What unmitigated gall! What chutzpah! What vanity! What a donkey's ass! That we would give up ALL of our liberties and freedoms to ensure protection from any unidentified and nebulous threats. We have been giving up our liberties for about 8 years now based on unjustified threats. And for what? So an illegally seated president and his cabal could line the pockets of Big Business. And foreign governments. Not that any other president hasn't taken advantage of uncertainty to reward loyal investors, but this one has taken the practice beyond the pale. And to have a disgraced politician (one who had divorce papers served on his wife while she was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment) pushes it even further. To have this...this...this chihuahua of a man, this land piranha tell me that I would give up all of my most profound beliefs because hesays I would without even asking me is the epitome of arrogance.
But don't believe me. Please read:
Contradicting His Hero Ben Franklin, Gingrich Says Americans ‘Will Give Up All Their Liberties’ For Safety»
Yesterday, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich visited Drew University in New Jersey, where he took questions from 20 political science majors there. When one asked him how the government could justify stripping rights from Americans in such pieces of legislation as the Patriot Act, Gingrich said that the government has a “right to defend society,” and when under threat, “people will give up all their liberties“:
“If there’s a threat, you have a right to defend society,” Gingrich said. “People will give up all their liberties to avoid that level of threat.“
Gingrich is directly contradicted by Benjamin Franklin, who rejected the notion that one should give up one’s liberties out of fear:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
This disagreement is significant, because Gingrich considers Franklin one of his heroes. He prides himself on his Pennsylvania upbringing, where he says “it was easy…to imbue a deep sense of the freedom that is at the heart of the American tradition,” and he frequently invokes Franklin to buttress his conservative claims about individual responsibility and religion in public life:
“Only Franklin personified the striving, ambitious, rising system of individual achievement, hard work, thrift and optimism found at the heart of the American spirit. Only Franklin worked his way up in the worlds of business and organized political power in both colonial and national periods. Only Franklin was a…creator of the American mythos of the common man.”
“During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin (often considered one of the least religious of the Founding Fathers) proposed that the Convention begin each day with a prayer. … [T]he Founding Fathers, from the very birth of the United States, saw God as central to defining America.”
“Franklin, who was quite old and had been relatively quiet for the entire Convention, suddenly stood up and was angry, and he said: I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men, and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?”
Gingrich accuses “the secular Left” of trying to rid religion from public life, thereby “distorting the Constitution to achieve a goal that the Founding Fathers would have found to be a fundamental threat to liberty.” Yet it his own cavalier subordination of civil liberties in the name of national security that would truly offend the Founders.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Oh Goodness. Really. "Patriotic Zeal".
Mood turns ugly in Beijing
Posted: Friday, April 18, 2008 2:16 PMFiled Under: Beijing, China
By Adrienne Mong, NBC News producer
What a difference a couple of months can make.
As people returned to work following the end of the Chinese New Year holidays in February, there was a palpable sense of anticipation for the Olympic Summer Games. The intense winter cold snap lasted longer than the holidays, but there was a spring in everyone’s step.
Friends working in professions as diverse as business and the arts spoke of an accelerated rate of activity; people seemed to be jetting back and forth from the United States and Europe in a frenzy to meet deadlines on special projects before the Games begin August 8.
AP
Chinese youths protest outside a Carrefour supermarket, a French owned company, in Qingdao in east China's Shandong province on April 18.
My e-mail inbox was getting clogged on a more regular basis with press conference notices from the Beijing Olympic authorities, BOCOG. And I was fielding dozens of requests from far-flung friends to crash on the floor of my apartment in the months leading up to August.
It was as though Beijing had become the center of the world and everyone wanted to be here.
And then, the protests and violence in Tibet and surrounding regions happened.
In response to international condemnation of its policies in Tibet, the Chinese government has taken a hard line against critics. At the same time, Chinese people have become more upset over what they perceive as Western media bias against their nation.
Targeting the Western press CNN has been the target of intense criticism and threats for allegedly biased coverage of the protests in Tibet, and particularly for remarks made by commentator Jack Cafferty, who referred to China’s leaders – not the Chinese people – as a "bunch of goons and thugs."
On Thursday, CNN’s bureau chief in Beijing was summoned to China’s Foreign Ministry, where officials demanded an apology and a retraction of Cafferty’s comments.
CNN has apologized for any offence, and Cafferty clarified on air earlier in the week that his comments were referring specifically to the government and "not to Chinese people or to Chinese-Americans."
But even before this latest incident, we had heard from CNN staff that non-essential personnel had been asked to stay away from the CNN Beijing office because threats from angry Chinese activists were growing serious.
A Chinese friend who once worked for CNN learned Friday that his name and personal information had been posted on one of the more virulent anti-Western media Web sites in China. He said he was shocked by the coarse language people used to accuse him of being a traitor.
Not just CNNAn acquaintance at a top-selling U.S. newsmagazine described an incident in which someone rang the doorbell of her home and tried to set off a fire extinguisher in her face when she opened the front door.
NBC News hasn’t been subject to the same level of harassment as some other media outlets, but for several weeks now in the late evenings our bureau has received prank phone calls from Chinese people asking whether we are CNN or just randomly cursing all Western media.
The anxiety isn’t confined to journalists.
Chinese furious over how the Olympic torch was received in Paris on April 7 are planning a demonstration Saturday in front of a branch of the French supermarket, Carrefour. And a more widespread boycott of all Carrefour branches planned for May 1 is gathering steam.
A friend with French relatives coming to visit Beijing next week is anxious about how they might be treated and is reluctant to leave them on their own to explore the capital.
In a way, however, this French family is lucky they can even be here.
Crackdown on visitors and residents Chinese authorities are cracking down on entry visas. Reports are circulating among U.S. businessmen that many companies are starting to suffer from a restriction on business visas for legitimate employees.
Every foreign freelancer or independent contractor I know here is looking for a sponsor, as they’ve been warned their current – and legitimate – business visas are not likely to be renewed. Even a college student whom NBC agreed to take on for the summer has had to cut short his internship, because he won’t be allowed to extend his student visa beyond August 1; extending a visa was previously a common practice.
It’s believed that the visa restrictions are to prevent foreign activists from entering China ahead of the Olympics and staying through the games.
One of our local staffers told me that five security people showed up at her home at 9:30 p.m. Wednesday, pounding on her front door and demanding to see her local residency permit. They were rude, she said, and they examined parts of her apartment without her consent.
"They wanted to know if I was the only one living here," she said.
Of course, some of this might appear trivial compared to the domestic political housecleaning taking place across China. Many dissidents or potential noisemakers have been rounded up since December.
In the wake of these incidents, one can only wonder if this is the image China’s government and its people really want to present to the outside world as they prepare to host an Olympics bearing the banner "One World One Dream."
Perhaps not. A commentary posted on the state-run Xinhua news agency Web site Friday urges the Chinese people to contain their "patriotic zeal."
Hee. Hee hee. Oh, the similarities between our two countries. Other than they make things for really, really cheap and sell their girl-children into slavery or something like that. Patriotic zeal, indeed. Sounds more like what we were doing to Muslims and all other dark-skinned folk after 9/11. Not to mention the attacks on those Cheese Eating Surrender (Hey Hey We're The) Monkeys, I mean Le French.
So, those of you who claim that we and the Chinks have nothing in common and they are just damn dirty Commies, think again. They are becoming more and more like us. Or us like them. Not sure. Hmmm....Either way, power do corrupt, do it not? And unchecked power, it do make for strange phrases. Patriotic zeal...ah crap, that's funny.
Posted: Friday, April 18, 2008 2:16 PMFiled Under: Beijing, China
By Adrienne Mong, NBC News producer
What a difference a couple of months can make.
As people returned to work following the end of the Chinese New Year holidays in February, there was a palpable sense of anticipation for the Olympic Summer Games. The intense winter cold snap lasted longer than the holidays, but there was a spring in everyone’s step.
Friends working in professions as diverse as business and the arts spoke of an accelerated rate of activity; people seemed to be jetting back and forth from the United States and Europe in a frenzy to meet deadlines on special projects before the Games begin August 8.
AP
Chinese youths protest outside a Carrefour supermarket, a French owned company, in Qingdao in east China's Shandong province on April 18.
My e-mail inbox was getting clogged on a more regular basis with press conference notices from the Beijing Olympic authorities, BOCOG. And I was fielding dozens of requests from far-flung friends to crash on the floor of my apartment in the months leading up to August.
It was as though Beijing had become the center of the world and everyone wanted to be here.
And then, the protests and violence in Tibet and surrounding regions happened.
In response to international condemnation of its policies in Tibet, the Chinese government has taken a hard line against critics. At the same time, Chinese people have become more upset over what they perceive as Western media bias against their nation.
Targeting the Western press CNN has been the target of intense criticism and threats for allegedly biased coverage of the protests in Tibet, and particularly for remarks made by commentator Jack Cafferty, who referred to China’s leaders – not the Chinese people – as a "bunch of goons and thugs."
On Thursday, CNN’s bureau chief in Beijing was summoned to China’s Foreign Ministry, where officials demanded an apology and a retraction of Cafferty’s comments.
CNN has apologized for any offence, and Cafferty clarified on air earlier in the week that his comments were referring specifically to the government and "not to Chinese people or to Chinese-Americans."
But even before this latest incident, we had heard from CNN staff that non-essential personnel had been asked to stay away from the CNN Beijing office because threats from angry Chinese activists were growing serious.
A Chinese friend who once worked for CNN learned Friday that his name and personal information had been posted on one of the more virulent anti-Western media Web sites in China. He said he was shocked by the coarse language people used to accuse him of being a traitor.
Not just CNNAn acquaintance at a top-selling U.S. newsmagazine described an incident in which someone rang the doorbell of her home and tried to set off a fire extinguisher in her face when she opened the front door.
NBC News hasn’t been subject to the same level of harassment as some other media outlets, but for several weeks now in the late evenings our bureau has received prank phone calls from Chinese people asking whether we are CNN or just randomly cursing all Western media.
The anxiety isn’t confined to journalists.
Chinese furious over how the Olympic torch was received in Paris on April 7 are planning a demonstration Saturday in front of a branch of the French supermarket, Carrefour. And a more widespread boycott of all Carrefour branches planned for May 1 is gathering steam.
A friend with French relatives coming to visit Beijing next week is anxious about how they might be treated and is reluctant to leave them on their own to explore the capital.
In a way, however, this French family is lucky they can even be here.
Crackdown on visitors and residents Chinese authorities are cracking down on entry visas. Reports are circulating among U.S. businessmen that many companies are starting to suffer from a restriction on business visas for legitimate employees.
Every foreign freelancer or independent contractor I know here is looking for a sponsor, as they’ve been warned their current – and legitimate – business visas are not likely to be renewed. Even a college student whom NBC agreed to take on for the summer has had to cut short his internship, because he won’t be allowed to extend his student visa beyond August 1; extending a visa was previously a common practice.
It’s believed that the visa restrictions are to prevent foreign activists from entering China ahead of the Olympics and staying through the games.
One of our local staffers told me that five security people showed up at her home at 9:30 p.m. Wednesday, pounding on her front door and demanding to see her local residency permit. They were rude, she said, and they examined parts of her apartment without her consent.
"They wanted to know if I was the only one living here," she said.
Of course, some of this might appear trivial compared to the domestic political housecleaning taking place across China. Many dissidents or potential noisemakers have been rounded up since December.
In the wake of these incidents, one can only wonder if this is the image China’s government and its people really want to present to the outside world as they prepare to host an Olympics bearing the banner "One World One Dream."
Perhaps not. A commentary posted on the state-run Xinhua news agency Web site Friday urges the Chinese people to contain their "patriotic zeal."
Hee. Hee hee. Oh, the similarities between our two countries. Other than they make things for really, really cheap and sell their girl-children into slavery or something like that. Patriotic zeal, indeed. Sounds more like what we were doing to Muslims and all other dark-skinned folk after 9/11. Not to mention the attacks on those Cheese Eating Surrender (Hey Hey We're The) Monkeys, I mean Le French.
So, those of you who claim that we and the Chinks have nothing in common and they are just damn dirty Commies, think again. They are becoming more and more like us. Or us like them. Not sure. Hmmm....Either way, power do corrupt, do it not? And unchecked power, it do make for strange phrases. Patriotic zeal...ah crap, that's funny.
Friday, March 14, 2008
An Argument (in a way) For Eliot Spitzer
The Fed announced a $200,000,000 bailout to the unfortunate banking dildos caught up short by the current housing foreclosure/subprime mess. Immediately following, the Stock Market took a shit (again). Greg Palast has a very good article about this , much better written and researched than a lowly nyuck like me could do (and that is why he gets paid for what he does, though often ignored by the mainstream press). But isn't it coincidental that Eliot Spitzer gets nabbed in a prostitution ring sting right before the Fed pulls off this megapayoff at the expense of...US! That $200 Billion wasn't private money. It was ours. We, in effect, paid off the very banks and lenders that instigated this type of predatory loaning and flexible APR. Countrywide is now "under investigation" by the "Justice Department" for its immoral and (not quite yet) illegal actions. Countrywide is now, also, owned by Bank Of America.
Spitzer was the main man in charge of attacking these greedy bastards and stopping them from raping those of us who, through ignorance or lack of any other opportunity, agreed to what we thought was a fair and above-board deal. He was hated by the lenders, the banks and George Bush. He stood in the way (not very well, actually) of those entities and Saudi Arabia of making hundreds of Billions individually and walking away with none noticing.
Most of what Greg Palast writes in his newest missive I knew about in general. I did NOT know that B of A had bought Countrywide.
I DID know that Congressman Greg Vitters ( a Republican, by the way) had been caught in the same kind of sting and was being treated with kid gloves by the Feds. In fact, they tried to keep his name silent. He still hasn't been convicted as far as I know of whatever it is that Johns get convicted of. And he was using public money to get his rocks off. Unlike Spitzer who paid out of his own pocket.
What was my first thought when I read that Spitzer had been connected to a call girl ring?
Answer: What a dumbass dickhead!
Unlike the so-called "moral" morons who sprinkle this country with their holier-than-thou attitudes and "I read it in the Bible, so it must be true" tripe, I don't care what a man or woman does on their own time so long as no one is injured by it (and by "no one" I mean "other than themselves", and by "injured" I mean neither physically, financially or empirically). You might say "But Fishstick, his wife and children WERE injured".
To that I reply: yes, but so what? He is as human as human gets. More so in one sense of the word. Those who do not fuck up are, in my eyes, less than human, so caught up as they are about being better than everyone else and closer to "perfection".
Spitzer fucked up. But his true sin (if there is such a thing) was to do it as a Public Figure dedicated to rooting out crime and corruption. He committed crime and it showed us the perception of corruption. He let down so many of the wage earners who believed that he was "better" than them and those he was after. He disappointed all of the blue collars hoping for justice against all those who benefited from deceptive legal practices and the protection of the government. He had stood up to the powers that be and spit in their eyes as a mouthpiece for us.
And, because of that, he was watched. And he knew that. And, still, he partook of pleasures forbidden by law and the Puritans who have ruled our country for too long. Puritans who, in turn, break these very laws and expect to get away with it. Who know they will get away with it so long as they have the proper walls and buffers in place. Spitzer forgot that rule: when you run afoul of those making the money, you will be crushed on the reefs of their power.
And it's a shame. He was doing good for us the taxpayers. He was shining a spotlight on the greed still espoused by the same small cabal for so many, many years.
Did he succumb to the pressures of the job? Did his homelife suffer from the demands of his calling? Probably yes to both. Did he use good judgement while hiring a prostitute? Definitively NO. The corrupt and immoral can get away with this type of activity much easier than the torch bearers for they have set the groudrules.
And the ground rules are simple: those who speak out against unlawful or unethical or immoral actions will be the first to get caught in these actions, because that is part of the ground rules set forth by those who have the money and power to engage in them. Those who speak out against must held to a tighter leash by the very ones who are for.
Spitzer gets caught for being a John and the Bush government then allows the Fed to ship $200 million of our money to banks and lenders who raped us. An action Spitzer was trying to point out and not allow.
And yet. Does Spitzer deserve a rebuke for being a dumbshit? Yes. Does he deserve to feel the wrath of his wife and family? Yes. Did he do well to admit he let down the people he claimed to represent? Yes. Did he take the higher moral road in quitting his office? Yes.
And yet. Was he caught with thousands of bribe dollars in his freezer and then claim immunity (Jefferson)? Did he claim that he would wait until all the facts were in before saying that he was being taken out of context just because he had a "meeting" with a known hooker and still manage to serve more time in Congress (Vitter)? Did he plead guilty and then try to retract his plea, because of a misunderstanding about public bathroom behavior (Craig)?
Also, why was Spitzer outted so quickly? Vitter wasn't. Craig wasn't. The press had to actually dig for those. Spitzer was handed to the press immediately on a silver platter. By whom? The only enemies he had were those in the banking business and the Bush administration. So who blew the whistle? Who had access to an undercover federal sting operation? Well, that would be the Feds, wouldn't it? And why would they want to blow the whistle on a major player?
Sort of smells like a Don Seigelman whitewash. And I want to know who the other major players are who the Feds have names for in this sting. So far, only Spitzer, even though the UK papers are saying that member of the Queen's family is involved (but if he had relations with a female hooker, then they are probably breathing a huge sigh of relief).
So, who else? Or is Spitzer enough for the Feds? Or is Spitzer the only one they wanted? I don't defend him, because he's a Democrat. I don't defend him at all. It's been a long time since I really differentiated the two parties when it comes to corruption and personal lust for power at the expense of all others (see Clinton v. Obama v. McCain). What I want to know is how many others of notable repute were caught up in this web? And why are they not being trotted before the fawning press corps? I will not believe he is the only one who should come tumbling down. This was a very discreet (so they thought) and expensive prostitution ring spanning two continents and numerable countries. So, where are the others?
And why are we not screaming for their heads as we did when we found out about Eliot Spitzer?
Spitzer was the main man in charge of attacking these greedy bastards and stopping them from raping those of us who, through ignorance or lack of any other opportunity, agreed to what we thought was a fair and above-board deal. He was hated by the lenders, the banks and George Bush. He stood in the way (not very well, actually) of those entities and Saudi Arabia of making hundreds of Billions individually and walking away with none noticing.
Most of what Greg Palast writes in his newest missive I knew about in general. I did NOT know that B of A had bought Countrywide.
I DID know that Congressman Greg Vitters ( a Republican, by the way) had been caught in the same kind of sting and was being treated with kid gloves by the Feds. In fact, they tried to keep his name silent. He still hasn't been convicted as far as I know of whatever it is that Johns get convicted of. And he was using public money to get his rocks off. Unlike Spitzer who paid out of his own pocket.
What was my first thought when I read that Spitzer had been connected to a call girl ring?
Answer: What a dumbass dickhead!
Unlike the so-called "moral" morons who sprinkle this country with their holier-than-thou attitudes and "I read it in the Bible, so it must be true" tripe, I don't care what a man or woman does on their own time so long as no one is injured by it (and by "no one" I mean "other than themselves", and by "injured" I mean neither physically, financially or empirically). You might say "But Fishstick, his wife and children WERE injured".
To that I reply: yes, but so what? He is as human as human gets. More so in one sense of the word. Those who do not fuck up are, in my eyes, less than human, so caught up as they are about being better than everyone else and closer to "perfection".
Spitzer fucked up. But his true sin (if there is such a thing) was to do it as a Public Figure dedicated to rooting out crime and corruption. He committed crime and it showed us the perception of corruption. He let down so many of the wage earners who believed that he was "better" than them and those he was after. He disappointed all of the blue collars hoping for justice against all those who benefited from deceptive legal practices and the protection of the government. He had stood up to the powers that be and spit in their eyes as a mouthpiece for us.
And, because of that, he was watched. And he knew that. And, still, he partook of pleasures forbidden by law and the Puritans who have ruled our country for too long. Puritans who, in turn, break these very laws and expect to get away with it. Who know they will get away with it so long as they have the proper walls and buffers in place. Spitzer forgot that rule: when you run afoul of those making the money, you will be crushed on the reefs of their power.
And it's a shame. He was doing good for us the taxpayers. He was shining a spotlight on the greed still espoused by the same small cabal for so many, many years.
Did he succumb to the pressures of the job? Did his homelife suffer from the demands of his calling? Probably yes to both. Did he use good judgement while hiring a prostitute? Definitively NO. The corrupt and immoral can get away with this type of activity much easier than the torch bearers for they have set the groudrules.
And the ground rules are simple: those who speak out against unlawful or unethical or immoral actions will be the first to get caught in these actions, because that is part of the ground rules set forth by those who have the money and power to engage in them. Those who speak out against must held to a tighter leash by the very ones who are for.
Spitzer gets caught for being a John and the Bush government then allows the Fed to ship $200 million of our money to banks and lenders who raped us. An action Spitzer was trying to point out and not allow.
And yet. Does Spitzer deserve a rebuke for being a dumbshit? Yes. Does he deserve to feel the wrath of his wife and family? Yes. Did he do well to admit he let down the people he claimed to represent? Yes. Did he take the higher moral road in quitting his office? Yes.
And yet. Was he caught with thousands of bribe dollars in his freezer and then claim immunity (Jefferson)? Did he claim that he would wait until all the facts were in before saying that he was being taken out of context just because he had a "meeting" with a known hooker and still manage to serve more time in Congress (Vitter)? Did he plead guilty and then try to retract his plea, because of a misunderstanding about public bathroom behavior (Craig)?
Also, why was Spitzer outted so quickly? Vitter wasn't. Craig wasn't. The press had to actually dig for those. Spitzer was handed to the press immediately on a silver platter. By whom? The only enemies he had were those in the banking business and the Bush administration. So who blew the whistle? Who had access to an undercover federal sting operation? Well, that would be the Feds, wouldn't it? And why would they want to blow the whistle on a major player?
Sort of smells like a Don Seigelman whitewash. And I want to know who the other major players are who the Feds have names for in this sting. So far, only Spitzer, even though the UK papers are saying that member of the Queen's family is involved (but if he had relations with a female hooker, then they are probably breathing a huge sigh of relief).
So, who else? Or is Spitzer enough for the Feds? Or is Spitzer the only one they wanted? I don't defend him, because he's a Democrat. I don't defend him at all. It's been a long time since I really differentiated the two parties when it comes to corruption and personal lust for power at the expense of all others (see Clinton v. Obama v. McCain). What I want to know is how many others of notable repute were caught up in this web? And why are they not being trotted before the fawning press corps? I will not believe he is the only one who should come tumbling down. This was a very discreet (so they thought) and expensive prostitution ring spanning two continents and numerable countries. So, where are the others?
And why are we not screaming for their heads as we did when we found out about Eliot Spitzer?
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Smoke and Mirrors
Clinton Wins Texas!!!
Clinton Wins Texas!!!
Or did she?
What many, including me, didn't know about is the "Texas Two Step", which involves Texas holding its primary and its caucus votes on the same day. If you vote in the primary you can then vote in the caucus of your district (or the other way around; it's a weird dance). So, Clinton wins the primary garnering her X number delegates, but the caucuses control delegates as well. And the caucus numbers are looking like Obama will win that majority giving him a total of four more delegates for the entire state when the primary and caucus delegates are totaled up.
So, Obama actually wins, just like Gore in Florida in 2000 (though that wasn't known until over a year later when all legal ballots were recounted as a sort of academic exercise). But the public at large will be left with a mental picture like the one at top and think that Clinton pulled off the sweep she and her husband said she had to. And the media blares out that she is on the comeback trail, because of her impressive wins in Texas and Ohio and Rhode Island (she did actually win the last two). And her husband's statement that she must win both Ohio and Texas to stay in the race are obscured in the dust raised by the stomping and backslapping of her campaign in the wake of the primary vote.
Perception is everything, is it not?
Clinton Wins Texas!!!Or did she?
What many, including me, didn't know about is the "Texas Two Step", which involves Texas holding its primary and its caucus votes on the same day. If you vote in the primary you can then vote in the caucus of your district (or the other way around; it's a weird dance). So, Clinton wins the primary garnering her X number delegates, but the caucuses control delegates as well. And the caucus numbers are looking like Obama will win that majority giving him a total of four more delegates for the entire state when the primary and caucus delegates are totaled up.
So, Obama actually wins, just like Gore in Florida in 2000 (though that wasn't known until over a year later when all legal ballots were recounted as a sort of academic exercise). But the public at large will be left with a mental picture like the one at top and think that Clinton pulled off the sweep she and her husband said she had to. And the media blares out that she is on the comeback trail, because of her impressive wins in Texas and Ohio and Rhode Island (she did actually win the last two). And her husband's statement that she must win both Ohio and Texas to stay in the race are obscured in the dust raised by the stomping and backslapping of her campaign in the wake of the primary vote.
Perception is everything, is it not?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Not In My Name
It seems to me that no people ever like to admit shame or culpability concerning atrocities committed by their government in their name in times of war. To do so, to be willing to step back and view the carnage and say aloud that it is not acceptable for a civilised people to knowingly engage in acts that target innocent bystanders (especially as a form of intimidation to the survivors and neighboring areas) would be seen as unpatriotic and sympathetic to the enemy. As we all know by now, you can't win a war no one likes. You can't win a war that turns a populace's stomach.
It's been said in many quarters that one of the primary reasons we did not leave victoriously from Viet Nam is because of the international TV coverage carried out on the front lines with the grunts in which the international audience saw the realities of war. Specifically, the US audience saw what what was being done in its name to and by its military and government.
Therefor, it comes as no surprise to most that in the ensuing wars/conflicts/police actions the US engaged in a program of embedding journalists as a counter to a free and unfettered public through the media lens. By embedding journalists with certain divisions or brigades, the government could more effectively control the dissemination of information to the public.
War is not pretty (as someone once said). And certain things done in the name of freedom are better left unseen (as someone probably never said). However, certain things done "in the name of freedom" during the Viet Nam war were condemned and it was agreed they should never be repeated. I refer at this time to Napalm.
The immediate effects of Napalm were seen repeatedly by US citizens and it turned them off to what was being done "in our name". The number of innocent casualties greatly outweighed those of certified enemies. And the pain inflicted by it, the utter physical agony it thrust on a victim was abhorrent by all standards. And so it was that the USA eventually signed international agreements to never use it again in times of war/conflict/police actions on any populace in any manner (one might argue that the agreements contain the word "indiscriminate", but it is universally held that Napalm cannot be use "discriminately"). And, so far as I can find, our government has fairly managed to uphold its end of the bargain.
Until recently.
While perusing and following threads and links on my usual list of political news sites I came across this and this.
According to a major UK newspaper, the US lied to the UK in 2005 about use of a chemical weapon called MK 77. While it is not Napalm exactly in its makeup it evidently brings the same results---a chemical which attacks flesh, air and water, causing them to ignite. It bypasses clothing for the most part, but it burns to the bone. In one sense, it is more discriminate than Napalm. Napalm burned clothing as well. MK 77 is a respecter of fashion.
The site to which I travelled in order to find the above links has a documentary that speaks directly to the use of a Napalm-like chemical on the city of Fallujah when US forces attacked it. On the documentary are interviews with two US soldiers (one of whom confirms the use of white phosphorus as well, which is another chemical that burns through flesh on contact), two Italian journalists, an Iraqi journalist and a former UK parliamentarian. It runs 27 minutes and should be viewed only by those with strong stomachs. Perhaps the most chilling video clip is that which arrives at the very end of the piece as we watch US snipers take out three suspected terrorists and their trucks. And the most chilling audio is that of the soldier stating that all of the soldiers were told that anything moving in Fallujah was to be considered a target. Anything and anyone.
But there is ample video evidence that Napalm or something like it was dispersed at large over the population of Fallujah. And the US's denials that no civilians were killed during this "operation" can now be seen to be utterly without merit and, indeed, a bald faced lie.
War is, indeed, not pretty. No one should ever live under the delusion that combat can be anything other than uncivil. In war, soldiers do things that we civilians would find repugnant, but they are mostly responding to any given hostile situation with the only means they have: weapons and adrenaline. They respond to deadly force with equally deadly or dominant force. It is their urge to survive that creates what we sometimes see in hindsight as unnecessary mayhem.
But to use Napalm or anything akin or white phosphorus defines premeditation. It signifies that our government and our military commanders authorized its use. Otherwise, it would not have been included in the arsenal taken to that city.
War is not pretty, it is Hell (as someone, again, once said).
But, while war is not pretty and should never be illused as such, even more horrendous and barbaric and without conscience or any semblance of moral defense is a "civilised" country's indifference to the welfare of those it is claiming to protect as it carries out mass murder in order to intimidate those who watch.
It's been said in many quarters that one of the primary reasons we did not leave victoriously from Viet Nam is because of the international TV coverage carried out on the front lines with the grunts in which the international audience saw the realities of war. Specifically, the US audience saw what what was being done in its name to and by its military and government.
Therefor, it comes as no surprise to most that in the ensuing wars/conflicts/police actions the US engaged in a program of embedding journalists as a counter to a free and unfettered public through the media lens. By embedding journalists with certain divisions or brigades, the government could more effectively control the dissemination of information to the public.
War is not pretty (as someone once said). And certain things done in the name of freedom are better left unseen (as someone probably never said). However, certain things done "in the name of freedom" during the Viet Nam war were condemned and it was agreed they should never be repeated. I refer at this time to Napalm.
The immediate effects of Napalm were seen repeatedly by US citizens and it turned them off to what was being done "in our name". The number of innocent casualties greatly outweighed those of certified enemies. And the pain inflicted by it, the utter physical agony it thrust on a victim was abhorrent by all standards. And so it was that the USA eventually signed international agreements to never use it again in times of war/conflict/police actions on any populace in any manner (one might argue that the agreements contain the word "indiscriminate", but it is universally held that Napalm cannot be use "discriminately"). And, so far as I can find, our government has fairly managed to uphold its end of the bargain.
Until recently.
While perusing and following threads and links on my usual list of political news sites I came across this and this.
According to a major UK newspaper, the US lied to the UK in 2005 about use of a chemical weapon called MK 77. While it is not Napalm exactly in its makeup it evidently brings the same results---a chemical which attacks flesh, air and water, causing them to ignite. It bypasses clothing for the most part, but it burns to the bone. In one sense, it is more discriminate than Napalm. Napalm burned clothing as well. MK 77 is a respecter of fashion.
The site to which I travelled in order to find the above links has a documentary that speaks directly to the use of a Napalm-like chemical on the city of Fallujah when US forces attacked it. On the documentary are interviews with two US soldiers (one of whom confirms the use of white phosphorus as well, which is another chemical that burns through flesh on contact), two Italian journalists, an Iraqi journalist and a former UK parliamentarian. It runs 27 minutes and should be viewed only by those with strong stomachs. Perhaps the most chilling video clip is that which arrives at the very end of the piece as we watch US snipers take out three suspected terrorists and their trucks. And the most chilling audio is that of the soldier stating that all of the soldiers were told that anything moving in Fallujah was to be considered a target. Anything and anyone.
But there is ample video evidence that Napalm or something like it was dispersed at large over the population of Fallujah. And the US's denials that no civilians were killed during this "operation" can now be seen to be utterly without merit and, indeed, a bald faced lie.
War is, indeed, not pretty. No one should ever live under the delusion that combat can be anything other than uncivil. In war, soldiers do things that we civilians would find repugnant, but they are mostly responding to any given hostile situation with the only means they have: weapons and adrenaline. They respond to deadly force with equally deadly or dominant force. It is their urge to survive that creates what we sometimes see in hindsight as unnecessary mayhem.
But to use Napalm or anything akin or white phosphorus defines premeditation. It signifies that our government and our military commanders authorized its use. Otherwise, it would not have been included in the arsenal taken to that city.
War is not pretty, it is Hell (as someone, again, once said).
But, while war is not pretty and should never be illused as such, even more horrendous and barbaric and without conscience or any semblance of moral defense is a "civilised" country's indifference to the welfare of those it is claiming to protect as it carries out mass murder in order to intimidate those who watch.
Monday, February 25, 2008
60 Minutes Blacks Out Part of Its Story
Interesting. Part of 60 Minutes' broadcast was blacked out in a couple areas of Alabama last Sunday night. But only the parts dealing with the story about Don Siegelman were affected. Don Seigelman, as you may not know, is the former governor of Alabama who was imprisoned for bribery and conspiracy. There are allegations of vote count changing during his failed bid to retain the governorship in 2006 as well as allegations that Karl Rove (you know, Turd Blossom) was at the heart of the vote count change that may or may have not occured at a very late hour of that voting night and at the heart of the campaign by the Justice Department to convict Siegelman of whatever it could (at the very least, to tarnish his name enough so that his bid to get back into the Alabama State House would fail).
A Republican operative/lawyer involved in some of Rove's crimes (I mean shenanigans) even came forward to present evidence to Congress about the attacks made on Siegelman. Subsequently, her house burned down in a fire and she was run off the road by an unknown driver (I say subsequently, but both of these events happened in the weeks leading up to her testimony).
But I must ask WTF!?! is up with 60 Minutes? Only Alabama was affected by the blackouts? And 60 Minutes' parent company (CBS) is located in New York? How does a technical gaffe in New York only affect those in the very state being discussed and only during that particular segment? Someone find me a statistical dweeb and get me the odds on that. Because I think it would be in the area of Not Possible:1.
CBS's 60 Minutes story is here and I would urge you to read it.
P.S. For an update, this article from Harper's Magazine states that it was the local CBS affiliate that blacked out the story and told viewers it was New York's fault. According to New York, they had no transmission difficulties. Plus, the story is written by someone who was interviewed multiple times for the story itself so he has inside knowledge of a lot.
A Republican operative/lawyer involved in some of Rove's crimes (I mean shenanigans) even came forward to present evidence to Congress about the attacks made on Siegelman. Subsequently, her house burned down in a fire and she was run off the road by an unknown driver (I say subsequently, but both of these events happened in the weeks leading up to her testimony).
But I must ask WTF!?! is up with 60 Minutes? Only Alabama was affected by the blackouts? And 60 Minutes' parent company (CBS) is located in New York? How does a technical gaffe in New York only affect those in the very state being discussed and only during that particular segment? Someone find me a statistical dweeb and get me the odds on that. Because I think it would be in the area of Not Possible:1.
CBS's 60 Minutes story is here and I would urge you to read it.
P.S. For an update, this article from Harper's Magazine states that it was the local CBS affiliate that blacked out the story and told viewers it was New York's fault. According to New York, they had no transmission difficulties. Plus, the story is written by someone who was interviewed multiple times for the story itself so he has inside knowledge of a lot.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Who Says the Arab World Won't Learn From Democracy?
(apologies to those who feel it unamerican to visit al jazeera's website [or are afraid they'll be put on someone's terrorist watch list], but i doubt we'll be seeing this bit of news in any american newspaper)
"Al Jazeera has said a code adopted by Arab states to govern satellite broadcasting could shackle freedom of expression.
Arab information ministers meeting on Tuesday in Cairo endorsed the charter, which allows host countries to annul or suspend the licence of any broadcaster found in violation of the rules it sets...
...The Cairo document stipulates that satellite channels "should not damage social harmony, national unity, public order or traditional values".
Anas al-Fiqi, the Egyptian information minister, said his country would be the first to implement the charter.
"Some satellite channels have strayed from the correct path," he said...
...The Cairo charter stipulates that channels should " refrain from broadcasting anything which calls into question God, the monotheistic religions, the prophets, sects or symbols of the various religious communities".
sweet, the 22 Arab League members are actually very american (just like jesus) in their irrational fears about outsiders and infidels. this could be the New Coalition of the Willing To Kill All Who Disagree.
We should have a summit (by "we" i mean Bush), cut some brush, shoot someone in the face and attack Iran.
i mean, we should sit down, discuss our differences and how to reconcile them since we seem to agree on the "outside agitators" thing, then attack iran.
no, i mean, we should let them redress our women with their eyes, become our AA sponsors, butt into our need to Butt Out From Smoking, then attack iran.
um, i mean, we should fuse our two gods, destroy Tibet and Nepal, eat a cow for christ and asparagus for allah, ban the obese, the unwashed and those who wear bowties, bow to the East (which works for me, because washington, d.c. is in that general direction from where i sit), and then attack iran.
wait, i mean, we should destroy all gods but the true god (and east or west, we all know which one that is, right?), spread social hegemony, refrain from "bombasting anything which calls into question Cod, the mannishbeastic digestions, the poppets, sex or cymbals of nefarious incisions", then (finally) attack iran.
okay, i think i've got it right. yeah. let's do it!
"Al Jazeera has said a code adopted by Arab states to govern satellite broadcasting could shackle freedom of expression.
Arab information ministers meeting on Tuesday in Cairo endorsed the charter, which allows host countries to annul or suspend the licence of any broadcaster found in violation of the rules it sets...
...The Cairo document stipulates that satellite channels "should not damage social harmony, national unity, public order or traditional values".
Anas al-Fiqi, the Egyptian information minister, said his country would be the first to implement the charter.
"Some satellite channels have strayed from the correct path," he said...
...The Cairo charter stipulates that channels should " refrain from broadcasting anything which calls into question God, the monotheistic religions, the prophets, sects or symbols of the various religious communities".
sweet, the 22 Arab League members are actually very american (just like jesus) in their irrational fears about outsiders and infidels. this could be the New Coalition of the Willing To Kill All Who Disagree.
We should have a summit (by "we" i mean Bush), cut some brush, shoot someone in the face and attack Iran.
i mean, we should sit down, discuss our differences and how to reconcile them since we seem to agree on the "outside agitators" thing, then attack iran.
no, i mean, we should let them redress our women with their eyes, become our AA sponsors, butt into our need to Butt Out From Smoking, then attack iran.
um, i mean, we should fuse our two gods, destroy Tibet and Nepal, eat a cow for christ and asparagus for allah, ban the obese, the unwashed and those who wear bowties, bow to the East (which works for me, because washington, d.c. is in that general direction from where i sit), and then attack iran.
wait, i mean, we should destroy all gods but the true god (and east or west, we all know which one that is, right?), spread social hegemony, refrain from "bombasting anything which calls into question Cod, the mannishbeastic digestions, the poppets, sex or cymbals of nefarious incisions", then (finally) attack iran.
okay, i think i've got it right. yeah. let's do it!
No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition!
hee. hee hee. hoo hoo. snork! oh, my sides. my ribs. can't breathe. oh, the hilarity. oh, oh, oh...bwaaahaaahaaa!!!...sniffle, snark, snark...
The CIA's use of waterboarding was legal and not torture, a Justice Deparment official argued this morning, because it was a "procedure subject to strict limitations and safeguards" that made it substantially different from historical uses of the technique by the Japanese and the Spanish Inquisition.
Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department official who heads up the Office of Legal Counsel, is testifying before a House Judiciary subcommittee this morning. And he made an unexpected argument when Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) asked him whether waterboarding violated the law against torture.
It did not, he said. And he argued that what the CIA did bears "no resemblance" to what torturers in time past have done. "There's been a lot of discussion in the public about historical uses of waterboarding," he said. But the "only thing in common is the use of water," he said.
The Spanish and Japanese use of "water torture," he said, "involved the forced consumption of a mass amount of water." Asked by a Republican whether Bradbury was aware of any "modern use" of waterboarding that involved the "lungs filling with water," Bradbury said no.
The Japanese forced the ingestion of so much water that it was "beyond the capacity of the victim's stomach." Weight or pressure was then applied by standing or jumping on the stomach of the victim, sometimes leading to "blood coming of the victim's mouth." The Spanish Inquisition would use the technique to the point of "agony or death."
But the CIA wasn't doing that, he argued. "Strict time limits" were involved -- presumably governing the length of time that interrogators could induce the sensation of drowning. There were "safeguards" and "restrictions" that made it a much more controlled procedure. Because of that, he said, the technique did not amount to torture.
But Bradbury said that subsequent laws and Supreme Court decisions passed in 2005 and 2006 had changed his office's analysis, and in 2006 the CIA removed waterboarding from its authorized battery of interrogation techniques.
oh man, i think i just crapped my pants! that's good stuff there. i guess the writer's strike really is over. woof!
p.s. this next one sounds like a great idea (as oppsed to signing a petition), especially the "going back to bed" part since i'm not getting Presidents' Day off:
Veterans For Peace today kicked off its March 19, 2008 “Sick Of It Day” campaign to end the war in Iraq.
March 19 is the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and the campaign is designed to give every person sick of the corruption, the lies and the war an opportunity to join with others in the classic civil resistance tactic of “withdrawing consent” from the system.
Based on the principle taken from the Declaration of Independence that government requires the consent of the governed, everyone who joins Sick Of It Day will be actively withdrawing their consent, one by one, until the collective economic impact reverberates through Washington and politicians are faced with a choice: end the war or have an ungovernable country. (Read more about this powerful form of civil resistance…)
Giving his personal reason why he is “sick of it,” campaign originator and member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Adam Kokesh said, “I am sick of seeing America in denial about how much we have been lied to.”
Veterans For Peace member and campaign organizer, Mike Ferner, explained “I’ve seen the pain on the faces of the people of Iraq and the soldiers who come back from war. It’s something I can’t get out of my mind and there are days when it really does make me sick.”
People who call in sick on March 19 can choose from a wide variety of other things to do that day – from contacting Congress and going back to bed, to more ambitious ideas like helping quarantine military shipments in U.S. ports. Campaigners are invited to come up with their own “Sick Of It Day” activity and post it to the site.
Sick Of It Day web designer, Scott Blackburn, said “We’ve made the site easy to use and easy to pass along to others. The success of Sick Of It Day depends on the idea going viral on the internet. With so many people sick of this war, we think there’s a good chance it will.”
unlike petitions to impeach the pResident, this will truly hurt them where they live. i don't know how just yet (i don't even know who "them" truly is), but i will by the time i turn off my alarm, call in to work with my most indignant, pissed off and (just in case) flu-ridden voice to announce my unavailability for work that day and that my bosses need to do something about ending the war in Iraq and the lack of Paydays in the snack machine in the break room. mmmm, i do love me a good Payday. so nutty and nugatty.
The CIA's use of waterboarding was legal and not torture, a Justice Deparment official argued this morning, because it was a "procedure subject to strict limitations and safeguards" that made it substantially different from historical uses of the technique by the Japanese and the Spanish Inquisition.
Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department official who heads up the Office of Legal Counsel, is testifying before a House Judiciary subcommittee this morning. And he made an unexpected argument when Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) asked him whether waterboarding violated the law against torture.
It did not, he said. And he argued that what the CIA did bears "no resemblance" to what torturers in time past have done. "There's been a lot of discussion in the public about historical uses of waterboarding," he said. But the "only thing in common is the use of water," he said.
The Spanish and Japanese use of "water torture," he said, "involved the forced consumption of a mass amount of water." Asked by a Republican whether Bradbury was aware of any "modern use" of waterboarding that involved the "lungs filling with water," Bradbury said no.
The Japanese forced the ingestion of so much water that it was "beyond the capacity of the victim's stomach." Weight or pressure was then applied by standing or jumping on the stomach of the victim, sometimes leading to "blood coming of the victim's mouth." The Spanish Inquisition would use the technique to the point of "agony or death."
But the CIA wasn't doing that, he argued. "Strict time limits" were involved -- presumably governing the length of time that interrogators could induce the sensation of drowning. There were "safeguards" and "restrictions" that made it a much more controlled procedure. Because of that, he said, the technique did not amount to torture.
But Bradbury said that subsequent laws and Supreme Court decisions passed in 2005 and 2006 had changed his office's analysis, and in 2006 the CIA removed waterboarding from its authorized battery of interrogation techniques.
oh man, i think i just crapped my pants! that's good stuff there. i guess the writer's strike really is over. woof!
p.s. this next one sounds like a great idea (as oppsed to signing a petition), especially the "going back to bed" part since i'm not getting Presidents' Day off:
Veterans For Peace today kicked off its March 19, 2008 “Sick Of It Day” campaign to end the war in Iraq.
March 19 is the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and the campaign is designed to give every person sick of the corruption, the lies and the war an opportunity to join with others in the classic civil resistance tactic of “withdrawing consent” from the system.
Based on the principle taken from the Declaration of Independence that government requires the consent of the governed, everyone who joins Sick Of It Day will be actively withdrawing their consent, one by one, until the collective economic impact reverberates through Washington and politicians are faced with a choice: end the war or have an ungovernable country. (Read more about this powerful form of civil resistance…)
Giving his personal reason why he is “sick of it,” campaign originator and member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Adam Kokesh said, “I am sick of seeing America in denial about how much we have been lied to.”
Veterans For Peace member and campaign organizer, Mike Ferner, explained “I’ve seen the pain on the faces of the people of Iraq and the soldiers who come back from war. It’s something I can’t get out of my mind and there are days when it really does make me sick.”
People who call in sick on March 19 can choose from a wide variety of other things to do that day – from contacting Congress and going back to bed, to more ambitious ideas like helping quarantine military shipments in U.S. ports. Campaigners are invited to come up with their own “Sick Of It Day” activity and post it to the site.
Sick Of It Day web designer, Scott Blackburn, said “We’ve made the site easy to use and easy to pass along to others. The success of Sick Of It Day depends on the idea going viral on the internet. With so many people sick of this war, we think there’s a good chance it will.”
unlike petitions to impeach the pResident, this will truly hurt them where they live. i don't know how just yet (i don't even know who "them" truly is), but i will by the time i turn off my alarm, call in to work with my most indignant, pissed off and (just in case) flu-ridden voice to announce my unavailability for work that day and that my bosses need to do something about ending the war in Iraq and the lack of Paydays in the snack machine in the break room. mmmm, i do love me a good Payday. so nutty and nugatty.
Monday, February 11, 2008
www.votetoImpeach.org
yeah, it's a site's address i stole from the gentelman who will not be named.. it wants you to sign on to their petition to impeach Bush.
wow. what a drive. put your name on a petition that will go nowhere, because the Dems in Congress have repeatedly stated they will do no such thing, because it would be detrimental to our society.
hey, a blow job was worth an impeachment vote for republicans and some democrats, but crimes against humanity aren't.
so, save your breath and your internet time. concentrate instead on the important matters, like a $600 rebate to stave off the impending recession. or forcing fat people out of restauarants in mississippi. or shoving ethanol down the throats of a gullible populace. or an announcement to push for the death penalty for foreigners "involved" in the 9/11 bombings. or supporting the death penalty for chinese guys trying to steal nuclear secrets for china.
and make sure to get out and vote those people back into power the next time they come up for review. because they truly have our interest at heart.
as do the petitioners who rake in the signatures that do nothing. i mean, wow. "let's make it a million signatures" and this will force the government to listen.
really? not even the opposition is listening. so, what do you do now? get those million signers to jump and down all at the same time and cause an earthquake?
you're preaching to the choir when you start a movement like this. all of the signers are sheep who hope that the repository will do something for them. and the repository tends to do nothing but send in the signatures and then wait for a non-response so they can say that the government is non-responsive and afriad of the power of the people.
bullshit. the government knows that the people's power couldn't accelerate one hybrid car past the speed of stall.
all we seem to do is spit and stare.
wow. what a drive. put your name on a petition that will go nowhere, because the Dems in Congress have repeatedly stated they will do no such thing, because it would be detrimental to our society.
hey, a blow job was worth an impeachment vote for republicans and some democrats, but crimes against humanity aren't.
so, save your breath and your internet time. concentrate instead on the important matters, like a $600 rebate to stave off the impending recession. or forcing fat people out of restauarants in mississippi. or shoving ethanol down the throats of a gullible populace. or an announcement to push for the death penalty for foreigners "involved" in the 9/11 bombings. or supporting the death penalty for chinese guys trying to steal nuclear secrets for china.
and make sure to get out and vote those people back into power the next time they come up for review. because they truly have our interest at heart.
as do the petitioners who rake in the signatures that do nothing. i mean, wow. "let's make it a million signatures" and this will force the government to listen.
really? not even the opposition is listening. so, what do you do now? get those million signers to jump and down all at the same time and cause an earthquake?
you're preaching to the choir when you start a movement like this. all of the signers are sheep who hope that the repository will do something for them. and the repository tends to do nothing but send in the signatures and then wait for a non-response so they can say that the government is non-responsive and afriad of the power of the people.
bullshit. the government knows that the people's power couldn't accelerate one hybrid car past the speed of stall.
all we seem to do is spit and stare.
It Takes A village To Raze A Nation
HOUSE BILL NO. 282
An act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the state department of health; to direct the department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act; and for related purposes. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Mississippi:
SECTION 1.
(1) The provisions of this section shall apply to any food establishment that is required to obtain a permit from the State Department of Health under Section 41-3-15(4)(f), that operates primarily in an enclosed facility and that has five (5) or more seats for customers.
(2) Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.
(3) The State Department of Health shall monitor the food establishments to which this section applies for compliance with the provisions of this section, and may revoke the permit of any food establishment that repeatedly violates the provisions of this section.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2008.
really, i shouldn't even bother to comment. the mississipians' legally elected have done more than enough with this one. but i just can't help myself. i see the food and i gotta snarf at the trough.
so, no fatties at the public table. okay.
let's start with the obvious.
how do they define obesity? ah yes, it will defined as "per criteria" provided by a state based group after consultation with another group (not so state based). well, let's hope they don't include any of the national diet and/or weight loss organizations that want you and me to buy their products. a few years ago i was privy to nutrasystem's chart to determine obesity and i was three pounds under the limit for my height. 5' 8" and 185 pounds, mostly rugged marbled fat and muscle. overweight? yes. to a dangerous and possibly fatal point? not by a long shot in anyone's eyes.
next. will there be scales at the entrance to each and every restaurant and a government employee present to check for noncompliance? or will they rely on fit patrons to call in to a special hotline and "out" the offending patrons/restaurateurs?
and are 7-11's and AM/PM's and the like included? these establishments are notorious for selling absolute crap to anyone who trundles it to the checkout counter. they even provide carry carts for those too weak to bear the weight of processed food and sugar laden heart attacks.
while the state government is at it, why not go after obese restaurant employees who get a free meal after each shift?
so, what's next for the wonderful state of mississippi? ban bars from serving "known" alcoholics? restrict tobacco sales to those who smoke less than a pack a day? force fiancees to disclose any and all previous sexual encounters?
hey, here's an idea: how about it gets its state out of the lowest tier for income? how about it tries its damndest to push its education scores out of the gutter? how about it cleans up its river so the fish can swom and the fishermen can make a living again? how about it reads mark twain again and his rantings about state government?
obesity is a terrible disease, whether genetic or environmental. but to regulate who can and cannot eat at a public establishment is a callous slap in the face to those who suffer from it. if you are not willing to treat the disease as opposed to punishing it, then you will only paint yourself further into a corner of being perceived as stupid, ignorant, biased, redneck, zealotrous, phobic, narrow-minded and backwards.
i, for one, cringe at the children i see in the supermarket. grossly overweight, coddled by parents, throwing what they want into the cart and getting away with it. i find it hard to make eye contact with obese adults, because i am afraid they will see the pity and revulsion i know i can't quite hide. maybe it is a bleeding heart liberal thing to wince inwardly at the excesses perpetuated by our society, but not speak outright to those indulging in them. but i don't see the other side doing it either. i see them passing laws to punish those who don't fit in to their narrow view on life. i see them expelling those who don't fit. i hear them saying "bless her heart" behind scented handkerchiefs and then passing judgement.
what i don't see from any of us is a willingness to work with them. we give money to charities and then call it a day. we pass laws to protect and then don't follow up to make sure the law is doing what it said it would. we turn a blind eye to those in need and then chastise them for being who they are.
do i have the right to go up to a mother at savemart and tell her she's killing her obese child by buying it insta-meals and pop tarts? yes. it's a free country and speech is protected. it may be rude and self-serving, but it is a right.
do i have the right to regulate where and when families or individuals can eat on a night out? no. or, rather, i should not. but even in our nation of citizens' rights i find that those who do not fit within any majority group's predetermined list of rules can be forced out or into subjugation.
we are a nation of laws, but we seem more and more willing to let a select few write and enforce those laws. and as long as we are satisfied to concentrate on our individual ills we will continue to allow the city and the state and the national governments to pass any and all laws without our consent.
you know the saying:
"it takes a village to raise a child".
historians may look back on America and say "it took a village to raze a nation".
or it took a populace afraid of speaking out to acede to domination. we are, indeed, a global village. every nation, no matter their politics, looks to us as the compass. we have become THE empire for the 20th and 21st centuries. whether they agree with us or not, all fate is tied to ours.
and if the best we can give them is to ban obese people from dining out, then we are truly fucked.
An act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the state department of health; to direct the department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act; and for related purposes. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Mississippi:
SECTION 1.
(1) The provisions of this section shall apply to any food establishment that is required to obtain a permit from the State Department of Health under Section 41-3-15(4)(f), that operates primarily in an enclosed facility and that has five (5) or more seats for customers.
(2) Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.
(3) The State Department of Health shall monitor the food establishments to which this section applies for compliance with the provisions of this section, and may revoke the permit of any food establishment that repeatedly violates the provisions of this section.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2008.
really, i shouldn't even bother to comment. the mississipians' legally elected have done more than enough with this one. but i just can't help myself. i see the food and i gotta snarf at the trough.
so, no fatties at the public table. okay.
let's start with the obvious.
how do they define obesity? ah yes, it will defined as "per criteria" provided by a state based group after consultation with another group (not so state based). well, let's hope they don't include any of the national diet and/or weight loss organizations that want you and me to buy their products. a few years ago i was privy to nutrasystem's chart to determine obesity and i was three pounds under the limit for my height. 5' 8" and 185 pounds, mostly rugged marbled fat and muscle. overweight? yes. to a dangerous and possibly fatal point? not by a long shot in anyone's eyes.
next. will there be scales at the entrance to each and every restaurant and a government employee present to check for noncompliance? or will they rely on fit patrons to call in to a special hotline and "out" the offending patrons/restaurateurs?
and are 7-11's and AM/PM's and the like included? these establishments are notorious for selling absolute crap to anyone who trundles it to the checkout counter. they even provide carry carts for those too weak to bear the weight of processed food and sugar laden heart attacks.
while the state government is at it, why not go after obese restaurant employees who get a free meal after each shift?
so, what's next for the wonderful state of mississippi? ban bars from serving "known" alcoholics? restrict tobacco sales to those who smoke less than a pack a day? force fiancees to disclose any and all previous sexual encounters?
hey, here's an idea: how about it gets its state out of the lowest tier for income? how about it tries its damndest to push its education scores out of the gutter? how about it cleans up its river so the fish can swom and the fishermen can make a living again? how about it reads mark twain again and his rantings about state government?
obesity is a terrible disease, whether genetic or environmental. but to regulate who can and cannot eat at a public establishment is a callous slap in the face to those who suffer from it. if you are not willing to treat the disease as opposed to punishing it, then you will only paint yourself further into a corner of being perceived as stupid, ignorant, biased, redneck, zealotrous, phobic, narrow-minded and backwards.
i, for one, cringe at the children i see in the supermarket. grossly overweight, coddled by parents, throwing what they want into the cart and getting away with it. i find it hard to make eye contact with obese adults, because i am afraid they will see the pity and revulsion i know i can't quite hide. maybe it is a bleeding heart liberal thing to wince inwardly at the excesses perpetuated by our society, but not speak outright to those indulging in them. but i don't see the other side doing it either. i see them passing laws to punish those who don't fit in to their narrow view on life. i see them expelling those who don't fit. i hear them saying "bless her heart" behind scented handkerchiefs and then passing judgement.
what i don't see from any of us is a willingness to work with them. we give money to charities and then call it a day. we pass laws to protect and then don't follow up to make sure the law is doing what it said it would. we turn a blind eye to those in need and then chastise them for being who they are.
do i have the right to go up to a mother at savemart and tell her she's killing her obese child by buying it insta-meals and pop tarts? yes. it's a free country and speech is protected. it may be rude and self-serving, but it is a right.
do i have the right to regulate where and when families or individuals can eat on a night out? no. or, rather, i should not. but even in our nation of citizens' rights i find that those who do not fit within any majority group's predetermined list of rules can be forced out or into subjugation.
we are a nation of laws, but we seem more and more willing to let a select few write and enforce those laws. and as long as we are satisfied to concentrate on our individual ills we will continue to allow the city and the state and the national governments to pass any and all laws without our consent.
you know the saying:
"it takes a village to raise a child".
historians may look back on America and say "it took a village to raze a nation".
or it took a populace afraid of speaking out to acede to domination. we are, indeed, a global village. every nation, no matter their politics, looks to us as the compass. we have become THE empire for the 20th and 21st centuries. whether they agree with us or not, all fate is tied to ours.
and if the best we can give them is to ban obese people from dining out, then we are truly fucked.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Vote, Goddamit!!!!!!
supposedly neutral groups are now saying that the Iraq War is costing us $720,000,000 a day. that's $21.6 billion per month, up from the $12 billion i posted about last year.
i forget what it cost per hour, minute and second back then, but i will do what i can do update it at this time.
so. okay. that's $30 million per hour (vs. $13,333,333).
$500,000 per minute (vs, $555,556).
$8333.33 per second (vs. $9259.26).
i make $.29 a minute.
$.oo49 per second.
neither of my numbers has gone up. in fact, with inflation and rising gas prices, both have gone down in terms of buying power.
so, here's to you, george bush, and your powerful cabal. i raise my bottle to those who reap the rewards of an illegal war. i tip the hat to those running away with multi-million dollar bonuses as their companies crash and burn. i remove my hat for the fat cats and their ability to seduce an entire country into supporting policies and laws that take and take and take from the pockets of the average work-a-day person. i sit in awe and shock at the shameless fornication going on between the two major political parties as bush runs our economy into the ground via his wonderful war in iraq.
cheers to you, george and dick and nancy and harry and hillary and tom and john and colin and condoleeza for the lies which led us to a war we can't win and never could through violence and privatization and immunity to those who commit crimes on a foreign person.
i can't thank you enough for the WMD lies, the ties to al quaeda lies, the outing of a covert CIA operative, the eavesdropping on americans in contravention of standing U.S. laws, the hyping of illegal immigration as a threat to our way of life in order to make us look away from the other problems; for waiting until we are on the brink of a global recession created by you and your obsession with not admitting that you might be wrong about a host of issues that have pushed this country into an economic hole to allow the federal reserve chairman to announce an historic rate cut that would have worked a month ago, for the subprime mess created by banks unregulated and unleashed, for FEMA and its inability to address even the smallest of emergencies, for the Homeland Security Department and its inability to address even the largest of nuclear/biological attacks without offering up duct tape and saran wrap as a means to sterility, for smudging out the line of separation between church and state and inviting evangelicals to sit down and help write domestic policy as it pertains to gynocological health, premarital sex, planned pregnancy, evolution vs. creationism, forced prayer in schools and pushing the ten commandments back into the halls of justice.
thank you one, thank you all. it takes a lynch mob to set a country back 100 years.
and it takes one vote to help set it right again. whoever you vote for, make sure they want to move this country forward again. make sure they want to balance the budget. make sure they only want to kill those who truly deserve it. and make sure you can live with your chioce for the next eight years.
i forget what it cost per hour, minute and second back then, but i will do what i can do update it at this time.
so. okay. that's $30 million per hour (vs. $13,333,333).
$500,000 per minute (vs, $555,556).
$8333.33 per second (vs. $9259.26).
i make $.29 a minute.
$.oo49 per second.
neither of my numbers has gone up. in fact, with inflation and rising gas prices, both have gone down in terms of buying power.
so, here's to you, george bush, and your powerful cabal. i raise my bottle to those who reap the rewards of an illegal war. i tip the hat to those running away with multi-million dollar bonuses as their companies crash and burn. i remove my hat for the fat cats and their ability to seduce an entire country into supporting policies and laws that take and take and take from the pockets of the average work-a-day person. i sit in awe and shock at the shameless fornication going on between the two major political parties as bush runs our economy into the ground via his wonderful war in iraq.
cheers to you, george and dick and nancy and harry and hillary and tom and john and colin and condoleeza for the lies which led us to a war we can't win and never could through violence and privatization and immunity to those who commit crimes on a foreign person.
i can't thank you enough for the WMD lies, the ties to al quaeda lies, the outing of a covert CIA operative, the eavesdropping on americans in contravention of standing U.S. laws, the hyping of illegal immigration as a threat to our way of life in order to make us look away from the other problems; for waiting until we are on the brink of a global recession created by you and your obsession with not admitting that you might be wrong about a host of issues that have pushed this country into an economic hole to allow the federal reserve chairman to announce an historic rate cut that would have worked a month ago, for the subprime mess created by banks unregulated and unleashed, for FEMA and its inability to address even the smallest of emergencies, for the Homeland Security Department and its inability to address even the largest of nuclear/biological attacks without offering up duct tape and saran wrap as a means to sterility, for smudging out the line of separation between church and state and inviting evangelicals to sit down and help write domestic policy as it pertains to gynocological health, premarital sex, planned pregnancy, evolution vs. creationism, forced prayer in schools and pushing the ten commandments back into the halls of justice.
thank you one, thank you all. it takes a lynch mob to set a country back 100 years.
and it takes one vote to help set it right again. whoever you vote for, make sure they want to move this country forward again. make sure they want to balance the budget. make sure they only want to kill those who truly deserve it. and make sure you can live with your chioce for the next eight years.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Tom Cruise: Masked Crusader For Thye ShortBus
Poll time. Which do you prefer:
the gay magazine Paree spread?
tom portraying himself in the movie "magnolia".
Greg Palast On Bush And Our Future
from greg palast comes this new, scary thought about president bush's visit to the middle east. some of it i knew, some i imagined in fevered dreams, a bit i had no idea about.
"Bend over, pull out your wallet and kiss your Abe ‘goodbye.’ The Lincolns have got to go - and so do the Hamiltons and Jacksons.
Those bills in your billfold aren’t yours anymore. The landlords of our currency - Citibank, the national treasury of China and the House of Saud - are foreclosing and evicting all Americans from the US economy.
It’s mornings like this, when I wake up hung-over to photos of the King of Saudi Arabia festooning our President with gold necklaces, that I reluctantly remember that I am an economist; and one with some responsibility to explain what the hell Bush is doing kissing Abdullah’s camel.
Let’s begin by stating why Bush is not in Saudi Arabia. Bush ain’t there to promote ‘Democracy’ nor peace in Palestine, nor even war in Iran. And, despite what some pinhead from CNN stated, he sure as hell didn’t go to Riyadh to tell the Saudis to cut the price of oil.
What’s really behind Bush’s hajj to Riyadh is that America is in hock up to our knickers. The sub-prime mortgage market implosion, hitting a dozen banks with over $100 billion in losses, is just the tip of the debt-berg.
Since taking office, Bush has doubled the federal debt to more than $5 trillion. And, according to US Treasury figures, on net, foreign investors have purchased close to 100% of that debt. That’s $3 trillion borrowed from the Saudis, the Chinese, the Japanese and others.
Now, Bush, our Debt Junkie-in-Chief, needs another fix. The US Treasury, Citibank, Merrill-Lynch and other financial desperados need another hand-out from Abdullah’s stash. Abdullah, in turn, gets this financial juice by pumping it out of our pockets at nearly $100 a barrel for his crude.
Bush needs the Saudis to charge us big bucks for oil. The Saudis can’t lend the US Treasury and Citibank hundreds of billions of US dollars unless they first get these US dollars from the US. The high price of oil is, in effect, a tax levied by Bush but collected by the oil industry and the Gulf kingdoms to fund our multi-trillion dollar governmental and private debt-load.
The US Treasury is not alone in its frightening dependency on Arabian loot. America’s private financial institutions are also begging for foreign treasure. Yesterday, King Abdullah’s nephew, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, already the top individual owner of Citibank, joined the Kuwait government’s Investment Authority and others to mainline a $12.5 billion injection of capital into the New York bank. Also this week, the Abu Dhabi government and the Saudi Olayan Group are taking a $6.6 billion chunk of Merrill-Lynch. It’s no mere coincidence that Bush is in Abdullah’s tent when the money-changers made the deal just outside it.
Bush is there to assure Abdullah that, unlike Dubai’s ports purchase debacle, there will be no political impediment to the Saudi’s buying up Citibank nor the isle of Manhattan.
So what? I mean, for the average American about to lose their job and their bungalow it doesn’t matter a twit whether it’s Sheik bin Alwaleed who owns Citibank or Sheik Sanford Weill, Citi’s past Chairman.
It’s the price paid to buy back our money from abroad that’s killing us. Despite the Koranic prohibition on charging interest, the Gulf princes demand their pound of flesh, exacting a 7% payment from Citibank and 9% from Merrill. That hefty interest bill then pushes adjustable rate mortgages into the stratosphere and pushes manufacturing into China by making borrowing and energy costs impossible to overcome. Forget the cost of health care: General Motors’ interest burden quintupled in just two years.
As the great economist Paddy Chayefsky wrote in the film The Network:
“The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. … It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity…. There are no nations, there are no peoples. There is only one vast and immense, interwoven, multi-national dominion of petro-dollars. … There is no America. There is no ‘democracy.’ The world is a business, one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work.”
In 2005, the US consumer paid Arab and OPEC nations a quarter trillion dollars ($252 billion) for oil - and the USA received back 100% of it - and then some ($311 billion) via Gulf nations’ investment in US Treasury bills and purchases of US businesses and property. Bush’s trip to Abdullah’s tent is all about this vast business of keeping this petro-dollar treadmill spinning.
The Bush Administration, rather than tax Americans to cover our deficits or make the banks suffer the consequences of their predatory lending practices, is allowing the Saudis to charge us big time at the pump with the understanding they will lend it all back to us - so the party never has to stop.
It has been reported that the President’s Secret Service men traveling with him seemed embarrassed by the eye-popping loads of diamond and gold gifts which they have to carry back for President Bush. They need not feel they have taken too much from their hosts: Bush has assured Abdullah that the King can suck it back out through our gas tanks."
Greg Palast is the author of The Network: The World as a Company Town, in the New York Times bestseller, Armed Madhouse. Hear Ed Asner read from the book and the film ‘The Network’ at www.gregpalast.com
"Bend over, pull out your wallet and kiss your Abe ‘goodbye.’ The Lincolns have got to go - and so do the Hamiltons and Jacksons.
Those bills in your billfold aren’t yours anymore. The landlords of our currency - Citibank, the national treasury of China and the House of Saud - are foreclosing and evicting all Americans from the US economy.
It’s mornings like this, when I wake up hung-over to photos of the King of Saudi Arabia festooning our President with gold necklaces, that I reluctantly remember that I am an economist; and one with some responsibility to explain what the hell Bush is doing kissing Abdullah’s camel.
Let’s begin by stating why Bush is not in Saudi Arabia. Bush ain’t there to promote ‘Democracy’ nor peace in Palestine, nor even war in Iran. And, despite what some pinhead from CNN stated, he sure as hell didn’t go to Riyadh to tell the Saudis to cut the price of oil.
What’s really behind Bush’s hajj to Riyadh is that America is in hock up to our knickers. The sub-prime mortgage market implosion, hitting a dozen banks with over $100 billion in losses, is just the tip of the debt-berg.
Since taking office, Bush has doubled the federal debt to more than $5 trillion. And, according to US Treasury figures, on net, foreign investors have purchased close to 100% of that debt. That’s $3 trillion borrowed from the Saudis, the Chinese, the Japanese and others.
Now, Bush, our Debt Junkie-in-Chief, needs another fix. The US Treasury, Citibank, Merrill-Lynch and other financial desperados need another hand-out from Abdullah’s stash. Abdullah, in turn, gets this financial juice by pumping it out of our pockets at nearly $100 a barrel for his crude.
Bush needs the Saudis to charge us big bucks for oil. The Saudis can’t lend the US Treasury and Citibank hundreds of billions of US dollars unless they first get these US dollars from the US. The high price of oil is, in effect, a tax levied by Bush but collected by the oil industry and the Gulf kingdoms to fund our multi-trillion dollar governmental and private debt-load.
The US Treasury is not alone in its frightening dependency on Arabian loot. America’s private financial institutions are also begging for foreign treasure. Yesterday, King Abdullah’s nephew, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, already the top individual owner of Citibank, joined the Kuwait government’s Investment Authority and others to mainline a $12.5 billion injection of capital into the New York bank. Also this week, the Abu Dhabi government and the Saudi Olayan Group are taking a $6.6 billion chunk of Merrill-Lynch. It’s no mere coincidence that Bush is in Abdullah’s tent when the money-changers made the deal just outside it.
Bush is there to assure Abdullah that, unlike Dubai’s ports purchase debacle, there will be no political impediment to the Saudi’s buying up Citibank nor the isle of Manhattan.
So what? I mean, for the average American about to lose their job and their bungalow it doesn’t matter a twit whether it’s Sheik bin Alwaleed who owns Citibank or Sheik Sanford Weill, Citi’s past Chairman.
It’s the price paid to buy back our money from abroad that’s killing us. Despite the Koranic prohibition on charging interest, the Gulf princes demand their pound of flesh, exacting a 7% payment from Citibank and 9% from Merrill. That hefty interest bill then pushes adjustable rate mortgages into the stratosphere and pushes manufacturing into China by making borrowing and energy costs impossible to overcome. Forget the cost of health care: General Motors’ interest burden quintupled in just two years.
As the great economist Paddy Chayefsky wrote in the film The Network:
“The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. … It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity…. There are no nations, there are no peoples. There is only one vast and immense, interwoven, multi-national dominion of petro-dollars. … There is no America. There is no ‘democracy.’ The world is a business, one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work.”
In 2005, the US consumer paid Arab and OPEC nations a quarter trillion dollars ($252 billion) for oil - and the USA received back 100% of it - and then some ($311 billion) via Gulf nations’ investment in US Treasury bills and purchases of US businesses and property. Bush’s trip to Abdullah’s tent is all about this vast business of keeping this petro-dollar treadmill spinning.
The Bush Administration, rather than tax Americans to cover our deficits or make the banks suffer the consequences of their predatory lending practices, is allowing the Saudis to charge us big time at the pump with the understanding they will lend it all back to us - so the party never has to stop.
It has been reported that the President’s Secret Service men traveling with him seemed embarrassed by the eye-popping loads of diamond and gold gifts which they have to carry back for President Bush. They need not feel they have taken too much from their hosts: Bush has assured Abdullah that the King can suck it back out through our gas tanks."
Greg Palast is the author of The Network: The World as a Company Town, in the New York Times bestseller, Armed Madhouse. Hear Ed Asner read from the book and the film ‘The Network’ at www.gregpalast.com
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Get Right With Mike
just when you thought the evangelical hordes of the right wing of the republican party couldn't get any zanier, along comes the rev. mike huckabee with another installment of "Insane People Say The Darndest Things":
“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the Constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within “God’s standards,” which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars.
well, if you read the link therein you will find a valid argument against making ours a theocratic government. and you will find that homo sex ain't the only problem we got re: getting into heaven.
for example, from another pensito review piece:
Abomination: Eating Leftovers
Leviticus 19:7: “If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination.”
The Bible says that eating three-day-old leftovers and being gay are equivalent sins.
so, there. all little kiddies and old biddies are going to hell. as are adulterers (that covers just about every evangelical preacher of any reknown), cheaters, folks with haughty eyes, them that eats snakes and birds and centipedes, liars, sunday workers (kiss your paperboy goodbye), it just goes on.
and these should all be written into the U.S. Constifriggintution if an amendment banning gay marriage is. so, vote for mike. get right with the lord. and save the country from the likes of me...uh, and you. and you and you and you. yeah, and you in the corner there. and you and you and you....
“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the Constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within “God’s standards,” which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars.
well, if you read the link therein you will find a valid argument against making ours a theocratic government. and you will find that homo sex ain't the only problem we got re: getting into heaven.
for example, from another pensito review piece:
Abomination: Eating Leftovers
Leviticus 19:7: “If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination.”
The Bible says that eating three-day-old leftovers and being gay are equivalent sins.
so, there. all little kiddies and old biddies are going to hell. as are adulterers (that covers just about every evangelical preacher of any reknown), cheaters, folks with haughty eyes, them that eats snakes and birds and centipedes, liars, sunday workers (kiss your paperboy goodbye), it just goes on.
and these should all be written into the U.S. Constifriggintution if an amendment banning gay marriage is. so, vote for mike. get right with the lord. and save the country from the likes of me...uh, and you. and you and you and you. yeah, and you in the corner there. and you and you and you....
Friday, January 11, 2008
White vs. Night
well, kiddies. isn't this going to be a fun democratic campaign for the presidential nomination? you have two fronrunners: barack obama and hillary clinton.
one is a black man with a light history of political experience. the other is a white woman with a light history of political experience (not counting her time as fist lady), but who is heir to a two-term political "dynasty".
the others (well, john edwards) can only hope to be a burr in the side of whomever needs his votes added to theirs in order to catch whoever's in front of them or to distance themselves from whomever's breathing down their necks.
and the battle has already been couched in words: change vs. experience.
do we stick with the tried and untrue (clinton) or opt for the unknown and unknowable (obama)?
or is it really that complicated? i, for one, think that the issue at hand for most democratic voters is a much simpler one. one that reflects not the voter's need to understand the inner workings of a health care plan that couldn't pass muster within the hallowed confines of a congress working for the insurance companies and that clinton intends to resurrect (having learned her lesson in the 90's).
nor do i think that the issue is about which candidate will bring the troops home from iraq by the earliest possible date.
nor do i believe that abortion, homosexual rights, immigration legislation, the leaning of the supreme court or federal prosecuters or free trade or universal health care (slightly different from that which clinton endorsed as fist lady) or global warming will play a significant factor.
no, i think that when it all gets boiled down most voters will be swayed by one of two things:
black vs. female.
it will have almost nothing to do with the candidate's stances on anything.
it will have almost everything to do with how black obama is; or, more specifically, how black he is not. being black will get a lot of black votes. being too black will lose a lot of white votes.
and it will have almost everything to do with how female clinton is; or, more specifically, how feminine she is not. being female will sway a lot of female voters. appearing emotional and easy to break down will lose a lot of male votes.
and the political machines are already in high gear exploiting this. the rev. jesse jackson has stated that clinton's tears (during a recent q and a session) "need to be analyzed". in other words, he is putting out the inference that she faked them in order to appear a bit more feminine (and human).
andrew cuomo (a big clinton backer) used the words "shuck and jive" to describe obama's supposed inability to answer hard questions about the issues of the day. these words are being touted in the press (as expressed to them by clinton campaign aides) as subtly racist.
we can expect the campaign process to get much uglier as we venture further into the primary season. and i don't think that the pr machines on either side will shy away from playing the race/gender card at any given opportunity while ignoring the fact that neither candidate is willing to giving any real hint as to what their real actions will be once assuming office or how they expect to overcome the entrenchment of the house of representatives and the senate against change of any sort that doesn't line the pockets of lobbyists and special interest groups.
at least, the republicans are up front with respect to their lunacy. their campaigns are all about who believes in god the most and who can kill the most muslims and who can pass on more money to those who need it the least(the only exception being ron paul, but since he's supported by david duke and other likeminded individuals representing extremist fringes of our society...i'll pass). to wit:
mike huckabee: hates the federal income tax and the irs and would institute a 23% sales tax nationwide, okay with the iraq war, loves lower taxes for the rich, once discoed with paul reubens, but wouldn't pardon him.
mitt romney: loves bush, hates gays. by bush, i mean the president. by gays, i mean anyone who isn't a mormon (or mer-man!) and stays in the closet. loves lower taxes. loves killing terrorists unless they're white, loves lower taxes for the rich. once drank coffee, but claimed he didn't swallow.
john mccain: loves bush (both kinds), loves the iraq war, wouldn't have it any other way (though, not too long ago, he was slamming bush over the iraq fiasco), loves lower taxes for the rich. twice kissed a guy on the mouth, claimed they were both animatronic cpr dummies and it was all was taken out of context despite what the dummies may have told the press.
rudy giuliani: loves the iraq war, hate gays, loves bush (the other pink meat), loves 9/11 (i mean really loves loves looooves 9/11 in a cheat on your wife sort of way). moved his mistress into the family home before he and his wife were divorced. children (his) don't really talk to him.
ron paul: hates the iraq war, loves lower taxes for the rich, loves .50 calibers and bigass machine guns in every home, doesn't much care for non-whites and homosexuals. married a blonde woman, because, "there was something, i don't know, eva braun-ish about her".
so, what's the skinny here, democratic lads and lasses? to dine in the dark or pick the chick? because, no matter what the average person says, i believe that is what it comes down to. as low and ignorant as it is.
note: idealists, cast your vote as you will. symbolism is great. i may just do it myself. but know that your doing so means you've given up on the two-party system. doesn't mean you're wrong. but you'd better be out there publicly giving your all to help usher in a new era. otherwise, you're pissing up the rope i'm hanging onto. and i will kick your ass if my hands get wet.
p.s. for those of you deciding between obama and clinton, obama is the one the conservatives are most scared of. while they will say publicly that clinton is the most to be feared , because she is a clinton, the pr points being put out to fox news are those that attack obama. his color, his ethnic background, the madrassa that he didn't actually attend and the u.s. flag pin he decided to not wear after a while have been the main talking points that fox news has pushed. with clinton they just bring up the soiled dress and her masculinity. she plays the game much more than he does. and the conservatives and fox news hate him for it. the fact that he has boycotted fox news since early 2007 says a lot.
one is a black man with a light history of political experience. the other is a white woman with a light history of political experience (not counting her time as fist lady), but who is heir to a two-term political "dynasty".
the others (well, john edwards) can only hope to be a burr in the side of whomever needs his votes added to theirs in order to catch whoever's in front of them or to distance themselves from whomever's breathing down their necks.
and the battle has already been couched in words: change vs. experience.
do we stick with the tried and untrue (clinton) or opt for the unknown and unknowable (obama)?
or is it really that complicated? i, for one, think that the issue at hand for most democratic voters is a much simpler one. one that reflects not the voter's need to understand the inner workings of a health care plan that couldn't pass muster within the hallowed confines of a congress working for the insurance companies and that clinton intends to resurrect (having learned her lesson in the 90's).
nor do i think that the issue is about which candidate will bring the troops home from iraq by the earliest possible date.
nor do i believe that abortion, homosexual rights, immigration legislation, the leaning of the supreme court or federal prosecuters or free trade or universal health care (slightly different from that which clinton endorsed as fist lady) or global warming will play a significant factor.
no, i think that when it all gets boiled down most voters will be swayed by one of two things:
black vs. female.
it will have almost nothing to do with the candidate's stances on anything.
it will have almost everything to do with how black obama is; or, more specifically, how black he is not. being black will get a lot of black votes. being too black will lose a lot of white votes.
and it will have almost everything to do with how female clinton is; or, more specifically, how feminine she is not. being female will sway a lot of female voters. appearing emotional and easy to break down will lose a lot of male votes.
and the political machines are already in high gear exploiting this. the rev. jesse jackson has stated that clinton's tears (during a recent q and a session) "need to be analyzed". in other words, he is putting out the inference that she faked them in order to appear a bit more feminine (and human).
andrew cuomo (a big clinton backer) used the words "shuck and jive" to describe obama's supposed inability to answer hard questions about the issues of the day. these words are being touted in the press (as expressed to them by clinton campaign aides) as subtly racist.
we can expect the campaign process to get much uglier as we venture further into the primary season. and i don't think that the pr machines on either side will shy away from playing the race/gender card at any given opportunity while ignoring the fact that neither candidate is willing to giving any real hint as to what their real actions will be once assuming office or how they expect to overcome the entrenchment of the house of representatives and the senate against change of any sort that doesn't line the pockets of lobbyists and special interest groups.
at least, the republicans are up front with respect to their lunacy. their campaigns are all about who believes in god the most and who can kill the most muslims and who can pass on more money to those who need it the least(the only exception being ron paul, but since he's supported by david duke and other likeminded individuals representing extremist fringes of our society...i'll pass). to wit:
mike huckabee: hates the federal income tax and the irs and would institute a 23% sales tax nationwide, okay with the iraq war, loves lower taxes for the rich, once discoed with paul reubens, but wouldn't pardon him.
mitt romney: loves bush, hates gays. by bush, i mean the president. by gays, i mean anyone who isn't a mormon (or mer-man!) and stays in the closet. loves lower taxes. loves killing terrorists unless they're white, loves lower taxes for the rich. once drank coffee, but claimed he didn't swallow.
john mccain: loves bush (both kinds), loves the iraq war, wouldn't have it any other way (though, not too long ago, he was slamming bush over the iraq fiasco), loves lower taxes for the rich. twice kissed a guy on the mouth, claimed they were both animatronic cpr dummies and it was all was taken out of context despite what the dummies may have told the press.
rudy giuliani: loves the iraq war, hate gays, loves bush (the other pink meat), loves 9/11 (i mean really loves loves looooves 9/11 in a cheat on your wife sort of way). moved his mistress into the family home before he and his wife were divorced. children (his) don't really talk to him.
ron paul: hates the iraq war, loves lower taxes for the rich, loves .50 calibers and bigass machine guns in every home, doesn't much care for non-whites and homosexuals. married a blonde woman, because, "there was something, i don't know, eva braun-ish about her".
so, what's the skinny here, democratic lads and lasses? to dine in the dark or pick the chick? because, no matter what the average person says, i believe that is what it comes down to. as low and ignorant as it is.
note: idealists, cast your vote as you will. symbolism is great. i may just do it myself. but know that your doing so means you've given up on the two-party system. doesn't mean you're wrong. but you'd better be out there publicly giving your all to help usher in a new era. otherwise, you're pissing up the rope i'm hanging onto. and i will kick your ass if my hands get wet.
p.s. for those of you deciding between obama and clinton, obama is the one the conservatives are most scared of. while they will say publicly that clinton is the most to be feared , because she is a clinton, the pr points being put out to fox news are those that attack obama. his color, his ethnic background, the madrassa that he didn't actually attend and the u.s. flag pin he decided to not wear after a while have been the main talking points that fox news has pushed. with clinton they just bring up the soiled dress and her masculinity. she plays the game much more than he does. and the conservatives and fox news hate him for it. the fact that he has boycotted fox news since early 2007 says a lot.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
huichol huichol huichol
huichol art (yarn and bead) is now legal to export from mexico. the huichol people live high up in the sierra madres and their art reflects their religion, which is mainly comprised visually of maize, the blue deer and peyote. traditionally, shamans go on vision quests aided by peyote and then try to put into art the visions they saw. i've bought a couple of pieces so far for myself from a group that practices fair trade with the mountain huichol and helps them to maintain their autonomy. below is a picture of a yarn painting i just bought for my father on his 81st birthday.
it is non-traditional in the sense that it was made for trade and it doesn't depict maize, blue deer or a peyote button. but it is a celestial equinox and that plays a large role in the lives of the huichol. some day i will win the lottery or get a kickass work bonus or find a creaky, leather tanned, botoxed sugar mommy and i will purchase some of the more intricate work i've seen done. some day, perhaps, i will be able to actually visit the huichol to watch their work and their ways and witness a 3000 year old way of life that has managed to maintain its integrity and dignity in the face of unstopped encroachment by younger and hungrier cultures whose sole intent has always seemed to be that of total conquest. the mexican government was the one that stepped in to protect the huichol from outside interference by labeling them a living historical artifact. it was only when the huichol began to suffer at the hand of drought (or something, i'm making this up as i go) that fair trade co-ops asked to be let in to trade with the huichol (money, seed, flour, whatever it was the huichol might need) for their art.
below is the yarn painting i own. absolutely amazing. drawn by hand with yarn 1/16" wide and laid onto a beeswax/resin compound, it must take amazing patience to create.
it is non-traditional in the sense that it was made for trade and it doesn't depict maize, blue deer or a peyote button. but it is a celestial equinox and that plays a large role in the lives of the huichol. some day i will win the lottery or get a kickass work bonus or find a creaky, leather tanned, botoxed sugar mommy and i will purchase some of the more intricate work i've seen done. some day, perhaps, i will be able to actually visit the huichol to watch their work and their ways and witness a 3000 year old way of life that has managed to maintain its integrity and dignity in the face of unstopped encroachment by younger and hungrier cultures whose sole intent has always seemed to be that of total conquest. the mexican government was the one that stepped in to protect the huichol from outside interference by labeling them a living historical artifact. it was only when the huichol began to suffer at the hand of drought (or something, i'm making this up as i go) that fair trade co-ops asked to be let in to trade with the huichol (money, seed, flour, whatever it was the huichol might need) for their art.below is the yarn painting i own. absolutely amazing. drawn by hand with yarn 1/16" wide and laid onto a beeswax/resin compound, it must take amazing patience to create.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Looking For Backers
Item:
New Parental Control Unit
Use:
Stopping Babies From Crying, Inducing Nap Time
Cost:
Unknown At This Time
Status:
Planning Stage
how many of you have endured the endless crying, mewling, whining and general stubbornness of the average american baby? how many of you have had to stop everything to pick it up, hold it, cradle it, rock it and cater to its every whim?
how many of you have suffered a loss of sex and/or sleep due to a baby's demands on your time?
how many times have you said to yourself:
"if only i had a way to stop my precious baby from crying at inopportune times, like when i'm trying to do the nasty?"
"if only that damn brat would shut up i could study for my GED."
"how, if it won't stop that goddamn bleating, will i ever convince mr. moneybags to have sex with me and accidently knock me up thereby relieving me of all future monetary worries?"
"mom said she'd have her revenge and i guess this is what she meant."
"i need a tv with higher volume."
"AA didn't tell me about this."
"i miss my bar friends."
"dear god, just one fucking night..."
"i'm feeling really pro-choice right now."
"duct tape! where's the fucking duct tape?"
"so, let's try two parts bourbon to one part milk."
"is there a CSI episode that covers this?"
"i have a new-found empathy for britney right now."
"you know, honey, in china they sell the girls to stupid americans."
well, this is your salvation. now is your time. today you can change your life. henceforth, you can be liberated from your chains of childrearing, freed from your baby bondage.
with my simple revolutionary invention you can return to the life you once had and still want.
need an hour to shop or rest or party or sex it up or read or get with mr. lucky and his d cell carnival? want an extended moment of quiet? craving that extra cigarette? needing to slip down to the corner bar for a double irish car bomb?
here it is. here is the golden ticket to your new freedom, to your magic carpet ride out of this craptastic life of slavery at the grasping hands of an infant no smarter than the average house spider clinging precariously to the corner of a hermetically sealed room.
presenting the latest in homecare help, primal child repression, kiddie outburst suppression, we give you:
TAZER TOTS
featuring a low level voltage, this handy homehelper will put you back in the driver's seat when it comes to personal space and private time.
TAZER TOTS
at a low low hit of 1000 volts it will put your little loved one down for a nap for no less than two hours depending on weight. if that's not enough, the TOT has an adjustable volt-o-meter ranging from 50-10,000 volts. practice makes perfect and, with this added feature, you can find the ultimate voltage needed to keep your kid quiet.
don't have children yet, but think this is a good item to have? buy it and check it out on your partner. 5,000 volts has been proven in the prison system to induce erection, but not to kill. 2,500 volts right on the money and the little lady can have fun and know that her beautiful offspring are protected and prepared.
TAZER TOTS
the TAZER TOTS will come in a velvet lined case, complete with sterile wipes. measuring at 8" by 1", it's both intimidating and not too large. it comes with a money back guarantee and limited replacement warrantee. use voids all agreements. we will check all returned equipment with UV light.
TAZER TOTS
invest now. get in at the ground level. we expect orders in the millions. this is a surefire item. expect to see this on every "as seen on tv" commercial, QVC, in the Martha Stewart magazine, on Oprah and the Colbert Report. this is groundbreaking, history making.
be the first to to say that you had a hand in shutting up the next generation until they actually had something to say. help bring back civility and respect for one's elders in this century before the pre-pre-teens can utter anything more than "ow-zzzzz....."
TAZER TOTS
do it for the breeders. do it for yourself. do it for the children.
just do it.
New Parental Control Unit
Use:
Stopping Babies From Crying, Inducing Nap Time
Cost:
Unknown At This Time
Status:
Planning Stage
how many of you have endured the endless crying, mewling, whining and general stubbornness of the average american baby? how many of you have had to stop everything to pick it up, hold it, cradle it, rock it and cater to its every whim?
how many of you have suffered a loss of sex and/or sleep due to a baby's demands on your time?
how many times have you said to yourself:
"if only i had a way to stop my precious baby from crying at inopportune times, like when i'm trying to do the nasty?"
"if only that damn brat would shut up i could study for my GED."
"how, if it won't stop that goddamn bleating, will i ever convince mr. moneybags to have sex with me and accidently knock me up thereby relieving me of all future monetary worries?"
"mom said she'd have her revenge and i guess this is what she meant."
"i need a tv with higher volume."
"AA didn't tell me about this."
"i miss my bar friends."
"dear god, just one fucking night..."
"i'm feeling really pro-choice right now."
"duct tape! where's the fucking duct tape?"
"so, let's try two parts bourbon to one part milk."
"is there a CSI episode that covers this?"
"i have a new-found empathy for britney right now."
"you know, honey, in china they sell the girls to stupid americans."
well, this is your salvation. now is your time. today you can change your life. henceforth, you can be liberated from your chains of childrearing, freed from your baby bondage.
with my simple revolutionary invention you can return to the life you once had and still want.
need an hour to shop or rest or party or sex it up or read or get with mr. lucky and his d cell carnival? want an extended moment of quiet? craving that extra cigarette? needing to slip down to the corner bar for a double irish car bomb?
here it is. here is the golden ticket to your new freedom, to your magic carpet ride out of this craptastic life of slavery at the grasping hands of an infant no smarter than the average house spider clinging precariously to the corner of a hermetically sealed room.
presenting the latest in homecare help, primal child repression, kiddie outburst suppression, we give you:
TAZER TOTS
featuring a low level voltage, this handy homehelper will put you back in the driver's seat when it comes to personal space and private time.
TAZER TOTS
at a low low hit of 1000 volts it will put your little loved one down for a nap for no less than two hours depending on weight. if that's not enough, the TOT has an adjustable volt-o-meter ranging from 50-10,000 volts. practice makes perfect and, with this added feature, you can find the ultimate voltage needed to keep your kid quiet.
don't have children yet, but think this is a good item to have? buy it and check it out on your partner. 5,000 volts has been proven in the prison system to induce erection, but not to kill. 2,500 volts right on the money and the little lady can have fun and know that her beautiful offspring are protected and prepared.
TAZER TOTS
the TAZER TOTS will come in a velvet lined case, complete with sterile wipes. measuring at 8" by 1", it's both intimidating and not too large. it comes with a money back guarantee and limited replacement warrantee. use voids all agreements. we will check all returned equipment with UV light.
TAZER TOTS
invest now. get in at the ground level. we expect orders in the millions. this is a surefire item. expect to see this on every "as seen on tv" commercial, QVC, in the Martha Stewart magazine, on Oprah and the Colbert Report. this is groundbreaking, history making.
be the first to to say that you had a hand in shutting up the next generation until they actually had something to say. help bring back civility and respect for one's elders in this century before the pre-pre-teens can utter anything more than "ow-zzzzz....."
TAZER TOTS
do it for the breeders. do it for yourself. do it for the children.
just do it.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Merry Chris-, er Solst-, uh Day (Late)
allegedly from 1960:
heh. my late christmas present to y'all.
heh. my late christmas present to y'all.Wednesday, November 21, 2007
"JACKSON, Mo. -- A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left 52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc."
(go here for the entire Wall Street Journal article)
can anyone say single payer health care? while i understand the recouping of certain unneeded costs by insurers and employers if the costs are found to be ridiculous and/or frivolous, i cannot in any way understand this. and, yes, it could happen to you. or me. this is our future. more and more loopholes to allow companies and CEO's a larger slice of our money at our expense, all made legal by our government and our Supreme Court.
and they will get away with it, too, because we as a nation have become inured to the machinations of those in power. we expect to be screwed and they know it. we have turned deaf and dumb to even the most egregious of crimes perpetrated by the very individuals we elect to the halls of congress and the presidency in an effort to pretend that life is good, rosy, not smelling of the very shit we are being drowned in.
what is the line? "if you are going to lie, lie until you're blue in the face". so long as we don't bother to delve too deeply into the actions of our "leaders" the easier it becomes for them to rely on that.
it's time to wake up, smell the bullshit, and do more than simply say "i voted". because voting doesn't seem to be doing much anymore.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc."
(go here for the entire Wall Street Journal article)
can anyone say single payer health care? while i understand the recouping of certain unneeded costs by insurers and employers if the costs are found to be ridiculous and/or frivolous, i cannot in any way understand this. and, yes, it could happen to you. or me. this is our future. more and more loopholes to allow companies and CEO's a larger slice of our money at our expense, all made legal by our government and our Supreme Court.
and they will get away with it, too, because we as a nation have become inured to the machinations of those in power. we expect to be screwed and they know it. we have turned deaf and dumb to even the most egregious of crimes perpetrated by the very individuals we elect to the halls of congress and the presidency in an effort to pretend that life is good, rosy, not smelling of the very shit we are being drowned in.
what is the line? "if you are going to lie, lie until you're blue in the face". so long as we don't bother to delve too deeply into the actions of our "leaders" the easier it becomes for them to rely on that.
it's time to wake up, smell the bullshit, and do more than simply say "i voted". because voting doesn't seem to be doing much anymore.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
