Thursday, November 30, 2006
Another Latin Lefty
Hey Folks,
Here we have another role model.
This brave man, Correa, has taken the bull by the horns. Just as in a number of other Latin countries, he has decided to buck a system designed to help the few at the expense of the many.
In most of these countries it seems that 80% of the people suffer in order to carry the annointed 20% around on silk pillows; and that has been the status quo for years and years - you might say "the natural order" or "the way god wants it."
It turns out, however, that if someone has the guts to stand up for the 80%, only 15 to 20 percent of the oppressed are stupid enough to side with their oppressors. Clearly, if any politician allows himself the option of addressing the needs of the people, he can be elected (if he isn't assassinated first - or soon after). Lately, those brave enough to stand up keep winning with 60 to 65% of the vote - much to the chagrin of the elite (who pose as supporters of democracy and the rule of law but connive tirelessly to subvert both).
Correa presents an extra opportunity for study not available in other Latin countries' move to the left. He was elected by the people, but without first attempting a house-cleaning of the legislature, still unanimously toadies of the elect.
According to the article:
Correa says his first act after being sworn in as president on Jan. 15 will be to call for a national referendum on the need to elect a special assembly that could rewrite the constitution and even shut down Congress.
That puts him on a collision course with the legislature, which has dismissed Ecuador's last three elected presidents, violating impeachment proceedings in the process, after huge street protests demanding their ousters.
Correa looks toward reforms in Ecuador
By MONTE HAYES, Associated Press Writer Mon Nov 27
QUITO, Ecuador - Rafael Correa, the leftist nationalist headed to victory in Ecuador's presidential race, is already planning radical reforms when he takes office in January.
That is putting him on a fast track to a dangerous confrontation with the country's opposition-controlled Congress — a body he has called a "sewer" but which he needs to carry out his reforms.
"We receive this triumph with deep serenity and humility," the 43-year-old Correa, who calls himself a "personal friend" of Venezuela's anti-U.S. President Hugo Chavez, said at a news conference Sunday night.
With 58 percent of the ballots counted, Correa had a 65 percent to 35 percent lead over banana tycoon Alvaro Noboa, Ecuador's Supreme Electoral Tribunal said Monday.
While votes in Noboa's stronghold of Guayas, Ecuador's most populous province, were among the last to be tallied, even a strong advantage there would not be enough for Noboa to win.
Correa's followers took to the streets in caravans with musicians to celebrate a victory that few questioned except Noboa, who said he would await the end of the official count that might not come until Tuesday.
Correa said his victory "is a clear message to our traditional political class of the profound changes that our citizens want. This country doesn't need patching up. It needs a new constitution in tune with the times."
Correa, who has a doctorate in economics from the University of Illinois, surged in voter support as a fresh-faced outsider determined to reform Ecuador's political system.
His view that the Ecuadorean democratic system is designed to benefit parties rather than people is shared by many voters fed up with corruption, greed and incompetence in the political establishment.
During the campaign, Correa attacked Ecuador's Congress as a "sewer" of corruption and ran no candidates for the legislature. He now faces a Congress totally in the hands of his opponents — but says that's not important.
"Let's stop worrying so much about Congress. Let them scrutinize what they want. We're not afraid," he said. "What we won't tolerate is any attempt at instability or blackmail."
Correa says his first act after being sworn in as president on Jan. 15 will be to call for a national referendum on the need to elect a special assembly that could rewrite the constitution and even shut down Congress.
That puts him on a collision course with the legislature, which has dismissed Ecuador's last three elected presidents, violating impeachment proceedings in the process, after huge street protests demanding their ousters.
Jaime Duran, a public opinion analyst who served as chief of staff in a previous government, noted that the congressmen elected in October were just as legitimately elected as Correa.
"They have the same right to serve as Correa does," he said.
Correa's problem is that Congress would have to approve a constitutional reform to allow creation of a constituent assembly. And it has blocked attempts by the last two presidents to rewrite the constitution.
Correa has vowed to rally street protests if lawmakers don't agree to a new constitution that trims the power of the traditional parties.
Many of the reforms he proposes would make politicians more responsive to voters. For example, congressmen would represent districts instead of being elected with a national vote. He also supports allowing recall of all elected officials.
But he risks violating the constitution if he tries to organize an election for a constituent assembly without Congress' approval.
He argues "the voice of the people" as reflected in a national referendum takes precedence over Congress or the constitution — a position challenged by most legal experts.
Insistence on forcing electoral authorities to convene an election for the assembly could put him in risk of impeachment, say experts.
"That immediately creates a conflict with Congress," said Benjamin Ortiz, head of a think tank in Quito.
Since Correa has no congressmen to defend him, "for the first time there would be sufficient votes to impeach a president without resorting to the murky maneuvers of the past," Ortiz said.
Here we have another role model.
This brave man, Correa, has taken the bull by the horns. Just as in a number of other Latin countries, he has decided to buck a system designed to help the few at the expense of the many.
In most of these countries it seems that 80% of the people suffer in order to carry the annointed 20% around on silk pillows; and that has been the status quo for years and years - you might say "the natural order" or "the way god wants it."
It turns out, however, that if someone has the guts to stand up for the 80%, only 15 to 20 percent of the oppressed are stupid enough to side with their oppressors. Clearly, if any politician allows himself the option of addressing the needs of the people, he can be elected (if he isn't assassinated first - or soon after). Lately, those brave enough to stand up keep winning with 60 to 65% of the vote - much to the chagrin of the elite (who pose as supporters of democracy and the rule of law but connive tirelessly to subvert both).
Correa presents an extra opportunity for study not available in other Latin countries' move to the left. He was elected by the people, but without first attempting a house-cleaning of the legislature, still unanimously toadies of the elect.
According to the article:
Correa says his first act after being sworn in as president on Jan. 15 will be to call for a national referendum on the need to elect a special assembly that could rewrite the constitution and even shut down Congress.
That puts him on a collision course with the legislature, which has dismissed Ecuador's last three elected presidents, violating impeachment proceedings in the process, after huge street protests demanding their ousters.
It goes on:
Correa's problem is that Congress would have to approve a constitutional reform to allow creation of a constituent assembly. And it has blocked attempts by the last two presidents to rewrite the constitution.
Correa has vowed to rally street protests if lawmakers don't agree to a new constitution that trims the power of the traditional parties.
You see, Folks, the system is set up to maintain itself - no matter how corrupt or perverted. As the article shows, the Congress has ignored the law a number of times lately, but you can bet that they - and the Bushies here - will yell bloody murder if and when Correa calls for street demonstrations on behalf of the people's interest.
We can learn from this. If the Democrats should behave, as some predict, not much differently from the imperialistic, elite-oriented Republicans, then street demonstrations ARE in order.
Americans are not accustomed to thinking that way, but that WILL be the way it is. We can learn by watching Ecuador.
- Uke Man
Correa looks toward reforms in Ecuador
By MONTE HAYES, Associated Press Writer Mon Nov 27
QUITO, Ecuador - Rafael Correa, the leftist nationalist headed to victory in Ecuador's presidential race, is already planning radical reforms when he takes office in January.
That is putting him on a fast track to a dangerous confrontation with the country's opposition-controlled Congress — a body he has called a "sewer" but which he needs to carry out his reforms.
"We receive this triumph with deep serenity and humility," the 43-year-old Correa, who calls himself a "personal friend" of Venezuela's anti-U.S. President Hugo Chavez, said at a news conference Sunday night.
With 58 percent of the ballots counted, Correa had a 65 percent to 35 percent lead over banana tycoon Alvaro Noboa, Ecuador's Supreme Electoral Tribunal said Monday.
While votes in Noboa's stronghold of Guayas, Ecuador's most populous province, were among the last to be tallied, even a strong advantage there would not be enough for Noboa to win.
Correa's followers took to the streets in caravans with musicians to celebrate a victory that few questioned except Noboa, who said he would await the end of the official count that might not come until Tuesday.
Correa said his victory "is a clear message to our traditional political class of the profound changes that our citizens want. This country doesn't need patching up. It needs a new constitution in tune with the times."
Correa, who has a doctorate in economics from the University of Illinois, surged in voter support as a fresh-faced outsider determined to reform Ecuador's political system.
His view that the Ecuadorean democratic system is designed to benefit parties rather than people is shared by many voters fed up with corruption, greed and incompetence in the political establishment.
During the campaign, Correa attacked Ecuador's Congress as a "sewer" of corruption and ran no candidates for the legislature. He now faces a Congress totally in the hands of his opponents — but says that's not important.
"Let's stop worrying so much about Congress. Let them scrutinize what they want. We're not afraid," he said. "What we won't tolerate is any attempt at instability or blackmail."
Correa says his first act after being sworn in as president on Jan. 15 will be to call for a national referendum on the need to elect a special assembly that could rewrite the constitution and even shut down Congress.
That puts him on a collision course with the legislature, which has dismissed Ecuador's last three elected presidents, violating impeachment proceedings in the process, after huge street protests demanding their ousters.
Jaime Duran, a public opinion analyst who served as chief of staff in a previous government, noted that the congressmen elected in October were just as legitimately elected as Correa.
"They have the same right to serve as Correa does," he said.
Correa's problem is that Congress would have to approve a constitutional reform to allow creation of a constituent assembly. And it has blocked attempts by the last two presidents to rewrite the constitution.
Correa has vowed to rally street protests if lawmakers don't agree to a new constitution that trims the power of the traditional parties.
Many of the reforms he proposes would make politicians more responsive to voters. For example, congressmen would represent districts instead of being elected with a national vote. He also supports allowing recall of all elected officials.
But he risks violating the constitution if he tries to organize an election for a constituent assembly without Congress' approval.
He argues "the voice of the people" as reflected in a national referendum takes precedence over Congress or the constitution — a position challenged by most legal experts.
Insistence on forcing electoral authorities to convene an election for the assembly could put him in risk of impeachment, say experts.
"That immediately creates a conflict with Congress," said Benjamin Ortiz, head of a think tank in Quito.
Since Correa has no congressmen to defend him, "for the first time there would be sufficient votes to impeach a president without resorting to the murky maneuvers of the past," Ortiz said.
Support our troops: shop while they drop!!
Hey Folks,
If you are awake and really care about anything important, this will make you crazy!!
- Uke Man
November 27, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
While Iraq Burns
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Americans are shopping while Iraq burns.
The competing television news images on the morning after Thanksgiving were of the unspeakable carnage in Sadr City — where more than 200 Iraqi civilians were killed by a series of coordinated car bombs — and the long lines of cars filled with holiday shopping zealots that jammed the highway approaches to American malls that had opened for business at midnight.
A Wal-Mart in Union, N.J., was besieged by customers even before it opened its doors at 5 a.m. on Friday. “All I can tell you,” said a Wal-Mart employee, “is that they were fired up and ready to spend money.”
There is something terribly wrong with this juxtaposition of gleeful Americans with fistfuls of dollars storming the department store barricades and the slaughter by the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, including old people, children and babies. The war was started by the U.S., but most Americans feel absolutely no sense of personal responsibility for it.
Representative Charles Rangel recently proposed that the draft be reinstated, suggesting that politicians would be more reluctant to take the country to war if they understood that their constituents might be called up to fight. What struck me was not the uniform opposition to the congressman’s proposal — it has long been clear that there is zero sentiment in favor of a draft in the U.S. — but the fact that it never provoked even the briefest discussion of the responsibilities and obligations of ordinary Americans in a time of war.
With no obvious personal stake in the war in Iraq, most Americans are indifferent to its consequences. In an interview last week, Alex Racheotes, a 19-year-old history major at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, said: “I definitely don’t know anyone who would want to fight in Iraq. But beyond that, I get the feeling that most people at school don’t even think about the war. They’re more concerned with what grade they got on yesterday’s test.”
His thoughts were echoed by other students, including John Cafarelli, a 19-year-old sophomore at the University of New Hampshire, who was asked if he had any friends who would be willing to join the Army. “No, definitely not,” he said. “None of my friends even really care about what’s going on in Iraq.”
This indifference is widespread. It enables most Americans to go about their daily lives completely unconcerned about the atrocities resulting from a war being waged in their name. While shoppers here are scrambling to put the perfect touch to their holidays with the purchase of a giant flat-screen TV or a PlayStation 3, the news out of Baghdad is of a society in the midst of a meltdown.
According to the United Nations, more than 7,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in September and October. Nearly 5,000 of those killings occurred in Baghdad, a staggering figure.
In a demoralizing reprise of life in Afghanistan under Taliban rule, the U.N. reported that in Iraq: “The situation of women has continued to deteriorate. Increasing numbers of women were recorded to be either victims of religious extremists or ‘honor killings.’ Some non-Muslim women are forced to wear a headscarf and to be accompanied by spouses or male relatives.”
Journalists in Iraq are being “assassinated with utmost impunity,” the U.N. report said, with 18 murdered in the last two months.
Iraq burns. We shop. The Americans dying in Iraq are barely mentioned in the press anymore. They warrant maybe one sentence in a long roundup article out of Baghdad, or a passing reference — no longer than a few seconds — in a television news account of the latest political ditherings.
Since the vast majority of Americans do not want anything to do with the military or the war, the burden of fighting has fallen on a small cadre of volunteers who are being sent into the war zone again and again. Nearly 3,000 have been killed, and many thousands more have been maimed.
The war has now lasted as long as the American involvement in World War II. But there is no sense of collective sacrifice in this war, no shared burden of responsibility. The soldiers in Iraq are fighting, suffering and dying in a war in which there are no clear objectives and no end in sight, and which a majority of Americans do not support.
They are dying anonymously and pointlessly, while the rest of us are free to buckle ourselves into the family vehicle and head off to the malls and shop.
If you are awake and really care about anything important, this will make you crazy!!
- Uke Man
November 27, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
While Iraq Burns
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Americans are shopping while Iraq burns.
The competing television news images on the morning after Thanksgiving were of the unspeakable carnage in Sadr City — where more than 200 Iraqi civilians were killed by a series of coordinated car bombs — and the long lines of cars filled with holiday shopping zealots that jammed the highway approaches to American malls that had opened for business at midnight.
A Wal-Mart in Union, N.J., was besieged by customers even before it opened its doors at 5 a.m. on Friday. “All I can tell you,” said a Wal-Mart employee, “is that they were fired up and ready to spend money.”
There is something terribly wrong with this juxtaposition of gleeful Americans with fistfuls of dollars storming the department store barricades and the slaughter by the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, including old people, children and babies. The war was started by the U.S., but most Americans feel absolutely no sense of personal responsibility for it.
Representative Charles Rangel recently proposed that the draft be reinstated, suggesting that politicians would be more reluctant to take the country to war if they understood that their constituents might be called up to fight. What struck me was not the uniform opposition to the congressman’s proposal — it has long been clear that there is zero sentiment in favor of a draft in the U.S. — but the fact that it never provoked even the briefest discussion of the responsibilities and obligations of ordinary Americans in a time of war.
With no obvious personal stake in the war in Iraq, most Americans are indifferent to its consequences. In an interview last week, Alex Racheotes, a 19-year-old history major at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, said: “I definitely don’t know anyone who would want to fight in Iraq. But beyond that, I get the feeling that most people at school don’t even think about the war. They’re more concerned with what grade they got on yesterday’s test.”
His thoughts were echoed by other students, including John Cafarelli, a 19-year-old sophomore at the University of New Hampshire, who was asked if he had any friends who would be willing to join the Army. “No, definitely not,” he said. “None of my friends even really care about what’s going on in Iraq.”
This indifference is widespread. It enables most Americans to go about their daily lives completely unconcerned about the atrocities resulting from a war being waged in their name. While shoppers here are scrambling to put the perfect touch to their holidays with the purchase of a giant flat-screen TV or a PlayStation 3, the news out of Baghdad is of a society in the midst of a meltdown.
According to the United Nations, more than 7,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in September and October. Nearly 5,000 of those killings occurred in Baghdad, a staggering figure.
In a demoralizing reprise of life in Afghanistan under Taliban rule, the U.N. reported that in Iraq: “The situation of women has continued to deteriorate. Increasing numbers of women were recorded to be either victims of religious extremists or ‘honor killings.’ Some non-Muslim women are forced to wear a headscarf and to be accompanied by spouses or male relatives.”
Journalists in Iraq are being “assassinated with utmost impunity,” the U.N. report said, with 18 murdered in the last two months.
Iraq burns. We shop. The Americans dying in Iraq are barely mentioned in the press anymore. They warrant maybe one sentence in a long roundup article out of Baghdad, or a passing reference — no longer than a few seconds — in a television news account of the latest political ditherings.
Since the vast majority of Americans do not want anything to do with the military or the war, the burden of fighting has fallen on a small cadre of volunteers who are being sent into the war zone again and again. Nearly 3,000 have been killed, and many thousands more have been maimed.
The war has now lasted as long as the American involvement in World War II. But there is no sense of collective sacrifice in this war, no shared burden of responsibility. The soldiers in Iraq are fighting, suffering and dying in a war in which there are no clear objectives and no end in sight, and which a majority of Americans do not support.
They are dying anonymously and pointlessly, while the rest of us are free to buckle ourselves into the family vehicle and head off to the malls and shop.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Love the Simpsons? Hate the Simpsons?
Hey Folks,
Want a little gorey fun? Try "Shoot the Simpsons":
http://www.stopbeingbored.com/game/345/The-Simpsons.html
I was looking at something else ( http://www.stopbeingbored.com/game/359/Make-Your-Own-Simpson-Charactor.html ) and found this more interesting (even if a bit more disturbing).
- Uke Man
Want a little gorey fun? Try "Shoot the Simpsons":
http://www.stopbeingbored.com/game/345/The-Simpsons.html
I was looking at something else ( http://www.stopbeingbored.com/game/359/Make-Your-Own-Simpson-Charactor.html ) and found this more interesting (even if a bit more disturbing).
- Uke Man
What do the recent election results actually mean?
Hey Folks,
Here's an analysis worth taking a look at.
- Uke Man
The Elections: What They Do—and Do NOT—Mean
Revolution #69, November 19, 2006
Here's an analysis worth taking a look at.
- Uke Man
The Elections: What They Do—and Do NOT—Mean
Revolution #69, November 19, 2006
Last Tuesday’s mid-term elections marked a significant turn of events. For the first time in 12 years, Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate were voted out, and Democrats were returned to power. As soon as the results were in, the much-hated Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was forced to resign.
Yet the question of the day remains: what is actual significance of these elections? What changes are—and aren’t—likely to result? What will—and won’t—they mean for the overall Bush agenda and the Iraq war? And what challenges and responsibilities confront those who oppose everything Bush and his regime stand for, and understand the need to reverse the whole direction they’ve been taking the world?
What do you think of the Democratic victory? is on everyone’s lips, and this post-election discussion and debate is one that every reader of our paper should plunge into.
The War—Their Agenda and Ours
Many people see the vote as a popular referendum repudiating Bush, his administration, and the Iraq war. Millions of those who voted did so out of anger and disgust with the war. But in reality the war was not up for a vote—at least not in the way people may think.
The elections marked the crescendo of months of dire warnings and criticisms—including from within the U.S. military and other major voices in the imperialist foreign policy establishment—concerning the deteriorating situation in Iraq.
The Bush team had thought they’d quickly be able to turn Iraq into a pro-U.S. client state, a platform for further aggression in the region, and a signal to the world that U.S. power was unchallengeable. Instead, U.S. forces have been unable to either quell the growing insurgency or cobble together a new Iraqi ruling class with the power, cohesion and legitimacy to stabilize the situation. All this has the potential to turn Iraq into a center of anti-U.S. hatred and instability, further strengthen Iran, destabilize the region, weaken the U.S. military, and open the door for rival powers. In short, exactly the opposite of what Bush and company set out to accomplish.
This caused forces within the ruling class to maneuver to force Bush to adjust his strategy. These forces want to prevent a strategic debacle and to salvage what is possible from Iraq—in order to maintain U.S. military, political, and economic domination over the Middle East. They are not aiming for an immediate end to the war but instead for a shift in tactics within Iraq and, perhaps, in regard to other forces in the region. They are not questioning the morality or justness of the war, merely its execution. For these forces, the elections became one means of both criticizing the Bush team and forcing (and creating political cover for) a serious reassessment of the war’s conduct and adjustment in strategy.
The Democrats’ calls for a “new direction” and “competent” leadership in Iraq and their criticisms of Bush’s “failed policy” served these objectives. The Democratic denunciations of the war were vague. Few candidates spelled out specifically what they would do, and fewer still called for immediate withdrawal. Some called the war a “mistake,” but none called it what it actually is: reactionary, criminal, and immoral.
This vagueness had two major virtues for the ruling class. First, it enabled the Democrats—who have consistently voted for and supported the Iraq war and continue to support its broad objectives—to divert the broad anti-war anger into a framework that doesn’t question the whole nature of the war. Second, it gives the Democrats the flexibility to join into a “bipartisan consensus” to “adjust,” rather than end, the war. Indeed, the “neocon” fascist William Kristol said on FOX News that the Republican defeat could actually give Bush the political cover to put more pressure on the Iraqi government and to call for some sort of regional conference (both Democratic demands), while also increasing the number of troops (which Kristol and other Republican forces like McCain favor).
The Fall of Rumsfeld and the Rise—and Further Taming—of Nancy Pelosi
The fall of Donald Rumsfeld has to be seen in this light. Rumsfeld is most associated with his insistence on attempting to conquer and occupy Iraq with the minimum number of forces necessary. His exit is at least in large part a signal that this strategy is open for “re-evaluation.” Knocking down someone so high up is meant to show that Bush recognizes that all is not well, that they face serious problems and significant dangers, that some significant adjustments are necessary, and that he is going to have to forge a broader consensus among the ruling class to deal with all this.
The pledges of the Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi for “civility and cooperation” must also be seen in this light [see “Post Elections: Dissecting the Democrats”]. She is pledging to hold tight, to not do anything that could possibly endanger the stability of the whole thing, and to keep “her base”—those who do look to the Democratic Party as an agent of change—firmly in check. The people may have been voting to end the war and even to reverse the ugly direction of this regime—but Pelosi and the rest are already reinterpreting things and using their power to put a stamp on what people did—to fit it into and make it serve a whole other set of objectives than most people intended through their votes.
The elections, therefore, by themselves, will not signal a fundamental reversal of course on Iraq, still less a repudiation of the logic that led to the invasion. Instead—absent a massive movement in determined opposition—they will end up as a vehicle to adjust, sustain and rehabilitate this hated war.
The Democrats and the Bush Agenda
But Iraq is only one part of the Bush package. What about the other Bush horrors?
Where was the Democrat, for instance, who came out against the legalized torture and gutting of habeas corpus that was passed in September? Where were the “attack ads” that called out the Republicans for supporting such outrages?
Where was the Democrat who went on the offensive against the mounting moves toward a theocracy—the rule by Christian fundamentalist fascists? Where were the attack ads that called out a Republican for something like the “Terri Schiavo” incident?
Where was the Democrat who sounded the alarm against the Bush regime plans to invade Iran, or who criticized the support for the brutal Israeli invasion of Lebanon over the summer? Or who stood up for the rights of gay people to marry and dared to uphold the morality of a woman’s right to an abortion?
Instead, the Democrats not only tacitly—and in some cases openly—went along with the Bush agenda on these and other questions, they took great pains to claim the “war on terror” as their own, even as that “war on terror” forms the logical underpinning of a huge part of Bush’s agenda. [see “The (Deadly) Logic of the ‘War on Terror’”] And despite widespread sentiment to hold Bush accountable for his many and horrific crimes, Nancy Pelosi denounced on 60 Minutes any idea of impeaching Bush. That fact alone means that the crimes and outrages of the Bush regime—from its doctrine of pre-emptive war to its widespread use of torture and illegal imprisonment, among others—will now become legitimated and “normal.”
Many commentators have remarked that the current election is unlike 1994, when the Republicans took over Congress with a clear-cut program for radical overhaul. This is because the forces behind the Bush regime (and behind that 1994 takeover as well) have developed a “package” that speaks to some of the main underlying economic and political dynamics in the world—and the Democrats haven’t. This package includes aggressive international projection of the overwhelming military power of the U.S., a huge intensification of repression domestically, a drastic cut in government-funded social welfare programs, and the increasing buildup of a Christian fascist movement in the politics and culture of society (with some of the key forces in this mix pushing for an outright fascist theocracy).
The Democrats, try as some of them might, have not come up with either the program or the organized social and political forces to counter that—and they are not willing and they are not able, at this point, to oppose it with anything more than what Lenin once called “pious doubts and petty amendments.” The top Democratic leaders make their main priority the preservation of this system, no matter what horrors (and horrific compromises) this preservation may require—and at this point they are quite open about that. For the past several years they have been intent on keeping the outrage of the people suppressed and diverted into channels that end up shoring up the system, and even the Bush regime itself. This dynamic has not fundamentally changed through the election.
Moreover, we should step back here and look at the whole system that both Bush and the Democrats maintain is the “greatest country on in the world.” What, after all, is it that U.S. military force defends in the over 100 countries in which U.S. soldiers are based? Fundamentally, it is the “right” of U.S. capital to go anywhere and do anything, no matter how monstrous, in search of the highest possible profits; to dominate and despoil whole countries and even regions, sometimes if only to make sure that their rival imperialists do not; to drive people off their land in the blind pursuit of profit and then to use those same people as “cheap labor” either within their home countries or the imperialist countries themselves; to fortify repressive social orders and customs so long as they serve the needs of imperialist expansion; to crush whoever gets in their way, even fellow reactionaries and gangsters; and to violently and viciously suppress any revolutionary or radical movements that arise when people dare to throw off their chains, or even resist.
This very basic truth must be returned to, brought out and driven home to people, in a million different ways, as we get into with them what the Democratic victory will—and will not—mean.
The Bush Regime: Still Intolerable, Still Must Be Driven Out
To return to the questions at the beginning of this editorial, we must also ask all those we work with and meet: what do you think about the elections? And what are you going to do?
The elections are now over, but we still confront a criminal regime and the urgent need to drive it from power and repudiate its program. Everything it is doing is STILL intolerable!
Now is not time for political retreat or wait-and-see. The contradiction between the burning desires of the millions who voted against Bush and the war on one hand, and what Bush and the Democrats will actually do on the other, could drive many more into resolute opposition. But that depends on us—and on you. Left to itself, that contradiction will only become a source of despair and a force for further passivity and paralysis. We—and you reading this—have to find the ways to resist, and to recast the political terms in this situation.
We have to insist that what was unacceptable yesterday remains unacceptable today—and tomorrow. We have to work with World Can’t Wait to rally others to the basic indictments, as well as the political stand and the moral certitude expressed in its very powerful Call to drive out the Bush regime. Teach-ins, massive distribution of that call, getting out the materials from the Bush Crimes Commission, joining in and supporting resistance—all these are the order of the day.
Beyond that there is the urgent need to get the works of Bob Avakian into this situation—in college courses and on the campuses more broadly, into the communities of the oppressed, on the radio, into the bookstores and libraries, out among intellectuals and in intellectual journals, and hundreds of other ways. These works not only shed real light on the underlying dynamics of this whole situation and speak very directly to the huge political questions of the day, they also pose the way forward—both in regards to how a revolution could be made, and to the truly liberating character such a revolution must have—the ways in which it must build on but go way beyond the revolutions of the past. And with that, there is also the urgent need to get out this paper—to get the truth, every week, into many many more hands and build the scaffolding of the revolutionary movement.
The underlying dynamics of this system—the misery and horror it means to billions of people every day—have not changed. The ways in which these dynamics have brought forward the perverse Bush regime—and the ways in which that regime answers the “needs” of that system, with whatever “course corrections” are needed—have not changed. The great dangers—and the potential openings—posed by this whole course taken by imperialism have not changed. The acute need for revolution continues.
We must act.
Send us your comments.Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party,USACurrent IssuePrevious IssuesBob AvakianRCPTopicsAboutContactThree Main PointsWhat do we in the Revolutionary Communist Party want people to learn from all that is exposed and revealed in this newspaper?Read On…Our Ideology is Marxism-Leninism- MaoismOur Vanguard is the Revolutionary Communist PartyOur Leader is Chairman AvakianLA: Spanish DVD Screening May 20-->Español
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Working Person's View of Minimum Wage Increases
Yes: After years of stagnation, millions of workers will benefit
Monday, December 04, 2006
JOHN SWEENEY
Working people have been stretched to the limit and this year, on Election Day, they snapped back. By the millions, voters turned out to change the direction of our country and, in part, to end the congressional stalemate on the minimum wage. Raising it is an economic and a moral issue.
In every state where the minimum wage was on the ballot as an initiative, it passed, including in Ohio, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana and Nevada. By huge margins, voters rejected the current $5.15 an hour as too low.
With the addition of the six states, 28 states and the District of Columbia now have minimum-wage laws above the federal $5.15.
It’s time to bring everyone up. No one can live, let alone raise a family, on $11,000 a year, which is more than a full-time minimum-wage worker earns annually. America needs a raise.
And even though most union members earn well above the minimum wage because of their contracts, the union movement will do everything possible to work with the new leadership in Washington to pass a higher national minimumwage floor. Working families need it; working families deserve it.
Imagine working full-time, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and not having enough money to pay rent, put gasoline in the car and eat. The idea is absurd, but for millions of Americans, it’s real.
Raising the minimum wage to $7.25 over 26 months will benefit an estimated 6.6 million workers directly and another 8.3 million indirectly, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
For 10 years, Congress has refused to approve a minimum-wage increase. But in that time, prices have skyrocketed. The costs of gasoline, food, housing, education and health care have increased, but wages have not. In fact, wages have gone down. The real value of the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, is at its lowest point since 1955. In terms of wages, we’ve gone back half a century.
At the same time wages have plummeted, productivity in the United States continues to soar. Since the most-recent economic recovery began in the fall of 2001, productivity has increased 13 percent. In other words, the economic pie is expanding, but workers’ wages are becoming an increasingly smaller slice of the pie.
Working people in America are squeezed.
Less than one-third of voters polled on Election Day believe they can pull ahead financially. The majority of Americans feel they are behind or simply breaking even. Scarier still, just one-third of people think life will be better for the next generation.
Voters in union households said the economy was one of two top factors behind how they cast their vote for the House, right up there with Iraq. Sixty-five percent said they are dissatisfied with today’s economy, according to Election Day polling done by Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the AFL-CIO. When workers voted for change this year, it was, in considerable part, a vote for economic change.
In the final four days leading up to the election, union volunteers knocked on more than 3 million doors and heard variations on the same theme: Working people are tired of being left behind. We’re tired of policies that promote the interests of corporations at the expense of families. And we’re sick and tired of politicians who do the same.
That theme echoed throughout the country on Nov. 7 th, when working people voted for a change in course and for candidates that support working-family issues, such as raising the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage is just a first step in getting America back on track. We need real economic change. From affordable health care and retirement security to good jobs and the freedom to form unions, we need bold, new answers to the questions working families confront every day.
The people have spoken. It’s time to get to work and it’s time to raise the minimum wage.
John Sweeney is president of the AFL-CIO.jsweeney@aflcio.org
Monday, December 04, 2006
JOHN SWEENEY
Working people have been stretched to the limit and this year, on Election Day, they snapped back. By the millions, voters turned out to change the direction of our country and, in part, to end the congressional stalemate on the minimum wage. Raising it is an economic and a moral issue.
In every state where the minimum wage was on the ballot as an initiative, it passed, including in Ohio, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana and Nevada. By huge margins, voters rejected the current $5.15 an hour as too low.
With the addition of the six states, 28 states and the District of Columbia now have minimum-wage laws above the federal $5.15.
It’s time to bring everyone up. No one can live, let alone raise a family, on $11,000 a year, which is more than a full-time minimum-wage worker earns annually. America needs a raise.
And even though most union members earn well above the minimum wage because of their contracts, the union movement will do everything possible to work with the new leadership in Washington to pass a higher national minimumwage floor. Working families need it; working families deserve it.
Imagine working full-time, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and not having enough money to pay rent, put gasoline in the car and eat. The idea is absurd, but for millions of Americans, it’s real.
Raising the minimum wage to $7.25 over 26 months will benefit an estimated 6.6 million workers directly and another 8.3 million indirectly, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
For 10 years, Congress has refused to approve a minimum-wage increase. But in that time, prices have skyrocketed. The costs of gasoline, food, housing, education and health care have increased, but wages have not. In fact, wages have gone down. The real value of the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, is at its lowest point since 1955. In terms of wages, we’ve gone back half a century.
At the same time wages have plummeted, productivity in the United States continues to soar. Since the most-recent economic recovery began in the fall of 2001, productivity has increased 13 percent. In other words, the economic pie is expanding, but workers’ wages are becoming an increasingly smaller slice of the pie.
Working people in America are squeezed.
Less than one-third of voters polled on Election Day believe they can pull ahead financially. The majority of Americans feel they are behind or simply breaking even. Scarier still, just one-third of people think life will be better for the next generation.
Voters in union households said the economy was one of two top factors behind how they cast their vote for the House, right up there with Iraq. Sixty-five percent said they are dissatisfied with today’s economy, according to Election Day polling done by Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the AFL-CIO. When workers voted for change this year, it was, in considerable part, a vote for economic change.
In the final four days leading up to the election, union volunteers knocked on more than 3 million doors and heard variations on the same theme: Working people are tired of being left behind. We’re tired of policies that promote the interests of corporations at the expense of families. And we’re sick and tired of politicians who do the same.
That theme echoed throughout the country on Nov. 7 th, when working people voted for a change in course and for candidates that support working-family issues, such as raising the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage is just a first step in getting America back on track. We need real economic change. From affordable health care and retirement security to good jobs and the freedom to form unions, we need bold, new answers to the questions working families confront every day.
The people have spoken. It’s time to get to work and it’s time to raise the minimum wage.
John Sweeney is president of the AFL-CIO.jsweeney@aflcio.org
Bizzaro-Bush World
Bush: Iraq violence is al-Qaida plot
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press
RIGA, Latvia -
President Bush said Tuesday that an al-Qaida plot to stoke cycles of sectarian revenge in Iraq is to blame for escalating bloodshed, refusing to debate whether the country has fallen into civil war
“There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place — fomented, in my opinion, because of the attacks by al-Qaida causing people to seek reprisal," Bush said at a news conference with Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves during a stop in Estonia.
Well Folks,
Yeah, that makes sense. The Hatfields and McCoys weren’t involved with a feud either. A Peabody Coal Co. plot to stoke cycles of sectarian revenge in West Virginia was to blame for the escalating bloodshed.
There was a lot of sectarian violence taking place — fomented, I understand, because Becky-Mae Williams (a young secretary employed by Peabody Coal ) was encouraged to flirt with all the boys in both families causing them to seek reprisals.
Yeah, uh huh, yep !!!
- Uke Man
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press
RIGA, Latvia -
President Bush said Tuesday that an al-Qaida plot to stoke cycles of sectarian revenge in Iraq is to blame for escalating bloodshed, refusing to debate whether the country has fallen into civil war
“There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place — fomented, in my opinion, because of the attacks by al-Qaida causing people to seek reprisal," Bush said at a news conference with Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves during a stop in Estonia.
Well Folks,
Yeah, that makes sense. The Hatfields and McCoys weren’t involved with a feud either. A Peabody Coal Co. plot to stoke cycles of sectarian revenge in West Virginia was to blame for the escalating bloodshed.
There was a lot of sectarian violence taking place — fomented, I understand, because Becky-Mae Williams (a young secretary employed by Peabody Coal ) was encouraged to flirt with all the boys in both families causing them to seek reprisals.
Yeah, uh huh, yep !!!
- Uke Man
"Rule of Law"?? - "Rule of Fool" !!
Hey Folks,
The next time some pompous ass goes on about "Democracy," or "the Rule of Law," and how sacred they are or how they are the reason/justification for Mr. Pompous Ass's latest effort; spit on him.
As I've said many times here before, paraphrasing Leona Helmsley: as far as the ginks on top are concerned; taxes, morality, ethics, compassion, integrity, and both Democracy and "the rule of Law" are for the little people.
If the Bush regime in general hasn't made that point clearly enough, read the article below about a specific lost opportunity to defend democracy and the rule of law.
- Uke Man
November 24, 2006
When Votes Disappear
By PAUL KRUGMAN
You know what really had me terrified on Nov.
7? The all-too-real possibility of a highly
suspect result. What would we have done if the
Republicans had held onto the House by a
narrow margin, but circumstantial evidence
strongly suggested that a combination of vote
suppression and defective — or rigged —
electronic voting machines made the difference?
Fortunately, it wasn’t a close election. But
the fact that our electoral systemworked well
enough to register an overwhelming
Democratic landslide doesn’t mean that things
are O.K. There were many problems with
voting in this election — and in at least one
Congressional race, the evidence strongly
suggests that paperless voting machines failed
to count thousands of votes, and that the
disappearance of these votes delivered the
race to the wrong candidate.
Here’s the background: Florida’s 13th
Congressional District is currently represented
by Katherine Harris, who as Florida’s secretary
of state during the 2000 recount famously
acted as a partisan Republican rather than a fair referee.
This year Ms. Harris didn’t run for re-election,
making an unsuccessful bid for the Senate
instead. But according to the official vote count,
the Republicans held on to her seat, with Vern
Buchanan, the G.O.P. candidate, narrowly
defeating Christine Jennings, the Democrat.
The problem is that the official vote count isn’t
credible. In much of the 13th District, the voting
pattern looks normal. But in Sarasota County,
which used touch-screen voting machines made
by Election Systems and Software, almost
18,000 voters — nearly 15 percent of those who
cast ballots using the machines — supposedly
failed to vote for either candidate in the hotly
contested Congressional race. That compares
with undervote rates ranging from 2.2 to 5.3
percent in neighboring counties.
Reporting by The Herald-Tribune of Sarasota,
which interviewed hundreds of voters who
called the paper to report problems at the polls,
strongly suggests that the huge apparent
undervote was caused by bugs in the ES&S software.
About a third of those interviewed by the paper
reported that they couldn’t even find the
Congressional race on the screen. This could
conceivably have been the result of bad ballot
design, but many of them insisted that they
looked hard for the race. Moreover, more
than 60 percent of those interviewed by
The Herald-Tribune reported that they did
cast a vote in the Congressional race —
but that this vote didn’t show up on the ballot
summary page they were shown at the end
of the voting process.
If there were bugs in the software, the odds
are that they threw the election to the wrong
candidate. An Orlando Sentinel examination
of other votes cast by those who supposedly
failed to cast a vote in the Congressional
race shows that they strongly favored
Democrats, and Mr. Buchanan won the official
count by only 369 votes. The fact that
Mr. Buchanan won a recount — that is, a
recount of the votes the machines happened
to record — means nothing.
Although state officials have certified
Mr. Buchanan as the victor, they’ve
promised an audit of the voting machines.
But don’t get your hopes up: as in2000,
state election officials aren’t even trying to
look impartial. To oversee the audit, the state
has chosen as its “independent” expert
Prof. Alec Yasinsac of Florida State University —
a Republican partisan who made an appearance
on the steps of the Florida Supreme Court
during the 2000 recount battle wearing a
“Bush Won” sign.
Ms. Jennings has now filed suit with the same
court, demanding a new election. She deserves one.
But for the nation as a whole, the important
thing isn’t who gets seated to represent
Florida’s 13th District. It’s whether the voting
disaster there leads to legislation requiring
voter verification and a paper trail.
And I have to say that the omens aren’t good.
I’ve been shocked at how little national
attention the mess in Sarasota has received.
Here we have as clear a demonstration as
we’re ever likely to see that warnings from
computer scientists about the dangers of
paperless electronic voting are valid — and most
Americans probably haven’t even heard about it.
As far as I can tell, the reason Florida-13 hasn’t
become a major national story is that neither
control of Congress nor control of the White
House is on the line. But do we have to wait for
a constitutional crisis to realize that we’re in
danger of becoming a digital-age banana republic?
The next time some pompous ass goes on about "Democracy," or "the Rule of Law," and how sacred they are or how they are the reason/justification for Mr. Pompous Ass's latest effort; spit on him.
As I've said many times here before, paraphrasing Leona Helmsley: as far as the ginks on top are concerned; taxes, morality, ethics, compassion, integrity, and both Democracy and "the rule of Law" are for the little people.
If the Bush regime in general hasn't made that point clearly enough, read the article below about a specific lost opportunity to defend democracy and the rule of law.
- Uke Man
November 24, 2006
When Votes Disappear
By PAUL KRUGMAN
You know what really had me terrified on Nov.
7? The all-too-real possibility of a highly
suspect result. What would we have done if the
Republicans had held onto the House by a
narrow margin, but circumstantial evidence
strongly suggested that a combination of vote
suppression and defective — or rigged —
electronic voting machines made the difference?
Fortunately, it wasn’t a close election. But
the fact that our electoral systemworked well
enough to register an overwhelming
Democratic landslide doesn’t mean that things
are O.K. There were many problems with
voting in this election — and in at least one
Congressional race, the evidence strongly
suggests that paperless voting machines failed
to count thousands of votes, and that the
disappearance of these votes delivered the
race to the wrong candidate.
Here’s the background: Florida’s 13th
Congressional District is currently represented
by Katherine Harris, who as Florida’s secretary
of state during the 2000 recount famously
acted as a partisan Republican rather than a fair referee.
This year Ms. Harris didn’t run for re-election,
making an unsuccessful bid for the Senate
instead. But according to the official vote count,
the Republicans held on to her seat, with Vern
Buchanan, the G.O.P. candidate, narrowly
defeating Christine Jennings, the Democrat.
The problem is that the official vote count isn’t
credible. In much of the 13th District, the voting
pattern looks normal. But in Sarasota County,
which used touch-screen voting machines made
by Election Systems and Software, almost
18,000 voters — nearly 15 percent of those who
cast ballots using the machines — supposedly
failed to vote for either candidate in the hotly
contested Congressional race. That compares
with undervote rates ranging from 2.2 to 5.3
percent in neighboring counties.
Reporting by The Herald-Tribune of Sarasota,
which interviewed hundreds of voters who
called the paper to report problems at the polls,
strongly suggests that the huge apparent
undervote was caused by bugs in the ES&S software.
About a third of those interviewed by the paper
reported that they couldn’t even find the
Congressional race on the screen. This could
conceivably have been the result of bad ballot
design, but many of them insisted that they
looked hard for the race. Moreover, more
than 60 percent of those interviewed by
The Herald-Tribune reported that they did
cast a vote in the Congressional race —
but that this vote didn’t show up on the ballot
summary page they were shown at the end
of the voting process.
If there were bugs in the software, the odds
are that they threw the election to the wrong
candidate. An Orlando Sentinel examination
of other votes cast by those who supposedly
failed to cast a vote in the Congressional
race shows that they strongly favored
Democrats, and Mr. Buchanan won the official
count by only 369 votes. The fact that
Mr. Buchanan won a recount — that is, a
recount of the votes the machines happened
to record — means nothing.
Although state officials have certified
Mr. Buchanan as the victor, they’ve
promised an audit of the voting machines.
But don’t get your hopes up: as in2000,
state election officials aren’t even trying to
look impartial. To oversee the audit, the state
has chosen as its “independent” expert
Prof. Alec Yasinsac of Florida State University —
a Republican partisan who made an appearance
on the steps of the Florida Supreme Court
during the 2000 recount battle wearing a
“Bush Won” sign.
Ms. Jennings has now filed suit with the same
court, demanding a new election. She deserves one.
But for the nation as a whole, the important
thing isn’t who gets seated to represent
Florida’s 13th District. It’s whether the voting
disaster there leads to legislation requiring
voter verification and a paper trail.
And I have to say that the omens aren’t good.
I’ve been shocked at how little national
attention the mess in Sarasota has received.
Here we have as clear a demonstration as
we’re ever likely to see that warnings from
computer scientists about the dangers of
paperless electronic voting are valid — and most
Americans probably haven’t even heard about it.
As far as I can tell, the reason Florida-13 hasn’t
become a major national story is that neither
control of Congress nor control of the White
House is on the line. But do we have to wait for
a constitutional crisis to realize that we’re in
danger of becoming a digital-age banana republic?
Monday, November 27, 2006
Maybe Bush will pardon Saddam Hussein
November 25, 2006
No One to Lose To
By MAUREEN DOWD
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Washington - After the Thanksgiving Day Massacre
of Shiites by Sunnis, President Bush should go on
Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and give an interview
headlined: “If I did it,here’s how the civil war in Iraq
happened.”
He could describe, hypothetically, a series of naïve,
arrogant and self-defeating blunders, including his
team’s failure to comprehend that in the Arab world,
revenge and religious zealotry can be stronger
compulsions than democracy and prosperity.
But W. is not yet able to view his actions in subjunctive
terms, much less objective ones. Bush family retainers
are working to deprogram him, but the president is
loath to strip off his delusions of adequacy.
W. declined to tear himself away from his free-range
turkey and pumpkin moussetrifle at Camp David and
reassure Americans about the deadliest sectarian attack
in Baghdad since the U.S. invaded. More than 200
Shiites were killed and hundreds more wounded by car
bombs and a mortar attack in Sadr City. October was
the bloodiest month yet for civilians, and in the last
four months, some 13,000 men, women and children have died.
American helicopters and Iraqi troops did not arrive
for two hours after Sunni gunmen began a siege on
the Health Ministry controlled by the Shiite cleric
Moktada al-Sadr, who has a militia that kills Sunnis
and is married to the Maliki government.
Continuing the cycle of revenge yesterday, Shiite
militiamen threw kerosene on six Sunnis and set
them on fire, as Iraqi soldiers watched, and killed 19 more.
The New York Times and other news outlets have been
figuring out if it’s time to break with the
administration’s use of euphemisms like “sectarian
conflict.” How long can you have an ever-descending
descent without actually reaching the civil war?
Some analysts are calling it genocide or clash of
civilizations, arguing that civil war is too genteel
a term for the butchery that is destroying a nation
before our very eyes. Anthony Shadid, The Washington
Post reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize for his Iraq
coverage, went back recently and described “the
final, frenzied maturity of once-inchoate forces
unleashed more than three years ago by the invasion.
There was civil-war-style sectarian killing, its echoes in
Lebanon a generation ago. Alongside it were gangland
turf battles over money,power and survival; a raft of
political parties and their militias fighting a
zero-sum game; a raging insurgency; the collapse of
authority; social services a chimera; and no way
forward for an Iraqi government ordered to act by
Americans who themselves are still seen as the final
arbiter and, as a result, still depriving that government
of legitimacy. Civil war was perhaps too easy a term,
a little too tidy.”
It will be harder to sell Congress on the idea that
America’s troops should be in the middle of somebody
else’s civil war than to convince them that we need to
hang tough in the so-called front line of the so-called
war on terror against Al Qaeda.
With Iraq splitting, Tony Snow indulges in the
ludicrous exercise of hair-splitting. He said that
in past civil wars, “people break up into clearly
identifiable feuding sides clashing for supremacy.”
In Iraq, “you do have a lot of different forces that
are trying to put pressure on the government and
trying to undermine it. But it’s not clear that they
are operating as a unified force.” But Lebanon was
a shambles with multiple factions, and everybody
called that a civil war.
Mr. Snow has said this is not a civil war because the
fighting is not taking place in every province and
because Iraqis voted in free elections. But that’s
like saying that the Battle of Gettysburg only took
place in one small corner of the country, so there
was no real American Civil War. And there were
elections during our civil war too. President Lincoln
was re-elected months before the war’s end.
The president’s comparison to how Vietnam turned out
a generation later, his happy talk that Iraq is going to
be fine, is preposterous.
As Neil Sheehan, a former Times reporter in Vietnam
who wrote the PulitzerPrize-winning “A Bright Shining
Lie,” told me: “In Vietnam, there were just two sides
to the civil war. You had a government in Hanoi with a
structure of command and an army and a guerrilla
movement that would obey what they were told
to do. So you had law and order in Saigon immediately
after the war ended. In Iraq, there’s no one like that for
us to lose to and then do business with.”
The questions are no longer whether there’s a civil
war or whether we can achieve a military victory. The
only question is, who can we turn the country
over to?
At the moment, that would be no one.
No One to Lose To
By MAUREEN DOWD
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Washington - After the Thanksgiving Day Massacre
of Shiites by Sunnis, President Bush should go on
Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and give an interview
headlined: “If I did it,here’s how the civil war in Iraq
happened.”
He could describe, hypothetically, a series of naïve,
arrogant and self-defeating blunders, including his
team’s failure to comprehend that in the Arab world,
revenge and religious zealotry can be stronger
compulsions than democracy and prosperity.
But W. is not yet able to view his actions in subjunctive
terms, much less objective ones. Bush family retainers
are working to deprogram him, but the president is
loath to strip off his delusions of adequacy.
W. declined to tear himself away from his free-range
turkey and pumpkin moussetrifle at Camp David and
reassure Americans about the deadliest sectarian attack
in Baghdad since the U.S. invaded. More than 200
Shiites were killed and hundreds more wounded by car
bombs and a mortar attack in Sadr City. October was
the bloodiest month yet for civilians, and in the last
four months, some 13,000 men, women and children have died.
American helicopters and Iraqi troops did not arrive
for two hours after Sunni gunmen began a siege on
the Health Ministry controlled by the Shiite cleric
Moktada al-Sadr, who has a militia that kills Sunnis
and is married to the Maliki government.
Continuing the cycle of revenge yesterday, Shiite
militiamen threw kerosene on six Sunnis and set
them on fire, as Iraqi soldiers watched, and killed 19 more.
The New York Times and other news outlets have been
figuring out if it’s time to break with the
administration’s use of euphemisms like “sectarian
conflict.” How long can you have an ever-descending
descent without actually reaching the civil war?
Some analysts are calling it genocide or clash of
civilizations, arguing that civil war is too genteel
a term for the butchery that is destroying a nation
before our very eyes. Anthony Shadid, The Washington
Post reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize for his Iraq
coverage, went back recently and described “the
final, frenzied maturity of once-inchoate forces
unleashed more than three years ago by the invasion.
There was civil-war-style sectarian killing, its echoes in
Lebanon a generation ago. Alongside it were gangland
turf battles over money,power and survival; a raft of
political parties and their militias fighting a
zero-sum game; a raging insurgency; the collapse of
authority; social services a chimera; and no way
forward for an Iraqi government ordered to act by
Americans who themselves are still seen as the final
arbiter and, as a result, still depriving that government
of legitimacy. Civil war was perhaps too easy a term,
a little too tidy.”
It will be harder to sell Congress on the idea that
America’s troops should be in the middle of somebody
else’s civil war than to convince them that we need to
hang tough in the so-called front line of the so-called
war on terror against Al Qaeda.
With Iraq splitting, Tony Snow indulges in the
ludicrous exercise of hair-splitting. He said that
in past civil wars, “people break up into clearly
identifiable feuding sides clashing for supremacy.”
In Iraq, “you do have a lot of different forces that
are trying to put pressure on the government and
trying to undermine it. But it’s not clear that they
are operating as a unified force.” But Lebanon was
a shambles with multiple factions, and everybody
called that a civil war.
Mr. Snow has said this is not a civil war because the
fighting is not taking place in every province and
because Iraqis voted in free elections. But that’s
like saying that the Battle of Gettysburg only took
place in one small corner of the country, so there
was no real American Civil War. And there were
elections during our civil war too. President Lincoln
was re-elected months before the war’s end.
The president’s comparison to how Vietnam turned out
a generation later, his happy talk that Iraq is going to
be fine, is preposterous.
As Neil Sheehan, a former Times reporter in Vietnam
who wrote the PulitzerPrize-winning “A Bright Shining
Lie,” told me: “In Vietnam, there were just two sides
to the civil war. You had a government in Hanoi with a
structure of command and an army and a guerrilla
movement that would obey what they were told
to do. So you had law and order in Saigon immediately
after the war ended. In Iraq, there’s no one like that for
us to lose to and then do business with.”
The questions are no longer whether there’s a civil
war or whether we can achieve a military victory. The
only question is, who can we turn the country
over to?
At the moment, that would be no one.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Just some shots, Folks, from Friday's "emergency" Little Brother's gig
Besides the Uke Man we heard from The World's Greatest Losers and The Rooftop Smokers.A nice Friday night !!
Hey Folks,
Videos of the conference reported below can be found at:
http://beyondbelief2006.org/
- Uke Man
Videos of the conference reported below can be found at:
http://beyondbelief2006.org/
- Uke Man
Religion & Science / Faith & Reason
Hey Folks,
We are entering the Foxxx News / War on XXX-mas season; so let's discuss religion.
The conflict between Faith and Reason so clearly dominating our society and its politics is a major fight, one whose outcome will greatly affect our future.
I have heard that the US of A is the most "religious" country in the world. I'm certain that's true at least in comparison with Europe, and it's obviously been true enough to make a lot of political hay for demagogic politicians.
Most Americans I know never even think of some of the "awful," "unbelievable" things considered below in the Times piece.
They should ! And some will; but others, I'm sure, will start gathering literal or figurative kindling for a real or virtual burning of heretics.
I've made bold parts I found particularly interesting and added a few comments - in red - along the way.
- Uke Man
A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
By GEORGE JOHNSON
Published: November 21, 2006 New York Times
Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for “progress in spiritual discoveries” to an atheist — Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book “The God Delusion” is a national best-seller.
Or perhaps the turning point occurred at a more solemn moment, when Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City and an adviser to the Bush administration on space exploration, hushed the audience with heartbreaking photographs of newborns misshapen by birth defects — testimony, he suggested, that blind nature, not an intelligent overseer, is in control.
Somewhere along the way, a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told. Have you seen the South Park episode with Cartman in the future with warring science sects?
Carolyn Porco, a senior research scientist at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo., called, half in jest, for the establishment of an alternative church, with Dr. Tyson, whose powerful celebration of scientific discovery had the force and cadence of a good sermon, as its first minister.
She was not entirely kidding. “We should let the success of the religious formula guide us,” Dr. Porco said. “Let’s teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome — and even comforting — than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”
She displayed a picture taken by the Cassini spacecraft of Saturn and its glowing rings eclipsing the Sun, revealing in the shadow a barely noticeable speck called Earth.
There has been no shortage of conferences in recent years, commonly organized by the Templeton Foundation, seeking to smooth over the differences between science and religion and ending in a metaphysical draw. Sponsored instead by the Science Network, an educational organization based in California, and underwritten by a San Diego investor, Robert Zeps (who acknowledged his role as a kind of “anti-Templeton”), the La Jolla meeting, “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival,” rapidly escalated into an invigorating intellectual free-for-all. (Unedited video of the proceedings will be posted on the Web at tsntv.org.)
A presentation by Joan Roughgarden, a Stanford University biologist, on using biblical metaphor to ease her fellow Christians into accepting evolution (a mutation is “a mustard seed of DNA”) was dismissed by Dr. Dawkins as “bad poetry,” while his own take-no-prisoners approach (religious education is “brainwashing” and “child abuse”) was condemned by the anthropologist Melvin J. Konner, who said he had “not a flicker” of religious faith, as simplistic and uninformed. An important nuance here. Dawkins is logically on sound footing, but Konner, an anthropologist, understands the irrational side of humanity better, and sees the complexity of the situation.
After enduring two days of talks in which the Templeton Foundation came under the gun as smudging the line between science and faith, Charles L. Harper Jr., its senior vice president, lashed back, denouncing what he called “pop conflict books” like Dr. Dawkins’s “God Delusion,” as “commercialized ideological scientism” — promoting for profit the philosophy that science has a monopoly on truth.
That brought an angry rejoinder from Richard P. Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University Medical Center, who said his own book, “Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine,” was written to counter “garbage research” financed by Templeton on, for example, the healing effects of prayer.
With atheists and agnostics outnumbering the faithful (a few believing scientists, like Francis S. Collins, author of “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief,” were invited but could not attend), one speaker after another called on their colleagues to be less timid in challenging teachings about nature based only on scripture and belief. “The core of science is not a mathematical model; it is intellectual honesty,” said Sam Harris, a doctoral student in neuroscience and the author of “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason” and “Letter to a Christian Nation.”
“Every religion is making claims about the way the world is,” he said. “These are claims about the divine origin of certain books, about the virgin birth of certain people, about the survival of the human personality after death. These claims purport to be about reality.”
By shying away from questioning people’s deeply felt beliefs, even the skeptics, Mr. Harris said, are providing safe harbor for ideas that are at best mistaken and at worst dangerous. “I don’t know how many more engineers and architects need to fly planes into our buildings before we realize that this is not merely a matter of lack of education or economic despair,” he said.
Dr. Weinberg, who famously wrote toward the end of his 1977 book on cosmology, “The First Three Minutes,” that “the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless,” went a step further: “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.” I personally found this paragraph not entirely clear. The first quotation presents one of the best explanations for the success of religion: providing meaning to life within an incomprehensible existence. It also suggests that increasing scientific knowledge increases the feeling of meaninglessness. The second quotation suggests that religion should be weakened regardless of this characteristic. I can agree with that, but would like to hear more about how that age-old human problem would be addressed.
With a rough consensus that the grand stories of evolution by natural selection and the blossoming of the universe from the Big Bang are losing out in the intellectual marketplace [how can that be? How can an intellectual entity lose out to an emotional entity in "the intellectual marketplace"? , most of the discussion came down to strategy. How can science fight back without appearing to be just one more ideology?
“There are six billion people in the world,” said Francisco J. Ayala, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Roman Catholic priest. “If we think that we are going to persuade them to live a rational life based on scientific knowledge, we are not only dreaming — it is like believing in the fairy godmother.” He makes a good point. Even if such an absolute goal were possible, it would be a very long undertaking. But I think he overstates the goal so that he can knock down the straw man. Increasing rationality and decreasing superstition IS a reasonable goal.
“People need to find meaning and purpose in life,” he said. “I don’t think we want to take that away from them.” Here he implies that any attempt at increasing rationality "takes away" one's purpose. That is nonsense. I certainly agree that humanity needs a sense of purpose, but it is far from definite that a sense of purpose cannot exist without superstition. In fact, what kind of world is it; what kind of "thinking beings" are we if the only way we can survive or, at least, escape severely debilitating despair is to believe in imaginary creatures like "the fairy godmother" and imaginary places like Valhalla? Are we being done a favor by being allowed to clasp these phantoms to our breasts?
Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University known for his staunch opposition to teaching creationism, found himself in the unfamiliar role of playing the moderate. “I think we need to respect people’s philosophical notions unless those notions are wrong,” he said.
“The Earth isn’t 6,000 years old,” he said. “The Kennewick man was not a Umatilla Indian.” But whether there really is some kind of supernatural being — Dr. Krauss said he was a nonbeliever — is a question unanswerable by theology, philosophy or even science. Obviously true.
“Science does not make it impossible to believe in God,” Dr. Krauss insisted. “We should recognize that fact and live with it and stop being so pompous about it.” Again very true - as far as it goes. As the next paragraph points out, it's one thing to say no one can either prove or disprove the existence of any particular god; and quite another to act as if one KNOWS there is a particular god because some book, teaching, authority, or tradition.
That was just the kind of accommodating attitude that drove Dr. Dawkins up the wall. “I am utterly fed up with the respect that we — all of us, including the secular among us — are brainwashed into bestowing on religion,” he said. “Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.” True. We fill our kids' heads with all sorts of made up entities (we do remove some folks - like the tooth fairy); why wouldn't they resist abandoning their invisible friends?
By the third day, the arguments had become so heated that Dr. Konner was reminded of “a den of vipers.”
“With a few notable exceptions,” he said, “the viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?” Good question, but with what would he say religion has been beating science, gays, public schools, pagans, etc. ? Steam shovels or just bull dozers?
His response to Mr. Harris and Dr. Dawkins was scathing. “I think that you and Richard are remarkably apt mirror images of the extremists on the other side,” he said, “and that you generate more fear and hatred of science.” Extremists on either end are not helpful. What is needed are rational thinkers throughout the spectrum. Fear and hatred tend to the emotional end of things.
Dr. Tyson put it more gently. “Persuasion isn’t always ‘Here are the facts — you’re an idiot or you are not,’ ” he said. “I worry that your methods” — he turned toward Dr. Dawkins — “how articulately barbed you can be, end up simply being ineffective, when you have much more power of influence.” Ahh, rationality!!
Chastened for a millisecond, Dr. Dawkins replied, “I gratefully accept the rebuke.”
In the end it was Dr. Tyson’s celebration of discovery that stole the show. Scientists may scoff at people who fall back on explanations involving an intelligent designer, he said, but history shows that “the most brilliant people who ever walked this earth were doing the same thing.” When Isaac Newton’s “Principia Mathematica” failed to account for the stability of the solar system — why the planets tugging at one another’s orbits have not collapsed into the Sun — Newton proposed that propping up the mathematical mobile was “an intelligent and powerful being.” Well, isn't that the foundation of religious superstition: I don't understand something; so there must be a god - that explains it. All this shows me is that Newton was either covering up what he saw as a personal shortcoming or else his emotional life was not proportional with his intellectual life.
It was left to Pierre Simon Laplace, a century later, to take the next step. Hautily telling Napoleon that he had no need for the God hypothesis, Laplace extended Newton’s mathematics and opened the way to a purely physical theory.
“What concerns me now is that even if you’re as brilliant as Newton, you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of God and then your discovery stops — it just stops,” Dr. Tyson said. “You’re no good anymore for advancing that frontier, waiting for somebody else to come behind you who doesn’t have God on the brain and who says: ‘That’s a really cool problem. I want to solve it.’ ” I wouldn't blame god for this phenomenon. Aging seems a more likely explanation. We humans seem to do really well in many ways at some point in our lives, but eventually we poop out - at least relative to what we pulled off in our earlier days.
“Science is a philosophy of discovery; intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance,” he said. Absolutely !! “Something fundamental is going on in people’s minds when they confront things they don’t understand.” It's a matter of courage or cowardice. Newton, for example, decided to make up an answer rather than accept the fact he didn't yet know and understand everything.
He told of a time, more than a millennium ago, when Baghdad reigned as the intellectual center of the world, a history fossilized in the night sky. The names of the constellations are Greek and Roman, Dr. Tyson said, but two-thirds of the stars have Arabic names. The words “algebra” and “algorithm” are Arabic.
But sometime around 1100, a dark age descended. Mathematics became seen as the work of the devil, as Dr. Tyson put it. “Revelation replaced investigation,” he said, and the intellectual foundation collapsed.
He did not have to say so, but the implication was that maybe a century, maybe a millennium from now, the names of new planets, stars and galaxies might be Chinese. Or there may be no one to name them at all.
Before he left to fly back home to Austin, Dr. Weinberg seemed to soften for a moment, describing religion a bit fondly as a crazy old aunt.
“She tells lies, and she stirs up all sorts of mischief and she’s getting on, and she may not have that much life left in her, but she was beautiful once,” he lamented. “When she’s gone, we may miss her.”
Dr. Dawkins wasn’t buying it. “I won't miss her at all,” he said. “Not a scrap. Not a smidgen.”
Well, as B.F. Skinner said, "That's an experimental question."
- Uke Man
We are entering the Foxxx News / War on XXX-mas season; so let's discuss religion.
The conflict between Faith and Reason so clearly dominating our society and its politics is a major fight, one whose outcome will greatly affect our future.
I have heard that the US of A is the most "religious" country in the world. I'm certain that's true at least in comparison with Europe, and it's obviously been true enough to make a lot of political hay for demagogic politicians.
Most Americans I know never even think of some of the "awful," "unbelievable" things considered below in the Times piece.
They should ! And some will; but others, I'm sure, will start gathering literal or figurative kindling for a real or virtual burning of heretics.
I've made bold parts I found particularly interesting and added a few comments - in red - along the way.
- Uke Man
A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
By GEORGE JOHNSON
Published: November 21, 2006 New York Times
Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for “progress in spiritual discoveries” to an atheist — Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book “The God Delusion” is a national best-seller.
Or perhaps the turning point occurred at a more solemn moment, when Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City and an adviser to the Bush administration on space exploration, hushed the audience with heartbreaking photographs of newborns misshapen by birth defects — testimony, he suggested, that blind nature, not an intelligent overseer, is in control.
Somewhere along the way, a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told. Have you seen the South Park episode with Cartman in the future with warring science sects?
Carolyn Porco, a senior research scientist at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo., called, half in jest, for the establishment of an alternative church, with Dr. Tyson, whose powerful celebration of scientific discovery had the force and cadence of a good sermon, as its first minister.
She was not entirely kidding. “We should let the success of the religious formula guide us,” Dr. Porco said. “Let’s teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome — and even comforting — than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”
She displayed a picture taken by the Cassini spacecraft of Saturn and its glowing rings eclipsing the Sun, revealing in the shadow a barely noticeable speck called Earth.
There has been no shortage of conferences in recent years, commonly organized by the Templeton Foundation, seeking to smooth over the differences between science and religion and ending in a metaphysical draw. Sponsored instead by the Science Network, an educational organization based in California, and underwritten by a San Diego investor, Robert Zeps (who acknowledged his role as a kind of “anti-Templeton”), the La Jolla meeting, “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival,” rapidly escalated into an invigorating intellectual free-for-all. (Unedited video of the proceedings will be posted on the Web at tsntv.org.)
A presentation by Joan Roughgarden, a Stanford University biologist, on using biblical metaphor to ease her fellow Christians into accepting evolution (a mutation is “a mustard seed of DNA”) was dismissed by Dr. Dawkins as “bad poetry,” while his own take-no-prisoners approach (religious education is “brainwashing” and “child abuse”) was condemned by the anthropologist Melvin J. Konner, who said he had “not a flicker” of religious faith, as simplistic and uninformed. An important nuance here. Dawkins is logically on sound footing, but Konner, an anthropologist, understands the irrational side of humanity better, and sees the complexity of the situation.
After enduring two days of talks in which the Templeton Foundation came under the gun as smudging the line between science and faith, Charles L. Harper Jr., its senior vice president, lashed back, denouncing what he called “pop conflict books” like Dr. Dawkins’s “God Delusion,” as “commercialized ideological scientism” — promoting for profit the philosophy that science has a monopoly on truth.
That brought an angry rejoinder from Richard P. Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University Medical Center, who said his own book, “Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine,” was written to counter “garbage research” financed by Templeton on, for example, the healing effects of prayer.
With atheists and agnostics outnumbering the faithful (a few believing scientists, like Francis S. Collins, author of “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief,” were invited but could not attend), one speaker after another called on their colleagues to be less timid in challenging teachings about nature based only on scripture and belief. “The core of science is not a mathematical model; it is intellectual honesty,” said Sam Harris, a doctoral student in neuroscience and the author of “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason” and “Letter to a Christian Nation.”
“Every religion is making claims about the way the world is,” he said. “These are claims about the divine origin of certain books, about the virgin birth of certain people, about the survival of the human personality after death. These claims purport to be about reality.”
By shying away from questioning people’s deeply felt beliefs, even the skeptics, Mr. Harris said, are providing safe harbor for ideas that are at best mistaken and at worst dangerous. “I don’t know how many more engineers and architects need to fly planes into our buildings before we realize that this is not merely a matter of lack of education or economic despair,” he said.
Dr. Weinberg, who famously wrote toward the end of his 1977 book on cosmology, “The First Three Minutes,” that “the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless,” went a step further: “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.” I personally found this paragraph not entirely clear. The first quotation presents one of the best explanations for the success of religion: providing meaning to life within an incomprehensible existence. It also suggests that increasing scientific knowledge increases the feeling of meaninglessness. The second quotation suggests that religion should be weakened regardless of this characteristic. I can agree with that, but would like to hear more about how that age-old human problem would be addressed.
With a rough consensus that the grand stories of evolution by natural selection and the blossoming of the universe from the Big Bang are losing out in the intellectual marketplace [how can that be? How can an intellectual entity lose out to an emotional entity in "the intellectual marketplace"? , most of the discussion came down to strategy. How can science fight back without appearing to be just one more ideology?
“There are six billion people in the world,” said Francisco J. Ayala, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Roman Catholic priest. “If we think that we are going to persuade them to live a rational life based on scientific knowledge, we are not only dreaming — it is like believing in the fairy godmother.” He makes a good point. Even if such an absolute goal were possible, it would be a very long undertaking. But I think he overstates the goal so that he can knock down the straw man. Increasing rationality and decreasing superstition IS a reasonable goal.
“People need to find meaning and purpose in life,” he said. “I don’t think we want to take that away from them.” Here he implies that any attempt at increasing rationality "takes away" one's purpose. That is nonsense. I certainly agree that humanity needs a sense of purpose, but it is far from definite that a sense of purpose cannot exist without superstition. In fact, what kind of world is it; what kind of "thinking beings" are we if the only way we can survive or, at least, escape severely debilitating despair is to believe in imaginary creatures like "the fairy godmother" and imaginary places like Valhalla? Are we being done a favor by being allowed to clasp these phantoms to our breasts?
Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University known for his staunch opposition to teaching creationism, found himself in the unfamiliar role of playing the moderate. “I think we need to respect people’s philosophical notions unless those notions are wrong,” he said.
“The Earth isn’t 6,000 years old,” he said. “The Kennewick man was not a Umatilla Indian.” But whether there really is some kind of supernatural being — Dr. Krauss said he was a nonbeliever — is a question unanswerable by theology, philosophy or even science. Obviously true.
“Science does not make it impossible to believe in God,” Dr. Krauss insisted. “We should recognize that fact and live with it and stop being so pompous about it.” Again very true - as far as it goes. As the next paragraph points out, it's one thing to say no one can either prove or disprove the existence of any particular god; and quite another to act as if one KNOWS there is a particular god because some book, teaching, authority, or tradition.
That was just the kind of accommodating attitude that drove Dr. Dawkins up the wall. “I am utterly fed up with the respect that we — all of us, including the secular among us — are brainwashed into bestowing on religion,” he said. “Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.” True. We fill our kids' heads with all sorts of made up entities (we do remove some folks - like the tooth fairy); why wouldn't they resist abandoning their invisible friends?
By the third day, the arguments had become so heated that Dr. Konner was reminded of “a den of vipers.”
“With a few notable exceptions,” he said, “the viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?” Good question, but with what would he say religion has been beating science, gays, public schools, pagans, etc. ? Steam shovels or just bull dozers?
His response to Mr. Harris and Dr. Dawkins was scathing. “I think that you and Richard are remarkably apt mirror images of the extremists on the other side,” he said, “and that you generate more fear and hatred of science.” Extremists on either end are not helpful. What is needed are rational thinkers throughout the spectrum. Fear and hatred tend to the emotional end of things.
Dr. Tyson put it more gently. “Persuasion isn’t always ‘Here are the facts — you’re an idiot or you are not,’ ” he said. “I worry that your methods” — he turned toward Dr. Dawkins — “how articulately barbed you can be, end up simply being ineffective, when you have much more power of influence.” Ahh, rationality!!
Chastened for a millisecond, Dr. Dawkins replied, “I gratefully accept the rebuke.”
In the end it was Dr. Tyson’s celebration of discovery that stole the show. Scientists may scoff at people who fall back on explanations involving an intelligent designer, he said, but history shows that “the most brilliant people who ever walked this earth were doing the same thing.” When Isaac Newton’s “Principia Mathematica” failed to account for the stability of the solar system — why the planets tugging at one another’s orbits have not collapsed into the Sun — Newton proposed that propping up the mathematical mobile was “an intelligent and powerful being.” Well, isn't that the foundation of religious superstition: I don't understand something; so there must be a god - that explains it. All this shows me is that Newton was either covering up what he saw as a personal shortcoming or else his emotional life was not proportional with his intellectual life.
It was left to Pierre Simon Laplace, a century later, to take the next step. Hautily telling Napoleon that he had no need for the God hypothesis, Laplace extended Newton’s mathematics and opened the way to a purely physical theory.
“What concerns me now is that even if you’re as brilliant as Newton, you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of God and then your discovery stops — it just stops,” Dr. Tyson said. “You’re no good anymore for advancing that frontier, waiting for somebody else to come behind you who doesn’t have God on the brain and who says: ‘That’s a really cool problem. I want to solve it.’ ” I wouldn't blame god for this phenomenon. Aging seems a more likely explanation. We humans seem to do really well in many ways at some point in our lives, but eventually we poop out - at least relative to what we pulled off in our earlier days.
“Science is a philosophy of discovery; intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance,” he said. Absolutely !! “Something fundamental is going on in people’s minds when they confront things they don’t understand.” It's a matter of courage or cowardice. Newton, for example, decided to make up an answer rather than accept the fact he didn't yet know and understand everything.
He told of a time, more than a millennium ago, when Baghdad reigned as the intellectual center of the world, a history fossilized in the night sky. The names of the constellations are Greek and Roman, Dr. Tyson said, but two-thirds of the stars have Arabic names. The words “algebra” and “algorithm” are Arabic.
But sometime around 1100, a dark age descended. Mathematics became seen as the work of the devil, as Dr. Tyson put it. “Revelation replaced investigation,” he said, and the intellectual foundation collapsed.
He did not have to say so, but the implication was that maybe a century, maybe a millennium from now, the names of new planets, stars and galaxies might be Chinese. Or there may be no one to name them at all.
Before he left to fly back home to Austin, Dr. Weinberg seemed to soften for a moment, describing religion a bit fondly as a crazy old aunt.
“She tells lies, and she stirs up all sorts of mischief and she’s getting on, and she may not have that much life left in her, but she was beautiful once,” he lamented. “When she’s gone, we may miss her.”
Dr. Dawkins wasn’t buying it. “I won't miss her at all,” he said. “Not a scrap. Not a smidgen.”
Well, as B.F. Skinner said, "That's an experimental question."
- Uke Man
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Eenie,Meenie, Mienee,Mo; the Ginks decide Who must Go!!
Hey Folks,
I've always "known" in my bones that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was bumped off by the ruling class. I've always suspected that John F. Kennedy was too. Now this report on Robert Kennedy.
I find it most ironic that - in contrast to our historical, domestic assassinations - our government and talking heads are more than willing to entertain the "conspiracy theory" that Alexander Putin recently ordered the assassination of a renegade Soviet spy.
Maybe they should look closer to home.
- Uke Man
http://www.truthout
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/11/who_shot_bobby_kennedy_1.html
CIA Role Claimed in Kennedy Killing
BBC News
Tuesday 21 November 2006
New video and photographic evidence that puts three senior CIA operatives at the scene of RobertKennedy's assassination has been brought to light.
The evidence was shown in a report by Shane O'Sullivan, broadcast on BBC Newsnight.
It reveals that the operatives and four unidentified associates were at the Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles in the moments before and after the shooting on 5 June, 1968.
The CIA had no domestic jurisdiction and some of the officers were based in South-East Asia at the time, with no reason to be in Los Angeles.
"Decoy"
Kennedy had just won the California Democratic primary on an anti-War ticket and was set to challenge Nixon for the White House when he was shot in a kitchen pantry.
A 24-year-old Palestinian, Sirhan Sirhan, was arrested as the lone assassin and notebooks at his house seemed to incriminate him.
However, even under hypnosis, he has never been able to remember the shooting and defence psychiatrists concluded he was in a trance at the time.
Witnesses placed Sirhan's gun several feet in front of Kennedy but the autopsy showed the fatal shot came from one inch behind.
Dr Herbert Spiegel, a world authority on hypnosis at Columbia University, believes Sirhan may have been hypnotically programmed to act as a decoy for the real assassin.
Evidence
The report is the result of a three-year investigation by filmmaker Shane O'Sullivan. He reveals new video and photographs showing three senior CIA operatives at the hotel.
Three of these men have been positively identified as senior officers who worked together in 1963 at JMWAVE, the CIA's Miami base for its SecretWar on Castro.
David Morales was Chief of Operations and once told friends:
"I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard."
Gordon Campbell was Chief of Maritime Operations and George Joannides was Chief of Psychological Warfare Operations.
Joannides was called out of retirement in 1978 to act as the CIA liaison to the Congressional investigation into the JFK assassination. Now, we see him at the Ambassador Hotel the night a second Kennedy is assassinated.
Memory
Monday, 20 November would have been BobbyKennedy's 81st birthday. In Los Angeles, his son Maxhas just broken ground on a new high-school project inmemory of his father on the old Ambassador Hotel site.
Paul Schrade, a key figure behind the schoolproject, was walking behind Robert Kennedy that nightand was shot in the head. He believes this newevidence merits fresh investigation:
"It seems very strange to me that these guyswould be at a Kennedy celebration. What were theydoing there? And why were they there? It's ourobligation as friends of Bob Kennedy to investigatethis."
Ed Lopez, a former Congressional investigator whoworked with Joannides in 1978, says:
"I think the key people at the CIA need to goback to anybody who might have been around back then,bring them in and interview them, and ask - is thisGordon Campbell? Is this George Joannides?"
I've always "known" in my bones that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was bumped off by the ruling class. I've always suspected that John F. Kennedy was too. Now this report on Robert Kennedy.
I find it most ironic that - in contrast to our historical, domestic assassinations - our government and talking heads are more than willing to entertain the "conspiracy theory" that Alexander Putin recently ordered the assassination of a renegade Soviet spy.
Maybe they should look closer to home.
- Uke Man
http://www.truthout
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/11/who_shot_bobby_kennedy_1.html
CIA Role Claimed in Kennedy Killing
BBC News
Tuesday 21 November 2006
New video and photographic evidence that puts three senior CIA operatives at the scene of RobertKennedy's assassination has been brought to light.
The evidence was shown in a report by Shane O'Sullivan, broadcast on BBC Newsnight.
It reveals that the operatives and four unidentified associates were at the Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles in the moments before and after the shooting on 5 June, 1968.
The CIA had no domestic jurisdiction and some of the officers were based in South-East Asia at the time, with no reason to be in Los Angeles.
"Decoy"
Kennedy had just won the California Democratic primary on an anti-War ticket and was set to challenge Nixon for the White House when he was shot in a kitchen pantry.
A 24-year-old Palestinian, Sirhan Sirhan, was arrested as the lone assassin and notebooks at his house seemed to incriminate him.
However, even under hypnosis, he has never been able to remember the shooting and defence psychiatrists concluded he was in a trance at the time.
Witnesses placed Sirhan's gun several feet in front of Kennedy but the autopsy showed the fatal shot came from one inch behind.
Dr Herbert Spiegel, a world authority on hypnosis at Columbia University, believes Sirhan may have been hypnotically programmed to act as a decoy for the real assassin.
Evidence
The report is the result of a three-year investigation by filmmaker Shane O'Sullivan. He reveals new video and photographs showing three senior CIA operatives at the hotel.
Three of these men have been positively identified as senior officers who worked together in 1963 at JMWAVE, the CIA's Miami base for its SecretWar on Castro.
David Morales was Chief of Operations and once told friends:
"I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard."
Gordon Campbell was Chief of Maritime Operations and George Joannides was Chief of Psychological Warfare Operations.
Joannides was called out of retirement in 1978 to act as the CIA liaison to the Congressional investigation into the JFK assassination. Now, we see him at the Ambassador Hotel the night a second Kennedy is assassinated.
Memory
Monday, 20 November would have been BobbyKennedy's 81st birthday. In Los Angeles, his son Maxhas just broken ground on a new high-school project inmemory of his father on the old Ambassador Hotel site.
Paul Schrade, a key figure behind the schoolproject, was walking behind Robert Kennedy that nightand was shot in the head. He believes this newevidence merits fresh investigation:
"It seems very strange to me that these guyswould be at a Kennedy celebration. What were theydoing there? And why were they there? It's ourobligation as friends of Bob Kennedy to investigatethis."
Ed Lopez, a former Congressional investigator whoworked with Joannides in 1978, says:
"I think the key people at the CIA need to goback to anybody who might have been around back then,bring them in and interview them, and ask - is thisGordon Campbell? Is this George Joannides?"
Tennis, anyone ???
Hey Folks,
Canada can afford National Health Care and STILL throw millions of dollars down the advertising hole, subsidizing Russian golf swings!!
We can put a man in space, but getting him into a hospital still needs work. Maybe there are too many wealthy Americans too busy playing too much golf to notice.
- Uke Man
Russian cosmonaut slaps golf ball into orbit
By Erwin Seba Thu Nov 23, 8:53 AM ET
HOUSTON (Reuters) - Cosmonaut Mikhail Tyurin smacked a golf ball into orbit off the International Space Station on Wednesday to raise money for the Russian space program during a spacewalk cut short by a balky spacesuit. Tyurin, the station's flight engineer, made a one-armed swing with a gold-plated six-iron to send the lightweight ball on a journey estimated to take it around the Earth at least 48 times before it burns up in the atmosphere.
He spent 16 minutes setting up the shot off a ladder on a Russian docking module with the help of U.S. astronaut Michael Lopez-Alegria and the guidance of Russian flight controllers.
"OK, there it goes," said Tyurin, who has played golf twice in his life. "It went pretty far. It was an excellent shot."
Canadian golf club maker Element 21 Golf Co. paid the cash-strapped Russian space agency an undisclosed amount of money for Tyurin's golf exhibition, which was filmed for a future commercial.
Fixing a malfunctioning cooling line in Tyurin's Russian-made spacesuit delayed him and Lopez-Alegria from leaving the space station airlock by an hour, using up part of the carbon dioxide absorption capability of their suits.
Russian flight controllers ordered the pair back into the station's airlock about an hour short of the six hours planned for the spacewalk.
The spacewalkers were never in danger as they still had reserves of carbon dioxide absorbing materials available.
After the orbital golf exhibition, Tyurin and Lopez-Alegria struggled for more than an hour in an unsuccessful attempt to retract an antenna on the Russian Progress supply ship that is docked with the station.
"We just cannot free it," Station Commander Lopez-Alegria told flight directors. "No way."
While not an immediate threat to the astronauts' safety or the station, the Progress is scheduled to leave the station in January and the supply ship or the station could be damaged by the antenna during undocking.
A future spacewalk will likely be made to retract the antenna as Russian experts further study the problem, a NASA spokesman said.
The pair successfully moved another antenna so it can communicate with the European Space Agency's automated supply vessel, scheduled to dock with the station in mid-2007.
The men also deployed an experiment that will study charged and neutral particles generated in low-Earth orbit by solar flares.
Canada can afford National Health Care and STILL throw millions of dollars down the advertising hole, subsidizing Russian golf swings!!
We can put a man in space, but getting him into a hospital still needs work. Maybe there are too many wealthy Americans too busy playing too much golf to notice.
- Uke Man
Russian cosmonaut slaps golf ball into orbit
By Erwin Seba Thu Nov 23, 8:53 AM ET
HOUSTON (Reuters) - Cosmonaut Mikhail Tyurin smacked a golf ball into orbit off the International Space Station on Wednesday to raise money for the Russian space program during a spacewalk cut short by a balky spacesuit. Tyurin, the station's flight engineer, made a one-armed swing with a gold-plated six-iron to send the lightweight ball on a journey estimated to take it around the Earth at least 48 times before it burns up in the atmosphere.
He spent 16 minutes setting up the shot off a ladder on a Russian docking module with the help of U.S. astronaut Michael Lopez-Alegria and the guidance of Russian flight controllers.
"OK, there it goes," said Tyurin, who has played golf twice in his life. "It went pretty far. It was an excellent shot."
Canadian golf club maker Element 21 Golf Co. paid the cash-strapped Russian space agency an undisclosed amount of money for Tyurin's golf exhibition, which was filmed for a future commercial.
Fixing a malfunctioning cooling line in Tyurin's Russian-made spacesuit delayed him and Lopez-Alegria from leaving the space station airlock by an hour, using up part of the carbon dioxide absorption capability of their suits.
Russian flight controllers ordered the pair back into the station's airlock about an hour short of the six hours planned for the spacewalk.
The spacewalkers were never in danger as they still had reserves of carbon dioxide absorbing materials available.
After the orbital golf exhibition, Tyurin and Lopez-Alegria struggled for more than an hour in an unsuccessful attempt to retract an antenna on the Russian Progress supply ship that is docked with the station.
"We just cannot free it," Station Commander Lopez-Alegria told flight directors. "No way."
While not an immediate threat to the astronauts' safety or the station, the Progress is scheduled to leave the station in January and the supply ship or the station could be damaged by the antenna during undocking.
A future spacewalk will likely be made to retract the antenna as Russian experts further study the problem, a NASA spokesman said.
The pair successfully moved another antenna so it can communicate with the European Space Agency's automated supply vessel, scheduled to dock with the station in mid-2007.
The men also deployed an experiment that will study charged and neutral particles generated in low-Earth orbit by solar flares.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Stepping in @ Little Brother's TONIGHT
Hey Folks,
A last minute deal. Some moronic, so-called promoter dropped his bands off the Little Brother's Friday night marquee at 4:00 this afternoon. The call went out, and the Uke Man is up to the challenge!!!
If you're out and about, I'll be going on at 10:00. See you there - 1100 N. High Street, Columbus.
- Ukulele Man
A last minute deal. Some moronic, so-called promoter dropped his bands off the Little Brother's Friday night marquee at 4:00 this afternoon. The call went out, and the Uke Man is up to the challenge!!!
If you're out and about, I'll be going on at 10:00. See you there - 1100 N. High Street, Columbus.
- Ukulele Man
There are two ass's in "assassin"
but there are five American asses who long(ed) for assassinations.
Politicians adhere to the Hypocritic Oath
Hey Folks,
Here's part of a recent news report:
Chorus of condemnation after Lebanon assassination
Wed Nov 22
PARIS (AFP) - An international chorus of outrage over the assassination of a prominent anti-Syrian minister in Lebanon gathered force Wednesday, with world leaders expressing concern the killing could spark renewed violence across the region.
The broad-daylight murder Tuesday of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel -- the fifth senior Lebanese politician slain over the last two years -- was widely condemned as an effort to topple the already weakened government of Fouad Siniora.
"Today we saw again the vicious face of those who hate freedom," Bush said.
* * *
On the radio I also heard a Bush spokesperson going on about how this assassination was an "attack on democracy."
Well, that may or may not be the case, but assassinations are to be condemned whatever their motivation.
What I find interesting here is the HYPOCRACY. John Kennedy tried to assassinate Fidel Castro; Richard Nixon sanctioned the assassination of Salvador Allende; Ronald Reagan attempted the assassination of Muammar Kadhafi; Sam Donaldson raised no ruckus by calling for the killing of Saddam Hussein (prior to any talk of actually going to war); and “holy man” Pat Robertson recently called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez.
America LOVES assassinations (even of democratically elected officials[ see Allende ] ) when it suits Washington’s interests – it’s only naughty when it doesn’t advance our imperialistic designs.
Some have gone so far as to wonder whether the CIA had a hand in this latest assassination, since it is being put forth as a reason for us to attack Syria.
Be that as it may, no one in our government has ANY standing to pontificate about the evils of political assassination. "Freedom" and "democracy" have nothing to do with it.
- Uke Man
Here's part of a recent news report:
Chorus of condemnation after Lebanon assassination
Wed Nov 22
PARIS (AFP) - An international chorus of outrage over the assassination of a prominent anti-Syrian minister in Lebanon gathered force Wednesday, with world leaders expressing concern the killing could spark renewed violence across the region.
The broad-daylight murder Tuesday of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel -- the fifth senior Lebanese politician slain over the last two years -- was widely condemned as an effort to topple the already weakened government of Fouad Siniora.
"Today we saw again the vicious face of those who hate freedom," Bush said.
* * *
On the radio I also heard a Bush spokesperson going on about how this assassination was an "attack on democracy."
Well, that may or may not be the case, but assassinations are to be condemned whatever their motivation.
What I find interesting here is the HYPOCRACY. John Kennedy tried to assassinate Fidel Castro; Richard Nixon sanctioned the assassination of Salvador Allende; Ronald Reagan attempted the assassination of Muammar Kadhafi; Sam Donaldson raised no ruckus by calling for the killing of Saddam Hussein (prior to any talk of actually going to war); and “holy man” Pat Robertson recently called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez.
America LOVES assassinations (even of democratically elected officials[ see Allende ] ) when it suits Washington’s interests – it’s only naughty when it doesn’t advance our imperialistic designs.
Some have gone so far as to wonder whether the CIA had a hand in this latest assassination, since it is being put forth as a reason for us to attack Syria.
Be that as it may, no one in our government has ANY standing to pontificate about the evils of political assassination. "Freedom" and "democracy" have nothing to do with it.
- Uke Man
Hey Folks,
Just an observation. It seems to me that since the Democrats won so big in the last election and because the country seems to have moved a bit away from mad-dog "conservatism"; a number of our moronic right-wing blabbermouths must see themselves in a new and possibly threatening context.
I am not the only one who has noticed a fairly recent change (moving slightly to the left) in Joe Scarborough (see "Scarborough Zombies" posted below). Nevertheless, I think everyone was surprised by Rush Limbaugh's need to badmouth his conservative heroes for not being conservative. With the Democrats in charge of both houses, Limbaugh will obviously face a different environment with new heroes, new enemies, and new axes to grind.
In this video he seems to be clearing the decks for a new approach:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfWyFY1RK68
Time will tell whose water Rush will choose to carry, but whatever the case may be, Rush will still be all wet.
- Uke Man
Just an observation. It seems to me that since the Democrats won so big in the last election and because the country seems to have moved a bit away from mad-dog "conservatism"; a number of our moronic right-wing blabbermouths must see themselves in a new and possibly threatening context.
I am not the only one who has noticed a fairly recent change (moving slightly to the left) in Joe Scarborough (see "Scarborough Zombies" posted below). Nevertheless, I think everyone was surprised by Rush Limbaugh's need to badmouth his conservative heroes for not being conservative. With the Democrats in charge of both houses, Limbaugh will obviously face a different environment with new heroes, new enemies, and new axes to grind.
In this video he seems to be clearing the decks for a new approach:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfWyFY1RK68
Time will tell whose water Rush will choose to carry, but whatever the case may be, Rush will still be all wet.
- Uke Man
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Noblesse Oblige
Folks,
At Thanksgiving time Ms. Celest Zappala remebers her son, killed in Iraq by George W. Bush's lies. At Thanksgiving time George W. Bush remembers his daughter's purse being stolen in Buenos Aires.
- Uke Man
November 23, 2006
The Empty Chair at the Table
By BOB HERBERT
Philadelphia - The old stone house in the close-knit Mount
Airy neighborhood that SherwoodBaker grew up in had for
many years been the scene of rollicking holiday gatherings.
“We would have big, ridiculous dinners,” said his mom, Celeste
Zappala. She chuckled. “They weren’t formal, believe me. The
dishes wouldn’t match and we’d never have enough silverware.
But it was great fun.”
Sherwood, a big man at 6-4 and about 250 pounds, would be there with his wife, Debra, and son, J.D., his two brothers, and sometimes his dad, even though he is divorced from Ms. Zappala. Others would be there, as well. “We’d look for stray people,” Ms. Zappala said, “somebody who didn’t have someone to be with. We could always fit more people around the table. ”
The gatherings are more subdued now. Ms. Zappala can still remember almost every detail of the April evening in 2004 when the man in the dress uniform with the medals on his chest showed up on her porch with the bad news.
“He had a notebook in his hand,” she said. “I could see him
very clearly even though it was dark and kind of raining. So
I came out on the porch and I looked at him. And I knew,
but I didn’t want to know.”
Sgt. Sherwood Baker of the Pennsylvania National Guard had
been in Baghdad only six weeks when he was killed. The bitter irony that will always surround his death was the fact that he was helping to provide security for the Iraq Survey
Group, which was hunting for the weapons of mass destruction. He died on April 26, 2004, in an explosion at a factory that was being inspected.
Grief is magnified during the holidays, and with the toll in
Iraq steadily mounting, there are now thousands of families
across the U.S. who are faced,like Sergeant Baker’s relatives,
with an awful empty space at their Thanksgiving tables.
Ms. Zappala pulled out photos of Sherwood and the rest of
the family laughing itup at holiday parties, and spoke of the
ferocious grief that has since gripped everyone. “We won’t be
the same now,” she said. “We’re totally different people
than we started out to be.”
One of the family’s last Christmas presents for Sergeant Baker
was a global positioning device. “He was told that he had to have
one,” said Ms. Zappala, “but the Army wouldn’t buy it for him.
So we got him one. That was our lastChristmas together, 2003.
We were all trying to be happy but each of us wasfrightened and
worried about what was going to happen to him.”
Sergeant Baker’s story, for the most part, was typical. He was a
social worker who joined the National Guard in 1997 in part for
civic reasons, but also because he needed help paying off his
college loans. “It was extra money,” his mother said.
What was unusual was that Ms. Zappala was a longtime peace and social justice activist. She opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning, and the last thing in the world that she wanted was for her son to be in it. Sergeant Baker told her not to worry, that no one from the Pennsylvania National Guard had been killed in combat since World War II.
But she worried. And when it was clear that Sergeant Baker
would be sent to Iraq, she looked for a way out. “I told him,
‘If you don’t want to do this, I’ll take you to Canada,’” she said.
“But he said, ‘No, I made an oath before God. And besides, they
would court-martial me. I’ll just go. I’ll do it and I’ll come home.’ ”
Ms. Zappala remains opposed to the war and is an active member of the antiwar group Military Families Speak Out. There’s a sign on her porch that says, “Waris Not the Answer.” But she’s found that there’s no comfort to be drawn from her protests, however strongly she believes in them.
“Where’s the comfort in being right?” she asked.
“Everything we said was right. Sherwood died looking for the
weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. All the nonsense
about the Al Qaeda connections and Sept. 11th. They were all
lies. It was all wrong. But none of that brings Sherwood back to the table.”
While standing on the porch where she got the terrible news
about her son, Ms. Zappala spoke of the many other families
that have lost children, or other close relatives, to the war. “I’m
very aware that it didn’t just happen to us,” she said. “For
everybody, it’s the same horrible loss. It’s the same tragedy. It
doesn’t make any difference whether someone was for or against
the war. We’ve met families who were very supportive of the war
and we were crying with them.
The pain is the same.”
At Thanksgiving time Ms. Celest Zappala remebers her son, killed in Iraq by George W. Bush's lies. At Thanksgiving time George W. Bush remembers his daughter's purse being stolen in Buenos Aires.
- Uke Man
November 23, 2006
The Empty Chair at the Table
By BOB HERBERT
Philadelphia - The old stone house in the close-knit Mount
Airy neighborhood that SherwoodBaker grew up in had for
many years been the scene of rollicking holiday gatherings.
“We would have big, ridiculous dinners,” said his mom, Celeste
Zappala. She chuckled. “They weren’t formal, believe me. The
dishes wouldn’t match and we’d never have enough silverware.
But it was great fun.”
Sherwood, a big man at 6-4 and about 250 pounds, would be there with his wife, Debra, and son, J.D., his two brothers, and sometimes his dad, even though he is divorced from Ms. Zappala. Others would be there, as well. “We’d look for stray people,” Ms. Zappala said, “somebody who didn’t have someone to be with. We could always fit more people around the table. ”
The gatherings are more subdued now. Ms. Zappala can still remember almost every detail of the April evening in 2004 when the man in the dress uniform with the medals on his chest showed up on her porch with the bad news.
“He had a notebook in his hand,” she said. “I could see him
very clearly even though it was dark and kind of raining. So
I came out on the porch and I looked at him. And I knew,
but I didn’t want to know.”
Sgt. Sherwood Baker of the Pennsylvania National Guard had
been in Baghdad only six weeks when he was killed. The bitter irony that will always surround his death was the fact that he was helping to provide security for the Iraq Survey
Group, which was hunting for the weapons of mass destruction. He died on April 26, 2004, in an explosion at a factory that was being inspected.
Grief is magnified during the holidays, and with the toll in
Iraq steadily mounting, there are now thousands of families
across the U.S. who are faced,like Sergeant Baker’s relatives,
with an awful empty space at their Thanksgiving tables.
Ms. Zappala pulled out photos of Sherwood and the rest of
the family laughing itup at holiday parties, and spoke of the
ferocious grief that has since gripped everyone. “We won’t be
the same now,” she said. “We’re totally different people
than we started out to be.”
One of the family’s last Christmas presents for Sergeant Baker
was a global positioning device. “He was told that he had to have
one,” said Ms. Zappala, “but the Army wouldn’t buy it for him.
So we got him one. That was our lastChristmas together, 2003.
We were all trying to be happy but each of us wasfrightened and
worried about what was going to happen to him.”
Sergeant Baker’s story, for the most part, was typical. He was a
social worker who joined the National Guard in 1997 in part for
civic reasons, but also because he needed help paying off his
college loans. “It was extra money,” his mother said.
What was unusual was that Ms. Zappala was a longtime peace and social justice activist. She opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning, and the last thing in the world that she wanted was for her son to be in it. Sergeant Baker told her not to worry, that no one from the Pennsylvania National Guard had been killed in combat since World War II.
But she worried. And when it was clear that Sergeant Baker
would be sent to Iraq, she looked for a way out. “I told him,
‘If you don’t want to do this, I’ll take you to Canada,’” she said.
“But he said, ‘No, I made an oath before God. And besides, they
would court-martial me. I’ll just go. I’ll do it and I’ll come home.’ ”
Ms. Zappala remains opposed to the war and is an active member of the antiwar group Military Families Speak Out. There’s a sign on her porch that says, “Waris Not the Answer.” But she’s found that there’s no comfort to be drawn from her protests, however strongly she believes in them.
“Where’s the comfort in being right?” she asked.
“Everything we said was right. Sherwood died looking for the
weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. All the nonsense
about the Al Qaeda connections and Sept. 11th. They were all
lies. It was all wrong. But none of that brings Sherwood back to the table.”
While standing on the porch where she got the terrible news
about her son, Ms. Zappala spoke of the many other families
that have lost children, or other close relatives, to the war. “I’m
very aware that it didn’t just happen to us,” she said. “For
everybody, it’s the same horrible loss. It’s the same tragedy. It
doesn’t make any difference whether someone was for or against
the war. We’ve met families who were very supportive of the war
and we were crying with them.
The pain is the same.”
Happy Thanxxxgiving??
Hey Folks,
As a British friend told me, "We don't celebrate Thanksgiving in England. We kicked those buggers out!!"
The article below contains a lot of information unfamiliar to most of us educated in the official tradition. Much of it is disgusting, but what struck me most is the way in which God and the Bible are brought in to justify atrocities.
I'm going to re-read this article tomorrow, eating a left-over turkey sandwich.
Happy day off (if you have one - somebody has to keep the stores open to sell X-mas presents).
- Uke Man
Native Blood: The Myth of Thanksgiving
Revolutionary Worker #883, November 24, 1996
Every schoolchild in the U.S. has been taught that the Pilgrims of the Plymouth Colony invited the local Indians to a major harvest feast after surviving their first bitter year in New England. But the real history of Thanksgiving is a story of the murder of indigenous people and the theft of their land by European colonialists--and of the ruthless ways of capitalism.
* * * * *
In mid-winter 1620 the English ship Mayflower landed on the North American coast, delivering 102 Puritan exiles. The original Native people of this stretch of shoreline had already been killed off. In 1614 a British expedition had landed there. When they left they took 24 Indians as slaves and left smallpox behind. Three years of plague wiped out between 90 and 96 percent of the inhabitants of the coast, destroying most villages completely.
The Puritans landed and built their colony called "the Plymouth Plantation" near the deserted ruins of the Indian village of Pawtuxet. They ate from abandoned cornfields grown wild. Only one Pawtuxet named Squanto had survived--he had spent the last years as a slave to the English and Spanish in Europe. Squanto spoke the colonists' language and taught them how to plant corn and how to catch fish until the first harvest. Squanto also helped the colonists negotiate a peace treaty with the nearby Wampanoag tribe, led by the chief Massasoit.
These were very lucky breaks for the colonists. The first Virginia settlement had been wiped out before they could establish themselves. Thanks to the good will of the Wampanoag, the Puritans not only survived their first year but had an alliance with the Wampanoags that would give them almost two decades of peace.
John Winthrop, a founder of the Massahusetts Bay colony considered this wave of illness and death to be a divine miracle. He wrote to a friend in England, "But for the natives in these parts, God hath so pursued them, as for 300 miles space the greatest part of them are swept away by smallpox which still continues among them. So as God hath thereby cleared our title to this place, those who remain in these parts, being in all not 50, have put themselves under our protection."
The deadly impact of European diseases and the good will of the Wampanoag allowed the Puritans to survive their first year.
In celebration of their good fortune, the colony's governor, William Bradford, declared a three-day feast of thanksgiving after that first harvest of 1621.
How the Puritans Stole the Land
But the peace that produced the Thanksgiving Feast of 1621 meant that the Puritans would have 15 years to establish a firm foothold on the coast. Until 1629 there were no more than 300 Puritans in New England, scattered in small and isolated settlements. But their survival inspired a wave of Puritan invasion that soon established growing Massachusetts towns north of Plymouth: Boston and Salem. For 10 years, boatloads of new settlers came.
And as the number of Europeans increased, they proved not nearly so generous as the Wampanoags.
On arrival, the Puritans discussed "who legally owns all this land." They had to decide this, not just because of Anglo-Saxon traditions, but because their particular way of farming was based on individual--not communal or tribal--ownership. This debate over land ownership reveals that bourgeois "rule of law" does not mean "protect the rights of the masses of people."
Some Puritans argued that the land belonged to the Indians. These forces were excommunicated and expelled. Massachusetts Governor Winthrop declared the Indians had not "subdued" the land, and therefore all uncultivated lands should, according to English Common Law, be considered "public domain." This meant they belonged to the king. In short, the colonists decided they did not need to consult the Indians when they seized new lands, they only had to consult the representative of the crown (meaning the local governor).
The Puritans embraced a line from Psalms 2:8. "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Since then, European settler states have similarly declared god their real estate agent: from the Boers seizing South Africa to the Zionists seizing Palestine.
The European immigrants took land and enslaved Indians to help them farm it. By 1637 there were about 2,000 British settlers. They pushed out from the coast and decided to remove the inhabitants.
The Birth of"The American Way of War"
In the Connecticut Valley, the powerful Pequot tribe had not entered an alliance with the British (as had the Narragansett, the Wampanoag, and the Massachusetts peoples). At first they were far from the centers of colonization. Then, in 1633, the British stole the land where the city of Hartford now sits--land which the Pequot had recently conquered from another tribe. That same year two British slave raiders were killed. The colonists demanded that the Indians who killed the slavers be turned over. The Pequot refused.
The Puritan preachers said, from Romans 13:2, "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." The colonial governments gathered an armed force of 240 under the command of John Mason. They were joined by a thousand Narragansett warriors. The historian Francis Jennings writes: "Mason proposed to avoid attacking Pequot warriors which would have overtaxed his unseasoned, unreliable troops. Battle, as such, was not his purpose. Battle is only one of the ways to destroy an enemy's will to fight. Massacre can accomplish the same end with less risk, and Mason had determined that massacre would be his objective."
The colonist army surrounded a fortified Pequot village on the Mystic River. At sunrise, as the inhabitants slept, the Puritan soldiers set the village on fire.
William Bradford, Governor of Plymouth, wrote: "Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire...horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them."
Mason himself wrote: "It may be demanded...Should not Christians have more mercy and compassion? But...sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents.... We had sufficient light from the word of God for our proceedings."
Three hundred and fifty years later the Puritan phrase "a shining city on the hill" became a favorite quote of Ronald Reagan's speechwriters.
Discovering theProfits of Slavery
This so-called "Pequot war" was a one-sided murder and slaving expedition. Over 180 captives were taken. After consulting the bible again, in Leviticus 24:44, the colonial authorities found justification to kill most of the Pequot men and enslave the captured women and their children. Only 500 Pequot remained alive and free. In 1975 the official number of Pequot living in Connecticut was 21.
Some of the war captives were given to the Narragansett and Massachusetts allies of the British. Even before the arrival of Europeans, Native peoples of North America had widely practiced taking war captives from other tribes as hostages and slaves.
The remaining captives were sold to British plantation colonies in the West Indies to be worked to death in a new form of slavery that served the emerging capitalist world market. And with that, the merchants of Boston made a historic discovery: the profits they made from the sale of human beings virtually paid for the cost of seizing them.
One account says that enslaving Indians quickly became a "mania with speculators." These early merchant capitalists of Massachusetts started to make genocide pay for itself. The slave trade, first in captured Indians and soon in kidnapped Africans, quickly became a backbone of New England merchant capitalism.
Thanksgiving in theManhattan Colony
In 1641 the Dutch governor Kieft of Manhattan offered the first "scalp bounty"--his government paid money for the scalp of each Indian brought to them. A couple years later, Kieft ordered the massacre of the Wappingers, a friendly tribe. Eighty were killed and their severed heads were kicked like soccer balls down the streets of Manhattan. One captive was castrated, skinned alive and forced to eat his own flesh while the Dutch governor watched and laughed. Then Kieft hired the notorious Underhill who had commanded in the Pequot war to carry out a similar massacre near Stamford, Connecticut. The village was set fire, and 500 Indian residents were put to the sword.
A day of thanksgiving was proclaimed in the churches of Manhattan. As we will see, the European colonists declared Thanksgiving Days to celebrate mass murder more often than they did for harvest and friendship.
The Conquest of New England
By the 1670s there were about 30,000 to 40,000 white inhabitants in the United New England Colonies--6,000 to 8,000 able to bear arms. With the Pequot destroyed, the Massachusetts and Plymouth colonists turned on the Wampanoag, the tribe that had saved them in 1620 and probably joined them for the original Thanksgiving Day.
In 1675 a Christian Wampanoag was killed while spying for the Puritans. The Plymouth authorities arrested and executed three Wampanoag without consulting the tribal chief, King Philip.
As Mao Tsetung says: "Where there is oppression there is resistance." The Wampanoag went to war.
The Indians applied some military lessons they had learned: they waged a guerrilla war which overran isolated European settlements and were often able to inflict casualties on the Puritan soldiers. The colonists again attacked and massacred the main Indian populations.
When this war ended, 600 European men, one-eleventh of the adult men of the New England Colonies, had been killed in battle. Hundreds of homes and 13 settlements had been wiped out. But the colonists won.
In their victory, the settlers launched an all-out genocide against the remaining Native people. The Massachusetts government offered 20 shillings bounty for every Indian scalp, and 40 shillings for every prisoner who could be sold into slavery. Soldiers were allowed to enslave any Indian woman or child under 14 they could capture. The "Praying Indians" who had converted to Christianity and fought on the side of the European troops were accused of shooting into the treetops during battles with "hostiles." They were enslaved or killed. Other "peaceful" Indians of Dartmouth and Dover were invited to negotiate or seek refuge at trading posts--and were sold onto slave ships.
It is not known how many Indians were sold into slavery, but in this campaign, 500 enslaved Indians were shipped from Plymouth alone. Of the 12,000 Indians in the surrounding tribes, probably about half died from battle, massacre and starvation.
After King Philip's War, there were almost no Indians left free in the northern British colonies. A colonist wrote from Manhattan's New York colony: "There is now but few Indians upon the island and those few no ways hurtful. It is to be admired how strangely they have decreased by the hand of God, since the English first settled in these parts."
In Massachusetts, the colonists declared a "day of public thanksgiving" in 1676, saying, "there now scarce remains a name or family of them [the Indians] but are either slain, captivated or fled."
Fifty-five years after the original Thanksgiving Day, the Puritans had destroyed the generous Wampanoag and all other neighboring tribes. The Wampanoag chief King Philip was beheaded. His head was stuck on a pole in Plymouth, where the skull still hung on display 24 years later.
The descendants of these Native peoples are found wherever the Puritan merchant capitalists found markets for slaves: the West Indies, the Azures, Algiers, Spain and England. The grandson of Massasoit, the Pilgrim's original protector, was sold into slavery in Bermuda.
Runaways and Rebels
But even the destruction of Indian tribal life and the enslavement of survivors brought no peace. Indians continued to resist in every available way. Their oppressors lived in terror of a revolt. And they searched for ways to end the resistance. The historian MacLeod writes: "The first `reservations' were designed for the `wild' Irish of Ulster in 1609. And the first Indian reservation agent in America, Gookin of Massachusetts, like many other American immigrants had seen service in Ireland under Cromwell."
The enslaved Indians refused to work and ran away. The Massachusetts government tried to control runaways by marking enslaved Indians: brands were burnt into their skin, and symbols were tattooed into their foreheads and cheeks.
A Massachusetts law of 1695 gave colonists permission to kill Indians at will, declaring it was "lawful for any person, whether English or Indian, that shall find any Indians traveling or skulking in any of the towns or roads (within specified limits), to command them under their guard and examination, or to kill them as they may or can."
The northern colonists enacted more and more laws for controlling the people. A law in Albany forbade any African or Indian slave from driving a cart within the city. Curfews were set up; Africans and Indians were forbidden to have evening get-togethers. On Block Island, Indians were given 10 lashes for being out after nine o'clock. In 1692 Massachusetts made it a serious crime for any white person to marry an African, an Indian or a mulatto. In 1706 they tried to stop the importation of Indian slaves from other colonies, fearing a slave revolt.
Celebrate?
Looking at this history raises a question: Why should anyone celebrate the survival of the earliest Puritans with a Thanksgiving Day? Certainly the Native peoples of those times had no reason to celebrate.
A little known fact: Squanto, the so-called "hero" of the original Thanksgiving Day, was executed by the Indians for his treacheries.
But the ruling powers of the United States organized people to celebrate Thanksgiving Day because it is in their interest. That's why they created it. The first national celebration of Thanksgiving was called for by George Washington. And the celebration was made a regular legal holiday later by Abraham Lincoln during the civil war (right as he sent troops to suppress the Sioux of Minnesota).
Washington and Lincoln were two presidents deeply involved in trying to forge a unified bourgeois nation-state out of the European settlers in the United States. And the Thanksgiving story was a useful myth in their efforts at U.S. nation-building. It celebrates the "bounty of the American way of life," while covering up the brutal nature of this society.
This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker Onlinehttp://www.mcs.net/~rworWrite: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60054Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497(The RW Online does not currently communicate via email.)
As a British friend told me, "We don't celebrate Thanksgiving in England. We kicked those buggers out!!"
The article below contains a lot of information unfamiliar to most of us educated in the official tradition. Much of it is disgusting, but what struck me most is the way in which God and the Bible are brought in to justify atrocities.
I'm going to re-read this article tomorrow, eating a left-over turkey sandwich.
Happy day off (if you have one - somebody has to keep the stores open to sell X-mas presents).
- Uke Man
Native Blood: The Myth of Thanksgiving
Revolutionary Worker #883, November 24, 1996
Every schoolchild in the U.S. has been taught that the Pilgrims of the Plymouth Colony invited the local Indians to a major harvest feast after surviving their first bitter year in New England. But the real history of Thanksgiving is a story of the murder of indigenous people and the theft of their land by European colonialists--and of the ruthless ways of capitalism.
* * * * *
In mid-winter 1620 the English ship Mayflower landed on the North American coast, delivering 102 Puritan exiles. The original Native people of this stretch of shoreline had already been killed off. In 1614 a British expedition had landed there. When they left they took 24 Indians as slaves and left smallpox behind. Three years of plague wiped out between 90 and 96 percent of the inhabitants of the coast, destroying most villages completely.
The Puritans landed and built their colony called "the Plymouth Plantation" near the deserted ruins of the Indian village of Pawtuxet. They ate from abandoned cornfields grown wild. Only one Pawtuxet named Squanto had survived--he had spent the last years as a slave to the English and Spanish in Europe. Squanto spoke the colonists' language and taught them how to plant corn and how to catch fish until the first harvest. Squanto also helped the colonists negotiate a peace treaty with the nearby Wampanoag tribe, led by the chief Massasoit.
These were very lucky breaks for the colonists. The first Virginia settlement had been wiped out before they could establish themselves. Thanks to the good will of the Wampanoag, the Puritans not only survived their first year but had an alliance with the Wampanoags that would give them almost two decades of peace.
John Winthrop, a founder of the Massahusetts Bay colony considered this wave of illness and death to be a divine miracle. He wrote to a friend in England, "But for the natives in these parts, God hath so pursued them, as for 300 miles space the greatest part of them are swept away by smallpox which still continues among them. So as God hath thereby cleared our title to this place, those who remain in these parts, being in all not 50, have put themselves under our protection."
The deadly impact of European diseases and the good will of the Wampanoag allowed the Puritans to survive their first year.
In celebration of their good fortune, the colony's governor, William Bradford, declared a three-day feast of thanksgiving after that first harvest of 1621.
How the Puritans Stole the Land
But the peace that produced the Thanksgiving Feast of 1621 meant that the Puritans would have 15 years to establish a firm foothold on the coast. Until 1629 there were no more than 300 Puritans in New England, scattered in small and isolated settlements. But their survival inspired a wave of Puritan invasion that soon established growing Massachusetts towns north of Plymouth: Boston and Salem. For 10 years, boatloads of new settlers came.
And as the number of Europeans increased, they proved not nearly so generous as the Wampanoags.
On arrival, the Puritans discussed "who legally owns all this land." They had to decide this, not just because of Anglo-Saxon traditions, but because their particular way of farming was based on individual--not communal or tribal--ownership. This debate over land ownership reveals that bourgeois "rule of law" does not mean "protect the rights of the masses of people."
Some Puritans argued that the land belonged to the Indians. These forces were excommunicated and expelled. Massachusetts Governor Winthrop declared the Indians had not "subdued" the land, and therefore all uncultivated lands should, according to English Common Law, be considered "public domain." This meant they belonged to the king. In short, the colonists decided they did not need to consult the Indians when they seized new lands, they only had to consult the representative of the crown (meaning the local governor).
The Puritans embraced a line from Psalms 2:8. "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Since then, European settler states have similarly declared god their real estate agent: from the Boers seizing South Africa to the Zionists seizing Palestine.
The European immigrants took land and enslaved Indians to help them farm it. By 1637 there were about 2,000 British settlers. They pushed out from the coast and decided to remove the inhabitants.
The Birth of"The American Way of War"
In the Connecticut Valley, the powerful Pequot tribe had not entered an alliance with the British (as had the Narragansett, the Wampanoag, and the Massachusetts peoples). At first they were far from the centers of colonization. Then, in 1633, the British stole the land where the city of Hartford now sits--land which the Pequot had recently conquered from another tribe. That same year two British slave raiders were killed. The colonists demanded that the Indians who killed the slavers be turned over. The Pequot refused.
The Puritan preachers said, from Romans 13:2, "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." The colonial governments gathered an armed force of 240 under the command of John Mason. They were joined by a thousand Narragansett warriors. The historian Francis Jennings writes: "Mason proposed to avoid attacking Pequot warriors which would have overtaxed his unseasoned, unreliable troops. Battle, as such, was not his purpose. Battle is only one of the ways to destroy an enemy's will to fight. Massacre can accomplish the same end with less risk, and Mason had determined that massacre would be his objective."
The colonist army surrounded a fortified Pequot village on the Mystic River. At sunrise, as the inhabitants slept, the Puritan soldiers set the village on fire.
William Bradford, Governor of Plymouth, wrote: "Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire...horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them."
Mason himself wrote: "It may be demanded...Should not Christians have more mercy and compassion? But...sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents.... We had sufficient light from the word of God for our proceedings."
Three hundred and fifty years later the Puritan phrase "a shining city on the hill" became a favorite quote of Ronald Reagan's speechwriters.
Discovering theProfits of Slavery
This so-called "Pequot war" was a one-sided murder and slaving expedition. Over 180 captives were taken. After consulting the bible again, in Leviticus 24:44, the colonial authorities found justification to kill most of the Pequot men and enslave the captured women and their children. Only 500 Pequot remained alive and free. In 1975 the official number of Pequot living in Connecticut was 21.
Some of the war captives were given to the Narragansett and Massachusetts allies of the British. Even before the arrival of Europeans, Native peoples of North America had widely practiced taking war captives from other tribes as hostages and slaves.
The remaining captives were sold to British plantation colonies in the West Indies to be worked to death in a new form of slavery that served the emerging capitalist world market. And with that, the merchants of Boston made a historic discovery: the profits they made from the sale of human beings virtually paid for the cost of seizing them.
One account says that enslaving Indians quickly became a "mania with speculators." These early merchant capitalists of Massachusetts started to make genocide pay for itself. The slave trade, first in captured Indians and soon in kidnapped Africans, quickly became a backbone of New England merchant capitalism.
Thanksgiving in theManhattan Colony
In 1641 the Dutch governor Kieft of Manhattan offered the first "scalp bounty"--his government paid money for the scalp of each Indian brought to them. A couple years later, Kieft ordered the massacre of the Wappingers, a friendly tribe. Eighty were killed and their severed heads were kicked like soccer balls down the streets of Manhattan. One captive was castrated, skinned alive and forced to eat his own flesh while the Dutch governor watched and laughed. Then Kieft hired the notorious Underhill who had commanded in the Pequot war to carry out a similar massacre near Stamford, Connecticut. The village was set fire, and 500 Indian residents were put to the sword.
A day of thanksgiving was proclaimed in the churches of Manhattan. As we will see, the European colonists declared Thanksgiving Days to celebrate mass murder more often than they did for harvest and friendship.
The Conquest of New England
By the 1670s there were about 30,000 to 40,000 white inhabitants in the United New England Colonies--6,000 to 8,000 able to bear arms. With the Pequot destroyed, the Massachusetts and Plymouth colonists turned on the Wampanoag, the tribe that had saved them in 1620 and probably joined them for the original Thanksgiving Day.
In 1675 a Christian Wampanoag was killed while spying for the Puritans. The Plymouth authorities arrested and executed three Wampanoag without consulting the tribal chief, King Philip.
As Mao Tsetung says: "Where there is oppression there is resistance." The Wampanoag went to war.
The Indians applied some military lessons they had learned: they waged a guerrilla war which overran isolated European settlements and were often able to inflict casualties on the Puritan soldiers. The colonists again attacked and massacred the main Indian populations.
When this war ended, 600 European men, one-eleventh of the adult men of the New England Colonies, had been killed in battle. Hundreds of homes and 13 settlements had been wiped out. But the colonists won.
In their victory, the settlers launched an all-out genocide against the remaining Native people. The Massachusetts government offered 20 shillings bounty for every Indian scalp, and 40 shillings for every prisoner who could be sold into slavery. Soldiers were allowed to enslave any Indian woman or child under 14 they could capture. The "Praying Indians" who had converted to Christianity and fought on the side of the European troops were accused of shooting into the treetops during battles with "hostiles." They were enslaved or killed. Other "peaceful" Indians of Dartmouth and Dover were invited to negotiate or seek refuge at trading posts--and were sold onto slave ships.
It is not known how many Indians were sold into slavery, but in this campaign, 500 enslaved Indians were shipped from Plymouth alone. Of the 12,000 Indians in the surrounding tribes, probably about half died from battle, massacre and starvation.
After King Philip's War, there were almost no Indians left free in the northern British colonies. A colonist wrote from Manhattan's New York colony: "There is now but few Indians upon the island and those few no ways hurtful. It is to be admired how strangely they have decreased by the hand of God, since the English first settled in these parts."
In Massachusetts, the colonists declared a "day of public thanksgiving" in 1676, saying, "there now scarce remains a name or family of them [the Indians] but are either slain, captivated or fled."
Fifty-five years after the original Thanksgiving Day, the Puritans had destroyed the generous Wampanoag and all other neighboring tribes. The Wampanoag chief King Philip was beheaded. His head was stuck on a pole in Plymouth, where the skull still hung on display 24 years later.
The descendants of these Native peoples are found wherever the Puritan merchant capitalists found markets for slaves: the West Indies, the Azures, Algiers, Spain and England. The grandson of Massasoit, the Pilgrim's original protector, was sold into slavery in Bermuda.
Runaways and Rebels
But even the destruction of Indian tribal life and the enslavement of survivors brought no peace. Indians continued to resist in every available way. Their oppressors lived in terror of a revolt. And they searched for ways to end the resistance. The historian MacLeod writes: "The first `reservations' were designed for the `wild' Irish of Ulster in 1609. And the first Indian reservation agent in America, Gookin of Massachusetts, like many other American immigrants had seen service in Ireland under Cromwell."
The enslaved Indians refused to work and ran away. The Massachusetts government tried to control runaways by marking enslaved Indians: brands were burnt into their skin, and symbols were tattooed into their foreheads and cheeks.
A Massachusetts law of 1695 gave colonists permission to kill Indians at will, declaring it was "lawful for any person, whether English or Indian, that shall find any Indians traveling or skulking in any of the towns or roads (within specified limits), to command them under their guard and examination, or to kill them as they may or can."
The northern colonists enacted more and more laws for controlling the people. A law in Albany forbade any African or Indian slave from driving a cart within the city. Curfews were set up; Africans and Indians were forbidden to have evening get-togethers. On Block Island, Indians were given 10 lashes for being out after nine o'clock. In 1692 Massachusetts made it a serious crime for any white person to marry an African, an Indian or a mulatto. In 1706 they tried to stop the importation of Indian slaves from other colonies, fearing a slave revolt.
Celebrate?
Looking at this history raises a question: Why should anyone celebrate the survival of the earliest Puritans with a Thanksgiving Day? Certainly the Native peoples of those times had no reason to celebrate.
A little known fact: Squanto, the so-called "hero" of the original Thanksgiving Day, was executed by the Indians for his treacheries.
But the ruling powers of the United States organized people to celebrate Thanksgiving Day because it is in their interest. That's why they created it. The first national celebration of Thanksgiving was called for by George Washington. And the celebration was made a regular legal holiday later by Abraham Lincoln during the civil war (right as he sent troops to suppress the Sioux of Minnesota).
Washington and Lincoln were two presidents deeply involved in trying to forge a unified bourgeois nation-state out of the European settlers in the United States. And the Thanksgiving story was a useful myth in their efforts at U.S. nation-building. It celebrates the "bounty of the American way of life," while covering up the brutal nature of this society.
This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker Onlinehttp://www.mcs.net/~rworWrite: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60054Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497(The RW Online does not currently communicate via email.)
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Sorry, but I just couldn't help laughing
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !!
Hey Folks,
I'm sorry, but you read this and keep from laughing:
"A college student told Bush his belief that U.S. wars were aimed at opening markets for American companies and said globalization was contrived for America’s benefit. Bush was having none of it. 'I think that’s weird and it’s nuts,' Bush said. 'To suggest that everything we do is because we’re hungry for money, I think that’s crazy. I think you need to go back to school.'
Right, 41 !!! Back when the Bush clan was tight with Hitler, it wasn't just for money then either - was it? It was probably to help the Jews and the Gypsies and the Gays, and the cripples - don'tyathink !!??
- Uke Man
Bush’s dad sticks up for him
Arab crowd blasts president, leading to heated exchanges
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Jim Krane - ASSOCIATED PRESS
ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — Former President George H.W. Bush took on Arab critics of his son yesterday during a testy exchange at a leadership conference in the capital of this U.S. ally.
"My son is an honest man," Bush told members of the audience who harshly criticized the U.S. leader’s foreign policy.
"We do not respect your son. We do not respect what he’s doing all over the world," a woman in the audience bluntly told Bush after his speech.
Bush, 82, appeared stunned as others in the audience whooped in approval.
A college student told Bush his belief that U.S. wars were aimed at opening markets for American companies and said globalization was contrived for America’s benefit. Bush was having none of it.
"I think that’s weird and it’s nuts," Bush said. "To suggest that everything we do is because we’re hungry for money, I think that’s crazy. I think you need to go back to school."
The hostile comments came during a question-and-answer session after Bush finished an address on leadership by telling the audience how hurt he feels when his son is criticized.
"This son is not going to back away," Bush said, his voice quivering. "He’s not going to change his view because some poll says this or some poll says that, or some heartfelt comments from the lady who feels deeply in her heart about something. You can’t be president of the United States and conduct yourself if you’re going to cut and run. This is going to work out in Iraq. I understand the anxiety. It’s not easy."
One audience member asked the former president what advice he gives his son on Iraq.
Bush said the presence of reporters in the audience prevented him from answering. He also declined to comment on his expectations for the findings of the Iraq Study Group, an advisory commission led by Bush’s former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee Hamilton.
"I have strong opinions on a lot of these things. But the reason I can’t voice them is, if I did what you ask me to do — tell you what advice I give my son — that would then be flashed all over the world," Bush said.
Hey Folks,
I'm sorry, but you read this and keep from laughing:
"A college student told Bush his belief that U.S. wars were aimed at opening markets for American companies and said globalization was contrived for America’s benefit. Bush was having none of it. 'I think that’s weird and it’s nuts,' Bush said. 'To suggest that everything we do is because we’re hungry for money, I think that’s crazy. I think you need to go back to school.'
Right, 41 !!! Back when the Bush clan was tight with Hitler, it wasn't just for money then either - was it? It was probably to help the Jews and the Gypsies and the Gays, and the cripples - don'tyathink !!??
- Uke Man
Bush’s dad sticks up for him
Arab crowd blasts president, leading to heated exchanges
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Jim Krane - ASSOCIATED PRESS
ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — Former President George H.W. Bush took on Arab critics of his son yesterday during a testy exchange at a leadership conference in the capital of this U.S. ally.
"My son is an honest man," Bush told members of the audience who harshly criticized the U.S. leader’s foreign policy.
"We do not respect your son. We do not respect what he’s doing all over the world," a woman in the audience bluntly told Bush after his speech.
Bush, 82, appeared stunned as others in the audience whooped in approval.
A college student told Bush his belief that U.S. wars were aimed at opening markets for American companies and said globalization was contrived for America’s benefit. Bush was having none of it.
"I think that’s weird and it’s nuts," Bush said. "To suggest that everything we do is because we’re hungry for money, I think that’s crazy. I think you need to go back to school."
The hostile comments came during a question-and-answer session after Bush finished an address on leadership by telling the audience how hurt he feels when his son is criticized.
"This son is not going to back away," Bush said, his voice quivering. "He’s not going to change his view because some poll says this or some poll says that, or some heartfelt comments from the lady who feels deeply in her heart about something. You can’t be president of the United States and conduct yourself if you’re going to cut and run. This is going to work out in Iraq. I understand the anxiety. It’s not easy."
One audience member asked the former president what advice he gives his son on Iraq.
Bush said the presence of reporters in the audience prevented him from answering. He also declined to comment on his expectations for the findings of the Iraq Study Group, an advisory commission led by Bush’s former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee Hamilton.
"I have strong opinions on a lot of these things. But the reason I can’t voice them is, if I did what you ask me to do — tell you what advice I give my son — that would then be flashed all over the world," Bush said.
Insane in the Membrane
Hey Folks,
Does this development strike you as diabolical and eerily threatening - something from a cheap summer horror film, "Invasion of the Bionic Hornets," the story of a deranged scientist's "creations" turning on him and escaping into the world to destroy the human race?
It did me.
What have we become? And it's so much more poignant coming out of Israel, the refuge of millions scarred by the insane atrocities and "experiments" of the Nazis.
Now we have Jews creating miniature demons that will flit like wasps, undetected on the summer breeze, to wherever we are lounging, snap our picture, crawl inside our ear, and blow out our brains. How efficient, charming, and delectable.
And you HAVE to love the bionic hand!! At last, that bit in all the horror flicks where the monster crushes a mans neck like an empty beer can will be a real option - even for 98 lb. weaklings. Cool !!!
Just a couple of things. What is a "militant"? Who writes the definition? Will Kkkarl Rove or John Bolton have access to these devices? How about Osama? And, is this like stem cell research?
- Uke Man
Israel developing anti-militant "bionic hornet"
Fri Nov 17, 3:24 AM ET
JERUSALEM (Reuters)
Israel is using nanotechnology to try to create a robot no bigger than a hornet that would be able to chase, photograph and kill its targets, an Israeli newspaper reported on Friday
The flying robot, nicknamed the "bionic hornet," would be able to navigate its way down narrow alleyways to target otherwise unreachable enemies such as rocket launchers, the daily Yedioth Ahronoth said.
It is one of several weapons being developed by scientists to combat militants, it said. Others include super gloves that would give the user the strength of a "bionic man" and miniature sensors to detect suicide bombers.
The research integrates nanotechnology into Israel's security department and will find creative solutions to problems the army has been unable to address, Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres told Yedioth Ahronoth.
"The war in Lebanon proved that we need smaller weaponry. It's illogical to send a plane worth $100 million against a suicidal terrorist. So we are building futuristic weapons," Peres said.
The 34-day war in Lebanon ended with a U.N.-brokered ceasefire in mid-August. The war killed more than 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and 157 Israelis, mostly soldiers.
Prototypes for the new weapons are expected within three years, he said.
Does this development strike you as diabolical and eerily threatening - something from a cheap summer horror film, "Invasion of the Bionic Hornets," the story of a deranged scientist's "creations" turning on him and escaping into the world to destroy the human race?
It did me.
What have we become? And it's so much more poignant coming out of Israel, the refuge of millions scarred by the insane atrocities and "experiments" of the Nazis.
Now we have Jews creating miniature demons that will flit like wasps, undetected on the summer breeze, to wherever we are lounging, snap our picture, crawl inside our ear, and blow out our brains. How efficient, charming, and delectable.
And you HAVE to love the bionic hand!! At last, that bit in all the horror flicks where the monster crushes a mans neck like an empty beer can will be a real option - even for 98 lb. weaklings. Cool !!!
Just a couple of things. What is a "militant"? Who writes the definition? Will Kkkarl Rove or John Bolton have access to these devices? How about Osama? And, is this like stem cell research?
- Uke Man
Israel developing anti-militant "bionic hornet"
Fri Nov 17, 3:24 AM ET
JERUSALEM (Reuters)
Israel is using nanotechnology to try to create a robot no bigger than a hornet that would be able to chase, photograph and kill its targets, an Israeli newspaper reported on Friday
The flying robot, nicknamed the "bionic hornet," would be able to navigate its way down narrow alleyways to target otherwise unreachable enemies such as rocket launchers, the daily Yedioth Ahronoth said.
It is one of several weapons being developed by scientists to combat militants, it said. Others include super gloves that would give the user the strength of a "bionic man" and miniature sensors to detect suicide bombers.
The research integrates nanotechnology into Israel's security department and will find creative solutions to problems the army has been unable to address, Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres told Yedioth Ahronoth.
"The war in Lebanon proved that we need smaller weaponry. It's illogical to send a plane worth $100 million against a suicidal terrorist. So we are building futuristic weapons," Peres said.
The 34-day war in Lebanon ended with a U.N.-brokered ceasefire in mid-August. The war killed more than 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and 157 Israelis, mostly soldiers.
Prototypes for the new weapons are expected within three years, he said.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
What have I been saying???
Hey Folks.
I'm just an old, retired 8th Grade English teacher/singer-song-writer; so, what I want to know is: how did I know most of this stuff a LONG, LONG, LONG time ago, and the "experts" are just beginning to say something about it?
Makes you wonder.
- Uke Man
Democrats better address Americans’ income fears
Sunday, November 19, 2006
E . J . DIONNE
Democrats might usefully take a break from their inane round of backstabbing and score-settling to focus for a few moments on why voters gave them their congressional majorities. A lot of Americans are hurting in the pocketbook, and if Democrats don’t use the next two years to help them, the party will squander the trust they have temporarily earned.
To prepare for next year, the Democrats and those Republicans who want to revive the GOP should read a truly remarkable speech that Janet Yellen, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, gave the day before voters went to the polls.
In plain language backed by sophisticated analysis, Yellen makes clear that voters who feel severe economic pressures are not deluded, despite the economy’s strong performance in keeping down unemployment and inflation.
The reason: new forms of inequality that don’t fit into our conventional understanding of how the economy works. She argues that "much of the gain from excellent macroeconomic performance has gone to just a small segment of the population: those already in the upper part of the distribution."
Yellen tells unfashionable truths. She does not contend, as many conservatives and free-traders try to, that globalization and decline in union membership are innocent in the inequality saga. "Globalization and skill-biased technological change may have been working in combination to particularly depress the wage gains of those in the middle of the U.S. wage distribution," she says.
Note the word middle. That’s where the biggest negative impact of globalization is being felt. At the top, Yellen says, globalization has been helpful to "highly able workers performing nonroutine work requiring problem-solving skills." In the middle, "technology and globalization had the opposite effect: substituting for workers performing routine or repetitive tasks and depressing their wages."
By the time we reached this decade, "many low-wage jobs that could be eliminated by technology had already vanished." That means the remaining jobs "involve manual and service work that cannot easily be automated."
As a result, "wages in the middle not only rose far more slowly than those at the top, they also rose more slowly than those at the bottom of the distribution."
Yes, there is a middle-class squeeze.
People at the bottom of the economy need help, which could come from an increase in the minimum wage, guaranteed health insurance or expanded wage subsidies through the Earned Income Tax Credit and unionization.
But for the left-out middle, which rebelled in large numbers on Election Day, the answers are more complicated, though no less urgent.
Job training and education are always touted as the answer. Yellen is all for them. But they are no cure-all because she notices something many others have ignored: Even the bettereducated are being hit by globalization and technological change.
She says that "the distribution of (job) displacement has shifted toward the highly educated: Workers holding a college degree saw nearly a 50 percent increase in their displacement rates between the early 1980s recession and the most recent one in 2001."
Americans are also suffering from much larger fluctuations in their incomes than in the past. In the 1970s, she says, "a typical family might have seen its income vary from a high of $60,000 to a low of $30,000 over the decade." In the most recent decade, the same family might see its income drop to as low as $15,000. Any wonder why so many working Americans are mad?
Yellen draws on the essential policy book of the year, Jacob S. Hacker’s The Great Risk Shift. Again, if Democrats get tired of recriminations over an election they won — imagine if they had lost! — they might spend time with Hacker, a political scientist who shows how more and more risk is being offloaded from government and private corporations and onto individuals. He makes a powerful case for remodeling our social insurance systems to provide genuine economic security for all working Americans.
Hacker makes the paradoxical and insightful point that "we are most capable of fully participating in our economy and our society, most capable of taking risks and looking toward our future, when we have a basic foundation of financial security." It’s common sense: Secure people are more likely to be risk-takers.
The task of creating an economy that is more just and more dynamic will not be completed within the life of the new Congress. It will take a decade of reform, experimentation and innovation. Now that House Democrats have settled on a majority leader, you can only hope they move away from self-involvement and start thinking about the people who sent them to Washington.
E.J. Dionne writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.
I'm just an old, retired 8th Grade English teacher/singer-song-writer; so, what I want to know is: how did I know most of this stuff a LONG, LONG, LONG time ago, and the "experts" are just beginning to say something about it?
Makes you wonder.
- Uke Man
Democrats better address Americans’ income fears
Sunday, November 19, 2006
E . J . DIONNE
Democrats might usefully take a break from their inane round of backstabbing and score-settling to focus for a few moments on why voters gave them their congressional majorities. A lot of Americans are hurting in the pocketbook, and if Democrats don’t use the next two years to help them, the party will squander the trust they have temporarily earned.
To prepare for next year, the Democrats and those Republicans who want to revive the GOP should read a truly remarkable speech that Janet Yellen, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, gave the day before voters went to the polls.
In plain language backed by sophisticated analysis, Yellen makes clear that voters who feel severe economic pressures are not deluded, despite the economy’s strong performance in keeping down unemployment and inflation.
The reason: new forms of inequality that don’t fit into our conventional understanding of how the economy works. She argues that "much of the gain from excellent macroeconomic performance has gone to just a small segment of the population: those already in the upper part of the distribution."
Yellen tells unfashionable truths. She does not contend, as many conservatives and free-traders try to, that globalization and decline in union membership are innocent in the inequality saga. "Globalization and skill-biased technological change may have been working in combination to particularly depress the wage gains of those in the middle of the U.S. wage distribution," she says.
Note the word middle. That’s where the biggest negative impact of globalization is being felt. At the top, Yellen says, globalization has been helpful to "highly able workers performing nonroutine work requiring problem-solving skills." In the middle, "technology and globalization had the opposite effect: substituting for workers performing routine or repetitive tasks and depressing their wages."
By the time we reached this decade, "many low-wage jobs that could be eliminated by technology had already vanished." That means the remaining jobs "involve manual and service work that cannot easily be automated."
As a result, "wages in the middle not only rose far more slowly than those at the top, they also rose more slowly than those at the bottom of the distribution."
Yes, there is a middle-class squeeze.
People at the bottom of the economy need help, which could come from an increase in the minimum wage, guaranteed health insurance or expanded wage subsidies through the Earned Income Tax Credit and unionization.
But for the left-out middle, which rebelled in large numbers on Election Day, the answers are more complicated, though no less urgent.
Job training and education are always touted as the answer. Yellen is all for them. But they are no cure-all because she notices something many others have ignored: Even the bettereducated are being hit by globalization and technological change.
She says that "the distribution of (job) displacement has shifted toward the highly educated: Workers holding a college degree saw nearly a 50 percent increase in their displacement rates between the early 1980s recession and the most recent one in 2001."
Americans are also suffering from much larger fluctuations in their incomes than in the past. In the 1970s, she says, "a typical family might have seen its income vary from a high of $60,000 to a low of $30,000 over the decade." In the most recent decade, the same family might see its income drop to as low as $15,000. Any wonder why so many working Americans are mad?
Yellen draws on the essential policy book of the year, Jacob S. Hacker’s The Great Risk Shift. Again, if Democrats get tired of recriminations over an election they won — imagine if they had lost! — they might spend time with Hacker, a political scientist who shows how more and more risk is being offloaded from government and private corporations and onto individuals. He makes a powerful case for remodeling our social insurance systems to provide genuine economic security for all working Americans.
Hacker makes the paradoxical and insightful point that "we are most capable of fully participating in our economy and our society, most capable of taking risks and looking toward our future, when we have a basic foundation of financial security." It’s common sense: Secure people are more likely to be risk-takers.
The task of creating an economy that is more just and more dynamic will not be completed within the life of the new Congress. It will take a decade of reform, experimentation and innovation. Now that House Democrats have settled on a majority leader, you can only hope they move away from self-involvement and start thinking about the people who sent them to Washington.
E.J. Dionne writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.
Keep your eyes on the prize !!
Hey Folks,
The struggle goes on, and we have yet to overcome; Dr. King's dream still awaits reality. Keep your eyes on the prize.
- Uke Man
November 16, 2006
A Story of Struggle and Hope
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Watching “Eyes on the Prize” again was like reminiscing with an old friend or relative about the bad old days that, in some important respects, were also the good old days.
Already the story so brilliantly told by this masterpiece of documentary filmmaking, the civil rights struggle of the 1950s and ’60s, is fading, like the images on old film stock, from our collective consciousness.
It’s fantastic to have a memorial to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on the National Mall in Washington. But “Eyes on the Prize” is the most powerful reminder we have of how broad the struggle was, how many people of great courage — from small children to very old men and women — signed on to it, how many of them suffered and sometimes died, and what all of us owe to all of them.
“Eyes on the Prize” shows us the many tragic byproducts of insane bigotry, like the hanging bodies of blacks who were lynched, their heads and necks forever frozen at grotesque angles. It shows us young whites beating the daylights out of unresisting protesters who had the temerity to take a seat at a segregated lunch counter.
These are things that should never be forgotten.
The bigotry of the period was so pervasive it flowed easily from the mouths of people who considered themselves sympathetic to the plight of blacks. A well-groomed, obviously middle-class white woman smiles into the camera and says, “I have thought for a long time that nigras should be allowed to sit at the counters where we are served downtown.”
“Eyes” first ran in 1987 and is being shown again this fall on PBS. Understated, mostly in black and white, it has lost none of its startling emotional impact. There were moments, as I watched the episodes unfold, when I wanted to jump through the television and throttle somebody.
Because of a logistical mix-up on Sept. 4, 1957, Elizabeth Eckford, a 15-year-old black student who dreamed of becoming a lawyer, showed up alone on the first day of the attempted integration of all-white Central High School in Little Rock, Ark. (Eight other students, accompanied by adults, arrived at the school in a group.) Ms. Eckford was met by a mob of whites and a contingent of National Guard soldiers who were determined to keep blacks out of the school.
The images of this frightened young girl in sunglasses and a white dress surrounded by adults who were all but foaming at the mouth, calling her the worst names, and screaming that she should be killed, lynched, for trying to go to school, never fail to enrage.
I think of “Eyes on the Prize” as a gift from the filmmaker Henry Hampton, whose goal was not just to document the struggle but to show it from the perspective of the people who were there. He once told me: “You have to get the story right in order to get its meaning. And the way to get it right it is to listen to the people who lived it.”
Mr. Hampton, who had suffered from polio as a child, died from the effects of lung cancer in 1998. He was only 58.
For all the hideous occurrences documented in the series — the murder of Emmett Till, the church bombing in Birmingham that killed four young girls in 1963, the tragic “freedom summer” in Mississippi the following year — there is nevertheless the stirring sense of achievement that runs like a golden thread through the narrative.
The bad old days were also the good old days in the sense that one can look back at many wonderful things that were associated with the movement — the iron-willed commitment of so many people, the sense of a great and common endeavor, the lifetime friendships that were forged, and the pride that came from an unwillingness, in even the darkest hours, to accept defeat.
There are many people now who have never heard of Emmett Till or Roy Wilkins or James Farmer, or the Edmund Pettus Bridge or the 16th Street Baptist Church, which is reason enough to want “Eyes on the Prize” to be with us forever.
Black Americans are far better off in almost every respect than they were in the mid-1960s, thanks in large part to the successes of the movement. But racism and discrimination persist, and there are still substantial disparities between blacks and whites on most indicators of social and economic well-being. There is also much still to be done about the self-inflicted wounds that have hindered the progress of many blacks.
“Eyes on the Prize” is a demonstration that even the greatest challenges can be overcome. It’s a national treasure, important for all the reasons that history is important.
The struggle goes on, and we have yet to overcome; Dr. King's dream still awaits reality. Keep your eyes on the prize.
- Uke Man
November 16, 2006
A Story of Struggle and Hope
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Watching “Eyes on the Prize” again was like reminiscing with an old friend or relative about the bad old days that, in some important respects, were also the good old days.
Already the story so brilliantly told by this masterpiece of documentary filmmaking, the civil rights struggle of the 1950s and ’60s, is fading, like the images on old film stock, from our collective consciousness.
It’s fantastic to have a memorial to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on the National Mall in Washington. But “Eyes on the Prize” is the most powerful reminder we have of how broad the struggle was, how many people of great courage — from small children to very old men and women — signed on to it, how many of them suffered and sometimes died, and what all of us owe to all of them.
“Eyes on the Prize” shows us the many tragic byproducts of insane bigotry, like the hanging bodies of blacks who were lynched, their heads and necks forever frozen at grotesque angles. It shows us young whites beating the daylights out of unresisting protesters who had the temerity to take a seat at a segregated lunch counter.
These are things that should never be forgotten.
The bigotry of the period was so pervasive it flowed easily from the mouths of people who considered themselves sympathetic to the plight of blacks. A well-groomed, obviously middle-class white woman smiles into the camera and says, “I have thought for a long time that nigras should be allowed to sit at the counters where we are served downtown.”
“Eyes” first ran in 1987 and is being shown again this fall on PBS. Understated, mostly in black and white, it has lost none of its startling emotional impact. There were moments, as I watched the episodes unfold, when I wanted to jump through the television and throttle somebody.
Because of a logistical mix-up on Sept. 4, 1957, Elizabeth Eckford, a 15-year-old black student who dreamed of becoming a lawyer, showed up alone on the first day of the attempted integration of all-white Central High School in Little Rock, Ark. (Eight other students, accompanied by adults, arrived at the school in a group.) Ms. Eckford was met by a mob of whites and a contingent of National Guard soldiers who were determined to keep blacks out of the school.
The images of this frightened young girl in sunglasses and a white dress surrounded by adults who were all but foaming at the mouth, calling her the worst names, and screaming that she should be killed, lynched, for trying to go to school, never fail to enrage.
I think of “Eyes on the Prize” as a gift from the filmmaker Henry Hampton, whose goal was not just to document the struggle but to show it from the perspective of the people who were there. He once told me: “You have to get the story right in order to get its meaning. And the way to get it right it is to listen to the people who lived it.”
Mr. Hampton, who had suffered from polio as a child, died from the effects of lung cancer in 1998. He was only 58.
For all the hideous occurrences documented in the series — the murder of Emmett Till, the church bombing in Birmingham that killed four young girls in 1963, the tragic “freedom summer” in Mississippi the following year — there is nevertheless the stirring sense of achievement that runs like a golden thread through the narrative.
The bad old days were also the good old days in the sense that one can look back at many wonderful things that were associated with the movement — the iron-willed commitment of so many people, the sense of a great and common endeavor, the lifetime friendships that were forged, and the pride that came from an unwillingness, in even the darkest hours, to accept defeat.
There are many people now who have never heard of Emmett Till or Roy Wilkins or James Farmer, or the Edmund Pettus Bridge or the 16th Street Baptist Church, which is reason enough to want “Eyes on the Prize” to be with us forever.
Black Americans are far better off in almost every respect than they were in the mid-1960s, thanks in large part to the successes of the movement. But racism and discrimination persist, and there are still substantial disparities between blacks and whites on most indicators of social and economic well-being. There is also much still to be done about the self-inflicted wounds that have hindered the progress of many blacks.
“Eyes on the Prize” is a demonstration that even the greatest challenges can be overcome. It’s a national treasure, important for all the reasons that history is important.
Monday, November 20, 2006
It was a dark night in the City, but one man was still on the beat, making music for the forgotten: Ukulele Man
Preview of Coming Attractions
Hey Folks,
On my way to visit my son Travis and his family in New Hampshire, I'll be stopping in Boston to do a show (Dec. 13). Returning to the scene of the crime, so to speak. A little over a year ago two vans stuffed with the Prodigal Sons and moi played Boston's Ukulele Noir after we'd played Manhattan's Bowery Poetry Club.
Now, the Uke Man is going at it again - but, alas, solo.
More as it approaches.
- Uke Man
On my way to visit my son Travis and his family in New Hampshire, I'll be stopping in Boston to do a show (Dec. 13). Returning to the scene of the crime, so to speak. A little over a year ago two vans stuffed with the Prodigal Sons and moi played Boston's Ukulele Noir after we'd played Manhattan's Bowery Poetry Club.
Now, the Uke Man is going at it again - but, alas, solo.
More as it approaches.
- Uke Man
Stranger in a Strange Land ??
Hey Folks,
For a long time I've been aware that it is often difficult for people who are heavily "invested" - whether economically or emotionally - in a subject to evaluate it in a "fair and balanced" manner. For example, slave owners, for the most part, found it impossible to admit the depravity of their "peculiar institution" because with slavery they were the Head Cheese and without it they were just – in nautical terms – the head.
At the same time, it was always my assumption that, while they knew the truth, they simply chose consciously or unconsciously not to admit it. Instead they would implement some form of Orwellian double-think to suppress the truth, and live in denial. A recent number of occurrences on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, however, have raised some doubts.
Joe Scarborough for several days in a row felt the need to attack Rosie O'Donnell - a recent arrival on The View - for supposedly being anti-Christian. Sometime later he spent several days attacking John Kerry for “attacking the troops” via a joke. Most recently he has taken Bill Maher to task for “crossing the line” by outing Ken Mehlman, the head - until recently - of the National Republican Party.
On the one hand, Scarborough seems genuinely concerned that he be seen as a fair commentator. He went so far as to strenuously confront fellow MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews on this point during election coverage. Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, you may know, is the one who shocked fellow conservatives by focusing an entire program on the topic "Is Bush an idiot?"
He quite strenuously pointed out to Matthews during their interchange that, if anything, he had been harder on his "own party" than on the Democrats. If we can trust appearances in this regard, then it is possible that something quite disturbing may have been revealed: these "conservatives" who are invested – consciously or unconsciously - economically and emotionally in racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, religious dominion, and the rest aren't exercising double-think, aren't in a state of denial, but rather are peculiarly retarded intellectually. They can't comprehend a moral, ethical contradiction even if they try, even if it hits them in the face.
For example, Rosie simply said, "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America - where we have a separation of church and state - we're a democracy." Here's a video:
Rosie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RXiXwFB9co
Now, one can disagree whether we have separation of church and state, or whether we are a democracy, or where radical Islam and radical Christianity fit on a spectrum; but there is clearly nothing here that remotely can be construed as "Anti-Christian." It just doesn't fly.
Rosie spoke to RADICAL Christianity. That in itself removes the comment from any general reference to Christianity. To say otherwise is nonsense. For example, if I say, "The leaves of poisonous plants are not good to eat," I am not attacking salads.
I found it astounding. There was this educated, middle-aged man, with experience as a congressman, and a regular program on national television going on like someone with brain damage. Rosie hates Christians; the Uke Man hates salads. It was incomprehensible.
As for the John Kerry "joke," all sorts of legitimate criticism can be leveled at Kerry for his "joke," but claiming he attacked the troops is as valid as claiming I attacked salads. What he actually said, probably did unintentionally upset some of our troops, but his problem was ineptness and stupidity, NOT disrespect for the troops. That is perfectly clear. Here's a video:
Kerry joke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAgaqpy1ov8
Of course there were many Righties who knew it was crap but couldn't wait to smear a Democrat with it. Even Hillary hurried to dump on her competitor. Nothing new there. But Simple Scarborough - jesus h. christ!!! He just zombied along, claiming repeatedly and with certainty that Kerry attacked the troops.
And here is the important part. If he REALLY is trying to be fair, he must be somehow deranged, nuance-challenged, mentally deficient. And if he truly IS that way, how many more earnest right-wing cretins are out there?
And there's more.
Scarborough says he likes Bill Maher but took him to task for telling the world - on Larry King's show - something many of us already had heard: Ken Mehlman is gay. Here's the video:
Bill Maher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33Jub4Itpm4
Scarborough claimed Maher had "crossed the line." Again, it seems an incomprehensible conclusion. Here is Mehlman the HEAD of a political party busilly drenching the nation in anti-gay rhetoric - and HE is a GAY man!! What can't Simple Scarborough understand? Bill wasn't nice to Ken???
Well, that's true, but how nice was Ken to millions of gays and lesbians? And what about the comment "politics isn't beanbag" that nasty politicians use to justify winning at any price?
As I suggested earlier, if we can trust the appearance that Joe Scarborough does honestly want to be fair and balanced, then he has revealed something new and startling - at least to me: some number, possibly a large one, of right-wingers mean well but are somehow morally, ethically, rationally, and/or intellectually retarded. They are not employing double-think; they are not in denial; they are congenitally deaf, dumb, and blind to things that are glaringly obvious to lefties; they just don't get it.
If true, this is an important consideration for everyone who can and does find glaring contradictions within our society. Thomas Jefferson certainly knew that slavery was wrong; he just couldn’t bring himself to do much about it until he was dead and didn’t personally need his "property" any more.
That is one thing. To combat it, one need only make it personally more destructive to continue the practice than to end it. Rational racists will see the proper option.
On the other hand, if there are a considerable number of these retarded “Scarborough conservatives" out there, what are the ramifications of that? What does it explain? How should it be dealt with? What does it mean?
If it turns out that a large part of the world IS made up of Scarborough zombies, I will have to make a lot of adjustments in how I've come to see the world and how I've come to deal with it.
Onward and upward !!!
- Uke Man
For a long time I've been aware that it is often difficult for people who are heavily "invested" - whether economically or emotionally - in a subject to evaluate it in a "fair and balanced" manner. For example, slave owners, for the most part, found it impossible to admit the depravity of their "peculiar institution" because with slavery they were the Head Cheese and without it they were just – in nautical terms – the head.
At the same time, it was always my assumption that, while they knew the truth, they simply chose consciously or unconsciously not to admit it. Instead they would implement some form of Orwellian double-think to suppress the truth, and live in denial. A recent number of occurrences on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, however, have raised some doubts.
Joe Scarborough for several days in a row felt the need to attack Rosie O'Donnell - a recent arrival on The View - for supposedly being anti-Christian. Sometime later he spent several days attacking John Kerry for “attacking the troops” via a joke. Most recently he has taken Bill Maher to task for “crossing the line” by outing Ken Mehlman, the head - until recently - of the National Republican Party.
On the one hand, Scarborough seems genuinely concerned that he be seen as a fair commentator. He went so far as to strenuously confront fellow MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews on this point during election coverage. Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, you may know, is the one who shocked fellow conservatives by focusing an entire program on the topic "Is Bush an idiot?"
He quite strenuously pointed out to Matthews during their interchange that, if anything, he had been harder on his "own party" than on the Democrats. If we can trust appearances in this regard, then it is possible that something quite disturbing may have been revealed: these "conservatives" who are invested – consciously or unconsciously - economically and emotionally in racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, religious dominion, and the rest aren't exercising double-think, aren't in a state of denial, but rather are peculiarly retarded intellectually. They can't comprehend a moral, ethical contradiction even if they try, even if it hits them in the face.
For example, Rosie simply said, "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America - where we have a separation of church and state - we're a democracy." Here's a video:
Rosie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RXiXwFB9co
Now, one can disagree whether we have separation of church and state, or whether we are a democracy, or where radical Islam and radical Christianity fit on a spectrum; but there is clearly nothing here that remotely can be construed as "Anti-Christian." It just doesn't fly.
Rosie spoke to RADICAL Christianity. That in itself removes the comment from any general reference to Christianity. To say otherwise is nonsense. For example, if I say, "The leaves of poisonous plants are not good to eat," I am not attacking salads.
I found it astounding. There was this educated, middle-aged man, with experience as a congressman, and a regular program on national television going on like someone with brain damage. Rosie hates Christians; the Uke Man hates salads. It was incomprehensible.
As for the John Kerry "joke," all sorts of legitimate criticism can be leveled at Kerry for his "joke," but claiming he attacked the troops is as valid as claiming I attacked salads. What he actually said, probably did unintentionally upset some of our troops, but his problem was ineptness and stupidity, NOT disrespect for the troops. That is perfectly clear. Here's a video:
Kerry joke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAgaqpy1ov8
Of course there were many Righties who knew it was crap but couldn't wait to smear a Democrat with it. Even Hillary hurried to dump on her competitor. Nothing new there. But Simple Scarborough - jesus h. christ!!! He just zombied along, claiming repeatedly and with certainty that Kerry attacked the troops.
And here is the important part. If he REALLY is trying to be fair, he must be somehow deranged, nuance-challenged, mentally deficient. And if he truly IS that way, how many more earnest right-wing cretins are out there?
And there's more.
Scarborough says he likes Bill Maher but took him to task for telling the world - on Larry King's show - something many of us already had heard: Ken Mehlman is gay. Here's the video:
Bill Maher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33Jub4Itpm4
Scarborough claimed Maher had "crossed the line." Again, it seems an incomprehensible conclusion. Here is Mehlman the HEAD of a political party busilly drenching the nation in anti-gay rhetoric - and HE is a GAY man!! What can't Simple Scarborough understand? Bill wasn't nice to Ken???
Well, that's true, but how nice was Ken to millions of gays and lesbians? And what about the comment "politics isn't beanbag" that nasty politicians use to justify winning at any price?
As I suggested earlier, if we can trust the appearance that Joe Scarborough does honestly want to be fair and balanced, then he has revealed something new and startling - at least to me: some number, possibly a large one, of right-wingers mean well but are somehow morally, ethically, rationally, and/or intellectually retarded. They are not employing double-think; they are not in denial; they are congenitally deaf, dumb, and blind to things that are glaringly obvious to lefties; they just don't get it.
If true, this is an important consideration for everyone who can and does find glaring contradictions within our society. Thomas Jefferson certainly knew that slavery was wrong; he just couldn’t bring himself to do much about it until he was dead and didn’t personally need his "property" any more.
That is one thing. To combat it, one need only make it personally more destructive to continue the practice than to end it. Rational racists will see the proper option.
On the other hand, if there are a considerable number of these retarded “Scarborough conservatives" out there, what are the ramifications of that? What does it explain? How should it be dealt with? What does it mean?
If it turns out that a large part of the world IS made up of Scarborough zombies, I will have to make a lot of adjustments in how I've come to see the world and how I've come to deal with it.
Onward and upward !!!
- Uke Man
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Another view of the Big Game
Hey Folks,
The game is over, Ohio State won 42-39 in a high-scoring, un-Woody-Bo type game. The insanity that hovers around OSU football is astounding to those not immured by a lifetime of proximity.
I agree with Du Bois and go further: sports are now more the opiate of the people than is religion.
In any case, the "authorities" managed to keep the Vandals & Visigoths relatively at bay. I've included part of a morning-after report by the Columbus Dispatch after The Nation article.
- Uke Man
Michigan - Ohio State Fever
The Nation
By Dave Zirin
Ohio State, Michigan! Michigan, Ohio State! The most storied rivalry in college football comes to Columbus on Saturday. This year both squads are undefeated, ranked first and second in the country. This has created an intensity so high-pitched that the cities of Columbus and Ann Arbor threaten to spontaneously combust into clouds of scarlet and gray, blue and gold.
A century ago, W.E.B. Du Bois spoke out against "king football" and its potential to cause the "vulgarization of campus life." If Du Bois were alive today, he would not be amused. OSU-Michigan rivalry transcends vulgarity: This is sports as occupier; sports as the all-consuming Moloch bent on ingesting anyone trying to read a book on the quad or toss a frisbee.
Not even the body politic is immune to this demon in a varsity T-shirt. One of the most closely watched Congressional elections in the country, between Ohio Republican Deborah Pryce and Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy, still has no declared winner. At this writing, Pryce leads by roughly 3,600 votes with 18,000 absentee and 9,000 provisional ballots still to be counted. The count was supposed to begin November 18, but that is game day, so it will be delayed until Sunday. As a Chicago Tribune headline writer noted in its coverage of the race, "No contest: It's Ohio State-Michigan in a landslide."
But Saturday's insanity is highlighted in fears that this friendly game of pigskin will end in an orgy of junior-league sectarian violence. The student newspaper The Lantern contains a plea to Ohio State students to "use your passion tactfully, not criminally, because...the Columbus and university police will be out in full force before and after Saturday's kick-off. I would imagine spending all day and night Saturday at the Franklin County jail is not the memory OSU fans want to have."
The paper also reports that the police have taken steps to remove the temptation of car-burning around the campus area by prohibiting parking on a number of local streets.
Fire is a real fear in the game's aftermath. I heard a local sports radio announcer joke uneasily Sunday about how people should make sure they burn their old couches, not new ones--a reference to the more than fifty fires that took place after Ohio State defeated Texas earlier this year.
But for those who can't wait until after the game, a Friday night "Hate Michigan" rally was planned in Columbus, headlined by local band the Dead Schembechlers (The band, named after former Michigan coach Bo Schembechler, who died suddenly on Friday, announced that it would disband in honor of the coach and donate any proceeds from the rally to charity. To the organizers' credit, after Schembechler's death, the rally was re-named "Beat Michigan.)
The mood in Columbus has caused enough concern that University of Michigan dean of students Sue Eklund, along with the head of the Alumni Association and the student body president issued official warnings to students about traveling to Columbus.
Some of the advice they give includes:
--Try carpooling to the game; if possible, drive a car with non- Michigan license plates.
--Keep your Michigan gear to a minimum, or wait until you are inside the stadium to display it.
--Stay low-key; don't draw unnecessary attention to yourself.
And then there's the drinking. Ohio State has threatened to suspend students under 21 caught with the demon rum, but The Lantern writes with ironic restraint, "If the university were to kick out each student arrested for underage drinking, we would not have as many students."
This is farce carrying the threat of tragedy. The game should be an invitation to have some fun. Instead it becomes a backdrop for a raging bouillabaisse of testosterone and alienation. To the people of Columbus, and a university with a proud tradition of student organizing and solidarity, cheer yourselves hoarse for the Buckeyes on Saturday. But save your anger for the people who deserve it: the administrators who hiked your tuition while spending hundreds of thousands on stadium upkeep; the politicians who interfered with your right to vote in 2004 and the corporations that have created a Rust Belt state whose once-proud assembly lines are increasingly idle.
As OSU assistant professor and Buckeye fan Pranav Jani said to me, "In our drive to create an inclusive, safe and progressive environment on this campus, Wolverines are the least of our problems."
* * *
Morning-after report:
Unlike the game in 2002, when an undefeated Buckeye team beat Michigan, no wouldbe vandals tried to tear down the goal posts. But then, they were well-protected by lawenforcement officers, who formed a triangle around the greased-down posts and allowed fans to celebrate on the rest of the field.
. . .
East of the stadium, fans near campus who weren’t in the Horseshoe for the game but watched it on television in bars and restaurants spilled onto N. High Street as the game ended.
Columbus police officers eventually formed a barricade in one lane to protect pedestrians who were dancing into the bumper-to-bumper traffic.
Some problems around High Street and Lane Avenue, including some fights between Ohio State and Michigan fans, were reported. There was a call for a medic to help a woman who was knocked down and unconscious.
. . .
In the south-campus area, minor fires and other problems were reported.
Police stopped one car fire before it began at E. 12 th Avenue and Summit Street. Firefighters were called to a few dozen small blazes in trash bins and Dumpsters.
Police also were called to Chittenden Avenue when residents threw a big-screen TV off a balcony.
. . .
Hollingsworth said he was optimistic that things would be OK, but also said, "The night’s still young."
As he walked around campus, N. High Street remained clogged with traffic and lines spilled outside restaurants and bars, but for the most part problems were minimal.
The police presence, however, was huge, with officers patrolling in cruisers and on horseback, foot and bike. Columbus police refused to say last night how many officers were working. When the campus erupted into riots after the Ohio State win over Michigan in 2002, at least 250 officers were called out.
Last night, officers remained on duty after 11 and most said they were planning to work until at least 4 a.m.
In 2002, many were sent home at 11 p.m., before most problems occurred.
Police last night set up giant spotlights on Chittenden, Indianola and 13 th avenues, lighting up those areas to discourage troublemakers.
Police also created a mobile command center at 11 th and Worthington avenues to process any arrests and keep an eye on the campus.
As of 12:30 a.m. today, 32 people, handcuffed with flexible plastic cuffs, had been arrested. Most were for misdemeanor charges; two were felonies.
Before the game, Franklin County deputies arrested about 50 underage drinkers along Lane Avenue, Chief Deputy Martin said.
Tow trucks also remained out early this morning to take away any cars that were parked on one of the six streets that were banned to vehicles until early this morning.
Before the game yesterday, Kevin Kerr wore his Michigan shirt proudly as he walked north through a sea of fans clad in scarlet and gray on N. High Street.
Kerr, 22, a University of Michigan senior from Ann Arbor, said he was hit with two full beers and six eggs before reaching the 17 th Avenue intersection.
"I was expecting it," Kerr said.
The game is over, Ohio State won 42-39 in a high-scoring, un-Woody-Bo type game. The insanity that hovers around OSU football is astounding to those not immured by a lifetime of proximity.
I agree with Du Bois and go further: sports are now more the opiate of the people than is religion.
In any case, the "authorities" managed to keep the Vandals & Visigoths relatively at bay. I've included part of a morning-after report by the Columbus Dispatch after The Nation article.
- Uke Man
Michigan - Ohio State Fever
The Nation
By Dave Zirin
Ohio State, Michigan! Michigan, Ohio State! The most storied rivalry in college football comes to Columbus on Saturday. This year both squads are undefeated, ranked first and second in the country. This has created an intensity so high-pitched that the cities of Columbus and Ann Arbor threaten to spontaneously combust into clouds of scarlet and gray, blue and gold.
A century ago, W.E.B. Du Bois spoke out against "king football" and its potential to cause the "vulgarization of campus life." If Du Bois were alive today, he would not be amused. OSU-Michigan rivalry transcends vulgarity: This is sports as occupier; sports as the all-consuming Moloch bent on ingesting anyone trying to read a book on the quad or toss a frisbee.
Not even the body politic is immune to this demon in a varsity T-shirt. One of the most closely watched Congressional elections in the country, between Ohio Republican Deborah Pryce and Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy, still has no declared winner. At this writing, Pryce leads by roughly 3,600 votes with 18,000 absentee and 9,000 provisional ballots still to be counted. The count was supposed to begin November 18, but that is game day, so it will be delayed until Sunday. As a Chicago Tribune headline writer noted in its coverage of the race, "No contest: It's Ohio State-Michigan in a landslide."
But Saturday's insanity is highlighted in fears that this friendly game of pigskin will end in an orgy of junior-league sectarian violence. The student newspaper The Lantern contains a plea to Ohio State students to "use your passion tactfully, not criminally, because...the Columbus and university police will be out in full force before and after Saturday's kick-off. I would imagine spending all day and night Saturday at the Franklin County jail is not the memory OSU fans want to have."
The paper also reports that the police have taken steps to remove the temptation of car-burning around the campus area by prohibiting parking on a number of local streets.
Fire is a real fear in the game's aftermath. I heard a local sports radio announcer joke uneasily Sunday about how people should make sure they burn their old couches, not new ones--a reference to the more than fifty fires that took place after Ohio State defeated Texas earlier this year.
But for those who can't wait until after the game, a Friday night "Hate Michigan" rally was planned in Columbus, headlined by local band the Dead Schembechlers (The band, named after former Michigan coach Bo Schembechler, who died suddenly on Friday, announced that it would disband in honor of the coach and donate any proceeds from the rally to charity. To the organizers' credit, after Schembechler's death, the rally was re-named "Beat Michigan.)
The mood in Columbus has caused enough concern that University of Michigan dean of students Sue Eklund, along with the head of the Alumni Association and the student body president issued official warnings to students about traveling to Columbus.
Some of the advice they give includes:
--Try carpooling to the game; if possible, drive a car with non- Michigan license plates.
--Keep your Michigan gear to a minimum, or wait until you are inside the stadium to display it.
--Stay low-key; don't draw unnecessary attention to yourself.
And then there's the drinking. Ohio State has threatened to suspend students under 21 caught with the demon rum, but The Lantern writes with ironic restraint, "If the university were to kick out each student arrested for underage drinking, we would not have as many students."
This is farce carrying the threat of tragedy. The game should be an invitation to have some fun. Instead it becomes a backdrop for a raging bouillabaisse of testosterone and alienation. To the people of Columbus, and a university with a proud tradition of student organizing and solidarity, cheer yourselves hoarse for the Buckeyes on Saturday. But save your anger for the people who deserve it: the administrators who hiked your tuition while spending hundreds of thousands on stadium upkeep; the politicians who interfered with your right to vote in 2004 and the corporations that have created a Rust Belt state whose once-proud assembly lines are increasingly idle.
As OSU assistant professor and Buckeye fan Pranav Jani said to me, "In our drive to create an inclusive, safe and progressive environment on this campus, Wolverines are the least of our problems."
* * *
Morning-after report:
Unlike the game in 2002, when an undefeated Buckeye team beat Michigan, no wouldbe vandals tried to tear down the goal posts. But then, they were well-protected by lawenforcement officers, who formed a triangle around the greased-down posts and allowed fans to celebrate on the rest of the field.
. . .
East of the stadium, fans near campus who weren’t in the Horseshoe for the game but watched it on television in bars and restaurants spilled onto N. High Street as the game ended.
Columbus police officers eventually formed a barricade in one lane to protect pedestrians who were dancing into the bumper-to-bumper traffic.
Some problems around High Street and Lane Avenue, including some fights between Ohio State and Michigan fans, were reported. There was a call for a medic to help a woman who was knocked down and unconscious.
. . .
In the south-campus area, minor fires and other problems were reported.
Police stopped one car fire before it began at E. 12 th Avenue and Summit Street. Firefighters were called to a few dozen small blazes in trash bins and Dumpsters.
Police also were called to Chittenden Avenue when residents threw a big-screen TV off a balcony.
. . .
Hollingsworth said he was optimistic that things would be OK, but also said, "The night’s still young."
As he walked around campus, N. High Street remained clogged with traffic and lines spilled outside restaurants and bars, but for the most part problems were minimal.
The police presence, however, was huge, with officers patrolling in cruisers and on horseback, foot and bike. Columbus police refused to say last night how many officers were working. When the campus erupted into riots after the Ohio State win over Michigan in 2002, at least 250 officers were called out.
Last night, officers remained on duty after 11 and most said they were planning to work until at least 4 a.m.
In 2002, many were sent home at 11 p.m., before most problems occurred.
Police last night set up giant spotlights on Chittenden, Indianola and 13 th avenues, lighting up those areas to discourage troublemakers.
Police also created a mobile command center at 11 th and Worthington avenues to process any arrests and keep an eye on the campus.
As of 12:30 a.m. today, 32 people, handcuffed with flexible plastic cuffs, had been arrested. Most were for misdemeanor charges; two were felonies.
Before the game, Franklin County deputies arrested about 50 underage drinkers along Lane Avenue, Chief Deputy Martin said.
Tow trucks also remained out early this morning to take away any cars that were parked on one of the six streets that were banned to vehicles until early this morning.
Before the game yesterday, Kevin Kerr wore his Michigan shirt proudly as he walked north through a sea of fans clad in scarlet and gray on N. High Street.
Kerr, 22, a University of Michigan senior from Ann Arbor, said he was hit with two full beers and six eggs before reaching the 17 th Avenue intersection.
"I was expecting it," Kerr said.
Yeah, they really give a shit !!
Hey Folks,
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Obesity and tobacco and carbohydrates and red meat, etc. are big, bad no-no’s! I'll grant that.
And our guardians in the corporations and the political class are worried sick about us, our longevity and health and welfare and happiness because of that.
Bullshit!!
It is perfectly clear that the only thing those shitheads care about is making money. They don’t want us fat, smoking, or Big Mac-devouring WHILE we’re still WORKING for THEM. After that we can die as soon as possible, please.
If you don’t think so, read the article below and ask yourself which angle seems to take precedence. In every media commentary I’ve ever heard on health, relative to numerous “bad habits,” it’s always been the same. The underlying drive for "health" is: keep the slaves healthy and providing greater profits for the master.
Look at the Medieval Church. It strenuously prohibited suicide, punishing the despairing serf’s family for his “sin,” throwing them off the manor to a slow death begging.
What was the sin? Escaping the degraded existence he faced in bondage to his master; but, more importantly, robbing his master of the profit derived from his labor. THAT could not be tolerated.
It is the same today. The Money Ginks don’t care whether we live or die, only that we show up "well" to work. If they cared about us and our health, we would have excellent and universal health care. We would have had it long ago. If they cared about us, they wouldn’t be cutting health care plans presently available to workers. If they cared about us, they wouldn’t be cutting Medicaid to those most in need.
No, what they care about is the almighty dollar in THEIR pocket. Of course, the article puts in a word for the poor, but if you think anybody in charge is going to do anything to help the poor (except to the extent that it serves the bottom line), you are either very young or dreaming.
- Uke Man
Obesity could hit economies as hard as malnutrition
By Emma Ross-Thomas Wed Nov 15, 10:22 AM ET
ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Obesity could knock economic output as severely as malnutrition, which shaves as much as 3 percent off production in the poorest countries, a World Bank specialist said on Wednesday The World Health Organization estimates obesity has tripled in the past two decades and that one in 10 children and one in five adults will be obese in Europe and Central Asia by 2010 unless action is taken.
Dr. Meera Shekar, senior nutrition specialist with the World Bank, says malnutrition slices 2 to 3 percent off gross domestic product in the hardest-hit countries, and obesity could cost the same.
"We suspect that these estimates will be just as high," she said at a WHO-sponsored conference on obesity in Istanbul.
"If you're obese you're more likely to be sick, to be absent from work...the opportunity cost of not working, these are indirect costs," Shekar told Reuters.
Already, six percent of health costs in the WHO's European region, which includes Central Asia, come from obesity in adults, the organization's data show.
In 1992 obesity cost France $12.1 billion in direct costs alone, while in 2000 obese and overweight people cost the state of California $22 billion, including indirect costs, Shekar said.
Obesity is also expected to reduce life expectancy, which could have a knock-on effect on the economy. A recent UK study forecast men would live five years less by 2050 if current trends were not reversed.
POOR HIT
"The important thing is that because the problem is increasing we would see an increasing drain on economies, particularly developing economies," she said, adding obesity had appeared recently in the Middle East and North Africa and was a big problem in Latin America.
As developing countries' economies grow, the prevalence of obesity shifts to the poor from the rich.
That has happened in rich countries, and in France obesity is five times more prevalent among low-income groups than high earners, WHO Regional Adviser Dr Franceso Branca said.
Speaking at the same conference, he said he would like to see economic incentives to encourage consumers to buy healthier food.
"Taxes on soft drinks, for example, should be considered," he told Reuters, adding current European farming subsidies should also be re-examined.
"The whole problem is that consumers ... we are not completely free in deciding our own food choices," he said.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Obesity and tobacco and carbohydrates and red meat, etc. are big, bad no-no’s! I'll grant that.
And our guardians in the corporations and the political class are worried sick about us, our longevity and health and welfare and happiness because of that.
Bullshit!!
It is perfectly clear that the only thing those shitheads care about is making money. They don’t want us fat, smoking, or Big Mac-devouring WHILE we’re still WORKING for THEM. After that we can die as soon as possible, please.
If you don’t think so, read the article below and ask yourself which angle seems to take precedence. In every media commentary I’ve ever heard on health, relative to numerous “bad habits,” it’s always been the same. The underlying drive for "health" is: keep the slaves healthy and providing greater profits for the master.
Look at the Medieval Church. It strenuously prohibited suicide, punishing the despairing serf’s family for his “sin,” throwing them off the manor to a slow death begging.
What was the sin? Escaping the degraded existence he faced in bondage to his master; but, more importantly, robbing his master of the profit derived from his labor. THAT could not be tolerated.
It is the same today. The Money Ginks don’t care whether we live or die, only that we show up "well" to work. If they cared about us and our health, we would have excellent and universal health care. We would have had it long ago. If they cared about us, they wouldn’t be cutting health care plans presently available to workers. If they cared about us, they wouldn’t be cutting Medicaid to those most in need.
No, what they care about is the almighty dollar in THEIR pocket. Of course, the article puts in a word for the poor, but if you think anybody in charge is going to do anything to help the poor (except to the extent that it serves the bottom line), you are either very young or dreaming.
- Uke Man
Obesity could hit economies as hard as malnutrition
By Emma Ross-Thomas Wed Nov 15, 10:22 AM ET
ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Obesity could knock economic output as severely as malnutrition, which shaves as much as 3 percent off production in the poorest countries, a World Bank specialist said on Wednesday The World Health Organization estimates obesity has tripled in the past two decades and that one in 10 children and one in five adults will be obese in Europe and Central Asia by 2010 unless action is taken.
Dr. Meera Shekar, senior nutrition specialist with the World Bank, says malnutrition slices 2 to 3 percent off gross domestic product in the hardest-hit countries, and obesity could cost the same.
"We suspect that these estimates will be just as high," she said at a WHO-sponsored conference on obesity in Istanbul.
"If you're obese you're more likely to be sick, to be absent from work...the opportunity cost of not working, these are indirect costs," Shekar told Reuters.
Already, six percent of health costs in the WHO's European region, which includes Central Asia, come from obesity in adults, the organization's data show.
In 1992 obesity cost France $12.1 billion in direct costs alone, while in 2000 obese and overweight people cost the state of California $22 billion, including indirect costs, Shekar said.
Obesity is also expected to reduce life expectancy, which could have a knock-on effect on the economy. A recent UK study forecast men would live five years less by 2050 if current trends were not reversed.
POOR HIT
"The important thing is that because the problem is increasing we would see an increasing drain on economies, particularly developing economies," she said, adding obesity had appeared recently in the Middle East and North Africa and was a big problem in Latin America.
As developing countries' economies grow, the prevalence of obesity shifts to the poor from the rich.
That has happened in rich countries, and in France obesity is five times more prevalent among low-income groups than high earners, WHO Regional Adviser Dr Franceso Branca said.
Speaking at the same conference, he said he would like to see economic incentives to encourage consumers to buy healthier food.
"Taxes on soft drinks, for example, should be considered," he told Reuters, adding current European farming subsidies should also be re-examined.
"The whole problem is that consumers ... we are not completely free in deciding our own food choices," he said.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
"Circus of Cool" was cool, Baby !!!
Hey Folks,
Had a great time last night at Dick's Den doing my rant* and seeing/hearing friends play and recite. Dig the pics below, Daddy-o.
-Uke Man
* http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/11/hey-daddyo-chickie-baby.html
Had a great time last night at Dick's Den doing my rant* and seeing/hearing friends play and recite. Dig the pics below, Daddy-o.
-Uke Man
* http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/11/hey-daddyo-chickie-baby.html
Friday, November 17, 2006
"Yep, that's us: "crapulence, jobbery and malfeasance, the Grand Olde Party !!"
"It's not easy being crapulent."
"Conservatives" and the "Middle"
Hey Folks,
Jonah Goldberg is generally recognized as one of the more rabid righties; so, it is instructive to learn what he thinks of the recent Republican debacle.
As you can see below, he claims it wasn't brought about by any of the selfish "policy reform" aimed at destructive cuts in wages, medical care, pensions, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. It wasn't brought about by the little-boy Neocons' playing "Empire." It wasn't caused by kissing up to God (hypocritically, he admits - it's clear in his language below), beating up on gays, or by conning Latinos in three or four contradictory ways.
No. The Republicans lost it by over-spending, scandals, stupidity, everything EXCEPT by being conservative. They were not "pure" enough. They weren't hard-line enough on the war. They weren't hard-line enough on issues like gays, prayer in school, etc.; they weren't Conservative enough!!! Yeah, right.
So, the point is: while some of the righties, their fellow travelers; and a pliant, suggestible media is babbling on about the need for Democrats to be reasonable and compromising, to move responsibly to the middle, the Kkkarl Rove/Grover Nerdquist crowd is screaming even louder for blood.
Well, fuck them and the Bush they rode in on. They lost because they were self-serving, heartless, lying, inhuman oppressors attempting to subjugate the people here and around the world..
Now, let's see if the Democrats choose to compromise with that !!!
- Uke Man
Republicans were big losers because they lost their way
Friday, November 10, 2006
JONAH GOLDBERG
Entire column at: http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE5NQ==
Through its own crapulence, jobbery and malfeasance, the Grand Old Party lost the House of Representatives, the jewel of the Republican revolution, the engine of conservative policy reform and home to the much-maligned freedom fries. . . .
And so the Republicans were doomed. The cliches are no less true for being cliches. The GOP came to power in 1994 promising lean government, and became the party that needs to unbuckle its pants and loosen its belt two notches after every lobbyist-paid meal. The GOP once had the reputation of being able to run the government like a business and wars like a finely tuned machine. But under compassionate conservatism, government became a faith-based charity. . . .
Now, let’s get back to the important business of pointing fingers and assigning blame. Conservatives have been sharpening their bayonets for months, waiting to inaugurate the first great intramural bloodletting of the new millennium. Libertarian types think the fault lies in too much social conservatism. Social conservatives see too much worldliness. Both see too much compromise, while moderates, squishes and other RINOs (Republicans in name only) see too little compromise. Realists and isolationists see too much war. Neoconservatives and other hawks see, if not too little war, certainly too little commitment to do everything it takes to win the ones we’re in.
Of all these arguments, the only two you are likely to hear ad nauseam are: too much social conservatism and too much war.
Why? Because that’s the view of the liberal establishment that for 40 years has been arguing that if only conservatives were more liberal they’d be more successful, even as the conservative movement has been the most successful political enterprise of the last half-century.
Philosophically, reasonable people may differ about whether there’s been too much social conservatism, but politically, this is idiotic. As Ramesh Ponnuru notes in the National Review, Christian conservatives give the GOP as many votes as labor and blacks combined give to the Democrats. It’s to the Republicans’ electoral advantage to take positions that shock the conscience of Rosie O’Donnell. . . .
Republicans lost because they behaved like self-indulgent politicians, not purists. Conservatives care a lot about ideas, so that’s where we’ll try to assign blame. But the ideologues aren’t to blame. The Republicans are.
Jonah Goldberg is generally recognized as one of the more rabid righties; so, it is instructive to learn what he thinks of the recent Republican debacle.
As you can see below, he claims it wasn't brought about by any of the selfish "policy reform" aimed at destructive cuts in wages, medical care, pensions, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. It wasn't brought about by the little-boy Neocons' playing "Empire." It wasn't caused by kissing up to God (hypocritically, he admits - it's clear in his language below), beating up on gays, or by conning Latinos in three or four contradictory ways.
No. The Republicans lost it by over-spending, scandals, stupidity, everything EXCEPT by being conservative. They were not "pure" enough. They weren't hard-line enough on the war. They weren't hard-line enough on issues like gays, prayer in school, etc.; they weren't Conservative enough!!! Yeah, right.
So, the point is: while some of the righties, their fellow travelers; and a pliant, suggestible media is babbling on about the need for Democrats to be reasonable and compromising, to move responsibly to the middle, the Kkkarl Rove/Grover Nerdquist crowd is screaming even louder for blood.
Well, fuck them and the Bush they rode in on. They lost because they were self-serving, heartless, lying, inhuman oppressors attempting to subjugate the people here and around the world..
Now, let's see if the Democrats choose to compromise with that !!!
- Uke Man
Republicans were big losers because they lost their way
Friday, November 10, 2006
JONAH GOLDBERG
Entire column at: http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE5NQ==
Through its own crapulence, jobbery and malfeasance, the Grand Old Party lost the House of Representatives, the jewel of the Republican revolution, the engine of conservative policy reform and home to the much-maligned freedom fries. . . .
And so the Republicans were doomed. The cliches are no less true for being cliches. The GOP came to power in 1994 promising lean government, and became the party that needs to unbuckle its pants and loosen its belt two notches after every lobbyist-paid meal. The GOP once had the reputation of being able to run the government like a business and wars like a finely tuned machine. But under compassionate conservatism, government became a faith-based charity. . . .
Now, let’s get back to the important business of pointing fingers and assigning blame. Conservatives have been sharpening their bayonets for months, waiting to inaugurate the first great intramural bloodletting of the new millennium. Libertarian types think the fault lies in too much social conservatism. Social conservatives see too much worldliness. Both see too much compromise, while moderates, squishes and other RINOs (Republicans in name only) see too little compromise. Realists and isolationists see too much war. Neoconservatives and other hawks see, if not too little war, certainly too little commitment to do everything it takes to win the ones we’re in.
Of all these arguments, the only two you are likely to hear ad nauseam are: too much social conservatism and too much war.
Why? Because that’s the view of the liberal establishment that for 40 years has been arguing that if only conservatives were more liberal they’d be more successful, even as the conservative movement has been the most successful political enterprise of the last half-century.
Philosophically, reasonable people may differ about whether there’s been too much social conservatism, but politically, this is idiotic. As Ramesh Ponnuru notes in the National Review, Christian conservatives give the GOP as many votes as labor and blacks combined give to the Democrats. It’s to the Republicans’ electoral advantage to take positions that shock the conscience of Rosie O’Donnell. . . .
Republicans lost because they behaved like self-indulgent politicians, not purists. Conservatives care a lot about ideas, so that’s where we’ll try to assign blame. But the ideologues aren’t to blame. The Republicans are.
The Evil Satanic Extreme Leftist: Michael Moore
Hey Folks,
You know or have heard of Michael Moore, Satan's first born. Well, below is a letter from B.L.Z. Bub himself to the cheery cherubs of the Right.
What I find so interesting is that what Moore is proposing is so bland and good - even holy - and un-revolutionary. A lot of what he says sounds like something an American Legion spokesman or Methodist Minister or a Scout Master, or President Eisenhower might have said in the 50's.
And this is the Satanic incarnation of the evil LEFT !!!!
Well, those who would like to define Moore, Bill Clinton, George Soros, or even Ted Kennedy as far left can't be allowed to get by with it. If Hitler or Sadam Hussein represents the far Right and Kennedy represents the far Left, then Bill O'Reilly is a left-leaning moderate and Foxxx News IS fair and balanced.
Most of today's Democrats are to the right of Richard Nixon, and allowing the right to define THEM as the Left, keeps moving the "Middle" - which we keep hearing is where we have to go - farther and farther to the right.
Let's not go there.
- Uke Man
A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives
November 14th, 2006
To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,
I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.
Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.
Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:
Dear Conservatives and Republicans,
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.
2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.
5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.
6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.
I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.
Signed,
Michael Moore mmflint@aol.com
You know or have heard of Michael Moore, Satan's first born. Well, below is a letter from B.L.Z. Bub himself to the cheery cherubs of the Right.
What I find so interesting is that what Moore is proposing is so bland and good - even holy - and un-revolutionary. A lot of what he says sounds like something an American Legion spokesman or Methodist Minister or a Scout Master, or President Eisenhower might have said in the 50's.
And this is the Satanic incarnation of the evil LEFT !!!!
Well, those who would like to define Moore, Bill Clinton, George Soros, or even Ted Kennedy as far left can't be allowed to get by with it. If Hitler or Sadam Hussein represents the far Right and Kennedy represents the far Left, then Bill O'Reilly is a left-leaning moderate and Foxxx News IS fair and balanced.
Most of today's Democrats are to the right of Richard Nixon, and allowing the right to define THEM as the Left, keeps moving the "Middle" - which we keep hearing is where we have to go - farther and farther to the right.
Let's not go there.
- Uke Man
A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives
November 14th, 2006
To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,
I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.
Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.
Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:
Dear Conservatives and Republicans,
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.
2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.
5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.
6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.
I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.
Signed,
Michael Moore mmflint@aol.com
Thursday, November 16, 2006
What's behind the turn-around ??
Hey Folks,
Here's a big part of the explanation as to why H.L. Mencken is usually right to mistrust the judgment of the American public: the media feed us idiotic crap until it's too late to do much about what's going on; and then - when the disaster is winding down - they come out with all the analysis that would have helped inform the people back when it mattered.
Amazingly, the people somehow finally rose above the blather. But with the press continuing to act like press agents of the powerful, how long will NEW outrages go on before they too are repudiated?
- Uke Man
THE LOW POST: Not Better Late Than Never
Mass culture turns on the Republicans -- but why?
MATT TAIBBI - Rolling Stone
Anyone out there see the Letterman-O' Reilly dust-uplast week [some of it can be seen at: http://www.ifilm.com/player?ifilmId=2784198&refsite=7063 - Uke Man] ? On the surface it looked like a seminal moment in modern television history, a Godzilla v. Megalon monster epic in which Godzilla was finally toppled just outside the Tokyo city gates. Keeled over, its rubber eyes flitting dumbly against the cardboard landscape, we finally saw the great lizard's vulnerable side. It was almost possible to feel sorry for Bill O'Reilly, who had trotted out on set with the peace-offering of a plastic sword and shield, expecting to make nice with his fellow overpaid TV icon -- but who instead ended up skewered and turned over the video-spit by the end of the segment, with an apple in his mouth and Sumner Redstone's massive billionaire foot wedged firmly in his ass.
For the rest of his days, few people will forget the image of O'Reilly sitting glumly and taking it while some smug ex-weatherman called him a "bonehead" to raucous studio applause. Which is too bad, because Bill O'Reilly wasn't even the dumbest person on the set that day. For that honor my vote goes to Letterman. Here's Letterman's explanation of his initial position on the Iraq war:
“I think I sort of felt the way everybody did. We felt like we wanted to do something, because something terrible had been done to us. We did not understand exactly why, all we knew was something terrible,something heinous, something obscene had been done to us. So, while it didn't necessarily make as much sense to go in to Iraq as it did perhaps to go into Afghanistan, I like most everybody else felt like, yes, we need to do something. We need to do something. And as the weeks turned into months, turned into years, and one death became a dozen deaths became a hundred deaths became a thousand deaths, then we began to realize, you know what, maybe we're causing more trouble over there than the whole effort has been worth.”
That's a hell of a speech -- back to it in a moment.For now, consider the context in which it was delivered. We are in the last week before midterm elections in George Bush's second term, five years after 9/11, three and a half since the beginning of the Iraq war. By now we can say without much hesitation that the media establishment has turned not only on George Bush, but on the public attack-dogs of his right flank who dominated the national political media for so long. There's no more free lunch for the likes of O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, the latter of whom also took an unusually savage fragging in the national media last week for his attack on Michael J.Fox. That incident basically moved Al Franken into the national mainstream, with even a normally gentle humorist like Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Mike Luckovich (from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution) calling Rush a "big fat idiot" last week.
What's happening is that these talk-radio pit-vipers who for a decade or so had us all wondering, "How the fuck do these guys get away with this stuff?" are now no longer getting away with it -- there's now a mechanism in place in the national media that is poised to savage these guys for the same kinds of tactics that for the last ten years were mostly left to the likes of FAIR and Eric Alterman to bitch about.
And it goes beyond beating on O'Reilly and Rush. All across the media landscape, once-reviled liberal or Democratic figures are being rehabilitated and celebrated by the same national media that, at best,habitually described Democrats as soft on defense or as unelectable political losers throughout most of the Bush years. This process actually began some time ago,around the time the Iraq war really started to go sour; I remember in particular one week in May when Good Morning America had a fuzzy-warm bit on Al Gore's "comeback" and a laudatory piece on the Dixie Chicks on successive days. Could that have happened in 2003? I doubt it. And it's continuing today; Chris Matthews last week called Nancy Pelosi "stylish" and compared her to Joe DiMaggio, of all people, while David Gregory went on the campaign trail with Michael J. Fox for the Today show. Can you imagine NBC news throwing a tow-line to a liberal Hollywood actor before the 2000 presidential elections? 2004? No way. But this year, it's possible.
Last week we also saw Wolf Blitzer, before the war one of the chief cheerleaders for the invasion, finding himself arrayed in an antiwar pose in another Japanese monster-movie debate situation with Lynne Cheney, with whom he had a fierce exchange over the broadcast of unpleasant footage from Iraq. And of course there was Bob Woodward, who a few years ago published one of the all-time Electrolux suck jobs for the administration with Bush at War, reading the writing on the wall and doing a complete about-face in his new book State of Denial, which came out to much fanfare and an uncompromising 60 Minutes segment last month.
Look, there's nothing mysterious about any of this.It's pretty obvious what's going on. We saw this same kind of cultural shift in 1968, after the Tet offensive (an analogy so obvious that even Tom Friedman saw it recently), when the American political establishment soured on the Vietnam War. Despite the conservative propaganda that for decades has insisted that it was the media that lost the war for us in Vietnam, in fact the media didn't turn on the Vietnam war effort until the war was already lost. And the reason the media soured on that war had nothing to do with it being wrong; it had to do with the post-Tet realization that the war was expensive, unwinnable and politically costly. America is reaching the same conclusion now about Iraq, and so, like Dave Letterman, a whole host of people who just a few years ago thought we "had to do something" are now backing off and repositioning themselves in an antiwar stance.
What's dangerous about what's going on right now is that an electoral defeat of the Republicans next week,and perhaps a similar defeat in a presidential race two years from now, might fool some people into thinking that the responsibility for the Iraq war can be sunk forever with George Bush and the Republican politicians who went down with his ship. But in fact the real responsibility for the Iraq war lay not with Bush but with the Lettermans, the Wolf Blitzers, the CNNs, The New York Timeses of the world -- the malleable middle of the American political establishment who three years ago made a conscious moral choice to support a military action that even a three-year-old could have seen made no fucking sense at all.
It doesn't take much courage to book the Dixie Chicks when George Bush is sitting at thirty-nine percent in the polls and carrying 3,000 American bodies on hisback every time he goes outside. It doesn't take much courage for MSNBC's Countdown to do a segment ripping the "Swift-Boating of Al Gore" in May 2006, or much gumption from Newsweek's Eleanor Clift to say thatmany people in the media "regret" the way Gore was attacked and ridiculed in 2000. We needed those people to act in the moment, not years later, when it's politically expedient. We needed TV news to reject"swift-boating" during the actual Swift Boat controversy, not two years later; we needed ABC andNBC to stand up to Clear Channel when that whole idiotic Dixie Chicks thing was happening, not years later; we needed the networks and the major dailies to actually cover the half-million- strong protests inWashington and New York before the war, instead of burying them in inside pages or describing the numbers as "thousands" or "at least 30,000," as many news outlets did at the time; and we needed David Letterman to have his war epiphany back when taking on Bill O'Reilly might actually have cost him real market share.
Take a look again at Letterman's comment last week:
"So, while it didn't necessarily make as much sense to go in to Iraq as it did perhaps to go into Afghanistan, I like most everybody else felt like,yes, we need to do something."
Well, that's putting it pretty fucking mildly,wouldn't you say? It's not that Iraq didn't make "as much sense" as Afghanistan -- it didn't make any sense, and anyone with half a brain could have seen that. And Letterman's subsequent reasoning -- that seeing one death turn into dozens and then hundreds and thousands made him reconsider the whole thing --all that tells you is that this is a person who makes life-and-death decisions without considering the consequences. If the Iraq war was not ever going to beworth 3,000 American lives (and countless more Iraqi lives), then why the hell did we go in in the first place? If you make a decision to fight, you had better not be scared of blood. And if you're suddenly changing your mind about things after you lose a few teenage lives, you're a hundred times more guilty than the guys like Bush who are actually sticking to their guns about this war.
Because Bush and the rest of that crew sent young men to die for something they believed in, fucked-up as their reasoning might be and have been. But these shitheads in the political middle who are flip-flopping right now sentenced teenagers to death for the cause of expediency and careerism. There are young men coming home now without arms and legs because the Wolf Blitzers of the world were too afraid to lose their jobs or piss off advertisers bucking the war hysteria of the times. Remember, CNN and the rest of the networks did great business in the run-up to the war. They had artists cooking up fancy new"America's New War" graphics and they were selling lawn fertilizer and soda and male-enhancement drugs by the metric ton right up to the time when the Saddam statue came down. But the war isn't selling anymore; the war is a bummer. And so these guys are changing their minds.
Are you throwing up yet? Surely that behavior is more shameful than anything coming out of the White House.
This assault on the Republicans that's taking place in the national media right now is partially a reflection of national attitudes, but mostly a matter of internal housecleaning. The members of the Bush administration have proven to be incompetent managers of the American system, and so they are being removed. It's that simple. They screwed up a war that all of these people wanted, turned public opinion against the dumbed-down militarist politics that until recently was good business for everybody. And so they have to go. Mistake any of this for ideology or principle at your peril.
Here's a big part of the explanation as to why H.L. Mencken is usually right to mistrust the judgment of the American public: the media feed us idiotic crap until it's too late to do much about what's going on; and then - when the disaster is winding down - they come out with all the analysis that would have helped inform the people back when it mattered.
Amazingly, the people somehow finally rose above the blather. But with the press continuing to act like press agents of the powerful, how long will NEW outrages go on before they too are repudiated?
- Uke Man
THE LOW POST: Not Better Late Than Never
Mass culture turns on the Republicans -- but why?
MATT TAIBBI - Rolling Stone
Anyone out there see the Letterman-O' Reilly dust-uplast week [some of it can be seen at: http://www.ifilm.com/player?ifilmId=2784198&refsite=7063 - Uke Man] ? On the surface it looked like a seminal moment in modern television history, a Godzilla v. Megalon monster epic in which Godzilla was finally toppled just outside the Tokyo city gates. Keeled over, its rubber eyes flitting dumbly against the cardboard landscape, we finally saw the great lizard's vulnerable side. It was almost possible to feel sorry for Bill O'Reilly, who had trotted out on set with the peace-offering of a plastic sword and shield, expecting to make nice with his fellow overpaid TV icon -- but who instead ended up skewered and turned over the video-spit by the end of the segment, with an apple in his mouth and Sumner Redstone's massive billionaire foot wedged firmly in his ass.
For the rest of his days, few people will forget the image of O'Reilly sitting glumly and taking it while some smug ex-weatherman called him a "bonehead" to raucous studio applause. Which is too bad, because Bill O'Reilly wasn't even the dumbest person on the set that day. For that honor my vote goes to Letterman. Here's Letterman's explanation of his initial position on the Iraq war:
“I think I sort of felt the way everybody did. We felt like we wanted to do something, because something terrible had been done to us. We did not understand exactly why, all we knew was something terrible,something heinous, something obscene had been done to us. So, while it didn't necessarily make as much sense to go in to Iraq as it did perhaps to go into Afghanistan, I like most everybody else felt like, yes, we need to do something. We need to do something. And as the weeks turned into months, turned into years, and one death became a dozen deaths became a hundred deaths became a thousand deaths, then we began to realize, you know what, maybe we're causing more trouble over there than the whole effort has been worth.”
That's a hell of a speech -- back to it in a moment.For now, consider the context in which it was delivered. We are in the last week before midterm elections in George Bush's second term, five years after 9/11, three and a half since the beginning of the Iraq war. By now we can say without much hesitation that the media establishment has turned not only on George Bush, but on the public attack-dogs of his right flank who dominated the national political media for so long. There's no more free lunch for the likes of O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, the latter of whom also took an unusually savage fragging in the national media last week for his attack on Michael J.Fox. That incident basically moved Al Franken into the national mainstream, with even a normally gentle humorist like Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Mike Luckovich (from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution) calling Rush a "big fat idiot" last week.
What's happening is that these talk-radio pit-vipers who for a decade or so had us all wondering, "How the fuck do these guys get away with this stuff?" are now no longer getting away with it -- there's now a mechanism in place in the national media that is poised to savage these guys for the same kinds of tactics that for the last ten years were mostly left to the likes of FAIR and Eric Alterman to bitch about.
And it goes beyond beating on O'Reilly and Rush. All across the media landscape, once-reviled liberal or Democratic figures are being rehabilitated and celebrated by the same national media that, at best,habitually described Democrats as soft on defense or as unelectable political losers throughout most of the Bush years. This process actually began some time ago,around the time the Iraq war really started to go sour; I remember in particular one week in May when Good Morning America had a fuzzy-warm bit on Al Gore's "comeback" and a laudatory piece on the Dixie Chicks on successive days. Could that have happened in 2003? I doubt it. And it's continuing today; Chris Matthews last week called Nancy Pelosi "stylish" and compared her to Joe DiMaggio, of all people, while David Gregory went on the campaign trail with Michael J. Fox for the Today show. Can you imagine NBC news throwing a tow-line to a liberal Hollywood actor before the 2000 presidential elections? 2004? No way. But this year, it's possible.
Last week we also saw Wolf Blitzer, before the war one of the chief cheerleaders for the invasion, finding himself arrayed in an antiwar pose in another Japanese monster-movie debate situation with Lynne Cheney, with whom he had a fierce exchange over the broadcast of unpleasant footage from Iraq. And of course there was Bob Woodward, who a few years ago published one of the all-time Electrolux suck jobs for the administration with Bush at War, reading the writing on the wall and doing a complete about-face in his new book State of Denial, which came out to much fanfare and an uncompromising 60 Minutes segment last month.
Look, there's nothing mysterious about any of this.It's pretty obvious what's going on. We saw this same kind of cultural shift in 1968, after the Tet offensive (an analogy so obvious that even Tom Friedman saw it recently), when the American political establishment soured on the Vietnam War. Despite the conservative propaganda that for decades has insisted that it was the media that lost the war for us in Vietnam, in fact the media didn't turn on the Vietnam war effort until the war was already lost. And the reason the media soured on that war had nothing to do with it being wrong; it had to do with the post-Tet realization that the war was expensive, unwinnable and politically costly. America is reaching the same conclusion now about Iraq, and so, like Dave Letterman, a whole host of people who just a few years ago thought we "had to do something" are now backing off and repositioning themselves in an antiwar stance.
What's dangerous about what's going on right now is that an electoral defeat of the Republicans next week,and perhaps a similar defeat in a presidential race two years from now, might fool some people into thinking that the responsibility for the Iraq war can be sunk forever with George Bush and the Republican politicians who went down with his ship. But in fact the real responsibility for the Iraq war lay not with Bush but with the Lettermans, the Wolf Blitzers, the CNNs, The New York Timeses of the world -- the malleable middle of the American political establishment who three years ago made a conscious moral choice to support a military action that even a three-year-old could have seen made no fucking sense at all.
It doesn't take much courage to book the Dixie Chicks when George Bush is sitting at thirty-nine percent in the polls and carrying 3,000 American bodies on hisback every time he goes outside. It doesn't take much courage for MSNBC's Countdown to do a segment ripping the "Swift-Boating of Al Gore" in May 2006, or much gumption from Newsweek's Eleanor Clift to say thatmany people in the media "regret" the way Gore was attacked and ridiculed in 2000. We needed those people to act in the moment, not years later, when it's politically expedient. We needed TV news to reject"swift-boating" during the actual Swift Boat controversy, not two years later; we needed ABC andNBC to stand up to Clear Channel when that whole idiotic Dixie Chicks thing was happening, not years later; we needed the networks and the major dailies to actually cover the half-million- strong protests inWashington and New York before the war, instead of burying them in inside pages or describing the numbers as "thousands" or "at least 30,000," as many news outlets did at the time; and we needed David Letterman to have his war epiphany back when taking on Bill O'Reilly might actually have cost him real market share.
Take a look again at Letterman's comment last week:
"So, while it didn't necessarily make as much sense to go in to Iraq as it did perhaps to go into Afghanistan, I like most everybody else felt like,yes, we need to do something."
Well, that's putting it pretty fucking mildly,wouldn't you say? It's not that Iraq didn't make "as much sense" as Afghanistan -- it didn't make any sense, and anyone with half a brain could have seen that. And Letterman's subsequent reasoning -- that seeing one death turn into dozens and then hundreds and thousands made him reconsider the whole thing --all that tells you is that this is a person who makes life-and-death decisions without considering the consequences. If the Iraq war was not ever going to beworth 3,000 American lives (and countless more Iraqi lives), then why the hell did we go in in the first place? If you make a decision to fight, you had better not be scared of blood. And if you're suddenly changing your mind about things after you lose a few teenage lives, you're a hundred times more guilty than the guys like Bush who are actually sticking to their guns about this war.
Because Bush and the rest of that crew sent young men to die for something they believed in, fucked-up as their reasoning might be and have been. But these shitheads in the political middle who are flip-flopping right now sentenced teenagers to death for the cause of expediency and careerism. There are young men coming home now without arms and legs because the Wolf Blitzers of the world were too afraid to lose their jobs or piss off advertisers bucking the war hysteria of the times. Remember, CNN and the rest of the networks did great business in the run-up to the war. They had artists cooking up fancy new"America's New War" graphics and they were selling lawn fertilizer and soda and male-enhancement drugs by the metric ton right up to the time when the Saddam statue came down. But the war isn't selling anymore; the war is a bummer. And so these guys are changing their minds.
Are you throwing up yet? Surely that behavior is more shameful than anything coming out of the White House.
This assault on the Republicans that's taking place in the national media right now is partially a reflection of national attitudes, but mostly a matter of internal housecleaning. The members of the Bush administration have proven to be incompetent managers of the American system, and so they are being removed. It's that simple. They screwed up a war that all of these people wanted, turned public opinion against the dumbed-down militarist politics that until recently was good business for everybody. And so they have to go. Mistake any of this for ideology or principle at your peril.
Hey Daddyo & Chickie Baby !!!
Folks,
Circus of Cool is on the way !! It’s a fantastic, one-of-a-kind presentation.
It’s the Beat Era all over again!!! Poets perform their creations in tune with and amplified by a grooving Jazz Band !!
Miss Yvonne, Chicky Baby, Cool Cat, & Doggy Daddy; eat your hearts out!!! But black-leotarded interpretive dancers are welcome to join in!!! Ginsberg is dead, but we soldier on!!!
The event will transpire this Friday, November 17, at Dick’s Den, 2417 N High St., Columbus (614-268-9573) starting at 10:00.
It’s hip and cool and in the groove; and it’s overseen by the town’s own Chicky Baby herself, Ms. Krista, the Ring Mistress!! So come and enjoy – even in the heartland we can be Bi-Coastal.
For those who can’t attend, here’s the rant (sans the cool musical notes) – oh, and if you’re not from Ohio, and you missed the Mike DeWine video I posted a while back, check it out before you read the rant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbZ_w-LSytg):
French Fried de Tocqueville
Ronald Reagan’s dead and playing catch with Bonzo
Somewhere in the Right Wing Afterworld,
And Bonzo’s grandson is our Presidential “Man” –
“the Decider” – Him - and his VP Spider - Here in the Real World
Did I tell you that he who fails to recognize the mistakes of history
is doomed to repeat them?
Did I tell you that he who fails to recognize the mistakes of history
is doomed to repeat them?
. . .
Did I tell you … Oh, t’ hell with it !! . . .
Repeat ‘em !!!
That’s what we’re here for. That’s what we do.
We fuck up - by the numbers. You can count on us;
We’re true – through and through – Red White and Blue !!!
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil – rose-colored glasses –
We don’t want no trouble – we just wantta - yes sir - cover our asses.
Carefully on the Right side, the Big side,
the “We’re Number One” side,
the One With the Gun side.
For six years here in God’s favorite land
We denied the lie
With our heads in the sand
And then came the Mudslide !!
Wasn’t it grand !!!
Up to our ears, as the French might say,
In 30-second political “man-u-re”
Or “Freedom Shit,”
To put it another way.
“Rapunzel Brown . . .
I just don’t trust you
Rapunzel Brown let us down
She even let her own hair down !!
I’m Rumpelstiltskin, and I approved this message.”
And with that and fury and with sound
The earth quaked in every town
And proud, high towers tumbled down -
Rumpelstiltskin stamped his foot
and disappeared into the ground.
The voice of the dumb was then unbound
And the flock essayed to make a sound
As one, they raised a mighty voice
Giving thanks in great rejoice.
Then, almost as quick as it began,
Again they slipped their heads into the sand
and trusted God to tend their land.
Did I tell you that he who fails to recognize the mistakes of history
is doomed to repeat them?
Did I tell you that he who fails to recognize the mistakes of history
is doomed to repeat them?
. . .
Ahhh . . . What the fuck !!
- Uke Man
Circus of Cool is on the way !! It’s a fantastic, one-of-a-kind presentation.
It’s the Beat Era all over again!!! Poets perform their creations in tune with and amplified by a grooving Jazz Band !!
Miss Yvonne, Chicky Baby, Cool Cat, & Doggy Daddy; eat your hearts out!!! But black-leotarded interpretive dancers are welcome to join in!!! Ginsberg is dead, but we soldier on!!!
The event will transpire this Friday, November 17, at Dick’s Den, 2417 N High St., Columbus (614-268-9573) starting at 10:00.
It’s hip and cool and in the groove; and it’s overseen by the town’s own Chicky Baby herself, Ms. Krista, the Ring Mistress!! So come and enjoy – even in the heartland we can be Bi-Coastal.
For those who can’t attend, here’s the rant (sans the cool musical notes) – oh, and if you’re not from Ohio, and you missed the Mike DeWine video I posted a while back, check it out before you read the rant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbZ_w-LSytg):
French Fried de Tocqueville
Ronald Reagan’s dead and playing catch with Bonzo
Somewhere in the Right Wing Afterworld,
And Bonzo’s grandson is our Presidential “Man” –
“the Decider” – Him - and his VP Spider - Here in the Real World
Did I tell you that he who fails to recognize the mistakes of history
is doomed to repeat them?
Did I tell you that he who fails to recognize the mistakes of history
is doomed to repeat them?
. . .
Did I tell you … Oh, t’ hell with it !! . . .
Repeat ‘em !!!
That’s what we’re here for. That’s what we do.
We fuck up - by the numbers. You can count on us;
We’re true – through and through – Red White and Blue !!!
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil – rose-colored glasses –
We don’t want no trouble – we just wantta - yes sir - cover our asses.
Carefully on the Right side, the Big side,
the “We’re Number One” side,
the One With the Gun side.
For six years here in God’s favorite land
We denied the lie
With our heads in the sand
And then came the Mudslide !!
Wasn’t it grand !!!
Up to our ears, as the French might say,
In 30-second political “man-u-re”
Or “Freedom Shit,”
To put it another way.
“Rapunzel Brown . . .
I just don’t trust you
Rapunzel Brown let us down
She even let her own hair down !!
I’m Rumpelstiltskin, and I approved this message.”
And with that and fury and with sound
The earth quaked in every town
And proud, high towers tumbled down -
Rumpelstiltskin stamped his foot
and disappeared into the ground.
The voice of the dumb was then unbound
And the flock essayed to make a sound
As one, they raised a mighty voice
Giving thanks in great rejoice.
Then, almost as quick as it began,
Again they slipped their heads into the sand
and trusted God to tend their land.
Did I tell you that he who fails to recognize the mistakes of history
is doomed to repeat them?
Did I tell you that he who fails to recognize the mistakes of history
is doomed to repeat them?
. . .
Ahhh . . . What the fuck !!
- Uke Man
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
"THE DAY" Post-mortem
Hey Folks,
On Nov. 6, the day before the election, I wrote:
“Tomorrow is The Day !! The day that will likely determine for this old codger once and for all his view of humanity.For six years the American people have degraded themselves by supporting the moronic marionette of sociopathic string-pullers; the dim-witted ventriloquist’s dummy of hypocritically homophobic evangelicals; degraded by six years of dishonor - fearing fear itself.
H.L. Mencken said that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Tomorrow we’ll see if he was right.”
Among other things, I also wrote:
“Lincoln said, ‘You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.’ Tomorrow we’ll find out whether Kkkarl Rove can fool enough of the people enough of the time to make Lincoln irrelevant.”
Well, I must say that this old codger is greatly relieved. Lincoln is still relevant, and my doubts have been partially calmed. As Robyn Blumner pointed out in a recent column:
“After all the books and articles proclaiming that Republicans were the permanent new majority, that their demographic, structural and money advantages were unstoppable and that the electorate could be ruled by fear-mongering, a Republican specialty, Election Day 2006 proved the pundits wrong. There is a limit to how much incompetence, greed, corruption, prevarication, secrecy and sanctimony the American people will stand. No news could be more comforting.”
I’m with Robyn on that, and crusty old H.L. will have to back off a bit – but only a bit. The one certain thing this election shows is that if our leaders are corrupt enough for six years, the American people will stop anointing them and kick their asses out.
However, considering the damage these monsters have wreaked in six years – while one MUST rejoice in their exit – one also wonders what new atrocity will be embraced by Mencken’s dull public and allowed to plunder American bodies and souls for another six years.
So, I guess the Uke Man’s final reaction to “The Day” is that, thankfully, the people, indeed, DID stand up !! But I’m also quite concerned that, as is their habit, they’ll return immediately to their long, warm, reassuring hibernation.
Friday, at Dick's Den, I'll be participating in "Circus of Cool," where poets do the Beat thing, reading their poems to the accompaniament of a live Jazz Band.
The rant I'll be delivering relates to my thoughts discussed here. I'll be putting it up on the blog soon.
- Uke Man
On Nov. 6, the day before the election, I wrote:
“Tomorrow is The Day !! The day that will likely determine for this old codger once and for all his view of humanity.For six years the American people have degraded themselves by supporting the moronic marionette of sociopathic string-pullers; the dim-witted ventriloquist’s dummy of hypocritically homophobic evangelicals; degraded by six years of dishonor - fearing fear itself.
H.L. Mencken said that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Tomorrow we’ll see if he was right.”
Among other things, I also wrote:
“Lincoln said, ‘You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.’ Tomorrow we’ll find out whether Kkkarl Rove can fool enough of the people enough of the time to make Lincoln irrelevant.”
Well, I must say that this old codger is greatly relieved. Lincoln is still relevant, and my doubts have been partially calmed. As Robyn Blumner pointed out in a recent column:
“After all the books and articles proclaiming that Republicans were the permanent new majority, that their demographic, structural and money advantages were unstoppable and that the electorate could be ruled by fear-mongering, a Republican specialty, Election Day 2006 proved the pundits wrong. There is a limit to how much incompetence, greed, corruption, prevarication, secrecy and sanctimony the American people will stand. No news could be more comforting.”
I’m with Robyn on that, and crusty old H.L. will have to back off a bit – but only a bit. The one certain thing this election shows is that if our leaders are corrupt enough for six years, the American people will stop anointing them and kick their asses out.
However, considering the damage these monsters have wreaked in six years – while one MUST rejoice in their exit – one also wonders what new atrocity will be embraced by Mencken’s dull public and allowed to plunder American bodies and souls for another six years.
So, I guess the Uke Man’s final reaction to “The Day” is that, thankfully, the people, indeed, DID stand up !! But I’m also quite concerned that, as is their habit, they’ll return immediately to their long, warm, reassuring hibernation.
Friday, at Dick's Den, I'll be participating in "Circus of Cool," where poets do the Beat thing, reading their poems to the accompaniament of a live Jazz Band.
The rant I'll be delivering relates to my thoughts discussed here. I'll be putting it up on the blog soon.
- Uke Man
Carmina Burana
Hey Folks,
I heard this music-related piece on NPR the other day and knew I had to share it with you. I found it stirring.
There are a number of ways you can join me in this.
The NPR site page is: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6471891
It contains the radio audio and musical downloads from the piece, as well as a printed and complementary commentary.
The sensual Latin lyrics (obviously written by young men) can be deciphered at:
http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/works/orff-cb/carmlyr.html
Here's a sample:
8. Chramer, gip die varwe mir (Shopkeeper, give me colour)
Chramer, gip die varwe mir - Shopkeeper, give me colour
die min wengel roete - to make my cheeks red,
damit ich die jungen man - so that I can make the young men
an ir dank der minnenliebe noete - love me, against their will.
Seht mich an - Look at me,
jungen man! - young men!
lat mich iu gevallen! - Let me please you!
Minnet, tugentliche man, - Good men, love
minnecliche frouwen! - women worthy of love!
minne tuot iu hoch gemout - Love ennobles your spirit
unde lat iuch in hohen eren schouwen - and gives you honour.
Seht mich an - Look at me,
jungen man! - young men!
lat mich iu gevallen! - Let me please you!
Wol dir, werit, daz du bist - Hail, world,
also freudenriche! - so rich in joys!
ich will dir sin undertan - I will be obedient to you
durch din liebe immer sicherliche - because of the pleasures you afford.
Seht mich an - Look at me,
jungen man! - young men!
lat mich iu gevallen! - Let me please you!
Enjoy!!!
- Uke Man
I heard this music-related piece on NPR the other day and knew I had to share it with you. I found it stirring.
There are a number of ways you can join me in this.
The NPR site page is: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6471891
It contains the radio audio and musical downloads from the piece, as well as a printed and complementary commentary.
The sensual Latin lyrics (obviously written by young men) can be deciphered at:
http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/works/orff-cb/carmlyr.html
Here's a sample:
8. Chramer, gip die varwe mir (Shopkeeper, give me colour)
Chramer, gip die varwe mir - Shopkeeper, give me colour
die min wengel roete - to make my cheeks red,
damit ich die jungen man - so that I can make the young men
an ir dank der minnenliebe noete - love me, against their will.
Seht mich an - Look at me,
jungen man! - young men!
lat mich iu gevallen! - Let me please you!
Minnet, tugentliche man, - Good men, love
minnecliche frouwen! - women worthy of love!
minne tuot iu hoch gemout - Love ennobles your spirit
unde lat iuch in hohen eren schouwen - and gives you honour.
Seht mich an - Look at me,
jungen man! - young men!
lat mich iu gevallen! - Let me please you!
Wol dir, werit, daz du bist - Hail, world,
also freudenriche! - so rich in joys!
ich will dir sin undertan - I will be obedient to you
durch din liebe immer sicherliche - because of the pleasures you afford.
Seht mich an - Look at me,
jungen man! - young men!
lat mich iu gevallen! - Let me please you!
Enjoy!!!
- Uke Man
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
What IS "America" ??
Hey Folks,
Herbert says it well. I'll comment afterwards.
- Uke Man
November 13, 2006
The Fading Dream
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
“America moved me all over again — it was an amazing place, the idea of it astounding.” —Arthur Miller
Rumsfeld is exiting stage left and the curtain is coming down on George W. Bush’s Theater of the Absurd. A rival company is setting up shop and expectations are high.
O.K., Democrats. Now what? Inquiring minds want to know if the new troupe will make us laugh, cheer, or cry.
First, let’s stipulate that there are limits to what the party can achieve in the next two years, even with control of both houses of Congress. But the two most important tasks facing the Democrats are doable. The first is to ensure that Congress fulfills its constitutional obligation to impose a check on the excesses of the executive.
The second task is to respond to the anxiety that has seeped through much of the electorate about the state of the nation. Americans are worried about the war, the political and economic situation here at home, the way the U.S. is perceived by the rest of the world, and the direction in which the country is heading.
The Democrats didn’t win the off-year elections, the Republicans lost them. And I’m convinced that the Republicans lost because while they were in charge (“Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job”) millions of Americans began to lose confidence in those things that had moved them about America — its awesome power to do good, its ethical underpinnings, and most important, that incredible array of qualities that fell under the magical, mystical heading, the American dream.
A real-life metaphor for what has happened to America occurred last week on the west side of Manhattan. After inviting hundreds of well-wishers to watch, officials had planned to tow the aircraft carrier Intrepid from its dock to a facility on the other side of the Hudson River, where it would undergo a major overhaul. But when the time for its departure arrived, the Intrepid, which has served for years as a popular Sea, Air and Space Museum, could not be budged. It was stuck in the mud beneath the river.
The Intrepid was commissioned in 1943, when the U.S. still knew how to win wars. Its active history encompassed that extraordinary post-World War II period when bold leadership and a sense of common purpose transformed the U.S. and made it the envy of the world. That leadership and sense of common purpose has since been largely lost.
The elite now send other people’s children off to fight and die in wars that are unwinnable. On the home front, a two-tiered economy has been put in place in which a small percentage of the population does extremely well while a majority of working Americans are in an all-but-permanent state of anxiety about job security, pensions, the economic impact of globalization, the cost of health care, college tuition, and so on.
For perhaps the first time in history, there is a large swath of Americans who are worried that over the long haul their children will not fare as well as they have.
For resurgent Democrats there is no better touchstone right now than Franklin Roosevelt. He understood the corrosive effects of prolonged economic insecurity and the essential need for cooperation in the effort to build a successful society. His goal was “to make a country in which no one is left out.”
Roosevelt had both the vision and the political skills, including an indestructible sense of optimism, to galvanize the nation in some of its darkest hours. Those qualities have been in short supply among the terminally timid Democrats of recent years.
Last week, the voters gave the Democrats another opportunity to lead, not just on the war in Iraq, but on such questions as how best to deal with globalization, how to make real progress toward energy independence, and how to ensure that the economic benefits of a wealthy nation are more equitably shared.
What voters really want to know is whether the American dream will still be there for the next generation.
In Congress over the next two years, and in the presidential campaign of 2008, the Democrats will have to respond to that question with a coherent vision of the nation’s future and a cadre of leaders who, like Roosevelt, can convey that vision convincingly and optimistically.
There’s a reason why the Democratic figure generating the most excitement at the moment, Barack Obama, titled his latest book, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.”
Folks,
If Herbert is right about the dreadful things that have overtaken us in the last few years, shouldn’t EVERYONE be wondering about what kind of beasts could set out consciously to mistreat us so? Shouldn’t EVERYONE be wondering about what kind of person could justify such action and what kind of person could support it from the beginning and even support it still?
This election “landslide” is not really THAT big; almost as many votes were red as were blue. How much will it take to return us to the dark side? And could so many followers of darkness have just sprung up in the last six years?
I don’t think so.
I think Herbert is right in the sense that there HAS been a great abandonment of the “official” mythology. That is, the reality never actually existed. Under good economic situations, it seemed real; and the doctrine was always up front and trumpeted across the land: ta-daaaaaa… “The American Dream”!!!!
But with the oncoming competition from countries like China and India, this has been abandoned. Not even lip service is paid to the dream that anyone can become rich or even that everyone can be middle class. The mantra now is that everyone should shut up and be happy with a continuously shrinking standard of living.
My guess is that the Democrats might slow the slide, but there are no Roosevelts in the offing. Things will have to get much worse before the elite will be forced into anything but self-advancement.
Even a bright young man like Barack Obama can’t change that.
-Uke Man
Herbert says it well. I'll comment afterwards.
- Uke Man
November 13, 2006
The Fading Dream
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
“America moved me all over again — it was an amazing place, the idea of it astounding.” —Arthur Miller
Rumsfeld is exiting stage left and the curtain is coming down on George W. Bush’s Theater of the Absurd. A rival company is setting up shop and expectations are high.
O.K., Democrats. Now what? Inquiring minds want to know if the new troupe will make us laugh, cheer, or cry.
First, let’s stipulate that there are limits to what the party can achieve in the next two years, even with control of both houses of Congress. But the two most important tasks facing the Democrats are doable. The first is to ensure that Congress fulfills its constitutional obligation to impose a check on the excesses of the executive.
The second task is to respond to the anxiety that has seeped through much of the electorate about the state of the nation. Americans are worried about the war, the political and economic situation here at home, the way the U.S. is perceived by the rest of the world, and the direction in which the country is heading.
The Democrats didn’t win the off-year elections, the Republicans lost them. And I’m convinced that the Republicans lost because while they were in charge (“Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job”) millions of Americans began to lose confidence in those things that had moved them about America — its awesome power to do good, its ethical underpinnings, and most important, that incredible array of qualities that fell under the magical, mystical heading, the American dream.
A real-life metaphor for what has happened to America occurred last week on the west side of Manhattan. After inviting hundreds of well-wishers to watch, officials had planned to tow the aircraft carrier Intrepid from its dock to a facility on the other side of the Hudson River, where it would undergo a major overhaul. But when the time for its departure arrived, the Intrepid, which has served for years as a popular Sea, Air and Space Museum, could not be budged. It was stuck in the mud beneath the river.
The Intrepid was commissioned in 1943, when the U.S. still knew how to win wars. Its active history encompassed that extraordinary post-World War II period when bold leadership and a sense of common purpose transformed the U.S. and made it the envy of the world. That leadership and sense of common purpose has since been largely lost.
The elite now send other people’s children off to fight and die in wars that are unwinnable. On the home front, a two-tiered economy has been put in place in which a small percentage of the population does extremely well while a majority of working Americans are in an all-but-permanent state of anxiety about job security, pensions, the economic impact of globalization, the cost of health care, college tuition, and so on.
For perhaps the first time in history, there is a large swath of Americans who are worried that over the long haul their children will not fare as well as they have.
For resurgent Democrats there is no better touchstone right now than Franklin Roosevelt. He understood the corrosive effects of prolonged economic insecurity and the essential need for cooperation in the effort to build a successful society. His goal was “to make a country in which no one is left out.”
Roosevelt had both the vision and the political skills, including an indestructible sense of optimism, to galvanize the nation in some of its darkest hours. Those qualities have been in short supply among the terminally timid Democrats of recent years.
Last week, the voters gave the Democrats another opportunity to lead, not just on the war in Iraq, but on such questions as how best to deal with globalization, how to make real progress toward energy independence, and how to ensure that the economic benefits of a wealthy nation are more equitably shared.
What voters really want to know is whether the American dream will still be there for the next generation.
In Congress over the next two years, and in the presidential campaign of 2008, the Democrats will have to respond to that question with a coherent vision of the nation’s future and a cadre of leaders who, like Roosevelt, can convey that vision convincingly and optimistically.
There’s a reason why the Democratic figure generating the most excitement at the moment, Barack Obama, titled his latest book, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.”
Folks,
If Herbert is right about the dreadful things that have overtaken us in the last few years, shouldn’t EVERYONE be wondering about what kind of beasts could set out consciously to mistreat us so? Shouldn’t EVERYONE be wondering about what kind of person could justify such action and what kind of person could support it from the beginning and even support it still?
This election “landslide” is not really THAT big; almost as many votes were red as were blue. How much will it take to return us to the dark side? And could so many followers of darkness have just sprung up in the last six years?
I don’t think so.
I think Herbert is right in the sense that there HAS been a great abandonment of the “official” mythology. That is, the reality never actually existed. Under good economic situations, it seemed real; and the doctrine was always up front and trumpeted across the land: ta-daaaaaa… “The American Dream”!!!!
But with the oncoming competition from countries like China and India, this has been abandoned. Not even lip service is paid to the dream that anyone can become rich or even that everyone can be middle class. The mantra now is that everyone should shut up and be happy with a continuously shrinking standard of living.
My guess is that the Democrats might slow the slide, but there are no Roosevelts in the offing. Things will have to get much worse before the elite will be forced into anything but self-advancement.
Even a bright young man like Barack Obama can’t change that.
-Uke Man
More Bullshit Economic Reports
Hey Folks,
In my continuing effort to unmask "economic reports" as the propaganda they are, here is another recent one with my comments in red.
- Uke Man
Unemployment rate drops to 5-year low
By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer Fri Nov 3, 3:56 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The unemployment rate dropped to a five-year low [Bush has been here SIX years] of 4.4 percent in October as employers added 92,000 new jobs [which is a loss, since it takes more than that just to keep up with newcomers to the workplace] — flashing a picture of a strong labor market as the midterm elections draw near [a distortion if not a flat-out lie - but as it says, the election was coming; so anything goes].
The latest report, released Friday by the Labor Department, showed that the civilian unemployment rate fell 0.2 percentage point from 4.6 percent in September. It marked the third month in a row that the politically prominent jobless rate declined. Again, this measure is oblivious to the quality of jobs involved; computer programing and washing dishes count the same - and with off-shore outsourcing going great guns, the quality of available jobs is dropping.
The tally of new jobs added to the economy in October fell short of economists expectations for an increase of around 125,000 positions, however. Nonetheless, job gains in both August and September turned out to be much stronger than previously estimated — and that took much of the sting out of October's less-than-expected payroll performance. Here we have another disconnected - therefore meaningless - statistic. More and more I see reported that something is better or worse than "predicted." All that demonstrates is that the "experts" were wrong. It does not provide any information relevant to evaluating the actual impact on the situation.
Friday's report provided the last snapshot of the nation's employment scene before next week's elections. No wonder it was characterized positively.
President Bush was quick to seize upon the figures as evidence that his economic policies are working. Duh!!!!!
"Tax cuts have led to a strong and growing economy and this morning we got more proof [yeah, right] of that," the president said at Republican rally in Springfield, Mo. Bush also expressed confidence that Republicans would keep control of Congress [well, democrats turned out to be "much stronger than estimated," but that didn't "take any of the sting out of it"]. Of the Democrats, he said: " ... now they're forecasting they're going to win the election. If their elections forecasts are as good as their economic forecasts, we are going to have a great day on November the seventh." Well, I guess we know how good George's estimates were.
How voters view job availability, wage growth and other economic conditions is likely to play a role in the balloting nationwide on Tuesday. Republicans say Americans are mostly better off, while Democrat rivals disagree, saying low- and middle-income workers are struggling.
Bush's approval rating on the economy is at 40 percent, among all adults surveyed in an AP-Ipsos poll. That remains near his lowest ratings. Those surveyed trusted Democrats more than Republicans to handle the economy.
On Wall Street, the employment news helped push stocks higher.
Workers saw solid wages gains last month.
Workers' average hourly earnings climbed to $16.91 in October, a sizable 0.4 percent increase from September. That increase was bigger than the 0.3 percent rise economists were expecting. Over the last 12 months, wages grew by 3.9 percent. Wall Street would piss on 3.9 percent.
Growth in wages is good for workers, but a rapid and sustained advance makes economists fret about inflation flaring up [have you ever heard of economists "fretting" over large increases in profits?]. That's not good for the economy or workers' pocketbooks, ultimately, because inflation can eat into everybody's buying power. The real reason economists hate inflation is that it makes it easier for debtors to pay back the banks - quite often, economists work for banks - a lot of people hate lawyers; they ought to hate economists.
The hunt for a job got shorter. And what pot of shit was at the end of that rainbow? They don't tell us, do they?
The average time that the unemployed spent in their search for work in October was 16.5 weeks, an improvement from the average 17.4 weeks registered in September.
On the payroll front, job losses in manufacturing, construction and retail offset gains in professional and business services, education and health, government and elsewhere. Well, they sort of tell us. It looks like good-paying jobs (manufacturing) were lost; less well-paying jobs were gained.
Factories shed 39,000 jobs in October, marking the fourth straight month of employment cuts. Construction companies got rid of 26,000 jobs, while retailers trimmed 3,500 positions.
Professional and businesses services, meanwhile, added 43,000 jobs. Education and health expanded employment by 28,000, and the government payroll swelled by 34,000.
"The job market is healthy even though the economy has been slowing. This report tells us the economy is holding its own, not spiraling downward," said Stuart Schweitzer, global market strategist for JPMorgan Asset and Wealth Management. How many Americans have need of "Asset and Wealth Management" assistance?
All told the 92,000 total net jobs added in October were the fewest in a year, when the economy was suffering the blow of the Gulf Coast hurricanes. The WORST performance all year, and they STILL come out with a ROSY interpretation!!
That disappointment, however, was offset by much better job gains in the previous two months. Employers added 148,000 jobs in September, versus the 51,000 first reported. Payrolls grew by a robust 230,000 in August, stronger than the 188,000 slots previously recorded.
The 4.4 percent unemployment rate was the lowest since the spring of 2001.
The jobless rate for blacks fell to 8.6 percent last month, from 9.2 percent in September. The unemployment rate for Hispanics dropped to 4.7 percent, from 5.4 percent. The jobless rate for teenagers declined to 15.4 percent from 16.4 percent.
The drop in the overall unemployment rate surprised economists who were expecting the unemployment rate to hold steady in October or possibly edge up a notch.
The employment gains come against a backdrop of a slowing national economy.
Given these circumstances, the Federal Reserve held interest rates steady last week for the third meeting in a row but made clear that policymakers will keep a close eye out for inflation.
To fend off inflation, the central bank since June 2004 had hoisted rates 17 times, the longest string of increases in Fed history. The Fed's goal is to slow the economy sufficiently to thwart inflation but not so much as to push it into recession. That is, slow the economy enough so that the labor supply stays large enough to keep wages down and profits up.
Economic growth slowed to a 1.6 percent annual rate in the late summer, the most sluggish pace in more than three years. The housing slump was a major factor in the slowdown. Economists believe growth in the current October-to-December quarter will turn out better. Just in time for the election, they predict things will get better (remember how many times their predictions have been wrong?).
Monday, November 13, 2006
???????????????????
Hey Folks,
Here's a video I found both disturbing and uplifting.
See what you think. "Kiwi":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdUUx5FdySs
- Uke Man
Here's a video I found both disturbing and uplifting.
See what you think. "Kiwi":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdUUx5FdySs
- Uke Man
Karl Pig & Porky Marx Video
Hey Folks,
What do Porky Pig and Karl Marx have in common?
The unique video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1oGIffyVVk
I got a chuckle. It was instructive AND fun. The juxtaposition of the dead-pan narrator and the cartoon characters kept me paying attention aurally and visually.
When I was a kid, they said Comic Books were in league with Satan. I guess now they'll say Cartoons are.
Check it out.
- Uke Man
What do Porky Pig and Karl Marx have in common?
The unique video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1oGIffyVVk
I got a chuckle. It was instructive AND fun. The juxtaposition of the dead-pan narrator and the cartoon characters kept me paying attention aurally and visually.
When I was a kid, they said Comic Books were in league with Satan. I guess now they'll say Cartoons are.
Check it out.
- Uke Man
If you see Grover Norquist, please spit on him for me.
Hey Folks,
Mr. Krugman speaks for me. For some time I have felt revulsion over what the monsters-in-charge have been getting by with for six years. I am so very much relieved that, at last, a majority of my fellow citizens have "just said no."
And, if you'd prefer, and if you get the chance, you can drag Grover Norquist to the bathroom and drown him in the bathtub for me. How deliciously appropriate!!
Thanking you in advance,
- Uke Man
November 10, 2006
The Great Revulsion
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a BIG ukethanks to Phyll)
I’m not feeling giddy as much as greatly relieved. O.K., maybe a little giddy. Give ’em hell, Harry and Nancy!
Here’s what I wrote more than three years ago, in the introduction to my column collection “The Great Unraveling”: “I have a vision — maybe just a hope — of a great revulsion: a moment in which the American people look at what is happening, realize how their good will and patriotism have been abused, and put a stop to this drive to destroy much of what is best in our country.”
At the time, the right was still celebrating the illusion of victory in Iraq, and the bizarre Bush personality cult was still in full flower. But now the great revulsion has arrived.
Tuesday’s election was a truly stunning victory for the Democrats. Candidates planning to caucus with the Democrats took 24 of the 33 Senate seats at stake this year, winning seven million more votes than Republicans. In House races, Democrats received about 53 percent of the two-party vote, giving them a margin more than twice as large as the 2.5-percentage-point lead that Mr. Bush claimed as a “mandate” two years ago — and the margin would have been even bigger if many Democrats hadn’t been running unopposed.
The election wasn’t just the end of the road for Mr. Bush’s reign of error. It was also the end of the 12-year Republican dominance of Congress. The Democrats will now hold a majority in the House that is about as big as the Republicans ever achieved during that era of dominance.
Moreover, the new Democratic majority may well be much more effective than the majority the party lost in 1994. Thanks to a great regional realignment, in which a solid Northeast has replaced the solid South, Democratic control no longer depends on a bloc of Dixiecrats whose ideological sympathies were often with the other side of the aisle.
Now, I don’t expect or want a permanent Democratic lock on power. But I do hope and believe that this election marks the beginning of the end for the conservative movement that has taken over the Republican Party.
In saying that, I’m not calling for or predicting the end of conservatism. There always have been and always will be conservatives on the American political scene. And that’s as it should be: a diversity of views is part of what makes democracy vital.
But we may be seeing the downfall of movement conservatism — the potent alliance of wealthy individuals, corporate interests and the religious right that took shape in the 1960s and 1970s. This alliance may once have had something to do with ideas, but it has become mainly a corrupt political machine, and America will be a better place if that machine breaks down.
Why do I want to see movement conservatism crushed? Partly because the movement is fundamentally undemocratic; its leaders don’t accept the legitimacy of opposition. Democrats will only become acceptable, declared Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, once they “are comfortable in their minority status.” He added, “Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate.”
And the determination of the movement to hold on to power at any cost has poisoned our political culture. Just think about the campaign that just ended, with its coded racism, deceptive robo-calls, personal smears, homeless men bused in to hand out deceptive fliers, and more. Not to mention the constant implication that anyone who questions the Bush administration or its policies is very nearly a traitor.
When movement conservatism took it over, the Republican Party ceased to be the party of Dwight Eisenhower and became the party of Karl Rove. The good news is that Karl Rove and the political tendency he represents may both have just self-destructed.
Two years ago, people were talking about permanent right-wing dominance of American politics. But since then the American people have gotten a clearer sense of what rule by movement conservatives means. They’ve seen the movement take us into an unnecessary war, and botch every aspect of that war. They’ve seen a great American city left to drown; they’ve seen corruption reach deep into our political process; they’ve seen the hypocrisy of those who lecture us on morality.
And they just said no.
Mr. Krugman speaks for me. For some time I have felt revulsion over what the monsters-in-charge have been getting by with for six years. I am so very much relieved that, at last, a majority of my fellow citizens have "just said no."
And, if you'd prefer, and if you get the chance, you can drag Grover Norquist to the bathroom and drown him in the bathtub for me. How deliciously appropriate!!
Thanking you in advance,
- Uke Man
November 10, 2006
The Great Revulsion
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a BIG ukethanks to Phyll)
I’m not feeling giddy as much as greatly relieved. O.K., maybe a little giddy. Give ’em hell, Harry and Nancy!
Here’s what I wrote more than three years ago, in the introduction to my column collection “The Great Unraveling”: “I have a vision — maybe just a hope — of a great revulsion: a moment in which the American people look at what is happening, realize how their good will and patriotism have been abused, and put a stop to this drive to destroy much of what is best in our country.”
At the time, the right was still celebrating the illusion of victory in Iraq, and the bizarre Bush personality cult was still in full flower. But now the great revulsion has arrived.
Tuesday’s election was a truly stunning victory for the Democrats. Candidates planning to caucus with the Democrats took 24 of the 33 Senate seats at stake this year, winning seven million more votes than Republicans. In House races, Democrats received about 53 percent of the two-party vote, giving them a margin more than twice as large as the 2.5-percentage-point lead that Mr. Bush claimed as a “mandate” two years ago — and the margin would have been even bigger if many Democrats hadn’t been running unopposed.
The election wasn’t just the end of the road for Mr. Bush’s reign of error. It was also the end of the 12-year Republican dominance of Congress. The Democrats will now hold a majority in the House that is about as big as the Republicans ever achieved during that era of dominance.
Moreover, the new Democratic majority may well be much more effective than the majority the party lost in 1994. Thanks to a great regional realignment, in which a solid Northeast has replaced the solid South, Democratic control no longer depends on a bloc of Dixiecrats whose ideological sympathies were often with the other side of the aisle.
Now, I don’t expect or want a permanent Democratic lock on power. But I do hope and believe that this election marks the beginning of the end for the conservative movement that has taken over the Republican Party.
In saying that, I’m not calling for or predicting the end of conservatism. There always have been and always will be conservatives on the American political scene. And that’s as it should be: a diversity of views is part of what makes democracy vital.
But we may be seeing the downfall of movement conservatism — the potent alliance of wealthy individuals, corporate interests and the religious right that took shape in the 1960s and 1970s. This alliance may once have had something to do with ideas, but it has become mainly a corrupt political machine, and America will be a better place if that machine breaks down.
Why do I want to see movement conservatism crushed? Partly because the movement is fundamentally undemocratic; its leaders don’t accept the legitimacy of opposition. Democrats will only become acceptable, declared Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, once they “are comfortable in their minority status.” He added, “Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate.”
And the determination of the movement to hold on to power at any cost has poisoned our political culture. Just think about the campaign that just ended, with its coded racism, deceptive robo-calls, personal smears, homeless men bused in to hand out deceptive fliers, and more. Not to mention the constant implication that anyone who questions the Bush administration or its policies is very nearly a traitor.
When movement conservatism took it over, the Republican Party ceased to be the party of Dwight Eisenhower and became the party of Karl Rove. The good news is that Karl Rove and the political tendency he represents may both have just self-destructed.
Two years ago, people were talking about permanent right-wing dominance of American politics. But since then the American people have gotten a clearer sense of what rule by movement conservatives means. They’ve seen the movement take us into an unnecessary war, and botch every aspect of that war. They’ve seen a great American city left to drown; they’ve seen corruption reach deep into our political process; they’ve seen the hypocrisy of those who lecture us on morality.
And they just said no.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Would any of these folks be allowed to march through Jerusalem?
What if it turned out they were gay???
Let's see. Jesus never married and he hung out with guys? Hmmm . . .
Hey Folks,
At the "Second Coming" Maybe Jesus should march into Mexico City rather than Jerusalem.
- Uke Man
Mexico City approves gay civil unions
By E. EDUARDO CASTILLO, Associated Press
MEXICO CITY - Mexico City's assembly on Thursday voted for the first time in the country's history to legally recognize gay civil unions, a measure that will provide same-sex couples with benefits similar to those of married couples. The mayor was expected to sign the measure into law.
The bill, which does not approve gay marriage, allows same-sex couples to register their union with civil authorities, granting them inheritance and pension rights, as well as other social benefits. Lawmakers were still finalizing the details.
Heterosexual couples who are not legally married can also be registered under the legislation.
The bill was severely criticized by the Catholic Church and conservative civil groups. It passed by a vote of 43-17, with all the opposition coming from the National Action Party of President Vicente Fox and president-elect Felipe Calderon.
The party is known for its opposition to abortion and its support for traditional families.
Mexico City is a federal district with its own legislature, and the law will apply only to residents of the capital, with a population of 8.7 million. This is the first time any state legislature has approved such a law anywhere in Mexico.
Prospect of gay march in Jerusalem unites often hostile faiths
By Ravi Nessman
ASSOCIATED PRESS
July 12, 2006
(Uke Man note: the march was stopped a day or two ago and replaced with a rally - so much for freedom and equality)
JERUSALEM – Christian leaders condemned it. Jewish radicals put a bounty on participants. Muslim clerics threatened to flood the streets with protesters. Jerusalem's conflicting religions have found rare common ground: opposition to an international gay pride parade next month.
“We consider this offensive and harmful to the religious integrity of the city,” said Sheik Taissir Tamimi, head of the Islamic court in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
“This group of homosexuals, we consider them impure,” he said, calling on Palestinians to take to the streets to prevent marchers from entering east Jerusalem, where the holy sites are located. They “must not be allowed to enter Jerusalem.”
The march is the centerpiece of the seven-day WorldPride festival, intended to bring people of different faiths and cultures to a strife-torn city in an example of peaceful coexistence, said Hagai Elad, executive director of the Jerusalem Open House for Pride and Tolerance, which is organizing the event.
It also makes the statement that gays have as much right to the holy city's heritage as anyone else, he said.
“People on the one hand talk about the holiness of Jerusalem and at the same time are speaking in unacceptable ways against the dignity of other human beings,” he added. “How that contributes to the holiness of Jerusalem is something that I don't understand.”
A previous WorldPride festival was held in another holy city – Rome – in 2000. This year's event is expected to draw 20,000 people from around the world starting Aug. 6. It includes a Youth Day, arts and cultural exhibits, and a conference by religious leaders – nearly all of them from abroad – who support the gay community.
But local leaders in this deeply conservative city are pushing to have the gathering canceled.
Rabbi Shlomo Amar, one of Israel's two chief rabbis, wrote a letter to Pope Benedict XVI, urging him to issue a “strong, emotional, unequivocal statement against this terrible phenomenon.”
“The evil are coming upon (Jerusalem) to desecrate its honor and to humiliate its glory with acts that the Torah despises and that are despised by all the religions,” Amar wrote. “In addition, they also want to negatively influence babies, children and teenagers, to ruin them and bring them down the path of destruction.”
The ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism Party has submitted a no-confidence motion against the government over the parade, accusing authorities of not doing enough to stop it.
Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski, himself an ultra-Orthodox Jew, has called for the parade's cancellation, but his office said Tuesday he had no authority to take such action. The police, who are responsible for authorizing parades, said they had not decided whether to grant a permit.
The festival was originally scheduled for last summer, but organizers delayed it out of sensitivity for Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Thousands marched in a local gay pride parade instead, weathering insults from protesters and a stabbing attack by an ultra-Orthodox Jew that wounded three people.
The threat of violence has resurfaced this year. An anonymous flyer distributed in some ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods Tuesday offered about $4,400 to anyone who killed a marcher.
Three Christian Zionist groups based in Jerusalem issued a joint statement condemning the march, saying its choice of venue was intended to spur conflict.
“It's provocative, confrontational and it's a PR move. It's a gimmick,” said David Parsons, spokesman for the International Christian Embassy, an Evangelical group that signed the statement. “It exploits what Jerusalem means to us. I don't think it means anything to the gay and lesbian community.”
Archbishop Aristarchous, of the Greek Orthodox church, took a softer line, calling on “the sanctity of Jerusalem to be respected by them, and by everybody.”
Wadiya Abu Nasr, a former Catholic Church official here and a commentator on Christianity, said he believed the gay community had the right to march, but suggested the secular city of Tel Aviv, which is much friendlier to the gay community, would be a better place to do it.
“One has to be not only just, but to be wise and not to be provocative. There are other places they could express themselves without directly offending anybody,” he said.
Elad said marching in Tel Aviv would detract from the event's significance.
“Tel Aviv is a wonderful city, but Tel Aviv does not carry the international symbolism that Jerusalem does. There is only one Jerusalem,” he said.
The proposed route would take the marchers from Independence Park in west Jerusalem toward the Israeli parliament, keeping them miles away from the Old City, which holds the Western Wall, the Dome of the Rock and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, three of the city's holiest sites.
Uzi Even, an openly gay former lawmaker from the dovish Meretz Party, said the organizers needed to be careful to stay away from those sites, but the parade should proceed because it carries important symbolic value.
“That is why the religious people are so much against it,” he said. It shows “that we are here, that we cannot be silenced, that we don't want to hide in the closet anymore, that we demand our rights, even from the religious parties.”
At the "Second Coming" Maybe Jesus should march into Mexico City rather than Jerusalem.
- Uke Man
Mexico City approves gay civil unions
By E. EDUARDO CASTILLO, Associated Press
MEXICO CITY - Mexico City's assembly on Thursday voted for the first time in the country's history to legally recognize gay civil unions, a measure that will provide same-sex couples with benefits similar to those of married couples. The mayor was expected to sign the measure into law.
The bill, which does not approve gay marriage, allows same-sex couples to register their union with civil authorities, granting them inheritance and pension rights, as well as other social benefits. Lawmakers were still finalizing the details.
Heterosexual couples who are not legally married can also be registered under the legislation.
The bill was severely criticized by the Catholic Church and conservative civil groups. It passed by a vote of 43-17, with all the opposition coming from the National Action Party of President Vicente Fox and president-elect Felipe Calderon.
The party is known for its opposition to abortion and its support for traditional families.
Mexico City is a federal district with its own legislature, and the law will apply only to residents of the capital, with a population of 8.7 million. This is the first time any state legislature has approved such a law anywhere in Mexico.
Prospect of gay march in Jerusalem unites often hostile faiths
By Ravi Nessman
ASSOCIATED PRESS
July 12, 2006
(Uke Man note: the march was stopped a day or two ago and replaced with a rally - so much for freedom and equality)
JERUSALEM – Christian leaders condemned it. Jewish radicals put a bounty on participants. Muslim clerics threatened to flood the streets with protesters. Jerusalem's conflicting religions have found rare common ground: opposition to an international gay pride parade next month.
“We consider this offensive and harmful to the religious integrity of the city,” said Sheik Taissir Tamimi, head of the Islamic court in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
“This group of homosexuals, we consider them impure,” he said, calling on Palestinians to take to the streets to prevent marchers from entering east Jerusalem, where the holy sites are located. They “must not be allowed to enter Jerusalem.”
The march is the centerpiece of the seven-day WorldPride festival, intended to bring people of different faiths and cultures to a strife-torn city in an example of peaceful coexistence, said Hagai Elad, executive director of the Jerusalem Open House for Pride and Tolerance, which is organizing the event.
It also makes the statement that gays have as much right to the holy city's heritage as anyone else, he said.
“People on the one hand talk about the holiness of Jerusalem and at the same time are speaking in unacceptable ways against the dignity of other human beings,” he added. “How that contributes to the holiness of Jerusalem is something that I don't understand.”
A previous WorldPride festival was held in another holy city – Rome – in 2000. This year's event is expected to draw 20,000 people from around the world starting Aug. 6. It includes a Youth Day, arts and cultural exhibits, and a conference by religious leaders – nearly all of them from abroad – who support the gay community.
But local leaders in this deeply conservative city are pushing to have the gathering canceled.
Rabbi Shlomo Amar, one of Israel's two chief rabbis, wrote a letter to Pope Benedict XVI, urging him to issue a “strong, emotional, unequivocal statement against this terrible phenomenon.”
“The evil are coming upon (Jerusalem) to desecrate its honor and to humiliate its glory with acts that the Torah despises and that are despised by all the religions,” Amar wrote. “In addition, they also want to negatively influence babies, children and teenagers, to ruin them and bring them down the path of destruction.”
The ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism Party has submitted a no-confidence motion against the government over the parade, accusing authorities of not doing enough to stop it.
Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski, himself an ultra-Orthodox Jew, has called for the parade's cancellation, but his office said Tuesday he had no authority to take such action. The police, who are responsible for authorizing parades, said they had not decided whether to grant a permit.
The festival was originally scheduled for last summer, but organizers delayed it out of sensitivity for Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Thousands marched in a local gay pride parade instead, weathering insults from protesters and a stabbing attack by an ultra-Orthodox Jew that wounded three people.
The threat of violence has resurfaced this year. An anonymous flyer distributed in some ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods Tuesday offered about $4,400 to anyone who killed a marcher.
Three Christian Zionist groups based in Jerusalem issued a joint statement condemning the march, saying its choice of venue was intended to spur conflict.
“It's provocative, confrontational and it's a PR move. It's a gimmick,” said David Parsons, spokesman for the International Christian Embassy, an Evangelical group that signed the statement. “It exploits what Jerusalem means to us. I don't think it means anything to the gay and lesbian community.”
Archbishop Aristarchous, of the Greek Orthodox church, took a softer line, calling on “the sanctity of Jerusalem to be respected by them, and by everybody.”
Wadiya Abu Nasr, a former Catholic Church official here and a commentator on Christianity, said he believed the gay community had the right to march, but suggested the secular city of Tel Aviv, which is much friendlier to the gay community, would be a better place to do it.
“One has to be not only just, but to be wise and not to be provocative. There are other places they could express themselves without directly offending anybody,” he said.
Elad said marching in Tel Aviv would detract from the event's significance.
“Tel Aviv is a wonderful city, but Tel Aviv does not carry the international symbolism that Jerusalem does. There is only one Jerusalem,” he said.
The proposed route would take the marchers from Independence Park in west Jerusalem toward the Israeli parliament, keeping them miles away from the Old City, which holds the Western Wall, the Dome of the Rock and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, three of the city's holiest sites.
Uzi Even, an openly gay former lawmaker from the dovish Meretz Party, said the organizers needed to be careful to stay away from those sites, but the parade should proceed because it carries important symbolic value.
“That is why the religious people are so much against it,” he said. It shows “that we are here, that we cannot be silenced, that we don't want to hide in the closet anymore, that we demand our rights, even from the religious parties.”
To die for a mistake
Hey Folks,
Here's a column from late October by Frank Rich, a card-carrying member of the Reality-based Community.
I find it reassuring that, by using one's brain and senses to study a situation, a person can come so much closer to the truth than by guessing or "taking it on faith."
Rich's evaluation of the situation and the position of the American people is so much superior to that proposed by the Monkey Man (his advantage of conversing with God notwithstanding): “I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security.”
Both Bush and Rummy blamed their ignominious repudiation on the people's failure to "comprehend" the fantasies they had floated; but as Malcolm X said, "The chickens are coming home to roost." Reality is intruding its "ugly" head. Play/pretend time is over!!
It's too bad that so many of us succumbed to the propaganda of the politicos and their lapdog media sycophants. It's too bad that so many of us succumbed to the mind-numbing, adrenelin-pumping drug of "patriotism." It's too bad that so many of us succumbed to the craven fear of fear itself; BUT enough!!
End the war!!!!!
-Uke Man
October 29,
Dying to Save the G.O.P. Congress
[too late - Uke Man]
By FRANK RICH
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
IF you happened to be up around dawn on Tuesday, you could witness the death rattle of our adventure in Iraq live on CNN. Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the American commander, were making new promises from the bunker of the Green Zone, inspiring about as much confidence as Jackie Gleason and Art Carney hatching a get-rich-quick scheme to sell a kitchen gadget on “The Honeymooners.”
“Success in Iraq is possible and can be achieved on a realistic timetable,” said Mr. Khalilzad. Iraq can be “in a very good place in 12 months,” said General Casey. Even a child could see how much was wrong with this picture.
If there really is light at the end of the tunnel, why after three and a halfyears can’t we yet guarantee light in Baghdad? Symbolically enough, television transmission of the Khalilzad-Casey press conference was interrupted by another of the city’s daily power failures. If Iraq’s leaders had signed on to the 12-month plan of “benchmarks” the Americans advertised, why were those leaders nowhere in sight? We found out one day later, when the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, mocked the very idea of an America-imposed timetable. “I am positive that this is not the official policy of the American government, but rather a result of the ongoing election campaign,” he said, adding dismissively, “And that does not concern us much.”
Give the Iraqi leader credit for a Borat-like candor that almost every Americanin this sorry tale lacks. Of course all the White House’s latest jabberwockyabout “benchmarks” and “milestones” and “timetables” (never to be confused with those Defeatocrats’ “timelines”) is nothing more than an election-year P.R. strategy, as is the laughable banishment of “stay the course.” There is no new American plan to counter the apocalypse now playing out in Iraq, only new packaging to pacify American voters between now and Nov. 7. And recycled packaging at that: President Bush had last announced that he and Mr. Maliki were developing “benchmarks” to “measure progress” in Iraq back in June.
As Richard Holbrooke, the broker of the Bosnia peace accords, has observed, the only real choice left for the president now is either “escalation or disengagement.” But there are no troops, let alone money or national will, for escalation. Disengagement within a year, however, is favored by 54 percent of Americans and, more important, 71 percent of Iraqis. After Election Day, adults in Washington will step in, bow to the obvious and pull the plug. The current administration strategy — praying for a miracle — is not an option. The current panacea favored by anxious Republican Congressional candidates — firing Donald Rumsfeld — is too little, too late.
The adults in charge of disengagement will include the Bush family consigliere, James Baker, whose bipartisan Iraq Study Group will present its findings after the election, and John Warner, the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, who has promised a re-evaluation of Iraq policy within roughly the same time frame. Democrats will have a role in direct proportion to the clout they gain in the midterms.
One way or another the various long-shot exit scenarios being debated in the capital will be sorted out: federalism and partition; reaching out somehow forhelp from Iran and Syria; replacing Mr. Maliki with a Saddam-lite strongman.There will be some kind of timeline, or whatever you want to call it, withenforced benchmarks, or whatever you want to call them, for phased withdrawal. (Read “Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now” by George McGovern and William R. Polk for a particularly persuasive blueprint.) In any event, the timeline will end no later than Inauguration Day 2009.
In keeping with the political cynicism that gave birth to this war and hasrecklessly prolonged it, the only ones being kept in the dark about this inevitable denouement are our fighting men and women. They remain trapped, dying in accelerating numbers in a civil war that is now killing so many Iraqi civilians that Mr. Maliki this month ordered his health ministry to stop releasing any figures.
Our troops are held hostage by the White House’s political imperatives as much as they are by the violence. Desperate to maintain the election-year P.R. ruse that an undefined “victory” is still within reach, Mr. Bush went so far at Wednesday’s press conference as to say that “absolutely, we’re winning” in Iraq.
He explained his rationale to George Stephanopoulos last weekend, when he asserted that the number of casualties was the enemy’s definition of success or failure, not his. “I define success or failure as to whether or not the Iraqis will be able to defend themselves,” the president said, and “as to whether the unity government” is making the “difficult decisions necessary to unite the country.”
Unfortunately, the war is a calamity by both of those definitions as well.
The American command’s call for a mere 3,000 more Iraqi troops to help defend Baghdad has gone unanswered. As we’ve learned from Operation Together Forward, when Iraqis do stand up, violence goes up. And when American and British troops stand down, murderous sectarian militias, some of them allied with that “unity” government, fill the vacuum, taking over entire cities like Amara and Balad in broad daylight. As for those “difficult decisions” Mr. Bush regards as so essential, the Iraqi government’s policy is cut and run.
Mr. Maliki is not cracking down on rampaging militias but running interference for their kingpin, Moktada al-Sadr. Mr. Maliki treats this radical anti-American Shiite cleric, his political ally, with far more deference than he shows the American president.
The ultimate chutzpah is that Mr. Bush, the man who sold us Saddam’s imminent mushroom clouds and “Mission Accomplished,” is trivializing the chaos in Iraq as propaganda. The enemy’s “sophisticated” strategy, he said in last weekend’s radio address, is to distribute “images of violence” to television networks, Web sites and journalists to “demoralize our country.”
This is a morally repugnant argument. The “images of violence” from Iraq are not fake — like, say, the fiction our government manufactured about the friendly-fire death of Pat Tillman or the upbeat news stories the Pentagon spends millions of dollars planting in Iraqi newspapers today. These images of violence are real. Americans really are dying at the fastest pace in at least a year, and Iraqis in the greatest numbers to date. To imply that this carnage is magnified by the news media, whether the American press or Al Jazeera, is to belittle the gravity of the escalated bloodshed and to duck accountability for the mismanagement of the war. Mr. Bush’s logic is reminiscent of Jeffrey Skilling’s obtuse view of his innocence in the Enron scandal, though at least Mr. Skilling has been held accountable for the wreckage of lives on his watch.
It is also wrong to liken what’s going on now, as Mr. Bush has, to the Tet offensive. That sloppy Vietnam analogy was first made by Mr. Rumsfeld in June 2004 to try to explain away the explosive rise in the war’s violence at that time.
It made a little more sense then, since both the administration and the American public were still being startled by the persistence of the Iraq insurgency, much as the Johnson administration and Walter Cronkite were by the Viet Cong’s tenacity in 1968. Before Tet, as Stanley Karnow’s history, “Vietnam,” reminds us, public approval of L.B.J.’s conduct of the war still stood at 40 percent, yet to hit rock bottom.
Where we are in Iraq today is not 1968 but 1971, after the bottom had fallen out, Johnson had abdicated and America had completely turned on Vietnam.
At that point, approval of Richard Nixon’s handling of the war was at 34 percent, comparable to Mr. Bush’s current 30. The percentage of Americans who thought the Vietnam War was “morally wrong” stood at 51, comparable to the 58 percent who now think the Iraq war was a mistake. Many other Vietnam developments in 1971 have their counterparts in 2006: the leaking of classified Pentagon reports revealing inept and duplicitous war policy, White House demonization of the press, the joining of moderate Republican senators with Democrats to press for a specific date for American withdrawal.
That’s why it seemed particularly absurd when, in his interview with Mr. Stephanopoulos last weekend, Mr. Bush said that “the fundamental question”Americans must answer is “should we stay?” They’ve been answering that question loud and clear for more than a year now.
What we should be thinking about instead are our obligations to those who are doing the staying. Kevin Tillman, who served with his brother in Iraq and Afghanistan, observed in an angry online essay this month: “Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a 5-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet.”
If we really support the troops, we’ll move past Mr. Bush’s “fundamental question” to one from 1971 posed by a 27-year-old Vietnam veteran, John Kerry, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
Here's a column from late October by Frank Rich, a card-carrying member of the Reality-based Community.
I find it reassuring that, by using one's brain and senses to study a situation, a person can come so much closer to the truth than by guessing or "taking it on faith."
Rich's evaluation of the situation and the position of the American people is so much superior to that proposed by the Monkey Man (his advantage of conversing with God notwithstanding): “I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security.”
Both Bush and Rummy blamed their ignominious repudiation on the people's failure to "comprehend" the fantasies they had floated; but as Malcolm X said, "The chickens are coming home to roost." Reality is intruding its "ugly" head. Play/pretend time is over!!
It's too bad that so many of us succumbed to the propaganda of the politicos and their lapdog media sycophants. It's too bad that so many of us succumbed to the mind-numbing, adrenelin-pumping drug of "patriotism." It's too bad that so many of us succumbed to the craven fear of fear itself; BUT enough!!
End the war!!!!!
-Uke Man
October 29,
Dying to Save the G.O.P. Congress
[too late - Uke Man]
By FRANK RICH
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
IF you happened to be up around dawn on Tuesday, you could witness the death rattle of our adventure in Iraq live on CNN. Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the American commander, were making new promises from the bunker of the Green Zone, inspiring about as much confidence as Jackie Gleason and Art Carney hatching a get-rich-quick scheme to sell a kitchen gadget on “The Honeymooners.”
“Success in Iraq is possible and can be achieved on a realistic timetable,” said Mr. Khalilzad. Iraq can be “in a very good place in 12 months,” said General Casey. Even a child could see how much was wrong with this picture.
If there really is light at the end of the tunnel, why after three and a halfyears can’t we yet guarantee light in Baghdad? Symbolically enough, television transmission of the Khalilzad-Casey press conference was interrupted by another of the city’s daily power failures. If Iraq’s leaders had signed on to the 12-month plan of “benchmarks” the Americans advertised, why were those leaders nowhere in sight? We found out one day later, when the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, mocked the very idea of an America-imposed timetable. “I am positive that this is not the official policy of the American government, but rather a result of the ongoing election campaign,” he said, adding dismissively, “And that does not concern us much.”
Give the Iraqi leader credit for a Borat-like candor that almost every Americanin this sorry tale lacks. Of course all the White House’s latest jabberwockyabout “benchmarks” and “milestones” and “timetables” (never to be confused with those Defeatocrats’ “timelines”) is nothing more than an election-year P.R. strategy, as is the laughable banishment of “stay the course.” There is no new American plan to counter the apocalypse now playing out in Iraq, only new packaging to pacify American voters between now and Nov. 7. And recycled packaging at that: President Bush had last announced that he and Mr. Maliki were developing “benchmarks” to “measure progress” in Iraq back in June.
As Richard Holbrooke, the broker of the Bosnia peace accords, has observed, the only real choice left for the president now is either “escalation or disengagement.” But there are no troops, let alone money or national will, for escalation. Disengagement within a year, however, is favored by 54 percent of Americans and, more important, 71 percent of Iraqis. After Election Day, adults in Washington will step in, bow to the obvious and pull the plug. The current administration strategy — praying for a miracle — is not an option. The current panacea favored by anxious Republican Congressional candidates — firing Donald Rumsfeld — is too little, too late.
The adults in charge of disengagement will include the Bush family consigliere, James Baker, whose bipartisan Iraq Study Group will present its findings after the election, and John Warner, the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, who has promised a re-evaluation of Iraq policy within roughly the same time frame. Democrats will have a role in direct proportion to the clout they gain in the midterms.
One way or another the various long-shot exit scenarios being debated in the capital will be sorted out: federalism and partition; reaching out somehow forhelp from Iran and Syria; replacing Mr. Maliki with a Saddam-lite strongman.There will be some kind of timeline, or whatever you want to call it, withenforced benchmarks, or whatever you want to call them, for phased withdrawal. (Read “Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now” by George McGovern and William R. Polk for a particularly persuasive blueprint.) In any event, the timeline will end no later than Inauguration Day 2009.
In keeping with the political cynicism that gave birth to this war and hasrecklessly prolonged it, the only ones being kept in the dark about this inevitable denouement are our fighting men and women. They remain trapped, dying in accelerating numbers in a civil war that is now killing so many Iraqi civilians that Mr. Maliki this month ordered his health ministry to stop releasing any figures.
Our troops are held hostage by the White House’s political imperatives as much as they are by the violence. Desperate to maintain the election-year P.R. ruse that an undefined “victory” is still within reach, Mr. Bush went so far at Wednesday’s press conference as to say that “absolutely, we’re winning” in Iraq.
He explained his rationale to George Stephanopoulos last weekend, when he asserted that the number of casualties was the enemy’s definition of success or failure, not his. “I define success or failure as to whether or not the Iraqis will be able to defend themselves,” the president said, and “as to whether the unity government” is making the “difficult decisions necessary to unite the country.”
Unfortunately, the war is a calamity by both of those definitions as well.
The American command’s call for a mere 3,000 more Iraqi troops to help defend Baghdad has gone unanswered. As we’ve learned from Operation Together Forward, when Iraqis do stand up, violence goes up. And when American and British troops stand down, murderous sectarian militias, some of them allied with that “unity” government, fill the vacuum, taking over entire cities like Amara and Balad in broad daylight. As for those “difficult decisions” Mr. Bush regards as so essential, the Iraqi government’s policy is cut and run.
Mr. Maliki is not cracking down on rampaging militias but running interference for their kingpin, Moktada al-Sadr. Mr. Maliki treats this radical anti-American Shiite cleric, his political ally, with far more deference than he shows the American president.
The ultimate chutzpah is that Mr. Bush, the man who sold us Saddam’s imminent mushroom clouds and “Mission Accomplished,” is trivializing the chaos in Iraq as propaganda. The enemy’s “sophisticated” strategy, he said in last weekend’s radio address, is to distribute “images of violence” to television networks, Web sites and journalists to “demoralize our country.”
This is a morally repugnant argument. The “images of violence” from Iraq are not fake — like, say, the fiction our government manufactured about the friendly-fire death of Pat Tillman or the upbeat news stories the Pentagon spends millions of dollars planting in Iraqi newspapers today. These images of violence are real. Americans really are dying at the fastest pace in at least a year, and Iraqis in the greatest numbers to date. To imply that this carnage is magnified by the news media, whether the American press or Al Jazeera, is to belittle the gravity of the escalated bloodshed and to duck accountability for the mismanagement of the war. Mr. Bush’s logic is reminiscent of Jeffrey Skilling’s obtuse view of his innocence in the Enron scandal, though at least Mr. Skilling has been held accountable for the wreckage of lives on his watch.
It is also wrong to liken what’s going on now, as Mr. Bush has, to the Tet offensive. That sloppy Vietnam analogy was first made by Mr. Rumsfeld in June 2004 to try to explain away the explosive rise in the war’s violence at that time.
It made a little more sense then, since both the administration and the American public were still being startled by the persistence of the Iraq insurgency, much as the Johnson administration and Walter Cronkite were by the Viet Cong’s tenacity in 1968. Before Tet, as Stanley Karnow’s history, “Vietnam,” reminds us, public approval of L.B.J.’s conduct of the war still stood at 40 percent, yet to hit rock bottom.
Where we are in Iraq today is not 1968 but 1971, after the bottom had fallen out, Johnson had abdicated and America had completely turned on Vietnam.
At that point, approval of Richard Nixon’s handling of the war was at 34 percent, comparable to Mr. Bush’s current 30. The percentage of Americans who thought the Vietnam War was “morally wrong” stood at 51, comparable to the 58 percent who now think the Iraq war was a mistake. Many other Vietnam developments in 1971 have their counterparts in 2006: the leaking of classified Pentagon reports revealing inept and duplicitous war policy, White House demonization of the press, the joining of moderate Republican senators with Democrats to press for a specific date for American withdrawal.
That’s why it seemed particularly absurd when, in his interview with Mr. Stephanopoulos last weekend, Mr. Bush said that “the fundamental question”Americans must answer is “should we stay?” They’ve been answering that question loud and clear for more than a year now.
What we should be thinking about instead are our obligations to those who are doing the staying. Kevin Tillman, who served with his brother in Iraq and Afghanistan, observed in an angry online essay this month: “Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a 5-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet.”
If we really support the troops, we’ll move past Mr. Bush’s “fundamental question” to one from 1971 posed by a 27-year-old Vietnam veteran, John Kerry, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Whoa Nellie
Hey Folks,
Just wanted to share some shots from my outing today. I got to see five of my very best friends play wonderful music at the St. James club (Detroit St. Just off N. 4th - Columbus).
They are Whoa Nellie: Bob Starker (vocals, guitar, sax), Bob Hite (keyboard), Peter English (drums), Trent Arnold (bass), and Ed Mann (guitar).
Great original stuff !!
- Uke Man
Just wanted to share some shots from my outing today. I got to see five of my very best friends play wonderful music at the St. James club (Detroit St. Just off N. 4th - Columbus).
They are Whoa Nellie: Bob Starker (vocals, guitar, sax), Bob Hite (keyboard), Peter English (drums), Trent Arnold (bass), and Ed Mann (guitar).
Great original stuff !!
- Uke Man
So much for religion being the answer
Hey Folks,
Here it is, the uplifting, godly effect of religion. Burn the witches, ban the queers, defeat the Muslims (or the Christians or the Jews), and - by all means - kill the Tutsis, Sunis, Shiites, Croats, Serbs, Irish, Brits, etc., etc., etc. etc., etc., etc.
God loves blood. He told me so.*
- Uke Man
* On the other hand, Cheeses save !!! Try the Morbier.
Catholic nun gets 30 years for Rwanda genocide
By ANTHONY MITCHELL, Associated Press Fri Nov 10
NAIROBI, Kenya - A Catholic nun has been sentenced to 30 years in jail for helping militias kill hundreds of people hiding in a hospital during Rwanda's 1994 genocide, an official said Friday.
Theophister Mukakibibi was sentenced by a traditional gacaca court for helping Hutu militiamen to kill ethnic Tutsis seeking refuge from the slaughter in Butare hospital, where she worked.
"She was responsible for selecting Tutsis and would throw them out of the hospital and the militia would then kill them," said Jean Baptiste Ndahumba, president of the local gacaca court in Butare town. "This nun was organizing people to be killed." She was jailed Thursday.
She would also hold regular meetings with Hutu extremist groups and denied food to Tutsis hiding in the hospital, he said by telephone. About 20 people testified against her, he added.
In the massacre, 100,000 people were killed in the southeastern prefecture of Butare.
A number of Hutu Catholic and Protestant church leaders are alleged to have played significant roles in the east African nation's 100-day massacre. More than a half-million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by the militia, orchestrated by the extremist Hutu government then in power. The genocide ended when Tutsi rebels toppled the government.
The gacaca courts are intended to speed up the genocide trials and are separate from the conventional judicial system. With nine judges from the local community, the traditional courts were also established to help heal divisions but can impose life sentences.
Some 63,000 genocide suspects are detained in Rwanda, and justice authorities say that at least 761,000 people should stand trial for their role in the slaughter and chaos that came with it. The suspects represent 9.2 percent of Rwanda's estimated 8.2 million people.
A U.N. tribunal based in neighboring Tanzania is trying those accused of masterminding the genocide in Rwanda. Three members of the clergy have appeared at the tribunal.
In 2001, two Rwandan Catholic nuns were convicted by a Belgian court for aiding and abetting the mass murders. A Roman Catholic priest is on trial before the Tanzania-based U.N. tribunal, accused of ordering the slaughter of 2,000 people who sought refuge in his church.
Rwanda's genocide began hours after a plane carrying President Juvenal Habyarimana was mysteriously shot down as it approached the capital, Kigali, on the evening of April 6, 1994. The leader was returning from power-sharing talks with Tutsi-led rebels.
The genocide ended after rebels, led by current President Paul Kagame, ousted the extremist Hutu government that had orchestrated the slaughter.
Here it is, the uplifting, godly effect of religion. Burn the witches, ban the queers, defeat the Muslims (or the Christians or the Jews), and - by all means - kill the Tutsis, Sunis, Shiites, Croats, Serbs, Irish, Brits, etc., etc., etc. etc., etc., etc.
God loves blood. He told me so.*
- Uke Man
* On the other hand, Cheeses save !!! Try the Morbier.
Catholic nun gets 30 years for Rwanda genocide
By ANTHONY MITCHELL, Associated Press Fri Nov 10
NAIROBI, Kenya - A Catholic nun has been sentenced to 30 years in jail for helping militias kill hundreds of people hiding in a hospital during Rwanda's 1994 genocide, an official said Friday.
Theophister Mukakibibi was sentenced by a traditional gacaca court for helping Hutu militiamen to kill ethnic Tutsis seeking refuge from the slaughter in Butare hospital, where she worked.
"She was responsible for selecting Tutsis and would throw them out of the hospital and the militia would then kill them," said Jean Baptiste Ndahumba, president of the local gacaca court in Butare town. "This nun was organizing people to be killed." She was jailed Thursday.
She would also hold regular meetings with Hutu extremist groups and denied food to Tutsis hiding in the hospital, he said by telephone. About 20 people testified against her, he added.
In the massacre, 100,000 people were killed in the southeastern prefecture of Butare.
A number of Hutu Catholic and Protestant church leaders are alleged to have played significant roles in the east African nation's 100-day massacre. More than a half-million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by the militia, orchestrated by the extremist Hutu government then in power. The genocide ended when Tutsi rebels toppled the government.
The gacaca courts are intended to speed up the genocide trials and are separate from the conventional judicial system. With nine judges from the local community, the traditional courts were also established to help heal divisions but can impose life sentences.
Some 63,000 genocide suspects are detained in Rwanda, and justice authorities say that at least 761,000 people should stand trial for their role in the slaughter and chaos that came with it. The suspects represent 9.2 percent of Rwanda's estimated 8.2 million people.
A U.N. tribunal based in neighboring Tanzania is trying those accused of masterminding the genocide in Rwanda. Three members of the clergy have appeared at the tribunal.
In 2001, two Rwandan Catholic nuns were convicted by a Belgian court for aiding and abetting the mass murders. A Roman Catholic priest is on trial before the Tanzania-based U.N. tribunal, accused of ordering the slaughter of 2,000 people who sought refuge in his church.
Rwanda's genocide began hours after a plane carrying President Juvenal Habyarimana was mysteriously shot down as it approached the capital, Kigali, on the evening of April 6, 1994. The leader was returning from power-sharing talks with Tutsi-led rebels.
The genocide ended after rebels, led by current President Paul Kagame, ousted the extremist Hutu government that had orchestrated the slaughter.
Friday, November 10, 2006
"the Middle"
Hey Folks,
After the election I heard Gwen Eiffel (of PBS fame) interviewing young people regarding politics. One young man said he was tired of watching people yelling at each other and wanted more discussion in "the middle."
Aha! That's how it happens. Brainwash them when they're young, and the system is safe.
Well, unless a discussion is focused on solving a real problem, and that discussion operates on a rational, "reality based," i.e. scientific, basis, there is no "middle."
Potholes in the springtime are a real problem for almost everyone. Each of us would like to have our personally familiar potholes fixed immediately (an extreme position). Potholes, however, are repaired by governmental entities which enjoy limited resources. All the potholes cannot be fixed immediately; that job is beyond any city's ability. So, we all rationally accept a less extreme, "middle," solution: most cities attempt to fix the worst potholes in the most traveled areas first and then move to less dangerous and disruptive traffic hazards. They neither attempt to fix all of them at once nor do they ignore the problem entirely. They "move to the middle," and that is quite sensible.
In this context the young man's objection to screaming combatants from opposing extremes makes sense, but in the context of politics, it is meaningless.
If the goal actually is to solve a real problem, and two opposing views are vying in good faith to solve the problem, one way or another the differences will be worked out over time until either the problem is solved or both camps are forced to admit that neither solution works and a third is needed. There is very little reason here for the kind of screaming nonsense to which the young man rightly objected.
The garbage circulating now, however, about moving to the middle is not from this context.
The hot-button issues on which the talking heads and scribbling hands are demanding a "moderate," collegial approach are not real problems and are not discussed on a rational basis. As such, they have no "middle."
What they are talking about is nothing more than the continuing war between "faith" and "reason." Where these two perspectives clash or are spun as clashing, there is no middle. Moreover, there is no way to discuss them "in the middle." There is no way to "move them to the middle." The positions are "extreme" and entrenched because neither side speaks the other's language. Worse, while the "rational" side is open to challenge via contradictory objective data, the "faith" side is absolute and not amenable to challenge.
For example, the notion that homosexuality is an abomination (rather than a normal part of biological diversity) is supposed (by some) to be God's direct teaching via the Bible (his "holy word"). There is no proof or evidence, however, to support or challenge the claim that the Bible is either God's word or holy; such a position is not rational; it is simply a matter of faith.
As such, it is impossible to debate. One can scream, "God says!!" or "There is no god!!" but one can offer no evidence to support either position. One can only scream unrelated nonsense and pretend it means something. In this context there is no middle and there can be no middle.
Now, I grew up believing that the "founding fathers" had solved this dilemma by "moving it to the middle" in a legitimate way: by establishing a "free country."
For a long time I believed that in the USA people could hold any religious belief they wanted (including pagan beliefs), build their churches, teach the religion to their kids, and knock on doors of non-believers to spread the "good news" if that was their thing; and that people could have no religion or even preach atheism and knock on doors of believers to "free them from their delusions" if that was their thing.
THAT is the "middle." Apparently, though, we are no longer officially following this plan. Instead, some among us believe they are being persecuted for their faith by not being allowed to impose their faith on everyone else. That is an extreme view, and it makes "compromise" impossible.
If one claims persecution unless everyone who doesn't agree with one is forced to agree, that is an absolute. If allowing one to believe and promulgate whatever one wants, while allowing others the same right isn't a compromise, isn't the "middle," what is?
The "game" or "con" were experiencing is: getting the one side to "compromise" by allowing the other to impose as much of its agenda as possible today and impose more later (again arguing "compromise"), on and on until there is only one side left.
That's what gets fed to our young people as good faith discussion, moving to the middle, working together, and compromise.
And this is not a phenomenon related solely to religion. It is a child of the Right in general.
As in the religious example, the "extremes" being denigrated recently by so many establishment "experts" involve one side which is rationally/reality/scientifically based; and another which like "faith" cannot be supported by evidence from the real world. Similarly to those religious folks who doubt their own "faith" lest everyone agree with them; the more zealous among the right know that they hold arbitrary positions specifically designed to maintain and advance themselves and are scared to death that the vast masses of people - those they are abusing - might find out the truth.
Unlike the religious zealots, though, the solution of letting everyone (in a free country) believe whatever they want never has been a solution. The whole point of the self-serving dogma they work so hard to impose upon everyone else is not "protecting a personal faith that sustains them spiritually or psychologically," but convincing everyone else to embrace a perception that preserves the irrational and unjust prerogatives of the ruling minority.
In this scenario there is no room for "compromise," only screaming. No matter what objective data, no matter what scientific evidence, no matter what observational reports are presented regarding "agent orange," pollution, the death penalty, taxes, the economy, drugs, global warming, racism, immigration, public education, reproduction, gender orientation, outsourcing, what have you; the right - like the religiously faithful - have already decided the "truth" that best fits their needs before the discussion began; no discussion is necessary, only submission. Failing that, there is screaming.
As a result, there is no moving to the middle; there is not even the thought of moving to the middle. The prime directive is to impose the pre-ordained view on everyone else; and we're back to "compromising" away some of the people's humanity now and "compromising" more of it away later - on and on until there is nothing left.
Well, I agree with the youngster. We need more discussion in the middle.
But we're not going to get it. The nutcases who can't understand that separation of church and state PROTECTS their religious rights from nuts like them in other religions and from conniving politicians in government aren't going to change. Likewise the vampire oligarchs, their retainers, and their demented wanna-bees are not going to suddenly adopt altruism or even a basic respect for humanity.
The screaming down of anything that speaks to freedom or justice for the masses of people in this world will continue. And, far from advocating a genteel splitting of the differences, I suggest we add kicking and biting to our repertoire.
- Uke Man
After the election I heard Gwen Eiffel (of PBS fame) interviewing young people regarding politics. One young man said he was tired of watching people yelling at each other and wanted more discussion in "the middle."
Aha! That's how it happens. Brainwash them when they're young, and the system is safe.
Well, unless a discussion is focused on solving a real problem, and that discussion operates on a rational, "reality based," i.e. scientific, basis, there is no "middle."
Potholes in the springtime are a real problem for almost everyone. Each of us would like to have our personally familiar potholes fixed immediately (an extreme position). Potholes, however, are repaired by governmental entities which enjoy limited resources. All the potholes cannot be fixed immediately; that job is beyond any city's ability. So, we all rationally accept a less extreme, "middle," solution: most cities attempt to fix the worst potholes in the most traveled areas first and then move to less dangerous and disruptive traffic hazards. They neither attempt to fix all of them at once nor do they ignore the problem entirely. They "move to the middle," and that is quite sensible.
In this context the young man's objection to screaming combatants from opposing extremes makes sense, but in the context of politics, it is meaningless.
If the goal actually is to solve a real problem, and two opposing views are vying in good faith to solve the problem, one way or another the differences will be worked out over time until either the problem is solved or both camps are forced to admit that neither solution works and a third is needed. There is very little reason here for the kind of screaming nonsense to which the young man rightly objected.
The garbage circulating now, however, about moving to the middle is not from this context.
The hot-button issues on which the talking heads and scribbling hands are demanding a "moderate," collegial approach are not real problems and are not discussed on a rational basis. As such, they have no "middle."
What they are talking about is nothing more than the continuing war between "faith" and "reason." Where these two perspectives clash or are spun as clashing, there is no middle. Moreover, there is no way to discuss them "in the middle." There is no way to "move them to the middle." The positions are "extreme" and entrenched because neither side speaks the other's language. Worse, while the "rational" side is open to challenge via contradictory objective data, the "faith" side is absolute and not amenable to challenge.
For example, the notion that homosexuality is an abomination (rather than a normal part of biological diversity) is supposed (by some) to be God's direct teaching via the Bible (his "holy word"). There is no proof or evidence, however, to support or challenge the claim that the Bible is either God's word or holy; such a position is not rational; it is simply a matter of faith.
As such, it is impossible to debate. One can scream, "God says!!" or "There is no god!!" but one can offer no evidence to support either position. One can only scream unrelated nonsense and pretend it means something. In this context there is no middle and there can be no middle.
Now, I grew up believing that the "founding fathers" had solved this dilemma by "moving it to the middle" in a legitimate way: by establishing a "free country."
For a long time I believed that in the USA people could hold any religious belief they wanted (including pagan beliefs), build their churches, teach the religion to their kids, and knock on doors of non-believers to spread the "good news" if that was their thing; and that people could have no religion or even preach atheism and knock on doors of believers to "free them from their delusions" if that was their thing.
THAT is the "middle." Apparently, though, we are no longer officially following this plan. Instead, some among us believe they are being persecuted for their faith by not being allowed to impose their faith on everyone else. That is an extreme view, and it makes "compromise" impossible.
If one claims persecution unless everyone who doesn't agree with one is forced to agree, that is an absolute. If allowing one to believe and promulgate whatever one wants, while allowing others the same right isn't a compromise, isn't the "middle," what is?
The "game" or "con" were experiencing is: getting the one side to "compromise" by allowing the other to impose as much of its agenda as possible today and impose more later (again arguing "compromise"), on and on until there is only one side left.
That's what gets fed to our young people as good faith discussion, moving to the middle, working together, and compromise.
And this is not a phenomenon related solely to religion. It is a child of the Right in general.
As in the religious example, the "extremes" being denigrated recently by so many establishment "experts" involve one side which is rationally/reality/scientifically based; and another which like "faith" cannot be supported by evidence from the real world. Similarly to those religious folks who doubt their own "faith" lest everyone agree with them; the more zealous among the right know that they hold arbitrary positions specifically designed to maintain and advance themselves and are scared to death that the vast masses of people - those they are abusing - might find out the truth.
Unlike the religious zealots, though, the solution of letting everyone (in a free country) believe whatever they want never has been a solution. The whole point of the self-serving dogma they work so hard to impose upon everyone else is not "protecting a personal faith that sustains them spiritually or psychologically," but convincing everyone else to embrace a perception that preserves the irrational and unjust prerogatives of the ruling minority.
In this scenario there is no room for "compromise," only screaming. No matter what objective data, no matter what scientific evidence, no matter what observational reports are presented regarding "agent orange," pollution, the death penalty, taxes, the economy, drugs, global warming, racism, immigration, public education, reproduction, gender orientation, outsourcing, what have you; the right - like the religiously faithful - have already decided the "truth" that best fits their needs before the discussion began; no discussion is necessary, only submission. Failing that, there is screaming.
As a result, there is no moving to the middle; there is not even the thought of moving to the middle. The prime directive is to impose the pre-ordained view on everyone else; and we're back to "compromising" away some of the people's humanity now and "compromising" more of it away later - on and on until there is nothing left.
Well, I agree with the youngster. We need more discussion in the middle.
But we're not going to get it. The nutcases who can't understand that separation of church and state PROTECTS their religious rights from nuts like them in other religions and from conniving politicians in government aren't going to change. Likewise the vampire oligarchs, their retainers, and their demented wanna-bees are not going to suddenly adopt altruism or even a basic respect for humanity.
The screaming down of anything that speaks to freedom or justice for the masses of people in this world will continue. And, far from advocating a genteel splitting of the differences, I suggest we add kicking and biting to our repertoire.
- Uke Man
and what is this???
Hey Folks,
There are three short (cell phone??) videos that relate to the story below. They are at this address:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Police+brutality+William+Cardenas&search=Search
- Uke Man
FBI probes use of force in L.A. arrest
By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ, Associated Press
LOS ANGELES - Video footage posted on YouTube.com showing a police officer repeatedly striking a suspect in the face during an arrest three months ago has triggered an FBI investigation.
The video shows two officers holding down William Cardenas, 24, on a Hollywood street as one punches him several times in the face before they are able to handcuff him. The struggling suspect yells repeatedly "I can't breathe!"
The footage, shot by an area resident, came to the FBI's attention Thursday, prompting investigators to open a civil rights inquiry into the Aug. 11 incident, agency spokeswoman Laura Eimiller said.
The police department has begun its own criminal and administrative investigations into the officers' use of force, said police spokesman Lt. Paul Vernon.
The officers were identified as Alexander Schlegel and Patrick Farrell. Both have been reassigned to administrative work.
"There's no denying that the video is disturbing," Chief William Bratton said at a news conference. "But as to whether the actions of the officers were appropriate in light of what they were experiencing and the totality of the circumstances is what the investigation will determine."
Vernon said Cardenas is a known gang member who had been wanted on a felony warrant for receiving stolen property.
In an arrest report obtained by The Associated Press, the officers said they tried to arrest Cardenas as he and two others were drinking beer on a sidewalk.
Cardenas ran and the officers caught up to him, tripped him and swarmed over him to apply handcuffs, the report said.
The officers described repeated blows to the suspect's face in the report, as well as his efforts to resist, and their concern that he might grab one of their guns during the brawl.
"The suspect's hand covered my partner's gun holster so I yelled at my partner to watch his gun. My partner responded by capping his gun and delivering a left elbow to the suspect's face causing the suspect to let go of him," the report said.
With Cardenas still resisting, one officer used pepper spray on him, but that had "little effect," the report said. The officers were only able to handcuff him after two of his friends arrived and told him to stop fighting, according to the report.
Cardenas suffered cuts and bruises on his arms, leg and face, and received stitches on an eyelid. His attorney, B. Kwaku Duren, accused the officers of violating his client's civil rights and claimed department investigators were stalling.
"I think the LAPD is being caught covering up an obvious excessive use of force," he said.Cardenas, who was held without bail, faces charges of resisting arrest.
Authorities learned of the video footage when the defense made it public Sept. 14 during Cardenas' preliminary hearing, police said. The district attorney's office will decide whether to continue with the case, which is scheduled for trial Nov. 20, said spokeswoman Jane Robison.
There are three short (cell phone??) videos that relate to the story below. They are at this address:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Police+brutality+William+Cardenas&search=Search
- Uke Man
FBI probes use of force in L.A. arrest
By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ, Associated Press
LOS ANGELES - Video footage posted on YouTube.com showing a police officer repeatedly striking a suspect in the face during an arrest three months ago has triggered an FBI investigation.
The video shows two officers holding down William Cardenas, 24, on a Hollywood street as one punches him several times in the face before they are able to handcuff him. The struggling suspect yells repeatedly "I can't breathe!"
The footage, shot by an area resident, came to the FBI's attention Thursday, prompting investigators to open a civil rights inquiry into the Aug. 11 incident, agency spokeswoman Laura Eimiller said.
The police department has begun its own criminal and administrative investigations into the officers' use of force, said police spokesman Lt. Paul Vernon.
The officers were identified as Alexander Schlegel and Patrick Farrell. Both have been reassigned to administrative work.
"There's no denying that the video is disturbing," Chief William Bratton said at a news conference. "But as to whether the actions of the officers were appropriate in light of what they were experiencing and the totality of the circumstances is what the investigation will determine."
Vernon said Cardenas is a known gang member who had been wanted on a felony warrant for receiving stolen property.
In an arrest report obtained by The Associated Press, the officers said they tried to arrest Cardenas as he and two others were drinking beer on a sidewalk.
Cardenas ran and the officers caught up to him, tripped him and swarmed over him to apply handcuffs, the report said.
The officers described repeated blows to the suspect's face in the report, as well as his efforts to resist, and their concern that he might grab one of their guns during the brawl.
"The suspect's hand covered my partner's gun holster so I yelled at my partner to watch his gun. My partner responded by capping his gun and delivering a left elbow to the suspect's face causing the suspect to let go of him," the report said.
With Cardenas still resisting, one officer used pepper spray on him, but that had "little effect," the report said. The officers were only able to handcuff him after two of his friends arrived and told him to stop fighting, according to the report.
Cardenas suffered cuts and bruises on his arms, leg and face, and received stitches on an eyelid. His attorney, B. Kwaku Duren, accused the officers of violating his client's civil rights and claimed department investigators were stalling.
"I think the LAPD is being caught covering up an obvious excessive use of force," he said.Cardenas, who was held without bail, faces charges of resisting arrest.
Authorities learned of the video footage when the defense made it public Sept. 14 during Cardenas' preliminary hearing, police said. The district attorney's office will decide whether to continue with the case, which is scheduled for trial Nov. 20, said spokeswoman Jane Robison.
November 9, 2006
A Come-to-Daddy Moment
By MAUREEN DOWD
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Poppy Bush and James Baker gave Sonny the presidency to play with and he broke it. So now they’re taking it back.
They are dragging W. away from those reckless older guys who have been such a bad influence and getting him some new minders who are a lot more practical.
In a scene that might be called “Murder on the Oval Express,” Rummy turned up dead with so many knives in him that it’s impossible to say who actually finished off the man billed as Washington’s most skilled infighter. (Poppy? Scowcroft? Baker? Laura? Condi? The Silver Fox? Retired generals? Serving generals? Future generals? Troops returning to Iraq for the umpteenth time without a decent strategy? Democrats? Republicans? Joe Lieberman?)
The defense chief got hung out to dry before Saddam got hung. The president and Karl Rove, underestimating the public’s hunger for change or overestimating the loyalty of a fed-up base, did not ice Rummy in time to save the Senate from teetering Democratic. But once Sonny managed to heedlessly dynamite the Republican majority — as well as the Middle East, the Atlantic alliance and the U.S. Army — then Bush Inc., the family firm that snatched the presidency for W. in 2000, had to step in. Two trusted members of the Bush 41 war council, Mr. Baker and Robert Gates, have been dispatched to discipline the delinquent juvenile and extricate him from the mother of all messes.
Mr. Gates, already on Mr. Baker’s “How Do We Get Sonny Out of Deep Doo Doo in Iraq?” study group, left his job protecting 41’s papers at Texas A&M to return to Washington and pry the fingers of Poppy’s old nemesis, Rummy, off the Pentagon.
“They had to bring in someone from the old gang,” said someone from the old gang. “That has to make Junior uneasy. With Bob, the door is opened again to 41 and Baker and Brent.”
W. had no choice but to make an Oedipal U-turn. He couldn’t let Nancy Pelosi subpoena the cranky Rummy for hearings on Iraq. “He’s not exactly Mr. Charming or Mr. Truthful, and he’d be on TV saying something stupid,” said a Bush 41 official. “Bob can just go up to the Hill and say: ‘I don’t know. I wasn’t there when that happened.’ ”
Bob Gates, his friends say, had been worried about the belligerent, arrogant, ideological style of Rummy & Cheney from the start. He fretted at the way W.’s so-called foreign policy “dream team” — including his old staffer and fellow Soviet expert Condi — made it up as they went along, even though that had been their complaint about the Clinton foreign policy team. A realpolitik advocate like his mentor, General Scowcroft, he was critical of a linear, moralizing style that disdained nuance, demoted diplomacy and inflated villains. In 2004, he publicly questioned the administration’s approach to Iran.
While Vice went off to a corner to lick his wounds, W. was forced to do his best imitation of his dad yesterday, talking about “bipartisan outreach,” “people have spoken,” blah-blah-blah — after he’d been out on the trail saying that electing Democrats would mean that “the terrorists win and America loses.”
“I share a large part of the responsibility” for the “thumpin’ ” of Republicans, he told reporters. Actually, he gets full responsibility.
W. has stopped talking about democracy as a standard of success in Iraq; yesterday, he said that Iraq had to “govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.”
He was asked if his surprise at the election results showed he was out of touch with Americans. “I thought when it was all said and done,” he replied, “the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security.”
So it was just that the American people were too dumb to understand? W. also managed to bash Vietnam vets, saying that this war isn’t similar because there’s a volunteer army, so “the troops understand the consequences of Iraq in the global war on terror.” Is that why W. stayed out of Vietnam? Because he understood it?
An ashen Rummy was also condescending during his uncomfortable tableau with W. and Bob Gates in the Oval Office, implying that he was dumped because Americans just didn’t “comprehend” what was going on in Iraq. Actually, Rummy, we get it. You don’t get it.
“Baker’s no fool,” a Bush 41 official said. “He wasn’t going to go out there with a plan for Iraq and have Rummy shoot it down. He wanted a receptive audience. Everyone had to be on the same page before the plan is unveiled.”
They don’t call him the Velvet Hammer for nothing. R.I.P., Rummy.
A Come-to-Daddy Moment
By MAUREEN DOWD
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Poppy Bush and James Baker gave Sonny the presidency to play with and he broke it. So now they’re taking it back.
They are dragging W. away from those reckless older guys who have been such a bad influence and getting him some new minders who are a lot more practical.
In a scene that might be called “Murder on the Oval Express,” Rummy turned up dead with so many knives in him that it’s impossible to say who actually finished off the man billed as Washington’s most skilled infighter. (Poppy? Scowcroft? Baker? Laura? Condi? The Silver Fox? Retired generals? Serving generals? Future generals? Troops returning to Iraq for the umpteenth time without a decent strategy? Democrats? Republicans? Joe Lieberman?)
The defense chief got hung out to dry before Saddam got hung. The president and Karl Rove, underestimating the public’s hunger for change or overestimating the loyalty of a fed-up base, did not ice Rummy in time to save the Senate from teetering Democratic. But once Sonny managed to heedlessly dynamite the Republican majority — as well as the Middle East, the Atlantic alliance and the U.S. Army — then Bush Inc., the family firm that snatched the presidency for W. in 2000, had to step in. Two trusted members of the Bush 41 war council, Mr. Baker and Robert Gates, have been dispatched to discipline the delinquent juvenile and extricate him from the mother of all messes.
Mr. Gates, already on Mr. Baker’s “How Do We Get Sonny Out of Deep Doo Doo in Iraq?” study group, left his job protecting 41’s papers at Texas A&M to return to Washington and pry the fingers of Poppy’s old nemesis, Rummy, off the Pentagon.
“They had to bring in someone from the old gang,” said someone from the old gang. “That has to make Junior uneasy. With Bob, the door is opened again to 41 and Baker and Brent.”
W. had no choice but to make an Oedipal U-turn. He couldn’t let Nancy Pelosi subpoena the cranky Rummy for hearings on Iraq. “He’s not exactly Mr. Charming or Mr. Truthful, and he’d be on TV saying something stupid,” said a Bush 41 official. “Bob can just go up to the Hill and say: ‘I don’t know. I wasn’t there when that happened.’ ”
Bob Gates, his friends say, had been worried about the belligerent, arrogant, ideological style of Rummy & Cheney from the start. He fretted at the way W.’s so-called foreign policy “dream team” — including his old staffer and fellow Soviet expert Condi — made it up as they went along, even though that had been their complaint about the Clinton foreign policy team. A realpolitik advocate like his mentor, General Scowcroft, he was critical of a linear, moralizing style that disdained nuance, demoted diplomacy and inflated villains. In 2004, he publicly questioned the administration’s approach to Iran.
While Vice went off to a corner to lick his wounds, W. was forced to do his best imitation of his dad yesterday, talking about “bipartisan outreach,” “people have spoken,” blah-blah-blah — after he’d been out on the trail saying that electing Democrats would mean that “the terrorists win and America loses.”
“I share a large part of the responsibility” for the “thumpin’ ” of Republicans, he told reporters. Actually, he gets full responsibility.
W. has stopped talking about democracy as a standard of success in Iraq; yesterday, he said that Iraq had to “govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.”
He was asked if his surprise at the election results showed he was out of touch with Americans. “I thought when it was all said and done,” he replied, “the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security.”
So it was just that the American people were too dumb to understand? W. also managed to bash Vietnam vets, saying that this war isn’t similar because there’s a volunteer army, so “the troops understand the consequences of Iraq in the global war on terror.” Is that why W. stayed out of Vietnam? Because he understood it?
An ashen Rummy was also condescending during his uncomfortable tableau with W. and Bob Gates in the Oval Office, implying that he was dumped because Americans just didn’t “comprehend” what was going on in Iraq. Actually, Rummy, we get it. You don’t get it.
“Baker’s no fool,” a Bush 41 official said. “He wasn’t going to go out there with a plan for Iraq and have Rummy shoot it down. He wanted a receptive audience. Everyone had to be on the same page before the plan is unveiled.”
They don’t call him the Velvet Hammer for nothing. R.I.P., Rummy.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
What do you think?
Hey Folks,
You may disagree, but I found the radio segment below to be worse than brainless - actually, I found it to be severely depressing.
It launches a number of desperately important issues, and then runs from them, buries them - in the name of momentarily experiencing a warm delusion.
See what you think, and then I'll comment further.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6433989
The speaker "wants to believe" in her "heart of hearts"; she's "all misty eyed" about politicians "working together" since "the idea of it really is grand." She's "always loved election day." She "loves" this. She "loves" that. She "likes" that, and she "loves" this other thing too.
And as for any serious questions about the electoral process, she "doesn't care" - she's "not going there." She's going to "savor those warm fuzzy feelings as long as she can."
That's depressing.
- Uke Man
You may disagree, but I found the radio segment below to be worse than brainless - actually, I found it to be severely depressing.
It launches a number of desperately important issues, and then runs from them, buries them - in the name of momentarily experiencing a warm delusion.
See what you think, and then I'll comment further.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6433989
The speaker "wants to believe" in her "heart of hearts"; she's "all misty eyed" about politicians "working together" since "the idea of it really is grand." She's "always loved election day." She "loves" this. She "loves" that. She "likes" that, and she "loves" this other thing too.
And as for any serious questions about the electoral process, she "doesn't care" - she's "not going there." She's going to "savor those warm fuzzy feelings as long as she can."
That's depressing.
- Uke Man
"Have you ever noticed that the people who tell you to calm down are the ones who got you stirred up in the first place?
Abandon Hope, all ye who vote with passion and insight
Hey Folks,
Monday, on the eve of the election I heard Tom Daschle and Dick (head*) Armey discussing things on the PBS Leherer show. I was disgusted.
Both these yo-yos had served as leaders in the House of Representatives, Democrat and Republican respectively. When asked by Leherer how things would go if the Dems won the house, both of these lads said the same thing – so chummy they were.
Both agreed the two parties would have to – should, in fact - abandon their bases and serve, what they called, “the middle.” They both asserted that serving their bases would only cause “polarization” and “gridlock” – nothing would "get done."
Then, Tuesday I saw a column by right-winger John Tierney of the New York Times, which said:
“We’ve lost our bearings because we’ve followed the old advice to discuss this amongst ourselves. Democracy, we’ve been told, is best served when informed citizens deliberate the issues of the day, pooling their wisdom to reach a judicious consensus.”
This clod’s thesis, as it develops, is that Democracy works best when those in charge are least informed.
Why???? Because when people of opposing views discuss or study issues, they become more attached to their original views. And THAT causes polarization!! Can’t have polarization!!!
Personally, I found both these experiences revolting.
First of all, I can understand Armey eschewing polarization – The R’s are NOW on the short end of the stick (see Maxine, above). But what’s with Daschle?
Since Newt Gingrich’s Contract on America, “polarization” has been the Republican strategy of choice – blatantly, vigorously, loudly, and unabashedly. “Liberal” was made a dirty word. Democrats were demonized. The rich were enriched. The poor were impoverished. Corporations were cut loose. Unions were cut off. "Assassinations" were attempted – some succeeded – on Bill Clinton, Bill Maher, the Dixie Chicks, working people, Social Security, and Medicaid, to name just a few.
Now, that the R’s won’t have carte blanch to continue dismantling the New Deal, the War on Poverty, and the 60’s; we’re supposed to move to the middle “to get things done.” Sure, Dick Armey thinks that’s a good idea, but what’s with Daschle? Yeah, split the difference; kill Social Security, but SLOWLY.
The Democratic base was energized clearly BECAUSE of these and similar, outrageous, extreme perversions of the official American mythology. Now, the D’s are supposed to compromise with, i.e. partially embrace, the perversions of the radical right in order to “get something done”???
Can’t have “polarization”!!
At some level, this argument seems to make sense. It goes this way:
The “bases” of both parties are “extreme.” Neither can get anybody elected by themselves. To “win,” a candidate must attract the support of “the moderate middle.” To do that, a candidate must first feign concern for the base in the primaries to get them committed, then keep them ignorant and docile while courting “the middle” in the general election. Once elected he or she essentially ignores the base altogether (what are these “extreme” folks going to do? Vote for the “other” party??).
Remembering Tierney’s advice, the system works best when the people in “the moderate middle” who don’t discuss issues, who aren’t paying attention, who are unaware of any problems "decide" for us (or think they have decided) what happens in the US of A.
These folks are easier to please (or, more accurately, to convince that they've been pleased). Also, ignoring the problems of the bases (evangelicals, Blacks, xenophobes, gays, etc.) ensures that each party’s respective base will be upset and energized when the next primary rolls around.
It’s a good system for SOMEBODY. It’s good for Daschle, good for Armey, good for Tierney; but is it good for the ignorant middle that Tierney praised?
Well, how would they know? They don’t study, discuss, think, or argue – that causes “polarization” – it's much better, easier, and more patriotic to be uninformed.
Golly, if “the middle” BELIEVES it’s good, isn’t that sufficient? Perception is reality, isn't it??
Well, maybe it is for the dull “middle,” but the perception of the “radical bases” aren’t in sync with their disconnected neighbors'. And it’s not all right. Problems are not addressed, problems are ignored, the existence of problems is denied. Unless the problem festers sufficiently to threaten considerable physical or economic rebellion by the oppressed, the problem continues and thrives year after year after year.
Short of such resistance/rebellion, the politicians and their apologists sail smoothly on, serving what Bob Herbert calls “the ruling elite … those powerful (and invariably wealthy) men and women in both parties who actually influence the course of politics and government,” pretending to serve the pliable
“middle,” and ignoring the oppressed.
So it isn’t difficult to tell who is served by this “compromising,” this “moving to the middle,” this “getting things done,” this avoiding of "polarization." It DOESN’T serve the people, even the dull, ignorant “middle” – whether they THINK it does or not.
So, before anyone on “the left” gets too giddy about the “landslide,” we need to remind ourselves how this system operates and prepare ourselves to move the Daschle’s, Armey’s, Tierney’s, and their brethren to the left, out of the mushy, meaningless “middle,” and into a mode that actually addresses the people’s needs.
They won’t do it on their own. That would be "polarizing."
- Uke Man
*Dick Armey is the politician who “accidentally” called Barney Frank – an openly gay congressman – “Barney Fag.”
Monday, on the eve of the election I heard Tom Daschle and Dick (head*) Armey discussing things on the PBS Leherer show. I was disgusted.
Both these yo-yos had served as leaders in the House of Representatives, Democrat and Republican respectively. When asked by Leherer how things would go if the Dems won the house, both of these lads said the same thing – so chummy they were.
Both agreed the two parties would have to – should, in fact - abandon their bases and serve, what they called, “the middle.” They both asserted that serving their bases would only cause “polarization” and “gridlock” – nothing would "get done."
Then, Tuesday I saw a column by right-winger John Tierney of the New York Times, which said:
“We’ve lost our bearings because we’ve followed the old advice to discuss this amongst ourselves. Democracy, we’ve been told, is best served when informed citizens deliberate the issues of the day, pooling their wisdom to reach a judicious consensus.”
This clod’s thesis, as it develops, is that Democracy works best when those in charge are least informed.
Why???? Because when people of opposing views discuss or study issues, they become more attached to their original views. And THAT causes polarization!! Can’t have polarization!!!
Personally, I found both these experiences revolting.
First of all, I can understand Armey eschewing polarization – The R’s are NOW on the short end of the stick (see Maxine, above). But what’s with Daschle?
Since Newt Gingrich’s Contract on America, “polarization” has been the Republican strategy of choice – blatantly, vigorously, loudly, and unabashedly. “Liberal” was made a dirty word. Democrats were demonized. The rich were enriched. The poor were impoverished. Corporations were cut loose. Unions were cut off. "Assassinations" were attempted – some succeeded – on Bill Clinton, Bill Maher, the Dixie Chicks, working people, Social Security, and Medicaid, to name just a few.
Now, that the R’s won’t have carte blanch to continue dismantling the New Deal, the War on Poverty, and the 60’s; we’re supposed to move to the middle “to get things done.” Sure, Dick Armey thinks that’s a good idea, but what’s with Daschle? Yeah, split the difference; kill Social Security, but SLOWLY.
The Democratic base was energized clearly BECAUSE of these and similar, outrageous, extreme perversions of the official American mythology. Now, the D’s are supposed to compromise with, i.e. partially embrace, the perversions of the radical right in order to “get something done”???
Can’t have “polarization”!!
At some level, this argument seems to make sense. It goes this way:
The “bases” of both parties are “extreme.” Neither can get anybody elected by themselves. To “win,” a candidate must attract the support of “the moderate middle.” To do that, a candidate must first feign concern for the base in the primaries to get them committed, then keep them ignorant and docile while courting “the middle” in the general election. Once elected he or she essentially ignores the base altogether (what are these “extreme” folks going to do? Vote for the “other” party??).
Remembering Tierney’s advice, the system works best when the people in “the moderate middle” who don’t discuss issues, who aren’t paying attention, who are unaware of any problems "decide" for us (or think they have decided) what happens in the US of A.
These folks are easier to please (or, more accurately, to convince that they've been pleased). Also, ignoring the problems of the bases (evangelicals, Blacks, xenophobes, gays, etc.) ensures that each party’s respective base will be upset and energized when the next primary rolls around.
It’s a good system for SOMEBODY. It’s good for Daschle, good for Armey, good for Tierney; but is it good for the ignorant middle that Tierney praised?
Well, how would they know? They don’t study, discuss, think, or argue – that causes “polarization” – it's much better, easier, and more patriotic to be uninformed.
Golly, if “the middle” BELIEVES it’s good, isn’t that sufficient? Perception is reality, isn't it??
Well, maybe it is for the dull “middle,” but the perception of the “radical bases” aren’t in sync with their disconnected neighbors'. And it’s not all right. Problems are not addressed, problems are ignored, the existence of problems is denied. Unless the problem festers sufficiently to threaten considerable physical or economic rebellion by the oppressed, the problem continues and thrives year after year after year.
Short of such resistance/rebellion, the politicians and their apologists sail smoothly on, serving what Bob Herbert calls “the ruling elite … those powerful (and invariably wealthy) men and women in both parties who actually influence the course of politics and government,” pretending to serve the pliable
“middle,” and ignoring the oppressed.
So it isn’t difficult to tell who is served by this “compromising,” this “moving to the middle,” this “getting things done,” this avoiding of "polarization." It DOESN’T serve the people, even the dull, ignorant “middle” – whether they THINK it does or not.
So, before anyone on “the left” gets too giddy about the “landslide,” we need to remind ourselves how this system operates and prepare ourselves to move the Daschle’s, Armey’s, Tierney’s, and their brethren to the left, out of the mushy, meaningless “middle,” and into a mode that actually addresses the people’s needs.
They won’t do it on their own. That would be "polarizing."
- Uke Man
*Dick Armey is the politician who “accidentally” called Barney Frank – an openly gay congressman – “Barney Fag.”
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Serious protests - and how do we respond?
Hey Folks,
Two things:
1. Here's an example of what it takes sometimes to have any chance of obtaining justice.
2. We can invade a country, help overthrow democratically elected officials in foreign countries, and apply sanctions to foreign countries whenever we feel like it; but we can't do anything in this case to help achieve justice and peace.
What do we do? "The embassies of the U.S., Canada, Britain, France and Germany all have warned their citizens to avoid traveling to the region."
Oh, well.
- Uke Man
Protesters in Oaxaca make police retreat
By REBECA ROMERO, Associated Press Writer
Fri Nov 3
OAXACA, Mexico - Protesters besieging this colonial city forced federal police to retreat from the gates of the state university after six hours of pitched fighting and the rector's call for an end to the government "attack.”
The clash Thursday occurred at the entrance to the university, which protesters demanding the ouster of the Oaxaca state governor have used as their headquarters since police drove them from the city's picturesque central plaza on Sunday. Police control in other areas of the city remained spotty.
Reverberations from the ongoing fight in Oaxaca city — seized five months ago by a coalition of striking teachers and leftist protesters — also reached Mexico City, where sympathizers temporarily blocked some downtown streets to demand police withdraw from Oaxaca.
In Oaxaca City, about 200 police wearing body armor and carrying riot shields advanced to the university gates and fought the protesters for more than six hours before retreating. The retreat left protesters claiming victory and pledging to re-establish barricades that had been dismantled in previous days.
Under Mexican law, the university rector must give the police permission to enter. Rector Francisco Martinez, speaking on the university radio station controlled by the protesters, called the operation an "attack" and demanded police withdraw.
Federal police said they simply intended to "restore order and peace" on the streets and did not plan to storm the school.
Previous negotiations between the protesters and the interior department broke down, and on Thursday protest spokesman Florentino Lopez demanded direct talks with President Vicente Fox.
A free medical clinic near the university reported that more than 20 protesters had been treated for bruises, cuts and injuries related to tear gas. Lopez claimed the number of injured was much higher.
Ten officers received various gas-fire burns and bruises, the federal police said.
Photographer David Jaramillo of the Mexican daily El Universal was hit in the arm by a large bottle rocket loaded with nails, and was hospitalized in stable condition, the statement said. Another two photographers suffered minor injuries after being hit by stones or nails packed in the rockets, which are about an inch in diameter and six inches long.
The university radio station reported that at least six demonstrators had been arrested and demanded their release.
The university is a stronghold of the movement to oust Oaxaca Gov. Ulises Ruiz, who is accused of rigging the 2004 election to win office and organizing bands of thugs to attack dissidents. Protesters including trade unionists, leftists and Indian groups have been flocking to Oaxaca since May to press their demands, and took over the center of the state capital for more than five months.
At least nine people have died in the conflict, mostly protesters shot by police or armed gangs. Among the victims was Bradley Roland Will, a 36-year-old activist-journalist from New York, who was shot in the stomach while filming a gunbattle Friday.
The embassies of the U.S., Canada, Britain, France and Germany all have warned their citizens to avoid traveling to the region. The conflict has shattered tourism in the city, which is popular for its colonial architecture and ancient ruins.
Two things:
1. Here's an example of what it takes sometimes to have any chance of obtaining justice.
2. We can invade a country, help overthrow democratically elected officials in foreign countries, and apply sanctions to foreign countries whenever we feel like it; but we can't do anything in this case to help achieve justice and peace.
What do we do? "The embassies of the U.S., Canada, Britain, France and Germany all have warned their citizens to avoid traveling to the region."
Oh, well.
- Uke Man
Protesters in Oaxaca make police retreat
By REBECA ROMERO, Associated Press Writer
Fri Nov 3
OAXACA, Mexico - Protesters besieging this colonial city forced federal police to retreat from the gates of the state university after six hours of pitched fighting and the rector's call for an end to the government "attack.”
The clash Thursday occurred at the entrance to the university, which protesters demanding the ouster of the Oaxaca state governor have used as their headquarters since police drove them from the city's picturesque central plaza on Sunday. Police control in other areas of the city remained spotty.
Reverberations from the ongoing fight in Oaxaca city — seized five months ago by a coalition of striking teachers and leftist protesters — also reached Mexico City, where sympathizers temporarily blocked some downtown streets to demand police withdraw from Oaxaca.
In Oaxaca City, about 200 police wearing body armor and carrying riot shields advanced to the university gates and fought the protesters for more than six hours before retreating. The retreat left protesters claiming victory and pledging to re-establish barricades that had been dismantled in previous days.
Under Mexican law, the university rector must give the police permission to enter. Rector Francisco Martinez, speaking on the university radio station controlled by the protesters, called the operation an "attack" and demanded police withdraw.
Federal police said they simply intended to "restore order and peace" on the streets and did not plan to storm the school.
Previous negotiations between the protesters and the interior department broke down, and on Thursday protest spokesman Florentino Lopez demanded direct talks with President Vicente Fox.
A free medical clinic near the university reported that more than 20 protesters had been treated for bruises, cuts and injuries related to tear gas. Lopez claimed the number of injured was much higher.
Ten officers received various gas-fire burns and bruises, the federal police said.
Photographer David Jaramillo of the Mexican daily El Universal was hit in the arm by a large bottle rocket loaded with nails, and was hospitalized in stable condition, the statement said. Another two photographers suffered minor injuries after being hit by stones or nails packed in the rockets, which are about an inch in diameter and six inches long.
The university radio station reported that at least six demonstrators had been arrested and demanded their release.
The university is a stronghold of the movement to oust Oaxaca Gov. Ulises Ruiz, who is accused of rigging the 2004 election to win office and organizing bands of thugs to attack dissidents. Protesters including trade unionists, leftists and Indian groups have been flocking to Oaxaca since May to press their demands, and took over the center of the state capital for more than five months.
At least nine people have died in the conflict, mostly protesters shot by police or armed gangs. Among the victims was Bradley Roland Will, a 36-year-old activist-journalist from New York, who was shot in the stomach while filming a gunbattle Friday.
The embassies of the U.S., Canada, Britain, France and Germany all have warned their citizens to avoid traveling to the region. The conflict has shattered tourism in the city, which is popular for its colonial architecture and ancient ruins.
Report from Fitrakis & Wasserman
A monumental victory for the election protection movement
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
November 8, 2006
The real winner in the November 7 election is the grassroots voter protection movement.
That the well-oiled, well-funded Rove/Bush theft machine lost control of the US House with the Senate as close as it is says just one thing: somebody was watching. In 2006, that would be thousands of volunteer grassroots activists who left no stone unturned to expose rigged voting machines, Jim Crow registration roadblocks, trashed provisional ballots, manipulated absentee voting processes, and much more.
A nationwide movement has been born to apply the lessons of the stolen elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004. In the lead-up to 2006, activists and independent experts scrutinized voting machines and electoral processes as never before. Mainstream media reports from the New York Times to CNN's Lou Dobbs to hundreds of radio talk shows finally paid attention to "glitches" and "problems" and "long lines" and "disputes" that just an election cycle ago were dismissed as "business as usual" or the stuff of conspiracy theory.
At least six major reports have now warned of the hackability of electronic voting machines. More than 90% of the American public has expressed concern about the sanctity of the US electoral system. At least two state governors have called for electronic voting machines to be discarded in favor of a return to paper ballots.
As we write, in Montana the fate of the U.S. Senate rests on a hand count after a software failure on voting machines in a few remaining precincts.
The impact? There is no way the 2006 election would not have been stolen without a concerted 50-state effort to guarantee otherwise.
In Ohio, an unprecedented project by five statewide Green, Libertarian and independent candidates dispersed scores of election observers throughout the state placing them inside key county boards of elections and precincts.
A classic case comes from central Ohio, "scene of the crime" for the 2004 election. In the 15th Congressional District, election protection attorney Cliff Arnebeck was initially turned away from voting due to lack of "proper I.D," even though he presented a valid Ohio driver's license and proof of his current address.
Arnebeck serves as lead attorney in the King Lincoln lawsuit that has won preservation of the Ohio 2004 ballots and a number of key victories regarding election protection. All around him, hundreds of voters were being wrongly forced to show various forms of personal identification. Election observers documented a staggering percent of voters who were being forced to cast provisional ballots. Provisionals are notoriously easy for GOP Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell to pitch or now delete from the e-voting machines. More than 16,000 of them, mostly on paper, remain uncounted from 2004.
Clearly, this was set up to be a stolen cakewalk for incumbent Congresswoman Deborah Pryce (R-15th), fourth ranking House Republican and a close Bush ally.
Instead, Pryce's alleged margin of victory is now less than 4,000 votes. Rather than conceding, challenger Mary Jo Kilroy has vowed to fight it out until the last ballot is counted. A Democratic poll watcher at the Ohio Student Union at Ohio State University estimated that as many as 50% of the students may have been forced to vote provisional ballots. These student voters are in the heart of the undecided race in the 15th district, and early reports indicate there are 20-40,000 uncounted e-provisional voters in that race.
Around the country, races in at least eight states are still under extreme scrutiny. Lawsuits are being prepared, video tape reviewed, testimony collected, reports compiled. Numerous eyewitness accounts have been filed at democracy@freepress.org, with CommonCause and a wide range of other election protection web, phone and legal operations. Both Democrats and Republicans who might earlier have meekly conceded are now holding out until the very last vote is recounted.
This is new to American politics. In years gone by, elections have been stolen and the populace---and even candidates, like John Kerry in 2004---have shrugged their shoulders.
No more. Team Bush/Rove has taught the grassroots that our electoral process cannot be taken for granted.
One major, hopefully temporary, casualty in 2006 has been exit polling. Exit polls have become the most reliable overall monitor on election outcomes. They are regularly within 0.1% of the official vote count in Germany. In 2004, they showed clearly that John Kerry won Ohio and the national popular vote. They've been used to guarantee and even overturn dubious results in Ukraine, Mexico, ex-Soviet Georgia, the Philippines and more.
But in 2006 the major networks did their best to lock up exit polls results that might have embarrassed the White House. Instead, the exit poll results were impounded under lock and key, to be released to the public only after the election, and after "experts" massage the data to make it match official vote counts. To this day, the core data from the 2004 exit polls has yet to be released to the public.
This cannot be allowed to stand. In the upcoming 2008 election, exit polls must be made fully public well before the final vote counts are announced. They must be funded to one percent accuracy or better, and their raw data must be a matter of open public record.
In the interim, the science of election protection will advance and spread. There is still no reliable way to monitor electronic voting machines, whose computer codes are still deemed private property, and held in secret. Before 2008, this practice must be abolished. As the Rev. Jesse Jackson has put it, there can be no public elections on privately controlled machines.
A return to paper ballots is the bottom line. The color-coded, multi-shaped Swiss sequencing ballots would work perfectly fine here in the U.S., and would save the nation billions of dollars, as well as the hard uncertainty that surrounds our electoral process.
But however we cut it, there has been a sea change in the election process.
As Americans, we have too long taken for granted the right to vote and have our votes counted.
Now we know we have to fight for that right. And that doing so has already helped turn the tide of American politics.
--Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman are co-authors, with Steve Rosenfeld, of WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO?, just published by The New Press. Fitrakis and Wasserman are of counsel and a plaintiff in the King Lincoln lawsuit. Fitrakis was an independent candidate for governor of Ohio, endorsed by the Green Party. Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, A.D. 2030, is available at www.solartopia.org. Read more of their work at http://freepress.org.
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
November 8, 2006
The real winner in the November 7 election is the grassroots voter protection movement.
That the well-oiled, well-funded Rove/Bush theft machine lost control of the US House with the Senate as close as it is says just one thing: somebody was watching. In 2006, that would be thousands of volunteer grassroots activists who left no stone unturned to expose rigged voting machines, Jim Crow registration roadblocks, trashed provisional ballots, manipulated absentee voting processes, and much more.
A nationwide movement has been born to apply the lessons of the stolen elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004. In the lead-up to 2006, activists and independent experts scrutinized voting machines and electoral processes as never before. Mainstream media reports from the New York Times to CNN's Lou Dobbs to hundreds of radio talk shows finally paid attention to "glitches" and "problems" and "long lines" and "disputes" that just an election cycle ago were dismissed as "business as usual" or the stuff of conspiracy theory.
At least six major reports have now warned of the hackability of electronic voting machines. More than 90% of the American public has expressed concern about the sanctity of the US electoral system. At least two state governors have called for electronic voting machines to be discarded in favor of a return to paper ballots.
As we write, in Montana the fate of the U.S. Senate rests on a hand count after a software failure on voting machines in a few remaining precincts.
The impact? There is no way the 2006 election would not have been stolen without a concerted 50-state effort to guarantee otherwise.
In Ohio, an unprecedented project by five statewide Green, Libertarian and independent candidates dispersed scores of election observers throughout the state placing them inside key county boards of elections and precincts.
A classic case comes from central Ohio, "scene of the crime" for the 2004 election. In the 15th Congressional District, election protection attorney Cliff Arnebeck was initially turned away from voting due to lack of "proper I.D," even though he presented a valid Ohio driver's license and proof of his current address.
Arnebeck serves as lead attorney in the King Lincoln lawsuit that has won preservation of the Ohio 2004 ballots and a number of key victories regarding election protection. All around him, hundreds of voters were being wrongly forced to show various forms of personal identification. Election observers documented a staggering percent of voters who were being forced to cast provisional ballots. Provisionals are notoriously easy for GOP Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell to pitch or now delete from the e-voting machines. More than 16,000 of them, mostly on paper, remain uncounted from 2004.
Clearly, this was set up to be a stolen cakewalk for incumbent Congresswoman Deborah Pryce (R-15th), fourth ranking House Republican and a close Bush ally.
Instead, Pryce's alleged margin of victory is now less than 4,000 votes. Rather than conceding, challenger Mary Jo Kilroy has vowed to fight it out until the last ballot is counted. A Democratic poll watcher at the Ohio Student Union at Ohio State University estimated that as many as 50% of the students may have been forced to vote provisional ballots. These student voters are in the heart of the undecided race in the 15th district, and early reports indicate there are 20-40,000 uncounted e-provisional voters in that race.
Around the country, races in at least eight states are still under extreme scrutiny. Lawsuits are being prepared, video tape reviewed, testimony collected, reports compiled. Numerous eyewitness accounts have been filed at democracy@freepress.org, with CommonCause and a wide range of other election protection web, phone and legal operations. Both Democrats and Republicans who might earlier have meekly conceded are now holding out until the very last vote is recounted.
This is new to American politics. In years gone by, elections have been stolen and the populace---and even candidates, like John Kerry in 2004---have shrugged their shoulders.
No more. Team Bush/Rove has taught the grassroots that our electoral process cannot be taken for granted.
One major, hopefully temporary, casualty in 2006 has been exit polling. Exit polls have become the most reliable overall monitor on election outcomes. They are regularly within 0.1% of the official vote count in Germany. In 2004, they showed clearly that John Kerry won Ohio and the national popular vote. They've been used to guarantee and even overturn dubious results in Ukraine, Mexico, ex-Soviet Georgia, the Philippines and more.
But in 2006 the major networks did their best to lock up exit polls results that might have embarrassed the White House. Instead, the exit poll results were impounded under lock and key, to be released to the public only after the election, and after "experts" massage the data to make it match official vote counts. To this day, the core data from the 2004 exit polls has yet to be released to the public.
This cannot be allowed to stand. In the upcoming 2008 election, exit polls must be made fully public well before the final vote counts are announced. They must be funded to one percent accuracy or better, and their raw data must be a matter of open public record.
In the interim, the science of election protection will advance and spread. There is still no reliable way to monitor electronic voting machines, whose computer codes are still deemed private property, and held in secret. Before 2008, this practice must be abolished. As the Rev. Jesse Jackson has put it, there can be no public elections on privately controlled machines.
A return to paper ballots is the bottom line. The color-coded, multi-shaped Swiss sequencing ballots would work perfectly fine here in the U.S., and would save the nation billions of dollars, as well as the hard uncertainty that surrounds our electoral process.
But however we cut it, there has been a sea change in the election process.
As Americans, we have too long taken for granted the right to vote and have our votes counted.
Now we know we have to fight for that right. And that doing so has already helped turn the tide of American politics.
--Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman are co-authors, with Steve Rosenfeld, of WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO?, just published by The New Press. Fitrakis and Wasserman are of counsel and a plaintiff in the King Lincoln lawsuit. Fitrakis was an independent candidate for governor of Ohio, endorsed by the Green Party. Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, A.D. 2030, is available at www.solartopia.org. Read more of their work at http://freepress.org.
Yes, but fat chance
Hey Folks,
I'm with Pitts in arguing that the Dems didn't WIN the election; the R's LOST it.
I don't think, however, that Mr. Pitts' admonishion to the Dems to "earn" the victory will have as much influence as it should. I expect that just as they dithered into victory, they'll dither while in control, until they dither into eventual defeat again; and the beat goes on.
The way this system works seems to be: the Republicans get control and rape the people for as long as they can get by with it; then the Dems pat our hands until we think we can, perhaps, go on, head held high; whereupon the R's start raping us again.
It's slower than a police state, but just as effective.
Of course, I can easily be shown to be wrong; the D's can actually start pushing for justice, equal opportunity, decent employment, health care, alternative energy, workers' rights, a decent retirement, support of science, freedom from as well as of religion, reigning in of corporations, a reversal of the growing rich-poor gap - AND they can turn away from the Neo Coneheads' wet dream of eternal, universal, US Imperialism and start helping make the world a better place rather than our servants.
Do you think that'll happen??
- Uke Man
Victory won’t be validation of Democrats
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
LEONARD PITTS JR.
A letter to the Democrats:
Congratulations. If the prognosticators are correct, you are about to win a victory that will shift the balance of power in one or both houses of Congress. Of course, if the prognosticators are incorrect, you will soon be committing hara-kiri, in which case my only advice would be: one hard thrust and then pull up.
But this letter proceeds from the assumption that the prognosticators are right. On that basis, I want to make a plea.
Let me preface by saying the campaign that ends here feels like it’s been seven years long. Last week, The Washington Post published a story describing it as "a carnival of ugly, especially on the GOP side." The Post was referring to ads such as the one in New York that accused a Democrat of using taxpayer money to pay for phone sex — after a campaign aide misdialed a government office and reached a porn line, at a total cost to taxpayers of $1.25. Then there’s the Tennessee ad that makes a nod to white racist sentiment by implying that senatorial candidate Harold Ford Jr. — who is black and unmarried — might be intimate with white women. Or the one accusing Democrats of wanting to abort black babies. "If you make a little mistake with one of your hos . . ." begins the announcer.
And yes, last week we suffered through Sen. John Kerry trying to make funny. Agreed, that’s a traumatizing thing. But really, there is no comparison.
These low-blow ads symbolize what many of us have found troubling about the GOP in recent years. Meaning a certain boorishness; a certain disconnect from reality; a certain say anything, do-anything to win mindset, all wrapped up in a priggish facade of moral rectitude garnished with arrogance and sprinkled — liberally — with hypocrisy.
So, if you win power here, please don’t assume it validates anything you’ve done. If you win, it’s because of Mark Foley and Terri Schiavo and Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Donald H. Rumsfeld and George W. Bush and Jack Abramoff and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and Dick Cheney and Hurricane Katrina and 2,800 Americans killed in Iraq and because, as my mom used to say, enough is enough and too much stinks.
More to the point, you don’t win because of you. Heck, I don’t even know who you are. Ever since Bill Clinton left town, you have been inept at defining yourself, communicating your ideals with all the clarity of, well, Kerry trying to tell a joke. I don’t know what you believe, what you plan, where you want to take the country. I daresay most people don’t. A victory here just means that you were the only other game in town. And yet, it would give you a rare opportunity.
I suspect I speak for many when I say I’m tired of wedge politics. I’m tired of stupid, I’m tired of greed, I’m tired of polarization, I’m tired of red and blue mattering more than red, white and blue.
I want to know what it’s like to have a sense of national mission, what it’s like to strive for instead of against. I want to be hopeful about the future again, want my country to be looked at with respect again. Most of all, I want to see statesmen again. Meaning men and women who can debate, do battle, compromise and disagree over issues of great importance, but not let party, partisanship or politics stand in the way of doing what is best for the country.
In these years of Republican bacchanal, we have seen the fissures between us widened, minorities among us demonized. All in the name of politics. Yet, we’ve seen very little of substance get done.
Now, if the prognostications are correct, here comes you, taking power in a nation desperate for change. Which brings me to my plea. By all means, enjoy the champagne and confetti. But once the bottles are empty and the floor is swept and it’s time to go to work I wish you would, for me, for all of us, remember to do one thing with this victory.
Earn it.
Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald. lpitts@herald.com
I'm with Pitts in arguing that the Dems didn't WIN the election; the R's LOST it.
I don't think, however, that Mr. Pitts' admonishion to the Dems to "earn" the victory will have as much influence as it should. I expect that just as they dithered into victory, they'll dither while in control, until they dither into eventual defeat again; and the beat goes on.
The way this system works seems to be: the Republicans get control and rape the people for as long as they can get by with it; then the Dems pat our hands until we think we can, perhaps, go on, head held high; whereupon the R's start raping us again.
It's slower than a police state, but just as effective.
Of course, I can easily be shown to be wrong; the D's can actually start pushing for justice, equal opportunity, decent employment, health care, alternative energy, workers' rights, a decent retirement, support of science, freedom from as well as of religion, reigning in of corporations, a reversal of the growing rich-poor gap - AND they can turn away from the Neo Coneheads' wet dream of eternal, universal, US Imperialism and start helping make the world a better place rather than our servants.
Do you think that'll happen??
- Uke Man
Victory won’t be validation of Democrats
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
LEONARD PITTS JR.
A letter to the Democrats:
Congratulations. If the prognosticators are correct, you are about to win a victory that will shift the balance of power in one or both houses of Congress. Of course, if the prognosticators are incorrect, you will soon be committing hara-kiri, in which case my only advice would be: one hard thrust and then pull up.
But this letter proceeds from the assumption that the prognosticators are right. On that basis, I want to make a plea.
Let me preface by saying the campaign that ends here feels like it’s been seven years long. Last week, The Washington Post published a story describing it as "a carnival of ugly, especially on the GOP side." The Post was referring to ads such as the one in New York that accused a Democrat of using taxpayer money to pay for phone sex — after a campaign aide misdialed a government office and reached a porn line, at a total cost to taxpayers of $1.25. Then there’s the Tennessee ad that makes a nod to white racist sentiment by implying that senatorial candidate Harold Ford Jr. — who is black and unmarried — might be intimate with white women. Or the one accusing Democrats of wanting to abort black babies. "If you make a little mistake with one of your hos . . ." begins the announcer.
And yes, last week we suffered through Sen. John Kerry trying to make funny. Agreed, that’s a traumatizing thing. But really, there is no comparison.
These low-blow ads symbolize what many of us have found troubling about the GOP in recent years. Meaning a certain boorishness; a certain disconnect from reality; a certain say anything, do-anything to win mindset, all wrapped up in a priggish facade of moral rectitude garnished with arrogance and sprinkled — liberally — with hypocrisy.
So, if you win power here, please don’t assume it validates anything you’ve done. If you win, it’s because of Mark Foley and Terri Schiavo and Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Donald H. Rumsfeld and George W. Bush and Jack Abramoff and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and Dick Cheney and Hurricane Katrina and 2,800 Americans killed in Iraq and because, as my mom used to say, enough is enough and too much stinks.
More to the point, you don’t win because of you. Heck, I don’t even know who you are. Ever since Bill Clinton left town, you have been inept at defining yourself, communicating your ideals with all the clarity of, well, Kerry trying to tell a joke. I don’t know what you believe, what you plan, where you want to take the country. I daresay most people don’t. A victory here just means that you were the only other game in town. And yet, it would give you a rare opportunity.
I suspect I speak for many when I say I’m tired of wedge politics. I’m tired of stupid, I’m tired of greed, I’m tired of polarization, I’m tired of red and blue mattering more than red, white and blue.
I want to know what it’s like to have a sense of national mission, what it’s like to strive for instead of against. I want to be hopeful about the future again, want my country to be looked at with respect again. Most of all, I want to see statesmen again. Meaning men and women who can debate, do battle, compromise and disagree over issues of great importance, but not let party, partisanship or politics stand in the way of doing what is best for the country.
In these years of Republican bacchanal, we have seen the fissures between us widened, minorities among us demonized. All in the name of politics. Yet, we’ve seen very little of substance get done.
Now, if the prognostications are correct, here comes you, taking power in a nation desperate for change. Which brings me to my plea. By all means, enjoy the champagne and confetti. But once the bottles are empty and the floor is swept and it’s time to go to work I wish you would, for me, for all of us, remember to do one thing with this victory.
Earn it.
Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald. lpitts@herald.com
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Hey Folks,
It's already starting.* To what extent it will be pushed and to what degree it will pervert the election results will be shown in the days to come.
- Uke Man
* the report of a thousand troubling calls per hour to the Franklin County Board of Elections has also been reported by local TV news.
STOP Blackwell, what's that sign: Everyone look what's going down
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
the Free Press
November 7, 2006
GOP trashes exit polls & builds barricades as election day proceeds
Watch out for the stop sign when you go to vote today. Not the one on the street, the one in the pollbook next to your name.
The new voting requirements under Ohio's HB 3 may lead to unexpected upsets by the GOP in the ongoing election. The Republican Statehouse rushed through a bill earlier this year that is causing the "flagging" of up to 1.2 million Buckeye voters.
Free Press reporters have observed a "Stop Sign" icon next to the name of between 20-40% of the voters in inner city precincts in Columbus. The stop sign is outlined on page 50 of the Franklin County Board of Elections "Precinct Elections Training Manual." The stop sign is the result of a "60-day election notice" sent to voters, but being returned as "undeliverable." Voters with stop signs next to their names throughout the inner city are being allowed to vote provisionally at the poll. These votes are being electronically recorded as provisional, according to the Training Manual and many are likely to go uncounted because the voter is in the wrong precinct.
Ken Blackwell, the Secretary of State and co-chair of the Bush-Cheney Re-election Campaign in 2004 issued a directive following the 2004 presidential primary ordering that voters voting in the wrong precinct would not have their votes counted at all. Historically, votes were counted from the county level on up to president, if you were registered in the county.
Pollworkers are programming electronic voting machines to designate provisional votes. The Free Press observed numerous cases of flagged voters being directed to vote provisionally in the wrong precinct. The visible paper trail in the ES&S machines records the vote as provisional with a four-digit code. These votes will most likely not be counted and may lead to epic upsets in Ohio.
An election observer with the Five Candidates Election Observer Project 2006 reported today that 1000 complaints an hour were coming into the Franklin County Board of Elections. So many complaints had come in during the first hours of the day that the phone lines set up for the precinct workers failed. The phones for the public had to be diverted to answer the deluge of questions from pollworkers.
As election day proceeds, the Republican Party is desperately throwing as many barriers as it can to protect itself from a fair and accurate outcome.
Atop the list is exit polling, which the GOP has delegated to the trash heap. Exit polls have evolved into an exact science, and have served to protect the democratic process and to overturn stolen elections throughout the world.
In Germany, exit polls accompany and monitor every election to within 0.1 percent accuracy. In Ukraine, just prior to the 2004 US presidential election, exit polls showed a presidential election had been stolen. The resulting uproar led to a new election and a different outcome. In Mexico, the Philippines, former Soviet Georgia and elsewhere, exit polling has become the indispensible check and balance against election theft.
Which is exactly the purpose it served in the United States in 2004. A consortium of the major networks and Associated Press paid millions to the Edison/Mitofsky organization to provide exit polls that would be within 1.0% accuracy. The findings were clear: John Kerry won the national vote count by a substantial majority, and carried nine of the eleven key swing states, giving him a very significant victory in the electoral college.
But the official vote count said otherwise. After winning in the exit polls at around 12:30am election night, Kerry somehow became the loser nine hours later. Against odds in the 200 million-plus range, in ten of eleven swing states, the exit poll margin went to an official vote count for Bush with a swing well outside the margin of error. Four of those states---Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico---left the Kerry and went to Bush, giving Bush the presidency.
Had this happened in a third world country, the world community would have demanded a new election. Some might even have sent troops.
But the reaction of the GOP has been to decimate the exit polls. This year, for the first time, exit poll results will not be published, or made accessible to the general media. Instead, exit poll data will be held in locked vaults. Access by the media will be strictly limited. There will be no publication of the exit polls until they are "adjusted" to match the official vote counts.
No other country in the world is doing this. But the GOP has made it clear to the corporate media that it will not tolerate another "fiasco" like 2004, where the exit polls showed clearly that John Kerry was the rightful winner not only in Ohio, but nationwide.
--Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors, with Steve Rosenfeld, of WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO , just published by the New Press. They are of counsel and plaintiff in the King Lincoln lawsuit challenging the administration of elections in Ohio. Fitrakis is an independent candidate for governor of Ohio, endorsed by the Green Party. Wasserman is author of SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, A.D. 2030, available at www.solartopia.org. Read more of their work at http://freepress.org.
It's already starting.* To what extent it will be pushed and to what degree it will pervert the election results will be shown in the days to come.
- Uke Man
* the report of a thousand troubling calls per hour to the Franklin County Board of Elections has also been reported by local TV news.
STOP Blackwell, what's that sign: Everyone look what's going down
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
the Free Press
November 7, 2006
GOP trashes exit polls & builds barricades as election day proceeds
Watch out for the stop sign when you go to vote today. Not the one on the street, the one in the pollbook next to your name.
The new voting requirements under Ohio's HB 3 may lead to unexpected upsets by the GOP in the ongoing election. The Republican Statehouse rushed through a bill earlier this year that is causing the "flagging" of up to 1.2 million Buckeye voters.
Free Press reporters have observed a "Stop Sign" icon next to the name of between 20-40% of the voters in inner city precincts in Columbus. The stop sign is outlined on page 50 of the Franklin County Board of Elections "Precinct Elections Training Manual." The stop sign is the result of a "60-day election notice" sent to voters, but being returned as "undeliverable." Voters with stop signs next to their names throughout the inner city are being allowed to vote provisionally at the poll. These votes are being electronically recorded as provisional, according to the Training Manual and many are likely to go uncounted because the voter is in the wrong precinct.
Ken Blackwell, the Secretary of State and co-chair of the Bush-Cheney Re-election Campaign in 2004 issued a directive following the 2004 presidential primary ordering that voters voting in the wrong precinct would not have their votes counted at all. Historically, votes were counted from the county level on up to president, if you were registered in the county.
Pollworkers are programming electronic voting machines to designate provisional votes. The Free Press observed numerous cases of flagged voters being directed to vote provisionally in the wrong precinct. The visible paper trail in the ES&S machines records the vote as provisional with a four-digit code. These votes will most likely not be counted and may lead to epic upsets in Ohio.
An election observer with the Five Candidates Election Observer Project 2006 reported today that 1000 complaints an hour were coming into the Franklin County Board of Elections. So many complaints had come in during the first hours of the day that the phone lines set up for the precinct workers failed. The phones for the public had to be diverted to answer the deluge of questions from pollworkers.
As election day proceeds, the Republican Party is desperately throwing as many barriers as it can to protect itself from a fair and accurate outcome.
Atop the list is exit polling, which the GOP has delegated to the trash heap. Exit polls have evolved into an exact science, and have served to protect the democratic process and to overturn stolen elections throughout the world.
In Germany, exit polls accompany and monitor every election to within 0.1 percent accuracy. In Ukraine, just prior to the 2004 US presidential election, exit polls showed a presidential election had been stolen. The resulting uproar led to a new election and a different outcome. In Mexico, the Philippines, former Soviet Georgia and elsewhere, exit polling has become the indispensible check and balance against election theft.
Which is exactly the purpose it served in the United States in 2004. A consortium of the major networks and Associated Press paid millions to the Edison/Mitofsky organization to provide exit polls that would be within 1.0% accuracy. The findings were clear: John Kerry won the national vote count by a substantial majority, and carried nine of the eleven key swing states, giving him a very significant victory in the electoral college.
But the official vote count said otherwise. After winning in the exit polls at around 12:30am election night, Kerry somehow became the loser nine hours later. Against odds in the 200 million-plus range, in ten of eleven swing states, the exit poll margin went to an official vote count for Bush with a swing well outside the margin of error. Four of those states---Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico---left the Kerry and went to Bush, giving Bush the presidency.
Had this happened in a third world country, the world community would have demanded a new election. Some might even have sent troops.
But the reaction of the GOP has been to decimate the exit polls. This year, for the first time, exit poll results will not be published, or made accessible to the general media. Instead, exit poll data will be held in locked vaults. Access by the media will be strictly limited. There will be no publication of the exit polls until they are "adjusted" to match the official vote counts.
No other country in the world is doing this. But the GOP has made it clear to the corporate media that it will not tolerate another "fiasco" like 2004, where the exit polls showed clearly that John Kerry was the rightful winner not only in Ohio, but nationwide.
--Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors, with Steve Rosenfeld, of WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO , just published by the New Press. They are of counsel and plaintiff in the King Lincoln lawsuit challenging the administration of elections in Ohio. Fitrakis is an independent candidate for governor of Ohio, endorsed by the Green Party. Wasserman is author of SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, A.D. 2030, available at www.solartopia.org. Read more of their work at http://freepress.org.
Another Southern Lefty (more or less)
Hey Folks,
Well, another lefty (more or less) was elected to our south, and even though he's cozied up to a former Contra pal of Ollie North and drives a Mercedes SUV, the Americano Patricians here in the Land of Free Trade and the Homeless Brave are still nervous.
AND, after two stolen US elections and whatever is going down today, Uncle Sam's Club can still fret (straight-faced) about "irregularities" and "voter fraud" in foreign elections (observed by the likes of Jimmy Carter, for Christ's sake!!).
One has to wonder whether - if we weren't in so deep with Iraq - the Guardians of Democracy in the CIA wouldn't have already deposed Hugo Chavez, and prepared to take Ortega out a second time.
(Hmmmmmmmmmm . . . I wonder if they have contingency plans ready should today's election not go as planned?)
- Uke Man
Daniel Ortega wins Nicaragua presidency
By TRACI CARL, Associated Press
Former Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega appeared headed for victory Monday in his longtime quest to regain power, 16 years after a U.S.-backed rebellion helped drive the former Marxist revolutionary from office.
Early results from Sunday's presidential election gave the Sandinista leader a strong lead over his four rivals. His victory, if confirmed by final results, would expand the club of leftist Latin rulers led by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who has tried to help his ally by shipping cheap oil to the energy-starved nation.
Ortega, who led Nicaragua from 1985-1990, has repeatedly said he is not the Marxist revolutionary who fought U.S.-backed Contra rebels, a war that left 30,000 dead and the economy in shambles.
But while he has toned down his leftist rhetoric and pledged to continue free-trade policies, the United States remains openly wary of its former Cold War foe. Washington has threatened to withhold aid to the nation, fearing a return to the socialist economic policies of the 1980s.
The race has generated intense international interest, including a visit by Oliver North, the former White House aide at the heart of the Iran-Contra controversy. That effort to oust Ortega's Moscow-leaning Sandinista regime created a huge scandal in the United States when it became known that Washington secretly sold arms to Iran and used the money to fund and arm the Contra operation.
With 15 percent of polling stations counted, Ortega had 40 percent of Sunday's vote, compared with 33 percent for his closest challenger, the wealthy banker Eduardo Montealegre.
Three others rivals were well behind: Sandinista dissident Edmundo Jarquin, ruling-party candidate Jose Rizo and former Contra rebel Eden Pastora.
To win outright and avoid a runoff, the leftist Sandinista leader needs just 35 percent of the vote and a five-point advantage over his closest opponent.
Ortega's supporters flooded the streets, setting off celebratory fireworks, waving the party's red-and-black flag and swaying to the candidate's campaign song, set to the tune of John Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance."
The U.S. Embassy said it was too soon to "make an overall judgment on the fairness and transparency of the process."
"We are receiving reports of some anomalies in the electoral process," including polling stations that opened late and closed early, the embassy said.
But Roberto Rivas, president of the Supreme Electoral Council, dismissed the U.S. statement.
"We have promised the Nicaraguan people transparent elections, and that's what we've done," he said. "I think there were enough observers to witness that."
Ortega, 61, has already made three unsuccessful attempts at re-election, and this was his fifth consecutive presidential campaign.
Montealegre brushed aside Ortega's lead, saying: "No one has won here. The Nicaraguan people, in a runoff, will determine the next president."
At stake are millions of dollars in potential investments, many from foreign companies drawn to Nicaragua by its cheap labor, low crime rates and decision to join the new Central American Free Trade Agreement.
"We are playing with the stability of the country," said Jose Adan Aguirre, president of the Chamber of Commerce.
Nicaraguans hiked miles through the jungle, paddled canoes down remote rivers and waited under a searing sun to vote on whether to return Ortega to power.
Overall the voting was peaceful, but many polling stations opened late, leaving long lines of people waiting to cast their ballots. After the polls closed, angry voters pounded on shuttered doors, shouting at officials inside to let them vote.
After voting Sunday, Ortega said he was confident there wouldn't be a runoff.
"Nicaragua wins today," he said, climbing into his Mercedes sport utility vehicle and driving away with his wife.
Polls have shown Ortega would have trouble winning a December runoff. While he has a loyal base of support, many voters still have bitter memories of Sandinista rule, in which homes and businesses were seized.
Ortega has repeatedly said he has changed. In fact, his vice presidential candidate was once one of his biggest enemies: Jaime Morales, who served as the spokesman for the Contras.
As Sandinista leader, Ortega seized Morales' six-bedroom estate, but they reconciled after Ortega offered to pay Morales for his former home — now Ortega's campaign headquarters.
Marvin Lopez, a 46-year-old doctor waiting in a long line at the same polling station where Ortega voted, said he feared an Ortega win would bring back uncontrollable inflation and conflict.
"I don't want to return to a dictatorship, the misery, the abuse of families' rights," he said.
Waiting at the end of the line was 26-year-old student Gema Amaya Larios, who said she woke up at dawn to cast her vote for Ortega.
"He's the only one who will give the people what they need," she said. "Everyone else just cares about their own interests."
Amid fears of fraud, armed soldiers kept guard at polling stations monitored by more than 18,000 observers — including three former presidents: Jimmy Carter, Peru's Alejandro Toledo and Panama's Nicolas Ardito Barletta.
In a veiled reference to the United States and Venezuela, Toledo condemned "any interference, wherever it comes from, whether it be Asia, Europe, North America or Latin America."
"Let the citizens of all countries determine their own destiny," he said.
Venezuelan Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel on Sunday accused the United States of "blackmail and pressure to twist this process" in Nicaragua.
Nicaraguan presidents can't serve two consecutive terms, and President Enrique Bolanos steps down Jan. 10.
Well, another lefty (more or less) was elected to our south, and even though he's cozied up to a former Contra pal of Ollie North and drives a Mercedes SUV, the Americano Patricians here in the Land of Free Trade and the Homeless Brave are still nervous.
AND, after two stolen US elections and whatever is going down today, Uncle Sam's Club can still fret (straight-faced) about "irregularities" and "voter fraud" in foreign elections (observed by the likes of Jimmy Carter, for Christ's sake!!).
One has to wonder whether - if we weren't in so deep with Iraq - the Guardians of Democracy in the CIA wouldn't have already deposed Hugo Chavez, and prepared to take Ortega out a second time.
(Hmmmmmmmmmm . . . I wonder if they have contingency plans ready should today's election not go as planned?)
- Uke Man
Daniel Ortega wins Nicaragua presidency
By TRACI CARL, Associated Press
Former Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega appeared headed for victory Monday in his longtime quest to regain power, 16 years after a U.S.-backed rebellion helped drive the former Marxist revolutionary from office.
Early results from Sunday's presidential election gave the Sandinista leader a strong lead over his four rivals. His victory, if confirmed by final results, would expand the club of leftist Latin rulers led by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who has tried to help his ally by shipping cheap oil to the energy-starved nation.
Ortega, who led Nicaragua from 1985-1990, has repeatedly said he is not the Marxist revolutionary who fought U.S.-backed Contra rebels, a war that left 30,000 dead and the economy in shambles.
But while he has toned down his leftist rhetoric and pledged to continue free-trade policies, the United States remains openly wary of its former Cold War foe. Washington has threatened to withhold aid to the nation, fearing a return to the socialist economic policies of the 1980s.
The race has generated intense international interest, including a visit by Oliver North, the former White House aide at the heart of the Iran-Contra controversy. That effort to oust Ortega's Moscow-leaning Sandinista regime created a huge scandal in the United States when it became known that Washington secretly sold arms to Iran and used the money to fund and arm the Contra operation.
With 15 percent of polling stations counted, Ortega had 40 percent of Sunday's vote, compared with 33 percent for his closest challenger, the wealthy banker Eduardo Montealegre.
Three others rivals were well behind: Sandinista dissident Edmundo Jarquin, ruling-party candidate Jose Rizo and former Contra rebel Eden Pastora.
To win outright and avoid a runoff, the leftist Sandinista leader needs just 35 percent of the vote and a five-point advantage over his closest opponent.
Ortega's supporters flooded the streets, setting off celebratory fireworks, waving the party's red-and-black flag and swaying to the candidate's campaign song, set to the tune of John Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance."
The U.S. Embassy said it was too soon to "make an overall judgment on the fairness and transparency of the process."
"We are receiving reports of some anomalies in the electoral process," including polling stations that opened late and closed early, the embassy said.
But Roberto Rivas, president of the Supreme Electoral Council, dismissed the U.S. statement.
"We have promised the Nicaraguan people transparent elections, and that's what we've done," he said. "I think there were enough observers to witness that."
Ortega, 61, has already made three unsuccessful attempts at re-election, and this was his fifth consecutive presidential campaign.
Montealegre brushed aside Ortega's lead, saying: "No one has won here. The Nicaraguan people, in a runoff, will determine the next president."
At stake are millions of dollars in potential investments, many from foreign companies drawn to Nicaragua by its cheap labor, low crime rates and decision to join the new Central American Free Trade Agreement.
"We are playing with the stability of the country," said Jose Adan Aguirre, president of the Chamber of Commerce.
Nicaraguans hiked miles through the jungle, paddled canoes down remote rivers and waited under a searing sun to vote on whether to return Ortega to power.
Overall the voting was peaceful, but many polling stations opened late, leaving long lines of people waiting to cast their ballots. After the polls closed, angry voters pounded on shuttered doors, shouting at officials inside to let them vote.
After voting Sunday, Ortega said he was confident there wouldn't be a runoff.
"Nicaragua wins today," he said, climbing into his Mercedes sport utility vehicle and driving away with his wife.
Polls have shown Ortega would have trouble winning a December runoff. While he has a loyal base of support, many voters still have bitter memories of Sandinista rule, in which homes and businesses were seized.
Ortega has repeatedly said he has changed. In fact, his vice presidential candidate was once one of his biggest enemies: Jaime Morales, who served as the spokesman for the Contras.
As Sandinista leader, Ortega seized Morales' six-bedroom estate, but they reconciled after Ortega offered to pay Morales for his former home — now Ortega's campaign headquarters.
Marvin Lopez, a 46-year-old doctor waiting in a long line at the same polling station where Ortega voted, said he feared an Ortega win would bring back uncontrollable inflation and conflict.
"I don't want to return to a dictatorship, the misery, the abuse of families' rights," he said.
Waiting at the end of the line was 26-year-old student Gema Amaya Larios, who said she woke up at dawn to cast her vote for Ortega.
"He's the only one who will give the people what they need," she said. "Everyone else just cares about their own interests."
Amid fears of fraud, armed soldiers kept guard at polling stations monitored by more than 18,000 observers — including three former presidents: Jimmy Carter, Peru's Alejandro Toledo and Panama's Nicolas Ardito Barletta.
In a veiled reference to the United States and Venezuela, Toledo condemned "any interference, wherever it comes from, whether it be Asia, Europe, North America or Latin America."
"Let the citizens of all countries determine their own destiny," he said.
Venezuelan Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel on Sunday accused the United States of "blackmail and pressure to twist this process" in Nicaragua.
Nicaraguan presidents can't serve two consecutive terms, and President Enrique Bolanos steps down Jan. 10.
Monday, November 06, 2006
IQ Test coming to your neighborhood Tuesday !!
Hey Folks,
Again, the Uke Man is not alone. Krugman goes at it, too !! I've added the emphasis - just because it made me feel good.
I.Q. test on Tuesday, Folks !!
-Uke Man
November 6, 2006
Limiting the Damage
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
President Bush isn’t on the ballot tomorrow. But this election is, nonetheless, all about him. The question is whether voters will pry his fingers loose from at least some of the levers of power, thereby limiting the damage he can inflict in his two remaining years in office.
There are still some people urging Mr. Bush to change course. For example, a scathing editorial published today by The Military Times, which calls on Mr. Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld, declares that “this is not about the midterm elections.” But the editorial’s authors surely know better than that. Mr. Bush won’t fire Mr. Rumsfeld; he won’t change strategy in Iraq; he won’t change course at all, unless Congress forces him to.
At this point, nobody should have any illusions about Mr. Bush’s character. To put it bluntly, he’s an insecure bully who believes that owning up to a mistake, any mistake, would undermine his manhood — and who therefore lives in a dream world in which all of his policies are succeeding and all of his officials are doing a heckuva job. Just last week he declared himself “pleased with the progress we’re making” in Iraq.
In other words, he’s the sort of man who should never have been put in a position of authority, let alone been given the kind of unquestioned power, free from normal checks and balances, that he was granted after 9/11. But he was, alas, given that power, as well as a prolonged free ride from much of the news media.
The results have been predictably disastrous. The nightmare in Iraq is only part of the story. In time, the degradation of the federal government by rampant cronyism — almost every part of the executive branch I know anything about, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been FEMAfied — may come to be seen as an equally serious blow to America’s future.
And it should be a matter of intense national shame that Mr. Bush has quietly abandoned his fine promises to New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast.
The public, which rallied around Mr. Bush after 9/11 and was still prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt two years ago, seems to have figured most of this out. It’s too late to vote Mr. Bush out of office, but most Americans seem prepared to punish Mr. Bush’s party for his personal failings. This is in spite of a vicious campaign in which Mr. Bush has gone further than any previous president — even Richard Nixon — in attacking the patriotism of anyone who criticizes him or his policies.
That said, it’s still possible that the Republicans will hold on to both houses of Congress. The feeding frenzy over John Kerry’s botched joke showed that many people in the news media are still willing to be played like a fiddle. And if you think the timing of the Saddam verdict was coincidental, I’ve got a terrorist plot against the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.
Moreover, the potential for vote suppression and/or outright electoral fraud remains substantial. And it will be very hard for the Democrats to take the Senate for the very simple reason that only one-third of Senate seats are on this ballot.
What if the Democrats do win? That doesn’t guarantee a change in policy.
The Constitution says that Congress and the White House are co-equal branches of government, but Mr. Bush and his people aren’t big on constitutional niceties. Even with a docile Republican majority controlling Congress, Mr. Bush has been in the habit of declaring that he has the right to disobey the law he has just signed, whether it’s a law prohibiting torture or a law requiring that he hire qualified people to run FEMA.
Just imagine, then, what he’ll do if faced with demands for information from, say, Congressional Democrats investigating war profiteering, which seems to have been rampant. Actually, we don’t have to imagine: a White House strategist has already told Time magazine that the administration plans a “cataclysmic fight to the death” if Democrats in Congress try to exercise their right to issue subpoenas — which is one heck of a metaphor, given Mr. Bush’s history of getting American service members trapped in cataclysmic fights where the deaths are anything but metaphors.
But here’s the thing: no matter how hard the Bush administration may try to ignore the constitutional division of power, Mr. Bush’s ability to make deadly mistakes has rested in part on G.O.P. control of Congress. That’s why many Americans, myself included, will breathe a lot easier if one-party rule ends tomorrow.
Again, the Uke Man is not alone. Krugman goes at it, too !! I've added the emphasis - just because it made me feel good.
I.Q. test on Tuesday, Folks !!
-Uke Man
November 6, 2006
Limiting the Damage
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
President Bush isn’t on the ballot tomorrow. But this election is, nonetheless, all about him. The question is whether voters will pry his fingers loose from at least some of the levers of power, thereby limiting the damage he can inflict in his two remaining years in office.
There are still some people urging Mr. Bush to change course. For example, a scathing editorial published today by The Military Times, which calls on Mr. Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld, declares that “this is not about the midterm elections.” But the editorial’s authors surely know better than that. Mr. Bush won’t fire Mr. Rumsfeld; he won’t change strategy in Iraq; he won’t change course at all, unless Congress forces him to.
At this point, nobody should have any illusions about Mr. Bush’s character. To put it bluntly, he’s an insecure bully who believes that owning up to a mistake, any mistake, would undermine his manhood — and who therefore lives in a dream world in which all of his policies are succeeding and all of his officials are doing a heckuva job. Just last week he declared himself “pleased with the progress we’re making” in Iraq.
In other words, he’s the sort of man who should never have been put in a position of authority, let alone been given the kind of unquestioned power, free from normal checks and balances, that he was granted after 9/11. But he was, alas, given that power, as well as a prolonged free ride from much of the news media.
The results have been predictably disastrous. The nightmare in Iraq is only part of the story. In time, the degradation of the federal government by rampant cronyism — almost every part of the executive branch I know anything about, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been FEMAfied — may come to be seen as an equally serious blow to America’s future.
And it should be a matter of intense national shame that Mr. Bush has quietly abandoned his fine promises to New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast.
The public, which rallied around Mr. Bush after 9/11 and was still prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt two years ago, seems to have figured most of this out. It’s too late to vote Mr. Bush out of office, but most Americans seem prepared to punish Mr. Bush’s party for his personal failings. This is in spite of a vicious campaign in which Mr. Bush has gone further than any previous president — even Richard Nixon — in attacking the patriotism of anyone who criticizes him or his policies.
That said, it’s still possible that the Republicans will hold on to both houses of Congress. The feeding frenzy over John Kerry’s botched joke showed that many people in the news media are still willing to be played like a fiddle. And if you think the timing of the Saddam verdict was coincidental, I’ve got a terrorist plot against the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.
Moreover, the potential for vote suppression and/or outright electoral fraud remains substantial. And it will be very hard for the Democrats to take the Senate for the very simple reason that only one-third of Senate seats are on this ballot.
What if the Democrats do win? That doesn’t guarantee a change in policy.
The Constitution says that Congress and the White House are co-equal branches of government, but Mr. Bush and his people aren’t big on constitutional niceties. Even with a docile Republican majority controlling Congress, Mr. Bush has been in the habit of declaring that he has the right to disobey the law he has just signed, whether it’s a law prohibiting torture or a law requiring that he hire qualified people to run FEMA.
Just imagine, then, what he’ll do if faced with demands for information from, say, Congressional Democrats investigating war profiteering, which seems to have been rampant. Actually, we don’t have to imagine: a White House strategist has already told Time magazine that the administration plans a “cataclysmic fight to the death” if Democrats in Congress try to exercise their right to issue subpoenas — which is one heck of a metaphor, given Mr. Bush’s history of getting American service members trapped in cataclysmic fights where the deaths are anything but metaphors.
But here’s the thing: no matter how hard the Bush administration may try to ignore the constitutional division of power, Mr. Bush’s ability to make deadly mistakes has rested in part on G.O.P. control of Congress. That’s why many Americans, myself included, will breathe a lot easier if one-party rule ends tomorrow.
Viagra for Bob - Valium for Lizzy
Hey Folks,
We may now know why Bob Dole has erectile dysfunction. What a woman!! (not that the Dems were laudatory with their "We want to win!!" comeback).
But Lizzy, acting up on Meet the Press, shows how those anointed to the economic aristocracy will brook no objection to their inspired perception:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO5cze0cuPI
- Uke Man
We may now know why Bob Dole has erectile dysfunction. What a woman!! (not that the Dems were laudatory with their "We want to win!!" comeback).
But Lizzy, acting up on Meet the Press, shows how those anointed to the economic aristocracy will brook no objection to their inspired perception:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO5cze0cuPI
- Uke Man
Tomorrow is THE Day !!!!
Hey Folks,
Tomorrow is The Day !! The day that will likely determine for this old codger once and for all his view of humanity.
For six years the American people have degraded themselves by supporting the moronic marionette of sociopathic string-pullers; the dim-witted ventriloquist’s dummy of hypocritically homophobic evangelicals; degraded by six years of dishonor - fearing fear itself.
H.L. Mencken said that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Tomorrow we’ll see if he was right.
Duh-bya said, “Fool me once . . . uh . . . shame on . . . you. Fool me twice . . . uh . . . ya can’t fool me again.” Tomorrow we’ll find out whether – like everything else he says – he’s wrong about that, too.
Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Tomorrow we’ll find out whether Kkkarl Rove can fool enough of the people enough of the time to make Lincoln irrelevant.
P.T. Barnum said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Tomorrow we’ll see how many are still alive in each precinct.
Darwin thought we had descended from monkeys. Tomorrow we’ll find out if we’re still monkeys.
Leona Helmsley said, “Taxes are for the little people.” Tomorrow we’ll know whether the little people agree with her.
The Wizard of Oz said, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” Tomorrow we’ll see how many took his advice.
General MacArthur said, "Old Soldiers never die." Tomorrow will tell whether we know that young soldiers do.
Mark Twain called us “the Damned Human Race.” Tomorrow we’ll find out if he was right.
Some might say, "The Uke Man hates America." Well, I don’t; but tomorrow I might.
- Uke Man
Tomorrow is The Day !! The day that will likely determine for this old codger once and for all his view of humanity.
For six years the American people have degraded themselves by supporting the moronic marionette of sociopathic string-pullers; the dim-witted ventriloquist’s dummy of hypocritically homophobic evangelicals; degraded by six years of dishonor - fearing fear itself.
H.L. Mencken said that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Tomorrow we’ll see if he was right.
Duh-bya said, “Fool me once . . . uh . . . shame on . . . you. Fool me twice . . . uh . . . ya can’t fool me again.” Tomorrow we’ll find out whether – like everything else he says – he’s wrong about that, too.
Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Tomorrow we’ll find out whether Kkkarl Rove can fool enough of the people enough of the time to make Lincoln irrelevant.
P.T. Barnum said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Tomorrow we’ll see how many are still alive in each precinct.
Darwin thought we had descended from monkeys. Tomorrow we’ll find out if we’re still monkeys.
Leona Helmsley said, “Taxes are for the little people.” Tomorrow we’ll know whether the little people agree with her.
The Wizard of Oz said, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” Tomorrow we’ll see how many took his advice.
General MacArthur said, "Old Soldiers never die." Tomorrow will tell whether we know that young soldiers do.
Mark Twain called us “the Damned Human Race.” Tomorrow we’ll find out if he was right.
Some might say, "The Uke Man hates America." Well, I don’t; but tomorrow I might.
- Uke Man
