Sunday, August 31, 2008

And now for something completely different

Hey Folks -

Here's a bourbon-lubricated ditty that involves an evil, union-hating CEO and a palace of tonsorial delight, Jay's Barber Shop.








The CEO is gone!! Jay's is still with us!!



- Uke Man

Saturday, August 30, 2008

The Bullshit Express spits on the reality-based community

Hey Folks -

Facts are facts, and bullshit is bullshit no matter what the source. In the article below scholars lay out the facts about John McCain's choice for his running mate, and the McCain camp doesn't attack one word, gives no evidence to challenge the facts. The best they can do is charge bias because of the historians' political donations to Democrats (see last paragraph: "Update").

They charge the respected historians - who reported FACTS - as "partisan Democrats who would find a reason to disqualify or discount any nominee put forward by Senator McCain." Unfortunately, coming from "the McCain Campaign," these comments are certifiably "partisan," and in their effort to discount the historians' position, NO FACTS were presented to counter the FACTS presented by the historians.

Apparently McCain - like Bush - disdains "the reality-based community, and facts are what he says they are. Well, facts are facts. YOU decide whether the FACTS disqualify Ms. Palin or whether they are irrelevant.

- Uke Man



Scholars question Palin credentials
David Mark, Fred Barbash Sat Aug 30, 12:24 PM ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/13001


John McCain was aiming to make history with his pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and historians say he succeeded.


Presidential scholars say she appears to be the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party ticket in the modern era.


So unconventional was McCain’s choice that it left students of the presidency literally “stunned,” in the words of Joel Goldstein, a St. Louis University law professor and scholar of the vice presidency. “Being governor of a small state for less than two years is not consistent with the normal criteria for determining who’s of presidential caliber,” said Goldstein.


“I think she is the most inexperienced person on a major party ticket in modern history,” said presidential historian Matthew Dallek.


That includes Spiro T. Agnew, Richard Nixon’s first vice president, who was governor of a medium-sized state, Maryland, for two years, and before that, executive of suburban Baltimore County, the expansive jurisdiction that borders and exceeds in population the city of Baltimore.


It also includes George H.W. Bush’s vice president, Indiana Sen. Dan Quayle, who had served in the House and Senate for 12 years before taking office. And it also includes New York Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, who served three terms in the House before Walter Mondale chose her in 1984 as the first woman candidate on a major party ticket.


“It would be one thing if she had only been governor for a year and a half, but prior to that she had not had major experience in public life,” said Dallek of Palin. “The fact that he would have to go to somebody who is clearly unqualified to be president makes Obama look like an elder statesman.”


And Alaska is a much smaller state than Illinois, the political base of Barack Obama, whom Republicans have repeatedly criticized for being inexperienced, having served nearly four years in the U.S. Senate after eight in the Illinois state Senate.


“Not to belittle Alaska, but it’s different than the basket of issues you deal with in big, dynamic states.” Dallek said.


Palin has no experience in national office. Before becoming governor in December 2006, she served as a council member and mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, which had a population of slightly more than 5,000 during her time in office.


Brad Blakeman, who ran the 1988 Republican convention for GOP nominee George H.W. Bush, turned the experience question on its head, suggesting accomplishments in office mean more than time accrued.


“Here’s a governor who may have served two years, but her accomplishments are worth eight,” said Blakeman, citing Palin's work as governor on ethics reform and an Alaska oil pipeline. “She’s got as much experience for being vice president as Barack does to be president.”


But other students of presidential history said that In choosing Palin as his running mate, McCain has reached back to a time when few actually seriously contended that the vice president should be demonstrably prepared to assume the presidency from day one.


If elected vice president, Palin would appear to have the least amount of experience in federal office or as a governor since John W. Kern, Democrat William Jennings Bryan’s 1908 running mate, who had served for four years in the Indiana state Senate and then four more as city solicitor of Indianapolis. The Democratic ticket lost to Republican standard bearer William Howard Taft and running mate James S. Sherman by an Electoral College spread of 321-162.


More conventionally in modern times, running mates could boast decades of experience in Washington, from ballot box winners like Dick Cheney, Al Gore, the elder Bush and Mondale to also-rans such as Jack Kemp, Lloyd Bentsen and Joseph I. Lieberman.


These super-credentialed candidates were sometimes chosen, like Joe Biden, to shore up the resumes of candidates with little or no time in Washington, such as Jimmy Carter (Mondale) Bill Clinton (Gore) and Michael Dukakis (Bentsen.)


Palin, on the other hand, is a total “wild card,” said Stanford historian David Kennedy.


“If she had been around for two terms as governor — or been a senator — it would have been an incredible choice,” said historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. “Who else could he have found who appealed to the conservative base … and as someone who was a reformer?”


That’s not to say Palin will be a dud on the campaign trail.


But out-of-the-box picks in recent years have not usually worked out too well for the top of the ticket. Consider independent candidate Ross Perot’s 1992 running mate, former Navy Adm. James Stockdale, who famously asked at the vice presidential debate with Gore and Quayle, “Who am I, why am I here?”


“He took the wind out of Perot’s sails, and Perot could have done even better” than the 19 percent he garnered, Dallek said.


A bad running mate pick can even put a successful presidential ticket in question. The 1988 Bush-Quayle victory over Dukakis and Bentsen came in spite of Quayle’s frequent campaign trail gaffes and questions about his military service in the Vietnam era and other controversies. Bush handlers largely relegated Quayle to small town audiences that would attract little media attention.


“Quayle — it threw off the momentum for some weeks,” said Goodwin. “One has to hope for McCain’s sake that [Palin] has been fully vetted.”


“The first thing that hits me,” said Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution," is that it suggests that John McCain is a gambler. This is a high roller decision.”


“The next thing you have to ask yourself: Is it worrisome to have a gambler in the Oval Office? That’s an important question," he said, “perhaps more important than anything else today.”


Update: After reading this article, the McCain campaign issued the following statement: "The authors quote four scholars attacking Gov. Palin's fitness for the office of Vice President. Among them, David Kennedy is a maxed out Obama donor, Joel Goldstein is also an Obama donor, and Doris Kearns Goodwin has donated exclusively to Democrats this cycle. Finally, Matthew Dallek is a former speech writer for Dick Gephardt. This is not a story about scholars questioning Governor Palin's credentials so much as partisan Democrats who would find a reason to disqualify or discount any nominee put forward by Senator McCain."

Friday, August 29, 2008

Hey Folks -

This is worth a look!! "Straight talk" my ass!!







- Uke Man

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Poll: Obama Faring Poorly Among Racists

Hey Folks -



It must not have been a Republican poll!! Those folks claim that racism ended in the 60's!!



- Uke Man





BOROWITZ REPORT
Monday, August 25, 2008 2:58 AM

Obama Faring Poorly Among Racists, Poll Says

Bigots Oppose Barack by 1,000-to-1 Ratio

In a potentially ominous sign for the presumptive Democratic nominee, a new poll shows Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., trailing far behind GOP standard-bearer Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., among voters who identify themselves as racists.

Pundits and pollsters alike have wondered about the role that racists might play in the 2008 presidential contest, but the survey released today was the first concrete attempt to take the pulse of this key voting bloc.

The poll, conducted by Duh magazine, suggests that Obama faces an uphill battle in his effort to win the votes of dyed-in-the-wool bigots.

"We wanted to know: Why isn't Barack Obama closing the deal among racists?" said Charles Plugh, editor in chief of Duh. "The answer seems to be: Because he's black."

In a head-to-head matchup, likely bigots chose McCain over Obama by a ratio of 1,000-to-1, with a majority of racists saying they "strongly disagree" with Obama's decision not to be white.

Asked under what conditions they would conceivably vote for a black presidential candidate,
95 percent of racists responded, "Only if he were running against someone from a group I hate even more -- such as Arabs."

Duh Editor Plugh says the survey indicates that Obama "has his work cut out for him" if he is going to make up lost ground among racists.

"Sen. Obama made a choice at the beginning of this campaign to run as a black man," Plugh said. "He could change his position on that, but racists might see that as too little, too late."
-- http://www.borowitzreport.com/

Monday, August 25, 2008

What's the poop on the Poop-Scooping?

Hey Folks -

Did I mention that I'd entered a "Jingle Contest"? Well, I didn't win and I didn't lose (I'll explain in some later posting). I'm still waiting to see who DID win (it was supposed to be posted online on August 14).

In the meantime, see the jingle below.

- Uke Man


Sunday, August 24, 2008


High Stakes Testing Worm Turns - We hear, "No-fair!! No-fair"

Hey Folks -


The "Damned Human Race," as Twain called us, is at it on many fronts. One involves the play-pretend notion of high-stakes testing as a "solution" to the "problems" of education.


Essentially, the scheme punishes poor, rural, urban, and ethnic/immigrant-rich schools while freeing wealthy, suburban, mostly white/upper-middle class schools from scrutiny. It is "fixed"; the people have been put into piles labeled "winners" and "losers" and segregated on the basis of economics.


Although the tests give no insights that weren't known before the tests, the scheme serves to beat on the "losers" in a cold-hearted attempt to squeeze a little more profit out of underprivileged, underpaid young people - without having to invest in them.


When a peculiarity in Ohio's system shed a negative light on a few suburban schools (who clearly had "left a child behind," the squeeling and complaining began. Below is the country-club Republican, Columbus, Ohio newspaper's "No-fair!! No-fair!! editorial.


It is followed by my letter of response to them - still unpublished.


- Uke Man



Report-card fix
State rankings shouldn't disregard school districts' overall academic achievement
Friday, August 1, 2008


Another excellent central Ohio school district has fallen victim to the Ohio Department of Education's insistence that overall academic excellence doesn't count if a certain group of students, no matter how few in number, fails to progress.



As he did last year, state Rep. Larry Wolpert, R-Hilliard, is pushing a bill that would address the illogic of the state's approach. It would have the state evaluations make distinctions between a district's overall achievement and its success with designated subgroups of students.



Lawmakers should pass some version of Wolpert's bill.



The Dublin City School District is the latest to be stuck with a mediocre label of "continuous Improvement," essentially a C grade, despite having met every one -- that's 30 out of 30 -- of the state's quality standards.



Like Hilliard, Pickerington and Worthington before it, the Dublin district this year receives the middle ranking automatically because at least two subgroups of students, as designated by the federal No Child Left Behind law, failed to make adequate progress over last year. Those groups include poor students, those with limited English skills, special-education students and those in six racial categories.



Under Ohio's interpretation of the law, it doesn't matter if the subgroup includes only a few students; the struggles of three or four can lower the ranking of a district enrolling thousands of students.

Education Department officials have defended the practice as the essence of what the federal law was supposed to do: force school districts to work harder to address the needs of all students, to leave none behind. And they're right that nothing spurs action faster than the threat of negative consequences for inaction.



But, how meaningful is a ranking system that assigns the same verdict to Dublin City Schools, which met all 30 criteria, as that earned the year before by the Cleveland City Schools, which met four?



The public deserves a realistic picture of a school district's performance as well as its efforts to leave no children behind. Both are important, but the current ranking system emphasizes the second measure at the expense of the first.



Wolpert's bill would allow districts such as Dublin, which need to work harder with certain minority groups, to have a conditional rating. It would say the district is excellent overall but still hasn't achieved the goal of improvement for everyone.



That's a clearer, fairer picture.



* * * * * * *

My response:





To the Editor and whomever it may concern,

There is a lot more to the first sentence of your editorial “Report-card fix” (included below) than you might admit:

“Another excellent central Ohio school district has fallen victim to the Ohio Department of Education's insistence that overall academic excellence doesn't count if a certain group of students, no matter how few in number, fails to progress.”
The argument is that if one doesn’t count “poor students, those with limited English skills, special-education students and those in six racial categories,” then Dublin , Hilliard, Pickerington, and Worthington are excellent schools.

A second argument is that if these eight categories contain “few in number,” the school’s inability (as determined by state tests) to address their needs, i.e. their leaving children behind, is a separate matter from an “overall” rating:

“Wolpert's bill would allow districts such as Dublin, which need to work harder with certain minority groups, to have a conditional rating. It would say the district is excellent overall but still hasn't achieved the goal of improvement for everyone.”
Is this a double standard? The editorial asks:

“how meaningful is a ranking system that assigns the same verdict to Dublin City Schools, which met all 30 criteria, as that earned the year before by the Cleveland City Schools, which met four?”

It seems to me that if wealthy suburban schools are going to be judged as excellent, deficient, etc. by how the students not in one of the eight categories fared on the tests, then Cleveland should be judged by the same standard.

It’s possible that if Cleveland schools were evaluated by your dual method, it could be said, “the district is excellent overall but still hasn't achieved the goal of improvement for everyone.”

Dublin’s 2005 mean household income is estimated* as $96,900.Cleveland’s is $24,105. Dublin ’s population is 31,392*. Cleveland ’s is 444,313*. Which community do you think has more “poor students, those with limited English skills, special-education students and those in six racial categories”? How many of the 30 criteria would Cleveland pass if only students who weren’t poor, in one of six racial categories, English-language limited, or in special education were the only ones counted in determining “excellence”?

The educational community is not responsible for the fact that few households earning $24,105 a year can live in Dublin , nor are they responsible for the fact that fewer immigrants and minorities can afford to live in Dublin than can afford Cleveland . So how reasonable is it to rate Cleveland low and Dublin high simply on the basis of systemic economic segregation?

It is not reasonable. But neither is it surprising. A testing system producing consistent denunciation of the poor and powerless, the neediest, and the most underprivileged is regularly declared by the Dispatch and others to be just what the doctor ordered; but the mildest slight to the upper middle class is attacked as unreasonable quackery.

How sad – and self-serving.

* http://www.city-data.com/



- Uke Man

Friday, August 22, 2008

Hey Folks -

This pretty well fits my mood today:






- Uke Man

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Paris Hilton would be an improvement

Hey Folks -

Are you rich enough to be a McCain supporter???

- Uke Man




Monday, August 11, 2008

Novak & Bush's Brain Tumor

Posted by Picasa

Novak Schmovak

Hey Folks -

Leaonard Pitts Jr. is a good man and I love his columns. His position in this one, regarding Robert Novak's recently diagnosed brain tumor is honorable and, in a lot of ways, wise. But it isn't the only honorable position; and I think it is flawed in an important way.

Here is the column (I've highlighted part of it). I'll discuss it below:


Those who cheer Novak's illness are product of our ugly politics
Thursday, August 7, 2008
By Leonard Pitts Jr.

I haven't read Robert Novak's column in 10 years.

Back in 1998, he made a comment on CNN -- what it was is not material here -- that I considered beyond the pale. I decided I could henceforth do without his opinions and insights. He impressed me as a distinctly disagreeable man. And that was well before he outed covert CIA agent Valerie Plame.

When the news broke a few days ago that Novak has a brain tumor and would retire, I was not made prostrate by grief. What I felt was that whisper of common mortality, that sense of there-but-for-the-grace-of-God one usually feels when tragedy strikes someone who is known to you, but not too closely. I felt sorry for the man and for his loved ones. It did not occur to me to celebrate their misfortune.

In this, I am evidently different from a number of observers who have infested Internet Web sites with exultation over the columnist's diagnosis. To be sure, the majority of bloggers and posters -- even those put off by Novak's often brusque conservatism and abrupt personality -- have wished him well. But there has been no shortage of those who are unable to attain that level of grace. One calls Novak's fate evidence of God. Another calls him a scumbag. Still another claims this proves "Republicanism" is a mental illness. LOL, it says.

And then there's the message board of Novak's home paper, the Chicago Sun-Times, where whoever is in charge of deleting offensive content is surely working overtime to keep up with the invective. I managed to snag two of the messages before the censor got hold of them. One expressed the hope that Novak "suffers like the victims of his lies." Another said, "May he rest in pain."

There is nothing new here. Similar responses attended the late Tony Snow's battle with the cancer. And Michael Savage, a barely housebroken radio personality, played a song by the Dead Kennedys when news broke that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy had been diagnosed with brain cancer.

The intention, I imagine, is to debase those with whom one has political disagreements. The authors of this sort of abuse evidently don't realize that what they really debase is themselves -- and political discourse as a whole.

Yes, it is fair, even now, to offer a harsh critique of Novak's politics. But there is something fundamentally indecent about celebrating his grave illness. Osama bin Laden, I might understand; he's a mortal enemy. Novak is just a columnist with whom some of us disagree.

But then the distinction I draw no longer exists in the minds of many, raised as they have been on talk-radio diatribes, accustomed as they are to spewing vitriol from the anonymity of the Internet. For them, disagreement is the very mark of a mortal enemy. For them there is no such thing as the sort of easy bonhomie among opponents that allowed, say, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill to share a drink at the end of a long day spent fighting one another in the political trenches.

It is a sweet picture that might as well be painted in sepia tones, so long ago does it seem. Today, there is no bonhomie. Politics is war. In war, one does not drink with enemies. One does not reason with them or seek common ground. One simply hates them. One simply kills them.

That's the mentality you're seeing here -- politics as war -- and it is not pretty. The thing is, there are truths above politics and one of them is that you do not laugh at the other guy's tragedy. How estranged are you from your own humanity, how deficient was your home training, when you need to be reminded of that?

Friend or foe, there is only one word any of us should feel compelled to offer Novak right now:

Godspeed.

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for The Miami Herald.
lpitts@miamiherald.com


* * * * *


Folks -

Robert Novak certainly IS a distinctly disagreeable man who, among many other things, outed covert CIA agent Valerie Plame. Like Mr. Pitts I was not made prostrate by grief, and I heard the whisper of common mortality and I felt sorry for the man’s loved ones. But I did not feel sorry for the man. I celebrated his misfortune, and I hope that Novak suffers like the victims of his lies.

Moreover, I agree that many times – especially as practiced by Novak, Bush, & Co. - Republicanism is a mental illness.

Does saying all that degrade me? No.

Do I feel degraded? No.

Should I? No.

Why?

First of all, consider home training. I’ll bet Pitts’ mom and my mom told us pretty much the same things, good and wise rules for interacting with regular folks – one of which was not to celebrate their misfortune. I agree with that – for regular people. I also believe in forgiving my enemies – but after they have shown remorse and been punished.

Novak is neither a “regular” person nor remorseful. Pitts puts Novak in the regular category – just a guy with whom one has political disagreements (like Reagan and Tip O’Neil), not a mortal enemy like Osama bin Laden. Well, that’s where we disagree.

Reagan and O'Neil were not regular folks. They had more in common with each other than they did with the people. They were "above" us arguing over policies that had little effect upon them but had radical effects upon us. They were like two opposing lawyers who can go like hell in the court room and then go out drinking together afterwards - it's no skin off their noses. When one isn’t touched by political actions, it’s easy not to take it personally.

I don’t think the amiable Gipper would have fared very well going out alone to drink with a bunch of fired air traffic controllers - not much chance of easy bonhomie at that watering hole.

As someone said, but with a different context, "Politics ain't beanbag." What politicians (especially Republicans) do to the poor, the young, minorities, women, workers, soldiers, foreigners and others is not beanbag. Slavery, lynching, child labor, secondary citizenship for women; unnecessary, illegal, and immoral wars; imperialism, mistreatment of veterans - on and on - have been and continue to be the fruit of politics. That's not beanbag, and the people whose lives have been ended, dwarfed, misshapen, perverted, or otherwise degraded have no responsibility to follow Mom's dictum in regard to their political tormentors and their lapdog pundits - such as Novak.

Abusers of the people, as are most Republicans, never seek common ground and are not susceptible to reason. They have been zealously true to destroying the New Deal since its beginning. They are for and of the upper class, and don’t mind a bit degrading everyone else. They see it as their right, refuse to see anything wrong with their behavior, and – as a result – do not and cannot feel remorse.

Were politicians and their Sophist mouthpieces ever held to appropriate accounting, punished appropriately for their treatment of regular people, they could be pitied, forgiven, and granted compassion in their personal tragedies.

But they are not, and they should not. President Bush has nearly destroyed this nation, broken laws and traditions, caused thousands of unnecessary deaths and injuries, and he will never be called to account, smirking, strutting, and talking to God until the end. Twisted distinctly disagreeable pundits like Novak have supported the degradation, benefited financially and professionally from it, and share responsibility for it. Novak is not sorry; he’s just out of time. Otherwise he’d be pumping away, pushing to deepen Americans’ degradation.

The only price men like Bush and Novak will ever pay for their inhumanity toward their fellow man is whatever personal “tragedy” they face as individual mortals. So, I am not degrading myself when I appreciate Novak’s personal “tragedy,” when I hope he and others like him suffer like the victims of their lies and that they rest in pain.

All of us will face personal tragedy. But all of us have not spent years of our lives ruthlessly working to benefit ourselves by serving elite benefactors, by zealously supporting the infliction of pain and personal tragedy upon the masses of humanity here and around the world.

These people are irredeemable scumbags. Whatever personal pain and agony they may face on their way out the door, it can’t come close to what they have helped push on the "little people." They don’t deserve an easy exit; the more suffering the better.

- Uke Man

Saturday, August 09, 2008

Posted by Picasa

Orwell's Diaries blogged each day for the next four years

Hey Folks -


Previously unpublished George Orwell diaries are being released online as a daily blog. The first entry, from Aug. 9, 1938, will appear online Saturday, August 9 - exactly 70 years after Orwell wrote it. The diaries shed light on European history and Orwell's life.

Hear the NPR story on this at:

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=93420286&m=93420250

Alex Chadwick speaks to Professor Jean Seaton of The Orwell Prize and Orwell's son Richard Blair about the diaries.



The diaries will be available daily at:


http://www.theorwellprize.co.uk/home.aspx




- Uke Man

Thursday, August 07, 2008

Van Gogh painting newly uncovered !!

Hey Folks -


A "new" Van Gogh!! Discovered under an "old" Van Gogh!!!


Hear the NPR report at:



See a video of how it was revealed at:


- Uke Man

Monday, August 04, 2008

"Jesus Gonna Be Here" - Ukulele Man & his Prodigal Sons

Hey Folks -

We had a lot of fun at the Tom Waits-a-Thon!!!

Below you can judge for yourself how we did (more on YouTube at kofcartoons1 ).

- Uke Man


Saturday, August 02, 2008

Sumerian Stand-up???

First Sumerian Stand-up Comic:
"Take my concubine, please!!"
Hey Folks -

I'll bet that the jokes below were old even in 1900 B.C.

They were pretty juvenile, and we haven't improved them that much either.

The Sumerian and Egyptian "jokes" should appeal to Republicans' so-called "sense of humor." The Brit wit better fits Democrats.

- Uke Man

World's oldest joke traced back to 1900 BC

LONDON (Reuters Life!) - The world's oldest recorded joke has been traced back to 1900 BC and suggests that toilet humor was as popular with the ancients as it is today.

It is a saying of the Sumerians, who lived in what is now southern Iraq and goes: "Something which has never occurred since time immemorial; a young woman did not fart in her husband's lap."

It heads the world's oldest top 10 joke list published by the University of Wolverhampton on Thursday.

A 1600 BC gag about a pharaoh, said to be King Snofru, comes second -- "How do you entertain a bored pharaoh? You sail a boatload of young women dressed only in fishing nets down the Nile and urge the pharaoh to go catch a fish."

The oldest British joke dates back to the 10th Century and reveals the bawdy face of the Anglo-Saxons -- "What hangs at a man's thigh and wants to poke the hole that it's often poked before? Answer: A key."

"Jokes have varied over the years, with some taking the question and answer format while others are witty proverbs or riddles," said the report's writer Dr Paul McDonald, senior lecturer at the university.

"What they all share however, is a willingness to deal with taboos and a degree of rebellion. Modern puns, Essex girl jokes and toilet humor can all be traced back to the very earliest jokes identified in this research."

The study was commissioned by television channel Dave. The top 10 oldest jokes can be viewed at http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/nm/lf_nm_life/storytext/britain_joke_dc/28420241/SIG=10qqhrvtq/*http:/www.dave-tv.co.uk.
(Reporting by John Joseph; Editing by Steve Addison)