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.
Monday, November 12, 2007
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)
