Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Slavery Forever!! (it REALLY pays!!!)
Hey Folks,
You thought I was kidding in the last posting when I said the re-enslavement of the American people is in its endgame. Well, here we see existing slavery as well as the powerful reaction against attempts to end it.
This is the direction we're heading. I doubt we'll see Americans taken at gunpoint into the boonies to cut trees and clear pastures, but even now people who have lost decent manufacturing jobs are being forced to work at jobs that won't sustain them.
It's either that or crime; on the one hand a figurative gun is put to their heads by capitalists; on the other an actual gun is put to their head by the "Justice System." How far away from slavery is that?
- Uke Man
Antislavery efforts imperiled in Brazil
By Andrew Downie
The Christian Science Monitor
Fri Feb 16
RIO DE JANEIRO - A decision by Brazil's Congress to curb the powers of labor auditors threatens to jeopardize an antislavery program that led to the release of more than 15,000 slaves and made Brazil a world leader in fighting indentured servitude, officials and activists said here this week.
Brazilian lawmakers passed a new law on Tuesday that unites two federal tax bodies in a bid to streamline a complex and bureaucratic system.
But one key amendment in the bill strips labor auditors and prosecutors of their power to determine the relationship between employers and employees. The amendment was included at the behest of media companies, who routinely use freelancers and who, under the existing statute, could be punished for doing so by labor auditors.
Under the new law, judges are now responsible for defining that relationship. An apparently unintended consequence of the change is that auditors can no longer determine what constitutes slavery, say prosecutors, auditors, and human rights activists.
"This will make it substantially more difficult to register and document incidents," said Walter Nunes, president of the federal judges association.
The amendment also prevents prosecutors from leveling immediate fines on employers found to have deliberately kept slaves. Until now, prosecutors who accompany government auditors to track down reports of slavery in the remote outposts of the Amazon jungle had the power to fine employers they determined were keeping slaves. Last year guilty employers were forced to pay around $3 million in back pay to workers they used as indentured servants.
Congress's decision was met with anger and disappointment by antislavery campaigners, who say it will neutralize all the previous work done by a government that had made eradicating slavery one of its proudest boasts.
"The campaign against slavery was successful because auditors were able to recognize slavery and demand that employers pay up," said Rosa Jorge, the president of the auditor's union.
"Now, employees have to go through the justice system, and there are two things that can happen," she says. "Either they cut a deal - and normally that is not good for workers - or they spend years waiting for the case to come to court. But these slaves won't go to court, many of them don't even now that courts exist."
Brazil has a hidden but serious problem of slave labor. The International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates that there are 40,000 slaves working in Brazil today.
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva made eradicating what he called "Brazil's shame" one of his main goals, and he doubled the Department of Labor Oversight's budget and increased the number of mobile antislavery units from four to seven.
The units follow up on reports of abuse in some of the most inhospitable places in this continent-sized nation and free workers lured into slavery by promises of big payoffs.
Workers are routinely taken to remote outposts and prevented from leaving, sometimes by armed guards. The captives, most of whom are poor and unskilled, are put to work and made to pay exorbitant prices for basics like tools, soap, and food. Many end up owing money, even after spending months doing hard work like cutting down trees or clearing cattle pastures.
Lula's campaign was a huge success, with officials freeing more than 15,000 slaves since he came to power in 2003. The ILO lauded Lula's efforts in a 2005 report on slavery worldwide.
Now, though, that work is in jeopardy, and unionists, lawyers, prosecutors, and human rights workers are banding together to pressure Lula into vetoing the amendment.
Myriad voices have condemned the clause, with judges saying it will add to the backlog in their courts, ministers calling it detrimental to the average worker and the Brazilian Bar Association ruling it unconstitutional.
About the only ones happy with the decision are big businesses. The decision gives employers more leeway to deal with freelance employees, a move that, they argue, is vital in a job market where short-term contracts are increasingly common.
Large companies are now free to hire freelancers without paying them the benefits entitled to full employees. Employers, moreover, will no longer be at the mercy of "the arbitrariness of auditors," says Armando Monteiro, the president of the National Confederation of Industry.
You thought I was kidding in the last posting when I said the re-enslavement of the American people is in its endgame. Well, here we see existing slavery as well as the powerful reaction against attempts to end it.
This is the direction we're heading. I doubt we'll see Americans taken at gunpoint into the boonies to cut trees and clear pastures, but even now people who have lost decent manufacturing jobs are being forced to work at jobs that won't sustain them.
It's either that or crime; on the one hand a figurative gun is put to their heads by capitalists; on the other an actual gun is put to their head by the "Justice System." How far away from slavery is that?
- Uke Man
Antislavery efforts imperiled in Brazil
By Andrew Downie
The Christian Science Monitor
Fri Feb 16
RIO DE JANEIRO - A decision by Brazil's Congress to curb the powers of labor auditors threatens to jeopardize an antislavery program that led to the release of more than 15,000 slaves and made Brazil a world leader in fighting indentured servitude, officials and activists said here this week.
Brazilian lawmakers passed a new law on Tuesday that unites two federal tax bodies in a bid to streamline a complex and bureaucratic system.
But one key amendment in the bill strips labor auditors and prosecutors of their power to determine the relationship between employers and employees. The amendment was included at the behest of media companies, who routinely use freelancers and who, under the existing statute, could be punished for doing so by labor auditors.
Under the new law, judges are now responsible for defining that relationship. An apparently unintended consequence of the change is that auditors can no longer determine what constitutes slavery, say prosecutors, auditors, and human rights activists.
"This will make it substantially more difficult to register and document incidents," said Walter Nunes, president of the federal judges association.
The amendment also prevents prosecutors from leveling immediate fines on employers found to have deliberately kept slaves. Until now, prosecutors who accompany government auditors to track down reports of slavery in the remote outposts of the Amazon jungle had the power to fine employers they determined were keeping slaves. Last year guilty employers were forced to pay around $3 million in back pay to workers they used as indentured servants.
Congress's decision was met with anger and disappointment by antislavery campaigners, who say it will neutralize all the previous work done by a government that had made eradicating slavery one of its proudest boasts.
"The campaign against slavery was successful because auditors were able to recognize slavery and demand that employers pay up," said Rosa Jorge, the president of the auditor's union.
"Now, employees have to go through the justice system, and there are two things that can happen," she says. "Either they cut a deal - and normally that is not good for workers - or they spend years waiting for the case to come to court. But these slaves won't go to court, many of them don't even now that courts exist."
Brazil has a hidden but serious problem of slave labor. The International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates that there are 40,000 slaves working in Brazil today.
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva made eradicating what he called "Brazil's shame" one of his main goals, and he doubled the Department of Labor Oversight's budget and increased the number of mobile antislavery units from four to seven.
The units follow up on reports of abuse in some of the most inhospitable places in this continent-sized nation and free workers lured into slavery by promises of big payoffs.
Workers are routinely taken to remote outposts and prevented from leaving, sometimes by armed guards. The captives, most of whom are poor and unskilled, are put to work and made to pay exorbitant prices for basics like tools, soap, and food. Many end up owing money, even after spending months doing hard work like cutting down trees or clearing cattle pastures.
Lula's campaign was a huge success, with officials freeing more than 15,000 slaves since he came to power in 2003. The ILO lauded Lula's efforts in a 2005 report on slavery worldwide.
Now, though, that work is in jeopardy, and unionists, lawyers, prosecutors, and human rights workers are banding together to pressure Lula into vetoing the amendment.
Myriad voices have condemned the clause, with judges saying it will add to the backlog in their courts, ministers calling it detrimental to the average worker and the Brazilian Bar Association ruling it unconstitutional.
About the only ones happy with the decision are big businesses. The decision gives employers more leeway to deal with freelance employees, a move that, they argue, is vital in a job market where short-term contracts are increasingly common.
Large companies are now free to hire freelancers without paying them the benefits entitled to full employees. Employers, moreover, will no longer be at the mercy of "the arbitrariness of auditors," says Armando Monteiro, the president of the National Confederation of Industry.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Hey Folks,
On February 25 the local paper reported: “Poorest Americans get poorer / Incomes of 16 million fall 50% below poverty line,” a story by Tony Pugh of McClatchy Newspapers.
On February 26 it reported: “Welfare state getting larger / Cash assistance has waned, but other programs keep growing,” a story by Stephen Olemacher of AP.
Duhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!! Surprise, surprise !!
In the first story we find:
“The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line, and the gulf between the "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.
A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 — half the federal poverty line — was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.”
Now, Folks, 16 million people is larger than the combined populations of Ohio and Kentucky. Does that “put a face on it”?
Moreover, we’re not talking ALL the poor people; we’re talking only the deeply and severely poor !!
How can this be?
Simple: that’s been The Plan all along.
Wake up folks!! WE are the sheep and they are the sheep owners. That’s ALWAYS been the plan; it’s how “society”/”civilization” works.
Specifically in the US of A, early-on in frontier days the sheep had better grazing – the white ones anyway. They were encouraged to find their fortune taming the wilds. Once they succeeded, the Philadelphia Lawyers and other Robber Barons felt safe enough to come take it away from them ( e.g. Daniel Boone [not to be confused with his imbecile descendent Pat Boone] and Simon Kenton [ of Tecumseh fame] ).
The frontier finally disappeared and free-roaming sheep became scarce – time to put ‘em back on the farm for easy exploitation – the way God (and the Wealthy) wanted it to be (the Rich Man's Burden). That worked pretty well until the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression made things so bad for the masses that revolution was a real possibility.
Franklin Roosevelt saved the wealthy’s ass with his “New Deal,” simultaneously securing their eternal hatred. Ever since, the angry Upper Crust has worked feverishly to dismantle those evil kindnesses, the very ones that saved them from the guillotine.
They have made regular progress culminating with George W. Bush’s blatant, unashamed attacks on everything that “regular” folks once were said to hold dear. That’s The Plan!!!
The re-enslavement of the American people is close to its end game. Rights are obliterated or mangled, standards of living are lowered, availability of education and health care are reduced, unions are made irrelevant, retirement becomes a joke. No wonder the second story reports:
“WASHINGTON — The welfare state is bigger than ever despite a decade of policies designed to wean poor people from public aid.
The number of families receiving cash benefits from welfare has plummeted since the government imposed time limits on the payments a decade ago. But other programs for the poor, including Medicaid, food stamps and disability benefits, are bursting with new enrollees.
The result, according to an Associated Press analysis: Nearly one in six people rely on some form of public assistance, a larger share than at any time since the government started measuring two decades ago.
Critics of the welfare overhaul say the numbers offer fresh evidence that few former recipients have become self-sufficient, even though millions have moved from welfare to work. They say the vast majority have been forced into lowpaying jobs with no benefits and few opportunities to advance.
‘If the goal of welfare reform was to get people off the welfare rolls, bravo,’ said Vivyan Adair, a former welfare recipient who is now an assistant professor of women’s studies at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y. ‘If the goal was to reduce poverty and give people economic and job stability, it was not a success.’”
That’s The Plan, Folks: “the vast majority have been forced into lowpaying jobs with no benefits and few opportunities to advance.” Yep, WAL-MART and Burger King !!
Further on, the article says: “In the early 1990s, critics contended that the welfare system encouraged unemployment.” Yep, people in deep and severe poverty working at “lowpaying jobs with no benefits and few opportunities to advance” do fall into the unemployment hole, and that forces WAL-Mart to pay more to get workers.
But Welfare “Reform” took care of that “problem”! Forcing the poor to work for nearly nothing, suffering until they die – it's part of The Plan. And the numbers are staggering: “Nearly one in six people rely on some form of public assistance.” That’s 50 million people, more than the combined populations of Texas, West Virginia, New York, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Kansas, and South Dakota.
“The Plan” explains the seemingly incongruous facts related to “Free Trade” deals, outsourcing over seas, the Mexican immigration “problem,” the New Orleans situation, the war in Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, and more.
If one believes that the people who run this country really care about the people, the country, or anything not related to their own, personal well-being, these things make no sense (sure, we are fed all sorts of complicated bullshit to “justify” the policies of the rich, and they usually do help the rich, but they always turn out – somehow - not to do for the people what we were told they would during the sales pitch.
The perfect example is provided by the two consecutive articles. The only ones to benefit from Welfare “Reform” were people who were already well off. People got off welfare, went to work, and were worse off. In these two articles a decade-long line of bullshit is clearly revealed, even to the sheepish (if they are awake).
So wake up to The Plan, people. Stand up and say, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more!!”
Or, if you prefer, say:
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !!!!! And wag your tail behind you.
- Uke Man
On February 25 the local paper reported: “Poorest Americans get poorer / Incomes of 16 million fall 50% below poverty line,” a story by Tony Pugh of McClatchy Newspapers.
On February 26 it reported: “Welfare state getting larger / Cash assistance has waned, but other programs keep growing,” a story by Stephen Olemacher of AP.
Duhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!! Surprise, surprise !!
In the first story we find:
“The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line, and the gulf between the "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.
A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 — half the federal poverty line — was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.”
Now, Folks, 16 million people is larger than the combined populations of Ohio and Kentucky. Does that “put a face on it”?
Moreover, we’re not talking ALL the poor people; we’re talking only the deeply and severely poor !!
How can this be?
Simple: that’s been The Plan all along.
Wake up folks!! WE are the sheep and they are the sheep owners. That’s ALWAYS been the plan; it’s how “society”/”civilization” works.
Specifically in the US of A, early-on in frontier days the sheep had better grazing – the white ones anyway. They were encouraged to find their fortune taming the wilds. Once they succeeded, the Philadelphia Lawyers and other Robber Barons felt safe enough to come take it away from them ( e.g. Daniel Boone [not to be confused with his imbecile descendent Pat Boone] and Simon Kenton [ of Tecumseh fame] ).
The frontier finally disappeared and free-roaming sheep became scarce – time to put ‘em back on the farm for easy exploitation – the way God (and the Wealthy) wanted it to be (the Rich Man's Burden). That worked pretty well until the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression made things so bad for the masses that revolution was a real possibility.
Franklin Roosevelt saved the wealthy’s ass with his “New Deal,” simultaneously securing their eternal hatred. Ever since, the angry Upper Crust has worked feverishly to dismantle those evil kindnesses, the very ones that saved them from the guillotine.
They have made regular progress culminating with George W. Bush’s blatant, unashamed attacks on everything that “regular” folks once were said to hold dear. That’s The Plan!!!
The re-enslavement of the American people is close to its end game. Rights are obliterated or mangled, standards of living are lowered, availability of education and health care are reduced, unions are made irrelevant, retirement becomes a joke. No wonder the second story reports:
“WASHINGTON — The welfare state is bigger than ever despite a decade of policies designed to wean poor people from public aid.
The number of families receiving cash benefits from welfare has plummeted since the government imposed time limits on the payments a decade ago. But other programs for the poor, including Medicaid, food stamps and disability benefits, are bursting with new enrollees.
The result, according to an Associated Press analysis: Nearly one in six people rely on some form of public assistance, a larger share than at any time since the government started measuring two decades ago.
Critics of the welfare overhaul say the numbers offer fresh evidence that few former recipients have become self-sufficient, even though millions have moved from welfare to work. They say the vast majority have been forced into lowpaying jobs with no benefits and few opportunities to advance.
‘If the goal of welfare reform was to get people off the welfare rolls, bravo,’ said Vivyan Adair, a former welfare recipient who is now an assistant professor of women’s studies at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y. ‘If the goal was to reduce poverty and give people economic and job stability, it was not a success.’”
That’s The Plan, Folks: “the vast majority have been forced into lowpaying jobs with no benefits and few opportunities to advance.” Yep, WAL-MART and Burger King !!
Further on, the article says: “In the early 1990s, critics contended that the welfare system encouraged unemployment.” Yep, people in deep and severe poverty working at “lowpaying jobs with no benefits and few opportunities to advance” do fall into the unemployment hole, and that forces WAL-Mart to pay more to get workers.
But Welfare “Reform” took care of that “problem”! Forcing the poor to work for nearly nothing, suffering until they die – it's part of The Plan. And the numbers are staggering: “Nearly one in six people rely on some form of public assistance.” That’s 50 million people, more than the combined populations of Texas, West Virginia, New York, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Kansas, and South Dakota.
“The Plan” explains the seemingly incongruous facts related to “Free Trade” deals, outsourcing over seas, the Mexican immigration “problem,” the New Orleans situation, the war in Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, and more.
If one believes that the people who run this country really care about the people, the country, or anything not related to their own, personal well-being, these things make no sense (sure, we are fed all sorts of complicated bullshit to “justify” the policies of the rich, and they usually do help the rich, but they always turn out – somehow - not to do for the people what we were told they would during the sales pitch.
The perfect example is provided by the two consecutive articles. The only ones to benefit from Welfare “Reform” were people who were already well off. People got off welfare, went to work, and were worse off. In these two articles a decade-long line of bullshit is clearly revealed, even to the sheepish (if they are awake).
So wake up to The Plan, people. Stand up and say, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more!!”
Or, if you prefer, say:
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !!!!! And wag your tail behind you.
- Uke Man
Monday, February 26, 2007
Neil Postman warned in 1985 that we were amusing ourselves to death
Hey Folks,
With this essay I realized that whenever I get depressed, it most often is over disappointment with humanity. Pogo said it best: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
- Uke Man
February 22, 2007
From Anna to Britney to Zawahri
By BOB HERBERT
( a ukethanks to Phyll)
Have they buried Anna Nicole Smith yet?
Are you kidding? Ms. Smith may be dead and rapidly decomposing, but there’s too much fun still to be reaped from her story to let it die just yet. This is world-class entertainment: Larry King, “Today,” CNN, The New York Times.
Even the judge in the televised hearing over what to do with Ms. Smith’s remains is milking his 15 minutes, like Judge Ito of O. J. Simpson fame. In a burst of wisdom from the bench, the judge, Larry Seidlin, said, “Like a Muhammad Ali fight, sometimes you have to wait the whole 10 rounds.”
When we were kids we were taught not to laugh at people who were obviously mentally or emotionally disturbed. With Ms. Smith, who was deeply and unmistakably disturbed, we put her on television and laughed and laughed. Would she say something stupid, or spill out of her dress, or pass out in public from booze or drugs? How hysterically funny!
Then her son died. Then she died, leaving an orphaned infant daughter. Instead of turning away chastened, shamed, we homed in like happy vultures. Whatever entertainment value Ms. Smith had when she was alive increased exponentially when she was kind enough to die for us. Now she’s on the tube around the clock.
The story, as they say, has legs.
There are other stories out there, but they aren’t nearly as much fun. The Times reported on Monday, for example, that Al Qaeda is getting its act together in Pakistan and is setting up training camps in an area that, apparently, we don’t dare trespass in.
According to the article, “American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan.”
The article went on to say, ominously, “The United States has also identified several new Qaeda compounds in North Waziristan, including one that officials said might be training operatives for strikes against targets beyond Afghanistan.”
I imagine that there are a fair number of television viewers and newspaper readers who have trouble distinguishing the relative importance of celebrity stories, like the death of Anna Nicole Smith, from other matters in the news, like the reconstitution of forces responsible for the devastating Sept. 11 attacks.
If air time is any guide, there’s no contest. It’s been obvious for the longest time that the line between news and entertainment has vanished. News is entertainment. And the death of Anna Nicole Smith is more entertaining — for the time being, at least — than the war in Iraq or the plodding machinations of bin Laden and Zawahri.
Paris Hilton and Britney Spears were on the cover of Newsweek last week with the headline “The Girls Gone Wild Effect.” When you turned to the story, there was a full-page picture of the former best friends, with a glassy-eyed Britney looking for all the world like a younger version of Anna Nicole Smith.
The lead-in to the article said in large type: “Paris, Britney, Lindsay and Nicole — They seem to be everywhere and they may not be wearing underwear.”
The nation may be at war, and Al Qaeda may be gearing up for a rematch. But that’s no fun, not when Britney is shaving off her hair and Jennifer Aniston is reported to have a new nose and the thrill-a-minute watch over Anna Nicole’s remains is still the hottest thing on TV.
It was Neil Postman who warned in 1985 that we were amusing ourselves to death. I’m not sure anyone knew how literally to take him.
More than 20 years later, the masses have nearly succeeded in drawing the curtains on anything that’s not entertaining. No one can figure out what do about Iraq or Al Qaeda. A great American cultural center like New Orleans was all but washed away, and no one knows how to put it back together. The ice caps are melting and Al Gore is traveling the land like the town crier, raising the alarm about global warming.
But none of that has really gotten the public’s attention. None of it is amusing enough. As a nation of spectators, we seem content to sit with a pizza and a brew in front of the high-def flat-screen TV, obsessing over Anna Nicole et al., and giving no thought to the possibility that the calamitous events unfolding in the world may someday reach our doorsteps.
With this essay I realized that whenever I get depressed, it most often is over disappointment with humanity. Pogo said it best: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
- Uke Man
February 22, 2007
From Anna to Britney to Zawahri
By BOB HERBERT
( a ukethanks to Phyll)
Have they buried Anna Nicole Smith yet?
Are you kidding? Ms. Smith may be dead and rapidly decomposing, but there’s too much fun still to be reaped from her story to let it die just yet. This is world-class entertainment: Larry King, “Today,” CNN, The New York Times.
Even the judge in the televised hearing over what to do with Ms. Smith’s remains is milking his 15 minutes, like Judge Ito of O. J. Simpson fame. In a burst of wisdom from the bench, the judge, Larry Seidlin, said, “Like a Muhammad Ali fight, sometimes you have to wait the whole 10 rounds.”
When we were kids we were taught not to laugh at people who were obviously mentally or emotionally disturbed. With Ms. Smith, who was deeply and unmistakably disturbed, we put her on television and laughed and laughed. Would she say something stupid, or spill out of her dress, or pass out in public from booze or drugs? How hysterically funny!
Then her son died. Then she died, leaving an orphaned infant daughter. Instead of turning away chastened, shamed, we homed in like happy vultures. Whatever entertainment value Ms. Smith had when she was alive increased exponentially when she was kind enough to die for us. Now she’s on the tube around the clock.
The story, as they say, has legs.
There are other stories out there, but they aren’t nearly as much fun. The Times reported on Monday, for example, that Al Qaeda is getting its act together in Pakistan and is setting up training camps in an area that, apparently, we don’t dare trespass in.
According to the article, “American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan.”
The article went on to say, ominously, “The United States has also identified several new Qaeda compounds in North Waziristan, including one that officials said might be training operatives for strikes against targets beyond Afghanistan.”
I imagine that there are a fair number of television viewers and newspaper readers who have trouble distinguishing the relative importance of celebrity stories, like the death of Anna Nicole Smith, from other matters in the news, like the reconstitution of forces responsible for the devastating Sept. 11 attacks.
If air time is any guide, there’s no contest. It’s been obvious for the longest time that the line between news and entertainment has vanished. News is entertainment. And the death of Anna Nicole Smith is more entertaining — for the time being, at least — than the war in Iraq or the plodding machinations of bin Laden and Zawahri.
Paris Hilton and Britney Spears were on the cover of Newsweek last week with the headline “The Girls Gone Wild Effect.” When you turned to the story, there was a full-page picture of the former best friends, with a glassy-eyed Britney looking for all the world like a younger version of Anna Nicole Smith.
The lead-in to the article said in large type: “Paris, Britney, Lindsay and Nicole — They seem to be everywhere and they may not be wearing underwear.”
The nation may be at war, and Al Qaeda may be gearing up for a rematch. But that’s no fun, not when Britney is shaving off her hair and Jennifer Aniston is reported to have a new nose and the thrill-a-minute watch over Anna Nicole’s remains is still the hottest thing on TV.
It was Neil Postman who warned in 1985 that we were amusing ourselves to death. I’m not sure anyone knew how literally to take him.
More than 20 years later, the masses have nearly succeeded in drawing the curtains on anything that’s not entertaining. No one can figure out what do about Iraq or Al Qaeda. A great American cultural center like New Orleans was all but washed away, and no one knows how to put it back together. The ice caps are melting and Al Gore is traveling the land like the town crier, raising the alarm about global warming.
But none of that has really gotten the public’s attention. None of it is amusing enough. As a nation of spectators, we seem content to sit with a pizza and a brew in front of the high-def flat-screen TV, obsessing over Anna Nicole et al., and giving no thought to the possibility that the calamitous events unfolding in the world may someday reach our doorsteps.
Check out the Melissa Etheridge video
Hey Folks,
I'm writing this before the Academy Awards. However they come out, Al Gore's movie needs to be seen. Below, you can watch a Melissa Ethridge song related to the Global Warming flick and/or visit the site for startling views of our globe and its present, frightening situation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKSywQmT40 Melissa
www.climatecrisis.net the Web Site
- Uke Man
I'm writing this before the Academy Awards. However they come out, Al Gore's movie needs to be seen. Below, you can watch a Melissa Ethridge song related to the Global Warming flick and/or visit the site for startling views of our globe and its present, frightening situation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKSywQmT40 Melissa
www.climatecrisis.net the Web Site
- Uke Man
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Soldiers Are Dying So We Can Lose This Right
Hey Folks,
This very important situation is presented by Amnesty International, a very worthy organization. Please watch the video. It is mind-bending.
- Uke Man
Can you guess which Bush administration official said this last month?
"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is granted or assured the right to habeas [corpus]. It doesn't say that."
If you guessed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, you're correct. In fact, the Constitution states that habeas corpus rights cannot be suspended except in times of rebellion or invasion. For centuries, this has meant that a person could challenge his or her detention in an independent court of law - unless those exceptional circumstances existed.
Gonzales's declaration should strike fear in all of us. His dangerous comments before the Senate Judiciary Committee betrayed the Constitutional rights he was sworn to protect as our nation's top law enforcement official...and defied common sense, too. Watch the video!
An additional blow to the rule of law came just this week - when a federal appeals court ruled that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider habeas claims by people held in Guantanamo Bay.
The principle of habeas corpus is as fundamental to our democracy as the idea of "innocent until proven guilty." Alberto Gonzales's remarks are an outrage and an affront to all that our great nation stands for.
( to make a tax-deductible donation to Amnesty's America I Believe In campaign , click here)
This very important situation is presented by Amnesty International, a very worthy organization. Please watch the video. It is mind-bending.
- Uke Man
Can you guess which Bush administration official said this last month?
"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is granted or assured the right to habeas [corpus]. It doesn't say that."
If you guessed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, you're correct. In fact, the Constitution states that habeas corpus rights cannot be suspended except in times of rebellion or invasion. For centuries, this has meant that a person could challenge his or her detention in an independent court of law - unless those exceptional circumstances existed.
Gonzales's declaration should strike fear in all of us. His dangerous comments before the Senate Judiciary Committee betrayed the Constitutional rights he was sworn to protect as our nation's top law enforcement official...and defied common sense, too. Watch the video!
An additional blow to the rule of law came just this week - when a federal appeals court ruled that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider habeas claims by people held in Guantanamo Bay.
The principle of habeas corpus is as fundamental to our democracy as the idea of "innocent until proven guilty." Alberto Gonzales's remarks are an outrage and an affront to all that our great nation stands for.
( to make a tax-deductible donation to Amnesty's America I Believe In campaign , click here)
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Capitalism in Russia - Listen & Think
Ah, yes, Folks,
Listen to the logic. Now there is Capitalism in Russia, and the workers are much worse off than before, but the only way they will ever improve their situation is to let the Capitalists degrade their situation further.
Now that Religion has returned to Russia - along with Capitalism - maybe the workers can get their reward in the afterlife - Pie in the Sky for Workers / Pie on the Table for their owners (er ... bosses).
Listen to the NPR report on this at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6898814
- Uke Man
Listen to the logic. Now there is Capitalism in Russia, and the workers are much worse off than before, but the only way they will ever improve their situation is to let the Capitalists degrade their situation further.
Now that Religion has returned to Russia - along with Capitalism - maybe the workers can get their reward in the afterlife - Pie in the Sky for Workers / Pie on the Table for their owners (er ... bosses).
Listen to the NPR report on this at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6898814
- Uke Man
Friday, February 23, 2007
Magical Spiritual Powers
Hey Folks,
This woman in the story below is officially "bizarre," but how is she different from so many other "bizarre" religious individuals of the past and present? And what does her ability to attract so many superstitious followers say about humanity. What do Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Sun Myung Moon's similar abilities say about humanity?
I've highlighted particularly pertinent parts of the story.
- Uke Man
Former Ugandan rebel leader dies in camp
By DAVID OCHAMI, Associated Press
GARISSA, Kenya - Alice Lakwena, a Ugandan warrior priestess who led an insurgency in the 1980s and claimed to have spiritual powers to protect her fighters from bullets by anointing them with oil, has died at a Kenyan refugee camp, a government official said Thursday.
Lakwena, who was in her 40s, died Wednesday after being sick for about a week with an unknown illness at the Ifo refugee camp in the eastern Garrisa district, said Dennis Ogola, a local administrator.
The daughter of a clergyman from the small Acholi tribe in northern Uganda, she mesmerized her followers with claims that spirits spoke through her.
Lakwena led the Holy Spirit Movement, which combined Christianity with traditional beliefs of her Acholi people, in a yearlong insurgency aimed at toppling Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. Army troops defeated the movement in late 1987.
Her cousin, Joseph Kony, is the messianic leader of the Lord's Resistance Army. His rebellion in northern Uganda continues today and has seen as many as 1.8 million people displaced, tens of thousands killed and an estimated 20,000 children abducted.
Lakwena became a major embarrassment to the Ugandan government because the foreign media had reported so extensively on her bizarre exploits.
Her rebellion — one of about a half-dozen in Uganda at the time — began soon after Museveni, a southerner, overthrew a military government led by a northerner.
Known as "Mama Alice," she raised a battalion of followers numbering as many as 15,000, armed with only sticks and stones. She inspired them to go into battle singing hymns, their chests smeared with oil that they believed would repel bullets. She told them the sticks could turn bees into bullets and the stones would explode like grenades.
Thousands of her followers died before Museveni's army crushed her campaign.
Lakwena, who called herself a prophet and a medium of God, fled to Kenya in December 1987, where she was promptly jailed for three months for illegally entering the country.
Lakwena's followers released the news of her death Thursday.
"The people around her regarded her as some kind of spiritual medium. Maybe that is why they did not inform us" earlier, Ogola told The Associated Press.
This woman in the story below is officially "bizarre," but how is she different from so many other "bizarre" religious individuals of the past and present? And what does her ability to attract so many superstitious followers say about humanity. What do Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Sun Myung Moon's similar abilities say about humanity?
I've highlighted particularly pertinent parts of the story.
- Uke Man
Former Ugandan rebel leader dies in camp
By DAVID OCHAMI, Associated Press
GARISSA, Kenya - Alice Lakwena, a Ugandan warrior priestess who led an insurgency in the 1980s and claimed to have spiritual powers to protect her fighters from bullets by anointing them with oil, has died at a Kenyan refugee camp, a government official said Thursday.
Lakwena, who was in her 40s, died Wednesday after being sick for about a week with an unknown illness at the Ifo refugee camp in the eastern Garrisa district, said Dennis Ogola, a local administrator.
The daughter of a clergyman from the small Acholi tribe in northern Uganda, she mesmerized her followers with claims that spirits spoke through her.
Lakwena led the Holy Spirit Movement, which combined Christianity with traditional beliefs of her Acholi people, in a yearlong insurgency aimed at toppling Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. Army troops defeated the movement in late 1987.
Her cousin, Joseph Kony, is the messianic leader of the Lord's Resistance Army. His rebellion in northern Uganda continues today and has seen as many as 1.8 million people displaced, tens of thousands killed and an estimated 20,000 children abducted.
Lakwena became a major embarrassment to the Ugandan government because the foreign media had reported so extensively on her bizarre exploits.
Her rebellion — one of about a half-dozen in Uganda at the time — began soon after Museveni, a southerner, overthrew a military government led by a northerner.
Known as "Mama Alice," she raised a battalion of followers numbering as many as 15,000, armed with only sticks and stones. She inspired them to go into battle singing hymns, their chests smeared with oil that they believed would repel bullets. She told them the sticks could turn bees into bullets and the stones would explode like grenades.
Thousands of her followers died before Museveni's army crushed her campaign.
Lakwena, who called herself a prophet and a medium of God, fled to Kenya in December 1987, where she was promptly jailed for three months for illegally entering the country.
Lakwena's followers released the news of her death Thursday.
"The people around her regarded her as some kind of spiritual medium. Maybe that is why they did not inform us" earlier, Ogola told The Associated Press.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
New Video from NYC
Hey Folks,
Thanks to my friends Jason & Ted in New York, here's a video of the Uke Man doing "Pinocchio Knows":
www.ukuleledisco.com/pinocchio
- Uke Man
Thanks to my friends Jason & Ted in New York, here's a video of the Uke Man doing "Pinocchio Knows":
www.ukuleledisco.com/pinocchio
- Uke Man
Parasites
Hey Folks,
I've heard it said that Americans refuse to resent the wealthy because of the "American Dream" that someday they can be rich too. Of course, the wealthy and their lapdog toadies in the press scream "Class Warfare" whenever anything is proposed to help the people (e.g. health care, minimum wage, pensions).
That's not unlike the plantation owners' focusing on religion for their slaves - not to save souls, but to offer potential pie in the sky to avoid trouble over actual deprivation on earth.
Well, folks. Read below how our masters spend their time and your money; then listen to the NPR report on Mexico and India:
I've heard it said that Americans refuse to resent the wealthy because of the "American Dream" that someday they can be rich too. Of course, the wealthy and their lapdog toadies in the press scream "Class Warfare" whenever anything is proposed to help the people (e.g. health care, minimum wage, pensions).
That's not unlike the plantation owners' focusing on religion for their slaves - not to save souls, but to offer potential pie in the sky to avoid trouble over actual deprivation on earth.
Well, folks. Read below how our masters spend their time and your money; then listen to the NPR report on Mexico and India:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7492272 Mexico
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7492275 India (where 300 million people [the population of the USA] live in dire poverty.)
Which direction do you think the "American Dream" is heading?
- Uke Man
A toy for every billionaire at Verona luxury fair
By Mathias Wildt Mon Feb 19
VERONA (Reuters) - Is there a better way to show off how rich you are than to pave your yacht's floors with gold?
The Verona luxury fair in northern Italy -- where billionaires find the kinds of things they hope can distinguish themselves from mere millionaires -- can answer that question.
The six pavilions teemed with attractive saleswomen pitching helicopters, Ferrari and Bentley cars, 1.5 million euro watches and hot tubs with champagne bottles in silver ice buckets.
"Verona is The Luxury Fair, and it's much better than other dusty shows in Italy," said antiques dealer Umberto Campi, from Milan, surrounded by Japanese samurai suits of armor from the 1600s complete with ghoulish masks that start at 20,000 euros ($26,290).
Exhibitors like the Verona fair, which ran from February 10 to 18, because it brings in a diverse audience, from industry professionals to window shoppers like Mauro Giovanardi from Modena, who walked his leashed Chihuahua along carpeted halls.
"It's a way of spending the day looking at shiny things," Giovanardi said.
At one booth, Italian company Aurum showed off its durmast oak parquet flooring covered in 24 carat gold leaf on offer for around 6,800 euros a square meter. The same price could get you a central Milan apartment.
"We're the first in the world," said commercial director Riccardo Risetto. "Others just have gold-painted floors."
Risetto said Aurum is in talks with designers Dolce & Gabbana, who just opened a bar in Milan called Gold, and a shipbuilder who wants to use it for the big luxury yachts he builds.
DIAMOND PRESS
Clothes are a major status symbol for the super-rich just like anyone else. But standing out from the average designer label-wearing rich person can be tricky.
How about champagne-washed, diamond-studded, gold-festooned jeans made by jeweler Xipe of Vicenza and Verona fashion company Move easy? They sell for just 150,000 euros ($196,800).
An added benefit is that the gold lining the pockets can be worn as bracelets and the belt loops turned into earrings. The button which holds them up is a 4 carat diamond.
Plenty of other shiny things could be found at LifeGem, which makes diamonds using the compressed carbon from human or pet hair, ashes or placenta by placing it in a diamond press for six to nine months.
Fausta Benedetti, a jeweler from Trento visiting the LifeGem booth said she was interested in carrying the rocks because "they have meaning."
One of the fair's top attractions testified to the age old adage that it is lonely at the top.
At the Real Doll booth a blonde in transparent lingerie and a brunette in skin-tight top and skirt sat invitingly on a couch with legs spread and mouths puckered.
Both are full-size, very life-like, silicone sex toys with a plastic skeleton and steel joints so they can be placed in any position, Chief Executive Officer and Creative Director Matt Krivicke said.
They cost $6,500.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
So, Size DOES Count!!!
Well, Folks,
I guess it's not just the swordsmanship, after all!!
- Uke Man
Why Female Bugs Outsize Males
Abigail W. LeonardSpecial to LiveScienceLiveScience.com Sun Feb 18
Men and women have got it reversed compared to most of the animal kingdom when it comes to the relative sizes of males and females.
For insects and spiders, as with most non-human animals, the majority of females outsize their male counterparts. A new study looks at why sexual dimorphism—the non-sexual size and shape differences between the sexes—exists in the world of six- and eight-legged creatures.
There are two routes to getting big, scientists say. Either the larger sex grows faster or it undergoes a longer period of growth.
Biologist Daphne Fairbairn of the University of California, Riverside, was one of 13 scientists who contributed research to determine which route prevailed among insects and spiders. The group looked at 155 species of creepy crawlies in which females are larger and found that the key is not how long it takes them to mature but the rate at which they grow.
“In the insects I research, females are larger than males. But it turns out they mature at the same age, and it takes the same amount of time to get to adult size,” she said. Females, then, must undergo more rapid growth.
So why are the males so much smaller?
“In most animals, the advantages of large size are apparent, whereas the disadvantages are not,” Fairbairn's colleague Wolf Blanckenhorn of the Zoological Museum at the University of Zurich told LiveScience.
He proposes a theory to explain the advantages of small size: While females are bulking up, males are devoting their energy and resources to growing mature reproductive organs, which are much larger and more elaborate than in females—and relative to overall body size, are also significantly bigger than those of mammals.
While men are thought to grow big and strong to better compete for mates, insects and spiders might maximize their reproductive potential by staying small overall, Blanckenhorn explained. Growing larger "where it counts" gives males greater odds of inseminating their partner with each encounter.
The research is detailed in this month’s issue of The American Naturalist.
I guess it's not just the swordsmanship, after all!!
- Uke Man
Why Female Bugs Outsize Males
Abigail W. LeonardSpecial to LiveScienceLiveScience.com Sun Feb 18
Men and women have got it reversed compared to most of the animal kingdom when it comes to the relative sizes of males and females.
For insects and spiders, as with most non-human animals, the majority of females outsize their male counterparts. A new study looks at why sexual dimorphism—the non-sexual size and shape differences between the sexes—exists in the world of six- and eight-legged creatures.
There are two routes to getting big, scientists say. Either the larger sex grows faster or it undergoes a longer period of growth.
Biologist Daphne Fairbairn of the University of California, Riverside, was one of 13 scientists who contributed research to determine which route prevailed among insects and spiders. The group looked at 155 species of creepy crawlies in which females are larger and found that the key is not how long it takes them to mature but the rate at which they grow.
“In the insects I research, females are larger than males. But it turns out they mature at the same age, and it takes the same amount of time to get to adult size,” she said. Females, then, must undergo more rapid growth.
So why are the males so much smaller?
“In most animals, the advantages of large size are apparent, whereas the disadvantages are not,” Fairbairn's colleague Wolf Blanckenhorn of the Zoological Museum at the University of Zurich told LiveScience.
He proposes a theory to explain the advantages of small size: While females are bulking up, males are devoting their energy and resources to growing mature reproductive organs, which are much larger and more elaborate than in females—and relative to overall body size, are also significantly bigger than those of mammals.
While men are thought to grow big and strong to better compete for mates, insects and spiders might maximize their reproductive potential by staying small overall, Blanckenhorn explained. Growing larger "where it counts" gives males greater odds of inseminating their partner with each encounter.
The research is detailed in this month’s issue of The American Naturalist.
Big F'n Surprise
Hey Folks,
The tube has been going on for some time now about the terrible treatment our wounded/injured/maimed troops are getting when they come home. (hear the NPR report at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7489265 )
Big F’n surprise!!!
It’s ALWAYS been that way. We NEVER learn.
OF COURSE it’s the government run by people who make a major issue of “supporting the troops” that is screwing the troops – and not just the wounded troops, but ALL the troops. That’s always the way it has been. Twain and Crane said as much, and it was true before they pointed it out. I said it as long ago as the Viet Nam war and I said it again before this war.
It’s always the same from start to finish!! The people – as well as the troops – are fed incredible crap – they buy in and work themselves into a frenzy (especially those old moronic vets who can never get enough war and glory) to blindly support the war and send our young people (not the old vets rallying around the bar at the VFW) off to die so “we can have our freedoms” (many of which we will have to give up in order to support the troops).
For a while our kids die and the elite make money hand-over-fist until reality sinks in as the deaths and failed expectations mount and – near the end – it is “discovered” that our beloved troops are being fucked over again (as they have ALWAYS been).
There is no excuse for this, other than total stupidity.
- Uke Man
The tube has been going on for some time now about the terrible treatment our wounded/injured/maimed troops are getting when they come home. (hear the NPR report at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7489265 )
Big F’n surprise!!!
It’s ALWAYS been that way. We NEVER learn.
OF COURSE it’s the government run by people who make a major issue of “supporting the troops” that is screwing the troops – and not just the wounded troops, but ALL the troops. That’s always the way it has been. Twain and Crane said as much, and it was true before they pointed it out. I said it as long ago as the Viet Nam war and I said it again before this war.
It’s always the same from start to finish!! The people – as well as the troops – are fed incredible crap – they buy in and work themselves into a frenzy (especially those old moronic vets who can never get enough war and glory) to blindly support the war and send our young people (not the old vets rallying around the bar at the VFW) off to die so “we can have our freedoms” (many of which we will have to give up in order to support the troops).
For a while our kids die and the elite make money hand-over-fist until reality sinks in as the deaths and failed expectations mount and – near the end – it is “discovered” that our beloved troops are being fucked over again (as they have ALWAYS been).
There is no excuse for this, other than total stupidity.
- Uke Man
Monday, February 19, 2007
Put a little mustard on the Wurst-in-Chief !!
Hey Folks,
It's "President's Day" - Whoopdie dooooooo !!!
There are those who honestly believe that we should "honor the office of President" if not the person holding it. That makes sense if one has any faith in the system and in the process of annointing (I mean electing) our masters (er ... I mean leaders).
There have been, I'm sure, some decent people holding that office, but most of them haven't given a damn for the people. Just think "CEO" and how much they care about their workers, customers, or even the stockholders.
As far as I'm concerned, the office is potentially honorable, but that is determined by how it actually functions to serve the people - not by blind faith or patriotic fervor. In that regard George Dubya Bush has made it more obvious than most of his predecessors that the people are dirt.
That's not respectable, not worthy of respect.
Happy Presidents' Day.
- Uke Man
February 8, 2007
The Nation (web only)
The Worst President Ever
Nicholas von Hoffman
A question that seems to be on everybody's mind these days turns out to be: Is George Bush the worst President in American history?
But how do you judge? Is he the most morally disgusting? The worst mangler of the English language? Ever since the atom bomb was dropped, we've had a whole string of bozos who cannot pronounce the word "nuclear." How much should that count against them?
Is John Tyler, our tenth President, a candidate for worst President? Some people who have never heard of this guy have heard of the campaign slogan "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too." Well, Tippecanoe (William Henry Harrison) lasted about a month in office before he died of a cold contracted while making his inaugural address, and the rest is non-history. Tyler is best remembered, if he is remembered at all, as the President whose entire Cabinet, save one, quit on him. Please do not confuse him with Zachary Taylor, the twelfth President, easily Tyler's equal in forgettability.
Is the most forgettable also the worst? Men like Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and Benjamin Harrison (Tippecanoe's grandson) were more politically brain-dead than really bad. But not so with James Buchanan, No. 15, who was President from 1857 to 1861. Aside from being a dull, unimaginative, dray horse of a politician, he was the President whose cowardice in handling the South and slavery ended the remotest possibility that the United States would be spared the horrors of the Civil War.
The consequences of Buchanan's political poltroonery were long-lasting and dire, as contrasted with those of Warren Harding. Harding (No. 29) has won many Worst President contests because he had three or four truly stinky crooks in his administration to go along with an otherwise outstanding Cabinet. He was a slob with a drinking problem, and he was also afflicted with Bill Clinton's zipper disease. Since booze was illegal when he was President (1921-23), getting smashed in the White House made him a not-so-great role model--not that much of the country was paying attention since all the other adults in America were doing the same thing at the local speakeasy.
There is a great story about Harding in the closet making boom-boom with his girlfriend, and of his wife being restrained by the Secret Service guys from rushing in and exposing the President in the flagrantest of delictos. But worst President? Not so much.
Others proposed for the worst list include Herbert Hoover, James Madison, Ulysses Grant and Richard Nixon.
Hoover, Democratic propaganda to the contrary, did not cause the Great Depression nor was he indifferent to his people's sufferings. A brilliant, decent man, he was absolutely the unluckiest President.
Madison, the fourth President, justly called the Father of the Constitution, fits anyone's description of a great man, but he loused up the presidency by going to war against England in 1812 with no Army and not much more of a Navy. His foreign policies were so hated in New England that the young federal republic he had done so much to start almost blew apart. Worse was to come. Madison could do nothing when the Brits occupied Washington, DC, and burned down the White House. But in the long run the consequences of his mistakes were minor, so he cannot have the "worst prexy" horse collar put around his neck.
Grant was too noble a man to be the worst anything. He had some crooks in his administration, but, like Harding, he had nothing to do with their corruption. On the plus side, he was the last President until Lyndon Johnson who would go to bat for black people.
As for Nixon, it's still too early to tell. Too many people still living hate him or love him. The decision on that strange, baggy-faced man belongs to Gen X and beyond.
Which brings us to Bush II. It's also too early to tell, but if first signs mean anything, he has got a lot to answer for. We know he is responsible for the death of a lot of people who never hurt him or us. We wonder if he has so disturbed the entire Middle East quadrant of the globe that years and years may pass while the people there and the people here suffer for what he has done. Will we get habeas corpus back? Will the thumb screw become standard operating procedure, or will it be returned to the Middle Ages whence George Bush found it?
One of the criteria for being worst is how much lasting damage the President did. Buchanan, for instance, did more than words can convey. With Bush II the reckoning is yet to be made.
It's "President's Day" - Whoopdie dooooooo !!!
There are those who honestly believe that we should "honor the office of President" if not the person holding it. That makes sense if one has any faith in the system and in the process of annointing (I mean electing) our masters (er ... I mean leaders).
There have been, I'm sure, some decent people holding that office, but most of them haven't given a damn for the people. Just think "CEO" and how much they care about their workers, customers, or even the stockholders.
As far as I'm concerned, the office is potentially honorable, but that is determined by how it actually functions to serve the people - not by blind faith or patriotic fervor. In that regard George Dubya Bush has made it more obvious than most of his predecessors that the people are dirt.
That's not respectable, not worthy of respect.
Happy Presidents' Day.
- Uke Man
February 8, 2007
The Nation (web only)
The Worst President Ever
Nicholas von Hoffman
A question that seems to be on everybody's mind these days turns out to be: Is George Bush the worst President in American history?
But how do you judge? Is he the most morally disgusting? The worst mangler of the English language? Ever since the atom bomb was dropped, we've had a whole string of bozos who cannot pronounce the word "nuclear." How much should that count against them?
Is John Tyler, our tenth President, a candidate for worst President? Some people who have never heard of this guy have heard of the campaign slogan "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too." Well, Tippecanoe (William Henry Harrison) lasted about a month in office before he died of a cold contracted while making his inaugural address, and the rest is non-history. Tyler is best remembered, if he is remembered at all, as the President whose entire Cabinet, save one, quit on him. Please do not confuse him with Zachary Taylor, the twelfth President, easily Tyler's equal in forgettability.
Is the most forgettable also the worst? Men like Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and Benjamin Harrison (Tippecanoe's grandson) were more politically brain-dead than really bad. But not so with James Buchanan, No. 15, who was President from 1857 to 1861. Aside from being a dull, unimaginative, dray horse of a politician, he was the President whose cowardice in handling the South and slavery ended the remotest possibility that the United States would be spared the horrors of the Civil War.
The consequences of Buchanan's political poltroonery were long-lasting and dire, as contrasted with those of Warren Harding. Harding (No. 29) has won many Worst President contests because he had three or four truly stinky crooks in his administration to go along with an otherwise outstanding Cabinet. He was a slob with a drinking problem, and he was also afflicted with Bill Clinton's zipper disease. Since booze was illegal when he was President (1921-23), getting smashed in the White House made him a not-so-great role model--not that much of the country was paying attention since all the other adults in America were doing the same thing at the local speakeasy.
There is a great story about Harding in the closet making boom-boom with his girlfriend, and of his wife being restrained by the Secret Service guys from rushing in and exposing the President in the flagrantest of delictos. But worst President? Not so much.
Others proposed for the worst list include Herbert Hoover, James Madison, Ulysses Grant and Richard Nixon.
Hoover, Democratic propaganda to the contrary, did not cause the Great Depression nor was he indifferent to his people's sufferings. A brilliant, decent man, he was absolutely the unluckiest President.
Madison, the fourth President, justly called the Father of the Constitution, fits anyone's description of a great man, but he loused up the presidency by going to war against England in 1812 with no Army and not much more of a Navy. His foreign policies were so hated in New England that the young federal republic he had done so much to start almost blew apart. Worse was to come. Madison could do nothing when the Brits occupied Washington, DC, and burned down the White House. But in the long run the consequences of his mistakes were minor, so he cannot have the "worst prexy" horse collar put around his neck.
Grant was too noble a man to be the worst anything. He had some crooks in his administration, but, like Harding, he had nothing to do with their corruption. On the plus side, he was the last President until Lyndon Johnson who would go to bat for black people.
As for Nixon, it's still too early to tell. Too many people still living hate him or love him. The decision on that strange, baggy-faced man belongs to Gen X and beyond.
Which brings us to Bush II. It's also too early to tell, but if first signs mean anything, he has got a lot to answer for. We know he is responsible for the death of a lot of people who never hurt him or us. We wonder if he has so disturbed the entire Middle East quadrant of the globe that years and years may pass while the people there and the people here suffer for what he has done. Will we get habeas corpus back? Will the thumb screw become standard operating procedure, or will it be returned to the Middle Ages whence George Bush found it?
One of the criteria for being worst is how much lasting damage the President did. Buchanan, for instance, did more than words can convey. With Bush II the reckoning is yet to be made.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Jeff Stonerock & Time Machine
Hey Folks,
This weekend the Uke Man got to sit and sip and enjoy OTHER people's music.
Saturday night, right here in Circleville at the Main Street Pub, I got to hear my friend Jeff Stonerock's band Time Machine do their extraordinary thing.
They played everybody's favorites with right-on three part harmony and tight, rousing musicianship.
A great evening! Thanks, guys!!!!!
- Uke Man
This weekend the Uke Man got to sit and sip and enjoy OTHER people's music.
Saturday night, right here in Circleville at the Main Street Pub, I got to hear my friend Jeff Stonerock's band Time Machine do their extraordinary thing.
They played everybody's favorites with right-on three part harmony and tight, rousing musicianship.
A great evening! Thanks, guys!!!!!
- Uke Man
more Chavez
Hey Folks,
Didn't Chavez offer to help OUR poor people with their heating needs too? What an evil dude.
And where does he get off complaining about NAFTA et. al. just because it hasn't helped Mexico and has hurt American workers (he probably doesn't understand "Trickle-down Economics" - doesn't he know that's why they call poor Mexicans "Peons"? - American workers, too, for that matter).
Thank god the AP reported the crowd "did not respond with applause." I was worried there for a minute.
- Uke Man
Chavez calls for anti-imperialist unity
By DUGGIE JOSEPH, Associated Press
KINGSTOWN, St. Vincent -
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Saturday touted the fuel facilities and public works projects his government has built in the Caribbean in an effort to make inroads in a region where the U.S. has long been dominant.
The fiery leftist leader, on a tour of the region, also called on Caribbean nations to join his fight against U.S. hegemony.
"Down with U.S. imperialism! Long live the people of this world. We must join together and we will be free," Chavez said at the site for a new airport on St. Vincent. Venezuela and its close ally Cuba have provided $200 million for the airport.
In a wide-ranging speech, Chavez blasted the North American Free Trade Agreement, which combines the markets of the United States, Canada and Mexico, and promoted his socialist political movement loosely based on the ideas of South American independence hero Simon Bolivar.
The crowd, however, did not respond with applause to the Venezuelan leader's vitriolic statements.
Earlier, Chavez unveiled a plaque on St. Vincent marking where a fuel storage facility will be built and visited a liquid natural gas facility constructed under his Petrocaribe program.
Petrocaribe, an agreement between Venezuela and 14 Caribbean countries, offers deferred payments and long-term financing for fuel shipments.
Petrocaribe is widely seen as a bid by Chavez to vie with the U.S. for influence in the Caribbean. The U.S. is the biggest trading partner of most countries in the region and their largest market for tourism.
Many Caribbean nations are still buying oil from elsewhere, including oil- and gas-rich Trinidad and Tobago, where the prime minister has resisted the Venezuelan initiative and traded barbs with other regional leaders over the deal.
On Friday, Chavez visited the mountainous, forested island of Dominica, where he addressed a crowd at a new fuel storage tank built by Venezuela, one of five facilities the oil-rich nation has pledged to construct there.
Dominica Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit also announced his government's acceptance of a Venezuelan offer to build an oil refinery that would process some 10,000 barrels a day.
"We shall make no apologies ... that President Chavez is our friend and the people of Venezuela are our friends," Skerrit said to widespread applause.
Chavez assured Dominicans that the construction of an oil refinery would not harm the ecology of the island, which promotes itself as an ecotourism destination. Conservationists have objected to the plan, fearing the environmental impact.
"We did not come to pollute your country," Chavez said.
Dominica — one of the Caribbean's poorest countries whose economy — has also received asphalt, university scholarships and $12 million for housing through the Petrocaribe initiative.
Didn't Chavez offer to help OUR poor people with their heating needs too? What an evil dude.
And where does he get off complaining about NAFTA et. al. just because it hasn't helped Mexico and has hurt American workers (he probably doesn't understand "Trickle-down Economics" - doesn't he know that's why they call poor Mexicans "Peons"? - American workers, too, for that matter).
Thank god the AP reported the crowd "did not respond with applause." I was worried there for a minute.
- Uke Man
Chavez calls for anti-imperialist unity
By DUGGIE JOSEPH, Associated Press
KINGSTOWN, St. Vincent -
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Saturday touted the fuel facilities and public works projects his government has built in the Caribbean in an effort to make inroads in a region where the U.S. has long been dominant.
The fiery leftist leader, on a tour of the region, also called on Caribbean nations to join his fight against U.S. hegemony.
"Down with U.S. imperialism! Long live the people of this world. We must join together and we will be free," Chavez said at the site for a new airport on St. Vincent. Venezuela and its close ally Cuba have provided $200 million for the airport.
In a wide-ranging speech, Chavez blasted the North American Free Trade Agreement, which combines the markets of the United States, Canada and Mexico, and promoted his socialist political movement loosely based on the ideas of South American independence hero Simon Bolivar.
The crowd, however, did not respond with applause to the Venezuelan leader's vitriolic statements.
Earlier, Chavez unveiled a plaque on St. Vincent marking where a fuel storage facility will be built and visited a liquid natural gas facility constructed under his Petrocaribe program.
Petrocaribe, an agreement between Venezuela and 14 Caribbean countries, offers deferred payments and long-term financing for fuel shipments.
Petrocaribe is widely seen as a bid by Chavez to vie with the U.S. for influence in the Caribbean. The U.S. is the biggest trading partner of most countries in the region and their largest market for tourism.
Many Caribbean nations are still buying oil from elsewhere, including oil- and gas-rich Trinidad and Tobago, where the prime minister has resisted the Venezuelan initiative and traded barbs with other regional leaders over the deal.
On Friday, Chavez visited the mountainous, forested island of Dominica, where he addressed a crowd at a new fuel storage tank built by Venezuela, one of five facilities the oil-rich nation has pledged to construct there.
Dominica Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit also announced his government's acceptance of a Venezuelan offer to build an oil refinery that would process some 10,000 barrels a day.
"We shall make no apologies ... that President Chavez is our friend and the people of Venezuela are our friends," Skerrit said to widespread applause.
Chavez assured Dominicans that the construction of an oil refinery would not harm the ecology of the island, which promotes itself as an ecotourism destination. Conservationists have objected to the plan, fearing the environmental impact.
"We did not come to pollute your country," Chavez said.
Dominica — one of the Caribbean's poorest countries whose economy — has also received asphalt, university scholarships and $12 million for housing through the Petrocaribe initiative.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
or "The Raping of America"
Hey Folks,
Here you go. Of the people, by the people, and for the people??? Sorry!!!
This is what it's REALLY like: "Greed is good!! Greed works!! Lie to the people!! Tell them you love them; tell them anything; then you can rape them over and over again - maybe forever!!"
- Uke Man
February 5, 2007
The Green-Zoning of America
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll )
One of the best of the many recent books about the Iraq debacle is Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s “Imperial Life in the Emerald City.” The book tells a tale of hopes squandered in the name of politicization and privatization: key jobs in Baghdad’s Green Zone were assigned on the basis of loyalty rather than know-how, while key functions were outsourced to private contractors.
Two recent reports in The New York Times serve as a reminder that the Bush administration has brought the same corruption of governance to the home front. Call it the Green-Zoning of America.
In the first article, The Times reported that a new executive order requires that each agency contain a “regulatory policy office run by a political appointee,” a change that “strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts.” Yesterday, The Times turned to the rapid growth of federal contracting, fed “by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does.”
These are two different pieces of the same story: under the guise of promoting a conservative agenda, the Bush administration has created a supersized version of the 19th-century spoils system.
The blueprint for Bush-era governance was laid out in a January 2001 manifesto from the Heritage Foundation, titled “Taking Charge of Federal Personnel.” The manifesto’s message, in brief, was that the professional civil service should be regarded as the enemy of the new administration’s conservative agenda. And there’s no question that Heritage’s thinking reflected that of many people on the Bush team.
How should the civil service be defeated? First and foremost, Heritage demanded that politics take precedence over know-how: the new administration “must make appointment decisions based on loyalty first and expertise second.”
Second, Heritage called for a big increase in outsourcing — “contracting out as a management strategy.” This would supposedly reduce costs, but it would also have the desirable effect of reducing the total number of civil servants.
The Bush administration energetically put these recommendations into effect. Political loyalists were installed throughout the government, regardless of qualifications. And the administration outsourced many government functions previously considered too sensitive to privatize: yesterday’s Times article begins with the case of CACI International, a private contractor hired, in spite of the obvious conflict of interest, to process cases of incompetence and fraud by private contractors. A few years earlier, CACI provided interrogators at Abu Ghraib.
The ostensible reason for politicizing and privatizing was to promote the conservative ideal of smaller, more efficient government. But the small-government rhetoric was never sincere: from Day 1, the administration set out to create a vast new patronage machine.
Those political appointees chosen for their loyalty, not their expertise, aren’t very good at doing their proper jobs — as all the world learned after Hurricane Katrina struck. But they have been very good at rewarding campaign contributors, from energy companies that benefit from lax regulation of pollution to pharmaceutical companies that got a Medicare program systematically designed to protect their profits.
And the executive order described by The Times will make it even easier for political appointees to overrule the professionals, tailoring government regulations to suit the interests of companies that support the G.O.P. — or to give lucrative contracts to people with the right connections.
Meanwhile, never mind the idea that outsourcing of government functions should be used to promote competition and save money. The Times reports that “fewer than half of all ‘contract actions’ — new contracts and payments against existing contracts — are now subject to full and open competition,” down from 79 percent in 2001. And many contractors are paid far more than it would cost to do the job with government employees: those CACI workers processing claims against other contractors cost the government $104 an hour.
What’s truly amazing is how far back we’ve slid in such a short time. The modern civil service system dates back more than a century; in just six years the Bush administration has managed to undo many of that system’s achievements. And the administration still has two years to go.
Here you go. Of the people, by the people, and for the people??? Sorry!!!
This is what it's REALLY like: "Greed is good!! Greed works!! Lie to the people!! Tell them you love them; tell them anything; then you can rape them over and over again - maybe forever!!"
- Uke Man
February 5, 2007
The Green-Zoning of America
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll )
One of the best of the many recent books about the Iraq debacle is Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s “Imperial Life in the Emerald City.” The book tells a tale of hopes squandered in the name of politicization and privatization: key jobs in Baghdad’s Green Zone were assigned on the basis of loyalty rather than know-how, while key functions were outsourced to private contractors.
Two recent reports in The New York Times serve as a reminder that the Bush administration has brought the same corruption of governance to the home front. Call it the Green-Zoning of America.
In the first article, The Times reported that a new executive order requires that each agency contain a “regulatory policy office run by a political appointee,” a change that “strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts.” Yesterday, The Times turned to the rapid growth of federal contracting, fed “by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does.”
These are two different pieces of the same story: under the guise of promoting a conservative agenda, the Bush administration has created a supersized version of the 19th-century spoils system.
The blueprint for Bush-era governance was laid out in a January 2001 manifesto from the Heritage Foundation, titled “Taking Charge of Federal Personnel.” The manifesto’s message, in brief, was that the professional civil service should be regarded as the enemy of the new administration’s conservative agenda. And there’s no question that Heritage’s thinking reflected that of many people on the Bush team.
How should the civil service be defeated? First and foremost, Heritage demanded that politics take precedence over know-how: the new administration “must make appointment decisions based on loyalty first and expertise second.”
Second, Heritage called for a big increase in outsourcing — “contracting out as a management strategy.” This would supposedly reduce costs, but it would also have the desirable effect of reducing the total number of civil servants.
The Bush administration energetically put these recommendations into effect. Political loyalists were installed throughout the government, regardless of qualifications. And the administration outsourced many government functions previously considered too sensitive to privatize: yesterday’s Times article begins with the case of CACI International, a private contractor hired, in spite of the obvious conflict of interest, to process cases of incompetence and fraud by private contractors. A few years earlier, CACI provided interrogators at Abu Ghraib.
The ostensible reason for politicizing and privatizing was to promote the conservative ideal of smaller, more efficient government. But the small-government rhetoric was never sincere: from Day 1, the administration set out to create a vast new patronage machine.
Those political appointees chosen for their loyalty, not their expertise, aren’t very good at doing their proper jobs — as all the world learned after Hurricane Katrina struck. But they have been very good at rewarding campaign contributors, from energy companies that benefit from lax regulation of pollution to pharmaceutical companies that got a Medicare program systematically designed to protect their profits.
And the executive order described by The Times will make it even easier for political appointees to overrule the professionals, tailoring government regulations to suit the interests of companies that support the G.O.P. — or to give lucrative contracts to people with the right connections.
Meanwhile, never mind the idea that outsourcing of government functions should be used to promote competition and save money. The Times reports that “fewer than half of all ‘contract actions’ — new contracts and payments against existing contracts — are now subject to full and open competition,” down from 79 percent in 2001. And many contractors are paid far more than it would cost to do the job with government employees: those CACI workers processing claims against other contractors cost the government $104 an hour.
What’s truly amazing is how far back we’ve slid in such a short time. The modern civil service system dates back more than a century; in just six years the Bush administration has managed to undo many of that system’s achievements. And the administration still has two years to go.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Is the Chimp-Empire Crumbling ???
GAME OVER: THIRTY-SIX SURE-FIRE SIGNS THAT YOUR EMPIREIS CRUMBLING
BY: DR. DAVID MICHAEL GREEN, political scienceprofessor at Hofstra U. in New York.SOURCE: Published on 2-2-07 by CommonDreams.org.URL: http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0202-26.htm
So. You've built yourself an empire, eh? Well, bully for you!
What's next, you ask? Well, now you've got to do what everybody does when they have an empire, of course.You've got to worry about it falling apart, mate!
But how to tell for sure? Let me see if I can be helpful. Here are some rules of thumb to keep in mind,thirty-six sure-fire indicators that your empire is falling apart:
1. You know your empire's crumbling when the folks who are gearing up their empire to replace yours start blowing up satellites in space. And then they don't bother to return your phone calls when you ring up to ask why.
2. You know your empire's crumbling when those same folks are cutting deals left, right and center across Asia, Latin America and Africa, while you, your lousy terms, and your arrogant attitude are no longer welcome.
3. You know your empire's crumbling when you're spending your grandchildren's money like a drunken sailor, and letting your soon-to-be rivals finance your little splurge (i.e., letting them own your country).
4. You know your empire's crumbling when it's considered an achievement to pretend that you've halved the rate at which you're adding to the massive mountain of debt you've already accumulated.
5. You know your empire's crumbling when you weaken your currency until it looks as anemic as a Paris runway model, and you're still setting record trade deficits. (Hint: Because you're not making anything anymore.)
6. You know your empire's crumbling when "the little brown ones" (thank you George H.W. Bush - certainly not me - for that lovely expression) in country after country of "your backyard" blow you off and proudly elect anti-imperialist leftist governments.
7. You know your empire's crumbling when you can't topple those governments and replace them with nice puppet regimes - like in the good old days - even if you wanted to. And you badly want to.
8. You know your empire's crumbling when one of their leaders comes to the United Nations and makes fun of your emperor, calling him the devil, and joking abou tsmelling sulphur where he just stood. And though a few folks cringe, everybody laughs.
9. You know your empire's crumbling when just about your entire military land force is tied up in a worse-than-useless war launched on the basis of complete fabrications, that every day is actually making you less - not more - secure from external threat.
10. You know your empire's crumbling when almost half the soldiers in that war are high-paid mercenaries,and you don't dare institute a draft.
11. You know your empire's crumbling when you send soldiers into war with two weeks training and a lack of armor, and then you keep them there for three, four and five rotations.
12. You know your empire's crumbling when a member of the Axis of Evil can test missiles and explode nuclear warheads, and all you can do about it is mumble some pathetic warnings about how they better not do that again or there will be consequences.
13. You know your empire's crumbling when you even think that there is an Axis of Evil.
14. You know your empire's crumbling when a rag-tag military hodge-podge of irregulars has you pinned down in an endless fight you can't win, but also can't lose.
15. You know your empire's crumbling when you're too dumb to even ban Humvees as a first step toward ending your dependency on a foreign-owned crucial resource.
16. You know your empire's crumbling when you trade your prior moral leadership on human rights issues for global disgust at your torture, 'extraordinary rendition' (a.k.a. kidnaping for torture) and the dismantling of nine centuries worth of civil liberties progress.
17. You know your empire's crumbling when you blow off international law that you once helped create, and undermine the institutions of international governance that you once helped build.
18. You know your empire's crumbling when opinion polls confirm that every month you're more and more despised throughout the world.
19. You know your empire's crumbling when you can't even pull off the hanging of a tin-pot murderous former dictator without turning him into a hero.
20. You know your empire's crumbling when you're the richest country in the world, but nearly 50 million of your people don't have basic health care coverage.
21. You know your empire's crumbling when the World Health Organization ranks your healthcare system 37th 'best' in the world, just above Slovenia, and just below Costa Rica. (And far below Colombia, Cyprus,Saudi Arabia and Morocco.)
22. You know your empire's crumbling when instead of making it easier for citizens to obtain a higher education, you're making it harder and more expensive.
23. You know your empire's crumbling when your government gives tax breaks to industries as a reward for exporting your jobs elsewhere.
24. You know your empire's crumbling when the so-called 'opposition' party can't even turn that obscenity into a viable campaign theme and use it to clobber the worst emperor in your history.
25. You know your empire's crumbling when your middle class has been stagnant for three decades, while the wealth of the hyper-rich continues to climb through the roof.
26. You know your empire's crumbling when your reaction to that is to exacerbate the problem by enacting tax policies that massively increase further still the gap between the rich and the rest.
27. You know your empire's crumbling when the predatory class has taken over your government and is stripping the country of everything not bolted down to the floor. And then it sells the floor itself, as well, to your rivals.
28. You know your empire's crumbling when you're spending tens of billions of dollars you don't own on new nuclear warheads and space weapons that don't work, to be used against an enemy you don't have.
29. You know your empire's crumbling when one of your cities drowns and your government does next to nothing before, during and after.
30. You know your empire's crumbling when a massive environmental nightmare is looming around the corner,and your emperor not only ignores it, but claims it isn't real while taking steps to exacerbate it.
31. You know your empire's crumbling when your emperor is warned by a CIA briefer of an imminent terrorist attack of vast proportions, and responds by remaining on vacation and dismissing the briefer with the words:"All right. You've covered your ass, now."
32. You know your empire's crumbling when the same emperor drops everything to fly across the country from his vacation home in order to sign a bill intervening on the wrong side of a personal medical drama involving a single family.
33. You know your empire's crumbling when gays and immigrants are used as diversionary issues to keep people from thinking about the pillaging of their country and their wallets actually taking place. And it works.
34. You know your empire's crumbling when people are getting more religious and less scientific, not the other way around.
35. You know your empire's crumbling when your political leaders start to be chosen by dynastic rules of succession.
36. And you especially know your empire's crumbling when the most idiotic child of one of the least accomplished leaders in its history is not only crowned as the next emperor, but is even revered for a time by most of the public as a great one. Rome? Britain? Spain?
At this rate we'll be lucky to end up like Belgium.
BY: DR. DAVID MICHAEL GREEN, political scienceprofessor at Hofstra U. in New York.SOURCE: Published on 2-2-07 by CommonDreams.org.URL: http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0202-26.htm
So. You've built yourself an empire, eh? Well, bully for you!
What's next, you ask? Well, now you've got to do what everybody does when they have an empire, of course.You've got to worry about it falling apart, mate!
But how to tell for sure? Let me see if I can be helpful. Here are some rules of thumb to keep in mind,thirty-six sure-fire indicators that your empire is falling apart:
1. You know your empire's crumbling when the folks who are gearing up their empire to replace yours start blowing up satellites in space. And then they don't bother to return your phone calls when you ring up to ask why.
2. You know your empire's crumbling when those same folks are cutting deals left, right and center across Asia, Latin America and Africa, while you, your lousy terms, and your arrogant attitude are no longer welcome.
3. You know your empire's crumbling when you're spending your grandchildren's money like a drunken sailor, and letting your soon-to-be rivals finance your little splurge (i.e., letting them own your country).
4. You know your empire's crumbling when it's considered an achievement to pretend that you've halved the rate at which you're adding to the massive mountain of debt you've already accumulated.
5. You know your empire's crumbling when you weaken your currency until it looks as anemic as a Paris runway model, and you're still setting record trade deficits. (Hint: Because you're not making anything anymore.)
6. You know your empire's crumbling when "the little brown ones" (thank you George H.W. Bush - certainly not me - for that lovely expression) in country after country of "your backyard" blow you off and proudly elect anti-imperialist leftist governments.
7. You know your empire's crumbling when you can't topple those governments and replace them with nice puppet regimes - like in the good old days - even if you wanted to. And you badly want to.
8. You know your empire's crumbling when one of their leaders comes to the United Nations and makes fun of your emperor, calling him the devil, and joking abou tsmelling sulphur where he just stood. And though a few folks cringe, everybody laughs.
9. You know your empire's crumbling when just about your entire military land force is tied up in a worse-than-useless war launched on the basis of complete fabrications, that every day is actually making you less - not more - secure from external threat.
10. You know your empire's crumbling when almost half the soldiers in that war are high-paid mercenaries,and you don't dare institute a draft.
11. You know your empire's crumbling when you send soldiers into war with two weeks training and a lack of armor, and then you keep them there for three, four and five rotations.
12. You know your empire's crumbling when a member of the Axis of Evil can test missiles and explode nuclear warheads, and all you can do about it is mumble some pathetic warnings about how they better not do that again or there will be consequences.
13. You know your empire's crumbling when you even think that there is an Axis of Evil.
14. You know your empire's crumbling when a rag-tag military hodge-podge of irregulars has you pinned down in an endless fight you can't win, but also can't lose.
15. You know your empire's crumbling when you're too dumb to even ban Humvees as a first step toward ending your dependency on a foreign-owned crucial resource.
16. You know your empire's crumbling when you trade your prior moral leadership on human rights issues for global disgust at your torture, 'extraordinary rendition' (a.k.a. kidnaping for torture) and the dismantling of nine centuries worth of civil liberties progress.
17. You know your empire's crumbling when you blow off international law that you once helped create, and undermine the institutions of international governance that you once helped build.
18. You know your empire's crumbling when opinion polls confirm that every month you're more and more despised throughout the world.
19. You know your empire's crumbling when you can't even pull off the hanging of a tin-pot murderous former dictator without turning him into a hero.
20. You know your empire's crumbling when you're the richest country in the world, but nearly 50 million of your people don't have basic health care coverage.
21. You know your empire's crumbling when the World Health Organization ranks your healthcare system 37th 'best' in the world, just above Slovenia, and just below Costa Rica. (And far below Colombia, Cyprus,Saudi Arabia and Morocco.)
22. You know your empire's crumbling when instead of making it easier for citizens to obtain a higher education, you're making it harder and more expensive.
23. You know your empire's crumbling when your government gives tax breaks to industries as a reward for exporting your jobs elsewhere.
24. You know your empire's crumbling when the so-called 'opposition' party can't even turn that obscenity into a viable campaign theme and use it to clobber the worst emperor in your history.
25. You know your empire's crumbling when your middle class has been stagnant for three decades, while the wealth of the hyper-rich continues to climb through the roof.
26. You know your empire's crumbling when your reaction to that is to exacerbate the problem by enacting tax policies that massively increase further still the gap between the rich and the rest.
27. You know your empire's crumbling when the predatory class has taken over your government and is stripping the country of everything not bolted down to the floor. And then it sells the floor itself, as well, to your rivals.
28. You know your empire's crumbling when you're spending tens of billions of dollars you don't own on new nuclear warheads and space weapons that don't work, to be used against an enemy you don't have.
29. You know your empire's crumbling when one of your cities drowns and your government does next to nothing before, during and after.
30. You know your empire's crumbling when a massive environmental nightmare is looming around the corner,and your emperor not only ignores it, but claims it isn't real while taking steps to exacerbate it.
31. You know your empire's crumbling when your emperor is warned by a CIA briefer of an imminent terrorist attack of vast proportions, and responds by remaining on vacation and dismissing the briefer with the words:"All right. You've covered your ass, now."
32. You know your empire's crumbling when the same emperor drops everything to fly across the country from his vacation home in order to sign a bill intervening on the wrong side of a personal medical drama involving a single family.
33. You know your empire's crumbling when gays and immigrants are used as diversionary issues to keep people from thinking about the pillaging of their country and their wallets actually taking place. And it works.
34. You know your empire's crumbling when people are getting more religious and less scientific, not the other way around.
35. You know your empire's crumbling when your political leaders start to be chosen by dynastic rules of succession.
36. And you especially know your empire's crumbling when the most idiotic child of one of the least accomplished leaders in its history is not only crowned as the next emperor, but is even revered for a time by most of the public as a great one. Rome? Britain? Spain?
At this rate we'll be lucky to end up like Belgium.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
What????????????
Hey Folks,
Think about it:
Before Hugo Chavez 20% of Venezuela was wealthy; 80% were impoverished. Chavez has infuriated the 20% by concentrating on the 80%.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says, "I believe there is an assault on democracy in Venezuela and I believe that there are significant human rights issues in Venezuela."
Doesn't she have that backward? Twenty percent riding the backs of eighty percent doesn't sound like majority rule, and an 8o% poverty rate smacks of "human rights issues."
Rice went on to say, "I do believe that the president of Venezuela is really, really destroying his own country, economically, politically."
The "economic" part refers to Chavez throwing the foreign oil company vultures off the train. The "political" part is a veiled threat of coercion.
No wonder God loves America more than any other country.
Rice believes Chavez is "destroying" Venezuela
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday she believed Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was destroying his country economically and politically.
Venezuela's Congress on January 31 granted Chavez powers to rule by decree for 18 months as he tries to force through nationalizations key to his self-styled leftist revolution.
"I believe there is an assault on democracy in Venezuela and
Think about it:
Before Hugo Chavez 20% of Venezuela was wealthy; 80% were impoverished. Chavez has infuriated the 20% by concentrating on the 80%.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says, "I believe there is an assault on democracy in Venezuela and I believe that there are significant human rights issues in Venezuela."
Doesn't she have that backward? Twenty percent riding the backs of eighty percent doesn't sound like majority rule, and an 8o% poverty rate smacks of "human rights issues."
Rice went on to say, "I do believe that the president of Venezuela is really, really destroying his own country, economically, politically."
The "economic" part refers to Chavez throwing the foreign oil company vultures off the train. The "political" part is a veiled threat of coercion.
No wonder God loves America more than any other country.
Rice believes Chavez is "destroying" Venezuela
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday she believed Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was destroying his country economically and politically.
Venezuela's Congress on January 31 granted Chavez powers to rule by decree for 18 months as he tries to force through nationalizations key to his self-styled leftist revolution.
"I believe there is an assault on democracy in Venezuela and