this, obviously, is a scientific investigation in its infancy, but it just reminds me to say one more time (and this time on my blog): yo, people, drop the cell phone and start living. what's so effing important that it can't wait until you get to work or get home? why do you need to answer the phone in the car or on the bus or in the supermarket or as soon as you get off a plane or at a sporting event or on your morning break or when you're visiting someone at their house or...anyfuckingwhere?
of the people i know who have cell phones, how many have a land line as well? um, i think all of them. and how many of those have a message machine or voice mail attached to their land lines? um, yeah, once again: all of them. you will, of course, let me know if i'm wrong.
am i opposed to all cell phones? no. do i think the cell phone is an important invention? yes.
a cell phone on a road trip is a good thing in case of a flat tire or engine breakdown or injury accident. a cell phone is a nice luxury when one is on vacation in a remote or foreign land when something of import (e.g. death of a loved one) occurs. sometimes a cell phone is even financially preferable to a land line, but that is a very rare and shaky premise considering the amount of time most users spend on their cell phones (free minutes notwithstanding).
i spend approximately $31.75 per month to keep my home phone in operation. i don't feel the need for caller i.d. or three way or call waiting. if you call and my phone's busy, call back in a few minutes. if you're a telemarketer, watch out (i evidently have a bad habit of fucking with you when i've been imbibing). if it's important and you're local, drive or walk over.
i remember, as a child, not knowing what a phone sounded like after 6 p.m. that black made-of-graphite bludgeon, which sat somewhere in our kitchen, was something that adults talked on and sometimes made obscene gestures to. it was an important piece of furniture, but it was as foreign as foreign could be. as a child i knew what it did. but i didn't know why. i would be given the receiver on occasion to say hi to a grandparent or someone, but generally it was the possession and responsibility of an adult. and it sits there in my memory as magic as the fourth of july (which, for a couple of you dear readers, would include my firedancing).
rereading the above, i feel i need to give my definition of an adult:
"someone who knows how to use a tool properly". say what you will about the neanderthals. they learned about fire and spears to use in catching and cooking their prey. say what you will about the nazis, so did they. although, the nazis used the equivalent of the cell phone and it wasn't about survival. and it wasn't proper. so, the nazis really shouldn't be included in this definition of the word. let's scratch them out and go back to the neanderthals.
another quite interesting and disturbing phenomenom is the need for IMing while at work. or just checking for new text messages while at work. it's like email without the hassle of having to write real words. I M LOL. INMHO. LMAO. LMFAOWMWOH.
LOL has got to be the most overused acronym by people who want you to understand that they are making a joke. it's the new equivalent of the comedian's rimshot. you know, just in case we didn't get it. most of the time we get it. most of the time we still don't laugh. most of the time we're wondering if they got it when they felt the need to write LOL.
sometimes, it's a self-deprecating move. along the lines of "in case you thought i was serious...". or "no one gets my sense of humor unless it's in person, so i better put this one in or they'll think i'm a big buttfuck of a egotistical prick". or "please don't take it seriously yet that i'm depressed and suicidal".
but i digress. i meant to simply address the need to use cell phones away from working bees. my goodness, if any living being needed a cell phone it would be the bee. they travel from their hives, ride the breezes smelling for scent, get there, gather pollen, fly back to the hive, do a complicated dance to give directions to where they found the pollen, then hit the road again. several times a day.
then there's the giant cat (tiger, leopard, jaguar, puma, etc) that is forced to leave its mark wherever it goes to let the other cats know that this is its territory. it's been doing this since time immemorial with no upgrades. it could use a cell phone. call its rivals. let them know it's in the transvaal 40 until 5 p.m. and to stay the hell away.
elephants (when migrating) would be able to call ahead to traffic control and ask them to make sure the road was devoid of turtles and such that are slow to clear the way.
geese could get weather and windshear updates.
punxsutawney phil could just call it in.
but it is, of course, the humans who are blessed with this privilege. and use it to no effect at all.
so, excuse me when i say the LOL's on us as we waste our intelligence with gellifying our braincells on extravagances like the cell phone so we can get a call from a friend when they see us on national television at a ballgame.
we don't need cell phones. the rest of the animal kingdom might, though.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Friday, April 13, 2007
Rudy, We Hardly Knew Ye (well, i didn't at all)
(from Welcome To Pottersville, this post concerning the religious right's attack on separation of powers and a nod to rudy giuliani who many see as a sane and centrist man):
In 1981, Gary North, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement — the openly theocratic wing of the Christian right — suggested that the movement could achieve power by stealth. “Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure,” he wrote, “and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order.”
Today, Regent University, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson to provide “Christian leadership to change the world,” boasts that it has 150 graduates working in the Bush administration.
Unfortunately for the image of the school, where Mr. Robertson is chancellor and president, the most famous of those graduates is Monica Goodling, a product of the university’s law school. She’s the former top aide to Alberto Gonzales who appears central to the scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys and has declared that she will take the Fifth rather than testify to Congress on the matter.
The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda — which is very different from simply being people of faith — is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It’s also a story that tends to go underreported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.
But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to “dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.” And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge.
Kay Cole James, who had extensive connections to the religious right and was the dean of Regent’s government school, was the federal government’s chief personnel officer from 2001 to 2005. (Curious fact: she then took a job with Mitchell Wade, the businessman who bribed Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.) And it’s clear that unqualified people were hired throughout the administration because of their religious connections.
For example, The Boston Globe reports on one Regent law school graduate who was interviewed by the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Asked what Supreme Court decision of the past 20 years he most disagreed with, he named the decision to strike down a Texas anti-sodomy law. When he was hired, it was his only job offer.Or consider George Deutsch, the presidential appointee at NASA who told a Web site designer to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, to leave open the possibility of “intelligent design by a creator.” He turned out not to have, as he claimed, a degree from Texas A&M.
One measure of just how many Bushies were appointed to promote a religious agenda is how often a Christian right connection surfaces when we learn about a Bush administration scandal.
There’s Ms. Goodling, of course. But did you know that Rachel Paulose, the U.S. attorney in Minnesota — three of whose deputies recently stepped down, reportedly in protest over her management style — is, according to a local news report, in the habit of quoting Bible verses in the office?
Or there’s the case of Claude Allen, the presidential aide and former deputy secretary of health and human services, who stepped down after being investigated for petty theft. Most press reports, though they mentioned Mr. Allen’s faith, failed to convey the fact that he built his career as a man of the hard-line Christian right.
And there’s another thing most reporting fails to convey: the sheer extremism of these people.
You see, Regent isn’t a religious university the way Loyola or Yeshiva are religious universities. It’s run by someone whose first reaction to 9/11 was to brand it God’s punishment for America’s sins.
Two days after the terrorist attacks, Mr. Robertson held a conversation with Jerry Falwell on Mr. Robertson’s TV show “The 700 Club.” Mr. Falwell laid blame for the attack at the feet of “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians,” not to mention the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way. “Well, I totally concur,” said Mr. Robertson.
The Bush administration’s implosion clearly represents a setback for the Christian right’s strategy of infiltration. But it would be wildly premature to declare the danger over. This is a movement that has shown great resilience over the years. It will surely find new champions.
Next week Rudy Giuliani will be speaking at Regent’s Executive Leadership Series.
In 1981, Gary North, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement — the openly theocratic wing of the Christian right — suggested that the movement could achieve power by stealth. “Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure,” he wrote, “and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order.”
Today, Regent University, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson to provide “Christian leadership to change the world,” boasts that it has 150 graduates working in the Bush administration.
Unfortunately for the image of the school, where Mr. Robertson is chancellor and president, the most famous of those graduates is Monica Goodling, a product of the university’s law school. She’s the former top aide to Alberto Gonzales who appears central to the scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys and has declared that she will take the Fifth rather than testify to Congress on the matter.
The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda — which is very different from simply being people of faith — is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It’s also a story that tends to go underreported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.
But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to “dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.” And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge.
Kay Cole James, who had extensive connections to the religious right and was the dean of Regent’s government school, was the federal government’s chief personnel officer from 2001 to 2005. (Curious fact: she then took a job with Mitchell Wade, the businessman who bribed Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.) And it’s clear that unqualified people were hired throughout the administration because of their religious connections.
For example, The Boston Globe reports on one Regent law school graduate who was interviewed by the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Asked what Supreme Court decision of the past 20 years he most disagreed with, he named the decision to strike down a Texas anti-sodomy law. When he was hired, it was his only job offer.Or consider George Deutsch, the presidential appointee at NASA who told a Web site designer to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, to leave open the possibility of “intelligent design by a creator.” He turned out not to have, as he claimed, a degree from Texas A&M.
One measure of just how many Bushies were appointed to promote a religious agenda is how often a Christian right connection surfaces when we learn about a Bush administration scandal.
There’s Ms. Goodling, of course. But did you know that Rachel Paulose, the U.S. attorney in Minnesota — three of whose deputies recently stepped down, reportedly in protest over her management style — is, according to a local news report, in the habit of quoting Bible verses in the office?
Or there’s the case of Claude Allen, the presidential aide and former deputy secretary of health and human services, who stepped down after being investigated for petty theft. Most press reports, though they mentioned Mr. Allen’s faith, failed to convey the fact that he built his career as a man of the hard-line Christian right.
And there’s another thing most reporting fails to convey: the sheer extremism of these people.
You see, Regent isn’t a religious university the way Loyola or Yeshiva are religious universities. It’s run by someone whose first reaction to 9/11 was to brand it God’s punishment for America’s sins.
Two days after the terrorist attacks, Mr. Robertson held a conversation with Jerry Falwell on Mr. Robertson’s TV show “The 700 Club.” Mr. Falwell laid blame for the attack at the feet of “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians,” not to mention the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way. “Well, I totally concur,” said Mr. Robertson.
The Bush administration’s implosion clearly represents a setback for the Christian right’s strategy of infiltration. But it would be wildly premature to declare the danger over. This is a movement that has shown great resilience over the years. It will surely find new champions.
Next week Rudy Giuliani will be speaking at Regent’s Executive Leadership Series.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
F Bomb (Auld Lang Syne)
i don't like to crow. that's not me...normally. but there comes a time when i just can't keep it in. i gotta let it out. i gotta shout. i gotta strut and shake my stuff. jiggle the booty and shimmy the shake.
i'm going to see the san francisco giants play the new york yankees. did a bit of movin' and groovin', greasin' and wheelin' and shrimpin' the pimp if you know what i mean. yeah, you do. because you're sassy.
the freakin' giants are playing the fuckingyankees. to a diehard baseball fan this is nirvana. to a giants fan this is once in a lifetime plus peanuts. we've been waiting since 1962 to get another shot at those arrogant whale dorks.
i'm going to see the san francisco giants play the new york yankees. did a bit of movin' and groovin', greasin' and wheelin' and shrimpin' the pimp if you know what i mean. yeah, you do. because you're sassy.
the freakin' giants are playing the fuckingyankees. to a diehard baseball fan this is nirvana. to a giants fan this is once in a lifetime plus peanuts. we've been waiting since 1962 to get another shot at those arrogant whale dorks.
and arrogant they are with the likes of derek fuckingjeter, alex fuckingrodriguez, bernie fuckingwilliams, hideki fuckingmatsui, johnny fuckingdamon, bobby fuckingabreu, andy fuckingpettite, doug fuckingmientkiewicz, jason fuckinggiambi, josh fuckingphelps, miguel fuckingcairo, robinson fuckingcano, kyle fuckingfarnsworth, carl fuckingpavano, mike fuckingmussina...and,uh, mariano fuckingrivera.
the fuckingyankees do one thing well above all others. they stack their roster with fuckingplayers. and by fuckingplayers i mean real ballfucking players. ballfucking players who are all very fuckinggood at what they fuckingdo. some of the time they fuckinggel and sometimes they fuckingdon't. derek fuckingjeter owns four fuckingworld series champion rings. and he started in fuckingall of them. mariano fuckingrivera has those same four rings. fuckingplus one or two MVPs.
george steinfuckingbrenner (owner) has a good fuckingfarm system that he treats like a trading fuckingstable. he cultivates fuckinggood talent, then trades it for a goodfucking deal. unless it is fuckingtoo popular on the block. then he keeps and fuckinggrooms it.
george steinfuckingbrenner, also, buys the bestfucking talent he can afford. every year. and since he has more fuckingmoney than any other owner he can buy the bestfucking talent. fuckingperiod. keep the fuckingones who produce each year after year and fuckingboot the ones who don't. with no fuckingfear.
so, i want to see in person my stinking giants kick the crapping crapcrap out of those damnitall yankees.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Where's Generik?
first of all, i'd like to congratulate our first guesser (mr. mintzworks) for making the brave gesture of going first. you are to be commended, sir. truly.
secondly of all mustang, it is Harry: Men's Sweaters. or should be. and it should be said with the threat of a sister mob hit behind it.
lastly, you lie, dear mr. mintzworks. you did meet generik. i may have even introduced you. but you guessed right as well and i didn't prohibit knowing what he looks like from the contest. and you might have talked for as long as it took to say hi. [editor's note: forget that last sentence...please!]
so, well done. and, actually, i'm still impressed. the fact that he's looking away should have made it harder.
so...you win, you magnificent bastard.
what you've won i hadn't thought about until now. so, let it be...
...
...
...one free admission to an imax film when accompanied by moi. any film. name the time.
[editor's note: all times negotiable, all films negotiable]
secondly of all mustang, it is Harry: Men's Sweaters. or should be. and it should be said with the threat of a sister mob hit behind it.
lastly, you lie, dear mr. mintzworks. you did meet generik. i may have even introduced you. but you guessed right as well and i didn't prohibit knowing what he looks like from the contest. and you might have talked for as long as it took to say hi. [editor's note: forget that last sentence...please!]
so, well done. and, actually, i'm still impressed. the fact that he's looking away should have made it harder.
so...you win, you magnificent bastard.
what you've won i hadn't thought about until now. so, let it be...
...
...
...one free admission to an imax film when accompanied by moi. any film. name the time.
[editor's note: all times negotiable, all films negotiable]
a City excursion
this is how buses are supposed to look.
calling all mustangs.
so cool i peed myself.
then the game started...
...and we surrendered quickly and quietly...
after the game we found a quiet spot where the waitress was prompt, deft and oddly familiar looking...
belly shots...that is, if her belly is up around her hoo hoos...
generic showing a bit of bling.
the post game fights began with hair tossing as a dodger fan made bad bad lovin' to a giant girl and the marines just looked on without intervening...it was close to civil war.
finally, for those of you who know generic and those of you who just met him in the above picture, it's time to play the game: WHERE'S GENERIK? he's somewhere in here, i promise. exciting prize for the person who correctly identifies his row and seat number (employees and relatives of genericbling enterprises excluded).Thursday, April 05, 2007
Battle For Middle Earth V. Iraq
i've been playing this computer game of late that my brother got me into. it's called "battle for middle earth II". in it i create resources for money and buildings that recruit fighters. then i command them in battle.
honestly, i started with the evil campaign and directed goblins and trolls and mountain giants and nazgul to do woe upon the elves, dwarves and hobbits. i'm neither proud nor ashamed.
but one of the things i noticed while learning how to play the game is that when i create a few hordes and then attack the enemy i tend to get my ass kicked. also, when i create a lot of hordes and choose the wrong place to assail i tend to get my ass kicked.
with that in mind, i encourage you to seek this link and see for yourself what can happen in real life when a commander doesn't look to the future and prepare what should have been seen as a long, protracted battle in need of constant refreshing of cannon fodder resources anf monetary delinquincies.
honestly, i started with the evil campaign and directed goblins and trolls and mountain giants and nazgul to do woe upon the elves, dwarves and hobbits. i'm neither proud nor ashamed.
but one of the things i noticed while learning how to play the game is that when i create a few hordes and then attack the enemy i tend to get my ass kicked. also, when i create a lot of hordes and choose the wrong place to assail i tend to get my ass kicked.
with that in mind, i encourage you to seek this link and see for yourself what can happen in real life when a commander doesn't look to the future and prepare what should have been seen as a long, protracted battle in need of constant refreshing of cannon fodder resources anf monetary delinquincies.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Evolution Shmevolution
(from crooksandliars comes this reporting of a newsweek poll):
"Evolution fares poorly in Newsweek poll
By: Steve on Monday, April 2nd, 2007 at 12:22 PM - PDT
The latest Newsweek poll included a variety of interesting questions about Americans and religious matters, including the not-surprising fact that 91% of the public say they believe in God and almost as many (87 percent) say they identify with a specific religion. But perhaps more importantly, Newsweek also asked poll respondents about modern biology.
Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view.
These poll results come just a few months after an international study was conducted to measure which countries were the most accepting on evolutionary biology. Of the 34 countries involved, the United States ranked 33rd. Only Turkey ranked lower.
This is not at all encouraging. "
(not that any of us can prove one theory over another here, but this poll smacks of a bit of a tilt toward those on one side...or i could be wrong and darwin's indeed on the outs right now)
"Evolution fares poorly in Newsweek poll
By: Steve on Monday, April 2nd, 2007 at 12:22 PM - PDT
The latest Newsweek poll included a variety of interesting questions about Americans and religious matters, including the not-surprising fact that 91% of the public say they believe in God and almost as many (87 percent) say they identify with a specific religion. But perhaps more importantly, Newsweek also asked poll respondents about modern biology.
Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view.
These poll results come just a few months after an international study was conducted to measure which countries were the most accepting on evolutionary biology. Of the 34 countries involved, the United States ranked 33rd. Only Turkey ranked lower.
This is not at all encouraging. "
(not that any of us can prove one theory over another here, but this poll smacks of a bit of a tilt toward those on one side...or i could be wrong and darwin's indeed on the outs right now)
Thursday, March 29, 2007
DC United
speaking of spreading democracy...
...bob herbert has a good column here about DC's ongoing problem with political respect. because it's a district (as opposed to being a state) it is afforded no representation in Congress. and herbert brings up a very good point: while bush touts democracy as the current reason (well, one of a few) why we must "stay the course" in iraq, he and his cadre have worked very hard to keep it from happening in washington, dc. why? i dunno...maybe because it's primarily a democratic party oriented area (what with all of those pesky minorities and whonot) with half a million people? and considering that one electoral vote is two too many these days? and one extra representative or senator could be enough to tip the scales against him on a close vote or veto override?
i dunno.
the idea that the district should be kept from government representation, because it's the seat of power and should thusly be protected from partisan leanings is a joke. what i don't know is if these residents get to vote in the presidential primaries. hopefully, they do. all i know is that they have no voice in the senate or the house of representatives.
let's give them one. just one. then maybe they'll shut up and go back to shooting each other over whether they should get to own concealed weapons like all good americans.
...bob herbert has a good column here about DC's ongoing problem with political respect. because it's a district (as opposed to being a state) it is afforded no representation in Congress. and herbert brings up a very good point: while bush touts democracy as the current reason (well, one of a few) why we must "stay the course" in iraq, he and his cadre have worked very hard to keep it from happening in washington, dc. why? i dunno...maybe because it's primarily a democratic party oriented area (what with all of those pesky minorities and whonot) with half a million people? and considering that one electoral vote is two too many these days? and one extra representative or senator could be enough to tip the scales against him on a close vote or veto override?i dunno.
the idea that the district should be kept from government representation, because it's the seat of power and should thusly be protected from partisan leanings is a joke. what i don't know is if these residents get to vote in the presidential primaries. hopefully, they do. all i know is that they have no voice in the senate or the house of representatives.
let's give them one. just one. then maybe they'll shut up and go back to shooting each other over whether they should get to own concealed weapons like all good americans.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Jumpin' Jive
now, just what the hell is going on here?
over the past few months i've been witnessing the word "jive" used in countless web blogs, political commentaries, quotes from politicians and even in newspapers to describe situations where a person's actions don't conform to a person's words or stance on something.
example: bush's claim to be a uniter doesn't jive with any single thing he's done since he came into power.
when , in fact, the word to be used is "jibe". jibe originally was a term used at sea. it was a nautical term.
example: To turn a boat to take the wind on the other side, with the stern going through the wind. Unless the jibe is controlled, the boom will bang over and the sudden change of forces can cause momentary loss of control.
it, also, is a word used to describe consistency (or lack thereof).
example: agree with, as in: His alibi doesn't jibe with the testimony of eye-witnesses.
jive is slang for describing swing blues music. it is, also, used as a dismissive term when one person thinks another is handing him a bunch of bullshit.
example: BB King sings "My momma says she loves me, but she could be jivin' too".
only the urban dictionary has crossed the word "jive" over into sharing the same meaning as "jibe". and it's the fifth definition on the list.
but i guess it's the buzzword du jour and no one has the time to look into its etymology. we all know that politicians don't. and we all know that most political columnists won't.
think before you use the word. because jive don't jibe with jibe, it's just jive.
over the past few months i've been witnessing the word "jive" used in countless web blogs, political commentaries, quotes from politicians and even in newspapers to describe situations where a person's actions don't conform to a person's words or stance on something.
example: bush's claim to be a uniter doesn't jive with any single thing he's done since he came into power.
when , in fact, the word to be used is "jibe". jibe originally was a term used at sea. it was a nautical term.
example: To turn a boat to take the wind on the other side, with the stern going through the wind. Unless the jibe is controlled, the boom will bang over and the sudden change of forces can cause momentary loss of control.
it, also, is a word used to describe consistency (or lack thereof).
example: agree with, as in: His alibi doesn't jibe with the testimony of eye-witnesses.
jive is slang for describing swing blues music. it is, also, used as a dismissive term when one person thinks another is handing him a bunch of bullshit.
example: BB King sings "My momma says she loves me, but she could be jivin' too".
only the urban dictionary has crossed the word "jive" over into sharing the same meaning as "jibe". and it's the fifth definition on the list.
but i guess it's the buzzword du jour and no one has the time to look into its etymology. we all know that politicians don't. and we all know that most political columnists won't.
think before you use the word. because jive don't jibe with jibe, it's just jive.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Hmmm, Maybe Not Killing All The Lawyers IS A Bad Thing
J. Tony Serra, celebrated by filmmakers and fellow lawyers as an advocate for the downtrodden and jailed by the feds for dodging his taxes, was out of prison and back at work Wednesday -- suing over the low wages federal inmates earn and citing the 19 cents an hour he got for watering penitentiary gardens.
"I'm angry at a system that perpetuates, from my perspective, slave labor," Serra, 72, said at a news conference in his office on Broadway in San Francisco's North Beach. Behind him was a prisoner's painting showing a shackled and grimacing inmate in the hands of two guards.
He said he wasn't complaining about personal mistreatment -- his nine months at the federal prison camp in Lompoc (Santa Barbara County) and one month at a halfway house were "a 10-month vacation," he said -- but about systemic unfairness.
In the prison industries program, in which he and other inmates were required to work, he was assigned to water the prison gardens for five hours a day, 20 days a month, and paid $19 each month, or 19 cents an hour, Serra said. He said other prisoners whose work was much more arduous were paid between 5 cents and $1.65 an hour.
"Prison industries is a dirty secret," Serra said, describing a nationwide network of prison camps churning out products made by low-paid inmates for contractors and federal agencies that, he said, might otherwise buy the same goods from unionized private plants.He also sang the praises of "fabulous jailhouse lawyers" and of a multiracial society of inmates at Lompoc, where "white-collar millionaires and people right out of the ghetto were enjoying themselves together," united by their hatred of prison guards.It was vintage Serra.
"Tony has come out of his prison sentence even more energized to fight against injustice," said San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi, who testified on Serra's behalf at his July 2005 sentencing hearing. "You put him in prison, he's going to not only look at potential injustices, but he's the kind of person that does something when he gets out. It probably would have been cheaper for the government just to put Tony on probation."
Hollywood latched onto the attorney in the 1989 movie "True Believer," in which James Woods played a character based on Serra, who wins an acquittal in a Chinatown murder case. Adachi, who worked on the real-life case as a college student, recalled that he and others "couldn't find a lawyer in town" to help the defendant before locating Serra.
Serra also successfully defended Black Panthers leader Huey Newton in a murder trial and has represented scores of controversial and unpopular clients while living a Spartan life and driving a rundown car.His prison lawsuit, like many of his cases, appears to be a longshot. Others have challenged the prison pay system, citing federal minimum-wage laws and other arguments, without success.
Serra's lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court in San Francisco, invokes federal labor law, the constitutional ban on slavery and U.N. standards for treatment of prisoners. Serra's lawyer, John Murcko, said the U.N. standards entitle prisoners to "equitable remuneration" -- which he pegged at $25 an hour -- and that federal labor law should entitle them to the federal minimum wage, $5.15 an hour.
The suit seeks damages for all Lompoc inmates in the prison industries program, a number Murcko estimated at between 300 and 500. Felicia Ponce, spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, declined to comment on the suit or on prison wages. Serra was freed March 13 after serving a sentence for his third tax conviction, a guilty plea to two misdemeanor charges of willfully failing to pay $44,000 in federal income taxes in 1998 and 1999. He had previously spent four months at Lompoc in 1974 for failing to file tax returns, in a protest against the Vietnam War, and was given probation for filing late returns in 1986.
"I'm a lifelong tax boycotter," he said Wednesday. To maintain his law practice, he said, he'll comply with a court order to pay $100,000 in back taxes, and will "do my best to abide by the law" in the future.
He said his California law license was suspended for six months but has been restored, because his convictions were misdemeanors rather than felonies. That allowed him to practice law during his last months in prison, helping fellow inmates with their criminal cases as well as with divorces, wills and other matters, he said.
After 44 years as an attorney, Serra said, "I want to practice vigorously another 10." That means staying out of prison, he said, because "you can't fight them from inside."
(italics and bold letters mine all mine)
"I'm angry at a system that perpetuates, from my perspective, slave labor," Serra, 72, said at a news conference in his office on Broadway in San Francisco's North Beach. Behind him was a prisoner's painting showing a shackled and grimacing inmate in the hands of two guards.
He said he wasn't complaining about personal mistreatment -- his nine months at the federal prison camp in Lompoc (Santa Barbara County) and one month at a halfway house were "a 10-month vacation," he said -- but about systemic unfairness.
In the prison industries program, in which he and other inmates were required to work, he was assigned to water the prison gardens for five hours a day, 20 days a month, and paid $19 each month, or 19 cents an hour, Serra said. He said other prisoners whose work was much more arduous were paid between 5 cents and $1.65 an hour.
"Prison industries is a dirty secret," Serra said, describing a nationwide network of prison camps churning out products made by low-paid inmates for contractors and federal agencies that, he said, might otherwise buy the same goods from unionized private plants.He also sang the praises of "fabulous jailhouse lawyers" and of a multiracial society of inmates at Lompoc, where "white-collar millionaires and people right out of the ghetto were enjoying themselves together," united by their hatred of prison guards.It was vintage Serra.
"Tony has come out of his prison sentence even more energized to fight against injustice," said San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi, who testified on Serra's behalf at his July 2005 sentencing hearing. "You put him in prison, he's going to not only look at potential injustices, but he's the kind of person that does something when he gets out. It probably would have been cheaper for the government just to put Tony on probation."
Hollywood latched onto the attorney in the 1989 movie "True Believer," in which James Woods played a character based on Serra, who wins an acquittal in a Chinatown murder case. Adachi, who worked on the real-life case as a college student, recalled that he and others "couldn't find a lawyer in town" to help the defendant before locating Serra.
Serra also successfully defended Black Panthers leader Huey Newton in a murder trial and has represented scores of controversial and unpopular clients while living a Spartan life and driving a rundown car.His prison lawsuit, like many of his cases, appears to be a longshot. Others have challenged the prison pay system, citing federal minimum-wage laws and other arguments, without success.
Serra's lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court in San Francisco, invokes federal labor law, the constitutional ban on slavery and U.N. standards for treatment of prisoners. Serra's lawyer, John Murcko, said the U.N. standards entitle prisoners to "equitable remuneration" -- which he pegged at $25 an hour -- and that federal labor law should entitle them to the federal minimum wage, $5.15 an hour.
The suit seeks damages for all Lompoc inmates in the prison industries program, a number Murcko estimated at between 300 and 500. Felicia Ponce, spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, declined to comment on the suit or on prison wages. Serra was freed March 13 after serving a sentence for his third tax conviction, a guilty plea to two misdemeanor charges of willfully failing to pay $44,000 in federal income taxes in 1998 and 1999. He had previously spent four months at Lompoc in 1974 for failing to file tax returns, in a protest against the Vietnam War, and was given probation for filing late returns in 1986.
"I'm a lifelong tax boycotter," he said Wednesday. To maintain his law practice, he said, he'll comply with a court order to pay $100,000 in back taxes, and will "do my best to abide by the law" in the future.
He said his California law license was suspended for six months but has been restored, because his convictions were misdemeanors rather than felonies. That allowed him to practice law during his last months in prison, helping fellow inmates with their criminal cases as well as with divorces, wills and other matters, he said.
After 44 years as an attorney, Serra said, "I want to practice vigorously another 10." That means staying out of prison, he said, because "you can't fight them from inside."
(italics and bold letters mine all mine)
Friday, March 16, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Happy Birthday To Me
if you've been following the recent spate of federal prosecutorial firings by the Justice Department (and Alberto Gonzales) and thought to yourself "well, here's a new spin problem for Bush and Co.", perhaps you should take a look at this.
Seems there was another a few years back that smells just a bit coincidental and feels just a tad slimily familiar. Jack (Abram)off was being investigated (well, a lot of people were) for ties to corruption on the tiny island of Guam. just as the temporary (despite being in the position for a decade and being put there by Bush, Sr.) prosecuter was really getting going he was summarily demoted and a cousin of one of the "targets" was instated in his place (the cousin then recused himself due to confilct of interest and the whole issue of corruption went away). bad timing or good? abramoff brought down a few highly placed republican politicians when he was finally brought to justice here in the states. but why would Bush (or his handlers) worry so much about what happens in a protectorate? unless, of course, jack was making big money for republican politicians and big business (note the reference to sweatshops).
remember: in politics, the only species woth protecting is your own and the gophers digging your holes. and that is exactly what Jack was for the republican party: a gopher. he tunneled into where others couldn't be seen to go aboveground. and the only reason he got caught and couldn't be protected in the end was because he tried to sell indians some more infected blankets.
but this is merely a preamble to what is happening now. only eight out of the 93 federal prosecutors were fired or demoted. but of the eight only three had been given less than satisfactory evaluations. three were given positive evals and three were given satisfactory. one put away a couple of california republicans, one wasn't moving fast enough on voter fraud claims connected to democrats. one, in seattle, nobody knows why. one was removed to make way for a Karl Rove protege.
the administration and justice department fist claimed that all were removed due to poor performance evals. next, they said that while some were poor, others were just told to leave, because that's what a president can do. finally, alberto gonzales said mistakes were made and certain people speaking under oath to congress did so without all the proper information (when they were insisting that all removals were due to poor performance) and did not constitute perjury. he said he is responsible even though it's been proven that karl rove was bringing some of the complaints by republican politicians straight to him and the president and that the president "may have" related some of the complaints "informally" to gonzales.
it's also been proven that the move to purge the prosecutorial rolls of those not in line with administration policy dates back a few years. harriet miers, then legal counsel to bush, suggested firing all 93 and starting off fresh after the 2004 election. she was beaten down by those much smarter than her (i.e. karl rove), because the others knew all too well what kind of political backlash that would cause (damn skippy). instead, they took their time to figure out the worst of the worst (those who sought to punish people for breaking the law) vs. the best of the best (those who toed the administration's policies).
and, thus, this conservative republican administration is being seen for what it's best at: heavyhandedness vs. what it's worst at: evenhandedness.
if you hire a prosecuter to prosecute lawbreakers, then let that person prosecute them all.
p.s. i just realized that this is the two year anniversary of my starting this silly blog. happy birthday to me and to all squirrels.
Seems there was another a few years back that smells just a bit coincidental and feels just a tad slimily familiar. Jack (Abram)off was being investigated (well, a lot of people were) for ties to corruption on the tiny island of Guam. just as the temporary (despite being in the position for a decade and being put there by Bush, Sr.) prosecuter was really getting going he was summarily demoted and a cousin of one of the "targets" was instated in his place (the cousin then recused himself due to confilct of interest and the whole issue of corruption went away). bad timing or good? abramoff brought down a few highly placed republican politicians when he was finally brought to justice here in the states. but why would Bush (or his handlers) worry so much about what happens in a protectorate? unless, of course, jack was making big money for republican politicians and big business (note the reference to sweatshops).
remember: in politics, the only species woth protecting is your own and the gophers digging your holes. and that is exactly what Jack was for the republican party: a gopher. he tunneled into where others couldn't be seen to go aboveground. and the only reason he got caught and couldn't be protected in the end was because he tried to sell indians some more infected blankets.
but this is merely a preamble to what is happening now. only eight out of the 93 federal prosecutors were fired or demoted. but of the eight only three had been given less than satisfactory evaluations. three were given positive evals and three were given satisfactory. one put away a couple of california republicans, one wasn't moving fast enough on voter fraud claims connected to democrats. one, in seattle, nobody knows why. one was removed to make way for a Karl Rove protege.
the administration and justice department fist claimed that all were removed due to poor performance evals. next, they said that while some were poor, others were just told to leave, because that's what a president can do. finally, alberto gonzales said mistakes were made and certain people speaking under oath to congress did so without all the proper information (when they were insisting that all removals were due to poor performance) and did not constitute perjury. he said he is responsible even though it's been proven that karl rove was bringing some of the complaints by republican politicians straight to him and the president and that the president "may have" related some of the complaints "informally" to gonzales.
it's also been proven that the move to purge the prosecutorial rolls of those not in line with administration policy dates back a few years. harriet miers, then legal counsel to bush, suggested firing all 93 and starting off fresh after the 2004 election. she was beaten down by those much smarter than her (i.e. karl rove), because the others knew all too well what kind of political backlash that would cause (damn skippy). instead, they took their time to figure out the worst of the worst (those who sought to punish people for breaking the law) vs. the best of the best (those who toed the administration's policies).
and, thus, this conservative republican administration is being seen for what it's best at: heavyhandedness vs. what it's worst at: evenhandedness.
if you hire a prosecuter to prosecute lawbreakers, then let that person prosecute them all.
p.s. i just realized that this is the two year anniversary of my starting this silly blog. happy birthday to me and to all squirrels.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Rogue Festival, Week One, Part Two
the wheel of dad appearing only at the rogue festival:
this one is my one art shot of the first weekend:
this one is my one art shot of the first weekend:
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Rogue 2007, First Saturday
dear journal,
today was my second day of Rogue 2007. this was the first day that i remembered to bring my camera. the previous first day i was a nervous wreck getting ready for my first day as a truly free man who had ended a long relationship over a year before and was now about to see my ex for the first time since that fateful day. naturally, i showered, shaved and applied deoderant even though i knew i had nothing to prove despite the 10 pounds i had gained and the stress acne thqt now dotted my face. i could tell myself that i felt confident seeing my ex in oublic and did a good job of not smelling my pits after the second hour.
it didn't bother me, as well, that a cameraman was following me around and recording my every move. that's how stable i was. of course, i have no idea why i was being followed. unless it shows up on punked or jackass. than i'll understand hindsight, 20/20 and payback's a bitch.
nevertheless, i saw two shows on friday. my parents were in town for the festival (all the way from spokane) and my son was on his way down from san francisco via amtrak.
i began the festival with a group of shakespeare monologues tied together with interim preparatory exhalations. nicely done, inventive, not too shabby for an opemning night. after that, i hung around the same venue for some chart toppers from the year 1349. it was evidently a hell of a year for pop hits if you're into european folk tales told by a roast master. which it tuns out i was.
on saturday i began my true rogu-on with a show about a man who wanted to be a concert organist and settled for alcohol and the church (insert own punchline about man/organ/priest). chuckled, giggled, snarked my ass off to this one. but no pictures. i have a rule about taking photos in theater productions.
than, it was on to the trike shop, which i have pictures for. blake, the gang and his daughter chelsea did their best to convince us we should send them to liverpool. the one question left unanswered was: are we helping to pay for one way or round trip tickets?
next, i went over to dada, but i deleted her pictures and have nothing at the moment. so, i leave you with this shot of the ugliest marmoset i've ever seen:
to be followed by the cutest tyke at the fest so far:
followed by the hottest hootchie mama:
and then some too rapid percussion by stan of poplord (a great duo to check out at veni's):
and then there was me at home in front of the keyboard wondering if the cat i was housesitting would let me get some sleep tonight (as chris would say: overactive pussy CAN be a bad thing).
today was my second day of Rogue 2007. this was the first day that i remembered to bring my camera. the previous first day i was a nervous wreck getting ready for my first day as a truly free man who had ended a long relationship over a year before and was now about to see my ex for the first time since that fateful day. naturally, i showered, shaved and applied deoderant even though i knew i had nothing to prove despite the 10 pounds i had gained and the stress acne thqt now dotted my face. i could tell myself that i felt confident seeing my ex in oublic and did a good job of not smelling my pits after the second hour.
it didn't bother me, as well, that a cameraman was following me around and recording my every move. that's how stable i was. of course, i have no idea why i was being followed. unless it shows up on punked or jackass. than i'll understand hindsight, 20/20 and payback's a bitch.
nevertheless, i saw two shows on friday. my parents were in town for the festival (all the way from spokane) and my son was on his way down from san francisco via amtrak.
i began the festival with a group of shakespeare monologues tied together with interim preparatory exhalations. nicely done, inventive, not too shabby for an opemning night. after that, i hung around the same venue for some chart toppers from the year 1349. it was evidently a hell of a year for pop hits if you're into european folk tales told by a roast master. which it tuns out i was.
on saturday i began my true rogu-on with a show about a man who wanted to be a concert organist and settled for alcohol and the church (insert own punchline about man/organ/priest). chuckled, giggled, snarked my ass off to this one. but no pictures. i have a rule about taking photos in theater productions.
than, it was on to the trike shop, which i have pictures for. blake, the gang and his daughter chelsea did their best to convince us we should send them to liverpool. the one question left unanswered was: are we helping to pay for one way or round trip tickets?
next, i went over to dada, but i deleted her pictures and have nothing at the moment. so, i leave you with this shot of the ugliest marmoset i've ever seen:
to be followed by the cutest tyke at the fest so far:
followed by the hottest hootchie mama:
and then some too rapid percussion by stan of poplord (a great duo to check out at veni's):
and then there was me at home in front of the keyboard wondering if the cat i was housesitting would let me get some sleep tonight (as chris would say: overactive pussy CAN be a bad thing).
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
while this is merely a "non-paper" (meaning it lacks legal status) it is interesting and will not likely make the mainstream press in any meaningful way. but the mere fact that israel and syria have been meeting in secret for a few years to negotiate a new territory treaty while those between israel and the palestinians have unraveled repeatedly even before they were announced as dead is of note. if you click on the above link take a look at the map of the proposed parkway...it's huge, the entire golan heights. and it would be accessible to both syrians and israelis. read the article and you will see that, as of now, if all terms are met the syrians would disavow hezbollah (syria is the prime military and political backer of that terrorist organization).
will it actually come to pass? probably not. nothing ever really does in that part of the world. too many extreme factions within all governments that proclude any real attempt at peace. but this one is a new twist between two countries historically turned against one another.
will it actually come to pass? probably not. nothing ever really does in that part of the world. too many extreme factions within all governments that proclude any real attempt at peace. but this one is a new twist between two countries historically turned against one another.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Did the President Declare "Secret War" Against Syria and Iran
Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.
also, KFSO in San Francisco is under attack by a blogger who has been emailing their so-called hate speech to advertisers and asking them whether they really want to continue supporting such language. and mediamatters has their response to KFO's claim that it is behind all of this. while i will not be able to listen in to tomorrow's broadcast it will be interesting to read in the aftermath.
also, KFSO in San Francisco is under attack by a blogger who has been emailing their so-called hate speech to advertisers and asking them whether they really want to continue supporting such language. and mediamatters has their response to KFO's claim that it is behind all of this. while i will not be able to listen in to tomorrow's broadcast it will be interesting to read in the aftermath.
Monday, January 08, 2007
jack and george
from 2003:
...yeah, didn't know him, never met him, don't know what y'all are talking about. i take pitchurs with lotsa peeples. don't mean i never met 'em.
...yeah, didn't know him, never met him, don't know what y'all are talking about. i take pitchurs with lotsa peeples. don't mean i never met 'em.Thursday, January 04, 2007
(from Daily News)
WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.
(from Alternet)
"Casualties" in the military sense is the total number made unavailable for duty from all causes, including deaths and wounds suffered in combat as well as injuries, accidents and illness in a war "theater" such as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (the official Pentagon name for the invasion and occupation). So whether caused by "hostile" (24,965 as of Dec.27) or "non-hostile" (25,406 as of Dec. 2) causes, the Pentagon's own web sites record a toll of more than 50,000 so far in "OIF."
now, for those of you out there who think that saddam hussein's death is "great news" or a "vindication of our reasons for invasion" or "justice served", let me remind you of a few facts.
1) all of the weapons of mass destruction that he purportedly had in stock (which he evidently began dismantling after 1991) were supplied to him by us.
2) while our government has been recently declaring his war against Iran in the 1980's as "barbaric" and "unwarranted", it was supplying him with weapons, logistics and advisors during the actual event.
3) when he gassed the Kurds, mass-killed dissenting Shiites and executed family members our government turned a blind eye, because he was conveniently the enemy of our enemy (Iran).
4) when our government claimed that hussein was not allowing unfettered access to supposed weapons making sites just before our current invasion and had kicked out the UN inspectors, it was lying. the UN had reported in the months prior to the current invasion that hussein had stopped all obstuction and they were making spot checks of anything they wanted without advance notice and previously assigned "bodyguards". the UN inspectors also said that they were told by our government that it could not guarantee their safety when it started the "shock and awe" campaign and told them to get out of Iraq then and there (less than a week prior to the initial bombing).
5) NOT ONE weapon of mass distruction was found when, since and after we invaded this time. not one. the "smoking gun" seems to have been our government's ineptitude. remember that we went from 9/11 connections (that never had a shred of credibility) to WMD and its "mushroom cloud in 40 minutes" capability to "he's a brutal dictator" to "either we fight them over there or we fight them over here" to the spread of democracy (not necessarily in that order).
6) while some Iraqis celebrate his death, many more mourn the fact that it now seems that life was better back then. all they had to do was live their lives quietly and let hussein live out his derangement and everything was acceptable. they had electricity, gas, water, schools, mosques and churches, freedom (somewhat) of the press, women could hold public jobs and walk in the streets without having to wear black from head to toe...all of these things look very good to a country that cannot even send their children to school without bodyguards, cannot open their stores without fear of kidnapping and execution, do not know someone who has fallen prey to the myriad killing squads or US forces, and dare not publicly display their ethnic affliliation.
7) a somewhat popular argument for toppling hussein is that "we created him, we were reponsible for taking him out". this is given by war hawks to those of us who mention that we did indeed (while not creating him) back, arm and enforce his rule for many years. but this argument is fellacious an dissembling. the only reason he turned on the USA is because, after the Iran/Iraq war, our government encountered much criticism by foreign leaders for arming him in the first place with weapons of bacteriological and viral nature. because of this assault we stopped. when we stopped he retaliated through hyperbole and condemned us. instead of coming clean and admitting our mistake, we began a long war of detraction. and when Iraq invaded Kuwait we found our "out" as it were. we were much better friends with Kuwait at the time than we were with Iraq.
8) although it has not been completely verified or completely dismissed, the argument remains that iraq invaded Kuwait (in 1990?), because Kuwait was slantdrilling for oil into Iraqi soil. to make it simple, the argument goes that kuwait began the drilling on their territory, but drilled at a 45 degree angle (or so) to tap oil preserves in Iraq. simple to do, hard to detect without seismic stations (which all mideast nations have for this very reason and for oil reserve exploration). if it's true, we have a secular mideast nation attacking an islamic nation based on theft.
9) secular. our government wants "democracy" to spread and shine throughout the world. while it's only a 231 year old experiment many of us can agree that it seems to be working somewhat. but we just kicked the shit out of one of the only secular governments in the mideast. and secular is what we want. so long as a country is ruled by islamic law or sharia law we will make no inroads. they will accept our help in whichever avenue, but we cannot infringe on their holy writ for that is ultimate law. for example, Saudi Arabia: we supply them with military hardware and they send us terrorists to blow up our buildings and kill our citizens. but we still have no beef with them. then there's Pakistan. we supply them with military hardware and the ability to make a nuclear bomb, they declare they're on our side in the War On Terror, but harbor the Taliban and al-quaeda. and we claim we can't invade that sovereign nation in order to attack terrorists when we had invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for that very reason. and Iraq and Afghanistan were sovereign nations. and we have no beef with Pakistan. Somalia is in the midst of an Islamic takeover and we stand back, even though the citizens don't want Islam and are being mass killed for it. do we have any sense of balance? or are we letting our government become just like the militias and sects that dominate all of these other countries? the one thing that will destroy us as a nation and idea is sectarian difference. and there's no better way to achieve this than to polarize the people, which is what has been happening for the last 20 years. you're either pro-abortion or you're not. you're either pro-handgun or you're not. you're either faith-based or you're not. you're either democrat or you're fascist. you're either republican or you're a terrorist sympathiser.
which may or may not get me to my point. killing saddam hussein was a stupid idea by our government. we paid for the trial and we knew how it would be decided. there was never a question of his guilt based on the accusations. and the fact that he was an asshole. but every country is ruled by an asshole. it's the nature of the beast. you want power, you will do whatever you have to do to achieve it. any country, every country. and the very act of killing hussein has made him a martyr. while the USA could not carry out the actual execution, its "we're not involved and this decision is that of the Iraqis alone" defense is seen as so much bullshit by the world and by most of the US citizens themselves. we caused this and we allowed it to happen. and, even as we claim to want to reach out to all Iraqis, we let the Shiite government lynch this man. he wore no hood and his executioners did (in Iraq and other countries the wearing of a hood or mask while killing another is seen as an act of cowardice). he was taunted by his executioners, which is also not allowed. he was killed on a holy day, which is not allowed. the current Iraqi government displayed complete and utter disregard for the rules and tenets that they claim adherence to every time they enter a mosque to pray. which makes them the same as our rulers.
at work i heard one fellow say that saddam hussein's death was "great news". i asked him why. he said "it's great. he deserved to die". i asked him how this affected his daily life and why he should be so glad. he replied "i don't know. i'm just happy that he's dead after all the people he killed". i asked him if, based on that, it would be okay for me to come into work with a smile on my face if our President Bush was assassinated, because of the 3000 soldiers and between 50,000 and 600,000 Iraqis that had died because of his decision to attack. he laughed and said it WAS okayso long as i didn't get happy if the lead singer of Slayer died.
and that's when i knew i still liked living in America. we can disagree on just about everything, but not when it comes to rock and roll.
WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.
(from Alternet)
"Casualties" in the military sense is the total number made unavailable for duty from all causes, including deaths and wounds suffered in combat as well as injuries, accidents and illness in a war "theater" such as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (the official Pentagon name for the invasion and occupation). So whether caused by "hostile" (24,965 as of Dec.27) or "non-hostile" (25,406 as of Dec. 2) causes, the Pentagon's own web sites record a toll of more than 50,000 so far in "OIF."
now, for those of you out there who think that saddam hussein's death is "great news" or a "vindication of our reasons for invasion" or "justice served", let me remind you of a few facts.
1) all of the weapons of mass destruction that he purportedly had in stock (which he evidently began dismantling after 1991) were supplied to him by us.
2) while our government has been recently declaring his war against Iran in the 1980's as "barbaric" and "unwarranted", it was supplying him with weapons, logistics and advisors during the actual event.
3) when he gassed the Kurds, mass-killed dissenting Shiites and executed family members our government turned a blind eye, because he was conveniently the enemy of our enemy (Iran).
4) when our government claimed that hussein was not allowing unfettered access to supposed weapons making sites just before our current invasion and had kicked out the UN inspectors, it was lying. the UN had reported in the months prior to the current invasion that hussein had stopped all obstuction and they were making spot checks of anything they wanted without advance notice and previously assigned "bodyguards". the UN inspectors also said that they were told by our government that it could not guarantee their safety when it started the "shock and awe" campaign and told them to get out of Iraq then and there (less than a week prior to the initial bombing).
5) NOT ONE weapon of mass distruction was found when, since and after we invaded this time. not one. the "smoking gun" seems to have been our government's ineptitude. remember that we went from 9/11 connections (that never had a shred of credibility) to WMD and its "mushroom cloud in 40 minutes" capability to "he's a brutal dictator" to "either we fight them over there or we fight them over here" to the spread of democracy (not necessarily in that order).
6) while some Iraqis celebrate his death, many more mourn the fact that it now seems that life was better back then. all they had to do was live their lives quietly and let hussein live out his derangement and everything was acceptable. they had electricity, gas, water, schools, mosques and churches, freedom (somewhat) of the press, women could hold public jobs and walk in the streets without having to wear black from head to toe...all of these things look very good to a country that cannot even send their children to school without bodyguards, cannot open their stores without fear of kidnapping and execution, do not know someone who has fallen prey to the myriad killing squads or US forces, and dare not publicly display their ethnic affliliation.
7) a somewhat popular argument for toppling hussein is that "we created him, we were reponsible for taking him out". this is given by war hawks to those of us who mention that we did indeed (while not creating him) back, arm and enforce his rule for many years. but this argument is fellacious an dissembling. the only reason he turned on the USA is because, after the Iran/Iraq war, our government encountered much criticism by foreign leaders for arming him in the first place with weapons of bacteriological and viral nature. because of this assault we stopped. when we stopped he retaliated through hyperbole and condemned us. instead of coming clean and admitting our mistake, we began a long war of detraction. and when Iraq invaded Kuwait we found our "out" as it were. we were much better friends with Kuwait at the time than we were with Iraq.
8) although it has not been completely verified or completely dismissed, the argument remains that iraq invaded Kuwait (in 1990?), because Kuwait was slantdrilling for oil into Iraqi soil. to make it simple, the argument goes that kuwait began the drilling on their territory, but drilled at a 45 degree angle (or so) to tap oil preserves in Iraq. simple to do, hard to detect without seismic stations (which all mideast nations have for this very reason and for oil reserve exploration). if it's true, we have a secular mideast nation attacking an islamic nation based on theft.
9) secular. our government wants "democracy" to spread and shine throughout the world. while it's only a 231 year old experiment many of us can agree that it seems to be working somewhat. but we just kicked the shit out of one of the only secular governments in the mideast. and secular is what we want. so long as a country is ruled by islamic law or sharia law we will make no inroads. they will accept our help in whichever avenue, but we cannot infringe on their holy writ for that is ultimate law. for example, Saudi Arabia: we supply them with military hardware and they send us terrorists to blow up our buildings and kill our citizens. but we still have no beef with them. then there's Pakistan. we supply them with military hardware and the ability to make a nuclear bomb, they declare they're on our side in the War On Terror, but harbor the Taliban and al-quaeda. and we claim we can't invade that sovereign nation in order to attack terrorists when we had invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for that very reason. and Iraq and Afghanistan were sovereign nations. and we have no beef with Pakistan. Somalia is in the midst of an Islamic takeover and we stand back, even though the citizens don't want Islam and are being mass killed for it. do we have any sense of balance? or are we letting our government become just like the militias and sects that dominate all of these other countries? the one thing that will destroy us as a nation and idea is sectarian difference. and there's no better way to achieve this than to polarize the people, which is what has been happening for the last 20 years. you're either pro-abortion or you're not. you're either pro-handgun or you're not. you're either faith-based or you're not. you're either democrat or you're fascist. you're either republican or you're a terrorist sympathiser.
which may or may not get me to my point. killing saddam hussein was a stupid idea by our government. we paid for the trial and we knew how it would be decided. there was never a question of his guilt based on the accusations. and the fact that he was an asshole. but every country is ruled by an asshole. it's the nature of the beast. you want power, you will do whatever you have to do to achieve it. any country, every country. and the very act of killing hussein has made him a martyr. while the USA could not carry out the actual execution, its "we're not involved and this decision is that of the Iraqis alone" defense is seen as so much bullshit by the world and by most of the US citizens themselves. we caused this and we allowed it to happen. and, even as we claim to want to reach out to all Iraqis, we let the Shiite government lynch this man. he wore no hood and his executioners did (in Iraq and other countries the wearing of a hood or mask while killing another is seen as an act of cowardice). he was taunted by his executioners, which is also not allowed. he was killed on a holy day, which is not allowed. the current Iraqi government displayed complete and utter disregard for the rules and tenets that they claim adherence to every time they enter a mosque to pray. which makes them the same as our rulers.
at work i heard one fellow say that saddam hussein's death was "great news". i asked him why. he said "it's great. he deserved to die". i asked him how this affected his daily life and why he should be so glad. he replied "i don't know. i'm just happy that he's dead after all the people he killed". i asked him if, based on that, it would be okay for me to come into work with a smile on my face if our President Bush was assassinated, because of the 3000 soldiers and between 50,000 and 600,000 Iraqis that had died because of his decision to attack. he laughed and said it WAS okayso long as i didn't get happy if the lead singer of Slayer died.
and that's when i knew i still liked living in America. we can disagree on just about everything, but not when it comes to rock and roll.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Cannon Fodder?
WASHINGTON -- The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks -- including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer -- according to Pentagon officials.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
left a comment with a blogger friend today that made me think about my blog and just why i still cling to it. and i can't come up with a validating reason. i don't write for you. never did. i started this to write for myself and vent my political unhappiness. but that doesn't work anymore. and i don't feel a need to tell you little details about my daily life. so, i think i'll make a new move with this blog and let it ride for a while. honestly, it's gotten to be boring and almost obligatory in that i must blog in order to increase my total number of posts. and that's just stupid and masturbatory.
i'll be back. probably sooner than later and all four or five of you can then revel in the unmitigated orgasmal ecstasy i used to provide on a regular basis.
until then, (in the immortal words of snoop dogg) lick me.
i'll be back. probably sooner than later and all four or five of you can then revel in the unmitigated orgasmal ecstasy i used to provide on a regular basis.
until then, (in the immortal words of snoop dogg) lick me.
Friday, December 01, 2006
from the news today:
Iraq's Interior Ministry said Thursday it had formed a special unit to monitor news coverage and vowed to take legal action against journalists who failed to correct stories the ministry deemed to be incorrect.
Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, spokesman for the ministry, said the purpose of the special monitoring unit was to find "fabricated and false news that hurts and gives the Iraqis a wrong picture that the security situation is very bad, when the facts are totally different."
He said offenders would be notified and asked to "correct these false reports on their main news programs. But if they do not change those lying, false stories, then we will seek legal action against them."
well, welcome to Democracy 101, funded and backed by our very own government. do you know how many bodies are found each day in Iraq dead due to torture? dozens. do you know the most popular tool for torture in Iraq? the common drill gun. evidently there was no need for the Iraqi government to cover up those stories. but now that six men were pulled from a mosque and burned alive, well that's just too much. the lying by AP journalists must stop!!!
i like that stories "deemed" incorrect part. and "lying, false stories". yum.
Iraq's Interior Ministry said Thursday it had formed a special unit to monitor news coverage and vowed to take legal action against journalists who failed to correct stories the ministry deemed to be incorrect.
Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, spokesman for the ministry, said the purpose of the special monitoring unit was to find "fabricated and false news that hurts and gives the Iraqis a wrong picture that the security situation is very bad, when the facts are totally different."
He said offenders would be notified and asked to "correct these false reports on their main news programs. But if they do not change those lying, false stories, then we will seek legal action against them."
well, welcome to Democracy 101, funded and backed by our very own government. do you know how many bodies are found each day in Iraq dead due to torture? dozens. do you know the most popular tool for torture in Iraq? the common drill gun. evidently there was no need for the Iraqi government to cover up those stories. but now that six men were pulled from a mosque and burned alive, well that's just too much. the lying by AP journalists must stop!!!
i like that stories "deemed" incorrect part. and "lying, false stories". yum.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
i went to las vegas recently. i had been seduced by a nymph goddess patting among the water lilies somewhere down in the tower district on a tuesday in the afternoon sometime back in july as i walked from one drinking establishment to the next.
i told her at the time that i did not favor las vegas, because it was a den of iniquity, bed of sin, city of slots (umlaut over the "o").
she replied that the "(b)light in the desert" had changed and was now family friendly. roller coasters, aquariums, tiger and lion shows, atriums, covered titties and whatnot...
...so i went with her.
to her credit, i saw not one uncovered tittie...except... 
...and i saw families. families i saw. saw i families. i...families...saw. big and small. black and white. yellow and swarthy. two legged and, uh, more legged. how to put this...
...las vegas is now so inclusive that families of all kinds, stripes and genuses are flocking to the Strip:
this hot momma was so protective of her children she actually sauntered while we stared. like she didn't care that she was dressed all in black and leatherish looking stuff. she was very protective and shiny. my nymph seductress was very pukish and not shiny at all even though she was the one who pointed this out.
and that's all you need to know about what happened on my vacation.
Friday, November 17, 2006
for a chilling video of a UCLA student being tasered by campus cops for not leaving the library fast enough, go here. the video is handheld and probably some kind of camera phone, so there is more audio than there is video. plus, you get to hear other students being threatened with tasering for asking for badges and names. it runs about 5 minutes.
added: the student is now claiming through his lawyer that he felt he was being racially profiled (because he is of Iranian descent) and refused to show his student i.d. for that reason. at UCLA, the cops (who are LAPD, not campus) do random sweeps at night through the library to ensure that only students are using the library. non-students are told to leave. he evidently was told to leave when he wouldn't show i.d, but didn't immediately. when the cops came back by he was on his feet and walking towards the exit. the resulting confrontation began when one of the cops touched him in some manner and he yelled for the cop to not touch him.
two questions:
1) why didn't he just show his i.d. in the first place?
2) why did the cops feel the need to become violent so quickly?
looking through the comments and blogs written by people present it seems that the cops are claiming the student provoked them by resisting and was trying to get the other students to help him. the students present are writing that this was absolutely not the case. they feel he yelled in order to draw attention to what was happening, but not to incite anything.
some people are claiming that is an act of civil disobedience, but i am going to wait until all of the facts are in before assessing any kind of blame or noble act here.
one thing i do know for sure based on the audio is that, if the cops didn't tase him and only "stunned" him, the only difference between tasing and stunning is stunning allows you to scream like crazy (in the movies, people who are tased just freeze up and fall to the ground).
third question:
does anyone besides me feel that the police in general are becoming less like the "thin blue line" and more like the "thick steel curtain" in terms of living within a siege state?
i mean, what prompts a cop to tase a student 7 or more times in a campus library in front of numerous students for no more reason that the feeling that the student was passively resisting arrest?
p.s. on a sidenote, the UC Davis campus police have decided to place decoy backpacks around the campus and keep them under surveillence in order to arrest people who might take them. does this sound like entrapment? this info was in a memo sent out by the campus police (on their website, i believe). are they having a surge in backpack thefts? or are they looking for people to arrest? anyone with information on this, let me know.
i have to say that i've been less than thrilled with the tactics of the Fresno police for some years now. i think that, in general, they do a fine job under heavy scrutiny, but the couple of friends i have on the force do tell me that the cops here have an "us against them" attitude. and "them" includes all civilians. and when jerry dyer opens his fat gob and tells the press that he expects his cops to be ambushed and shot at by gang members they are trying to weed out, i feel he is trying to justify a shoot first mentality.
finally, email Sony and let them know what you think of it releasing a very limited number of new playstations, knowing full well that lines would be blocks long and violence would ensue. while you're at it, call up our local BestBuy and chew them out for knowing they only had 35 of the sets and let the lines grow too long to control. what fucking idiots all the way down the line on this.
added: the student is now claiming through his lawyer that he felt he was being racially profiled (because he is of Iranian descent) and refused to show his student i.d. for that reason. at UCLA, the cops (who are LAPD, not campus) do random sweeps at night through the library to ensure that only students are using the library. non-students are told to leave. he evidently was told to leave when he wouldn't show i.d, but didn't immediately. when the cops came back by he was on his feet and walking towards the exit. the resulting confrontation began when one of the cops touched him in some manner and he yelled for the cop to not touch him.
two questions:
1) why didn't he just show his i.d. in the first place?
2) why did the cops feel the need to become violent so quickly?
looking through the comments and blogs written by people present it seems that the cops are claiming the student provoked them by resisting and was trying to get the other students to help him. the students present are writing that this was absolutely not the case. they feel he yelled in order to draw attention to what was happening, but not to incite anything.
some people are claiming that is an act of civil disobedience, but i am going to wait until all of the facts are in before assessing any kind of blame or noble act here.
one thing i do know for sure based on the audio is that, if the cops didn't tase him and only "stunned" him, the only difference between tasing and stunning is stunning allows you to scream like crazy (in the movies, people who are tased just freeze up and fall to the ground).
third question:
does anyone besides me feel that the police in general are becoming less like the "thin blue line" and more like the "thick steel curtain" in terms of living within a siege state?
i mean, what prompts a cop to tase a student 7 or more times in a campus library in front of numerous students for no more reason that the feeling that the student was passively resisting arrest?
p.s. on a sidenote, the UC Davis campus police have decided to place decoy backpacks around the campus and keep them under surveillence in order to arrest people who might take them. does this sound like entrapment? this info was in a memo sent out by the campus police (on their website, i believe). are they having a surge in backpack thefts? or are they looking for people to arrest? anyone with information on this, let me know.
i have to say that i've been less than thrilled with the tactics of the Fresno police for some years now. i think that, in general, they do a fine job under heavy scrutiny, but the couple of friends i have on the force do tell me that the cops here have an "us against them" attitude. and "them" includes all civilians. and when jerry dyer opens his fat gob and tells the press that he expects his cops to be ambushed and shot at by gang members they are trying to weed out, i feel he is trying to justify a shoot first mentality.
finally, email Sony and let them know what you think of it releasing a very limited number of new playstations, knowing full well that lines would be blocks long and violence would ensue. while you're at it, call up our local BestBuy and chew them out for knowing they only had 35 of the sets and let the lines grow too long to control. what fucking idiots all the way down the line on this.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
wow. voter turnout nationally was 40%. and they're saying this is the highest since 1982. sheesh.
it's been reported that "high voter turnout" increases the odds of democrats winning vs. republicans. so, what's "low voter turnout"? 5%?
6 out of ten adult americans chose not to vote. or does this only count registered voters? in that case it gets worse.
it's been reported that "high voter turnout" increases the odds of democrats winning vs. republicans. so, what's "low voter turnout"? 5%?
6 out of ten adult americans chose not to vote. or does this only count registered voters? in that case it gets worse.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
From Nancy Pelosi came this statement either this morning or last night:
“Democrats intend to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history.”
Those of us who voted Democrat need to make sure she and our Party live up to that or this election will have meant nothing. Actually, worse than nothing. A failure to live out those words will put Democrats and government at large into an even deeper hole than it already is. So, no more hiding perverts, money launderers, liars or thiefs.
Of course, that could mean that Dick Cheney has to step in to break a Senate vote tied at one to one.
“Democrats intend to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history.”
Those of us who voted Democrat need to make sure she and our Party live up to that or this election will have meant nothing. Actually, worse than nothing. A failure to live out those words will put Democrats and government at large into an even deeper hole than it already is. So, no more hiding perverts, money launderers, liars or thiefs.
Of course, that could mean that Dick Cheney has to step in to break a Senate vote tied at one to one.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
while there are still some fallings out from the last post i did that i am not bothering to address (because i no longer give a shit) and i had flirted with the idea of not posting again for a while (because certain among us make it not nearly as much fun as it used to be before the warring was determined to be worth gerrymandering), i have just one thing to say:
does saddam hussein's surprise guilty verdict (i know i was on the edge of my seat) in any way influence the manner in which you will vote this week? i mean, what a whopper. who knew after a 12 month trial financially sponsored almost entirely by our government that saddam would be found guilty in a matter of nanoseconds? and who knew that it would happen right before an american election that decides the fate of a "war president" and his ideology that we are in the "end times"?
do you think that republicans involved in crimes (legal and ethical and moral) at a rate not ever seen before deserve punishment?
do you think that wimpy democrats with no unified message can be trusted to take over both Houses?
does ted haggard represent the entire conservative community when it comes to denying one's own urges in order to maintain political power?
will bill o'reilly lose his job on foxnews if the democrats win the house and senate? will he lose his job anyway if the democrats win either, because the conservatives see him as a divider in a time when they realize that division is a losing proposition even though they totally believe in division if they're in charge?
will the neocons maintain any semblance of credibility given that they were the primary architects of our current foreign and domestic policies?
if there is a swing in majority parties, will the gays and lesbians get any more arrogant (if possible)?
what will happen within the black community if kenneth blackwell loses in ohio and condoleeza rice watches as her administration becomes worse than a lame duck? and obama barack's star continues to rise as a possible 2008 presidential candidate?
just thoughts of mine before these next couple of days unfold.
by the way (and i'm breaking my above promise to not editorialize):
did you ever wonder what the definition of common courtesy was? so did i. it turns out to be whatever the person calling for it deems it to be. common courtesy has no real definition (other than the overarching societal one), because it must always be placed within the context of the situation. at a dinner party, a thrown and shattered glass on the head of another goer could be considered improper...unless the party givers were members of Capital Punishment. so, it seems to me that instructing people on internet hygeine is as useful and educational as the pope leading a seminar on proper penis/vagina insertion with or without a condom.
each of us has a manner in which we approach our use of the internet. and the rest of us have another.
all of which leads me back to my last post...and so i must say "fuck all of this" if no one can keep their egos and angst to themselves. not that i will either, because it's so damn fun to piss people off in any way that i can...and angst sometimes must be put out there for examination by others in order to get a committee's look at an internal problem.
ego, on the other hand, should get in line with porn and slap itself on the sidelines.
does saddam hussein's surprise guilty verdict (i know i was on the edge of my seat) in any way influence the manner in which you will vote this week? i mean, what a whopper. who knew after a 12 month trial financially sponsored almost entirely by our government that saddam would be found guilty in a matter of nanoseconds? and who knew that it would happen right before an american election that decides the fate of a "war president" and his ideology that we are in the "end times"?
do you think that republicans involved in crimes (legal and ethical and moral) at a rate not ever seen before deserve punishment?
do you think that wimpy democrats with no unified message can be trusted to take over both Houses?
does ted haggard represent the entire conservative community when it comes to denying one's own urges in order to maintain political power?
will bill o'reilly lose his job on foxnews if the democrats win the house and senate? will he lose his job anyway if the democrats win either, because the conservatives see him as a divider in a time when they realize that division is a losing proposition even though they totally believe in division if they're in charge?
will the neocons maintain any semblance of credibility given that they were the primary architects of our current foreign and domestic policies?
if there is a swing in majority parties, will the gays and lesbians get any more arrogant (if possible)?
what will happen within the black community if kenneth blackwell loses in ohio and condoleeza rice watches as her administration becomes worse than a lame duck? and obama barack's star continues to rise as a possible 2008 presidential candidate?
just thoughts of mine before these next couple of days unfold.
by the way (and i'm breaking my above promise to not editorialize):
did you ever wonder what the definition of common courtesy was? so did i. it turns out to be whatever the person calling for it deems it to be. common courtesy has no real definition (other than the overarching societal one), because it must always be placed within the context of the situation. at a dinner party, a thrown and shattered glass on the head of another goer could be considered improper...unless the party givers were members of Capital Punishment. so, it seems to me that instructing people on internet hygeine is as useful and educational as the pope leading a seminar on proper penis/vagina insertion with or without a condom.
each of us has a manner in which we approach our use of the internet. and the rest of us have another.
all of which leads me back to my last post...and so i must say "fuck all of this" if no one can keep their egos and angst to themselves. not that i will either, because it's so damn fun to piss people off in any way that i can...and angst sometimes must be put out there for examination by others in order to get a committee's look at an internal problem.
ego, on the other hand, should get in line with porn and slap itself on the sidelines.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
i'm tired of other people's problems. there, i said it.
i'm not talking about the life altering tragedies of a family member dying or a job lost at the hand of another or a disabling car crash or any of those things that make one recreate one's life from the ground up.
i'm tired of the pissant relationship problems. i'm sick of the manipulation i see happen every day between supposed friends. i recoil from the unhappiness in everyday life experienced by almost every goddam one of us that is then handed out like a laced halloween candy by those who can't seem to deal with the fact that life is not fair. never was, never will be. "fair" is not a word that exists side by side with "life".
"fair" is how one deals with others despite being unhappy. "fair" is choosing to keep your unhappiness with yourself to yourself.
"fair" is knowing when to reach out to another and ask for a shoulder to cry on and when to compose oneself and accept that life is not fair to anyone.
"fair" is knowing the difference between self-pity and actual pain.
"fair" is being able to tell the difference between real enmity for another's actions or words and self-projection based on a faulty interpretation.
too much lately i've found myself surrounded by petty injuries and swollen egos and i'm sick of it. get over yourselves, people. learn to live with your frailties.
learn to live with your insufficiencies.
learn to live with your imperfections.
or learn how to better yourselves without vilifying others for no better reason than you are unhappy.
take the time to hear what others are saying and stop living to hear yourselves speak.
take the time to think about the problem you face and ask yourself how much you had to do with creating it before blaming others.
stop looking for scapegoats. there seems to be this grand movement underway for the last oh-i-don't-know-how-long of everyone believing that they are perfect and no mistake is ever of their doing. entitlement is not a birthright.
so, stop looking for the bogeyman when life seems to suck. chances are you did most of the building on that structure.
bad things happen all of the time, just as good ones do. some are happenstance, but very few of them turn into full-fledged problems without handfeeding. the human experience is one of myriad opportunities that make no moral judgement. it is left up to us to decide how to proceed. and lately in my 'hood most of us seem to proceeding blindly with no pause to check the effect on others.
so, there it is. i'm tired of other people's problems. and you all seem to have a lot of them. you make me feel very normal and boring, which is a hell of a good thing. but it's bad as well when i can't get out a complete sentence without being overruled, overrun or cut off. it makes me want to turn you off. and that's no way to live.
think before you speak. we humans have an endless capacity for sympathy and compassion, but we have none when we realize it's pity that's being requested. or sides to be taken based on emotional opinion.
and i am done with it.
i'm not talking about the life altering tragedies of a family member dying or a job lost at the hand of another or a disabling car crash or any of those things that make one recreate one's life from the ground up.
i'm tired of the pissant relationship problems. i'm sick of the manipulation i see happen every day between supposed friends. i recoil from the unhappiness in everyday life experienced by almost every goddam one of us that is then handed out like a laced halloween candy by those who can't seem to deal with the fact that life is not fair. never was, never will be. "fair" is not a word that exists side by side with "life".
"fair" is how one deals with others despite being unhappy. "fair" is choosing to keep your unhappiness with yourself to yourself.
"fair" is knowing when to reach out to another and ask for a shoulder to cry on and when to compose oneself and accept that life is not fair to anyone.
"fair" is knowing the difference between self-pity and actual pain.
"fair" is being able to tell the difference between real enmity for another's actions or words and self-projection based on a faulty interpretation.
too much lately i've found myself surrounded by petty injuries and swollen egos and i'm sick of it. get over yourselves, people. learn to live with your frailties.
learn to live with your insufficiencies.
learn to live with your imperfections.
or learn how to better yourselves without vilifying others for no better reason than you are unhappy.
take the time to hear what others are saying and stop living to hear yourselves speak.
take the time to think about the problem you face and ask yourself how much you had to do with creating it before blaming others.
stop looking for scapegoats. there seems to be this grand movement underway for the last oh-i-don't-know-how-long of everyone believing that they are perfect and no mistake is ever of their doing. entitlement is not a birthright.
so, stop looking for the bogeyman when life seems to suck. chances are you did most of the building on that structure.
bad things happen all of the time, just as good ones do. some are happenstance, but very few of them turn into full-fledged problems without handfeeding. the human experience is one of myriad opportunities that make no moral judgement. it is left up to us to decide how to proceed. and lately in my 'hood most of us seem to proceeding blindly with no pause to check the effect on others.
so, there it is. i'm tired of other people's problems. and you all seem to have a lot of them. you make me feel very normal and boring, which is a hell of a good thing. but it's bad as well when i can't get out a complete sentence without being overruled, overrun or cut off. it makes me want to turn you off. and that's no way to live.
think before you speak. we humans have an endless capacity for sympathy and compassion, but we have none when we realize it's pity that's being requested. or sides to be taken based on emotional opinion.
and i am done with it.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Fiscal Wake-Up Tour
our current GAO Comptroller is out and about telling the good folk what is on the financial horizon (just in case our politicaanites won't). check it out.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
dear SBC fuckheads,
when i told you back at the end of May this year when i was signing up for local phone service that i didn't need your long distance service (because i already HAD long distance service through a calling card) maybe you should have mentioned that you were going to call my service to let them know they should open a new account at my new number for me.
finding out about this 5 months down the line when i receive a collection notice isn't exactly the netflix surprise i tend to want.
also, finding out from MY company that you interpret my denial of your service as a request for someone else's service ain't all that cool either. i never requested anything. you asked me if i wanted your long distance service and i said "no, i'm happy with who i already have". end of discussion. you did not state that you would contact them to instigate new service at my new number. i even told you fuckwads that it was a calling card plan and i didn't want long distance attached to my phone. what about that didn't you understand???
fortunately, MY company (working assets) isn't out to rape the average consumer. it works with me and was able to delete almost all of the collection bill i received (i obviously agreed to pay for the two long distance calls that inexplicably made their way onto that bill from july). and it was as pissed off as i was that they had created a second account in my name based on the info you gave them.
i can only hope that you will instruct your sales reps from HERE ON OUT to inform prospective clients about this process you engage in. i understand creating some form of long distance service for people, but when someone tells you they already have service, maybe you need to stop and consider the ramifications (legally) of going behind their backs without consent.
i hope to hear from you on this matter with the comment that you have stopped this action.
when i told you back at the end of May this year when i was signing up for local phone service that i didn't need your long distance service (because i already HAD long distance service through a calling card) maybe you should have mentioned that you were going to call my service to let them know they should open a new account at my new number for me.
finding out about this 5 months down the line when i receive a collection notice isn't exactly the netflix surprise i tend to want.
also, finding out from MY company that you interpret my denial of your service as a request for someone else's service ain't all that cool either. i never requested anything. you asked me if i wanted your long distance service and i said "no, i'm happy with who i already have". end of discussion. you did not state that you would contact them to instigate new service at my new number. i even told you fuckwads that it was a calling card plan and i didn't want long distance attached to my phone. what about that didn't you understand???
fortunately, MY company (working assets) isn't out to rape the average consumer. it works with me and was able to delete almost all of the collection bill i received (i obviously agreed to pay for the two long distance calls that inexplicably made their way onto that bill from july). and it was as pissed off as i was that they had created a second account in my name based on the info you gave them.
i can only hope that you will instruct your sales reps from HERE ON OUT to inform prospective clients about this process you engage in. i understand creating some form of long distance service for people, but when someone tells you they already have service, maybe you need to stop and consider the ramifications (legally) of going behind their backs without consent.
i hope to hear from you on this matter with the comment that you have stopped this action.
hey, just for kicks, check out Heywood Banks "singing" Yeah Toast over on YouTube.
oh, and i just transferred my blog over to the beta version, which is why all of the thousands of you might now be having difficulty leaving me praise in the comments section. don't worry. i feel the love anyway...and still don't really care. cuz i'm cool. beta cool.
oh, and i just transferred my blog over to the beta version, which is why all of the thousands of you might now be having difficulty leaving me praise in the comments section. don't worry. i feel the love anyway...and still don't really care. cuz i'm cool. beta cool.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Espresso, Anyone?
note to self:
upon completion of watching documentary about serial killers, an episode of Cold Case and 25 minutes of Evil Dead, do one of two things:
1) drink excessive amounts of coffee so as to ensure a complete lack of sleep before the next working day, or
2) drink copious amounts of alcohol so as to avoid dreaming.
it's not that the dreams were scary. in fact, they were not. but they were very bizarre and disturbing. being stuck in the house of a madman while he kills everyone but me was (while educational) just the wrong place to be. plus, it's not amusing to be bound with packing tape and sent out to give his list of demands (which were never enunciated to me anyway).
then, being visited by a troupe of magicians who used nothing more than a pack of tarot cards to create their tricks and a gun to kill off the "volunteers" was (again while educational) also the wrong place to be.
odd odd odd and it took about 4 hours for the dreams to fragment enough that i could focus on work.
it is, however, always fun to try and figure out what external forces were at work putting together the previous night's dream.
upon completion of watching documentary about serial killers, an episode of Cold Case and 25 minutes of Evil Dead, do one of two things:
1) drink excessive amounts of coffee so as to ensure a complete lack of sleep before the next working day, or
2) drink copious amounts of alcohol so as to avoid dreaming.
it's not that the dreams were scary. in fact, they were not. but they were very bizarre and disturbing. being stuck in the house of a madman while he kills everyone but me was (while educational) just the wrong place to be. plus, it's not amusing to be bound with packing tape and sent out to give his list of demands (which were never enunciated to me anyway).
then, being visited by a troupe of magicians who used nothing more than a pack of tarot cards to create their tricks and a gun to kill off the "volunteers" was (again while educational) also the wrong place to be.
odd odd odd and it took about 4 hours for the dreams to fragment enough that i could focus on work.
it is, however, always fun to try and figure out what external forces were at work putting together the previous night's dream.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
this is the text of the 6th anniversary statement by our president:
President's Statement on Anniversary of USS Cole Attack
Six years ago, on October 12, 2000, al Qaida attacked the USS Cole, a U.S. Navy warship refueling in Aden harbor in Yemen. This terrorist attack killed seventeen sailors and injured many others, leaving the victims' loved ones and our Nation to mourn our collective loss.
On the sixth anniversary of this attack, we pause to remember those brave servicemen and women whose lives were cut short by this act of terrorism and to give thanks to the brave crew whose heroic actions saved their ship and fellow shipmates.
With the men we believe to be the key architects of that attack now in custody, this anniversary should serve to renew America's dedication to bring terrorists to justice and our gratitude to those men and women of the U.S. Government serving abroad who take great risks in protecting America.
Six years ago, our Nation was tested by terrorism. Terrorists continue to be an active threat to our Nation, but we are responding resolutely and forcefully. On this solemn anniversary, we rededicate ourselves to the fight against the enemies of humanity, offer our prayers and condolences to the families of the Cole victims, and offer thanks to the men and women of our Navy who protect our country and promote peace and freedom around the world.
...while this is a nicely written (albeit brief) commemoration and the people who died do indeed deserve some form of public remembrance for the role they played in serving our nation and their untimely deaths, i am left with the questions:
why did president bush decide to give this to them on the 6th anniversary, but not on the 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd or, even, 1st? why is it suddenly so important that we remember them 6 years after the fact, but not before? the 6th year is an odd one in which to begin, don't you think? that this year is a year of mid-term elections and, at this time, most pundits and polling groups are predicting serious losses for the republicans in the House and Senate shouldn't play a role in bush's newly-found respect for those who died on the U.S.S. Cole, right?
perhaps, bush has been too busy saving our country from terrorist attacks during the previous years.
perhaps, bush wanted to do something for them in previous years, but the budget was too tight in light of the money being spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
perhaps, he was being compassionate and didn't want to bring it up so that bill clinton wouldn't look bad.
perhaps, he just forgot. it happens.
but perhaps, it's one more ruse of his and karl rove's and dick cheney's to keep us scared, to keep us thinking that without him, karl and dick we wouldn't be free right this very second, that if they weren't so hellbent on raising fences and barriers and dropping diplomacy and cooperation we would be living under the veil (as it were).
perhaps, he remembered, because he was told to. because he needs to be out front rallying the voting base. because it may be the only way in which he can be seen as helping his party to retain power even as his approval ratings plummet and more and more soldiers die for they know not what.
perhaps, it's time to vote.
President's Statement on Anniversary of USS Cole Attack
Six years ago, on October 12, 2000, al Qaida attacked the USS Cole, a U.S. Navy warship refueling in Aden harbor in Yemen. This terrorist attack killed seventeen sailors and injured many others, leaving the victims' loved ones and our Nation to mourn our collective loss.
On the sixth anniversary of this attack, we pause to remember those brave servicemen and women whose lives were cut short by this act of terrorism and to give thanks to the brave crew whose heroic actions saved their ship and fellow shipmates.
With the men we believe to be the key architects of that attack now in custody, this anniversary should serve to renew America's dedication to bring terrorists to justice and our gratitude to those men and women of the U.S. Government serving abroad who take great risks in protecting America.
Six years ago, our Nation was tested by terrorism. Terrorists continue to be an active threat to our Nation, but we are responding resolutely and forcefully. On this solemn anniversary, we rededicate ourselves to the fight against the enemies of humanity, offer our prayers and condolences to the families of the Cole victims, and offer thanks to the men and women of our Navy who protect our country and promote peace and freedom around the world.
...while this is a nicely written (albeit brief) commemoration and the people who died do indeed deserve some form of public remembrance for the role they played in serving our nation and their untimely deaths, i am left with the questions:
why did president bush decide to give this to them on the 6th anniversary, but not on the 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd or, even, 1st? why is it suddenly so important that we remember them 6 years after the fact, but not before? the 6th year is an odd one in which to begin, don't you think? that this year is a year of mid-term elections and, at this time, most pundits and polling groups are predicting serious losses for the republicans in the House and Senate shouldn't play a role in bush's newly-found respect for those who died on the U.S.S. Cole, right?
perhaps, bush has been too busy saving our country from terrorist attacks during the previous years.
perhaps, bush wanted to do something for them in previous years, but the budget was too tight in light of the money being spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
perhaps, he was being compassionate and didn't want to bring it up so that bill clinton wouldn't look bad.
perhaps, he just forgot. it happens.
but perhaps, it's one more ruse of his and karl rove's and dick cheney's to keep us scared, to keep us thinking that without him, karl and dick we wouldn't be free right this very second, that if they weren't so hellbent on raising fences and barriers and dropping diplomacy and cooperation we would be living under the veil (as it were).
perhaps, he remembered, because he was told to. because he needs to be out front rallying the voting base. because it may be the only way in which he can be seen as helping his party to retain power even as his approval ratings plummet and more and more soldiers die for they know not what.
perhaps, it's time to vote.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Oh, screw the Fresno Fair. now, THIS is fun stuff. at today's White House press briefing, Tony Snow laid down some thick brown fog...if you get my drift:
“We're making progress,” he replied. “I don't know. How do you define ‘winning’? The fact is, in taking on the war on terror -- let me put it this way, the President has made it obvious, we're going to win. And that means, ultimately, providing an Iraq that is safe, secure, and an ally in the war on terror. And at any given time, as you've seen in previous wars, there are going to be spikes in violence. And it is natural for Americans who have -- really are probably the most empathetic people on the face of the earth, to feel deeply the loss of those who have given their lives in battle.”
(huh? i'm not so sure i'd define the American people as the most empathetic on Earth. maybe spoiled, lazy, entitled and naive, but not so much empathetic past the tip of our collective nose. and empathy is defined by one source as meaning:
"The imaginative projection into another's feelings, a state of total identification with another's situation, condition, and thoughts. The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without explicitly articulating these feelings".
well. thirdly, former president bill clinton was badly maligned by the republican party and all conservatives in general for uttering the words "i feel your pain". does this mean that in the 1990's we weren't empathetic? but now suddenly we are? somehow over the last ten years we have become able to understand what it's like to be bombed daily, to have our families dragged out and executed by those who used to be our neighbors and buy from our stalls? we now know what it's like to live under an occupying military and wonder if we're going to be called a terrorist by someone else in order for them to freed by their captors? somehow, i think not)
Q That's the proposition that the White House put out there, that as they [the Iraqi government] stood up, violence would come down, and we'd stand down.
MR. SNOW: As part of our constant adjustment, let me just add that apparently, the terrorists have also decided not to stand down. They've got to stand down.
(so, the terrorists have to stand down, the Iraqi government has to stand up and then WE can stand down? when did the terrorists get invited to this game of musical chairs? and what's with "constant adjustment"? kind of sounds like "we have no fucking clue what we're doing")
and while the standing up and standing down goes up and...well, up, the newest round of peace talks in Iraq have been cancelled as Sunnis and Shiites continue to massacre one another. heckuva job, georgie.
and now it seems that only 16% of Americans polled think that bush and company weren't lying about what they knew before 9/11 happened. 84% think that they lied or withheld info crucial to the terrorist hijackings. and that's only down 5% from 2002. so, we've been extremely cynical about bush and his for 4 years and still they are in power and every day increasing their hold on it and destroying our rights as citizens.
but, finally, good news from California (where only the fruits and nuts seem to grow in abundance according to most who don't live here): if this source is right, then you and i can request paper ballots when we vote on november 8. click on the link, then the pdf link within the story. hopefully, this plays out. i, for one, am mighty distrustful of electronic voting at the moment.
“We're making progress,” he replied. “I don't know. How do you define ‘winning’? The fact is, in taking on the war on terror -- let me put it this way, the President has made it obvious, we're going to win. And that means, ultimately, providing an Iraq that is safe, secure, and an ally in the war on terror. And at any given time, as you've seen in previous wars, there are going to be spikes in violence. And it is natural for Americans who have -- really are probably the most empathetic people on the face of the earth, to feel deeply the loss of those who have given their lives in battle.”
(huh? i'm not so sure i'd define the American people as the most empathetic on Earth. maybe spoiled, lazy, entitled and naive, but not so much empathetic past the tip of our collective nose. and empathy is defined by one source as meaning:
"The imaginative projection into another's feelings, a state of total identification with another's situation, condition, and thoughts. The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without explicitly articulating these feelings".
well. thirdly, former president bill clinton was badly maligned by the republican party and all conservatives in general for uttering the words "i feel your pain". does this mean that in the 1990's we weren't empathetic? but now suddenly we are? somehow over the last ten years we have become able to understand what it's like to be bombed daily, to have our families dragged out and executed by those who used to be our neighbors and buy from our stalls? we now know what it's like to live under an occupying military and wonder if we're going to be called a terrorist by someone else in order for them to freed by their captors? somehow, i think not)
Q That's the proposition that the White House put out there, that as they [the Iraqi government] stood up, violence would come down, and we'd stand down.
MR. SNOW: As part of our constant adjustment, let me just add that apparently, the terrorists have also decided not to stand down. They've got to stand down.
(so, the terrorists have to stand down, the Iraqi government has to stand up and then WE can stand down? when did the terrorists get invited to this game of musical chairs? and what's with "constant adjustment"? kind of sounds like "we have no fucking clue what we're doing")
and while the standing up and standing down goes up and...well, up, the newest round of peace talks in Iraq have been cancelled as Sunnis and Shiites continue to massacre one another. heckuva job, georgie.
and now it seems that only 16% of Americans polled think that bush and company weren't lying about what they knew before 9/11 happened. 84% think that they lied or withheld info crucial to the terrorist hijackings. and that's only down 5% from 2002. so, we've been extremely cynical about bush and his for 4 years and still they are in power and every day increasing their hold on it and destroying our rights as citizens.
but, finally, good news from California (where only the fruits and nuts seem to grow in abundance according to most who don't live here): if this source is right, then you and i can request paper ballots when we vote on november 8. click on the link, then the pdf link within the story. hopefully, this plays out. i, for one, am mighty distrustful of electronic voting at the moment.
Fresno Fair
well, the Big Fresno Fair has come to its end yet once again. seems like every year they say it's over and, whatdayaknow, next october here it is again. just like a rolling stones' tour. or that fruitcake that's been sent between my familymates for the last century. hmmm, both are about as old.
and since it was the final day of ye olde faire i decided to accompany katie and do the do as it were.
we started off with a stroll through Kid's Town where the icky sticky reptiles were (gorgeous banded snakes, geckos, chameleons, tortoises and the like) and into which katie was a bit apprehensive about stepping. no worries, though, no one got bit...by a reptile, that is.
then, we marched over to the mammals enclosure where the hairy beasts were. unfortunately, mustang's pen was empty. but we did see the championship judging for pygmy goats, big-balled bulls, bunnies and guinea pigs. and we're talking serious ballage on the bulls. plus, they both had boners. we couldn't ascertain if it was merely an experimental college thing or they were truly sweet on each other
we completed the walkaround, (after visiting the mineral and gem building where i got these shots of mineral rocks under black light)
found beerocks and corn on the cob and prepared ourselves for the main event- horse racing and the losing of money thereon. we were very confident walking in. we'd done all of the homework we felt we needed to and had a good feel for the horses and jockeys (though i wasn't wearing any jockeys) and we immediately began laying down big dollars on the longshots.
as it turned out, sunday was not a day for longshots. until, of course, two races after we left at which time the longshot won and paid off huge. we did have one quick thrill, though, when the 38-1 came out of the last turn with a full length lead. at about that time the jockey (who just happened to be the ancient mariner in need of only a musket to look right at home at a Revolutionary War Old-Timers' Home) evidently decided he needed to make a can-and-string phone call and let all of the other horses pass him so he could hear better. and, yes lecram, once again i didn't wait to see which nag he was riding before placing my bet. personally, i believe he is the stable mucker and only rides the flesh that needs stat padding for a bigger stakes race. or the horse owners are so cheap they won't hire anyone under the age of dirt. or faster than glacial melt. i think the very rotund bugle blower could have beat him. on foot.
so, in my four years of pony betting i have now won a total of ONE time. and that was my very first bet ever. when i had no idea what i was doing. which doesn't seem to have changed. damn fun, though.
and since it was the final day of ye olde faire i decided to accompany katie and do the do as it were.
we started off with a stroll through Kid's Town where the icky sticky reptiles were (gorgeous banded snakes, geckos, chameleons, tortoises and the like) and into which katie was a bit apprehensive about stepping. no worries, though, no one got bit...by a reptile, that is.
then, we marched over to the mammals enclosure where the hairy beasts were. unfortunately, mustang's pen was empty. but we did see the championship judging for pygmy goats, big-balled bulls, bunnies and guinea pigs. and we're talking serious ballage on the bulls. plus, they both had boners. we couldn't ascertain if it was merely an experimental college thing or they were truly sweet on each other
we completed the walkaround, (after visiting the mineral and gem building where i got these shots of mineral rocks under black light)
found beerocks and corn on the cob and prepared ourselves for the main event- horse racing and the losing of money thereon. we were very confident walking in. we'd done all of the homework we felt we needed to and had a good feel for the horses and jockeys (though i wasn't wearing any jockeys) and we immediately began laying down big dollars on the longshots.
as it turned out, sunday was not a day for longshots. until, of course, two races after we left at which time the longshot won and paid off huge. we did have one quick thrill, though, when the 38-1 came out of the last turn with a full length lead. at about that time the jockey (who just happened to be the ancient mariner in need of only a musket to look right at home at a Revolutionary War Old-Timers' Home) evidently decided he needed to make a can-and-string phone call and let all of the other horses pass him so he could hear better. and, yes lecram, once again i didn't wait to see which nag he was riding before placing my bet. personally, i believe he is the stable mucker and only rides the flesh that needs stat padding for a bigger stakes race. or the horse owners are so cheap they won't hire anyone under the age of dirt. or faster than glacial melt. i think the very rotund bugle blower could have beat him. on foot.
so, in my four years of pony betting i have now won a total of ONE time. and that was my very first bet ever. when i had no idea what i was doing. which doesn't seem to have changed. damn fun, though.
there a couple of other pictures, but blogger's not letting me upload them. i'll try again later so you can see the pint sized bronc buster and the deep-fried twinkie i was dared to eat.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
hey, kids! wondering why the price of gas is suddenly falling in such a precipitous way? thinking that the new huge "find" of natural gas in the gulf is involved? or the supposed lessening of of the possibility of our attacking Iran or north Korea? think again.
as i believe was the case in 2004, this year it seems that the Saudis are helping out Bush et al in much the same way. remember, also, that when the price of oil was expected to surge all of the major oil companies bought hard in order to stockpile in the event that a much larger war was to begin, which would encompass all of the mid-east. that didn't happen and now they've got this glut of reserve and they're selling it off as fast as they can. so, while one of the leading experts is saying that $1.15 a gallon isn't out of the question, don't be surprised if the price of gas per gallon begins to stabilize after the november elections (depending on who wins...or not).
also, did anyone notice the most recent report on this year's national deficit, which is said to be much smaller than anticipated and the smallest in the last four years? did anyone, also, notice that social security loans are not included this time around? the administration decided that this year borrowed money shouldn't count as part of the deficit. it always had before, but not anymore. so, any monies borrowed from the social security funds is just that-borrowing with the intent to pay it back sometime in the future (no date specified).
and ain't a sex scandal grand? doesn't it help you focus that anger that seemed so spread out in oh so many directions and you couldn't begin to feel strongly one way or the other? and suddenly out steps this guy who was being nasty and bad and repugnant with teenagers and now you can get pissed again and it feels so goddam good, because it doesn't have the word "iraq" in it? or the word "torture"? or "lobbying"? or "terrorist" or "patriot act" or "eavesdropping" or "tax cuts for the rich" or "abramoff" or "Ohio" or "Florida" or "Minuteman" or "enemy combatant" or "collateral damage" or "pat tilman" or "jihad" or "bin laden" or "billoreillyrushlimbaughseanhannityanncoulter"?
no, sex and scandal are great! because it's easy and fun and we feel so morally superior to an actual living, breathing fuckhead. and he's ours. and he's gay. and he's an alcoholic. and he was buggered by a priest. not that i believe the last two. but he's someone we can look on and spit at, because he's in our backyard and he's done stuff we can look down upon.
it's so easy. and it's such a red herring. while he was being "outted" our congress made it legal for bush to continue torturing suspects and to arrest anyone he deems a threat to our country (be they terrorists or little white children) and to determine what exactly constitutes torture by our interrorgators. bush no loonger has to follow the geneva convention rules or any other international treaty we've signed. simple as that, we are a rogue nation which has announced itself as a true empire. we follow only those laws we deem acceptable and will create new laws to negate the older ones we no longer like.
i wonder if Rome saw it coming.
as i believe was the case in 2004, this year it seems that the Saudis are helping out Bush et al in much the same way. remember, also, that when the price of oil was expected to surge all of the major oil companies bought hard in order to stockpile in the event that a much larger war was to begin, which would encompass all of the mid-east. that didn't happen and now they've got this glut of reserve and they're selling it off as fast as they can. so, while one of the leading experts is saying that $1.15 a gallon isn't out of the question, don't be surprised if the price of gas per gallon begins to stabilize after the november elections (depending on who wins...or not).
also, did anyone notice the most recent report on this year's national deficit, which is said to be much smaller than anticipated and the smallest in the last four years? did anyone, also, notice that social security loans are not included this time around? the administration decided that this year borrowed money shouldn't count as part of the deficit. it always had before, but not anymore. so, any monies borrowed from the social security funds is just that-borrowing with the intent to pay it back sometime in the future (no date specified).
and ain't a sex scandal grand? doesn't it help you focus that anger that seemed so spread out in oh so many directions and you couldn't begin to feel strongly one way or the other? and suddenly out steps this guy who was being nasty and bad and repugnant with teenagers and now you can get pissed again and it feels so goddam good, because it doesn't have the word "iraq" in it? or the word "torture"? or "lobbying"? or "terrorist" or "patriot act" or "eavesdropping" or "tax cuts for the rich" or "abramoff" or "Ohio" or "Florida" or "Minuteman" or "enemy combatant" or "collateral damage" or "pat tilman" or "jihad" or "bin laden" or "billoreillyrushlimbaughseanhannityanncoulter"?
no, sex and scandal are great! because it's easy and fun and we feel so morally superior to an actual living, breathing fuckhead. and he's ours. and he's gay. and he's an alcoholic. and he was buggered by a priest. not that i believe the last two. but he's someone we can look on and spit at, because he's in our backyard and he's done stuff we can look down upon.
it's so easy. and it's such a red herring. while he was being "outted" our congress made it legal for bush to continue torturing suspects and to arrest anyone he deems a threat to our country (be they terrorists or little white children) and to determine what exactly constitutes torture by our interrorgators. bush no loonger has to follow the geneva convention rules or any other international treaty we've signed. simple as that, we are a rogue nation which has announced itself as a true empire. we follow only those laws we deem acceptable and will create new laws to negate the older ones we no longer like.
i wonder if Rome saw it coming.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
