posted by Ukulele Man at 10:19 PM
0 comments
links to this post
Friday, March 30, 2007
What do we REALLY know??
Hey Folks,
We think there are things we know, but do we?Maybe we just "know" them for a while and then later we don't know them anymore.
Some years ago I wrote this spare little "poem":
Great Pyramid was built inside out, Frenchman says
By Tim Hepher Fri, Mar 30
PARIS (Reuters) - A French architect said on Friday he had cracked a 4,500-year-old mystery surrounding Egypt's Great Pyramid, saying it was built from the inside out.
Previous theories have suggested Pharaoh Khufu's tomb, the last surviving example of the seven great wonders of antiquity, was built using either a vast frontal ramp or a ramp in a corkscrew shape around the exterior to haul up the stonework.
But flouting previous wisdom, Jean-Pierre Houdin said advanced 3D technology had shown the main ramp which was used to haul the massive stones to the apex was contained 10-15 meters beneath the outer skin, tracing a pyramid within a pyramid.
"This is better than the other theories, because it is the only theory that works," Houdin told Reuters after unveiling his hypothesis in a lavish ceremony using 3D computer simulation.
To prove his case, Houdin teamed up with a French company that builds 3D models for auto and airplane design, Dassault Systemes, which put 14 engineers for 2 years on the project.
Now, an international team is being assembled to probe the pyramid using radars and heat detecting cameras supplied by a French defense firm, as long as Egyptian authorities agree.
"This goes against both main existing theories. I've been teaching them myself for 20 years but deep down I know they're wrong," Egyptologist Bob Brier told Reuters at the unveiling.
"Houdin's vision is credible, but right now this is just a theory. Everybody thinks it has got to be taken seriously," said Brier, a senior research fellow at Long Island University.
Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities was not immediately available for comment. Dassault said Brier and other Egyptologists attending the ceremony were supporters of Houdin's theory but had no financial links to him or the firm.
INTUITION
Houdin began working full-time on the riddle eight years ago after a flash of intuition passed to him by his engineer father, and five years before actually visiting the site.
He found that a frontal, mile-long ramp would have used up as much stone as the pyramid, while being too steep near the top. He believes an external ramp was used only to supply the base.
An external corkscrew ramp would have blocked the sight lines needed to build an accurate pyramid and been difficult to fix to the surface, while leaving little room to work.
"What characterized the Egyptians was their sense of perfection and economy. We talk of durable development now, but it was the Egyptians who invented it. They didn't waste a single stone. They relied purely on intelligence," Houdin said.
Houdin also claimed to have shed light on a second enigma surrounding the purpose of a Grand Gallery inside the pyramid.
The Frenchman believes its tall, narrow shape suggests it accommodated a giant counter-weight to help haul five 60-ton granite beams to their position above the King's Chamber.
He thinks that no more than 4,000 people could have built the pyramid using these techniques rather than the 100,000 or so assigned by past historians to the task of burying the pharaoh.
Houdin, 56, brushed aside concerns about the popular curse which is supposed to punish those who penetrate the secrets of the pyramids, dating back to the opening of Tutankhamun tomb.
"Why should I be worried? I'm just explaining that the people of the time were architects of genius and that Khufu was a genius to order the pyramid's construction. What could happen to me, except that Khufu would thank me?," he told Reuters.
(Additional reporting by Lucien Libert of Reuters Television)
We think there are things we know, but do we?Maybe we just "know" them for a while and then later we don't know them anymore.
Some years ago I wrote this spare little "poem":
The Latest Word from Head Quarters
Life
is
a
series
of
mistaken
notions
which
consecutively
replace
one
another
as
we
age
Life
is
a
series
of
mistaken
notions
which
consecutively
replace
one
another
as
we
age
Well, the story below would seem to support this notion.
- Uke Man
Great Pyramid was built inside out, Frenchman says
By Tim Hepher Fri, Mar 30
PARIS (Reuters) - A French architect said on Friday he had cracked a 4,500-year-old mystery surrounding Egypt's Great Pyramid, saying it was built from the inside out.
Previous theories have suggested Pharaoh Khufu's tomb, the last surviving example of the seven great wonders of antiquity, was built using either a vast frontal ramp or a ramp in a corkscrew shape around the exterior to haul up the stonework.
But flouting previous wisdom, Jean-Pierre Houdin said advanced 3D technology had shown the main ramp which was used to haul the massive stones to the apex was contained 10-15 meters beneath the outer skin, tracing a pyramid within a pyramid.
"This is better than the other theories, because it is the only theory that works," Houdin told Reuters after unveiling his hypothesis in a lavish ceremony using 3D computer simulation.
To prove his case, Houdin teamed up with a French company that builds 3D models for auto and airplane design, Dassault Systemes, which put 14 engineers for 2 years on the project.
Now, an international team is being assembled to probe the pyramid using radars and heat detecting cameras supplied by a French defense firm, as long as Egyptian authorities agree.
"This goes against both main existing theories. I've been teaching them myself for 20 years but deep down I know they're wrong," Egyptologist Bob Brier told Reuters at the unveiling.
"Houdin's vision is credible, but right now this is just a theory. Everybody thinks it has got to be taken seriously," said Brier, a senior research fellow at Long Island University.
Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities was not immediately available for comment. Dassault said Brier and other Egyptologists attending the ceremony were supporters of Houdin's theory but had no financial links to him or the firm.
INTUITION
Houdin began working full-time on the riddle eight years ago after a flash of intuition passed to him by his engineer father, and five years before actually visiting the site.
He found that a frontal, mile-long ramp would have used up as much stone as the pyramid, while being too steep near the top. He believes an external ramp was used only to supply the base.
An external corkscrew ramp would have blocked the sight lines needed to build an accurate pyramid and been difficult to fix to the surface, while leaving little room to work.
"What characterized the Egyptians was their sense of perfection and economy. We talk of durable development now, but it was the Egyptians who invented it. They didn't waste a single stone. They relied purely on intelligence," Houdin said.
Houdin also claimed to have shed light on a second enigma surrounding the purpose of a Grand Gallery inside the pyramid.
The Frenchman believes its tall, narrow shape suggests it accommodated a giant counter-weight to help haul five 60-ton granite beams to their position above the King's Chamber.
He thinks that no more than 4,000 people could have built the pyramid using these techniques rather than the 100,000 or so assigned by past historians to the task of burying the pharaoh.
Houdin, 56, brushed aside concerns about the popular curse which is supposed to punish those who penetrate the secrets of the pyramids, dating back to the opening of Tutankhamun tomb.
"Why should I be worried? I'm just explaining that the people of the time were architects of genius and that Khufu was a genius to order the pyramid's construction. What could happen to me, except that Khufu would thank me?," he told Reuters.
(Additional reporting by Lucien Libert of Reuters Television)
posted by Ukulele Man at 10:17 PM
1 comments
links to this post
"You've got a responsibility to die, sailor!"
Hey Folks -
Below is a story reporting on the Iranian seizure of 15 British soldiers: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070328/ap_on_re_eu/british_seized_iran )
The badly outnumbered and inferiorly armed Brits did not resist and are still alive. According to the story below, "[Tony] Blair said he believed the crew acted sensibly in not putting up a fight after being confronted by six Iranian vessels."
In a separate story it has been reported by Gwynne Dyer that the commander of the US ship paired with the British ship said, "I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact, but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more toward self-preservation."
Asked whether that meant one of his boarding teams would have opened fire if it had been them in the two inflatable boats that were surrounded by Iranian Revolutionary Guard patrol boats off the coast of Iraq, he said, "Agreed. Yes."
He goes on, ""The U.S. Navy rules of engagement say we have not only a right to self-defense but also an obligation to self-defense . . . [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?' "
The 15 Brits in two small, inflated boats and carrying small arms were surrounded by six or seven Iranian patrol boats armed with heavy machine guns. Hmmmmm . . .
If the Iranians had gone after an American boarding party, we'd have 15 more dead American kids to mourn.
According to their American commander, the kids had not only a right to attack and die, but a responsibility to attack and die. So much for looking out for the lives of our kids in uniform.
- Uke Man
Iran shows video of captured Britons
Wed Mar 28
TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian state TV showed video Wednesday of the 15 British sailors and marines who were seized last week, including a female captive who wore a white tunic and a black head scarf and said the British boats "had trespassed" in Iranian waters.
The British government protested Iran's broadcast of the captured crew as "completely unacceptable." The British military had earlier released what it called proof that its boats were in the territorial waters of
Iraq — not Iran — when they were seized.
"Obviously we trespassed into their waters," British sailor Faye Turney said on the video broadcast by Al-Alam, an Arabic-language, Iranian state-run television station that is carried across the Middle East.
"They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested, there was no harm, no aggression," she said.
Turney, 26, was shown eating with sailors and marines. At another point, she was seen sitting in a room with a floral curtains, smoking a cigarette.
"My name is leading sailman Faye Turney. I come from England. I have served in Foxtrot 99. I've been in the navy for nine years," she said.
Turney was the only person to be shown speaking in the video.
It also showed what appeared to be a handwritten letter from Turney to her family. The letter said, in part, "I have written a letter to the Iranian people to apologize for us entering their waters."
The video also showed a brief scene of what appeared to be the British crew sitting in an Iranian boat in open waters immediately after their capture.
Before the video was broadcast, a spokesman for British Prime Minister
Tony Blair said any showing of British personnel on TV would be a breach of the Geneva Conventions.
"It's completely unacceptable for these pictures to be shown on television," the British Foreign Office said in a statement after the broadcast. "There is no doubt our personnel were seized in Iraqi territorial waters."
The statement also demanded that British diplomats be given immediate access to them as a "prelude" to their release.
Britain earlier said it was freezing most contacts with Iran until it freed all the crew members.
Britain's military said its vessels were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when Iran seized the sailors and marines on Friday after they completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway. The border between Iran and Iraq has been disputed for centuries.
Vice Adm. Charles Style told reporters that the Iranians had provided a position on Sunday — a location that he said was in Iraqi waters. By Tuesday, Iranian officials had given a revised position two miles east, placing the British inside Iranian waters — a claim he said was not verified by global positioning system coordinates.
"It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates," Style said.
Style gave the satellite coordinates of the British crew as 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north latitude and 048 degrees 43.08 minutes east longitude, and said it had been confirmed by an Indian-flagged merchant ship boarded by the sailors and marines.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki denied this, saying, "That's not true. It happened in Iranian territorial waters."
Mottaki also told The Associated Press in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that Turney would be released Wednesday or Thursday, and he suggested that the British vessels' alleged entry into Iranian waters may have been a mistake.
"This is a violation that just happened. It could be natural. They did not resist," he told the AP.
"Today or tomorrow, the lady will be released," Mottaki said Wednesday on the sidelines of an Arab summit in the Saudi capital, referring to Turney, the only woman among the 15.
The Iranian Embassy in London also said: "We are confident that Iranian and British governments are capable of resolving this security case through their close contacts and cooperation."
Britain's military said its vessels were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when Iran seized the sailors and marines on Friday.
Vice Adm. Charles Style told reporters that the Iranians had provided a position on Sunday — a location that he said was in Iraqi waters. By Tuesday, Iranian officials had given a revised position two miles east, placing the British inside Iranian waters — a claim he said was not verified by global positioning system coordinates.
"It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates," Style said.
Style gave the satellite coordinates of the British crew as 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north latitude and 048 degrees 43.08 minutes east longitude, and said it had been confirmed by an Indian-flagged merchant ship boarded by the sailors and marines.
Mottaki denied this, saying, "That's not true. It happened in Iranian territorial waters."
Britain and the United States have said the crew was intercepted after completing a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the border between Iran and Iraq has been disputed for centuries.
Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons that "there was no justification whatever ... for their detention, it was completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal."
"We had hoped to see their immediate release; this has not happened. It is now time to ratchet up the diplomatic and international pressure in order to make sure the Iranian government understands its total isolation on this issue," Blair said.
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said she had suspended bilateral talks on all other issues with Tehran until the 15 were released. Visits by officials will be stopped, issuing visas to Iranian officials suspended and British support for events such as trade missions put on hold, her office said.
"No one should be in any doubt about the seriousness with which we regard these events," Beckett told the House of Commons.
Beckett said Britain had now begun a "new phase of diplomatic activity," following Iran's failure to release the sailors and marines, or allow British officials access.
Secretary of State
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal had offered support, Beckett said.
Blair said he believed the crew acted sensibly in not putting up a fight after being confronted by six Iranian vessels.
"If they had engaged in military combat at that stage, there would have undoubtedly been severe loss of life. I think they took the right decision and did what was entirely sensible," Blair said.
In Iran, the announcement by a newscaster on Al-Alam satellite TV on the planned broadcast of the video of the captives did not specify when it would be shown. Al-Alam is an Arabic-language, Iranian state-run television station that is carried across the Middle East.
Iran had promised British officials in talks that it would not show the sailors on television as it did with a group captured in 2004 — a senior British foreign office diplomat said earlier Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with British government rules.
Iran has said the 15 were being treated well, but refused to say where they were being held, or rule out the possibility that they could be brought to trial for allegedly entering Iranian waters.
In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said the Britons were being treated well.
"They are in completely good health. Rest assured that they have been treated with humanitarian and moral behavior," Hosseini told the AP.
In talks with Mottaki, Beckett demanded that British diplomats be allowed to meet with the crew to make their own assessment.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Iran's behavior was "fully unacceptable" and assured Britain of its full support in negotiations to win their release.
"The EU finds it fully unacceptable that 15 British troops have been captured and detained by Iran. We extend our absolute support and solidarity with Britain on this issue," Merkel told the European Parliament
___
Associated Press Writer Slobodan Lekic contributed to this report from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Below is a story reporting on the Iranian seizure of 15 British soldiers: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070328/ap_on_re_eu/british_seized_iran )
The badly outnumbered and inferiorly armed Brits did not resist and are still alive. According to the story below, "[Tony] Blair said he believed the crew acted sensibly in not putting up a fight after being confronted by six Iranian vessels."
In a separate story it has been reported by Gwynne Dyer that the commander of the US ship paired with the British ship said, "I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact, but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more toward self-preservation."
Asked whether that meant one of his boarding teams would have opened fire if it had been them in the two inflatable boats that were surrounded by Iranian Revolutionary Guard patrol boats off the coast of Iraq, he said, "Agreed. Yes."
He goes on, ""The U.S. Navy rules of engagement say we have not only a right to self-defense but also an obligation to self-defense . . . [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?' "
The 15 Brits in two small, inflated boats and carrying small arms were surrounded by six or seven Iranian patrol boats armed with heavy machine guns. Hmmmmm . . .
If the Iranians had gone after an American boarding party, we'd have 15 more dead American kids to mourn.
According to their American commander, the kids had not only a right to attack and die, but a responsibility to attack and die. So much for looking out for the lives of our kids in uniform.
- Uke Man
Iran shows video of captured Britons
Wed Mar 28
TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian state TV showed video Wednesday of the 15 British sailors and marines who were seized last week, including a female captive who wore a white tunic and a black head scarf and said the British boats "had trespassed" in Iranian waters.
The British government protested Iran's broadcast of the captured crew as "completely unacceptable." The British military had earlier released what it called proof that its boats were in the territorial waters of
Iraq — not Iran — when they were seized.
"Obviously we trespassed into their waters," British sailor Faye Turney said on the video broadcast by Al-Alam, an Arabic-language, Iranian state-run television station that is carried across the Middle East.
"They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested, there was no harm, no aggression," she said.
Turney, 26, was shown eating with sailors and marines. At another point, she was seen sitting in a room with a floral curtains, smoking a cigarette.
"My name is leading sailman Faye Turney. I come from England. I have served in Foxtrot 99. I've been in the navy for nine years," she said.
Turney was the only person to be shown speaking in the video.
It also showed what appeared to be a handwritten letter from Turney to her family. The letter said, in part, "I have written a letter to the Iranian people to apologize for us entering their waters."
The video also showed a brief scene of what appeared to be the British crew sitting in an Iranian boat in open waters immediately after their capture.
Before the video was broadcast, a spokesman for British Prime Minister
Tony Blair said any showing of British personnel on TV would be a breach of the Geneva Conventions.
"It's completely unacceptable for these pictures to be shown on television," the British Foreign Office said in a statement after the broadcast. "There is no doubt our personnel were seized in Iraqi territorial waters."
The statement also demanded that British diplomats be given immediate access to them as a "prelude" to their release.
Britain earlier said it was freezing most contacts with Iran until it freed all the crew members.
Britain's military said its vessels were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when Iran seized the sailors and marines on Friday after they completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway. The border between Iran and Iraq has been disputed for centuries.
Vice Adm. Charles Style told reporters that the Iranians had provided a position on Sunday — a location that he said was in Iraqi waters. By Tuesday, Iranian officials had given a revised position two miles east, placing the British inside Iranian waters — a claim he said was not verified by global positioning system coordinates.
"It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates," Style said.
Style gave the satellite coordinates of the British crew as 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north latitude and 048 degrees 43.08 minutes east longitude, and said it had been confirmed by an Indian-flagged merchant ship boarded by the sailors and marines.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki denied this, saying, "That's not true. It happened in Iranian territorial waters."
Mottaki also told The Associated Press in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that Turney would be released Wednesday or Thursday, and he suggested that the British vessels' alleged entry into Iranian waters may have been a mistake.
"This is a violation that just happened. It could be natural. They did not resist," he told the AP.
"Today or tomorrow, the lady will be released," Mottaki said Wednesday on the sidelines of an Arab summit in the Saudi capital, referring to Turney, the only woman among the 15.
The Iranian Embassy in London also said: "We are confident that Iranian and British governments are capable of resolving this security case through their close contacts and cooperation."
Britain's military said its vessels were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when Iran seized the sailors and marines on Friday.
Vice Adm. Charles Style told reporters that the Iranians had provided a position on Sunday — a location that he said was in Iraqi waters. By Tuesday, Iranian officials had given a revised position two miles east, placing the British inside Iranian waters — a claim he said was not verified by global positioning system coordinates.
"It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates," Style said.
Style gave the satellite coordinates of the British crew as 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north latitude and 048 degrees 43.08 minutes east longitude, and said it had been confirmed by an Indian-flagged merchant ship boarded by the sailors and marines.
Mottaki denied this, saying, "That's not true. It happened in Iranian territorial waters."
Britain and the United States have said the crew was intercepted after completing a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the border between Iran and Iraq has been disputed for centuries.
Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons that "there was no justification whatever ... for their detention, it was completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal."
"We had hoped to see their immediate release; this has not happened. It is now time to ratchet up the diplomatic and international pressure in order to make sure the Iranian government understands its total isolation on this issue," Blair said.
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said she had suspended bilateral talks on all other issues with Tehran until the 15 were released. Visits by officials will be stopped, issuing visas to Iranian officials suspended and British support for events such as trade missions put on hold, her office said.
"No one should be in any doubt about the seriousness with which we regard these events," Beckett told the House of Commons.
Beckett said Britain had now begun a "new phase of diplomatic activity," following Iran's failure to release the sailors and marines, or allow British officials access.
Secretary of State
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal had offered support, Beckett said.
Blair said he believed the crew acted sensibly in not putting up a fight after being confronted by six Iranian vessels.
"If they had engaged in military combat at that stage, there would have undoubtedly been severe loss of life. I think they took the right decision and did what was entirely sensible," Blair said.
In Iran, the announcement by a newscaster on Al-Alam satellite TV on the planned broadcast of the video of the captives did not specify when it would be shown. Al-Alam is an Arabic-language, Iranian state-run television station that is carried across the Middle East.
Iran had promised British officials in talks that it would not show the sailors on television as it did with a group captured in 2004 — a senior British foreign office diplomat said earlier Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with British government rules.
Iran has said the 15 were being treated well, but refused to say where they were being held, or rule out the possibility that they could be brought to trial for allegedly entering Iranian waters.
In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said the Britons were being treated well.
"They are in completely good health. Rest assured that they have been treated with humanitarian and moral behavior," Hosseini told the AP.
In talks with Mottaki, Beckett demanded that British diplomats be allowed to meet with the crew to make their own assessment.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Iran's behavior was "fully unacceptable" and assured Britain of its full support in negotiations to win their release.
"The EU finds it fully unacceptable that 15 British troops have been captured and detained by Iran. We extend our absolute support and solidarity with Britain on this issue," Merkel told the European Parliament
___
Associated Press Writer Slobodan Lekic contributed to this report from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
posted by Ukulele Man at 6:43 AM
0 comments
links to this post
Thursday, March 29, 2007
"Is that Kkkarl Rove or the Pilsbury Dough Boy?"
posted by Ukulele Man at 9:31 AM
0 comments
links to this post
Reality Vultures Coming Home to Roost !!
Hey Folks,
Remember Ron Suskind quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Well, the reality vultures are coming home to roost. Bush & Co. made it pretty far with their imperious lies, but even an emperor can walk around naked only so long before the people see his ass.
- Uke Man
March 26, 2007
Emerging Republican Minority
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Remember how the 2004 election was supposed to have demonstrated, once and for all, that conservatism was the future of American politics? I do: early in 2005, some colleagues in the news media urged me, in effect, to give up. “The election settled some things,” I was told.
But at this point 2004 looks like an aberration, an election won with fear-and-smear tactics that have passed their sell-by date. Republicans no longer have a perceived edge over Democrats on national security — and without that edge, they stand revealed as ideologues out of step with an increasingly liberal American public.
Right now the talk of the political chattering classes is a report from the Pew Research Center showing a precipitous decline in Republican support. In 2002 equal numbers of Americans identified themselves as Republicans and Democrats, but since then the Democrats have opened up a 15-point advantage.
Part of the Republican collapse surely reflects public disgust with the Bush administration. The gap between the parties will probably get even wider when — not if — more and worse tales of corruption and abuse of power emerge.
But polling data on the issues, from Pew and elsewhere, suggest that the G.O.P.’s problems lie as much with its ideology as with one man’s disastrous reign.
For the conservatives who run today’s Republican Party are devoted, above all, to the proposition that government is always the problem, never the solution. For a while the American people seemed to agree; but lately they’ve concluded that sometimes government is the solution, after all, and they’d like to see more of it.
Consider, for example, the question of whether the government should provide fewer services in order to cut spending, or provide more services even if this requires higher spending. According to the American National Election Studies, in 1994, the year the Republicans began their 12-year control of Congress, those who favored smaller government had the edge, by 36 to 27. By 2004, however, those in favor of bigger government had a 43-to-20 lead.
And public opinion seems to have taken a particularly strong turn in favor of universal health care. Gallup reports that 69 percent of the public believes that “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage,” up from 59 percent in 2000.
The main force driving this shift to the left is probably rising income inequality. According to Pew, there has recently been a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans who agree with the statement that “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.” Interestingly, the big increase in disgruntlement over rising inequality has come among the relatively well off — those making more than $75,000 a year.
Indeed, even the relatively well off have good reason to feel left behind in today’s economy, because the big income gains have been going to a tiny, super-rich minority. It’s not surprising, under those circumstances, that most people favor a stronger safety net — which they might need — even at the expense of higher taxes, much of which could be paid by the ever-richer elite.
And in the case of health care, there’s also the fact that the traditional system of employer-based coverage is gradually disintegrating. It’s no wonder, then, that a bit of socialized medicine is looking good to most Americans.
So what does this say about the political outlook? It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. But at this point it looks as if we’re seeing an emerging Republican minority.
After all, Democratic priorities — in particular, on health care, where John Edwards has set the standard for all the candidates with a specific proposal to finance universal coverage with higher taxes on the rich — seem to be more or less in line with what the public wants.
Republicans, on the other hand, are still wallowing in nostalgia — nostalgia for the days when people thought they were heroic terrorism-fighters, nostalgia for the days when lots of Americans hated Big Government.
Many Republicans still imagine that what their party needs is a return to the conservative legacy of Ronald Reagan. It will probably take quite a while in the political wilderness before they take on board the message of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s comeback in California — which is that what they really need is a return to the moderate legacy of Dwight Eisenhower.
Remember Ron Suskind quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Well, the reality vultures are coming home to roost. Bush & Co. made it pretty far with their imperious lies, but even an emperor can walk around naked only so long before the people see his ass.
- Uke Man
March 26, 2007
Emerging Republican Minority
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Remember how the 2004 election was supposed to have demonstrated, once and for all, that conservatism was the future of American politics? I do: early in 2005, some colleagues in the news media urged me, in effect, to give up. “The election settled some things,” I was told.
But at this point 2004 looks like an aberration, an election won with fear-and-smear tactics that have passed their sell-by date. Republicans no longer have a perceived edge over Democrats on national security — and without that edge, they stand revealed as ideologues out of step with an increasingly liberal American public.
Right now the talk of the political chattering classes is a report from the Pew Research Center showing a precipitous decline in Republican support. In 2002 equal numbers of Americans identified themselves as Republicans and Democrats, but since then the Democrats have opened up a 15-point advantage.
Part of the Republican collapse surely reflects public disgust with the Bush administration. The gap between the parties will probably get even wider when — not if — more and worse tales of corruption and abuse of power emerge.
But polling data on the issues, from Pew and elsewhere, suggest that the G.O.P.’s problems lie as much with its ideology as with one man’s disastrous reign.
For the conservatives who run today’s Republican Party are devoted, above all, to the proposition that government is always the problem, never the solution. For a while the American people seemed to agree; but lately they’ve concluded that sometimes government is the solution, after all, and they’d like to see more of it.
Consider, for example, the question of whether the government should provide fewer services in order to cut spending, or provide more services even if this requires higher spending. According to the American National Election Studies, in 1994, the year the Republicans began their 12-year control of Congress, those who favored smaller government had the edge, by 36 to 27. By 2004, however, those in favor of bigger government had a 43-to-20 lead.
And public opinion seems to have taken a particularly strong turn in favor of universal health care. Gallup reports that 69 percent of the public believes that “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage,” up from 59 percent in 2000.
The main force driving this shift to the left is probably rising income inequality. According to Pew, there has recently been a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans who agree with the statement that “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.” Interestingly, the big increase in disgruntlement over rising inequality has come among the relatively well off — those making more than $75,000 a year.
Indeed, even the relatively well off have good reason to feel left behind in today’s economy, because the big income gains have been going to a tiny, super-rich minority. It’s not surprising, under those circumstances, that most people favor a stronger safety net — which they might need — even at the expense of higher taxes, much of which could be paid by the ever-richer elite.
And in the case of health care, there’s also the fact that the traditional system of employer-based coverage is gradually disintegrating. It’s no wonder, then, that a bit of socialized medicine is looking good to most Americans.
So what does this say about the political outlook? It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. But at this point it looks as if we’re seeing an emerging Republican minority.
After all, Democratic priorities — in particular, on health care, where John Edwards has set the standard for all the candidates with a specific proposal to finance universal coverage with higher taxes on the rich — seem to be more or less in line with what the public wants.
Republicans, on the other hand, are still wallowing in nostalgia — nostalgia for the days when people thought they were heroic terrorism-fighters, nostalgia for the days when lots of Americans hated Big Government.
Many Republicans still imagine that what their party needs is a return to the conservative legacy of Ronald Reagan. It will probably take quite a while in the political wilderness before they take on board the message of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s comeback in California — which is that what they really need is a return to the moderate legacy of Dwight Eisenhower.
posted by Ukulele Man at 9:00 AM
0 comments
links to this post
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The Gipper & the Quipper
Hey Folks -
Krugman better get a bodyguard.
The right wingnuts LOVE Ronnie (or is it Bonzo? or does it matter?). Worse, they LOVE him for the reasons Krugman disses him. Ronnie was the Massa o' the Plantation, kept the fieldhands in their place.
The patrician fascists have demanded his likeness be put on Mt. Rushmore. That won't happen (not enough stone left there).
But, there's plenty of space left on Stone Mountain, and even I think it would be appropriate to chisel the Gipper up there beside Lee, Jackson, and Davis.
- Uke Man
March 19, 2007
Don’t Cry for Reagan
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
As the Bush administration sinks deeper into its multiple quagmires, the personality cult the G.O.P. once built around President Bush has given way to nostalgia for the good old days. The current cover of Time magazine shows a weeping Ronald Reagan, and declares that Republicans “need to reclaim the Reagan legacy.”
But Republicans shouldn’t cry for Ronald Reagan; the truth is, he never left them. There’s no need to reclaim the Reagan legacy: Mr. Bush is what Mr. Reagan would have been given the opportunity.
In 1993 Jonathan Cohn — the author, by the way, of a terrific new book on our dysfunctional health care system — published an article in The American Prospect describing the dire state of the federal government. Changing just a few words in that article makes it read as if it were written in 2007.
Thus, Mr. Cohn described how the Interior Department had been packed with opponents of environmental protection, who “presided over a massive sell-off of federal lands to industry and developers” that “deprived the department of several billion dollars in annual revenue.” Oil leases, anyone?
Meanwhile, privatization had run amok, because “the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds — demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors.” Holy Halliburton!
Not mentioned in Mr. Cohn’s article, but equally reminiscent of current events, was the state of the Justice Department under Ed Meese, a man who gives Alberto Gonzales and John Mitchell serious competition for the title of worst attorney general ever. The politicization of Justice got so bad that in 1988 six senior officials, all Republicans, including the deputy attorney general and the chief of the criminal division, resigned in protest.
Why is there such a strong family resemblance between the Reagan years and recent events? Mr. Reagan’s administration, like Mr. Bush’s, was run by movement conservatives — people who built their careers by serving the alliance of wealthy individuals, corporate interests and the religious right that took shape in the 1960s and 1970s. And both cronyism and abuse of power are part of the movement conservative package.
In part this is because people whose ideology says that government is always the problem, never the solution, see no point in governing well. So they use political power to reward their friends, rather than find people who will actually do their jobs.
If expertise is irrelevant, who gets the jobs? No problem: the interlocking, lavishly financed institutions of movement conservatism, which range from K Street to Fox News, create a vast class of apparatchiks who can be counted on to be “loyal Bushies.”
The movement’s apparatchik culture, in turn, explains much of its contempt for the rule of law. Someone who has risen through the ranks of a movement that prizes political loyalty above all isn’t likely to balk at, say, using bogus claims of voter fraud to disenfranchise Democrats, or suppressing potentially damaging investigations of Republicans. As Franklin Foer of The New Republic has pointed out, in College Republican elections, dirty tricks and double crosses are considered acceptable, even praiseworthy.
Still, Mr. Reagan’s misgovernment never went as far as Mr. Bush’s. As a result, he managed to leave office with an approval rating about as high as that of Bill Clinton, who, as we now realize with the benefit of hindsight, governed very well. But the key to Reagan’s relative success, I believe, is that he was lucky in his limitations.
Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan never controlled both houses of Congress — and the pre-Gingrich Republican Party still contained moderates who imposed limits on his ability to govern badly. Also, there was no Reagan-era equivalent of the rush, after 9/11, to give the Bush administration whatever it wanted in the name of fighting terrorism.
Mr. Reagan may even have been helped, perversely, by the fact that in the 1980s there were still two superpowers. This helped prevent the hubris, the delusions of grandeur, that led the Bush administration to believe that a splendid little war in Iraq was just the thing to secure its position.
But what this tells us is that Mr. Bush, not Mr. Reagan, is the true representative of what modern conservatism is all about. And it’s the movement, not just one man, that has failed
Krugman better get a bodyguard.
The right wingnuts LOVE Ronnie (or is it Bonzo? or does it matter?). Worse, they LOVE him for the reasons Krugman disses him. Ronnie was the Massa o' the Plantation, kept the fieldhands in their place.
The patrician fascists have demanded his likeness be put on Mt. Rushmore. That won't happen (not enough stone left there).
But, there's plenty of space left on Stone Mountain, and even I think it would be appropriate to chisel the Gipper up there beside Lee, Jackson, and Davis.
- Uke Man
March 19, 2007
Don’t Cry for Reagan
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
As the Bush administration sinks deeper into its multiple quagmires, the personality cult the G.O.P. once built around President Bush has given way to nostalgia for the good old days. The current cover of Time magazine shows a weeping Ronald Reagan, and declares that Republicans “need to reclaim the Reagan legacy.”
But Republicans shouldn’t cry for Ronald Reagan; the truth is, he never left them. There’s no need to reclaim the Reagan legacy: Mr. Bush is what Mr. Reagan would have been given the opportunity.
In 1993 Jonathan Cohn — the author, by the way, of a terrific new book on our dysfunctional health care system — published an article in The American Prospect describing the dire state of the federal government. Changing just a few words in that article makes it read as if it were written in 2007.
Thus, Mr. Cohn described how the Interior Department had been packed with opponents of environmental protection, who “presided over a massive sell-off of federal lands to industry and developers” that “deprived the department of several billion dollars in annual revenue.” Oil leases, anyone?
Meanwhile, privatization had run amok, because “the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds — demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors.” Holy Halliburton!
Not mentioned in Mr. Cohn’s article, but equally reminiscent of current events, was the state of the Justice Department under Ed Meese, a man who gives Alberto Gonzales and John Mitchell serious competition for the title of worst attorney general ever. The politicization of Justice got so bad that in 1988 six senior officials, all Republicans, including the deputy attorney general and the chief of the criminal division, resigned in protest.
Why is there such a strong family resemblance between the Reagan years and recent events? Mr. Reagan’s administration, like Mr. Bush’s, was run by movement conservatives — people who built their careers by serving the alliance of wealthy individuals, corporate interests and the religious right that took shape in the 1960s and 1970s. And both cronyism and abuse of power are part of the movement conservative package.
In part this is because people whose ideology says that government is always the problem, never the solution, see no point in governing well. So they use political power to reward their friends, rather than find people who will actually do their jobs.
If expertise is irrelevant, who gets the jobs? No problem: the interlocking, lavishly financed institutions of movement conservatism, which range from K Street to Fox News, create a vast class of apparatchiks who can be counted on to be “loyal Bushies.”
The movement’s apparatchik culture, in turn, explains much of its contempt for the rule of law. Someone who has risen through the ranks of a movement that prizes political loyalty above all isn’t likely to balk at, say, using bogus claims of voter fraud to disenfranchise Democrats, or suppressing potentially damaging investigations of Republicans. As Franklin Foer of The New Republic has pointed out, in College Republican elections, dirty tricks and double crosses are considered acceptable, even praiseworthy.
Still, Mr. Reagan’s misgovernment never went as far as Mr. Bush’s. As a result, he managed to leave office with an approval rating about as high as that of Bill Clinton, who, as we now realize with the benefit of hindsight, governed very well. But the key to Reagan’s relative success, I believe, is that he was lucky in his limitations.
Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan never controlled both houses of Congress — and the pre-Gingrich Republican Party still contained moderates who imposed limits on his ability to govern badly. Also, there was no Reagan-era equivalent of the rush, after 9/11, to give the Bush administration whatever it wanted in the name of fighting terrorism.
Mr. Reagan may even have been helped, perversely, by the fact that in the 1980s there were still two superpowers. This helped prevent the hubris, the delusions of grandeur, that led the Bush administration to believe that a splendid little war in Iraq was just the thing to secure its position.
But what this tells us is that Mr. Bush, not Mr. Reagan, is the true representative of what modern conservatism is all about. And it’s the movement, not just one man, that has failed
posted by Ukulele Man at 8:16 AM
0 comments
links to this post
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
All Animals are Equal, but Some are More Equal than Others
posted by Ukulele Man at 10:52 AM
0 comments
links to this post
The Class (warfare) of 2007
Hey Folks -
Last week the local newspaper the Columbus Dispatch ran a series on the ten-year argument over the state's funding of public schools. The reporters did a pretty good job of presenting many of the facts of the case, but the piece didn't come down on either side of the question: "School funding: Is it fixed?"
Part of the exposition did show how those presently privileged and their political poodles felt about it: it's fixed; everything's fine; it's over. They weren't bothered by any of the facts; they never have been. This whole lengthy exercise in futility has been a story of class, one standard for the elite; another for everyone else.
Somehow the Ohio Supreme Court determined to rule honestly on the facts, and from that first decision ten years ago, the Republican legislature and governor ( not to mention patrician rags like the Columbus Dispatch) have been telling the court and the people to go fuck themselves; it will be a cold day in hell before the unwashed have a say.
Anyway, I felt the need to write my friends at the newspaper. What I shared with them is below.
- Uke Man
To the Editor,
After reading the week-long series on school funding, a few things are clear. In the ten years since the original DeRolph ruling not much has changed regarding the disparity between wealthy and poor school districts.
The wealthy and their political spokesmen claim “it’s been fixed,” and many of them actually believe it has. The general path of their rationalization is something like this:
The high-spending, wealthy schools are good enough for the children of the wealthy, and the low-spending, poor schools are good enough for the children of the poor. End of discussion.
At the same time, they never express their view that the low-spending, poor schools are not good enough for their own children. That would encourage the poor to call for “throwing money” at low-funded schools, and “money isn’t the answer.”
Neither do they explain why the well-off “throw” so much extra money at their own children’s schools. They do argue, as did Adam B. Schaeffer in a recent Dispatch column, that charter schools can educate poor children for $5,000 instead of $10,000, but never think to explain why high-tax-and-spend suburban public schools aren’t being run out of business by these marvelous, taxpayer-friendly charter enterprises.
In our Declaration of Independence it is claimed that “all men are created equal.” Maybe so, but the children of some men are clearly more equal than others.
Tom Harker
Last week the local newspaper the Columbus Dispatch ran a series on the ten-year argument over the state's funding of public schools. The reporters did a pretty good job of presenting many of the facts of the case, but the piece didn't come down on either side of the question: "School funding: Is it fixed?"
Part of the exposition did show how those presently privileged and their political poodles felt about it: it's fixed; everything's fine; it's over. They weren't bothered by any of the facts; they never have been. This whole lengthy exercise in futility has been a story of class, one standard for the elite; another for everyone else.
Somehow the Ohio Supreme Court determined to rule honestly on the facts, and from that first decision ten years ago, the Republican legislature and governor ( not to mention patrician rags like the Columbus Dispatch) have been telling the court and the people to go fuck themselves; it will be a cold day in hell before the unwashed have a say.
Anyway, I felt the need to write my friends at the newspaper. What I shared with them is below.
- Uke Man
To the Editor,
After reading the week-long series on school funding, a few things are clear. In the ten years since the original DeRolph ruling not much has changed regarding the disparity between wealthy and poor school districts.
The wealthy and their political spokesmen claim “it’s been fixed,” and many of them actually believe it has. The general path of their rationalization is something like this:
The high-spending, wealthy schools are good enough for the children of the wealthy, and the low-spending, poor schools are good enough for the children of the poor. End of discussion.
At the same time, they never express their view that the low-spending, poor schools are not good enough for their own children. That would encourage the poor to call for “throwing money” at low-funded schools, and “money isn’t the answer.”
Neither do they explain why the well-off “throw” so much extra money at their own children’s schools. They do argue, as did Adam B. Schaeffer in a recent Dispatch column, that charter schools can educate poor children for $5,000 instead of $10,000, but never think to explain why high-tax-and-spend suburban public schools aren’t being run out of business by these marvelous, taxpayer-friendly charter enterprises.
In our Declaration of Independence it is claimed that “all men are created equal.” Maybe so, but the children of some men are clearly more equal than others.
Tom Harker
posted by Ukulele Man at 10:00 AM
1 comments
links to this post
Monday, March 26, 2007
Supporting our troops . . .
Hey Folks,
My friend Sondra is reading Gore Vidal's memoir and shared with me that Vidal often referred to the USA as "the United States of Amnesia." How apt (although I don't think the amnesia applies only to this country).
Although the story below reports on a contemporary tragedy, it is an old, old story applicable to every war this country has ever fought. All the lies and deception, rah! rah! patriotism, ulterior motives, profiteering, horrors, atrocities, and neglect of the troop' safety and health that are coming to light now so late in the game were predictable (indeed, predicted) before the war. And for anyone who missed the prediction, the facts were identifiable much earlier-on than after the 2006 elections.
Yet, here we are.
Somehow, "amnesia" doesn't seem strong enough.
- Uke Man
March 19, 2007
Death of a Marine
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Jeffrey Lucey was 18 when he signed up for the Marine Reserves in December 1999. His parents, Kevin and Joyce Lucey of Belchertown, Mass., were not happy. They had hoped their son would go to college.
Jeffrey himself was ambivalent.
“The recruiter was a very smooth talker and very, very persistent,” Ms. Lucey told me in a call from Orlando, Fla., where she was on vacation with her husband and their two grown daughters last week. The conversation was difficult. Ms. Lucey would talk for a while, and then her husband would get on the phone.
“We see him everywhere,” Ms. Lucey said. “Every little dark-haired boy you see, it looks like Jeff. If we see a parent reprimanding a child, it’s like you want to go up and say, ‘Oh, don’t do that, because you don’t know how long you’re going to have him.’ ”
The war in Iraq began four years ago today. Fans at sporting events around the U.S. greeted the war and its early “shock and awe” bombing campaign with chants of “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”
Jeffrey Lucey, who turned 22 the day before the war began, had a different perspective. He had no illusions about the glory or glamour of warfare. His unit had been activated and he was part of the first wave of troops to head into the combat zone.
A diary entry noted the explosion of a Scud missile near his unit: “The noise was just short of blowing out your eardrums. Everyone’s heart truly skipped a beat. ... Nerves are on edge.”
By the time he came home, Jeffrey Lucey was a mess. He had gruesome stories to tell. They could not all be verified, but there was no doubt that this once-healthy young man had been shattered by his experiences.
He had nightmares. He drank furiously. He withdrew from his friends. He wrecked his parents’ car. He began to hallucinate.
In a moment of deep despair on the Christmas Eve after his return from Iraq, Jeffrey hurled his dogtags at his sister Debra and cried out, “Don’t you know your brother’s a murderer?”
Jeffrey exhibited all the signs of deep depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Wars do that to people. They rip apart the mind and the soul in the same way that bullets and bombs mutilate the body. The war in Iraq is inflicting a much greater emotional toll on U.S. troops than most Americans realize.
The Luceys tried desperately to get help for Jeffrey, but neither the military nor the Veterans Administration is equipped to cope with the war’s mounting emotional and psychological casualties.
On the evening of June 22, 2004, Kevin Lucey came home and called out to Jeffrey. There was no answer. He noticed that the door leading to the basement was open and that the light in the basement was on. He did not see the two notes that Jeffrey had left on the first floor for his parents:
“It’s 4:35 p.m. and I am near completing my death.”
“Dad, please don’t look. Mom, just call the police — Love, Jeff.”
The first thing Mr. Lucey saw as he walked down to the basement was that Jeff had set up an arrangement of photos. There was a picture of his platoon, and photos of his sisters, Debra and Kelly, his parents, the family dog and himself.
“Then I could see, through the corner of my eye, Jeff,” said Mr. Lucey. “And he was, I thought, standing there. Then I noticed the hose around his neck.”
The Luceys hope that in talking about their family’s tragedy they will bring more attention to the awful struggle faced by so many troops suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other emotional illnesses. “We hear of so many suicides,” said Mr. Lucey.
Ms. Lucey added, “We thought that if we told other people about Jeffrey they might see their loved ones mirrored in him, and maybe they would be more aggressive, or do something different than we did. We didn’t feel we had the knowledge we needed and we lost our child.”
The Luceys are more than just concerned and grief-stricken. They’re angry. They’ve joined an antiwar organization, Military Families Speak Out, and they want the war in Iraq brought to an end. “That’s the only way to prevent further Jeffreys from happening,” Ms. Lucey said.
Mr. Lucey made no effort to hide his bitterness over the government’s failure to address many of the critical needs of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. His voice quivered as he said, “When we hear anybody in the administration get up and say that they support the troops, it sickens us.”
My friend Sondra is reading Gore Vidal's memoir and shared with me that Vidal often referred to the USA as "the United States of Amnesia." How apt (although I don't think the amnesia applies only to this country).
Although the story below reports on a contemporary tragedy, it is an old, old story applicable to every war this country has ever fought. All the lies and deception, rah! rah! patriotism, ulterior motives, profiteering, horrors, atrocities, and neglect of the troop' safety and health that are coming to light now so late in the game were predictable (indeed, predicted) before the war. And for anyone who missed the prediction, the facts were identifiable much earlier-on than after the 2006 elections.
Yet, here we are.
Somehow, "amnesia" doesn't seem strong enough.
- Uke Man
March 19, 2007
Death of a Marine
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
Jeffrey Lucey was 18 when he signed up for the Marine Reserves in December 1999. His parents, Kevin and Joyce Lucey of Belchertown, Mass., were not happy. They had hoped their son would go to college.
Jeffrey himself was ambivalent.
“The recruiter was a very smooth talker and very, very persistent,” Ms. Lucey told me in a call from Orlando, Fla., where she was on vacation with her husband and their two grown daughters last week. The conversation was difficult. Ms. Lucey would talk for a while, and then her husband would get on the phone.
“We see him everywhere,” Ms. Lucey said. “Every little dark-haired boy you see, it looks like Jeff. If we see a parent reprimanding a child, it’s like you want to go up and say, ‘Oh, don’t do that, because you don’t know how long you’re going to have him.’ ”
The war in Iraq began four years ago today. Fans at sporting events around the U.S. greeted the war and its early “shock and awe” bombing campaign with chants of “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”
Jeffrey Lucey, who turned 22 the day before the war began, had a different perspective. He had no illusions about the glory or glamour of warfare. His unit had been activated and he was part of the first wave of troops to head into the combat zone.
A diary entry noted the explosion of a Scud missile near his unit: “The noise was just short of blowing out your eardrums. Everyone’s heart truly skipped a beat. ... Nerves are on edge.”
By the time he came home, Jeffrey Lucey was a mess. He had gruesome stories to tell. They could not all be verified, but there was no doubt that this once-healthy young man had been shattered by his experiences.
He had nightmares. He drank furiously. He withdrew from his friends. He wrecked his parents’ car. He began to hallucinate.
In a moment of deep despair on the Christmas Eve after his return from Iraq, Jeffrey hurled his dogtags at his sister Debra and cried out, “Don’t you know your brother’s a murderer?”
Jeffrey exhibited all the signs of deep depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Wars do that to people. They rip apart the mind and the soul in the same way that bullets and bombs mutilate the body. The war in Iraq is inflicting a much greater emotional toll on U.S. troops than most Americans realize.
The Luceys tried desperately to get help for Jeffrey, but neither the military nor the Veterans Administration is equipped to cope with the war’s mounting emotional and psychological casualties.
On the evening of June 22, 2004, Kevin Lucey came home and called out to Jeffrey. There was no answer. He noticed that the door leading to the basement was open and that the light in the basement was on. He did not see the two notes that Jeffrey had left on the first floor for his parents:
“It’s 4:35 p.m. and I am near completing my death.”
“Dad, please don’t look. Mom, just call the police — Love, Jeff.”
The first thing Mr. Lucey saw as he walked down to the basement was that Jeff had set up an arrangement of photos. There was a picture of his platoon, and photos of his sisters, Debra and Kelly, his parents, the family dog and himself.
“Then I could see, through the corner of my eye, Jeff,” said Mr. Lucey. “And he was, I thought, standing there. Then I noticed the hose around his neck.”
The Luceys hope that in talking about their family’s tragedy they will bring more attention to the awful struggle faced by so many troops suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other emotional illnesses. “We hear of so many suicides,” said Mr. Lucey.
Ms. Lucey added, “We thought that if we told other people about Jeffrey they might see their loved ones mirrored in him, and maybe they would be more aggressive, or do something different than we did. We didn’t feel we had the knowledge we needed and we lost our child.”
The Luceys are more than just concerned and grief-stricken. They’re angry. They’ve joined an antiwar organization, Military Families Speak Out, and they want the war in Iraq brought to an end. “That’s the only way to prevent further Jeffreys from happening,” Ms. Lucey said.
Mr. Lucey made no effort to hide his bitterness over the government’s failure to address many of the critical needs of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. His voice quivered as he said, “When we hear anybody in the administration get up and say that they support the troops, it sickens us.”
posted by Ukulele Man at 8:16 AM
1 comments
links to this post
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Hey Folks,
You may remember that the "conflict in Lebanon" mysteriously dragged on and accomplished nothing - actually making things worse for everyone involved. It turns out that Moron-Man John Bolton is "Damned proud" of that.
Israel lost 116 soldiers and 43 civilians; 1000 Lebanese civilians and an unknown number of Hezbollah fighters were killed; and much of the Lebanese infrastructure was mangled or destroyed.
For nothing.
John Bolton is "Damned proud" of that.
- Uke Man
Bolton admits Lebanon truce block
BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6479377.stm
A former top American diplomat says the US deliberately resisted calls for a immediate ceasefire during the conflict in Lebanon in the summer of 2006.
Former ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the BBC that before any ceasefire Washington wanted Israel to eliminate Hezbollah's military capability.
Mr Bolton said an early ceasefire would have been "dangerous and misguided".
He said the US decided to join efforts to end the conflict only when it was clear Israel's campaign wasn't working.
The former envoy, who stepped down in December 2006, was interviewed for a BBC radio documentary, The Summer War in Lebanon, to be broadcast in April.
Mr Bolton said the US was deeply disappointed at Israel's failure to remove the threat from Hezbollah and the subsequent lack of any attempt to disarm its forces.
Britain joined the US in refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire.
'Damn proud'
The war began when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, but it quickly escalated into a full-scale conflict.
BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall says the US-UK refusal to join calls for a ceasefire was one of the most controversial aspects of the diplomacy.
At the time US officials argued a ceasefire was insufficient and agreement was needed to address the underlying tensions and balance of power in the region.
Mr Bolton now describes it as "perfectly legitimate... and good politics" for the Israelis to seek to defeat their enemy militarily, especially as Hezbollah had attacked Israel first and it was acting "in its own self-defence".
Mr Bolton, a controversial and blunt-speaking figure, said he was "damned proud of what we did" to prevent an early ceasefire.
Also in the BBC programme, several key players claim that, privately, there were Arab leaders who also wanted Israel to destroy Hezbollah.
"There were many not - how should I put it - resistant to the thought that the Israelis should thoroughly defeat Hezbollah, who... increasingly by Arab states were seen as an Iranian proxy," said UN special envoy Terje Roed Larsen.
More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and an unknown number of Hezbollah fighters were killed in the conflict.
Israel lost 116 soldiers in the fighting, while 43 of its civilians were killed in Hezbollah rocket attacks.
The UK, US and Israeli were alone in resisting an early ceasefire
You may remember that the "conflict in Lebanon" mysteriously dragged on and accomplished nothing - actually making things worse for everyone involved. It turns out that Moron-Man John Bolton is "Damned proud" of that.
Israel lost 116 soldiers and 43 civilians; 1000 Lebanese civilians and an unknown number of Hezbollah fighters were killed; and much of the Lebanese infrastructure was mangled or destroyed.
For nothing.
John Bolton is "Damned proud" of that.
- Uke Man
Bolton admits Lebanon truce block
BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6479377.stm
A former top American diplomat says the US deliberately resisted calls for a immediate ceasefire during the conflict in Lebanon in the summer of 2006.
Former ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the BBC that before any ceasefire Washington wanted Israel to eliminate Hezbollah's military capability.
Mr Bolton said an early ceasefire would have been "dangerous and misguided".
He said the US decided to join efforts to end the conflict only when it was clear Israel's campaign wasn't working.
The former envoy, who stepped down in December 2006, was interviewed for a BBC radio documentary, The Summer War in Lebanon, to be broadcast in April.
Mr Bolton said the US was deeply disappointed at Israel's failure to remove the threat from Hezbollah and the subsequent lack of any attempt to disarm its forces.
Britain joined the US in refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire.
'Damn proud'
The war began when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, but it quickly escalated into a full-scale conflict.
BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall says the US-UK refusal to join calls for a ceasefire was one of the most controversial aspects of the diplomacy.
At the time US officials argued a ceasefire was insufficient and agreement was needed to address the underlying tensions and balance of power in the region.
Mr Bolton now describes it as "perfectly legitimate... and good politics" for the Israelis to seek to defeat their enemy militarily, especially as Hezbollah had attacked Israel first and it was acting "in its own self-defence".
Mr Bolton, a controversial and blunt-speaking figure, said he was "damned proud of what we did" to prevent an early ceasefire.
Also in the BBC programme, several key players claim that, privately, there were Arab leaders who also wanted Israel to destroy Hezbollah.
"There were many not - how should I put it - resistant to the thought that the Israelis should thoroughly defeat Hezbollah, who... increasingly by Arab states were seen as an Iranian proxy," said UN special envoy Terje Roed Larsen.
More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and an unknown number of Hezbollah fighters were killed in the conflict.
Israel lost 116 soldiers in the fighting, while 43 of its civilians were killed in Hezbollah rocket attacks.
The UK, US and Israeli were alone in resisting an early ceasefire
posted by Ukulele Man at 12:11 PM
0 comments
links to this post
The US, UK, and Israel were alonein resisting an early ceasefire
posted by Ukulele Man at 12:09 PM
0 comments
links to this post
Friday, March 23, 2007
John Bolton: 0ne crumby cookie !!!
Hey Folks,
Recently on the Daily Show; John Bolton, the mustachioed anus, was interviewed by John Stewart. Bolton was Mr. Know-it-all, and Stewart was "wrong" about everything:
Go to:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/celebrity_interviews/index.jhtml?sitrackingid=6405479&kw=dailyshowguests
Then click on the Bolton interview.
The next evening Stewart calls historian Doris Kearns Goodwin for her expert opinion - Bolton gets facked by the facts.
Go to:
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=84160&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2F&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true
Then scroll down to "Doris Kearns Goodwin."
Enjoy !!
- Uke Man
Recently on the Daily Show; John Bolton, the mustachioed anus, was interviewed by John Stewart. Bolton was Mr. Know-it-all, and Stewart was "wrong" about everything:
Go to:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/celebrity_interviews/index.jhtml?sitrackingid=6405479&kw=dailyshowguests
Then click on the Bolton interview.
The next evening Stewart calls historian Doris Kearns Goodwin for her expert opinion - Bolton gets facked by the facts.
Go to:
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=84160&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2F&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true
Then scroll down to "Doris Kearns Goodwin."
Enjoy !!
- Uke Man
posted by Ukulele Man at 9:36 PM
0 comments
links to this post
The Law is an Ass
Hey Folks,
Here we have yet another example of how the political interests of those running things trumps common sense and the good of regular people.
In Ireland bishops have tried to force pregnant pre-teens to stay pregnant. In the middle east people have been killed because the tread on their sandals' soles (made from tires) could be construed to spell "Allah" in Arabic.
Most people find these things to be insane. Yet, here, in the "greatest country in the world," our highest level of government sees sense in depriving a dying woman of her only relief. I guess they are afraid marijuana might harm her health.
- Uke Man
Dying woman loses marijuana appeal
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press
Wed Mar 14
SAN FRANCISCO - A California woman whose doctor says marijuana is the only medicine keeping her alive is not immune from federal prosecution on drug charges, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The case was brought by Angel Raich, an Oakland mother of two who suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments. On her doctor's advice, she eats or smokes marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster a nonexistent appetite as conventional drugs did not work.
The Supreme Court ruled against Raich two years ago, saying that medical marijuana users and their suppliers could be prosecuted for breaching federal drug laws even if they lived in a state such as California where medical pot is legal.
Because of that ruling, the issue before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was narrowed to the so-called right to life theory: that marijuana should be allowed if it is the only viable option to keep a patient alive.
Raich, 41, began sobbing when she was told of the decision and said she would continue using the drug.
"I'm sure not going to let them kill me," she said. "Oh my God."
Here we have yet another example of how the political interests of those running things trumps common sense and the good of regular people.
In Ireland bishops have tried to force pregnant pre-teens to stay pregnant. In the middle east people have been killed because the tread on their sandals' soles (made from tires) could be construed to spell "Allah" in Arabic.
Most people find these things to be insane. Yet, here, in the "greatest country in the world," our highest level of government sees sense in depriving a dying woman of her only relief. I guess they are afraid marijuana might harm her health.
- Uke Man
Dying woman loses marijuana appeal
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press
Wed Mar 14
SAN FRANCISCO - A California woman whose doctor says marijuana is the only medicine keeping her alive is not immune from federal prosecution on drug charges, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The case was brought by Angel Raich, an Oakland mother of two who suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments. On her doctor's advice, she eats or smokes marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster a nonexistent appetite as conventional drugs did not work.
The Supreme Court ruled against Raich two years ago, saying that medical marijuana users and their suppliers could be prosecuted for breaching federal drug laws even if they lived in a state such as California where medical pot is legal.
Because of that ruling, the issue before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was narrowed to the so-called right to life theory: that marijuana should be allowed if it is the only viable option to keep a patient alive.
Raich, 41, began sobbing when she was told of the decision and said she would continue using the drug.
"I'm sure not going to let them kill me," she said. "Oh my God."
posted by Ukulele Man at 7:49 AM
0 comments
links to this post
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Hey Folks –
They’re saying we have a constitutional crisis, a confrontation, a Nixonian question of “Executive Privilege.” The Congress wants Bush’s people to testify before their committees under oath. The Boy President says he’ll let them speak in private and with no transcript and NOT under oath.
The President’s plan won’t accomplish anything – unless you think Rove, Gonzales, & Co. are truthful little boy scouts. The Congressional plan would spill Bush’s Half-Baked Beans; so, forget that. Unless a compromise is reached, it looks like the matter will go to court, postponing a reckoning for quite some time. No likely solution has presented itself.
Until now.
Folks, the ol’ Uke Man has the sword to cut the Gordian Knot:
Congress should immediately agree to allow testimony from the President’s helpers without their being sworn in, knowing full well from the start that they can then say anything they want without the threat of facing perjury charges.
The Congress should further agree to keep no record beyond what notes individual congressmen can manage to jot down.
Thus, the President’s demands are met.
For his part, the President need only agree that those who are called to testify may be "tortured."
Well, not exactly tortured; just made subject to those techniques recently employed by CIA and military interrogators (e.g. “water boarding” and “sleep deprivation”) techniques officially ruled by the Bush administration NOT to be torture but actually humane methods of seeking truth.
Obviously the President would accept these terms. He trusts his people to tell the truth – even without being sworn. He believes them to be competent, intelligent advisors who have consistently advocated wise and judicious policies. There is no way, then, that he would shrink from their being placed under the very policies they helped establish.
Yes, some Democratic congressmen might object since they are on record claiming that what they insist on calling “torture” doesn’t actually discover truth but simply elicits whatever the so-called “victim” thinks the interrogator wants to hear.
Nevertheless, while it can be argued that the testimony may be inaccurate and misleading regardless of which approach is employed, MY proposal undeniably guarantees every Democrat in the country limitless personal gratification, and that will win the day.
- Uke Man
They’re saying we have a constitutional crisis, a confrontation, a Nixonian question of “Executive Privilege.” The Congress wants Bush’s people to testify before their committees under oath. The Boy President says he’ll let them speak in private and with no transcript and NOT under oath.
The President’s plan won’t accomplish anything – unless you think Rove, Gonzales, & Co. are truthful little boy scouts. The Congressional plan would spill Bush’s Half-Baked Beans; so, forget that. Unless a compromise is reached, it looks like the matter will go to court, postponing a reckoning for quite some time. No likely solution has presented itself.
Until now.
Folks, the ol’ Uke Man has the sword to cut the Gordian Knot:
Congress should immediately agree to allow testimony from the President’s helpers without their being sworn in, knowing full well from the start that they can then say anything they want without the threat of facing perjury charges.
The Congress should further agree to keep no record beyond what notes individual congressmen can manage to jot down.
Thus, the President’s demands are met.
For his part, the President need only agree that those who are called to testify may be "tortured."
Well, not exactly tortured; just made subject to those techniques recently employed by CIA and military interrogators (e.g. “water boarding” and “sleep deprivation”) techniques officially ruled by the Bush administration NOT to be torture but actually humane methods of seeking truth.
Obviously the President would accept these terms. He trusts his people to tell the truth – even without being sworn. He believes them to be competent, intelligent advisors who have consistently advocated wise and judicious policies. There is no way, then, that he would shrink from their being placed under the very policies they helped establish.
Yes, some Democratic congressmen might object since they are on record claiming that what they insist on calling “torture” doesn’t actually discover truth but simply elicits whatever the so-called “victim” thinks the interrogator wants to hear.
Nevertheless, while it can be argued that the testimony may be inaccurate and misleading regardless of which approach is employed, MY proposal undeniably guarantees every Democrat in the country limitless personal gratification, and that will win the day.
- Uke Man
posted by Ukulele Man at 10:57 AM
1 comments
links to this post
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Dopey Woman Giggles Her Analysis
Hey Folks -
Recently Duhbya visited Latin America and was rudely received by the people there.
NPR reported on this, interviewing Jennifer Sieg from The Council on Foreign Relations, which is billed by Wikipedia as "an influential and independent, nonpartisan foreign policy membership organization."
But what did I say in an ealier posting about everything coming from the perspective of the people on top? Yeah, "independent, nonpartisan"; what does THAT mean? Look who's a member:
Alcoa
American International Group
Bank of America
Bloomberg
Boeing
BP
Chevron
Citigroup
ExxonMobil
Ford Motor
General Electric
Goldman Sachs
Halliburton
IBM
JP Morgan Chase
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Lehman Brothers
Lockheed Martin
McGraw-Hill
McKinsey
Merck
Merrill Lynch
News Corporation
Shell Oil
Time Warner
Toyota
AND
Dick Cheney
Condoleezza Rice
Paul Wolfowitz
Robert M. Gates
John D. Negroponte
Richard Perle
Leslie Gelb
Colin Powell
Alice Rivlin
Madeleine Albright
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Henry Kissinger
Jack Welch
Alan Greenspan
Paul Volcker
Vernon Jordan
John C. Whitehead
George Soros
Brent Scowcroft
George Shultz
James Woolsey
Jimmy Carter
Warren Christopher
James D. Wolfensohn
Steven Weinberg
Edgar Bronfman
Lawrence Eagleburger
David Rockefeller, Jr.
John D. Rockefeller, IV
Now, do you think these corporations and politicians aren't "partisan"??
Yeah, right. They care about Americans' interests - rich Americans' interests !!
So listen to Ms. Seig giggle about how Boy George knows so much better than Chavez concerning what's good for Latin America: "When Washington today says [it is promoting] 'trade and democracy,' Latin Americans hear 'oligarchy and imperialism,' and he's - I think - trying to show that we're about more than that. [good luck!!]"
She says, because of Chavez's efforts within Latin America, Bush wants to show that he "gets" it. The interviewer asks, " So, is Chavez right? Does he understand the economics of Latin America better than the Americans?"
She laughs like a monkey. Check out her "deep" analysis of the situation. Then as the interview progresses, listen as she compares Latin America to countries on a Risk gameboard and points out which ones "we" still "have." She points out the "good news" that the leadership and the elites of the countries where the masses don't like the U.S.A. are still on "our" side.
Surprise, surprise!!! (they don't want to have to move to Miami).
I'm accustomed to the regular distortion of reality in the media, but even so, the naive, childish behavior of this young woman blathering on, ignorant that her comments were so deeply revealing, was striking.
See what you think - at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7779849
Give a listen.
- Uke Man
Recently Duhbya visited Latin America and was rudely received by the people there.
NPR reported on this, interviewing Jennifer Sieg from The Council on Foreign Relations, which is billed by Wikipedia as "an influential and independent, nonpartisan foreign policy membership organization."
But what did I say in an ealier posting about everything coming from the perspective of the people on top? Yeah, "independent, nonpartisan"; what does THAT mean? Look who's a member:
Alcoa
American International Group
Bank of America
Bloomberg
Boeing
BP
Chevron
Citigroup
ExxonMobil
Ford Motor
General Electric
Goldman Sachs
Halliburton
IBM
JP Morgan Chase
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Lehman Brothers
Lockheed Martin
McGraw-Hill
McKinsey
Merck
Merrill Lynch
News Corporation
Shell Oil
Time Warner
Toyota
AND
Dick Cheney
Condoleezza Rice
Paul Wolfowitz
Robert M. Gates
John D. Negroponte
Richard Perle
Leslie Gelb
Colin Powell
Alice Rivlin
Madeleine Albright
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Henry Kissinger
Jack Welch
Alan Greenspan
Paul Volcker
Vernon Jordan
John C. Whitehead
George Soros
Brent Scowcroft
George Shultz
James Woolsey
Jimmy Carter
Warren Christopher
James D. Wolfensohn
Steven Weinberg
Edgar Bronfman
Lawrence Eagleburger
David Rockefeller, Jr.
John D. Rockefeller, IV
Now, do you think these corporations and politicians aren't "partisan"??
Yeah, right. They care about Americans' interests - rich Americans' interests !!
So listen to Ms. Seig giggle about how Boy George knows so much better than Chavez concerning what's good for Latin America: "When Washington today says [it is promoting] 'trade and democracy,' Latin Americans hear 'oligarchy and imperialism,' and he's - I think - trying to show that we're about more than that. [good luck!!]"
She says, because of Chavez's efforts within Latin America, Bush wants to show that he "gets" it. The interviewer asks, " So, is Chavez right? Does he understand the economics of Latin America better than the Americans?"
She laughs like a monkey. Check out her "deep" analysis of the situation. Then as the interview progresses, listen as she compares Latin America to countries on a Risk gameboard and points out which ones "we" still "have." She points out the "good news" that the leadership and the elites of the countries where the masses don't like the U.S.A. are still on "our" side.
Surprise, surprise!!! (they don't want to have to move to Miami).
I'm accustomed to the regular distortion of reality in the media, but even so, the naive, childish behavior of this young woman blathering on, ignorant that her comments were so deeply revealing, was striking.
See what you think - at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7779849
Give a listen.
- Uke Man
posted by Ukulele Man at 4:15 AM
0 comments
links to this post
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
the Noblesse Oblige - of Rats
Hey Folks,
If you want to have a rational understanding of standard news reports, whether on foreign or domestic policy, you need to realize that it is always slanted from the perspective of the privileged (and I'm not referring only to Foxxx News - even the good ol' AP is guilty). The story below makes this perfectly clear.
I've commented in blue where needed.
- Uke Man
Rich Venezuelans heading to Florida
By LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ, AP Hispanic Affairs Writer
Sat Mar 3
DORAL, Fla. - They call it "Plan B."
As Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez further tightens control of the South American country's economy, wealthy Venezuelans who once thought they could live with his socialist edicts are turning to their backup plan (if one checks the facts, "Plan A" wasn't "living with his socialist edicts"; first it was a failed coup and then a failed attempt to intimidate Chavez with well-dressed street demonstrations - which larger demonstrations by Chavez's impoverished supporters overwhelmed) — flight to the United States, particularly Florida.
Venezuelans have long gobbled up condos and pre-construction deals in Florida as investments, but the latest buyers want homes where they can live and business properties that will help them earn a green card. These are the people who resent Chavez "bribing" the slum-dwellers with bricks for houses and milk for their children - I am NOT making that up!!!
"First the people who come are the businessmen in the highest circles [Duh!!], then the losing politicians [Duh!!], then the military [Duh!!] and then the professionals [Duh!!]," said Miami-based immigration attorney Oscar Levin. "You're beginning to see the (Venezuelan) professionals." The last rats leaving the plantation (under the old regime, 8o% were impoverished; 20% were well off - the ones heading toward Miami to join the ex-Cuban aristocrats).
This latest and largest potential group of emigrants say they fear the effect Chavez's socialist policies will have on the economy (yeah, it ran really smoothly for the elite 20% and the foreign corporations - now the elite are moving to Miami - a few to maybe even work for a living) and on proposed educational reforms that could mirror the ideologically imbued education of Chavez ally and mentor, Cuba's Fidel Castro. As if the present educational system doesn't short the impoverished 80% and doesn't indoctrinate the populace on the wisdom of oligarchy. In a democracy the betterment of 80% of the population should be reason for celebration!!
"There is so much insecurity [for the elite], political insecurity [for the elite], economic insecurity [for the elite]," said Venezuelan Miguel Medina, a business executive [an elite] who moved to the Miami in August. "You don't know if a contract you signed today will be honored by the government in the future....This was definitely my plan B, but it was time to do the plan B." Until recently, the People knew the social contract would NOT be honored by the government of, by, and for the 20%.
Between 2000 — a year after Chavez took office — and 2005, the number of Venezuelans living in the U.S. doubled to about 160,000, according to the latest U.S. Census numbers. Nearly half live in Florida.
But those numbers are deceptive.
In 2005, 10,645 Venezuelans received their green cards allowing them to live in the United States, almost doubling the 6,222 who received them in 2004, according to the latest Department of Homeland Security statistics. And another 400,000 Venezuelans came to the United States in 2005 on business and tourism visas. It is unclear how many stayed.
Colombia, with nearly twice Venezuela's roughly 27 million residents, sent the same number that year.
Anecdotal evidence suggests even more are seeking to come here since Chavez's recent nationalization of Venezuela's largest telecommunications company and the electricity sector. The Venezuelan Congress also recently gave him special powers to decree laws for 18 months, and Chavez is threatening to expropriate supermarkets, stores and other businesses caught hoarding food or speculating on prices (What a bad guy!! - that would never happen here - even at gas stations) .
Medina said six family members visited him in the last two months seeking ways to relocate to the U.S. Unlike previous cycles, those seeking to leave and bring their money ("their" money??)to the U.S. now are coming from around Venezuela, not just from Caracas, said Medina, an account executive for the credit group ExpoCredit.
Meanwhile Ralph Gomez, who heads the Miami area Tower Investments group and has long specialized in real estate for South American clients, said he's received more than two dozen calls since the year began from people interested in coming to the U.S. Other agents report a similar spike.
Upper-class (Duh!!) Venezuelans and their money (Duh!!) flowed out of the country (Duh!!) after Chavez was elected in 1998 and again when he quashed an unsuccessful coup against his government in 2002, but many professionals still hoped the climate would remain friendly to business. Then came the latest nationalizations. (I guess they figure that if business isn't in control of the people's interests, that's "unfriendly") Chavez still pledges to maintain a business-friendly climate, and analysts say the government has paid fair market prices to nationalize the electric and phone companies.
Yet, with 17 percent inflation pushing the Bolivar to more than 4,000 per dollar on the black market, compared to the official rate of 2,150 Bolivars per dollar, many Venezuelans are looking to move their businesses to the U.S. or to set up a new one here. How many of these do you figure come from the 80% part of Venezuela that is impoverished?
Those who can afford it often opt for business visas that require a minimum of a $500,000 investment in a company that creates jobs in an underdeveloped area in the U.S. These folks aren't impoverished.
About 33,000 Venezuelans received some kind of work visa to come to the U.S. in 2005 — nearly a quarter of all such visas for South Americans — compared to about 17,000 in 1999.
Those who come are received with open arms in Miami (Duh!!), where their money is welcome (Duh!!) and the Cuban exile community of cry-baby displaced exploiters views Chavez as the next Fidel Castro (Duh!!). As of 2004, Venezuelans tied with Germans and Canadians as the second biggest group of foreigners purchasing homes in Florida, according to the National Association of Realtors. Only the British bought more Florida homes. Yeah, but the Germans, Canadians, and Brits weren't run out of their respective countries.
But moving to the U.S., even for the wealthy, isn't simple. Medina moved his family to the Miami three years ago, but it took him until last summer to tie up financial ends, obtain a visa and a job in Florida.
"I would travel back and forth when I could," he said. "It was hard, but I know I am among the lucky ones."
And while Venezuelan emigrants cite the political and economic instability of the country as their main reasons for leaving, many also talk of rampant and random violence. Try living in an impoverished slum, Pal, and then talk about rampant and random violence.
Marbelia Font, 47, and her husband landed in Miami in September from Caracas to close on a newly built investment property. They thought their two daughters would enjoy the brief vacation.
But when two friends were fatally shot back home in Venezuela, Marbelia and her 13- and 8-year-old daughters stayed. Her husband returned to Venezuela, hoping to earn a visa by moving his manufacturing and construction business to the U.S. Font said he has struggled to obtain necessary legal documents from the Chavez government. And the majority of his countrymen struggle to stay alive with some bit of dignity.
She now lives in the half-furnished home they'd planned to rent in Doral, just west of Miami. It is decorated only with a picture of her husband and the girls. She and her daughters struggle with loneliness, and she is unable to work as she waits for the family's visas to come through.
"It is so hard because the girls were very close to their father, and now they only see him once every three months," she said. Before Chavez, things would have been easy, not hard, for her - things would have been hard for OTHER Venezuelans - but that's different.
- Uke Man
If you want to have a rational understanding of standard news reports, whether on foreign or domestic policy, you need to realize that it is always slanted from the perspective of the privileged (and I'm not referring only to Foxxx News - even the good ol' AP is guilty). The story below makes this perfectly clear.
I've commented in blue where needed.
- Uke Man
Rich Venezuelans heading to Florida
By LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ, AP Hispanic Affairs Writer
Sat Mar 3
DORAL, Fla. - They call it "Plan B."
As Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez further tightens control of the South American country's economy, wealthy Venezuelans who once thought they could live with his socialist edicts are turning to their backup plan (if one checks the facts, "Plan A" wasn't "living with his socialist edicts"; first it was a failed coup and then a failed attempt to intimidate Chavez with well-dressed street demonstrations - which larger demonstrations by Chavez's impoverished supporters overwhelmed) — flight to the United States, particularly Florida.
Venezuelans have long gobbled up condos and pre-construction deals in Florida as investments, but the latest buyers want homes where they can live and business properties that will help them earn a green card. These are the people who resent Chavez "bribing" the slum-dwellers with bricks for houses and milk for their children - I am NOT making that up!!!
"First the people who come are the businessmen in the highest circles [Duh!!], then the losing politicians [Duh!!], then the military [Duh!!] and then the professionals [Duh!!]," said Miami-based immigration attorney Oscar Levin. "You're beginning to see the (Venezuelan) professionals." The last rats leaving the plantation (under the old regime, 8o% were impoverished; 20% were well off - the ones heading toward Miami to join the ex-Cuban aristocrats).
This latest and largest potential group of emigrants say they fear the effect Chavez's socialist policies will have on the economy (yeah, it ran really smoothly for the elite 20% and the foreign corporations - now the elite are moving to Miami - a few to maybe even work for a living) and on proposed educational reforms that could mirror the ideologically imbued education of Chavez ally and mentor, Cuba's Fidel Castro. As if the present educational system doesn't short the impoverished 80% and doesn't indoctrinate the populace on the wisdom of oligarchy. In a democracy the betterment of 80% of the population should be reason for celebration!!
"There is so much insecurity [for the elite], political insecurity [for the elite], economic insecurity [for the elite]," said Venezuelan Miguel Medina, a business executive [an elite] who moved to the Miami in August. "You don't know if a contract you signed today will be honored by the government in the future....This was definitely my plan B, but it was time to do the plan B." Until recently, the People knew the social contract would NOT be honored by the government of, by, and for the 20%.
Between 2000 — a year after Chavez took office — and 2005, the number of Venezuelans living in the U.S. doubled to about 160,000, according to the latest U.S. Census numbers. Nearly half live in Florida.
But those numbers are deceptive.
In 2005, 10,645 Venezuelans received their green cards allowing them to live in the United States, almost doubling the 6,222 who received them in 2004, according to the latest Department of Homeland Security statistics. And another 400,000 Venezuelans came to the United States in 2005 on business and tourism visas. It is unclear how many stayed.
Colombia, with nearly twice Venezuela's roughly 27 million residents, sent the same number that year.
Anecdotal evidence suggests even more are seeking to come here since Chavez's recent nationalization of Venezuela's largest telecommunications company and the electricity sector. The Venezuelan Congress also recently gave him special powers to decree laws for 18 months, and Chavez is threatening to expropriate supermarkets, stores and other businesses caught hoarding food or speculating on prices (What a bad guy!! - that would never happen here - even at gas stations) .
Medina said six family members visited him in the last two months seeking ways to relocate to the U.S. Unlike previous cycles, those seeking to leave and bring their money ("their" money??)to the U.S. now are coming from around Venezuela, not just from Caracas, said Medina, an account executive for the credit group ExpoCredit.
Meanwhile Ralph Gomez, who heads the Miami area Tower Investments group and has long specialized in real estate for South American clients, said he's received more than two dozen calls since the year began from people interested in coming to the U.S. Other agents report a similar spike.
Upper-class (Duh!!) Venezuelans and their money (Duh!!) flowed out of the country (Duh!!) after Chavez was elected in 1998 and again when he quashed an unsuccessful coup against his government in 2002, but many professionals still hoped the climate would remain friendly to business. Then came the latest nationalizations. (I guess they figure that if business isn't in control of the people's interests, that's "unfriendly") Chavez still pledges to maintain a business-friendly climate, and analysts say the government has paid fair market prices to nationalize the electric and phone companies.
Yet, with 17 percent inflation pushing the Bolivar to more than 4,000 per dollar on the black market, compared to the official rate of 2,150 Bolivars per dollar, many Venezuelans are looking to move their businesses to the U.S. or to set up a new one here. How many of these do you figure come from the 80% part of Venezuela that is impoverished?
Those who can afford it often opt for business visas that require a minimum of a $500,000 investment in a company that creates jobs in an underdeveloped area in the U.S. These folks aren't impoverished.
About 33,000 Venezuelans received some kind of work visa to come to the U.S. in 2005 — nearly a quarter of all such visas for South Americans — compared to about 17,000 in 1999.
Those who come are received with open arms in Miami (Duh!!), where their money is welcome (Duh!!) and the Cuban exile community of cry-baby displaced exploiters views Chavez as the next Fidel Castro (Duh!!). As of 2004, Venezuelans tied with Germans and Canadians as the second biggest group of foreigners purchasing homes in Florida, according to the National Association of Realtors. Only the British bought more Florida homes. Yeah, but the Germans, Canadians, and Brits weren't run out of their respective countries.
But moving to the U.S., even for the wealthy, isn't simple. Medina moved his family to the Miami three years ago, but it took him until last summer to tie up financial ends, obtain a visa and a job in Florida.
"I would travel back and forth when I could," he said. "It was hard, but I know I am among the lucky ones."
And while Venezuelan emigrants cite the political and economic instability of the country as their main reasons for leaving, many also talk of rampant and random violence. Try living in an impoverished slum, Pal, and then talk about rampant and random violence.
Marbelia Font, 47, and her husband landed in Miami in September from Caracas to close on a newly built investment property. They thought their two daughters would enjoy the brief vacation.
But when two friends were fatally shot back home in Venezuela, Marbelia and her 13- and 8-year-old daughters stayed. Her husband returned to Venezuela, hoping to earn a visa by moving his manufacturing and construction business to the U.S. Font said he has struggled to obtain necessary legal documents from the Chavez government. And the majority of his countrymen struggle to stay alive with some bit of dignity.
She now lives in the half-furnished home they'd planned to rent in Doral, just west of Miami. It is decorated only with a picture of her husband and the girls. She and her daughters struggle with loneliness, and she is unable to work as she waits for the family's visas to come through.
"It is so hard because the girls were very close to their father, and now they only see him once every three months," she said. Before Chavez, things would have been easy, not hard, for her - things would have been hard for OTHER Venezuelans - but that's different.
- Uke Man
posted by Ukulele Man at 2:38 PM
0 comments
links to this post
Monday, March 19, 2007
He's not the only one, either
Hey Folks,
Do you think Chavez' charge (below) that the Bush regime is out to kill him is "over the top," unbelievable, ridiculous ? Do you think he's slandering "dedicated" diplomat John Negroponte? Well, think again.
It is historical fact that the Kennedy government tried to assasinate Fidel Castro (exploding cigars and Mafia hitmen, to name a few approaches). The Nixon government ordered a CIA-directed military coup that ended in the death of a democratically elected Chilean President, Salvador Allende. The Reagan government tried to assassinate Muammar Khadafi (missile attack on his palace). The present Bush government has already eliminated a head of state they wanted rid of, Saddam Hussein.
So, if you thought Chavez was a little nutty, think again.
As for Negroponte, here is a 2004 description of his activities reported by A World to Win news service and printed in Revolution: http://rwor.org/a/1240/awtwiraq.htm
Bremer himself will go home. Instead of an "administrator," as Bremer is called, his replacement will be called the U.S. Ambassador. What he will really be is the new boss of Iraq.
That ambassador will be John Negroponte. Negroponte is such a well-known war criminal that United Nations staff members staged a highly unusual symbolic strike when he was appointed U.S. ambassador to the UN on the eve of the Iraq invasion. Negroponte started out working for the U.S. in Vietnam. In the 1980s, when Nicaraguans got the idea they could have a government Washington didn't like, the U.S. launched a proxy war against them through the mercenary organization known as the Contras. He helped direct that war as U.S. ambassador to neighboring Honduras in 1981-85. During those years, U.S. military "aid" to Honduras went up by almost 20 times, and its army became an American army. Negroponte also oversaw Honduras's Battalion 3-16, trained and equipped by the CIA to carry out torture, murder and kidnapping. (For details, see maryknoll.org , a site by the Catholic religious order which holds this man responsible, at a minimum, for covering up the deaths of many nuns and religious women from El Salvador suspected of siding with opponents of U.S. interests.) His last job, before the UN, was on-the-scene organizer of the occupation troops in Afghanistan.
Chavez calls envoy 'professional killer'
By ELIZABETH M. NUNEZ, Associated Press
CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez on Sunday said he believes enemies including the CIA are out to kill him, and called U.S. diplomat John Negroponte a "professional killer."
Chavez said Venezuelan officials have intelligence that associates of jailed Cuban anti-communist militant Luis Posada Carriles also are involved in plotting to assassinate him.
He said the death plot idea has "gained weight" due to various factors, including the rece
Do you think Chavez' charge (below) that the Bush regime is out to kill him is "over the top," unbelievable, ridiculous ? Do you think he's slandering "dedicated" diplomat John Negroponte? Well, think again.
It is historical fact that the Kennedy government tried to assasinate Fidel Castro (exploding cigars and Mafia hitmen, to name a few approaches). The Nixon government ordered a CIA-directed military coup that ended in the death of a democratically elected Chilean President, Salvador Allende. The Reagan government tried to assassinate Muammar Khadafi (missile attack on his palace). The present Bush government has already eliminated a head of state they wanted rid of, Saddam Hussein.
So, if you thought Chavez was a little nutty, think again.
As for Negroponte, here is a 2004 description of his activities reported by A World to Win news service and printed in Revolution: http://rwor.org/a/1240/awtwiraq.htm
Bremer himself will go home. Instead of an "administrator," as Bremer is called, his replacement will be called the U.S. Ambassador. What he will really be is the new boss of Iraq.
That ambassador will be John Negroponte. Negroponte is such a well-known war criminal that United Nations staff members staged a highly unusual symbolic strike when he was appointed U.S. ambassador to the UN on the eve of the Iraq invasion. Negroponte started out working for the U.S. in Vietnam. In the 1980s, when Nicaraguans got the idea they could have a government Washington didn't like, the U.S. launched a proxy war against them through the mercenary organization known as the Contras. He helped direct that war as U.S. ambassador to neighboring Honduras in 1981-85. During those years, U.S. military "aid" to Honduras went up by almost 20 times, and its army became an American army. Negroponte also oversaw Honduras's Battalion 3-16, trained and equipped by the CIA to carry out torture, murder and kidnapping. (For details, see maryknoll.org , a site by the Catholic religious order which holds this man responsible, at a minimum, for covering up the deaths of many nuns and religious women from El Salvador suspected of siding with opponents of U.S. interests.) His last job, before the UN, was on-the-scene organizer of the occupation troops in Afghanistan.
As I said in the previous posting, "the 'good guy' spin is what we always get from our government and the media regarding an overthrown oppressive minority, one that had played ball with us by abusing their own countrymen." That was the case whith the Cuban revolution, and the same dynamic is in play with Venezuela. We tried to kill Castro, suspecting a similar attempt against Chavez is rational.
And John Negroponte, by any objective standard, is not the patriotic boy scout some would have us believe.
- Uke ManChavez calls envoy 'professional killer'
By ELIZABETH M. NUNEZ, Associated Press
CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez on Sunday said he believes enemies including the CIA are out to kill him, and called U.S. diplomat John Negroponte a "professional killer."
Chavez said Venezuelan officials have intelligence that associates of jailed Cuban anti-communist militant Luis Posada Carriles also are involved in plotting to assassinate him.
He said the death plot idea has "gained weight" due to various factors, including the rece