I was thinking about some things, as usual, on my AM run. What would life be like had Al Gore been selected President in 2000 instead of GW? Would we be in a similar predicament?
We cannot change the past, but there are a number of folks who stipulate publicly that they feel safer today than they did in 2000. Are they forgetting that the Attack on the Trade Centers and the Pentagon happened in September of 2001, on George W. Bush's watch?
This begs several larger questions:
1) If shrub and his clan were not supplanted into office, would the 9/11 incidents have happened?
2) Were/are the terrorists emboldened by the fact W was in office?
3) Or, more causally, did the terrorists act because W was on the throne of this monotheistic theocracy?
Lastly, 4) If any other person were in the Oval office, would we be in the current pickle we're in?
By the way, I finished Cornel West's book. I know, I know, you're sad that you won't be getting regular citations from that source. Let me leave you at least one more. I may post a few of the more powerful quotes as they become salient for us on the morrow or another day.
From page 29 of Democracy Matters:
The hallmark of political nihilism is the public appeal to fear and greed, and too much of American politics today has been reduced to such vulgar appeals. Just so, Bush promoted his irresponsible tax cuts by offering the largely chimerical promise of a child-tax rebate, and promoted his repressive Patriot Act by appealing to the fear of terrorism. A political nihilist is one who is not simply intoxicated with the exercise of power but also obsessed with stifling any criticism of that exercise of power. He will use clever arguments to rationalize his will to power and deploy skillful strategies, denying the pain and suffering he may cause, in order to shape the world and control history in light of the pursuit of power. The world nihilism may seem strong, but we saw President Johnson do this with claims about the Gulf of Tonkin for the Vietnam War and President Bush do this with claims about weapons of mass destruction in the invasion of Iraq.
End slice:
I have yet to get a full sense of the grief or remorse that those in charge should be feeling with the weight of so many innocent, dead souls upon their shoulders. Click on over if you dare to see an updated selection of various KIA or Wounded folks at the following location. Be warned, these pics are gruesome and gory - not for the faint of heart.
I am still not convinced that the ROI was worth the outlay and we are well in a hole in terms of sunk costs. The tax on our unborn grows daily.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Bullet Points that startle rather than Kill
Found an interesting web location that objective readers may be keen on clicking over to. Props to the Proponents of Reason to putting me on to it.
Check out some interesting bullet points (which incidentially, I name, "Silver Bullets" for reasons of irony) that make for curious reading for all regarding our future as dictated by the theocrats in the "Right"House:
Silver Bullet 1 : Despite cuts to scores of domestic programs, the Administration’s budget increases rather than decreases the deficit over the next five years.
Silver Bullet 2: Over the longer run, by proposing to make its tax cuts permanent, the Administration’s budget proposals would dramatically swell the deficit.
Silver Bullet 3: For the first time since 1989, the budget fails to provide information about the funding of specific discretionary programs beyond the upcoming budget year, thereby hiding the impact of the large discretionary cuts it is proposing.
Silver Bullet 4: The Administration insists on its practice of budgeting for only five years, masking the full cost of its tax cuts, while it simultaneously insists on using “infinite” or 75-year time horizons in other contexts.
Silver Bullet 5: In 2006, the cost of the tax cuts already enacted since 2001, plus those proposed in this budget, would be $193 billion (without interest payments).
Silver Bullet 6: The budget also includes a major new tax cut that the Congressional Research Service has said eventually would cost $300 billion to $500 billion over ten years, but the budget uses a timing gimmick so that this tax cut would save money in the first five years and the large long-term costs of the tax cut are thereby hidden from view. The years in which the tax cut would swell the deficit would be outside the Administration’s “budget window.”
Silver Bullet 7: The budget also leaves out all of the costs of funding military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism that will be incurred after the $80 billion the Administration has requested for 2005 is exhausted. CBO estimates these additional costs could total around $350 billion over the next 10 years (excluding interest payments on the debt), assuming an eventual phasedown of U.S. activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Silver Bullet 8:The budget appears to be designed to obscure some of the effects of the policies the Administration is proposing. It is constructed in a way that conceals the fiscal effects of various Administration proposals that would increase the deficit, as well as the consequences of various cuts in domestic programs proposed as a means to deal with the deficit.
Silver Bullet 9: The cost of the President’s proposal to divert Social Security payroll taxes to establish private accounts is not included in the budget. That proposal would add more than $750 billion in deficits and debt in 2006 through 2015, according to the White House, although that number is misleadingly low. It is misleading because the President’s plan would not begin to take effect until 2009 and eligibility for the accounts would be phased in over three years. Over the first ten years that the plan actually would be in effect (2009-18), it would add about $1.4 trillion to the debt. Over the next ten years (2019- 28), it would add about $3.5 trillion more to the debt. All told, the plan would add $4.9 trillion (14 percent of GDP in 2028) to the debt over its first 20 years.
Silver Bullet 10: Administration Acknowledges Private Accounts Would Do Nothing to Improve Social Security Solvency.
Silver Bullet 11: A reporter subsequently asked the senior Administration official: “. . . am I right in assuming . . . that it would be fair to describe this as having — the personal accounts by themselves, that it would be fair to describe this as having — the personal accounts by themselves as having no effect whatsoever on the solvency issue?” The senior Administration official replied: “That’s a fair inference.”
I could go on, but you get the idea. End of the bullets.
Further details can be found at the the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' web location
Is anyone else out there as shocked to find people still supporting this administration? Well, then again, just about over half the country is forgiving the man for lying to them about WMD. So, the lemmings follow off the cliff, and the remainder suffer for it.
Check out some interesting bullet points (which incidentially, I name, "Silver Bullets" for reasons of irony) that make for curious reading for all regarding our future as dictated by the theocrats in the "Right"House:
Silver Bullet 1 : Despite cuts to scores of domestic programs, the Administration’s budget increases rather than decreases the deficit over the next five years.
Silver Bullet 2: Over the longer run, by proposing to make its tax cuts permanent, the Administration’s budget proposals would dramatically swell the deficit.
Silver Bullet 3: For the first time since 1989, the budget fails to provide information about the funding of specific discretionary programs beyond the upcoming budget year, thereby hiding the impact of the large discretionary cuts it is proposing.
Silver Bullet 4: The Administration insists on its practice of budgeting for only five years, masking the full cost of its tax cuts, while it simultaneously insists on using “infinite” or 75-year time horizons in other contexts.
Silver Bullet 5: In 2006, the cost of the tax cuts already enacted since 2001, plus those proposed in this budget, would be $193 billion (without interest payments).
Silver Bullet 6: The budget also includes a major new tax cut that the Congressional Research Service has said eventually would cost $300 billion to $500 billion over ten years, but the budget uses a timing gimmick so that this tax cut would save money in the first five years and the large long-term costs of the tax cut are thereby hidden from view. The years in which the tax cut would swell the deficit would be outside the Administration’s “budget window.”
Silver Bullet 7: The budget also leaves out all of the costs of funding military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism that will be incurred after the $80 billion the Administration has requested for 2005 is exhausted. CBO estimates these additional costs could total around $350 billion over the next 10 years (excluding interest payments on the debt), assuming an eventual phasedown of U.S. activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Silver Bullet 8:The budget appears to be designed to obscure some of the effects of the policies the Administration is proposing. It is constructed in a way that conceals the fiscal effects of various Administration proposals that would increase the deficit, as well as the consequences of various cuts in domestic programs proposed as a means to deal with the deficit.
Silver Bullet 9: The cost of the President’s proposal to divert Social Security payroll taxes to establish private accounts is not included in the budget. That proposal would add more than $750 billion in deficits and debt in 2006 through 2015, according to the White House, although that number is misleadingly low. It is misleading because the President’s plan would not begin to take effect until 2009 and eligibility for the accounts would be phased in over three years. Over the first ten years that the plan actually would be in effect (2009-18), it would add about $1.4 trillion to the debt. Over the next ten years (2019- 28), it would add about $3.5 trillion more to the debt. All told, the plan would add $4.9 trillion (14 percent of GDP in 2028) to the debt over its first 20 years.
Silver Bullet 10: Administration Acknowledges Private Accounts Would Do Nothing to Improve Social Security Solvency.
Silver Bullet 11: A reporter subsequently asked the senior Administration official: “. . . am I right in assuming . . . that it would be fair to describe this as having — the personal accounts by themselves, that it would be fair to describe this as having — the personal accounts by themselves as having no effect whatsoever on the solvency issue?” The senior Administration official replied: “That’s a fair inference.”
I could go on, but you get the idea. End of the bullets.
Further details can be found at the the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' web location
Is anyone else out there as shocked to find people still supporting this administration? Well, then again, just about over half the country is forgiving the man for lying to them about WMD. So, the lemmings follow off the cliff, and the remainder suffer for it.
Which of these "Married" men are more threatening?
Intesting articles in two different locations. With all the fuss about same sex marriage, one wonders why people who oppose high quality same-sex relationships are not more upset when a heterosexual, married man rapes his family.
If you ask me, If my spouse and I were to die tomorrow, I would trust and much rather have Gary Walker and Ed Valenzuela raising my children than Patrick and Christine McMullen, the heterosexuals.
What is it that the "moral" right fear about gay couples anyway? I am still waiting for a salient and powerful argument that doesn't involve the point that the bible says so.
Don't you think that kids growing up in gay homes have parents who actually want them rather than some of those crazy heterosexual homes where children are regularly beaten, raped, or even murdered?
If you ask me, If my spouse and I were to die tomorrow, I would trust and much rather have Gary Walker and Ed Valenzuela raising my children than Patrick and Christine McMullen, the heterosexuals.
What is it that the "moral" right fear about gay couples anyway? I am still waiting for a salient and powerful argument that doesn't involve the point that the bible says so.
Don't you think that kids growing up in gay homes have parents who actually want them rather than some of those crazy heterosexual homes where children are regularly beaten, raped, or even murdered?
Saturday, February 12, 2005
It's Love Thy Neighbor, no? Sub title: The Routing of Religious Fundamentalism Begins Home
Almost finished with Cornel West's book, Democracy Matters.
Here's an interesting snip I thought folks would like to mull over:
Starting on page 146:
The religious threats to democratic practices abroad are much easier to talk about than those at home. Just as demagogic and antidemocratic fundamentalisms have gained too much prominence in both
End slice:
West has done some profound thinking here. I leave it to the comment slot to continue the discussion, but if it hurts, it must be true.
Will our Current Theocracy be comfortable with the New Iraq Islamic Democracy?
Lots of folks on the christian kick to push the US style of capitalistic driven, monotheistic deomcracy into arab countries might be a little upset when they finally announce who won the election. Did they do that already or have I simply missed the coverage by the Mainstream Media Propaganda Machine?
Still reading Cornel West's book, Democracy Matters. Still don't know if anyone else is reading it. If so, could you let us know with a comment. I would hate to think I was the only one interested in West's strong and powerful writing.
Anyway, here's what West has to say about "democracy" in non-christian dominated countries.
Slice starts on page 37:
...Western-style democracy has no future in the Islamic world. The damage has been done, the wounds are deep, and the die has been cast by the hypocritical European and nihilistic American imperial elites. There is simply no way to turn back the hands of time. The West had its chance and blew it. Yet the future of deomcracy in the Islamic world may be bright if democratic notions of voice and rights, community and liberties, rotation of elites and autonomous civic spaces are couched in Islamic terms and traditions. Wesern-style democracies - themselves in need of repair - are but one number of the family of democracy. Yet all democracies share certain common features, such as the voices of the demos; rotating elites; free expression of religion, culture, and politics; and uncoerced spaces for civic life. But we can encourage the Socratizing of Islam and the prophetizing of the Muslim populace even as we dismatle empire at home.
End slice:
Humm, are the bushites smart enough, strong enough, and tolerant enough to embrace and foster an islamic based democracy? Time will be the judge, no?
Incidentially, while surfing, I found an interesting link to a potentially very powerful organization called Democracy Matters - different from Cornel West's book. Nonetheless, it looks like they may be on the right track.
Still reading Cornel West's book, Democracy Matters. Still don't know if anyone else is reading it. If so, could you let us know with a comment. I would hate to think I was the only one interested in West's strong and powerful writing.
Anyway, here's what West has to say about "democracy" in non-christian dominated countries.
Slice starts on page 37:
...Western-style democracy has no future in the Islamic world. The damage has been done, the wounds are deep, and the die has been cast by the hypocritical European and nihilistic American imperial elites. There is simply no way to turn back the hands of time. The West had its chance and blew it. Yet the future of deomcracy in the Islamic world may be bright if democratic notions of voice and rights, community and liberties, rotation of elites and autonomous civic spaces are couched in Islamic terms and traditions. Wesern-style democracies - themselves in need of repair - are but one number of the family of democracy. Yet all democracies share certain common features, such as the voices of the demos; rotating elites; free expression of religion, culture, and politics; and uncoerced spaces for civic life. But we can encourage the Socratizing of Islam and the prophetizing of the Muslim populace even as we dismatle empire at home.
End slice:
Humm, are the bushites smart enough, strong enough, and tolerant enough to embrace and foster an islamic based democracy? Time will be the judge, no?
Incidentially, while surfing, I found an interesting link to a potentially very powerful organization called Democracy Matters - different from Cornel West's book. Nonetheless, it looks like they may be on the right track.
Friday, February 11, 2005
How much was Gannon, a.k.a. Guckert paid, and by whom?
I am wondering if the funneling of taxpayer dollars was indirectly shuffled via Karl Rove's office to get this Gannon nut to shill for the administration.
The whole situation is spurious and quite wholly unethical, and perhaps even against the law, if not just down right misleading to the American public.
Check out the open letter to Louise Slaughter from the Niagara Falls Reporter Editorial Staff.
Dear Rep. Slaughter,
End slice:
I suggest we blog on over to the Niagara Falls Reporter and link up to send the folks in the "Right"house a clear message that this unethical and outrageous use of "journalists" to shill for their agenda is simply wrong and must be stopped. Punishment should be some sort of jail time for someone. We don't live in Communist USSR now do we? You can't use the "press" like that.
And another thought, why aren't the riechwinger blogsters out there posting about this and just as infuriated as the rest of us?
The whole situation is spurious and quite wholly unethical, and perhaps even against the law, if not just down right misleading to the American public.
Check out the open letter to Louise Slaughter from the Niagara Falls Reporter Editorial Staff.
Dear Rep. Slaughter,
As a small newspaper located in your district, we are asking for your help. It has come to our attention that an individual who calls himself "Jeff Gannon" has been credentialed by the White House to attend press briefings and presidential news conferences.
He is affiliated with an organization called Talon News, and is frequently called on by White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan and President Bush. This individual has no background in journalism whatsoever, and his "syndicated column" appears solely on his personal Web site, www.jeffgannon.com. According to the Philadelphia Daily News, "Jeff Gannon" isn't even his real name.
In his biography at the Talon News site, where he holds the title of "Washington Bureau Chief," he claims to be a graduate of the "Pennsylvania State University System" and the Leadership Institute Broadcast School of Journalism.
While the 23 schools in the Penn State system award diplomas, the system itself does not, and the Daily News investigation has thus far failed to turn up a "Jeff Gannon" who holds a degree in education from Penn State, as this person claims he does. Furthermore, the Leadership Institute Broadcast School of Journalism is a right-wing diploma mill where anyone with $50 and two days to waste can receive a degree.
As for Talon News itself, it seems to consist solely of a Web site that links directly to a Republican site called www.gopusa.com. Both Talon and GOPUSA have the same mailing address, a private residence in Texas. It isn't clear whether anyone at Talon News is paid, as one portion of its site asks, "Want to join the Talon News team? Click here to find out more about being a volunteer reporter for Talon News."
Looking at the staff biography section of the site, none of the 10 individuals listed appear to have any training or previous experience in journalism, although all list credentials as Republican activists.
We respectfully ask your office to look into how a partisan political organization and an individual with no credentials as a reporter -- and apparently operating under an assumed name -- landed a coveted spot in the White House press corps.
Sincerely,
Bruce Battaglia, publisher, Mike Hudson, editor in chief, Rebecca Day, senior editor, David Staba, sports editor, Bill Gallagher, national correspondent, John Hanchette, senior correspondent, Frank Thomas Croisdale, contributing editor, Bill Bradberry, contributing editor, Niagara Falls Reporter.
End statement:
End slice:
I suggest we blog on over to the Niagara Falls Reporter and link up to send the folks in the "Right"house a clear message that this unethical and outrageous use of "journalists" to shill for their agenda is simply wrong and must be stopped. Punishment should be some sort of jail time for someone. We don't live in Communist USSR now do we? You can't use the "press" like that.
And another thought, why aren't the riechwinger blogsters out there posting about this and just as infuriated as the rest of us?
It's the end of the world as we know it
..and I feel fine....Okay, sorry for putting that REM tune in your head, but I just stopped on over to visit Jin at the discontent malcontent and found that she had linked to a particularly funny video. Aparently, it has been around a while, but this was the first time I saw it.
Check this out.
Check this out.
Is the G.O.P really a Grand Old Party?
Hummm, with the latest exposure of our friendly republican "reporter," perhaps we ought to be in the business of renaming the Grand Old Party to something like the Grievously Opaque Perverts.
That is, instead of being up front about their perversions, they like to use subterfuge, cloak-and-dagger modes of going about their exploits (a la, Karl Rove - the chief GOP expert in this area). At times they are opaque enough about it to not get caught. But sometimes the veneer wears thin and we see them for who they really are, and they are exposed, once again.
Richard Nixon and the whole Watergate affair is a good example of what I am getting at here. As to the modern administrations' endeavors to this sort of behavior, how many can you identify? I leave you with one, and the ablity to point out more in the comments of this post.
Slice:
Guckert frequently attended White House press briefings over the last two years and asked pointedly conservative questions. Called on by Bush at a Jan. 26 news conference, Guckert said Senate Democratic leaders were painting a bleak picture of the economy and he asked Bush how the president would work "with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality."
The question prompted scrutiny, particularly from liberal bloggers. Guckert was linked with online domain addresses suggestive of gay pornography...
end slice:
Whether you think gay pornography is perverse, is certainly up to you, and definately a matter of personal opinion. I would suggest, disguising yourself as a reporter and pitching loaded questions to an otherwise unobjective president is perverse in another way. That is, fabrication is simply another form of lying...and as the saying goes, if you lie with the dogs, you are going to get fleas.
That is, instead of being up front about their perversions, they like to use subterfuge, cloak-and-dagger modes of going about their exploits (a la, Karl Rove - the chief GOP expert in this area). At times they are opaque enough about it to not get caught. But sometimes the veneer wears thin and we see them for who they really are, and they are exposed, once again.
Richard Nixon and the whole Watergate affair is a good example of what I am getting at here. As to the modern administrations' endeavors to this sort of behavior, how many can you identify? I leave you with one, and the ablity to point out more in the comments of this post.
Slice:
James D. Guckert, who wrote under the name Jeff Gannon, said on his Web site that he was leaving "because of the attention being paid to me." He had been Washington bureau chief for Talon News, a conservative online news outlet associated with another Web site, GOPUSA.
Guckert frequently attended White House press briefings over the last two years and asked pointedly conservative questions. Called on by Bush at a Jan. 26 news conference, Guckert said Senate Democratic leaders were painting a bleak picture of the economy and he asked Bush how the president would work "with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality."
The question prompted scrutiny, particularly from liberal bloggers. Guckert was linked with online domain addresses suggestive of gay pornography...
end slice:
Whether you think gay pornography is perverse, is certainly up to you, and definately a matter of personal opinion. I would suggest, disguising yourself as a reporter and pitching loaded questions to an otherwise unobjective president is perverse in another way. That is, fabrication is simply another form of lying...and as the saying goes, if you lie with the dogs, you are going to get fleas.
The begining of the end of Tenure
This just in from the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Slice:
My take on tenure is that it pledges "academic freedom," to only those who don't need it. That is, those without tenure tend to publish and conduct research that allows them to recieve tenure. It's a catch 22. If you do research that is considered cutting edge, it is likely that it won't be published. So, you do research that gets published, and thus conform to the norms of your field. Is that academic freedom? I think not. Those who need tenure the most, the new faculty starting their careers at the cuttting edge of the field, don't get it.
The real trouble with academic tenure as an important academic principle and philosophy has become inextricably linked as a defacto personnel policy. That is, if the faculty don't like you, they don't fire you, you simply get a "no tenure" decision. Challenge either one and the faculty become testy over the matter becuase they feel threatened.
There is a better way. I call it faculty free agency. More on that if you are interested.
Slice:
Higher education should consider changing the tenure system drastically to make academic careers less rigid, particularly for professors raising young children, the leaders of 10 research universities said in a report issued on Thursday.
The report, "An Agenda for Excellence: Creating Flexibility in Tenure-Track Faculty Careers," was sponsored by the American Council on Education and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. It says universities should consider:
- Giving young professors up to 10 years -- instead of 6 -- to earn tenure.
- Allowing faculty members to work part time for up to five years at a time.
- Granting multiyear leaves to professors for personal and professional reasons.
- Creating postdoctoral jobs to help people who have "stopped out" of academe after earning their Ph.D.'s, perhaps to raise a family, to re-enter their careers in higher education.
My take on tenure is that it pledges "academic freedom," to only those who don't need it. That is, those without tenure tend to publish and conduct research that allows them to recieve tenure. It's a catch 22. If you do research that is considered cutting edge, it is likely that it won't be published. So, you do research that gets published, and thus conform to the norms of your field. Is that academic freedom? I think not. Those who need tenure the most, the new faculty starting their careers at the cuttting edge of the field, don't get it.
The real trouble with academic tenure as an important academic principle and philosophy has become inextricably linked as a defacto personnel policy. That is, if the faculty don't like you, they don't fire you, you simply get a "no tenure" decision. Challenge either one and the faculty become testy over the matter becuase they feel threatened.
There is a better way. I call it faculty free agency. More on that if you are interested.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
I double dare ya!
Well, at least we know the North Koreans have Nukes. And, they don't hide them in the desert...no wait, we haven't found any kind of WMD in any deserts....
The announcement is real chutzpah on the part of Kim Jung Il, don't you think. Is it smoke and mirrors or someone walking tall, and shaking a big stick? It sounds like they are asking to be carpet bombed, no?
I have friends in South Korea, I'll have to jingle them up on the old email and see what they think of this mess.
Slice:
North Korea boasted publicly for the first time Thursday that it has nuclear weapons and said it will stay away from disarmament talks, dramatically raising the stakes in the 2-year-old dispute. The Bush administration called on Pyongyang to give up its atomic aspirations so life can be better for its impoverished people.
... "We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's ever-more undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North)," the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency. The agency's report used the word "nukes" in its English-language dispatch.
... "The U.S. disclosed its attempt to topple the political system in (North Korea) at any cost, threatening it with a nuclear stick," North Korea's Foreign Ministry said. "This compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by the people in (North Korea)."
...The nuclear crisis began in 2002 when U.S. officials accused North Korea of running a secret uranium-enrichment program in violation of international treaties.
Washington and its allies cut off free fuel oil shipments for the impoverished country under a 1994 deal with the United States made under the condition that North Korea halt nuclear weapons development.
North Korea retaliated by quitting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in early 2003 and restarting its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program, which had been frozen under the 1994 agreement.
The CIA has estimated that with a highly enriched uranium weapons program and the use of sophisticated high-speed centrifuges, North Korea could be making more. Some analysts and observers have put the estimate at six to eight.
Sounds like W and co aren't itchin' for a fight there as they are in Iran. I wonder why, perhaps moving to a Southeast Asian theater from the mideast would be too much of a strain on our military.
Two questions come to mind, 1) do you feel safer with Bush at the helm given that they mention the guy directly in their message to us?
And 2) Hey, what's the Bush administration done for our impoverished people here in the Good Old USA, by the way? Just a little off topic, but since they brought it up...just thought I'd ask.
The announcement is real chutzpah on the part of Kim Jung Il, don't you think. Is it smoke and mirrors or someone walking tall, and shaking a big stick? It sounds like they are asking to be carpet bombed, no?
I have friends in South Korea, I'll have to jingle them up on the old email and see what they think of this mess.
Slice:
North Korea boasted publicly for the first time Thursday that it has nuclear weapons and said it will stay away from disarmament talks, dramatically raising the stakes in the 2-year-old dispute. The Bush administration called on Pyongyang to give up its atomic aspirations so life can be better for its impoverished people.
... "We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's ever-more undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North)," the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency. The agency's report used the word "nukes" in its English-language dispatch.
... "The U.S. disclosed its attempt to topple the political system in (North Korea) at any cost, threatening it with a nuclear stick," North Korea's Foreign Ministry said. "This compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by the people in (North Korea)."
...The nuclear crisis began in 2002 when U.S. officials accused North Korea of running a secret uranium-enrichment program in violation of international treaties.
Washington and its allies cut off free fuel oil shipments for the impoverished country under a 1994 deal with the United States made under the condition that North Korea halt nuclear weapons development.
North Korea retaliated by quitting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in early 2003 and restarting its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program, which had been frozen under the 1994 agreement.
The CIA has estimated that with a highly enriched uranium weapons program and the use of sophisticated high-speed centrifuges, North Korea could be making more. Some analysts and observers have put the estimate at six to eight.
End slice:
Sounds like W and co aren't itchin' for a fight there as they are in Iran. I wonder why, perhaps moving to a Southeast Asian theater from the mideast would be too much of a strain on our military.
Two questions come to mind, 1) do you feel safer with Bush at the helm given that they mention the guy directly in their message to us?
And 2) Hey, what's the Bush administration done for our impoverished people here in the Good Old USA, by the way? Just a little off topic, but since they brought it up...just thought I'd ask.
The level of paranoia on the right appears to be higher than on the left
There is some good reading in this NyTimes article by Frank Rich, but I loved his closing sentance after examining how Clint Eastwood, the legendary Dirty Harry celebrated by gun toting, card carrying members of the NRA, could now be considered a commie (as if that was all bad):
Take a gander at the full article, but here's my favorite line:
What makes some feel betrayed and angry after seeing "Million Dollar Baby" is exactly what makes many more stop and think: one of Hollywood's most durable cowboys is saying that it's not always morning in America, and that it may take more than faith to get us through the night.
End slice:
The friend who suggested I read the article had this to say:
The problem here is that such explanations of Hollywood output shouldn't be necessary. They make movies not history. In the past month I've looked at Technorati's top 100. Some are right-wing news sources and blog. The level of paranoia on the right appears to be higher than on the left. They have a need to control the message to the point that they don't permit uncontrolled access to their Comments. Like dissenting voices would create FUD among the true believers. The right is AFRAID. Scared people are dangerous. They do dumb things based on their perceptions. One can only hope that the uniforms in the Pentagon are smart enough not to follow Bush's atomic button pushing order, should he want to do it.
Take a gander at the full article, but here's my favorite line:
What makes some feel betrayed and angry after seeing "Million Dollar Baby" is exactly what makes many more stop and think: one of Hollywood's most durable cowboys is saying that it's not always morning in America, and that it may take more than faith to get us through the night.
End slice:
The friend who suggested I read the article had this to say:
The problem here is that such explanations of Hollywood output shouldn't be necessary. They make movies not history. In the past month I've looked at Technorati's top 100. Some are right-wing news sources and blog. The level of paranoia on the right appears to be higher than on the left. They have a need to control the message to the point that they don't permit uncontrolled access to their Comments. Like dissenting voices would create FUD among the true believers. The right is AFRAID. Scared people are dangerous. They do dumb things based on their perceptions. One can only hope that the uniforms in the Pentagon are smart enough not to follow Bush's atomic button pushing order, should he want to do it.
Which one of the Apostles was gay?
I was out on my run this AM, enjoying the sun and warmer climes when it hit me. We hear a lot about what Jesus said, and would do, but not too much blog-commentary hits on the Apostles - Peter, John, Matthew, Thomas, James the Greater, James the Lesser, Andrew, Simon, Bartholomew, Judas, Philip, Matthias.
There has been some speculation that, Jesus himself might have been gay, but I couldn't find any speculation about the Apostles.
But, if you believe Kinsey's work, and his scale of sexual orientation, it could be statistical fact that at least one of the Apostles was a Homosexual. Wouldn't that put the religious rights' underwear in a twist if it could be proven? Since we can't go back in time, we may never know, but we could take an intellectual stab at it.
Anyone have some thoughts about which one of the Twelve it was and what evidence points you to that conclusion?
There has been some speculation that, Jesus himself might have been gay, but I couldn't find any speculation about the Apostles.
But, if you believe Kinsey's work, and his scale of sexual orientation, it could be statistical fact that at least one of the Apostles was a Homosexual. Wouldn't that put the religious rights' underwear in a twist if it could be proven? Since we can't go back in time, we may never know, but we could take an intellectual stab at it.
Anyone have some thoughts about which one of the Twelve it was and what evidence points you to that conclusion?
Our Dear Education President
Unfortunately, Bush places Community Colleges on a pedistal and proceeds to jackhammer away at the foundation.
Slice from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
Although President Bush has consistently praised community colleges, including as recently as his State of the Union address last week, the budget he released this week provided them with a mixed message about where they stand among the administration's priorities.
Slice from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
Although President Bush has consistently praised community colleges, including as recently as his State of the Union address last week, the budget he released this week provided them with a mixed message about where they stand among the administration's priorities.
In one part of the spending plan for 2006, the president called for abolishing the $1.33-billion Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education program, which gives some $400-million annually to community colleges to train students from low-income families for jobs. In addition, he proposed slashing funds for adult education and literacy by 63 percent, to $215-million.
But in another area of the budget, the president proposed $125-million in new funds to support community colleges' dual-enrollment programs, which allow high-school students to take college-level courses for credit. He also put into the spending plan his $250-million proposal from last year for community colleges to train workers for high-growth fields like health care and information technology.
The bottom line would be a net loss in federal funds for community colleges, lobbyists say.
End slice:
Does this sound like someone that wants to leave no child behind?
Unfortunately, freedom of speach yields freedom to hate
Looks like some folks can't handle some contrarian standpoints, what with the whole conflagration involving Ward Churchill. The bigger question has to be what took them so long to scorn that poor man?
Slice from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
ADDENDUM
The preceding was a "first take" reading, more a stream-of-consciousness interpretive reaction to the September 11 counterattack than a finished piece on the topic. Hence, I'll readily admit that I've been far less than thorough, and quite likely wrong about a number of things.
For instance, it may not have been (only) the ghosts of Iraqi children who made their appearance that day. It could as easily have been some or all of their butchered Palestinian cousins.
Or maybe it was some or all of the at least 3.2 million Indochinese who perished as a result of America's sustained and genocidal assault on Southeast Asia (1959-1975), not to mention the millions more who've died because of the sanctions imposed thereafter.
Perhaps there were a few of the Korean civilians massacred by US troops at places like No Gun Ri during the early ‘50s, or the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians ruthlessly incinerated in the ghastly fire raids of World War II (only at Dresden did America bomb Germany in a similar manner).
And, of course, it could have been those vaporized in the militarily pointless nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
There are others, as well, a vast and silent queue of faceless victims, stretching from the million-odd Filipinos slaughtered during America's "Indian War" in their islands at the beginning of the twentieth century, through the real Indians, America's own, massacred wholesale at places like Horseshoe Bend and the Bad Axe, Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, the Washita, Bear River, and the Marias.
Was it those who expired along the Cherokee Trial of Tears of the Long Walk of the Navajo?
Those murdered by smallpox at Fort Clark in 1836?
Starved to death in the concentration camp at Bosque Redondo during the 1860s?
Maybe those native people claimed for scalp bounty in all 48 of the continental US states? Or the Raritans whose severed heads were kicked for sport along the streets of what was then called New Amsterdam, at the very site where the WTC once stood?
One hears, too, the whispers of those lost on the Middle Passage, and of those whose very flesh was sold in the slave market outside the human kennel from whence Wall Street takes its name. And of coolie laborers, imported by the gross-dozen to lay the tracks of empire across scorching desert sands, none of them allotted "a Chinaman's chance" of surviving.
The list is too long, too awful to go on.
No matter what its eventual fate, America will have gotten off very, very cheap.
The full measure of its guilt can never be fully balanced or atoned for.
Slice from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
Hours after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Ward Churchill compared the victims to the Nazis. A professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, he wrote in an essay that those killed at the World Trade Center were not innocent civilians but "little Eichmanns."
The analogy is so outrageous, one thinks, that surely he immediately got into trouble. Surely it prompted angry letters and calls for him to be fired. But it didn't.
Instead, for years the comparison just sat there quietly. Mr. Churchill, by contrast, rarely stays still. He has spoken on more than 40 college campuses since the 2001 attacks....
...Mr. Churchill's speaking engagements may dry up now, as other colleges back away from his fiery rhetoric. But he has other things to worry about -- most immediately, his job. Regents in Colorado are pushing for his firing, and the interim chancellor of his campus has announced an investigation into his work to determine whether he "may have overstepped his bounds."
That investigation could be the first step toward dismissing him. Vandals have spray-painted swastikas on his pickup truck, and he has received more than 100 death threats. And now a Lamar University sociologist is charging that some of Mr. Churchill's research is fraudulent.
In a speech on Tuesday in Boulder, Mr. Churchill said that he would not retract his statements and that he would fight to keep his job. His essay was sparked, he said, by hearing someone call the attack "senseless." He added: "How can they positively know that? Do they really believe this operation had no purpose?"
He also told the crowd that he did not mean that everyone in the World Trade Center was a "little Eichmann." The janitors and passers-by were not the people at the heart of the "mighty engine of profit" that he derided.
End slice:
Which is more important, the freedom of speach or the freedom to hate?
I particularly found Churchil's Addendum to the original essay very poignent:
Read on if you dare (i wonder how many vandals actually got that far in the essay):
Slice:
ADDENDUM
The preceding was a "first take" reading, more a stream-of-consciousness interpretive reaction to the September 11 counterattack than a finished piece on the topic. Hence, I'll readily admit that I've been far less than thorough, and quite likely wrong about a number of things.
For instance, it may not have been (only) the ghosts of Iraqi children who made their appearance that day. It could as easily have been some or all of their butchered Palestinian cousins.
Or maybe it was some or all of the at least 3.2 million Indochinese who perished as a result of America's sustained and genocidal assault on Southeast Asia (1959-1975), not to mention the millions more who've died because of the sanctions imposed thereafter.
Perhaps there were a few of the Korean civilians massacred by US troops at places like No Gun Ri during the early ‘50s, or the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians ruthlessly incinerated in the ghastly fire raids of World War II (only at Dresden did America bomb Germany in a similar manner).
And, of course, it could have been those vaporized in the militarily pointless nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
There are others, as well, a vast and silent queue of faceless victims, stretching from the million-odd Filipinos slaughtered during America's "Indian War" in their islands at the beginning of the twentieth century, through the real Indians, America's own, massacred wholesale at places like Horseshoe Bend and the Bad Axe, Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, the Washita, Bear River, and the Marias.
Was it those who expired along the Cherokee Trial of Tears of the Long Walk of the Navajo?
Those murdered by smallpox at Fort Clark in 1836?
Starved to death in the concentration camp at Bosque Redondo during the 1860s?
Maybe those native people claimed for scalp bounty in all 48 of the continental US states? Or the Raritans whose severed heads were kicked for sport along the streets of what was then called New Amsterdam, at the very site where the WTC once stood?
One hears, too, the whispers of those lost on the Middle Passage, and of those whose very flesh was sold in the slave market outside the human kennel from whence Wall Street takes its name. And of coolie laborers, imported by the gross-dozen to lay the tracks of empire across scorching desert sands, none of them allotted "a Chinaman's chance" of surviving.
The list is too long, too awful to go on.
No matter what its eventual fate, America will have gotten off very, very cheap.
The full measure of its guilt can never be fully balanced or atoned for.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Lynne Cheney: one Slippery Wench
This AM on Fresh Air, Lynne Cheney proved that she is as slippery as the rest of the bunch...and she is pretty much a brick house. Trying to get some real information out of that woman is a real challenge. That said, she did admit that she, "does not support a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage."
She said, essentially, that it should be left to the States. If Lynne Cheney - the SLOTUS - doesn't support such an amendment, why do so many other reichwingers?
You have to give Terry Gross high marks for trying to pry something more substantive out of her...unlike many mainstream journalists who regularly toss softballs to the administrators.
I have still yet to hear a good argument as to how gay marriage hurts straight marriage and what substantive reason marriage needs some kind of protection. Anyone care to enlighten us?
...and I am not buying the," homosexual behavior is an abomination and perverted way of life; it's against god's law, argument." I firmly believe that what you decide to do with your penis or vagina, in the privacy of your own home with another consenting adult, is your own business.
She said, essentially, that it should be left to the States. If Lynne Cheney - the SLOTUS - doesn't support such an amendment, why do so many other reichwingers?
You have to give Terry Gross high marks for trying to pry something more substantive out of her...unlike many mainstream journalists who regularly toss softballs to the administrators.
I have still yet to hear a good argument as to how gay marriage hurts straight marriage and what substantive reason marriage needs some kind of protection. Anyone care to enlighten us?
...and I am not buying the," homosexual behavior is an abomination and perverted way of life; it's against god's law, argument." I firmly believe that what you decide to do with your penis or vagina, in the privacy of your own home with another consenting adult, is your own business.
The solution to the Social Security situation even befuddling W
Has anyone else read through the text of W's speach in FL? Even with the help of some softball questions from amicus academics, he twists and turns when pressed for a substantive answer.
Slices from President Bush, Explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005:
“Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.
“Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.”
[one thing we do know for sure, the money managers stand to be the big winners in any privitization plan]
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, that's a great question. They'll be from providers. We don't want the federal government making stocks and bond decisions. (Applause.) They'll be private -- private sector, people who get paid to do this. And the fees, by the way, will be -- we'll make sure that you don't get gouged. I mean, obviously, what we want is people's money going into their personal account, not going into big fee structures. And so there will be a -- it will be regulated to that extent. In other words, there will a certain sense of regulation, you can only invest in certain kinds of stocks and bonds to be -- and the funds will be managed by people whose job it is to manage them, outside of the government.
end slice:
Slices from President Bush, Explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005:
“Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.
“Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.”
[one thing we do know for sure, the money managers stand to be the big winners in any privitization plan]
Q Well, I think you'll like this. It's a simple suggestion. Regarding, the flexible spending account, my suggestion is to encourage Congress to quickly get rid of the "use it or lose it" law, which will also supplement the help with Social Security. And then, my question is, for the three or four options that will be available, will those options be federally-run options? Or will they be from like commercial providers, say, like Fidelity Investments?
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, that's a great question. They'll be from providers. We don't want the federal government making stocks and bond decisions. (Applause.) They'll be private -- private sector, people who get paid to do this. And the fees, by the way, will be -- we'll make sure that you don't get gouged. I mean, obviously, what we want is people's money going into their personal account, not going into big fee structures. And so there will be a -- it will be regulated to that extent. In other words, there will a certain sense of regulation, you can only invest in certain kinds of stocks and bonds to be -- and the funds will be managed by people whose job it is to manage them, outside of the government.
end slice:
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
More on the W: The Crustacean
I had posted a note in a similar vein in Jan.
Looks like the W's claw has been placed squarely in his own back end again, proving once again that he is rather callous and oblivious to what it means to be a working American.
Found this, first on Wonkette, and secondly on Drudge:
Sliced from Drudge:
Last Friday when promoting social security reform with 'regular' citizens in Omaha, Nebraska, President Bush walked into an awkward unscripted moment in which he stated that carrying three jobs at a time is 'uniquely American.'
While talking with audience participants, the president met Mary Mornin, a woman in her late fifties who told the president she was a divorced mother of three, including a 'mentally challenged' son.
The President comforted Mornin on the security of social security stating that 'the promises made will be kept by the government.'
But without prompting Mornin began to elaborate on her life circumstances.
Begin transcript:
MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.
THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?
MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)
End slice:
I spent a fair amount of time simultaneously holding three jobs (Working at a Marina, Waiting Tables, and doing Second Shift as a material handler at a local factory) while I was working to pay my way through college (and no, my parents didn't pick up one red cent of any diploma I have earned after high school).
Joking about this woman not getting any sleep is cold and crass, demonstrating that this prez is so far out of touch with real, hard working Americans. By the way, does anyone know when the crustacean is slated to go on vacation again (and where that might be)?
Looks like the W's claw has been placed squarely in his own back end again, proving once again that he is rather callous and oblivious to what it means to be a working American.
Found this, first on Wonkette, and secondly on Drudge:
Sliced from Drudge:
Last Friday when promoting social security reform with 'regular' citizens in Omaha, Nebraska, President Bush walked into an awkward unscripted moment in which he stated that carrying three jobs at a time is 'uniquely American.'
While talking with audience participants, the president met Mary Mornin, a woman in her late fifties who told the president she was a divorced mother of three, including a 'mentally challenged' son.
The President comforted Mornin on the security of social security stating that 'the promises made will be kept by the government.'
But without prompting Mornin began to elaborate on her life circumstances.
Begin transcript:
MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.
THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?
MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)
End slice:
I spent a fair amount of time simultaneously holding three jobs (Working at a Marina, Waiting Tables, and doing Second Shift as a material handler at a local factory) while I was working to pay my way through college (and no, my parents didn't pick up one red cent of any diploma I have earned after high school).
Joking about this woman not getting any sleep is cold and crass, demonstrating that this prez is so far out of touch with real, hard working Americans. By the way, does anyone know when the crustacean is slated to go on vacation again (and where that might be)?
Education is getting smoked by the Bush Administration
Or perhaps, the title should read, Education is Getting Smote by the Bush Administration. Of course, with all of his war time experience, W is very good at smiting...how fitting for his christian demeanor.
Take a look at the table summarized at the Chronicle of Higher Education and do the math. Sure, he is requesting a boost for Pell Grants (by 5.6%), but look at the other areas being reduced by 100% and you will know that there is no real increase, but a wholesale decrease in the investment in education.
As determined by the projected requests for the 2006 budget, it looks like our fair president doesn't care much about children, left behind or not.
Slice:
Pell Grants up 5.6 %
Perkins Loans (which really are not financial aid) DOWN 100%
Tech Prep Education DOWN 100%
Trio Programs DOWN 55.9%
Fund for Improving Postsecondary Education DOWN 86.3%
Gear UP DOWN 100%
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants DOWN 100%
End slice:
You can log in to get the full table, but I don't think that increasing one, very successful program and killing several others is the best thing for education in America.
Take a look at the table summarized at the Chronicle of Higher Education and do the math. Sure, he is requesting a boost for Pell Grants (by 5.6%), but look at the other areas being reduced by 100% and you will know that there is no real increase, but a wholesale decrease in the investment in education.
As determined by the projected requests for the 2006 budget, it looks like our fair president doesn't care much about children, left behind or not.
Slice:
Pell Grants up 5.6 %
Perkins Loans (which really are not financial aid) DOWN 100%
Tech Prep Education DOWN 100%
Trio Programs DOWN 55.9%
Fund for Improving Postsecondary Education DOWN 86.3%
Gear UP DOWN 100%
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants DOWN 100%
End slice:
You can log in to get the full table, but I don't think that increasing one, very successful program and killing several others is the best thing for education in America.
Condi Rice, Exasperated?
Just listened to a sound bite from NPR where Condi was talking about the Israel/Palistine situation.
Is it me, or does it seem like every time I hear Condi Rice speaking it sounds as if she is on the verge of tears, or completely exasperated?
Either way, her tenor and temeritry seem to produce a tremor in her voice that make her words ring shallow. Like a small pebble dropped in to Lake Superior.
Unfortuantely, her actions produce much more grave circumstances.
Is it me, or does it seem like every time I hear Condi Rice speaking it sounds as if she is on the verge of tears, or completely exasperated?
Either way, her tenor and temeritry seem to produce a tremor in her voice that make her words ring shallow. Like a small pebble dropped in to Lake Superior.
Unfortuantely, her actions produce much more grave circumstances.
Ellen MacArthur Creams the Record and the Competition
I pulled this snap from Ellen's web location as the flotilla escorted her to the finish line more than a full day ahead of the next boat. She wins and broke the round the world record. I wonder why this wasn't in our newspaper...was it in yours? If so, comment below and let us know which papers are actually following such news items.
Monday, February 07, 2005
The Drooling Capitalists
There is a quiet set of individuals that have to be salivating like Pavlov's dogs over the idea of privatizing the Social Security system - even to the slightest degree...and drum roll please, this has to be the money managers who will handle all the trades involved in "helping" us invest our funds. Market goes up, make a trade - they take a cut. Market goes down, make a trade - they take a cut. At a minimum, of let's be minimalist here, they would make say 7 bucks a trade, or up to 25 bucks a trade, the big winners are - according to W, it is the people.
Not so. Watch where the folks in the money managing industry are placing their lobbying dollars and how much they are spending to push the "reform/fix," and it will reveal what they think about the privitization of SS dollars. Follow the money and you find the biggest pigs at the trough.
The big winners will be the drooling capitalists, as they eagerly hump and stumble over each other, glad hand politicians, grease the wheels and palms of the american political elite, and certainly not make any noise publicly for fear that they portray themselves as sharks for greenbacks, for the opportunity to help us "grow our social security dollars."
Don't be fooled by the wolf in sheeps clothing. Aesop was no fool, and nor should we be.
Slice from the NYTimes:
The more we learn, the worse it gets.
Last Wednesday, as President Bush prepped for his State of the Union address, a White House official gave reporters a background briefing on some of the details of Mr. Bush's Social Security privatization plan. Almost point for point, whatever the president said that sounded good sounded bad when the details were filled in.
For instance, Mr. Bush said, "Personal accounts are a better deal," because "your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver." But the privatized system actually contains hidden costs that could leave retirees with less. Your Social Security benefit would be reduced, dollar for dollar, by the amount of money you deposit into your private account and an additional charge amounting to 3 percent plus the rate of inflation.
All the money that is drained off would presumably go to pay for the enormous upfront government borrowing - $4.5 trillion over the next 20 years - that privatization would require.
That means people whose private accounts steadily earned three percentage points over inflation throughout their working lives would wind up with exactly what they would have gotten if Social Security remained untouched. Anyone who earned less than that would end up with less than is offered by the current system. When asked what would happen to the people who would not have enough income to avoid poverty, the administration official said, "I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question."
The benefit cut is only the beginning. There is still the problem of strengthening Social Security's finances. On its own, establishing private accounts does nothing to solve the long-term shortfall in the system. The president alluded to this fact when he said, "We must pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security." He dutifully listed various benefit cuts that would do the trick, without taking the politically risky step of endorsing any of them.
Neither the president nor his aides have been willing to acknowledge the extent of benefit cuts that would be needed. And no wonder: All in all, they would leave the average worker with a government benefit worth only about 10 percent of his or her preretirement earnings.
End slice:
Why is it that with W at the helm, as he firmly grabs the "third-rail" of American politics, it is "We, the people," that are the ones about to be electrocuted?
Not so. Watch where the folks in the money managing industry are placing their lobbying dollars and how much they are spending to push the "reform/fix," and it will reveal what they think about the privitization of SS dollars. Follow the money and you find the biggest pigs at the trough.
The big winners will be the drooling capitalists, as they eagerly hump and stumble over each other, glad hand politicians, grease the wheels and palms of the american political elite, and certainly not make any noise publicly for fear that they portray themselves as sharks for greenbacks, for the opportunity to help us "grow our social security dollars."
Don't be fooled by the wolf in sheeps clothing. Aesop was no fool, and nor should we be.
Slice from the NYTimes:
The more we learn, the worse it gets.
Last Wednesday, as President Bush prepped for his State of the Union address, a White House official gave reporters a background briefing on some of the details of Mr. Bush's Social Security privatization plan. Almost point for point, whatever the president said that sounded good sounded bad when the details were filled in.
For instance, Mr. Bush said, "Personal accounts are a better deal," because "your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver." But the privatized system actually contains hidden costs that could leave retirees with less. Your Social Security benefit would be reduced, dollar for dollar, by the amount of money you deposit into your private account and an additional charge amounting to 3 percent plus the rate of inflation.
All the money that is drained off would presumably go to pay for the enormous upfront government borrowing - $4.5 trillion over the next 20 years - that privatization would require.
That means people whose private accounts steadily earned three percentage points over inflation throughout their working lives would wind up with exactly what they would have gotten if Social Security remained untouched. Anyone who earned less than that would end up with less than is offered by the current system. When asked what would happen to the people who would not have enough income to avoid poverty, the administration official said, "I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question."
The benefit cut is only the beginning. There is still the problem of strengthening Social Security's finances. On its own, establishing private accounts does nothing to solve the long-term shortfall in the system. The president alluded to this fact when he said, "We must pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security." He dutifully listed various benefit cuts that would do the trick, without taking the politically risky step of endorsing any of them.
Neither the president nor his aides have been willing to acknowledge the extent of benefit cuts that would be needed. And no wonder: All in all, they would leave the average worker with a government benefit worth only about 10 percent of his or her preretirement earnings.
End slice:
Why is it that with W at the helm, as he firmly grabs the "third-rail" of American politics, it is "We, the people," that are the ones about to be electrocuted?
Friday, February 04, 2005
On Christians - The capital C kind.
Still reading Cornel West's Democracy Matters. Anyone else reading it?
Here's what he says about christianity [on page 150]:
Most American Constantinian Christians [read - most christians] are unaware of their imperialisitic identity becuase they do not see the parallel between the Roman empire that put Jesus to death and the American empire that they celebrate. As long as they can worship freely and pursue the American dream, they see the American governemnt as a force for good and American imperialism as a desirable force for spreading that good. They prouldy profess their allegiance to the flag and the cross not realizing that just as the cross was a bloody indictment of the Roman empire, it is a powerful critique of the American empire, and they fail to acknowledge that the cozy relation between their Christian leaders and imperial American rulers may mirror the intimate ties between the religious leaders and imperial Roman rulers who cricified their Savior.
I have no doubt that most of these American Constantinian Christians are sincere in their faith and pious in their actions. But they are relatively ignorant of the crucial role they play in sponsoring American imperial ends. Their understanding of American history is thin and their grasp of Chrisitan history is spotty, which leaves them vulnerable to manipulation by Christian leaders and minsinformation by imperial rulers.
[and on to page 151] In short, they sell their precious souls for a mess of imperial pottage based on the false belief that they are simply being true to the flag and the cross. The very notion that the prophetic legacy of the grand victim of the Roman empire - Jesus Christ - requires critique of and resistance to American imperial power hardly occurs to them.
[lastly, on to page 167] It now sometime seems that all Christians speak in one voice when in fact it is only that the loudness of hte Constantinian element of American Christianity has so totally drowned out the prophetic voices. Imperial Christianity, market spirituality, money-obsessed churches, gospels of prosperity, prayers of let's-make-a-deal with God or help me turn my wheel of fortune have become the prevailing voice of American Christianity. In this version of Christianity the precious blood at the foot of the cross becomes Kool-Aid to refresh eager upwardly mobile aspirants in the nihilistic American game of power and might. And there is hardly a mumbling word heard about social justice, resistance to institutional evil, or courage to confront the powers that be - with the glaring exception of abortion.
End slices:
There is a lot of substance to think about in West's words. Later in the chapter, he confessess to his own Christian background, thus his words ring loudly and the dull knife digs deep into this notion of "good" Christian flesh.
I'll let the world think on this one for a bit as we are headed out of town for the weekend. Won't be on line for a bit.
Enjoy...
Here's what he says about christianity [on page 150]:
Most American Constantinian Christians [read - most christians] are unaware of their imperialisitic identity becuase they do not see the parallel between the Roman empire that put Jesus to death and the American empire that they celebrate. As long as they can worship freely and pursue the American dream, they see the American governemnt as a force for good and American imperialism as a desirable force for spreading that good. They prouldy profess their allegiance to the flag and the cross not realizing that just as the cross was a bloody indictment of the Roman empire, it is a powerful critique of the American empire, and they fail to acknowledge that the cozy relation between their Christian leaders and imperial American rulers may mirror the intimate ties between the religious leaders and imperial Roman rulers who cricified their Savior.
I have no doubt that most of these American Constantinian Christians are sincere in their faith and pious in their actions. But they are relatively ignorant of the crucial role they play in sponsoring American imperial ends. Their understanding of American history is thin and their grasp of Chrisitan history is spotty, which leaves them vulnerable to manipulation by Christian leaders and minsinformation by imperial rulers.
[and on to page 151] In short, they sell their precious souls for a mess of imperial pottage based on the false belief that they are simply being true to the flag and the cross. The very notion that the prophetic legacy of the grand victim of the Roman empire - Jesus Christ - requires critique of and resistance to American imperial power hardly occurs to them.
[lastly, on to page 167] It now sometime seems that all Christians speak in one voice when in fact it is only that the loudness of hte Constantinian element of American Christianity has so totally drowned out the prophetic voices. Imperial Christianity, market spirituality, money-obsessed churches, gospels of prosperity, prayers of let's-make-a-deal with God or help me turn my wheel of fortune have become the prevailing voice of American Christianity. In this version of Christianity the precious blood at the foot of the cross becomes Kool-Aid to refresh eager upwardly mobile aspirants in the nihilistic American game of power and might. And there is hardly a mumbling word heard about social justice, resistance to institutional evil, or courage to confront the powers that be - with the glaring exception of abortion.
End slices:
There is a lot of substance to think about in West's words. Later in the chapter, he confessess to his own Christian background, thus his words ring loudly and the dull knife digs deep into this notion of "good" Christian flesh.
I'll let the world think on this one for a bit as we are headed out of town for the weekend. Won't be on line for a bit.
Enjoy...
Thursday, February 03, 2005
The bad boys of Halliburton - Prophylactically pull out of Iran
I found this while surfing BE and hitting on the Antifacist blog.
Aparently, the boys of Halliburton have been cavorting with the terrorists in Iran:
Slice:
US energy services company Halliburton is to end its operations in Iran after existing contracts come to an end.
Several American firms have been able to legally work in the country in the face of a US trade embargo, through foreign subsidiaries.
Halliburton, once run by US vice president Dick Cheney, said its Cayman Island unit secured revenues of $30m-$40m (£16-£21m) from Iran in 2003.
It said it was winding down its work due to a poor business environment.
No kidding! I'll bet the environment will get worse when the carpet bombing starts in Iran - the prefered war kick off strategem for US forces in the MidEast.
Why didn't the Mass Media Propaganda Machine stick it to Cheney and the bad boys of Halliburton....oh, no wait...they wouldn't do that....this is the Dick's company...wouldn't want to paint an ugly picture of that organization.
Is anyone else sickened that Halliburton would have contracts in Iran and feel like this is about as low as an "American" company could sink?
Aparently, the boys of Halliburton have been cavorting with the terrorists in Iran:
Slice:
US energy services company Halliburton is to end its operations in Iran after existing contracts come to an end.
Several American firms have been able to legally work in the country in the face of a US trade embargo, through foreign subsidiaries.
Halliburton, once run by US vice president Dick Cheney, said its Cayman Island unit secured revenues of $30m-$40m (£16-£21m) from Iran in 2003.
It said it was winding down its work due to a poor business environment.
End slice:
No kidding! I'll bet the environment will get worse when the carpet bombing starts in Iran - the prefered war kick off strategem for US forces in the MidEast.
Why didn't the Mass Media Propaganda Machine stick it to Cheney and the bad boys of Halliburton....oh, no wait...they wouldn't do that....this is the Dick's company...wouldn't want to paint an ugly picture of that organization.
Is anyone else sickened that Halliburton would have contracts in Iran and feel like this is about as low as an "American" company could sink?
"We choose freedom and the dignity of every life."
After forgiving the president his many verbal stumbles, only one sentence stumped me a bit. "We choose freedom and the dignity of every life."
I'm a bit perplexed as to what W really means here.
If my idea or beliefs about freedom don't look like the freedom you want me to have, does this mean no freedom for me?
What about the indignities we as a country have perpetrated on our own citizenry and those abroad? Are we going to pay restitution for those tragedies?
There is a lot to unpack in that one sentence in order to gather its meaning...Can someone explain it to me as if I were a three year old?
I'm a bit perplexed as to what W really means here.
If my idea or beliefs about freedom don't look like the freedom you want me to have, does this mean no freedom for me?
What about the indignities we as a country have perpetrated on our own citizenry and those abroad? Are we going to pay restitution for those tragedies?
There is a lot to unpack in that one sentence in order to gather its meaning...Can someone explain it to me as if I were a three year old?
Are we up for four hours of Good, Clean, Christian Homoerotica
As we head into the Superbowl weekend, when millions of wonderful, god fearing Americans are watching - desparately hoping to see some one flash a breast or two, or conversly, hoping their kids are not exposed to such thing - I thought I would dig up some interesting quotes regarding the homoerotic nature of football. This is not a new idea.
But it is interesting to notice how okay it is with fun-football loving christians that men touch men in public when a little ball of some sort is involved.
Check out these two links.
Link 1 - from the SF Chronicle.
Slice 1:
But it is interesting to notice how okay it is with fun-football loving christians that men touch men in public when a little ball of some sort is involved.
Check out these two links.
Link 1 - from the SF Chronicle.
Slice 1:
The rules are long and often make no sense, but they can be simplified into a male touching playbook.
1. It's less awkward to embrace when lots of men are around: Two uncivilized heterosexual guys alone in a room never know what to say to each other, and will almost never hug lest someone walk in and assume they're lovers. But as more people are watching, they're willing to experiment with arms around the shoulders, playful ruffling of hair and other friendly physical contact.
2. The manlier the activity, the more spontaneous touching is acceptable: This is something men experience when playing sports, drinking low-quality beer and engaging in other bonding rituals. I recall a recent Las Vegas bachelor party where no one got a lap dance, but a hotel-streaking incident turned into a weekend-long all-male group discussion on the tightness of each other's posteriors.
3. In moments of extreme happiness, stress and imminent peril, embracing another man is OK: In other words, while it may create an awkward situation to give another man a little sugar when he's departing for the supermarket, a hug is a wonderful thing if someone is leaving for an independent contracting job in Fallujah.
Combined, these rules begin to explain why football is such a male grope- a-thon. Because: 1) there are so many people watching, 2) the players are doing manly things, and 3) the pressure is so high, there's nothing participants can do except take turns jumping into each other's eagerly waiting arms.
End slice 1.
Link 2 - one which you may find more disturbing, yes, from "academia." The author is talking from the male perspective and advising us how to use femanist pedagogical practice to engage a classroom full of undergraduates.
...After reviewing the syllabus and discussing the previously outlined introduction I give in all my courses, in hopes of further setting the tone for the upcoming semester, I introduced two notions about sport that I knew would cause controversy. First, using Dundes (1980) psychoanalytical analysis of the homoerotic nature of American football, and making careful note that I was not suggesting that football players were gay, I outlined the ways in which such an activity can be viewed as symbolically homosexual. For instance, I asked them how can they account for a sport where two groups of men spend untold amounts of energy trying to penetrate their opponent’s defenses in hopes of “touching” the ball in their end zone to “score”? I further asked them why football used vocabulary such as tight ends and wide outs? Why does the center present the ball in the prone position? And why is the reward for good play a firm pat on the bottom, hugs, and sometimes kisses? As one might guess, my queries were met with emotional responses ranging from laughter to outright anger, the latter most strongly expressed by several football players.
After the initial clamor subsided, I asked if they could think of other ways that sports could be considered symbolically homosexual. To the chagrin of several of the football players, expressed in terms such as “don’t tell him about that,” and to the disbelief of several other class members, one of the players fondly recalled towel fights, “turd fights” and “golden showers” (urinating down a teammate while he has shampoo on his head) as locker room activities. After this, several people in the class not only were angry at me for what I was suggesting but also at the classmate who had openly shared such apparently secretive information. As the discussion continued, a former wrestler described two wrestling moves that he thought were symbolically homosexual: “checking the oil,” where the thumb is inserted into the opponent’s rectum to force him to the mat, and “five-on-two,” a means of forcing an opponent to the mat by grabbing his scrotum. Class members and I offered several more similar examples of homoerotic activities in sports before moving on to the next topic.
End slice 2
God bless America!
PS. Go Patriots!
With "brothers like these..."
Who needs fraternities? Another pledge dies in CA trying to fit in.
In my book, the so called benefits of the fraternal organization do not outweigh the downside (E.G. at Dartmouth), which in this sad case sometimes includes the death of a student....
Maybe some young bloggers out there can post some true accounts of where hazing actually was a fun, enjoyable experience...or perhaps, rather, they would like to testify to the absurd nature of the antiquated system that poses as social organizations that build fraternity.
A comment or two from those actually experiencing this would be greatly appreciated.
Slice:
A 21-year-old pledge rushing a fraternity in Chico is dead after drinking several gallons of water in a bizarre hazing ritual, his family said.
Chico police detectives have taped off the basement of Chi Tau fraternity where they say the incident occurred, and they are interviewing 14 house members to find out how Matthew Carrington of Pleasant Hill died Wednesday morning.
Carrington's friend Mike Quintana, who was the only other pledge present during the night of hazing, told police and Carrington's parents that he and Carrington had been forced to drink about five gallons of water each, had ice water thrown on them and air-conditioning fans turned their way during an all-nighter in the fraternity's basement.
The young men were forced to do push-ups and stand on a bench for hours while answering trivia questions about the house brothers, said Chico police Sgt. Robert Merrifield, who is investigating the case.
In my book, the so called benefits of the fraternal organization do not outweigh the downside (E.G. at Dartmouth), which in this sad case sometimes includes the death of a student....
Maybe some young bloggers out there can post some true accounts of where hazing actually was a fun, enjoyable experience...or perhaps, rather, they would like to testify to the absurd nature of the antiquated system that poses as social organizations that build fraternity.
A comment or two from those actually experiencing this would be greatly appreciated.
Slice:
A 21-year-old pledge rushing a fraternity in Chico is dead after drinking several gallons of water in a bizarre hazing ritual, his family said.
Chico police detectives have taped off the basement of Chi Tau fraternity where they say the incident occurred, and they are interviewing 14 house members to find out how Matthew Carrington of Pleasant Hill died Wednesday morning.
Carrington's friend Mike Quintana, who was the only other pledge present during the night of hazing, told police and Carrington's parents that he and Carrington had been forced to drink about five gallons of water each, had ice water thrown on them and air-conditioning fans turned their way during an all-nighter in the fraternity's basement.
The young men were forced to do push-ups and stand on a bench for hours while answering trivia questions about the house brothers, said Chico police Sgt. Robert Merrifield, who is investigating the case.
Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Looks like the same folks that still like the WMD rationale to go into Iraq are eating up the Social Security ploy doctored up by W.
Is he using the same intelligence sources to bolster his desire to "reform, or fix, SS?
Looks like the same folks that still like the WMD rationale to go into Iraq are eating up the Social Security ploy doctored up by W.
Is he using the same intelligence sources to bolster his desire to "reform, or fix, SS?
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Two paragraphs on education don't make a plan for fixing our schools
I do support the president in our unrelenting pursuit of the terrorist...abroad and at home - don't forget Timothy McVeigh, or Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris.
The jury is still out on his plan for fixing our schools:
The jury is still out on his plan for fixing our schools:
Slice:
Good jobs begin with good schools, and here we've made a fine start. (Applause.) Republicans and Democrats worked together to achieve historic education reform so that no child is left behind. I was proud to work with members of both parties: Chairman John Boehner and Congressman George Miller. (Applause.) Senator Judd Gregg. (Applause.) And I was so proud of our work, I even had nice things to say about my friend, Ted Kennedy. (Laughter and applause.) I know the folks at the Crawford coffee shop couldn't believe I'd say such a thing -- (laughter) -- but our work on this bill shows what is possible if we set aside posturing and focus on results. (Applause.)
There is more to do. We need to prepare our children to read and succeed in school with improved Head Start and early childhood development programs. (Applause.) We must upgrade our teacher colleges and teacher training and launch a major recruiting drive with a great goal for
End Slice:
The very tragic situation is that our teacher preparation programs are littered with some of the worst role models for high quality teaching I have ever experienced. Oddly enough, when I was doing my undergraduate (BS in Mathematics Education), I had to endure lectures on such things as how to hold chalk. Nothing in the course curriculum prepared me to deal with the lack of discipline in our schools, the disrespect of the children, and the tendency for parents to cover for their children by lying. Yes, that is right, I had parents lie for their kids in futile attempts to coerce better grades for them.
The unfortunate situation is that the problem in
I am a little bit sad that W decided to insert his brand of humor into the education portion of the talk. I don't know why, but for me it really diminishes what he had to say and it sent the message to me that he doesn't care much about education at all.
About 50 years ago, people used to walk around our neighborhoods, and talk with their neighbors. Today, you can't go onto your porch for fear of a drive by or incidental shooting.
What's wrong with
What should it be? Let the ideas flow in the comments to this post.
Nice list of right winger blogs
Cao, whom it appears, is unavoidable in BE, has provided us with a nice list of right wing bloggers, in the event that you want to hear the applause and tears of joy for yourself after the speach tonight.
Incidentially, visit these locations if you dare, but there is a fair amount of venom posted therein for folks not of their ilk.
Incidentially, visit these locations if you dare, but there is a fair amount of venom posted therein for folks not of their ilk.
The spin begins long before the actual speach
I was wondering why so many news outlets were commenting with such authority about the subject matter of tonight's much touted and heralded State of the Union slated for much later today...but aparently, those in the know, already know.
Wonkette aparently has found a profitable leak of her own.
But what's the saying? Ah yes: Those who say, don't know. Those who know, don't say.
Well, here's what Wonkette says is known about w's speach.
Mark my words, this State of the Union speach is going to be the biggest non-news, news event of the last five years. More vapor for the republicans to celebrate. How many taxpayer bux are going to be spent on this self-aggrandizement and adulation, I wonder?
Another interesting saying that will ring true for me tonight:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Wonkette aparently has found a profitable leak of her own.
But what's the saying? Ah yes: Those who say, don't know. Those who know, don't say.
Well, here's what Wonkette says is known about w's speach.
Mark my words, this State of the Union speach is going to be the biggest non-news, news event of the last five years. More vapor for the republicans to celebrate. How many taxpayer bux are going to be spent on this self-aggrandizement and adulation, I wonder?
Another interesting saying that will ring true for me tonight:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
MacArthur - almost 3.5 days in the lead.
Maybe this explains why Ellen is in the lead. I pulled this shot off her web location.
You can hear an audio clip from today as well. Sounds like a real challenge to keep functioning after all this time.
The Victorious but Walking Wounded
I have been wrestling with a thorny subject as of late: the obvious anger of a vocal set of right-wing bloggers who stake their claim and hang their hearts on the victory in November’s election. If they actually won (which they did by the slimmest of margins), why are they so angry and charged when someone, exercising their first amendment rights, points out some flaw in their champions (individually, as a whole, or the policies set by these people, and so on)?
This leads to a sub-question: Why then, if someone points out flaws in the administration, do otherwise ordinary individuals become automatically linked as adders and abettors to the terrorists? Furthermore, this set typically voices the sentiment that such people are not supportive of the troops.
The one answer that rings loudest for me is that, albeit these folks claim victory as theirs, this victory is shallow, and any contrarian commentary wounds them. Like the gored bull, they become angry and lash out because the truth hurts.
I can’t recall who said it (I think it may have been Truman, Roosevelt, or another former president), and I paraphrase: We aren’t going to give them hell. We are simply going to tell the truth and it is going to feel like hell.
If there wasn’t a shred of truth woven into the statements made by critics of the administration and their ilk, the right-wingers would have no cause to get defensive and outright pissed. Instead, as if salt water were being tossed on to their naked and gored flesh, these walking-wounded, electoral-victors spit venom from their keyboards as the vitriol deflates their own arguments.
Does anyone else have a theory for this?
Crooks in the Publishing industry
No doubt, the cost of text books is extremely high.
There is a report about the gouging of students by publishing companies every eyar, but they never change. Buy used when you can. It is the way to go.
Slice:
End slice.
There is a report about the gouging of students by publishing companies every eyar, but they never change. Buy used when you can. It is the way to go.
Slice:
Textbook publishers issue new editions when none are needed, "bundle" books with unnecessary supplementary material, and charge American students more than they charge students overseas for the same books, according to a report issued Tuesday by the State Public Interest Research Groups.
The report, "Ripoff 101," is a follow-up to a report of the same name issued in 2004 that led to a Congressional hearing on textbook pricing last summer (The Chronicle, July 21, 2004).
In the new report, the student division of the environmental and consumer- advocacy group charges that publishers often issue new editions of books that are nearly identical to older editions. The report calls on publishers to issue new editions "only when educationally necessary.End slice.
Now the politicians in Canada are realizing the bigotry must stop
No doubt, they Canadians are way ahead of us on some fronts. Is it wrong to want our country to be a little bit more like them?
Slice:
Canada's government introduced a bill Tuesday to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, describing it as a crucial protection for minorities despite deep divisions over the issue in Parliament and among citizens.
"The government cannot, and should not, pick and choose which rights they will defend and which rights they will ignore," Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said at a news conference in Ottawa after presenting the bill. "I appreciate the concern, sometimes even the anguish, that some Canadians feel."
End slice
Slice:
Canada's government introduced a bill Tuesday to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, describing it as a crucial protection for minorities despite deep divisions over the issue in Parliament and among citizens.
"The government cannot, and should not, pick and choose which rights they will defend and which rights they will ignore," Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said at a news conference in Ottawa after presenting the bill. "I appreciate the concern, sometimes even the anguish, that some Canadians feel."
End slice
Don't forget to tip your waitstaff
As a former dishwasher, busboy, and waiter, I know how ugly it can get in the restaurant biz. Don't forget to tip them. When you are out spending discretionary income, you should realize it is lot of work to wait on you hand and foot.
This doesn't mean you should tip, or even accept, poor service. Turnover in the industry is high for a reason.
Slice (pun intended):
What evil lurks in the hearts of waiters? Now you can find out. But can you stomach the results?
This doesn't mean you should tip, or even accept, poor service. Turnover in the industry is high for a reason.
Slice (pun intended):
What evil lurks in the hearts of waiters? Now you can find out. But can you stomach the results?
An anonymous New York waiter wrote online recently: "In my fantasy, I become Darth Vader the next time a customer asks about the wines by the glass, then says, 'Merlot! Waiter, haven't you seen the movie "Sideways"?' Then I will slice off his head with my light saber."
End slice:Monday, January 31, 2005
Quicker than 30 Seconds - For ADD Blogexplosion addicts
Attention all Blogexplosion folks. Welcome. I found a nice web based publication that takes about 30 seconds or less to divert your attention from useless blogs while you wait to click for another.
The publication is called Right Hand Pointing. Good shorts (poetry, stories, etc....). Check it out.
The publication is called Right Hand Pointing. Good shorts (poetry, stories, etc....). Check it out.
Moral Outrage
Still reading Cornel West - Democracy Matters. Anyone else out there reading it?
I found two very interesting quotes and I am going to do them in reverse pagination order, just for fun:
[on page 103] The moral outrage provoked by the arrogant militaristic policies, pro-rich tax cuts, and authoritarian excesses of the Bush administration arise out of this deep well of democratic commitment and are a hopeful sign that a democratizing resurgence may be underway. And it is neither naive nor quixotic to talk about a democratic awakening in the face of the corruption shot through our political and economic system. Our history shows that stirring the deep commitment to democratic values and mandates does make a difference. But we must not confuse this democratic commitment with flag-waving patriotism. The former is guided by common virtues forged by ordinary citizens, the latter by martial ideals promoted by powerful elites. Democratic commitment confronts American hypocrisy and mendacity in the name of public interest; flag-waving patriotism promotes American innocence and purity in the name of national glory.
[and back to page 77] American self-confidence, he [Ralph Waldo Emerson] argued, should be grounded not in a narrow chauvinistic claim about the superiority of the American way but rather in a mature affirmation of America's gifts to the world as well as candid acknowledgement of the "most unhandsome part of our condition." Cheap American patriotism not only reflects an immaturity and insecurity, he warned, but also is an adolescent defense mechanism that reveals a fear to engage the world and learn from others. Narrow nationalism is a handmaiden of imperial rule, he argues - it keeps the populace deferential and complacent. Hence it abhors critics and dissenters like Emerson who unsettle and awaken the people.
I found two very interesting quotes and I am going to do them in reverse pagination order, just for fun:
[on page 103] The moral outrage provoked by the arrogant militaristic policies, pro-rich tax cuts, and authoritarian excesses of the Bush administration arise out of this deep well of democratic commitment and are a hopeful sign that a democratizing resurgence may be underway. And it is neither naive nor quixotic to talk about a democratic awakening in the face of the corruption shot through our political and economic system. Our history shows that stirring the deep commitment to democratic values and mandates does make a difference. But we must not confuse this democratic commitment with flag-waving patriotism. The former is guided by common virtues forged by ordinary citizens, the latter by martial ideals promoted by powerful elites. Democratic commitment confronts American hypocrisy and mendacity in the name of public interest; flag-waving patriotism promotes American innocence and purity in the name of national glory.
[and back to page 77] American self-confidence, he [Ralph Waldo Emerson] argued, should be grounded not in a narrow chauvinistic claim about the superiority of the American way but rather in a mature affirmation of America's gifts to the world as well as candid acknowledgement of the "most unhandsome part of our condition." Cheap American patriotism not only reflects an immaturity and insecurity, he warned, but also is an adolescent defense mechanism that reveals a fear to engage the world and learn from others. Narrow nationalism is a handmaiden of imperial rule, he argues - it keeps the populace deferential and complacent. Hence it abhors critics and dissenters like Emerson who unsettle and awaken the people.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
The Lovely Mister Hoess
This just in from the local rag. New material forthcoming from the folks doing the interviewing /interrogating before and during the Neuremburg trials.
According to the text, Rudolph Hoess said: "I don't know what you mean about being upset about these things because I didn't personally murder anybody. I was just the director of the extermination program in Auschwitz.''
There was/is no shortage of rationalizations available to those who would like to think they are going to heaven because god is on their side as they perpetrate heinous crimes.
According to the text, Rudolph Hoess said: "I don't know what you mean about being upset about these things because I didn't personally murder anybody. I was just the director of the extermination program in Auschwitz.''
There was/is no shortage of rationalizations available to those who would like to think they are going to heaven because god is on their side as they perpetrate heinous crimes.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Great Voter Dissaffection - or sub title: Why more people watched American Idol than voted in the Election
I found a post from CW via blogexplosion who raised the point that more people sat their butts in front of a television to watch American Idol the other night than voted in the 2004 election. I wonder when the voting comes to pass for our next AI, how much it will exceed the number of people who cared about who was going to plot out our domestic and international agenda for the coming four (really, less than that now) years.
Believe it, or not, Cornel West speaks to the great voter disaffection as follows in his tremendous work, "Democracy Matters."
Starting on page 64:
"To many, our democratic system seems so broken that they have simply lost faith that their participation could really matter. The politics of self-interest and catering to narrow special interests is so dominant that so many ask themselves, Why vote?
This dissaffection stems both from the all-too-true reality of the corruptions of our systems and from the deeper psychic disillusionment and disappointment. The political discourse is so formulaic, so tailored into poll-driven, focus-group-approved slogans that don't really say anything substantive or strike at the core of our lived experience; the lack of authenticity of discourse - and the underlying lack of gravitas, of penetrating insight and wisdom on the part of politicians - is numbing. But we must keep in mind that the disgust so many feel comes from a deep desire to hear more authentic expressions of insights about our lives and more genuine commitments to improving them. Many of us long for expressions of real concern both out of hte pain ofour individual lives and about the common good - hence the power of Bill Clinton's claim that he felt our pain - as opposed to the blatent catering to base interests and to narrow elilte constituecies. We long for a politics that is not about winning a political game but producing better lives.
[...on to page 65] Both republican "vision and the democratic "vision" are deeply problematic. Our national focus has become so dominated by narrow us-versus-them disourse that it has all but drowned out authentic debate over issues...there is an underlying disgust about the preoccupation of our political leaders with partisan warfare.
The uninspiring nature of our national political culture has only enhanced the seductiveness of the pursuit of pleasure and of diverting entertainments, and too many of us have turned inward to a disconnnected, narrowly circumscribed family and social life. White suburbanites and middle-class blacks (and others) are preoccupied with the daily pursuit of the comfort of their material lives. In many cases they litterally wall themselves off into comfortable communities, both physically and socially, in which they can safely avert their eyes from the ugly realities that afflict so many of our people. Becuase they are able to buy the cars and take the vacations they want, they are all too willing to either disregard the political and social dysfunctions afflicting the country or accept facile explainations for them.
End slice:
I think West is very pertinent for many bloggers and his words salient for the climate of our times. I am reminded of two very good movies that speak to this very issue. One is Bob Roberts. This is one of Tim Robbins' best flicks. The next is Bulworth. This one is not as good as the former, but makes a powerful statement nonetheless.
Blog on friends.
Believe it, or not, Cornel West speaks to the great voter disaffection as follows in his tremendous work, "Democracy Matters."
Starting on page 64:
"To many, our democratic system seems so broken that they have simply lost faith that their participation could really matter. The politics of self-interest and catering to narrow special interests is so dominant that so many ask themselves, Why vote?
This dissaffection stems both from the all-too-true reality of the corruptions of our systems and from the deeper psychic disillusionment and disappointment. The political discourse is so formulaic, so tailored into poll-driven, focus-group-approved slogans that don't really say anything substantive or strike at the core of our lived experience; the lack of authenticity of discourse - and the underlying lack of gravitas, of penetrating insight and wisdom on the part of politicians - is numbing. But we must keep in mind that the disgust so many feel comes from a deep desire to hear more authentic expressions of insights about our lives and more genuine commitments to improving them. Many of us long for expressions of real concern both out of hte pain ofour individual lives and about the common good - hence the power of Bill Clinton's claim that he felt our pain - as opposed to the blatent catering to base interests and to narrow elilte constituecies. We long for a politics that is not about winning a political game but producing better lives.
[...on to page 65] Both republican "vision and the democratic "vision" are deeply problematic. Our national focus has become so dominated by narrow us-versus-them disourse that it has all but drowned out authentic debate over issues...there is an underlying disgust about the preoccupation of our political leaders with partisan warfare.
The uninspiring nature of our national political culture has only enhanced the seductiveness of the pursuit of pleasure and of diverting entertainments, and too many of us have turned inward to a disconnnected, narrowly circumscribed family and social life. White suburbanites and middle-class blacks (and others) are preoccupied with the daily pursuit of the comfort of their material lives. In many cases they litterally wall themselves off into comfortable communities, both physically and socially, in which they can safely avert their eyes from the ugly realities that afflict so many of our people. Becuase they are able to buy the cars and take the vacations they want, they are all too willing to either disregard the political and social dysfunctions afflicting the country or accept facile explainations for them.
End slice:
I think West is very pertinent for many bloggers and his words salient for the climate of our times. I am reminded of two very good movies that speak to this very issue. One is Bob Roberts. This is one of Tim Robbins' best flicks. The next is Bulworth. This one is not as good as the former, but makes a powerful statement nonetheless.
Blog on friends.
Friday, January 28, 2005
What Karl Rove got for Christmas
It seems as though Karl was busy buying shills for christmas. Spurious behavior.
Slice:
By Eric Boehlert Jan. 27, 2005
Michael McManus, conservative author of the syndicated column "Ethics & Religion," received $10,000 to promote a marriage initiative.
And three makes a trend. One day after President Bush ordered his Cabinet secretaries to stop hiring commentators to help promote administration initiatives, and one day after the second high-profile conservative pundit was found to be on the federal payroll, a third embarrassing hire has emerged. Salon has confirmed that Michael McManus, a marriage advocate whose syndicated column, "Ethics & Religion," appears in 50 newspapers, was hired as a subcontractor by the Department of Health and Human Services to foster a Bush-approved marriage initiative. McManus championed the plan in his columns without disclosing to readers he was being paid to help it succeed.
End slice:
Humm...did those funds come from taxpayer dollars?
Slice:
By Eric Boehlert Jan. 27, 2005
Michael McManus, conservative author of the syndicated column "Ethics & Religion," received $10,000 to promote a marriage initiative.
And three makes a trend. One day after President Bush ordered his Cabinet secretaries to stop hiring commentators to help promote administration initiatives, and one day after the second high-profile conservative pundit was found to be on the federal payroll, a third embarrassing hire has emerged. Salon has confirmed that Michael McManus, a marriage advocate whose syndicated column, "Ethics & Religion," appears in 50 newspapers, was hired as a subcontractor by the Department of Health and Human Services to foster a Bush-approved marriage initiative. McManus championed the plan in his columns without disclosing to readers he was being paid to help it succeed.
End slice:
Humm...did those funds come from taxpayer dollars?
Two more local boys won't be coming home
Two local soldiers were in that chopper crash recently reported. RIP dear heroes. Saddly, one was a father to a four month old baby girl who will now never know her dad.
Slice:
Lance Cpl. Joseph Spence, 24, of Scotts Valley leaves behind a wife and a four-month-old baby girl. First Lt. Dustin Shumney, 30, grew up in Benicia, and played football at Benicia High School.
End slice.
Slice:
Lance Cpl. Joseph Spence, 24, of Scotts Valley leaves behind a wife and a four-month-old baby girl. First Lt. Dustin Shumney, 30, grew up in Benicia, and played football at Benicia High School.
End slice.
Winston S. Churchhill on War
Came across this interesting quote from Winston Churchill (September 30, 1953) in the preface of his book, Triumph and Tragedy:
On page v. - "I have to call this Volume Triumph and Tragedy becuase the overwhelming victory of the Grand Alliance has failed so far to bring general peace to our anxious world."
I would say, sadly, this is still so.
I happend to find on blogexplosion that we have no shortage of hatred and bigotry in our midst; the fuel for future conflicts.
On page v. - "I have to call this Volume Triumph and Tragedy becuase the overwhelming victory of the Grand Alliance has failed so far to bring general peace to our anxious world."
I would say, sadly, this is still so.
I happend to find on blogexplosion that we have no shortage of hatred and bigotry in our midst; the fuel for future conflicts.
W: the crustacean
While the right wingnuts are going after sponge bob, perhaps we should go after W. the callous crustacean.
Slice:
Ponder that a moment. The White House announces a press conference in the morning. After the announcement comes the news that 31 Americans died in a chopper crash in Iraq (6 others died today in seperate incidents). The president takes the podium fresh with the knowledge of that tragedy--and radiates a cheerful disposition bantering with the press about senior citizens and their faulty memories. She can't see something scarily wrong with that? She doesn't spot some sort of emotional disturbance or disconnect? Imagine if Bill Clinton had been chirpy and chipper having just received the news of 31 soldiers dying in the theater of combat--Rush Limbaugh would have devoted three hours to it, and Fox News would have dragged Dick Morris out of the all-you-can-eat buffet for his "expert analysis."
End slice:
I suppose crusteacans the stature of W don't fold under the heavy weight of many dead souls.
You have to click over to the full text. It is a quick read, but concludes:
"Comfortable, hell, he's [W] downright enthusiastic about it. He's so cocky now that he can't even fake a semblance of sorrow after hearing news that would have made most presidents turn ashen."
Slice:
Ponder that a moment. The White House announces a press conference in the morning. After the announcement comes the news that 31 Americans died in a chopper crash in Iraq (6 others died today in seperate incidents). The president takes the podium fresh with the knowledge of that tragedy--and radiates a cheerful disposition bantering with the press about senior citizens and their faulty memories. She can't see something scarily wrong with that? She doesn't spot some sort of emotional disturbance or disconnect? Imagine if Bill Clinton had been chirpy and chipper having just received the news of 31 soldiers dying in the theater of combat--Rush Limbaugh would have devoted three hours to it, and Fox News would have dragged Dick Morris out of the all-you-can-eat buffet for his "expert analysis."
End slice:
I suppose crusteacans the stature of W don't fold under the heavy weight of many dead souls.
You have to click over to the full text. It is a quick read, but concludes:
"Comfortable, hell, he's [W] downright enthusiastic about it. He's so cocky now that he can't even fake a semblance of sorrow after hearing news that would have made most presidents turn ashen."
Race Matters and Social Security
Cornel West wrote the definative book, Race Matters, and I recomend it to you. Even so, it looks like Mr. Bush hasn't read it. Using race to trump up his plan to screw the people by siezing peoples social security dollars.
Check out this slice from the a closed door meeting. Any bloggers out there actually at the meeting, I would love to hear your perspective.
Check out this slice from the a closed door meeting. Any bloggers out there actually at the meeting, I would love to hear your perspective.
This week, in a closed meeting with African-Americans, Mr. Bush asserted that Social Security was a bad deal for their race, repeating his earlier claim that "African-American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people." In other words, blacks don't live long enough to collect their fair share of benefits.
This isn't a new argument; privatizers have been making it for years. But the claim that blacks get a bad deal from Social Security is false. And Mr. Bush's use of that false argument is doubly shameful, because he's exploiting the tragedy of high black mortality for political gain instead of treating it as a problem we should solve.
Let's start with the facts. Mr. Bush's argument goes back at least seven years, to a report issued by the Heritage Foundation - a report so badly misleading that the deputy chief actuary (now the chief actuary) of the Social Security Administration wrote a memo pointing out "major errors in the methodology." That's actuary-speak for "damned lies."
In fact, the actuary said, "careful research reflecting actual work histories for workers by race indicate that the nonwhite population actually enjoys the same or better expected rates of return from Social Security" as whites...
...
The persistent gap in life expectancy between African-Americans and whites is one measure of the deep inequalities that remain in our society - including highly unequal access to good-quality health care. We ought to be trying to diminish that gap, especially given the fact that black infants are two and half times as likely as white babies to die in their first year.
Now nobody can expect instant progress in reducing health inequalities. But the benefits of Social Security privatization, if any, won't materialize for many decades. By using blacks' low life expectancy as an argument for privatization, Mr. Bush is in effect taking it as a given that 40 or 50 years from now, large numbers of African-Americans will still be dying before their time.
Is this an example of what Mr. Bush famously called "the soft bigotry of low expectations?" Maybe not: it isn't particularly soft to treat premature black deaths not as a tragedy we must end but as just another way to push your ideological agenda. But bigotry - yes, that sounds like the right word.
Proving once again, the Rovian tactics of using lies, damn lies, and statistics to befuddle the masses. Once you scratch the surface, you find these numbers doctored up, inflated, or otherwise designed to give the perception they want you to see.
P.S. does anyone have a clue what the Prez is reading these days? I wonder what books/magazines/and the like are sitting on his bedside table. What does/has he read? Anything?
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Organized Religion
My father tossed me an interesting quote by Jesse Ventura by way of Playboy Magazine:
"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers"
Interesting are the number of christians that think he was only refering to christian religions. Did they read the original article? Wouldn't that require they purchase a magazine of ill repute? Even so, not all christians think Ventura is nuts.
The athiests have a different take.
Aparently, it hurt his approval rating.
What do you think?
Ventura is not short on opinions on many subjects:
Slice:
"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers"
Interesting are the number of christians that think he was only refering to christian religions. Did they read the original article? Wouldn't that require they purchase a magazine of ill repute? Even so, not all christians think Ventura is nuts.
The athiests have a different take.
Aparently, it hurt his approval rating.
What do you think?
Ventura is not short on opinions on many subjects:
Slice:
"To me, a president should not put his personal spiritual beliefs in front of science. If we had that type of attitude, we'd probably still have polio today, if we had beliefs that didn't allow scientific discovery. Now, people may say you're not very religious -- yes, I am. I believe God gave me a brain to use," Ventura said.
Ventura also criticized Bush for the growing federal deficit, saying Bush paid for tax cuts by racking up debt on the nation's credit card. And he had harsh words for the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq. Ventura says Bush has alienated the rest of the world, and the war has not made the U.S. safer. He says Bush invaded Iraq when he should have been focusing on Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.
"I would have hunted down Osama Bin Laden 'til he was dead, before I would have ever entertained anything about Iraq. My parents taught me (to) finish the job at hand, finish the job you got in front of you, before you worry about the other job down the road," he said.
Ventura says leaders shouldn't ask troops to do something they didn't do themselves. He says Bush did not serve with honor when he was in the National Guard, and received preferential treatment.
End slice:
Saving America's Families
Out for my AM run, I hit on an interesting solution to some of the tougher problems plaging American families. If we are serious about doing right by our children, we may want to do some other things besides ban GLBT folks from getting hitched.
Solution 1 - Stop corpulent or obese people from marrying.
Solution 2 - Stop people who smoke from marrying.
Both have been proven to lead to childhood obesity or smoking in children. Working to institute these bans (Solutions 1 & 2) would do a lot to stave off potentially dangerous situations for our American families and even death (either by diabetes or any number of smoking related illnesses.).
Slice from Dr. Sears:
Do fat parents usually produce fat children? Statistics say yes. Lean parents have only a seven percent chance of having an obese adolescent. If one parent is obese, there is a forty percent chance their child will be obese. If both parents are obese, the probability of the child's being obese may be as high as eighty percent.
End slice:
Slice from European Study recently published
Abstract: - In this paper, we investigate the intergenerational transmission of smoking behavior from parents to their children using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, surveyed in 1999 including 813 youths aged 16 through 19. We find strong evidence, that parental smoking significantly increses the probablity that their children likewise become smokers....
...In fact, there is no biological human need to smoke, but people still chose to do so and most start in their teenage years. A young person not having smokers in his/her environment would have accordingly little incentive to smoke, and any supposed benefits would be non-existent or unknown....
End slice:
So far, there have been no studies that empirically show that Gay Parents will yeild Gay Children. Moreover, even if they did, children wouldn't be as harmed as children living with and being raised by obese smokers as parents.
Solution 1 - Stop corpulent or obese people from marrying.
Solution 2 - Stop people who smoke from marrying.
Both have been proven to lead to childhood obesity or smoking in children. Working to institute these bans (Solutions 1 & 2) would do a lot to stave off potentially dangerous situations for our American families and even death (either by diabetes or any number of smoking related illnesses.).
Slice from Dr. Sears:
Do fat parents usually produce fat children? Statistics say yes. Lean parents have only a seven percent chance of having an obese adolescent. If one parent is obese, there is a forty percent chance their child will be obese. If both parents are obese, the probability of the child's being obese may be as high as eighty percent.
End slice:
Slice from European Study recently published
Abstract: - In this paper, we investigate the intergenerational transmission of smoking behavior from parents to their children using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, surveyed in 1999 including 813 youths aged 16 through 19. We find strong evidence, that parental smoking significantly increses the probablity that their children likewise become smokers....
...In fact, there is no biological human need to smoke, but people still chose to do so and most start in their teenage years. A young person not having smokers in his/her environment would have accordingly little incentive to smoke, and any supposed benefits would be non-existent or unknown....
End slice:
So far, there have been no studies that empirically show that Gay Parents will yeild Gay Children. Moreover, even if they did, children wouldn't be as harmed as children living with and being raised by obese smokers as parents.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
"Only the Nihilists Tremble in Their Boots"
Here are some more tasty quotes to wrap your brain around from Cornel West's book, Democracy Matters.
On page 39 :
Market-obsessed nihilism - the corporation as the embodiment of absolute will - is the Achilles' heel of American democracy that parades as its crown jewel...
[on to page 41 - yet] We are exceptional because of our denial of the antidemocratic foundation stones of American democracy. No other democratic nation revels so blatantly in such self-deceptive innocence, such self-paralyzing reluctance to confront the night-side of its own history....
[and more from page 42] It is when we confront the challenges of our antidemocratic inclinations as a country that our most profound democratic commitments are born, both on the individual and on the societal level. Only the nihilists among us tremble in their boots at such a prospect.
On page 39 :
Market-obsessed nihilism - the corporation as the embodiment of absolute will - is the Achilles' heel of American democracy that parades as its crown jewel...
[on to page 41 - yet] We are exceptional because of our denial of the antidemocratic foundation stones of American democracy. No other democratic nation revels so blatantly in such self-deceptive innocence, such self-paralyzing reluctance to confront the night-side of its own history....
[and more from page 42] It is when we confront the challenges of our antidemocratic inclinations as a country that our most profound democratic commitments are born, both on the individual and on the societal level. Only the nihilists among us tremble in their boots at such a prospect.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
200 Billion Dollars, One False Premise, And a Question for you.
While Hollywood and much of America is distracted by actors' self-aggrandizement, the debt ratchets up.
Today, I can't seem to get past the 200 Billion Dollar report on NPR this AM. The ROI is, and has never been worth it. I still can't understand those who rationalize the war effort indicating that some terrorist or another was caught in Iraq (particularly since they weren't there before we moved in & there are no WMD).
Let's see. What else would 200 Billion and climbing dollars buy? How many schools could have been opened in your neighborhoods? How many new, high quality teachers could we have trained that would allow for the shrinking of classroom size and allow for more individual attention for studnents? Education isn't cheep, but it is less expensive than prisons.
In this war, there are winners, and losers - see prior post. I'm adding another to the list:
Winner: Halliburton (Lots and lots of unsolicited contracts, and over charging for gas)
Losers: American Tax Payers (to the tune of, oh, let's be soft, about 200 billion)
Result: A bigger quagmire than Vietnam, no end in sight.
Does anyone else out there have a recommendation on how this money could have been spent aside from saving the lives of all the GIs now terminated by the cash outlay?
Today, I can't seem to get past the 200 Billion Dollar report on NPR this AM. The ROI is, and has never been worth it. I still can't understand those who rationalize the war effort indicating that some terrorist or another was caught in Iraq (particularly since they weren't there before we moved in & there are no WMD).
Let's see. What else would 200 Billion and climbing dollars buy? How many schools could have been opened in your neighborhoods? How many new, high quality teachers could we have trained that would allow for the shrinking of classroom size and allow for more individual attention for studnents? Education isn't cheep, but it is less expensive than prisons.
In this war, there are winners, and losers - see prior post. I'm adding another to the list:
Winner: Halliburton (Lots and lots of unsolicited contracts, and over charging for gas)
Losers: American Tax Payers (to the tune of, oh, let's be soft, about 200 billion)
Result: A bigger quagmire than Vietnam, no end in sight.
Does anyone else out there have a recommendation on how this money could have been spent aside from saving the lives of all the GIs now terminated by the cash outlay?
Fun little video clip for Lord of the Rings Fans
Found this on white pepple, which linked to it at this location.
The parallels are uncanny.
Oh, and I found an interesting question posted by this vlogger, if you need another example of hypocrisy.
The parallels are uncanny.
Oh, and I found an interesting question posted by this vlogger, if you need another example of hypocrisy.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Lucrative Crime, purview of the Ken Lays of the Globe
Here's a nice quote my father (who collects quotes) sent along:
"Licensed prostitution, direct material theft, house-breaking, murder, brigandage for the lower classes; while skillful spoilation, indirect, refined theft, clever exploitation of human cattle, carefully planned and brilliantly executed betrayals, transcendent pieces of sharp practice in short, all the truly elegant vices and lucrative crimes which the law is far too ppolite to interrupt remain th monopoly of the upper classes."
La Phalange (French Newspaper) Published 1 Dec 1838. Source ISBN 0-394-49942-5, notes, p324.
Still true today.
"Licensed prostitution, direct material theft, house-breaking, murder, brigandage for the lower classes; while skillful spoilation, indirect, refined theft, clever exploitation of human cattle, carefully planned and brilliantly executed betrayals, transcendent pieces of sharp practice in short, all the truly elegant vices and lucrative crimes which the law is far too ppolite to interrupt remain th monopoly of the upper classes."
La Phalange (French Newspaper) Published 1 Dec 1838. Source ISBN 0-394-49942-5, notes, p324.
Still true today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)