i read a survey where somebody indicated that watching cheaters is a guilty pleasure. feel no guilt - i think cheaters is (at least in concept) great, and if i suspected i was being cheated on, i might hire a couple camera guys, a body guard, and a journalism student for the confrontation.
Today, people get married later in life than ever. Since that is the case, the importance of the non-marital relationship has grown, at least with regards to the emotional investment people put into them. When a pouse cheats, there are divorce proceeding to (at least attempt) to equalize the situation. But in a dating relationship?
The problem is, if a sig other cheats on you, and you confront them, your just as likely to make a fool of yourself or get your ass kicked than anything else. think about it - if the other chooses the cheatee, the cheated is just a big sucker no matter how effectively he can malign him or her. plus, who can keep their composure well enough to be an effective talker in that circumstance?
enter cehaters.
cheaters send you to the scene with a camera crew, a couple body gaurds to make sure it doesn't get too out of hand, and an investigative journalist to pose the hard questions. and the cheater doesn't get off the hook simply by choosing the cheatee: his or her treachery is on camera for the world to see.
so - high brow types may consider it just another springer - but I actually like it.
now - of course the criticism is still there that cheaters exploits poor people. and i do detest that. i used to watch springer and note that it was all these desperate white trash people living the most humiliating moments of their lives in front of cheering upper middle class collge students. how much more gladitorial can it get?
but thats all that springer was, despite his final though. his value was only in his further erosion of high brow culture. cheaters - i just think its a good approach to dealing with a cheater.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
My first oral experience - just happened yesterday!
Oral argument that is. An oral argument is a presentation to a judge, who gets to ask you very hard questions regarding your position. At an appellate oral argument, you argue to three judges - all of whom are exceptional legal thinkers, and all of whom get to hit you with questions. I had my first real oral argument, it was in front ofthe appellate division (crazy as that sounds for a first argument), my appearance was objected to, the judges let me argue anyway, and I proceeded to kick ass.
And just to toot my own horn - it is highly unusual for an attorney that has been practicing less than six months to argue at that level. In fact, there is probably a good number of attorneys who have never argued in front of the appellate division.
Basically, I argued along side Don (the partner on the case). The case involved a coupon settlement of a class action, and we represented an objector who successfully argued that the settlement was flawed until it was modified to include a money refund redeemable by claim form. Don argued that trial judges should have the authority to aportion a lead plaintiff's incentive stipend to provide a stipend for the objector, and I argued that a successful objector is entitled toattorney's fees under the Consumer Fraud Act. Don's issue, whatever the decision, will set a nationwide precedent. My issue was one on which no New Jersey court has ruled (although federal courts have awarded objectors fees pursuant to other fee shifting statutes).
Before the substantive argument began, defence counsel argued thatI should not be allowed to participate because I had no prior involvement in the case and it was unclear what my qualificiations were. Don vouched for my competence and told the Court that even though I'm relatively new attorney, I had spent a year clerking in Atlantic County. Ultimately, the Court allowed me to argue on the basis that I was an admitted attorney associated with the firm of record.
I wasn't too nervous at first, but once Don started arguing (his issue was first), I started to wig out: it was as if the clock had begun to tick backwards, as my time to argue was minuites away. I calmed myself down, focusing on the arguments, and then the judges told Don they wanted to hear about the fee issue.
The pressure was on. The Judges asked me tough questions- - - - and I had responsive answers. Towards the end, it became almost conversational, and I made the key points I needed to make. Adding to the pressure was the fact that the other partner of the firm came to watch me argue, and I'm glad he did.
This all seems like a brag fest - but in the end, its just because that was the best time I've had being a lawyer yet. With everything else I've done so far - by large legal research and writing - I've had some element of a safety net. With this, it was real time. I went one on three with the judges, on an issue of consequence. And the best part is, I had fun with it and realized I'm pretty lucky because I love to argue and I get paid to do it.
but enough of that . . . back to the grind . . .
And just to toot my own horn - it is highly unusual for an attorney that has been practicing less than six months to argue at that level. In fact, there is probably a good number of attorneys who have never argued in front of the appellate division.
Basically, I argued along side Don (the partner on the case). The case involved a coupon settlement of a class action, and we represented an objector who successfully argued that the settlement was flawed until it was modified to include a money refund redeemable by claim form. Don argued that trial judges should have the authority to aportion a lead plaintiff's incentive stipend to provide a stipend for the objector, and I argued that a successful objector is entitled toattorney's fees under the Consumer Fraud Act. Don's issue, whatever the decision, will set a nationwide precedent. My issue was one on which no New Jersey court has ruled (although federal courts have awarded objectors fees pursuant to other fee shifting statutes).
Before the substantive argument began, defence counsel argued thatI should not be allowed to participate because I had no prior involvement in the case and it was unclear what my qualificiations were. Don vouched for my competence and told the Court that even though I'm relatively new attorney, I had spent a year clerking in Atlantic County. Ultimately, the Court allowed me to argue on the basis that I was an admitted attorney associated with the firm of record.
I wasn't too nervous at first, but once Don started arguing (his issue was first), I started to wig out: it was as if the clock had begun to tick backwards, as my time to argue was minuites away. I calmed myself down, focusing on the arguments, and then the judges told Don they wanted to hear about the fee issue.
The pressure was on. The Judges asked me tough questions- - - - and I had responsive answers. Towards the end, it became almost conversational, and I made the key points I needed to make. Adding to the pressure was the fact that the other partner of the firm came to watch me argue, and I'm glad he did.
This all seems like a brag fest - but in the end, its just because that was the best time I've had being a lawyer yet. With everything else I've done so far - by large legal research and writing - I've had some element of a safety net. With this, it was real time. I went one on three with the judges, on an issue of consequence. And the best part is, I had fun with it and realized I'm pretty lucky because I love to argue and I get paid to do it.
but enough of that . . . back to the grind . . .
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
support the troops - republican style
but, hey - they've all got yellow ribbons on their suv, so who am i to talk . . .
from http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13660.html
The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.
To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.
Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.
now that's classy!
from http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13660.html
The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.
To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.
Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.
now that's classy!
Monday, November 19, 2007
This may well be the scariest article i've read in a while
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/11/freedoms-watch-iran.html
Freedom's Watch Focus Groups War with Iran
Washington Dispatch: The hawkish advocacy group recently rolled out a multi-million dollar ad blitz in support of the troop surge in Iraq. It's now test marketing language that could be used to sell a war with Iran.
By Laura Rozen
November 19, 2007
Laura Sonnenmark is a focus group regular. "I've been asked to talk about orange juice, cell phone service, furniture," the Fairfax County, Virginia-based children's book author and Democratic Party volunteer says. But when she was called by a focus group organizer for a prospective assignment earlier this month, she was told the questions this time would be about something "political."
On the appointed day, she drove to the offices of Martin Focus Groups in Alexandria, Virginia, knowing she would be paid $150 for two hours of her time. After joining a half dozen other women in a conference room, she found, to her surprise, that she had been called in to help some of the country's most prominent hawks test-market language that could be used to sell a war against Iran to the American public. "The whole basis of the whole thing was, 'we're going to go into Iran and what do we have to do to get you guys to along with it,'" Sonnenmark, 49, tells Mother Jones.
The client paying for the focus group session, according to Sonnemark, was Freedom's Watch, a high-powered, well-connected advocacy group that launched a $15 million ad campaign this summer in support of the surge of American troops in Iraq. Among the group's leadership: former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and Bradley A. Blakeman, a former deputy assistant to President Bush. The focus group session suggests that Freedom's Watch may be looking beyond Iraq and expanding its mission to building support for military action against Iran.
Sonnemark says she only learned of the organization's involvement after members of her politically mixed group were handed a flier bearing a bald headed eagle—its insignia. "I saw Freedom's Watch's logo on the bottom of the flier," Sonnenmark recalls. She says she vaguely knew Freedom's Watch was a pro-war organization at the time of the focus group and was aware of its recent pro-surge television ads. But as the leader of the group began the discussion, she found that his main focus was not Iraq. "He was asking questions about [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad going to speak at Columbia University, how terrible it was that he was able to go to Columbia and was invited," Sonnemark says. "And he used lots of catch phrases, like 'victory' and 'failure is not an option.'"
"Of all the focus groups I've ever been to," Sonnenmark wrote in an email to a group of fellow volunteers for the 2006 Senate campaign of Jim Webb, "I've never seen a moderator who was so persistent in manipulating and leading the participants."(Webb, for his part, is lead author of a Senate letter warning President Bush not to attack Iran without direct congressional approval; see here and here.)
The upshot of the November focus group? "After two hours, [the leader] asked three final questions," Sonnemark recalls: "How would you feel if Hillary [Clinton] bombed Iran? How would you feel if George Bush bombed Iran? And how would you feel if Israel bombed Iran?" Sonnenmark says she responded, "It would depend on the circumstances.... What is the situation in Iraq? Do we have international support?"
When Mother Jones contacted Martin Focus Groups, an employee at its Alexandria offices who identified himself as Steve declined to comment on whether the organization had conducted a focus group for Freedom's Watch. (In 2003, Steve Weachter, the manager of the firm's Alexandria offices, told a local Virginia newspaper, "We help whoever calls. It could be about cigarette smoking, drinking, whatever. We could even have a group to evaluate Pepsi one day and Coke the next." In the same article Donna Carter, the assistant manager at Martin, recalled the time the outfit was conducting a Republican focus group in one room and a Democratic group in another.) Freedom's Watch spokesman Matt David declined to confirm the November focus group session, saying, "As a general policy we won't comment on our internal strategy."
Freedom's Watch can certainly afford to fund public opinion analysis about a potential war with Iran. Its top donors include Sheldon Adelson, the CEO of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, a philanthropist for pro-Israel causes, and, according to Forbes, the third wealthiest man in the United States; John Templeton, a conservative philanthropist; Mel Sembler, a shopping mall developer from Florida, former U.S. ambassador to Italy, and a board member of the American Enterprise Institute; Matthew Brooks and Richard Fox, co-founders of the Republican Jewish Coalition; and Kevin Moley, a former advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney and past U.S. ambassador to international organizations. One of group's financial backers told the New York Times that Freedom's Watch easily expected to raise $200 million in donations by November 2008. Raising big money "will be easy," said the anonymous benefactor, who added "that several of the founders each wrote a check for $1 million."
Sonnenmark believes that the group's strategists were probably not encouraged by the results of the focus group she took part in. "I got the general feeling that George Bush didn't have a shot in hell" of winning public support for an Iran attack. Some members of her group suggested that should Hillary Clinton be elected president she might have more domestic credibility to make such a controversial decision. As for the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran, Sonnenmark's fellow focusees seemed to indicate that they did not believe the legitimacy of such an action was necessarily up to them to decide.
Sonnemark only took part in one test marketing session. Another, comprised only of men, entered the room after her group left. But one purpose of focus groups is to provide advocates with information they can use to best craft a pitch or an argument. And even if Sonnenmark and the other members of her group were not persuaded by the language used during their focus group session, their responses could help Freedom's Watch to hone its message. Still, Sonnenmark was not overly worried she had assisted Freedom's Watch to devise rhetoric for a new military campaign. "It is not going to be so easy this time around," she says.
Freedom's Watch Focus Groups War with Iran
Washington Dispatch: The hawkish advocacy group recently rolled out a multi-million dollar ad blitz in support of the troop surge in Iraq. It's now test marketing language that could be used to sell a war with Iran.
By Laura Rozen
November 19, 2007
Laura Sonnenmark is a focus group regular. "I've been asked to talk about orange juice, cell phone service, furniture," the Fairfax County, Virginia-based children's book author and Democratic Party volunteer says. But when she was called by a focus group organizer for a prospective assignment earlier this month, she was told the questions this time would be about something "political."
On the appointed day, she drove to the offices of Martin Focus Groups in Alexandria, Virginia, knowing she would be paid $150 for two hours of her time. After joining a half dozen other women in a conference room, she found, to her surprise, that she had been called in to help some of the country's most prominent hawks test-market language that could be used to sell a war against Iran to the American public. "The whole basis of the whole thing was, 'we're going to go into Iran and what do we have to do to get you guys to along with it,'" Sonnenmark, 49, tells Mother Jones.
The client paying for the focus group session, according to Sonnemark, was Freedom's Watch, a high-powered, well-connected advocacy group that launched a $15 million ad campaign this summer in support of the surge of American troops in Iraq. Among the group's leadership: former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and Bradley A. Blakeman, a former deputy assistant to President Bush. The focus group session suggests that Freedom's Watch may be looking beyond Iraq and expanding its mission to building support for military action against Iran.
Sonnemark says she only learned of the organization's involvement after members of her politically mixed group were handed a flier bearing a bald headed eagle—its insignia. "I saw Freedom's Watch's logo on the bottom of the flier," Sonnenmark recalls. She says she vaguely knew Freedom's Watch was a pro-war organization at the time of the focus group and was aware of its recent pro-surge television ads. But as the leader of the group began the discussion, she found that his main focus was not Iraq. "He was asking questions about [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad going to speak at Columbia University, how terrible it was that he was able to go to Columbia and was invited," Sonnemark says. "And he used lots of catch phrases, like 'victory' and 'failure is not an option.'"
"Of all the focus groups I've ever been to," Sonnenmark wrote in an email to a group of fellow volunteers for the 2006 Senate campaign of Jim Webb, "I've never seen a moderator who was so persistent in manipulating and leading the participants."(Webb, for his part, is lead author of a Senate letter warning President Bush not to attack Iran without direct congressional approval; see here and here.)
The upshot of the November focus group? "After two hours, [the leader] asked three final questions," Sonnemark recalls: "How would you feel if Hillary [Clinton] bombed Iran? How would you feel if George Bush bombed Iran? And how would you feel if Israel bombed Iran?" Sonnenmark says she responded, "It would depend on the circumstances.... What is the situation in Iraq? Do we have international support?"
When Mother Jones contacted Martin Focus Groups, an employee at its Alexandria offices who identified himself as Steve declined to comment on whether the organization had conducted a focus group for Freedom's Watch. (In 2003, Steve Weachter, the manager of the firm's Alexandria offices, told a local Virginia newspaper, "We help whoever calls. It could be about cigarette smoking, drinking, whatever. We could even have a group to evaluate Pepsi one day and Coke the next." In the same article Donna Carter, the assistant manager at Martin, recalled the time the outfit was conducting a Republican focus group in one room and a Democratic group in another.) Freedom's Watch spokesman Matt David declined to confirm the November focus group session, saying, "As a general policy we won't comment on our internal strategy."
Freedom's Watch can certainly afford to fund public opinion analysis about a potential war with Iran. Its top donors include Sheldon Adelson, the CEO of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, a philanthropist for pro-Israel causes, and, according to Forbes, the third wealthiest man in the United States; John Templeton, a conservative philanthropist; Mel Sembler, a shopping mall developer from Florida, former U.S. ambassador to Italy, and a board member of the American Enterprise Institute; Matthew Brooks and Richard Fox, co-founders of the Republican Jewish Coalition; and Kevin Moley, a former advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney and past U.S. ambassador to international organizations. One of group's financial backers told the New York Times that Freedom's Watch easily expected to raise $200 million in donations by November 2008. Raising big money "will be easy," said the anonymous benefactor, who added "that several of the founders each wrote a check for $1 million."
Sonnenmark believes that the group's strategists were probably not encouraged by the results of the focus group she took part in. "I got the general feeling that George Bush didn't have a shot in hell" of winning public support for an Iran attack. Some members of her group suggested that should Hillary Clinton be elected president she might have more domestic credibility to make such a controversial decision. As for the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran, Sonnenmark's fellow focusees seemed to indicate that they did not believe the legitimacy of such an action was necessarily up to them to decide.
Sonnemark only took part in one test marketing session. Another, comprised only of men, entered the room after her group left. But one purpose of focus groups is to provide advocates with information they can use to best craft a pitch or an argument. And even if Sonnenmark and the other members of her group were not persuaded by the language used during their focus group session, their responses could help Freedom's Watch to hone its message. Still, Sonnenmark was not overly worried she had assisted Freedom's Watch to devise rhetoric for a new military campaign. "It is not going to be so easy this time around," she says.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Idealistic elitism, a dialogue
The above photo, saved from a posting of a friend of mine at a band's website, was captioned "idealistic." I see elitism in th above picture. I think it should be caption "misguided". Here's why:
Question: Do you agree that there are "ugly" people
Answer: Idealism aside (e.g. everyone is beautiful in their own way, a fact that may be true, but), the fact is there are people who are widely considered unattractive by a large number of people. So, for clarification, when I say ugly I don't mean "ugly" in the sense of "truly ugly" or "ugly i the eyes of god." what i mean is, people who have physical traits that makes them unattractive to the general population, exceptions aside. Defined like that, as a social phenomenon, its hard to deny the existence of ugly people.
Question: Do you agree that ugly people can't help it?
Answer: By and large this is undeniable. I mean, its true that some people's weight may technically be a self inflicted condition, but nobody want to be obese. And as for all the other things that go into it - symmetry, distance of the eyes from each other, hair line, height, breast size, build, cheek bones . . . these are all genetics.
Question: Do you agree that ugly people face real disadvantages in life?
Answer: This one is hard to deny. Taller men get earn more money than shorter men. Thinner women get more opportunities than thicker ones. Good looking people get more free drinks, faster taxis, out of tickets, and most obviously, more opportunities to date good looking people. Studies show that people are far more sympathetic to and trusting of good looking people than ugly people.
Question: Can you tell an ugly person when you see one?
Answer: Honestly, sometimes I can't. Particularly when it comes to people of my own sex, sometimes I can't tell where somebody stands on the attractiveness scale. Even when it comes to people of the opposite sex, I sometimes don't know if what makes somebody unattractive to me a matter of personal taste. However, there are certainly people I can say without a doubt are unattractive people.
Question: If you had an undeniably ugly child, would you tell them?
Answer: This is where people think I'm nuts. they say no child is ugly. But if we define ugly as a social phenomenon, its undeniable that some children are ugly at least with regards to their peers. if ugliness is an undeniable phenomenon, and there are some people you can tell are ugly upon casual observation, than there must be a point where you can look at a child and say - they're going to be ugly. In fact, people do it to other people's children all the time. So if there came a point where you could look at your own kid and say to yourself, "they sure arn't a looker," don't you owe it to them to tell them?
let me illustrate why
Question: Do you agree that a black child in Jim Crow south faced real disadvantages in life?
Answer: Only a pitiful racist would answer no. Less opportunities wee available for black children, and people were openly hostile to them.
Question: If you had a black child, would you tell them that they were being treated the way they were because they were black?
Answer: It would be ridiculous not to.
Question: So what's the difference?
Answer: Although the practical difference is enormous, the rhetorical difference is nil. Just as ugliness is described above as a social phenomenon based on a physical condition (rather than merely a physical condition), Blackness in this context is less about the color of a person's skin than about the social phenomenon of being an obvious member of a persecuted class. And just a black child is a member of a disadvantaged class by birth, a child with obvious asymetrical features or a poor build has done nothing to invite the disadvantages associated with being ugly. And just as for the black person, there is no denying that the ugly person is disadvantaged (although not nearly to the same degree).
My point is, if there are people who are objectively ugly and there is nothing they can do about it, the disadvantages of being ugly must be done away with. However, this can never happen so long people remain in denial about their ugliness. A person needs to be able to say, "I am ugly, and that doesn't make me a bad person. I deserve to be treated the same as everyone else." Until that happens, the lot of the ugly person will never improve.
Imagine, if you will, a black woman looking into a mirror and seeing a white woman, with a caption reading idealistic. The racism would be obvious: the implication is that it is better to be a white woman than to be a black woman. Perhaps that is true, as the world we live in is far from color blind. But it would be "idealistic" for that black woman to look in the mirror and see herself - but with all of the opportunities and privileges of the white woman.
Thus, th caption of the above picture should be MISGUIDED. It misguided for a heavy woman to look in the mirror and see a pretty woman as her ideal. She should see herself. And she see that self in a world that loves her as much as anyone else.
Friends, I am an ugly person. By looks perhaps, but certainly by spirit. When I look in the mirror I like who I see. Of course, I am weak from time to time. I sometimes wish that I was a little bit taller, or had better jawline, or whatever. But I know, those insecurities are not a result of my flaws, but a result of a flaw in the world: elitism. I want no part of it, and I'd like to expose it wherever I see it.
And I see elitism in the above picture.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
another old myspace blog
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
 | it never ends the lovely handiwork of american mercenaries, er, contractors . . . Foreign security guards killed two women when they opened fire on a car in the centre of the Iraqi capital on Tuesday, witnesses and Iraqi security officials said. The shooting in Karrada came two days after Iraq vowed to punish US security firm Blackwater after a probe found that its guards were not provoked when they opened "deliberate" fire in Baghdad three weeks ago, killing 17 Iraqis. It was not clear which security company was involved in Tuesday's shooting... Shopkeeper Ammar Fallah, a witness to the shooting, told AFP the guards, who were escorting a civilian convoy through the streets, signalled for a woman driving a car to pull over as they passed. "When she failed to do so they opened fire, killing her and the woman next to her," he said. "There were two children in the back seat but they were not harmed. The women were both shot in the head."
|
another myspace blog - one i'm a little proud of
Friday, October 05, 2007
| Using the disgrace associated with neo conservatism
I've never cared to learn the finer underpinnings of neo-conservatism. I learned all I needed to know from the actions of the neo-con junta that bullied its way into the white house. To me, it's an ideology of foreign aggression, corporate profits, domestic control, and dis-investment in the civilian infrastructure. However, I have a conservative friend who takes issue with the neo cons - a so called paleo con - and he explained to me some of the theoretical underpinnings of neo conservatism. In the end, it sounded like Trotsky style Leninism: global communism through Russian communist intervention. Just change communism with democracy (or "liberal democratic principals") and you have it. Whether theory and practice lined up, neo conservatism is now a disgraced ideology. The Iraq war is a quagmire. Iran is a regional powerhouse. We lost a city to a storm. Bin Laden is still making tapes. The housing market went pop. As a nation, we're deep in the red. My initial thought was that the vilification of neo conservatism was not necessarily a good thing. In my opinion, the real problem is that Washington politicians - those currently in office and almost every legitimate contender for president in both parties - don't share the widely held belief that (1) globalism in it current form is bad for Americans and just about anyone else who isn't moving capital for a living and (2) America's military should be used primarily, and near exclusively, to protect America from those who would do us harm (and not, say, forward the economic interests of oil companies, force America's version of freedom on people who don't want it, or intervene if some other country's wars when they're unlikely to affect us directly). Thus, if we were to fix the blame on the current sorry state of the affairs narrowly on "neo cons", we're letting a horde of globalists and interventionists off the hook. A recent article on digbysblog makes me rethink that. It seems that the term neo-con is being used interchangeably with the term interventionist. And because neo-con has the stain of failure attached to it, it sticks. Apparantly, its bumming out some non neo con war mongers! AWWWWWWW! See - here is how it works. Back in the day there was a country called the soviet union, and it tried to implement communism and mucked the whole thing up. Between their mistakes and hostility from the outside world, the entire affair concluded in undeniable failure. Part of what the communists did was implement social programs like universal healthcare. Never mind the fact that every other industrialized country in the world has successfully implemented a universal healthcare system, universal healthcare supporters are tarred as "communists" and are reminded "that's been tried and it didn't work." Logically flawed, but rhetorically effective, the association of social programs with communism has helped ensure that America's poor will be among the worst off in the industrialized world! So why not fight fire with fire? Anytime any politician or pundit talks about sending in our military to achieve some objective outside the scope of protecting American lives, call them a neo con. Say, "hey neo con, that idea's been tried before and it didn't work." I love it! Here is the article. http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/dear-roger-cohen-by-tristero-dear-roger.html |
Old myspace blog
Thursday, September 27, 2007
| From that smug asshole Bill "Attack the Radical" Maher: "The Senate actually voted to condemn an ad. That's what your government did yesterday---they had a vote to pass a resolution to condemn an ad with a pun in it. And then they had Oreos and braided each other's hair. And twenty two Democrats voted for that, by the way. The Democrats are so useless they could not even pass a bill to get our troops more time between deployments. Only Republicans could make an argument that a bill that literally supports the troops didn't support the troops, and only the Democrats could lose that argument. Next week the Democrats are going to vote whether to give Republicans all their lunch money or just some of it." |
but what about the kids?!?!?!
Saw Redacted last night. In case you don't know, Redacted is the controversial anti war film directed by Brian DePalma. it's controversial because it realistically recreates an incident (that actually happened) where u.s. soldiers raped a 15 year iraqi old girl and then killed her and her whole family. the movie also contains images of the iraqi dead and wounded. Bill O'reily and right wing veterans groups (as opposed to Iraq Veterans Against the War - http://www.ivaw.org/) have called for a boycott, and there were a handful o flag waiving protesters in fatigues outside the theater with signs urging us not to see the movie.
Although realistic enough to be sickening, i was a little disappointed with the pace, lack of sophistication, and melodrama. the movie plays like an anthology, compiling a story about the events leading up to the rape/ murder and after through a film student's camera, television news reports, you tube postings, terrorist jihad tapes, and home video. its a great idea, but i felt it was poorly executed. the events immediately preceding the rape - e.g. the planning of it - seemed too horrible to be true, but then i asked myself, "how else could it have happened?"
i couldn't come up with better answers
on the train ride back (we saw it at the ritz at the bourse in philly), Patty made an interesting observation: it was almost as if the movie spoke on a immature teenage level, unlike another ultra realistic based on true event anti war film we enjoyed: The Road to Guantanamo.
and when i thought about it, she was right, and i concluded THIS IS WHAT MAKES REDACTED A FAR MORE IMPORTANT ANTI WAR MOVIE.
Check out my older posts "A worthy cause" and "This Veterans Day, Support Free Speech". It was writing those posts that i came to the conclusion that any anti war movement in this country is better aimed at high schools and high school students than at memorials in washington d.c. unlike adults who watch the news (who have by and large been asked to sacrifice nothing for this war), kids in high school are being pressed by recruiters to enlist in murder sport. by large, adults are too smart, too settled, too established, or too vested in civilian life to join such a losing cause. in fact, high school senior year is probably the only place where a recruiter could find hordes of young and fit people, naive to the ways of the world, and who are scared shitless about the future because everything in their life (from what constitutes success to who they hang out with) is about to get thrown out the window.
if you're somebody in high school, chances are you know somebody who has or is thinking about enlisting. it probably scares you to think they might get hurt, die, be forced to kill people, maim people, destroy homes, and come back mentally fucked even if they come back in one piece. that's why we need to start sending the message to these kids. opposing the war and distrusting recruiters needs to become a fad. kids need to wear it on their t-shirts, have the message in their music. musicians need to pull successful high school resistors on stage to jam or feature them in their videos. movies need to be made about their efforts. and the media needs to be pressured into treating these kids like the brave patriots they are.
they need to hang flyers around their on recruitment days that read something like this:
in war you do worse things to people you don't know then you'd ever do to your worst enemy
in war, people will be trying to kill you. and if you die at war, you'll die a painfull dirty death, bleeding on the street in agony. you won't get to say goodbye to your mom, your dad, or your brothers. worse, they won't get to say goodbye to you, and you family will be forever scared.
for every soldier who gets kills, many many more get maimed. soldiers lose fingers, arms, eyes, noses, legs, and even their penises.
we were lied to about the reasons for the war. there were never weapons of mas destruction, there was no al quida in ira until the war created porous borders. the iraqi people, by and large, were better off under saddam huesein, and the world was better off with his regime controlling iraq than with the civil war we instigated.
the people in iraq never did anything to us. they had nothing to do with terrorism, and nothing to do with 9/11. the only reason we're over there is because a bunch of greedy oilmen fucked up.
to the iraqi people, we are an invading army, and it's only natural that they would want us to leave
if you are a woman, your chances of being raped in the military are far greater than in civilian life. and this isn't because of war: it is male soldiers doing the raping. and unlike in civilian life, the problem has been largely un-addressed as male soldiers and their officers cover for each other. women who report being raped often hurt their military career by doing so.
Although realistic enough to be sickening, i was a little disappointed with the pace, lack of sophistication, and melodrama. the movie plays like an anthology, compiling a story about the events leading up to the rape/ murder and after through a film student's camera, television news reports, you tube postings, terrorist jihad tapes, and home video. its a great idea, but i felt it was poorly executed. the events immediately preceding the rape - e.g. the planning of it - seemed too horrible to be true, but then i asked myself, "how else could it have happened?"
i couldn't come up with better answers
on the train ride back (we saw it at the ritz at the bourse in philly), Patty made an interesting observation: it was almost as if the movie spoke on a immature teenage level, unlike another ultra realistic based on true event anti war film we enjoyed: The Road to Guantanamo.
and when i thought about it, she was right, and i concluded THIS IS WHAT MAKES REDACTED A FAR MORE IMPORTANT ANTI WAR MOVIE.
Check out my older posts "A worthy cause" and "This Veterans Day, Support Free Speech". It was writing those posts that i came to the conclusion that any anti war movement in this country is better aimed at high schools and high school students than at memorials in washington d.c. unlike adults who watch the news (who have by and large been asked to sacrifice nothing for this war), kids in high school are being pressed by recruiters to enlist in murder sport. by large, adults are too smart, too settled, too established, or too vested in civilian life to join such a losing cause. in fact, high school senior year is probably the only place where a recruiter could find hordes of young and fit people, naive to the ways of the world, and who are scared shitless about the future because everything in their life (from what constitutes success to who they hang out with) is about to get thrown out the window.
if you're somebody in high school, chances are you know somebody who has or is thinking about enlisting. it probably scares you to think they might get hurt, die, be forced to kill people, maim people, destroy homes, and come back mentally fucked even if they come back in one piece. that's why we need to start sending the message to these kids. opposing the war and distrusting recruiters needs to become a fad. kids need to wear it on their t-shirts, have the message in their music. musicians need to pull successful high school resistors on stage to jam or feature them in their videos. movies need to be made about their efforts. and the media needs to be pressured into treating these kids like the brave patriots they are.
they need to hang flyers around their on recruitment days that read something like this:
in war you do worse things to people you don't know then you'd ever do to your worst enemy
in war, people will be trying to kill you. and if you die at war, you'll die a painfull dirty death, bleeding on the street in agony. you won't get to say goodbye to your mom, your dad, or your brothers. worse, they won't get to say goodbye to you, and you family will be forever scared.
for every soldier who gets kills, many many more get maimed. soldiers lose fingers, arms, eyes, noses, legs, and even their penises.
we were lied to about the reasons for the war. there were never weapons of mas destruction, there was no al quida in ira until the war created porous borders. the iraqi people, by and large, were better off under saddam huesein, and the world was better off with his regime controlling iraq than with the civil war we instigated.
the people in iraq never did anything to us. they had nothing to do with terrorism, and nothing to do with 9/11. the only reason we're over there is because a bunch of greedy oilmen fucked up.
to the iraqi people, we are an invading army, and it's only natural that they would want us to leave
if you are a woman, your chances of being raped in the military are far greater than in civilian life. and this isn't because of war: it is male soldiers doing the raping. and unlike in civilian life, the problem has been largely un-addressed as male soldiers and their officers cover for each other. women who report being raped often hurt their military career by doing so.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Sound familiar?
According to Stephanie Storm of the New York Times:
in a fight reminiscent of the brouhaha over an anti-Bush statement by Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks in 2003, a team of women who represented the United States at the world bridge championships in Shanghai last month is facing sanctions, including a yearlong ban from competition, for a spur-of-the-moment protest.
What did they do?
scribbled on the back of a menu, that was held up at an awards dinner and read, “We did not vote for Bush.”
It's not all fun and games, either.
The proposed sanctions would hurt the team’s playing members financially. “I earn my living from bridge, and a substantial part of that from being hired to compete in high-level competitions,” Debbie Rosenberg, a team member, said. “So being barred would directly affect much of my ability to earn a living.”
The article concludes with a report on sanctions taken against player who've worn pro war buttons:
“They don’t go after those people,” Mr. Anderson said.
The author said it reminded her of the dixie chicks. It made me think of something else entirely (see the above photo).
link to the story: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=10522
redact redact redact
Redacted opens tonight. Bill O'Reilly says don't see it. That's a thumbs up if i've ever heard one.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
An older post from myspace
Monday, September 24, 2007
It keeps making me more angry: was it a game of gotcha, or a game of get away with murder?
I read an MSNBC article on the gotca game, and it raises more questions than it answers.
First, it seems as if the sniper team was killing people to exact revenge. On its face, that sounds more like murder than warafre - but the plot thickens.
Military higher ups gave the snipers insurgency "drop" materials - which turns Iraq into a nasty game of gotcha, where if you lose, you die. People who pick up curiosities or things perceived to be valuable (in the midst of an economic crisis no less) are gunned down. but the plot thickens . . .
Apparantly some lower downs thought the drop materials were things to be planted on a dead body after a kill so that killing will not come under scrutiny.
And that's how the whole thing got uncovered: a U.S. soldier executed a captured iraqi, and then planted "drop" materials on him - all pursuant to what he beleived to be his orders.
So the question is: did military higher ups advance a reckless policy of baiting iraqis, and certainly killing the civilians we are supposed to be liberating? Or, did military higher ups sanction retribution killing and planting evidence?
Either way, iraqis are dead, soldiers will pay both criminally and psychologically (and perhaps spiritually) for murdering captives, America is more hated than ever, more terrorists have been created, the higher ups will get away with it, Cheney's pals made their money, and our next president will never investigate the war crimes of this president because by then it will be "time for the nation to heal."
Here is the objective article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20947008/
It keeps making me more angry: was it a game of gotcha, or a game of get away with murder?
I read an MSNBC article on the gotca game, and it raises more questions than it answers.
First, it seems as if the sniper team was killing people to exact revenge. On its face, that sounds more like murder than warafre - but the plot thickens.
Military higher ups gave the snipers insurgency "drop" materials - which turns Iraq into a nasty game of gotcha, where if you lose, you die. People who pick up curiosities or things perceived to be valuable (in the midst of an economic crisis no less) are gunned down. but the plot thickens . . .
Apparantly some lower downs thought the drop materials were things to be planted on a dead body after a kill so that killing will not come under scrutiny.
And that's how the whole thing got uncovered: a U.S. soldier executed a captured iraqi, and then planted "drop" materials on him - all pursuant to what he beleived to be his orders.
So the question is: did military higher ups advance a reckless policy of baiting iraqis, and certainly killing the civilians we are supposed to be liberating? Or, did military higher ups sanction retribution killing and planting evidence?
Either way, iraqis are dead, soldiers will pay both criminally and psychologically (and perhaps spiritually) for murdering captives, America is more hated than ever, more terrorists have been created, the higher ups will get away with it, Cheney's pals made their money, and our next president will never investigate the war crimes of this president because by then it will be "time for the nation to heal."
Here is the objective article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20947008/
And what the fuck are you going to do about it?
Back when Kerry and Bush were running against each other, I did a little experiment. I told people that I know don't follow the news as much as I do (and therefore trust me as a news and commentary source to some extent) that Bush announced that if he loses the election, he still might step down if there is a "threat to security".
Two not so startling but very scary things happened.
First, people as a whole beleived it.
Second, people as a whole didn't have an response.
People said, "oh wow, is he allowed to do that?" and "wow. well lets hope everything is ok." or even "has that ever happened before?"
And the answer is, of course, no. For the president to refuse to step down is akin to Sulla sacking rome or Caesar crossing the Rubicon with his armies. It is, no matter what remains intact afterwords, the official and undeniable end of more than 200 years of Constitutional rule. Sure, the document might still exist and even maintain legal significance, just as the Roman senate did, but there is no denying that once a president who does not get re-elected refuses to step down, and nobody does anything to stop him, republican democracy is dead.
So today, I found a link on dailykos to an interesting passage:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war today and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/25/194442/220, citing http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070225/NEWS07/70225010/0/BUSINESS01
Note - the President didn't say he would veto any legislation interfering with his mismanagement of Iraq. He said he would Defy.
The problem is, this wasn't said today. It was said way back in February.
So the president threatens to abandon the proceedures established in the constitution to check the popular will against the wisdom of our leaders and the democrats said:
nothing
the media said:
nothing
and the people never found out, or at least not on a grand scale. and from my conversations with people, i can conclude that even if they heard and even if the president rendered our democracy into a blatant sham, all they would have to say is:
NOTHING
So when Barbara Boxer says America under the Bush administration is "closest our country has come to living under a dictator" - it saddens me to say that it is not the closest it will ever come, because the lesson a would be dictator will learn from this regime is that the American people will tolerate it. The sad fact is, the Bush Administration has laid the ground work for increasing authoritarianism in this land-of-the-free, and the people are ready to accept even more (whether they like or it or not).
You know, there was one person that had an interesting response when I said Bush might not step down. She was an older person, who had seen a real fight for freedom in the fight against the Germans and saw real American prosperity in our golden age. A patriotic, moral, and law abiding person. And she said, "then its time for somebody to take him out", making a motion that made it clear that assassination was what she was referring to.
So shame on the democrats who refuse to keep impeachment on the table.
Two not so startling but very scary things happened.
First, people as a whole beleived it.
Second, people as a whole didn't have an response.
People said, "oh wow, is he allowed to do that?" and "wow. well lets hope everything is ok." or even "has that ever happened before?"
And the answer is, of course, no. For the president to refuse to step down is akin to Sulla sacking rome or Caesar crossing the Rubicon with his armies. It is, no matter what remains intact afterwords, the official and undeniable end of more than 200 years of Constitutional rule. Sure, the document might still exist and even maintain legal significance, just as the Roman senate did, but there is no denying that once a president who does not get re-elected refuses to step down, and nobody does anything to stop him, republican democracy is dead.
So today, I found a link on dailykos to an interesting passage:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war today and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/25/194442/220, citing http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070225/NEWS07/70225010/0/BUSINESS01
Note - the President didn't say he would veto any legislation interfering with his mismanagement of Iraq. He said he would Defy.
The problem is, this wasn't said today. It was said way back in February.
So the president threatens to abandon the proceedures established in the constitution to check the popular will against the wisdom of our leaders and the democrats said:
nothing
the media said:
nothing
and the people never found out, or at least not on a grand scale. and from my conversations with people, i can conclude that even if they heard and even if the president rendered our democracy into a blatant sham, all they would have to say is:
NOTHING
So when Barbara Boxer says America under the Bush administration is "closest our country has come to living under a dictator" - it saddens me to say that it is not the closest it will ever come, because the lesson a would be dictator will learn from this regime is that the American people will tolerate it. The sad fact is, the Bush Administration has laid the ground work for increasing authoritarianism in this land-of-the-free, and the people are ready to accept even more (whether they like or it or not).
You know, there was one person that had an interesting response when I said Bush might not step down. She was an older person, who had seen a real fight for freedom in the fight against the Germans and saw real American prosperity in our golden age. A patriotic, moral, and law abiding person. And she said, "then its time for somebody to take him out", making a motion that made it clear that assassination was what she was referring to.
So shame on the democrats who refuse to keep impeachment on the table.
Monday, November 12, 2007
an old my space post
A deadly game of gotcha!
Your in Iraq. Your father, like most, has been unemployed for over a year. Your family can't afford the staples in life, let alone comforts in a world of sectarian violence. Your walking down the street and see some copper wire or an piece of elctronics that you figure you could hawk for some good cash. You reach down to scoop it up and . . . .
BANG! GOTCHA!!!!!!!!!
A heavy round of machine gun fire peirces your chest. Pain! Pain! Pain!. You can't move - either something is broken or the bullet hit your spinal chord. You can't breath. It hurts so much. And your starting to gag on blood. Mom! Mom! Mom! You want to see your mom. Instinct tell you you are dying. Instinct tells you to keep your eyes open. Instinct tells you to lay down and let yourself die so it will be over. You are very afraid. BANG!!!!!!!! Another round goes through your face, as American soldiers take great pride in shooting insurgents in the face. Every bone in your face shatters and then you cease to exist. An insurgent? No way! you never wanted anything more than to get through this damn war intact. But thats what the records say. Your a killed insurgent, proof Bush will use to convince Congress that the surge is working. And your mother, as wails, won't even get the solace of an open casket funeral for her child.
Thats how it goes in Iraq.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/24/71455/7034
Painting Targets on Iraqi Civilians Backs , "Baiting"
Your in Iraq. Your father, like most, has been unemployed for over a year. Your family can't afford the staples in life, let alone comforts in a world of sectarian violence. Your walking down the street and see some copper wire or an piece of elctronics that you figure you could hawk for some good cash. You reach down to scoop it up and . . . .
BANG! GOTCHA!!!!!!!!!
A heavy round of machine gun fire peirces your chest. Pain! Pain! Pain!. You can't move - either something is broken or the bullet hit your spinal chord. You can't breath. It hurts so much. And your starting to gag on blood. Mom! Mom! Mom! You want to see your mom. Instinct tell you you are dying. Instinct tells you to keep your eyes open. Instinct tells you to lay down and let yourself die so it will be over. You are very afraid. BANG!!!!!!!! Another round goes through your face, as American soldiers take great pride in shooting insurgents in the face. Every bone in your face shatters and then you cease to exist. An insurgent? No way! you never wanted anything more than to get through this damn war intact. But thats what the records say. Your a killed insurgent, proof Bush will use to convince Congress that the surge is working. And your mother, as wails, won't even get the solace of an open casket funeral for her child.
Thats how it goes in Iraq.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/24/71455/7034
Painting Targets on Iraqi Civilians Backs , "Baiting"
Defend Free Speech This Veterans' Day
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-mortonprotest_09_webnov09,1,1989534.story
in the link above, you’ll see the story of a group of high school students who have the most severe discipline available to their school’s administration for doing nothing more the peacefully opposing the war in Iraq. To make it worse, the students were not all dealt with the same: athletes and kids with high gpa’s were given preferential treatment.
what makes me really mad is that the big media isn’t covering it. I mean, they report it like there is a war on Christianity when a kid gets told to take a Santa hat off, but here the school is threatening to ruin these kids’ academic futures, and the media isn’t making a peep.
I think I know why: imagine if these kids became mini-celebrities for taking a stand! Opposition to the war might become a fad. And why not? This generation of kids, or at least those successfully recruited are the next to go to Iraq and Afghanistan (and God help us, Iran). Unlike many of us, who have never been called to make any sacrifice for these wars (just keep shopping says Bush, and keep that yellow ribbon on your gas guzzling SUV!), these kids have a stake in the war: they will have friends who kill people, hurt people, destroy homes, get killed, get maimed, or get messed up in the head for life. If opposition to the war becomes a youth fad, who will enlist? The war machine will have a problem.
So, if you think kids ought to be free to have a say in the wars we ask them to fight, please email the principal and the super intendant and tell them that full expulsion is too severe a penalty for these kids. Then email you local news paper or television station and tell them you want to see some coverage on this issue. Then PLEASE pass this on.
the principal:
jlucas@west.jsmorton.org
the super
bnowakowski@jsmorton.org
the Philadelphia inquirer
Inquirer.Letters@phillynews.com;
cbs 3
http://cbs3.com/contact
nbc 10
http://www.nbc10.com/News/1431717/detail.html
and remember, veterans day is celebrated around the world as armistice day - the day the first world war ended. It was celebrated because people believed the end of that war - then unmatched in brutality and bloodshed - was an end to all war. Veterans Day is a day of peace.
in the link above, you’ll see the story of a group of high school students who have the most severe discipline available to their school’s administration for doing nothing more the peacefully opposing the war in Iraq. To make it worse, the students were not all dealt with the same: athletes and kids with high gpa’s were given preferential treatment.
what makes me really mad is that the big media isn’t covering it. I mean, they report it like there is a war on Christianity when a kid gets told to take a Santa hat off, but here the school is threatening to ruin these kids’ academic futures, and the media isn’t making a peep.
I think I know why: imagine if these kids became mini-celebrities for taking a stand! Opposition to the war might become a fad. And why not? This generation of kids, or at least those successfully recruited are the next to go to Iraq and Afghanistan (and God help us, Iran). Unlike many of us, who have never been called to make any sacrifice for these wars (just keep shopping says Bush, and keep that yellow ribbon on your gas guzzling SUV!), these kids have a stake in the war: they will have friends who kill people, hurt people, destroy homes, get killed, get maimed, or get messed up in the head for life. If opposition to the war becomes a youth fad, who will enlist? The war machine will have a problem.
So, if you think kids ought to be free to have a say in the wars we ask them to fight, please email the principal and the super intendant and tell them that full expulsion is too severe a penalty for these kids. Then email you local news paper or television station and tell them you want to see some coverage on this issue. Then PLEASE pass this on.
the principal:
jlucas@west.jsmorton.org
the super
bnowakowski@jsmorton.org
the Philadelphia inquirer
Inquirer.Letters@phillynews.com;
cbs 3
http://cbs3.com/contact
nbc 10
http://www.nbc10.com/News/1431717/detail.html
and remember, veterans day is celebrated around the world as armistice day - the day the first world war ended. It was celebrated because people believed the end of that war - then unmatched in brutality and bloodshed - was an end to all war. Veterans Day is a day of peace.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Ron Paul, part two (even if nobody reads my blog)
My friend Dave Healy came to my apartment last night, and he was critical of my Ron Paul post because it makes an unsupported allegation of racism. He said such is irresponsible! My response is simple: nobody reads my blog, and I don't do this as serious commentary - but more as an outlet for my own political and cultural ideas. I type them as I have them, usually in rush because I' very busy. If anything, I make my posts so that my friends can read my ideas and engage me on them - and to date, hardly anybody has even read them.
But there was one lesson to be learned: Rather than effectively make my point that Ron Paul's campaign siphons independent votes from pro-withdrawal candidates who actually have a chance of beating Hillary Clinton and Benito Guiliani, the message was mired in technicality.
Well, to be more responsible, here is my source:
Greg Saunders, on a post at Tom Tomorrow's blog, said this (http://www.thismodernworld.com/3892):
And let’s not forget that he’s a racist too. DailyKos diarist phenry found this choice nugget from the “Ron Paul Political Report” :
The diarist then quotes what Saunder's quotes, but goes on to attribute this statement to the Ron Paul Political Report:
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
Did I follow every link in the kos article? No - at this point i think i've met my burden of showing i'm not jut making shit up. Maybe somebody else is, but the world can do it own research to prove that.
Now, it can be argued that these quotes are not racists, etc. However, these statements can be taken as racist or quasi-racist by reasonable persons, whether theoretically correct or not. At the point, whether or not Ron Paul is on the record saying racist things depends on what you take to be racist.
The bottom line is that Ron Paul is a great candidate to support if you are a disaffected republican who is willing to sink your money or vote into a loser who stands for what you believe in than support a mainstream candidate who merely pays lip service to "the base". I did the same with Ralph Nader when Gore promised four more years of Clinton's brand of globalization and interventionalism under liberal auspices.
But if you are just against the war, Ron Paul's insurgency may be attractive because he is well principled on the issue - but beware: he stands for a lot more than just puling out of Iraq and there are rivals to Hillary Clinton who are in favor of a withdrawal who need independent support if they are to have any chance to unseat the media's chosen candidate. I would suggest supporting one of them (Edwards or Obama).
But there was one lesson to be learned: Rather than effectively make my point that Ron Paul's campaign siphons independent votes from pro-withdrawal candidates who actually have a chance of beating Hillary Clinton and Benito Guiliani, the message was mired in technicality.
Well, to be more responsible, here is my source:
Greg Saunders, on a post at Tom Tomorrow's blog, said this (http://www.thismodernworld.com/3892):
And let’s not forget that he’s a racist too. DailyKos diarist phenry found this choice nugget from the “Ron Paul Political Report” :
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Oddly enough, Paul’s excuse for this stuff now is that his offensive articles were ghost-written. Don’t worry folks, Ron Paul just outsourced his racist rants.
Following the link to dkos, we find (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740):
The only complete article from the Ron Paul Political Report on the Internet that I am aware of is a 1992 piece titled "LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM," on the subject of the so-called Rodney King riots in South Central Los Angeles in 1991. It is available to us today because it was posted to the talk.politics.misc newsgroup on July 30, 1993 by Dan Gannon, a notorious white supremacist and Holocaust denier, and archived by the Nizkor Project, an anti-revisionism organization that was active in cataloging hate speech on the early public Internet. You can read Nizkor's copy of the article here, and see a reposted version on Google Groups here. Some relevant passages from the article (emphasis mine):The diarist then quotes what Saunder's quotes, but goes on to attribute this statement to the Ron Paul Political Report:
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
He then continues:
During Paul's 1996 Congressional run, the Houston Chronicle unearthed some additional racial comments from his newsletter (emphasis mine):
Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.
Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
and concludes:
Did I follow every link in the kos article? No - at this point i think i've met my burden of showing i'm not jut making shit up. Maybe somebody else is, but the world can do it own research to prove that.
Now, it can be argued that these quotes are not racists, etc. However, these statements can be taken as racist or quasi-racist by reasonable persons, whether theoretically correct or not. At the point, whether or not Ron Paul is on the record saying racist things depends on what you take to be racist.
The bottom line is that Ron Paul is a great candidate to support if you are a disaffected republican who is willing to sink your money or vote into a loser who stands for what you believe in than support a mainstream candidate who merely pays lip service to "the base". I did the same with Ralph Nader when Gore promised four more years of Clinton's brand of globalization and interventionalism under liberal auspices.
But if you are just against the war, Ron Paul's insurgency may be attractive because he is well principled on the issue - but beware: he stands for a lot more than just puling out of Iraq and there are rivals to Hillary Clinton who are in favor of a withdrawal who need independent support if they are to have any chance to unseat the media's chosen candidate. I would suggest supporting one of them (Edwards or Obama).
Friday, November 9, 2007
A worthy cause
If it wern't for the consequences of the criminal charges, I would think this is almost as offensive as the Jena-6 story. Bunch of kids protest the war in Iraq becuase recruiters are pressing the hype, and they face expulsion. Worse yet, jocks and goodie-goodies who participated were preferentially treated. The small-dick-complexed principal won't back down, so the school board is caught between undermining the authority of their chosen disciplinarian or facing the masses. Enter the national media, the school board pisses their pants, and bitches out by postponing the students hearings. For now, every day that goes by, the kids arn't in school.
Funny thing is, isn't this just the sort of story that would be picked up by Drudge or Fox if it went the other way? Imagine if a school gave a kid a mere detention for protesting against not being able to lead the school in prayer: O'Reily would be all over it, declaring it a war against Christianity itself, and proof liberals hate God.
Yet, so far, nothing but cricket chirps. And i think I know why. First, these kids are the ones who will be next to go to Iraq. Imagine having a freind getting hard sold on patriotism to go fight an unjust war, knowing he's going into a meat grinder where he'll possibly get killed or maimed and will do worse things to people he doesn't know than he'd ever do to people he hated. Thats alot of kids in highschool, and if these kids become little celebrities through disciplanary maryrdom, it could become a fad. Bad news for the war hawks.
Read the story in the Chicago Tribune or New York Times, read the commentary by Arthur Silber, check out my email to the principal of the school, and sign the petitition.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-mortonprotest_09_webnov09,1,1989534.story
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/us/07protest.html?ref=education
a realy good essayhttp://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/11/when-awareness-is-crime-and-other.html
the petitionhttp://www.petitiononline.com/mortonw/petition.html
my letter
Subject: As an attorney at law, it is plain that the possibility of expulsion is of poor discretion, whether Constitutional or not.
Dear Mr. Lucas:
I am writing to express my opposition to your stance on civildisobedience. I have worked on First Amendment issues, largely indefending citizens against SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against PublicParticipation) lawsuits, and cannot pass on the Constitutionality ofthe suspensions and/ or expulsions with the limited information that Ihave been able to derive about the case from media reports. However,it is plain that you have taken a particularly heavy handed stance,whether Constitutional or not.
Civil disobedience is an important part of public participation, and has provided the back bone for many movements that have benefited usall. An important part of civil disobedience is taking the punishmentdue. However, in keeping with our core values of free expression,peaceful demonstrations are often tolerated even when they run afoulof the rules. It would be rare for a peaceful demonstrator that did not resist arrest with violence to be charged with anything more serious than a local ordinance violation, such as parading without apermit.
The students who engaged in civil disobedience must learn that their actions have consequences, and their acceptance of the consequences ispart of their message. However, I believe you have a civic duty to not only mete out the consequences, but to exercise your discretion inaccordance with our national values.
Very Truly Yours
Wesley G. Hanna
Attorney at Law
Admitted in New Jersey and Pennsylvania
Funny thing is, isn't this just the sort of story that would be picked up by Drudge or Fox if it went the other way? Imagine if a school gave a kid a mere detention for protesting against not being able to lead the school in prayer: O'Reily would be all over it, declaring it a war against Christianity itself, and proof liberals hate God.
Yet, so far, nothing but cricket chirps. And i think I know why. First, these kids are the ones who will be next to go to Iraq. Imagine having a freind getting hard sold on patriotism to go fight an unjust war, knowing he's going into a meat grinder where he'll possibly get killed or maimed and will do worse things to people he doesn't know than he'd ever do to people he hated. Thats alot of kids in highschool, and if these kids become little celebrities through disciplanary maryrdom, it could become a fad. Bad news for the war hawks.
Read the story in the Chicago Tribune or New York Times, read the commentary by Arthur Silber, check out my email to the principal of the school, and sign the petitition.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-mortonprotest_09_webnov09,1,1989534.story
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/us/07protest.html?ref=education
a realy good essayhttp://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/11/when-awareness-is-crime-and-other.html
the petitionhttp://www.petitiononline.com/mortonw/petition.html
my letter
Subject: As an attorney at law, it is plain that the possibility of expulsion is of poor discretion, whether Constitutional or not.
Dear Mr. Lucas:
I am writing to express my opposition to your stance on civildisobedience. I have worked on First Amendment issues, largely indefending citizens against SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against PublicParticipation) lawsuits, and cannot pass on the Constitutionality ofthe suspensions and/ or expulsions with the limited information that Ihave been able to derive about the case from media reports. However,it is plain that you have taken a particularly heavy handed stance,whether Constitutional or not.
Civil disobedience is an important part of public participation, and has provided the back bone for many movements that have benefited usall. An important part of civil disobedience is taking the punishmentdue. However, in keeping with our core values of free expression,peaceful demonstrations are often tolerated even when they run afoulof the rules. It would be rare for a peaceful demonstrator that did not resist arrest with violence to be charged with anything more serious than a local ordinance violation, such as parading without apermit.
The students who engaged in civil disobedience must learn that their actions have consequences, and their acceptance of the consequences ispart of their message. However, I believe you have a civic duty to not only mete out the consequences, but to exercise your discretion inaccordance with our national values.
Very Truly Yours
Wesley G. Hanna
Attorney at Law
Admitted in New Jersey and Pennsylvania
old blog from myspace reprinted
Friday, September 07, 2007
Metal Immaturity
I am a big fan of heavy metal. On a recent car ride, I was poo pooed because heavy metal is little boyish. As if to say, rocking out to shred guitar and negative lyrics is the equivellent of being into GI JOE. My response:1. So what? I enjoy it. 2. The same people calling me imature for rocking out to metal today are the same people equating metal to devil worship when i was a kid, telling me it was dead when grunge came out, and over all putting it down ever since I picked up my first ozzy tape.
I've come to the conclusion YOU JUST DON"T FUCKING LIKE IT. Don't pretend your taste is superior to mine. These people were trendy little twerps when we were kids, and now that they're adult hipsters that are so so mature and so so unique, they think they're in a position to judge. they wern't then and they arn't now.
let me tell you something about their judgments. I was in a UD dorm with a group of groovies that were so darn cool they had no time for cool, and the girls started reminissing about mc hammer and vinnilla ice and how bad they sucked in retrospec. I laughed at them for ever being into it in the first place, and they chided me because surely I don't like the things I liked back then.
Not true, losers. Because I've always liked what I like becuase I liked it, and was never hoodwinked into liking something by MTV or the cool kids at school, I have no reason not to still like it. When the sheep herd was convinced paula abdul and milli vanilli was good, I prefered metal. When the herd changed its mind and went alternative, i still preferred metal. And now that the herd has "grown up" and enjoy the sphisticated sounds of cute indie bands, jazz acts, and jam bands (but will permit themselves a giggle at those old tunes becuase camp is cool), I STILL PREFER METAL.Now,
to be honest, I've grown to like all kinds of music and styles that hipsters like too. Thats called being open to new things. The smae spirit of curiosity and love for music that lets me enjoy "adult" "just underground enough" rock like spoon or modest mouse lets me enjoy everything from classical composers to emo.
The bottom line is, people who poo poo metalheads are usually people who learned snobbery from the in crowd, but never made it far up that pyramid, so they dropped out of it in college. now they impress themselves with their own coolness and snicker at those who stepped outside of the scheme early on.
And check this out: metalheads may very well be like the deadheads of the 60s (as opposed to those who jumped on board that train in the 90s): they were snickered at, went on to become some pretty important people, and generally live their life either outside of or at the head of the herd.
I find it telling that there were a ton of metal heads in law school.
Metal Immaturity
I am a big fan of heavy metal. On a recent car ride, I was poo pooed because heavy metal is little boyish. As if to say, rocking out to shred guitar and negative lyrics is the equivellent of being into GI JOE. My response:1. So what? I enjoy it. 2. The same people calling me imature for rocking out to metal today are the same people equating metal to devil worship when i was a kid, telling me it was dead when grunge came out, and over all putting it down ever since I picked up my first ozzy tape.
I've come to the conclusion YOU JUST DON"T FUCKING LIKE IT. Don't pretend your taste is superior to mine. These people were trendy little twerps when we were kids, and now that they're adult hipsters that are so so mature and so so unique, they think they're in a position to judge. they wern't then and they arn't now.
let me tell you something about their judgments. I was in a UD dorm with a group of groovies that were so darn cool they had no time for cool, and the girls started reminissing about mc hammer and vinnilla ice and how bad they sucked in retrospec. I laughed at them for ever being into it in the first place, and they chided me because surely I don't like the things I liked back then.
Not true, losers. Because I've always liked what I like becuase I liked it, and was never hoodwinked into liking something by MTV or the cool kids at school, I have no reason not to still like it. When the sheep herd was convinced paula abdul and milli vanilli was good, I prefered metal. When the herd changed its mind and went alternative, i still preferred metal. And now that the herd has "grown up" and enjoy the sphisticated sounds of cute indie bands, jazz acts, and jam bands (but will permit themselves a giggle at those old tunes becuase camp is cool), I STILL PREFER METAL.Now,
to be honest, I've grown to like all kinds of music and styles that hipsters like too. Thats called being open to new things. The smae spirit of curiosity and love for music that lets me enjoy "adult" "just underground enough" rock like spoon or modest mouse lets me enjoy everything from classical composers to emo.
The bottom line is, people who poo poo metalheads are usually people who learned snobbery from the in crowd, but never made it far up that pyramid, so they dropped out of it in college. now they impress themselves with their own coolness and snicker at those who stepped outside of the scheme early on.
And check this out: metalheads may very well be like the deadheads of the 60s (as opposed to those who jumped on board that train in the 90s): they were snickered at, went on to become some pretty important people, and generally live their life either outside of or at the head of the herd.
I find it telling that there were a ton of metal heads in law school.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Jenny knows this tactic from me telling her to use. Jonie, unfortunately, knows it because I've done it in response to religious chain mails.
And by the way - it's not that i'm not that I'm some kind of militant athiest, it just that I think that a story that purports spiritual signifigance is worthy of close analysis and good discussion.
So here is the link:http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/30/15741/7610
Here is the blog:
Counterstrike on Conservative Chain (e)Mail
by Uthaclena
Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:09:58 PM PDT
Maybe you got the email forwarded to you by your very-traditional cousin Sue or your co-worker who loves what Bushco has done for his stock portfolio. Maybe you don't recognize exactly whom it is forwarding it, but you live dangerously and opened it anyway. So you are treated to a steaming tirade of conservative bigotry and self-righteous sound bytes, couched in fine, patriotic jingo.
I hope you all know that in many cases you can do more than just hit "Delete!".. polls come after this -->
Uthaclena's diary :: ::
'Those dang illegal immigrants! Not only do they want our jobs and our health care, they want us to sing the National Anthem in Spanish!!' or 'Here are pictures of our heroic troops in Iraqistan spreading freedom and democracy; our camo-clad kids are cuddling kittens, weeping over letters from home, and playing with little tiny children in the rubble strewn streets. Write to your Congressman and tell him to Support Our President and give him everything he asks for, because our troops deserve the best!' Oh, and if you are a real American, forward this to all of your family and friends!
These emails are written in an aw-shucks, folksy style, could be the neighbors next door, why they're even replete with clumsy misspellings! Maybe they were virally-released by some Republican intern, or maybe some common wingnut with poo on his boots actually did pound a keyboard and hit "Send." Who knows?
Now, normally, most of us will mutter "Asshole!" and delete it and try to deal with the "BREAKING!" news from Truthout or Alternet, or some such, unless we've had a bad day and the letter has pushed our particular hot-button. Then we reply to the sender and give them a piece of our minds, castigating them for their ignorance and berating them for sending us this trash.
Iself just got the following chain email:
Urine Test: Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck.. I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
Pass on if you agree
Now, how do we get this on a bill to make it LAW?????????????
My finger hovered over the delete key, but then I thought back over the last several weeks. I do some small computer service and repair on the side, and several of my customers have done things that indicate that they're too stupid to really use computers. Plus, they forward jokes to me that have lengthy, multiple copies of the same joke in the forwarding because they have no idea how to edit an email before they send it. Curious, instead of "Reply," I chose "Reply All," and was rewarded with over a dozen addresses to which this spam had been sent in addition to mine.
Wanting to strike while the ions were hot, I typed the following:
Hello Boys and Girls -- the money line from this brilliant idea is: "Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?" The implication appears to be that many of the people receiving public assistance - that nasty old Welfare check - are drug addicts. Probably People of Color, too. Justifiable outrage for the hard-working , over-taxed Middle-Class employee.
Just like when Ronald Reagan decried the Welfare Queens purchasing Cadillacs.
Only problem is, most recipients of Public Assistance are children, the elderly, the disabled, and people have fallen off of the edge of Working Poor. Use the Google!
Yeah, urine tests for public assistance would probably snag some junkies; but a windfall savings? I don't think so.
But, go on and pass this along; everybody needs to feel self-righteous from time to time, don't they.
And I hit Send.
I was pleasantly surprised not to get a lot of pathetic defenses and righteous conservative anger. Instead I got:
If you haven't been unemployed you should try it soon, and if you've never been on welfare you should try that too.I would hardly describe being on welfare, or the underlying cause-- unemployment as an opportunity to "sit on your butt." Anytime I've been out of work it has been some of the most stressful periods in my life, and it is a full time job to perfect your resume and check the job boards, and all stupid shit one is busy with to try to rejoin the working class. But I can't understand why we are even talking about such insignificant issue, making the poor suffer a little more, make just a little harder, as if they could all just get up and go to work tomorrow, with clean pee-pee too. Much more obscene is the degree to which we are paying CEO's 400% more than before, the lose of unions to organize workers so they wouldn't lose their jobs to workers in Thailand because they can work for 2 cents an hour, or the disenfranchisement of the American work place with American worker. Fuck 'em if they want good pay and benefits, will move all the jobs off shore.
and
ON second thought, I think we should have a urine test, but it would be to identify who the fuck has been pissing all over the constitution. Those who have should have their eyes pulled out and made to sit in bathroom stall next to a bare-footed Senator Craig.
Ya wanna pass a bill, how about a bill that no war (declared or undeclared and that means clandestant)can be engaged in unless the people engaged in it first send their own family members in as fodder. Send the sons and daughters of industry, the offspring of the corporate captains.
I hear a lot of those welfare folk are Iraq war vets.............with PTSD and appointment for 4 months ahead.Lets drive the car off the cliff and attack Iran.
And finally, a reply from a fellow who I actually know in Colorado, who is a conservative, who added a YouTube link which most of us have seen by now: Dick Cheney v.1994, explaining why we should not overthrow Saddam Hussein! It warmed my heart: The Truth is Out There, and some people are actually - slowly - getting it!
Let me end by suggesting that what is necessary to keep the sociopolitical changes going from conservative lies toward progressive considerations is confrontation, confrontation, and, when that fails, more confrontation. Always remember that "the Truth crushed to the ground will rise again and no lie can last forever."
And by the way - it's not that i'm not that I'm some kind of militant athiest, it just that I think that a story that purports spiritual signifigance is worthy of close analysis and good discussion.
So here is the link:http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/30/15741/7610
Here is the blog:
Counterstrike on Conservative Chain (e)Mail
by Uthaclena
Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:09:58 PM PDT
Maybe you got the email forwarded to you by your very-traditional cousin Sue or your co-worker who loves what Bushco has done for his stock portfolio. Maybe you don't recognize exactly whom it is forwarding it, but you live dangerously and opened it anyway. So you are treated to a steaming tirade of conservative bigotry and self-righteous sound bytes, couched in fine, patriotic jingo.
I hope you all know that in many cases you can do more than just hit "Delete!".. polls come after this -->
Uthaclena's diary :: ::
'Those dang illegal immigrants! Not only do they want our jobs and our health care, they want us to sing the National Anthem in Spanish!!' or 'Here are pictures of our heroic troops in Iraqistan spreading freedom and democracy; our camo-clad kids are cuddling kittens, weeping over letters from home, and playing with little tiny children in the rubble strewn streets. Write to your Congressman and tell him to Support Our President and give him everything he asks for, because our troops deserve the best!' Oh, and if you are a real American, forward this to all of your family and friends!
These emails are written in an aw-shucks, folksy style, could be the neighbors next door, why they're even replete with clumsy misspellings! Maybe they were virally-released by some Republican intern, or maybe some common wingnut with poo on his boots actually did pound a keyboard and hit "Send." Who knows?
Now, normally, most of us will mutter "Asshole!" and delete it and try to deal with the "BREAKING!" news from Truthout or Alternet, or some such, unless we've had a bad day and the letter has pushed our particular hot-button. Then we reply to the sender and give them a piece of our minds, castigating them for their ignorance and berating them for sending us this trash.
Iself just got the following chain email:
Urine Test: Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck.. I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
Pass on if you agree
Now, how do we get this on a bill to make it LAW?????????????
My finger hovered over the delete key, but then I thought back over the last several weeks. I do some small computer service and repair on the side, and several of my customers have done things that indicate that they're too stupid to really use computers. Plus, they forward jokes to me that have lengthy, multiple copies of the same joke in the forwarding because they have no idea how to edit an email before they send it. Curious, instead of "Reply," I chose "Reply All," and was rewarded with over a dozen addresses to which this spam had been sent in addition to mine.
Wanting to strike while the ions were hot, I typed the following:
Hello Boys and Girls -- the money line from this brilliant idea is: "Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?" The implication appears to be that many of the people receiving public assistance - that nasty old Welfare check - are drug addicts. Probably People of Color, too. Justifiable outrage for the hard-working , over-taxed Middle-Class employee.
Just like when Ronald Reagan decried the Welfare Queens purchasing Cadillacs.
Only problem is, most recipients of Public Assistance are children, the elderly, the disabled, and people have fallen off of the edge of Working Poor. Use the Google!
Yeah, urine tests for public assistance would probably snag some junkies; but a windfall savings? I don't think so.
But, go on and pass this along; everybody needs to feel self-righteous from time to time, don't they.
And I hit Send.
I was pleasantly surprised not to get a lot of pathetic defenses and righteous conservative anger. Instead I got:
If you haven't been unemployed you should try it soon, and if you've never been on welfare you should try that too.I would hardly describe being on welfare, or the underlying cause-- unemployment as an opportunity to "sit on your butt." Anytime I've been out of work it has been some of the most stressful periods in my life, and it is a full time job to perfect your resume and check the job boards, and all stupid shit one is busy with to try to rejoin the working class. But I can't understand why we are even talking about such insignificant issue, making the poor suffer a little more, make just a little harder, as if they could all just get up and go to work tomorrow, with clean pee-pee too. Much more obscene is the degree to which we are paying CEO's 400% more than before, the lose of unions to organize workers so they wouldn't lose their jobs to workers in Thailand because they can work for 2 cents an hour, or the disenfranchisement of the American work place with American worker. Fuck 'em if they want good pay and benefits, will move all the jobs off shore.
and
ON second thought, I think we should have a urine test, but it would be to identify who the fuck has been pissing all over the constitution. Those who have should have their eyes pulled out and made to sit in bathroom stall next to a bare-footed Senator Craig.
Ya wanna pass a bill, how about a bill that no war (declared or undeclared and that means clandestant)can be engaged in unless the people engaged in it first send their own family members in as fodder. Send the sons and daughters of industry, the offspring of the corporate captains.
I hear a lot of those welfare folk are Iraq war vets.............with PTSD and appointment for 4 months ahead.Lets drive the car off the cliff and attack Iran.
And finally, a reply from a fellow who I actually know in Colorado, who is a conservative, who added a YouTube link which most of us have seen by now: Dick Cheney v.1994, explaining why we should not overthrow Saddam Hussein! It warmed my heart: The Truth is Out There, and some people are actually - slowly - getting it!
Let me end by suggesting that what is necessary to keep the sociopolitical changes going from conservative lies toward progressive considerations is confrontation, confrontation, and, when that fails, more confrontation. Always remember that "the Truth crushed to the ground will rise again and no lie can last forever."
The Danger of Ron Paul
I love an (electoral) insuragency as much as anyone else - remember, i remain proud of my support for ralph nader in the gore-bush election - but I'd like to suggest that the movement in favor of ron paul is harmful, not helpful, to the cause against the war. And let me be straight here: there is no moral or political cause more pressing at this moment than war, and i would vote for almost any candidate who i beleived would end our role in it.
Ron Paul is a radical libertarian whose focus is on economic libertarianism (in other words, supportive of a government too limited to regulate toxic industrial emissions but big enough to reach up into a woman's womb). Ron Paul's core supporters, however, are butressed in a big way by those like myself - people who don't pray to free market for every social solution but WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THE WAR IN IRAQ.
From an anti-war perspective, Ron Paul is the best candidate. He's been opposed to the war from day one. He's openly against American military intervention in world affairs for any purpose whatsoever besides true defense. He want to restore the protections against unjust wars built into the Constitution.
However, Ron Paul is also against social security, the irs, and just about any other government program or regulation, regardless of the proven benefit (of which his supporter religiously deny). He, or his staffers, are also on the record saying some pretty racist stuff. And for this reason, he will not win his party's nomination much less the presidency.
Barak Obama and John Edwards, while not as unequivocal as Paul, are also for a withdrawal. Obama has been particularly couragous because he's defied the war lobby and said he'd have talks with Iran (though his seeming support for military action to reign in our unloyal and undemocratic allly Pakistan is disturbing). And Obama and Edwards, unlike Paul, have a chance of taking the nomination from Hillary and ultimately winning the White House.
But to do that, they have to win or have strong showing in the early primary/ caucus states. In New Hampshire (as well as other states, including New Jersey), independents can vote in either party's primary. If anti-war independents vote in the primary elections, their votes will be sunk in a lost cause and tied to an ideological campaign whose anti-war position is merely ancillary to a philosophy most anti war independents could not support the practical effects of. A pro-war wing nut, such as Gulliani, will still win the nomination. Worse, the campaign will siphon anti-war independents away from the Obama and Edwards campaigns and help ensure a hawkish democrat, namely Hillary Clinton, will get the nomination and likely be the next president of the United States.
As such, I urge those for whom ending war is a pinnacle issue to support Ron Paul's position on interventionalism, but ultimately back an anti-war democrat in a vocal way.
Ron Paul is a radical libertarian whose focus is on economic libertarianism (in other words, supportive of a government too limited to regulate toxic industrial emissions but big enough to reach up into a woman's womb). Ron Paul's core supporters, however, are butressed in a big way by those like myself - people who don't pray to free market for every social solution but WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THE WAR IN IRAQ.
From an anti-war perspective, Ron Paul is the best candidate. He's been opposed to the war from day one. He's openly against American military intervention in world affairs for any purpose whatsoever besides true defense. He want to restore the protections against unjust wars built into the Constitution.
However, Ron Paul is also against social security, the irs, and just about any other government program or regulation, regardless of the proven benefit (of which his supporter religiously deny). He, or his staffers, are also on the record saying some pretty racist stuff. And for this reason, he will not win his party's nomination much less the presidency.
Barak Obama and John Edwards, while not as unequivocal as Paul, are also for a withdrawal. Obama has been particularly couragous because he's defied the war lobby and said he'd have talks with Iran (though his seeming support for military action to reign in our unloyal and undemocratic allly Pakistan is disturbing). And Obama and Edwards, unlike Paul, have a chance of taking the nomination from Hillary and ultimately winning the White House.
But to do that, they have to win or have strong showing in the early primary/ caucus states. In New Hampshire (as well as other states, including New Jersey), independents can vote in either party's primary. If anti-war independents vote in the primary elections, their votes will be sunk in a lost cause and tied to an ideological campaign whose anti-war position is merely ancillary to a philosophy most anti war independents could not support the practical effects of. A pro-war wing nut, such as Gulliani, will still win the nomination. Worse, the campaign will siphon anti-war independents away from the Obama and Edwards campaigns and help ensure a hawkish democrat, namely Hillary Clinton, will get the nomination and likely be the next president of the United States.
As such, I urge those for whom ending war is a pinnacle issue to support Ron Paul's position on interventionalism, but ultimately back an anti-war democrat in a vocal way.
i don't trust doctors, and good news for me
Now doctors say it's good to be fat
After years of anti-obesity public health advice, a major new study causes an outcry by concluding that the overweight live longer
By David Usborne in New York
Published: 08 November 2007
A startling new study by medical researchers in the United States has caused consternation among public health professionals by suggesting that, contrary to conventional wisdom, being overweight might actually be beneficial for health.
The study, published yesterday in the respected Journal of the American Medical Association, runs counter to almost all other advice to consumers by saying that carrying a little extra flab – though not too much – might help people to live longer.
Struggling dieters, used to being told that staying thin is the best prescription for longevity, are likely to be confused this morning if not heartily relieved. While being a bit overweight may indeed increase your chances of dying from diabetes and kidney disease – conditions that are often linked with one another – the same is not true for a host of other ailments including cancer and heart disease, the report suggests.
In fact, scanning the whole gamut of diseases that could curtail your life, being over weight is, on balance, a good thing. The bottom line, the scientists say, is that modestly overweight people demonstrate a lower death rate than their peers who are underweight, obese or – most surprisingly – normal weight.
The findings will be hard to dismiss. They are the result of analysis of decades of data by federal researchers at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. This is not a study from a fringe group of scientists or sponsored by a fast-food chain.
Being overweight, the report asserts in its conclusions, "was associated with significantly decreased all-cause mortality overall".
"The take-home message is that the relationship between fat and mortality is more complicated than we tend to think," said Katherine Flegal, the lead researcher. "It's not a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all situation where excess weight just increases your mortality risk for any and all causes of death."
That the CDC has even published the report and thus threatened to muffle years of propaganda as to the health benefits of staying slender has enraged some medical experts.
"It's just rubbish," fumed Walter Willett, the professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. "It's just ludicrous to say there is no increased risk of mortality from being overweight."
Not that the CDC results are an invitation to throw caution to the winds and take cream with everything. The scientists are careful to stress that the benefits they are describing are limited to those people who are merely overweight – which generally means being no more than 30 pounds heavier than is recommended for your height – and certainly do not carry over to those who fall into the category of obese.
Obesity has been declared one of the main threats to health in the US, including among children. Those considered obese, with a body mass index (BMI) of more than 30, continue to run a higher risk of death, the study says, from a variety of ailments, including numerous cancers and heart disease. It said that being underweight increases the risk of ailments not including heart disease or cancer.
The scientists at the CDC first hinted at the upside of being overweight a few years ago. Since then, however, they have expanded the base of their analysis, with data that includes mortality figures from 2004, the last year for which numbers were available, for no fewer than 2.3 million American adults.
Highlighting how a bit of bulge might help you, the scientists said that in 2004 there were 100,000 fewer deaths among the overweight in the US than would have been expected if they were all considered to be of normal weight. Put slightly differently, those Americans who were merely overweight were up to about 40 per cent less likely than normal-weight people to die from a whole range of diseases and risks including emphysema, pneumonia, Alzheimer's, injuries and various infections.
Aside from escaping diseases, tipping the scales a little further may also help people recover from serious surgery, injuries and infections, Dr Flegal suggested. Such patients may simply have deeper bodily reserves to draw on in times of medical crisis.
Not everyone in the medical profession was surprised or angry about the study. "What this tells us is the hazards have been very much exaggerated," said Steven Blair, a professor of exercise science and biostatistics at the University of South Carolina, who has long argued that the case for dietary restraint has been taken too far.
"I believe the data," added Elizabeth Barrett-Connor, a professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego, who believes that a BMI of 25 to 30 – roughly the the so-called overweight range – "may be optimal".
Critics, however, were quick to point out that the study was concerned with mortality data only and did not take account of the quality of life benefits of keeping your weight down. The study "is not about health and sickness", noted the obesity researcher Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina.
The report "definitely won't be the last word", said Dr Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society, who pointed out, in a report released last week by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research, that staying slim was the main recommendation for avoiding cancer.
Others in the American medical community, while a little bemused, were withholding judgement. "This is a very puzzling disconnect," said Dr JoAnn Manson, the chief of preventive medicine at Harvard's Brigham and Women's Hospital.
The suggestion that a bit of extra weight may assist patients recovering from an infection or surgery was of no surprise to Dr Flegal. "You may also have more lean mass – more bone and muscle," she said. "If you are in an adverse situation, that could be good for you."
In their conclusions, the authors of the study note: "Overweight... may be associated with improved survival during recovery from adverse conditions, such as infections or medical procedures, and with improved prognosis for some diseases. Such findings may be due to greater nutritional reserves or higher lean body mass associated with overweight."
Those of us mostly likely to benefit from a little bulge beneath the belt, the study adds, are between 25 and 59 years old, although there were also some advantages for people over 60.
After years of anti-obesity public health advice, a major new study causes an outcry by concluding that the overweight live longer
By David Usborne in New York
Published: 08 November 2007
A startling new study by medical researchers in the United States has caused consternation among public health professionals by suggesting that, contrary to conventional wisdom, being overweight might actually be beneficial for health.
The study, published yesterday in the respected Journal of the American Medical Association, runs counter to almost all other advice to consumers by saying that carrying a little extra flab – though not too much – might help people to live longer.
Struggling dieters, used to being told that staying thin is the best prescription for longevity, are likely to be confused this morning if not heartily relieved. While being a bit overweight may indeed increase your chances of dying from diabetes and kidney disease – conditions that are often linked with one another – the same is not true for a host of other ailments including cancer and heart disease, the report suggests.
In fact, scanning the whole gamut of diseases that could curtail your life, being over weight is, on balance, a good thing. The bottom line, the scientists say, is that modestly overweight people demonstrate a lower death rate than their peers who are underweight, obese or – most surprisingly – normal weight.
The findings will be hard to dismiss. They are the result of analysis of decades of data by federal researchers at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. This is not a study from a fringe group of scientists or sponsored by a fast-food chain.
Being overweight, the report asserts in its conclusions, "was associated with significantly decreased all-cause mortality overall".
"The take-home message is that the relationship between fat and mortality is more complicated than we tend to think," said Katherine Flegal, the lead researcher. "It's not a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all situation where excess weight just increases your mortality risk for any and all causes of death."
That the CDC has even published the report and thus threatened to muffle years of propaganda as to the health benefits of staying slender has enraged some medical experts.
"It's just rubbish," fumed Walter Willett, the professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. "It's just ludicrous to say there is no increased risk of mortality from being overweight."
Not that the CDC results are an invitation to throw caution to the winds and take cream with everything. The scientists are careful to stress that the benefits they are describing are limited to those people who are merely overweight – which generally means being no more than 30 pounds heavier than is recommended for your height – and certainly do not carry over to those who fall into the category of obese.
Obesity has been declared one of the main threats to health in the US, including among children. Those considered obese, with a body mass index (BMI) of more than 30, continue to run a higher risk of death, the study says, from a variety of ailments, including numerous cancers and heart disease. It said that being underweight increases the risk of ailments not including heart disease or cancer.
The scientists at the CDC first hinted at the upside of being overweight a few years ago. Since then, however, they have expanded the base of their analysis, with data that includes mortality figures from 2004, the last year for which numbers were available, for no fewer than 2.3 million American adults.
Highlighting how a bit of bulge might help you, the scientists said that in 2004 there were 100,000 fewer deaths among the overweight in the US than would have been expected if they were all considered to be of normal weight. Put slightly differently, those Americans who were merely overweight were up to about 40 per cent less likely than normal-weight people to die from a whole range of diseases and risks including emphysema, pneumonia, Alzheimer's, injuries and various infections.
Aside from escaping diseases, tipping the scales a little further may also help people recover from serious surgery, injuries and infections, Dr Flegal suggested. Such patients may simply have deeper bodily reserves to draw on in times of medical crisis.
Not everyone in the medical profession was surprised or angry about the study. "What this tells us is the hazards have been very much exaggerated," said Steven Blair, a professor of exercise science and biostatistics at the University of South Carolina, who has long argued that the case for dietary restraint has been taken too far.
"I believe the data," added Elizabeth Barrett-Connor, a professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego, who believes that a BMI of 25 to 30 – roughly the the so-called overweight range – "may be optimal".
Critics, however, were quick to point out that the study was concerned with mortality data only and did not take account of the quality of life benefits of keeping your weight down. The study "is not about health and sickness", noted the obesity researcher Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina.
The report "definitely won't be the last word", said Dr Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society, who pointed out, in a report released last week by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research, that staying slim was the main recommendation for avoiding cancer.
Others in the American medical community, while a little bemused, were withholding judgement. "This is a very puzzling disconnect," said Dr JoAnn Manson, the chief of preventive medicine at Harvard's Brigham and Women's Hospital.
The suggestion that a bit of extra weight may assist patients recovering from an infection or surgery was of no surprise to Dr Flegal. "You may also have more lean mass – more bone and muscle," she said. "If you are in an adverse situation, that could be good for you."
In their conclusions, the authors of the study note: "Overweight... may be associated with improved survival during recovery from adverse conditions, such as infections or medical procedures, and with improved prognosis for some diseases. Such findings may be due to greater nutritional reserves or higher lean body mass associated with overweight."
Those of us mostly likely to benefit from a little bulge beneath the belt, the study adds, are between 25 and 59 years old, although there were also some advantages for people over 60.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
