If such is possible, Folks:

Another Boston Video

Hey Folks -

It's my birthday!! But no cake - I'm dieting.

- Uke Man

Tom Harker - Dream

A flood that covered the entire earth, yeah, but no global warming.

No Global Warming, eh???

Hey Folks -


Just be glad you don't live on an island of low elevation.


Since there's no global warming, the islands mentioned in the video (link below) must have sinned or worshiped the wrong god, because in a few decades they'll be under water. Quick !! Build an ark !!


Link: http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5456301&ch=4226714&src=news


- Uke Man

Faith? In this guy?????

No, not disregard for Christians !! Disregard for STUPID Christians (there's a difference)

Hey Folks -

I'm not religious, but I have nothing against good Muslims and Christians. I do have trouble, though, respecting them when they are STUPID.

They aren't difficult to recognize; they're the ones who kill people over tire-treads and the soles of sandles that look like they might spell Mohammed in Arabic. They're the ones who believe they have the inside track to heaven and hate other Muslims who claim they have the inside track. They're the ones who justify oppression of women and infidels on the basis of holy writ and then pay no attention to the Book when it comes to their own sexual escapades.

The same holds for Christians. I have nothing against good Christians, but STUPID Christians are a pain. They aren't satisfied to do unto others as they would have done unto them. They want everybody else (including different Christian sects) to do as they say. Anything less is decried as persecution.

Taking Jesus off the State House lawn is persecution to these folks. Leaving him on is okay. A menora might be alright, but none of that pagan blasphemy need apply - but that's not persecution - in their book. STUPID !!! They are the holy persecuters; everyone else is the persecutee; and it flows in only one direction!!

Below is a recent column discussing how these nutcases have disregarded their brains and helped Bush degrade our country. Included are three attack letters from good examples of mentally-challenged "Christians." I've used one to introduce the column.

- Uke Man



Blumner shows little regard for Christians

Sunday, December 16, 2007

I had to stop several times while reading the Tuesday Forum column "Get religion out of science education" by Robyn Blumner to pull my jaw up off the table. I sat shaking my head at the vitriol in her words. She seems to elevate her beliefs, and therefore herself, as wiser than God himself.

Blumner needs to know the truth, so with this I close: "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength" (1 Corinthians 1:25).

KRISTI HALSEY
Hilliard



Get religion out of science education
Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:51 AM
By Robyn Blumner

Christine Comer was forced to resign as director of science at the Texas Education Agency because she forwarded an e-mail about a lecture on the fallacy of intelligent design and creationism as a scientifically grounded alternative to evolution. Comer, who spent 27 years as a science teacher and had been in her post at the agency for nine years, was told that the agency must remain "neutral" on the subject.

Are they kidding? On one hand you have a theory that has been successfully tested using the scientific method for more than 100 years and whose accuracy repeatedly has been affirmed by the vast fields of biology and genetics. On the other hand you have a hypothesis that relies on supernatural intervention for which there has been no legitimate scientific testing or objective proof.

Florida is also in a dust-up because the teaching of evolution has been included in its proposed science standards. Donna Callaway, a member of the state Board of Education -- appointed by former Gov. Jeb Bush -- said she'll oppose the new standards because of it.

Really, folks, when scientific innovation is the key to our nation's future, we don't have the time to be mucking around in this tired debate. You don't produce doctors and scientists by teaching science from the Bible.

Not surprisingly, a former adviser to George W. Bush when he was Texas governor, who also worked in his federal Department of Education, provoked the Comer witch hunt. Lizzette Reynolds, deputy commissioner for statewide policy and programs, complained about Comer's e-mail and called for her termination.

These are the kinds of dim-witted people who have been elevated to key posts in the Bush administration, marking it as one promoting loopy religiosity over fact and evidence.

Think about some of the administration's policies that have emanated from President Bush's radical religious views:

• The suspension of most federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. (Bush to Parkinson's patients: Drop dead!)

• The spending of hundreds of millions of dollars on demonstrably useless abstinence-only sex education. (Why Johnny has herpes.)

• The effort to prevent emergency contraception from being sold over the counter. (How to guarantee increased abortions.)

• The retraction of appropriated international family planning money. (Ditto.)
In every case where the administration ignored objective fact or science in favor of religion, Bush took this country down the wrong path, harming people's lives and endangering health.

The "salvation" for those of us in the reality-based community is that the Bush administration is nearing its last year in office, and maybe, finally, the war on science is also coming to an end.

But maybe not.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is gaining as a GOP presidential contender. He may be a friendly face, but the ordained Baptist minister is no friend to reason. In the Republican primary debate last May, he was one of three in the field to raise his hand to proclaim that he does not believe in evolution.

In a later debate, Huckabee rejected for himself the belief that we are "descendants of a primate," magnanimously suggesting that it was OK if others chose to believe it. Gee, thanks.

Pretty much all the presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans, are freely spouting off about the centrality of faith in their lives, with Mitt Romney promising that his is not too weird. But it is only Huckabee who is the dogma-driven real deal -- a man who as president would follow in Bush's anti-science, anti-intellectual footsteps, a man who would feel "chosen" for the job and licensed by a power higher than the will of the voters.

The mission-zeal with which Bush has arrogated power and his maniacal unwillingness to compromise is packaged righteousness, pure and simple. Remember that Bush said he appealed to a "higher father" for strength when journalist Bob Woodward asked him if he'd consulted his father before invading Iraq.

Who needs information grounded in experience when you have prayer and prophesy?

And Huckabee would be Bush redux.

Here is something scary-ignorant. Last week, the Web site ChristiaNet-.com, which bills itself as "the world's largest Christian portal," cheered the results of a survey it took finding that half of its 1,400 Christian respondents said that dinosaurs and man roamed Earth at the same time.

Putting aside that the schoolteachers of these people should be slapped silly, these are Huckabee's peeps. We can't afford to put this kind of backward thinking and scientific illiteracy in the driver's seat again.

Robyn Blumner writes for Tribune Media Services.
blumner@sptimes.com


How did Christians draw short stick?
Sunday, December 16, 2007 3:18 AM

I work for the largest health-care company in central Ohio. We are all expected to treat all patients, their families and our co-workers with respect and to accept cultural diversity. There have been times when I have had to find quiet areas for people of certain religions to pray to their god because they have to pray at certain times of the day.

We feel that we have been discriminated against because a minority complained, and our management removed the Christmas tree and all holiday decorations from our health centers, even though the main hospitals have decorated for the holidays.

Christmas has been celebrated in America since the birth of this country. Americans and Christians are expected to be accommodating to people of all cultures and faiths, but they are not expected to accommodate us. We will never understand how America has become prejudiced against Christians.

KRISTINA HARRIS
Westerville


Dislike Christmas? Work on the holiday!
Sunday, December 16, 2007 3:17 AM

In the spirit of the season, I offer a suggestion that might help to ease the pain of all of those in America who are offended by the name of Jesus Christ, the word Christmas, Christian symbols, etc. The initial step would be to notify their employers immediately that they are petitioning for the right to work on Dec. 25 when it falls on a normal workday because they are offended by having to take the day off to celebrate the birthday of someone in whom they don't believe.

Those who are employed by any agency of government at any level should likewise petition in a similar manner because of the often misinterpreted and misconstrued rule of separation of church and state. They should not feel obligated any longer to have to exchange gifts with anyone, to have to feast sumptuously or to have to engage in any festive celebrations, etc., on that day.

I hope these simple actions would increase the country's production and take the enormous pressure off of retailers and other businesses who are similarly loathe to have to say Merry Christmas to anyone or show any decorations or displays that mention that word. They would no longer have to open early, close late, hire as many seasonal workers or carry such large inventories, etc.

Then, perhaps without the constant whimpering, those of us who are born again could celebrate the occasion of the birth of Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords and the savior of all mankind, in peace and quiet contemplation as we await his return in the Rapture, when the church and the Holy Spirit will be taken out of the world, and everyone else will be perfectly free to enjoy the events that ensue without being offended ever again by anyone wishing them a Merry Christmas.

DIX BURKE
Columbus

Pee Wee's Playhouse Christmas Special 2

Grace Jones - Pee-Wee's Playhouse Christmas Special (1988)

Now, THAT's the X-Mas Spirit!!!

Hey Folks -

If you know the Veep's email address, send this on!!

- Uke Man

Cheney Choir

"Happy Hannukwanzamas!"

"Elementary, my dear Cato !!"

Kay-toe / Cat-oh SOLVED !!!

Hey Folks -

The mystery has been solved !!!

I wrote to the Cato Institute via its little web-page "contact-us-box" as follows:


My experience and my dictionary pronounces "Cato" as
"Kay-toe." Recently an NPR voice continually pronounces
it "Cat-oh."

For years I have used the former pronunciation. Is the
latter correct? If so, has it always been this way,
or is this a new development?

Thank you for helping with this.


I received two prompt replies, one of which is below and clears up the mystery:


Hi Tom,

You've been pronouncing it correctly! NPR often
mentions a group affiliated with the Catto family that
sponsors NPR. They're not related to us, but we end up
getting a lot of questions about it.

Thanks for writing,

Jacob


I hope someone out there besides me found this interesting. If not, I'll be back to my grouchy, wild self very soon!!

- Uke Man

Cato ("Kay-toe"?? Cat-oh"?? the Younger

Just for fun - Curious

Hey Folks -

There's a conservative (Libertarian) think tank called The Cato Institute.

I've known about it for years (founded in 1977) via its frequent media involvement. In all those years, its name has consistently been pronounced "Kay-toe." Lately an announcer on National Public Radio has been consistently pronouncing it "Cat-oh."

A local public radio talk show was interviewing an expert on language and dictionaries. I called in and asked which pronunciation was correct. The long-time local host had always heard "Kay-toe" - just as I had. The expert hedged, saying the institute could call itself anything it wanted (which was no help whatsoever, since no one from the institute had been heard from).

The Expert went on to suggest that Cato's name, since it was a Latin, Roman name could be pronounced as a Roman would or as a Latin-speaking Roman Catholic would (i.e. using a "church" pronunciation). He didn't go on to make that clear (is there a difference and, if so, what is it?).

So, Folks, we are left wondering !!

The Uke Man finds that unacceptable, and I have taken up the challenge. I will attempt to contact the Cato Institute and ask them to provide the official pronunciation.

I will abide by their determination, and I will report back to you!!

- Uke Man

New Uke Man Video !!

Hey Folks -

I'm just getting into this video-biz, but I'm pleased - as a total amateur - with this one !!

- Uke Man

two other videos at YouTube - search: kofcartoons1

Sunny Day in Baghdad

No Pictures!!!

Hey Folks -

Sorry !! Blogger is not currently publishing pictures, an intermittant, recurring problem.

You were supposed to see a picture of Socrates directly below introducing the text.

We soldier on.

- Uke Man

Why the left languishes - Part 1

Hey Folks -


The Socratic notion that we cannot be imparted knowledge but must find, learn, or know it for ourselves is true, I believe. And therein lies the rub: we must learn everything for ourselves or we must take it on faith from others.


Some of my contemporaries were, I’m sure, more precocious than I in discovering deeper cultural, social, political realities, but the necessary learning process – as opposed to faithful digestion of dogma - is the same for all of us. I once wrote a poem - at least that's what I call it - that describes the journey:

The Latest Word from Head Quarters

Life
is
a
series
of
somewhat
mistaken
notions
which
consecutively
replace
one
another
as
we
age

Thinkers – as opposed to believers – are always approaching the truth. The faithful get it all at once, or so they believe. All their lives thinkers are heading toward the truth; all their lives believers have "possessed" the truth (some of which may have been revealed recently, but much of which has “always” been “known”).

In the Socratic sense the active thinkers travel alone searching; the believers sit together passively while someone else funnels in the contemporary “reality.” This is a double-edged sword for both groups.


Believers gain the security of “knowing” and are freed from any responsibility to learn or even pay attention. At the same time, they are naively unaware that - should the person or organization passing them the “truth” be foolish, deranged, or have ulterior motives – they could be taken unaware by serious consequences. Here is a Stephen Crane poem that speaks to that:




A learned man came to me once.
He said: “I know the way, - come.”
And I was overjoyed at this.
Together we hastened.
Soon, too soon, were we
Where my eyes were useless,
And I knew not the ways of my feet.
I clung to the hand of my friend;
But at last he cried: “I am lost.”



It’s said, “Ignorance is bliss,” and we know the three Monkey Brothers – See, Hear, and Speak No-evil. So, for believers, it’s a gamble: put your faith in the one true slot machine and relax while the rewards pour in. If you’re lucky, your faith may never be shaken, and you’ll reap a carefree life of whatever you wished for. Most "faithful" folks, though, aren’t lucky; and at some point find themselves in a situation similar, to some degree, to the one Crane describes.


When reality intrudes on faith, some may turn from their faith, but most adhere to it even more strongly. Never having decided much rationally, having their faith pulled away leaves them with nothing to fall back on. Moreover, while blind faith does free one from uncertainty and a responsibility to think, it also forces believers to expend a lot of energy “defending” the faith against unbelievers. “Defending” becomes habitual: George W. Bush IS a great president; my religion IS the one true way; poor people ARE lazy; guns DON’T kill people; public schools ARE failing; socialism IS bad; we are RIGHT to be at War; the earth IS 7,000 years old; there is NO global warming; etc.


When their own lives run afoul of their long-held faith, it’s not surprising that most of these folks automatically make excuses and soldier on. Whatever tragedy they face at this late date, abandoning their crutch would only make matters worse.


Thinkers have problems too, largely because they are on a lifelong journey and the truth they find - besides never being complete - is incremental, nuanced, and partial. The journey requires the psychological strength to forever accept uncertainty and the physical energy to actively pay attention to the world, studying, questioning, considering, seeking to understand throughout life. This is the work that the faithful avoid; it is also the work that makes believers expend time and energy “defending” their arbitrarily chosen beliefs from developments in the actual world.


I think it’s safe to say that there are many more believers in the world than thinkers. Rampant poverty and exploitation don’t encourage education but do stimulate blind adoption of “promising” religious, economic, social or political dogma.

But perhaps more important is that non-thinkers are more easily manipulated, and like members of the Borg or victims of the Blob, they are easily united. Since the right has always been home to the rich and powerful who overwhelmingly control the media; powerful, unrelenting, and effective manipulation of the trusting sheep is a foregone conclusion.

Already outnumbered, thinkers are rarely united. Whereas the dogmatic views of any group are, by definition, unified from the start. Thinkers seeking truth find themselves on an individual continuum of “truth.” Depending on many factors - age, education, upbringing, experience, and native intelligence to name a few – the “connection” among those on the left is much weaker, if not missing altogether because of their varied and different stages of awareness . Each one, caught up in the excitement of the latest personal insight, can neither accept the less-advanced views left behind nor embrace the more-advanced views that are yet to be recognized.


Being outnumbered and incapable of uniting, those who pay attention and think enough to actually see the arbitrary and pernicious nature of official “reality” seem, nevertheless, doomed to live in Bedlam - along with the more numerous true-believing inmates - fussing among themselves about how to break out, but never escaping.

Think about it.

- Uke Man

Presidential Timber

but wormy and riddled with dogma

And my invisible friend knows the numerical value of the square root of -1 (but he's not allowed to tell)

Hey Folks -

We have a strange way of dealing with religion in this country.

Now, I'm all for freedom of/from religion. If you want to worship SpongeBob, that's OK by me. But don't put SpongeBob religious displays on the statehouse lawn or in the school cafeteria. And don't bring sacred Mr. SquarePants into the political arena.

The rule is: you can be as loony as you want, but you can't push your lunacy on other people. That's the rule, but apparently it isn't always followed - as you probably know. Nevertheless, I am accustomed to "Christians" in this country pushing their weight around as if there was no rule against it (after all "It IS a Christian country" isn't it?).

What I'm not used to, though, is how the press acts as if politicians professing loony religious beliefs are perfectly normal. When Pat Robertson ran for president (wouldn't that have been good !!), he promised to set up religious courts to hear religious crimes (civil courts could try the rest). The mainline press never mentioned it.

Below, I dare you to read the article without laughing out loud - at the evangelicals as well as the Mormons. Here we have children playing an expanded version of house - fussing over who's the Daddy, where he works, who's the Mommy, who's the baby, and what kind of underpants to wear.

And the focus of their fracas wants to be president.

- Uke Man

p.s. I've highlighted the parts I found most interesting in blue.

Theology divides Mormons, evangelicals
By JENNIFER DOBNER, Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY - Polygamy, missionaries on bicycles and the Osmonds.



What most people know or think they know about Mormons might be summed up in those few words. The renowned Tabernacle Choir and, perhaps, quarterback Steve Young could also fit on that list.

Despite 170 years of history, much about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — the church of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney — remains a mystery to most.

Questions about his faith, which some mainline religious groups discount as a non-Christian cult, have dogged Romney throughout his campaign, and on Thursday he'll tackle the issue at the George H.W. Bush Library on the campus of Texas A&M University.

Romney isn't expected to focus on the details of Mormonism, but it's in those details that evangelicals and other Christians sometimes break with Latter-day Saints.

The fundamental issue: the nature of God.

"Christians and Jews have always held that there is a great gap between creator and creature. God is God and we're not," said Richard Mouw, head of the Pasadena, Calif., Fuller Theological Seminary. "Mormons believe that God and humans are of the same species. In our eyes they have tried to bridge that gap in ways that really is a fundamental violation."

Mormons also disavow belief in the Trinity — that the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one — instead believing the three to be individuals united in a single purpose.

Many non-Mormons dispute claims that the faith's central text, the Book of Mormon, is a valid account of Jesus' dealings with ancient Americans. Mormons believe the book was translated through revelation by founder Joseph Smith from a set of buried golden plates. It's one of three texts from Smith, who also drafted his own version of the Bible, altering many of its passages in light of what he said were errors that had crept into modern translations.

"The Bible has almost a talismanic significance to evangelicals and they simply don't like the idea of anybody changing it," said Randall Balmer, professor of religion at Columbia University. "Here you've got an additional testament of Jesus Christ and a source of continuing, authoritative revelation. It simply rubs evangelicals the wrong way."

Smith founded the church in 1830, 10 years after a vision near his family home in Palmyra, N.Y. The original church had just six members, mostly members of Smith's family. Today the church claims nearly 13 million members worldwide and is rapidly growing. With about 5.7 million members in the United States, it is the nation's fourth-largest church.

Culturally, socially and politically, Mormons and evangelical Christians should have no trouble finding common ground.

Mormon culture centers on faith and family, with church activities and callings — from teaching Sunday School to leading Boy Scout troops — filling the calendar.

A patriarchal society, Mormons hold up the traditional family as the ideal, with women encouraged to raise children instead of work outside the home.

Healthy lifestyles are promoted through the faith's "Word of Wisdom," which warns against the use of alcohol, tobacco and "hot drinks," including coffee and tea.

Mormons tithe 10 percent of their incomes to their church and are encouraged to serve proselytizing missions.

Mormons oppose gay marriage and denounce gambling. They've largely supported the war in Iraq and twice voted overwhelmingly for President Bush. The church opposes abortion, except when the health of the mother is at risk.

Officially, the church is politically neutral. It doesn't endorse candidates,and it encourages members to vote their consciences

From the beginning, Mormonism set itself apart from other faiths in both culture and doctrine. Modern leaders don't dispute the differences — a church Web site says the faith is "not Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox but holds a unique place in the Christian world as restored New Testament Christianity."

"We believe (the church) was lost after the times of Christ and his apostles and required to be restored through a prophet," said M. Russell Ballard, a member of the Mormon church's second-tier of leadership, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. "Think in terms of Abraham and Moses ... Joseph Smith to us is just the Moses of our day."

But the debate over the church's place in Christianity remains a sore spot for leaders who in 1995 altered the church logo to place more emphasis on the words "Jesus Christ" in its name.

The problem is that most evangelical Christians see Mormon doctrine, which stems from Smith, as "un-Biblical," said Robert Millet, a professor of religion at the church-owned Brigham Young University.

Aside from continuing revelation, there are a host of Mormon beliefs that evangelicals find hard to swallow. Mormons, for example, believe in a Heavenly Mother — God's female partner — a pre-existence in heaven before birth, a hereafter that includes a three-level heavenly kingdom. They wear religious undergarments that some say possess protective powers; they bar non-Mormons from entering their temples; practice posthumous baptism and believe that man can progress to a God-like state in Heaven.

Millet, who has spent much of the past decade working alongside evangelicals, said of those non-Mormons: "They would say, 'Look, it's not a bad idea, but it's not biblical. My comeback would be, the real question is whether or not it's true."

Other Christians also don't accept the Mormon contention that they are members of the "one true church," the authentic version of Christianity that Smith claimed to have restored to Earth at God's own direction.

Even language adds to the divide. Mormons refer to all non-Mormons, including Jews, as gentiles and call God "'Heavenly Father' as if 'Heavenly' were his first name," Balmer said. "Evangelicals just don't do that."

Another concern for some: that Mormon church presidents are held out as prophets with revelatory power that can alter the church's direction and beliefs.

Such revelations discontinued the practice of polygamy in 1890 and, in 1978, ended a ban on giving black men priesthood authority.

Said Mouw, "That notion that things can just get changed is scary for a lot of people who worry that a church with a very strong authority center could influence a public leader by suddenly getting a new revelation that has an impact on public policy."

Among non-Mormons, 62 percent think Mormonism is very different from their own religion, according to polling this summer by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center and Pew Forum. Some 53 percent said they had a favorable view of Mormons, compared with 76 percent who had favorable feelings toward Jews and Catholics, 60 percent for evangelical Christians, 43 percent for Muslims and 35 percent for atheists.

Fifty-two percent said they think Mormons are Christian.

Santa's been bad!!

But the dancing Elves below
will cheer him up!!!

See my band as never before!! (& Merry X-Mas !!)

Hey Folks -

For a good time and some elfish merriment, check out my band-mates and me cutting a rug, and then YOU can do it too!!!

Go to: http://www.elfyourself.com/?id=1443192255 and

http://www.elfyourself.com/?id=1443670383


- Uke Man

Hmmmmmmmm . . .

And an angel gets its wings . . .

Hey Folks -

Bono, lead singer of the rock band U2, is famous throughout the entertainment industry for being more than just a little self-righteous.

At a recent U2 concert in Glasgow, Scotland, he asked the audience for total quiet.

Then, in the silence, he started to slowly clap his hands, once every few seconds. Holding the audience in total silence, he said into the microphone, 'Every time I clap my hands, a child in Africa dies.'

From the front of the crowd a voice with a broad Scottish accent pierced the quiet ...


'Well, f -- ckin stop doin it then, ya evil bastard!'


- Uke Man

And Fats looks so young!!!

Hey Folks -

If you were around in the 50's and 60's or if not but love music, you've got to see this video!!!

Enjoy!!

- Uke Man

Fantastic Old Piano Pounders Video

Ray Charles, Jerry Lee Lewis
Uploaded by Hanvak

the Uke Man on Cape Cod Bay

"Provincetown" Video

Hey Folks -

You may remember that sometime back I was invited by my friend Mary J. Martin to play in a show in Provincetown, Mass. out on Cape Cod Bay (see links to earlier postings below).

It was a wonderful time we all had there (including Jason & Ted of Sonic Uke [ http://www.sonicuke.com/ ] ).

One afternoon, having walked down Mary Martin Ave. down to the bay, I sat and watched the cormorants glide across the wide, amazing sky; and at Mary's suggestion focused on the rapidly shifting kaleidoscope of unbelievable colors.

From that and from the spirit of the ukulele community came the song presented below.

- Uke Man


Links:
"Miss New Orleans" In front of the White Horse Inn: http://www.ukuleledisco.com/missneworleans



Finale of the show, all acts on stage for "Ukuleles of Love": http://ukuleledisco.com/outermostlove

"I'm der Decider !!"

Is Bush King? Fuhrer? Tzar? Emperor? - He thinks so

Hey Folks -

It's supposed to be a king, fuhrer, tzar, or emperor whose word is law. Apparently Duhbya's Justice Department has added Texan Halfwits to the list.

Be afraid; be very afraid. Better yet, man the barricades!!

If you don't believe me, the Senator's speech is below; or you can view it via video link:

link to video


Press Release of Senator Whitehouse:

In FISA Speech, Whitehouse Sharply Criticizes Bush Administration's Assertion of Executive Power

Friday, December 7, 2007
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, delivered the following remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate today:

We will shortly consider making right the things that are wrong with the so-called Protect America Act, a second-rate piece of legislation passed in a stampede in August at the behest of the Bush Administration. It is worth for a moment considering why making this right is so important.

President Bush pressed this legislation not only to establish how our government can spy on foreign agents, but how his administration can spy on Americans. Make no mistake, the legislation we passed in August is significantly about spying on Americans – a business this administration should not be allowed to get into except under the closest supervision. We have a plain and tested device for keeping tabs on the government when it’s keeping tabs on Americans. It is our Constitution.

Our Constitution has as its most elemental provision the separation of governmental powers into three separate branches. When the government feels it necessary to spy on its own citizens, each branch has a role.

The executive branch executes the laws, and conducts surveillance. The legislative branch sets the boundaries that protect Americans from improper government surveillance. The judicial branch oversees whether the government has followed the Constitution and the laws that protect U.S. citizens from violations of their privacy and their civil rights.

It sounds basic, but even an elementary understanding of this balance of powers eludes the Bush administration. So now we have to repair this flawed and shoddy “Protect America Act.”

Why are we in Congress so concerned about this? Why is it so vital that we energetically assert the role of Congress and the Courts when the Bush Administration seeks to spy on Americans?

Because look what the Bush Administration does behind our backs when they think no one is looking.

For years under the Bush Administration, the Office of Legal Counsel within the Department of Justice has issued highly classified secret legal opinions related to surveillance. This is an administration that hates answering to an American court, that wants to grade its own papers, and OLC is the inside place the administration goes to get legal support for its spying program.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I was given access to those opinions, and spent hours poring over them. Sitting in that secure room, as a lawyer, as a former U.S. Attorney, legal counsel to Rhode Island’s Governor, and State Attorney General, I was increasingly dismayed and amazed as I read on.

To give you an example of what I read, I have gotten three legal propositions from these OLC opinions declassified. Here they are, as accurately as my note taking could reproduce them from the classified documents. Listen for yourself. I will read all three, and then discuss each one.

1. An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.
2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.
3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

Let’s start with number one. Bear in mind that the so-called Protect America Act that was stampeded through this great body in August provides no – zero – statutory protections for Americans traveling abroad from government wiretapping. None if you’re a businesswoman traveling on business overseas, none if you’re a father taking the kids to the Caribbean, none if you’re visiting uncles or aunts in Italy or Ireland, none even if you’re a soldier in the uniform of the United States posted overseas. The Bush Administration provided in that hastily-passed law no statutory restrictions on their ability to wiretap you at will, to tap your cell phone, your e-mail, whatever.

The only restriction is an executive order called 12333, which limits executive branch surveillance to Americans who the Attorney General determines to be agents of a foreign power. That’s what the executive order says.

But what does this administration say about executive orders?

An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

“Whenever (the President) wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order,” he may do so because “an executive order cannot limit a President.” And he doesn’t have to change the executive order, or give notice that he’s violating it, because by “depart(ing) from the executive order,” the President “has instead modified or waived it.”

So unless Congress acts, here is what legally prevents this President from wiretapping Americans traveling abroad at will: nothing. Nothing.

That was among the most egregious flaws in the bill passed during the August stampede they orchestrated by the Bush Administration – and this OLC opinion shows why we need to correct it.

Here’s number two.
The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

Yes, that’s right. The President, according to the George W. Bush OLC, has Article II power to determine what the scope of his Article II powers are.

Never mind a little decision called Marbury v. Madison, written by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, establishing the proposition that it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Does this administration agree that it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the President’s authority is under Article II? No, it is the President, according to this OLC, who decides the legal limits of his own Article II power.

The question “whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II,” is to be determined by the President’s minions, “exercising his constitutional authority under Article II.”

It really makes you wonder, who are these people? They have got to be smart people to get there. How can people who are so smart be so misguided?

And then, it gets worse. Remember point three.

The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

Let that sink in a minute.

The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

We are a nation of laws, not of men. This nation was founded in rejection of the royalist principles that “l’etat c’est moi” and “The King can do no wrong.” Our Attorney General swears an oath to defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States; we are not some banana republic in which the officials all have to kowtow to the “supreme leader.” Imagine a general counsel to a major U.S. corporation telling his board of directors, “in this company the counsel’s office is bound by the CEO’s legal determinations.” The board ought to throw that lawyer out – it’s malpractice, probably even unethical.

Wherever you are, if you are watching this, do me a favor. The next time you are in Washington, D.C., take a taxi some evening to the Department of Justice. Stand outside, and look up at that building shining against the starry night. Look at the sign outside- “The United States Department of Justice.” Think of the heroes who have served there, and the battles fought. Think of the late nights, the brave decisions, the hard work of advancing and protecting our democracy that has been done in those halls. Think about how that all makes you feel.

Then think about this statement:
The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

If you don’t feel a difference from what you were feeling a moment ago, well, congratulations – there is probably a job for you in the Bush administration. Consider the sad irony that this theory was crafted in that very building, by the George W. Bush Office of Legal Counsel.

In a nutshell, these three Bush administration legal propositions boil down to this:

1. “I don’t have to follow my own rules, and I don’t have to tell you when I’m breaking them.”

2. “I get to determine what my own powers are.”

3. “The Department of Justice doesn’t tell me what the law is, I tell the Department of Justice what the law is.”

When the Congress of the United States is willing to roll over for an unprincipled President, this is where you end up. We should not even be having this discussion. But here we are. I implore my colleagues: reject these feverish legal theories. I understand political loyalty, trust me, I do. But let us also be loyal to this great institution we serve in the legislative branch of our government. Let us also be loyal to the Constitution we took an oath to defend, from enemies foreign and domestic. And let us be loyal to the American people who live each day under our Constitution’s principles and protections.

We simply cannot put the authority to wiretap Americans, whenever they step outside America’s boundaries, under the exclusive control and supervision of the executive branch. We do not allow it when Americans are here at home; we should not allow it when they travel abroad. The principles of congressional legislation and oversight, and of judicial approval and review, are simple and longstanding. Americans deserve this protection wherever on God’s green earth they may travel.

###

Believe

Uke Man Video

Hey Folks -

Here's a recently discovered video of moi in Boston a while back.

Hope you like it!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkuOZZBh74w

- Uke Man

Hard to argue with Carlin

Hey Folks -

Speaking of religious loonies, they probably don't like Carlin any more than they like Hitchins; but hatered doesn't have any standing as an argument.

Still, as strong as Carlin's comments are, they won't affect the "faithful" (God wants Huckabee for President !!)

- Uke Man

p.s. The picture and sound are a little out of sinc - sorry.

George Carlin - Worships Joe Pesci !!!

The Church Making a Better World

Suppressing witchcraft !!

Book Review: Christopher Hitchens "God is not Great"

Hey Folks -

Having just finished Christopher Hitchens’ book God Is Not Great, I am struck by two obvious but contradictory conclusions.

1. No sane person confronted with the facts can remain religious; and

2. No sane person would conclude that the presentation of facts to the faithful would have any serious effect.

Hitchens goes beyond Richard Dawkins' concentration on intellectual debate of philosophical and scientific positions, dissecting historical and sociological examples of the lunacy, self-serving, humanity-degrading behavior of the world’s religions. As I suggested, no one can read this book and sanely recommend a religious life or even a religious perspective. The field is left entirely to only madmen and con-men.

Of course, even if everyone were to read the book, its major effect would ironically be to organize millions, perhaps billions against it. While the book clearly reveals the hideous reality of religion’s history, in doing so it simultaneously reveals why the clear, intellectual, rational reality will be ignored, denied, demonized, or obliterated. The same despicable forces that should be rejected for manipulating our weakness to maintain their own selfish advantage will be enlisted to keep us from even considering rejection.

Hitchens writes, “Sigmund Freud was quite correct to describe the religious impulse in his The Future of an Illusion as essentially ineradicable until or unless the human species can conquer its fear of death and its tendency to wish-thinking.” That’s it in a nutshell, I believe.

“Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die” speaks to the first problem. “Slam dunk,” “cake walk,” “Iraqi oil will pay for the war,” speak to the second. Hitchens’ hope, his “remedy,” is the arrival of a “new enlightenment,” but like “belling the cat,” a “new enlightenment” sounds a bit like “wish-thinking” to me.

So, I’m left where I started - better informed and educated as to the nature of humanity and society, but no closer to any optimism regarding a brighter, more rational, or saner world. Writing, reading, explaining, discussing, arguing, demonstrating, philosophizing won’t do it. It won’t do it for religion, and it won’t do it for anything else.

Something, perhaps, could make a better world; but if it ever does, it won’t be because people, presented with the rational facts from the real world rejected ignorant, self-defeating things they already believed.

- Uke Man

Harry and Wizards and Witches, oh my !!