or bad goes beyond the simple name-calling of "censorship," "spin," "propaganda," and such. All societies have similar practices: in the South the Civil War is called "The War of Northern Aggression." Japan still claims they committed no atrocities during WW II. Turkey is still in denial over its treatment of Armenians. Anglicans feel godly even though their sect was founded by a man who tortured his enemies and cut off his wife's head.
Whether the manipulation we impose on our media or that imposed on Cuban media or that which is imposed by every country on its media is bad or good is a judgment call based on what that manipulation accomplishes (of course, if one supports the prime directive, all censorship and media manipulation promulgated by the national authority is good. It can only be bad in the minds of people who are critical of their nation – you know: the people who “hate America” or “hate Cuba” or “hate your country’s name here”).
So, having said all that, what should we think about Cuba? Well, I guess that depends on which form of control one favors – capitalist or socialist (Cuba is NOT a communist country - any more than is Russia or China).
In this country we focus on making money and mesmerizing the masses with consumerism; corporations and consumer spending and profit are more important than people; hence our form of manipulation (pursuing our prime directive), which includes distracting oppressed folks from the actual cause of their distress.
For example, in one of my recent postings, it was the Alaskan Native Americans who defended our satanic, corporate president who were widely reported on on – NOT those (we were not told how many) who resent him. Nor was the spotlight on how in the name of god (who talks to our satanic president) the government and our oil corporations could so blithely let thes people freeze (objectively, I would say, a much more serious matter than what name our president was called - deservedly OR undeservedly - by Hugo Chavez!!.
In Cuba consumerism, corporations, their profits, and consumer spending to produce profits are the enemy (just as here uppity Eskimos who might “hate America for freezing their asses off are the enemy). Neither country will let their enemy have an effective go at communicating directly, often, and effectively with the masses – such communication undercuts the prime directive.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that a Cuban “dissident” would complain about government restrictions on getting his point of view disseminated. Go talk to an American union or peace organization, or any number of activists groups on the left or the right. After that, you won’t be surprised about media manipulation here or elsewhere, I’ll bet.
Sure, in this country, stuff gets out in little cracks like "The Nation" or "The Progressive," or on the net, but if very many people start reading and learning from such publications, some "problem" will "develop" - as if by magic.
Look at the attack here on the net and the net-based critics of the status quo! Have you noticed? They're talking about putting wealthy, commercial, politically brain-dead entities in the fast lane, and (essentially) shutting nobodies like me down by putting my words on a snail-express delivery system most websters won't suffer through - the perfect solution: those who benefit from the system and have the dough to pay for proper access can continue to push their agenda; the rest of us are fucked. God bless America where we have free speach - if you have the money to pay for it.
So, here's how I see it. Cuba is not perfect nor is it my ideal; but its socialist perspective is more broadly aimed at the vast majority of the people than is our elite-serving, wealth-oriented system.
I'm sure there are excesses and negative aspects in the Cuban approach to controling the media. But, to the extent that Cuba muzzles enemies of a better life for the people, it is vastly preferable to our system - and is such to the extent that the American system of censorship muzzles the advocates of the people to protect the prerogatives of the wealthy minority.
THAT's the basis for making your judgment call regarding the story below.
-Uke Man
Media watchdog criticises Cuba for controlling Web
Thu Oct 19
PARIS (Reuters) - A press freedom watchdog accused Cuba on Thursday of trying to prevent people from reading independent media, saying less than 2 percent of Cubans connect to the Web at closely monitored Internet access points.
"In a country where the media are under the government's thumb, preventing independent reports and information from circulating online has naturally become a priority," Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said in a report on Cuba.
Cuba, like China, controls access to the Internet. Direct access to the World Wide Web is generally only available to government-approved individuals, though passwords can be purchased on the black market.
"With less than 2 percent of the population online, Cuba is one of the world's most backward countries as regards Internet usage," RSF said.
"This is quite surprising in a country that boasts one of the highest levels of education in the world," it added.
Internet access points such as the 'Correos de Cuba' Internet cafes were closely monitored, RSF said, and messages seemed to be scanned for suspect keywords, such as those linked to dissidents, which trigger the shutdown of programmes.
Because of the cost, most Cubans opt for the cheaper 'national' connection, which includes government-operated email but not full Internet access, which costs 4 euros ($5.03) an hour, about a third of the average monthly wage, it said.
The Cuban government says Internet access is restricted due to limited bandwidth available. Havana blames U.S. economic sanctions that bar Cuba from hooking up to submarine fiber optic cables and force the country to use costly satellite communications for Internet traffic.
"This may indeed explain the slowness of the Cuban Internet and the endless lines outside Internet cafes. But in no way does it justify the system of control and surveillance that has been put in place by the authorities," RSF said.
A Cuban dissident, Guillermo Farinas, went on a seven-month hunger strike this year to demand unfettered Internet access, but stopped after fellow dissidents persuaded him to give up.
This (news item below) sounds bad to our ears, but let's think about a few things.
First of all, we don't have freedom of the press here - by any objective measure. If you don't believe that now, you probably never will. But if you have an open mind, take a look at the news or read some books by insiders. What you'll find is that almost nothing on the real left makes the news (for a lot of reasons you can find by reading on the subject).
Even without reading you can see so much by looking (bless Yogi Berra). Look at the media and see who is labeled as a lefty: Kennedy, Clinton, and a whole bunch of democrats, to name a few. In some places - like Ohio - even Republicans are labeled as lefties (Sen. George Voinovich for one). But these folks aren't lefties at all!! They're centrists, and the right calls them lefties to demonize the true left (and the Democrats are perfectly fine with that; they oppose the left themselves).
If you take the time to investigate, you'll find that Tricky Dickey Nixon (Republican) was farther left than Bill Clinton. And the right, who call for building a Berlin Wall on the Mexican border, calls the Democrats leftist because they think that this particular "solution to the immigration problem" is a bit inhumane and counterproductive.
Well, the actual left would suggest that there should be no borders at all; that borders are arbitrary lines, and that people should be able to move freely wherever they want on the earth.
When have you ever heard anything like that in our "Free Press"? You haven't. But - objectively - the opposite end of the "build a wall" spectrum is clearly "let people go wherever they want." That's the left on this issue.
Now multiply that a million times, and you'll have some idea why I don't believe we have freedom of the press (and that's just a small piece of the total argument).
Having said all that, you should understand (whether or not you agree with it) why I find it hypocritical to judge others' "Press Freedom." Does anybody have press freedom? I don't think so.
In regard to Cuba's limitations on the web, Marshal McLuhan's statement, "The medium is the message," is instructive.
I believe that the "prime directive" of any culture is to maintain itself as it presently is, with all its disparities, contradictions, prerogatives, etc. - without regard to anything else. All must give way to maintain, solidify, or enhance the situation of those who benefit from the social system. The media are a primary tool of this directive. As suggested by McLuhan, the very nature of each system's media (including the manipulation of it), reflects, supports, and promulgates the "necessary myths" for that system's continuation.
That explains why there are certain things we never hear in our own media. It explains why there are things the Cuban government doesn't want its population to hear. Both systems are working in conjunction with the "prime directive.
Now, determining whether that is good or bad goes beyond the simple name-calling of "censorship," "spin," "propaganda," and such. All societies have similar practices: in the South the Civil War is called "The War of Northern Aggression." Japan still claims they committed no atrocities during WW II. Turkey is still in denial over its treatment of Armenians. Anglicans feel godly even though their sect was founded by a man who tortured his enemies and cut off his wife's head.
Whether the manipulation we impose on our media or that imposed on Cuban media or that which is imposed by every country on its media is bad or good is a judgment call based on what that manipulation accomplishes (of course, if one supports the prime directive, all censorship and media manipulation promulgated by the national authority is good. It can only be bad in the minds of people who are critical of their nation – you know: the people who “hate America” or “hate Cuba” or “hate your country’s name here”).
So, having said all that, what should we think about Cuba? Well, I guess that depends on which form of control one favors – capitalist or socialist (Cuba is NOT a communist country - any more than is Russia or China).
In this country we focus on making money and mesmerizing the masses with consumerism; corporations and consumer spending and profit are more important than people; hence our form of manipulation (pursuing our prime directive), which includes distracting oppressed folks from the actual cause of their distress.
For example, in one of my recent postings, it was the Alaskan Native Americans who defended our satanic, corporate president who were widely reported on on – NOT those (we were not told how many) who resent him. Nor was the spotlight on how in the name of god (who talks to our satanic president) the government and our oil corporations could so blithely let thes people freeze (objectively, I would say, a much more serious matter than what name our president was called - deservedly OR undeservedly - by Hugo Chavez!!.
In Cuba consumerism, corporations, their profits, and consumer spending to produce profits are the enemy (just as here uppity Eskimos who might “hate America for freezing their asses off are the enemy). Neither country will let their enemy have an effective go at communicating directly, often, and effectively with the masses – such communication undercuts the prime directive.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that a Cuban “dissident” would complain about government restrictions on getting his point of view disseminated. Go talk to an American union or peace organization, or any number of activists groups on the left or the right. After that, you won’t be surprised about media manipulation here or elsewhere, I’ll bet.
Sure, in this country, stuff gets out in little cracks like "The Nation" or "The Progressive," or on the net, but if very many people start reading and learning from such publications, some "problem" will "develop" - as if by magic.
Look at the attack here on the net and the net-based critics of the status quo! Have you noticed? They're talking about putting wealthy, commercial, politically brain-dead entities in the fast lane, and (essentially) shutting nobodies like me down by putting my words on a snail-express delivery system most websters won't suffer through - the perfect solution: those who benefit from the system and have the dough to pay for proper access can continue to push their agenda; the rest of us are fucked. God bless America where we have free speach - if you have the money to pay for it.
So, here's how I see it. Cuba is not perfect nor is it my ideal; but its socialist perspective is more broadly aimed at the vast majority of the people than is our elite-serving, wealth-oriented system.
I'm sure there are excesses and negative aspects in the Cuban approach to controling the media. But, to the extent that Cuba muzzles enemies of a better life for the people, it is vastly preferable to our system - and is such to the extent that the American system of censorship muzzles the advocates of the people to protect the prerogatives of the wealthy minority.
THAT's the basis for making your judgment call regarding the story below.
-Uke Man
Media watchdog criticises Cuba for controlling Web
Thu Oct 19
PARIS (Reuters) - A press freedom watchdog accused Cuba on Thursday of trying to prevent people from reading independent media, saying less than 2 percent of Cubans connect to the Web at closely monitored Internet access points.
"In a country where the media are under the government's thumb, preventing independent reports and information from circulating online has naturally become a priority," Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said in a report on Cuba.
Cuba, like China, controls access to the Internet. Direct access to the World Wide Web is generally only available to government-approved individuals, though passwords can be purchased on the black market.
"With less than 2 percent of the population online, Cuba is one of the world's most backward countries as regards Internet usage," RSF said.
"This is quite surprising in a country that boasts one of the highest levels of education in the world," it added.
Internet access points such as the 'Correos de Cuba' Internet cafes were closely monitored, RSF said, and messages seemed to be scanned for suspect keywords, such as those linked to dissidents, which trigger the shutdown of programmes.
Because of the cost, most Cubans opt for the cheaper 'national' connection, which includes government-operated email but not full Internet access, which costs 4 euros ($5.03) an hour, about a third of the average monthly wage, it said.
The Cuban government says Internet access is restricted due to limited bandwidth available. Havana blames U.S. economic sanctions that bar Cuba from hooking up to submarine fiber optic cables and force the country to use costly satellite communications for Internet traffic.
"This may indeed explain the slowness of the Cuban Internet and the endless lines outside Internet cafes. But in no way does it justify the system of control and surveillance that has been put in place by the authorities," RSF said.
A Cuban dissident, Guillermo Farinas, went on a seven-month hunger strike this year to demand unfettered Internet access, but stopped after fellow dissidents persuaded him to give up.
"And here’s the thing: it’s all unnecessary."
Hey Folks*,
Krugman is right about it not being necessary, but then why is it ALLOWED to happen? To whom are the politicians paying attention?
Not the people.
- Uke Man
September 22, 2006
Insurance Horror Stories
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
“When Steve and Leslie Shaeffer’s daughter, Selah, was diagnosed at age 4 with a potentially fatal tumor in her jaw, they figured their health insurance would cover the bulk of her treatment costs.” But “shortly after Selah’s medical bills hit $20,000, Blue Cross stopped covering them and eventually canceled her coverage retroactively.”
So begins a recent report in The Los Angeles Times titled “Sick but Insured? Think Again,” which offers a series of similar horror stories, and suggests that these stories represent a growing trend: more and more health insurers are finding ways to yank your insurance when you get sick.
This trend helps explain something that has been puzzling me: why is the health insurance industry growing rapidly, even as it covers fewer Americans?
Between 2000 and 2005, the number of Americans with private health insurance coverage fell by 1 percent. But over the same period, employment at health insurance companies rose a remarkable 32 percent. What are all those extra employees doing?
Now we know at least part of the answer: they’re working harder than ever at identifying people who really need medical care, and ensuring that they don’t get it. In the past, they mainly concentrated on screening out applicants likely to get sick. Now, it seems, they’re also devoting a lot of effort to finding pretexts for revoking insurance after they’ve already granted it. They typically do this by claiming that they weren’t notified about some pre-existing condition, even if the insured wasn’t aware of that condition when he or she bought the policy.
Welcome to the ugly world of American health care economics.
Health care is poised to become America’s largest industry. Employment in manufacturing, which once dominated the economy, has fallen 18 percent since 2000, to 14.2 million. Meanwhile, employment in the private health services industry has risen 16 percent, to 12.6 million. Another 1.3 million people are employed at government hospitals. So we’re quickly approaching the point at which more Americans will be employed delivering health care than are employed producing manufactured goods.
Yet even as health care becomes the core of the American economy, our system of paying for health care remains sick, and is getting sicker.
Because everyone faces some risk of incurring huge medical costs, only the superrich can afford to be without health insurance. Yet private insurers try to refuse coverage to those most likely to need it, and deny payment whenever they can get away with it.
The point isn’t that they’re evil or greedy (although you do wonder how the people who cut off the Schaeffers can look themselves in the mirror). The fact is that cruelty and injustice are the inevitable result of the current rules of the game. Blue Shield of California is a nonprofit insurance provider, yet as a spokesman put it, if his organization doesn’t follow the for-profit practice of selectively covering only the healthiest people, “we will end up with all the high-risk people.”
Now, before you panic about the state of your own coverage, you should know that the horror stories in The Los Angeles Times article all involve individual insurance; if your coverage comes via your employer, you’re reasonably secure against sudden cancellation.
But employment-based insurance is in rapid decline, as employers balk at the cost and more and more companies adopt Wal-Mart-style minimal-benefit policies. That’s why many people are turning to individual insurance — only to find out, in some cases, that they didn’t get what they thought they paid for.
And here’s the thing: it’s all unnecessary.
Every other wealthy nation manages to provide almost all its citizens with guaranteed health insurance, while spending less on health care than we do. And there’s no mystery why: we’re paying the price for pointless, destructive reliance on private insurers. Medicare, which is a universal health insurance program for older Americans, spends less than 2 cents of every dollar on administrative costs, leaving 98 cents to pay for medical care. By contrast, private insurance companies spend only around 80 cents of each dollar in premiums on medical care; much of the remaining 20 cents is spent denying insurance to those who need it.
If we had a universal system — Medicare for everyone — there would be no more horror stories like those reported by The Los Angeles Times. And we’d almost certainly spend less on health care than we do now.
Krugman is right about it not being necessary, but then why is it ALLOWED to happen? To whom are the politicians paying attention?
Not the people.
- Uke Man
September 22, 2006
Insurance Horror Stories
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
“When Steve and Leslie Shaeffer’s daughter, Selah, was diagnosed at age 4 with a potentially fatal tumor in her jaw, they figured their health insurance would cover the bulk of her treatment costs.” But “shortly after Selah’s medical bills hit $20,000, Blue Cross stopped covering them and eventually canceled her coverage retroactively.”
So begins a recent report in The Los Angeles Times titled “Sick but Insured? Think Again,” which offers a series of similar horror stories, and suggests that these stories represent a growing trend: more and more health insurers are finding ways to yank your insurance when you get sick.
This trend helps explain something that has been puzzling me: why is the health insurance industry growing rapidly, even as it covers fewer Americans?
Between 2000 and 2005, the number of Americans with private health insurance coverage fell by 1 percent. But over the same period, employment at health insurance companies rose a remarkable 32 percent. What are all those extra employees doing?
Now we know at least part of the answer: they’re working harder than ever at identifying people who really need medical care, and ensuring that they don’t get it. In the past, they mainly concentrated on screening out applicants likely to get sick. Now, it seems, they’re also devoting a lot of effort to finding pretexts for revoking insurance after they’ve already granted it. They typically do this by claiming that they weren’t notified about some pre-existing condition, even if the insured wasn’t aware of that condition when he or she bought the policy.
Welcome to the ugly world of American health care economics.
Health care is poised to become America’s largest industry. Employment in manufacturing, which once dominated the economy, has fallen 18 percent since 2000, to 14.2 million. Meanwhile, employment in the private health services industry has risen 16 percent, to 12.6 million. Another 1.3 million people are employed at government hospitals. So we’re quickly approaching the point at which more Americans will be employed delivering health care than are employed producing manufactured goods.
Yet even as health care becomes the core of the American economy, our system of paying for health care remains sick, and is getting sicker.
Because everyone faces some risk of incurring huge medical costs, only the superrich can afford to be without health insurance. Yet private insurers try to refuse coverage to those most likely to need it, and deny payment whenever they can get away with it.
The point isn’t that they’re evil or greedy (although you do wonder how the people who cut off the Schaeffers can look themselves in the mirror). The fact is that cruelty and injustice are the inevitable result of the current rules of the game. Blue Shield of California is a nonprofit insurance provider, yet as a spokesman put it, if his organization doesn’t follow the for-profit practice of selectively covering only the healthiest people, “we will end up with all the high-risk people.”
Now, before you panic about the state of your own coverage, you should know that the horror stories in The Los Angeles Times article all involve individual insurance; if your coverage comes via your employer, you’re reasonably secure against sudden cancellation.
But employment-based insurance is in rapid decline, as employers balk at the cost and more and more companies adopt Wal-Mart-style minimal-benefit policies. That’s why many people are turning to individual insurance — only to find out, in some cases, that they didn’t get what they thought they paid for.
And here’s the thing: it’s all unnecessary.
Every other wealthy nation manages to provide almost all its citizens with guaranteed health insurance, while spending less on health care than we do. And there’s no mystery why: we’re paying the price for pointless, destructive reliance on private insurers. Medicare, which is a universal health insurance program for older Americans, spends less than 2 cents of every dollar on administrative costs, leaving 98 cents to pay for medical care. By contrast, private insurance companies spend only around 80 cents of each dollar in premiums on medical care; much of the remaining 20 cents is spent denying insurance to those who need it.
If we had a universal system — Medicare for everyone — there would be no more horror stories like those reported by The Los Angeles Times. And we’d almost certainly spend less on health care than we do now.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Two Comments on Bush
Hey Folks,
Bush talked to god and god said there was no such thing as "morality" - except in regard to sex with Bill Clinton.
Stay the course !!
- Uke Man
September 12, 2006
from: a New York Times Editorial
President Bush’s Reality
It’s hard to figure out how to build consensus when the men in charge embrace a series of myths. Vice President Dick Cheney suggested last weekend that the White House is even more delusional than Mr. Bush’s rhetoric suggests. The vice president volunteered to NBC’s Tim Russert that not only was the Iraq invasion the right thing to do, “if we had it to do over again, we’d do exactly the same thing.”
It is a breathtaking thought. If we could return to Sept. 12, 2001, knowing all we have seen since, Mr. Cheney and the president would march right out and “do exactly the same thing” all over again. It will be hard to hear the phrase “lessons of Sept. 11” again without contemplating that statement.
from: Hill Street Blue
Defiant Bush declares war on his own party's Senators
September 16, 2006
An obviously-angry President George W. Bush declared war on Senators from his own party Friday after a Republican revolt in the Senate threatened tough anti-terror legislation that would allow torture of prisoners.
A defiant Bush rejected warnings that the United States had lost the high moral ground to adversaries. "It's flawed logic," he snapped.
Bush is trying to rush his legislation through Congress, hoping a hyped sense of urgency will work as it did with the Constitution-defying USA Patriot Act that lawmakers passed without reading in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks.
Bush talked to god and god said there was no such thing as "morality" - except in regard to sex with Bill Clinton.
Stay the course !!
- Uke Man
September 12, 2006
from: a New York Times Editorial
President Bush’s Reality
It’s hard to figure out how to build consensus when the men in charge embrace a series of myths. Vice President Dick Cheney suggested last weekend that the White House is even more delusional than Mr. Bush’s rhetoric suggests. The vice president volunteered to NBC’s Tim Russert that not only was the Iraq invasion the right thing to do, “if we had it to do over again, we’d do exactly the same thing.”
It is a breathtaking thought. If we could return to Sept. 12, 2001, knowing all we have seen since, Mr. Cheney and the president would march right out and “do exactly the same thing” all over again. It will be hard to hear the phrase “lessons of Sept. 11” again without contemplating that statement.
from: Hill Street Blue
Defiant Bush declares war on his own party's Senators
September 16, 2006
An obviously-angry President George W. Bush declared war on Senators from his own party Friday after a Republican revolt in the Senate threatened tough anti-terror legislation that would allow torture of prisoners.
A defiant Bush rejected warnings that the United States had lost the high moral ground to adversaries. "It's flawed logic," he snapped.
Bush is trying to rush his legislation through Congress, hoping a hyped sense of urgency will work as it did with the Constitution-defying USA Patriot Act that lawmakers passed without reading in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Listen to this man!!!
Hey Folks!!!!!
Keith Olbermann makes me cry!! Cry for this country!! Cry for what it is becoming!! Cry for the American people!! Cry for the people of the world!! But cry - most of all - that there are significant numbers of Americans who DON'T cry - who don't understand, who don't want to hear, who are intensely angry over what Keith Olbermann has had to say now and before.
How sad. It is - as Bush and Olbermann both said - the beginmning of the end of America.
How sad - Uke Man
'Beginning of the end of America'
Keith Olbermann addresses the Military Commissions Act in a special comment: read it below or view the video:
VIDEO: http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=e9d9c055-e810-453a-a80f-ecc7b46bd340&p=News_Comment%20-%20Analysis&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/&fg= after a commercial - or - read it below!!
-Uke Man
We have lived as if in a trance.
We have lived as people in fear.
And now—our rights and our freedoms in peril—we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid of the wrong thing.
Therefore, tonight have we truly become the inheritors of our American legacy.
For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:
A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.
We have been here before—and we have been here before led here—by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.
We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use those acts to jail newspaper editors.
American newspaper editors, in American jails, for things they wrote about America.
We have been here when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as “Hyphenated Americans,” most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war.
American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said about America.
And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9066 was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that order to imprison and pauperize 110,000 Americans while his man in charge, General DeWitt, told Congress: “It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen—he is still a Japanese.”
American citizens, in American camps, for something they neither wrote nor said nor did, but for the choices they or their ancestors had made about coming to America.
Each of these actions was undertaken for the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.
And each was a betrayal of that for which the president who advocated them claimed to be fighting.
Adams and his party were swept from office, and the Alien and Sedition Acts erased.
Many of the very people Wilson silenced survived him, and one of them even ran to succeed him, and got 900,000 votes, though his presidential campaign was conducted entirely from his jail cell.
And Roosevelt’s internment of the Japanese was not merely the worst blight on his record, but it would necessitate a formal apology from the government of the United States to the citizens of the United States whose lives it ruined.
The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.
In times of fright, we have been only human.
We have let Roosevelt’s “fear of fear itself” overtake us.
We have listened to the little voice inside that has said, “the wolf is at the door; this will be temporary; this will be precise; this too shall pass.”
We have accepted that the only way to stop the terrorists is to let the government become just a little bit like the terrorists.
Just the way we once accepted that the only way to stop the Soviets was to let the government become just a little bit like the Soviets.
Or substitute the Japanese.
Or the Germans.
Or the Socialists.
Or the Anarchists.
Or the Immigrants.
Or the British.
Or the Aliens.
The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.
And, always, always wrong.
“With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?”
Wise words.
And ironic ones, Mr. Bush.
Your own, of course, yesterday, in signing the Military Commissions Act.
You spoke so much more than you know, Sir.
Sadly—of course—the distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take seriously was you.
We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
But even within this history we have not before codified the poisoning of habeas corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow.
You, sir, have now befouled that spring.
You, sir, have now given us chaos and called it order.
You, sir, have now imposed subjugation and called it freedom.
For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.
And — again, Mr. Bush — all of them, wrong.
We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has said it is unacceptable to compare anything this country has ever done to anything the terrorists have ever done.
We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that “the United States does not torture. It’s against our laws and it’s against our values” and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.
We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens “unlawful enemy combatants” and ship them somewhere—anywhere -- but may now, if he so decides, declare you an “unlawful enemy combatant” and ship you somewhere - anywhere.
And if you think this hyperbole or hysteria, ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was president or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was president or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was president.
And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?
This President now has his blank check.
He lied to get it.
He lied as he received it.
Is there any reason to even hope he has not lied about how he intends to use it nor who he intends to use it against?
“These military commissions will provide a fair trial,” you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush, “in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney and can hear all the evidence against them.”
"Presumed innocent," Mr. Bush?
The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain “serious mental and physical trauma” in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense.
"Access to an attorney," Mr. Bush?
Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.
"Hearing all the evidence," Mr. Bush?
The Military Commissions Act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense.
Your words are lies, Sir.
They are lies that imperil us all.
“One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks,” you told us yesterday, “said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America.”
That terrorist, sir, could only hope.
Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.
Habeas corpus? Gone.
The Geneva Conventions? Optional.
The moral force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out.
These things you have done, Mr. Bush, they would be “the beginning of the end of America.”
And did it even occur to you once, sir — somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic invocations of the horrors of 9/11 -- that with only a little further shift in this world we now know—just a touch more repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died --- did it ever occur to you once that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future president and a “competent tribunal” of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of “unlawful enemy combatant” for -- and convene a Military Commission to try -- not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?
For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.
And doubtless, Sir, all of them—as always—wrong.
Keith Olbermann makes me cry!! Cry for this country!! Cry for what it is becoming!! Cry for the American people!! Cry for the people of the world!! But cry - most of all - that there are significant numbers of Americans who DON'T cry - who don't understand, who don't want to hear, who are intensely angry over what Keith Olbermann has had to say now and before.
How sad. It is - as Bush and Olbermann both said - the beginmning of the end of America.
How sad - Uke Man
'Beginning of the end of America'
Keith Olbermann addresses the Military Commissions Act in a special comment: read it below or view the video:
VIDEO: http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=e9d9c055-e810-453a-a80f-ecc7b46bd340&p=News_Comment%20-%20Analysis&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/&fg= after a commercial - or - read it below!!
-Uke Man
We have lived as if in a trance.
We have lived as people in fear.
And now—our rights and our freedoms in peril—we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid of the wrong thing.
Therefore, tonight have we truly become the inheritors of our American legacy.
For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:
A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.
We have been here before—and we have been here before led here—by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.
We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use those acts to jail newspaper editors.
American newspaper editors, in American jails, for things they wrote about America.
We have been here when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as “Hyphenated Americans,” most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war.
American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said about America.
And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9066 was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that order to imprison and pauperize 110,000 Americans while his man in charge, General DeWitt, told Congress: “It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen—he is still a Japanese.”
American citizens, in American camps, for something they neither wrote nor said nor did, but for the choices they or their ancestors had made about coming to America.
Each of these actions was undertaken for the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.
And each was a betrayal of that for which the president who advocated them claimed to be fighting.
Adams and his party were swept from office, and the Alien and Sedition Acts erased.
Many of the very people Wilson silenced survived him, and one of them even ran to succeed him, and got 900,000 votes, though his presidential campaign was conducted entirely from his jail cell.
And Roosevelt’s internment of the Japanese was not merely the worst blight on his record, but it would necessitate a formal apology from the government of the United States to the citizens of the United States whose lives it ruined.
The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.
In times of fright, we have been only human.
We have let Roosevelt’s “fear of fear itself” overtake us.
We have listened to the little voice inside that has said, “the wolf is at the door; this will be temporary; this will be precise; this too shall pass.”
We have accepted that the only way to stop the terrorists is to let the government become just a little bit like the terrorists.
Just the way we once accepted that the only way to stop the Soviets was to let the government become just a little bit like the Soviets.
Or substitute the Japanese.
Or the Germans.
Or the Socialists.
Or the Anarchists.
Or the Immigrants.
Or the British.
Or the Aliens.
The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.
And, always, always wrong.
“With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?”
Wise words.
And ironic ones, Mr. Bush.
Your own, of course, yesterday, in signing the Military Commissions Act.
You spoke so much more than you know, Sir.
Sadly—of course—the distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take seriously was you.
We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
But even within this history we have not before codified the poisoning of habeas corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow.
You, sir, have now befouled that spring.
You, sir, have now given us chaos and called it order.
You, sir, have now imposed subjugation and called it freedom.
For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.
And — again, Mr. Bush — all of them, wrong.
We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has said it is unacceptable to compare anything this country has ever done to anything the terrorists have ever done.
We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that “the United States does not torture. It’s against our laws and it’s against our values” and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.
We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens “unlawful enemy combatants” and ship them somewhere—anywhere -- but may now, if he so decides, declare you an “unlawful enemy combatant” and ship you somewhere - anywhere.
And if you think this hyperbole or hysteria, ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was president or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was president or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was president.
And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?
This President now has his blank check.
He lied to get it.
He lied as he received it.
Is there any reason to even hope he has not lied about how he intends to use it nor who he intends to use it against?
“These military commissions will provide a fair trial,” you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush, “in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney and can hear all the evidence against them.”
"Presumed innocent," Mr. Bush?
The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain “serious mental and physical trauma” in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense.
"Access to an attorney," Mr. Bush?
Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.
"Hearing all the evidence," Mr. Bush?
The Military Commissions Act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense.
Your words are lies, Sir.
They are lies that imperil us all.
“One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks,” you told us yesterday, “said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America.”
That terrorist, sir, could only hope.
Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.
Habeas corpus? Gone.
The Geneva Conventions? Optional.
The moral force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out.
These things you have done, Mr. Bush, they would be “the beginning of the end of America.”
And did it even occur to you once, sir — somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic invocations of the horrors of 9/11 -- that with only a little further shift in this world we now know—just a touch more repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died --- did it ever occur to you once that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future president and a “competent tribunal” of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of “unlawful enemy combatant” for -- and convene a Military Commission to try -- not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?
For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.
And doubtless, Sir, all of them—as always—wrong.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Hey Folks,
The Uke Man & his Prodigal Sons (the whole damned band) will be playing the Pumpkin Show in Circleville, Ohio tomorrow (FRIDAY, October 20) 1:15 until 2:30 p.m.
All seven of us will be there. The entire band doesn’t play out as much as we used to; so if you want to experience the unique exquisiteness of this ensemble, get to Circleville Friday.
Check out the P-Show website (http://www.pumpkinshow.com/ ) – there are more wonders to experience there – beyond even Ukulele Man & his Prodigal Sons!!!
- Uke Man
The Uke Man & his Prodigal Sons (the whole damned band) will be playing the Pumpkin Show in Circleville, Ohio tomorrow (FRIDAY, October 20) 1:15 until 2:30 p.m.
All seven of us will be there. The entire band doesn’t play out as much as we used to; so if you want to experience the unique exquisiteness of this ensemble, get to Circleville Friday.
Check out the P-Show website (http://www.pumpkinshow.com/ ) – there are more wonders to experience there – beyond even Ukulele Man & his Prodigal Sons!!!
- Uke Man
how to change one vegetable into another vegetable
drop a Pumpkin off a tall building and it goes Squash
The Ultimate Safety Net
Hey Folks,
Who says this isn't a compassionate Christian country? Who says the government doesn't look out for the most needy among us? Who says the economy isn't booming?
See!! If a person is willing to take entry level jobs and sharpen his skills, a three year sabbatical - all expenses paid - is within easy reach!!
- Uke Man
Man’s desire to go to prison is worrisome
Monday, October 16, 2006
ANN FISHER
At first, perhaps we chuckle about the local fellow who robbed a bank to secure a prison berth for three years — until he’s 66 and eligible for Social Security.
After all, who in his or her right mind thinks about relying on that for the long haul?
The story of Timothy Bowers instead should sober us to the larger implications of a society in which older members feel driven to crime for survival.
Judge Angela White ordered a psychological exam of Bowers, who turns 63 in about a week. He was deemed competent, so she sentenced him to three years in prison, granting his birthday wish. Dispatch reporter Kevin Mayhood wrote about the case last week.
Bowers thinks that a three-year hitch in prison is a better use of his human resources than to continue scrounging for jobs that don’t pay a living wage and usually go to younger applicants.
"It’s unfortunate you feel this is the only way to deal with the situation," White told Bowers in court.
Unfortunate for whom?
For his last pre-holdup meal, the Navy veteran and South High School graduate ordered the "Two for $2" hot dog special at a Speedway gas station near his apartment. Then he walked a few blocks to a Fifth Third Bank and handed a teller his note.
After securing the money from the teller, he waited calmly for police to arrive.
The implications are chilling, that he would seek safe harbor in a place of punishment.
Last December, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote about other elderly criminals, a growing number of Kentucky senior citizens who sell their pain pills to buy food and pay the heating bills.
What is the crime here, the newspaper asked in an editorial? That an 87-year-old sold her OxyContin pills for $10 each, or that she lives in a society in which she feels driven to such a crime just to eat?
This isn’t just about America, either. Japan, another highly industrialized and wealthy nation, has a greater proportion of older people than the United States, so officials there expect more elderly criminals. A Japanese criminology expert also suggested in an Associated Press article in February that "thinning family ties, a lack of income and increasing medical expenses" are behind the increase.
The Japanese Justice Ministry is studying the trend there to learn whether some also are committing crimes in hopes of imprisonment, "where shelter and three meals a day are guaranteed."
That was Bowers’ plan.
It might appear harebrained at first, but walk a mile in his threadbare shoes, live a day of his life eking out an existence at most. He’s worked at a series of odd jobs since 2003, when he lost his delivery route for a drug wholesaler after it closed. The odd jobs just didn’t cover the bills of 21 st-century subsistence.
Will prisons become the ad hoc roomand-board operation for society’s aged throwaways? If we’re headed in that direction, it will get expensive, not to mention increasingly inappropriate.
If you believe in the six-degrees-of separation theory, chances are you know or could know people like Bowers, who live on the edge, scraping by for years, never making enough. Finally, the winter gets too cold, the arthritis pills get too expensive.
Perhaps they don’t make the conscious leap to a prison cell, but are you comforted by that?
Ann Fisher is a Dispatch Metro columnist. She can be reached at 614-461-8759 or by e-mail. afisher@dispatch.com
Who says this isn't a compassionate Christian country? Who says the government doesn't look out for the most needy among us? Who says the economy isn't booming?
See!! If a person is willing to take entry level jobs and sharpen his skills, a three year sabbatical - all expenses paid - is within easy reach!!
- Uke Man
Man’s desire to go to prison is worrisome
Monday, October 16, 2006
ANN FISHER
At first, perhaps we chuckle about the local fellow who robbed a bank to secure a prison berth for three years — until he’s 66 and eligible for Social Security.
After all, who in his or her right mind thinks about relying on that for the long haul?
The story of Timothy Bowers instead should sober us to the larger implications of a society in which older members feel driven to crime for survival.
Judge Angela White ordered a psychological exam of Bowers, who turns 63 in about a week. He was deemed competent, so she sentenced him to three years in prison, granting his birthday wish. Dispatch reporter Kevin Mayhood wrote about the case last week.
Bowers thinks that a three-year hitch in prison is a better use of his human resources than to continue scrounging for jobs that don’t pay a living wage and usually go to younger applicants.
"It’s unfortunate you feel this is the only way to deal with the situation," White told Bowers in court.
Unfortunate for whom?
For his last pre-holdup meal, the Navy veteran and South High School graduate ordered the "Two for $2" hot dog special at a Speedway gas station near his apartment. Then he walked a few blocks to a Fifth Third Bank and handed a teller his note.
After securing the money from the teller, he waited calmly for police to arrive.
The implications are chilling, that he would seek safe harbor in a place of punishment.
Last December, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote about other elderly criminals, a growing number of Kentucky senior citizens who sell their pain pills to buy food and pay the heating bills.
What is the crime here, the newspaper asked in an editorial? That an 87-year-old sold her OxyContin pills for $10 each, or that she lives in a society in which she feels driven to such a crime just to eat?
This isn’t just about America, either. Japan, another highly industrialized and wealthy nation, has a greater proportion of older people than the United States, so officials there expect more elderly criminals. A Japanese criminology expert also suggested in an Associated Press article in February that "thinning family ties, a lack of income and increasing medical expenses" are behind the increase.
The Japanese Justice Ministry is studying the trend there to learn whether some also are committing crimes in hopes of imprisonment, "where shelter and three meals a day are guaranteed."
That was Bowers’ plan.
It might appear harebrained at first, but walk a mile in his threadbare shoes, live a day of his life eking out an existence at most. He’s worked at a series of odd jobs since 2003, when he lost his delivery route for a drug wholesaler after it closed. The odd jobs just didn’t cover the bills of 21 st-century subsistence.
Will prisons become the ad hoc roomand-board operation for society’s aged throwaways? If we’re headed in that direction, it will get expensive, not to mention increasingly inappropriate.
If you believe in the six-degrees-of separation theory, chances are you know or could know people like Bowers, who live on the edge, scraping by for years, never making enough. Finally, the winter gets too cold, the arthritis pills get too expensive.
Perhaps they don’t make the conscious leap to a prison cell, but are you comforted by that?
Ann Fisher is a Dispatch Metro columnist. She can be reached at 614-461-8759 or by e-mail. afisher@dispatch.com
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
the California Trip - Part IV - The Show
Hey Folks,
The show at Bocci’s Cellar for the Ukulele Club of Santa Cruz was like a dream.
I’d heard so much about the club from Andy, the club’s emails, stories on NPR, and from other ukesters that I’d get high from thinking about it, anticipating performing for such an open, interested, and caring crowd.
I wasn’t disappointed.
Almost as soon as I walked into the room, Roger – one of the Hawaiian owners of this Itaqlian restaurant – took me under his wing. He decided that I needed a better shirt; so he had me put on one of his Pierre Cardin Hawaiian shirts and take off my J.C. Penny almost-Hawaiian shirt. And he said, “Keep it.”
Besides Roger, there were many nice folks I talked with as the evening moved toward its official beginning. Everybody was very friendly and there certainly were plenty of ukulele-related things to talk about.
The show at Bocci’s Cellar for the Ukulele Club of Santa Cruz was like a dream.
I’d heard so much about the club from Andy, the club’s emails, stories on NPR, and from other ukesters that I’d get high from thinking about it, anticipating performing for such an open, interested, and caring crowd.
I wasn’t disappointed.
Almost as soon as I walked into the room, Roger – one of the Hawaiian owners of this Itaqlian restaurant – took me under his wing. He decided that I needed a better shirt; so he had me put on one of his Pierre Cardin Hawaiian shirts and take off my J.C. Penny almost-Hawaiian shirt. And he said, “Keep it.”
Besides Roger, there were many nice folks I talked with as the evening moved toward its official beginning. Everybody was very friendly and there certainly were plenty of ukulele-related things to talk about.
Things got started with the “Lounge Act,” a group of regulars who perform popular covers with uke, bass, and various instruments to warm up the house prior to the official starting time. A member of this group was Peter Thomas, the kind soul who put me up for the nights I was in town.
Soon we were treated to a uke-driven serenade of “Under the Boardwalk” (the official theme song of the club), presented by five cutie-pie fourth grade girls. They were great!!!
Soon we were treated to a uke-driven serenade of “Under the Boardwalk” (the official theme song of the club), presented by five cutie-pie fourth grade girls. They were great!!!
Soon it was time for the Uke Man; and – if I do say so myself – I gave the best solo performance I’d ever given. I’d practiced enough for it; I’d laid off the beer; and the crowd was wonderful!!! Attentive, appreciative, demonstrative; they pumped the Old Guy up!!!
And there was another incentive.
And there was another incentive.
Eddie Kamae was in the crowd. He was at the head table with me. He was seated right next to where I would perform. And he would perform, himself, when I was done.
Now, in all the years of the club there had never been TWO guests, and I was THE guest, but from a ukulele/Hawaiian point of view it was like Sinatra was in town and willing to sing a few for the folks.
Eddie seldom travels to the mainland and almost never performs here; so it was a special honor to the club and to me to share the stage. Personally, it made it even more important that I do well, and I was warmed no end when afterwards Eddie said he thought I was “wonderful.”
As it was, Eddie, who is 80 years old had planned to do only three songs after I sat down; but Andy is crafty, and he got four backup musicians up there with Eddie, and he beamed!! He played for an hour, and the crowd – including the Uke Man – were in Seventh Heaven.
Now, in all the years of the club there had never been TWO guests, and I was THE guest, but from a ukulele/Hawaiian point of view it was like Sinatra was in town and willing to sing a few for the folks.
Eddie seldom travels to the mainland and almost never performs here; so it was a special honor to the club and to me to share the stage. Personally, it made it even more important that I do well, and I was warmed no end when afterwards Eddie said he thought I was “wonderful.”
As it was, Eddie, who is 80 years old had planned to do only three songs after I sat down; but Andy is crafty, and he got four backup musicians up there with Eddie, and he beamed!! He played for an hour, and the crowd – including the Uke Man – were in Seventh Heaven.
I had been so excited, that I hadn’t eaten. So when it was over, Roger got me some delicious pasta and wine to fill the empty spot; then I had a chance to jam and share some songs into the evening.
But all good things must end, and on Saturday I drove to San Jose and hours later I was home in Circleville.
What a wonderful experience!! From beginning to end!! My nephew Nate in the North, Andy and the club in Santa Cruz, the chance to meet Eddie, Roger, and so many more beautiful people, and the chance to share my songs and myself with them.
I will remember and savor it as long as I live.
- Uke Man
But all good things must end, and on Saturday I drove to San Jose and hours later I was home in Circleville.
What a wonderful experience!! From beginning to end!! My nephew Nate in the North, Andy and the club in Santa Cruz, the chance to meet Eddie, Roger, and so many more beautiful people, and the chance to share my songs and myself with them.
I will remember and savor it as long as I live.
- Uke Man
It's not just Kansas where something's "the matter"
Hey Folks,
Here’s the problem: we are our own worst enemy.
Sometimes we’re ignorant; sometimes we’re stupid; but we often accomplish our own degradation by exercising our best “values” and “altruism.”
Our masters are so adept at feeding us crap that we praise them for it (or at least those among us who are given wide public exposure praise them for it). It’s the slave mentality – the slave accepts the fundamental assumptions of the master – it’s as old as Moses in Egypt and well-illustrated in U.S. slavery where the most pliable, gullible, self-denying “good” slaves were moved into the house and “dressed up.”
Case in point: the story below.
It’s pathetic - on so many levels. Yet it is not unexpected that someone would be found to be held up and publicized as a “shining example” of how a “Good American” behaves.
First of all, these Alaskan native Americans are in sad shape BECAUSE of our government – our government from the BEGINNING of it – not just since Bush. They have immeasurable reason to resent rather than defend the Enforcer-in-Chief - of the white world.
But they’re patriotic.
Secondly, they live in ALASKA – for god’s sake – a state flush with OIL and oil WEALTH !! Yet they must pay “heating oil prices [that] are among the highest in the nation.” They can’t pay it and they’re not getting help from the blessed government to stay warm.
But they’re patriotic, nevertheless, and defend our president, a Texas oil man.
Third, there’s plenty of reason to call Bush a “devil.” But they’d rather freeze their patriotic butts off than admit it.
Fourthly, they are upset with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela (who is offering to help them) for criticizing Bush.
Our mainstream media haven't made it exactly common knowledge that the wealthy 20% of Venezuela have criticized Chavez for helping the 80% of Venezuelans who live below the poverty level - the impoverished “negros y indios” as one white, elite Venezuelan media mogul called them with a snear.
This is how the wealthy scum of the world maintain their privilege; we help them; we defend them; we take on their enemies; we freeze for them; we starve for them; we die for them.
At least some of us do. And those are the "virtuous" ones you read about in the paper. Maybe the rest of us ought to raise some hell.
Finally, Oscar Wilde said some things worth repeating here:
“We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so.”
“As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them.”
- Uke Man
Poor Alaskans reject free oil offer
Venezuelan leader’s comments about Bush sour deal
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Jeannette J . Lee
ASSOCIATED PRESS
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — In Alaska’s native villages, the punishing winter cold is already coming through the walls of the lightly insulated plywood homes, many of the villagers are desperately poor, and heating oil prices are among the highest in the nation.
And yet a few villages are refusing free heating oil from Venezuela, on the patriotic principle that no foreigner has the right to call their president "the devil."
The heating oil is being offered by the petroleum company controlled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, President Bush’s nemesis. While scores of Alaska’s Eskimo and Indian villages say they have no choice but to accept, others would rather suffer.
"As a citizen of this country, you can have your own opinion of our president and our country. But I don’t want a foreigner coming in here and bashing us," said Justine Gunderson, tribal council administrator in the Aleut village of Nelson Lagoon. "Even though we’re in economically dire straits, it was the right choice to make."
Nelson Lagoon residents pay more than $5 a gallon for oil — or at least $300 a month per household — to heat their homes along the wind-swept coast of the Bering Sea, where temperatures can dip to minus-15. About one-quarter of the 70 villagers are looking for work, in part because Alaska’s salmon-fishing industry has been hit hard by competition from fish farms.
The donation to Alaska’s native villages has focused attention on the rampant poverty and high fuel prices in a state that is otherwise awash in oil — and oil profits. In 2005, 86 percent of the Alaska’s general fund, or $2.8 billion, came from oil from the North Slope.
The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, a native nonprofit organization that would have handled the heating-oil donation on behalf of 291 households in Nelson Lagoon, Atka, St. Paul and St. George, rejected the offer because of the insults Chavez has hurled at Bush.
Chavez called Bush "the devil" in a speech to the United Nations last month. He has also called the president a terrorist and denounced the war in Iraq.
During the past two years, Citgo, the Venezuelan government’s Texas-based oil subsidiary, has given millions of gallons of discounted heating oil to the poor in several states and cities — including New York, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Maine — in what is widely seen as an effort by Chavez to embarrass and irritate the U.S. government and make himself look good.
John Manly, a spokesman for Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski, said the governor thinks Chavez’s donation is a ploy to undermine Americans’ faith in their government. But he said it is up to each village to make its own decision.
Here’s the problem: we are our own worst enemy.
Sometimes we’re ignorant; sometimes we’re stupid; but we often accomplish our own degradation by exercising our best “values” and “altruism.”
Our masters are so adept at feeding us crap that we praise them for it (or at least those among us who are given wide public exposure praise them for it). It’s the slave mentality – the slave accepts the fundamental assumptions of the master – it’s as old as Moses in Egypt and well-illustrated in U.S. slavery where the most pliable, gullible, self-denying “good” slaves were moved into the house and “dressed up.”
Case in point: the story below.
It’s pathetic - on so many levels. Yet it is not unexpected that someone would be found to be held up and publicized as a “shining example” of how a “Good American” behaves.
First of all, these Alaskan native Americans are in sad shape BECAUSE of our government – our government from the BEGINNING of it – not just since Bush. They have immeasurable reason to resent rather than defend the Enforcer-in-Chief - of the white world.
But they’re patriotic.
Secondly, they live in ALASKA – for god’s sake – a state flush with OIL and oil WEALTH !! Yet they must pay “heating oil prices [that] are among the highest in the nation.” They can’t pay it and they’re not getting help from the blessed government to stay warm.
But they’re patriotic, nevertheless, and defend our president, a Texas oil man.
Third, there’s plenty of reason to call Bush a “devil.” But they’d rather freeze their patriotic butts off than admit it.
Fourthly, they are upset with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela (who is offering to help them) for criticizing Bush.
Our mainstream media haven't made it exactly common knowledge that the wealthy 20% of Venezuela have criticized Chavez for helping the 80% of Venezuelans who live below the poverty level - the impoverished “negros y indios” as one white, elite Venezuelan media mogul called them with a snear.
This is how the wealthy scum of the world maintain their privilege; we help them; we defend them; we take on their enemies; we freeze for them; we starve for them; we die for them.
At least some of us do. And those are the "virtuous" ones you read about in the paper. Maybe the rest of us ought to raise some hell.
Finally, Oscar Wilde said some things worth repeating here:
“We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so.”
“As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them.”
- Uke Man
Poor Alaskans reject free oil offer
Venezuelan leader’s comments about Bush sour deal
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Jeannette J . Lee
ASSOCIATED PRESS
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — In Alaska’s native villages, the punishing winter cold is already coming through the walls of the lightly insulated plywood homes, many of the villagers are desperately poor, and heating oil prices are among the highest in the nation.
And yet a few villages are refusing free heating oil from Venezuela, on the patriotic principle that no foreigner has the right to call their president "the devil."
The heating oil is being offered by the petroleum company controlled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, President Bush’s nemesis. While scores of Alaska’s Eskimo and Indian villages say they have no choice but to accept, others would rather suffer.
"As a citizen of this country, you can have your own opinion of our president and our country. But I don’t want a foreigner coming in here and bashing us," said Justine Gunderson, tribal council administrator in the Aleut village of Nelson Lagoon. "Even though we’re in economically dire straits, it was the right choice to make."
Nelson Lagoon residents pay more than $5 a gallon for oil — or at least $300 a month per household — to heat their homes along the wind-swept coast of the Bering Sea, where temperatures can dip to minus-15. About one-quarter of the 70 villagers are looking for work, in part because Alaska’s salmon-fishing industry has been hit hard by competition from fish farms.
The donation to Alaska’s native villages has focused attention on the rampant poverty and high fuel prices in a state that is otherwise awash in oil — and oil profits. In 2005, 86 percent of the Alaska’s general fund, or $2.8 billion, came from oil from the North Slope.
The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, a native nonprofit organization that would have handled the heating-oil donation on behalf of 291 households in Nelson Lagoon, Atka, St. Paul and St. George, rejected the offer because of the insults Chavez has hurled at Bush.
Chavez called Bush "the devil" in a speech to the United Nations last month. He has also called the president a terrorist and denounced the war in Iraq.
During the past two years, Citgo, the Venezuelan government’s Texas-based oil subsidiary, has given millions of gallons of discounted heating oil to the poor in several states and cities — including New York, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Maine — in what is widely seen as an effort by Chavez to embarrass and irritate the U.S. government and make himself look good.
John Manly, a spokesman for Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski, said the governor thinks Chavez’s donation is a ploy to undermine Americans’ faith in their government. But he said it is up to each village to make its own decision.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
the California Trip - Part III
Hey Folks,
From San Francisco I traveled down Route 1 to Santa Cruz. It’s a pretty drive, up and down along the coast – looks like mostly agriculture to me – Ohio with bigger bumps and an ocean.
Here are a couple pictures (click 'em to make 'em bigger).
From San Francisco I traveled down Route 1 to Santa Cruz. It’s a pretty drive, up and down along the coast – looks like mostly agriculture to me – Ohio with bigger bumps and an ocean.
Here are a couple pictures (click 'em to make 'em bigger).
When I arrived in Santa Cruz I was taken good care of by my pal – and co-founder of the Ukulele Club of Santa Cruz – Andy Andrews. Check out the club website ( http://www.ukuleleclub.com/ ); it’s a fantastic entity and the premier uke venue west of the Mississippi.
The night I got to town, Andy and his wife Pam took me to the Rio Theatre for the final event of the seventh annual Pacific Rim Film Festival where I met Eddie Kamae and experienced his film, “Li'A: The Legacy of a Hawaiian Man.”
It’s an award-winning documentary film by Eddie and Myrna Kamae. Named One of the Ten Best Documentaries of the Hawaii International Film Festival, it premiered in November 1988. The documentary is about Hawaiian music and is also the story of a place, the Big Island's legendary Waipi'o Valley, and a man whose music was nurtured by that place, Sam Li'a Kalainaina, a man of an older time whose 94 years bridged two centuries and two ways of life.
It was a thrill to meet and learn more about Eddie, and especially to hear him play and sing before the film. Here is a little bit about him.
Born in Honolulu, Eddie Kamae has spent all of his life in the Hawaiian Islands, where he has distinguished himself as a singer, musician, composer, and more recently as a filmmaker. He has been a key figure in the Hawaiian Cultural Renaissance, which found one of its earliest and strongest voices in The Sons of Hawai‘i, the charismatic band formed in the 1960s by Kamae and the legendary singer and guitar virtuoso Gabby Pahinui.
This band became known for the authenticity of its feeling and choice of songs, many of which were a result of Kamae’s research into the archives of long-neglected melodies and lyrics. He is recognized as the first well-known performer to systematically seek out the sources and origins of traditional Hawaiian music.
The night I got to town, Andy and his wife Pam took me to the Rio Theatre for the final event of the seventh annual Pacific Rim Film Festival where I met Eddie Kamae and experienced his film, “Li'A: The Legacy of a Hawaiian Man.”
It’s an award-winning documentary film by Eddie and Myrna Kamae. Named One of the Ten Best Documentaries of the Hawaii International Film Festival, it premiered in November 1988. The documentary is about Hawaiian music and is also the story of a place, the Big Island's legendary Waipi'o Valley, and a man whose music was nurtured by that place, Sam Li'a Kalainaina, a man of an older time whose 94 years bridged two centuries and two ways of life.
It was a thrill to meet and learn more about Eddie, and especially to hear him play and sing before the film. Here is a little bit about him.
Born in Honolulu, Eddie Kamae has spent all of his life in the Hawaiian Islands, where he has distinguished himself as a singer, musician, composer, and more recently as a filmmaker. He has been a key figure in the Hawaiian Cultural Renaissance, which found one of its earliest and strongest voices in The Sons of Hawai‘i, the charismatic band formed in the 1960s by Kamae and the legendary singer and guitar virtuoso Gabby Pahinui.
This band became known for the authenticity of its feeling and choice of songs, many of which were a result of Kamae’s research into the archives of long-neglected melodies and lyrics. He is recognized as the first well-known performer to systematically seek out the sources and origins of traditional Hawaiian music.
Around meeting Eddie and playing the Ukulele Club show Thursday, Andy showed me a good time. I got to the beach and dipped my toe in the Pacific (a definite requirement of mine), picked up a shell (another requirement), revisited the wharf near the Cocoanut Grove (where Pete, Ty, and I played Ukefest West in 2004), visited the University of California, Santa Cruz (the fighting Banana Slugs); and had a nice meal on the water among the yachts.
Here are some pictures (remember to click ‘em to make ‘em bigger).
Part IV – the Show is in the works.
- Uke Man
Here are some pictures (remember to click ‘em to make ‘em bigger).
Part IV – the Show is in the works.
- Uke Man
As Ari Fleischer said, "Watch what you say!"
Hey Folks,
Regular Americans (hell, regular people) just don’t get it. The fucks who run things are ruthless scum.
Regular folks are raised up to think the leaders are just like us, only more so – kinder, gentler, more attentive to manners, custom, “morality,” and law. Well, forget that. The people on top are heartless self-serving, lying, vicious beasts.
If I had the time to write it and you to read it, I could go on at great length with historical documentation – but most people will either believe me or not without regard to documentation.
I’ll mention a few examples worth looking into if anyone is so inclined: Czar Nicholas II, the present leaders of China, all feudal nobility, innumerable religious leaders, Carnegie-Rockefeller-Robber Barons et.al., American slave owners (including our “Founding Fathers”), Cecil Rhodes, and – since they are legally imbued with the rights of actual living souls – large corporations.
All these – and the millions more that belong on this list (and what makes anyone think that in the last fifty or a hundred years leaders [even ours] have suddenly changed?) – will brook no shenanigans from underlings or competitors. They will stop you one way or another; lightly if possible, a little more strongly if necessary (as in the story below), or more forcefully. If necessary, they will kill you.
Don’t act shocked. You know they will. Leaders will kill anyone they want whenever they want. They always have and they always will. The fact that they didn’t have to kill Steve Howards (below) doesn’t change that.
And the fact that they won’t kill the rest of us as long as we are pliable, toe the line, and don’t complain too much doesn’t constitute a counter argument either.
- Uke Man
Criticizing Cheney to His Face Is Assault?
By Matthew RothschildOctober 4, 2006
(a ukethanks to Linda)
Steve Howards says he used to fantasize about what he’d say to President Bush orVice President Cheney if he ever got the chance.
That opportunity arrived on June 16, the same day he says he read about U.S.fatalities in Iraq reaching 2,500.“Initially, I walked past him. Then I said to myself, ‘I can’t in goodconscience let this opportunity pass by.’ So I approached him, I got about twofeet away, and I said in a very calm tone of voice, ‘Your policies in Iraq arereprehensible.’”
Howards says he was taking two of his kids to their Suzuki piano camp in BeaverCreek, Colorado. They were walking across the outdoor public mall area when allof a sudden he saw Cheney there.
“I didn’t even know he was in town,” Howards says. “He was walking through thearea shaking hands. Initially, I walked past him. Then I said to myself, ‘Ican’t in good conscience let this opportunity pass by.’ So I approached him, Igot about two feet away, and I said in a very calm tone of voice, ‘Your policiesin Iraq are reprehensible.’ And then I walked away.”
Howards says he knew the Administration has a “history of making problems” forpeople who protest its policies, so he wanted to leave off at that.
But the Secret Service did not take kindly to his comment.“About ten minuteslater, I came back through the mall with my eight-year-old son in tow,” Howardsrecalls, “and this Secret Service man came out of the shadows, and his exactwords were, ‘Did you assault the Vice President?’ ”
Here’s how Howards says he responded: “No, but I did tell Mr. Cheney the way Ifelt about the war in Iraq, and if Mr. Cheney wants to be shielded from publiccriticism, he should avoid public places. If exercising my constitutional rightsto free speech is against the law, then you should arrest me.”
Which is just what the agent, Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle Jr, proceeded to do.
“He grabbed me and cuffed my hands behind my back in the presence of myeight-year-old son and told me I was being charged with assault of the VicePresident,”Howards recalls.
He says he told the agent, “I can’t abandon my eight-year-old son in a public mall.”
According to Howards, Reichle responded: “We’ll call Social Services.” Beforethat could happen, however, “my son ran away and found my wife,” who was nearby,Howards says.
“First of all, I was scared,” Howard recalls. “They wouldn’t tell my wife wherethey were taking me. Second of all, I was incredulous this could be happening inthe United States of America. This is what I read about happening in TiananmenSquare. They hauled me away to Eagle County jail and kept me with my handscuffed behind my back for three hours.”
At the jail, the charge against him was reduced to harassment, he says, and hewas released on $500 bond. The Eagle County DA’s office eventually dropped thatcharge.
On October 3, Howards sued Reichle for depriving him of his First Amendmentright of free speech and his Fourth Amendment right to be protected from illegalseizure.
Howards and his attorney, David Lane, have not demanded a specific dollar amount.
“We will go to trial and let a Colorado jury decide what type of damages areappropriate,” says Howards. “This isn’t about anything I did. This about what Isaid. There is a frontal assault occurring on our constitutional right to freespeech. We brought this suit because of our belief that this Administration’sattempt to suppress free speech is a greater threat to the long-term integrityof this nation than ten Osama bin Ladens.”
Reichle did not return my call for comment. Nor did he respond to The New YorkTimes in its article on this incident.
Lon Garner, special agent in charge at the Secret Service’s Denver office, sayshe has “no reaction” to the lawsuit. “It’s in litigation,” he says. “We have nocomment.”
Before his encounter with Cheney, Howards says he had a clean record.
“I was never arrested before,” he says. “I don’t have so much as a speeding ticket.”
Source URL: http://progressive.org/mag_mc100406
Regular Americans (hell, regular people) just don’t get it. The fucks who run things are ruthless scum.
Regular folks are raised up to think the leaders are just like us, only more so – kinder, gentler, more attentive to manners, custom, “morality,” and law. Well, forget that. The people on top are heartless self-serving, lying, vicious beasts.
If I had the time to write it and you to read it, I could go on at great length with historical documentation – but most people will either believe me or not without regard to documentation.
I’ll mention a few examples worth looking into if anyone is so inclined: Czar Nicholas II, the present leaders of China, all feudal nobility, innumerable religious leaders, Carnegie-Rockefeller-Robber Barons et.al., American slave owners (including our “Founding Fathers”), Cecil Rhodes, and – since they are legally imbued with the rights of actual living souls – large corporations.
All these – and the millions more that belong on this list (and what makes anyone think that in the last fifty or a hundred years leaders [even ours] have suddenly changed?) – will brook no shenanigans from underlings or competitors. They will stop you one way or another; lightly if possible, a little more strongly if necessary (as in the story below), or more forcefully. If necessary, they will kill you.
Don’t act shocked. You know they will. Leaders will kill anyone they want whenever they want. They always have and they always will. The fact that they didn’t have to kill Steve Howards (below) doesn’t change that.
And the fact that they won’t kill the rest of us as long as we are pliable, toe the line, and don’t complain too much doesn’t constitute a counter argument either.
- Uke Man
Criticizing Cheney to His Face Is Assault?
By Matthew RothschildOctober 4, 2006
(a ukethanks to Linda)
Steve Howards says he used to fantasize about what he’d say to President Bush orVice President Cheney if he ever got the chance.
That opportunity arrived on June 16, the same day he says he read about U.S.fatalities in Iraq reaching 2,500.“Initially, I walked past him. Then I said to myself, ‘I can’t in goodconscience let this opportunity pass by.’ So I approached him, I got about twofeet away, and I said in a very calm tone of voice, ‘Your policies in Iraq arereprehensible.’”
Howards says he was taking two of his kids to their Suzuki piano camp in BeaverCreek, Colorado. They were walking across the outdoor public mall area when allof a sudden he saw Cheney there.
“I didn’t even know he was in town,” Howards says. “He was walking through thearea shaking hands. Initially, I walked past him. Then I said to myself, ‘Ican’t in good conscience let this opportunity pass by.’ So I approached him, Igot about two feet away, and I said in a very calm tone of voice, ‘Your policiesin Iraq are reprehensible.’ And then I walked away.”
Howards says he knew the Administration has a “history of making problems” forpeople who protest its policies, so he wanted to leave off at that.
But the Secret Service did not take kindly to his comment.“About ten minuteslater, I came back through the mall with my eight-year-old son in tow,” Howardsrecalls, “and this Secret Service man came out of the shadows, and his exactwords were, ‘Did you assault the Vice President?’ ”
Here’s how Howards says he responded: “No, but I did tell Mr. Cheney the way Ifelt about the war in Iraq, and if Mr. Cheney wants to be shielded from publiccriticism, he should avoid public places. If exercising my constitutional rightsto free speech is against the law, then you should arrest me.”
Which is just what the agent, Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle Jr, proceeded to do.
“He grabbed me and cuffed my hands behind my back in the presence of myeight-year-old son and told me I was being charged with assault of the VicePresident,”Howards recalls.
He says he told the agent, “I can’t abandon my eight-year-old son in a public mall.”
According to Howards, Reichle responded: “We’ll call Social Services.” Beforethat could happen, however, “my son ran away and found my wife,” who was nearby,Howards says.
“First of all, I was scared,” Howard recalls. “They wouldn’t tell my wife wherethey were taking me. Second of all, I was incredulous this could be happening inthe United States of America. This is what I read about happening in TiananmenSquare. They hauled me away to Eagle County jail and kept me with my handscuffed behind my back for three hours.”
At the jail, the charge against him was reduced to harassment, he says, and hewas released on $500 bond. The Eagle County DA’s office eventually dropped thatcharge.
On October 3, Howards sued Reichle for depriving him of his First Amendmentright of free speech and his Fourth Amendment right to be protected from illegalseizure.
Howards and his attorney, David Lane, have not demanded a specific dollar amount.
“We will go to trial and let a Colorado jury decide what type of damages areappropriate,” says Howards. “This isn’t about anything I did. This about what Isaid. There is a frontal assault occurring on our constitutional right to freespeech. We brought this suit because of our belief that this Administration’sattempt to suppress free speech is a greater threat to the long-term integrityof this nation than ten Osama bin Ladens.”
Reichle did not return my call for comment. Nor did he respond to The New YorkTimes in its article on this incident.
Lon Garner, special agent in charge at the Secret Service’s Denver office, sayshe has “no reaction” to the lawsuit. “It’s in litigation,” he says. “We have nocomment.”
Before his encounter with Cheney, Howards says he had a clean record.
“I was never arrested before,” he says. “I don’t have so much as a speeding ticket.”
Source URL: http://progressive.org/mag_mc100406
Monday, October 16, 2006
the California Trip - Part II
Hey Folks,
The trip from Nate’s (Arcata/Eureka, California) to San Francisco (on the way to Santa Cruz) was fun (if long). Going back down Route 101, I said goodbye to the north country and hello to redwoods again.
Here are some pictures (most will enlarge if you click on them); first of Northern California, and then the Trees, and finally San Francisco. Most are from postcards. (Part III - Santa Cruz - is in the works)
- Uke Man
The trip from Nate’s (Arcata/Eureka, California) to San Francisco (on the way to Santa Cruz) was fun (if long). Going back down Route 101, I said goodbye to the north country and hello to redwoods again.
Here are some pictures (most will enlarge if you click on them); first of Northern California, and then the Trees, and finally San Francisco. Most are from postcards. (Part III - Santa Cruz - is in the works)
- Uke Man
The commendable, the expendable, and the hand-clappers
Hey Folks,
The kid doesn't get it.
The war exists to benefit the few, not to sacrifice the few. And since the many would not allow the few to benefit by sacrificing the many, the few (the commendable few) MUST sacrifice the few (the expendable few) to benefit the commendable few and keep the many clapping in airports on their way to Vegas.
And even if the many were being sacrificed, by definition the few are not part of the many - we couldn't ask them to sacrifice - well, maybe they could join the Air National Guard long enough to get their teeth cleaned.
But really, folks, even that's asking an awful lot, don't you think!
- Uke Man
October 12, 2006
Sacrifice of the Few
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Clarksville, Tenn.
Sgt. Mike Krause remembers the time, not too long ago, when he came home on a brief leave from Iraq. He was walking through an airport, in uniform, and other passengers, spotting him, began to applaud.
“It was awesome,” he said. “They were cheering and clapping. It was great. But you know what? I said to myself, ‘That guy’s flying to Toledo on a business trip. This lady over here is flying off on vacation. Their lives are normal. But soon I’ll be getting on a plane to go back to the most abnormal place on earth.’ ”
Just how abnormal is made explicit when the sergeant, just 24 years old, describes the worst task he had to perform in Iraq. He spoke hesitantly. “You’ll excuse me,” he said. “This is not easy to talk about. Part of our job, our duty, was that we loaded, you know, bodies. We were in charge of the airfield, and we would load these heroes into the aircraft.
“My platoon sergeant had a policy. He didn’t want lower-ranking soldiers involved. He told us, ‘I don’t want privates doing this. You guys are going to carry this with you, whether you realize it or not, for the rest of your lives. If I can protect the privates, I will.’
“I don’t know if I could ever explain what that was really like. I loaded those guys — and I know all their names — onto a plane. And you don’t know how heavy a guy in a body bag can be. It’s not just his weight. He may be 180 pounds, but it’s a lot more than just a 180-pound guy. You’re loading his entire life.”
Sergeant Krause, who served with the Army’s 101st Airborne Division, lives in a quiet middle-class subdivision not far from Fort Campbell, which is on the Tennessee-Kentucky border. Sprawled in his living room in jeans and a polo shirt, he seems happy. He’s safely home after serving three nerve-racking combat tours — one in Afghanistan and two yearlong tours in Iraq. He’s engaged to be married and will receive a degree soon from nearby Austin Peay State University. His commitment to the military, which he made while still in high school in Huntsville, Ala., will end in a few months.
But there is a definite edge in his voice, an undercurrent of bitterness, when he talks about the tiny percentage of the American population that is shouldering the burden of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “We’re nowhere close to sharing the sacrifice,” he said. “And it should be shared, because it’s only in that sharing that society will truly care about what’s going on over there.
“Right now it’s such a small minority of families who have a stake in all of this. I hear people say things like, ‘We lost a lot of good people over there.’ I sort of snap around and say, ‘We? You didn’t lose anybody.’ You know what I mean?”
While most Americans are free to go about their daily business, unaffected by the wars in any way, scores of thousands of troops have been sent off on repeat tours into the combat zones. According to the support group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, two-thirds of the 92,000 Army troops deployed since the beginning of this year are on at least their second deployment.
Many soldiers, like Sergeant Krause, have served three or four tours. There is no way for a nation as big and as rich and as healthy as the U.S. to justify the imposition of such a tragic and heavy load on the backs of so few.
Sergeant Krause showed me a photo of a soldier who he thought would become his brother-in-law, a 23-year-old West Point graduate named Dennis Zilinski. He was killed last November, along with four other American soldiers in a roadside bomb attack near Bayji, Iraq.
Sergeant Krause said that witnessing the profound grief of Lt. Zilinski’s mother and fiancée “drove home” the real meaning of wartime sacrifice.
Sergeant Krause is proud of his service and still loves the military. “But we’re a nation at war,” he said, “and we should all be in this together.”
He said that if he could wave a magic wand, he would make some form of public service compulsory. “You wouldn’t have to join the military,” he said. “But there are many other ways to serve. You could work for AmeriCorps, or the Red Cross, or Homeland Security. You could do something. It’s about social responsibility. Especially in a time of war.”
The kid doesn't get it.
The war exists to benefit the few, not to sacrifice the few. And since the many would not allow the few to benefit by sacrificing the many, the few (the commendable few) MUST sacrifice the few (the expendable few) to benefit the commendable few and keep the many clapping in airports on their way to Vegas.
And even if the many were being sacrificed, by definition the few are not part of the many - we couldn't ask them to sacrifice - well, maybe they could join the Air National Guard long enough to get their teeth cleaned.
But really, folks, even that's asking an awful lot, don't you think!
- Uke Man
October 12, 2006
Sacrifice of the Few
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Clarksville, Tenn.
Sgt. Mike Krause remembers the time, not too long ago, when he came home on a brief leave from Iraq. He was walking through an airport, in uniform, and other passengers, spotting him, began to applaud.
“It was awesome,” he said. “They were cheering and clapping. It was great. But you know what? I said to myself, ‘That guy’s flying to Toledo on a business trip. This lady over here is flying off on vacation. Their lives are normal. But soon I’ll be getting on a plane to go back to the most abnormal place on earth.’ ”
Just how abnormal is made explicit when the sergeant, just 24 years old, describes the worst task he had to perform in Iraq. He spoke hesitantly. “You’ll excuse me,” he said. “This is not easy to talk about. Part of our job, our duty, was that we loaded, you know, bodies. We were in charge of the airfield, and we would load these heroes into the aircraft.
“My platoon sergeant had a policy. He didn’t want lower-ranking soldiers involved. He told us, ‘I don’t want privates doing this. You guys are going to carry this with you, whether you realize it or not, for the rest of your lives. If I can protect the privates, I will.’
“I don’t know if I could ever explain what that was really like. I loaded those guys — and I know all their names — onto a plane. And you don’t know how heavy a guy in a body bag can be. It’s not just his weight. He may be 180 pounds, but it’s a lot more than just a 180-pound guy. You’re loading his entire life.”
Sergeant Krause, who served with the Army’s 101st Airborne Division, lives in a quiet middle-class subdivision not far from Fort Campbell, which is on the Tennessee-Kentucky border. Sprawled in his living room in jeans and a polo shirt, he seems happy. He’s safely home after serving three nerve-racking combat tours — one in Afghanistan and two yearlong tours in Iraq. He’s engaged to be married and will receive a degree soon from nearby Austin Peay State University. His commitment to the military, which he made while still in high school in Huntsville, Ala., will end in a few months.
But there is a definite edge in his voice, an undercurrent of bitterness, when he talks about the tiny percentage of the American population that is shouldering the burden of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “We’re nowhere close to sharing the sacrifice,” he said. “And it should be shared, because it’s only in that sharing that society will truly care about what’s going on over there.
“Right now it’s such a small minority of families who have a stake in all of this. I hear people say things like, ‘We lost a lot of good people over there.’ I sort of snap around and say, ‘We? You didn’t lose anybody.’ You know what I mean?”
While most Americans are free to go about their daily business, unaffected by the wars in any way, scores of thousands of troops have been sent off on repeat tours into the combat zones. According to the support group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, two-thirds of the 92,000 Army troops deployed since the beginning of this year are on at least their second deployment.
Many soldiers, like Sergeant Krause, have served three or four tours. There is no way for a nation as big and as rich and as healthy as the U.S. to justify the imposition of such a tragic and heavy load on the backs of so few.
Sergeant Krause showed me a photo of a soldier who he thought would become his brother-in-law, a 23-year-old West Point graduate named Dennis Zilinski. He was killed last November, along with four other American soldiers in a roadside bomb attack near Bayji, Iraq.
Sergeant Krause said that witnessing the profound grief of Lt. Zilinski’s mother and fiancée “drove home” the real meaning of wartime sacrifice.
Sergeant Krause is proud of his service and still loves the military. “But we’re a nation at war,” he said, “and we should all be in this together.”
He said that if he could wave a magic wand, he would make some form of public service compulsory. “You wouldn’t have to join the military,” he said. “But there are many other ways to serve. You could work for AmeriCorps, or the Red Cross, or Homeland Security. You could do something. It’s about social responsibility. Especially in a time of war.”
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Hey Folks,
One more thing (in advance, I guess).
Nate (you’ll read about him below) helped me finally find a Banana Slug !!
Never heard of the beast? Well, I’m told they’re found only around redwoods. I’ve had three opportunities to become acquainted, but had been stood up on the first two outings. Now at last: satisfaction.
Students of the University of California, Santa Cruz fought to have this harmless, strangely attractive and repulsive creature become their official mascot.
They succeeded and should be proud. I’m certainly proud of them and their antennaed yellow finger in the face of stogy, proprietous authority – the actual slug in this drama.
- Uke Man
p.s. most of the pictures from the trip, below, will enlarge if you click on them.
One more thing (in advance, I guess).
Nate (you’ll read about him below) helped me finally find a Banana Slug !!
Never heard of the beast? Well, I’m told they’re found only around redwoods. I’ve had three opportunities to become acquainted, but had been stood up on the first two outings. Now at last: satisfaction.
Students of the University of California, Santa Cruz fought to have this harmless, strangely attractive and repulsive creature become their official mascot.
They succeeded and should be proud. I’m certainly proud of them and their antennaed yellow finger in the face of stogy, proprietous authority – the actual slug in this drama.
- Uke Man
p.s. most of the pictures from the trip, below, will enlarge if you click on them.
The California Trip - Part I
Hey Folks,
Part one of the trip to California was the flight to Houston’s “George Bush Irrational Airport” for a stop over and postcard-op. Upon re-boarding the plane for San Jose, I found myself seated next to a 40-ish couple from Louisiana.
I asked if they knew whether the airport were named after the Dad or the Son. They said "the Father." I suggested that that wasn’t so bad, then.
Well, let me tell you !!
That woman – to use a simile passed on by Molly Ivans (who, in turn, learned it from a crusty Texas legislator) – she puckered up her mouth tighter than a chicken’s asshole and declared, “We LIKE George Bush!!”
Oh, well.
I told her that was OK; and that a lot of my friends were praying for him.
It was a long trip to San Jose (and I didn’t ask Chicken lips if she “knew the way”).
Part one of the trip to California was the flight to Houston’s “George Bush Irrational Airport” for a stop over and postcard-op. Upon re-boarding the plane for San Jose, I found myself seated next to a 40-ish couple from Louisiana.
I asked if they knew whether the airport were named after the Dad or the Son. They said "the Father." I suggested that that wasn’t so bad, then.
Well, let me tell you !!
That woman – to use a simile passed on by Molly Ivans (who, in turn, learned it from a crusty Texas legislator) – she puckered up her mouth tighter than a chicken’s asshole and declared, “We LIKE George Bush!!”
Oh, well.
I told her that was OK; and that a lot of my friends were praying for him.
It was a long trip to San Jose (and I didn’t ask Chicken lips if she “knew the way”).
Then it was seven hours on the road to my nephew Nate’s place.
Drove by the Oakland Raiders’ stadium (it looked seedier than I would have thought); made my way up 580 to the San Rafael Bridge; picked up 101; and it was just 282.9 miles (official AAA data) up that “Redwood Highway” to Nate’s.
On the way I DID pass some tall timber. I’d seen some before, but it still spooked me when they suddenly jumped out so big and still right there on the road.
Drove by the Oakland Raiders’ stadium (it looked seedier than I would have thought); made my way up 580 to the San Rafael Bridge; picked up 101; and it was just 282.9 miles (official AAA data) up that “Redwood Highway” to Nate’s.
On the way I DID pass some tall timber. I’d seen some before, but it still spooked me when they suddenly jumped out so big and still right there on the road.
I arrived at Nate’s and spent three great days with the 26 year old tycoon.
He’s a marvel, making a damned good living as a North Woods financier / building contractor; and he loves northern California.
He’s a marvel, making a damned good living as a North Woods financier / building contractor; and he loves northern California.
I got to play twice while at Nate’s, but I never got around to taking many pictures (senility sneaking up on the Uke Man).
Monday Nate and I ate and I played at a gourmet restaurant in Ferndale – “Curley’s” - where they have an open stage.
I was tipped off about it by Jason Hodel of UKEsperience. Two of his band mates are in the house band there. Jason dropped by, and three of the UKEsperiencers played a few – as did I. Check them out at http://www.myspace.com/ukesperience
Great fun, great food, and new friends.
Monday Nate and I ate and I played at a gourmet restaurant in Ferndale – “Curley’s” - where they have an open stage.
I was tipped off about it by Jason Hodel of UKEsperience. Two of his band mates are in the house band there. Jason dropped by, and three of the UKEsperiencers played a few – as did I. Check them out at http://www.myspace.com/ukesperience
Great fun, great food, and new friends.
Tuesday night I played two sets at 6 Rivers Brewery. Fun, an appreciative crowd, and I got to meet some of Nate's friends.
Well, on Wednesday it was another seven hour drive to San Francisco and then down Route 1 to Santa Cruz..
But that’s Part II, and I’ll post it sometime soon.
- Uke Man
But that’s Part II, and I’ll post it sometime soon.
- Uke Man
The Second Coming
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming!
Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
-- William Butler Yeats, January 1919
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming!
Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
-- William Butler Yeats, January 1919
"But you can't fool all the people all of the time."
Hey Folks,
Let's hope Krugman's right !!
- Uke Man
p.s. In the morning I'll post a related poem.
October 2, 2006
Things Fall Apart
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Right after the 2004 election, it seemed as if Thomas Frank had been completely vindicated. In his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,” Mr. Frank argued that America’s right wing had developed a permanent winning strategy based on the use of “values” issues to mobilize white working-class voters against a largely mythical cultural elite, while actually pursuing policies designed to benefit a small economic elite.
It was and is a brilliant analysis. But the political strategy Mr. Frank described may have less staying power than he feared. In fact, the right-wing coalition that has spent 40 years climbing to its current position of political dominance may be cracking up.
At its core, the political axis that currently controls Congress and the White House is an alliance between the preachers and the plutocrats — between the religious right, which hates gays, abortion and the theory of evolution, and the economic right, which hates Social Security, Medicare and taxes on rich people. Surrounding this core is a large periphery of politicians and lobbyists who joined the movement not out of conviction, but to share in the spoils.
Together, these groups formed a seemingly invincible political coalition, in which the religious right supplied the passion and the economic right supplied the money.
The coalition has, however, always been more vulnerable than it seemed, because it was an alliance based not on shared goals, but on each group’s belief that it could use the other to get what it wants. Bring that belief into question, and the whole thing falls apart.
Future historians may date the beginning of the right-wing crackup to the days immediately following the 2004 election, when President Bush tried to convert a victory won by portraying John Kerry as weak on defense into a mandate for Social Security privatization. The attempted bait-and-switch failed in the face of overwhelming public opposition. If anything, the Bush plan was even less popular in deep-red states like Montana than in states that voted for Mr. Kerry.
And the religious and cultural right, which boasted of having supplied the Bush campaign with its “shock troops” and expected a right-wing cultural agenda in return — starting with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage — was dismayed when the administration put its energy into attacking the welfare state instead. James Dobson, the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, accused Republicans of “just ignoring those that put them in office.”
It will be interesting, by the way, to see how Dr. Dobson, who declared of Bill Clinton that “no man has ever done more to debase the presidency,” responds to the Foley scandal. Does the failure of Republican leaders to do anything about a sexual predator in their midst outrage him as much as a Democratic president’s consensual affair?
In any case, just as the religious right was feeling betrayed by Mr. Bush’s focus on the goals of the economic right, the economic right suddenly seemed to become aware of the nature of its political allies. “Where in the hell did this Terri Schiavo thing come from?” asked Dick Armey, the former House majority leader, in an interview with Ryan Sager, the author of “The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians and the Battle to Control the Republican Party.” The answer, he said, was “blatant pandering to James Dobson.” He went on, “Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies.”
Some Republicans are switching parties. James Webb, who may pull off a macaca-fueled upset against Senator George Allen of Virginia, was secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. Charles Barkley, a former N.B.A. star who used to be mentioned as a possible future Republican candidate, recently declared, “I was a Republican until they lost their minds.”
So the right-wing coalition is showing signs of coming apart. It seems that we’re not in Kansas anymore. In fact, Kansas itself doesn’t seem to be in Kansas anymore. Kathleen Sebelius, the state’s Democratic governor, has achieved a sky-high favorability rating by focusing on good governance rather than culture wars, and her party believes it will win big this year.
And nine former Kansas Republicans, including Mark Parkinson, the former state G.O.P. chairman, are now running for state office as Democrats. Why did Mr. Parkinson change parties? Because he “got tired of the theological debate over whether Charles Darwin was right.”
Let's hope Krugman's right !!
- Uke Man
p.s. In the morning I'll post a related poem.
October 2, 2006
Things Fall Apart
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Right after the 2004 election, it seemed as if Thomas Frank had been completely vindicated. In his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,” Mr. Frank argued that America’s right wing had developed a permanent winning strategy based on the use of “values” issues to mobilize white working-class voters against a largely mythical cultural elite, while actually pursuing policies designed to benefit a small economic elite.
It was and is a brilliant analysis. But the political strategy Mr. Frank described may have less staying power than he feared. In fact, the right-wing coalition that has spent 40 years climbing to its current position of political dominance may be cracking up.
At its core, the political axis that currently controls Congress and the White House is an alliance between the preachers and the plutocrats — between the religious right, which hates gays, abortion and the theory of evolution, and the economic right, which hates Social Security, Medicare and taxes on rich people. Surrounding this core is a large periphery of politicians and lobbyists who joined the movement not out of conviction, but to share in the spoils.
Together, these groups formed a seemingly invincible political coalition, in which the religious right supplied the passion and the economic right supplied the money.
The coalition has, however, always been more vulnerable than it seemed, because it was an alliance based not on shared goals, but on each group’s belief that it could use the other to get what it wants. Bring that belief into question, and the whole thing falls apart.
Future historians may date the beginning of the right-wing crackup to the days immediately following the 2004 election, when President Bush tried to convert a victory won by portraying John Kerry as weak on defense into a mandate for Social Security privatization. The attempted bait-and-switch failed in the face of overwhelming public opposition. If anything, the Bush plan was even less popular in deep-red states like Montana than in states that voted for Mr. Kerry.
And the religious and cultural right, which boasted of having supplied the Bush campaign with its “shock troops” and expected a right-wing cultural agenda in return — starting with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage — was dismayed when the administration put its energy into attacking the welfare state instead. James Dobson, the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, accused Republicans of “just ignoring those that put them in office.”
It will be interesting, by the way, to see how Dr. Dobson, who declared of Bill Clinton that “no man has ever done more to debase the presidency,” responds to the Foley scandal. Does the failure of Republican leaders to do anything about a sexual predator in their midst outrage him as much as a Democratic president’s consensual affair?
In any case, just as the religious right was feeling betrayed by Mr. Bush’s focus on the goals of the economic right, the economic right suddenly seemed to become aware of the nature of its political allies. “Where in the hell did this Terri Schiavo thing come from?” asked Dick Armey, the former House majority leader, in an interview with Ryan Sager, the author of “The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians and the Battle to Control the Republican Party.” The answer, he said, was “blatant pandering to James Dobson.” He went on, “Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies.”
Some Republicans are switching parties. James Webb, who may pull off a macaca-fueled upset against Senator George Allen of Virginia, was secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. Charles Barkley, a former N.B.A. star who used to be mentioned as a possible future Republican candidate, recently declared, “I was a Republican until they lost their minds.”
So the right-wing coalition is showing signs of coming apart. It seems that we’re not in Kansas anymore. In fact, Kansas itself doesn’t seem to be in Kansas anymore. Kathleen Sebelius, the state’s Democratic governor, has achieved a sky-high favorability rating by focusing on good governance rather than culture wars, and her party believes it will win big this year.
And nine former Kansas Republicans, including Mark Parkinson, the former state G.O.P. chairman, are now running for state office as Democrats. Why did Mr. Parkinson change parties? Because he “got tired of the theological debate over whether Charles Darwin was right.”
Saturday, October 14, 2006
I'm BAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK !!!
Hey Folks,
I'm safe and sound and still kickin' in Circleville, Ohio!!!
It's late Saturday night; I definitely will be on here and on the ball tomorrow. And pictures will return to "The Uke Man Speaks"!!!!
- Uke Man
I'm safe and sound and still kickin' in Circleville, Ohio!!!
It's late Saturday night; I definitely will be on here and on the ball tomorrow. And pictures will return to "The Uke Man Speaks"!!!!
- Uke Man
Friday, October 13, 2006
Damn!! I'm tired
Hey Folks,
I'm sorry.
I said I'd write more tonight, but I got tied up with friends here in Santa Crz, and I can't even think swtraight!!
I promise!! When I get home (Sunday). I'll make up for my slack performance here.
Yours - Uke Man
I'm sorry.
I said I'd write more tonight, but I got tied up with friends here in Santa Crz, and I can't even think swtraight!!
I promise!! When I get home (Sunday). I'll make up for my slack performance here.
Yours - Uke Man
Clinton, Bush, & BJ
Hey Folks,
A nice little ditty, if you haven't heard it yet:
http://www.teambio.org/2006/08/but-clinton-got-a-blowjob/
click above; then click on "But Clinton got a blowjob."
- Uke Man
A nice little ditty, if you haven't heard it yet:
http://www.teambio.org/2006/08/but-clinton-got-a-blowjob/
click above; then click on "But Clinton got a blowjob."
- Uke Man
Fri. California
Hey Folks,
Finally back on the computer for a minute.
Last night's show at the Ukulele Club of Santa Cruz was FANTASTIC!!!!
I'll be back later today and share more!!
Love - Uke Man
Finally back on the computer for a minute.
Last night's show at the Ukulele Club of Santa Cruz was FANTASTIC!!!!
I'll be back later today and share more!!
Love - Uke Man
That Evil Hugo Chavez
Hey Folks,
Call me a dupe, but Chavez seems to be more compassionate that our "Compassionate Conservative" Chimper-in-Chief.
- Uke Man
Venezuelans reap oil riches
Poor have a voice in how money is spent
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Robert Collier
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
CARACAS, Venezuela — Hugo Chavez’s revolution came to the hillside slum of San Juan one recent night in the glare of a solitary light bulb.
Two-dozen people clustered on a rooftop to debate the money and power that suddenly seemed within their grasp — everything from home construction to bank loans, street repairs, and after-school and vacation-recreation programs for children.
It was the first meeting of San Juan’s communal council, an example of a new grassroots governing structure that is spreading across Venezuela. Like thousands of other such councils, the San Juan group will soon be given previously unheard-of sums of money by the central government in what Chavez calls "a revolution within the revolution."
While the Venezuelan president has caused international controversy with his angry denunciations of the Bush administration, this is where the rubber meets the road for his radical rhetoric. He is spending billions of dollars on anti-poverty programs, in what might be the largest such effort in a developing nation.
And in a gamble that turns part of his own government’s power structure on its head, he is handing a large degree of authority over these spending programs to thousands of these elected local councils.
"The issues in these neighborhoods are very old fights — water, land, decent housing," said Andres Antillano, a professor of social psychology and criminology at the Central University of Venezuela in Caracas who has been an adviser to neighborhood groups.
"For many years, the only relationship with the state was the police. They came here and put everyone against the wall," Antillano said. "Chavez has chosen to gamble on legitimizing these issues. The communal councils are a very serious attempt at grass-roots organizing."
The policy appears especially popular in the hard-bitten slums of Caracas — although the electorate seems divided between a strongly pro-Chavez minority and an apathetic majority. San Juan’s new council was chosen with only 330 of the neighborhood’s 916 eligible adult residents casting ballots.
"We like Chavez because he’s giving us control," said Leomar Aquino, who had just been chosen head of the Education, Culture, Recreation and Sports Committee.
On this night, nobody seemed to know exactly how much their neighborhood would receive. Nor, the next day, did anyone at the offices of the local district government or in the central government buildings downtown.
What is certain is that Venezuela’s petroleum-export earnings are rising rapidly, and the government is spending the money with abandon.
The government initially budgeted $857 million for social spending in 2006. But as oil money floods in, officials keep increasing the amount. It now stands at $7 billion, although many experts view that figure as a guesstimate of money being spent on the fly.
Public-works projects are everywhere, ranging from subway lines in Caracas and Valencia to bridges over the Orinoco River. New medical clinics — mostly staffed by Cuban doctors provided under Chavez’s oil-aid program to Fidel Castro — are within reach of almost everyone in this nation of 25 million people. And infant mortality has been cut from 21 deaths per 1,000 births to 16 per 1,000.
Another initiative that could change the lives of millions of poor Venezuelans is a program to increase land ownership.
Venezuela is the most urbanized nation in Latin America, with about 86 percent of its people living in cities, but about one-third of those urban dwellers have no title to their land. In legal terms they are squatters, and cannot access many government programs.
Call me a dupe, but Chavez seems to be more compassionate that our "Compassionate Conservative" Chimper-in-Chief.
- Uke Man
Venezuelans reap oil riches
Poor have a voice in how money is spent
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Robert Collier
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
CARACAS, Venezuela — Hugo Chavez’s revolution came to the hillside slum of San Juan one recent night in the glare of a solitary light bulb.
Two-dozen people clustered on a rooftop to debate the money and power that suddenly seemed within their grasp — everything from home construction to bank loans, street repairs, and after-school and vacation-recreation programs for children.
It was the first meeting of San Juan’s communal council, an example of a new grassroots governing structure that is spreading across Venezuela. Like thousands of other such councils, the San Juan group will soon be given previously unheard-of sums of money by the central government in what Chavez calls "a revolution within the revolution."
While the Venezuelan president has caused international controversy with his angry denunciations of the Bush administration, this is where the rubber meets the road for his radical rhetoric. He is spending billions of dollars on anti-poverty programs, in what might be the largest such effort in a developing nation.
And in a gamble that turns part of his own government’s power structure on its head, he is handing a large degree of authority over these spending programs to thousands of these elected local councils.
"The issues in these neighborhoods are very old fights — water, land, decent housing," said Andres Antillano, a professor of social psychology and criminology at the Central University of Venezuela in Caracas who has been an adviser to neighborhood groups.
"For many years, the only relationship with the state was the police. They came here and put everyone against the wall," Antillano said. "Chavez has chosen to gamble on legitimizing these issues. The communal councils are a very serious attempt at grass-roots organizing."
The policy appears especially popular in the hard-bitten slums of Caracas — although the electorate seems divided between a strongly pro-Chavez minority and an apathetic majority. San Juan’s new council was chosen with only 330 of the neighborhood’s 916 eligible adult residents casting ballots.
"We like Chavez because he’s giving us control," said Leomar Aquino, who had just been chosen head of the Education, Culture, Recreation and Sports Committee.
On this night, nobody seemed to know exactly how much their neighborhood would receive. Nor, the next day, did anyone at the offices of the local district government or in the central government buildings downtown.
What is certain is that Venezuela’s petroleum-export earnings are rising rapidly, and the government is spending the money with abandon.
The government initially budgeted $857 million for social spending in 2006. But as oil money floods in, officials keep increasing the amount. It now stands at $7 billion, although many experts view that figure as a guesstimate of money being spent on the fly.
Public-works projects are everywhere, ranging from subway lines in Caracas and Valencia to bridges over the Orinoco River. New medical clinics — mostly staffed by Cuban doctors provided under Chavez’s oil-aid program to Fidel Castro — are within reach of almost everyone in this nation of 25 million people. And infant mortality has been cut from 21 deaths per 1,000 births to 16 per 1,000.
Another initiative that could change the lives of millions of poor Venezuelans is a program to increase land ownership.
Venezuela is the most urbanized nation in Latin America, with about 86 percent of its people living in cities, but about one-third of those urban dwellers have no title to their land. In legal terms they are squatters, and cannot access many government programs.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Tues, California
Hey Folks,
Having a great time. Sorry for the diminished blog activity - real trouble with computer.
Anyway, I had a great time last night playing at Curly's in Ferndale. Did 4 or 5 songs, well received.
Got to see UKEexperience and hear them play, as well as some good locals too. Tonight it's the 6 Rivers gig - two LONG sets - then up early and off to San Francisco and Santa Cruz.
Nate has shown me around so well - GREAT redwoods at the Rockefeller forest - maybe the ocean again this afternoon.
Taking a lot of pictures to share here when I return in a few days.
- Uke Man
Having a great time. Sorry for the diminished blog activity - real trouble with computer.
Anyway, I had a great time last night playing at Curly's in Ferndale. Did 4 or 5 songs, well received.
Got to see UKEexperience and hear them play, as well as some good locals too. Tonight it's the 6 Rivers gig - two LONG sets - then up early and off to San Francisco and Santa Cruz.
Nate has shown me around so well - GREAT redwoods at the Rockefeller forest - maybe the ocean again this afternoon.
Taking a lot of pictures to share here when I return in a few days.
- Uke Man
Axes for Mohammed - Coat-hangers for Christ
OK, Folks!!!
The Uke juices are surging and I’m about to burst. I can hardly stand it.
Over in Afghanistan some deranged man who had once been a Muslim with a mental problem and later become a Christian with a mental problem, is liable to be beheaded for being stupid in a politically incorrect way.
How terrible, people being killed because of backward, superstitious religious crap – nothing new, but still terrible!! And, of course, all the politicians are screaming bloody-murder over the sanctity of life and the stupidity of fundamentalist Neanderthals!!
Well, no. Not really.
Actually, they are screaming about “religious freedom” and “democracy.” Our President (who talks to God and, therefore, should know) says, "It is deeply troubling that a country we helped liberate would hold a person to account because they chose a particular religion over another."
Well, the Afghanis want to execute this man in compliance with THEIR view of religion. Wouldn’t keeping them from beheading the fellow restrict THEIR religious freedom? And, at least in Afghanistan, isn’t their God bigger than “our” God?
Similarly, the democratically determined Afghani constitution supports beheading the stupid guy. Hey! Democracy is on the march!!
If anyone REALLY gives a damn about the man’s life, he should be telling him how stupid Christianity and Islam both are, and that he should 1. “reconvert” to Islam 2. leave that religious-mad country at his first opportunity, and 3. join an atheist support group wherever he ends up.
You won’t, however, hear anything like that from any of the nut-cases presently lamenting the situation. It would never dawn on them because they don’t give a damn about this man, about his life, or even “religious freedom.” Most of the politicians, if the truth were known, don’t give a damn about religion either – Christian or otherwise. It’s all about manipulation and personal advancement to them.
“Religious freedom” in our own religion-mad country means “freedom for the nut-case fundamentalists to impose THEIR view of religion on everyone else here"; and they argue that this “freedom” is “democratically” determined since – as they claim – “America is a Christian country.”
Yeah. These clowns support the “universal principle of freedom," the freedom to deny women the freedom to have an abortion, or even to use contraceptives. And, like their Afghani twins support a religiously-based death sentence; i.e. even if an abortion would save the mother’s life, the mother must die. Like the Ayatollah would say, “It’s God’s will.”
Now, that’s stupid if you ask me; but it’s just good old religious freedom and democracy if you ask them.
It seems to me that the Christian zealots are actually even more deranged than the Muslim crackpots. In Afghanistan, the accused lived his whole life knowing the insane “no-switching” rule but chose to break it (outside Afghanistan); he chose to return to Afghanistan, to announce his “affront” to Allah, and to claim no regrets. He was looking for trouble.
But the American Taliban in this “Christian” country is even worse. They would deny emergency contraception to an innocent woman who is gang-raped. They would force her to bear and raise the progeny of that violence, and if the all-knowing, all-loving, compassionate Christian God of theirs should decide that the precious pregnancy he helped create will, in the process, kill the rape victim - tough shit.
Well, to paraphrase the boy-President: It is deeply troubling that a country which claims to cherish religious freedom would hold a person to account because of a narrow, sectarian interpretation imposed on everyone else by the "religion" of a minority of fundamentalist zealots.
It is even more disturbing that a country which claims to be “the Greatest Nation in the World” would become more agitated over the personal freedom of one mentally confused man in Afghanistan than over the health and personal freedom of millions of women right here at home.
This has nothing to do with the sanctity of life, nothing to do with religious freedom, nothing to do with democracy, nothing to do with God. It is all about establishing an intellectual pogram in preparation for a theocracy - one not that much different from the one in Afghanistan - just bigger.
- Uke Man
The Uke juices are surging and I’m about to burst. I can hardly stand it.
Over in Afghanistan some deranged man who had once been a Muslim with a mental problem and later become a Christian with a mental problem, is liable to be beheaded for being stupid in a politically incorrect way.
How terrible, people being killed because of backward, superstitious religious crap – nothing new, but still terrible!! And, of course, all the politicians are screaming bloody-murder over the sanctity of life and the stupidity of fundamentalist Neanderthals!!
Well, no. Not really.
Actually, they are screaming about “religious freedom” and “democracy.” Our President (who talks to God and, therefore, should know) says, "It is deeply troubling that a country we helped liberate would hold a person to account because they chose a particular religion over another."
Well, the Afghanis want to execute this man in compliance with THEIR view of religion. Wouldn’t keeping them from beheading the fellow restrict THEIR religious freedom? And, at least in Afghanistan, isn’t their God bigger than “our” God?
Similarly, the democratically determined Afghani constitution supports beheading the stupid guy. Hey! Democracy is on the march!!
If anyone REALLY gives a damn about the man’s life, he should be telling him how stupid Christianity and Islam both are, and that he should 1. “reconvert” to Islam 2. leave that religious-mad country at his first opportunity, and 3. join an atheist support group wherever he ends up.
You won’t, however, hear anything like that from any of the nut-cases presently lamenting the situation. It would never dawn on them because they don’t give a damn about this man, about his life, or even “religious freedom.” Most of the politicians, if the truth were known, don’t give a damn about religion either – Christian or otherwise. It’s all about manipulation and personal advancement to them.
“Religious freedom” in our own religion-mad country means “freedom for the nut-case fundamentalists to impose THEIR view of religion on everyone else here"; and they argue that this “freedom” is “democratically” determined since – as they claim – “America is a Christian country.”
Yeah. These clowns support the “universal principle of freedom," the freedom to deny women the freedom to have an abortion, or even to use contraceptives. And, like their Afghani twins support a religiously-based death sentence; i.e. even if an abortion would save the mother’s life, the mother must die. Like the Ayatollah would say, “It’s God’s will.”
Now, that’s stupid if you ask me; but it’s just good old religious freedom and democracy if you ask them.
It seems to me that the Christian zealots are actually even more deranged than the Muslim crackpots. In Afghanistan, the accused lived his whole life knowing the insane “no-switching” rule but chose to break it (outside Afghanistan); he chose to return to Afghanistan, to announce his “affront” to Allah, and to claim no regrets. He was looking for trouble.
But the American Taliban in this “Christian” country is even worse. They would deny emergency contraception to an innocent woman who is gang-raped. They would force her to bear and raise the progeny of that violence, and if the all-knowing, all-loving, compassionate Christian God of theirs should decide that the precious pregnancy he helped create will, in the process, kill the rape victim - tough shit.
Well, to paraphrase the boy-President: It is deeply troubling that a country which claims to cherish religious freedom would hold a person to account because of a narrow, sectarian interpretation imposed on everyone else by the "religion" of a minority of fundamentalist zealots.
It is even more disturbing that a country which claims to be “the Greatest Nation in the World” would become more agitated over the personal freedom of one mentally confused man in Afghanistan than over the health and personal freedom of millions of women right here at home.
This has nothing to do with the sanctity of life, nothing to do with religious freedom, nothing to do with democracy, nothing to do with God. It is all about establishing an intellectual pogram in preparation for a theocracy - one not that much different from the one in Afghanistan - just bigger.
- Uke Man
Monday, October 09, 2006
The Gospel of Debbie by Paul Rudnick
THE GOSPEL OF DEBBIE by PAUL RUDNICK Posted 2004-03-08
Recent works like “The Passion of the Christ” and “The Da Vinci Code” seek to illuminate the life of Jesus. Not long ago, an additional text was discovered in an ancient linen backpack found in a cave outside Jerusalem, surrounded by what appeared to be earlyRoman candy wrappers and covered with stickers reading “I [heart] All Faiths” and “Ask Me About Hell.” A parchment diary found inside the backpack appears to contain the musings of one Debbie of Galilee. Many of the pages are still being translated from high-school Aramaic; here are some persuasive excerpts:
October 5
I saw him in the marketplace! Everyone says that he’s the son of God, but I don’t care one way or the other because he’s just so cute!!! O.K., he’s not hot like a gladiator or a centurion, but he’s really sensitive and you can tell that he thinks about things and then goes, “Be nice to people,” and I’m like, that is so true, and I wonder if he’s seeing anyone!
October 21
Everyone says that he’s just totally good and devoted to all humanity and that he was sent to save us and that’s why he doesn’t have time for a girlfriend, although I swear I saw Mary Magdalene doodling in the sand with a stick, writing “Mrs. Jesus Christ” and “Merry Xmas from Mary and Jesus Christ and All the Apostles,” with little holly leaves all around it. And I’m like, Mary, are you dating Jesus? and she says, no, he’s just helping me, and I’m like, you mean with math? and she’s like, no, to not be such a whore. And I said, but that is so incredibly sweet, and we both screamed and talked about whether we like him better when he’s healing the lame or with a ponytail.
December 25
I wanted to get him the perfect thing for his birthday, so I asked Matthew and he said, well, myrrh is good, but then Luke said, oh please, everyone always gives him myrrh, I bet he wishes those wise men had brought scented candles, some imported marmalade, and a nice box of notecards. So I go, O.K., what about accessories, like a new rope belt or clogs or like I could make him a necklace with his name spelled out in little clay letters? and Mark said, I love that, but Luke rolled his eyes and said, Mark, you are just such an Assyrian. So I go to see Mary, Jesus’ mom, and she said that Jesus doesn’t need gifts, that he just wants all of us to love God and be better people, but I asked, what about a sweater? and she said medium.
January 2
Oh my God, oh my God, I couldn’t believe it, but I was right there, and Jesus used only five loaves of bread and two fish to feed thousands of people, and it was so beautiful and miraculous, and my brother Ezekiel said, whoa, Jesus has invented canapés and I said shut up! And then my best friend Rachel asked, I wonder if he could make my hair really shiny, and I said, you are so disgusting, Jesus shouldn’t waste his time on your vanity, and then Jesus smiled at me and I’m telling you, those last seven pounds, the stubborn ones, they were totally gone! And I spoke unto the angry Roman mob and I said, behold these thighs! Jesus has made me feel better about me!
March 12
Everyone is just getting so mean. They’re all going, Debbie, he is so not divine, Debbie, you’ll believe anything, Debbie, what about last year when you were worshipping ponchos? And I so don’t trust that Judas Iscariot, who’s always staring at me when I walk to the well and he’s saying, hey, Deb, nice jugs, and I’m like, oh ha ha ha, get some oxen.
April 5
So Mary Magdalene tells me that Jesus and all the apostles had this big party and that it got really intense and Jesus drank from this golden goblet and now it’s missing and the restaurant is like, this is why there’s a surcharge.
April 23
It’s all over. And it’s been terrible and amazing and I don’t know what any of it means or who’s right and who’s wrong but maybe I’ll figure it out later. Anyway, I’ll always remember what Jesus said to me. He said, Debbie, I can foresee that someday you’ll meet someone, someone wonderful, but for right now let’s at least think about college.
Recent works like “The Passion of the Christ” and “The Da Vinci Code” seek to illuminate the life of Jesus. Not long ago, an additional text was discovered in an ancient linen backpack found in a cave outside Jerusalem, surrounded by what appeared to be earlyRoman candy wrappers and covered with stickers reading “I [heart] All Faiths” and “Ask Me About Hell.” A parchment diary found inside the backpack appears to contain the musings of one Debbie of Galilee. Many of the pages are still being translated from high-school Aramaic; here are some persuasive excerpts:
October 5
I saw him in the marketplace! Everyone says that he’s the son of God, but I don’t care one way or the other because he’s just so cute!!! O.K., he’s not hot like a gladiator or a centurion, but he’s really sensitive and you can tell that he thinks about things and then goes, “Be nice to people,” and I’m like, that is so true, and I wonder if he’s seeing anyone!
October 21
Everyone says that he’s just totally good and devoted to all humanity and that he was sent to save us and that’s why he doesn’t have time for a girlfriend, although I swear I saw Mary Magdalene doodling in the sand with a stick, writing “Mrs. Jesus Christ” and “Merry Xmas from Mary and Jesus Christ and All the Apostles,” with little holly leaves all around it. And I’m like, Mary, are you dating Jesus? and she says, no, he’s just helping me, and I’m like, you mean with math? and she’s like, no, to not be such a whore. And I said, but that is so incredibly sweet, and we both screamed and talked about whether we like him better when he’s healing the lame or with a ponytail.
December 25
I wanted to get him the perfect thing for his birthday, so I asked Matthew and he said, well, myrrh is good, but then Luke said, oh please, everyone always gives him myrrh, I bet he wishes those wise men had brought scented candles, some imported marmalade, and a nice box of notecards. So I go, O.K., what about accessories, like a new rope belt or clogs or like I could make him a necklace with his name spelled out in little clay letters? and Mark said, I love that, but Luke rolled his eyes and said, Mark, you are just such an Assyrian. So I go to see Mary, Jesus’ mom, and she said that Jesus doesn’t need gifts, that he just wants all of us to love God and be better people, but I asked, what about a sweater? and she said medium.
January 2
Oh my God, oh my God, I couldn’t believe it, but I was right there, and Jesus used only five loaves of bread and two fish to feed thousands of people, and it was so beautiful and miraculous, and my brother Ezekiel said, whoa, Jesus has invented canapés and I said shut up! And then my best friend Rachel asked, I wonder if he could make my hair really shiny, and I said, you are so disgusting, Jesus shouldn’t waste his time on your vanity, and then Jesus smiled at me and I’m telling you, those last seven pounds, the stubborn ones, they were totally gone! And I spoke unto the angry Roman mob and I said, behold these thighs! Jesus has made me feel better about me!
March 12
Everyone is just getting so mean. They’re all going, Debbie, he is so not divine, Debbie, you’ll believe anything, Debbie, what about last year when you were worshipping ponchos? And I so don’t trust that Judas Iscariot, who’s always staring at me when I walk to the well and he’s saying, hey, Deb, nice jugs, and I’m like, oh ha ha ha, get some oxen.
April 5
So Mary Magdalene tells me that Jesus and all the apostles had this big party and that it got really intense and Jesus drank from this golden goblet and now it’s missing and the restaurant is like, this is why there’s a surcharge.
April 23
It’s all over. And it’s been terrible and amazing and I don’t know what any of it means or who’s right and who’s wrong but maybe I’ll figure it out later. Anyway, I’ll always remember what Jesus said to me. He said, Debbie, I can foresee that someday you’ll meet someone, someone wonderful, but for right now let’s at least think about college.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Sunday California
Hey Folks,
Boy!! I feel better now. Slept well and ready to go.
Nate's going to give me a ride in his corvette; we're goin' to Denny's for breakfast; then we're off to Arcata Park (home of the Ewoks) and maybe the ocean (ahhhh).
Tomorrow - more redwoods and we'll meet up with the local band UKEexperience at the KHUM open mic at Curly's in Ferndale.
Party on, Dudes!!
- Uke Man
Boy!! I feel better now. Slept well and ready to go.
Nate's going to give me a ride in his corvette; we're goin' to Denny's for breakfast; then we're off to Arcata Park (home of the Ewoks) and maybe the ocean (ahhhh).
Tomorrow - more redwoods and we'll meet up with the local band UKEexperience at the KHUM open mic at Curly's in Ferndale.
Party on, Dudes!!
- Uke Man
Oct. 7 California
Hey Folks,
I'm here. Long day.Beautiful views driving from San Jose to McKinleyville. I'm beat. I'll try to write more tomorrow.
- Uke Man
I'm here. Long day.Beautiful views driving from San Jose to McKinleyville. I'm beat. I'll try to write more tomorrow.
- Uke Man
Friday, October 06, 2006
digby says it well !!
It's Getting Hot In Here by - digby
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115957779617326390
Many thanks to tristero for voicing the frustration and outrage so many of us are feeling about events of this week. I remember writing a piece sometime back about the danger presented by the constant drumbeat of cruel and violent rhetoric that bubbles up from the right wing into the national conversation and becomes more and more acceptable. (David Neiwert, as you know, has written about this extensively.) Civilized taboos are being broken everywhere, especially the most important taboos, the big ones, the ones that put untrammelled power in the hands of unaccountable authority. I wrote in that post called "Flame On High"
Seeing Ann Coulter feted on the cover of Time magazine as a mainstream political figure instead of the deranged, murderous extremist she actually is was quite a shock. And then a friend sent me the links to the Free Republic thread discussing the death of Marla Ruzicka, which made me so nauseous that I had to shut down for a while.
It has become clear to me that we are frogs being slowly boiled to death. And the media are enjoying the hot tub party so much that they are helping to turn up the heat.
Ann Coulter is not, as Howie Kurtz asserts today, the equivalent of Michael Moore. Michael Moore is is not advocating the murder of conservatives. He just isn't. For instance, he doesn't say that Eric Rudolph should be killed so that other conservatives will learn that they can be killed too. He doesn't say that he wishes that Tim McVeigh had blown up the Washington Times Bldg. He doesn't say that conservatives routinely commit the capital offense of treason. He certainly doesn't put up pictures of the fucking snoopy dance because one of his political opponents was killed. He doesn't, in other words, issue calls for violence and repression against his political enemies. That is what Ann Coulter does, in the most coarse, vulgar, reprehensible way possible.
Moore says conservatives are liars and they are corrupt and they are wrong. But he is not saying that they should die. There is a distinction. And it's a distinction that Time magazine and Howard Kurtz apparently cannot see.
I have long felt that it was important not to minimize the impact of this sick shit. For years my friends and others in the online communities would say that it was a waste of time to worry about Rush because there are real issues to worry about. Likewise Coulter. Everytime I write something about her there is always someone chastizing me for wasting their time. Yet, here she is, being given the impramatur of a mainstream publication of record in a whitwash of epic proportions. Slowly, slowly the water is heating up.
The idea was that the rise in heated, violent rhetoric in our culture was leading to serious concerns about the eliminationist impulse on the right. Just this week we see a disgusting anthrax "joke" played on Keith Olbermann because he has had the temerity to speak out against the president --- and a right wing newspaper laughs about it.
But why should that surprise us? We also saw more than half of our elected representatives explictly endorse torture and the repeal of habeas corpus (although they lied right to our faces and said they didn't.)
That shouldn't have surprised us either. CJR has an interesting article this month on how the press covered torture called A Failure of Imagination. It's not pretty:
There is a final factor that has shaped torture coverage, one that is hard to capture. In most big scandals, such as Watergate, the core question is whether the allegations of illegal behavior are true. Here, the ultimate issue isn�t whether the allegations are true, but whether they�re significant, whether they should really be considered a scandal.
Though the administration has decided not to defend publicly the need for �coercive� interrogations, others have. Their argument is that the policy of abusive interrogations is not only acceptable but necessary to protect the United States. At the same time, polls on torture are notoriously sensitive to phrasing. It�s the mixed results themselves, though, that may be telling. Americans appear to be ambivalent about the occasional need for torture. And with ambivalence, perhaps, comes a preference for not wanting to know.
Within this context, any article, no matter how straightforward or truthful, that treats abuse as a potential scandal � even by simply putting allegations on the front page � is itself making a political statement that �we think this is important,� and, implicitly, wrong. To make such a statement takes chutzpah. Between the invasion of Afghanistan in fall 2001 and the revelations about Abu Ghraib in spring 2004, chutzpah was in particularly short supply.
And it still does, apparently. While there has been ample coverage of Bush's torture and indefinite detention regime it has never assumed the level of "scandal." Even Abu Ghraib, where there were pictures of abuses, never really touched the administration. And what happened to the culture?
You'll recall what the most popular radio host in the world had to say about it:
LIMBAUGH: ...this is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?
And you'll recall what leading Republicans said about the criticism he received for that:
Rush's angry, frustrated critics discount how hard it is to make an outrageous charge against him stick. But, we listeners have spent years with him, we know him, and trust him. Rush is one of those rare acquaintances who can be defended against an assault challenging his character without ever knowing the "facts." We trust his good judgment, his unerring decency, and his fierce loyalty to the country he loves and to the courageous young Americans who defend her.
In the days after 9/11 the panic and hysteria were so thick in the air that people were saying a lot of crazy things. I remember writing a blistering post some time back about Jonathan Alter, who is a good guy, but who lost his mind for a bit after 9/11 and entertained this torture concept in his column. We all remember Alan Dershowitz going on the record early with an argument to make torture legal. I was quite stunned at the time, but I assumed that once the smoke cleared the nation would realize, with some chagrin, that many of the things they felt and believed while the rubble was still fresh was no longer acceptable.
The opposite happened. Our culture, debased by years of ugly rightwing eliminationist rhetoric has gotten worse. It is so much worse that it has abandoned the taboo against torture. There is no other way to read the results of this week.
Some of our leadership did speak out against the abuse of prisoners. Hillary Clinton, in particular, addressed the humane treatment of the captured enemy in explicit terms of fundamental American values. Others did as well. But overall, I think it's pretty clear that speaking out against torture is still something that requires chutzpah --- which means that approving of torture is now the norm. We need to recognize that and form our strategy based on that recognition. We are no longer the country I grew up in.
I feel I should point out that the old frog in boiling water thing is incorrect. When a frog feels the water heating up he jumps out. His survival instinct is strong. Humans, on the other hand, are much more complex creatures. It's not that we don't have a surivial instinct --- it's that we have the ability to rationalize and make ourselves believe that boiling water can't kill us --- it only kills frogs. But primitive lizard brain instincts are important in warning us when something is terribly wrong --- and we fail to heed them at our peril.
This country is very swiftly retreating to an uncivilized state. It's not because of gay people getting married or women aborting blastocysts. It's because a vicious, violent ugly faction took over the political discourse and normalized the idea of a powerful enemy within and without America that must be stopped by any means possible.
And the government is giving these people tours of the prison at Guantanamo and they come back and report that it is beautiful resort and the residents are fat and lazy. (Literally. It couldn't be more soviet.)
Of course, the very same person who said that wrote this in 2003:
"In a year's time, Iraq will be, at a bare minimum, the least badly governed state in the Arab world and, at best, pleasant, civilised and thriving. In short: not a bad three weeks' work."
That would be amusing except for the fact that he is no more deluded than the people who run the most powerful country in the world. This water is starting to bubble.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115957779617326390
Many thanks to tristero for voicing the frustration and outrage so many of us are feeling about events of this week. I remember writing a piece sometime back about the danger presented by the constant drumbeat of cruel and violent rhetoric that bubbles up from the right wing into the national conversation and becomes more and more acceptable. (David Neiwert, as you know, has written about this extensively.) Civilized taboos are being broken everywhere, especially the most important taboos, the big ones, the ones that put untrammelled power in the hands of unaccountable authority. I wrote in that post called "Flame On High"
Seeing Ann Coulter feted on the cover of Time magazine as a mainstream political figure instead of the deranged, murderous extremist she actually is was quite a shock. And then a friend sent me the links to the Free Republic thread discussing the death of Marla Ruzicka, which made me so nauseous that I had to shut down for a while.
It has become clear to me that we are frogs being slowly boiled to death. And the media are enjoying the hot tub party so much that they are helping to turn up the heat.
Ann Coulter is not, as Howie Kurtz asserts today, the equivalent of Michael Moore. Michael Moore is is not advocating the murder of conservatives. He just isn't. For instance, he doesn't say that Eric Rudolph should be killed so that other conservatives will learn that they can be killed too. He doesn't say that he wishes that Tim McVeigh had blown up the Washington Times Bldg. He doesn't say that conservatives routinely commit the capital offense of treason. He certainly doesn't put up pictures of the fucking snoopy dance because one of his political opponents was killed. He doesn't, in other words, issue calls for violence and repression against his political enemies. That is what Ann Coulter does, in the most coarse, vulgar, reprehensible way possible.
Moore says conservatives are liars and they are corrupt and they are wrong. But he is not saying that they should die. There is a distinction. And it's a distinction that Time magazine and Howard Kurtz apparently cannot see.
I have long felt that it was important not to minimize the impact of this sick shit. For years my friends and others in the online communities would say that it was a waste of time to worry about Rush because there are real issues to worry about. Likewise Coulter. Everytime I write something about her there is always someone chastizing me for wasting their time. Yet, here she is, being given the impramatur of a mainstream publication of record in a whitwash of epic proportions. Slowly, slowly the water is heating up.
The idea was that the rise in heated, violent rhetoric in our culture was leading to serious concerns about the eliminationist impulse on the right. Just this week we see a disgusting anthrax "joke" played on Keith Olbermann because he has had the temerity to speak out against the president --- and a right wing newspaper laughs about it.
But why should that surprise us? We also saw more than half of our elected representatives explictly endorse torture and the repeal of habeas corpus (although they lied right to our faces and said they didn't.)
That shouldn't have surprised us either. CJR has an interesting article this month on how the press covered torture called A Failure of Imagination. It's not pretty:
There is a final factor that has shaped torture coverage, one that is hard to capture. In most big scandals, such as Watergate, the core question is whether the allegations of illegal behavior are true. Here, the ultimate issue isn�t whether the allegations are true, but whether they�re significant, whether they should really be considered a scandal.
Though the administration has decided not to defend publicly the need for �coercive� interrogations, others have. Their argument is that the policy of abusive interrogations is not only acceptable but necessary to protect the United States. At the same time, polls on torture are notoriously sensitive to phrasing. It�s the mixed results themselves, though, that may be telling. Americans appear to be ambivalent about the occasional need for torture. And with ambivalence, perhaps, comes a preference for not wanting to know.
Within this context, any article, no matter how straightforward or truthful, that treats abuse as a potential scandal � even by simply putting allegations on the front page � is itself making a political statement that �we think this is important,� and, implicitly, wrong. To make such a statement takes chutzpah. Between the invasion of Afghanistan in fall 2001 and the revelations about Abu Ghraib in spring 2004, chutzpah was in particularly short supply.
And it still does, apparently. While there has been ample coverage of Bush's torture and indefinite detention regime it has never assumed the level of "scandal." Even Abu Ghraib, where there were pictures of abuses, never really touched the administration. And what happened to the culture?
You'll recall what the most popular radio host in the world had to say about it:
LIMBAUGH: ...this is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?
And you'll recall what leading Republicans said about the criticism he received for that:
Rush's angry, frustrated critics discount how hard it is to make an outrageous charge against him stick. But, we listeners have spent years with him, we know him, and trust him. Rush is one of those rare acquaintances who can be defended against an assault challenging his character without ever knowing the "facts." We trust his good judgment, his unerring decency, and his fierce loyalty to the country he loves and to the courageous young Americans who defend her.
In the days after 9/11 the panic and hysteria were so thick in the air that people were saying a lot of crazy things. I remember writing a blistering post some time back about Jonathan Alter, who is a good guy, but who lost his mind for a bit after 9/11 and entertained this torture concept in his column. We all remember Alan Dershowitz going on the record early with an argument to make torture legal. I was quite stunned at the time, but I assumed that once the smoke cleared the nation would realize, with some chagrin, that many of the things they felt and believed while the rubble was still fresh was no longer acceptable.
The opposite happened. Our culture, debased by years of ugly rightwing eliminationist rhetoric has gotten worse. It is so much worse that it has abandoned the taboo against torture. There is no other way to read the results of this week.
Some of our leadership did speak out against the abuse of prisoners. Hillary Clinton, in particular, addressed the humane treatment of the captured enemy in explicit terms of fundamental American values. Others did as well. But overall, I think it's pretty clear that speaking out against torture is still something that requires chutzpah --- which means that approving of torture is now the norm. We need to recognize that and form our strategy based on that recognition. We are no longer the country I grew up in.
I feel I should point out that the old frog in boiling water thing is incorrect. When a frog feels the water heating up he jumps out. His survival instinct is strong. Humans, on the other hand, are much more complex creatures. It's not that we don't have a surivial instinct --- it's that we have the ability to rationalize and make ourselves believe that boiling water can't kill us --- it only kills frogs. But primitive lizard brain instincts are important in warning us when something is terribly wrong --- and we fail to heed them at our peril.
This country is very swiftly retreating to an uncivilized state. It's not because of gay people getting married or women aborting blastocysts. It's because a vicious, violent ugly faction took over the political discourse and normalized the idea of a powerful enemy within and without America that must be stopped by any means possible.
And the government is giving these people tours of the prison at Guantanamo and they come back and report that it is beautiful resort and the residents are fat and lazy. (Literally. It couldn't be more soviet.)
Of course, the very same person who said that wrote this in 2003:
"In a year's time, Iraq will be, at a bare minimum, the least badly governed state in the Arab world and, at best, pleasant, civilised and thriving. In short: not a bad three weeks' work."
That would be amusing except for the fact that he is no more deluded than the people who run the most powerful country in the world. This water is starting to bubble.
Fuck Wal-Mart
Hey Folks,
October 2 Yahoo news reported on Wal-Mart's recent activities, and I blogged a bit over it (third posting down).
Now someone with more standiung and resources than I lays it out in greater detail.
How long before "Going Postal" is replaced in the lexicon with "Going WAL-ly"?
- Uke Man
October 6, 2006
The War Against Wages
By PAUL KRUGMAN
( a ukethanks to Phyll)
Should we be cheering over the fact that the Dow Jones Industrial Average has finally set a new record? No. The Dow is doing well largely because American employers are waging a successful war against wages. Economic growth since early 2000, when the Dow reached its previous peak, hasn’t been exceptional. But after-tax corporate profits have more than doubled, because workers’ productivity is up, but their wages aren’t — and because companies have dealt with rising health insurance premiums by denying insurance to ever more workers.
If you want to see how the war against wages is being fought, and what it’s doing to working Americans and their families, consider the latest news from Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart already has a well-deserved reputation for paying low wages and offering few benefits to its employees; last year, an internal Wal-Mart memo conceded that 46 percent of its workers’ children were either on Medicaid or lacked health insurance. Nonetheless, the memo expressed concern that wages and benefits were rising, in part “because we pay an associate more in salary and benefits as his or her tenure increases.”
The problem from the company’s point of view, then, is that its workers are too loyal; it wants cheap labor that doesn’t hang around too long, but not enough workers quit before acquiring the right to higher wages and benefits. Among the policy changes the memo suggested to deal with this problem was a shift to hiring more part-time workers, which “will lower Wal-Mart’s health care enrollment.”
And the strategy is being put into effect. “Investment analysts and store managers,” reports The New York Times, “say Wal-Mart executives have told them the company wants to transform its work force to 40 percent part-time from 20 percent.” Another leaked Wal-Mart memo describes a plan to impose wage caps, so that long-term employees won’t get raises. And the company is taking other steps to keep workers from staying too long: in some stores, according to workers, “managers have suddenly barred older employees with back or leg problems from sitting on stools.”
It’s a brutal strategy. Once upon a time a company that treated its workers this badly would have made itself a prime target for union organizers. But Wal-Mart doesn’t have to worry about that, because it knows that these days the people who are supposed to enforce labor laws are on the side of the employers, not the workers.
Since 1935, U.S. workers considering whether to join a union have been protected by the National Labor Relations Act, which bars employers from firing workers for engaging in union activities. For a long time the law was effective: workers were reasonably well protected against employer intimidation, and the union movement flourished.
In the 1970’s, however, employers began a successful campaign to roll back unions. This campaign depended on routine violation of labor law: experts estimate that by 1980 employers were illegally firing at least one out of every 20 workers who voted for a union. But employers rarely faced serious consequences for their lawbreaking, thanks to America’s political shift to the right. And now that the shift to the right has gone even further, political appointees are seeking to remove whatever protection for workers’ rights that the labor relations law still provides.
The Republican majority on the National Labor Relations Board, which is responsible for enforcing the law, has just declared that millions of workers who thought they had the right to join unions don’t. You see, the act grants that right only to workers who aren’t supervisors. And the board, ruling on a case involving nurses, has declared that millions of workers who occasionally give other workers instructions can now be considered supervisors.
As the dissent from the Democrats on the board makes clear, the majority bent over backward, violating the spirit of the law, to reduce workers’ bargaining power.
So what’s keeping paychecks down? Major employers like Wal-Mart have decided that their interests are best served by treating workers as a disposable commodity, paid as little as possible and encouraged to leave after a year or two. And these employers don’t worry that angry workers will respond to their war on wages by forming unions, because they know that government officials, who are supposed to protect workers’ rights, will do everything they can to come down on the side of the wage-cutters.
October 2 Yahoo news reported on Wal-Mart's recent activities, and I blogged a bit over it (third posting down).
Now someone with more standiung and resources than I lays it out in greater detail.
How long before "Going Postal" is replaced in the lexicon with "Going WAL-ly"?
- Uke Man
October 6, 2006
The War Against Wages
By PAUL KRUGMAN
( a ukethanks to Phyll)
Should we be cheering over the fact that the Dow Jones Industrial Average has finally set a new record? No. The Dow is doing well largely because American employers are waging a successful war against wages. Economic growth since early 2000, when the Dow reached its previous peak, hasn’t been exceptional. But after-tax corporate profits have more than doubled, because workers’ productivity is up, but their wages aren’t — and because companies have dealt with rising health insurance premiums by denying insurance to ever more workers.
If you want to see how the war against wages is being fought, and what it’s doing to working Americans and their families, consider the latest news from Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart already has a well-deserved reputation for paying low wages and offering few benefits to its employees; last year, an internal Wal-Mart memo conceded that 46 percent of its workers’ children were either on Medicaid or lacked health insurance. Nonetheless, the memo expressed concern that wages and benefits were rising, in part “because we pay an associate more in salary and benefits as his or her tenure increases.”
The problem from the company’s point of view, then, is that its workers are too loyal; it wants cheap labor that doesn’t hang around too long, but not enough workers quit before acquiring the right to higher wages and benefits. Among the policy changes the memo suggested to deal with this problem was a shift to hiring more part-time workers, which “will lower Wal-Mart’s health care enrollment.”
And the strategy is being put into effect. “Investment analysts and store managers,” reports The New York Times, “say Wal-Mart executives have told them the company wants to transform its work force to 40 percent part-time from 20 percent.” Another leaked Wal-Mart memo describes a plan to impose wage caps, so that long-term employees won’t get raises. And the company is taking other steps to keep workers from staying too long: in some stores, according to workers, “managers have suddenly barred older employees with back or leg problems from sitting on stools.”
It’s a brutal strategy. Once upon a time a company that treated its workers this badly would have made itself a prime target for union organizers. But Wal-Mart doesn’t have to worry about that, because it knows that these days the people who are supposed to enforce labor laws are on the side of the employers, not the workers.
Since 1935, U.S. workers considering whether to join a union have been protected by the National Labor Relations Act, which bars employers from firing workers for engaging in union activities. For a long time the law was effective: workers were reasonably well protected against employer intimidation, and the union movement flourished.
In the 1970’s, however, employers began a successful campaign to roll back unions. This campaign depended on routine violation of labor law: experts estimate that by 1980 employers were illegally firing at least one out of every 20 workers who voted for a union. But employers rarely faced serious consequences for their lawbreaking, thanks to America’s political shift to the right. And now that the shift to the right has gone even further, political appointees are seeking to remove whatever protection for workers’ rights that the labor relations law still provides.
The Republican majority on the National Labor Relations Board, which is responsible for enforcing the law, has just declared that millions of workers who thought they had the right to join unions don’t. You see, the act grants that right only to workers who aren’t supervisors. And the board, ruling on a case involving nurses, has declared that millions of workers who occasionally give other workers instructions can now be considered supervisors.
As the dissent from the Democrats on the board makes clear, the majority bent over backward, violating the spirit of the law, to reduce workers’ bargaining power.
So what’s keeping paychecks down? Major employers like Wal-Mart have decided that their interests are best served by treating workers as a disposable commodity, paid as little as possible and encouraged to leave after a year or two. And these employers don’t worry that angry workers will respond to their war on wages by forming unions, because they know that government officials, who are supposed to protect workers’ rights, will do everything they can to come down on the side of the wage-cutters.
California Dreamin'
Hey Folks,
In the a.m. I'm off to California - I'll land in San Jose (I know the way); then drive north 6 or 7 hours to McKinleyville (just north of Arcata & Eureka). My nephew, Nathan, lives there within singing distance of the 6 Rivers Brewery, where I'll play Tuesday night.
It'll be a marathon - I've put the proposed set list (all my own songs) below (we'll see if the Old Guy can make it through to the end).
Check out the local promotion I've stirred up:
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/100506/hum1005.html Takes you to "The Hum," the entertainment section of the North Coast Journal, a local weekly.
http://humblogger.blogspot.com/ Takes you to "Humblog," the blog of Bob Doran, the journalist who wrote up the promo above for "The Hum."
I plan to keep my blog going during the trip (assuming I can access a computer). I have some postings and pictures ready to go; but any real-time reports won't have pictures. I'll share plenty when I get back!!
"California, here I come!!"
- Uke Man
SET # 1
Redwood Tree
Shifty’s
Pee Wee
W’s Ukulele Nightmare Café
Stuckey’s
Pea Green Boat
Bleed Blues
Bonny Beaver
Eldorado
Holy Roller
King of the World
Askin Questions
Mississippi River
Long Ago (Bill)
When I Look into Your Eyes
Spam Eatin’ Blues
SET # 2
Pirate
Thank God for Toilets
Paintin’ Them Toes
Sunny Day in Baghdad
Crazy Old World
I Had a Dream Last Night
Victoria’s Got a Secret
Crazy Over You
Uncle Sam’s Lament
Maybe I’ll
Jesus Chrysler
Walkin’ on the Sand
Hard Drinkin’ Mama
I’ll Fly Away
Fascist Girl
Monster in the White House
Back This Way Again
In the a.m. I'm off to California - I'll land in San Jose (I know the way); then drive north 6 or 7 hours to McKinleyville (just north of Arcata & Eureka). My nephew, Nathan, lives there within singing distance of the 6 Rivers Brewery, where I'll play Tuesday night.
It'll be a marathon - I've put the proposed set list (all my own songs) below (we'll see if the Old Guy can make it through to the end).
Check out the local promotion I've stirred up:
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/100506/hum1005.html Takes you to "The Hum," the entertainment section of the North Coast Journal, a local weekly.
http://humblogger.blogspot.com/ Takes you to "Humblog," the blog of Bob Doran, the journalist who wrote up the promo above for "The Hum."
I plan to keep my blog going during the trip (assuming I can access a computer). I have some postings and pictures ready to go; but any real-time reports won't have pictures. I'll share plenty when I get back!!
"California, here I come!!"
- Uke Man
SET # 1
Redwood Tree
Shifty’s
Pee Wee
W’s Ukulele Nightmare Café
Stuckey’s
Pea Green Boat
Bleed Blues
Bonny Beaver
Eldorado
Holy Roller
King of the World
Askin Questions
Mississippi River
Long Ago (Bill)
When I Look into Your Eyes
Spam Eatin’ Blues
SET # 2
Pirate
Thank God for Toilets
Paintin’ Them Toes
Sunny Day in Baghdad
Crazy Old World
I Had a Dream Last Night
Victoria’s Got a Secret
Crazy Over You
Uncle Sam’s Lament
Maybe I’ll
Jesus Chrysler
Walkin’ on the Sand
Hard Drinkin’ Mama
I’ll Fly Away
Fascist Girl
Monster in the White House
Back This Way Again
Creating New Jobs - the Wal-Mart Way :)
Hey Folks,
Good news! Wal-Mart is creating NEW jobs - hand-over-fist!!! The nation’s largest employer is dedicated to increasing Americans' opportunity to work!! Yes sir!!
They are determined to replace 20% of their present full-time employees with part-time employees to reach their goal of a full 40% part-time workforce!! It was just 20% last year, and they are almost there already!!
Good news! Wal-Mart is creating NEW jobs - hand-over-fist!!! The nation’s largest employer is dedicated to increasing Americans' opportunity to work!! Yes sir!!
They are determined to replace 20% of their present full-time employees with part-time employees to reach their goal of a full 40% part-time workforce!! It was just 20% last year, and they are almost there already!!
If the new part-timers are half-time, that will create 200,000 NEW JOBS !!! Damn!!! I bet folks are dancing in the street !!! All 200,000 former full-timers STILL have a job AND 200,000 NEW people can also work and cheer for Wal-Mart!!!
What's more, management is also working to eliminate those lonely weekends and empty evenings their employees so often face. In the future, workers will be invited to spend a cheery Friday, Saturday, and Sunday night with friendly co-workers and managers who love them.
Finally, if only everyone running Wal-Mart would joined Sam Walton for an endless party at his place, all would be right with the world.
- Uke Man
Wal-Mart to use more part-timers, wage caps: NYT
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is pushing to create a cheaper, more flexible work force by capping wages, using more part-time workers and scheduling more staff on nights and weekends, The New York Times reported on Monday.
Wal-Mart executives say they embraced the new policies for a large number of their 1.3 million workers to better serve customers, the newspaper said.
But some Wal-Mart workers say the changes are further reducing their modest incomes and putting a strain on personal lives, the newspaper reported.
Investment analysts and store managers say Wal-Mart executives have told them the company wants to transform its work force to 40 percent part-time from 20 percent, the Times reported.
Wal-Mart denies it has a goal of 40 percent part-time workers, although company officials said part-timers now comprise 25 percent to 30 percent of its workers, up from 20 percent last October, according to the newspaper.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark told Reuters the company had no specific target for part-timers as a percentage of its work force.
Clark added that it is important that Wal-Mart staff are working at times when customers want to shop.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
You bet jurassic they were excited about it !!
Hey Folks,
Regulars know I like dinosaurs (the ones that are millions of years old - not the ones killed in Noah's flood). Monsters are OK too, if they aren't too gross.
Well, I had to share this: a Monster Dinosaur's remains (believed to be dead [see earlier dinosaur posting below] ) have been found.
Enjoy.
- Uke Man
"Monster" fossil found in Jurassic graveyard
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent Thu Oct 5
OSLO (Reuters) - Scientists have found a fossil of a "Monster" fish-like reptile in a 150 million-year-old Jurassic graveyard on an Arctic island off Norway.
The Norwegian researchers discovered remains of a total of 28 plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs -- top marine predators when dinosaurs dominated on land -- at a site on the island of Spitsbergen, about 1,300 km (800 miles) from the North Pole.
"One of them was this gigantic monster, with vertebrae the size of dinner plates and teeth the size of cucumbers," Joern Hurum, an assistant professor at the University of Oslo, told Reuters on Thursday.
"We believe the skeleton is intact and that it's about 10 meters (33 feet) long," he told Reuters of the pliosaur, a type of plesiosaur with a short neck and massive skull. The team dubbed the specimen "The Monster."
Such pliosaurs are known from remains in countries including Britain and Argentina but no complete skeleton has been found, he said. The skull of the pliosaur -- perhaps a distant relative to Scotland's mythical Loch Ness monster -- was among the biggest on record.
Scientists would return next year to try to excavate the entire fossil, buried on a hillside.
Plesiosaurs, which swam with two sets of flippers, often preyed on smaller dolphin-like ichthyosaurs. All went extinct when the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago.
The scientists rated the fossil graveyard "one of the most important new sites for marine reptiles to have been discovered in the last several decades."
"It is rare to find so many fossils in the same place -- carcasses are food for other animals and usually get torn apart," Hurum said.
Hurum reckoned the reptiles had not all died at the same time in some Jurassic-era cataclysm but had died over thousands of years in the same area, then become preserved in what was apparently a deep layer of black mud on the seabed.
At that time, the area of Spitsbergen under water several hundred km (miles) further south, around the latitude of Anchorage or Oslo.
Hurum said the presence of fossils was also an interesting pointer for geologists hunting for oil and gas deposits in the Barents Sea to the east. "A skull we found even smells of petrol," he said.
Regulars know I like dinosaurs (the ones that are millions of years old - not the ones killed in Noah's flood). Monsters are OK too, if they aren't too gross.
Well, I had to share this: a Monster Dinosaur's remains (believed to be dead [see earlier dinosaur posting below] ) have been found.
Enjoy.
- Uke Man
"Monster" fossil found in Jurassic graveyard
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent Thu Oct 5
OSLO (Reuters) - Scientists have found a fossil of a "Monster" fish-like reptile in a 150 million-year-old Jurassic graveyard on an Arctic island off Norway.
The Norwegian researchers discovered remains of a total of 28 plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs -- top marine predators when dinosaurs dominated on land -- at a site on the island of Spitsbergen, about 1,300 km (800 miles) from the North Pole.
"One of them was this gigantic monster, with vertebrae the size of dinner plates and teeth the size of cucumbers," Joern Hurum, an assistant professor at the University of Oslo, told Reuters on Thursday.
"We believe the skeleton is intact and that it's about 10 meters (33 feet) long," he told Reuters of the pliosaur, a type of plesiosaur with a short neck and massive skull. The team dubbed the specimen "The Monster."
Such pliosaurs are known from remains in countries including Britain and Argentina but no complete skeleton has been found, he said. The skull of the pliosaur -- perhaps a distant relative to Scotland's mythical Loch Ness monster -- was among the biggest on record.
Scientists would return next year to try to excavate the entire fossil, buried on a hillside.
Plesiosaurs, which swam with two sets of flippers, often preyed on smaller dolphin-like ichthyosaurs. All went extinct when the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago.
The scientists rated the fossil graveyard "one of the most important new sites for marine reptiles to have been discovered in the last several decades."
"It is rare to find so many fossils in the same place -- carcasses are food for other animals and usually get torn apart," Hurum said.
Hurum reckoned the reptiles had not all died at the same time in some Jurassic-era cataclysm but had died over thousands of years in the same area, then become preserved in what was apparently a deep layer of black mud on the seabed.
At that time, the area of Spitsbergen under water several hundred km (miles) further south, around the latitude of Anchorage or Oslo.
Hurum said the presence of fossils was also an interesting pointer for geologists hunting for oil and gas deposits in the Barents Sea to the east. "A skull we found even smells of petrol," he said.
What did I say about Racism, hmmmmm ?????
October 2, 2006
Poisoned on Eno Road
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Dickson, Tenn.
If you stand outside the Holt family home late at night, after everyone has gone to sleep, with the sound of a soft wind drifting through the trees and the damp sweet smell of abundant grass heavy in the humid air, you can easily imagine what this area was like in the days of slavery.
And then the quiet is broken by the sudden eruption of dogs barking and howling on nearby property, and you’re reminded that the tiny population of blacks in Dickson County, even after all these years, is still frequently treated — literally — like garbage.
The property adjacent to the Holt family home is a government-owned landfill. The howling dogs are housed in a pound right next to the landfill. The noise is a nuisance, but it’s the least of the family’s problems.
Toxic chemicals from the landfill have polluted the pristine water that was once drawn from the Holt family well. Unaware that the water was contaminated, the family drank it for years. Now the Holts are convinced that the poisons that seeped for so long from the landfill into the groundwater are responsible for the potentially deadly diseases that have struck several members of the family.
The Holts were not just unaware that their water was contaminated; they had been assured by federal environmental officials way back in 1991 that the water had been tested and was safe to drink.
“They told us,” said Sheila Holt-Orsted, who grew up on the property, “that the water wouldn’t hurt us, and that we shouldn’t worry about it.”
In fact, government records show that dangerous levels of trichloroethylene (TCE), a suspected carcinogen, had been found in the water as early as 1988. The family drank the poisoned water for more than a dozen years after that.
During that time, the government warned white families that the water had been contaminated and provided them with an alternate source of drinking water. The Holts, who are black, were left oblivious to the danger. Welcome to the world of environmental racism, a subject that doesn’t get nearly enough attention.
The Holts’ property is on Eno Road, a quiet rustic area with an interesting history. Hundreds of acres of land along the road were acquired by blacks in the post-slavery period. Only recently freed, they were proud of being landowners. The Holts have lived in the community for many decades.
Blacks make up just 4.5 percent of the Dickson County population, and they have always been clustered in the vicinity of Eno Road. This has been a great convenience for the whites, who have run the local governments. For six decades, the Eno Road community has been designated as the place for whites to dump their garbage.
“The city and county fathers singled out this small, rural and mostly black Eno Road community to locate their garbage dumps, landfills, transfer stations, toxic waste sites — you name it,” said Dr. Robert Bullard, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University. “These waste sites are all located on Eno Road.”
When I asked the mayor of Dickson County, Robert Stone, why that particular community had been chosen to absorb so much of the county’s garbage, he said he couldn’t respond because the Holts had filed a lawsuit against the county. He referred me to a lawyer, Eric Thornton, who asked why anyone would think it was peculiar to dump the garbage there.
“It has to be at some location,” he said. He denied that race had anything to do with the selection process, noting that there were also whites who lived nearby.
The ingestion of TCE, commonly used as a metal degreaser, has been associated with a variety of cancers, heart disease, impairment of the nervous system, stroke, liver disease, kidney disease, diabetes and other extremely serious disorders.
At various times, the concentration of TCE in the well water of the Holt family was 24 and 29 times as high as the maximum level of five parts per billion set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
Sheila Holt-Orsted has undergone six surgeries and chemotherapy for breast cancer. Her father was stricken with prostate cancer. During a conversation in her front yard, less than 50 feet from the landfill, she told me: “My aunt, who lives next door, she had cancer. And then there was another neighbor who had cancer. I said, you know, ‘Something is not right here.’ ”
Poisoned on Eno Road
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Dickson, Tenn.
If you stand outside the Holt family home late at night, after everyone has gone to sleep, with the sound of a soft wind drifting through the trees and the damp sweet smell of abundant grass heavy in the humid air, you can easily imagine what this area was like in the days of slavery.
And then the quiet is broken by the sudden eruption of dogs barking and howling on nearby property, and you’re reminded that the tiny population of blacks in Dickson County, even after all these years, is still frequently treated — literally — like garbage.
The property adjacent to the Holt family home is a government-owned landfill. The howling dogs are housed in a pound right next to the landfill. The noise is a nuisance, but it’s the least of the family’s problems.
Toxic chemicals from the landfill have polluted the pristine water that was once drawn from the Holt family well. Unaware that the water was contaminated, the family drank it for years. Now the Holts are convinced that the poisons that seeped for so long from the landfill into the groundwater are responsible for the potentially deadly diseases that have struck several members of the family.
The Holts were not just unaware that their water was contaminated; they had been assured by federal environmental officials way back in 1991 that the water had been tested and was safe to drink.
“They told us,” said Sheila Holt-Orsted, who grew up on the property, “that the water wouldn’t hurt us, and that we shouldn’t worry about it.”
In fact, government records show that dangerous levels of trichloroethylene (TCE), a suspected carcinogen, had been found in the water as early as 1988. The family drank the poisoned water for more than a dozen years after that.
During that time, the government warned white families that the water had been contaminated and provided them with an alternate source of drinking water. The Holts, who are black, were left oblivious to the danger. Welcome to the world of environmental racism, a subject that doesn’t get nearly enough attention.
The Holts’ property is on Eno Road, a quiet rustic area with an interesting history. Hundreds of acres of land along the road were acquired by blacks in the post-slavery period. Only recently freed, they were proud of being landowners. The Holts have lived in the community for many decades.
Blacks make up just 4.5 percent of the Dickson County population, and they have always been clustered in the vicinity of Eno Road. This has been a great convenience for the whites, who have run the local governments. For six decades, the Eno Road community has been designated as the place for whites to dump their garbage.
“The city and county fathers singled out this small, rural and mostly black Eno Road community to locate their garbage dumps, landfills, transfer stations, toxic waste sites — you name it,” said Dr. Robert Bullard, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University. “These waste sites are all located on Eno Road.”
When I asked the mayor of Dickson County, Robert Stone, why that particular community had been chosen to absorb so much of the county’s garbage, he said he couldn’t respond because the Holts had filed a lawsuit against the county. He referred me to a lawyer, Eric Thornton, who asked why anyone would think it was peculiar to dump the garbage there.
“It has to be at some location,” he said. He denied that race had anything to do with the selection process, noting that there were also whites who lived nearby.
The ingestion of TCE, commonly used as a metal degreaser, has been associated with a variety of cancers, heart disease, impairment of the nervous system, stroke, liver disease, kidney disease, diabetes and other extremely serious disorders.
At various times, the concentration of TCE in the well water of the Holt family was 24 and 29 times as high as the maximum level of five parts per billion set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
Sheila Holt-Orsted has undergone six surgeries and chemotherapy for breast cancer. Her father was stricken with prostate cancer. During a conversation in her front yard, less than 50 feet from the landfill, she told me: “My aunt, who lives next door, she had cancer. And then there was another neighbor who had cancer. I said, you know, ‘Something is not right here.’ ”
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Dr. Henry "the K" Strangelove
Hey Folks,
Just what we need, a bunch of nasty old Fucks trying to soothe their bruised egos, hopes, dreams, and reputations by killing thousands of our kids and countless Iraqi civilians in another failed attempt to rehabilitate their Viet Nam fiasco.
- Uke Man
October 4, 2006
Don’t Pass the Salted Peanuts, Henry
By MAUREEN DOWD
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Tom Lehrer said that political satire was rendered obsolete when Henry Kissinger won a Nobel Peace Prize for prolonging the Vietnam War.
But even the inventive Lehrer could never have imagined that Dr. Strangelove would get a second chance to contribute to misleading the public about a military catastrophe in a misunderstood land — a do-over in scarring the American psyche and reputation in profound ways.
Yet, as Bob Woodward reveals in “State of Denial,” the sequel to “Bush is a Genius,” Mr. Kissinger has been one of the few trusted outside advisers that W. has listened to on Iraq. The administration has shaped its policy to hew to the 83-year-old Unwise Man’s belief that the only way to beat an insurgency is to stick it out, no matter how many American kids and foreign civilians die.
Especially if elections are coming up. As the historian Robert Dallek, who is writing a book on Nixon and Kissinger, notes, “Kissinger was complicit in using foreign policy to try to save Nixon during Watergate.”
Bob Haldeman wrote in his diary on Dec. 15, 1970, using “K” for Kissinger and “P” for President Nixon: “K came in and the discussion covered some of the general thinking about Vietnam and the P’s big peace plan for next year, which K later told me he does not favor. He thinks that any pullout next year would be a serious mistake because the adverse reaction to it could set in well before the ’72 elections. He favors, instead, a continued winding down and then a pullout right at the fall of ’72 so that if any bad results follow they will be too late to affect the election. It seems to make sense.”
Thirty-five years later, Mr. Kissinger, the consummate fawner, was once more able to sway a president with faux deference. Dr. K encouraged W. to play the tough guy on the war, even though he’d never gone to war himself.
In September 2005, Mr. Woodward writes, W.’s head speechwriter, Mike Gerson, visited Mr. Kissinger and received a lecture declaring that the only exit strategy for Iraq was victory and a copy of the diplomat’s “salted peanut memo” from 1969, warning against resisting pressure to withdraw troops from Vietnam: “Withdrawal of U.S. troops will become like salted peanuts to the American public; the more U.S. troops come home, the more will be demanded.”
It’s the kind of logic that makes Dr. K such a valuable counselor to a president who has already declared privately that his midterm election strategy is to tar the Democrats this way: “Surrender and taxes.”
The shrink-wrapped president did not consult his own father before going to war against the same dictator. And, moving from Dr. Strangelove to Dr. Freud, two of W.’s top war counselors — Rummy and Henry the K — are men who did not bother to conceal their contempt for Bush senior as a naïve lightweight.
As Mr. Woodward notes, part of Rummy’s allure for W. was the fact that Poppy Bush considered him an arrogant, Machiavellian sort who could get you in deep doo-doo. “It was a chance,” Mr. Woodward says, “to prove his father wrong.” Or right.
It’s been clear for years that Dick Cheney and Rummy have been using the Bush presidency like an elaborate vanity production to replay Watergate and Vietnam, and to try to reverse things that bothered them during prior stints in the Nixon and Ford administrations.
As Mr. Cheney told his pal Rummy when W. gave him a second crack — a quarter-century later — at the defense chief job: “Get it right this time.”
The vice president has been diabolically successful in exploiting 9/11 to restore the Imperial Presidency to where it was before Congress and the public became such Nosy Parkers after Watergate. Mr. Cheney and Rummy have been less successful in their attempt to exorcise the post-Vietnam American skittishness about using force; their abysmal misadventure in Iraq has only reinforced it.
Mr. Kissinger’s reasoning for favoring war in Iraq had none of the idealistic gloss about democracy that the president came up with later. Like Mr. Cheney, he thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq not because it was strong, but because it was weak. “We need to humiliate” radical Islam, he told Mr. Gerson, and send the message that “we’re not going to live in this world that they want for us.”
Half a century of foreign affairs experience, and he still doesn’t understand that humiliating young Arab men — and occupying Muslim land — just radicalizes them? We’re expanding terror at a cost of about $6 billion a month.
Just what we need, a bunch of nasty old Fucks trying to soothe their bruised egos, hopes, dreams, and reputations by killing thousands of our kids and countless Iraqi civilians in another failed attempt to rehabilitate their Viet Nam fiasco.
- Uke Man
October 4, 2006
Don’t Pass the Salted Peanuts, Henry
By MAUREEN DOWD
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Tom Lehrer said that political satire was rendered obsolete when Henry Kissinger won a Nobel Peace Prize for prolonging the Vietnam War.
But even the inventive Lehrer could never have imagined that Dr. Strangelove would get a second chance to contribute to misleading the public about a military catastrophe in a misunderstood land — a do-over in scarring the American psyche and reputation in profound ways.
Yet, as Bob Woodward reveals in “State of Denial,” the sequel to “Bush is a Genius,” Mr. Kissinger has been one of the few trusted outside advisers that W. has listened to on Iraq. The administration has shaped its policy to hew to the 83-year-old Unwise Man’s belief that the only way to beat an insurgency is to stick it out, no matter how many American kids and foreign civilians die.
Especially if elections are coming up. As the historian Robert Dallek, who is writing a book on Nixon and Kissinger, notes, “Kissinger was complicit in using foreign policy to try to save Nixon during Watergate.”
Bob Haldeman wrote in his diary on Dec. 15, 1970, using “K” for Kissinger and “P” for President Nixon: “K came in and the discussion covered some of the general thinking about Vietnam and the P’s big peace plan for next year, which K later told me he does not favor. He thinks that any pullout next year would be a serious mistake because the adverse reaction to it could set in well before the ’72 elections. He favors, instead, a continued winding down and then a pullout right at the fall of ’72 so that if any bad results follow they will be too late to affect the election. It seems to make sense.”
Thirty-five years later, Mr. Kissinger, the consummate fawner, was once more able to sway a president with faux deference. Dr. K encouraged W. to play the tough guy on the war, even though he’d never gone to war himself.
In September 2005, Mr. Woodward writes, W.’s head speechwriter, Mike Gerson, visited Mr. Kissinger and received a lecture declaring that the only exit strategy for Iraq was victory and a copy of the diplomat’s “salted peanut memo” from 1969, warning against resisting pressure to withdraw troops from Vietnam: “Withdrawal of U.S. troops will become like salted peanuts to the American public; the more U.S. troops come home, the more will be demanded.”
It’s the kind of logic that makes Dr. K such a valuable counselor to a president who has already declared privately that his midterm election strategy is to tar the Democrats this way: “Surrender and taxes.”
The shrink-wrapped president did not consult his own father before going to war against the same dictator. And, moving from Dr. Strangelove to Dr. Freud, two of W.’s top war counselors — Rummy and Henry the K — are men who did not bother to conceal their contempt for Bush senior as a naïve lightweight.
As Mr. Woodward notes, part of Rummy’s allure for W. was the fact that Poppy Bush considered him an arrogant, Machiavellian sort who could get you in deep doo-doo. “It was a chance,” Mr. Woodward says, “to prove his father wrong.” Or right.
It’s been clear for years that Dick Cheney and Rummy have been using the Bush presidency like an elaborate vanity production to replay Watergate and Vietnam, and to try to reverse things that bothered them during prior stints in the Nixon and Ford administrations.
As Mr. Cheney told his pal Rummy when W. gave him a second crack — a quarter-century later — at the defense chief job: “Get it right this time.”
The vice president has been diabolically successful in exploiting 9/11 to restore the Imperial Presidency to where it was before Congress and the public became such Nosy Parkers after Watergate. Mr. Cheney and Rummy have been less successful in their attempt to exorcise the post-Vietnam American skittishness about using force; their abysmal misadventure in Iraq has only reinforced it.
Mr. Kissinger’s reasoning for favoring war in Iraq had none of the idealistic gloss about democracy that the president came up with later. Like Mr. Cheney, he thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq not because it was strong, but because it was weak. “We need to humiliate” radical Islam, he told Mr. Gerson, and send the message that “we’re not going to live in this world that they want for us.”
Half a century of foreign affairs experience, and he still doesn’t understand that humiliating young Arab men — and occupying Muslim land — just radicalizes them? We’re expanding terror at a cost of about $6 billion a month.
Bob Doran - Great-Northwest Reporter !!!
Hey Folks,
I prepared some promotional material for Bob Doran, a reporter for the North Coast Journal of Humbolt County California, to put on his blog: http://humblogger.blogspot.com/ before I play there October 10. It's up - along with pictures.
It may contain more information than ANYONE needs or wants to see, but I've put it below anyway - just in case.
- Uke Man
Bob Asks - the Uke Man Speaks
Who are you?
I’m “the Ukulele Man,” a tag hung on me 15 years ago by the owner/promoter of Stach’s (now Little Brother’s) *1 (*relates to links at bottom), a revered night club in Columbus, Ohio.
I’m a crusty old bard (61 yrs.) seasoned by Joe McCarthy, the 60’s, and the education wars (31 years in an 8th Grade English class – the last 18 years as local union president too). I write songs and sing them, write poems and speak them, see what’s going down in our country and the world and resist it.
I’m an Ex-Boy Scout, an Ex-Catholic, an Ex-Good Boy – but I’m NOT a “Grumpy Old Man.” “Grumpy” is a constant state. I’m generally a “Sweetie.” It is true, though, that I have no patience with stupid, conniving grown-ups who, for example, still swear Saddam was behind the NYC and Pentagram attacks. I’m an active activist (I’m told that Humboldt County understands that term). And, finally, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more!”
Where are you from? (originally/now)
My Mom was from a small town, Chillicothe, Ohio – the first state capital. My Dad was from Kendallville – a small agricultural town in the northern Indiana. I was born and grew up in Columbus – the present capital and hotbed of right-wing/business clap-trap. Twenty-eight years ago, I moved to Circleville (“Home of the Pumpkin Show” ta-daaaa!!! *2) – located south of Columbus and north of Chillicothe – another small town and – it turns out - more politically backward than Columbus) – you know: the kind of place where if you ever get to the point where you no longer know what you’re doing, lots of folks can tell you.
Looks like I haven’t gotten too far, doesn’t it; but I HAVE traveled - to both coasts, from New Orleans to Minneapolis-St. Paul, and to Europe twice. Now I’m traveling to California again.
What do you do?
I write songs and sing them, accompanied by my Uke or by my Band, “Ukulele Man & his Prodigal Sons.” *3 I write and perform poetry, and sometimes “act.”
I “play out” regularly with the band or solo. All seven of us toured New York *4 and Boston *5; three of us did Santa Cruz *6. We play Festivals*7, clubs, and bars in Central Ohio, and have done our share of benefits. Periodically I get to NYC for the Ukulele Cabaret*8 and for the public-access TV Show “Midnight Ukulele Disco.”*9
I’ve appeared in two films: the short Auraprint *10 playing a gay-porn producer and in the full-length Man of Faith playing Rev. Leroy Jenkins’ degenerate neighbor. I recently performed in a stage production, Dr. Danga Grimaldi’s Exhibition Fantastique, part of the month-long Columbus Fringe Festival.
I’m a member of NION (Not In Our Name), an activist group dedicated to opposing the Bush agenda.*11 Besides attending/marching-in various protests in New York City these last six years, I initiated the organization of “Ukuleles for Sanity,”*12 a group who marched together first in the “No RNC” (“No Republican National Convention”) protest (we marched near the Green Dragon that someone set on fire soon after passing Madison Square Garden and Foxxx News). During that time we also organized and performed “Dubya’s Ukulele Farewell Party.”*13 It didn’t work, but we’re still trying.
Having given up on effectively haranguing the local news-rags via “letters,” I’ve started a blog*14 (http://www.ukuleleman.net/blog.html) and have developed a growing number of readers. Check it out!!
Why do you do what you do?
Because it’s there (to do)? Because I must? There’s some truth in that.
Also, I was a little naïve as a “young person” – remember the “Boy Scout / Good Boy” reference above? Emotionally, I was with the revolution of the 60’s, but didn’t have a clue about how to get involved physically. I’m trying to make up for that.
At the same time, what I “see” (I’d like to say “as an artist”) makes me pretty “far out” in the context of this Midwestern, Red State, Conservative, Republican, Bible-thumping “oasis in a world of sin” that is Ohio.
A fellah has to do SOMETHING to stay sane living in a nuthouse.
What are you working on?
Well, we’re still trying to get rid of Bush, and will be joining with World Can’t Wait and others on October 5 (it’s nationwide) to “Drive Out the Bush Regime.” The point is to organize people around the knowledge that the only way real change will happen is if the People themselves demand it.
I’ve got most of my tracks laid down for my third CD (all original stuff, as with the first two*15 ). We’re starting to lay down band tracks now.
A poetry book has been in the planning stages – on and off – for a while now too.
And I’m working like crazy going over my set lists for the California trip - and practicing (old guys think they have to do that).
What’s next?
A few days after I get back to Ohio we play the Pumpkin Show – it should be interesting – it’s the centennial year for it. But I guess the next Big thing will be planning a trip to the UK to see some friends and play some music, particularly in Glasgow while visiting Alistair Hulett*16 and the Centre for Political Song.*17
When will you be here? With who?
I’ll be in the area from October 7 through the 10th. I’m playing Six Rivers Brewery October 10, and I’m bringing two Ukuleles with me.
Who's that?
Tentatively it’s a new Ovation “Applause” soprano uke and an old-reliable tenor “Fluke.”
Website? Links?
Please check out my Blog (# 14 below) and any other sites that seem interesting!
1. Little Brothers: http://www.littlebrothers.com/ 2. Pumpkin Show: http://www.pumpkinshow.com/
3. Band My Space: http://www.myspace.com/ukulelemanandhisprodigalsons 4. NYC – Bowery Poetry Club: http://www.bowerypoetry.com/ 5.Boston Sky Bar: http://www.skybar.us/ 6. Santa Cruz – Uke Fest West: http://www.ukefestwest.com/perf.html 7.COMFEST (Community Festival): http://www.comfest.com/schedule.htm and Columbus Arts Fest: http://www.gcac.org/fest/ 8. Ukulele Cabaret: http://www.ukulelecabaret.com/ 9. Midnight Ukulele Disco: http://www.ukuleledisco.com/ (may be under renovation)
10. Auraprint: http://www.alienstevens.com/vid_aud_pix/artflixx_m/auraprint.mov 11. NION: http://www.notinourname.net/index.html 12. Ukuleles for Sanity: http://www.ukesanity.org/ 13. Dubya’s Ukulele Farewell Party: http://ukesanity.org/concert.htm 14. My Blog: http://www.ukuleleman.net/blog.html 15. CD’s, “SumoNinjaLele” and “Crazy Old World.”: http://cdbaby.com/found?artist=Ukulele+Man&soundlike=&album=&style= 16. Alistair Hulett: http://www.alistairhulett.com/ and http://www.folkicons.co.uk/alistair.htm 17. Centre for Political Song: http://www.caledonian.ac.uk/politicalsong/
Anything else you want to add?
Well, I think I’ve said enough, except for:
I hope everybody comes out to the Six Rivers Brewery on October 10. That’s my one chance to see you!!! I understand it’s not a real late evening; so stop by. The Uke and I will be goin’ at it from early to closin’.
Yours - Ukulele Man
thanks, Bob
I prepared some promotional material for Bob Doran, a reporter for the North Coast Journal of Humbolt County California, to put on his blog: http://humblogger.blogspot.com/ before I play there October 10. It's up - along with pictures.
It may contain more information than ANYONE needs or wants to see, but I've put it below anyway - just in case.
- Uke Man
Bob Asks - the Uke Man Speaks
Who are you?
I’m “the Ukulele Man,” a tag hung on me 15 years ago by the owner/promoter of Stach’s (now Little Brother’s) *1 (*relates to links at bottom), a revered night club in Columbus, Ohio.
I’m a crusty old bard (61 yrs.) seasoned by Joe McCarthy, the 60’s, and the education wars (31 years in an 8th Grade English class – the last 18 years as local union president too). I write songs and sing them, write poems and speak them, see what’s going down in our country and the world and resist it.
I’m an Ex-Boy Scout, an Ex-Catholic, an Ex-Good Boy – but I’m NOT a “Grumpy Old Man.” “Grumpy” is a constant state. I’m generally a “Sweetie.” It is true, though, that I have no patience with stupid, conniving grown-ups who, for example, still swear Saddam was behind the NYC and Pentagram attacks. I’m an active activist (I’m told that Humboldt County understands that term). And, finally, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more!”
Where are you from? (originally/now)
My Mom was from a small town, Chillicothe, Ohio – the first state capital. My Dad was from Kendallville – a small agricultural town in the northern Indiana. I was born and grew up in Columbus – the present capital and hotbed of right-wing/business clap-trap. Twenty-eight years ago, I moved to Circleville (“Home of the Pumpkin Show” ta-daaaa!!! *2) – located south of Columbus and north of Chillicothe – another small town and – it turns out - more politically backward than Columbus) – you know: the kind of place where if you ever get to the point where you no longer know what you’re doing, lots of folks can tell you.
Looks like I haven’t gotten too far, doesn’t it; but I HAVE traveled - to both coasts, from New Orleans to Minneapolis-St. Paul, and to Europe twice. Now I’m traveling to California again.
What do you do?
I write songs and sing them, accompanied by my Uke or by my Band, “Ukulele Man & his Prodigal Sons.” *3 I write and perform poetry, and sometimes “act.”
I “play out” regularly with the band or solo. All seven of us toured New York *4 and Boston *5; three of us did Santa Cruz *6. We play Festivals*7, clubs, and bars in Central Ohio, and have done our share of benefits. Periodically I get to NYC for the Ukulele Cabaret*8 and for the public-access TV Show “Midnight Ukulele Disco.”*9
I’ve appeared in two films: the short Auraprint *10 playing a gay-porn producer and in the full-length Man of Faith playing Rev. Leroy Jenkins’ degenerate neighbor. I recently performed in a stage production, Dr. Danga Grimaldi’s Exhibition Fantastique, part of the month-long Columbus Fringe Festival.
I’m a member of NION (Not In Our Name), an activist group dedicated to opposing the Bush agenda.*11 Besides attending/marching-in various protests in New York City these last six years, I initiated the organization of “Ukuleles for Sanity,”*12 a group who marched together first in the “No RNC” (“No Republican National Convention”) protest (we marched near the Green Dragon that someone set on fire soon after passing Madison Square Garden and Foxxx News). During that time we also organized and performed “Dubya’s Ukulele Farewell Party.”*13 It didn’t work, but we’re still trying.
Having given up on effectively haranguing the local news-rags via “letters,” I’ve started a blog*14 (http://www.ukuleleman.net/blog.html) and have developed a growing number of readers. Check it out!!
Why do you do what you do?
Because it’s there (to do)? Because I must? There’s some truth in that.
Also, I was a little naïve as a “young person” – remember the “Boy Scout / Good Boy” reference above? Emotionally, I was with the revolution of the 60’s, but didn’t have a clue about how to get involved physically. I’m trying to make up for that.
At the same time, what I “see” (I’d like to say “as an artist”) makes me pretty “far out” in the context of this Midwestern, Red State, Conservative, Republican, Bible-thumping “oasis in a world of sin” that is Ohio.
A fellah has to do SOMETHING to stay sane living in a nuthouse.
What are you working on?
Well, we’re still trying to get rid of Bush, and will be joining with World Can’t Wait and others on October 5 (it’s nationwide) to “Drive Out the Bush Regime.” The point is to organize people around the knowledge that the only way real change will happen is if the People themselves demand it.
I’ve got most of my tracks laid down for my third CD (all original stuff, as with the first two*15 ). We’re starting to lay down band tracks now.
A poetry book has been in the planning stages – on and off – for a while now too.
And I’m working like crazy going over my set lists for the California trip - and practicing (old guys think they have to do that).
What’s next?
A few days after I get back to Ohio we play the Pumpkin Show – it should be interesting – it’s the centennial year for it. But I guess the next Big thing will be planning a trip to the UK to see some friends and play some music, particularly in Glasgow while visiting Alistair Hulett*16 and the Centre for Political Song.*17
When will you be here? With who?
I’ll be in the area from October 7 through the 10th. I’m playing Six Rivers Brewery October 10, and I’m bringing two Ukuleles with me.
Who's that?
Tentatively it’s a new Ovation “Applause” soprano uke and an old-reliable tenor “Fluke.”
Website? Links?
Please check out my Blog (# 14 below) and any other sites that seem interesting!
1. Little Brothers: http://www.littlebrothers.com/ 2. Pumpkin Show: http://www.pumpkinshow.com/
3. Band My Space: http://www.myspace.com/ukulelemanandhisprodigalsons 4. NYC – Bowery Poetry Club: http://www.bowerypoetry.com/ 5.Boston Sky Bar: http://www.skybar.us/ 6. Santa Cruz – Uke Fest West: http://www.ukefestwest.com/perf.html 7.COMFEST (Community Festival): http://www.comfest.com/schedule.htm and Columbus Arts Fest: http://www.gcac.org/fest/ 8. Ukulele Cabaret: http://www.ukulelecabaret.com/ 9. Midnight Ukulele Disco: http://www.ukuleledisco.com/ (may be under renovation)
10. Auraprint: http://www.alienstevens.com/vid_aud_pix/artflixx_m/auraprint.mov 11. NION: http://www.notinourname.net/index.html 12. Ukuleles for Sanity: http://www.ukesanity.org/ 13. Dubya’s Ukulele Farewell Party: http://ukesanity.org/concert.htm 14. My Blog: http://www.ukuleleman.net/blog.html 15. CD’s, “SumoNinjaLele” and “Crazy Old World.”: http://cdbaby.com/found?artist=Ukulele+Man&soundlike=&album=&style= 16. Alistair Hulett: http://www.alistairhulett.com/ and http://www.folkicons.co.uk/alistair.htm 17. Centre for Political Song: http://www.caledonian.ac.uk/politicalsong/
Anything else you want to add?
Well, I think I’ve said enough, except for:
I hope everybody comes out to the Six Rivers Brewery on October 10. That’s my one chance to see you!!! I understand it’s not a real late evening; so stop by. The Uke and I will be goin’ at it from early to closin’.
Yours - Ukulele Man
thanks, Bob
AWOL National Guard pilot Carpet-Bombing America
Hey Folks,
Part of the success of Bush & Co. is in cramming reality down the memory hole as soon as its head pops up, then ringing irrelevant bells and blowing dissonant whistles to distract our attention to more "helpful" creations.
With that in mind, I think it worthwhile to back up a bit and remember.
Here's something from the middle of September.
- Uke Man
September 17, 2006
The Longer the War, the Larger the Lies
By FRANK RICH
RARELY has a television network presented a more perfectly matched double feature. President Bush’s 9/11 address on Monday night interrupted ABC’s “Path to 9/11” so seamlessly that a single network disclaimer served them both: “For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains
fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression.”
No kidding: “The Path to 9/11” was false from the opening
scene, when it put Mohamed Atta both in the wrong airport (Boston instead of Portland, Me.) and on the wrong airline (American instead of USAirways). It took Mr. Bush but a few paragraphs to warm up to his first fictionalization for dramatic purposes: his renewed pledge that “we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them.” Only days earlier the White House sat idly by while our ally Pakistan surrendered to Islamic militants in its northwest frontier,signing a “truce” and releasing Al Qaeda prisoners. Not only will Pakistan continue to harbor terrorists, Osama bin Laden probably among them, but it will do so without a peep from Mr. Bush.
You’d think that after having been caught concocting the scenario that took the nation to war in Iraq, the White House would mind the facts now. But this administration understands our culture all too well. This is a country where a cable news network (MSNBC) offers in-depth journalism about one of its anchors(Tucker Carlson) losing a prime-time dance contest and where conspiracy nuts have created a cottage industry of books and DVD’s by arguing that hijacked jets did not cause 9/11 and that the 9/11 commission was a cover-up. (The fictionalized “Path to 9/11,” supposedly based on the commission’s report, only advanced the nuts’ case.) If you’re a White House stuck in a quagmire in an election year, what’s the percentage in starting to tell the truth now? It’s better to game the system.
The untruths are flying so fast that untangling them can be a full-time job.Maybe that’s why I am beginning to find Dick Cheney almost refreshing. As we saw on “Meet the Press” last Sunday, these days he helpfully signals when he’s about to lie. One dead giveaway is the word context, as in “the context in which I made that statement last year.” The vice president invoked “context” to try to explain away both his bogus predictions: that Americans would be greeted as liberators in Iraq and that the insurgency (some 15 months ago) was in its “last throes.”
The other instant tip-off to a Cheney lie is any variation on the phrase “I haven’t read the story.” He told Tim Russert he hadn’t read The Washington Post’s front-page report that the bin Laden trail had gone “stone cold” or the new Senate Intelligence Committee report(PDF) contradicting the White House’s prewar hype about nonexistent links between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Nor had he read a Times front-page article about his declining clout. Or the finding by Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency just before the war that there was “no evidence of resumed nuclear activities” in Iraq. “I haven’t looked at it; I’d have to go back and look at it again,” he
said, however nonsensically.
These verbal tics are so consistent that they amount to truth in packaging —albeit the packaging of evasions and falsehoods. By contrast, Condi Rice’s fictions, also offered in bulk to television viewers to memorialize 9/11, are as knotty as a David Lynch screenplay. Asked by Chris Wallace of Fox News last Sunday if she and the president had ignored prewar “intelligence that contradicted your case,” she refused to give up the
ghost: “We know that Zarqawi was running a poisons network in Iraq,” she insisted, as she continued to state again that “there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda” before the war.
Ms. Rice may be a terrific amateur concert pianist, but she’s an even better amateur actress. The Senate Intelligence Committee report released only two days before she spoke dismissed all such ties. Saddam, who “issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with Al Qaeda,” saw both bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as threats and tried to hunt down Zarqawi when he passed through Baghdad in 2002. As for that Zarqawi “poisons network,” the Pentagon knew where it was and wanted to attack it in June 2002. But as Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News reported more than two years ago, the White House said no, fearing a successful strike against Zarqawi might “undercut its case for going to war against Saddam.” Zarqawi, meanwhile, escaped.
It was in an interview with Ted Koppel for the Discovery Channel, though, that Ms. Rice rose to a whole new level of fictionalizing by wrapping a fresh layer of untruth around her most notorious previous fiction. Asked about her dire prewar warning that a smoking gun might come in the form of a mushroom cloud, she said that “it wasn’t meant as hyperbole.” She also rewrote history to imply that she had been talking broadly about the nexus between “terrorism and a nuclear device” back then, not specifically Saddam — a
rather deft verbal sleight-of-hand.
Ms. Rice sets a high bar, but Mr. Bush, competitive as always, was not to be outdone in his Oval Office address. Even the billing of his appearance was fiction. “It’s not going to be a political speech,” Tony Snow announced, knowing full well that the 17-minute text was largely Cuisinarted scraps from other recent political speeches, including those at campaign fund-raisers. Moldy canards of yore (Saddam “was a clear threat”) were interspersed with promising newcomers: Iraq will be “a strong ally in the war on terror.” As is often the case, the president was technically truthful. Iraq will be a strong ally in the war on terror — just not necessarily our ally. As Mr.Bush spoke, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was leaving for Iran to jolly up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Perhaps the only way to strike back against this fresh deluge of fiction is to call the White House’s bluff. On Monday night, for instance, Mr. Bush flatly declared that “the safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.” He once again invoked Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, asking, “Do we have the confidence to do in the Middle East what our fathers and grandfathers accomplished in Europe and Asia?”
Rather than tune this bluster out, as the country now does, let’s try a thought experiment. Let’s pretend everything Mr. Bush said is actually true and then hold him to his word. If the safety of America really depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad, then our safety is in grave peril because we are losing that battle. The security crackdown announced with great fanfare by Mr. Bush and Mr. Maliki in June is failing. Rosy American claims of dramatically falling murder rates are being challenged by the Baghdad morgue.Perhaps most tellingly, the Pentagon has now stopped including in its own tally the large numbers of victims killed by car bombings and mortar attacks in sectarian warfare.
And that’s the good news. Another large slice of Iraq, Anbar Province (almost a third of the country), is slipping away so fast that a senior military official told NBC News last week that 50,000 to 60,000 additional ground forces were needed to secure it, despite our huge sacrifice in two savage battles for Falluja. The Iraqi troops “standing up” in Anbar are deserting at a rate as high as 40 percent.
“Even the most sanguine optimist cannot yet conclude we are
winning,” John Lehman, the former Reagan Navy secretary,
wrote of the Iraq war last month. So what do we do next? Given that the current course is a fiasco, and that the White House demonizes any plan or timetable for eventual withdrawal as “cut and run,” there’s only one immediate alternative: add more manpower, and fast. Last week two conservative war supporters, William Kristol and Rich Lowry, called for exactly that — “substantially more troops.” These pundits at least have the courage of Mr. Bush’s convictions. Shouldn’t Republicans in Congress as well?
After all, if what the president says is true about the stakes in Baghdad, it’s tantamount to treason if Bill Frist, Rick Santorum and John Boehner fail to rally their party’s Congressional majority to stave off defeat there. We can’t emulate our fathers and grandfathers and whip today’s Nazis and Communists with 145,000 troops. Roosevelt and Truman would have regarded those troop levels as defeatism.
The trouble, of course, is that we don’t have any more troops, and supporters of the war, starting with Mr. Bush, don’t want to ask American voters to make any sacrifices to provide them. They don’t want to ask because they know the voters will tell them no. In the end, that is the hard truth the White House is determined to obscure, at least until Election Day, by carpet-bombing America with still more fictions about Iraq.
Part of the success of Bush & Co. is in cramming reality down the memory hole as soon as its head pops up, then ringing irrelevant bells and blowing dissonant whistles to distract our attention to more "helpful" creations.
With that in mind, I think it worthwhile to back up a bit and remember.
Here's something from the middle of September.
- Uke Man
September 17, 2006
The Longer the War, the Larger the Lies
By FRANK RICH
RARELY has a television network presented a more perfectly matched double feature. President Bush’s 9/11 address on Monday night interrupted ABC’s “Path to 9/11” so seamlessly that a single network disclaimer served them both: “For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains
fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression.”
No kidding: “The Path to 9/11” was false from the opening
scene, when it put Mohamed Atta both in the wrong airport (Boston instead of Portland, Me.) and on the wrong airline (American instead of USAirways). It took Mr. Bush but a few paragraphs to warm up to his first fictionalization for dramatic purposes: his renewed pledge that “we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them.” Only days earlier the White House sat idly by while our ally Pakistan surrendered to Islamic militants in its northwest frontier,signing a “truce” and releasing Al Qaeda prisoners. Not only will Pakistan continue to harbor terrorists, Osama bin Laden probably among them, but it will do so without a peep from Mr. Bush.
You’d think that after having been caught concocting the scenario that took the nation to war in Iraq, the White House would mind the facts now. But this administration understands our culture all too well. This is a country where a cable news network (MSNBC) offers in-depth journalism about one of its anchors(Tucker Carlson) losing a prime-time dance contest and where conspiracy nuts have created a cottage industry of books and DVD’s by arguing that hijacked jets did not cause 9/11 and that the 9/11 commission was a cover-up. (The fictionalized “Path to 9/11,” supposedly based on the commission’s report, only advanced the nuts’ case.) If you’re a White House stuck in a quagmire in an election year, what’s the percentage in starting to tell the truth now? It’s better to game the system.
The untruths are flying so fast that untangling them can be a full-time job.Maybe that’s why I am beginning to find Dick Cheney almost refreshing. As we saw on “Meet the Press” last Sunday, these days he helpfully signals when he’s about to lie. One dead giveaway is the word context, as in “the context in which I made that statement last year.” The vice president invoked “context” to try to explain away both his bogus predictions: that Americans would be greeted as liberators in Iraq and that the insurgency (some 15 months ago) was in its “last throes.”
The other instant tip-off to a Cheney lie is any variation on the phrase “I haven’t read the story.” He told Tim Russert he hadn’t read The Washington Post’s front-page report that the bin Laden trail had gone “stone cold” or the new Senate Intelligence Committee report(PDF) contradicting the White House’s prewar hype about nonexistent links between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Nor had he read a Times front-page article about his declining clout. Or the finding by Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency just before the war that there was “no evidence of resumed nuclear activities” in Iraq. “I haven’t looked at it; I’d have to go back and look at it again,” he
said, however nonsensically.
These verbal tics are so consistent that they amount to truth in packaging —albeit the packaging of evasions and falsehoods. By contrast, Condi Rice’s fictions, also offered in bulk to television viewers to memorialize 9/11, are as knotty as a David Lynch screenplay. Asked by Chris Wallace of Fox News last Sunday if she and the president had ignored prewar “intelligence that contradicted your case,” she refused to give up the
ghost: “We know that Zarqawi was running a poisons network in Iraq,” she insisted, as she continued to state again that “there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda” before the war.
Ms. Rice may be a terrific amateur concert pianist, but she’s an even better amateur actress. The Senate Intelligence Committee report released only two days before she spoke dismissed all such ties. Saddam, who “issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with Al Qaeda,” saw both bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as threats and tried to hunt down Zarqawi when he passed through Baghdad in 2002. As for that Zarqawi “poisons network,” the Pentagon knew where it was and wanted to attack it in June 2002. But as Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News reported more than two years ago, the White House said no, fearing a successful strike against Zarqawi might “undercut its case for going to war against Saddam.” Zarqawi, meanwhile, escaped.
It was in an interview with Ted Koppel for the Discovery Channel, though, that Ms. Rice rose to a whole new level of fictionalizing by wrapping a fresh layer of untruth around her most notorious previous fiction. Asked about her dire prewar warning that a smoking gun might come in the form of a mushroom cloud, she said that “it wasn’t meant as hyperbole.” She also rewrote history to imply that she had been talking broadly about the nexus between “terrorism and a nuclear device” back then, not specifically Saddam — a
rather deft verbal sleight-of-hand.
Ms. Rice sets a high bar, but Mr. Bush, competitive as always, was not to be outdone in his Oval Office address. Even the billing of his appearance was fiction. “It’s not going to be a political speech,” Tony Snow announced, knowing full well that the 17-minute text was largely Cuisinarted scraps from other recent political speeches, including those at campaign fund-raisers. Moldy canards of yore (Saddam “was a clear threat”) were interspersed with promising newcomers: Iraq will be “a strong ally in the war on terror.” As is often the case, the president was technically truthful. Iraq will be a strong ally in the war on terror — just not necessarily our ally. As Mr.Bush spoke, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was leaving for Iran to jolly up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Perhaps the only way to strike back against this fresh deluge of fiction is to call the White House’s bluff. On Monday night, for instance, Mr. Bush flatly declared that “the safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.” He once again invoked Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, asking, “Do we have the confidence to do in the Middle East what our fathers and grandfathers accomplished in Europe and Asia?”
Rather than tune this bluster out, as the country now does, let’s try a thought experiment. Let’s pretend everything Mr. Bush said is actually true and then hold him to his word. If the safety of America really depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad, then our safety is in grave peril because we are losing that battle. The security crackdown announced with great fanfare by Mr. Bush and Mr. Maliki in June is failing. Rosy American claims of dramatically falling murder rates are being challenged by the Baghdad morgue.Perhaps most tellingly, the Pentagon has now stopped including in its own tally the large numbers of victims killed by car bombings and mortar attacks in sectarian warfare.
And that’s the good news. Another large slice of Iraq, Anbar Province (almost a third of the country), is slipping away so fast that a senior military official told NBC News last week that 50,000 to 60,000 additional ground forces were needed to secure it, despite our huge sacrifice in two savage battles for Falluja. The Iraqi troops “standing up” in Anbar are deserting at a rate as high as 40 percent.
“Even the most sanguine optimist cannot yet conclude we are
winning,” John Lehman, the former Reagan Navy secretary,
wrote of the Iraq war last month. So what do we do next? Given that the current course is a fiasco, and that the White House demonizes any plan or timetable for eventual withdrawal as “cut and run,” there’s only one immediate alternative: add more manpower, and fast. Last week two conservative war supporters, William Kristol and Rich Lowry, called for exactly that — “substantially more troops.” These pundits at least have the courage of Mr. Bush’s convictions. Shouldn’t Republicans in Congress as well?
After all, if what the president says is true about the stakes in Baghdad, it’s tantamount to treason if Bill Frist, Rick Santorum and John Boehner fail to rally their party’s Congressional majority to stave off defeat there. We can’t emulate our fathers and grandfathers and whip today’s Nazis and Communists with 145,000 troops. Roosevelt and Truman would have regarded those troop levels as defeatism.
The trouble, of course, is that we don’t have any more troops, and supporters of the war, starting with Mr. Bush, don’t want to ask American voters to make any sacrifices to provide them. They don’t want to ask because they know the voters will tell them no. In the end, that is the hard truth the White House is determined to obscure, at least until Election Day, by carpet-bombing America with still more fictions about Iraq.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Hey Folks,
This Saturday I'm off to California for two shows under the redwoods.
On October 12 I'll be with the Ukulele Club of Santa Cruz, the Premier uke venue west of the Mississippi (they're just coming off the "Burning Uke" festival, held on the beach at Malibu. Check out their website:
http://www.ukuleleclub.com/
- Uke Man
This Saturday I'm off to California for two shows under the redwoods.
On October 12 I'll be with the Ukulele Club of Santa Cruz, the Premier uke venue west of the Mississippi (they're just coming off the "Burning Uke" festival, held on the beach at Malibu. Check out their website:
http://www.ukuleleclub.com/
- Uke Man
Chavez - perspective
Hey Folks,
I’ve been discussing Hugo Chavez of late. Well, Georgie Anne Geyer has too, and I think her column will give some perspective on what I’ve been saying. We often can’t see incongruities in our own positions that are glaring to others looking from a different perspective.
Chavez is not Geyer’s major focus. She takes on Ahmadinejad and the Bush crowd as well - on the way to proposing that nationalism – not “radical Islam” – is the driver of the confrontation.
But here’s the perspective: Geyer says of Chavez:
“before he was elected in 1998, the two political parties that had ruled Venezuela since 1957 had robbed the country blind: Billions of dollars in oil money went into their private bank accounts, while 80 percent of the people lived below the poverty level.”
But then she also says, “Chavez immediately chose to become the clone of the hemisphere’s most daring revolutionary, his pal in paranoid behavior, Cuban leader Fidel Castro [emphasis added].” She also characterizes him as “difficult and potentially dangerous.”
Hey !! 80% of the Venezuelan people lived BELOW the poverty level, and had been kept there SINCE 1957!!! And we are supposed to believe that Chavez is ______________ (fill in any of the many derogatory adjectives we’ve been hearing) for attempting to CHANGE that??? Paranoid and dangerous???
In any movie, TV series, novel, or comic book; CHANGING that would be seen as heroic (remember “The A Team”??). Geyer goes so far as to say that even Ahmadinejad’s behavior is rational if seen from the Iranian point of view: the history of British and American suppression and the present condescending and bullying posture of the Bush regime.
Geyer’s column makes it clear – at least to me – that Chavez is being described negatively by so many people NOT because he is acting without concern for the people who democratically elected him, but because he is not acting with the US electorate (actually, the US and Venezuelan elite) in mind.
- Uke Man
Confrontational approach is counterproductive
Friday, September 29, 2006
GEORGIE ANNE GEYER
The incredible displays of hubris, resentment and sheer theatrics at the United Nations the past two weeks started with Iran’s president and ended with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
But beyond his superficial theater on the East River, which was obviously designed to further Venezuela’s claim for one of the open seats on the Security Council, what is behind this rambunctious man? One must remember that, before he was elected in 1998, the two political parties that had ruled Venezuela since 1957 had robbed the country blind: Billions of dollars in oil money went into their private bank accounts, while 80 percent of the people lived below the poverty level, thus providing a perfect opening for a charismatic populist caudillo.
Like all of last week’s players, Chavez hardly came out of nowhere. Even though the United States meddled relatively little in Venezuela compared with many Caribbean countries, Chavez immediately chose to become the clone of the hemisphere’s most daring revolutionary, his pal in paranoid behavior, Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Even Chavez’s trip last week to Harlem to hand out free oil was patterned on Fidel’s trip there after he came to power in 1959.
Then we had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the "sage" of Tehran, the strange man with the open-shirt-as-statement, the supernaturally gleaming eyes and the perpetually confident smirk. Saying little of any coherence and answering questions with his own questions, the Iranian president was nevertheless touted as "a leader of the world," so strongly had his anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism resonated.
But despite the mystery surrounding him for many Americans, Ahmadinejad didn’t come out of nowhere, either. This fierce Persian, seemingly composed but always carrying a potential nuclear bomb in his back pocket, came from the repressions of British colonialism, when the Iranians were not allowed to build their own railroad, and later when the United States supported the shah, who cut off from upper mobility the Shiite Muslims Ahmadinejad represents.
If we had an administration that would meet with them, "dialogue" with them and show some respect for them, a lot could be done.
The Bush people have a list of "evil" folk they won’t shake hands with, be in the same room with or answer a letter from; they make Nixon’s enemies list look like a grocery list. And they obviously think that even having our diplomats talk with the Chavezes and the Ahmadinejads of this crazy world is demeaning. It’s so much easier to just threaten them with annihilation and get it over with.
In fact, they are driving admittedly difficult and potentially dangerous men like these two to further depredations and threats.
Middle East expert Jon B. Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies says of the Iranians’ playacting with the West over its potential nuclear bomb: "I think this is very rational from the Iranian point of view. Their policy makes a lot of sense in the present environment. They’re trying to become the dominant regional power in the Middle East. We have here an Iranian nationalism that is guided by a thirst for prestige and jealousy for what the smaller Gulf states have accomplished.
‘‘It all comes out of the nationalist Iranian desire, which had a very long history. First, they want to develop nuclear weapons because (those weapons) are the real first accomplishment of the revolution — even if they gain attention, that’s an accomplishment. In Malaysia, in Pakistan, in other countries, suddenly they’re talking about Iran. They want attention! "
Looked at from their perspective, and not ours, why wouldn’t they do what they are doing, such as using threats, however unpleasant or heinous, to gain what they want, and trying to back the West into a corner? Especially in Iran’s case, when the United States has done it the great favor of eliminating a functioning Iraq as Iran’s historical enemy and balancer of power in the region?
Those wonderful guys who gave us Vietnam came to realize that the problem there was nationalism, not communism. In the Near East today, the problem is far more nationalism than radical Islam. And nationalism rises when energy prices go up. That’s another reason for Venezuela’s and Iran’s crazy monarchical attitudes in the world.
But energy prices also go down. Look a little closer and you find that both countries have more unemployment, labor unrest and poverty than before. In effect, the errant nationalism displayed at the United Nations is vulnerable to changes that could come any day.
"I think the Iranians want to talk," Alterman said. "They want to talk about talking. We are destined to manage this situation. It creates time. There are options for things to change, but at the same time be very realistic about how fast it can be done."
Thus, the answer to today’s Iranian question and, perhaps, in part, to Venezuela, is not to confront, but to manage. These are fluid situations; things change; bizarre negotiations may go on forever.
But in the meantime, nobody’s bombing. Ride the river out. Don’t try to dam it up, or the waters may flood the dikes. Georgie Anne Geyer writes for Universal Press Syndicate.
I’ve been discussing Hugo Chavez of late. Well, Georgie Anne Geyer has too, and I think her column will give some perspective on what I’ve been saying. We often can’t see incongruities in our own positions that are glaring to others looking from a different perspective.
Chavez is not Geyer’s major focus. She takes on Ahmadinejad and the Bush crowd as well - on the way to proposing that nationalism – not “radical Islam” – is the driver of the confrontation.
But here’s the perspective: Geyer says of Chavez:
“before he was elected in 1998, the two political parties that had ruled Venezuela since 1957 had robbed the country blind: Billions of dollars in oil money went into their private bank accounts, while 80 percent of the people lived below the poverty level.”
But then she also says, “Chavez immediately chose to become the clone of the hemisphere’s most daring revolutionary, his pal in paranoid behavior, Cuban leader Fidel Castro [emphasis added].” She also characterizes him as “difficult and potentially dangerous.”
Hey !! 80% of the Venezuelan people lived BELOW the poverty level, and had been kept there SINCE 1957!!! And we are supposed to believe that Chavez is ______________ (fill in any of the many derogatory adjectives we’ve been hearing) for attempting to CHANGE that??? Paranoid and dangerous???
In any movie, TV series, novel, or comic book; CHANGING that would be seen as heroic (remember “The A Team”??). Geyer goes so far as to say that even Ahmadinejad’s behavior is rational if seen from the Iranian point of view: the history of British and American suppression and the present condescending and bullying posture of the Bush regime.
Geyer’s column makes it clear – at least to me – that Chavez is being described negatively by so many people NOT because he is acting without concern for the people who democratically elected him, but because he is not acting with the US electorate (actually, the US and Venezuelan elite) in mind.
- Uke Man
Confrontational approach is counterproductive
Friday, September 29, 2006
GEORGIE ANNE GEYER
The incredible displays of hubris, resentment and sheer theatrics at the United Nations the past two weeks started with Iran’s president and ended with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
But beyond his superficial theater on the East River, which was obviously designed to further Venezuela’s claim for one of the open seats on the Security Council, what is behind this rambunctious man? One must remember that, before he was elected in 1998, the two political parties that had ruled Venezuela since 1957 had robbed the country blind: Billions of dollars in oil money went into their private bank accounts, while 80 percent of the people lived below the poverty level, thus providing a perfect opening for a charismatic populist caudillo.
Like all of last week’s players, Chavez hardly came out of nowhere. Even though the United States meddled relatively little in Venezuela compared with many Caribbean countries, Chavez immediately chose to become the clone of the hemisphere’s most daring revolutionary, his pal in paranoid behavior, Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Even Chavez’s trip last week to Harlem to hand out free oil was patterned on Fidel’s trip there after he came to power in 1959.
Then we had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the "sage" of Tehran, the strange man with the open-shirt-as-statement, the supernaturally gleaming eyes and the perpetually confident smirk. Saying little of any coherence and answering questions with his own questions, the Iranian president was nevertheless touted as "a leader of the world," so strongly had his anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism resonated.
But despite the mystery surrounding him for many Americans, Ahmadinejad didn’t come out of nowhere, either. This fierce Persian, seemingly composed but always carrying a potential nuclear bomb in his back pocket, came from the repressions of British colonialism, when the Iranians were not allowed to build their own railroad, and later when the United States supported the shah, who cut off from upper mobility the Shiite Muslims Ahmadinejad represents.
If we had an administration that would meet with them, "dialogue" with them and show some respect for them, a lot could be done.
The Bush people have a list of "evil" folk they won’t shake hands with, be in the same room with or answer a letter from; they make Nixon’s enemies list look like a grocery list. And they obviously think that even having our diplomats talk with the Chavezes and the Ahmadinejads of this crazy world is demeaning. It’s so much easier to just threaten them with annihilation and get it over with.
In fact, they are driving admittedly difficult and potentially dangerous men like these two to further depredations and threats.
Middle East expert Jon B. Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies says of the Iranians’ playacting with the West over its potential nuclear bomb: "I think this is very rational from the Iranian point of view. Their policy makes a lot of sense in the present environment. They’re trying to become the dominant regional power in the Middle East. We have here an Iranian nationalism that is guided by a thirst for prestige and jealousy for what the smaller Gulf states have accomplished.
‘‘It all comes out of the nationalist Iranian desire, which had a very long history. First, they want to develop nuclear weapons because (those weapons) are the real first accomplishment of the revolution — even if they gain attention, that’s an accomplishment. In Malaysia, in Pakistan, in other countries, suddenly they’re talking about Iran. They want attention! "
Looked at from their perspective, and not ours, why wouldn’t they do what they are doing, such as using threats, however unpleasant or heinous, to gain what they want, and trying to back the West into a corner? Especially in Iran’s case, when the United States has done it the great favor of eliminating a functioning Iraq as Iran’s historical enemy and balancer of power in the region?
Those wonderful guys who gave us Vietnam came to realize that the problem there was nationalism, not communism. In the Near East today, the problem is far more nationalism than radical Islam. And nationalism rises when energy prices go up. That’s another reason for Venezuela’s and Iran’s crazy monarchical attitudes in the world.
But energy prices also go down. Look a little closer and you find that both countries have more unemployment, labor unrest and poverty than before. In effect, the errant nationalism displayed at the United Nations is vulnerable to changes that could come any day.
"I think the Iranians want to talk," Alterman said. "They want to talk about talking. We are destined to manage this situation. It creates time. There are options for things to change, but at the same time be very realistic about how fast it can be done."
Thus, the answer to today’s Iranian question and, perhaps, in part, to Venezuela, is not to confront, but to manage. These are fluid situations; things change; bizarre negotiations may go on forever.
But in the meantime, nobody’s bombing. Ride the river out. Don’t try to dam it up, or the waters may flood the dikes. Georgie Anne Geyer writes for Universal Press Syndicate.
Monday, October 02, 2006
War on Iran in the offing !!??
Senior intel official: Pentagon moves to second-stage planning for Iran strike option
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pentagon_moves_to_secondstage_planning_for_0921.html
Larisa Alexandrovna
Published: Thursday September 21, 2006
The Pentagon's top brass has moved into second-stage contingency planning for a potential military strike on Iran, one senior intelligence official familiar with the plans tells RAW STORY.
The official, who is close to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officials of each branch of the US military, says the Chiefs have started what is called "branches and sequels" contingency planning.
"The JCS has accepted the inevitable," the intelligence official said, "and is engaged in serious contingency planning to deal with the worst case scenarios that the intelligence community has been painting."
A second military official, although unfamiliar with these latest scenarios, said there is a difference between contingency planning -- which he described as"what if, then what" planning -- and "branches and sequels," which takes place after an initial plan has been decided upon.
Adding to the concern of both military and intelligence officials alike is the nuclear option,the possibility of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons targeting alleged WMD facilities in Iran.
An April New Yorker report by Sy Hersh alleged that the nuclear option was on the table, and that some officers of the Joint Chiefs had threatened resignation. "The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning," Hersh wrote. "Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran without success, the former intelligence official said."
The senior intelligence official who spoke to RAWSTORY, along with several military intelligence sources, confirmed that the nuclear option remains on the table. In addition, the senior official added that the Joint Chiefs have "come around on to the administration' s thinking."
"The Joint Chiefs have no longer imposed roadblocks on a possible bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear production facilities," the intelligence official said. "In the past, only the Air Force had endorsed the contingency, saying that it could carry out the mission of destroying, or at least significantly delaying, Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon."
Preparation for such a strike would require contingency plans for securing oil transport lines and dealing with possible riots, as well as assessment of issues that arose during the Iran-Iraq war.
"Bahrain will be a battleground as it is majority Shi'a and has had Shi'a riots stimulated by Iran in the past," the official said. "The US Fifth Fleet is also based there. A system for [protection of] oil transport in the Gulf will have to be devised by the US Navy to protect against attacks."
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to repeated emails requesting comment.
Deployment orders
With allegations of a plan in place and contingency scenarios in play, several military and intelligence experts see this as proof of a secret White House order to proceed with military action.
Last week, a military intelligence official described to this reporter the movement of Naval submarines and a deployment order sent out to Naval assets of strategic import, such as mine sweepers, that could indicate contingency planning is already under way to secure oil transport routes and supplies.
On Sunday, Time Magazine confirmed much of what the military intelligence source had described.
"The first message was routine enough: a 'Prepare to Deploy Order' sent through Naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters," Time's MichaelDuffy wrote. "The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready to move by October 1. A deployment of minesweepers to the east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real."
Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner also expressed concern about the deployment orders, but cautioned that these particular ships are slow-moving and would take "a month or so" to arrive in position.
"Mine counter measures, the four ships mentioned, are generally not self-deploying, " Gardiner said Wednesday. "When previously sent to the Gulf, they were transported on the decks of heavy lift ships. The earliest they would arrive would be around the first of November."
Although some claim the Defense Department has denied the deployment order, no official denial has been made. The Pentagon does not comment on operational plans, not even to issue a denial.
Lawmakers in the dark?
Attempts to contact members of the Senate Armed Services Committee provided little help in confirming allegations of the deployment order made to this reporter and Time. Senate offices that were available for comment would not do so on the record.
From all appearances, however, it would seem that at least some members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have not been briefed on deployment orders or on any strike plans, even contingency plans. TheSenate Intelligence Committee is attempting to get a grasp on what is and has been going on.
A source close to the Committee, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the information,explained that a series of briefings will be going on this week and into next.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has "embarked on a much more aggressive review of what the intelligence community knows and is doing regarding Iran," the source said.
"In fact [the Committee has] a number of Iran related briefings this week and next before the senators leave town," the source added. They "will cover the full spectrum including various aspects of their nuclear program and all U.S. collection efforts."
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pentagon_moves_to_secondstage_planning_for_0921.html
Larisa Alexandrovna
Published: Thursday September 21, 2006
The Pentagon's top brass has moved into second-stage contingency planning for a potential military strike on Iran, one senior intelligence official familiar with the plans tells RAW STORY.
The official, who is close to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officials of each branch of the US military, says the Chiefs have started what is called "branches and sequels" contingency planning.
"The JCS has accepted the inevitable," the intelligence official said, "and is engaged in serious contingency planning to deal with the worst case scenarios that the intelligence community has been painting."
A second military official, although unfamiliar with these latest scenarios, said there is a difference between contingency planning -- which he described as"what if, then what" planning -- and "branches and sequels," which takes place after an initial plan has been decided upon.
Adding to the concern of both military and intelligence officials alike is the nuclear option,the possibility of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons targeting alleged WMD facilities in Iran.
An April New Yorker report by Sy Hersh alleged that the nuclear option was on the table, and that some officers of the Joint Chiefs had threatened resignation. "The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning," Hersh wrote. "Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran without success, the former intelligence official said."
The senior intelligence official who spoke to RAWSTORY, along with several military intelligence sources, confirmed that the nuclear option remains on the table. In addition, the senior official added that the Joint Chiefs have "come around on to the administration' s thinking."
"The Joint Chiefs have no longer imposed roadblocks on a possible bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear production facilities," the intelligence official said. "In the past, only the Air Force had endorsed the contingency, saying that it could carry out the mission of destroying, or at least significantly delaying, Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon."
Preparation for such a strike would require contingency plans for securing oil transport lines and dealing with possible riots, as well as assessment of issues that arose during the Iran-Iraq war.
"Bahrain will be a battleground as it is majority Shi'a and has had Shi'a riots stimulated by Iran in the past," the official said. "The US Fifth Fleet is also based there. A system for [protection of] oil transport in the Gulf will have to be devised by the US Navy to protect against attacks."
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to repeated emails requesting comment.
Deployment orders
With allegations of a plan in place and contingency scenarios in play, several military and intelligence experts see this as proof of a secret White House order to proceed with military action.
Last week, a military intelligence official described to this reporter the movement of Naval submarines and a deployment order sent out to Naval assets of strategic import, such as mine sweepers, that could indicate contingency planning is already under way to secure oil transport routes and supplies.
On Sunday, Time Magazine confirmed much of what the military intelligence source had described.
"The first message was routine enough: a 'Prepare to Deploy Order' sent through Naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters," Time's MichaelDuffy wrote. "The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready to move by October 1. A deployment of minesweepers to the east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real."
Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner also expressed concern about the deployment orders, but cautioned that these particular ships are slow-moving and would take "a month or so" to arrive in position.
"Mine counter measures, the four ships mentioned, are generally not self-deploying, " Gardiner said Wednesday. "When previously sent to the Gulf, they were transported on the decks of heavy lift ships. The earliest they would arrive would be around the first of November."
Although some claim the Defense Department has denied the deployment order, no official denial has been made. The Pentagon does not comment on operational plans, not even to issue a denial.
Lawmakers in the dark?
Attempts to contact members of the Senate Armed Services Committee provided little help in confirming allegations of the deployment order made to this reporter and Time. Senate offices that were available for comment would not do so on the record.
From all appearances, however, it would seem that at least some members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have not been briefed on deployment orders or on any strike plans, even contingency plans. TheSenate Intelligence Committee is attempting to get a grasp on what is and has been going on.
A source close to the Committee, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the information,explained that a series of briefings will be going on this week and into next.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has "embarked on a much more aggressive review of what the intelligence community knows and is doing regarding Iran," the source said.
"In fact [the Committee has] a number of Iran related briefings this week and next before the senators leave town," the source added. They "will cover the full spectrum including various aspects of their nuclear program and all U.S. collection efforts."
"Sunny Day in Baghdad"
Hey Folks,
If you haven't yet heard my song "Sunny Day in Baghdad," give a listen at:
http://www.myspace.com/ukulelemanandhisprodigalsons
If you like it, download it and send it on to friends.
- Uke Man
If you haven't yet heard my song "Sunny Day in Baghdad," give a listen at:
http://www.myspace.com/ukulelemanandhisprodigalsons
If you like it, download it and send it on to friends.
- Uke Man
Mr. Maturity
Philadelphia Inquirer
Editorial
Five Years Lost - It's time to grow up
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Who would have thought that words spoken long ago by Benjamin Franklin would speak so clearly to this time of terrorism and its discontents?
"A child thinks 20 shillings and 20 years can scarce ever be spent," Franklin said.
In a child, such optimism mixed with ignorance can be charming.
In leaders who shape national security policy for the United States, it's distressing.
When George W. Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001, his minions chortled that, after a Clinton White House staffed by puerile boomers, the nation could rest easy. It was now being led by adults, people you could trust to make sound judgments: Dick Cheney. Donald Rumsfeld. Colin Powell. Condoleezza Rice.
Yet five years after al-Qaeda used planes as weapons in Manhattan, at the Pentagon, and in the sky over Pennsylvania, the war on terrorism they've conducted seems more the work of children than of grown-ups.
Polls indicate that many Americans do not think this nation's policies have made them safer. A Gallup poll last month reported 45 percent of Americans were "very" or "somewhat" fearful about falling victim to terrorism.
The Bush administration's handling of U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq causes the greatest concern - and highlights the differences between mature and immature governance.
Officials would have shown mature judgment by finishing the job they began in Afghanistan after 9/11.
Bush was absolutely right to send U.S. troops there to destroy al-Qaeda's headquarters and push the terrorists' eager hosts, the Taliban, from power. If only he'd sent enough to do the job once and for all.
The fighting over, wise adults would have recognized the importance of rebuilding the nation and securing the peace. Afghans and the world would have proclaimed the invasion an unqualified success if basic freedoms and economic progress had taken root in Kabul and beyond.
But, like children who won't clean up after they have made a mess, the Bush administration shunned the critical chore of nation building. We don't do that, said old heads Cheney, Rumsfeld and others. They just like making the mess.
Children are often impulsive, with short attention spans. Before the job was done in Afghanistan, this administration shifted resources and attention to invading Iraq on a whim.
Children often invent monsters under the bed. Administration officials justified their new war by insisting that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, that he was an ally of those who planned the Sept. 11 attacks, that he would partner with them again to harm us.
When they don't want to hear facts they don't like, children put hands over ears and sing "la, la, la." And so it was that the administration refused to take seriously the many reports from credible sources that said Hussein had few WMD.
When youngsters are challenged about their mistakes, they often make up stories, harp on small points, concoct a million excuses for why they did what they did.
And so behaved Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld after U.S. soldiers could not find any active WMD.
Bush officials then offered a bevy of new rationales for why they felt they had to oust Hussein immediately. When those rationales collapsed, they went back to stressing that Hussein was a bad, bad man.
Few Americans debate that point. They agree Hussein is a beast who deserves his imprisonment. That doesn't mean, however, that Iraq was in any way the next logical front in protecting America from attack.
Adults learn from their mistakes.
This administration did not heed the lessons of Afghanistan, where the Taliban are fighting their way to a comeback. In Iraq, once again, the White House made war and courted instability without having a good plan for securing and rebuilding the country. They ignored nearly every one of history's lessons about how best to counter an insurgency.
We see today the results of that unformed, overly optimistic thinking: the growing chaos in Iraq.
It would be comforting if, after five years, President Bush showed maturity gained from tragedy, if he showed firmer grasp of how a complex world demands nuanced realism about both friend and enemy.
It would be nice if his team's political rhetoric did not dismiss diplomacy as the work of wimps, did not deride as appeasement the attempt to persuade moderate Muslims around the world to reject the destructive jihadist ideology.
But there's an election to win, so adult thinking goes out the window.
A grown-up administration would explain to the public that an effective anti-terror strategy requires as much police work and human intelligence as bomb-dropping and phone-tapping - and that it requires financial sacrifice from all.
It would be comforting if grown-ups were in charge of protecting the country. Maybe some day.
Editorial
Five Years Lost - It's time to grow up
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Who would have thought that words spoken long ago by Benjamin Franklin would speak so clearly to this time of terrorism and its discontents?
"A child thinks 20 shillings and 20 years can scarce ever be spent," Franklin said.
In a child, such optimism mixed with ignorance can be charming.
In leaders who shape national security policy for the United States, it's distressing.
When George W. Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001, his minions chortled that, after a Clinton White House staffed by puerile boomers, the nation could rest easy. It was now being led by adults, people you could trust to make sound judgments: Dick Cheney. Donald Rumsfeld. Colin Powell. Condoleezza Rice.
Yet five years after al-Qaeda used planes as weapons in Manhattan, at the Pentagon, and in the sky over Pennsylvania, the war on terrorism they've conducted seems more the work of children than of grown-ups.
Polls indicate that many Americans do not think this nation's policies have made them safer. A Gallup poll last month reported 45 percent of Americans were "very" or "somewhat" fearful about falling victim to terrorism.
The Bush administration's handling of U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq causes the greatest concern - and highlights the differences between mature and immature governance.
Officials would have shown mature judgment by finishing the job they began in Afghanistan after 9/11.
Bush was absolutely right to send U.S. troops there to destroy al-Qaeda's headquarters and push the terrorists' eager hosts, the Taliban, from power. If only he'd sent enough to do the job once and for all.
The fighting over, wise adults would have recognized the importance of rebuilding the nation and securing the peace. Afghans and the world would have proclaimed the invasion an unqualified success if basic freedoms and economic progress had taken root in Kabul and beyond.
But, like children who won't clean up after they have made a mess, the Bush administration shunned the critical chore of nation building. We don't do that, said old heads Cheney, Rumsfeld and others. They just like making the mess.
Children are often impulsive, with short attention spans. Before the job was done in Afghanistan, this administration shifted resources and attention to invading Iraq on a whim.
Children often invent monsters under the bed. Administration officials justified their new war by insisting that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, that he was an ally of those who planned the Sept. 11 attacks, that he would partner with them again to harm us.
When they don't want to hear facts they don't like, children put hands over ears and sing "la, la, la." And so it was that the administration refused to take seriously the many reports from credible sources that said Hussein had few WMD.
When youngsters are challenged about their mistakes, they often make up stories, harp on small points, concoct a million excuses for why they did what they did.
And so behaved Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld after U.S. soldiers could not find any active WMD.
Bush officials then offered a bevy of new rationales for why they felt they had to oust Hussein immediately. When those rationales collapsed, they went back to stressing that Hussein was a bad, bad man.
Few Americans debate that point. They agree Hussein is a beast who deserves his imprisonment. That doesn't mean, however, that Iraq was in any way the next logical front in protecting America from attack.
Adults learn from their mistakes.
This administration did not heed the lessons of Afghanistan, where the Taliban are fighting their way to a comeback. In Iraq, once again, the White House made war and courted instability without having a good plan for securing and rebuilding the country. They ignored nearly every one of history's lessons about how best to counter an insurgency.
We see today the results of that unformed, overly optimistic thinking: the growing chaos in Iraq.
It would be comforting if, after five years, President Bush showed maturity gained from tragedy, if he showed firmer grasp of how a complex world demands nuanced realism about both friend and enemy.
It would be nice if his team's political rhetoric did not dismiss diplomacy as the work of wimps, did not deride as appeasement the attempt to persuade moderate Muslims around the world to reject the destructive jihadist ideology.
But there's an election to win, so adult thinking goes out the window.
A grown-up administration would explain to the public that an effective anti-terror strategy requires as much police work and human intelligence as bomb-dropping and phone-tapping - and that it requires financial sacrifice from all.
It would be comforting if grown-ups were in charge of protecting the country. Maybe some day.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Free Country my ass (er . . . buttocks)
Art Teacher Loses Job After Kids See Nude Sculpture
Children Were On School-Approved Field Trip
Hey Folks,
I taught for thirty-one years and was active in the union the whole time; so I’ve seen the idiocy reported below numerous times. Yeah, a nation of laws (not men) with liberty and justice for all.
First of all the dumbass who complained about naked statues should be required to seek psychotherapy – no getting around it. What the hell did he or she think would be at a museum? Stuffed dinosaurs less than 7,000 years old wearing underpants (no bras required on reptiles)???
The moron(s) signed a “Parental Permission Slip,” for god’s sake; and, if they could read, they saw “M-U-S-E-U-M” written there somewhere. And they SIGNED it!!
This is called a “developed” country; does that include Frisco, Texas? We put a man on the moon in 1969, and in 2006 we want to put a fig leaf on a statue’s genitals!!
Ohmygod!!! SAVE THE CHILDREN !!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, who’s going to save the brick-stupid, perverted parents?
But the principal and school board are even worse!! This dumbass comes in bitching about naked statues, and the “authorities” don’t have the sense to show them the door or, at least, hold their hand sympathetically until they get tired and go home to poke pins in Spongebob Squarepants.
No, no, no. This freak of a principal – who URGED the teacher to take the kids to the museum of naked expression in the first place - took action against an award-winning teacher of 28 years’ service; and the idiots on the school board voted to fire her.
As is usual in such cases, the teacher had a spotless record before the Neanderthal parent’s complaint, but supposedly started fucking up big time – according to the principal – immediately AFTER the complaint.
You see, they’d never destroy her career over marble penises and breasts that everyone knows are on display at museums – no. They’d NEVER fire a teacher just because some knuckle-dragging psycho was afraid fifth graders’ lives would be perverted by Michelangelo et. al. - No, no, no.
The lady just suddenly started screwing up big time twenty-eight years into an award-winning career. You shoulda seen them lesson plans o' hers !! Yes, sir!!!
I wonder how many of the fuckers involved in this little episode “prayed” over their decisions.
Well, I don’t need to pray to know who Jesus would have fired up.
- Uke Man
abc News - FRISCO, Texas -- An award-winning Texas art teacher who was reprimanded after one of her fifth-grade students saw a nude sculpture during a trip to a museum has lost her job.
The school board in Frisco has voted not to renew Sydney McGee's contract after 28 years. She has been on administrative leave.
The teacher took her students on an approved field trip to a Dallas museum, and now some parents are upset.
The Fisher Elementary School art teacher came under fire last April when she took 89 fifth-graders on a field trip to the Dallas Museum of Art. Parents raised concerns over the field trip after their children reported seeing a nude sculpture at the art museum.
The parents had signed permission slips allowing their children to take part in the field trip.
McGee's lawyer said the principal at Fisher Elementary School admonished her after a parent complained that a student had seen nude art.
McGee said the principal had urged her to take the students to the museum.
Now, McGee, who was honored with a Star Teacher Award two years ago, is on paid administrative leave until her contract with the school district expires in March.
Other parents are worried about the future of the art program at the school, which they cite as a reason for moving into the neighborhood.
"Our main concern right now is what's going to happen to the children and what's going to happen to the art program at Fisher Elementary. It is the best art program. That's the reason we moved to this neighborhood. It's because of the teachers," said Shannon Allen, a parent.
"It was a principal-approved trip. What's the big deal?"
Officials with the Frisco school district declined to comment on the matter.
Children Were On School-Approved Field Trip
Hey Folks,
I taught for thirty-one years and was active in the union the whole time; so I’ve seen the idiocy reported below numerous times. Yeah, a nation of laws (not men) with liberty and justice for all.
First of all the dumbass who complained about naked statues should be required to seek psychotherapy – no getting around it. What the hell did he or she think would be at a museum? Stuffed dinosaurs less than 7,000 years old wearing underpants (no bras required on reptiles)???
The moron(s) signed a “Parental Permission Slip,” for god’s sake; and, if they could read, they saw “M-U-S-E-U-M” written there somewhere. And they SIGNED it!!
This is called a “developed” country; does that include Frisco, Texas? We put a man on the moon in 1969, and in 2006 we want to put a fig leaf on a statue’s genitals!!
Ohmygod!!! SAVE THE CHILDREN !!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, who’s going to save the brick-stupid, perverted parents?
But the principal and school board are even worse!! This dumbass comes in bitching about naked statues, and the “authorities” don’t have the sense to show them the door or, at least, hold their hand sympathetically until they get tired and go home to poke pins in Spongebob Squarepants.
No, no, no. This freak of a principal – who URGED the teacher to take the kids to the museum of naked expression in the first place - took action against an award-winning teacher of 28 years’ service; and the idiots on the school board voted to fire her.
As is usual in such cases, the teacher had a spotless record before the Neanderthal parent’s complaint, but supposedly started fucking up big time – according to the principal – immediately AFTER the complaint.
You see, they’d never destroy her career over marble penises and breasts that everyone knows are on display at museums – no. They’d NEVER fire a teacher just because some knuckle-dragging psycho was afraid fifth graders’ lives would be perverted by Michelangelo et. al. - No, no, no.
The lady just suddenly started screwing up big time twenty-eight years into an award-winning career. You shoulda seen them lesson plans o' hers !! Yes, sir!!!
I wonder how many of the fuckers involved in this little episode “prayed” over their decisions.
Well, I don’t need to pray to know who Jesus would have fired up.
- Uke Man
abc News - FRISCO, Texas -- An award-winning Texas art teacher who was reprimanded after one of her fifth-grade students saw a nude sculpture during a trip to a museum has lost her job.
The school board in Frisco has voted not to renew Sydney McGee's contract after 28 years. She has been on administrative leave.
The teacher took her students on an approved field trip to a Dallas museum, and now some parents are upset.
The Fisher Elementary School art teacher came under fire last April when she took 89 fifth-graders on a field trip to the Dallas Museum of Art. Parents raised concerns over the field trip after their children reported seeing a nude sculpture at the art museum.
The parents had signed permission slips allowing their children to take part in the field trip.
McGee's lawyer said the principal at Fisher Elementary School admonished her after a parent complained that a student had seen nude art.
McGee said the principal had urged her to take the students to the museum.
Now, McGee, who was honored with a Star Teacher Award two years ago, is on paid administrative leave until her contract with the school district expires in March.
Other parents are worried about the future of the art program at the school, which they cite as a reason for moving into the neighborhood.
"Our main concern right now is what's going to happen to the children and what's going to happen to the art program at Fisher Elementary. It is the best art program. That's the reason we moved to this neighborhood. It's because of the teachers," said Shannon Allen, a parent.
"It was a principal-approved trip. What's the big deal?"
Officials with the Frisco school district declined to comment on the matter.
What did I say about racism?
Hey Folks,
You remember Orwell's thing about he who controls the past controls the future and he who controls the present controls the past?
And, of course, you've heard the stuff about a free press here in the US of A!
Well, think about this:
Everything that Bob Herbert says below is absolutely verifiable in the real, reality-based world. Having said that, why isn't the nation in terrible turmoil over this outrageous reality? Why aren't churches and politicians and patriots and philosophers adamantly skewering the guilty parties and demanding reform?
Well, the present is controlled by powerful white people who believe they benefit by denying Herbert's reality; people who invent a "past" that will maintain their prerogatives in the future: all men are equal, racism is defeated, it's a meritocracy, the Market is colorblind, George Allen never even heard the word "nigger."
The proof of this virtual reality's existence is simple: honest heroes like Herbert can rant all they want, but where is the outrage?
Outrage over what???? There’s no problem.
As for the precious "Freedom of the Press," Herbert can rant all he wants; it won’t make any difference. If it did, he’d be shut up.
- Uke Man
September 28, 2006
A Platform of Bigotry
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
George Allen, the clownish, Confederate-flag-loving senator from Virginia, has apparently been scurrying around for many years, spreading his racially offensive garbage like a dog that should be curbed. With harsh new allegations emerging daily, it’s fair to ask:
Where are the voices of reason in the Republican Party — the nonbigoted voices? Why haven’t we heard from them on this matter?
Mr. Allen has long been touted as one of the leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But this is a man who has displayed the quintessential symbol of American bigotry, the Confederate battle flag, on the wall of his living room; who put up a hangman’s noose as a decoration in his law office; who used an ethnic slur — macaca — in an attempt to publicly embarrass a 20-year-old American student of Indian descent; and who, according to the recollections of a number of his acquaintances, frequently referred to blacks as niggers.
The senator has denied the last allegation. But his accusers are low-keyed, straight-arrow professionals who have no obvious ax to grind. They, frankly, seem believable.
Dr. R. Kendall Shelton, a North Carolina radiologist who played football with Mr. Allen at the University of Virginia in the 1970’s, recalled a number of incidents, including one in which Mr. Allen said that blacks in Virginia knew their place. Dr. Shelton said in a television interview that he believed then, and still believes, that Mr. Allen was a racist.
Beyond the obvious problems with the senator’s comments and his behavior is the fact that he so neatly fits into the pattern of racial bigotry, insensitivity and exploitation that has characterized the G.O.P. since it adopted its Southern strategy some decades ago. Once it was the Democrats who provided a comfortable home for public officials with attitudes and policies that were hostile to blacks and other minorities. Now the deed to that safe house has been signed over to the G.O.P.
Ronald Reagan may be revered by Republicans, but I can never forget that he opposed both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of the mid-1960’s, and that as a presidential candidate he kicked off his 1980 general election campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., which just happened to be where three civil rights workers — Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney — were savagely murdered in 1964.
During his appearance in Philadelphia, Reagan told a cheering crowd, “I believe in states’ rights.”
The lynching of Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney (try to imagine the terror they felt throughout their ordeal) is the kind of activity symbolized by the noose that Senator Allen felt compelled to put up in his office.
One of the senator’s Republican colleagues, Conrad Burns, is up for re-election in Montana. He’s got an ugly racial history, too. Several years ago, while campaigning for a second term, Mr. Burns was approached by a rancher who wanted to know what life was like in Washington. The rancher said, “Conrad, how can you live back there with all those niggers?”
Senator Burns said he told the rancher it was “a hell of a challenge.”
The senator later apologized. But he has bounced from one racially insensitive moment to another over the years, including one occasion when he referred to Arabs as “ragheads.”
You don’t hear President Bush or the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, or any other prominent Republicans blowing the whistle on the likes of George Allen and Conrad Burns because Republicans across the board, so-called moderates as well as conservatives, have benefited tremendously from the party’s bigotry. Allen and Burns may have been more blatant and buffoonish than is acceptable, but they have all been singing from the same racially offensive hymnal.
From the Willie Horton campaign to the intimidation of black voters in Florida and elsewhere to the use of every racially charged symbol and code word imaginable — it’s all of a piece.
The late Lee Atwater, in a 1981 interview, explained the evolution of the Southern strategy:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger! By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
It’s been working beautifully for the G.O.P. for decades. Why would the president or anyone else curtail a winning strategy now?
You remember Orwell's thing about he who controls the past controls the future and he who controls the present controls the past?
And, of course, you've heard the stuff about a free press here in the US of A!
Well, think about this:
Everything that Bob Herbert says below is absolutely verifiable in the real, reality-based world. Having said that, why isn't the nation in terrible turmoil over this outrageous reality? Why aren't churches and politicians and patriots and philosophers adamantly skewering the guilty parties and demanding reform?
Well, the present is controlled by powerful white people who believe they benefit by denying Herbert's reality; people who invent a "past" that will maintain their prerogatives in the future: all men are equal, racism is defeated, it's a meritocracy, the Market is colorblind, George Allen never even heard the word "nigger."
The proof of this virtual reality's existence is simple: honest heroes like Herbert can rant all they want, but where is the outrage?
Outrage over what???? There’s no problem.
As for the precious "Freedom of the Press," Herbert can rant all he wants; it won’t make any difference. If it did, he’d be shut up.
- Uke Man
September 28, 2006
A Platform of Bigotry
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
George Allen, the clownish, Confederate-flag-loving senator from Virginia, has apparently been scurrying around for many years, spreading his racially offensive garbage like a dog that should be curbed. With harsh new allegations emerging daily, it’s fair to ask:
Where are the voices of reason in the Republican Party — the nonbigoted voices? Why haven’t we heard from them on this matter?
Mr. Allen has long been touted as one of the leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But this is a man who has displayed the quintessential symbol of American bigotry, the Confederate battle flag, on the wall of his living room; who put up a hangman’s noose as a decoration in his law office; who used an ethnic slur — macaca — in an attempt to publicly embarrass a 20-year-old American student of Indian descent; and who, according to the recollections of a number of his acquaintances, frequently referred to blacks as niggers.
The senator has denied the last allegation. But his accusers are low-keyed, straight-arrow professionals who have no obvious ax to grind. They, frankly, seem believable.
Dr. R. Kendall Shelton, a North Carolina radiologist who played football with Mr. Allen at the University of Virginia in the 1970’s, recalled a number of incidents, including one in which Mr. Allen said that blacks in Virginia knew their place. Dr. Shelton said in a television interview that he believed then, and still believes, that Mr. Allen was a racist.
Beyond the obvious problems with the senator’s comments and his behavior is the fact that he so neatly fits into the pattern of racial bigotry, insensitivity and exploitation that has characterized the G.O.P. since it adopted its Southern strategy some decades ago. Once it was the Democrats who provided a comfortable home for public officials with attitudes and policies that were hostile to blacks and other minorities. Now the deed to that safe house has been signed over to the G.O.P.
Ronald Reagan may be revered by Republicans, but I can never forget that he opposed both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of the mid-1960’s, and that as a presidential candidate he kicked off his 1980 general election campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., which just happened to be where three civil rights workers — Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney — were savagely murdered in 1964.
During his appearance in Philadelphia, Reagan told a cheering crowd, “I believe in states’ rights.”
The lynching of Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney (try to imagine the terror they felt throughout their ordeal) is the kind of activity symbolized by the noose that Senator Allen felt compelled to put up in his office.
One of the senator’s Republican colleagues, Conrad Burns, is up for re-election in Montana. He’s got an ugly racial history, too. Several years ago, while campaigning for a second term, Mr. Burns was approached by a rancher who wanted to know what life was like in Washington. The rancher said, “Conrad, how can you live back there with all those niggers?”
Senator Burns said he told the rancher it was “a hell of a challenge.”
The senator later apologized. But he has bounced from one racially insensitive moment to another over the years, including one occasion when he referred to Arabs as “ragheads.”
You don’t hear President Bush or the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, or any other prominent Republicans blowing the whistle on the likes of George Allen and Conrad Burns because Republicans across the board, so-called moderates as well as conservatives, have benefited tremendously from the party’s bigotry. Allen and Burns may have been more blatant and buffoonish than is acceptable, but they have all been singing from the same racially offensive hymnal.
From the Willie Horton campaign to the intimidation of black voters in Florida and elsewhere to the use of every racially charged symbol and code word imaginable — it’s all of a piece.
The late Lee Atwater, in a 1981 interview, explained the evolution of the Southern strategy:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger! By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
It’s been working beautifully for the G.O.P. for decades. Why would the president or anyone else curtail a winning strategy now?
About Me
- Name: Tom Harker
- Location: Circleville, Ohio, US
Music and Politics, Politics and Music!!! * * * Everything is political. We’re admonished, “Never discuss religion or politics.” Follow that advice, and we’ll have to quit talking altogether. * * * Well, the Uke Man speaks! * * * Keep track here of my musical shenanigans, my political ruminations, and - from time to time - some other interesting eruptions.
Previous Posts
- "Things are lookin' good !!"
- The Chicken are coming home to roost !!
- The Gateway to Crime !!
- Ice Cream and Coffee can be Dangerous !!
- Bush's Pet (scape) Goat ???
- How Smart Are We ??
- Consumed
- A short (hopefully interesting) discussion
- Hi, atus!!
- So rested he by the Tumtum tree and stood a while ...
Archives
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
